That Wacky Republican

Here's a question for the staunch conservatives:

I live in the Fifth District of New Jersey. Last November we elected (for the first time in forever) a Republican. The Honarable Scott Garrett is our new Republican Representative in Congress.

Last week, in his first vote, he voted AGAINST extending unemployment benefits. He was one of only four members of Congress that voted against the bill. His reasoning was that NJ would not benefit as much as the other states because our unemployment rate is lower.
He is correct. NJ has always been a cash cow for the federal government. We are currently dead last in the union in money returned from DC vs. money we pay into DC.

Did he do the right thing voting against extending unemployment benefits?---Marc

Yep... 6 months is enough time to get a job or two or ten or get into a retraining program instead of living off the gov't. There are plenty of jobs out there. It's a shame only 4 voted against that bill.

Wow, you guys in Jersey are getting a few first. 1. You elect a Republican. 2. A New Jersey elected official cast a vote based on the good of the state and not his party or himself. 3. Repeat number 2 for as long as he's in office.

Unemployment insurance is insurance, paid for by the employer. Can you imagine going to your car insurer after an accident and saying "I'd like to add collision" .
I have used Unemployment insurance twice, both times less than a month. It is nice to have as a buffer but not to rely or live on.

Wits'... exactly!!

Don't worry, it's probably the last thing this administration will do for anybody making less than 100K. Those with golden parachutes don't need unemployment insurance.

I guess they just need something to talk about in the next election, just in case the rest of us don't buy that not taxing dividends is worth adding billions to the national debt.

How about not taxing wages (money earned by -gasp- working!), that would encourage people to get and keep a job.

I guess you forgot to check the "golden parachute" box on your application eh?

Evan,

How about not taxing wages (money earned by -gasp- working!), that would encourage people to get and keep a job.[/QB]

Click to expand...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">They already do that for some people, in fact some people get a refund of far more than they put in! I think the best idea to encourage someone to go to work and keep a job is to quit subsidizing his or her laziness with all the government handouts.

Most of us have plenty of encouragement to work and keep a job even though we are taxed. It's called responsibility for our families and ourselves. We don't like paying taxes either but it's a cost of being a citizen and it helps us fund those that find work to be an unrewarding and time consuming endeavor better left to others.

On the other hand, I support a flat tax in the form of a national sales tax.

I too support a flat tax based on consumption. Poor folk who don't buy very much don't pay very much. A rich mans Rolls costs a pretty penny in taxes.

How could anyone argue that it would be imminently fair???

And I am one who doesn't think either party is the best, but I lean towards the one who ain't in such a damn hurry to take my guns, knives, and bright (and/or heavy) flashlights away from me!!!

That would be the Republicans you know!

class warfare, woo hoo! i'll play.

you can get a job before your benefits run out, period. my brother rode the unemployment horse till it ran out. whamo! then he got a job.

it's political suicide to vote against extending benefits. the democrats chomp at the bit to hand out some more welfare to it's "constituents". hey, buying votes is easier than earning them. and it helps with their neverending smear campaign that the republicans only care about the rich.

i'm not a big fan of giving breaks to folks who get dividends. it's been my experience that those folks don't need a break. i like to see them given to working folks like myself, family and friends. NOT to the lazy pos trash that get more back than they put in cause they squat out children like puppys!!!

both are criminals, i just find the republicans don't want my guns. the lesser of two evils. it's always been that way, and always will.

I agree with DieselDave.

One more vote in favor of a Flat Tax. Taxation should be based on consumption not income.
Another problem is that interest earned on bank accounts should not be taxed. Taxing interest encourages people to spend their money instead of saving it.

Right now the national savings rate is negative (people are spending more than they make). This lack of savings will eventually be a huge problem as tons of people retire without any retirement savings. The retired folks will then demand increases to Social Security and the few people that are still working will be taxed even further.

Social Security was meant to be a safety net for the few poor people that drew the short straw in life. SS was not meant to substitute for your life's savings because you spent all your money during your earning years on Mercedes SUV's and premium cable TV channels. Rant off---Marc

Hey wait a minute now... what's wrong with premium cable tv channels? The Sopranos, man!! GEEZ!!

Why should taxes be based on consumption?
Doesn't consumption help the economy and the country?
And since 10% of the people pay 70% of the taxes under the current system (these are the numbers in CA -- I don't have the national numbers handy) what do you really expect to change if you base it on consumption?

Originally posted by Sasha:
Hey wait a minute now... what's wrong with premium cable tv channels? The Sopranos, man!! GEEZ!!

Click to expand...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I know people that pay around $80 per month for cable. That's almost $960 per year (or about $100 per episode of the Sopranos, if you prefer).
BTW, I have borrowed the Sopranos from my public library at the princely sum of $2 per season.

Yes, I am a year behind on the show, but I get to spend some of that extra cash on flashlights! ---Marc

There is a significant "hidden" tax increase that those of us without full medical coverage have had to pay. However, some on this board will not see it as an increase, but others will. To the extent that it takes more money out of my pocket, I call it an increase.

It's the 7 1/2% of total income necessary before you can begin to deduct medical expenses. It used to be 5%. I'm not blaming Republicans or Democrats for this because I have no idea who instigated it, and its been around for a while.

This doesn't hurt those with comprehensive medical insurance, but for those with sparse policies or no coverage at all it's painful.

I'm in favor of a single payer medical system. You can scream "Socialism" all you want, but when something is broke and getting broker, you can only fix it with something that works. I have spent enough time with friends in Canada to see for myself that the system really works. I've heard all the arguments against it, along with the stories of long waits for certain procedures. Sure, the system's far from perfect, but it works better than ours, for most people.

If you're well to do, or have excellent medical coverage through your employer this probably doesn't affect you. But for the sighing majority out there it's a critical issue.

If anyone can come up with a workable idea for affordable medical care, other than the single payer system I'll be all for it.

Brightnorm

Brightnorm,
I understand your position and have heard all the arguments as well. I am in the position to get different sides to the issue. I pay $600+ a month for medical ins. at work and it's not great. My son is autistic and much of what he gets is not covered. My best friend is a neurosurgeon and he works over 100 hours a week and that's after he spent 14 years after high school getting an education. We spend a large portion of our total income on medical cost. I am sure it would cost me less money to be on a one-pay system but I have seen that type system in the military and frankly I am not impressed. Just like anything else, take away the incentive to perform and performance goes down. Take the big salaries away from the docs, take the big profits away from the drug companies and you get little to no research and few advances. My son is Autistic, there is not a cure yet, I want the medical field to make lots of money so they can do research. We already have a small crisis in the medical profession. Good doctors are quitting at an alarming rate, because of the push already in place for a more socialized medicine, (HMO's) and the tort from the trial lawyers. The blood sucking trial lawyers, backbone of the Democratic Party. So no, for my family and me we would rather continue to suck it up and get the best and most expensive health care coverage in the world. I really do see and understand your position and wish we could have it both ways.

How Taxes Work . . .

This is a VERY simple way to understand the tax laws. Read on -- it does make you think!!

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men -- the poorest -- would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1, the sixth would pay $3, the seventh $7, the eighth $12, the ninth $18, and the tenth man -- the richest -- would pay $59.

That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement -- until one day, the owner threw them a curve (in tax language -- a tax cut).

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.00.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six -- the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, Then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59. Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man who pointed to the tenth. "But he got $7!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man, "I only saved a dollar, too . . . It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!".

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man, "why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what was very important. They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of paying the bill! Imagine that!

Greg, I love it!
Now the rest of the story...A few months later the group filed a lawsuit against guy #10 because he was able to save enough money with the lower price to buy a new Surefire E2E in just 10 days. While it would take guys #7-9 over a month and guys #5-6 over 2 months and the poor mistreated guys #1-4 would never be able to save enough money to buy anything because they didn't get a refund for the $0 they put in. A well known activist saw this and condemned Surefire and demanded they contribute $5,000,000 to his "non-profit" group. On further review he determined Surefire flashlights carried by LEO's had been involved in the arrest of thousands of people so he accused the light of profiling.

ROTFLMAO!

And that, my friends, is only in America... land of the free... and home of those who get rich by sitting on their *** and whining that someone else has more than them...

And I quote from Lisa's tap dance teacher:

Vicki: I'm sorry, Lisa, but giving everyone an equal part when they're clearly not equal is called what, again, class?

Class: Communism!

Vicki: That's right. And I didn't tap all those Morse code messages to the Allies 'til my shoes filled with blood to just roll out the welcome mat for the Reds.

You wouldn't think that the Simpsons had a republican adgenda would you