• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Before Taxing More

Jimmy Who said:
There should be accountability for the taxes we already pay.
Click to expand...

Congressman A gets elected because he tells his district that he will get them A, and then get rid of B for their tax dollars.

Congressman B gets elected because he tells his district the he will get them B, and then get rid of A for their tax dollars.

Both Congressmen A and B get to Congress and try to get what the people from each of their districts want but find themselves at an impasse with each other.

Then Congressman C shows up with a spending bill that everyone likes...so there is a spending bill where everyone could get C.

Congressman A and B look at each other, nod, and tell Congressman C they won't vote for spending bill C if both they don't get items A and B on as a rider for the spending of C.

Congressman C really wants the bill that everyone wants with item C in it to pass...so he says yes to Congressman A and B and puts items A and B quietly on as a rider to his bill

Spending bill C from Congressman C is about to go to vote when Lobbyists 1 to 100 come in and say, well, my people are too poor to pay for this and Lobbyists 101 to 200 say that their wealthy clients want to keep more millions in their pockets and both sets of Lobbyists have enough Congressmen and in their pockets to vote against the bill.

Congressmen A, B, and C really want the bill to pass so they to Lobbyists 1 to 200, sure, no problem, and amend spending bill C to reflect that.

Finally, spending bill C passes. which means that the middle class will pay for item C, which the nation wants. And the middle class will pay for items A and B....which will do nothing for them because most of them do not live in Congressmen A's or B's districts....but they have the pleasure for paying for it.

So who is at fault? The Congressmen? The lobbyists?

Answer: neither. The people are at fault.

If everyone had the same agenda, spending would not be an issue. But the needs and wants of one district are different than those of another. But all districts demand that the people they vote for get them what they want, or at least look like they are trying. The Congressmen have to please the people who vote them in, the Congressman also have to please the people who fund their campaigns. The loser in all of this is the middle class who don't have enough clout in either votes or influence to make the taxation stop.

Everybody wants their programs to happen.

Nobody wants to pay for it.

But they both have to happen in to make the people happy, but there has to be a loser...and that is the group with the least amount of power. And that is also how budgets grow and taxes get higher....

Because everyone thinks they are most important and entitled persons on the earth so why shouldn't they get what they want?
 
Jason Warfield said:
Congressman A gets elected because he tells his district that he will get them A, and then get rid of B for their tax dollars.

Congressman B gets elected because he tells his district the he will get them B, and then get rid of A for their tax dollars.

Both Congressmen A and B get to Congress and try to get what the people from each of their districts want but find themselves at an impasse with each other.

Then Congressman C shows up with a spending bill that everyone likes...so there is a spending bill where everyone could get C.

Congressman A and B look at each other, nod, and tell Congressman C they won't vote for spending bill C if both they don't get items A and B on as a rider for the spending of C.

Congressman C really wants the bill that everyone wants with item C in it to pass...so he says yes to Congressman A and B and puts items A and B quietly on as a rider to his bill

Spending bill C from Congressman C is about to go to vote when Lobbyists 1 to 100 come in and say, well, my people are too poor to pay for this and Lobbyists 101 to 200 say that their wealthy clients want to keep more millions in their pockets and both sets of Lobbyists have enough Congressmen and in their pockets to vote against the bill.

Congressmen A, B, and C really want the bill to pass so they to Lobbyists 1 to 200, sure, no problem, and amend spending bill C to reflect that.

Finally, spending bill C passes. which means that the middle class will pay for item C, which the nation wants. And the middle class will pay for items A and B....which will do nothing for them because most of them do not live in Congressmen A's or B's districts....but they have the pleasure for paying for it.

So who is at fault? The Congressmen? The lobbyists?

Answer: neither. The people are at fault.

If everyone had the same agenda, spending would not be an issue. But the needs and wants of one district are different than those of another. But all districts demand that the people they vote for get them what they want, or at least look like they are trying. The Congressmen have to please the people who vote them in, the Congressman also have to please the people who fund their campaigns. The loser in all of this is the middle class who don't have enough clout in either votes or influence to make the taxation stop.

Everybody wants their programs to happen.

Nobody wants to pay for it.

But they both have to happen in to make the people happy, but there has to be a loser...and that is the group with the least amount of power. And that is also how budgets grow and taxes get higher....

Because everyone thinks they are most important and entitled persons on the earth so why shouldn't they get what they want?
Click to expand...
I agree it's all about themselves but in my mind this should not happen. There are 3 things that can happen with a problem. (1) you make it better. (2) you make it worse. (3) you leave it a loan and it gets worse all by itself. So if a Congressman or woman A, B or C don't agree (that's most of the time) then bingo the problem gets worse or one side goes around the other side and bingo it still gets worse. Why do we keep voting in the same people with the same result?
 
Jimmy Who said:
Meaning would anyone give more money to someone if they don't know were the other money they just gave went?
Click to expand...

What makes you think the government should be considered a person?
 
Government can be the best thing for people. if we could get rid of those who would sell there morals for a dollar.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Congress critters are accountable to their state/district voters. If deficit spending did not get them re-elected (achieve political success) at a rate of over 90% then they might consider ending that practice. Until then, you can rest assured that they will continue to do what has proven to be so politically successful.
Click to expand...

I appreciate and agree with your comments, though with a pretty big caveat: the two major parties have figured out that if they both do the same horrible stuff (that isn't limited just to running up the debt) they'll be able to get away with it. And they've done a pretty good job so far at keeping third parties off of state ballots. Voters don't have a choice even between hotdogs and hamburgers, but between hot dogs and hot dogs, with no way out of the restaurant, so to speak.

The sheer animosity supporters of one or the other party tend to have toward the other serves this purpose well; it distracts voters and ensures that they will continue to vote for one of the two major parties as much out of hatred for the other as any real desire to enact one or the other party platform. So, to summarize, the "opposing" parties have created a duopoly that is backed by very deep, albeit manufactured and manipulated, public sentiment, and that tends to enjoy the force of law. So while you are correct that the strategies politicians have adopted have been very politically successful, they've managed to turn a political advantage into a legal one; there are nearly insurmountable challenges to getting any third alternative party on enough state ballots to make any kind of difference.
 
ashurbanipal said:
I appreciate and agree with your comments, though with a pretty big caveat: the two major parties have figured out that if they both do the same horrible stuff (that isn't limited just to running up the debt) they'll be able to get away with it. And they've done a pretty good job so far at keeping third parties off of state ballots. Voters don't have a choice even between hotdogs and hamburgers, but between hot dogs and hot dogs, with no way out of the restaurant, so to speak.

The sheer animosity supporters of one or the other party tend to have toward the other serves this purpose well; it distracts voters and ensures that they will continue to vote for one of the two major parties as much out of hatred for the other as any real desire to enact one or the other party platform. So, to summarize, the "opposing" parties have created a duopoly that is backed by very deep, albeit manufactured and manipulated, public sentiment, and that tends to enjoy the force of law. So while you are correct that the strategies politicians have adopted have been very politically successful, they've managed to turn a political advantage into a legal one; there are nearly insurmountable challenges to getting any third alternative party on enough state ballots to make any kind of difference.
Click to expand...

A big problem with thrid party candidates is that they tend to take more votes from one major party than the other, yet never reach a plurality - thus handing the election to the candidate from the "wrong" major party.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
A big problem with thrid party candidates is that they tend to take more votes from one major party than the other, yet never reach a plurality - thus handing the election to the candidate from the "wrong" major party.
Click to expand...

Also true...and another reason that current conditions will require a great deal of political energy to overcome.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom