Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

The comparisons are growing...

Change...I don't thing so...


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01328.html

Col Hogan wrote:The comparisons are growing...

Change...I don't thing so...


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01328.html

elected with a mandate to make fundamental changes to the tax code... he's doing just that. the resentment from the privileged class that they are now going to be asked to sacrifice is hilarious. maybe when they have to wait a month to buy that new lexus they'll understand a little better what it's been like to watch your real earnings decline (like most of us under 65k/year have since 2000)

He inherited a mess that Bush left. No one could handle the situation without some problems.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:The comparisons are growing...

Change...I don't thing so...


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01328.html

elected with a mandate to make fundamental changes to the tax code... he's doing just that. the resentment from the privileged class that they are now going to be asked to sacrifice is hilarious. maybe when they have to wait a month to buy that new lexus they'll understand a little better what it's been like to watch your real earnings decline (like most of us under 65k/year have since 2000)

Well, I'm not "privileged"...didn't know working hard and being successful was a privilege...

And now, I should sacrifice to pay for those who make bad decisions???

Not the American way I learned in school...

nope... they should sacrifice to pay for the war... same as most of the rest of us are or have been.

don't know too many children of wealth and privilege who sign up to go and fight... (yes i know some do...)

it's really not a problem, unless you pull down over 250k/year... and if that's the case... you are a person of wealth and privilege

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:nope... they should sacrifice to pay for the war... same as most of the rest of us are or have been.

don't know too many children of wealth and privilege who sign up to go and fight... (yes i know some do...)

it's really not a problem, unless you pull down over 250k/year... and if that's the case... you are a person of wealth and privilege

No one gave up anything for the war...Bush made sure of that by borrowing the money...

So why should one small group pay for that and others don't...that's class warfare...the very thing the Dems accused the Reps of doing...

Oh...I get it...don't do as I do, do as I say.....

And riddle me this...who picked $250K as the designation as a person of wealth and privilege...what's so different between that person and one who makes $249k...what privileges do they earn at the $250k level...

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
elected with a mandate to make fundamental changes to the tax code... he's doing just that. the resentment from the privileged class that they are now going to be asked to sacrifice is hilarious. maybe when they have to wait a month to buy that new lexus they'll understand a little better what it's been like to watch your real earnings decline (like most of us under 65k/year have since 2000)

The lower class is also going to sacrifice more, if that's possible. Private industries that hire the lower class, is going to sacrifice jobs to pay for Obamanomics. High taxes on energy means higher heating and cooling bills for the lower class. These increase put a dent in the privileged classes bank account, but can do huge damage to the lower classes bank account. Just hope there are enough government and union jobs created by these stimulus plans to cover everyone affected.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:nope... they should sacrifice to pay for the war... same as most of the rest of us are or have been.

don't know too many children of wealth and privilege who sign up to go and fight... (yes i know some do...)

it's really not a problem, unless you pull down over 250k/year... and if that's the case... you are a person of wealth and privilege

Depending on where you live. Another inherent problem with taxing people's income.

You can't multiply wealth by dividing it. The Robin Hood mentality will not solve our problems. We don't have enough "privileged" people in America to solve our monetary problems. The fundamental changes that need to be made are with the government and it's power grab in the 21st century.

ASUMountaineer wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:nope... they should sacrifice to pay for the war... same as most of the rest of us are or have been.

don't know too many children of wealth and privilege who sign up to go and fight... (yes i know some do...)

it's really not a problem, unless you pull down over 250k/year... and if that's the case... you are a person of wealth and privilege

Depending on where you live. Another inherent problem with taxing people's income.

You beat me to the point, ASUMountaieer...but to expand on it...

$250K in Los Angeles...New York...Chicago...Washington DC...is not the same as $250K in Des Moines...Missoula...or Keene NH...

To arbitraily pick that number and declare any one making that or above "wealthy and privileged" ignores reality in this country...

slycat wrote:He inherited a mess that Bush left. No one could handle the situation without some problems.

