• 120 Days Until the Largest Tax Hikes in History
    231 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;24645898]From the looks of it Clinton was one of the best presidents the country has ever had, is that like...true?[/QUOTE] He was better fiscally than Bush, but his morals were certainly lacking. [editline]01:01PM[/editline] [QUOTE=BrickInHead;24645932]you do not know how parties work or why they are important.[/QUOTE] Why are the parties important? Educate me.
[QUOTE=Ridge;24645997]He was better fiscally than Bush, but his morals were certainly lacking. [editline]01:01PM[/editline] Why are the parties important? Educate me.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=BrickInHead;23779337]I'm sorry if you advocate the destruction of a political party you know very little about the political workings of America. They're critical aspects of our democracy and despite their flaws they provide a much greater purpose than you're giving them. Independents are historically much less reliable than anyone in a political party and actually have a history of fucking shit up (Lieberman, for instance). The purpose of a political party (for the public) is to have an ideology that you stick behind. It provides a logical thought process behind decisions; those who do not identify with a political party, calling themselves Independents and often "moderates" have no logical thought process behind their actions, which is why they're forced to address issue to issue. Fuck, I'd trust a republican over an independent, because at least I know that a republican will have a core set of beliefs behind his decisions. In addition to that political parties provide a system of accountability; ie, this way we know someone with similar beliefs will not be voted into office if their predecessor fucks up. Also, the political parties (and the loyalties associated) are extremely important as well because of the fact that it broadens the amount of voters we have coming to the polls during elections. In a perfect world, everyone would examine each candidate and their beliefs, however, the fact of the matter is that few people do that, simply because they don't have the [I]time[/I]. America has one of the most politically active cultures in the world, and yet, our turnout is only about 65%. If you make it so that in order to vote in a manner that's not completely fucking arbitrary (aka showing up and selecting some random fucker you saw on tv that you said "HEH I LIKE THIS GUY") you'd see a shift in voter turnout for the worst; it would decrease dramatically and the vote of the president would be placed in the hand of political elites, which do [I]not [/I]represent the public at large whatsoever. Political elites are people who have a significant role in the political process, such as campaign contributors, CEOs, and other lobbyists. Aka, people that know what they're doing. While this is all well and good, these historically conservative views would not only allow a complete commercialization of the political process, it would completely destroy the ability for the liberals to take control (we've got significantly fewer political elites; ours tend to be educators and current liberal politicians). What we would see is the growth of a political aristocracy because the average american simply doesn't have the time to devote to learning the ins and outs of the political system and all possibly political beliefs in the country. This aristocracy would be absolutely crippling to our society because of the fact that we've had no significant cleavage (besides race) to create separate social classes. Our lower, middle, and upper class economic classes have nowhere near the same implications as the class cleavages created by the feudal system over in Europe. the basic [B]purpose [/B]of a political party is to do exactly what you said in the op; give a face to one set of political beliefs that a person can get behind and trust to generally represent them. If you think that political parties in america need to be disassembled you do not know enough about American culture and politics. I'd love to see a pluralist society over here in the states, but the problem is that our political system is radically different than those of European countries. We don't have a representative democracy like they do. We're majoritarianism, they're pluralist. They're different, and both equally effective. [editline]10:49AM[/editline] ps that's only the benefits for the public i can start on the benefits for upcoming politicians if you'd like briefly, you understand if it weren't for political parties President Obama wouldn't have a chance in hell to get elected and make one of the foremost racial breakthroughs in fucking decades[/QUOTE] [quote=brickinhead] [QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;23780542]:colbert: [editline]05:10PM[/editline] I agree with everything you put except that btw[/QUOTE] feudal europe has created quite a few cleavages not all of europe had a feudal system I'm sure but it was pretty widespread [editline]01:38PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;23778665]When you have two parties, you have to vote for [I]all[/I] of the beliefs of one or the other, not some of one, some of the other.[/QUOTE] see this is the thing that doesn't seem to translate to people your opinion on a specific subject [I]doesn't matter[/I]. It's entirely about the ideology behind it; for example, conservatives are for economic freedom and social control. Liberals are about economic control and social freedom. The parties represent that as a whole; and as long as the things they do go towards that goal, it's a step in the right direction.[/quote]
Well then what do you have to say about Republicans like Huckabee, McCain or others that actually have rather liberal idealogies? Political parties do little. A politician should be chosen based on their individual ideals and merits, rather than the letter that follows their name...
