http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2010-05-10-taxes_N.htm

Historically low rate of taxation, and still the GOP calls the government 'socialist'. Get fucking real.

there aren't any palatable choices in that race--things aren't much better in Canada, but at least our major left-wing party actually IS kind of left wing... Obama is better than the Republicans on social issues, but he hasn't done a thing to promote wealth redistribution (which is the sine qua non of leftist politics) , and he isn't going to...

I watched the Canadian leader debate and took a drink of beer every time Harper said "let's be clear" or "let me be clear".

"@Santa - There is no arguing that his health care plan is UNpopular. Numerous poles have shown that to be the case and that his approval rating is dropping more and more every quarter."

Actually Ive read the exact opposite. The Quinnipiac poll has a majority favoring repeal, while the AP pole and the Marist poll have a plurality supporting either leaving it as it is or expanding it as of January. Also the numbers favoring repeal are shrinking.

As far as the war in Afghanistan - would you rather have let Al-Quaida get away with the WTC/Pentagon attacks and the world appear weak when it comes to terrorism? While the UN didn't officially act in this conflict, it didn't have two resolution (1368 and 1373) which made it abundantly clear that the NATO nations had tacit approval. And while we are on that, the US was not the only nation in Afghanistan. It is a full NATO conflict which means most of Europe, Canada, the US, and several former Soviet states are involved to some degree as they are members of NATO.

Al Queda hasn't got away with it as it is? But I didn't say that I didn't at one point support the war, but how are you going to say that Obama is responsible for the debt we are in when Republicans started two wars in the past decade with obviously no plan to resolve them? Overall I don't see what your point is on this issue at all.

Afghanistan offered to hand over Bin Laden if proof of guilt was provided, that offer was rejected. The carpet bombers love a good carpet bombing. 10 years later, Al Qaeda has been strengthened and OBL hasn't been found. Not even the Taliban has been destroyed. What a smashing success.

@Putin - that is so funny... It's is a skewed number because it is an average. When 10% of people are out of work, the average tax bill goes down because the average person is in a lower tax bracket. I'm paying significantly more (or will be when I get my first check) than 9.something percent taxes. But last month, on unemployment, The total withheld was 14%, and had I spent an entire year on unemployment (and some people have been on it that long), I'd have paid almost nothing as nearly all of it would have come back in my refund.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics...

@Santa - Every poll I've seen has seen support dwindling for parts of the healthcare plan, mainly the insurance requirement. I think some of it is good and some of it not so good. And honestly, McCain's plan scared me more His plan would have had young people leaving for cheaper insurance than corporate plans in droves and left us older people holding the bag if we needed something better than the bare bones plan he wanted to offer. So I was just pointing out the polls. But then that falls in the lies, damn lies, and statistics category as well.

As far as the wars, I never agreed with Iraq. But somethings have to be done despite the cost (Afghanistan). Now, has it been waged properly? Fuck no! But it was going to cost. The problem is that Obama (who I voted for, so this isn't coming from a Tea Party right-winger) has decided to spend more without finding the ways to pay for it. Some of those, we just need to spend the money on, but somethings could be trimmed. I don't personally care about our national debt ever being eliminated, I just want to see a true balanced budget so it doesn't keep increasing.

Just a nitpick, you don't need a balanced budget in order to stop the increase of the national debt as long as the growth of the real GDP is higher than the real interest rate on the existing national debt.

Of course in the case that you care about the proportion of national debt to GDP. But caring about the absolute level of national debt is silly so I assumed you mean the ratio.

So Draug, its Obama's job to pay for the war in Afganastan after 7 years of tax cuts from Bush. Bush gets us in with no plans to get us out, spends without taxing for 7 years, and now Obama comes in and is supposed to take the hit by levying taxes that Americans cannot stand (which needs to change, this sense of entitlement that includes new taxes=thrown out of office) ? Got it. I agree that the United States needs to ind ways to pay for the war, Im just curious why you think it falls squarely on Obama to do this after Bush had no interest in doing so and allowed Americans to grow complacent with that reality when he could have easily used post Sep 11 furor/panic to raise the money.

And the only thing I can say is you havnt seen all the polls, its that simple

Dudes, what is with the swearing...

"When 10% of people are out of work, the average tax bill goes down because the average person is in a lower tax bracket. I'm paying significantly more (or will be when I get my first check) than 9.something percent taxes. But last month, on unemployment, The total withheld was 14%, and had I spent an entire year on unemployment (and some people have been on it that long), I'd have paid almost nothing as nearly all of it would have come back in my refund."

