Politics & the Presidency in the USA **Now With Fun Quiz!**

@horseman6: Obviously the top 10% will have the most wealth by definition. The fact that they have the most wealth by such a wide margin is what's troubling. If you think a society in which a handful of Waltons have more wealth than the bottom 30% of Americans combined is healthy, I don't know what to tell you.

The effective tax on the top quintile is lower than it was in the 80s, and far, far lower than the decades preceding it. The reason the share of overall tax revenues paid by that demographic has increased is because the amount of money they're earning has massively increased, while the income of the median household has stagnated at best for decades. Again, not healthy!

The graphic gives a clear source. Unless you're going to dispute the reliability of the people or institutes conducting the study, the Mother Jones watermark is irrelevant.

@pcorb: I believe your source, but if the top 20% makes 85% of the wealth and pays 85% of taxes, that sounds fair, no matter the tax rate.

It's a problem when that gets out if scale. If the top 1% makes 40% of the wealth and pays 15% of taxes, we have a problem.

I pointed out the mother Jones reference because if you are frequenting a borderline communist site, it kind of stifles potential discussion.

@horseman6: So, taking that viewpoint to its logical conclusion, if the top 1% account for 99% of the wealth in America, and also pay 99% of the taxes, that's a fair society to you?

Mother Jones is far from communist, but in any case visiting that site doesn't make me a communist any more than visiting the American Spectator makes me a conservative.

@pcorb: No, that wouldn't be. But we currently don't live in a society where that exists. While the wealthy are getting wealthier, I wouldn't call the entirety of the top 20% wealthy. I have a lot of friends that are in the top 20% but because they live in California, they can't even buy a house.

@horseman6:So where do you draw the line then? The top 1% of Americans own 35% of the wealth today. I think that's obscene, regardless of how much or how little they pay in taxes. If they own 50% of the wealth, do you start to become uncomfortable? 70%? 98%?

And imagine how hard it is for the 80% of people who earn less than your friends to buy a house. Do you see why this isn't a desirable state of affairs?

@horseman6: Mother Jones is borderline communist? Is that a joke?

As a European i am a Sanders Guy. Also why do most of the people in America hate the word socialism and instantly think about Stalin ?

Sorry to but in here but i'm curious what you think the answer to this is pcorb?

I have a question to people who vote.

Why would your candidate ever want to fulfill their promise? Why would they not just get to office, ignore all of their promises, reap the benefits of power, continue the wars, continue corporate handouts, continue bailing out Wall Street? Because, empirically, that's what happens.

There aren't even laws in place to bind politicians to their political promises.

@carryboy: I don't know if I exactly have "the answer", but some things I think would make a positive difference to the situation as it currently stands include higher taxes on inheritance and the wealthiest households and corporations, a crackdown on tax evasion and avoidance, an actual "socialization" of healthcare to reduce that burden on US households (who pay twice as much for healthcare compared to other developed countries with similar outcomes), a land value tax, and replacing various welfare programs with a guaranteed minimum income.

The only issue that matters is the environment. Sure wish more people could see that.

Theoretically, if the voters are dissatisfied with their representative's performance, he or she will not be re-elected. Of course, that presupposes a high level of voter turnout and civic engagement.

So the punishment for false promises and using your position as a highly elected official to bribe your friendly corporate sponsors and secure yourself a hefty retirement is that... you might not get the chance to do it again?

This voting thing doesn't seem really secure.

False promises provide ammunition for your opposition, yes. Flip-flop governments don't imply strong leadership.

@imsh_pl: A member of the US Congress only gets a pension with 5 years of service. So a Congressman would need to be elected 3 times just to get a pension and the amount depends on length of service.

And not every member of Congress is receiving large donations from corporations. And those donations can't be used by them personally. They must be declared and used only for campaign purposes.

In the American system I would probably vote for a socialist President. The House of Representatives would pretty much neuter anything remotely radical. Plus you're talking about it like its a great evil. Socialism in its broadest stroke will not float in the US but you might hammer in a couple of reforms.

@karkarov: Interesting that you would rather have Sanders than Clinton since you "despise" socialism when Sanders is the only one of the two who is actually a socialist. Granted, I agree with you, I don't think Clinton would be a very good president at all, but I thought your statement was interesting.

