So when Al Gore accumulates $100M after leaving office, that means he cozied up to big business while in office?
Both parties do it. I'd like to limit the power of each.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
President Obama Meets With Tim Cook and Other CEOs to Discuss Fiscal Crisis
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So when Al Gore accumulates $100M after leaving office, that means he cozied up to big business while in office?
Both parties do it. I'd like to limit the power of each.
There's a difference, but I'm not sure it's as vast as people think. I can't think of too many Fortune 100 (or 500, for that matter) CEOs that don't make an ungodly salary. So if you want to choose not to contribute to that, you may have to go without a cell phone...and computer...and car...and food....
OTOH, taxes may not be as voluntary, but they are the price you pay to live in this country.
And in either case, great amounts of money are wasted.
Um, recent history has proven that Messrs. Reagan and Ferrara are full of it.
Which is basically criticizing a better, happier lifestyle because it isn't perfect.
We could be like them. We choose not to. Politically speaking, America is like your stubborn dad who crabs about why anybody would pay good money for an Apple computer with Mountain Lion when his old Royal typewriter works just as well...
Are you trying to equate the kind of socialism they have in China with the kind they have in, say, Denmark?
I was prepared to give you a real response, but this portion indicates you're just here to be argumentative rather than to discuss anything. The way you're looking at it, any government service can be portrayed as socialism. It's the same nonsense as claiming we live in a democracy as opposed to a society that contains democratic elements (technically referred to as a republic). As to my previous comment, I was referring to the 2004 tax holiday. As soon as they enable one, it fails to accomplish the stated goals and everyone forgets about the promised reform.
You're not serious, right? Romney "understood that the government is too big..."??
It is shocking that so many people buy into the rhetoric that spews forth from politicians (from either party). The speeches they make, the words they say, the policies they claim to support are all a smokescreen to keep you distracted from their real mission, which is to support the elite class and maintain their power and wealth. The rich (and I mean super rich, not the 1%) rule this country through a complex power structure that includes politicians and financial markets. As long as they keep your mind occupied with thoughts of big government, entitlements, raising taxes (or reducing taxes, as the case may be), and any other mundane "issues", they can keep you distracted from the fact that they are amassing obscene fortunes built upon the labor of the working class.
And all the while, the working class defends them.
I understand what you mean. I'm with you on most of that. I hate most politicians. There are only a few who I truly respect who have been consistent in their mission and message to the public. However, you truncated my post a little to make it seem like I was pro Romney all the way, which I'm not. I was framing Romney in the context of a "Romney or Obama, who would you rather have?" scenario.
I'm with you on the nasty politicians who forever see themselves as more entitled than the general public that they're supposed to represent. Go libertarian. Go Ron Paul. Too bad he's retiring, sigh.
If the Republican party can weed out the social conservative wing nuts, neocon nation builders, and focus on fiscal sanity and personal liberties, than they have a chance in the next election. Rand Paul 2016?
Fiscal sanity from Republicans? Is there real historical evidence of that you can cite?
This
This needs to be posted 10,000 times and read 10,000 times each post. How do more people not see this? Thank you for this fantastic comment.
----------
Balanced budgets from the 1994, 1996, 1998 Republican Congresses. Seriously, you don't remember those years? How about the Dems even propose ANY budget!
This needs to be posted 10,000 times and read 10,000 times each post. How do more people not see this? Thank you for this fantastic comment.
----------
Balanced budgets from the 1994, 1996, 1998 Republican Congresses. Seriously, you don't remember those years? How about the Dems even propose ANY budget!
I agree but think it would be more appropriate to say "if there weren't so many people trying to avoid taxes." It's not limited to rich people and there could certainly be some reform to property tax exemption laws that allow for educational institutions, religious organizations, charity organizations, manufacturing tycoons that just "happen" to have their facilities surrounded by farmland to seriously decrease their property tax liability; or in the case o religious, educational, charity organizations; to make them completely exempt....(oh the billions that would suddenly reappear)
----------
Yeah, and say that to the republicans in Texas that pass legislation to allow illegal immigrants in-state- tuition status while United States citizens and military veterans still have to wait one year to establish residency... I guess the hand outs come from both sides of the aisle.
The phone idea was not to get a smartphone into everyone's hands or anything like that. One of the important things that is necessary when on welfare and applying for a job is to have some sort of contact information. Traditional welfare does not pay for phone service.
So assembling the welfare recipients to pick up trash as a means to "spiritually" repay us as taxpayers? Sounds a little crazy. Maybe instead we can "round 'em up" and find a way to get them ACTUAL jobs that would pay a living wage. People don't seem to understand that the best time to get a new job is when you're still in your current one. Most companies do not hire those who have been out of the workforce for more than a year(even if they're in school).
----------
Why shouldn't people be concerned with what's "fair" and "right"? Just because he paid more than most likely everyone on this board did does not mean that he paid the same percentage. Simply paying more doesn't mean anything. What if he had found some way to even further decrease his taxable income and instead of paying $2M, he only paid say...$100k. Given that the 100k wold still be considerably more than most likely anyone on this board again, would that change your opinion? <---BTW there is not tone here, just questions and examples.
And instead of reform on income taxes, why not reform property tax laws? How many homes does Mitt Romney have? Or oh McCain? How much have they exempted from their property taxes and how could that be better used not just for the state level but the federal level as well?
