|
Those Caveman ads are awesome. Full of zen.The Geico's gecko can kick the ass of Flo anytime.
And don't get me started on the Caveman...
So was the show, the show was awesome, and I'm soo sad that a bunch of overreaction and claims that it was racist got it taken off the air because it was hilarious.
|
|
Well, unfortunately, I don't see another Teddy Roosevelt on the horizon, and the NEA has done a nice job of making our kids too f#!*ing stupid to think in anything but talking points and sound bites...Tell that to the friggin' "progressives", not the choir :)Yeah, I'm not so much pro-progressive as I just don't want to trade government overlords for corporate ones. The Russians foolishly traded the Czar for the Premier. Rather than trading back for more czars, how about we toss out both of the bums, and be free men?
The National Endowment for the Arts did that? How?
So was the show, the show was awesome, and I'm soo sad that a bunch of overreaction and claims that it was racist got it taken off the air because it was hilarious.Those Caveman ads are awesome. Full of zen.The Geico's gecko can kick the ass of Flo anytime.
And don't get me started on the Caveman...
I could see people calling it stupid. But racist? I doubt it. My mom is ridiculously sensitive to such things, and she thought the show was HILARIOUS.
I thought Progressives believed in low cost auto insurance and annoying saleswomen with creepy beehive hairdos.Flo is a fox.
** spoiler omitted **** spoiler omitted **
One gigantic +1. She looks very much like a good friend of mine did when she was healthy. I am still praying she recovers from her arachnoid cyst.
|
That's why the electoral college, very uneloquently, blows donkey balls. Back in the Day™ it had it's uses as technology was nowhere near the point that a true democratic vote could be counted in a timely manner. Nowadays, however, that is far from the case. POTUS elections should be simple majority and the senate and house should be trimmed down to committees whose sole job is to review proposed bills for constitutionality before putting them to a popular vote.I have a cousin that works for a law-firm dealing with voter machines cases. If you think a straight popular vote would be a piece of cake with the technology we have today, you are misinformed. All a straight popular vote would do would be increase the number of court challenges. A more reasonable suggestion would be for all states to go to a more representative distribution of electoral votes, with the rounding going to the winner's favor.
In the current system, for 3rd party candidates it still makes sense for them to get votes in places where they will lose, this is because they can get funding for the next election if they have enough of the popular vote.
There will, of course, be growing pains when switching to a new system. It would just make far more sense to not rely on a system which gave us W for a second term (IIRC he lost the popular vote); he got back into office through legal wrangling of the electoral college...wouldn't it have been better for the person who more people voted for to take office after a legal battle?
Also, if we eliminated the house and senate, made a panel of X number of randomly selected, term limited, anonymous constitutional lawyers whose job was to decide the constitutionality of any bills presented to them, we would eliminate about $150 million a year in rep salaries, effectively kill lobyists and most corruption all in one fel swoop. Is this a pipe dream? Unfortunately, yes it is. Why? Because the very people who would stand to lose their jobs would be the ones voting yay or nay on it.
Tell that to the friggin' "progressives", not the choir :)Yeah, I'm not so much pro-progressive as I just don't want to trade government overlords for corporate ones. The Russians foolishly traded the Czar for the Premier. Rather than trading back for more czars, how about we toss out both of the bums, and be free men?
I wouldn't call it foolish per se- the ousting of the Czars had reasons behind it that most people not living in the situation would not understand. Not that the Premier was any better, however...
When has there ever been an unrestrained free market economy?Some of the stuff Progressives believe:
Progressives believe in stuff like equal rights for all races, sexes, ages and economic status.
Progressives believe in fair business practices and laws that protect them regardless of the size or connections of the company.
Progressives believe the government should not interfere with a person’s right to worship unless said worship harms another.
Progressives believe the government should not promote any religion.
I've quoted the ideas I actually agree with.
And since someone claimed I was just spouting out about parties that I don't agree with
Libertarians use the government as little as possible, even if a corporation has privately funded shock troops breaking down their door, because the "free market" is always right.
Unfortunately an unrestrained free market economy always leads to some form of slavery whether it is indentured servitude, a company store or outright owning of another person.
There has to be some basic rules that all must follow to prevent that from happening.
Gold rush towns in California and various mining towns in Kentucky and Tennessee all had unrestrained trade “locally” and the people with the most money ruled like a king and just killed or imprisoned anyone they didn’t like because they owned the police and the courts and in Kentucky the governor.
