Made my decision on 08

[Jim C]

After a few months now of pondering Ron Paul, Obama, Ron Paul, I've come to my decision after about 3 final hours of due dilligence and research. My decision boiled down to whether I thought McCain and his economic policies were enough of a threat to this country, myself, my job, and ultimately, my family to over-ride my my desire of a good showing for a "third party", even though Paul is still a Republican FOR NOW. I could care less about guns, abortion, and creationism. I had pages upon pages open on the net cross-referencing voting records, right views, left views, trying to sort out the bull from fact. In the end, I found that the McCain economic policies do look like more of the same, or worse. I hate to use the Obama slogan, but it is. Varying reports peg the McCain tax cuts at a cost of $600 billion(McCain's estimate) to $3.3 trillion by the left. As always, the truth is somewhere in between. His "tax cut" for us is just extending the Bush plan indefinetly, nothing additional! Obama's plan is pegged between $81 billion and $500 billion. The big difference I found is that McCain plans on paying for his cuts by eliminating earmarks. Well, earmarks for fiscal year 2008 only totaled $17 billion, leaving a $583 billion deficit shortfall. He has other little cuts here and there, but the nowhere near cover even half the cost of the tax cuts for rich and corporations. Obama plans on paying for his plan by taxing corporations and upper incomes at a higher rate, which pays for the plan right there. 95% of us get a tax cut, even after he repeals Bush's plan and it resets to Clinton levels. PLUS closing about $1 trillion in corporate loopholes, and increasing the capitol gains tax, which definitely calms the energy speculators as an added bonus. And for you SENIORS. ZERO tax under $50,000. I've never been a fan of trickle down. It does work, but only in a prospering eocnomy to spur reinvestment and to hold back inflation. In times like this, you could give corporations and the rich ZERO taxes and it won't do much of squat! Why invest when nobody has any money to buy your product? It hasn't worked since Reagan, didn't work for Bush sr, and SURE AS HELL hasn't worked for jr. You have to put money in the hands of consumers, of the low and middle income to spur purchases and consumer confidence. Think about it. When were the only bright spots in our economy under Bush? When he gave tax rebates to the consumers!!!!! The corporate tax breaks didn't do squat, and McCain's won't either!! They have their place, but it isn't now.



As you can guess, I'm commited to voting Obama now. Donated $100 last night and waiting for my stickers and signs. Sorry, guys, but like I said, I did my research and I'm doing what I feel is best for myself and my family. No party or social issues involved.



Here's a totally non-partisan link to help anyoneelse do some research on voting records and rating by interest groups. Best tool out there! I know most here are comitted to their vote already, but at least give it a look through to see how your reprenatives or candidate have voted. Note McCain and Obama have made very few votes on controversial issues in the last two years, so they can't be held to any recent vote. LOL McCain is DEFINITELY the worst culprit though! See for yourself.




http://www.votesmart.org/

 

[Douglas G. Ward]

My decision is to fish more. Caught my biggest LM today on Lake Chanplain - a 6.1lb - caught off the old Alburg bridge pylons using a watermellon senko. Had a good day on the lake.

 

[TrepMan]

Eyes - I am, as an idependant, not thrilled at neither party over the last 16 years has reduced overall government spending (yup Bush never vetoed one spending bill if I remember correctly).



But, how can "Obama plans on paying for his plan by taxing corporations and upper incomes at a higher rate" make any sense? Any additional taxes on corporations will cause 2 things 1) higher product cost to end consumers as corporations pass their costs on to consumers as part of the cost of business, and 2) reduce the workforce/raises as corporations in a free-market need to be competitive, so it will reduce the workforce by laying off folks to pay the additional taxes, OR more companies will continue to move their HQ and resources OFF SHORE to a country with lower corporate tax rates, and remember that our antiquated US tax law charges companies and individuals on income overseas TWICE (once at the country of income earned and again at the US Taxes.). And with a good deal of the top 5-3% of income earners being small businesses, this will hurt economic growth even more, but closing more small business?



What am I missing? And yes McCain isn't offering to cut the federal programs enough either.



