archBoston Presidential Poll 2012

[Lurker]

The concept of only allowing taxpayers to vote is that people with taxable income game will be more careful about whom they put into office. There is also the issues of a majority, whom might not pay taxes, which decides to vote themselves the property of the minority or vote for politicians careless with tax money, as taxes don't affect them. The ability for large swaths of the population to vote for wealth they didn't earn by confiscating it from those that did, isn't particularly equitable or healthy, and eventually will lead to political instability.

As far as the whole debt debacle. It is far worse than most people typically can imagine. The national debt isn't $15.96 trillion , but $86.8 trillion with all liabilities factored in.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323353204578127374039087636.html?mod=hp_opinion

 

[KentXie]

The concept of only allowing taxpayers to vote is that people with taxable income game will be more careful about whom they put into office. There is also the issues of a majority, whom might not pay taxes, which decides to vote themselves the property of the minority or vote for politicians careless with tax money, as taxes don't affect them. The ability for large swaths of the population to vote for wealth they didn't earn by confiscating it from those that did, isn't particularly equitable or healthy, and eventually will lead to political instability.

As far as the whole debt debacle. It is far worse than most people typically can imagine. The national debt isn't $15.96 trillion , but $86.8 trillion with all liabilities factored in.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323353204578127374039087636.html?mod=hp_opinion

I'm sorry, the idea of a Democracy is to allow everyone to vote, not a selected few. The truth is, as hard as Republicans are trying to skew the numbers by nitpicking what is consider a "tax," it is the minority that don't pay any taxes, not the majority. While 47% do not pay income tax, 81.9% pay at least the payroll tax, and all of them pay some form of sales tax when purchasing goods. What isn't equitable or healthy is when the selected few, who because they are more wealthy and believe their vote is worth more, push their agenda onto the majority. That's counter to what a democracy is. What would stop them from passing bills that enriches themselves? Who wouldn't try to make themselves better off if given the power to do so?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/09/18/161337343/the-47-percent-in-one-graphic

And what I find troubling is that the Republicans are measuring a person's worth by how much tax they pay, not their contribution to the economy as a whole, and how Democrats are not pointing that fact out. Either through pure ignorance or denial, Republicans have not acknowledge the fact that anybody, regardless of whether or not they paid taxes, props the economy up in some way, either by purchasing goods or producing goods. You know those illegal aliens or those people who are working for money under the table? Guess what, those goods they produce helps lower the cost of those goods because the business that sells it do not have to pay tax. Those workers, who receives more money because they are not taxed, spend more money on products produced by other workers. Even the low income workers who pay less tax has necessities that they must purchase which would contributes to the economy. Eliminate all that and demand will disappear. Even the rich will find themselves in trouble if nobody is buying or spending.

Make no mistake, I do not support illegal activity (nor voting rights to illegals) but to simply say that those who don't pay taxes are worth nothing to the country as a whole is an egregious assumption.

 

[bosdevelopment]

U mad?

Not my fault Republican presidents/candidates don't live up to their claims.

To suggest that republicans openly support fascism (totalitarian state) while democrats unknowingly support it is inane. Fascism is aligned with neither the right nor the left. Fascism is a totalitarian state. Your posts read like musings of a naughty little authoritarian coming out of the woodwork to beat your chest.

 

[Lurker]

The US isn't a democracy it is a democratic republic. True democracies never work because of the majority always voting itself the minority's stuff. Freedom without responsibility is a paradox. It can't exist.

A large segment of the population currently receives a larger refund or benefits than the taxes they pay in. So they aren't paying taxes or contributing to overall economic activity as much as they are playing party to an inefficient redistribution scheme. A big chunk of the economy is being wasted on the administration of the redistribution of wealth, whereas if that redistribution wasn't occurring, more money would be productively invested in the economy rather than administrative overhead.

And while the sky is falling, please take note of this really important story involving half the world's population and economic activity, that the domestic press can't be bothered to report on as it makes their boyfriend look bad.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/NK27Dj02.html

 

[novitiate]

The US isn't a democracy it is a democratic republic. True democracies never work because of the majority always voting itself the minority's stuff. Freedom without responsibility is a paradox. It can't exist.

Generally, democracies fall not because of the majority voting itself the minority's stuff, but because ambitious people decide the democratic process gets in their way and they have enough influence to push it aside, often piecewise.

For example, a good first step might be to deny wide segments of the population the right to vote.

A large segment of the population currently receives a larger refund or benefits than the taxes they pay in. So they aren't paying taxes or contributing to overall economic activity as much as they are playing party to an inefficient redistribution scheme. A big chunk of the economy is being wasted on the administration of the redistribution of wealth, whereas if that redistribution wasn't occurring, more money would be productively invested in the economy rather than administrative overhead.

I would say a step further and say the entire population currently receives more benefits than the taxes they pay in. Unless you're saying some people are paying so much money they'd be better off in an anarchy.

And while the sky is falling, please take note of this really important story involving half the world's population and economic activity, that the domestic press can't be bothered to report on as it makes their boyfriend look bad.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/NK27Dj02.html

Oh no, a region of the world the US isn't in formed a regional council that excludes the US! Truly, this is disastrous. In the end I don't know what exactly the US can do to stop China from rising due to demographics alone. (I do, however, think the Communist Party's regime there is not sustainable in the long run- but that's another discussion entirely)

 

[KentXie]

The US isn't a democracy it is a democratic republic. True democracies never work because of the majority always voting itself the minority's stuff. Freedom without responsibility is a paradox. It can't exist.

A large segment of the population currently receives a larger refund or benefits than the taxes they pay in. So they aren't paying taxes or contributing to overall economic activity as much as they are playing party to an inefficient redistribution scheme. A big chunk of the economy is being wasted on the administration of the redistribution of wealth, whereas if that redistribution wasn't occurring, more money would be productively invested in the economy rather than administrative overhead.

And while the sky is falling, please take note of this really important story involving half the world's population and economic activity, that the domestic press can't be bothered to report on as it makes their boyfriend look bad.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/NK27Dj02.html

Okay, if you can accurately measure the exact amount of benefit each person should receive for the amount they pay in taxes, then let me or the government know.

 

[Lurker]

Generally, democracies fall not because of the majority voting itself the minority's stuff, but because ambitious people decide the democratic process gets in their way and they have enough influence to push it aside, often piecewise.

For example, a good first step might be to deny wide segments of the population the right to vote.

Granting large swaths of people the right to vote (preferably once) and then bribing them with other peoples' money or property usually works better. (See South America and Africa for details)

I would say a step further and say the entire population currently receives more benefits than the taxes they pay in. Unless you're saying some people are paying so much money they'd be better off in an anarchy.

Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state lives at the expense of everyone. States cannot thrive without productive individuals and failure of a state is guaranteed once it starts down the path of exterminating or enslaving productive individuals.

Oh no, a region of the world the US isn't in formed a regional council that excludes the US! Truly, this is disastrous. In the end I don't know what exactly the US can do to stop China from rising due to demographics alone. (I do, however, think the Communist Party's regime there is not sustainable in the long run- but that's another discussion entirely)

Half the world’s population forms a "Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership" excluding the United States, including many traditional Pacific Rim allies kowtowing to China, and you consider it a trivial matter?

 

[GW2500]

A large segment of the population currently receives a larger refund or benefits than the taxes they pay in. So they aren't paying taxes or contributing to overall economic activity as much as they are playing party to an inefficient redistribution scheme. A big chunk of the economy is being wasted on the administration of the redistribution of wealth, whereas if that redistribution wasn't occurring, more money would be productively invested in the economy rather than administrative overhead.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/NK27Dj02.html

I think thats your flaw in logic. That money will always get reinvested, when in fact it's human nature to horde. Daddy Warbucks won't add new jobs in his company if there isn't a demand for it. And demand comes either directly or indirectly from the spending power of the sub 250K a year. And most people rely on government to give them an education so that they can have a future and the "job creators" can have customers and that system isn't financially sound.

 

[BostonUrbEx]

To suggest that republicans openly support fascism (totalitarian state) while democrats unknowingly support it is inane. Fascism is aligned with neither the right nor the left. Fascism is a totalitarian state. Your posts read like musings of a naughty little authoritarian coming out of the woodwork to beat your chest.

Me? Authoritarian? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

 

[Lurker]

http://news.investors.com/ibd-edito...5352-bush-tax-cuts-did-not-cause-deficits.htm

White House Data Debunk Myth Bush Cuts Built Deficit


By PAUL SPERRY
Posted 11/30/2012 06:24 PM ET


"While President Obama insists the Bush tax cuts caused the recession and record deficits, his own economists say otherwise. He might want to consult their data for the truth.


Kicking off fiscal cliff negotiations last month, Obama said: "What I'm not going to do is extend Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% that we can't afford and, according to economists, will have the least positive impact on our economy."


During the White House press conference, he added, "If we're going to be serious about deficit reduction, we've got to do it in a balanced way."


Obama argued voters made it clear in the election that they don't want to go back to Republican policies that "cost" the Treasury revenues and "blew up the deficit," as he told them repeatedly during the campaign.


The Washington media by and large share these assumptions. And they're driving the debate over what to do about the federal budget crisis before Jan. 1, when the tax cuts and spending programs are set to expire.


But the assumptions are faulty, based largely on political demagoguery rather than hard numbers — including ones certified by Obama's own fiscal policy advisers and bean counters in the White House.


Turn to Pages 411-413 of his 2012 Economic Report of the President, published by the Council of Economic Advisers. They show that "the math," as Obama is wont to say, in fact does add up for tax cuts........"

 

[TheRifleman]

I'm sorry, the idea of a Democracy is to allow everyone to vote, not a selected few. .

The idea of free democracy is not to create GOVT programs & create taxes and regulations on every industry.
Social Security (retirment) Govt Program Which is bankrupt
Medicare Govt Program (which is bankrupt)
TSA (airpot security) Govt program (This is a fucking disaster)
Teachers/Police/Fireman/Muni Workers (lifetime pensions) Now bankrupt
American Automobile industry which got bailed out because the Unions made a shitty product but because the Democrats need to bribe more voters.
Banking Industry (completely bankrupt which need bailouts) So why do we have programs like the SEC to oversee an industry that needed an 800 billion dollar bailout.
Head of the FDA a former Monsanto worker
Head of the ex-Treasury Secretary a former Goldman sachs boy

Do you see the fucking trend how we are turning into a totalitarian state?

As far as the whole debt debacle. It is far worse than most people typically can imagine. The national debt isn't $15.96 trillion , but $86.8 trillion with all liabilities factored in.

]

don't forget the 500-800 Trillion in deriatives debacle that the banks hold. I'm not sure what even happens at this point, its beyond anything of what I could imagine what could happen. At this point the only thing people can do is just educate each other on who our leaders are and which criminals they actually support.

 

[underground]

As far as the whole debt debacle. It is far worse than most people typically can imagine. The national debt isn't $15.96 trillion , but $86.8 trillion with all liabilities factored in.

So, when you're adding up your personal liabilities, do you use your current month's credit card bill or your estimated credit card bill for the next 40 years? Because that's what you're doing quoting the ridiculous $86.8 trillion number.

 

[choo]

Half the world’s population forms a "Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership" excluding the United States, including many traditional Pacific Rim allies kowtowing to China, and you consider it a trivial matter?

Actually much of Southeast Asia is shifting back to the US as China rises and becomes more assertive. Burma (Myanmar) is a primary example. China owned the junta. Also, you can see a shift in our relations with the CIS. The -stans, outside of Afghanistan and Pakistan, are much more cooperative now then they were 10 years ago. That's because of China pushing them hard for natural resources.

Also, the primary regional organization, ASEAN, had its meeting last week, which the US is a part of and which Obama attended.

 

[tobyjug]

We are about to enter a phase in which we stop exporting our wealth and become independent of Middle Eastern concerns. India and China can build up their navies (and are doing so) to protect their maritime oil supply line.

The pain we feel now is a growing pain, in which we are transitioning to the next economy.

http://www.businessinsider.com/italian-business-newspaper-puts-obama-in-arab-head-dress-2012-12

 

[bosdevelopment]

Just laid paralegal and one attorney off.

For that, I will respond in kind. Tough shit.

Afterwords, I couldn't help but think back to this kid's masterful prose.

 

[underground]

You laid them off because of Obama, right? Is that what you're getting at? Or are you just vaguely raging at the machine?

 

[bosdevelopment]

You laid them off because of Obama, right? Is that what you're getting at?

Not because of Obama, no. It's remarkable however that when placed in a position of power, the self-professed bleeding heart turns cold.

 

[tobyjug]

I wouldn't cry for them. Those fired losers could have had it worse. You could have put them up on the roof and fired them there.

But a real hardass also would have fired the idiot who hired the two of them.

 

[bosdevelopment]

I wouldn't cry for them. Those fired losers could have had it worse. You could have put them up on the roof and fired them there.

But a real hardass also would have fired the idiot who hired the two of them.

Yeah, I guess I'm an idiot.

 

[datadyne007]

Not because of Obama, no. It's remarkable however that when placed in a position of power, the self-professed bleeding heart turns cold.

Why did you post that in the politics thread then?