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.

We still have a year and a half (almost) until the election; if you don't pace yourselves you will be worn out long before it arrives.

Hey, it's called the political junkie thread for a reason.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Hey, it's called the political junkie thread for a reason.

Sure, but you still hate to see people hurt themselves so early in the running and have nothing left for the end.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Hey, it's called the political junkie thread for a reason.

Sure, but you still hate to see people hurt themselves so early in the running and have nothing left for the end.

Don't worry... the Clinton saga goes really deep in the rabbit hole.

 whembly wrote:

Don't worry... the Clinton saga goes really deep in the rabbit hole.

Says the guy who not only jumped on the Benghazi and IRS bandwagons, but stayed on long after everyone else got tired of the ride.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

Maybe I'm just dense, but it seems to me that these words: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." would also mean that, as a lawmaker, you cannot use your religion to create and define law.

So long as the relevant legislation doesn't specifically mention a particular religion, or religious establishment the lawmaker is in the clear. Well, unless you go with the extra strict interpretation whereby the clause only prevents Congress from establishing a state religion, but that way madness lies.

 whembly wrote:
Apparently, this is the most transparent administration ever…to our adversaries.

You know you can get unclassified emails by way of FOIA, right?

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Nah... you're just projecting.

Projecting what? US conservatives have made an issue of "waste" in US social programs for a long time. This is simply fact.

I'd say the budget mess in Kansas is a shining example of this process.

1. Cut taxes on wealthy
2. Oh noes! Budget shortfall!
3. Cut spending on filthy, dirty poors.
4. Oh noes! Not enough to fix the shortfall.
5. ??????

Hey at least the wealthy profit.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Hey at least the wealthy profit.

That is the problem, the wealthy are now profiting at such a rate as to make things as lopsided as they were pre-depression era, we are back in the 1920's socioeconomically speaking for a comparative from history.
Cutting taxes on the wealthy and shifting the tax burden to the poor and middle class has failed.

Cutting taxes on wealthy individuals was never going to work. If instead they argued to cut corporate taxes, it would make more sense, but individuals making more money is not going to make more jobs.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Cutting taxes on wealthy individuals was never going to work. If instead they argued to cut corporate taxes, it would make more sense, but individuals making more money is not going to make more jobs.

And yet, the tax cuts for wealthy individuals took place, and look where we are at now. Even if taxed at a 70% rate the Koch Bros would still clear 3.9mill a day each (Presently they rake in 13mill a day) the Founding Father had a high tax on the rich so that the Rich could not abuse the power of money to take the nation away from the People as part of the experiment that was the United States. If anything, the tax cuts to the corporates still did not keep them from shipping jobs overseas. Just some fast talk to allow them the money to do as they pleased.

Is Maryland enjoying its Race War?
NSFW

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Cutting taxes on wealthy individuals was never going to work. If instead they argued to cut corporate taxes, it would make more sense, but individuals making more money is not going to make more jobs.

Cutting taxes on either isn't going to create jobs. Plenty of corporations clear billions in profits each year; money for hiring isn't the issue.

Take Wal-Mart
Walmart increased net sales by 1.6% to $473.1 billion and returned $12.8 billion to shareholders through dividends and share repurchases.

And yet even with their recent wage hike, most of their employees STILL have to receive public services (i.e., welfare). We already give corporations like them millions of tax payer dollars every year, cutting their taxes further isn't going to do anything. At least hiking their taxes they can pay for the services their employees are on, even if they indirectly pay.

Wal-mart is horrible with welfare, as they get a lot of the welfare money that their employees get. It's actually better for wal-mart for their employees to stay poor.

:sigh:

When roughly half of the population don't pay taxes... things get, tricky.

The real issue is that we have a spending problem. I'd be okay with a moriatorium on new taxes... so that, if nothing else, hard choices are forced upon our congressional critters.

 whembly wrote:

The real issue is that we have a spending problem. I'd be okay with a moriatorium on new taxes... so that, if nothing else, hard choices are forced upon our congressional critters.

