Political DiscussionA place to hold political debates and general discussion. Please remember to always respect the opinions of other members and above all else, be civil.
All of it. Executive Branch (Pres & Cabinet), Legislative Branch (Congress), Judicial Branch (Courts). It's all corrupt.
77% of Americans believe that ALL Congressmen take bribes. Between them and the President, they treat the country like it's their own personal piggy bank... sending out federal funds (our tax money!) for "grants" to companies that cannot account for it, and so those companies turn around and help fund the campaigns so that they stay in power. 90 something % of all congressmen love this "pork barrel" spending because it keeps them in power, and it doesn't hurt them except to bankrupt the country. They throw a bone to what the people want, like for instance a *sensible* immigration policy (everyones in favor of that, right?), and they continue to do whatever makes them the most money.
Not to pick on Louisiana, but the Cowardly Mayor Ray Nagan is still in power, even though he hid during the Katrina crisis... why did he get reelected? Because the other candidate was a dufus. The congressman that just got caught taking a $100k bribe, ON TAPE, is argueing it. Even Gary Conduit, the dude that was banging and intern and had her killed, tried to get reelected.
They are spying on us, saying that "THEY" will protect us, while limiting our abilities to protect ourselves.
They want to raise taxes so that they can be even more corrupt.
None of them do the will of the people. None of them. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton still stay in $1000-a-night hotel rooms, and the black people that they "represent" haven't seen any improvements in their way of life.
Taking my shoes off at an airport doesn't make me feel much more secure. Congress investigating steriods doesn't feel the poor.
The Supreme Court voted that any state, local or federal government can take your land, pay you peanuts, and build whatever there for just about any reason.
This may be the best place in the world to live right now...
I'm surprised to see you write some of the stuff you did. I agree with you in that we live in a state with broken and inept proceedures. Many of the things you mention are necessary evils but more oversight is needed to ensure people don't abuse the system. Two examples are rider bills and pork spending; the former is there because Congress does not have enough time to debate each bill individually so some bills have to be attached to others to get anything done in this country and the latter comes from giving some lattitude to those who need it in order to do their jobs effectively (or at least that's why it was started). I do believe the pork spending has reached excessive proportions but, then again, I don't make the law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZapThyCat
sending out federal funds (our tax money!) for "grants" to companies that cannot account for it, and so those companies turn around and help fund the campaigns so that they stay in power.
Some of this is necessary to spurr or augment the economy. I'm not for blanket denials of grants but I do believe better accountability should be enforced. Many (I'd say most) of the programs the government funds help the country become a better place. I use a bushel as a metaphor: most are good apples but, inevitably, one or two bad ones will sneak in or go bad after being packed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZapThyCat
Not to pick on Louisiana, but the Cowardly Mayor Ray Nagan is still in power, even though he hid during the Katrina crisis... why did he get reelected? Because the other candidate was a dufus. The congressman that just got caught taking a $100k bribe, ON TAPE, is argueing it. Even Gary Conduit, the dude that was banging and intern and had her killed, tried to get reelected.
Agreed!
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZapThyCat
They are spying on us, saying that "THEY" will protect us, while limiting our abilities to protect ourselves.
They want to raise taxes so that they can be even more corrupt.
I've been complaining about the spying for a while now but I remember you being for it? I'm fundamentally against it because it lends itself to corruption. Just like they spied on MLK and Malcolm X because they didn't like their politics, they can do the same and ensure that this country doesn't change with the times (a bad thing IMHO).
As for the taxes, Bush keeps trying to lower them for the upper classes. That's not really making more money for them to steal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZapThyCat
Taking my shoes off at an airport doesn't make me feel much more secure. Congress investigating steriods doesn't feel the poor.
True, I don't like the shoe thing either.
As for the steroid issue, why the fvck is Congress interested in baseball? Theirs is to make the laws banning the substances and let the authorities (and MLB) enforce the laws that they make.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZapThyCat
The Supreme Court voted that any state, local or federal government can take your land, pay you peanuts, and build whatever there for just about any reason.
Actually, you have to be paid what the land is worth, not peanuts, but I still don't like the law.
Good post, tho. +1 EDIT: You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to ZapThyCat again. -- sorry
I'm surprised to see you write some of the stuff you did. I agree with you in that we live in a state with broken and inept proceedures. Many of the things you mention are necessary evils but more oversight is needed to ensure people don't abuse the system. Two examples are rider bills and pork spending; the former is there because Congress does not have enough time to debate each bill individually so some bills have to be attached to others to get anything done in this country and the latter comes from giving some lattitude to those who need it in order to do their jobs effectively (or at least that's why it was started). I do believe the pork spending has reached excessive proportions but, then again, I don't make the law.
Don't be too surprised, I'm a non-partisian moderate. I've never liked GWB but I really don't like when so many people are so unabashedly against him from the start, if he does something good, recognize it for what it is, it seems like conservatives hated Clinton no matter what he said or did, good or bad... and liberals hate Bush no matter what he does or says... good or bad. No progress is ever made when everyone toes their party line. Good for the parties, bad for the people.
I would venture to say that pork is pork is pork... and it's bad. Sure, I know how it started out, but what it is now is anything BUT needed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverdevil
better accountability should be enforced.
YES!
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverdevil
Many (I'd say most) of the programs the government funds help the country become a better place. I use a bushel as a metaphor: most are good apples but, inevitably, one or two bad ones will sneak in or go bad after being packed.
WRONG! There are hundreds of Pork programs that are completely pointless. Let me list a few of them that are going in this year...
Some of the most blatant waste in Government...
Just this year, $29 Billion dollars is wasted in projects like these:
For Alaska: Money for Berry research, cotton ginning, research for alternative salmon products... $500k for the "Artic Winter Games" in Alaska. Alaska is #1 in pork spending... out of the Defense Dept's budget, by the way.
Michigan: $1 Million for the "Water-free urinal conservation initiative", again out of the defense dept's budget.
Nevada: $100,000 for the "Richard Steele Boxing Club"
Washington: $500,000 for the "Museum of Glass".
North Carolina: $500,000 for the "Sparta Teapot Museum"
California: $1 Million for the "Apple for Civic center park development"
$300,000 for "Omni paratransit vehicles"
That's 10 projects. There are roughly 10,000 that are in the budget....
There are roughly 5 members of Congress that DO NOT MAKE REQUESTS for these porkbarrel projects. John McCain is one of them.
All of these groups get funding because they have the money to hire a lobbyist, or finance the re-election campaign of the congressman who's district they are in....
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverdevil
I've been complaining about the spying for a while now but I remember you being for it? I'm fundamentally against it because it lends itself to corruption.
I'm not against taping the phones in a hurry, of someone who was found to be on Bin Laden's speed dial when he left his phone behind in a hurry. That's all that program was. I hardly think the Gov't wants to know what time I'm coming home tonight, or if I want to have an affair. It has better things to do...
I'm against what it's becoming. Far more widespread. Far too much power in the hands of Gov't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverdevil
As for the taxes, Bush keeps trying to lower them for the upper classes. That's not really making more money for them to steal.
The upper classes already pay more, therefore any tax decrease is almost guaranteed to save them more money than someone who makes 1% what they make. A little math:
Upper Class guy makes 1 million a year and pays 60% taxes ($600k)
Lower Class guy makes 1 thousand a year and pays 10% taxes ($100)
Taxes are reduced for everyone to half (50%) of what they paid previously.
So now Upper class guy pays $300k taxes
Lower Class guy pays $50 in taxes.
SO THE EVIL UPPER CLASS GETS $299,950 MORE FROM THE TAX BREAK THAN THE LOWER CLASS GUY! THAT'S AN OUTRAGE!
No, that's just the way it works. The Taxbreaks are better on the people paying the most taxes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverdevil
As for the steroid issue, why the fvck is Congress interested in baseball? Theirs is to make the laws banning the substances and let the authorities (and MLB) enforce the laws that they make.
Pandering to the public, to make it seem like they are doing something... that's my guess.
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverdevil
Actually, you have to be paid what the land is worth, not peanuts, but I still don't like the law.
Okay. My grandpa built his house on the coast with his hands, and lived there for 50 years, and still lives there. He hand-built the hardwood floors and marble countertops. The gov't doesn't take that stuff into account. It gives you the low end of the fair market share. Some people, especially the older generations, don't care about money, they care about memories... and they would never ever sell.
And yet crooked mayors and city councils are trying to kick them out so that high priced condos can be put in, and the tax base of the city is increased. That's not worthy of "immenent domain". When you need something... for the good of the country... gold, oil, uranium, a freeway, a military base, a lighthouse, and there's no other way to get around it, then I can understand. But you want to bulldoze a house and build condos? Give me a freaking break...
