gvg

Well, since it seems a lot of people are making one of these, I'll join the party =) I'm a high schooler from Long Island, New York in the USA. I usually reside in the others section of this forum, though occasionally I do a brainteaser or two. I'm a fan of history, of politics, of science (especially the biological sciences), American football (Go Cowboys! =)), reading (just finished the Hunger Games series for the second time. Because why not?), and intellectual discussions in general. I'm quite the nerd (unapologetically of course), I'm Latin (hence the picture of Brazil), and love listening to music (Rise Against being my favorite band (and favorite song being... hmm... I'll go with Tonight We Dance)). ...I think that's all the random info I can think of at 1 am. I'm just glad this is back up and running!

Thanks rookie1ja for getting this back up and running =)

I have the same issue. This is the first one i was able to go on.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html This is worth reading. it's about what happened after Portugal decriminalized drug use (but not dealing).

Personally, I would rather we end this stupid and failed War on Drugs altogether. It's been called a failure by several sources (http://www.npr.org/b...rld-leaders-say), and really, it criminalizes those who do no harm to anyone but themselves, fills prison unnecessarily, and costs money where money could be made. Prohibition of an unwanted substance doesn't work. Heck, the prohibition era of US history is a big example of that. It completely failed (http://www.cato.org/...php?pub_id=1017). And MissKitten, I think you are fearing something that doesn't need to be feared. Cigarettes are legal, with an age limit. Legally, I am a child (less than 18). Cigarettes being legal doesn't make me think, "well then cigarettes must be ok." Actually, i find them to be disgusting. Why? Well, from personal experience (I have an uncle who smokes, and I know kids my age who smoke), and from health class. Making drugs legal wouldn't make me think its OK. Why would it do that? Would making murder legal make people think its OK? Because if it honestly would, well then society is scary. (I'm about to do something that I don't do often, and that is quote Ron Paul: ) People who plan to do drugs would do it regardless of laws. Will a few on the borderline go ahead and do it? Well, maybe. That sucks for them. I don't care; I don't see a need to tell people what they can or cannot do to their own bodies. Smoking is horrible; I would never do it, and when I have kids, I will do everything I can to convince them of the same. But I will fight fervently against any law that plans on banning cigarettes or other smoking products. Why? Because I don't think it's the government's job to limit freedom of choice in such a way. If people want to waste away doing drugs, that's their problem. I'd gladly allow them to, it's their body; I see no reason to have to spend money and fill up prisons (which ruins the lives of those arrested btw, since they don't do enough to separate the murderers and such from those who do minor crimes like drugs in overcrowded prisons; and that doesn't end well) to stop them from doing that. So, basically, I say marijuana, and all other drugs, should be legal. It's not the government's place to stop people from doing things to their own bodies, as long as it doesn't harm others (and in fact, I think there should be a prize given to the first one to come up with a breathalyzer-like test for other drugs, like weed, because while I don't care if people do things to their own bodies, once they threaten others by driving under the influence, I now have a problem with them). Plus, if the goal is to stop people from doing drugs, think about human nature: making it against the rules for people to do things really doesn't work well. Otherwise, why would there be such a problem as teenage drinking in the US? I hope that made sense. Doing a stupid paper for school the past hour or so has really tired me out. SO, if that didn't make sense, I'll gladly clarify.

Happy New Year everyone. Bring it on 2012. BRING IT.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays everyone =) And... how about Festivus??? Happy Festivus =)

http://nolabels.org/work#ways THAT is something i signed right when i saw it.

Oh, that LOVELY commercial. Funniest thing about it though: I don't know who pointed it out, but that jacket looks like the one from brokeback mountain =) Irony, how I love you.

Quag: First off, on Bernie: Yes, you are right, not including unions is stupid, but not doing this petition at all just because of that is even more dumb. So i signed it. Not the best, but certainly better than nothing. For your other points: 1. I doubt it'll fail. It was that or for sure it would fail, and actually, considering the fact that they are separate from the gov., i dont think taxpayers (i was gonna say way we but im dont pay them yet =)) will have to pay this back. I could be wrong, but the Fed pumped a lot more money into the economy then the gov did, and we dont have to pay it, so. 2. Yeah, i know they count it differently. They used full non-working numbers during the depression, then at some point stopped, i dunno when. Which is why I'm skeptical of any 'drops' in unemployment. But then, think of it this way: if it looks like unemployment is going down, that gives people more confidence, giving the economy more confidence, and ultimately improving it. it's not like the government is hiding these numbers, otherwise no one would know about them without a leak. So slightly misleading, yes, but i think with good intention. 3. OK, this is where we disagree, as we know. But notice that the biggest players in the dems are only talking about letting the bush tax cuts expire, which had no reason to exist in the first place. No doing more then that, nor should they. And of course its obvious that unless we look at capital gains taxes, we are going to miss the Steve Jobs and Bill Gates type billionaires. Now, whether or not we should raise the capital gains tax is an issue in and of itself (which truthfully, although there is no evidence of an effect on investment when capital gains taxes go up or down, im not sure enough to have an argument on that). Also, the whole point of ending the tax cuts is because its supposed to combine with spending cuts to reduce the deficit. And of course the rich pay more in taxes, they have more money! Even if we taxed a guy making 50k 50% (which is of course ridiculous) and taxes a guy making 1 mil 10%, the rich guy will pay more taxes because he has more money. So that is irrelevant. Consider this video: http://www.thedailys...ee-ride-is-over I think he says it best. Think: the rich got there with help from his or her countrymen. Why is it wrong in a time of crisis to ask them to give back and help? The middle class spend the most, so of course raising taxes on them would be dumb and would have the wrong effect. Taxing the poor more would be negligible and again pointless. This leaves one source of revenue income tax wise: closing loopholes and raising the rate of the rich a little. No one is calling for 90% taxes, and if they are, they should be ignored like the idiots they are. Ending the bush tax cuts bumps it up to the 39.5% it would be anyway were it not for the Bush tax cuts. Whats the matter with this? someone making 1 million (the rich threshold for me, don't give me this ridiculousness of 250k Obama) with that kind of tax (without the loopholes of course, because there would still be some legitimate ones that remain) would pay (rounding up to 40%) 400k dollars. A big amount, dont get me wrong. But that leaves that individual 600k. And thats an individual too, because if im not mistaking, taxes are different for spouses with or without kids. I dont know about you, but give me 600k as an individual and im set for the year. It doesnt even need to go this high, but currently the rich pay mid 20's% in taxes. Raising this to even 35 or 30% would help when combined with other things. Most of the money may need to come from cuts, but a large amount needs to be increased revenue as well. (By the way, i feel this is worth reading actually, because it discusses middle class taxes: http://www.politifac...r-middle-class/). 4. My Mistake. 5. These are estimates. Obamacare hasnt even taken effect yet. It will right around the time these issues will be more then just intellectual talking points for me (i think it goes into effect 2013-14, ill be 17-18 by then). 6. Thats not Bill Maher. Thats a guy explaining why Bill Maher is wrong. Very different. And thats completely incorrect. He attacks the democrats almost as much as the republicans for being spineless, leaderless crybaby's. Almost every show i've seen involving discussion of the two parties garners the same result. He hates both parties, and actually agrees with republicans on some things, like the death penalty (he's praised Bill O'Reily before). Now to agree with you somewhat: We've been moving left culturally for sure, thankfully. Left economically? I dunno about that, although we havent been moving right (that is, conservatively/liberterienly) either. So i dunno. Quag might be right on that one. And i actually praised Newt by the way, but from what i saw in the debate yesterday, good god i was wrong. Of them all, Ron Paul was doing good early on, and i still agree with him on many (though not all) of his social and military ideas. but then he remembered he was Ron Paul, and the crazy left me breathless. Thus, my current favorite is still Huntsman, but he's got some things i dont agree with either. There are good republicans. Indeed. And Dawh, Pelosi is a dumba**. I'm no fan of big corporations, but Pelosi kisses up to unions (again, not necessarily horrible, but big unions and big corporations are the same: they compete for government attention and favors, sell a product (for the unions its high (sometimes ridiculously) wages and other things good and bad), and dont have my love or even my respect. so.) Oh, and term limits are dumb too.

