Has social conservatism pushed too far?

[Ben Huh]

...considering Warren, another main reason I am not sold on her is it's all about taxing the rich more. That's her answer to everything. Here is the problem I have. The "rich" already have an effective tax rate of 35% (and I am not opposed to increasing it). You wanna know why so few of them pay 35% including Obama and Warren herself? Tax credits. Tax credits are what allow millionaires to pay under 20% (IIRC Romney paid 14% in 2012 and Obama 16% that same year ) of their income in taxes, on top of them not having to pay a standard income tax on the absurd amount of income they make on investments and dividends. That's what we should do first to make sure millionaires are paying as close to 35% as possible. What good would it do to increase their tax rate to 50% if they can still utilize tax credits to lower it down to 20%? She is correct that we need more tax brackets as millionaires and middle class families making a combined income of 250K a year should not share a tax bracket. Bill Gates and a small business owner should not pay the same rough percentage in taxes. After that though, I get lost with most Democrats and a lot of them have earned the "tax and spend" label because of this practice. They'll increase taxes but keep in place the mechanisms that allow their business cronies and themselves to not pay the newly increased rate via credits and that includes Warren herself. IMO Democrats are destroying the middle class as much as Republicans are. Democrats support expansive social safety nets that costs a good bit of funds to run, which they of course are not gonna pay for as millionaires that can utilize tax credits to get it down to the teens. The middle class is going to pay for shit like that. Safety nets are fine and I have always supported them, but they can get too big to the point of being unaffordable. I make ~50k annually after taxes and I easily pay ~$6,000 a year to a SS fund I know I'll never use.

[eynon81]

Dems bitch and moan about the Kochs, but the truth is that Senate Democrats get largess from the largest and spendiest PAC of all:
http://www.npr.org/2014/10/02/353177240 ... atic-hands

I've been reading a lot of stuff on the Gilded Age recently and I'm starting to think that we live in the more corrupt era in US history. Here's why; during the Gilded Era politicians, the MSM, and the people still fought corruption. Now-a-days the country is run by a 2 parties, one who pretends corruption doesn't exist and the other who thinks corruption is protected speech.


we're f**k.

[Indy]

I have never, ever said that the Dems aren't corrupt and that they're not being bought off--I just said that in the post to which you're responding.

You falter though, when you say that Dems are trying to suppress voters. They don't do that, that is on the GOP. The GOP has even doubled-down on it, deciding apparently that instead of fielding good candidates, they'll simply try and screw as many people our of their Constitutional rights--mostly minorities--and somehow this will deliver them the gov't.

You'd have a lot more weight in your voter ID argument if the GOP didn't use the completely bogus "voter fraud" fabrication to justify it. That's not why they want IDs. They want to make it as hard as possible for poor and minority voters to vote. Just admit it and let's move on. See, it's not the GOP agenda that's so insulting--we know what they're trying to do--it's the lying about what they're really doing.

You complain that I only um, complain, about the GOP and never about the Dems. We've been over this. I've started countless threads about a Dem or the Dems and when I do, they wither on the vine--nobody shows up. If it's the GOP though, everybody shows up and then I get "You only complain about one party, liberal!" Sigh. I've just accepted it by now.

The #1 symbol of corruption for our decade is none other than President Obama himself. Wall St. raped our economy and our treasury, threw millions out of homes and work, and did it all via fraud before then taking our money to reinstate themselves. They've also prevented any law from being passed that will keep them from doing it all over again.

And he did nothing. Nothing. The entire American public would have backed him 100% if he completely re-regulated our banking system (as they did after the 1928 crash) but he literally asked them what he could do for THEM.

Because they own him.

The problem isn't Dem or GOP, the problem is the money. The Dem vs. GOP freakshow is set up to keep us distracted from that.

[Ben Huh]

[eynon81]

[Indy]

[spacemonkey]

When does the accumulation of wealth become so large that adding to it does not elevate the position of its owner?

[eynon81]

[spacemonkey]

[Ben Huh]