This is my political sacred place. A place for this "1MormonDemocrat" who currently lives in Utah to breathe...aaah, relief! Thanks for visiting! I would love to see your comments!
I know! What I think ought to take place though is to show both of their tax returns so we can see without any political spin what the real story is here, don't you agree? We all know being married vs. single impacts the tax rate you pay, we also know having kids vs. no kids impacts the taxes you pay, we also know that Obama who donated 20% of his earnings to charity puts him into a much lower tax circumstance. Who knows, maybe his secretary is a single person with no kids that doesn't donate to charity. In the end...articles like this mean very little to me with a complete absence of details so the American public can opine on the situation without influence from either side.
Further, I read an article recently that focused yet again on the 50% of the American population that didn't pay any income taxes in 2011. Of course not a coincidence that the vast majority, according to this report, consider themselves Democrats...the same segment of the population that continues to suggest raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans to preserve their economic situation.
I suppose my overall point whenever conversations focus on taxes is that there is, sadly, in this country an overall lack of people who set self interests aside and try to compromise and negotiate for the greater good of our economy and culture. We'd have to both agree that on the left is largely constituents that pay no income taxes and want to preserve that economic benefit. I sometimes hear Republicans call these people "free loaders." On the right are many Republicans who want to preserve their resources and I sometimes hear the left call these Republicans "greedy" people. Either way, certainly we can agree that the vast majority of either side tends to really just be supporting a side that preserves their interests. Its either the 50% of the country that doesn't pay income taxes and they want to keep it that way or its the 50% of the country that does pay taxes that wants to see more equality...equality similar to the law tithing promotes. True?
Because side note, even if President Obama got his millionaire tax inrease to 30%, neither side has disputed that it would only generate $5 billion a year in new tax revenue. This doesn't solve anything. Clearly we have a spending issue. Sadly, both sides in Washington also agree that even if you cut every "discretionary" program in half (meaning everything but the entitlement programs, interest on our debt, and military), we would still be sitting in the red in our annual budget. What is the REAL solution to this problem? The left doesn't really think the 50% that are paying income taxes honestly should be expected to shoulder the burden of the the budget problems, do they? If Social Security, Medicare, Interest, and Defense equal 93% of every dollar of revenue, leaving only 7 cents of every revenue dollar for other programs...what do we honestly do when you consider that we had to borrower $1.2 trillion dollars to fill the gap. Left says "just raise taxes and keep expenses largely untouched considering 93% of every revenue dollar goes toward programs we don't want to touch." The right says reduce government spending which means we need to redefine Social Security and Medicare in additional to serious budget cuts in other programs because the wealthy can't take a 40% tax hike in order to balance the budget.
Is a moderate Republican, I am waiting for both sides to compromise. Sadly, we have a lot of attention on the Presidential race when the Congressional race of 2012 will be equally important because we have seen what a Democratic president can accomplish with a Republican House. Virtually nothing. And I have no reason to think a Republican president will accomplish much with a Democrat House or Senate. These folks in Washington are SO polar and not moderate people that nothing gets done unless a party holds the house, senate, and the Presidency.
Yep. That article was merely interesting...not a ton of facts there, bc we don't know the Secretaries full situation (tax write offs etc)...just the income. I agree with some of what you said. I don't think that the "left" wants to leave alone ALL the programs. I think many Democrats want to get rid of some ineffective programs...but many programs are necessary in my opinion and it would be an absolute shame to get rid of those that are working--imperfect, sure--but working. Also, of course I would argue that Obama has accomplished a lot as President regardless of the ridiculous house, but much more could've been done, for sure without people looking out for #1--themselves and getting re-elected. I emphatically agree with you that the "folks in Washington" are polarizing the country as well as polar opposites themselves and nobody proves to be able to come together. I would argue, though that Pres Obama has made large strides in his own efforts to try to bring people together in Washington. It takes time. Much like bringing people together in real life after a long fight...it takes time. That is the only thing working in Romney's favor...that he can be seen as moderate. Even though I disagree with much of what he says/does/or promises to do as president. He, to me, is more of what the Republican party used to look like...instead of this far far right Republican party...much much farther from where I am politically. So if he was running next term...I would consider voting for Romney...but Obama beats him in too many areas for me.
I never suggested that we get rid of certain programs, only that the current cost of those programs is simply not sustainable in the long term. In looking at the numbers, I do not see any evidence to suggest the current cost structures are sustainable even if Democrats obtain consessions from the Right to raise taxes. 93 cents of ever revenue dollar is spent on those four catagories (interest, Social Security, Medicare, and defense) and we then borrow $1.4 trillion more to make ends meet to accomodate the other government divisions. Democrats could be given authority to raise taxes as they feel appropriate, which according to their own rhetoric is a 30% minimum tax on millionaires, increasing top tax rate to 39.5% and increase the capital gains taxes on dividends to 20%...if they do all they want to do, it just means we borrow $800 billion a year instead of $1.4 trillion. So, no reasonable person could possibly then argue the entitlement programs can remain unchanged. I agree, I believe entitlements have a place and should not be abolished. But unchanged is irresponsible as evidenced that even the Democrats wish list of taxes leaves us with an $800 billion deficit annually. But getting a Democrat to talk about significant cost cutting is as difficult as getting a Republican to talk about raising taxes...why, you ask? In my opinion because each side is trying to protect their votes from the 50% that either pays income taxes or does not pay income taxes. I believe the divide in Washington is far more about protecting their jobs on both sides then it is about solving problems. Eventually, unchanged, we will end up like Greece, a bankrupt nation and we will have our hands forced at that time to do many things that neither side wants to do.