Trep

 

[Bill McElroy]

Agree w/Trep......Bad move 'Eyes.....Obama isn't going to do you or the company you work for, ANY FAVORS. Unemployment will spike BIGTIME if he's elected, and you'll see even MORE jobs being sent overseas. Higher taxes and even BIGGER Gov't is NOT going to stimulate this economy!!:angry:

 

[Jim C]

All good points you make that I also came across in my research. I wouldn't say I disagree. It's something that is just going to have to play out. It's the lesser of two evils in my view. McCain wants to make Bush's plan permanent. Obviously that is not working one slight bit! Hasn't for 7 years and I don't see it working in the next 4 by some miracle. Higher tax rates sure seemed to work much better than the current plan we been trying to get to work. Either way, it's going to take a leader with common sense and one who is ready to adjust to a rapidly changing economic condition. If getting money in consumers hands works, as we've seen, then we have to be ready to shift the tax burden away from business and upper incomes to spur investment when the time is right. There I think Obama is the man. Much more flexible and realistic. McCain is just as stubborn as Bush and will probably set a policy and never deviate from it, no matter how bad it gets. As for the small businesses, he doesn't plan on hitting small businesses, only large corporations. If a small business owner has himself on a $250,000/year salary, then he does have something to worry about.

 

[Bill McElroy]

Nobody has bucked the party line MORE than McCain,....he is the epitomy of a Maverick,..if he doesn't agree with the republican status quo, then he'll call them out and make his opinion heard,...and vote against them if he feels so inclined,..Palin has done the same thing in Alaska!!

Nobody has TOWED the party line more than Obama,......he's never voted "against" the democratic view!! That's not a characteristic of a true leader....as far as I'm concerned,...it's better to have someone in the office who can think on their own and is willing to swim upstream if req'd....Obama is just a party puppet, and Biden is deffinitely more of the "same". That's not a platform of "change"...that's a "yes man" mentality...:angry: EVERY single GREAT President we've ever had,...has been willing to go against the status quo when/if necessary....Obama has proven that he will NOT do that!

 

[TrepMan]

I may be wrong, but if I remember my research (and i'm back in China so I do not have access to most of the US websites) that a small business (s class I think they were called) all of his income, even if paid out to employees, material, realestate... come out based on the tax law of his income, so he may "make" $1m in taxable income but most of it is then paid out and he is still taxed on it (i'm not a tax accountant, so I may have it wrong). But even if he has 15 employees, works 100 hours a week 7 days aweek investing his 2/3rd mortgage to start a business and hire employee's why would you begrudge him a $250k salary? he worked long, hard and took a risk and employeed others, why would you consider him "rich", he may have $300k in a 2nd mortgage on his and his kids houses to start the business???



Trep

 

[Marty Klein]

"Sorry, guys, but like I said, I did my research and I'm doing what I feel is best for myself and my family."



Like we should care ...

 

[Jody Woodruff]

Trep, you are correct. Small businesses will get hammered under Obama's plan. The Democrats in total control are a disaster waiting to happen. Lucky for us we have "geniuses" that have done their "research" and are ensuring he'll get elected. By November 2010 we won't be able to find anyone willing to admit they voted him.

 

[Marty Klein]

Small businesses get hammered because we don't shop there; it is about economics and not the government.

 

[Mike Zechman]

Sounds like the rearch you did is from cnn,nbc,ect. Although bush has is own issues, everything was ok until the dems took over congress, then the downward trend took off, its suprising people don't see that, then again, the media pushes Obama down our throats,



You could give me 10 Million to vote Obama and I would not

 

[Jim in VA]

Not going to say much either way except that Terroreyes needs to look at his own arguments.

Think about it. When were the only bright spots in our economy under Bush? When he gave tax rebates to the consumers!!!!

'



That's right - tax rebates (i.e., less taxes) did spur the economy. So which candidate is going to minimize taxes - Obama or McCain?

 

[Mike L.]

Congrats on your fish Doug.....I was just looking out on the lake from the WeirsBeach Cam and it shore looks inviting.



Politics.....It's going to be a tough call. Still undecided....

 

[Dan J.]

Obama plans on paying for his plan by taxing corporations and upper incomes at a higher rate, which pays for the plan right there. 95% of us get a tax cut, even after he repeals Bush's plan and it resets to Clinton levels.

That is the redistribution of wealth outlined by Karl Marx and the basis of communism.



Regardless of what an individual has done to acheive financial success, they will be rewarded by having their earnings taken and given to many who choose to do less or nothing. (Exclusive of those whom cannot physically/mentally fend for themselves.) Without the individualized semantics, it is a recipe for disaster. Is there any country, more specifically any communist country (of the few remaining), with more opportunity or a higher standard of living than the U.S.A.? Of the 95% getting a tax cut under this plan, what percentage is willing to be sacrificed in layoffs or employment opportunities ceasing? When the tax burden increases on the 5% of "wealthy" Americans, do you believe that they will keep their business plan at status quo? Wages paid is profit lost. (Economics 101) The plan outlined and endorsed is the recipe to create offshore outsourcing in a magnitude like we've never seen before.



An easy step in the right direction would be a flat tax and elimination of the IRS and its' support branches. The flat tax would even the burden across the board, remove a huge part of the federal budget and not penalize the successful, stifling economic growth. (Without scaring anyone, many successful socialist countries use a similar structure.) Unfortunately for most liberal extremists, it would also eliminate the entitlement crowd. Although talked about frequently, this plan has almost no chance as long as the government continues to reward those who settle for mediocrity. The best way to reward our entire society, without favoring one over another, would be to tax everyone fairly. (Flat Govt. Sales Tax) The biggest problem with these decisions is that neither party wants what's fair or even makes sound economic sense, they just want their party's initiatives come Hell or High Water! That just leaves us all right where we always are, divided and fighting each other instead of writing a new chapter in the story of the greatest civilization to call this marble home.



God Bless the U.S.A! (And our troops!!) God Help Us All!!

 

[Mark Hofman]

Dan makes a really good point about pinning hopes on (although hiding) Karl Marx. We seem to be adopting Marxism in our country pretty rapdily.



But I have to disagree with the statement that a flat tax would even the burden across the board. For a family of four earning $45,000 annually, a flat tax of 10% would cost them $4,500, leaving a net disposable income of $40,500. A family of four earning $120,000 at a 10% flat tax rate would pay $12,000 in taxes, leaving them with a net disposable income of $108,000. Who is hurt more when gasoline goes from $3.50 a gallon to $4.50 a gallon? In my mind, a flat-tax is still regressive and hurts those on the bottom half of the economic spectrum more than it does those on the top.



Now, a federal SALES tax on non-essential goods and services would be a better way to go in my mind. Those who want to buy a Mercedes or Ferrari should pay for the privilege since those kinds of goods also contribute to our trade deficit. If I don't like to pay sales tax for a car, I can look to Detroit for a quality product. Part of our economic problem is rampant consumerism and dissavings. What encouragemnt is there for the average schmuck like me to SAVE, to NOT spend?



I'm also in favor of an 'adjustment' sales tax on foreign goods where U.S. made products are discriminated against in a free (? Ha!!) market. This would hit Japanese-made products pretty hard.



The funniest thing in this whole debate is how much people stake their future on any kind of politician, as if those running for federal-level public offices really go to bed at night thinking about you or me. Riiiiggghhhhht. :wacko:



Call me cynical, but (WARNING: Sarcasm Ahead) I'm placing more trust in my guns and religion than I am in either party's candidates. And there's only one candidate who wants to take those away from me.



What his country really needs is a viable THREE party system. We've camped ourselves in parties of two extremes, and there's little to fill the middle ground - where most Americans actually fall.

 

[Texas Transplant]

Jim - I respect that you have done some research and have come to a decision. Please be sure and vote.



While I may not agree with your views or your decision, I certainly am ready to stand the post, to ensure that you get to make the decision/vote that you want. After that, it's just a matter of counting them up, and annoucing who will be the next President.



I'll still stand by my own interperation, that those that continue to claim 'Change' (both parties now), really only want one change. For those that are 'IN' to be 'OUT', and those that are 'OUT' to be 'IN'.



And like some others, too many of the 'have nots' really want wealth re-distributed. Makes me wonder why they also support 'free enterprise' and why anyone would want to build a business and be successful.



TAXES - when you tax the extremely wealthy, and also the businesses that are 'making too much profit', then all you will do is tax everyone else that buys their products and/or services, for they will have to raise prices. All those businesses that will bet taxed additionally, will simply pass it on to all of us.



Tex

 

[Texas Transplant]

Okay, one more item (put away the soap box too soon).



If you really want to give credit (or blame) for the economy - for the most part, you really need to look at the House of Representatives and the Sentate. Yes, those guys that pass all the laws and also control a significant amounnt of spending. Look back at the 90's and this decade; compare when the Republican's were in control to the economy; and when the Dem's were in control and the economy. Hmmmmmmm. Paints a pretty interesting picture, which doesn't necessairly match up to who was in the Oval office.



If my memory serves me right, seems as though the Dem's have had firm control of both houses for at least 4 of the last 6 years, if not the last 6.



Stepping down now.



Tex

 

[Mark Hofman]

I also find it interesting that folks give great credit to the Clinton machine for the economic prosperity the nation saw in the 90's, but conveniently forget that a heavy percentage of our Gross Domestic Product went toward defense during and immediately following the Cold War. After the breakup of the Soviet Union and a shift to a more stable internal government within Russia, our domestic defense production declined and we saw a shift in resources toward consumer goods and services - especially computer related goods/services (tech markets). So, WHO really is responsible for the economic prosperity of the 90's?



Who said, "Mr. Gorbachev, TEAR DOWN THIS WALL!!!!"

 

[Dan J.]

+1 MO



I'm all for your suggested fine tuning of a flat fed. tax. That would be an excellent way to start! This bureaucratical nightmare of bracketed, slide-rule, deductible.....and ever-changing IRS code creates more waste and expense than necessary. I wish they would establish some type of median in a flat sales tax and let the IRS be scaled waaaaay back to a simpler accounts receivable dept. based on sales.



The only part about your example I just can't get my mind around is described well in the four member family scenario. Essentially, both four family examples utilize a similar draw on services, infrastructure, etc., so why should the one family be penalized for their success over the other? I'm with you on the bulk of this but, I just don't want more federally mandated preferential treatment. I think a flat percent across the board is an additional incentive to be more prosperous. The family keeps more, spends more and still the fed makes more. (In a simple Mayberry type world. LOL!) I definitely wish we could find something better than what's in place now.

 

[Mark Hofman]

Point well stated, Dan. I'll bring your point up with my MBA economics professor. The counter to draw on services is the capacity to absorb taxes. For example, if both families wanted to send the eldest child off to college (creating intellectual capital for the future) a flat tax can also remove some college choices from the family earning $45,000 annually. The penalizing of the wealthier family may (and I recognize that I can't state this emperically or objectively) open doors of opportunity for more families, since a greater percentage of the population earns less than 100,000 a year. So I tend to also think about future capital from the standpoint of bringing additional households onto the playing field rather than leaving them stranded on the sidelines.



No matter what replacement tax system is considered, there are situations where preferential treatment may be required. Right now, the preferential treatment is AGAINST those who have to file long, time-consuming returns by April 15. THAT system needs to go!

 

[Dan J.]

A great point! Whatever flat rat should ever be adopted, it should encompass funding for education, basic medical, and several other societal minimums covered by many govt.'s worldwide for decades. We all need to pull our own weight, if possible. We unfortunately reward many who choose to do the minimum and want the maximum.

 

[Mark Hofman]

We all need to pull our own weight, if possible. We unfortunately reward many who choose to do the minimum and want the maximum.

AMEN brother!! (Whoops, there's my clinging to religion showing through again.)



I'm not into socialism very much (and even less into Marxism), so I'm not sure if I agree with the idea of government funding for education, basic medical, etc. as is found in some countries. Instead I like to focus on creating conditions for favorable and positive consumer choices. It would be GREAT if we could deal with the whole lawsuit/insurance-controlled medical care issue and clean it up like we want to clean up the income tax system. (And I'm a proponent of healthy competition between public, private and parochial schools rather than a bias toward throwing resources at public-only education.)

 

[Dan J.]

Ditto. The most fed involvement I'd prefer is a base system that provides the necessary minimum instead of requiring hospitals to treat and offering little to no reimbursement. That's when it's left up to the rest of the paying customers to pay more in rate increases for those that pay none. At least with a fed sales tax, they'd be pulling their weight through their purchases.

 

[Mark Hofman]

YES! Or a system that, at a minimum, reimburses the poor/elderly for their copay or provides minimum coverage for real health emergencies in cases where a person can't secure insurance. And by "poor" I mean those who CAN'T work rather than those who WON'T work.



I read about how the government, during the Great Depression, paid men to dig holes one day and then fill them up the next. THAT'S welfare I can support.

 

[Bill McElroy]

..interesting dialog!!

 

[Jim C]

"Sorry, guys, but like I said, I did my research and I'm doing what I feel is best for myself and my family."



Like we should care ...

Sorry Marty, I'm not biting this time.

Lucky for us we have "geniuses" that have done their "research" and are ensuring he'll get elected.

Agree or disagree. At least I make an effort to research, not vote exclusively by party or TV commercial! That sure takes real genuis!



Now back to the civil discussion. I don't know who can get credit for the prosperous years during Clinton. If anything, it took both parties to get it done ultimately. Newt helped bridge the gap between parties and they actually worked together for once, and we saw the results! One of my problems with confidence with McCain and decision making, I do have to blame on the hardcore GOP constituency. Republican candidates are NEVER given the latitude to do what it best for the country. When you're a Republican you HAVE to run on tax-cuts, tax-cuts, tax-cuts. It never ends. If you even suggest a tax increase, let alone implement one, it's political suicide. Look at Bush Sr. We needed a tax increase to help stabilize the economy and the party turned on him and ultimately gave themselves Clinton as a result. McCains plan unboubtedly leaves us with at the very minimum a $250 billion deficit each year. How long can we continue to run deficits? Our $ will be worth less than the Peso eventually. Talk about inflation!! Beyond that, foreign countries basically own 20% of this country partly because of deficit spending and them gladly buying our debt. Do we push it to the point that the Chinese and middle east basically own this country? What position does that put us in? We already have to let the Chinese run rampant over us with unfair trade pactices and toxic products because of the debt they hold!



Soemone mentioned that I won't have a job if Obama is elected. Our company did a graph that plotted bottom line revenue since 1980 and it indisputably shows a dip in the bottom line(even after lower taxes) during each Republican presidency. The owner is voting Obama BTW. That wasn't the purpose of the presentation, just something I looked at. Same with many, many industries, not all though. When taxes were higher, increased revenue greatly offset the increase in corporate taxes. At 30% tax rate, 2/3 are still going in your pocket. If sales are 6 million during a democratic president, with 4 million in the bank, it sure beats the current 2 million with a 20% tax rate and only 1.6 in the bank. The company I work for has been in business since the early 60's and last Friday, we did the first lay-offs in company history. I'm just holding on for the ride no matter who gets elected. I don't think Obama is the complete answer, Ron Paul maybe, but I firmly believe McCain or Palin may be the final straw that sends us to the same fate of the Soviet Union.

 

[William H. (Bill) Barham]

Two Different Versions! Two Different Morals!



OLD VERSION: The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.



The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed.

The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself!



-------------------------------------------



MODERN VERSION:



The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.



Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving.

CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food.



America is stunned by the sharp contrast.

How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?

Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper and everybody cries when they sing, 'It's Not Easy Being Green.'



Jesse Jackson stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing, 'We shall overcome.' Jesse then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper's sake.



Nancy Pelosi & John Kerry exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.

Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer.



The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government.



Hillary gets her old law firm to represent the grasshopper in a defamation suit against the ant, and the case is tried before a panel of federal judges that Bill Clinton appointed from a list of single-parent welfare recipients.



The ant loses the case.



The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he is in, which just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around him because he doesn't maintain it.



The ant has disappeared in the snow.



The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the once peaceful neighborhood.



MORAL OF THE STORY:



Be very careful how you vote in 2008!



Just a Little story I thought was cute!



Uncle Billy

 

[Mark Hofman]

Just a few clarifying questions, Terroreyes: since you bring up the issue of corporate taxes, are you saying you would be in FAVOR of increasing corporate tax rates while keeping individual/household income taxes static (status quo)? Is THAT where you propose finding additional government revenues?



Second, on WHAT should this additional revenue be spent? Paying down the national debt? Offsetting trade deficits via subsidies?



Third, from your point of view are additional taxes the ONLY potential source of increased government revenue?



I'm just trying to get a better handle on where you're coming from.

 

[Greg Meyer]

The cruel farce that the Obama tax an perpeates on middle and low income families is undisputed.



an incase in corporate tax rates will cause an increase in prices. That is a regressive increase in taxes passed onto consumers. so those people will be far worse off since they spend a far greater proportion of their total income.

 

[Jim C]

Just a few clarifying questions, Terroreyes: since you bring up the issue of corporate taxes, are you saying you would be in FAVOR of increasing corporate tax rates while keeping individual/household income taxes static (status quo)? Is THAT where you propose finding additional government revenues?



Second, on WHAT should this additional revenue be spent? Paying down the national debt? Offsetting trade deficits via subsidies?



Third, from your point of view are additional taxes the ONLY potential source of increased government revenue?



