Presidential Election: 2012

[Keef]

I don't know how the tax system worked back then, but no matter, because a flat-percentage tax sounds like a good idea to me. If it's going to be involuntary and enforceable by the IRS's guns, then at least it can be fair to everybody.

At the end of the day it appears an individual's "taxable income" will be a bit less than gross, so technically their income tax would be even less than 10% of gross. Again, I don't know much about the tax system or deductions or anything, but it sounds fairer than our system today.

 

[shmogt]

Flat rate tax is not all its cracked up to be. It's on of those things that help big businesses but screws the people. Here in Canada we had two taxes pst and gst and it was a bitch for businesses because you have to file two sets of taxes each year. Selling stuff was one or the other or both too which is more confusing. Now they have combined them into HST (13%) on everything and it's so much worse for the people. Gas is now taxed 13% instead of 7% and gas already has a tax built in so it's a tax on a tax which makes no sense. Things like gym memberships are now Hst and it really adds up. My gym fees is $300 for the year and tax is almost $50 which is insane since before it was like $12. They need to either keep separate taxes simplify them which shouldn't be that hard but they made so many rules now or make one flat tax (better idea) that is lower than it was before since it will be in everything making the profits much higher. Ron's 10% on all is easier than the 4% on things under $100 and 8% on things over $100, but it's still too much to make a convincing argument to change everything. The black guys 9-9-9 plan is I guess the same only 9% on everything, but the way it's worked out again makes it higher for lower income people and less for high income brackets. All these plans are built in guess and assumptions so when you hear the guys 9-9-9 plan he is saying it will be better basses on what his teams guesses are. His guesses are nuts tho and not going to happen and the reason why everyone is hating on it since the numbers they are testing with it make it seem worse.

 

[Dapper]

Even Ron Paul has said lately, probably in response to Perry's tax plan, that a flat tax is regressive and probably a bad idea.

Considering about 1/2 of the US population doesn't pay income tax, taking 10-20% of their income is not going to help the standard of living for them, or the people whose products they buy (because they won't have enough money to buy anything).

 

[shmogt]

Why don't they pay income tax? I assume no jobs which will increase in time and the taxes go to paying welfare so if it was flat at least they would be contributing too instead of doing nothing and just getting paid.

 

[hambone8611]

Personally I think Obama is unbeatable, there is just no more palatable option on the table and that’s a shame. While someone said he is a one term president, I have to ask who do you think can unseat him? , in 2016 I think we will see a very different set of options hopefully for the better?

 

[Biggles]

So the question remains why Obama is getting praise for his passive decisions in a conflict decided by other people's active decisions...

YOU are choosing to characterize them as "passive decisions". Obama's position on the Libyan situation was carefully arrived at against pressure from the hawkish right & the non-interventionist left (& right) & deliberately sought a more active role for other Nato allies. As it turned out, this resulted in a successful outcome for US interests without loss of American lives or treasure. Are you suggesting that there is no "active" way of achieving foreign policy goals without direct military intervention?

Oh, & I don't see it as a legitimate aspiration on the part of a US President to be considered as a "hero", or "deified" by the Libyan street.

So really, precisely what point are you trying to make in attacking Dapper's posts on the subject?

 

[shmogt]

Personally I think Obama is unbeatable, there is just no more palatable option on the table and that’s a shame. While someone said he is a one term president, I have to ask who do you think can unseat him? , in 2016 I think we will see a very different set of options hopefully for the better?

I somewhat agree that all the candidates except Ron Paul are not fit to be president. The next four years should be very interesting. Obama, all the candidates are saying one term but that means nothing he still public speaks better and seems more educated than the new people.

 

[Famine]

YOU are choosing to characterize them as "passive decisions". Obama's position on the Libyan situation was carefully arrived at against pressure from the hawkish right & the non-interventionist left (& right) & deliberately sought a more active role for other Nato allies. As it turned out, this resulted in a successful outcome for US interests without loss of American lives or treasure. Are you suggesting that there is no "active" way of achieving foreign policy goals without direct military intervention?

