Obama vs. McCain (Concord, Mexico, Clinton: mortgage, loan, tech jobs)

[ucfjtm]

Originally Posted by GetmeoutofAR

You probably just made the best case for voting for McCain ive heard yet. I like really like reason and logic. Im just so sick of this mudslinging im about to hurl

I agree.. I hate the mudslinging too. However, the effect of this election has matters much deeper than just the stances of the candidates, because they can't do much without Congress. The President doesn't create laws - he either accepts or vetoes them.

People need to wake up and look at what happens when one party is in full control of Washington. You have to look deeper into the party mechanics and who's "truly" in charge. You have to read between the lines instead of just going with someone who "truly connects" with you, or who you think "has served our country" and deserves it.

[ucfjtm]

Originally Posted by OA 5599

Exactly. Things like flat taxes and sales tax are a retrogressive tax on the poor and lower middle class. If you are making $10/hour and have a couple kids, every dime you have will be spent on rent, food, and gas. Taxing these people more puts them in even worse shape than they already are.

People already don't pay sales tax on food and rent. A properly implemented FairTax would NOT have a negative effect on the poor and middle class. The proposal is that food, clothes, and shelter would be tax-free, and since you're cutting out all the behind-the-scenes taxes that are collected during the production of food, clothing, and shelter, these three essentials would cost LESS than they do now. I agree that a flat tax is not the right approach, but don't discredit the fact that FairTax will actually help the poor and middle class.

Originally Posted by OA 5599

If you are making $300k a year, a 5% increase in taxes means you may have to keep your BMW an extra year before getting a new one, but you'll still have plenty of food in the fridge. Are they "lazy" for only making $10 an hour? Some, maybe, some, no. Does every millionaire work for their money or are some just lucky or inherited it? Probably a little bit of both. A complete flat tax would be very unfair, as people with six-figure and higher incomes would get HUGE tax breaks, at the expense of the lower- and middle-classes who are having a harder and harder time getting by as it is. That, I consider to be very unfair.

I agree with you, but there are MAJOR differences between a flat tax, and FairTax.org's proposal of the effect of selective national sales tax.

Originally Posted by OA 5599

I'd personally be for a much simplified income tax system, where people making a household income under a certain amount (say, $25k for a family of 3 or 4) pay zero income taxes, and then have closely-spaced income tax brackets for people making more than that (so there aren't huge jumps in taxes if you make lets say $49,999 a year compared to $50,000). Cut out all the other tax crap, the complicated tax code, and all the loopholes that allow people to evade paying billions in taxes at the expense of the rest of the honest taxpayers.

It doesn't get more simple than FairTax, since there would be NO tax brackets, and everyone would take home what they earn. They also would spend no taxes on their essentials of food, clothing, and shelter. Due to simplified taxes and the removal of taxes during the production process, goods would likely only cost *slightly* more than they currently do with sales tax. The key is that the rich, who are MAJOR consumers, would contribute a fortune to the government in tax revenue. The poor who decide to be frugal and invest much of their disposable income would pay nearly no taxes, while having their essentials of food, clothing, and shelter cost LESS.

Originally Posted by OA 5599

Also, the size of the IRS could be drastically reduced, saving even more of the taxpayers dollars.

FairTax would drastically reduce the size of the IRS, far beyond what any income-based tax structure could do. There would be no need for audits of every citizen - just businesses to make sure they're collecting the appropriate sales tax. This isn't difficult since they already do that on the local level!

Originally Posted by OA 5599

Edit:
After thinking about this a little more, I think a tax on disposable income is probably the most fair a tax system could be. This way, people spending every dime on the basic necessities of like such as food and shelter won't be unfairly burdened by a retrogressive tax system, and as the tax slides up on the income scale, people who have more money for non-essential items pay more tax. This would minimize the amount of "pain" caused by taxes as much as possible, and be much more fair than a pure flat tax. Closing up all the loopholes in the tax code would instantly increase tax revenue and lower the tax burden for everyone, except for those who had tax experts and lawyers helping them evade the same taxes the rest of us pay.

Welcome to FairTax! It essentially is a tax on disposable income, but it's based on how much of their disposable income they spend. The USA is a nation of consumers, so it wouldn't be difficult at all to generate plenty of tax revenue from this disposable income revenue, while maintaining that the wealthy continue to pay a major portion of the tax burden. If they want a new BMW every other year, they're pitching in their share in comparison to someone who decides to be frugal and keep the same car for 10+ years.

