NationStates Jolt Archive

Is the time finally right for a third party President in America? Is the time right for third a party to get some candidates elected to the House and Senate?

It seems that more Republicans and Democrats are getting fed up with the business as usual politics in Washington. The Republicans have done what they have always accused the Democrats of doing; overspending; Pork projects and inaction on what matters to the people.

In their latest “how will it affect my election” gridlock, the Republicans have decided not to try to come up with a compromise bill on immigration between the House and the Senate. Instead, they have decided not to act until they can return home during the summer break to “see how the people feel.” My God, are they that far out of touch with the people? If so, they shouldn’t be in Congress.

So, they will go home to test the political waters, then return to Washington and do nothing about immigration until after the election. After the election, they will be secure for another two or six years so there will be no need to do anything about immigration.

In the mean time, they have continued to spend taxpayers money like the “pot of gold has no bottom.” Millions spent on rebuilding an underinsured shipyard in Mississippi while many underinsured homeowners are still homeless or living in travel trailers; Spending millions again in Mississippi to build a road no one except the casino’s wants; Spending millions to relocate a railroad they just spent $250 million to repair so they can build the road; Spending millions to buy more C-17 aircraft the Air Force does not want or need.

So, are the people fed up enough to vote for a third party? If the answer is yes, who would make a good third party candidate for President?

We're pretty wrapped up in a binary system so that a third party always ends up as alternate left or alternate right and draws from only one of the main two. In order to break that it seems (not a law, just a guess) that we'd need a third and fourth party candidate.

They can still get into congress. The problem is electoral college prvents a 3rd party president. That can be changed if a 3rd party goes after congress, if they get enough power there they can force a change in the laws and get rid of the electoral college.


The main problem with these parties is that they are all extremem parties, either far left or far right, there is no true moderate party out there. When looking at the 3rd parties out there, it's just safer to stick with the republicans and democrats.

We're pretty wrapped up in a binary system so that a third party always ends up as alternate left or alternate right and draws from only one of the main two. In order to break that it seems (not a law, just a guess) that we'd need a third and fourth party candidate.

A lot of people are starting to view the Democrats as to far left and the Republicans to far right. So, why not a real middle of road third party, one who can draw voters from each side?

im predicting that a civil war of some sort will have to come up before we get out of the democrat republican dance.

A lot of people are starting to view the Democrats as to far left and the Republicans to far right. So, why not a real middle of road third party, one who can draw voters from each side?

Because the Democrats aren't far to the left. They're not even ON the left. They're the actual economic conservatives. The people who call themselves the economic conservatives are just wastrels acting like a teenager with their first credit cards.

What we need is a real socialist party that the Democrats can point to and say "they're too left wing. Vote for us if you want conservative economic growth."

im predicting that a civil war of some sort will have to come up before we get out of the democrat republican dance.

OK. Africa looks like the best place to raise an army these days. How do you suggest we recruit? :D

OK. Africa looks like the best place to raise an army these days. How do you suggest we recruit? :D

with promises of cake. but secretly we dont have any cake to give them. its nothing but a carefully thought out tactic

A lot of people are starting to view the Democrats as to far left and the Republicans to far right. So, why not a real middle of road third party, one who can draw voters from each side?
I'll echo New Domci on that one, that far left/right thing is all smoke and mirrors-it's ridiculous to think of the democrats as 'far left' and while the republicans provide neccisary lip service to the base they both splooge the center while trying to claim the others have abandoned them. It's that thinking, claiming that one is far this or far that that feeds the binary thinking that stuck us in this rut, as if there is only two ways of doing things.

Of course it can happen. All that needs to happen is the day that Britney Spears wins an Oscar, and their victory is assured. In other words, won't happen in the 2008 elections, won't happen in the 7392 elections either.

There are two possible answer here:

1) No.

or

2) Hell no.

A lot of people are starting to view the Democrats as to far left and the Republicans to far right. So, why not a real middle of road third party, one who can draw voters from each side?
I consider the Democrats and Republicans to be cut from pretty close to the same cloth. If the Libertarian party could forget about legalizing drugs for a while and promote more of their core ideas that are acceptable, they would be the third party.

I consider the Democrats and Republicans to be cut from pretty close to the same cloth. If the Libertarian party could forget about legalizing drugs for a while and promote more of their core ideas that are acceptable, they would be the third party.
I agree with this guy.

I consider the Democrats and Republicans to be cut from pretty close to the same cloth. If the Libertarian party could forget about legalizing drugs for a while and promote more of their core ideas that are acceptable, they would be the third party.



Not with their immigration policy.

Both af the parties hate each other, and each one seams to pick chickenspit candidates each time, so if there was a third partie that went down the middle and picked good candidates ot would help, but americans seemm to have blinders on, so they'll keep with this system until the next revoloution.

I consider the Democrats and Republicans to be cut from pretty close to the same cloth. If the Libertarian party could forget about legalizing drugs for a while and promote more of their core ideas that are acceptable, they would be the third party.
Unfortunately, most of their core ideas aren't acceptable. Abolishing miniumum wage alone will murder them. Getting rid of welfare will hurt them. The "fair tax" will kill them, because enough people have the basic math skills required to recognize it as a regressive tax in disguise. Not to mention their insistence on privatising everything.

Statistically, third parties are getting stonger every year whereas even people who dont join third parties are refusing to identify themselves with the two-party system.

A third party wedge is inevitable. However, 2008 is a little early. Third parties dont have the funds to wage the media wars that the two-party system possesses.

Really If most citizens would just go to the congress website and check the voting records, they probably would not be so loyaly dedicated to their party. For now the strongest (in terms of votes) third-party is the libertarians, whose ideas seem to be more common, likely due to recent distrust of government.

Practical Libertarianism seems to appeal to a huge range of the populace, but since the Libertarian leaders dont want to be "sell-outs" they wont compromise, which is a problem. The closest thing to practical libertarianism is the constitution party...except they want a theocracy. Take that out and they could probably be a house force in 2 election cycles.

Unfortunately, most of their core ideas aren't acceptable. Abolishing miniumum wage alone will murder them. Getting rid of welfare will hurt them. The "fair tax" will kill them, because enough people have the basic math skills required to recognize it as a regressive tax in disguise. Not to mention their insistence on privatising everything.
Now you've hit one of my hot buttons. I'll be that all you know about the Fair Tax is that it is a retail sales tax, right? Do you know about the prebate that refunds that sales tax to everyone so that there are effectively no taxes on any spending below the poverty line? And if you consider that since those evil rich usually spend more than the sainted poor, they actually pay more in taxes, just not at a higher rate.

The Fair Tax is an idea that is catching on with people that aren't in lockstep with those demogogues that won't understand it. There have been a couple of wildly successful rallies already and I hope more to come.

Really If most citizens would just go to the congress website and check the voting records, they probably would not be so loyaly dedicated to their party. For now the strongest (in terms of votes) third-party is the libertarians, whose ideas seem to be more common, likely due to recent distrust of government.

Most people don't care about the voting records of their representatives. They care about the goodies that the representatives bring home. How else can you explain the Cindy McKinney phenomena?

For almost everyone that votes, it's the other guys that are the problem, not my guy. That's fact and it's a hard one to overcome.

Mike Bloomberg

Now you've hit one of my hot buttons. I'll be that all you know about the Fair Tax is that it is a retail sales tax, right? Do you know about the prebate that refunds that sales tax to everyone so that there are effectively no taxes on any spending below the poverty line? And if you consider that since those evil rich usually spend more than the sainted poor, they actually pay more in taxes, just not at a higher rate.

Apparently you don't realize that the less wealthy you are, the higher percentage of your income you spend on goods. Also, the rebate seems to be distinctly lacking on every site I've seen on the "Fair Tax". I know the official site for it didn't have any information on a rebate as of six or so months ago. Also, even if there is a rebate, it still isn't equal, as middle-class people will spend a higher percentage of their income than upper-class people.

For almost everyone that votes, it's the other guys that are the problem, not my guy. That's fact and it's a hard one to overcome.
Assuming your guy is Badnarik, then he is part of the problem. He doesn't pay his taxes.

Apparently you don't realize that the less wealthy you are, the higher percentage of your income you spend on goods. Also, the rebate seems to be distinctly lacking on every site I've seen on the "Fair Tax". I know the official site for it didn't have any information on a rebate as of six or so months ago. Also, even if there is a rebate, it still isn't equal, as middle-class people will spend a higher percentage of their income than upper-class people.
The rebate info has been there since HB-25 was introduced last Congress as HB-?? (Don't remember the number)
Here's the table that you want to see.
http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/faq-main.html#3

This is another one of those times that I wish we could get rid of those evil rich and focus on the things that affect the other 99 44/100s of the population.

Assuming your guy is Badnarik, then he is part of the problem. He doesn't pay his taxes.
I think you missed my point and it doesn't surprise me.

The rebate info has been there since HB-25 was introduced last Congress as HB-?? (Don't remember the number)
Here's the table that you want to see.
http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/faq-main.html#3

This is another one of those times that I wish we could get rid of those evil rich and focus on the things that affect the other 99 44/100s of the population.
Unfortunately, they seem to have unrealistically low expectations of what constitutes poverty. Even the U.S. definition of poverty is above that, and that is well known for being unrealistically low.

I think you missed my point and it doesn't surprise me.
I think you missed mine.

Unfortunately, they seem to have unrealistically low expectations of what constitutes poverty. Even the U.S. definition of poverty is above that, and that is well known for being unrealistically low.
This is the U.S. definition of poverty. The same HHS figure that has been used in every situation since LBJ's "War on Poverty". Read the fine print and the footnotes.

Spending millions to buy more C-17 aircraft the Air Force does not want or need.
And they great thing about that is they went so far by ignoring the Air Force that now it is cheaper to finish the project than cancel it.

This is the U.S. definition of poverty. The same HHS figure that has been used in every situation since LBJ's "War on Poverty". Read the fine print and the footnotes.
I distrust anything that happens to be written in print that hurts my eyes when I try to read it. Also, that means the hospitals use a different definition of poverty than the government.

Of course it can happen. All that needs to happen is the day that Britney Spears wins an Oscar, and their victory is assured. In other words, won't happen in the 2008 elections, won't happen in the 7392 elections either.

Might not happen in 2008, but it will happen in 7392 if I'm still around. :D

Now you've hit one of my hot buttons. I'll be that all you know about the Fair Tax is that it is a retail sales tax, right? Do you know about the prebate that refunds that sales tax to everyone so that there are effectively no taxes on any spending below the poverty line? And if you consider that since those evil rich usually spend more than the sainted poor, they actually pay more in taxes, just not at a higher rate.

The Fair Tax is an idea that is catching on with people that aren't in lockstep with those demogogues that won't understand it. There have been a couple of wildly successful rallies already and I hope more to come.

You are correct and if anyone else has any questions about the Fair Tax they might check out the Neil Bortz web site at; http://boortz.com/nuze/200408/08032004.html

Most people don't care about the voting records of their representatives. They care about the goodies that the representatives bring home. How else can you explain the Cindy McKinney phenomena?

That is part of the problem. Also, most of the people never see the "goodies" (aka PORK) that their Rep or Senator brings home.

For almost everyone that votes, it's the other guys that are the problem, not my guy. That's fact and it's a hard one to overcome.

Yes, and combine it with the fact that fewer than 50% of the people bother to vote. :(

Apparently you don't realize that the less wealthy you are, the higher percentage of your income you spend on goods. Also, the rebate seems to be distinctly lacking on every site I've seen on the "Fair Tax". I know the official site for it didn't have any information on a rebate as of six or so months ago. Also, even if there is a rebate, it still isn't equal, as middle-class people will spend a higher percentage of their income than upper-class people.

Here is the answer.

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE POOR*?

OK ... let's put on our sensitivity hats for a few minutes here and think of the consequences of the Fair Tax Act on our nation's poor, poor, pitiful poor. After all, they can hardly afford a 23% sales tax when they're living paycheck-to-paycheck in the first place, right? We're actually going to forget, just for now, that poverty is largely a behavioral disorder and consider how they would survive under the fair tax.

We begin with a reality check. Right now, for the most part, those whom we define as "poor" aren't paying any income tax anyway. In fact, many of them are getting checks from the government. The absurdly named Earned Income Tax Credit, for example. So right now the government is actually supplementing their income. How can they endure a 23% sales tax?

The implementation of the Fair Tax would fail in short order if, as the question presupposes, the net effect on the poor would be the that they would be paying today's prices for a gallon of milk or a loaf of bread, plus a 23% sales tax. But ... that would be far from the reality under the Fair Tax. Under the Fair Tax the poor won't only survive, they'll positively thrive! The Fair Tax could turn out to be the best poverty-fighting tool devised in this country since the concept of hard work.

Let's begin by considering two realities.

First, remember, please, that the poor, along with everybody else, will no longer have Social Security taxes or Medicare taxes withheld from their paychecks. Whatever they earn, they get on payday. For most of them this means an immediate 10 to 15% increase in their earnings.

Second. Don't forget the 22% in imbedded taxes. It's lurking there in virtually everything poor Americans have to buy. As soon as the competitive forces of the free market work their magic these people will be paying 20% or more less for virtually retail purchase, including the basics of food, clothing, shelter and transportation. Yes .. they'll have to pay the new national sales tax, but when you factor in the lower prices caused by the disappearance of the embedded taxes you'll see that the total price paid for consumer goods will remain very nearly the same.

So ... just considering these factors, the Fair Tax delivers a winning hand to people living in or near to what we call poverty. They get every penny they earn on payday, and when you factor in the Fair Tax and the lower prices, they're actually spending less of their money for a retail purchase than before.

Pull out the calculators. Say that a single mother with two children spends $45 a week on groceries. The removal of the 22% embedded tax would bring the price of those groceries down to $35.10. The sales tax would be $8.07. This brings the total price to $43.17. That's less than would have paid under today's tax system. This single mother, whom we'll consider "poor," has just received a 10% to 15% increase in her weekly paychecks, and she's paying less at the grocery story for her basic necessities.

Well, at this point you should be thoroughly convinced that the Fair Tax would actually benefit, rather than harm the poor. But, then again, maybe not. So, here's the clincher.

The Rebate

Under the Fair Tax plan every consumer will receive a check from the federal government every single month equal to the sales tax that person would be expected to pay on the purchase of the basic necessities of life for that month. The size of the monthly payment will be based on the government's published poverty levels for various sized households.

Here's an example of how the rebate payments would have worked in 2003.

Let's say you're a married couple with two children. The Fair Tax Act sets forth a formula for computing the poverty level, based on government figures, which negates any marriage penalty. Under the Fair Tax Act in 2003 you would have been granted an annual consumption allowance of $24,240. This is what the government would assume you would have to spend during that one year to buy the basic necessities of life for your family. The sales tax on this amount would equal $5,575. The government will rebate this amount to you in 12 equal monthly installments of $465. What about a single woman with one child? Her monthly rebate in 2003 would have been $232. The lowest payment would be to a single person with no dependents. That person would receive $172 per month.

Now ... bear in mind, this rebate isn't only paid to the poor. It is paid to everyone, rich and poor alike. The purpose here is to make sure that no American has to pay the Fair Tax sales tax on the basic necessities of life. Unlike the present income tax system, the Fair Tax treats each and every person in this country exactly the same. This, of course, presents somewhat of a problem to politicians who like to use the tax code to foment class distrust or outright warfare.

OK ... let's add it up for America's lower income citizens:

1. They get their entire paycheck.
2. Even with the sales tax, and considering the drop in prices, they'll be paying essentially the same for everything they buy.
3. They get a check from the federal government every month to rebate any sales taxes they had to pay.

Though their tax returns aren't that complex, let's also include the time these the poor (all of us, really) will save by not having to keep tax records or file tax returns.

So, my friends, if you're looking for some reason to oppose the Fair Tax plan, you're going to have to find a better excuse than its effect on the poor.

Source; http://boortz.com/nuze/200408/08032004.html and he wrote the book on the Fair Tax.

Sadly, too many americans are too stupid, too lazy, too apathetic, too busy, ect. to care about the abyssmal job the Democrates and Republicans are doing running the country.

bump