American Politics

[TikindiDragon]

Then Fuzz if there was a safety net that protected people who couldn't afford it would that help the issue? also, when I trypically talk of flat taxes I think of something that doesn't go above 8% typically because there is no need to tax more when there are not deductions to take away from what you are getting from that person.

*shakes head*

 

8% flat on everyon in the UK would land us completely bankrupt. Tax levels are generally set to cover what government expenditure is. Saying tax shouldn't go above 8%, without providing any kind of commentary on what that produces in income vs what expenditure is, is completely ridiculous. It also shows a very limited understanding of the tax system.

[brairtrainer]

*shakes head*

 

8% flat on everyon in the UK would land us completely bankrupt. Tax levels are generally set to cover what government expenditure is. Saying tax shouldn't go above 8%, without providing any kind of commentary on what that produces in income vs what expenditure is, is completely ridiculous. It also shows a very limited understanding of the tax system.

alright, that makes sense. I thought that if it was over a national base that you might be able to get away with a lower tax, I had made that assumption on the fact that my city has been running on a 1% tax rate on top of property taxes

[PointOfOrigin]

Funny, I was just reading that article not 5 minutes ago

 

I'm homeschooled. I've been exposed to free exchange of ideas. Homeschooling is not as insular as everyone assumes it to be. It's true, there are those that are completely isolated and have no exposure to alternative ideas, but as that article said, the professors address that swiftly. "Because Bible" and "mommy said so" are not legitimate answers, even at a Christian college.

 

 

 

Beyond this, a growing section of the homeschooling movement is making such educational choices not out of a religious or political motivation but purely an academic one. I'll find the statistic somewhere, but it may even be the majority of homeschoolers that responded to the polls that claim a primary motivation that is not religious.

 

Homeschooling a recipe for academic success, via the Washington Times

 

Point being, one cannot assume that because one has been homeschooled or one attends a Christian college that there is no "free exchange" of ideas. Debates are encouraged, alternative theories studied, etc. That's one of the benefits of homeschooling.

 

 

I'm sure most of you will find it amusing, predictable, and fitting that I will be attending PHC in the fall however, even I will be in the minority there, with my libertarian-leaning political ideals and Reformed theology. I categorically reject the popular statist Republicanism that it appears many of the students hold, and I will not be part of the Republican party "machine" by any means.

I haven't said anything about homeschooling being bad. To be honest, I wish I was home schooled myself. I spent primary school in a class that consisted of 6 students, and only now (since I'm in a class with thirty of us) I realize how easier it is to learn when professors can give you more attention.

 

Also, I haven't said that the education they get is bad. If the school is capable of competing in the same league as Oxford, then it's obvious that they get thorough education.

 

Here are a couple of quotes I had problem with:

 

Elisa said. She herself has courted twice, but courtship presumes that couples are considering marriage, and that, she told me, makes everything move too fast, before a relationship has gone anywhere at all. She would have serious discussions about children and insurance before the first kiss. Then, at some point, the boys realized “how much I really loved politics and wanted to be a part of it,” and the prospect of her commitment to a career became a problem.

 

Elisa believes the Bible dictates that “there are different roles for men and women”; as a White House intern, she saw women with young children working “long, long hours,” and she doesn’t want that. Her mother, who had her first child at twenty-seven, tells her that she regrets having waited so long. But the expectation of most of the guys she knows at Patrick Henry—that wives should just “fade out,” that she should instantly take on the identity of a wife and mother “and consider it a blessing”—is not something that she’s comfortable with. “I just think there’s more that God called me to do, and that’s a hard thing to say around here,” she told me.

At lunch one day, I talked with Farahn Morgan, the dancer, about the other students. Morgan had been homeschooled but also spent a lot of time in dance studios, and had a keener sense of social dynamics than many of her peers. The predominant view among Patrick Henry students is that “you choose your life path, not that things happen to you,” she said. “A lot of people here, if they lose control—even for a second—they have a breakdown.” Sometimes, instead of going to church, Morgan sits in her car alone and listens to sermons on the radio.

