Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2013/02/19 05:04:01
Subject: Re:Republican Party Broken: How Can It Be Fixed?
whembly wrote: Yeah... I see your point on that. If there's going to be deduction, then it needs to be a tool to facilitate better economic condition rather than being used as political playoffs.
Cool.
I think that it wax and wanes for both parties...
On a tactical level, sure. But on a greater strategic level, exactly what was it that Romney wanted the presidency for? All those guys running the primary, would you say any of them had something you'd call a vision for where to take the country, as opposed to a list of complaints about the other side?
What did Rubio do in SotU response other than attack a nonsense Obama straw man?
Okay, but I'm going to respectfully disagree with you.
The average local voters do NOT know how local/state politics really works. They do not know the intimate details how the state's governance is operated. So, no, the state's really do NOT have a voice in federal politics. The views/beliefs of the voters in a the states can often run contrary to the state's elected officials. See where I'm coming from?
No, the state politicians don't have a say. But the states themselves do. When the people of Florida elect one of their senators, they have a say in federal politics.
I just don't see why anyone would say 'oh sure, no matter what the actual people of Florida want, we really need to see what the state legislature thinks of this issue'.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2013/02/19 05:27:58
Subject: Re:Republican Party Broken: How Can It Be Fixed?
whembly wrote: Yeah... I see your point on that. If there's going to be deduction, then it needs to be a tool to facilitate better economic condition rather than being used as political playoffs.
Cool.
I think that it wax and wanes for both parties...
On a tactical level, sure. But on a greater strategic level, exactly what was it that Romney wanted the presidency for? All those guys running the primary, would you say any of them had something you'd call a vision for where to take the country, as opposed to a list of complaints about the other side?
Well... that's just the way it is for the losing party.
What did Rubio do in SotU response other than attack a nonsense Obama straw man?
Oh... you meant that watergate? I liked what he had to say...
They're pretty lies... just like Obama's SotU address... I just liked Rubio's lies better than Obama's.
Okay, but I'm going to respectfully disagree with you.
The average local voters do NOT know how local/state politics really works. They do not know the intimate details how the state's governance is operated. So, no, the state's really do NOT have a voice in federal politics. The views/beliefs of the voters in a the states can often run contrary to the state's elected officials. See where I'm coming from?
No, the state politicians don't have a say. But the states themselves do. When the people of Florida elect one of their senators, they have a say in federal politics.
I just don't see why anyone would say 'oh sure, no matter what the actual people of Florida want, we really need to see what the state legislature thinks of this issue'.
I don't think you understanding the full implication. Your "No, the state politicians don't have a say. But the states themselves do" makes no sense to me.
I fully believe that when the founders drafted the constitution, they FULLY expected the state's legislatures to elect the US Senators. That was done on purpose.
Let me put it another way then...
Do you think US voters would lose "something" if they didn't directly elect the US Senators?
If the voters are engaged enough to vote for the State's legislatures, then those elected official nominate/elects the Senates... the local voters still had a "voice"... but, it's tempered by the State Officials. If the voters don't like the US Senate, they can elect a different State politician.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/19 05:28:35
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2013/02/19 06:01:59
Subject: Republican Party Broken: How Can It Be Fixed?
It seems to me fairly obvious that to remove the power of election of senators from the current electorate to a different group, would involve the voters losing something.
What is the problem to be solved?
People already complain about the electoral college system for presidential elections.
Kilkrazy wrote: It seems to me fairly obvious that to remove the power of election of senators from the current electorate to a different group, would involve the voters losing something.
What is the problem to be solved?
People already complain about the electoral college system for presidential elections.
Okay... lemme ask you this.
Do the normal voters as a whole truly understand inner the mechanism how states governance is operated?
The chief reason for repealing this amendment is to return the senate to its original purpose ofrepresenting the states....
The theory is that with senators beholden to the states, the balance of power would shift in their favor, and we’d return to something more akin to federalism. In this way states would not be so powerless as to have overbearing laws thrust upon them(ie, REAL ID and ACA Act) without at least having a say in the matter. In fact, I'd go even further that the ACA bill would be VASTLY different than it's current form.
It would also mean that unfunded liabilities and other programs mandated by the federal government, but not specifically funded by it, would not be so easily rammed through if the states could block them in the senate. Essentially, the states can say "hey, it's nice to have these things/programs, but how are WE going to fund it? Didn't you think that far??".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/19 06:28:15
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2013/02/19 06:28:07
Subject: Re:Republican Party Broken: How Can It Be Fixed?
whembly wrote: Oh... you meant that watergate? I liked what he had to say...
They're pretty lies... just like Obama's SotU address... I just liked Rubio's lies better than Obama's.
No, seriously, it isn't just this side that side thing.
The stuff Rubio said about government made absolutely no fething sense what-so-ever to anyone who's even half looked at the numbers, or half listened to what the actual policies of Obama in the last four years. It was crazypants gibberish.
Politics being what it is though, very few people actually took the time to point out the incoherent nonsense of Rubio's claim that the Democrats thought the GFC was due to inadequate spending, or that the GFC was really due to Barney Frank. Drinking some water awkwardly, well that got gakloads of airplay.
I don't think you understanding the full implication. Your "No, the state politicians don't have a say. But the states themselves do" makes no sense to me.
I fully believe that when the founders drafted the constitution, they FULLY expected the state's legislatures to elect the US Senators. That was done on purpose.
Yeah, it was done that way, on purpose. It was also amended on purpose
And it was amended because the way people understood the colonies that had just united to become a country in 1787 was very different to the way the people understood their country in 1913.
Let me put it another way then...
Do you think US voters would lose "something" if they didn't directly elect the US Senators?
If the voters are engaged enough to vote for the State's legislatures, then those elected official nominate/elects the Senates... the local voters still had a "voice"... but, it's tempered by the State Officials. If the voters don't like the US Senate, they can elect a different State politician.
Yes, I believe they would lose something. They would lose the ability to say 'well I happen to agree with this party on state issues like the proposed road reforms and the construction of a new sports stadium, but on the federal level I disagree with the party on their foreign policy. And so I will vote for them at the state level and vote against them at the federal level.'
If the 17th was repealed that person would have to think 'well I like the reforms they're proposing for the state, but if I help elect them then they'll nominate a senator who's got all those horrible ideas on foreign policy... so I don't know how to vote.'
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2013/02/19 06:43:37
Subject: Re:Republican Party Broken: How Can It Be Fixed?
whembly wrote: Oh... you meant that watergate? I liked what he had to say...
