Republicans: Forget the White House, IF.......

That's too old to be a Reaganist. You should know the true meaning of Conservatism, and it sure isn't low taxes on the rich contributing to small, weak govt that doesn't allow for a big, strong expensive military, lots of law enforcement and expensive prisons, stopping immigration with strong border security, stopping Islamization/terrorism, etc.

It was ALREADY confirmed to me a few posts ago that YOU are not a Conservative, but instead, are simply a Reaganist, low tax greed freak, willing to let the country fall to affirmative action Democrats, Islamists, illegal alien invaders, criminal sympathizers, vulnerability to nuclear attack, etc. all to pad the pockets of those already too filthy rich for anyone's good. Nothing Conservative about that. That doesn't "Conserve" this country's culture and stability. It ruins the country.

You've got the wrong perspective. Economic class is not the issue. That is nothing but a carryover of Ronald Reagan's desire to shield his enormous movie star income from taxation, with a con job of political theory to disguise it, and you fall for it. Conservatism is about conserving the culture, national security, and values of America, and protecting it from all the ultra-left loons, who wish to turn it into a morass of crime, Islamism, anti-White racism, and muti-cultural polyglot boarding house for the world, which is exactly what happens when not enough funding is available to keep the country big and strong. Your small, weak govt concept lends itself to the opposite of Conservatism.

Congratulations for being the 1000th poster in Political Forum to mention "effective tax rates". Nice dodge, if it just hadn't been so overused, and irrelevant, since it's what's happening NOW that matters, not in 1954 (although another Operation Wetback would be nice).

If you want to call yourself a Conservative, you need to take a good hard look at all the damage that is done by depriving the nation of FBI and CIA agents, ICE agents, border patrol officers, building the Mexican border fence, creating immigration courts & jails, allowing Islamists and the ACLU to impose Islam by using court suits, allowing the military to dwindle to historic low levels, leave us vulnerable to Pakistani nuclear warheads, allow dangerous infrastructure problems to persist and worsen, etc. You need to reassess and realize that conservatism is about PROTECTION, PRESERVATION, and SECURITY, not some big income movie star president's wish to minimize his tax bill.

 

Reaganists talk about Marxism. Conservatives talk about Protection, Security, Preservation.

 

1. I went to graduate school and was denied an assistantship, because of affirmative action, which ruined the career I had planned. Affirmative action designed by Democrats who got elected by Republicans shooting the dumb mouths off about cutting Social Security.

2. The biggest "takers" in America are the super rich, who pay only (is it still 35% ?) individual tax, allowing them to take millions$$ each year.

3. Yes, The level of greed is enormous, as reflected by those super rich, greed freaks who refuse to pay a tax that the American people think they should, and who plunder their workers who make them rich. Example > the undertaxed, billionaire Walton family members, and their badly underpaid WalMart workers. All your blabbering about Marxism, is no different than the "Marxism" of big business taking from the working poor (AND THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF AMERICA)

 

Your "Class warfare" is of the rich upon the poor. Try to not be hypocritical. And stop ignoring the problems of lack of govt resources to stop Immigration, Islamization, terrorism, nuclear proliferation, infrastructure crumbling, domestic crime. Yes we do have "dependency' on govt to stop these things. Are you or private industry doing it ? If you are, it sure isn't working very well.

 

YOU give Conservatism a bad name. And you have no right to that name. You don't try to CONSERVE anything except more money in your own personal, greedy pocket. You, and many of the other psuedo-Conservatives who play to the warped minds of the post-Reagan generation, are merely a shallow Reaganist.

 

Dude, it doesn't do you any good to play the Marxist card. What money the poor would take from the rich in higher taxes (as the overwhelming majority of the "Marxist" American people support), is a drop in the bucket, compared to the fortunes that the super rich are reaping, at the expense of the poor, the middle class, and precious NATIONAL SECURITY, which you and all your Marxist card players are endangering, by allowing Democrats to win elections and control the govt.

This will stop only when you all get your heads out of your you-know-whats, and come down to earth, and accept it that the country is NOT going to tolerate your low tax on the rich schemes, or your notions to cut Social Security, Veterans benefits, Unemployment benefits, or whatever else goes in the direction of feeding your GREED.

