Dean Goes Nuts

Remixes, with Dean going SUPER SAIYAN! YEEAAAHHHH!

Ahem... sorry.

Whoever made this site that I linked, is bored, yet has a sense of humor.

I say this as a hard-core Democrat who happily would send all conservetives and neo-conservitives into a lifetime exile on the moon....


That was fucking funny.

I don't think I'm trying to start a fight here, but what is your reasoning behind this and why are you such a hard core democrat?

I was joking.


I'm a Democrat because of Freedom of Speech, Pro-Choice, Privacy and Education issues for the most part.

How Education? The Dem's are seriously in bed with the Teachers Union.

So am I.

I agree with the Teacher's Union on a lot of issues. Smaller class sizes and better funding being primary.

Freedom of Speech is a huge thing for me, and I must admit that the left scares me just as much as the right. The Gore/Lieberman ticket in 2000 is as close as you can get to people that are against free speech. And that is really what confused me about statements like your previous one Prodigy.

I can 100% understand someone that pulls for a candidate because they agree with their beliefs. But picking your candidates based on the 2 party system, and sticking solely with one party just doesn't make any sense to me. Not all candidates for 1 party agree on the topics. Granted there are certain issues that they must adopt for their party, but voting solely by party just seems uninspired to me.

I'm baffled by Democrats even more so than I am by Republicans. People voting for larger governments is so far away from my viewpoint that I can't even comprehend it.

Oh, I don't vote Party ticket. But, when looking at candidates I tend to, 9 times out of 10, prefer what the Democrat is saying.


If Leiberman gets the party nomination I'll vote for someone other than the Democrat. The man is a frigging fascist in sheeps clothing. Had McCain gotten the nod in 2000 I might have voted for him. My very first election I voted for Pete Wilson as opposed to Dianne Fienstein for California Governor, because of their stances on education (and then the SOB turns around and hacks the shit out of the education budget)

In the grand scheme of things I'm a radical moderate. When it comes to personal, life issues (marriage, who I fuck, what I put into my body, what I read, what I watch) I want government right out of my life big time. When it comes to big issues (what businesses can put into our air and rivers, what they can do to their workers, what they can do to their investors) then I want some protections. I'm pro-death penalty in concept, but when it comes to how we put it into practice I disagree. I pro-gun ownership, but I'm also pro-gun owner responsibility (someone steals your gun or uses it for criminal purposes and you didn't take proper preventetive measures, it's your ass). I am pro-immigration (most of my wife's step-fathers family came over here via coyotes). I am pro-education (better paid teachers, smaller class size, less manipulation of curriculum by botht he left and the right). I am pro-environment, to a point (I think that if we make a mistake and it effects the economy, we may lose money and jobs-a bad thing. If we make a mistake and we wipe out eco-systems those can take thousands of years to recover-a much worse thing.)

I was just doing sound-bite sized posts. I don't try to bring my politics here, but I realize that I wasn't representing myself very well. While you may still disagree with me, I hope I made more sense.

Last time about I voted Gorge Clinton.

But really the party system doesn't work with two parties.In fact for the most part two parties may as well be one.One is just left of the other,and the other is just right of the other.The only way you will get paties that are any different from each other is to have,three or more.

Two parties are going for the same vote,so they will try to get as many people from the other side of the line to vote for them,and still hold on to their fringes.But as I said,I truly think that by it's very nature,two party systems is basically a one party system with a nice sounding name.

By the way,I am card carring "commy".

You're looking at one of the disenfranchised here.

I voted Gore/Liberman in '00, and I still have my questions about that race. But, now, 4 years later, I do not see myself as a Republican or a Democrat. I am a Fiscal Conservative and a Social Centerist.

What has me against Bush is his lack of Diplomacy, and his wishy-washy handling of our economy. I do not like the Democrats because they are this close to being outright socialist/communists. They would do more damage to our constitution than any Patriot Act.

You see, what I think our country needs is a complete and total overhaul of it's governmental economy. It has allowed corporations charge ludacrous ammounts of money for BS. A total audit of our government from the ground up is necessary. Then, the fat MUST be trimmed and heads MUST roll. As our constitution was originally written, The government is only responsible for the defense of the country. If that is the case, Taxes can be SEVERELY trimmed, allowing state governments to handle things like Schools, Law Enforcement, Welfare, and the like.

