Democrat or Republican . . .

[BassyiusMaximus]

. . . here is what I've been told.

For a long time, and even up until now, I was completely ignorant towards politics. In fact, I usually took up the side of the Democrats, they always sounded like they either did or wanted to do the right thing. Here is the way it has been explained to me recently;

The Democrats want to do good things. They want to help everybody with everything, and that is very noble of them.

The Republicans want to do the same things and they believe in helping with this that and the other thing, however, they add, "You can do anything you want, help everyone you want, just don't do it with MY MONEY!"

Now in my younger years, those years meaning I was working and not making much money, I would have been all for the Democratic ideals not knowing that taxes are what fund every program that is out there both federal and state. Now that I have to pay "X" amount of taxes every year, I can only hope that my vote will count so I will be taxed less. Boy is it true that as taxpayers, we tend to be liberals when young and gradually move towards conservatives as we age. After all, it has been said many times that " . . . those who pay the most (in taxes), benefit the least." I mean, I have no kids, don't use a single public/state or federal service yet I very gladly and enthusiastically pay my full share. It is what helps me to say 10000 no thank you's to donating to this that and the other causes, I rightfully pay my way. I guess the I pay for the streetlights to be on, for 911, if I need it and for Channel 16 on the VHF in case I need a rescue, the streets get plowed and all that jazz.

I can only wonder what your views are.

[Swimmer]

That about sums it up.

[spence]

Originally Posted by BassyiusMaximus

After all, it has been said many times that " . . . those who pay the most (in taxes), benefit the least."

Now that's just silly...

The rich do pay their fair share, but without a progressive system there would be no end workers (i.e. middle class) to create the value accumulation necessary to drive their ability to fund the tax base.

Put in more simple terms, the rich do indeed stand on the backs of the middle class.

In other words "trickle down" is a critical component to our system, but just as important is "trickle up"!

The problem isn't that the wealthy pay too much in taxes, it's just that the money is used so inefficiently the burden as a whole is greater on the entire population.

To me this has little to do with Democrat vs Republican, as I can name countless instances where neither party actually behaves like you might expect.

-spence

[Young Salt]

it's more like those who get paid the most, work the least - while those who work the most get paid the least.

so the the rich pay (less now thx to bush) alot in taxs, let me cry them a river

[slapshot]

Hogwash. The top 10% earners pay 90% of the total taxes. The bottom 10% don't even pay 1% of the total.

[stripersnipr]

Originally Posted by spence

Now that's just silly...

The rich do pay their fair share, but without a progressive system there would be no end workers (i.e. middle class) to create the value accumulation necessary to drive their ability to fund the tax base.

Put in more simple terms, the rich do indeed stand on the backs of the middle class.

In other words "trickle down" is a critical component to our system, but just as important is "trickle up"!

The problem isn't that the wealthy pay too much in taxes, it's just that the money is used so inefficiently the burden as a whole is greater on the entire population.

To me this has little to do with Democrat vs Republican, as I can name countless instances where neither party actually behaves like you might expect.

-spence

Think maybe for once you could try to respect someones opinion without pronouncing it: Silly, Stupid, or idiotic?

Elitism

Elitism is a belief or attitude that the people who are considered to be the elite — a selected group of persons whose personal abilities, wealth, specialised training or experience, or other attributes place them at the top of any field (especially politics and business, but see below) — are the people whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously, or that these are persons whose views should be regarded as carrying the most weight, or, more simply, these people are best fit to govern. Elitism may also be used to convey a less rational and more purely arrogant sense of entitlement to better treatment owing to wealth, social standing, etc.

Stemming mostly from this usage, elitism has highly negative connotations and is often used pejoratively as conveying arrogance or disregard for the general non-elite public. In its political and sociological sense, elitism sees an elite as occupying a special position of authority or privilege in a group, set apart from the majority of people without the selected abilities or attributes.

[BassyiusMaximus]

I have to rethink my statement that was "Those who pay the most benefit the least", at least from a public services standpoint. I know I don't use any public services other than those that have to do with say, public safety and with the roads and maybe the bouys in the ocean, so while I pay, I don't get any more service than I need.

