where would you cut spending from? healthcare, education, research, military etc etc?
can you elaborate on that.
Sure.
I actually have already commented on everything you asked but I'll do so again.
Healthcare: repeal parts of Obamacare
Education: end the Federal Dept of Education, leave it up to the States
Research: end most of NASA, end studies why some frog eats some insect, I'll answer that...food
Bring EVERY troop home from around the world. Have the National Guard protect the nation's borders and ports
End the Estate tax and Income Tax. Create a Flat Tax.
Audit or end the Fed
End the IRS
Audit the welfare system, make drug tests mandatory
where would you cut spending from? healthcare, education, research, military etc etc?
can you elaborate on that.
Sure.
I actually have already commented on everything you asked but I'll do so again.
Healthcare: repeal parts of Obamacare
Education: end the Federal Dept of Education, leave it up to the States
Research: end most of NASA, end studies why some frog eats some insect, I'll answer that...food
Bring EVERY troop home from around the world. Have the National Guard protect the nation's borders and ports
End the Estate tax and Income Tax. Create a Flat Tax.
Audit or end the Fed
End the IRS
Audit the welfare system, make drug tests mandatory
Yeah, Republicans are total jerks. Good thing Democrats have never tried to smear anyone. Ever.
the dems could have come in with their supermajority and could have tried to prosecute and investigate everybody in the last administration, AND gotten convictions, but they didn't. they took the high road and let it go. and i can guaranfuckintee you that the self righteous leadership in the gop, if they win the house, will not take the high road. just you watch.
did you even read the articles i posted? what are your thoughts on them???
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Yeah, Republicans are total jerks. Good thing Democrats have never tried to smear anyone. Ever.
the dems could have come in with their supermajority and could have tried to prosecute and investigate everybody in the last administration, AND gotten convictions, but they didn't. they took the high road and let it go. and i can guaranfuckintee you that the self righteous leadership in the gop, if they win the house, will not take the high road. just you watch.
did you even read the articles i posted? what are your thoughts on them???
took the high road or have no balls?
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
for those of you who are so adament about cutting taxes AND cutting spending, i suggest you view the 60 minutes piece from this past sunday. reagan's own budget director said that that is never going to happen.
Deficits: The Battle Over Taxing The Rich
With Deficits Soaring, Washington State Is Considering A Special Income Tax For The Wealthiest Residents
(CBS) When Congress returns after the elections on Tuesday, it will face one of the most hotly debated issues in the campaign: raising taxes on the rich.
That's President Obama's position: to keep the Bush tax cuts in place, except for those on the wealthiest two percent as a way to reduce the dreaded deficit.
It's an idea already percolating among the governors: eight states have increased so-called "millionaire" income taxes so far, as a way of avoiding drastic budget cuts on health and education. And on Tuesday, voters could make Washington State the ninth.
But with our national debt in the trillions, budget experts will tell you that just taxing the rich isn't enough.
One Republican brave enough to go public is David Stockman, President Reagan's budget director. He says all the Bush tax cuts should be eliminated - even those on the middle class.
And he says his own Republican Party has gone too far with its anti-tax religion.
"Tax cutting is a religion. What do you mean by that?" correspondent Lesley Stahl asked Stockman.
"Well it's become in a sense an absolute. Something that can't be questioned, something that's gospel, something that's sort of embedded into the catechism and so scratch the average Republican today and he'll say 'Tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts,'" he explained.
"It's rank demagoguery," he added. "We should call it for what it is. If these people were all put into a room on penalty of death to come up with how much they could cut, they couldn't come up with $50 billion, when the problem is $1.3 trillion. So, to stand before the public and rub raw this anti-tax sentiment, the Republican Party, as much as it pains me to say this, should be ashamed of themselves."
These frank words come from Ronald Reagan's old budget director. Stockman was the architect of the largest tax cut in American history.
But he doesn't let the Democrats off the hook. He says he cringes when he hears President Obama say things like this: "I believe we ought to make the tax cuts for the middle class permanent."
"We have now got both parties essentially telling a big lie," he told Stahl. "With a capital 'B' and a capital 'L' to the public: and that is that we can have all this government, 24 percent of GDP, this huge entitlement program, all of the bailouts. And yet, we don't have to tax ourselves and pay our bills. That is delusional."
"Why isn't this statement correct? We cannot really deal with the deficit until we get our recovery underway?" Stahl asked.
"The recovery has already happened. It is weak, it is tepid," Stockman said.
Asked how he can say the recovery has happened considering there is a ten percent unemployment rate, Stockman said, "The unemployment rate is not going to drop by any material amount any time soon. And we're going to be in a period of austerity. We've had a 30-year spree of really phony prosperity in this country."
Now our national debt is growing by $100 billion a month. For those who say cutting spending is the answer, Stockman says both parties have thrown in the towel on that.
"Even Republicans have said there's nothing significant we want to cut. They don't want to cut Social Security entitlements; they don't want to cut Medicare reimbursements to doctors; farm subsidies; education loans for middle class students. Certainly not defense!" he said.
Many of the states are in the same boat, facing huge deficits and few prospects for cutting, which is why Washington State is joining the movement across the country to tax the rich.
On Tuesday, voters will decide on Initiative 1098 that would create a state income tax, but only on the wealthy, of whom there are many: 133,000 millionaires and seven billionaires, including Bill Gates of Microsoft.
His father, Bill Gates Sr., has poured his own money into backing Initiative 1098.
The tax would bring in $3 billion a year, to be spent mainly on education, which has suffered cutbacks as the state reels under a massive deficit.
Washington is one of only seven states without any income tax. The proposal would create a five percent rate on income over $200,000 for individuals and $400,000 for couples; a nine percent rate kicks in at half a million dollars on individuals and a million for couples.
"Let's say a couple earns $500,000," Stahl said. "How much do you think they'll have to pay?"
"Well, they would pay $5,000, because that's five percent of the $100,000 on which they would pay," Gates explained.
"Oh, they would only pay on $100,000. They're exempt up to the $400,000," Stahl replied. "So they'd only pay on $100,000."
"Precisely," he replied. "Well, that's not very much…if you earn that kind of money," Stahl remarked.
"Precisely," Gates replied.
His son Bill is on his side along with the public employees' unions. The other side is a who's who of the state's big businesses: Boeing, Amazon and even Microsoft.
Bill Gates is still chairman, but Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer opposes the initiative, which is why they're calling this the battle of the billionaires.
"Is it awkward," Stahl said.
"The word awkward fits. Yes," Gates agreed.
Ballmer's side argues that the "soak the rich" tax would stifle high-tech innovation and lead to businesses moving out of the state. "60 Minutes" asked Microsoft, Amazon and Boeing for interviews but they all declined.
"Businesses are saying they'll leave," Stahl pointed out.
"Yes. But the real truth of the matter is that the people that own businesses are the people who will be paying the tax. And my analysis is they don't want to pay the tax," Gates said. "The rich guys don't want to pay the tax."
"Are you saying you just think they're greedy?" Stahl asked.
"No," he replied. "They're defensive. I guess you could call it greed, I suppose. Wanting to not write another check, sure," Gates said.
"He's a very fine guy, too. The fact of the matter is there are 43 states in this country that have a state income tax. And in those states, the Microsofts or the ABCs, whatever, have not fled the state. I mean, it's just a gross exaggeration," Gates said.
But entrepreneur Bryan Mistele begs to disagree. "This initiative really is a nail in the coffin of small businesses and start ups in our state. It really impacts the tech community very heavily," he said.
"Nail in the coffin? You mean, kill it off?" Stahl asked.
"That's correct," Mistele said.
Mistele is the CEO of Inrix, a software company that monitors traffic around the world and provides data for GPS systems and sites like MapQuest. He says businesses would leave the state, especially high-tech companies like his that deal in data and aren't tied down by factories or assembly lines. He would consider moving some of his 60 employees to other states where he has offices.
Asked what other states he'd consider moving his business to, Mistele said, "Massachusetts, Florida, California."
"Massachusetts, income tax. Go ahead. California income tax," Stahl pointed out.
"Texas, Florida, Michigan, Colorado," he added.
"Okay, four out of the six have income taxes. I mean I've heard a lot of businessmen say what you're saying. And I keep wondering, 'Well, where are they going to move if they leave?'" Stahl remarked.
"Well, each state has its own competitive advantages. So by adding this additional burden, it makes us much less attractive," Mistele replied.
Adam Stites is another entrepreneur who opposes the initiative. Five years ago he moved his company, iStores, from Portland, Ore. across the Columbia River, to Vancouver, Wash., just nine miles away.
"It broke down to taxes," Stites explained. "Oregon has the highest income tax in the United States, and Washington has the lowest at zero percent."
iStores is the largest online retailer of paint ball equipment.
Stites has been hiring new staff for a new company he acquired that sells prank novelties. Under the new tax, he would have to pay $50,000 a year and that, he says, would hamper his ability to expand any further.
"This money, if it passes, will go specifically to education, 'cause they've been cutting schools and things like that. So what is Washington State supposed to do about its schools in terms of revenue?" Stahl asked Stites.
"I think the state, in aggregate, needs to take a look at its expenses," he replied.
"Like?" Stahl asked.
"I've had opportunity in Portland to see cars being washed by third party - washing firms, cleaning cars on the weekends, for state vehicles. I don't have someone who cleans my car in a van, and waxes...," Stites said.
When Stahl pointed out that's in Portland, Stites said, "It's in Portland, but I think it's indicative of government spending."
But the state budget has already been cut by $5 billion, and the governor, Christine Gregoire, says they're at the bone.
"To cut people off hospice I think is immoral. To cut children off health care, to cut their education so they don't have a chance at a decent future I think that would result in an immoral budget," Gov. Gregoire told Stahl.
She says she doesn't understand why so many of the state's high-tech CEOs, who are always complaining about the woeful state of American education, are so opposed to paying this tax for schools.
"These businesses that want the educated workforce, they're against this. What do they say to you when you challenge them on this?" Stahl asked the governor.
"I tell them I have the utmost respect for them. These are great CEOs. And I say to them, 'Here is the problem. You always want us to invest more in education. And now you say no. So, my question to you, if not this, then what? Don't just tell me no,'" she replied.
Asked what they say to her, Gregoire told Stahl, "They don't have an answer, Lesley."
The initiative was way ahead in the polls until the opposition started airing ads saying 1098 is a slippery slope.
Polls now show the middle class thinks they too will be hit with income taxes. And the high-tech entrepreneurs we met say there's a fairness issue: Bill Gates got to start Microsoft without an income tax.
And this is something you hear a lot: that they find it curious Gates is supporting an income tax now. "I believe the Gates' have already made most of their money, so they wouldn't be taxed under a new income tax structure in our state," Bryan Mistele said.
"They wouldn't be taxed at all? No," Stahl said.
"Well, for people who've already made their money and paid taxes in this state, that money wouldn't be taxed again. It's only for people who are earning new money in this state," he replied.
"Well, that's ridiculous. I mean, my son will pay a huge, huge income tax," Bill Gates Sr. told Stahl.
"He will?" Stahl asked.
"Come on, he's the richest man in the country!" Gates said. "How could anybody think he isn't going to pay a huge income tax?"
"What is the income?" Stahl asked.
"What does a person with 50 billion dollars have for income? This conversation isn't making any sense," he replied.
Bill Gates would pay multi-millions in taxes on the income from his investments.
"And he wants to. He's told you that? He's for this?" Stahl asked.
"Well, 'wants' to is a little strong," Gates said. "He is for it. He's very willing."
But, as David Stockman will tell you, that attitude is hard to find. "We've demonized taxes. All right. We've created almost the idea they're a metaphysical evil," he said.
Still, he says there should be a one-time 15 percent surtax on the wealthy that he estimates would cut the national debt in half.
"In 1985, the top five percent of the households, wealthiest five percent, had net worth of $8 trillion, which is a lot. Today, after serial bubble after serial bubble, the top five percent have net worth of $40 trillion," he explained. "The top five percent have gained more wealth than the whole human race had created prior to 1980."
"Of course it would never pass. There's the rub," Stahl remarked.
"There's the rub," he agreed.
The antipathy to raising any taxes or making any real spending cuts, whether in Washington D.C. or Washington State, is so intense, Stockman despairs that when Congress returns after the election, they'll do what they often do: nothing.
"I remember that great expression, 'Let's kick the can down the road,'" Stahl said. "That became kind of the mantra."
"Yeah, and it still is today," Stockman agreed.
"Just kick it down the road," she said. "We'll solve it tomorrow."
"Kicking the can down the road, except it's no longer a can," Stockman said. "It's a giant junkyard."
the video is on the link i pasted above....
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Yeah, Republicans are total jerks. Good thing Democrats have never tried to smear anyone. Ever.
the dems could have come in with their supermajority and could have tried to prosecute and investigate everybody in the last administration, AND gotten convictions, but they didn't. they took the high road and let it go. and i can guaranfuckintee you that the self righteous leadership in the gop, if they win the house, will not take the high road. just you watch.
did you even read the articles i posted? what are your thoughts on them???
took the high road or have no balls?
both.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
where would you cut spending from? healthcare, education, research, military etc etc?
can you elaborate on that.
Sure.
I actually have already commented on everything you asked but I'll do so again.
Healthcare: repeal parts of Obamacare
Education: end the Federal Dept of Education, leave it up to the States
Research: end most of NASA, end studies why some frog eats some insect, I'll answer that...food
Bring EVERY troop home from around the world. Have the National Guard protect the nation's borders and ports
End the Estate tax and Income Tax. Create a Flat Tax.
Audit or end the Fed
End the IRS
Audit the welfare system, make drug tests mandatory
I just saved about $1T a year right there.
sorry, but i don't see both sides agreeing on this. remember tread is not just about listing what you want to do but what is possible to do given teh current politic climate. Most Democrats would not end the dept of education and most rep. would not bring all the troop homes. as for your other ideas, might be good but not passable.
where would you cut spending from? healthcare, education, research, military etc etc?
can you elaborate on that.
Sure.
I actually have already commented on everything you asked but I'll do so again.
Healthcare: repeal parts of Obamacare
Education: end the Federal Dept of Education, leave it up to the States
Research: end most of NASA, end studies why some frog eats some insect, I'll answer that...food
Bring EVERY troop home from around the world. Have the National Guard protect the nation's borders and ports
End the Estate tax and Income Tax. Create a Flat Tax.
Audit or end the Fed
End the IRS
Audit the welfare system, make drug tests mandatory
I just saved about $1T a year right there.
sorry, but i don't see both sides agreeing on this. remember tread is not just about listing what you want to do but what is possible to do given teh current politic climate. Most Democrats would not end the dept of education and most rep. would not bring all the troop homes. as for your other ideas, might be good but not passable.
That just makes me wonder what America would be like if both parties actually genuinely worked together to improve the country. You know, actual bona fide bipartisanship for the good of the nation. As long as I've been following American politics, it seems like the entire system is one big fat waste of potential. With the resources it has, America could sit at or very near the top of a lot of the internationally quantifiable categories (standard of living, heathcare, education, etc) - but instead it languishes in the middle of the pack while Republicans and Democrats falsely claim it's the best and refuse to work with each other to actually improve it. And that certainly isn't going to get better in the next two years, since several Republicans have gone on TV giving interviews saying they will refuse to compromise on anything. Way to set an example for the country, guys.
Compromise is not a dirty word.
And I listen for the voice inside my head... nothing. I'll do this one myself.
sorry, but i don't see both sides agreeing on this. remember tread is not just about listing what you want to do but what is possible to do given teh current politic climate. Most Democrats would not end the dept of education and most rep. would not bring all the troop homes. as for your other ideas, might be good but not passable.[/quote]
That just makes me wonder what America would be like if both parties actually genuinely worked together to improve the country. You know, actual bona fide bipartisanship for the good of the nation. As long as I've been following American politics, it seems like the entire system is one big fat waste of potential. With the resources it has, America could sit at or very near the top of a lot of the internationally quantifiable categories (standard of living, heathcare, education, etc) - but instead it languishes in the middle of the pack while Republicans and Democrats falsely claim it's the best and refuse to work with each other to actually improve it. And that certainly isn't going to get better in the next two years, since several Republicans have gone on TV giving interviews saying they will refuse to compromise on anything. Way to set an example for the country, guys.
Compromise is not a dirty word.[/quote]
I agree with every word you just wrote. the issue i see is how your election are based. i don't proclaim to be a political wiz like some here but for me i have never understood have a election for president and then 2 years later have one for the house and the senate. why not have 1 election every 4 years for everything. that way you have time to build a relationship and set goals. its always seems to me from viewing outside American that you are always an election mode. after today people will then begin to talk about the next president election and after that el3ction we go back to talking about the house and senate election.
Do the same people who call for less spending support the war and/or don't support tax cuts for the middle class?
You call for less spending but maybe if we all pitched in more the deficit wouldn't be so large.
I just feel there's a sense of entitlement in this country. I saw it building before the bad economy and wasn't surprised when things started to go down hill. We want want want, but we don't want to pay for it. “we're in America, the best county so I should have this this and this.” Paying taxes isn't evil. It goes back into making this country strong.
I just thought this sense of entitlement would start to disappear due to the bad economy, it hasn't and I'm disappointed.
….and war is expensive. But we had to do something when were attacked huh?
I can only speak for myself, but I would love less federal government spending, I do not support the wars and never have, and I support tax cuts for the middle class.
The deficit was created by people who claim to be small government spending more than they were taking in, why on earth would we want to enable that behavior by paying more to them to make up for it.
Most people in the world want want want, but there seem to be two different kinds of people in the United states, people who want want want and also want to be left alone to pursue those wants, and those who want want want and want the government(and by proxy Rich People) to pay for it.
You are right, paying your taxes is your duty as an american citizen, but I don't want to pay for things the federal government does that could/should be done by the states.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
sorry, but i don't see both sides agreeing on this. remember tread is not just about listing what you want to do but what is possible to do given teh current politic climate. Most Democrats would not end the dept of education and most rep. would not bring all the troop homes. as for your other ideas, might be good but not passable.
That just makes me wonder what America would be like if both parties actually genuinely worked together to improve the country. You know, actual bona fide bipartisanship for the good of the nation. As long as I've been following American politics, it seems like the entire system is one big fat waste of potential. With the resources it has, America could sit at or very near the top of a lot of the internationally quantifiable categories (standard of living, heathcare, education, etc) - but instead it languishes in the middle of the pack while Republicans and Democrats falsely claim it's the best and refuse to work with each other to actually improve it. And that certainly isn't going to get better in the next two years, since several Republicans have gone on TV giving interviews saying they will refuse to compromise on anything. Way to set an example for the country, guys.
Compromise is not a dirty word.[/quote]
I agree with every word you just wrote. the issue i see is how your election are based. i don't proclaim to be a political wiz like some here but for me i have never understood have a election for president and then 2 years later have one for the house and the senate. why not have 1 election every 4 years for everything. that way you have time to build a relationship and set goals. its always seems to me from viewing outside American that you are always an election mode. after today people will then begin to talk about the next president election and after that el3ction we go back to talking about the house and senate election.[/quote]
Congress are 2 year terms and the Senate are staggered 6 year terms. Here in Canada we are on constant election watch federally since like 2003 as well, that's what happens with a minority parliament. The problems aren't with the elections, the problems are selfishness, once they get in they no longer work for the people, they only look after themselves and the special interest groups they finance their campaigns.
I am totally opposed to governments running deficits and all governments need to spend within their means. Personally I would love see a law passed that basically says if you and your party runs a deficit, you and your party will get the bill when you leave office, these deficits are totally ridiculous and out of control.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
I agree with every word you just wrote. the issue i see is how your election are based. i don't proclaim to be a political wiz like some here but for me i have never understood have a election for president and then 2 years later have one for the house and the senate. why not have 1 election every 4 years for everything. that way you have time to build a relationship and set goals. its always seems to me from viewing outside American that you are always an election mode. after today people will then begin to talk about the next president election and after that el3ction we go back to talking about the house and senate election.[/quote]
Congress are 2 year terms and the Senate are staggered 6 year terms. Here in Canada we are on constant election watch federally since like 2003 as well, that's what happens with a minority parliament. The problems aren't with the elections, the problems are selfishness, once they get in they no longer work for the people, they only look after themselves and the special interest groups they finance their campaigns.
I am totally opposed to governments running deficits and all governments need to spend within their means. Personally I would love see a law passed that basically says if you and your party runs a deficit, you and your party will get the bill when you leave office, these deficits are totally ridiculous and out of control.[/quote]
I don't think you can always not run a deficit. sometimes, you have tp spend more than what you have due to an emergency or something along those lines. but yes i agree that deficits are out of control.
Ummmmm if I were obama on wednesday..I would go back to school and train for a new career starting 2012 outside of politics
Godfather.
maybe that O'Donnell women can teach him how to be a witch.
ha ha ha ! that's too funny !! :thumbup:
Godfather.
actually, the fact that that woman has been seriously considered for a senate seat, and that people will actually vote for her is not funny at all. it is pretty damn sad if you ask me...
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
$6 million to upgrade the two-block long Senate subway.
$350,000 to renovate the House Beauty Salon.
$250,000 to study TV lighting in the Senate meeting rooms.
$130,000 for a Congressional video-conferencing project.
Total: $6,730,000 mall example of pork spending
$3.1 million to convert a ferry boat into a crab restaurant in Baltimore.
$6.4 million for a Bavarian ski resort in Kellogg, Idaho.
$13 million to repair a privately owned dam in South Carolina.
$4.3 million for a privately owned museum in Johnstown, Pennsylvania.
$11 million for a private pleasure boat harbor in Cleveland.
$6 million to repair tracks owned by the Soo Railroad Line.
$320,000 to purchase President McKinley's mother-in-law's house. Funds to rehabilitate the South Carolina mansion of Charles Pickney, a Framer of the Constitution, even though the house was built after he died.
$2.7 million for a catfish farm in Arkansas.
$3 million for private parking garages in Chicago.
$500,000 to build a replica of the Great Pyramid of Egypt in Indiana.
$850,000 for a bicycle path in Macomb County, Michigan.
$10 million for an access ramp in a privately owned stadium in Milwaukee.
$1.8 million for an engineering study to convert Biscayne Boulevard in Miami into an "Exotic Garden."
$13 million for an industrial theme park in Pennsylvania.
$500,000 for a museum to honor former Secretary of State Cordell Hull.
$33 million to pump sand onto the private beaches of Miami hotels. $107,000 to study the sex life of the Japanese quail.
$1.2 million to study the breeding habits of the woodchuck.
$150,000 to study the Hatfield-McCoy feud.
$84,000 to find out why people fall in love.
$1 million to study why people don't ride bikes to work.
$19 million to examine gas emissions from cow flatulence.
$144,000 to see if pigeons follow human economic laws.
Funds to study the cause of rudeness on tennis courts and examine smiling patterns in bowling alleys.
$219,000 to teach college students how to watch television.
$2 million to construct an ancient Hawaiian canoe.
$20 million for a demonstration project to build wooden bridges.
$160,000 to study if you can hex an opponent by drawing an X on his chest.
$800,000 for a restroom on Mt. McKinley.
$100,000 to study how to avoid falling spacecraft.
$16,000 to study the operation of the komungo, a Korean stringed instrument.
$1 million to preserve a sewer in Trenton, NJ, as a historic monument.
$6,000 for a document on Worcestershire sauce.
$10,000 to study the effect of naval communications on a bull's potency.
$100,000 to research soybean-based ink.
$1 million for a Seafood Consumer Center.
$57,000 spent by the Executive Branch for gold-embossed playing cards on Air Force Two
maybe that O'Donnell women can teach him how to be a witch. [/quote]
ha ha ha ! that's too funny !! :thumbup:
Godfather.[/quote]
actually, the fact that that woman has been seriously considered for a senate seat, and that people will actually vote for her is not funny at all. it is pretty damn sad if you ask me...[/quote]
what is even sadder is that if she was Muslim with her views she wouldn't be close to winning.
what is even sadder is that if she was Muslim with her views she wouldn't be close to winning.
Could you imagine the shitstorm if a woman running for office wore a burqa while saying, "Masturbation is a sin, I used to dabble in witchcraft, and I don't know what the First Amendment says"???
And I listen for the voice inside my head... nothing. I'll do this one myself.
I agree with every word you just wrote. the issue i see is how your election are based. i don't proclaim to be a political wiz like some here but for me i have never understood have a election for president and then 2 years later have one for the house and the senate. why not have 1 election every 4 years for everything. that way you have time to build a relationship and set goals. its always seems to me from viewing outside American that you are always an election mode. after today people will then begin to talk about the next president election and after that el3ction we go back to talking about the house and senate election.
Don't blame me for a system that sees people voting on a Tuesday every four years... I'm from New Zealand (I just live in the States) lol
For what it's worth, our elections are held every three years in NZ (and always on a Saturday), and everyone gets voted in/out at the same time. We have 120 politicians in our government, and when you vote, you vote for your local representative (the country is divided into 70 equally-populated electorates for elections), and a political party. The 70 people who win their local electorate make up 70 of the 120 seats. The other 50 seats are divided up amongst the political parties so that their ultimate percentage of the 120 seats is the same as the overall percentage of the party vote they received nationwide (i.e. if your party wins 50% of the party vote but you only had 30 individuals win their electorate, you will get 30 of the 50 party seats so you end up with 60 of the 120 seats in parliament). Each party is free to give those seats to whoever it wants, and the head of the party with the most seats becomes the prime minister. It seems to work fairly well - since 1996 when we adopted the new system between 1 and 2 in every 5 people has been from a "third party" and since 1978 the voter turnout has been between 77% and 93.7%.
And I listen for the voice inside my head... nothing. I'll do this one myself.
Comments
Sure.
I actually have already commented on everything you asked but I'll do so again.
Healthcare: repeal parts of Obamacare
Education: end the Federal Dept of Education, leave it up to the States
Research: end most of NASA, end studies why some frog eats some insect, I'll answer that...food
Bring EVERY troop home from around the world. Have the National Guard protect the nation's borders and ports
End the Estate tax and Income Tax. Create a Flat Tax.
Audit or end the Fed
End the IRS
Audit the welfare system, make drug tests mandatory
I just saved about $1T a year right there.
Godfather.
did you even read the articles i posted? what are your thoughts on them???
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
took the high road or have no balls?
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Deficits: The Battle Over Taxing The Rich
With Deficits Soaring, Washington State Is Considering A Special Income Tax For The Wealthiest Residents
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/10/ ... ontentBody
(CBS) When Congress returns after the elections on Tuesday, it will face one of the most hotly debated issues in the campaign: raising taxes on the rich.
That's President Obama's position: to keep the Bush tax cuts in place, except for those on the wealthiest two percent as a way to reduce the dreaded deficit.
It's an idea already percolating among the governors: eight states have increased so-called "millionaire" income taxes so far, as a way of avoiding drastic budget cuts on health and education. And on Tuesday, voters could make Washington State the ninth.
But with our national debt in the trillions, budget experts will tell you that just taxing the rich isn't enough.
One Republican brave enough to go public is David Stockman, President Reagan's budget director. He says all the Bush tax cuts should be eliminated - even those on the middle class.
And he says his own Republican Party has gone too far with its anti-tax religion.
"Tax cutting is a religion. What do you mean by that?" correspondent Lesley Stahl asked Stockman.
"Well it's become in a sense an absolute. Something that can't be questioned, something that's gospel, something that's sort of embedded into the catechism and so scratch the average Republican today and he'll say 'Tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts,'" he explained.
"It's rank demagoguery," he added. "We should call it for what it is. If these people were all put into a room on penalty of death to come up with how much they could cut, they couldn't come up with $50 billion, when the problem is $1.3 trillion. So, to stand before the public and rub raw this anti-tax sentiment, the Republican Party, as much as it pains me to say this, should be ashamed of themselves."
These frank words come from Ronald Reagan's old budget director. Stockman was the architect of the largest tax cut in American history.
But he doesn't let the Democrats off the hook. He says he cringes when he hears President Obama say things like this: "I believe we ought to make the tax cuts for the middle class permanent."
"We have now got both parties essentially telling a big lie," he told Stahl. "With a capital 'B' and a capital 'L' to the public: and that is that we can have all this government, 24 percent of GDP, this huge entitlement program, all of the bailouts. And yet, we don't have to tax ourselves and pay our bills. That is delusional."
"Why isn't this statement correct? We cannot really deal with the deficit until we get our recovery underway?" Stahl asked.
"The recovery has already happened. It is weak, it is tepid," Stockman said.
Asked how he can say the recovery has happened considering there is a ten percent unemployment rate, Stockman said, "The unemployment rate is not going to drop by any material amount any time soon. And we're going to be in a period of austerity. We've had a 30-year spree of really phony prosperity in this country."
Now our national debt is growing by $100 billion a month. For those who say cutting spending is the answer, Stockman says both parties have thrown in the towel on that.
"Even Republicans have said there's nothing significant we want to cut. They don't want to cut Social Security entitlements; they don't want to cut Medicare reimbursements to doctors; farm subsidies; education loans for middle class students. Certainly not defense!" he said.
Many of the states are in the same boat, facing huge deficits and few prospects for cutting, which is why Washington State is joining the movement across the country to tax the rich.
On Tuesday, voters will decide on Initiative 1098 that would create a state income tax, but only on the wealthy, of whom there are many: 133,000 millionaires and seven billionaires, including Bill Gates of Microsoft.
His father, Bill Gates Sr., has poured his own money into backing Initiative 1098.
The tax would bring in $3 billion a year, to be spent mainly on education, which has suffered cutbacks as the state reels under a massive deficit.
Washington is one of only seven states without any income tax. The proposal would create a five percent rate on income over $200,000 for individuals and $400,000 for couples; a nine percent rate kicks in at half a million dollars on individuals and a million for couples.
"Let's say a couple earns $500,000," Stahl said. "How much do you think they'll have to pay?"
"Well, they would pay $5,000, because that's five percent of the $100,000 on which they would pay," Gates explained.
"Oh, they would only pay on $100,000. They're exempt up to the $400,000," Stahl replied. "So they'd only pay on $100,000."
"Precisely," he replied. "Well, that's not very much…if you earn that kind of money," Stahl remarked.
"Precisely," Gates replied.
His son Bill is on his side along with the public employees' unions. The other side is a who's who of the state's big businesses: Boeing, Amazon and even Microsoft.
Bill Gates is still chairman, but Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer opposes the initiative, which is why they're calling this the battle of the billionaires.
"Is it awkward," Stahl said.
"The word awkward fits. Yes," Gates agreed.
Ballmer's side argues that the "soak the rich" tax would stifle high-tech innovation and lead to businesses moving out of the state. "60 Minutes" asked Microsoft, Amazon and Boeing for interviews but they all declined.
"Businesses are saying they'll leave," Stahl pointed out.
"Yes. But the real truth of the matter is that the people that own businesses are the people who will be paying the tax. And my analysis is they don't want to pay the tax," Gates said. "The rich guys don't want to pay the tax."
"Are you saying you just think they're greedy?" Stahl asked.
"No," he replied. "They're defensive. I guess you could call it greed, I suppose. Wanting to not write another check, sure," Gates said.
"Steve Ballmer?" Stahl asked. "He's worth $14 billion. You don't think he…"
"He's a very fine guy, too. The fact of the matter is there are 43 states in this country that have a state income tax. And in those states, the Microsofts or the ABCs, whatever, have not fled the state. I mean, it's just a gross exaggeration," Gates said.
But entrepreneur Bryan Mistele begs to disagree. "This initiative really is a nail in the coffin of small businesses and start ups in our state. It really impacts the tech community very heavily," he said.
"Nail in the coffin? You mean, kill it off?" Stahl asked.
"That's correct," Mistele said.
Mistele is the CEO of Inrix, a software company that monitors traffic around the world and provides data for GPS systems and sites like MapQuest. He says businesses would leave the state, especially high-tech companies like his that deal in data and aren't tied down by factories or assembly lines. He would consider moving some of his 60 employees to other states where he has offices.
Asked what other states he'd consider moving his business to, Mistele said, "Massachusetts, Florida, California."
"Massachusetts, income tax. Go ahead. California income tax," Stahl pointed out.
"Texas, Florida, Michigan, Colorado," he added.
"Okay, four out of the six have income taxes. I mean I've heard a lot of businessmen say what you're saying. And I keep wondering, 'Well, where are they going to move if they leave?'" Stahl remarked.
"Well, each state has its own competitive advantages. So by adding this additional burden, it makes us much less attractive," Mistele replied.
Adam Stites is another entrepreneur who opposes the initiative. Five years ago he moved his company, iStores, from Portland, Ore. across the Columbia River, to Vancouver, Wash., just nine miles away.
"It broke down to taxes," Stites explained. "Oregon has the highest income tax in the United States, and Washington has the lowest at zero percent."
iStores is the largest online retailer of paint ball equipment.
Stites has been hiring new staff for a new company he acquired that sells prank novelties. Under the new tax, he would have to pay $50,000 a year and that, he says, would hamper his ability to expand any further.
"This money, if it passes, will go specifically to education, 'cause they've been cutting schools and things like that. So what is Washington State supposed to do about its schools in terms of revenue?" Stahl asked Stites.
"I think the state, in aggregate, needs to take a look at its expenses," he replied.
"Like?" Stahl asked.
"I've had opportunity in Portland to see cars being washed by third party - washing firms, cleaning cars on the weekends, for state vehicles. I don't have someone who cleans my car in a van, and waxes...," Stites said.
When Stahl pointed out that's in Portland, Stites said, "It's in Portland, but I think it's indicative of government spending."
But the state budget has already been cut by $5 billion, and the governor, Christine Gregoire, says they're at the bone.
"To cut people off hospice I think is immoral. To cut children off health care, to cut their education so they don't have a chance at a decent future I think that would result in an immoral budget," Gov. Gregoire told Stahl.
She says she doesn't understand why so many of the state's high-tech CEOs, who are always complaining about the woeful state of American education, are so opposed to paying this tax for schools.
"These businesses that want the educated workforce, they're against this. What do they say to you when you challenge them on this?" Stahl asked the governor.
"I tell them I have the utmost respect for them. These are great CEOs. And I say to them, 'Here is the problem. You always want us to invest more in education. And now you say no. So, my question to you, if not this, then what? Don't just tell me no,'" she replied.
Asked what they say to her, Gregoire told Stahl, "They don't have an answer, Lesley."
The initiative was way ahead in the polls until the opposition started airing ads saying 1098 is a slippery slope.
Polls now show the middle class thinks they too will be hit with income taxes. And the high-tech entrepreneurs we met say there's a fairness issue: Bill Gates got to start Microsoft without an income tax.
And this is something you hear a lot: that they find it curious Gates is supporting an income tax now. "I believe the Gates' have already made most of their money, so they wouldn't be taxed under a new income tax structure in our state," Bryan Mistele said.
"They wouldn't be taxed at all? No," Stahl said.
"Well, for people who've already made their money and paid taxes in this state, that money wouldn't be taxed again. It's only for people who are earning new money in this state," he replied.
"Well, that's ridiculous. I mean, my son will pay a huge, huge income tax," Bill Gates Sr. told Stahl.
"He will?" Stahl asked.
"Come on, he's the richest man in the country!" Gates said. "How could anybody think he isn't going to pay a huge income tax?"
"What is the income?" Stahl asked.
"What does a person with 50 billion dollars have for income? This conversation isn't making any sense," he replied.
Bill Gates would pay multi-millions in taxes on the income from his investments.
"And he wants to. He's told you that? He's for this?" Stahl asked.
"Well, 'wants' to is a little strong," Gates said. "He is for it. He's very willing."
But, as David Stockman will tell you, that attitude is hard to find. "We've demonized taxes. All right. We've created almost the idea they're a metaphysical evil," he said.
Still, he says there should be a one-time 15 percent surtax on the wealthy that he estimates would cut the national debt in half.
"In 1985, the top five percent of the households, wealthiest five percent, had net worth of $8 trillion, which is a lot. Today, after serial bubble after serial bubble, the top five percent have net worth of $40 trillion," he explained. "The top five percent have gained more wealth than the whole human race had created prior to 1980."
"Of course it would never pass. There's the rub," Stahl remarked.
"There's the rub," he agreed.
The antipathy to raising any taxes or making any real spending cuts, whether in Washington D.C. or Washington State, is so intense, Stockman despairs that when Congress returns after the election, they'll do what they often do: nothing.
"I remember that great expression, 'Let's kick the can down the road,'" Stahl said. "That became kind of the mantra."
"Yeah, and it still is today," Stockman agreed.
"Just kick it down the road," she said. "We'll solve it tomorrow."
"Kicking the can down the road, except it's no longer a can," Stockman said. "It's a giant junkyard."
the video is on the link i pasted above....
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
sorry, but i don't see both sides agreeing on this. remember tread is not just about listing what you want to do but what is possible to do given teh current politic climate. Most Democrats would not end the dept of education and most rep. would not bring all the troop homes. as for your other ideas, might be good but not passable.
That just makes me wonder what America would be like if both parties actually genuinely worked together to improve the country. You know, actual bona fide bipartisanship for the good of the nation. As long as I've been following American politics, it seems like the entire system is one big fat waste of potential. With the resources it has, America could sit at or very near the top of a lot of the internationally quantifiable categories (standard of living, heathcare, education, etc) - but instead it languishes in the middle of the pack while Republicans and Democrats falsely claim it's the best and refuse to work with each other to actually improve it. And that certainly isn't going to get better in the next two years, since several Republicans have gone on TV giving interviews saying they will refuse to compromise on anything. Way to set an example for the country, guys.
Compromise is not a dirty word.
That just makes me wonder what America would be like if both parties actually genuinely worked together to improve the country. You know, actual bona fide bipartisanship for the good of the nation. As long as I've been following American politics, it seems like the entire system is one big fat waste of potential. With the resources it has, America could sit at or very near the top of a lot of the internationally quantifiable categories (standard of living, heathcare, education, etc) - but instead it languishes in the middle of the pack while Republicans and Democrats falsely claim it's the best and refuse to work with each other to actually improve it. And that certainly isn't going to get better in the next two years, since several Republicans have gone on TV giving interviews saying they will refuse to compromise on anything. Way to set an example for the country, guys.
Compromise is not a dirty word.[/quote]
I agree with every word you just wrote. the issue i see is how your election are based. i don't proclaim to be a political wiz like some here but for me i have never understood have a election for president and then 2 years later have one for the house and the senate. why not have 1 election every 4 years for everything. that way you have time to build a relationship and set goals. its always seems to me from viewing outside American that you are always an election mode. after today people will then begin to talk about the next president election and after that el3ction we go back to talking about the house and senate election.
I can only speak for myself, but I would love less federal government spending, I do not support the wars and never have, and I support tax cuts for the middle class.
The deficit was created by people who claim to be small government spending more than they were taking in, why on earth would we want to enable that behavior by paying more to them to make up for it.
Most people in the world want want want, but there seem to be two different kinds of people in the United states, people who want want want and also want to be left alone to pursue those wants, and those who want want want and want the government(and by proxy Rich People) to pay for it.
You are right, paying your taxes is your duty as an american citizen, but I don't want to pay for things the federal government does that could/should be done by the states.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
That just makes me wonder what America would be like if both parties actually genuinely worked together to improve the country. You know, actual bona fide bipartisanship for the good of the nation. As long as I've been following American politics, it seems like the entire system is one big fat waste of potential. With the resources it has, America could sit at or very near the top of a lot of the internationally quantifiable categories (standard of living, heathcare, education, etc) - but instead it languishes in the middle of the pack while Republicans and Democrats falsely claim it's the best and refuse to work with each other to actually improve it. And that certainly isn't going to get better in the next two years, since several Republicans have gone on TV giving interviews saying they will refuse to compromise on anything. Way to set an example for the country, guys.
Compromise is not a dirty word.[/quote]
I agree with every word you just wrote. the issue i see is how your election are based. i don't proclaim to be a political wiz like some here but for me i have never understood have a election for president and then 2 years later have one for the house and the senate. why not have 1 election every 4 years for everything. that way you have time to build a relationship and set goals. its always seems to me from viewing outside American that you are always an election mode. after today people will then begin to talk about the next president election and after that el3ction we go back to talking about the house and senate election.[/quote]
Congress are 2 year terms and the Senate are staggered 6 year terms. Here in Canada we are on constant election watch federally since like 2003 as well, that's what happens with a minority parliament. The problems aren't with the elections, the problems are selfishness, once they get in they no longer work for the people, they only look after themselves and the special interest groups they finance their campaigns.
I am totally opposed to governments running deficits and all governments need to spend within their means. Personally I would love see a law passed that basically says if you and your party runs a deficit, you and your party will get the bill when you leave office, these deficits are totally ridiculous and out of control.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Congress are 2 year terms and the Senate are staggered 6 year terms. Here in Canada we are on constant election watch federally since like 2003 as well, that's what happens with a minority parliament. The problems aren't with the elections, the problems are selfishness, once they get in they no longer work for the people, they only look after themselves and the special interest groups they finance their campaigns.
I am totally opposed to governments running deficits and all governments need to spend within their means. Personally I would love see a law passed that basically says if you and your party runs a deficit, you and your party will get the bill when you leave office, these deficits are totally ridiculous and out of control.[/quote]
I don't think you can always not run a deficit. sometimes, you have tp spend more than what you have due to an emergency or something along those lines. but yes i agree that deficits are out of control.
Godfather.
maybe that O'Donnell women can teach him how to be a witch.
ha ha ha ! that's too funny !! :thumbup:
Godfather.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... _open.html
Godfather.
ha ha ha ! that's too funny !! :thumbup:
Godfather.[/quote]
actually, the fact that that woman has been seriously considered for a senate seat, and that people will actually vote for her is not funny at all. it is pretty damn sad if you ask me...[/quote]
what is even sadder is that if she was Muslim with her views she wouldn't be close to winning.
Could you imagine the shitstorm if a woman running for office wore a burqa while saying, "Masturbation is a sin, I used to dabble in witchcraft, and I don't know what the First Amendment says"???
Don't blame me for a system that sees people voting on a Tuesday every four years... I'm from New Zealand (I just live in the States) lol
For what it's worth, our elections are held every three years in NZ (and always on a Saturday), and everyone gets voted in/out at the same time. We have 120 politicians in our government, and when you vote, you vote for your local representative (the country is divided into 70 equally-populated electorates for elections), and a political party. The 70 people who win their local electorate make up 70 of the 120 seats. The other 50 seats are divided up amongst the political parties so that their ultimate percentage of the 120 seats is the same as the overall percentage of the party vote they received nationwide (i.e. if your party wins 50% of the party vote but you only had 30 individuals win their electorate, you will get 30 of the 50 party seats so you end up with 60 of the 120 seats in parliament). Each party is free to give those seats to whoever it wants, and the head of the party with the most seats becomes the prime minister. It seems to work fairly well - since 1996 when we adopted the new system between 1 and 2 in every 5 people has been from a "third party" and since 1978 the voter turnout has been between 77% and 93.7%.