I Side With



I know, terribly shocking, isn't it? :P Click the picture to take your own quiz. Pretty sure I've never heard of Goode or Johnson before this.
.........................
"It is pointless to resist, my son." -- Darth Vader
"Resistance is futile." -- The Borg
"Mother's coming for me in the dragon ships. I don't like these itchy clothes, but I have to wear them or it frightens the fish." -- Thurindil

Well. I guess that's that then.

       
« RIP: Neil Armstrong
Gamers Gold »

Posted on Sep 13, 2012 5:42 pm by Samson in: , | 394 comment(s) [Closed]
Comments
91% Obama. Who knew. I have no freaking clue who Stein or Anderson or Goode are, but I had actually heard of Johnson because I hear way too many libertarians go on about things.

Hilariously, 91% Green Party or no, I would never vote for those guys.

       
I think it is very typical of how i think on things generally. Being that i am a swing voter, it shows the diversity of views i have. Fiscally conservative on economic issues and progressive on social issues. I am the new breed of progressive conservatives. But, being that the poll is heavy on social issues and weaker on economic ones, it shows the skewing to the greens, it needs more economic questions to balance it out for me.

Obama on healthcare, immigration, environment and science
Johnson on economic, social and foreign policy
Stien on environmental, imigration, science, domestic policy
Romney on economic issues
and agree with 59% of american voters.



       
Edited by The_Fury on Sep 14, 2012 12:22 am
Rather odd that we all scored fairly high for Johnson so far.

Not particularly surprises by your results, Fury, but Dwip's are disturbing for how far left they've skewed since I've known him.

       
Yeah the big 3 for me were, environment, science and healthcare, that was what shoved me so far left, things like immigration it is hard to be very objective, because they do not really have any effect on me.

       
The thing to keep in mind too is that this isn't representative of much more than who visited the site, and since its internationally available the results are massively skewed.

Take California. The question on gay marriage. If you drill into the results, you'll see the claim that over 70% of California voters favor gay marriage. That's not even close to true, because every time it's come up for a proposition vote the majority opposes it. It's only been the liberal courts who keep striking it down and making voting here worthless.

And me only being in line with 38% of America? I doubt that very seriously. This isn't a left wing nation as Dwip's comparison chart is trying to imply.

You are right about it not asking enough good questions though. Even though the ones they have do have plenty of stance choices, it seems as though the bias here is seeking to skew left for some reason.

       
Well, two things about my radical leftism:

1. Probably Barack Obama isn't as left-wing as you might think he is;

2. More importantly, there's some skew in that quiz, and a lot of places where I would've answered slightly differently (why can't we drill offshore AND incentivize green energy?) , and a lot of that comes out fairly strongly in the econ questions, where none of the answers were precisely what I would have said.

Too, as I look through the answers, I see several points at which what the results say and what I was given during the quiz aren't actually the same. Frex, it has me down as the Patriot Act being unconstitutional, when the quiz was "Do you support the Patriot Act? No." Two different things.

Also, the biggest area where we've always, if not agreed then come together is foreign policy, and there's dick all on foreign policy in that quiz. Since I give a whole lot of shits about foreign policy over a lot of things, that skews things a lot.

tl;dr: I think the quiz makes me look like I'm way more left-wing than I actually am, especially on foreign policy.

Might be interesting to compare 1998 me and now me to see how our positions compare, though I don't know as I've changed on a lot of big ones. Probably wouldn't be for legalizing pot when I was 18. Way more interventionist at 18. I haven't moved much on taxes or government programs or any of the science stuff. Your recollection may differ.

       
There were a couple I can't recall right now that were like that with me too. Where I answered "Yes" to what seemed like a straightforward question only to have it come off sounding like I wanted to burn the world or something.

       

And me only being in line with 38% of America? I doubt that very seriously.


It does not mean what you think it means and even that number might actually be higher than what it should be, what it shows, is that you are far on the edge of the left right spectrum. One eyed conservatives only make up about 30% of the US, one eyed progressives another 30% and the other 40 sit in the middle of those 2 groups. If you were to do the quiz again and make all the answers extreme left wing, you would also only agree with 30 odd percent of the nation, if i was to hazard a guess at analysing the result.

       
Well, apparently I am a fiscal conservative. Although, the reason me and Romney gave the same answers and some of the questions may be slightly different. Don't know who that Stein woman is either.

Some of the foreign policy stuff is a bit off as well. The question about Israel didn't really have any answers I liked for instance. It came down to between 'support both Israel and Palestine equally', which I decided not to go with because it was too non-specific on which Palestinian groups and went for 'not with the current regime'. Although, I wouldn't call the current government sitting in the Knesset a regime considering its democratically elected.

       
I think that most Aussies are fiscal conservatives and socially rather progressive, Prettyfly. I think it is the whole fair go and looking out for your mates philosophy that we have, where as, the US has a strong focus on individual success and you can make it if you try ideal.

       
Y'all know I can rarely resist a "quiz" of this sort... I'm not really sure how Samson got the whole results to display here unless he screenshotted the results page and then posted it, but here's my share results image:


And here's the link to my results: My results link

I'm not sure if I agree with the results in full, but siding 71% with Romney doesn't seem surprising and if I knew who Johnson, Goode, Stein, & Anderson were, maybe I wouldn't be surprised by those results either. :shrug: I was a bit surprised that it indicated I side 41% with Obama, though the fact that I side with him on no major issues sounds about right. ;)

       
Funny, Conner is the most balanced of the lot of us. Wonder if that means anything, :) Mr Middle of the Road.

       
Edited by The_Fury on Sep 14, 2012 5:27 am
Yes, I screenshotted my results and pasted it together. :)

Not overly surprising results there Conner, other than the large amount of Obama. Though that's probably because this site is trying to convince people he's a centrist which isn't remotely true.

Oh, there was one particular response option I wonder about:
The Federal Reserve should destroy the $1.6 trillion in government bonds it now holds.

Surely that response actually means $16 Trillion and not 1.6? What good would it do to wipe out barely 10% of your problem?

       
Edited by Samson on Sep 14, 2012 12:07 pm
The_Fury said:

Conner is the most balanced of the lot of us.

According to Cratylus, I'm pretty unbalanced, so I guess that really speaks volumes about the rest of you. :P

Seriously, now you know why I get frustrated with y'all going on for page after page about an issue that barely even matters to me, right? ;)

Samson said:

Yes, I screenshotted my results and pasted it together.

I considered doing that, but without having brought my server back up still, I don't have an easy way to host the image for reposting. :(

Samson said:

Not overly surprising results there Conner, other than the large amount of Obama. Though that's probably because this site is trying to convince people he's a centrist which isn't remotely true.

You know, that's actually how I responded to the little survey at the bottom of the results page when it first came up too. I selected "not surprised" because, despite being somewhat surprised at how high Obama apparently ranked for me, I apparently agree with him on "no major issues", which isn't surprising either.

Samson said:

Oh, there was one particular response option I wonder about:
The Federal Reserve should destroy the $1.6 trillion in government bonds it now holds.

Surely that response actually means $16 Trillion and not 1.6? What good would it do to wipe out barely 10% of your problem?

I saw that one too. Maybe 10% of the debt is the interest? Or maybe it was just a typo in the survey. Either way, reducing the debt by 10%, even if it was just by saying "screw this" and tearing up a tenth of the existing bonds, while unlikely to win us any brownie points with China, might be a boon to our national economy. ;) Personally, I'm thinking that if we're going to piss off our creditors that badly anyway, we might as well wipe out the whole $16 trillion, but in the name of foreign policy, we probably shouldn't really go there at all. ;)

       
Surely that response actually means $16 Trillion and not 1.6? What good would it do to wipe out barely 10% of your problem?


Because in doing that, it will only create more problems than you currently have already. While it sounds good and proper in practice, in reality you only end up with inflation, a devaluation of currency, which leads to price rises on all imports and further recession of the economy.

Sadly, there is only 1 real fix that will have any real and lasting meaning, and that is 20 years of surplus budgets and moderate regulation to stop the spike and bubble cycle.

