General US Politics

[Naglfar94]

Here's what you can do, if you're old enough to vote:

1. Keep an eye on the GOP. Figure out who's the most likely guy NOT named Trump to get in.

2. Register Republican during the primary election.

3. Vote Other Guy.

Seriously thinking about doing this, and letting the Democratic party sort themselves out.

Ah okay sounds like a sound thing to do for my first time thanks! I can`t wait to vote I`ve always watched others do it but never could myself so this is great!

[Radiant head]

Trump doesn't strike me as particularly worse than the other republicans. If anything Cruz scares me way more.

[Phoenix Wright]

I'm not sure what mathematics you are using, but statistically, a flat tax is the most fair and balanced tax there is for many reasons.

i admit it's simple arithmetic but it was outlined in the article you skimmed. the lower classes would pay disproportionately more than the rich. i suspect "statistically" is just a buzzword considering you never quoted any statistics, or actually even one data point in the arguments you gave.

First: The rich would be hurt the MOST by the flat tax. On the surface, yes, the highest brackets are taxed at a greater percentage than the lower tax brackets, this much is fact. However, with our convoluted tax code, people who make the most money also abuse tax loopholes, deductions, and the like to lower their tax obligation. This was a big issue a few years ago when left-winged liberal business owner and economic "guru" Warren Buffet claimed that many rich individuals and businesses were abusing tax laws to the point that they actually paid, percentage-wise, LESS than the middle class. This is because there are so many ways to reduce tax responsibility that are available to the super-rich that the lesser income people have no access to. A flat tax would actually harm these people more than help, because they would officially have no loopholes or deductions to hide from. Ergo, logically, it is fair to say that compared to the current tax code, a flat tax IS more fair.

this is neither an argument for a flat tax, nor against a progressive tax. it's more of an argument for why a flat tax is better than a poorly implemented progressive tax, but that's not very useful to anyone. anyway, i don't see anything cited, more over i don't see why i have to care what warren buffet has to say; what has been said, then, one can only assume is what may be the case. given that you made the claim, i'll let you dig for the info.

Second: If you had read Rand Paul's tax plan (which you can google), you would see that he does include a standard deduction in his tax plan. According to his plan, a family of four will have a standard deduction of up to the first $50,000 of the household income. In the current tax plan that we have, a couple filing jointly only has a standard deduction of $12,600. That is an inequality of $37,400, where families between the incomes of $12,601-$49,999 would have a tax obligation whereas in Rand's flat tax plan, these people would not.

good, so he's not completely for destroying poor people's lives. i can jive with that. admittedly, i don't know much about us tax codes, of which i really have no excuse for not knowing, but my mom makes sub $40k and she (i'm pretty sure) doesn't have a federal tax obligation. so when i have time these things are worth looking into. even still, you quoted numbers but provided no sources. again, i admit to not being familiar with tax law, and that i may be wrong.

Third: Rand's flat tax is a flat out 14.5% tax rate. The current tax brackets have a household who has more than $17,850 in taxable income, which is an annual household income of $12,000+$17,850 or $39,850, paying a 15% tax rate. Might I repeat that a household who makes $39,850 in Rand's flat-tax plan would have zero tax obligation, rather than having to pay almost $3,000 in taxes in the current plan.

sources?

Fourth: Rand's flat tax plan would eliminate other miscellaneous taxes. Using a personal anecdote as an example (and not as a statement of fact), my income is a perfect example. In the 2014 tax year, I made roughly $27,000. After applying the $12,000 standard deduction, my taxable income was $15,000. On the surface, the tax plan says I would only have to pay 10% in taxes, or $1,500. However, this ignores the fine nuance of my tax return (and I can guarantee other people/families have similar nuances). Part of my income come from dividends from mutual funds (taxed at 35%), capital gains from selling and re-investing stocks (also taxed at 35%), interest paid from my savings accounts (not sure of the tax rate on this, but I think it's taxed similarly to dividends), and self-employed contractor income. The contractor income was about $1,200... and of that amount, about $350 of that was taxed (good rule of thumb is that if you're middle class and self-employed, you're actually paying somewhere around 40% in taxes, not 15%). Self-employed people have to pay a payroll tax on top of their income tax obligation. I'm not exactly sure what my tax obligation was last year, but someone such as myself last year would have had absolutely ZERO tax obligation in Rand's tax plan.

ok, so?

