The Responsible Party

[101A]

I have been inspired by RandomGuy’s post to CosmicCowboy in the “Letter to the RNC” thread:



(shrugs)

Feel free to start a centrist party then......


This country has real problems, and its citizens recognize that. And yet, we have just held a "monumental" election in which nothing changed. The executive and both houses of Congress are still controlled by the same partisan, self-interested factions that controlled them last week. The entirety of our Government is controlled by the two parties that have collectively gotten us to the point we are at today.

We are in debt. Each of us doesn't trust half of our elected representatives - or our fellow citizens. Class divisions are getting worse, more and more Americans feel there is no hope of a better tomorrow for themselves, or their children. Income IS being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, while at the other end of the spectrum, permanent poverty and dependency on Government for basic needs – from cradle to grave - is increasing along with the illegitimacy rate. Hope and Change? No.

The problems are myriad and immense. It doesn't matter, ultimately, how we got here; because here we are.

The good news is our founders did give us a way to fix things; to get them back under control. We have the rights of free speech and assembly; and with the internet those rights are made exponentially more potent. Barrack Obama just won the presidency with ~60 million votes. Gangnam Style has over ten times that many views!

We also have the right to vote.

I have not had a candidate to vote for these past two presidential elections (and, honestly, I have never had a candidate I was actually excited to vote for).

I also note that most of the people on this board, reflecting the population at large, voted against a candidate in this election, and not for a candidate.

The problem is, frankly, the tribal mentality - Red vs Blue - pick a side, and stick to it on every subject. If you're against abortion, you are probably for capital punishment. If you are against cutting entitlements, you are against cutting taxes. If you are against water-boarding, you are probably for legalizing marijuana, etc...

What we need is a new party. This new party must pull from both tribes; otherwise it cannot work. If a conservative knows voting for Ron Paul means that Obama is more likely to win; he simply holds his nose and votes for Romney, while if a liberal would really like to vote Green, but is terrified of Paul Ryan being VP - they vote for Obama. If those two citizens, however, were reasonably assured that the third party vote wasn’t taking exclusively from only one of the traditional parties; they would be much more likely to vote that way.

I know that in the instances when we have a thread that does not devolve into a Red Team/Blue Team shout/insult-fest - common ground is often found between people of different political persuasions. A reasonable solution can be found to most issues - and most Americans would agree with those solutions, in my opinion.

This forum, I feel, is a great test-bed for this theory.

I would like to try to build a platform for the "Responsible" party. The platform, ultimately, should be reasonably comprehensive; but should never take a position on personal issues that divide us; distracting and obstructing us from finding solutions unnecessarily. Abortion is the most obvious taboo subject here; if the platform were to take a position, we are immediately divided; to NOT take a position is the "Responsible" course of action.
After the platform is developed, we’ll post it (responsibleparty.org and .com are available); – and spread its existence through the internet on boards like this, blogs, etc…also with letters to the editor in small town newspapers all over the country (they’ll print just about anything; and people in those towns read them). Then, we send out pleas to million and billionaires all over the country (thanks to Citizen’s United, we only need ONE).

The first order of business is to choose a mascot:
I nominate The Bald Eagle. Amazed neither of the other has ever chosen it; but the eagle is a hell of a responsible animal. Mother and father both take care of the young, they keep their house up, and don't take shit from anyone.

[DarrinS]

Like your ideas, but it presumes a thoughtful electorate

Responsible + current demographics = oil + water

[DarrinS]

Or, said another way, the message of JFK's inaugural address wouldn't resonate with today's instant gratification society.

[LnGrrrR]

Or, said another way, the message of JFK's inaugural address wouldn't resonate with today's instant gratification society.

Seems like a lot of hot air DarrinS. How many of the liberals on this board don't work? Live off food stamps? etc etc

[TeyshaBlue]

Seems like a lot of hot air DarrinS. How many of the liberals on this board don't work? Live off food stamps? etc etc

Besides you?:p::lol:rollin

[RandomGuy]

I have been thinking about this as well.

I think we can probably find a few issues that just about everybody can agree on:

Tax code is too complex.
We need to get our budget deficits under control.


As Democrat I am willing to give spending cuts on entitlement programs, *if* necessary tax increases to attack deficits at the other end are done, as most object analysis says is necessary.

Can we find any conservatives willing to go for the latter part of that? (increases can be structured to automatically "sunset", this would reduce the "gov't always expands" objection)

[ElNono]

Responsible + current demographics = oil + water

That makes no sense.

[DMC]

mmm bald eagle

[LnGrrrR]

Besides you?:p::lol:rollin

How dare you TB? I'm DEFENDING YOUR FREEDOMS*!!! RARRR!!!



*Sure, it's mostly your cyber-freedoms, but still.... FREEDOM!

[Th'Pusher]

Can you make the bald eagle mascot be shedding a tear?

[MannyIsGod]

That makes no sense.

You're just not looking it at from a racist perspective. It makes perfect sense. Those demographics that elect democrats are not capable of being responsible according to Darrin.

[MannyIsGod]

I actually don't buy into some of the ideas in the OP that we're cut along party lines for a lot of the issues you assume we are.

[MannyIsGod]

Also, I don't think as many people as you think were voting for the lesser of two evils.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx

Over half the country currently approves of what Obama is doing. Its been steadily rising for awhile now.

[DarrinS]

You're just not looking it at from a racist perspective. It makes perfect sense. Those demographics that elect democrats are not capable of being responsible according to Darrin.

I knew you guys would hear a dog whistle.

[DarrinS]

That makes no sense.

Yeah, it was pretty weak.

[ChumpDumper]

I knew you guys would hear a dog whistle.I knew you would make racist posts.

[DarrinS]

I knew you would make racist posts.

Like this?




Or, said another way, the message of JFK's inaugural address wouldn't resonate with today's instant gratification society.

[LnGrrrR]

Issues that I think members of both parties could get behind:

Reducing the amount of people in jail - America jails far more of its citizens than many other nations. We could reduce this number by decriminalizing marijuana in many areas, as well as reducing things such as the "Three strikes" law. We could also reduce the amount of jailtime.

Reducing tax loopholes - This would be sticky, as loopholes are in there because someone paid for them. But we could probably eliminate subsidies that don't affect a great number of people. (Like, ones that allow people to get free golf carts, for instance :D )

Reforming social security/Medicare - As people get older and older, the numbers don't work out well in favor of this. Opt-out privatization might be a valid choice, as might be extending the retirement age (perhaps by staggering/grandfathering the law, slowly pushing it up a few years in certain increments of time)

Having an honest conversation about what we want our military capabilities to be - Do we want to be the world police? And if so, are we willing to fund it?

Climate change + related policies - I know, red party and blue party don't agree much here. However, we could make concessions. If red team thinks that warming is part of a natural cycle, and there's nothing we can do about it, can't we at least look at what consequences might come of warming and try to come up with some plans? And blue team, if you can't convince enough of the electorate that warming is man-made, what about looking at smaller goals that might lead to less man-made climate change? Cap and trade, carbon tax, and things of that nature.

[z0sa]

^ solid post.

[LnGrrrR]

Oh, another huge thing that the Republican party won't touch today:

Since the 80's or so, the top percentile has gained incredibly, whereas the middle class has been stagnant. Given this, it only seems to make sense that said middle class would look to government as a buffer, or ask that taxes be raised on the rich. Really, the inability of the Republican party to discuss this is amazing. (Here's a hint R party... when the middle class is doing well, they buy stuff, which is usually good for the country.)

