Preechr's omnibus discussion thread!

[KevinTheOmnivore]

This way, we can cover whatever. :)

EDIT: EXCEPT bunnies, damn you, Emu!!

[Preechr]

Yes, yes... unfortunately, I'm off for a bit.

It may be a couple of days before I can check back in :(

I may have to call in sick. I believe this is the first thread on this board dedicated to ME, and I don't want to screw it up by missing it altogether... >:

[KevinTheOmnivore]

>:

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I'll get it started.

Electoral "reform." A lot of people like to point out that the president's poll numbers are down to record lows. A lesser known stat. that they don't like to share is that poll numbers are down across the board. People are down on the parties, and they're simply down on politicians.

This was reflective in the 2002 races, you just didn't hear a lot about it, because President Bush sort of shielded the party from it due to his popularity at the time. But voters instead took it out on their states, with several governorships (sp?) changing over, as well as some state houses.

2006 may be the boiling point for this frustration, particularly in light of Iraq, Katrina, gas prices, etc.

So, i guess Mr. Preechr my question to you is do we take the Governator's lead? Do we look at non-partisan re-districting, and take the process out of the hands of the state-house parties that have essntially made an unspoken (and often spoken) agreement to solidify their turf and entrench themselves? Do we "throw the bums out," so to speak? Will it change a damn thing? Would alternative electoral policies, electoral reform (always a sticky subject), allow for innovative and new ideas/parties to emerge and take power, i.e. the LIBERTARIN PARTY!?

[Preechr]

Personally, I've heard of a few electoral reform concepts that show some promise, and for the reason you stated there at the end, sometimes I'd love to see something, anything, happen that could pry us out of the duopoly politics we enjoy at the moment... However... Electoral reform just not been a big subject of interest for me.

The founders argued much over political parties, the number of them and how they might or should not function within a future American electoral process. Eventually, the two party system was casually adopted in practice because it seemed to attenuate the political shitstorms caused by potentially drastic variations in ideology.

Repeat: The two party process WEAKENS the power of politicians and government.

This is only one of many ideas, but it's served us fairly well over the years. While we've had splinter parties at times, the prevailing system has been that of two groups with marginally different methods. Maybe I'd prefer a system that encouraged radical, new ideas... But considering how disappointed I find myself now at the ability, or it's lack, of modern Americans to take their political futures fully in hand, maybe it's for the best that we're sheltered from the election of those that wish to drastically alter things. Look at who would be electing them...

Maybe not. Had our nation been founded with a more tumultuous electoral system, would it even exist today?

Am I excluding my own "radical" ideas from our government of the future? I accept that the changes that I'd like to see made will be difficult to accomplish. I accept that these changes will be fought by both parties. I am less interested in fighting the fight required by electoral reform, which may or may not (probably not,) create a better environment for new ideas than I am in getting those changes made from outside the two party system.

That's what it means to me to be a third party person.

The framework may not currently exist for a third party to compete on an equal plane with the Republicans and the Democrats, but this country was founded on revolutionary ideas, so the framework for revolution is fundamental to our political way of life here.

Now, for you: Tax reform. Are you a Flat Tax, Fair Tax or Fixed Tax guy?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Whatever gets us to Socialism the fastest! :)

Sorry for the flippant answer, but I guess tax code laws and all that jazz sort of do for me what electoral reform does for you.

I'm not a flat taxer, and i believe that the concept of "fair taxes" has been politicized to the point that people ranging from progressive taxation to no income tax at all could say they advocate for "fair" taxes.

I believe the burden of taxation belongs on those who can truly afford it. I believe the estate tax rules, and I think income taxes are awesome.

I'm not so keen on the idea of subsidizing all of our public expenses through a sales tax. That rubs me the wrong way.

I don't mind tax cuts, but i prefer seeing them happen for the middle class types who purchase a lot, pay for college, live their lives in fear of interest rates and debt, etc.

Permanent tax cuts suck, but so do surpluses I guess.

Pepsi.

[Preechr]

By "fair" tax I'm referring to the national retail sales tax promoted by www.fairtax.org

Essentially, the repeal of the current multi-tax system (not just income tax but also the entire range of punish/encourage tax scams from gasolin taxes to luxury taxes) and the abolition of the IRS altogether, to be replaced with one 23% sales tax on all retail purchases. Many economic departments (including Harvard, but look at the site for a list) have said it would work revenue neutral and retail prices at the counter would not rise.

It's a MUCH MORE progressive tax than the current system. That's why I figure you'd like it.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I'm familiar with the organization.

How would it not raise prices at the retail counter for starters, and two, what precisely makes it more "progressive"?

I've had this conversation with a buddy of mine who is supportive of a national sales tax. If the progressive arguemnt is that rich folks buy more stuff, I think I'd have to disagree with that assumption. But perhaps I haven't heard the whole story behind the proposal....

[Preechr]

Real quickly (I'm late,) it's estimated that the average "imbedded" taxes in retail products currently is at around 22%. I'm sure it's arguable whether Capitalism actually works, and many wierdos would say that GREEDY CORPORATIONS would just keep the money, but I'll make fun of those folks later. Prices stay at least level, but with more capital on the market, they'll drop.

Additionally, on top of everyone getting to take home their entire paycheck, everyone with a functional SS# (because it's considered morally wrong to tax food, shelter and clothing) will get a check each month for the estimated amount of tax they will pay the coming month on those types of items. This has nothing to do with the actual amount spent on food, shelter and clothing, so poor people get more tax money "back" than they'll spend and the evil rich, who really do buy more retail products, get back just a fraction of the taxes they pay even for necessities.

I prefer the consumption tax over the flat tax because, when it comes to times of economic tragedy, it allows the taxpayer to stop paying taxes and save up the money for grandma's surgery.

I'm sure I'm over-simplifying, but that's why God made websites.

I'll try to check back in over the weekend.

[Preechr]

Figure it this way: If Johnny Brokeass makes $20k per year, pays about $13k for food, shelter and clothing, but receives ~$370 per month (2 kids and his wife doesn't work) back from the government, assuming he bought retail items with every penny of his salary he was taxed $4,600 and was rebated $4,400. TOTAL.

Now, you tell me what Johnny currently pays under the multi-tax system. I'm sure he smokes and buys a six-pack every now and again... Somebody has to put gas in that Nova...

$200 vs. "X"

I think I'll take the $200... Speaking for Johnny, of course.

[Preechr]

Oops... http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/faq-main.html#3

I was going off memeory for that explanation. I used the single family of four rate. Married Johnny would actually get $492 per month. His refunds would outweigh his taxes paid by about $1,300 per year.

Hmm... Progressive? Yep.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I'll get to this at some point over the weekend.....

[Preechr]

See, now I can say I would have posted here over the weekend, but I didn't because you never replied.

Then I can say that I'm deeply disappointed.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Sorry, I'd like to give the thread some fair time, rather than rushed answers, but anyway.....

I see a pervasive trend in your comments regarding economics. Is it only poor people who smoke cigarettes, buy lotto, tickets, drink a 6-pack every night, and get addictions?

You seem to hold little pity for po' folk, because well, they're dumber than you are....clearly. I mean, anybody who makes a lot of money, has a successful job, owns instead of rents, why this person merely made all of the right decisions in life, right? Never got addicted to drugs, never got themselves into debt, never was stupid enough to choose to go to a bad public school when he/she was 4......I digress.

If sales tax goes up on consumer goods, the people who will be most hurt by that are those people who make lots and lots of purchases all of the time. These are the Wal-Mart shoppers, these are the mcDonalds eaters, and these are the middle class. There's more of them, and they buy the shit. They buy the pools for their backyards, they buy the expensive lawnmowers that they don't need, they shop at outlet malls on the day after Thanksgiving (p.s. don't every put a sales tax higher than 3.5% between a mother and her on-sale khakis for Christmas).

