-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
US debt ceiling reached.
- Thread starter Crude
- Start date
.jpg)
mike114
Well-Known Member
When Clinton in office, which party held the purse strings? And which party held the purse strings when Reagan was the president?
I think both parties have a lot to answer for. Bush II and the republican party gave us a disastrous prescription drug plan, no child left behind and unfunded wars. Now Obama with democrats amped it up by giving us stimulus, Obamacare and more unfunded wars.
The trouble is most partisans think their party can somehow manage to make decisions from DC that will benefit 310 million people. Can someone please explain how that can be possible? If DC kept to it's Constitutional restrictions and allow the States to manage their citizens, we wouldn't be in this mess.
You guys keep defending these 2 parties while we sink down the rat hole. They created this mess, yet somehow we look to them and authorize them to fix it. What a joke!!!
I think both parties have a lot to answer for. Bush II and the republican party gave us a disastrous prescription drug plan, no child left behind and unfunded wars. Now Obama with democrats amped it up by giving us stimulus, Obamacare and more unfunded wars.
The trouble is most partisans think their party can somehow manage to make decisions from DC that will benefit 310 million people. Can someone please explain how that can be possible? If DC kept to it's Constitutional restrictions and allow the States to manage their citizens, we wouldn't be in this mess.
You guys keep defending these 2 parties while we sink down the rat hole. They created this mess, yet somehow we look to them and authorize them to fix it. What a joke!!!
mike114
Well-Known Member
They are both failures who answer to interests that do not benefit us citizens.
good post.
noah way
Android Enthusiast
Wow, twice in one day we agree (see the pot thread). Let's try for #3.
Who's interests do politicians answer to (aside from their own, of course)?
mike114
Well-Known Member
Large businesses, bankers, unions and the recipient class just to name a few. How'd I do??
noah way
Android Enthusiast
Large businesses, bankers, unions and the recipient class just to name a few. How'd I do??
I'll agree with the first three. Your so-called "recipient class" isn't, at least in any meaningful way compared to the others, especially in terms of political influence.
Unions are interesting because historically they were critical to the development and enforcement of vital citizen protections. Over time many became corrupt power structures that exploited their membership. Civil service unions seem to be a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment because they create a privileged class, (specifically: a group that receives publicly financed benefits that are not available to the general public).
mike114
Well-Known Member
Sure it is Noah. If you provide enough goodies for 51% of the public who don't pay for them, you will continue to be elected year after year. We are just about there.
And with that I'm off to a BBQ for some good eats and a few beers. Later!!
damn you!
We also would not have the united states of america. Remember the civil war. When push came to shove it was either divide up into indepenet countries, which would have made us a 3rd world nations, or buck up and for a strong federal government.
The only reason that you can say, what you just said, was because of a strong federal government enforcing the docturines of the consitituions on the states.
You can not have the united states, unless you have a strong central government, remember we fought that war, it was called the civil war, the fed won it.
where is the line?
noah way
Android Enthusiast
Half the population makes less than $33k per year. With available deductions (many of which are available to all taxpayers), they pay no federal income tax. Despite this they still pay FICA (social security and Medicare) taxes.
Even if *all* unemployment was attributed to the lower economic class, the vast majority are paying these taxes. They are also paying sales tax, gas tax, property tax (in the form of rent) etc., and in many cases state / local taxes as well.
The "no tax - big benefit" argument is intentionally misleading and used to misdirect attention from huge financial abuses.
Assistance to the lower economic classes (aka "workfare") has been whittled away for decades, both in the number of people eligible to receive it and in the dollar amount available, while corporate malfeasance runs amok. In 2010, 1.4% of the population - 4.3 million - received what you call welfare. This is less than 10% of 44 million people who live below the poverty rate.
Neither the numbers nor the way assistance has been reduced supports your argument that politicians pander to low-income voters. This is also born out by socioeconomic analysis showing that lower-income people are far less likely to vote.
In addition there are numerous techniques used by politicians to limit the political influence of the lower classes in elections such as purging, caging, intentional practical impediments (such as placement of voting machinery, changes of voting methodology), etc.
Given the choice, I'd rather see the family unemployed by the investment banker / CEO who stole their pensions (then outsourced their jobs to Mexico-Taiwan-China-Singapore-Malaysia) get some reasonable assistance than see the CEO flying to one of his seven private mansions on a personal jet.
But of course if the CEO hadn't killed their livelihood, they wouldn't need help ...