Obama or Romney ?

[bitcoinbear]

What I would like to see happen: income tax should be flattened, exemptions and credits eliminated so there is a single tax rate for all income. At the same time, the spending should be drastically cut: Close oversea military bases, increase minimum social security receiving age, sell off national parks (preferably to states to make state parks or to non-profits who will care for them), raise the interest rate on student loans, give all federal employees a 10% paycut, and whatever else can be cut. After the tax revenue rises above the spending, the surplus can be used to pay down the debt, eliminating that huge chunk of the budget that goes to debt servicing. After the debt is eliminated, taxes should be lowered (still keeping it as a flat income tax so everybody benefits from the lowering) and governemnt services can be expanded.

Why would you cut taxes for the rich (or punish horribly the middle class) while you are trying to balance the budget.  The only balanced budget in recent memory came from a 39% tax rate for the upper bracket.  It is simple, we have done it before, it WORKS.

Combine the additional revenue with modest across the board cuts including defense and you can get a balanced budget.  Leave student loans as they are, as the rate is ALREADY ABOVE PRIME.  Education is a cost for a functioning society and pays dividends later.  Changes need to be made to how colleges operate and to the very high costs but that is a separate issue.  

I think you misunderstood what I was saying about taxes. My suggestion includes raising the taxes on the wealthy (by removing all the exemptions). I am not suggesting any taxes get cut, until after the budget is balanced and the debt is payed down.

Student loans are already above prime, because they are high risk, and they would be higher if not subsidized. Think about it, we are giving money to people on the hope that they will be able to earn money later. This is very different from most loans, which are given to people who demonstrate they are able to pay on those loans now.

[notme]

What I would like to see happen: income tax should be flattened, exemptions and credits eliminated so there is a single tax rate for all income. At the same time, the spending should be drastically cut: Close oversea military bases, increase minimum social security receiving age, sell off national parks (preferably to states to make state parks or to non-profits who will care for them), raise the interest rate on student loans, give all federal employees a 10% paycut, and whatever else can be cut. After the tax revenue rises above the spending, the surplus can be used to pay down the debt, eliminating that huge chunk of the budget that goes to debt servicing. After the debt is eliminated, taxes should be lowered (still keeping it as a flat income tax so everybody benefits from the lowering) and governemnt services can be expanded.

Why would you cut taxes for the rich (or punish horribly the middle class) while you are trying to balance the budget.  The only balanced budget in recent memory came from a 39% tax rate for the upper bracket.  It is simple, we have done it before, it WORKS.

Combine the additional revenue with modest across the board cuts including defense and you can get a balanced budget.  Leave student loans as they are, as the rate is ALREADY ABOVE PRIME.  Education is a cost for a functioning society and pays dividends later.  Changes need to be made to how colleges operate and to the very high costs but that is a separate issue.  

I think you misunderstood what I was saying about taxes. My suggestion includes raising the taxes on the wealthy (by removing all the exemptions). I am not suggesting any taxes get cut, until after the budget is balanced and the debt is payed down.

Student loans are already above prime, because they are high risk, and they would be higher if not subsidized. Think about it, we are giving money to people on the hope that they will be able to earn money later. This is very different from most loans, which are given to people who demonstrate they are able to pay on those loans now.

That's just the issue.  I have excellent credit, have never had an account in default, and yet I pay the same rate as someone who has shitty credit and pays late constantly.  Lumping all students together is retarded.  We are not all equal.  My loan should be considered very low risk, but there is no market I can take it to that will asses me for what I am.  They see "student loan" and throw it in the pile with all the others.

[firefop]

Why would you cut taxes for the rich (or punish horribly the middle class) while you are trying to balance the budget.  The only balanced budget in recent memory came from a 39% tax rate for the upper bracket.  It is simple, we have done it before, it WORKS.

Combine the additional revenue with modest across the board cuts including defense and you can get a balanced budget.  Leave student loans as they are, as the rate is ALREADY ABOVE PRIME.  Education is a cost for a functioning society and pays dividends later.  Changes need to be made to how colleges operate and to the very high costs but that is a separate issue.  

I think you misunderstood what I was saying about taxes. My suggestion includes raising the taxes on the wealthy (by removing all the exemptions). I am not suggesting any taxes get cut, until after the budget is balanced and the debt is payed down.

Student loans are already above prime, because they are high risk, and they would be higher if not subsidized. Think about it, we are giving money to people on the hope that they will be able to earn money later. This is very different from most loans, which are given to people who demonstrate they are able to pay on those loans now.

I'd agree to a spending freeze + percentage cuts across the board to balance the budget. This would need to be combined with some sort of fair tax... meaning a single rate which is the same for every American. I personally don't care what that rate is but we need to end the class warfare being instigated by the liberal media and start evaluating on the basis of 'an equal share' instead of being selfish and wanting more for ourself and screw everyone else who isn't me.

Personally I think the rich and the poor both suffer from this form of greed. Otherwise there wouldn't be any traction with the 'eat the rich' crowdthink being pushed by the news outlets.

[SgtSpike]

If you cannot afford to pay back the student loans after you get out of college, perhaps you should reconsider taking them in the first place. (and by "you" I am not talking to you specifically, but the general you of all the people considering taking out student loans.) Many people take out student loans and then study subjects that will not help them pay back those loans. I even saw an article that says a "computer science" degree is basically worthless, companies are more interested in actual experience than a piece of paper.

Now this I definitely agree with.  I've had at least one job since I was 16, gaining experience in a variety of positions.  By the time I graduated college, I already have a position lined up with my (then) current employer in the field that I studied.  I took out plenty of student loans while I was in college, but I knew I would have the capabilities to pay them back when I graduated.

Certainly, it sucks to be in a position without a job, and I know the job market is incredibly tough for new graduates, but it's not as if they haven't had chances to gain experience and better themselves as job candidates along the way.  It's survival of the fittest, and those who screwed around in high school and college are the ones who aren't surviving.  Generally, people are just reading what they sow.

[kokojie]

I support feedom of movement, I would like to see the borders opened much more than they are now, and practical policies and procudures put into place for people to immigrate legally.

You don't see US states putting up border patrolls and inspection points, this freedom of movement has been a great boon to the US. Why would we not see similar benefits from having national borders unrestricted?

++

I'm glad my family immigrated when Ellis Island was open, it helped us a lot. I want others to have that same freedom. We obviously need to find ways to more productively integrate immigrants. Each person represents a tremendous potential both economically and socially. Only seeing the potential downsides to immigration seems un-american to me.

Immigration, illegal or otherwise, is only a problem when:

a) the country is getting too full
b) immigrants come for a free lunch

a isn't happening
b is happening from mexico because of government handouts.   get rid of the handouts "stealing from peter to pay paul" and you won't have this problem anymore.

M

B is irrelevant.    Yes, people have been given handouts, but Mexicans are not getting anywhere near what they put in.  They are a net positive to the economy.  We are FUCKING ourselves by encouraging hard workers to leave.  Maybe I am in an usual area (Maryland) but I have only seen Mexicans working hard on roads, picking crops and doing outdoor work.  I have seen them doing jobs that we can not fill in Maryland without them.  On the Eastern Shore we do not have enough Mexicans to pick the fields.  

They might be a net positive for the near term, but what about the future. The slave owners 200 years ago also thought it was a net positive to own black slaves, they didn't think their sons and daughters will one day be wage slaves to support a 25% unemployed black population that rely on welfare/food stamps.

racist much?

Black unemployment is not 25%.  It is not even 15%.  

For 2012 food stamps are less then 80 billion dollars (projected) , defense is 1000 to 1400 billion dollars.   And while it is silly to break down into race, the 85% employees blacks are paying taxes to support those on the food stamps.  Get over the race bullshit, that is not the problem with the budget.  

You are really out of touch with reality, actually 25% is already a generous estimate, I think it may be as high as 50%. The 13% official black unemployment figure is only for those who are "actively seeking work but can't find work". How many blacks are not actively seeking work and just live on welfare/food stamps? foodstamps is not the only program, there are also housing, medicaid, prison (55% prison population are blacks), which together cost almost a trillion and would probably erase the deficit overnight if these programs were abolished.

Btw, defense is big, but not that big. For example defense was 895B in 2011, while welfare 565B + Medicaid 275B = 840B just on the federal level, remember the states don't spend anything on defense, but do have their own state level welfare programs, that's another hundreds of billions on welfare.

[notme]

I support feedom of movement, I would like to see the borders opened much more than they are now, and practical policies and procudures put into place for people to immigrate legally.

You don't see US states putting up border patrolls and inspection points, this freedom of movement has been a great boon to the US. Why would we not see similar benefits from having national borders unrestricted?

++

I'm glad my family immigrated when Ellis Island was open, it helped us a lot. I want others to have that same freedom. We obviously need to find ways to more productively integrate immigrants. Each person represents a tremendous potential both economically and socially. Only seeing the potential downsides to immigration seems un-american to me.

Immigration, illegal or otherwise, is only a problem when:

a) the country is getting too full
b) immigrants come for a free lunch

a isn't happening
b is happening from mexico because of government handouts.   get rid of the handouts "stealing from peter to pay paul" and you won't have this problem anymore.

M

B is irrelevant.    Yes, people have been given handouts, but Mexicans are not getting anywhere near what they put in.  They are a net positive to the economy.  We are FUCKING ourselves by encouraging hard workers to leave.  Maybe I am in an usual area (Maryland) but I have only seen Mexicans working hard on roads, picking crops and doing outdoor work.  I have seen them doing jobs that we can not fill in Maryland without them.  On the Eastern Shore we do not have enough Mexicans to pick the fields.  

They might be a net positive for the near term, but what about the future. The slave owners 200 years ago also thought it was a net positive to own black slaves, they didn't think their sons and daughters will one day be wage slaves to support a 25% unemployed black population that rely on welfare/food stamps.

racist much?

Black unemployment is not 25%.  It is not even 15%.  

For 2012 food stamps are less then 80 billion dollars (projected) , defense is 1000 to 1400 billion dollars.   And while it is silly to break down into race, the 85% employees blacks are paying taxes to support those on the food stamps.  Get over the race bullshit, that is not the problem with the budget.  

You are really out of touch with reality, actually 25% is already a generous estimate, I think it may be as high as 50%. The 13% official black unemployment figure is only for those who are "actively seeking work but can't find work". How many blacks are not actively seeking work and just live on welfare/food stamps? foodstamps is not the only program, there are also housing, medicaid, prison (55% prison population are blacks), which together cost almost a trillion and would probably erase the deficit overnight if these programs were abolished.

Btw, defense is big, but not that big. For example defense was 895B in 2011, while welfare 565B + Medicaid 275B = 840B just on the federal level, remember the states don't spend anything on defense, but do have their own state level welfare programs, that's another hundreds of billions on welfare.

I don't think you can count prisoners in your unemployment figures.  Especially for African Americans who have faced decades of racial profiling.

[Transisto]

Do you know of efforts made to expose how biased and irrelevant the election process has become ?

[JoelKatz]

That's just the issue.  I have excellent credit, have never had an account in default, and yet I pay the same rate as someone who has shitty credit and pays late constantly.  Lumping all students together is retarded.  We are not all equal.  My loan should be considered very low risk, but there is no market I can take it to that will asses me for what I am.  They see "student loan" and throw it in the pile with all the others.

You can certainly just take out a personal loan then rather than a student loan. You lose the benefit of the Federal guarantee but you also don't get lumped in with all the other student loans.

The unfortunate reality is that student's ability to pay is one of the biggest factors holding down the cost of higher education. A college simply cannot charge more than their students can pay or they won't have many students. Any attempt to get people more student loans or lower rates will be significantly undone by increase in the cost of higher education. That will either mean students have to pay more or the government will have to pay more, and they won't necessarily get anything additional for their money.

[Arto]

HEMPSTEAD, NY--According to reports, millions of viewers across the country are expected to tune in to tonight's town-hall-style presidential debate at Hofstra University in order to determine which complete and utter sociopath they find more likable this time around.

"I'm very curious to see which one of these two clinically sociopathic individuals will present the most convincing and authentic approximation of an actual human conscience tonight," said Cincinnati-area voter Miranda Harrick, 40, adding that both candidates, like all successful politicians, were undeniably skilled at such calculated artifice. "I think whoever is able to best manipulate me into thinking they experience normative emotional states such as empathy and regret will probably have my vote come November, so I'm excited to see what happens."

The debate figures to be especially important for undecided voters, 91 percent of whom said in a pre-debate poll that they were still waiting for one sociopath to win them over with the perfect combination of superficial charm, deluded grandeur, and pathological lying.

According to polls, viewer consensus following the first debate suggested Mitt Romney had performed a far more convincing impersonation of someone with real feelings and a capacity for human compassion. Voters praised the former governor's ability to conceal his complete social disconnection and underlying hostility behind a wall of colloquial rhetoric and an approximation of warmth they described as "much more realistic" than Obama's.

"Last debate, Romney was a great sociopath," said Florida voter Jeff Yu, 28, who remarked that the Republican candidate's impressive ability to simulate the appearance of caring had improved markedly since the beginning of the campaign. "He looked very comfortable and confident up there, even against a seasoned sociopath like Obama. He really helped me ignore the reality that to him, as to any politician, social interaction is nothing but a never-ending game of deception and psychological subterfuge, the only object of which is personal gain."

Following Obama's noticeable hesitancy during the first debate, many of his supporters expressed worry that he was struggling to effect emotional normalcy with the same single-minded cunning and feigned humanity he exhibited in 2008. They agreed the pressure is now on the president to show that he has not forgotten how to callously manipulate the American public into thinking he is anything at all like them.

"I want to see that same beguiling sociopath who, four years ago, conned me into believing his psyche was somehow differently wired from every other charming, sociopathic politician who had ever lived," said Obama supporter Phoebe Greenwald, 43. "What happened to all his seemingly earnest, though of course meticulously contrived, rhetoric about hope and change that made us all like him and think he was in some way psychologically healthy and well-adjusted, which of course no human being in the history of modern politics ever has been?"

"Obama just needs to do what [sociopathic Vice President] Joe Biden did last week," Greenwald added. "I mean, he masterfully out-sociopathed Paul Ryan, which is no easy task, believe me."

No matter the outcome of tonight's debate, sources agreed that the most talented sociopath will likely be elected in November and, depending on what kind of support he might receive from like-minded sociopaths in Congress, will then spend the next four years satisfying his malformed brain's ceaseless thirst for power and glory.

[mdude77]

I'd agree to a spending freeze + percentage cuts across the board to balance the budget. This would need to be combined with some sort of fair tax... meaning a single rate which is the same for every American. I personally don't care what that rate is but we need to end the class warfare being instigated by the liberal media and start evaluating on the basis of 'an equal share' instead of being selfish and wanting more for ourself and screw everyone else who isn't me.

Personally I think the rich and the poor both suffer from this form of greed. Otherwise there wouldn't be any traction with the 'eat the rich' crowdthink being pushed by the news outlets.

95% percentage cuts across the board, 100% tax on politicians, that is, any money you "make" by being a politician goes into the coffers and is unreachable by you.

That would change the face of government.  Then the people there would be those who want to be there for the betterment of the nation, instead of the betterment of their wallet.

M

[SgtSpike]

I'd agree to a spending freeze + percentage cuts across the board to balance the budget. This would need to be combined with some sort of fair tax... meaning a single rate which is the same for every American. I personally don't care what that rate is but we need to end the class warfare being instigated by the liberal media and start evaluating on the basis of 'an equal share' instead of being selfish and wanting more for ourself and screw everyone else who isn't me.

Personally I think the rich and the poor both suffer from this form of greed. Otherwise there wouldn't be any traction with the 'eat the rich' crowdthink being pushed by the news outlets.

95% percentage cuts across the board, 100% tax on politicians, that is, any money you "make" by being a politician goes into the coffers and is unreachable by you.

That would change the face of government.  Then the people there would be those who want to be there for the betterment of the nation, instead of the betterment of their wallet.

M

Wouldn't that be nice!  Weren't congressmen originally unpaid?  Seems reasonable to me...

I wouldn't say it's cultural differences, but rather I suspect it's at least partly about exchange rates. The US dollar still has a lingering good perception, which props up the exchange rate over and above what would be expected from 'rational' market forces. A similar thing happens in parts of Europe where people travel across borders to work. That work may be minimum wage where they're temporarily staying, but they typically save or send money back to their family where, thanks to the exchange rate, those dollars or euros buy a lot more.

Many US people don't seem to understand (or somehow refuse to accept) that this is part of the reason why they have had such an easy life for so many decades. With endless wars and coups propping up the petro-dollar, together with "the American Dream" helping create a virtuous circle of irrational currency strength, if this situation collapses, people will have to completely re-evaluate what they thought was a fair amount of work for putting food on the table.

A fair amount of work for putting food on the table?  You mean something other than a 40+ hour workweek?  I certainly hope we don't come to the point where we have to work, on average, a longer week than 40 hours just to put food on the table

[JoelKatz]

95% percentage cuts across the board, 100% tax on politicians, that is, any money you "make" by being a politician goes into the coffers and is unreachable by you.

That would change the face of government.  Then the people there would be those who want to be there for the betterment of the nation, instead of the betterment of their wallet.

Umm, no. The only people who would be there would be wealthy people who can afford to work without pay, perhaps mixed with a few conniving people who expect to make a killing in the future by brokering their contacts and influence after they leave government. The only people would wouldn't be there are the smart, honest, normal family folks just trying to make the country a better place. They couldn't afford to be there.

[mdude77]

95% percentage cuts across the board, 100% tax on politicians, that is, any money you "make" by being a politician goes into the coffers and is unreachable by you.

That would change the face of government.  Then the people there would be those who want to be there for the betterment of the nation, instead of the betterment of their wallet.

Umm, no. The only people who would be there would be wealthy people who can afford to work without pay, perhaps mixed with a few conniving people who expect to make a killing in the future by brokering their contacts and influence after they leave government. The only people would wouldn't be there are the smart, honest, normal family folks just trying to make the country a better place. They couldn't afford to be there.

And... that's different from what we have today how?  Since when do we have "smart, honest, normal family folks" there today?

Those that are wealthy are probably the brightest and most capable of running for public office.  They wouldn't be there to increase their wallet size, which should weed out a lot of the miscreants we have today.

M

[C10H15N]

...The only people who would be there would be wealthy people who can afford to work without pay, perhaps mixed with a few conniving people who expect to make a killing in the future by brokering their contacts and influence after they leave government...

With few exceptions, that appears to be what we have right now.  

[mdude77]

...The only people who would be there would be wealthy people who can afford to work without pay, perhaps mixed with a few conniving people who expect to make a killing in the future by brokering their contacts and influence after they leave government...

With few exceptions, that appears to be what we have right now.  

As I've stated elsewhere here and in other threads...

Just about every government structure will work when run by selfless god fearing individuals.

And..

Those same government structures will fail when run by selfish greedy lying psychopaths.

My question to everyone who reads this is... Would YOU do different?  Do you have a price? 

M

[JoelKatz]

95% percentage cuts across the board, 100% tax on politicians, that is, any money you "make" by being a politician goes into the coffers and is unreachable by you.

That would change the face of government.  Then the people there would be those who want to be there for the betterment of the nation, instead of the betterment of their wallet.

Umm, no. The only people who would be there would be wealthy people who can afford to work without pay, perhaps mixed with a few conniving people who expect to make a killing in the future by brokering their contacts and influence after they leave government. The only people would wouldn't be there are the smart, honest, normal family folks just trying to make the country a better place. They couldn't afford to be there.

And... that's different from what we have today how?

I'm not the one claiming this would "change the face of government". If you think it won't make any difference, then you agree with my criticism.

Since when do we have "smart, honest, normal family folks" there today?

I never said we did.

Those that are wealthy are probably the brightest and most capable of running for public office.  They wouldn't be there to increase their wallet size, which should weed out a lot of the miscreants we have today.

Why wouldn't they be there to increase their wallet size? I think a lot of wealthy people join government for just that reason, expecting that they'll have much more lucrative careers when they leave government. (That doesn't always make them bad people or bad politicians, of course.)

All reducing politician's salaries will do is make it harder for people who have more financial obligations and less personal wealth to enter politics. If you think that's a good thing, then you're welcome to advocate for lower salaries for politicians. But it won't make politicians more honest and could do the reverse.

[mdude77]

I'm not the one claiming this would "change the face of government". If you think it won't make any difference, then you agree with my criticism.

Not really.  My way would decrease the likelihood of career politicians getting in. 

Those that are wealthy are probably the brightest and most capable of running for public office.  They wouldn't be there to increase their wallet size, which should weed out a lot of the miscreants we have today.

Why wouldn't they be there to increase their wallet size? I think a lot of wealthy people join government for just that reason, expecting that they'll have much more lucrative careers when they leave government. (That doesn't always make them bad people or bad politicians, of course.)

All reducing politician's salaries will do is make it harder for people who have more financial obligations and less personal wealth to enter politics. If you think that's a good thing, then you're welcome to advocate for lower salaries for politicians. But it won't make politicians more honest and could do the reverse.

As stated in my other post, the problem is the mentality of the individuals.  Politics is the problem.  If you had selfless individuals, they'd be statesmen.  Politicians = money and lies.  Statesmen = serving the country.

M

[myrkul]

As stated in my other post, the problem is the mentality of the individuals.  Politics is the problem.  If you had selfless individuals, they'd be statesmen.  Politicians = money and lies.  Statesmen = serving the country.

Find me an election process that selects for selfless individuals, rather than those best at lying through their teeth, and I will heartily support that governing system. Until then, I'll stick to market anarchy.

[BoardGameCoin]

Find me an election process that selects for selfless individuals, rather than those best at lying through their teeth, and I will heartily support that governing system. Until then, I'll stick to market anarchy.

Term-limited random selection from qualified individuals.

[myrkul]

Find me an election process that selects for selfless individuals, rather than those best at lying through their teeth, and I will heartily support that governing system. Until then, I'll stick to market anarchy.

Term-limited random selection from qualified individuals.

Well, that's a step in the right direction, in that it fails to select for sociopathy, but unfortunately, it also fails to select for altruism.