They're pretty lies... just like Obama's SotU address... I just liked Rubio's lies better than Obama's.
No, seriously, it isn't just this side that side thing.
The stuff Rubio said about government made absolutely no fething sense what-so-ever to anyone who's even half looked at the numbers, or half listened to what the actual policies of Obama in the last four years. It was crazypants gibberish.
Politics being what it is though, very few people actually took the time to point out the incoherent nonsense of Rubio's claim that the Democrats thought the GFC was due to inadequate spending, or that the GFC was really due to Barney Frank. Drinking some water awkwardly, well that got gakloads of airplay.
Umm... did you watch/read it? Here's the transcript... fisk it at your pleasure:
Spoiler:
Good evening. I'm Marco Rubio. I'm blessed to represent Florida in the United States Senate. Let me begin by congratulating President Obama on the start of his second term. Tonight, I have the honor of responding to his State of the Union address on behalf of my fellow Republicans. And I am especially honored to be addressing our brave men and women serving in the armed forces and in diplomatic posts around the world. You may be thousands of miles away, but you are always in our prayers.
The State of the Union address is always a reminder of how unique America is. For much of human history, most people were trapped in stagnant societies, where a tiny minority always stayed on top, and no one else even had a chance.
But America is exceptional because we believe that every life, at every stage, is precious, and that everyone everywhere has a God-given right to go as far as their talents and hard work will take them.
Like most Americans, for me this ideal is personal. My parents immigrated here in pursuit of the opportunity to improve their life and give their children the chance at an even better one. They made it to the middle class, my dad working as a bartender and my mother as a cashier and a maid. I didn't inherit any money from them. But I inherited something far better – the real opportunity to accomplish my dreams.
This opportunity – to make it to the middle class or beyond no matter where you start out in life – it isn't bestowed on us from Washington. It comes from a vibrant free economy where people can risk their own money to open a business. And when they succeed, they hire more people, who in turn invest or spend the money they make, helping others start a business and create jobs.
Presidents in both parties – from John F. Kennedy to Ronald Reagan – have known that our free enterprise economy is the source of our middle class prosperity.
But President Obama? He believes it's the cause of our problems. That the economic downturn happened because our government didn't tax enough, spend enough and control enough. And, therefore, as you heard tonight, his solution to virtually every problem we face is for Washington to tax more, borrow more and spend more.
This idea – that our problems were caused by a government that was too small – it's just not true. In fact, a major cause of our recent downturn was a housing crisis created by reckless government policies.
And the idea that more taxes and more government spending is the best way to help hardworking middle class taxpayers – that's an old idea that's failed every time it's been tried.
More government isn't going to help you get ahead. It's going to hold you back.
More government isn't going to create more opportunities. It's going to limit them.
And more government isn't going to inspire new ideas, new businesses and new private sector jobs. It's going to create uncertainty.
Because more government breeds complicated rules and laws that a small business can't afford to follow.
Because more government raises taxes on employers who then pass the costs on to their employees through fewer hours, lower pay and even layoffs.
And because many government programs that claim to help the middle class, often end up hurting them instead.
For example, Obamacare was supposed to help middle class Americans afford health insurance. But now, some people are losing the health insurance they were happy with. And because Obamacare created expensive requirements for companies with more than 50 employees, now many of these businesses aren't hiring. Not only that; they're being forced to lay people off and switch from full-time employees to part-time workers.
Now does this mean there's no role for government? Of course not. It plays a crucial part in keeping us safe, enforcing rules, and providing some security against the risks of modern life. But government's role is wisely limited by the Constitution. And it can't play its essential role when it ignores those limits.
There are valid reasons to be concerned about the President's plan to grow our government. But any time anyone opposes the President's agenda, he and his allies usually respond by falsely attacking their motives.
When we point out that no matter how many job-killing laws we pass, our government can't control the weather – he accuses us of wanting dirty water and dirty air.
When we suggest we strengthen our safety net programs by giving states more flexibility to manage them – he accuses us of wanting to leave the elderly and disabled to fend for themselves.
And tonight, he even criticized us for refusing to raise taxes to delay military cuts – cuts that were his idea in the first place.
But his favorite attack of all is that those who don't agree with him – they only care about rich people.
Mr. President, I still live in the same working class neighborhood I grew up in. My neighbors aren't millionaires. They're retirees who depend on Social Security and Medicare. They're workers who have to get up early tomorrow morning and go to work to pay the bills. They're immigrants, who came here because they were stuck in poverty in countries where the government dominated the economy.
The tax increases and the deficit spending you propose will hurt middle class families. It will cost them their raises. It will cost them their benefits. It may even cost some of them their jobs.
And it will hurt seniors because it does nothing to save Medicare and Social Security.
So Mr. President, I don't oppose your plans because I want to protect the rich. I oppose your plans because I want to protect my neighbors.
Hard-working middle class Americans who don't need us to come up with a plan to grow the government. They want a plan to grow the middle class.
Economic growth is the best way to help the middle class. Unfortunately, our economy actually shrank during the last three months of 2012.
But if we can get the economy to grow at just 4 percent a year, it would create millions of middle class jobs. And it could reduce our deficits by almost $4 trillion dollars over the next decade.
Tax increases can't do this. Raising taxes won't create private sector jobs. And there's no realistic tax increase that could lower our deficits by almost $4 trillion. That's why I hope the President will abandon his obsession with raising taxes and instead work with us to achieve real growth in our economy.
One of the best ways to encourage growth is through our energy industry. Of course solar and wind energy should be a part of our energy portfolio. But God also blessed America with abundant coal, oil and natural gas. Instead of wasting more taxpayer money on so-called "clean energy" companies like Solyndra, let's open up more federal lands for safe and responsible exploration. And let's reform our energy regulations so that they're reasonable and based on common sense. If we can grow our energy industry, it will make us energy independent, it will create middle class jobs and it will help bring manufacturing back from places like China.
Simplifying our tax code will also help the middle class, because it will make it easier for small businesses to hire and grow.
And we agree with the President that we should lower our corporate tax rate, which is one of the highest in the world, so that companies will start bringing their money and their jobs back here from overseas.
We can also help our economy grow if we have a legal immigration system that allows us to attract and assimilate the world's best and brightest. We need a responsible, permanent solution to the problem of those who are here illegally. But first, we must follow through on the broken promises of the past to secure our borders and enforce our laws.
Helping the middle class grow will also require an education system that gives people the skills today's jobs entail and the knowledge that tomorrow's world will require.
We need to incentivize local school districts to offer more advanced placement courses and more vocational and career training.
