Government Shutdown

[carlfense]

I'm not sure taxes have to increase dramatically or at all to have them be a burden.

Sure. But they've been declining for some time now . . .

 

(Slight tick upwards for income over $400,000 in 2013.)

 

I can't think of one person I know that does backflips to the post office to mail of their returns every 4-15 and thank the government for the privilege of having them take what they earned.

That's kind of my point. Few people like paying taxes . . . but they tend to like the things that those taxes pay for.

 

So for every cop we pay for that is providing a service with our tax dollars, we have a 1 term congressman that gets a pension.

What?

[BigRedBuster]

I'm not sure taxes have to increase dramatically or at all to have them be a burden.

Sure. But they've been declining for some time now . . .What does this have to do with my comment?

 

(Slight tick upwards for income over $400,000 in 2013.)

 

I can't think of one person I know that does backflips to the post office to mail of their returns every 4-15 and thank the government for the privilege of having them take what they earned.

That's kind of my point. Few people like paying taxes . . . but they tend to like the things that those taxes pay for.Where am I disagreeing with that? In fact, that is my point too.

 

So for every cop we pay for that is providing a service with our tax dollars, we have a 1 term congressman that gets a pension.

What?

[carlfense]

I'm not sure taxes have to increase dramatically or at all to have them be a burden.

Sure. But they've been declining for some time now . . .What does this have to do with my comment?

 

(Slight tick upwards for income over $400,000 in 2013.)

 

I can't think of one person I know that does backflips to the post office to mail of their returns every 4-15 and thank the government for the privilege of having them take what they earned.

That's kind of my point. Few people like paying taxes . . . but they tend to like the things that those taxes pay for.Where am I disagreeing with that? In fact, that is my point too.

 

So for every cop we pay for that is providing a service with our tax dollars, we have a 1 term congressman that gets a pension.

What?

Those were in reply to StPaulHusker.

[BigRedBuster]

And, I believe he was agreeing with me.

[carlfense]

And, I believe he was agreeing with me.

Maybe. Are you StPaulHusker? Because you said "what does this have to do with my comment?" in a response to my reply to SPH.

 

That's odd.

[StPaulHusker]

I am not sure that I was agreeing with anyone. Basically I was just saying that if BRB feels like his taxes are a burden, whether they have increased drastically or otherwise, who are we to tell him he should feel different?

 

But in addition, tax burden is not just the taxes coming out of the check every week. Property taxes have gone up, sales taxes, etc. It's all a burden if someone feel like it is.

 

And for the 3rd comment, the "what?". I was just trying to draw a comparison between "useful services" from our tax burdens and something that tax paying people might not find useful. I am sure there is a better example but that's what I went with. I do realize that there are no pension benefits for 1 term congressmen.

 

 

[carlfense]

I am not sure that I was agreeing with anyone. Basically I was just saying that if BRB feels like his taxes are a burden, whether they have increased drastically or otherwise, who are we to tell him he should feel different?

 

But in addition, tax burden is not just the taxes coming out of the check every week. Property taxes have gone up, sales taxes, etc. It's all a burden if someone feel like it is.

I guess. Similarly, I suppose that paying for anything is a burden.

 

And for the 3rd comment, the "what?". I was just trying to draw a comparison between "useful services" from our tax burdens and something that tax paying people might not find useful. I am sure there is a better example but that's what I went with. I do realize that there are no pension benefits for 1 term congressmen.

Maybe. What percentage of your tax dollars would you estimate go to "useful services"?

[StPaulHusker]

I am not sure that I was agreeing with anyone. Basically I was just saying that if BRB feels like his taxes are a burden, whether they have increased drastically or otherwise, who are we to tell him he should feel different?

 

But in addition, tax burden is not just the taxes coming out of the check every week. Property taxes have gone up, sales taxes, etc. It's all a burden if someone feel like it is.

I guess. Similarly, I suppose that paying for anything is a burden.

 

And for the 3rd comment, the "what?". I was just trying to draw a comparison between "useful services" from our tax burdens and something that tax paying people might not find useful. I am sure there is a better example but that's what I went with. I do realize that there are no pension benefits for 1 term congressmen.

Maybe. What percentage of your tax dollars would you estimate go to "useful services"?

I am not sure I would go as far as to say anything but suit yourself.

 

I wouldn't have an estimate. We would have to come to a consensus as to what is deemed "useful". Plus I didn't say my taxes were a burden.

[carlfense]

I wouldn't have an estimate. We would have to come to a consensus as to what is deemed "useful".

The reason why I'm asking is that I think that we (myself included) have a sort of skewed perception of how tax dollars are spent. I remember some study from awhile back that showed that the average American estimated that foreign aid accounted for around 10% of our budget and that spending on public broadcasting was around 5%. Needless to say . . . those were way off.

[StPaulHusker]

I wouldn't have an estimate. We would have to come to a consensus as to what is deemed "useful".

The reason why I'm asking is that I think that we (myself included) have a sort of skewed perception of how tax dollars are spent. I remember some study from awhile back that showed that the average American estimated that foreign aid accounted for around 10% of our budget and that spending on public broadcasting was around 5%. Needless to say . . . those were way off.

Doesn't surprise me one bit. But is percentages the best way to look at it versus actual dollars?

 

For example: If foreign aid is 1% but total dollars is $10 billion, if you reduced that by 10%(which appears to be a lot)you have reduced the budget by $1 billion but the percentage is now .9%. Lots of dollars. minimal percentage.

 

Does that make sense? Not trying to start an argument but when it comes to a lot of zeroes behind numbers, it makes more sense to me to use dollars over percentages so I want to make sure my example comes off correctly.

[zoogs]

I'm not sure how percentage isn't the best way to look at it. Without percentage it's just a number without context.

 

The last couple of pages on this thread seem to be less an argument about talking points or political differences than a discussion of people about reality and yet it's seemingly still people talking past each other.

[StPaulHusker]

I'm not sure how percentage isn't the best way to look at it. Without percentage it's just a number without context.

 

The last couple of pages on this thread seem to be less an argument about talking points or political differences than a discussion of people about reality and yet it's seemingly still people talking past each other.

 

Maybe you need both for the proper context

[tschu]

It's no wonder our government is as out of control as it is. Not only do we allow them to operate the way they do, many people are convinced it makes sense and go out of their way defending the lunacy.

You claim to not be able to understand how things work, so how are you sure that it is out of control and full of lunacy?

I understand how things work just fine. I also understand that they could work much better. Not sure why that is such a difficult concept for you. It's not my problem if you can't recognize obvious deficiencies and problems with how our government operates. Most reasonable people will at least admit that there are indeed problems and that they aren't all solely the result of one wacko party. But you just keep on doing what you do.

Well you've clearly shown so far in this thread that you don't. And I never said that the government doesn't operate without obvious deficiencies. Clearly it does and I never made an argument or statement claiming otherwise, in fact I believe in one of my prior posts I went out of my way to say that the government should always promote less waste and more responsible spending.

[tschu]

BigRedBuster continues to make my brain hurt

 

 

Glad I can make you think.

No. You make my brain come to a screeching halt.

[sd'sker]

The Last Days of the GOP:[/url]

 

good article. discusses a lot of what we have been discussing in regards to the republican party and where it is headed. i do not think it is too dire for the republican party, as these things are cyclical and they will find their place to counter the dems.

 

but republicans should be concerned with shifting demographics, which was not mentioned in the article. a lot is going to change for them and their future platforms. although, (and perhaps ironically) i think if the republican party was not so anti-immigrants, the party would be a natural fit for a lot of hispanics. but either way, the demographics (at large) are shifting and the parties will have to accommodate those shifts.

In Washington, today’s business lobbies may come to understand what the lobbies of the ‘50s grasped—that the Democratic Party is a small “c” conservative party that has sought to preserve and protect American capitalism by sanding off its rough edges. Joe Echevarria, the chief executive of Deloitte, the accounting and consulting firm, recently told The New York Times, “I’m a Republican by definition and by registration, but the party seems to have split into two factions.” Echevarria added that while the Democrats also had an extreme faction, it had no power in the party, while the Republican’s extreme faction did. “The extreme right has 90 seats in the House,” he said. “Occupy Wall Street has no seats.” That realization could lead business to resume splitting its contributions, which would spell trouble for the Republicans.

 

Republicans in Washington could repudiate their radical base and shun the groups that appeal to it. That is roughly what people like Feehery are suggesting. But the question, then, is what would be the Republican base? How would Republicans win elections? Are there enough rational Republicans to make up for the loss of the radical ones?

What is happening in the Republican Party today is reminiscent of what happened to the Democrats in the late 1960s and early 1970s. At that time, the Democrats in Washington were faced by a grassroots revolt from the new left over the war in Vietnam and from the white South over the party’s support for civil rights. It took the Democrats over two decades to do undo the damage—to create a party coalition that united the leadership in Washington with the base and that was capable of winning national elections. The Republicans could be facing a similar split between their base and their Washington leadership, and it could cripple them not just in the 2014 and 2016 elections, but for decades to come.