If both major political parties are liars of equal measure...
...how do we solve our current state of political gridlock, disinterest, and the lack of confidence the American people have in our political system?
People have to be more aware of who they vote for. They have to read about and study the candidate closely. They have to read nonpartisan reports and rely upon inductive and deductive logic. The problem is that so many American people worship the cult of personality as far as politicians go. If a celebrity endorses a candidate, it is akin to the politician receiving some type of imprimatur. C'mon now. An example of this is Oprah endorsing Obama as the great future hope. She sang the praises of a politician with very little political experience and we all know the results of this. Read, do research, and carefully analyze the politician before voting for him/her.
So it took one answer for this to turn partisan. Not much hope for America if that's the case.
Exactly, it is those who immediately begin siding with one party/belief system that exacerbate the problem - which is just fine for the real powers behind our government. They are delighted to have all of us scrapping away over who is right, liberals or conservatives. It keeps the silly sheeples occupied while they continue to adjust the laws to suit themselves. One of these days these people are finally going to wake up to a new world and wonder what happened and how it got there.
Hardly. Too late will be when the lazy, complacent masses actually end up in the streets with pitchforks. Unfortunately, this is probably going to be the answer to the question.
It is quite easy to find out who is on the take as their contributors expose the tale of the tape or should I say red tape. With the recent edicts from the Supreme Court with Citizens United it will be very hard to distinguish who is worthy and who is not.
I think your premise is deeply flawed. The Democrats ( the more leftist, the more true is the following) tell everyone the truth about where they want to take America, if one listens.
That's a laugh - they claim they're heading for Utopia, where everyone has plenty. In truth they are heading for Hell, where everyone has nothing.
They have told you what their Utopia looks like the whole time. A ruling elite controlling the distribution of everything and very little to go around. Limits on energy production, deconstruction of the industrial world and the vast plenty it brings in food, medicine, creature comfort, security, freedom of information, freedom of motion, etc.... They have told you time and again that you cannot live the way you would like, drive what you want, eat what you want, live in the house you want, own what you purchase with the proceeds of your own labor. They tell you that life is not sacred. That you must be controlled for your own good and the good of others. They tell you that they know a much better way to employ your talents, your product, your resources. They haven't lied, if you listen. Leftist, liberals, Democrats have all been telling you that they are taking everyone straight into "Utopia."
Utopia, literally means, no place. We have, thanks to lefties, arrived.Harmony is fantasy. The divide is deeply ingrained in human nature. It isn't about partisan politics it is about the conflict between security and liberty. Some will pretend that they are not about security and all about liberty, but any more than cursory examination of the ideas they espouse will reveal that they are dedicated to the tiny safe confines of the public zoo not to the freedom of the Veldt.
Unfortunately many believe as your explanation defines. The discord is fueled by distrust and there you have the security issue you speak of. I would hope that as humans we could reason our way to a compromise. While maybe not harmonious many can find it tolerable as the lack of progress is not settling well with many. Security or freedom may be a bit narrow with its choice as neither side of the divide wish to budge and instead buy into the political rancor that those in charge wish us to use as the arguments. It is a shame that in the process we identify those on either with a set labels that preclude any understanding based on the pre-concepts truthfully or wrongly applied. I am not sure that the veldt of understanding is a broad enough plain with which one can graze at the mantra for human survival.
So you are a connect the dots guy. With your reference to the veldt I thought differently of your post. Perhaps I will have to take the elongated tact.
I would hope that as humans we could reason our way to a compromise. What in human history suggests that this is possible?
Well moving from the caves and into a modern society with a monetary system is one way as compromise is the way we bargain and acquire what we want without beating another over the head with a club.
While maybe not harmonious many can find it tolerable as the lack of progress is not settling well with many.What in human history suggests this has ever occurred?
With current election conditions in government that suggest corruption many choose to still participate in the exercise even if it produces little. The Tea Party is a prime example of things not settling well
What in human history suggests this has ever occurred? What suggests that human survival is actually at stake?
With current events such as escalation of terrorism and even so recently as the unrest in Ukraine there seems to be a steadfast lack of tolerance and or compromise that can assure peace. Putin is putting Obama on the hot seat with the lines he will cross to provoke a reactionIf you are angling towards an argument that results in an all or nothing contrariness then we could go on forever with that tit for tat. As I indicated in my first post the great divide is being promulgated by one of us and I feel it is better not to go down that road with you. I would rather test the waters for solutions rather than condemnation.
Thanks for turning the conversation partisan and making no effort to answer the question. Makes dialogue pointless and asking questions pointless as well, at least here.
Nice moral high horse, the irony of someone so free with vile names adopting a haughty position is hardly lost on me.
The assumption is a partisan one to begin with. I am absolutely serious in my contention that lefties are honest in their promises for America. The deception is by Republicans who promise a more conservative government and yet NEVER delivering it. They merely deliver a less aggressively invasive, obtrusive, controlling, oppressive government than the one lefties honestly promise and than deliver.
Barrack Obama said plainly that he was going to correct the direction of America and he has certainly done so. He promised that we could not live the way we want and he has fulfilled that promise. He said he would destroy coal powered energy and is doing just that. He is one of the most truthful politicians that has ever been President.and where do you see a "moral high horse"? And how is the assumption partisan? You obviously know the definition of partisan. I gave no party a pass on the talent for lying.
That is where we are different, I maintain the Democrats and lefties tell the truth, if one listens. It is the GOP leadership that is lying.
Completely redo the system - as it should be obvious to everyone that it is VERY broken. Make #1 about getting the money/lobbyists out of politics. In other words, make it so the American people actually feel that the government is for the people, by the people once again. Anyone thinking that voting for "better" candidates within the current two party system will resolve the problem is kidding themselves . . . How to actually do this? Now, there's the million dollar question and everyone's waiting for an answer.
No amount of money can purchase a man who is not for sale. It is not the money, it is the man.
Very poetic. Unfortunately, our current political system is proof that money wins every time. That is what needs to change. For a candidate to even run for president/office takes tens of millions - all provided by those with money so long as that candidate does their bidding.
There are many who have won political office with much less money than their opponent. It is not the money, it is the man.
Conservatism is no mere political partisan stance, unlike Democrat or Republican, it is a philosophy about the nature of human relations. You can pretend it is all the same, it is not.
The fracturing of the GOP over ideas of what constitutes responsible governance and the solidifying of lefties around Obama clearly demonstrates an intractable and deeply seated divide. It is endemic to humanity and will never be expunged, all else is fantasy - which is why it appeals most to disillusioned liberals who may have finally brushed up against their own cognitive dissonance and material reality.In local or state politics, maybe, but not at the national level and definitely not at the presidential level. No man/woman who cannot be sold will ever make it to that level in today’s politics. And the political races are only half the problem. The other half is the money that controls politics on a daily basis.
As for the rest of your comment, once again you’re simply exemplifying the problem. Since you’ve now proven yourself capable of pseudo-intellectual “speak”, perhaps you should attempt to dazzle us with an actual answer.
Here, let me help you. #2: get the money out of the mainstream media. If people in this country actually knew what was really going on, they’d probably sh** their pants and maybe, just maybe, things would start changing. Of course, that’s assuming they could actually wrench themselves away from American Idol.Well damn!
"In the white trunks, standing 5'7" 123 lbs it's...
Gemmmmmmminiiiiiiii Fooooooooooooooxxxx!
...and by the judges card it's...
Plainspeak 28 - pseudo-intellectual “speak” 18..."
In our early political history, it was a rare newspaper that wasn't an organ of a political party or politician. Editors were the deal makers that many attribute to "smokey back rooms" now. Our media has improved - but in both directions; investigative and true reporting, and honing their skills as a tool of powerful money.
Your point about the "daily" money in politics is too often ignored.
You should join us for a drink more often.
GAYet again, you miss identify the problem. It is political power that is the problem, devolve that power back to those to whom it belongs. Money pursues political influence because political influence is dangerous to money. The vast power of the government requires the attention of those with money because they wish to protect their money and the mechanisms that produce it. If you want a real remedy, chop all government down to its bare roots.
You have got this so backwards it is impossible to even explain it to you. Money drives "EVERYTHING" yes "EVERYTHING" in this country. That is the object of a capitalistic based system. When money is the object "EVERYTHING" is based on how to get it. Politicians are glued to whoevers purse is open at the moment. The more money you have the more "FREEDOM" and "POWER" you hold. If government was focused on getting as big as it can what is the end result? Power? With no money? Do you think the millionaires and billionaires would just fork over their money if the government held all the power? How is it that they have been able to reduce their taxes from around 90% under Eisenhower to about 14% as reported by Romney this past year. The money influence over politicians is so transparent and hidden behind the Supreme Court ruling on PAC money that it blows your take on it out of the water. That and the government has grown at an exponential rate since Eisenhower to its biggest under Bush and Obama. Your theory holds no evidence of its validity as applied to the current situation.
How is it that they have been able to reduce their taxes from around 90% under Eisenhower to about 14% as reported by Romney this past year.
This is an often repeated bit of rubbish. The high tax rates under Eisenhower covered a tiny number of people and were marginal income tax rates off set by deductions that lowered the effect tax rate to but a fraction of the misquoted and misunderstood rate. The rate paid by Romney was not an income tax rate, yet another bit of misinformation - often intentionally disseminated by leftist propagandists in the press who serve the leftist politicians. It is a capital gains rate and taxed at an entirely different rate because the income tax has already been paid once.
Absolutes are fun aren't they. Everything is about power. Political power governs the flow of money in America, as it does everywhere else. How can people be so foolish as to believe that a government that controls trillions of dollars serves at the behest of a business that, at best, controls perhaps a $1oo billion - JP Morgan Chase is worth around $150 billion, less than 6% of this years federal budget.
People act as if JP Morgan Chase is not in competition with Bank of America or Wells Fargo, but that they all collude as some vast and all powerful cartel to control the Federal government when it is the exact opposite that is the case. Government shakes down business for every penny it can get. It is government which corrupts.Rubbish huh? Perhaps you should read these. If they aren't enough I could come up with a few more if you like.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/21/pf/taxe … index.html
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/rick-n … tax-return
Technically the rate on capital gains under Eisenhower was 25% but the marginal rate over $400,000 was 91%-92%. Romney's combined rate was 14%.
http://news.yahoo.com/eisenhower-obama- … ZJUDM4NF8x
The only way the politicians get into office is by being elected. Guess what? They are bankrolled by their handlers. Why would the government allow NAFTA or the TPSEP or P4 to take place when it ravaged manufacturing and jobs in the US? Because they were told to by the business' that garnered incredible labor savings going overseas for the biggest expense in producing their goods. They pocketed the difference and put the money offshore. You have this entirely backwards. Money is the oil that makes the political machine move. Politicians are not after the huge business' that contribute to their campaigns. They target the small business' and the Mom & Pop stores who cannot buy a politician. Wake up man!Technically the rate on capital gains under Eisenhower was 25% but the marginal rate over $400,000 was 91%-92%. Romney's combined rate was 14%.
Of course it is rubbish, it is taken entirely out of the context of the ever widening, deepening insanity of the tax code. In the 1950s, the standard deduction - adjusted for inflation - was much higher than now and the median income taxpayer paid a much smaller percentage of his income in taxes. The percentage of Americans in the top tax rate was tiny and that rate only applied to a portion of the $400,000, not the entire amount. The effective tax rate is far different than the marginal tax rate. the 90% number is thrown as if those making $400,000 a year were paying $360,000 in taxes - rubbish!
There is more than ample evidence that capital gains taxes account for a tiny portion of the Federal governments massive tax bite - which is never enough since the National Debt is Larger than GDP. People own their money and it doesn't matter who or how much. I don't care how much Mitt Romney paid in taxes. I care how much economic prosperity is drained from the hands of citizens - ALL CITIZENS - and redirected into the hands of the scoundrels in government who want to purchase re-election with it.
THE GOVERNMENT OWNS NOTHING IT DOESN'T FIRST TAKE AT THE POINT OF A GUN FROM CITIZENS!I take it you didn't care to read the rest. I can't help you then. You can lead a horse as they say. Good day to you.
I did indeed read all of it and it is meaningless. When comparing tax rates over time it is essential to compare the entire impact of the tax code. It is a meaningless data set. 94% is a meaningless number with out expansive examination of all the tax code. I am concerned that we even care what Romney paid in taxes when it isn't germane to the argument about the power of the government. Did you bother noting that Romney gave twice as much to charity as he paid in taxes?
We have turned into a hate the rich society and that is destroying us. It is the massive accumulation of power by the government that has always been the problem. There is no massive cartel of business men steering the nation but there is a massive cartel of politicians doing so and at the expense of freedom. The wealth ripped from the economy, distorted, inflated and corrupted by government far exceeds any amount available to any individual, individual corporation or even any sector of the economy. Lefties and the current brand of populist know nothings who think that money and business are the problem fail to see that the sectors of the economy they so loath - BIGOILBIGINSURANCEBIGPHARMABIGAGRA - are tiny in comparison to the $17 TRILLION T-R-I-L-L-I-O-N that the federal government of the United States has used to twist and maim the whole system.
It amazes me no end that the people who cry wake up the enemy is money are the ones most soundly asleep to the horror of a government no longer contained by any law - Constitutional, sacred, profane, or economic.It is hard to believe that you consider the considerable decline in the tax rate and especially for the rich is not tied to a political agenda. Talk about blinders! The Romney comparison was only a comparison of where the decline has come down from. Warren Buffet openly admits he pays less than his secretary. To ignore it is not responsible in any argument when comparing the tax rates of the very rich and the burden the middle class is made to suffer to make up for it. Your comparison of what the federal government spends and somehow linking it to the power they have over all of us is incredibly not germane to the conversation. Are we paying too much in taxes? Absolutely! I would never try to intimate that it is any other way. Where does the money go? To defense contractors, to contractors like Halliburton for government contracts, to big oil as subsidies, to farm subsidies that shell out to corporations. Why do these cozy little deals continue? Because government just wants to grow bigger and profit from these deals? No my friend the corporations profit from their bought congressman getting it done for them. Recent estimates reveal that many congress members spend anywhere from 25 percent up to 50 percent (and sometimes more) of their time fundraising, especially as an election approaches. Along comes a corporate lobbyist and guess what the time is cut in half or more. You are way off when you think cutting back the size of government will cut back the big money influence. It would only exacerbate the problem with just fewer bought politicians bellying up to the bar for campaign donations as they do their lobbyists bidding.
Warren Buffet openly admits he pays less than his secretary.
A mendacious scoundrel. He pays capital gains tax, she pays income tax and that manipulative jerk knows the difference yet continues to pay her through that regular payroll rather then spare her the expense.
$3.6 MILLION, MILLION dwarfs any number you can find controlled by any business, individual, sector of the economy - who is running whom? Congressmen grow fat and rich on the illicit business they do while in office profiting from the stocks the buy and sell based on the bills in their committees or scheduled for votes and yet are not rounded up and jailed - as any business man would be. They continually exempt themselves from the rules they make for others and you don't see this as the corrupting factor.
Sufficient power takes wealth. The armed robber knows this, why don't you?What a load you are feeding yourself! Whether it is marginal tax, combined taxes or just capital gains taxes the rich pay less of a percentage of their income than does John C. Public. I never argued with you over the corrupt congressman lining his pockets with ill gotten bribes or sweetheart deals or for that matter the rules they write for themselves. The truth of the matter is that more than ever it is still practical for us to have a representative form of government whether on the local or federal level. How we get the right people is the question. You say to shrink it. How? Less representation? That would empower a few over the many. If that person is allowed to carry on as it is now with the campaign donations and lobbying corruption we would all be subject to a new form of Royalty with a few clambering to get the position is all. If you made all candidates vie for the same money by a neutral source you would get dedicated leaders that could spend their time on actual legislation as no one entity could influence them with campaign donations. their election would be determined by their record in office. Publicly financed campaigns, term limits and lobby reform is the only way to clean this mess up.
After finishing my taxes and my effective tax rate was lower than the DOUBLE taxation of capital gains and I am hardly wealthy. You fail to understand, capital gains is a second tax on money already taxed. Inheritance tax is a third tax. How is it right, I don't care how much someone makes, to take an individuals property again and again for anything but the most essential, nationwide, constitutionally defined purposes which serve every citizen not just specific constituencies?
You cannot have quality leadership without severe restriction on them. We do not elect angels, we elect people and people are shallow, selfish and vain. There is no RIGHT PEOPLE. The Founders understood this, lefties cannot understand it and we , as Americans, no longer understand it. It is not men who rule well but the rule of law that protects us. THERE ARE NO RIGHT PEOPLE!
Chopping off all portions of the federal government that do not strictly adhere to the letter of the Constitution would be the most effective way to shrink government. It would reduce the power that corrupt men have to sell. Lefties still cannot understand that a man who is not for sale cannot be purchased. Return to the FEDERAL system, devolve power back to the individual states and the individual citizen, where it belongs according to the Constitution.
This will not happen. We are finished as a free society. The President wants a kill switch for the internet, why? People hate the rich and love the government, that is the end of America. It is the right to accumulate private property without government dictate as to its quantity or its disposition that made America. That is over. We are over.I haven't failed to understand one thing you have said. What you fail to understand is that the tax rates for everyone is different based on the incredibly unfair tax code. But for some odd reason when a rich person reports their capital gains at the lower rate you think that they all have another income that is higher. Most live off of the capital gains and therefore they pay only that. When you look at the way it is manipulated with venture capitalists such as Romney the money is moved around, debt (interest deductible) is incurred, the workforce reduced or dismissed and production moved overseas, they sell the company at an inflated rate which guess what is a capital gain that is at a lower rate. They have set it up this way from jump. If your tax rate is different based on your deductions then good for you. Unfortunately as a small business owner I don't have it that good.
You have contradicted yourself when you say "Lefties still cannot understand that a man who is not for sale cannot be purchased" and then say "we elect people and people are shallow, selfish and vain. There is no RIGHT PEOPLE". What you fail to understand is that no matter who it is that is elected they are responsible to the people who got him elected. He is there because of them. Guess what the payoff is? His vote. Guess what else? It was purchased. It does not matter how many or how few of them of them there are. They were purchased! And until the money is removed from the paradigm nobody but the donor is who matters. I have explained this everyway I can and you still think that less politicians or bureaucrats will govern us better while the cancer that is the money continues to infect the process. By the way why is it a lefty conspiracy that you refer to when both sides of the isle vote for whoever pays best?Yet another lie of the left, Romney's company made money by rescuing companies from poor management or difficult or intractable problems. Perhaps a little research on how many jobs were saved, how many companies rescued and the value of those companies once their issues were resolved. It is sad how ignorant Americans are of some very basic business practices that preserve rather than destroy.
Bain Capital was a bait and switch scheme from the beginning, Their boilerplate template involved buying a company that was lacking, firing or buying out employees, borrowing money from other sources and then shipping the manufacturing overseas if it was a company who's products relied on labor. They would then sell the company at its inflated price and pocket the profit and claim it as a capital gains income. Unfortunately it is gains on somebody else's investment. None of his money or any venture capitalist is used. The investors are left with the debt and the US labor force is depleted again.
I agree with your idea that government should be reduced and that it is those who's power is amplified by their position that do outrageous things but the money is the source of all the corruption. They would never get a chance to serve in the government if they did not have the money to be elected.
It is a shame you have been fed this ridiculous bunk and that you proffer it with some sort of validity. You sound like a smart individual with life experience that is valuable but your one size fit all conclusion and solution is not practical nor advisable as it would be impossible to implement or fill the vast needs of the country.I have addressed this post further down about Romney's Bain Capital.
Capital gains are not reported at a lower rate, they are taxed at a lower rate because the capital invested has already been taxed once as income. Why do you hate the rich when it is the state whose boot is on your neck?
Would you still feel as strongly about the Capital Gains Tax if you remembered that it is not a second taxing of earned money? The name says it all. It is a tax on any "gained" value.
I won't bother with an example because I am sure you knew that and just misspoke.
On the other hand, if you ever want someone to join you in a rail against the Inheritance Tax - I'm your man.
No RIGHT PEOPLE? Even this curmudgeon isn't that cynical. But if you were to add a few qualifiers, like; very few, or something like that, maybe you might get into the ballpark.
Quality leadership requires severe restrictions? OK, no more Martinis for you. Your blood pressure is already to high.
GAThe Founders clearly understood that men are not angels and therefore there are no RIGHT PEOPLE. It is the rule of law not the rule of men that determines how long and how well a government serves its citizens. Quality leadership understands the limits of authority and that government, to preserve the rule of law and the civil society, must be restricted. When it is not and is, instead, permitted to circumvent the Constitution it will distort the law and destroy the liberty which a legitimate rule of law is meant to preserve. We stand at the precipice of the rule of the RIGHT PEOPLE and the end of liberty.
I am with you against the inheritance tax. This money passed down has been taxed and through the ringer enough. Why should the government have another shot at it after the individual dies? The reasoning that money has to be re inserted into the economy so that it won't languish and cause stagnation is almost as ridiculous as Obamas telling us to spend our way out of the recession. The only thing that it has increased is the inflation causing more to do with less.
You know, in the UK anybody who knowingly benefits from the proceeds of crime is equally culpable in the eyes of the law.
You aren't absolved from that.Then, it appears, all governments are criminal.
Perhaps you should engage in a little actual intellectual pursuit and read "The Ordeal of Change" and " The True Believer" by Eric Hoffer. They are refreshing, informative and enlightening. They also help one avoid mere contradiction and terms of little actual use, terms like psuedo-intellectual.
- Dave36posted 10 years ago
0Even a blind man on a galloping horse can see, that politics the economy & work etc is just one big con!..Once upon a time in the UK we ALL had our own family farm, & we grew our own food/live stock etc & traded with our neighbours..Then along came governments & royalty etc, & conned all those farms off us with the (enclosure act)..Come & work for us they said on big farms that can compete, & we will look after you we promise..Fast forwards 100/200 years & look what's happened, we can now work for them for 40 years to buy a piece of our own land back!lol..Just like the Red Indians of America who lived off the land, the white man slaughtered them just so they could "own/steal"" their land..So what exactly are we all working for just out of curiosity?, progress?, the economy?, an easier life?..No we're working because we're slaves, we're the slaves & their the slave masters..If their not the slave masters quit your job, & see how you survive, you can't unless you work for them..The thing is though no matter what "system" you can come up with, it will "always" end up being corrupted..Mankind is able to easily be corrupted, because most are too lazy to be bothered fighting for their rights, & what's right for others & all..Everyone's being brainwashed, & so well their totally oblivious to it..I mean wasn't it Abraham Lincoln, that warned about allowing governments having too much power..So now they have all the power even to arrest US citizens with "no" trial or evidence, just like the UK..Now why in the world would they try to pass a law like that, if their not all corrupt?..It's not all doom & gloom though because I'm pretty sure that life is a test, & everything in it (including them, the slave masters) are all part of it..Do we stand up for what's right, or do we go along with the masses..Will power vs Ego or Good vs Bad.
Abstention in the next elections. France scored its maximum record under the 5th republic. Maybe WE should lead down the garden path like in 1775!
Related Discussions
- 22
Pope Francis fall visit to the U.S makes Tea Party heads explode and
by Credence2 9 years ago
I AM DELIGHTEDAnother black eye for the RIGHT has got to be a good thing!From a current article in the Salon e-magazine is a story entitled " Pope Francis makes Tea Party Heads Explode: Why Steve King and Louis Gohmert have it in for the Pontiff?It appears that the GOP is worried about what...
- 15
The Two Party System is the Root of Most of America's Problems
by Ralph Schwartz 7 years ago
I've read countless numbers of threads about partisan political talking points over the years. They range from abortion, gun control, immigration, social justice, healthcare, protected classes of people, voting rights, and national defense; just off the top of my head. About half of...
- 90
America Needs A New Strong Third Party To Stop All The Bull****
by Thomas Byers 13 years ago
As a American Veteran I used to support the Democrat Party but over time I changed to the Republican Party. But I have always been the type of person to really investigate and as I began to check into what both parties were saying I began to realize that both parties are lying to the American...
- 44
Why should voters support a candidate that he/she does not agree with
by G. Diane Nelson Trotter 8 years ago
What would be the rational for voting for someone because of party affiliation? Are strategic party moves detrimental to the democratic process? Do we need political parties.
- 126
Has there ever been a worse presidential candidate than Mitt Romney?
by mio cid 8 years ago
The man is truly embarrassing,he is incapable of answering a single question on any topic because of the fear of the extreme right which makes him give nonsensical answers and look like a mumbling fool when asked even the simplest of questions.
- 20
Do you think we need more than two major political parties in the USA?
by Kurt Whimsy 9 years ago
Do you think we need more than two major political parties in the USA?Do you think the country would be better with more parties represented on a bigger scale?