We need to give all parents, especially the parents of children with special needs, the opportunity to send their children to the school of their choice.
And because tuition costs have grown so fast, we need to change the way we pay for higher education.
I believe in federal financial aid. I couldn't have gone to college without it. But it's not just about spending more money on these programs; it's also about strengthening and modernizing them.
A 21st century workforce should not be forced to accept 20th century education solutions. Today's students aren't only 18 year olds. They're returning veterans. They're single parents who decide to get the education they need to earn a decent wage. And they're workers who have lost jobs that are never coming back and need to be retrained.
We need student aid that does not discriminate against programs that non-traditional students rely on – like online courses, or degree programs that give you credit for work experience.
When I finished school, I owed over 100,000 dollars in student loans, a debt I paid off just a few months ago. Today, many graduates face massive student debt. We must give students more information on the costs and benefits of the student loans they're taking out.
All these measures are key to helping the economy grow. But we won't be able to sustain a vibrant middle class unless we solve our debt problem.
Every dollar our government borrows is money that isn't being invested to create jobs. And the uncertainty created by the debt is one reason why many businesses aren't hiring.
The President loves to blame the debt on President Bush. But President Obama created more debt in four years than his predecessor did in eight.
The real cause of our debt is that our government has been spending 1 trillion dollars more than it takes in every year. That's why we need a balanced budget amendment.
The biggest obstacles to balancing the budget are programs where spending is already locked in. One of these programs, Medicare, is especially important to me. It provided my father the care he needed to battle cancer and ultimately die with dignity. And it pays for the care my mother receives now.
I would never support any changes to Medicare that would hurt seniors like my mother. But anyone who is in favor of leaving Medicare exactly the way it is right now, is in favor of bankrupting it.
Republicans have offered a detailed and credible plan that helps save Medicare without hurting today's retirees. Instead of playing politics with Medicare, when is the President going to offer his plan to save it? Tonight would have been a good time for him to do it.
Of course, we face other challenges as well. We were all heart broken by the recent tragedy in Connecticut. We must effectively deal with the rise of violence in our country. But unconstitutionally undermining the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans is not the way to do it.
On foreign policy, America continues to be indispensable to the goal of global liberty, prosperity and safeguarding human rights. The world is a better place when America is the strongest nation on earth. But we can't remain powerful if we don't have an economy that can afford it.
In the short time I've been here in Washington, nothing has frustrated me more than false choices like the ones the President laid out tonight.
The choice isn't just between big government or big business. What we need is an accountable, efficient and effective government that allows small and new businesses to create middle class jobs.
We don't have to raise taxes to avoid the President's devastating cuts to our military. Republicans have passed a plan that replaces these cuts with responsible spending reforms.
In order to balance our budget, the choice doesn't have to be either higher taxes or dramatic benefit cuts for those in need. Instead we should grow our economy so that we create new taxpayers, not new taxes, and so our government can afford to help those who truly cannot help themselves.
And the truth is every problem can't be solved by government. Many are caused by the moral breakdown in our society. And the answers to those challenges lie primarily in our families and our faiths, not our politicians.
Despite our differences, I know that both Republicans and Democrats love America. I pray we can come together to solve our problems, because the choices before us could not be more important.
If we can get our economy healthy again, our children will be the most prosperous Americans ever.
And if we do not, we will forever be known as the generation responsible for America's decline.
At a time when one showdown after another ends in short-term deals that do little or nothing about our real problems, some are starting to believe that our government leaders just can't or won't make the right choices anymore.
But our strength has never come from the White House or the Capitol. It's always come from our people. A people united by the American idea that, if you have a dream and you are willing to work hard, nothing should be impossible.
Americans have always celebrated and been inspired by those who succeed. But it's the dreams of those who are still trying to make it that sets our nation apart.
Tonight, all across this land, parents will hold their newborn children in their arms for the first time. For many of these parents, life has not gone the way they had planned.
Maybe they were born into circumstances they've found difficult to escape. Maybe they've made some mistakes along the way. Maybe they're young mothers, all alone, the father of their child long gone.
But tonight, when they look into the eyes of their child for the first time, their lives will change forever. Because in those eyes, they will see what my parents saw in me, and what your parents saw in you. They will see all the hopes and dreams they once had for themselves.
This dream – of a better life for their children – it's the hope of parents everywhere. Politicians here and throughout the world have long promised that more government can make those dreams come true.
But we Americans have always known better. From our earliest days, we embraced economic liberty instead. And because we did, America remains one of the few places on earth where dreams like these even have a chance.
Each time our nation has faced great challenges, what has kept us together was our shared hope for a better life.
Now, let that hope bring us together again. To solve the challenges of our time and write the next chapter in the amazing story of the greatest nation man has ever known.
Thank you for listening. May God bless all of you. May God bless our President. And may God continue to bless the United States of America.
I don't think you understanding the full implication. Your "No, the state politicians don't have a say. But the states themselves do" makes no sense to me.
I fully believe that when the founders drafted the constitution, they FULLY expected the state's legislatures to elect the US Senators. That was done on purpose.
Yeah, it was done that way, on purpose. It was also amended on purpose
And it was amended because the way people understood the colonies that had just united to become a country in 1787 was very different to the way the people understood their country in 1913.
Well... at that time (1913) eschewing federalism and accepting the national government as a just and good paternal institution was quite popular at the time. The attitude then, just as it is now in most circles, is that if a social or economic problem exists, the solution is to simply create another federal agency or bureaucracy, or whatever from a top-down perspective.
Look at us now. Do you honestly think the way things are and could be... would be sustainable?
Let me put it another way then...
Do you think US voters would lose "something" if they didn't directly elect the US Senators?
If the voters are engaged enough to vote for the State's legislatures, then those elected official nominate/elects the Senates... the local voters still had a "voice"... but, it's tempered by the State Officials. If the voters don't like the US Senate, they can elect a different State politician.
Yes, I believe they would lose something. They would lose the ability to say 'well I happen to agree with this party on state issues like the proposed road reforms and the construction of a new sports stadium, but on the federal level I disagree with the party on their foreign policy. And so I will vote for them at the state level and vote against them at the federal level.'
If the 17th was repealed that person would have to think 'well I like the reforms they're proposing for the state, but if I help elect them then they'll nominate a senator who's got all those horrible ideas on foreign policy... so I don't know how to vote.'
There's merits to that line of thinking I'll admit.
But...here's a counter argument... culturally, we need to stop being a single (or few) issue voter. We need to accept the whole package and stop being a nation of cherry pickers.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2013/02/19 07:03:54
Subject: Republican Party Broken: How Can It Be Fixed?
