Support NeoGAF

[Jackson50]

It was a quick and dirty thought experiment, and you're right. There's no way to really come up with a winner.

I guess what I'd like to see, rather than us complaining about something that's been a problem forever (they used to use the 5% public support rule of thumb -- which would have excluded not only all the third party candidates but about half of the people who were actually on stage), maybe trying to come up with some sort of workable solution. I'm not sure there is one that doesn't involve a six hour debate that might tax even my attention. But we have some fairly smart, fairly original folks in here, so maybe someone else has better ideas than I do.

I'll be back later tonight (going to a friend's musical) and I'll gladly respond to anyone who can think of something.

If you want to make general election presidential debates inclusive, you could require a party to obtain access to a certain threshold of state ballots. That would ensure that a party has a significant, national base of support. I think Ralph Nader supports this configuration.

Rick Perry Muslims:
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/08/10/rick_perry_muslims



Doesn't that pretty much screw him over in the right-wing world?

No.

And since those likely don't exist who's in control??? Madness I tell you

Dr. Zaius.

 

[Puddles]

The real debt is made of bonds that mature at different times. There is no specific deadline for paying it off.

Speaking of bonds, over two months ago I filed the claim for a government bond that had matured. Still haven't heard anything. I swear these fuckers are going to take the whole 180 days. People were telling me I'd probably get a check in six weeks. Hah.

Do people who buy bonds regularly just assume that it will take six months to get the money after they file a claim for it?

 

[AlteredBeast]

Speaking of bonds, over two months ago I filed the claim for a government bond that had matured. Still haven't heard anything. I swear these fuckers are going to take the whole 180 days. People were telling me I'd probably get a check in six weeks. Hah.

Do people who buy bonds regularly just assume that it will take six months to get the money after they file a claim for it?

How much did your bond make for you?

 

[tekumseh]

And now, you have Rick Perry trailing Obama by two points in Texas. I doubt the numbers were this close during Bush/Gore and Bush/Kerry elections at this time of year.

I find Perry all razzle dazzle. No denying the fact that Mitt Romney is the most electable of the bunch and GOP would be foolish to fall for Perry's charm. But then, it's the GOP and the evangelical base always has the biggest weight in GOP politics.

Except that Romney is clearly unelectable, because the Christian conservatives will NOT vote for a Mormon. No chance. For them, it will either be Perry or Bachmann, and it's not gonna be Bachmann. Once the wheat starts getting separated from the chaff, you will see Perry get every major Christian leader to support him. He is absolutely their annointed one this time around...

 

[RustyNails]

Except that Romney is clearly unelectable, because the Christian conservatives will NOT vote for a Mormon. No chance. For them, it will either be Perry or Bachmann, and it's not gonna be Bachmann. Once the wheat starts getting separated from the chaff, you will see Perry get every major Christian leader to support him. He is absolutely their annointed one this time around...

I simply don't see Perry carrying swing states. Romney can pull off Michigan and possibly Florida.

 

[tekumseh]

I simply don't see Perry carrying swing states. Romney can pull off Michigan and possibly Florida.

I really don't disagree at all. The problem for Romney will be getting the nomination. Unless Perry lays an enormous egg somewhere along the way, I think the frontrunner status is his, solely based on his appeal to the religious conservatives, who will either rally in huge numbers to insure his nomination, or will stay away in droves should he falter as the process plays out. If they stay away enough for Romney to get the nomination, they are also going to stay away during the general, which only benefits Obama...

 

[Dr. Pangloss]

I don't think conservative voters care that much about electability. Sure it's up there in priorities, but the thing they want most is a candidate that reflects their beliefs and will stick to them. They want someone that is the ideal conservative and not someone who did Obamacare lite in MA. In their eyes, Perry is electable. He'll provide real contrast with Obama. They have been complaining for the past 3 years that their leaders from Bush to McCain have not been conservative enough. This is what purity gets you.

 

[sc0la]

The corn dog pic is "funny" for what it is, but I can't help but cringe at all the coded and not so coded sexism. The "submissive" question, the corn dog, the "migraines" etc.