I will however fully agree that the inefficiency of the governments and what they do with the money seems to be the root of the problems and is why anyone who tells me that they will 1. cut taxes, and 2. eliminate waste will always get my vote.

And it is true that those who earn more pay more, up to a point. It will be interesting to see what happens in Massachusetts this upcoming election and even more so for the presidency in 08.

[Skitterpop]

Originally Posted by stripersnipr

Think maybe for once you could try to respect someones opinion without pronouncing it: Silly, Stupid, or idiotic?

Elitism

Elitism is a belief or attitude that the people who are considered to be the elite — a selected group of persons whose personal abilities, wealth, specialised training or experience, or other attributes place them at the top of any field (especially politics and business, but see below) — are the people whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously, or that these are persons whose views should be regarded as carrying the most weight, or, more simply, these people are best fit to govern. Elitism may also be used to convey a less rational and more purely arrogant sense of entitlement to better treatment owing to wealth, social standing, etc.

Stemming mostly from this usage, elitism has highly negative connotations and is often used pejoratively as conveying arrogance or disregard for the general non-elite public. In its political and sociological sense, elitism sees an elite as occupying a special position of authority or privilege in a group, set apart from the majority of people without the selected abilities or attributes.

You two brothers? I think you do your share of I`m right your a moron posts to.... I know I do

[spence]

Originally Posted by stripersnipr

Think maybe for once you could try to respect someones opinion without pronouncing it: Silly, Stupid, or idiotic?

He was simply stating a quote, as in "it's been often said". I happen to think that's a silly quote, and offered some supporting comments as to why.

If I was an "elite", I simply would have dismissed him personally and moved on.

-spence

[stripersnipr]

Originally Posted by spence

He was simply stating a quote, as in "it's been often said". I happen to think that's a silly quote, and offered some supporting comments as to why.

If I was an "elite", I simply would have dismissed him personally and moved on.

-spence

I never said you were an elite.

[spence]

Originally Posted by BassyiusMaximus

...so while I pay, I don't get any more service than I need.

Not true, as those who as providing the services you need rely on the other services you don't need to provide the services you do need!

So it's not a matter of "need" as much as it is a matter of indirect vs direct need.

Even if you place less of a value on the individual indirect needs, there is a value chain throught the service providers, and as such you would need to evaluate the culmulative indirect value chain benefits.

Certainly one could argue if it's the responsibility of the State, the Feds, charities or the private sector to provide for a lot of those needs...but that's another matter

-spence

[BassyiusMaximus]

The only reason why I post this sort of thing is to see what you all think, being fishermen I'm sure we have views which may be unique when it comes to politics. Even though it is always dangerous ground, politics, along with religion, to discuss.

I see the television, fee television anyways as I cannot get myself to pay for tv, is chock full of ads for the Lt. Governor and the Governorship itself and I try my best to see who the best candidate is and whether they believe in what I believe in.

I like to believe I'm neutral/unenrolled and wait to see who promises what before I vote.

[spence]

Originally Posted by BassyiusMaximus

The only reason why I post this sort of thing is to see what you all think, being fishermen I'm sure we have views which may be unique when it comes to politics.

I agree, that's a very neat aspect of the boards...

I see the television, fee television anyways as I cannot get myself to pay for tv, is chock full of ads for the Lt. Governor and the Governorship itself and I try my best to see who the best candidate is and whether they believe in what I believe in.

Free TV is probably better anyway...the cable news channels are so stuffed with comment as news that unless you know which personalities are more objective it's a complete crap shoot for quality.

I like to believe I'm neutral/unenrolled and wait to see who promises what before I vote.

Which should be commended. There's way too much alignment with partisan views or manipulative campaigning messages.

