It is a two party system because we the people choose for it to be that way.

2008 was one of those years that was considered to have a record turnout with 55% of the people who were eligible to vote actually doing so.

If the other 45% are so disenfranchised by the system that they would rather not vote at all than vote for one of the two main candidates actually went to the polls and voted for one of the lesser known candidates we would have a legit third and maybe even fourth party in this country.

The system is flawed in the way that money is allowed to dominate it, but it is also open enough that someone can make a showing. Ross Perot got a lot of votes and the Tea Party, while now nothing more than a branch of the Republican party, did get a good number of people elected in the last election.

The major flaw in the system is the apathy of the participants.

No, it is not a two party system; like I said, there are two MAJOR parties. Until the "independents" unite there will always be just two major parties.

I'd like to know of a country that has three or more major parties that actually achieve anything.

Unfortunately you are both wrong. It very much is a one party system now. Since Citizens United, corporations can give unlimited funding to candidates. Do you really think they give money to one party OR the other? As a giant international conglomerate like Exxon or Goldman Sachs that would be very short-sighted... they want to back the winner, and the way to do that is to fund everyone. Then, no matter who wins, they own him.

Millions of dollars in Super PAC money to both candidates from the same entities...
Yet somehow people still expect candidates to act differently from each other on issues those backers consider important?
Notice how no matter who gets elected, Investment Banking Reform somehow doesn't seem to get done?
Ridiculous. :2 cents:

Yes it does. And you like it that way. Meaning you will vote for whatever candidate in Canada will keep that govt. assistance coming in.

On the other hand, if you owned your own company that didn't need funding from the govt., and you paid for your own health care/insurance, and were able to take care of yourself...You would vote for the candidate who wouldn't tax you as much and wouldn't take your money and give it to someone else.

That's kinda what Romney was saying. The majority of people who own businesses are going to vote for him. The majority of people dependent on govt. handouts will vote Obama.

Not all...but the majority.

So the taxes my company pays or the taxes I have paid my whole life entitles me to nothing?

The point I was making is that there is nothing wrong with a safety net,

Should I have paid more to insurance companies for health insurance, should a company profit off sickness?

Should people not get student loans or get re trained? Should we just be a labor based economy?

Should the government not put money into research and development? Should they not look to the future and provide funding options for new businesses?

Not only do I take care of myself but between my three companies I am responsible for a lot of people's lively hood. I could stand here and say I've done this all by myself but the reality is I went to public high school, got a scholarship to college, and the whole time I had free health care and my parents got tax credits for both me and my brother.

And from that I now employ a good number of people who all pay taxes, seems like a pretty solid system if you ask me.

Or how about this; the people that don't believe in being a selfish 'its all about me and fuck everyone else' prick won't vote for Romney. Do ya suppose thats why Obama is going to win?

You seem to be stuck on the messenger, I was talking more about the message, could care less about bitch ass Romney.

Well. A safety net is supposed to be when you run into deep trouble and just need a little help to get back on your feet.
I applaud you for being successful with your company (whatever it is..I thought this was an adult webmaster board...that's what my company does).
BUT...I didn't need or ask for any help to make my company successful (and since it's porn...you can bet the govt. wouldn't help me one bit).
And if I lived in Canada I wouldn't want to have to help you with my tax dollars to make your company successful.

It's up to you to do that.

I'm not attacking you by the way. I'm just giving you my viewpoint from where I stand.

You asked if you were dependent on the govt., and from all the things you said you received from the govt. I think the answer is "yes".
Doesn't matter if you were able to turn that into a successful company or not. That is a good thing that you say you did.
But it doesn't change the fact that it was the govt. (other people's tax money) that you were dependent upon to have your success.

An Obama ad just ran on the television, saying that Romney paid less tax percentage than you. He only paid 14% on his $20m income. Did anyone posting in this thread pay more than the $2.8m that Romney paid? And how many millions did any of you donate to charity?

You forgot to ask how many million we inherited from our well-connected parents. How many of us had a Harvard education paid for in full? How many of us made money using leveraged buyouts to bankrupt companies like Kaybee Toys and funneled the proceeds of our bustout scheme off shore to avoid paying even the reduced 14% tax rate Romney paid?

Seriously Minte, Americans deeply respect hard working self-made altruistic titans of industry. I don't recall anyone ever questioning Steve Jobs contributions to society or claiming he didn't pay his fair share of taxes while rocketing from a middle class garage workshop to billions in compensation. The problem here is Romney isn't that guy. He built nothing, made nothing and contributed much less than he sucked out of the system he keeps saying unfairly helps the same people he screwed. His daddy handed him every advantage and he used that boost to drain equity rather than create it. Even his own father would lose his mind if he heard Mitt wanted to be President but refused to disclose his own tax returns. His father was the guy who made that act universally expected of all candidates.

