Equality?

I am coming into this late so forgive me if I am repeating any point already made.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

I'm not sure this is accurate. Throughout history people have only had those "rights" which the ruling classes allowed, and they could be taken away at the whim of any member of that ruling class.

---

I don't think you are accurate. The ruling classes have rarely given rights, the ruled have fought to win those rights. King John was forced to sign the Magna Carta, we cut of a Kings head because he refused to grant rights and the American Bill of Rights did not come without a fight did it.

As regards equality, nobody is seeking equal wealth not even communistis. People seek equal opportunites, to raise the standard of the poor to eradicate poverty and to make the difference in wealth fairer.

The rich always moan but if you look at most super rich they have made their obscene fortunes through some form or criminality or trickery. Joe Kennedy makes a fortune bootlegging and puts his son in the White House and nobody cares where the money came from. Before any of the super-rich moan we should take a serious look at how they got their wealth. Denuseri is spot on in that the wealth buys Presidents, politicians and lawyers to give the wealthy an unequal and unfair advantage over the common man.

But the loadest complaints about wealth spreading comes from the middle and upper middle classes. Yes they work for their money but they moan about how they "work hard" as if other workers dont. I don't know about you but I would rather have hard work in the air conditioned office with executive lunches than the easy life working down the mines or at MacDonalds.

The capitalist would have no tax and you pay your way. This means the rich man sends his kid to a good school and college and the poor man cannot. The rich man's kid is now educated and gets the better well paid job while the poor man's kid follow in his fathers footstep down the mine. This is not equal opportunity.

I do not know how it works with education in America and in England it has now changed. But when I went to university it was free and paid for from taxes. But its not really free because the graduate gets a better job and moves up the salary ladder. As he moves up the ladder he pays more taxes. Those extra taxes he pays is the cost of the education he received which allowed him to earn that higher salary. Now that seems perfectly fair and reasonable to me and is an example of how equal opportunity can achieved through taxation. But he will moan of course because lets be honest nobody likes paying taxes not even the rock stars who earn zillions from bashing out some crap song.

In my view the principle of taxation and wealth distribution is valid and noble. The problem is the inept politicans make a balls of it and are so inefficient such that people pay too much tax for the services received. If governments worked like companies they wouild all be bankrupt and the leaders in jail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kendal

But the loadest complaints about wealth spreading comes from the middle and upper middle classes. Yes they work for their money but they moan about how they "work hard" as if other workers dont. I don't know about you but I would rather have hard work in the air conditioned office with executive lunches than the easy life working down the mines or at MacDonalds.

The capitalist would have no tax and you pay your way. This means the rich man sends his kid to a good school and college and the poor man cannot. The rich man's kid is now educated and gets the better well paid job while the poor man's kid follow in his fathers footstep down the mine. This is not equal opportunity.

I do not know how it works with education in America and in England it has now changed. But when I went to university it was free and paid for from taxes. But its not really free because the graduate gets a better job and moves up the salary ladder. As he moves up the ladder he pays more taxes. Those extra taxes he pays is the cost of the education he received which allowed him to earn that higher salary. Now that seems perfectly fair and reasonable to me and is an example of how equal opportunity can achieved through taxation. But he will moan of course because lets be honest nobody likes paying taxes not even the rock stars who earn zillions from bashing out some crap song.

In my view the principle of taxation and wealth distribution is valid and noble. The problem is the inept politicans make a balls of it and are so inefficient such that people pay too much tax for the services received. If governments worked like companies they wouild all be bankrupt and the leaders in jail.

---

How interesting that you feel that way. I consider myself "middle class" and work very hard pushing 500 lb cages full of mail and parcels inside a Post Office the length and width of a football field. My husband works full time shoeing horses outside in the Florida heat. He works part time as a Police Officer. We do not complain about the rich, we see it as a goal to strive for rather than something to be vilified.

As to the uber-rich being snakes who care nothing for the "little man", how about Jon Huntsman, who has donated billions to the poverty stricken and to cancer research? How about this list of the uber-rich philanthropists?

Yes, there are some rich folks who got there by slight of hand and ill gotten means, but to condemn them all is akin to saying all people who are poor are that way because they refuse to raise a finger to work. Some do, some don't. Some have disabilities, some don't. Some have addictions, some don't.

General education (K-12) is free and available to ALL Americans. There are hundreds of scholarships available as well. Each state has literally hundreds of financial aid scholarships to apply for...unfortunately, with the passing of the Health Care bill, the government has taken over that. I highly doubt it will make things "more equal" or better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kendal

I don't think you are accurate. The ruling classes have rarely given rights, the ruled have fought to win those rights. King John was forced to sign the Magna Carta, we cut of a Kings head because he refused to grant rights and the American Bill of Rights did not come without a fight did it.

---

Ah, but who actually forced King John to sign? It wasn't the common man. They were the ones who did all the fighting, yes, but it was the barons, with the support of the wealthy merchants. So any 'rights' accruing to the common man were more or less a 'gift' from those wealthy barons. And unless I'm mistaken, the American Bill of Rights, which are the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, were also developed by the wealthy merchants and politicians, the ruling classes, and primarily concerned the rights of landowners. This is probably simplified, but you get the idea.

Quote:

---

As regards equality, nobody is seeking equal wealth not even communistis. People seek equal opportunites, to raise the standard of the poor to eradicate poverty and to make the difference in wealth fairer.

---

Sorry, but there have been several people here who have stated quite bluntly that they would like to see money taken from the rich and given to the poor. Not by increasing their education levels, or through better work environments, but by giving them entitlements, trying to raise them up to a level to equal the wealthy.

Quote:

---

But the loadest complaints about wealth spreading comes from the middle and upper middle classes. Yes they work for their money but they moan about how they "work hard" as if other workers dont. I don't know about you but I would rather have hard work in the air conditioned office with executive lunches than the easy life working down the mines or at MacDonalds.

---

That's probably because we in the middle class know that, regardless of how the money is distributed, we're unlikely to see any of it. Look into how many government programs the middle class can't qualify for because we own our own homes, or we have a little money saved. Yet supposedly 'poor' people who have spent all of their money on luxuries, such as expensive clothing, expensive jewelry, expensive entertainment systems, will qualify for those programs just because they are frivolous with their money. That's not 'leveling the road', that's catering to stupidity. I have worked with people, who made as much or more than I, who complained bitterly about not being able to get by, yet they were living in a high-rent apartment, driving higher-end vehicles and spending obscene amounts of their paychecks in bars and nightclubs every week. Why should the wealthy, or I, have to pay to support their wasteful lifestyles?

Quote:

---

The problem is the inept politicans make a balls of it and are so inefficient such that people pay too much tax for the services received. If governments worked like companies they wouild all be bankrupt and the leaders in jail.

---

This is about the most intelligent comment I've seen here, and it's been said many times by many of us. Relying on career politicians who haven't even tried to make a go of it in the real world is what's brought us to this point. What makes anyone think that relying on them to fix it will make anything better?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

Relying on career politicians who haven't even tried to make a go of it in the real world is what's brought us to this point. What makes anyone think that relying on them to fix it will make anything better?

---

This quote is perfection. Term limits are not enough.

If career politicians are a problem, how to fix it?

One Idea, make the house an amateur part of government, and the senate professional. The house of representatives, would have a two term lifetime limitation on it, and the Senators would have to be elected from past house members. Would allow continuous turnover of one part of legislature, and yet have a career base in the other, with the advantage that everyone who ran for the senate, would have a track record the voters could view.

No campaign financing by unions, corporations, or involuntary organizations. All campaign financing should be individual donations, (unlimited, as I find it disturbing to tell others what they can use their money for) , and donations from voluntary organizations like the American Cival Liberties Union, or the National Rifle Association, (unlimited, for the same reason).

Have a part time legislature. 90 days every two years sounds good to me, with only special sessions for budget emergencies, acts of war, or to issue letters of Marquie and Reprisal (Congress' way to initiate mililtary action should a commander in chief refuse to when it is necessary.) In the day of the internet they could do all their debates online, creating a permanant record of all their communications, and acts, both debating a bill and in their caucuses. The legislature could only go to Washington for the State of the Union, and to deal with confidential National Security issues only. Make them work out of offices in the geographic center of areas they represent, whether this is a large city or very small town. THen, if you did not like what your legislature is doing, go tell him/her. Talk about being in touch with their districts.

PS if they only worked 90 days it would save money, as they would have to have JOBS. Another good way for them to keep in touch with their electorate:

I know, probably not workable, but fun to think about. :icon277:

Or put a life time two term limit on all public offices period.

With no campaign financing or advertising allowed by private individuals or unions , corperations etc. whatsoever, and an elections commission would set up appropriate blocks of air time on the media in equal porportions to the cantidates who passed the political entrance exam in your local area with x number of debates as well as a recorded section on campaig promises and canidates official positions on the issues of note at the time, records and promises for which they could be held accountable later if not met etc by being disbarred from further elections period by popular vote.

I love the idea of part time legislature too, in fact lets only pay each of them 100 dollars for each day in session, and lets cut the hell out of the number of office positions they are allowed as well as eliminate allmost all the amenities that exceed those of a mid-rank officer in the national guard/reserve, why should they get more benifits and make more money than the brave boys and girls who are in the armed services anyway huh?

Or we could take a page from the earliest democracies and select cualified people to office by lot.

I like those Ideas.

How about a third house, Drafted, (farm laborors, mechanics, professors, housewives, solders, etc..., the only rejection criteria is any law education) just like the military in wartime, without any staff etc, just the person from each district, two from each state, and one from the nation. give them exactally the same amount of time that the legislature had between the final draft and vote on the bill to study it. give them an extensive comprehension test of the entire bill, 85% required to pass, then have those who pass vote on it. if you could not sell the bill to 2/3rd of all of them, not just the ones that passed, its vetoed. I know very Heinleinesq, but anything that slows things down is good. Our country usually has done well with slow thoughtful debate, and poorly with fast stuff rammed down our throats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canyon

If career politicians are a problem, how to fix it?

One Idea, make the house an amateur part of government, and the senate professional. The house of representatives, would have a two term lifetime limitation on it, and the Senators would have to be elected from past house members. Would allow continuous turnover of one part of legislature, and yet have a career base in the other, with the advantage that everyone who ran for the senate, would have a track record the voters could view.