The sad part is that the choices don't actually need to be hard. Just spend more intelligently, and eliminate the waste, fraud, and abuse from all parts of the government, and we would be doing pretty good. But every Congressman has to have their pet projects....

There's enough pork in the US budget to feed a few banquets.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
There's enough pork in the US budget to feed a few banquets.

A certain Czar comes to mind. Believed he tried something along that line in Russia


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Medium of Death wrote:
Is Maryland enjoying its Race War?
NSFW

Spoiler:

Gangs of Baltimore
Blood
Crypts
Black Gorilla Family

Entering a pact to take out LEO's in Baltimore

This is not going to turn out well

 whembly wrote:

When roughly half of the population don't pay taxes... things get, tricky.

The myth you're propagating was debunked quite some time ago.

 Jihadin wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
There's enough pork in the US budget to feed a few banquets.

A certain Czar comes to mind. Believed he tried something along that line in Russia


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Medium of Death wrote:
Is Maryland enjoying its Race War?
NSFW

Spoiler:

Gangs of Baltimore
Blood
Crypts
Black Gorilla Family

Entering a pact to take out LEO's in Baltimore

This is not going to turn out well

Wait is that Crypts as in a different gang or Crips as in LA Crips?

Crips I meant....sorry....my childhood educmecation took over or Tales from the Crypt influence..

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

When roughly half of the population don't pay taxes... things get, tricky.

The myth you're propagating was debunked quite some time ago.

I was referencing Fed income taxes.

Really though, if enough people are poor enough to not pay taxes, that points to a different issue entirely. Not one of funding, but of income inequality.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Really though, if enough people are poor enough to not pay taxes, that points to a different issue entirely. Not one of funding, but of income inequality.

I have to admit, the whole concept of 'income equality' bothers me a lot. There are way too many variables into how different types of labor are and should be valued for me to think 'income equality' is a good thing.

 whembly wrote:
:sigh:

When roughly half of the population don't pay taxes... things get, tricky.

The real issue is that we have a spending problem. I'd be okay with a moriatorium on new taxes... so that, if nothing else, hard choices are forced upon our congressional critters.

It's amazing how many people thinks this drivel is true, or that social program spending is somehow the issue.

The fact that so many people who are employed still depend on social programs, should be a giant blinking red arrow pointing at the source of the problem. Instead, we continue to blame poor people for being poor in the first place.

 streamdragon wrote:

 whembly wrote:
:sigh:

When roughly half of the population don't pay taxes... things get, tricky.

The real issue is that we have a spending problem. I'd be okay with a moriatorium on new taxes... so that, if nothing else, hard choices are forced upon our congressional critters.

It's amazing how many people thinks this drivel is true, or that social program spending is somehow the issue.

The fact that so many people who are employed still depend on social programs, should be a giant blinking red arrow pointing at the source of the problem. Instead, we continue to blame poor people for being poor in the first place.

Put away your pitchfork...
http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/news/economy/rich-taxes/

As to "blaming the poor"... erm... so life choices have no bearing?

Not enough bootstraps?

 whembly wrote:

Put away your pitchfork...
http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/news/economy/rich-taxes/

As to "blaming the poor"... erm... so life choices have no bearing?

Not enough bootstraps?

Hahaha, oh my. Of course the rich pay a larger dollar amount. They have more money in the first place. Looking at it as a percentage of their actual income though, and those numbers suddenly drop through the floor as they certainly aren't paying the ~35% that most of the middle class pays. (Including FICA, Social Security, et al) I mean, you have some people's kids throwing away more money in a night than some full time workers make in three years. And it's the worst kept secret in the world that there is more money offshore than the national debt. How much of that gets taxed appropriately?

Life choices most certainly have a bearing, but not as much as people like to point to. Most agree that social mobility has fallen in the US, especially compared to the era where the wealthiest were actually taxed "appropriately". (I put that in quotes, because obviously that's somewhat subjective with plenty of people having no problem with the wealthy paying nothing.) But you'd be hard pressed to argue that social programs in the US give any chance at mobility, when Kansas would rather limit ATM withdrawls (among a list of other "frell you poors!" items) than actually address that their tax cuts aren't bring in new jobs and put the state budget below even it's basic necessary spending.

