Who's ready for government shutdown in 6 hours? :rolleyes:
Me.
I mean, I hate the idea that America's two party system is bringing our democracy to a standstill over ideals, but I would love to see how the election plays out because of this.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
The Tea Party is hardly a party. As Maka said, those who ran under the Tea Party moniker were just Republicans riding the coattails of an anti-Big Government/anti-Obama movement. The Tea Party movement was just that; a movement. I didn't support the "party" at all, but I do like their premise; better representation of the American people is needed.
Read the Green Party platform. It's pretty much the same thing, but with a base that I can actually agree with (rooted in fair democracy, economic innovation, and environmentally friendly technology as the catalyst for economic growth).
personally I think the party system in Amercia is dumb people here in the U.S think there are only Democrats and Republicans...and they basicly brainwashed everyone into thinking that.
There's been a two-party system in America since its inception, they've just gone under different names. When the constitution was being written, there was a huge debate about whether government should have much oversight into the lives of people and that debate still goes on today; it's not as much "brainwashing" as it is "generational conditioning", in my opinion.
I would love to see a third party come up and change things, like the Green Party, but I don't ever see that happening.
Personally, I root for the Green Party, but I usually end up going for Democrats because, let's face it, the Green Party gets hardly enough press coverage and, like most grassroots parties, have a fringe following. I guess I'm left of center as far as political followings and ideals go. It's familiar territory for me. I won't go into detail as to why that is (I'm considering making another politics thread, but I don't know if that'll fly without some big flame war or argument coming up).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
Native Americans don't have much relevance in America today, unfortunately. I have a lot of contact with natives, mostly because I live on the Muckleshoot reservation, but natives didn't exactly flourish throughout America either before the Europeans first came over. White population booms quickly made Native Americans a minority in the US. We kind of came in and took everything over, gave them European diseases like smallpox, and essentially lowered their populations as a result of that plus the Indian wars, then there was the Trail of Tears. In history, we weren't kind to the natives at all, but now I think we are a lot more friendly to them than we have been in the past.
I do feel some sort of guilt, but it's not because of my ancestry (my ancestry is completely European), but more of the fact that a vast majority of natives have had to deal with poverty and Americanization since the late 19th century. It's something they'll probably never recover from and it's a tragic form that they were undoubtedly forced into. I feel that Americans don't give enough credit to the natives because if the natives hadn't shown us tobacco, then the US may had never become such a volatile asset to England and the seeding of the American Revolution may have never taken hold.
My point being is that Americans today should feel obliged to learn about America's impact upon the natives solely due to the fact that we have taken (yes, we took land from the natives.) their land and almost decimated their culture. The US needs to become much more understanding of foreign cultures because, without that knowledge, we come off as ignorant pricks. And we do. All the time.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
Immigrants have been the brunt of criticism for centuries. In my AP US class, we cover a new wave of nativism almost every three chapters (we're on chapter 25 or something, just finished WW2). In my opinion, it's a disgusting way of thinking.
"It's the ________ fault that we have all this crime!"
"________ are taking away jobs from normal people!"
"________ are giving drugs to our kids! They're degenerates and need to go back to where they came from!"
But can you really prove it? Unless the group of people you are trying to exhume are undoubtedly the primary cause of your troubles, you must place the blame on underlying problems within society. Why do you think they're coming into your country in the first place? Did it ever occur to you that, maybe, the place they're coming from was terrible? What if you lived in a place where you didn't feel safe, where your family didn't feel safe? Would you not want to leave for greener pastures?
I live in the US and I don't ever want to see our borders closed. Immigration is inevitable, whether it be illegal or legitimate, and I don't think people really understand that. It doesn't matter how much money you invest into putting 30 meter fences along the border, people are still going to get in, whether you like it or not.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
Minimum wage in the U.S is relative to the state. Washington state, my state, has the the highest minimum wage at $8.55 an hour. There is also a federal minimum wage at around $7.00.
I'm not going to complain about my state's minimum wage; it's at a preferable level for me.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
I think making the cake bigger is a better goal opposed to making sure that everyone has an equally sized slice -- when there is more cake to go around, everyone gets a bigger slice naturally.
But there also has to be methods to ensure that people get the slice they deserve.