Manchu wrote: If loosing another presidential election is what it will take for Republicans to get serious about their demographic and ideological problems then it will more likely than not be a case of too little, too late.
What massive shifts in policy did Democrats undertake to recapture the White House after losing it for two whole terms to Bush? The sky was clearly falling then as well.
IMO, the Republican party is far more dynamic than the Democratic party. As I outlined above, in my own lifetime there have been at least four distinct versions of the GOP. In the same period, there's been just one, stagnant, largely incoherent Democratic Party that has basically been "not Republican." I think presidential elections since Carter have either been won by Republicans or lost by Republicans rather than lost by Democrats or won by Democrats. In all honesty, I'm not sure what Bill Clinton really managed to accomplish. And all President Obama has really managed is to pass Republican health care reform policies from Clinton's era.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/19 07:05:01
whembly wrote: Umm... did you watch/read it? Here's the transcript... fisk it at your pleasure:
I read the whole thing. And here is the part I was referring to;
"But President Obama? He believes it's the cause of our problems. That the economic downturn happened because our government didn't tax enough, spend enough and control enough. And, therefore, as you heard tonight, his solution to virtually every problem we face is for Washington to tax more, borrow more and spend more.
This idea – that our problems were caused by a government that was too small – it's just not true. In fact, a major cause of our recent downturn was a housing crisis created by reckless government policies.
And the idea that more taxes and more government spending is the best way to help hardworking middle class taxpayers – that's an old idea that's failed every time it's been tried."
Just stunningly, stunningly absurd. The product of a party that just does not give one gak about reality, only what they can put in a speach to rouse up the base.
Well... at that time (1913) eschewing federalism and accepting the national government as a just and good paternal institution was quite popular at the time. The attitude then, just as it is now in most circles, is that if a social or economic problem exists, the solution is to simply create another federal agency or bureaucracy, or whatever from a top-down perspective.
Not really, no. I mean, you look at the freakout over the formation of the FBI and you see a history of people saying any new government in the very last step before totalitarianism.
Look at us now. Do you honestly think the way things are and could be... would be sustainable?
Things are close to sustainable. With a series of budget measures that caused all kinds of drama in Washington, but that people out in the real world hardly even noticed... the budget (outside of poor economic environment). The CBO put out figures just a few weeks ago showing the long term deficit under existing arrangements, and all the very serious stern faced people who tell everyone that the deficit is very serious busienss that has to be addressed with serious cuts right ignored it because it told us their very serious message was actually total nonsense.
Well, until the rising cost of healthcare hits, of course. That's another set of reforms you'll have to hash out.
There's merits to that line of thinking I'll admit.
But...here's a counter argument... culturally, we need to stop being a single (or few) issue voter. We need to accept the whole package and stop being a nation of cherry pickers.
Yeah, I absolutely agree. Buggered if I know how you set about achieving that, though
How do you convince someone that furthering gay rights isn't the only issue they should consider, or that gun rights are the only issue to vote on? If they've somehow got themselves to a point where those are the issues that absolutely must be won no matter what else... well I don't even know how they got to that point, let alone how to get them out of it.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2013/02/19 07:32:23
Subject: Republican Party Broken: How Can It Be Fixed?
Single issue voting is a product of a two party system.
If you only have two parties, then they will have a position on every single issue. And if you are leaning anywhere in the middle where neither party represents you and your issues are split between the two, then you are forced to decide which issue (or few issues) are the most important to you. I can vote pro-gun and ignore my desire for gay marriage rights and pro-choice legilation. Or I can vote for gay marriage rights and abandon my gun position.
2013/02/19 08:08:30
Subject: Re:Republican Party Broken: How Can It Be Fixed?
"But President Obama? He believes it's the cause of our problems. That the economic downturn happened because our government didn't tax enough, spend enough and control enough. And, therefore, as you heard tonight, his solution to virtually every problem we face is for Washington to tax more, borrow more and spend more.
This idea – that our problems were caused by a government that was too small – it's just not true. In fact, a major cause of our recent downturn was a housing crisis created by reckless government policies.
And the idea that more taxes and more government spending is the best way to help hardworking middle class taxpayers – that's an old idea that's failed every time it's been tried."
I love how every time this sort of thing is discussed all the Nordic countries phase out from this reality, only to reallign with this reality again once the politician's point has been made.
Now I'm waiting for the inevitable "the US has a much bigger population, it wouldn't work!" argument. The EU has 500 million inhabitants. Even if we were to discount some of the Eastern European countries that have quite a way to go, there's still a population that's at least equal to that of the US, and we seem to be doing just fine under this godless socialism.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
2013/02/19 08:59:36
Subject: Re:Republican Party Broken: How Can It Be Fixed?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I love how every time this sort of thing is discussed all the Nordic countries phase out from this reality, only to reallign with this reality again once the politician's point has been made.
Now I'm waiting for the inevitable "the US has a much bigger population, it wouldn't work!" argument. The EU has 500 million inhabitants. Even if we were to discount some of the Eastern European countries that have quite a way to go, there's still a population that's at least equal to that of the US, and we seem to be doing just fine under this godless socialism.
The stupid isn't so much the boo government spending stuff, it's the stupid strawman in which he pretends Obama opposes capitalism. He makes Obama out to be this liberal parody that just wants more and more spending no matter what. It ends up reading like a parody of Republican silliness. In fact, if I'd read that as a piece of satire of Republican nonsense I reckon I'd have said it's not funny because it's just way too over the top. But there it is, an apparent leader of the party is actually saying that with a straight face.
And that's before you get to the bit where he pretends that the housing bubble was due to federal housing policy. I mean there might not be a more studied issue in finance in the last twenty years, and Rubio ignores every single one of those studies because he's got some bs to sell.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2013/02/19 09:01:25
Subject: Republican Party Broken: How Can It Be Fixed?
The short version is, what can the Republicans do?
Edited by AgeOfEgos
I'm sick of politics, and I'm sick of the republicans in particular. I'm not a democrat, and I'm tired of being mistaken for one. I only vote for them because I believe in big government. If we had it my way, america would be an empire. I look at countries like Britain and Germany and see their success and then look back at our inbred, fat, stupid, declining society and see what this foolish notion of 'freedom' has really gotten us. We're only ever any good when we've got a visionary leader like JFK or FDR who all but ignores the democratic process to get their way or when we've got an enemy to beat like Germany or the USSR or even the inbred south.
