Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'm libertarian you fool. The issue is how the voting system works. Not how campaigns for the democrat and republican party are funded. You are chasing the money, when the problem is systemic. Eliminate all money in campaigns and NOTHING WILL CHANGE.I am an Independent. The problem is allowing whomever can be bribed with the most "campaign contributions" "wins". Time to outlaw all campaign contributions and give all candidates who can come up with sufficient signatures on a petition the exact same funding. No other funds from any source allowed.
Your accusations have no merit, you might as well be accusing Bush of blowing up the twin towers. How many signatures is "sufficient" and how would they go about getting them? With money from bribed contributions?
The concept of being an independent and having honest and open elections seems to be beyond your partisan grasp. Have a nice day.
I'm libertarian you fool. The issue is how the voting system works. Not how campaigns for the democrat and republican party are funded.Your accusations have no merit, you might as well be accusing Bush of blowing up the twin towers. How many signatures is "sufficient" and how would they go about getting them? With money from bribed contributions?
The concept of being an independent and having honest and open elections seems to be beyond your partisan grasp. Have a nice day.
I'm libertarian you fool. The issue is how the voting system works. Not how campaigns for the democrat and republican party are funded.The concept of being an independent and having honest and open elections seems to be beyond your partisan grasp. Have a nice day.
Thank you for confirming my point! Have a nice day!
I'm libertarian you fool. The issue is how the voting system works. Not how campaigns for the democrat and republican party are funded.
Thank you for confirming my point! Have a nice day!
I declare, I win. ROFL
Anyone who measures success in life by wealth alone, has no character at all.Thank you for confirming my point! Have a nice day!
I declare, I win. ROFL
The only winners are the wealthy and you blindly support that status quo. I would ask you to think about it but that would be pointless!
No, we need more revenue and less spending. Though one could argue the bottom 51% should have some responsibility above zero for funding their government.
Why do we need less spending?
Are the rich not rich enough? Are their private jets and multiple mcmansions, and million dollar cars and $10,000 watches insufficient somehow?
Yes, the rich do not have enough money to fund the spending of our government.
No, we need more revenue and less spending. Though one could argue the bottom 51% should have some responsibility above zero for funding their government.
It seems like you should return to poverty so you can cut back on taxes. You said that being poor was easy and now you're saying that being wealthy is hard because of taxes. Give yourself a break. Rejoin the poor.
You must have missed my declaration that I already cut way back on my income, and I don't plan on working to bring it back up. Well maybe after Obama leaves, then again maybe not. What's the point of working for more than what you need? Especially when most of the people who appear to have need are really just being lazy. I agree with you, let's all be lazy. Let the kids work. I made enough changes to reduce my federal tax burden from 30+ effective to around 15 effective. Pretty cool. Work less (40hrs) get paid less (than a job that expects 60hrs), don't have to pay top rates +AMT + loose all the college education tax breaks. Sole one of my houses too so less local taxes, and stopped buying new toys each year to less in sales taxes. All in all I don't miss the money at all.
Being somewhat lazier (just a regular job) is is so much easier.
we need higher taxes.
No, we need more revenue and less spending. Though one could argue the bottom 51% should have some responsibility above zero for funding their government.
More revenue from whom exactly? The bottom 51% can't afford to pay higher taxes because they can barely make ends meet as it is and FYI they do pay FICA and Medicare taxes.
the 2008 crash was caused by you democrats trying to control housing pricing.Fine. By your measure if we eliminate FICA and Medicare the 51% could afford taxes. Put half the money they are paying now (the company %), into an interest bearing account (401k) and use the other half for taxes. There you go. Use the same amount of money more efficiently, and voila problem solved.
Ask anyone whose 401k was hurt by the 2008 economic collapse if they want to risk entrusting half of their social security to the Wall St casino and you won't find many takers. That isn't using "money more efficiently". It is like betting with it at a Vega casino with even worse odds against you. But thanks for letting us know that you don't have any real answers as to where this additional revenue is supposed to come from.
I'm libertarian you fool. The issue is how the voting system works. Not how campaigns for the democrat and republican party are funded. You are chasing the money, when the problem is systemic. Eliminate all money in campaigns and NOTHING WILL CHANGE.Your accusations have no merit, you might as well be accusing Bush of blowing up the twin towers. How many signatures is "sufficient" and how would they go about getting them? With money from bribed contributions?
The concept of being an independent and having honest and open elections seems to be beyond your partisan grasp. Have a nice day.
Yes, the rich do not have enough money to fund the spending of our government.
In which case they need to stop bribing politicians to spend so much money on corporate welfare and defense.
If people want to spend their money legally selling corporate welfare to congress, that's just tough isn't it? It's not your money, you need to get over it. You want to fix it, fix how our voting system works. It's designed to keep two parties fat and happy and in power.
Fine. By your measure if we eliminate FICA and Medicare the 51% could afford taxes. Put half the money they are paying now (the company %), into an interest bearing account (401k) and use the other half for taxes. There you go. Use the same amount of money more efficiently, and voila problem solved.
Ask anyone whose 401k was hurt by the 2008 economic collapse if they want to risk entrusting half of their social security to the Wall St casino and you won't find many takers. That isn't using "money more efficiently". It is like betting with it at a Vega casino with even worse odds against you. But thanks for letting us know that you don't have any real answers as to where this additional revenue is supposed to come from.
Uhm.. hello McFly... hello!!! 1) Stocks are not the only type of investment for 401k savings. 2) The only people who lost out during the 2008 crash were the dolts that sold out at the bottom.
Anyone who measures success in life by wealth alone, has no character at all.I declare, I win. ROFL
The only winners are the wealthy and you blindly support that status quo. I would ask you to think about it but that would be pointless!
Anyone who measures success in life by wealth alone, has no character at all.The only winners are the wealthy and you blindly support that status quo. I would ask you to think about it but that would be pointless!
Ironic coming from a wealth obsessed Republican!
A third party is pretty much impossible as long as we have the electoral college in presidential races.
The only way you could do a two party system say between the tea party and establishment GOP is if they did a primary within their parties and then the two nominees primaried against each other and then FINALLY go against the democrat in the general election. It would be a total mess.
A third party is pretty much impossible as long as we have the electoral college in presidential races.
The only way you could do a two party system say between the tea party and establishment GOP is if they did a primary within their parties and then the two nominees primaried against each other and then FINALLY go against the democrat in the general election. It would be a total mess.
'' A third party is pretty much impossible as long as we have the electoral college in presidential races.''
Why?
A third party is pretty much impossible as long as we have the electoral college in presidential races.
The only way you could do a two party system say between the tea party and establishment GOP is if they did a primary within their parties and then the two nominees primaried against each other and then FINALLY go against the democrat in the general election. It would be a total mess.
'' A third party is pretty much impossible as long as we have the electoral college in presidential races.''
Why?
Because if you had two conservative leaning nominees and one liberal leaning niminee...the conservative's voting block becomes divided while the liberal's remains united.
Just look at Ralph Nader and Al Gore in 2000. There are states Al Gore would've won if Nader wasn't on the ballot, but since the liberal leaning people voted for Nader instead of Gore, Bush won the election in key states (Including in Florida).
Ralph Nader wasn't even in a "major" party...just imagine if you had a tea party taking 45% of the conservative vote and the establishment GOP taking 55%...you end up with numbers like
45% Democrat
30% Establishment GOP
25% Tea Party
The Democrat would win ONLY because there was a third candidate on the conservative side.
The Republican Party needs to learn that we are a democracy, not a plutocracy. We are governed of the people, by the people, for the people. We don't do plutocrats, aristocrats or royalty. We pass laws democratically and are a land of law.
They think that from the position of a small majority in the house, they are entitled to impose on the middle class what is best for the wealthy.
They need to be taught. They need us the creators of wealth, the middle class, the workers. We don't need them. If they can't live with democracy, move.
The middle class built this country and defended this country and created our democracy from their plutocracy. When they said that they needed to own people to do their work, we said no. When they said that women aren't fit to vote we said no. When they said poor people have fewer rights than rich people we said no. When they said that education is only needed for the special ones, we said no. When they said only wealth entitles people to health care, we said no.
Now they are saying that our government is theirs, and only they should decide what we can afford. That if we don't have bread we should eat cake.
This is not new. What would be new would be a middle class who didn't know how to treat people who felt entitled.
The House needs to be taught right now that it's not their country. They need to feel democracy on election days. They need to be shown that they may think that they are entitled, but as long as there is an American middle class, we will manage our government just fine.
