There's a huge difference in struggling to get by and refusing to accept responsibility for your own life. You dont need a phone to remain alive if you cant afford one too bad for you make better decisions. The sooner we cut off these leeches the better. At a minimum we need to assemble the welfare recipients every week to go do things like pick up trash around town to show thanks to those of us who get up early every day and go to work.
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
There's a huge difference in struggling to get by and refusing to accept responsibility for your own life. You dont need a phone to remain alive if you cant afford one too bad for you make better decisions. The sooner we cut off these leeches the better. At a minimum we need to assemble the welfare recipients every week to go do things like pick up trash around town to show thanks to those of us who get up early every day and go to work.
An average middle class family that makes $100,000 a year is going to pay like 30% in taxes.
Guys like Mitt Romney and Donald Trump pay less than 15%.
The middle class already pays a higher percentage. About time we made it even.
So let me guess, you think the liberal brand is so much better? The republican brand and the liberal brand are BOTH trash today. So once again, this is why I've voted for Ron Paul. If you can't understand that he's a constitutionalist and libertarian that is so far outside the stereotypical republican or democrat, and instead want to associate people with the letter that comes after their name, so be it. This is one reason why the country is broken today. So you can keep rooting for giant government, regulation, printing money that we don't have, and terrible fiscal policy overall if you really want to, but in the end it's not going to get us anywhere. I submit the current state of the nation as evidence.
Carry on.
As a libertarian, I actually agree with this. But why not let the middle class get this benefit instead of screwing the the rich? Why not tax earned and unearned income the same at 15%, or even 20%?
Do you realize how much a stimulus to the economy a 15/20% tax on the middle class would be? It would inject billions.
What is the liberal position on this?
Also, the fact is that a rich person like Mitt Romney actually paid $2M in income taxes in 2011. So he actually supported the federal government more than anyone here on this board. Why is everyone so concerned about what's "fair" and what's "right" or "even"?
Ah yes..the good ol' days. Back when insurance companies could deny you, back when there were lifetime caps on your medical insurance. Nostalgia is a funny thing, but usually it takes longer for the rose colored glasses to be worn.
I don't know why a picture of Rahm would be shown either, but the most recent "meeting" with CEOs (including Tim Cook) was done by phone, hence no picture of that.
http://www.politico.com/politico44/...eos-including-buffett-dimon-149886.html?hp=l6
A margin of 4 million votes is now considered "neck-in-neck" or "close"??? Funny, I don't remember people saying that about George Bush when he won the 2004 elections with a 3.01 million-vote margin.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/19/1163198/-Mitt-Romney-close-to-47-of-the-vote
Really? You think he turned around that state's economy? Is that why they didn't want to vote for him again? You need to talk to people in that state and see if they think he turned things around. They do not agree with your assessment. And if you want to talk about numerous companies as some sort of success, how about looking at the numerous ones that failed. It wasn't all unicorns and rainbows. The Olympics, yes, he did good with. With some help from that evil big government.
And if you think that someone who has lied so much, someone that has such distain for half the country (because in light of his recent "gift" comments, clearly the "apology for the 47% comment was a lie itself), would be the best thing that could happen to the U.S., then that's pretty frightening. Even the Republicans who defended him throughout the campaign do not agree with you. They are scurrying like rats off a sinking ship to distance themselves from him.
Yes, let's make sure all those retirees, disabled Americans and working poor stop being such free loaders...
We don't live in the same world as the rich that promises hard work will always reap financial success. We don't even have the same job opportunities as them. The rules have changed.
Rich people like Romney change laws to stay rich. They are fighting to gain more wealth at the expense of everyone else, who are fighting to survive financially, pray they will one day own their own home, and perhaps miraculously pay for part of their kid's education. These goals are becoming increasingly more difficult to attain. Most have very few options to help them survive job loss or retirement, which keeps being delayed anyway.
30+% of $50,000 makes a bigger difference in your survival or happiness than 15% of multi-millions or billions.
It's the same with credit cards. The only people who receive good interest rates are the people who don't need them to begin with.
We like the idea of contributing equally to a system that usually benefits rich people more anyway.
As it is now, things are not equal or fair.
Last edited:
My gosh, the righties just refuse to see their own folly.
Republicans are cocooned in a shell of lies, heads resting on a pillow of mendacity.
Every republican administration since Herbert Hoover has laid waste to the nation's economy, with the notable exception of Eisenhower.