Except first of all, the period that data I gave you referred to begins well prior to the current recession/financial crisis, so your point doesn't hold.

Second, the tax rates (which is a percentage) of the highest brackets in the post-war period were far higher, even under Reagan, than they are today. So people are historically low taxes. Furthermore, the unemployment rate under Reagan in 1982 was higher than it has been now under Bush-Obama, it was around 11% in November of 1982. Look at the receipts for 1982. They went up from 1981.

Individ Corporate Social Excise Total Total
Year Income Income Insurance Tax Other Receipts Outlays GDP
---- --------- --------- --------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
1981 285.92 61.14 182.72 40.84 28.66 599.27 678.24 3054.70
1982 297.74 49.21 201.50 36.31 33.01 617.77 745.74 3227.60

Your argument fails.

Data on tax rates.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02inpetr.pdf

I'm sure the IRS is not as objective as the rightwing magazine du jour.

@Putin - May of 2010 was right smack in the middle of the currently recession. Hell it was last summer that the fed declared the recession over after more than 18 months so your claim it was before the recession is bogus.

@Santa - Obama has to pay for it cause he is in power. If McCain had won, he'd have to find a way to pay for it. I don't blame Obama for the war, just say it is his job that he voluntarily took on and therefore his responsibility.

"May of 2010 was right smack in the middle of the currently recession. Hell it was last summer that the fed declared the recession over after more than 18 months so your claim it was before the recession is bogus."

Ok yes I was confused about a separate point (about tax cuts leading to declining revenue). However, I provided IRS data showing the tax rates on the highest and lowest tax brackets. Our tax rates are historically low, much lower than they were under Reagan. Bank of America paid zero in taxes a year ago. GE not only paid zero in taxes, they had a net gain from the federal government. The idea that this government is socialist is absurd, just like all the arguments made about Obama's policies.

Furthermore, while you can blame lower taxes a bit on the bad economy, Obama's tax policy has also contributed to lower taxes.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/under-obama-taxes-are-lower-than-ever/

"The poor economy is largely to blame, with corporate profits down and unemployment up. But so is a tax code that grows each year with new deductions, credits and exemptions. The result is that families making as much as $50,000 can avoid paying federal income taxes, if they have at least two dependent children. Low-income families can actually make a profit from the income tax, and the wealthy can significantly cut their payments."

How can any individual "make a profit?" The 1040 form is designed, in all its revisions to prevent someone from having a larger refund than contribution.

If tax credits exceed tax owed, a tax filer can wind up with a negative tax liability (and a 'refund' check).

@ Putin33

"Afghanistan offered to hand over Bin Laden if proof of guilt was provided, that offer was rejected. The carpet bombers love a good carpet bombing. 10 years later, Al Qaeda has been strengthened and OBL hasn't been found. Not even the Taliban has been destroyed. What a smashing success."

Considering all of the various empires and superpowers that have tried (and failed) to win a ground war in Afghanistan, I would call Operation Enduring Freedom a "smashing success". al-Qaeda and the Taliban have not enjoyed a single successful operation since the invasion. America is armed with a practical counterinsurgency plan (which no one else has tried in Afghanistan) and the most powerful military in the history of man.

We may not catch Osama bin Laden, but we will defeat al-Qaeda and the Taliban once and for all.

Ron Paul -- I have some libertarian sympathies, but I am in favor of a strong military and an agressive foreign policy, two things that Ron Paul does not support. However, I would vote for him over anyone left of Bill Clinton.

Mitt Romney -- I don't like his ideas to fix healthcare. I don't have a problem with his Mormonism, but he will never get the Republican nomination in this lifetime because the Republican Party is mostly Evangelical Christians, who do not like Mormons.

Mike Huckabee -- I think he is a good man, but I think he would not make a good President. He would focus on the social issues too much. I would rather be socially liberal and fiscally conservative than vice versa.

Donald Trump -- I really like his economic ideas. He is the only potential candidate who is talking about playing hardball with China. The whole "birther" issue ruins his credibility with me. If he hadn't gotten mixed up with the "birther" issue, I would support him.

Did I forget anyone?

Not on the 1040 I filed. If tax credits exceed tax owed, it says to enter 0.

What's your opinion of the "The Donald"? Asset or Liability?
l-o-fucking-l is my opinion. The fact that he leads among Republicans with 26% of the vote only goes to tell me that at least 26% of Republicans are fucking idiots. Anyone with half a brain can see through this farce. Trump has been a supporter of fairly staunchly liberal candidates for years... what a joke.

So on that note, if Trump ended up with the republican nomination would you vote for him over Obama?

No. I'm very much opposed to a lot of the policies that have come out of Washington the past four years, but I'll take someone halfway competent with an ideological disagreement over a complete joke.

Is there anyone on the republican side, who, if they recieved the nomination, you would cast a vote for Obama instead of the republican? Why?

Several. Donald Trump, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, and Haley Barbour come to mind immediately.

If you could decide the Republican nominee, who would you pick (anybody eligible to run, regardless of whether they are or not)?

Ron Paul. Darwyn said it right way back in the topic -- Ron Paul or America's screwed.

Who do you think has the best chance to absolutely run roughshod over Obama in 2012? (active contender or not)

First, I think it would be intellectually dishonest to say anyone can "run roughshod over Obama in 2012." That said, I think Paul gives them the best chance on principles... but in reality, I'm worried that voters will not see that the cuts Paul proposes which seem drastic are what it will take to save us from the debt.

"Considering all of the various empires and superpowers that have tried (and failed) to win a ground war in Afghanistan, I would call Operation Enduring Freedom a "smashing success". "

What other empires had a numerical advantage of 12:1 vs the Afghan resistance and, as you say, the most powerful military in the history of man (plus allies)? Furthermore, the British didn't have aircraft to overcome the geographical problems of the Hindu Kush and the Soviets were hindered by the fact that the Afghans were being armed to the teeth by the Americans, Chinese and the Muslim countries. The US has all the advantages in the world and it still has taken 10 years+. Plus the US faces the additional problem of having destabilized a once stable Pakistan since the war began.

You can congratulate yourself if you want, though.

"Considering all of the various empires and superpowers that have tried (and failed) to win a ground war in Afghanistan, I would call Operation Enduring Freedom a "smashing success".

A smashing success by what standard? Normally, success is measured by accomplishing your objectives. The stated objective in Afghanistan was to kill (or capture) OBL and destroy the alleged omnipresent terrorist threat. I believe the official line is that OBL is still alive (or at least, he has not been officially declared dead), and the alleged terrorist threat is still alive and kicking or we wouldn't have 6 year old girls and former Miss Americas being molested by TSA goons, the NSA wouldn't be monitoring our phone calls and internet traffic, and we'd still have habeas corpus. For a war to secure "enduring freedom", we sure have a lot less of it than we did ten years ago. If this is victory, I'd be curious to see what defeat looks like.

And as for the OP's question, RON PAUL is my President.The rest of 'em can hang for all I care.

"Considering all of the various empires and superpowers that have tried (and failed) to win a ground war in Afghanistan, I would call Operation Enduring Freedom a "smashing success".

Calling Afghanistan a graveyard of empires is ridiculous. They've been conquered many times over. I mean, they're freaking Muslims, after all. It's not like St. al-Patrick showed up in Kabul and just won the locals over by his charisma.

The war there is a disaster. Possibly the biggest mistake was the recent escalation, though the whole let's-bring-democracy-to-a-place-which-barely-understands-civilization idea was a boondoggle from the start. Instead of fighting the war with regular military units we should withdraw to the main bases (and probably close a few of those while we're at it) and work through special forces and bought CIA operatives. We can't make Afghanistan into Colorado (or even Utah) and we should stop wasting our time. Keep just enough of a military presence to make sure Pakistan doesn't dissolve and a terrorist network doesn't own an entire country again. Nothing more, and hopefully less in time.

Hey for all the conservatives (and independents/moderates) out there. Check out former New Mexico Governer Gary Johnson.. He doesn't have the moral agenda some of the others in the republican field do, he was a popular republican governor in a liberal state, and he's got charisma too (something that the independent/moderate crowd seems to care about)..

And yes I still owe abgemacht a response to his question about what I would cut, but that's coming in the near future in a separate thread..

Actually orangefarm is who I said I'd get that list to..

@ Putin33, Tolstoy, and Invictus

We have to win in Afghanistan, and I believe we can. It is true that no western country has ever conquered Afghanistan, but we're not trying to conquer Afghanistan. We're trying to defeat al-Qaeda and the Taliban. If that means that we have to control Afghanistan for a while, then so be it. But we cannot simply leave.

Our foreign policy has done nothing but create havens for Al Qaeda. We destroyed Yugoslavia and made Bosnia an Al Qaeda outpost in Europe. We destroyed Iraq and made it into a sinkhole attracting Al Qaeda and all sorts of militants. We (Europe more so) are undermining Russia's struggle against Al Qaeda affiliated militants in Chechnya. We're in the process of destroying Libya and making it an Al Qaeda haven. Probably next is Syria.