Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Is It Time For A Third Political Party - Tea Party  
User currently offlinedeltadawg From United States of America, joined May 2006, 776 posts, RR: 1
Posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 4152 times:

After John Boehner has continued to defy his constituents along with many other Republicans in regards to most peoples wishes for our Congressmen and Senators to do everything within their power to stop/defund Obamacare along with not going along with Obama on Syria it seems more and more relevant that there is a real need for a third political party in the U.S..

Could it be that the Tea Party could or should break off from the Republican Party to form a true third party? The Republican Party has parted ways with Reagan in its belief of the Constitution and fiscal responsibility and is trying to be the "me too" party comparing its deeds with the Democratic Party.

So, is it time for a third party or is the Republican Party salvageable?


GO Dawgs, Sic' em, woof woof woof
148 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineImperialEagle From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2529 posts, RR: 23
Reply 1, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 4151 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Neither one of the established parties represents "We the People".

I have believed for years that we do need a true third-party choice.
The sad thing is the established parties have so much muscle and money they snuff-out any attempt to establish another party.
A good example is the "Tea Party" movement.

Just because there is a core group of American's with a different opinion of how things should be---the established parties AND the so-called "mainstream media" used smear campaigns to de-legitimize them. They were made to look like some kind of freaks. Crazy people who had the audacity to stand-up for "We the People".

I would and will support a party who truly represents the average American.



"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough!"
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1422 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 4134 times:

There is... http://www.lp.or/

Gary Johnson seemed a very sensible, level headed and intelligent chap. Unfortunately the voting system in many countries always results in a 2 party system because people are more concerned about the other party not getting in.


User currently offlineRara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 2057 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 4121 times:

As long as the U.S. keeps its majoritarian voting system, a Tea Party splitoff will mean that the Democratic Party will win every future election. Hardly the desired outcome for the far right.

In the unlikely event that a proportional voting system is introduced, there will probably a number of new parties. There may be room for a libertarian party, a social-democrat party, a far-right populist party (like the Tea Party), and possibly a green party alongside the GOP and the Democrats.



Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6539 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 4088 times:

You already have two right-wing parties, what you lack is a left-wing one !


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12359 posts, RR: 25
Reply 5, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 4085 times:

Quoting deltadawg (Thread starter):
After John Boehner has continued to defy his constituents along with many other Republicans in regards to most peoples wishes for our Congressmen and Senators to do everything within their power to stop/defund Obamacare along with not going along with Obama on Syria

                 

If it makes you feel any better, hardcore liberals are just as unhappy, but they don't have their own Fox/Rush outlets to vent. Gitmo's still open, the NSA's on the rampage, we're still using our brawn instead of our brains, etc.

However the Congress still requires super majorities to get anything through the Senate and 2/3rds to get anything past a veto, so the odds of anyone wanting to splinter their party just don't exist.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinesrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4050 times:

Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 1):
I have believed for years that we do need a true third-party choice.
The sad thing is the established parties have so much muscle and money they snuff-out any attempt to establish another party.
A good example is the "Tea Party" movement.

Or them self-destruct like the Reform Party. The party started to split in 1996 because Perot decided to run for President again since he was the only Reform Party candidate that would be able to get Federal matching funds due to his 1992 independent run. A small faction split off in 1997 and is still around as a Tea Party-type group. The Reform Party failed to build on their first electoral success when Jesse Ventura was elected Governor of Minnesota and the party also garnered more votes than all of the other third parties combined in the mid-term elections. In the 2000 presidential campaign, the party moved well to the right (even further than the GOP) by nominating Pat Buchanan as their presidential candidate, which caused a major rift in the party and left it in tatters. The party supported Ralph Nader in 2004, but only had ballot access in 7 states at that time. In 2008 and in 2012, the Reform Party USA fielded candidates for President and Vice President, but were only on the ballot in Mississippi in 2008 and only on the ballot in Florida in 2012 (and had write-in status in less than a quarter of the states, but not enough to be elected).


User currently offlineArmitageShanks From UK - England, joined Dec 2003, 3611 posts, RR: 15
Reply 7, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4033 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 2):
Gary Johnson seemed a very sensible, level headed and intelligent chap.

The Libertarian party has the biggest chance of becoming a legitimate party. I've voted for them in the last three presidential elections because they more closely match my political ideals.


User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1830 posts, RR: 10
Reply 8, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3997 times:

Quoting deltadawg (Thread starter):
After John Boehner has continued to defy his constituents along with many other Republicans in regards to most peoples wishes for our Congressmen and Senators to do everything within their power to stop/defund Obamacare along with not going along with Obama on Syria it seems more and more relevant that there is a real need for a third political party in the U.S..

So because the leader of the opposition is actually not fighting the President tooth-and-nail on something for once, that means you need a third party? I think you may want to reconsider your line of thinking on that one...



Flying refined.
User currently offlinedeltadawg From United States of America, joined May 2006, 776 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3985 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 8):
So because the leader of the opposition is actually not fighting the President tooth-and-nail on something for once, that means you need a third party? I think you may want to reconsider your line of thinking on that one...

Not quite. I will never reconsider my thinking on this issue. Boehner is nothing more than a left wing yes man that does not and will not listen to the average folks in his district or the American people in general. Him going along with Obama on a strike against Syria when 95% of Americans do not want a conflict with Syria is impeachable in my book. I know that my views on most items are far to the right of middle without any doubt but to not listen to the people is tantamount of treason and worth finding an alternative.

I believe in the Constitution not the government. The Constitution has been altered and trampled and the leaders in Washington continue to defy Americans views on most items, they give themselves and their cohorts exemptions from Obamacare or if they don't get it they get subsidized to pay for it. Washington has become a group of elitists on both sides of the fence, their is no difference in Asses or Pachyderms in that regard. I don't mind saying it but I have never once voted for a Democrat or a even a Libertarian for that matter. I was a Young Republican in college, I have walked door to door for candidates but the Republican establishment continues to bend its views to popular view and some even support Obama on Obamacare which is administered by the IRS! Who in their right mind wants their healthcare administered by the IRS? I have supported the Republican Party on every Federal, State and local election since 1984 when I first voted. I am at the point that if my views and more importantly the views of our founding fathers and Reagan are ignored, tainted or perverted then it is time to look elsewhere. I live in Athens, GA, home of the University of Georgia and most likely the most liberal city in Georgia. I have friends who are avid liberals that share the same frustration on their side of the fence as well and I respect their opinions and their views but I just believe from a Constitutional view we have strayed from our beginnings and original intentions so much so to the point of needing a fresh set of faces and ideas based upon the Constitution and ideas of the original writers.

I posted this thread not to bash the left or right for that matter but to gauge peoples feelings for the need to look elsewhere for representation which is something that is sorely lacking at the moment and has been for a while.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 4):
You already have two right-wing parties, what you lack is a left-wing one !

Just the opposite my friend, just the opposite.

Last word for tonight - read Mark Levin's new book, The Liberty Amendments. Great Read.



GO Dawgs, Sic' em, woof woof woof
User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1265 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3975 times:

Quoting deltadawg (Thread starter):
So, is it time for a third party or is the Republican Party salvageable?

It would be great to see a third party, but of course it can't possibly be a far-right movement like the Tea Party because as has been mentioned, that will simply split the right-wing vote and ensure the Democrats win every election for the foreseeable future.

There is most definitely space in the middle of the two parties though, particularly for a fiscally conservative but socially liberal party. Note this is not the same as libertarian- the libertarian party tends to attract free-market ideologues who will never gain any significant traction with the electorate.



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently onlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11534 posts, RR: 15
Reply 11, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 3945 times:

Quoting deltadawg (Reply 9):
I believe in the Constitution not the government. The Constitution has been altered and trampled and the leaders in Washington continue to defy Americans views on most items

This is what it comes down to: Show me where in the Constitution it says political parties MUST posses insane amounts of money to even be considered for candidacy?

IMHO, the only reason Republicans and Democrats are continually elected is brand recognition. They have the money to back up their product.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinejetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2769 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 3925 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

As a republican conservative I wish the tea party would just disappear. This is getting ridiculous. Obamacare isn't going anywhere. Vote libertarian if you don't like the republicans. The Tea Party is one of the biggest issues in the republican party right now IMO. Even if you go out and prove it is a grass roots movement, they have been demonized by the media to the point that no moderate will vote for a tea party candidate. I won't even vote for a tea party candidate. I wish it was as easy as the republicans saying "We don't want you." but they know that they would lose election after election without them. Which is silly because these tea partiers probably would never vote democrat in the first place...

Quoting deltadawg (Reply 9):
Boehner is nothing more than a left wing yes man that does not and will not listen to the average folks in his district or the American people in general. Him going along with Obama on a strike against Syria when 95% of Americans do not want a conflict with Syria is impeachable in my book.

Huh? Boehner won his district with 66% of the vote in 2010 and was reelected in 2012 after going unopposed by the democrats. His district must really hate him... When it comes to Syria, do you know something we don't know? Because frankly these guys aren't rushing to a decision. They are carefully weighing what they are going to do. I may not agree with going into Syria, but it doesn't mean there aren't justifiable reasons for going in.

Quoting deltadawg (Reply 9):
I am at the point that if my views and more importantly the views of our founding fathers and Reagan are ignored, tainted or perverted then it is time to look elsewhere.

What does Reagan have to do with current political views? Don't get me wrong, I like Reagan. But to say his views have any bearing on the current political process is absurd. It's a different world now. His enemy was a well known megastate. We fight people in streets. Reagan's intel gathering were aircraft. We have satellites and electronic surveillance. You can't bring Reagan into this without making the right look like some dude stuck in the 80s. I think the constitution has absolutely been stomped on. But having an extreme edge of the party break off to make their own party which will fade away quickly isn't how you get things done. You are only hurting the already slight chance of something being done.

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 10):
There is most definitely space in the middle of the two parties though, particularly for a fiscally conservative but socially liberal party.

I absolutely agree. I would vote for that party and never look back.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 12):
IMHO, the only reason Republicans and Democrats are continually elected is brand recognition. They have the money to back up their product.

Well they do have the money to back it up, but they also have time on their side. I grew up in a world dominated by R's and D's, my parents grew up in a world dominated by R's and D's, and my grandparents grew up in a world dominated by R's and D's. The tea party has been around for what, 4 years? In that time they have been tagged as a racist group(which I firmly disagree with, even if I don't like them), but they have also been tagged as group financed by the rich. We have enough of that with our current parties. We don't need a third party with extreme ideas financed by the same people who already finance the other parties.
Pat



You push down on that yoke, the houses get bigger, you pull back on the yoke, the houses get bigger- Ken Foltz
User currently onlinejpetekyxmd80 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 4382 posts, RR: 27
Reply 13, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 3922 times:

The presidency of Ronald Reagan has become so hopelessly misconstrued as the epitome of your brand of virtue, it's hard to even comprehend. Let me spell it out for you. Yes, Reagan was Republican and leaves good lingering sound bytes and messages to the conservative movement. However, were he to be around today, he would be perilously out of his element and quickly marginalized as a flagrant RINO based on his record, or be like Schwarzenegger, the aww, look, this Hollywood celebrity is calling himself a Republican, isn't that cute?

You talk about Reagan in vague and misty eyed adoration like "belief of the Constitution". Ok, Reagan's stances on gun rights and support of the AWB would leave him absolutely lambasted by the NRA and there are very few places he would be able to be nominated as a Republican. Similarly his work with missile treaties and other diplomacy with USSR etc would marginalize him as weak and unprincipled by the far right.

The list goes on. Not to even mention lackluster records on tax cuts, deficit increases, and federal government size. With all this, it's hard to even imagine how he could be so adored by the extreme right. The answer is simple why this is: it's all superficial. Listen to a speeches and sound-bytes, and let your imagination do the rest. You don't know better and you don't care to know better. If you really have interest and idolize Ronald Reagan, why not invest the time to gain more knowledge and understanding of his career. Learning is good. And it might help you avoid similar unfortunate scenarios with your hand in the proverbial Tea Party cookie jar. But you won't, because history and ideology is not simple enough for you to want to understand. No doubt you could, but complexities and shades of gray in such matters have no place in your world view. It's pathetic, and i pity the lack of any semblance of intellectual curiosity.

No doubt you've gone to the retort of last resort: you're older than me. Wow. Than how come I am the one sounding informed and mature, while you wallow in this thread demonstrating the rudimentary understanding of the political system and extreme naivety and idealism.

You can do better.



The Best Care in the Air, 1984-2009
User currently onlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11534 posts, RR: 15
Reply 14, posted (10 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3902 times:

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 13):
In that time they have been tagged as a racist group(which I firmly disagree with, even if I don't like them), but they have also been tagged as group financed by the rich

And so could Occupy.

We need money out of politics. Period. I don't care what party or where on the political spectrum a person stands, money has no business being in politics.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21530 posts, RR: 55
Reply 15, posted (10 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3869 times:

Quoting deltadawg (Thread starter):
So, is it time for a third party or is the Republican Party salvageable?

If the Tea Party separated from the GOP, then the GOP might actually be a viable, sensible choice.

Quoting jpetekyxmd80 (Reply 15):
The presidency of Ronald Reagan has become so hopelessly misconstrued as the epitome of your brand of virtue, it's hard to even comprehend.

I don't think people who like to invoke the name of Reagan really know what Reagan did. It's ironically similar to a religion, in which you find some way to invoke the deity no matter what you're trying to do. And it makes people look ridiculous.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8795 posts, RR: 24
Reply 16, posted (10 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3777 times:

This guy nailed it:

Five Steps to restoring Constitutional Government

1) No bill is to exceed 10 pages.
2) All bills are to have the constitutional article attached giving the bill its authority.
3) All content of the bill must pertain to the title of the bill.
4) All bills are to written in laymen's terms and posted on line for seven days before being introduced on the floor.
5) Any bill requiring expenditures must be accompanied with: total costs of bill, who the beneficiaries are, how the bill will be funded, who will pay bill and a sunset date.

http://richardlynch4congress.blogspo...s-to-restoring-constitutional.html



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1830 posts, RR: 10
Reply 17, posted (10 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3753 times:

Quoting deltadawg (Reply 9):
Not quite. I will never reconsider my thinking on this issue. Boehner is nothing more than a left wing yes man that does not and will not listen to the average folks in his district or the American people in general. Him going along with Obama on a strike against Syria when 95% of Americans do not want a conflict with Syria is impeachable in my book. I know that my views on most items are far to the right of middle without any doubt but to not listen to the people is tantamount of treason and worth finding an alternative.

Although I agree with you that the US desperately needs a third party, your opening post suggests you want it for all the wrong reasons. The purpose of a third party is to break the stalemate that is pretty much a certainty in a two-party parliamentary system. Seeing Boehner agree with Obama on something is particularly refreshing in my opinion (though I disagree with both of them on this specific issue...). The motivation for you starting this thread is simply rooted in your anti-left mindset it would appear. Anyone that agrees with a Democrat is mud on your boots. Which makes it all the more hilarious that you said:

Quoting deltadawg (Reply 9):
I posted this thread not to bash the left

.

Quoting deltadawg (Reply 9):
Quoting Aesma (Reply 4):
You already have two right-wing parties, what you lack is a left-wing one !

Just the opposite my friend, just the opposite.

You need to travel a bit, or maybe just do some high-level reading, because the US is quite significantly to the right when viewed on a global scale.

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 10):
There is most definitely space in the middle of the two parties though, particularly for a fiscally conservative but socially liberal party.

Or how about a party that simply doesn't stick its nose in so many social issues?

Quoting seb146 (Reply 14):
We need money out of politics. Period. I don't care what party or where on the political spectrum a person stands, money has no business being in politics.

So long as government continues to try and put a collar on the free market, there will be organizations and individuals with a business interest in who the successful candidate is.

Quoting Mir (Reply 15):
If the Tea Party separated from the GOP, then the GOP might actually be a viable, sensible choice.

But they would still be as fiscally irresponsible as always. The Tea Party really isn't functionally doing any harm to the GOP, they only provide terrible optics, but functionally the GOP do enough to screw themselves over.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 17):
1) No bill is to exceed 10 pages.

That's far too vague. I can easily create a bill in 10 pages that has smaller font and no indentation, essentially a page of pure text. It would be more sensible to limit the number of sections/clauses contained within the document (within reason).

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 17):
3) All content of the bill must pertain to the title of the bill.

Seems like a no-brainer   

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 17):
5) Any bill requiring expenditures must be accompanied with: total costs of bill, who the beneficiaries are, how the bill will be funded, who will pay bill and a sunset date.

The language of this point suggests that all bills have a predetermined shelf life, or am I reading incorrectly?



Flying refined.
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 18, posted (10 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3745 times:

Quoting deltadawg (Thread starter):
in regards to most peoples wishes

I hate to disappoint you - but "most people" do not wish to see Obamacare stopped / defunded / repealed.

And certainly without the Republican Party offering an alternative program to go into effect to provide quality health insurance available to all Americans.

Quoting deltadawg (Thread starter):
is the Republican Party salvageable?

Yes - if they throw out all the Tea Party extremists who want to destroy the United States.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21530 posts, RR: 55
Reply 19, posted (10 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3711 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 17):

1) No bill is to exceed 10 pages.

