-
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 Interim Thread of USA General Elections (DAWN OF THE VEEP)
- Thread starter Amir0x
- Start date
- Status
SouthernDragon
Member
Gaborn said:
But, from what I understand, the loopholes allow the rich to lower their taxation rates from 15% downward. Even if you removed the loopholes they use, they'd still be taxed at a low, low rate of only 15
.99 plus shipping and handling!
By raising the rates, period, it's not a punishment, it an equalization. It'd be a punishment if they were raised beyond that of the income tax, but as it stands the income tax would still be higher than the supposed 20% or 25% that the wealthy would pay on their capital gains tax. The wealthy would still have incentive, and benefit more than the middle/lower class, to achieve success.
JayDubya said:
Well, taxation is mandatory. Donations aren't. I'd think a lot of charities wouldn't receive the funding necessary, even if they were competent.
Edit: Ok, can someone clarify something for me? Why is being a "ist/ian/tive/ism" so bad?
Socialists believe in the power of a society, that we should all help each other out.
Libertarians believe in the power of full fledged freedom for people.
Conservatives believe in the efficiency and prudence of small government.
None of these things are bad, so why slap people around with them? : /
Deus Ex Machina
Member
FlightOfHeaven said:
Americans voluntarily donate a lot to private charity and relief funds and such, and as discussed on GAF, conservatives more than liberals; frankly, it's more a question of the role of the state in charity, though. The more left you are, the more you feel the state should be the chief, if not the only source; the more right you are, the opposite. I feel it has no role in charity whatsoever.
Also, the mandatory thing is the point of contention.
scorcho said:
I feel I have to correct you on one thing. He was British.
FlightOfHeaven said:
So again, tax things like investments and other sources of income the same as regular income, and that more or less closes the loopholes they use. Still, the one way they'd come out ahead is if they didn't have any stocks and just had like $50 million in the bank, while paying a nominal salary. At that point the interest in the money in the bank would be a substantial income, and more difficult to tax.
no, I agree, raise capital gains to be in line with income taxes, and have everyone's regular income tax rate the same. End of problem?
Bu... bui.. Harry Reid....
Also:
Well, this is mostly anti-communist propaganda, but it's interesting because two of the animators are a young Hanna-Barbera
scorcho said:isn't comparing someone to Hitler (unless it's Hitler himself) also anathema to any intelligent discussion?
but yeah, that cartoon is way off - HAVA won't tip the election, voter ID laws will (GABORN, RESPOND NOW!)
That was the heavy handed cleverness of my comment.
Voter ID laws (or lack thereof) will tip the scales, they've been doing it in Wisconsin for a decade.
SouthernDragon
Member
JayDubya said:
Liberals don't give as much as conservatives? Huh. Where'd you find this out?
Perhaps conservatives, under current definitions, tend to be more religious, and thus give to their churches more?
What if the US offered a choice; pay x in taxes, or donate x in the form of a donation to an approved list of charities.
eznark said:
Lets stop with the attacks, please? We're having an agreeable disagreement over here.
Yep! If you throw in your proposed "below 50k no taxes" idea, too.
I dunno about him, but people can't opt out of income tax, like they can capital gains tax. I'm not responsible for him. : <
theviolenthero
Member
Are there ANY libertarian mayors or governors in this country?
Alot of the stuff i've heard them talk about SOUNDS great but has anyone actually implemented any of the ideas?
Alot of the stuff i've heard them talk about SOUNDS great but has anyone actually implemented any of the ideas?
SouthernDragon
Member
Gaborn said:
Well, lets move beyond that!
Father_Brain
Banned
Deus Ex Machina said:
*Sigh*
Those concerns are by no means unwarranted, but I think that 2006 proved that Republicans do not actually have the ability to steal whatever election they want.
theviolenthero said:
Sure, one good example of a libertarian Mayor is Ed Thompson (brother of Tommy Thompson, ex-governor of Wisconsin). Of course, Clint Eastwood is a libertarian and was mayor of his home town for like 2 terms. There are a bunch more lesser known too of course. Governors... there have been libertarian leaning governors.
theviolenthero
Member
Gaborn said:
Ok thanks.
wasn't the vast majority of voter fraud cases claimed in Milwaukee due to clerical errors?eznark said:
http://www.truthaboutfraud.org/case_studies_by_state/wisconsin_2004.html#more
scorcho said:
If you are willing to accept someone mistakenly writing their address down as a vacant lot or reading their own address incorrectly and voting multiple times at different booths as clerical errors (after all, DA Mike McCann (democrat) was).
Every election moron Republicans also like to vote multiple times and shout about it, showing how broken the system is...McCann also didn't think he could prosecute them. It was his calling card really. The only DA I ever heard of who absolutely hated the idea of prosecuting criminals.
