They voted no to this?!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JC9sAZ5_Tlk

http://alaska-native-news.com/article/National_News/National_News/Teachers_First_Responders_Back_to_Work_Act_Blocked_in_Senate_Vote/23484

This would have have put teachers and first responders back to work and all of it would have been paid for by raising taxes 0.5% on people who make over a million a year after the first million was made. I understand the idea of not wanting to burden people during a recession, but it's only a 0.5% raise we are talking about.

I don't see the harm in taxing the wealthy, but it usually comes down on the middle to lower class who didn't go to college.

Repubs gotta protect the rich...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JC9sAZ5_Tlk

http://alaska-native-news.com/article/National_News/National_News/Teachers_First_Responders_Back_to_Work_Act_Blocked_in_Senate_Vote/23484

This would have have put teachers and first responders back to work and all of it would have been paid for by raising taxes 0.5% on people who make over a million a year after the first million was made. I understand the idea of not wanting to burden people during a recession, but it's only a 0.5% raise we are talking about.

Serraph105

And where would the money come from after it ran out? Or would the government continue to levy this tax and give the money to the states? It makes absolutely no sense to pass it, and then have the states just fire people when they can't come up with the money again.

Repubs gotta protect the rich...

CaveJohnson1

Why is it the proper role of the federal govt to fund the functions of local govt?

I'm glad it didn't pass. Each locality needs to prioritize its own local governance to provide the local services they deem necessary and important.

I don't see the harm in taxing the wealthy, but it usually comes down on the middle to lower class who didn't go to college.

leapMC

And the middle/lower class who did go to college. Getting harder to tell the difference lately (in the USA, at least).

Repubs gotta protect the rich...

CaveJohnson1

There were Dems that voted against it as well...:shock:

Repubs gotta protect the rich...

CaveJohnson1

This has nothing to do with protecting anybody from anything.

This action will only postpone the inevitable. Those jobs are getting cut because localities are spending too much. The sooner local municipalities and state governments become solvent, the better off we all will be.

I honestly believe if there was a solution to our problems that required a .5% surcharge on those who make over a million dollars, the Republicans would be for it.

This, however, is not a solution. It is in every sense of the word kicking the can down the road. States need to make hard cuts. It's inevitable.

Of course these cuts wouldn't be necessary if we didn't have unions that could prevent local governments from doing what is necessary to become fiscally stable, but that's neither here nor there...

It's neither here nor there because unions, while sometimes annoying, are a critical medium for underrepresented professions to assure themselves somewhat fair treatment. ;)CrimzonTide

Being able to force a local government to do anything goes beyond a simple annoyance. I don't advocate getting rid of unions, merely declawing them a little bit. Like it or not, a government needs to have the ability to take action to regain fiscal stability. When a local government only has the option to raise taxes, or cut from things other than unions, we have a problem.

I honestly believe if there was a solution to our problems that required a .5% surcharge on those who make over a million dollars, the Republicans would be for it.

This, however, is not a solution. It is in every sense of the word kicking the can down the road. States need to make hard cuts. It's inevitable.

Of course these cuts wouldn't be necessary if we didn't have unions that could prevent local governments from doing what is necessary to become fiscally stable, but that's neither here nor there...

airshocker

Why the rich don't get taxed its becuase the rich pay for the people to get into office in the first place

There is no doubt in my mind that the republicans will not vote for anything that involves raising taxes unless it is on the lower class. I won't pretend like you don't have a point, but the main priority right now is just to keep people working.When the economy is healthy, there will be more jobs and more tax revenue to keep things going, but if we don't at least take temporary measures to sustain employment while the economy can't support it, then we can end up in a double dip recession and maybe even worse/ EntropyWins

I disagree, Republicans don't want to raise taxes on anybody. It's far cheaper to have these folks on unemployment. At some point those jobs will cease to exist, with teachers it'll be the same exact people they hired, with cops and firemen it'll probably be the old guys forced into retirement. It doesn't fix anything.

