who would you vote for and why?

[Cuba]

Your Yamaha example is incorrect. Are you aware that products such as motor vehicles that are manufactured abroad are charged heavy tariffs to enter this country? Why do you think companies such as Toyota and Nissan open huge manufacturing and assembly plants here in the US, employing our hoards of overpaid union workers, rather than producing at a much lower cost in other countries such as Korea? These tariffs are what provide the incentive for foreign companies to produce goods on our own soil, employing our citizens. Although I don't know the current rates for these tariffs I can assure you that they exist and are not insignificant. The UAW wouldn't exist without them.

Read the article- you are again incorrect. Obama has taken more campaign donations from corporations and "bundlers" than McCain, period. Sure he's also taken a lot more small donations as well but that doesn't change anything. Remember when he said he wouldn't take these donations and then completely ignored his own promises when he saw how much money he was going to make? He's a slippery politican plain and simple.

McCain believes that the war in Iraq should be won, that we shouldn't cut and run and watch the country implode into civil war and further destabilize the region. Regardless of your beliefs on the misleading information provided by the Bush administration for the reasons for going to war- WMDs, you should be aware that technically we have been in a state of war with Iraq since the Gulf War. We signed a cease fire agreement which included sanctions against Iraq which were not honored. Weapons inspectors were removed, why? Also you should review the UN articles of war written by Kofi Annan, anyone that has would be aware that the number one reason for the UN to invade a soverign nation is state sponsered torture, something that Saddam was famous for, something that John McCain is very experienced with. That alone would legitimize the invasion and removal of Saddam. France vetoed this due to their billion dollar contracts with Iraq, not because it was the wrong thing to do. They were perfectly willing to allow an evil dictator to torture his citizens to death on national TV as long as they were making a healthy profit, yet we are called as the bad guys.

Lack of exit strategy has proven to be disasterous for sure, but pulling out all troops on a set timeline is a recipe for massive bloodshed and civil war. We got ourselves into this mess, we need to get ourselves out without sacrificing everything that our soldiers have died for, and everything we have put the Iraqi citizens through. The US gets into trouble because we are rarely "all in", if a foreign policy becomes a political problem we pull out and let everybody die. Wash our hands of it, not our problem. We created this problem, we were right to do it, and regardless of the political issues involved we need to do the right thing and finish it. McCain saying we may be there for another hundred years makes a lot of sense. We are still in Korea, Japan, Germany, and look at what those countries have been able to do with our support. We need to provide stability for Iraq while they rebuild a nation of warring factions, not let them hang in limbo deciding whether or not it is politically convenient to pull out and watch their country burn.

Obama is planning to sacrifice the lives and futures of Iraqi citizens because it is politically expedient to do so. We are still in Iraq because we have the responsibility to be there to maintain order after what we did. No one is helping us, it's a political mess, people are still dying, but that doesn't mean we can duck our responsibilty because it's the easy or popular thing to do.

 

[mdr]

Your Yamaha example is incorrect. Are you aware that products such as motor vehicles that are manufactured abroad are charged heavy tariffs to enter this country? Why do you think companies such as Toyota and Nissan open huge manufacturing and assembly plants here in the US, employing our hoards of overpaid union workers, rather than producing at a much lower cost in other countries such as Korea? These tariffs are what provide the incentive for foreign companies to produce goods on our own soil, employing our citizens. Although I don't know the current rates for these tariffs I can assure you that they exist and are not insignificant. The UAW wouldn't exist without them.

Cuba,
I think it's your turn to "quit digging". It's bad debating form to shout "You're wrong!" and then change the subject from Corporate Income Tax to Tariffs. That might work on another forum, but FZ6 owners are far to sharp to miss that slight of hand trick. And who knows, McCain might actually need some union voters on his side someday. Not smart to pi$$ them off until after the election.

Read the article- you are again incorrect. Obama has taken more campaign donations from corporations and "bundlers" than McCain, period. Sure he's also taken a lot more small donations as well but that doesn't change anything. Remember when he said he wouldn't take these donations and then completely ignored his own promises when he saw how much money he was going to make? He's a slippery politican plain and simple.

No, YOU better read the article first. Do you know what bundlers actually do? They don't write big checks themselves, they just solicit donations from other people and then submit them as a "package". There's still a $4600 limit on individual donations and regardless of the mud being slung back and forth neither candidate is going to knowingly break that law. And since when did it become a bad thing to raise money for your candidate? Republicans certainly didn't think it was "evil" when bundlers ponied up bigtime for GW Bush. Google for "Bush Pioneers", "Bush Rangers", "Bush Super Rangers" if you disagree.

McCain believes that the war in Iraq should be won, that we shouldn't cut and run and watch the country implode into civil war and further destabilize the region.

Please submit original thoughts rather than McCain's talking points. "Cut and Run" might have worked for people like me who remember Vietnam, but in Iraq it just doesn't have the same punch. Nobody in their right mind thinks Obama wants to "lose" in Iraq. Seriously, it just doesn't "stick".

Regardless of your beliefs on the misleading information provided by the Bush administration for the reasons for going to war- WMDs, you should be aware that technically we have been in a state of war with Iraq since the Gulf War. We signed a cease fire agreement which included sanctions against Iraq which were not honored. Weapons inspectors were removed, why? Also you should review the UN articles of war written by Kofi Annan, anyone that has would be aware that the number one reason for the UN to invade a soverign nation is state sponsered torture, something that Saddam was famous for, something that John McCain is very experienced with.

Damn Cuba - I'm so glad you brought that up! I had forgotten how Bush engaged in waterboarding detainees. Course that's not torture cause WE did it instead of those nasty "other" countries. We better be prepared to defend ourselves against a UN sponsored invasion. Especially since your sainted candidate who's experienced torture first hand voted that it was OK to torture people as long as it was our CIA doing it and not the US Army. Really! Why aren't you as shocked and disappointed in him as the rest of the world is?

That alone would legitimize the invasion and removal of Saddam. France vetoed this due to their billion dollar contracts with Iraq, not because it was the wrong thing to do. They were perfectly willing to allow an evil dictator to torture his citizens to death on national TV as long as they were making a healthy profit, yet we are called as the bad guys.

Cuba - you're too young for Alzheimer's so it must be selective amnesia. We - the US of A. put Saddam in power. It was intended to counter Iran who we liked even less during that time. Don't go blaming the French for what we did.

Lack of exit strategy has proven to be disasterous for sure, but pulling out all troops on a set timeline is a recipe for massive bloodshed and civil war.

Come on Cuba, this is like shooting fish in a barrel. Have you read the news lately? Even Bush's people are proposing timelines for withdrawal.

We got ourselves into this mess, we need to get ourselves out without sacrificing everything that our soldiers have died for, and everything we have put the Iraqi citizens through. The US gets into trouble because we are rarely "all in", if a foreign policy becomes a political problem we pull out and let everybody die. Wash our hands of it, not our problem. We created this problem, we were right to do it, and regardless of the political issues involved we need to do the right thing and finish it.

Finally something we can agree on. We might disagree on the process to achieve it, but I can stand firmly behind your goals.

McCain saying we may be there for another hundred years makes a lot of sense. We are still in Korea, Japan, Germany, and look at what those countries have been able to do with our support. We need to provide stability for Iraq while they rebuild a nation of warring factions, not let them hang in limbo deciding whether or not it is politically convenient to pull out and watch their country burn.

Obama is planning to sacrifice the lives and futures of Iraqi citizens because it is politically expedient to do so. We are still in Iraq because we have the responsibility to be there to maintain order after what we did. No one is helping us, it's a political mess, people are still dying, but that doesn't mean we can duck our responsibilty because it's the easy or popular thing to do.

I'm sorry Cuba, but I put the lives and quality of life of the USA before that of the Iraqi citizens. I agree we screwed them, but it's what you call a "sunk cost" in your world. Like Obama said to Hillary, "After you've driven the bus into the ditch there's only so many ways to drive it out." I just think Obama will drive America OUT of the ditch and McCain will keep driving IN it.

Hotei

PS: Sorry for the long post. To anybody who got through it all - thanks for reading.

 

[Cuba]

Some good points there but a few need to be clarified. The argument I'm making regarding corporate taxes is that these companies pay huge amounts in other taxes. At the end of the day it doesn't matter what we call it, it's money going to the US government from these companies, as well as sustaining our economy. These companies that don't pay corporate tax still pay billions of dollars in taxes to the US and provide jobs. Nothing I said was against the union workers, simply pointing out that it is the decision of the US government to support this middle class of workers by taxing foreign imports, otherwise it would not be economically viable for US citizens to build these products. My comment that they are overpaid is based on the economics of the arrangement. I can send my own workers (who are more experienced and efficient) to do a job and charge $46.50 an hour whereas if I were forced to use union labor the cost is $78 an hour. These are actual figures from a project we're doing in Q109. From the top looking down these union workers are overpaid because I can get the job done better for less money using someone else.

In regards to your argument that I don't know what bundlers do- I do. What I said was Obama has collect more money through bundlers and direct contributions from these "evil corporations" than McCain. If you want to argue that McCain is more allied to these big corporations then you are making an assumption contrary to the facts. Obama is getting more support from them than MCain.

I was hoping you would bring up the US policy on "torture" since this is such an interesting argument. This is such a vast idea- do the ends justify the means sort of thing. Do you sacrifice an innocent person to save the lives of a hundred innocent people? This is a philosophical argument that has no answer, only our own interpretations. In Saddam's case he tortured people to death using extreme brutality for the purpose of maintaining his supreme dictatorship. He was using evil means to an evil end. Our government is apparently using techniques designed to cause a terrorist suspect to reveal information that will lead to the capture and disruption of terrorist organizations that murder people. It's a different situation, not to get too graffic but Saddam was known to insert glass test tubes into a victim's rectum and urethera and then have them beaten with clubs so that the glass broke. This was done to average citizens accused of speaking out against the government. We subject terrorist subjects to extreme cold and heat, deprive them of food, play loud music and flash lights at them, strap them to a board and pour water on them, all in an attempt to get them to have a mental breakdown and submit to our goal of stopping a terrorist cell from committing mass murder. It's ugly, but not anywhere near the same ball park as Saddam. I honestly don't know how I feel about it, is it justifiable? Potentially yes. Since you don't value the lives of foreigners like fellow US citizens then I assume you would support this, the suffering of foreigners to save American lives. Interesting.

No we did not put Saddam in power, you should watch the history channel or something. Great documentary on his rise to power, from an abused child to a Bathist hitman. His murdering of the government officials at that conference, his consolidation of power through brute force and murder. The US government sent weapons and supplies to Iraq during the war with Iran due to the current political situation. He was seen as the lessor of two evils. Possible this was meant to prevent Iran from a quick victory and instead allow for a gruelling bloody war that will leave both nations weaker than they were at the start. Are you aware that we supplied Iraq with chemical weapons during that war and this was the basis for their WMD programs? Creepy stuff, but that is not what we are arguing here- neither candidate was involved. MCain was just retiring from the navy at the time and beginning his political career in Arizona, and Obama was snorting cocaine with his childhood friends<-- I'm not just saying that either, this is according to his own accounts!

In terms of pulling out of Iraq it doesn't matter what the Bush administration says, they won't be around when it happens. It's up to one of these two candidates to decide what the plan will be. Obama wants to set a hard date and pull everybody out no matter what. McCain has a much more realistic idea of assessing a changing situation (which 18 months from now will be somewhat different, wouldn't you assume?) and making decisions based on winning this war and supporting a fledgling government until it is cohesive and able to stand on its own without a massive civil war which could easily result in another "Saddam" taking power. There is no easy way out despite what Obama may say, running away from the situation will destroy what we are trying to do and make the sacrifices that we and our troops have made up to that point. The country cannot stand on its own. I cannot believe you would call the lives and future of millions of people in the category of "sunk costs". You think that will make the world love us again? That's your answer for diplomacy and change? "F*ck 'em, they aren't Americans."??? The real change here would be for the US to actually finish what it starts and acheive the goal rather than sweeping the problem under the rug once the administration changes.