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;23779337]I'm sorry if you advocate the destruction of a political party you know very little about the political workings of America. They're critical aspects of our democracy and despite their flaws they provide a much greater purpose than you're giving them. Independents are historically much less reliable than anyone in a political party and actually have a history of fucking shit up (Lieberman, for instance). The purpose of a political party (for the public) is to have an ideology that you stick behind. It provides a logical thought process behind decisions; those who do not identify with a political party, calling themselves Independents and often "moderates" have no logical thought process behind their actions, which is why they're forced to address issue to issue. Fuck, I'd trust a republican over an independent, because at least I know that a republican will have a core set of beliefs behind his decisions. In addition to that political parties provide a system of accountability; ie, this way we know someone with similar beliefs will not be voted into office if their predecessor fucks up. Also, the political parties (and the loyalties associated) are extremely important as well because of the fact that it broadens the amount of voters we have coming to the polls during elections. In a perfect world, everyone would examine each candidate and their beliefs, however, the fact of the matter is that few people do that, simply because they don't have the [I]time[/I]. America has one of the most politically active cultures in the world, and yet, our turnout is only about 65%. If you make it so that in order to vote in a manner that's not completely fucking arbitrary (aka showing up and selecting some random fucker you saw on tv that you said "HEH I LIKE THIS GUY") you'd see a shift in voter turnout for the worst; it would decrease dramatically and the vote of the president would be placed in the hand of political elites, which do [I]not [/I]represent the public at large whatsoever. Political elites are people who have a significant role in the political process, such as campaign contributors, CEOs, and other lobbyists. Aka, people that know what they're doing. While this is all well and good, these historically conservative views would not only allow a complete commercialization of the political process, it would completely destroy the ability for the liberals to take control (we've got significantly fewer political elites; ours tend to be educators and current liberal politicians). What we would see is the growth of a political aristocracy because the average american simply doesn't have the time to devote to learning the ins and outs of the political system and all possibly political beliefs in the country. This aristocracy would be absolutely crippling to our society because of the fact that we've had no significant cleavage (besides race) to create separate social classes. Our lower, middle, and upper class economic classes have nowhere near the same implications as the class cleavages created by the feudal system over in Europe. the basic [B]purpose [/B]of a political party is to do exactly what you said in the op; give a face to one set of political beliefs that a person can get behind and trust to generally represent them. If you think that political parties in america need to be disassembled you do not know enough about American culture and politics. I'd love to see a pluralist society over here in the states, but the problem is that our political system is radically different than those of European countries. We don't have a representative democracy like they do. We're majoritarianism, they're pluralist. They're different, and both equally effective. [/QUOTE] So, this guy is saying that political parties exist so the political elites don't take over. Maybe you didn't quite understand my post. I was saying that instead of being the average american who sees someone on TV that we just merely like and voting for them. I was saying that you as an individual should look at who you like and who you dislike. I tell everyone to do exactly that, but being a realist, I know there are many people that wont follow what I say. So I'm not saying to abolish the party system in america, like this guy is replying to the guy that wants to. Let's not make blind statements of what I know and what I do not. What I believe does not make me know nothing about the party system. You can read all about me here: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrism[/url]
[QUOTE=Ridge;24645188]So does most everybody in the media?[/QUOTE] Hence why I don't watch much TV
Higher taxes for married couples? I bet gay marriage will gain some massive ground now.