The important thing is getting this economy rolling again, and that won't happen with stimulus. We need spending cuts and tax cuts. I'm far more willing to go into debt for tax cuts than I am with stimulus.

And I'm quite frankly done with the idea of stimulus. I don't trust the Obama administration to do it efficiently, or where it's needed. He had his shot with the first one, and our "recovery" stalled. That's not a reason for even more.

[QUOTE="EntropyWins"]There is no doubt in my mind that the republicans will not vote for anything that involves raising taxes unless it is on the lower class. I won't pretend like you don't have a point, but the main priority right now is just to keep people working.When the economy is healthy, there will be more jobs and more tax revenue to keep things going, but if we don't at least take temporary measures to sustain employment while the economy can't support it, then we can end up in a double dip recession and maybe even worse/ airshocker

I disagree, Republicans don't want to raise taxes on anybody. It's far cheaper to have these folks on unemployment. At some point those jobs will cease to exist, with teachers it'll be the same exact people they hired, with cops and firemen it'll probably be the old guys forced into retirement. It doesn't fix anything.

The important thing is getting this economy rolling again, and that won't happen with stimulus. We need spending cuts and tax cuts. I'm far more willing to go into debt for tax cuts than I am with stimulus.

Come on the Republicans have tried to pass taxes on the poor and middle class in all their recent plans. They aren't the party of low taxes, they're the rich folk party.Ace6301

No they haven't. They've repeatedly been against all forms of tax increases.

And quite honestly, while Obama hasn't raised taxes directly on poor and middle classes, his policies have had the effect of increased costs to healthcare and food. Though to be fair, his continued support of ethanol subsidies is just a continuation of bad policy.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]Come on the Republicans have tried to pass taxes on the poor and middle class in all their recent plans. They aren't the party of low taxes, they're the rich folk party.airshocker

No they haven't. They've repeatedly been against all forms of tax increases.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]Come on the Republicans have tried to pass taxes on the poor and middle class in all their recent plans. They aren't the party of low taxes, they're the rich folk party.airshocker

No they haven't. They've repeatedly been against all forms of tax increases.

Almost all the Republican candidates are for tax plans that will raise taxes on the middle class.Ace6301

Until those people come into power, and it's pretty clear that they won't, they have nothing to do with current governing Republicans.

The simple fact of the matter is that governing Republicans have not tried to increase taxes on ANYBODY.

when is enough, enough? v. it is just x arguments. then you see the party arguments that have no intellectual weight, as for the first part.... here is my ten foot pole *pole* it aint long enough for this thread.

how would those people be able to create jobs for everyone else in the country if we steal their money from them???comp_atkins

For the most part I agree with this, especially with institutional republicans, but there seems to be a large faction on the more extreme side of the party that wants to see the national sales tax, the "fair tax" I think they call it. EntropyWins

As I said to Ace, they aren't governing, and they don't seem to have a shot at winning. Herman Cain will start to lose his shine, especially when people learn more about fair taxes.

Yet somehow removing loopholes is raising taxes. Ace6301

Technically it is, man. If you remove loopholes people will be paying more money in taxes. The percent may not have gone up, but that doesn't change the fact that people are paying more.

How would innovation and change come from a decreasing number of people who continue to amass more wealth for themselves while decreasing the wealth of everyone else? It sounds like a monopoly in the making.BranKetra

You don't decrease the wealth of anybody when you gain wealth. There is no such thing as a finite amount of wealth. Fixed pie fallacy and all that.

Being able to force a local government to do anything goes beyond a simple annoyance. I don't advocate getting rid of unions, merely declawing them a little bit. Like it or not, a government needs to have the ability to take action to regain fiscal stability. When a local government only has the option to raise taxes, or cut from things other than unions, we have a problem.

airshocker

when is enough, enough? v. it is just x arguments. then you see the party arguments that have no intellectual weight, as for the first part.... here is my ten foot pole *pole* it aint long enough for this thread.

surrealnumber5

I think there's important lines in the sand that have to be observed. The best government for the country at any given time is a dictatorship. One man, unimpeded making the best decisions for the country? There's nothing more perfect. But in practicality it doesn't work. Unions and their power are so important to the common morale of this country. I agree, they can cause major problems, but sometimes you just gotta suck it up and deal with certain stands made by large numbers of people.CrimzonTide

Union membership is decreasing in this country. If every state was a right to work state, I guarantee you union membership would plummet.

I personally think that the tax payers should have the power, not the unions.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]Almost all the Republican candidates are for tax plans that will raise taxes on the middle class.airshocker

Until those people come into power, and it's pretty clear that they won't, they have nothing to do with current governing Republicans.

The simple fact of the matter is that governing Republicans have not tried to increase taxes on ANYBODY.

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]How would innovation and change come from a decreasing number of people who continue to amass more wealth for themselves while decreasing the wealth of everyone else? It sounds like a monopoly in the making.airshocker

You don't decrease the wealth of anybody when you gain wealth. There is no such thing as a finite amount of wealth. Fixed pie fallacy and all that.

I personally think both your parties are made of idiots and that you pretty much need complete reform at this point to have a government that isn't FUBAR. That said I think the current Republican party are pretty much malicious in practice even if they aren't in intent. The democrats are just incompetent morons for the most part. US is too far leaning toward government control in the wrong places with corporate control in all the wrong places. I'm only picking a side that's closest to what works best which in this case would be a tax increase on the mega rich. You'd need a **** load of reform to get that to work out too though. I honestly think your founding fathers are rolling in their graves and probably spinning half way to the core of the earth at this point.Ace6301

What works for you doesn't work for me. Getting government out of where it isn't needed and put into where it is works best for me. Right now libertarians are the only people who fit that bill for me, but I have to settle for Republicans.

Sorry if I'm basing a very unified parties stances off the stances of those who are vying for it's leadership.Ace6301

You have three people who want a fair tax system. Five that don't.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]I personally think both your parties are made of idiots and that you pretty much need complete reform at this point to have a government that isn't FUBAR. That said I think the current Republican party are pretty much malicious in practice even if they aren't in intent. The democrats are just incompetent morons for the most part. US is too far leaning toward government control in the wrong places with corporate control in all the wrong places. I'm only picking a side that's closest to what works best which in this case would be a tax increase on the mega rich. You'd need a **** load of reform to get that to work out too though. I honestly think your founding fathers are rolling in their graves and probably spinning half way to the core of the earth at this point.airshocker

What works for you doesn't work for me. Getting government out of where it isn't needed and put into where it is works best for me. Right now libertarians are the only people who fit that bill for me, but I have to settle for Republicans.

Of course it isn't as simple as that. I don't mean that people with billions of dollars are literally taking children's piggy banks. It's about taxing one group with a certain amount of income and then charging another less or more. Relatively speaking. Then, looking at the numbers over a long period of time and seeing which group is taxed more. It's should be as simple as that, but there are other factors that have to be accounted for if people really want to say who's getting charged more without looking like they're just jealous. BranKetra

Ah okay.

i can think of one libertarian running, he is not polling too bad either.... rather consistent over all kinda like his record. surrealnumber5

I think he's unelectable. I would be thrilled to be wrong, though.

Union membership is decreasing in this country. If every state was a right to work state, I guarantee you union membership would plummet.

I personally think that the tax payers should have the power, not the unions.

airshocker

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]I personally think both your parties are made of idiots and that you pretty much need complete reform at this point to have a government that isn't FUBAR. That said I think the current Republican party are pretty much malicious in practice even if they aren't in intent. The democrats are just incompetent morons for the most part. US is too far leaning toward government control in the wrong places with corporate control in all the wrong places. I'm only picking a side that's closest to what works best which in this case would be a tax increase on the mega rich. You'd need a **** load of reform to get that to work out too though. I honestly think your founding fathers are rolling in their graves and probably spinning half way to the core of the earth at this point.airshocker

What works for you doesn't work for me. Getting government out of where it isn't needed and put into where it is works best for me. Right now libertarians are the only people who fit that bill for me, but I have to settle for Republicans.

