Politics, Politics, Politics

[MacNfries]

Because Mac requested it and every time someone brings up politics in a sex thread, others scream (and they should). But there are some of us who are active politically and believe strongly about policies like economics, immigration, foreign policy. And we need to have a place to discuss things. Keep it civil and polite. Do not insult the person (no tea-baggers or demonrats), only take the policies to task.

When you say THEY are playing us for fools who is They?

Well, falcond ... it appears all those tough talkers in that other thread decided not to take your invite and come over to your thread to state their cases ... wonder why?
And I notice Alanm hasn't received a response to his question as well.
It's easy to toss out all those opinions as "facts" until someone calls 'em out.
Think I'll step over here and chat with this lit'l lady. She's been winking & smiling at me.
Mac

 

[TwoBiFour]

"To say that we're doomed is just an obvious remark And it don't make you right, it just keeps you in the dark"
~ John Mellencamp - Another Sunny Day

If anyone thinks that America's problem is solely Democratic or solely Republican is an Idiot. The problems and blame lie on both sides. For every so called "fact" you can provide I can provide a contradicting "fact" and at best they will both be "half true" depending on what source you get it from. Besides, posting "facts" about what happen yesterday does nothing to solve what we need to do about tomorrow.

There is only a handful of others around these forums that can actually debate an issue without bias and offer/discuss real solutions all while listening and being sensitive to other points of view. The rest of you are all just finger pointers that offer no real solutions, only want to blame, and will refuse to see the logic in other points of view or even respect their opinion.

But I will tell you this, there is not one single person in our government that has interest in doing what is best for the American people as a whole. There hasn't' been for some time now and until people wake up to the real issues at hand it will continue. For example, a friend of mine who is a lesbian will only vote for runners that are pro gay. I asked her what if that person also wanted to tax us 80%, control what we eat and ******* and tell us what we can drive and wear based on income. Her response was "don't care, just as long as they are pro gay". I was also at a bar one night and there were a group of people pushing a politician simply becasue he was open to, and admitted smoking pot. I asked them"you want me to vote for him simply becasue he smokes pot? What else does he stand for and support?" All I got was blank looks in return. - this is part of the real problem.

The simple fact of the matter is, "they" (who ever you want "they" to be) are aiming for the same goal, they just have different ideas on how to arrive at that goal and it keeps us bickering over whose fault it is when we get there.

 

[MacNfries]

The simple fact of the matter is, "they" (who ever you want "they" to be) are aiming for the same goal, they just have different ideas on how to arrive at that goal and it keeps us bickering over whose fault it is when we get there.

TwoBi, I agree with pretty much everything you say, for sure. Each party has its own "selfish" agenda and both have their positives and weaknesses. I, for one, have never voted a straight party ticket ... ever, and I'm sorry to say NOW that in 2000 I voted for that worthless JWB instead of going with John Cary, because I felt Cary the least qualified. Little did anyone know that we were electing Dick Cheney as President when we voted for Bush. I'm progressive by nature, however, and tend to look ahead rather than in the past; my tendency is to look for "better ways" to do anything. Just think this way ... if this nation had been Republican run in the '60s, for example, do you think the US would have even attempted to land a man on the moon, or even elevate its space program?

That said, my biggest issue with the Republican platform is their insistence that "trickle down" works. We have a 34 year history proving it doesn't work, and now several Republican governed states who followed the "trickle down" philosophy are in very hot water with their budgets ... I'll use as examples Kansas, New Jersey, and NC, but there are several others. All these states recently cut corporate & personal income taxes, and all now have $400+ million budget deficits and downgraded credit ratings. Kansas's governor has been so terrible that the "Bob Dole" republicans are supporting the Democrat candidate for governor in this year's upcoming election. Supply-Side hasn't worked, ever!

But what has really raised my fur the past 2 years is the Republican's tampering with the voting rights; North Carolina's voter law tampering has been so bad that its made national news and the state supreme court judges are now getting involved. The fact is the Republican party has submitted absolutely no new legislation to address major citizen's concerns in this country ... immigration, gun laws, health care, education, etc etc ... they've spent the last 6 years obstructing anything Obama wanted to do ... even on practical sense issues. As they said "our #1 goal is to make Obama a one-term president" ... period. They're the ones that signed an agreement with Grover Norquist that they would NOT raise taxes. That agreement pretty much resolved any possible chance that the two party system could negotiate revenue issues.

Now, what I've written HERE is all documented, TwoBi, it's called HISTORY. It happened, and its written down.

