-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2011: Of Weiners, Boehners, Santorum, and Teabags
- Thread starter PantherLotus
- Start date
- Status
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
Finished my bachelors in Political Science. My gpa is 3.57, and I only had two classes I just finished, so I should receive an A+ and an A at least (Spanish I+II) . Total of 10 credits. Hopefully I get a nice boost.
jamesinclair
Banned
planar1280 said:
Gas follows oil exactly* with a 7-14 day delay.
*Unless there is a problem at a gas refinery, like when a hurricane hits texas.
speculawyer
Member
That is a very nice list. A lot of those things would require phase-ins . . . if you just killed the mortgage interest deduction the real estate market would crash so hard that it would destroy the economy more than it already is.Skiptastic said:
BTW, wow, that was quite the flame-out.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
The more I learn about accounting and corporations, the more I'd be OK with the corporate tax rate being very low, especially if removed deductions. In the example given by removing capital gains and the like as separate personal income will more then make up for the drop in corporate taxes.
Profits that sit in corporate coffers does not do much than gain interest. This interest gained should be heavily taxed to discourage sitting on too much cash, while not penalizing the fact that the corporations HAVE the money. At that point the money is either paid out to stockholders in dividends, which are taxed, or reinvested, which is taxed at a sales tax level, or used to hire more employees which contribute to higher employment and payroll taxes and income taxes.
I'm not done with my CIS degree yet, so if I'm wrong on any of these, feel free to berate me.
Profits that sit in corporate coffers does not do much than gain interest. This interest gained should be heavily taxed to discourage sitting on too much cash, while not penalizing the fact that the corporations HAVE the money. At that point the money is either paid out to stockholders in dividends, which are taxed, or reinvested, which is taxed at a sales tax level, or used to hire more employees which contribute to higher employment and payroll taxes and income taxes.
I'm not done with my CIS degree yet, so if I'm wrong on any of these, feel free to berate me.
RustyNails
Member
Grats. What happened to your Secret Service Agent/Foreign officer/something badass application?Jason's Ultimatum said:
jamesinclair
Banned
Skiptastic said:
Justify this please.
Tax deductions + WIC = insane policy.
Yes, lets pay people to have kids they cant afford to feed, and we cant afford to educate!
GENIUS!
balladofwindfishes
Member
nobody is ever going to profit from a child deduction. The deduction is not nearly enough money needed to support a child for a year.jamesinclair said:
It's not paying people to have children, it's supporting those who already have them
viciouskillersquirrel
Member
What's to stop you becoming a Sulla or Julius Caesar?Skiptastic said:
A Human Becoming
More than a Member
Skiptastic said:
As someone who doesn't believe corporations should have the same rights as people, because the Supreme Court actually ruled that (12 minutes and 30 seconds in for those with Youtube Me Again!), I'd rather abolish corporate taxes and strip all the rights corporations have. Lobbying is such a huge problem and so many corporations use loop holes to avoid taxes (and through lobbying), I'd rather find alternative tax revenue.
Sounds good to me.
As long as the last line happens, sure. You have to start somewhere and that's the best place to.
My name is A Human Becoming and I support this message.
Children don't deserve to be punished for their parent's financial mistakes. It's in the government's interest to ensure that parents can provide for their children, because children who aren't provided for grow up to be kids we have to pay to keep in prison, or kids who enter the system and become wards of the state. It's simply cheaper to provide both help and deductions to keep them from becoming entirely a government problem.jamesinclair said:
People have kids whether we support them or not. The idea of a lot of people having kids just to make some money is largely nonsensical, and straight out of the Reaganite playbook. Short of trying to impose a limitation on the number of children people are allowed to have, which isn't going to happen here, the only other reasonable response is to help those parents that have children.
As a childless person, I'm aware that this isn't exactly fair, but it's better than the alternative, which is paying later for abandoned children. You're going to pay one way or another.
Note: Skiptastic's health care plan doesn't go far enough, and for largely the same reason. Were going to pay for peoples' healthcare, one way or another. The most logical and efficient way to do that is upfront with the bargaining power of a single payer behind it, rather than later on, when we're paying rates 20-40% higher than insured patients are paying. Not having UHC is the classic penny wise, pound foolish mistakes that Americans seem to enjoy making over and over again.
RustyNails
Member
All hail Chairman SkiptasticSkiptastic said:
Skiptastic
Member
Hey, they said what would I do if I had control of the Congress and Presidency. The most obvious thing to do is instate yourself as dictator.viciouskillersquirrel said:
I did throw a lot of red meat out there for you all, but it was the stuff I believe in that I figured you'd like. I still think that health care should be handled on the state level, but at the same time, I think getting away from employment-based health care is more readily done by assuring the health care of the children of workers. (Of course, if you had control of the entire government, you could just amend the Constitution to make universal health care a right of every American...probably would be the smart thing to do if it's what you were aiming for.)
Could also be PoliGAF rubbing off on me...probably the best explanation.
jamesinclair
Banned
Suikoguy said:
Why not child charges?
Pop out a child? Good job, you've burdened society. Add 1,000 to your taxes.
Hitokage said:
Complimentary abortions solves this problem. Accidental pregnancy? There's a minor procedure for that.
Planned pregnancy? Then your new higher taxes (see below) help pay for "free" financial counseling which walks you through the costs of childcare.
Maybe some financial education leads to less pregnancies.
balladofwindfishes said:
Unfortunately, some people are so poorly educated that they believe that having a child = free money = problems solved.
Personal anecdote: I know someone who has one kid. Barely makes it by on the money she has, and she just had another one. Is she concerned that two mouths cost more to feed than one? Absolutely not. Government gives her money.
besada said:
I agree. Except we cant afford it. We can't afford WIC, we cant afford schools, we cant afford playgrounds.
How many billions could we save a year if school enrollment was halved?
besada said:
Im not saying we should ban kids. Im saying we should remove the incentives.
Again, have a kid? Pay a fee. Im not saying charge people $1,000 to leave the hospital, Im saying, you have a kid? Good, you go up one tax bracket.
I'd also like to point out that, as a parent of two who benefits from the deduction, raising two kids costs way the hell more than the deduction each year. I think parents having kids just for the tax credit is one of those things like "voter fraud" that is a much talked about, seldom seen thing. I'm well over median income, so it's just a bigger tax return for us each year (which we plow into their college funds). But for those on the lower end of the income scale, it can make an enormous difference, which can be beneficial in the ways besada described.besada said:
viciouskillersquirrel
Member
Not that bit. I should have said "What measures do you put in place to make sure it doesn't just all fall apart when you're gone?"Skiptastic said:
First thing that happened after Sulla died was that they reversed a lot of the measures he took to "fix" the constitution.
Skiptastic
Member
Fuck if I know, I'll be dead, lol.viciouskillersquirrel said:
speculawyer
Member
And since the GOP owns the house, they'll get slaughtered there?ToxicAdam said:
The Dems own the Senate and have lots of seats up in 2012 so they'll lose there?
I think things are in such a crazy state of flux right now that it is pretty much impossible to make much of an educated guess as to what will happen in 2012. We could have 11% unemployment by then. Or not. I think the magic balancing of the markets will ensure some good news and bad news no matter what. But we are a nation of whiners so we'll focus on the bad part. If unemployment is high we'll focus on that (even though inflation will probably be tame and oil will be relatively low). But if unemployment drops a little, oil and inflation will be up and we'll focus on that.
jamesinclair
Banned
speculawyer said:
As Ive been saying, there has NEVER been a better oppertunity for a 3rd party to establish themselves.
EVER.
"Unhappy with Obama, think the tea party are idiots, and hate every current politician? So do we!"
Oblivion said:
Nonsense. Although this past week (politically) has made me feel like seceding.
PJV3
Member
ToxicAdam said:
I'm reading the balanced budget amendment article from the same site. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/05/u.../json8.nytimes.com/pages/politics/index.jsonp
Are republicans really serious about this- "The more conservative version would require a two-thirds majority in the House and the Senate to raise taxes". I don't fully get US politics but this seems crazy, tax rises would be virtually ruled out forever.
A Human Becoming
More than a Member
jamesinclair said:
And yet a viable third party is not palpable. I don't think we'll see another American Independent Party gain political power. Democrats and Republicans have such a stranglehold on the political regime that only Independents are able to squeeze through. It's human nature to have a "us vs them" mentality and with the onset of mass communication both parties have thrived off it.
Heard an interesting analysis of the debt ceiling deal concerning revenue increases. If correct, it makes the case that a revenue increase is virtually guaranteed given the framework of the legislation. Basically, if a bill is passed that spends money over a specific baseline budget number, an equal amount of money needs to be cut somewhere else. This baseline being used was established by the CBO with the assumption the Bush Tax Cuts would expire. Which means a bill to extend those tax cuts would be considered spending, which would require an equal amount to be cut from the budget. Furthermore, the legislation mandates those cuts be split evenly, 50/50, between defense and discretionary. At a cost of $4 trillion, that means any bill to extend the tax cuts would have to be accompanied by a bill that cuts $2 trillion from the defense budget.
Is this a correct reading of the legislation?
Is this a correct reading of the legislation?
And all those solutions ultimately punish the children who will be born anyway. Why are we trying to balance the budget on the backs of the weakest citizens of the state, rather than simply demanding the revenue that is required to care for our children? I know why Republicans believe this stuff, but I can't understand how you think the solution to our financial problems is to punish children. Because regardless of your intentions, that's what all of the stuff you're recommending will do. Move the parents up a tax bracket? That's less money available to spend on their children's health and education.
Your anecdotal evidence to the contrary, the idea that most people decide to have kids for the tax breaks is ridiculous, and one step away from talking about the welfare queen you know down the road. Most people decide to have children because there is a biological imperative to procreate. Try to stop that, and ultimately, they'll have kids anyway, but the kids will suffer.
I'm aware that we don't take enough money from the massive pile available to us, but that's not the fault of children. It's the fault of adults who believe that it's fine to to allow other people to live in misery so long as they get by okay. It's inhumane and repulsive.
I mostly concur. And I have noted similar sentiments in previous posts. If the U.S. desired a new SOFA, Iraq would likely acquiesce; that was evident after the Iraqi Government recently announced the purchase of additional military aircraft. Still, even the modicum of domestic dissension, which you noted, presented a faint hope that they would prohibit an extension; a spurious hope, lamentably.empty vessel said:
A Human Becoming
More than a Member
I'm glad someone is thinking of the children.
Dude Abides
Banned
jamesinclair said:
You've burdened society only if that child ends up taking more than it contributes over its lifespan. Mandatory abortions for poor fetuses!
Dude Abides said:
No, poor people are fine. They work the jobs that we don't want to. What we should do is require fat people to abort their fetuses cause you just know those babies are going to be fat, have a bunch of health problems, and ratchet up all of our health care premiums.
That, or tax fat people more
I think another potential problem we'd run into with a viable, strong third party is that they're going to need to amass a lot of money to compete against the Democrats and Republicans, especially on a national level. I think Chichikov has made this point before. Now there's always the off chance that millions upon millions of average Americans will donate what little they can and it would be a true populist party, but there's a better chance that money is going to come from wealthy special interests and we may end up back where we started from. Instead, I think we need to focus on fixing our two party system and it all comes back to the money. We need sweeping campaign finance reform badly. If we can significantly lessen the huge monetary burden of entry to politics, there's a greater chance for the rise of a viable third party than if we tried to shoehorn it into the current power structure. This isn't easy, after all you're trying to get politicians to do something wildly against their own interests (same thing with term limits). The call for campaign finance reform needs to come from the people.A Human Becoming said:
You make a good point about the nature of "us vs. them". It's natural for us to boil things down to two choices (or rather, less choices), which is why I would prefer to fix our two party system first.
The government is cutting jobs, and the private sector is cutting jobs.
That job report tomorrow is going to look fantastic.
A third party would be viable if they get a foothold in congress. Third parties always screw up by trying to make their mark in presidential elections. They should start smaller, and gain footholds in the house and senate. As they build their power base there, they can then start to become contenders for the presidency. A third party president would be shut down more than Obama, because neither party would support them.
That job report tomorrow is going to look fantastic.
A Human Becoming said:
A third party would be viable if they get a foothold in congress. Third parties always screw up by trying to make their mark in presidential elections. They should start smaller, and gain footholds in the house and senate. As they build their power base there, they can then start to become contenders for the presidency. A third party president would be shut down more than Obama, because neither party would support them.
MisterNugNug
Member
KHarvey16 said:
Hmmmm, wouldn't it be one trillion in cuts to the defense budget and another trillion in discretionary spending?
Measley said:
Everyone wants to start at the federal level, which is crazy, because federal politics is entirely party dependent. If you're an independent at the federal level, you're still caucusing with either the Democrats or the Republicans, or you have no power.
The correct place to start a third party is at the city level, then the state. States control voting laws and who gets on the ballot. If any third party were serious, they'd be spending every penny they had trying to get into state legislatures, where they might actually do some good. You'd be surprised, though, at how few third parties have any idea what the real barriers to their success are. I've worked with a half-dozen third parties, and none of them from the Socialist, to the Greens, to the Libertarians understand how the party system controls electoral politics or what they might be able to do about it.
The best of them are probably the Libertarians, who waste a shitpot of money on big name federal candidates, but at least have slowly come to recognize that party building happens locally. Unfortunately, the position they mostly can win are dogcatcher-level positions. The number of independent state legislators is still woefully small. And yet, it's state law that determines who gets on the ballot, and what hurdles have to be cleared, not to mention whether electors are handled proportionately or not (which is the big issue they should all be fighting for if they hope to have a chance at a federal position.)
Most of the independent state legislators were elected as either Democrats or Republicans and then later changed their affiliation. Vermont is probably the best in regards to independents, and they have a total of seven in the House and two in the Senate, out of one hundred and fifty in the House and thirty in the Senate. New York has a handful of "independent Democrats" which is about as meaningless as treating Lieberman as a real independent.
Aaron Strife
Banned
i feel like any third party effort needs to start from the bottom up in state legislative races.
ross perot, ralph nader etc. type of candidacies ultimately fail because they try to build a personality cult around one person, and ultimately one who can't appeal to many parts of the country. it's why democrats like to nominate southerners - they want regional appeal. third parties kind of don't see that.
want change? see what would happen if a state like Minnesota elected say, a Green Party state lege (they already have enough power in Duluth and Minneapolis, anyway).
but it'd have to be an organized effort across the country.
ross perot, ralph nader etc. type of candidacies ultimately fail because they try to build a personality cult around one person, and ultimately one who can't appeal to many parts of the country. it's why democrats like to nominate southerners - they want regional appeal. third parties kind of don't see that.
want change? see what would happen if a state like Minnesota elected say, a Green Party state lege (they already have enough power in Duluth and Minneapolis, anyway).
but it'd have to be an organized effort across the country.
A Human Becoming
More than a Member
XMonkey said:
I originally had the problem of money in my post, but decided to omit it because I thought it opened a can of worms, some of which you mentioned. To create a viable third party you would need millionaires with the utmost moral values who are dissatisfied with both parties. I really doubt you can pool enough dissatisfied average Americans to take the risk on an unknown entity. Just being in one of the two parties places you on an established platform voters understand.
The scenario seems further unlikely because of the huge effort it would take to create the infrastructure and draw in members the American public would take seriously. That's why running Independent is a more appealing option; it relies solely on the individual and pure cash. Consider why Bill Gates created the Bill Gates foundation instead of trying to put all his effort (money) into politics. As a progressive I think sustainable improvement comes from government reform. There are many who don't think as I do.
I said this a few pages back, if corporations were no longer viewed as people that alone would be a step forward in finance reform. Aside from that, it's too bad the DISCLOSE Act of 2010 got killed:
Wikipedia said:
Measley said:
While I agree with you, I don't think anyone is willing to make the long term investment.
speculawyer
Member
We don't have third parties because we don't have a parliamentary system with proportional representation. We have a 'winner take all' system that naturally devolves into a 2-party system.
If we want third parties, we pretty much have to rewrite the constitution. Or rewrite voting rules to be an 'instant run-off voting' system where you vote for your candidates in order of preference.
If we want third parties, we pretty much have to rewrite the constitution. Or rewrite voting rules to be an 'instant run-off voting' system where you vote for your candidates in order of preference.
TacticalFox88
Banned
If we're gonna rewrite the constitution, we need to write out the Senate. It needs to go. Along with other thingsspeculawyer said:
- Status