I don't know, am I?

*checks posts*

No, it doesn't look like it.

Oh, & I don't see it as a legitimate aspiration on the part of a US President to be considered as a "hero", or "deified" by the Libyan street.

Good for you. I don't see it it as legitimate claim of success in a military conflict when you're barely involved in it. What's your point?

So really, precisely what point are you trying to make in attacking Dapper's posts on the subject?

Uhh... that they're wrong? That's the usual reason for airing opposing views after all.

Hey, notice how everyone else - even Dapper - has moved on now? Perhaps you should be like Obama and take a back seat rather than getting yourself involved in someone else's battles - you might even get people claiming victory on your behalf that way.

 

[livemusic]

Personally I think Obama is unbeatable, there is just no more palatable option on the table and that’s a shame. While someone said he is a one term president, I have to ask who do you think can unseat him? , in 2016 I think we will see a very different set of options hopefully for the better?

I think Ron Paul could, but it's easier for him to beat Obama than to get the Republican nomitation.

 

[Keef]

Why don't they pay income tax? I assume no jobs which will increase in time and the taxes go to paying welfare so if it was flat at least they would be contributing too instead of doing nothing and just getting paid.

They do pay tax - taxes are taken out of their pay checks every week. But at the end of the year, when we have to file our tax forms and all that other crap that we shouldn't have to keep track of, about half the population gets more back in credits and exemptions than they paid in the first place.

For example, I'm on track to pay about $40 of federal income tax this year. But thanks to my school situation and expenses and low income, I'll probably get back over $2000 next spring when we file our taxes.

Love you Danoff! By the way, I've got a list of non-tuition school expenses as long as my gross income for the whole year, so I'll love you even more next spring.

 

[Danoff]

Love you Danoff! By the way, I've got a list of non-tuition school expenses as long as my gross income for the whole year, so I'll love you even more next spring.

Thanks for the shoutout. To make matters worse, it's not just that you're taking almost $2k out of my pocket, but you're not paying any of your share of the US government. I estimate that you're costing me (and other taxpayers of course) about $10k in total (assuming you're not using other government handouts).

But what can I say, that's the system. You're doing your part by advocating for a flat tax even though it wouldn't benefit you directly (I did the same back when I was making minimum wage).

 

[Joey D]

I don't know how the tax system worked back then, but no matter, because a flat-percentage tax sounds like a good idea to me. If it's going to be involuntary and enforceable by the IRS's guns, then at least it can be fair to everybody.

At the end of the day it appears an individual's "taxable income" will be a bit less than gross, so technically their income tax would be even less than 10% of gross. Again, I don't know much about the tax system or deductions or anything, but it sounds fairer than our system today.

Even though I probably have different reasoning for getting to a flat tax than you do, I still think it's the best possible option for the country. It would be the easiest solution to do that would end up doing the least amount of harm I believe. I find many things thrown around to be way to radical and unrealistic, but the flat tax thing seems like it would be pretty simple.

Not to mention it would save me time in April not having to worry doing my taxes. X% would have already been taken out of my pay cheque, X% would have been taken out of any gains I might have made through the market, and so on.

You would also take away from any group claiming another group doesn't pay their share. The rich would pay the same percentage as the poor, granted the rich would pay more money but the ratio would all be the same. The rich wouldn't be able to claim the poor weren't pulling their own weight either, since they are paying the same percentage of them.

 

[Dapper]

Why don't they pay income tax?

What has happened over the past few years, since Regan's assault on the middle class, is that inflation has consistently gone up with our GDP, but the average American's income has not risen accordingly and a small group of Americans' income has grown at a greater rate than inflation. The amount of the pie that goes to the very wealthy is different than what it use to be, resulting in the amount of the pie left for everyone else is getting smaller therefore leaving no room to pay income taxes.

I assume no jobs which will increase in time and the taxes go to paying welfare so if it was flat at least they would be contributing too instead of doing nothing and just getting paid.

You think jobs will increase by giving the super wealthy lower income taxes? That idea is why the US economy is the way it is and why people are protesting across the country.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9n2TyBM52o

 

[Omnis]

Uh, no it isn't. The idea is to give everyone a tax break across the board. People who make honest money can't afford to hire more people when they pay more than half of what they make to Uncle Sam.

The economy is the way that it is thanks to people who make money the dirty way-- by getting into bed with the DC money machine.

 

[Danoff]

You think jobs will increase by giving the super wealthy lower income taxes? That idea is why the US economy is the way it is...

Explain to me how allowing people to keep more of the money they earn will harm the economy.

 

[Dapper]

Uh, no it isn't. The idea is to give everyone a tax break across the board. People who make honest money can't afford to hire more people when they pay more than half of what they make to Uncle Sam.

That is a myth.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...on-in-one-graph/2011/05/19/AGh9Z1oH_blog.html

The economy is the way that it is thanks to people who make money the dirty way-- by getting into bed with the DC money machine.

That is definitely true.

 

[hambone8611]

I think Ron Paul could, but it's easier for him to beat Obama than to get the Republican nomitation.

If he can’t get the vote from the people who basically agree with him how will he get the vote of those that are less in line with his way of thinking? And how well did he do as an independent? not too well if I remember correctly , I like a lot of what he say’s and I lean a little left, but I know a lot of libertarians that would not vote for him based on his foreign policy, I see him as unelectable.

 

[Omnis]

That is definitely true.

Then why are you so intent on punishing the honest men to feed the money machine that's doling it out to the crooks?

 

[Dotini]

I see him as unelectable.

That may be so, but Ron Paul's mission seems more about changing the long-term conversation than winning this year's Presidential nomination. Even now, high placed scholars are starting to change their tune based on Paul's influence: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...-with-ron-pauls-controversial-foreign-policy/

Respectfully,
Steve

 

[hambone8611]

That may be so, but Ron Paul's mission seems more about changing the long-term conversation than winning this year's Presidential nomination.
Respectfully,
Steve

I see him in that light as well which gives me a lot of respect for him as an individual and a polatition but that does not = votes


The day will probably come when he is given a lot of credit for instigating change in the way things are run, but probably not anytime soon

 

[Dapper]

Then why are you so intent on punishing the honest men to feed the money machine that's doling it out to the crooks?

If the people in question were good, honest people the rest of the country wouldn't be so destitute. With the historic low tax rates they should be hiring people, or at least pay their current employees more.

The machine should be run by people who don't work for the machine for a living, but by people who actually want things to be better for everyone. I think a lot of problems come from how much power congressman have and that they can keep that power for so long. If no one could profit from being in the government, no one would make bad decisions for everyone else.

 

[Keef]

If he can’t get the vote from the people who basically agree with him how will he get the vote of those that are less in line with his way of thinking?

The reason he's lagging against the other Republicans is he doesn't appeal to many people who are registered as Republican. These people are only comparing him to the other candidates - Republicans critiquing Republicans. Only people registered with the Republican party will be participating in the primary elections.

But it's different when the poll's base is not only republicans, but people of any political affiliation. Though Paul is only 3rd when it comes to grabbing votes of Republicans, one thing he does that the other candidates simply don't is grab votes from all other political parties. Libertarian ideas basically take the best of all worlds and combine them into one. Therefore, he has a good portion of Republican votes (those who lean toward conservative, limited government) and he also nets a large portion of Democratic support (from those who value domestic and international freedom and peace). Obviously he'll basically have all the Libertarian vote in the bag, as well as portions from almost all other minor parties.

That is why he isn't first against his Republican running mates, but at the same time he is best when compared directly to Obama.

Basically the only thing stopping Paul from getting the Republican nomination and going into a 50/50 fight with Obama is all the dim-witted, stubborn, angry, nationalistic "Republicans" who are too busy throwing fits over their bogus cable boxes to bother learning any history or economics.