Mac

 

[Brim]

One problem I think most people are beginning to realise is that no country or system has the ideal solution. Democracy with a two party system results in half the country being un satisfied and stalemate, but proportional voting assemblies where every section has a voice, doesnt get results either as they dont have enough votes to push things through without completely watering the issue down. Dictatorships dont work either as they tend to ignore the people altogether, or certainly large chunks of their people. Dictatorships though, unfortunately, can be very efficient at getting things done- look at the great power dam projects in China.
In my mind there has to be an 'end vision' of how you want your country to look and how fairly you treat your people.
Personally I think UK welfare system has been far too generous and encouraged a laziness in our people which employers say is driving them to import more labour as they are more hardworking.
On the other hand I think the US style of welfare and food stamps and cutting off peoples water and power etc is far too harsh. No country with the riches of USA UK or others should see their own people starving and walking long distances to get water.
This shows a truly capitalist system can not work for all its people but also a 'socialist' type system doesnt work either.
There has to be an alternative where people are encouraged to stand on their own two feet but help is there for those that simply cant.
Finally there is one 'elephant in the room' for both USA and Euro countries, that is large scale immigration. Whether you think this is positive or negative it does have an effect on the cultural make up of a country. When USA was mainly white European then one culture dominated and the whole nation pulled together. It is now ethnically and culturally pulling itself apart, for good or bad depending on your point of view, likewise UK. Our politicians have admitted 'multiculturism' has failed.
Our countries peoples genetics are changing along with our economics. The 21st century is not going to be ours. What it will look like in the years to come and how we can all help change it for the better is the massive question.

 

[Alanm]

I dont have a problem with a two party system....i would probably disagree with most of what macnfries says because i have more libertarian views...but thats ok. Debate and disagreement are good. I think the problem lies in government itself. Its too big, too far reaching, too limiting and its full of to many people with their own agenda's instead of whats good for the country.

 

[MacNfries]

....i would probably disagree with most of what macnfries says.

Alanm, am I understanding that you disagree with most of my last post? Which ones? All have been in the news, and all documented. Nothing I posted, other than the statement about Cheney, is "opinion", but facts. Is it just my liberal philosophy that you disagree with?
Care to respond? Mac

 

[Alanm]

Alanm, am I understanding that you disagree with most of my last post? Which ones? All have been in the news, and all documented. Nothing I posted, other than the statement about Cheney, is "opinion", but facts. Is it just my liberal philosophy that you disagree with?
Care to respond? Mac

Not so much with your last post just your liberal philosophy. I am the kind of person who thinks less taxes, smaller government and less government intrusion and control makes for better economy and a happier citizen. I dont need to be told what size ******* i should be able to have. Or that i shouldn't be allowed to have a gun, etc. I dont disagree with everything you say i just come at from a different philosophy.

 

[MacNfries]

Alanm, I can most definitely accept and appreciate your position. Hypothetically speaking, if we lived in a "fair" society, where everyone had fair & equal opportunity, and a fair system of taxation, I couldn't agree with you more. Unfortunately, we all know that simply isn't the case and can never be the case. Individuals are not created equal in abilities or talent. Our current crony-vulturistic capitalism rewards the strong, and penalizes/preys on the weak. I think of it more as a huge game of monopoly where the objective is to eliminate competition and/or gain advantage over others at their expense.

When I read that 8 of the top 10 Fortune 500 companies are paying a tax rate lower than a person earning a $30,000 annual income, (ie avg. tax rate for those companies was 13% in 2012), and multi-millionaires doing the same, my tendency is to fight for the little guys. General Electric in 2010, the largest corporation in the US, paid the equivalent of a "3% income tax" rate. Is it fair that the $600 billion+ in taxes is lost to untaxed corporate earnings, and is being made up by taxing another part of our society? The middle class American wage earner isn't disappearing by coincident. They're simply the least represented member within our huge tax system; it's taxation by representation, or the lack of, rather. The fact that our Supreme Court now recognizes corporations as "people too", or that millionaires are overtaxed, is simply BS. If laws weren't being created, daily, to appease and get around tax codes, why would the tax code book be over 1 1/2 feet thick? Certainly those tax codes aren't for the guy earning $30,000 a year.

As an x-Republican, myself, I see a party that is currently so entwined and indebted with its filthy rich constituents that it's members can not make "logical" and "common-sense" decisions any more. What they don't seem to realize is that, just like that monopoly game, the eventual goal is to be the "last one standing" ... eventually, some of those in the upper 1% will become the hunted and victims, themselves. As a liberal (if that's what you see me as) I don't see "taxation" as a solution any more than "entitlements", but there has to be a balance. Coincidently, in 2012, the US top 10% wage earners received over 70% of our government's entitlements and subsidies ... a lot of conservatives don't know that.

At any rate, THAT'S what brings me to the "big dance" of politics. Mac

 

[TwoBiFour]

Mac, your right and the same thing frustrates me as well. What I don't think you realize is that the Democratic party is just as much in favor of "big Business" as the Republicans. The only difference is Republicans call it "business growth" and Democrats call it "Government". Maybe as a small business owner my self I see the other side of the coin more clearly..?.?... I could go on and on about the things that the Democrats do that frustrate me also but that is just a road to the "blame Game", which I would like to avoid because it's pointless and counter intuitive.

What I would really like to talk about is what we can do as an individual, and as a whole to get things turned around. Other than just "vote republican" or "vote democrat". I'm on the conservative side of things yes, but I really wouldn't classify myself as a Republican. There are things the Democrats stand for that I do agree with like the environment, Human rights, and things like that. It pissed me off when R.Regan had the solar panels removed from the White House, but it pissed me off just as much when Obama gave 535 million to a solar company so they could close the doors the day after the election. Accountability, I think, would be huge step in solving some of our issues.

Maybe it's time for our "two party" system to go away, maybe we need 4 parties, bring back the Wig party maybe, who knows. So how do we maintain the Dictatorship to get things done, the Socialism to help those in need, and the Democracy to prosper?

 

[MacNfries]

What needs to be done, to benefit the country and its people, can't be done because the foxes guard the hen house.

• Terminate the use of the Electoral College for determining the Pres/VP; any person serving the country should be people elected.
• Establish term limits - maximum of 3 or 4 elections
• Voting districts and laws should not be run/controlled by a ruling party
• Reverse the Citizen's United ruling - limit corp/individual monitary contributions
• Ban lobbyists from on-site legislatures in all levels of government
• Politicians required to live under the rules/regulations they place on the people (same health system, retirement system, etc)
• Constitutionally pass and operate government through a "balanced budget" amendment; no budget, no pay
• Eliminate many of the current congressional perks
• no filibustering

There, you asked for sugesstions, I just gave you several very logical ones. Mac

 

[TwoBiFour]

What needs to be done, to benefit the country and its people, can't be done because the foxes guard the hen house.

Understand, but if we had the power ...

 

[Alanm]

Mac and twobifour, you both make good points. How about a flat tax. For example everyone no matter what your income is taxed at say 20 percent.

 

[Alanm]

One thing i wanted to mention mac is you mentioned a fair society. Your right everyone is not the same in ability and talent but i think this country gives everyone a fair chance to succeed. Some are better at it then others and some work harder and have more success. Is it always fair, no but such is life.

Dont get me started on taxes!!!!

 

[Hand Solo]

Do you know why we are the world enforcers? Because nobody else will step up to do it. I dont alway agree with it but sometimes it needs to be done. Usually in the case of national security.

the world needs an enforcer? WOW!

 

[MacNfries]

Mac and twobifour, you both make good points. How about a flat tax. For example everyone no matter what your income is taxed at say 20 percent.

Now, Alanm, in this post you ask about the flat tax, and in your next post you say "don't get you started on taxes"... No, let's do discuss taxes since "tax unfairness" is what the weathiest people go to when discussing their "fair share" of taxes.

Here's my opinion about a flat tax. If the majority of employers (primarily corporations) were paying their employees a "living wage", and there wasn't currently such a huge wealth inequality in the US, a flat tax might work to some extent, but a flat tax now would be just another benefit for the rich. Certainly a 20% tax on someone making $22,000 vs someone making $1 million would not be fair, would it? You got a guy that doesn't even earn a living wage ($23,800 currently) and you're going to take $4,400 of his income away for taxes?
Currently, in the US, 42% of the country's wealth is held by just 1% of the population. Put that on a global scale, the world's 85 richest individuals own more wealth than the bottom 3.5 Billion people on this planet. No, that isn't a typeo. That's why there are so many protests against oppressive regimes going on; the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few.
You hear all the time the wealthiest 1-2% complaining about paying more taxes than the poor, but, the numbers they are spouting out do not take into consideration the payroll tax, which is the primary tax of the poor. Besides, it has been proven many times that the poor & middle class workers are what stimulate the economies with their purchases. More purchases creates more manufacturing and other jobs, which increases the nation's GDP. Cut taxes on the wealthiest (trickle down), and the working class gets poorer, there's less taxable income, and less purchases as jobs disappear. Bill Clinton and George H Bush (not GW) proved that raising taxes works, back in the 1990's if you recall. And George Bush proved that cutting taxes created job loss and increased the national debt.
How about considering a progressive type of tax system where there are fewer deductions and tax loopholes, so that rich man earning a $ million pays a 28% or 25% tax BUT doesn't have near as many tax deductions. And the poorest, earning under $20,000 might have to pay 2-3% to federal taxes simply to be a contributor? The corporations could do the same. Did you know that approx.70% of corporations pay "zero" in income taxes? The US loses over $1.3 trillion a year to untaxed incomes.
And keep in mind, there are all kinds of taxes ... income, inheritance, estate, home ownership, payroll. We just need to bring back a fairer tax system and balance.

That's just my opinion ... Mac

 

[Alanm]

Yes, its true. Unfortunately the world is full of bad people and sometimes they rise to power and need to be dealt with. Sad but true and you better have the stomach to deal with it.

 

[Alanm]

Now, Alanm, in this post you ask about the flat tax, and in your next post you say "don't get you started on taxes"... View attachment 418792 No, let's do discuss taxes since "tax unfairness" is what the weathiest people go to when discussing their "fair share" of taxes.

Here's my opinion about a flat tax. If the majority of employers (primarily corporations) were paying their employees a "living wage", and there wasn't currently such a huge wealth inequality in the US, a flat tax might work to some extent, but a flat tax now would be just another benefit for the rich. Certainly a 20% tax on someone making $22,000 vs someone making $1 million would not be fair, would it? You got a guy that doesn't even earn a living wage ($23,800 currently) and you're going to take $4,400 of his income away for taxes?
Currently, in the US, 42% of the country's wealth is held by just 1% of the population. Put that on a global scale, the world's 85 richest individuals own more wealth than the bottom 3.5 Billion people on this planet. No, that isn't a typeo. That's why there are so many protests against oppressive regimes going on; the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few.
You hear all the time the wealthiest 1-2% complaining about paying more taxes than the poor, but, the numbers they are spouting out do not take into consideration the payroll tax, which is the primary tax of the poor. Besides, it has been proven many times that the poor & middle class workers are what stimulate the economies with their purchases. More purchases creates more manufacturing and other jobs, which increases the nation's GDP. Cut taxes on the wealthiest (trickle down), and the working class gets poorer, there's less taxable income, and less purchases as jobs disappear. Bill Clinton and George H Bush (not GW) proved that back in the 1990's if you recall.
How about considering a progressive type of tax system where there are fewer deductions and tax loopholes, so that rich man earning a $ million pays a 28% or 25% tax BUT doesn't have near as many tax deductions. And the poorest, earning under $20,000 might have to pay 2-3% to federal taxes simply to be a contributor? The corporations could do the same. Did you know that approx.70% of corporations pay "zero" in income taxes?
And keep in mind, there are all kinds of taxes ... income, inheritance, estate, home ownership, payroll. We just need to bring back a fairer tax system and balance ... the US loses over $1.3 trillion a year to untaxed incomes that should have been taxed.

That's just my opinion ... View attachment 418798 Mac

Mac, a flat tax is fair 20 percent is 20 percent no matter what you make. Living wage, come on. You think people working at mcdonalds should make 25 dollars an hour? A lot of these jobs that dont pay a living are because they are not meant to, they are stepping stone jobs to a better job. Jobs for high school ******* or retirees etc. If mcdonalds was a living wage job my happy meal would cost 9 bucks instead of 3 bucks. Also usually these jobs are low wage because they require little education or skill.

 

[Alanm]

Progressive tax??? No way, now how is that fair to the rest of the population. Why do all liberals knock the wealthy like they should apologize for being successfull.

 

[MacNfries]

See, Alanm, I don't think you're comprehending what I said regarding the effect on the economy by raising taxes vs lowering taxes. If the minimum wage, for example, was raise to that magical $10.10 an hour, more employees would come OFF various forms of welfare, would buy things (TVs, refrigerators, cars, ect) and the economy would be stimulated to produce more. There would NOT be an equivalent cost shift in merchandize, like your Happy Meal at McDonalds if McDonalds started paying a living wage. Your Happy Meal might go up, but not by $3-4 to offset the living wage increase.
A recent study of this was used on Walmart employees; increasing the employee's minimum wages to $10.10 would increase the cost of merchandize in Walmart a mere 3-4%. That study is easily found by searching Walmart-living wage increase. Remember, the more buying activity, the less impact on the income offset.
It's worth studying ... I swear it is!

 

[TwoBiFour]

Did you know that approx.70% of corporations pay "zero" in income taxes?

That's just my opinion ... View attachment 418798 Mac

Sorry Mac but I have to clarify your statement, you are correct but you are also misleading the reader. True that most corporations don't pay income taxes, but the share holders do, based on the corporations income. Taxing the corporation as well as the shareholder is called Double taxation. Most corporations (as you state 70%) qualify for S corp or LLC status instead of C corp. For example if the company makes 1 million, and there are 4 shareholders the company does not pay taxes but each shareholder must pay taxes on $250,000.00 each. This, by the way only applies to Federal taxes, all corporations pay State tax of some type unless they strike a deal for jobs in exchange for little or no tax.