McCain is not a sainted candidate to me, please don't misunderstand me. As I clearly stated in my first post, I don't like either candidate. I feel that in a choice between the two McCain is the right one for our country. Obama has great energy and spirit but I disagree with his policies and his outlook. The issue bagan with taxes for me and that's where I'll end this. We are not in a recession at the moment. We are however economically stagnant and facing rising unemployment and inflation. RAISING taxes at a time like this is enormously stupid from an economic standpoint. It kills business, it causes the rich to hoard their money rather than invest it in new ventures that create jobs and value. It slows research and development. It shrinks the economy rather than expanding it. It may sound good to the ignorant masses that would save a few hundred dollars a year and feel as though they "stuck it to the man", but the fact is "the man" is who is providing them with their jobs, thier technology, their medicines, etc. etc. and paying 90% of the taxes which support this country. It is a flashy idea designed to get votes that would be disasterous to our economy if it ever happened. Fact is the country is going to change either way, and we have a better chance of it changing for the better if we elect McCain.

:america:

 

[mdr]

Cuba,
Interesting post. Looks like we actually agree on a lot of things - except maybe the minor issue of choice of candidate. At least we agree on the IMPORTANT thing - that the BLUE FZ6 is best!!!

Hotei

 

[mdr]

Cuba,
History Channel. Not a bad idea. I don't like to rely on Wiki exclusively for my support data so I'll give that a try.

In return, I'd like you to read this link which I think supports my contention that the US Central Intelligence Agency helped Saddam in his rise to power. Unfortunately this started under Kennedy, so the dems aren't blameless in this respect.

Saddam Hussein - United States relations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

PS: I would never take Wiki info without a grain (or two^64) of salt. However, it can provide a useful starting point for validating facts.

Hotei

 

[Cuba]

Cuba,
Interesting post. Looks like we actually agree on a lot of things - except maybe the minor issue of choice of candidate. At least we agree on the IMPORTANT thing - that the BLUE FZ6 is best!!!

Hotei

Agreed! :thumbup:

 

[Officerjive]

Since I assume you'd otherwise be voting for McCain I'm happy to hear you won't be participating this year. If you were voting for Obama I'd try a lot harder to convince you how wrong you are about your understanding of the law.

I can see the conflict that you're facing by getting a paycheck from a company whose products you don't believe are worth buying. On the other hand, if you're not voting against the government that has been the source of the wasteful purchases with your company then by my book you've pretty much given up the right to gripe about it. I'm glad I'm not in your shoes and I truly wish you well in finding the solution to the dilemma you're facing.

If you've got $5.00 to spare and want a good laugh, go see the movie "Swing Vote". Costner is great.

Hotei

Actually, in the unlikely case that I vote, I'll vote for Obama. But please, don't bother trying to convince me of anything.

To clarify, my company does an excellent job of performing support to the projects we are working under. I can be proud of the company and the people I work with. I just don't necessarily support the mission of the groups we work in support of (ICE, DEA, SEVS, etc.)
Somewhat like supporting the soldiers who are off fighting an unjust war. They didn't cause the problem, they are just doing the best they can to deal with it now.
My colleagues didn't choose to police poor farmers in Cochobamba who are trying to make money by growing the only cash crop that can provide them enough to live on. They just support the computer systems that are used by the people at DEA who are trying to stamp out the coca production.
I'm no supporter of the drug culture, but be honest, the farmers wouldn't grow it if the american's didnt buy it.

The point I am making is that things aren't always black and white, right or wrong, democrat or republican. it's never so simple.

Costner? Great?? I dont believe it.

 

[Cuba]

Cuba,
History Channel. Not a bad idea. I don't like to rely on Wiki exclusively for my support data so I'll give that a try.

In return, I'd like you to read this link which I think supports my contention that the US Central Intelligence Agency helped Saddam in his rise to power. Unfortunately this started under Kennedy, so the dems aren't blameless in this respect.

Saddam Hussein - United States relations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

PS: I would never take Wiki info without a grain (or two^64) of salt. However, it can provide a useful starting point for validating facts.

Hotei

I think you're right, I think I recall some accounts of the CIA meddling with Iraq at that time but not really clear on how much influence they had. There was a really great documentary on it a few months back, lot of interesting facts without a lot of speculation. They had first hand accounts and interviews, lots of video clips, it was very well done. History channel is great! We Americans have a glorious history of betting on the wrong horse when it comes to foreign leaders. Noriega, anyone?

 

[mdr]

<snip>

We Americans have a glorious history of betting on the wrong horse when it comes to foreign leaders. Noriega, anyone?

Ferdinand Marcos (Philippines) if one of my favorite dictators that we supported.
And who can forget the "Steel Butterfly", his wife (also President after him IIRC) and her shoe collection. We supported Marcos to counter communism and he ended up screwing the Filipino people. Which brings us back to your comment about "Does the end justify the means". I'm still pondering my response to that one. More later...

Hotei

 

[mdr]

Actually, in the unlikely case that I vote, I'll vote for Obama. But please, don't bother trying to convince me of anything.

To clarify, my company does an excellent job of performing support to the projects we are working under. I can be proud of the company and the people I work with. I just don't necessarily support the mission of the groups we work in support of (ICE, DEA, SEVS, etc.)
Somewhat like supporting the soldiers who are off fighting an unjust war. They didn't cause the problem, they are just doing the best they can to deal with it now.
My colleagues didn't choose to police poor farmers in Cochobamba who are trying to make money by growing the only cash crop that can provide them enough to live on. They just support the computer systems that are used by the people at DEA who are trying to stamp out the coca production.
I'm no supporter of the drug culture, but be honest, the farmers wouldn't grow it if the american's didnt buy it.

The point I am making is that things aren't always black and white, right or wrong, democrat or republican. it's never so simple.

Costner? Great?? I dont believe it.

Ok. Ok. He's not a great actor based on past experiences you've had. But he's actually pretty good in this role! And the girl that played his daughter was really funny. Swing Vote was worth the 5 bucks for me.

And I apologize if my earlier comments seemed unfair. Now that you've explained it a bit more I understand your situation and it isn't black and white. A similar scene is playing out in Afghanistan with the poppy farmers.

Hotei

 

[mikebike]

McCain is not a sainted candidate to me, please don't misunderstand me. As I clearly stated in my first post, I don't like either candidate. I feel that in a choice between the two McCain is the right one for our country. Obama has great energy and spirit but I disagree with his policies and his outlook. The issue began with taxes for me and that's where I'll end this. We are not in a recession at the moment. We are however economically stagnant and facing rising unemployment and inflation. RAISING taxes at a time like this is enormously stupid from an economic standpoint. It kills business, it causes the rich to hoard their money rather than invest it in new ventures that create jobs and value. It slows research and development. It shrinks the economy rather than expanding it. It may sound good to the ignorant masses that would save a few hundred dollars a year and feel as though they "stuck it to the man", but the fact is "the man" is who is providing them with their jobs, thier technology, their medicines, etc. etc. and paying 90% of the taxes which support this country. It is a flashy idea designed to get votes that would be disastrous to our economy if it ever happened. Fact is the country is going to change either way, and we have a better chance of it changing for the better if we elect McCain.

very well put.....

when you tax the rich you impinge on the very lifeblood of the American economy

 

[mdr]

very well put.....

when you tax the rich you impinge on the very lifeblood of the American economy

:rof: Mike, that's so funny I can hardly stop laughing long enough to reply. :rof:

You can't tax the poor either - cause they don't have any money to begin with. So who's left?

I don't like the idea of a Southern Baptist minister as president, but Mike Huckabee had some interesting ideas about taxes. Would either of you (Mike and Cuba) have preferred Huckabee? Just curious. Might we see him again as VP pick....

Hotei

 

[mikebike]

Let me clarify a bit---- I did not say do not mean do not tax the wealthy...just keep is reasonable.

And yes you can tax the poor and the middle too...

I am a proponent of the flat tax.... it is proportionate to incomes and there are no free rides....

we must tax everyone.... and those that make more pay more....just not excessive.

excessive taxes that are progressive ( the more you make the higher percentage you pay) are counterproductive.

there has to be incentive to make more money and thus expand businesses and provide jobs.

I liked Huckabee ok.... I liked Ron Paul better

just my opinion as a business owner

 

[mdr]

Let me clarify a bit---- I did not say do not mean do not tax the wealthy...just keep is reasonable.

And yes you can tax the poor and the middle too...

I am a proponent of the flat tax.... it is proportionate to incomes and there are no free rides....

we must tax everyone.... and those that make more pay more....just not excessive.

excessive taxes that are progressive ( the more you make the higher percentage you pay) are counterproductive.

there has to be incentive to make more money and thus expand businesses and provide jobs.