No campaign financing by unions, corporations, or involuntary organizations. All campaign financing should be individual donations, (unlimited, as I find it disturbing to tell others what they can use their money for) , and donations from voluntary organizations like the American Cival Liberties Union, or the National Rifle Association, (unlimited, for the same reason).

Have a part time legislature. 90 days every two years sounds good to me, with only special sessions for budget emergencies, acts of war, or to issue letters of Marquie and Reprisal (Congress' way to initiate mililtary action should a commander in chief refuse to when it is necessary.) In the day of the internet they could do all their debates online, creating a permanant record of all their communications, and acts, both debating a bill and in their caucuses. The legislature could only go to Washington for the State of the Union, and to deal with confidential National Security issues only. Make them work out of offices in the geographic center of areas they represent, whether this is a large city or very small town. THen, if you did not like what your legislature is doing, go tell him/her. Talk about being in touch with their districts.

PS if they only worked 90 days it would save money, as they would have to have JOBS. Another good way for them to keep in touch with their electorate:

I know, probably not workable, but fun to think about. :icon277:

---

Originally, Congressional sessions were scheduled as they are because Congress was largely populated by farmers and such...they had to return to their fields and harvest or they would lose money. There were term limits, the laws they passed applied to ALL citizens, including those in Congress.

What is truly scary is that the Federal Government is attempting to legalize thousands of illegal aliens and give them voting power. This will further the agenda of Socialism (which I truly believe to be the ultimate goal and no one will convince me otherwise). By granting full citizenship to illegal aliens and granting voting rights, which policies do you think they will vote for? The policies that give them handouts? The policies that retain their liberties yet demand that they work for a living?

Socialization of our country?

Maxine Waters
President Obama
This is just WRONG!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuncanONeil

My response to you is being curtailed as I do not think it will pass muster. Everything you needed is in the message.

---

Still don't get what you mean :icon277:


Anyhow, onto term limits and such. I was reading the transcript from an interview Colin Powell had with Face the Nation, at the end, the interviewer had this to say about elections:

Quote:

---

Finally, when the amateurs ask me -- and by amateurs I mean the good citizens outside the circle of professional politics, when they ask me why Washington doesn't seem to listen, when every poll shows that people hate partisanship and want compromise, I tell them the professional politicians always listen. They listen to the people who gave them the money to get to Washington.

American politics used to be an amateur sport. But somewhere along the way we handed over to professionals all the things people used to do for free. So an enormous cottage industry sprang up. Consultants, gurus, strategists, pollsters who discovered it was easier to win elections by driving wedges between people than bringing them together.

Politics got nastier and worse. It came with a price. did it ever. The Center for Responsive Politics says the 2008 campaigns cost $5.3 billion. Good money if you can get it. And full disclosure, TV got a lot of it. It cost an average $8.5 million to win a seat in the Senate. In Minnesota, Norm Coleman spent $20 million and lost.

On average, a Senate candidate had to raise $3,881 a day for every day of a six-year term. Only those willing to do that won anymore. So to raise that kind of money, candidates must promise so much to so many before they get to Washington that once here, they can't compromise on anything. Their positions are set in stone.

So they're listening, all right, but like the loyal country girl, they're just listening to them that brung 'em.

---

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/02...ce-the-nation/

Made a lot of sense to me. One thing that I love about DC is all the glitz and glamour that can be found. There are so many high priced hotels and restaurants that survive on patronage of so many lobbyists.

But a friend of mine, who is an aide to a senator told me that there are no set rules in terms of what is really acceptable. A lobbyist can pay for a $80 Kobe steak, and with the recent Supreme Court ruling that corporations can also donate to campaigns, politicians really need the support of the rich.

A two term limit, in my mind doesn't really fix a lot of problems. With the expense of a campaign, corporations often donate to both sides. Lobbyists with their fat wallets need to simply write a campaign donation check to ensure a favourable vote.

I was shocked when I read the number that is spent on campaigns each year. How is it possible that it can go in the billions?!? I mean you could enact a law limiting the amount spent on a campaign, but then what about private groups that want to support a particular candidate (Swift boat, moveon.org)?

Anyhow, before anyone starts misquoting what I said, my point of this post is that with billions spent on campaigns each year, I think the problem has more to do with backroom deals with large donors. You could say that a person who doesn't have to worry about re-election for the third term can shake of any external pressure. But seeing how deep party loyalties seem to exist, I doubt that outgoing politicians would want to hurt their party's incoming stream of donations by ignoring the rich lobbyists. Nor would they want to hurt their chances in the professional field by harming their reputation.

In Canada, elections are called at a whim. There is no set date (elections have to be at least every 5 years). Often, successful campaigns for parlimentary seats are won with a budget of $10k. Not saying Americans should follow Canada, and that Canadian politicians are immune from greed, but if an election can only be won with 100s of thousands, or millions of dollars, then there is a problem, and a term limit might not be a full solution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steelish

This is just WRONG!

---

Much ado about nothing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lion

With the expense of a campaign, corporations often donate to both sides. Lobbyists with their fat wallets need to simply write a campaign donation check to ensure a favourable vote.

I was shocked when I read the number that is spent on campaigns each year. How is it possible that it can go in the billions?!? I mean you could enact a law limiting the amount spent on a campaign, but then what about private groups that want to support a particular candidate (Swift boat, moveon.org)?

I think the problem has more to do with backroom deals with large donors.

---

I wonder if we couldn't require that ALL donations to political organizations be pooled into a common fund, with each candidate dipping from the same pool. You eliminate the lobbyists and you minimize the corporate influences on politicians. The potential for bribery goes up, but it would obviously be illegal, with both the receiver and briber being liable for criminal penalties. As things are now, corporations give their candidates boatloads of money for reelection, but it isn't considered a bribe, even though that is in fact what it amounts to.

Why not eliminate campaign donations all together?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lion

Much ado about nothing?

---

Pardon? The President of the United States, who is sworn in to uphold the Constitution and defend the Country cannot even pay respects to the flag???

I'm with Lion on this one. I see no reason why anyone should feel it necessary to display their patriotism openly. It shows no disrespect for the flag. It certainly was far less disrespectful than that rendition of the Star Spangled Banner! That person should have been shot!

For the record, I don't place my hand over my heart for the Anthem either, though I do remove my hat. Does that make me a bad person?

Sorry, but I believe in showing patriotic respect...especially at a ceremony. And of all people, I believe the President should DEFINITELY show respect. If "Joe Blow" standing nearby in a stadium crowd simply removed his hat yet didn't cover his heart, I wouldn't think much of it...but when the President (who, btw, wears a flag lapel pin which I now feel is simply done out of a sense of obligation, rather than pride) does nothing other than stand there, I feel as if he doesn't care about the flag or what it stands for.

Welcome aboard! You are the first of all the places I have posted about the FairTax that has had a positive response.
Is it possible to ask you if you have a favorite part of the FairTax?

On the other hand if everyone is paid the same, how is there anything left for investing? Further married or extended families are instantly better of than the rest of the country!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canyon

Would it not be interesting to be able to experiment with the redistribution idea though. I think I can predict the outcome. All wealth is redistributed equally. Some buy new cars, some party, some save some, and a few invest, take risks, gain or lose. In the end two things happen. the investing risk takers employ many, have control of a large amount of the wealth, and strengthen the ecomomy, and those who did not take those chances, demand redistribution.

I think that is why I would prefer the fair tax

---

The FairTax does not apply to the states! It is the only remaining Federal Tax on the monies of the citizens upon passage. Where I live the FairTax and the local 5.6% would still apply. Although it would apply to a lesser amount.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canyon

The main reason I like the fair tax as a replacement for ALL other taxes is that it is taken at the lowest level of government, counties and cities. Then the State gets its cut, and lastly the Federal government, which only has a very few things constitutionally it is allowed to pay for, like national defence. I keep watching these comercials about the census, so communities can get their fair share. Reminds me of a prayer I heard once. "my name is Jimmy, now gimmy, gimmy, gimmy!" Under the fair tax the money would never have left the area to begin with. Cities would have the money they need to maintain their infrastructure, as well as the States. If you would then either use private companies, not municipal workers, to maintain these things the free market could control costs, and ultimately save money. If you are determined to use public employee's keep costs down by competition. For instance, if the Arizona Department of Transportation could repair roads in California cheaper than CalTrans, they should get the job, not caltrans.

By keeping the money locally, and passing lesser amounts up the 'chain' you empower the local municipalities, and then States, and lastly the Federal Government. As I said, the Federal Government should be strong but very limited to only those areas given it in the constitution. I'm not necessarily against the idea of universal health care, as my wife was a transplant patient, and we could have never paid for that surgery without SSI, I just think it should not be a legislative act, or the achievement of a president. Something that vast takes powers the constitution never grants the Federal Government. The only way it should be done is by Constitutional Amendment, a complicated, drawn out and intentionally very difficult thing to do, in order to protect the citizens from the rampages of power hungry controlling government.

Remember in some "free" western countries, you have to have permission from the police to move to a new neighborhood. Out of control Government is a continuous, unsatable monster, rampaging on liberty.

---

No! No! No!
This is not how the FairTax works. The FairTax is the same across the board "(t)he FairTax is a single-rate, federal retail sales tax collected only once, at the final point of purchase of new goods and services for personal consumption. Used items are not taxed. Business-to-business purchases for the production of goods and services are not taxed. A rebate makes the effective rate progressive."
One of the basic tenents of the FairTax is that is not the business of Government to determine winners and losers in the marketplace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steelish

The only issue I have with the Fair Tax is that it still allows for Progression. "Tax this, but not this...this service should be taxed more than this one...etc." A Flat Tax doesn't allow for that. No matter where you fall on the economic scale, you pay X amount per dollar on your income...period. No chance for adjustments for this service, or that service.

---

"The flat tax and the FairTax share some important similarities. They are both flat-rate taxes that are neutral with respect to savings and investment. The flat tax, however, retains the invasive income tax administration apparatus and can easily revert to a graduated, convoluted mess, as it has many times over many years.

Very few people really understand the flat tax. Its authors will tell you it is a consumption tax that uses the income tax system for implementation. Only an academic or government bureaucrat would dream up a consumption tax that needs the invasive income tax apparatus for its application, when one can simply have a retail sales tax and reduce the bureaucracy by 90 percent or more! In addition, a large part of the burden of the flat tax -- the business tax -- will remain hidden from people in the retail price of goods and services.

In contrast, the FairTax is simple, easy to understand, and visible. It cannot be converted into an income tax."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

The only issues I have with flat tax, is the institution of a coorperation with limited liability will be the sole prime benefactors, while all the rest of us who are not super rich will have our taxes nearly trippled to fill the void. So long as faceless corperations are being treated with all of the perks of "personhood" with none of the responsabilities, any such endeavor will do far more harm than good.

If each company was owned by individuals who are fully liable then and only then would I support a fair tax em all you want position. Though I am sure that has its own drawbacks.

As for a full on redistribution of wealth...smh..we havent ever even got close to that in the United States. In fact no one anywhere really has short of a few handfuls of hippie communes and the Hutterites.

Additionally I seriously doubt "global" corpperations of american origin or otherwise will ever allow the politicians that they own lock stock and barrel in several countires to take away their sacred profit margins.

Nor do I believe will the extremely wealthy individuals that are out there support any such endeavor, for they gain nothing by it.

Even the full blown "communist" countries failed to fully redistribute the wealth nor control its redistribution in any kind of productive manner in anything more than "theory" and that was the basis for their very rise to power on the ignorant massess proverbial backs.

Sadely...it is greed..imho...that ultimately rules the day when all is said and done.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

Essential services?

Like Social Security and Medicare?

---

Neither is an essential Government service!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

Like the Military and Police Departments?

---

Military is an Essential Government service. Police, however, are a local issue!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

Like the Fire department and in some countries all health care?

---

Again the Fire Department is a local issue! As for health care that is, again, not an essential Government service

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

I think these can all be done quite nicely without having "corporate involvement".

(and btw I include Labor Unions in the same catagory as their corperate counterparts becuase , well historically speaking, one is a sympton of the other)

Just like they were done (and done quite well I might add) prior to the advent of the modern corporation or it's involvement in politics or its rise to hegemony over the world.

Greed need not be the sole motivating factor used to drive incentive...and one day I hope that mankind will find it a necessity to rise above it's strangle hold before we end up in another dark age or worse as we scramble to "acquire" control over the worlds dwindling resources.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brwneydgirl

This quote is perfection. Term limits are not enough.

---

How about a single term??

No! I changed my mind I am not going to say it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canyon

If career politicians are a problem, how to fix it?

One Idea, make the house an amateur part of government, and the senate professional. The house of representatives, would have a two term lifetime limitation on it, and the Senators would have to be elected from past house members. Would allow continuous turnover of one part of legislature, and yet have a career base in the other, with the advantage that everyone who ran for the senate, would have a track record the voters could view.

No campaign financing by unions, corporations, or involuntary organizations. All campaign financing should be individual donations, (unlimited, as I find it disturbing to tell others what they can use their money for) , and donations from voluntary organizations like the American Cival Liberties Union, or the National Rifle Association, (unlimited, for the same reason).

Have a part time legislature. 90 days every two years sounds good to me, with only special sessions for budget emergencies, acts of war, or to issue letters of Marquie and Reprisal (Congress' way to initiate mililtary action should a commander in chief refuse to when it is necessary.) In the day of the internet they could do all their debates online, creating a permanant record of all their communications, and acts, both debating a bill and in their caucuses. The legislature could only go to Washington for the State of the Union, and to deal with confidential National Security issues only. Make them work out of offices in the geographic center of areas they represent, whether this is a large city or very small town. THen, if you did not like what your legislature is doing, go tell him/her. Talk about being in touch with their districts.

PS if they only worked 90 days it would save money, as they would have to have JOBS. Another good way for them to keep in touch with their electorate:

I know, probably not workable, but fun to think about. :icon277:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lion

Much ado about nothing?

---

It is not nothing and there has not been enough ado!

Now that is interesting! And it does appear to solve a whole host of problems. But are we not then removing the choice of the people to support the candidate of their choice??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

I wonder if we couldn't require that ALL donations to political organizations be pooled into a common fund, with each candidate dipping from the same pool. You eliminate the lobbyists and you minimize the corporate influences on politicians. The potential for bribery goes up, but it would obviously be illegal, with both the receiver and briber being liable for criminal penalties. As things are now, corporations give their candidates boatloads of money for reelection, but it isn't considered a bribe, even though that is in fact what it amounts to.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

Why not eliminate campaign donations all together?

---

Then only the independantly wealthy can run for office.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

I'm with Lion on this one. I see no reason why anyone should feel it necessary to display their patriotism openly. It shows no disrespect for the flag. It certainly was far less disrespectful than that rendition of the Star Spangled Banner! That person should have been shot!

For the record, I don't place my hand over my heart for the Anthem either, though I do remove my hat. Does that make me a bad person?

---

I choose to stand at attention! And am frustrated by the people that can not stand still for three and one half minutes!

If you really read previous posts I wouldnt have to point out that I purposed a way for elections to be held that removed campaign donations from the loop without turing the thing into a "only the rich" can run affair Duncan.

And I dont care if its federal, state or local...its still government provided services and ones that many consider to be essential at that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

I wonder if we couldn't require that ALL donations to political organizations be pooled into a common fund, with each candidate dipping from the same pool. You eliminate the lobbyists and you minimize the corporate influences on politicians. The potential for bribery goes up, but it would obviously be illegal, with both the receiver and briber being liable for criminal penalties. As things are now, corporations give their candidates boatloads of money for reelection, but it isn't considered a bribe, even though that is in fact what it amounts to.

---

This is interesting, however, given the current trend towards unpunished bribery within the federal government (and likely everywhere else too...state, local) I highly doubt it will discourage corruption.

The final votes for the healthcare bill were bought. That much was obvious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steelish

How interesting that you feel that way. I consider myself "middle class" and work very hard pushing 500 lb cages full of mail and parcels inside a Post Office the length and width of a football field. My husband works full time shoeing horses outside in the Florida heat. He works part time as a Police Officer. We do not complain about the rich, we see it as a goal to strive for rather than something to be vilified.

---

Have you understood my post correctly. My point was how the higher taxed upper middle classes complain they "work hard" for their money as if they are the only ones who do. I was saying the lower and middle class work just as hard, as you yourself confirm pisshing 500lb cages around. I would have thought you would resent the implication only the high earners work and not the lower paid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steelish

As to the uber-rich being snakes who care nothing for the "little man", how about Jon HuntsmanSr who has donated billions to the poverty stricken and to cancer research? How about ...list of the uber-rich philanthropists?

---

You are talking about how they spend the money once they have it. I am talking about how they got it in the first place. It's a bit like the Godfather movie where Michael Corleone donates a million to the church - good man but how did he get the money. I am not suggesting every super rich is a gangster and dont have time to go through backgrounds of a list of philanthropists but I am sure a large number have been devious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steelish

Yes, there are some rich folks who got there by slight of hand and ill gotten means, but to condemn them all is akin to saying all people who are poor are that way because they refuse to raise a finger to work.

---

Fair point but I dont think I said "all" but the bad uber rich is the person most likely to use his money for bribes and lobbyist to control the law to keep the cards stacked in his favor. It is then not equal opportunity. Microsoft have been nailed countless times for this. The principle is well known. Once you have power you use that power to retain power by whatever means.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steelish

General education (K-12) is free and available to ALL Americans.......

---

Are you trying to say the poor kid with his free K12 has the same opportunity as the rich kid with the college degree. Yes there are some sponsorships but that is some. Until such time as money is not a barrier to education there will not be equal opportunity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

Ah, but who actually forced King John to sign?

---

You said the rulers "gave" the rights to the ruled. I replied not so the ruled fought for those rights. Yes the baron was not the common man but they were ruled by the king. In turn and in later years the common man was to fight for his rights. Similary the American Rights may have been fought for by wealthy merchants but they were the ruled fighting the rulers. King George did not "give" those rights away, he was forced to concede them through battle. Did America give the slaves freedom or was there a war. Did American Congress one day end segregation or did the common black man have to fight for the rights. Maybe you can cite one of the noble ruler freeely giving rights but for every example you find I will find 10 where rights had to be fought for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

Sorry, but there have been several people here who have stated quite bluntly that they would like to see money taken from the rich and given to the poor.

---

You are nitpicking. Taking money from rich and giving to poor is not saying you want equalty. I said people want to raise the standard of the poor and narrow the gap between rich and poor. Narrowing a gap is not the same as closing a gap. Nobody is suggesting we should all be paid and taxed the same irrespective of job. Please dont nitpick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

That's probably because we in the middle class know that, regardless of how the money is distributed, we're unlikely to see any of it

---

Yes I totally agree but is it the principle of taxation that is the problem or the fact that government is wasteful and the brunt of taxation falls on the middle class. I say the principle is fair its just the governemt is inept and inefficient and the middle class bears the brunt of their mistakes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

This is about the most intelligent comment I've seen here, and it's been said many times by many of us.

---

But you do not comment on whether the principle of taxation wrong or is it simply those managing it are incompetent. If a bad pilot crashes a plane you dont say the principles of aerodynamics are wrong do you !




.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuncanONeil

I choose to stand at attention! And am frustrated by the people that can not stand still for three and one half minutes!

---

That is your choice, and you're certainly free to do as you see fit. I stand quietly and wait for the usually badly sung anthem to be finished. I have no need to publicly display my love of country by standing at attention, or saluting, or holding my hand over my heart. I certainly don't sing, out of respect for other people's ears.

The specific quote I was responding to is this one

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kendal

But the loadest complaints about wealth spreading comes from the middle and upper middle classes. Yes they work for their money but they moan about how they "work hard" as if other workers dont. I don't know about you but I would rather have hard work in the air conditioned office with executive lunches than the easy life working down the mines or at MacDonalds.