But yeah, not enough bootstraps.

I feel like there are around 6 conversations going on in this thread that aren't really linked to each other in any meaningful way

 Ouze wrote:
I feel like there are around 6 conversations going on in this thread that aren't really linked to each other in any meaningful way

Same could be said of the more liberal friends here.

But hey, these topics can be incindiary so it's good to keep it in one bucket.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 streamdragon wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Put away your pitchfork...
http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/news/economy/rich-taxes/

As to "blaming the poor"... erm... so life choices have no bearing?

Not enough bootstraps?

Hahaha, oh my. Of course the rich pay a larger dollar amount. They have more money in the first place. Looking at it as a percentage of their actual income though, and those numbers suddenly drop through the floor as they certainly aren't paying the ~35% that most of the middle class pays. (Including FICA, Social Security, et al) I mean, you have some people's kids throwing away more money in a night than some full time workers make in three years. And it's the worst kept secret in the world that there is more money offshore than the national debt. How much of that gets taxed appropriately?

Part of the problem is that the US' tax code is "global" and not "regional" like most of the world.

And your point about rich being rich? O.o You say that like, "it's wrong to be filthy rich".

Life choices most certainly have a bearing, but not as much as people like to point to. Most agree that social mobility has fallen in the US, especially compared to the era where the wealthiest were actually taxed "appropriately". (I put that in quotes, because obviously that's somewhat subjective with plenty of people having no problem with the wealthy paying nothing.) But you'd be hard pressed to argue that social programs in the US give any chance at mobility, when Kansas would rather limit ATM withdrawls (among a list of other "frell you poors!" items) than actually address that their tax cuts aren't bring in new jobs and put the state budget below even it's basic necessary spending.

Social programs is/should be used to either get folks back on their feet, or prevent folks from truly being destitute.

But yeah, not enough bootstraps.

Exactly.

Hell many try the whole rule of "work hard, save and get ahead" which is a crock in the past 40yrs or so as the paychecks stayed the same, wages were not increased for the majority of us working our asses, so what was left to save?

Rent is 2/3 of a paycheck, add in utility payments, travel (even mass transit can cost as much as a car in fuel costs for a person (80 a month for a monthly pass) 80 for gas if you don't do more than drive to/from work shopping.
Then there is medical payments, and food for if you starve yourself in calorie cut off you get sloppy at work, sick easier, which can lead to late and absenteeism. That paycheck is not leaving much left to save, and under a certain dollar amount a month the banks charge the poor maintenance fees that cut into those savings.

The reason even those who are not rich support the wealthy? they simply see themselves as temporarily financially embarrassed millionaires in their heads.

These are issues that are related as all our political issues are becoming a problem of the Haves vs the have nots and the Haves pay some money to think tanks and other organizations to make it seem the poor are the bad guys, when in reality it was poor political/economic policies that widened the gaps in the first place requiring folks to seek help. only a small % of those seeking help tested for drugs were in fact drug users, but hey, that also cost a lot of money to do such screening because someone came up with that failed idea that all poor were junkies, when in fact they are working families who have been "downgraded" job/income wise.

Now what happens in the future when all jobs or most are robot done? how will people live then?

 shasolenzabi wrote:

, when in reality it was poor political/economic policies that widened the gaps in the first place requiring folks to seek help.

Can we admit the 'war on poverty', as it is currently being fought, is a disaster?

That is why some of us don't see the Federal gov't as The Solution. They have been 'fixing' this problem for a couple of generations at this point. Giving them more resources and power, based on their track record, does not pass the common sense test. Unless you believe "This Time They'll Get It Right!". I don't.

 shasolenzabi wrote:
only a small % of those seeking help tested for drugs were in fact drug users, but hey, that also cost a lot of money to do such screening because someone came up with that failed idea that all poor were junkies, when in fact they are working families who have been "downgraded" job/income wise.

Aside from it being a waste of tax payer funds, it is (in my opinion) a massive violation of 4th Amendment rights.