OT: US President (US Dom Players only)

[lch]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

And presuming I am without reason is somewhat ignorant.
Do you know when he changed his name - and why? I do - both the reason he gives in his book dreams of my father, and the more likely 'real' reason.

I am not ignorant, I am telling you to be reasonable. The man calls himself Barack Obama, he is enlisted as Barack Obama in the election, the media calls him Barack Obama, and thus it makes absolutely no sense that you insist on calling him Soetoro as if you are some kind of republican nutjob. Personally I would not care if he was named Barack Adolf Josef Hussein Bin Laden. So since I was the first to fall victim to your trolling, completely aware of it, I ask you to stop this kind of trolling right here and now.

[Irishmafia2020]

I'm voting for the dangerous, Muslim, Terrorist, Socialist, radical, black guy - who wants to redistribute the wealth....
Oddly, those were all selling points for me!
In his defense he has kids, plays basketball, and uses the internet.... Just like me!

[Tifone]

Now "Terrorist" and "dangerous" would hardly seem "selling points"

Except, well, of course those are trash as we all know...

Even McCain says Obama is a "decent family man"! (someone still has to explain me why in the mind of our enlightened McCain, "arabs" cannot be "decent family men" )

[sector24]

Politics is far too deceptive for me to glean any kind of understanding. I can only understand my own position and even then it's hard to say which candidate will serve me better or if either candidate will serve my interests at all. (I suspect the only one looking out for me is me)

I would like to see a strong diplomat in office. Someone who could repair our relationship with countries that are supposed to be our allies, but secretly don't like us all that much. However, neither of the candidates come close to fitting the bill. So I think we're going to spend another 4 years in which the entire world thinks we're a bunch of arrogant cowboys that do whatever we want.

Second, I would like to see an economist in office. Someone who knows how to run a business and do it successfully. Again, no luck there. So we're going to spend another 4 years in which the administration goes deeply into debt while simultaneously telling everyone in America to do the exact opposite and save their money for retirement.

Oh, also I'd really like to not have to pay more in taxes. I currently give back 52% of my income to the government. I earned it fair and square, stop stealing my money.

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by sector24

Politics is far too deceptive for me to glean any kind of understanding. I can only understand my own position and even then it's hard to say which candidate will serve me better or if either candidate will serve my interests at all. (I suspect the only one looking out for me is me)

This is exactly how they want you to feel. If you are stuck looking for a candidate who is best for you, then they can spend all of their time trying to convince you that they are the best candidate for you. As long as they can avoid the issue of who is the better candidate for the nation, their chances of election are much higher.


The simple fact, as NTJedi hints strongly at, is that our bureaucracy has become aged and bloated. Our forefathers never intended for their systems to remain mostly intact, with just a bunch of stuff tacked on, for this long. They knew that the best way to avoid corruption, was to reinvent government from time to time, to make it leaner, meaner, and less abusable.

[Aezeal]

as a reply to the last few posts:

Ehm as an outsider I think Obama would fit the diplomat who fixes bonds far better than mac. (We do thing america doesn't listen much to the rest of the world and while I can respect the fact you put your own before others (they are elected to help their own) I think the way america is doing it now is not with enough consideration for the rest of the world, I'd also like to note that unlike most I'm not per definition against the war in iraq) Not in the least due to the fact that even our most rightwing political parties are more leftwing than even your democrats (but they would still "fit" better with us than the republicans). Also most person I hear thing america is odd cus they are being so hard on abortion and on the other hand don't do much about gun control and have a bad healthcare system for a first world country (3 things which I, and probably most around here see fixed better under democratic rule than under republican rule.)



The 2 party system as such doesn't bother me that much since politics is about compromising and in the 2 party system the compromises are made before elections within the party which then turn out the compromises and one of them gets elected and does things somewhat as they said they would. With us here all parties are generating more differnt stand points but after election they still have to work together with 2-3 parties and then they have to make compromises which always makes pplz unhappy too. (IMHO to few peoples want to understand that making compromises is what politics is all about.. you can't get it all your way... )

Sector: I don't think putting an economist in office would make that much difference I'm pretty sure all departments dealing with economy have plenty of economists in there and I'm also pretty sure they intend to do the best for their country and so will give decent advice to the one in office.

I also think pplz see taxes to much as money getting stolen, the money doesn't go to the government and vanish there (well most of the time) some of us are payed by that actually, healthcare, the roads we drive on etc etc etc etc. you all know this and it should be taken into account. Here pplz might complain abit (a lot) but in the end stuff is arranged for us etc and that costs money

PS some of the problem above probably just arise from the fact that a too large part of america is "strange" IMHO (against abortion, pro-gun, pro setting america above the rest of the worls...etc etc etc) since that is, in the end the reason politics last decades has been as it was.

I'll be the first to admit I've never been to america though.

[NTJedi]

Originally Posted by Aezeal

as a reply to the last few posts:
I also think pplz see taxes to much as money getting stolen, the money doesn't go to the government and vanish there (well most of the time) some of us are payed by that actually, healthcare, the roads we drive on etc etc etc etc. you all know this and it should be taken into account.

Unfortunately the more money the government takes the larger it becomes. One of the biggest and most important long term benefits would be changing taxes into a flat tax rate. There are so many people in government and outside of government who spend their lives just crunching numbers and reading tax laws. Think of all the long term benefits if all these people and the people of the future would instead be spending their lives providing medical research, new businesses, technologies, etc., etc., .

I do see higher taxes as money vanishing... I'll provide just two personal examples.
First I know a single mom of 5 kids with only highschool education who cannot take a job which pays her more than $9.50 an hour because it means the government will drastically cut the healthcare and financial support she recieves for her kids. She calculated for her to take a job which can match what the government provides it would need to start her at $60,0000 a year. This type of government interaction has trapped her into a poor lifestyle with no way out. I remember being excited how I found her a medical job where she easily qualified that paid $15.50 an hour and then I was shocked when she explained why she could not apply for the position.
Second is my brother works at one of the state universities... and you would not believe how government money is wasted. First the universities must spend X amount each year otherwise they will not recieve their yearly government increase. As a result the universities buy extra supplies ranging from computers to furniture whether or not its needed. Most of the extra supplies are sent back after a year or two to make room for new supplies. I heard another story where a dean cut three university jobs for her department which would have helped the department and then gave herself a raise claiming she saved the university money... the raise was about a $30,000 increase. What other jobs allow you to vote yourself a raise... oh yeah congress... that's messed up.

Within these two scenarios it's obvious there's no real system of checks & balances... the government just blindly throws money at these departments. So until I have the option to vote where my taxes are being spent I will fight against every dime being taken. Will a new president be able to redistribute the wealth fairly... NO because the government is broken and unfortunately only congress can fix it. Neither the democrats or republicans have shown effort for what really needs to be fixed.

[sector24]

Economist is probably the wrong word. Businessman perhaps would be more accurate. The problem with the current economists is that all of them have ties or used to work for the companies that caused all the trouble in the first place. I'd like a 1st line of defense that would veto bills that are financially irresponsible. I know it's a lot to ask for.

The stealing money thing is a joke (mostly). I don't mind paying for roads and whatnot, but 52% is a lot for the US. I think the average is something like 29-32%. You know the old saying, "A fine is a tax for doing the wrong thing. A tax is a fine for doing the right thing."

[thejeff]

I'll agree with your single mom example. It's a silly system. A more graduated drop as you earned more would make far more sense. And universal health care would make a lot of those issues go away. Having health care tied to employment leads to a lot of problems and results in a system that costs more and produces worse results than other "developed" countries.

As for your university example, any decent sized bureaucracy works the same way. Any good sized company is full of politicking over departmental budgets and personnel. More money translates into more importance.

More importantly, I'm not sure how a flat tax addresses any of your concerns. I assume you're talking about a single income tax rate with no (or minimal) exemptions or deductions? Simplifying parts of the tax code would have benefits, but I don't see what that has to do with the actual flat part of the flat tax. You could equally well remove the deductions and keep graduated tax rates, or have a single rate with all the complex deductions.
A flat tax would also raise rates at the lower end and, especially if you also remove the deductions for her children, make your example single mom's situation worse.

[NTJedi]

Originally Posted by thejeff

I'll agree with your single mom example. It's a silly system. A more graduated drop as you earned more would make far more sense.

Yes, I agree.

Originally Posted by thejeff

And universal health care would make a lot of those issues go away. Having health care tied to employment leads to a lot of problems and results in a system that costs more and produces worse results than other "developed" countries.

Government running healthcare is not the way to proceed. First the working class should not pay for the healthcare of those who are lazy and choose not to work. I could understand those who are temporarily out of work or disabled, but not those who choose to remain out of work despite no health problems. Second we don't want to provide free healthcare for illegal aliens as it only provides them more reasons for sneaking across the border. Any illegal aliens have trouble finding work which naturally increases the rate of crime. I believe anyone should be allowed to stay in America as long as they pass health and background tests... this would help keep out criminals and STDs. The third problem with government run healthcare is we know the government poorly runs a majority of responsibilities thus we don't want to be giving the government any new responsibilities until the previous ones have been fixed. The main reason is because once the government owns something it NEVER lets it go and the country doesn't need a new Major problem.

Originally Posted by thejeff

More importantly, I'm not sure how a flat tax addresses any of your concerns. I assume you're talking about a single income tax rate with no (or minimal) exemptions or deductions? Simplifying parts of the tax code would have benefits, but I don't see what that has to do with the actual flat part of the flat tax. You could equally well remove the deductions and keep graduated tax rates, or have a single rate with all the complex deductions.
A flat tax would also raise rates at the lower end and, especially if you also remove the deductions for her children, make your example single mom's situation worse.

Well the flat tax should first be tested in two small sections of America. Then any problems/imbalances can be identified and adjusted and gradually expand into the rest of America. I've heard the flat tax has worked terrific for the Russian government. The purpose of the flat tax is so when someone like Bill Gates earns 12.8 billion in a year he would pay a solid flat tax... even an 8% tax means 1 billion dallors. In my opinion the flat tax should gradually increase depending on income, thus the single mom would pay 1%.