I have a very good example for you, look at my country, Singapore. Our Prime Minister is used to being paid S$3m (USD$2.4m), and now (USD$1.7m plus a whole range of perks) but look at the quality of our politicians, it's doesn't make any differences, we only get half-decent monkeys running the country.
EDIT: I believe my country have the highest paid politician (officially) in the world if I'm not wrong
First, you might want to read up a little on the Lifeline phone idea that you have been paying for since 1985 (that was the Reagan administration FWIW):
http://www.fcc.gov/lifeline
This wasn't created under Obama. In 2005, the program was changed to allow the phones to be cell phones (that was the GWB administration FWIW). Good idea, even if it did happen under GWB.
Second, I want job seekers to have a phone. Today, cell phones if not heavily used can be as cheap or cheaper than a land line. Back in the phone dark ages, when phones were expensive, people did without. The problem is that when you are looking for a job, you need to be able to call employers and they need to be able to call you. This gets old really fast for the people you are imposing on. Nowadays, I have tons of unused minutes on my cell phone, which I get with my plan, because I need unlimited data and texts. Funny how easily we adapt to some changes. I think you need to get with the times and accept that cell phones are cheap compared to a) housing, and b) commuting to a distant job.
As for "cutting off" the "leeches": there is always a balancing act between helping people and subsidizing lazy people. Would you really be prepared to let a child die because the parents are lazy? How about non-lazy people who happen to be poor? Is there a particular moral principle that says "let people die who can't or won't help themselves?" The world is not so simple as you seem to think.
Dare I ask what is so funny? If you're going to write a "republicans are dumb" response, then please read the rest of my posts on this thread first. Thanks.
Not for a while it seems. But a guy can dream. The Dems aren't doing it for me as much as I prefer their social policies.
----------
I agree. So let's tax everyone a fixed 20% and exempt the first $100k? No deductions. No taxshelters. No foreign bank accounts. Romney would pay more and most of us would pay less. Any liberals on this board for this?
As long as the taxing extends to the religious organizations that have taken advantage of the opportunity to identify themselves as corporations are also subject to this...
It's quite funny seeing both the republics and Democrats arguing with each other about which politicians are better or worst. Don't you realize that both engage in the same politics, corruption, wars, and none will stop spending and taxing us to death? There is nothing President Obama and Congress will do to curb spending. All the money the rich has can be taken away, and it won't make a difference except for making everybody poorer.Job outsourcing? Yes, it's done by both sides, and Miramar is next.
To make matters worst, new generations or Americans don't know the difference between the private and public sector:
Private sector pays the taxes
Public sector = government = Santa to a lot of Americans (even in this forum)
Last edited:
Agreed. Romney was not my 1st (or even 3rd choice) but I'd rather he be leading us instead of someone who believes in more "free" social / welfare programs is the solution.
Yeah, look at the quality of your politicians. They are far better than any other country in the world.
It's gone from being a backwater in the 1960's to being one of the world's richest country. It has excellent transport, good entertainment, good food, low crime, good education, good and cheap healthcare etc. etc.
And it doesn't have any natural resources other than its port. And rather than having ~100% of GDP in debt like most other rich countries it has a sovereign wealth fund. Also given its position it has to spend a lot on defence.
Sure its use of the death penalty and its freedoms leave something to be desired, but still.
That's true.
Last edited:
After reading through all this in the end it doesn't matter which one if President for most of us fiscally. Obama wants to raise taxes 3% on income over $250,000 so only $3k a year more per $100k than they are paying now. Not a big difference...
People say they are "fiscally conservative but socially liberal"... well I say I'm socially liberal first and the hell with the fiscal crap because there isn't much difference except for possibly Ron Paul or Gary Johnson (not sure why you all love Paul over Johnson) but then again they aren't socially liberal enough and that's more important to me. Gay rights, women's rights, racism, healthcare, drug policy, and religious tolerance all had a clear choice in this election and are more important to me.
I would have voted for Obama if I did vote (my father was dying that day...) especially when he got some balls and supported gay marriage -- I still can't believe he did that I mean regardless of whether you are homophobic or not he took a real position and didn't waver after that point... I got a lot of respect for him that day. (A question: If you accept the fact that gay people exist wouldn't gay marriage be a conservative idea??)
People say they are "fiscally conservative but socially liberal"... well I say I'm socially liberal first and the hell with the fiscal crap because there isn't much difference except for possibly Ron Paul or Gary Johnson (not sure why you all love Paul over Johnson) but then again they aren't socially liberal enough and that's more important to me. Gay rights, women's rights, racism, healthcare, drug policy, and religious tolerance all had a clear choice in this election and are more important to me.
I would have voted for Obama if I did vote (my father was dying that day...) especially when he got some balls and supported gay marriage -- I still can't believe he did that I mean regardless of whether you are homophobic or not he took a real position and didn't waver after that point... I got a lot of respect for him that day. (A question: If you accept the fact that gay people exist wouldn't gay marriage be a conservative idea??)
Gay marriage IS a conservative idea. This is an interesting read:
The Conservative Case For Marriage Equality
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...ullivan_his_landmark_1989_essay_making_a.html
I believe the majority has spoken. Given this is a democracy, the country will (for the most part) be governed by what the majority deem desirable/acceptable.
If governing based on a majority opinion is unacceptable to you, perhaps you could move to another country that more closely governs to your liking? Perhaps it would reduce your stress and increase your quality of life...