Meeting America: The Deep Political Divide

a reply to: LDragonFire

And no guest workers until the internal unemployment rates reach a certain level. Right now, there are too many people who would like work and can't find it for me to think a Guest Worker program is a good idea. So, it has to be tied to internal unemployment. Hire the college grads before you start importing foreign college grads.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: sheepslayer247

Taxes.

End this class division bull spit!

End loopholes.
Everyone pays.

You won't have to constantly raise taxes then.

Good topic. Now since we need to get everyone to pay, what sort of tax would ensure that happens? Income taxes would benefit those with no income, as they would not have an income to report.

A consumption tax maybe? A flat tax?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: oblvion

Flat tax for all. I can get behind, and tie the budget to the tax receipts they absolutely cannot exceed the intake. So if the economy dips and 15% brings in less, they have to budget and make do with less. If it brings in more, then let them use more.

Oh you mean like the rest of us have to make our budgets work?

That is one hell of a very good idea.

I wish one of these "smart" folks in politics would think of it.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: LDragonFire

And no guest workers until the internal unemployment rates reach a certain level. Right now, there are too many people who would like work and can't find it for me to think a Guest Worker program is a good idea. So, it has to be tied to internal unemployment. Hire the college grads before you start importing foreign college grads.

Once again, I wish one of these "smart" folks in politics would think of this.

Please run for president, you got my vote no matter what.

a reply to: oblvion

I like the flat tax idea, but how do we get those with no income to pay up? A consumption tax, where you are taxed on how much you spend, seems like a good alternative. It would allow you to take home all of your hard-earned cash and would limit the government's income based on the strength of the economy.

originally posted by: sheepslayer247

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: sheepslayer247

Taxes.

End this class division bull spit!

End loopholes.
Everyone pays.

You won't have to constantly raise taxes then.

Good topic. Now since we need to get everyone to pay, what sort of tax would ensure that happens? Income taxes would benefit those with no income, as they would not have an income to report.

A consumption tax maybe? A flat tax?

I like the no payroll tax but a sales tax. Then everytime these guys buy, they pay. It has to extend to all sectors though.

No payroll tax, just a flat sales tax on all sales, stocks, bonds...etc i mean everything.

a reply to: oblvion

A consumption/sales tax seems to be the most fair and reasonable. If you want to pay less in taxes, watch your spending. No loopholes or benefits for certain groups of people, like people married, with children or the wealthy.

That would also endure that those that do not report an income or have no income at all will pay their fair share.

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
a reply to: oblvion

A consumption/sales tax seems to be the most fair and reasonable. If you want to pay less in taxes, watch your spending. No loopholes or benefits for certain groups of people, like people married, with children or the wealthy.

That would also endure that those that do not report an income or have no income at all will pay their fair share.

It is at present the only logical option.

You get them at POS(point of sale for the business disinclined), there is no escape.

All goods bought in America must pay the sales tax in America. There are no loopholes.

Even the druggies selling crack on the corner cant escape this tax, it will be fair across the board to all, well as fair as fair minded folks can figure it at present.

All will pay into the system.

Now after we get our finances in order.........guys we need a good old fashioned house cleaning.

I am not the one to say this goes this stays, I know I am not the one. I bet that there is at least one ATSer here though that does know how to make it work out the right way.

My suggestion is to get rid of all the appointees that are fiat permanent government, they are the problem, no matter who we elect, these same scum get "appointed" to these posts that screw us all.

They have to go, then the politicos, then we can make a positive change.

As usual just my 2 cents, ignoring is probably your best option. I am nobody to decide these things, I just believe I can tell right from wrong when I see it.

I have always thought that our current crisis and every crisis in this country could be resolved to about a 95% solution if 80% of us did two things:

1. Live our lives according to rational and critical thought based on the best reality-based evidence available to us.

2. Take responsibility for our actions and situation and stop blaming anyone or anything else.

Heck I believe today that if even 50% of us did that, at least 70% of the problems would go away.

a reply to: sheepslayer247

Just make sure it NEVER crosses the line into a VAT tax. Once we open the door to that, then we have the same room for all the problems we have with today's tax code.

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
a reply to: MarlinGrace

Yes, we do need to address the causes of our problems. Once we do that, are we going to be able to move forward without pointing fingers and placing blame?

Also, are we willing to compromise and set aside certain beliefs to come to a solution?

Some beliefs are so deep seated compromise might be a very hard sell indeed. But at least addressing the cause of these problems starts the discussion off one the same footing for all. This allows for the complete dismissal of confusion when discussing difficult topics while trying to remove emotion from the topic.

Roe v Wade, abortion, abortion pills, ACA, and others are all the same discussion but completely different topics. A thread like this helps in starting off on the right foot while difficult to keep on topic with the injection of emotion. We need to think with our heads instead of our hearts.

a reply to: MarlinGrace

Agreed, Marlin.

Can we set aside our deep-seeded beliefs to come to a compromise on issues like abortion? Will religion or politics stand in the way of that conversation, or is there no hope on that front?

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
a reply to: MarlinGrace

Agreed, Marlin.

Can we set aside our deep-seeded beliefs to come to a compromise on issues like abortion? Will religion or politics stand in the way of that conversation, or is there no hope on that front?

Well my friend, as soon as they develop a keyboard that strips away the emotional content from the discussion. At times I have had a moment of weakness and suffered the same affliction, and that never helps. It is something I work at regularly, and hope to improve.

a reply to: sheepslayer247

Well, when it comes to abortion, my position is always the same one: a human being is guaranteed a right to his or her life. That is unalienable. What needs to be established is where that life begins. Some people say it doesn't happen until a baby exits the womb, but I believe that is an argument of convenience, not one based on any real fact. Babies are born at all differing times and what makes the baby born earlier than his or her compatriot more or less human than the one who is the same age but still inside the uterus?

And if we are trying to grant a child humanity based on criteria that are determined by something other than birth, it can get pretty scary. There are some how say it relies on factors that would make a baby not human until it reaches some years of age, for example. While others will tell you it relies on self-sufficiency which means there are some who will never become human or might lose their humanity through an accident or illness or simply old age.

So, for me it always comes back to that human life beginning at some point before a baby is actually born, and how we determine when that point is because at that point, no one should be able to arbitrarily strip a person's life from them without significant factors involved beyond simple convenience.

So, there. I just mentioned my entire position on abortion without once mentioning religion or politics. It is possible to do, but more of the times, those two things will be thrown back at you to delegitimize your positions.

a reply to: ketsuko

I can respect that position. It's tough to make a decision on such a controversial topic.

When it comes to abortion, I have always thought that it is best to look at the numbers. Abortion is rare. Very few people take that route....but some do. While I would never consider allowing it in my life, I can understand that there are circumstances that may warrant such an action. But those are rare as well.

So couldn't we compromise and allow the people in those rare circumstances to make that decision?

a reply to: sheepslayer247

The thing about abortion is, it's personal. It doesn't get more government hands on than legislating what a woman can do with her own body. I personally would never have one unless my life was in danger (I have a living child that needs me) or the quality of life of the baby would be bad. However, my opinion on the matter should never effect another woman or girl's life.

The horrific truth of the matter is that making abortion illegal or hard to find a place to have the procedure done (hello Texas) does not stop a woman from trying to abort. There are herbs to take that females of all species have eaten from the dawn of each species. Then there's coat hangers (that's not a meme, women and girls will do this if desperate), both methods can lead to horrible things. It's better to keep abortion legal and accessible. No one's religion or beliefs should affect my life or my body. It's that simple and women by and large are NEVER going to compromise on this. Nor should we.

a reply to: Kali74

It definitely is a tough topic. Considering that it's pretty rare and there are cases in which an abortion may be necessary, I think it may be best to err on the side of personal freedoms instead of making it completely illegal.

Do you think others would be willing to come to a compromise on that, or would their religion, for example, get in the way?

a reply to: sheepslayer247

I think some would compromise but enough? I doubt it.

What if, and I realize this is an earthshaking idea ... what if we all just applied our personal beliefs to our personal behaviors and allowed others to do the same?

If you believe that abortion is murder, or a sin, then don't have an abortion.

If you believe that same sex marriage is an abomination, or a sin, then don't marry someone of your same sex.

Just two examples from the current "culture wars" that could be obliterated if we all took responsibility for ourselves and allowed others the same privilege ...

a reply to: Gryphon66

I can agree with that, but we would have to make sure that the laws in place reflected that "freedom" to protect people.

Abortion would have to be completely legal, gay marriages would have to have equal protection under the law as hetero-marriages...etc.

It's a great idea, but we would have to talk the politicians in to changing the laws to fit that idea.