We have never had an unrestrained “national” free market except for the C.A.S. during the civil war.
It seems that the police, courts and governor were part of the problem. There were rules in place, but folks with money didn't have to follow the rules because the government was corrupt. It sounds a lot like what we have today.
GRRAAAAHHH!!! MY ORIGINAL POST WAS EATEN!!!! So I will respond to this instead.
I agree with some of your statement, BT, as the police, courts and governer were part of the problem- but where is the rest of the problem?
Indeed, make the bums find honest work.Yeah, they dropped the ball. But, maybe it'll be good for them, quite a few incumbents lost their primary race on the elephant side...The GOP truly screwed itself when it bought into Bush's noecon doctrine and utterly failed to shrink the government let alone deal with entitlements in any meaningful way.it was at one time the actual point of the Republican party to do just that.I was a registered republican at that time, but that was quite some years ago.
Now they seem to let Wal-Mart set their economic policy, so they can spend their time legislating sexual preference.
Part of the problem is that most of them won't find honest work. They'll collect a fat salary selling influence instead. They just find a different way to work the system.
So was the show, the show was awesome, and I'm soo sad that a bunch of overreaction and claims that it was racist got it taken off the air because it was hilarious.Those Caveman ads are awesome. Full of zen.The Geico's gecko can kick the ass of Flo anytime.
And don't get me started on the Caveman...
You've all got it wrong! The gecko is hot!
What?! Why are you looking at me that way?
|
|
That's why the electoral college, very uneloquently, blows donkey balls. Back in the Day™ it had it's uses as technology was nowhere near the point that a true democratic vote could be counted in a timely manner. Nowadays, however, that is far from the case. POTUS elections should be simple majority and the senate and house should be trimmed down to committees whose sole job is to review proposed bills for constitutionality before putting them to a popular vote.I have a cousin that works for a law-firm dealing with voter machines cases. If you think a straight popular vote would be a piece of cake with the technology we have today, you are misinformed. All a straight popular vote would do would be increase the number of court challenges. A more reasonable suggestion would be for all states to go to a more representative distribution of electoral votes, with the rounding going to the winner's favor.
In the current system, for 3rd party candidates it still makes sense for them to get votes in places where they will lose, this is because they can get funding for the next election if they have enough of the popular vote.
There will, of course, be growing pains when switching to a new system. It would just make far more sense to not rely on a system which gave us W for a second term (IIRC he lost the popular vote); he got back into office through legal wrangling of the electoral college...wouldn't it have been better for the person who more people voted for to take office after a legal battle?
Also, if we eliminated the house and senate, made a panel of X number of randomly selected, term limited, anonymous constitutional lawyers whose job was to decide the constitutionality of any bills presented to them, we would eliminate about $150 million a year in rep salaries, effectively kill lobyists and most corruption all in one fel swoop. Is this a pipe dream? Unfortunately, yes it is. Why? Because the very people who would stand to lose their jobs...
I hate to shatter your illusions, but bush won his second election hands down. The american people put him in office fair and square, it was his first election that he lost the popular vote. Unfortunately, people were very stupid around election time for bush's second term.
|
|
I hate to shatter your illusions, but bush won his second election hands down. The american people put him in office fair and square, it was his first election that he lost the popular vote. Unfortunately, people were very stupid around election time for bush's second term.
LOL, that's even worse! I could have sworn it was his re-election, but w/e. Either way, there was a four year span of time during which he was in office against the will of the majority.
|
|
I hate to shatter your illusions, but bush won his second election hands down. The american people put him in office fair and square, it was his first election that he lost the popular vote. Unfortunately, people were very stupid around election time for bush's second term.LOL, that's even worse! I could have sworn it was his re-election, but w/e. Either way, there was a four year span of time during which he was in office against the will of the majority.
Yup that was when he ran against Gore, he won the popular vote and the race was so tight that they went to the supreme court for the final decision (this is a severely bullet pointed and unresearched version of events, so don't take it as exactly how it happened). You know, a supreme court that has people appointed by his dad?
That's why the electoral college, very uneloquently, blows donkey balls. Back in the Day™ it had it's uses as technology was nowhere near the point that a true democratic vote could be counted in a timely manner. Nowadays, however, that is far from the case. POTUS elections should be simple majority and the senate and house should be trimmed down to committees whose sole job is to review proposed bills for constitutionality before putting them to a popular vote.