Maybe I'm crazy, or maybe I should just take more meds, but when you look at the big picture I think an Imperial America would be far better on the whole, the government wouldn't have to put up with stupid ideas like the tea party, they could just publicly execute them. And I think that would be a better world.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/21 04:36:59
MY ARMOR IS CONTEMPT
MY SHIELD IS DISGUST
MY SWORD IS HATRED
IN THE EMPEROR'S NAME
LET NONE SURVIVE
d-usa wrote: Single issue voting is a product of a two party system.
If you only have two parties, then they will have a position on every single issue. And if you are leaning anywhere in the middle where neither party represents you and your issues are split between the two, then you are forced to decide which issue (or few issues) are the most important to you. I can vote pro-gun and ignore my desire for gay marriage rights and pro-choice legilation. Or I can vote for gay marriage rights and abandon my gun position.
The point I was making earlier was that we have two parties, and yet we just don't have single issue voting on any real level (sometimes you see a sticker saying "I fish and I vote" but that's about it).
Exactly why that is is a pretty good question. Perhaps its because over here you have to vote, and so there's no effort made to identify individual voters on their key issue, instead they just look to appeal overall to the general majority on the broad issue that affects everyone (economics). In the US, though, being generally appealing isn't enough, as people just aren't going to take a few hours out of their life because one party is broadly more appealling than the other. So instead they target individual voters groups on their special issues.
But maybe that doesn't work, as the UK doesn't have mandatory voting, but their politics don't really include special issue voters either. Perhaps it's a cultural thing. Americans have always seem very cause driven, with way more than the average share of activists for all kinds of causes.
And given that activism is something I quite admire... maybe the balkanisation of your politics is something that should just be accepted?
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2013/02/19 09:40:09
Subject: Republican Party Broken: How Can It Be Fixed?
d-usa wrote: Single issue voting is a product of a two party system.
If you only have two parties, then they will have a position on every single issue. And if you are leaning anywhere in the middle where neither party represents you and your issues are split between the two, then you are forced to decide which issue (or few issues) are the most important to you. I can vote pro-gun and ignore my desire for gay marriage rights and pro-choice legilation. Or I can vote for gay marriage rights and abandon my gun position.
The point I was making earlier was that we have two parties, and yet we just don't have single issue voting on any real level (sometimes you see a sticker saying "I fish and I vote" but that's about it).
Exactly why that is is a pretty good question. Perhaps its because over here you have to vote, and so there's no effort made to identify individual voters on their key issue, instead they just look to appeal overall to the general majority on the broad issue that affects everyone (economics). In the US, though, being generally appealing isn't enough, as people just aren't going to take a few hours out of their life because one party is broadly more appealling than the other. So instead they target individual voters groups on their special issues.
But maybe that doesn't work, as the UK doesn't have mandatory voting, but their politics don't really include special issue voters either. Perhaps it's a cultural thing. Americans have always seem very cause driven, with way more than the average share of activists for all kinds of causes.
And given that activism is something I quite admire... maybe the balkanisation of your politics is something that should just be accepted?
I don't know. Does Australia usually end up with coalition governments? My only other real experience is Germany, where we have 5 active parties that usually make it past the 5% limit. So there is more opportunity for variety and it seems like single issue voting becomes less of a problem if you have a Conservative Party, Fiscal conservative/Social liberal party, Socialist Party, Green Party, etc. That makes it easier to pick a party based on a whole platform I think. And even voting for a small party that might only get 10-15% is not a vote that is thrown away in a system like that because there is an opportunity for a coalition government where even your small party gets a vote. Heck, the Greens were a ruling coalition in Germany at one point.
Of course direct representation vs parliamentary system is a whole separate issue that would be pretty off topic in this.
2013/02/19 23:17:07
Subject: Republican Party Broken: How Can It Be Fixed?
d-usa wrote: Single issue voting is a product of a two party system.
If you only have two parties, then they will have a position on every single issue. And if you are leaning anywhere in the middle where neither party represents you and your issues are split between the two, then you are forced to decide which issue (or few issues) are the most important to you. I can vote pro-gun and ignore my desire for gay marriage rights and pro-choice legilation. Or I can vote for gay marriage rights and abandon my gun position.
The point I was making earlier was that we have two parties, and yet we just don't have single issue voting on any real level (sometimes you see a sticker saying "I fish and I vote" but that's about it).
Exactly why that is is a pretty good question. Perhaps its because over here you have to vote, and so there's no effort made to identify individual voters on their key issue, instead they just look to appeal overall to the general majority on the broad issue that affects everyone (economics). In the US, though, being generally appealing isn't enough, as people just aren't going to take a few hours out of their life because one party is broadly more appealling than the other. So instead they target individual voters groups on their special issues.
But maybe that doesn't work, as the UK doesn't have mandatory voting, but their politics don't really include special issue voters either. Perhaps it's a cultural thing. Americans have always seem very cause driven, with way more than the average share of activists for all kinds of causes.
And given that activism is something I quite admire... maybe the balkanisation of your politics is something that should just be accepted?
Wait... WAIT!
o.O
You "HAVE to VOTE"?
...
...
...
Two questions for you (or fellow Aussies):
1) If you don't vote, what happens to you?
2) How do you identify yourself during voting and what proof is there that you DID vote?
"But President Obama? He believes it's the cause of our problems. That the economic downturn happened because our government didn't tax enough, spend enough and control enough. And, therefore, as you heard tonight, his solution to virtually every problem we face is for Washington to tax more, borrow more and spend more.
This idea – that our problems were caused by a government that was too small – it's just not true. In fact, a major cause of our recent downturn was a housing crisis created by reckless government policies.
And the idea that more taxes and more government spending is the best way to help hardworking middle class taxpayers – that's an old idea that's failed every time it's been tried."
Just stunningly, stunningly absurd. The product of a party that just does not give one gak about reality, only what they can put in a speach to rouse up the base.
It's practically a mirror image "response" to the SotU address.
Both are equally bad... but, you seem to give Obama a pass there...
But, two things about that blurb up there:
A) This is not Obama's fault as it was in place before his time, but the "recent downturn was a housing crisis created by reckless government policies" is absolutely true.
B) "the idea that more taxes and more government spending is the best way to help hardworking middle class taxpayers"... what's wrong with that line.
Sure it's all politicking, but how is it different than the SotU address?
Me personally? It's all crap... it's like we've never left the campaign trails.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Single issue voting is a product of a two party system.