If the republicans ran a Steve Jobs, a Bloomberg or anyone of that ilk they would win by 20 points. Instead they ran a plutocratic douche who used his daddy's fortune to damage our economy for his own benefit at the expense of companies and their employees. The sooner successful self-made people distance themselves from him, the faster they can heal the GOP and get off the retard-go-round that keeps churning out horrible candidates like Bachman, Santorum and Trump. It really does say a lot when Mitt Romney is the pick of the litter.

I'd love to vote conservative... The GOP failed to provide one. I'd love to vote pragmatist, the Democrats failed to provide one.
Maybe it's time to stop supporting horrible douchebag candidates and get some actual statesmen to run.
Publicly funded campaigns, reverse Citizens United, say no to crazy... And we would get real candidates from all sides once again.

Clinton and Dole...like whichever you want more, and accept that the other wasn't a douche. That's what we need now...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...-campaign.html
For those who are aware of history, all of this is nothing new.

That pretty much sums it up.

Bain Captial is part of the big banking scheme - they cannot fail. The buy a company using someone else's money, charge massive "management fees", and make a profit no matter if the company went out of business or not. This is exactly what the banks did - they made money even if the home owner went under.

No I don't think your attacking, I actually appreciate someone who can articulate their point of view.

I guess my only point is that I pay for the government, they are dependent on people earning money and paying taxes. Its in their best interest to offer these services to people in order to create a vibrant future economy.

My porn sales have gone to shit the past five years, its gone from being 100% of my income to probably less than 15%, if I was a bank I would of got bailed out!

What does that matter?

You pay private companies to look after you when the shit hits the fan, we pay the Government.

The Government doesn't look after me. I look after it to care for me now. I chose for both routes, Government because I think it's better to have them as a safety net rather than a private company who will pull the rug. And a private company because I could afford to.

Very few people are 100% dependent on the Government and never contributed to it.

True. The farmers, bankers, arms manufacturers and every other business owner and upper level guy relying on Government hand outs will vote for Romney. He's got you fooled that he will stop the handouts. :1orglaugh

If he stood up and said no more handout to farmers, bankers, arms manufacturers, etc. He wouldn't get elected to a town council.

What about keeping people eating everyday when there are no jobs around?

What bout keeping the banks going so you're not one of those asking for handouts.

What about regulating banks properly so they don't fuck up like they did?

True, you're not a banker, arms manufacturer, farmer, etc.

so would you if you looked at the big picture.

As you are. And when the shit hit's the fan and you get a $100,000 medical bill it will be other peoples money, if the insurance company decides to pay out, that will help you.

If the West is to get out of the mire it's in, it's only the Government that can start and maintain it. Small to medium businesses need to be kick started. The banks won't help unless forced to. Thinking you can do it all on your own in todays world is so outdated it pre-dates me. Even the settlers in the Wild West needed Government to make it possible. Land, protection from Indians and the land barons all required Government help.

And when the shit hits again it will be the Government who will step up to the plate. Expect to pay for it.

Ok, so you didn't pay $2.8m in taxes last year. Officially,that doesn't surprise me.

NEXT?

If Bloomberg ran I would of volunteered for him and voted for him.

If the gov let the banks fail and credit cards would of went with them. It would of greatly effected your business my friend.

Im curious you have this big factory, very successful but have time or the need to come on here. Do the people in the your mainstream industry not like you or something?
I assume your intelligent so you know the answer isnt about the 2.8 million its all about scope.

If his business fails, he gets a bout of cancer, hit by a truck and can't pay his insurance premiums. What happens then?

Yesterday I went for a Nasal Endoscopy, cost to me on the day $1.50.

This morning I went to the immunologist, I'm getting on in age and things don't work like they used to. Needed a prescription for immune system, low iron in the blood and dry skin. Cost of the visit on the day $1.50. Cost of the medicine to me, $15. I got 3 months supply.

Was it free, provided by the "Nanny State or Government?

No I paid for it over the last 40+ years. Now I don't pay because retired/invalid, yet still covered. Do US private insurance companies run the same scheme?

IMO it all comes down to the one thing. Who can provide the service cheaper, without outsourcing to the Third World. Like so many businesses love to do these days.

Comparing my stats, with people I know. That # seems about right.

I promise you, the majority of people who paid 2.8 million is taxes didn't start from zero. I have a lot more respect for Fred Trump, who built a multimillion dollar fortune from nothing, than for Donald the loudmouth son he handed that fortune to. I have an incredible amount of respect for self-made wealth that comes from building something or accomplishing something that benefits society. Steve Jobs is the best modern example of that. I also find it very interesting that self-made successful people almost universally understand hard work is a key ingredient, but other factors are equally or even more important in their own success. Timing, aptitude, luck, the contributions of others all play an important role. Conversely, trust-funders, like Romney, almost universally feel a sense of entitlement to success and an unrealistic egotistical notion that even if they were born in the Sudan to poor illiterate parents they would have ended up earning just as much in life.

You can make billions of dollars and live a lavish lifestyle with the complete respect of this nation. You can inherit a few million, act like an asshat and be met with derision. Those two paths are not the same. One of the biggest cultural problems we face on a societal level is that hard working wealthy people, who have a lot in common with hard working poor people, are instead siding with trust-founders and elitist inheritors who are nothing like them. If the problems facing our country include a sense of 'entitlement' that has to be counted at the top and the bottom alike.

Jon Stewart rightly pointed out last night that the tax code allowing Romney to pay 14% rather than 30% on his income was a 4+ million dollar subsidy. One that is equivalent to giving him food stamps until the year 4080. Romney, Paris Hilton, Exxon, Banks too big to fail - these entities are nothing like Hershey or Bill Gates who earned billions and put value back into the system. If you think Romney's 2 million dollar tax bill was a big contribution to our society, consider the fact that it was much less than the combined payroll and corporate taxes Kaybee Toy And Hobby would have paid into the system last year if he had not forced it into bankruptcy via leveraged buyout and bustout. He didnt add to our economy... He subtracted from it for a living. It's hard to earn the respect of hard working Americans by screwing them over and then telling thm your tax subsidy entitlements are good while the food stamps and unemployment benefits you helped put them on are bad.

His move to repeal term limits and remain mayor bothers me a lot, but there is zero doubt this city is far better off than it was before he took office. You also won't find him ignoring, admonishing or attacking any economic segment of society... rich or poor, if you work hard and abide by the law his policies are earnestly intended to benefit you in the long run. He is self-made, worth 25 Billion, and I dont know anyone who begrudges him the lavish lifestyle he has earned. I'd gladly vote for him over Romney or Obama any day.

Also he could take a billion of his own money to run and owe no one.

It's not like I have to hike 8 miles through the woods to a local internet cafe.. I am in my office from time to time. I check emails and stop by GFY. From start to finish reading the several posts and typing this one has taken about 4 minutes. One of these days, I probably won't be back. It's gotten too liberal and blue collar here.

My response re: the $2.8m is only stating a fact to clear up the misconception that someone with Romney's means don't pay any tax. I pay a very significant amount of tax. I don't get my own lane on the freeway. The army doesn't come and mow my lawns. I get exactly the same from the government as you do, yet I pay 200 times more for it.

Taxes are based on percentage, not on dollar amount. Next?

Too liberal if it wasnt for liberals, porn wouldn't have exploded during Clinton and you would be working in the factory instead owning it. lol

Tony, the fact is I have owned the company since Jimmy Carter was president. A full decade before there was an internet. I did well online, because I had already learned how to work and had money to invest.

Stewart has been of fire this week. I can't think of anyone on the conservatives side as sharp and funny as him. He'll win any argument and make great points while doing it.

lol what an elitist dick. i bet you get a hard on watching your peasants pump out products for you.

You've been around a while and you ask that?

You did not answer my question; but I should probably mention that even Jon Stewart laughs at the fact that his fans seem to accept his show as a "news" source.

He's laughing all the way to the bank.

"Comedy Central host Jon Stewart regularly bashes American multimillionaires for their wealth while ignoring the awkward fact that he?s one of them.

Though Stewart distances himself from the ?one-percenters? and bellows over their extravagance, his bank accounts bear all the marks of the ?multi, multi, multi, multi millionaires? he mocks. The 49-year-old Stewart, born Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz, makes more than 300 times the median American salary, owns three luxury homes and sometimes doesn?t pay his taxes.

In January Stewart exploded on-air over Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney?s income level. ?That?s almost ? that?s almost $57,000 a day!? he gushed.

But Stewart?s own income level brings him and his wife Tracey approximately $41,000 a day. The celebrity income-handicapping website Celebrity Net Worth lists his annual salary as $15 million and estimates his net worth at $80 million."