I liked Huckabee ok.... I liked Ron Paul better

just my opinion as a business owner

Mike - believe it or not we're in 100% agreement on this. (Please don't tell Obama)

I hear you on Ron Paul. Sad day for me when he dropped out. I always thought that if they took Paul's view of the constitution and Huckabee's view on taxes that Republicans might have a chance to repair some of the damage they've done to the country. Sadly it appears that won't happen. You're absolutely right about the marginal tax rate getting out of control in the past. I had years where my fed taxes were larger than my entire current income. That's not a good thing.

When my father was born there was no Federal income tax. Perhaps it's time to repeal the 16th amendment the way we did with prohibition.

One of the problems we're facing is that the Republicans under Bush43 have damaged the economy so badly that the middle class is shrinking - for the first time in history - not because they're leaving to join the rich, but because they're leaving to join (or re-join) the poor. The US Census bureau reported a 4% shrinkage in the number of middle class households over the last 20 years with a corresponding increase in poor households. In spite of my efforts it looks like my kids have a lower standard of living than I did. It is harder for them to find a job that pays a decent wage. They get less benefit from their taxes than was the case for my generation due to the ever rising portion of their taxes going to debt repayment. Not a pretty sight - and extremely unlikely to change under McCain (and only just a distant maybe under Obama).

Hotei

 

[Cuba]

Mike - believe it or not we're in 100% agreement on this. (Please don't tell Obama)


Hotei

Me too, well said. The flat tax that Huckabee supported was very interesting but extreme, too extreme for us at the moment. If I remember correctly his proposal was to eliminate the IRS altogether (a cost savings in the billions per year), and eliminate all taxes in exchange for a very high sales tax, I heard 23% at one point, someone thought it was 30%, I don't recall exactly. This would eliminate tax sheltering and the ability (for the most part) to cheat on your taxes. A drug dealer or any other criminal, anyone working off the books for instance would be paying taxes under this system. Not on their sales but on their purchases with the profits. It would be flat, make more, spend more, pay more. Eliminating the IRS and all of that cost sounds great, but then you'd have how many unemployed IRS workers? A lot. Also you would have an increase in black market sales but nothing too significant really, it would mainly be person to person transactions, hard to hide the sale of a car or house, and corporations get auditted. I liked Huckabee a lot actually, Chuck Norris doesn't make endorsements, he tells America how it's gonna be.

 

[mdr]

Me too, well said. The flat tax that Huckabee supported was very interesting but extreme, too extreme for us at the moment. If I remember correctly his proposal was to eliminate the IRS altogether (a cost savings in the billions per year), and eliminate all taxes in exchange for a very high sales tax, I heard 23% at one point, someone thought it was 30%, I don't recall exactly. This would eliminate tax sheltering and the ability (for the most part) to cheat on your taxes. A drug dealer or any other criminal, anyone working off the books for instance would be paying taxes under this system. Not on their sales but on their purchases with the profits. It would be flat, make more, spend more, pay more. Eliminating the IRS and all of that cost sounds great, but then you'd have how many unemployed IRS workers? A lot. Also you would have an increase in black market sales but nothing too significant really, it would mainly be person to person transactions, hard to hide the sale of a car or house, and corporations get auditted. I liked Huckabee a lot actually, Chuck Norris doesn't make endorsements, he tells America how it's gonna be.

Cuba,

Actually we were both right. The proposed fair tax rate is 23% AND 30%. No I didn't fail arithmetic. I just looked it up and the tax rate was set so that 23 cents out of every dollar spent goes to tax. So you buy something for $7.70 and you pay $2.30 in tax for a total bill of $10.00. Tax is 23% of total revenue but what most people would call a 30% tax rate since 230/770 is .2987 which rounds up to 30%.

Here's a Library of Congress link to the bill known as HR-25 or the "Fair Tax Act":
Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Just skimming the link I was surprised to find that it had 72 co-sponsors in the house. No, SHOCKED would be more like it. Personally I'd be a whole lot happier if it was 10% instead of 30%. Last time I was in UK their VAT was only 17% and I believe they have more government provided benefits than the US (Govt provided medical care). Why our "VAT" would be double theirs for less services is a mystery.

