For the record, I will also say that the term low-info voter is not meant to be disparaging as far as whether or not they are great people. They probably are, most of them.
Fact is, they just don't follow politics that closely. Nothing necessarily wrong with that. Their interests simply lie in other areas.
However, they may be prone to ill-informed voting decisions as a result. Like basing their voting decision on criteria that shouldn't even be weighed when making that decision. Is it really important that the President be a good singer or dancer, or that he shoots hoop, or what color he is? They simply have nothing much else to base their decision on.
So I guess what you are saying is that folks with conservative values should "open their eyes" and listen to the poor left wing conservatives? Smaller government, at least to me, does not mean no government. It means cutting all the duplication of services, the fraud, the waste, and getting rid of some of the intrusiveness of especially the last 15 years. How could that be a bad thing? I work for the government in education right now and you would not believe the idiotic waste of time, money and resources that goes on. I've worked for the government in past years in vocational rehab and it was even worse there. It all starts at the top, not with the rank and file. There is almost zero accountability for administration at the federal, state, or local level. If I lost my job because the government became more efficient I would do what I had to do to survive. I can live with that. It would beat the hell out of living off of the hard earned income of others of no other reason than to be taken care of. I believe if people got to keep more of their money the economy would get better, not worse, and would eventually be better for everyone. If you are implying that the only way these conservative people can be successful is through government provision and to think otherwise is low information ignorance then we will just have to disagree. As someone with conservative values I would rather work for minimum wage, live within my means, and feel good about what I am doing than be a dependent mooch.
I certainly don't disagree with cutting out waste, abuse and fraud. Never said I did. I do believe that the rich and corporations need to be taxed at the same rates they were taxed when Reagan was in office. I do believe that the government needs to spend more money on infrastructure that will produce jobs. You need money to do that. I believe in a higher gas tax and extreme cuts in our military.
But mostly I believe that the middle, lower middle class, and poor folks - if they vote - often end up voting against their interests.
I've heard time and again people who are financially struggling standing up for the rich and the multi national corporations.
I love your definition of smaller government Doug. You got anyone in Congress on the Republican side doing that?
I don't see Democrats doing it either.
I'm an Independent and I love your vision. Are you telling me Republicans are going to do that?
But mostly I believe that the middle, lower middle class, and poor folks - if they vote - often end up voting against their interests.
They certainly did in the last two elections for sure. Most definitely.
So I guess what you are saying is that folks with conservative values should "open their eyes" and listen to the poor left wing conservatives? Smaller government, at least to me, does not mean no government. It means cutting all the duplication of services, the fraud, the waste, and getting rid of some of the intrusiveness of especially the last 15 years. How could that be a bad thing? I work for the government in education right now and you would not believe the idiotic waste of time, money and resources that goes on. I've worked for the government in past years in vocational rehab and it was even worse there. It all starts at the top, not with the rank and file. There is almost zero accountability for administration at the federal, state, or local level. If I lost my job because the government became more efficient I would do what I had to do to survive. I can live with that. It would beat the hell out of living off of the hard earned income of others of no other reason than to be taken care of. I believe if people got to keep more of their money the economy would get better, not worse, and would eventually be better for everyone. If you are implying that the only way these conservative people can be successful is through government provision and to think otherwise is low information ignorance then we will just have to disagree. As someone with conservative values I would rather work for minimum wage, live within my means, and feel good about what I am doing than be a dependent mooch.
I certainly don't disagree with cutting out waste, abuse and fraud. Never said I did. I do believe that the rich and corporations need to be taxed at the same rates they were taxed when Reagan was in office. I do believe that the government needs to spend more money on infrastructure that will produce jobs. You need money to do that. I believe in a higher gas tax and extreme cuts in our military.
But mostly I believe that the middle, lower middle class, and poor folks - if they vote - often end up voting against their interests.
I've heard time and again people who are financially struggling standing up for the rich and the multi national corporations.
I love your definition of smaller government Doug. You got anyone in Congress on the Republican side doing that?
I don't see Democrats doing it either.
I'm an Independent and I love your vision. Are you telling me Republicans are going to do that?
See, to me this is where it gets good. I agree with just about everything you just said, except extreme military cuts and higher gas taxes. I would opt for a flat tax for everybody, including corporations, and scrap the tax code. I tend to agree with what you said about those sections of voters, but I think many more of them don't vote than vote against their interests. So if it was you and me running this show, I think we could work out a compromise about military cuts and gas taxes that would work for both of us. I think we could legalize pot, license it, and tax the hell out of it and use portions of that money and the money we would save on enforcement and incarceration on infrastructure and education, including voter ed classes, maybe through local community colleges, where local representatives from all parties could present their views and debate. We are not very far apart. And I know of no one in congress who is truly wanting to do any of these things. Not that they aren't there, just that I don't know who they might be. I'm a conservative in most ways, not a Republican. 
I do believe that the rich and corporations need to be taxed at the same rates they were taxed when Reagan was in office. I do believe that the government needs to spend more money on infrastructure that will produce jobs. You need money to do that.
If someone doesn't feel that the government has enough money to spend, I think there's an IRS form available to send an amount above what you owe.
Nah.....Let's make other people send in more.
See, to me this is where it gets good. I agree with just about everything you just said, except extreme military cuts and higher gas taxes. I would opt for a flat tax for everybody, including corporations, and scrap the tax code. I tend to agree with what you said about those sections of voters, but I think many more of them don't vote than vote against their interests. So if it was you and me running this show, I think we could work out a compromise about military cuts and gas taxes that would work for both of us. I think we could legalize pot, license it, and tax the hell out of it and use portions of that money and the money we would save on enforcement and incarceration on infrastructure and education, including voter ed classes, maybe through local community colleges, where local representatives from all parties could present their views and debate. We are not very far apart. And I know of no one in congress who is truly wanting to do any of these things. Not that they aren't there, just that I don't know who they might be. I'm a conservative in most ways, not a Republican.
I'm sure we could compromise. I love the idea of voter education classes. I also agree that the people who need to voice their opinions and needs the most probably don't vote. I think the turn out for the last Los Angeles election was 8%. I find that deplorable.
I'm a Progressive and certainly not a Democrat. I'm more likely to vote against an incumbent than vote "for" anyone.
quote:
I do believe that the rich and corporations need to be taxed at the same rates they were taxed when Reagan was in office. I do believe that the government needs to spend more money on infrastructure that will produce jobs. You need money to do that.If someone doesn't feel that the government has enough money to spend, I think there's an IRS form available to send an amount above what you owe.
Nah.....Let's make other people send in more.
I specified which other people Alloak. When Reagan was in office everything after a million was taxed at 50%. You really think that's a horrible burden?
Keep championing the rich paying less buddy. At least you are consistent.
I do believe that the rich and corporations need to be taxed at the same rates they were taxed when Reagan was in office. I do believe that the government needs to spend more money on infrastructure that will produce jobs. You need money to do that.
If someone doesn't feel that the government has enough money to spend, I think there's an IRS form available to send an amount above what you owe.
Nah.....Let's make other people send in more.
I specified which other people Alloak. When Reagan was in office everything after a million was taxed at 50%. You really think that's a horrible burden?
Keep championing the rich paying less buddy. At least you are consistent.
At least you understand the meaning of marginal tax rates. Nice work.
I champion EVERYBODY paying less, not just the rich. The government has more than enough money to spend and I can't justify legalized theft. Put it this way, if I EVER got the slightest inclination that the government was working towards running a tight ship I might be more open to tax hikes. Until then, though....
It's interesting that you would post an article calling out States for mooching off the government. Has it ever occurred to you that the government might be mooching off the people that go to work every day? Pissing away money, wasting money hand over fist like some hopeless junkie with a blank check. The government is even worse, though. It spills half it's stash and just wants more, more, more.....
I'm a Progressive and certainly not a Democrat. I'm more likely to vote against an incumbent than vote "for" anyone.
I think the old labels carry such baggage and animosity with them that it is time to get rid of them, and the "old school" politics (and candidates)that go with them. The idea of Hillary and Jeb as the two candidates to choose from seems so old and worn out to me I have trouble even getting interested. I want some new blood, new ideas, new ways at looking at things and solving problems, and new labels!
And I absolutely know what you mean about voting against rather than for. I could not vote for McCain after he tagged Palin as VP, and so voted against basically her in the last election. Terrified me to think of McCain biting the bullet at his age and her stepping into the Presidency. Yikes!
But mostly I believe that the middle, lower middle class, and poor folks - if they vote - often end up voting against their interests.
They certainly did in the last two elections for sure. Most definitely.
This is how GOP Governors have managed to allow 40% of the population to bully the other 60% into believing they are the majority and control the house and senate. Corruption at its finest:
[Edited on 3/26/2015 by gondicar]
Great chart Gondi!
I think the old labels carry such baggage and animosity with them that it is time to get rid of them, and the "old school" politics (and candidates)that go with them. The idea of Hillary and Jeb as the two candidates to choose from seems so old and worn out to me I have trouble even getting interested. I want some new blood, new ideas, new ways at looking at things and solving problems, and new labels!
And I absolutely know what you mean about voting against rather than for. I could not vote for McCain after he tagged Palin as VP, and so voted against basically her in the last election. Terrified me to think of McCain biting the bullet at his age and her stepping into the Presidency. Yikes!
More than anything I think term limits would help our process. I was listening to Julie Mason the other day. She was a long time White House correspondent and now has a radio show on POTUS. Mostly she just criticizes everyone... somedays I can't take it, but I keep going back.
Anyway - I was surprised to hear her rail against term limits. Her point was that there would be no experience in Congress. My thought was, "Experience at doing what? Mucking up the works?" Term limits and spending caps would return the political process to the people. But you can't get those things without Congress. And Congress isn't interested in getting off the gravy train.
I champion EVERYBODY paying less, not just the rich.
Good for you!
In the absence of that happening the rich are paying less which means you are paying more.
The government has more than enough money to spend and I can't justify legalized theft. Put it this way, if I EVER got the slightest inclination that the government was working towards running a tight ship I might be more open to tax hikes. Until then, though....
Like I've said I support dramatic cuts in government spending. But I'm not naive enough to think that the government doesn't need more money to make this a better country. Facing unprecedented drought California has plans for a string of desalination plants. Those plants are expensive. You probably want private enterprise to run those plants. But I bet you would be pretty upset if your tomatoes go up to $14 a pound because of the skyrocketing price of water.
I'll admit the US Government did build a state of the art power and sewage plant recently. Only problem is they built in Baghdad. Part of that military spending so many people champion. I think, because of a decaying infrastructure, we rank 14th in the world in internet speed. I'd like those chants of "We're Number One" to apply to a little more than percentage of people incarcerated and amount of weapons sales.
Regardless.
Neither party is giving us what we need. The tribalism each party inspires only keeps this country from progressing.
Neither party is giving us what we need. The tribalism each party inspires only keeps this country from progressing.
This.
If this "HuffPo thesis" is silly, BS, whatever, then isn't the same reasoning used in reverse also BS?
Absolutely. Its total BS both ways. We're all way better than that.
[Edited on 3/25/2015 by DougMacKenzie]
I agree. And I can't think of one good reason why the ordinary citizens, regardless of ideology, continue to pick at each other. We're all in the same boat. We should save that stuff for the politicians. Keep their feet to the fire, insist on a higher level of performance and better governance.
Um, yeah. Right.
For the record, I will also say that the term low-info voter is not meant to be disparaging as far as whether or not they are great people. They probably are, most of them.
Fact is, they just don't follow politics that closely. Nothing necessarily wrong with that. Their interests simply lie in other areas.
However, they may be prone to ill-informed voting decisions as a result. Like basing their voting decision on criteria that shouldn't even be weighed when making that decision. Is it really important that the President be a good singer or dancer, or that he shoots hoop, or what color he is? They simply have nothing much else to base their decision on.
or a woman.
which makes me wonder how and where Hilary announces and what the campaign slogan will be should she decide to...
"Low-info voter" is just another smug insult of liberals. No more, no less.
For the record, I will also say that the term low-info voter is not meant to be disparaging as far as whether or not they are great people. They probably are, most of them.
Fact is, they just don't follow politics that closely. Nothing necessarily wrong with that. Their interests simply lie in other areas.
However, they may be prone to ill-informed voting decisions as a result. Like basing their voting decision on criteria that shouldn't even be weighed when making that decision. Is it really important that the President be a good singer or dancer, or that he shoots hoop, or what color he is? They simply have nothing much else to base their decision on.
I might have misinterpreted your meaning alloak, but I've always felt your use of "low info voter" was a derogatory characterization.
Now you are saying "most" "might" be good people but they are just ignorant?
If this "HuffPo thesis" is silly, BS, whatever, then isn't the same reasoning used in reverse also BS?
Absolutely. Its total BS both ways. We're all way better than that.
[Edited on 3/25/2015 by DougMacKenzie]
I agree. And I can't think of one good reason why the ordinary citizens, regardless of ideology, continue to pick at each other. We're all in the same boat. We should save that stuff for the politicians. Keep their feet to the fire, insist on a higher level of performance and better governance.
Um, yeah. Right.
You don't agree?
For the record, I will also say that the term low-info voter is not meant to be disparaging as far as whether or not they are great people. They probably are, most of them.
Fact is, they just don't follow politics that closely. Nothing necessarily wrong with that. Their interests simply lie in other areas.
However, they may be prone to ill-informed voting decisions as a result. Like basing their voting decision on criteria that shouldn't even be weighed when making that decision. Is it really important that the President be a good singer or dancer, or that he shoots hoop, or what color he is? They simply have nothing much else to base their decision on.
I might have misinterpreted your meaning alloak, but I've always felt your use of "low info voter" was a derogatory characterization.
Now you are saying "most" "might" be good people but they are just ignorant?
Never said anything about ignorance. Disinterested in politics maybe.
Put it this way, if I EVER got the slightest inclination that the government was working towards running a tight ship I might be more open to tax hikes. Until then, though....
If I ever got the slightest inclination that the top 1% was working towards investing their extra money into our economy, I might be more open to giving them tax breaks.
I do believe that the rich need to be taxed at the same rates they were taxed when Reagan was in office.
Check that. I think you meant the same rates as when Clinton was in office.
Put it this way, if I EVER got the slightest inclination that the government was working towards running a tight ship I might be more open to tax hikes. Until then, though....
If I ever got the slightest inclination that the top 1% was working towards investing their extra money into our economy, I might be more open to giving them tax breaks.
Somebody with a similar philosophy here once complained that the 1% was more interested in "building another mansion and getting another yacht" than investing in the economy.
To get that mansion built would take architects, framers, roofers, landscapers, painters, bricklayers, plumbers, interior decorators, wallpaper hangers, electricians, all down the line. Not to mention all of the supplies and materials necessary to get the job done. And who builds the yacht?
Pretty funny stuff.
I remember that argument that you made a while back. Those people you mention are already skilled laborers and have jobs. So how is buying another yacht and mansion creating jobs?
quote:
I do believe that the rich need to be taxed at the same rates they were taxed when Reagan was in office.Check that. I think you meant the same rates as when Clinton was in office.
Who was in office is '81? Back then income over $215,400 was taxed at 70%. Why do you think I meant something other than what I said?
Put it this way, if I EVER got the slightest inclination that the government was working towards running a tight ship I might be more open to tax hikes. Until then, though....
If I ever got the slightest inclination that the top 1% was working towards investing their extra money into our economy, I might be more open to giving them tax breaks.
Somebody with a similar philosophy here once complained that the 1% was more interested in "building another mansion and getting another yacht" than investing in the economy.
To get that mansion built would take architects, framers, roofers, landscapers, painters, bricklayers, plumbers, interior decorators, wallpaper hangers, electricians, all down the line. Not to mention all of the supplies and materials necessary to get the job done. And who builds the yacht?
Pretty funny stuff.
Yeah good point Alloak real example of trickle down economics. Amazing
Who was in office is '81? Back then income over $215,400 was taxed at 70%. Why do you think I meant something other than what I said?
Let's stop the nonsense Reagan entered office in '81
Look at the rates in '88
you are out of your mind if you think it would be good for the country to go back to those rates
Let's stop the nonsense Reagan entered office in '81
Look at the rates in '88
you are out of your mind if you think it would be good for the country to go back to those rates
I would rather see the corporations pay more. I'd also rather see those higher amounts applied to your income after your first million.
I'm not out of my mind. The $215,000 is low. It would affect a lot of people I know and, quite frankly, $215 is not a lot if you have kids in school, a couple mortgages, and several cars.
The reality is, taxing income over a million at higher rates would not effect me, or most of the people I know. What it would do is give the government more revenue from sources that can easily pay more.
This is what happened in 1988. Lower middle class people started paying more...
????(a) A 33% "rate bubble" applied between $71,900 and $149,250 for married filing jointly, between $35,950 and $113,300 for married filing separately, between $43,150 and $89,560 for singles, and between $61,650 and $123,790 for heads of households, the purpose being to recapture the revenue that upper-income taxpayers had saved by applying the 15% rate.
Note: Last law to change rates was the Tax Reform Act of 1986.
Is that what you want? The higher rates disappeared on the minority of rich people and people like you began paying more. You like that? And you say I'm out of my mind.
I am impressed with your blind Patriotism and your protection of the uber rich. Good job.
quote:
I do believe that the rich need to be taxed at the same rates they were taxed when Reagan was in office.Check that. I think you meant the same rates as when Clinton was in office.
Who was in office is '81? Back then income over $215,400 was taxed at 70%. Why do you think I meant something other than what I said?
Easy.
[Edited on 3/27/2015 by alloak41]
Put it this way, if I EVER got the slightest inclination that the government was working towards running a tight ship I might be more open to tax hikes. Until then, though....
If I ever got the slightest inclination that the top 1% was working towards investing their extra money into our economy, I might be more open to giving them tax breaks.
Somebody with a similar philosophy here once complained that the 1% was more interested in "building another mansion and getting another yacht" than investing in the economy.
To get that mansion built would take architects, framers, roofers, landscapers, painters, bricklayers, plumbers, interior decorators, wallpaper hangers, electricians, all down the line. Not to mention all of the supplies and materials necessary to get the job done. And who builds the yacht?
Pretty funny stuff.
Yeah good point Alloak real example of trickle down economics. Amazing
Thank you.
I can't even read that thing alloak. Nor do you give a source.
I'm ok... I'm just bowing out. I'm bored and have far better things to do than argue with you that if the rich and corporations contribute more, the poor and middle class will contribute less.
I have no idea why you are championing a group of people that you don't belong to, will never belong to, and who don't give two minor poops about you and your hardships.
You win.
I can't even read that thing alloak. Nor do you give a source.
I'm ok... I'm just bowing out. I'm bored and have far better things to do than argue with you that if the rich and corporations contribute more, the poor and middle class will contribute less.
I have no idea why you are championing a group of people that you don't belong to, will never belong to, and who don't give two minor poops about you and your hardships.
1. The CBO
2. The middle class and poor will actually end up paying less, as far as you know.
3. I champion all American workers, regardless of income
1. The CBO
Not according to the url of the image.
3. I champion all American workers, regardless of income
How do you define "American workers"?
[Edited on 3/27/2015 by gondicar]
