OT: 2008 Elections/Politics thread, Part 2

[JackB1]

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

Great clip Jack!

If this was happening in many other countries. the govt would have been overthrown by the people a long time ago. It will take a lot more to get the general public to realize that 300 million are being royally screwed by 545. A "Democracy" is supposed to be run BY the people FOR the people.
That is not what we currently have. Sooner or later, we will realize whats going on and hopefully do something about it. I don't think this is what John Adams had in mind.

[FatPitcher]

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

Great clip Jack!

If this was happening in many other countries. the govt would have been overthrown by the people a long time ago. It will take a lot more to get the general public to realize that 300 million are being royally screwed by 545. A "Democracy" is supposed to be run BY the people FOR the people.
That is not what we currently have. Sooner or later, we will realize whats going on and hopefully do something about it. I don't think this is what John Adams had in mind.

I dunno. Generally people who have as high a quality of life and can afford as many luxury goods as we can aren't going to be bothered to overthrow anything. Sure, some people will be motivated to vote themselves more free money and services and will whine when they can't have them, but taking one of the relatively plentiful jobs in the country is an easier way of getting what they want than being in a resistance movement in Zimbabwe, for example.

What is happening in America is that 5% of people are getting royally screwed by 50% of people. Which pretty much matches your idea of "by the people, for the people," but also matches the founders' fear that the masses would pretty much just vote themselves money and services.

[wco81]

Which 5% are those, the ones who own well over 50% of the wealth of the country?

[matthewk]

I think it's more like more than 50% of the people are being screwed by 2% of the people.

[FatPitcher]

Which 5% are those, the ones who own well over 50% of the wealth of the country?

Any guesses as to how far over 50% "well over" is? -13%. Which, mathematically, means that it is less than 50%, but that's not how it feels to Mary Whittaker, of Aston, Pennsylvania, who just lost her job and is hungry for change and HBO. And feelings are what really matters.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1216596 ... torialPage

Of course, that does not include state and local taxes, such as the patently unjust property taxes and arguably unfair sales taxes, both of which disproportionately affect the lower and middle classes.

[JRod]

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

Great clip Jack!

If this was happening in many other countries. the govt would have been overthrown by the people a long time ago. It will take a lot more to get the general public to realize that 300 million are being royally screwed by 545. A "Democracy" is supposed to be run BY the people FOR the people.
That is not what we currently have. Sooner or later, we will realize whats going on and hopefully do something about it. I don't think this is what John Adams had in mind.

You guys really don't know what type of democracy we have.

What you are describing is a direct democracy. Meaning everyone has a vote. Frankly that is untenable because if we did that we would have to participate in every single government decision.

As for John Adams, you do realize that the founders didn't trust the people to make smart decisions? They didn't believe the people could pick the right president so they set up a system where the states vote for electors and those electors choose the president. You have a representative government where the people choose a delegate (Senator/Rep) from the states. Early on the Senate choose who the VP was not the President.

Our government is not set-up to be efficient or to allow the best to hold office. It's set-up because on the basis that power corrupts and the common masses aren't really smart enough. It's meant to slow down proposals so that what happened in the Third Reich (the actual government) could not happen here. The whole system is set-up for compromises between the branches and within some of the branches.


As for the members of congress, when you make statements that all 545 are incompetent makes you sound stupid. Really who do you know that all of them are bad. How about you concentrate on the ones you actually elect and start there. Again I bet some of you guys could name me your two senators, Representative, Governor and State Assemblymen. If you could that's a start, then you actually need to know what their platform is.

Making blanket statements like all 545 are "criminally incompetent" almost proves the founders distrust in the public to take an enlightened approach to government.

[Jackdog]

You guys really don't know what type of democracy we have.

What you are describing is a direct democracy. Meaning everyone has a vote. Frankly that is untenable because if we did that we would have to participate in every single government decision.

As for John Adams, you do realize that the founders didn't trust the people to make smart decisions? They didn't believe the people could pick the right president so they set up a system where the states vote for electors and those electors choose the president. You have a representative government where the people choose a delegate (Senator/Rep) from the states. Early on the Senate choose who the VP was not the President.

Our government is not set-up to be efficient or to allow the best to hold office. It's set-up because on the basis that power corrupts and the common masses aren't really smart enough. It's meant to slow down proposals so that what happened in the Third Reich (the actual government) could not happen here. The whole system is set-up for compromises between the branches and within some of the branches.


As for the members of congress, when you make statements that all 545 are incompetent makes you sound stupid. Really who do you know that all of them are bad. How about you concentrate on the ones you actually elect and start there. Again I bet some of you guys could name me your two senators, Representative, Governor and State Assemblymen. If you could that's a start, then you actually need to know what their platform is.

Making blanket statements like all 545 are "criminally incompetent" almost proves the founders distrust in the public to take an enlightened approach to government.

Someone got a C in POD huh?

First off I didn't make the statement. Learn how to read a post. It was written by Charlie Reese. I do agree with much of what he wrote.

I know more about the goverment and how it runs than you think. I worked closely with a current presidential candidate and former vice presidential candidate. I also worked for a former congressman from TN. I worked for both parties because I believed in the candidate's platform more than party.
Your bet makes no sense unless you ment we couldn't name who are public servents are and their platforms. I do and then some. But thanks for calling me stupid. I understand the "Rod"in your screen name more and more everyday.

I might be stupid, but I know what's right. And this is just a sample of the idiots that run this country and how they really feel about it's people.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2 ... /#comments

DNC host's tax-free gas evaporates
Angry reaction brings a halt to use of city pumps.

The committee hosting the Democratic National Convention has used the city's gas pumps to fill up and apparently avoided paying state and federal fuel taxes.

The practice, which began four months ago, may have ended hours after its disclosure. An aide to Mayor John Hickenlooper released a statement Tuesday evening saying that Denver 2008 Host Committee members would pay market prices for fuel and would also be liable for all applicable taxes.

However, Public Works spokeswoman Christine Downs told City Council members just hours before that host committee members were fueling up at the city pumps. The city does not pay taxes on the fuel for its fleet, and Downs said the host committee would not either.

The disclosure brought immediate scrutiny. Colorado Attorney General John Suthers said the practice "would seem" to be illegal and referred the matter to the state Department of Revenue.

Nonprofits, such as the host committee, are subject to state and federal gasoline taxes, according to the Department of Revenue.

The issue arose during the regular weekly meeting of Hickenlooper and City Council members. Downs requested authorization for a contract so the Public Works Department could be reimbursed by the host committee for use of "fueling facilities, fuel and car washes."

Downs said the contract with the host committee started in March and that $9,700 in fuel and services had been purchased from the city so far. But the committee has yet to be billed. The city anticipates $466,125 in total revenues from the contract, Downs said.

City Councilman Charlie Brown raised the question of whether the host committee would be paying fuel taxes, and Downs said it wouldn't.

"There's something there that just doesn't seem right to me because, in a sense, you're saying then that the officials who pass the laws are not willing to live by them," said Councilwoman Jeanne Faatz.

Hickenlooper said the practice isn't unique to Denver.

"I do know for a fact that they're doing the same exact thing in Minneapolis," Hickenlooper said, referring to the city that along with St. Paul is hosting the Republican National Convention.

But Teresa McFarland, a spokeswoman for the Minneapolis-St. Paul host committee, said its members are getting their gas at public pumps.

"We're not getting a tax break on fuel," she said. "That's not the setup at this end."

In Colorado, consumers pay 40.4 cents per gallon in state and federal fuel taxes.
"The DNC is not government.They are political parties and they are putting on a huge party, and that is not providing services to each and every citizen each day.""If you've got a 14-gallon tank, on the average, that's about $5.66 that they don't have to pay for fill up," Councilman Charlie Brown said.

Brown also questioned the need for car washes.

"Why are we washing cars in the middle of a drought?" he asked. "Where are the green police when we need them? Are they poking around restaurants to see that nobody fries food?"

The Denver Host Committee is paying the taxes, not because it's the right thing to do, but because they got caught not paying the taxes the rest of us pay. If they were interested in doing the right thing, they would have been buying taxed fuel just like the rest of us.

So the DNC gets the gas tax summer holiday and the rest of us get the privelege of getting drilled in the wallet by high fuel taxes.

What type of democracy is that oh wise one?

[matthewk]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1216596 ... torialPage

Of course, that does not include state and local taxes, such as the patently unjust property taxes and arguably unfair sales taxes, both of which disproportionately affect the lower and middle classes.

Very enlightening article. Now I get what you meant with the 5%- 50% comment. My comment was more in that I feel there is a small segment (like the 545) of very well-off people that are continually finding ways to screw the majority of "regular" people.

I also agree that we won't be seeing any rebelling against our leaders as long as we still have cable TV and Cheetos (which I love, BTW) in abundance

[XXXIV]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1216596 ... torialPage

Of course, that does not include state and local taxes, such as the patently unjust property taxes and arguably unfair sales taxes, both of which disproportionately affect the lower and middle classes.

Very enlightening article.

Very...I knew they paid the most but I didnt know it was by that much.

Another case of people not letting the facts get in the way of their politics.

[JackB1]

You guys really don't know what type of democracy we have.

What you are describing is a direct democracy. Meaning everyone has a vote. Frankly that is untenable because if we did that we would have to participate in every single government decision.

But everyone doesn't have a vote! You only have a vote (that counts) if you are a democrat in a blue state or a rep. in a red state. This means that if say 50% of the people vote, a large percent of them won't count towards anything. That doesn't sound like "everyone has a vote" to me. The 2 party system sucks...the electoral college sucks. You are right in saying that the system was set up to give the general public little say in things because they didn't feel like we could handle it. Well the people in charge sure aren't doing a better job. All they are doing is protecting their own interests.

Also, I dont want to participate in every decision, but I think the one's that have a HUGE impact, like going to war or not, should be voted on by the people. And then, every year we vote on whether or not to continue. Even my screwy little local H.O.A. is run in a more "democratic" way than our gov't is. They can't get away with spending more than what's in our budget or raising the fees without justification....but our govt sure can and a whole lot more.

[Jared]

Any guesses as to how far over 50% "well over" is? -13%. Which, mathematically, means that it is less than 50%, but that's not how it feels to Mary Whittaker, of Aston, Pennsylvania, who just lost her job and is hungry for change and HBO. And feelings are what really matters.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1216596 ... torialPage

That article is BS. The reason that the top 1% pay more in taxes now than before is because there is a greater concentration of wealth at the top than their was in the past. In 2007, someone in the top 1% had to make over 388k...in 2003, it was 295k. So the income in the top percentile rose 30% over the last four years. With that increase, of course, their taxes paid would increase.

Notice that the article doesn't once compare the tax RATE for the top percentile between 2003 and 2007. Furthermore, the article stupidly conflates the health of the economy with the health of the top percentile in the United States. (The article actually said that the current tax rates have led to the economy and earnings growing faster...yeah, that's definitely the case right now. ) If that were true, then the implication is that the US economy has improved 30% over the last four years. Furthermore, they do not do a direct, apples to apples, comparison of tax revenues between 2007 and the past, instead just looking at the top percentile and making a bunch of junk claims based on that.

In short, that article is total BS.

[Naples39]

A disturbingly large percentage of the populous couldn't even find Iraq on a map. Sorry, but there is no way you could ever convince me people like that deserve a direct say on the safety of our soldiers, or worse yet, where to point the tip of the gun of the greatest military the world has ever seen.

[RobVarak]

Also, I dont want to participate in every decision, but I think the one's that have a HUGE impact, like going to war or not, should be voted on by the people. And then, every year we vote on whether or not to continue. Even my screwy little local H.O.A. is run in a more "democratic" way than our gov't is. They can't get away with spending more than what's in our budget or raising the fees without justification....but our govt sure can and a whole lot more.

Jack, you can "want" to participate in whatever you want, but JRod's correct. That desire doesn't correlate to the actual government that we have.

Your idea about a war vote is ludicrous. The American public isn't able to adequately vote for a f***in American Idol much less a matter of life or death. My God, have you been to WalMart?!!

Incidentally, an individual's vote is essentially worthless. If someone offers you more than $5 for it you'd be a fool not to sell it.

I'm pretty sure that I've said this at least 2 other times in this thread, but everyone really should read the Federalist Papers. They're available here for free http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/ as well as being very reasonably priced in a variety of commercial editions. It may help people reconcile this disconnect between the government they think they should have and the government that we've got.

[FatPitcher]

Any guesses as to how far over 50% "well over" is? -13%. Which, mathematically, means that it is less than 50%, but that's not how it feels to Mary Whittaker, of Aston, Pennsylvania, who just lost her job and is hungry for change and HBO. And feelings are what really matters.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1216596 ... torialPage

That article is BS. The reason that the top 1% pay more in taxes now than before is because there is a greater concentration of wealth at the top than their was in the past. In 2007, someone in the top 1% had to make over 388k...in 2003, it was 295k. So the income in the top percentile rose 30% over the last four years. With that increase, of course, their taxes paid would increase.

Notice that the article doesn't once compare the tax RATE for the top percentile between 2003 and 2007. Furthermore, the article stupidly conflates the health of the economy with the health of the top percentile in the United States. (The article actually said that the current tax rates have led to the economy and earnings growing faster...yeah, that's definitely the case right now. ) If that were true, then the implication is that the US economy has improved 30% over the last four years. Furthermore, they do not do a direct, apples to apples, comparison of tax revenues between 2007 and the past, instead just looking at the top percentile and making a bunch of junk claims based on that.