And how well did he do as an independent?

The reason he is a member of the Republican party is for exposure. Independents and minor parties simply don't get any. We have a two party system - if you're going to get anywhere, you have to suck it up and work within the system whether you want to or not.

...but I know a lot of libertarians that would not vote for him based on his foreign policy

Gotcha! Fact: You don't know any libertarians who would not vote for him based on his foreign policy.

A big point about libertarianism is that it is all-encompassing. You can't be libertarian on one thing but not on the other because every little detail is related to every other little detail. If that's the case, then you aren't libertarian but are either republican or democratic.

 

[hambone8611]

The reason he's lagging against the other Republicans is he doesn't appeal to many people who are registered as Republican. These people are only comparing him to the other candidates - Republicans critiquing Republicans. Only people registered with the Republican party will be participating in the primary elections.

But it's different when the poll's base is not only republicans, but people of any political affiliation. Though Paul is only 3rd when it comes to grabbing votes of Republicans, one thing he does that the other candidates simply don't is grab votes from all other political parties. Libertarian ideas basically take the best of all worlds and combine them into one. Therefore, he has a good portion of Republican votes (those who lean toward conservative, limited government) and he also nets a large portion of Democratic support (from those who value domestic and international freedom and peace). Obviously he'll basically have all the Libertarian vote in the bag, as well as portions from almost all other minor parties.

That is why he isn't first against his Republican running mates, but at the same time he is best when compared directly to Obama.

Basically the only thing stopping Paul from getting the Republican nomination and going into a 50/50 fight with Obama is all the dim-witted, stubborn, angry, nationalistic "Republicans" who are too busy throwing fits over their bogus cable boxes to bother learning any history or economics.


The reason he is a member of the Republican party is for exposure. Independents and minor parties simply don't get any. We have a two party system - if you're going to get anywhere, you have to suck it up and work within the system whether you want to or not.


Gotcha! Fact: You don't know any libertarians who would not vote for him based on his foreign policy.

A big point about libertarianism is that it is all-encompassing. You can't be libertarian on one thing but not on the other because every little detail is related to every other little detail. If that's the case, then you aren't libertarian but are either republican or democratic.

So his best strategy is to align himself with those who he knows won’t nominate him to get exposure that nets him nothing and you think that will end in any sort of victory? Cause I don’t




My only response to your gotcha fact is you really drank the cool aid

 

[Keef]

So his best strategy is to align himself with those who he knows won’t nominate him to get exposure that nets him nothing and you think that will end in any sort of victory? Cause I don’t

It might, and that's always better than no chance at all. We libertarians, we're optimists. We know everything is in shambles and we're optimistic that it can't get much worse.

My only response to your gotcha fact is you really drank the cool aid

Not really sure what you're trying to say here. My point was that a person can't call themselves a libertarian with out advocating a non-interventionist foreign policy. If you desire domestic liberty but want to keep occupying foreign countries then you're a tea partier at best, but certainly not libertarian.

 

[shmogt]

How does voting work in the US I no its weird like its not really overall votes it's like per state or something. Could someone please explain it to me.

 

[hambone8611]

It might, and that's always better than no chance at all. We libertarians, we're optimists. We know everything is in shambles and we're optimistic that it can't get much worse.


Not really sure what you're trying to say here. My point was that a person can't call themselves a libertarian with out advocating a non-interventionist foreign policy. If you desire domestic liberty but want to keep occupying foreign countries then you're a tea partier at best, but certainly not libertarian.

That was the absolute best possible response I totally loved it and I hope your generation can start to straighten this mess out mine certainly can’t

And they can call themselves whatever they want even if that’s libertarian you see believing in a principle and believing it’s realistic in the world we live in are two very different things

Personally I think Mitt Romney would have the best shot at unseating the pres. And I have no prediction on who the republican nominee will be

 

[FoolKiller]

That idea is why the US economy is the way it is and why people are protesting across the country.