 

According to misterveritis, over 80% of the American people (who oppose Social Security cuts & support tax hikes on the rich) are "Marxists". I'm giggling, but it's really sad that so many Americans (Reaganists) go around spouting off this drivel (all the while masquerading themselves as "Conservatives)

 

You don't get any points by yakking about Marxism, or Class Warfare. The policies you promote, are just as much Class Warfare as any other, except that yours are the rich waging war on the non-rich, so you can come down off that PHONY HIGH HORSE now.

 

I'm wondering what the percentage of people who shout "Marxist" as loud as they can at anyone who disagrees with them economically is who have actually read the works of Karl Marx. I'm thinking single digits.

 

No, we're talking about REPUBLICANS, and their capability to win elections, while advocating cuts in Social Security, VA, and other benefits.

Stop being hypocritical. You are promoting class warfare every bit as much as anyone, if not more so.

 

No, I mean I can get a better return buying treasury bonds on my own, than going through Social Security.

This is a fact. That's how much the Government has screwed the pooch on this. The video demonstrates a 1.2% return through SS, but a 1.7% return if I just bought the treasury bills on my own, no middle man.

The only reason I wouldn't get a better return, is if the Treasury Department itself defaulted. In which case, Social Security would be dead as well, as they rely on those same bonds.

Rather than forcing me to hand over money, I'd be better off if there was just an incentive in the Tax code for me to buy treasury bonds.

Tough, there needs to be a tough choice here, because either we revamp Social security into more Private options, or the system goes bankrupt, and everyone is thrown out into the street regardless.

SS, is not sustainable. You're saying Republicans should be like Democrats, and continue to lie because the truth is a hard sell.

Sorry, I'm not as cynical as you.

No, they can't, the system at the current rate is already bankrupt. Further tax hikes WILL NOT FIX THIS. This is a matter of demographics, there was once 40 workers for every retiree, today there is barley 2 for very retiree.

SS took demographics for granted, and now it's being screwed by it. So the system must be changed, or better yet, leave me the option to leave, as I don't want any part of this sinking ship, or the God awful Government Bureaucrats who run it.

Trust them with your money if you wish, I DON'T and I have EVERY reason not to.

 

The Prime Minister in Canada managed to cut benefits in his country, even re-nigging on their public Sector. He did it by making it clear that the nation faced a hard future if they didn't make cuts. I refuse to think Americans cannot just as reasonable.

Less benefits, for less taxes. That's the message.

- - - Updated - - -

The Prime Minister in Canada managed to cut benefits in his country, even re-nigging on their public Sector. He did it by making it clear that the nation faced a hard future if they didn't make cuts. I refuse to think Americans cannot just as reasonable.

Less benefits, for less taxes. That's the message.

 

1' But you trust treasury bonds ? Aren't they part of the govt too ?

2. You said >> "either we revamp Social security into more Private options, or the system goes bankrupt" FALSE! I already presented another option. That of raising taxes on the rich (which 67-85% of the American people support).

Further tax hikes (on the rich) WILL FIX THIS.

In fact, the US deficit could easily be wiped out in one year . The wealthiest 20% of the US households are set to receive about $6.9 Trillion in personal income this year, half of all national personal income. Their average tax burden is around 26%, or about $1.7 Trillion. This leaves them with $5.2 Trillion of disposable income each year.

The current budget deficit is around $1.3 Trillion, or about one fourth of the disposable income of the wealthiest. They could be taxed enough to eliminate the budget deficit and still receive 3/4 of their income. If you want stats they are at census.gov and bea.gov

 

In the meantime, down here in the USA, 67-85% of the American people support raising taxes on the rich (who can easily afford it).

MORE benefits from MORE taxes. That's the message, in America.

 

Do you really think you'll get more money from Soros and Immelt?

 

Republicans can forget the White House because of the electoral college and their own redistricting, not this.

 

You don't understand the GW proposal. It's not like anyone would save up money in a no-interest savings account and then, in 2007, deposit it all in their SS IRA. Uh, no. The proposal, from what I remember, was to leave everything already paid in untouched, and those paying in in the future could opt to take 45% of the SS contributions and instead put them directly into an IRA that they could control. Had Bush's plan gone through, no one would have lost everything they had. In fact, no one who invested wisely did. The vast majority have regained their losses already and, hey, imagine if what you have contributed your whole life for SS grew at 8%, instead of sitting on a government bond growing at 0.13% (the current rate for a 1yr treasury bond).

