Indecision 2008: The Political Discussion Thread

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I thought a present vote in the Illinois Senate meant you agree with the bill, but disagreed with something specific in the bill. It's a more efficient way of saying you support the bill while not shooting it down. It could also be construed as a way to avoid tough issues though I suppose.

Hey, you know the Fair Tax is like the opposite of fair and widely considered by economists as a joke, right?

Yay, another Fairtax debate. Please explain...

[Charla]

Obvious troll is obvious.

[Keno]

I thought a present vote in the Illinois Senate meant you agree with the bill, but disagreed with something specific in the bill. It's a more efficient way of saying you support the bill while not shooting it down. It could also be construed as a way to avoid tough issues though I suppose.

Hey, you know the Fair Tax is like the opposite of fair and widely considered by economists as a joke, right?

Yay, another Fairtax debate. Please explain...

The Fair Tax places a largely heavy burden on the poor because they are forced into spending a larger percentage of their income on basic goods and services. This graph pretty much sums that up:

http://consumerist.com/assets/resour...theirmoney.jpg

But yeah, I won't muddy this thread with a Fair Tax debate. If you want to respond you can PM me or something and we can talk there.

[sunb1ind]

I think he should reply here since you decided to derail the discussion and post your giant lame ass NYTimes graph.

Who you votin for? McCain, Hilary, or Obama? Nevermind, doesn't matter cause they don't support fair tax :bagel:

[Xavier]

I haven't researched it very much and sorry if it was already discussed but wouldn't a Fair Tax effectively bring the country to a complete standstill in a recession?

[Keno]

I think he should reply here since you decided to derail the discussion and post your giant lame ass NYTimes graph.

Who you votin for? McCain, Hilary, or Obama? Nevermind, doesn't matter cause they don't support fair tax :bagel:

Jesus, take that stick out of your ass.

[Charla]

I think he should reply in a new thread. Or use one of the 4 other threads that already got derailed by fairtax debate. Wait, was this one of them? I'll have to go back a few pages and check.

[Shuemue]

I guess Keno missed the dozen other threads where fairtax and Swampdonkey have been tackled over and over.

[Shuemue]

I haven't researched it very much and sorry if it was already discussed but wouldn't a Fair Tax effectively bring the country to a complete standstill in a recession?

I saw (and failed to completely understand) some points that Aurik made regarding it and the general gist seemed to be exactly that.

[Keno]

Sorry guys, didn't know there have been countless threads about that.

[sunb1ind]

I haven't researched it very much and sorry if it was already discussed but wouldn't a Fair Tax effectively bring the country to a complete standstill in a recession?

Other countries who use a fair tax system don't have this problem.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

It's ok, it will be done in PM.

I haven't researched it very much and sorry if it was already discussed but wouldn't a Fair Tax effectively bring the country to a complete standstill in a recession?

No. >.> Ex-communist bloc countries that have switched to something similar have had their economies expand.

[Charla]

According to Aurik, no country uses sales tax alone, which is what we're talking about here.

Xavier or someone could just move the last few posts into another thread.

[Keno]

It's ok, it will be done in PM.

I haven't researched it very much and sorry if it was already discussed but wouldn't a Fair Tax effectively bring the country to a complete standstill in a recession?

No. >.> Ex-communist bloc countries that have switched to something similar have had their economies expand.

His point is that in a recession, there will be significantly reduced spending, which will mean reduced tax revenue for the government, which means no way to stimulate the economy, which means basically fucked. Or at least that is the theory.

[Correction]

FairTax isn't an issue this election.

Can we please keep that debate where it belongs in a 'lolcrackpot unviable political stands' thread, not the thread where current candidates get discussed.

[Charla]

It's a bit generous to call Mike Gravel a current candidate, but I don't mind.

[Keno]

It's a bit generous to call Mike Gravel a current candidate, but I don't mind.

Does that mean I can still call Ron Paul a current candidate?

[sunb1ind]

FairTax isn't an issue this election.

He's right, Fair Tax will never get implemented in this presidency anyways. We will just continue to bitch about being poor and the middle class simply becomes a new chapter in the history books.

[evilbau]

Regarding Gravel, I was not impressed by him. He is far too outspoken to be a national figure, another reason I don't think McCain would be a good president. Getting fired up and in people's faces is not very diplomatic. I actually think Gravel is a good analogy for sunblind, everyone wants them out except themselves.

And this is a bad thing? This is the foundation of America. The only people who want him out are big media and corporate interests. He wants to end America's dependency on oil in 5 years, eliminate big pharm, and empower the people to make law. Why wouldn't they want him out? They don't stand a chance against him if he's elected.

And John McCain is outspoken for all the wrong reasons. He doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Mike Gravel. That man is as un-american as you can get.

I didn't say it was a bad thing. You need to learn when people make reality-based observations, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with it. Being president is not all domestic policy. For example, even if I agreed with McCain's policies (which is partly true), I don't think he'd be the best international face for the United States. He has a legendary hot temper, and doesn't hesitate to lash out ('agents of intolerance', his unequivocal 'No' to current allegations regarding lobbyists, his many 'FUCK YOU's on the record to other legislators).

John McCain unamerican? lol i don't get how people can judge others so easily.

[Amele]

If someone can show me an official document stating the vote does get toward the pool of Nay votes, then I will wholeheartedly admit my ignorance in that fact. It will still support my view of his character if what you say is true evilbau. Hiding behind important legislation is nothing to be proud of.

edit: I know that probably sounds like an unreasonable task to dig through online databases, but this is basically the reason why I am uncertain about this subject. I'm more focused on his frame of character.

senate rules of the illinois state senate (95th congress), from the source. the rules you are looking for are 5-1(f) and 1-12. 5-1(f) defines the requirements for passing a bill, 1-12 defines the term 'majority of those elected'. It may help to know that the illinois state senate is a body of 59 legislators.


I had a much longer response to your attack on my response* earlier, but I figure the senate rules speak for themselves and you did state you're willing to admit your error if provided proof, and that goes a long way to making me less irate, haha.

==sundry other responses to the thread (alternatively: god damn do you guys submit alot of responses in one day)==

Its simple, voting present means you're a waste of space in the senate.

Did you ever take into account that a present vote might mean to abstain? Similar to a judge recusing their place at a trial or appeal because they have a vested interest in the outcome?

generally speaking, an abstention is different than (in specific illinois's) present vote. abstentions are typically requesting that you not be counted for a quorum - and in cases where this is true it can be used as a tool to break a quorum if you do not have a significant number of additional seated legislators (i.e. quorum is 51 of 100 and there are 53 legislators present, if 3 abstain from a vote, then regardless of the vote's outcome a quorum was not established, so the vote is discarded.)

It is functionally the same as a nay, not the same. People vote Nay to be on the record as against something. seems like common sense?

once you have a quorum abstaining from the vote is the same thing also.

see above for the typical differences between an abstention and a present vote.
concerning differences between present and nay: present votes are typically used to indicate that you have a procedural issue with something, as opposed to outright opposition (the tactics behind illinois state present votes are honestly rather boring. it's a signaling tactic more than anything else) nay votes are used to take a strong up or down stance on the actual content of the bill, rather than general presentation.

a classic example would be a school funding bill that also includes an amendment for raising the drinking age to 65. a present vote is indicating that, while you aren't opposed to funding schools, you do not wish to pass this bill because of the unrelated amendments that you are against.

I thought a present vote in the Illinois Senate meant you agree with the bill, but disagreed with something specific in the bill. It's a more efficient way of saying you support the bill while not shooting it down. It could also be construed as a way to avoid tough issues though I suppose.

generally this is the case (the first thing you stated) avoiding tough issues is better done with an abstention. (abstentions in roll call votes are literally 'not voting' since you have to "go to the floor with your vote" to be counted.) In the illinois state legislature this is done electronically, so you don't physically walk down with a ballot or anything, but the principle is the same. present votes are used either as part of a larger voting bloc strategy, to object to unfinished bills being given up or down votes, to object to certain amendments, or to indicate that you are willing to compromise on the general intent of the bill if additional amendments are made. nay votes are used to indicate that you oppose the substantive purpose of the bill and not the specifics of such.


my big issue with fair tax is that it generally discards capital gains taxes and expressed as a percentage of income, is a regressive tax. (working poor spend a larger percentage of their income on consumables and commodities since consumable spending does not track upward at the same rate as income above approximately the AMT line.)


*edited for clarity