What's Your Political Party? page 12

I’d feel personally beholden to it. But as a general standard, no. I consider accessible as an adult decision, potentially with government support, and not something that a parent by nature has to provide (unlike, say, food.)

So, if higher education is not included in that, and perhaps by the same definition not under “basic living requirements”, then I guess that’s in line with what you’re saying in further paragraphs. Disagreed, of course, but no comments here.

That shitty cashier job after school. With that job. Can take a while… Hey only takes nine years of minimum wages to pay for harvard

I guess this is in line with your further comments about how “unfairness is part of the world” and I’m thinking you’re arguing none of that should even be tried to be solved?

You did mention widening the definition, may have to have you expound on that.

I believe if we work on it, we are capable of increasing basic living requirements for everyone and widen the definition itself. You may think of it as food, water, and shelter, but proper health care, reasonable transportation and higher education may eventually be part of it as well. Doing as such will lessen the gap between rich and poor on environmental factors which have nothing to do with the skills of the person.

I’ve known people who have achieved and earned their way on their own laurels.

Not to discredit your father, but case studies are just that, case studies. I’m curious, though, did he have to go through your supposed nine years of being a cashier to earn enough money for Harvard (or less if going to a less known school) or did he get lucky somewhere? If yes, then you’ll know it is quite a long time to be finally capable of higher-paying jobs opposed to a rich person being capable of it immediately. But again, this is the unfairness you’ve been advocating. What I advocate is to remove that unfairness and create actual equal opportunity.

I dislike the idea of taxing the rich more.

Without being arbitrary, I do believe you’re suggesting either a flat tax rate, or none at all. In the latter case, I don’t think we should further discuss this subject as it belongs somewhere else. In the former, you do realise that in order to keep the government income balanced you would have to heavily tax the poor (the rich will not feel the effect of flat tax)? You think you’re taxing the rich more by having a progressive tax, but in reality you’re taxing the poor more with a flat tax. And, by doing so, you’re not only increasing the gap between poor and rich, you’re supporting it. Is that what you really want?

I would say tax change is at its nature the violent seizure of good for redistribution.

So, once more, do you support flat tax or progressive?

This is I do agree with. It allows the freedom of opting out. By it’s nature keeps things quite elegantly proportionate. A general luxury tax with exemptions on “need” level items makes good sense.

I generally support this even without talking about the poor/rich gap, as I don’t see why we should be taxing basic living requirements at all. A tax on cigarettes is to make people buy them less. Why tax milk and cheese? They should have no taxes or even be funded by the government. Luxurious cars could be taxed much more due to the facts I’ve described:

1. Rich people won’t care.
2. Poorer people will think twice to buy something so expensive.
3. It promotes the cars with a “healthier” output for nature (of course, taxes on those cars should be lower, but still much higher than more required goods).

I guess this is in line with your further comments about how “unfairness is part of the world” and I’m thinking you’re arguing none of that should even be tried to be solved?

I’d rather teach them happiness within their limits then to use mob violence to satisfy their wants.

I believe if we work on it, we are capable of increasing basic living requirements for everyone and widen the definition itself. You may think of it as food, water, and shelter, but proper health care, reasonable transportation and higher education may eventually be part of it as well. Doing as such will lessen the gap between rich and poor on environmental factors which have nothing to do with the skills of the person.

Outside of health care I am not sure I could call those “basic living requirements”. They seem like good things, I enjoy those myself and see them as worthwhile projects for a state to bring it’s citizenry. But put to praxis I can’t justify the state extorting the wealthy by force to bring this about.

Not to discredit your father, but case studies are just that, case studies. I’m curious, though, did he have to go through your supposed nine years of being a cashier to earn enough money for Harvard (or less if going to a less known school) or did he get lucky somewhere? If yes, then you’ll know it is quite a long time to be finally capable of higher-paying jobs opposed to a rich person being capable of it immediately. But again, this is the unfairness you’ve been advocating. What I advocate is to remove that unfairness and create actual equal opportunity.

(As an aside, that calc was for Michigan minimum wage, full time employment, no outside expenses. So if you plan on sleeping or eating in those nine years it gets considerably longer. Anywho.)

How much retail or general grunt work he did I can’t exactly put a finger on. I know he did some, for what that is worth. He had eleven siblings so although my grandfathers investments left him fairly well to do he could not afford to significantly pay any of the childrens way. My father went to a provincial university, significantly cheaper then Harvard, (modern tuition there runs about 9K a year.) took out a series of loans and sold drugs.

As for myself I pay about 5K in tuition a year plus another couple for supplies at my specialty college when I attend and have been working on and off in various grunt jobs for about seven years now. Slow going, but I have only one semester left before my degree. Hurrah.

I’m all for making education more affordable. But those funds have to come from somewhere, at some means, which is where I encounter problems.

What I advocate is to remove that unfairness and create actual equal opportunity.

To pin in on that. I am not against Equal Opportunity as a concept. It is, to me, the corner stone of true liberty and something I feel I support quite strongly (ha). But, this isn’t a magic wand solution. Removing unfairness will be a series of very real acts, undertaken by some authority, through some implementation. As they say, the Devil is in the details and that is where I start shrinking away from this solution.

Without being arbitrary, I do believe you’re suggesting either a flat tax rate, or none at all. In the latter case, I don’t think we should further discuss this subject as it belongs somewhere else. In the former, you do realise that in order to keep the government income balanced you would have to heavily tax the poor (the rich will not feel the effect of flat tax)? You think you’re taxing the rich more by having a progressive tax, but in reality you’re taxing the poor more with a flat tax. And, by doing so, you’re not only increasing the gap between poor and rich, you’re supporting it. Is that what you really want?

Granted. Perhaps necessity demands it. It feels morally… off, to me. But, if, necessary to guarantee the basic living rights and some freedoms to the working class I would still call it just. Steepening it seems to me now perhaps unnecessary (massive government debt aside.)

I feel we may be too dependent on federal implementation and representation. If a flat tax buries most everyone then there is something deeply flawed. But that is, another conversation. Ultimately I still taxes as seizure by force… and am very leery to commit violence to redistribute wealth unless neccessary. I’ll have to reflect on this some.

I generally support this even without talking about the poor/rich gap, as I don’t see why we should be taxing basic living requirements at all. A tax on cigarettes is to make people buy them less. Why tax milk and cheese? They should have no taxes or even be funded by the government. Luxurious cars could be taxed much more due to the facts I’ve described:
1. Rich people won’t care.
2. Poorer people will think twice to buy something so expensive.
3. It promotes the cars with a “healthier” output for nature (of course, taxes on those cars should be lower, but still much higher than more required goods).

Generally I agree. This is actually one of the things that drove me up the wall on the “cash for clunkers program”. We had a government sponsored program to destroy lower class utility items (old cars) to artificially subsidize middle to upper class luxury items (new cars).

I’m not too pleased with the current tax rates on cigarettes, but hell, they’re still within my means so I guess they could be worse. Being a self destructive luxury item I’d rather have them taxed then milk. Sadly not of the Chosen Race of Canada myself or I could get them without the taxes for 3 bucks instead of bloody 12. Griping aside, I’ve been enjoying this conversation with you Dark, thanks for talking.

I’d rather teach them happiness within their limits then to use mob violence to satisfy their wants.

No, no, no, that’s my problem with the assumption of taking the status quo as the “good, default position to be in”. At some point in time certain nations began hoarding resources and others were subdued. Slaves were forced to export their goods to the richer nations. In time, this devastated the poor nations and tremendously aided the rich nations. This never got changed back and is now thought of as the normal state everyone should work from. That’s, of course, ridiculous. I naturally agree you can’t easily change that back, but this kind of thinking assumes that this “mob violence” you speak of (which is nowhere near I would suggest) is any worse than what happened before. It is projecting that even though the rich got at their spot due to abusing the poor, they can shout from their top position that the poor can’t do the same.

But put to praxis I can’t justify the state extorting the wealthy by force to bring this about.

I’m still confused on what you mean by “force”. Taxes already happen. There’s no sudden or radical change needed. Increasing taxes for the rich and reducing them for the poor slowly (as long as you make clear why) doesn’t hurt. If you mean that you may disagree with taxes at all, that’s for another topic.

I’m all for making education more affordable. But those funds have to come from somewhere, at some means, which is where I encounter problems.

Removing unfairness will be a series of very real acts, undertaken by some authority, through some implementation.

It’s tough. You won’t say next year “well done, all unfairness is now gone”. There isn’t a single solution to this, as you said. It requires some heavy stuff. I’m certain the government in some way would want this to happen, but the problem is they might be focused on the short term. That is something to change.

But, if, necessary to guarantee the basic living rights and some freedoms to the working class I would still call it just.

More just than progressive? Progressive would at least just as much, and almost certainly more, guarantee basic living rights (and freedoms).

If a flat tax buries most everyone then there is something deeply flawed.

No, flat tax, when equalised according to how it would be in progressive tax, buries the poor (if I’m reading you right) and the rich barely even feel it. But that’s aside from the discussion too.

Ultimately I still taxes as seizure by force… and am very leery to commit violence to redistribute wealth unless neccessary. I’ll have to reflect on this some.

Yes, but as I said that’s for another topic. There are those that feel there should be no taxes at all, in which case we’d have to go another route. If you wish, we can, but at first I think it’s easier to discuss this the tax-way.

Griping aside, I’ve been enjoying this conversation with you Dark, thanks for talking.

You too.

No, no, no, that’s my problem with the assumption of taking the status quo as the “good, default position to be in”. At some point in time certain nations began hoarding resources and others were subdued. Slaves were forced to export their goods to the richer nations. In time, this devastated the poor nations and tremendously aided the rich nations. This never got changed back and is now thought of as the normal state everyone should work from. That’s, of course, ridiculous. I naturally agree you can’t easily change that back, but this kind of thinking assumes that this “mob violence” you speak of (which is nowhere near I would suggest) is any worse than what happened before. It is projecting that even though the rich got at their spot due to abusing the poor, they can shout from their top position that the poor can’t do the same.

Two wrongs don’t make a right Dark, especially after everyone initially involved is dead. The rich don’t carry the ancient blood guilt of old white guys on their hands, they’re just born lucky, as some are born unlucky. I’m such some rich people have certainly personally acquired their wealth by abuse, but I couldn’t typify them all as such.

As for the mob violence, it is implicit. Say we tax them more, and they say no? Then what happens? The police would inflict as much violence upon them as is necessary to ensure their capitulation and/or incarceration.

I’m still confused on what you mean by “force”. Taxes already happen. There’s no sudden or radical change needed. Increasing taxes for the rich and reducing them for the poor slowly (as long as you make clear why) doesn’t hurt. If you mean that you may disagree with taxes at all, that’s for another topic.

Taxes do already happen. Under force, of course. I am leery, tremendously so, to justify expanding that. I find the mass seizure of goods under threat of violence a weird thing. It’s pretty common, it has it’s upsides, but there is a tremendous glib candor to which the whole operation is carried out.

I don’t disagree with taxes at all. I believe we all as a citizens of a state, are enriched by our collective, and must pay to ensure the progression of these in turns. I’m not super thrilled with the way it is handled currently. Or that it is a jail able offense.

It’s tough. You won’t say next year “well done, all unfairness is now gone”. There isn’t a single solution to this, as you said. It requires some heavy stuff. I’m certain the government in some way would want this to happen, but the problem is they might be focused on the short term. That is something to change.

Despite anything they may say to the contrary I’ve come to the belief that the government is incredibly focused upon the short term. I feel we need value shifts, not legal shifts. Charity, patronage, the idea of the luxury of investment have died out in modern culture. The rich used to drive culture and take pride in their role as financiers. The Medici family funded half the bloody Renaissance.

More just than progressive? Progressive would at least just as much, and almost certainly more, guarantee basic living rights (and freedoms).

I was about to chide on creating equality of opportunity not just what people want. But, I think you may be right in that regard. The expansion of equality of opportunity. What that is worth, end and means. I’m still… unsettled in that regard. But I’ll continue to fence sit on that.

Yes, but as I said that’s for another topic. There are those that feel there should be no taxes at all, in which case we’d have to go another route. If you wish, we can, but at first I think it’s easier to discuss this the tax-way.

I’m not a pacifist. I don’t condone all force. Just most of it, most of the time. I’d have to feel pretty staunchly adamant about the purpose of an expansion of taxes. I feel taxing is treated too lightly in general, it is some serious business. It should be considered heavy and dangerous, morally ambiguous, full of gravitas. It is seizure by force. To my mind at least.

The rich don’t carry the ancient blood guilt of old white guys on their hands, they’re just born lucky, as some are born unlucky.

While I disagree it should be like that, I’m not stating we should seize half the income of every rich person and reimplement equality. Your vision here is not endangered if, slowly, we move to reduce the gap between rich and poor. The next rich person to be born will be in the status quo at that time, which is having less money than a rich person born 50 years earlier. His son will be born in the status quo of that time, having even less. I don’t necessarily condone just taking the money and leave, but certainly there are, for example, ways through taxing to focus on the concept of equality again.

As for the mob violence, it is implicit. Say we tax them more, and they say no? Then what happens? The police would inflict as much violence upon them as is necessary to ensure their capitulation and/or incarceration.

Again, taxes already happen. What if the rich now say they no longer will pay taxes? They’ll be just as much imprisoned, even though no tax increase happened. I don’t think this is a valid reason against tax increase per se.

Despite anything they may say to the contrary I’ve come to the belief that the government is incredibly focused upon the short term.

Agreed, and that’s a problem when trying to tackle this issue.

I’d have to feel pretty staunchly adamant about the purpose of an expansion of taxes.

There is a reason. Lessening the gap between the rich and the poor. Take note progressive taxes already do this kind of thing. It is then a matter of choosing how much the gap should be reduced.

You guys know that 48% of the population don’t pay any taxes. It is also common knowledge that the poor get money back that they haven’t even paid in. Free money. That leaves mostly the middle class who are paying the majority of taxes. But, with the collapse of the middle class, tax revenue has been short. This is part of the reason Obama wants more from the rich. His policies killed the middle class as they are the ones losing their homes and jobs.

The poor have not been affected as bad as the middle class, but it is coming to a devastating time for the poor as well. Social programs are going to have to be cut and this will put the poor in a bad position.

I think Obama put so much attention to saving Wall Street and the banking system (the rich) that he overlooked the lower classes, especially the middle class who were paying the majority of taxes. This is where Obama made his biggest mistake in the bailout. He has pretty much destroyed the tax base and most small businesses. Many of the medium sized businesses are feeling the pinch as more and more regulations are heaped on them.

I once tried to explain what I saw last year. we went to San Antonio for the birth of my youngest granddaughter. We drove down. As we drove through many small towns, the business districts were decimated. Business after business was boarded up. There would be one gas station with a convenience store as the only business open. Sometimes there would be one restaurant. Town after town was like this. Even in the bigger cities there were homes sitting empty and businesses boarded up. This is not just an economic downturn. This was the result of Obama ignoring the core of the country.

You know, there’s nothing so wrong with focusing the larger amount of taxes on the upper class (as long as it is not exorbitant or ridiculous). If Obama had focused on the middle or the lower class—who don’t even make ends meet with what they have—you would have been crying out to no end about how he is picking on the little “working man”.

Slightly Liberal Democrat.

Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:

You know, there’s nothing so wrong with focusing the larger amount of taxes on the upper class (as long as it is not exorbitant or ridiculous). If Obama had focused on the middle or the lower class—who don’t even make ends meet with what they have—you would have been crying out to no end about how he is picking on the little “working man”.

The middle class was the biggest taxpayer. They were the ones all of the politicians hit with new taxes, not the rich or the poor. The problem now is, through ignoring the middle class during his great bailout, he decimated them. Obama no longer has a middle class to go after so he has to find new revenue to spend.

They’re all sneaky bastards, I wouldn’t vote for any of them.

I’m a conservative. I believe conservatives have rational economic solutions which promote economic value, whereas liberals, who spent more than half our current debt have yet to break us free from one recession. I’m not even trying to make fun of liberals here, only justify my opinion for you.

It’s nice to see another conservative. We are going to take over this board. :)

I’m a conservative. I believe conservatives have rational economic solutions which promote economic value, whereas liberals, who spent more than half our current debt have yet to break us free from one recession.

Justify your opinion by showing examples how liberal ideas would cost us more than conservative ideas. Examples how liberal ideas would take us out of the recession slower (or pull us deeper) than conservative ideas. Or why don’t you start by telling me why only economical reasons count?

Conservatives start wars, which cost billions upon billions of dollars.
Many trillions have been spent on military spending alone for the years Bush was president.

Liberals to me are the lesser evil. Even though most liberals in the Americas lie to the right of the center.
I did a test a while back, and found out i was more or less a centrist, maybe just slightly left of center, but just barely.
I have a few conservative beliefs, but I might edge over farther left if I am happy with life, and maybe farther right when I’m unhappy with life and end up in a dead in job, heh.

Why not have no evil at all? Ron Paul? Neither wasting trillions on endless wars, or destroying our economy at home. Even when the general election comes, I will vote for him knowing that I did not contribute to create the hell that will come afterwards when he loses because people prefer to listen to comforting lies than the truth.

Originally posted by CallidoraParker:

They’re all sneaky bastards, I wouldn’t vote for any of them.

Which, unfortunately, would be the same as voting the way the majority votes. I know the options may seem shitty, but standing passively back won’t really fix the problem. if I were you I would research all of the candidates and then vote for the least evil one you find.

The Anti-Incumbent Party.

NSDAP

I am very conservative. I don’t want to say republican because some republican canidates are libral.

SP. (Socialistische Partij)

just to instigate: they started out as the Maoist Communistische Partij, which my dad was a member of.

in the Polls, they’re the biggest Party in the Netherlands right now.

Centrist and Libertarian – it’s the only actual objectively correct point of view.

Originally posted by velricreize:

[…] it’s the only actual objectively correct point of view.

Why? (I know this post is too short but… hey, it’s not anymore!).

it’s the only actual objectively correct point of view

i bet everyone could say that about their own pov.

Liberals to me are the lesser evil.

Obama can’t fix this mess and it is easy to blame others so he does the blame game and now he has played the Race card, so what else is new? And Obama shows a NET LOSS of jobs of 1.4 MILLION. ENJOY that fact.

Bush was awful, but OBAMA has been an enormous let down. Only the minions that still hope he walks on water would disagree.

When Obama comes in and tells you he can fix it in three years, that’s his word. He wasn’t an outsider; he was a senator. He knew how bad things were. He had plenty of advisement. Bottom line is Bush handed over a bad situation and Obama has made it worse.

If the RICH would SPEND instead of HOARDING it we would do FINE! $15,000,000,000,000 didn’t just evaporate its here some where and they are NOT going to spend it now because they are afraid and DO NOT TRUST Obama. Simple as that. So the choice is, either we vote for Romney and regain the trust and confidence of those who can help FIX the problem… OR we vote for Obama and see ANOTHER 4 years of stagnation in the economy.

How can anyone say anybody’s to blame when the basic reason this all happened has not been exposed to most people. George Bush didn’t create the mess… he was involved on the fringe of so-called fixing it. This current president doesn’t have a clue. Almost a trillion in wastes stimulus… basically over $300,000 per job. Most of this mess can go way back to Jimmy Carter and his failed policies. But let’s play pretend and blame conservatives for liberal problems.

You can ALSO thank Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Congress for blowing Social Security too. Because BEFORE that, Social Security was in a SEPERATE account… but they put it in the General Fund which allowed Congress to draw from it and put IOUs in there.

Obama has created some job growth, but how many greeters does WalMart need? How many order takers does McDonalds need to work their Drive-Thru?

Obama spent nearly a trillion dollars on a stimulus that was to keep unemployment from going above 8%. Did that work? No. Three years later the real number is closer to 15%, and it was to be 6% by now.

Where are those ‘shovel-ready & ’green’ jobs? The dollars to the ‘green’ industry largely went to reward Obama’s campaign donors in a manner that smacked of corruption.

Thanks to Obama’s failed policies, we have higher unemployment, higher poverty, higher food stamp usage, and the workforce continues to shrink.

GM could have survived by allowing them to declare Chapter 11, reorganize, renegotiate their unreasonable contracts, and reemerge more lean. Instead the bondholders & stockholders were robbed in an effort to reward the UAW for its campaign support. Killing Bin Laden was good, but pretending that nobody else would have made the same call is laughable.

Hi Spurs. Long time no see. Nice post and truthful too. Now I hear we are getting ready to borrow more money to bail out the European Union. Another four years of Obama and America won’t exist.