Simple Poll here ... What issue would you like the new GOP-led Congress to take up first?

That will be the first question. The second question is, what are your political leanings. I'm not too savey on International Politics, so if I miss you, just post below.

Poll Information
This poll contains 2 question(s). 19 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: GOP Leadership in the US (19 votes.)

What issue would you like the new GOP-led Congress to take up first? (Choose 1)
* Partial-birth Abortion - 11% (2)
* Ban on Human Cloning - 11% (2)
* Confirming Bush's Judges - 32% (6)
* Pro-Marriage Welfare Reform - 0% (0)
* Permanent Tax relief for families - 16% (3)
* Repeal of the Death Tax - 32% (6)

What is your Political Leaning? (Choose 1)
* Republican / Conservative / Right Wing - 32% (6)
* Democratic / Liberal / Left Wing - 26% (5)
* Independant - 42% (8)

Is this poll only for Americans? Or are you assessing political leanings from all SP'ers? I didn't vote on the poll because I wasn't sure I wouldn't disrupt your sample group but I'm always glad to give my opinion. :p

My own political leanings: I'm a secular humanist libertarian, which I'm shocked- SHOCKED to see wasn't a category in your poll (just kidding! ;) ). This usually translates to left wing on social issues (bring on the gay marriages and legalised drugs!) and right-wing on economic issues (you want to regulate WHAT?!).

I thought the poll was heavily slanted toward Moral Majority issues- socially right-wing ones- which surprised me. Conservative parties are usually about smaller government, which didn't really seem to be on the poll at all. That's what I'd like to see the US, and every country, move towards. The only real exceptions were the tax ones, which would get my vote, because I froth at the mouth at the idea of tax, but I do want to point out one thing about the death tax. Americans are the most generous people in the world in terms of donations to charity. Maybe this is just intrinsic to the American character, but many analysts believe it's because Americans would rather give to charity before they die than have millions go to death taxes afterward. If you get rid of the death tax, you will very probably eliminate the incentive to give large sums to charity. Isn't this a bad thing- a very bad thing? Aren't the massive sums of dollars that go to charity so important that it's worth having one excessive tax?

Sprite and all other non-USA type folk ... go ahead and vote. I'm curious about the general community.

Its no secret that I'm a little to the right of Gengis Kahn ... just wondering what the rest of humanity thinks (so I can rule them better!!!) j/k

Gee, Sprite, are you my long-lost cross-border twin or something?!

The only reason I registered with one of the two major US political parties is so I could vote in the primary elections, and even then my vote is usually cast AGAINST the candidate I see as more dangerous to the life I want my son to have, rather than FOR anyone in particular.

No offence but what kind of silly meaningless and unimportant options did we get? First off none that isnt a republican rightwinger can have any view on those things as they all seemed pretty wacky to me. Nothing about poverty, nothing about human rights, nothing important at all.
Who cares about cloning or not? What is a death tax? Abortion? I mean sheesh, again no offence but I am offended by some peoples priorities. All it was about was which far-right wing thing you like the most.

While the options were limited they weren't as trivial as you make them out to be joacqin.

The taxation questions are some of the most important questions any government can address. Since the U.S. has in place some non-permanent and gradual reductions the question of whether to make them permanent is crucial. It will affect everyone -- it is going to impact directly on the financial well being of Americans both rich and poor.

In case you really didn't know what the death tax is, that is the politicized name right wingers have dubbed the inheritance tax because they found out from polling data that Americans didn't like the sound of "death tax." The accuracy of such a name is debatable.

Abortion is a key issue as well in my opinion since Roe v Wade, contrary to popular opinion, isn't the relevant law anymore and abortion rights may well be rolled back. Particularly if......

the judicial appointments of Bush are taken care of in a manner he would like. The appointment of candidates to the bench is one of the most important thing any President can do.

Welfare reform directly impacts on poverty.

So, I think you underestimate the importance or breadth of some of the items mentioned. IT is a skewed list of course but then it is skewed to the right and since it is a question about what you would like to see the right do now that it has power it isn't that far off base. All my opinion of course.

It was a pro-marriage wellfare reform, not a welfare reform. I take that means that if you are a good christian and marry you get extra perks as opposite to the heathens that live in sin. The tax relief question seem to be a reform that opposes any wellfare. I atleast take abortion for granted and dont even see that there is something to discuss. You didnt bring up cloning and that quite understandable as that atleast is a very minor question. I have no real view on the death tax or the judicial appointments except that I think thats a thing that already gives a president more power than what is needed and colours the justice system so it compares to a single presidents point of view.

I'm praying that they implement a flat tax. Right now some people (probably Bel & BTA ;) ) pay over 30% in taxes, while most others pay less than 10%. That means that the richest 1% of the country ends up paying 90% of the tax-bill.

I don't disagree that the rich should give more (since they have more) but why have a tiered tax-table. If everyone pays a flat 12-15% the federal budget won't be impacted too greatly, plus it will allow alot more money to saturate the economy and improve things on Wall Street.

This is what the Russians did post-communism, and its working great.

Actually, the graduated tax table doesn't work quite that way. It's a common misconception. In actuality, BTA only has to pay 30% of the portion of his income that falls in that bracket. Say that the brackets are 10% for over $10,000 -- 20% for over $25,000 -- and 30% for over $50,000. No matter how much you make, the portion of your income that falls between $10,000 and $25,000 is taxed at 10%; if you make over $50,000 then only the portion over $50,000 is taxed at 30%. It's another common misconception that giving to charities can save you money. That's untrue, since falling to a lower tax bracket doesn't mean you pay lower percentage over the whole amount.

I'm getting less comprehensible as I go, so I'll shut up.

10% is going to impact a person that makes $10,000 far more than it will impact a person making $100,000. My income has been poverty level for years, and yet I pay 30% of my income in taxes. Needless to say, a flat rate tax sounds like a bad plan to me so far.

Capstone, I'm not sure what you're talking about. The tax tables indicate how much tax you pay as a dollar amount for your adjusted gross income. If you take that amount and divide it by your income, you get the percentage.

Stefanina - A flat tax of 10% or 15% sounds worse than the 30% you're currently paying? The thing about the rich is that they find all kinds of ways to shelter their money from the tax man. If you eliminate all the exceptions and everyone pays the same percentage, the rich will likely be paying more than they do now.

[ December 05, 2002, 18:13: Message edited by: Blackthorne TA ]

God Bless you BTA ... always a voice of reason ;)
:good:

BTA, under the conditions you set forth the flat tax sounds good, but I seriously doubt that the merican political reality will ever allow those conditions to be met.

Actually BTA, Capstone is spot on in trying to describe how a graduated income tax works.

Hypothetically, let's say a tax strucure is such that:

0-10,000 0%
10k - 20k 10%
20k - 30k 20%
30k - 40k 30%

Now, suppose you make $32,000. What Capstone was getting at is that you don't pay 30% of $32,000. Instead, you pay 0% on the first 10k, then 10% on the next 10k, then 20% on the next 10k, and then 30% on the next 2,000.

So, what this means then is that the idea that the incentive to donate to charity under the current tax structure doesn't operate like many think. Take the person making 32,000. If she donates 2,001 some people think this drops her to a lower tax bracket and she will only pay 20% on her total gross income. In reality though, the savings aren't that great because she would have been paying a lower amount on the income that falls within the lower tax brackets anyways. She is in short giving away 2,001 instead of paying 30% tax on 2,000.

That is what Cap is driving at.

Also, I am certain that a number of the proposed flat tax schemes would not result in the rich paying more. Now, it turns on how you define "rich" of course but most of America's "rich" are small business owners or professionals and they do not shelter their income in the way described. I'm talking about people with incomes from 1 mil. to a few million. I'm not sure but I seem to recall prior to the most recent cuts the highest bracket was something like 38% but under a falt tax of 15% they would be much better off.

I also think people vastly overstate the way the rich "shelter" or use "tax loopholes" to pay less taxes.

Stef, if your income is at poverty levels you don't pay 30% of your income in federal income taxes. If you do, something ADR (ain't doing right) and you are entitled to a return from the Federal gov and should seek a free tax clinic at a local law school to seek help. Maybe you mean 30% taking into account all of your taxes, state and federal?

Oh, right, he's talking about the rate schedule rather than the actual overall rate you pay.

I of course can't say for certain that the rich would pay more with a flat tax, but it so happens that when marginal tax rates decreased, the rich ended up paying a higher percentage of total tax. This is because they increased they're taxable income by more than the cut in rates.

The same could be true if a flat tax is implemented. If people with money to throw around don't have to worry about HOW they throw that money around, they can concentrate more on how to increase their wealth rather than how to limit their tax liability.

Oh, I should've said earlier, that I felt certain under the major proposed flat taxes like Forbes' the rich would be better off. Can't say that about all proposals obviously since I haven't seen them or seen analysis of them.

Edited to also say I'm not necessarily saying a flat tax would be a bad thing, just that I think it would likely reduce the tax burden on the rich. The benefit to them would be greater than the benefit to middle and lower classes imo.

[ December 06, 2002, 00:43: Message edited by: Laches ]

How come the western country, other than tax-havens, which pay the least tax are more obsessed with it than most others? I suppose it all depends what you get back from the system but still.

It is incomrehensible that partial abortion has ever been allowed, so sure go ahead legislate against something that would never have been allowed in most other countries.

Death tax? Used to be "death duty" here, and it's inherently (no pun intended) unfair in itself. Why should you tax again on monies which have already been fully taxed? Very much against that one for those reasons.

Human cloning? Uncomfortable, but could have uses if regulated. Copying humans, no, but research yes.

The others are not my priorities since I can only imagine a Bush lead tax reform to benefit those who don't need it at the expense of those who cannot afford it. Pro marriage incentives? WHY? What makes a married couple more worthy of tax reliefs than two individuals cohabiting? Frankly, nothing.

Finally the judges. Life time appointments are a good idea. Life time political appointments are not. Judges should be in place to interpret the law and make judgements based on justice as defined by the law, not based on political pursuation.

The inheritance tax/death tax was born in the U.S. for some fairly reasonable concerns. The idea was that allowing the concentration of wealth into one family might result in too much power becoming distributed in one family thereby allowing that family to assume a role as royalty in a nation which rejected that concept. Now, the inheritance tax was born at a time in the U.S. where that was a real possibility but I think it is safe to say that possibility no longer really exists because of the size the U.S. has grown to.

The other justification for the inheritance tax is that we are a nation of individualism and that meritocracy should be encouraged.

I'd personally reduce it certainly and I'm up in the air about whether it should be ended.

Um, this will probably sound dumb, but whats GOP?

Americans, ever so proud of being the middle class nation, had to do something to keep it that way. Somehow I don't think dragging the rich down to the middle class level was meant to be part of the American dream. But I suppose rags-to-riches is easier if "rich" means ten million rather than a billion.

reepnorp ... GOP = Grand Old Party, aka Republicans. The party that brought you Ronald Regan & George Bush (both of them) ;)

And Iran Contra and Watergate. ;) Sorry, couldn't resist.

Actually Latches, aren't Ronald Reagan and George Bush (Snr and Jnr) far more damning? ;)

[ December 07, 2002, 01:58: Message edited by: Viking ]

And now all those crooks from Iran/contra are getting their payback with nice cushy jobs spying on all of us.
There's a Grand Ole Party for ya.

scampy ... not to mix it up with you ;) .... but wouldn't you rather have people in office who got in trouble trying to further the interests of democracy around the world instead of the folks who brought us the great phrase "That depends on what "is" means"....and "I did not inhale that woman!" (or something like that :lol: )

Gotta admit, at least when the Republicans sin, its more like a Tom Clancy novel than a Soap Opera!

Er... people who make mistakes involving missiles instead of mistakes involving sex? Actually, no. I do prefer sex to missiles, even where politicians are concerned. And I'm not even a Democrat!

The true mistake wasn't even the sex - that should have been entirely between Bill, Hillary, and Monica (and anyone else involved in the exchange of bodily fluids outside of marriage). Clinton's real mistake was lying about the sex - and having DREADFUL taste in tarts.

When will public figures learn that the consequences are generally much easier when you 'fess up to your mistakes right away, rather than trying desperately to cover things up? Even toddlers figure this out pretty soon.

rally... good point.

Sprite, I was kidding .. mostly. The truth is, the Iran/Contra thing was way over-blown by the media. We could do a thread on that... but its old news.

US sponsored death squadrons and terrorists overblown? People have different priorites on what is important.

'further interests of democracy around the world'?!!!
With the spin coming off that statement I could blow dry my rather long mane of hair!
My gosh, how does operating a government with complete disregard to the law and its governing principals help democracy?

scampy ... glad to assist with some blow-drying!

Confused Jerk (I can't spell Jocquin ;) )...seriously, the Sandinistas (sp?) were an oppressive, totalitarian regime. They were killing thousands of civilians and needed to be stopped. Clinton would have waited until he needed the pressure off of his personal life and lies, and then bombed them. The Reagan administration took a slightly different approach.

Hard to defend either side 100%, but its much harder to lionize either side when you know the facts (and not just the so-called facts that you'll get on CNN or ABC news)

Math, I could think of better things for you to do with my hair ;)

and, on topic- the ends do not justify the means

could someone around here explain the difference between republicans and democrats to me? I mean seriously? The one party is on the right side of the table and the other party is on the ground at the right side of the table (due to falling of)

IMHO the only difference between the two parties is the different prodent smile!

but perhaps it is just my european "America is our big bad brother" opinion playing up, so enlighten me please!

aegorn ... today the republicans are more conservative, small government, big military with a world view that peace is best promoted by force. The democratic party is more liberal, promoting a large government, small military and a world view that peace is best promoted by diplomatic intervention and appeasement. Republicans are stereotyped as white & rich, while Democrats get painted as minority and union.

It was not always so. A famous republican (Abe Lincoln) brought the aboloition of slavery. They also brought the end of Jim Crow laws (which were promoted by Democrats) the end of poll taxes (when southern states would charge african americans extra money just to vote), and segregation in the schools (civil rights amendment, supported Brown v. Board of Education, etc. etc)

Honestly, I don't live & die by the republican party, but I do tend to agree more with them than I do with the democrats.

Hope this helps.

ok I still don't think either one is such a great option (ever heard of social democrats :p or christian parties?). but if i had to choose one it would be (grudgingly)democrats. But I really think the system in Holland works better = a coalition goverment.

:ducks and runs for cover while the Britons and the Americans start frothing and kicking around:

[ December 11, 2002, 17:52: Message edited by: aegron ]

So, if Republicans are for less government as well as states rights, why aren't they up in arms right now? It's like you guys want your cake and eat it too.

A number of initiatives were voted into state law which have been shot down by Ashcroft i.e. medical marijuana, doctor assisted suicide come to mind. I guess when it comes to issues Republicans don't agree with it's OK for the Government to intrude?

I'd say anti-union would be a fair description of the current administration.

scarampella ... exactly!

the republicans are not perfect...just less evil than the democrats ;) :p

What about Trent Lott?

After all your associating the Rep's with freedom for blacks, what do you think of that creep?
He sounds pretty evil to me. Rsallying up with white supremacists..

/Me guards Aegron

Agreed. In Holland (and yes, probably a lot more countries) we have lets say 12 (?) parties. If 2 is not enough, then there are 10 more to choose from. Problem is that they must form a coalition and that doesn't seem to work well allways (something to do with the LPF and 87 days).
I voted on a christian party, neither lefts, nor rights, not even middle.

Oops, didn't notice there were already 2 pages of posts. heheh

[ December 11, 2002, 22:50: Message edited by: Master of Nuhn ]

but that not the fault of the coalition system, that the fault of choosing a leaderless list to join in the coalition.

Isn't it a tad peculiar to in one post admit that you don't have any knowledge of the political parties in the U.S. and then a couple posts later declare you have now gleamed enough information to confidently proclaim the superiority of another political system, which perhaps not conicidentally is your nation's political system? I would've thought from reading this board that boundless patriotism that results in the decleration of your own nation's superiority was limited to the U.S., guess not.

You know, the funny thing about what Trent Lott said (about Strom Thurmond) and the implication of racism, etc., is that Strom Thurmond was a Democrat back when, not a Republican. Also, going back a ways in the thread to the idea of judges for life, I'm a lawyer and, let me tell you folks, judges are people too, with politics, small-mindedness and sometimes sheer idiocy just like you and me. I'm so far against judges for life that it borders on mania.

As for the difference between the parties, it's my opinion (and only my own) that the two American parties are getting a lot closer to each other. Neither one really is for smaller government, neither one really champions the small guy's individual rights (it just looks that way when the right media coverage is applied) and they're both about getting and keeping power. The problem that a lot of the European members of SP do not grasp is that, unlike European democracies which actually have a number of viable parties and operate on coalition governments, the political power here is super-concentrated in the two parties and they are not giving it up any time soon. The other parties are, in essence, fringe groups with such an insignificant following that little to no impact is felt from them and most voters do not vote a third party because they feel that they are throwing away their votes. It would take the equivalent of significant continental drift to empower a third party here due to the way the political party system developed and permeated political history of the US (and this is way too off-topic to start dealing with that issue).

DMC I agree with much of what you have said. The only way to work around the stranglehold of power is through some of the election reforms that have been bantied about. It costs too much money for the average person to run for any office and get any attention.

As to the fact Thurmand was a demo what does that really matter when we are talking about issues of today? I mean, really, that is the way a bad marriage opperates, constantly bickering over the past. Trent Lott is alive and active today, supporting a mans past beliefs, a period from our past, a period of great division and violence. Pointing at Thurmond serves no purpose other than to deflect the attention away from a man in front of us now, including all his pals in Congress.

Not at all, Aegron. I wish we had a system more like (HEY, RAGUSA! READ THIS!) Germany's in some aspects. Four political parties sounds good. And I like the idea of a coalition government too.

In fact, this could happen in the U.S. under current laws (something of that nature is now happening in the Senate with Jim Jeffords comprising a party of 1 in a coalition with the Democrats). The problem is getting those third and fourth parties started. I thought the Reform Party had a real chance until Ross Perot did his "now I'm in, now I'm out" routine back in the '96 elections and turned the group into a joke. Then Buchanan just made it bizarre in 2000.

The real obstacle, IMO, is that most people on the left don't want to support the Green or Communist Parties for fear of splitting the Democratic vote and giving the GOP power. And most people on the right don't want to vote Natural Law or Taxpayers Party for fear of giving the Democrats control. So unless a bunch of rich lefties get together with a bunch of rich conservatives and time the creation of third and fourth parties perfectly, I just don't think it's going to happen.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not at all, Aegron. I wish we had a system more like (HEY, RAGUSA! READ THIS!) Germany's in some aspects. Four political parties sounds good. And I like the idea of a coalition government too. I completely agree

@Scarampella - I was not excusing Lott in the slightest, as I think he's dangerous and a dinosaur. Thurmond, also a dinosaur, will die soon and is much less worrisome to me right now. Politically, I'm basically a Libertarian and find that both Democrats and Republicans want to make the government larger, which irks me to no end. My wife met Lott in the mid-80's when her chamber group was going through the south and the only thing she remembers was that he had a hole in the back of his pants -- go figure, it must have been a precursor to the one in the front of his head -- he may get his foot out of it one of these days, but I doubt it.

@Shralp - problem with that is that the rich lefties and righties are the ones running the parties. They're not going to bail out on them.

Yeah, you may get the eccentrics like Perot every now and again, but his staying power was obviously not that great. Barring some major upheaval, I think we're stuck with the two party system here.

Funny point on the Lott issue: It was pointed out on Imus that Trent Lott's statement at Thurmond's party(And Reagan's nomination, years earlier) is in fact NOT supported by Strom Thurmond! Thurmond himself has said at earlier times that his segregationist ideals were wrong.

On the "death tax": Laches, in case no-one else has noticed, your comment on this is dead-on; we now seem to have an hereditary system of power in Washington. Bush, Bush jr., Jeb, all the Kennedys, Gore and his daddy, the list goes on... Thus the attempt to repeal the estate tax; to ensure its continuation.

Scarampella: On the state's rights post; It's just hypocrisy as usual.


On the government in general: It sucks. Self-perpetuating cycle, those with power do all they can to hold it, and expand it. The fall of one only boosts another.

With Strom Thurmond retiring, we lose one of the only two non-corrupt senators(Too senile to understand what the money's for)in the system, the other being Jeffords. And if I'm not misremembering, Jeffords lost his race? As such, we the people are about to get a reaming like never before. Corporate America has a wish list and several hundred willing puppets in power. The EPA is likely gonna go poof, the FDA has already been castrated, and the SEC... fugeddaboutit. Wall Street is headed for Party Time, and the oil companies are leading the way right into Gulf War 2, with Bush a willing accomplice in an attempt to avenge his daddy's one-term honor.

Minor note: If the Dems had all three branches, we'd be in for just as bad a shafting; it'd just be on the regulate-noncontributing-businesses-to-death-then-tax-and-spend side.

I am hoping all TRUE Americans will remember the words of Thomas Jefferson(and I broadly paraphrase due to a bad case of can't-remember-exact-worditis): something along the lines of at least one armed revolution a decade, to clean out the corrupt powers-that-be.

Of course, the new Total Information Initiative is now gonna tag me as a political dissident, so I'll most likely be arrested on some bogus charges, taxed out of existence, deported, or otherwise silenced... Whee!! It's China/1984/Brave New World all over again! :flaming: :toofar:

Personally, I voted Carlin/Miller in 2000. Get the amateurs outta Washington; we want PROFESSIONAL comedians!!!