Preliminary Impeachment Hearings

[HAcoreRD]

Technically, clinton wasn't impeached. LoL

American history through media ftw

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment

[pohibaba]

^ That's been dealt with twice now; good job at reading the thread, though.

[Quicklet]

#3 would be a bad idea for the fact that it would murder people who lose money on their shares, not to mention it would discourage people from changing their positions because of the added costs. There is enough of a saving/investment problem in this country as is, there's no logic in discouraging something that's beneficial for the economy as a whole.

#4 and #5 are better accomplished by tying the currency to a gold standard just for how much you'd save off of not having the massive bureaucratic overhead you'd need to achieve something like keeping track of that with the flow of money the way it is. It doesn't completely eliminate the problem but it makes it much more difficult and is a much simpler solution to implement.

Just thinking about the ramifications of taxing investment vs taxing consumption, in today's world it would make sense to discourage more consumption and encourage savings/investment (because these lead to more efficient capital structures). Something of the opposite of the mainstream mode of thought these days, anyway.

[Evelyn]

1) No corporate or income taxes.

The idea behind corporate taxes is that corporations require a government-provided infrastructure and economic system to generate income. If there was no school system, no public roads or transportation, no import/export system, etc, businesses would find themselves making much less money than they do currently.

The corporate tax system is designed as a "cost of business" deal, where corporations have to help pay for some of the things they rely on. Yes, you could argue that businesses would pop up for private roads and school systems, etc, however you'd also be looking at inflated costs of living (toll roads everywhere, private school tuition, etc) requiring higher incomes, and so on. But either way the argument is pointless since its not the system we currently rely on.

2) Collect all taxes needed to run the country off sales tax.

As said above, a consumption-based tax system is hugely regressive. Lower-income households have to spend a higher percentage of their income on goods and services than higher-income ones (even including inflated cost-of-living most rich people live on, with mansions, hired help and so on). This makes the people businesses rely on to sell goods to less able to purchase those goods. In the end, high-end non-essential items can become unreasonably expensive to cover lower-volume sales or experience a market crash entirely.

3) Add sales tax to investment shares. For every share you buy, you pay sales tax. For every bond you buy, you pay sales tax.

Also as stated above, a tax on individual purchases/sales of investment shares, instead of a capital gains system like we have now, can lead to stagnation of markets. People will be less likely to make short-term purchases and sales (which I don't like anyway) and short-term fluctuations would be less extreme. Arguably this can be good for the economy as it may lead to fewer scares, however you'd also be seeing a much lower volume of trades in general. And making people pay taxes even though they're losing money is just rubbing salt in the wound.

4) Remove the fungibility of the dollar.

Honestly, don't quite understand what you mean by that.

5) Timestamp money whenever it is paid out, and the value of a particular dollar when it was earned is the value it will always keep, regardless of inflation. So if you never spend, and hoard your money until there's so little of it in circulation, it becomes more valuable... well, your hoarded money is only as valuable as it was when you first earned it. So you gain nothing.

Not a bad idea, however you'd lose the entire point of interest. If you were to make an investment in a bank for example, and the bank couldn't make use of the money they got beyond what they paid for it (in the form of a CD or somesuch in the bank) wouldn't they be less able to pay interest? and vice versa be true for loans?

Sorry, I just don't see this system as being feasible...

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

As said above, a consumption-based tax system is hugely regressive. Lower-income households have to spend a higher percentage of their income on goods and services than higher-income ones (even including inflated cost-of-living most rich people live on, with mansions, hired help and so on). This makes the people businesses rely on to sell goods to less able to purchase those goods. In the end, high-end non-essential items can become unreasonably expensive to cover lower-volume sales or experience a market crash entirely

That's why there is a pre-bate.

[Evelyn]

Flat Tax != Fairtax. We can have another discussion if you like since those threads are probably gone.

And the reason the rich's share went up is because of that old principle that the government collects more revenue when tax rates are lower. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1216...googlenews_wsj

The difference can also be attributed to the rising gap between rich and poor. with average wages down over the past few years, theres been less money in the lower income ranges to tax. Therefore their relative share of taxes goes down. I don't know where you get that lowering taxes automatically means higher revenue, especially with the economy floundering as it is.

EDIT: or you can simply not tax essential goods, as is being done now... but regardless, theres still things considered "non-essential" that are almost required in modern society: gas, car, housing, heating and energy costs, and so on. Are you arguing that all these be tax-free too?

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

The difference can also be attributed to the rising gap between rich and poor. with average wages down over the past few years, theres been less money in the lower income ranges to tax. Therefore their relative share of taxes goes down. I don't know where you get that lowering taxes automatically means higher revenue, especially with the economy floundering as it is.

EDIT: or you can simply not tax essential goods, as is being done now... but regardless, theres still things considered "non-essential" that are almost required in modern society: gas, car, housing, heating and energy costs, and so on. Are you arguing that all these be tax-free too?

You could, which would be fine by me, less money the government gets, but it's probably easier to just not tax people on their spending up to the poverty level. That way it isn't regressive. And even Obama admitted lowering taxes increases revenue, regarding capital gains at least.

[Evelyn]

Where did he say that? sorry for not believing you but I'm an engineer not an economist.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

It was the last debate I believe, with Tim Russert.

[Evelyn]

Last debate was with ABC, Tim Russert worked for MSNBC. either way, heres the transcript from that portion of the debate:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/us...ll&oref=slogin

MR. GIBSON: All right.
You have however said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28 percent."
It's now 15 percent. That's almost a doubling if you went to 28 percent. But actually Bill Clinton in 1997 signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.
SENATOR OBAMA: Right.
MR. GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.
SENATOR OBAMA: Right.
MR. GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?
SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year -- $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That's not fair.
And what I want is not oppressive taxation. I want businesses to thrive and I want people to be rewarded for their success. But what I also want to make sure is that our tax system is fair and that we are able to finance health care for Americans who currently don't have it and that we're able to invest in our infrastructure and invest in our schools.
And you can't do that for free, and you can't take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children and our grandchildren and then say that you're cutting taxes, which is essentially what John McCain has been talking about. And that is irresponsible.
You know, I believe in the principle that you pay as you go, and you don't propose tax cuts unless you are closing other tax breaks for individuals. And you don't increase spending unless you're eliminating some spending or you're finding some new revenue. That's how we got an additional $4 trillion worth of debt under George Bush. That is helping to undermine our economy, and it's going to change when I'm president of the United States.
MR. GIBSON: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.
SENATOR OBAMA: Well, that might happen or it might not. It depends on what's happening on Wall Street and how business is going. I think the biggest problem that we've got on Wall Street right now is the fact that we've got a housing crisis that this president has not been attentive to and that it took John McCain three tries before he got it right.
And if we can stabilize that market and we can get credit flowing again, then I think we'll see stocks do well, and once again I think we can generate the revenue that we need to run this government and hopefully to pay down some of this debt.

So they're specifically talking about capital gains tax, not taxes in general, and Obama neither confirmed that decreasing the tax would increase the revenue, nor denied it.

I'd agree with you if you said there was a happy median somewhere. Maybe 28% is too high in today's economy, but I'd think that 15% is too low. Cutting the difference would probably be a good idea.

But with taxes in general, there is a point where tax rates go too low and the government would not receive enough income. Imagine if we went to a flat 1% right now, government income would become a smidgen of what it is currently. I know they can't go too high without stifling the economy, but exact percentages are less a science and more an art. And i don't think anyone is in a position to say whether a tax increase would hurt revenues right now or not, especially if they were done carefully.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I took "for purposes of fairness" to mean he acknowledges Gibson point, otherwise he would have been wrong.

Also, tax revenue has been a steady 19% of GDP for 50+ years so if the government wants increase revenue it needs to increase GDP. Raising taxes doesn't do that.

[evilpaul]

Pretty much every president of the last 120 or so years has committed some form of atrocity in foreign lands, and before that it was domestic atrocity in the form of Native American persecution, etc. You essentially have to compare bad to worse, and Clinton was closer to the former than the latter. Yes, he bombed other countries in the name of humanitarianism, oversaw continued CIA fucking-around in Latin America, etc but on the half-full side, he didn't run around trying to nationbuild so much. Domestically he was a rather strong president.

George W. Bush put people to death for supposedly committing a single murder. He's personally responsible for the sufferring, torturing, and murdering of millions of people. By the George W. Bush standard, he deserves no better than the victims of the State of Texas.

This sucking on Bill Clinton's dick thing is pretty pathetic behavior as well. I'm not talking Monica Lewinsky. I'm talking about the people who just shrug off that he deliberately murdered 1 million Iraqis. (Mostly children, so I guess they only count as two-thirds a person or something?) I guess your personal feelings about "Oh, well! At least Bill happened to be in office during the 'boom' of the boom-and-bust business cycle and he was likeable and a Democrat (that's very important), so he was wonderful! His shit don't stink at all!" absolve him of mass-murder and make him a wonderful human being.

Saying we should just compare US Presidents by how attrocious they are compared to one another is abominable. Should we empty all the prisons in the US (of the minority of people that are there for crimes against persons or property) because of how petty raping and murdering one six year old girl is compared to murdering ten thousand?

Is there some sense in that?

We should be exhuming the corpses of past presidents to desecrate them and making new ones by hanging the murderous bastards who are still alive on the Whitehouse lawn for their many crimes. With legal due process, of course.

Transparency, progressive taxes, getting healthcare to more people, ending the war in Iraq, environmental initiatives, closing corporate loopholes, more opportunities for financial aid, etc etc.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Making sure telecoms got immunity last week so we'll never know what they and Bush conspired to do, inflation hurts the poor the most (printing money to pay for entitlements or slaughtering brown people is inflation), still waiting on my "free" healthcare, fully funding the War on Iraqis for ~6 years now, creating plenty of new public-private partnerships (fascism), bailing out any large corporation that is run like crap, didn't get much in the way of federal student aid myself, etc.

The Democrats have a lot in common with the Republicans they can talk a good game sometimes, but when push comes to shove they hop on the Evil Train just like the Republicans.

They also have the same perverse incentives the Republicans do: If they actually fucking delivered what they promised then people would have no reason to go out and vote for them. But keep dangling free healthcare out there and all the rubes will run out to vote Democrat. (Same thing with the Republicans. Actually ban abortion or whatever? Hell no, people won't run out to vote for every clown with a "pro-life" sticker and 'R' after their name.)


Anyway, back to the subject of impeaching Bush. Yes, he should be impeached. No, he won't be impeached because most of the articles of impeachment Kuicinich introduced were only possible because the Democratic leadership was complicit in. (Read them here.)

"We were lied into war!" If you were lied into supporting the War on Iraq, then you're a fucking idiot.

Intelligence is found or created to support policy. It doesn't make policy. It never has. This is a popular misconception.

The government doesn't have "secret information" that you should trust them to use judiciously that any reasonably well-informed person who reads foreign media (or the five or six journalists left in the US) doesn't know.

Half these idiots (see: John McCain) can barely keep their own talking points straight, and make factually false statements about nuclear energy and weapons technology on a daily basis in their effort to start a War on Iranians.

"Bush tortured people secret prisons!" Prisons that the Democratic leadership were given tours of, shown the torture techniques, and said, "Sure, I have no problem with that. Maybe use thumbscrews too?"

That might have something to do with why the Principled Democrats haven't done anything about it: They agree with it and are Bush's willing accomplices.

"Bush violated FISA and engaged in illegal spying/searches!" Again, go read Glenn Greenwald's blog for 10 minutes: Democratic leadership approved 100%. Barak Obama voted to make sure that he got away with it last week by making it retroactively (isn't that a neato trick?) legal.

There's other items in the impeachment there too (that Bush fucked up Katrina, etc) but those are dead in the water also.

The Democratic leadership is guilty as hell and doesn't want to do something that might hurt their chances in the election in November.

So much for the principled opposition.

But have no fear, folks! Saint Barak shall save us!

Sure, he'll do the exact same shit Bush does. Sure, he'll lie to your face about it because you're stupid, he knows it, and he doesn't respect you.

But he'll be so charismatic doing it. He'll lie to you in complete, intelligible sentences. Such change gives me hope for the future!

Who knows, maybe 3 or 4 years from now the economy will have mostly recovered from the Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush/Greespan disaster? Maybe gasoline will be back down to $2.50 or $3.00 a gallon (that's 3.78 L for you foreign readers)?

So just sit back, relax, and enjoy your ride uninterrupted.

[Maxxthepenguin]

I'm not talking Monica Lewinsky. I'm talking about the people who just shrug off that he deliberately murdered 1 million Iraqis. (Mostly children, so I guess they only count as two-thirds a person or something?)

They're black(ish), so 2/3 * 3/5 = 2/5 of a person

[Kyreth]

What exactly is the point of impeaching him this far into his presidency?

It makes it easier to impeach the next one. Politically, impeachment takes the equivalent of getting Congress together along the same lines as mob justice...if you can't convince the crowd to try to jump him, the President (even a lame duck) has enough clout to cow any attempts.

Succeed, and people will remember the success and the next time, it'll be done faster and more effectively...though of course it's also weakening the executive branch each time as the legislature will be more and more emboldened to slap down an uppity president.

[Beckwin]

Evilpaul, did you uh, read my posts? Or were you just unable to "get it"? Because I'm pretty sure I acknowledged that Bill committed atrocities in office, just like every other president in modern history (hell, every president period pretty much). It's all pretty disgusting. It's worth noting that Bill's actions came with UN backing, so at the very least, guilt is spread out, whatever that may or may not be worth. And in spite of the violence, there's was no imperialistic "spreading democracy" or "nation-building" bullshit. However, you can still rank/compare presidents based on other fields. Bill was a slick politician and was pretty successful domestically, beyond riding a boom. But okay, be childish and talk about dicksucking when I'm more than able to recognize the man's faults.

And for the good ideas quote you decided to butcher... did you miss the part where I called out the Dems for inaction? Those things I listed are what I find to be good ideas popular with at least a portion, if not the majority, of the democratic party, but the problem for them is turning those ideas into action and not acquiescing so readily to GOP flag-waving guilt tripping. Again, I made a criticism and recognized faults, you try to fly off the handle like I'm some blind DNC groupie.

However your pedestrian GOP talking point critiques of Obama don't exactly do a service to portraying yourself as anything close to intelligent, so I'm not exactly surprised at your response.

[evilpaul]

Impeachment as a constitutional remedy for presidential abuses is long dead. Basically, the president can do whatever the fuck he or she feels like while on the clock.

There's been what three impeachments out of 43 presidents with basically all of them doing horrible, illegal and generally fucked up things? And the impeachments were about 1) nobody liked the guy; he was kind of a dick, 2) a coverup of an off-the-clock burglary, and 3) lying in a civil court deposition?

Bush will get away with everything he's done. Maybe a few of his subordinates will get fined/imprisoned, but a later Republican will pardon them. Then we'll get more of the same with a Democratic Party face from the more telegenic and articulate President Obama (or McCain if he manages to steal the election). Same shit, different day.

[evilpaul]

Evilpaul, did you uh, read my posts? Or were you just unable to "get it"? Because I'm pretty sure I acknowledged that Bill committed atrocities in office, just like every other president in modern history (hell, every president period pretty much). It's all pretty disgusting. It's worth noting that Bill's actions came with UN backing, so at the very least, guilt is spread out, whatever that may or may not be worth. And in spite of the violence, there's was no imperialistic "spreading democracy" or "nation-building" bullshit. However, you can still rank/compare presidents based on other fields. Bill was a slick politician and was pretty successful domestically, beyond riding a boom. But okay, be childish and talk about dicksucking when I'm more than able to recognize the man's faults.

And for the good ideas quote you decided to butcher... did you miss the part where I called out the Dems for inaction? Those things I listed are what I find to be good ideas popular with at least a portion, if not the majority, of the democratic party, but the problem for them is turning those ideas into action and not acquiescing so readily to GOP flag-waving guilt tripping. Again, I made a criticism and recognized faults, you try to fly off the handle like I'm some blind DNC groupie.

Well, it came off to me like you were doing a magic hand wave about Clinton and suggesting that because he was popular, likeable, or successful politically on some domestic issues it somehow makes up for his attrocities.

"He killed a million people, but the trains ran on time" doesn't fly with me.

However your pedestrian GOP talking point critiques of Obama don't exactly do a service to portraying yourself as anything close to intelligent, so I'm not exactly surprised at your response.

Yes, I'm a Rush Limbaugh groupie. You found me out.

Or I read all sorts of sources with people from all over the political spectrum, and the people like Glenn Greenwald or the slightly more cynical Arthur Silber are hardly right-wingers (they're both on the "left" to some degree or another, Silber extremely so), and have had the similar critiques of Obama.

So, I'm not sure what the "GOP talking point" I made was. I don't watch Fox News, so I can hardly be expected to keep up with them.

Feel free to elaborate on that.

[archibaldcrane]

Then we'll get more of the same with a Democratic Party face from the more telegenic and articulate President Obama (or McCain if he manages to steal the election). Same shit, different day.

So is it "all presidents do bad shit democracy is useless it's all evil fuck government" or should it be "look for the president who will do the least bad and the most good hope for the future fight for the greatest gains"?

[evilpaul]

So is it "all presidents do bad shit democracy is useless it's all evil fuck government" or should it be "look for the president who will do the least bad and the most good hope for the future fight for the greatest gains"?

I'm pretty sure most people have been doing the second option for the past two hundred years. Go out, vote for the best qualified person and who they believe will do good when elected.

Politicians get elected and act in good faith and try to do what they think is right. (Generally speaking here. I'm leaving out recent examples to the contrary. They aren't all soulless evil monsters wanting to bathe in the blood of the innocent, although some are.)

And the end result is "all presidents do bad shit democracy is useless it's all evil fuck government".

So my philosophy is to sort of cut out the middle man. I don't know what Obama or McCain would do if they get elected. (We all know what campaign promises are worth.) I have no way to know who will end up being more evil. I'll have no way to know if I guessed right afterwards. Seems pretty pointless to me.

[Izzy]

People get so angry Q_Q

Why so serious?