Presidential Debate

[cltrn81]

I can agree that you should be able to have some say.  I would sound disagreeable if I said that check the box part should also be accompanied with an additional dollar amount you have to include on top of your mandatory taxes.  If a person cared that much about a particular program they would pay the extra.  But I have been to Kuwait and that country is more or less a Theocracy/Monarchy state that uses slave labor.  They can afford to share the socialized oil profits not only because the country floats on oil but the fact that they abuse other country's people in regard to their workforce.  A Kuwaiti citizen does not have to work if they do not want to, pretty much any social need from education to healthcare is paid for by the country, they get a stipend much like the Alaskan citizens do....only much larger, and the men are required to serve a set amount of time in the military.  So how does a country operate if the citizens do not have to work?  Pretty much one step above slave labor is the answer.  Kuwaiti businesses hire third country nationals, much like American countries operating overseas but that is another argument, and pay those people pennies on the dollar.  I hope you are not saying that is what you want the US to become.  I don't mean to sound obstinate here....I just wanted to point out my first hand experience and what I saw in Kuwait.

[Dudecore]

People donate now to charity. But if they're already taking my money, and I using it for the public good, id be fine with that. I'm already doing my share, and now I have to do more? I wanna allocate my tax dollars, I already have a say in where my charity goes. I don't even have a problem paying taxes, I believe humans are morally obligated to do so, but you can't do it at gunpoint. I wanna say in where my money is being spent, instead of some overarching government spending money on weapons contracts they have with private corporations.

Kuwait is the first example I could think of a group of people sharing resources, which was the point I was trying to make, perhaps not the best.

We need more businesses that are employee run, more people to be involved with human wellbeing.

Instead when we pay taxes you get people who say "I'm doing my part" and without enough money left over to donate to charity. We're working 40+ hour work weeks without enough time to pursue our goals, see our families or volunteer.

Governments are run by corporations, we let the government confiscate our money and do whatever they want with it. Get rid of government and then corporations will be accountable to the people.

[cltrn81]

People donate now to charity. But if they're already taking my money, and I using it for the public good, id be fine with that. I'm already doing my share, and now I have to do more? I wanna allocate my tax dollars, I already have a say in where my charity goes. I don't even have a problem paying taxes, I believe humans are morally obligated to do so, but you can't do it at gunpoint. I wanna say in where my money is being spent, instead of some overarching government spending money on weapons contracts they have with private corporations.

Kuwait is the first example I could think of a group of people sharing resources, which was the point I was trying to make, perhaps not the best.

We need more businesses that are employee run, more people to be involved with human wellbeing.

Instead when we pay taxes you get people who say "I'm doing my part" and without enough money left over to donate to charity. We're working 40+ hour work weeks without enough time to pursue our goals, see our families or volunteer.

Governments are run by corporations, we let the government confiscate our money and do whatever they want with it. Get rid of government and then corporations will be accountable to the people.

You had me til the last paragraph . I think your last sentence sounds good but I think the actual outcome would be the complete inverse and that is where we disagree.

[cltrn81]

@Testset:  Lobbying is protected by the first amendment but when does it become bribery?  I am not saying all lobbying is bribery but I do believe it is used as a bribery tool and encouraged because of government regulations put forth by lobbyists.  If that makes sense 😜 There are lobbying institutions set up under the guise of a charitable institution and when the statement was made that most of the charity is paid by corporations they are correct because a lot of that "charity" goes to these lobbying institutions and the corporations can then right it off on their taxes.  Illegal? No because lobbying made it legal.  Ethical? Hell no <insert emoji gavel>

[Rass]

Interesting read.

[cltrn81]

I do not think our founding fathers intended freedom speech to be passed on to businesses in the manner it has.  I would argue that freedom of speech was intended for persons and the press to be able to say what they want for or against whatever cause without the fear of being persecuted for that speech.  I can't see the point that it was created for business to be able spend as much money as they want to manipulate laws/regulations.  This is really a perversion of the freedom of speech that tries to make claim that money is speech as it tries to make the claim that we as Americans would have less liberties if we could not "hear" the speech that money creates.  If you look at the Supreme Court Citizens United case, that is pretty much the claim.....money is speech and taking away the right of businesses to spend as much as they want on campaigns would limit our freedom speech since we could not "hear" that speech the money created.  That argument kinda blended into campaign finance but the topic of lobbying is very similar.  Honestly I believe the freedoms of speech argument is only made to inflame people and make them think the government is taking away their rights when the real motive is to make sure business can spend as much as they want on .politics..

[ducttapetitan]

Vote for Santa Claus!!!!!!!!!!

[Xanzurth]

By definition, "anarchy" is synonymous with "lawlessness." Look it up in the dictionary if you don't believe me.

It's not that I hold a dim view of people as a whole. The looters and thieves are a minority of the population, to be sure. But that minority will screw it up for everyone else.

Well we can call it whatever we want. I also hate dysecting posts like this, but it's one of the limitations of the Internet. Just because a minority of the people will screw it up, doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Are a few idiot people going to use this as an opurtunity to rape, pillage and steal? Perhaps. But is that any better/worse then the system we have now that throws people in prision for victimless crimes, financially ruins people's lives or murders people in other countries (on our dime)? Seems to me as though we have a myriad of problems now that we're unwilling to address, because the alternative might be more difficult to envision.

While I believe in the free market and less government involvement in public affairs, we need them to play some form of referee role. Their decision to repeal a number of regulations allowed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to run wild. Not because they are "evil corporations," but because they will do what is best for the company. That's their job. The government is supposed to police them.

This is categorically incorrect. The government backed their poor investments. A corporation interested in making money would never make poor investments like that. The government (and rightly so) wanted low income people to be able to afford housing. So Fannie Mae and the other investors came along and said "we will give then loans, but when they default we want the money we loaned them back". Left to their own devices they'd never done that, there would be no money in it. Government involvement made those things happen.

And self-interest does not have to be a negative thing: given the choice between the life of your family and the lives of your neighbors, who will you pick? Between feeding your child and repairing the road, which will it be?

Those are choices you're able to make without someone else confiscating your money to do so. How is legislating behavior going to change this?

This is why we have taxes: to ensure that the common good is still attended to. The "general welfare" stated in the Preamble (not our flawed welfare system). You may not like some of the places it is spent, but they are trying to meet the goals of the masses to the best of their ability. Not every one shares your desires, or mine. Pretend your tax money went into education, if that's what you believe in, and I'll say mine was used to maintain the freeway. Effectively, with the fluid nature of money, that's what happened.

That is effectively saying that because "some good" is being done, then "some bad" has to come with it. Why should anyone take my money and spend it on bombs? I don't believe in it. I believe in helping the poor. I'm not free to spend my money, it's taken from me (under penalty of law) and used to do really bad things I don't believe in. I want to choose how my money should be spent. Just because people will spend their money on stupid things doesn't change the fact that they should be able to do so.

You can't legislate behavior, and you can't plan economics. We're slaves to a system that we have no say in, our money is taken at gunpoint and spent wherever someone else sees fit. Democracy is not a system the helps everyone like voting with your dollar does.

We're conditioned to be cynical of any processes we could actually utilized. an unfounded cynic is an obnoxious apathetic. We're kept isolated into demographics and marketed to be isolated. we're pitched a two party system that dont offer a new products but are just different brands.

You can choose how your money is spent by voting for the person that most closely represents your ideals.
You have to remember there are more than just two candidates running for president.
Look up, study, do what ever but be informed about who you are choosing to represent you in government.

Socialism and communism don't work. There are two glaring examples in the 20th century that prove my fact.
Socialist NAZI German and Communist Russia.

I have traveled the world as a US sailor. This is still the greatest country on earth. People from all regions of the globe still flock to the land of opportunity.

Most people need to stop whining and use their freedom to vote and make a change in their own lives.

And yes EVERY vote does count.

[#noided]

Oh my wall of quote bubble.

[Piotr]

Socialism and communism don't work. There are two glaring examples in the 20th century that prove my fact.
Socialist NAZI German and Communist Russia.

We have even better examples: Western and Eastern Germany, North and South Korea. Same country, same people, difference is the implementation stage of socialism.

[Phoenix X30]

Obama or off!

[#noided]

Obama or off!

Obama. Get a load of this guy.

[Ace]

I still don't know who I am voting for but I am curious how everyone else is going to vote.

[Rass]

Obama

I'm pro union and don't make over $250k

[Mactitioner]

I'm voting for Ross Perot.