What do you want the next President to accomplish?

Lafayette said:

Wasted vote. Anyone other than a Dem or Replicant candidate hasn't a snow-ball's chance in hell.

The democratic system is indeed broken. Fix the system.

Get money the hell outta politics! Make tax-payer contributions limited to $2K a head, deductible from taxes. Commercial hours for all candidates, including multiple debates, cost deductible against by the TV stations that carry them.

No more 1.3 Billion-dollars wasted on PotUS elections!
__________________________________

Click to expand...

Perotista said:

I totally abhor Trump and Clinton, I distrust both, I think either one if elected would sink this country to new lows not seen since the Great Depression.

Click to expand...

Lafayette said:

Why, exactly, do you distrust Hillary?
____________________

Click to expand...

Perotista said:

Long laundry list, but number one was putting our classified national security information at risk. That included 22 Top Secret Special Access Program messages.

Click to expand...

Perotista said:

She can't be trusted.

Click to expand...

The Profit Margin: WellPoint’s net income (profits) after all expenses and the provision for income taxes in 2008 was 4.07 percent of total revenue. In accounting jargon, it is called the “profit margin.” In 2007, that margin had been 5.47 percent. In 2006 it was 5.42 percent.

Were WellPoint’s profits in 2008 high? It depends how we look at it.

Click to expand...

Lafayette said:

REPLICANT HEGEMONY



Yes, and so what? Cabinet Replicants during Bush's administration were using the Replicant Party emailer: Bush White House Email Controversy.

And, "The Republicans who did exactly what Hillary did".

Moreover, for you, the proof that this was a "major breech of security". Good luck on that one.



Aside from repeating yourself, again, there was NO BREACH OF SECURITY. She simply did what a lot of cabinet members had done in the past - and unless you can show a "major consequence to national security", you are simply pissing into the wind.

Far more appropriately, during her husband's administration, she tried to bring a National Health Service to an America that very badly needed it; and the Replicants shut it down with a simpleton public advertising campaign called "Harry & Louise". Which was funded by the private health-insurance companies who did not want to lose their "cash-cow" profit-generator*.

The consequence being that - until ObamaCare - fully 16% of the American public had no health-care coverage whatsoever. Which was certainly a key reason for so many unnecessary deaths due to the fact that "the ER is far too late to care for most deadly physical disorders".

And why the life-span of Americans is 3-years lower than for Europeans. See here:
View attachment 67206587

The present accusations against Hillary are just typical Replicant mud-slinging because they want direly to maintain their hegemony over National Politics. And why?

Just to protect their flat-rate taxation of upper-income that creates the excessive hoarding of their Ill-got Gains - one of the Biggest Rip-offs in American History ...

POST SCRIPTUM

*See here. Excerpt:

You betcha! For a company that need not provide the service and simply insures HC-services, those profit margins are "damn fine"! Who pays for them? You do! Because your company builds into the cost-structure its Health-Care Premiums Cost - which makes American products/services more expensive than need be!
__________________________

Click to expand...

QuadpolarNutjob said:

... meanwhile in reality clinton lied under oath, violated state department security policy, and murdered four americans.

Click to expand...

Defamation law in the United States is much less plaintiff-friendly than its counterparts in European and the Commonwealth countries due to the enforcement of the First Amendment. In the United States, a comprehensive discussion of what is and is not libel or slander is difficult, because the definition differs between different states, and under federal law.

Defenses to libel that can result in dismissal before trial include the statement being one of opinion rather than fact or being "fair comment and criticism", though neither of these are imperatives on the US constitution. Truth is an absolute defense against defamation in the United States, meaning true statements cannot be defamatory

Click to expand...

Lafayette said:

Take your foot off the "history pedal", will you.

The constitution was framed in a time and a place (in history) that is entirely different from the world we live in. It is a good document, as is the Bill of Rights, but they both need serious revisions within the present context.

Unbridled capitalism, that nobody could forsee in the 18th century has made America infamous for its stark and unacceptable Income Disparity. Reckless Ronnie, in his simpleton understanding of history, took the US back to pre-1913, when America had no income tax whatsoever. The Reagan Administration instituted a rip-off flat-rate taxation benefiting the upper-class of income-earners (above $100K annually) that has caused the worst income-disparity of any developed nation on earth.

The proof of that contention is from here, the Gini Index, (meaning the greater the index, the less income fairness exists in a country):

Any change of the status-quo (towards making the US a more fair and equitable country) is aberrant by Replicant preconceptions that go back to a time (the 18th century) that no longer exists.

Wakey, wakey - this is the 21st century! You (plural) have been asleep a long, long time ...
____________________________

Click to expand...

AlbqOwl said:

By your own map, the degree of 'income inequality' appears to be no clear barometer of a nation's prosperity though it is absurd to compare a multicultural nation like the USA with 330 milllion population to a tiny European country with a homogenous population less than or barely more than one of our more populous states. When it comes to prosperity, considering the huge number of people near or below the poverty line in the USA, almost all as a result of government policy, the USA holds its own pretty well among all the nations:
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/oct/30/global-prosperity-index-usa-economy

And of course the Founders could not envision what a 21st century technology and lifestyle would be when they wrote the Constitution, so they made provision for the amendment process as necessary--but the principles they embodied in the Constitution are timeless and as true now as they ever were. It is those principles that should be mandatory to be taught in detail in every public school and in every college and university so that uneducated people cannot be led astray by the opportunists who want to rewrite or retranslate the Constitution for their own purposes.

I certainly want the President of the United States to know and respect what those principles were and are.

Click to expand...

AlbqOwl said:

Thank you for a thoughtful post Chomsky. We are ideological opposites on several issues, but I can always count on you being civil and presenting a coherent argument. I appreciate that more than I sometimes communicate. You could give lessons in that regard. You are somebody I think I would enjoy having a cup of coffee with.

Focusing on one area here:

Noticing that you checked #1 (sort of) and #2, I am not sure that both of these goals are obtainable. I am not sure the economy can be spurred into a good situation if the threats to tax the wealthy more continue as has been the case for the last eight years. Unless we can provide motive and incentive for the wealthy to reinvest the wealth they hold both here and abroad, I fear the economy will remain sluggish or stalled.

Click to expand...

Chomsky said:

Thanks for the generous kind words, and the feeling's mutual! :cheers:

[and sorry to have let this go over an extended busy weekend for me]

Yeah, "promote the economy" and "close tax loopholes" would seem to be somewhat at odds.

But I'm not sure that's always necessarily true.

Firstly, I would offset taxes on the very wealthy and corporations with lower rates & rebates for the middle-class, in order to promote consumer spending. That's the key.

The main idea for me here, is a tax structure that puts money in the hands of the consumer, where it is injected into the economy through consumerism, and causes it to grow. Consumer demand is what expands the domestic economy. I see tax breaks for the corps as doing not much more than taking money out of the economy to be sent overseas. American corps are investing and hiring like mad ... overseas. They are having huge profitability, as can be seen by the year after year growth of the S & P. But they are not investing in America.

Taxing money that's sitting on the sidelines or is being used in other countries does not detract from the U.S. economy. That's the key, I believe. Much of our money is overseas, whether corporate or that of extremely wealthy individuals. Giving tax breaks here to those corps and individuals only leaves more money to be sent and kept overseas. These corps are not investing here, and of their free will they won't be anytime soon given the current global realities.

I'd implement a small tax on non-repatriated funds - perhaps 3%, and see how that goes.

I'd also like to see a balanced budget, and (as above) income is half the balance sheet.

But to the other-side of the balance sheet, I'd also raise the bar for entitlement requirements, both in getting on, and staying on. I personally believe a huge swatch of welfare is either fraudulent or unnecessary, and that goes for disability though to perhaps a lessor extent.

And also on the savings side, I'd go through the military budget with a fine tooth comb, paying special attention to non-necessary military intervention and foreign nation building.

These are just ideas - I don't claim to have the solutions.

But I think going after entitlement fraud and abuse, while closing tax loopholes for the wealthy and corps, putting money in the hand of middle-class consumers, and forcing some consideration for repatriating overseas funds, would all be a good start in balancing our budget and stimulating the economy.

Click to expand...

AlbqOwl said:

... though it is absurd to compare a multicultural nation like the USA with 330 milllion population to a tiny European country with a homogenous population less than or barely more than one of our more populous states.

Click to expand...

QuadpolarNutjob said:

meanwhile in reality clinton lied under oath, violated state department security policy, and murdered four americans. she's as dirty as they come. also, your argument that American companies can't compete because they don't pay for employee health care is completely laughable. that's like saying i can't afford a new lawnmower because i haven't bought a new edger.

Click to expand...

polgara said:

Greetings, AlbqOwl. :2wave:

:agree: Most of those elected by us are attorneys, and they know damn well what they were and are - they just don't like the strictures that prevent them from doing whatever they want to do! Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are the only documents that have protected the "little people" and their rights for hundreds of years in this Country, and if the elite, not only in the US but around the world, are successful in their agenda to make them null and void, I can't imagine the human pain and suffering that will take place when that happens.

Does anyone really believe that taking orders from a "One World Government" group located somewhere else in the world will benefit any but the elite - who doubtless look at us as a thorn in their side from accomplishing their goal? The current push to eliminate or water down our First and Second Amendments might be a clue to what is planned for us, IMO, as history has proven over and over.

I hope I am totally wrong, and will happily admit so if I am, since many of us have children and grandchildren who will inherit the mess we have left them, including the nearly $20 trillion dollars of debt they had absolutely nothing to do with!

Click to expand...

Chomsky said:

Thanks for the generous kind words, and the feeling's mutual! :cheers:

[and sorry to have let this go over an extended busy weekend for me]

Yeah, "promote the economy" and "close tax loopholes" would seem to be somewhat at odds.

But I'm not sure that's always necessarily true.

Firstly, I would offset taxes on the very wealthy and corporations with lower rates & rebates for the middle-class, in order to promote consumer spending. That's the key.

The main idea for me here, is a tax structure that puts money in the hands of the consumer, where it is injected into the economy through consumerism, and causes it to grow. Consumer demand is what expands the domestic economy. I see tax breaks for the corps as doing not much more than taking money out of the economy to be sent overseas. American corps are investing and hiring like mad ... overseas. They are having huge profitability, as can be seen by the year after year growth of the S & P. But they are not investing in America.

Taxing money that's sitting on the sidelines or is being used in other countries does not detract from the U.S. economy. That's the key, I believe. Much of our money is overseas, whether corporate or that of extremely wealthy individuals. Giving tax breaks here to those corps and individuals only leaves more money to be sent and kept overseas. These corps are not investing here, and of their free will they won't be anytime soon given the current global realities.

I'd implement a small tax on non-repatriated funds - perhaps 3%, and see how that goes.

I'd also like to see a balanced budget, and (as above) income is half the balance sheet.

But to the other-side of the balance sheet, I'd also raise the bar for entitlement requirements, both in getting on, and staying on. I personally believe a huge swatch of welfare is either fraudulent or unnecessary, and that goes for disability though to perhaps a lessor extent.

And also on the savings side, I'd go through the military budget with a fine tooth comb, paying special attention to non-necessary military intervention and foreign nation building.

These are just ideas - I don't claim to have the solutions.

But I think going after entitlement fraud and abuse, while closing tax loopholes for the wealthy and corps, putting money in the hand of middle-class consumers, and forcing some consideration for repatriating overseas funds, would all be a good start in balancing our budget and stimulating the economy.

Click to expand...

Lafayette said:

You are quite wrong in your comparisons. Since four decades the EU has been One Market-economy. Just like the 50 states of America.

However, it has a market-economy potential that is greater than even that of the US. There are two Basic Elements to an energetic market-economy. The first is the number of people with the willingness and, secondly, the capacity to work hard with the right skills.

And on this comparison of Basic Elements, the EU, hobbled by WW2 destruction, is gaining ground on the US. (Frankly, I don't think that China will ever be the largest economy in terms of GDP per person, due to is extremely large population of the poor eking out an existence on farms.)

That leaves just two Major Economies: The EU, with a market-economy of 742.5 million and the US at 322 million. The EU has clearly a total market-economy potential larger than the US.

And the key-word is "potential", which is derived from the ability to produce and offer both goods and services - constantly innovating to do so. If you are familiar with Economic History, you should know that much of the Industrial Age technology was imported into the US from Europe. That will not be the case as regards the Information Age.

I believe nonetheless that Europe is no laggard as regards the Information Age. After all, it took three principal agents to conceive and develop the basic elements of the Internet, one European the other two American. Tim Berners-Lee founded the WWW out of the CERN (in Geneva) and Vincent Cerf along with Robert Kahn (who put together the ARPANET) did the most important work in developing initially what became the WWW as we know it today.

My point is simple: Many in the US have the bad habit of thinking that it is the Nombril of the World.

It isn't, not any more.

And Americans must take note of that fact ...
___________________________

Click to expand...

AlbqOwl said:

We could probably find a lot of common ground there, but downsizing, streamlining, elimination of waste and fraud, are all separate issues from spurring the economy back into prosperity. In my view of the world, the government has absolutely no business regulating how much money any person should be allowed to keep of what they earn. I think the rich should not be able to shelter what they earn to keep it from the tax man but should pay the same percentage on what they earn as everybody else.

If I could wave a magic wand and establish a tax policy, I would probably keep home mortgage deductions on the primary residence that the family occupies most of the year--not on the vacation homes, boat houses, private hangars, etc. though--and keep the deductions on charitable giving and medical expenses as these are necessities of life or provide important social services. And of course those in business must be able to deduct their cost of doing business from their gross income and be taxed on their actual profit. And I would allow a modest general exemption to cover other basic necessities of life. And then everybody from the poorest to the richest would pay a low flat tax rate on every dollar of income no matter what its source.

I think to free up the rich to be able to put their excess money back into the economy without excessive risk would allow all who try at all to prosper. And then if everybody pays the same low tax rate, we won't have half of America paying little or no income tax but voting on how much everybody else will have to pay.

Click to expand...

Chomsky said:

Ah, but how do we do this? (that I bolded)

How do we get a corporation (or wealthy corp owner) to pay workers higher wages, and with benefits, and in a safe clean environment, within a functional legal environment --> when all that can be eschewed by simply manufacturing overseas?

Besides providing a tax structure or a regulatory environment, how do you get business entities to pay more to have less profit? I just don't see it.

Remember, pure free-market theory says the jobs and investment will only come back here when the costs of doing business become the same or less than the Philippines, industrial China, Indonesia, Malaysia, etc.

For example: A Philippino laborer makes 1 or 2 dollars a day. Middle class skilled and office workers make 5-10 bucks a day, or so. Nurses get 150 bucks a month (which is why so many nurses that can - come here or go elsewhere in the west). Indonesia, Cambodia, and Malaysia are similar.

I just don't see American workers happy working at these levels (and with no benefits and little legal or physical workplace protection). American workers are often not even happy at their current levels!

This is not an easy problem to solve!

Click to expand...

Lafayette said:

You are quite wrong in your comparisons. Since four decades the EU has been One Market-economy. Just like the 50 states of America.

However, it has a market-economy potential that is greater than even that of the US. There are two Basic Elements to an energetic market-economy. The first is the number of people with the willingness and, secondly, the capacity to work hard with the right skills.

And on this comparison of Basic Elements, the EU, hobbled by WW2 destruction, is gaining ground on the US. (Frankly, I don't think that China will ever be the largest economy in terms of GDP per person, due to is extremely large population of the poor eking out an existence on farms.)

Click to expand...

That leaves just two Major Economies: The EU, with a market-economy of 742.5 million and the US at 322 million. The EU has clearly a total market-economy potential larger than the US.

And the key-word is "potential", which is derived from the ability to produce and offer both goods and services - constantly innovating to do so. If you are familiar with Economic History, you should know that much of the Industrial Age technology was imported into the US from Europe. That will not be the case as regards the Information Age.

I believe nonetheless that Europe is no laggard as regards the Information Age. After all, it took three principal agents to conceive and develop the basic elements of the Internet, one European/the other two American. Tim Berners-Lee founded the WWW out of the CERN (in Geneva) and Vincent Cerf along with Robert Kahn (who put together the ARPANET) did the most important work in developing initially what became the WWW as we know it today.

Click to expand...

My point is simple: Many in the US have the bad habit of thinking that it is the Nombril of the World.

It isn't, not any more.

And Americans must take note of that fact ...
___________________________

Click to expand...

Chomsky said:

I very much agree with your assessment that China will likely never have the leading GPD per person. 1.4B people is far too many to all participate in the growth. But this huge population will likely mean China will long have the resources to be a low cost producer of unskilled/low skilled labor intensive manufacturing. That's if they don't implode politically, as those that can't come along for the ride see they're being left-out!

Click to expand...

Chomsky said:

Yes, just as the 20th was the century of America, I believe the 21st will be that of China (barring implosion). Since the Industrial Revolution capital and power always flow to the manufacturing economy, as can be seen by our dollars flowing to China. Unless of course, the Information economy exceeds the manufacturing economy. We really don't know where technology will take us yet, do we?

Click to expand...

Chomsky said:

But this Yank would like to make one comment on the EU situation: There is no guarantee Europe will ever act as a cohesive strategic economy in the way the U.S. and China have. This can be seen by the recent Brexit vote and the reticence of Greece in matters EU. Europe has always been like the dysfunctional family that fights a lot. Now the family has gotten a lot better since that big fight in 1938, and I believe there is hope, even if purely compelled by mutual economic survival. But it's not a done deal.

Click to expand...

AlbqOwl said:

They throw their particular constituencies just enough bones to keep us from open revolution and figure they'll be long gone and somebody else will be holding the bag when it all collapses around us..

Click to expand...

We also need to distinguish wealth from income. Income is what people earn from work, but also from dividends, interest, and any rents or royalties that are paid to them on properties they own. In theory, those who own a great deal of wealth may or may not have high incomes, depending on the returns they receive from their wealth, but in reality those at the very top of the wealth distribution usually have the most income. (But it's important to note that for the rich, most of that income does not come from "working": in 2008, only 19% of the income reported by the 13,480 individuals or families making over $10 million came from wages and salaries. See Norris, 2010, for more details.)

This document focuses on the "Top 1%" as a whole because that's been the traditional cut-off point for "the top" in academic studies, and because it's easy for us to keep in mind that we are talking about one in a hundred. But it is also important to realize that the lower half of that top 1% has far less than those in the top half; in fact, both wealth and income are super-concentrated in the top 0.1%, which is just one in a thousand. (To get an idea of the differences, take a look at an insider account by a long-time investment manager who works for the well-to-do and very rich. It nicely explains what the different levels have -- and how they got it. Also, David Cay Johnston (2011) has written a column about the differences among the top 1%, based on 2009 IRS information.)

Click to expand...

AlbqOwl said:

I am not the one who made the comparison between countries. And the comparisons WERE between countries and not between the USA and the EU.

Click to expand...

AlbqOwl said:

By your own map, the degree of 'income inequality' appears to be no clear barometer of a nation's prosperity though it is absurd to compare a multicultural nation like the USA with 330 milllion population to a tiny European country with a homogenous population less than or barely more than one of our more populous states. When it comes to prosperity, considering the huge number of people near or below the poverty line in the USA, almost all as a result of government policy, the USA holds its own pretty well among all the nations:
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/oct/30/global-prosperity-index-usa-economy

Click to expand...

AlbqOwl said:

And of course the Founders could not envision what a 21st century technology and lifestyle would be when they wrote the Constitution, so they made provision for the amendment process as necessary--but the principles they embodied in the Constitution are timeless and as true now as they ever were. It is those principles that should be mandatory to be taught in detail in every public school and in every college and university so that uneducated people cannot be led astray by the opportunists who want to rewrite or retranslate the Constitution for their own purposes.

Click to expand...

AlbqOwl said:

I certainly want the President of the United States to know and respect what those principles were and are.

Click to expand...

Lafayette said:

This is a mean interpretation of American history.

Neither of us was "there" at the time, so we really don't know. It is thought that many in Washington may have had just such sentiments.

But, there is also another historical factor. The predominant intellectual influence in Washington (DC) at the time of its birth were the Free Masons. And regardless of what anyone may think about their strange practices, it is doubtful that what I quote you as saying was predominant.

That they wanted a United States stable and confident, yes. That they wanted a predominance of the rich in governmental affairs perhaps not so. This was "de facto" at the time since all riches were from an Agricultural Age that had existed for centuries. No one foresaw the end of that age that would come later in the 1800s.

I, for one, am convinced that it was the Industrial Age from the mid-1800s onward that created our fascination for Accumulated Wealth - an obsession that began actually at that time in our history. It was this Wealth Accumulation that inspired 19th century politicians to consolidate power such that it could be used to influence outcomes.

Don't believe that? See this political cartoon here: The Bosses of the Senate.

Cheating with the system of voting was a "feature" of the birth of our nation. (As explained here.) The US has been plagued with Gerrymandering to obtain desired electoral results ever since.

Gerrymandering is the "process of setting electoral districts intended to establish a political advantage for a particular party or group by manipulating district boundaries". It has worked well to concentrate power into a two-party system that sways power back-'n-forth, back-'n-forth ... ad nauseam. (If the swaying is done by parties on both the Left and Right, then perhaps that's not all bad.)

What is "all bad" is a significant change in upper-income taxation first started by LBJ (of all people) and finished by Reckless Ronnie, that brought about the flat-rate tax in upper incomes beyond $105K yearly. This "boon" to the rich has allowed them to manipulate political sentiment in order to consolidate the Right in power - either in Congress or the PotUS.

Today they control the former, and tomorrow perhaps both, should The Dork get elected. Is this what is best for the nation, Total Control in the hands of just One Party?

Methinks not, especially if that control is simply to perpetuate a Tax System that allows the major half of National Income to gush-up into National Wealth* for the benefit of a very select group families ...

*From here: Who Rules America; excerpt:
_____________________

Click to expand...