George W. Bush left office with the worst recession since Hoover's Great Depression - and they voted for him twice! Yet these rightwing types continue to blame Obama for cleaning up their mess.
I completely agree that things are not equal or fair from an opportunity perspective. The tax laws are a big part of it.
My question you didn't answer is why don't we simplify the system so there are no loopholes for the rich to hide from? Why not tax earned income the same as unearned income at 15 or 20%? Why do we have to raise the tax on the rich to what the middle class pay when we know if they can't fiddle with the tax system, they'll just take their money out of the country anyway?
I'm for the continuation of so-called tax loopholes.
What they represent is tax policy intended to accomplish certain goals. They are incentives: if you invest in certain activities, then you can pay a reduced tax on that income.
Unfortunately tax policy has been fashioned to reward the rich sending jobs overseas and investing there, instead of in the USA. And the result we see clearly - they have done just that. GE can invest overseas and pay $ZERO in taxes. Why? Because GE is evil? No, these companies are beholden to shareholders who demand the bottom line.
Obama wants to change the tax code so that it benefits America, not just the moneyed few who lobbied to get the tax code we have now.
It's a catch-22 though, because without any means to make their lives better, how are they going to?
You DO need a phone to get a job, so if you want to get people working and get them off welfare, you have to provide services like this.
That is unless you just want millions of people living on the streets of our cities in cardboard boxes and scrounging dumpsters for scraps to eat.
Good point! I agree! We should find a way to do that, but it won't be easy or come quickly.
Maybe if a bill's/law's goal is summarized into a few sentences, and the term "loophole" is written into it to define and include "any and all actions that seek to circumvent, avoid, offset, delay, or oppose the stated goals of the bill/law." Those that perform any such action would clearly be in violation of said bill/law, and would be subject to predefined penalties.
Though I know it's not as easy as that.
Looks like these tax expenditures go primarily to the rich.
I'll ask again, why not lower rates for the middle class so it's "fair"? That would benefit the middle class more than any kind of government jobs program.
A $100K family would get about $10000 a year in tax relief if we lowered the rate from 30% to 20%.
Attachments
Because the people/corporations that have a disproportionate amount of influence in government like the loopholes?
All this sounds wonderful and brilliant, and obviously people aren't just motivated by money.
But then you look at the politicians and you see that they are basically all useless and/or beholden to other people.
You get what you pay for in todays world. If you pay a lame salary expect lame politicians.
What about the other 99.99% of the population who aren't as rich as Mitt Romney? Should they not be able to be president.
So the solution is to give the governmore more money? So that lobbyists have more to play with?
Regardless of party affiliation, let's agree that the middle class will benefit if we have less government. On balance, the rich and very poor will suffer the most.
The more money you give to government to help the poor, the more money available to lobbyists to transfer some of that to the rich.
Whether its housing, healthcare, student loans, etc. some of that money goes to who needs it but much of it gets skimmed off to the cronies, lobbyists, CEOs, etc who would not benefit in a true free market system.
Many of them are paid very well, plus they are given bribes and benefits ALL the time. Clearly, none of this has motivated them to do a good job because they know they aren't accountable to anyone but themselves and their financial supporters, who also want them to stay there.
More money won't motivate someone who has no fear of losing their job or being held accountable for their actions.
They need to represent their constituency or lose their jobs, because that's what they were hired to do and swore in office to do.
What good is a promise to serve your people if you can't be fired for ignoring their wishes.
We need to fix the accountability issue before we even think about giving any of them more money. More money won't guarantee better results.
Not to equivalent jobs they aren't.
If people are underpaid then they are going to be susceptible to bribery.
So why not make us their financial supporters?
If you pay them properly, and therefore get more candidates surely then they'd be better motivated to do the right thing?
Power and influence after they leave office is much more valuable than any salary you could pay them while they're in office.
Clearly, you aren't talking about the same "politicians" I am!
None of those things has anything to do with accountability to ensure the job is done well, or to prevent the wrong person from sitting in office for several years after they fail to deliver on their promises.
Would you pay a bad employee well for several years or hope that more money gives them a change of heart as they continue accepting bribes. You would probably find a new employee first, see how well they do, then see how much money motivates them after they do a good job and their probationary period ends. But politics is still very different than standard corporate jobs, (ie: accountability to those you were hired to work for, such as voters)
Last edited:
Where did I say that? You asked why we don't just close the loopholes and I gave a pretty reasonable and accurate answer as to why the loopholes exist.
The "power and influence" they get after leaving office requires them to cozy up to big business in office.