Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

New political party


  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#21 Raider5678

Raider5678

    Organism

  • Senior Members
  • 1,097 posts
  • LocationPennslyvania

Posted 21 March 2017 - 12:32 PM

We have a 2 party system but both parties evolve. Obama's policies were more in line with Nixon and Eisenhower than are Trump's despite party affiliation. To create new parties what groups have done is sought to hijack/exploit one of the 2 major parties. The Tea Party (faux grassroots movement) successfully took over the Republican Party. There success has been root in singular isues that sharply divide people based on identity racial and religious. Reagan gave amnesty to millions of undocumented immigrants, Bush 43 sought to pass a guess worker program, but now Trump wants to deport millions and build a wall. We also saw it on the left why a strong group supporting Sanders (himself a registered independent) sought to take the nomination and shape the direction of the party. How success their efforts were or will be has yet to be determined.

 

It has been bad for the Country and the 2 parties inmy opinion. Because rather than revitalizing political debate with fresh ideas the attempts to reshape the parties over time have made the parties less diverse. The republican party increasingly serves an ever shrinking group of people (white christian males with money) while the Democratic party is being pulled into the false choice of either being universally moderate or transformationally progressive.

 

So the answer to your question is that people have to first stop going for the homerun of  taking over one of the 2 mojor parties. A "new" party should be new and not merely an attempt to reband something else. That way the party is free to bring in new ideas. It order to make that possible people need to feel they aren't throwing away voting for something other than the two major parties. We need rank choice voting. Rather than voting for a single candidate one ranks a couple. If a person's #1 pick doesn't win their vote goes to their #2 choice. If people could exercise choice without it merely being a protest vote I think new party would spring up.

For once, I agree.

Still going to be difficult.

Would my idea of a party type of thing, which I posted above, count as a "new party" that isn't a re-branding? Or is it actually a re-branding that I don't see?


  • 0

"My good sir,

I feel the need to inform you that your argument has reached rock bottom and has proceeded to dig.

 Good day."


#22 Ten oz

Ten oz

    Primate

  • Senior Members
  • 2,210 posts
  • LocationWashington D.C.

Posted 21 March 2017 - 01:14 PM

For once, I agree.

Still going to be difficult.

Would my idea of a party type of thing, which I posted above, count as a "new party" that isn't a re-branding? Or is it actually a re-branding that I don't see?

You haven't purposed a new party much as listed policy positions. Each of those positions can be debated (most are) within the structure we currently have. We already have politicians on both side who only want military use for protection and nothing else. Already want to cut DOD's budget, change tax rates, and etc. All of our systems (education, military, infastructure, etc) has been built by our 2 party system. I think a new political party needs to re-imagine those things to an extent and not merely snip around the edges as outlined by the major parties. Currently the Libertarian party does that. Not that I agree with their platform, I do not! But they do take a different appoarch.


  • 0

#23 Delta1212

Delta1212

    Primate

  • Senior Members
  • 2,566 posts

Posted 21 March 2017 - 01:21 PM

For once, I agree.
Still going to be difficult.
Would my idea of a party type of thing, which I posted above, count as a "new party" that isn't a re-branding? Or is it actually a re-branding that I don't see?


Doesn't seem like a rebranding, although I do seem some issues.

Your tax plan is effectively a massive tax cut pretty much across the board. The only bracket that would see an increase would be those who don't pay any taxes now because they don't make enough to get above the standard deduction. Even with your proposed military cuts, you're not going to offset the inflated budget deficit you'd create unless you cut into Medicare and Social Security, and you certainly wouldn't have enough left over for the massive spending you're proposing be poured into your research/infrastructure/jobs program.

I'm also a little unclear on the reasoning behind restricting immigration specifically during the implementation phase of the programs you describe, as I'm not sure how the one impacts the other.
  • 0

#24 Ten oz

Ten oz

    Primate

  • Senior Members
  • 2,210 posts
  • LocationWashington D.C.

Posted 21 March 2017 - 01:31 PM

Doesn't seem like a rebranding, although I do seem some issues.

Your tax plan is effectively a massive tax cut pretty much across the board. The only bracket that would see an increase would be those who don't pay any taxes now because they don't make enough to get above the standard deduction. Even with your proposed military cuts, you're not going to offset the inflated budget deficit you'd create unless you cut into Medicare and Social Security, and you certainly wouldn't have enough left over for the massive spending you're proposing be poured into your research/infrastructure/jobs program.

