OT: Talk me out of my anti-partisian views.

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]There really isn’t a “Left” or a “Right” anymore. Given the absurd amounts of money needed to fuel a campaign, the politicians are bought and paid for well before they reach office and owe significant “favors” to those moneyed interests, not the electorate.

The Dems and the Repubs are now virtually indistinguishable from one another. [/quote]

But what about the question I’m asking. If the above is true, and I’m unhappy with the above, how should I vote? Wouldn’t a vote for either party be a vote to continue the existing situation? Given my alternatives, what’s the best way to vote? If you believe the above, (and I’m gonna assume you do since you wrote it) don’t you find yourself facing the same dilemma?

XBoxBoy

[jstoesz]

[quote]How is the tax code a tool of control? How would a flat tax change that? Please be specific. These sound like a series of buzz words that have no relevancy nor accuracy.[/quote]

Tax breaks, incentives, higher and lower tax rates. They are all intended to incentivise the populous towards politically favored decisions (or punish people for making money in an politically unfavorable way). The flat tax gives the politicians one lever. Shall we raise taxes today Or shall we lower them? No more of the, should we increase the child tax credit, or the homeowners tax credit,or the capital gains tax, or the estate tax, or the income tax for couple making over/under 250k a year (unadjusted or adjusted for inflation)…one lever.

[jstoesz]

[quote]How is the tax code a tool of control? How would a flat tax change that? Please be specific. These sound like a series of buzz words that have no relevancy nor accuracy.[/quote]

Tax breaks, incentives, higher and lower tax rates. They are all intended to incentivise the populous towards politically favored decisions (or punish people for making money in an politically unfavorable way). The flat tax gives the politicians one lever. Shall we raise taxes today Or shall we lower them? No more of the, should we increase the child tax credit, or the homeowners tax credit,or the capital gains tax, or the estate tax, or the income tax for couple making over/under 250k a year (unadjusted or adjusted for inflation)…one lever.

[jstoesz]

[quote]How is the tax code a tool of control? How would a flat tax change that? Please be specific. These sound like a series of buzz words that have no relevancy nor accuracy.[/quote]

Tax breaks, incentives, higher and lower tax rates. They are all intended to incentivise the populous towards politically favored decisions (or punish people for making money in an politically unfavorable way). The flat tax gives the politicians one lever. Shall we raise taxes today Or shall we lower them? No more of the, should we increase the child tax credit, or the homeowners tax credit,or the capital gains tax, or the estate tax, or the income tax for couple making over/under 250k a year (unadjusted or adjusted for inflation)…one lever.

[jstoesz]

[quote]How is the tax code a tool of control? How would a flat tax change that? Please be specific. These sound like a series of buzz words that have no relevancy nor accuracy.[/quote]

Tax breaks, incentives, higher and lower tax rates. They are all intended to incentivise the populous towards politically favored decisions (or punish people for making money in an politically unfavorable way). The flat tax gives the politicians one lever. Shall we raise taxes today Or shall we lower them? No more of the, should we increase the child tax credit, or the homeowners tax credit,or the capital gains tax, or the estate tax, or the income tax for couple making over/under 250k a year (unadjusted or adjusted for inflation)…one lever.

[jstoesz]

[quote]How is the tax code a tool of control? How would a flat tax change that? Please be specific. These sound like a series of buzz words that have no relevancy nor accuracy.[/quote]

Tax breaks, incentives, higher and lower tax rates. They are all intended to incentivise the populous towards politically favored decisions (or punish people for making money in an politically unfavorable way). The flat tax gives the politicians one lever. Shall we raise taxes today Or shall we lower them? No more of the, should we increase the child tax credit, or the homeowners tax credit,or the capital gains tax, or the estate tax, or the income tax for couple making over/under 250k a year (unadjusted or adjusted for inflation)…one lever.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

Brian: Dude, your parents need to call the university where you got your degree and demand their money back.

Revolutions do work, and we need look no further than the US and France to have that point unequivocally driven home.

As far as well-meaning but ignorant people in power: I’d have to say the Founding Fathers weren’t ignorant. To the contrary, you had some significant intellectual horsepower at work there, as evidenced by the success of this great republic.

In terms of the impossibility of radical political change: Well, first off, its hilarious to hear a so-called “Progressive” say that, and, second, this statement is also refuted by history, especially in the US.
[/quote]

You make a good point…

But the French and American revolutions retarded economic growth and caused suffering for a couple generations. Those who fought and died or those who suffered war deprivations didn’t have a swell time, did they?

Of course, revolutions influenced world events and brought about positive changes across national borders. But you don’t want to be one of those fighting the revolutions.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
The suffragette movement, the Civil Rights movement, the empowerment of groups as diverse as Native Americans, gay and lesbian, and even the obese (threw that one in for you, Brian. I know how you love the fatties), show how false that assertion is.

[/quote]

All very good points. But that kind of social advancement was more evolution rather than revolution in America.

I would submit that, in the twentieth century, social advancement in America was a result of revolutions going on around the world. Working class Americans benefited from foreign revolutions. American capitalists gave workers more pay and benefits for the sake of peace and continuity. The corporations then realized that’ with a growing middle class, they could grow their markets and sell more products.

We prospered because we didn’t experience the wars and revolutions in other parts of the world.

Yes, American workers died demanding change. But our small “revolutions” did not result in the overthrow of government.

(BTW, I also think that because we are a big, decentralized country spread out over a vast area, mass protest is much more difficult than in it is Europe).

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

Brian: Dude, your parents need to call the university where you got your degree and demand their money back.

Revolutions do work, and we need look no further than the US and France to have that point unequivocally driven home.

As far as well-meaning but ignorant people in power: I’d have to say the Founding Fathers weren’t ignorant. To the contrary, you had some significant intellectual horsepower at work there, as evidenced by the success of this great republic.

In terms of the impossibility of radical political change: Well, first off, its hilarious to hear a so-called “Progressive” say that, and, second, this statement is also refuted by history, especially in the US.
[/quote]

You make a good point…

But the French and American revolutions retarded economic growth and caused suffering for a couple generations. Those who fought and died or those who suffered war deprivations didn’t have a swell time, did they?

Of course, revolutions influenced world events and brought about positive changes across national borders. But you don’t want to be one of those fighting the revolutions.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
The suffragette movement, the Civil Rights movement, the empowerment of groups as diverse as Native Americans, gay and lesbian, and even the obese (threw that one in for you, Brian. I know how you love the fatties), show how false that assertion is.

[/quote]

All very good points. But that kind of social advancement was more evolution rather than revolution in America.

I would submit that, in the twentieth century, social advancement in America was a result of revolutions going on around the world. Working class Americans benefited from foreign revolutions. American capitalists gave workers more pay and benefits for the sake of peace and continuity. The corporations then realized that’ with a growing middle class, they could grow their markets and sell more products.

We prospered because we didn’t experience the wars and revolutions in other parts of the world.

Yes, American workers died demanding change. But our small “revolutions” did not result in the overthrow of government.

(BTW, I also think that because we are a big, decentralized country spread out over a vast area, mass protest is much more difficult than in it is Europe).

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

Brian: Dude, your parents need to call the university where you got your degree and demand their money back.

Revolutions do work, and we need look no further than the US and France to have that point unequivocally driven home.

As far as well-meaning but ignorant people in power: I’d have to say the Founding Fathers weren’t ignorant. To the contrary, you had some significant intellectual horsepower at work there, as evidenced by the success of this great republic.

In terms of the impossibility of radical political change: Well, first off, its hilarious to hear a so-called “Progressive” say that, and, second, this statement is also refuted by history, especially in the US.
[/quote]

You make a good point…

But the French and American revolutions retarded economic growth and caused suffering for a couple generations. Those who fought and died or those who suffered war deprivations didn’t have a swell time, did they?

Of course, revolutions influenced world events and brought about positive changes across national borders. But you don’t want to be one of those fighting the revolutions.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
The suffragette movement, the Civil Rights movement, the empowerment of groups as diverse as Native Americans, gay and lesbian, and even the obese (threw that one in for you, Brian. I know how you love the fatties), show how false that assertion is.

[/quote]

All very good points. But that kind of social advancement was more evolution rather than revolution in America.

I would submit that, in the twentieth century, social advancement in America was a result of revolutions going on around the world. Working class Americans benefited from foreign revolutions. American capitalists gave workers more pay and benefits for the sake of peace and continuity. The corporations then realized that’ with a growing middle class, they could grow their markets and sell more products.

We prospered because we didn’t experience the wars and revolutions in other parts of the world.

Yes, American workers died demanding change. But our small “revolutions” did not result in the overthrow of government.

(BTW, I also think that because we are a big, decentralized country spread out over a vast area, mass protest is much more difficult than in it is Europe).

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

Brian: Dude, your parents need to call the university where you got your degree and demand their money back.

Revolutions do work, and we need look no further than the US and France to have that point unequivocally driven home.

As far as well-meaning but ignorant people in power: I’d have to say the Founding Fathers weren’t ignorant. To the contrary, you had some significant intellectual horsepower at work there, as evidenced by the success of this great republic.

In terms of the impossibility of radical political change: Well, first off, its hilarious to hear a so-called “Progressive” say that, and, second, this statement is also refuted by history, especially in the US.
[/quote]

You make a good point…

But the French and American revolutions retarded economic growth and caused suffering for a couple generations. Those who fought and died or those who suffered war deprivations didn’t have a swell time, did they?

Of course, revolutions influenced world events and brought about positive changes across national borders. But you don’t want to be one of those fighting the revolutions.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
The suffragette movement, the Civil Rights movement, the empowerment of groups as diverse as Native Americans, gay and lesbian, and even the obese (threw that one in for you, Brian. I know how you love the fatties), show how false that assertion is.

[/quote]

All very good points. But that kind of social advancement was more evolution rather than revolution in America.

I would submit that, in the twentieth century, social advancement in America was a result of revolutions going on around the world. Working class Americans benefited from foreign revolutions. American capitalists gave workers more pay and benefits for the sake of peace and continuity. The corporations then realized that’ with a growing middle class, they could grow their markets and sell more products.

We prospered because we didn’t experience the wars and revolutions in other parts of the world.

Yes, American workers died demanding change. But our small “revolutions” did not result in the overthrow of government.

(BTW, I also think that because we are a big, decentralized country spread out over a vast area, mass protest is much more difficult than in it is Europe).

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

Brian: Dude, your parents need to call the university where you got your degree and demand their money back.

Revolutions do work, and we need look no further than the US and France to have that point unequivocally driven home.

As far as well-meaning but ignorant people in power: I’d have to say the Founding Fathers weren’t ignorant. To the contrary, you had some significant intellectual horsepower at work there, as evidenced by the success of this great republic.

In terms of the impossibility of radical political change: Well, first off, its hilarious to hear a so-called “Progressive” say that, and, second, this statement is also refuted by history, especially in the US.
[/quote]

You make a good point…

But the French and American revolutions retarded economic growth and caused suffering for a couple generations. Those who fought and died or those who suffered war deprivations didn’t have a swell time, did they?

Of course, revolutions influenced world events and brought about positive changes across national borders. But you don’t want to be one of those fighting the revolutions.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
The suffragette movement, the Civil Rights movement, the empowerment of groups as diverse as Native Americans, gay and lesbian, and even the obese (threw that one in for you, Brian. I know how you love the fatties), show how false that assertion is.

[/quote]

All very good points. But that kind of social advancement was more evolution rather than revolution in America.

I would submit that, in the twentieth century, social advancement in America was a result of revolutions going on around the world. Working class Americans benefited from foreign revolutions. American capitalists gave workers more pay and benefits for the sake of peace and continuity. The corporations then realized that’ with a growing middle class, they could grow their markets and sell more products.

We prospered because we didn’t experience the wars and revolutions in other parts of the world.

Yes, American workers died demanding change. But our small “revolutions” did not result in the overthrow of government.

(BTW, I also think that because we are a big, decentralized country spread out over a vast area, mass protest is much more difficult than in it is Europe).

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]But the French and American revolutions retarded economic growth and caused suffering for a couple generations. Those who fought and died or those who suffered war deprivations didn’t have a swell time, did they?

Of course, revolutions influenced world events and brought about positive changes across national borders. But you don’t want to be one of those fighting the revolutions.

But that kind of social advancement was more evolution rather than revolution in America.

I would submit that, in the twentieth century, social advancement in America was a result of revolutions going on around the world. Working class Americans benefited from foreign revolutions. American capitalists gave workers more pay and benefits for the sake of peace and continuity. The corporations then realized that’ with a growing middle class, they could grow their markets and sell more products.

We prospered because we didn’t experience the wars and revolutions in other parts of the world.

Yes, American workers died demanding change. But our small “revolutions” did not result in the overthrow of government.
[/quote]

Brian: Boy, you don’t simply throw out one red herring, you deploy an entire school of them.

Okay, we weren’t discussing whether or not anyone had a swell time fighting in the French or American Revolutions, we were discussing the efficacy of the revolutions themselves. Two very, very different things and I don’t think the individual revolutionary’s “feelings” are germane to the discussion.

As far as advancement being evolutionary, instead of revolutionary, there are too many examples that refute this, including the massive Civil Rights protest marches, the anti-war movement during Vietnam, and the Watts and Detroit riots. That’s just in the 1960s.

And I’m not saying this to be facetious, but I think more massive protests are in our immediate future, and probably shortly after the mid-terms.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]But the French and American revolutions retarded economic growth and caused suffering for a couple generations. Those who fought and died or those who suffered war deprivations didn’t have a swell time, did they?

Of course, revolutions influenced world events and brought about positive changes across national borders. But you don’t want to be one of those fighting the revolutions.

But that kind of social advancement was more evolution rather than revolution in America.

I would submit that, in the twentieth century, social advancement in America was a result of revolutions going on around the world. Working class Americans benefited from foreign revolutions. American capitalists gave workers more pay and benefits for the sake of peace and continuity. The corporations then realized that’ with a growing middle class, they could grow their markets and sell more products.

We prospered because we didn’t experience the wars and revolutions in other parts of the world.

Yes, American workers died demanding change. But our small “revolutions” did not result in the overthrow of government.
[/quote]

Brian: Boy, you don’t simply throw out one red herring, you deploy an entire school of them.

Okay, we weren’t discussing whether or not anyone had a swell time fighting in the French or American Revolutions, we were discussing the efficacy of the revolutions themselves. Two very, very different things and I don’t think the individual revolutionary’s “feelings” are germane to the discussion.

As far as advancement being evolutionary, instead of revolutionary, there are too many examples that refute this, including the massive Civil Rights protest marches, the anti-war movement during Vietnam, and the Watts and Detroit riots. That’s just in the 1960s.

And I’m not saying this to be facetious, but I think more massive protests are in our immediate future, and probably shortly after the mid-terms.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]But the French and American revolutions retarded economic growth and caused suffering for a couple generations. Those who fought and died or those who suffered war deprivations didn’t have a swell time, did they?

Of course, revolutions influenced world events and brought about positive changes across national borders. But you don’t want to be one of those fighting the revolutions.

But that kind of social advancement was more evolution rather than revolution in America.

I would submit that, in the twentieth century, social advancement in America was a result of revolutions going on around the world. Working class Americans benefited from foreign revolutions. American capitalists gave workers more pay and benefits for the sake of peace and continuity. The corporations then realized that’ with a growing middle class, they could grow their markets and sell more products.

We prospered because we didn’t experience the wars and revolutions in other parts of the world.

Yes, American workers died demanding change. But our small “revolutions” did not result in the overthrow of government.
[/quote]

Brian: Boy, you don’t simply throw out one red herring, you deploy an entire school of them.

Okay, we weren’t discussing whether or not anyone had a swell time fighting in the French or American Revolutions, we were discussing the efficacy of the revolutions themselves. Two very, very different things and I don’t think the individual revolutionary’s “feelings” are germane to the discussion.

As far as advancement being evolutionary, instead of revolutionary, there are too many examples that refute this, including the massive Civil Rights protest marches, the anti-war movement during Vietnam, and the Watts and Detroit riots. That’s just in the 1960s.

And I’m not saying this to be facetious, but I think more massive protests are in our immediate future, and probably shortly after the mid-terms.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]But the French and American revolutions retarded economic growth and caused suffering for a couple generations. Those who fought and died or those who suffered war deprivations didn’t have a swell time, did they?

Of course, revolutions influenced world events and brought about positive changes across national borders. But you don’t want to be one of those fighting the revolutions.

But that kind of social advancement was more evolution rather than revolution in America.

I would submit that, in the twentieth century, social advancement in America was a result of revolutions going on around the world. Working class Americans benefited from foreign revolutions. American capitalists gave workers more pay and benefits for the sake of peace and continuity. The corporations then realized that’ with a growing middle class, they could grow their markets and sell more products.

We prospered because we didn’t experience the wars and revolutions in other parts of the world.

Yes, American workers died demanding change. But our small “revolutions” did not result in the overthrow of government.
[/quote]

Brian: Boy, you don’t simply throw out one red herring, you deploy an entire school of them.

Okay, we weren’t discussing whether or not anyone had a swell time fighting in the French or American Revolutions, we were discussing the efficacy of the revolutions themselves. Two very, very different things and I don’t think the individual revolutionary’s “feelings” are germane to the discussion.

As far as advancement being evolutionary, instead of revolutionary, there are too many examples that refute this, including the massive Civil Rights protest marches, the anti-war movement during Vietnam, and the Watts and Detroit riots. That’s just in the 1960s.

And I’m not saying this to be facetious, but I think more massive protests are in our immediate future, and probably shortly after the mid-terms.

[Author]

Posts