By reducing the Federal micro-management of our daily lives, things can get better. Lower federal taxes will spur economic growth. Plus, with State taxes more localized, the State's dipping in would be a far less dent than a huge federal chunk. This would also allow people to save their own money for the future, and it would allow people to afford such things as health care insurance.

This is a complex thought of mine, and this forum and the keyboard doesn't do me justice. All I can see, is that if I was running for president, I'd proably have the most vision over anyone out there right now.

And by the way, I consider communism a flawed form of government that allows dictators and tyrants to flourish easier than any other that I have seen.

And Tommy, would you like slavery back?Maybe just wages like in Mexico?How about rampant robber barons?Oil kings?Lack of social serves,total and utter distraction of 60% of public school of hiring learning?One third the bugget of about half the normal public schools.The third world standers of government in close to 30 states?

The way the federal government works cause bad things,but for the most part it fixes bigger problems than any you can think of.Unless you live in California, or New York...

You sure like to use all of the reactionary "hot button" sound bites, don't you? Did I say I'd want slavery back? Did I say that I'd turn 30 of the states out there into 3rd world levels? Did I?

No.

You've insulted me. You've called me a greedy racist when I'm no where near that. I want to see our government GIVE US BACK OUR COUNTRY.

Enough said. I don't debate with sandbox tactics. Instead of debating my points you attack me.

We've tangled before with issues like this, and you seem to play the "reactionary" card.

What I find more interesting, is that when we have a debate here, it seems to influence your character's opinions of me. Are you that petty? You sent me a PM after our last tangle, saying that if one of your characters ran into mine, that character would be lucky to walk out alive.

I don't want to debate you, because you won't debate with me on the level. This is the last I'll speak of it, and I'm damn dissapointed this thread turned out this way. I already got one foot in the grave on this site and you pissing me off could finish me here. I'm not willing to risk that any further.

I just wish someone would delete this thread before I go further off the handle.

Why do people think they can have these intellectual, rational conversations about such personal topics as political beliefs over such an impersonal medium and still get all of the emotional context of each post?

Why doesn't everyone take a deep breath and relax for a few minutes. Sakura, you have a history of jumping to conclusions when your emotions are running high or when the topic is something personal to you. I don't think YT's comments were meant as a personal attack, despite their poor wording and high drama.

Please keep your personal business with YT between yourselves. I'm not interested in oggling your dirty laundry.

I am in no way trolling here. I just felt that your post needed some clarification. Thank you for providing it. I'll come back and respond in more depth later.

"I do not like the Democrats because they are this close to being outright socialist/communists."

Moi? Damn, I didn't know that. ( :

If the fat were trimmed, as you say, it is likely that you would benefit (understanding that I know nothing about your economic status). Same for me, though my college tuition would skyrocket (government pays about two-thirds of the cost of higher education in public universities).

The thing is, we represent a relatively prosperous portion of the population - people who, for instance, have computers. If the government pulled back its social responsiblity, there are hundreds of thousands of Americans who would quite literally DIE. On average, they aren't in that situation because of some fault of their own - our society automatically produces an underclass. I feel that simple ethics require that we assist these people, and the most efficient means of doing this is through the federal government.

There are some places where we could trim expenditures, but - to the best of my knowledge - the majority of the government's funds go into military spending and 'social responsibility' spending.

Chosen adjusts his Admin/Moderator hat to make sure it looks spiffy before giving his speech to the masses.

I am all for healthy discussion of all sorts on this site and hope that the opportunity to do so will continue. I completely understand that the topic of this thread is often considered tabboo because of how easily tempers will flare and how quickly discussion or debate can turn to shouting. I want to continue to offer the ability to discuss any subject, while at the same time not limiting your ability to post what you feel.

With that said, I will not allow people to attack other members of this forum. If you don't agree with something, simply state your disagreement and support it with your opinions. I'm reminded of something Harlan Ellison said which was, "Everyone has a right to their own opinion, but they should only have the right to express it in a forum that I must listen to when they have an informed opinion."

I appreciate people with differing viewpoints and am willing to read something from people that I completely disagree with provided that they can add something of value to their post. Stating your beliefs is fine, and stating why you believe that way is great. Taking potshots at a belief of another member of this site is not ok when done solely for the intent of getting a rise out of the person. If you want to discuss what you feel are flaws with their beliefs and are willing to discuss it like calm and rational adults, then feel free to state your case.

My bad on my part. But, I do not think I misinterpreted YT's comments. I get it all the time when I try to explain my political leanings to anyone. I know what people on one side will say, and I know what people on the other will say. One side says I'm gonna roll back the government to the plantation days, and the other calls me a hopeless dreamer.

There are 3 things that set me off.

1: Calling me racist.
2: Debating with me using just soundbites and never addressing what I put on the table.
3: Going for the flames first.

And like I said before I consider this conversation over.

While you are free to leave the conversation at any time, I personally would like to hear more of what you have to say. While things may come up on the short term that bother you or insult you, over the long haul I will make sure that you feel comfotable discussing anything you like here. I can't guarantee that people will agree with you, or even like what you have to say, but if you say it in a non threatening manner, I will protect your right to do so.

If you still feel threatened to speak your mind, then I'm not doing my job right. This is a microcosm of political stance btw.

Chosen, I just feel I've overstepped my bounds. I'd like to say more, it's just that right now I think it's best to have a cooling off period first.

I've just gotta cool off on this, that's all.

Tommy,lets look at the one thing you want the federal government to do.Make a millatry.They do this threw TAXES.With-out those TAXES the US armed forces would look like India.

Social spending,on state level.I am sure you know that buying in mass is cheaper per-unit.Mass buying lowers costs, and cuts fat.Having one department to fund for the well fair of the poor,is cheaper than having 50.

But,you want cut fat,by eating lard.

Wile states know what is best for states,in large states where they lose money,and come out on the short end of the federal stick, state governments are not much different from federal government in this feild.Take California.You understand,that we have 5 counties that each have more people than most conties and many state.They make more money than most contries/states as well.Los Angelos,San Francisco,San Diego,San Jose counties each enough people and wealth that they could be independent nations.

Then you have places like the mid west,witch aside from a few cities are money holes.They cost money to own.

IMHO, this is indeed the wrong forum for this. But as long as the subject has been raised...

I don't have a problem with the government caring for people who can't care for themselves. However, there is a danger here in creating the problems we wish to solve. Example: Giving money to un-wed mothers caused (some or many) women to not get married and/or to not give up their children up for adoption.

How so? The counter argument is that by supporting the underclass we create it. That is what welfare reform was all about. Although counter intuitive, the experiment seems to have shown a lot of truth to the theory.

A good deal of the governments harm on economic activities and society in general is inflicted via regulations.

Sticking to money expenditures for a moment, the government pays for:
1) Farm supports (supposedly to support the small farmer, but most of it goes to big farms). This includes things like putting large tariffs on Sugar to keep a handful of sugar farms employed; at a massive increase in the price of sugar for the rest of us.
2) Lots and lots of jails, the majority of which are filled with non-violent offenders (mostly from the "war" on drugs).
Not that I'm in favor of decriminalization, but I do feel that we haven't discussed that option as a society. Criminalizing causes one set of problems, decriminalizing would cause another. The question should be "which does less damage to society". The question has been "which gets politicians the most votes".
3) Social Security (and other "entitlements"). Originally Social Security was supposed to be a supplement for retirement and was going to, and has, ended elder poverty. The problem is that it was never means tested, so now it is possible for the old and rich to be supported by the working poor. While this isn't a problem while there were lots of workers supporting few retirees, over the years the numbers have changed so that fewer and fewer workers are supporting more and more of the old.

Taking money from one set of people and giving it to another is a very powerful and dangerous governmental power. The danger is that politicians will use it to "buy" votes. (How many times have we heard "tax cuts for the rich?") Put another way, this is taking money away from society's productive and giving it to its unproductive. This punishes productivity and rewards the reverse.

But take half of 1,000,000 and you slightly cramp someone's style,take away one tenth of 20,000 you can threaten their ability to live in some parts of this country.

You want to know why our Military costs so much?

When it costs 1000 dollars to get a hammer, and 10$ for ONE LOUSY NAIL, there needs to be some changes.

There's a reason why our defense budget is in the Trillions and it makes me sick. I can go to the local hardware store and for a couple bucks I can get a hammer, and for 10$ I can get enough nails to build a house. With nails to spare.

I'm not saying cut taxes before finding out where the money goes, I say, trim the fat, find out where the money is needed, THEN cut taxes when there is a surplus.

I also believe that the less money you have, the less the government should bother you Tax wise. Hell, under a certain amount they should leave you alone entirely. I don't think it's fair that poor people have to pay tax at all.

I just don't think we should tax into oblivion the companies that create the jobs that are needed by the economy.

Look at it this way: Corporations to Jobs to Tax Revenue.

The smaller the business, the less we should tax. So for instance the bakery near my place should pay a couple bucks a year while Microsoft should be pumping out millions. Which if you look at M$'s revenues is pocket change in of itself.

Now as to money being lesser in other areas, look, It is also the responsibility of the Government to look after it's member states. That means some Federal Monies will be needed to make up the difference in State budgets. Which is a reasonible number, at least in the terms of a Macro-Economy like ours. Keep in mind, right now our economy pulls in TRILLIONS of dollars a year in Taxes to the Federal Government. By trimming exessive spending, then trimming the excess tax and only taking what's needed, It'd still be a Milti-Trillion economy, but it'd be a far less burden to bear.

Someone explained to me that the $800 hammer is a myth and misrepresentation at the same time. One thing to remember is that our CIA budget is a part of our militairy budget, but it's invisible. So, if the CIA wants 100 billion this year, that money has to be 'explained' through other ways. Such as really, really expensive hammers.

And people wonder why we don't trust our government.

Accounting changes. In reality, that doesn't happen, someone is taking statistics out of context.

For example, let's say I build you a 10 million dollar jet fighter, and you want to know how much a particular part "cost". If that part was manufactured internally by me, it may not have a "true" cost since it doesn't have a market value (because there is no market for this part). So, in effect, we have to make up the numbers. And this was a simple example. In real life you have a million parts made by hundreds of internal divisions in dozens of countries, with very complex tax rules that you are trying to minimize.

So, for accounting purposes, we might do things like make every item that we don't track equal to the total amount of money spent on this sort of thing divided by the total number of items. So yes, that's 10$ for one lousy nail, but only on the books, and only for the purposes of answering unanswerable questions.
It is dangerous to offer something for "free". There are strong incentives for politicians to offer this service to the middle class (aka Social Security). "Vote for me and I'll give you something and someone else will pay for it." If you pay people not to work, then some of them won't.

I recall seeing some shocking statistics a few years ago that detailed how much of our government is paid for by the "wealthy" (i.e. the richest fifth), and how much is paid for by the poorest. The shocking part was that "their fair share" was way more than most people realize.

I just want to add my opinion. As a poor person, who works 40+ hours a week for just under $12,000 net a year, I really dont care what the "wealthy" have to pay.

It may not be fair, but neither is being too poor to get an education to enable you to make more money. If you make over $300,000 a year, then does it really matter if you pay $110,000 in taxes? You still have almost TEN time as much money a year as me. And I work, I'm not collecting welfare or anything like that.

It's real easy to categorize people as poor. Try living on nothing sometime, and you really wont care what the 'wealthy' think. Its not really an argument I'm putting forward, just my opinion.

Personal opinion here, not having weight of numbers or evidence.


The wealthy should pay more taxes. Why? For the privilage of living in a society that has allowed them the ability to make so goddamn much money. Many other nations in the world have either:

A. Massive government controls or ownership of industry.

B. Much higher tax brackets (hell, look at our own history. The rich have paid 70%+ at times and still stayed rich)

C. Such crappy infrastructures that investement is hazardous at best.

D. Unstable political structures, again making investment suicidal.


We have created an environment in which a Bill Gates can make an ungodly fortune and Paris Hilton can inherit one. They get to fucking well pay for the maintanence of the facilities.

Point to consider:
"Over-taxing" the rich, means that people either stop trying to get ahead - venture capital, investments, ect. - or, they leave the country fore a tax haven country (why the rich flee Ireland).

The basic question here is this:
What is the governments responsibility?

One thing I would like to see, though I know it would waste some money, is a Federal Education Initiative that would place an Internet-access computer at every student's desk.

Wetwear, I feel your pain. While in college, I first worked for a pizza delivery service to make ends meet, then worked at UPS at nights for five years. End result ... I never graduated.
My fault, though. Too much gaming.

Just to clarify after Jager's comment. I'm not looking for sympathy. I appreciate it but I dont want anyone to think I was seeking it.

And I agree with Lemmy. At work we were discussing the estate tax reform. And one of my co-workers was in the "since you earned it your kids should get all of it. period." camp. So I asked him to watch "The Simple Life".

After explaining about Paris Hilton inheriting all her wealth, he switched to my side :-D.

Point to consider: Did all the rich people stop trying to get ahead and leave the U.S. during the late 60's and early 70's?

Well, seeing as 1% of our country owns 40% of our wealth,and no they don't pay 40% of the taxes.And no they do not provide 40% of the jobs in this nation...


Jager,are there rich Swiss,English,German,Freanch?

Losing 50% of 10,000,000 is not as big as lossing losing 10% of 30,000.

RE: Paris
I haven't seen her in action, but it doesn't take long for the rich and stupid to burn through their money and become poor.

RE: Overtaxing.
The question is at what point does taxation do economic damage? Tax rates are roughly at 50% right now when you add all the federal, state, local, city taxes together.

How many people decide to take a few weeks off rather than work some overtime? At some point people feel that there is less of a point in working if they are going to give most of it to Uncle Sam.

Really? I don't own the office I work at. That "40% of wealth" you are talking about isn't in cash. Most of it is in stock and other capital. Meaning that if you work for a company that has gone public, you work for them. Ditto if you work for a company that supplies widgets to one of those companies.

Very true. And it isn't a coincidence that our country is richer and more powerful than those countries. We set up those conditions, let people earn money, and the world flocks to us to work and invest. If we start breaking rule "B" then that will cause problems.

The rich *DO* pay more taxes. The problem comes when we get people to pay for things that other people use. There are limits to how much you can get other people to foot the bill. We are going to reach that point with Social Security.

If you're able to take time off instead of work, then you make sufficient money to live. I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about the people that have to work every hour they can just to scrape by. While others make obscene amounts of money and have leisure time to spare. To people in my income bracket 'vacation' is the two days of the week you cant work because you're not allowed to have overtime. I guess what I'm saying is that I dont quite get what you're putting forward.

People will always have to work, or die. That's not going to change, and I don't see any reason to. I see a problem with some people leading lives of excess, and then griping because they're taxes are 'too high'. You do not need an SUV. You do not need a home theater system, or theater tickets, or to eat at fancy restaurants with $40 entrees. You do need basic food requirements, a place to sleep that isnt filthy, and access to basic health care. And thousands of Americans do not have this. The way I see it, is that if you work you should at least be able to meet your basic needs regardless of what you actually do for a living. If I wash dishes for 40+ hours a week, then I should be able to eat and live, not be terrified every day that I will have no home the next month because my rent goes up and my pay does not. If I clean your home, or make your furniture, or serve you food I should be able to live my life with basic needs met. If I want more than that THEN I will have to strive for more. If I want a car, I will need to find a way to buy it. An extra job, something.

I'm not talking free handouts of things that are not required. I'm simply talking about necessity's of modern living. Warm and cold running water, electricity, refrigerator, a shower, telephone, and bed. Three meals a day that are nutritious, not whatever junk you can afford to keep you going.

I apologize if I come across a bit rough. It is late for me, but I just get irritated when I think of someone making $10,000+ net a month and complaining because its just not enough money, and that the government should take out less. I'm not saying that anyone here said or thinks that, its just what I think of when I think of "the wealthy".

Wetwear, one of the basic premises of capitalism is that if the worker can't survive on what the job is paying, the job not be filled. Either the workload is reduced, or the pay goes up.

Another big Hot Button topic is National Health Care. Do we, as Americans need/deserve/desire minimal national healt care?
Yes, some people need urgent medical attention, but who should pay for it?
Is medical care an entitlement?

Also,
Not just clean water?
Thank you FDR and the TVA. Still, so many things go great with electricity, like light after the sun sets, and computer access. I can imagine life without it, but it would truly suck.
Gak! Of course, I've been so poor that I had nothing to put in the frig, but that's my damn fault. It's also possible to live without one, but food shopping becomes a real chore.
Let me see ... I have spent summer in homes that had outside hand pumps, and you bathed in a bowl. We did have electricity, but only a radio and lights in the house. It is a whole lot easier to wash your hair if someone helps, that's for sure.
Really? Outside of using one for your modem, you couldn't live without one? My families first home in NYC had one in the apartment hallway. It worked for them.
Sleeping on the ground sucks bigtime, but is doable. My first apartment after I left college (the first time) only had a mattress, no boxsprings. I was just glad for a room to call my own.
A hurricane wiped out most of what I owned there, but me and my room mate survived, which is always a plus.

I am suprised you didn't mention transportation. Very important in our society, so you either need to live on Mass Transit's schedule, or own a functional car.

Life on the margin is tough. I know that. I also know that its hard to get ahead on your own. I also don't believe it's the government's job to do that. After all, if the government starts providing work, it also gains the ability to regulate social mobility.
As long as most americans believe that they can somehow better themselves and be comfortable, if not rich, things aren't likely to change.

James:
No, they lobbied for tax shelters, annuities, and other exemptions. Good Lord, but I studied the tax laws that come out of that period, and it was a sham. If you made $50,000, you were screwed because you couldn't free up enought to qualify, but if you made $500,000, you were just fine.

The country I was refering to was Ireland, which according to my 1990 data, had the highest tax bracket in Europe that year. It concerned why U2's members had left Ireland and become citizens of other countries. It pointed out that it was an epedemic problem in the country, that if you become wealthy, and wanted to keep it, you stopped being Irish.

Then, you need to consider the difference between the Capital Gains Tax and Income Tax rates. Not everyone is comfortable with the idea of taxing the money you make more than once, which is the essence of the Capital Gains Tax.

Yes, there are such things, Signy. Your point is?

Yes, and the best argument about this would be to mention the evils of the Sales Tax. After all, everyone has to eat, and everyone pays tax on that food. The poor get slammed by this, while the rich couldn't care less.

-The Wealthy scream about the Capital Gains Tax and Inheritance Tax. They really don't care as much about Income Tax, because that isn't how most of their wealth is accumulated.

-The Upper Class screams about All Taxes, because most of them work their asses off at high pressure, high paying jobs, only to lose a ton of it to various levels of governments.

-The Middle Class scream about Income Tax because they pay the most of their over all cash flow there.

-The Poor, when they bother to scream, scream about Sales Taxes, because an extra 1 cent per dollar plays havoc with their budgets, while they pay relatively little in income taxes and laugh at the idea of Tax Shelters and Capital Gains.

Wetwear, you think paying out income tax right now is bothering you? Wait until you break the $25,000 mark. Right now, the biggest bite out of your paycheck should be Social Security and Medicare, which no one gets a break on, and if you are younger than 30, you should never see again.
Me, I will be 40 in April, and I'm not counting on it being there for me.

Curious about something. Who here votes regularly?
Statistics show that the lowest 10% of the income bracket votes the least, the highest 10% vote the most. If your home income is $100,000, you are only half as likely to vote than someone who makes $250,000, too.
Asian-American's vote the most. African-American's vote the least, though a black man living below the poverty line is more likely to vote than a white man below the poverty line.

In a final spat if irony; more white americans are on some form of government assistance, but are more likely to vote Republican than any other group. Go figure.

My point is is,that if you tax more than the US,you will not drive the rich out.

It is not if that the US is taxing too much,or too little,rather who is it taxing.

Speaking as a Canadian, I have to say that watching American politics is downright fascinating. We have next to no emotional attachment and we still have familiarity with all the key players so it's like it's all happening on TV, all not quite real.



We salute you.

That's what I hate. This whole process is like a damned reality-TV show.

I thought that was the whole point

you too eh? Cheers!

So where are you from?