I'm also a little unclear on the reasoning behind restricting immigration specifically during the implementation phase of the programs you describe, as I'm not sure how the one impacts the other.

One big problem I see with nearly all tax proposals is tha the numbers are arbitrary. Come up with because they seem fair. The country already has responsibilities. We already have bills. Taxes are where we get the money to pay those bills. We can't just arbitrarily round off tax numbers to make them seem more suitable. Any change in tax policy needs to still produce the minimum dollars to allow our govt to pay its bills. Those are tough numbers to crunch and people haven't been willing to crunch them which is one of the reasons why we perpetually run deficits which ultimately are more expensive.


  • 0

#25 Delta1212

Delta1212

    Primate

  • Senior Members
  • 2,566 posts

Posted 21 March 2017 - 01:56 PM

One big problem I see with nearly all tax proposals is tha the numbers are arbitrary. Come up with because they seem fair. The country already has responsibilities. We already have bills. Taxes are where we get the money to pay those bills. We can't just arbitrarily round off tax numbers to make them seem more suitable. Any change in tax policy needs to still produce the minimum dollars to allow our govt to pay its bills. Those are tough numbers to crunch and people haven't been willing to crunch them which is one of the reasons why we perpetually run deficits which ultimately are more expensive.


Well, they aren't necessarily more expensive, but it depends on how you spend the money. A social program that generates $2 for every $1 spent is a good investment even if you have to borrow money with interest payments to fund it.

In general though, yes. Our current spending is based on what programs and services people want, and our taxes are based on what people want to pay. And there is very little effort to get the two to line up.

Cutting popular programs isn't popular and raising taxes to pay for them also isn't popular, so neither gets done and we continue running a deficit, which again, isn't popular.
  • 0

#26 Ten oz

Ten oz

    Primate

  • Senior Members
  • 2,210 posts
  • LocationWashington D.C.

Posted 21 March 2017 - 02:18 PM

Well, they aren't necessarily more expensive, but it depends on how you spend the money. A social program that generates $2 for every $1 spent is a good investment even if you have to borrow money with interest payments to fund it.

In general though, yes. Our current spending is based on what programs and services people want, and our taxes are based on what people want to pay. And there is very little effort to get the two to line up.

Cutting popular programs isn't popular and raising taxes to pay for them also isn't popular, so neither gets done and we continue running a deficit, which again, isn't popular.

I meant deficit spending (borrowing) is more expensive; it must be paid back with interest. Better to just tax the amount needed.


  • 0

#27 Raider5678

Raider5678

    Organism

  • Senior Members
  • 1,097 posts
  • LocationPennslyvania

Posted 21 March 2017 - 02:24 PM

Well, they aren't necessarily more expensive, but it depends on how you spend the money. A social program that generates $2 for every $1 spent is a good investment even if you have to borrow money with interest payments to fund it.

In general though, yes. Our current spending is based on what programs and services people want, and our taxes are based on what people want to pay. And there is very little effort to get the two to line up.

Cutting popular programs isn't popular and raising taxes to pay for them also isn't popular, so neither gets done and we continue running a deficit, which again, isn't popular.

Some basic math really quickly.

Americans made $12.95 trillion in 2011.

10%(actually less then what would be brought in because there isn't the 20% of the richer people) would make $1,295,000,000,000. The amount of taxes paid every year.

So crunching some basic numbers, I immediately realize a flaw in that plan as the U.S. currently makes 7 trillion ever year.

My bad.


  • 0

"My good sir,

I feel the need to inform you that your argument has reached rock bottom and has proceeded to dig.

 Good day."


#28 Delta1212

Delta1212

    Primate

  • Senior Members
  • 2,566 posts

Posted 21 March 2017 - 03:02 PM

Some quick googling for budget breakdowns:

The Social Security Administration's annual budget is just shy of $1 trillion. Medicare + Medicaid is a bit over $1 trillion.

Adding them together gives you over $2 trillion that you need to cover just those programs unless you want to make cuts. That's not even touching the military budget which, even if you make substantial cuts, is still going to be sizable, nor does it touch any of the substantial investments you have been talking about putting money into.

The current budget is over $4 trillion for the year. Assuming you can offset all of the spending you are talking about adding with cuts to the military budget (which I'm not sure you can do, but I'll grant you anyway for the sake of simplicity) and even manage to trim other programs down to make the total budget an even $4 trillion, that's the approximate amount you need to raise in revenue from federal taxes. ($7 trillion is federal + state + local revenue).

