Why are taxes such an issue?

[blackhawk1928]

Maybe socialism has failed but the social democracy is doing just fine in Australia, Northern Europe, Japan and Canada, who, compared to the US, each have lower national debts, less murders, lower overall crime rates, lower healthcare expenditures, less drug addicts, less homeless, no people going bankrupt because of medical bills, less extremely poor people, less working hours/more vacations, no 80-year olds who have to work to survive, less people who can't find their own country on a map, less people who think Adam and Eve walked with Dinosaurs, more affordable tertiary education, lower infant mortality and less income inequality.

These countries do have their own problems, but they are far better off than the United States in almost all aspects. The world of tomorrow will definitely be closer to the social democracy than to reaganomics. Many Americans are starting to recognize this and their number will only grow.

lower national debts

Our party in control is currently out-of-control with spending. If I could spend all I want using my friends money, i'd do it also, thats what our current administration is doing sadley.

less murders, lower overall crime rates, lower healthcare expenditures, less drug addicts, less homeless, no people going bankrupt because of medical bills, less extremely poor people,

Thats an invalid arguement. The population of the United States is 14 times greater then australia...so your measurement is innaccurate. If a country had a population of 10 people and none of them were bad, poor, or drug addicts, you are saying you can compare that to a country with a million people? Cmon stop being naive. Instead of comparing numbers, compare ratios...since our population is 14 times greater, the ratio must be 14 times greater for it to be a valid measurement.

less working hours/more vacations

Hell, why not just work 1 hour a week, that'd be great...*Sigh*

no 80-year olds who have to work to survive

Are you implying the U.S has this?...I know lots of people, 60-80 years old who are well retired and don't work. Some of them work but only because they want to. They get plenty of benefits to survive, infact they get section 8 housing, welfare, food stamps and about 15 other benefits. Please stop lying.

less people who can't find their own country on a map,

Those are mostly left-wing, so it doesn't count since you can expect that from them most of the time

lower infant mortality

Once again, compare ratio, not numbers. A higher population will have higher numbers in every capacity, whether it be good or bad.

and less income inequality.

I don't understand what you mean, please explain yourself!

 

[brentkhack]

Less income equality means he wants those who take risks and make better choices should make around the same as those who do not. There is no such thing as equal outcomes which he wants.

 

[MysticMiner]

There are two things wrong with your response. One, you're endorsing out and out fraud. Somebody who is on disability should actually be, you know, disabled. Not "well, they aren't actually disabled but they could use some extra money so we'll give them some anyway." Secondly, "enough to live on" is an impossible to precisely define number. I've seen large numbers of supposedly "poor" people on various government dole programs spending a lot of money on clearly optional items. They walk in with cell phones costing well north of a hundred bucks, backed up by a $50-100/month contract. Many smoke $150 or more in cigarettes every month (1 pack-a-day at ~$5.50-6.00/pack) and drink $50-100+ in alcohol per month. Don't forget the large LCD TVs many have, being fed by cable or satellite dishes. Just drive through a "poor" part of town in the evening; you'll see the glow of that large TV through the window, and see the satellite dishes on the roofs or on a pole in the yard. Oh, also don't forget lottery tickets and casinos. I have an old flip phone on a cheap contract, don't smoke, rarely drink, and my nicest TV is a 20-year-old CRT that's on its last legs. Yet I have to pay a considerable amount in taxes to support those yahoos that often have nicer stuff than I do. What's wrong with that picture?

Disabled is distinct from absolutely unable to work, and the people who actually operate the programs are aware of that, and also aware that there are people who need, for example, healthcare, may not be able to get it with the level of work they can initially get.

It is not certainly not fraud, and you should learn more about the program before making accusations of it. Fraud is people who claim to be disabled, but aren't. Or claim to be persons they aren't, which is even worse. These people do exist, but there numbers may be fewer than you think. Still, the people who want to try to work, but for some reason can't get enough income to get by on, they aren't fraudsters. They just need a little help. Which is what Ticket to Work is about. You can condemn them all if you want, but me, I'd rather work with the honest ones.

And actually, enough to live on is a defined number, it's why people can get money from disability. It is not uniformly defined, true, as it does very from state to state, and area to area, and circumstance to circumstance, but you know, that's why they actually have people employed to figure it out. The more you say things like this, the more I think you've never actually learned anything about the actual programs.

So I don't think your picture is accurate at all. Maybe you should try looking for some people on welfare who really do need the help, not the concocted notion that derives from media pundits wishing to foment outrage. Believe it or not, there are people out there who make good use of the programs.

Let's also add those who receive some type of welfare assistance do not want to be drug tested? The always patriotic ACLU is sueing to NOT have those people drug tested, why?

http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform/drug-testing-public-assistance-recipients-condition-eligibility

There you go.

 

[MU_Engineer]

Yeah, what your daughter doesn't get is that the special interests won't just go away because the government is not involved.

The clout of the special interests would be massively reduced, though. They would have to try to convince people based on the merits of their argument rather than having the government force people to change their behavior through laws. Take for example the environmentalists. They want to try to force electric cars, windmills, and low-flush toilets on us "because it's good for us." If we really wanted to drive electric cars, buy electric power from windmills, and buy low-flush toilets, we would have chosen to do so without any laws. But electric cars have a short range, windmills are often cost-prohibitive, and low-flush toilets frequently don't work very well, so we would not have chosen to use those things absent the legislation telling us we had to.

It'll still happen. Just without even the protections inherent in any good government. You may think that you'd have a better chance resisting them than the government, but my experience is that is rarely the case.

There would be many fewer special interest groups if the government weren't there to be persuaded into passing laws forcing the groups' views on the population. Think about what special interest groups do. They either want to mandate that people do a certain action or ban us from doing an action. How well could they do that without legislation? Run public service announcements on TV? Pay for billboards? If that really worked, the "wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle" billboards would have resulted in more than maybe 1 in 30 riders wearing helmets when they ride their Harleys out to Sturgis, since there is no helmet law in South Dakota. The only places you see just about everybody wear helmets is in states with mandatory helmet laws like Iowa. I think that's a pretty good example of how ineffective special interests are when you take away their government ban-hammer powers.

Nor is wanting shape things wrong.

it is VERY wrong. The U.S. was founded on the principles of individualism and individual freedom, not a Big-Brother-will-take-care-of-you nanny state. If you simply don't like something I am doing, you have absolutely NO right to prevent me from doing it. The only reason the government has any power to step in would be if my actions were hurting you in some material fashion.

It's how you want to do it that is an issue. Some are genuine, but misguided. Some are dishonest. Some are faithful and wise, but their intentions can be corrupted. So it happens. That's why we have the right to stand up and say no. Some places more than others.

Power corrupts, and more power corrupts more. If you give the government power, it WILL abuse it. The only way to lessen the abuses is to limit their power.

And I agree, most people do act in self-interest, not malice, however your description was one of malicious intent. And no, it's not because the government is innately corrupt, it is because individuals are. Which is why we need transparency and the ability to call the government into question. Unfortunately, the current US federal system as it has developed doesn't do as good a job of it as it could. Some reform would be nice.

Reform is needed- I would start by throwing out all judicial precedent since about the Civil War time period and letting all of the current legislation have to pass a Constitutionality challenge without the mental gymnastics of cases like <i>National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation</i> of 1937 (the FDR court-packing case) that essentially shredded the 10th Amendment providing legal precedent to defend them. The 16th Amendment also needs to be repealed as well, let the states collect the income taxes and control the purse strings rather than the federal government. The states have to keep balanced budgets too, unlike the Feds. I'd call that a good start and would have good results 30 years from now once the flurry of Constitutionality lawsuits finally got resolved.

 

[MU_Engineer]

Disabled is distinct from absolutely unable to work, and the people who actually operate the programs are aware of that, and also aware that there are people who need, for example, healthcare, may not be able to get it with the level of work they can initially get. It is not certainly not fraud, and you should learn more about the program before making accusations of it. Fraud is people who claim to be disabled, but aren't.

I am aware of what disability is, I have dealt with lots of that paperwork. Full disability does have restrictions, including a physician attesting that a person cannot perform any full-time employment. Lying about not being able to work full-time IS fraud. It happens a lot more than YOU would think as I see a lot of people at work who come in and try to get one of the docs to sign off on their permanent disability papers. Quite a few people want to "win the disability lottery" and never have to work again, and they will exaggerate and sometimes flat-out lie to get it.

These people do exist, but there numbers may be fewer than you think. Still, the people who want to try to work, but for some reason can't get enough income to get by on, they aren't fraudsters.

If they lie about being unable to work or exaggerate their disabilities to obtain disability payments, it's fraud. Doctors are not perfect in telling the exact extent of somebody's disabilities unless such disabilities are obvious, such as end-stage rheumatoid arthritis, major injuries, or obvious orthopedic deformities. Somebody complaining of back pain (one of the most common reasons for disability) may have back pain or it may be all in their head. Unless they have obvious fractures seen on imaging or something similar, it's darned hard to tell who has real pain and who's full of BS. Gregory House said it best- "everybody lies."

And actually, enough to live on is a defined number, it's why people can get money from disability. It is not uniformly defined, true, as it does very from state to state, and area to area, and circumstance to circumstance, but you know, that's why they actually have people employed to figure it out. The more you say things like this, the more I think you've never actually learned anything about the actual programs.

I know there are defined numbers, some bureaucrats made them up. The numbers are the products of a bunch of assumptions and guesses as to the cost of living and adjusted to the political whims whoever is coming up with the numbers. Generally the numbers are a percent of a median income, which in reality has little bearing on how well somebody lives- only how well they live *relative* to other people.

 

[MysticMiner]

The clout of the special interests would be massively reduced, though.

No, it wouldn't.

It'd go up, because they'd not have to make their arguments to a transparent and representative government, but could act on their own terms.

Which may not be to your benefit.

They would have to try to convince people based on the merits of their argument rather than having the government force people to change their behavior through laws.

Except the government has the same limitation already, it may be imperfectly done, I will concur with that...but said imperfection will ALSO happen without government, so...I'll pick the option where I at least have a chance of somebody in my corner.

If you want to talk reforming the government closer to the desired ideal, let's get on that instead.

Take for example the environmentalists. They want to try to force electric cars, windmills, and low-flush toilets on us "because it's good for us." If we really wanted to drive electric cars, buy electric power from windmills, and buy low-flush toilets, we would have chosen to do so without any laws. But electric cars have a short range, windmills are often cost-prohibitive, and low-flush toilets frequently don't work very well, so we would not have chosen to use those things absent the legislation telling us we had to.
[/quotemsg]

Oh these tired examples, can't you come up with something newer? You may think you're making a point, but you're ignoring external costs, people burn coal because it's cheap now. And because they don't see the costs of mining, the pollution, or the eventual accidents. Most people's driving needs are actually well-served by a short-range. Did you know that the average American is under 40 miles? If people had to pay for the gas and electricity used upfront, they'd pick electric cars in a moment. If people had to see how many cases of cancer, how many poisoned streams, would come from coal...they'd beg you to build more windmills. But people can't, and don't see that. People are myopic.

And don't get me started on what people will do with their wastes, I've had too many neighbors who had to be forced to fix their sewer lines and septic tanks because they didn't give a crap about what their crap was doing to others. Low-flow toilets may be a bad idea, or they may not. Doesn't mean all ideas are. I quite like knowing that the communities upstream will be told to clean up their released wastes.

But tell you what, we can do this instead, put a charge level on each flush, so people know how much they're paying and using. How do you like that idea?

There would be many fewer special interest groups if the government weren't there to be persuaded into passing laws forcing the groups' views on the population.

Nope. Your thinking is backwards. Doing is not the cause. They would exist, but without restraint. They would find ways to do things. And no, one example does not prove a trend. Otherwise I'd tell you about how the one guy riding against helmets fell and cracked his head then died.

That is an amusing irony, but not persuasive on its own. If you don't know how non-government entities can exercise power, try looking up company scrip for one example.

Nor is wanting shape things wrong.

it is VERY wrong. The U.S. was founded on the principles of individualism and individual freedom, not a Big-Brother-will-take-care-of-you nanny state.

The US was founded by people who decided to shape the course of events. They did make choices. You may argue that they made different choices than others, but they still make choices. They DID want to shape things.

Don't pretend to me that was not the case. That is hypocrisy at worse, lack of consideration at best.

If you simply don't like something I am doing, you have absolutely NO right to prevent me from doing it. The only reason the government has any power to step in would be if my actions were hurting you in some material fashion.

Strangely, people don't always agree on that, and there's a lot of ways to harm others. Some less obvious than others.

But many of the laws you just railed against above...were represented as harm caused to others. Go figure.

Power corrupts, and more power corrupts more. If you give the government power, it WILL abuse it. The only way to lessen the abuses is to limit their power.

But you'll just be opening the doors of power to somebody else. No thanks. I'd rather exercise constant vigilance over the government.

Reform is needed- I would start by throwing out all judicial precedent since about the Civil War time period and letting all of the current legislation have to pass a Constitutionality challenge without the mental gymnastics of cases like <i>National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation</i> of 1937 (the FDR court-packing case) that essentially shredded the 10th Amendment providing legal precedent to defend them. The 16th Amendment also needs to be repealed as well, let the states collect the income taxes and control the purse strings rather than the federal government. The states have to keep balanced budgets too, unlike the Feds. I'd call that a good start and would have good results 30 years from now once the flurry of Constitutionality lawsuits finally got resolved.

No thank you. There are many good decisions post Civil War. Be selective, get rid of Kelo, Citizens United, I'll go with you on that, but don't even think of letting Baker v. Carr or Shelley v. Kraemer expire. Or numerous others. You may not like Griswold v. Connecticut, or Lawrence v. Texas, but I do. You're painting in very broad brush strokes.

And the state balanced budgets may have caused MORE problems than they've solved. I certainly don't see Texas or California (who have radically separate political attitudes) doing very good jobs at controlling their spending.

 

[MysticMiner]

I am aware of what disability is, I have dealt with lots of that paperwork.

I wasn't talking about what a disability is, but this particular program, Ticket to Work, which you don't seem to be paying much attention to because of your focus on fraud.

Full disability does have restrictions, including a physician attesting that a person cannot perform any full-time employment. Lying about not being able to work full-time IS fraud. It happens a lot more than YOU would think as I see a lot of people at work who come in and try to get one of the docs to sign off on their permanent disability papers. Quite a few people want to "win the disability lottery" and never have to work again, and they will exaggerate and sometimes flat-out lie to get it.

Quite a few is a very vague term. And I can say with just as much certainty that there are quite a few honest folks with genuine disabilities who just need a little consideration while they learn to join the workforce.

There's an anti-fraud investigation unit for most welfare departments, I'm cool with that. I'm not cool with letting innocent folks suffer just because you're worried about some others. You seem to be only concerned about fraud. I can understand concern about it, but it can't be the only consideration.

Especially since your focus on welfare fraud is highly directed to the recipients, when there's plenty of fraud being done by providers. Such as that done by Rick Scott's company. You could at least acknowledge that is a problem too.

If they lie about being unable to work or exaggerate their disabilities to obtain disability payments, it's fraud.

What if they aren't lying? What if they just can't get enough income to get by on immediately, even if they can make something.

It's better to be understanding than just condemn them all automatically as fraudsters.

Doctors are not perfect in telling the exact extent of somebody's disabilities unless such disabilities are obvious, such as end-stage rheumatoid arthritis, major injuries, or obvious orthopedic deformities. Somebody complaining of back pain (one of the most common reasons for disability) may have back pain or it may be all in their head. Unless they have obvious fractures seen on imaging or something similar, it's darned hard to tell who has real pain and who's full of BS. Gregory House said it best- "everybody lies."

Which does not mean everybody is always lying. That said, I've seen medical personnel unable to see a rather obvious problem just this week. I won't give you details unless you ask, because it's a little revolting actually, but worrying about pain detection is far less troubling than that apparently nobody thought that what I saw with half a glance was worth being concerned about.

I know there are defined numbers, some bureaucrats made them up. The numbers are the products of a bunch of assumptions and guesses as to the cost of living and adjusted to the political whims whoever is coming up with the numbers. Generally the numbers are a percent of a median income, which in reality has little bearing on how well somebody lives- only how well they live *relative* to other people.

No, they actually do a lot of accounting and surveys, they don't just make things up out of the blue with random guesses and assumptions. They have a process. If you disagree with their process, feel free to suggest reform to your Congressman, or send it in to the public commentary office of Social Security.

 

[Gulli]

lower national debts

Our party in control is currently out-of-control with spending. If I could spend all I want using my friends money, i'd do it also, thats what our current administration is doing sadley.

less murders, lower overall crime rates, lower healthcare expenditures, less drug addicts, less homeless, no people going bankrupt because of medical bills, less extremely poor people,

Thats an invalid arguement. The population of the United States is 14 times greater then australia...so your measurement is innaccurate. If a country had a population of 10 people and none of them were bad, poor, or drug addicts, you are saying you can compare that to a country with a million people? Cmon stop being naive. Instead of comparing numbers, compare ratios...since our population is 14 times greater, the ratio must be 14 times greater for it to be a valid measurement.

less working hours/more vacations

Hell, why not just work 1 hour a week, that'd be great...*Sigh*

no 80-year olds who have to work to survive

Are you implying the U.S has this?...I know lots of people, 60-80 years old who are well retired and don't work. Some of them work but only because they want to. They get plenty of benefits to survive, infact they get section 8 housing, welfare, food stamps and about 15 other benefits. Please stop lying.

less people who can't find their own country on a map,

Those are mostly left-wing, so it doesn't count since you can expect that from them most of the time

lower infant mortality

Once again, compare ratio, not numbers. A higher population will have higher numbers in every capacity, whether it be good or bad.

and less income inequality.

I don't understand what you mean, please explain yourself!

I AM comparing PER CAPITA figures, jesus man, how stupid do you think I am? If you think Canada or Japan have higher crime rates (per capita, that's what RATES mean, just to reiterate) than the US, you really should get out more because your worldview would be really messed up and not worth discussing. What have they done with you, you sound like a North Korean who has been brainwashed by propaganda to believe hunger in North Korea is no big deal because there is even more hunger in South Korea and the West.

 

[Gulli]

Less income equality means he wants those who take risks and make better choices should make around the same as those who do not. There is no such thing as equal outcomes which he wants.

Right, bankers make better choices than carpenters, joke of the century!

 

[Reynod]

You guys posted way too much while I was at work.

Gulli ... give me a brief synopsis please?

 

[brentkhack]

Right, bankers make better choices than carpenters, joke of the century!

The carpenter had the same choice the banker did on which way they wanted their career path to be. If someone wants to make more money and have a better working condition but didn't choose to go that route, then it is their fault.

 

[Gulli]

The carpenter had the same choice the banker did on which way they wanted their career path to be. If someone wants to make more money and have a better working condition but didn't choose to go that route, then it is their fault.

1) The carpenter may not have a rich daddy to get him through Harvard, so no, not everyone has the freedom of chosing their career for as long as college remains ridiculously expensive and Ivy League graduates highly overrated.

2) Bankers make more immoral decisions, not better decisions, the financial crisis is evidence of this and yes they take risks, with other people's money! You might just as well advice people to become thiefs if they want to make more money the way bankers do.

3) The economy would collapse if everyone was a banker because there would not be enough jobs for them all and there would be no one to do other jobs (which are often more important to society). People with other jobs are vital to the economy and therefore cannot be considered failures by society unless society wants to commit economic suicide.

 

[brentkhack]

1) The carpenter may not have a rich daddy to get him through Harvard, so no, not everyone has the freedom of chosing their career for as long as college remains ridiculously expensive and Ivy League graduates highly overrated.

2) Bankers make more immoral decisions, not better decisions, the financial crisis is evidence of this and yes they take risks, with other people's money! You might just as well advice people to become thiefs if they want to make more money the way bankers do.

3) The economy would collapse if everyone was a banker because there would not be enough jobs for them all and there would be no one to do other jobs (which are often more important to society). People with other jobs are vital to the economy and therefore cannot be considered failures by society unless society wants to commit economic suicide.

1) Are you sure only people with rich daddy's pay their tuition to Harvard? What about the rich mommy's? FYI, people with only a high education can get a banking job while going to school. They can work their way up, like some choose to do. Yes college is way expensive, but not going is more expensive. Ivy League graduates are highly overrated agreed. We got into this mess because of them, let's throw in the politicians in that category too. They graduate from there too.

2) I am talking about career paths. If I want to make tons of money, why would I choose a low paying career? And if I do, should I blame you? Or maybe I should call my Congressman and complain I don't make the same money as the CEO. Which sounds like something some of you would do.

3) Nobody said everyone should be a banker. The job market has some type of checks and balance. If there is to many people for one job type, some will change career paths and do something else. People need to do some research before they choose what they want to be. It's not my fault. Take some personnel responsibility with your choice.

 

[MysticMiner]

The dumbest carpenter can't do much more harm than build a house wrong.

A dumb financier, now they can cause billions in harm with a few bad decisions.

And that's not even getting into nefarious intent.

But no, not everybody has the same choices as others. Some people will have an easier time making choices than others, for various reasons.

 

[blackhawk1928]

I AM comparing PER CAPITA figures, jesus man, how stupid do you think I am? If you think Canada or Japan have higher crime rates (per capita, that's what RATES mean, just to reiterate) than the US, you really should get out more because your worldview would be really messed up and not worth discussing. What have they done with you, you sound like a North Korean who has been brainwashed by propaganda to believe hunger in North Korea is no big deal because there is even more hunger in South Korea and the West.

Oh my bad, I thought you were comparing numbers. I guess I underestimated you. I retract.

Whats wrong with my world-view? I've been to many countries in europe and 1 country in asia.

Also, how can I possibly be brainwashed...the only people brainwashed on earth are the left-wing. Once the left-wingers realize how badly brainwashed they are, they become right-wing.

 

[MysticMiner]

I'm pretty sure there's lots of brain-washed cultists out there, and I wouldn't classify them as left or right wing.

 

[chunkymonster]

Maybe socialism has failed but the social democracy is doing just fine in Australia, Northern Europe, Japan and Canada, who, compared to the US, each have lower national debts, less murders, lower overall crime rates, lower healthcare expenditures, less drug addicts, less homeless, no people going bankrupt because of medical bills, less extremely poor people, less working hours/more vacations, no 80-year olds who have to work to survive, less people who can't find their own country on a map, less people who think Adam and Eve walked with Dinosaurs, more affordable tertiary education, lower infant mortality and less income inequality.

These countries do have their own problems, but they are far better off than the United States in almost all aspects. The world of tomorrow will definitely be closer to the social democracy than to reaganomics. Many Americans are starting to recognize this and their number will only grow.

Wow dude, you are some kind of character. I'll give you points for being true to your socialist ideals, but really, the "my-way-is-better-than-your-way" excuses to run down the United States really comes off as elitist. Also, please do not presume to know what direction the American people are taking. Now, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you are knowingly talking out of your fart hole.

The 2010 mid-term elections are more an indication of the direction American is moving in. Obama will be a one term President, providing he doesn't totally destroy the Republic by then.

Hey! Some fun facts!
- The West India Company was the first to bring African slaves to America; New Amsterdam, 1624.
- The Dutch Constitution does not guarantee the right of property. Any expropriation must be done in the public interest, the government must provide just cause and full or partial compensation.
- The Dutch Constitution creates and maintains government run welfare financed by wealth redistribution.
- There is no Dutch Constitutional right to private gun ownership. Guns laws in the Netherlands are considered restrictive. The law allows for private ownership only by licensed owners. There is no guarantee that a license will be issued. Registered owners must reapply and re-qualify for their license every year. Hunters must take an extensive and quite expensive one-year training course to obtain their hunter’s diploma before they can apply for a hunting license. This will only be granted if they can prove they actually have access to hunting grounds.

The United States are and will always be a Constitutional Republic.

 

[MysticMiner]

The 2010 mid-term elections are more an indication of the direction American is moving in.

Not really, there's a lot of voter's remorse out there. And that's not even factoring in the low turn-out. See Tea Party unfavorables...and the GOP's are worse than they were during the Clinton impeachment farce.

Pay attention to the Wisconsin recalls tonight.

 

[knarl]

Pay attention to the Wisconsin recalls tonight.

You mean the recalls where GOP have already been declared winners for three of the seats, and the District 8 seat the Dems would absolutely need to grab in order to take control of the Legislature, is currently 53% to 47% with 82% of precincts reporting in.... and it's only heavy GOP precincts that are still uncounted?

And wasn't that turn-over of control not only dependent on taking at least 3 of the seats in this recall, but also keeping the 2 seats in the upcoming recall on Dems?



I think people are in fact paying attention, but perhaps reality isn't in alignment with your preconceived notion of how the night was supposed to turn out, and what that means for the mandate of those we elect into office. If anything, that will mean twice that the populace has spoken of their desire for limited government and fiscal responsibility.

 

[MysticMiner]

Well, gee, such a fair and unbiased representation on your part.

Why do you focus on the ones that were not recalled, when it was 6 GOP Senators up for recall...and you do your best to ignore the 2 who did get booted?

Obviously you have a narrative to push. You want to say it wasn't a victory. I think taking one out of three counts as a victory. If the 2 seats next week don't flip, that changes the Wisconsin senate from 19-14 to 17-16. Seen any polling that indicates the two Dems should be worried?

And that's not even getting into all the political spending that went on. How many millions of dollars were involved in these races? From what I've seen, more than the prior state elections were. Just for 8 seats.

Or we can look at the results themselves. How do they compare to that of the prior election? Of course, you also misrepresent the populace. None of the elections were 100% one side or the other, most of the time, winning an election STILL means that there were votes against you. And then people not voting at all are hardly supportive. As the saying goes, if Congress had to get an actual majority in their districts, none of them would make it. But in this case, in most of the districts, fewer than 2,000 voters changing their minds would have reversed the outcome. That does not count as a one-sided mandate to me.

So no, the populace didn't speak out the way you think, in fact, in two places, they absolutely changed their minds. In others? Perhaps they're doing it as well, you might want to check the results and compare.

Or just realize, a 33% shift? It's a change. May not change control over the Wisconsin Senate, but it IS a change.

See what happens next week. If none of the Dem Senators up for recall lose, then it's a one member gap.

 

[chunkymonster]

Not really, there's a lot of voter's remorse out there. And that's not even factoring in the low turn-out. See Tea Party unfavorables...and the GOP's are worse than they were during the Clinton impeachment farce.

Pay attention to the Wisconsin recalls tonight.

You were saying?

Wisconsin Republicans stave off recall challenge

Republicans Hold On to Wisconsin Senate After Recall Vote

So no, the populace didn't speak out the way you think, in fact, in two places, they absolutely changed their minds. In others? Perhaps they're doing it as well, you might want to check the results and compare.

Or just realize, a 33% shift? It's a change. May not change control over the Wisconsin Senate, but it IS a change.

Fact remains that Republicans maintain control in Wisconsin. The recalls are not the total rejection of conservative ideals and fiscal responsibility that the Democrats, Progressives, and Public Unions hoped it would be.

See what happens next week. If none of the Dem Senators up for recall lose, then it's a one member gap.

Next week, ok, we'll see. For your sake, I hope your predictions are more accurate.

I gotta be honest though Miner, I do not understand how any reasonably intelligent person can support the Democrats in Wisconsin just for the simple fact that they ran away from their responsibility, hid out like cowards in Illinois, and failed to represent their constituency. The people in Wisconsin get what they deserve if they do not recall any and all Democrats.

 

[greenrider02]

3 pages added in as many days? I skipped a few posts, but I think I'm getting the gist of some of the the arguments.

The sense I'm getting is that Republican have little or no hope for a better future for humans in general, whereas Democrats are entirely too hopeful in the short term.

The people in the middle understand that for the world to make the progress it needs, both sides HAVE to argue over these details and fight back and forth, showing the boons and merits of each way of thinking in turn. We need progressives to push the idea of a better world, and conservatives to check that progress and show caution in the face of risk. The people in the middle and the people that don't care will hopefully keep things from getting bloody.

What we don't need are greedy people who take advantage of tax loopholes or social programs.

In fact, this discussion should be more about the ways to fix our problems as a country than what's wrong and who's fault it is. But I digress, that's worthy of a new topic itself.

 

[greenrider02]

You keep calling tax loopholes "following the LAW" like following the law is always the right thing to do. The very definition of a loophole is a work-around of the purpose the law was intended to serve. So even though the law allows the loophole to exist, that doesn't mean people should take advantage of it... or are you one of those people who lets a higher power define what is good and bad for you?

The progress the world needs is called life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are simple terms of course, but my point serves to show you that our revered forefathers believed in the right of all people to have an equal opportunity for those things.

I agree that greed and self-interest are different... so where do you draw the line? In fact, philosophically speaking, you don't have to. I don't know how much socio-moral psychology you read in conjunction with 18th and 19th century enlightenment philosophy (of which there are, of course, also opposing viewpoints), but alot of modern books discuss both of these together to describe the nature of social interraction and the "social contract." They find that people in general have a limited understanding of what it means to be "part of society." Their point being that the millenia have beaten into people the understanding that it is in fact in your best self-interest to protect and ensure the health, happiness, and well-being (also the best interests) of those people you closely associate with, as in your family and friends... yes, that's why we developed those relationships, like many other animals. Evolution! However, this social contract has natural extrapolations as well.

Before I continue, have you any points to contest?

 

[chunkymonster]

You keep calling tax loopholes "following the LAW" like following the law is always the right thing to do. The very definition of a loophole is a work-around of the purpose the law was intended to serve. So even though the law allows the loophole to exist, that doesn't mean people should take advantage of it... or are you one of those people who lets a higher power define what is good and bad for you?

Wow!

The loophole IS the law. The law allows the loophole to exist.

If people agree to live by the rule of law and then pick choose what laws they feel they should or should not follow, then why bother living by the rule of law? Might as well just allow people to determine what laws suit their purpose and ignore the laws that don't.

If the law is considered immoral, unfair, and/or unjust, then it is the law that needs to be changed, not the behavior and habits of the people.

Morality can not be legislated.

 

[greenrider02]

AHA! You see, we are both talking about essentially the same thing now! The difference now resides in our believed path to freedom. I, for one, almost definitely see freedom and liberty as something different from you, and I see no point arguing that. I must point out, however, that your belief that the government getting out of the way would make things better relies on an ideal social structure in which people understand, believe, and adhere to the same idea that all of history's greatest leaders (stage 6 of the Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development, as in Jesus, the Prophet Mohammed, Buddha, Ghandi, MLK Jr. etc) have been preaching since the beginning of society itself. The very ideals designed by the earliest leaders to create functional, healthy society out of barbaric nomadic structure.

This over-arcing idea? It's called the Golden Rule. Which, although simple by definition, means alot more than just treating people fairly and expecting to be treated fairly, which is the idea on which your no-government concept is hopefully based. It can be extrapolated, as I said, to the concept that if every one worked for the benefit of every one else, then everybody benefits in the best possible way. This is, theologically speaking, the very basis of what Heaven is intended to represent, and is clearly an ideal situation we can only hope for, but most definitely the situation that religions by their intrinsic nature were designed to guide people to aspire to.

All that being said, the ideal world that we aspire to is beyond our reach as individuals, and in a sense, the only difference between an ideal government and an ideal religion (or either in some of their current forms) is from whence the wisdom guiding those under it comes. God in one case, and duly elected representatives in another (or any other form of government in which the leadership, elected or not, assumed the role of a higher power guiding the people to an ideal future.

A point to make, which you will surely agree with, is that both the insitutions of the church and the government have a very real tendency to become misguided themselves, causing the very problems we are dealing with on a national scale.

To clarify, I was saying that while we both agree on what we would have happen ideally, we differ on the method of how to shape our reality to best achieve this.

Other small points:
-If you look closely, you notice that society is the most basic form of socialism. Religion was the first institution to take a hand in improving this concept. Is government then just another form of religion?

-Communism, in theory, is the same idea as the golden rule, but its implementation is flawed in the forced nature it developed to attempt achieve the goals. If every single entity in the system wanted the system to work, it would, but that's the same kind of idealism that makes open society and capitalism so attractive (my original point of this post) Thus, communism and capitalism are two sides of the same coin.

As far as taxes go, the government simply needs to earn our faith for us to be willing to pay more taxes, just as the faithful willingly paid a tithe to the church (threats of eternal damnation aside). But of course it's not so simple.