So he's obviously never written legislation before, and has no idea how it works. Bills should be as long as they need to be - no more, no less.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 17):
2) All bills are to have the constitutional article attached giving the bill its authority.

Do we really need to have Article 1, Section 8 written on every bill? Not that it would mean anything anyway.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 17):
3) All content of the bill must pertain to the title of the bill.

Reasonable enough, though I wonder how closely this would actually be followed in practice.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 17):
4) All bills are to written in laymen's terms and posted on line for seven days before being introduced on the floor.

Being posted on-line is fine, but requiring everything to be in layman's terms (which is a good idea) is going to run up against the 10 page limit. Might just be a better idea for people to learn to read and understand English.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 17):
5) Any bill requiring expenditures must be accompanied with: total costs of bill, who the beneficiaries are, how the bill will be funded, who will pay bill and a sunset date.

I don't really have a problem with that.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 18):
But they would still be as fiscally irresponsible as always.

I'm not so sure about that. What I do know is that they could actually govern. The Tea Party cannot - they've shown themselves to be incapable of doing it.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently onlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9805 posts, RR: 26
Reply 20, posted (10 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3674 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 1):
I would and will support a party who truly represents the average American.

This is a nice sound byte, but the "average American" is not very average, so to speak. Meaning, one "average American" can be vastly different from another "average American". If you actually averaged all the different views of the "average American", you'd probably end up with something that not many people would particularly want or agree with.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 11):
IMHO, the only reason Republicans and Democrats are continually elected is brand recognition. They have the money to back up their product.

Very true.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 17):
This guy nailed it:

Five Steps to restoring Constitutional Government

If he was going for "Five Very Generic and Unspecific Steps that Create Hundreds of Loopholes and Arguments", then I'd say you're right.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1265 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (10 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3673 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 17):
3) All content of the bill must pertain to the title of the bill.

I would love for this to be the case, but those ridiculous clauses are there for a reason- to get things passed by essentially bribing their opponents. Given how deadlocked Congress is right now I fear this would lead to greater inaction.



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlinedeltadawg From United States of America, joined May 2006, 776 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (10 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3649 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 19):
I hate to disappoint you - but "most people" do not wish to see Obamacare stopped / defunded / repealed.

And certainly without the Republican Party offering an alternative program to go into effect to provide quality health insurance available to all Americans.

Must be why poll after poll after poll shows the majority of Americans don't like it, don't want it and don't support it?

As far as an alternative, there was already an alternative. It is called private health insurance, pick up the phone book and look for Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Cigna, etc. You also might want to check with your employer. If you are unemployed I am sorry but then that is more reason to blame Obamacare as it is the single biggest factor slowing hiring in the US today. Some may be unemployed but they have health insurance. They cant buy food, pay their mortgage or car payment but they have a free phone and health insurance.

I am sorry, I didn't go to college, work my rear end off with my compnay, put my name on the dotted line to build my poultry houses, put my kids through college, save for my retirement just so I can help pay for someone else's health insurance. That is exactly what is happening, just like the 51% of Americans that actually pay taxes those same folks are footing the bill for the rest. Last time I looked there was no article or amendment for that matter in the Constitution that said health insurance was a right. There is a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If having health insurance is a pursuit of yours then by all means go after it you have that right.


I know many will say I am an uncaring right wing nutjob but they are entitled to their opinion. I know my priority is my children, my wife and the people that work for me and my wife. I want to see everyone do well and prosper but under the current environment of deafening regulations, taxation and oversight it has become all too hard for many on the ends to do so.



GO Dawgs, Sic' em, woof woof woof
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4510 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (10 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3633 times:

Quoting deltadawg (Reply 23):

Nah, I just hope you get your way so this country can move beyond the self centered utopia that the Tea Party worships.

The 15-20% that the Tea Party would hopefully enchant would be more than enough to destroy the current GOP.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6586 posts, RR: 24
Reply 24, posted (10 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3608 times:

Quoting deltadawg (Reply 23):

Must be why poll after poll after poll shows the majority of Americans don't like it, don't want it and don't support it?

Oh really?

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch...least-popular-option-for-obamacare

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-...an-to-defund-obamacare-poll-finds/


User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1265 posts, RR: 3
Reply 25, posted (10 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3628 times:

Quoting deltadawg (Reply 23):
Must be why poll after poll after poll shows the majority of Americans don't like it, don't want it and don't support it?

But rfields is correct in that most people do not want to defund it:

http://americablog.com/2013/08/poll-...obamacare-hate-defunding-even.html

The problem is that the American people mostly have no idea what Obamacare is. This was a while ago, but I see no evidence the public have become more informed:

http://americablog.com/2010/02/newsw...whats-in-it-then-they-like-it.html

One thing most people I know on both sides of the fence say is that repealing Obamacare should not be done unless the GOP come up with a viable alternative, which should not just be "let's go back to how things were before".



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlinejetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2769 posts, RR: 4
Reply 26, posted (10 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3569 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Quoting seb146 (Reply 14):
And so could Occupy.

I don't think Occupy really has the tag of being financed by the rich. I think it is believed to be more sloppy than it is financially sound.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 14):
We need money out of politics. Period. I don't care what party or where on the political spectrum a person stands, money has no business being in politics.

I agree but how do we accomplish this? You think any Senator or Representative in their right mind would try to end campaign donations? It's political suicide. They all come in talking about it, but then they realize it just is not feasible.

Quoting Mir (Reply 15):
If the Tea Party separated from the GOP, then the GOP might actually be a viable, sensible choice.

I agree, but the problem then becomes the group that leaves the party to be with the tea party. Yes they may pick up votes from moderates, but will it be enough to replace those that left and then some? The republicans are in a bit of a pickle IMO.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 18):
Or how about a party that simply doesn't stick its nose in so many social issues?

Not going to happen in this lifetime. Too libertarian for most of the country.

Quoting deltadawg (Reply 23):
Must be why poll after poll after poll shows the majority of Americans don't like it, don't want it and don't support it?

It is because nobody has a clue what is in the bill. I had a history professor go on a political rant the other day saying how he loves Obamacare and the fact that socialized healthcare is coming to America. But then I hear that it isn't socialized medicine but rather a set of reform laws. My biggest problem with the bill is the lack of education. We've talked about it for how long now and with the exception of healthcare professionals and business leaders, nobody knows what to expect. I might think it's the best bill since the interstate highway act if I knew what was coming. But I don't.

Quoting deltadawg (Reply 23):
There is a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If having health insurance is a pursuit of yours then by all means go after it you have that right.

The whole right to life, liberty, and happiness is such a broad statement that it is tough to say that something doesn't constitute it. In the case of Obamacare it is supposed to provide people with medical care which equates to a longer life, it gives people the liberty to pick what doctor they want without having to worry about cost, and the pursuit of happiness means that they can live their lives happily while being healthy. I don't think the government should be providing healthcare, but my concerns are more with it's ability to process things in a timely and efficient fashion.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 24):
so this country can move beyond the self centered utopia that the Tea Party worships.

The self centered Utopia wasn't created by the Tea Party. It has been around long before the tea party, and will remain after they fade into oblivion.

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 28):
The problem is that the American people mostly have no idea what Obamacare is. This was a while ago, but I see no evidence the public have become more informed:

   Absolutely agree. People are afraid of the unknown. I know the White House has been trying to come up with education programs. But boy they have to push them a little harder.
Pat



You push down on that yoke, the houses get bigger, you pull back on the yoke, the houses get bigger- Ken Foltz
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21530 posts, RR: 55
Reply 27, posted (10 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3530 times:

Quoting deltadawg (Reply 22):
As far as an alternative, there was already an alternative. It is called private health insurance, pick up the phone book and look for Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Cigna, etc.

And it wasn't working. The whole reason we had health care reform was because the system was incredibly broken. Going back to that is not a viable option, but that's the only option the Tea Party has presented the country with.

Quoting deltadawg (Reply 22):
If you are unemployed I am sorry but then that is more reason to blame Obamacare as it is the single biggest factor slowing hiring in the US today.

No, the biggest factor slowing hiring is the instability in government. Of which the argument over Obamacare is only a component.

Quoting deltadawg (Reply 22):
Last time I looked there was no article or amendment for that matter in the Constitution that said health insurance was a right.

It doesn't have to be a right. It's a good idea, and that's enough.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinekric777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2002, 279 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (10 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3494 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

While I agree with the Tea Party on fiscal issues, I have no use for their social agenda.

Where is there room for someone like myself who believes in a "conservative" fiscal policy, with the lowest taxes possible, and limited social welfare entitlement programs, (which, I believe, have caused far more problems than they have solved) but "liberal" social policy, which stipulates limited government interference in people's private lives?

As far as I'm concerned, marijuana, abortion, and prostitution should be legal, as long as only consenting adults are involved. At the same time, I wish the government would keep its hands off my paycheck (as much as possible) and my guns (if I choose to own them.) I have zero respect for the quasi-Socialists in this country who want the government to take care of them cradle to grave, but I also don't want the Religious Right dictating social policy in the country. I have my own religious beliefs that I choose to keep to myself and not inject into political discourse. I wish more people felt the same.

I think there are quite a few folks like myself who are generally with the Tea Party on fiscal/economic issues, but cannot get behind their narrow-minded, religion-based social agenda. I guess we're called Libertarians.


User currently offlinecaliatenza From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1567 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (10 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3491 times:

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 26):
Absolutely agree. People are afraid of the unknown. I know the White House has been trying to come up with education programs. But boy they have to push them a little harder.

Thats why the President will have Bill Clinton out there explaining what exactly Obamacare is going to do. Personally, i am waiting for October as well, so i can get my insurance through an exchange and save money.


User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13042 posts, RR: 12
Reply 30, posted (10 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3477 times:

In the past, national 'third parties' have faced several obstacles to becoming viable ones in the USA.
- They become too radical, narrow, absolute and unworkable in their views, turning off many voters.
- Key ideas are absorbed by one of the 2 major parties.
- Cannot attract leaders that can get them votes over 1-2 elections.
- Campaign funding is very limited.

What I would like to see is a centrist party, with balance, moderation, low corruption, limit invasions of personal privacy; promote reasonably affordable health care, housing and food costs; fair progressive taxation with few loopholes and deals with powerful interest groups, sensible regulation of business and individuals so we are all sensibly protected but not so over the top where a rare fly prevent reasoned development.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6539 posts, RR: 9
Reply 31, posted (10 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3465 times:

Without changes in your political system it won't happen. There needs to be a simpler system to get on ballots, in a presidential system, only the presidential election will get a party started. In France we have kind of the opposite problem, it's too easy to be a candidate, so we have 10 or more. At least people get to hear various agendas, not just 2.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently onlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11534 posts, RR: 15
Reply 32, posted (10 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 3460 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 17):
So long as government continues to try and put a collar on the free market

Like telling businesses they can not pollute water? Or put nails in teddy bears? Things like that? Or not selling mortgages to people banks know they can not afford? Like that?

Don't forget: The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution and the government to be "of, for, and by the people". Which means when our government fails us, we fail us. It actually would be feasible to get money out of politics. If every single one of us votes for the one candidate in our district who will listen to us. That would be ANYBODY who does not have a (D) or (R) behind their name! We have a chance in November 2014 to bring in all new people into The House. If every single person who voted cast a ballot for anyone who does not have a (D) or (R) behind their name, that would show money that we the people truly are in control. I would love to see every person with a (D) or (R) behind their name get zero votes in the mid-terms. Then, something might get done in this country!



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19419 posts, RR: 58
Reply 33, posted (10 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 3433 times:

Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 1):
Just because there is a core group of American's with a different opinion of how things should be---the established parties AND the so-called "mainstream media" used smear campaigns to de-legitimize them. They were made to look like some kind of freaks. Crazy people who had the audacity to stand-up for "We the People".

That's because the behavior of the Tea Party became so absurd (beyond "extreme" in many ways) that they didn't need to be portrayed as "freaks" by anyone. They did it for themselves.

It's also true (and many of the original founders of the movement have admitted it) that it quickly changed from a grass-roots movement to a highly organized and funded "club" with such organizations as the Americans for Prosperity funding it.

And with Tea Party leaders talking about how such concepts as "negotiation" and "bipartisanship" are passe, how the sequester isn't such a bad thing, how defaulting on our debts isn't a bad thing, etc., it's becoming a real problem for the GOP.

Quoting deltadawg (Reply 22):
I am sorry, I didn't go to college, work my rear end off with my compnay, put my name on the dotted line to build my poultry houses, put my kids through college, save for my retirement just so I can help pay for someone else's health insurance.

Yes you did. If you have health insurance, then you are paying for someone else's health insurance. That's what "insurance" is. If you get cancer and I don't, then my premiums pay for your chemo and vice-versa.

And the best part is that under the new rules, you can actually CHOOSE your insurance plan. You were never able to do that before unless you were in absolutely perfect health. Insurance companies would even consider a history of a broken bone as a "pre-existing" condition, even if it was years ago and use that to jack up your rates. If you didn't have a group plan through your employer, you basically couldn't get insurance. That's no longer the case. If you are unhappy with Aetna's customer service, then switch to BC/BS or HealthNet or UnitedHealthCare. The insurance plans actually have to compete to make their members happy now, which they've never had to do before.

I don't understand why anyone would complain about that. And, as a physician, it's helping me. Starting with the new year, there are going to be a lot of new people coming to my clinic for medical care.

Sure, there are problems with it, but none of them are insurmountable. And there are problems that the existing legislation doesn't fix, and those COULD be fixed if the House Majority were actually willing to govern, rather than repealing the bill 41 times.


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39716 posts, RR: 75
Reply 34, posted (10 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 3426 times:

Third parties are only spoilers as long as we have a winner-take-all system.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 5):
hardcore liberals are just as unhappy, but they don't have their own Fox/Rush outlets to vent.

True. They have MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC, New York Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, LA Times just to name a few.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineB777LRF From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1308 posts, RR: 3
Reply 35, posted (10 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3400 times:

I have always found it incomprehensible how a nation of almost 300 million people and an unparalleled diversity of culture, race and religion, can be represented nationally by just 2 parties. This is especially confounding when small, homogenous, nations like those in Scandinavia have up to 8 parties represented in their parliaments, and up to 4 in a coalition government. But what really boggles the mind is how close to each other the Democrats and Republicans are politically. Anywhere else, where multiple parties are represented, the Dems and Reps would be one and placed on the far, far right of the political spectrum. The Tea Party is just one more iteration of far rightness; though they are considerably more wacky than your average right winger, they are still politically of the same ilk.

So the answer to the OPs question is a resounding 'NO'. You don't need another party, you need 5 or 6 of them and a political reform that will allow that to happen.



From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21530 posts, RR: 55
Reply 36, posted (10 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 3370 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 33):
If you have health insurance, then you are paying for someone else's health insurance. That's what "insurance" is. If you get cancer and I don't, then my premiums pay for your chemo and vice-versa.

Not only that, but you're also paying for the people who don't have insurance but end up in the emergency room anyway because that's their only option. The hospital has to cover those costs somehow, they do so by charging everyone else a bit more, and that gets passed on to the insurance companies and is ultimately reflected in your premiums.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39716 posts, RR: 75
Reply 37, posted (10 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 3361 times:

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 35):
I have always found it incomprehensible how a nation of almost 300 million people and an unparalleled diversity of culture, race and religion, can be represented nationally by just 2 parties.

That is incorrect. There are dozens of parties in the US but due to the winner-take-all system, people choose to vote for 1 of the 2 major parties.

In the 2000 Presidential election, Green party candidate Ralph Nader splintered liberal voters away from Al Gore allowing George W. Bush to get in the White House.
So to all of these pro-third party advocates, you should love George W. Bush because his presidency was the result of a strong 3rd party challenger.
Ya see, 3rd parties can make a difference.   



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1422 posts, RR: 3
Reply 38, posted (10 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 3359 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 33):
If you have health insurance, then you are paying for someone else's health insurance.

No you're not. You're paying for a commodity, that commodity is health coverage, and is only applicable to you.


User currently offlineAkiestar From Philippines, joined May 2009, 784 posts, RR: 0
Reply 39, posted (10 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 3348 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 37):
That is incorrect. There are dozens of parties in the US but due to the winner-take-all system, people choose to vote for 1 of the 2 major parties.

Which is not necessarily caused by winner-take-all/FPTP (first-past-the-post). The UK has three parties in the House of Commons and it uses FPTP. Same with Canada and its four parties. The D-R duopoly in the United States is a result of weak third parties (among other factors), rather than just solely the system's design.


User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 40, posted (10 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3330 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 16):
3) All content of the bill must pertain to the title of the bill.

Since most of the bills that actually run the government today are Continuing Resolutions - that requirement is fulfilled for the really important bills. (Now - lumping what used to be 100 different appropriations, fundraising and regulatory laws into one Continuing Resolution - that should be stopped. But cannot with today's political atmosphere.)

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 16):
5) Any bill requiring expenditures must be accompanied with: total costs of bill, who the beneficiaries are, how the bill will be funded, who will pay bill and a sunset date.

That has been done for most of the past 20 years - but both Republicans and Democrats love to make exceptions. Such as the entire 2003 Iraq/ Afghanistan War was 'off budget' - so none of those requirements were met.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 16):
4) All bills are to written in laymen's terms and posted on line for seven days before being introduced on the floor.

Two separate things. Most bills are only introduced on the floor for a few minutes. The real work is done in the Committee's, and they don't report out the bill until the deadline. You are talking about removing a fundamental power of Congressmen - that ain't gonna happen. Neither party would allow that to happen.

Plain language - unfortunately that won't work for laws. The wording has to be very precise to ensure the exact meaning is in the law.

Quoting deltadawg (Reply 22):
Must be why poll after poll after poll shows the majority of Americans don't like it, don't want it and don't support it?

What a joke. Yes, biased inaccurate polls by people out to prove their theory. The real polls show the clear majority is in favor of comprehensive heath care.

Quoting deltadawg (Reply 22):
I am sorry, I didn't go to college,

So what. I'm part of the majority of Americans who worked their butt off to get ahead. Yes, the MAJORITY. Maybe my first 20 years after high school was in the US military, and I got a college degree by working 12-14 hours a day and going to night school. And raised two children by myself - except when deployed. And built my business after I retired.

So what. Doing what most Americans do doesn't make you SPECIAL. It makes you a citizen. It doesn't give you a right to say others are 'unequal' to you.

Quoting deltadawg (Reply 22):
just like the 51% of Americans that actually pay taxes

You maybe should have gone to college and learned how to do research.

The statement was "49% of Americans FILING TAX RETURNS paid no taxes"

It was not 49% of all Americans, it was not 49% of adults.

And the other numbers.

Of that 49% - over half WORK FOR A LIVING - but make so little total income that they owe no income taxes after deductions. Every one of these people paid Social Security and Medicare taxes.

(That works for a living group includes over 500 people with incomes over 1 million dollars whose deductions allowed them to legally pay no income taxes.)

Of that 49% - almost one third are retirees living off Social Security. They make too little total income to have to pay taxes on their Social Security - so they paid not income tax.

Of that 49% - about 5% of them were retirees with very nice incomes - but their investments were in tax free bonds - and thus not subject to federal income taxes.

Welfare queens cannot file income taxes and get money. They have to have Earned Income from a job to get the Earned Income Credit.

Now I will agree that there are quite a few people who work at minimum wage jobs for about 800 hours a year - to qualify for the maximum EIC.

Quoting deltadawg (Reply 22):
Last time I looked there was no article or amendment for that matter in the Constitution that said health insurance was a right

Nobody is saying it is a right.

Right now the poorest Americans, those which don't do any work for whatever reason - usually have health care coverage.

The group without health care coverage is largely the working poor. Those working for minimum wage or similar wages, and whose hours are limited to under 30 hours per week. Of they work for very small employers with under 25 employees (unlike the myth - those companies are an economic drain on the economy - not job generators. A small business which is an economic generator must have health insurance and some type of retirement plan for their employees. Those are the only 'small businesses' which make our economy grow. Their average size is 25 to 50 employees and their sales run at least 2 to 5 million per year.)

Obamacare is about using the power of the American people to bring our healthcare standards out from near third world conditions to affordable health care fo ALL Americans.

A lot of us don't believe that the United States is too poor, too backward to help our people be healthy and productive. Unfortunately those who do believe that control the US House of Representatives and Fake News.

To remove the disincentive to work for the very poor because the first thing that happens when someone gets a job is they lose their healthcare.


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39716 posts, RR: 75
Reply 41, posted (10 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3323 times:

Quoting Akiestar (Reply 39):
The D-R duopoly in the United States is a result of weak third parties (among other factors)

One of those other factors being a winner-take-all system.
People have the choice to vote for who ever they want or any party. I don't like the two parties either and I have the choice to vote for candidates of any party I want. I often see at least 5 or 6 choices in every election.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineCXfirst From Norway, joined Jan 2007, 3040 posts, RR: 1
Reply 42, posted (10 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 3294 times:

Quoting deltadawg (Reply 22):
Last time I looked there was no article or amendment for that matter in the Constitution that said health insurance was a right. There is a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

If you don't have private health insurance (you simply cannot afford it), and get diagnosed with a life-threatening, but treatable (expensive) disease. Would not getting that care violate your right to life?

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 35):
But what really boggles the mind is how close to each other the Democrats and Republicans are politically.

In many places, there would be a good chance that the parties mostly resembling the Democrats and the Republicans would even form a coalition government!

-CXfirst



From Norway, live in Australia
User currently onlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11534 posts, RR: 15
Reply 43, posted (10 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 3286 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 34):
They have MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC, New York Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, LA Times just to name a few.

True, but CNN, CBS, ABC are more middle-of-the-road and the newspapers you cite are being bought by Koch Industries. That leaves MSNBC. Compared to thousands of talk radio stations across the country and FOX, both of whom tell all their listeners/viewers that MSNBC is all lies. Even though their own lies can be found out in about 5 seconds.

I guess the bottom line of what you are saying is: there should be third parties, as long as they are far right-wing based. That sounds truly American.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39716 posts, RR: 75
Reply 44, posted (10 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 3284 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 43):
I guess the bottom line of what you are saying is: there should be third parties, as long as they are far right-wing based.

Where are you getting that? Especially since I gave an example of a left-wing 3rd party that made a difference.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently onlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11534 posts, RR: 15
Reply 45, posted (10 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 3253 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 44):
Where are you getting that? Especially since I gave an example of a left-wing 3rd party that made a difference.

So you think there can be center or center left or extreme left, they just can't have any media attention, otherwise they are radicals who control all media.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12359 posts, RR: 25
Reply 46, posted (10 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 3239 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 40):
Plain language - unfortunately that won't work for laws. The wording has to be very precise to ensure the exact meaning is in the law.

Yes. For instance, the Patriot Act used the word 'collect' without defining it to the Nth degree. The NSA decided that the restrictions implied by the word 'collect' just would not do, so they re-interpreted the word to be along the lines of 'analyze' so now they freely 'collect' all kinds of things the Congress did not intend. Add to that the use of secrecy laws that prevented Congressmen from publicly complaining and the result is something akin to a police state, IMHO.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently onlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11534 posts, RR: 15
Reply 47, posted (10 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 3216 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 34):
They have MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC, New York Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, LA Times just to name a few.

"Just to name a few" because that's all there is. Even if one counts CNN, CBS, and ABC as "liberal".

What I don't understand is the ongoing thought of "liberal media in control" and "free speech (right-wing media) is under attack." Let's look at the facts just here in California alone. There are two "liberal" (read: they post facts contrary to FOX/Rush/tea people views) newspapers and 1 1/2 "liberal" radio stations. In "liberal" California. Stack that up against the hundreds of newspapers and radio stations across the state who support far right wing candidates and causes. Yet, the far right wing media are the ones under attack?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6539 posts, RR: 9
Reply 48, posted (10 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 3180 times:

Quoting Akiestar (Reply 39):
Which is not necessarily caused by winner-take-all/FPTP (first-past-the-post). The UK has three parties in the House of Commons and it uses FPTP. Same with Canada and its four parties. The D-R duopoly in the United States is a result of weak third parties (among other factors), rather than just solely the system's design.

But the UK and Canada have parliamentary political systems. The US has a presidential system. The presidential election is the most important one, and it's really complicated to be on the ballot in all states and have decent media coverage to make a difference. Then since the house and senate are renewed on the same day and with FPTP, a presidential candidate that would make significant gains (say 5% or even 10% of the votes, that is millions of votes) would not get a single person elected in congress ! The only difference made would be to weaken the candidates closest to him, like happened with Nader/Al Gore. And what the Tea Party would do to the GOP. In my opinion that's why the GOP is already making alliances with the Tea Party candidates and backs some of them, to "keep them in the family".

Here in France the main right-wing party (UMP) has had this problem for 30 years with the far right party Front National, except that they can't make alliances since the FN is overtly racist, holocaust deniers and other niceties (although it's trying to improve its image). For example the UMP is claiming that Sarkozy lost the 2012 election because the FN voters didn't vote for him, but staid home.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 32):
If every single person who voted cast a ballot for anyone who does not have a (D) or (R) behind their name, that would show money that we the people truly are in control. I would love to see every person with a (D) or (R) behind their name get zero votes in the mid-terms. Then, something might get done in this country!

Look at what is going on in Italy, with the new "5 stars" party, which had great success without money and on the platform of being against politicians. Result, the country is even less governable than before the election !



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13170 posts, RR: 77
Reply 49, posted (10 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3066 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 37):
n the 2000 Presidential election, Green party candidate Ralph Nader splintered liberal voters away from Al Gore allowing George W. Bush to get in the White House.
So to all of these pro-third party advocates, you should love George W. Bush because his presidency was the result of a strong 3rd party challenger.
Ya see, 3rd parties can make a difference.   

....And Ross Perot likely helped Clinton win in 1992.
Wasn't there also a pro Segregationist party in '68 as well, with Wallace?

Our own Liberal Democrats might be a 3rd party but they are way smaller than Labour or Conservative.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12359 posts, RR: 25
Reply 50, posted (10 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 3027 times:

Quoting deltadawg (Thread starter):
most peoples wishes for our Congressmen and Senators to do everything within their power to stop/defund Obamacare

Guess you do need to get working on that third party:



However your problem is that the document you love so much, the Constitution, sets up a system that makes it almost impossible for a third party to gain any traction.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 34):
Quoting Revelation (Reply 5):
hardcore liberals are just as unhappy, but they don't have their own Fox/Rush outlets to vent.

True. They have MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC, New York Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, LA Times just to name a few.

By this standard then everything not hardcore conservative must be hardcore liberal?

As I've said before, I doubt most people here who complain about hardcore liberals probably haven't met any, because if you think those outlets represent them you clearly don't know what hardcore liberals think. However it fits right wing thinking to feel they are the victims of the media, so they need to project the idea that anything that isn't hard core right must be hopelessly biased.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 48):
But the UK and Canada have parliamentary political systems. The US has a presidential system. The presidential election is the most important one, and it's really complicated to be on the ballot in all states and have decent media coverage to make a difference. Then since the house and senate are renewed on the same day and with FPTP, a presidential candidate that would make significant gains (say 5% or even 10% of the votes, that is millions of votes) would not get a single person elected in congress !

Good explanation. That exact scenario has happened in the past.

In the US, the voters pick the president (through the Electoral College). Then the President picks the Cabinet almost totally from members of his party, and knows he/she will have the job for the next four years unless they commit an impeachable offense. So once you elect a President you elect the administration too, for the next four years.

In the UK, the voters vote for the parliament, and then the members of the parliament chose the Prime Minister. If one party doesn't have the majority it has to negotiate with the others to get the votes for their PM candidate, and this gives the other parties a lot more say in who that candidate is and who ends up in the Cabinet, and this PM may lose her/his job by a vote of no confidence at any point in time.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 48):
Here in France the main right-wing party (UMP) has had this problem for 30 years with the far right party Front National, except that they can't make alliances since the FN is overtly racist, holocaust deniers and other niceties (although it's trying to improve its image). For example the UMP is claiming that Sarkozy lost the 2012 election because the FN voters didn't vote for him, but staid home.

Here in the US, there is no benefit to being in a third party. The hard right types know their only path to power is to take over the Republican party. Thus we have hard right candidates dragging more centerist candidates to the right in order to hold their seats. While this makes the hard right happy, what it serves to do is make the party more out of touch with those in the center and on the left.

It pretty much was the story of the 2012 presidential election. Romney had to go hard right in the primaries to try to pick up the more active part of the party, so when it was time for the general election he was seen as being too right wing by the rest of the electorate. Also many hard right activists felt Romney really was a RINO (Republican in Name Only) and/or didn't like his Mormanism, so he couldn't even get them to support him.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7832 posts, RR: 52
Reply 51, posted (10 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3002 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 47):
What I don't understand is the ongoing thought of "liberal media in control" and "free speech (right-wing media) is under attack."

Actually, I completely agree. The left and right wing have their preferred outlets, but both messages have an easy way to get out to a wide audience. I think it comes down to liberal control of liberal media, but forgive me for not being blown away by that finding

Quoting Revelation (Reply 50):
Also many hard right activists felt Romney really was a RINO (Republican in Name Only) and/or didn't like his Mormanism, so he couldn't even get them to support him.

That's what it seems, but I just can't help and wonder how it is different now than it has been in the past (and for the Democrats.) There has been hard right extremists all throughout history and the Democrats have their hard left extremists, yet it only seems pretty recently that the GOP has this pandering problem. Wonder why...



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39716 posts, RR: 75
Reply 52, posted (10 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 2979 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 49):
....And Ross Perot likely helped Clinton win in 1992.

Ross Perot helped Clinton but not enough to change the election outcome. Poll after poll showed Clinton beating Papa Bush in a head-to-head match up. Bill Clinton was a moderate and so was Perot and were going after the same voters. Some even say that Dan Quayle helped Bush in 1992 from losing by an even larger number. Hard to believe but the fiscal conservatives abandoned Papa Bush in 1992 because he raised taxes and the social conservatives didn't like his appointment of David Souter to the Supreme Court. Social conservatives went ahead and supported Papa Bush anyway because he kept Dan Quayle on the ticket. Dan Quayle was the Sarah Palin of the 1992 - not liked by most, gaffes were highlighted by the press but had a small loyal following of social conservatives. The moderates went for Clinton and Perot.
Left-wing liberals were never enthusiastic about Clinton.

Quoting GDB (Reply 49):
Wasn't there also a pro Segregationist party in '68 as well, with Wallace?

Yes there was but they didn't like Humphrey or Nixon. Both candidates had a civil rights record that southern segregationist didn't like. Wallace was hoping to deny either candidate the 270 electoral votes needed to win and would have resulted in the House to pick the President and Senate to pick the Vice President. In that case, Wallace would have had a lot of leverage with southern Democratic House & Senate members in choosing a President & Vice President.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently onlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11534 posts, RR: 15
Reply 53, posted (10 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2956 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 51):
I think it comes down to liberal control of liberal media, but forgive me for not being blown away by that finding

And, conversely, there is conservative control of conservative media. Again, hardly a shocker. Another interesting point:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 50):
I doubt most people here who complain about hardcore liberals probably haven't met any

There are hard core liberals and hard core conservatives. The difference I see (MY OPINION ONLY) is "liberals" will say "Well, {insert liberal name here} said XYZ and, while I don't agree completely, I can see that point." While "conservatives" will say "Well {insert conservative name here} said XYZ and that sounds completely logical so that is my opinion as well."



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 3003 posts, RR: 8
Reply 54, posted (10 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2958 times:

Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 1):
Neither one of the established parties represents "We the People".

Sure it does. Aren't corporations people? Didn't Romney himself say "Corporations are people"? Whether the Founding Fathers meant it to interpret actual human citizens instead of multi-million giants is a different matter entirely and by today's standards, the human citizen is second class compared to the corporation.

Quoting deltadawg (Reply 9):
Boehner is nothing more than a left wing yes man

If he really were a left-wing yes man he would not allow any further votes on repealing Obamacare. The SCOTUS upheld it and if the American public really wanted it gone they would have voted in Republicans in 2012.

Quoting deltadawg (Reply 22):
Must be why poll after poll after poll shows the majority of Americans don't like it, don't want it and don't support it?

The fact that polls show the public don't like it doesn't mean they want it gone. It just means that it still requires work and advertisement. How many negative messages have you seen vs the positive ones?

Quoting deltadawg (Reply 22):
just like the 51% of Americans that actually pay taxes those same folks are footing the bill for the rest.

Hate to burst your bubble, but nearly EVERY American pays taxes, or is 49% of the public exempt from sales taxes and property taxes? That 49% (now down to 43%) of the public doesn't pay federal income taxes is another matter entirely and in a way it only serves to boost the point on how income inequality has grown.



"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6539 posts, RR: 9
Reply 55, posted (10 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2932 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 53):
There are hard core liberals and hard core conservatives.

I find it funny that you call the left "liberal" in the US, because it loses all meaning when talking about the far left. The far left is anything but liberal, they're socialist/communist, they want more rules in everything (except private life), more taxes, a high minimum wage and a low maximum wage, nationalization of everything, etc. Well, you can argue part of the far left is comprised of anarchists, I guess, but they're a tiny minority.

Here in France a common demand you hear from workers afraid of unemployment, and an actual proposition of parties that have elected officials at all levels (except the government), is to ban layoffs. Just like that. Do you hear such things on "liberal" US media ?



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineImperialEagle From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2529 posts, RR: 23
Reply 56, posted (10 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2863 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 33):
That's because the behavior of the Tea Party became so absurd (beyond "extreme" in many ways) that they didn't need to be portrayed as "freaks" by anyone. They did it for themselves.

You just proved my point. Anybody who differs from the mantra of the left is smeared and made to look like goofy people.
Thats the plan. Just delegitemize them.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 5):
Quoting Revelation (Reply 5):
hardcore liberals are just as unhappy, but they don't have their own Fox/Rush outlets to vent.

You mean like Rachael Maddow, Piers Morgan, Charlie Rose,Jon Stewart, and Anderson Cooper?



"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough!"
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21530 posts, RR: 55
Reply 57, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2850 times:

Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 56):
Anybody who differs from the mantra of the left is smeared and made to look like goofy people.

No, just people who work to disrupt the political process and govern through gridlock rather than doing what elected representatives are supposed to do: balance the interests of their constituents against the interests of the constituents of their colleagues and come up with a workable solution. The Tea Party hasn't done one bit of that - they put out their proposal and then refuse to consider any compromises (which are a necessary part of our form of government). And people are starting to get sick of it.

Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 56):
Thats the plan. Just delegitemize them.

They delegitimize themselves with their political strategy. No help required.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently onlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11534 posts, RR: 15
Reply 58, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2841 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 55):
I find it funny that you call the left "liberal" in the US, because it loses all meaning when talking about the far left.

That is the label given to the left by "conservatives" like FOX and Rush and main stream media. Anyone who dares speak out or have an opinion different than them are labeled as "liberals". The definition of "liberal" (according to the list) is anyone who speaks out because they hate America and want to be the only voice in the country and want every person in the United States to live off the government.

The reality, however, is far, far different.

That is what they don't get.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7832 posts, RR: 52
Reply 59, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2836 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 58):
Anyone who dares speak out or have an opinion different than them are labeled as "liberals".

Yes, that is pretty annoying isn't it? Wish people on this forum wouldn't do the exact same thing to anything even slightly right of them...

Honestly I don't see the big revelations here. FOX gets accused of leaning right... because they do... and many other news channels get accused of leaning left because, well, they lean left. I don't see where we are going with all this. We can state obvious biases and hypocrisy all day.

And yes, I realize the American left isn't as left as Europe.

And to the OP, I can see a 3rd party maybe rising but I'm almost positive it would result in the death of the Ds, Rs, or whatever new party emerges



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently onlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11534 posts, RR: 15
Reply 60, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2829 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 59):
Honestly I don't see the big revelations here. FOX gets accused of leaning right... because they do... and many other news channels get accused of leaning left because, well, they lean left. I don't see where we are going with all this. We can state obvious biases and hypocrisy all day.

I think it is high time this country had an honest and open discussion about political agendas of news organizations. It would be great if FOX/AM radio drones would think and MSNBC drones would scream more about how they are not as left as they are made out to be.

There are Republican voters who think and there are Democratic voters who think. Unfortunately, the ones who have a voice are the extremes and what the other side believes is the entire base.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 59):
I can see a 3rd party maybe rising but I'm almost positive it would result in the death of the Ds, Rs, or whatever new party emerges

No. (D) and (R) have WAY too much money invested in politics. They will never ever give up one iota of control ever! And they will do it at all cost.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineImperialEagle From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2529 posts, RR: 23
Reply 61, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2805 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Mir (Reply 57):
then refuse to consider any compromises (which are a necessary part of our form of government). And people are starting to get sick of it.

You mean like the Obama Administration.

Quoting Mir (Reply 57):
They delegitimize themselves with their political strategy. No help required.

See. Again. My point is proven.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 58):
Anyone who dares speak out or have an opinion different than them

Like the Tea-Party in other words.



"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough!"
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12359 posts, RR: 25
Reply 62, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2780 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 59):
Honestly I don't see the big revelations here. FOX gets accused of leaning right... because they do... and many other news channels get accused of leaning left because, well, they lean left. I don't see where we are going with all this. We can state obvious biases and hypocrisy all day.

To me the difference is that the right speaks of the media as some vast conspiracy geared towards preventing the "truth" from getting out.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 59):
And yes, I realize the American left isn't as left as Europe.

But do you realize the hard core left in the US is almost as unhappy with Obama as is the hard core right?



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinedeltadawg From United States of America, joined May 2006, 776 posts, RR: 1
Reply 63, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2753 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 59):
And yes, I realize the American left isn't as left as Europe.

It's headed there.



GO Dawgs, Sic' em, woof woof woof
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4510 posts, RR: 2
Reply 64, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2753 times:

Quoting deltadawg (Reply 63):
It's headed there.

Not nearly as fast as the right is moving. The center will be a giant hole, and at this point the Democratic party is sticking closest to it.

There was an interesting poll on CNN today. showing that the GOP is highly fractured in terms of potential 2016 contenders. Currently the Tea Party Darlings are all trailing Christie. However there are more tea party darlings than moderates, and I would expect the highly partisan primaries in 2015/2016 to produce another unelectable TP member or Christie. At that point, either way it splits, I would imagine the Democrats could just stop campaigning and watch the GOP shred itself apart.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlinedeltadawg From United States of America, joined May 2006, 776 posts, RR: 1
Reply 65, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2747 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 64):
At that point, either way it splits, I would imagine the Democrats could just stop campaigning and watch the GOP shred itself apart.

Doubtful. Who is the leading Democrat candidate? Biden? Clinton? Weiner? Warner? O'Malley? The Dems are in just as predicament as the Republicans. Biden is just an old, racist, chauvinist, loud mouth moron. Clinton is old news and dragging the legacy around with her, old news. Weiner, he has the edge up on the social media aspect of campaigning!    Warner is relatively unknown still, has not accomplished a whole lot so he might be the obvious choice. Mark O'Malley, well he worked for Gary Hart at one time so you may be able to dig up some stuff he might have learned from Hart. I believe the best chance for the Dems lies with their strongest activist and close Obama friend, Chris Christie!   



GO Dawgs, Sic' em, woof woof woof
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4510 posts, RR: 2
Reply 66, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2721 times:

Quoting deltadawg (Reply 65):
The Dems are in just as predicament as the Republicans.

Not really, Especially if Clinton runs .


http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/politics/2016-poll-deep-dive/

"
It showed 65% of Democrats and independents who lean toward that party say they would likely back Clinton as their presidential nominee. Vice President Joe Biden comes in a distant second, at 10%, with freshman Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts at 7%, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo at 6%, and Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley at 2%"

The Democrats at least have a clear choice going forward.


"Seventeen percent of Republicans and Independents who lean toward the GOP say they are likely to support New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, with 16% backing Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the House Budget Committee chairman and 2012 Republican vice presidential nominee.

Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky is at 13%; former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush at 10%; Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida at 9%; Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas at 7%, and former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, a 2012 Republican presidential candidate who battled eventual nominee Mitt Romney deep into the primary season, at 5%.
"

The GOP is a muckrake. Santorum at 5% is especially glaring as he was the runner up to Romney.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently onlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11534 posts, RR: 15
Reply 67, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2700 times:

Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 61):
You mean like the Obama Administration.

When Boehner said "we got 99% of what we wanted" then complained he didn't get everything he wanted because Obama didn't compromise? When one side gets everything it wants, is that really compromise?

Or with ACA: It had to be shredded and watered down so far for the right to get behind it. In other words: Obama compromised but the far right said "our way or the highway" which is NOT compromising.

Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 61):
Like the Tea-Party in other words.

Yes. What I see are Republicans who hold their nose and vote for these far-right wingers because all the moderates have either been kicked out of the party or are threatened to be kicked out.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6539 posts, RR: 9
Reply 68, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2691 times:

About the free speech argument, I keep seeing this in several threads. Last time I checked news media in the US weren't closed by police, journalists put in jail or assassinated, accused of things like conspiracy to shut them up. If you say something outrageous, media on the other side, social media etc., will answer, that doesn't mean you couldn't say what you said, indeed you said it with no trouble at all. Free speech is alive and well in the US (and it's scary in some cases, like the picketing of funerals).

I ask again about an example of extreme things the "liberal media", "far left", whatever, has said, to see if it somehow wasn't treated by the same social media and by Fox & Co.

As for the Tea Party being shunned, well, where are their sensible candidates ? I'm not saying there aren't any since I'm not following US politics that closely, but every time I hear from the Tea Party, it's with stories about how you can't get pregnant after rape, or that the constitution is sacred but if we can put as much religion as possible into law that's great. And of course cutting taxes with no plan to actually reduce the debt, and guns guns guns.

I wasn't a big fan of McCain or Romney but at least they were smart guys, able to compromise, and to see past ideology. Still they couldn't get elected. What makes you think someone without these qualities can get it done ?



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12359 posts, RR: 25
Reply 69, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2685 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 66):
The GOP is a muckrake.

What is interesting to me is that with all the Dem candidates you'd see pretty similar policy, but with Christie/Ryan/Paul/Rubio/Cruz/Santorum you'd get some pretty different policies. Since they are so different you'd think the GOP primary certainly is going to be tumultuous.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4510 posts, RR: 2
Reply 70, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2669 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 69):
What is interesting to me is that with all the Dem candidates you'd see pretty similar policy, but with Christie/Ryan/Paul/Rubio/Cruz/Santorum you'd get some pretty different policies. Since they are so different you'd think the GOP primary certainly is going to be tumultuous.

It will be, because as this thread shows, there are really two different parties ( At Least!) present. Within the party there is such a demand for not compromising principles, yet there are very different principles at play. It's a crazy /crazy set up.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 3003 posts, RR: 8
Reply 71, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2657 times:

Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 61):
Quoting Mir (Reply 57):
then refuse to consider any compromises (which are a necessary part of our form of government). And people are starting to get sick of it.

You mean like the Obama Administration.

The Republicans in Congress aren't the ones who were elected to govern. If so, why didn't they take the White House? The president's agenda is subject to Congress's approval. It's one thing to say "I don't agree with this. Let's work it out." but it's another to say "I don't agree with this and because I don't like you I won't work with you. My way or the highway."

If it were Democrats obstructing a Republican president's agenda, I'm willing to bet that you'd blame Congressional Democrats for gridlock and not compromising. Then again, Democrats aren't the ones on the record shutting themselves in a room and deciding to oppose everything from the White House.



"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlinejetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2769 posts, RR: 4
Reply 72, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2655 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Quoting seb146 (Reply 43):
Even though their own lies can be found out in about 5 seconds.

Just as the lies from the left wing talking heads can be found in 5 seconds. That's what talking heads do. Exaggerate everything because their audience is too naive to fact check what they are actually saying.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 45):
So you think there can be center or center left or extreme left, they just can't have any media attention, otherwise they are radicals who control all media.

Not sure where you got that from his post. But look at Occupy. That's a left wing organization that received a ton of attention. Nobody is saying they don't deserve attention. But you don't have many far left media organizations because as soon as people hear communism or socialism they freak out.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 47):
Stack that up against the hundreds of newspapers and radio stations across the state who support far right wing candidates and causes. Yet, the far right wing media are the ones under attack?

I understand outside the larger cities California is more conservative. But I have a hard time believing a state as far left as California is there are hundreds more media sources backing conservative causes than liberal.

Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 56):
You just proved my point. Anybody who differs from the mantra of the left is smeared and made to look like goofy people.
Thats the plan. Just delegitemize them.

I disagree even as a conservative. The problem is you have these far right guys such as Rush and Hannity who smear the left. Then the left guys go ahead and smear the right. It's just a constant back and forth. But you're talking about the extremes smearing each other. My roommate is liberal. We don't smear each other because we have differing ideologies. It's the extremes and talking heads that do the smearing and make the rest of us look like jerks.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 58):
That is the label given to the left by "conservatives" like FOX and Rush and main stream media. Anyone who dares speak out or have an opinion different than them are labeled as "liberals". The definition of "liberal" (according to the list) is anyone who speaks out because they hate America and want to be the only voice in the country and want every person in the United States to live off the government.

Just as the far left looks at the right and think we are a bunch of rich people who want to kick the poor and shut down the government. Again you're talking about extremes here. Not the majority.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 60):
I think it is high time this country had an honest and open discussion about political agendas of news organizations. It would be great if FOX/AM radio drones would think and MSNBC drones would scream more about how they are not as left as they are made out to be.

That is a pretty subjective view. Everybody knows the Fox and AM radio people are right and MSNBC left. If we are going to have a discussion it should be about getting left and right out of news (not talk radio) and just presenting facts. Because if you sit down and watch these actual news programs it's all bias.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 64):
I would imagine the Democrats could just stop campaigning and watch the GOP shred itself apart.

They could and pretty much are. I swear the republicans get together and say "How can we self destruct this time around?" It's unbelievable.

Quoting deltadawg (Reply 65):
Doubtful. Who is the leading Democrat candidate? Biden? Clinton? Weiner? Warner? O'Malley? The Dems are in just as predicament as the Republicans.

The Dems right now are golden. Yeah Obama and PRISM/Syria has hurt them maybe a few points. But the republicans have one candidate who hasn't said something dumb about gay marriage or evolution. That would be Christie. But they're still kicking and screaming calling him a RINO after his positive comments of Obama after Sandy. They're using him as a scapegoat for a lukewarm candidate.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 67):
Or with ACA: It had to be shredded and watered down so far for the right to get behind it. In other words: Obama compromised but the far right said "our way or the highway" which is NOT compromising.

Watering it down is compromise. Obama wanted a healthcare program that resembled Canada or parts of Europe. Instead he got a reform bill which had a lot of parts he wanted minus the single payer healthcare system. Compromise isn't getting everything the left wants with the right getting a monument somewhere. They passed it so both sides got most of what they wanted.
Pat



You push down on that yoke, the houses get bigger, you pull back on the yoke, the houses get bigger- Ken Foltz
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5433 posts, RR: 8
Reply 73, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2645 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 20):
I'm not so sure about that. What I do know is that they could actually govern. The Tea Party cannot - they've shown themselves to be incapable of doing it.

Anytime you try to govern to an absolute (actually a spectrum of absolutes in this case) you will find that cannot govern effectively.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 71):
It's one thing to say "I don't agree with this. Let's work it out." but it's another to say "I don't agree with this and because I don't like you I won't work with you. My way or the highway."

It's even worse than that, the Republicans aren't wiling to do or support ANYTHING that might be able to be perceived as a "win" for the President and his administration. Even if it is a god idea they will not support it unless they can make it look to not be a win for the Democrats. This fear is an ultimate failure on so many levels.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 72):
But look at Occupy. That's a left wing organization that received a ton of attention.

But nothing of any significance lately and the whole thing has pretty much run its course. It certainly did not spawn a splinter group within the party that is causing a divide.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 72):
I disagree even as a conservative. The problem is you have these far right guys such as Rush and Hannity who smear the left. Then the left guys go ahead and smear the right. It's just a constant back and forth. But you're talking about the extremes smearing each other.

Actually another real problem the Republicans have is that their "super mouths" (Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin etc.) smear their own guys who aren't "right enough". They attack any Republican that is left of the right on stuff, even if it is only specific issues and the person is overall very "Right".

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 72):
But the republicans have one candidate who hasn't said something dumb about gay marriage or evolution. That would be Christie. But they're still kicking and screaming calling him a RINO after his positive comments of Obama after Sandy. They're using him as a scapegoat for a lukewarm candidate.

   This is what I am saying, a "True Republican" must be perfect in all they support.

Actually that is the Republicans problem in a nutshell, they are insisting one be a "True Republican" which is an impossible concept (look at how many like to point to President Reagan and yet he would have been castigated in the environment today. He never would have been electable). Truly sad.

Tugg

[Edited 2013-09-16 13:01:09]


I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently onlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11534 posts, RR: 15
Reply 74, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2634 times:

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 72):
If we are going to have a discussion it should be about getting left and right out of news (not talk radio) and just presenting facts. Because if you sit down and watch these actual news programs it's all bias.

THANK YOU!!! Many of us who appear "liberal" and "extreme" (on both sides) want just that! But, that would put a whole lot of people out of work. Those being the ones who control the story line.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 72):
Just as the far left looks at the right and think we are a bunch of rich people who want to kick the poor and shut down the government. Again you're talking about extremes here. Not the majority.

No. What I and others on the left see are a few people controlling a large group. And the large group saying "Sure, whatever... at least we are not liberals!" Not all of us, mind you, but it is what a lot of us seem to see.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 72):
That's a left wing organization that received a ton of attention. Nobody is saying they don't deserve attention. But you don't have many far left media organizations because as soon as people hear communism or socialism they freak out.

Occupy received a lot of negative attention. They were called slackers and homeless and radicals. The only time and place I saw anything about their agenda was on left wing media.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7832 posts, RR: 52
Reply 75, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2617 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 60):
I think it is high time this country had an honest and open discussion about political agendas of news organizations. It would be great if FOX/AM radio drones would think and MSNBC drones would scream more about how they are not as left as they are made out to be.

Well if you want to have an honest and open discussion I'd keep a more open mind than what you said in your second sentence

Quoting seb146 (Reply 60):
No. (D) and (R) have WAY too much money invested in politics. They will never ever give up one iota of control ever! And they will do it at all cost.

I'm saying that it would be an ugly election year but ultimately the money would go to one party or another. Imagine a scenario like Perot/Bush/Clinton. Had Perot been more successful, I could see a lot of the money leaving the Republican party and going to the Reform party. You are right in them having a lot of money and yes it would take a lot and honestly, I don't see it happening, but I could see it happening. What I don't see happening are 3 parties co-existing, one would die

Quoting Revelation (Reply 62):
But do you realize the hard core left in the US is almost as unhappy with Obama as is the hard core right?

Yes I do. In many respects, the President is pretty moderate (I know many will disagree but that's my opinion.) I am honestly surprised how he has handled gay rights, Gitmo, the Patriot Act, etc

Quoting deltadawg (Reply 63):
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 59):
And yes, I realize the American left isn't as left as Europe.

It's headed there.