I read this, and I thought I'd place it here: http://gawker.com/5866375/gentlemen-we-shot-a-judge-and-other-tales-of-blackwaters-rampage-through-iraq?utm_source=Gawker+Newsletter&utm_campaign=bcbcded4eb-UA-142218-2&utm_medium=email Its worth noting that this is just one firm, and in fact there were more private mercenaries in Iraq than there were soldiers (and the mercenaries did most of the civilian killing).

http://sanders.senate.gov/petition/?uid=f1c2660f-54b9-4193-86a4-ec2c39342c6c This is why i do love Bernie. he's proposing an amendment similar to what i said earlier (though not entirely the same, but whatever, its close enough and is progress). I read the whole thing, and I think its great (the link is there in red on the site). I put myself as a co-signer.

Quag: 1. Eh, i dunno. The fed is too damn complicated. But they are now apparently giving cash to Europe's banks to support the Euro (which is at danger of failing if i remember correctly, so that's quite the investment, although i understand that it's to make sure s*** doesnt hit the fan in Europe). 2. I think Dawh answered this right. Europe was at war in 1939 (notice, right when you say the US ended it. I always thought that WW2 was an underrated helper of getting rid of the depression, though obviously war isnt the answer now) and they were preparing well in advance as everyone knew it was pretty inevitable. War, to put it frankly, kills of unemployed (and employed) people, and creates many military jobs. Thus, I'd say that were it not for WW2, the depression would have continued. And I dont trust economists much either, but historians dont specialize on the economy. So, i wouldnt trust them either on that matter. (Oh, and Hoover didnt do squat, and what happened? EVERYTHING got worse. So, doing nothing isnt helpful either apparently). I'd like to know where you got your numbers. I dont necessarily think they're wrong (and that article did say 140 k jobs created), but id like to see the source of that claim of yours about the 300k giving up. Also, i didnt say it was impossible to recover from a crisis without government involvement, that's obviously stupid. I think its more to do with what Dawh said, involving the charts he made. I learned in AP Euro this past week about the Dutch Economy of the 17th century. It was completely unregulated. What happened? There was, like clockwork, extreme (worse then great depression extreme) recessions and depressions (over stupid things like tulips sometimes) that lasted for years, and one recession lasted a decade. Dawh's graph is accurate, and I agree: It is far better to have more moderate peaks then to have large peaks and crashes, which are much more devastating. And i dont think we need another stimulus, now seeing the new data about the 140k jobs created. The stock market is back on its feet and, barring a crash in Europe of epic proportions (which is of course still possible), everything seems to be uphill from here. I dont think stimulus's and things like TARP should be designed to artificially send economies into the stratosphere. I think they're there to prevent it from heading deep into the bowels of hell. I stand by my claim: were it not for TARP and the stimulus, we would have gone into a depression, instead of being where we are now, out of a recession and climbing. You saw the graph i put: it was a dramatic turn-around when Obama hit office. That's what it was there for. Now its time to help business back on there feet, with things like cutting the corporate tax rate (while at the same time closing loopholes and ending subsidies), keeping middle class rate low (they're the main consumers after all), and dealing with the debt, but not in such a dramatic way that the fragile recovery we are in blows up. 3. No. Class warfare is not an issue, for either side, no matter what the other says. You are now listening to pundits like Bill Maher, MSNBC, etc. I promise you, alll the dems are proposing is ending the bush tax cuts, sending the rich rate to 39-40%( which they wont pay anyway cause of loopholes, but its a start). THere's no proposing 60% rates or higher, nor 50 even. 40 is the highest ive heard from the dems, which would come about by ending the bush tax cuts for the rich. Is that such a bad thing? Saying, Quag, 'no raising the tax rate, just cut', is just the same as me saying, 'forget cutting, tax em all to hell.' both are stupid ideas. Mixture is needed, compromise is key. Cuts to defense should begin to help, a better system of healthcare (which we'll see if obamacare is when it takes effect in 2013 or 14, whichever it is), etc. These will cuts costs. Ending the wars, fixing up entitlements (although medicare adds a negligible amount compared to things like defense, but that'll change if we dont act soon), etc, while at the same time ending the tax cuts. This cuts the debt as well. 4. Dawh answered this well i think. But hold on, how in any way is a preemptive strike on Iraq moving left???? Not at all. Monroe doctrine isnt liberal, unless the meaning of the word has change dramatically in the last 60 years. 5. Yeah, private public is good (and unregulated private in this case i might add, no need to spend money on regulating the private aspect when there the public system to worry about). And i think its unfair to call obamacare a disaster when it hasnt taken effect yet, and wont for a couple of years. 6. It was 4.6 tril over 10 years, my bad on that. And to quote the very same Bill Maher i just put down earlier, '[he spent money] fixing what that other a**hole (bush) messed up.' Again, unfair to blame Obama. Medicare part D expenses are kicking in strong (thats unpaid). The wars were really at their peak when he entered, and cost a LOT obviously. I think this is a good video of whats being left out btw: interest. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8JlK6k29uQ Ignore the obvious anti-repub rhetoric btw, just focus in his main point. again, a combination is necessary. Dawh: Have to say i agree, but im not so sure about the thing you said about the dems because, well, i just never heard about that. Not saying its wrong, but im not sure.

I hate when that happens =) I'll be looking for it tomorrow.

OK, so Dawh first: 1. I do realize they are conservative sources. I ignored the writing and looked at the numbers. And by saying 'who cares if they are supported by [insert]', lemme flip it: who cares if the Republicans are supported by the Koch brothers? Or corporations? I agree that school choice isnt the best idea, but why do the Dems need money from a big union like that to know that? Oh, and I'd also want to point out: http://online.wsj.co...s%3Dinteractive I'm sure you knew that already, but it isn't a major difference between contributions to Reps vs Dems for corporations, when I cannot think of a union that'd want to give to Reps. Again, I'm not a 'unions should die' person, but the numbers don't lie. And i went back and realized that they probably took it out of context, but Pelosi has to learn to term it better then, cause i watched that and got the same vibe. Now, Quag: 1. I think he does actually, and I'm mad at Obama for reinserting Bernanke, but Bush chose him during the initial crisis. 2. I want to see some evidence for that Great Depression statement that shows it was slowed due to the New Deal and all that, b/c I'm pretty sure that it helped, although I do realize economists are split on it. But again, I linked a report from some economist guy some pages back that showed his evidence for it. But whatever, something seems to be working, at least that's what i assume from http://online.wsj.co...2136930544.html and http://www.ibtimes.c...rcent-obama.htm Apparently your gov job cutting is working, but again, it isnt cut and burn, and it was a major improvement (though im left wondering where 140k jobs suddenly appeared from in the private sector). Oh, and i thought id point out (and i could be wrong in the interpretation of what you wrote), but the stimulus wasnt meant to hire people to the gov (in fact, Obama's been downsizing that for a while), but to make private sector ones and keep the economy from plummeting into a new great depression. 3. They aren't as bad as the reps (and no, I'm not a democrat, I hate political parties actually, and would rather see all independents in the gov),and they are much more moderate. The republicans are currently allowing the tea party and Grover Norquist to control their actions. This could have been solved a while ago if it wasnt for those two groups (in the mid 90's, if im right, Clinton got some stuff done with a republican congress). And actually, the way the supercommitee was set up, now their inability to do something is causing cuts in proper places, like military. 4. No no nononononono. We have NOT been moving to the left, we've been moving right. A lot of people i talk to think you guys are those idiot socialists up north (although I'm surprised how many think otherwise, but anyway). No one wants ANYTHING to do with left wing concepts, and liberal is an evil word. We are far from left., We are right. The dems are center, the repubs center to far right. I dunno how you thought otherwise, but i promise you that isnt the case. (Consider what Dawh said: A similar thing to obamacare was a conservative idea. Now its 'socialist', and no rep (although to be fair rep != conservative. EDIT: And dems != liberal.) would go near it. THAT should show you that we arent moving left.) And what vocal democrats? Obama? He's not left, hes center at most. 5. Obviously Obamacare isn't the best idea, but we couldn't do anything more 'left'. Again, the reps refused a system like Canda's, France's, England's... universal stuff. Couldn't consider it at all. So that was the best Obama could get passed. I personally think we should go with something like what the UK has: A base universal coverage with non-gov touched healthcare (vs what the US has now, gov-subsidized healthcare that costs 7200$ a person) that can be bought if wanted. France has a multi-tier system too. I'm actually not a fan of complete gov run health care with no private allowed, but i think we do need a basic thing. 6. Obama had a plan that cut 4.6 trillion from the deficit. You're right though, thats all i could think of.