This is coming from someone who would be genuinely terrified to have this person in the executive branch. I cannot stress how diametrically opposed I am to Bachman politically.

Edit: I shrugged this off when people claimed Clinton was treated differently in 08 primary but, after watching the way Clinton, then Palin, then Bachman were treated it all starts to pile up.

 

[Arrowgigantic]

Things will go nuts when Sarah Palin announces she's skipping the GOP entirely and running 3rd party from the get-go next month.

 

[besada]

Things will go nuts when Sarah Palin announces she's skipping the GOP entirely and running 3rd party from the get-go next month.

That would make me incredibly happy. So it probably won't happen.

 

[hellclerk]

Things will go nuts when Sarah Palin announces she's skipping the GOP entirely and running 3rd party from the get-go next month.

WOOOO Conservative Split!

 

[Puddles]

How much did your bond make for you?

I don't even remember what the original cost was. It was a ten year bond that my dad helped me get back in high school.

 

[airmangataosenai]

Every time someone claims Dems are no better than Republicans/ Romney's no worse than Obama...

Best part is how he waits until he's like the 3rd person to raise his hand. Such a fucking coward.

 

[airmangataosenai]

Except that Romney is clearly unelectable, because the Christian conservatives will NOT vote for a Mormon. No chance. For them, it will either be Perry or Bachmann, and it's not gonna be Bachmann. Once the wheat starts getting separated from the chaff, you will see Perry get every major Christian leader to support him. He is absolutely their annointed one this time around...

Same way they wouldn't vote for McCain after Pat Robertson went after him? Mormon hate is overrated same way as racism in the last cycle was. Republicans are better at this than we are: They get behind a candidate who can win.

 

[Puddles]

Every time someone claims Dems are no better than Republicans/ Romney's no worse than Obama...

Best part is how he waits until he's like the 3rd person to raise his hand. Such a fucking coward.

The biggest problem with this is the implication that there will be NO COMPROMISE on the tax issue. For whatever reason, they're taking a position that their own base doesn't even really support and that no economists worth their salt would support.

 

[speculawyer]

Except that Romney is clearly unelectable, because the Christian conservatives will NOT vote for a Mormon. No chance. For them, it will either be Perry or Bachmann, and it's not gonna be Bachmann. Once the wheat starts getting separated from the chaff, you will see Perry get every major Christian leader to support him. He is absolutely their annointed one this time around...

They'll vote for a Mormon over a Muslim.

 

[Black Republican]

i dont even understand why this iowa straw poll is so important, hardly tell who wins the gop nom

 

[TacticalFox88]

Every time someone claims Dems are no better than Republicans/ Romney's no worse than Obama...

Best part is how he waits until he's like the 3rd person to raise his hand. Such a fucking coward.

Taxes are like Kryptonite to a Republican. Jesus.

 

[A Human Becoming]

Your argument is fine but his statement is useless in the first place is because twenty eight billion dollars in revenue is not going to do much at all.

It's a bullshit scenario. Because the current tax code would make it where those people making 4 dollars/hr would not have to pay any tax. That's why 47% of Americans don't pay income tax currently.
The only answer is repealing ALL Bush tax cuts.

4$ an hour is -

• 32$ a day (assuming 8 hours work day)
• 160$ a week (assuming 5 days a week)
• 8320$ a year, before taxes.

So I think it's pretty damn safe to say that -
a. most people will not want to work in those jobs.
b. those who do, will find it very hard to live on those wages.
As I understand it, this scenario calls for a 10% tax bracket starting at $0.

Even if his plan worked, $28 billion is mere drop in the water compared to the problems military spending, bush tax cuts, corporate loopholes, "healthcare system", etc.

Just to follow up, this is what someone on his status responded to another comment and mine:

You have small imagination people. I know people who immigrated to London and used to earn about £4 per hour working in a car wash. It is enough not only to survive in very expensive London, but also to send money back to the family. Also to work 2 jobs, and do 60+ hours a week is fairly normal, and you don't need some Jonathan level drive to pull this off. When people have no, or little choice, they are capable of quite a lot. I think this is where socialism fails- assuming that people are lazy, dumb creatures that can not cater for themselves if not being helped on every step.