I'm just trying to get a better handle on where you're coming from.

First of all. I remind you of my "lesser of two evils" statement.



1. No. I'd like it to be distributed equally. But having to chose out of the two plans, I think Obamas will be better. I'm for a creative flat tax. If it comes to it, give me more taxes!!! If it gives me the same income and job security of 10 years ago, I'm all for it. I come out much better on the bottom line even with a tax increase back to Clinton!!!!!



2. First and foremost, the money be spent on the middle class and the consumers to spur the ecomony, not by one time checks, but by a weekly/monthly/yearly ease in tax burden to increase spending, thus spuring industry investment again, followed by an ease in corporate taxes as we recover to keep inflation down. When we do stabilize, start to pay off national debt, until we're in the black again, then HAMMER countries like China for unfair trade pactices when the ball is in our court again. Shame on Clinton for not doing it when we had the chance!!! It took 7 years to get in this hole, it will take a few years and sacrifice to get back to where we were.



3. HELL NO!!! Like I said, lesser of two evils. Thanks to people like we find here, we only have two choices!!! Everything in McCains favor: With $17 billion in earmarks, and the highest estimate of $200 billion in pork, that still leaves us with a $383 billion deficit by McCains own $600 billion tax-cut cost estimate. As I pointed out in my first post, some peg it at $3.3 trillion!!! Then what??? The money has to come from somewhere. I think BOTH candidates should put a near 100% moritorium on foreign aid until we fix our own problems. That would balance the budget, no matter who we elected!!!!!!!!

 

[Jim C]

One thing I would point out is that I've, for years, heard people on this site PREACH about being responsible for their own debt and financial decisions. Even one in this post! Sooooooo many people rip on others for using credit for boats, etc, and loans.Soooooooooooo why is it fine for our government and the Republicas to operate repeatedly on a credit card and deficit loans? Seems a bit hypocritical!!??

 

[Mark Hofman]

Again, just trying to understand...



1.) I hear you saying that a balanced increase in taxes shared by individuals and corporations is needed. Correct?



2.) In your second statement you say, "weekly/monthly/yearly ease in tax burden to increase spending" among the 'middle class' and the consumers. At first glance, it sounds like you are advocating a tax CUT among the middle class, but I don't know how you define 'consumers'. And with your proposal under #1 of a tax increase, are you saying that the wealthy should bear the entire burden of providing the government funds for redistrubtion? Am I reading your Point 2 correctly?



3.) How do you reconcile the fact that while it is Congress (House) who legislates revenues and spending against the idea that the President (executive branch) is credited/criticized for the outcome? I'm confused. How can electing ONE person override the will of several hundred folks with divergent ideas about how to solve our economic woes?



I'm interested....REALLY!

 

[Jim C]

Mo, you're not Karl Rove. Quit trying to twist what I said into something else. It's right there in b&w, plain and simple.

 

[TOMMY RICH]

Give it up MO...this dude is always right and really smart!

 

[Bill McElroy]

Fella's,...keep in mind that a LOT of the economic BS that we're in right now is a repurcussion of the policies that were put in affect during the Clinton years. He's the one who approved all the NAFTA crap, and loosened up the restrictions on mortgage requiremments so "less than qualified" people had an easier time getting approved. Bush got elected,...9/11 came along and chit hit the fan.....made it all to convenient to put additional economic blame on him, when he was dealing with the war and all of its additional costs. The same will play out for the next President...he'll be able to take credit for or be the scapegoat for some the good and bad that "W" has done, that won't trickle down for awhile. AND,..it works both ways too....IF Obama wins,..he'll be the FIRST to take credit for something he didn't do.....AND,..if the economy gets worse,...it'll STILL be Bush's fault. McCain will do the same thing!! My point being..."more of the same" will continue for awhile, no matter who wins in Nov. As I mentioned in an earlier post....atleast McCain has the track record to prove that he's willing to swin against the tide in order to make progress if necessary. Obama has the track record to prove he will NOT swim against the tide...as Mo said also,...Obama wants to be all things to all people, and offend nobody...that's NOT a characteristic of a proven leader...that's pure liberal hype and not even remotely possible in today's world!



