|
LookieNoNookie -> RE: Republicans, The Party of Bigots and Bigot Lovers... (9/26/2011 9:49:43 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: farglebargle
I still haven't seen the so-called-leaders of the Republican Party denounce and call for the expulsion of the bigots who interrupted the debates to stand up and GAY-BASH US SOLDIERS SERVING IN COMBAT.
Without any clear message to the contrary, everyone can only presume their tacit acceptance of bigotry.
No offense meant Farglebargle but, this was a really inane post.
Republicans are only different from Democrats in that (essentially) one can be an asshole on Tuesday....the other on Wednesday.
Every one of them is fucked up/lying sacks of shit (as to Congressmen/Senators), and every one of them (as to you and I) is as different (none following any set pattern or definition other than that we all differ) as you and I.
Myself, I'm a Republican.
One that believes that everyone (should) have a right to some basic level of health care. How we get there, I'm really not altogether sure.
Obamacare? I don't know. Everything I read tells me it'll break the bank and cause fewer, not more jobs. Jobs are what pay the bills. Yours and mine, collectively and individually. Currently we need more than a few of those. Anything that impedes that....I'm against.
I'm also a Republican that a) thinks Bush II was (and remains) a complete idiot and a total waste of 8 years of presenting ourselves to the world. I think he did more harm to our world image than any other 10 Presidents combined. b) I think we need to raise taxes (horror upon horror), and on the "wealthy" which, as it's currently defined, I fall under....BUT....we have to find a way (all of us, regardless of our constituency) to get the govt. to live within its means (nothing new there...I don't think you need to be a Republican or a Democrat to believe in that).
What does that mean?
I think, in some fashion, it means we all have to take a hit.
It means (in my mind at least) that everyone needs to pay something.
Don't quote me on this but I recall reading the other day that 47% of the population pays zero federal taxes.
That just simply ain't right.
If we're all benefiting from this wonderful place....we all owe something.
Something.
We all need to participate.
Every one of us.
Some (many) live off the govt. tit. For a brief time, in need...all good. Just not forever, yet there are individuals and families that spend their entire existence on the dole.
That also ain't right.
Warren Buffet has said for years that he and many of his cohorts pay too little (capital gains taxes are at a flat 15%, and they pay no SSI taxes like the rest of us). Regular taxes for the masses run anywhere from zero to (I think) 33% or 36% (or thereabouts).
Few pay the full amount and rarely do those in even the middle brackets pay the top %, but some, victims of the ATM (Alternative Minimum Tax) actually pay even more. Upwards of 48%.
(That's a lot no matter who's counting).
These are often the folks who don't have good accountants or don't itemize.
That's not the fault of the system...in many cases it's laziness....people who refuse to keep records, take deductions where applicable and frankly, the feds love those folks. I don't feel bad for them because to put it mildly...they're (often) simply lazy.
But here's the problem that most Republicans have with higher taxes and you should as well:
Until someone creates a locked in law...irrevocable...that demands that the MOST "we" can spend (next year) in the federal budget (including SSI, Medicare, military, etc.....all the "3rd rail" stuff) is 90% of what we took in LAST year (not what is "projected" for next years revenues) with the remainder going towards repaying all this gigantic debt we've acquired over the last 50+ years until we're not only debt free....BUT....we have ONE years revenues in the bank, there's simply not a chance in Hell that Republicans are going to allow (and Democrats should...hopefully....follow) any increases in taxes.
Knowing what we've seen over the last 5 decades (that they {all of them} will always spend more than they take in), it's only logical that until someone puts the brakes on these guys....they're going to do the same damn thing next year as they've done the previous.
Is there any reason to believe otherwise?
Think about this; there's something called the Davis Bacon Act. It mandates that on all federal and state funded jobs (construction or similar) that the "Prevailing Wage" is required for all laborers.
It was a great idea when it came about back in the 30's.
It ensured that no man (or woman) would be paid less than the (watch for it)....."Prevailing Wage" in a given area.....except for one thing; over the years, just as every other federal mandate has become something vastly larger than its original mandate or intent, it now mandates (thanks to union influence) that if you want to compete on a federal job, you as an employer must pay wages that are VASTLY in excess of union wages.
Ergo, union protection at its finest.
Nothing wrong with unions and I have absolutely no opinion up or down regards unions....however, if a non union company can do the job for let's say 20 million, but to be allowed to compete on these jobs, he or she must now pay $75.00 (including perks, etc.) for the same fellow who was prior to, costing him maybe as much as 28 bucks an hour....now he has to charge 32 million bucks for the same project.
For absolutely no advantage to the taxpayer.
EVERY day that works out to several fewer miles of road repair, one less bridge fixed....and for what? Are these people more skilled now that we're paying them 75 bucks as opposed to 28?
Hardly.
And the list of regulatory hampering goes on by the mile.
Just like Greece, where you can retire if you're a masseuse (defined by the federal govt. of Greece as a "heavily stressful" job) with a full pension (their equivalent of Social Security) at age 53 (even if you only did that job the last 3 years of your employment), we're (the U.S.) working our way into an untenable position financially wherein which we simply can't afford the things we've mandated, and frankly....no one (including you) wants to pay for it.
Republicans, The Party of Bigots and Bigot Lovers...
Unfair, untrue and one sided.
Not all Republicans believe in taking/keeping and not sharing...in fact, I think you'd find the opposite was true if you asked each and every one of them...but they, like you....want to see some level of fairness.
Frankly, if it's true (which it's not, by the way) that Republicans are generally wealthier than Democrats, I think you'd find an amazing dichotomy as to your assumptions if you asked most Republicans whether or not they'd prefer to share the wealth.
Here's a simple economics lesson (and Henry Ford understood this better than most when he doubled wages at his plant in the early 1900's when he discovered his own employees couldn't afford to purchase his products): When people have more money....they can afford to purchase more stuff.
It is true that more business people are Republicans as opposed to Democrats.
How may customers do you think Republicans would have if they kept every dime and never shared the wealth?
Not many.
Not all Republicans are Ogres or monsters that want to see all their ilk do well and everyone that isn't (a Republican) suffer.
It's simply bad business.
And not all Democrats are union loving, "fuck those rich pricks" angry birds.
What does this all come down to?
I'm not sure because I'm not really all that smart....but I can say this: Everyone needs to pay something, the wealthy (probably) should pay (something) more than they (currently) do, and to have taxation that favors those who work with their mind as opposed to their backs, to me, seems patently unfair.
15% for investments versus upwards of 33+% (plus SSI and other taxes) for those that work with their hands seems ridiculous to me.
A better plan, in my mind is that everyone pays the same damn rate.
But what do I know.....I'm just a Republican.
(Just my 2 cents).
|
|
|
|