[SA210]

Also, I don't think as many people as you think were voting for the lesser of two evils.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx

Over half the country currently approves of what Obama is doing. Its been steadily rising for awhile now.


:lol Because they don't know what he's really doing..


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Skw-0jv9kts

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=204638

[LnGrrrR]

Republicans take for granted that they're better at running the economy, that they spend less, etc etc without producing any relevant evidence to back up their claims. Conservatives might be better at liberals when it comes to economic knowhow, but you have to do the work. I didn't see Romney doing any work that his policies would've helped. Sorry if I have a healthy skepticism that the economy would just magically do better if there was an R at the White House instead of a D.

[101A]

I have been thinking about this as well.

I think we can probably find a few issues that just about everybody can agree on:

Tax code is too complex.
We need to get our budget deficits under control.


As Democrat I am willing to give spending cuts on entitlement programs, *if* necessary tax increases to attack deficits at the other end are done, as most object analysis says is necessary.

Can we find any conservatives willing to go for the latter part of that? (increases can be structured to automatically "sunset", this would reduce the "gov't always expands" objection)


Good post; yes, I think a majority of Americans can find common ground on each of those issues; As a "conservative" myself, I agree that we cannot begin to live within our means without both increasing revenues and decreasing expenses. Taxes will have to go up, but better than that would be more people making more money; wealth and income increase for everyone - as much as my fellow conservatives want to fight the argument; wealth IS being concentrated; the rich pay so much of the taxes because they're making all the money!! No problem them making money, but we have to figure out why the other classes aren't, and see if there's something that can be done about it. I would hope some of my left leaning friends recognize increasing taxes on one group doesn't increase INCOME for another; and direct redistribution doesn't raise the tide. We need more people doing more productive jobs, and getting paid for that production. There is enough data to suggest "trickle down" doesn't trickle (can be shot if you're a Republican) - but our new party won't need to be hampered with having to stick to any previously committed to ideology.

[101A]

Can you make the bald eagle mascot be shedding a tear?


Mouse, are you listening?

Nevermind; this is a party looking forward; we're positive.

In fact, if everything goes as planned Harvard will have a course in 2145: PoliSci 645 - "Which was more important to the evolution of America, The Federalist Papers, or The Responsible Party Thread"

[101A]

Issues that I think members of both parties could get behind:

Reducing the amount of people in jail - America jails far more of its citizens than many other nations. We could reduce this number by decriminalizing marijuana in many areas, as well as reducing things such as the "Three strikes" law. We could also reduce the amount of jailtime.

Reducing tax loopholes - This would be sticky, as loopholes are in there because someone paid for them. But we could probably eliminate subsidies that don't affect a great number of people. (Like, ones that allow people to get free golf carts, for instance :D )

Reforming social security/Medicare - As people get older and older, the numbers don't work out well in favor of this. Opt-out privatization might be a valid choice, as might be extending the retirement age (perhaps by staggering/grandfathering the law, slowly pushing it up a few years in certain increments of time)

Having an honest conversation about what we want our military capabilities to be - Do we want to be the world police? And if so, are we willing to fund it?

Climate change + related policies - I know, red party and blue party don't agree much here. However, we could make concessions. If red team thinks that warming is part of a natural cycle, and there's nothing we can do about it, can't we at least look at what consequences might come of warming and try to come up with some plans? And blue team, if you can't convince enough of the electorate that warming is man-made, what about looking at smaller goals that might lead to less man-made climate change? Cap and trade, carbon tax, and things of that nature.


Kum-Bay-Ya

Thanks.

[101A]

Also, I don't think as many people as you think were voting for the lesser of two evils.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx

Over half the country currently approves of what Obama is doing. Its been steadily rising for awhile now.

51 - 60% does not a happy country make; it sure makes it easy for a two party system to stay a two party system, though.

[Wild Cobra]

Kum-Bay-Ya

Thanks.
Maybe we need to start a Utopia thread for some here?

[101A]

Oh, another huge thing that the Republican party won't touch today:

Since the 80's or so, the top percentile has gained incredibly, whereas the middle class has been stagnant. Given this, it only seems to make sense that said middle class would look to government as a buffer, or ask that taxes be raised on the rich. Really, the inability of the Republican party to discuss this is amazing. (Here's a hint R party... when the middle class is doing well, they buy stuff, which is usually good for the country.)


Absolutely; taboo subject; see my above reply to RG;

Frankly, taxes are pretty high on the rich. Tax them to death; you still have problems. What we need are more rich (and more comfortable and near rich). And again, not espousing trickle down, the evidence that it "raises all ships" is not good.

I think a plank in the platform could be: Income = Income; no matter how it is derived - I think the unnatural pull that investment/banking jobs have because of the capital gains vs. income tax rates is pulling bright, industrious minds from industries that actually provide solid middle class jobs.

[101A]

Maybe we need to start a Utopia thread for some here?

I thought I already did?

[101A]

Republicans take for granted that they're better at running the economy, that they spend less, etc etc without producing any relevant evidence to back up their claims. Conservatives might be better at liberals when it comes to economic knowhow, but you have to do the work. I didn't see Romney doing any work that his policies would've helped. Sorry if I have a healthy skepticism that the economy would just magically do better if there was an R at the White House instead of a D.

By my estimation; the best economy of my lifetime (I'm 44) occurred from ~ '95 - '99. Early eighties kind of roared; but to a large degree that was with the assistance of a credit card. The '90's boom actually produced a surplus.

Full admission: I never voted for Clinton. Hated him while he was president. All the while my income went up 5-fold.

[101A]

I actually don't buy into some of the ideas in the OP that we're cut along party lines for a lot of the issues you assume we are.

No, not on this board - I get that; but the BIG issue; taxing and spending can get overwhelmed by the social issues; My wife for example; very conservative economically; CANNOT vote for a Democrat for that reason, but CANNOT vote for a Republican because she has a strong environmental bent. She has no home. I tend to have some skeptical views when dealing with extreme environmentalism; but also get furious at "Drill here, drill there, drill everywhere"; there is a responsible position between those two.

Is AGW happening, I don't know. I still think mandating higher gas mileage, and investing in green energy is a good idea - might even be open to a "carbon tax" (as long as I was pretty sure it wasn't simply a way for Al Gore to get rich)

[RandomGuy]

Also, I don't think as many people as you think were voting for the lesser of two evils.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx

Over half the country currently approves of what Obama is doing. Its been steadily rising for awhile now.

Maddow brought up an interesting study about economic crises in other countries and the US.

Eventually after a recession, the economy recovers, and the party in power, be it conservative or liberal, is generally credited in the mind of the public for that, and dominates in power for a decade.

Indications are that the economy will muddle along and grow slowly with the recovery of the next four years credited to Obama.

Given that and the demographic trends.

Keep trying to find it, but haven't found it yet.

[RandomGuy]

No, not on this board - I get that; but the BIG issue; taxing and spending can get overwhelmed by the social issues; My wife for example; very conservative economically; CANNOT vote for a Democrat for that reason, but CANNOT vote for a Republican because she has a strong environmental bent. She has no home. I tend to have some skeptical views when dealing with extreme environmentalism; but also get furious at "Drill here, drill there, drill everywhere"; there is a responsible position between those two.

Is AGW happening, I don't know. I still think mandating higher gas mileage, and investing in green energy is a good idea - might even be open to a "carbon tax" (as long as I was pretty sure it wasn't simply a way for Al Gore to get rich)

See, there is a problem.

Democrats are now the fiscally responsible party. The fiscal conservative, social moderates, have been driven out of the GOP by the continuous litmus tests and tea party defeats in primaries.

The GOP has become the "borrow and spend" party, because they are scared to death of touching entitlements, despite their self-professed fiscal conservatism. They want power more than they want to adhere to their principles. If they really were concerned, they would bite the bullet and make the proposals, framing them as deficit and debt cutting. You get the occasional firebrand who does that, but they get muscled aside by people more interested in getting re-elected.

If your choice is tax and spend or borrow and spend, it becomes a lot clearer.

[101A]

See, there is a problem.

Democrats are now the fiscally responsible party. The fiscal conservative, social moderates, have been driven out of the GOP by the continuous litmus tests and tea party defeats in primaries.

The GOP has become the "borrow and spend" party, because they are scared to death of touching entitlements, despite their self-professed fiscal conservatism. They want power more than they want to adhere to their principles. If they really were concerned, they would bite the bullet and make the proposals, framing them as deficit and debt cutting. You get the occasional firebrand who does that, but they get muscled aside by people more interested in getting re-elected.

If your choice is tax and spend or borrow and spend, it becomes a lot clearer.

There is too much nonsensical class warfare rhetoric coming from the Democrat party; turns off too many people, and not just the rich. "Making the rich pay their fair share" is not an economic policy; it is a battle cry, IMO. If the Democrats were the "fiscally responsible party" - and believe rasing taxes is the way to be that way - they would propose eliminating All of the Bush tax cuts - not just 1/5 of them. Not wanting to debate that, however. If you are happy being a Democrat, and don't want to participate in forming a new party from the ground up - great.

[z0sa]

Good luck. It seems like a great idea but responsibility is often shirked or passed.

[SnakeBoy]

I have been thinking about this as well.

I think we can probably find a few issues that just about everybody can agree on:

Tax code is too complex.
We need to get our budget deficits under control.


As Democrat I am willing to give spending cuts on entitlement programs, *if* necessary tax increases to attack deficits at the other end are done, as most object analysis says is necessary.

Can we find any conservatives willing to go for the latter part of that? (increases can be structured to automatically "sunset", this would reduce the "gov't always expands" objection)

Well I'm a conservative and I want the Bush tax cuts to expire in their entirety. I don't have a problem paying 3% more IF the middle class starts paying their fair share. As long as someone like Drachen is making $70k and not paying anything I'm not willing to pay more. In fact this year for the first time we have started sheltering money to pay less. It's not a conservative/liberal problem, the only difference between you and a middle class conservative is that you think people other than you should pay more and the middle class conservative doesn't think anyone should pay more.

[DarkReign]

Unfortunately, 101, I dont think the electorate (ie your fellow citizens) are going to bend to things like logic, reason or the term de jour, compromise. Like the Green party or the Whig party or any other party that isnt the Big Two, traction is incredibly hard to gain. I am not a political expert, nor am I a demographer with a firm grasp of the wants and needs of each racial demographics and/or social demographic.

Moreover, money to the scale needed to get said traction is of an amount I dont even want to think about. The most successful independent candidate in my lifetime was Ross Perot and for some strange reason he dropped out of the race while leading in some (questionable) polls. Why he did so, then only to re-enter at the 11th hour is something that has never been full explained. I will not waste time on personal conjecture, but the fact that it happened under bizarre circumstances I think is a fair characterization.

Simply put, others have tried, are currently trying and all have failed to unseat the two party system engrained in the Constitution. It is my opinion that this is not a mistake of the forefathers. What we see in present day politics is not a perversion of their life's work, but merely an inevitable path of a two party system. It would seem the First Men of America had the forethought to determine that the People do in fact matter to the State. That their active participation was undeniably important to viable governance. But at every step, they wisely put restrictions on how deeply that participation cut.

If the everyday citizen were of competent stock and knowledge in worldly and state affairs, wouldnt it make sense to put to vote every matter of government? Be it war, taxes, borders, expansion, etc?

Surely, the electorate is competent enough and most importantly interested enough to handle such responsibility, no?

We all know the answer. No, the citizenry isnt well enough equipped to balance a personal checkbook much less a bureaucratic government system with thousands of moving parts, nearly half of them acting in direct contradiction to the whole. It could be argued and won that no system is capable of reining the needs of the many versus the needs of the few against all the outside forces acting upon the inertial system. It just so happens that America's system was the best equipped to handle its 20th century rise to power unlike its competitors of the age.

If you think about it, the US was a backwater, 2nd world nowhere right up until the first World War. Thats less than 100 years ago. There are (very few) people alive who might possibly remember a very different America than the one we wax so poetically today.

I just wrote three paragraphs after these and realized, once again, that I just dont care anymore to articulate my position beyond what I have to say.

While a noble idea and a fun thought experiment that might bear fruit in an academic setting, any thought or aspiration to gain political prominence in an outside party is a fruitless endeavor reserved for what could only be considered ideologues of such conviction that tangible relevance isnt important, only self-gratification at choosing and maintaining a determinate path.

No, sadly, I still look at this country as fucked and unfuckable to quote a very quotable fellow. Without some revolutionary discovery/technology on par with the railroad system/oil refinement/telephone/television/Internet, the current path is entirely too hard for current leadership to politically navigate with any real mind toward a solution. I am 32 years old and I will not see the fall, nor do I think my son will, but fall we shall. A shame really, that government systems are not designed to be inordinately flexible to correct the passage of time and circumstances. Even in a system as flexible as ours, it still isnt enough to actually change anything of substance. Obamacare will be a disaster, we will leave Afghanistan only to go to Iran/Syria. Our population will still refuse to elect on any matter of importance that doesnt involve the here and now for them and the end will be approximated with great accuracy in the very near future.

Best one can hope for is dissolution or secession to start over, IMO. Entice all the talent to leave, just like corporate raiding, and watch it rot from the outside looking in. My position has absolutely nothing to do with Obama, Romney, Democrats, Republicans, Norquist or any other current political actor. Its simply an observation of current fiscal trajectory, the lack of importance attached and the public's general disregard for the inherent danger associated. The United States is not Greece, when the fall happens it will be loud and disgusting.

[DarrinS]

See, there is a problem.

Democrats are now the fiscally responsible party. The fiscal conservative, social moderates, have been driven out of the GOP by the continuous litmus tests and tea party defeats in primaries.

The GOP has become the "borrow and spend" party, because they are scared to death of touching entitlements, despite their self-professed fiscal conservatism. They want power more than they want to adhere to their principles. If they really were concerned, they would bite the bullet and make the proposals, framing them as deficit and debt cutting. You get the occasional firebrand who does that, but they get muscled aside by people more interested in getting re-elected.

If your choice is tax and spend or borrow and spend, it becomes a lot clearer.


I don't so much disagree with the rest of your post, but why would fiscal conservatives be driven out by the Tea Party? It is a lack of fiscal responsibility that produced the Tea Party in the first place.

[LnGrrrR]

Well I'm a conservative and I want the Bush tax cuts to expire in their entirety. I don't have a problem paying 3% more IF the middle class starts paying their fair share. As long as someone like Drachen is making $70k and not paying anything I'm not willing to pay more. In fact this year for the first time we have started sheltering money to pay less. It's not a conservative/liberal problem, the only difference between you and a middle class conservative is that you think people other than you should pay more and the middle class conservative doesn't think anyone should pay more.

I'll bring up another question: How exactly do we define "middle class"? Because I'm pretty sure making $100-150K a year should put you out of the "middle class" identifier (unless you live someplace like Manhattan.)

Look at this chart. If you make more than $85K a year, you're in the top 25% of American households. How can you still be middle class when you're making more than 75% of other Americans? It's asinine that politicians describe the middle class at up to $200/$250K a year. That would mean that the lower class (25K or less) makes up 30% of the electorate, the middle class (25K to 200K) makes up 68%, and the "upper class" (200K or more) makes up 4% of the electorate.

And people wonder why there's class warfare.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/Distribution_of_Annual_Household_Income_in_the_Uni ted_States.png/800px-Distribution_of_Annual_Household_Income_in_the_Uni ted_States.png

[Clipper Nation]

Democrats are now the fiscally responsible party.

:lmao

Just because the neocons also push handouts and have zero principles doesn't mean "Democrats" and "fiscally responsible" belong in the same sentence :lol

[SnakeBoy]

I'll bring up another question: How exactly do we define "middle class"? Because I'm pretty sure making $100-150K a year should put you out of the "middle class" identifier (unless you live someplace like Manhattan.)

Look at this chart. If you make more than $85K a year, you're in the top 25% of American households. How can you still be middle class when you're making more than 75% of other Americans? It's asinine that politicians describe the middle class at up to $200/$250K a year. That would mean that the lower class (25K or less) makes up 30% of the electorate, the middle class (25K to 200K) makes up 68%, and the "upper class" (200K or more) makes up 4% of the electorate.

And people wonder why there's class warfare.


Well that's an entirely different topic. I'm referring to the middle class as most of you seem think of it, which personally I would call working class. Equating median income with "middle class" seems flawed to me. The middle class to me has all but disappeared and is the now top 25% (excluding the wealthy) you referred to. This is the argument I had with Drachen. He considers himself near the upper end of middle class at $70k even though he's just getting by and unable to save enough for his future. That's not middle class in my view.

My point was that if an effective rate of zero is fair for his $70k then my 28% on $200k is more than fair and I'm not willing to pay more. In fact from now on I'm going to make damn sure I pay less, screw the "middle class".

[Drachen]

Well I'm a conservative and I want the Bush tax cuts to expire in their entirety. I don't have a problem paying 3% more IF the middle class starts paying their fair share. As long as someone like Drachen is making $70k and not paying anything I'm not willing to pay more. In fact this year for the first time we have started sheltering money to pay less. It's not a conservative/liberal problem, the only difference between you and a middle class conservative is that you think people other than you should pay more and the middle class conservative doesn't think anyone should pay more.


1st. Drachen + Wife

2nd. I think that you would have to kill (at least) the mortage tax cut for us to pay something.

3rd. I am ok with letting them all expire. We need the cash, but don't pretend that taking a dollar out of the pocket of someone making (say) 500k will do as much damage to the economy as taking a dollar out of the pocket of someone making (say) $50k.

[SnakeBoy]

1st. Drachen + Wife

2nd. I think that you would have to kill (at least) the mortage tax cut for us to pay something.

3rd. I am ok with letting them all expire. We need the cash, but don't pretend that taking a dollar out of the pocket of someone making (say) 500k will do as much damage to the economy as taking a dollar out of the pocket of someone making (say) $50k.

Well I was referring to household income in your case and mine. My wife has been and always will be the primary breadwinner. My greatest financial success was getting her to marry me.

Btw, I wasn't trying to single you out in a negative personal way. The tax code is what it is. You're just one of the few willing to share your personal financials.

The economy did just fine under higher Clinton rates or higher Reagan rates for that matter. I don't buy the "economy will suffer" argument. In fact the economy has done nothing but suffer under historic low taxes.

[Drachen]

Well I was referring to household income in your case and mine. My wife has been and always will be the primary breadwinner. My greatest financial success was getting her to marry me.

Btw, I wasn't trying to single you out in a negative personal way. The tax code is what it is. You're just one of the few willing to share your personal financials.

The economy did just fine under higher Clinton rates or higher Reagan rates for that matter. I don't buy the "economy will suffer" argument. In fact the economy has done nothing but suffer under historic low taxes.

You don't need to apologize, I understand why you used my case, its what you had available. I told you before in that other thread, I am not offended or mad or anything. Also, my wife is (this year) the primary breadwinner in our household (though the reason is that ), and I have nothing against that either. :lol I have taken to calling her my sugar momma.

As I said, I am willing to return to Clinton-Era rates, but I just wanted to make clear for anyone who wanted to use the "economy suffers" tact that insomuch as the economy suffers from higher taxes (whatever value you assign to that), a dollar out of the pocket of someone making 500k affects it less than one out of someone making 50k since that dollar will be spent on goods.

[LnGrrrR]

Well that's an entirely different topic. I'm referring to the middle class as most of you seem think of it, which personally I would call working class. Equating median income with "middle class" seems flawed to me. The middle class to me has all but disappeared and is the now top 25% (excluding the wealthy) you referred to. This is the argument I had with Drachen. He considers himself near the upper end of middle class at $70k even though he's just getting by and unable to save enough for his future. That's not middle class in my view.

My point was that if an effective rate of zero is fair for his $70k then my 28% on $200k is more than fair and I'm not willing to pay more. In fact from now on I'm going to make damn sure I pay less, screw the "middle class".

Hm... a quick question for you then. I'm not sure how these two statements go together:



upper end of middle class at $70k even though he's just getting by and unable to save enough for his future



if an effective rate of zero is fair for his $70k

Now, I'm not sure how you meant that, but if you think that $70K is barely enough to get by, and not enough to save, then shouldn't a rate of zero be fair? (I'd like to note that I think you're still able to save at $70K, certainly. I manage to put some away for savings, and I'm the only breadwinner at the household making roughly 42K per year.)

[Drachen]

For those that didn't read the thread that we are talking about who are currently thinking I am a moron. I do save for my future, but I admitted that I don't think that it is enough for retirement. I also stated that I would be able to save more if I hadn't decided to put my daughter in private school.

[LnGrrrR]

For those that didn't read the thread that we are talking about who are currently thinking I am a moron. I do save for my future, but I admitted that I don't think that it is enough for retirement. I also stated that I would be able to save more if I hadn't decided to put my daughter in private school.

Understood. I'm trying to save, but I don't think it's really enough for my retirement. Once I retire from the military, I plan on using that retirement paycheck to pay for my mortgage. Of course, after I get out I'm going to try to get into the MIC and make fat stacks until retirement. Buahahah.

[ElNono]

Understood. I'm trying to save, but I don't think it's really enough for my retirement. Once I retire from the military, I plan on using that retirement paycheck to pay for my mortgage. Of course, after I get out I'm going to try to get into the MIC and make fat stacks until retirement. Buahahah.

you should hire me then, tbh

[Drachen]

I finally read every word to this thread (I have been doing hit and runs on it), The ideas going back and forth are great. This is an idea that I have kicked around that hopefully will help.

welfare/unemployment: First off, everyone is entitled to 6 months, hands down, no questions asked (other than the required paperwork of course). After this 6 month period, you have two options if you want to continue receiving your check job training/college/vocational school, or you work for the county for 15-20 hours a week. Picking up trash, painting park equipment, grunt work. People may say: if you have people doing that, it will steal jobs from those already doing this. To that I say: there is a ton of trash all over, whoever is doing it now, isn't doing it and there are definitely some run down looking parks.

This way, it de-incentivizes welfare and unemployment, provides a great service for your local community and educates the general populace.

While we are at it, and I am sure that DarkReign would agree, where the fuck is that 4k grant toward college loans for community service?

[SnakeBoy]

Now, I'm not sure how you meant that, but if you think that $70K is barely enough to get by, and not enough to save, then shouldn't a rate of zero be fair? (I'd like to note that I think you're still able to save at $70K, certainly. I manage to put some away for savings, and I'm the only breadwinner at the household making roughly 42K per year.)

My position in the other thread was that I define middle class as enough income to live a middle class lifestyle (Drachen does) and save enough to continue that lifestyle thru retirement. $70k isn't enough to do that.

Zero is never fair imo. I'll just refer to yet another previous thread...


I favor a flat progressive income tax. Just pulling numbers out of the air I'd say the rate should go from about 6% to 25%. No personal exemptions, child credits, mortgage deductions etc. This would make the tax code strictly a form of revenue collection and eliminate using it as an ineffective welfare/social engineering program as it currently is. It would also require our politicians to actually do their jobs and create effective welfare/social programs.

[SnakeBoy]

The first order of business is to choose a mascot:
I nominate The Bald Eagle. Amazed neither of the other has ever chosen it; but the eagle is a hell of a responsible animal. Mother and father both take care of the young, they keep their house up, and don't take shit from anyone.

You forgot to mention the bald eagle is primarily a scavenger. That is, it survives on the hard work of others and believes it's entitled to food it did not earn.

[Th'Pusher]

Well that's an entirely different topic. I'm referring to the middle class as most of you seem think of it, which personally I would call working class. Equating median income with "middle class" seems flawed to me. The middle class to me has all but disappeared and is the now top 25% (excluding the wealthy) you referred to. This is the argument I had with Drachen. He considers himself near the upper end of middle class at $70k even though he's just getting by and unable to save enough for his future. That's not middle class in my view.

My point was that if an effective rate of zero is fair for his $70k then my 28% on $200k is more than fair and I'm not willing to pay more. In fact from now on I'm going to make damn sure I pay less, screw the "middle class".

An effective tax rate of 28% on $200k household income seems high. That's about where I am at and my effective tax rate is ~15%. I use turbo tax, maybe you should look into an accountant.

[SnakeBoy]

An effective tax rate of 28% on $200k household income seems high. That's about where I am at and my effective tax rate is ~15%. I use turbo tax, maybe you should look into an accountant.

I meant 25% (typo). And I think it was around $220k to be more accurate. If you're only paying 15% on $200k you either have a lot of deductions (mortgage, kids etc.) and/or you are deferring taxes on a nice chunk of it (ira, 401k, etc.).

[LnGrrrR]

You forgot to mention the bald eagle is primarily a scavenger. That is, it survives on the hard work of others and believes it's entitled to food it did not earn.

That's perfect! The balding and proud part will resonate with Republicans, and the other parts will resonate with Democrats!

[LnGrrrR]

I meant 25% (typo). And I think it was around $220k to be more accurate. If you're only paying 15% on $200k you either have a lot of deductions (mortgage, kids etc.) and/or you are deferring taxes on a nice chunk of it (ira, 401k, etc.).

I don't like the flat tax idea, as it's rather regressive. (The guy making 70K per year would have more value from the 10% taken from him than the guy making 200K per year.)

[LnGrrrR]

My position in the other thread was that I define middle class as enough income to live a middle class lifestyle (Drachen does) and save enough to continue that lifestyle thru retirement. $70k isn't enough to do that.

So you would say that Drachen's household, making $70K, isn't middle class? The median is $50K... so $70K is certainly middle class. What you're really saying is that the middle class can't/shouldn't be able to expect to save enough for retirement.

What do you think is enough to life a middle class lifestyle through retirement? Because if it's over 85K, you've just hit the top 25% percentile, which would mean that 75% of America is lower/lower-middle class.

[101A]

You forgot to mention the bald eagle is primarily a scavenger. That is, it survives on the hard work of others and believes it's entitled to food it did not earn.

Assuming most people don't know that (first act of the party is betting on the ignorance of the American populace - and not even realizing it because the guy who came up with it was ignorant of the fact).

I thought they were bad ass killing machines; grabbing fish out of mid swim, rabbits on the run; small goats......

[101A]

I don't like the flat tax idea, as it's rather regressive. (The guy making 70K per year would have more value from the 10% taken from him than the guy making 200K per year.)

I've read enough on the board to assume we have a majority who would agree to a pretty significant exemption (first 50K, for example) on earned income for a family (or 25K for an individual) - remember, we still have payroll taxes to talk about; or should we just eliminate the pretenses and roll it all into a single tax?

A 25% flat tax with a 50K exemption would have Snake Boy ($220,000 income) paying $42,500 in taxes (19.3% effective), while Drachen ($70 K) would be paying $5,000 - 7.1% effective - probably very near what he pays in payroll taxes right now. (actually that's only half of his payroll tax; the rest is hidden because his employer is mailing it in)

Thoughts?

Is a flat tax, or one with at least some progressiveness better - we are in agreement that loopholes/deductions need to be simplified dramatically.

How about capital gains - is there a consensus that income = income? Can someone make a reasonable argument that those should be treated differently? Would like to hear Scott or RG on this.

[RandomGuy]

:lmao

Just because the neocons also push handouts and have zero principles doesn't mean "Democrats" and "fiscally responsible" belong in the same sentence :lol

Democrats understand the need for entitlement reform, and are willing to raise taxes AND cut entitlements.

Republicans understand the need for entitlement reform, and are not willing to raise taxes.

This notion that Democrats are somehow 100% chomping at the bit to tax the nation into the ground is an old myth that is simply the Republican Big Lie.

I think a lot of people have, instead of looking at the kinds of things that Democrats actually say about individual responsibility and hard work, have substituted a particularly lazy cynicism and have bought this Big Lie as some sort of truth.

Even if you believe the Democrats are what you seem to think they are, compared to the GOP, they are far more fiscally responsible, for no other reason than they are willing to do what is necessary to fix shit, and the Republicans have not been willing to do so.

[leemajors]

Assuming most people don't know that (first act of the party is betting on the ignorance of the American populace - and not even realizing it because the guy who came up with it was ignorant of the fact).

I thought they were bad ass killing machines; grabbing fish out of mid swim, rabbits on the run; small goats......

There is some really good footage of them killing on the wing in Winged Planet that was on Discovery last month, pretty impressive. They had several on wing cameras to boot.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84bzpx6fbY4

Not the best clip but there are better ones in the doc.

[RandomGuy]

I don't like the flat tax idea, as it's rather regressive. (The guy making 70K per year would have more value from the 10% taken from him than the guy making 200K per year.)

Put in a generous lower exemption for the first X amount per person in the household, and that solves that problem, as 101 noted.

I used to be opposed to it, simply because of the transition costs, but the complexity of the tax code is screaming for simplification. The effort we collectively waste on our tax returns is immense and not necessary.

[101A]

There is some really good footage of them killing on the wing in Winged Planet that was on Discovery last month, pretty impressive. They had several on wing cameras to boot.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84bzpx6fbY4

Not the best clip but there are better ones in the doc.

Thanks for that. From now on you are the official "Snake Boy Fact Checker"

[101A]

Put in a generous lower exemption for the first X amount per person in the household, and that solves that problem, as 101 noted.

I used to be opposed to it, simply because of the transition costs, but the complexity of the tax code is screaming for simplification. The effort we collectively waste on our tax returns is immense and not necessary.

Aaaahhhh consensus builds.

[MannyIsGod]

I'll try to respond more in detail this weekend as I feel I should provide some data backing up what I feel is correct. But I'll post the jist of what I'm thinking so that you can get the idea.

-I think we all tend to romanticize how little we were divided in the past and in some senses I think we tend to make it up. As an example, Clinton is generally viewed as a good president by many but he was extremely polarizing when he was in office. Vast Ring Wing Conspiracy, Somalia and impeachment immediately come to mind when I think of what we never talk about when we look back fondly.

-I don't think voters int he past were any more informed than those of today but I do think there's a possibility they were less MISinformed. The lynch pin here may not be the absence of information but the absence of misinformation.

-Congress is almost certainly more polarized than in the past. I think maybe at times we tend to attempt to project this onto the rest of our citizens but I really am not sure this is the case.

[101A]

I'll try to respond more in detail this weekend as I feel I should provide some data backing up what I feel is correct. But I'll post the jist of what I'm thinking so that you can get the idea.

-I think we all tend to romanticize how little we were divided in the past and in some senses I think we tend to make it up. As an example, Clinton is generally viewed as a good president by many but he was extremely polarizing when he was in office. Vast Ring Wing Conspiracy, Somalia and impeachment immediately come to mind when I think of what we never talk about when we look back fondly.


I said as much earlier; HATED that guy; now respect his presidency. Hell, if Newt hadn't run this past year - his legacy would probably have aged alright with Democrats (might be wrong on that)....

[boutons_deux]

"And people wonder why there's class warfare"

I don't wonder at all. Class War has paid the 1% Class Warriors with insane wealth and power.

[SnakeBoy]

I don't like the flat tax idea, as it's rather regressive. (The guy making 70K per year would have more value from the 10% taken from him than the guy making 200K per year.)


I don't either. I said a flat progressive tax rate.

[101A]

I don't either. I said a flat progressive tax rate.

Got some brackets in mind?

[RandomGuy]

I have been inspired by RandomGuy’s post to CosmicCowboy in the “Letter to the RNC” thread:



This country has real problems, and its citizens recognize that. And yet, we have just held a "monumental" election in which nothing changed. The executive and both houses of Congress are still controlled by the same partisan, self-interested factions that controlled them last week. The entirety of our Government is controlled by the two parties that have collectively gotten us to the point we are at today.

We are in debt. Each of us doesn't trust half of our elected representatives - or our fellow citizens. Class divisions are getting worse, more and more Americans feel there is no hope of a better tomorrow for themselves, or their children. Income IS being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, while at the other end of the spectrum, permanent poverty and dependency on Government for basic needs – from cradle to grave - is increasing along with the illegitimacy rate. Hope and Change? No.

The problems are myriad and immense. It doesn't matter, ultimately, how we got here; because here we are.

The good news is our founders did give us a way to fix things; to get them back under control. We have the rights of free speech and assembly; and with the internet those rights are made exponentially more potent. Barrack Obama just won the presidency with ~60 million votes. Gangnam Style has over ten times that many views!

We also have the right to vote.

I have not had a candidate to vote for these past two presidential elections (and, honestly, I have never had a candidate I was actually excited to vote for).

I also note that most of the people on this board, reflecting the population at large, voted against a candidate in this election, and not for a candidate.

The problem is, frankly, the tribal mentality - Red vs Blue - pick a side, and stick to it on every subject. If you're against abortion, you are probably for capital punishment. If you are against cutting entitlements, you are against cutting taxes. If you are against water-boarding, you are probably for legalizing marijuana, etc...

What we need is a new party. This new party must pull from both tribes; otherwise it cannot work. If a conservative knows voting for Ron Paul means that Obama is more likely to win; he simply holds his nose and votes for Romney, while if a liberal would really like to vote Green, but is terrified of Paul Ryan being VP - they vote for Obama. If those two citizens, however, were reasonably assured that the third party vote wasn’t taking exclusively from only one of the traditional parties; they would be much more likely to vote that way.

I know that in the instances when we have a thread that does not devolve into a Red Team/Blue Team shout/insult-fest - common ground is often found between people of different political persuasions. A reasonable solution can be found to most issues - and most Americans would agree with those solutions, in my opinion.

This forum, I feel, is a great test-bed for this theory.

I would like to try to build a platform for the "Responsible" party. The platform, ultimately, should be reasonably comprehensive; but should never take a position on personal issues that divide us; distracting and obstructing us from finding solutions unnecessarily. Abortion is the most obvious taboo subject here; if the platform were to take a position, we are immediately divided; to NOT take a position is the "Responsible" course of action.
After the platform is developed, we’ll post it (responsibleparty.org and .com are available); – and spread its existence through the internet on boards like this, blogs, etc…also with letters to the editor in small town newspapers all over the country (they’ll print just about anything; and people in those towns read them). Then, we send out pleas to million and billionaires all over the country (thanks to Citizen’s United, we only need ONE).

The first order of business is to choose a mascot:
I nominate The Bald Eagle. Amazed neither of the other has ever chosen it; but the eagle is a hell of a responsible animal. Mother and father both take care of the young, they keep their house up, and don't take shit from anyone.

WibmcsEGLKo

Interesting bit. FWIW. An oft-forgotten bit of Chaplains work.

[101A]

WibmcsEGLKo

Interesting bit. FWIW. An oft-forgotten bit of Chaplains work.

Great speech. The only issue I have is with the line "Do away with greed". I think greed simply is. It is hard-wired. It is powerful. If you believe in evolution, IMO, you have to agree, in some part, with that.

The goal is to harness greed for productivity and wealth it can create for everyone - so that its benefits aren't concentrated in too few hands. If you stifle it completely, you fail to get any benefit from it whatsoever.

[SnakeBoy]

So you would say that Drachen's household, making $70K, isn't middle class? The median is $50K... so $70K is certainly middle class. What you're really saying is that the middle class can't/shouldn't be able to expect to save enough for retirement.

What do you think is enough to life a middle class lifestyle through retirement? Because if it's over 85K, you've just hit the top 25% percentile, which would mean that 75% of America is lower/lower-middle class.

No, what I am saying is median income does not equal middle class and middle class income should be an amount that does let a typical family save enough for retirement and accumulate some wealth. This is what the middle class has historically been able to do. I think I put middle class starting around 100k in the other thread so yeah I believe the majority of america is what I would call working class, that is they can live a decent life paycheck to paycheck. I put myself on the upper end of middle class so I think the 250K cutoff is about right. Drachen and I live essentially the same lifestyle, the difference is we can save enough to continue our exact lifestyle(or better) throughout retirement.

[SnakeBoy]

.

[101A]

No, what I am saying is median income does not equal middle class and middle class income should be an amount that does let a typical family save enough for retirement and accumulate some wealth. This is what the middle class has historically been able to do. I think I put middle class starting around 100k in the other thread so yeah I believe the majority of america is what I would call working class, that is they can live a decent life paycheck to paycheck. I put myself on the upper end of middle class so I think the 250K cutoff is about right. Drachen and I live essentially the same lifestyle, the difference is we can save enough to continue our exact lifestyle throughout retirement.

I think I'm getting you.

You're not arguing for a more elitist definition of middle class; you're saying that the way things are SUCKS for most, and that the sea needs to rise significantly for everyone; that the "middle" has become "lower" in practice.

[LnGrrrR]

I don't either. I said a flat progressive tax rate.

Ah, I misread that then. My bad.

[LnGrrrR]

No, what I am saying is median income does not equal middle class and middle class income should be an amount that does let a typical family save enough for retirement and accumulate some wealth. This is what the middle class has historically been able to do. I think I put middle class starting around 100k in the other thread so yeah I believe the majority of america is what I would call working class, that is they can live a decent life paycheck to paycheck. I put myself on the upper end of middle class so I think the 250K cutoff is about right. Drachen and I live essentially the same lifestyle, the difference is we can save enough to continue our exact lifestyle(or better) throughout retirement.

I think I'd have to disagree with you then on the definition of "middle-class". I believe that we should think of the middle-class as... well... the middle percentage of the nation. Right now, your definition of middle-class is from the top 20% to the top 2%. I'd say part of that is "upper-class". (And yes, that would mean that the "upper-class" is the only class capable of comfortably saving for retirement.) It's somewhat semantics, but I think the designator distinctions are important.

[Drachen]

I don't think it really matters what middle class or upper class is, in relation to this conversation. Income distribution is far more important as we can't base tax rates on subjective titles, but need to base it on objective data.

Plus SnakeBoy I am sure that you have a better car you fucking richer! :lol

just kidding, I couldn't see myself driving anything significantly more expensive than I drive now, because it provides no extra benefit to me.

[SnakeBoy]

I thought they were bad ass killing machines; grabbing fish out of mid swim, rabbits on the run; small goats......

They can do those things. So they are perfectly capable of providing for themselves but most of the time they prefer to take the easy road and scavenge off of others hard work. The perfect american symbol I guess.

[Drachen]

They can do those things. So they are perfectly capable of providing for themselves but most of the time they prefer to take the easy road and scavenge off of others hard work. The perfect american symbol I guess.

AMERICA! fuck yeah?

[leemajors]

Scavengers are also play a very important role in any ecosystem. Winged planet also has some footage of hyenas storming flocks of flamingos and just snapping them out of the air. I had never seen that before.

[boutons_deux]

middle class as "what feels comfortable" is silly

middle class should more definitive, quantitative, like the middle 33% of the income range. the middle "turd tile"?

[RandomGuy]

Great speech. The only issue I have is with the line "Do away with greed". I think greed simply is. It is hard-wired. It is powerful. If you believe in evolution, IMO, you have to agree, in some part, with that.

The goal is to harness greed for productivity and wealth it can create for everyone - so that its benefits aren't concentrated in too few hands. If you stifle it completely, you fail to get any benefit from it whatsoever.

To some extent, yes.

Rampant materialism though is not a moral or ethical way to go. (shudders) Watch the real housewives of whatthefuckever once, and the shocking amount of money and time they spend on shoes is enough to make one nauseated, when one considers the crushing poverty in the world.

There must be a balance. Desire for self-improvement and betterment, yes, outright greed and hollow materialism no. I would guess we probably agree on that.

[Drachen]

To some extent, yes.

Rampant materialism though is not a moral or ethical way to go. (shudders) Watch the real housewives of whatthefuckever once, and the shocking amount of money and time they spend on shoes is enough to make one nauseated, when one considers the crushing poverty in the world.

There must be a balance. Desire for self-improvement and betterment, yes, outright greed and hollow materialism no. I would guess we probably agree on that.

Compassion was one of the required tenets of Adam Smith's Capitalist.

[ploto]

I will admit that I am off-put by the definition of middle class involving an ability to live a certain lifestyle. I grew up very, very middle class, but no one today would call that middle class. We never went out to eat - not even fast food. My parents drove 2 really, really old cars. Kids wore hand me downs from their siblings. We did not really go on vacation. A trip to the river in New Braunfels was about it.

But I grew up in NISD and all my friends lived that way. That is what the middle class did.

[101A]

To some extent, yes.

Rampant materialism though is not a moral or ethical way to go. (shudders) Watch the real housewives of whatthefuckever once, and the shocking amount of money and time they spend on shoes is enough to make one nauseated, when one considers the crushing poverty in the world.

There must be a balance. Desire for self-improvement and betterment, yes, outright greed and hollow materialism no. I would guess we probably agree on that.

Yes, we do.

[SnakeBoy]

I think I'm getting you.

You're not arguing for a more elitist definition of middle class; you're saying that the way things are SUCKS for most, and that the sea needs to rise significantly for everyone; that the "middle" has become "lower" in practice.

Exactly, in my definition either median income has to go up or the cost of living has to come down in order to restore the "middle class".

[SnakeBoy]

Plus SnakeBoy I am sure that you have a better car you fucking richer! :lol


2000 F250 diesel crew cab. I went to look at getting a new one, I paid 40K for mine now they are $70k...fuck! I'll drive this until it dies then I don't know. I'm not paying 70k for a truck.

[Drachen]

2000 F250 diesel crew cab. I went to look at getting a new one, I paid 40K for mine now they are $70k...fuck! I'll drive this until it dies then I don't know. I'm not paying 70k for a truck.

You seem like a Fiat 500 sort. You should try that out. :lol

[Th'Pusher]

Exactly, in my definition either median income has to go up or the cost of living has to come down in order to restore the "middle class".

Agreed, but COL is not going down so what is the best policy for bringing median income up?

[boutons_deux]

"the best policy for bringing median income up"

kill all the "right to work" laws. Make the right to form unions a Federal law. demonizing and busting unions how the UCA forced wages down. r-t-w states ALL have lower avg wages than other states, as always intended.

$15K/year taken off the top of the avg family of four just for health insurnace, going to $20K by 2020.

A hard core public option and medicare for all would make a huge dent in the above wealth transfer to gouging medical sector.

[LnGrrrR]

2000 F250 diesel crew cab. I went to look at getting a new one, I paid 40K for mine now they are $70k...fuck! I'll drive this until it dies then I don't know. I'm not paying 70k for a truck.

Ha! I'm driving a 2006 Pontiac G6 GTP. The wife and I would love to get a Mazda CX-9 (used they're not bad, roughly 25K) but we're so close to having the Pontiac paid off (another 3K or so) and we don't really feel like going back into that much debt. We figure we'll just roll with this one for a few more years, and then maybe pick up a crossover SUV when the kids get older and need more space in the car for their stuff. :D

[SnakeBoy]

Agreed, but COL is not going down so what is the best policy for bringing median income up?

If I had that answer I'd run for office.

[101A]

Ha! I'm driving a 2006 Pontiac G6 GTP. The wife and I would love to get a Mazda CX-9 (used they're not bad, roughly 25K) but we're so close to having the Pontiac paid off (another 3K or so) and we don't really feel like going back into that much debt. We figure we'll just roll with this one for a few more years, and then maybe pick up a crossover SUV when the kids get older and need more space in the car for their stuff. :D

Just come to the dark side. '03 Baby Blue Honda Odyssey - fits the wife, three kids, two of their friends, balls, bats, groceries, oh, and the animated corpse representing the guy that used to be me having a life. Have a 44 magnum not so much for home defense, but to keep my testosterone levels from falling too far. It's not working, btw.

[101A]

No shit - at this moment I have two windows open on my screen; one ST; the other:

http://programyourremote.com/classified/DisplayAd.asp?id=2088

[Drachen]

Just come to the dark side. '03 Baby Blue Honda Odyssey - fits the wife, three kids, two of their friends, balls, bats, groceries, oh, and the animated corpse representing the guy that used to be me having a life. Have a 44 magnum not so much for home defense, but to keep my testosterone levels from falling too far. It's not working, btw.

Oh-7 Pale Gold Dodge Grand Caravan here. The way I explain it, the stow and go seating provides a large flat surface which is good to get a little while on the road. The way reality explains it, it would be a pain in the ass to unhook two carseats to stow two of the seats and the kids are almost always in it anyway, so we aren't trying to add psych bills to our expenditures. Luckily, that is my wife's daily. Mine is an 04 hyundai elantra. The stick shift makes me feel manly.

[101A]

Oh-7 Pale Gold Dodge Grand Caravan here. The way I explain it, the stow and go seating provides a large flat surface which is good to get a little while on the road. The way reality explains it, it would be a pain in the ass to unhook two carseats to stow two of the seats and the kids are almost always in it anyway, so we aren't trying to add psych bills to our expenditures. Luckily, that is my wife's daily. Mine is an 04 hyundai elantra. The stick shift makes me feel manly.

An '04 elantra with a stick....yeah, I'd take that.

I'll be honest, our second is an '06 Infiniti QX-56. It's nice, but it, literally stays parked all but 1,000 miles/yr. We use it to pull our travel trailer on the two weekends a year we actually get out; the Odyssey is where I spend most of my time.

Unless it's the summer; then I cruise on my bike (no shit - and with this any respect I might have on this board is shot to hell):


http://www.kymcousa.com/showroom/scooters/people150/people150-Studio.jpg

[Drachen]

Well, for my bike, I was on this
http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/ss258/Drachen808/CAM_0565.jpg

but it broke down and I didn't have the time to fix it, so I sold it and am back on this

http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/ss258/Drachen808/CAM_0568.jpg


(yes, I know, my garage was really jacked up when I took these pics)

[ploto]

...the cost of living has to come down in order to restore the "middle class".
or maybe the standard of living.

[boutons_deux]

"the cost of living has to come down in order to restore the "middle class"."

ain't gonna happpen, ever. that's cost deflation, never good.

To restore the middle class, the wealth being sucked out of Human-Americans by shylockian, predatory, vampire-squid financial sector and the health sector must be stopped, giving people more money to spend on crap, the engine of American economy.

[Wild Cobra]

or maybe the standard of living.
The standard of living is diminishing, as we keep buying cheap imports.

[ElNono]

The standard of living is diminishing, as we keep buying cheap imports.

uh? :lol

[AFBlue]

I would like to try to build a platform for the "Responsible" party. The platform, ultimately, should be reasonably comprehensive; but should never take a position on personal issues that divide us; distracting and obstructing us from finding solutions unnecessarily. Abortion is the most obvious taboo subject here; if the platform were to take a position, we are immediately divided; to NOT take a position is the "Responsible" course of action.

The problem with your scenario is that you're not starting with a blank slate. So, by not choosing a position you're effectively going forward with the status quo, which is actually in effect a position. This party also doesn't exist in a vacuum, so regardless of whether you proactively legislate on an issue, the issue will be brought to you by others. I suppose you can simply abstain in a legislative role, but that's not an option when you're the Chief Executive. Same theory applies for appointment of Supreme Court Justices.

I just don't see how you could realistically pull off the "I don't have a position on that" position and get elected to a post where you have to make decisions.

[LnGrrrR]

Just come to the dark side. '03 Baby Blue Honda Odyssey - fits the wife, three kids, two of their friends, balls, bats, groceries, oh, and the animated corpse representing the guy that used to be me having a life. Have a 44 magnum not so much for home defense, but to keep my testosterone levels from falling too far. It's not working, btw.

:lol I don't care about getting a van... it's my wife that doesn't want to look like a "soccer mom" quite yet. I keep telling her that she'll be a soccer mom in a few years anyways (kids are now 3 and 1) but she said we can buy the van THEN.

[boutons_deux]

As Jon Stewart said, Repugs swept The Conferate States :lol

Obama Swept States With The Most Educated Workforces And The Highest Paid Teachers (http://thinkprogress.org/education/2012/11/09/1170241/obama-education-2012/)Of the 10 most educated states (http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2012/10/15/americas-best-and-worst-educated-states/), measured by the percentage of residents over 25 years old who have a bachelor’s degree or higher, Obama swept all 10.

Conversely, among the 10 least educated states, Obama lost 9 states.

Similarly, states that invested the most in teachers went overwhelmingly for Obama.

He swept the 10 states with highest average public school teacher salaries (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/rankings.html).

Among states in the bottom 10 for average teacher salaries, Obama won just one.

http://thinkprogress.org/education/2012/11/09/1170241/obama-education-2012/

Repugs' demographic base is uneducated, rural, text-adoring, "Christian", low-paid, non-unionized, right-to-work.

[Wild Cobra]

uh? :lol
I know.

It's over your head, and I don't feel like elaborating as it would take a few paragraphs.

[ElNono]

It's over your head, and I don't feel like elaborating as it would take a few paragraphs.

How does buying cheaper (iow: getting more for your dollars) diminishes the standard of living?

Sounds exactly the opposite.

[101A]

The problem with your scenario is that you're not starting with a blank slate. So, by not choosing a position you're effectively going forward with the status quo, which is actually in effect a position. This party also doesn't exist in a vacuum, so regardless of whether you proactively legislate on an issue, the issue will be brought to you by others. I suppose you can simply abstain in a legislative role, but that's not an option when you're the Chief Executive. Same theory applies for appointment of Supreme Court Justices.

I just don't see how you could realistically pull off the "I don't have a position on that" position and get elected to a post where you have to make decisions.

Individual candidates of the party are able to take positions themselves; the party would not include positions on certain personal choice issues in its platform, or make it a legislative agenda to enact them. For instance, again regarding abortion: It would not be in the party's platform to have Roe V. Wade overturned. It also wouldn't say: "We support a woman's right to choose".

I would think capital punishment would be another position left out of the platform. Candidates, however, are free to have their own opinions; but they would not be able to assume the backing of the rest of the party when they pushed for legislation on one of those issues.

As for supreme court judges, the platform would have a "no litmus test" clause, but not much else. I understand that we are hard wired to think in terms of "liberal judge" or "conservative judge"; I don't think it has to be that way.