However, although a nice idea in theory, have you thought about the practical application of your disposable income tax, while not taxing food & shelter? That would encourage people to spend every last dime to buy the largest house (that they likely can't afford to maintain) to minimize their tax burden, since their disposable income after their home would be very small. BAD idea in reality. This is why FairTax truly shines.

[tambre]

Originally Posted by northbayeric

I know you know this already, but my wife and I would never, ever wish to "Californicate" Missouri. If and when we are ever blessed with selling our house just north of San Francisco and moving to St. Joseph or wherever the Good Lord leads us, we won't want a McMansion or a gated community. We'll be good neighbors.

We don't have any children--at least not yet. We would be extremely distressed and uncomfortable with trying to raise them in California. Please read this article: First Graders Taken on Field Trip to San Francisco City Hall For Homosexual "Wedding" How can anyone not be chilled to the bone at what our public education system out here is trying to do to our young children? Please don't let this happen in Missouri or anyplace else. And we would fight the poison of the Westboro so-called "Baptist" Church with equal vigor.

Again, I fear for the economic, social and cultural future of our country if Obama wins on November 4. Don't let California's present be America's near future.

Just bringing this up to say, the problem is bigger than either party.


Here's a list of the governors of California from Reagan on:

Ronald Reagan January 3, 1967 January 6, 1975 Republican

Edmund Gerald "Jerry" Brown, Jr. January 6, 1975 January 3, 1983 Democratic

George Deukmejian January 3, 1983 January 7, 1991 Republican

Pete Wilson January 7, 1991 January 4, 1999 Republican

Joseph Graham "Gray" Davis January 4, 1999 November 17, 2003 Democratic

Arnold Schwarzenegger November 17, 2003 Incumbent Republican

[GraniteStater]

John McCain was doing very well here in NH and I somewhat supported him. However, he has catered to the southern Conservative Republicans by picking Palin to be his running mate. This has backfired for him across NH as most Independents like myself are NOT social conservatives at all. This election is not about social issues. It is about: the economy, healthcare, education, foreign policy, energy policy, etc.
The conservatives Republicans are bankrupting the party. George Bush has the lowest approval rating of any president in history so many people are going to vote for the candidate that is not the Republican. This is how politics works on a simplistic scale level.

[OA 5599]

Originally Posted by ucfjtm

....FairTax...

I have heard of FairTax before but never knew much about it until I just checked out the website. All in all, I have to say it sounds like a pretty good plan. I'm not a fan of flat-out consumption (sales) taxes as they are unfair to the poor, but getting a rebate at the beginning of each month to cover the cost of taxes would solve that issue. The only problem I could see is the possibility of a lot of things being sold under the table and tax evasion, but that happens with our current income tax system right now. I like also that charitable donations and used goods are tax-free, and I'd also hope that college tuition would be tax-free too.

I'd also save a lot of money under that plan as I drive a 11-year old Saturn, live on the cheaper side of town, and really don't spend that much money on stuff besides concert tickets and traveling.

[GetmeoutofAR]

can someone here who has more knowledge than I do about these things tell me of a time when one party controlled both the white house and congress and its negative consequences

[Brenda88]

Their is a lawsuit to remove obama from running for the Office of the President. Their are other things being uncovered about this man. Do your research before voting.

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by Brenda88

Their is a lawsuit to remove obama from running for the Office of the President. Their are other things being uncovered about this man. Do your research before voting.

I care about specific facts and websites to back up that point. I DON'T care for rumors and unfounded opinions.

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by GetmeoutofAR

can someone here who has more knowledge than I do about these things tell me of a time when one party controlled both the white house and congress and its negative consequences

I don't care for either candidate at this point, and am willing to write in my OWN Indpendent selection for the presidency. I can give you one hint. He was the guy whose voice and opinions were continuously squelched by the mainstream media.

[OA 5599]

Originally Posted by GraniteStater

I don't care for either candidate at this point, and am willing to write in my OWN Indpendent selection for the presidency. I can give you one hint. He was the guy whose voice and opinions were continuously squelched by the mainstream media.

I take it that would be the same candidate, who when brought up the NAFTA superhighway, was heckled by the mainstream media, who accused him of being a "conspiracy theorist", even though said highway is already under construction?