In summation, it is safe to say that a flat tax like the one Rand Paul proposed is MUCH more effective than the current tax plan. In addition, I skimmed the link you provided. Normally, I would have been skeptical, because Daily Kos is about as reliable as Huffington Post in publishing unbiased articles (read: they're not). As I skimmed the article, I find that many of the points that make Rand Paul's tax plan more efficient is actually outlined in the Daily Kos article. Yes, there is a wealth inequality, but the flat tax is FAR superior to the archaic and convoluted tax code we have now in making sure people are paying their fair share.

using no sources, no statistics, and no attempt at understanding and reflecting on the opposing argument, you have indeed shown rand's plan is fair, balanced, and has everyone paying their fair share in taxes. :) congrats.

Clinics, such as Planned Parenthood, should not be funded by federal funding. Aside from the controversial leaked video of the members of the organization speaking of the fate of aborted fetuses, Planned Parenthood is registered as a tax-free 501c-3 not-for-profit organization. This becomes an issue, because Planned Parenthood does make profit from the services they provide since they do not provide all their services for free.

what?

Grocery stores can and SHOULD have every right to discriminate in any way they want. This applies to any business that is not government service. They are not public sector; they are private sector. If you do not agree with the business's practice, simply do not patronize the business and go somewhere else. I disagree with a company's businesses practice, but I respect a company's choice to run a business how they wish. I do not condone the ethics that Wal-Mart employs in treating their employees; therefore, I never shop at Wal-Mart and do my business elsewhere.

A famous example that happened would be Geno's cheesesteaks in Philadelphia (famous in the area and to a lesser degree in the rest of the country for having an eternal rivalry with Pat's Cheesesteaks for having the best cheesesteak in Philadelphia). After 9/11, Geno's refused service to Muslim customers in retaliation for the attack on the Twin Towers. This controversial practice made national headlines and many people condemned the business for their xenophobic actions. The result? Many people who went to patronize Philly for their cheesesteaks went to their big competition across the street, Pat's Cheesesteaks. Geno's lost a great deal of business over their unpopular business practice. This type of free market philosophy in allowing the consumer to choose where to go and naturally let the bad businesses flounder and potentially die is a prime example of why a business should be allowed to perform whatever practice they wish.

those laws exist to protect minority groups. one could remember a time when de jure rules forced blacks to go to different schools (private or public), drink from different fountains (private or public), eat at different restaurants, and give up their seats to whites on public transportation (in addition to de facto discrimination). i'm happy for pat, seems like a swell dude, but the fact is muslims were still treated unfairly. there should be laws to prevent that, rather than waiting for the free market to take its course, which is unpredictable and can result in very negative consequences. why assume something good will happen later on when you can make something good happen now? in other words, why not give rights now to minority groups because we know we're equal, rather than wait, even though it may never happen?

EDIT: Creepy that this post is post #666...

well, it does come after #665........

Here's what you can do, if you're old enough to vote:

1. Keep an eye on the GOP. Figure out who's the most likely guy NOT named Trump to get in.

2. Register Republican during the primary election.

3. Vote Other Guy.

Seriously thinking about doing this, and letting the Democratic party sort themselves out.

ughhhhhhh i learned about doing this in highschool but i can't remember what the term is now i can't google it and show that it's a bad practice to do this. it generally boils down to playing to win vs playing to not lose; playing to win is the safer route. point is, vote for who you want to be president most so that they have the maximum support.

Ah okay sounds like a sound thing to do for my first time thanks! I can`t wait to vote I`ve always watched others do it but never could myself so this is great!

if you want bernie, vote bernie. bernie needs the votes more than trump can afford to lose votes to other candidates. (above argument, in other words) Edited January 28, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[Yojinbo]

Trump doesn't strike me as particularly worse than the other republicans. If anything Cruz scares me way more.

I'd say the same thing about Hillary but I'm probably biased because as non-US citizen I care mostly about foreign policies and Hillary is just as terrible in that regard as most republican candidates.

[Anouleth]

I'm not sure what mathematics you are using, but statistically, a flat tax is the most fair and balanced tax there is for many reasons.

