[quote name='mdwh' timestamp='1354110934' post='5004958']
One of the problems in "clamping down" is that it just makes things much harder for everyone, not just the few exploiting the system.

I am not a fan of this excuse. If you are unemployed seeking welfare and are not disabled, it should be a little bit hard. Able bodied people should never get something for nothing.[/quote]I said "much harder" you said "a little bit hard". I have no problem with it being a little bit hard. But it's already hard (in the UK, at least). No need to make it harder.

Indeed, you exemplify the point I was making - people are happy to call for things to be made harder, because they seem under the illusion that it's currently really easy, so they think it's only going to make it "a little bit hard", not knowing how things currently are.

And the disabled do not get exempt either, because even if people think that extra checks should only be for the able-bodied, the Government then introduces extra checks where people have to prove that they are disabled.

The Chinese are diligent, and they have been working hard on getting ownership on anything they could grasp, reducing fertility, and increasing the incidence of obesity and diabetes for three decades. You don't seriously believe that decades of phtalates, lead, mercury, and other stealthy poisons in exported baby toys are purely accidential, do you? You don't assume that exporting high-arsenic high-glucose rice and keeping/importing (e.g. from India) the low-arsenic-low-glucose one for one's self is an incident? You don't believe that the massive increase (during the last decade) of corn starch addition to nearly every food that you can buy in a supermarket was a coincidence?

Wow, not only paranoid, but borderline racist too!

American Progressive:
Progressives want government to have a great deal of power over the economy and individual behavior. They frequently doubt whether economic liberty and individual freedom are practical options in today's world. Progressives tend to distrust the free market, support high taxes and centralized planning of the economy, oppose diverse lifestyles, and question the importance of civil liberties.

While some of this is true, you have a couple of fundamental misunderstandings.

First up, progressives want the right amount of government. Not "big government". They do not want government to have "great deal of power over individual behavior". Over the economy? Hell, yes. Look at where getting rid of Glass Stegall has gotten you. And the "disastrous Progressive Era"? You mean the 50 or so years that heralded some of mankinds greatest advancements in science, culture, civil rights and prosperity? God forbid we go back to that.

Second, progressives do not "oppose diverse lifestyles, and question the importance of civil liberties".

That's conservatives (by definition).

Conservatives are the ones who don't want to give equal rights to homosexuals. Conservatives are the ones who believe that women shouldn't have control over their own
bodies.

Freedom is not just the right to do whatever you like. It's also about protecting rights.

Libertarians believe that businesses should be free to discriminate by race, gender, sexual orientation. Progressives believe you should be free from such discrimination.
Libertarians believe that businesses should be free to conduct their business how they see fit. Progressives believe that people and the environment should be free from corporate threats.

You've got a far-right party and a centre-right party, and the whole system is designed so that they're your only two choices.

That's largely because of the dominance of corporate interests.


Clinton

First up, progressives want the right amount of government. Not "big government".

Everybody wants "the right amount of government". The disagreement is on what that amount is.

[quote name='ChaosEngine' timestamp='1354227799' post='5005474']
First up, progressives want the right amount of government. Not "big government".

Everybody wants "the right amount of government". The disagreement is on what that amount is.
[/quote]

Yes, but the accusation levelled at left wing people is that they want government to run every aspect of their lives and it's simply not true.

My issue is not with quantifying how much government, it's with the misrepresentation of the stance.

View PostJacob Jingle, on 29 November 2012 - 10:48 AM, said:
American Progressive:
Progressives want government to have a great deal of power over the economy and individual behavior. They frequently doubt whether economic liberty and individual freedom are practical options in today's world. Progressives tend to distrust the free market, support high taxes and centralized planning of the economy, oppose diverse lifestyles, and question the importance of civil liberties.

While some of this is true, you have a couple of fundamental misunderstandings.

First up, progressives want the right amount of government. Not "big government". They do not want government to have "great deal of power over individual behavior". Over the economy?

What the Democrats(Left wing of Progressive Party) don't want the Republicans(Right wing of Progressive Party) do. (All my comments are in the context of America, I don't know or care about progressives from other countries. None of my business)

Hell, yes. Look at where getting rid of Glass Stegall has gotten you.

I would say world governments dumping trillions into the housing market had more to do with it. (They stole from Peter, used the money to bankrupt Paul and bailed out Nero)
http://www.american.com/archive/2012/august/five-myths-about-glass-steagall

And the "disastrous Progressive Era"? You mean the 50 or so years that heralded some of mankinds greatest advancements in science, culture, civil rights and prosperity?

You might want to turn off the blinders and see what this period really brought to America.

God forbid we go back to that.

Again, that period might have been good for your country, but It was anything but Progressive for America (Eugenics, Statism, Segregation, internment camps, etc).

Second, progressives do not "oppose diverse lifestyles, and question the importance of civil liberties".

Affirmative action, racial quotas, the right to be married in any church, redistribution of wealth, etc. Progressives see nothing wrong with taking freedom/liberty from one to give to another. (Again, American context)

That's conservatives (by definition).

The Neo-Conservative movement, which is what you're talking about, is nothing more than the right wing of the Progressive Party. Classical Conservatism is dead.

Note: the Progressive Era gave us gays being thrown into insane asylums where they suffered lobotomies, castrations, etc. It was a regressive period.

if all money that the goverment pays to people were spent, the goverment would not need other money.
Demonstration:
State pays 1000euro to unemployed. He then spends them all.(point A) The subjects he spent money to pay revenue income tax-10% . 900 dolars are left that state yet does not have . Now those subjects have this money -taxed valid revenue. They spent them, (we are moving to point A).... And so on limiting to 0. Thus all 1000euro returns to state, and the state can pay 1000euro to the unemployed again.

Now the problem I think is that the subjects does not spend them, rather save them, more over, borrow those saved money to state, becouse state is screwed becouse of the unspent money. State gets those money that were supposed to return as a loan from the subjects that cummulated such money they could not even spend them (where would 1 person spend 1trilion?). And becouse state cannot pay the loan interest (where from?), it borrows again and more from FED who prints the money in order to satisfy loan interest. This highers up inflation and such. What I would do is that I would use all money US has to pay the complete debt. Then, with public finance on 0, I would turn to FED to borrow big budget once, which would then circulate and recyclate, but how to achieve, that it would all recyclate, is not known to me becouse you cannot assure that some of the money will not be saved. Only solution I see is to ban public banks, and have only one bank belonging to state, thus all savings would go there- so state could spend them right away, and if the client asks for money, he will get them right away (obviously).
One catche would be raised: The client who is given money back can:
- spend them abroad- if they will be printed back, no problem no inflation for US, but it will couse inflating the abroad compensated client.
The US will not be able to accept dolars from abroad citizens and no foreign businessman will be willing to be compensated by dolars.
Solution is one. No abroads- one world bank- one currency. Illuminati's agenda. They are working for our wealth. Crazy, everyone thinks that all those powerfull families with tons of trilions are thinking on how to get richer, no, they care for us all. God bless them.

The official tax rate is 39.6% for the top 2%. With the Bush tax cuts it is 33 ~ 34%. I would think that making the official tax rate 29.6% (and this is assuming the Bush and Obama tax cuts have completely expired) for the top 2% (and subsequently lowering the tax rate for everyone else according). Would be a good thing. But for that to happen, other taxes would have to rise and tax loopholes/breaks/credit would have to be removed. Ex: Capital gains, dividends, subsidies. Personally, I would start removing the tax loopholes that benefits the top 2% and my way down to the middle class as a way offset the lowering of the tax rate.

This way, in theory, everyone wins. Taxes aren't raised on anyone. Tax loopholes are closed. Revenue is raised.

So economy experts... tell me why my plan won't work. Or sucks in general.

The official tax rate is 39.6% for the top 2%. With the Bush tax cuts it is 33 ~ 34%. I would think that making the official tax rate 29.6% (and this is assuming the Bush and Obama tax cuts have completely expired) for the top 2% (and subsequently lowering the tax rate for everyone else according). Would be a good thing. But for that to happen, other taxes would have to rise and tax loopholes/breaks/credit would have to be removed. Ex: Capital gains, dividends, subsidies. Personally, I would start removing the tax loopholes that benefits the top 2% and my way down to the middle class as a way offset the lowering of the tax rate.

This way, in theory, everyone wins. Taxes aren't raised on anyone. Tax loopholes are closed. Revenue is raised.

So economy experts... tell me why my plan won't work. Or sucks in general.

The biggest arguments against such a plan are that there isn't enough money in top tier tax loopholes to cover a whole lot in tax reductions, though I don't know if a 29% tax rate is fully "recoverable" that way or not. Also, a lot of the tax breaks that disproportionately favor the very wealthy also help middle class people as well and so adjustments to them are effective tax increases on everyone and can't be targeted so precisely.

Every tax break and loophole has defenders with powerful influences in government-- the loopholes came from somewhere in the first place. And an increase in tax burden has similar effects on individuals' finances whether it's due to a rate increase or removal of deductions, even though there are differences between them in terms of broader economic impacts.

This is basically what Romney's tax proposal was, though with the numbers he picked it was mathematically impossible to do without raising rates on a lot of people. I'm all for a simpler and clearer tax code but there are powerful interests that will ensure that doesn't happen.

The biggest arguments against such a plan are that there isn't enough money in top tier tax loopholes to cover a whole lot in tax reductions, though I don't know if a 29% tax rate is fully "recoverable" that way or not. Also, a lot of the tax breaks that disproportionately favor the very wealthy also help middle class people as well and so adjustments to them are effective tax increases on everyone and can't be targeted so precisely.

Well (I had a typo in my post) my suggestion was to remove the tax breaks starting from the ones that benefits the top 2% to the middle class, if necessary. That would simplify the tax code, bring up more revenue, and make it cheap to do actual business. More money in the pocket of consumers and businesses means more money spent. Which is more money for the states. Less of a burden on the federal government. And most likely with a leaner, simplified tax code with a lower rate, it means less tax refunds the government has to pay out.

Every tax break and loophole has defenders with powerful influences in government-- the loopholes came from somewhere in the first place. And an increase in tax burden has similar effects on individuals' finances whether it's due to a rate increase or removal of deductions, even though there are differences between them in terms of broader economic impacts.[/quote]
Well I ignored that because we're talking about solutions. The probablility of such a solution passing Congress and the President is another matter entirely.

This is basically what Romney's tax proposal was, though with the numbers he picked it was mathematically impossible to do without raising rates on a lot of people. I'm all for a simpler and clearer tax code but there are powerful interests that will ensure that doesn't happen.
[/quote]
Romney's tax proposal was vague at best and promised too many things that it couldn't deliver.