A Rational Discussion on the Issues?

[Ame®icano]

I guess I just don't understand why it is OK that someone who makes $100,000.00 a year should pay 6.2% payroll tax on 100% of their income, yet someone who makes over $250,000.00 pays on less than 50%.

Let me try this one.

Social security benefits have their limits and regardless how much money you make, you cant get more from social security then you put in over the time.

When talking about fairness, if you remove cap on payroll tax, woudn't be fair to remove cap on social security benefits and give to rich equivalent in social security based on how much money they put in.

So if cap is (rounded) $100K, your SS check is (wild guess) $1500. If you remove cap on rich and tax them across the board, would be fair to still pay them social security just $1500 or maybe more, since they paid more taxes.

No, Obama wants to remove the cap on payrol and keep the cap on SS benefits. Fair enough?

 

[dilloduck]

What we need to do is stop and consider what we want in a candidate, rather than we just don't like their party. That is, if we are being honest to ourselves.

For example, are Earmarks a bad thing or a good thing? Maybe it is the responsibility of a politician to grab all he can for his constituents. Therefor McCain might be considered lazy. Does a politician who spend all his time shaking down the money tree for his district really do that much of a disservice?

There are a lot of inter related issues in the drilling debate. The Republicans have framed it in terms of national security. That is not the end of it. The Democrats have framed it in terms of responsible stewardship. And that is not the end of that either.

My personal preference is to ride a bike to work. I live two miles away, and I just like riding my bike. I am a bit of an evangelist, as I think everyone else who can ought to as well. I am nearly 50, so it isn't that hard. I do my shopping usually on the way home. I am now single, so I only have to shop for me. Shopping for more people on the bike would be harder, I know.

Do we really need to send all that cash that we spend on oil to kleptocratic theocracies like Iran and Saudi Arabia? Do we really, for that matter, need to make a mess of out our environment either?

The reality I see is that Petroleum is still substantially cheaper than biofuels. the folks who do chemestry are working really hard to change that, but they haven't yet. So that is the choice we have to make, rationally.

I personally think spending money on regimes like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, etc etc is dangerous. the caribou are just going to have to live with it. But that is my feeling on the matter, Your mileage may vary.

But we have to recognize these are both valid choices and we have to come down on one or the other. It really is your call

This maybe an oversimplification but doesn't it come down to the fact that we need income---we need to decide the optimal (moral? ) way of doing that and then prioritize our spending ?

 

[Chris]

We had lower Year over Year (YoY) spending under Clinton too. It was the combination of lower spending and higher taxes that generated a surplus. Obama isn't going to cut spending and McCain will only focus on a quarter of one percent represented by "bad" earmarks. There is no shot at a balanced budget under either man.

Obama is going to cut spending by $200 billion dollars a year.

He is going to get us out of Iraq.

 

[glockmail]

We had lower Year over Year (YoY) spending under Clinton too. It was the combination of lower spending and higher taxes that generated a surplus. Obama isn't going to cut spending and McCain will only focus on a quarter of one percent represented by "bad" earmarks. There is no shot at a balanced budget under either man.

Because the money gets spent to the federal government for lease payments, and for US workers and equipment, and does not get spent enriching governments and dictators that don't exactly have our best interest at heart.

 

[glockmail]

Obama is going to cut spending by $200 billion dollars a year.

He is going to get us out of Iraq.

And the oceans will no longer rise and the planet will begin to heal itself.

 

[editec]

Let me try this one.

Social security benefits have their limits and regardless how much money you make, you cant get more from social security then you put in over the time.

Yes

When talking about fairness, if you remove cap on payroll tax, woudn't be fair to remove cap on social security benefits and give to rich equivalent in social security based on how much money they put in.

Not a bad idea.

So if cap is (rounded) $100K, your SS check is (wild guess) $1500. If you remove cap on rich and tax them across the board, would be fair to still pay them social security just $1500 or maybe more, since they paid more taxes.

The CAP on SSI is too low.

No, Obama wants to remove the cap on payrol and keep the cap on SS benefits. Fair enough?

A complaint that this liberal thinks has merit.

While I do believe there should be some cap, I certainly think it's set artificially low, now.

Somebody who, under Obama's plan, contributes huge amounts of money to the system deserves to get back more of that money than they currently do.