More USA political questions
- Thread starter Keith1
- Start date
No I am not suggesting anything of the sort, my suggestion would be that everybody pay a little something whether it be $100 or $1000, that way if you raise taxes it affects everybody even if in a small manner.
Right now we have, tax thee, tax he, tax him behind the tree but dont tax me.
A system where 53% of the people do not pay in, but are happy to vote that others pay more while they get more benefits is not equitable, nor apparently is it economialy sustainable. But it does get votes.
Fortunatly I have faith in the basic common sense of the voting public. Kool aid libs excluded, 70% by poll see governement debt and raisng the ceiling as the huge problem facing the country. However the rest of Republican/Tea Party platform is so offensive to the larger public that they cannot bring themselvs to vote that way. Specificaly the anti abortion(anti women) anti gay, anti immigration(anti hispanic 30% of the vote) politcies just alienate too many people. And even if the republicanbs were in would they really spend less, history says no.
There are also kool aid drinkers(30%) who think that large deficits dont matter to a country or we just need to tax more. In reality must we go all the way down the line like europe to learn that chronic deficits lead to statal bankrupcy and the undoing of whatever good the policies which drove deficts accomplihed. Taxing more as done in the usa today leads to the destruction of small and medium buisness, economic vibrancy enbtreperneurship etc, and the growth of large ossified corporate stuctures as in say france.
The solution is a system proposed by thinkers in both parties. A vastly simplified tax code, with minimal if any loopholes.A graduated system with two rates 10% and 25%. At worst this is revenue neutral, however the economic growth makes it extremly positive. So gov gets more money from growth, not from growth destroying tax overburden on the middle and upper middle class.
Current system taxes the middle and upper middle, the lower middele, corporations and capital class pay low to no rates. The lower middle on down are votes for free stuff, and the corporations and capital class are $$$ for the politicians through lobbyists, so the 47% end up paying, its wrong and unsustainable.
There also needs to be a comitemnt to balancing the budget. I can see deficit during a recession and during war, but otherise the system must be balanced. The alternative will one day be forced auterity, and then all those things people voted for wont be there anyway.
So applying your terms, reasoning, labeling etc "Politely" using the term "conservatism" for "fascism" is not dissimilar...... you know the rest.
Which is plainly a ridiculous sound bite as they are poles apart, Mrs Thatcher plus a few in the paddock excepted
Nick, how about "Big Government" for "Fascism?" Then we have the "Micromanagement" for "Totalitarianism."
Keith, I'm linking Big Government with Fascism. 'Dolph had quite the big governmental machine, with eyes and ears everywhere.
My Grandfather was arrested in those days for saying, "I shit on the Third Reich."
Now Micromanagement should be linked to Totalitarianism quite logically.
Well, it's certainly at the extreme end of the scale for sure - as in the 1984 end. We have a certain amount, well actually quite a lot of 'big government' here in the UK, but I would hardly compare it with Stalinism or National Socialism.
To do that is an extremist view in itself.
How about a voting system based on status. A vote say worth 10 points coming from the high earners/tax payers diminishing to 1 point for the low paid. That way the ones paying the most in have the biggest shout.:lipsrsealed:
Bob
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Yes, that should keep the power with the white males just like founding fathers intended!
I think respect for law and a system of governement is paramount. What you suggest is undermining the very principles of the constitution and democracy. It is also a recipe for social disharmony and unrest. I dont think there is any planet where sucha suggestion is applicable.
What i sueggest is everyone have some skin in the tax game. Ie even if youa re at 20k per uear, pay $100 in taxes, that way the principles of increases are fairlly applicable to everyone.
Frankly Jim even if you are responding to something undemocratic, your statement is a childish comment indicative of the snyde arrogance of the left.
The founding fathers most certainly did not intend the country to be white males. They left a constitution and a supreme court that has ably changed those historic wrongs. The fathers also did not intend the country to be ruled by or other set of religious dogma. Nor did they plan for a syustem of government overeach. Theur definition of liberty would be shocjed by NSA taps and any number of other intrusions for the "greater good"
As soon a s people actualy respect our sustem of governemnt and stop playing pick and choose or winner takres all the better off we will be. Frankly this inercene political garnstanding is unbecoming a 3rd word quasi state, let alone the leading light of democracy and fairness.
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Sean, did they teach history when you were in school?
The founding fathers most certainly intended the country to be run by male land owners! They did leave a constitution and a supreme court that could and has ably changed those historic wrongs.
Bobs post suggested a way to reinstate those historic wrongs!
Sean seems to think that pointing that out is "a childish comment indicative of the snyde arrogance of the left"..........................really?
There they go again, those arrogant lefties trying to keep the power from the wealthy few!
Last edited:
Hey, I didn't state if I consider myself fit to vote. I am most definitely not vote-worthy. I just like criticising stuff from my comfy chair. What. :thumbsup:
No there you go, trying to tie a retrograde comment to everything that is not the left.
As it happens the founding fathers were writing in their time, that is why women did not have the vote and there were slaves. Could the constitution then have been passed with those things changed, doubtful. But when the founding fatehers speak of the inaleinable rights of man, they dont speak of or veen intend white men, they refer to all mankind. I think they well understood this, that si why they created a supremem court so the constitution would not be static and that with time its principles would gain universal acceptance.
By insulting the founding father you eseentialy insult the constitution, a document which most recently reckognised gay right to marry, through a mechanism devised to fulfill such a purpose by the founding fathers..
I think when it comes to social issues the founding fathers would be very proud of what we have wrought some 200+ years later. When it comes to goverment overerach I think they would remind us of the purpose behind the origional tea party, as well as search and sezuire, militarised police etc.
I am not saying anyones right to vote should be suspended, at all.
I am saying that just like obamacare has a fine if you dont buy insurance, we need a code that everybody below say age 67 earning an amount of lets sat 5k or more, pays a minimal amount, lets say tax $100 or more depending on earning.
Hell its illegal to be a citizen and of working age and not file a tax return already. If you earn no matter how minimal you must pay something, no matter how minial, that way if taxes go up, it affects you too, thats all I am saying. If we are in it together then we are all in it together.
Think of the obamacare example, everybody has to pay in, and if you dont youa re fined. The principle is you may get discounts and subsidies but youa re using a servive and must contribute. Should the same not be applicable to taxes in general.
How do you work that out? Why should the power be with white males using that kind of system. How did you arrive at that assumption - I'm not naysaying it - I would like to understand the thought process.
If land ownership were a qualifier, there'd be a lot of non citizens voting in this country. Of course, even without changing any laws there already are a lot of non citizens, felons, and dead people voting in this country. You racist bastards keep demanding valid I.D. to vote, but it will never happen!
Also a warning, if you don't go along with "the Founding Fathers were slave owners so the Constitution is irrelevant," you are labeled a "Revisionist" by the "Fundamentally Changed Americans."
Also a warning, if you don't go along with "the Founding Fathers were slave owners so the Constitution is irrelevant," you are labeled a "Revisionist" by the "Fundamentally Changed Americans."
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
So let me see, most of the richest folks here in the USA made most of their billions and billions by paying many of their employees so little that they do not make enough to pay income taxes.
Now you want to use that to keep them from voting?..............really?
You guy keep coming up with good ways to punish people who do not get paid a living wage and keep the power with the wealthy!
****************
How about this, why don't we pay everyone enough to where the do pay taxes, that way maybe they could even purchase some of the products they sell. Win, Win!
Now if the very rich refuse pay their employees enough to pay taxes, then the very rich need to make up the difference, its that simple!
Last edited:
