GJ is up to 12% now...only 3 more to make the debates...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still want the slogan to be "Feel the Johnson" for the Bernie supporters that go to him...
If he's seriously doubled down with Pence, I can't vote for that kind of draconian social policy.
Johnson it is.
That's a heck of a regressive tax scheme he's got.
Wow. Did the Trump/Pence campaign staff design their new logo in WordArt or MS Paint? All it's missing is a cameo by a Mike Judge character.
The jokes just write themselves.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still want the slogan to be "Feel the Johnson" for the Bernie supporters that go to him...
Damnit, now I wish I said "The Johnson is up to 12, and getting bigger."
Wow. Did the Trump/Pence campaign staff design their new logo in WordArt or MS Paint? All it's missing is a cameo by a Mike Judge character.The jokes just write themselves.
Seriously, whoever designed that logo was not a Trump fan. Or maybe Pence was the issue, but you get my point.
That's a heck of a regressive tax scheme he's got.If he's seriously doubled down with Pence, I can't vote for that kind of draconian social policy.
Johnson it is.
Even the 12% (or what it is today) likely aren't really looking at his policies, but are just making protest votes.
Huge National Sales Tax? privatize Social Security?
That sales tax comes with the elimination of income tax and the IRS. Also, by the time milennials are elderly there will be no SS left if we don't make some kind of change.
"Some kind of change" doesn't necessitate privatization, though, does it? You could just as easily raise the retirement age as hand the whole thing over to the private sector, right?
That sales tax comes with the elimination of income tax and the IRS. Also, by the time milennials are elderly there will be no SS left if we don't make some kind of change.That's a heck of a regressive tax scheme he's got.If he's seriously doubled down with Pence, I can't vote for that kind of draconian social policy.
Johnson it is.
Even the 12% (or what it is today) likely aren't really looking at his policies, but are just making protest votes.
Huge National Sales Tax? privatize Social Security?
Just curious, do you think there will be no government agency doing audits on whether taxes are being collected correctly or not?
For example, states with sales tax still have offices that are responsible for auditing businesses to make sure that they are reporting sales tax correctly. So, assuming that this is still being done under this system, are we just changing the name of the IRS and that makes people happy?
I agree that they'll be smaller and less intrusive to most Americans, but they're still going to exist in some form or another.
Of the US Federal budget ($3.8 trillion), the IRS budget ($11.2 billion) represents a fairly small portion. Even if this change reduces that need by 90%, sure it'll help the deficit, but not by much. Oh, plus you now need to pay for the infrastructure of making a check out to every adult in the US. For an idea of how much, it costs $6 billion to administer Social Security right now (which is 0.7% of Social Security's budget). They'll be able to take up some of the slack, but you're still going to need additional people working there to get the job done. Conservatively, I think we can assume another $2-3 billion, which eats into the savings of closing the IRS fairly significantly.
BTW, SS is already benefiting from technology in streamlining their process. The cost of administrating the program has dropped almost in half over the last 30 years as technology improvements have been implemented, and they're down to 30% of what they were in the 50's.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Some kind of change" doesn't necessitate privatization, though, does it? You could just as easily raise the retirement age as hand the whole thing over to the private sector, right?
Or remove the income cap on the taxes.
edit: Eliminating the payroll cap would make social security solvent for the next 75 years.
"Some kind of change" doesn't necessitate privatization, though, does it? You could just as easily raise the retirement age as hand the whole thing over to the private sector, right?
I, for one, don't want to be f~%&ing 80 by the time I can retire. My parents generation already had it bumped back, and they keep bumping it back more and more.
I'm not opposed to modifying the retirement age based on the type of work we do. I'm starting up school again this fall, with plans to become a teacher. Partly because I've been super poor the past 10 years, I know I'm going to need to work until I'm at least 70, so part of my decision was going after a career that will let me do that. I had considered some more physically demanding careers, like pipe fitter pays well and is in very high demand, but I'd probably destroy my body much faster, meaning I could only get in another 15-20 years of work. It just wouldn't be enough time for me to build up what I'll need.
I think modifying the retirement age based on the kind of work done would be fine. The exact details and numbers I don't know, but letting people who have to do physically demanding work retire at 60 with full Social Security benefits sounds reasonable. If something happens on the job, they would be eligible for Disability Insurance. Then push the age to 70 for those who's bodies aren't broken down by the work they do.
We live longer lives than we did 50 years ago. Part of that might mean we have to work longer to earn the money we need for the last part of our lives.
You can retire any time you want if they privatize it. In fact, as long as you aren't relying on the government to support your retirement, you can do that now.
Then the social security check when you reach 70 is simply an income bump.
But that assumes that everyone will be able to use the private investment processes to fund their own retirement. If you don't assume that everyone will be able to save for their own retirement, then you need some kind of government payment program to keep retired people from being homeless and hungry.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Some kind of change" doesn't necessitate privatization, though, does it? You could just as easily raise the retirement age as hand the whole thing over to the private sector, right?I, for one, don't want to be f!%~ing 80 by the time I can retire. My parents generation already had it bumped back, and they keep bumping it back more and more.
I don't want it either, but I'm willing to put in the time I have to keep the system functioning, you know? As Iron has pointed out, raising the retirement age isn't the only option.
My point is that privatization is a horrible idea. The private entity is only there to skim profits off the top of your nest egg.
You can retire any time you want if they privatize it. In fact, as long as you aren't relying on the government to support your retirement, you can do that now.
Then the social security check when you reach 70 is simply an income bump.
But that assumes that everyone will be able to use the private investment processes to fund their own retirement. If you don't assume that everyone will be able to save for their own retirement, then you need some kind of government payment program to keep retired people from being homeless and hungry.
These private accounts, who's going to administer them? Ie, who does the purchasing and selling of stocks/bonds, who keeps the records, etc? If you had to name an iconic location, where would these people work?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Depends on which model you select. Some people are willing to pay a percentage of their investments to have someone else do that. Other people manage their own accounts. Currently in the US, both options are possible.
There are businesses which will simply use their license to buy and sell the stocks and/or bonds you ask them to for a small fee. You can still have physical certificates sent to you. You can still buy US savings bonds through your bank.
Other business offer the 'don't worry your pretty little head" option, and skim a bit off the top of every account they manage. Depending on the company, the fees are either outrageous or reasonable.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That sales tax comes with the elimination of income tax and the IRS. Also, by the time milennials are elderly there will be no SS left if we don't make some kind of change.That's a heck of a regressive tax scheme he's got.If he's seriously doubled down with Pence, I can't vote for that kind of draconian social policy.
Johnson it is.
Even the 12% (or what it is today) likely aren't really looking at his policies, but are just making protest votes.
Huge National Sales Tax? privatize Social Security?
And sales takes tend to hit the poor, who largely don't pay income tax, the hardest by far. So massively increasing the sales tax is absolutely brutal to them, which is not acceptable. Not to mention that rising prices sharply accross the board is likely to have a rather negative effect on economic growth. And you can't eliminate the IRS. Need them to oversee sales tax collection. As for SS, some kind of change can mean a lot of things other than selling it to the highest bidder, who is interested in profit more than your pension.
This economic policy is almost as bad as Jill Stein's.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not to be a dingus, but everyone reading this knows the difference between a Fiduciary and a Financial Counselor, right?
We're not talking about ERISA standards here. Nor are we talking about where or how you get your investment information.
There's no requirement that someone pay for investment advice when they manage their own retirement fund. And if you go the "don't worry your pretty little head" route, then you need to understand the financial advising business as well as the investment side.
One option is to pay a financial advisor an hourly rate and then manage your buying and selling yourself.
The fiduciary standard promulgated by the Department of Labor is already being contested in federal court
That sales tax comes with the elimination of income tax and the IRS. Also, by the time milennials are elderly there will be no SS left if we don't make some kind of change.That's a heck of a regressive tax scheme he's got.If he's seriously doubled down with Pence, I can't vote for that kind of draconian social policy.
Johnson it is.
Even the 12% (or what it is today) likely aren't really looking at his policies, but are just making protest votes.
Huge National Sales Tax? privatize Social Security?
SS will only be gone if we stop paying into it. If it doesn't have a trust fund, it loses a lot of its luster as "getting back what you paid in" but that has always been an illusion.
Now, if we don't restructure it or increase its funding somehow (either through increased SS taxes or diverting from the general fund), benefits will necessarily go down. But as long as there are people paying in, we can keep paying out at some level. Personally, I believe some kind of means test is probably the best way to go about it after we eliminate the caps.
How about we don't charge sales tax on food/groceries?
GJ is up to 12% now...only 3 more to make the debates...
No, he isn't. He's at 7% in aggregate poll tracking. That's the only figure that matters.
How about we don't charge sales tax on food/groceries?
If that includes ice cream like it does here in Wisconsin right now, I'm on board!
Necessary groceries...
If he's seriously doubled down with Pence, I can't vote for that kind of draconian social policy.
Johnson it is.
Your vote for Johnson isn't the best way to prevent those draconian social policies.
How about we don't charge sales tax on food/groceries?
Already there in Rhode Island.
Voting for a dragon isn't either.
I think it's supposed to be voluntary?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That sales tax comes with the elimination of income tax and the IRS. Also, by the time milennials are elderly there will be no SS left if we don't make some kind of change.
There will not be no Social security "left" because there is no social security fund.
Social security is not an enforced savings plan. It is two separate programs, one that charges a tax on labor (effectively a no bottom very regressive income tax, as it tops out at upper middle class) and one that pays out benefits. They have very little if anything to do with each other. If the social security tax was no longer raising enough revenue to to pay the spending, funding would be drawn off from somewhere else and hopefully become not quite so regressive.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The truth of the matter is 3rd parties will never work unless we change our voting system. The raw mathematics of first past the post voting makes 3rd parties a non-starter. That isn't because people are ignorant or because they are lazy, its because our actual system that we use to elect executive and representatives is fundamentally bad, and by its very nature drives us to 2 parties. Its possible one party will be replaced with another, but you ultimately will only ever have 2.
What option is there then, if you refuse to hold your nose and pick one?
Maybe we have a 3rd party, and they siphon enough votes from each person that no one gets enough electoral votes to win? Would we get a do-over at that point? Or would the one with the majority of electoral votes still win?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When 2/3 of the people don't vote because they're dissatisfied with the two options in front of them, I'd say 3rd parties have a place in our system. So many people say they don't vote for a third party because they can't possibly win - but considering how many Americans are independent, they actually can.
Whether in the long term they will remain, frankly, I don't care. (Okay, I do care, but not nearly as much as I care about this particular election having a third option.) All I care about is right now, I have two choices in front of me that are, to be blunt, horrible, and I absolutely, vehemently, and totally refuse to give a vote to either one of them. I'm absolutely not going to vote for someone I find a villain just because their opponent is a super villain.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What option is there then, if you refuse to hold your nose and pick one?
Maybe we have a 3rd party, and they siphon enough votes from each person that no one gets enough electoral votes to win? Would we get a do-over at that point? Or would the one with the majority of electoral votes still win?
That's in the Constitution, actually. The House meets and each state has to agree on one candidate. Majority wins. If no majority in the first ballot, it gets limited to the top two.
When 2/3 of the people don't vote because they're dissatisfied with the two options in front of them, I'd say 3rd parties have a place in our system. So many people say they don't vote for a third party because they can't possibly win - but considering how many Americans are independent, they actually can.
Whether in the long term they will remain, frankly, I don't care. (Okay, I do care, but not nearly as much as I care about this particular election having a third option.) All I care about is right now, I have two choices in front of me that are, to be blunt, horrible, and I absolutely, vehemently, and totally refuse to give a vote to either one of them. I'm absolutely not going to vote for someone I find a villain just because their opponent is a super villain.
The 2/3 were primary turnout numbers though, right? I just feel like primaries are a totally craptasijc model for the general, you know?
Edit: That's right, I spelled craptastic with a J, for the sake of my eastern european kith and kin. :P
The issue isn't what people want, its that any 3rd party would inevitably be a fracture of either the democratic or republican parties. There are disenfranchised voters on both sides, but they are still in general leaning either liberal or conservative.
A liberal 3rd party would give power to the conservative side of the aisle, a conservative 3rd party would do the reverse. Even most 'independants' lean one way or the other. And most recognize this problem. And even if they didn't, it would take at most one or 2 election cycles to realize that trying to grow a 3rd party would be catastrophic to your actual goals.
There are better systems out there. Including instant runoff voting (which at the very least removed the spoiler effect where voting for a 3rd party actually hurts your desired outcomes) or mixed member proportional where you actually acknowledge political parties are a thing and account for them in your voting system.
That has to change first. There will never be any success with 3rd parties until that happens. Mathematically the only thing a 3rd party can do is hurt the interests of the people supporting it at the moment.
Simple example, lets say the libertarian candidate gains steam, lets say the party puts on a fantastic campaign and even gets into the running in senate and house seats. Well MOST of the people who would vote for them would have otherwise voted republican (if they bothered to show up, and actually most libertarians are quite politically active so I'd say this is a lot of them). Well, guess what that will do? It will pull votes for president, and for congress away from the republicans, likely handing both to the democrats. Most voters know this, or they will learn it basically instantly. So they don't vote third party, because for the republicans are better then the democrats. (this is an example and not meant to disparage any particular view).
My point is simply that with the voting system we have, the most that can happen is to replace one big party with another. But overwhelmingly, what you will get is one large conservative party and one large liberal party. And they will be forced to try to encompase everything from their 'side' and fail. So anyone whose views don't line up neatly with one of the big 2 parties will have poor representation. There is literally no other potential outcome until we change the voting system.
|
The common wisdom around the barracks was "Don't vote, you'll get a boot in the ass either way. What size it is doesn't matter."Shhh! Disparaging the boot is a bootable offense!
What is the deal with voting in the military? When you are stateside, do they provide you with a polling place if you are on-base? I recall something about overseas military ballots being counted after others, or potentially not counted unless the election is close? Is that just some weird Florida law from 2000 or am I totally mistaken?
Members of the military are eligible for absentee ballots for their registered district, whether overseas or stateside. If you relocate your voter registration to your duty location, you can vote there as well, but I have never heard of what would essentially be a non-denominational polling location on a military base. Interesting idea, but I have no idea whether it would even be legal or not.
As far as I know, all ballots are counted as they arrive, but I would imagine that if the race isn't that close, the registrar doesn't look too hard at the numbers. Military members can request additional time or delivery considerations if overseas (faxing the ballot, scanning and sending a .PDF ballot, or additional time to mail it in if you're somewhere outside of typical mail channels).
I always advise military personnel to vote. After all, they're the ones getting put in harm's way by the politicos, so they should at least take an interest in the process.
Hope this helps,
C
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What option is there then, if you refuse to hold your nose and pick one?
No meaningful one. Hold your nose, and pick one. Or don't hold your nose, and accept that you live in a sociopolitical environment predicated on compromise, and that to view your choice as distasteful or unpleasant is to miss the entire point of exercising democratic power. And then pick one.
If you're not a fan of either major party candidate, vote like a responsible adult and then spend the next 4 or 8 years working as an organizer within one of the major parties to shape policy, agenda, and candidacy. Your vote on election day is actually the least significant political tool you possess as a citizen.
Maybe we have a 3rd party, and they siphon enough votes from each person that no one gets enough electoral votes to win? Would we get a do-over at that point? Or would the one with the majority of electoral votes still win?
Long story short - if no party receives 270+ electoral votes, Donald Trump becomes President.
What option is there then, if you refuse to hold your nose and pick one?
Maybe we have a 3rd party, and they siphon enough votes from each person that no one gets enough electoral votes to win? Would we get a do-over at that point? Or would the one with the majority of electoral votes still win?
Worse than either. In no candidate wins an actual majority of the electoral college, the election is decided by the House.
It doesn't matter, there's no practical way a third party can at this point actually siphon enough electoral votes to matter. Such a candidate would have to actually be winning states and doing so significantly from both sides.
Oh they can matter, the thing is they wont matter the way anyone voting for them will want. They are really unlikely to win any states, but they are extremely likely to LOSE any of the swing states. So for instance, if Bernie had broken off to create a 'progressive' party or what have you, and he pulled his supporters to this new party, EVERY swing state and probably a handful of solidly 'blue' states would split their vote, and the actually electoral votes (for president) or congress seats would go to the conservative party instead.
He knows this. Everyone knows this. That's why he is supporting Hillary despite the fact that anyone who can read a face or body language knows he didn't want to. Because baring some pretty specific examples, "Bernie Supporters" (whatever you would call a party of that portion of the electorate) would much rather democrats in power then republicans both in the white house and in capital hill. So with our current system of voting, a vote FOR the party they want can accomplish only one thing, put the people they least want in power into power. This is called the spoiler effect and its why we wont ever have 3 or more real parties.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The truth of the matter is 3rd parties will never work unless we change our voting system. The raw mathematics of first past the post voting makes 3rd parties a non-starter. That isn't because people are ignorant or because they are lazy, its because our actual system that we use to elect executive and representatives is fundamentally bad, and by its very nature drives us to 2 parties. Its possible one party will be replaced with another, but you ultimately will only ever have 2.
That would require constitutional amendments , made by the same people you're trying to get more competition for. You want 75% of people to vote themselves out of office. That's not going to happen.
The truth of the matter is 3rd parties will never work unless we change our voting system. The raw mathematics of first past the post voting makes 3rd parties a non-starter. That isn't because people are ignorant or because they are lazy, its because our actual system that we use to elect executive and representatives is fundamentally bad, and by its very nature drives us to 2 parties. Its possible one party will be replaced with another, but you ultimately will only ever have 2.That would require constitutional amendments , made by the same people you're trying to get more competition for. You want 75% of people to vote themselves out of office. That's not going to happen.
I am aware of the difficulty in accomplishing this. But it is at least POSSIBLE. Growing a 3rd party without changing the system is IMPOSSIBLE. As an example, prohibition was not popular among the majority of actual legislators. But it was popular enough to put sufficient pressure on them to get the votes to happen. It didn't last sure, but it is actually possible. Particularly if it received bitpartisan support from the populace. Again its not likely, but its the only possible route for real change. And people need to understand that.