Silent Majority ?

[regan]

My thought is, if wealthy people don't want to pay tax, they don't get to use public roads, public fire departments, public police, public clean water, or public clean  air, nor do they get the benefit of the defense provided to the public by the military.  Enjoy Somalia, the Tea Party paradise.

That's a noble thought, but those that are the most dependant on government services generally pay the smallest portion for them.

Public Transportation (inc.  Roads) is paid for almost entirely out of tax dollars.  Public transportation is heavily taxpayer subsidized, yet most of its ridership pays little if anything in taxes to support it.  The services of public fire departments are most often used by low to moderate income people, in the case of fire department provided EMS services, also heavily tax payer subsidized, the most infrequent users (the privately insured) pay the full bill when they do use the services, not so for the high volume users (those with no or publicly funded (aka taxpayer supported) insurance).  Same for the police.  Clean water is paid for with user fees, not taxes.  "Gas guzzlers" (driven by the wealthy taxpayer almost exclusively) and cars in general (not public transportation) are also taxed heavily for the sake of clean air, not to mention those "public" roads are also built and maintained mostly with gasoline taxes.

[Pinkfluff]

The problem is when the government wants to impose punitive rates on the haves while the have-nots either are below a taxable threshold or pay a much smaller percentage.  If the government TRULY wanted to equalize tax burdens, then we would see a flat tax with the balance coming through what amounts to a sales tax (in which case people are only being taxed on what they actually consume). 

First of all, punitive? Yeah right. Punitive is denial of basic necessities and any semblance of equal opportunity to those who were born poor, any kind of minority, who were born or have become disabled, or some other stupid reason. If the government would stop allowing so much outsourcing (whether it's building factories in other countries or giving jobs to immigrants when there are citizens to do it) then more people would be paying taxes and there would be less demand for assistance programs. Raise revenue, reduce spending, and grow the economy all at once? I guess that's too bold of an idea for those in power. As far as a flat tax, that would only make sense if the income rates were linear. We all know (even if some choose to ignore it) that the rich make obscenely more than the poor or even middle. So far from being linear, it is closer to exponential. At the very least some kind of quadratic. It also can be a problem when it comes to taxing based on consumption. Those with little income spend a much greater percent of their income just to survive. It really doesn't make sense to tax consumption anyway though, since that just discourages consumption. To grow the economy, we want people to consume (responsibly and sustainably of course). It makes more sense to tax generation than consumption, hence taxing income.

then there are the stupid TSA-related taxes on commercial flight that do absolutely NOTHING towards the improvement of domestic air safety. 

Yeah I can agree with this, but that doesn't mean that we don't need air safety and security, just that we need to find better ways of achieving it. Here's an idea, why not hire some American engineers, security consultants, and whoever else to work on it? And forget all this made in China technology... There is no good reason not to make it right here.

[Ann Onymous]

First of all, punitive? Yeah right.

I would LOVE to have the lower tax rate percentage that some enjoy...if you SAW what I pay quarterly, you would quickly understand WHY I say punitive...

As far as a flat tax, that would only make sense if the income rates were linear.

Disagree about needing income to be linear...20% (as an example) is 20%. 

It also can be a problem when it comes to taxing based on consumption. Those with little income spend a much greater percent of their income just to survive. It really doesn't make sense to tax consumption anyway though, since that just discourages consumption. To grow the economy, we want people to consume (responsibly and sustainably of course). It makes more sense to tax generation than consumption, hence taxing income.

Taxes on consumption already exist...they are typically shown in the form of sales taxes.  If we went to a flat tax plus some variant of a modified sales tax, then people come closer to paying taxes for what they actually utilized. 

re TSA nonsense:

Yeah I can agree with this, but that doesn't mean that we don't need air safety and security, just that we need to find better ways of achieving it. Here's an idea, why not hire some American engineers, security consultants, and whoever else to work on it? And forget all this made in China technology... There is no good reason not to make it right here.

The current nonsense is designed to keep the Kettles feeling safe since they have no idea JUST how unsecure the cargo and ground areas of major airports happen to be (or even that I don't have to deal with the TSA when I fly privately.  Even flying out of Bergstrom in Austin, in Class C airspace, I get to the parking lot, go to get the key to the plane, check weather, walk on the tarmac, do pre-flight, make my radio calls to the appropriate personnel (clearance delivery and ground, who then hands me off to tower) and I am off and into the air.  I could load the plane with a ton of C4 and nobody would know the difference until it was too late.  And despite the Joe Stack incident (actually took off from Georgetown but still a towered airfield, albeit Class D space), nothing has changed in how we get to our planes...

[wendy]

Can you further explain what you mean that 75% of MTF in the wst "liked" females to some degree and what your assumptions are regarding this?

I also find it interesting that you state you are ultra conservative followed by you "accepts nothing." To be honest, I never heard of a conservative openly admit that they refuse to accept any other "explanations" so I have to commend you on your convictions even tho I disagree.

Also, concerning your biological convictions, you state it is all based on medical explanations. If these became standard, would you start dressing as a man and living as a man again if your personal medical examinations came back with negative results of Transexualism?

I know you feel convinced you are trans but what if the medical tests prove otherwise? It would be similiar to those who are trans who desperately want to be intersex but their tests shows they were born biologically 100% male. Many do not take the results lightly. I wonder howsomuch more the emotional disturbance may be compounded based on an actual transsexual medical examination that proves negative of transsexualism. At least those who did not test positive for intersex traits still have their gut feelings of being a transsexual to fall back on.

.........................................................
Thank you for asking.  Internet claims about 75% of eastern MTF's enjoy males.  Internet and my findings on Susan's correlate for MTF in West.  Pre-hormones 1/4 like males, 1/4 like males and females, and 1/2 like only females. Prior to transition about 75% of MTF like girls to some degree.  After transition about half of group that only liked females likes males too.

I did survey for FTM and found that 75% of FTM liked females before transition and about 25% liked males.  FTM were less fluid on sexuality after transition.  Some FTM were considered "gay" after transition and were happy.

Statistics also suggest that males are 3 times more likely to change to other gender as females.  These statistics suggest that MTF are more fluent on gender and sexuality than FTM.  Time will tell.
.......................
Ah you find it difficult to accept an ultra conservative that accepts nothing.  Well I am an ultra conservative on this site and a liberal in society.  My friends are frequently not accepted by society but they are good people and I love them.  I accept nothing without some degree of investigation.
.........
Cut government in half and remove all social programs!  After WWII U.S. was on top of world now we have leveraged ourselves into a debtor nation.  No social security, no welfare, no food stamps, no medical care , no free SRS, no unemployment payments, no socialism, no higher taxes for rich.  Yes rich create jobs.  How many poor people support your Church and create jobs?  Totally against big government.  Bush spent too much but Obama beat Bush at spending game.  Obama has grown government by 30% in three years and growth in jobs is not private sector but government.
..........................
If medical test shows I am not transgendered I want urologist to reconnect my testes and refund my $3000!  They look dehydrated from sitting in alcohol but I am positive that those dehydrated testes will be just as useful as before they were removed!  I do have a friend that fathered a son at 15 and now that her son is grown she wants her son to call her mom.  She tells me she is intersex and therefore she can be mom to her son.

I also want to be validated but I took opposite approach to prove I could not be "one of those people".  My survey showed a number of old folks were good dads.   That is not as common in East.

Actually I do feel it is in your genes.  My sister likes girls and one of three male cousins likes boys.  I'm a whatever.  How I wish I could validate myself! Actually I am happy if you can validate yourself.  Society certainly does not validate me but still feel way I do.  Maybe hormone imbalances during fetal development can cause gender disruptions?   I love science and do not fear it.

[Annah]

Thank you for asking.  Internet claims about 75% of eastern MTF's enjoy males.  Internet and my findings on Susan's correlate for MTF in West.  Pre-hormones 1/4 like males, 1/4 like males and females, and 1/2 like only females. Prior to transition about 75% of MTF like girls to some degree.  After transition about half of group that only liked females likes males too.

Do you have links to these figures? The only reason why I ask is because I live in Pennsylvania and about 80% of the transgender girls I know who lives in the east likes women before transition and women after transition. And I know A LOT of trans women from doing speaking events, being a minister aspirant, support groups and several websites where I met the women personally.

Also, my sexually course at Graduate school had sources that were conflicting than yours. This course was just this past May 2011 so it's pretty recent studies. Studies regarding sexual preferences showed that MTF were much more inclined to be lesbians than FTM  to be gay. There was no difference according to region.

I did survey for FTM and found that 75% of FTM liked females before transition and about 25% liked males.  FTM were less fluid on sexuality after transition.  Some FTM were considered "gay" after transition and were happy.

This this as opposed to MTF lesbians who aren't happy?

Statistics also suggest that males are 3 times more likely to change to other gender as females.  These statistics suggest that MTF are more fluent on gender and sexuality than FTM.  Time will tell.

Interesting. Do you have sources on that too? I would love to read it.

Ah you find it difficult to accept an ultra conservative that accepts nothing.  Well I am an ultra conservative on this site and a liberal in society.  My friends are frequently not accepted by society but they are good people and I love them.  I accept nothing without some degree of investigation.

No, it doesn't have anything to with me finding it difficult to accept an ultra conservative that accepts nothing. My past vocational background was as a Priest in a conservative church. I never met a conservative person who outrightfully admitted that they do not accept any other option. Usually, they play the love game until someone conflict with their personal conservative belief system and then it shows.

Cut government in half and remove all social programs!  After WWII U.S. was on top of world now we have leveraged ourselves into a debtor nation.  No social security, no welfare, no food stamps, no medical care , no free SRS, no unemployment payments, no socialism, no higher taxes for rich.  Yes rich create jobs.  How many poor people support your Church and create jobs?  Totally against big government.  Bush spent too much but Obama beat Bush at spending game.  Obama has grown government by 30% in three years and growth in jobs is not private sector but government.

This I agree with you on. However, it is also a sad statistical fact that politicans who want small government and no social programs also wants to make gay sex illegal, ban same sex marriage, force a woman to make birthing decisions and reject the anti discrimination bills for LGBT people.  So, until I can find a group that wants smaller government and also be socially liberal, I have to settle with the lesser of two evils.

If medical test shows I am not transgendered I want urologist to reconnect my testes and refund my $3000! 

Well, I appreciate your honesty to that question. Personally, I would never detransition because of what a brain scan of cellular DNA tells me. But I do appreciate your tenacity of willing to detransition if the medical examinations conflicted with what you believed in.

Actually I do feel it is in your genes.  My sister likes girls and one of three male cousins likes boys.  I'm a whatever.  How I wish I could validate myself! Actually I am happy if you can validate yourself.  Society certainly does not validate me but still feel way I do.  Maybe hormone imbalances during fetal development can cause gender disruptions?   I love science and do not fear it.

I love science as well. I am a big fan of quantam physics, cellular biology, muscular structures of feet (weird I know...but i was a pre med major with a concentration in Podiatry before I switch to Music Education and Theology). I do hold some stock in genetic markers to prove homosexuality, etc etc.  However, as a conscientious observer in both the science world and the spiritual world I also look at both sides of every issue. I look at the pros and evaluate the cons within the pros and likewise, I look at the cons and find the pros within that.

[Pinkfluff]

I would LOVE to have the lower tax rate percentage that some enjoy...if you SAW what I pay quarterly, you would quickly understand WHY I say punitive...

I'm sure if I saw your quarterly taxes I'm sure I'd say wow I wish they'd let me earn that much.

[justmeinoz]

I wondered about the term "Silent Majority" today, actually.  I realised it was Richard Nixon who first used it in contrast to the "Noisy Minority".
I have to ask myself, would you have bought a used country from that man?
Does it in fact exist, or is it a mythical creature that politicians find useful?

Karen.

[Stephe]

Cut government in half and remove all social programs!  After WWII U.S. was on top of world now we have leveraged ourselves into a debtor nation.  No social security, no welfare, no food stamps, no medical care , no free SRS, no unemployment payments, no socialism, no higher taxes for rich. 

Have you actually ever LOOKED at how much the rich paid % wise in taxes during this "on top of the world" period? It was at least 3 times the % it is today. During the war some were paying 95%. That pretty much kills the "Taxing the rich ruins the economy" theory. As far as social security, I guess all those thousands I paid into this, along with my employer, should just be forgotten along with all my medicare payments? I guess they should repeal the ROTH IRA deal too? What other promises should we promote them breaking?

And I notice all the conservatives who constantly blame Obama for "the national debt" ignoring the chart I posted that shows an overwhelming majority of the debt was accumulated by conservatives.

[Ann Onymous]

I'm sure if I saw your quarterly taxes I'm sure I'd say wow I wish they'd let me earn that much.

It is NOT a matter of someone LETTING me earn that much but rather that I took the bull by the horns and seized every opportunity I had to make a name for myself in my field. 

And, just to pre-empt the next likely comment, it is NOT a case of my reputation having been built prior to transition...almost the entirety of my career, to include finishing college came AFTER transitioning. 

[cynthialee]

The nation is in the toilet. The only way out is to return to the punative tax rates of the past. Is it a good way to do things?
NO.
But it is the only way out unless we cut military spending to a fraction of what we have been spending.
But for some reason we have to be able to wage war on the entire planet to feel secure, so cutting spending on the military is tantamount to treason it seems.
As it is we are spending more on our military than the rest of the world combined, but hey at least guys in bomb making factories have jobs.

[tekla]

After WWII U.S. was on top of world

After WWII the US had the ONLY industrial base that hadn't been turned into rubble, but rather, was running at full speed.

[regan]

It is NOT a matter of someone LETTING me earn that much but rather that I took the bull by the horns and seized every opportunity I had to make a name for myself in my field. 

And, just to pre-empt the next likely comment, it is NOT a case of my reputation having been built prior to transition...almost the entirety of my career, to include finishing college came AFTER transitioning.

I second that.  Its simple supply and demand.  The fewer people who can do what you do, the more you get paid (yes there are always exceptions, but for the most part its true).  If you want someone to "let" you earn that much money, its simple, you have to earn it.

[cynthialee]

After WWII U.S. was on top of world

After WWII the US had the ONLY industrial base that hadn't been turned into rubble, but rather, was running at full speed.

QFT!

I have seen the pictures of Europe and Japan after the war. No wonder we were on top for so long. The rest of the world was incapable of competeing with us.
Maybe we can get back on top if we reduce Europe and China and Japan to rubble again.
In fact I know it would work! Lets get on the buisness of murdering our fellow man so we can all have 2 cars and a boat in our garages again!

[regan]

The nation is in the toilet. The only way out is to return to the punative tax rates of the past. Is it a good way to do things?
NO.
But it is the only way out unless we cut military spending to a fraction of what we have been spending.
But for some reason we have to be able to wage war on the entire planet to feel secure, so cutting spending on the military is tantamount to treason it seems.
As it is we are spending more on our military than the rest of the world combined, but hey at least guys in bomb making factories have jobs.

So you think we should just shut down the military-industrial complex, hold hands and sing peace songs?  Sounds like a great idea, too bad the rest of the world doesn't think that way.  Have we forgotten the deterrence factor?  Its rather simplistic to argue that we don't need the military that we do becuase no one's attacking us when no one's attacking us becuase of the reality of our retaliation if they do.

Would you disband the fire department because there were no fires or get rid of the police department becuase there was no crime?

The fact is the military is good for the economy.  The fact that the run up to world war II brought us out of the great depression should be enough proof of that; however, regardless of the economic climate, the military will always be spending money either directly (payments to contractors) or by its members supporting the local businesses in the towns where bases are located.  In fact, those local economies seem to be thriving now that I think about it.

[cynthialee]

Do we really need a military force capable of wageing war on the entire world?

I never said get rid of the military, that would be foolish. But we do not need to be spending more money on our army than all the other nations combined. Hell we really dont need to spend but 25% more than the next most powerful nation.

And as for deterance, we haver deterance that we are scared ->-bleeped-<-less to use.
Back off our military and declare every place we ever occupied a tactical asset that will not be gaurded and gleefully invite the world to try and mess with our stuff at the risk of facing nuclear anialation. Then actually drop a nuke on the first idiot that calls our bluff.

No other nation would retaliate, no one wants a glowing Earth.

[tekla]

Maybe we can get back on top if we reduce Europe and China and Japan to rubble again.

Hey, as much USA #1 as I am we can't take full credit for that.  Japan destroyed China all by itself, though China was hardly an industrial power at the time.  Europe did a swell job of destroying itself (twice).  We got to that late (twice) and really only helped, we only deserve about 20-25% of the credit for destroying the European industrial base.  We did, and by we I mean the U.S. Army Air Force alone, took care of Japan's manufacturing capacity.  So all that rubble wasn't us.  Lots of other people helped.

[regan]

So you think we should just shut down the military-industrial complex, hold hands and sing peace songs?  Sounds like a great idea, too bad the rest of the world doesn't think that way.  Have we forgotten the deterrence factor?  Its rather simplistic to argue that we don't need the military that we do becuase no one's attacking us when no one's attacking us becuase of the reality of our retaliation if they do.

Maybe if the U.S. did it, everyone else would. Arms reduction would work if the major powers agreed to do that.

I'm sure Quadaffi will get right on that...

As for arms reduction, when we tried that Russia "lost track" of a number of their nukes.

Forget perfect world, this is the world we live in...

World peace is a nice concept when you're busy smoking pot and blowing your student loans in college, but in the real world it just doesn't work.  Aggression is, always has been and always will be, part of human nature, there is nothing you can do that will ever override that.  We try to mediate it through diplomacy, but when diplomacy fails, war happens.  It really is just that simple.

[cynthialee]

Yes it is a creul world but that does not justify being the biggest arms dealer in the world. It doesn't justify having an arsenal that could melt the face of Earth.
We could do just fine with 1/4 of the military might we have. Nukes make an awesome deterance. Armies are only for occupying foriegn territory.

[regan]

We could do just fine with 1/4 of the military might we have.

Can you prove this?

Armies are only for occupying foriegn territory.

So following that logic you would disband the Coast Guard and the National Guard?  Who would handle disaster relief, drug interdiction and search and rescue?  For that matter what about the Air Force Rescue Coordination Center, should we get rid of them too?  How about Space Command?  Hey why not get rid of the junior ROTC programs while we're at it to, there's certainly no need for young people to learn discipline, leadership, etc.

Oh did I mention that battlefield medicine is largely responsible for the structure of emergency medicine in this country, but I guess we can do with out that too...

[cynthialee]

Can you prove this?

So following that logic you would disband the Coast Guard and the National Guard?  Who would handle disaster relief, drug interdiction and search and rescue?  For that matter what about the Air Force Rescue Coordination Center, should we get rid of them too?  How about Space Command?  Hey why not get rid of the junior ROTC programs while we're at it to, there's certainly no need for young people to learn discipline, leadership, etc.

Oh did I mention that battlefield medicine is largely responsible for the structure of emergency medicine in this country, but I guess we can do with out that too...

If we reduced to 1/4 of force level we would have the personel to do all those jobs.

Like I said we have the ultimate deterance. Nukes. All we have to do is declare places we wish to keep as strategic and tactical assests and the attacking of them will merit the harshest level of retailiation possible that the USA can inflict.
That would mean droping a nuke on the first idiot that tested us. But we do not have the intestinal fortitude to do it.

Also war crimes laws prolong wars. Get out of the Geneva Convention and go Roman on our eneimies and see how long others wish to fight us...