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.
Yes, we want to destroy unions. But we want to reform social security and medicare, not destroy them. It's spin by people like you that we want to destroy them. You will only ever see Democrats demagoguing about Republicans wanting to destroy them. You don't actually see Republicans wanting to destroy them.
I do not want unions destroyed. Just eliminate the collective bargaining of public sector unions. People have the right to peacefully assemble and form any kind of organization they want, including unions.
With regard to Social Security and MediCare/MedicAid, if States want to adopt those programs, they have the constitutional authority. However, the federal government does not have the constitutional authority. Therefore, neither Social Security or MediCare/MedicAid should exist at the federal level, only at the State level, if at all.
I've heard this before and I get suspicious about these claims. If it was someone being fiscally irresponsible that made you upset with them, then why did you into the arms of people who are even more fiscally irresponsible than the original one?
I don't think Democrats are more or less fiscally irresponsible because they at least tax and spend.
I think it was outrageous that we went to two wars, expanded medicare, passed TARP, among many other government programs and then decreased taxes twice.
Our debt was lowered during Clinton and increased during Bush. NEITHER party has shown they are more fiscally responsible than the other. Like I said before, talk is cheap. Whenever Republicans aren't in power, they go on about limited government and low spending, yet every time they are in power, CHA-CHING!
I consider myself socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I tend to vote for Democrats because I hate Republicans stance on social issues.
Will there be a day when Republicans will focus solely on fiscal and economic policy and simply say, social issues can be decided at the state level?
I think many Obama supporters would switch sides if Republicans could ease up a bit.
I'm a staunch conservative, and while I'll never let go of what I believe is right, I think there's a growing number (myself included) that recognizes that the constitution doesn't really give the federal government the right to govern over social issues, so it doesn't matter what I believe. It's not their job. I want the government to do ONLY what they're granted in the constitution.
The states can handle gay marriage and everything else. That way, the public can be free to move to whatever state they like, based on what they believe.
I consider myself socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I tend to vote for Democrats because I hate Republicans stance on social issues.
Will there be a day when Republicans will focus solely on fiscal and economic policy and simply say, social issues can be decided at the state level?
I think many Obama supporters would switch sides if Republicans could ease up a bit.
It will not be in the near future. Even one of their own, Barry Goldwater, warned them about the stubbornness and overemphasis on extremist social issue positions about two decades ago. It fell on deaf ears basically to my surprise.
Every now and then you might find a GOP politician that is moderate on these issues depending on the region of the country. California probably has the most socially moderate Republicans followed by Pacific Northwest and the Northeast and some in the Great Lakes area. If you are in the South it is very seldom.
How do you plan to hide the fact, that most republicans want to end welfare for Americas poor?
How will you hide the fact that republicans are against raising min wage?
How do you plan to hide the fact republicans are against long unemployment benefits, against poor peoples unions, against class action law suits for the poor, ex.ex.ex.ex. ??
I look forward to your next underhanded attempt, to get poor and middle class Americans to vote republican.
WOW, don't let reading comprehension get in your way. Unbelieveable that you read it as me supporting republicans. PMSL I highly doubt that the majority of poor and some of the middle class are going to give up their democrat benefits any time soon.
Last edited by softblueyz; 03-09-2013 at 11:14 PM..
Baascailly I am not about to give up my core believes just to get a vote. Even tho I believe differently I still see choice in belief and freedom to speak the beleive as very impotant in a Demcoacy. I think if democrst have issue with their parties fiscal beleives then they need to chnage tyhem. In fact its haerd for me to beleive a person who things their social beleifs are that important npot to understand others are just as important to them.So basically if repulbicasn party becomes like the liberal democrats they will in fact lose my vote and I can see alot more leaving.
Baascailly I am not about to give up my core believes just to get a vote. Even tho I believe differently I still see choice in belief and freedom to speak the beleive as very impotant in a Demcoacy. I think if democrst have issue with their parties fiscal beleives then they need to chnage tyhem. In fact its haerd for me to beleive a person who things their social beleifs are that important npot to understand others are just as important to them.So basically if repulbicasn party becomes like the liberal democrats they will in fact lose my vote and I can see alot more leaving.
Too late, I am already gone. I see no difference between the Republican Party today, and the fiscally irresponsible Democrats of the 1960s.
payroll taxes are federal income taxes. So you're wrong but it's not worth arguing it with you because its clear you're an ideologue. Mitt Romney was wrong.
READ the article. They wouldn't be calling them two different names if they weren't talking about two different things (they actually list the taxes they're talking about in the article.) There are different payroll taxes, at the federal level, besides federal income tax (social security, medicaid). It's federal income tax that almost half of all people don't pay. Which is what I said in the first place.
Next time, read the words beneath the pretty picture before you jump to conclusions about what the pretty picture is talking about. I, very clearly, stated that I was talking about the federal income tax not other federal payroll taxes.
I don't think Democrats are more or less fiscally irresponsible because they at least tax and spend.
I see that as less fiscally responsible. Because Democrats have never raised taxes enough to cover the deficits. So not only are they still engaging in deficits, but they're taking money out of the private sector too. That's not a wrong vs a tie the way you describe it. That would require the Democrats to have a balanced budget, but they don't - they run deficits even as they raise taxes. So I see it as one wrong versus two wrongs.
Quote:
I think it was outrageous that we went to two wars, expanded medicare, passed TARP, among many other government programs and then decreased taxes twice.
I agree. But then a few years later Obama enacted his 800 billion stimulus that "stimulated" the economy by costing more per job created or saved than the average job pays in more than 5 years. Average salary of job, 42,000. Cost to create or save that job, $238,000. And in return for that we'll be paying interest on that debt for decades. And Obama's comment on that? "Shovel ready was not as shovel ready as expected" Glad he took it so seriously. I would call that equally if not more outrageous. And after admitting the stimulus didn't work, Obama then made a speech requesting another 400 billion stimulus. Now it is definitely outrageous.
Quote:
Our debt was lowered during Clinton and increased during Bush. NEITHER party has shown they are more fiscally responsible than the other. Like I said before, talk is cheap. Whenever Republicans aren't in power, they go on about limited government and low spending, yet every time they are in power, CHA-CHING!
Actually our debt was raised during Clinton. The Clinton surplus mythology is put out by looking at the projected budgets, not the real world results. You write down that you're going to earn $50,000 and spend $40,000 on paper. But you actually spend $60,000. So you really lost $10,000. So you take $20,000 out of your 401K to cover the extra spending. This is what they did. They spent more than they said they were going to, but took money out of Social Security to pay for it so they didn't have to report it as a deficit. It was an "interdepartmental transfer". That is what is meant when people say the government "raided the social security fund and left IOUs"
And that's not just Clinton's fault. The Republicans participated in it too. In the last campaign, Newt Gingrich was going around bragging about the "surplus" too since he was Speaker of the House then. He lies about it just as much as Clinton does.
The closest they ever got to the surpluses they claimed was actually losing 17.9 billion dollars. Dollars that should be paying senior citizens in retirement today and aren't because both parties took them and lied about it.
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.
They wouldn't be calling them two different names if they weren't talking about two different things (they actually list the taxes they're talking about in the article.) There are different payroll taxes, at the federal level, besides federal income tax (social security, medicaid). It's federal income tax that almost half of all people don't pay. Which is what I said in the first place.
