I will grant you this Tirk.....the influence of money in politics is corrupting as hell. citizens united decision has only made it worse. it will be difficult to get rid of citizens united because of the money that is involved.
I believe good people start out in politics but they dont end up that way. absolute power corrupts absolutely.
you are just repeating something you heard. again, good policy is more important than good voter turnout. explain to me again why it is smart to encourage people to vote. it is smart to encourage people to vote if they agree with you.
Again the things you are saying do not tie out. You want everyone to pay more and you want the tax burden to be distibuted evenly. Those things are mutually exclusive. To see that happen the rich would have to get massive tax cuts while the poor and middle class would see massive tax heights. By every measure rich guys pay more. More in raw dollars, higher effective rates, a larger percentage of the tax burden. This reduces the value of what you are saying. You aren't speaking with any awareness of the situation. You are spitting the politics of envy. We also didn't have 12 years of runaway government spending to deal with. We didn't have deficits that were 22% of GDP. We didn't have Medicare Part D and the 2 trillion dollar unfunded liability that is Obamacare. To say raising taxes will work now because it is how we were then ignores all the changes that have occured in the past 12 years. Do you forget how terrible George Bush was? Do you not realize Obama is Bush on steroids? Again, to spout crap like this displays an ignorance of how our tax system works. The middle class are not taxed more heavily to offset taxes not paid by the rich. The real questions is why do we bust our britches so, McDonald's employees can receive an earned income credit?
I disagree with this, I think the accumulation of power breeds corruption. A large accumulation of money frequently equals power - which breeds corruption. Our current system has resulted in accumulation centers of money in New York and a couple of other lesser financial centers, and a large accumulation of power in DC. They are both centers of corruption and you have to compromise integrity a little bit to get a head in either one. On the corruption subject it's really hard to tell the difference between an Ass and a Dumbo.
When only fifty percent of the electorate bother to vote at all for the person who will hold the most power in our government, it's not like the argument FOR voting is mainstream and you are offering something rare and new by suggesting otherwise. You opinion is very much in line with the current Republican party line. The thing is, if you are so sure that your ideas are better than the other guys, why do you need to pull out all the stops to ensure that votes are suppresed? Why can't you see that this is a threat to the democratic process?
Nonsense. If you raise the effective tax rate on everyone, then everyone pays more. Why is this so hard for you to understand? It is very funny that you accuse me of spitting the politics of envy. I have profited heavily from the Bush Tax Cuts. When you defend tax cuts for the rich, you are defending tax cuts for me. When I talk about raising effective tax rates on everyone it includes me. I understand that it is good for the country and that it will eventually help to increase my customer base which will only help my business and line my pockets with more cash. I speak with far more awareness of many of these situations than you think. I am not a boastful person so I have always been hesitant to bring this up but enough is enough. This isn't class warfare any more than it was class warfare when these tax cuts were administered with a heavy slant toward the wealthy "job creators." You need to understand this. Jobs aren't being created right now because demand is low, not because they are over burdened by government. Business owners, at least the ones who I talk to, watch the unemployment numbers more closely than the market because they understand that customers are the life blood of any business. Oh yes we did. Reagan started spending in 1980 when he took office, ramping up defense spending to an obscene level and it didn't end until 1992 when Clinton, working with the Republican congress, took the initiative to tackle the issue. I agree with you about deficits but here is what happened: Balanced budget and surplus in 2000. Bush Tax Cuts part one, Bush Tax Cuts part two, Medicare part D and two wars created a trillion dollar deficit. Both parties are to blame because they both voted for every bit of that shit. Obama takes office in 2009 and the economy is shedding 750,000 jobs per month, he inherits the remaining half of TARP, unemployment rising at an alarming clip (7.8% up from 5% from only a year before with no end in sight), rising medical costs, blah, blah, blah.....you were there too. Obamacare, at least right now, looks like it will add to the deficit so Obama's hands are not completely clean. that being said, that money could have been better spent on infrastructure that is needed and honest to God offered shovel ready jobs. Long story short, we are in a very similar position that we were in 1992. The only difference being that in 1992 we had better leadership on both sides of the aisle who put aside their differences (and Lord knows they had them) and made some legislative accomplishments that were good for the country. In defense of Obama, the spending could not have been turned off due to the frailty of the economy at the time so we essentially had no other choice but to continue spending until we can get the private sector thriving again. While ugly and unpopular, it has been the difference between our economy now versus the European economy now. Remember that the Europeans tried austerity measures first and you see what it got them. Do we need to start putting ourselves on the course to deficit reduction as we crawl out of this recession? Absolutely! Not at all my friend. In fact I have a crystal clear understanding of how our tax system works. I never said the middle class were taxed more heavily to offset taxes not paid by the rich. What I said was why do you defend a system that protects tax cuts for the wealthy over the middle class? Your point about tax credits for low income earners is one that should indeed be debated too. The entire tax code should be up for consideration while we are at it, and should also include tax reform for corporate tax rates to make us more attractive to international businesses.
kluke, there a very, very few people who ever attain power without first amassing money. We are capitalists so we measure success, and therefore ascension to power, by how much wealth one has built. I am not defending this but it is what it is. I agree with your statement. Money has been a corrupting factor on all levels of our government and on both sides of the aisle.
My opinion has nothing to do with either party. Both will try to suppress turnout if it benefits their candidate. That's rational if they want to win. If there were ten voters and 6 opposed you, but four of them didn't want to vote, would you encourage them to vote? Why? Because you don't want your policies enacted? Do you actually care about policy, or do u care about simulating a democracy the way you imagine it? Again, what is the value of high turnout? The end all goal is good policy!
What good will that do? Outline it for us. So if jobs aren't being created, what will higher taxes do? Then why do you support Obama, his only solution is to raise taxes....
