545 vs. 300,000,000 People
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller | Reply |
2013-04-13 11:17 AM |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: 545 vs. 300,000,000 People I was reading the IRA tax thread and a friend of mine just re-posted this on Facebook. I saw it several years ago, but thought it was worth sharing. It's pretty neutral from a political standpoint, but there's a lot of truth in here. 545 vs. 300,000,000 People |
|
2013-04-13 11:37 AM in reply to: #4698884 |
Elite 4564 Boise | Subject: RE: 545 vs. 300,000,000 People That's why I don't vote D or R. They are so entrenched it's ridiculous. |
2013-04-13 8:01 PM in reply to: #4698884 |
Master 5557 , California | Subject: RE: 545 vs. 300,000,000 People I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a President to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes. Yeah but here's the deal. Special interests to both parties have the greatest influence at the *primary* election level. So if a politician is elected these days, and he doesn't play nice with these folks, he'll be on the quick list to lose the next primary. Which is less than 2 years away for a Representative. When both parties do this, what do you think we get to choose from in the general election? A couple candidates who will both do what their special interests want. Yeah I know we could all start a campaign to write in a candidate (hey it's happened: Murkowski of Alaska did this to overcome the primary problem I just talked about). But normally the inertia is too much to succeed.
Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago Cars didn't exist either. Liquor was soon to be illegal. Electricity was barely in use. You get the idea. Different times. Oh and your list doesn't mention the taxes existed back then but not today (like a tax on slaves).
Not saying it's a bad writeup but it's a persuasion piece; not terribly objective. |
2013-04-15 4:00 AM in reply to: #4698884 |
Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
2013-04-15 6:47 AM in reply to: #4698884 |
Champion 14571 the alamo city, Texas | Subject: RE: 545 vs. 300,000,000 People Mom stayed home to raise the kids. What in the heck happened? Can you spell 'politicians?' thank you politicians that i can go to college and have a career and don't have to stay home to raise the children. i also like the worker's comp tax, i have seen a man's arm torn out of it's socket by machinery and that worker's comp allows his family (wife at home with the kids, so i'm sure you approve) to survive. none of the state taxes are set by the federal gov, add a couple hundred (thousand?) more representatives to your list there! Edited by mehaner 2013-04-15 6:48 AM |
2013-04-15 7:05 AM in reply to: #4698884 |
Extreme Veteran 577 Connecticut | Subject: RE: 545 vs. 300,000,000 People The whole system if fubar..even if you found 545 that worked together to find answers to fix it, Im not sure they could... In other words sure you can blame the 545 that are presently in office BUT they are dealing with the mistakes of the past 237 years!lol |
|
2013-04-15 7:20 AM in reply to: #4700226 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: 545 vs. 300,000,000 People mehaner - 2013-04-15 6:47 AM Mom stayed home to raise the kids. What in the heck happened? Can you spell 'politicians?' thank you politicians that i can go to college and have a career and don't have to stay home to raise the children. i also like the worker's comp tax, i have seen a man's arm torn out of it's socket by machinery and that worker's comp allows his family (wife at home with the kids, so i'm sure you approve) to survive. none of the state taxes are set by the federal gov, add a couple hundred (thousand?) more representatives to your list there! I don't disagree that there are good laws as well as noble things that our tax dollars are spent on, but I refuse to take the attitude that because a few are good I'll accept all the bad. |
2013-04-15 8:27 AM in reply to: #4699188 |
Elite 2733 Venture Industries, | Subject: RE: 545 vs. 300,000,000 People spudone - 2013-04-13 9:01 PM I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a President to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes. Yeah but here's the deal. Special interests to both parties have the greatest influence at the *primary* election level. So if a politician is elected these days, and he doesn't play nice with these folks, he'll be on the quick list to lose the next primary. Which is less than 2 years away for a Representative. When both parties do this, what do you think we get to choose from in the general election? A couple candidates who will both do what their special interests want. Yeah I know we could all start a campaign to write in a candidate (hey it's happened: Murkowski of Alaska did this to overcome the primary problem I just talked about). But normally the inertia is too much to succeed.
Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago Cars didn't exist either. Liquor was soon to be illegal. Electricity was barely in use. You get the idea. Different times. Oh and your list doesn't mention the taxes existed back then but not today (like a tax on slaves).
Not saying it's a bad writeup but it's a persuasion piece; not terribly objective. How about this: (1) all federal elections are non-partisan and (2) term limits |
2013-04-15 8:44 AM in reply to: #4698884 |
Member 326 | Subject: RE: 545 vs. 300,000,000 People "A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves" Bertrand de Jouvenel. |
2013-04-15 10:57 AM in reply to: #4700370 |
Master 5557 , California | Subject: RE: 545 vs. 300,000,000 People Brock Samson - 2013-04-15 6:27 AM spudone - 2013-04-13 9:01 PM I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a President to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes. Yeah but here's the deal. Special interests to both parties have the greatest influence at the *primary* election level. So if a politician is elected these days, and he doesn't play nice with these folks, he'll be on the quick list to lose the next primary. Which is less than 2 years away for a Representative. When both parties do this, what do you think we get to choose from in the general election? A couple candidates who will both do what their special interests want. Yeah I know we could all start a campaign to write in a candidate (hey it's happened: Murkowski of Alaska did this to overcome the primary problem I just talked about). But normally the inertia is too much to succeed.
Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago Cars didn't exist either. Liquor was soon to be illegal. Electricity was barely in use. You get the idea. Different times. Oh and your list doesn't mention the taxes existed back then but not today (like a tax on slaves).
Not saying it's a bad writeup but it's a persuasion piece; not terribly objective. How about this: (1) all federal elections are non-partisan and (2) term limits (2) would do more than (1) I think. You can make an election "non-partisan" but people have the right to freely associate with whom they want. Parties would still get formed. You might not see (R) or (D) on the ballot, but everyone would know who they are. If you have term limits then Congress becomes less of the clubhouse that it is today with all its seniority rules and hoops to jump through to get on the various committees where the real power is. |
2013-04-15 12:34 PM in reply to: #4700687 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: 545 vs. 300,000,000 People spudone - 2013-04-15 10:57 AM Brock Samson - 2013-04-15 6:27 AM spudone - 2013-04-13 9:01 PM I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a President to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes. Yeah but here's the deal. Special interests to both parties have the greatest influence at the *primary* election level. So if a politician is elected these days, and he doesn't play nice with these folks, he'll be on the quick list to lose the next primary. Which is less than 2 years away for a Representative. When both parties do this, what do you think we get to choose from in the general election? A couple candidates who will both do what their special interests want. Yeah I know we could all start a campaign to write in a candidate (hey it's happened: Murkowski of Alaska did this to overcome the primary problem I just talked about). But normally the inertia is too much to succeed.
Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago Cars didn't exist either. Liquor was soon to be illegal. Electricity was barely in use. You get the idea. Different times. Oh and your list doesn't mention the taxes existed back then but not today (like a tax on slaves).
Not saying it's a bad writeup but it's a persuasion piece; not terribly objective. How about this: (1) all federal elections are non-partisan and (2) term limits (2) would do more than (1) I think. You can make an election "non-partisan" but people have the right to freely associate with whom they want. Parties would still get formed. You might not see (R) or (D) on the ballot, but everyone would know who they are. If you have term limits then Congress becomes less of the clubhouse that it is today with all its seniority rules and hoops to jump through to get on the various committees where the real power is. I agree on the non-partisan part. In Nebraska we have a Unicameral with all "non-partisan" legislatures, but there's no question that everyone knows exactly which party each candidate is in when they're running. I also think term limits are a double edged sword because there are obviously old crusty politicians in both parties that we would all like to get out of there, but then when you get somebody who you really like and genuinely puts the people first (ok, maybe this doesn't really exist) then he gets thrown out too. |
|