Personally, I'd pay more in taxes if given enough concessions from our friends on the left to correct our $800 Billion shortfall. Social Security and Medicare all the way to Defense and the Post Office and every department in between needs to have a budget cut. Leaving the sacred cows of the Left off the table is simply mathmatically not an option...I wish it weren't so, but it is. Time to come to terms Lefties and come to the table in meaningful compromise on these entitlement programs. Sadly, yes, that means hard working people under the age of 55 (you and I included) will need to modify our plans, work longer, and cut more expenses today to establish a meaningful retirement accounts for when we are over 65...it is what it is as sad as it is. Math of 1+1 cannot equal 3 as the current system is set to see. Democrats, getting your ENTIRE wish list of tax increases STILL does not pay for our spending in Washington. 93 cents for each revenue dollar can't be tied up in only 4 things. I do realize that our low income folks in society aren't able to "make up ground" as easily as higher income folks. Shared sacrifice will be necessary...Right people, get ready for higher taxes, lefties...get ready to pay a tiny bit of taxes.
To all on every side, I say, "Welcome to a new reality of 2012 and beyond...either deal with it now when we have options or deal with it in 10 years when there are only BAD options available." Sadly, those in Washington on both sides don't want to deal with the reality...they have a job to keep and a population in America that is underinformed of the facts...and at the end of the day, its the underinformed people that are the ones that are judge and jury for the Legislators that can actually compromise and fix the problems. Perhaps we need to start by having neighborhood focus groups so America can become educated on the issues so our Washington Representatives no longer feel like their hands are tied and can really compromise. But to have this figurative success, I'd need my Cousin Emily to say the words, "Yes, lets reform the entitlement programs" while I say, "Yes, lets address the tax code and increase revenues via tax increases." I'm ready! Are you?!
Boy with all the fun stuff in the news these days, I keep wishing I had a place to go post some insightful insights! :) Maybe one day I can access to the blog or would you prefer I create a www.1mormomrepublican.blogspot.com?
I know! What I think ought to take place though is to show both of their tax returns so we can see without any political spin what the real story is here, don't you agree? We all know being married vs. single impacts the tax rate you pay, we also know having kids vs. no kids impacts the taxes you pay, we also know that Obama who donated 20% of his earnings to charity puts him into a much lower tax circumstance. Who knows, maybe his secretary is a single person with no kids that doesn't donate to charity. In the end...articles like this mean very little to me with a complete absence of details so the American public can opine on the situation without influence from either side.
ReplyDeleteFurther, I read an article recently that focused yet again on the 50% of the American population that didn't pay any income taxes in 2011. Of course not a coincidence that the vast majority, according to this report, consider themselves Democrats...the same segment of the population that continues to suggest raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans to preserve their economic situation.
I suppose my overall point whenever conversations focus on taxes is that there is, sadly, in this country an overall lack of people who set self interests aside and try to compromise and negotiate for the greater good of our economy and culture. We'd have to both agree that on the left is largely constituents that pay no income taxes and want to preserve that economic benefit. I sometimes hear Republicans call these people "free loaders." On the right are many Republicans who want to preserve their resources and I sometimes hear the left call these Republicans "greedy" people. Either way, certainly we can agree that the vast majority of either side tends to really just be supporting a side that preserves their interests. Its either the 50% of the country that doesn't pay income taxes and they want to keep it that way or its the 50% of the country that does pay taxes that wants to see more equality...equality similar to the law tithing promotes. True?
Because side note, even if President Obama got his millionaire tax inrease to 30%, neither side has disputed that it would only generate $5 billion a year in new tax revenue. This doesn't solve anything. Clearly we have a spending issue. Sadly, both sides in Washington also agree that even if you cut every "discretionary" program in half (meaning everything but the entitlement programs, interest on our debt, and military), we would still be sitting in the red in our annual budget. What is the REAL solution to this problem? The left doesn't really think the 50% that are paying income taxes honestly should be expected to shoulder the burden of the the budget problems, do they? If Social Security, Medicare, Interest, and Defense equal 93% of every dollar of revenue, leaving only 7 cents of every revenue dollar for other programs...what do we honestly do when you consider that we had to borrower $1.2 trillion dollars to fill the gap. Left says "just raise taxes and keep expenses largely untouched considering 93% of every revenue dollar goes toward programs we don't want to touch." The right says reduce government spending which means we need to redefine Social Security and Medicare in additional to serious budget cuts in other programs because the wealthy can't take a 40% tax hike in order to balance the budget.
