untateve Posted December 1, 2010 Share Posted December 1, 2010 The simple answer is that roughly 50% of the population currently pays no federal income tax, once rebates, deductions and credits are calculated in. If everyone actually had to pay the same percentage, people would be a lot more particular about what the federal government spends our money on, and many of the programs that the dems use to purchase votes would be done away with. really? really? did you really type that it's the dems who use the programs to purchase votes and imply that the repubs don't do this? really? I shall retire to bedlam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted December 1, 2010 Share Posted December 1, 2010 really? really? did you really type that it's the dems who use the programs to purchase votes and imply that the repubs don't do this? really? I shall retire to bedlam. Both parties pander to their base and buy votes. It is the American way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted December 1, 2010 Share Posted December 1, 2010 really? really? did you really type that it's the dems who use the programs to purchase votes and imply that the repubs don't do this? really? I shall retire to bedlam. The surest way to insure that politicians are not allowed to buy votes is to reduce the size and scope of government. Historically which party has been in favor for larger government and more government services, and which has been in favor of smaller less intrusive government? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted December 1, 2010 Share Posted December 1, 2010 (edited) The surest way to insure that politicians are not allowed to buy votes is to reduce the size and scope of government. Historically which party has been in favor for larger government and more government services, and which has been in favor of smaller less intrusive government? Rhetorically? Or results wise? Didn't we just go through a period not too long ago where the small government conservatives controlled EVERY branch of the government? How did that work out? Edited December 1, 2010 by CaP'N GRuNGe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted December 1, 2010 Share Posted December 1, 2010 (edited) Rhetorically? Or results wise? Didn't we just go through a period not too long ago where the small government conservatives controlled EVERY branch of the government? How did that work out? Shrub was not a small government conservative by any stretch of the imagination. He was a social conservative, which honestly is the worst kind. Half the GOP was nothing more than the DNC Light until the TEA party started pointing out RINOs. Thus the reason I used the word historically. Edited December 1, 2010 by Perchoutofwater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted December 1, 2010 Share Posted December 1, 2010 The surest way to insure that politicians are not allowed to buy votes is to reduce the size and scope of government. Historically which party has been in favor for larger government and more government services, and which has been in favor of smaller less intrusive government? Perch you should be smarter than that. I am disappointed in you. the left panders by creating safety nets that sometimes exceed their intended floor. the right panders by giving more tax breaks to the wealthy. They both do this to buy votes. Please dont pretend this is specific to one party. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted December 1, 2010 Share Posted December 1, 2010 Perch you should be smarter than that. I am disappointed in you. the left panders by creating safety nets that sometimes exceed their intended floor. the right panders by giving more tax breaks to the wealthy. They both do this to buy votes. Please dont pretend this is specific to one party. Why would taxes need to be so high if the left wasn't constantly trying to increase the size of government? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted December 1, 2010 Share Posted December 1, 2010 Why would taxes need to be so high if the left wasn't constantly trying to increase the size of government? Because the right thinks we need a military 10 times larger than the rest of the world combined? GOMZ Mushroom Clouds!?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted December 1, 2010 Share Posted December 1, 2010 Why would taxes need to be so high if the left wasn't constantly trying to increase the size of government? Massive military comes to mind . . . Perch you are confusing what the Republicans say to get you to vote for them with their actual actions when in power. Remember that reagan raised taxes during his tenure, and expanded gubmnet . . a pattern that hasnt stopped since. So your feeble attempt to paint the Republicans as crusaders against big gubmnet and the Democrats as the evil power-hungry overlords is patently false. BOTH pay lip service to campaign promises before reverting to the same form all politicans take when in power . . . keeping themselves in power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
untateve Posted December 1, 2010 Share Posted December 1, 2010 The surest way to insure that politicians are not allowed to buy votes is to reduce the size and scope of government. Historically which party has been in favor for larger government and more government services, and which has been in favor of smaller less intrusive government? Screw historically. How about during my lifetime? Please point to the republican administration since 1962 that reduced the size and scope of government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted December 1, 2010 Share Posted December 1, 2010 Because the right thinks we need a military 10 times larger than the rest of the world combined? GOMZ Mushroom Clouds!?! Some do, though I'm not one of them. I do want the largest military in the world, but nowhere near the magnitude that it is. I'd be happy if we got rid of the majority of our overseas bases and stopped policing the world, as well as got out of the UN. Of course protecting us from foreign enemies is one of the main roles of government as laid out in our Constitution, unlike SS, Medicare, Obamacare, the Depts of Education, Energy, Health & Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Labor, Transportation, etc.