The stock market never shit their pants under Bush like they are now under Obama.

i think obama is going far the other way talking about we are losing afganstain and talking to the taliban

you're right as to 250k being different in different places... but you have to have a demarkation point... 250k is more than 6x what the average American makes in a year (roughly 40k conservatively)

we disagree on economics... i'm Keynesian... i believe in it... i know you guys don't... which is fine, but as was said elsewhere the Social Darwinism approach has failed.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:you're right as to 250k being different in different places... but you have to have a demarkation point... 250k is more than 6x what the average American makes in a year (roughly 40k conservatively)

we disagree on economics... i'm Keynesian... i believe in it... i know you guys don't... which is fine, but as was said elsewhere the Social Darwinism approach has failed.

Both ideologies have failed, throughout the globe. That tends to happen when government "tinkers" in things it shouldn't. (IE: retirement plans, marriage)

I read an article today about the Chinese approach to monetary policy. It said that it required citizens to save a considerable portion of their income. The currency is not floated on the market; therefore not subject to speculators.

This recipe allows China to have substantial amounts of capitol to invest in foreign treasuries. We see it now as they buy up our debt.

I know nothing more about it than what I posted but want to learn more. Does anyone know more about it?

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:The comparisons are growing...

Change...I don't thing so...


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01328.html

elected with a mandate to make fundamental changes to the tax code... he's doing just that. the resentment from the privileged class that they are now going to be asked to sacrifice is hilarious. maybe when they have to wait a month to buy that new lexus they'll understand a little better what it's been like to watch your real earnings decline (like most of us under 65k/year have since 2000)

The only question I have TTBF is what fundamental changes has he made, so far? He said he is raising taxes on the top 5% (mostly by letting the Bush tax cuts expire). However, that's not a fundamental change in the tax code, just a tax raise. To me, a fundamental change would include overhauling the IRS, changing the way to calculate the tax, getting a new tax system (different from income). So far, I haven't seen any fundamental changes.

raising on the top 5 lowering on the bottom 95 - as promised. in my view it's a part of a fundamental shift in policy that takes a "bottom up" view of the situation rather than "trickle down" view.

as for fundamental recalculation of the irs etc as you've talked about... that's a whole different critter imo

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:raising on the top 5 lowering on the bottom 95 - as promised. in my view it's a part of a fundamental shift in policy that takes a "bottom up" view of the situation rather than "trickle down" view.

as for fundamental recalculation of the irs etc as you've talked about... that's a whole different critter imo

Oh, I agree. But, he also promised to make the tax brackets back to where they were in the 90s. That is what he has done. It doesn't raise my taxes, and that's not my beef. Fundamental change, when I hear that I think of something GRAND. This is a change in tax theory from a Republican to a Democrat...not earth shattering IMO. We'll see if it works.

I certainly would like my taxes to go down, but I'd rather have control over my taxes than working for a living and giving it up. I have big issues with an income tax, clearly , but that's another discussion for another day.

Col Hogan wrote:

ASUMountaineer wrote:
Depending on where you live. Another inherent problem with taxing people's income.

You beat me to the point, ASUMountaieer...but to expand on it...

$250K in Los Angeles...New York...Chicago...Washington DC...is not the same as $250K in Des Moines...Missoula...or Keene NH...

To arbitraily pick that number and declare any one making that or above "wealthy and privileged" ignores reality in this country...

Not only is $250K not the same from a geographic perspective it also doesn't take into account other considerations such as children. A couple making $250K without children is much better off than a couple with children. Now you can argue that the couple chose to have children and you'd be right but you could then apply the same argument to the guy working at a 7-11 who chose to drop out of high school. If they shouldn't get a break for having children than why should he get a break because he's working in a deadend job? It also matters how the couple earns the $250K. Do both spouses work or just one? A two income family will in most cases spend considerably more on childcare than a single earner family. A two income family with two kids in any of those locations making $250K is middle class.

The $250K is an arbitrary line that is being used not because it makes rational sense but because it can be used to pander to the base and increase support. Anyone who truly believes that the Obama administration is doing this (or that the Bush administration did nearly the opposite) in order to advance some noble social or economic cause is delusional.