Time for a New Kind of Campaign
I hate political campaigning. I do not understand why the candidates can’t just be honest about their own positions and let the people decide. I do not understand why candidates have to misrepresent themselves or their opponents.
More often than not there are distinct and different philosophical ideologies and policy positions between the candidates. Why not just lay out their priorities, their stance on current issues, and their over-arching philosophy of government and let the people take it from there?
No more mincing words. No more nuance. No more fluffy platitudes that have no real meaning. No more accusing their opponent of wanting to steal food out of the mouths of poor children and throw granny out on the street. No more veiled accusation of racism. No more lies, misrepresentation, or otherwise slanderous remarks. Just the facts, ma’am. That’s all we’re asking.
For example - One candidate supports a strong central government, steeply graduated income-tax system (where people who are successful get taxed at exorbitant rates and low- to moderate-income people pay nothing), government funded daycare and healthcare, government-imposed “livable” wages and price controls, and strict government regulation on business and development.
The other candidate supports local control, a fairer tax system (read: flat tax), free-market with minimal regulation, no minimum wage, no artificial price controls, no excessive government barriers to progress, and free-market healthcare.
Why does there need to be anything else said? Why do they need to even campaign against each other? Each candidate could explain why he thinks that his philosophy is better and how it translates into real world situations. End of discussion, let the people decide.
Wouldn’t that be great?
28 comments:
That would be great, except if Bernie did that, he'd never get elected!
The other way he would lose would be to list off his tangible accomplishments. Of course, here in Vermont, it's enough to say 'I've been fighting the republicans in Washington' in order to get re-elected.
God! A flat-tax is not fairer! Why do Republicans keep saying that? The necessities of life cost the same real-dollar amounts for poor and rich alike. The necessities of life are not charged as a percentage of your income.
I don't know how many times people like me have to point this out- but if one needs 20 thousand dollars to live for a year- and one guy only makes 20 thousand and another guy makes a million- charging them both 10% is NOT FAIR. The guy who only makes 20 thousand NEEDS that 2K. The guy who makes a million doesn't need the 200K. He can survive quite comfortably on the remaining 800K because he, like the poor guy also only needs 20K to live for a year. Why is that so hard for some people to get?
And when it comes to tax-cuts, this "trickle-down" hogwash is just a bunch of "Voo-Doo Ecomomics." Bush I was right when he ran against Reagan in 1980.
Real ecomomic stimulous comes from the bottom up. What do poor people do with their tax refunds? The pump it back into the ecomomy immediately because they've been keeping their clothes on the floor for two years and have a pent-up demand for a dresser. What's Rich Tarrent going to do with it? He's gonna put it in the bank and sit on it because he's already got everything he needs.
You might say his money in the bank means more capital in the economy- but the bank is going to charge the poor guy an interest rate if he borrows it to buy that dresser. Like that's fair.
If the rich were at all as patriotic as the puppets they have installed claim to be, they would WANT to pay a higher percentage for the good of the nation. What kind of unholy scumbags make millions of dollars when the nation is in debt and at war, and still want to starve the treasury with all these tax cuts. I'll tell you- They're the unholy scumbags who run the country, and are destroying America from the inside out.
I'll never, ever believe the guy who gets a 400 million dollar retirement package shoud pay the same percentage of his income as the hungry, shell-shocked hurricane victim living in a FEMA trailer in New Orleans. Never. That's just wrong.
Oh. But what was this post about?
Campaigns? Well, mincing words, nuance and platitudes are never going anywhere. They're just part of politics. I try not to mince words, but I'm only free to do that because I'm not running for anything;)
"Fair Tax" is a moniker commonly applied to a specific tax system based not on income, but on consumption. Outside of that, "fair" is a completely subjective term that does not have a black and white meaning in this context. You may have one sense of what it means based on a vastly simplified generalization of how the wealthy deploy their money, I have quite another.
Personally I believe that hitting owners of vacation homes in Vermont with a higher education property tax than residents, when they will not derive one bit of benefit from the proceeds, is unfair. But hey, that's just me.
"He's gonna put it in the bank and sit on it because he's already got everything he needs."
Actually, he's probably going to give an enormous amount of it to charity, as he always has.
"God! A flat-tax is not fairer!"
Your misinterpretation of this post's "flat tax" reference as referring to a single tax rate for everyone would be somewhat less embarrassing if the words "flat tax" weren't linked to a site that clearly explains otherwise.
So what is a "flat-tax" if not a single tax rate for everyone?
"So what is a "flat-tax" if not a single tax rate for everyone?"
"the words 'flat tax'... linked to a site that clearly explains otherwise"
"Actually, he's probably going to give an enormous amount of it to charity, as he always has."
"An enormous amount" in Tarrant's case is still very likely to be a "tiny percentage." And even if it is a big percentage, like ten, twenty or thirty- That still leaves him tens of millions of dollars to live on. Ooooh. What a martyr!
Here's a tip for Tarrant supporters: Nobody gives a shit that he gives to charity. That is, at best, a neutral issue for him. If you're as rich as him, you bloody well should give a lot to charity. If he didn't it would be a big negative for him. Neutral or Negative. That's what it's worth politically for him. Besides, bragging about charitable giving is a distasteful thing to do. It should be done out of the goodness of one's heart. Not to score points.
Yeah- that website is silly. What is describes is not a flat tax.
"is still very likely to be"
Translation: I have no idea how much it is.
"Neutral or Negative. That's what it's worth politically for him."
When you have to say it that many times, it enters the realm of "wishful thinking."
"bragging about charitable giving is a distasteful thing to do."
He's actually known as one of the more low-key philanthropists in the state. Maybe you can point to one reference to his philanthropy that his campaign has put forward to prove your point.
"Yeah- that website is silly. What is describes is not a flat tax."
What "is" describes is the tax system that is typically referred to by economists when talking about a "flat tax." More importantly, it's what the post (to which you were responding - sort of) pointed to when referring to a "flat tax."
"Maybe you can point to one reference to his philanthropy that his campaign has put forward to prove your point."
How about every time fake, anonymous, blogers like you, paid by the Tarrant campaign, talk about it? ;)
"How about every time fake, anonymous, blogers like you, paid by the Tarrant campaign, talk about it?"
1. I would never work for any campaign.
2. You brought up Tarrant.
3. I guess you can't find that reference.
"I would never work for any campaign."
How are we supposed to know that? When you choose anonymity, you choose to have people guess at who you are. I'm just guessing you work for Tarrant.
"You brought up Tarrant."
...But you brought up charitable giving.
"I guess you can't find that reference."
No, I can't. I don't care to try. I didn't say he was bragging-I just said bragging itself is distasteful. Of course, if Mr. T's "philanthropy" isn't publicized somehow, then it will be a neutral issue for him like I said. If he does push it as a virtue and a reason to vote for him- you'll see how fast it will backfire!
Yo. I got other things to do. Why don't you leave some comments over at my blog so I can delete 'em? Peace out.
"How are we supposed to know that?"
Similarly, we don't know that you don't work for Sanders. In fact, I'd say that a propensity to inject Sanders/Tarrant references into completely unrelated topics would be a good indicator that you do.
"...But you brought up charitable giving."
So what?
"I didn't say he was bragging-I just said bragging itself is distasteful."
So your point was... he has had the opportunity to brag and hasn't, so he is a tasteful guy?
Charity blogged: "No more mincing words. No more nuance...."
Then she goes on to give an example by describing one candidate with words like "exorbitant", "government-imposed", and "strict".
The other unnamed candidate is described with words like "fairer", "minimal", "no artificial price controls", and "no excessive government barriers".
She is entitled to her own opinions no matter how uninformed they are. However, to imply that her descriptions are without nuance puts her in the same boat as Fox News: fair and balanced it is not.
Haik,
A flat tax is fair. It’s everyone chipping in, kind of fair.
By your logic, people making over a certain amount of money should pay a higher sales tax, too.
Using a percentage means that the more you make the more you pay. A really fair system would be that we all pay the same dollar figure, but that is not realistic. Actually, it’s kind of crazy.
Before you jump up on your soapbox, look at this link to the flat tax calculator. It will tell you what your tax would be based on three questions: yearly income, number of dependents, and filing status. My guess is you would pay nothing. There is a generous deduction for living expenses ($24,000 for married couple) and a deduction for dependents (which I think is $5500/child). The 17% tax rate is applied to the remaining amount.
Personally, I think we should all have to pay something in taxes, at least a nominal amount. That way, we all have a vested interest in making sure that our government stops spending money on stupid and wasteful things.
Another point, a “rich” person has much more than $24,400 of living expenses, so the “rich” guy is actually being taxed on money that he will spend on living expenses, but the “poor” guy is not. That’s not fair!
Except, anonymous - if that is your real name, I am not a candidate I am an opinion blogger.
From the freedom works page:
"We want to scrap our confusing, unfair tax code and replace it with a simple flat tax of one low rate with no deductions or special interest loopholes."
From their Tax calculator:
"Notes: The tax rate is 17%, with personal deductions"
Am I crazy or are those two items directly contradictory. When you start making allowances for deductions and marital status, you basically end up with something like we already have. It's not a flat tax.
And why does a rich person have "much more" than 24,5 in living expenses? The cost of living is the cost of living whether you're rich or poor. Sure, a rich person probably wouldn't like to live like the rest of us- but that's not the point. The point is if joe schmoe gets by on a small amount by eating ramen and shopping at the Salvation Army, so could richie rich. The only difference is richie rich has a lot left over, and joe schmoe would have to use his credit card to upgrade to spagetti and old navy, is all.
I did try the FW Tax calculator and it said I would owe zero. Personally I like the current system that redistributes money my way. Call me greedy, but I'm not about to give up my EITC just so I can feel "vested" in America. I feel plenty vested already.
"That way, we all have a vested interest in making sure that our government stops spending money on stupid and wasteful things."