I have seen economic data that says it both ways, so I'm left to reason out my own opinion on it. I, contrary to what you may believe, think most wealthy people got there by being smart with their money, i.e. NOT SPENDING IT. I think a massive sales tax would hurt the middle class, and the lower classes, because it would hit those why rely on what's in their wallet and what amount their weekly check will be than it does the salaried, frugal, fiscally sound, non-smoking, non-sixer drinking smart rich person.

[Preechr]

Sorry, I'd like to give the thread some fair time, rather than rushed answers, but anyway.....

Maybe that would have been better... sorry for rushing you.

I see a pervasive trend in your comments regarding economics. Is it only poor people who smoke cigarettes, buy lotto, tickets, drink a 6-pack every night, and get addictions?

You seem to hold little pity for po' folk, because well, they're dumber than you are....clearly. I mean, anybody who makes a lot of money, has a successful job, owns instead of rents, why this person merely made all of the right decisions in life, right? Never got addicted to drugs, never got themselves into debt, never was stupid enough to choose to go to a bad public school when he/she was 4......I digress.

Maybe that trend is there in part because of some of my own personal experiences. I hold very little pity for my own past decisions when they've served me badly. Intelligence offers no protection whatsoever against self-indulgent or self-destructive decision making, of which I've made my fair share. I have been guilty of resenting unfairly those that are currently commiting the sins I've conditioned myself to avoid, similar to the reformed alcoholic that hates a drinker in a way only one that's "been there" can. That's just one more thing I've had to learn not to do.

If sales tax goes up on consumer goods, the people who will be most hurt by that are those people who make lots and lots of purchases all of the time. These are the Wal-Mart shoppers, these are the mcDonalds eaters, and these are the middle class. There's more of them, and they buy the shit. They buy the pools for their backyards, they buy the expensive lawnmowers that they don't need, they shop at outlet malls on the day after Thanksgiving (p.s. don't every put a sales tax higher than 3.5% between a mother and her on-sale khakis for Christmas).

I have seen economic data that says it both ways, so I'm left to reason out my own opinion on it.

Apparently you've not seen the economic data, i.e. studies of the bill itself, that says prices at the counter will not increase AND people rich and otherwise will take home their entire paycheck AND poor people will "get back" a disproportionate percentage of their taxed income BEFORE it's spent AND no matter how much money poor people waste on ill-considered purchases they'll never be taxed for more money than they have spent which is always gonna be less than what the Bill Gateses of the country spend even when everybody spends on a subsistence level.

I, contrary to what you may believe, think most wealthy people got there by being smart with their money, i.e. NOT SPENDING IT.

No, I was pretty sure you were a smart cookie already. No need to brag. Poor people are poor and rich people are rich because of their financial and economic habits.

I think a massive sales tax would hurt the middle class, and the lower classes, because it would hit those why rely on what's in their wallet and what amount their weekly check will be than it does the salaried, frugal, fiscally sound, non-smoking, non-sixer drinking smart rich person.

There are now over a million $million and up homes in this country. Poor people live in exactly none of those homes. I've already explained how a poor or middle class person can expect to, if not profit, then at least pay much less in taxes than those with more money to spend assuming those with money spend more to live than rich folks. To posit that rich folks spend quantatively less to live than poor folks is just silly, Kevin. There's just no way that's true.

I wasn't really prepared to change your opinion on the subject. I simply figured you'd see the advantages to the Fair Tax from the liberal side of the coin. I do. We can change the subject if you want...

[Rosenstern]

Awww... ain't that cute? Kevin finally found a friend to play with him outside! :blah

[KevinTheOmnivore]

You are a massive tool.

Preech, I'll hit you back in a few.....

[ziggytrix]

Poor people are poor and rich people are rich because of their financial and economic habits.

I don't believe it. A person BECOMES poor or rich because of those habits, but most people start out either poor or rich (or somewhere in between) and stay there their whole lives.

Economic mobility is the American dream, but for every Sam Walton or Bill Gates there are 1000 Joe Schmoes whose business ideas didn't make them a fortune.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I have been guilty of resenting unfairly those that are currently commiting the sins I've conditioned myself to avoid, similar to the reformed alcoholic that hates a drinker in a way only one that's "been there" can. That's just one more thing I've had to learn not to do.

OK. I think we see differently on this, but I didn't mean to come across as attacking your ethics or anything like that. I'll let you have that discussion with Ziggy. :P


Apparently you've not seen the economic data, i.e. studies of the bill itself, that says prices at the counter will not increase AND people rich and otherwise will take home their entire paycheck AND poor people will "get back" a disproportionate percentage of their taxed income BEFORE it's spent AND no matter how much money poor people waste on ill-considered purchases they'll never be taxed for more money than they have spent which is always gonna be less than what the Bill Gateses of the country spend even when everybody spends on a subsistence level.

What bill again are we referencing here? Perhaps I still simply don't follw. If people are being taxed at the sales counter, but then simply receiving rebates, what did you suggest, once a month, than why have the taxes at all? I've seen some call the sales tax revenue-neutral, but that proposition seems to be revenue-negative to me. Now, I know as a Libertarian you might dig that, but is that actually solvent?

I'm actually a little surprised that as a Libertarian you even support this. One argument I've seen in favor of the sales tax is that it'll encourage people to save by making them consider the weight of their day-to-day purchases. Is it the job of the government to be deciding that behavior?

Secondly, I know you as being a pretty strict constructionalist. If a federal income tax doesn't pass constitutional muster in your book, how does a tax on consumption for the purpose of raising revenue? Curbing the consumption habits of Americans through heavy, up-front taxation is one thing, curbing government spending? That's a whole other animal.


I've already explained how a poor or middle class person can expect to, if not profit, then at least pay much less in taxes than those with more money to spend assuming those with money spend more to live than rich folks. To posit that rich folks spend quantatively less to live than poor folks is just silly, Kevin. There's just no way that's true.

My point wasn't that rich people spend less per capita than middle and lower class folks (although to argue that home ownership only exists in the upper-class is rather silly, isn't it?). My point was that a national retail sales tax brings taxation to the front lines. It taxes people on their consumption, and I believe it's the paycheck-to-paycheck people who would suffer the most under this, because it goes right after the cash, credit, etc. that they immediately have on hand. And again, if you're saying it's no big deal because they get it all back, then uh, what's the point?

I also think you underestimate the power of a 30% sales tax, the outrage, protest, and flat out anger it would create. I only say this from working most of my teenage years in a miserable retail outlet, where people would berate me for charging them a 3.25% rate on a fucking tie.

Also, there seems to me like this would just create more collection headaches. So rather than taking from an individual's income, the federal government will then be responsible for collecting from business and retail industries? That doesn't sound sketchy to you?

And back to my point above, I personally believe that the tax system is built (be it intentionally or not) to serve big-spender consumers. You might say that you can't dodge taxes at the retail counter, but i will counter that we simply don't know, because we haven't quite seen it on a grand scale yet, with a high % rate. What would prevent retail companies from creating their own "priority customer" loopholes to allow large consumers to dodge heavy taxation, sort of like folks with buckets of cash can dump it into foundations and charities to avoid the Estate tax???


I wasn't really prepared to change your opinion on the subject. I simply figured you'd see the advantages to the Fair Tax from the liberal side of the coin. I do. We can change the subject if you want...

I'm actually warming up to the topic, so whatever.....

[Emu]

EDIT: EXCEPT bunnies, damn you, Emu!!

FINE >: But I'm tellin' you, this thread could be better.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Ahem....

[Preechr]

Honestly, the best thing to do here would be to post a link to the Fair Tax FAQ...

I hate to do you that way, Kevin, but I'm pressed for time today, and it says more and more clearly than is probably possible for me...

http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/faq.html

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I see how it is. You have time to discuss esoteric arguments over existence with CaptainBubba, but no time to talk taxes with me. Fine. :(

[Preechr]

Well, I'm pretty sure that convo's run it's course...

Did you read through that FAQ? It would take me pages and pages of typing to equal that pithy bit of info. For the sake of all that is mocky, PLEASE don't make me do that.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

okay, here's the deal. I'm going to read the FAQ's on the wehategovernment.org website, and you will respond more to the questions that were addressed to you, rather than to Grover Norquist. Deal?

Next topic?

[Preechr]

No no... we don't necessarily have to change topics. I was giving you an easy out, and I thought I was going somewhere with a less "news-oriented" discussion for a minute, which is always more fun than discussing what a bunch of jerks may or may not be doing in that rat-hole you moved to...

Sorry... I'm sure your place is nice... I was referring only to the other folks that tend to live there...

[Preechr]

What bill again are we referencing here?

HR 25

Perhaps I still simply don't follw. If people are being taxed at the sales counter, but then simply receiving rebates, what did you suggest, once a month, than why have the taxes at all?

The rebates "refund" the estimated amount of sales tax a person is expected to pay for the NEXT month for only certain items. They have also been called "pre-bates," because they are paid before the tax is spent. The items for which that money was spent are then considered to be un-taxed. What we're talking about here is specifically the money a person spends on food, shelter and clothing.

What I was illustrating before was that a "poor" person will actually receive more back through the rebates than he is taxed, similar to how under the current system we can say that guy is subsidized by government (through EICC, generally) rather than taxed. If I'm receiving one of those "pre-bates" every month for, say, $300, and I spend a total of $1600 per month, then I'm taxed about $68 (1600 x 23% - 300). If I save up a bunch of money and buy a $30K bass boat one month in addition to my normal spending, I'm taxed an additional 23% of $30K or $6900, plus the $68. If I'm rich, I get the same tax refund as if I were poor.

I've seen some call the sales tax revenue-neutral, but that proposition seems to be revenue-negative to me. Now, I know as a Libertarian you might dig that, but is that actually solvent?

When they say revenue neutral, they are talking about the idea that the new tax system will generate the same amount of revenue as the old one, were we to switch one night at midnight. Actually, it is designed to be AT LEAST revenue neutral. Free Market Capitalism says consumer spending will increase, which will increase tax revenues.

I think the part that was screwing you up was that I made it sound like everybody paid nothing. There are those who will receive more back than they put in, just like now, but they will be low income folks that live very cheaply, just as now. My emphasis on the progressivity of the plan is there to entice you to look at it moreso than it indicates my secret love of progressive taxation. If that's what we want to do as a society, then by all means let's... and here's a much less insidious way to acheive that goal...

I'm actually a little surprised that as a Libertarian you even support this. One argument I've seen in favor of the sales tax is that it'll encourage people to save by making them consider the weight of their day-to-day purchases. Is it the job of the government to be deciding that behavior?

Influencing private activity with economic policies (which is 99% taxation strategies) is at least half of what government does each day. We should not smoke, so tobacco is taxed. Homeowners pay school taxes. Liquor drinkers pay luxury taxes. Yacht owners... well, they register their boats in the Bahamas now, so that's a bad example...

No, I do not like that. HR25 might encourage folks to save more money by giving them their entire paycheck, but they'll not notice any increase in overall price in the consumer goods they buy, so that's not why they might save more. If it happens, it's gonna be because they simply have more money and there's enough left over once the bills are all paid that they can manage to save some of it.

Secondly, I know you as being a pretty strict constructionalist. If a federal income tax doesn't pass constitutional muster in your book, how does a tax on consumption for the purpose of raising revenue? Curbing the consumption habits of Americans through heavy, up-front taxation is one thing, curbing government spending? That's a whole other animal.

First off, let me again state that there will not be any "heavy, up-front taxation." The average product purchased contains, hidden in it's cost, about 22% embedded taxes. These taxes are those paid by the various suppliers and manufacturers that went together to finish that product and offer it for sale at the place you buy it. These are, among other things, the "corporate income taxes" Rush Limbaugh correctly moans are always passed onto the consumer. Businesses also pay various other taxes in many different forms. Embedded taxes are known to constitute about 22% of the cash price of all products.

When the Fair Tax in enacted, the free-market system will cause counter prices to fall at least that 22%. You may not believe in Capitalism as strongly as I do, so maybe you don't buy that part. Harvard's Economic Department agrees with me, so Ppthththh!

So, prices fall, and then the 23% consumption tax is added. Net affect, prices have not changed. Repeat: OVERALL PRICES WILL NOT CHANGE. PEOPLE WILL NOT PAY MORE FOR PURCHASES.

My point wasn't that rich people spend less per capita than middle and lower class folks (although to argue that home ownership only exists in the upper-class is rather silly, isn't it?). My point was that a national retail sales tax brings taxation to the front lines. It taxes people on their consumption, and I believe it's the paycheck-to-paycheck people who would suffer the most under this, because it goes right after the cash, credit, etc. that they immediately have on hand. And again, if you're saying it's no big deal because they get it all back, then uh, what's the point?

I think I said Million Dollar Home Ownership... but I'm sure Dubya's wonderful new ownership society will ensure we ALL own nice stuff. "A chicken in every pot" has worked for a long time, hasn't it?

I think I've explained the rest of this section already, but it's important to note that people are already not only paying that 22% embedded tax on every purchase under the current system, but they have less money to pay it with now because the government has already taken some of their paycheck before they received it. It doesn't make me feel much better to know that they'll get back a big refund on their overpayments once per year.

I don't hold a lot of faith for the average joe-filer to apply for all the refunds he's due. Besides, the deck is stacked against him. We know that poor people's spending habits are atrocious, and that they spend a higher proportion of their income on highly taxed items like alcohol, tobacco and gas than rich folk do, so it's safe to say your average joe-sixpack-filer is paying more in taxes than we think.

Keep in mind, as well, that states will still be free to tax as they choose, so some of those embedded taxes will remain. I believe the states will emulate the federal system once it proves itself.

It's much, much simpler. It's transparent. I see the current system as sneaky and deceptive, and I prove the merit of my suspicions by pointing at the rising costs of tax preparation. I'm not the only one having problems drawing a line between fair and easy.

I also think you underestimate the power of a 30% sales tax, the outrage, protest, and flat out anger it would create. I only say this from working most of my teenage years in a miserable retail outlet, where people would berate me for charging them a 3.25% rate on a fucking tie.

As I said, the only tax you'll have to explain to those people is the state sales tax. The sticker price on that fucking tie will include the fucking federal consumption tax. When they see it on the fucking receipt, you can explain to them that the price of the fucking tie went fucking down by that same amount and then kick them out of the fucking store because they wouldn't have the fucking receipt if you didn't already have their fucking money.

Let them know a paper still costs the same, and recommend they read one every once and a while. I guarantee this will be in the news a long time before it's passed. I'm talking to you about it early on in the final process, but it's an idea that's been around since the sixties.

Also, it's becoming common to see opponents of the idea referring to a 30% tax. It's not, and it's not all in how you look at it.

Also, there seems to me like this would just create more collection headaches. So rather than taking from an individual's income, the federal government will then be responsible for collecting from business and retail industries? That doesn't sound sketchy to you?

That sounds exactly like only one small portion of the current system's tax collection mechanism. There are a lot more individuals than retail businesses, so it's sounding much more streamlined right there. Add in that a business has a lot more to lose by cheating (and knows it) than your average filer, and I'm feeling much better about it.

And back to my point above, I personally believe that the tax system is built (be it intentionally or not) to serve big-spender consumers. You might say that you can't dodge taxes at the retail counter, but i will counter that we simply don't know, because we haven't quite seen it on a grand scale yet, with a high % rate. What would prevent retail companies from creating their own "priority customer" loopholes to allow large consumers to dodge heavy taxation, sort of like folks with buckets of cash can dump it into foundations and charities to avoid the Estate tax???

One thing we do know is that the current system can be cheated by anyone on an individual basis. You simply lie to the government and hope you don't get caught. Under the Fair Tax, it will take at least two parties to cheat, and one of them will ultimately be the guy who is subject to losing his business in order to save some idiot a few bucks. Even if a simple clerk is the one buying into the scheme, the business owner is ultimately responsible, right?

Keep in mind, what we are doing here is replacing many, many forms of taxation with ONE single form... Many, many mechanisms of collection with ONE single method.

[Preechr]

One thing I forgot to address... the part where you contrasted my constitutionalist-ish-um-ness... whatever... in contrast to a consumption tax: Until the early part of last century, that was the ONLY way the federal goverment received any sort of tax money. Taxation at the income end was a HUGE change that would have been fought bitterly if not instituted to pay for a damn war.

Why is it we always drop our pants when Washington get itself in a war and then runs out of money to pay for it?

Anyhoo... A. Hamilton: (Federalist, XII), “…you fought a war with the British principally over taxation…now that you have your liberty how do you propose funding this new government of yours?” His response, “the ability of a country to pay taxes must always be proportioned, in a great degree, to the quantity of money in circulation and to the celerity with which it circulates. Commerce, contributing to both of these objects must of necessity render the payment of taxes easier and facilitate the requisite supplies to the treasury.”

[Preechr]

Wow... This went to crap quick.

[kahljorn]

I hate everyone and everything but I'm not angry. I just want to make tuna melt sandwiches that make your eyes tear up with goodness.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Wow... This went to crap quick.

I'm gonna respond, just been a crazy week....

[Preechr]

21 WAYS TO BE A GOOD DEMOCRAT

1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand

2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments
create prosperity.

3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are
more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology in the hands of
Chinese and North Korean communists.

4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.

5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by
cyclical documented changes in the earth's climate and more affected by
soccer moms driving SUV's.

6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being homosexual
is natural.

7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal
funding.

8. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th-graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about
sex.

9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony
activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do.

10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually
doing something to earn it.

11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money
to make The Passion Of The Christ for financial gain only.

12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of
the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts
of the Constitution.

13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.

14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more
important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Gen. Robert E. Lee, and
Thomas Edison & A.G. Bell.

15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial
quotas and set-asides are not.

16. You have to believe that Hillary Clinton is normal and is a very nice
person.

17. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked
anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.

18. You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but
a liar and a sex offender belonged in the White House.

19. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag,
transvestites, and beastiality should be constitutionally protected, and
manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal..

20. You have to believe that illegal Democratic Party funding by the Chinese
Government is somehow in the best interest to the United States.

21. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right wing
conspiracy

[Cosmo Electrolux]

"21 Rules For Being A Good Republican"

1) You have to believe that the nation's 8-year unprecedented prosperity was
due to the work of Ronald Reagan and George Bush, but that today's gas prices
are all Clinton's fault.

2) You have to believe that those privileged from birth achieve success all
on their own.

3) You have to be against government programs, but expect your Social
Security checks on time.

4) You have to believe that government should stay out of people's lives, yet
you want government to regulate only opposite-gender marriages, what a woman
does with her uterus, and what your official language should be.

5) You have to believe that pollution is OK so long as it makes a profit.

6) You have to believe in prayer in schools, as long as you don't pray to
Allah or Buddha or the Goddess.

7) You have to believe that only your own teenagers are still virgins.

8) You have to believe that a woman cannot be trusted with decisions about
her own body, but that large multi-national corporations should have no
regulation or interference whatsoever.

9) You love Jesus and Jesus loves you and, by the way, Jesus shares your
hatred of AIDS victims, homosexuals, and Bill and Hillary Clinton.

10) You have to believe that society is color-blind and growing up black in
America doesn't diminish your opportunities, but you wouldn't vote for a
black candidate for president.

11) You have to believe that it was great to allow Ken Starr to spend $90
million dollars to attack Clinton because no other U.S. presidents have been
unfaithful to their wives.

12) You have to believe that a waiting period for purchasing a handgun is bad
because quick access to a new firearm is an important concern for all
Americans.

13) You have to believe it is wise to keep condoms out of schools, because we
all know if teenagers don't have condoms they won't have sex.

14) You have to believe that the ACLU is bad because they defend the
Constitution, while the NRA is good because they defend the Constitution.

15) You have to believe that socialism hasn't worked anywhere, and that
Europe doesn't exist.

16) You have to believe the AIDS virus is not important enough to deserve
federal funding proportionate to the resulting death rate and that the public
doesn't need to be educated about it, because if we ignore it, it will go away.

17) You have to believe that biology teachers are corrupting the morals of
6th graders if they teach them the basics of human sexuality, but the Bible,
which is full of sex and violence, is good reading.

18) You have to believe that Chinese communist missiles have killed more
Americans than handguns, alcohol, and tobacco.

19) You have to believe that even though governments have supported the arts
for 5000 years and that most of the great works of Renaissance art were paid
for by governments, our government should shun any such support. After all,
the rich can afford to buy their own and the poor don't need any.

20) You have to believe that the lumber from the last one percent of old
growth U.S. forests is well worth the destruction of those forests and the
extinction of the several species of plants and animals in them because it
allows logging companies to add to their profit margin.

21) You have to believe that we should forgive and pray for Newt Gingrich,
Henry Hyde, and Bob Livingston for their marital infidelities, but that
bastard Clinton should have been impeached.

[Preechr]

Ok, now let's do Libertarians!

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Couldn't all 21 basically go like "You must believe '' '' '' if we cut taxes"?

[Preechr]

That, and maybe something about staying out of my yard.

[Cosmo Electrolux]

or you could just say that either you believe that (insert typical right wing bullshit here), or you're with the terrorists....

Or, you don't support the troops if you don't think that ........

same difference.

[Preechr]

No, no no... Not for us Libbies!

Officially, the LP is the biggest anti-war party, believe it or not. I'M not anti-war... but, whatever... It's a big tent and whatnot.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

"officially" meaning that it says it on the website. :lol

[Preechr]

I'm sure it does. They mean it.

http://www.lp.org/exitplan.pdf

Oh... were you challenging their size again? We've done that. Maybe the Greens are bigger... Hell, I dunno. Neither one can field a winner to save it's life, so who cares which one has a larger mailing list?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

There's a debate over who's bigger, but that doesn't matter. We all know it's how you use your fringe third party that matters.

Even though the Greens may be larger, I think the Libertarian Party is actually in better position to be a major third party. I think once they can get away from the image of gun crazy hunters in Michigan, they might be able to make some damage. Unlike the Greens, the LP has more of a foundation in a presumably alternative ideology, a "third way," if I may use the language of Sen. Clinton. :(

My beloved Greens, unfortunately, have a far worse image problem than the LP, and their solutions are really just socialism-light, with a pinch of Jeffersonian jargon in there.

[Preechr]

I preferred ya'll's Texan over the Lp's Texan in the last presidential run, at least in terms of bearing and ability to look like a candidate.

My original point was that the Libertarian Party is and always has been firmly anti-war. They've gotta get some points from the true ideological left for that, right? ... and not just because the war benefits Bush...

[Preechr]

I'm actually a little surprised that as a Libertarian you even support this. One argument I've seen in favor of the sales tax is that it'll encourage people to save by making them consider the weight of their day-to-day purchases. Is it the job of the government to be deciding that behavior?

Y'know, I was driving down the road today, and I recalled you saying this. I thought of a better way to phrase my opinion here:

I have fewer problems with government encouraging certain behaviors than I do with government actively discouraging any behavior that only harms the individual making the decision. Ideally, the government I would choose for us would not be acknowledged as a go-to-guy for advice anyways, but you have to work with what you've got, right?

Let's look at that for a minute from the point of view of funding art with tax money, a fun subject. Republicans get all pissy about guys like Andres Serrano, and charge the Democrats that defend his work as art with either demonic possession or liberal lunacy. Were I forced to pick a side, I would not be able to condone culling this or that piece on some random merit system, but I also don't have to agree that much of what is called art should be partly paid for by me, much less that that is what it should even be called.

Republicans that would discourage shitty art would inadvertantly encourage, for example, much more Christian-friendly art. Is that better or worse for them from their standpoint? I mean, maybe they won't notice the difference, but it stinks of sin to me... Additionally, since part of art's reward is fame, maybe even infamy, the Democrats that defend shitty art encourage more of it while effectively discouraging better work. A good libertarian would say fuck all that and remove government from the position of funding art entirely.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

next topic.

[Preechr]

What? You miss me?