Just like me (in TX) is heading to NY when I walk a few steps NE. Europe has its problems but honestly, I hope we do head their way in many respects... if we look past the politics, they have a lot of great ideas we should embrace. We do some things better but in other aspects we are reinventing the wheel and doing a bad job of it.

In what way are we "heading towards Europe" anyway, and be specific, and tell me if it's a bad thing or not



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21530 posts, RR: 55
Reply 76, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2618 times:

Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 61):
You mean like the Obama Administration.

No, they've actually put out quite a few compromise plans on various subjects.

Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 61):
See. Again. My point is proven.

If you're going to set the bar for "delegitimizing someone" at disagreeing with them, then we're both delegitimizing each other. That's a pretty silly place to put it.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 71):
The Republicans in Congress aren't the ones who were elected to govern.

Well, they were. Being in Congress is not the same sort of governing as being in the White House, but it's still governing.

-Mi



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinejetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2769 posts, RR: 4
Reply 77, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2606 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 71):
Then again, Democrats aren't the ones on the record shutting themselves in a room and deciding to oppose everything from the White House.

It's because they don't have to. The White House is theirs. But that doesn't mean it is right for the republicans. They have to work things out. But I doubt the bullying and shutting down is one sided.

Quoting tugger (Reply 73):
Actually another real problem the Republicans have is that their "super mouths" (Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin etc.) smear their own guys who aren't "right enough". They attack any Republican that is left of the right on stuff, even if it is only specific issues and the person is overall very "Right".

They absolutely do which is stupid. They should be embracing different ideas. But they are only concerned with their views and don't think about the effects. Being kind and gentle doesn't bring listeners. Unfortunate, but nobody wants to listen to boring talk radio. On the other side though I can't listen to these guys because the yelling makes me feel uncomfortable.

Quoting tugger (Reply 73):
Actually that is the Republicans problem in a nutshell, they are insisting one be a "True Republican" which is an impossible concept (look at how many like to point to President Reagan and yet he would have been castigated in the environment today. He never would have been electable). Truly sad

The republicans don't even know what a true republican is. Nobody does. I can't figure out how they can get the idea of a perfect candidate in their head with no actual criteria.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 74):
THANK YOU!!! Many of us who appear "liberal" and "extreme" (on both sides) want just that! But, that would put a whole lot of people out of work. Those being the ones who control the story line.

I don't think it is a strictly liberal viewpoint. I think most people want to get rid of the bias on both sides with the exception of the extremes. They want their ideas pushed onto the average person. But I'd be willing to bet a large majority of Americans want to see the bias gone. But the bias brings in the ratings. I'm fine with shows like the O'Reilly Factor and Rachel Maddow (excuse me for not knowing her actual show name. I don't agree with her viewpoints so I've never really watched more than a couple minutes of her show) but as long as it is stated it is a completely opinion show. Shows that say they are news shows shouldn't have any bias. Period.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 74):
No. What I and others on the left see are a few people controlling a large group. And the large group saying "Sure, whatever... at least we are not liberals!" Not all of us, mind you, but it is what a lot of us seem to see.

As someone who is on the other side of the spectrum shouldn't I hear that? I mean I watch conservative shows and read conservative blogs from time to time. I don't see any of that.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 74):
Occupy received a lot of negative attention. They were called slackers and homeless and radicals. The only time and place I saw anything about their agenda was on left wing media.

I saw plenty of it on right wing media. Sure they had some of the stuff about them being lazy on the opinion shows. But you heard about their message as well.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 75):
Europe has its problems but honestly, I hope we do head their way in many respects... if we look past the politics, they have a lot of great ideas we should embrace.

They also have many that we should avoid. We are far enough behind some of their policies that we can sit back and learn from them and tweak them. We are different sets of people and I think a lot of people forget that. But there is certainly something we can learn from them.
Pat



You push down on that yoke, the houses get bigger, you pull back on the yoke, the houses get bigger- Ken Foltz
User currently offlinedeltadawg From United States of America, joined May 2006, 776 posts, RR: 1
Reply 78, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2593 times:

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 71):
Then again, Democrats aren't the ones on the record shutting themselves in a room and deciding to oppose everything from the White House.

If we had seven trillion dollars laying around burning a hole in our pockets to spend over the last five years then sure I would say agree with him but seeing as we have had to borrow every bit of that and more I understand not going along with the administrations wishes of endless spending. If you do not mind stealing from your childrens, grandchildrens, greatgrandchildrens future paychecks then by all means go ahead with all the spending the community organizers spending plans.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 74):

In what way are we "heading towards Europe" anyway, and be specific, and tell me if it's a bad thing or not

If you like paying 40%+ income tax then by all means move to Europe or continue pushing for a fundamental transformation. For me, I want to keep what I earn. Personally, I would like to see the IRS disbanded as it exists today and move to a flat percentage tax rate for everyone. That way, if you make 10k or 10 million the pain is the same. I don't mind paying my fair share for the services rendered but increasing my taxes to subsidize those that are either too lazy or too inept to work is not what I am in favor of nor is taking my hard earned tax dollars and providing those same people with free cell phones or subsidized health care.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 74):
They were called slackers and homeless and radicals. The only time and place I saw anything about their agenda was on left wing media.

I saw plenty online and in the traditional media about the Occupy movement. Also saw it first hand in downtown Atlanta. I wish I could camp out, not take a bath, live off of others, intimidate passer bys, chant obscenities at the same and be called heroic but I have a business and a job to tend to and also a tuition to pay for my daughter's college education. Life just isn't fair!   

Quoting seb146 (Reply 74):
No. What I and others on the left see are a few people controlling a large group. And the large group saying "Sure, whatever... at least we are not liberals!" Not all of us, mind you, but it is what a lot of us seem to see.

Strange, last time I checked the Tea Party was created out of discontentment within the Republican Party? Essentially not going along with the Republican elites and leaders?



GO Dawgs, Sic' em, woof woof woof
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7832 posts, RR: 52
Reply 79, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2585 times:

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 77):
They also have many that we should avoid. We are far enough behind some of their policies that we can sit back and learn from them and tweak them. We are different sets of people and I think a lot of people forget that. But there is certainly something we can learn from them.

No arguments there. But look at healthcare. We have some of the best doctors and healthcare potential in the entire world and we are the world super power yet for millions, people get inadequate healthcare and often go bankrupt because of it. We are having the healthcare debate in this country like it's never been achieved and there aren't plenty of different, working options to choose from. The options I am seeing are adopt some kind of universal healthcare, keep the broken system we currently have, or go some "Americanish way" that the GOP keeps talking about which is very vague and hasn't really been laid out. Forgive me for wanting to go the "European way" even if no system is perfect, far from what we have now...

That is one example of many, just look at the way we handle drugs (poorly)



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently onlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11534 posts, RR: 15
Reply 80, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2575 times:

Quoting deltadawg (Reply 78):
last time I checked the Tea Party was created out of discontentment within the Republican Party? Essentially not going along with the Republican elites and leaders?

The Tea Party started off with great ideas. However, they were co-opted by corporations and, like many other facets of the Republican party, are a wholly owned subsidiary. "If you don't like it, you are an America hating liberal," is their mantra.

Quoting deltadawg (Reply 78):
If you like paying 40%+ income tax then by all means move to Europe or continue pushing for a fundamental transformation.

And what do they get in return for that 40% tax rate? Think 1950s America with solid roads and bridges, better public transportation for those who can not afford cars, better education for all, health care for all. That sucks. Why would anyone want that?

Quoting deltadawg (Reply 78):
I saw plenty online and in the traditional media about the Occupy movement. Also saw it first hand in downtown Atlanta. I wish I could camp out, not take a bath, live off of others, intimidate passer bys, chant obscenities at the same and be called heroic but I have a business and a job to tend to and also a tuition to pay for my daughter's college education. Life just isn't fair

Is exactly what was said about the Occupy movement. The message of "hold Wall Street accountable" was lost because people started hearing stories they were simply slackers.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5433 posts, RR: 8
Reply 81, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2557 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 80):
The Tea Party started off with great ideas. However, they were co-opted by corporations and, like many other facets of the Republican party, are a wholly owned subsidiary. "If you don't like it, you are an America hating liberal," is their mantra.

Actually... no. The Tea Party was co-opted by the social conservatives (possibly including the Evangelicals) of the Republican Party. They very much feared that they would lose their power within the party if people followed the original Tea Party manta of fiscal sanity and conservativism. When it first started it did not at care about the social aspects and did not advocate socially conservative causes. And it started to gain adherents. The Social Conservatives had to quash it's original goals and so lined up strongly behind it and pushed only socially conservative candidates and also pushed "no-compromise" as a slogan which really sidelined their effectiveness. And so the Social Conservatives have regained their hold in the party. Very sad actually. If it had maintained its independence and stayed focused on fiscal sanity with compromise and not worrying about the social causes I might actually still support them.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6539 posts, RR: 9
Reply 82, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2561 times:

The rich are getting richer. Even in "socialist" Europe. The richest few are earning billions, some of them are "entrepreneurs", others aren't, that makes no difference, if you manage to get enough money, it will only grow from there, at 7-8% per year.

Meanwhile, the poor, even those who get free health care and "entitlements" and don't pay income taxes, are seeing nothing of the sort happening to their earnings, even those who work full time.

So clearly the global system isn't working. More of that isn't going to solve anything, and the sad part is that many who vote Tea Party are the ones who will most suffer if they actually get their way. It's called populism for a reason.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 83, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2557 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 80):
And what do they get in return for that 40% tax rate?

Considering that they could likely buy healthcare for less than 40% of their income, don't collect welfare, send their kids to private schools, and easily afford a car they don't get much of anything.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 82):
Meanwhile, the poor, even those who get free health care and "entitlements" and don't pay income taxes, are seeing nothing of the sort happening to their earnings, even those who work full time.

So? They aren't investing their money, so that's hardly surprising. If you don't like it, go find a broker.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 82):
It's called populism for a reason.

Tyranny of the majority really.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5433 posts, RR: 8
Reply 84, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2546 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 82):
The rich are getting richer. Even in "socialist" Europe. The richest few are earning billions, some of them are "entrepreneurs", others aren't, that makes no difference, if you manage to get enough money, it will only grow from there, at 7-8% per year.

Meanwhile, the poor, even those who get free health care and "entitlements" and don't pay income taxes, are seeing nothing of the sort happening to their earnings, even those who work full time.

So clearly the global system isn't working. More of that isn't going to solve anything, and the sad part is that many who vote Tea Party are the ones who will most suffer if they actually get their way. It's called populism for a reason.

I have said it before, high taxes are not an answer but hey do need to be high enough to fund the expenses of a nation. What has to be implemented is a fiscal policy (of which taxes are an important part of) that drives the maximum amount of money to the greatest number of people that are being productive and creating wealth and benefit to the nation/society.

This means policies (such as higher taxes) that impact the highest earners to create a need for that money to be better spent (by companies etc) at lower levels. And end to open ended "hand out" programs (like welfare etc.), they must have good limits with firm rules for those that wish to use them. This means access to healthcare as unhealthy people cannot work and unhealthy people burden those that are working and the state.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 83):
Considering that they could likely buy healthcare for less than 40% of their income,

Well of course they can, they are wealthy (that's why they are in the 40% bracket. Of course if you have ever looked at it most in that bracket still only pay in the 10-20% range for their total income). However the ones that can't afford healthcare are in the 15% tax bracket often, and 15% of $40K won't buy you and your family health insurance. And that 15% bracket is often where the most productive work is done (you may be an engineer but how does what you design get built).

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 85, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2536 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 84):
However the ones that can't afford healthcare are in the 15% tax bracket often,

So when Seb asks what people get in return for their 40% tax rate, the answer is "not much." Certainly not more than people who pay far, far less, hence the problem.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinejetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2769 posts, RR: 4
Reply 86, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2524 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Quoting deltadawg (Reply 78):
If we had seven trillion dollars laying around burning a hole in our pockets to spend over the last five years then sure I would say agree with him but seeing as we have had to borrow every bit of that and more I understand not going along with the administrations wishes of endless spending. If you do not mind stealing from your childrens, grandchildrens, greatgrandchildrens future paychecks then by all means go ahead with all the spending the community organizers spending plans.

Lets be fair here. Bush made a huge dent in the national debt. Now I'm not going to start the debate about whether or not the wars were justified. But he played a nice part in getting us to where we are today. Obama has made it worse. But he started right where Bush left off.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 79):
But look at healthcare. We have some of the best doctors and healthcare potential in the entire world and we are the world super power yet for millions, people get inadequate healthcare and often go bankrupt because of it. We are having the healthcare debate in this country like it's never been achieved and there aren't plenty of different, working options to choose from. The options I am seeing are adopt some kind of universal healthcare, keep the broken system we currently have, or go some "Americanish way" that the GOP keeps talking about which is very vague and hasn't really been laid out. Forgive me for wanting to go the "European way" even if no system is perfect, far from what we have now...

I don't think there is any debate that the current system is broken. I'm not beating down on your for wanting the "European way." That is your view and I respect it 100%. But I personally feel we should find a different option. A lot of these systems do work well in Europe. I don't think there is a debate about that. But we have many times more people than a lot of these nations and we are spread out a lot more. We have to find a hybrid system that works.

Quoting tugger (Reply 81):
Actually... no. The Tea Party was co-opted by the social conservatives (possibly including the Evangelicals) of the Republican Party.

I think as soon as Glenn Beck hopped on board it was doomed. I remember watching his show and him talking about how it is a fiscal revolution. Then all of a sudden God came into the picture. Listen I'm a religious person. 12 years of Catholic school, all the sacraments done, all kinds of religious stuff. But it has no place in government and it killed any shot the Tea Party had at being deemed a legitimate group.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 82):
More of that isn't going to solve anything, and the sad part is that many who vote Tea Party are the ones who will most suffer if they actually get their way.

Can you go in depth more on that thought? Just curious. Because I hear a lot about how these blue collar folks vote against themselves when voting for a conservative candidate. I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind it.

Quoting tugger (Reply 84):
What has to be implemented is a fiscal policy (of which taxes are an important part of) that drives the maximum amount of money to the greatest number of people that are being productive and creating wealth and benefit to the nation/society.

Well if you are trying to benefit productivity and creating wealth you are only going to help the rich. In theory it is great. But you have to really be careful how it is done. I agree a policy has to be created to help the little guy. But it's a really fine line between helping Main St and stuffing the pockets of Wall St.
Pat



You push down on that yoke, the houses get bigger, you pull back on the yoke, the houses get bigger- Ken Foltz
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5433 posts, RR: 8
Reply 87, posted (10 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2516 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 85):
So when Seb asks what people get in return for their 40% tax rate, the answer is "not much." Certainly not more than people who pay far, far less, hence the problem.

Then you are badly misunderstanding what "much" is. "Much" is a strong safe functional society and nation that provides broad benefits that create value for the nation. For instance the internet, a government funded creation that became the backbone for an enormous value stream. Before it was the freeway system. Before that? The railroads ("But wait that was PRIVATE ENTERPRISE!" except for the fact that there was massive amount of eminent domain and land grant and many other (immigration rules?) things that occurred. There is also national defense and public safety, etc. Additional things people get "much" of also include "public good" elements from laws to judgements to preventing people from falling "through the safety net" preventing crime, and a total loss of wealth by the individuals. In short there is a lot of "much" that the wealthy get and in fact benefit proportionally more than those lower on the earnings scale due to their wealth and the ability to use and benefit more from the services of the nation (or else they wouldn't be as wealthy as they are).

Also I will note that most "wealthy" start out as "not wealthy" and pay "far, far less" to begin with and yet somehow manage to actually create significant wealth. Tell me, did you start out as wealthy and not using any services provided by government (I suspect you use the roads though...).

Again, I do not know anyone that is wealthy that is poor because of the taxes they pay (it's not a justification or an excuse, it is just a fact).

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 86):
I think as soon as Glenn Beck hopped on board it was doomed. I remember watching his show and him talking about how it is a fiscal revolution. Then all of a sudden God came into the picture. Listen I'm a religious person. 12 years of Catholic school, all the sacraments done, all kinds of religious stuff. But it has no place in government and it killed any shot the Tea Party had at being deemed a legitimate group.

  
It was very disappointing when that occurred. I was hoping that it would be thoroughly rejected but I find that many Republican's have a hard time saying what you just stated. You do not need to mention god or bring in/rely on religion when you make political speeches, etc.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 86):
Well if you are trying to benefit productivity and creating wealth you are only going to help the rich. In theory it is great. But you have to really be careful how it is done. I agree a policy has to be created to help the little guy. But it's a really fine line between helping Main St and stuffing the pockets of Wall St.

Well, I think that ditch diggers and welders and janitors create wealth and value and enhance productivity just as much as engineers and stock traders. I find the often "Main St." is undervalued when compared to "Wall St." when it is at least just as important. But there is more money (concentrated) and it is closer to the seat of our national government which makes it difficult for Main St. to match.

And I agree that care is required, which is probably why things are the way they are (government and making law is described as similar to making sausage).

Tugg

[Edited 2013-09-16 21:44:07]


I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinejetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2769 posts, RR: 4
Reply 88, posted (10 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2503 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Quoting tugger (Reply 87):
It was very disappointing when that occurred. I was hoping that it would be thoroughly rejected but I find that many Republican's have a hard time saying what you just stated. You do not need to mention god or bring in/rely on religion when you make political speeches, etc.

I may get jumped on for saying this but I freaking loved the Tea Party idea when it started. I thought it was fantastic and exactly what the country needed. I read all kinds of stuff on the movement. But when I noticed Glenn Beck introducing this whole 9/12 values crap I knew it was doomed and jumped ship.

Quoting tugger (Reply 87):
Well, I think that ditch diggers and welders and janitors create wealth and value and enhance productivity just as much as engineers and stock traders. I find the often "Main St." is undervalued when compared to "Wall St." when it is at least just as important. But there is more money (concentrated) and it is closer to the seat of our national government which makes it difficult for Main St. to match.

I agree they absolutely create productivity. My best friend digs ditches to lay water pipes. I would challenge anybody to say he doesn't create value. Main St is very important in the grand scheme of things and I agree is undervalued. But there are elements of Main St that should just be allowed to die off. I don't like everything to be some big huge corporation. But you have to draw a line somewhere. What Main St needs to do if it wants to remain relevant is truly band together and lobby Congress. Yeah they do this already. But they need to really put some effort behind it.

My ideal party would be the original fiscal conservative tea party mixed with a moderately liberal social agenda. Not exactly an easy mix. I suppose you could point to the Libertarians, but I think they're even too far right. I can dream about this all I want. But I fear we will be stuck with the R's and D's forever...
Pat



You push down on that yoke, the houses get bigger, you pull back on the yoke, the houses get bigger- Ken Foltz
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7832 posts, RR: 52
Reply 89, posted (10 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2503 times:

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 86):
But I personally feel we should find a different option.

I find it very hard to effectively cover everyone without some kind of universal healthcare. It varies greatly between many Western nations... I'm all for a more conservative option / less "liberal" option but it's been half a decade and they haven't come up with anything! I don't think there is a good alternative to it, honestly. Why haven't they come up with anything? What can you think of that would be better than some kind of universal healthcare? If you don't think at least basic healthcare is a right then that is a different story, which I'd respectfully agree.

I was like you honestly, but the GOP has come up with jack squat and I'm tired of waiting for them

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 86):
But we have many times more people than a lot of these nations and we are spread out a lot more. We have to find a hybrid system that works.

I've heard this a lot, all my life really, but I've never really questioned it until recently. Is there any precedent for this or is it some anecdotal evidence of some government incompetence you've witnessed? There will always be government incompetence no matter what. We are America, we are supposed to be #1, right? Murrica! Our healthcare system's a joke. We put a man on the moon in 1969 and we can't even accomplish what a bunch of countries have already had successfully in place for years. Don't buy it. I'm all ears for suggestions but really, what are they?



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently onlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11534 posts, RR: 15
Reply 90, posted (10 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2497 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 83):
they don't get much of anything

Because, for the 40%, they already get good schools, health care, roads, public transportation.

Go spend a year in Germany or Sweden. Then, come back and tell us all how awful it was to have some of the best education, health care, and public transportation in the world.

The other main issue is geography. People in Western Europe are very close together. Not like in the United States where everyone is so spread out. That makes a lot of difference since social interaction is less in a larger space. People become wary of strangers or those with different ideas and opinions.

Quoting tugger (Reply 81):
The Tea Party was co-opted by the social conservatives (possibly including the Evangelicals) of the Republican Party.

Yes, the social conservatives but also the corporations.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinejetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2769 posts, RR: 4
Reply 91, posted (10 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2494 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 89):
'm all for a more conservative option / less "liberal" option but it's been half a decade and they haven't come up with anything! I don't think there is a good alternative to it, honestly. Why haven't they come up with anything? What can you think of that would be better than some kind of universal healthcare? If you don't think at least basic healthcare is a right then that is a different story, which I'd respectfully agree.

I don't think this is a one step fix all. I think the ACA was a good step forward. We can take what we've learned from it's implementation and see what we can do next. Not to mention even after half a decade nobody is working on a solution. That is supposed to be what the ACA is all about...

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 89):
I was like you honestly, but the GOP has come up with jack squat and I'm tired of waiting for them

I can certainly understand the position. Now I'm not Mr Yay Republicans can do no wrong. Far from it. I will give criticism where criticism is due. But I'm not going to place blame on them for not reforming health care when that is supposed to be what the ACA is designed to do.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 89):
Is there any precedent for this or is it some anecdotal evidence of some government incompetence you've witnessed? There will always be government incompetence no matter what. We are America, we are supposed to be #1, right? Murrica! Our healthcare system's a joke. We put a man on the moon in 1969 and we can't even accomplish what a bunch of countries have already had successfully in place for years. Don't buy it. I'm all ears for suggestions but really, what are they?

The easiest example of incompetence that everybody has experienced is the DMV. You're telling me that the same people that run an organization that takes 45 minutes to print me a new license is going to efficiently run health care? How about the F-35. Biggest military expenditure in history. You'd think they would have ironed out the kinks now don't you? Our health care system is absolutely a joke. But running to a universal coverage program before most of the effects of the ACA is silly. So was the ACA not actually a reform act? It was just a little thing passed for no reason? Or is it supposed to fix the issues we have? Lets be honest this whole man on the moon analogy is getting old. We get it, we put a man on the moon. It was an amazing feat of engineering. But we aren't talking about rocket science here. If something gets screwed up it is more than 3 astronauts getting in trouble. It's 300 million Americans. Lets not run to something because it looks pretty. Lets test out the ACA and go from there. That's all I'm saying.

This is another problem that arises with the two party system. It would be nice to have someone to find middle ground like with healthcare. The left wants a single payer system, the right doesn't. I was under the impression that the ACA made some bridge. The right hates it because it's from Obama. The left hates it because they didn't get everything they wanted. How about a center party to actually work and say well this could work. It would be nice to hear an honest voice on it from a political party. I know, I chuckled at having honest and political in the same sentence too.
Pat



You push down on that yoke, the houses get bigger, you pull back on the yoke, the houses get bigger- Ken Foltz
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 92, posted (10 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2494 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 87):
Then you are badly misunderstanding what "much" is. "Much" is a strong safe functional society and nation that provides broad benefits that create value for the nation.

"Broad" in that everyone receives those benefits, but only a few pick up the bulk of the tab for them

Quoting tugger (Reply 87):
There is also national defense and public safety, etc.

The Army and the police protect people who aren't millionaires too though.

Quoting tugger (Reply 87):
preventing people from falling "through the safety net" preventing crime,

I like to give the lower class more credit than to consider them all extortionists.

Quoting tugger (Reply 87):
Also I will note that most "wealthy" start out as "not wealthy" and pay "far, far less" to begin with and yet somehow manage to actually create significant wealth. Tell me, did you start out as wealthy and not using any services provided by government (I suspect you use the roads though...).

You're getting at the "You didn't build that" argument. It's been debunked many times over but if people are going to credit the government with making people wealthy, then there should be a hell of a lot more rich people than there actually are.

And yeah, I did use the roads. Some of the same ones my friend from down the street was using when he was arrested for DUI and sentenced to jail. Where are the liberals lining up to tell him he didn't build that?

Quoting seb146 (Reply 90):
Because, for the 40%, they already get good schools, health care, roads, public transportation.

Problem is that everyone else gets all that for way less than 40%.

[Edited 2013-09-16 22:34:06]


Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21530 posts, RR: 55
Reply 93, posted (10 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2447 times:

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 86):
A lot of these systems do work well in Europe. I don't think there is a debate about that. But we have many times more people than a lot of these nations and we are spread out a lot more.

That argument works when you're talking about the infrastructure of the country (particularly when it comes to mass transit and long-distance rail). But I'm not so sure it works for health care. Distance doesn't really enter into the equation when it comes to affordability (sure, if you live out in the middle of nowhere it's going to be difficult to get access, but that's true no matter what system you have to pay for it). And having more people should make things even easier due to the ability to use the power of a large customer base to drive costs down.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4510 posts, RR: 2
Reply 94, posted (10 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2421 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 92):
"Broad" in that everyone receives those benefits, but only a few pick up the bulk of the tab for them

But people pick up the tab at different stages of their lives. The problem with your line of thinking here, is that everyone is in the same situation always. That is not the case.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 92):
It's been debunked many times over but if people are going to credit the government with making people wealthy, then there should be a hell of a lot more rich people than there actually are.

Works well for aerospace engineers and Defense contractors.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 92):
Problem is that everyone else gets all that for way less than 40%.

You keep using 40%. but it is not the real number people are taxed at. For the rich , it is only a portion of their income.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 3003 posts, RR: 8
Reply 95, posted (10 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2393 times:

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 77):
Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 71):
Then again, Democrats aren't the ones on the record shutting themselves in a room and deciding to oppose everything from the White House.

It's because they don't have to. The White House is theirs. But that doesn't mean it is right for the republicans. They have to work things out. But I doubt the bullying and shutting down is one sided.

As fair as I know, despite Democrats opposing certain Republican policies, one thing I've noticed was the eagerness on bipartisanship. Even when they held Congress and the president was Republican, both branches worked together. Doesn't mean that there aren't some hawks who vote solely Democrat without GOP consideration, but so far I have yet to see bipartisanship emerge from the House (the Senate is different but because of filibuster threats, it usually falls short).

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 86):
Quoting deltadawg (Reply 78):
If we had seven trillion dollars laying around burning a hole in our pockets to spend over the last five years then sure I would say agree with him but seeing as we have had to borrow every bit of that and more I understand not going along with the administrations wishes of endless spending. If you do not mind stealing from your childrens, grandchildrens, greatgrandchildrens future paychecks then by all means go ahead with all the spending the community organizers spending plans.

Lets be fair here. Bush made a huge dent in the national debt. Now I'm not going to start the debate about whether or not the wars were justified. But he played a nice part in getting us to where we are today. Obama has made it worse. But he started right where Bush left off.

In other words, the Bush card is still fair game here. Not that Obama is off the hook, but two wars (one of which had no raison d'etre) and tax cuts meant a deficit on the way. Funny how Republicans back then weren't concerned with the deficit.



"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlinejetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2769 posts, RR: 4
Reply 96, posted (10 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2362 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Quoting seb146 (Reply 90):
That makes a lot of difference since social interaction is less in a larger space. People become wary of strangers or those with different ideas and opinions.

They have less interaction, but you're talking about different cultures throughout the nation. When I moved from the Connecticut to North Dakota I went through a bit of culture shock. The way you live daily life is different. So I don't think people become wary of strangers. I think it is more that they don't understand the different lifestyles that everybody lives. Everybody out here is shocked I've never fired a gun. I'm equally as shocked that they consider a city of 50,000 to be the big city.


Quoting Mir (Reply 93):
And having more people should make things even easier due to the ability to use the power of a large customer base to drive costs down.

There is that large customer base. I absolutely agree that should drive costs down. But there is also that concern about the government running it. If we have a company running it I believe the efficiency can go up. But when you have government in the mix you lose some of the benefits of efficiency. Now they might turn that completely around and it could be the most efficient government program in history. But I'm not holding my breathe.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 94):
For the rich , it is only a portion of their income.

It's a portion of everybody's income.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 95):
As fair as I know, despite Democrats opposing certain Republican policies, one thing I've noticed was the eagerness on bipartisanship.

That may have been the way of the past. But I don't think it is that way anymore. I think talk radio and news channel bias has hurt bipartisanship because congresspeople get called out.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 95):
In other words, the Bush card is still fair game here. Not that Obama is off the hook, but two wars (one of which had no raison d'etre) and tax cuts meant a deficit on the way. Funny how Republicans back then weren't concerned with the deficit.

I think there is some things we can certainly blame Bush on. The deficit is one part. But I also think there are plenty of elements of the national debt we can place on Obama. Bush started the problems, and Obama is continuing it. Republicans were short sighted for sure. But it's time Republicans and Democrats fix it. Before we have no control over it.
Pat



You push down on that yoke, the houses get bigger, you pull back on the yoke, the houses get bigger- Ken Foltz
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4510 posts, RR: 2
Reply 97, posted (10 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2333 times:

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 96):
Quoting casinterest (Reply 94):For the rich , it is only a portion of their income.
It's a portion of everybody's income.

Not the point I was trying to make. Sorry about that. The point was that most folks that are Rich, that hit the 40% bracket are not taxed at 40% on the whole amount. In the case of the Rich that invest, most pay a much lower rate due to Capital Gains (Search on Warren Buffet and Secretary).



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 98, posted (10 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2335 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 94):
But people pick up the tab at different stages of their lives.

Many people never do. Folks go right from school, to having kids and bouncing from one dead end job to the next.

So what do such people do wrong? Don't use government funded roads enough? They aren't protected by the fire department? Lack of Amtrak?

Or maybe just people who aren't responsible enough to take control of their own lives and take education seriously in America's rather pricey schools. The difference between them and those who become successful is not anything within the government.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 94):
Works well for aerospace engineers and Defense contractors.

What product to people on welfare deliver?



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4510 posts, RR: 2
Reply 99, posted (10 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2322 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 98):
Or maybe just people who aren't responsible enough to take control of their own lives and take education seriously in America's rather pricey schools. The difference between them and those who become successful is not anything within the government.

And this is where you are wrong. some folks get caught up in life's events. Some are very much victims of their environment, and this is where the Government does come in. Schools . roads, libraries, military, police force and fireman. Many folks don't have the drive and desire to be rich. Some would prefer family and friends. Not everyone can be a rocket scientist, and not everyone is cut out to be a ditch digger. Not everyone plans to have kids and have the other spouse walk out on them. Not everyone plans on having a lower IQ than others.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 98):
What product to people on welfare deliver?

Surviving, and hopefully being less of a burden than they would be in jails or on their way to jail through crime, or less of a burden to churches. But you should also remember that most people that take welfare take it for less than a year. It is not a static point in life. Just like you living in your parents house is not the end all be all of who you are. You were just lucky that you had a place to crash instead of having to depend on or be a burden to the social safety net. Some other folks aren't as lucky.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 100, posted (10 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2307 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 99):
some folks get caught up in life's events.

Why should any of that be my problem?

Quoting casinterest (Reply 99):
Surviving, and hopefully being less of a burden than they would be in jails or on their way to jail through crime

So nothing then. There's just no vested interest on the part of others, so it's hardly fair to pass the cost on to them.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinedeltadawg From United States of America, joined May 2006, 776 posts, RR: 1
Reply 101, posted (10 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2291 times:

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 86):
Lets be fair here. Bush made a huge dent in the national debt. Now I'm not going to start the debate about whether or not the wars were justified. But he played a nice part in getting us to where we are today. Obama has made it worse. But he started right where Bush left off.

You'll get no argument from me on that point. The difference between O & W though is that W racked up the debt on one too many wars and then he was convinced he had to do something to bail out the world economy, banks and the street. O just continued the bail out except at a faster pace knowing that we didn't have the money but his "fundamental transformation" had to instill hope and change and empty pockets. In five years he has pushed the debt toward 18 trillion and climbing and shows no sign of stopping the spending. Stimulus spending by governments does not work. Look at Japan and their continual stimulus to spark 0.9% growth, whoo-hoo. If you take money out of peoples pockets they don't have money to spend and if they don't spend money then there is no job growth, stagnant economy, etc. Government spending money is not the same as consumers and corporations spending money.



GO Dawgs, Sic' em, woof woof woof
User currently onlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11534 posts, RR: 15
Reply 102, posted (10 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2295 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 100):
Why should any of that be my problem?

Ask that question when talking about gay "marriage".

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 96):
I don't think people become wary of strangers. I think it is more that they don't understand the different lifestyles that everybody lives. Everybody out here is shocked I've never fired a gun. I'm equally as shocked that they consider a city of 50,000 to be the big city.

And, when their only source of news is the extreme, they are very distrusting of foreigners or, those from anywhere else. I went home this summer and went to the "gay district" of Pendleton. The one coffee/wine shop in ranch country. In days gone by, no one would have had a problem talking to strangers. This time, and over the past ten years, there was no talking to anyone outside their group. Unless they knew I was "safe" and had long-term contacts there.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 92):
Problem is that everyone else gets all that for way less than 40%.

Try again.

Let me be clear: Go live AND WORK in Sweden or Germany for a year. At a McDonalds or as a mechanic.

Also, the taxes the top in the United States pay are all given back PLUS MORE than those taxes paid by the middle and lower classes. What you are saying is: If you make $100, are taxed for $25 and get $50 back and I make $50, taxed for $10 and get $7 back, I am the bad guy.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 103, posted (10 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2292 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 102):
Ask that question when talking about gay "marriage".

Liberals tell me that if enough of them vote to take my money I should be willing to give it, whether it's 10% or 60%. Yet when enough people decide they don't want gay marriage, they all scream bloody murder. It's the double standard where they want the government out of their bedrooms but have no problem reaching into the pockets of others to fund, often wasteful, initiatives.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 102):
What you are saying is: If you make $100, are taxed for $25 and get $50 back and I make $50, taxed for $10 and get $7 back, I am the bad guy.

Who's getting $50 back? I sure won't.

The problem is all the $10 people vote, and when they do they vote on what to do with the $50 collected from someone else. And if they want something really nice they have no problem upping the tax from $50 to $60 or higher while holding theirs the same.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4510 posts, RR: 2
Reply 104, posted (10 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2258 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 100):
Why should any of that be my problem?

It's not your problem, until it's your problem. And if you live alone and are very lucky in your career, you may minimize your risk. However bad things happen to god people all the time.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 100):
So nothing then. There's just no vested interest on the part of others, so it's hardly fair to pass the cost on to them

You are either trolling, or the most ignorant person I have ever seen.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlinePhilBy From France, joined Aug 2013, 621 posts, RR: 1
Reply 105, posted (10 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2254 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 32):
Don't forget: The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution and the government to be "of, for, and by the people". Which means when our government fails us, we fail us. It actually would be feasible to get money out of politics. If every single one of us votes for the one candidate in our district who will listen to us. That would be ANYBODY who does not have a (D) or (R) behind their name! We have a chance in November 2014 to bring in all new people into The House. If every single person who voted cast a ballot for anyone who does not have a (D) or (R) behind their name, that would show money that we the people truly are in control. I would love to see every person with a (D) or (R) behind their name get zero votes in the mid-terms. Then, something might get done in this country!

If you ban political parties altogether you might be able to make the USA into a democracy.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 82):
The rich are getting richer. Even in "socialist" Europe. The richest few are earning billions,

According to my French dictionary in French a Billion (as opposed to milliard) is the same as in English (1000 000 000 000) and not many people earn that   


User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 106, posted (10 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2243 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 103):
Who's getting $50 back? I sure won't.

From what you've stated in the past - you are getting back about $125 in government services for every $50 you pay in taxes.

Only after you start making over $200,000 per year, and paying $80,000 per year in federal income taxes will you go into a negative situation as far as federal taxes and benefits.

The last five years, the wife and I have averaged about $45,000 per year in federal income taxes, $12,000 in state sales taxes, $7,000 in local property taxes, and guess what - we get more in benefits from those tax dollars than the cash we paid in.

[Edited 2013-09-18 06:46:12]

User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5433 posts, RR: 8
Reply 107, posted (10 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2227 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 92):
You're getting at the "You didn't build that" argument. It's been debunked many times over but if people are going to credit the government with making people wealthy, then there should be a hell of a lot more rich people than there actually are.

Of the government doesn't make people wealthy (overall), but the "you didn't build it" isn't directly about government. It is about the fact that no one ever "builds it" all by themselves. Our lives are always a combined effort of many people and many events that shape our life and our character and drive and opportunities, etc.
What government is in the USA is a creation of the people's will and desire and it helps create the platform upon which our wealth and society are built upon (again, to be clear, I am not saying your wealth is built upon the government. The government is the people's expression of what the rules and laws, etc. must be and that creates a platform or structure upon which we build). And we get an awful lot from that "platform", it is why the nation is as strong and wealthy as it is (and yes, we have problems but we do pretty damned well).

Quoting casinterest (Reply 94):
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 92):
"Broad" in that everyone receives those benefits, but only a few pick up the bulk of the tab for them

But people pick up the tab at different stages of their lives. The problem with your line of thinking here, is that everyone is in the same situation always. That is not the case.

  
I have been trying to make that point but it seems to fall on deaf ears.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 103):
Who's getting $50 back? I sure won't.

The problem is all the $10 people vote, and when they do they vote on what to do with the $50 collected from someone else. And if they want something really nice they have no problem upping the tax from $50 to $60 or higher while holding theirs the same.

Duh!
That is always "the problem" in a democracy! The rules and laws have to essentially benefit the majority of people. Democracy is not an "all that matters is me" situation and it never has been. Why do you think we broke away from Britain that long ago? It was so the rules would benefit the maximum number of people here instead of one guy in Britain.

And anyone should know and understand that. That is why taxes are the way they are that is why laws are they way they are. And it is a very good thing, you must manage things such that the majority of people reap the benefit (while protecting rights etc.).

Quoting PhilBy (Reply 105):
According to my French dictionary in French a Billion (as opposed to milliard) is the same as in English (1000 000 000 000) and not many people earn that

Well if French is like English... then you have a few too many 0's there:

1,000,000 = One Million
1,000,000,000 = One Billion
1,000,000,000,000 = One Trillion (and there are really VERY few of those around  )

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 106):
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 103):
Who's getting $50 back? I sure won't.

From what you've stated in the past - you are getting back about $125 in government services for every $50 you pay in taxes.

Only after you start making over $200,000 per year, and paying $80,000 per year in federal income taxes will you go into a negative situation as far as federal taxes and benefits.

The last five years, the wife and I have averaged about $45,000 per year in federal income taxes, $12,000 in state sales taxes, $7,000 in local property taxes, and guess what - we get more in benefits from those tax dollars than the cash we paid in.

I don't thing he understands that, or perhaps he is unwilling to understand that.

Tugg

[Edited 2013-09-18 08:42:33]

[Edited 2013-09-18 08:43:07]


I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6539 posts, RR: 9
Reply 108, posted (10 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2218 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 90):
The other main issue is geography. People in Western Europe are very close together. Not like in the United States where everyone is so spread out. That makes a lot of difference since social interaction is less in a larger space. People become wary of strangers or those with different ideas and opinions.

I met a cousin from Canada recently (well Québec, she didn't like being called Canadian ) and she said people in Paris were strangely close everywhere, hugging and kissing friends etc., whereas in Québec everyone, while friendly, kept some distance.

Quoting Mir (Reply 93):
That argument works when you're talking about the infrastructure of the country (particularly when it comes to mass transit and long-distance rail). But I'm not so sure it works for health care. Distance doesn't really enter into the equation when it comes to affordability (sure, if you live out in the middle of nowhere it's going to be difficult to get access, but that's true no matter what system you have to pay for it). And having more people should make things even easier due to the ability to use the power of a large customer base to drive costs down.

Distance is relative, here were are closing some hospitals or maternities because they don't have enough activity, thus being less cost effective but more importantly more dangerous (not enough practice for doctors, surgeons etc.). Some people are upset they're now half an hour or more from an hospital. Then there are remote places like mountain villages, islands etc. The advantage of an universal system is that it can be relatively easily justified that some hospitals will make a loss no matter what, and that the system will take it.

Quoting PhilBy (Reply 105):
According to my French dictionary in French a Billion (as opposed to milliard) is the same as in English (1000 000 000 000) and not many people earn that

Yeah I thought that too long ago but it's not true anymore (and billion is really never used in French).

I talked about billions because it's the most shocking (Bettencourt anyone ?) but it start in the millions, I couldn't say where exactly.

As for getting a broker, my brother is one actually, not that he makes a flamboyant salary or anything, but he only deals with people having serious money to invest. I don't have money to invest at all anyway, and if I had it would go towards a house, since I get an actual use of it, and in France it's a sound investment, meaning very expensive and only getting more expensive.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5212 posts, RR: 4
Reply 109, posted (10 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2214 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 89):
I'm all for a more conservative option / less "liberal" option but it's been half a decade and they haven't come up with anything! I don't think there is a good alternative to it, honestly

Without beating our own drum, I support Australia's system. Medical practices are privately owned, but the government pays a proportion of your bill. For example, the government will pay $32 for a "routine" visit to your GP. It is up to the doctor to decide whether they want to charge you more than $32, and if they do then you will pay the difference. However, if you are a low income earner then they are obligated to provide the service to you at the price set by the government (i.e. the cost to you is $0)

I think this is a fair system as it keeps health care in the private sector and encourages competition between health care providers, while also providing universal coverage to the most needy and charging a portion of the fees to those that can afford it.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 88):
original fiscal conservative tea party mixed with a moderately liberal social agenda. Not exactly an easy mix

Actually the mix shouldn't be too uneasy as in both cases it is about reforming the role of government within your life. Whether that be in terms of tax burden or allowing you the reproductive or sexual privacy you deserve, economic conservatism and social liberalism aren't necessarily anathema to each other. And I agree that Libertarianism, despite seemingly congruent on the surface, isn't the answer.

Quoting tugger (Reply 107):
if French is like English on this they yuo have a few too many 0's threre

Point of information...

You are confusing American English (9 0s) and British English (12 0s). The Anglophone world is, however, standardising around the American definition.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently onlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11534 posts, RR: 15
Reply 110, posted (10 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2205 times:

Quoting PhilBy (Reply 105):
If you ban political parties altogether you might be able to make the USA into a democracy

That is a great idea! It would never fly in the US, but it is a great idea!

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 103):
Yet when enough people decide they don't want gay marriage, they all scream bloody murder.

So, when a right-winger says they want government out of peoples' lives then run a fear based campaign to get everyone to agree marriage is between only a man and woman, what is that? How is a state issued contract between two consenting adults something the federal government needs to be in charge of? Right-wingers want it both ways. They demand people stay out of their personal lives but intrude on peoples' personal lives.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1422 posts, RR: 3
Reply 111, posted (10 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2191 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 99):
Many folks don't have the drive and desire to be rich. Some would prefer family and friends.

Nothing wrong with that, provided you are not living at the expense of others.


User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4510 posts, RR: 2
Reply 112, posted (10 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2191 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 111):
Nothing wrong with that, provided you are not living at the expense of others.

We all live at the expense of others. We also live to benefit from others. At different points in life we do these things.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1422 posts, RR: 3
Reply 113, posted (10 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2194 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 112):
We all live at the expense of others.

I certainly don't.


User currently offlineRara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 2057 posts, RR: 2
Reply 114, posted (10 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2172 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 113):
I certainly don't.

Nice to hear you fended for yourself right after birth.



Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5433 posts, RR: 8
Reply 115, posted (10 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2174 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 113):
Quoting casinterest (Reply 112):
We all live at the expense of others.

I certainly don't.

You don't have parents or they/people didn't raise you? You didn't attend school (that had some element of public support)? You don't use the transit systems or roads? You don't use the law or courts etc?

Wow, you are a truly exceptional individual...

Quoting Rara (Reply 114):
Nice to hear you fended for yourself right after birth.

Actually I want to know how he was even born...

Tugg

[Edited 2013-09-18 10:45:03]


I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1422 posts, RR: 3
Reply 116, posted (10 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2170 times:

Quoting Rara (Reply 114):
Nice to hear you fended for yourself right after birth.

My parents chose to have me, not the other way around. But i'm sure my taxes will be paying off their pensions and their debt anyway.


User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5433 posts, RR: 8
Reply 117, posted (10 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2161 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 116):
But i'm sure my taxes will be paying off their pensions and their debt anyway.

Just as the next generation shall be doing for you.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1422 posts, RR: 3
Reply 118, posted (10 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2154 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 117):
ust as the next generation shall be doing for you.

I doubt it. I have zero debt and bleed 30k a year in income tax/NI. But we seem to be drifting from the point.

[Edited 2013-09-18 11:03:50]

User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4510 posts, RR: 2
Reply 119, posted (10 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2130 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 118):
I doubt it. I have zero debt and bleed 30k a year in income tax/NI. But we seem to be drifting from the point.

No. You seem to be stuck on an irrelevant point about being perfectly self sufficient and indulgent. Good luck with it. you may be lucky enough to stay that way.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1422 posts, RR: 3
Reply 120, posted (10 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2132 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 119):
No. You seem to be stuck on an irrelevant point about being perfectly self sufficient and indulgent. Good luck with it. you may be lucky enough to stay that way.

Nothing self indulgent about my lifestyle. In spite of the Bank of England's utter contempt for savers I live well within my means because i plan to stay stable in the long term...and that's not luck.

[Edited 2013-09-18 13:59:43]

User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5433 posts, RR: 8
Reply 121, posted (10 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2103 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 118):
I doubt it. I have zero debt and bleed 30k a year in income tax/NI.

I don't. How much do you think it costs to keep people healthy and to care for them in their old age? How much do you think you will cost 40+ years from now?

Quoting casinterest (Reply 119):
No. You seem to be stuck on an irrelevant point about being perfectly self sufficient and indulgent. Good luck with it. you may be lucky enough to stay that way.

Actually he lives where they have universal healthcare so the huge risk we in the USA normally have, something going wrong health-wise, is less of an issue for him. He is unlikely to be bankrupted by health costs and less likely to go without needed healthcare that could lead to a reduction in his ability to be productive and earning a bunch of money.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 118):
But we seem to be drifting from the point.

And yes, you are absolutely right. But of course that is how conversation go, odd loops sometimes. So perhaps we can get back to the possibility for a third party in the USA.

Quoting deltadawg (Thread starter):
After John Boehner has continued to defy his constituents along with many other Republicans in regards to most peoples wishes for our Congressmen and Senators to do everything within their power to stop/defund Obamacare along with not going along with Obama on Syria it seems more and more relevant that there is a real need for a third political party in the U.S..

Could it be that the Tea Party could or should break off from the Republican Party to form a true third party? The Republican Party has parted ways with Reagan in its belief of the Constitution and fiscal responsibility and is trying to be the "me too" party comparing its deeds with the Democratic Party.

So, is it time for a third party or is the Republican Party salvageable?

So Deltadawg, with Boehner caving to the Tea Party's "Defund Healthcare" budget, are you happier with the Republican's now?

Not that the budget is going to go anywhere or resolve anything.... Well I guess it could if they are willing to compromise with the Senate and come up an acceptable version in committee.... but do you think that is really possible?

Tugg

[Edited 2013-09-18 16:00:08]


I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1422 posts, RR: 3
Reply 122, posted (10 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2084 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 121):
I don't. How much do you think it costs to keep people healthy and to care for them in their old age?

Considerably less than i'm putting into the economy now. Afterall, if i'm paying more tax than about 95%+ of the population, and i'm not covering the cost of my own existence by doing that, who exactly is paying for everyone?

Quoting tugger (Reply 121):
How much do you think you will cost 40+ years from now?

A lot less than it does now of course.

Quoting tugger (Reply 121):
He is unlikely to be bankrupted by health costs and less likely to go without needed healthcare that could lead to a reduction in his ability to be productive and earning a bunch of money.

The chances of me being bankrupted by healthcare costs would be precisely zero with any system, i am not dumb enough to go without insurance if i have no other choice. Whenever i go on holiday, i get health insurance for the duration, for example.

Quoting tugger (Reply 121):
less likely to go without needed healthcare that could lead to a reduction in his ability to be productive and earning a bunch of money.

On the contrary, have you seen the waiting times of socialised healthcare systems vs private?

Quoting tugger (Reply 121):
And yes, you are absolutely right. But of course that is how conversation go, odd loops sometimes. So perhaps we can get back to the possibility for a third party in the USA.

The point was, that us free market types, have no problem with people living a humble lifestyle. Provided they aren't living at the expense of others. Freedom to choose the lifestyle you want is the ultimate goal. Not wealth, although that's normally a pleasant side-effect of freedom. My particular situation is of no relevance, though i am going to response to personal accusations.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 123, posted (10 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2059 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 104):
It's not your problem, until it's your problem.

Exactly, and if it is my problem then it's my problem and not anyone else's. Paying for Joe Blow on the street is a bad investment since I don't benefit. It just isn't worth the money.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 106):
From what you've stated in the past - you are getting back about $125 in government services for every $50 you pay in taxes.

Where does that number come from? And before anyone asks, Amtrak doesn't benefit me in the least.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 106):
Only after you start making over $200,000 per year, and paying $80,000 per year in federal income taxes will you go into a negative situation as far as federal taxes and benefits.

That's even worse. How can you blame such people for feeling targeted? They're getting scammed into picking up the tab for everyone and they're supposed to like it?

Quoting tugger (Reply 107):
Of the government doesn't make people wealthy (overall), but the "you didn't build it" isn't directly about government.

It isn't? Who else is collecting taxes then?

Quoting tugger (Reply 107):
Our lives are always a combined effort of many people and many events that shape our life and our character and drive and opportunities, etc.

Then send them a fruit basket and get your hands off people's money.

Quoting tugger (Reply 107):
again, to be clear, I am not saying your wealth is built upon the government.

In that case, I should be paying them no more than anyone else.

Quoting tugger (Reply 107):
I have been trying to make that point but it seems to fall on deaf ears.

Because it's flawed when you realize that some people pay for nearly all their lives, some for just a portion, and some basically not at all yet all live in the same country and receive the same benefits.

Quoting tugger (Reply 107):
The rules and laws have to essentially benefit the majority of people.

But no majority should override one's rights. The majority should only have power where it violates nobody's rights, and last time I checked the right to property was a pretty basic one. The majority's desired use of the tax code as an institutionalized shakedown flies in the face of freedom.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 110):
They demand people stay out of their personal lives but intrude on peoples' personal lives.

Get the government out of my life, but that means my garage and bank account too.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 124, posted (10 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2047 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 123):
Where does that number come from?

You've stated you are planning to study engineering. There is no way you are paying the full cost of your education. You are certainly getting at least 150% in benefits for the education system for every dollar of income tax you might pay.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 123):
How can you blame such people for feeling targeted?

Actually most folks in that income range don't feel targeted or feel that a maximum tax rate of near 40% as the US has is 'unreasonably burdensome'.

Now to be honest, very few folks in those income brackets pay 40%. Mostly folks with large cash incomes - the lottery winners, the professional athletes, etc.

A person who is an employee or a business owner making $200K can easily reduce their effective tax rate to below 30% with various programs available.

Even richer people can drop their tax rates even lower with the right types of investments.

That Mitt Romney paid a lower effective tax rate, completely legally, than middle income people making $65,000 per year did not help the Republican party in last year's election.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 125, posted (10 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2049 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 124):
There is no way you are paying the full cost of your education.

I got a few government loans, but most of it was savings, private scholarships, and loans. And, as I've stated repeatedly before, I have no problem with the government funding education. What I have a problem with is the government funding the results of not seeking or utilizing an education.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 124):
That Mitt Romney paid a lower effective tax rate, completely legally, than middle income people making $65,000 per year did not help the Republican party in last year's election.

That didn't make him a hypocrite, it made him a genius.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5433 posts, RR: 8
Reply 126, posted (10 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2049 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 122):
putting into the economy now.

That is the key point: "just now". Many years ago and many years from now... you weren't... and quite possibly won't be. "Just now" is now and we pay what we can bear to make the whole system work. Do you think parents should require/force/expect their kids to "pay their way" immediately at birth? SHould they expect you to clean up your room at age 1? Should they expect yuo to get yuorself ready for school at age 4-5? Should they expect to to pay your way on family vacations at age ten? I say no, we expect kids to do what they can when they can, as they are able. With your parents, are you going to expect them to get themselves around if they are enfeebled in old age? If they need help are you going to expect them to fend for themselves? I don't know about you but I help my parents as much as I can and need to. I guess your parents had better have paid for very good insurance that will covers all their needs forever. Expecting that "Just now" does and will exist forever is silly (I think).

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 122):
Considerably less than i'm putting into the economy now.
Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 122):
A lot less than it does now of course.

Considerably less? A lot less? Have you looked at how costs are increasing and that lifespans are increasing and that end of life (the most expensive part of life and healthcare) measures that can sustain your beating heart are getting better?

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 122):
The chances of me being bankrupted by healthcare costs would be precisely zero with any system, i am not dumb enough to go without insurance if i have no other choice. Whenever i go on holiday, i get health insurance for the duration, for example.

You do know that insurance normally has limits don't you? I general it's not unlimited, unless you buy a very special and costly version. But I agree that having a good private insurance is an important element for those that also have universal healthcare in the country (and that coverage may reduce the risk of costs significantly for a private insurer so I may be wrong about the cost f an unlimited policy).

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 122):
On the contrary, have you seen the waiting times of socialised healthcare systems vs private?

I have, and have you seen the wait times for private insurance? Three to six months is not unusual for normal and routine services. Of course urgent and emergency care will be provided much sooner if called for, same for socialized medicine.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 122):
The point was, that us free market types, have no problem with people living a humble lifestyle. Provided they aren't living at the expense of others. Freedom to choose the lifestyle you want is the ultimate goal. Not wealth, although that's normally a pleasant side-effect of freedom. My particular situation is of no relevance, though i am going to response to personal accusations.

I am certainly not trying to be accusatory, just wanting to respond to points that you are making. I am am all for the "free market" but there have to be broad services available to truly enable that free market or else the risks of doing most things becomes extraordinarily high. Why do you think the wealthiest countries are the ones that have the broadest arrays of services? Do you think it is just happenstance that more wealth accrues to people in countries that do more for (and expect more from) their citizens? One begets the other in a virtuous cycle (but you do of course need to manage the cost of this cycle, I have said it before I do actually feel that EVERYONE, including the lowest earners, needs to contribute something).

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 123):

It's funny, I was going to bite, was beginning to select text to respond but then once I got about two thirds though I realized I was actually right in one of my earlier posts:

Quoting tugger (Reply 107):
or perhaps he is unwilling to understand

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21530 posts, RR: 55
Reply 127, posted (10 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2051 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 113):
I certainly don't.

You almost certainly have at some point in your life.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinedeltadawg From United States of America, joined May 2006, 776 posts, RR: 1
Reply 128, posted (10 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2041 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 124):
ow to be honest, very few folks in those income brackets pay 40%. Mostly folks with large cash incomes - the lottery winners, the professional athletes, etc.A person who is an employee or a business owner making $200K can easily reduce their effective tax rate to below 30% with various programs available.Even richer people can drop their tax rates even lower with the right types of investments.

You say this as if 20-30% is not a lot. I worked many years investing in dividend paying companies in order to earn a significant quarterly income that could be taxed at 15% of which is legal. My paycheck from the company I work for along with my business income is significantly higher upwards of 35%. There are indeed ways to reduce the taxes paid but it is legal made legal by your representatives. So don't complain about people not paying their fair share.



GO Dawgs, Sic' em, woof woof woof
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 129, posted (10 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2022 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 125):
I got a few government loans, but most of it was savings, private scholarships, and loans.

Which might pay 40 to 60% of the total cost of your education. The rest of the money likely comes from the government in one form or another, and endowments which even public universities need to subsidize their programs. Some of those crazy stupid research studies could easily be helping keep your tuition down a bit.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 125):
What I have a problem with is the government funding the results of not seeking or utilizing an education.

Sorry, you've lost me. You sound like a Boston Liberal saying he doesn't want any of his tax money going to support an 'illegal war'.

We all agree that some tax money is spend on programs we would like to see cancelled. That we think are a waste. That is why we have representatives and senators to vote on spending. That is where we make our choices. Our founding fathers knew that many of the federal government's policies and programs would be unpopular with part of the citizens. That is why we have a government that can make changes. However, they also knew that no one will be happy with all the actions of the government all the time.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 125):
That didn't make him a hypocrite, it made him a genius.

I didn't say it made him a hypocrite. I just said it made it hard for people with less money to set aside into longer term investments to identify with him and vote for him.

Quoting deltadawg (Reply 128):
You say this as if 20-30% is not a lot.

People complain about the tax rates in 'Europe'. Well, that's about the same tax rate people in the similar economic segment of European countries pay in taxes. Most countries in Europe might be a couple percentage points higher than our combination of federal and state taxes, but not by huge margins.

Quoting deltadawg (Reply 128):
So don't complain about people not paying their fair share.

Not complaining. Just stating the truth.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 130, posted (10 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2017 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 126):
It's funny, I was going to bite, was beginning to select text to respond but then once I got about two thirds though I realized I was actually right in one of my earlier posts:

I understand what you're saying, but it's just wrong and doesn't justify me or anyone else paying more for the same service.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 129):
Which might pay 40 to 60% of the total cost of your education.

That's a conservative estimate. I want to say my government backed loans are maybe 25% of the cost. Add in the other stuff and the government involvement is maybe 40% at the most.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 129):
Sorry, you've lost me. You sound like a Boston Liberal saying he doesn't want any of his tax money going to support an 'illegal war'.

I have no problem with the government funding education for citizens, but we have to draw the line. We spend a ton of money building and running schools, but if someone decides they'd rather skip class, drink, have a baby, etc. than go to school what does the government do? Add them to the welfare rolls of course. You end up with a group of people wondering why they only have a minimum wage job, collecting from any entitlement program they can, paying little or no income tax, and likely complaining about how the rich don't pay enough taxes all because they didn't avail themselves of the services the government offers.

The education system needs to be improved so there are no more excuses. That is the welfare system, use it or don't, but then don't expect the government to cut a check if you can't be bothered.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently onlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11534 posts, RR: 15
Reply 131, posted (10 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2011 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 130):
doesn't justify me or anyone else paying more for the same service.

If you make $1000 a month and take home every penny of that $1000 a month and we all do the same (no taxes, as you want) how will that make the roads and bridges and schools and military and airports look in this country? And, how many people will actually be healthy?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 132, posted (10 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2005 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 131):
If you make $1000 a month and take home every penny of that $1000 a month and we all do the same (no taxes, as you want) how will that make the roads and bridges and schools and military and airports look in this country?

I never said I wanted no taxes. Try again.

What I want is for taxes to hit everybody in roughly equal proportion, or even better, put it under individual control by moving to a system like FairTax. It's too easy for people to vote for expensive social programs when they know someone else is going to pick up the tab. I don't want to see the upper class and some of the middle class being forced into service as a cash cow for the country.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 131):
And, how many people will actually be healthy?

My health is an issue for me to solve, not the government.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinePhilBy From France, joined Aug 2013, 621 posts, RR: 1
Reply 133, posted (10 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1998 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 107):
Well if French is like English... then you have a few too many 0's there:

1,000,000 = One Million
1,000,000,000 = One Billion
1,000,000,000,000 = One Trillion (and there are really VERY few of those around )

Accoding to the Collins dictionary (OK, not the worlds finest) English (not US) French and German all respect the mathematical terms

Million = million
Billion = million milion
Trillion = million million million
Quadrillion = million million million million
Note the sequential nature of the terms.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 123):
But no majority should override one's rights. The majority should only have power where it violates nobody's rights, and last time I checked the right to property was a pretty basic one.

No-one has any natural born rights. Rights are only what modern civilisation has defined them to be. If the right to property is a basic right then the government must ensure that everyone has property even if they have to fund it for the lower income portion of the populace. Clearly that would require a tax increase.


User currently onlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11534 posts, RR: 15
Reply 134, posted (10 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2001 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 132):
My health is an issue for me to solve, not the government

And how to pay for that? If you make $1000 a month and your basic health care cost is $1500 a month, are you okay with that?

Death Panels are a part of corporate health care. Corporate health care is concerned with one thing: how much profit will they make? Private health care should be like that. But, those of us under the median income of $51,000 a year can not afford complete private health care. What then?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 132):
What I want is for taxes to hit everybody in roughly equal proportion,

A person with a $2 million a year income and paying zero taxes is not equal to a person with a $30,000 a year income paying $7,000 in taxes. What you are saying is: charge the person making $2 million a year $7,000. Which is fine on the surface, but how does that help the person making $30K if they still can't feed themselves and pay for health care and have shelter?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 135, posted (10 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1989 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 136):
Except the "rich" can claim business expense. The "poor" can claim nothing. We don't make enough to claim anything.

You obviously don't understand how FairTax would work.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 136):
Hasn't happened in 30 years. Heath care? nope. Gas? nope. Food? nope. Rent? nope.

People find ways to pay for all of that, except with health care which is distorted by the fact that most people have the bill picked up by either an employer or the government so nobody cares that much what it costs.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinePhilBy From France, joined Aug 2013, 621 posts, RR: 1
Reply 136, posted (10 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1980 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 135):
Everyone in fact has natural born rights, tons. Everyone retains the right to pretty much everything that doesn't entail infringing on another's rights. This is something that, for reasonable people, should be an absolute, non-negotiable truth.

So, are you claiming that rights are a biological function genetically encoded into DNA?

All that we currently consider rights have only been such for a relatively small portion of human history and it would therefore be logical that the event of being born does not in itself bestow such rights. As the rights that people have vary between countries and cultures without any significant difference in peoples natural born status this would seem to belie the above view.

Any rights that we consider that we have are defined by our culture and society. There is nothing 'natural born' about them. Rights have evolved as society has evolved.
As examples:

In ancient Athens and Rome male adult citizens with sufficient wealth (I cannot currently remember the limit) had a right to vote. As society has evolved so the right to vote has evolved to become more inclusive.

In Saudi Arabia few women were born with the right to drive a car on reaching age of maturity. There are still women living in the modern world who were not born with the right to vote upon reaching maturity. Where rights exist it is because society has decided that they should exist. The entire concept of a 'right' is a societal construct.
Birds aren't born with a right to nest in trees they just do it without considering the moralistic issues that surround tree ownership.
I apparently have a right to transport myself along public highways in a vehicle (respecting local laws, limitations etc) There is nothin natural about either the road system or the vehicle such that I'm naturally born with this right. Society has decided to give us these rights.

I think that the following dictionary definition is at least close: a legal or moral right or claim
Laws and morals change with time.


User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1422 posts, RR: 3
Reply 137, posted (10 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1980 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 126):
Do you think parents should require/force/expect their kids to "pay their way" immediately at birth? SHould they expect you to clean up your room at age 1? Should they expect yuo to get yuorself ready for school at age 4-5? Should they expect to to pay your way on family vacations at age ten? I say no, we expect kids to do what they can when they can, as they are able.

As stated, my parents chose to have me, not myself. So they are responsible for me until i reach adulthood. I'm not obliged to owe them anything. But again we are drifting from the point. On net there is virtually no chance i'm leaving this world quids up.

Quoting tugger (Reply 126):
Considerably less? A lot less? Have you looked at how costs are increasing and that lifespans are increasing and that end of life (the most expensive part of life and healthcare) measures that can sustain your beating heart are getting better?

Costs are increasing because the costs are socialised. Besides i don't want to live forever if my body's not up to it, i'd rather pass on with my pride intact than spend years being drugged up to stay alive.

Quoting tugger (Reply 126):
there have to be broad services available to truly enable that free market or else the risks of doing most things becomes extraordinarily high.

Nonsense and an oxymoron.

Quoting tugger (Reply 126):
Why do you think the wealthiest countries are the ones that have the broadest arrays of services?

Because the wealthier a country becomes through the market process, the more money politicians have to win votes with. 100 years ago the UK was one of the richest countries in the world. Now it is a failed state. Why? Because it was so far ahead it got complacent. It deviated from capitalism and created a parasite class. But over time it lost its competitiveness, people didn't think... "ah we need to go back to our old principles" though, they thought "the parasite class are suffering, we need to feed them more". There will only be a reversal in this process when we hit rock bottom (barring another Thatcher). Asides from a few anomalies the countries that are thriving are not the countries with extensive services, unlike the countries that are failing.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 138, posted (10 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1932 times:

Quoting PhilBy (Reply 138):
So, are you claiming that rights are a biological function genetically encoded into DNA?

Yes. People are all born with free will and decision making skills. Those things have been in existence far longer than government has, so why would people create government to give them what they already have?

The answer, of course, is that government only ever exists (in its more benevolent forms) to protect that which people already have.

Quoting PhilBy (Reply 138):
All that we currently consider rights have only been such for a relatively small portion of human history and it would therefore be logical that the event of being born does not in itself bestow such rights.

They've only been written down for a small portion, and that only because they were being violated.

You're running headlong into the very fallacy Alexander Hamilton warned of: that putting a enumerated list of guaranteed rights would cause people to think that they were given by the government and, by extension, that they can be taken away by the government when in fact neither part of that is true.

Quoting PhilBy (Reply 138):
In ancient Athens and Rome male adult citizens with sufficient wealth (I cannot currently remember the limit) had a right to vote. As society has evolved so the right to vote has evolved to become more inclusive.

In Saudi Arabia few women were born with the right to drive a car on reaching age of maturity. There are still women living in the modern world who were not born with the right to vote upon reaching maturity. Where rights exist it is because society has decided that they should exist. The entire concept of a 'right' is a societal construct.

You're making my point. A government can only, at best, protect those rights which people already have and, at worst, take those rights away. Before people had government of course nobody could vote, but then they had no need to. They could do whatever they wanted all the time.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinePhilBy From France, joined Aug 2013, 621 posts, RR: 1
Reply 139, posted (10 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1902 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 140):
So, are you claiming that rights are a biological function genetically encoded into DNA?

Yes. People are all born with free will and decision making skills. Those things have been in existence far longer than government has, so why would people create government to give them what they already have?

This possibly explains many things. Clearly we have a difference in definition. My understanding of the official meanings, put simplistically:

Right - Something society states that we can do

Freedom - something that society hasn't told us not to do (obviously the criminal class claim more freedoms than society offers)

Duty - something that society expects us to do.

I would argue that in the natural state (i.e outside the moral limitations of civlised society) freedoms exist but not rights.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 140, posted (10 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1890 times:

Quoting PhilBy (Reply 141):
Right - Something society states that we can do

That's a poor definition. Society, or rather governments, cannot state what people can do because by default people can do anything. They may only state what we cannot do, and that enumeration should be strictly limited to those things which infringe on the rights of others.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinePhilBy From France, joined Aug 2013, 621 posts, RR: 1
Reply 141, posted (10 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1886 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 142):
That's a poor definition. Society, or rather governments, cannot state what people can do because by default people can do anything. They may only state what we cannot do, and that enumeration should be strictly limited to those things which infringe on the rights of others.

I agree that it's a crude simplification, but it covers the essential difference between a right and a freedom. Now if the premise had been that we all have natural born freedoms that society, often via governmental edict, and for the nominal good of society as a whole, takes away I could find no fault.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21530 posts, RR: 55
Reply 142, posted (10 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1864 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 132):
What I want is for taxes to hit everybody in roughly equal proportion

That's what the ideal progressive tax structure is: it hits everyone with about the same degree of pain. A flat tax hits the poor harder than the rich, as does the FairTax (though not to the same extent), and the FairTax has a number of other issues with it - it's worth thinking about, and there are components to it that could be useful, but overall I'm very skeptical that it would work as advertised.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinePhilBy From France, joined Aug 2013, 621 posts, RR: 1
Reply 143, posted (10 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1859 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 144):
What I want is for taxes to hit everybody in roughly equal proportion

That's what the ideal progressive tax structure is: it hits everyone with about the same degree of pain.

Devils advocate would say:
When some people earn enought to live comfortably in a small house and drive an average car (and some not even that) it would be hard to say that someone with 2 ferrari's, a holiday home in the Seychelles and a small mansion at home feels the same degree of pain.


User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 144,