FlightOfHeaven, that was a joke, as I put myself into the "needing a heart" category.
scorcho said:
No, the majority of KNOWN voter fraud was due to clerical errors. If the person whose identity you're claiming also attempts to vote there will be cases of double voting, but in situations where a voter knowns the other person will be out of town or not going to the polls (say a neighbor or a friend you know is out of town and not planing to vote absentee) without checking their identity you can't assume other forms of voter fraud are not occurring.
ah the known unknowns...
indeed... i forgot about the anecdotal evidence of mythical voters who knows for certain a sick relative or neighbor won't vote and decide to skew the system. these millions must be stopped!
eznark: what about this snippet from the Brennan Center's research -
indeed... i forgot about the anecdotal evidence of mythical voters who knows for certain a sick relative or neighbor won't vote and decide to skew the system. these millions must be stopped!
eznark: what about this snippet from the Brennan Center's research -
It's so interesting to hear (some) Liberals whine about how Republicans use scare tactics, while in the meantime they (stupidly) scare people away from the polls by causing people to think that their vote won't be counted or some shit like that, in an effort to pre-emptively whine about the '08 election being stolen.Father_Brain said:
The reality is that if 60% of americans go and vote for Obama, Republicans aren't going to be able to steal the election. It's only really possible on very small scales. Could Republicans avoid a huge Democratic landslide in 2006? No. Could some precincts in the middle of nowhere in Ohio report to have no votes for Kerry in 2004? Yep.
SouthernDragon
Member
eznark said:
Oh. I should sleep, then.
scorcho said:
Well, in this case it's a valid concern. It's a lot harder to meaningfully measure fraud without having a way to verify the truth of something. Therefore, in Milwaukee and other cities and states where voter fraud was examined without using IDs they were able to catch voters voting for someone else only when the other person also voted.
I dunno why libertarians bother arguing at all.
If their theory is right, eventually one country will adopt libertarian policies (or one state, as far as it can) and be so much more efficient and better that everyone will vote with their wallets by moving and working there, forcing other countries to adopt the same policies so as to compete.
If their theory is right, eventually one country will adopt libertarian policies (or one state, as far as it can) and be so much more efficient and better that everyone will vote with their wallets by moving and working there, forcing other countries to adopt the same policies so as to compete.
Mandark said:
I dunno why ANYONE argues in a poli-gaf thread then. It's not like most of Poli-gaf (which I think it's fair to say skews further left than most presidential candidates) is seeing their preferred policies implemented to all that much success, and either way you can point to problems and flaws in almost any system.
I mean, come on, we argue because we think we're right and we see inherent flaws in your positions, same as anything else.
Scorcho - again, how are you going to identify voting fraud aside from double voting without checking ID? How are you going to PROVE a person voting is not who they say they are? You're asking for the impossible. In any case, Voter ID has consistently been upheld so long as it's free and relatively simple to acquire. Considering most states allow you to vote with something as simple as a a social security card (missouri being an unfortunate exception to that), a utility bill, a bank statement, etc in lieu of things like an actual voter ID cad, a state ID, a drivers license, etc I don't see the massive burden you do.
pxleyes said:
There's already a separate thread for that, if a mod wants to close that one and tell the people discussing it to move to poli-gaf that'd be reasonable, but why have two threads on the same subject?
and Mandark - Ok, as I said, the government sold war bonds, sorry I wasn't quite as sharp as you at 3 am. at the same time that's a sign the economy was already recovering, and NOT due to the war bonds citizens chose to buy, but because it was already ramping up to handle war demand in terms of manufacturing.
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
Whenever I read these threads, I get the sense that people with a system of morality based on the tax burden you are willing to bear have in mind plucky, down-on-their luck poor people like the kind featured in very special episodes of sitcoms. In reality, if Sen. Obama wins and enacts a universal health care system, you will be supporting a massive wealth transfer away from fit yankees to subsidize the appalling health lifestyles of obese Southerners who are circulating 'Obama is a Muslim' emails as we type.
don't worry - he's a maverick. he can get away with offering contradictory policies that pander to all americans because he earned the right. David Broder told me so!pxleyes said:
eznark: just read that. what can i say - you know the inner depths of my soul, brother. for that i love you.
pxleyes said:
If energy dependence means having to get stuff from abroad, having more of our own stuff in our own marketplace would be the reduction of dependence, no?
It may be that you meant to ask that question a different way, or a different question, but that one answers itself.
Deus Ex Machina
Member
**Obama Live Now Campaigns In Albuquerque, New Mexico**
Sen. Barack Obama speaks during a campaign event in Albuquerque, NM.
Live from Albuquerque: Discussion with Working Women at the Flying Star Cafe
Watch it here: http://edition.cnn.com/video/live/live.html?stream=stream4
Sen. Barack Obama speaks during a campaign event in Albuquerque, NM.
Live from Albuquerque: Discussion with Working Women at the Flying Star Cafe
Watch it here: http://edition.cnn.com/video/live/live.html?stream=stream4
I actually don't mind the first principles debates when they break out. It's more interesting than the usual Poli-Gaf as the OT's answer to Sales-Gaf, and it raises the bar just enough to exclude some of the bigger dopes.
As for McCain's energy policy, PRIZES ARE NOT THE ANSWER.
This $300 million prize for a battery is dumb dumb dumb. It's also taken straight from Newt Gingrich, who's currently held up as the gold standard of right wonkery. Problems with this idea:
* A system where the government determines what meets the criteria for the prize is just begging for corruption.
* Awarding a lump sum takes away the incentive to make something that's economically feasible to mass produce and market.
* Just by offering a prize for certain technologies the government is limiting the rewards to inventions that help the energy and climate problems in certain ways. If someone got really innovative and came up with an entirely new approach to things, they'd get bupkus.
This isn't a free market solution. A carbon tax or public auction of credits is. Proposals like this basically reveal that the person shilling for them doesn't really understand why markets work. They just conflate "friendly towards corporations" with "harnessing the power of private entrepreneurship."
As for McCain's energy policy, PRIZES ARE NOT THE ANSWER.
This $300 million prize for a battery is dumb dumb dumb. It's also taken straight from Newt Gingrich, who's currently held up as the gold standard of right wonkery. Problems with this idea:
* A system where the government determines what meets the criteria for the prize is just begging for corruption.
* Awarding a lump sum takes away the incentive to make something that's economically feasible to mass produce and market.
* Just by offering a prize for certain technologies the government is limiting the rewards to inventions that help the energy and climate problems in certain ways. If someone got really innovative and came up with an entirely new approach to things, they'd get bupkus.
This isn't a free market solution. A carbon tax or public auction of credits is. Proposals like this basically reveal that the person shilling for them doesn't really understand why markets work. They just conflate "friendly towards corporations" with "harnessing the power of private entrepreneurship."
JayDubya said:
The problem is that there's nowhere near enough untapped oil in the US to make a significant difference. Drilling in ANWR would reduce the imported share of US oil by some tiny percent.
And oil prices in the US would still be dependent on prices in the worldwide market, unless we banned US producers from exporting.
Plus if the country used the uptick in production to remain wedded to an oil-dependent infrastructure then we'd find ourselves dependent on foreign sources for longer.
There just isn't enough oil in the US to satisfy domestic demand. The only way towards energy independence is to use less energy or find alternate sources. Most of the oil is under other people's countries and that's just how it is.
See the recent thread on the subject.FlightOfHeaven said:
That'd be pretty awesome.
I hate you.JayDubya said:>>>>>>>>
Mandark said:
Even if your first statement is right (and I've heard anywhere from 6 months to 20 years worth of oil though no one is certain) your conclusion makes no sense. Clearly the best energy policy going forward is to improve in every area, become more efficient with the nonrenewable resources we use, become better at using renewable resources more often, and also get at more of the non-renewable resources we have available on our own land.
6 months to 20 years? ANWR would be getting pumped at such a high rate that it would deliver all the gas we needed until it ran out?
Dude, you're banned from bringing up facts until you write a 3 page essay, double-spaced, on why you were disconnected from reality and what you've done to correct the situation. It should have an introduction, a conclusion, and at least three body paragraphs for organization.
Dude, you're banned from bringing up facts until you write a 3 page essay, double-spaced, on why you were disconnected from reality and what you've done to correct the situation. It should have an introduction, a conclusion, and at least three body paragraphs for organization.
scorcho said:
I don't think it's an immediate solution but there's no reason not to do it as another source that will HELP a little bit long term as part of a comprehensive energy policy.
Mandark - way to shift the debate rather than address my central point, good for you. (not to mention completely misreading what I said, nowhere did I assume we'd pump until it ran out nor did I comment on the rate of pumping, we simply don't know how much oil is there exactly.
Mandark said:
Right, but aren't they criticizing McCain for doubletalk when he's pushing for domestic drilling and then turning around and wanting to incentivize technology meant to push towards energy independence, when both policies are aimed at that goal?
I also don't approve of this $300 M cash prize thing, or a lot of McCain's schtick, really, but you already know that, and why. However, all this "lol McSame lol" stuff needs to have logic behind it.
Aye, and that's the way it's always been, but of course, I see no reason why we should restrict free enterprise from getting what oil we can when we can while we can, or why that has any bearing on the push for new technology when, as you say, the price won't change all that much so people are already highly incentivized to try more fuel efficient / different means of transportation.
Put another way... why the hell aren't we already drilling? Because we forbade drilling. Why the hell did we forbid the drilling again?
Cyan said:
I like the comic strip Calvin and Hobbes more than the show Lost, but as mere winksy symbols of philosophers, Locke rules and Hobbes drools.
scorcho said:
speaking of contradictory, what was the Following's response to the Annointed One's breaking of the campaign finance pledge?
Oh, and McCain is a piece of shit, (before you jump on me for my hilarious allusions to Obama-as-Savior...blame the Rolling Stone and DU). Seriously, turning innovation into a taxpayer funded game show? Fuck you bud.
scorcho, my murder analogy may have been poor (I was rushing out of my office) but I only meant to say that everyone in Milwaukee knows what is going on, no matter which special interest funded .org's data you want to point to. Without some form of initial tracking, it's impossible to prove multiple voting (the preferred fraudulent method in same-day. no ID registration states).
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
eznark said:
I think it was a mixture of "Oh, who gives a shit", "Damn right, get that money!" and "Publicfinancingwhatnow?"
- Status