3 of 4
3
DNC 2012 -  Wow!
Posted: 09 September 2012 09:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3052
Joined  2011-11-04
asanta - 07 September 2012 08:53 PM
CuthbertJ - 06 September 2012 10:17 AM

  Report back in one year, after Obama gets re-elected.  See if even one thing from any of the grand speeches comes true.

The DNC speeches inspired me, the RNC speeches terrified me. If the GOP gets the presidency, I would hope NONE of his promises are kept.

For instance, they promise to end Obamacare on Day1. The affordable health care act was a remarkable promise that Obama kept (that no other President before was able to accomplish). This was not the thing to do if he wanted to be assured to have a 2nd term.  It was the right thing to do. But it was also critical to the economy going forward,  Health care costs were rising exponentially and would have, left unchecked, by themselves, eventually caused the economy to collapse.

Romney/Ryan ending Obamacare would not only cause chaos in the healthcare industry, it would throw us back to the wolves of a disorganized system of healthcare guided only by profit.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 September 2012 01:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5550
Joined  2010-06-16

I predict that if Romney gets elected along with a Republican Congress, we’ll be back to 1929.  That means eight years of real suffering and Democratic presidents for the next twenty years.  The only problem would be a 7 to 2 reactionary/conservative Supreme Court.  Who knows, they may block so much useful legislation that the people pass a Constitutional Amendment to limit the terms of the Justices starting with those already appointed.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 September 2012 12:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2158
Joined  2007-04-26
CuthbertJ - 07 September 2012 10:37 AM
macgyver - 06 September 2012 12:34 PM

...There are only three relevant questions when you evaluate this process.
1) Does the electorate have accurate information and the tools to choose the best leader
2) Does the electorate have the power to enact their choice
3) Is there a better system you can think of for choosing our leaders and if so what?
...

1) Not by any means. If you listen to any two knowledgeable political debaters, the discussion always boils down to Person 1 says A, and A is the absolute truth supported by the facts. And Person 2 says, no actually it’s Not-A, and Not-A is the absolute truth supported by the facts. And each will have a whole list of facts, supported by a whole list of experts. I’ve listened to a zillion such conversations. Point is, if two experts can come to the exact opposite conclusions, based on the facts, no ordinary person will be able to do so ESPECIALLY when there are so so many issues to think about. They may think they figured it out, but they didn’t.  I think political organizations realize this and therefore focus on all the feel good crap and nice speeches to win votes.

2) Not at all. At some point they have to vote. There’s a concerted effort to suppress the vote and to steal elections. Very few people even know this yet alone feel empowered to fight it. And with electronic voting machines it’s even easier to bypass whatever efforts were made to “get out the vote”.

3) A system where all parties are welcome, not ruled out by the scheming of the DNC and RNC. A system where only 2 or 3 months of campaigning are allowed. A system where a set dollar figure is given to each candidate. A system where information is vetted by a neutral 3rd party that all parties agree is neutral.

Point is, there comes a point where you can’t honestly say “gee our system sucks but it’s better than anything else”.

1) I completely disagree with this statement. Are you really telling me that you can’t figure out what a politicians opinion is on a particular issue? Of course you don’t know the details about how he would handle this or that but he probably doesn’t know that either until he is faced with the decision. All you can realistically expect is to have a rough idea of how the politician looks at the issues and how he has handled similar decisions in the past. All that information is out there if everyone would stop taking the easy way out by listening to the self proclaimed experts on MSNBC and Fox news. You just need to do your homework.

2) There is absolutely no one stopping anyone from going to the polls. Any claim that it has been made too difficult for one reason or another is just plain ludicrous. There are places in the world where people risk their lives to vote but half the population here can’t take 5 minutes out of their busy day to do it because its just not convenient or they have some lame excuse like ” My vote doesnt make a difference”..and it wont if you never exercise your right to use it. Unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud or other shenanigans are all the more reason to get out there and use your vote It easier to steal an election if only a handful of people are voting. Much harder to do so when everyone is using their voice.

3) All parties ARE welcome by the system as it exists. Its the American people who are unwilling to accept a third party candidate because they are happy to take the easy way out and get their information from commercials and pundits instead of taking the time to research things themselves. I agree that it would probably be better if we had a system where enormous sums of money were not needed to run for office but the devil is always in the details. Its not as easy as you think to make this work. how do we decide who we give campaign funds to. Can ANYONE apply and run. Are we going to fund psychotic megalomaniacs who decide they would like to run for office Do we put a limit on the number of candidates so as not to overwhelm the system with too many voices? Who decides what candidates are worthy then?

It would be nice if the campaign season was shorter but how in the word would you control that? Are you going to stop anyone from commenting on the election in any situation? Think about it. It would be nearly impossible to do. You would have to completely trample the bill of rights to make that work.

In theory it sounds great to have a 3rd party vet all information but there is no one who is completely neutral and I can guarantee that both parties would be crying foul over every decision that is made. Even if they agreed to this what wold stop others from making statements that are not cleared by this committee? Again, free speech issues would be insurmountable.

I’m not saying our system is perfect by any means but there are no easy solutions. Read my signature. That doesn’t mean we can’t try to make it better but complaining never fixes anything unless you can come up with a better idea.

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 September 2012 09:18 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  4
Joined  2012-09-14

Did the DNC say they were going to help this?  Let us here your opinions…. Today’s survey: Obama’s 2013 budget proposes over $1.3 Trillion ($1,300,000,000,000) dollars which continues to increase our deficit. This continues to explode beyond the total earning capability of the 1%, 2% or 99% of the population. Should Obama be reelected in 2012? http://tinyurl.com/6ojgpz6

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 September 2012 09:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15354
Joined  2006-02-14
WeThePeopleUSA - 18 September 2012 09:18 AM

Did the DNC say they were going to help this?  Let us here your opinions…. Today’s survey: Obama’s 2013 budget proposes over $1.3 Trillion ($1,300,000,000,000) dollars which continues to increase our deficit. This continues to explode beyond the total earning capability of the 1%, 2% or 99% of the population. Should Obama be reelected in 2012? http://tinyurl.com/6ojgpz6

WTPUSA, this is a forum for discussion and inquiry, not for posting blind links to surveys. Linkspam is against the rules here, and continued efforts in that regard will lead to banning. Thanks.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 September 2012 11:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5550
Joined  2010-06-16
WeThePeopleUSA - 18 September 2012 09:18 AM

Today’s survey: Obama’s 2013 budget proposes over $1.3 Trillion ($1,300,000,000,000) dollars which continues to increase our deficit. This continues to explode beyond the total earning capability of the 1%, 2% or 99% of the population. Should Obama be reelected in 2012?

A good part of that budget is to start paying back the huge loans the Bush administration took out for their wars.  No, it’s not beyond the income and equity of the 1%.  If we had a decent progressive income tax system without all those unethical, clever deductions that help that 1% avoid paying even close to their fair share of taxes, we wouldn’t be in the trouble we are in now.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 September 2012 11:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3052
Joined  2011-11-04
WeThePeopleUSA - 18 September 2012 09:18 AM

Did the DNC say they were going to help this?  Let us here your opinions…. Today’s survey: Obama’s 2013 budget proposes over $1.3 Trillion ($1,300,000,000,000) dollars which continues to increase our deficit. This continues to explode beyond the total earning capability of the 1%, 2% or 99% of the population. Should Obama be reelected in 2012? http://tinyurl.com/6ojgpz6

 


Yes, Obama should be reelected in 2012.

And the alternative is a lot scarier than trillions of dollars of national debt.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 September 2012 11:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5550
Joined  2010-06-16

Right, Tim.  It would also mean trillions of dollars of personal debt for us 99%ers.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 September 2012 03:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3092
Joined  2011-08-15

Of course, the 47% of us who don’t actually pay taxes will probably vote for Obama anyway, according to Romney. So why bother to show up at the polls? The 10% who are undecided wil be inundated with pro-Romney literature in the mail. Also, it’s good to be Latino? Whatever that means. Not That there’s anything wrong with being Latino. There’s an implication in there somewhere.

Cap’t Jack

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 September 2012 04:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

I alsmot feel sorry for Romney. Almost.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 September 2012 04:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
Occam. - 18 September 2012 11:21 AM
WeThePeopleUSA - 18 September 2012 09:18 AM

Today’s survey: Obama’s 2013 budget proposes over $1.3 Trillion ($1,300,000,000,000) dollars which continues to increase our deficit. This continues to explode beyond the total earning capability of the 1%, 2% or 99% of the population. Should Obama be reelected in 2012?