[QUOTE=Ridge;24634377]Huh, funny, and to think I thought it was caused by high unemployment, debt inflation and a free-falling stock market....kinda like what is going on today.[/QUOTE] So have you never taken history in high school? One of the first things you learn (about the depression) is that international trade plummeted due to high tariffs. From Wikipedia since its probably the most unbiased source: [QUOTE]Many economists have argued that the sharp decline in international trade after 1930 helped to worsen the depression, especially for countries significantly dependent on foreign trade. Most historians and economists partly blame the American [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot-Hawley_Tariff_Act"]Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act[/URL] (enacted June 17, 1930) for worsening the depression by seriously reducing international trade and causing retaliatory tariffs in other countries. While foreign trade was a small part of overall economic activity in the U.S. and was concentrated in a few businesses like farming, it was a much larger factor in many other countries.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression#cite_note-14"][15][/URL] The average [I][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_valorem"]ad valorem[/URL][/I] rate of duties on dutiable imports for 1921–1925 was 25.9% but under the new tariff it jumped to 50% in 1931–1935. In dollar terms, American exports declined from about $5.2 billion in 1929 to $1.7 billion in 1933; but prices also fell, so the physical volume of exports only fell by half. Hardest hit were farm commodities such as wheat, cotton, tobacco, and lumber. According to this theory, the collapse of farm exports caused many American farmers to default on their loans, leading to the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_run"]bank runs[/URL] on small rural banks that characterized the early years of the Great Depression.[/QUOTE]But it`s always nice to see guys like you proposing history reenactments because you`re not sensible enough to learn from the past.
Trade isn't nearly as balanced nowadays as it was back then. The US is a massive consumer, but produces a teeny tiny fraction of the goods the world uses. Except bullets.
Oh boy. Can't wait to give even more of what little money I have to the government so they can blow it on shit like fighter jets and old people. [editline]06:54PM[/editline] [QUOTE=thisispain;24575669]yep you caught me oh wait here's a citation [url]http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213[/url] towards the end you did see a decrease in marginal tax rates but this was counteracted with an increase in minimal taxes also reagan left with the deficit at its highest in ages [img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_BrNJocQYWtw/R1RGTtWTP1I/AAAAAAAAAAY/l8IcY8aOU4s/s1600-R/national%2Bdebt%2Bchart.gif[/img][/QUOTE] Except only Congress can appropriate money, the President can't. So all this talk of president's wastefully spending money is a strawman.
[QUOTE=WhatTheKlent;24574226]Two party system. :hurr:[/QUOTE] Correction buddy One Party System. Read This. [FONT=Georgia]I can predict the winner of the presidential election even now: the government. In a one-party system, that's how things work. One-party system? Yes. The American political scene makes much more sense if you think of the two parties as two divisions of the same party. Admittedly that is hard to do at first. All American politics is presented as a tooth-and-claw rivalry between Republicans and Democrats. It is certainly true that elections determine who holds office among the parties' candidates, and who holds office determines whose cronies get sinecures and contracts. That does give the appearance of real competition. Moreover, the major news media are willing participants in the charade that Republicans and Democrats have substantially different ideas about things. Generally, we are asked to believe that Republicans want less government and more war, while the Democrats want more government and less war. As you may have noticed, that makes no sense. War and government go hand in hand, and both parties want more government. Each side tends to dislike only the wars started by the other side. Let's look at foreign policy. Republican John McCain is an unabashed supporter of the Iraqi invasion and occupation, though he didn't think the original occupation was brutal enough. His plan is to "win the war" and manage the Middle East, which includes maintaining the option of attacking Iran if American interests require it. We're supposed to believe that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama disagree with McCain, and they do a little - just not on the big questions. They don't talk about winning the war, but neither would withdraw all U.S. forces from the Middle East. Obama, who touts his original opposition to the Iraq invasion, says he'll keep enough force there to respond if al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia establishes a base there. Clinton promises to "obliterate" Iran if it attacks Israel. Both, like McCain, think Iran is America's business. In other words, no less than McCain, the Democrats see the Middle East in imperialist terms. Some peace party. On domestic issues, there do appear to be differences - but only on the surface. Take trade: Clinton and Obama made anti-NAFTA noises, but it is unlikely that either would pursue a seriously protectionist program. Selected trade barriers are possible, as they are with McCain. McCain talks like a free trader - usually - but Republicans can never be fully trusted on the issue. Ronald Reagan was the most protectionist president since the horrendous Herbert Hoover. George W. Bush imposed steel tariffs early in his first term, and his "free-trade" agreements always have exceptions for special interests. When McCain was touting free trade recently, he said, "There have been inadequacies, there has been dumping in our markets, and there have been unequal wages." That is not how a real free trader talks. "Dumping" is a pejorative term for price competition; and if trade is unfair because wages are unequal, how will poor countries trade with the rich West? On health care, Clinton and Obama want a larger government role. But the government's role is already large, and McCain doesn't call for a rollback. Licensing, patents, and other interventions that make medical care expensive would stay in place. At most he talks about manipulating the tax code to create various health-insurance incentives. He calls this a "free-market" solution, which it isn't. That is typical. Democrats want to use government directly (insurance mandates and taxpayer subsidies), while Republicans would use it indirectly, by creating tax inducements to get people and companies to do something. But that difference is far less substantial than it seems because in both cases politicians determine the goals to be achieved. Republicans and Democrats only disagree over the way to achieve them. In a free society, government operatives don't pick objectives for people. People pick them for themselves. A candidate who respected freedom would propose ending governmental involvement in health care entirely and slashing taxes without conditions so that people could make medical decisions for themselves. The election season would be more interesting if there were more suspense about the outcome.[/FONT]
You people do realize that the United States has one of the [b]lowest[/b] tax rates compared to the rest of the world? And with a country that can encompass all of Europe with in it's borders, that's fucking small.
I bet we have higher tax rates than Zimbabwe or Somalia :)
not something to gloat about though
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;24575307]You guys are retarded, the taxes go to pay off your debt and pay for social programs. The more taxes, the better off everyone in the country is.[/QUOTE] You're obviously not a middle class citizen.
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy18;24716049]You're obviously not a middle class citizen.[/QUOTE] He's right and what was the point of bumping the thread with such a pointless remark?
[QUOTE=WhatTheKlent;24716091]He's right and what was the point of bumping the thread with such a pointless remark?[/QUOTE] No he's not right. High taxes make life for the middle class worse.
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy18;24716442]No he's not right. Taxes make life for the middle class worse.[/QUOTE] Taxes pay for policing, which keeps those brown people from getting into your neighbourhood.
[QUOTE=WhatTheKlent;24716476]Taxes pay for policing, which keeps those brown people from getting into your neighbourhood.[/QUOTE] Note: "High Taxes" [editline]02:39PM[/editline] in other words, being taxed more than is needed to provide for local services
You have enough food to eat, shelter, clothing and access to an international network of computers. Your percieved persecution is laughable.
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy18;24716049]You're obviously not a middle class citizen.[/QUOTE] You just don't understand how money works. One day. The government doesn't just take money and throw it down the toilet.. usually.. The government is also not out to make a profit, they charge you what they need to. Things like insurance companies charge you as much as they can while you're still willing to pay.
[QUOTE=WhatTheKlent;24716574]You have enough food to eat, shelter, clothing and access to an international network of computers. Your percieved persecution is laughable.[/QUOTE] But most middle class citizens have tons of debt.
[QUOTE=WhatTheKlent;24716476]Taxes pay for policing, which keeps those brown people from getting into your neighbourhood.[/QUOTE] That was very ignorant troll get out. [editline]01:34PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Wayword;24716667]You just don't understand how money works. One day. The government doesn't just take money and throw it down the toilet.. usually.. The government is also not out to make a profit, they charge you what they need to. Things like insurance companies charge you as much as they can while you're still willing to pay.[/QUOTE] That is so fucking true....
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.