What about the war in Iraq? Good idea, or stupid and wasteful?
"Haik Bedrosian said...
I did try the FW Tax calculator and it said I would owe zero. Personally I like the current system that redistributes money my way."
Yeah, you love your welfare, we get it already.
"What about the war in Iraq? Good idea, or stupid and wasteful?"
I knew you were going to bring up the war. I even had a parenthetical about it, but I took it out.
There are plenty of wasteful things that have nothing to do with the war.
I thought the war was a good idea at the time. I personally think that history will vindicate going to Iraq.
I think things could have been done differently, but playing Monday morning quarterback is a heck of a lot easier than military planning is.
“Call me greedy, but I'm not about to give up my EITC just so I can feel "vested" in America.”
Yes, you and I have a difference of philosophy here. This I know. I would rather eat Ramen – which I do – then take the EIC that the IRS said I was entitled to. No matter who says it, no one is entitled to another man’s hard-earned money.
Again, a difference of philosophy which we will never see eye-to-eye on.
OK, but why did you say a rich person's living expenses were much more than 24,5K? Is the cost of living not the same for everyone?
BTW, Bush lied us into the Iraq war so that his friends could rob us blind. That was never a good idea. That was the epitomy of treason and evil and there's a special circle in hell waiting just for the "president" for that.
But you probably knew I would say that, too.
"why did you say a rich person's living expenses were much more than 24,5K? Is the cost of living not the same for everyone?"
No, it isn't. The mortgage on a $750,000 house is more than the mortgage on a $200,000 house, not to mention the utilities on that bad boy.
The car payment on an old used vehicle is less than the car payment on a Bentley, not to mention the higher insurance.
The cost of food for a family that has two working parents is more than for a family where the mama stays home and makes everything from scratch.
The cost of nice suits is higher than the cost of painter's clothes.
Most "rich" people spend more on necessities than a poorer person does. The point was that the "rich" person will still be taxed on that money spent on living expenses, while the poor person will not.
"Most "rich" people spend more on necessities than a poorer person does."
Holy Moly! Are you kidding me?! Nobody needs all that stuff!! The rich person doesn't need a Bently, expensive food or a suit. Those are luxuries! Let him drive a beater, eat Ramen and wear used clothes. I said the cost of living, not the cost of extravagance.
You're totally making my point for me!
Umm, a suit is not a luxury item if you need it for work. And food costs more when both people are working because they do not have the time to make it all from scratch. That is not extravagance.
Besides, why do you begrudge people the right to live large?
If I was ever rich, I doubt I would spend money on excesses like that because the riches of this world do not really interest me, but I don't care in the least if others want to do stuff like that. (Come to think of it, it would be awesome to have power windows – okay there are some things I would have.)
I said that rich people would still pay taxes on the money they used for necessities. Food clothing and shelter are necessities. I said nothing of how much a person has a right to spend on necessities. That is not my right to make that judgment, nor is it yours.
I will never understand the class-envy thing. If someone has a lot of dough, I say, good for them. That’s great. It really has no bearing on me.
If all the rich people suddenly became poor, I would still be a stay-at-home mom whose husband does not make a whole lot of money. That’s okay by me. I made all of the choices that led me to this place and I am quite happy here.
What about the 750K house? That's not a necessity. The rich guy could live in a trailer. If a rich guy needs a suit for work, I'll bet dimes to dollars his accountant will find a way to deduct it as a business expense.
"Class-envy" has nothing to do with what I'm saying. Milk and Gas and Penicilin cost the same dollar amount regardless of one's income and thus will represent a higher percentage of a poor man's budget than they will of a rich man's. That is why progressive taxation exists.
To say a mansion is a necessity because it falls into the category of shelter is obviously rediculous.
Let people live large. I don't care. But don't try to tell me it's a necessity for the rich to live large just because they are rich.
We all have the same necessities. I've a poor man can live on 24,5- then so can a rich one.
Well then, since I don't have a dresser, you don't need one either. How ridiculous is that mentality?
And the suit could not be deducted under the flat tax system. There are no deductions. It is fair because all people are treated equal with a flat tax.
"What about the 750K house? That's not a necessity."
So I guess the dramatically higher property taxes that the "rich" guy in that house pays on that 750K house are just for good measure.
"Well then, since I don't have a dresser, you don't need one either."
Why the class envy?
:)
Personally, I think it is justifiable to talk about the other guy, not just oneself, in a campiagn. The other guy isn't going to say all the negative things about him/her-self.
For instance, I just came from the www.berniesrecord.com page and the facts are there. He seems to have done himself well in protecting drug dealers and those committing crimes against children, virtual or otherwise.
Then I followed a link into campaign contribution government records. Very interesting look at who is footing his bills and who are the people contributing to his donors, lots of people and businesses that can make multiple $1000 donations. I wish they would donate it to me and spread the wealth a little.
Guess what, I don't work for a campaign. But I did march in a parade this year. It was fun!
Post a Comment