-spence

[Skip N]

Originally Posted by Young Salt

it's more like those who get paid the most, work the least - while those who work the most get paid the least.

so the the rich pay (less now thx to bush) alot in taxs, let me cry them a river

This sums up the thinking of the left very well. They think that all people who earn a good wage somehow don't deserve it, and they in turn, are getting screwed. Well guess what, if you're unhappy with your current wage, do something to market your skills better, so you'll get that better wage! Sure, there are some people who have never worked a day in thier lives and have had everything handed to them. but most succesful people have worked HARD to become succesful!!

If you're not happy with you current wage, don't take it out on the folks who have worked hard to become succesful, look at yourself and see how you can better market your skills so YOU can earn more and be succesful! Dont blame the rich!

And i dont care what people make, 20 grand or 20 million. If you pay taxes, you should get some of you're damn money back in tax cuts. And its common sense, a guy making 30k will get less money back than a guy making 500k! So of course the rich got more from the tax cuts, becasue they freakin make more!!

[spence]

Originally Posted by Skip N

If you pay taxes, you should get some of you're damn money back in tax cuts.

This doesn't make any sense...

-spence

[Skip N]

Originally Posted by spence

This doesn't make any sense...

-spence

I didnt phrase that very well. Lets try this again. What i was attempting to say is that when americans recieve tax cuts from the governement, everyone who pays taxes should get a share of the tax cuts. The rich are entilted to get some of thier tax money back too. Lets not penalize people for being succesful, and not give them a refund as well. it's thier money to ya know!

[spence]

Originally Posted by Skip N

I didnt phrase that very well. Lets try this again. What i was attempting to say is that when americans recieve tax cuts from the governement, everyone who pays taxes should get a share of the tax cuts. The rich are entilted to get some of thier tax money back too. Lets not penalize people for being succesful, and not give them a refund as well. it's thier money to ya know!

I'd wager the wealthy make out on most tax breaks...unless it's a special program like the earned income credit.

But this stuff is probably dramatically outweighed by dividend cuts, capitol gains etc... that have much more impact on the investor class.

-spence

[BassyiusMaximus]

I agree that if one works hard, one should get to keep what they make, however, we do all need to pay our fair share.

One of the main reasons I don't go to the movies, pay for cable TV or even go to concerts or sporting events is because the people who would profit don't need any more of my hard earned money. On the flip side, while atheletes and movie stars and the owners and producers and such make so much, they also pay so much, so it makes the world go round. I sure can't complain about what I make, I always knew that if I wanted something that no one was just going to give it to me. I knew I had to work for it. But as I get older and somewhat wiser, I do feel like I want to pay less and less in taxes and almost every other issue to me becomes moot.

Interesting Democratic debate last night. I'd have to lean toward Riley at this point.

[stormfish]

Originally Posted by spence

I'd wager the wealthy make out on most tax breaks...unless it's a special program like the earned income credit.

But this stuff is probably dramatically outweighed by dividend cuts, capitol gains etc... that have much more impact on the investor class.

-spence

What he say is true... That's why we have tax cuts! It's primarily for the rich not the less fortunate. The theory is that by cutting taxes it allows the 'successful mates' to allow for economical expansion such as spence put it... 'investing'

That would answer why through economical woes, Bush insist on implementing more tax cuts. He likes to keep his people happy. *Ahem* Enron, Halliburton...

[spence]

Originally Posted by stormfish

That would answer why through economical woes, Bush insist on implementing more tax cuts. He likes to keep his people happy. *Ahem* Enron, Halliburton...

I don't think there can be any argument that the loudest voices calling for tax cuts come from the super wealthy and corporate interests.

And in some circumstances tax breaks can certainly stimulate the economy, although I think this relationship is often grossly misrepresented.

How many times have we heard the notion that Reagan cutting tax rates actually increased tax revenues? I think this is perhaps an hourly occurance on the Rush Limbaugh show.

The reality is (as I understand) that it was the restructuring of some cumbersom tax provisions which created incentive for foreign investment that generated the extra revenue.

So while it's true that lower taxes did provide incentive...it was the type of tax rather than simply the rate...it was more of a one shot deal...yet it's bantered about as if somehow magically cutting taxes will always be a net gain.