A good part of that budget is to start paying back the huge loans the Bush administration took out for their wars.  No, it’s not beyond the income and equity of the 1%.  If we had a decent progressive income tax system without all those unethical, clever deductions that help that 1% avoid paying even close to their fair share of taxes, we wouldn’t be in the trouble we are in now.

Occam

Tables for effective tax rates (from the Congressional Budget Office)
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/12-11-historicaltaxrates.pdf

Distribution of federal taxes by income quintiles
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43373-AverageTaxRates_screen.pdf

If anybody has trouble taking it from here, give me a holler (pm will do).

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 September 2012 07:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3052
Joined  2011-11-04
Thevillageatheist - 18 September 2012 03:59 PM

Of course, the 47% of us who don’t actually pay taxes will probably vote for Obama anyway, according to Romney. So why bother to show up at the polls? The 10% who are undecided wil be inundated with pro-Romney literature in the mail. Also, it’s good to be Latino? Whatever that means. Not That there’s anything wrong with being Latino. There’s an implication in there somewhere.

Cap’t Jack

I’m guess-timating that close to 40% of households in the US, have incomes of $36,000 or less (and probably pay no federal income taxes) and of those, close to 40% are Romney supporters.  So Romney seems to have given the big middle finger to a large part of his constituency.

[ Edited: 18 September 2012 07:10 PM by TimB ]
 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 September 2012 12:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6011
Joined  2009-02-26

What is this ridiculous notion that 47% of the population pay no federal (income) taxes. What are payroll taxes?  They don’t count?  Actually the rate of FEDERAL payroll taxes on earned income are higher than federal taxes on unearned income.  Thus when you work for your income, you pay relatively more than when your income is unearned.  The rate for payroll taxes is a little more than 15%. What was Romney’s rate on the record he released? 14.6 ? And that was on income he declared, not his total income, part of which sits in tax free off-shore shelters.

The actual percentage of people who do not pay any federal taxes is less than 20% and that figure includes some millionaires.

[ Edited: 19 September 2012 12:28 AM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 September 2012 12:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
Write4U - 19 September 2012 12:16 AM

What is this ridiculous notion that 47% of the population pay no federal (income) taxes. What are payroll taxes?  They don’t count?

They don’t count as income taxes, no.  Your income tax is computed as a percentage of your taxable income.  Your payroll tax comes out of your gross pay as a percentage up to a set limit.  But it’s refreshing to see you call payroll taxes a tax.  Many progressives like to euphemistically call the taxes an insurance premium.  Okay, fine.  It’s still a tax, and all the more so if they lift the cap on the payroll tax (as though making more money increases the risk of needing money for retirement).

Actually the rate of FEDERAL payroll taxes on earned income are higher than federal taxes on unearned income.

You mean the income tax is higher than the tax rate on unearned income, right?  The payroll taxes combined are considerably less than 15 percent.  Also don’t forget that the income tax system is based on marginal rates.  So nobody’s taxed on earned income below the amount of the standard deduction.

Thus when you work for your income, you pay relatively more than when your income is unearned.  The rate for payroll taxes is a little more than 15%. What was Romney’s rate on the record he released? 14.6 ? And that was on income he declared, not his total income, part of which sits in tax free off-shore shelters.

Bad math.  The effective federal tax rates on the higher income groups is actually well over 20 percent, based on figuring in the effects of corporate taxes (the CBO did a study; if you can’t find it easily ask me and I’ll provide the link).  The more people make (which tends to make them rely more on investment income), the higher the effective tax rate.

The actual percentage of people who do not pay any federal taxes is less than 20% and that figure includes some millionaires.

Federal taxes include things like excise taxes on gasoline.  Few people will escape that unless they’re receiving a net gain on their taxes.  The latter occurs because our government has figured out how to turn the tax system into a wealth redistribution program without enlisting any federal agency other than the IRS.

Bottom line:  Higher income quintiles pay much higher effective federal tax rates than the lower quintiles.  The talking point about Romney paying a lower effective tax rate than the average American is false.

http://www.justfactsdaily.com/factcheck-abets-false-obama-claim-about-romneys-taxes

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 September 2012 01:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6011
Joined  2009-02-26

I am not trying to argue that in principle higher income people do not pay higher rates.

I am curious to know why there are about 7000 millionaires who do not pay federal income tax. Apparently they have managed to become recipients of this wealth distribution program.

From Mother Jones,
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/charts-47-percent-romney-tax-data

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 4
3