Tim McGraw & Garth Brooks are "Obama Supporters"...

[HYHYBT]

We're not going to get a single-party system. At most, we might *almost* get one at the national level for an election cycle or two; beyond that, either the majority party will split moderate from extreme, or else the minority party will move towards center.

[Gravekeeper]

"Both sides are bad (so vote Democrat)" is not much better. I don't want to live in a society where, while on one hand social issues like LGBT rights, feminist issues, and discrimination is improved upon, but the middle class ceases to exist as we continue to be ruled by a government backed by a bunch of colluded corporations who don't give a fuck about real democracy and economic freedom.

You say that like the Democrats are worse for the middle class than Republicans? When that demonstrably false for so many reasons it would take a small essay to outline them all. Economic inequality has grown under every Republican president in the last 60 years. While it has stabilized or decreased under every Democratic president except Carter. Democrats are better for economic growth and specifically lower and middle class income growth. ( Even if there are assholes lining their pockets along the way. ).

Republicans are still by and large clinging to trickle down economics. Which doesn't work and has never worked for anyone save the already rich ( who do not like to share their money ). And that's before you even get into the whole healthcare, social programs, etc that would greatly reduce the financial burden on the lower and middle class. Which they routinely shit on as somehow being government tyranny. Then even outright refuse to take it on "principle" even if it means people in their state will suffer.

Neither party will bite the hand that feeds them, but the GOP will sure as fuck bite the hand that feeds you. >.>

( I do however like "self-replicating machine of double-faced asshats" )

[mjr]

the already rich (who do not like to share their money )

Sweeping Generalization Alert!!

[Hyena Dandy]

The economic system is built on generalizations. You can't critique economics without generalizing. "That's a generalization" is a worthwhile response when dealing with interpersonal issues, ways to treat other people, statements about people made based on a trait. For example, "Republicans are either evil, crazy, or stupid" is a generalization that, even if a majority were, shouldn't be used to determine how you talk to a specific Republican, or said about Republicans as a rule.

When it comes to deciding what our economic system is, then "Sweeping generalization" is the only way to make that decision, because you're not saying "The rich do not share their money freely, therefore rich people are assholes." You're saying "The rich do not share their money freely, therefore a system based on assuming they will will not work."

[Gravekeeper]

Sweeping Generalization Alert!!

Pardon my language, but you can't be fucking serious. The top percentile not wanting to share its wealth is the entire basis of income inequality and it is increasing every year both in the US and in the world at large. The trend is both alarming and actively dangerous to society at large. 80 people currently hold half of the world's wealth and the disparity is growing each year at a fucking alarming rate. In 2010 it was 388 people. Now its 80. 80 people hold half of this planet's wealth. Additionally, the upper percentiles have been given less to charity every year while lower percentiles have been giving more ( because they actually understand what it means to be poor ).

Yes, there are outliers like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet but they are the minority.

Thats before you even get into the enormous power and influence these people can wield over politics. Especially US politics. Just look at the Cock Brothers. Er, Koch Brothers.

[TheHuckster]

You say that like the Democrats are worse for the middle class than Republicans? When that demonstrably false for so many reasons it would take a small essay to outline them all. Economic inequality has grown under every Republican president in the last 60 years. While it has stabilized or decreased under every Democratic president except Carter. Democrats are better for economic growth and specifically lower and middle class income growth. ( Even if there are assholes lining their pockets along the way. ).

You can't just look at who was president at the time. Congress can have just as much influence over economic policy, and history has shown that democratic congress members have accepted as many unscrupulous concessions by larger corporations and industries. These policies not only screw anyone not in a C-level position of these corporations, but also screw any smaller corporation, as anti-competitive legislation make their way into the books.

In the past 60 years, democrats had a stronghold on congress. Since 1955, The House of Representatives didn't have a republican majority until 1995. The Senate was about the same, except in the mid-1980s. So any legislation from lobbying up to the mid-90s was taken by a democratic majority.

Wal-Mart had grown to a national phenomenon under a democratic president and congress. They killed competition by getting unfair tax breaks, zoning ordinance exemptions, and other things on the federal and municipal level that smaller corporations couldn't possibly accomplish because they wouldn't be able to afford such bribes for the same kind of influence. Many other huge corporations have won merges to become bigger and successfully got laws passed which benefited their already beneficial position under both republican and democratic congresses, all of which contributed to what we see today with 80 people possessing half of the wealth as you say.

And I'm not saying this to demonize democrats while giving republicans a pass. The same exact thing would have happened under a republican regime.

Thats before you even get into the enormous power and influence these people can wield over politics. Especially US politics. Just look at the Cock Brothers. Er, Koch Brothers.

...and yet you seem to be under the delusion that democrats are somehow immune from their influence.

[protege]

Many other huge corporations have won merges to become bigger and successfully got laws passed which benefited their already beneficial position under both republican and democratic congresses, all of which contributed to what we see today with 80 people possessing half of the wealth as you say.

Yep, Wal-Mart, the banks, utility companies (*cough*Enron*cough*) and others all benefited. Many of those mergers were seen as "what's good for them, is good for America." Reality is, that we got (and pardon my French) fucked. Wal-Mart has driven many smaller businesses under, banks have become huge behemoths ("Too big to fail," anyone?), and utility companies have driven their rates up because they can easily get away with it. All of it accomplished because corporations and wealthy individuals influenced congress in one way or another.

[Andara Bledin]

Sweeping Generalization Alert!!

Sometimes, sweeping generalizations are utterly accurate.

This is demonstrated every single time anyone proposes a tax system that actually goes somewhere close to taxing the wealthy at a level that's even close to parity with what the poor and middle class are saddled with.

In the past 60 years, democrats had a stronghold on congress. Since 1955, The House of Representatives didn't have a republican majority until 1995. The Senate was about the same, except in the mid-1980s. So any legislation from lobbying up to the mid-90s was taken by a democratic majority.

This isn't an A vs B equation because Democrats do not operate the same way Republicans do in Congress.

Republicans are essentially required to be lockstep with their brethren for any big issues or they're out. Democrats, however, can have a far more varied voting record and still be welcome under the D tent canopy.

So just looking at which group was in the majority will give you a lopsided and inaccurate picture if you act like both sides have the same agenda of pushing all the things through and damn the consequences. That's more false equivalence bullshit and lazy thinking.

[Gravekeeper]

So just looking at which group was in the majority will give you a lopsided and inaccurate picture if you act like both sides have the same agenda of pushing all the things through and damn the consequences. That's more false equivalence bullshit and lazy thinking.

Thank you, saved me some typing. -.-

I mean cripes if you can't see a difference between the way the two operate at a national level at this point you probably shouldn't be allowed to vote.

...and yet you seem to be under the delusion that democrats are somehow immune from their influence.

Yes. That's clearly it. Despite me saying the opposite.

[mjr]

Pardon my language, but you can't be fucking serious. The top percentile not wanting to share its wealth is the entire basis of income inequality and it is increasing every year both in the US and in the world at large.

That's not just a "Republican" or "Conservative" issue. There are many filthy-rich Democrats who also don't "share" their wealth.

Aside from that, I've asked this question on other forums, and I rarely get an (honest) answer, if I get one at all:

If you were offered the salary of a high-dollar CEO (say, the CEO of Wal-Mart, for instance) would you turn it down?

Additionally, I always ask those who talk about people paying their "fair share" of taxes, what exactly "fair share" is.

What's a "fair share" of taxes for someone making $350K? $1 million? $20 million?

Despite what's out there, a SMALL number of people pay a LARGE percentage of taxes in the U.S.

[s_stabeler]

the issue is where the tax burden should fall, not on the exact rates. The thing is, someone poor may end up unable to put food on the table due to surprisingly low rates of tax. whereas someone rich might simply need to take one less holiday per year.

That IS somewhat hyperbolic, but the point stands. The issue is when rich people get tax cuts, while the poor get the help they desperately need cut to the bone, if not got rid of entirely. THEN there is a problem.

[Hyena Dandy]

The thing is, I don't understand your point. Would I like a lot of money? Yes. Would I probably give a fair amount to charity? Certainly. I don't know how much, but I tend to give to charity NOW, and I don't have much at all. But it's not about what /I/ would do. It's about a large GROUP of people. If every rich person was like a hypothetical wealthy form of me, that'd be great. But political decisions are made based on trends, not individuals.

[Hyena Dandy]

Since I hate to double-post, but no-one's posted after me, well, I guess here goes.

Also, as for "How much is a fair share," Ultimately the question isn't how much we make people pay, the question starts with how much we NEED. If we only needed, say, $300 million dollars, then taxing pretty much every American one dollar would be perfectly functional. We need to figure out what our priorities are. And once we know what we need, then we can determine how the burden should fall. Our schools are underfunded. Our people are freezing. Our legal aide system is overburdened and understaffed. Our healthcare system is a failure, and even its reforms only helped some of the problems. For a lot of people in this country, it sucks to be an American. American Exceptionalism isn't doing much for the poor.

And when it comes to not paying enough, that's where that comes in. Because if we could have a nation that has no-one starving, no-one homeless, well-educated students, and could do it all without taxing anyone a single dime, then that would be excellent. But thus far, whenever we see taxes go down, we seem to see services go down as well. I don't have a problem with rich people having any amount of money. I have a problem with rich people having money when we have all these problems. What we are seeing is that we can't count on their charity to cover things. So we need something else.

[Andara Bledin]

I don't have a problem with rich people having any amount of money. I have a problem with rich people having money when we have all these problems. What we are seeing is that we can't count on their charity to cover things. So we need something else.

Bingo. Rich people got rich through using the system. They should therefore support the system that they used to get rich rather than being allowed to skip out on the bill.

[mikoyan29]

Despite what's out there, a SMALL number of people pay a LARGE percentage of taxes in the U.S.

When you control a large percentage of the wealth in America, you should pay a large percentage of taxes.