Americans: do you like your two-party system?

I’m fine with a two party system.

People who bitch about this seem to think that their votes will “count” more in some other system. But in reality, multi-party systems still have to form majority ruling coalitions. Those coalitions are little different from Republican or Democratic parties—both of which contain numerous sub-sects and rivalries of their own.

And it’s not like the two parties are static institutions. Republicans were the party of civil rights until the 60’s, when it flipped to Dems. Democrats have shifted rightward in economic policy. The modern Republican party oscillates between extreme libertarian-style isolationism and aggressive “neocon” foreign policy. And voters have every chance to influence the direction of their parties by voting and campaigning in the primaries.

The two party system is fine. It’s the parties themselves I take issue with.

One says, “This is what I want and if the other guys don’t like it, to hell with them.”

The other says, “This is what I want and if the other guys don’t like it, I’ll change it so drastically the point of what I wanted is completely lost in the sea of exceptions intended to placate the other guys.”

Neither one gives me what I want.

No, and most of the people I know don’t like it either. Also, I don’t like the electorial college and I’m certainly not alone there. We have the technology now to count each individual vote in national elections, and that would be more fair.

^ I agree with this.

I’ll be voting for Gary Johnson. :)

I agree that the electoral college is bullshit. And the system has the pernicious effect of giving outsize votes to rural areas over urban ones.

@Seek_Kolinahr, I hope your support of the parties does not depend merely on your perception of their negotiation strategy.

Not merely the negotiation strategy, no, but the relative negotiation strategies do make it difficult to determine which is the lesser evil: Evil with no intention of goodness, or Evil with bursts of goodness that are willing to placate evil and commit it by proxy.

Um, even accepting your rather harsh characterization of Democrats up there, which I would dispute, the lesser evil seems incredibly obvious.

Yeah.

Still, lesser evil is still incredibly frustrating.

Just once, I’d like to be able to vote for someone I like, not just someone I’ll tolerate because at least he’s not the other guy.

@Seek_Kolinahr, I actually like Obama. I think he gets a bad rap.

I feel that coalition government would be a bit better in that everybody would have a better chance of being represented by somebody whose views are closer to their own than is currently possible, and it would be harder to make an organized effort to block legislation or ram it through.

As for the electoral college, popular vote would have it’s issues as well, but no voting system can get around the facts that we are effectively two countries (the South and Center vote Republican/Corporate Church-state, the West Coast and Northeast go Democrat) and that many voters are ignorant. Either way, half the country is going to be pissed off; the only question is which half.

^ If there’s a push toward secession, I’ll have to move.

I wish there were no parties, and each person had to stand on their own, and no electoral college. I like the idea of every vote counts, and whoever gets the most votes wins.

@DrBill , Yes, my feelings exactly.

@DrBill and @Skaggfacemutt, game-theory your scenario out past the first iteration. There would still be political parties. Elected officials would inevitably form coalitions and “tents” of constituents.

Yes, I am aware, but if it were to happen, I think the whole system would be more fair.

Not a fan at all, it’s too ideologically restrictive. A or B which one do you prefer (or which one do you disagree with least). However, how do we change it and to what? You can only add realistic options in the form of other parities if you handicap them, or make wholesale changes to our government. Not that I’m against that, but who’s going to do it? The parties in place certainly aren’t looking to share. Perhaps self-representative, ranked and expanded, voting (that’s got its own issues) and a system where, rather than just voting for house and senate, we vote for issue-based committees as well and empower them within their scope to put legislation directly on the presidents desk. No system will keep everyone happy, every system can be manipulated, and some group will always be out in the cold but I’m certain there’s a better way than the mess we have even if it wouldn’t stand a chance of being implemented.

Note that the Republican party has decided to swing far to the right as a whole rather than split from the bat-shit-crazy crowd simply because splitting would give the Democrats an advantage. I don’t think this whole “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” approach to party unity it’s good for anybody, but it’s deeply entrenched in our politics.

I don’t know who the electoral college helps. Traditional wisdom is it helps Republicans. However, this year, it is possible it could help the Democrats. Obama has been behind in the polls in terms of overall vote, yet ahead in terms of electoral vote. Wouldn’t that be weird? Maybe Republicans would feel like the vote had been stolen, as it was stolen from Dems in 2000 by the Supreme Court. Really, really weird.

Also, it looks like the redistribution of campaign funding is just that: redistribution. Rich Republicans want to control their own money. Poor Dems prefer to give money to the party and the candidate. Both sides seem to be raising about the same amount of money this year. They were even as of a week ago, anyway. And Democratic money is more flexible, which could have been an advantage.

I don’t know what changing the system would do. We’d need proportional voting to get third parties into Congress. But if we did, would anything change? I seriously doubt it. We’d have the Tea Party and the Green Party and the Socialist and the Libertarians and while all now find a place in one of the two major parties, they would have to make coalitions if they were elected in their own right. Would gridlock be any less? I don’t think so. I don’t think a thing would be different.

In fact, I think the fact that the polls are so close and, presumably, the vote will be so close, means the parties have it just about right. They each represent fifty percent of the people. Of course, that fifty percent represents a wide range of views as it is, from Teas to moderate Reps; from Greens to blue dog Dems. We have multiple parties, they are just subsumed within permanent coalitions, and I don’t think that’s much different from what happens in the rest of the world.

Perhaps it is a little more efficient.

I don’t. I agree that getting rid of the electoral system is a good idea, but it can still become a case of voting for who you hate the least. I usually can make a decision based on another factor, but I know that it often turns into “I hate the party in power, so let’s throw them out and put the other one in,” in elections. I think also that it has become less about what the people need and deserve and more about how they can keep their party in power. (They get paid more and have better benefits that way,)

@wundayatta the electoral has help and hurt both parties in the past.

Sure. It’s an ingenious system, proudly powered by 100% organic bullshit and professional wrestling fan logic, that convinces folks they actually have some sort of say in the way that they are governed. All the great civilized countries have it in one form or another. It’s the most!

casting my write-in vote this year for The Road Goes On Forever And The Party Never Ends Party. they had me at forever.

Nope and what’s worse is that 3rd parties are actively muscled out of the system. A recent Gallup poll stated that 46% of Americans support a third party (down from 56% or so a few years ago). I don’t want a third party, though. I want multiple parties that reflect diverse positions.

@GracieT That is exactly why we might get a habitual liar with a bad track record for a president. Those who favor high corporate profits and low taxes should stick with a president under whom profits rose more than any there other administrations combined and has the lowest tax rate in half a century, but that would involve voting for the other party.

People who hate the two party system need to point to an alternate example from another country as a model.

@Blondesjon, for example, is there a political system elsewhere that you don’t think is powered by “bullshit”?

Nope. and don’t forget the power of professional wrestling fan mentality

As far as your ”People who hate the two party system need to point to an alternate example from another country as a model.” prerequisite, well, I don’t need to point out other debilitating illnesses to tell you that cancer is a bad deal either.

No, I do not like the two party system. Then again, I’m not a fan of the two parties. One issue for me is that I think plurality voting is simply a bad way of enacting democracy. A preferential voting system decreases the stranglehold that two major parties can hold over a country, forcing them to cooperate with so-called “third parties” to form coalitions that better represent the electorate. I currently favor a change to the ranked pairs method.

@Blondesjon, why do you even post about politics? Seriously? All you ever do is complain about the status quo, or about “both sides,” without explaining how you think the system could be improved, or even giving any reasons behind your complaints. Do you even have political views, or is your entire political outlook based on vague whining?

@SavoirFaire, why do you think coalitions would better represent the electorate? Are there examples from other countries that do this? I’m not actually denying there are, nor am I arguing that two-party is actually the best possible system. But one multi-party example I’m somewhat familiar with, the Israeli government, doesn’t seem any better than America’s.

@Blondesjon‘s Official Political Views:

I take my political views and cues from a few other vague whiners.

In religion and politics people’s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing. – Mark Twain

Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. – Theodore Roosevelt

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth. – Mahatma Gandhi

And so on and so forth. Just because I prefer not to join in partisan chest thumping (nearly Evangelical Christian in it’s vehemence no matter which side is thumping) does not mean I have no views. I have shared time and time again that I don’t believe that government has any other best interests in mind than government’s best interests. From the day we came down out of the trees to modern times this goal has been achieved a multitude of ways, be it the brutality of an Iranian style theocracy or the subtle mind-fuck of a democracy. No matter which road is taken the destination is the same. Government gets what government wants.

Is there a better system out there? Unfortunately the answer is no. I would also like to point out that I prefer the greater freedom that western style government offers. Democracy at least gives folks the illusion that they have a choice and a modicum of control. This beats the hell out of the alternatives we see in the Middle East, Asia, and other points undesirable (from a political perspective). Just don’t ask me to buy in to it.

Does this mean I believe myself to be above the fray? No. It means that I think the entire “fray” is a ridiculous waste of time. At one time I was a hardcore Democrat. That was the “side” I chose and, with the professional wrestling attitude that comes with such a decision, I firmly believed that we were the “good guys”. The only problem was, I started listening.

When I say listening I mean listening to what my “adversaries” were saying instead of thinking about what self-righteous snark I was going to retaliate with next. When I really started listening to not only my opponents but also myself, I saw what an incredible joke it all was. I also began to see that government went right on doing whatever the fuck it wanted while we were all busy fighting. It was like a revelation to me! I couldn’t wait to share my views with my contemporaries and, with our eyes wide open for the first time, we would bloodlessly tear down the old system and replace it with one of our own making.

I didn’t take basic human nature in to account.

The only thing folks are more afraid of than dying is admitting that they were wrong about something. You see, to truly step back and embrace that our government operates under it’s own rules one has to admit that they have been fooled. They have to truly admit to themselves that they were, gasp, wrong. I thought this was easy. It wasn’t until I started presenting this idea to others that I realized, double gasp, I was wrong.

Folks are much happier to have an enemy to eternally, and fruitlessly, argue with and an illusion of control. I don’t blame them. It’s comforting really, like religion (another good guy/bad guy mind fuck if I ever saw one). Plus, as I said above, America is a pretty good place to live, perceived freedoms-wise. In fact, though I have never lived anywhere but the good old USA, I imagine most modern western style democracies are pretty much the same. Again, I’m not saying there is a better system out there.

I’m just saying that those who have bought in to the system, as well as their own self-importance, need to quit acting like I’m the idiot. I, at least, can admit that I got fooled.

for the record, if i voted, i would vote for obama, i believe that abortion is a woman’s choice, and can’t understand why everybody is so freaked out about homosexuals.

@Blondesjon Do you have any example of government being for government? And who is government? Are you talking about people who work for government? Or are you talking about politicians? Or both? Or each in different ways?

@wundayatta . . . If these are questions that you truly need to ask then, well, any answer that I give is not going to help you at all.

If you really want to know the answers to your questions shut up and listen and I mean really listen to what is being said in the political arena, on all sides. Do this with a truly unbiased, clinical ear and you’ll have all the answers you need. It sounds simple but, like all simple truths, it actually incredibly difficult to do.

@Blondesjon That’s just rhetoric. Unless you provide concrete examples of what you are talking about, it doesn’t help. I’ve been listening to people in politics for most of my life. I’ve done a lot of political work. I’ve done a lot of policy work. I think that the iron law of oligarchy holds in government as well as it does elsewhere. But I don’t think that impeaches what government does at all. Government does a lot of things that help people. I’ve spend a good deal of time on one project I did adding up just how much was spent on various things in a few states. It was quite interesting, since I had no idea how much government does before that.

But the other problem with your exhortation is that I don’t know what you mean by listen. You make it sound like some kind of magical thing, and if you don’t provide examples, I can’t know if what I call listening is what you call listening. You might say, “if you don’t know what listening is, then I can’t help you,” as if that makes it my problem. But it doesn’t make it my problem. It just means you’re giving up without trying.

I believe you’ve had some kind of epiphany. I’m know you have a cynical view of life, and you like to find humor in it in an almost desperate kind of way. I think you are tired of acrimony and disagreement and you certainly don’t really want to fight with me, or maybe even argue with me.

I am not arguing with you. I’m just asking questions. I actually would like to listen to you. Believe it or not. Probably a first, eh? ;-) I want to know what you mean when you talk about government doing things for itself. What did you discover when you listened?

@wundayatta . . . I could go out and catch you a fish and feed you for a day or I could teach you how to fish and you could feed yourself for the rest of your life.

Unfortunately, I don’t really believe, in an almost desperate kind of way, that you want to learn how to fish at all.

Good answer, @Blondesjon. I hate fishing, anyway. Never caught a thing. You stand there with a hook in the water for three hours, and nothing happens, and then you go home and starve. So if fishing it is, thanks but no thanks. I’d rather do something that works.

@Blondesjon, congratulations on digging up more vague quotations by historical figures about partisanship. But here’s where my problem with you comes in. You quoted Mark Twain, who actually (despite his professed independent status) strongly opposed slavery and so often sided with the Republican party in that debate.

Now, you claim to have “strong views,” but the only strong view I ever hear from you is how important it is to not take a side in any argument. And your answer above is simply a rant that repeats this point over and over.

Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe you do have strong views about the political issues of our times. Can you tell us what your views on the following questions are?

• How do you think we should reduce the deficit? For example, should we raise taxes on the rich? Or should we cut welfare programs that benefit poor people? Or some combination?

• Do you think the government should help subsidize health insurance for all of its citizens?

• Do you think that we should go to war with Iran if they don’t stop developing nuclear weapons?

• Do you think we should support democratically-elected Islamist governments in the Middle East, such as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt? Or should we cut off our foreign aid to such governments?

• Do you think we should spend $2 trillion to increase the size of our military?

• Do you think abortion should be legal, per Roe vs. Wade?

Personally, I’ve thought about these issues a lot, and I do have strong views about them. So I’d like to know if you also have views on these questions—or if your only view is simply that having views is wrong.

Flat tax.

Yes.

Nope.

No aid.

No.

Yep.

Now, you claim to have “strong views,” but the only strong view I ever hear from you is how important it is to not take a side in any argument. And your answer above is simply a rant that repeats this point over and over.

Before I elaborate any more on my views I need you to explain how your above statement, describing my “rhetoric”, is any different than the repeated MSNBC/FOX NEWS quoting/bashing rants I see you and your contemporaries (on either side) engage in over and over and over again. I can at least see that the problem lies in the very system itself. Y’all folks are still yellin’ about whether The Hulkster can take Rowdy Roddy.

Maybe part of the problem is that you watch MSNBC and Fox News. (I don’t.)

Anyway, I’d like to have a discussion with you about your views. I disagree about the flat tax, I think such a tax structure drastically fucks over poor people. And I think we need to maintain foreign aid to places like Egypt and Pakistan because it is the only leverage we have over the governments of these countries—though we should threaten to take it away if they act stupidly (like Obama did with Morsi recently). You also didn’t explain how you think we should reduce the deficit (though maybe you meant a combination).

But my meta-point is this: these issues are important. They are worth arguing about. And as voters, I think it’s important that we are able to prioritize them so we can vote for a party that best reflects them, if imperfectly.

@Qingu That brings up an interesting point of it’s own though. How many people are voting for Romney simply because the most important issue to them isn’t taxes, deficits, abortion, gay marriage, foreign policy, or anything like that, but merely getting the “Kenyan Muslim Socialist Terrorist who wants to take all our money and turn us gay” out? What if their priorities have nothing to do with the issues that affect the economy or society, and everything to do with Red-vs-Blue gang warfare?

@jerv, it’s pretty clear it’s a sizeable number.

And I think for a lot of voters (both parties) the actual issues are sort of window dressing and talking points they’re trained to repeat, and the actual thing they care about is tribal loyalty. Witness Republicans who claim to be horrified at the debt but cannot name a single way Romney would make it smaller and didn’t care at all when Bush turned surpluses into deficits.

And I also think that character is, and should be, a major consideration apart from “issues.” It shouldn’t be the only consideration, but obviously it is for a lot of voters, like people who voted for Bush over Gore or Kerry because they’d like to have a beer with him more. I’m sure a lot of people will do this with Obama over Romney this time, too.

So I guess the case you brought up, people voting against Obama because they are morons who believe falsely he is a Kenyan Muslim atheist socialist, is sort of a special case of the character issue.

@jerv…and don’t forget those that have paid attention to the disaster of the last four years.

@DrBill I don’t consider corporate profits increasing to be a disaster, nor am I scared by jobs being created instead of destroyed/outsourced. I do not feel threatened by a nation that stands for freedom for all law-abiding citizens extending that freedom regardless of gender, race, or sexual orientation. I consider a less intrusive government preferable to one that is present in/at bedrooms, doctors offices, and wedding altars.

So you basically just said that you consider prosperity and freedom to be a disaster, and that you favor big government. And since you are typical of many current Republicans, it is no wonder that even many former Republicans (the intelligent ones who know math and history, and remember the traditional GOP party platform of fiscal responsibility and limited government) are supporting Obama and other Democrats nowadays.

@jerv not at all

582,000 American manufacturing jobs lost, is not prosperity
1,043,000 American construction jobs lost, is not prosperity
23,136,000 Americans unemployed or stopped looking for work, is not prosperity
more than 30 jobs bills passed by the republican house and waiting action in the democratic senate, is not prosperity
Increasing the national debt an average of $1,250,000,000 per year for 4 years, is not prosperity

in January 2009 there were 133,560,000 Americans with jobs, and 31,980,000 on food stamps
today there are 133,760,000 with jobs and 46,680,000 on food stamps
that is less than 1% increase in jobs, 46% increase in food stamps
for every 10 Americans that found jobs, 735 applied for food stamps

we have had 43 straight months of unemployment of 8% or more
46.5 Million on food stamps
gas prices have doubled from $1.84 to $3.82
black youth unemployment over 50%
Hispanic unemployment over 10%
Illegals to receive $7Billion in unearned benefits
food prices up 25%
middle class has lost 33% of their net worth
worst job creation record since 1945
worst economic recovery in 75 years
Average household income down over $4,000/year
Average medical insurance cost up $1,500/year
Obama the only president in history to have the US credit downgraded (he did it twice)
over 100,000,000 Americans on some form of welfare
$6trillion added to national debt, more than every other president combined.

This may be your description of progress, but it looks like failure to me

@DrBill please don’t try to base your argument on numbers and math. It didn’t work so well the last time.

Dr. Bill, can you tell us what exactly you think was happening with the American economy in January 2009?

@Qingu
Yes we know the only way you can win any discussion is by changing the question to something of your liking. When someone (YOU) answers a question by asking another question, it is because they (YOU) have no answer.

The only reason it did not work the last time is because I could not dumb-down the question to a point where you could understand it.

@DrBill Lets go point by point…

more than 30 jobs bills passed by the republican house and waiting action in the democratic senate, is not prosperity – Ignore the ones that were blocked by the Republicans.

Increasing the national debt an average of $1,250,000,000 per year for 4 years, is not prosperity – Look not at dollars (which vary over time) but at percentages. There was a time where there wasn’t even $1.25 trillion on Earth. Obama did a better job than either Bush. However, Clinton did an even better job by increasing the debt less in 8 years than GW bush did in 4.

in January 2009 there were 133,560,000 Americans with jobs, and 31,980,000 on food stamps… today there are 133,760,000 with jobs and 46,680,000 on food stamps
that is less than 1% increase in jobs, 46% increase in food stamps for every 10 Americans that found jobs, 735 applied for food stamps – I work with people who, despite working 50+ hours a week, earn little enough to need (and qualify for) food stamps. You just made an argument for “Living Wage” laws! Also note that the trend has reversed; any increase in jobs is better than what we had under W.

we have had 43 straight months of unemployment of 8% or more – The Bush tax cuts were so that the rich would have more to invest, allowing companies to have more capital in order to grow and create jobs. You just discredited Republican “Supply Side” economics.

46.5 Million on food stamps – See above.

gas prices have doubled from $1.84 to $3.82 – Not a function of government. Notice how gas was over $5/gallon after Katrina though? Where was your outrage then? And note that oil companies have had record profits lately; that is, after subtracting their overhead from their revenue, they have more money than ever, and by a rather substantial percentage. How is that?

Illegals to receive $7Billion in unearned benefits – That is less benefits than major corporations and other tax-dodgers got. Hell, Bank of America earned far more than than for quasi-legal practices, and we won’t even get into what was going on on Wall Street.

food prices up 25% – Between inflation and some bad harvests, that is expected.

_middle class has lost 33% of their net worth

worst job creation record since 1945 – Dpends on which numbers you go by, but W’s second term was a net loss while the Sept 2012 nubers were a net gain. However, the fact remains that overall, Democrats have historically had better numbers than Republicans in job creation.

worst economic recovery in 75 years – With all of the obstructionism, I am surprised that the Republicans allowed any recovery at all.

Average household income down over $4,000/year – Government doesn’t control that; employers do.

Average medical insurance cost up $1,500/year – Government doesn’t do that either, and any effort that is made by government to do things to lower costs has been blocked by.. well, not by Democrats. Then again, the fact that our healthcare is by far rhe most expensive in the world despite being worse than some Third World nations has been an issue since before Obama. Straw man at best.

Obama the only president in history to have the US credit downgraded (he did it twice) – And efforts to stave that off led to Republicans taking our nation hostage.

over 100,000,000 Americans on some form of welfare – That includes children, the elderly, the disabled, the under-employed (those whose income cannot support them because their bosses are stingy), and all dependents thereof.

$6trillion added to national debt, more than every other president combined. – Given teh spike we saw near the end of W’s term, and how the rate of increase has slowed despite everything, I don’t read that as nearly as catastrophic as you do. But if you can justify W’s final year in office, I might indulge you by considering you credible enough to continue this discussion despite your other errors. Might.

@DrBill, the answer is simple. In January 2009, the economy was in freefall, suffering from Great Depression-style deflation, with bank runs a real risk, credit markets were frozen, and we were losing hundreds of thousands of jobs a month.

Therefore, only a moron would use January 2009 as a “status quo” starting place in judging the effectiveness of Obama’s policies.

That’s why I asked you that question. I wanted to see if you are just being dishonest or if you are simply ignorant of what was going on during the point of your post’s comparison.

@jerv it is so entertaining to watch you and your song and dance around the facts, like commenting on W’s presidency, when it was never in any of the facts. Even though if you want the facts including him, Obama increased the national debt an average of $1.25 Trillion every year, while Bush increased the national debt by $500Billion, which means Obama increased the national debt 2½times more than W. And you call that progress, I don’t.

@Qingu You will obviously make an excuse to try to dismiss a fact than admit to the fact. Only a complete moron would consider the leadership of a president without looking at his entire reign. But dishonesty and ignorance is more your area than mine. of course, calling names is a tool of the weak minded.

@DrBill Maybe I paid too much attention to the numbers from ‘08 and recognize that some things take time to reverse course, meaning that W’s policies had a strong effect on ‘09 and some on ‘10. If you disagree then you sure admitting that W turned a great budget into a lousy one since Clinton posted better numbers. Either Obama inherited problems from W, or W screwed up badly; which is it?

And your comments to @Qingu are even more disingenuous as you yourself are not looking at the whole reign of either Bush or other Republicans, only the best parts.

Just out of curiosity, is rolling the clock back on women’s rights progress? How about becoming less accepting of same-sex couples, reversing the trend towards acceptance? Is backwards the new progress?

^ 1952, the new future!

@jerv if you were paying attention during Bush, you would have noticed I was critical of his errors also. If your going to use the tired old story of Bush being the blame for Obama’s failures, then you have to blame Clinton for Bush’s, and so on.

And your statement ”Either Obama inherited problems from W, or W screwed up badly; which is it?” would be about the same as blaming Obama’s failures on his mother for not being pro-abortion and stopping the problem before it bankrupted Illinois and crippled the nation .

I’m sorry… exactly when did Obama start singlehandedly writing laws and passing them behind Congress’s back, or veto anything that could have possibly done any good whatsoever?

Because as I see it, it was Congress that shut down about eleventy-billion proposals that could have done some good, and passed a bunch of near-useless crap that Obama basically had to sign because the alternative was “do nothing at all”.

If I may interject here I’d like to address one of @Qingu‘s questions posed to me and perhaps clarify my apathy a bit.

Anyway, I’d like to have a discussion with you about your views. I disagree about the flat tax, I think such a tax structure drastically fucks over poor people.

I don’t view a flat tax as an end all to the deficit but I do see it as a strong beginning. I feel that I can shed some light on poor people getting fucked over as I am a poor person myself. In fact, I belong to the most fucked over poor people group. I am the working poor.

First of all, before any legislation can be passed to fix our current economic woes, the American population needs to fix it’s collective head. We need to become truly willing to tighten our belts and take a hit. This means every single citizen. Not 99% of us. Not 1% of us. All of us. Until this happens it doesn’t matter what party is in control, shit will never change.

What do I mean? Hang on, I’m getting to it.

During WWII folks rationed, grew victory gardens, and basically went without a lot of the time for the war effort. They did this because it was for the good of the country. We were in trouble and it was understood that a measure of hard times was required to ensure future prosperity. Americans did it, we won, and the rest is, well, history. We had a national crisis and we all pulled together and saw our way through it to, arguably, one of the most prosperous times in our country’s history.

To institute a true and fair flat tax we need a return to that type of mentality. I would be willing to pay 10% (a number I pulled out of my ass to make a point) as long as everyone paid 10%. No tax breaks, no loop holes, no EIC, every single man and woman, warning an income, would pay the same percentage of what they make. Entitlement programs would need to be restructured to require an individual to work to be eligible for benefits and unemployment would be taxed the same way.

Would this suck. Fuck yes it would, but if done the same across the board it would go a long way toward filling Americas coffers again.

I’m apathetic about government and voting because this will never fucking happen. Americans are more than happy to scream about what the Republican/Democrats are doing and how everything is a mess because of this side/that side, but when it comes down to any personal sacrifice to fix what they’re crying about all I ever hear is no fucking way. We want the problem fixed as long as we don’t have to do anything about it but flap our jaws.

Don’t believe me? Look at all the crying about unemployment. I don’t give a fuck what numbers you throw around and what sources you cite, there are jobs out there. They are just the jobs that nobody wants to do. They are the hard jobs. They are the physical labor jobs. They are the not having two new vehicles and a summer place in Tahoe jobs. They are shitty but they pay and they are jobs. A shitty paycheck is better than no paycheck at all.

10%? Try 30% Thirty percent is more like what we’d need to pay for current expenditures. Does that seem fair to you? Fair that you pay 30% of your inadequate income, and a person who makes a billion a year also pays only 30%, but still has 700 million left?

I don’t think that’s fair. Not one bit.

@wundayatta . . . Then make it 10% of your yearly net worth. I’m always ready to do something besides argue and bitch.

The rich make what they make and I make what I make. Do your part and quit worrying about what everybody else is doing. That’s another reason this country will never come together. We’re way too worried about the other guy to take solid stock of ourselves.

@DrBill That was a dig at you appearing to have it both ways. Either policies have long-lasting effects that take a while, or they start and stop quickly. That was all I meant by that.

And no, neither Obama nor Clinton, nor any other politician from either party has had a great record all across the board; I merely object to slamming one side while acting like Republican’s shit doesn’t stink. The only reason I don’t slam the Democrats myself is because they are not nearly as egregiously delusional as many modern Republicans. There is no real satisfaction in picking on benign incompetence when utter insanity is just begging to be knocked down a peg. When either the Republicans chill or the Democrats get uppity I will be a bit more equal opportunity.

@Blondesjon One important difference was that back then many CEOs only earned 30–50 times what their employees dd whereas today it’s often 500–1000; a far larger disparity. And that difference means that what worked well back then would not work as well today. Back then, it was like the poor driving a Ford while the rich drove Lincolns; now it’s like the poor using their bus fare to make rent while the rich drive a different Bugatti for every day of the week.
Now, Warren Buffet is one of the few rich people I can think of that really shows any sign of austerity; the man drove a Lincoln Town Car even though he could easily afford a fleet of Maybachs. The way I see it, he knows more about money that you or I ever will and he, along with many Nobel Prize winning economists disagree with the flat tax, and I would take their word over the word of ideologues who have a less-than-stellar track record on economic matters, fraught with failed theories and bad results.
Mr. Buffet supports the idea of shared sacrifice, and I am pretty sure that he has a better idea about how to do it fairly than any five Flutherites, so don’t be too offended if I take his word over your’s or most of those who share your position.

@jerv then why not point out the flaws on both sides? Heaven knows both sides have them.

@jerv . . . Flat tax. Shared sacrifice. Call it what you will none of it addresses the main point of what I posted. Nothing like that will ever happen because nobody is willing to make any sacrifices, let alone share them.

A perfect example is that you read my post and then looked for ways to pick apart my example instead of addressing the actual underlying theme. I reckon I should thank you for bolstering my point.

@Blondesjon, “I don’t give a fuck what numbers you throw around and what sources you cite, there are jobs out there.”

This is why I have so little respect for you.

You say you want a 10% flat tax, despite the fact that it’s 20% too low to cover our deficit. You just pulled the number out of your ass.

You say unemployed people are lazy and there are jobs out there, despite the objective fact that in many cases there aren’t. (There is such a thing as “being overqualified” in job applications; there are four unemployed for every job opening on average).

You don’t appear to be remotely curious about the facts involved in your beliefs. Maybe if you were more curious about facts, your beliefs would change.

And about this “shared sacrifice” bullshit.

You make let’s say 25k a year, I’m assuming most or all of it goes to rent, groceries, etc.

Mitt Romney makes 25 million a year, almost none of it going to rent, groceries, etc.

I don’t think making you pay 30% of your rent and grocery bills in taxes is a “shared sacrifice” in comparison to making Mitt Romney pay 30% of his stock investments.

As Inigo Montoya might say, “You keep on saying this word, ‘shared sacrifice.’ I do not think you know what it means.”

@Qingu . . . I believe I cited my ass in my post.

Again, you are missing the point. You simply want an argument and that’s great but no matter how hard you try, nobody is going to give you the kind of @Quingu is a genius attention you so obviously desire. I used to believe that you were being deliberately obtuse. Now I am beginning to realize that your sense of self is really that inflated.

I don’t care about a flat tax. I used it as an example to show that even bringing up an idea of changing the way we think as a nation and the way we not only run it, but contribute to it, only brings out the worst in people.

I reckon I oughta thank you too.

But a flat tax is a terrible example of the idea you claim to be promoting. If you knew anything about taxes, you would realize that.

And your idea is not revolutionary. It’s something that Obama and Romney constantly say. “Shared sacrifice.” “Tough decisions.” “Tighten our belts.” These are platitudes, not policy ideas. The policy ideas involve how they are implemented, and on this note you have demonstrated yourself to be clueless.

And you know, it’s fine to be clueless about stuff. I’m clueless about a lot of things. But I think it’s important to at least want to learn the facts, and base your beliefs on them. Not the other way around.

@DrBill The Democrats are starting to get ridiculous themselves, so it probably won’t be long before I do.

@Blondesjon You are correct that there is a problem with most people being unwilling to sacrifice. But bear in mind that you are talking to somebody who has occasionally missed work because they blew their gas money to make rent, so talking to me about sacrifice is a little dicey anyways. So, how many people like me would have to sacrifice basic subsistence on order to equal the benefit of having Mitt Romney alone pay the same tax rate (~28%) that my middle-class parents do?
Also note that some of the 47% who paid no taxes were actually in the top 1% income bracket. Shared sacrifice is shared, and there would be a lot less sacrificing required if some merely did their fair share.

@Qingu @wundayatta To be fair, @Blondesjon said, ”(a number I pulled out of my ass to make a point)”, which I took to mean that the actual number was likely wrong and merely chosen at random for the sake of illustration. The actual number doesn’t matter so much as it being the same number for all.

@jerv, did you just say that you have had to miss work because you didn’t have enough gas in your vehicle to get you there and you had to spend all of your money on your rent?

@jerv, I disagree, the number matters a lot. 10% is a tithe. 30% is a third of your goddamn income. If your income is small, that means your livelihood, your ability to feed your family. It negates the entire idea of “shared sacrifice” if you are asking poor people to sacrifice their ability to feed their family and rich people to sacrifice numbers that their hedge fund manager invests for them.

@Blondesjon I’m sorry, but your idea that if we talk just doesn’t cut it. The issues do matter. Policies do matter. We do talk. But if you won’t talk about facts and if you aren’t knowledgeable, then none of the talk matters. We can never agree on policy if you make up shit out of your ass and the rest of us are talking about economics.

I suspect that you just don’t want to be bothered. You don’t want to learn enough to be able to discuss policies sensibly. You would rather pull stuff out of your ass. But you don’t want to sound stupid, so you make it sound like you are taking a noble position by the two sides you are aware of equally.

It’s not noble, and it’s not a principled position. It’s a scrim behind which you do your ostrich act and hope that no one can tell the difference.

If you want to talk, then please talk about real issues that you actually know something about or are prepared to learn about. But to start a conversation and then dodge, saying you were just making up shit to illustrate a point that has no substance—that’s just jerking other folks around. Have fun with that. I’m not playing any more.

@Qingu . . . Again, you are missing the point. I’m not talking exclusively about taxes. I picked that as an example because it was first on your list. I’m talking about an entire change in the way people perceive not only what the government should do for them but what they should do for themselves. Abortion, foreign affairs, the economy, these are all just examples. Nothing will change until folks quit pointing their fucking fingers and take a look in the mirror. What you are doing, in your posts, on this thread, and elsewhere is exactly what I’m talking about when I talk about political “sides”. It is the number one reason why nothing will change and why folks are so disgusted with the government and political process.

Here are some examples of what both you and the political arena do that destroys any thinking man’s true hope of change:

1. There is no true listening to what is being said. There is only listening for the sake of finding a launching point for the next rebuttal. There is no keeping an ear open for anything that might mean true change. There is only listening for ways to prove that one is “right”.

2. There is always a huge parade of facts. Never mind that each side parades out their own facts. The side that “I’m” for is the true fact. We get it, y’all were the top of your high school debate teams. Good job?

3. If one speaks out against either side, or the system itself that not only sustains but encourages the above behavior, then one has their intelligence, sanity, or ethics called in to question.

4. The vehemence displayed by both sides of the political spectrum has become so ugly and evangelical that, if it wasn’t peppered with a few fucks here and there, I would think that I was watching The 700 Club.

Seriously, can you give me one concrete example, backed by facts, of what your anger, name calling, and presentation of the truth have done to actually better the world?

that’s what i thought.

In order to answer your question, @Blondesjon, I would have to understand what you would consider to be an improvement to the world.

All I can gather from your posts here is that you think the world would be much improved if people stopped arguing about how to improve it and looked in the mirror, whatever the hell that means.

I certainly don’t hold any illusions that I’ll change your mind about anything. You seem invested in the idea that you should not pick a side about anything, regardless of facts (because each side has their own facts, and how can you be expected to use your brain to figure out which facts are real?)

But maybe I’m wrong. Maybe one day you will participate in a Fluther question with the intent to actually learn something, or at least the intent to engage in actual discussion about an issue—rather than this bizarre meta-discussion about how we shouldn’t be having discussions about issues.

@bkcunningham Yes, I have been that bad off.
Those of you who live in the South or Midwest don’t grasp how that could be, but having spent most of my life in New England, I have never been in a position where rent, heat, and electric combined amounted to less than $1,000/month. And for much of my adult life, that has been at least 50% of my gross income, or (after deducting for stuff like health insurance) >80% of my net income.
Try feeding two adults, driving 60 miles a day, and maintaining said car, you can see how things might get tight, especially if anything goes wrong ever. Ever have to go to the doctor? Has your car ever required unexpected repairs? Or a registration renewal?
Yet, as bad as things got for me, I was better off than many millions of Americans even then. In fact, it was as huge step up from my early childhood where my mother could only feed herself or me, but not both of us. Ever spend a New England winter living in a panel truck?
I think you can see why I have such an issue when it comes to issues like poverty, financial aid (welfare, unemployment, etcetera…), living wages, and such; unlike most of those who criticize the non-self-sufficient, I have actually been there. It’s not laziness, lack of drive, lack of skill, or anything like that that leaves one hard up, and I vehemently resent any implications to the contrary, especially from people whose idea of hardship is having to drive a BMW 735 instead of a 750.
That said, I fully support a hand up rather than a handout, and that luxuries must be earned; I am not a Socialist! I merely am a bit more understanding of the circumstances of the less-than-well-off.

@Qingu I am well aware of that. I am merely pointing out that I interpreted the remark as trying to make a point. Would you have been as riled if the original remark was X% instead of a specific number? Now, if we agreed to institute flat tax, then the number would become vitally important, but until then, the number is irrelevant. See where I am coming from now?

@jerv
When you said @DrBill The Democrats are starting to get ridiculous themselves, so it probably won’t be long before I do.

too late

All I can gather from your posts here is that you think the world would be much improved if people stopped arguing about how to improve it and looked in the mirror, whatever the hell that means.

Now we’re back to being deliberately obtuse.

@DrBill When it comes to being ridiculous, Republicans set the bar pretty high. Their gaffs are fewer than the “legitimate rape” crowd, and they are truer to their ideals than the “less government… except in the uterus, bedroom, foreign soil, libraries, internet, and everywhere else except the boardroom” hypocrites.
I have more serious issues with utter cognitive dissonance than with mere ineptitude, and the Dems still haven’t quite gone totally fucking “I’m Napoleon!”, wear-a-duck-on-your-head crazy yet.

@jerv
The bar may be set high, but you managed to clear it with lots of room to spare.

@DrBill ~Viva la Ad Hominem!

I guess a merit-based argument for a rebuttal was too much to ask.

@jerv
I won’t have a battle of wits with an unarmed person. You don’t have the ability to answer a question asked without changing the question. Maybe you should be a politician, you already have the talent of dancing around a question so you never answer it routine.

/eyeroll

moving on…

@Blondesjon Sadly, you are correct. People in general do not like their beliefs challenged. And yes, people find “facts” that support their argument, or misstate things to suit their agenda. In that regard, I expect a bit of spin, but draw the line at utter fabrication. And, as has been shown above, “Straw man” arguments are common. There are facts, “facts”, and utter bullshit.

I freely admit that I myself am not immune. I try to listen, to see both sides and weigh the merits of all arguments, etcetera. But how can one listen to stuff like, “The poor choose to be poor!”, especially when you yourself were poor and not by choice? And when you hear stuff like that from one particular camp all the time and relatively little of that from the other, it’s rather hard not to at least give the appearance of taking sides, at least in a society where the two-party mentality is practically written into our DNA.

As for your final point, a human can only hold in so much frustration, rage, and similar emotion without venting. Think of the anger and name-calling as a safety valve to keep people from exploding. Better to get on the internet and yell every day than to save it up for a while then go on a killing spree.

[mod says] Flame off, folks. No need to make this so personal.

@jerv . . . Tru dat.