       
The only way you're getting surplus budgets though is if they go the route of the other answer that involved massive cuts in spending, which I don't think any of us chose.

       
Well, with increased revenue, expanded economy and spending cuts you can get things under order over time. It is just not going to be a quick fix. You need a slow and steady plan to get things in control over say a 10 year period, then have a platform to work from for the next 20.

But to do it, will require someone will some gumption. Repealing the Bush tax cuts would be a start in the right direction, but political suicide, but, it would give you room to then have targeted tax cuts for business innovation and jobs creation. Closing tax loopholes will also give more revenue, and that is sorely needed. 1/2 your country pays no income tax, and the other 1/2 do not pay enough, everyone should pay something, because if they are not, they are free loading.

The big jobs growth sector is green energy, so, expand oil and pump those new royalties into green tech and efficiency, double win, on jobs, economy expansion and positioning the country for the future and also delivering on the environment and global warming.

Just some thoughts on what can be done, that no one is prepared to even look at in a total scheme, Obama wants to raise taxes with no targeting of tax cuts for jobs expansion, Romney wants to drill oil, with no investment into green tech or a future past oil.

       
Edited by The_Fury on Sep 14, 2012 5:02 pm
Spending cuts are the way forward, I don't think anyone sane can dispute that. Your proposal to punish the rich, however, is not the way forward.

Besides, taxing those who make more more heavily won't close a $16 Trillion debt gap. It isn't mathematically possible even if you taxed the rich at 98% as some idiots on the left actually propose doing.

The only fair way forward for this to work at all is to abolish ALL federal and state taxes as they exist now, eliminate the IRS as we know it, and put the nation on a 15% flat sales tax that cannot be raised without a 2/3 majority vote of both houses of Congress. This way the rich will end up paying more because, surprise, they buy more taxable stuff, and those who don't pay jack shit now can't get out of paying something since even the poorest of poor people still buy taxable goods. To be crystal clear, not the VAT system like they have in Europe that results in things being taxed multiple times before a consumer actually buys it.

The only exemptions I'd make are to bar taxes on food, water, and necessary clothing. Everything else is fair game, from magazines all the way up to mansions.

Of course, there's not a single politician out there who has the guts to propose something this drastic and bold. Herman Cain came the closest with his 9/9/9 plan, and look what they did to him in the media. They were scared shitless of the guy.

As far as job growth, only a fool thinks "green energy" is worth a shit for actual growth. I would have thought the Solyndra scandal would have proven that. So-called green jobs are just a money pit for environmental naziism.

       
This way the rich will end up paying more because, surprise, they buy more taxable stuff,


But they don't and that is the trouble i have with it. As income rises, the amount spent decreases as a percentage of the income earned. Thus, the rich then have less of a tax burden than the middle class, even less than they do now.

Tell me, what would you rather 15% of what Bill Gates spends of his money in a year, or 15% of what Bill Gates earns in a year. Think on this and come back after you do the math.

To put this into some perspective, last tax year, i earned close to 15K more than i did the previous year, but i did not spend it. I invested it into my super fund (401K) for when i retire. So, i paid income tax. Under your scheme i paid no tax on that money. So the vast bulk of money earned by those on say 1Mil + would go untaxed.

And when 5% of the country control over 50% of all the wealth, you can see that is going to be a huge reduction in government revenue, because most of that 50% is not going to be spent. If the percentages were different, your scheme would work.

       
Sorry, I'm not accepting that logic. Rich people spend money. I can't see how you can conclude otherwise. They buy giant mansions, yachts, planes, cars, expensive clothing, jewelry, vacation packages, and all sorts of other random stuff that you and I can only dream of affording. States that derive revenue from sales tax make money hand over fist from rich folk who live there.

Plus, as you already said, the 50% of us NOT paying taxes will be forced to do so on a regular basis. The "99%" will make up for whatever imagined drop in spending the "1%" end up demonstrating. So I'd rather have 15% of what 350 million people spend vs punishing 5% of the population for simply having lots of money. Those 5% can't make up for the shortfall caused by what the rest of us aren't currently paying.