.:2 cents:

His show is commentary on the news... Often more valid than what is shown on fox or CNN. Political satire has been a powerful tool of social change since the printing press was invented, and probably long before it as well. He makes a very good living as an entertainer, a job much harder than it looks.
------


Minte, you get a ton more than a poor person gets from this country. The military protects your home the same way it protects the squalid hovel a poor person lives in, who benefits more from that? The streets provide you with a place to race your Lamborghini, while poor people usually don't own cars. Infrastructure and government R&D allowed the Internet to spawn, advanced medicine tremendously and until recently provided stable investment markets. Poor people don't have Internet access, lack health insurance, don't get access to state of the art medical care or invest in anything.

Here is the easiest way to prove you get more and pay more. Would you rather pay zero taxes and live in a poor neighborhood making next to nothing at a dead end job? Or would you rather earn 40 million a year and pay 11 million in taxes? So far I have yet to find anyone among those who hate income taxes that would prefer to be poor and pay nothing.

Okay . . . .was that on a Snapple cap or something? Not sure the point.

By the way... I've yet to see any reports of Stewart holding money off shore, paying less than the top tax bracket on his income or hiding money in any foreign accounts.so he is hardly being a hypocrit when he lambastes Romney for doing all of the above. He also hasn't damaged our economy or destroyed equity by bankrupting healthy businesses the way Romney has...unless you want to blame him or getting tucker Carlson and firing line taken off the air for being pointless vitriolic drivel.

romney is correct.
additionally, if that 47% of Americans had 30% of THEIR income taken by the government, you better believe we'd have balanced the budget and gotten our spending under control long ago.

dear idiot, its not hidden money if the bank accounts are listed on his tax returns.

In 2007 and 2008, the New York Department of State issued liens against the comedian and his wife for not paying their taxes in full, according to documents that refer to the Stewarts as ?tax delinquents.?

The Empire State issued its first ?state tax warrant? for the couple?s failure to pay $476.03, sending the notice to the address of the KLS Professional Advisors Group, the financial firm that manages Stewart?s money.

New York later issued a second lien in September 2008, this time a $3,225.63 demand to Stewart?s wife Tracey?erroneously spelled ?Tracy? but sent to the address of the Stewarts? trusts.


...and I don't have enough time to explain why keeping capital tied up in a venture that is not making enough profit is much worse for an economy than pulling it out, and putting it into something that will succeed..... It's call creative destruction and it's an important part of moving technology, and an economy, forward.


.:2 cents:

Maybe you are not seeing reports because you are not looking for them AND because Stewart is not running for President.

And Romney destroyed businesses?

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/142/3...f641aa9afb.jpg

It's hidden from taxation Ronald. He didn't put money in foreign accounts to get better access to European ATM machines. We have no idea what is or isn't on his tax returns, because he chose not to release them... even though his father's political legacy is built on the idea that he made releasing his tax returns a staple of his own campaigns. Any idea why he didn't release his tax returns? It couldn't be that he is 'hiding' anything, could it? :2 cents:

Never heard that story, but assuming it is accurate, your point appears to be that the management group handling Jon Stewart's money made a 400 dollar error and he had to pay a penalty on the amount? Or that his wife made a $3,225 error which he had to pay a penalty and interest about? And you are equating that to funneling money off shore to avoid taxation on millions of dollars, bankrupting healthy companies using a bustout scheme to drain their equity and taking advantage of carried interest loopholes to pay less than 1/3 of the tax rate that people pay on similar payroll earnings? Those seem like fairly different blips on the radar, one is a massive dot indicating an incoming warhead, and the other is a sparrow flying at low altitude... :2 cents:

I don't think he's "hiding" anything at all.

But the social liberals in this country are completely hung up on what the percentage of Capital Gains tax is (you know, the tax rate that is also used for RETIRED people's 401K and other investments...money that was already earned long ago and taxed at that time as well).
If he were to release it, it would just cause another stupid barrage babbling about percentages.

Romney wants and needs to focus on the big issue of the economy. Not his personal money.

As for "foreign accounts" and taking every tax loophole availabe...so does EVERYBODY. You take every deduction and money saving legal way to not give away your money on your taxes. So do I. So does everyone.
No, you and I may not have enough money to put it in foreign accounts. But if you did...you would.

And is that Romney's "fault"? No.

It's the stupidity and greed of the federal govt.
When you set tax rates too high...people move their money to countries smart enough to know how to draw money to them.
That has ALWAYS been the case. If you're really worried about whether all multi-millionaires put their money in the local Bank Of America OR overseas...then the federal govt. needs to stop penalizing people for saving and investing in this country.

Why aren't any of you up in arms over the Federal govt. spending 7 MILLION DOLLARS PER MINUTE. And borrowing 3.5 BILLION dollars per day???
No, let's don't worry about that.

The feds BORROW more money in a day than Romney has made in 20 years. But let's don't worry about that. Let's just keep getting distracted from the real problems in this country. Wars, debt, jobs....these are the things that should be discussed.
But Democrats want no part of that discussion it seems.

Did liberals come after Kennedy when he was President? He and his family had money all over the world to avoid taxes. Did they go after their beloved Roosevelt?
NOPE.

That's an excellent point. I am not seeing reports about Jon Stewart's tax payments because he is a comedian doing satire on television, while I am seeing plenty of reports about Mitt Romney because he is attempting to become the leader of our nation while leaving a wake of economic damage in his past and making vague promises that he will fix things, though his own history makes that promise preposterous.

If you point is that Jon Stewart should not be elected President... I'm inclined to agree with you. I think he does just fine at what he does now. Including incisive commentary that rips through the layers of veneer and gets to the core of why Romney is an even worse choice than Obama. None of that makes Obama a good choice. It's probably the worst set of candidates in my lifetime... but when choosing between an F and another F, I'd rather choose the F who is ineffectively leading us in the right direction than the F who would likely more-effectively lead us in the wrong direction. :2 cents:

n/m -- 8 chars

he's doing exactly what he's legally allowed to do. sorry you *wish* he'd do what YOU would like.

its so funny watching little stewart piss and moan about his betters and their money in every political thread. He's obama's target audience.
worrying about someone else's money is about as low as it gets.
spend more time worrying about your own and watch how it grows

If you are correct that there is nothing wrong with his tax returns, he made a serious political miscalculation by refusing to make them available to public scrutiny. If he released them and all they showed was that he is massively successful, that show would have been over in a day or two. Instead he has caused liberals, conservatives, academics and independents to question his honesty and past history. So, either he is hiding something, or he got terrible political advice from his advisers on this issue. It's a big sore point for his campaign either way... and would not have been if he released clean returns.

"Everyone" isn't running for President. Romney is....
If you made a fortune on tax loopholes for decades and you are campaigning on the promise to fix tax loopholes... you damn well have to have a SPECIFIC set of which ones you would close and why. You need to articulate that to voters before, not after, the election. His decision to give very vague, nearly meaningless replies to requests for specific policy agenda regarding tax loopholes is absolutely his "fault"? Yes.

Tax rates are almost irrelevant. 47% don't pay federal income tax. Billionaires pay less than their secretaries as a percentage of income. People in the middle have the biggest burden by far... you can not fix our tax policy by raising or lowering any stated tax rate. If you made the top rate 90% tomorrow, Romney would still be paying 13% or less. First you have to clean up the code, then you can get an accurate understanding or revenue and adjust rates accordingly.

Personally I think our tax rate system is idiotic. We ought to have a very low flat tax rate (somewhere around 10-15%) with a one time exclusion of 50K for every income earner. And we ought to have a federal sales tax of 3-5% on all items except basic substance staples like milk, home heating oil, diapers, etc... No other exclusions, no other loopholes for anyone. Then tax policy becomes a very simple matter of adjusting the flat tax rate and the sales tax rate each year based on revenue and budget. It's pretty much the only system that actually makes sense... and yet you'll never see either party actually push to implement it.

I am very concerned about that. I also am aware that it is not a 'democrat' or a 'republican' doing it... they are in bed together. Republican Congress, Democrat Congress, Republican President, Democrat President... the results are the same. Why is that? Because both parties are being funded by post-nationalist interests. People who have zero nationalistic of patriotic belief in the country. If the United States existed tomorrow or disappeared completely, people like the Koch brothers, Goldman Sachs, Romney and the rest would be just fine. Their wealth is no longer tied to any particular nation. They already sucked out enough equity to make borders irrelevant. Now they are buying our government, having it do what benefits them the most and ignoring the impact it will have on 300 Million citizens. Poor people aren't running up massive debt, they don't lobby and they can't understand financial policy. In case you haven't figured it out yet, post-nationalists are bankrupting us and blaming anyone they can to muddy the waters.

I am all for true Conservative government... the GOP is not. I am all for Pragmatism... the Democrats are not. These are the parties of Romney, Obama, Bush, Pelosi, Bachman, Plain, Santorum, Biden, Ried ... do you really think any of them will solve the problems we face? They are all bought and paid for by the same group of post-nationalists... and you get what you pay for.... :2 cents: