Which coupled with his complaints about the current system does raise a big question.
Does Haplo want to rip up the constitution and start afresh with a system of direct democracy where national policies and laws are changed every time a poll shows a swing in peoples views on a subject?

I do like the poll in that gallup link he posted where 58% of the population are in favour of some quantative easing where the government will flood the market to try and temporarily lower prices.......seems like the exact opposite of what the population is normally calling for when it actually does happen.

Then again the piece also takes that and another example and says the 15-20% differences don't really amount to a consensus of opinion and the fluctuating of opinions don't suggest it would be wise to go with those opinions.
And the best of all is about opinion on prices as it says it is rather silly since it is one for an approach that not only doesn't work but would do the opposite of what people say they wanted it to do.

Now that is debatable. Fox' lacking objectivity has become proverbial even outside the US for no reason. They make German Bild-Zeitung look like a academical thesis paper.

Of course there's no reason, except perhaps maybe that Fox doesn't say what "outside the US" want's to hear. But hasn't that always been the case?

If "Fox doesn't say what "outside the US" want's to hear" is an euphemism for lacking journalistic quality, moral codes and professional standards, then you probably have a point somewhere, deep below, well hidden, most likely.

Keep digging.

You seem to forget that Fox is just one arm of a global media empire and that empire has a serious credibility problem everywhere so "outside the US" doesn't come into it, Murdoch peddles populist trash aimed at the lowest common denominator, it is good business to peddle simplistic rubbish on the mass market.
It doesn't in any way give credibility to itself anywhere and certainly cannot stand to the claim that it is less crap than the NYT or less biased in that national market.
A decent claim might be that it is just as crap as the NYT, but that would require a lack of partisanship and a level of honesty by those making the claim.

Digging? This started being about the US Senate obeying the wishes of a majority of Americans so don't try to misdirect it into a Fox foreign popularity contest.

I did not start making it a media issue between the NYT and FOX. ;)

And I didn't make one about Rasmussen. We're all just Victims of Coircumstances! Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.

Personally I blame Mookie. He's just one lab accident away from supervillan status. :yep:

That....would be awesome.

http://images.wikia.com/cartoonchara...d_screen_4.jpg

Sorry Mookie - as cool as it would be, I just can't see you as a villian. Your heart's in the right place, even if (I think) your head isn't on straight sometimes!

Ok @everybody- back to the topic.

Everyone wants to debate the issue of "fair". Some say a certain % across the board is fair. Others say if you make more, you should pay more.

One of the things I have not heard defined by proponents of the tax scale is - how much is "too much" taxes to take from someone? Right now, the top 1% percent pays roughly 38% of the taxes. About 45% pay no taxes at all (and a large portion of that group actually "pay" negative taxes - they get money back that they never even pay in).

On that note - how is it "fair" that people get something out of a system like that - getting more than they ever put it? Especially at the cost of the other 55% of the people? Where is the "fairness" there?

There's only room for one supervillain on this forum, and I've got that job locked up securely. You can still wear the cape, though.

Simply put, the government strives for domination, and in the process, blow trillions they dont have. ESPECIALLY in our military. Until we curb (if we ever curb) the deficit, we should return to isolationism. Our military is so grossly overpowered because of our trillions spent in the futility of being the word policeman that we've seen the debt rise over 5 trillion from one single two term president and another 5 trillion from another. WE need to stop trying to be the best in the world and instead focus on being the best we have the ability to ACTUALLY be, not borrow ourselves into something we cant afford.

Military needs to be cut immensely, taxes needs to be enforced for ALL, Illegal immigration laws need to be enforced, Corporations need to be reviewed with the utmost thoroughness and NOT be allowed to price gouge, and monopolies need to be eliminated.

The biggest threat in any free market economy is corporations getting so powerful that their collapse from dangerously catastrophic investments would take everyone affiliated with them down with it. The workers, the investors, stock players, partners, (assuming they sold goods) market price gouging.

I believe that us trying to borrow our way into being a world leader is absolutely impossible and destructive.

I would agree except for the "ESPECIALLY' part....

Defense spending could be 0 and we still would be spending more than we bring in.....

To make Defense the "main" target for cuts ignores the realities of how we spend our money.

I don't have a problem with cutting defense spending - nor with stopping all the overseas conflicts (which could be done without jeopardizing our national security if we really wanted to...). But making Defense your main target just isn't going to fix things.

No, but it is a big source of overspending. It is a priority to stop spending trillions on being the world policeman.

meanwhile, back on topic? :D

Depending on whether you choose the Democratic or Republican analysis, adopting the Buffett rule would raise between $ 5-8 Billion in 2013 or enough to fund 11 to 18 hours of government spending.

So raising taxes on the rich alone will not solve the budget problems, you have to raise taxes on everyone and cut spending.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...NzcT_blog.html

Also this:

http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2012/apr/23/rob-portman/rob-portman-says-buffett-rule-would-raise-just-eno/

I got an easy solution, but unpopular.

How about we decrease our military spending.
Stop hiring mercenaries for stuff our soldiers are capible of doing at a fraction of the cost.
Stop building planes that are so expensive and high tech, that they are unusable in mass quantities.
Stop funding Israel, Pakistan, and the UN. That includes our troops we provide. All 3 organizations dislike us, yet use us for our wealth and power.

Why do I have to pay for an Israeli tank, or an Afghani assault rifle (that will be used to shoot us 10 years from now)?

(when I catch crap about trying to own an assault rifle myself)

I bet that can free up more money for the people of the united States, who actually contribute to the efforts of bettering our nation.

We seem to want to cater to those who hate us (Food aid to n Korea, free cash for Afghans, Iraquis, Saudis. etc)

Rather than the people of the nation, most of whom pay for these international adventures with tax money.

Europe is strong, it don't need us... Withdrawl from the UN, and end all wars and occupations. Yes you too s korea, time to stand on your own after 60 years.

Japan too, we can let them have an army again, not a defense force. I do not think they will bomb Pearl Harbor or retaliate for Nagasaki or Hiroshima...


Is America first so bad?