I'll admit I'm biased -- New York born and bread, the son of a teacher and the grandson of a coal miner. I've got unions in my blood, and I've never had a high opinion of the right to work for less. That all being said, it's hard to argue with your last statement, thought I don't know if I agree with all of the implications it entails...CrimzonTide

I was born and raised in New York as well, though my parents are Republicans. My Mom works in the private sector, and my Dad is a state employee. He's in a union, and since I'm a cop I'm forced to be as well. I won't try and argue that unions don't have benefits for their members. They absolutely do. But I would give up those benefits in a heart-beat if I was allowed to opt out of paying union dues and leave.

I also won't pretend there won't be downsides to declawing unions, but I think it's necessary.

I'd actually recommend a set up like how Canada runs right now. Provincial government runs healthcare and education. Federal keeps tabs on everyone and we regulate the **** out of banks because we know they can do nasty stuff when let alone (see current recession). Until Harper (very conservative but the party under him isn't really) got in we were pretty good about personal freedoms and lack of government in our private lives. Crazy thing is the system works pretty good. We don't even pay attention to our government because they never really do anything too stupid, hell that's the reason why I bother with American politics: it's more interesting. I think it's kind of funny that in the US libertarians are right wing but here they're mostly left wing. Both your parties are heavy on the government control. It's just that Republicans are more for corporations doing what they want while democrats...don't really have plans. I should also mention the track record for unregulated corporations is poor at best.Ace6301

What isn't a government intrusion for you is one for me. You're used to a strong federal government taking care of you. I'm used to taking care of myself and don't want the Federal government's help.

If I had it my way, libertarians would be a major threat to the current system. I'm not naive, though. I have to pick the lesser of two evils. Do I pick a group that doesn't want to tax me, or pick a group that does? Because like it or not, the less money the government takes away from you, the more free you are.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] I'd actually recommend a set up like how Canada runs right now. Provincial government runs healthcare and education. Federal keeps tabs on everyone and we regulate the **** out of banks because we know they can do nasty stuff when let alone (see current recession). Until Harper (very conservative but the party under him isn't really) got in we were pretty good about personal freedoms and lack of government in our private lives. Crazy thing is the system works pretty good. We don't even pay attention to our government because they never really do anything too stupid, hell that's the reason why I bother with American politics: it's more interesting. I think it's kind of funny that in the US libertarians are right wing but here they're mostly left wing. Both your parties are heavy on the government control. It's just that Republicans are more for corporations doing what they want while democrats...don't really have plans. I should also mention the track record for unregulated corporations is poor at best.airshocker

What isn't a government intrusion for you is one for me. You're used to a strong federal government taking care of you. I'm used to taking care of myself and don't want the Federal government's help.

If I had it my way, libertarians would be a major threat to the current system. I'm not naive, though. I have to pick the lesser of two evils. Do I pick a group that doesn't want to tax me, or pick a group that does? Because like it or not, the less money the government takes away from you, the more free you are.

Nah I'd consider myself more free than any American.Ace6301

That's funny, since I would consider myself more free than any Canadian. :P

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]Nah I'd consider myself more free than any American.airshocker

That's funny, since I would consider myself more free than any Canadian. :P

Also my province just voted for a tax increase that also took away "entitlement" money. As in the people said "tax us more".Ace6301

That's great for you guys? My rent just went up as a result of an increase in property tax rates.

How's that patriot act working out for you. Those laws that prevent people from taking pictures of police officers too. That Louisiana money law. You have more government in your daily lives than we do. Your federal government is larger than ours too.Ace6301

The Patriot Act doesn't affect me in any way, shape or form. I take photos of Police all the time. andI don't live in Louisiana.

The rest of that would be different if I had it my way, but it doesn't really impact my freedom(except for being taxed more) in any meaningful way.

I honestly believe if there was a solution to our problems that required a .5% surcharge on those who make over a million dollars, the Republicans would be for it..

airshocker

I have no idea what event has happened over the last couple of years that would make you believe this. Serraph105

Because since November, almost nothing the Republicans have done made no sense to me. Democrats on the other hand...