I'm a Libertarian with two important divergent views from my party

[donttread]

1) I do not believe in corporate personhood at all and certainly don't believe in the current system where corporations effectively have MORE RIGHTS than individuals. As such I believe that for freedom to live the megacorps must die , if this requires an Amendment and some federal interference than so be it.

2) I am all for efficient , hand up type social programs at the state level within reason, just not at the federal level.

How about you? Where do you differ from your groups party lines?

[Mister D]

I don't have a party or even a real ideology anymore although I am somewhat sympathetic to fascism.

[Chris]

I'm (lower-case) libertarian, not a partier, lol.

1) I once was against corporate personhood, but Newpublius has some good arguments about how without some protections few would take the risks involved in opportunity costs. So I don't know on this one.

2) No problem with hand ups though I'd prefer them first at the community level--family, church, work, etc; then the state--not, as you say, the federal.


I'm not a partier anymore--I was when I voted for Michael Badnarik--because I think running for and holding office anathema to libertarianism. Perhaps I'm too radical, but to me libertarianism leads logically to anarchism.

[donttread]

I'm (lower-case) libertarian, not a partier, lol.

1) I once was against corporate personhood, but @Newpublius (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=685) has some good arguments about how without some protections few would take the risks involved in opportunity costs. So I don't know on this one.

2) No problem with hand ups though I'd prefer them first at the community level--family, church, work, etc; then the state--not, as you say, the federal.


I'm not a partier anymore--I was when I voted for Michael Badnarik--because I think running for and holding office anathema to libertarianism. Perhaps I'm too radical, but to me libertarianism leads logically to anarchism.

Good point on the community based programs, the closer to home the better. As for corporate risk, I think we can have small and medium sized corps incentivized well enough to do that and maintain better local economies and true competition at the same time

[1751_Texan]

Good point on the community based programs, the closer to home the better. As for corporate risk, I think we can have small and medium sized corps incentivized well enough to do that and maintain better local economies and true competition at the same time


What would be a helping hand? I presume that to mean some sort of social assistance.

What of all the other benefits the majority of Ameircans enjoy that would not be classified as a handout or handup...but still are tax driven...Would those also be included?

[PolWatch]

I'm not a member of any party, but I agree that corps are not people..in fact, there is something really creepy to entertain that idea. Maybe I've watched too much science fiction. I wonder if small businesses can apply for person hood...or is it only huge corps who can make large campaign donations. Some folks are more equal than others?

Regarding welfare: we gotta do something. There are people who honestly need help and don't take advantage of it. There are also bums who need to get off their duffs & go to work. There have been several good proposals to limit/change welfare but they have all been defeated because of partisan politics. Until we stop with football politics (winner/loser) and go back to compromise...nothing will get better.

I know it will never happen (at least in my lifetime) but I believe that a flat tax rate with no loopholes, etc and no corporate welfare would go a long way to helping clear up this nation's financial messes.

[Newpublius]

1) I once was against corporate personhood, but Newpublius has some good arguments about how without some protections few would take the risks involved in opportunity costs. So I don't know on this one.

Without limited liability, vicarious liability would make entering into any kind of a business association so ridiculously hazardous, nobody would do it. Imagine going to work, telling your employer to invest your 401(k) in the 'Magellan Fund' (or what not) and then finding out that you are personally on the hook for GM's debt. In theory you might not even know you OWNED GM Stock. But even for smaller organizations, you're subjecting your personal assets to the torts of other people you couldn't possibly vouch for, your partners, and you're also liable for the torts committed by your employees.

Personhood itself is also misunderstood. Corporations are not 'people' the ordinary rule of construction is that the corporation would be a natural extension of the people who own it, this is obvious and the natural consequence of ordinary agency rules. The concept employed is the LEGAL FICTION of SEPARATE personhood....we make PRETEND that the corporation is separate as practicality dictates when in fact it really obviously isn't.

[Chris]

Good point on the community based programs, the closer to home the better. As for corporate risk, I think we can have small and medium sized corps incentivized well enough to do that and maintain better local economies and true competition at the same time

See Newpublius explanation just above. It's convincing to me.

[Chris]

What would be a helping hand? I presume that to mean some sort of social assistance.

What of all the other benefits the majority of Ameircans enjoy that would not be classified as a handout or handup...but still are tax driven...Would those also be included?


I wouldn't include any of the others.

[Bob]

1) I do not believe in corporate personhood at all and certainly don't believe in the current system where corporations effectively have MORE RIGHTS than individuals. As such I believe that for freedom to live the megacorps must die , if this requires an Amendment and some federal interference than so be it.

2) I am all for efficient , hand up type social programs at the state level within reason, just not at the federal level.

How about you? Where do you differ from your groups party lines?

I posted and then was able to read post #7 by Newpublis. He is entirely accurate, however let's add my bit since I have already written it and this is the edit.

The so called person called Corporation has to be explained. OVER and OVER and OVER

Who purchases stock?

PERSONS

As individuals, they pay taxes. They can sell stock and use it for legal purposes.

HOWEVER

The Government that created the corporation, decided that Corporations that own rail roads, steel mills and coal mines may encounter a position where somebody wants to sue the corporation, even the government itself.

Since stocks do not entitle you to run the corporation, you are safe from suits.

But the Corporation is not.

The Corporation is called a person since it can be treated under law just like a person is treated.

Nobody will invest in companies that grow if there are no corporations nor stock ownerships.

We speak of separation of church and state.

State has no duty to engage in charity. If it is in the constitution, it has a duty. However the Federal Constitution has no duty to pay charity.

Not knowing the details of all the states constitutions, perhaps some or all of them have state provisions. But not the Feds.

I vote Republican but believe they must return to the founders system.
@Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128) Newpublius

[Green Arrow]

I vote for whatever candidate I believe is closest to my views on the issues, regardless of party. I am a card-carrying member of the Green Party, however.

[Bob]

I'm not a member of any party, but I agree that corps are not people..in fact, there is something really creepy to entertain that idea. Maybe I've watched too much science fiction. I wonder if small businesses can apply for person hood...or is it only huge corps who can make large campaign donations. Some folks are more equal than others?

Regarding welfare: we gotta do something. There are people who honestly need help and don't take advantage of it. There are also bums who need to get off their duffs & go to work. There have been several good proposals to limit/change welfare but they have all been defeated because of partisan politics. Until we stop with football politics (winner/loser) and go back to compromise...nothing will get better.

I know it will never happen (at least in my lifetime) but I believe that a flat tax rate with no loopholes, etc and no corporate welfare would go a long way to helping clear up this nation's financial messes.

See post 7 by Newpublis. Read mine several down from his for more data.

Your comments on corporations is well documented in his post and mine as well.

As to Charity, I commented on that as well.

We lost sight of the purpose of Church. Church is moral. Government is clearly not moral. Not in the sense humans are moral. We can make a better argument to say there is no Government than we can over Corporations. As it stands, Government creates constructs called laws and regulations that people must obey, though Government is not a person. (see how that works once you take that path?)

As I said above this post, it is possible that some or all states constructed their constitutions to allow for charity. States rights allow that.

At the Federal level, it is wrong. It should have been stopped at the US Supreme court in it's infancy.

Church is for Charity, not Government.

[The Sage of Main Street]

I'm (lower-case) libertarian, not a partier, lol.

1) I once was against corporate personhood, but @Newpublius (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=685) has some good arguments about how without some protections few would take the risks involved in opportunity costs. So I don't know on this one.

2) No problem with hand ups . "Risk" means stupidity, as in "That was a pretty risky thing you did." The sum total of losses by their employees caused by the Jackpot Jackals' reckless gambling is more than the high-rollers put at risk. Besides, the Plutes only bet with surplus money, while the workers get wiped out having to find other jobs and wasting the years that could have given them seniority in a stable company.

[Chris]

I posted and then was able to read post #7 by Newpublis. He is entirely accurate, however let's add my bit since I have already written it and this is the edit.

The so called person called Corporation has to be explained. OVER and OVER and OVER

Who purchases stock?

PERSONS

As individuals, they pay taxes. They can sell stock and use it for legal purposes.

HOWEVER

The Government that created the corporation, decided that Corporations that own rail roads, steel mills and coal mines may encounter a position where somebody wants to sue the corporation, even the government itself.

Since stocks do not entitle you to run the corporation, you are safe from suits.

But the Corporation is not.

The Corporation is called a person since it can be treated under law just like a person is treated.

Nobody will invest in companies that grow if there are no corporations nor stock ownerships.

We speak of separation of church and state.

State has no duty to engage in charity. If it is in the constitution, it has a duty. However the Federal Constitution has no duty to pay charity.

Not knowing the details of all the states constitutions, perhaps some or all of them have state provisions. But not the Feds.

I vote Republican but believe they must return to the founders system.
@Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128) Newpublius


The founder's system was classical liberalism, which, after progressives hijacked liberalism, is now right-wing Tea Party libertarianism. A good representative of this position is, imo, Sen. Mike Lee: "The American people want a more conservative government." (http://reason.com/blog/2014/07/13/sen-mike-lee-the-american-people-want-a)

[Chris]

"Risk" means stupidity, as in "That was a pretty risky thing you did." The sum total of losses by their employees caused by the Jackpot Jackals' reckless gambling is more than the high-rollers put at risk. Besides, the Plutes only bet with surplus money, while the workers get wiped out having to find other jobs and wasting the years that could have given them seniority in a stable company.

Read and learn: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/risk.asp

[Bob]

My views at age 22 are so different than my views of today it is hard to compare.

I learned the hard way.

We have a poster who votes green or approves the group.

I paid him so much respect, I included him as a family member to show a great deal of respect.

Alas, he says don't show him that respect.

Thus the debate.

When you see the trains on the track, headed at each other, you don't vote for the car on the side road.

The Greens are a side show. Libertarians are a side show.

The only trains that are on the collision course are the Democrats and Republicans.

We can lament it all day long. It does not change facts.

Ross Perot came nearest to being in the colision than any modern era candidate.

Study him very well. Forget the rest, study Ross Perot.

Ross had the famous charts proving that what happened, was going to happen. He shouted it first.

He actually would have moved away from the two parties and gone for the jugular.

I don't know that Congress would be happy to help him, but he was aiming that high.

Ross took a beating.

And he shoved GHW Bush off the track and allowed Clinton to rule.

And he put us in such a shape that it was inevitable that when GW Bush took over he had to invade Iraq and shove out the dictators of Afghanistan. There was no other way for GW Bush to have acted.

This country had over 10 years of daily screaming murder at Saddam Hussein.

The law the land has the words Saddam Hussein in it. The law states the purpose of this nation was to eliminate Saddam Hussein. It does not matter today why, but it was the law.

Finally

Learn that you must vote for the D or the R to protest.

Protest the D since they create stuff out of thin air. When a republican later follows suit, then he gets trashed by the D party. Such as GW Bush drug plan.

A protest is not heard.

Even were it heard, just like Ross Perot was in favor with protesters, he never became president. All his votes only put Clinton into office.

[Mainecoons]

Clinton was a better POTUS than any of those damn Bushes.

Next.

[Green Arrow]

My views at age 22 are so different than my views of today it is hard to compare.

I learned the hard way.

We have a poster who votes green or approves the group.

I paid him so much respect, I included him as a family member to show a great deal of respect.

Alas, he says don't show him that respect.

Thus the debate.

When you see the trains on the track, headed at each other, you don't vote for the car on the side road.

The Greens are a side show. Libertarians are a side show.

The only trains that are on the collision course are the Democrats and Republicans.

We can lament it all day long. It does not change facts.

Ross Perot came nearest to being in the colision than any modern era candidate.

Study him very well. Forget the rest, study Ross Perot.

Ross had the famous charts proving that what happened, was going to happen. He shouted it first.

He actually would have moved away from the two parties and gone for the jugular.

I don't know that Congress would be happy to help him, but he was aiming that high.

Ross took a beating.

And he shoved GHW Bush off the track and allowed Clinton to rule.

And he put us in such a shape that it was inevitable that when GW Bush took over he had to invade Iraq and shove out the dictators of Afghanistan. There was no other way for GW Bush to have acted.

This country had over 10 years of daily screaming murder at Saddam Hussein.

The law the land has the words Saddam Hussein in it. The law states the purpose of this nation was to eliminate Saddam Hussein. It does not matter today why, but it was the law.

Finally

Learn that you must vote for the D or the R to protest.

Protest the D since they create stuff out of thin air. When a republican later follows suit, then he gets trashed by the D party. Such as GW Bush drug plan.

A protest is not heard.

Even were it heard, just like Ross Perot was in favor with protesters, he never became president. All his votes only put Clinton into office.

You don't seem to understand how protests work. Voting for the two parties you do not like is not a protest, it's giving in. Staying home is also giving in. The elites don't care how many people vote for them. A measly 10% of the nation could vote as long as they voted for the two parties.

The only protest is a vote for a third party.

[Mainecoons]

Definitely end corporate welfare. And also end corporate taxes. Only individuals should pay taxes and there should be no place to hide. Business taxes are just past along to the customer and, in addition, when a country is as stupid as to be so far out of step with the rest of the world on business tax rates, these taxes also drive away companies and jobs.

The whole tax code is full of BS and should be scrapped in its entirety and redesigned to collect about 20 percent of GNP and spend no more than that as well.

[countryboy]

1) I do not believe in corporate personhood at all and certainly don't believe in the current system where corporations effectively have MORE RIGHTS than individuals. As such I believe that for freedom to live the megacorps must die , if this requires an Amendment and some federal interference than so be it.

2) I am all for efficient , hand up type social programs at the state level within reason, just not at the federal level.

How about you? Where do you differ from your groups party lines?
I guess I am misinformed. I was under the impression that libertarians were in favor of liberty.

[Matty]

Definitely end corporate welfare. And also end corporate taxes. Only individuals should pay taxes and there should be no place to hide. Business taxes are just past along to the customer and, in addition, when a country is as stupid as to be so far out of step with the rest of the world on business tax rates, these taxes also drive away companies and jobs.

The whole tax code is full of BS and should be scrapped in its entirety and redesigned to collect about 20 percent of GNP and spend no more than that as well.


The tax code is punitive. Fair flat tax is the only way to go. No exceptions, no exemptions, and no excuses.

[Chris]

The tax code is punitive. Fair flat tax is the only way to go. No exceptions, no exemptions, and no excuses.

Fair Tax on consumption, not income.

[donttread]

Without limited liability, vicarious liability would make entering into any kind of a business association so ridiculously hazardous, nobody would do it. Imagine going to work, telling your employer to invest your 401(k) in the 'Magellan Fund' (or what not) and then finding out that you are personally on the hook for GM's debt. In theory you might not even know you OWNED GM Stock. But even for smaller organizations, you're subjecting your personal assets to the torts of other people you couldn't possibly vouch for, your partners, and you're also liable for the torts committed by your employees.

We can have some limited liability but we need to put the "limited" back in. 500,000 worth of assets are protected as long as you did not act in bad faith. Small guy protected, megacorp CEO better not sell poison.
Personhood itself is also misunderstood. Corporations are not 'people' the ordinary rule of construction is that the corporation would be a natural extension of the people who own it, this is obvious and the natural consequence of ordinary agency rules. The concept employed is the LEGAL FICTION of SEPARATE personhood....we make PRETEND that the corporation is separate as practicality dictates when in fact it really obviously isn't.

[donttread]

I guess I am misinformed. I was under the impression that libertarians were in favor of liberty.



Liberty for people, not business entities where the rich can commit crimes, stay free and keep their money

[Jets]

Fair Tax on consumption, not income.

Could not agree more. Want to see the economy pick up, let everyone take home their entire paychecks first and foremost.

My two cents

[donttread]

We could simply put the "limited " back in Limited Liability. For example as long as corporate officers acted in good faith their first 500,000 of assets are protected. We then end the unofficial ban on criminally charging corporate kingpins. As it stands now there is no liberty , no free market and no capitalism

[zelmo1234]

"Risk" means stupidity, as in "That was a pretty risky thing you did." The sum total of losses by their employees caused by the Jackpot Jackals' reckless gambling is more than the high-rollers put at risk. Besides, the Plutes only bet with surplus money, while the workers get wiped out having to find other jobs and wasting the years that could have given them seniority in a stable company.

The worst thing that the Unions did was introduce Seniority into the work place.

Nobody should be judged on how long they are somewhere. (Yes I get that you can reward them with more vacations ect.)

But to base pay and promotions on time served rather than performance is stupidity

[zelmo1234]

Read and learn: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/risk.asp

How much are you willing to pay him

You know he is not going to conform and if you were worth your salt you would realize that he is brilliant and should be paid to learn? :)

I offered to provide the capital for him to use his brilliance and start a business, all he had to do was produce a business plan? He didn't because all he ants is for the government to take from those he is jealous of and give to him

He is entitled don't you know!

[zelmo1234]

My views at age 22 are so different than my views of today it is hard to compare.

I learned the hard way.

We have a poster who votes green or approves the group.

I paid him so much respect, I included him as a family member to show a great deal of respect.

Alas, he says don't show him that respect.

Thus the debate.

When you see the trains on the track, headed at each other, you don't vote for the car on the side road.

The Greens are a side show. Libertarians are a side show.

The only trains that are on the collision course are the Democrats and Republicans.

We can lament it all day long. It does not change facts.

Ross Perot came nearest to being in the colision than any modern era candidate.

Study him very well. Forget the rest, study Ross Perot.

Ross had the famous charts proving that what happened, was going to happen. He shouted it first.

He actually would have moved away from the two parties and gone for the jugular.

I don't know that Congress would be happy to help him, but he was aiming that high.

Ross took a beating.

And he shoved GHW Bush off the track and allowed Clinton to rule.

And he put us in such a shape that it was inevitable that when GW Bush took over he had to invade Iraq and shove out the dictators of Afghanistan. There was no other way for GW Bush to have acted.

This country had over 10 years of daily screaming murder at Saddam Hussein.

The law the land has the words Saddam Hussein in it. The law states the purpose of this nation was to eliminate Saddam Hussein. It does not matter today why, but it was the law.

Finally

Learn that you must vote for the D or the R to protest.

Protest the D since they create stuff out of thin air. When a republican later follows suit, then he gets trashed by the D party. Such as GW Bush drug plan.

A protest is not heard.

Even were it heard, just like Ross Perot was in favor with protesters, he never became president. All his votes only put Clinton into office.

While a respect your opinion, I will choose to disagree.

Political change in this country does not happened quickly but I don't remember see any Whig party members on the ticket lately!

We are in a situation that the R's and the D's are two sides of the same coin?

So when deciding to vote for the lesser of 2 evils, you still have to vote for evil.

I did not vote for Romney, and I believe he is a great person and wonderfully moral and generous man!

I also believe that he is a progressive big government Guy and I did not find that to be an improvement over another progressive big government guy

So if the D's or the R's want my vote then they will put forward a Constitutional Small Government Conservative Or they will not receive my vote

Now many will say he would have been better than Obama? Maybe but not enough to turn the ship around.

So if we have to go off the cliff of insolvency to return he nation to the people? Then lets go over that cliff, have the political fight with those on the left and determine if we are be a socialist nation or we will return freedom, personal responsibility and states rights to the country!

What is exciting is the youth are willing to vote 3 party and they are becoming engaged with the process

[Chris]

While a respect your opinion, I will choose to disagree.

Political change in this country does not happened quickly but I don't remember see any Whig party members on the ticket lately!

We are in a situation that the R's and the D's are two sides of the same coin?

So when deciding to vote for the lesser of 2 evils, you still have to vote for evil.

I did not vote for Romney, and I believe he is a great person and wonderfully moral and generous man!

I also believe that he is a progressive big government Guy and I did not find that to be an improvement over another progressive big government guy

So if the D's or the R's want my vote then they will put forward a Constitutional Small Government Conservative Or they will not receive my vote

Now many will say he would have been better than Obama? Maybe but not enough to turn the ship around.

So if we have to go off the cliff of insolvency to return he nation to the people? Then lets go over that cliff, have the political fight with those on the left and determine if we are be a socialist nation or we will return freedom, personal responsibility and states rights to the country!

What is exciting is the youth are willing to vote 3 party and they are becoming engaged with the process


Agree. Not buying the lesser of two evils argument anymore.

[Chris]

How much are you willing to pay him

You know he is not going to conform and if you were worth your salt you would realize that he is brilliant and should be paid to learn? :)

I offered to provide the capital for him to use his brilliance and start a business, all he had to do was produce a business plan? He didn't because all he ants is for the government to take from those he is jealous of and give to him

He is entitled don't you know!


He'd have to explain in detail the ROI.

[Archer0915]

1) I do not believe in corporate personhood at all and certainly don't believe in the current system where corporations effectively have MORE RIGHTS than individuals. As such I believe that for freedom to live the megacorps must die , if this requires an Amendment and some federal interference than so be it.

2) I am all for efficient , hand up type social programs at the state level within reason, just not at the federal level.

How about you? Where do you differ from your groups party lines?

I am a registered demoncrap. I agree with the base philosophy where individual rights and freedoms are concerned. Sadly in the last 20 years things have changed.

I can not jump on any party wagon and consider myself a conservative/moderate independent with libertarian leanings. I can not support the libertarian party though because it is full of anarchists.

[Chris]

I am a registered demoncrap. I agree with the base philosophy where individual rights and freedoms are concerned. Sadly in the last 20 years things have changed.

I can not jump on any party wagon and consider myself a conservative/moderate independent with libertarian leanings. I can not support the libertarian party though because it is full of anarchists.


That's the seeming antithetical nature of the Libertarian Party. If they're anarchists, what are they doing running for office? In truth, though, libertarianism covers a wide range of political thought from minarchists, that is those who advocate a sort of Hayekian minimal constitutional government, to anarchists, such as Rothbardian free-market anarchists. Libertarianism also include left libertarianism, like Gary Chartier, but I'm not so familiar with them. Anyway, the minarchists seem to overlap with fiscal conservatives, thus you see some running on the Republican ticket, and some Republicans switching to vote Libertarian.

[Gerrard Winstanley]

That's the seeming antithetical nature of the Libertarian Party. If they're anarchists, what are they doing running for office? In truth, though, libertarianism covers a wide range of political thought from minarchists, that is those who advocate a sort of Hayekian minimal constitutional government, to anarchists, such as Rothbardian free-market anarchists. Libertarianism also include left libertarianism, like Gary Chartier, but I'm not so familiar with them. Anyway, the minarchists seem to overlap with fiscal conservatives, thus you see some running on the Republican ticket, and some Republicans switching to vote Libertarian.
They're way too different nowadays. Singular 'libertarian' is barely used anywhere in the world to refer to left-anarchists.

[Chris]

They're way too different nowadays. Singular 'libertarian' is barely used anywhere in the world to refer to left-anarchists.

Isn't left-libertarian largely European? I think that's where the term originates. Making it odd that in reaction to progressives hijacking liberalism, Hayek or anyone would suggest libertarianism.

To me all these -ism have splintered up and specialized.

And you have to remember, I'm speaking American here--or as refuge would correct, American English.

[The Sage of Main Street]

The tax code is punitive. Fair flat tax is the only way to go. No exceptions, no exemptions, and no excuses. The rich have more surplus. Taxes would only make them give up having a third luxury car, a yacht, or a summer home for vacations. The lower classes would have to give up necessities.

Steve Forbes is the big advocate of this scam. Without his Daddy's money, he'd be a nobody. So his opinion is worthless, self-centered, deceptive, and not worth debating.

[Gerrard Winstanley]

Isn't left-libertarian largely European? I think that's where the term originates. Making it odd that in reaction to progressives hijacking liberalism, Hayek or anyone would suggest libertarianism.

To me all these -ism have splintered up and specialized.

And you have to remember, I'm speaking American here--or as refuge would correct, American English.
Left-libertarian isn't a term you come across much, even though U.S.-style libertarians aren't big in Europe.

[Chris]

Left-libertarian isn't a term you come across much, even though U.S.-style libertarians aren't big in Europe.

Hmm, then parochial to the US.

[Gerrard Winstanley]

Hmm, then parochial to the US.
Very much so.

[Redrose]

I'm not a member of any party, but I agree that corps are not people..in fact, there is something really creepy to entertain that idea. Maybe I've watched too much science fiction. I wonder if small businesses can apply for person hood...or is it only huge corps who can make large campaign donations. Some folks are more equal than others?

Regarding welfare: we gotta do something. There are people who honestly need help and don't take advantage of it. There are also bums who need to get off their duffs & go to work. There have been several good proposals to limit/change welfare but they have all been defeated because of partisan politics. Until we stop with football politics (winner/loser) and go back to compromise...nothing will get better.

I know it will never happen (at least in my lifetime) but I believe that a flat tax rate with no loopholes, etc and no corporate welfare would go a long way to helping clear up this nation's financial messes.

When I was working for the IRS years ago, flat tax and the fair tax were discussed. Our present system has morphed into a convoluted, complex nightmare, thousands of pages of ambiguous legal jargon.

We were trained 16 weeks each year to understand it and keep up with any changes. The average person would have a rough time with it.
But there are problems with a flat tax too. There would be no deductions of course. The tax might be 10% one year, but then Uncle Sam, squanderer of our tax dollars, can raise it again and again and again. With a flat tax, lower income folks will be adversely effected more than higher income people.

The fair tax may work out better. It is structured differently than a flat tax.

[Bob]

When I was working for the IRS years ago, flat tax and the fair tax were discussed. Our present system has morphed into a convoluted, complex nightmare, thousands of pages of ambiguous legal jargon.

We were trained 16 weeks each year to understand it and keep up with any changes. The average person would have a rough time with it.
But there are problems with a flat tax too. There would be no deductions of course. The tax might be 10% one year, but then Uncle Sam, squanderer of our tax dollars, can raise it again and again and again. With a flat tax, lower income folks will be adversely effected more than higher income people.

The fair tax may work out better. It is structured differently than a flat tax.

I picked up and studied the two books on the FAIR tax to understand it.

There is not nor will there be a thing called FAIR. But that system in my opinion comes very close. Democrats should love it. But they refuse to let it be voted for.

I took a half year in college on income tax law. (1 complete semester)

In the course of my real estate brokers education, I got many hours from HR Block on the IRS laws on things like exchanges. I have also had other tax courses since I have had many many hours of more education.

The laws of the nation are so complex, they have 2.7 million books of law in the law library in DC just to cover them all.

Imagine we must obey laws in 2.7 million books of law.

I used to feel sorry for the Soviets.

Today I feel sorry for citizens of the USA.

[Bob]

The founder's system was classical liberalism, which, after progressives hijacked liberalism, is now right-wing Tea Party libertarianism. A good representative of this position is, imo, Sen. Mike Lee: "The American people want a more conservative government." (http://reason.com/blog/2014/07/13/sen-mike-lee-the-american-people-want-a)

Read this again forum.

Some of us call the classical the big L liberal. The type used by the Democrats is the tiny L liberal. They are not the same.

[Bob]

Clinton was a better POTUS than any of those damn Bushes.

Next.

Well, since you named 2 Bush and 1 Clinton to rate...

Bush 1 got his learning by serving with Reagan. He did understand Government management. So did Clinton and so did GW Bush. All were pretty equal in that area.

Clinton to me was too war hungry. I realize you may think it was GW Bush but Bush did not piss around. Clinton would bomb and bomb or use missiles and when he had actual targets, he plain messed up. Bush hit them to win.

I don't like any of those wars.

Did we need to roll back Saddam in Kuwait? Saudi had tanks and airplanes. They were threatened. Bush 41 created a super massive military machine and bombed Saddam for a long time.

We were blessed with Generals that understood war and they beat up Saddam then flat quit. Bush ought to have finished off what he started then and there.

What was this bullshit Clinton pulled on the former country called Yugoslavia? We were sold lies.

GW invaded 1 country. Iraq was the one. Afghanistan was taken by their own people. Call that a civil war with Bush in the middle.

We had the Clinton law that put in law to get rid of Saddam. Were I GW Bush, I too would have carried out that law.

Then the bitching by some Democrats got loud.

I don't speak for other ex military types I know, but it is my view that if you get into a war, do it to flat win. When you piss around, you have too many troubles. If you flat defeat them as GW Bush defeated Saddam, figure out how to turn it over to the people there and get the hell out.

GW actually planned to do just that. He moved very fast to turn Iraq over to them. They messed it up. Mainecoons

[Bob]

You don't seem to understand how protests work. Voting for the two parties you do not like is not a protest, it's giving in. Staying home is also giving in. The elites don't care how many people vote for them. A measly 10% of the nation could vote as long as they voted for the two parties.

The only protest is a vote for a third party.


Look, you can always take a sheet of paper out, say 8 by 11, use a huge marker and write down you protest on it.

Carry it to the public park and tack it to a tree.

That is more of value than what you claim to do.

At least a person will read that in the park a few times, rip it off and put it in the trash.

The modern vote is counted by machines. Nobody cares who lost.

Protests like those who vote are for losers.
Green Arrow

Protest is negative.

i do not vote negative. I intend my person to win. It turns out I lose from time to time. But I won't piss off my valuable vote just to pout.

[Green Arrow]

Look, you can always take a sheet of paper out, say 8 by 11, use a huge marker and write down you protest on it.

Carry it to the public park and tack it to a tree.

That is more of value than what you claim to do.

At least a person will read that in the park a few times, rip it off and put it in the trash.

The modern vote is counted by machines. Nobody cares who lost.

Protests like those who vote are for losers.
@Green Arrow (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=868)

Protest is negative.

i do not vote negative. I intend my person to win. It turns out I lose from time to time. But I won't piss off my valuable vote just to pout.

I'm not pissing off my vote either. I vote for principles, which makes my vote valuable. I will never vote against a candidate ever again. I will only vote for a candidate that I agree with.

[Bob]

The worst thing that the Unions did was introduce Seniority into the work place.

Nobody should be judged on how long they are somewhere. (Yes I get that you can reward them with more vacations ect.)

But to base pay and promotions on time served rather than performance is stupidity

When I worked for construction companies as a member of piledrviers local 34 union on the west coast, I had no seniority. At GM where I worked for 3 months when construction was nil, they had it but I was not in that union long enough to qualify. At the phone company where I was in the communication workers union, i forget if they had seniority or not.

Bad thing about heavy construction is you worked in the good months. We had jobs shut down if it rained much. Where we worked in snow, that is very cold and subject to storms.

I had periods in construction from weeks to a few months with no jobs. I had to pick up a lot of other jobs to make ends meet. One time I was not working in construction so did an application at Hunts cannery in Hayward, CA and the same day I got notified to show up to work an 8 hour shift in heavy construction, the Cannery notified me to show up that evening for a late shift.

I got up by 5 am, drove way down to Banta, CA, did a day shift on the pile driver, drove the 50 miles back to Hayward and pulled part of a shift at the cannery. Finally around midnight I told the boss at the Cannery I was on two jobs that day and told him I was out of gas. I got paid for that part day. I of course quit that night job.

My day job was here.

8247

[Bob]

I'm not pissing off my vote either. I vote for principles, which makes my vote valuable. I will never vote against a candidate ever again. I will only vote for a candidate that I agree with.

Why not tell a pal you don't like the R or the D and that you like your guy.
LOL

Boy are you showing them. :rollseyes:

Hell, I won't waste time like that.

[Bob]

I'm not pissing off my vote either. I vote for principles, which makes my vote valuable. I will never vote against a candidate ever again. I will only vote for a candidate that I agree with.

You have voted all over the place. What principles are you claiming that lets you support McCain, then Obama and lord who knows who is next?

[Chris]

Bob, principles don't exactly align with parties. Parties are, imo, primarily about power. Principles aren't necessarily.

[Green Arrow]

You have voted all over the place. What principles are you claiming that lets you support McCain, then Obama and lord who knows who is next?

At the time I supported McCain, I was a conservative Republican. My vote (read: not support) for Obama had nothing to do with principle and I will never cast such a vote again.

[Bob]

Bob, principles don't exactly align with parties. Parties are, imo, primarily about power. Principles aren't necessarily.

I look at the two parties like this. Bad illustration but in my mind it works.

Box A has Democrats in it. Box B has Republicans.

I know that other boxes have no chance in hell of being put into power.

To piss off a vote for C - Z party reps is crap thinking.

I would stay home first.

With the D's since I was with them for so long. I understand them and know their guiding principles.

With the Rs, I have been with them since 1980 when I went for Reagan over Carter. I voted in Carter to begin with.

Why do that?

What is the difference.

All parties are full of shit. I don't care what party you name. Voting for the full of shit Libertarian or Green is just as bad.

I look into both boxes.

I decided the best course was, since I got shit in both boxes, at least try to be with a winner.

Why???

Because voting takes effort. I study issues. I know the Rs are not very good.

Ds are next to criminals to me.

Their hate talk annoys me to death.

When I was a kid, maybe i would have then done a protest vote. Green Arrow is arrogant to think I don't know what they are or how they work. But I forgive him. He thinks he has big britches but he is a pup. When he turns 60 or 70 he will then admit what he is today. We all had to go through his phase.

Me, why vote for R when Obama won? I believe next time it will go back to the R.

What do I want?

I want an expert to run the country. Not some person making bull shit promises. Rand Paul is a great person. But as a pilot, I would not fly with the man in control so I won't vote for him. When he grows up as a Governor, I believe he could show up in DC with a real chance.

I bet Mainecoons can tell you what happens to the newcomers who show up in DC thinking they will solve all problems.

Those people in DC play hardball. Carter knew how to run Georgia then fell flat on his ass.

So even a governor can do it. I realize not all governors can pull it off. But hell, Senators suck. So would a person in the house unless they proved it by being a Governor first.

Sometime I might start laying out what the job of president amounts to. I have university level books on this topic and it takes time to type this stuff up. I mean you guys no doubt would want experts testimony to be believed. I realize nobody would take my word for it. Mainecoons knows.

I use the pilot analogy but let me tell you of two people i allowed to control the airplane.

This had me really amazed.

A teacher who worked real estate part time wanted to fly with me. He had no interest in flying the plane.

His wife was talked into flying and she requested she sit in front.

I took off from the Hayward, CA airport and headed out to fly them around the SF Bay area to include flying over the Golden Gate Bridge then up the coast a ways.

Well, once I was airborne, the woman was less scared. I asked her if she wanted to try to handle the airplane. I was the pilot so she had nothing to lose and says, ok. Will you show me how to fly? Sure I told her. We ended up flying for maybe 150 miles or more and by the time she handled the airplane ... I would say for maybe 10 minutes, I noticed she had real talent. She belonged flying them. She just got it very fast.

I later took up a guy and he too wanted to fly it. This dude never got it. I had to constantly take control. I told him how to do it and he had no talent at all. I would no more let him fly than crash on purpose. I stood it for 10 minutes and put a stop to what he was doing. Course for her, it was daytime and for him it was dark. Flying over hills in the dark at fairly low altitudes can present problems. I was not interested in hitting hills. This dude kept losing altitude. Maybe he thought he was having fun but a sudden stop on a hill is not fun.

An adult would no more put some kid behind the wheel who stomped hard on the gas pedal and ignored brakes than kill himself. We vote for people we actually do not know. We will never get to meet them and if we met them we might not like them one bit.

For me to piss off a vote on a person for glib talk makes no sense. There has to be some way to test them.
Governors at least can be correctly evaluated. A lot of people evaluate Rick Perry and some think he is fine. Some feel he should not fly into DC for anything. But guys like Paul ran nothing.

That is the sum of my 75 years of doing this thing called voting. (well over 50 years as a voter)

[Chris]

I look at the two parties like this. Bad illustration but in my mind it works.

Box A has Democrats in it. Box B has Republicans.

I know that other boxes have no chance in hell of being put into power.

To piss off a vote for C - Z party reps is crap thinking.

I would stay home first.

With the D's since I was with them for so long. I understand them and know their guiding principles.

With the Rs, I have been with them since 1980 when I went for Reagan over Carter. I voted in Carter to begin with.

Why do that?

What is the difference.

All parties are full of shit. I don't care what party you name. Voting for the full of shit Libertarian or Green is just as bad.

I look into both boxes.

I decided the best course was, since I got shit in both boxes, at least try to be with a winner.

Why???

Because voting takes effort. I study issues. I know the Rs are not very good.

Ds are next to criminals to me.

Their hate talk annoys me to death.

When I was a kid, maybe i would have then done a protest vote. Green Arrow is arrogant to think I don't know what they are or how they work. But I forgive him. He thinks he has big britches but he is a pup. When he turns 60 or 70 he will then admit what he is today. We all had to go through his phase.

Me, why vote for R when Obama won? I believe next time it will go back to the R.

What do I want?

I want an expert to run the country. Not some person making bull shit promises. Rand Paul is a great person. But as a pilot, I would not fly with the man in control so I won't vote for him. When he grows up as a Governor, I believe he could show up in DC with a real chance.

I bet Mainecoons can tell you what happens to the newcomers who show up in DC thinking they will solve all problems.

Those people in DC play hardball. Carter knew how to run Georgia then fell flat on his ass.

So even a governor can do it. I realize not all governors can pull it off. But hell, Senators suck. So would a person in the house unless they proved it by being a Governor first.

Sometime I might start laying out what the job of president amounts to. I have university level books on this topic and it takes time to type this stuff up. I mean you guys no doubt would want experts testimony to be believed. I realize nobody would take my word for it. Mainecoons knows.

I use the pilot analogy but let me tell you of two people i allowed to control the airplane.

This had me really amazed.

A teacher who worked real estate part time wanted to fly with me. He had no interest in flying the plane.

His wife was talked into flying and she requested she sit in front.

I took off from the Hayward, CA airport and headed out to fly them around the SF Bay area to include flying over the Golden Gate Bridge then up the coast a ways.

Well, once I was airborne, the woman was less scared. I asked her if she wanted to try to handle the airplane. I was the pilot so she had nothing to lose and says, ok. Will you show me how to fly? Sure I told her. We ended up flying for maybe 150 miles or more and by the time she handled the airplane ... I would say for maybe 10 minutes, I noticed she had real talent. She belonged flying them. She just got it very fast.

I later took up a guy and he too wanted to fly it. This dude never got it. I had to constantly take control. I told him how to do it and he had no talent at all. I would no more let him fly than crash on purpose. I stood it for 10 minutes and put a stop to what he was doing. Course for her, it was daytime and for him it was dark. Flying over hills in the dark at fairly low altitudes can present problems. I was not interested in hitting hills. This dude kept losing altitude. Maybe he thought he was having fun but a sudden stop on a hill is not fun.

An adult would no more put some kid behind the wheel who stomped hard on the gas pedal and ignored brakes than kill himself. We vote for people we actually do not know. We will never get to meet them and if we met them we might not like them one bit.

For me to piss off a vote on a person for glib talk makes no sense. There has to be some way to test them.
Governors at least can be correctly evaluated. A lot of people evaluate Rick Perry and some think he is fine. Some feel he should not fly into DC for anything. But guys like Paul ran nothing.

That is the sum of my 75 years of doing this thing called voting. (well over 50 years as a voter)



I would stay home first.

I do.

But if I voted I would vote for the candidate that best represents my principles, whatever party.

Why? Because if enough people start doing that, more will. And don't say it won't happen because it has. And the Libertarians have been trending upward--they just need a better candidate.

Will any politician be corrupted when he gets to DC, probably. So you keep replacing them. That's why I like the Tea parties, killing off establishment Reps.

Voting for the lesser of two evils still gives you evil.

[Common Sense]

If you only support two boxes...all you'll ever have is two boxes.

[Green Arrow]

If you only support two boxes...all you'll ever have is two boxes.

Someone gets it :cool:

[Chris]

We need a Boxes Rebellion, pardon the pun.

[Bob]

If you only support two boxes...all you'll ever have is two boxes.

So, some have voted for one of the empty boxes forever.

How did that work out.

Come on. Wasn't President Ross Perot a hoot? (the one 3rd party candidate that drew many votes.)

I don't expect a 22 year old to get it, but don't you claim you have common sense?

[Bob]

We need a Boxes Rebellion, pardon the pun.

I have to admire that .... :cheers:

[Common Sense]

So, some have voted for one of the empty boxes forever.

How did that work out.

Come on. Wasn't President Ross Perot a hoot? (the one 3rd party candidate that drew many votes.)

I don't expect a 22 year old to get it, but don't you claim you have common sense?

Perot was a suit...not a box (but yes he was a hoot). I'm not saying bring back the Whigs, but America has had other political parties and still does. Thinking that "that's just the way it is" isn't going to change anything...and clearly some sort of change is in order. I also look at this through the eyes of a Canadian. Our parliamentary system works well with multiple parties. Mind you we really only have three majors.

[Bob]

I do.

But if I voted I would vote for the candidate that best represents my principles, whatever party.

Why? Because if enough people start doing that, more will. And don't say it won't happen because it has. And the Libertarians have been trending upward--they just need a better candidate.

Will any politician be corrupted when he gets to DC, probably. So you keep replacing them. That's why I like the Tea parties, killing off establishment Reps.

Voting for the lesser of two evils still gives you evil.

i guess i have voted so much.... I have no idea how many votes i have cast when you include the politicians, the votes I cast as a director for a real estate group, the votes I cast as a state director of an association ...

Man, I learned long ago that if you want to win, you don't vote for the loser.

Sure, you end up with a turd. But at least the turd is no criminal.

I am saying again

Democrats are criminals.

Obama care is a criminal act.

Only one party voted for it.

Wait there is more

What about their violations of the 2nd amendment?

Do you honestly think with an honest congress that Bill Clinton would not have been convicted?

http://www.amazon.com/Sellout-Inside-President-Clintons-Impeachment/dp/0895261952/ref=sr_tc_2_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1405374309&sr=1-2-ent

[Cigar]

You Lost, GTFOI

[Bob]

Perot was a suit...not a box (but yes he was a hoot). I'm not saying bring back the Whigs, but America has had other political parties and still does. Thinking that "that's just the way it is" isn't going to change anything...and clearly some sort of change is in order. I also look at this through the eyes of a Canadian. Our parliamentary system works well with multiple parties. Mind you we really only have three majors.

You have to be kidding.

I have been at this "change stuff" since 1961 when I voted for Kennedy.

Reagan has been my only win. I have voted for other "winners" but of all of them, I count Reagan as the only win.

People are smoking weed if they think a party, even the Libertarians will gain traction.

If for no other reason is they can't come up with the cash to win. Check every libertarian and I bet they all owe past debts for the campaign.

[Common Sense]

You have to be kidding.

I have been at this "change stuff" since 1961 when I voted for Kennedy.

Reagan has been my only win. I have voted for other "winners" but of all of them, I count Reagan as the only win.

People are smoking weed if they think a party, even the Libertarians will gain traction.

If for no other reason is they can't come up with the cash to win. Check every libertarian and I bet they all owe past debts for the campaign.

Well that touches on the horrible fact of American politics that gets worse every year...you need tons of money to run for office. Again, as a Canadian I'm left speechless by this. Corporations are people? Unlimited campaign financing? Secret donations? Super PACs? That's the rot at the core of American politics. I know it's nearly impossible to change these things, I'm no idealist...but trying isn't a bad thing.

[Bob]

I get a kick out of some Canadian with a parliament thinking we have a congress that operates that way.

News: It does not. Bernie Sanders claims he is what? Socialist? Independent? HE still stands with Democrats.

Fellows, I honestly wish things worked as some of you act like it does.

This crap we get has gone on forever.

WE had hope and change and we got crapped on.

[del]

i guess i have voted so much.... I have no idea how many votes i have cast when you include the politicians, the votes I cast as a director for a real estate group, the votes I cast as a state director of an association ...

Man, I learned long ago that if you want to win, you don't vote for the loser.

<snip>



that's deep, bobby, really deep.

how many years did it take you to hit upon it?

[Common Sense]

I get a kick out of some Canadian with a parliament thinking we have a congress that operates that way.

News: It does not. Bernie Sanders claims he is what? Socialist? Independent? HE still stands with Democrats.

Fellows, I honestly wish things worked as some of you act like it does.

This crap we get has gone on forever.

WE had hope and change and we got crapped on.

I'm fully aware of the differences and how the two systems operate. I didn't imply that congress acts that way. You don't really have to be condescending.

[donttread]

I picked up and studied the two books on the FAIR tax to understand it.

There is not nor will there be a thing called FAIR. But that system in my opinion comes very close. Democrats should love it. But they refuse to let it be voted for.

I took a half year in college on income tax law. (1 complete semester)

In the course of my real estate brokers education, I got many hours from HR Block on the IRS laws on things like exchanges. I have also had other tax courses since I have had many many hours of more education.

The laws of the nation are so complex, they have 2.7 million books of law in the law library in DC just to cover them all.

Imagine we must obey laws in 2.7 million books of law.

I used to feel sorry for the Soviets.

Today I feel sorry for citizens of the USA.

Our tax code is not about raising revenue as there are much easier ways to do that. Its about controlling your every move

[Green Arrow]

i guess i have voted so much.... I have no idea how many votes i have cast when you include the politicians, the votes I cast as a director for a real estate group, the votes I cast as a state director of an association ...

Man, I learned long ago that if you want to win, you don't vote for the loser.

Sure, you end up with a turd. But at least the turd is no criminal.

I am saying again

Democrats are criminals.

Obama care is a criminal act.

Only one party voted for it.

Wait there is more

What about their violations of the 2nd amendment?

Do you honestly think with an honest congress that Bill Clinton would not have been convicted?

http://www.amazon.com/Sellout-Inside-President-Clintons-Impeachment/dp/0895261952/ref=sr_tc_2_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1405374309&sr=1-2-ent

Part of your problem is that you seem to think it's all about winning. It's not. What does it profit a man to gain the world, but lose his soul?

[donttread]

You have voted all over the place. What principles are you claiming that lets you support McCain, then Obama and lord who knows who is next?

The Donkephant has failed. In fact they have gone from dysfunctional leadership TO NON-FUNCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

[Green Arrow]

I'm fully aware of the differences and how the two systems operate. I didn't imply that congress acts that way. You don't really have to be condescending.

He doesn't know how to not be condescending.

[Mainecoons]

Well that touches on the horrible fact of American politics that gets worse every year...you need tons of money to run for office. Again, as a Canadian I'm left speechless by this. Corporations are people? Unlimited campaign financing? Secret donations? Super PACs? That's the rot at the core of American politics. I know it's nearly impossible to change these things, I'm no idealist...but trying isn't a bad thing.

Of course as a leftist you managed not to mention those union and trial bar donations, and all that money from the leftist billionaires all for those men of the people, the Democrats. No, it is only the evil corporations who are buying the U.S. government. That no doubt is why Goldman Sachs was Obama's biggest donor in 2008.

The fact is, the money has bought and paid for both "sides." I put that word in quotes because they are just two faces of the same governing elite.

I'd actually enjoy you posting a detailed explanation of how Canada avoids this problem which I suspect we all pretty much agree on.

[Bob]

Well that touches on the horrible fact of American politics that gets worse every year...you need tons of money to run for office. Again, as a Canadian I'm left speechless by this. Corporations are people? Unlimited campaign financing? Secret donations? Super PACs? That's the rot at the core of American politics. I know it's nearly impossible to change these things, I'm no idealist...but trying isn't a bad thing.

Look, you twist things for effect. I am an old soldier and it does not work on me. I have done this rodeo way too many times.
Corporations are not people. They have for a very long time been treated like people for various reasons. Don't ask me why Government (which is for some reason also treated like people) gets away with it but you suppose a different big group ought not to. People who complain loud and long about corporations act as if our government is not one.

Yes, the public wants unlimited funding. Want to know why? Because they approve it. It would have changed if they wanted it to change. Obama the blow hard blew the doors off that barn when he spent what he spent. He made republicans appear to be broke.

That is not the problem, those PACs, etc. The way the public is educated and informed is the real problem.

Jimmy Kimmel shows us what Americans like and we love it and laugh at it. He has liar news. Watch it sometime.

You say try?

Sure By selecting from the other boxes of liars.

Well, that fixes all of it. LMAO

I like to tell a story where I was part of a voting group of 20. I saw in 20 voters a lot of differences.

All in all, and it was not my math, but 40 percent of us really cared about the people that voted for us to our offices.

60 percent did not care at all.

This is just a TRICK

The idea is get possible supporters of the next republican to back away and then the Democrat wins.

Some here do not understand this or they do and do it deliberately.

Their aim is to defeat a republican.

I don't like a lot about the republicans. But i am not stupid. I know a 3rd party never has a chance.

This is the current system

I can't completely redesign it so I learned long ago you go with what works.

[Bob]

I'm fully aware of the differences and how the two systems operate. I didn't imply that congress acts that way. You don't really have to be condescending.

That is NEVER ******* NEVER my intent. I respect other people. But on forums, one has to be honest. I am super honest. I know my opinion won't matter to the socialists and leftists.

I have to believe I do appeal to those who know systems, understand systems and can honestly explain them

I do not use condescending speech.

[Bob]

Our tax code is not about raising revenue as there are much easier ways to do that. Its about controlling your every move


I believe you are correct. I have watched the republicans that support the FAIR TAX and they are not doing very well.

Democrats on the other hand would not approve the FAIR TAX if you put them in front of a firing squad.

I size it up this way.

Socialists .... Democrats

Non Socialists ... Republicans

I am not saying the 3rd parties suck, but they can't get backing.

Even were I to want one of them, they won't have a chance.

[Bob]

I do.

But if I voted I would vote for the candidate that best represents my principles, whatever party.

Why? Because if enough people start doing that, more will. And don't say it won't happen because it has. And the Libertarians have been trending upward--they just need a better candidate.

Will any politician be corrupted when he gets to DC, probably. So you keep replacing them. That's why I like the Tea parties, killing off establishment Reps.

Voting for the lesser of two evils still gives you evil.

Cris, I respect your arguments a lot. I also respect most of the rest posting.

A few are con artists and we all know who they are.

Read all my arguments. I don't want to keep repeating the same ones.

My principles may be exactly yours. Maybe if Green Arrow quit his socialist crap, we might agree.

I don't know. I do not trust his vote. He has flipped all over like a fish.

When the big money of the Democrats come to play, it takes huge money to defeat them.

Some of you appear to not mind them in power.

I mind it a hell of a lot.

Our freedom depends on removing them.

That is my principle.

Get rid of democrats then the republicans will shape up. They like the Tea party and they really are out for change.

[Bob]

Part of your problem is that you seem to think it's all about winning. It's not. What does it profit a man to gain the world, but lose his soul?


i appreciate your condescending manner a lot. Thank you for informing me I don't know what I am talking about.

[Bob]

The Donkephant has failed. In fact they have gone from dysfunctional leadership TO NON-FUNCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

YET

YET ,,, there is no third party that has proven to be different.

They all bullshit.

[kilgram]

Of course as a leftist you managed not to mention those union and trial bar donations, and all that money from the leftist billionaires all for those men of the people, the Democrats. No, it is only the evil corporations who are buying the U.S. government. That no doubt is why Goldman Sachs was Obama's biggest donor in 2008.

The fact is, the money has bought and paid for both "sides." I put that word in quotes because they are just two faces of the same governing elite.

I'd actually enjoy you posting a detailed explanation of how Canada avoids this problem which I suspect we all pretty much agree on.
Democrats are not leftist like PSOE (the theoric leftist party in Spain) is not leftist.

And obviously, the corporations are the ones who buy the government. They govern for the corporations and only for them. All the decisions benefit to them and harm the people.

[Bob]

Of course as a leftist you managed not to mention those union and trial bar donations, and all that money from the leftist billionaires all for those men of the people, the Democrats. No, it is only the evil corporations who are buying the U.S. government. That no doubt is why Goldman Sachs was Obama's biggest donor in 2008.

The fact is, the money has bought and paid for both "sides." I put that word in quotes because they are just two faces of the same governing elite.

I'd actually enjoy you posting a detailed explanation of how Canada avoids this problem which I suspect we all pretty much agree on.

What is so amusing is that some posters really believe a 3rd party can change things.

Let's be honest here. Who has changed things the most?

The Libertarians or the tea party?

I submit the tea party that does not run candidates changed things most. They are feared by Democrats.

Ask Democrats if they fear Libertarians or socialists or the Greens?

[Bob]

Democrats are not leftist like PSOE (the theoric leftist party in Spain) is not leftist.

And obviously, the corporations are the ones who buy the government. They govern for the corporations and only for them. All the decisions benefit to them and harm the people.

The USA Government is just one more Corporation. Hell a blind man can see that.

[Green Arrow]

i appreciate your condescending manner a lot. Thank you for informing me I don't know what I am talking about.

You are going to have a very hard time on this forum if you don't learn how to handle disagreements better.

[Chris]

Democrats are not leftist like PSOE (the theoric leftist party in Spain) is not leftist.

And obviously, the corporations are the ones who buy the government. They govern for the corporations and only for them. All the decisions benefit to them and harm the people.



Sorry but tell us something we don't already know.

And it's the same in Europe.

Best governments money can buy.

[Bob]

Sorry but tell us something we don't already know.

And it's the same in Europe.

Best governments money can buy.

OKAY...

Let us admit what it is.

The USA Government is a mega corporation. It is not well managed, but call it like it is. It out guns any other corporation.

[Mainecoons]

No, because if it was a corporation, it would be in Chapter 7.

[Bob]

No, because if it was a corporation, it would be in Chapter 7.

Actually it is not far fetched to call the USA a corporation.

Let's see.

US Government

CEO
Board of directors
Staff that manages

People who seldom vote able to name directors

Difference being they also have a say in the CEO

Both wield power
Both promise things

Hell, I am very persuaded.

[Chris]

Actually it is not far fetched to call the USA a corporation.

Let's see.

US Government

CEO
Board of directors
Staff that manages

People who seldom vote able to name directors

Difference being they also have a say in the CEO

Both wield power
Both promise things

Hell, I am very persuaded.


No, government isn't a corporation. It's not driven by profit motive to produce what people want, but by power motive to take it away.

[Ransom]

1) I do not believe in corporate personhood at all and certainly don't believe in the current system where corporations effectively have MORE RIGHTS than individuals. As such I believe that for freedom to live the megacorps must die , if this requires an Amendment and some federal interference than so be it.

So, quit taxing them. And treat unions and community organizations the same. Why not prevent everyone....with a government of course....from unionizing, incorporating, or community organizing, you support federal interference because you think it's the government's business how you organize and/or raise funds as a constituent. The Citizens United case effectively and correctly overturned lower court rulings claiming corporate monies could be prevented from contributing from political campaigns. You believe the government can prevent a corporation...or union....from using their free speech and freedoms of association rights...and thus you are no libertarian.

2) I am all for efficient , hand up type social programs at the state level within reason, just not at the federal level.[/QUOTE]

What would you think of privatization of social security?

[donttread]

I picked up and studied the two books on the FAIR tax to understand it.

There is not nor will there be a thing called FAIR. But that system in my opinion comes very close. Democrats should love it. But they refuse to let it be voted for.

I took a half year in college on income tax law. (1 complete semester)

In the course of my real estate brokers education, I got many hours from HR Block on the IRS laws on things like exchanges. I have also had other tax courses since I have had many many hours of more education.

The laws of the nation are so complex, they have 2.7 million books of law in the law library in DC just to cover them all.

Imagine we must obey laws in 2.7 million books of law.

I used to feel sorry for the Soviets.

Today I feel sorry for citizens of the USA.

The problem with the Fair Tax is that it does not afford the government control over how you spend your money

[Chris]

The problem with the Fair Tax is that it does not afford the government control over how you spend your money

And what a shame that would be!

[countryboy]

Liberty for people, not business entities where the rich can commit crimes, stay free and keep their money
Forcing people to use expensive "alternative fuels" is "liberty for people"? Like I said, you are no libertarian.

For that matter, forcing people to do anything is not liberty.

[donttread]

What would be a helping hand? I presume that to mean some sort of social assistance.

What of all the other benefits the majority of Ameircans enjoy that would not be classified as a handout or handup...but still are tax driven...Would those also be included?

For example?