COVID-19 RESOURCES
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Tax Revolt

BotanyBoy said:
And yet it's still better than what Obama was capable of....more hope and WAY more change. :D
Click to expand...

I read with interest the thread "Confessions of a former Republican", and what they all said made sense to me, this post included:


someoneyouknow said:
And yet, when those market forces acted, what was the result? Over $4 trillion spent propping up the failed banks and Wall Street firms, not to mention paying their bonuses.

The same with the stock market. Collars were implemented so market forces can't take hold to the downside.

When one looks with an objective eye, it is Republicans who consistently do the most damage to this country and who are against the very ideals they supposedly stand for.
Click to expand...


What I found interesting tho, -although I side with the opinions of those who posted there, not yours re free markets/deregulation/State-
is how you guys from both sides come with such plausible explanations and explain so eloquently that it's the other side's fault.

For example, in this particular scenario:
Democrats say that the 2008 Global Recession is due to loosening of regulations, leading to fraud or Wall Street taking advantage. Republicans claim that the State was at fault, for pressuring Banks to give loans to the poor working class who couldn't have afforded them.


*P.S.
I'm posting here because I didn't want to spam his thread. *
 
Last edited:
LincolnDuncan said:
Since democratically elected congressman from both sides have been unable to find a solution to either gridlock or the destruction of democracy in favor of one party, American citizens have the alternative of violent revolution, which I don't recommend or refusing to pay taxes like the Founding Fathers.

We have a president who not only represents a minority of people who support him, but a president who attacks opposition like a demented child in 4th grade. If little Donald Trump was running for class president of the 4th grade, would you want your child to vote for him?
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily agree with making it a binary choice (I think that is the fallacy of artificial bifurcation). There is a whole spectrum of activities and actions to "change the government". I think the general challenge there is that real solutions require engagement and nuance. (I have been called a radical centrist, a term I had never heard before but fits).

Just off the top of my head, here are the challenges:

1. The information age (especially as represented by the media and the internet) has us baffled and confused. It's literally a deluge of uncertain and often unverifiable information. The current ruling model there is the click-bait model, which isn't about informing, but about capture eyes and stirring emotions - not to spur people to a specific set of actions, but to draw those eyes back to the content generators to sell ad space.

2. The level of civic education seems to be very low. A good percentage of people have only vague and inaccurate understanding of how the systems work.

3. The level of actual civic engagement is low. In 2016 just over 59% of eligible voters voted. That is a lot of people who are not engaged (the legendary "silent majority). Would we get a different result with higher levels of civic engagement? Probably, but it is wizardry trying to guess what it would be.

4. Whoever invented "internet civics" was fiendish. Personally, I think it draws off engagement rather than increases it. A good percentage of people mistake venting on the internet for real action (investment of time and resources).

These are not insurmountable things, but they are all deep in the mix that sets us in our current state. Any given act or acts of civil disobedience run the risk of being entirely masturbatory, since in order for civil disobedience to be an effective tool, it must have a specific and attainable goal and it must be widely embraced and acted on, at some risk to the individuals engaged in the action - and we're a very personal risk averse society.
 
Paul_Chance said:
I don't necessarily agree with making it a binary choice (I think that is the fallacy of artificial bifurcation). There is a whole spectrum of activities and actions to "change the government". I think the general challenge there is that real solutions require engagement and nuance. (I have been called a radical centrist, a term I had never heard before but fits).

Just off the top of my head, here are the challenges:

1. The information age (especially as represented by the media and the internet) has us baffled and confused. It's literally a deluge of uncertain and often unverifiable information. The current ruling model there is the click-bait model, which isn't about informing, but about capture eyes and stirring emotions - not to spur people to a specific set of actions, but to draw those eyes back to the content generators to sell ad space.

2. The level of civic education seems to be very low. A good percentage of people have only vague and inaccurate understanding of how the systems work.

3. The level of actual civic engagement is low. In 2016 just over 59% of eligible voters voted. That is a lot of people who are not engaged (the legendary "silent majority). Would we get a different result with higher levels of civic engagement? Probably, but it is wizardry trying to guess what it would be.

4. Whoever invented "internet civics" was fiendish. Personally, I think it draws off engagement rather than increases it. A good percentage of people mistake venting on the internet for real action (investment of time and resources).

These are not insurmountable things, but they are all deep in the mix that sets us in our current state. Any given act or acts of civil disobedience run the risk of being entirely masturbatory, since in order for civil disobedience to be an effective tool, it must have a specific and attainable goal and it must be widely embraced and acted on, at some risk to the individuals engaged in the action - and we're a very personal risk averse society.
Click to expand...

I agree with mostly everything you said. Instead of calling myself a radical centrist, I consider myself a radical independent. In almost each and every instance I argue for shades of gray. If Clinton had won I would have continued the social activism work that I was doing. In 2016 an anomaly occurred and someone with a far right agenda was elected. He doesn't even pretend to be the president of all American people. No modern president has been so devisive. No only has he never stopped campaigning, each day he has gotten worse. The monster is an ego maniac who destroys to feed his ego.

Congress which is to provide a check on the president's authority have abrogated that responsibility. They either fear him or are willingly going along because they are being directed to be the real owners of the country. I am hoping that Mitch isn't quite the bitch he appears to be and his waiting for Mueller to do the dirty work.

Civil disobedience seemed to work well for Gandhi and MLK.
 
KeithD said:
I agree with the motto. I just think that the Trumpettes are wholly screwed to think that what's in it for Trump and what's in it for them are even remotely similar. And they are dumb as rocks because Trump has made no bones about showing he screws Trumpettes royally and always has.
Click to expand...

We got rid of Bush and Clinton. I wanted Jim Webb but the assheads won.
 
FEELINGLUCKYPUNK said:
We got rid of Bush and Clinton. I wanted Jim Webb but the assheads won.
Click to expand...

"We"? You've done nothing but sit on the stoop of your trailer for years and complained, James.

I know Jim Webb from when he took a teaching contract at the Naval Academy just to collect dirt on women cadets there and then left in the middle of the night, ditching his teaching responsibilities, when he had the material he needed to write a slamming article. He's nothing much more than a self-promoting big mouth. Sort of a Trump guy.
 
Paul_Chance said:
I don't necessarily agree with making it a binary choice (I think that is the fallacy of artificial bifurcation). There is a whole spectrum of activities and actions to "change the government". I think the general challenge there is that real solutions require engagement and nuance. (I have been called a radical centrist, a term I had never heard before but fits).

Just off the top of my head, here are the challenges:

1. The information age (especially as represented by the media and the internet) has us baffled and confused. It's literally a deluge of uncertain and often unverifiable information. The current ruling model there is the click-bait model, which isn't about informing, but about capture eyes and stirring emotions - not to spur people to a specific set of actions, but to draw those eyes back to the content generators to sell ad space.

2. The level of civic education seems to be very low. A good percentage of people have only vague and inaccurate understanding of how the systems work.

3. The level of actual civic engagement is low. In 2016 just over 59% of eligible voters voted. That is a lot of people who are not engaged (the legendary "silent majority). Would we get a different result with higher levels of civic engagement? Probably, but it is wizardry trying to guess what it would be.

4. Whoever invented "internet civics" was fiendish. Personally, I think it draws off engagement rather than increases it. A good percentage of people mistake venting on the internet for real action (investment of time and resources).

These are not insurmountable things, but they are all deep in the mix that sets us in our current state. Any given act or acts of civil disobedience run the risk of being entirely masturbatory, since in order for civil disobedience to be an effective tool, it must have a specific and attainable goal and it must be widely embraced and acted on, at some risk to the individuals engaged in the action - and we're a very personal risk averse society.
Click to expand...

These describe myself to a tizz, and some of the thingscwhat I witnessed around me.