If you only have two parties, then they will have a position on every single issue. And if you are leaning anywhere in the middle where neither party represents you and your issues are split between the two, then you are forced to decide which issue (or few issues) are the most important to you. I can vote pro-gun and ignore my desire for gay marriage rights and pro-choice legilation. Or I can vote for gay marriage rights and abandon my gun position.
That's a very good point...
feth if I knew how to mitigate that.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/02/19 23:24:37
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2013/02/20 03:09:49
Subject: Republican Party Broken: How Can It Be Fixed?
d-usa wrote: I don't know. Does Australia usually end up with coalition governments?
Well, like yourselves we've got a house of reps and a senate. Like yourselves, our house of reps is nominated electorate by electorate, with each having one winner, who then takes up a seat in parliament*. Because there's only one winner, then like your system it tends towards a two party system. This has meant that while the Greens, Democrats and other minority parties might win up to 10 or 15% of the vote in a good year, in almost every seat in the country the overall winner will be from one of the two major parties, Liberal or Labor, and the result is a parliament dominated by those two parties (the Greens made history winning their first seat in the last election, and a few elections before that the Democrats managed it for the first time). It is very rare in our history that governments have had to form a coalition in order to claim a majority of seats.
And like your system we have a senate which is nominated on a state by state basis. The difference being that we don't just nominate one senator at a time, we nominate six in each election. Those six senate positions are allocated, state by state, by proportional representation. So its in this house that you will see Greens, Democrats and other groups win seats, and will often represent the balance of power between the major parties.
*The major difference between your political system and ours is that we have no direct election for our leader. Instead, whichever party holds the majority in government is able to make its leader the Prime Minister, who has powers and responsibilities that are more or less the equivalent of your President.
My only other real experience is Germany, where we have 5 active parties that usually make it past the 5% limit. So there is more opportunity for variety and it seems like single issue voting becomes less of a problem if you have a Conservative Party, Fiscal conservative/Social liberal party, Socialist Party, Green Party, etc. That makes it easier to pick a party based on a whole platform I think. And even voting for a small party that might only get 10-15% is not a vote that is thrown away in a system like that because there is an opportunity for a coalition government where even your small party gets a vote. Heck, the Greens were a ruling coalition in Germany at one point.
Sure, but if people are inclined to vote for on single issues, then what you are likely to get are coalition governments that are strange alliances of all manner of single issue parties, which is by and large no different to having a major party that is a strange combination of various minor issues.
I'm thinking more and more that if the electorate is inclined to vote based on a pet issue, there's not much you can do in terms of a political system to prevent it.
You "HAVE to VOTE"?
...
...
...
Two questions for you (or fellow Aussies):
1) If you don't vote, what happens to you?
2) How do you identify yourself during voting and what proof is there that you DID vote?
There's a fine, a mate who forgot to vote in the last election told me he was fined about $50 for a first failure. Repeatedly failing to turn up to vote and the fine goes up. You can be excused though, and it isn't hard. I didn't vote in one election and got sent a fine, I replied telling them I was in India, and they said that was fine, if I provided proof I was in India - I never replied and they just cancelled the fine anyway
When you go to vote you just tell the person your name and address, and they just make a pen mark next to your name your name on a big list. No ID provided or anything like that.
It's practically a mirror image "response" to the SotU address.
Both are equally bad... but, you seem to give Obama a pass there...
But, two things about that blurb up there:
A) This is not Obama's fault as it was in place before his time, but the "recent downturn was a housing crisis created by reckless government policies" is absolutely true.
Seriously, no it isn't. Lots of studies, and they've all concluded the exact opposite.
As David Min summarises;
"Did Fannie and Freddie buy high-risk mortgage-backed securities? Yes. But they did not buy enough of them to be blamed for the mortgage crisis. Highly respected analysts who have looked at these data in much greater detail than Wallison, Pinto, or myself, including the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission majority, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, and virtually all academics, including the University of North Carolina, Glaeser et al at Harvard, and the St. Louis Federal Reserve, have all rejected the Wallison/Pinto argument that federal affordable housing policies were responsible for the proliferation of actual high-risk mortgages over the past decade."
You can go to that link, and click through to any of those studies that you like. And if the likes of GAO and Harvard aren't enough, I can give more links. But the simple fact is that from 2002 to 2005 the amount of government originated loans dropped from 50% to under 30% of the market, while private securitised debt went from 10% to 40% of the market. Simply put, we can see clear as day that the government portion of the market dropped away as private firms got really excited about this new model of lending, tranching the loan into bundles of safe and less debt, selling to the market and repeating the process over and over again. All of which was a great way to make money as long as the housing bubble kept getting bigger.
But then we have Rubio, who is happy to repeat something we simply know is not true, because blaming government is easier than questioning his ideology.
B) "the idea that more taxes and more government spending is the best way to help hardworking middle class taxpayers"... what's wrong with that line.
It has nothing to do with the position of Obama or any Democrat. It's a very, very silly strawman.
Sure it's all politicking, but how is it different than the SotU address?
The State of the Union contained politics. Of course it did, it's one of the major public addresses by the most prominent politician in the country.
The difference is that Obama's political comments were on addressing contentious issues. Rubio made claims that we know are completely and utterly wrong.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/20 03:47:42
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2013/02/20 20:08:27
Subject: Re:Republican Party Broken: How Can It Be Fixed?
You "HAVE to VOTE"?
...
...
...
Two questions for you (or fellow Aussies):
1) If you don't vote, what happens to you?
2) How do you identify yourself during voting and what proof is there that you DID vote?
There's a fine, a mate who forgot to vote in the last election told me he was fined about $50 for a first failure. Repeatedly failing to turn up to vote and the fine goes up. You can be excused though, and it isn't hard. I didn't vote in one election and got sent a fine, I replied telling them I was in India, and they said that was fine, if I provided proof I was in India - I never replied and they just cancelled the fine anyway
When you go to vote you just tell the person your name and address, and they just make a pen mark next to your name your name on a big list. No ID provided or anything like that.
Interesting.
Don't think that'll ever work here.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/20 20:10:05
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2013/02/21 02:01:46
Subject: Republican Party Broken: How Can It Be Fixed?
One big problem I have with the GOP is that it starts in Iowa. In the space of 10 days, the leader of the GOP in Iowa changed 6 times. I think the GOP should start in a random state each year.
2013/02/21 03:06:16
Subject: Re:Republican Party Broken: How Can It Be Fixed?
whembly wrote: Er... Fanny Mea was a cause... not THE cause. Obviously, there were numerous contributors to the crisis. Here's a Bloomberg article to that affect.
I see the hair splitting.