Personally, I'm all in on Sanders. He fits my political ideologies almost perfectly and he's got a great personality. I'm glad he's gaining on Hilary in the polls. I've thought about volunteering for his campaign. He's my guy.

Fair enough, but I honestly believe you're selling Sanders short. He may not win the nomination, but I think it will be much closer than people anticipate.

And personally, I would much, much rather vote for Clinton than Bush, or any other republican candidate. I think you're being hyperbolic to say that a vote for Clinton is "a vote for everything wrong with American politics." I'd rather support her begrudgingly than willingly support the republican party. Although I'd probably end up voting for Sanders even if he lost the nomination.

Bernie Sanders has my vote right now as far as serious candidates go. But it seems like it's gonna be Clinton vs. Bush, which would be funny if it wasn't so sad. In that case, I'd vote for Hilary just because I mean jesus christ we're gonna elect another fucking Bush?

I know people can, will and have argue that I should vote third party in that situation but, even though I have considered it, no matter what argument people make it, it does feel like throwing away a vote and I do get this paranoia that if I don't vote for someone who actually has a chance of winning, the person who I really don't want to win is gonna take it. An irrational fear for sure considering I live in New York and there's no way the Democrats don't take the state anyway but I still can't shake the feeling.

@karkarov: I can't really fathom what would give someone such a visceral reaction to Clinton. I'm not the biggest fan myself but my issues with her that she mostly stands for nothing of significance. She seems to be coasting on "hey, you like Bill, now like me!" without any kind of strong positions. She's a fairly milquetoast candidate, which can have its own issues for sure but I'm not really sure what makes you think that she's gonna somehow turn the country into a smoking crater in 4 years.

This is probably the point where I realise giving a President a maximum number of terms to serve is kinda dumb.

I hope you can appreciate the irony though. I know many people who would (and do) say the same about the various Republican candidates. What could be more repugnant than a party that makes vile comments about rape, harbors regressive views on women, actively tries to undermine the office of the presidency at an international level, denies unanimous findings from climate scientists worldwide, and allows itself to be affiliated with birther conspiracy theorists? Even people who might otherwise be fiscal conservatives but perhaps social moderates cannot in good conscience vote for the far-right clusterfuck that the Republican party has become.

HYPERBOWL!

I fully expect them to not follow through, which is why we badly need significant election reform especially campaign finance reform. Voting gives my only chance,however small, at holding them accountable to the people instead of Lobbyists.

And it does occasionally cause the politicians issues, e.g. Bush vs Gore in 2000. Those Nader voters in likelihood cost Gore the presidency, whether you think that's a good thing or not is different question.

@shindig: It has its pros and cons, just like the lifetime terms for the Supreme Court, the ability for incumbent congressmen and senators to hold their seats indefinitely, as well as the length of terms of congress, senators, and the president. The problem with too many terms is that the person will be more focused on winning re-election than supporting policies beneficial to the country, not to mention a president who might serve for decades becoming out of touch with the American public but still winning elections on the back their incumbency. Too few terms and you're constantly getting in new blood, which is both good and bad. It's bad because of inexperience, but good because it can help reflect the changing concerns of the American people. I've heard very reasonable argues for both sides. There are also arguments for a single ten year term, two possible six to eight year terms, or simply upping it to three four year terms. A lot of thought has gone into this by political scientists.

My friends that do follow politics tell me Bernie Sanders is the least insane candidate. Is this true?

@mechakirby: He's a self described democratic socialist with positions that make him the most left leaning member of the senate by far. That makes him pretty insane by the standards of what's commonly perceived as the central ground of American politics. By international standards, he would fit right in to many mainstream social democrat parties in Europe, and if you actually present members of the American public with issues and give them all the information, and present responses without labels of Democrat, Republican, conservative, liberal, or, God forbid, socialist, people agree with Bernie far more than you'd expect, given the oft-repeated truism that Americans can't abide socialism.

Fundamentally, it's a matter of perspective, though. Personally, I consider him to be the only candidate worth his salt, and think people like Cruz, Walker or Rand would be utterly disastrous, but you can find plenty of people in their camps who would say the same about Bernie.

TL;DR Yes.

Bernie is far and away the realest candidate, he's been on the same platform his entire political career. I don't agree with him on everything but the fact that he has proven himself to be an actual human being with actual beliefs and ideas rather than constantly pandering to everyone, makes him deserving of office. But that realness also means he can never win. (I'm a cynic, can you tell?)

@mikemcn: I don't think you have to be a cynic to think Bernie won't win. You'd have to be sort of deluded to think he had anything approaching a fighting chance. Still, he at least has the opportunity to impact the conversation. His message on campaign finance and inequality should resonate with the Democratic base enough that Hilary might be forced to make a stand in those areas.

Fuck I apologize. Those Republicans were the ones I most recently added and I was having trouble with the table. That said I have no idea how the hell I ended up giving everyone a link to Pataki's website. It has been fixed. If anyone else sees something wrong or someone new joins the race by all means let me know and I will update the OP.

As for felling obligated to support Bernie Sanders, by all means express your own views! This thread has been pretty damn civil and we have avoided personal insults so far (knocking on wood).

Hillary will win, only Dem who i think could have contested her was Warren but she isn't running. Sanders is doing a good job so far but i don't think he can beat Hillary, she has much momentum right now.

On the Republican side either Scott Walker or Bush will win. Kasich would be the guy i would like to see get the vote but really i think Walker will take it.

As for the overall election Hillary will win. Walker being anit-gay/anti-abortion won't help him. I hope this is what happens at least. For fun factor, Ben Carson, Donald Trump or Rick Perry would be fun to watch be president since they are politically retarded. Ben Carson suggesting makeing a Palastinan state out of land claimed by Egypt. Trump calling Mexicans drug dealers and rapists, and Rick Perry just being plain old dumb.

I'm extremely uncomfortable dictating how much share of wealth people should have. If I start making 10 million dollars a year, is it fair to me that I would have to pay 75% of my income to taxes? I don't think I should be penalized for being successful. Rather than penalize the wealthy, why don't we find ways to help lower-income classes move up in society?

Taxes are not a "penalty" for rich people. Taxes don't exist just to serve poor people. Taxes are supposed to pay for healthcare, infrastructure and education - three things which both rich and poor people can both benefit from. Characterizing wealth as "success" is also an insanely flawed and consumerist attitude to have - many people are born into wealth whilst also accomplishing nothing and continue to make more wealth despite a lack of any merit or accomplishment.

I am that guy >:(

I debated with myself about posting in this thread, but I can't stay silent anymore.
I have the right/responsibility as an American to speak the truth and spread the word.

TED NUGENT FOR PRESIDENT!

Go Uncle Ted!

For me it's the fact that she's probably the most corrupt politician in the United States at the moment. She's untouchable though because the media and hollywood are almost completely in her pocket.

@456nto: Taxes are exactly a penalty, otherwise taxes would flat rather than based on an increasing percentage. Social services are almost completely for lower income people as wealthy people don't need government funded healthcare, social security, schools, etc.

Yes, there are people who have been born into wealth, but if you look at the wealthiest people in the United States, almost none of them are those people. The argument you're making is a by the book leftist talking point that isn't accurate.

Added Bobby Jindal to the OP.

Dwayne Johnson. Write him in on the ballot.

I added Chris Christie under the Republicans and Jim Webb under the Democrats in the original post. I have also added a link to this neat quiz that is on http://www.isidewith.com which tells you which presidential candidate your own views most line up with. I ended up siding most with Bernie Sanders followed by Clinton.

That quiz is fun. I'm Canadian and it's still fun.

I got 94% Bernie Sanders (yay), 79% Hilary Clinton (boo) and 65% Rand Paul (hrm). I was firmly left wing but on the line between libertarian and authoritarian. I think I got those Paul points because I think Common Core is terrible, gun control doesn't need to be expanded, and I support decriminalization of drugs. But I'm also pro-immigration, pro-equality and pro-health care so that's those Bernie points.

Unsurprisingly, I got 96% with Bernie Sanders, 86% with Hilary and then 72% with Martin O'Malley (I don't know who this is). My closest Republican matches (makes it sound it like a dating site) were Mike Huckabee and Rand Paul, probably because of our similarities when it comes to education and Common Core, specifically thinking that it's bullshit.

@the_tribunal: Paul would smoke Warren