First: The rich would be hurt the MOST by the flat tax. On the surface, yes, the highest brackets are taxed at a greater percentage than the lower tax brackets, this much is fact. However, with our convoluted tax code, people who make the most money also abuse tax loopholes, deductions, and the like to lower their tax obligation. This was a big issue a few years ago when left-winged liberal business owner and economic "guru" Warren Buffet claimed that many rich individuals and businesses were abusing tax laws to the point that they actually paid, percentage-wise, LESS than the middle class. This is because there are so many ways to reduce tax responsibility that are available to the super-rich that the lesser income people have no access to. A flat tax would actually harm these people more than help, because they would officially have no loopholes or deductions to hide from. Ergo, logically, it is fair to say that compared to the current tax code, a flat tax IS more fair.

I agree that reducing the various loopholes and deductions in the tax code would be desirable (with maybe leaving in the charitable donation exception), but I would like to see it be at least somewhat progressive.

Also even according to a right-wing author that likes the tax plan overall, it's not really flat (since the big deductions for health insurance and mortgages are still in there), it will benefit the rich more than the poor, and it will cost billions.

Grocery stores can and SHOULD have every right to discriminate in any way they want. This applies to any business that is not government service. They are not public sector; they are private sector. If you do not agree with the business's practice, simply do not patronize the business and go somewhere else. I disagree with a company's businesses practice, but I respect a company's choice to run a business how they wish. I do not condone the ethics that Wal-Mart employs in treating their employees; therefore, I never shop at Wal-Mart and do my business elsewhere.

A famous example that happened would be Geno's cheesesteaks in Philadelphia (famous in the area and to a lesser degree in the rest of the country for having an eternal rivalry with Pat's Cheesesteaks for having the best cheesesteak in Philadelphia). After 9/11, Geno's refused service to Muslim customers in retaliation for the attack on the Twin Towers. This controversial practice made national headlines and many people condemned the business for their xenophobic actions. The result? Many people who went to patronize Philly for their cheesesteaks went to their big competition across the street, Pat's Cheesesteaks. Geno's lost a great deal of business over their unpopular business practice. This type of free market philosophy in allowing the consumer to choose where to go and naturally let the bad businesses flounder and potentially die is a prime example of why a business should be allowed to perform whatever practice they wish.

Relying on public opinion to punish private businesses for discriminating is as effective as relying on public opinion to punish politicians for governing badly. Sometimes discriminatory practices become publicized and customers vote with their feet in a way that corrects discrimination. Other times, the public aren't informed or don't care. And sometimes the public is misinformed and will punish the wrong business! A restaurant is a good example of when it's easy to discriminate against a business whose practices you disapprove of; eating out is a luxury and a social activity meaning it can be used to signal, restaurant-goers have a lot of choice and flexibility, and restaurants rely mainly on their reputation and image to do well. It's a lot rarer that consumers will punish a bank or a chemical manufacturer.

Secondly while I appreciate the right of businesses to discriminate, I think there's also a danger when businesses collude in order to discriminate (for example as businesses in the Jim Crow South colluded to discriminate against blacks). It's one thing for a business to refuse to serve you when you can go elsewhere, but if many businesses refuse to serve or hire you, it's quite another thing.

Edited January 28, 2016 by Anouleth

[-Cynthia-]

Grocery stores can and SHOULD have every right to discriminate in any way they want. This applies to any business that is not government service. They are not public sector; they are private sector. If you do not agree with the business's practice, simply do not patronize the business and go somewhere else. I disagree with a company's businesses practice, but I respect a company's choice to run a business how they wish. I do not condone the ethics that Wal-Mart employs in treating their employees; therefore, I never shop at Wal-Mart and do my business elsewhere.

Some people in the United States also don't have easy access to multiple grocery store locations either due to living in a very rural area or not having access to a car. A small business in a low population area is also less likely to receive press attention that would damage their reputation.

Edited January 29, 2016 by -Cynthia-

[eclipse]

Really unlikely to change the results-Cruz is one legal ruling away from being an invalid runner for President (and regardless of the ruling, his poll value has stopped increasing), and Rubio is too far behind-The most favorable polling for Cruz and Rubio leaves them at 13 and 20 percent behind Trump. No poll is giving Cruz the win on the Iowa caucus this monday, and after that it's gonna be a Trump rollercoaster to nomination.

I'm in a state that's heavily Democratic, so I like my odds. And even if I wasn't, the least I can say is that I tried to do something about it when the shit inevitably hits the fan.

Second, let's pretend that Cruz is taken out of the race. Where do you think his supporters will go?

ughhhhhhh i learned about doing this in highschool but i can't remember what the term is now i can't google it and show that it's a bad practice to do this. it generally boils down to playing to win vs playing to not lose; playing to win is the safer route. point is, vote for who you want to be president most so that they have the maximum support.

That's how it works, in theory. However, that assumes that everyone else will act according to that theory. . .which I guarantee will not happen. Doing what I suggested puts me directly against that theory, but I've got slightly more respect for Cruz than Trump.

The theory also fails because I really don't want any of the guys who are running to be president. So therefore, I have no one who I want to vote for. What I do have is a priority list of who I absolutely do NOT want as president, and the top two spots are taken by Trump and Clinton. Of the two, I think Trump is worse.

[blah the Prussian]

Yeah, sorry, but I don't trust the free market. You are relying on the masses to do the right thing, which very rarely works out well. This particular policy absolutely invites tyranny of the majority.

[Phoenix Wright]

That's how it works, in theory. However, that assumes that everyone else will act according to that theory. . .which I guarantee will not happen. Doing what I suggested puts me directly against that theory, but I've got slightly more respect for Cruz than Trump.

The theory also fails because I really don't want any of the guys who are running to be president. So therefore, I have no one who I want to vote for. What I do have is a priority list of who I absolutely do NOT want as president, and the top two spots are taken by Trump and Clinton. Of the two, I think Trump is worse.

presumably, that's simply how it works. it's better to add support for your own candidate in any given situation. though i'm unsure, i'd be willing to bet that a vast majority of voters stick with the candidate they want rather than playing voting games.

why do you have more respect for cruz? also, what's wrong with sanders? i don't mean to be prying, but i'm curious.

[eclipse]

presumably, that's simply how it works. it's better to add support for your own candidate in any given situation. though i'm unsure, i'd be willing to bet that a vast majority of voters stick with the candidate they want rather than playing voting games.

why do you have more respect for cruz? also, what's wrong with sanders? i don't mean to be prying, but i'm curious.

Cruz - Way back when that church was shot up, some white supremacy groups handed out donations to some of the Republican candidates (it's linked somewhere in Serious Discussion). Cruz refunded them their donation, which is something that stuck with me. It's not much in the grand scheme of things, and quite frankly it's a crappy reason to consider voting for someone, but it's better than any impression Trump gave me.

Sanders - Y'know how the Republican Congress dug in its heels because of Obama? It's going to be MUCH worse with Sanders, because he's further to the left (granted, that's still right of center on the World Political Scale). The Red Scare way back when still lingers, so "socialist" will be thrown around like some sort of schoolyard insult. I also heard that his foreign policy isn't the best, and that's kind of important right now. . .

[Yojinbo]

What's wrong with Sanders' foreign policy. People keep talking about it without providing a reason. The way I see it a healthy dose of american non-interventionism is exactly what this world needs right now.

[tuvarkz]

What's wrong with Sanders' foreign policy. People keep talking about it without providing a reason. The way I see it a healthy dose of american non-interventionism is exactly what this world needs right now.

Because the only other alternative is for Putin to do it-Middle Eastern countries won't lift a finger about it.

[Yojinbo]

I don't see the problem with that.

[blah the Prussian]

Because the only other alternative is for Putin to do it-Middle Eastern countries won't lift a finger about it.

Yojinbo already asked, but what is morally wrong with Russia having a sphere of influence in the Middle East? America and Russia should just admit they're in the middle of a massive dick waving contest, with the Middle East as the stage.

[Phoenix Wright]

Cruz - Way back when that church was shot up, some white supremacy groups handed out donations to some of the Republican candidates (it's linked somewhere in Serious Discussion). Cruz refunded them their donation, which is something that stuck with me. It's not much in the grand scheme of things, and quite frankly it's a crappy reason to consider voting for someone, but it's better than any impression Trump gave me.

Sanders - Y'know how the Republican Congress dug in its heels because of Obama? It's going to be MUCH worse with Sanders, because he's further to the left (granted, that's still right of center on the World Political Scale). The Red Scare way back when still lingers, so "socialist" will be thrown around like some sort of schoolyard insult. I also heard that his foreign policy isn't the best, and that's kind of important right now. . .

ah. thanks!

i don't think there's anything wrong with his foreign policy, simply that he doesn't have experience with it. but that's what his team is for.

[FoxwolfJackson]

i admit it's simple arithmetic but it was outlined in the article you skimmed. the lower classes would pay disproportionately more than the rich. i suspect "statistically" is just a buzzword considering you never quoted any statistics, or actually even one data point in the arguments you gave.

this is neither an argument for a flat tax, nor against a progressive tax. it's more of an argument for why a flat tax is better than a poorly implemented progressive tax, but that's not very useful to anyone. anyway, i don't see anything cited, more over i don't see why i have to care what warren buffet has to say; what has been said, then, one can only assume is what may be the case. given that you made the claim, i'll let you dig for the info.

good, so he's not completely for destroying poor people's lives. i can jive with that. admittedly, i don't know much about us tax codes, of which i really have no excuse for not knowing, but my mom makes sub $40k and she (i'm pretty sure) doesn't have a federal tax obligation. so when i have time these things are worth looking into. even still, you quoted numbers but provided no sources. again, i admit to not being familiar with tax law, and that i may be wrong.

My bad. I automatically assumed that since this was a serious discussion and the topic was tax codes that people would have know at least the basic, rudimentary aspects of the tax code. Here, I'll share some links to support my argument.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_bracket#Tax_brackets_in_the_United_States (American Tax Brackets)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deduction#Basic_standard_deduction (Standard Deduction in recent years)

(Yes, I am aware the above links are Wikipedia, but the numbers are taken straight from the government sources and I figured Wikipedia's interface was more familiar to move around and read.)

https://www.randpaul.com/issue/taxes (Rand Paul's tax plan)

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/18/warren-buffett/warren-buffett-says-super-rich-pay-lower-taxes-oth/ (Fact-checking that the rich do indeed pay less taxes than most of the lower classes)

As for your mother making less than $40K and still not paying taxes, it could be because she's part of the Earned Income Credit (not sure of the financial situation, but it's possible), which is also included in Rand's tax plan. I also included my financial situation because you had stated that only the super-rich would support or care for a flat tax, which is simply not true at all. In fact, most people who work as freelancers and contractors in America are taxed a lot more than people who make a lot more and work regular jobs, due to having to pay the payroll tax out of their own pockets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payroll_tax (Source of what the Payroll Tax is, since you'll probably ask for it.)

what?those laws exist to protect minority groups. one could remember a time when de jure rules forced blacks to go to different schools (private or public), drink from different fountains (private or public), eat at different restaurants, and give up their seats to whites on public transportation (in addition to de facto discrimination). i'm happy for pat, seems like a swell dude, but the fact is muslims were still treated unfairly. there should be laws to prevent that, rather than waiting for the free market to take its course, which is unpredictable and can result in very negative consequences. why assume something good will happen later on when you can make something good happen now? in other words, why not give rights now to minority groups because we know we're equal, rather than wait, even though it may never happen?

Busses? Public sector. I'm fine with private sector doing what it wants, but like I said above, public sector is a totally different story, since it is funded by the general public and thus should be a representation of the public itself.

If you really think that non-discrimination laws are going to prevent issues from happening, you really should take a look at how inefficient our judicial system is. Supposing that your theoretical laws were in place to protect the minorities from being discriminated against, a person should have it resolved in civil court, yes. However, do you know how long that process takes? It takes many years. In that time period, while waiting for an attorney to be hired, the case to be built, and an eventual court date down the road that spans multiple court days, a person could really ruin a business and potentially put it out of business through word of mouth, yelp, newspaper editorials, getting a news station to report on it and other forms of media. By the time the court date arrives, if a person really puts in the effort, they could really damage the business long before legal action can even be taken.

Again, anything the public sector can do, the private sector can do better. : )

... except foreign policy and international relations. We do need a government for a reason, after all.

Some people in the United States also don't have easy access to multiple grocery store locations either due to living in a very rural area or not having access to a car. A small business in a low population area is also less likely to receive press attention that would damage their reputation.

That's what friends are for. : )

Seriously, though, if most people asked a person with a car, "Hey, I need a ride to the grocery store, can you take me? I got gas money.", most people would be like "Yeah, sure! When are you free? We can work together and maybe I can get some groceries myself."

That's what being a community is about. Only reason someone wouldn't get help was if they weren't liked in the community, honestly. I have a car, and I'd help people who needed a ride. My girlfriend's even worse in helping random strangers who ask for rides and giving them a ride somewhere. The "location" thing is really a moot argument, unless the WHOLE town/city is like that. In which case, why are you even living there in the first place?

[blah the Prussian]

Uh, these minority laws are not being proposed, they're already in place. They have, in fact, generally enabled black people and other minorities to have access to basic services, like the grocery store.

[Moblin Major General]

What happened to the days where the Democrats were white and racist and the Republicans were trying to get shit done? Now the Republicans are white and racist, and the Democrats are trying to get shit done. I will vote Sanders in the TN Primary, but if he doesn't win, I will abstain from voting in November.

[blah the Prussian]

What happened to the days where the Democrats were white and racist and the Republicans were trying to get shit done? Now the Republicans are white and racist, and the Democrats are trying to get shit done. I will vote Sanders in the TN Primary, but if he doesn't win, I will abstain from voting in November.

Wait, I thought you were libertarian? In any case, the Southern Strategy is probably the biggest reason why, as is the shifting definition of liberalism.

[Moblin Major General]

A liberal libertarian, I believe that people need to leave each other alone, and if they do, the government will do the same. The Government is only entitled to what the people as a whole want, unless it is something that the people didn't know they needed. However, corporations are not people, and don't have rights, but rather privileges, which they should lose upon any illegal or unethical act reach Washington. We also need to demilitarize law enforcement and reform harsh drug laws that have criminalized victims of organized crime. My manifesto falls most in line with Bernie Sanders, but as much as I want to have my ideal America, only about half of what I want is feasible even with considerable reform.

[blah the Prussian]

A liberal libertarian, I believe that people need to leave each other alone, and if they do, the government will do the same. The Government is only entitled to what the people as a whole want, unless it is something that the people didn't know they needed. However, corporations are not people, and don't have rights, but rather privileges, which they should lose upon any illegal or unethical act reach Washington. We also need to demilitarize law enforcement and reform harsh drug laws that have criminalized victims of organized crime. My manifesto falls most in line with Bernie Sanders, but as much as I want to have my ideal America, only about half of what I want is feasible even with considerable reform.

Want or need? If the people want to commit genocide, should the government do that?

[Moblin Major General]

What they need is what I meant, and if nobody is bothering anybody, what significant proportion of people would want to exterminate another? The government has license to do what the people say it can do, not what it should do. That is up to the whole representative body, who would convey concerns about such an event. There are safeguards in place to make sure that logic prevails even in the most extreme situations, unlike in other Western-style democracies (see Weimar Republic).

[Duff Ostrich]

Yeah, sorry, but I don't trust the free market. You are relying on the masses to do the right thing, which very rarely works out well. This particular policy absolutely invites tyranny of the majority.

"Tyranny of the majority" comes from Madison, and it has nothing to do with free markets. Specifically it references the potential failings of the democratic process insofar as the public may at any given time decide to support a tyrannical policy. Therefore Madison thought it wise that some of our inalienable rights were codified in such a way that they were insulated from the whims of popular opinion.

Free markets rather do not rely on the good will or political wisdom of the public. Instead it relies on our vested self interest, which is far easier to predict. Of course there have been times when other powerful motivators like bigotry, fundamentalism or fear seem to take precedence over the self interest of an individual or a group, and that tends to be dangerous.

[CyborgZeta]

Because the only other alternative is for Putin to do it-Middle Eastern countries won't lift a finger about it.

Yeah, so? Let Putin take over getting involved in the Middle East; see how much fun that is.

Even Trump has suggested the US should work together with Russia in Syria. The only candidate to think so.

[Yojinbo]

Free markets rather do not rely on the good will or political wisdom of the public. Instead it relies on our vested self interest, which is far easier to predict.

That doesn't mean it works ...