There is a glaring fallacy with his reasoning, but I did not feel an urge to respond nor was available to articulate a proper response.

i dont even understand why this iowa straw poll is so important, hardly tell who wins the gop nom

Must be an ego thing for both the nominees and Iowa.

 

[Mardak]

Ron Paul can make himself sound like he's a common sense guy on the surface when discussing certain specific subjects, it's not until you really put his entire philosophy under a bit more scrutiny that you realize he really is a wacko.

His philosophy is to follow the Constitution. What's so wacko about that?

He believes in liberty -- letting people do what they want and that includes freedom to keep the fruits of their labor instead of the government allowing people to keep some of their income.

What in particular have you scrutinized that leads you to believe liberty is not good?

 

[Puddles]

His philosophy is to follow the Constitution. What's so wacko about that?

He believes in liberty -- letting people do what they want and that includes freedom to keep the fruits of their labor instead of the government allowing people to keep some of their income.

What in particular have you scrutinized that leads you to believe liberty is not good?

The bolded is something we generally agree to in a society, only you've phrased it in such a way that it makes it seem as though the government is claiming all income and only "allowing" people to keep a pittance for their own uses.

The way you've phrased this whole post is rather disingenuous.

 

[Mardak]

you've phrased it in such a way that it makes it seem as though the government is claiming all income and only "allowing" people to keep a pittance for their own uses.

And how is it not the case? You are forced to pay income taxes otherwise you're sent to jail when the IRS finds out.

Another way to put that is that the government will take away your liberty if you do not comply.

It doesn't matter if it's 1% income tax or 99% income tax. As long as there is one, it's effectively the government allowing you to keep a portion of what you make.

 

[Puddles]

That's true, but it's a whole lot more nuanced than the way you're presenting it. We contribute tax dollars because that's the way society functions. Without funding there would be no government. Those who don't pay their taxes are shirking their responsibility to the rest of society.

Just so we're clear, do you advocate a system with zero taxes?

 

[Mardak]

["government allowing people to keep some of their income"] is something we generally agree to in a society

Ron Paul's position on liberty is that people can do what they want. If some people want to give money to the government, they can do so. If others do not, they don't have to.

That's why he pushes for opt-out clauses to federal programs. If I don't want to force other people to pay for my Social Security, I should be able to opt out of putting my income into it. I have the liberty to invest in my retirement and emergencies on my own. And if I choose to take a risk and not put as much money, I won't force everyone else in the country to take care of me.

 

[Puddles]

And if something unforeseen comes up and wipes out your savings, we just let you die?

 

[thekad]

So...no taxes?

lol

 

[Mardak]

Without funding there would be no government.

The government is able to fund through other means just as it did before the federal income tax existed. There are tariffs for exchanges with other countries and there are excise taxes for exchanges of goods within the country.

Just so we're clear, do you advocate a system with zero taxes?

Ideally zero *income* tax with other forms of taxes described above as methods of the federal government to collect money. But for this to work, the scope of the federal government needs to be reduced.

Those who don't pay their taxes are shirking their responsibility to the rest of society.

What kind of responsibilities? Paying to bomb Libya? Paying to give money to Pakistan in hopes that they listen to us? Paying to attack Pakistan when they still don't listen? And sure, these might just be a portion of what income taxes are used for -- military spending is a huge chunk. If I had to pay the federal government, I would rather directly pay certain departments/groups and not be forced to pay for wasteful military spending.

Or even looking closer to home. Paying bureaucrats in the Department of Education that forces No Child Left Behind on all schools in all states? Why should I send my money to the federal government to maybe get back a tiny portion for my local schools?

 

[Mardak]

And if something unforeseen comes up and wipes out your savings, we just let you die?

Thanks for the concern, but why should someone on the other side of the country pay for my wellness? The person giving the money gains little thanks as the whole process is desensitized.

Those who have closer proximity can do a better job in assessing the situation such as family members and friends. They can feel good in helping out as long as they aren't forced to help out.

And in cases of accidents, the private sector does fine with life insurance and disability insurance.

 

[Mardak]

So...no taxes?

lol

What's so funny about that?

But actually, there will still be taxes. States can have their own income tax, sales tax, property tax, etc. Some states have chosen to have income taxes while others don't. People are free to move from state to state to suit their needs.

 

[leroidys]

Thanks for the concern, but why should someone on the other side of the country pay for my wellness? The person giving the money gains little thanks as the whole process is desensitized.

Those who have closer proximity can do a better job in assessing the situation such as family members and friends. They can feel good in helping out as long as they aren't forced to help out.

And in cases of accidents, the private sector does fine with life insurance and disability insurance.

Because we can? Because it is the right thing to do, eradicates poverty, is efficient, and promotes a healthy and prosperous society? Do you really need to be 'thanked' that badly? I don't think that you've thought about this very hard.

What is your goal? You propose that people still pay taxes in some form, so it is not purely on principle. Do you have any rigorous research that you can point to that asserts maximally free and prosperous society has a minimal government and tax burden? Or is it just "something some Ron Paul freedom something something..."

Logic would dictate that there would be a point of diminishing returns, which we well overshot in 2004.

The government is able to fund through other means just as it did before the federal income tax existed. There are tariffs for exchanges with other countries and there are excise taxes for exchanges of goods within the country.


Ideally zero *income* tax with other forms of taxes described above as methods of the federal government to collect money. But for this to work, the scope of the federal government needs to be reduced.

Tariffs and excise taxes can be much, much more onerous and destructive.

What's so funny about that?

But actually, there will still be taxes. States can have their own income tax, sales tax, property tax, etc. Some states have chosen to have income taxes while others don't. People are free to move from state to state to suit their needs.

So where would the funds come from for constitutionally mandated things like elections, an army, a navy, the federal court system, etc.?

People are not "free" to move anywhere that they wish.

What kind of responsibilities? Paying to bomb Libya? Paying to give money to Pakistan in hopes that they listen to us? Paying to attack Pakistan when they still don't listen? And sure, these might just be a portion of what income taxes are used for -- military spending is a huge chunk. If I had to pay the federal government, I would rather directly pay certain departments/groups and not be forced to pay for wasteful military spending.

Or even looking closer to home. Paying bureaucrats in the Department of Education that forces No Child Left Behind on all schools in all states? Why should I send my money to the federal government to maybe get back a tiny portion for my local schools?

Certainly our government is very capable of doing bad things. But how does that justify completely dismantling all social programs? Seriously, wat?

 

[Puddles]

Thanks for the concern, but why should someone on the other side of the country pay for my wellness? The person giving the money gains little thanks as the whole process is desensitized.

Those who have closer proximity can do a better job in assessing the situation such as family members and friends. They can feel good in helping out as long as they aren't forced to help out.

And in cases of accidents, the private sector does fine with life insurance and disability insurance.

What about people without family or friends? I've met a few people who have no living family, and from posting on GAF I've learned that there are many people who have no friends.

 

[gkryhewy]

Thanks for the concern, but why should someone on the other side of the country pay for my wellness? The person giving the money gains little thanks as the whole process is desensitized.

Those who have closer proximity can do a better job in assessing the situation such as family members and friends. They can feel good in helping out as long as they aren't forced to help out.

The most endearing thing about libertarians is that they think any little benign framework they can come up with on a very local, small, interpersonal scale can be immediately extrapolated to national implementation, and well, of course it would work! Like the world is one big, goofy thought experiment.

What about people without family or friends? I've met a few people who have no living family, and from posting on GAF I've learned that there are many people who have no friends.

Like this poor guy:

 

[SecretMoblin]

This is making the rounds on a few conservative blogs and among some Hill staffers:
"Faltering Rhode Island City Tests Vows to Pensioners" (Just a warning for the nonsubscribers, it is a NYT link)

 

[Particle Physicist]

The corn dog pic is "funny" for what it is, but I can't help but cringe at all the coded and not so coded sexism. The "submissive" question, the corn dog, the "migraines" etc.

This is coming from someone who would be genuinely terrified to have this person in the executive branch. I cannot stress how diametrically opposed I am to Bachman politically.

Edit: I shrugged this off when people claimed Clinton was treated differently in 08 primary but, after watching the way Clinton, then Palin, then Bachman were treated it all starts to pile up.

Ignoring the corndog picture, because its coming from a british website (edit: from their blog no less), the migraines and the submissive things are all legit. If someone suffers from debilitating migraines, how the hell can they possibly be commander in chief especially if something goes wrong. The 'submissive' question is valid since those are words she herself has used.

Bachmann said at the time, "But the Lord said, 'Be submissive. Wives, you are to be submissive to your husbands.'"

 

[Mike M]

His philosophy is to follow the Constitution. What's so wacko about that?

He believes in liberty -- letting people do what they want and that includes freedom to keep the fruits of their labor instead of the government allowing people to keep some of their income.

This is part of the constitution:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

For all his professed love of following the constitution, really all he means (and pretty much everyone else who makes the same claim) is that he loves the parts he agrees with and wants to ignore the rest.

 

[Black Republican]

santorum wants to be in the top 5 in the straw poll

 

[ezekial45]

When should we expect to get the results of the straw poll?

 

[Mardak]

Because we can? Because it is the right thing to do, eradicates poverty, is efficient, and promotes a healthy and prosperous society?

"Because you can" and "because you're forced or because you're forcing other people" are not the same thing.

Churches and shelters funded by those who want to help previously took care of those in need. But there are even regulations that restricting these entities from helping out because the federal government assumes it knows how to do better. Each state can decide if they want to provide some aid to those in its states or even people in other states.

Just because the government doesn't force you to help someone doesn't mean you can't donate to non-profit organizations that do take care of people across the nation. Then you know for sure the money is getting to them and not redirected to bailing out big banks.

You propose that people still pay taxes in some form, so it is not purely on principle. Do you have any rigorous research that you can point to that asserts maximally free and prosperous society has a minimal government and tax burden?

As I pointed out earlier, you are not free if you are forced to give up a portion of your labor. In effect by being in the workforce, the government forces you to work for them. How is this involuntary servitude right?

Tariffs and excise taxes can be much, much more onerous and destructive.

Why do you say that? More destructive than stealing money from people when they legally work? Why couldn't you use that money to run the government for elections and the army?

But how does that justify completely dismantling all social programs?

Practically Ron Paul wouldn't need to start at looking federal social programs to let each state decide how to implement their own. He would save money by not spending so much overseas in foreign wars and foreign entitlements.

 

[SecretMoblin]

When should we expect to get the results of the straw poll?

The voting closes at 4PM (Central Time), and the results will be announced immediately after they've been tabulated.

 

[Mardak]

What about people without family or friends? I've met a few people who have no living family, and from posting on GAF I've learned that there are many people who have no friends.

The US is a very generous country. Just look at all the donations to the American Red Cross and other humanitarian organizations. People from across the nation and local churches can help out more directly than funneling some money through the income tax. And states, counties, cities can decide how they want to take care of people.

 

[Mike M]

I can't fathom how people who advocate dismantling federal social programs in favor of state ones and private charities fail to realize that the reason that these programs EXIST is because their proposed alternative was the previous status quo and wasn't at all effective.

 

[Mardak]

The most endearing thing about libertarians is that they think any little benign framework they can come up with on a very local, small, interpersonal scale can be immediately extrapolated to national implementation

I'm not saying it should be extrapolated to a federal level. Why can't it stay local in cities and counties or states?

Just look at the Department of Education. Each state can set up its own school system but in comes the federal government deciding one choice for all schools in all states. The teachers don't like No Child Left Behind. Money sent to the federal level doesn't have as much effect than if money went straight to local schools.

 

[KHarvey16]

I'm not saying it should be extrapolated to a federal level. Why can't it stay local in cities and counties or states?

Just look at the Department of Education. Each state can set up its own school system but in comes the federal government deciding one choice for all schools in all states. The teachers don't like No Child Left Behind. Money sent to the federal level doesn't have as much effect than if money went straight to local schools.

There needs to be some kind of federal department of education. A well educated population should be a priority of the federal government as long as we are free to move between state borders.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Do libertarians ever stop to think about painfully arbitrary the distinction they draw between federal and state government is? I don't think this is a trivial point. If the federal government imposes an income tax, it's the most profound of tyrannies, but if the state government does so, totally cool? Why is it ok for your state to "bind you in servitude?"

I can't fathom how people who advocate dismantling federal social programs in favor of state ones and private charities fail to realize that the reason that these programs EXIST is because their proposed alternative was the previous status quo and wasn't at all effective.

Empirical/historical evidence need not apply.

 

[Mardak]

Do libertarians ever stop to think about painfully arbitrary the distinction they draw between federal and state government is? I don't think this is a trivial point. If the federal government imposes an income tax, it's the most profound of tyrannies, but if the state government does so, totally cool? Why is it ok for your state to "bind you in servitude?"

The big "L" Libertarian party is a political party that pushes for its ideology at all levels. Little "l" libertarian ideas are of restricted governments.

The founding fathers creating the Constitution and the Bill of Rights created a federal government that was explicitly limited to just do a certain list of tasks. That's why the 10th amendment exists where anything that the federal government cannot do is given to each state.

The founding fathers believed in a restricted federal government where each state wanted to be able to do their own things but if necessary would come together to defend the country as united states.

 

[besada]

As I pointed out earlier, you are not free if you are forced to give up a portion of your labor.

You're still free to live elsewhere. It's only coercive if you're stopped from leaving and finding a country that more suits your tastes. Isn't that the standard Libertarian line? No one's forcing you to stay in the U.S. where federal taxes are a part of the Constitution. You're welcome to find a country with a more open tax policy.

 

[Mike M]

Do libertarians ever stop to think about painfully arbitrary the distinction they draw between federal and state government is? I don't think this is a trivial point. If the federal government imposes an income tax, it's the most profound of tyrannies, but if the state government does so, totally cool? Why is it ok for your state to "bind you in servitude?"

I think it's an extrapolation of devotion to the free market. Theoretically a state with the best policies will attract the most people to live there, and you're always free to [come up with multiple thousands of dollars to] leave a state you don't agree with for one that you do. The federal government being all pervasive precludes this option.

 

[Mike M]

The big "L" Libertarian party is a political party that pushes for its ideology at all levels. Little "l" libertarian ideas are of restricted governments.

The founding fathers creating the Constitution and the Bill of Rights created a federal government that was explicitly limited to just do a certain list of tasks. That's why the 10th amendment exists where anything that the federal government cannot do is given to each state.

The founding fathers believed in a restricted federal government where each state wanted to be able to do their own things but if necessary would come together to defend the country as united states.

That doesn't really address the point at all. It's OK for the states to things that you don't want the federal government to do because that's the way the founding fathers wanted it?

 

[hellclerk]

Just to follow up, this is what someone on his status responded to another comment and mine:

There is a glaring fallacy with his reasoning, but I did not feel an urge to respond nor was available to articulate a proper response.

Just tell him that 4GBP today is 6.5USD. In 2008 and before, which is when he's probably thinking, the pound was 2 to 1 on the dollar, so 4£ would have been about equivalent to $8 per hour. That's about US minimum wage, and even that's VERY difficult to live off of.

 

[Mumei]

The US is a very generous country. Just look at all the donations to the American Red Cross and other humanitarian organizations. People from across the nation and local churches can help out more directly than funneling some money through the income tax. And states, counties, cities can decide how they want to take care of people.

I would recommend that you take a university course on the history of charity / philanthropy sometime. Philanthropy simply hasn't historically been primarily about helping the poor or dispossessed, and it has not been nearly as effective a vehicle for improving social welfare.