Given Fannie Mae had been doing the work it was doing since the Great Depression, and Freddie Mac was set up in the 1970s as an another company doing more or less the same thing... it's a little weird to put the housing bubble on their shoulders.
At the same time there was massive changes in the financial sector, as banks started to see tranching as a way to shortcut their business cycle, enabling more loans and therefore much greater returns on profit. That process exploded in the 2000s, and Freddie and Fannie became a much smaller portion of the overall market as a result.
In the wake of that bubble bursting, to turn around and blame any of it on the guys who'd been doing it for generations just seems weird.
Interesting.
Don't think that'll ever work here.
Yeah, it isn't even slightly viable in the US.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2013/02/21 04:38:21
Subject: Re:Republican Party Broken: How Can It Be Fixed?
Its that 50 year mark/ time for a revolution. Question is, "will it be a relitively bloodless social revolution like in the 1960's and 1910's or is it going to be bloody one like the 1860's?
So which option do you want?
D)All of the above
Are you guys serious when you say thinsg like this? Would you really want to see another civil war? That is very scary thinking indeed. I know you are probably just doing some mild trolling, but there are people near me who actually think like this and their idiocy is astounding.
Care to rephrase your reply in a manner that is not inferring an insult? Seriously, I understand the debate/propoganda trick you are using here and it is not condusive to honest communication. This very tactic of inferred insult is used by the political parties to divide the country for their own benefit. It breaks trust and stifles communication.
To explain
You are immediately trying to take some form of intellectual high ground while trying to cast me in a nebulous role of an idiotic radical. This is a bullying tactic designed to force me to back away from a stance you disagree with without discussion. Thing is that this is all hyperbole inferred by you and has little to do with the reality of my point or stance. Next time, just ask for clarification rather than inferring that I think like idiots.
The reality is that you do not know who I am nor what are my political leanings.
Ok. My initial point is that both parties are broken. National polls show that neither party is following the will of their majority constituency. This is reflected by many people viewing the voting process as a lesser of two evils.
My second point is that the country is broken. This is an admittedly overly broad statement that includes a broken legal system, broken banking system, broken election process, rampant corporate/government corruption and a strongly divided populace.
Our government is not working to fix these issues because it is in the politicians best interest for things to continue on their highly corrupted course. Rather than fix issues that have been around for the past 30+ years, our leaders use divisive tactics to keep us arguing amoungst ourselves while they have constantly extend their dominion over the citizenry. They have done this by enacting laws that have steadiy erroded our individual rights and have co-opted the judicial branch that was to be our protection against such legislation.
My proof of this last bit is that
The Patriot Act was enacted and still laid the ground work the NDAA which allows our President to target US citizens for non-constitutional incarceration and appearently now assination via drone.
The ACA was ruled constitutional
That SOPA was even proposed
Also, We as a nation are broken because the last few generations have not been raised with the ethics of co-operation. Rather they have been raised to have an unearned sense of accomplishment and to be highly narcisistic. Due to this, people in the US no longer care if they or their leaders are being hippocrites just so long as their team wins. Basically, people no longer know how to compromise in this country.
So, if the system is broke and we have a non-responsive government making a steady grab for power and a divided and entrenched populace what are the people to do?
First, They complain to there representatives.
They are then told that to follow the will of the people when there is a majority concensus is to be a populist type of government and that is wrong.(Seriously, this was the argument as to why the ACA was pushed through when 60% of the nation was against it).
Second, They try to get new blood elected in to office.
The citizenry quicly find that the system is rigged to prevent the rise of a viable third party and that new bloods that they elected through the existing parties last less than 2 years before being co-opted
Third, they gather to protest, to ask for their greivances to be redressed.
Wait, there are new homeland security laws that can stop such from happening or even making the news.
Fourth ?????(Suggesting people would use their constitutional right of passive civil disobediance could be viewed as encouraging people to act against the government and would thus fall under this administrations definition of being a terrorist. So, I wont do that (Note, this step has brought about the most positive changes in our society(workers rights to unionize, womens suffrage and civil rights movement).
Fifth?????(You know where this is going, same as above but the next step.: (This step is not desirable but did bring change, guess sometimes there has to be a bruhah to clear the air)
You see, No government has ever stopped being corrupt or just given rights and freedoms back to their citizens without the citizenry doing the highly risky thing of standing up for themselves. When you have people who stand up for themselves and others, it is the governments duty to listen and to make an effort to come up with an inclussive way of addressing such issues. If the government doesn't listen what are we to do?
Our founding fathers understood that all governments get to the point that they no longer listen to the will of their citizens and left a series of safeguards in place. Thomas Jefferson estimated that these safe guards could fail as often as every 30 years and recommended a sort of mini-revolution as the last two safe guards. The country has hit the fourth and fifth safe guards at least a total of 3 times in this nations history. The important thing is to remember that such occurances were and are a part of the plan around which our government was designed. It is one of the things that makes our constitutional system so great, now if we can only get back on it.
It is also important to remember that if the people reach the point of the 4th or 5th safe guard it is the governments fault it went that far, not the citizens.
To better answer your question:
Do I want effective change that is a balanced compromise? Yes
Do I want a revolution? No.
Do I want the government to be fixed? Yes
Will our government fix itself without the citizenry stepping up to demand such? History says no. Do I want violence? No!
Will it take violence to fix the issue? The pragmatic and historical answer is maybe. Personally, I hope not but would not be suprised if it came to such. It doesn't look good when you look at the recent actions of our government(NDAA and Drone strikes against american citizens).
What model of change do I advocate? That we might learn a lesson from the French. If the government won't listen....Peaceful nationwide strikes to shut down the money flow until the government starts to listen and work with its citizenry.
Wholly agree with ya on the assessable income category. I'd even go as far as having no deductions.
Well you just have to have deductions. I mean if you've got two guys, one earning $80 as an office drone with no expenses, and another guy earning $80k as an electrician, who's got advertising expenses, tools, materials and all the rest, it's just basically unfair to charge them both the same amount of tax. The second guy's actual disposable income, after he's paid for the all the expenses of his business, is just straight up lower than the first guy's.
Yeah... I see your point on that. If there's going to be deduction, then it needs to be a tool to facilitate better economic condition rather than being used as political playoffs.
Why are you giving in so easily? Just because sebster says that there "have" to be deductions doesn't make it so. The reasons he gave opinion, not gospel.
Fat tax of 15% with no deductions would roughly equal the current level of current taxation after deductions. And that is without all of the bureaucratic waste of money shuffling. The electrician just changes his business model to incorporate the costs via pricing and a lower tax rate that doesn't force him to take 20% in dedusctions. Basically, the deductions are already here.