So unless you are willing to make some substantial cuts, you need to raise about three times the amount of revenue you are saying you'd get from your current tax plan in order to cover costs.
  • 0

#29 Ten oz

Ten oz

    Primate

  • Senior Members
  • 2,210 posts
  • LocationWashington D.C.

Posted 21 March 2017 - 04:49 PM

Some quick googling for budget breakdowns:

The Social Security Administration's annual budget is just shy of $1 trillion. Medicare + Medicaid is a bit over $1 trillion.

Adding them together gives you over $2 trillion that you need to cover just those programs unless you want to make cuts. That's not even touching the military budget which, even if you make substantial cuts, is still going to be sizable, nor does it touch any of the substantial investments you have been talking about putting money into.

The current budget is over $4 trillion for the year. Assuming you can offset all of the spending you are talking about adding with cuts to the military budget (which I'm not sure you can do, but I'll grant you anyway for the sake of simplicity) and even manage to trim other programs down to make the total budget an even $4 trillion, that's the approximate amount you need to raise in revenue from federal taxes. ($7 trillion is federal + state + local revenue).

So unless you are willing to make some substantial cuts, you need to raise about three times the amount of revenue you are saying you'd get from your current tax plan in order to cover costs.

Over 4 trillion and at about 3.7 trillion of it is all stuff like DOD, Soc Sec, and medicare which no wants to cut. Meanwhile the EPA accounts for less than half of a single percent of the budget. Cuts aren't going to get it done. We need more money. We pay over 400 billion in interest towards debt per year and every deficit we run only increases that amount.

 

People's refusal/displeasure with paying taxes often complicates their own lives and makes conditions less desirable. I was raised in California. I currently live in Washington DC. Everytime I leave the Capital and venture out I am amazed by all the tolls on the highway. It is somethings feeways in cali don't have. There are tolls physically on the highways and depending on the highway tolls at every exit. The infastructure for the tolls is enormous. It must cost a significant percentage of the toll money collected just to finance to system of collection. It would be far more simple for the state to just tax citizens and pay for the darn roads than it is to interrupt traffic and maintain an industry of toll collection. Just taxing people via their pay would be more cost effective and it would improve traffic. Instead everyone is stuck stop for tolls and coughing up cash as they go. Far more inconvenient and for worse service. I guess some would argue that it is a jobs program but the effort put into toll collection could easily be redirected to road improvement. Believe me, Virgina and Maryland could have much nicer roads.

 

That is just one example. We see it all over another example would be cities with police dept. that have aggressive citation writing campaigns because it is revenue source. It would be easier if we could all just pony up they money via taxes instead of constantly pushing for tax cuts which result in govts just find some other way to get the money they need to function. 


  • 0

#30 Raider5678

Raider5678

    Organism

  • Senior Members
  • 1,097 posts
  • LocationPennslyvania

Posted 18 April 2017 - 06:00 PM

There.

Started a political party.

Now just need some good old fashion manipulation to get started.


  • 0

"My good sir,

I feel the need to inform you that your argument has reached rock bottom and has proceeded to dig.

 Good day."


#31 OldChemE

OldChemE

    Quark

  • Senior Members
  • 45 posts
  • LocationHigh desert Nevada USA

Posted 18 April 2017 - 11:48 PM

You can start a party-- but the real problem is gaining majority.  This is a huge issue in the USA.  In countries where the elected representatives form a government, multiple parties can work, because several parties, each having a minority of the total, can form a coalition to select the leader (such as a Prime Minister).  In a system like the US where the President is directly elected separate from the Senators and Representatives, it takes some form of majority (electoral or popular, or both) for party to get someone in office to push their platform and not veto legislation.


  • 0

#32 Raider5678

Raider5678

    Organism

  • Senior Members
  • 1,097 posts
  • LocationPennslyvania

Posted 18 April 2017 - 11:57 PM

You can start a party-- but the real problem is gaining majority.  This is a huge issue in the USA.  In countries where the elected representatives form a government, multiple parties can work, because several parties, each having a minority of the total, can form a coalition to select the leader (such as a Prime Minister).  In a system like the US where the President is directly elected separate from the Senators and Representatives, it takes some form of majority (electoral or popular, or both) for party to get someone in office to push their platform and not veto legislation.

That's the plan my good friend.

That's the plan.


  • 0

"My good sir,

I feel the need to inform you that your argument has reached rock bottom and has proceeded to dig.

 Good day."





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users