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted December 1, 2010 Share Posted December 1, 2010 Tax cuts for the rich are non-existant. There are NO tax cuts on the table right now. There are basically only three options... either the current tax rates remain the same for everyone, or taxes will be raised on everyone, or taxes will be raised on some. Not the best economy to be raising taxes on anyone right now in my lowly opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted December 1, 2010 Share Posted December 1, 2010 Massive military comes to mind . . . Perch you are confusing what the Republicans say to get you to vote for them with their actual actions when in power. Remember that reagan raised taxes during his tenure, and expanded gubmnet . . a pattern that hasnt stopped since. So your feeble attempt to paint the Republicans as crusaders against big gubmnet and the Democrats as the evil power-hungry overlords is patently false. BOTH pay lip service to campaign promises before reverting to the same form all politicans take when in power . . . keeping themselves in power. Under which party has government grown the most? I agree that the GOP isn't great but it is a hell of a lot better than the alternative. For how long did Reagan enjoy a super majority? What portions of government did Reagan expand? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted December 1, 2010 Share Posted December 1, 2010 Screw historically. How about during my lifetime? Please point to the republican administration since 1962 that reduced the size and scope of government. In you life time who has expanded government more Republicans or Democrats? In your life time how many times have Republicans had a super majority and how many times have Democrats had super majorities? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted December 1, 2010 Share Posted December 1, 2010 this is interesting... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted December 1, 2010 Share Posted December 1, 2010 this is interesting... I'm not really sure what that tells us other than there are less civilians employed by the executive branch now (or at least under Shrub) than at any time int the last 40+ years. What I'd really like to see is a graph showing the number of overall federal employees per capita. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted December 1, 2010 Share Posted December 1, 2010 I'm not really sure what that tells us other than there are less civilians employed by the executive branch now (or at least under Shrub) than at any time int the last 40+ years. What I'd really like to see is a graph showing the number of overall federal employees per capita. Obviously it should trend downward based on population growth as you don't need the exact same ratio of federal employees per civilian for most of the governments tasks I would guess. Notice that the trend is steeper during the Clinton admin... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted December 2, 2010 Share Posted December 2, 2010 Obviously it should trend downward based on population growth as you don't need the exact same ratio of federal employees per civilian for most of the governments tasks I would guess. Notice that the trend is steeper during the Clinton admin... Not that it really matters but from 1980 to 1990 there was a 9.8% population increase. From 1990 to 2000 there was a 13.2% population increase. From 2000 to 2010 there was a 9.9% (est.) population increase, so it would make sense that it was steeper under Clinton as the population increased at a much greater rate under him than under Bush and Bush Light. Interestingly enough from 1930 to 1940, 1980 to 1990 and from 2000 to 2010 are the only decades in our countries history where we had less than 10% population growth. I wonder how much of that had to do with how the administrations during those years dealt with illegal aliens? I really don't know just something that came to my mind as a possible cause. Where i got my population info. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted December 2, 2010 Share Posted December 2, 2010 The surest way to insure that politicians are not allowed to buy votes is to reduce the size and scope of government. Nope. The surest way to insure that politicians are not allowed to buy votes is to centrally and publicly finance elections. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted December 2, 2010 Share Posted December 2, 2010 Nope. The surest way to insure that politicians are not allowed to buy votes is to centrally and publicly finance elections. Exactly. The stupid argumnet that somehow politicans cant be bought if the evil gubmnet was smaller is a dumb as a box of rocks. Perch, do you think that if a gubmnet is smaller like say . . . a local gubmnet . . . that somehow graft and buying votes DOESNT happen? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
untateve Posted December 2, 2010 Share Posted December 2, 2010 The simple answer is that roughly 50% of the population currently pays no federal income tax, once rebates, deductions and credits are calculated in. If everyone actually had to pay the same percentage, people would be a lot more particular about what the federal government spends our money on, and many of the programs that the dems use to purchase votes would be done away with. The surest way to insure that politicians are not allowed to buy votes is to reduce the size and scope of government. Historically which party has been in favor for larger government and more government services, and which has been in favor of smaller less intrusive government? In you life time who has expanded government more Republicans or Democrats? In your life time how many times have Republicans had a super majority and how many times have Democrats had super majorities? In the first post, it was the dems who use our money to purchase votes with their programs. In the next, the dems are in favor of a larger government and the repubs who have been in favor of smaller government. In the end, it's both parties are in favor of larger governments, as evidenced by their actions/behaviors, but the dems are more in favor of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.