Is a moderate Republican, I am waiting for both sides to compromise. Sadly, we have a lot of attention on the Presidential race when the Congressional race of 2012 will be equally important because we have seen what a Democratic president can accomplish with a Republican House. Virtually nothing. And I have no reason to think a Republican president will accomplish much with a Democrat House or Senate. These folks in Washington are SO polar and not moderate people that nothing gets done unless a party holds the house, senate, and the Presidency.
What say you?
Yep. That article was merely interesting...not a ton of facts there, bc we don't know the Secretaries full situation (tax write offs etc)...just the income. I agree with some of what you said. I don't think that the "left" wants to leave alone ALL the programs. I think many Democrats want to get rid of some ineffective programs...but many programs are necessary in my opinion and it would be an absolute shame to get rid of those that are working--imperfect, sure--but working. Also, of course I would argue that Obama has accomplished a lot as President regardless of the ridiculous house, but much more could've been done, for sure without people looking out for #1--themselves and getting re-elected. I emphatically agree with you that the "folks in Washington" are polarizing the country as well as polar opposites themselves and nobody proves to be able to come together. I would argue, though that Pres Obama has made large strides in his own efforts to try to bring people together in Washington. It takes time. Much like bringing people together in real life after a long fight...it takes time. That is the only thing working in Romney's favor...that he can be seen as moderate. Even though I disagree with much of what he says/does/or promises to do as president. He, to me, is more of what the Republican party used to look like...instead of this far far right Republican party...much much farther from where I am politically. So if he was running next term...I would consider voting for Romney...but Obama beats him in too many areas for me.
ReplyDeleteI never suggested that we get rid of certain programs, only that the current cost of those programs is simply not sustainable in the long term. In looking at the numbers, I do not see any evidence to suggest the current cost structures are sustainable even if Democrats obtain consessions from the Right to raise taxes. 93 cents of ever revenue dollar is spent on those four catagories (interest, Social Security, Medicare, and defense) and we then borrow $1.4 trillion more to make ends meet to accomodate the other government divisions. Democrats could be given authority to raise taxes as they feel appropriate, which according to their own rhetoric is a 30% minimum tax on millionaires, increasing top tax rate to 39.5% and increase the capital gains taxes on dividends to 20%...if they do all they want to do, it just means we borrow $800 billion a year instead of $1.4 trillion. So, no reasonable person could possibly then argue the entitlement programs can remain unchanged. I agree, I believe entitlements have a place and should not be abolished. But unchanged is irresponsible as evidenced that even the Democrats wish list of taxes leaves us with an $800 billion deficit annually. But getting a Democrat to talk about significant cost cutting is as difficult as getting a Republican to talk about raising taxes...why, you ask? In my opinion because each side is trying to protect their votes from the 50% that either pays income taxes or does not pay income taxes. I believe the divide in Washington is far more about protecting their jobs on both sides then it is about solving problems. Eventually, unchanged, we will end up like Greece, a bankrupt nation and we will have our hands forced at that time to do many things that neither side wants to do.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I'd pay more in taxes if given enough concessions from our friends on the left to correct our $800 Billion shortfall. Social Security and Medicare all the way to Defense and the Post Office and every department in between needs to have a budget cut. Leaving the sacred cows of the Left off the table is simply mathmatically not an option...I wish it weren't so, but it is. Time to come to terms Lefties and come to the table in meaningful compromise on these entitlement programs. Sadly, yes, that means hard working people under the age of 55 (you and I included) will need to modify our plans, work longer, and cut more expenses today to establish a meaningful retirement accounts for when we are over 65...it is what it is as sad as it is. Math of 1+1 cannot equal 3 as the current system is set to see. Democrats, getting your ENTIRE wish list of tax increases STILL does not pay for our spending in Washington. 93 cents for each revenue dollar can't be tied up in only 4 things. I do realize that our low income folks in society aren't able to "make up ground" as easily as higher income folks. Shared sacrifice will be necessary...Right people, get ready for higher taxes, lefties...get ready to pay a tiny bit of taxes.
To all on every side, I say, "Welcome to a new reality of 2012 and beyond...either deal with it now when we have options or deal with it in 10 years when there are only BAD options available." Sadly, those in Washington on both sides don't want to deal with the reality...they have a job to keep and a population in America that is underinformed of the facts...and at the end of the day, its the underinformed people that are the ones that are judge and jury for the Legislators that can actually compromise and fix the problems. Perhaps we need to start by having neighborhood focus groups so America can become educated on the issues so our Washington Representatives no longer feel like their hands are tied and can really compromise. But to have this figurative success, I'd need my Cousin Emily to say the words, "Yes, lets reform the entitlement programs" while I say, "Yes, lets address the tax code and increase revenues via tax increases." I'm ready! Are you?!
I think you may have forgotten to respond. :)
ReplyDeleteWhere's the love?
haha. Sorry too busy for politics...I will have to in a while. :) But I am sure I will respond. :)
ReplyDeleteBoy with all the fun stuff in the news these days, I keep wishing I had a place to go post some insightful insights! :) Maybe one day I can access to the blog or would you prefer I create a www.1mormomrepublican.blogspot.com?
ReplyDelete