What are Your Politics?
- Thread starter Danoff
- 97 comments
- 2,845 views
- 12,993
- USA! USA!
Originally posted by Red Eye Racer
Tell that to the guy who grew up with a crack whore for a single-mother along with 7 younger siblings and he's on a waiting list to work at McDonalds becuase he wasnt motivated by his teachers in public school who were all pissed becuase they didnt end up teaching cute little white kids with pig-tails who get dopped off by their stay-at-home soccer mom who doesnt pay taxes becuase she was the daughter of the guy who owned the McDonalds that our initial patron is stil trying to get a job at....<-panting, out of breath->
That wasnt my finest work but I think you get the point. Over tax the poor,... reminds me of all the medieval movies you see with the tax collecter pounding down peoples doors to take thier last bread crumb.
Poor him. Everything is someone else's fault, I suppose. Are you saying it would be absolutely impossible for him to making a living wage?
It's a sad story, but such is life. Not everyone is given everything on a golden platter.
EDIT: After thinking it over, a flat tax rate is the fairest system. If someone is happy making $10,000, they should be able to do so without being taxed more or less than someone who makes $2.4 million.
Still, I wonder what the country would be like if the tax rate were inversely proportional to your income.
- 1,188
danoff
"It boggles my mind to hear you actually say that tyranny could be good for any people. 'They need to not be free right now.' Unbelievable."
Have you ever been to Russia?
Russia needs a police to go around doing its job. If it continues in a masquerade of free market capitalism then there won't ever be any progress. The amount corruption there is in Russia right now is "Unbelieveable." The mafia there is massive, and is no longer just a criminal endeavor, it is like a government and corporation. If you want to have a company in Moscow right now you have to pay protection. Maybe that's something you wouldn't know about as a westerner. If this corruption and crime is going to be dealt with, it's not going to happen democratically. Russia is not the United States.
Why don't you not talk out of your *** if you don't know anything about the subject.
Also
"Bulls**t! You're a democrat because you believe in the left most aspects of the democratic party. You proved that in your earlier post. Don't make it about someone else, talk about the principles of government you believe in."
Don't tell me what I do or don't believe. From two posts on an internet forum the best you can do, is to make a rough inference.
I am for people owning things, generating capital, and having a good time. But, I do not support someone who treats people like they are a commodity. In the end, economic reform is much easier to achieve than human rights reform. Thus, I am willing to vote for a party which may stunt economic growth.
You also make it sound like governments or parties never change.. they do, you know, drastically. So, to give a definite description of any allegiance to anything [in this arena] is absurd and rather narrow minded. I am democrat now because to vote for any party could mean four more years of ******* GB. In 2008, maybe it will be different, but in 2004 when I have to register, I vote for whats right at the time.
"It boggles my mind to hear you actually say that tyranny could be good for any people. 'They need to not be free right now.' Unbelievable."
Have you ever been to Russia?
Russia needs a police to go around doing its job. If it continues in a masquerade of free market capitalism then there won't ever be any progress. The amount corruption there is in Russia right now is "Unbelieveable." The mafia there is massive, and is no longer just a criminal endeavor, it is like a government and corporation. If you want to have a company in Moscow right now you have to pay protection. Maybe that's something you wouldn't know about as a westerner. If this corruption and crime is going to be dealt with, it's not going to happen democratically. Russia is not the United States.
Why don't you not talk out of your *** if you don't know anything about the subject.
Also
"Bulls**t! You're a democrat because you believe in the left most aspects of the democratic party. You proved that in your earlier post. Don't make it about someone else, talk about the principles of government you believe in."
Don't tell me what I do or don't believe. From two posts on an internet forum the best you can do, is to make a rough inference.
I am for people owning things, generating capital, and having a good time. But, I do not support someone who treats people like they are a commodity. In the end, economic reform is much easier to achieve than human rights reform. Thus, I am willing to vote for a party which may stunt economic growth.
You also make it sound like governments or parties never change.. they do, you know, drastically. So, to give a definite description of any allegiance to anything [in this arena] is absurd and rather narrow minded. I am democrat now because to vote for any party could mean four more years of ******* GB. In 2008, maybe it will be different, but in 2004 when I have to register, I vote for whats right at the time.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,119
- Mile High City
Taxing the poor more than the rich doesn't make any more sense than taxing the rich more than the poor. Anyway, I'm disturbed by the fact that you think that this "stay at home mom" doesn't pay taxes. If she can afford to stay at home, she pays an a*sload of taxes.
Quit whining. I undertand that people are having to deal with corruption and crime. That doesn't justify putting a dictator in charge. Do you think the US got where it is magically? We have police and protection under that government and got it through democracy. Installing a dictatorship is not the sollution, it's easy but it's not the answer. Look a little deeper... longer term.
You then go on to show that I am right. I rest my case. I pegged you, called bulls**t and I was right. This proves it.
Don't get defensive about it. It's ok. You're a democrat because you believe in the party principles.
Yes, I took high school history. I was asking for party affiliation at the moment. I reserve the right to change my mind in the future as well. In fact, I'm in the process of doing that as I become more and more upset with Bush and his universal perscription drug plan.
- 1,188
Ok.. What university do you go to? I think you should pay attention when you attend lectures.
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
\
Umm, considering he's got undergraduate and graduate-level degrees from some very good schools, I think he paid attention. He's shown himself to be very knowledgeable in a wide range of fields, from physics to politics to philosophy.
You, on the other hand, have not. You like to come off as well-versed, but in truth you show yourself to be a one-trick pony. Everything boils down to your hatred of George Bush.
If you're not like this, show us something different. So far you have not.
- 1,188
I did not realize that you knew me, have we met? Are you my doctor? my psychiatrist?.. I doubt it. Do you follow me to class? to work? I don't think so.
Who were his proffs? I don't want to discredit anyones education but.. (and this is for both of you) you assume too much from very little information. I suggest you make your inferences a little less carelessly.
Sage
Staff Emeritus
- 12,533
- United States
- GTP_Sage
Quick question: Does a "flat" tax rate mean that everyone is taxed, say, $1000, or does it mean that everybody is taxed the same percentage (like 2%)?
That aside, I'm very much with Klos, Duke, danoff, and ///M-spec. BTW, I've pointed this out to Duke, but for the rest of you Libertarians here, have you seen this? It's an interesting idea, but too bad New Hampshire it too cold for my southern Californian butt.
And ///M-spec, I totally agree with your gripes about democracy... it's better than any other system there currently is, but it *just* isn't good enough, because there will always be stupid, uninformed people. I really wish someone would come up with a better system, but alas...
That aside, I'm very much with Klos, Duke, danoff, and ///M-spec. BTW, I've pointed this out to Duke, but for the rest of you Libertarians here, have you seen this? It's an interesting idea, but too bad New Hampshire it too cold for my southern Californian butt.
And ///M-spec, I totally agree with your gripes about democracy... it's better than any other system there currently is, but it *just* isn't good enough, because there will always be stupid, uninformed people. I really wish someone would come up with a better system, but alas...
///M-Spec
Staff Emeritus
- 4,928
The latter. Everyone taxed a flat rate percentage of income. So wealthy people still pay more, in theory.
Welcome to New Hampshire. Live free or die freezing your jimmie off.
Sounds like an interesting idea... but talk about the horrors of early adoption.Can't think of one. All systems have their drawbacks, representative democracy seems to have the least amount of them. I'm pretty sure I still prefer it over a pure form of libertarianism.
M
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
Not in person... but I've met the persona that you portray here, either by choice or by your own limitations. And that persona habitually - in fact, almost without fail - makes sweeping statements of strong opinion, and then totally fails to back them up when questioned about the thinking behind them. That persona either
- whines that this is the opinions forum, and that you're entitled to an opinion, or
- attacks the questioner by saying something like "you should pay more attention to the lecture", or
- changes the subject.
I suggest you make your implications a little more thoughtfully. Or quit whining when you are confronted with the meager reasoning that you display.
- 10,832
Guess what...
Everything you post here is said, read and interpreted in the context of this site and it's members. Nobody here knows anything more about you than what you post here. If you are going to be so proprietary about inferences made about you, then it is your responsibility to adequately inform us, or bail out of the discussion. You can't just throw out nonsense in this forum and not get called on it. And this is what has been happening to you. You aren't able to back up most of what you say and get pissed when it's pointed out, or even if you are asked to. That trick is already old. We don't know you, but we know what you say here. If that's not representative of your true ability or perspective, and people misunderstand you, it's only your fault. So put up or shut up.
- 5,622
- eMadman
hmm...I figured out which parties I will be voting for next time elections come around
Canadian Marijuana Party
Communist Party of Canada
God I love living in Canada - there's only like 10 different parties which you have to choose from
.
Until the next election season though, i'm pretty much undecided. The Libs are being stingy whores with their money all of a sudden and may not fulfill some of their campaign promises (Primarily the tuition freeze - we're in desparate need of it right now and that's the reason we all voted for them in the provincial elections).
Canadian Marijuana Party
Communist Party of Canada
God I love living in Canada - there's only like 10 different parties which you have to choose from
.Until the next election season though, i'm pretty much undecided. The Libs are being stingy whores with their money all of a sudden and may not fulfill some of their campaign promises (Primarily the tuition freeze - we're in desparate need of it right now and that's the reason we all voted for them in the provincial elections).
Danoff
Premium
- 34,119
- Mile High City
This is starting to wander from the topic, but in light of figuring out why you pick the parties you do, I'm wondering why you want a tuition freeze.
Yea, I know that it would make your life cheaper. But why do you want the government to steal money from other people and give it to you for your education. Just curious.
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
Strike that - reverse it:
Q: "Why do you want the government to steal money from other people and give it to you for your education?"
A: "It would make [my] life cheaper."
Ends justify means, don't they? Just so long as you happen to be the ends, not the means...
Danoff
Premium
- 34,119
- Mile High City
When I was in college, I was in the same boat. Tuition freezes (which come out of someone's pocket) would have made my life cheaper. I still didn't want it to happen because I didn't want to have other people pay my way.
I guess I'm just wondering why he wants other people to pay his way. What I'm looking for is some sort of "I'm entitled to an education, that's a fundamental aspect of government" or something like that.
Agreed, ends do not justify the means.
I guess I'm just wondering why he wants other people to pay his way. What I'm looking for is some sort of "I'm entitled to an education, that's a fundamental aspect of government" or something like that.
Agreed, ends do not justify the means.
///M-Spec
Staff Emeritus
- 4,928
It's not just wrong from a moral standpoint, it's also bad economics. Any kind of price control is usually a bad idea and everyone pays in the long run, whether from stunted growth or reduced quality of goods and services.
There are always economic reasons why the price of something goes up. Stop a company from trying to increase revenue by raising the price of something, and it will have to come out of something else. It may slash payroll or reduce re-investment, but it will come out somewhere. In the end, you'll get exactly what you pay for.
M
There are always economic reasons why the price of something goes up. Stop a company from trying to increase revenue by raising the price of something, and it will have to come out of something else. It may slash payroll or reduce re-investment, but it will come out somewhere. In the end, you'll get exactly what you pay for.
M
Danoff
Premium
- 34,119
- Mile High City
Mile:
How can you say that they stand for personal freedom, fiscal conservatism, and small, hands-off government, after what has happened? As soon as they get control of both congress and the white house, they vastly increase the size of government while passing the patriot act. They encourage illegal immigration while denoucing gay marriage. They pass the presciption drug plan and make sure that we can't import cheap drugs from other countries.
I'm registered with the rep party. I voted for Arnie here in California, but I'm starting to think Duke has it right.... I agree with enough of what the dems have to say to make it almost arbitrary which one wins. If it weren't for the fact that I slightly prefer fiscal freedom over moral freedom, I wouldn't care at all.
How can you say that they stand for personal freedom, fiscal conservatism, and small, hands-off government, after what has happened? As soon as they get control of both congress and the white house, they vastly increase the size of government while passing the patriot act. They encourage illegal immigration while denoucing gay marriage. They pass the presciption drug plan and make sure that we can't import cheap drugs from other countries.
I'm registered with the rep party. I voted for Arnie here in California, but I'm starting to think Duke has it right.... I agree with enough of what the dems have to say to make it almost arbitrary which one wins. If it weren't for the fact that I slightly prefer fiscal freedom over moral freedom, I wouldn't care at all.
///M-Spec
Staff Emeritus
- 4,928
In my last post I illustrated Joe Public's stupidity with popular reaction to the democrat position on trade. Today, I'd like to draw attention to average Joe stupidity regarding Al G's comments on Social Security.
First, I'd suggest reading this primer on what the problem is.
Following along? Great. I bet 95% of the public out there who would support a tax increase rather than a reduction in benefits couldn't even tell you half of what you just read. They're not intested in understanding the issues before they decide who to back. They just have a knee-jerk reaction to vote on the guy who wants to give them money in the short term. They rather shoot the messenger than understand the message.
They're not concerned with the massive deficit shortfalls when Social Security heads over to collect on its Treasury bonds in 2014 and all they find is a note that reads "I.O.U. $763,000,000,000.00. XOXOX, Love. The Feds."
They've no interest in the impact of raising the payroll tax when the program begins to payout more than it takes in. They've not thought-through the fact that if you dent the economy with tax increases, everyone pays in the long run. They don't realize maybe the program simply can't afford them, and putting all that extra money right back into deficit spending was like lending a teenager money for beer.
What do they care? They're going to be recipients now. No, screw you, says the old farts at the AARP. Its your problem. We're retiring, and you're going help us whether you like it or not, damnit! We're going to vote it so, damn the consequences. It even hasn't seemed to occur to anyone to be a little ticked off at our government for loaning itself money that it promptly pissed away on other dumb projects.
In the deepest of ironies, the people who voted in a government that deficit spends in order to fund their programs now want their money back. Joe Public is like a 3 year old child. He wants without a thought in the world for what the consquences are. If he gets upset with something, he can just close his eyes and vote in someone to make it better.
There is a smart way to handle this problem. But I guarantee its not going to happen.
M
First, I'd suggest reading this primer on what the problem is.
Following along? Great. I bet 95% of the public out there who would support a tax increase rather than a reduction in benefits couldn't even tell you half of what you just read. They're not intested in understanding the issues before they decide who to back. They just have a knee-jerk reaction to vote on the guy who wants to give them money in the short term. They rather shoot the messenger than understand the message.
They're not concerned with the massive deficit shortfalls when Social Security heads over to collect on its Treasury bonds in 2014 and all they find is a note that reads "I.O.U. $763,000,000,000.00. XOXOX, Love. The Feds."
They've no interest in the impact of raising the payroll tax when the program begins to payout more than it takes in. They've not thought-through the fact that if you dent the economy with tax increases, everyone pays in the long run. They don't realize maybe the program simply can't afford them, and putting all that extra money right back into deficit spending was like lending a teenager money for beer.
What do they care? They're going to be recipients now. No, screw you, says the old farts at the AARP. Its your problem. We're retiring, and you're going help us whether you like it or not, damnit! We're going to vote it so, damn the consequences. It even hasn't seemed to occur to anyone to be a little ticked off at our government for loaning itself money that it promptly pissed away on other dumb projects.
In the deepest of ironies, the people who voted in a government that deficit spends in order to fund their programs now want their money back. Joe Public is like a 3 year old child. He wants without a thought in the world for what the consquences are. If he gets upset with something, he can just close his eyes and vote in someone to make it better.
There is a smart way to handle this problem. But I guarantee its not going to happen.
M
Danoff
Premium
- 34,119
- Mile High City
There's a fairly simple plan to the social security problem that I think everyone could be happy with, if they can get over being afraid of change. They need to switch progressively to a personal account. People retired right now would receive their current benefits through lower taxes collected from working people, combined with dipping in to the current savings that the SS program has. People retiring soon would get a percentage of the benefits that seniors get right now proportional to how soon they retire to the beginning of private accounts. As people continue to retire farther and farther into the future, theyll have larger and larger private accounts to draw upon (assuming the government forces them to put it away). Because of that, their calculated percentage of the current benefits (to be collected in the form of taxes on working people) would be lower, until finally you have a group that makes it to retirement that should be able to supply the benefits of today completely from their own personal retirement accounts (adjusted for inflation of course). At that point, the taxes on the younger generation can be completely removed and everyone has a personal retirement account. Also, the overall taxes on citizens are reduced by something like 10% because now you dont have to pay SS (you still have to pay it to your personal account, but youre sure youll get it back when you retire).
Makes sense to me, nobody loses benefits, taxes arent raised and population pays for itself. It would probably take a decade or two to phase the whole thing out, but it seems do-able . Of course I havent crunched the numbers.
Makes sense to me, nobody loses benefits, taxes arent raised and population pays for itself. It would probably take a decade or two to phase the whole thing out, but it seems do-able . Of course I havent crunched the numbers.
///M-Spec
Staff Emeritus
- 4,928
Sounds well reasoned, thought out and fair, danoff. Only problem is cashing out those bonds early. I'm not sure that's a good idea or even possible. Depending on how the math works out, you may still end up slashing payouts and the feds will probably have to borrow heavily to repay them. Depending on the timing, that can be bad or really bad.
And if you ran for office on this platform, you'll get quoted as saying "danoff proposes to slash Social Security and medicare benefits; urges expensive overhaul of entire system." After this, you'll either get hosed in a firestorm of contraversy or sucked into a political blackhole. A mob from the AARP will appear at your home to draw and quarter you. The democrat who opposed you will promise everyone the payout will remain the same, and the fund the entire thing by more borrowing. Eventually, then entire country will be owned by Citigroup or J.P. Morgan/Chase.
Yes, I'm feeling a little cynical today.
M
Danoff
Premium
- 34,119
- Mile High City
I'm feeling rather cynical myself.
I wouldn't run for office on that platform. I'd run for office like this:
"My plan slowly phases social security into a privately controlled system without reducing benefits to seniors."
Then I'd say...
"So that our system of taxation is more fair and to reduce government beurocracy, I propose a flat tax system. This will eliminate the need for the entire IRS and reduce taxes further."
Then I'd say that ///M-spec and Neon Duke will be cabinet members.
I wouldn't run for office on that platform. I'd run for office like this:
"My plan slowly phases social security into a privately controlled system without reducing benefits to seniors."
Then I'd say...
"So that our system of taxation is more fair and to reduce government beurocracy, I propose a flat tax system. This will eliminate the need for the entire IRS and reduce taxes further."
Then I'd say that ///M-spec and Neon Duke will be cabinet members.
///M-Spec
Staff Emeritus
- 4,928
Originally posted by danoff
I'm feeling rather cynical myself.
I wouldn't run for office on that platform. I'd run for office like this:
"My plan slowly phases social security into a privately controlled system without reducing benefits to seniors."
Then I'd say...
"So that our system of taxation is more fair and to reduce government beurocracy, I propose a flat tax system. This will eliminate the need for the entire IRS and reduce taxes further."
Then I'd say that ///M-spec and Neon Duke will be cabinet members.
W00t! I want a helicopter.
And a motorcade. Yeah, that'd be cool.Seriously, though. Has anyone tried to run on based on privatization of government projects and get elected to anything? Also, didn't Perot run on the flat tax platform? Hope you have smaller ears.
M
Sage
Staff Emeritus
- 12,533
- United States
- GTP_Sage
And the saddest part is that America has one of the better governments in the world...
Another quick question from me - Are Social Security and Medicare something you sign up for, or is the money automatically taken out of your paycheck whether or not you want it to?
Another quick question from me - Are Social Security and Medicare something you sign up for, or is the money automatically taken out of your paycheck whether or not you want it to?
Similar threads