 

Girls talk about not “stumbling” a guy, the equivalent of tempting him, and resident advisers keep a close eye on them to make sure they don’t wear shirts that show any bra. If they do, they’ll get a friendly e-mail—“I think I saw you in dress code violation,” followed by a smiley emoticon. (Not everyone takes the strictures well: one woman I spoke to would sometimes cry in the stairwell after being criticized by other girls for dressing inappropriately; she is transferring.)

 

I'll stop at this quotes, but there is more that bothers me. I guess, what I'm trying to say, is that the views (especially gender related ones) on social issues that are promoted in that school bother and scare me. I see it as them being teached that there is only one right way to live and that that way is their way. From reading about them, I get the feeling that they were never exposed to different lifestyles - and that's why I think that they won't back down, not even a little bit, when it comes to social issues.

 

I guess I just wasn't specific enough - I forget that on the internet people have to go on only what I write

 

If you do enroll there I wish you luck and that you succeed. I know I wouldn't be able to survive there - I would probably break down in an environment like that.

Edited November 27, 2012 by PointOfOrigin

[TikindiDragon]

alright, that makes sense. I thought that if it was over a national base that you might be able to get away with a lower tax, I had made that assumption on the fact that my city has been running on a 1% tax rate on top of property taxes

A city requires somewhat less tax that a country does. A city does not, for example, have to cover the costs afforded in foreign diplomacy or in running amilitary. Local taxes cover purely local things, and one can't simply scale the concept up to cover a country.

 

Tax levels (on any scale) are highly dependant on expenditure. Large army? Needs money. Infrastructure projects (new roads, resurfacing old ones)? Needs money. Foreign relations? Needs money. Politicians? Yup, you guessed it, need paying. The civil servants, those people behind the scene that keep a government running? Yup, need money. And that's without even starting to look at social spending. Government aid money, either to it's own people or that sent abroad, requires funding. In the UK our healthcare is nationalised, which needs money. We have state pensions, which need money. Then there's things like schools, libraries, police and fire departments. Jails need paying for. Prosecuting people costs money, and because people have a right to a defence the State will often be paying both the cost to prosecute and the cost to defend. The sheer amount of things tax money is required for pretty swiftly stacks up.

 

In order to reduce taxes, spending has to be cut. But that's not as easy as it sounds. Public reactions to less spending on schools and police? Not good.

 

The UK spent £682 billion in the last tax year. The UK had a population of 62.3 million at the last census. Which, very roughly, is around £10,700 per person if it was shared evenly. Now, obviously, that isn't possible. At either end of the scale there are children that earn no income, and the elderly who also do not work. The current *working* population of the UK is 38 million. If the expenditure is shared just among the working population that's roughly £17,950 per person. A true 'flat tax' would charge everyone the same amount - which (in the UK anyway) would mean every working person had to pay that £17,950 tax bill.

 

Now I've had some trouble trying to find the exact figure for the UK average wage (most reports I've found insist on listing after-tax, or take home, pay) but the average income in the UK appears to be around £30,000. Which would make the per-working-person tax bill just under 68% of the average income. Average incomes are also heavily skewed - it doesn't take all that many very high earners to drag the 'average wage' well up above what most people earn. I, for example, earn a fairly typical wage of around £20,000. Clearly I'd be unable to pay anywhere near a £17,950 tax bill and still have any money to live on (although I'd pay no VAT on anything, bringing prices significantly down, I still wouldn't be able to live on little over £2000 a year). Someone on £50,000 on the other hand (which is a much higher than average wage) would still comfortably have over £30,000 left to live on after that flat tax had been taken.

 

That probably all got over complicated. And due to people turning up I've been writing this post on and off for about 4 hours now, so I admit I may have got a little off tack. Basically what I'm trying to say is that a flat tax (or, infact, a single income related percentage tax to replace all current forms) is only of net benefit to people that are already well off. People on low, or even average, incomes start to lose out big time because they simply can't live on the percentage of a wage they have left.

 

It often doesn't seem 'fair' to those people earning a lot of money that they pay proportionally more than people that earn smaller amounts. But the simple fact is that a government *can't* get the money it needs by taking the same proportion from the poor as it does from the rich. Because if it sets the tax level at something the poor can afford it doesn't get the money it needs, and if it sets the tax level to get the money it needs it drive most of it's wage earners into bankruptcy. Governments cost money, and that money has to come from people that have the greatest capacity to pay it.

[brairtrainer]

A city requires somewhat less tax that a country does. A city does not, for example, have to cover the costs afforded in foreign diplomacy or in running amilitary. Local taxes cover purely local things, and one can't simply scale the concept up to cover a country.

 

Tax levels (on any scale) are highly dependant on expenditure. Large army? Needs money. Infrastructure projects (new roads, resurfacing old ones)? Needs money. Foreign relations? Needs money. Politicians? Yup, you guessed it, need paying. The civil servants, those people behind the scene that keep a government running? Yup, need money. And that's without even starting to look at social spending. Government aid money, either to it's own people or that sent abroad, requires funding. In the UK our healthcare is nationalised, which needs money. We have state pensions, which need money. Then there's things like schools, libraries, police and fire departments. Jails need paying for. Prosecuting people costs money, and because people have a right to a defence the State will often be paying both the cost to prosecute and the cost to defend. The sheer amount of things tax money is required for pretty swiftly stacks up.

 

In order to reduce taxes, spending has to be cut. But that's not as easy as it sounds. Public reactions to less spending on schools and police? Not good.

 

The UK spent £682 billion in the last tax year. The UK had a population of 62.3 million at the last census. Which, very roughly, is around £10,700 per person if it was shared evenly. Now, obviously, that isn't possible. At either end of the scale there are children that earn no income, and the elderly who also do not work. The current *working* population of the UK is 38 million. If the expenditure is shared just among the working population that's roughly £17,950 per person. A true 'flat tax' would charge everyone the same amount - which (in the UK anyway) would mean every working person had to pay that £17,950 tax bill.

 

Now I've had some trouble trying to find the exact figure for the UK average wage (most reports I've found insist on listing after-tax, or take home, pay) but the average income in the UK appears to be around £30,000. Which would make the per-working-person tax bill just under 68% of the average income. Average incomes are also heavily skewed - it doesn't take all that many very high earners to drag the 'average wage' well up above what most people earn. I, for example, earn a fairly typical wage of around £20,000. Clearly I'd be unable to pay anywhere near a £17,950 tax bill and still have any money to live on (although I'd pay no VAT on anything, bringing prices significantly down, I still wouldn't be able to live on little over £2000 a year). Someone on £50,000 on the other hand (which is a much higher than average wage) would still comfortably have over £30,000 left to live on after that flat tax had been taken.

 

That probably all got over complicated. And due to people turning up I've been writing this post on and off for about 4 hours now, so I admit I may have got a little off tack. Basically what I'm trying to say is that a flat tax (or, infact, a single income related percentage tax to replace all current forms) is only of net benefit to people that are already well off. People on low, or even average, incomes start to lose out big time because they simply can't live on the percentage of a wage they have left.

 

It often doesn't seem 'fair' to those people earning a lot of money that they pay proportionally more than people that earn smaller amounts. But the simple fact is that a government *can't* get the money it needs by taking the same proportion from the poor as it does from the rich. Because if it sets the tax level at something the poor can afford it doesn't get the money it needs, and if it sets the tax level to get the money it needs it drive most of it's wage earners into bankruptcy. Governments cost money, and that money has to come from people that have the greatest capacity to pay it.

Okay backing up, what I was advocating was a flat tax that takes a percentage of your pay, not a flat bill (if that is called something else then sorry about the confusion). Part of the reason I want to see that though is because I know that there are several government programs that are ineffective right now, and what I would like to see is a cut in government spending by taking the most effective programs and make them more effective and eleminate the ineffective or broken programs, and slowly bring in the percentage tax system.

 

I honestly think there needs to be some cuts to the military, but only because I've learned that the money that goes to new equipment sometimes pays for equipment they didn't need in the first place. A friend of mine who works on checking equipment in when soldiers come back from over seas and checks broken equipment before orders were made told me that there is some fraud that goes on, where people claim something is broken but when he goes to double check it it works fine or just needs a little bit of elbow grease to clean it.

 

Personally, I think if these two things were followed through (elimnating some of the wiggle room so that we only spend money where we need to in the military, and make programs more effective and get rid of money draining sink holes that don't contribute to effectiveness) we may be surprised at how much money it actually takes to do some of these things.

[philpot123]

I haven't said anything about homeschooling being bad. To be honest, I wish I was home schooled myself. I spent primary school in a class that consisted of 6 students, and only now (since I'm in a class with thirty of us) I realize how easier it is to learn when professors can give you more attention.

 

Also, I haven't said that the education they get is bad. If the school is capable of competing in the same league as Oxford, then it's obvious that they get thorough education.

 

Here are a couple of quotes I had problem with:

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'll stop at this quotes, but there is more that bothers me. I guess, what I'm trying to say, is that the views (especially gender related ones) on social issues that are promoted in that school bother and scare me. I see it as them being teached that there is only one right way to live and that that way is their way. From reading about them, I get the feeling that they were never exposed to different lifestyles - and that's why I think that they won't back down, not even a little bit, when it comes to social issues.

 

I guess I just wasn't specific enough - I forget that on the internet people have to go on only what I write

 

If you do enroll there I wish you luck and that you succeed. I know I wouldn't be able to survive there - I would probably break down in an environment like that.

Well, on the whole, the gender subjugation is a voluntary thing. It's based on a certain brand of religious convictions, and those who disagree can either reject it, as that girl did, at which point if one was looking for a relationship they would have to look outside the college, or they could get a quality education elsewhere.

 

Have you looked into other "fundamentalist" Christian colleges like Bob Jones and Pensacola Christian? PHC looks like child's play compared to them. PHC only has hard and fast rules about no excessive PDAs and no extra-martial sexual relations, and a few other behavioral guidelines that could almost be considered typical at a Christian campus, such as prohibitions on alcohol and tobacco consumption.

 

At Bob Jones and PCC, there is NO physical contact between men and women permitted. There are gender segregated elevators (PCC) and gender segregated sidewalks (BJ). Students are instructed that if a male is walking behind a female on the stairs, and she begins to fall backwards, they should let her fall rather than break the rule of no physical contact (PCC). No earbuds or headphones are allowed on campus, and you may not play an instrument anywhere on campus but the designated practice rooms on penalty of expulsion. Etc. PHC has general behavioral guidelines that are not over the top or ridiculously legalistic, especially for a "fundamentalist" Christian college. Both PCC and BJ have mediocre to average academics, whereas PHC has above-average to excellent programs, allowing them to compete in forensics tournaments with the Ivy Leagues, as you said.

 

 

I wouldn't expect most people to enjoy a college like that. It's no poor reflection on you, by any means even most of my Christian friends couldn't handle it.

 

 

There has been a lot of uproar in the media about PHC lately, following a piece a German journalist penned when she posed as a prospective student after the college denied an interview request (the college regularly receives bad press from Germany because of their outspoken opposition to homeschooling). But it seems to me that much of the outrage and indignation being directed at PHC is misplaced. It would seem better reserved for those Christian colleges that are obscenely legalistic and are producing average graduates. Perhaps people are making a large fuss about Patrick Henry College because it is a college that is producing exceptional graduates who are leading productive lives and showing that their worldview hasn't hindered them from being productive in the workforce. It seems like a lot of people don't like the fact that fundamentalist Christians can be well-educated, influential members of society I'm not saying you hold this view, but it is certainly the exact words many are using in the comments on this blog...

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/23/1...k-Henry-College

 

 

Yes, it's true, we have been taught that there is one truth, a truth that is found in the Bible. And it's true that many of us will not back down from our religious beliefs. But it's not necessarily because we haven't been exposed to different lifestyles. I've had plenty of exposure, discussion, and outside influence. My mind just hasn't been changed.

 

[PointOfOrigin]

Well, this was just a link I came upon in that same daily cos article. I though it was interesting and wanted to know what you guys thought about it. Since I'm on a different continent, I never gave much attention to American colleges.

 

It seems like a lot of people don't like the fact that fundamentalist Christians can be well-educated, influential members of society

 

Internet probably has a big effect on that way of thinking. The only fundamentalists that get some attention on the internet are the exact opposite of that. And then you get stereotypes. In addition, most of us aren't used to fundamentalists. I live in an about 90% Catholic county (5% nones and the rest are mostly Orthodox Christians, Muslims and Jews) and I never meet a fundamentalist face to face. And that's despite the fact that we have religion as a mandatory subject in elementary and high schools.

[~Kat~]

Small Business Owner Gives Obama a Piece of His Mind

 

Read more: http://smallbusiness.foxbusiness.com/entre.../#ixzz2DbssjT00

[CrossingStar]

Small Business Owner Gives Obama a Piece of His Mind

 

Read more: http://smallbusiness.foxbusiness.com/entre.../#ixzz2DbssjT00

We need to be more competitive? What? If we just stopped going to war and meddling in business that isn't ours, the deficit would be easily balanced!

[Fuzzbucket]

We need to be more competitive? What? If we just stopped going to war and meddling in business that isn't ours, the deficit would be easily balanced!

Right on ! (and if taxes were fairer, that would help, too.)

[CrossingStar]

Right on ! (and if taxes were fairer, that would help, too.)

I remember one person - Stephen Colbert, maybe - criticizing Romney because 'he could pay off the deficit all by himself' or something. While this is an exaggeration, it's quite possible that celebs. giving lots of their money would really ease the deficit.

[Fuzzbucket]

And Warren Buffet thinks the multi-billionnaires like him SHOULD pay more taxes - and I gather many others like him agree, or so he says.

[CrossingStar]

And Warren Buffet thinks the multi-billionnaires like him SHOULD pay more taxes - and I gather many others like him agree, or so he says.

Just goes to show that there are some people who have lots of money and a heart

[NixAyum]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/01/m...l?ncid=webmail1

 

A few things:

 

1. This is news? Thanksgiving was a while ago.

 

2. What's the big deal with Boston Market? Plenty of people buy food instead of cooking, and with that many people I'd probably buy too. Plus BM is delicious omnomnom.

 

3. Again, THIS IS NEWS? Whooooo caaaaaaaares what someone else did for holiday (as long as it wasn't disruptive, and this pretty clearly wasn't).

 

4. I find it funny that the article says he had a "post-election mourning period" and then goes on to claim "the ex-candidate is not one to wallow in self-pity".

 

5. That thing about Gore, irrelevant or a shot at a politician they don't like or what because I don't get it?

[~Kat~]

I do not think it is fair at all, just because a lot of people are rich should be responsible for paying off the deficit. The rest of the people, middle and poor live in this country as well.

 

I feel a flat tax would be the way to go myself, and the government should watch what they spend, on who and what they spend it on as well.

 

I work for a company, so I am not rich by any means.

[TikindiDragon]

I do not think it is fair at all, just because a lot of people are rich should be responsible for paying off the deficit. The rest of the people, middle and poor live in this country as well.

 

I feel a flat tax would be the way to go myself, and the government should watch what they spend, on who and what they spend it on as well.

 

I work for a company, so I am not rich by any means.

See my previous post about taxes as to why a flat tax wouldn't work.

 

Edited to add, quoting the most relevant bit here

It often doesn't seem 'fair' to those people earning a lot of money that they pay proportionally more than people that earn smaller amounts. But the simple fact is that a government *can't* get the money it needs by taking the same proportion from the poor as it does from the rich. Because if it sets the tax level at something the poor can afford it doesn't get the money it needs, and if it sets the tax level to get the money it needs it drive most of it's wage earners into bankruptcy. Governments cost money, and that money has to come from people that have the greatest capacity to pay it.

Edited December 4, 2012 by TikindiDragon

[philpot123]

It often doesn't seem 'fair' to those people earning a lot of money that they pay proportionally more than people that earn smaller amounts. But the simple fact is that a government *can't* get the money it needs by taking the same proportion from the poor as it does from the rich. Because if it sets the tax level at something the poor can afford it doesn't get the money it needs, and if it sets the tax level to get the money it needs it drive most of it's wage earners into bankruptcy. Governments cost money, and that money has to come from people that have the greatest capacity to pay it.

 

It CAN get the money it needs, if the government is small enough

[CrossingStar]

It CAN get the money it needs, if the government is small enough

But what should America get rid of to make its government smaller?

[philpot123]

But what should America get rid of to make its government smaller?

The fed Ron Paul fan here. There's plenty of government waste, even in the things the national government SHOULD be involved in, like the military. Drastic federal reform and spending cuts are the answer, not increased taxes. But nobody likes to talk about cutting back the size of the federal government. It's just a radical concept that won't catch on for awhile.

[CrossingStar]

The fed Ron Paul fan here. There's plenty of government waste, even in the things the national government SHOULD be involved in, like the military. Drastic federal reform and spending cuts are the answer, not increased taxes. But nobody likes to talk about cutting back the size of the federal government. It's just a radical concept that won't catch on for awhile.

I saw on the news last night all that stuff about Syria and the chemical bombs. Why can't the US just cut it out? If we just stayed out of stuff like that they wouldn't want to bomb us. Even if they went ahead and used those bombs on their own country, it wouldn't effect us!

 

Why would we need to get involved?

[brairtrainer]

But what should America get rid of to make its government smaller?

The ineffective programs and parts of the beurcracy that are spending money that does not need to be spent either because the job can and should be handled by less people or the amount of money it takes for the government to distribute money is out of wack.

 

There are several welfare programs, but they don't do enough. Some are very effective and handle a wide user base, others are not as effective and are only availble to a small amount of users but require lots of money to sort out who qualifies and who doesn't.

[Kyrieath]

I saw on the news last night all that stuff about Syria and the chemical bombs. Why can't the US just cut it out? If we just stayed out of stuff like that they wouldn't want to bomb us. Even if they went ahead and used those bombs on their own country, it wouldn't effect us!

 

Why would we need to get involved?

I think "Scandinavia and the World" put this situation into it's clearest light for the kind of catch 22 America is in any time something like this comes up:

 

Other Nations when things are going smooth: "America, stop interfering!"

Other Nations when things are going wrong: "America, why weren't you interfering?!"

 

Sooo- yeah. downside to being part of the "world police" and having one of the largest military forces in the world is that whether you do or don't do anything, it's all your fault. I suppose at this point our government has just thrown in the towel at trying to keep up that balancing act.

 

Though to be fair, a lot of the concern about those weapons isn't so much the current regime using them as other factions more volatile doing so if the regime falls while said weapons are being prepared for use.

 

I will note it's a bad idea to think 'it won't affect us'. The danger of chemical and biological weapons both is you can't be sure of that.

[TikindiDragon]

The fed Ron Paul fan here. There's plenty of government waste, even in the things the national government SHOULD be involved in, like the military. Drastic federal reform and spending cuts are the answer, not increased taxes. But nobody likes to talk about cutting back the size of the federal government. It's just a radical concept that won't catch on for awhile.

See, I'm not sure that in the case of the US even that would be able to support the kind of taxation I've seen being suggested. And then there does come the argument of would it be fair to cut taxes for the most well off (if only to bring them in line with what the least-well off are paying) when the least well off are often struggling to survive.

[CrossingStar]

I will note it's a bad idea to think 'it won't affect us'. The danger of chemical and biological weapons both is you can't be sure of that.

By 'It won't effect us,' I meant, 'We shouldn't give them a reason to use them on us by getting in the middle of things and telling people what to do.' I firmly blame the warmongering aspect of American culture.

[brairtrainer]

By 'It won't effect us,' I meant, 'We shouldn't give them a reason to use them on us by getting in the middle of things and telling people what to do.' I firmly blame the warmongering aspect of American culture.

I can't fully blame the war mongering of American culture, what I do blame is the fact that right now we are a global super power and suddenly feel responsible for everyone. However, we assume our way is the only way and don't spend time medeating and we get involved when we don't know the entire story. Add to the fact that the UN is very weak and needs our back up most of the time do do anything the world looses. Especially when we people tried to deny UN reps from being at the elections, reps who are being trained to monitor elections in countries that have had problems in the past, to see how to do it correctly.