So you have a big cake and there's 100,000 people. There's 50% of one group of people, then 30%, then 15%, then 5%.
The 50% group should get a piece of cake that equates to the actual size of the cake. So, if they're getting 50% of the cake, they should get enough pieces that that 50% of cake is doled out to 50,000 people.
I'm not suggesting absolute equality. If anything, I'd like absolute equality in how loud your voice is in society itself. The rich shouldn't be able to speak over the poor which, sadly, is inevitable, so it's a pipe dream for now. I'm just saying that people shouldn't be able to get gipped. If you can make the cake bigger and keep it fair, then I'd be cool with it.
I also know that there are some flaws with my system, mostly because I know that being able to uphold a system such as mine would require an overbearing legal hold over finances and all that, the possibility of loopholes also. There is a big opportunity for corruption.
That is, if it was ruled by humans. I won't let my imagination get the better of me, but what if you could rule finances with computers (which, in my opinion, is how it should be done in the 21st century)? We already have that to an extent, but the actual handling of those finances lies in the hands of federal bodies and banks, which are run by people (including stock market speculators). If you could take the human element out of all of that and have financial systems run by computers, then government could become much more efficient and the financial system, hopefully, wouldn't be so rife with corruption and error. The only thing I'd really be afraid of is hackers.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
This kind of system encourages people to improve their life. In a system like this, every unit of money earned above 1,350 (an arbitrary number) would be just as valuable. In a progressive tax system, money becomes increasingly devalued.
Devalued as in ideologically or economically (like along the same lines as inflation)?
I know that a fixed rate for any federal currency is a pipe dream in this day and age. What gives one currency's power over another, however, is an entirely different story; the US Dollar is still upheld in many countries around the world because those same countries have faith in the strength of that currency and the country behind it. However, I still don't understand how a progressive tax policy could devalue any currency. I just don't see the correlation.
I was proposing the graduated tax rates because I know that those who have more should pay more (maybe 70%< wasn't a good example). I also made it practical to want to advance through societal ranks since, although the higher income brackets pay more overall, they keep more than the last bracket kept so, in theory, they are making money, but they are still giving their fair share.
Person A makes $10,000 a month, gives 30% of that up to taxes, so they keep $7,000 a month.
Person B makes $100,000 a month, gives 45% of that up to taxes, so they keep $55,000 a month.
That is a steep increase in overall income. Person B, overall, keeps up to $48,000 more than the person in the lesser bracket. Is that not incentive enough to want to advance?
(PS: No harsh feelings, bro, I just kinda feel that you sidestepped my original idea and called it something else. I'm all for your system as I am for mine.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
What's funny to me about this is that Americans love big government. They just don't realize it. We have shitloads of government programs and different levels of government. It is easy to form local governments and municipalities and we expect tons of services from our government and are perfectly willing to pay for them as much as we say out loud we hate doing so.
I find it especially funny when Conservatives ask government to get "out of their lives" but, in reality, if "Big Brother" wasn't there to regulate the things that protected them, they'd be begging for government involvement.
Like, take the quality of our water for example (not a very sound example, I know). If there wasn't the EPA or the FDA to make sure they weren't putting goddamn anthrax or liquid shit in your water, then we'd all be getting terminal illnesses and disease would run rampant in the streets, but we couldn't get proper healthcare coverage because liver disease is a pre-existing condition.
The government can actually help; it just matters who's in charge. We can't trust humans though, so that's where government fails us (as Don_G said).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
Progressive taxes as steep as you propose have a problem. As tax rate nears 100%, the incentives to work and earn are lower.
If the tax rate was 100%, then corporations would just leave the country.
I think that, as long as the next bracket of wealth makes more than the previous, then progressive taxation would work due to the very fact that human greed will always drive man to pursue extraneous wealth. Why keep $6,000 a month when you could keep $300,000? Why settle for a used 1985 Ford truck when you can get a Mercedes or a Lincoln?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
Having been inspired by the economics discussion within the "Blizzard Losing Steam" thread on the D3 board, I have decided to go and make a thread where we can all discuss our quarrels with several economic / political theories.
This is a place for active debate; flaming will not be allowed.
I will start:
1. I wholeheartedly believe that Capitalism, in and of itself, is a policy that naturally creates a ever-widening wealth gap. This has been proven time and time again in history; the 1930's and the Great Depression within America, present day America, and in many other countries around the world. This system can have a negative influence upon economics and, due to the still persisting Communist fear within America today, will take time to regulate itself due to constant cries and accusations of "Socialism."
2. Speaking of Socialism, I think that a good balance of Socialism and Capitalism is preferable in highly developed countries. If an unregulated market is allowed to grow largely enough and quickly enough, it will almost always bounce back at the same rate in which it grew, creating a deadly bear market. A regulated market can help insure that growth can persist and, given the scenario that a bubble does burst somewhere within the market, the economic effect will be lessened. My major gripe with Capitalism is that it encourages a bull market, market speculation (remember home derivative trading?), and a profit based economy, whereas I believe that an economy should be based on efficiency and sustainability.
3. I believe that a form of progressive taxation could further the benefits of a mixed-Capitalist system. Example:
Let's say that there are 4 classes within a society: A lower class, a middle class, an upper-middle class, and an elite class.
Lower class pays %10 on all taxes (this is of course excluding sales tax)
Middle class pays %20 on all taxes
Upper-middle class pays %40 on all taxes
Elite class pays %70 on all taxes
Lower class makes an average of $2,750 a month. $275 of that goes towards federal revenue, which leaves $2,475 for necessities, mortgage, and indulgences within that family unit. The rest of the classes follow suit with graduating levels of income with the middle class making a monthly income somewhere in the $4,000+ range.
So, hypothetically:
$3300 annually from each lower class unit
$9,600 annually from each middle class unit
$36,000 annually from each upper-middle class unit (based on a monthly income of $7,500+)
And, assuming the elite class is making $1 million + monthly, they give up $700,000 of their income annually
I like this system because I think that it doesn't allow anyone to live beyond their means, but it still doesn't discourage people to aspire to achieve rank success. If the taxes on the elite were too high, then Person A may not want to be an elite at all because they'd be giving too much of their money away. But, Person A also sees that, although the average upper-middle class unit gives away $36,000 of their annual earnings, they get to keep $54,000 of their annual earnings (which is a pretty good sum of money), so they aspire to rise up to that rank. It encourages progression, which is the essence of Capitalism. Now, a large amount of the tax money goes to funding public programs such as education and healthcare (much like we see today, but at a much lesser margin). A small amount of the tax money goes towards a defense budget, and the rest is spent on welfare programs. In my opinion, those are the three essentials within any government and as long as they are funded, then I don't see why there would be any problems. A regulated market helps protect the consumer from fraud within the financial system, helps sustain economic progress.
I believe in a self-efficient society (trickle up). If we can build upon a base and abandon the belief that we can sustain ourselves on pillars of salt, then I can see some real progress made in the world as far as self-serving society goes. It would be even better if our society could run on completely renewable energy so oil ties, which are hindering Democracies around the world, are dissolved. It also helps create a Green industry that, given proper investment, could revolutionize the way we obtain and distribute power.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
I mean, they would probably actually care to give a shit.
Edit:
[spoil][/spoil]
Just, y'know, for shits and giggles. Let's look at how well we're doing right now.
It's our trade deficit up until 2008.
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
Me.
I mean, I hate the idea that America's two party system is bringing our democracy to a standstill over ideals, but I would love to see how the election plays out because of this.
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
Read the Green Party platform. It's pretty much the same thing, but with a base that I can actually agree with (rooted in fair democracy, economic innovation, and environmentally friendly technology as the catalyst for economic growth).
Here, I'll link it.
Edit: I should note that the platform is from 2004, but I feel that it still holds a lot of relevance today.
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
There's been a two-party system in America since its inception, they've just gone under different names. When the constitution was being written, there was a huge debate about whether government should have much oversight into the lives of people and that debate still goes on today; it's not as much "brainwashing" as it is "generational conditioning", in my opinion.
I would love to see a third party come up and change things, like the Green Party, but I don't ever see that happening.
Personally, I root for the Green Party, but I usually end up going for Democrats because, let's face it, the Green Party gets hardly enough press coverage and, like most grassroots parties, have a fringe following. I guess I'm left of center as far as political followings and ideals go. It's familiar territory for me. I won't go into detail as to why that is (I'm considering making another politics thread, but I don't know if that'll fly without some big flame war or argument coming up).
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
I do feel some sort of guilt, but it's not because of my ancestry (my ancestry is completely European), but more of the fact that a vast majority of natives have had to deal with poverty and Americanization since the late 19th century. It's something they'll probably never recover from and it's a tragic form that they were undoubtedly forced into. I feel that Americans don't give enough credit to the natives because if the natives hadn't shown us tobacco, then the US may had never become such a volatile asset to England and the seeding of the American Revolution may have never taken hold.
My point being is that Americans today should feel obliged to learn about America's impact upon the natives solely due to the fact that we have taken (yes, we took land from the natives.) their land and almost decimated their culture. The US needs to become much more understanding of foreign cultures because, without that knowledge, we come off as ignorant pricks. And we do. All the time.
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
"It's the ________ fault that we have all this crime!"
"________ are taking away jobs from normal people!"
"________ are giving drugs to our kids! They're degenerates and need to go back to where they came from!"
But can you really prove it? Unless the group of people you are trying to exhume are undoubtedly the primary cause of your troubles, you must place the blame on underlying problems within society. Why do you think they're coming into your country in the first place? Did it ever occur to you that, maybe, the place they're coming from was terrible? What if you lived in a place where you didn't feel safe, where your family didn't feel safe? Would you not want to leave for greener pastures?
I live in the US and I don't ever want to see our borders closed. Immigration is inevitable, whether it be illegal or legitimate, and I don't think people really understand that. It doesn't matter how much money you invest into putting 30 meter fences along the border, people are still going to get in, whether you like it or not.
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
Damn, I need a job. I want to be able to actually drive this summer and I am not mooching off my parents for gas money.
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
I'm not going to complain about my state's minimum wage; it's at a preferable level for me.
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
But there also has to be methods to ensure that people get the slice they deserve.
So you have a big cake and there's 100,000 people. There's 50% of one group of people, then 30%, then 15%, then 5%.
The 50% group should get a piece of cake that equates to the actual size of the cake. So, if they're getting 50% of the cake, they should get enough pieces that that 50% of cake is doled out to 50,000 people.
I'm not suggesting absolute equality. If anything, I'd like absolute equality in how loud your voice is in society itself. The rich shouldn't be able to speak over the poor which, sadly, is inevitable, so it's a pipe dream for now. I'm just saying that people shouldn't be able to get gipped. If you can make the cake bigger and keep it fair, then I'd be cool with it.
I also know that there are some flaws with my system, mostly because I know that being able to uphold a system such as mine would require an overbearing legal hold over finances and all that, the possibility of loopholes also. There is a big opportunity for corruption.
That is, if it was ruled by humans. I won't let my imagination get the better of me, but what if you could rule finances with computers (which, in my opinion, is how it should be done in the 21st century)? We already have that to an extent, but the actual handling of those finances lies in the hands of federal bodies and banks, which are run by people (including stock market speculators). If you could take the human element out of all of that and have financial systems run by computers, then government could become much more efficient and the financial system, hopefully, wouldn't be so rife with corruption and error. The only thing I'd really be afraid of is hackers.
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
Devalued as in ideologically or economically (like along the same lines as inflation)?
I know that a fixed rate for any federal currency is a pipe dream in this day and age. What gives one currency's power over another, however, is an entirely different story; the US Dollar is still upheld in many countries around the world because those same countries have faith in the strength of that currency and the country behind it. However, I still don't understand how a progressive tax policy could devalue any currency. I just don't see the correlation.
I was proposing the graduated tax rates because I know that those who have more should pay more (maybe 70%< wasn't a good example). I also made it practical to want to advance through societal ranks since, although the higher income brackets pay more overall, they keep more than the last bracket kept so, in theory, they are making money, but they are still giving their fair share.
Person A makes $10,000 a month, gives 30% of that up to taxes, so they keep $7,000 a month.
Person B makes $100,000 a month, gives 45% of that up to taxes, so they keep $55,000 a month.
That is a steep increase in overall income. Person B, overall, keeps up to $48,000 more than the person in the lesser bracket. Is that not incentive enough to want to advance?
(PS: No harsh feelings, bro, I just kinda feel that you sidestepped my original idea and called it something else. I'm all for your system as I am for mine.)
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
I find it especially funny when Conservatives ask government to get "out of their lives" but, in reality, if "Big Brother" wasn't there to regulate the things that protected them, they'd be begging for government involvement.
Like, take the quality of our water for example (not a very sound example, I know). If there wasn't the EPA or the FDA to make sure they weren't putting goddamn anthrax or liquid shit in your water, then we'd all be getting terminal illnesses and disease would run rampant in the streets, but we couldn't get proper healthcare coverage because liver disease is a pre-existing condition.
The government can actually help; it just matters who's in charge. We can't trust humans though, so that's where government fails us (as Don_G said).
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
If the tax rate was 100%, then corporations would just leave the country.
I think that, as long as the next bracket of wealth makes more than the previous, then progressive taxation would work due to the very fact that human greed will always drive man to pursue extraneous wealth. Why keep $6,000 a month when you could keep $300,000? Why settle for a used 1985 Ford truck when you can get a Mercedes or a Lincoln?
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
Simplified version:
Mixed economy + progressive taxation + rethinking of budget priorities = cool beans
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
This is a place for active debate; flaming will not be allowed.
I will start:
1. I wholeheartedly believe that Capitalism, in and of itself, is a policy that naturally creates a ever-widening wealth gap. This has been proven time and time again in history; the 1930's and the Great Depression within America, present day America, and in many other countries around the world. This system can have a negative influence upon economics and, due to the still persisting Communist fear within America today, will take time to regulate itself due to constant cries and accusations of "Socialism."
2. Speaking of Socialism, I think that a good balance of Socialism and Capitalism is preferable in highly developed countries. If an unregulated market is allowed to grow largely enough and quickly enough, it will almost always bounce back at the same rate in which it grew, creating a deadly bear market. A regulated market can help insure that growth can persist and, given the scenario that a bubble does burst somewhere within the market, the economic effect will be lessened. My major gripe with Capitalism is that it encourages a bull market, market speculation (remember home derivative trading?), and a profit based economy, whereas I believe that an economy should be based on efficiency and sustainability.
3. I believe that a form of progressive taxation could further the benefits of a mixed-Capitalist system. Example:
Let's say that there are 4 classes within a society: A lower class, a middle class, an upper-middle class, and an elite class.
Lower class pays %10 on all taxes (this is of course excluding sales tax)
Middle class pays %20 on all taxes
Upper-middle class pays %40 on all taxes
Elite class pays %70 on all taxes
Lower class makes an average of $2,750 a month. $275 of that goes towards federal revenue, which leaves $2,475 for necessities, mortgage, and indulgences within that family unit. The rest of the classes follow suit with graduating levels of income with the middle class making a monthly income somewhere in the $4,000+ range.
So, hypothetically:
$3300 annually from each lower class unit
$9,600 annually from each middle class unit
$36,000 annually from each upper-middle class unit (based on a monthly income of $7,500+)
And, assuming the elite class is making $1 million + monthly, they give up $700,000 of their income annually
I like this system because I think that it doesn't allow anyone to live beyond their means, but it still doesn't discourage people to aspire to achieve rank success. If the taxes on the elite were too high, then Person A may not want to be an elite at all because they'd be giving too much of their money away. But, Person A also sees that, although the average upper-middle class unit gives away $36,000 of their annual earnings, they get to keep $54,000 of their annual earnings (which is a pretty good sum of money), so they aspire to rise up to that rank. It encourages progression, which is the essence of Capitalism. Now, a large amount of the tax money goes to funding public programs such as education and healthcare (much like we see today, but at a much lesser margin). A small amount of the tax money goes towards a defense budget, and the rest is spent on welfare programs. In my opinion, those are the three essentials within any government and as long as they are funded, then I don't see why there would be any problems. A regulated market helps protect the consumer from fraud within the financial system, helps sustain economic progress.
I believe in a self-efficient society (trickle up). If we can build upon a base and abandon the belief that we can sustain ourselves on pillars of salt, then I can see some real progress made in the world as far as self-serving society goes. It would be even better if our society could run on completely renewable energy so oil ties, which are hindering Democracies around the world, are dissolved. It also helps create a Green industry that, given proper investment, could revolutionize the way we obtain and distribute power.
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence