American Politics during the Obama Presidency

Good grief you guys are quick. I realized my analogy needed clarification. Hoping to come back quick and edit my post I see there are already two responses. So here's my clarification. Gandolf actually had two distinct ideas. These are known as the Fair Tax and the Flat Tax. The orange analogy only applies to the former.

"FAIR" TAX. This is a national sales tax or consumption tax which replaces income tax. If you had to raise all revenue through such a tax on goods and services, this would be the same tax amount paid by all regardless of income and as Jackson acknowledged would in fact be a massive shift in tax burden from rich to the poor and middle class. It's been estimated that such a tax would have to be upwards of 30% to bring in the same revenue as the taxes it would replace. The orange analogy is correct here. Low income earners would take a huge hit. It should be called the "Unfair Tax".

FLAT TAX. A flat income tax. While less radical it would still significantly worsen wealth inequality.

Neither of these tax proposals is acceptable because they both shift the tax burden from the rich to others, which given what has happened in this country since Reagan is the exact opposite of what we need to be doing.

Jackson hope you are enjoying the chicas in BA. We will have to agree to disagree on whether wealth is earned or distributed. I think it is both.

BTW there was a poll out last week that showed most Americans (61%) would rather see taxes for the wealthy increased as a first step to tackling the deficit. The second most popular step was to cut defense spending. I found this poll very interesting because these are the same top two items I would have said myself.

Most Americans say tax rich to balance budget: poll
[url]http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE7022AK20110103[/url]

[QUOTE=Esten;414990]"FAIR" TAX. This is a national sales tax or consumption tax which replaces income tax. If you had to raise all revenue through such a tax on goods and services, this would be the same tax amount paid by all regardless of income and as Jackson acknowledged would in fact be a massive shift in tax burden from rich to the poor and middle class. It's been estimated that such a tax would have to be upwards of 30% to bring in the same revenue as the taxes it would replace. The orange analogy is correct here. Low income earners would take a huge hit. It should be called the "Unfair Tax".[/quote]Esten,

Every proposal I've ever seen for any kind of national sales tax has always included the government sending a monthly rebate check to every citizen in the amount of the estimated sales tax paid on the first portion of their purchases every month. For example, if the national sales tax was 20%, then the government might send a monthly check in the amount of $200 to every person in the country to reimburse them for the national sales tax that they paid on their first $1,000 of purchases in the previous month. This is specifically intended to "curve" the tax burden by reimbursing low income individuals so that they effectively pay no national sales tax.

[QUOTE=Esten;414990]BTW there was a poll out last week that showed most Americans (61%) would rather see taxes for the wealthy increased as a first step to tackling the deficit.[/QUOTE]What kind of poll is that? Asking people if they are in favor of [U]someone[/U] [U]else[/U] paying the country's entire tax burden? Yea, that's certainly an unbiased poll regarding "fair" tax.

"[I]Democracy is not 9 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.[/I]"

Thanks,

Jackson

Economists foretell of USA decline, China's ascension.

I am in Florianopolis and the consensus here is that Brazil is a hoax and China has immense issues with demographics I. E. One child per family and and an aging population is a economic disaster waiting to happen.

The prediction here is another golden era for the United States provided the United States does not succumb to increasing government interference, a counter productive tax structure, third world labor laws and the destruction of what made the United States great - rewarding those with inovative ideas and products

P.S. Brasil is considered a hoax because they have a 100% tax on all imports. This is to protect their home grown businesses. What this really does is allow their home grown businesses to continue inefficient, non competitive practices. I doubt that Brasil exports much outside of natural resources. Brasil cannot compete in world markets, especially with their brain dead aka birdbrain labor laws.

Arizona Sheriff Blasts Rush Limbaugh for Spewing 'Irresponsible' Vitriol.

A little research will show that Rush Limbaugh's great, great, great grandfather incited the killing of Julias Ceasar, Rush's great, great grandfather convinced John Wilkes Booth to assasinate Lincoln, Rush's great grandfather started WW1 with the assasination of Franz Ferdinand, Rush's grandfather was responsible for shooting JFK while Rush's father took care of Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King.

I say we eliminate freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. We can be like North Korea which does just fine without those distractions.

[QUOTE=Gandolf50;414971]WW you seem to have a excellent grasp of what has happened and how it happened plus you seem to understand what needs to be done. Why don't you get a job with Obama or better yet run for president yourself? Suerte![/QUOTE]I promise that if elected, I will end social promotion of liberal children through our schools. I will make extra certain that liberals are educated in the lost art of math and will end the practice of giving defined benefit plans to anyone (liberal, conservative or otherwise) being paid by taxpayers.

I love Esten. He is like the bird that keeps flying into my plate glass window. He fearlessly and blindly jumps into the conversation, avoiding the topic at hand, and delivering yet again, another of his typical "spread the wealth" non sequiturs. In typical knee-jerk liberal fashion, Esten dives headlong into the fray to protect the innocents, who, were it not for the swashbuckling men in tights (like Esten), would be starved of the sustenance that they need to survive (food stamps for smokes, free tattoo removal services and govt cheese) by the heartless right-wingers who want to cut, cut, cut and make old people and children eat dog food, all without having taken the time or extending the effort to grasp the issue. Bravo.

My assessment of defined benefit plans is as apolitical as I can get and I have never proposed cutting any retirement benefit plan already earned by anyone. Showing characteristic deftness and the ability to deal with specific issues as well as the broader tapestry of societal fabric, I made a point of leaving my opinions regarding unions out of my keen assessment of defined benefit retirement plans. In fact, on this subject, pension plans, I never suggested cutting any benefit earned by any individual, no matter how ludicrous the benefit. What I did say was that we as a society to make defined benefit plans unavailable to anyone (who hasn't already contractually earned one) on the taxpayers' dime, going forward.

In Washington, as well as other dysfunctional cesspools of liberal gibberish (like our dear colleague's mind) , eliminating an unnecessary, potential future give-way of taxpayers' money is somehow viewed as a cut.

On the subject of balancing municipal, state and federal budgets, the fact of the matter is that not only can all these budgets be brought into balance through spending cuts alone, that is exactly how they should be fixed. The severity of the cuts to discretionary spending (i.e. elective spending) is directly related to the amount of money committed to non-discretionary spending (payments they must make). All of the payments to retired employees who are no longer contributing to the entity (i.e. they are not exchanging services or other things of value in exchange for the cash that they receive) under retirement benefits are non-discretionary expenses (they must pay them come hell or high water). Therefore, if the government entity is paying lots of retired, former employees to do absolutely nothing, then there is less money available in the budget for discretionary spending.

If there isn't enough discretionary dough around for all your pet projects, stop the practice of paying people for not contributing.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;415014]...stop the practice of paying people for not contributing.[/QUOTE]But that's one of the core tenets of liberal philosophy!

[QUOTE=El Alamo; 415009]Arizona Sheriff Blasts Rush Limbaugh for Spewing 'Irresponsible' Vitriol.

A little research will show that Rush Limbaugh's great, great, great grandfather incited the killing of Julias Ceasar, Rush's great, great grandfather convinced John Wilkes Booth to assasinate Lincoln, Rush's great grandfather started WW1 with the assasination of Franz Ferdinand, Rush's grandfather was responsible for shooting JFK while Rush's father took care of Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King.

I say we eliminate freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. We can be like North Korea which does just fine without those distractions. [/QUOTE]Stroessner 2012?

Quick question. What's the first thing that comes to mind in response to the following:

[i]Where does a lot of the anti-government rhetoric come from in this country? [/i]

It's not tough to guess what many people would say. And so there is some plausibility to the sheriff's comments, whether he be singling out Limbaugh or any other number of individuals or groups of his ilk.

I bring this up only in response to El Alamo's recent posts, which parallel too strongly this story in the media to not point out. Just two days ago he went on a rant against politicians in Washington (like many in this thread have before). And then (like the right wing media) attempts to marginalize someone who suggests there could be a connection between hostile anti-government rhetoric and violence against politicians. It may not be true in the case of this nutjob in Tucson, but it is certainly a broader legitimate question worth serious discussion.

[QUOTE=Jackson;414991]Every proposal I've ever seen for any kind of national sales tax has always included the government sending a monthly rebate check to every citizen in the amount of the estimated sales tax paid on the first portion of their purchases every month. For example, if the national sales tax was 20%, then the government might send a monthly check in the amount of $200 to every person in the country to reimburse them for the national sales tax that they paid on their first $1,000 of purchases in the previous month. This is specifically intended to "curve" the tax burden by reimbursing low income individuals so that they effectively pay no national sales tax.[/QUOTE]Jackson,

Thank you for that highly relevant detail on the rebate check (prebate). I enjoy some research and fact checking, and have begun to study this "Fair Tax" in more detail. I will report back later. It looks like it may not be so bad for the poor, and possibly even beneficial. In fact it looks like it might benefit everyone. Are you a supporter of this "Fair Tax", and how do you explain it appears to potentially benefit everyone, while still raising the same revenue as the taxes it replaces?

[QUOTE]What kind of poll is that? Asking people if they are in favor of [U]someone[/U] [U]else[/U] Paying the country's entire tax burden? Yea, that's certainly an unbiased poll regarding "fair" tax.

"[I]Democracy is not 9 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. [/I]"[/QUOTE]What kind of poll is it - the kind of poll that can and often does influence politics and policy. It is "we the people" deciding what services they want from their government and how it should be paid for. Some may not agree with the decisions that are made, but that is democracy. What's your proposal for how decisions should be made?

While liberal politicians may be role models for wasteful spending, we need to spread the blame

In the memorable words of Clinton

"[I]It is not the liberal politicians that worry me. What worries me are the lazy, uneducated masses that vote for them[/I]"

Clinton also sagely counseled liberals to be careful what they say. His reasoning was "[I]the left can't compete in the arena of ideas so we must try to limit free speech.[/I]"

Esten, I don't recall a lot of "We The People" take on the outcome of the November elections from you are the Left Wing Media. So let's not get so high and mighty with the phrase. As I recall November Elections and the Tea Party pretty much said enough spending, taxing and debt. Cut Baby Cut!

Let's start with no more assistance for illegal immigrants in any form. Then move on to paring down Welfare and the associated government agencies providing it, then we can move on to Medicaid and let the states work it out not the Fed's unfunded mandates to the states. That would be a good start. Just MHO.

[QUOTE=Esten; 415019]Quick question. What's the first thing that comes to mind in response to the following:

[i]Where does a lot of the anti-government rhetoric come from in this country? [/i][/quote]Leftist radicals, for the most part. Then there are some extremist like the Montana Freemen, who espouse something akin to libertarianism on steroids (the bad kind).

Never would I, or any reasonably intelligent individual, think "conservatives."

If you look at history, of the three groups mentioned above: leftists, conservatives and plain old whackos, guess who has most often and recently taken up arms against the US? I guess that is ok though sincve our current President is buddies with Bill Aires (clearly not one of the Buenos Aires.).

[quote=]It's not tough to guess what many people would say.[/quote]It isn't tough to say anything. It is a little more challenging to be correct in one's statements. I certainly understand why you are unfamiliar with that sensation.

[quote=]And so there is some plausibility to the sheriff's comments, whether he be singling out Limbaugh or any other number of individuals or groups of his ilk.[/quote]There is absolutely no plausible explanation for the sheriff's comments other than pure, liberal exploitation of human tragedy. The shooter's best friend has gone on record that this moron couldn't find talk radio if his dick was an AM receiver.

[quote=]I bring this up only in response to El Alamo's recent posts, [/quote]You only bring this up because you are a hopeless, hapless liberal willing to believe the worst about everyone else and unwilling to put any thought or intellect into your posts.

[quote=]which parallel too strongly this story in the media to not point out.[/quote]Does it matter to you that the media, thanks to its slavish devotion to the left, got this wrong? Just like they did with Oklahoma and everything else? Why show restraint in not jumping to conclusions about Fort Hood when within two hours of the bullets flying in Tuscon, liberal hacks were blaming talk radio?

[quote=]Just two days ago he went on a rant against politicians in Washington (like many in this thread have before). And then (like the right wing media) attempts to marginalize someone who suggests there could be a connection between hostile anti-government rhetoric and violence against politicians.[/quote]Just like a liberal to believe that only right wingers are a threat when history shows that the left is responsible for almost every violent attack from within against the US.

[quote=]It may not be true in the case of this nutjob in Tucson, but it is certainly a broader legitimate question worth serious discussion.[/QUOTE]Not unless you are willing to take of the blinders and participate in an open discussion. Otherwise, you should just save your breath.

Good speech by Obama. Remember what I said before about him moving to the center and being increasingly seen as a president above the polarity of the two parties. His approval rating has been touching the 50% mark recently and I would not be surprised to see it go above 50% soon. On a "days in office" basis he is trending better than Clinton and Reagan.

WW- I would never say the left does not also sometimes contribute to divisive or even hateful rhetoric. If you want to argue the left contributes more anti-rich or anti-big business rhetoric than the right, I would not disagree. But you are flat out wrong if you think the right has not been the biggest contributor to anti-government rhetoric in the recent past.

Of interest Gallup just did a poll on whether Americans think political rhetoric played a factor in the AZ shootings. Add "Major Factor" and "Minor Factor", and compare with "Not a Factor". Across All Americans it's an equal split. But when broken down by party affiliation you see clear differences of opinion between Dems and Repubs.

[url]http://www.gallup.com/poll/145556/Doubt-Political-Rhetoric-Major-Factor-Ariz-Shootings.aspx[/url]

[QUOTE=El Alamo; 415022]While liberal politicians may be role models for wasteful spending, we need to spread the blame.

In the memorable words of Clinton

"[I]It is not the liberal politicians that worry me. What worries me are the lazy, uneducated masses that vote for them[/I]"

Clinton also sagely counseled liberals to be careful what they say. His reasoning was "[I]the left can't compete in the arena of ideas so we must try to limit free speech. [/I]"[/QUOTE]I don't think Clinton said those things, but here is something he [i]did[/i] Say about the GOP when they unveiled their 'Pledge to America' (which he aptly called an ideological document) :

[i]"They don't know that the model for success in the 21st century is a vigorous private sector, an effective government, a partnership, not these hysterical tirades against government.". [/i]

We should throw in the towel and raise the white flag if our country is berift of concern about the frankenstein our government has become.

There is a better correlation between solar activity, the price of rice in China and the divorce rate in Timbuktu than there is between talk radio and the events in Tucson.

However, this doesn't stop the wantabe dictators of the looney left from using this opportunity to limit free speech and freedom of assembly and encourage us to become a nation of sheep.

Why doesn't the looney left come out and say what they really want: A President named Chavez, Castro or Kim Jong II (feel free to replace the names Chavez, Castro or Kim Jong 11 with whatever looney lefty is railing against freedom of speech and freedom of assembly)

P.S. Here´s a hot one. Obama wants more civil discussions. The translation of this mumble jumble is that Obama wants discussions where criticism of the government is prohibited (welcome to the land of Lenin, Stalin, Mao y Pol Pot)

[QUOTE=El Alamo;415035]There is a better correlation between solar activity, the price of rice in China and the divorce rate in Timbuktu than there is a correlation between talk radio and the events in Tucson.[/QUOTE]You just know that the left wing media was waiting in eager anticipation to learn that the perpetrator of the tragedy in Tucson was a Tea Party member.

Sorry Charlie! The facts in this case indicate that Loughner never listened to talk radio, never watched cable news, and in fact apparently had no political agenda.

Of course, the left wing pundits didn't let these facts get in the way of exploiting this tragedy to serve their own political agenda.

Rahm Emanuel on Nov 21, 2008: "[I]You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.[/I]"

FYI, statistically, the large majority of politically motivated acts of violence have been perpetrated by individuals of leftist beliefs.

Thanks,

Jackson