Wait, you actually understand what people are doing there? I thought I got it then this guy, and many other 1%'rs showed up:



Now I am thoroughly confused.

How does voting work in the US I no its weird like its not really overall votes it's like per state or something. Could someone please explain it to me.

I could try to explain it, but it would just confuse myself.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.html


As I understand the electoral college it was something that made sense when we still respected state sovereignty. Now we treat it as if the 50 states are pointless entities that just beg the federal government for money, so it does seem thoroughly confusing.

 

[Biggles]

Famine, your modus operandi is to nitpick any statement contrary to your own opinion claiming you are being “precise” & then come out with a stream of irrelevant/illogical/flip/coy statements & dissembling of your own.

I don't know, am I?

*checks posts*

No, it doesn't look like it.

I don't see it it as legitimate claim of success in a military conflict when you're barely involved in it. What's your point?

Let me put it quite clearly for you:

Obama pointedly set himself apart from the previous administration by promising to work through diplomacy & in co-operation with America’s allies in pursuing foreign policy goals, rather than through aggressive military intervention. That is EXACTLY what he did in Libya.

The "legitimate claim of success" would be having definitively achieved the explicit goals – preventing large-scale civilian loss-of-life - & the implicit ones – removing the Quaddafi regime from power & doing it with no loss of American lives & minimal expenditure of money & military resources. That is a foreign policy success (& incidentally, was quite coherently explained by Dapper in his posts in my opinion).

No nation apart from Libya was involved in the Libyan Civil War. If they were, it wouldn't be a Civil War. US forces played a role in enforcing the UN mandated No Fly Zone in a peace-keeping mission to prevent genocide. Massive difference that you don't seem to want to see, even after all this time.

No. “Preventing genocide” may have been the initial justification for intervention, but it’s clear that the US, the French & British were determined from the start to oust Quaddafi if the opportunity presented itself. To this end, the US & its partners not only enforced a no-fly zone, they also continued to attack Quaddafi’s forces with jets & missles, as well as providing extensive aerial & on the-ground intelligence & covert operations. This allowed the opposition forces to overcome Quaddafi’s vast intitial superiority in weaponry. Without this active & continuing intervention, it’s likely the opposition forces would have been crushed. If it was a civil war, it was a civil war with a massive amount of foreign intervention.

"But hey, feel free to keep pretending otherwise. Belief wouldn't be belief if it let evidence simply change it."

 

[Danoff]

Obama pointedly set himself apart from the previous administration by promising to work through diplomacy & in co-operation with America’s allies in pursuing foreign policy goals, rather than through aggressive military intervention. That is EXACTLY what he did in Libya.

The previous administration did everything with Iraq that Obama did with Libya. The UN acted differently - I don't see how exactly the same behavior sets him apart.

The "legitimate claim of success" would be having definitively achieved the explicit goals – preventing large-scale civilian loss-of-life

I have no idea how you can characterize this UN operation as Obama preventing large-scale civilian loss-of-life... from... himself.... what?

Do you think Obama somehow got the UN to act? Do you think the UN wanted to act against Iraq? Do you think Bush didn't try/want to work with the UN in Iraq? Do you think Obama wouldn't have acted in Libya if the UN refused?

The answer to all of those questions is no.

What I love about this is that if the UN had refused to act in Libya, and Obama had wanted to take action anyway.... the same people that are praising him for being different than Bush (somehow) would have praised him for taking action to help the people of Libya.

 

[Famine]

That's because Obama is the antiBush. Nothing embarrassing ever happens to him, he never musses up his words (like at, say, taking the oath of office), he hasn't presided over financial catastrophe, never takes the US to war or stretches the armed forces in multiple theatres at once and lives up to his campaign promises. He's absolutely not a President elected by a marketing effort based on his characteristics - certainly no laws were broken - and well, well out of his depth. Completely the opposite of Bush.

And Bush served two terms...