Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So Uncle Sam should be women's sugar daddy? The government isn't supposed to be "looking out" for anyone. The government's only legitimate functions are national defense and protection of property rights.
Ummm, maybe I was misinformed. Wasn't our country and government formed under a constitution "Of the People, By the People, and For the People.
Under the "other party," this has devolved into "For the Wealthy, By the Wealthy, and Of the Wealthy, By the Wealthy.
If anyone reading these posts doubts the "other party" has declared a war on women, just look at the responses to my polite post expressing my point of view.
Among other comments, I've been called stupid, a communist, poor at math--and no better than Hitler. That's how another citizen is being treated--one who respects others' points of view--and who has--and will not sink to name-calling.
Now can you see why the "other party" frightens me? How would you like being called no better than Hitler for having a divergent point of view?
Civility is a fine thing. I suggest ALL of us practice it. Name-calling is very third-grade.
The problem is that people who made 40K got the 2% tax break, and people who made 500K got the 5% tax break. Which is why Romney paid about 13% in taxes, and I pay more than 25%. Which of us can better afford the smaller tax break---the rich person or the middle-class person?
No, Romney paid 13% because his income was primarily capital gains taxes, and you have your percentages backwards.
* I favor progressive taxation. I think people should be taxed according to their wealth.
* I favor the needed reforms to the health insurance industry from the Affordable Care Act, although I remain skeptical that it will reduce costs (personal and health care industry) as much as hoped. This is one area where I don't think Obama was liberal enough. I favor a public option.
* I don't think the national debt should be our priority during a time of economic distress. I favor more stimulus now, and balancing the budget when economic times are good (like Clinton did). Bottom-up stimulus helps more than tax cuts for the wealthy IMO, because it spurs more aggregate demand in more industries (wealthier people have the option to save rather than spend their tax savings).
* I am in favor of reproductive rights. I find the idea that we should go back to the days of unsafe illegal abortions appalling. Because that is what anti-abortion laws do. I also favor marriage equality, because I think the ability to control who is legally in your family in terms of picking a spouse is a pretty basic human right.
* I don't want to be ruled by people who think the government would work better under principles outlined either in the Bible or Atlas Shrugged.
That said, both the Democrats and Republicans are purchased corporatist tools, but the Democrats are clearly the lesser of the two evils this year. One of the things that I think would really spur a better political environment in this country is the overturning of Citizens United--but that's just a start. While I think a healthy private sector is absolutely vital to economic growth, I don't want my government to be by the corporations, of the corporations, and for the corporations either. A balance is needed. And if corporations screw up a sector (*ahem* banking, motor vehicles), I do expect my government to step in and clean up the mess, and try to regulate it a bit better if needed.
Ummm, maybe I was misinformed. Wasn't our country and government formed under a constitution "Of the People, By the People, and For the People.
Under the "other party," this has devolved into "For the Wealthy, By the Wealthy, and Of the Wealthy, By the Wealthy.
If anyone reading these posts doubts the "other party" has declared a war on women, just look at the responses to my polite post expressing my point of view.
Among other comments, I've been called stupid, a communist, poor at math--and no better than Hitler. That's how another citizen is being treated--one who respects others' points of view--and who has--and will not sink to name-calling.
Now can you see why the "other party" frightens me? How would you like being called no better than Hitler for having a divergent point of view?
Civility is a fine thing. I suggest ALL of us practice it. Name-calling is very third-grade.
Yup, declared by the party that idolizes a man that left a woman for dead, to save his political career.
Our country was formed for FREEDOM. And to interpret "...For the People" as "the government give things to the people" is really desperate.
The problem is that people who made 40K got the 2% tax break, and people who made 500K got the 5% tax break. Which is why Romney paid about 13% in taxes, and I pay more than 25%. Which of us can better afford the smaller tax break---the rich person or the middle-class person?
Not quite. Romney paid capital gains. And if that was your income, you too would pay 13%. As do many seniors.
You Libs just kind of make it up as you go along, don't you.
And about wage equality--haven't looked into it but suspect wage discrimination claims are hard as hell to prove and that's why we needed the Lily Ledbetter Act--extends the opportunity to file when there is a provable case. So I'm for it and the policies that support making these suits more available to those who do have enough evidence for a lawsuit.
And I'm single, healthy, and have no deductions. It's lovely that you have managed to set things up to avoid paying more in taxes. It's lovely that Romney has also managed to avoid paying more taxes. But since I don't have the means to pay less in taxes, it would seem that I'm actually subsidizing your underpayment.
Nobody is "avoiding" paying taxes. That would be illegal. They are paying a different type of tax. One that you are free to set up with our money.
Liberals and their implied accusations of criminal activity.
Ummm, maybe I was misinformed. Wasn't our country and government formed under a constitution "Of the People, By the People, and For the People.
Under the "other party," this has devolved into "For the Wealthy, By the Wealthy, and Of the Wealthy, By the Wealthy.
If anyone reading these posts doubts the "other party" has declared a war on women, just look at the responses to my polite post expressing my point of view.
Among other comments, I've been called stupid, a communist, poor at math--and no better than Hitler. That's how another citizen is being treated--one who respects others' points of view--and who has--and will not sink to name-calling.
Now can you see why the "other party" frightens me? How would you like being called no better than Hitler for having a divergent point of view?
Civility is a fine thing. I suggest ALL of us practice it. Name-calling is very third-grade.
Considering that Democrats in the Congress and Senate are richer on average than Republicans, this made me laugh.
Guess I'm a very selfish person--unlike those civic- minded, generous, wealthy individuals who want even more tax cuts for themselves--just like Romney who paid 13% in taxes--much less than most poor/middle class folks. Why did he pay so little? Because he can afford a CPA, can get every loop hole, and can shelter his money off-shore in Swiss Bank accounts and the Cayman Islands.
Get real. Gimme a break.
My personal effective tax rate was 8.2% last year, and I am firmly middle class. What is stopping you from reading up on the tax code? Don't be upset with Romney because you didn't put the effort into learning the tax system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleDolphin
As as a working woman, I'm wondering what policies the Republicans have proposed that would improve my life?
--Bills such as the Lily Ledbetter Bill that brings Equal Pay for Equal Work that have been signed into action by the current administration?
--Affordable healthcare for myself, spouse and children as proposed by the current adminsitration?
--Affordable education to improve my educational level and qualify me for better jobs?
As a thinking and working woman, I see absolutely nothing--nothing--that the Republicans propose that is favorable to working women..instead I see their misplaced desire to control my body and my destiny in regard to birth control.
I don't see how any working, thinking woman could vote for Romney/Ryan. They frighten me. And surely, they don't have my best interests at heart.
I am genuinely not trying to sound like an a** by saying this, despite how it will come across, but if you are being paid an unfair wage, what is stopping you from gathering evidence about your proven performance, industry/education level averages and presenting your boss with that information asking if you can get a raise? LittleDolphin - how many times have you done that in your career?
My personal effective tax rate was 8.2% last year, and I am firmly middle class. What is stopping you from reading up on the tax code? Don't be upset with Romney because you didn't put the effort into learning the tax system.
Yeah, about the same rate here and firmly middle class. I attribute it all to Turbo Tax, honestly.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