Hotei

PS: I was also surprised to hear today that the Fair Tax would only displace Federal Income Tax. I was under the impression from Huckabee's speeches that it would replace ALL federal taxes, not just personal income tax. I need to verify this, but for me that would be a deal-breaker. Then there's Wiki who claims this :
"The Fair Tax Act would replace all federal income taxes (including corporate income taxes and capital gains taxes), payroll taxes (including Social Security and Medicare taxes), gift taxes, and estate taxes with a national retail sales tax." Going to have to read some more...
Update: Wiki is closer to actual bill. Didn't read entire bill but only thing that I didn't see yet was repeal of corporate income tax - which as we've discovered nobody is paying anyway . Also of note is that Social Security and Medicare would become general fund items instead of "self-supporting programs". That could get interesting given their projected bankruptcy.

 

[dako81]

...Personally I'd be a whole lot happier if it was 10% instead of 30%. Last time I was in UK their VAT was only 17% and I believe they have more government provided benefits than the US (Govt provided medical care). Why our "VAT" would be double theirs for less services is a mystery.

Hotei

PS: ...bankruptcy.

This is because about 50% of what the US federal gov't spends money on, is war/the military. (I don't remember where I read that, so hey, I might be smokin crack!!!!) The UK doesn't have that kind of war budget. So just imagine if the US gov't stopped all of their fighting, and say spent 5% of what they currently do to just maintain a smaller military, and then took in their amount for taxes -(minus) what they'd not be spending anymore on the military, and we'd essentially have close to a 50% reduction in federal taxes, and keep every other single thing the federal government provides. Every service and department. Their funds would still be there.

 

[mdr]

This is because about 50% of what the US federal gov't spends money on, is war/the military. (I don't remember where I read that, so hey, I might be smokin crack!!!!) The UK doesn't have that kind of war budget. So just imagine if the US gov't stopped all of their fighting, and say spent 5% of what they currently do to just maintain a smaller military, and then took in their amount for taxes -(minus) what they'd not be spending anymore on the military, and we'd essentially have close to a 50% reduction in federal taxes, and keep every other single thing the federal government provides. Every service and department. Their funds would still be there.

Dako,
The War Department's budget is big, but 50% is a bit overstated. Here is the Presidents actual budget proposal for 2009 :

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/budget.pdf OMB notes that the defense portion is 74% larger than 2001 budget.

Looks like defense portion is $515,000,000,000 of discretionary spending of about a trillion (see page 147 in pdf). SOOO it's 50% of that. But only about 20% of the overall budget since there's another trillion and a half in non-discretionary items like Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. Wiki has a good graph here: United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia You might also want to look at the projected budget deficit on that Wiki entry.

For perspective, I've seen numbers that indicate that we (USA) spend a lot on defense. Not just more than any other country on earth, but more than the rest of the WORLD put together. I don't have direct proof for that since defense budgets are often state secrets in other countries. Like Dako I find it hard to believe that this level of defense spending is necessary. Certainly it's not sustainable in the long run - McCain's "Hundred Years" for instance. One of the main reasons the Soviet Union is no longer around is that Reagan spent them into bankruptcy with a defense buildup that they felt compelled to match. With an end result that I got to watch on TV as the Russian people rioted in the streets and the glue that bound the CCCP (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) dissolved.

'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.' : George Santayana

Hotei

 

[Cuba]

Rueters poll has McCain up by 5 points currently... he's up 9 points on the questions of which candidate is the best suited for improving our economy... He's still up 5 points when you add in Barr and Nader into the mix...

Man I hate polls! But still, quite the change since August. According to this one he's picked up young voters (though Obama still leads this category significantly) and is also gaining in catholics, women, and democrats. Somehow Obama is still maintaining his 90% of black voters... odd. Are these black poll responders blatently racist? Discuss!

 

[mdr]

Rueters poll has McCain up by 5 points currently... he's up 9 points on the questions of which candidate is the best suited for improving our economy... He's still up 5 points when you add in Barr and Nader into the mix...

Man I hate polls! But still, quite the change since August. According to this one he's picked up young voters (though Obama still leads this category significantly) and is also gaining in catholics, women, and democrats. Somehow Obama is still maintaining his 90% of black voters... odd. Are these black poll responders blatently racist? Discuss!

Cuba,
The answer is a simple one: No. It seems that 88% of the African American population voted for a white guy (John Kerry) last time. See link below.

CNN.com Election 2004

Hotei