Hey Bobby (and readers!)
I apologize for being off the grid for a while. Since last I wrote, I took a vacation to Iceland and then moved to Miami for a new job. So life has been a little busy! But, i'm back now and I'm happy to participate.
Over the weekend, as we all know, Congresswoman Gifford and Judge Roll of Arizona were shot, along with several others. Judge Roll, an aid to Congresswoman Gifford and a child were killed in the attack. The congresswoman remains in critical condition. Although clearly the man who committed these crimes is unwell and unhinged, I do believe that some of the rhetoric coming out of heated political discussion (much of which I cannot call a debate) can lead us all to feel unhinged. Both the right and the left get to a point where they are so blindly angry at each other that the country cannot move forward, and as we are a country of people on both sides- we need to have space for dialogue, not rhetoric. At this time, it seems that both sides are taking some time to reflect on what it means to represent the people and how we can do that without inspiring hatred. I hope that will continue.
Bobby and I started this blog to ensure exactly this time of cross party / cross philosophy conversation could occur- without the visceral, the venom and the hatred I hear coming out of politics and the media. I know our conversations may get headed as well, but I also know that while we may disagree entirely with each others ideas and philosophies we certainly don't hate each other! So, lets keep talking!
The 'ground zero' mosque... You do know it's not at ground zero right? And that it's not a mosque- it's a community center? And that one of the central values of the US is freedom of religion. Each religion has its fundamentalist crazies, who are dangerous. But, if we start stripping away those freedoms we lose. Period. The community center is proposed to be placed in downtown manhattan- which is a very crowded area and very large. Ground Zero is not the only thing down there. And the Imam heading this project- brought the mosque idea into the headlines to begin the debate before he even had funding for it. Why would he do that? To help build support and understanding? The community center is years away from being realized. And does anyone know how many Muslims also died in the world trade center? 19- 19 Muslim families are also grieving their loved ones from that attack. The World Trade Center was a place that housed people of all nationalities and religions- its purpose was to make money. It was a business. Its loss, is a loss for all Americans of all faiths and Nationalities.
So, lets talk about the new TSA search guidelines, shall we? I do not feel safer with them... On the contrary, I do not trust all TSA staff to remain professional and not take the opportunity to humiliate passengers. Everyone knows that the only planes getting this type of treatment are those originating in the U.S. right? Other countries are not making passengers undergo this ridiculousness. Bobby, what do you think?
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Thank you rich people
Hey Kris,
This can not be debated. The bad loans were started under Clinton. Bush Tried to get it investigated early on and the Dems wouldn't have it. I specifically remember Barney Frank giving birth to a cow when Bush suggested it get looked into. That is a fact.
As far as the tax debate, how 'bout you libs just pay twice as much for a couple years and prove your theory. You should know that every survey on the subject shows that there are more wealthy libs then conservatives. If it works, cool. As far as the 200 k and over crowd, tell me how it's anyones business to decide who makes enough to pay more. The fact that they make more means they're already paying more.
Look, this tax thing is going nowhere. Lets get into some fireworks. I want to know where you stand on the ground zero mosque.
This can not be debated. The bad loans were started under Clinton. Bush Tried to get it investigated early on and the Dems wouldn't have it. I specifically remember Barney Frank giving birth to a cow when Bush suggested it get looked into. That is a fact.
As far as the tax debate, how 'bout you libs just pay twice as much for a couple years and prove your theory. You should know that every survey on the subject shows that there are more wealthy libs then conservatives. If it works, cool. As far as the 200 k and over crowd, tell me how it's anyones business to decide who makes enough to pay more. The fact that they make more means they're already paying more.
Look, this tax thing is going nowhere. Lets get into some fireworks. I want to know where you stand on the ground zero mosque.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
The only thing we have in common...
Bobby- the only thing we have in common is that we are both stubborn and absolutely certain we are right- so if you are waiting for me to be convinced you are right, i am quite certain Brice will be graduating college before we move onto other topics! But here's the beauty of why i started with the economy- and yes taxes, it leads into all other topics... It is the most important topic of today, and I have to laugh to even see 'greatest battle between liberalism and common sense' because those of us who consider ourselves liberals are wondering where in the world the common sense is in the conservative/tea party movement!! There is definitely a greater political divide now than we've ever seen. But that's part of why we're writing this blog, or at least part of why i'm participating in it... We have two completely opposed sides, who talk a lot about each other, and sometimes even at each other- but very rarely to each other. The problem being that our society is made up of both sides- so both sides have a vested interest in working together to find the solutions that best fit society as whole (not as a political group). That's how democracy works.
Before I get started- let me be clear, NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT RAISING TAXES. The question is whether or not existing tax cuts will remain in existence. If the answer is yes, most of us will never know it- in terms of our paychecks. Because we never benefited from it in the first place. Not all Americans benefited from these tax cuts in the same way. Why are those of us making less than $200,000 a year being penalized by baring a larger brunt of the tax responsibility? We have a tax system that is based on percentages, so that if i make $50,000 a year, i pay the same percentage as someone who makes $100,000 a year. So going back to your 10% theoretical, this is already how it works- $5 of your $50,000 or $10 of someone else's $100,000. That assumes the same burden for all. The tax cuts went into effect during the last Presidency, you are correct. GW Bush was the only President in history to increase spending and decrease taxes! Which is how this deficit was created in the first place. The increased spending went to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Which is where most of our tax dollars go to- The Dept of Defense not other Government programs.
