Get Out and Vote
-
I think at this point both parties suck...but because one party is for abortion overall and the other isn't, my vote is for republican. I personally think Bush is at least trying to fix the problems even though he is making mistakes along the way. Dems want to just have power and ignore all the problems. The economy has little to do with who is in office...it just so happens that the market like the republicans in office since they are "pro-business". The economy goes in cycles and that's a fact of life, whether dems or repubs are in office. One way to fix 99% of all the problems is to have term limits in place and then they'll both actually get something done!! My sig says the rest.
-
Ill buy that bumper sticker!!!
-
fallguy wrote:
I think at this point both parties suck...but because one party is for abortion overall and the other isn't, my vote is for republican. I personally think Bush is at least trying to fix the problems even though he is making mistakes along the way. Dems want to just have power and ignore all the problems. The economy has little to do with who is in office...it just so happens that the market like the republicans in office since they are "pro-business". The economy goes in cycles and that's a fact of life, whether dems or repubs are in office. One way to fix 99% of all the problems is to have term limits in place and then they'll both actually get something done!! My sig says the rest.I agree, neither party is worth a shit right now. I am not pro-choice, but I am not 100% anti-abortion either. I just think it is WAY to easy to have an abortion and that more limits should be put on it. To be honest, this is the #1 thing I disagree with Dems on. East Coast Democrats do not meet my criteria of what I'm looking for in a political party, they are generally way to far to the left. My problem with Bush is that I don't see him making changes along the way, its always "Stay the course" with everything. As for term limits.....HELL YEAH! Lets get rid of career politicians. HOWEVER, this only works if this is universal throughout the country as we still have to deal with the seniority issue if (for example) one state has term limits and 49 do not. You are correct though about the economy, it does tend to cycle (as it should) but things that the presidents say and/or do can and does influence the market. As for having power and ignoring problems, which problems do you speak of? Terrorism? Its foolish to think that terrorism will ever end, there will always be a group of people who hate the USA and what it stands for and killing terrorists does nothing to stop terrorism (in fact it may strengthen the resolve of other terrorists.) Why are we so afraid to talk with leaders of countries/organizations that are different from us? I was always taught that it takes a bigger man to talk out their issues than it does to just start fighting right away. Will it work all the time? ABSOLUTELY NOT! And if it doesn't, then by all means, bring out the big guns. But what if we were able to prevent a few wars by talking instead of bombing? Wouldn't that be worth it? We talk about a world economy, well its kind of hard to have one if some of the countries are being left out...so what do they do? They act like children and throw a temper tantrum and break some stuff to try and draw attention to themselves hoping that we'll sit down and try to talk with them about what they can do to get their way instead of us just giving them a spanking. I'm pretty sure that we can all agree that spanking won't solve all the problems with children and should only be done in extreme cases of misbehaviour...same principle applies to war.
-
tjamz wrote:
and killing terrorists does nothing to stop terrorism <snip>Why are we so afraid to talk with leaders of countries/organizations that are different from us? I was always taught that it takes a bigger man to talk out their issues than it does to just start fighting right away.
I think that first quote is funny. How would you recommend we stop (or slow) terrorism? Leave them alone and hope they don't attack us again? Try to reason with them? The main problem I see with doing anything other than killing the terrorists is that it doesn't address the problem. The problem is that they want to kill us and destroy everything we stand for.
I don't follow what you are talking about re: afraid to talk to others, are you referring to North Korea? Or something else? I'm not aware of a country that we are afraid to talk to.
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
I caught a great show about the war in Iraq last night on PBS, I believe it was called "The Lost Year in Iraq". It was a Frontline documentary outlining the mistakes made which have gotten us into this mess. If you stand up and defend the current "leaders" of this country you should be examined for a mental disorder. Every politician that stood down or stood up and allowed this war to happen has blood on their hands. We have soilders dying in a war that will not be won, in a country that will be worse off then when we entered it, and all the while here we sit. We are a disgrace.
-
ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS? PBS is so notoriously liberal it's not even funny, ESPECIALLY Frontline.
If you believe that show you should be examined for a mental disorder.
-
I agree...PBS is pretty far left on most things (I don't even watch it....for that reason)
-
DaveH wrote:
I think that first quote is funny. How would you recommend we stop (or slow) terrorism? Leave them alone and hope they don't attack us again? Try to reason with them? The main problem I see with doing anything other than killing the terrorists is that it doesn't address the problem. The problem is that they want to kill us and destroy everything we stand for.I don't follow what you are talking about re: afraid to talk to others, are you referring to North Korea? Or something else? I'm not aware of a country that we are afraid to talk to.
What I was getting at was that literally the only way to end the war in Iraq is to either:
A. Kill everyone over there, thereby eliminating all the terrorists
B. Sit down and negotiate a cease-fire.
Throughout the history of the world, those are the only 2 ways wars have ever ended.
-
so I mentioned the 'anyone but Hillary, 2008" thing in class yesterday and damn near got mugged.
Never realized MSUM was full of diehard Democrats....
Then they wanted a reason why I didn't want Hillary but wouldn't accept me saying that Hillary is one of those people I can't stand to listen to for more than...well, the time it takes for her to open her mouth.
-
99slowGSX wrote:
Hillary wont win the primaries anyways...If she does...well..
lets just say I always wanted to live in Australia.
I'm really just sick of politics and whole 'choosing the lesser of two evils' crap.
I want to see someone who understands both sides of an arguments and pushes for a compromise instead of this extreme right/left bullshit.
-
Hilary missed her opportunity, had she run this past election against Bush, I feel she would have had a better shot at winning the nomination than she does at this point in time.
-
tjamz wrote:
Middle/lower class not only NEED the money, they spend the money at local businesses who in turn pay their employees, who in turn spend the money at more local businesses, who in turn pay their employees. I'm pretty sure a $20k tax break to someone that has $10million in liquid assets doesn't mean as much as a $200 tax break does to me and my family.Having said that....flat tax is my best answer with ZERO deductions other than children and medical expenses. I'd be willing to bet that a FLAT 5 to 10% would take us out of debt FAST (haven't crunched the numbers on this yet)
Chuck, think a moment about what you are saying here and your proposal.
First of all, in regards to your first paragraph, giving tax breaks to companies can be beneficial for several reasons, but the general concept can be described as such; companies and businesses are the ones that create jobs, pay employees, and so to speak create wealth. By taxing the business sector less, it will be more likely for that money to be reinvested in the business sector (i.e., investment in capital, H.R., job growth, etc). That's the reasoning behind tax breaks for businesses. And when you referenced someone with 10mil in liquid assets, I can only assume you are talking about the business sector? Because on personal returns, someone with that kind of money does not get much for tax breaks at all!
Now, the lower class, or taxpayers in the lowest brackets, essentially do not pay any tax to begin with. Their tax withholdings on their paychecks? Yeah, they get it back in what is called a "tax refund", and in some cases they get more back than they paid in. If you supply more "tax breaks" to people that do not pay tax, it's not a "tax break" at all, it would simply be income redistribution.Which brings me to the second paragraph in great confusion. A flat tax with no deductions (or exemptions, sounds like you might have been talking about them too) would absolutely slaughter the lower (and middle) class. Keep in mind most income taxes are paid by higher wage earners. And most low wage earners essentially do not pay any tax at all. You propose that they start paying tax? Higher wage earners would be the people that would benefit the most from an implementation of a flat tax, which from what I can see conflicts with your reasoning in the first paragraph. And I don't see how it would reduce debt (national debt I assume) any more than the current system of taxation.
I don't usually comment on this board, but I figured all that would help you, more so than start a debate with you. Though that might be fun, come to think of it.
-
Stormwalker wrote:
Keep in mind most income taxes are paid by higher wage earners. And most low wage earners essentially do not pay any tax at all. You propose that they start paying tax? Higher wage earners would be the people that would benefit the most from an implementation of a flat tax, which from what I can see conflicts with your reasoning in the first paragraph. And I don't see how it would reduce debt (national debt I assume) any more than the current system of taxation.I don't usually comment on this board, but I figured all that would help you, more so than start a debate with you. Though that might be fun, come to think of it.
Exactly
The top 1% of Americans income-wise paid 37% of income taxes in 2004, the lower 50% ($30,100 annual income or less) of wage earners paid 3.3% There is already plenty of disparity. -
Stormwalker wrote:
Chuck, think a moment about what you are saying here and your proposal.First of all, in regards to your first paragraph, giving tax breaks to companies can be beneficial for several reasons, but the general concept can be described as such; companies and businesses are the ones that create jobs, pay employees, and so to speak create wealth. By taxing the business sector less, it will be more likely for that money to be reinvested in the business sector (i.e., investment in capital, H.R., job growth, etc). That's the reasoning behind tax breaks for businesses. And when you referenced someone with 10mil in liquid assets, I can only assume you are talking about the business sector? Because on personal returns, someone with that kind of money does not get much for tax breaks at all!
Now, the lower class, or taxpayers in the lowest brackets, essentially do not pay any tax to begin with. Their tax withholdings on their paychecks? Yeah, they get it back in what is called a "tax refund", and in some cases they get more back than they paid in. If you supply more "tax breaks" to people that do not pay tax, it's not a "tax break" at all, it would simply be income redistribution.Which brings me to the second paragraph in great confusion. A flat tax with no deductions (or exemptions, sounds like you might have been talking about them too) would absolutely slaughter the lower (and middle) class. Keep in mind most income taxes are paid by higher wage earners. And most low wage earners essentially do not pay any tax at all. You propose that they start paying tax? Higher wage earners would be the people that would benefit the most from an implementation of a flat tax, which from what I can see conflicts with your reasoning in the first paragraph. And I don't see how it would reduce debt (national debt I assume) any more than the current system of taxation.
I don't usually comment on this board, but I figured all that would help you, more so than start a debate with you. Though that might be fun, come to think of it.
Good points, and frankly I wasn't clear enough. My "ideal" flat tax would have to take into account poverty wage earners. There would have to be a standard personal deduction (For example $10k/adult in a family and $5k/child up to age 18...just rough numbers used for reference, bear with me here) so that a family of 3 would have ZERO tax liability on the first $25,000 earned (household income).
After the $10,000 personal exemption, EVERYONE would have to pay a flat 10% (again, just a nice round number to work with).
As for trickle down economics, I don't buy into it. It made more sense before everything was corporate. Right now if you offer a corporation a tax break, they distribute the money to their share holders, that never gets passed on to the workers who can use the money. I've been involved in a number of large corporations (Tyco, AON, etc...) and they are usually THE WORST at annual pay increases, cost of living increases, etc.. compared to their small business counterparts. Not to say there aren't benefits to working in a corporation, but for long term growth potential, working for (the right) sole proprietor is the way to go. Most sole proprietors are middle to upper-middle class. Give them a tax break and you'll see job growth on a local level.
Thank you Stormy for bringing out the error in what I posted, it made me re-post my original intents in better clarity. I will be the first to admit that the numbers I used in the above statement need tweaking, they were used only for illustrative purposes and a real accountant would need to put together the real numbers.
-
StangerBanger96 wrote:
Exactly
The top 1% of Americans income-wise paid 37% of income taxes in 2004, the lower 50% ($30,100 annual income or less) of wage earners paid 3.3% There is already plenty of disparity.Ahh, but the top 2% control 98% of the money....you are right...big time disparity.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login