You seem to be under some form of misinformation that the electoral college existence is somehow supposed to stand in for a "true democratic vote". Nothing could be further from the truth.
First, the electoral college did not even exist at first.
Senators and representatives voted, and the EC form still reflects *that* balance.
And that balance was not based on "democracy", but rather on a wise balance between the power of large states and the power of smaller states.
Ultimately, if you are opposed to the EC, you should also be opposed to the very existence of the Senate as a legislative body.
The barriers between liberty and mob rule have been beaten down over the past 200 years. And one could argue that what is left is pretty thin.
But the balanced structures of the legislative branch and the executive election process are wonderful examples of the beauty of the core government system we haven't quite yet completely squandered.
Some of the stuff Progressives believe:
Progressives believe in stuff like equal rights for all races, sexes, ages and economic status.
Progressives believe in fair business practices and laws that protect them regardless of the size or connections of the company.
Progressives believe the government should take care of those that are incapable of taking care of themselves.
Progressives believe the government should not interfere with a person’s right to worship unless said worship harms another.
Progressives believe the government should not promote any religion.
Progressives believe that those with the most should contribute the most and that doesn’t just mean financially.
And that is all well and good.
But when the belief that these items trump individual liberty comes into play, and the belief that government has a self-ordained power to impose the obligations involuntarily on other, formerly free, individuals, that the problems start.|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Also, if we eliminated the house and senate, made a panel of X number of randomly selected, term limited, anonymous constitutional lawyers whose job was to decide the constitutionality of any bills presented to them, we would eliminate about $150 million a year in rep salaries, effectively kill lobyists and most corruption all in one fel swoop. Is this a pipe dream? Unfortunately, yes it is. Why? Because the very people who would stand to lose their jobs...
Somebody has to write those bills. Don't say the President could do it, either. When the executive has legislative power, that's a dictatorship.
|
|
Ultimately, if you are opposed to the EC, you should also be opposed to the very existence of the Senate as a legislative body.
I very much do oppose the EC as well as the Senate as a legislative body. Senators do not legislate according to the will of their constituents anymore. They legislate according the the will of their corporate and special interest group overlords. Your elected representatives could'nt care less about you. They care about how best to line their pockets and get re-elected. Sure, from time to time they will throw in some pork for their district, but that goes back to getting re-elected, not any sense of altruism.
As I said a bit upthread, the Senate and House needs to be replaced with a non-elected, randomly selected group of anonymous constitutional lawyers. They would decide the constitutionality of any bills presented before they were sent to a popular vote.
Somebody has to write those bills. Don't say the President could do it, either. When the executive has legislative power, that's a dictatorship.
Not saying I think the executive branch should be writing the bills, but if all they're doing is writing the bills and not putting them into law, are they really legislating? TBH, I don't know who I would propose writes the bills. I never said my suggestion is perfect or anything more than me just daydreaming.
Some of the stuff Progressives believe:
Progressives believe in stuff like equal rights for all races, sexes, ages and economic status.
Progressives believe in fair business practices and laws that protect them regardless of the size or connections of the company.
Progressives believe the government should take care of those that are incapable of taking care of themselves.
Progressives believe the government should not interfere with a person’s right to worship unless said worship harms another.
Progressives believe the government should not promote any religion.
Progressives believe that those with the most should contribute the most and that doesn’t just mean financially.
I think you missed two:
Progressives believe in imposing & enforcing their beliefs through government force, even if it's against the will of the voters at large.
Progressives (at least in the political class) seek to convince as many people as possible to believe that they are incapable of taking care of themselves so that they're dependent upon government.
Also, it's kind of hard to reconcile "equal rights regardless of economic status" when progressives advocate for the wealthiest in the society to pay an ever-increasing portion of the tax burden (i.e. your "contributing the most" comment).
YMMV. My assessment is of progressivism in practice. If your list is just one of stated ideology, the list is pretty good.
Again, YMMV.
No, what you wrote are liberal not progressive viewpoints.
Some of the stuff Progressives believe:
Progressives believe in stuff like equal rights for all races, sexes, ages and economic status.
Progressives believe in fair business practices and laws that protect them regardless of the size or connections of the company.