The argument I'm making is referring specifically to individuals- not businesses, the person making $200,000 does not have many employees- their company might, but their personal income should not impact their company's profits. The income from their companies should still allow them to employ others.
Lets talk about the bailouts- they didn't go to people, they went to banks. Banks who backed bad loans to people. And I too question that model, however the model was started by G W Bush, not the liberals. I believe that if the stimulus package had been given to individuals in the form a portion of their individual debt receiving some relief ($$ towards student loans or mortgages) banks still would have received financial help and individuals would have too.
If we look back on the great depression, the biggest lesson we learn is that government should be putting money into safety nets (such as health care) to ensure long-term economic growth. But considering the health care bill has not gone into effect yet, that would not be the gov program you see as not working. I'd be interested in knowing what you think doesn't work, and how you believe that not having gov funding for the program would better address the problem. The Great Depression would not have lasted as long if unemployment benefits and other such safety nets had been widely available.
As far as the death tax is concerned- that has always been in existence, until this year, so don't over inflate it. It was a mistake, due to a clerical error in the law- a one year loop-hole. It was discovered after the tax cuts went into effect, and congress intended to go in and fix it prior to this year.... Didn't happen- hence this one year loop hole.
So what I'm saying is that the economy is exactly what everyone should be talking about right now- because at the end of the day, that's the most important issue we have. And it absolutely effects everything else. So, my question to you is: which programs do you see as not working- that you want to see ended? And what is your alternative solution to that program?
Give Brice a big hug from me! And Allen Stortz is correct (he's our only comment thus far) our parents are pretty amazing. They have put up with this argument and others like it our entire lives!
Before I get started- let me be clear, NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT RAISING TAXES. The question is whether or not existing tax cuts will remain in existence. If the answer is yes, most of us will never know it- in terms of our paychecks. Because we never benefited from it in the first place. Not all Americans benefited from these tax cuts in the same way. Why are those of us making less than $200,000 a year being penalized by baring a larger brunt of the tax responsibility? We have a tax system that is based on percentages, so that if i make $50,000 a year, i pay the same percentage as someone who makes $100,000 a year. So going back to your 10% theoretical, this is already how it works- $5 of your $50,000 or $10 of someone else's $100,000. That assumes the same burden for all. The tax cuts went into effect during the last Presidency, you are correct. GW Bush was the only President in history to increase spending and decrease taxes! Which is how this deficit was created in the first place. The increased spending went to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Which is where most of our tax dollars go to- The Dept of Defense not other Government programs.
The argument I'm making is referring specifically to individuals- not businesses, the person making $200,000 does not have many employees- their company might, but their personal income should not impact their company's profits. The income from their companies should still allow them to employ others.
Lets talk about the bailouts- they didn't go to people, they went to banks. Banks who backed bad loans to people. And I too question that model, however the model was started by G W Bush, not the liberals. I believe that if the stimulus package had been given to individuals in the form a portion of their individual debt receiving some relief ($$ towards student loans or mortgages) banks still would have received financial help and individuals would have too.
If we look back on the great depression, the biggest lesson we learn is that government should be putting money into safety nets (such as health care) to ensure long-term economic growth. But considering the health care bill has not gone into effect yet, that would not be the gov program you see as not working. I'd be interested in knowing what you think doesn't work, and how you believe that not having gov funding for the program would better address the problem. The Great Depression would not have lasted as long if unemployment benefits and other such safety nets had been widely available.
As far as the death tax is concerned- that has always been in existence, until this year, so don't over inflate it. It was a mistake, due to a clerical error in the law- a one year loop-hole. It was discovered after the tax cuts went into effect, and congress intended to go in and fix it prior to this year.... Didn't happen- hence this one year loop hole.
So what I'm saying is that the economy is exactly what everyone should be talking about right now- because at the end of the day, that's the most important issue we have. And it absolutely effects everything else. So, my question to you is: which programs do you see as not working- that you want to see ended? And what is your alternative solution to that program?
Give Brice a big hug from me! And Allen Stortz is correct (he's our only comment thus far) our parents are pretty amazing. They have put up with this argument and others like it our entire lives!
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Taxes?!?!? Taxes??!?!? One of the greatest debates between liberalism and common sense is unfolding at ground zero and we're talking taxes??? That's ok, this will help show our different approach to all six of our readers. All those numbers in your post reminded me that I hate math. Fortunately, I don't need much math to present my take on this.
First of all, I don't believe for a second that this has anything to do with relieving the deficit. If Washington or local governments for that matter were really interested in slowing the deficit, they would cut the ridiculous spending for programs that get no results (which I would argue are most govt programs). It should be obvious to all of us by now that the more money the govt gets, the more they spend. Too many in the govt right now seem to underestimate the problems that will come with our out of control deficit. They are, however, happy to use the deficit as an excuse to raise taxes so lets deal with that.
Raising taxes has never worked for anyone in any way. Every time taxes have been cut, the revenue to the govt has increased. When people get to keep more of what they earn, they earn more and spend more. Both of which bring in more tax money. When taxes are raised, it depresses the economy. Money gets stashed instead of spent which by the way hurts many other income brackets. If people with money stop buying luxury items, many lesser paying jobs will be affected like waiters, land scapers, auto workers, etc. We can see this in California. The state has one of the highest tax rates and it's bankrupt. New York is not far behind, but states with NO income tax like Texas and Florida are doing great. Raising taxes NEVER works and it's been proven time and time again.
Now, about Mr. two hundred grand a year. He (or she) already pays more taxes the you or me. To keep it simple for me, lets go with ten percent. If I make 100 g's I pay 10. Someone making 200 will pay 20. Your argument seems to be that the person with more doesn't need it as much as the person with less. Who in the name of Twisted Sister gave anyone that decision. If someone wants to make a billion dollars, they should be able to without getting punished for it. By the way, the ones making big money are often times responsible for employing others. Tax them too much and it's a guarantee that jobs will be cut.
Redistribution of wealth is taking from those who have more and giving it to those who have less. Look at health care, or the bailouts. Where do you think this money is coming from? The taxpayer! And the people making the most money are already footing most of that bill by far.
Don't forget that when the Bush tax cuts expire, it will include the death tax and things like that will hurt the under 200k crowd much worse then the over.
I hope I hit on everything you brought up. We'll have to figure out how long to keep each of these going before we move on. I think we'll stick with each single topic until you agree with me totally.
Brice says hi. He was recounting the day you were here when Joe and Dad put in that new dishwasher. I still can't get all the blue tape off.
See Ya
First of all, I don't believe for a second that this has anything to do with relieving the deficit. If Washington or local governments for that matter were really interested in slowing the deficit, they would cut the ridiculous spending for programs that get no results (which I would argue are most govt programs). It should be obvious to all of us by now that the more money the govt gets, the more they spend. Too many in the govt right now seem to underestimate the problems that will come with our out of control deficit. They are, however, happy to use the deficit as an excuse to raise taxes so lets deal with that.
Raising taxes has never worked for anyone in any way. Every time taxes have been cut, the revenue to the govt has increased. When people get to keep more of what they earn, they earn more and spend more. Both of which bring in more tax money. When taxes are raised, it depresses the economy. Money gets stashed instead of spent which by the way hurts many other income brackets. If people with money stop buying luxury items, many lesser paying jobs will be affected like waiters, land scapers, auto workers, etc. We can see this in California. The state has one of the highest tax rates and it's bankrupt. New York is not far behind, but states with NO income tax like Texas and Florida are doing great. Raising taxes NEVER works and it's been proven time and time again.
Now, about Mr. two hundred grand a year. He (or she) already pays more taxes the you or me. To keep it simple for me, lets go with ten percent. If I make 100 g's I pay 10. Someone making 200 will pay 20. Your argument seems to be that the person with more doesn't need it as much as the person with less. Who in the name of Twisted Sister gave anyone that decision. If someone wants to make a billion dollars, they should be able to without getting punished for it. By the way, the ones making big money are often times responsible for employing others. Tax them too much and it's a guarantee that jobs will be cut.
Redistribution of wealth is taking from those who have more and giving it to those who have less. Look at health care, or the bailouts. Where do you think this money is coming from? The taxpayer! And the people making the most money are already footing most of that bill by far.
Don't forget that when the Bush tax cuts expire, it will include the death tax and things like that will hurt the under 200k crowd much worse then the over.
I hope I hit on everything you brought up. We'll have to figure out how long to keep each of these going before we move on. I think we'll stick with each single topic until you agree with me totally.
Brice says hi. He was recounting the day you were here when Joe and Dad put in that new dishwasher. I still can't get all the blue tape off.
See Ya
Friday, August 27, 2010
The economy
We are in one the worst economic crises of our times. Everyone agrees that we need to worry about the Federal deficit. One response by the Obama administration has been to revoke the tax cuts given to the top 2% of income earners (those making over $200,000 or more). I have heard people compare this to a ‘redistribution of wealth’. However, that’s a misinterpretation of what is actually happening. For the past several years, Americans earning more than $200,000 a year, have enjoyed tax cuts that those of us earning less than that have not enjoyed. Proportionally, the 98% of us making less than $200,000 a year pay more in taxes than those making more. By revoking the tax credit to the top 2% of people, my understanding is that tax collection will in fact be more even handed. Anyone who works today knows that just because someone earns more does not necessarily mean that they work harder. The percentage of my paycheck that goes to federal taxes, will be the same as the percentage of their paycheck that goes to federal taxes. However, since the top 2% make significantly more than the rest of us, the taxes collected from them would go a long way in working down the national debt. I’m not sure how collecting the same percentage of taxes from those in the top 2% of the nations workers is equivalent to a redistribution of wealth- it just seems fairer to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)