I would partially disagree only with point 3.
Most people are more civically engaged than before (but for turnout to voting polls), basically every other person now discusses or reads politics.

But they are paralyzed into inaction and divisiveness by the liquidity and vaguenness of ubiquitous information that you mentioned.
Everybody thinks that THEY are the only ones who are right, because things are so vague and muddled that basically every point can be proven. But underlying this, there's a sense of confusion.

People keep mentioning Orwell, but we live in a Huxley type of virtual society.
And it's not just Americans, most people out there are split and confused about global politics.
 
Last edited:
"No taxation without representation"

Sounds familiar doesn't it? It was the issue that started us down the road to the first American revolution so long ago. It may be the spark that sets off a second one in the near future.
 
Veroe said:
"No taxation without representation"

Sounds familiar doesn't it? It was the issue that started us down the road to the first American revolution so long ago. It may be the spark that sets off a second one in the near future.
Click to expand...

But they have representation.

They just aren't getting their way right now.
 
BotanyBoy said:
But they have representation.

They just aren't getting their way right now.
Click to expand...

Not as much representation as the Koch brothers or big pharma or wall street banks....etc...etc. Thanks to Citizens' United it doesn't matter which party the politician is a member of they represent the people who legally bribe them rather than their constituents.

I'm not bashing Republicans or democrats here I'm bashing any system that says money equals speech. It breeds corruption and ignoring those without the fat checks as inconsequential to the politician in question.

This is beyond R or D tribalism. Look past the tired old grudges you foster and see the real problem.

If you can afford a thousand dollar or more seat at some fundraiser you can get one on one time with the politician to make your argument for that policy or against this policy while Joe the plumber or Jenny the physical therapist isn't even invited to it even though it affects them directly.

The way things are done right now in politics needs to change. That's not a conservative or liberal issue. Both sides want an outsider to come in and blow shit up from the way things were. That's because both conservatives and liberals recognize the way things are done is not working for the people's benefit.
 
Last edited:
Veroe said:
Not as much representation as the Koch brothers or big pharma or wall street banks....etc...etc. Thanks to Citizens' United it doesn't matter which party the politician is a member of they represent the people who legally bribe them rather than their constituents.
Click to expand...

They get the same representation...that's why no matter how much money they threw at Hillary/Romney and a slew of other corporate goons over the last 60 years who still lost.

If the reps aren't doing their job it's the RESPONSIBILITY of the electorate to pay the fuck attention and elect someone who will.

We don't shit on free speech because we are too lazy to stop electing the same shitheads over and over and over again wondering why nothing ever changes.

Veroe said:
I'm not bashing Republicans or democrats here I'm bashing any system that says money equals speech.
Click to expand...

I totally hear you on that....but it is speech the same way burning a flag is speech.

How you spend your money is giving a resource to the causes you support no different than volunteering to hand out flyers.

Veroe said:
The way things are done right now in politics needs to change.
Click to expand...

I agree, but I don't agree that tossing as much liberty and freedom out the door so that we can be a bunch of lazy apathetic shits is the right way to go about changing things.

Veroe said:
That's not a conservative or liberal issue.
Click to expand...

It is though....because what kind of change are you talking about??

And it's usually liberal/socialist conflict...liberals don't generally conflict with conservatives about much other than morality policing.

Veroe said:
Both sides want an outsider to come in and blow shit up from the way things were.
Click to expand...

They should....most of congress has been there for decades and they suck.

Maybe this november they will elect some fresh blood to congress...but I doubt it.
 
Last edited:
LincolnDuncan said:
No, what it's about is that an anomaly has occurred where one extreme element of society has total control of an alleged democratic government. I would make the same post of the Libs/dems, whatever had total control.

It's about balance!
Click to expand...

Did you make the same post in 2010?
 
IsItBad said:
ha....ill always bite although i can see clearly we are on opposite ends of the spectrum

the issue at hand is govt in general.
yes it is easy/convenient to hate trump or trump supporters etc.
at least for once there is a non-establishment proven businessman in office.

the problem in America...is excessive government on all fronts.
govt's role is to provide safety and security for America
somehow somewhere along the way that got translated into running everyone's lives with a Department of this, that and the other thing
Prior to the 1930s there was no income tax of any kind and yet the country still operated.

what we need is less govt. more personal accountability.

every program every operated by the govt had failed, been robbed, and never been properly accounted for.

so....the amount of taxes people pay in all forms is ridiculous.....tax on everything.....it all sucks

the fair tax is a good plan.....in that it is fair for all.....BUT the real issue is the need to drastically downsize govt.

a good first step is to implement term limits.....which simply requires a number of states....35? maybe to vote to vote on term limits.....we are still a govt of the people, by the people, and for the people.....the people just have to unite and work toward a common goal. term limits breaks the career cronyism that dominates Washington politics.

work on term limits. work on reducing govt.

by the way, you can stop paying taxes. go to Puerto Rico......by the crappiest little house.....and claim that you stay there for 183 days a year. IF you can properly legally claim that you are a resident of PR....you DO NOT HAVE TO PAY one dime in Federal Tax. true story. check it out. You DO however have to pay 4% PR tax.....but obviously it is a huge savings.

anyway.....focus your energy on what you can do or change or improve...because we can all just bitch and moan about which candidate sucks the most ….none of which accomplishes anything at all
Click to expand...

The income tax began in 1913. Social Security began in the 1930's.
 
Boxlicker101 said:
I ask that because the same party controlled all branches of gov. that year also.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know. Obama used those two years to get ACA. If you don't agree with ACA, you have a valid point. I don't think that the Ds abused that power in any other way.

If you're really interested in what I believe, I hate the abuse of power. I want congress and the court to be balanced. I want the court to base their decisions on their honest interpretation of the law. I would outlaw lobbying rather than invite them to draft legislation. But I know that Trump is going to get around to that, right?
 
LincolnDuncan said:
Yes, I know. Obama used those two years to get ACA. If you don't agree with ACA, you have a valid point. I don't think that the Ds abused that power in any other way.

If you're really interested in what I believe, I hate the abuse of power. I want congress and the court to be balanced. I want the court to base their decisions on their honest interpretation of the law. I would outlaw lobbying rather than invite them to draft legislation. But I know that Trump is going to get around to that, right?
Click to expand...

He probably is. I don't think you could outlaw lobbying, but you should probably decrease the authority of the lobbyists. They definitely should not draft legislation.
 
Paul_Chance said:
Citizens United v. FEC - read about it, learn about it, love it.

The First Amendment Rocks.
Click to expand...

This reminded me of something.
Some years ago I came across TYT (The Young Turks)'s video clips on youtube. I also remember vividly their calls to action for the population to join WolfPac, which sought to take money out of Politics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_PAC

They all seemed so enthusiastic and civically engaged, and State after State were joining them, 4 or so in such quick succession.
I just checked the website 8 years later, and the movement is gradually stagnating.

To me this is interesting, because it supports what Paul_Chance said above:
That the exposure to internet's plethora of events and information, and online venting suck people's energy or distract people, and diffuse real civic engagement.
 
Last edited:
LincolnDuncan said:
My point is that the House of Elected Representatives of this alleged democracy are failing to provide checks and balance buy controlling funding.
Click to expand...
LincolnDuncan said:
No, what it's about is that an anomaly has occurred where one extreme element of society has total control of an alleged democratic government. I would make the same post of the Libs/dems, whatever had total control.

It's about balance!
Click to expand...

Democracy doesn't give a shit about balance and never made any claims to.

It's not alleged either, you lost this round fair and square which in a democracy means you have to suck it buddy.

LincolnDuncan said:
People can take back some of that power by means of civil disobedience like not paying taxes.
Click to expand...


And get prison fucked for it in the process!!

Y'all anti-gun folks really ready to start a war?

Because mass civil disobedience is how you start a war...
 
RubenR said:
More hope that it will get better after Trump leaves the stage,
Click to expand...

Define "get better".

RubenR said:
and WAY more change that it will improve from the current state?
Click to expand...

Well certainly...things already are improving since we turned away form anti-American leadership almost 2 years ago. :)

I'll take a gregarious shit talking tool of a POTUS who at least pretends to like the USA over a wormy little shit of a POTUS who is openly ashamed of it.

RubenR said:
I doubt America will ever fully recover from this; certainly not within a few centuries--you probably won't live to see it.
Click to expand...

Recover?? LOL

This is recovery.
 
BotanyBoy said:
Democracy doesn't give a shit about balance and never made any claims to.

It's not alleged either, you lost this round fair and square which in a democracy means you have to suck it buddy.




And get prison fucked for it in the process!!

Y'all anti-gun folks really ready to start a war?

Because mass civil disobedience is how you start a war...
Click to expand...

I estimate your age to be about 11 so I'm older than you and have been able to witness the decay of congress. There was a time, as recent as the Reagan administration when Ds and Rs were representing the same Americans. People have different opinions of when that stopped but I blame Newt.

Being so very young your education might not include the history of Indian democracy which was accomplished largely by acts of civil disobedience.
 
RubenR said:
Well, that's the big question, right? I don't think it is your 'better' that I had in mind; I was thinking of improving the lifestyle and prospects of the majority of America.
Click to expand...

The majority of Americans improve their lifestyles through their hard work and that of their families.

I wonder which improvements you're talking about; human rights? Future prospectives? Wellfare? Living conditions? Trade? Protection and security? Again, I am not thinking of your personal interest.
Click to expand...

Human rights, yes, but also increased income, more money in the pockets of working people, fewer people on food stamps and other forms of welfare and, in general, less
dependence on big government.

I would prefer a POTUS who would try to make the USA better and who has the skills to do so--see which areas need improvement, and work on them--not someone who pretends he'll make it better, perhaps even tries as hard as he can, but just lacks any skills except being destructive.
Click to expand...

Of course, but what do you mean by better? I think of "better" as being less dependent on the gov.. of creature comforts, such as better housing for those who earn them and a generally better life for those who contribute to society.

I'm happy for you that you can laugh out loud about that. I guess, being in a privileged position, you can laugh about anything that doesn't affect you. And you don't seem to be affected by the suffering of other people.
Click to expand...

First, what makes you think I'm laughing about anything and, second, what makes you think I or anybody else is in a privileged position?
 
I just did some interesting "politick-ing" with two laypeople.

One of them commented on the unfair Worldwide income disparity and how, instead of a trickle down effect to their employees or the poor, the tax breaks for Corporations led to only bonuses for CEO's and stakeholders and such.

The other guy commented on the fact that a certain small town became severely impoverished because the business moved to China or Thailand: cheaper work force and better taxes.

Kind of a tricky balance. It certainly challenges my long-standing beliefs and condemnation of Trump's tax cuts for the rich.
Is it that we Have to come to terms with the fact that "either we join them and accept the crumbs from their plate, or be eaten by a horde of impoverished, desperate hungry Chinese?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Americans spend $104 billion on tax preparation services
2 3 4
Replies
82
Views
350
MajorRewrite
M
Rightguide
Dems Are Planning Their Own Insurrection
Replies
11
Views
209
DeluxAuto
DeluxAuto
Rightguide
The 64 Ways Biden Gutted American Border Security
Replies
16
Views
210
IrezumiKiss
IrezumiKiss
Rightguide
NBC's New Russia Russia Russia Conspiracy
Replies
4
Views
79
ll74
ll74
adrina
Seven delusions plaguing the mind of the Trump base voter
9 10 11
Replies
257
Views
4K
RandyRebecca
RandyRebecca
Back
Top