HOW WE CHOOSE OUR POLITICIANS.

Lurch wrote:I voted for Ron Paul last time but I'll be voting for obama this time because I think romney would be the worse thing that could happen to the world. he'll make bush look good..

PkrBum wrote:i think more and more it will be the huddled masses that will simply vote for the one that promises them the most stuff... it's abundantly clear from bush to now obama that they don't have to actually fulfill the promises.

PkrBum wrote:your premise is flawed. wealth is not taxable income... but the good news is that when enough income is confiscated to cripple the economic engine... the next target is wealth. (which is primarily held by the elderly and retired) the death tax and federal reserve are ok at it... but simply taking it is more efficient.

othershoe1030 wrote:

PkrBum wrote:i think more and more it will be the huddled masses that will simply vote for the one that promises them the most stuff... it's abundantly clear from bush to now obama that they don't have to actually fulfill the promises.

Sometimes, in order to make an argument a person will accuse others of voting for the party that they think will, as you say, give them the most stuff.

I prefer to frame it as people voting for the party/person who will stick up for the ordinary person. This is not the same as a hand-out.

To me, the wealthy have all the power on their side. They can hire the best of every sort of person to do their bidding, the best accountants, lawyers, doctors, managers, etc. They are taken care of and that's their reward.

The middle and working class folks are basically on their own. It would be nice if the government would stick up for them/us. You know not let pay-day lenders take advantage of members of the military, not let for profit colleges that scam the poor, not letting factories dump waste in our rivers, etc. etc.

When it comes right down to it the government is or should be one of the few things that the ordinary citizen has going for them.

I'm saying that to vote for the type of government that a person thinks has his/her own best interest in mind is not the same thing as saying they vote for whoever they think is going to give them more free stuff. I think of it as having a game going on and having a fair referee and not a game in which there are two sets of rules, one for the wealthy and another for the rest of us.

That's not a hand out, that's just fairness. I don't think that's asking too much.

PkrBum wrote:i think more and more it will be the huddled masses that will simply vote for the one that promises them the most stuff... it's abundantly clear from bush to now obama that they don't have to actually fulfill the promises.

Slicef18 wrote:

PkrBum wrote:i think more and more it will be the huddled masses that will simply vote for the one that promises them the most stuff... it's abundantly clear from bush to now obama that they don't have to actually fulfill the promises.

Many of us remember, " I'll say, to them, 'Read my lips: no new taxes.'
- George H. W. Bush, at the 1988 Republican National Convention."

Markle wrote:

Like all Progressives, you forget EQUALITY. The Constitution says nothing about FAIRNESS, we all have equal opportunities, NO ONE is guaranteed an equal OUTCOME. What you want are rules for FAIRNESS. LIFE is not FAIR.

As for who vote for Democrats or Republicans? As you well know, Democrats vote for whoever they feel will give them the most freebies. The voting base of President Barack Hussein Obama is not even shy about why they are voted for him.

othershoe1030 wrote:

Markle wrote:

Like all Progressives, you forget EQUALITY. The Constitution says nothing about FAIRNESS, we all have equal opportunities, NO ONE is guaranteed an equal OUTCOME. What you want are rules for FAIRNESS. LIFE is not FAIR.

As for who vote for Democrats or Republicans? As you well know, Democrats vote for whoever they feel will give them the most freebies. The voting base of President Barack Hussein Obama is not even shy about why they are voted for him.

Okay Markle, if you prefer the term equality, let's go with that. To me that's just another way of saying 'let's all play with the same set of rules with an equal chance of making a life for ourselves'.

I'm suggesting that it would be useful and correct if the government, through it's tax policies and programs, made the playing field more level. Wouldn't the country as a whole be better off, more prosperous, healthy, smart, etc. if government acted in such a way as to level the field?

I am not advocating equal outcomes so don't come back with that.

I'm just saying the way things are set up now sure looks to me like (and to most people) that the system is rigged in favor of those folks with the most access to the halls of power. The financial sector/industry comes to mind.

They control congress and how the laws are written (ALEC) so they have the natural advantage of wealth plus they get to write the rules that the rest of the nation must play by. How is that a good and productive situation?

PkrBum wrote:

cool let's tax every citizen over 21 at 25% with a minimum mandate of 5k if you refuse to gain employment or make money under the table. the irs would need a few more agents and guns... but what the hell... they're ramping that up for obamacare already. that would be fair... right? isn't "fair" when everyone gets treated the same?