Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
What do you think we should prioritize funding?
Democrats, Republicans and the Crisis of Legitimacy
- Thread starter ttystikk
- Start date
Bugeye
Well-Known Member
Programs that we pay into such as social security and Medicaid, but with new age requirements, VA. Make reductions to just about everything else, especially defense.
Both political parties are pure cancer and exist solely to serve themselves and their campaign contributors at the expense of the American people. The federal government is corrupt, ineffective, and straight up treasonous, and should be dissolved by the states and formed anew via a constitutional convention.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Do you agree with the idea of having some kind of federal government?
What would you include in the new government that was excluded from the current one, or what would you remove from the current one from the future government?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
wilksey is a nazi. please do not attempt to legitimize nazis even by asking for their ideas.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Asking people questions about their beliefs does not legitimize said beliefs. It's simply a way of discussing ideas. Isolationism when discussing ideas can be dangerous.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
says who?
Racism is a discredited theory. What possible good can come from discussing racist genetic theory of the inferiority of black people when the theory has no merit?
Wasn't it you that suggested the best way to defeat fascism is with humor? Might have been @st0wandgrow . Def not discuss as if there were merit to the idea.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
I'm not advocating for the collection of that much tax. I'm suggesting we tax the rich more than the poor and working classes. It's called Progressive taxation and our country worked far better when we did it than it has since Reagan dismantled it.
The notion that the rich got that way all by themselves could only be believed by those who have no idea how people accumulate wealth; they actually do it by leveraging the work of others, either directly in the company they own or by building the companies whose stock is owned by rich people. No one accumulates great wealth alone.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Orrrrrrr...
Build an alternative that people can believe in, which is what the Progressive Movement is all about.
It IS possible and it's already been done; Abe Lincoln's Republicans did it to the Whigs in the 1850s and 1860s.
I think that the Democratic Party has become too much like the Republican Party and has abandoned the Left, along with the vast majority of the American citizens, and has abdicated its responsibilities to the constituents it says it represents.
Progressives have evolved naturally and organically from the void left behind when the establishment Democrats moved right and are ideally positioned to make this change happen.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Not that I'm against universal health care but your reply to Bugsy implies that you'd tax less than 20% of GDP. Health care consumes about 25% of GDP in this country, so I don't think you quite understand the cost of the policies you advocate. Also add to that the policy which I also support and think you do as well, the new cost of providing college tuition and debt free to all those who qualify. I think we are talking about taxation at about 60% of GDP, aren't we? Maybe we could cut some costs and expenditures to bring it down to 50% of GDP.
As far as what @Bugeye said, there are plenty of very healthy and happier nations who tax at much higher rates than 20% of GDP. As with the gun debate, he's quoting his belief free from facts. Sweden, Norway, Denmark, France all have taxation rates at about 50% of GDP. All very fine countries with robust economies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_to_GDP_ratio
But then again, libertarian is not a valid economic theory, so you go ahead with your belief, bugs.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
naive
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
First, other countries pay far less for far better health care. We too can do better.
I'm suggesting we tax rich individuals and corporations progressively, while tapering subsidies as income levels rise.
We currently do precisely the reverse, which is why our budgets are such a mess.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Derp.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
I still don't see how we can do all you say at less than 20% of GDP as you told bugeye.
I think you have no idea how much the policies Bernie Sanders put forth in 2016 would cost. Too funny how you froth at the mouth over anybody opposing his ideas because they would cost "too much" while you have no idea.
I don't think it would cost "too much", I think we pay for all this stuff one way or the other and so do Sweden, Norway, Belgium, France. They do it in a more equitable fashion with great results. I do think we should be honest about what we plan. Ignorance might make you blissful but it's not a good way to run a country.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
It is naive to say that Republicans are anything like Democrats.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
A huge part of this would be to hold the defense industry far more accountable for the performance and reliability of the systems and equipment they produce.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
I'm not the guy stuck on 20%. We agree on this point.
You have a bad habit of putting words in my mouth I never said and it weakens your arguments.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Their funding sources are the same, as are their economic positions. Socially they're different but unfortunately that's not enough.
You're naive if you think the distinction between today's Republicans and today's Democrats is sufficient.
Bugeye
Well-Known Member
I'm referencing Hauser's law which is an observation on US federal tax collection post World War 2: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauser's_law
Note that collected revenue rarely exceeds 20% despite very large differences in marginal tax rates through a the years. A strong argument for making 20% of GDP an upper limit on federal budget targeting.