Furthermore...it offends the hell out of me to think he'd want to elevate a terrorists status as a human being to even consider "negotiating" with them.....their sole purpose in life is to fill a spot in our crosshairs!! THEY are the one's who declared this Jihad on us....they sure didn't "negotiate" with anybody on 9/11!! I want a President who has a spine and will continue to take it to them,...we can "negotiate" LATER on where they want to bury the pieces!!:angry:

 

[Mark Hofman]

T,



Relax. I am ony asking questions. This is part of engaging in dialog. When someone doesn't understand the other person's position, they should ask clarifying questions until they can state back to the other person that person's position accurately. I can't do that yet, so I'm asking for your help. If I've phrased my questions poorly, and you are taking them as an attack, I apologize. Let me try using different phraseology. All I'm looking to do is understand your position on the issues a bit better. Isn't that what you want?



1. Do you believe a tax increase is an important component of the solution to some of our nation's economic woes? (A simple yes or no will work). I think you would answer "yes," based on everything I've read from you, but I'd like confirmation so that I'm not assuming anything.



2. If the answer to #1 is yes, WHO should bear that tax increase: I think you would say corporations, but I don't know who you want to see taxed more on the individuals side of the equation: poor, middle class, wealthy, or a specific mix of the three. I think you would say, "The wealthy, who have been unfairly favored by the Bush administration through inappropriate tax cuts." Is that a fair way to re-state your position?



3. (This is the one I think I could have phrased better, but I was tired last night when I wrote it.) I don't understand how someone can put so much hope in ONE person to be the solution/Savior to so many of our nation's woes. If we can agree that the President, under the Constitution is not assigned the duty to 'lay and collect taxes, duties...' rather the Congress is (Article I, Section 8), then what difference does it make who is elected to the Office of the President when it comes to taxation? Maybe my brain is fogged up, but I just can't seem to grasp how electing EITHER candidate to the Office will change things when we have a whole bunch of congressmen and women who actually vote to pass the budget, vote on earmarks, vote on taxation (either to raise or lower).... So help a brother out and enlighten me.



Now, if you want to end this attempt at open dialog, go ahead and link me with Karl Rove again, or with any another politician. I've got a hose and a shower here at home, so it's no mud off my back.



You've made your decision. That's GREAT! I accept that and am not trying to get you to change your mind, I just want to understand better your position on an important issue.

 

[Jim C]

1. Yes. We spent our way in this hole. We've got to pay back to get out of it.



2. ALL should take part of the burden. What I said TWICE now is that we need to do is spur spending by relieving the middle class for now. They drive the economy! Yes, at the expense of the upper incomes and big corporations FOR NOW. When things start to recover, you repay their sacrifice with more than what they sacrificed in the way of lower taxes than before. This country was built on sacrifice and the rich who rule it are never willing to do their part. The middle class has taken the burden for the last 7 years. time for the uppers to do their part. We're all on the same team! That is the problem with our polarizing party system. Either your 100% right and the opposing side is 100% worng. Or vice versa. It's sad. We're turning into the factional middle east, just a Bin Laden predicted.



I'll also note my previous statement that everyone seemed to ignore: "When taxes were higher, increased revenue greatly offset the increase in corporate taxes. At 30% tax rate, 2/3 are still going in your pocket. If sales are 6 million during a democratic president, with 4 million in the bank, it sure beats the current 2 million with a 20% tax rate and only 1.6 in the bank."



3. Very easy one! WHO composed virtually ALL of the economic plans and budgets since 2000 under BOTH parties leading congress?? The Whitehouse, not congress. Yes those fools passed it. The Whitehouse drafted it, congress attached earmarks(Alaska, more per capita that any other state ), stuffed in pork, then WHO signed it into law????? If I remeber correctly, there was no veto or override. Correct? Seems BOTH parties are equally to blame. More so the architect in my opinion. Not to scare you all LOL, but if Obama is elected with Democrats in control of both houses, he'll be a very powerful president when it comes to policy. I don't forsee him or congress getting into many pissing matches over policy.

 

[Mark Hofman]

Thanks for taking the time to answer those questions. I appreciate it. I don't agree with your position, but I do appreciate the opportunity to see things from your side of the street.

if Obama is elected with Democrats in control of both houses, he'll be a very powerful president when it comes to policy. I don't forsee him or congress getting into many pissing matches over policy.

And that's what I'm afraid of.



Be careful what you wish for, T. You just might get it.

 

[Jim C]

Good thing we could end it on a civil note!!! Not too often in politics! Take care and hopefully no matter who gets elected, better times are to come!