-spence

[Skitterpop]

They are we are all together..... demoncrats and retarbulicans.

We need a new world order...an entirely radical and new system of global management.

[slapshot]

I don't know how anybody could possibly argue that the Bush tax cuts did not work.

How quickly some forget the bursting of the dot com bubble, the economic impacts of events like 9/11, anthrax attacks, Katrina, etc., etc. And look at the TURN AROUND of the economy. Its a simple fact that the Bush tax cuts worked.

To moan that the tax cuts did nothing for the unfortunate is silly, at best. The less fortunate don't pay ANY taxes. What kind of a break can you get on zero?

[spence]

Originally Posted by slapshot

I don't know how anybody could possibly argue that the Bush tax cuts did not work.

I think the initial tax cuts had a positive impact...but to make a generic statement like that goes into the realm of rhetoric.

My lawn is crabgrass free this summer, the Bush tax cuts worked!

etc...

But I've never heard anyone successfully argue that the additional or extended cuts have had a large impact.

And I'd also mention that the tax cuts are only a piece of a larger fiscal policy, which has increased our debt to astronomical levels.

The Bush economic plan, to cut taxes while increasing spending is simply insane.

-spence

[slapshot]

Originally Posted by spence

The Bush economic plan, to cut taxes while increasing spending is simply insane.

-spence

That is rhetoric.

I don't know how a deficit can be avoided with 2 wars going on. I know the anti Republican reply is that the war is not necessary, but most of the voting public (not those poled by the media) disagree with that. I don't care where the war is fought, just that it isn't done here again.

The surplus was in a steep decline as Clinton left office, he basically left it balanced. Factor in the stock market collapse, 9/11, 2 ongoing wars and messes like Katrina and its easy to see a deficit.

I guess the left would have preferred to tax the crap out of the rich and continue on in an economic quagmire at the same time?

[spence]

Originally Posted by slapshot

That is rhetoric.

I don't know how a deficit can be avoided with 2 wars going on.

Not by my definition...

Coming out of a mild recession a deficit can be expected, but the GOP controlled Congress has earmarked their way to a spending explosion, much of which is simply not necessary, and Bush has failed to Veto...pretty much everything.

-spence

[stripersnipr]

Originally Posted by spence

Not by my definition...

Coming out of a mild recession a deficit can be expected, but the GOP controlled Congress has earmarked their way to a spending explosion, much of which is simply not necessary, and Bush has failed to Veto...pretty much everything.

-spence

Yeah you can be sure Democrats have never or ever will subject us to such uncecessary spending. Incredible. Such shallow spin.

[spence]

Originally Posted by stripersnipr

Yeah you can be sure Democrats have never or ever will subject us to such uncecessary spending. Incredible. Such shallow spin.

I thought I was blaming the GOP for rampant spending, but as that seems to be difficult for you to accept

One could argue at least the Dems find some idiologial solice in great society programs...be they good or bad.

The spending we have today is a direct reflection of the GOP House selling their souls, and our tax dollars, in the name of corporate interests at an unprecidented rate.

It's all about K Street, earmarks, emergency sessions and a President unwilling to use the VETO.

You can keep blaming Dems, but this current mess is a GOP problem and there's no getting around this FACT.

-spence

[BassyiusMaximus]

I can only wish to pay less in taxes. Let me make my short list of all which I, and I'm sure I am not alone, have to pay.

There is the state and federal income tax, then we get taxed on every single thing we buy save for food and clothes here in MA. We even get taxed to death on our cell phone bills! Then the 5% here on everything else we have to buy. Then the excise on the truck, snowmobile trailer, boat trailer, property tax, tax, tax, tax, 50% of my money is gone from taxes. It feels good to complain about it, so long as I can fish and catch fish, I guess it is all alright. But whoever can tell me that they are going to give me more of my money back and lessen the amount of taxes I have to pay, then that will be my man or woman. Like when will they ever get rid of all the various taxes?

[boot man]

A Republican is a former Democrat that has been physically assaulted

A Democrat is a Former Republican who has been unjustly accused of the assault.