Official Republicans In Congress Are Idiots Thread

[Balloon guy 158]

This is backward. It is not other people's money to begin with. Any notion that reducing my tax burden is somehow a subsidy to me from anyone else is just ridiculous. The only way this would make sense is if we are subservient to the government and owe them our livelihood, which they then dole back to us as wise bureaucrats see fit. That's not how it works.

It works that way in Canada.After the other way created a stable government of course.

[hblask 1]

Two because it shows the hypocrisy of everybody involved in this debate. Cut and cut some more what that guy wants but don't touch what I find important or what benefits me. If the fiscal situation is at a crisis level then everything has to be on the table for discussion.

Again, this is just Orwellian double-speak, like the WH spokesman who lately called a tax increase something like "reductions in spending via the tax code".It's NOT the government's money for us to beg and ask favors. They beg us, and when we say no, they are supposed to go away. Well, we've said no, but they keep spending anyway. This is on them, and they need to fix it by listening to us.

[Balloon guy 158]

Again, this is just Orwellian double-speak, like the WH spokesman who lately called a tax increase something like "reductions in spending via the tax code".It's NOT the government's money for us to beg and ask favors. They beg us, and when we say no, they are supposed to go away. Well, we've said no, but they keep spending anyway. This is on them, and they need to fix it by listening to us.

It really is amazing that Bob is taking this current position.He is arguing that private giving to help people is bad because it prevents the government from having the money to help people.He is arguing that giving the money to rich people when they build things for the community is wrong because it prevents the government from having money to build things in communities.He is arguing that letting billionaires spend money that stimulates the local economy is bad because it prevents the government from having the money they need to stimulate the local economy.In times past Bob has been a positive source for me to see the rational side of the opposing camp's ideas. It has helped me re-think some of my positions.Now he is reinforcing my belief that liberalism is a mental disorder. I think we need to give Bob a time out. Just until he can practice conservatism in his personal life long enough to get back some sanity so he can continue to support liberal agendas rationally.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

This is backward. It is not other people's money to begin with. Any notion that reducing my tax burden is somehow a subsidy to me from anyone else is just ridiculous. The only way this would make sense is if we are subservient to the government and owe them our livelihood, which they then dole back to us as wise bureaucrats see fit. That's not how it works.

No your way of thinking about it is backwards.You can spend your money any way you want but why should one way of spending it also be a tax benefit. You're not being logically consistent. If you want low tax rates that distort the economy in the smallest way then you should want little or no tax deductions.Why should somebody pay less tax on the exact same amount of income just because they decided to spend some of their income on giving it to a Church while somebody else decides to give the money to their sick degenerate Brother to pay off his gambling debts. The government has no right to favor one type of spending over the other if you're going to be logically consistent in your Libertarian beliefs.If you don't want the government making your decisions for you then you shouldn't want the tax system to favor one type of spending over another.Now encouraging charitable spending might be in society's best interests but since you don't want the government making those sorts of decisions for people they shouldn't be encouraging charitable giving through the tax code.

[Balloon guy 158]

No your way of thinking about it is backwards.You can spend your money any way you want but why should one way of spending it also be a tax benefit. You're not being logically consistent. If you want low tax rates that distort the economy in the smallest way then you should want little or no tax deductions.Why should somebody pay less tax on the exact same amount of income just because they decided to spend some of their income on giving it to a Church while somebody else decides to give the money to their sick degenerate Brother to pay off his gambling debts. The government has no right to favor one type of spending over the other if you're going to be logically consistent in your Libertarian beliefs.If you don't want the government making your decisions for you then you shouldn't want the tax system to favor one type of spending over another.Now encouraging charitable spending might be in society's best interests but since you don't want the government making those sorts of decisions for people they shouldn't be encouraging charitable giving through the tax code.

You can donate $10K to a family member each year and pay no taxes on it. So BAM you picked a bad example.Encouraging people to give to help people is EXACTLY the kind of thing we should want our government doing. Taking so much money that people give less is EXACTLY what we don't want in a government.Government: We need your money so we can give a tiny portion of it to help the poor.People; What if we give the money to a smaller and better run organization that will result in more money going to the poor?Government: Then we will let you give up to half your income this way and save 39% ( top marginal rate )Current way:Rich guy gives $1 million to help poor. Government gets $400,000 less than if he paid taxesPoor get $1 million less 5% administration fees = $950,000Your way:Rich guy gets taxed on $1 million, government gets $400,000Rich guy gives $600,000 to poor with no write offsPoor person gets $400,000 less 83% administration fees plus Rich guys contribution = $668,000Hello liberalism, you feel good and stick it to the rich while the poor get 50% less money and count it as a win

[BaseJester 1]

You can donate $10K to a family member each year and pay no taxes on it. So BAM you picked a bad example.

"You" still pay income tax on the $10k. The family member doesn't pay income tax on the receipt of the gift, but there's no deduction for the donor.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

You can donate $10K to a family member each year and pay no taxes on it. So BAM you picked a bad example.

Correct me if I'm wrong but you don't get a reduction in your taxes by giving that money away your relative just isn't hit with a gift tax.In Canada we don't do stupid things like tax gifts. We can give anybody we want as much money as we want and the tax man doesn't care.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

http://www.businessinsider.com/alan-simpso...tiations-2011-7Alan Simpson is pissed at his fellow Republicans.

Simpson saved some of his harshest criticisms for Republicans, saying their stance on revenues is baffling. "The stuff that’s going on in my party, where the -– pettiness overcomes the patriotism -– it’s just disgusting to me," he told ABC News. "Reagan raised taxes. We’ve never had less revenue to run this country since the Korean war."Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/alan-simpso...7#ixzz1RwXMfGNb

[brvheart 1,752]

Let's tax the rich corporations. That will solve our problems.Oh wait.I've got it. Let's just make a law that says they can't move, and they can't make a profit.

[hblask 1]

No your way of thinking about it is backwards.

Oh yeah, well, you're a poopy pants and your feet smell.

You can spend your money any way you want but why should one way of spending it also be a tax benefit. You're not being logically consistent. If you want low tax rates that distort the economy in the smallest way then you should want little or no tax deductions.

I think the theory is that 1. helping people is good, 2. private charities are way more efficient and effective, and 3. the more private giving we encourage, the less government interference we need. These are all valid points.I think it is a continuum, with targeted tax breaks for politically favored companies is on one end of the spectrum, and general deductions that help everyone are on the other. Charitable giving is way closer to the latter. If you want to argue that there should be NO deductions for anything... that's a pretty radical statement. For me, if tax rates are high enough that deductions affect anyone's decision, then taxes are too high.

Why should somebody pay less tax on the exact same amount of income just because they decided to spend some of their income on giving it to a Church while somebody else decides to give the money to their sick degenerate Brother to pay off his gambling debts. The government has no right to favor one type of spending over the other if you're going to be logically consistent in your Libertarian beliefs.

It's worse than that, if it's too much, the degenerate brother-in-law owes taxes.

If you don't want the government making your decisions for you then you shouldn't want the tax system to favor one type of spending over another.Now encouraging charitable spending might be in society's best interests but since you don't want the government making those sorts of decisions for people they shouldn't be encouraging charitable giving through the tax code.

Yeah, you are probably correct on this narrow point, but again, it's probably the least of the problems in the tax code, especially if it keeps more money from being wasted by the govt. But yeah, social engineering in general is a bad idea. In this case, it's a tradeoff between giving the people who say we need a welfare state more ammunition vs the minor social engineering of making broad classes of giving desirable. I don't like either, but the latter seems less objectionable.

[Balloon guy 158]

"You" still pay income tax on the $10k. The family member doesn't pay income tax on the receipt of the gift, but there's no deduction for the donor.

Correct me if I'm wrong but you don't get a reduction in your taxes by giving that money away your relative just isn't hit with a gift tax.In Canada we don't do stupid things like tax gifts. We can give anybody we want as much money as we want and the tax man doesn't care.

Silly boys.Rich people set up charitable trusts, then 'promise' to give the trusts X amount of money, which they write off their taxes THAT year. They are obligated to actually give the money eventually, in the mean time they hire their children to 'work' the trust as managers. Receiving salaries. Their children are allowed up to $1 million in life time 'gifts', which can be given in increments over any period of time.When the donation to the trust is stocks, the trust allows a 6% per year tax free income to come out of that trust. So dump $100mm of stock into a charitable trust, then take out $6 million a year tax free. Give that anywhere you want.The ultra wealthy don't live in the same world as us.

[Balloon guy 158]

In Canada we don't do stupid things like tax gifts. We can give anybody we want as much money as we want and the tax man doesn't care.

The Canadian tax man has different issues, keeping the wheel barrel of money balanced as he leaves your house for instance.

[BaseJester 1]

They are obligated to actually give the money eventually, in the mean time they hire their children to 'work' the trust as managers. Receiving salaries.

Assuming this bit of tax fraud works (and I trust you that it does), the children would still be paying taxes on their salary, albeit at a much lower rate but at least paying social security on those wages.

[Balloon guy 158]

Assuming this bit of tax fraud works (and I trust you that it does),

Link

the children would still be paying taxes on their salary, albeit at a much lower rate but at least paying social security on those wages.

And as Henry pointed out, so would the alcoholic brother.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

LinkAnd as Henry pointed out, so would the alcoholic brother.

I said degenerate gambler, my fictitious family aren't drunks.

[Balloon guy 158]

I said degenerate gambler, my fictitious family aren't drunks.

Yet...Wait till they find out about the pretend world they live in where the government gets to decide which charities get operating money and which don't/

[BaseJester 1]

And as Henry pointed out, so would the alcoholic brother.

On $10k he wouldn't.

[solderz 0]

On $10k he wouldn't.

It's actually 13k a year that can be gifted to a family member without being taxed, not 10k. Hasn't been ten for a while.

[brvheart 1,752]

Bob is very right.Obama has offered an excellent offer to congress. Republicans and Democrats should take it and, in doing so, simultaneously raise the debt ceiling (which is 100% necessary, anyone who tells you otherwise is wasting your time) and reduce the deficit.It'll be interesting and very telling to see how things play out. I think the next few week will have (or should have) a major effect on next year's election. They'll demonstrate in a very real way who in Washington is willing to get things done, to compromise, and to look forward to the future. And it'll show who has fallen so deep into their own fundamentalism that they would sacrifice the well-being of this country for symbolic points.

More proof that this is not true (at least, how you meant it):Only 22% of the country wants the debt ceiling to be raised. Like I said, raising it will be political suicide for the republicans.

[BaseJester 1]

It's actually 13k a year that can be gifted to a family member without being taxed, not 10k. Hasn't been ten for a while.

"It" is the hypothetical $10k that BG asserted could be "donated" to a hypothetical family member tax free.By "donated", he meant laundered through a fraudulent salary from a non-profit, not given.$10k is less than $13kI lack enthusiasm for entertaining further corrections to my post.

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

I lack enthusiasm for entertaining further corrections to my post.

I liked this.

[mrdannyg 274]

More proof that this is not true (at least, how you meant it):Only 22% of the country wants the debt ceiling to be raised. Like I said, raising it will be political suicide for the republicans.

Unless it coincides with budget changes, which is the whole basis of their argument. That poll does a good job showing that the people answering the poll questions have no idea what they are talking about. Thankfully, the fact that 1/3 of the people could not state an opinion on something with the potential to drastically effect them makes that pretty obvious. Surprising results too! Republicans agree with Republicans, Democrats agree with Democrats, and independents are uncertain.

[mk 11]

More proof that this is not true (at least, how you meant it):Only 22% of the country wants the debt ceiling to be raised. Like I said, raising it will be political suicide for the republicans.

dear sweet christ, brvso 78% of the constituency are retarded, have no concept whatsoever of what the debt ceiling means, what capping it will result in, and have bought into the tirelessly snake-oil-sold myth which proclaims the gop leadership is comprised of men of principle rather than infantile men of bile who are playing politics with the country's credit rating, which if tarnished will obviously raise the debt burden enormously for generations to come. LET'S BOW TO THE WISHES OF THESE FUCKING RETARDS, CANTOR. GOOD CALL!

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

That's, like, not what he was saying at all.He even bolded what he was responding to, which was the effect it would have on elections.Edit: I always enjoy your enthusiasm though.

[SilentSnow 1]

so 78% of the constituency are retarded, have no concept whatsoever of what the debt ceiling means, what capping it will result in, and have bought into the tirelessly snake-oil-sold myth which proclaims the gop leadership is comprised of men of principle rather than infantile men of bile who are playing politics with the country's credit rating, which if tarnished will obviously raise the debt burden enormously for generations to come. LET'S BOW TO THE WISHES OF THESE FUCKING RETARDS, CANTOR. GOOD CALL!

That pretty much sums it up. The US has problems, but they are definitely solvable if we make reasonable changes. Unfortunately a significant portion of the population is so stupid/misguided that they can be counted on for nothing, other than to sabotage the US further. Not raising the debt ceiling would be the equivalent of cutting off your arm because you have a paper cut. No sane person could seriously advocate it. If you want to fix the debt, then change the budget that gets made EVERY SINGLE YEAR. The debt ceiling law is absolutely absurd and needs to be repealed immediately.