Cut-Throat said:It's too bad that the Green Party supporters do not understand Politcial Science.
Or it is a good thing, depending which end of the political spectrum you are on
Cut-Throat said:It's too bad that the Green Party supporters do not understand Politcial Science.
ladelfina said:(), don't know about France, but in Italy we've had a porn-star MP (Cicciolina, ex-wife(?) of 'artist' Jeff Koons).
Too bad her solution didn't work.
davew894 said:Just because it may work out OK that two parties are better than three under your scenario, that doesn't make it OK that those two parties are squelching the voice of the third.
Millions of people across the country had to sign petitions in their states to get the Libertarians on the ballot. Some people out there must think more than two parties would be beneficial or they wouldn't have signed. I don't know when it became acceptable, or even beneficial, as you point out, to keep political views, parties or candidates repressed.
Hawaii's governor isn't considered noteworthy for being:Cut-Throat said:Sigh......
And it's too bad that Ross Perot didn't know this prior to Bill Clinton's election. OTOH, I think Ross did know it. He just hated the Bushes.....Cut-Throat said:If you took a political science class, you would understand why this is so. It is the rules of the election that 'decide' how many 'effective' political parties that there will be.
In the U.S. the winning candidate only needs the most votes (a Plurality) to win. In France the winning candidate needs a Majority of the Vote to win (51%). That is why in France there are many many poitical parties. They can hold their votes and agree to 'trade' them to another politcal party for concessions. A small party in France is much more effective than a small party in the U.S.
Small politcial parties in the U.S only help the party at the other end of their spectrum. For example the Green Party (which is left of center) voted for Nader in the 2000 election, the candidate that was most far from their point of view (Bush) was helped. If they would have thrown their support for Gore he would have had enough votes that the Supreme Court would not have had to step in an annoit Bush.
It's too bad that the Green Party supporters do not understand Politcial Science.
ladelfina said:(), don't know about France, but in Italy we've had a porn-star MP (Cicciolina, ex-wife(?) of 'artist' Jeff Koons).
davew894 said:At least you stopped with the 18% nonsense you were originally spewing on this board . Although I wish you were correct, it is nice to see you work up some numbers instead of asking me to do it for you. I am coming up with a married filing tax number of $4,306 per the tax tables... $50k income less $16,400 for standard deduction and exemptions is $33,600 in 'taxable income'. Also, the full FICA is not $7,515, it's $7,650 ($50,000*15.3%). Partial FICA is wrong too. I can't confirm what the NY state tax is and I'm not going to look it up, but my gut, and your federal calculation, tells me this number is low too.
We need numbers that make sense if there is going to be any type of realistic debate here.
ladelfina said:Maybe an easier way to figure out the "average" tax burden is to take all federal revenues and divide by US population. Then take an average of all state revenues and all local revenues and do the same. Add the three. Top down instead of bottom up? At least we would know what per capita spending is, which could be informative to the discussion.
That is a lot of taxes, even more than I would have thought.
davew894 said:You can include the exemptions and child credits but then you need to include the costs of raising them.