In short, that article is total BS.

I linked it for the chart, not for the writing. Some people like to harp on the rich not paying "their fair share" of income taxes, and it's pretty clear from the data that they pay it and more, despite the 2003 "tax cuts for the rich."

You are saying that the tax cuts in 2003 did not improve the economy because it has slowed in 2008. Not sure I follow.

And as you probably know but chose not to mention, part of the increase in AGI is closure of tax loopholes as well as lower tax rates reducing the incentive to use tax shelters. In other words, that 30% increase is partially a result of more income is being reported.

I don't know what you are trying to prove by pointing out that the % of AGI paid by the top 1% has gone down. My original point about our system of government encouraging people to vote themselves money remains - 5% of the population pays for 60% of federal spending and receives, and 50% of the population pays for 97% of spending. The bottom 50% pays for 3% of services and receives 65% of government spending - a hefty return rate of several hundred percent (1461% for the bottom 20% of earners) for each tax dollar paid.

Throw universal health care or removal of social security income caps on top of that, and those percentages will become even more dramatic.

[RobVarak]

In short, that article is total BS.

Well, in all fairness the author did anticipate your principal argument:

Aha, we are told: The rich paid more taxes because they made a greater share of the money. That is true. The top 1% earned 22% of all reported income. But they also paid a share of taxes not far from double their share of income.

That's obviously the whole point of a progressive tax structure, so in that light it's essentially a Dog Bites Man story. The real issue facing us in the next several years is just how bad to we want to screw those who have done well in order to pay for dreadful spending over the last 8-10 years.

---Edit---

Let's just say that Jared and I have different opinions about what the tax burden in this country ought to be Man, I'm glad this forum has an edit button LOL

[wco81]

Which 5% are those, the ones who own well over 50% of the wealth of the country?

Any guesses as to how far over 50% "well over" is? -13%. Which, mathematically, means that it is less than 50%, but that's not how it feels to Mary Whittaker, of Aston, Pennsylvania, who just lost her job and is hungry for change and HBO. And feelings are what really matters.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1216596 ... torialPage

Of course, that does not include state and local taxes, such as the patently unjust property taxes and arguably unfair sales taxes, both of which disproportionately affect the lower and middle classes.

You're talking about AGI data, not wealth. But here is an actual WSJ article reporting on that data, as opposed to a WSJ Editorial spin:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1216772 ... 08_leftbox

And here is what the article says about the data which the Editorial leaves out:

As the wealthiest Americans' share of income has risen, so has their share of the income-tax burden. The group paid 39.9% of all income taxes in 2006, compared with 27.6% in 1988. In the most recently reported five years, however, the share of income reported by the very wealthy has risen faster than the group's share of income taxes.

But wealth is more than just annual AGI that people report to the IRS. That data comes from surveys such as the Survey of Consumer Finances commissioned by the Federal Reserve. Using that data, we get these kinds of results:

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesameri ... ealth.html

http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/ ... wolff.html

MM: What portion of the wealth is owned by the upper groups?
Wolff: The top 5 percent own more than half of all wealth.

In 1998, they owned 59 percent of all wealth. Or to put it another way, the top 5 percent had more wealth than the remaining 95 percent of the population, collectively.

The top 20 percent owns over 80 percent of all wealth. In 1998, it owned 83 percent of all wealth.

This is a very concentrated distribution.

[/quote]

[RobVarak]

As the wealthiest Americans' share of income has risen, so has their share of the income-tax burden. The group paid 39.9% of all income taxes in 2006, compared with 27.6% in 1988. In the most recently reported five years, however, the share of income reported by the very wealthy has risen faster than the group's share of income taxes.

.

The very fact that this is perceived as a problem is perverse.

[JRod]

Someone got a C in POD huh?

First off I didn't make the statement. Learn how to read a post. It was written by Charlie Reese. I do agree with much of what he wrote.

I know more about the goverment and how it runs than you think. I worked closely with a current presidential candidate and former vice presidential candidate. I also worked for a former congressman from TN. I worked for both parties because I believed in the candidate's platform more than party.
Your bet makes no sense unless you ment we couldn't name who are public servents are and their platforms. I do and then some. But thanks for calling me stupid. I understand the "Rod"in your screen name more and more everyday.

I might be stupid, but I know what's right. And this is just a sample of the idiots that run this country and how they really feel about it's people.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2 ... /#comments

The Denver Host Committee is paying the taxes, not because it's the right thing to do, but because they got caught not paying the taxes the rest of us pay. If they were interested in doing the right thing, they would have been buying taxed fuel just like the rest of us.

So the DNC gets the gas tax summer holiday and the rest of us get the privelege of getting drilled in the wallet by high fuel taxes.

What type of democracy is that oh wise one?

It got caught right? Seems to me the power of the press actually did their job. What does that have to do with your argument.

You just picked out a boneheaded decision made by Denver officials and you equate that to all government are basically criminals.

You guys just pick and choose problems in America and then make blanket statements about it.

And don't take personal shots at names. Jack. Thsoe are the rules here at DSP. Argue all you want but when you take personal shots you've crossed a line. You can call all my arguments stupid if you want, certainly others have, but the name calling is best left for OS or IGN.

[XXXIV]

As the wealthiest Americans' share of income has risen, so has their share of the income-tax burden. The group paid 39.9% of all income taxes in 2006, compared with 27.6% in 1988. In the most recently reported five years, however, the share of income reported by the very wealthy has risen faster than the group's share of income taxes.

.

The very fact that this is perceived as a problem is perverse.

Not if your a communist.

The money should all be collected by the party. Then your fellow comrades will make sure its properly distributed.

[JRod]

As the wealthiest Americans' share of income has risen, so has their share of the income-tax burden. The group paid 39.9% of all income taxes in 2006, compared with 27.6% in 1988. In the most recently reported five years, however, the share of income reported by the very wealthy has risen faster than the group's share of income taxes.

.

The very fact that this is perceived as a problem is perverse.

Which article posted that quote?

[wco81]

As the wealthiest Americans' share of income has risen, so has their share of the income-tax burden. The group paid 39.9% of all income taxes in 2006, compared with 27.6% in 1988. In the most recently reported five years, however, the share of income reported by the very wealthy has risen faster than the group's share of income taxes.

.

The very fact that this is perceived as a problem is perverse.

Who said it was a problem? Just stating what the numbers are.

It does indicate that the tax policies gave the "wealthiest Americans" relief compared to previous years, which should not be a surprise.

You can debate whether their share of the income tax burden should be higher or lower but you can't argue that it hasn't been reduced in recent years.

[FatPitcher]

.

The very fact that this is perceived as a problem is perverse.

Who said it was a problem? Just stating what the numbers are.

It does indicate that the tax policies gave the "wealthiest Americans" relief compared to previous years, which should not be a surprise.

You can debate whether their share of the income tax burden should be higher or lower but you can't argue that it hasn't been reduced in recent years.

Tax cuts generally give more relief to people who pay more taxes, unless they are called "economic stimulus programs," in which case it doesn't matter all that much whether you paid taxes or not.

You can argue with certainty that the highest earners pay a greater share of the total income tax than in recent years (which is what "tax burden" generally refers to). The rate at which their income is taxed has gone down.

[pk500]

People should not be penalized for productivity. That's why the income tax is a joke.

Take care,
PK

[JRod]

People should not be penalized for productivity. That's why the income tax is a joke.

Take care,
PK

They aren't penalized for productivity. Come on.

Let's just assume the that government is 100% effective in spending taxes, doesn't the government have to provide for basic services that the people need for commerce, regulation, justice, general health and welfare.

I'm not advocating I like taxes but there are services necessary to a strong nation that non-profits, private corporations can not or should not provide.

For eight years, corporations and individuals in the higher tax brackets have paid less (percentage) than under the previous Democratic President. We do not have a stronger economy now because of those policies. Of course, the war, inflation, bad lending practices, have all contributed to the problem.

There is no independent evidence that taxes limits productivity. I'm sure the WSJ could drum up something to support it's conservative stance but that claim that productivity takes a hit is unfounded.

Does Microsoft stop producing windows if it's taxes are too high. Does Wal-Mart close down stores because of the taxes it pays?

If you were to say that higher taxes limits how much capital certain companies or individuals have to invest which in turn could spur on capital development, then you would have a much stronger argument.

[FatPitcher]

People should not be penalized for productivity. That's why the income tax is a joke.

Take care,
PK

On the taxation side, the government punishes productivity, and on the spending side, it subsidizes non-productivity. Doesn't seem like a good recipe for making the country more productive or for improving upward mobility. Human beings are all about incentives and motivation, as I have learned in my time as a game designer. One of my roommates is very motivated to get a job where she does more productive work, for example, because she wants health care coverage. If she had that coverage already, she'd be content contributing less to the GDP as a temp.