What a Flat Tax would do is make the x percent of the lower earners actually pay in more than they get back in income taxes. Few years back, using standard deductions in household of 2 parents and 2 dependent children(earned income and child credits) making 50,000 a year, a family could get a refund that exceeded their total income tax witholding. Now getting a fat return in excess of 10k is nice, but it does leave you wondering who is paying for all of this.
Officially elevated by St. God of Yams to the rank of Scholar of the Church of the Children of the Eternal Turtle Pie at 11:42:36 PM 05/01/09
If they are too stupid to live, why make them?
In the immortal words of Socrates, I drank what??!
Tau-*****points(You really don't want to know)
2013/02/21 06:00:27
Subject: Re:Republican Party Broken: How Can It Be Fixed?
Wholly agree with ya on the assessable income category. I'd even go as far as having no deductions.
Well you just have to have deductions. I mean if you've got two guys, one earning $80 as an office drone with no expenses, and another guy earning $80k as an electrician, who's got advertising expenses, tools, materials and all the rest, it's just basically unfair to charge them both the same amount of tax. The second guy's actual disposable income, after he's paid for the all the expenses of his business, is just straight up lower than the first guy's.
Yeah... I see your point on that. If there's going to be deduction, then it needs to be a tool to facilitate better economic condition rather than being used as political playoffs.
Why are you giving in so easily? Just because sebster says that there "have" to be deductions doesn't make it so. The reasons he gave opinion, not gospel.
Fat tax of 15% with no deductions would roughly equal the current level of current taxation after deductions. And that is without all of the bureaucratic waste of money shuffling. The electrician just changes his business model to incorporate the costs via pricing and a lower tax rate that doesn't force him to take 20% in dedusctions. Basically, the deductions are already here.
What a Flat Tax would do is make the x percent of the lower earners actually pay in more than they get back in income taxes. Few years back, using standard deductions in household of 2 parents and 2 dependent children(earned income and child credits) making 50,000 a year, a family could get a refund that exceeded their total income tax witholding. Now getting a fat return in excess of 10k is nice, but it does leave you wondering who is paying for all of this.
Easier said than done...
The idea if using deductions can HELP small businesses off the ground. That helps drive DOWN the need of startup money.
Like I said, as long as deductions (and the like) are used to functionally promote healthy economic conditions... I'd consider it. But, currently it ain't used that way at all.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/02/21 06:02:18
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2013/02/21 06:22:32
Subject: Re:Republican Party Broken: How Can It Be Fixed?
focusedfire wrote: Why are you giving in so easily? Just because sebster says that there "have" to be deductions doesn't make it so. The reasons he gave opinion, not gospel.
Fat tax of 15% with no deductions would roughly equal the current level of current taxation after deductions. And that is without all of the bureaucratic waste of money shuffling. The electrician just changes his business model to incorporate the costs via pricing and a lower tax rate that doesn't force him to take 20% in dedusctions. Basically, the deductions are already here.
You can't just 'change your business model' to no longer have inventory. Forget about the electrician, how would that work for a hardware store? And the whole fething point of a tax system is that it is efficiently levied without interfering with the natural economy. Read your Adam Smith.
I mean honest and truly to anyone that's even half thinking about this, it should be absolutely obvious how this has to work. You have two guys who take home $80,000 a year, you want to charge them both the same tax. No-one can argue with that. With a simple income and deductions system, they will be charged the same whether it's $80,000 in straight salary, or $150,000 in sales for the business, less $70,000 in expenses.
But with your 'I've never spent a second studying tax in my life but I'm on the internet so of course I know how to completely reform the system' logic, the first guy gets taxed on an income of $80,000, the second guy gets taxed on an income of $150,000. Absurd.
The idea if using deductions can HELP small businesses off the ground. That helps drive DOWN the need of startup money.
Like I said, as long as deductions (and the like) are used to functionally promote healthy economic conditions... I'd consider it. But, currently it ain't used that way at all.
I really don't think it should be about promoting one economic activity or another (outside of very specific cases, like R&D).
It really is about the simple fact that income is the total amount brought in, less the amount spent to bring that money in. Simply dropping the second part of that produces a gibberish tax system, that is entirely incapable of accounting for the wide variety of ways in which people make money.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/21 06:25:22
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2013/02/21 07:19:14
Subject: Republican Party Broken: How Can It Be Fixed?
Kilkrazy wrote: If the USA "broke" about 30 years ago, what "broke" it?
You have the same constitution, system of government and laws, and so on.
Was it the behaviour of the electorate that changed, perhaps?
And should we really consider it any more broken now than it was 30 years ago, when people were also calling it broken?
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2013/02/21 08:04:37
Subject: Republican Party Broken: How Can It Be Fixed?
Frazzled wrote: Whatever they do, as long as they don't listen to lefties offering "advice" they will be fine.
I love this advice with all my heart, and hope your party continues to heed this sage wisdom. Don't listen to "lefties"; what do they know? Nate Silver? He's from the New York Times, and that's Pravda, as you're so fond of saying! Keep listening to Michael Barone, George Will, Dick Morris, Karl Rove, and Rush Limbaugh, I say!
Listening to the enemy is never conducive to a winning strategy.
One thing that hurt the party is the system of primaries. You had several moderate republicans get voted out and replaced by extremely right candidates. The presidential election was basically a pissing contest for republican candidates to see who could out extreme each other. Some moderates left the party in disgust like Arlen Specter. Here is a good article by David Frum who is a conservative talking about the problems for moderate republicans. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/29/are-moderate-republicans-useless.html
One of the worse things the party has done is to label moderates and centrists RINOs and equate it to democrats.
Easy E wrote: Who is the Senator in the bottom row, and third from left?
Rand Paul I think.
Look at the guy next to him. Now we know why the Joker's been quiet for a while. HE'S IN CONGRESS!!!
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2013/02/21 14:38:45
Subject: Republican Party Broken: How Can It Be Fixed?
Rand? No way! For some reason he sent my office a Christams card (we are not in his district/state) and he didn;t look like a living Ronald McDonald in the card.
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
4000pts
(Note, this step has brought about the most positive changes in our society(workers rights to unionize, womens suffrage and civil rights movement).
(This step is not desirable but did bring change, guess sometimes there has to be a bruhah to clear the air)
Officially elevated by St. God of Yams to the rank of Scholar of the Church of the Children of the Eternal Turtle Pie at 11:42:36 PM 05/01/09 
