Thanks for doing that.   Responding to swampy can be very tiring.    I still believe he's just playing a part.   He writes too well to be as stupid as what he posts. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/15/2011 5:17:00 PM (view original):
Thanks for doing that.   Responding to swampy can be very tiring.    I still believe he's just playing a part.   He writes too well to be as stupid as what he posts. 

If he's a performance artist, I salute him for creating a very memorable online character.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/15/2011 4:09:00 PM (view original):
If you can't afford it, don't buy it.    Very simple concept.  VERY SIMPLE!!!

Of course, I guess it's just easier to say "I'd like someone else to pay more taxes.  That seems fair to me!"

the problem is the ones on the low end of the scale might not be eating regular. I know it is a dirty rotten habit of the poor but I understand they are rather fond of the nasty habit.

Posted by crazystengel on 8/15/2011 10:35:00 AM (view original):
Warren Buffet doesn't want your sympathy and coddling.

www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html

I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax. This cut helps the poor and the middle class, who need every break they can get.

But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more — there were 8,274 in 2009 — I would suggest an additional increase in rate.

My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice.

but that includes many of the Congress and thier "friends"

Posted by willgibson on 8/15/2011 5:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 8/15/2011 4:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/15/2011 10:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 8/13/2011 12:40:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/12/2011 4:09:00 PM (view original):
The problem with the entire system is that far too many decisions are made with the next term in mind.   I think political reform would go a lot further than simple tax reform.  Eliminate 2nd terms and politicians will either stop being career politicians or they will actually do what's best rather than pander to the public.   Not to single Obama out(even though it's what I'm doing) but he's been campaigning for his second term for a year.   If that didn't exist, at worst, he'd simply be pushing for his "legacy".

And the problem filters down to lowest forms of government. 

Is that really true?

Bush stayed in Iraq and won a 2nd term. That is the easiest one. The fact is that in Congress almost everyone gets re-elected. Everyone gets a ton of donations.

It seems to be a myth that everyone is somehow making decisions to get reelected.

And do you really want a Congressman that can do anything he wants with no fear? Would that make for better government.

you need votes to win an election. Votes are people!

Yes, it's really true. 

Bombing the dirty Muslins was pretty popular with the public.   We were 5-6 years into it before the people hated it.    No one would be getting re-election donations with one term.  Rather than fundraisers they could concentrate on the job at hand.   Last time I checked there was more than one Congressman and we still have a system of checks and balances.  One rogue Congressman can't do any more damage with one term than he can now.

Has anyone ever found evidence that a member of congress changed a political view because of a donation? 

Congress has the power. Companies give moeny to the people that support their views, that isnt buying a senator. Do you really think the Tea Party is going to change their minds about taxes if the dontributions change? Do you really think Obama would get less donations from business if he adopted a polict that is less "European Socialist"?

For all their flaws our Government is made up of good people.

"Has anyone ever found evidence that a member of congress changed a political view because of a donation?"

Yes. There's is all kinds of evidence, in the form of convictions, of Congressmen whose votes were bought. Your ignorance is only slightly less appalling than your laziness to find information that is a couple of mouse clicks away in the age of Google.

"Congress has the power. Companies give moeny to the people that support their views, that isnt buying a senator. Do you really think the Tea Party is going to change their minds about taxes if the dontributions change?"

You demonstrate a good deal of faith in the incorruptibility of the Tea Party. Because just about every other group that has gone to Washington with good intentions has eventually gone native. Just Google Contract with America and George Nethercutt so you can understand how angry people who set out to change the system eventually get swallowed up in it.

"Do you really think Obama would get less donations from business if he adopted a polict that is less "European Socialist"?"

You also don't have a clue about what an European socialist is, either. If you did, you'd realize Obama and his policies bear little resemblence to that description.

1 You are right. Some members of congress have done that. A tiny percentage.

2 You dont really understand what makes Aemricans upset about their congressman. They dont change their beliefs, they just start making deals to get things through.

3 No matter what legislation he passes, Obama has beliefs he has made clear before he became President. He supports a single payer health care. He opposes people being able to defend themselves with firearms. He believes in higher taxes for the rich and for corporations. He supports unions. He supports new age teaching beliefs. What about this Guy isnt European Socialist?

What exactly is new age teaching beliefs?

He has often spoke of making the schools part of a total education process.

During the election he sad that "Social Justice begins in the classroom.

He is a strong supporter of comprehensive sex education from back in Illinois.

He will often tie speechs about education to themes of racism and discrimination.

He is very active in the new "Bullying" issue.

His wife is leading the campaign in childhood ovesity.

Posted by moosep on 8/15/2011 3:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/15/2011 10:38:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moosep on 8/13/2011 8:49:00 AM (view original):

Go back to that 30% sales tax thing you were talking about would you please? I got a good laugh out of that. I don't see any humor in changing The Constitution.

Because this world is the same world we had in 1787?  I thought liberals considered themselves progressive.     A 224 year old document doesn't need some updating?

I love how you always go to the extreme.Why don't you take an item and follow it from raw material to product. Make sure to keep adding that 30% on at every stop and then tell me how much the cost will be.

Maybe you should know what you are talking about. The fair tax has accounted for the manufacturing process

Sorry haven't had my coffee yet..... That was a rude response. The fair tax only taxes the final product, not the process.

That creates a bit of a loophole.   Is tobacco taxable or only cigarettes?

swampy, couldn't one say only a tiny percentage have been caught/convicted?   

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/16/2011 8:33:00 AM (view original):
That creates a bit of a loophole.   Is tobacco taxable or only cigarettes?

"Business-to-business purchases for the production of goods and services are not taxed"

depends on who is buying them and if its for production og goods and services

Posted by swamphawk22 on 8/16/2011 3:15:00 AM (view original):

Posted by willgibson on 8/15/2011 5:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 8/15/2011 4:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/15/2011 10:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 8/13/2011 12:40:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/12/2011 4:09:00 PM (view original):
The problem with the entire system is that far too many decisions are made with the next term in mind.   I think political reform would go a lot further than simple tax reform.  Eliminate 2nd terms and politicians will either stop being career politicians or they will actually do what's best rather than pander to the public.   Not to single Obama out(even though it's what I'm doing) but he's been campaigning for his second term for a year.   If that didn't exist, at worst, he'd simply be pushing for his "legacy".

And the problem filters down to lowest forms of government. 

Is that really true?

Bush stayed in Iraq and won a 2nd term. That is the easiest one. The fact is that in Congress almost everyone gets re-elected. Everyone gets a ton of donations.

It seems to be a myth that everyone is somehow making decisions to get reelected.

And do you really want a Congressman that can do anything he wants with no fear? Would that make for better government.

you need votes to win an election. Votes are people!

Yes, it's really true. 

Bombing the dirty Muslins was pretty popular with the public.   We were 5-6 years into it before the people hated it.    No one would be getting re-election donations with one term.  Rather than fundraisers they could concentrate on the job at hand.   Last time I checked there was more than one Congressman and we still have a system of checks and balances.  One rogue Congressman can't do any more damage with one term than he can now.

Has anyone ever found evidence that a member of congress changed a political view because of a donation? 

Congress has the power. Companies give moeny to the people that support their views, that isnt buying a senator. Do you really think the Tea Party is going to change their minds about taxes if the dontributions change? Do you really think Obama would get less donations from business if he adopted a polict that is less "European Socialist"?

For all their flaws our Government is made up of good people.

"Has anyone ever found evidence that a member of congress changed a political view because of a donation?"

Yes. There's is all kinds of evidence, in the form of convictions, of Congressmen whose votes were bought. Your ignorance is only slightly less appalling than your laziness to find information that is a couple of mouse clicks away in the age of Google.

"Congress has the power. Companies give moeny to the people that support their views, that isnt buying a senator. Do you really think the Tea Party is going to change their minds about taxes if the dontributions change?"

You demonstrate a good deal of faith in the incorruptibility of the Tea Party. Because just about every other group that has gone to Washington with good intentions has eventually gone native. Just Google Contract with America and George Nethercutt so you can understand how angry people who set out to change the system eventually get swallowed up in it.

"Do you really think Obama would get less donations from business if he adopted a polict that is less "European Socialist"?"

You also don't have a clue about what an European socialist is, either. If you did, you'd realize Obama and his policies bear little resemblence to that description.

1 You are right. Some members of congress have done that. A tiny percentage.

2 You dont really understand what makes Aemricans upset about their congressman. They dont change their beliefs, they just start making deals to get things through.

3 No matter what legislation he passes, Obama has beliefs he has made clear before he became President. He supports a single payer health care. He opposes people being able to defend themselves with firearms. He believes in higher taxes for the rich and for corporations. He supports unions. He supports new age teaching beliefs. What about this Guy isnt European Socialist?

1. You asked "Has anybody ever found evidence that a member of congress (sic) changed a political view because of a donation? The short answer is yes. I won't repeat Mike's excellent point about a tiny percentage getitng caught for selling their votes. They are the ones whose greed or stupidity let them get caught. The more nuanced ones use something called PACs.

2. Yeah, it's pretty clear I'm the one who lacks understanding and needs to do a little more research rather than just posting my very strong opinions on these boards.

3. At the risk of further parading my ignorance, I'll point out Canada's Conservative government supports a single-payer health care system. So too does the Tory government in England and Sarkozy's right-wing government in France. They are not socialists. Those positions happen to reflect popular opinion across the political spectrums in those countries. I know because I've lived in them or visited them. I could go down your list of Obama's apparent socialist tendencies but as I suspect you've learned about the wider world beyond USA's border through the medium of talk radio, it is a colossal waste of my time.

Oh and Warren frigging Buffett happens to believe in higher taxes for the rich. I suppose that makes him a European socialist, too, which will shock the hell out of the people who've invested in Berkshire Hathaway over the years. You'd think one of the world's richest men would be a capitalist.