USA Politics

Too bad, I think he would have been a good canditate/President ... or at a minimum would have been interesting to watch.


Perry pretty much needs to do something to get his momentum back quickly and "win" the next debate if he has any shot at getting back in this, it is not too late, but it nearly is.  He could not have run a much worse campaign to this point if he tried.

I was reading an article that comapred Cain to Huckabee in terms of their roles in the primary, that seems like a good comparison  Cain has run a near perfect campaign for a non-front runner and if he can keep it up, should have at least some influence in the platform/set himself up like Huckabee to be in the media quite a bit after the campaign is over.  I like the guy, but there is no way he is passing Romney for the same reasons Huckabee was never going to pass McCain.
 
Cain is too crazy for me. His bullshit about creeping Sharia has really eeked me out. And promising to reinstate DADT by executive order? Ugh. His 9/9/9 plan is a little strange too. But that's okay, strange is okay.
 
the 9/9/9 plan would have no chance to pass Congress, but I think it is an interesting idea.  A national sales tax has some good points, I give him credit for going against the grain and putting together an intersting plan.
 
Well, a national sales tax is what Canada did in the 1980s, and it did work to help us raise funds. It is a very regressive tax - it taxes the poor more than it taxes the rich - and I think it would be hazardous to implement in the current atmosphere. The states rights' folk would probably freak as well.

A luxury goods tax, however, might be doable.
 
And here we come to one of the core differences in US (and Dutch and many more countries') politics.

US:

Do you want fair measurements? > Dem
Don't you care for fair measurements? -> Rep
 
No Foro; the question is what people think is fair, not that either side is inherently unfair. To your point of view, one might have a more fair view than the other, but the people know what both sides stand for; the American people thus decide what THEY think is fair.
 
The reps can't explain why it is fair to make the burden heavier for the poor and not for the rich.

The dems can explain why it fair to share the burden over all groups including the rich.
 
Ah, but the Republicans have an explanation: if you release the burden on the rich, they will create more jobs.

Is this true? Probably not. But not everything the Democrats shit is gold either. Still, Americans get to choose who they trust. That's how it works.
 
LooseCannon said:
Ah, but the Republicans have an explanation: if you release the burden on the rich, they will create more jobs.

Is this true? Probably not. But not everything the Democrats shit is gold either. Still, Americans get to choose who they trust. That's how it works.
Click to expand...

I assume that the fair question will be evaded as often as possible by the Reps. It's better for them to seed and divide, and create an atmosphere of trust and mistrust.

As long as the Reps stay away from the facts they will win. Mostly other factors such as religion, the Tea Party, the big media networks and cheap short term promises will help them to get votes.
 
The premise that the burden is on the poor is just incorrect.

in 2010, the top 10% of income earners paid 73% of federal taxes, about 50% of the population paid zero federal income taxes.  The bottom 40 percent, on average, make a profit from the federal income tax, meaning they get more money in tax credits than they would otherwise owe in taxes. For those people, the government sends them a payment.


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-ha ... 67323.html
 
I'd have to looka t other years, but I am pretty sure the trend of people not paying any federal income tax has been generally increasing over the past 10 years. There is no change int he works (assuming at least portions of the Bush tax cuts is renewed) that will dramatically reduce the number of people paying no taxes  Ideally this number will go down because people are making more money, though that seems unlikely for the next few years.
No big shock, but Palin is not running either.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65264.html
 
Zare said:
How come nobody is discussing this, and it's not shown anywhere on news?

https://occupywallst.org/
Click to expand...

Žižek at Wall Street:

"We are all losers, but the true losers are down there on Wall Street. They were bailed out by billions of our money. We are called socialists, but here there is always socialism for the rich. They say we don’t respect private property, but in the 2008 financial crash-down more hard-earned private property was destroyed than if all of us here were to be destroying it night and day for weeks."
 
bearfan said:
It has been on the news quite a bit, it is the #1 story (at least the arrest of the people on the Brooklyn Bridge) in Google News, but I think most people assume they are a small collection of leftist whack jobs and this will pretty much end tomorrow when Wall Street opens.
Click to expand...

Ouch.
 
Well, Occupy Wall Street is spreading pretty hard, so that prediction was over. I am really interested by this movement.

It is also a very popular movement - 62% of Americans support OWS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top