Progressives believe the government should take care of those that are incapable of taking care of themselves.
Progressives believe the government should not interfere with a person’s right to worship unless said worship harms another.
Progressives believe the government should not promote any religion.
Progressives believe that those with the most should contribute the most and that doesn’t just mean financially.
I think you missed two:
NO those are liberal not progressive view points.
Progressives believe in imposing & enforcing their beliefs through government force, even if it's against the will of the voters at large.
Progressives (at least in the political class) seek to convince as many people as possible to believe that they are incapable of taking care of themselves so that they're dependent upon government.
Also, it's kind of hard to reconcile "equal rights regardless of economic status" when progressives advocate for the wealthiest in the society to pay an ever-increasing portion of the tax burden (i.e. your "contributing the most" comment).
YMMV. My assessment is of progressivism in practice. If your list is just one of stated ideology, the list is pretty good.
Again, YMMV.
I would argue these last are more gripes with progressives than any particular platform held by the party or the individuals that make it up when viewed from the outside.
Perhaps we could reduce the cost, scope and invasiveness of the government.BINGO! We have a winner.
Rather than simply shift the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class, we should be looking for ways to reduce the total burden for everyone. That means government reform first, not tax reform. In other words... true fiscal conservatism.Yep. +100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Tell that to the friggin' "progressives", not the choir :)
Again you're confusing liberal with progressive.
It's easy to do with every right-wing talking heads doing their best to link one to the other; just like left-wing taking heads try to link conservatism to the republicans. They are not the same.Many of the most famous progressives are republicans take Lincoln and Eisenhower for example.
Part of the problem is that most of them won't find honest work. They'll collect a fat salary selling influence instead. They just find a different way to work the system.Indeed, make the bums find honest work.Yeah, they dropped the ball. But, maybe it'll be good for them, quite a few incumbents lost their primary race on the elephant side...The GOP truly screwed itself when it bought into Bush's noecon doctrine and utterly failed to shrink the government let alone deal with entitlements in any meaningful way.it was at one time the actual point of the Republican party to do just that.I was a registered republican at that time, but that was quite some years ago.
Now they seem to let Wal-Mart set their economic policy, so they can spend their time legislating sexual preference.
Quite true!
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Would Flo be hotter if she saved the environment?You wouldn't know hot if it saved you from a giant robot while doing kung fu.Who would've guessed that insurance company mascots could raise such a furor.Well, she is pretty cute.
She'd be hotter if she weren't in the uncanny valley between humans and things that look like humans but are in fact not humans. Like zombies. And Michael Jackson.
Plus, who needs the freaking enviroment. All it's ever done is fail to clean up the s&$+ that we dump in it. If it's so special and important, why can't it clean up the oil?!?!?
Lazy, stupid environment.
|
|
You wouldn't know hot if it saved you from a giant robot while doing kung fu.Who would've guessed that insurance company mascots could raise such a furor.Well, she is pretty cute.
I didn't say she was hot...cute and hot are two totally seperate categories.
When has there ever been an unrestrained free market economy?Some of the stuff Progressives believe:
Progressives believe in stuff like equal rights for all races, sexes, ages and economic status.
Progressives believe in fair business practices and laws that protect them regardless of the size or connections of the company.
Progressives believe the government should not interfere with a person’s right to worship unless said worship harms another.
Progressives believe the government should not promote any religion.
I've quoted the ideas I actually agree with.
And since someone claimed I was just spouting out about parties that I don't agree with
Libertarians use the government as little as possible, even if a corporation has privately funded shock troops breaking down their door, because the "free market" is always right.
Unfortunately an unrestrained free market economy always leads to some form of slavery whether it is indentured servitude, a company store or outright owning of another person.
There has to be some basic rules that all must follow to prevent that from happening.
Gold rush towns in California and various mining towns in Kentucky and Tennessee all had unrestrained trade “locally” and the people with the most money ruled like a king and just killed or imprisoned anyone they didn’t like because they owned the police and the courts and in Kentucky the governor.
We have never had an unrestrained “national” free market except for the C.A.S. during the civil war.
It seems that the police, courts and governor were part of the problem. There were rules in place, but folks with money didn't have to follow the rules because the government was corrupt. It sounds a lot like what we have today.
GRRAAAAHHH!!! MY ORIGINAL POST WAS EATEN!!!! So I will respond to this instead.
I agree...
Wealthy interest behaving badly were part of the problem too. Although I find it hard to believe that no one defended themselves and their family.
|
|
Would Flo be hotter if she saved the environment?You wouldn't know hot if it saved you from a giant robot while doing kung fu.Who would've guessed that insurance company mascots could raise such a furor.Well, she is pretty cute.She'd be hotter if she weren't in the uncanny valley between humans and things that look like humans but are in fact not humans. Like zombies. And Michael Jackson.
Plus, who needs the freaking enviroment. All it's ever done is fail to clean up the s*&# that we dump in it. If it's so special and important, why can't it clean up the oil?!?!?
Lazy, stupid environment.
Erin E-Surance sold out to the hipsters. She stopped being ninja like the moment somebody yelled "Get Animated!"
At least Flo rides a 900 V-Twin!
|
|
She'd be hotter if she weren't in the uncanny valley between humans and things that look like humans but are in fact not humans. Like zombies. And Michael Jackson.Hey! I resemble that remark. And Michael Jackson? Come on! I'm much prettier than he was.
Then it's settled. Aberzombie is prettier than Michael Jackson.
The spirit of Bi-Partisanship has been achieved.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
She'd be hotter if she weren't in the uncanny valley between humans and things that look like humans but are in fact not humans. Like zombies. And Michael Jackson.Hey! I resemble that remark. And Michael Jackson? Come on! I'm much prettier than he was.
Sorry, but you have even less of a nose than he did. I find that noses are a key component of human attractiveness.
|
|
Sorry, but you have even less of a nose than he did. I find that noses are a key component of human attractiveness.She'd be hotter if she weren't in the uncanny valley between humans and things that look like humans but are in fact not humans. Like zombies. And Michael Jackson.Hey! I resemble that remark. And Michael Jackson? Come on! I'm much prettier than he was.
Yeah, a beak goes a long way, I have to admit.
Perhaps we could reduce the cost, scope and invasiveness of the government.BINGO! We have a winner.
Rather than simply shift the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class, we should be looking for ways to reduce the total burden for everyone. That means government reform first, not tax reform. In other words... true fiscal conservatism.Yep. +100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Tell that to the friggin' "progressives", not the choir :)
Again you're confusing liberal with progressive.
It's easy to do with every right-wing talking heads doing their best to link one to the other; just like left-wing taking heads try to link conservatism to the republicans. They are not the same.
Many of the most famous progressives are republicans take Lincoln and Eisenhower for example.
I'm honestly struggling with the distinction between liberal and progressive in the US context. What would some of the contrasting ideas be?
I'm honestly struggling with the distinction between liberal and progressive in the US context. What would some of the contrasting ideas be?Perhaps we could reduce the cost, scope and invasiveness of the government.BINGO! We have a winner.
Rather than simply shift the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class, we should be looking for ways to reduce the total burden for everyone. That means government reform first, not tax reform. In other words... true fiscal conservatism.Yep. +100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Tell that to the friggin' "progressives", not the choir :)
Again you're confusing liberal with progressive.
It's easy to do with every right-wing talking heads doing their best to link one to the other; just like left-wing taking heads try to link conservatism to the republicans. They are not the same.
Many of the most famous progressives are republicans take Lincoln and Eisenhower for example.
A liberal is a progressive, that other progressive don't feel comfortable defending. :D
Interestingly, I'd identify myself interchangeably as either liberal or progressive , but I don't claim to represent (or even understand) any "official" platforms.
I'm also *not* for big government, but I support a progressive tax structure. The bits about teaching people to be dependent are just silly (of course). Not as silly as trickle-down economics, but silly...
Progressives believe that the goverment should take of the people that can't take care of themselves.
Liberals believe the the goverment should take care of everybody regargless if they can take care of themseleves.
Progressives believe in stuff like equal rights for all races, sexes, ages and economic status.
Liberals believe that equal rights must forced onto others with afermitive action laws.
Progressives believe in fair business practices and laws that protect them regardless of the size or connections of the company.
Liberals believe the corporations must provide positive benifets to evryone not just the stock holders.
Progressives believe the government should not interfere with a person’s right to worship unless said worship harms another.
Liberals believe that worship and religion must be removed from any public venue, i.e. baseball games, schools and money.
Progressives believe the government should not promote any religion.
an take care of themselves.
Liberals believe that worship and religion must be removed from any public venue, i.e. baseball games, schools and money.
Interestingly, I'd identify myself interchangeably as either liberal or progressive , but I don't claim to represent (or even understand) any "official" platforms.
I'm also *not* for big government, but I support a progressive tax structure. The bits about teaching people to be dependent are just silly (of course). Not as silly as trickle-down economics, but silly...
I think I would disagree with you about the dependency issue, but I don't think I really understand the distinctions between liberals and progressives, so I may be conflating a liberal tendency with a progressive one.
|
|
Let it be known that I am proud to pay taxes. Taxes are the ultimate charity, giving my money in order to support the entire fabric of our society, from roads, schools, the military, The EPA, research, and the myriad other things our government does for us.
I believe in big government. I believe that the size and complexity of government makes it more equitable; if all of that power is distributed among a greater number of people, it will by its own nature be more equitable. I think the inefficiency of government is a strength as well as a weakness; it means that the concentration of power is always diffused.
I find the idea of a "flat tax" being more equitable to be another ploy by the rich and powerful of the United States to acquire even more unnecessary wealth. If you make 500,000 dollars or more per year, you can afford paying 50% in taxes, and the idea that those people even pay that much is false. There are so many ridiculous loopholes and tax reductions that nobody in that bracket pays that much.
The fact of the matter is that government is good, with a few notable and generally short-lived exceptions. Government is what protects us and ensures our rights. I would rather put my trust in an organization like government, which exists purely to serve me and all citizens, rather than an organization like a corporation, which exists purely to take as much money as possible from me as possible. I find the idea that greed should be the foundation of our society repugnant.
I believe that everyone has a right to life, a place to live, control over their bodies and personal affairs, to worship or believe whatever they want to, the best medical care society can offer, a world class education, and the opportunity to succeed on their own merits, not those of their ancestors.
That's why I'm a progressive.
Progressives believe that the goverment should take of the people that can't take care of themselves.
Liberals believe the the goverment should take care of everybody regargless if they can take care of themseleves.
Progressives believe in stuff like equal rights for all races, sexes, ages and economic status.
Liberals believe that equal rights must forced onto others with afermitive action laws.
Progressives believe in fair business practices and laws that protect them regardless of the size or connections of the company.
Liberals believe the corporations must provide positive benifets to evryone not just the stock holders.
Progressives believe the government should not interfere with a person’s right to worship unless said worship harms another.
Liberals believe that worship and religion must be removed from any public venue, i.e. baseball games, schools and money.
Progressives believe the government should not promote any religion.
an take care of themselves.Liberals believe that worship and religion must be removed from any public venue, i.e. baseball games, schools and money.
Thanks! This is helpful for me.
Is there a party that reflects the progressive ideas you posted? The Democrats and Greens seem to me to fit the liberal rather than progressive side of this. Of course parties are not monolithic.
Progressives believe that the goverment should take of the people that can't take care of themselves.
Liberals believe the the goverment should take care of everybody regargless if they can take care of themseleves.
Progressives believe in stuff like equal rights for all races, sexes, ages and economic status.
Liberals believe that equal rights must forced onto others with afermitive action laws.
Progressives believe in fair business practices and laws that protect them regardless of the size or connections of the company.
Liberals believe the corporations must provide positive benifets to evryone not just the stock holders.
Progressives believe the government should not interfere with a person’s right to worship unless said worship harms another.
Liberals believe that worship and religion must be removed from any public venue, i.e. baseball games, schools and money.
Progressives believe the government should not promote any religion.
an take care of themselves.Liberals believe that worship and religion must be removed from any public venue, i.e. baseball games, schools and money.
Thanks! This is helpful for me.
Is there a party that reflects the progressive ideas you posted? The Democrats and Greens seem to me to fit the liberal rather than progressive side of this. Of course parties are not monolithic.
Not anymore, I vote for people not political parties.
Cool. You're new icon is going to take some getting used to. ;)
It's summertime and I wanted to let my skin down and get a good bone bleaching in.
Is there a party that reflects the progressive ideas you posted? The Democrats and Greens seem to me to fit the liberal rather than progressive side of this.
Right now, both Democrats and Republicans are so polarized as to be indistinguishable from one another. The opposite of crazy is not sane, it's still crazy.
|
I find the idea of a "flat tax" being more equitable to be another ploy by the rich and powerful of the United States to acquire even more unnecessary wealth. If you make 500,000 dollars or more per year, you can afford paying 50% in taxes, and the idea that those people even pay that much is false. There are so many ridiculous loopholes and tax reductions that nobody in that bracket pays that much.
My only problem with your statement is that a progressive tax without those loopholes would discourage people from making more money. I have heard stories of people getting an extra job or working overtime to make more money, only to have that extra earnings push them into the next tax bracket where their withholding did not cover their taxes. End result, all the extra money they worked for went to paying taxes.
A flat tax without loopholes would be fair. You make X and take out Y. The more you make, the more tax is paid, but the percentage never changes. Make the tax on what you purchase instead of what you earn and you no longer punish someone for earning more money. Suddenly you're getting all that 'unnecessary wealth' the rich are spending on yachts and private jets. With the bonus of getting the illegal wealth that drug lords and criminals make. Because even with a black market, everyone still has to go through legal channels sometime. Gas and groceries for one.
It's summertime and I wanted to let my skin down and get a good bone bleaching in.
This makes me think of Richard.
I find the idea of a "flat tax" being more equitable to be another ploy by the rich and powerful of the United States to acquire even more unnecessary wealth. If you make 500,000 dollars or more per year, you can afford paying 50% in taxes, and the idea that those people even pay that much is false. There are so many ridiculous loopholes and tax reductions that nobody in that bracket pays that much.My only problem with your statement is that a progressive tax without those loopholes would discourage people from making more money. I have heard stories of people getting an extra job or working overtime to make more money, only to have that extra earnings push them into the next tax bracket where their withholding did not cover their taxes. End result, all the extra money they worked for went to paying taxes.
A flat tax without loopholes would be fair. You make X and take out Y. The more you make, the more tax is paid, but the percentage never changes. Make the tax on what you purchase instead of what you earn and you no longer punish someone for earning more money. Suddenly you're getting all that 'unnecessary wealth' the rich are spending on yachts and private jets. With the bonus of getting the illegal wealth that drug lords and criminals make. Because even with a black market, everyone still has to go through legal channels sometime. Gas and groceries for one.
+1
|
|
This 2 party system is why I love living in Canada. Canadians were tired of the liberal versus conservative bullcrap. So with 5 major political parties in the house we started voting in minority governments. Basically not one party got enough votes to push through a legislation, so in order for things to happen the parties have to work together. It's worked well so far, and if the ruling party tries some BS like trying to push through an agenda nobody but them wants, well then 2 or 3 of the opposing parties can topple the government and either rule instead of the other party or call an election.
|
|
Let it be known that I am proud to pay taxes. Taxes are the ultimate charity, giving my money in order to support the entire fabric of our society, from roads, schools, the military, The EPA, research, and the myriad other things our government does for us.
I believe in big government. I believe that the size and complexity of government makes it more equitable; if all of that power is distributed among a greater number of people, it will by its own nature be more equitable. I think the inefficiency of government is a strength as well as a weakness; it means that the concentration of power is always diffused.
I find the idea of a "flat tax" being more equitable to be another ploy by the rich and powerful of the United States to acquire even more unnecessary wealth. If you make 500,000 dollars or more per year, you can afford paying 50% in taxes, and the idea that those people even pay that much is false. There are so many ridiculous loopholes and tax reductions that nobody in that bracket pays that much.
The fact of the matter is that government is good, with a few notable and generally short-lived exceptions. Government is what protects us and ensures our rights. I would rather put my trust in an organization like government, which exists purely to serve me and all citizens, rather than an organization like a corporation, which exists purely to take as much money as possible from me as possible. I find the idea that greed should be the foundation of our society repugnant.
I believe that everyone has a right to life, a place to live, control over their bodies and personal affairs, to worship or believe whatever they want to, the best medical care society can offer, a world class education, and the opportunity to succeed on their own merits, not those of their ancestors.
That's why I'm a progressive.
So, you'll be perfectly happy to go to Iran? just wondering, you say government as a general catch all without specifying a country or even a type of government in general. I don't believe in "government" as a general force and think that there are lots of corrupt and terribly mismanaged governments that become the exact opposite of everything you've just described. I mean, do you honestly think the government of Somalia (or rather whatever interim non-government is trying to control the country right now) is the best most diffused and equitable way to distribute and equalize peoples burdens.