The whole idea of Bush proposal was more freedom, more control, and more retirement funds for retirees. Roughly half of those SS contributions of those who opted for the plan would go through traditional SSI, and they'd get roughly half what they would have from that. I don't know why you guys think it was a cut plan - it wasn't. It was an absolutely great plan derailed by a bunch of misinformation you sucked down.

 

Immelt's income is about $15 Million a year. He is small change compared to some hedge fund managers who rake in over a Billion a year. And yeah, we'll get more money from them. So go ahead and lay all the shelters, and move away notions, etc. Go ahead. I'm ready.

What do you mean "not this". Not WHAT ?

 

Social security. Of course it'd be a kiss of death, but the GOP isn't going to win a national election for some time now. It knows that and is moving more towards the house, gubernatorial races and some key senate seats.

 

I could see putting SOME money into it, but certainly not cutting Social Security even one dime. No matter how good any private plan may seem, the future is too unpredicatable. I would hate to go into retirement without there being any Social Security, or a lesser version than there is now. It was here before I was born in 1946, and it's still here now, and with tax hikes on the super rich (who wouldn't even notice them), it can be around for another 100 years or more. It has a sureness about it that is comforting. It's kind of like if you were a landlord. Do you want to rent to a Social Security recipient whose income is low but it's enough to pay the rent, or do you want to rent to the higher income guy with a job ? (which may not exist next week).

 

If they took a pro-people stance on taxes (on the rich) and Social Security, combined with a good information campaign about immigration and other issues, they could win the whole ball of wax. Trouble is, they're mired in a distortion of Conservatism into Reaganism, and there's too many voters too young to realize the difference.

 

I didn't say I trusted bonds, I'm saying, if this is just matter of getting the security of Public investments, then we can already do that on our own, no need for SS, AND we can get a better return doing it without them. This is because, SS has Administrative costs, there are no such costs if I just buy the bonds on my own, or the threat of reduced pay out.

Oh and once again, no threat from congress to lower our pay out. Can't understand why you're against this.

Won't work, we're already past the point of optimal revenue. America has historically never managed to garner more than 20% of the economy, whether tax rates were 80% or 30%. We're projected to hit 18%, which is our average, and even if we get to 20%, SS will still not be salvageable.

Because, demographics, they've changed, there's only one way to fix that, and the Government (rightfully) doesn't have the power to force it.

Great, but even if you do get that revenue, you've only delayed the problem, you haven't solved it.

Government expenditures are already increasing faster than growth in the Economy, by extracting even more money from the economy so that Government can spend even more of it, you've now worsened that ratio.

What happens when Government expenditure come within even 50% of total GDP output? ... You've essentially turned us into Greece, who, once they defaulted, result in a 25% GDP decline per year. No thanks.

Except, not, as many of these people also live in states with Income Taxes between 8-10%. We haven't touched upon property taxes, or luxury taxes, or dividend taxes, which add another 15% at the least, more if you live in one of the more taxed states.

In the end, we should learn from Britain's experience. After a certain point, increasing taxes, only decreases revenue.

Doesn't matter if they can afford it, what matter is if your policy can actually raise the revenue you claim.

History on Government share of the pie says you can't, while Greece says even if you manage it, you've now screwed us. Quite a catch-22.

 

So don't opt-out, why the f*** do you feel it necessary to try to deny me and others the right to opt-in?

Raising taxes on the wealthy to prop up benefits for the lower and middle classes is just outright wealth redistribution. It's nothing more than that, so why would you be okay with taxing the rich to give more to the lower and middle classes, but not be okay with taxing the rich to just give more everyone, including the under 65?

 

Raise tax on rich to 70%. Increase Social Security benefits slightly. Get elected.

 

I don't understand what you think I'm saying. When did I say I would deny something ? And you say I'm not okay with what ? When did I say the under 65 shouldn't get more ? I don't remember any of this .

Tax increases on the rich could benefit everyone of all ages. Fix infrastructure, cut unemployment by stopping immigration and deporting illegal aliens, stop crime, etc