---

My comprehension is thus:

Middle and upper middle class complain the most (I am middle...possibly considered "upper" middle)
Then you go on to describe "hard work" in an air conditioned office, yet don't mention which "class" you are referring to. Upper Middle and some upper class do this. The uber rich rarely have this type of lifestyle. You made it seem as if you view the upper middle class as those executive lunch crowd who works so hard in a/c at a desk. I caught the sarcasm in the post when you referred to the "easy" life in the coal mines or at MacDonalds (which I'm assuming is what you would consider lower and some middle class). I realize (as do most others) that all economic class levels work hard. (That's not to say that all workers work hard. Some work harder than others at the exact same job)

The biggest problem that faces everyone is misconception. Unless you walk a mile in someone else's shoes, you will not understand their point of view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

That is your choice, and you're certainly free to do as you see fit. I stand quietly and wait for the usually badly sung anthem to be finished. I have no need to publicly display my love of country by standing at attention, or saluting, or holding my hand over my heart. I certainly don't sing, out of respect for other people's ears.

---

It's sad that it's gotten to this point. I understand your view completely of how bad some of the National Anthem singers are. I too cringe as they muddle their way through the song. BUT, it's not how well it's sung that makes me want to stand at attention or place my hand over my heart...it's the words and what they mean. It's the history.

One of my duties every evening is to lower the flag at the Post Office and fold it. I do so with the utmost respect. I've had military personnel stop on the sidewalk outside and watch me take it down. I know they're just waiting to see if I let it touch the ground. I take pride in this simple task and am always grinning when they watch. I know how important it is to them. It's important to me also. That tight triangle with the field of blue showing on both sides is an honor to place in storage for a co-worker to raise the following day.

You all may think I'm crazy for my patriotic feelings. You may think me strange to gaze at the flag, hand over heart when someone sings the National Anthem off key or tunelessly. Call me crazy. I don't care. I've never lost my love of my country. Remember how we all felt on 9/11? Call me crazy or "much ado about nothing" when I get irritated over a President who cannot show respect in front of American citizens at a public ceremony. I think it's a gesture that the President SHOULD be doing. But, having said that, I would rather he do it only if he truly feels that respect. If he does not, then it's just an empty gesture. At least, in my eyes, he is showing me how he really feels about America.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kendal

You said the rulers "gave" the rights to the ruled. I replied not so the ruled fought for those rights. Yes the baron was not the common man but they were ruled by the king.

---

But still they were rulers in their own rights, and the king relied upon their support for his own rule. Without the barons' money and troops the king could not rule. All the barons did was to improve their own lots in life, without much direct benefit to the commoners.

Quote:

---

Did America give the slaves freedom or was there a war.

---

The American Civil War was never about freeing the slaves. It was about the rights of the states to rule themselves. Slavery happened to be one of those rights. Lincoln did not free the slaves out of the goodness of his heart. The Emancipation Proclamation was a desperate attempt to encourage the slaves to revolt, forcing the Confederacy to pull troops from the fronts. Their freedom was handed to them by the government.

Quote:

---

Did American Congress one day end segregation or did the common black man have to fight for the rights.

---

This one I have to give to you.

Quote:

---

If a bad pilot crashes a plane you dont say the principles of aerodynamics are wrong do you !

---

No, the principles aren't necessarily wrong, but don't automatically blame the pilot, either.

The principle of using tax moneys to benefit all of the people is a good one. Certain things need to be done for the nation as a whole which individual states or communities cannot be relied upon to handle. Forcing donations to charity isn't, in my opinion, one of those things. And yes, using tax dollars to try to keep the poor people happy in their poverty is forced charity. Using it to improve schools and other infrastructure benefits everyone, not only the poor. But ultimately the poor would gain the most benefit, as the biggest gap between the haves and the have-nots is education.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steelish

You all may think I'm crazy for my patriotic feelings. You may think me strange to gaze at the flag, hand over heart when someone sings the National Anthem off key or tunelessly. Call me crazy. I don't care. I've never lost my love of my country.

---

I don't think it's crazy at all. My point is that a love of country doesn't require overt displays of patriotism. And conversely, displays of patriotism don't necessarily guarantee a love of country.

Quote:

---

Remember how we all felt on 9/11?

---

I remember. And I showed no more overt patriotism then than now. I remember seeing all the people with flag bumper stickers, and flags flying from antennas and flags hanging from their windows. And I can remember thinking that the hidden enemies of the country would have been among the first to join in those displays. It makes for good camouflage.

Quote:

---

I think it's a gesture that the President SHOULD be doing.

---

I agree, and unless I'm mistaken, as Commander-in-Chief he's required to salute the flag, as part of the military code of conduct. But look again at that video. He was not yet president then. And the flag was behind him, not in front of him.

I do remember you presenting this idea earlier. I confess that the details of that message must have become lost in time.

As for the essential services argument. I must say that all levels of government can not be lumped together into a single entity. Each level of government operates on different sets of rules.
The Federal Government, that we all must care about has a very specific set of rules that are, largely, designed to limit their ability to "stick it to us". Too many of the people in Washington are what can kindly be called "bleeding hearts" and believe that being a parent to the people of the nation qualifies as "promote the general welfare". But in doing so they tend to ignore the very next section; "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity". Washington is promoting the first at the expense of the second!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

If you really read previous posts I wouldnt have to point out that I purposed a way for elections to be held that removed campaign donations from the loop without turing the thing into a "only the rich" can run affair Duncan.

And I dont care if its federal, state or local...its still government provided services and ones that many consider to be essential at that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kendal

Fair point but I dont think I said "all" but the bad uber rich is the person most likely to use his money for bribes and lobbyist to control the law to keep the cards stacked in his favor. It is then not equal opportunity. Microsoft have been nailed countless times for this. The principle is well known. Once you have power you use that power to retain power by whatever means.

---

Like the members of Congress who see their job and the salary we pay them as merely there for the purpose of retaining said job??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kendal

Are you trying to say the poor kid with his free K12 has the same opportunity as the rich kid with the college degree. Yes there are some sponsorships but that is some. Until such time as money is not a barrier to education there will not be equal opportunity.

---

I am afraid that this a bit of a mischaracterization. She very clearly indicated that there are scholarships available. In fact it is easier for a minority to get a scholarship than those not "blessed" with minority status!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuncanONeil

The legislation is engineered in such a fashion as to increase the cost of insurance to a point that business can not afford to carry the burden. As has been demonstrated by the massive increases to business already reported.
Then there is the fact that the Government is to decide what MUST be covered and what the CHARGE for that coverage will be. As is the case with Medicare the Government decides what it will pay irrespective of the charges on the bill. When they have all private providers out of business that will extend to all. As Medicare has shown in spite of total control of the money paid in claims the costs of the program have done nothing but increase.

---

Medicare is actually doing a great job of controlling costs, the primary reason for the increase in costs is demographics, as the population ages the costs go up. There is a boom of elderly occurring. The costs in the private insurance industry are rising far faster (and largely for increased shareholder gains).

Firstly, the US offers far fewer bursaries (scholarships with a financial need component) than other countries. Secondly, tuition in the US is higher than anywhere else in the world. Lastly, many scholarships are flawed in that they are based on a broken GPA system. Good private schools offer the full set of AP courses which in many systems allows a 6.0 GPA on a 4 scale. Kids without access to those courses can only get at best a 4.0 on a 4 scale. Most scholarships have cutoffs above 5/4, so if a poor kid is in a neighborhood where they can't take the full set of AP courses they are cut off from many scholarships even if they have perfect grades.

Lastly, for scholarships to be a real solution kids need a real opportunity to learn in schools. The US doesn't spend nearly enough on education compared to other G(whatever it is these days) countries.

Also poor is far from being a minority what about the white kid born to parents in a trailer park?

As for calling it a blessing, despite the advantages of affirmative action I suspect many of us would not want to be one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuncanONeil

Like the members of Congress who see their job and the salary we pay them as merely there for the purpose of retaining said job??

I am afraid that this a bit of a mischaracterization. She very clearly indicated that there are scholarships available. In fact it is easier for a minority to get a scholarship than those not "blessed" with minority status!

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kendal

Did America give the slaves freedom or was there a war. Did American Congress one day end segregation or did the common black man have to fight for the rights. Maybe you can cite one of the noble ruler freeely giving rights but for every example you find I will find 10 where rights had to be fought for.

---

Little bit off in facts here. The "war" was not fought to end slavery. In fact the last "northern" state ended slavery in 1804. So of 33 states 20 had ended slavery without a war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kendal

You are nitpicking. Taking money from rich and giving to poor is not saying you want equalty. I said people want to raise the standard of the poor and narrow the gap between rich and poor. Narrowing a gap is not the same as closing a gap. Nobody is suggesting we should all be paid and taxed the same irrespective of job. Please dont nitpick.

---

Raise the standard of the poor? Could you explain just what you mean by that? As for narrowing the gap. How do you propose to do that without confiscating from the "rich".
Without all making the same there will always be "poor". That brings us back to a description of that standard and what would be a sufficient raising.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kendal

Yes I totally agree but is it the principle of taxation that is the problem or the fact that government is wasteful and the brunt of taxation falls on the middle class. I say the principle is fair its just the governemt is inept and inefficient and the middle class bears the brunt of their mistakes.

---

There is no way you can support that the brunt of taxation falls upon the shoulders of the middle class. Again we are discussing a category of people without definition. Would you accept that the top 25% of earners are not in the middle class?
The minimum income to be included in that top 25% is about $64,700 with an AGI floor of about $32,000. These people pay $833 billion in tax. They take in 68% of the nations income and PAY 86% of the nations taxes. Now explain to me how the "middle class" bears the brunt of taxes! Heck half of the "middle class" pays little to no taxes!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kendal

But you do not comment on whether the principle of taxation wrong or is it simply those managing it are incompetent. If a bad pilot crashes a plane you dont say the principles of aerodynamics are wrong do you !

---

Taxation is one of those things that can easily be qualified as a necessary evil. However, income tax is the worst of those evils. It is less of a means to support the Government and more of a means of control. As such it is WRONG! That is one of the reasons I used to favor a flat tax. That is until I found about about the FairTax. Now our (ahem) representatives in Washington are raising the specter of a VAT tax on top of our onerous income tax. If there is anything that hurts the poor it is a VAT. Vat is easy to say. Then they point to all the "old countries" that have a VAT. But what is it? A tax that added to the price of an item EACH AND EVERY TIME (V)alue is (A)dded to some raw (or previously produced) material it has (T)ax added to the new price. Simple example;

• Seed is turned into wheat
• Wheat is turned into flour
• Flour is turned into bread
• Bread is sliced

At a 7% VAT this adds some 32% to the price of that loaf of bread.