Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
More money in individuals hands, and less in governments, empowers people, not 'elites'
What is an 'elite'? A millionaire? Billionaire? Need some specifics, not complaints.
How can a sharp increase in inequality empower the people when it is proven that it weakens the voice of the people in the political process? An elite is someone who can easily buy favors in the political system through his/her wealth.
A specific would be to push hard for public funding of elections so anyone can run for office without having to beg the rich and the powerful for money. How is that done? Through organizing and involving millions of people in the political process.
What are the historic consequences of eliminating social safety nets? Increased crime, fear, political instability and possible revolutions? What's so great about that? We can bemoan "poor life choices" all we want, but have you thought about the consequences of eliminating any realistic hope of decent survival for millions of people, who you would have to share country with?
So do nothing and allow the welfare class to continue growing being fed by an ever shrinking middle class while we skip flat tax changes to the tax code to try and make the rich pay more, which will just lead to their financial exodus.
Or, start cutting things down significantly. Food Stamps now get put on the WIC restrictions. Welfare means hours and hours of community service. Vouchers for the taxpayers to get something out of the welfare class (spring/fall cleanups or similar). Remove the unending waste and fraud in the system. Remove people who are found with drug or alcohol issues while on public support. Sorry, your not getting a house because you popped out three kids with no job (big thing around here), and by the way it's 10 hours for you and 10 hours for each of your kids getting public assistance. Hope those life choices were worth it. On the bright side we will have cleaner streets.
Plus the idiocy coming out of the 'lets buy the middle class' legislation. Yeah, you make a combined income of 90K and you bought a 450k home with 8k in taxes... well that sucks for you. We're not making the same couple who bought a 200k home and lives within their means pay for your mistake.
And no, I don't have any real compassion for someone who dropped out of high school, got involved with drugs, popped out some kids without a job or had kids on some part time minimum wage gig. Your poor life choices shouldn't mean I need to pay blood money in taxes to keep you from rioting.
How can a sharp increase in inequality empower the people when it is proven that it weakens the voice of the people in the political process? An elite is someone who can easily buy favors in the political system through his/her wealth.
A specific would be to push hard for public funding of elections so anyone can run for office without having to beg the rich and the powerful for money. How is that done? Through organizing and involving millions of people in the political process.
I am in favor of using only public funds for campaigns. No outside money at all. To become a candidate, you must get X signatures to be on the ballot. Each perso. On the ballot then receives the same amount of money which varies by office.
I'm all for such a plan.
The real problem comes when people who aren't candidates start advertising on issues that are linked to specific candidates. Due to the First, I don't see how you can stop that.
I addressed that to the person who said that the rich will not benefit the most by eliminating it. I think it is clear that they will. Which will further entrench their power and push even more politicians into their arms, creating even more bad legislation hurting the middle class. And on and on it goes.
So do nothing and allow the welfare class to continue growing being fed by an ever shrinking middle class while we skip flat tax changes to the tax code to try and make the rich pay more, which will just lead to their financial exodus.
Or, start cutting things down significantly. Food Stamps now get put on the WIC restrictions. Welfare means hours and hours of community service. Vouchers for the taxpayers to get something out of the welfare class (spring/fall cleanups or similar). Remove the unending waste and fraud in the system. Remove people who are found with drug or alcohol issues while on public support. Sorry, your not getting a house because you popped out three kids with no job (big thing around here), and by the way it's 10 hours for you and 10 hours for each of your kids getting public assistance. Hope those life choices were worth it. On the bright side we will have cleaner streets.
Plus the idiocy coming out of the 'lets buy the middle class' legislation. Yeah, you make a combined income of 90K and you bought a 450k home with 8k in taxes... well that sucks for you. We're not making the same couple who bought a 200k home and lives within their means pay for your mistake.
And no, I don't have any real compassion for someone who dropped out of high school, got involved with drugs, popped out some kids without a job or had kids on some part time minimum wage gig. Your poor life choices shouldn't mean I need to pay blood money in taxes to keep you from rioting.
Food stamps need to be exactly that - food stamps not a debit card.
You get stamps to exchange for milk, eggs, chicken, veggies, etc. if you want chips, soda and Little Debbie, you come up with the money.
I addressed that to the person who said that the rich will not benefit the most by eliminating it. I think it is clear that they will. Which will further entrench their power and push even more politicians into their arms, creating even more bad legislation hurting the middle class. And on and on it goes.
You asked:
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCALMike
How much of the federal income tax is paid by the rich?
So you are saying that there is no historical evidence of a sharp increase in inequality combined with a sharp decrease in power for the ultra rich.
No I'm saying the passage of the 16th was one of many factors that helped drive the divide and influx of money into Washington via special interest.
Public funding of elections does nothing except create another bureaucracy. Think super delegates.
I'm not sure where you get some of the syntax about others ideas. However, 'taking' people's incomes, then having them try and finagle the system to get some back, that clearly isn't helping.
Individuals, no matter how wealthy, are already limited on contributions. It is the length of election cycles and super pacs that allow money and influence to corrupt.
A president serves 4 years. 2 of those years are spent campaigning. During that time, power is delegated to appointees while they campaign to raise money...
House members serve 2 years. At least 1 year is spent raising money. See absentee ballots.
Senators? They have it best yet are probably influenced the most.
And the surprise court? Lifetime appointments? No, they are influenced by money. Just their own omnipotence in regards to no end date but death.
Meanwhile, the 'average joe' as stated, plays the stupid left/right game.
I am in favor of using only public funds for campaigns. No outside money at all. To become a candidate, you must get X signatures to be on the ballot. Each perso. On the ballot then receives the same amount of money which varies by office.
I'm all for such a plan.
That's great. Are you willing to donate your time and money to ensure that your voice can be heard? Join up and make yourself be heard. We cant change anything if we dont join forces about what we agree on.
That's great. Are you willing to donate your time and money to ensure that your voice can be heard? Join up and make yourself be heard. We cant change anything if we dont join forces about what we agree on.
I have both volunteered for campaigns and donated money to campaigns. I don't give a dime to either party, and every campaign I've volunteered for was in primaries getting rid of incumbent Republicans.
I live in Texas, and I have never once voted for Rick Perry.
I'm not voting for Trump, and I've ridiculed him and stated on here that people shouldn't vote for him in the general. In the general, if the two big picks are Trump and Clinton, do you believe liberals should not vote for Clinton?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
