The Fiscal Cliff

[Bo Diddley]

Could you point me in the right direction?. I can't find it.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2013/images/01/01/american.taxpayer.relief.act.pdf?hpt=hp_t1

[frank ryan]

I would agree but add, Obama also has a very compliant media.

Example CNN congresional reporter just said, Boehner gets it. If the republicans don't pass this, the vast majority (55% is vast) will blame the republicans, market will collapse, economy will take a serious hit.

I doubt they got that directly from Boehner. A lot of assumtions and exaggerations being reported as fact, not opinion.

Do you think this will empower Cantor? He is already looked at as a very divisive figure.
The state of news reporting is a joke. The way the media has been cut up into partisan camps because it makes corporations more money than fairness, sucks for us.

[Bo Diddley]

Who said anything about morality? It is all about money, period. Plutocracy gets a bad rap, but that is because it inherently strips the rights of millions of Americans. Nobody wants to suggest this idea because it is political suicide. But at the end of the day, it should be about money and democracy can't sustain the power of the poor voting bloc that makes decisions that will temporarily improve their situation but shackle the ling-term growth, assuring their long-term poverty.

Why is this arrogance?

The government regulates more than just the spending of money they take in.

[doctorcoug]

You would exclude a whole bunch of combat disabled vets. And that is just one group. It is arrogant to think huge swaths of people don't have a skin in the game because they don't have as much money as you. It is an incredibly empathetically challenged notion amigo. It also shows a resentment of the poor.

I haven't paid federal income taxes in nearly ten years, so I wouldn't have a vote.

The huge swaths don't have financial skin in the game. They have the tax payers skin. This isn't arrogance. It is the truth.

Who cares about resentment? I don't resent them, since I have been among them for years. What matters is money, not feelings. Empathy doesn't matter, either. It is money. Get that straight. With more money, we all do well. Period.

via a galaxy s3 far far away

[Bo Diddley]

Who said anything about morality? It is all about money, period. Plutocracy gets a bad rap, but that is because it inherently strips the rights of millions of Americans. Nobody wants to suggest this idea because it is political suicide. But at the end of the day, it should be about money and democracy can't sustain the power of the poor voting bloc that makes decisions that will temporarily improve their situation but shackle the ling-term growth, assuring their long-term poverty.

Why is this arrogance?

Oh, and plutocracy is alive and well today. If you don't believe this you're kidding yourself. Look at all the money lining the pockets of politicians from the Lobby. Look at all the money that is spent on buying votes.

[byu71]

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2013/im....pdf?hpt=hp_t1

Thanks. I bow to your intellect over mine. I could hardly tell crap from reading that. Seems it is going back to some previous restriction or limitations. Section 68(b). I read that a couple of times and gave up.

[byu71]

Oh, and plutocracy is alive and well today. If you don't believe this you're kidding yourself. Look at all the money lining the pockets of politicians from the Lobby. Look at all the money that is spent on buying votes.

I don't like the idea of buying politicians either. I do worry though that a limitation that passes won't restrict the unions and of course won't do anything about the bull shit influence the media has.

Everyone interview Blitzer does he says, will they really anger millions and millions of Americans? FU blitz. We are talking about the tax rates during the Clinton admin that you continued to argue over and over again during the campaign didn't hurt the economy.


Edit: Wolf just pushed me into deciding, let's go over the cliff.

[All-American]

Oh, and plutocracy is alive and well today. If you don't believe this you're kidding yourself. Look at all the money lining the pockets of politicians from the Lobby. Look at all the money that is spent on buying votes.

The money "spent on buying votes" is $0. If it is anything more than $0, then somebody should be in prison. The money spent in the election is part of an attempt to communicate a message to voters who can accept or disregard the message as they wish.

[Bo Diddley]

The money "spent on buying votes" is $0. If it is anything more than $0, then somebody should be in prison. The money spent in the election is part of an attempt to communicate a message to voters who can accept or disregard the message as they wish.

Agreed.

Oh maybe we could turn this into a tithing discussion. What constitutes an increase?

And on election money, how is it that the wealthy are the only ones able to communicate their message to the voters? They seem to drown out anyone else.

And do the wealthy who own the media affect the outcome of politics? Absolutely not...

[byu71]

how is it that the wealthy are the only ones able to communicate their message to the voters? They seem to drown out anyone else.

Are you being sarcastic? There isn't anything wrong in my hearing this, but I have heard over and over again the plight of the poor, the middle class, minorities, women who can't get contraceptives.

Who won the election. Most analysts talk about how the campaign wasn't won on issues, especially economic issues.

Again if you were being sarcastic, it might have been too subtle.

[PaloAltoCougar]

doctorcoug, your argument for limiting voting rights to the wealthier members of society intrigues me. What would be the minimum tax payment necessary to be able to vote? Should the person who pays the minimum amount have the same voting power as one who pays millions? Also, would those who don't pay taxes (and thus don't vote) be subject to the draft, were one instituted by the people they didn't elect?

[Bo Diddley]

Are you being sarcastic? There isn't anything wrong in my hearing this, but I have heard over and over again the plight of the poor, the middle class, minorities, women who can't get contraceptives.

Who won the election. Most analysts talk about how the campaign wasn't won on issues, especially economic issues.

Again if you were being sarcastic, it might have been too subtle.

No sarcasm in what you quoted, but there is definitely some in the rest of it.

Politicians are put into office by the money of the wealthy. While in office, their votes are shaped by favors they owe their financiers who put them there and will work to re-elect them.

[byu71]

doctorcoug, your argument for limiting voting rights to the wealthier members of society intrigues me. What would be the minimum tax payment necessary to be able to vote? Should the person who pays the minimum amount have the same voting power as one who pays millions? Also, would those who don't pay taxes (and thus don't vote) be subject to the draft, were one instituted by the people they didn't elect?

Yea, pretty dumb idea to vote based on wealth. Kind of the reverse of letting those who don't pay taxes decide whether those who do should pay more.

I would be willing to give those who serve in the military two votes.

[All-American]

Yea, pretty dumb idea to vote based on wealth. Kind of the reverse of letting those who don't pay taxes decide whether those who do should pay more.

I would be willing to give those who serve in the military two votes.

You save a lot of problems by having a flat tax on everybody.

[byu71]

Politicians are put into office by the money of the wealthy. While in office, their votes are shaped by favors they owe their financiers who put them there and will work to re-elect them.

You then have to consider Unions for example as part of the wealthy. Planned parenthood, NOW, media, entertainers, et.al. as part of the wealthy.

I am not arguing the wealthy don't have influence, but it is not valid to claim they are the only ones.