spitzer on romney, taxes

[Danzig]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/spitzer/2...to_growth.html


and i've heard of grover norquist, more than once...but just who is he, and why did pols sign his pledge? but that's another topic...

thoughts, anyone, on spitzers take?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

and i've heard of grover norquist, more than once...but just who is he, and why did pols sign his pledge?

Grover is a lobbyist and a superpac owner.

Grover Norquist has been virtually singularly responsible for the record-setting inactivity of John Boehner's House, and the reason why our credit rating was ruined by the Tea Party.

Every Republican answers to Grover and Rush. Republicans being primaried right now are due to their lack of fealty to Grover.

The Republican Party signs the tax pledge of a lobbyist that created his "national financial plan" when he was 12 years old (Grover brags)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist

[Thepaindispenser]

Real credible source, a guy who bangs hookers with his socks on and who still thinks Keynesion economics works! Hahahahahaha

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Thepaindispenser

Real credible source, a guy who bangs hookers with his socks on and who still thinks Keynesion economics works! Hahahahahaha

Sources are only credible to Riot if they support her position.

[DaTruth]

Originally Posted by pointman

Sources are only credible to Riot if they support her position.

She would provide a link to the voices in her head if she could.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by DaTruth

She would provide a link to the voices in her head if she could.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Thepaindispenser

Real credible source, a guy who bangs hookers with his socks on and who still thinks Keynesion economics works! Hahahahahaha

i figured some would immediately mention spitzers past.

what that has to do with the points made i don't know.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i figured some would immediately mention spitzers past.

what that has to do with the points made i don't know.

You might have made the points using another source?

Spitzer should have disappeared in shame long ago. IMO

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

You might have made the points using another source?

Spitzer should have disappeared in shame long ago. IMO

look, i know the guy's rep. but i saw the article on slate, so i posted it. so, there may be others who have made those points-but i figured i'd put it up rather than look elsewhere to see if someone who didn't hire hookers had made the same argument. now, whether the source is a good guy or a bad guy notwithstanding-the facts are the facts in that article, aren't they?
so, sticking just to the points in the article, what are everyone's thoughts on what was said?


edit~come to think of it, i doubt it would matter who wrote it. the gist of it would still be ignored. i would imagine that many who post here have already made up their minds one way or the other.
i actually haven't yet-if i had to vote today, i'd probably vote for a third party candidate.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Danzig

look, i know the guy's rep. but i saw the article on slate, so i posted it. so, there may be others who have made those points-but i figured i'd put it up rather than look elsewhere to see if someone who didn't hire hookers had made the same argument. now, whether the source is a good guy or a bad guy notwithstanding-the facts are the facts in that article, aren't they?
so, sticking just to the points in the article, what are everyone's thoughts on what was said?


edit~come to think of it, i doubt it would matter who wrote it. the gist of it would still be ignored. i would imagine that many who post here have already made up their minds one way or the other.
i actually haven't yet-if i had to vote today, i'd probably vote for a third party candidate.

Making up ones mind would require thinking and weighing the issues. On this site it is mostly Bloods vs Crips decisions never come into play.

[geeker2]

Originally Posted by jms62

Making up ones mind would require thinking and weighing the issues. On this site it is mostly Bloods vs Crips decisions never come into play.

ROR !!

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

so, sticking just to the points in the article, what are everyone's thoughts on what was said?.

Fair Enough

I think a third of one's income is a fair enough cap for an income tax considering all of the other taxes one pays, State/Sales/Property/Utilities/Cable/Cell/Tolls/some casses City/
no matter what one's income is. Take out ALL deductions and allow those w/o access/means to a tax atty be on level ground with those that do.

I think the tax rates following WW II were obviously unique and using them as a justification to raising taxes today is disingenuous. We are not in a battle for our sovereignty

The Federal Government is involved far too much and being so big and clumsy can't help but trip over itself.

When our Federal Budget is $4 trillion and we have a total of 350 million people that comes to $11,400 per individual. Or for a family of 5, $57,000 per year! This is not sustainable no matter how much we tax the rich. When you consider roughly 150 million of the 350 million file taxes that yearly bill comes to $26,666 per person.

Pure and simple the government needs to be reduced by between 50%-70%
but that would require individual responsibility and that may be impossible to pull off.

The Sons of Liberty must be rolling in their graves with talks of 50% taxes what more 90%.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Fair Enough

I think a third of one's income is a fair enough cap for an income tax considering all of the other taxes one pays, State/Sales/Property/Utilities/Cable/Cell/Tolls/some casses City/
no matter what one's income is. Take out ALL deductions and allow those w/o access/means to a tax atty be on level ground with those that do.

I think the tax rates following WW II were obviously unique and using them as a justification to raising taxes today is disingenuous. We are not in a battle for our sovereignty

The Federal Government is involved far too much and being so big and clumsy can't help but trip over itself.

When our Federal Budget is $4 trillion and we have a total of 350 million people that comes to $11,400 per individual. Or for a family of 5, $57,000 per year! This is not sustainable no matter how much we tax the rich. When you consider roughly 150 million of the 350 million file taxes that yearly bill comes to $26,666 per person.

Pure and simple the government needs to be reduced by between 50%-70%
but that would require individual responsibility and that may be impossible to pull off.

The Sons of Liberty must be rolling in their graves with talks of 50% taxes what more 90%.

How about elimination of government pensions and make them 401K's like everyone else has for the last 30 years. How about and I know I will catch a rash of **** here but how about military pensions/police mentions starting at 65. There is so much ****ing waste in the system but those that are responsible for fixing the problem are benefitting from it so it will never be fixed.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Fair Enough

I think a third of one's income is a fair enough cap for an income tax considering all of the other taxes one pays, State/Sales/Property/Utilities/Cable/Cell/Tolls/some casses City/
no matter what one's income is. Take out ALL deductions and allow those w/o access/means to a tax atty be on level ground with those that do.

I think the tax rates following WW II were obviously unique and using them as a justification to raising taxes today is disingenuous. We are not in a battle for our sovereignty

The Federal Government is involved far too much and being so big and clumsy can't help but trip over itself.

When our Federal Budget is $4 trillion and we have a total of 350 million people that comes to $11,400 per individual. Or for a family of 5, $57,000 per year! This is not sustainable no matter how much we tax the rich. When you consider roughly 150 million of the 350 million file taxes that yearly bill comes to $26,666 per person.

Pure and simple the government needs to be reduced by between 50%-70%
but that would require individual responsibility and that may be impossible to pull off.

The Sons of Liberty must be rolling in their graves with talks of 50% taxes what more 90%.

your ideas aside, what do you think about romney's proposals, and how they add up? or don't add up? the facts remain, as frequent posts here have shown, that marginal tax rates are the lowest in decades and that the purported job increases haven't materialized with cuts in the wealthiests' taxes. the wealthiest are paying the lowest taxes in 80 years, yet job creation from those supposed job creators haven't materialized. meanwhile, debt and deficits have increased.
so, knowing all that, what do you think of romney's ideas?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by jms62

How about elimination of government pensions and make them 401K's like everyone else has for the last 30 years. How about and I know I will catch a rash of **** here but how about military pensions/police mentions starting at 65. There is so much ****ing waste in the system but those that are responsible for fixing the problem are benefitting from it so it will never be fixed.

retirement ages need altering, i've been saying that for some time. typically, military and police/fire depts have had full retirements at 20, sometimes 25 years. in rare cases, 30 years service is required.

when my father joined the d.c. police dept, you had to serve 30 years to retire. then it changed to 20, he received full retirement while i was still in high school. he was 43 years old. his retirement pay and benefits are something that many would turn pea green with envy if they saw them. last i heard, they'd raised retirement to 25 years service. considering the rates of return any more on pension plans, it's no surprise that cities are in a tremendous bind. they used to make money while offering decent pensions-those days have been over for years now. yet no one in the govt agencies, city agencies, etc changed with the times. as interest dropped, they didn't change to go with those hits on pensions. now they're in a huge hole.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by jms62

How about elimination of government pensions and make them 401K's like everyone else has for the last 30 years. How about and I know I will catch a rash of **** here but how about military pensions/police mentions starting at 65. There is so much ****ing waste in the system but those that are responsible for fixing the problem are benefitting from it so it will never be fixed.

I completely concur and it has worked in Wisconsin, by just making public employees contribute to their own pensions not cutting them fully.

Public employees should also not be allowed to double dip or have two or three pensions.

To receive a military pension one has to serve 20 yrs for 50% of the average of your top 36 months in pay and up to 100% for 40 years in. I think if you serve this country for 20 years at FAR FAR under what a public or private sector employee would be paid you deserve every cent of that pension. What more 40 years?

The teachers' union situation is the polar opposite of the military. IMO

[jms62]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

I completely concur and it has worked in Wisconsin, by just making public employees contribute to their own pensions not cutting them fully.

Public employees should also not be allowed to double dip or have two or three pensions.

To receive a military pension one has to serve 20 yrs for 50% of the average of your top 36 months in pay and up to 100% for 40 years in. I think if you serve this country for 20 years at FAR FAR under what a public or private sector employee would be paid you deserve every cent of that pension. What more 40 years?

The teachers' union situation is the polar opposite of the military. IMO

Obviously you do not understand me. I am fine with the amounts of the pensions I just think they should collect it starting at 65 no in their 40's.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Danzig

retirement ages need altering, i've been saying that for some time. typically, military and police/fire depts have had full retirements at 20, sometimes 25 years. in rare cases, 30 years service is required.

when my father joined the d.c. police dept, you had to serve 30 years to retire. then it changed to 20, he received full retirement while i was still in high school. he was 43 years old. his retirement pay and benefits are something that many would turn pea green with envy if they saw them. last i heard, they'd raised retirement to 25 years service. considering the rates of return any more on pension plans, it's no surprise that cities are in a tremendous bind. they used to make money while offering decent pensions-those days have been over for years now. yet no one in the govt agencies, city agencies, etc changed with the times. as interest dropped, they didn't change to go with those hits on pensions. now they're in a huge hole.

My father was a police officer in NJ, joined the force at 23, got credit for 4 years of Air Force service in Germany and retired with a full pension at age 41. Hasn't worked since other than the occasional kitchen job since he likes to cook but always gets paid in $. Started collecting SS two years back, lives on the water in FL without a care in the world.
I do not condone this as being appropriate.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

My father was a police officer in NJ, joined the force at 23, got credit for 4 years of Air Force service in Germany and retired with a full pension at age 41. Hasn't worked since other than the occasional kitchen job since he likes to cook but always gets paid in $. Started collecting SS two years back, lives on the water in FL without a care in the world.
I do not condone this as being appropriate.

yeah, my father is 71 and still works part time at the golf course where he lives. it's absurd, just like military pensions. and just like full ss paid when you turn 65-and a loser like my bro in law will collect full benefits with the bare minimum worked. it's all absolutely ridiculous. there are so many real issues that need addressing, but all the pols in dc (yes, ALL of them, regardless of party affiliation) work only on keeping their seats. they kick all problems down the road.
don't work on debt, just keep raising the ceiling (both parties).
don't do an ss fix (both parties) just keep saying it only needs minor tweaking, but don't even effing do the tweaking.
don't address medicare/caid-just cut payments to doctors, while doing nothing about fraud, waste and abuse.
don't do anything about defense (both parties) because the contractors provide jobs in their hometowns, and that might cost votes.

what are (again, repeating myself) the two biggest drains on the federal govt? defense, and 'entitlements'. not foreign aid, not any of the other depts in the federal govt.
so, one would have to assume, that if those two areas were properly addressed, the debt/deficit issues would be resolved.

as for taxes-the rich are paying less in taxes than they have in decades. as their share has gone down, the supposed jump in hiring has NOT occurred. those cuts haven't worked! yet people want to continue them. why? i'll tell you why.
because the rich control the purse strings. the two big parties need cut off at the knees.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by jms62

Obviously you do not understand me. I am fine with the amounts of the pensions I just think they should collect it starting at 65 no in their 40's.

and no double dipping. another practice that just pisses me off.