I'm going to reply more in length later, but I think you should see this: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/pelosi-jobs-less-important-than-unions/ http://blog.heritage.org/2011/10/31/pelosi-south-carolina-boeing-plant-should-unionize-or-shut-down/ http://brianekoenig.com/2011/11/nancy-pelosi-on-unions-south-carolina-boeing-plant-should-shut-down/ http://www.theblaze.com/stories/pelosi-s-carolina-boeing-plant-should-be-closed-if-it-doesn%E2%80%99t-go-union/ Yeah, i have a feeling her and union bosses have a special relationship there. but again, that's just her, and of course Corporations have more money available. http://www.aier.org/research/briefs/1550-obama-thanks-his-friends-government-spending-and-union-support Ignoring the obvious conservative rhetoric, the numbers are real. I can't find a corporate one, but I am going to look. Ill make a larger response later.

Dawh: Yep, i agree with you (although I do think there are some democrats who are as dawh described (they're in the minority though), and others, not for nothing, that have been given a hell of a lot of union money (im not anti-union per-say, just pointing it out) like pelosi apparently,and they only serve them. But again, thats a minority.) But, there are many a democrat who refuses to give up their sacred cows like SS age, Medicare, etc. Why do you think Obama's 4.6 trillion idea was rejected outright by both sides? For the republicans, the blasphemous idea was tax raises (aka letting the bush era cuts expire), for some dems (enough to screw his idea), cutting Medicare/Medicaid. These things have to be done. SS and Medicare age must be raised, the ceiling of income that is taxed for SS must be raised, a deal must be made with Big Pharma to reduce the costs of drugs (which is quite possible, and is championed by Bernie Sanders). All these thing must occur, and this is just the start. What is going to happen now (automatic cuts due to their failure) is actually a good start. It cuts several hundred billion in costs from defense and medicare, 1.2 trillion total, which is a nice start. Couple that with letting the Bush cuts expire (which will probably happen unless the repubs win congress), and that's a GREAT start. Also coupled with the end of the Iraq war on the date Bush set several years ago (Dec 31 of this year, which Obama is following), and the situation is not nearly as bleak. Of course, there are already pushes to reverse the first thing (the automatic cuts) and the second thing (the expiration of the bush tax cuts) and the third thing (for random fears of Iran, which really is kinda dumb cause we'd blow them to hell with half our current military capability). But i doubt theyll get it. Itll be blocked in one way or the other, all these movements. And if we can get the freakin moderates of the republican party (Huntsman, Gingrich (this dudes smart, but war-hawkish, but hes still moderate elsewhere) to do some more talking, we can get some s*** done. Anyway, back to the whole thing with campaign money: I say a law should be passed saying that: 1. Campaign contributions are not to come from corporations or unions. it just isn't fair, no one can give more then them. 2. Contributions are limited to, say, 10k per person, so that those who are quite well to do cannot do ask corporations do now. 3. This one i've debated in my head a bit, but I've settled on it: No using one's own money. it isn't fair, for instance, that someone like, say, Reagan, who was an actor and made quite a bit of cash, can go ahead and give more to his campaign then joe shmoe who wants reform. (I think people are allowed right now, correct me if I'm wrong.) 4. Make all contributions to all campaigns available on the internet or in print on request. These things are a great start no? And it'd cause politicians to pay attention. Of course, those will never be passed. Ever. Well, not with these a**holes anyway.

OK, a few things. 1. The head of the fed is indeed appointed, but he acts privately, and (before now) hasn't had to explain what or how they were doing it. So yes, its a problem because no one passed a law to get this done. So it's half and half: No one asked the fed about anything, probably because they were afraid that doing so would prevent the fed from carrying out necessary policies, but also no one knew what they were doing. I dunno. All i know is that it is a private bank, and whatever they lend to anyone but the US government has nothing to do with our debt. (Here's the current head: http://en.wikipedia....ki/Ben_Bernanke) 2. That thing you linked says .2 off long term. That doesn't sound horrible when you consider that the stimulus stopped it from all going to hell (it slowed down the down part of the business cycle, so obviously it'd make the upper part moderated a bit. But the fact that it's only .2... that isn't so bad. Another is a no go, though, but i still say Obama's stimulus was necessary). 3. Yes, managerial cutting would be great, but Washington is so goddamn full of lobbyists that that wouldn't happen. But obviously cuts need to come in, I never said they didn't, but slash and burn with a weak economy wouldn't be too good (especially if the situation in Europe goes to hell). The 90's wasn't a time of economic downturn, right? So the slash and burn wasn't as detrimental. Different situation. We should start now, and ease into it: cuts to military, other things, some taxes, etc. But nothing too horrid. Oh, and yes, those democrats are idiots. Which is why no one likes them actually, and congress has an approval rating of 9% or something like that.

OK, about the Fed: Central Banks /= extension of government. It's its own private entity, which is why no one, and I mean NO ONE (Bush, Obama, or anyone) knew what the hell they were doing, cause no one asked. So the 16 trillion isnt gov money, its fed money (hence why all america dollars are printed by the fed; the government has to get money from the fed to send out, and only then is the government involved in fed activities). So no, this doesnt effect us as much as it does the fed. And it did help kinda, cause at least the whole market didn't enter the depths of hell. But to blame either president for the Feds activities is wrong. because they dont control it. Now, for the spending: Is the saying not you have to spend money to make money? I've said many times, we can't do sudden slash and burn. Obama's healthcare plan was an attempt (and we'll see if it works or not if it makes it through the supreme court) to fight a major cause of debt, healthcare (this big number aided by Med part D, which was never paid for and cost several hundred billion dollars). TARP (Bush) and the Stimulus (Obama) was not meant to cut debt. Could you imagine if money HADN'T been pumped into the system? i think some pages back i posted a report by and economist showing the stimulus and TARP did wha they were meant to do: plus the hole that was the crashing economy. Think about this: In the Great Depression, when the stock market plunged, Hoover did nothing, instead choosing to rely on charity. In the Great Recession, the stock market plunged, and money got pumped in. The effects were moderated, and it didn't turn into a full scale depression. Job loss (up to hundreds of thousands at one point: reversed, as you can see in the picture. THAT was the point. The debt was secondary, because as long as the interest was being paid, it'd be alright while they tried to end the downward spiral. Debt isn't number one: jobs and the economy are. When those improve, the debt will improve, as more taxes come in. Fixing the tax code (ex. closing loopholes while simultaneously reducing the tax rate for corporations from 35 to 28) will help as well. Its a matter of slow and steady while the economy is down. We have to wait until it can support a sudden loss of government money, or at least until the effects can be minimized. And many of the reps took Norquist's no-raising-taxes pledge. You can see how well that turned out by looking at the debacle known as the Debt Committee which, to no one's surprise, failed miserably. Obama suggested a huge package of cutting the spending (in med, etc) while closing loopholes and raising taxes slightly (back to Clinton era 39% top rate), which in total would reduce the debt by 4 trillion $. It wasn't even looked at. Both parties are to blame, because the Dems said no cause of the cuts to Medicare and such (which, of course, is necessary; an age raise, some cuts, making a deal w/ drug companies to lower costs, etc.) and the reps said no cause it had the word 'raise' and 'tax' in the same sentence (which isn't accurate, it was just going to let the Bush tax cuts expire, a smart move b/c that is another huge cost). both disagreed with cutting the military, even though we could cut it in half and i would say we could still kick anyone's a** (though i'm not for cutting it by 50%). Obama is ending the war in Iraq (which, to give Bush credit, it was Bush's idea to end the war now at the latest) and has begun a draw-down in Iraq. Obama is TRYING. I doubt anyone outside of the greatest president's of all time could fix this. It's a multi-decade process, and hopefully, after people are finally fully fed up with the carp-throwing contest that is congress, it can begin soon. Now, just a word on the taxes: http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/story/2011-09-20/buffett-tax-millionaires/50480226/1 http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/chart-of-the-day-do-the-rich-really-pay-less-in-taxes/245531/ Income tax wise, yes, Quag is right. (With very prominent exceptions b/c of the fact that many of the REALLY REALLY wealthy get a HUGE portion of their income from capital gains taxes). and it is partly bc of http://krusekronicle.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/07top1.gif . More money means more taxes, obviously. But i think by leaving out payroll taxes (which cap out at 250k of your total income, something which must change if SS and Med and the like are to survive) and other similar taxes, it misses a major thing. Strictly talking income tax, yes, the rich pay more. Why? They make more. but I can't find one that includes payroll, sales, etc. taxes as well, which i think would even out the tax chart above. Also, state by state is different: taxes in my home state of NY is a HELL of a lot different than taxes in, say, Texas. So the issue is much more complex then just income taxes. But from what i can tell, Dawh is refferring to income taxes, and thus, is incorrect: the rich pay more income taxes overall. it just makes sense, after all, they maek more. Now, this is not to say that maybe taxes are too low in general for the current state of things, but that's a separate issue.

For the Fed thing: http://sanders.senat...53-62060dcbb3c3 I honestly didn't read the whole report that they used as a source, but it seems reliable enough. Oh, and there's this: http://www.rawstory....mergency-loans/ And http://www.forbes.co...under-reported/ I think that's enough to prove it. Now, as for Obama, look, I don't like to play partisan politics, but the republicans didn't let him do s***. He had an American Jobs act (whether it would have worked or not we'll never know) that was denied, I have given links multiple times to show that the bailout (Bush) and stimulus (Obama) did work at preventing and possibly reversing somewhat (we arent in a recession anymore, though Europe's situation may change that) the problem (although if I'm not mistaking you still disagree), and at least he tried to make a compromise (he's been pushing a grand compromise for a while). He is willing to sacrifice some Democrat sacred cows (Medicare, etc.). So yes, he's helped, and no, he's DEFINITELY better then Bush. he isn't worse. And we need him to be elected again or those idiots currently debating every other damn day will be in. Unless it's Huntsman and maybe even Gingrich, that would NOT be good (Romney flip-flops a lot, so i dunno what to make of him). Electoral College: And I dunno what to think of the tax thing.

Yeah, truthfully, i just want to, if anything, go in the leg. for a bit, see if i can do anything (but i wouldn't join a political party. I can't stand those. hopefully i wouldn't have to). But anyway, irrelevant. disagree slightly. i think having good ideas and motives gets you reelected. For instance, there's a guy (i think i talked about him before) named Bernie Sanders who's been a senator for Vermont for years. He keep getting reelected not because of lobbyists or parties (he's an independent actually, he has no party), but because he has good intentions and ideas. he helped share the fact that the fed gave 15 trillion to every bank and its cousin around the world, which it had before said it didnt. he is quite the whistleblower, and always (well, it seems to me anyway) fights for the little guy. Now, i dont say this because i agree with him always (he's actually a self-proclaimed socialist, and is MUCH MUCH more extreme then i, or actually anyway who's written on this thread, is), but because he actually seems to care. Now of course, this is probably the 1% you were talking about, but still, i think having even one like him is important. I also think, though, that political parties are a big reason for the 'scumbags' you talk about. i don't know about Canada, but the 2 US parties know they are untouchable most of the time, and so act like they are the only two opinions, end of story, see you later. Which is, of course, ridiculous. Changing that idea a bit, either through an alternative voting method that ranks candidates instead of straight up 'Check one", would probably help. Plus, party lines are a big reason for clusterf***s of the third degree: Go against the party, like some here have done as of late to get the debt committee to do something useful (Obama, some republican guys who's names i cant recall right now), and all of a sudden, you are a political pariah: no one goes near you to keep the parties support of themselves. THis, of course, reduces moderates like you, and hurls up extremists like the Tea Party and the tax em to hell left. Also, i blame in part (for the US) the electoral college, because it forces politicians, if they want to be elected, to focus on telling certain people what they want to hear and forgetting about the rest. Again, a simple popular vote would address this, and wouldn't leave people out (they wouldnt focus on cities, for instance, bacuase only like 20% of the US pop is in the cities). heck, i saw this one video on Youtube that shows, step by step, how a politician could win an election with only 20% of the popular vote. When a system lets that happen, its time to do away with it. So yeah, there that. And do you seriously have 9/11 truthers in Canada? I thought that was only a US phenomena. Well thankfully, no party leaders like that here. Oh, and your last sentence reminded me of the Churchill quote, 'Democracy is the worst form of government except that all others have been tried.' Love that quote.

I meant legislature not senate.

Didn't you just say you had an inkling of hope that politicans cared??? =) And i dunno, i don't see it that way, but i guess i can see what you mean. it is pretty ridiculous. Sigh. To think i thought of being a politician. but with this enviornment... And i didn't even want to make it a career, because i don't quite understand how doing that helps people. maybe my gen. won't be this bad?? Gotta hope, but to be honest, im not so sure. And I'm pretty sure 999 is 9% sales tax, 9% income tax, and 9%.. something else, but whatever it is, he's promised to pay for it by turning the government into swiss cheese. And yet the moderate republicans dont get air time. Sheesh. (I actually like huntsman, don't completely agree with him, but with a nicely moderate senate, it could work)

Quag, i think what she is trying to making a counterargument to the republican 'If taxes, cut it to 0' thing. I didn't think she was implying to make super-massive-unnecessary tax hikes. She was making i counter argument. The same argument, if i recall correctly, you made to UtF about something with roads. But that's irrelevant. And don't assume she only meant the rich. My dad owns a business; were middle class. I'm assuming she would have made the same argument. And yes, class warfare is ridiculous. That's what i hate about watching anything political just to get news, it eventually turns into a clusterf*** about either the poor being lazy or the rich being evil/corrupt/power-hungry/etc. (fox news and msnbc respectively).

Dawh: Loved the clip. Sorry to have never heard of her before. Why can't people just SAY THAT and not go into a bunch of political mumbo jumbo? Sigh. Anywho, any bets on the success of the debt committee? I can't see it working despite that automatic cuts that come with them failing. Also, what do you guys think of the US stopping its contributions to UNESCO or whatever it was because they recognized Palestine? I think it's a little ridiculous.