Pages: 1 … 7 8 9 10

 

2009-09-20 13:25:52
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5649|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Edit - It's also the very reason that graduated income tax systems are doomed to failure. Sure, it's easy to shove a heavier tax load on the wealthy because there are fewer of them than there are middle or lower class people. You don't lose as many votes. You know damn well that it comes down to votes more than anything else. See, but the rich control the jobs and they're more than happy to move those jobs overseas because they don't want to pay taxes in a place like the US. Progressive tax system is built on jealousy and should be repealed in favor of a flat tax with no exemptions.
There's a big difference between what my philosophical argument was and a graduated income tax system.  The majority of the First World has one, and for good reason.  Unless we dramatically lower government spending first, we need one.  So, if a flat income tax is on the agenda, you're going to have to cut government spending first to make it feasible.
99.9% of flat tax advocates are also fans of cutting out social programs and other things we find incompatible with individual libertPr
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2009-09-20 14:35:01
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6697|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Edit - It's also the very reason that graduated income tax systems are doomed to failure. Sure, it's easy to shove a heavier tax load on the wealthy because there are fewer of them than there are middle or lower class people. You don't lose as many votes. You know damn well that it comes down to votes more than anything else. See, but the rich control the jobs and they're more than happy to move those jobs overseas because they don't want to pay taxes in a place like the US. Progressive tax system is built on jealousy and should be repealed in favor of a flat tax with no exemptions.
There's a big difference between what my philosophical argument was and a graduated income tax system.  The majority of the First World has one, and for good reason.  Unless we dramatically lower government spending first, we need one.  So, if a flat income tax is on the agenda, you're going to have to cut government spending first to make it feasible.
99.9% of flat tax advocates are also fans of cutting out social programs and other things we find incompatible with individual libertPr
I'm aware of that, but...  until you make said cuts, a flat income tax is not feasible.

You have to make the spending cuts before you make the tax cuts.
2009-09-21 00:41:15
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7101|Nårvei

Turquoise wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


Define overtaxing.  For example, Norway taxes the wealthy a lot more than we do.  Would you say that Norway overtaxes them?
Yes ...

Overtaxing works just like I mentioned in the post you quoted, they take their businesses elsewhere, so taxing the wealthiest too much makes them flag out their businesses and you loose all the taxes they previously paid ... the balance between greed and a "fair" share is difficult ...
I could be wrong, but there doesn't seem to be a shortage of rich people in your country.  By most measures, your quality of life is higher than mine.  The HDI seems to strongly suggest this.
It's a myth that all Norwegians are loaded Turq, I believe richness is spread in % like in any other western country ...

Myself as a middle class make more money than any other middle class in countries it's natural to compare Norway too, but I also pay more for my house, I pay more for heating, I pay more for groceries, I pay more for gas, I pay more for about every aspect of living ... so in the end and right before payday I have exhausted my resources just like any other citizen belonging in the middle class ...

Norway is a great place to live but it's not paradise ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
2009-09-29 02:46:53
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6702|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I didn't say the GOP is incompetent. I said they used poor judgment
And the difference is?
Isn't it their job to use good judgment?
The difference is that incompetence is endemic, while poor judgment is situational.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-09-29 02:57:00
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6702|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

When has the PM been anything other than Labour or Conservative in the past 150 or so years?
6 Feb. 1855-19 Feb. 1858 Whig
12 June 1859 - 18 Oct. 1865 Liberal
29 Oct. 1865- 26 June 1866 Liberal
3 Dec. 1868-17 Feb. 1874 Liberal
23 April 1880- 9 June 1885 Liberal
1 Feb. 1886 -20 July 1886 Liberal
15 Aug. 1892 2 March 1894 Liberal
5 Dec. 1905 - 7 April 1908 Liberal

OK Now?

Plus parties besides the Labour and Conservative have contributed to Parliament.

Now tell us how many times the US President has been anything other than Republicon or Democrap over the same period.
You came up with 150 yrs so hard luck.
The point being that the UK is effectively a two party system, with the two parties in favor varying. The Liberal Party fell out of favor in favor of the Labour Party, now the second party of an (effectively) two party system.

The nature of what is a Republican and what is a Democrat has changed dramatically enough over the 150 year period (even more, if you look at the entire history of the US), to effectively say that they are the same only in name.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-09-29 03:50:06
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6397|eXtreme to the maX
The point is you asked to be proven wrong and you were.

Presently the lib dems are in second place, labour third.

Whatever, the US has had only two significant parties in the last two hundred years - and zero third parties to speak of.
The US is a two party state.
Fuck Israel
2009-09-29 04:17:26
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6702|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

The point is you asked to be proven wrong and you were.

Presently the lib dems are in second place, labour third.

Whatever, the US has had only two significant parties in the last two hundred years - and zero third parties to speak of.
The US is a two party state.
And the point is you are wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_po … ted_States

By your logic, the UK has just as many third parties to speak of.

So shut yer gob.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-09-29 06:03:39
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6397|eXtreme to the maX
But those 'third parties' have not the slightest bit of clout and never have.
In the UK they are more than insignificantly represented and often hold the balance of power.

Please remind me when any of these guys gained a seat in the house of representatives.

Constitution Party
Green Party
Libertarian Party

Or these guys
American Party (1969)
America First Party (2008)
America's Independent Party (2008)
Boston Tea Party (2006)
Independence Party of America (2007)
Jefferson Republican Party (2006)
Moderate Party (2006)
Marijuana Party (2002)
Objectivist Party (2008)
Party for Socialism and Liberation (2004)
Peace and Freedom Party (1967) - active primarily in California
Prohibition Party (1867)
Reform Party of the United States of America (1995) - currently divided into two factions both using the name of the "Reform Party"
Socialist Equality Party (2008)
Socialist Party of the United States of America (1973)
Socialist Workers Party (1938)
Unity Party of America (2004)
Workers World Party (1959)
Working Families Party (1998)

You don't like it, but the US is a two party state - with all the democratic limitations which go with it.
Fuck Israel
2009-09-29 06:07:01
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5649|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:

But those 'third parties' have not the slightest bit of clout and never have.
In the UK they are more than insignificantly represented and often hold the balance of power.

Please remind me when any of these guys gained a seat in the house of representatives.

Constitution Party
Green Party
Libertarian Party

Or these guys
American Party (1969)
America First Party (2008)
America's Independent Party (2008)
Boston Tea Party (2006)
Independence Party of America (2007)
Jefferson Republican Party (2006)
Moderate Party (2006)
Marijuana Party (2002)
Objectivist Party (2008)
Party for Socialism and Liberation (2004)
Peace and Freedom Party (1967) - active primarily in California
Prohibition Party (1867)
Reform Party of the United States of America (1995) - currently divided into two factions both using the name of the "Reform Party"
Socialist Equality Party (2008)
Socialist Party of the United States of America (1973)
Socialist Workers Party (1938)
Unity Party of America (2004)
Workers World Party (1959)
Working Families Party (1998)

You don't like it, but the US is a two party state - with all the democratic limitations which go with it.
There is a socialist Congressman from Vermont. So the answer is 1
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2009-09-29 06:10:06
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6833|Texas - Bigger than France
Don't forget Jesse "The Body" Ventura.
2009-09-30 04:42:05
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6702|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

But those 'third parties' have not the slightest bit of clout and never have.
In the UK they are more than insignificantly represented and often hold the balance of power.

Please remind me when any of these guys gained a seat in the house of representatives.

Constitution Party
Green Party
Libertarian Party

Or these guys
American Party (1969)
America First Party (2008)
America's Independent Party (2008)
Boston Tea Party (2006)
Independence Party of America (2007)
Jefferson Republican Party (2006)
Moderate Party (2006)
Marijuana Party (2002)
Objectivist Party (2008)
Party for Socialism and Liberation (2004)
Peace and Freedom Party (1967) - active primarily in California
Prohibition Party (1867)
Reform Party of the United States of America (1995) - currently divided into two factions both using the name of the "Reform Party"
Socialist Equality Party (2008)
Socialist Party of the United States of America (1973)
Socialist Workers Party (1938)
Unity Party of America (2004)
Workers World Party (1959)
Working Families Party (1998)

You don't like it, but the US is a two party state - with all the democratic limitations which go with it.
Your measure of merit is flawed.

You base it on whether a given party holds a seat rather than on whether a given plank of their platform is incorporated in one of the major parties' platforms. That is typically what happens here: if an issue is important to the people, it is incorporated into the platform of one/both of the two major parties' platforms. Many/most of those third parties are focused on singular issues while the major parties deal with a broad range of issues.

It is the position on issues that is important, not the number of parties. If neither of the two major parties have a position I agree with on the issues that are important to me, I look to the other parties' positions on the same issues. Hence why I voted third party in the last election for many offices.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-09-30 05:51:10
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6397|eXtreme to the maX
Is that really the case?

Seems the Republicons and Democraps just sail merrily on as before, since third parties don't represent a real threat to them.

They may pay a little lip-service to addressing 'ishoos' but not much really changes.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-09-30 05:56:25)

Fuck Israel
2009-09-30 06:01:35
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5649|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:

Is that really the case?

Seems the Republicons and Democraps just sail merrily on as before, since third parties don't represent a real threat to them.

They may pay a little lip-service to addressing 'ishoos' but not much really changes.
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."

– Norman Thomas, 1948, American Socialist party, 6 time presidential candidate.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2009-09-30 06:06:14
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6444|what

Let's hope he is right...
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2009-09-30 06:06:36
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6397|eXtreme to the maX
The US is certainly much more socialist than it was.