This is proof that 90% of disagreements are caused by a lack of clear communication. Apparently all those times I thought Zap was 1000000 miles out in space he was really 2 inches away from my thoughts. I really thought you would be willing to sign your life over for the good of the government. Apparently I was wrong and I am sorry for the name calling.
We agree on some things but there are some that I don't agree with you on. I'll post a bit here but I'm on my laptop so I don't feel like typing much out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZapThyCat
WRONG! There are hundreds of Pork programs that are completely pointless. Let me list a few of them that are going in this year...
Some of the most blatant waste in Government...
Just this year, $29 Billion dollars is wasted in projects like these:
For Alaska: Money for Berry research, cotton ginning, research for alternative salmon products... $500k for the "Artic Winter Games" in Alaska. Alaska is #1 in pork spending... out of the Defense Dept's budget, by the way.
Michigan: $1 Million for the "Water-free urinal conservation initiative", again out of the defense dept's budget.
Nevada: $100,000 for the "Richard Steele Boxing Club"
Washington: $500,000 for the "Museum of Glass".
North Carolina: $500,000 for the "Sparta Teapot Museum"
California: $1 Million for the "Apple for Civic center park development"
$300,000 for "Omni paratransit vehicles"
That's 10 projects. There are roughly 10,000 that are in the budget....
IDK, I still see some good coming from them. If some kids go compete at the Alaska games rather than go out and sling drugs it's a benefit to the community and the country. The same goes for the "water-free" urinal because we need to learn how to conserve water, especially with the population growth expected in the next few decades. I still think most of it serves a purpose but the way they are handed out is not much to my liking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZapThyCat
I'm not against taping the phones in a hurry, of someone who was found to be on Bin Laden's speed dial when he left his phone behind in a hurry. That's all that program was. I hardly think the Gov't wants to know what time I'm coming home tonight, or if I want to have an affair. It has better things to do...
I'm against what it's becoming. Far more widespread. Far too much power in the hands of Gov't.
I don't think phones should be tapped AT ALL without supervision, i.e. a warrant. I don't mind the "tap in a hurry" and get a warrant within 72 hours because I understand that sometimes you need to act on intelligence right away. My point is we should have more oversight and use the system that was designed, not go around it in the name of "safety."
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZapThyCat
The upper classes already pay more, therefore any tax decrease is almost guaranteed to save them more money than someone who makes 1% what they make. A little math:
Upper Class guy makes 1 million a year and pays 60% taxes ($600k)
Lower Class guy makes 1 thousand a year and pays 10% taxes ($100)
Taxes are reduced for everyone to half (50%) of what they paid previously.
So now Upper class guy pays $300k taxes
Lower Class guy pays $50 in taxes.
SO THE EVIL UPPER CLASS GETS $299,950 MORE FROM THE TAX BREAK THAN THE LOWER CLASS GUY! THAT'S AN OUTRAGE!
No, that's just the way it works. The Taxbreaks are better on the people paying the most taxes.
A little math to you: who needs the most money? The rich? Taxes were set up in brackets because those who make more money should pay more, in proportion, to the government because, a) they can afford it; b) they make better use of what the government offers for the money (i.e. security, protection, and other things they can take advantage of like roads for their nice cars, etc); and, c) the economy hurts when the majority (the poor people) have less to spend.
Remember, much of these tax breaks come from things the poor never take advantage of such as capital gains tax reductions, less tax (or no tax) for estate inheritance, and tax credits for businesses (which don't get passed to the consumer or the employees).
Also, when it comes to personal income, I believe those who make more can afford to pay more. I make $80.000 a year. Do you know how much I pay in taxes? Just a little over $30.000! That means I only take home $50.000 after I pay uncle sam! But, I can also afford it. If we lived in a world with a flat tax, I would pay the same percentage to the government which means that the government would have to take more money from the poor because there is no way they can keep the same level of revenue while making a flat-tax and keep the poor paying the same they pay now.
I'm against flat taxes and I see the rich saving the same percentage, as you put it, as the poor as a the same thing.
IDK, I still see some good coming from them. If some kids go compete at the Alaska games rather than go out and sling drugs it's a benefit to the community and the country. The same goes for the "water-free" urinal because we need to learn how to conserve water, especially with the population growth expected in the next few decades. I still think most of it serves a purpose but the way they are handed out is not much to my liking.
How do you know that money is going towards what it's earmarked for? There IS NO OVERSIGHT. Billions of dollars, OUR TAX MONEY, is being spent on.... we don't have a clue. A Teapot museum? MY TAX MONEY? Blueberry research in Alaska?
How about $5 Million for Shrimp studies in Arizona?
$5 Million for an insect rearing lab in Mississippi?
$450k for ornamental tropical fish research in ALASKA?
$250k for culinary classes for troubled youth in Florida?
$750k for developing aquaculture products in WEST VIRGINIA? AQUA CULTURE, not AGRICULTURE.
$250k for disease testing in Vidalia Onions in Georgia?
$250k for the Rice Museum in South Carolina?
$12.5 Million for a "Smart Truck" that can do calculus.
$400k for a parking lot and pedestrian access in Talkeetna, Alaska... Population 300.
$1.25 Million for church repairs in Pribilof, Alaska
$2.6 Million to restore an Opera House in Meridian, Miss.
$600k to fix the "Apostles Inland Lighthouse".
$590k to the U. of Utah to make weather predictions.
$176k to the "Reindeer Herders Association" in Alaska.
$1.5 Million to build the "Stax Museum of Soul Music" in Memphis, Tenn.
$1.4 Million to improve the "Secor Garden" in Toledo, Ohio.
$500k for "Friendly house development" in Iowa
$1 Million for the "Gorilla forest" exhibition in Louisville, KY.
There's a whole lot more. But ALL OF THIS comes out of the federal budget. Sure, there are a lot of projects that want Federal money, but this is just blatant waste.
I don't depend on the government to protect me because the government is so corrupt. These are examples of how corrupt the government is... cementing it's own power in while the people get nothing. All of it serves a purpose... the purpose of keeping the politician in power.
In this time that things that we NEED are being passed up, why the heck are we researching Shrimp in Arizona?
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverdevil
I don't think phones should be tapped AT ALL without supervision, i.e. a warrant. I don't mind the "tap in a hurry" and get a warrant within 72 hours because I understand that sometimes you need to act on intelligence right away. My point is we should have more oversight and use the system that was designed, not go around it in the name of "safety."
I'm thinking more along the lines of "right now". Sometimes you need a warrant in the next 10 minutes rather than wait 72 hours... but that doesn't mean I think everyone should be tapped all the time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverdevil
A little math to you: who needs the most money?
The rich make more money because they are willing to work harder for it, usually. There are always the Paris Hilton's of the world, of course, but I don't really see that there should be HUGE differences between the rich and the poor. Just my opinion...
The rich make more money because they are willing to work harder for it, usually. There are always the Paris Hilton's of the world, of course, but I don't really see that there should be HUGE differences between the rich and the poor. Just my opinion...
That's a misconception. You think that a mid-level manager doesn't work harder, or at least as hard, as a janitor in the same company? The manager sits at his desk, sorts through email, and makes a few decisions here and there while the janitor is elbow-deep in shit (literally) all day long.
IDK, I work with people who make less than I do (considerably less) and we all do the same job. We work side-by-side, hand-in-hand, yet I make $25K more a year than one of my co-workers who actually has more years of experience than I do. Is that fair?
Nobody said life is fair. I do way more work than my coworkers, yet since they have more seniority, then get more money, more perks, more benefits. That's not fair, but I've accepted that life isn't fair.
If there's someone that got the job before I did, then that's that, fair or not. If you have more experience or education, or do more work than the person next to you, and you're making more money... fair or not, it's life.
If someone was somewhere at the right place and right time, and got some advantages... it's not fair, but that's what happened. If someone kissed the butt of the boss and got promoted... not fair. But it happens.
If a mid-level manager is sorting through email or screwing his secretary in his office, maybe it's not because he physically works harder, but he has made the right decisions for whatever reason. He went to college, he had the right ideas, he kissed the right butts.... whatever. But everyone that has made money is responsible for their success, and the have-nots are responsible for their own position of having-not. If I wanted to be rich I could have been. I'm not, and I don't ever care to be, I'd rather be happy (because anyone with any amount of maturity and real world experience knows that money doesn't buy happiness).
Nobody said life is fair. I do way more work than my coworkers, yet since they have more seniority, then get more money, more perks, more benefits. That's not fair, but I've accepted that life isn't fair.
If there's someone that got the job before I did, then that's that, fair or not. If you have more experience or education, or do more work than the person next to you, and you're making more money... fair or not, it's life.
If someone was somewhere at the right place and right time, and got some advantages... it's not fair, but that's what happened. If someone kissed the butt of the boss and got promoted... not fair. But it happens.
If a mid-level manager is sorting through email or screwing his secretary in his office, maybe it's not because he physically works harder, but he has made the right decisions for whatever reason. He went to college, he had the right ideas, he kissed the right butts.... whatever. But everyone that has made money is responsible for their success, and the have-nots are responsible for their own position of having-not. If I wanted to be rich I could have been. I'm not, and I don't ever care to be, I'd rather be happy (because anyone with any amount of maturity and real world experience knows that money doesn't buy happiness).
True, life is not fair; I don't recall anyone saying that it is.
However, when we strive to make laws (like tax laws), we should strive for fairness. That the system will get corrupted down stream is both a given and a tragedy, but it should not stop us from doing what is right at the time the law is written. That's all I'm arguing for.
I mention this because I vehemently oppose a "flat-tax." It's called that because that's exactly what it will do to our economy: crush it to the point where it's flat. That's why I mentioned what I did in my earlier posts.
I believe the fair thing to do is to keep it in a tiered system as it is now but there are waaaaaay to many loopholes that need to be closed.
BTW, not everyone who is rich is successful because they worked for it, as you say. Plenty of people inherited what they now own and, thanks to Bush, they no longer paid the government for this.
This is proof that 90% of disagreements are caused by a lack of clear communication. Apparently all those times I thought Zap was 1000000 miles out in space he was really 2 inches away from my thoughts. I really thought you would be willing to sign your life over for the good of the government. Apparently I was wrong and I am sorry for the name calling.
No biggie, I'm big on being a bit inflammatory anyways, I like to think about what I believe and why, and I like others to do the same, so I'll often play the "devil's advocate" or the "underdog's friend", just to see what others say, think or do.
I'm just getting more and more frustrated with the government, all of it.
As far as taxes go, yes, there are a lot of loopholes that need to be closed. If we closed a lot of the loopholes, we could lower the taxes (so that the rich don't have to pay, say, 80% tax but 50% instead. It comes out a whole lot cleaner, simpler... and the biggest losers are the tax attorneys and accountants.
As far as people inheriting money... why be taxed on that? There's no need. What we need are less taxes and more fiscally responsible politicians who realize we are spending our money, instead of people that act as if they're playing in another person's bank account.
As far as taxes go, yes, there are a lot of loopholes that need to be closed. If we closed a lot of the loopholes, we could lower the taxes (so that the rich don't have to pay, say, 80% tax but 50% instead. It comes out a whole lot cleaner, simpler... and the biggest losers are the tax attorneys and accountants.
As far as people inheriting money... why be taxed on that? There's no need. What we need are less taxes and more fiscally responsible politicians who realize we are spending our money, instead of people that act as if they're playing in another person's bank account.
Who pays 80% tax? The highest you can be taxed is 35%, as far as the IRS goes (plus your state taxes, obviously).
As far as paying taxes on inheritance, it just stands to reason if you have to pay taxes on gifts that you would have to pay taxes on what you inherit. The only people who wanted to eliminate this were the rich because you only had to pay it if you inherited a large amount (I believe it was 250K or something like that) but they called it a "death tax" to get people to back them instead of the normal "estate tax" that it was called previously.
250k is not what it once was. It is still a lot but the cost of homes is nuts. There are no(maybe a few but probably a shack on a hill) houses between Tahoe/Reno and the Bay area for less than 200k. 250k will still buy you a ferrari and be a nice rock fow owner's capital in a small company but it will not buy you a home and start a nice 401k like it once did. My parents bought a house for 100k in 1999. Every house on the street was worth 100-150k. Now in 2006 the run down pre-modular home down around the corner is going for 275k and my parents home is in the 375k dollar range. On top of that my dad has about 100k in life insurance. We are as solid middle class as you come. 2 years of JC then you can go to a university family. The kind of family that with 1 car accident or 1 fight with drug addiction it could all be gone. Yet I stand to inherit over 250k. That will not make me rich. It will simply make paying off my mortgage a goal rather than a dream.
Last edited by nick95673 : 05-29-2006 at 09:32 PM.
