Random Thought: PA Edition


tshile

The Legend
Joined
Sep 20, 2011
Messages
17,829
Points
0

George Mason

It's possible the entire problem is not the party but the people that seem to speak on behalf of it. That can only be fixed by other party members deciding to stop letting them speak ok their behalf.
 

tshile

The Legend
Joined
Sep 20, 2011
Messages
17,829
Points
0

George Mason

CBS is doing an excellent segment on studies on standardized testing for college admissions and their irrelevancy to success right now.
 

Lanky Livingston

The Commissioner
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
27,017
Points
0

Florida Atlantic

Standardized testing is the worst thing to ever happen to our education system.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk
 

Elephant

The Commissioner
Joe Gibbs Club Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2009
Messages
24,263
Points
1,068

Florida State

That's me, spoonfed sheeple. Forget that I would personally benefit form many of the slash tax/spending policies of the tea party. The thing is the more I've lived the more I realize that decisions are rarely black and white. Run from anyone with all the answers.

The more the tea party supporters throw the "people are ignorant sheeple and just don't understand or they would vote for us" the deeper the whole they will dig for themselves.
Bob, I hope you know I do not put you in the "sheeple" category and my response to you was not meant as a direct affront to you in particular. I simply tire of hearing the Tea Party painted in such an "extremist" light when Nancy Pelosi is about as extreme as we've seen in the HoR in my lifetime.

The "Tea Party" has their issues, most obvious is their lack of political tact, but what they represent is not extreme like so many want to paint.

Edit: And tshile is correct, the party is being defined by a few. I have to admit, I wish Sarah Palin would disappear...all she knows is fight, no tact whatsoever. Too bad too, she could get a lot accomplished if she understood how things get done.
 

HOF44

The Starter
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
1,003
Points
0


Bob, I hope you know I do not put you in the "sheeple" category and my response to you was not meant as a direct affront to you in particular. I simply tire of hearing the Tea Party painted in such an "extremist" light when Nancy Pelosi is about as extreme as we've seen in the HoR in my lifetime.

The "Tea Party" has their issues, most obvious is their lack of political tact, but what they represent is not extreme like so many want to paint.
No worries Brian!

It's not so much what they represent that bothers me about them. It's that they don't seem to want to implement things as get the support to do so. The tea party wants you to do it there way now, no compromise, or we'll hold our breath stomp our feet and bring the wheels of government grounding to a halt. I prefer 2 parties having to compromise. You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one, I hope someday you'll join us and the world will live as one!! ;)
 
Last edited:

Nobody

Super Bowl MVP
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
9,474
Points
0

Army

No worries Brian!

It's not so much what they represent that bothers me about them. It's that they don't seem to want to implement things as get the support to do so. The tea party wants you to do it there way now, no compromise, or we'll hold our breath stomp our feet and bring the wheels of government grounding to a halt. I prefer 2 parties having to compromise. You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one, I hope someday you'll join us and the world will live as one!! ;)
The only problem is, the two ways the other idiots propose are just variations of ideas that have failed for decades. The Tea Party comes up with an idea that makes sense, and they both blast it, because agreeing that it's a good idea makes them look like clowns, and they know it. You can't say an idea would fail if it's never been tried, and the only alternative being offered by the other two are either do it like we've always done, or alter it slightly. Either way, failure and slightly altered failure are still failure. It's going to take some drastic decisions to get shit done and back on track, and the left and right don't have the balls to do it, because they're too worried about keeping their base happy, keeping their votes rolling in, and keeping their pockets fat. America be damned.

Look at taxes as a perfect example. We've used predominantly a progressive tax structure since WWI, and most people agree it's a failure. The Democrats like the system, but want to skew it toward taxing the rich more, which has proven to be a failure by every country who has ever tried it. Then the GOP wants to trickle down or slash taxes for the rich. As we saw under Reagan, it has short term success, but then eventually, things get screwed up, so that doesn't work either. Then along comes the Tea Party and their crazy flat tax that both sides reject and mock. But look at the European countries and Soviet countries that have switched, they've seen steady growth. But, since an idea that could work would make both parties look foolish, they reject it, offer no alternative other than what we already know from experience doesn't work, and the tea Party is back to being a bunch of uneducated racists.
 
Last edited:

tshile

The Legend
Joined
Sep 20, 2011
Messages
17,829
Points
0

George Mason

Flat tax won't gain traction because it only works with no deductions and deductions are a direct way to influence behavior.

Also it would simplify an otherwise unnecessarily complex system. A system thats complexity is what politicians use to obfuscate their back door dealings.
 

Lanky Livingston

The Commissioner
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
27,017
Points
0

Florida Atlantic

Flat tax won't gain traction because it only works with no deductions and deductions are a direct way to influence behavior.

Also it would simplify an otherwise unnecessarily complex system. A system thats complexity is what politicians use to obfuscate their back door dealings.
Fair tax is a modified flat tax, including rebates for the poor. Not deductions, but sort of.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk
 

tshile

The Legend
Joined
Sep 20, 2011
Messages
17,829
Points
0

George Mason

Fair tax is a modified flat tax, including rebates for the poor. Not deductions, but sort of.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk
Hrm. I'd have to look into it. I'm ultra skeptical when the name is 'Fair Tax.'

Yeah, you'd have to do something progressive for poor people.
 

tshile

The Legend
Joined
Sep 20, 2011
Messages
17,829
Points
0

George Mason

The idea sounds cool, but... It creates a partially voluntary system that is arguably more volatile than the one we have now.

So what happens when the economy tanks and people stop spending money and start saving? How does a person that makes 10 million and saves 9 million tax free compare to a person that makes 50k and saves 5k tax free, and how does the government plan for and adjust to decreases in spending? What if people save money because it's perceived to be the wise investment, so the rate has to go up, so the cost of goods go up, so people buy less, so the rate goes up, ad infinitum? Do we wind up raising the rate so we can increase the level the prebate goes to compensate for the increasing gap between higher and lower class?

In their PDF on finance and investment they boast of reports showing long term investment increasing quite significantly, but I don't see anywhere where they address the required decrease in spending to complete the shift... There's a lot of information on that site, so maybe I just missed it.
 

Lanky Livingston

The Commissioner
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
27,017
Points
0

Florida Atlantic

The idea sounds cool, but... It creates a partially voluntary system that is arguably more volatile than the one we have now.

So what happens when the economy tanks and people stop spending money and start saving? How does a person that makes 10 million and saves 9 million tax free compare to a person that makes 50k and saves 5k tax free, and how does the government plan for and adjust to decreases in spending? What if people save money because it's perceived to be the wise investment, so the rate has to go up, so the cost of goods go up, so people buy less, so the rate goes up, ad infinitum? Do we wind up raising the rate so we can increase the level the prebate goes to compensate for the increasing gap between higher and lower class?

In their PDF on finance and investment they boast of reports showing long term investment increasing quite significantly, but I don't see anywhere where they address the required decrease in spending to complete the shift... There's a lot of information on that site, so maybe I just missed it.
There is not necessarily a required decrease in spending, because people will have more money (via tax free income). It's also not voluntary, because people need to buy things; this would not force 300 million people off the grid (so to speak).

It's not perfect, but then neither is the flat tax.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk
 

tshile

The Legend
Joined
Sep 20, 2011
Messages
17,829
Points
0

George Mason

There is not necessarily a required decrease in spending, because people will have more money (via tax free income). It's also not voluntary, because people need to buy things; this would not force 300 million people off the grid (so to speak).

It's not perfect, but then neither is the flat tax.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk
No it won't force people off the grid, but the richest people in the country would be able to pocket a significant percentage of their income tax free while the rest of us would only be able to pocket a tiny fraction.

Granted... they have to spend it sometime to use it, but the money is pulled out of the tax revenue stream... the government can't force people to spend. I think that might actually empower a class of people that could... decide to refuse to contribute to the government in protest if they wanted.
 

Lanky Livingston

The Commissioner
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
27,017
Points
0

Florida Atlantic

No it won't force people off the grid, but the richest people in the country would be able to pocket a significant percentage of their income tax free while the rest of us would only be able to pocket a tiny fraction.

Granted... they have to spend it sometime to use it, but the money is pulled out of the tax revenue stream... the government can't force people to spend. I think that might actually empower a class of people that could... decide to refuse to contribute to the government in protest if they wanted.
Well, income inequality and the tax code are separate problems. Rich people already juke the system we have. In this system, if they want to buy a million dollar yacht, $230k goes to uncle Sam.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk
 

tshile

The Legend
Joined
Sep 20, 2011
Messages
17,829
Points
0

George Mason

Well, income inequality and the tax code are separate problems. Rich people already juke the system we have. In this system, if they want to buy a million dollar yacht, $230k goes to uncle Sam.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk
Right. And if they want to stash it in stocks and savings accounts?

I'm definitely intrigued. I need to think about it more.
 

Elephant

The Commissioner
Joe Gibbs Club Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2009
Messages
24,263
Points
1,068

Florida State

No worries Brian!

It's not so much what they represent that bothers me about them. It's that they don't seem to want to implement things as get the support to do so. The tea party wants you to do it there way now, no compromise, or we'll hold our breath stomp our feet and bring the wheels of government grounding to a halt. I prefer 2 parties having to compromise. You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one, I hope someday you'll join us and the world will live as one!! ;)
Again, I will direct your attention to one Harry Reid...you know the guy who refuses to bring a single piece of legislation to the floor of the Senate that he does not want to pass....or even compromise on.

But yeah, I know...it's only the Tea Party who will not compromise! Come on HOF, don't you see it?
 

Lanky Livingston

The Commissioner
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
27,017
Points
0

Florida Atlantic

Again, I will direct your attention to one Harry Reid...you know the guy who refuses to bring a single piece of legislation to the floor of the Senate that he does not want to pass....or even compromise on.

But yeah, I know...it's only the Tea Party who will not compromise! Come on HOF, don't you see it?
Or, the Republican version of compromise is, well if you cut funding to these 17 programs completely, we'll agree to cutting food stamp funding by only 50%. THAT'S SO FAIR.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk
 

HOF44

The Starter
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
1,003
Points
0


Again, I will direct your attention to one Harry Reid...you know the guy who refuses to bring a single piece of legislation to the floor of the Senate that he does not want to pass....or even compromise on.

But yeah, I know...it's only the Tea Party who will not compromise! Come on HOF, don't you see it?
I see someone responding to the circumstances they find themselves in. Congress in the best of times is a contentious place, but since the tea party joined the ranks it has become almost frozen. Just a review of the percentage of judicial nominees appointed versus previous administrations will show the difference. You can point to the other guy all you want, but the tea party is a whole new level of obstructionism.
 

Nobody

Super Bowl MVP
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
9,474
Points
0

Army

They may be obstructionist, but look how much failure has been pushed through anyway. Now imagine for a minute how much worse off we would be right now if they were standing by watching everything go through. If you think for a minute that we're doing great, you aren't seeing the same things the rest of the country is.
 
Private conversations
Help Users
    You haven't joined any rooms.
    Chat 0
    Top