Previous -4 - 0
I stand corrected on the repeal issue. Here's the bracket from 1985: $0 - $3,540 0% $3,540 - $5,720 11% $5,720 - $7,910 12% $7,910 - $12,390 14% $12,390 - $16,650 16% $16,650 - $21,020 18% $21,020 - $25,600 22% $25,600 - $31,120 25% $31,120 - $36,630 28% $36,630 - $47,670 33% $47,670 - $62,450 38% $62,450 - $89,090 42% $89,090 - $113,860 45% $113,860 - $169,020 49% $169,020 - and over 50% You're better off today, friend.
You need 2/3 to repeal a law, correct? Not seeing either side get this. Taxes - Assume I make $100,000. In which year do I pay the LEAST taxes (income, SS, health)? 1955 (Eisenhower), 1972 (Nixon), 1984 (Reagan), or Obama 2012? Answer - you'll pay less today, brother. But you are correct. Being socialist is about spending as much as it's about taxes. But I have to ask, in which year did we become 'socialist' according to the graph? Can you pinpoint it? I can't. http://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/2012/06/Federal_Spending_Bush_Vs_Obama.png
First of all, Romney is not going to repeal Obamacare. Secondly, Romney says he'll get rid of "tax loopholes." Which ones, he's yet to clarify. If he touches credits for dependents or home-buyers, I get hit directly. But let's say I'd pay less taxes under Romney. Is a couple thousand $ out of a +6 figure salary enough to say that these guys are on opposite sides of a divide? Under Reagan, we paid over 50% effective tax rate! Was Reagan a socialist? What does "socialist" mean to you? Is it medicare? Is it social security? Is it the GI bill that made housing affordable post WWII? Look at the graph and then try to tell me that Obama has socialist policies. http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/04/us-tax-rates-1916-2010/
Obama and Romney may be on opposite sides in terms of rhetoric but not in terms of policy. I'm right smack in the middle class and I stand to pay MORE taxes under Romney than under Obama. The problem with America right now is that people are so focused on the supposed ideological split between left and right that they fail to realize that neither Obama or Romney are extremists; they're both right in the middle and there is no public policy that's going to sway the tides of this economy. Obama is not curbing growth and Romney does not have the power to spur it. The proposed policies from each side are essentially identical in every way that really matters. Please stop the vitriol.
In response to:

Sippin' on Coal and Rum

evan43 Wrote: Apr 02, 2012 5:11 PM
If excavating natural, non-renewable resources is the end of us, bring it on now. Creating laws to slow the inevitable only creates economic inefficiency and keeps alive the claim that we can continue along this same path. Real change in the way we use energy can only come when the private sector leads the charge, which will only happen when there is demand for alternatives, which will only happen once the market-driven price of oil jumps too high to be sustainable. Which it will. In time. Anyone who says this can last forever is an idiot. But by prematurely stemming the tide, liberals shoot themselves in the foot by fear-mongering about something that hasn't happened yet. Move out the way and let it happen.
Previous -4 - 0