I think you should be allowed to take your 15K in extra money and invest it as you did without being penalized for that 40 years from now.

       
Aaaaaaaand that was the moment when this thread went from "amusing" to "Oh Jesus Christ."

       
In what way? You are aware that even a completely unrealistic income tax rate of 98% on the "1%" won't solve jack shit for our budget issues, right?

       
Sorry, I'm not accepting that logic.


It is basic math. Bill Gates earns say $4 billion in a year, that is his income. How much of that do you propose he spends? If he spends 4 billion a year, then your scheme is fair, but, you and i know this, he does not spend 4 billion per year, he gives most of it away to charity, because it is impossible for him to spend that amount of money on himself.

So, how many jobs did Bill Gates 4 billion create? Bugger all really, because he might have spent a couple of million of it in total on himself, and charities pay no tax. See where i am going with this, see how the real world works in reality.

I earn much less than this, and i do not spend all my earnings, 1/2 of it, Yes 1/2 gets invested and I only earn 100K+ a year. And it is not like i live like a pauper either, i have my hobbies computer games, RC cars, golf and the like, it is just that there is only so much one can buy before buying makes no sense. My fiends and the like are the same as i am as well.

Which is why i said "Tell me, what would you rather 15% of what Bill Gates spends of his money in a year, or 15% of what Bill Gates earns in a year. Think on this and come back after you do the math. " Because when you ignore the earnings, and look at the spending, you will notice that taxing by spending is going to leave a huge short fall in revenue.

       
You do realize that in the US, charitable donations are tax deductible, right? So if he's giving nearly all of his yearly take to charity, it's not subject to taxation and the reason he's doing that is to avoid having to pay taxes on an income of $4 Billion/yr to begin with.

If there was no income tax to begin with, sure, the downside might be that he'd stop giving so much to charities.

Which changes nothing. He's still spending at the same rate he always does regardless of his charitable donations, and right now the feds get a whopping 0% of that in sales taxes. He'd still be creating the same number of jobs with that money either way. You're raising red herrings in your argument.

I notice you're focusing on the super rich here for what look to me to be silly reasons. You seem to be willfully ignoring the fact that there would be at least 125 million new taxpayers under my system.

It's exactly the same logic that is proven to work when you encourage business friendly government policies by cutting taxes. More people join the labor force and become subject to taxation. The number of people joining always makes up for the reduction in tax rates.

       
You do realize that in the US, charitable donations are tax deductible, right? So if he's giving nearly all of his yearly take to charity, it's not subject to taxation and the reason he's doing that is to avoid having to pay taxes on an income of $4 Billion/yr to begin with.


I do understand that, but my point is, that cutting taxes to the rich does not increase spending on luxury goods, because they do not currently spend all they earn as it is.

The Republican position is to cut tax for the rich so they spend more on luxury goods which crates jobs, but that is a false position as i have shown, because they rich do not spend all they currently earn. So how will this make any new jobs. Also, as far as jobs are concerned, who employs more people, shops on Rodeo Drive or Walmart and Costco? So, even if the Rep position was true, it would not equal more jobs in a substantial way, because they do not shop at Walmart and Costco, the companies who hire the most people.

I notice you're focusing on the super rich here for what look to me to be silly reasons.


Not for silly reasons, but because that is where my point is most clear. It scales up as i said, "As income rises, the amount spent decreases as a percentage of the income earned." From 100K onwards you spend less and less compared to what you earn.

business friendly government policies by cutting taxes.


Now you are talking, and this is totally different from tax cuts to individuals. This i support, because it is businesses that create jobs not individuals.

In a fair society everyone needs to contribute to the overall goals of that society. Free loading should not be allowed. So, everyone should pay tax based on their means to contribute. Set the numbers however you think is appropriate, but what you currently have is not viable, nor is it fair. 1/2 pay nothing and the other 1/2 want to pay nothing also.

       
<< prev 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... next >>
Comments Closed
Comments for this entry have been closed.
Anonymous
Register

Forgot Password?

SuMoTuWeThFrSa
 1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30