Doesn't change the fact there are only two parties to speak of.
Fuck Israel
2009-09-30 06:11:12
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5649|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:

The US is certainly much more socialist than it was.

Doesn't change the fact there are only two parties to speak of.
The man stopped running for office because he realized that both parties had taken over his platform between them. He had no REASON to run anymore.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2009-09-30 06:32:24
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6397|eXtreme to the maX
The man stopped running for office because he realized that both parties had taken over his platform between them. He had no REASON to run anymore.
And did they implement socialism or just squeeze him out, maintaining the two party system?
Fuck Israel
2009-09-30 06:49:05
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5649|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:

The man stopped running for office because he realized that both parties had taken over his platform between them. He had no REASON to run anymore.
And did they implement socialism or just squeeze him out, maintaining the two party system?
There's no denying that our election laws are so fucked up that a 3rd party has no real shot at getting on the ballot, let alone elected, in most states. The two parties have been colluding for centuries to limit competition. I don't like it and I don't agree with it but there is nothing I can do.

Nothing short of a revolution can change it at this point, and I wouldn't be willing to roll the dice on a successful outcome to any revolution perpetrated by the reality tv loving, big mac eating idiots that populate this country.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2009-09-30 06:51:52)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2009-10-01 03:26:02
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6702|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

The man stopped running for office because he realized that both parties had taken over his platform between them. He had no REASON to run anymore.
And did they implement socialism or just squeeze him out, maintaining the two party system?
You've essentially proven my point with this statement.

The Democrat Party has implemented much of the socialist agenda without calling it that. The pieces that appeal to the bulk of the people, at least.

The same could be said for other ideas of other parties for both the Republicans and the Democrats. It is a survival strategy for them.

If you look at just in the past year, the Republican party's rhetoric has shifted from the nonsense that lost it the elections in 2008 to a more libertarian-leaning rhetoric, similar to that which won it the majority in 1994, leveraging the revelation of the heavy socialist influence (for the US, at least) in the Democrat party right now. Polls are showing it is paying off, both with dissatisfaction of the Democrats and increasing satisfaction of the Republican candidates in various districts.

Really no different than Labour/Conservative in the UK at this point.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-10-01 05:29:03
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6397|eXtreme to the maX
But with a different democratic system voters could get immediate representation on issues which concern them rather than having to wait 2,3,4 electoral cycles for some minor policy shifts.
Fuck Israel
2009-10-01 05:33:48
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6702|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

But with a different democratic system voters could get immediate representation on issues which concern them rather than having to wait 2,3,4 electoral cycles for some minor policy shifts.
No, they don't. The parties don't wait for electoral cycles to implement policy shifts. That's why you see clear outs every so often. The parties implement policies the populace doesn't like...and the populace trows de bums out.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-10-01 05:39:36
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6397|eXtreme to the maX
Still takes an electoral cycle to get them out, half a cycle for them to figure out why they were chccked out, and another half to come up with new policies.
The electorate still only has the choice of voting on two ragbag lists of policies, rather than being able to vote for what they want - and actually getting a bum on a seat in parliament.

May not be very effective but better than waiting forever for some policy change.
Fuck Israel
2009-10-02 04:20:13
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6702|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

Still takes an electoral cycle to get them out, half a cycle for them to figure out why they were chccked out, and another half to come up with new policies.
The electorate still only has the choice of voting on two ragbag lists of policies, rather than being able to vote for what they want - and actually getting a bum on a seat in parliament.

May not be very effective but better than waiting forever for some policy change.
Simply not true. There are literally dozens of options on every ballot. I believe there were eight or ten choices on the Presidential ballot alone.

The facts don't synch with your assertions, Dilbert.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-10-02 05:46:34
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6943|USA

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Still takes an electoral cycle to get them out, half a cycle for them to figure out why they were chccked out, and another half to come up with new policies.
The electorate still only has the choice of voting on two ragbag lists of policies, rather than being able to vote for what they want - and actually getting a bum on a seat in parliament.

May not be very effective but better than waiting forever for some policy change.
Simply not true. There are literally dozens of options on every ballot. I believe there were eight or ten choices on the Presidential ballot alone.

The facts don't synch with your assertions, Dilbert.
Don't worry, he is used to it by now and has grown accustomed and comfortable to spouting off without being able to back his opinions.
2009-10-02 05:57:35
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6397|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:

Simply not true. There are literally dozens of options on every ballot. I believe there were eight or ten choices on the Presidential ballot alone.
But nobody votes for them because they never get elected so no-one votes for them so they never get elected.

Either you vote one way or the other, since only one of the two stands a chance of defeating the other.
Any other vote is wasted.

lowing wrote:

Don't worry, he is used to it by now and has grown accustomed and comfortable to spouting off without being able to back his opinions.
How are things in lowing-world?
Fuck Israel

 

Pages: 1 … 7 8 9 10

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard