How to fix it.

[candycorn]

"...having 2 parties causes a NATURAL roadblock to the function of Congress and allows each party to SWEAR it's gonna resolve the Congressional rules and open up the process. When they achieve power -- nothing happens. Even a token amount of 3rd party and Independent representatives would shed light on the issues. A disloyal party member right now has no where to go if they defy Party leadership. If they speak out or don't toe the line, they will be operating out of closet 5 blocks from Capitol Hill and facing a Party backed candidate in the next primary.. This party ALLEGIANCE would be broken down as soon as Americans understand there is no REQUIREMENT to vote either REP or DEM. You make easier for representatives to DEFY their party and run as INDEPENDENTS or 3rd party and a lot of your problems here simply go away... Better politicians, Better Voters, Better parties. Don't blame the Constitution."

This is more 'where it's at'.

I asked this earlier and I am sure it's in there somewhere. I just didn't see it....

Can someone direct me to the Article/Section of the Constitution that says that you need the majority of the body to approve a bill? Like we need 51 senators and 218 Reps currently to pass anything.

I'm sure somewhere it says there needs to be a majority...can someone show me where?

As for a 3rd party; you'll just end up with another "in it for me" group of legislators.

 

[there4eyeM]

It would be logical that agreements would have to be forged for majorities. That alone breaks the stranglehold of 'the two'.
As for the total number of parties; correct me if I'm wrong but I believe at the very beginning there was only one.

 

[FA_Q2]

Honestly, I believe that much of what you posted can be fixed in a much simpler manner (though much harder to pass) by simply abolishing the party system that we have in this country. I do agree that congressional districts are asinine. I believe that simply requiring them to be drawn as simple geometric shapes rather than the crazy lines that are drawn currently. That is simpler than a ‘lottery’ or parsing them out by zip codes where population densities could be a massive problem in making the districts even. Simply requiring them to be simple shapes can fix most of the gerrymandering.

Well, propotional representation becomes a problem. I'm not tied to the zip code method. We could use any sort of methodology (Area Codes, counties usually have precincts for law enforecement purposes, even counties but the most populous counties will throw it out of whack all together).

Either way, we can agree that the process of selecting lines is currently corrupted and needs some basic fixes.

Coincidentally, some fixes already exist in the form of laws that do not allow redistricting to influence elections. Unfortunately, such laws are totally ignored. That is why changing the system, as you are suggesting is required.

I do like the idea about requiring legislation passed by one house to actually see a vote in the other. The blocking that is going on now is asinine. The reality is that has nothing to do with the constitution though. That is a rather easy fix. It surprises me that this is a problem anyway. Those bills that are blocked by the 2 ‘leaders’ (I use that term very loosely) have no chance of passing the their respective houses anyway so why not get the damn things out of the way? Again though, getting rid of parties would eliminate that problem anyway as it would eliminate the uncontested problem as well.

I have given up trying to get rid of group-think among our legislators; it's here to stay I'm afraid. The greatest thing to happen to the modern US would be to abolish political parties. I agree. However, save for that incredibly unlikely event....you need rules to keep the parties in check.

If you think about the BCS in college football, it closely resembles the political landscape; everything done under the BCS was to benefit the conferences (parties--if you will) and the greater good of college football was often poorly served by that.

If you have given up on groupthink then I fear you have given up on actual and real solutions It may look rather hopeless because the system is rather broken as it is but that does not make things impossible. The solutions that you are putting forth are going to be no harder than removing parties. As a matter of fact, it may even be easier because you do not actually need congress to get this done. The voters have the power to do this if they would only wake up from the us vs them mentality that they are currently stuck in.

Most of our other problems could be fixed by actually following the constitution in the first place as well. I truly do believe in the separation of powers and that does not only mean the 3 branches of government. The states have been basically reduced to managerial aspects of the federal government rather than sovereign entities in themselves and I find that unacceptable. The federal government should not have the ability to block grant funds to states after collecting the money for whatever pet project they want them to follow along with or refuse funds if the states do not capitulate to their demands. That system has corrupted one of the balances that we have and diminished the system as a whole. The federal government has a place as do the state governments. That is not to say that state law should override federal law. It is to say that state law has a place and federal law has a place.

The other thing I would inject is that one area that is not covered is tax law. I do believe that an amendment needs to be put in place that prevents tax breaks favoring any company or industry. Corporate welfare is corrupting the entire system and the only way to address it IMHO is to deal with the source; the ability for politicians to pander to companies for special tax considerations.

I can't agree with that. New technologies need a hand and the only one that can risk lending a hand in some cases is the federal government. There should be incrediby tight rules as to the payment of these funds however.

New tech is NOT helped by tax fixing. It is actually hurt by such practices and there is NEVER a time when any company ‘needs’ to be helped by government fixing the market. There is a place for government in technology and it is most certainly NOT in propping up failed tech, paying off corporate boondoggles and creating false demand.

It vexes me that people can so clearly see that corporate interests in our government and election system is so corrupting and bad yet not realize that this is not only part of the problem but one of the MAJOR sources of it. As long as you hold that congress should be in the business of fixing taxes for specific entities the big guys will have major influence in our elections and politicians. Citizens united does not matter in the face of this. Our politicians were no more bought off then as they are now, they are just more expensive now.

Now, as far as the government role in technology goes, there is a place for this. It is not in Solyndra or other companies. It is not in giving money to the oil industry. It is not in fixing taxes for ‘green’ water heaters or paying people to buy new cars. It is solely in the R&D department. Grants to actual scientists or research groups whose sole purpose is actual research and not corporate structure or selling a product. There is a place for government and technology and that place has worked before. What does not work and has continued to fail is the never ending proposition of supporting specific businesses.

You stated:

New technologies need a hand and the only one that can risk lending a hand in some cases is the federal government.

Then why are most of these schemes directed at big banks, big agro and big oil. No, tax schemes do not help new tech, they help big donors and that is all they will ever serve.

 

[FA_Q2]

I'd go for those... The Line Item Veto is one that just MIGHT fly thru ratification.

Welcome to the board.

I used to like the idea of a line item veto. Recently I heard a good argument by a congressmen that swayed me though. The basic premise is that, in order for our government to work, there must be compromise between the congress and the president. IOW, there are times when neither the congress or the president are capable of getting important legislation through that they want to pass because the other disagrees with it. If a compromise is met and sent to the president, he can either agree with the compromised bill that will include pieces from both sides or he can veto it. If he has the line item power, then he can simply veto the compromises that were made and pass what he wanted to in the first place. This gives the president a hell of a lot of power over congress and can cause an even larger impasse than we currently have. It is not a good idea. This is a rough outline of what was said and I am not articulating it well but I hope you get the idea.

Besides, do you actually think that Obama needs MORE power over the bills that he sees than he has now? If you don’t think Obama should have greater power than neither should any other presedent.

States only ever take money from the federal government.

? I did not say differently. What is your point with this.

The role of corps is going to be big this century. Our thinking will have to match. We cant afford to be the only country in the world without tax lobbying

Actually, sure we can. The idea that we cannot compete without offering specific companies cash is asinine and flat out wrong. We don’t need a convoluted BS system that we have, we need something simple and a tax rate that is competitive. You can compete.

 

[antagon]

I'd go for those... The Line Item Veto is one that just MIGHT fly thru ratification.

Welcome to the board.

I used to like the idea of a line item veto. Recently I heard a good argument by a congressmen that swayed me though. The basic premise is that, in order for our government to work, there must be compromise between the congress and the president. IOW, there are times when neither the congress or the president are capable of getting important legislation through that they want to pass because the other disagrees with it. If a compromise is met and sent to the president, he can either agree with the compromised bill that will include pieces from both sides or he can veto it. If he has the line item power, then he can simply veto the compromises that were made and pass what he wanted to in the first place. This gives the president a hell of a lot of power over congress and can cause an even larger impasse than we currently have. It is not a good idea. This is a rough outline of what was said and I am not articulating it well but I hope you get the idea.

Besides, do you actually think that Obama needs MORE power over the bills that he sees than he has now? If you don’t think Obama should have greater power than neither should any other presedent.

States only ever take money from the federal government.

? I did not say differently. What is your point with this.

The role of corps is going to be big this century. Our thinking will have to match. We cant afford to be the only country in the world without tax lobbying

Actually, sure we can. The idea that we cannot compete without offering specific companies cash is asinine and flat out wrong. We don’t need a convoluted BS system that we have, we need something simple and a tax rate that is competitive. You can compete.

Businesses do not want tax simplicity. They want the government to understand their challenges and adapt to them. There is a small group of private citizens advocating simpler tax, but they don't file complicated taxes, and should bow out of the situation at the expense of screwing something up.

The corporate world declares, "no taxation without representation", with the footnote that the homely lady at the teaparty rally cheering on a flat-tax speaker is not representative of corporate America. Instead, they have lobbyists. Some of those lobbies specifically address taxes.

About the states, I thought that you asserted that the feds shouldn't withhold funds from states after states forked out dough to the feds. They're all government - one and the same to me.

 

[FA_Q2]

Exactly..

Except for the point of requiring a vote on the other house's work.. There is no point wasting Deliberative debate IF there's not a chance of passage or reconcilation.
And the politicians would still have excuses for voting both ways on an issue because of interim votes on a particular bill.

The point of that is to prevent one person from exercising to much control though. Do you believe that it’s all right for Reid to decide (alone) that a bill is not to see the floor even though it might have a chance to pass? Same goes for Boehner? Should they decide what actually gets a vote regardless of the chances to pass?

 

[FA_Q2]

"...having 2 parties causes a NATURAL roadblock to the function of Congress and allows each party to SWEAR it's gonna resolve the Congressional rules and open up the process. When they achieve power -- nothing happens. Even a token amount of 3rd party and Independent representatives would shed light on the issues. A disloyal party member right now has no where to go if they defy Party leadership. If they speak out or don't toe the line, they will be operating out of closet 5 blocks from Capitol Hill and facing a Party backed candidate in the next primary.. This party ALLEGIANCE would be broken down as soon as Americans understand there is no REQUIREMENT to vote either REP or DEM. You make easier for representatives to DEFY their party and run as INDEPENDENTS or 3rd party and a lot of your problems here simply go away... Better politicians, Better Voters, Better parties. Don't blame the Constitution."

This is more 'where it's at'.

I asked this earlier and I am sure it's in there somewhere. I just didn't see it....

Can someone direct me to the Article/Section of the Constitution that says that you need the majority of the body to approve a bill? Like we need 51 senators and 218 Reps currently to pass anything.

I'm sure somewhere it says there needs to be a majority...can someone show me where?

As for a 3rd party; you'll just end up with another "in it for me" group of legislators.

As far as I can tell, it simply is not there. I was rather surprised but I cannot find it.

 

[FA_Q2]

I'd go for those... The Line Item Veto is one that just MIGHT fly thru ratification.

Welcome to the board.

I used to like the idea of a line item veto. Recently I heard a good argument by a congressmen that swayed me though. The basic premise is that, in order for our government to work, there must be compromise between the congress and the president. IOW, there are times when neither the congress or the president are capable of getting important legislation through that they want to pass because the other disagrees with it. If a compromise is met and sent to the president, he can either agree with the compromised bill that will include pieces from both sides or he can veto it. If he has the line item power, then he can simply veto the compromises that were made and pass what he wanted to in the first place. This gives the president a hell of a lot of power over congress and can cause an even larger impasse than we currently have. It is not a good idea. This is a rough outline of what was said and I am not articulating it well but I hope you get the idea.

Besides, do you actually think that Obama needs MORE power over the bills that he sees than he has now? If you don’t think Obama should have greater power than neither should any other presedent.

? I did not say differently. What is your point with this.

The role of corps is going to be big this century. Our thinking will have to match. We cant afford to be the only country in the world without tax lobbying

Actually, sure we can. The idea that we cannot compete without offering specific companies cash is asinine and flat out wrong. We don’t need a convoluted BS system that we have, we need something simple and a tax rate that is competitive. You can compete.

Businesses do not want tax simplicity. They want the government to understand their challenges and adapt to them. There is a small group of private citizens advocating simpler tax, but they don't file complicated taxes, and should bow out of the situation at the expense of screwing something up.

Correction, BIG businesses do not want simple taxes. That is mostly because they do not want to give up their special tax shelters and sweetheart deals. That is not to say businesses should not be able to write off expenditures or have tax filing options that are unique to the needs of businesses over individuals BUT they do not need special treatment beyond that. If they cannot succeed without special treatment from the government then they should fail, simple as that.

Quite frankly, I don’t care what businesses want anyway. Why do you think that business should be given special treatment and the public’s money to operate?

The corporate world declares, "no taxation without representation", with the footnote that the homely lady at the teaparty rally cheering on a flat-tax speaker is not representative of corporate America. Instead, they have lobbyists. Some of those lobbies specifically address taxes.

About the states, I thought that you asserted that the feds shouldn't withhold funds from states after states forked out dough to the feds. They're all government - one and the same to me.

Maybe I misspoke (or typed ) I did not mean the states forked out that cash. The PEOPLE are overtaxed by the feds who, in turn trickle that money back to the states and then use it to coerce the states to follow along. A good example of this (and I believe the best known) is South Dakota v. Dole.
South Dakota v. Dole - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By doing this, you have effectively removed all idea of state sovereignty or power to define local laws. Sure, the constitution gives the states authority over some matters BUT no actual power exists anymore because the feds can withhold funding to force the issue. Saying they are all government and one in the same is like saying the executive, legislative and judicial branches are all government and therefore one in the same. That is false on its face. Government is divided for a reason. No single entity should have all the power and each section is specialized to deal with specific areas that they are best able to. The system was designed so that each level was not only better apt to take care of specific needs but also so that each one provided a check on the others. They are not ‘all one in the same.’

 

[antagon]

I used to like the idea of a line item veto. Recently I heard a good argument by a congressmen that swayed me though. The basic premise is that, in order for our government to work, there must be compromise between the congress and the president. IOW, there are times when neither the congress or the president are capable of getting important legislation through that they want to pass because the other disagrees with it. If a compromise is met and sent to the president, he can either agree with the compromised bill that will include pieces from both sides or he can veto it. If he has the line item power, then he can simply veto the compromises that were made and pass what he wanted to in the first place. This gives the president a hell of a lot of power over congress and can cause an even larger impasse than we currently have. It is not a good idea. This is a rough outline of what was said and I am not articulating it well but I hope you get the idea.

Besides, do you actually think that Obama needs MORE power over the bills that he sees than he has now? If you don’t think Obama should have greater power than neither should any other presedent.

? I did not say differently. What is your point with this.

Actually, sure we can. The idea that we cannot compete without offering specific companies cash is asinine and flat out wrong. We don’t need a convoluted BS system that we have, we need something simple and a tax rate that is competitive. You can compete.

Businesses do not want tax simplicity. They want the government to understand their challenges and adapt to them. There is a small group of private citizens advocating simpler tax, but they don't file complicated taxes, and should bow out of the situation at the expense of screwing something up.

Correction, BIG businesses do not want simple taxes. That is mostly because they do not want to give up their special tax shelters and sweetheart deals. That is not to say businesses should not be able to write off expenditures or have tax filing options that are unique to the needs of businesses over individuals BUT they do not need special treatment beyond that. If they cannot succeed without special treatment from the government then they should fail, simple as that.

Quite frankly, I don’t care what businesses want anyway. Why do you think that business should be given special treatment and the public’s money to operate?

The corporate world declares, "no taxation without representation", with the footnote that the homely lady at the teaparty rally cheering on a flat-tax speaker is not representative of corporate America. Instead, they have lobbyists. Some of those lobbies specifically address taxes.

About the states, I thought that you asserted that the feds shouldn't withhold funds from states after states forked out dough to the feds. They're all government - one and the same to me.

Maybe I misspoke (or typed ) I did not mean the states forked out that cash. The PEOPLE are overtaxed by the feds who, in turn trickle that money back to the states and then use it to coerce the states to follow along. A good example of this (and I believe the best known) is South Dakota v. Dole.
South Dakota v. Dole - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By doing this, you have effectively removed all idea of state sovereignty or power to define local laws. Sure, the constitution gives the states authority over some matters BUT no actual power exists anymore because the feds can withhold funding to force the issue. Saying they are all government and one in the same is like saying the executive, legislative and judicial branches are all government and therefore one in the same. That is false on its face. Government is divided for a reason. No single entity should have all the power and each section is specialized to deal with specific areas that they are best able to. The system was designed so that each level was not only better apt to take care of specific needs but also so that each one provided a check on the others. They are not ‘all one in the same.’

I have lived in 3 different states now, so I don't have the core principle which seems to underscore states rights advocacy: Love for one's state. I'm not sure if I care if states find themselves pawns for federal policies if they're not fiscally independent enough to determine their own. Allowances are for kids. Kids need to buckle-up in the back seats.

Being competitive requires caring what businesses want. Mandate is such a big part of getting tax from enterprise that caring is required. You have to have good faith and an understanding of constituents' needs when playing policymaker. Businesses, no matter how big, are constituents.

Not only businesses, bun many other special circumstances should be given special treatment when it comes to tax. Tax is not supposed to be an economic drag or penalty, and advocacy and number crunching has built a system which succeeds in funding government without much drag at all. Simple taxation ignores this or hopes to pull that off with just a rate. That wont cut it.

Are you talking about bailouts and subsidy, too?

 

[candycorn]

"...having 2 parties causes a NATURAL roadblock to the function of Congress and allows each party to SWEAR it's gonna resolve the Congressional rules and open up the process. When they achieve power -- nothing happens. Even a token amount of 3rd party and Independent representatives would shed light on the issues. A disloyal party member right now has no where to go if they defy Party leadership. If they speak out or don't toe the line, they will be operating out of closet 5 blocks from Capitol Hill and facing a Party backed candidate in the next primary.. This party ALLEGIANCE would be broken down as soon as Americans understand there is no REQUIREMENT to vote either REP or DEM. You make easier for representatives to DEFY their party and run as INDEPENDENTS or 3rd party and a lot of your problems here simply go away... Better politicians, Better Voters, Better parties. Don't blame the Constitution."

This is more 'where it's at'.

I asked this earlier and I am sure it's in there somewhere. I just didn't see it....

Can someone direct me to the Article/Section of the Constitution that says that you need the majority of the body to approve a bill? Like we need 51 senators and 218 Reps currently to pass anything.

I'm sure somewhere it says there needs to be a majority...can someone show me where?

As for a 3rd party; you'll just end up with another "in it for me" group of legislators.

As far as I can tell, it simply is not there. I was rather surprised but I cannot find it.

Yeah...I know....spooky. I've just always assumed you needed a majority; not a plurality. If we were to ever get a serious 3rd party (4th or 5th party) you could pass bills, theoretically with 25-30 votes????

 

[candycorn]

Honestly, I believe that much of what you posted can be fixed in a much simpler manner (though much harder to pass) by simply abolishing the party system that we have in this country. I do agree that congressional districts are asinine. I believe that simply requiring them to be drawn as simple geometric shapes rather than the crazy lines that are drawn currently. That is simpler than a ‘lottery’ or parsing them out by zip codes where population densities could be a massive problem in making the districts even. Simply requiring them to be simple shapes can fix most of the gerrymandering.

I do like the idea about requiring legislation passed by one house to actually see a vote in the other. The blocking that is going on now is asinine. The reality is that has nothing to do with the constitution though. That is a rather easy fix. It surprises me that this is a problem anyway. Those bills that are blocked by the 2 ‘leaders’ (I use that term very loosely) have no chance of passing the their respective houses anyway so why not get the damn things out of the way? Again though, getting rid of parties would eliminate that problem anyway as it would eliminate the uncontested problem as well.

Most of our other problems could be fixed by actually following the constitution in the first place as well. I truly do believe in the separation of powers and that does not only mean the 3 branches of government. The states have been basically reduced to managerial aspects of the federal government rather than sovereign entities in themselves and I find that unacceptable. The federal government should not have the ability to block grant funds to states after collecting the money for whatever pet project they want them to follow along with or refuse funds if the states do not capitulate to their demands. That system has corrupted one of the balances that we have and diminished the system as a whole. The federal government has a place as do the state governments. That is not to say that state law should override federal law. It is to say that state law has a place and federal law has a place.

The other thing I would inject is that one area that is not covered is tax law. I do believe that an amendment needs to be put in place that prevents tax breaks favoring any company or industry. Corporate welfare is corrupting the entire system and the only way to address it IMHO is to deal with the source; the ability for politicians to pander to companies for special tax considerations.

Exactly..

Except for the point of requiring a vote on the other house's work.. There is no point wasting Deliberative debate IF there's not a chance of passage or reconcilation.
And the politicians would still have excuses for voting both ways on an issue because of interim votes on a particular bill.

I disagree. I think it helps the electorate to know where their representatives stand to see them have to cast an up or down vote. Yes, I see where you're coming from but I do not like how Reid is shielding Democrats (and the President too) from bills and taking a stance on those bills by not allowing votes on them.

 

[FA_Q2]

I have lived in 3 different states now, so I don't have the core principle which seems to underscore states rights advocacy: Love for one's state. I'm not sure if I care if states find themselves pawns for federal policies if they're not fiscally independent enough to determine their own. Allowances are for kids. Kids need to buckle-up in the back seats.

Love for one’s state? I have lived in CA, NV, WA, SC and MO. I have no love for any of them. Love for one’s state has absolutely nothing to do with advocating for states’ rights. Did you read what I posted? It is based entirely on the separation of powers and the appropriate level to address problems. The federal government is not the end all be all. I matched it with the separation that we have in our federal government.

Being competitive requires caring what businesses want. Mandate is such a big part of getting tax from enterprise that caring is required. You have to have good faith and an understanding of constituents' needs when playing policymaker. Businesses, no matter how big, are constituents.

I never said they were not constituents. I never said that policy makers should not be doing things that help their constituents. What I said is that policy makers should not be giving special favors to specific constituents nor should law play favorites. It also completely flies in the face of the purpose of taxes to begin with.

Not only businesses, bun many other special circumstances should be given special treatment when it comes to tax. Tax is not supposed to be an economic drag or penalty, and advocacy and number crunching has built a system which succeeds in funding government without much drag at all. Simple taxation ignores this or hopes to pull that off with just a rate. That wont cut it.

Are you talking about bailouts and subsidy, too?

Yes, I am. Both are the same concept and just as asinine.

Here is the simple fact. Tax should have one sole purpose: to fund the government. That is what taxes are for, bottom line. Today taxes have evolved into a stick to encourage one behavior, product or desired outcome over another. That is asinine and breaks down the entire system. The government still requires the funds to operate. By giving a special interest to one party others must pay more into the system. And what are they paying more for? So that congressman so and so can go back home and tell the oil industry, farmers, widget makers, whatever they happen to be in the bag for that he is so grate and should be given more money to be reelected so that he can give ever increasing payback to his backers. The entire house of cards is corrupt starting with the very premise that government should take from one source so that it may give to another. You keep saying things like we can’t or we have to or we need to compete but there is nothing behind those statements. No reasoning. If you believe this so much, why? What purpose does it serve to have politicians running a market based on who gives the biggest perks?

Now this cannot be implemented overnight. The shock would be horrible. To many industries have been sucking at the tit for too long and far too many people are used to seeing the price of things without the hidden costs to accept the market without all the bullshit but it certainly can and should be phased out.

 

[antagon]

I think you have a clever way of addressing the state's rights thing. I just dont think that will do anything critical or have a net improvement on the way things are. I'm entirely apathetic to the predicament states find themselves in. Am I missing an importance factor here?

Being competitive requires caring what businesses want. Mandate is such a big part of getting tax from enterprise that caring is required. You have to have good faith and an understanding of constituents' needs when playing policymaker. Businesses, no matter how big, are constituents.

I never said they were not constituents. I never said that policy makers should not be doing things that help their constituents. What I said is that policy makers should not be giving special favors to specific constituents nor should law play favorites. It also completely flies in the face of the purpose of taxes to begin with.

This is now a debate on the purpose and responsibility of taxes.. We will have to separate tax credits/deductions from bailouts, as bailouts are not parts of our tax code. I'm not a fan of subsidy, but I don't support taking away an effect just because I'm not a fan of the cause. Tax law doesn't single out companies, but does cater to special interests (circumstances) nation-wide. I don't see a problem with that. Is there a particular tax code you don't care for or is it this broader concept?

Not only businesses, bun many other special circumstances should be given special treatment when it comes to tax. Tax is not supposed to be an economic drag or penalty, and advocacy and number crunching has built a system which succeeds in funding government without much drag at all. Simple taxation ignores this or hopes to pull that off with just a rate. That wont cut it.

Are you talking about bailouts and subsidy, too?

Yes, I am. Both are the same concept and just as asinine.

Here is the simple fact. Tax should have one sole purpose: to fund the government. That is what taxes are for, bottom line. Today taxes have evolved into a stick to encourage one behavior, product or desired outcome over another. That is asinine and breaks down the entire system. The government still requires the funds to operate. By giving a special interest to one party others must pay more into the system. And what are they paying more for? So that congressman so and so can go back home and tell the oil industry, farmers, widget makers, whatever they happen to be in the bag for that he is so grate and should be given more money to be reelected so that he can give ever increasing payback to his backers. The entire house of cards is corrupt starting with the very premise that government should take from one source so that it may give to another. You keep saying things like we can’t or we have to or we need to compete but there is nothing behind those statements. No reasoning. If you believe this so much, why? What purpose does it serve to have politicians running a market based on who gives the biggest perks?

Now this cannot be implemented overnight. The shock would be horrible. To many industries have been sucking at the tit for too long and far too many people are used to seeing the price of things without the hidden costs to accept the market without all the bullshit but it certainly can and should be phased out.

Re: no reasoning: All of our laws and taxes are reasoned before we hear about them. That process is more elaborate than our conjecture here. By looking at the details of how and why certain things have been done PRIOR to criticizing them, I feel that the reasoning behind our tax system is vastly more considered than any of the proposed changes. So I support the status quo. It is better thought out. Those thoughts, and my own whereby to understand them, are behind my statements on the matter.

Because I'm supportive of the status quo over simplicity proposals, I feel there's less to explain about the repercussions of change without a specific tax code under scrutiny. Is there some specific deduction you really hate?

I am familiar with Pigou's case for sophisticating the tax system, Undoubtedly all developed economies have incorporated some pigouvian tax elements for the reasons him and many others have indicated. Can you go into more depth about what makes this asinine?

Companies everywhere lobby governments everywhere. The purpose of politicians responding to lobbyists on a perk-size basis is similar to the way they respond to other constituents on an electoral-map basis. I feel democracy is an effective way for a government to participate in the development of the country its named after. This is what the govt's expected to do.

 

[candycorn]

"...having 2 parties causes a NATURAL roadblock to the function of Congress and allows each party to SWEAR it's gonna resolve the Congressional rules and open up the process. When they achieve power -- nothing happens. Even a token amount of 3rd party and Independent representatives would shed light on the issues. A disloyal party member right now has no where to go if they defy Party leadership. If they speak out or don't toe the line, they will be operating out of closet 5 blocks from Capitol Hill and facing a Party backed candidate in the next primary.. This party ALLEGIANCE would be broken down as soon as Americans understand there is no REQUIREMENT to vote either REP or DEM. You make easier for representatives to DEFY their party and run as INDEPENDENTS or 3rd party and a lot of your problems here simply go away... Better politicians, Better Voters, Better parties. Don't blame the Constitution."

This is more 'where it's at'.

I asked this earlier and I am sure it's in there somewhere. I just didn't see it....

Can someone direct me to the Article/Section of the Constitution that says that you need the majority of the body to approve a bill? Like we need 51 senators and 218 Reps currently to pass anything.

I'm sure somewhere it says there needs to be a majority...can someone show me where?

As for a 3rd party; you'll just end up with another "in it for me" group of legislators.

As far as I can tell, it simply is not there. I was rather surprised but I cannot find it.

I wonder what mechanism prescribes that there be 51 YEA votes to pass in the Senate. As we know, our President voted "present" a number of times; Could a bill pass with 47 YEA, 46 NAY and 7 "Present" votes?

One would think that if nothing else, the Constitution would insist that there be a majority of Senators and Congresspersons voting in favor of a bill to ensure it's passage.

Just another example of why we need to further perfect the document. NOW!!

 

[Intense]

I asked this earlier and I am sure it's in there somewhere. I just didn't see it....

Can someone direct me to the Article/Section of the Constitution that says that you need the majority of the body to approve a bill? Like we need 51 senators and 218 Reps currently to pass anything.

I'm sure somewhere it says there needs to be a majority...can someone show me where?

As for a 3rd party; you'll just end up with another "in it for me" group of legislators.

As far as I can tell, it simply is not there. I was rather surprised but I cannot find it.

I wonder what mechanism prescribes that there be 51 YEA votes to pass in the Senate. As we know, our President voted "present" a number of times; Could a bill pass with 47 YEA, 46 NAY and 7 "Present" votes?

One would think that if nothing else, the Constitution would insist that there be a majority of Senators and Congresspersons voting in favor of a bill to ensure it's passage.

Just another example of why we need to further perfect the document. NOW!!

The Senate and the House, have the Constitutional Power to set Their own Rules. They always have.
U.S. Senate: Reference Home > Constitution of the United States

 

[candycorn]

As far as I can tell, it simply is not there. I was rather surprised but I cannot find it.

I wonder what mechanism prescribes that there be 51 YEA votes to pass in the Senate. As we know, our President voted "present" a number of times; Could a bill pass with 47 YEA, 46 NAY and 7 "Present" votes?

One would think that if nothing else, the Constitution would insist that there be a majority of Senators and Congresspersons voting in favor of a bill to ensure it's passage.

Just another example of why we need to further perfect the document. NOW!!

The Senate and the House, have the Constitutional Power to set Their own Rules. They always have.
U.S. Senate: Reference Home > Constitution of the United States

Seems like a pretty large loophole. So I would imagine if a third party was afoot, the party that was in power could change the rules to make it to where whatever membership level they were at is enough to pass bills?

 

[flacaltenn]

I wonder what mechanism prescribes that there be 51 YEA votes to pass in the Senate. As we know, our President voted "present" a number of times; Could a bill pass with 47 YEA, 46 NAY and 7 "Present" votes?

One would think that if nothing else, the Constitution would insist that there be a majority of Senators and Congresspersons voting in favor of a bill to ensure it's passage.

Just another example of why we need to further perfect the document. NOW!!

The Senate and the House, have the Constitutional Power to set Their own Rules. They always have.
U.S. Senate: Reference Home > Constitution of the United States

Seems like a pretty large loophole. So I would imagine if a third party was afoot, the party that was in power could change the rules to make it to where whatever membership level they were at is enough to pass bills?

Not really.. Once a party loses the ability to muster 51%, they are either gonna win or lose due to how many votes they can "steal" from members of other parties. The vote will STILL be based on the largest number for Yes or No..

The math is largely the same because the vote is still between 2 propositions - Aye or Nay.
A party that TRIED to lower passage to LESS then 1/2 of membership would be escorted from Capitol in tar and feathers. Know any party that would TRY that?

On PROCEDURAL votes -- it should be easier to get 3rd party votes to break the Bi-partisian log jam that now exists. A 3rd party LIKELY WANTS bills to get attention and brought to the floor. Or to aid in breaking a filibuster.

 

[candycorn]

The Senate and the House, have the Constitutional Power to set Their own Rules. They always have.
U.S. Senate: Reference Home > Constitution of the United States

Seems like a pretty large loophole. So I would imagine if a third party was afoot, the party that was in power could change the rules to make it to where whatever membership level they were at is enough to pass bills?

Not really.. Once a party loses the ability to muster 51%, they are either gonna win or lose due to how many votes they can "steal" from members of other parties. The vote will STILL be based on the largest number for Yes or No..



The math is largely the same because the vote is still between 2 propositions - Aye or Nay.
A party that TRIED to lower passage to LESS then 1/2 of membership would be escorted from Capitol in tar and feathers. Know any party that would TRY that?

By whom?

And didn't our current president vote "present" before? What is that about. I'm not setting anything up...I'm asking. There seems to be at least 3 votes you can give.

On PROCEDURAL votes -- it should be easier to get 3rd party votes to break the Bi-partisian log jam that now exists. A 3rd party LIKELY WANTS bills to get attention and brought to the floor. Or to aid in breaking a filibuster.

Well, you're proposing a scenario that is hypothetical at best; what about a 4th party as long as we are going there? And lets not forget, we now currently have independents as well.

I think rules need to be written and we shouldn't rely on how a party feels about X or Y because that can change over time. The GOP used to be for lower taxes but are blocking a bill in the House. Saying that "A 3rd party likely wants..." is not built to last.

 

[flacaltenn]

Seems like a pretty large loophole. So I would imagine if a third party was afoot, the party that was in power could change the rules to make it to where whatever membership level they were at is enough to pass bills?

Not really.. Once a party loses the ability to muster 51%, they are either gonna win or lose due to how many votes they can "steal" from members of other parties. The vote will STILL be based on the largest number for Yes or No..



The math is largely the same because the vote is still between 2 propositions - Aye or Nay.
A party that TRIED to lower passage to LESS then 1/2 of membership would be escorted from Capitol in tar and feathers. Know any party that would TRY that?

By whom?

And didn't our current president vote "present" before? What is that about. I'm not setting anything up...I'm asking. There seems to be at least 3 votes you can give.

On PROCEDURAL votes -- it should be easier to get 3rd party votes to break the Bi-partisian log jam that now exists. A 3rd party LIKELY WANTS bills to get attention and brought to the floor. Or to aid in breaking a filibuster.

Well, you're proposing a scenario that is hypothetical at best; what about a 4th party as long as we are going there? And lets not forget, we now currently have independents as well.

I think rules need to be written and we shouldn't rely on how a party feels about X or Y because that can change over time. The GOP used to be for lower taxes but are blocking a bill in the House. Saying that "A 3rd party likely wants..." is not built to last.

Point of order here.. What bill is the "GOP blocking in the House" that lower taxes? It must have some poison in there to taint it.. Don't tell me it's Bush Tax Cuts with AN INCREASE for the higher brackets. That would make me laugh -- because that's NOT a tax cut is it?..

When the "interests" are defined by 2 feuding parties, blockage occurs. Options for affiliation in the Congress allow dissent to those parties and their leadership. And no 3rd party is gonna sit around listening to a primadonna fillibuster between the old ragged folks while THEIR agenda and interests are stalled. They will vote Yea or Nay -- same as donkeys and elephants.

Some issues that can't be touched right now by EITHER party like Patriotic Act, War Powers Act, Soc Sec reform et al -- would be brought to the forefront of debate. Because INDEPENDENTS don't have to hide a record of abuse and theft from the public. And they would not let partisian spin and inaccurate statements just lie there in the press. They would pro-actively change the COVERAGE and the tone of the debate.

Independents would do much of the job that the MAINSTREAM MEDIA refuses to do to inform the public of other angles and opinions on the issues of the day...

 

[FA_Q2]

I think you have a clever way of addressing the state's rights thing. I just dont think that will do anything critical or have a net improvement on the way things are. I'm entirely apathetic to the predicament states find themselves in. Am I missing an importance factor here?

I would say you are but then again, I am the one disagreeing with you

Simply put, power should be as decentralized as possible. It is one of the cornerstones of this nation and we are flowing power to a single source on a daily basis.

This is now a debate on the purpose and responsibility of taxes.. We will have to separate tax credits/deductions from bailouts, as bailouts are not parts of our tax code. I'm not a fan of subsidy, but I don't support taking away an effect just because I'm not a fan of the cause. Tax law doesn't single out companies, but does cater to special interests (circumstances) nation-wide. I don't see a problem with that. Is there a particular tax code you don't care for or is it this broader concept?
Re: no reasoning: All of our laws and taxes are reasoned before we hear about them. That process is more elaborate than our conjecture here. By looking at the details of how and why certain things have been done PRIOR to criticizing them, I feel that the reasoning behind our tax system is vastly more considered than any of the proposed changes. So I support the status quo. It is better thought out. Those thoughts, and my own whereby to understand them, are behind my statements on the matter.

Because I'm supportive of the status quo over simplicity proposals, I feel there's less to explain about the repercussions of change without a specific tax code under scrutiny. Is there some specific deduction you really hate?

If you wish to separate then, fine. As far as particulars, no. I don’t like any of them at all and that includes the ones that I currently enjoy having and have invaded the market for so long that they would be extremely difficult to root out. The mortgage deduction is a good example of this. Why do we have such a deduction? To encourage you to purchase a home? That is asinine. If you want a home, you should weight the benefits with the costs and make the decision clear of government interference in your decision. The entire thing has become a vote purchase.

“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.”
- Alexis de Tocqueville

This is exactly what is happening and it is all covered by your (and those that believe the same) defense of the ‘status quo’ and the false idea that some grand amount of ‘reasoning behind our tax system is vastly more considered than any of the proposed changes.’ You want to know what this ‘vast amount of reasoning’ actually is; what will get me more votes. That’s it and it is not good.

I am familiar with Pigou's case for sophisticating the tax system, Undoubtedly all developed economies have incorporated some pigouvian tax elements for the reasons him and many others have indicated. Can you go into more depth about what makes this asinine?

I actually don’t mind the concept altogether but this is an entirely different matter. Tax law is not structured in any way shape or form according to Pigou’s case. As I understand it, this is the concept that some products cost society more and therefore those items need to have that hidden cost built into the product. An example would be cigarettes and the health problems they cause. I would call these sin taxes and I actually believe that we should have sin taxes for specific vices but the structure of those added taxes should be very specific. Let me explain my problems and solutions concerning current sin tax and what I think they should be.

First, as sin taxes currently exist, it is a scheme to extract more money out of the system without losing support of the voters. For instance, Washington recently passed such a law on ‘sugary’ products. The idea was that other tax proposals were not popular but they were able to sell the sin tax because the majority of people believed that the tax would not affect them so what do they care. On top of this, collections from these taxes do not go to counterbalance the negative costs of the target. The taxes on this sugary product did not go to any health problems associated with the product itself. They went into the general funds where they are spent on whatever pet project they want to use them on. Essentially, there is no counterbalance of ‘hidden’ societal costs for the taxed products. Instead, it is a vehicle to increase taxes without actually increasing taxes. Lastly, they create a negative cycle in that as the tax works to decrease the usage of the product through higher price, the tax collections DECREASE. This creates an income hole because the tax itself was completely unrelated to the societal costs in the first place so the ever increasing need will be to increase the tax or expand on new taxes with new product to cover the gap.

Now, for what I believe should constitute a proper ‘sin’ tax. I have to agree that there are product that cause undue side effects that tax monies need to pay for and if this is the case, I believe it is justified to apply a specific tax to pay for it. In these cases, the monies collected from the tax should be treated as a separate entity that ONLY goes to alleviate the given burden. Using this method you remove the incentive for politicians to use it as a way around paying the political price for raising taxes. You also eliminate the diminishing collections as the product usage goes down because the lower usage leads to lower costs fighting the vices that it brings.

None of this has anything to do with my original point though

Companies everywhere lobby governments everywhere. The purpose of politicians responding to lobbyists on a perk-size basis is similar to the way they respond to other constituents on an electoral-map basis. I feel democracy is an effective way for a government to participate in the development of the country its named after. This is what the govt's expected to do.

Yes, it is but NOT in the manner that it is doing so now. Sorry, it is not nor should it be ‘expected’ that the government operate on a preferential basis for the representatives biggest financial backers. This is akin to saying that people in Colorado’s 11th district should get a tax break that no one else receives because their rep managed to get one passed in a bill. Sorry but that is not how things should work.