who would you vote for and why?

[Cuba]

Obama on the other hand WILL raise taxes. He - like any sane person - realizes that the trillions of dollars of debt that George W Bush has borrowed (from China and other unfriendlies) will eventually destroy our nation if we don't pay it down soon. You pay down government debt one of two ways. Cut services or raise taxes. Since so much of our services are the sacred cows of "entitlement programs" the only alternative that congress will vote for is to raise taxes. How much and on whom are where Obama and McCain differ. Obama wants to raise taxes on the people who can best afford it, those making over $250,000 a year. McCain wants to leave Bush's tax breaks in place for those same folks. Since I'm in the "under $250k" bracket I'm voting for Obama. It really irks me that Warren Buffet pays a lower percentage of income tax than I did when I was working full time. The tax code is BROKEN and must be fixed.

But McCain's stance has been to eliminate pork from budgets by initiating line item vetos (an absolutely BRILLIANT idea btw) so that we aren't buying $100M bridges to nowhere. The amount of money our government takes in is FAR more than is needed to run this country if it were spent by someone with half a brain. What we have is a grossly ineffiecient system of spending which is almost always the case when the numbers are so large. If you have a trillion dollar budgets then wasting $10M here and $8M there on bullsh!t projects doesn't seem too important. We need to controll the spending, not just take billions more from hard working Americans to support our stupid pork barrel political system. Not allowing line item vetos is what allows our electorate to slip in outrageously stupid and expensive items onto huge budgets, and it has to stop. We need to spend less and tax less. This isn't a matter of who CAN afford to pay more taxes. I pay more taxes than some earn in a year, and it isn't because I'm evil corporate America, it's because I have taken personal responsibility for myself and my future family, I make sacrifices so that when the time comes I can send my kids to good schools and get them on the right path, so that they can become successful, actually create wealth instead of syphoning it from others to themselves, and as a result pay a sh!tload of taxes to support this country. Over 90% of taxes are paid by the top 10% of wealthy Americans, if you aren't in that top 10% then you should be saying THANK YOU for supporting 90% of my kids' school system, 90% of the emergency services that are their to save my life, 90% of the roads I use every day, 90% of medicare and social security, 90% of everything this country offers you... rather than saying they should pay more taxes because they have more money. Take a little personal responsibility for once, if you don't work hard enough to earn a decent living then don't feel as though the rest of us owe you anything. I'm not in that upper echelon of tax payers yet, but I certainly plan to be one day. I could probably save a couple hundred bucks a year if middle income earners got a tax break and we just piled more taxes on the wealthy, but I don't deserve it. This isn't equitable. We are all responsible for providing for our country, not just the rich.



A father is picking up his daughter from her first semester of college and on the ride home he asks her how she did on her finals.

"Well dad, I worked really hard, spent my nights in the library studying, I had to skip some concerts and limit my time going out with friends. I really tried my best and I got a 4.0 GPA for the semester!"

"Wow honey that's wonderful! I'm so proud that you took your responsibilities seriously and applied yourself like that. How Did your roommate do?"

"Not well. She partied all the time, slept through a lot of her classes and didn't ever study. She skipped class to go out drinking with her friends a lot, I think she ended up with a 2.0."

"That's a shame! You know what you should do? Go to your dean's office and see if you can give her one of your GPA points. That way you would both have 3.0's and both have decent grades."

"Dad what the hell are you talking about? First off you can't do that, are you crazy?!? And secondly why the hell would I want to give up something that I worked so hard for and made so many sacrifices to get to someone that was just slacking and being irresponsible? That's rediculous, she deserves what she got, if she wanted more then she should have worked for it."

Her father smiles from ear to ear and says "Honey, welcome to the Republican party!"

 

[mdr]

McCain

Taxes
Energy
Defense
Experience
Bonafide war hero

That being said I don't like either really. But a Democratic President with a Democratic congress would be DISASTER. Look what happened when we had Republicans controlling both. Clinton (the real one) was able to leave us with a surplus because the Republican congress wouldn't allow him to spend our money, not because he was some genius and great leader. We need the checks and balances of one party controlling congress while the other has the White House. We need someone with the right economic ideas, and McCain is much closer to that than Obama. I think Obama has a great aura but no substance or experience. What exactly are his policies, other than raising taxes all over the place and destroying our economy.

If you REALLY want to know his policy info why don't you go to his website and look at it. Seriously, what are you afraid of? Afraid you might LIKE what you see there and get kicked out of the "good old boys" club? I'd take your comments a lot more seriously if you could substantiate some of your claims with facts. And I'm amazed that you prefer congress in gridlock. Their approval rating is in the toilet because of it. Bush's is in the toilet because of other reasons. You also need to take a look at Ron Paul's website. Dam shame he bowed out. If I thought he had a tinkers chance I'd vote for him (as a write-in). Paul not only talks straight - he votes straight. Unusual to see that in congress but his constituents seem to like it.

<end of :rant: >

 

[mdr]

But McCain's stance has been to eliminate pork from budgets by initiating line item vetos (an absolutely BRILLIANT idea btw) so that we aren't buying $100M bridges to nowhere. The amount of money our government takes in is FAR more than is needed to run this country if it were spent by someone with half a brain. What we have is a grossly ineffiecient system of spending which is almost always the case when the numbers are so large. If you have a trillion dollar budgets then wasting $10M here and $8M there on bullsh!t projects doesn't seem too important. We need to controll the spending, not just take billions more from hard working Americans to support our stupid pork barrel political system. Not allowing line item vetos is what allows our electorate to slip in outrageously stupid and expensive items onto huge budgets, and it has to stop. We need to spend less and tax less. This isn't a matter of who CAN afford to pay more taxes. I pay more taxes than some earn in a year, and it isn't because I'm evil corporate America, it's because I have taken personal responsibility for myself and my future family, I make sacrifices so that when the time comes I can send my kids to good schools and get them on the right path, so that they can become successful, actually create wealth instead of syphoning it from others to themselves, and as a result pay a sh!tload of taxes to support this country. Over 90% of taxes are paid by the top 10% of wealthy Americans, if you aren't in that top 10% then you should be saying THANK YOU for supporting 90% of my kids' school system, 90% of the emergency services that are their to save my life, 90% of the roads I use every day, 90% of medicare and social security, 90% of everything this country offers you... rather than saying they should pay more taxes because they have more money. Take a little personal responsibility for once, if you don't work hard enough to earn a decent living then don't feel as though the rest of us owe you anything. I'm not in that upper echelon of tax payers yet, but I certainly plan to be one day. I could probably save a couple hundred bucks a year if middle income earners got a tax break and we just piled more taxes on the wealthy, but I don't deserve it. This isn't equitable. We are all responsible for providing for our country, not just the rich.



A father is picking up his daughter from her first semester of college and on the ride home he asks her how she did on her finals.

"Well dad, I worked really hard, spent my nights in the library studying, I had to skip some concerts and limit my time going out with friends. I really tried my best and I got a 4.0 GPA for the semester!"

"Wow honey that's wonderful! I'm so proud that you took your responsibilities seriously and applied yourself like that. How Did your roommate do?"

"Not well. She partied all the time, slept through a lot of her classes and didn't ever study. She skipped class to go out drinking with her friends a lot, I think she ended up with a 2.0."

"That's a shame! You know what you should do? Go to your dean's office and see if you can give her one of your GPA points. That way you would both have 3.0's and both have decent grades."

"Dad what the hell are you talking about? First off you can't do that, are you crazy?!? And secondly why the hell would I want to give up something that I worked so hard for and made so many sacrifices to get to someone that was just slacking and being irresponsible? That's rediculous, she deserves what she got, if she wanted more then she should have worked for it."

Her father smiles from ear to ear and says "Honey, welcome to the Republican party!"

Your illustration is a good one. You win that one. Still, I'd like to hear your defense of the hedge fund guy who made over a $billion - yeah - with a B as in 1.0E9 for you computer jocks (and Europeans) Just what did he "create" ? His "job" is typing on a computer moving "electronic money" from one pot to another and he gets that kind of personal profit? I'm no Marxist but something is wrong here.

And the reason we don't have line item veto power is that it gives WAY too much power to the executive branch. I'm all for eliminating pork (though you and I might disagree about how much of it there is in the current budget) but the line item veto is not the right way to do it (IMHO). And McCain has put his share of bacon in the budget. Nowhere near as much as most others but not the ZERO that he's been claiming either.

 

[mdr]

Thank you for the correction about the healthcare.

No problem. Just for the record, McCain's is closer to "free" cause he's retired service member. I don't begrudge him that. I've been at sea on a US Navy ship during fleet exercises off the Virginia / NC coast and believe me those guys and gals earn their pay and benefits. :thumbup:

 

[mdr]

Yea, but how will it be financed? Oh, taxes, right. I don't need them stealing any more of my money.

There may be good guys and bad guys, but they're all participating in a system that exploits it's current monopoly on force and violence to extract taxes from people to finance their little programs. That's the difference between government and corporate America. Yes, many businesses are tied with the government because of many reasons, but by and large businesses have to earn their own money in the marketplace to finance themselves. The government uses its monopoly on force and violence to finance itself, not by providing a good product or service to the marketplace. And that is impossible to deny.

Not quite impossible, dako. We live in a republic (remember the Pledge if you doubt ) . If you're old enough, you had the OPPORTUNITY to vote for the people who are now in government representing the MAJORITY of voters. You may or may not have voted (given your stated distrust of government I suspect you didn't...) but those that did get down and vote elected folks to the government to represent them.

The government's monopoly on force is one of the things individuals who belong to a civilized society have decided to give up so that we don't have anarchy. The founders of our civilized society decided to define and more importantly limit the power of that monopoly and those limits are known as the "Constitution and Bill of Rights". These powers and their limits are both good things in my opinion.

For the privilege of living in that civilized society you pay taxes to support certain services provided by your government. Roads for instance. Do you really want ALL roads to revert to tolls? As a fellow traveler on those free roads you might find that food and vehicle safety rules and enforcement are something else most folks are willing to pay their government for. You're getting something for the tax dollars whether it's exactly what you want or not. If you REALLY want to improve our government that much - get a civil service job application and become part of the solution rather than just bitc*ing about it. Or run for office if that's your style. It might not be as easy to run the country as it looks from the outside...

 

[Cuba]

Actually it's "Honey - welcome to Social Darwinism!" It has its good points and its bad points. I'd like to hear your defense of the hedge fund guy who made over a - yeah - with a B as in 1.0E9 for you computer jocks (and Europeans) Just what did he "create" ? His "job" is typing on a computer moving "electronic money" from one pot to another and he gets that kind of personal profit? I'm no Marxist but something is wrong here.

And the reason we don't have line item veto power is that it gives WAY too much power to the executive branch. I'm all for eliminating pork (though you and I might disagree about how much of it there is in the current budget) but the line item veto is not the right way to do it (IMHO). And McCain has put his share of bacon in the budget. Not as much as most others but not the ZERO that he's been claiming either.

Indeed, social darwinism. As in taking personal responsibility for your own well being. You are not intrinsically owed anything. Hedge fund managers create wealth for those that are investing their money in businesses that create wealth. This personal wealth doesn't drop into some hole you know, it is spent. It is invested in stocks, bonds, businesses, even what you would consider personal greed items such as a huge house with 50 cars and a staff of 20 to maintain it. That's 20 jobs that weren't there before, that's a construction company making a ton of money building that mansion and creating jobs for the workers and tradesman. That's a car manufacturer and dealer making money that pays salaries, and it's all taxed. You are forgetting the trickle down effect. This is a consumer based economy, if I spend money on consumer goods it creates jobs for those supplying them, it creates demand. These workers have jobs and spend money, it circulates, it doesn't disappear. Guns and butter.

You are right, McCain has pork projects in his resume like all politicians, but he is taking a stance against it. As I said, I don't like either but will vote for McCain as the lessor of two evils. If you raise taxes it destroys small business, takes money out of my pocket, and shrinks the economy. Spend more on education, spend more on medical research and prevention, create more opportunities for the individual to advance themselves, but don't take my money and give it to someone sitting on their front steps while I'm hard at work. Not having a job doesn't mean you deserve tax dollars. 13 more weeks of unemployment? Nuts! If you can't get a job in 6 months then you don't want to work. Disability is one thing, if you can't work I'll help you out. If you WON'T work then don't put your hand out. This is the land of OPPORTUNITY, not the land of free money for the lazy. You shouldn't be punished for working your ass off, you should be rewarded. Where's Huckabee with his 23% sales tax when you need him joking!

 

[dako81]

Not quite impossible, dako. We live in a republic (remember the Pledge if you doubt ) . If you're old enough, you had the OPPORTUNITY to vote for the people who are now in government representing the MAJORITY of voters. You may or may not have voted (given your stated distrust of government I suspect you didn't...) but those that did get down and vote elected folks to the government to represent them.

The government's monopoly on force is one of the things individuals who belong to a civilized society have decided to give up so that we don't have anarchy. The founders of our civilized society decided to define and more importantly limit the power of that monopoly and those limits are known as the "Constitution and Bill of Rights". These powers and their limits are both good things in my opinion.

For the privilege of living in that civilized society you pay taxes to support certain services provided by your government. Roads for instance. Do you really want ALL roads to revert to tolls? As a fellow traveler on those free roads you might find that food and vehicle safety rules and enforcement are something else most folks are willing to pay their government for. You're getting something for the tax dollars whether it's exactly what you want or not. If you REALLY want to improve our government that much - get a civil service job application and become part of the solution rather than just bitc*ing about it. Or run for office if that's your style. It might not be as easy to run the country as it looks from the outside...

The pledge was written by a socialist named Francis Bellamay to sell flags, google or wiki it. I vote thanks. Do you really think the people in government care about the constitution? Even if they are sworn to uphold it? They don't and there's proof. Check out and read some supreme court decisions, one of the recent ones is the gun ownership one in DC. Oh and the guy who brought the case and won, they didn't let him register his gun since it was "bottom loading" which they said they consider a machine gun.

The police and people who are SWORN to protect and uphold their state and federal constitutions, don't care about them. They only care about their orders.

Oh and what would you propose to do to people who don't want to participate in this system? Throw them in jail? Make them leave?

Should Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. just have left because they didn't like the system how it was? No, the stayed and fought just like they should have, to try to change it.

 

[mdr]

The pledge was written by a socialist named Francis Bellamay to sell flags, google or wiki it. I vote thanks. Do you really think the people in government care about the constitution? Even if they are sworn to uphold it? They don't and there's proof. Check out and read some supreme court decisions, one of the recent ones is the gun ownership one in DC. Oh and the guy who brought the case and won, they didn't let him register his gun since it was "bottom loading" which they said they consider a machine gun.

The police and people who are SWORN to protect and uphold their state and federal constitutions, don't care about them. They only care about their orders.

Oh and what would you propose to do to people who don't want to participate in this system? Throw them in jail? Make them leave?

Should Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. just have left because they didn't like the system how it was? No, the stayed and fought just like they should have, to try to change it.

Dako, Lets stay on topic, it's still a republic regardless of song's author. And please don't confuse the Bush administration with "our government". It hasn't always been this bad. Previous administrations have understood the Constitution and done well by it. And I respectfully disagree about the police and military not caring about the constitution. Most of the ones that I've met actually do care (though sadly the concept of an illegal order is foreign to some).

As to the unwilling participants ... unless they advocate the overthrow of the current government by force I say let them be. " Make them leave?" Why? I assume they're not hurting anyone so they're entitled to an opinion just like everyone else. PS: If you're thinking of doing a "H.D. Thoreau" and only paying the taxes you approve of... let me know how it turns out.

 

[wolfc70]

I think of the two Mccain is the better choice. Obama's tax plan (his capital gains tax will kill the stock market, not to mention that money HAS ALREADY BEEN TAXED) could turn our unstable economy from a recession to a depression. Rich people (I am NOT one) and corporations already pay the majority of the taxes. Raising taxes on them will make them move. We are in a global economy, money is easily moved from one country to another.

Economics 101. LOWERING TAXES INCREASES REVENUE. There is an inverse relationship between revenue and tax rates. Lower taxes promotes spending and economic deveolpment. The more people spend and corporations expand, the more REVENUE from the taxes is generated. Yes the Bush administration has spent like crazy, but simple expenditure cuts can bring the deficit down without increasing taxes on anyone. I would like to see taxes decreased even further. There should be no capital gains tax on investment portfolios. We WANT to encourage people to take their retirement into their own hands. Why penalize them. Soon or later that money will be spent on goods and services, which will help grow the economy.

Obama has lots of sizzle, but no beef. Talk is great, but he was never even a CEO of a company. When has he ever worked a normal job? Experience DOES matter. As president I want someone who understands the public sector, not just pander to them.

 

[mdr]

Hedge fund managers create wealth for those that are investing their money in businesses that create wealth.
<stuff deleted>
Where's Huckabee with his 23% sales tax when you need him joking!

That's exactly my point. The fund manager himself did NOT create wealth. He merely moved the money to someone else that did. But in the process he got rewarded MORE than the person who DID create the wealth. That fits my definition of broken.

If I recall correctly Huckabee's "Fair Tax" rate was going to be 30%. That's a lot, but if it got rid of ALL other taxes... Hmmmmm. Maybe.... we might be onto something here. :thumbup: The current tax code favors the rich way too much.

 

[dako81]

Dako, Lets stay on topic, it's still a republic regardless of song's author. And please don't confuse the Bush administration with "our government". It hasn't always been this bad. Previous administrations have understood the Constitution and done well by it. And I respectfully disagree about the police and military not caring about the constitution. Most of the ones that I've met actually do care (though sadly the concept of an illegal order is foreign to some).

As to the unwilling participants ... unless they advocate the overthrow of the current government by force I say let them be. " Make them leave?" Why? I assume they're not hurting anyone so they're entitled to an opinion just like everyone else. PS: If you're thinking of doing a "H.D. Thoreau" and only paying the taxes you approve of... let me know how it turns out.

Watch the video on youtube called "Barred from "your" trial? Try This. . ." and you'll see an example of police not upholding what they've sworn to uphold, and saying that they don't care about all that crap (referring to the constitution and bill of rights).

I didn't ask about unwilling participants. I asked about those who will choose not to participate at all. What should happen to them? What if they do advocate the overthrow of the current government by force? Should they go to jail because they disagree with the current gang in office? The founding fathers said there should be a revolution every 20 years or less.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - J.F.K., 1962

Oh and every government ever in history has failed, because people are kept from realizing some of the values illustrated here.

 

[dako81]

I think of the two Mccain is the better choice. Obama's tax plan (his capital gains tax will kill the stock market, not to mention that money HAS ALREADY BEEN TAXED) could turn our unstable economy from a recession to a depression. Rich people (I am NOT one) and corporations already pay the majority of the taxes. Raising taxes on them will make them move. We are in a global economy, money is easily moved from one country to another.

Economics 101. LOWERING TAXES INCREASES REVENUE. There is an inverse relationship between revenue and tax rates. Lower taxes promotes spending and economic deveolpment. The more people spend and corporations expand, the more REVENUE from the taxes is generated. Yes the Bush administration has spent like crazy, but simple expenditure cuts can bring the deficit down without increasing taxes on anyone. I would like to see taxes decreased even further. There should be no capital gains tax on investment portfolios. We WANT to encourage people to take their retirement into their own hands. Why penalize them. Soon or later that money will be spent on goods and services, which will help grow the economy.

Obama has lots of sizzle, but no beef. Talk is great, but he was never even a CEO of a company. When has he ever worked a normal job? Experience DOES matter. As president I want someone who understands the public sector, not just pander to them.

Yep that's true. Capital gains are terrible. Someone takes already taxed money, and spends it on a property. Then they buy stuff and improve the property with already taxed money, which again gets sales taxed, not to mention the property gets taxed while this is going on. Then they sell the property and have to pay something like 15%-30% of their profit off the property depending on what tax bracket they are in to the government again. After you figure how much money went to the government that you spent, and how much you actually got back, they're doing pretty dang well aren't they!?! They didn't even have to do anything.

 

[mdr]

I think of the two Mccain is the better choice. Obama's tax plan (his capital gains tax will kill the stock market, not to mention that money HAS ALREADY BEEN TAXED) could turn our unstable economy from a recession to a depression. <stuff deleted>

Wolf,
Let's see... The controversial part of Obama's tax plan is a partial reinstatement of the taxes that were in place under President Clinton. The taxes we paid under the Clinton administration must have utterly destroyed the US economy.

What's wrong with this picture... well, for those who may have forgotten... the US economy did dam well under the Clinton administration - capital gains taxes and all. All this "Obama is bad for the economy - depression to follow" is a McCain talking point - that's all. It's as sad as Hillary's 3AM phone call BS.

 

[mdr]

Yep that's true. Capital gains are terrible. Someone takes already taxed money, and spends it on a property. Then they buy stuff and improve the property with already taxed money, which again gets sales taxed, not to mention the property gets taxed while this is going on. Then they sell the property and have to pay something like 15%-30% of their profit off the property depending on what tax bracket they are in to the government again. After you figure how much money went to the government that you spent, and how much you actually got back, they're doing pretty dang well aren't they!?! They didn't even have to do anything.

Dako, Ok. You convinced me. Yep, YOU WIN. Let's repeal all capital gains taxes. However, since as a nation we're supposed to operate on a revenue/service balanced budget, what are you willing to give up in services to make up for the loss? Social Security? Medicare? The Army? The Navy? The Border Patrol? The Interstate Highway System? The Food and Drug Administration? The FAA? NASA? Or should we just cut taxes and rack up a little more debt instead while we think about what to cut that won't diminish anyone's safety and quality of life ... :rant:

 

[wolfc70]

Wolf,
Let's see... The controversial part of Obama's tax plan is a partial reinstatement of the taxes that were in place under President Clinton. The taxes we paid under the Clinton administration must have utterly destroyed the US economy.

What's wrong with this picture... well, for those who may have forgotten... the US economy did dam well under the Clinton administration - capital gains taxes and all. All this "Obama is bad for the economy - depression to follow" is a McCain talking point - that's all. It's as sad as Hillary's 3AM phone call BS.

Well lets see. Clinton came in during a economic boom, tech stocks were starting to take off, the S&L scandal was becoming a distant memory as was Black Monday and people were in good spirits. The economy during that time could handle the tax rate. The current economy can not. The Republicans held virtaully every other office during the Clinton years, so his massive spending plans never got through. Also during the 1990's China and India were not strong players in the manufacturing and engineering side of production. Jobs were still being created here in the States.

Our current situation is very different. Busisnesses can move jobs and manufacturing over seas very easily, taking valuable jobs with them. We need fiscal and social policies that encourage economic development in this country. Over regualting and government meddeling has killed new growth. As we are seeing with China and the Olympics, our air is not that bad. Yet we are still trying to pass legislation that tightens emissions. You CAN choke off growth through over regulation. Companies can just send the work to China and India where there are no regulations. These "clean air acts" and regulations are nothing more than a tax. COMPANIES DO NOT PAY TAXES, CONSUMERS PAY TAXES. Companies just pass the tax and other fees on to the people who buy their goods/services.

As my economics proffessor stated: If you have any understanding of the Global Economy, you will fear a Democratic President. And he is VERY liberal, but understands what the Dems are trying to do, and is scared.

Read this: Stock Market Bull Clinton

A Quote: "Under our Constitution the congress, not the president, spends the taxpayer's money. It was democrat congresses that spent this country into near bankruptcy during the 1980's. It was republican congresses since 1994 that reigned in the rate of growth of irresponsible democrat spending. Recall that Item Number One of the republicans' much maligned Contract with America was to force a balanced budget through a Constitutional amendment, which Clinton adamantly opposed. It was tax cuts — not the 1993 Clinton-democrat congress tax increase — that stimulated the economic boom about which Clinton and Gore like to boast, along the way increasing tax revenue paid into the treasury for the democrats to spend."

 

[wolfc70]

Dako, Ok. You convinced me. Yep, YOU WIN. Let's repeal all capital gains taxes. However, since as a nation we're supposed to operate on a revenue/service balanced budget, what are you willing to give up in services to make up for the loss? Social Security? Medicare? The Army? The Navy? The Border Patrol? The Interstate Highway System? The Food and Drug Administration? The FAA? NASA? Or should we just cut taxes and rack up a little more debt instead while we think about what to cut that won't diminish anyone's safety and quality of life ... :rant:

I would love to loose Social Security. I am planning on my own retirement, and so far doing very well. I would love to see Medicare/Medicade gone. Along with Welfare and numerous other programs that prevent people from working. Government programs will always be manipulted by the bottom feeders, who are constantly looking for a handout or are busy being "victims". My money is my money, the governments should only take what they need to run. The rest is mine, not some guy down the street who is too lazy to find a job, but still keeps getting unemployment. There are so many programs that are sucking up money that could actually do something constructive. The over bloated governement needs to be trimmed.

Obama is running the largest campaign ever run by a canidate. You don't think that will transfer over to his Presidency? I want to know what change, and what hope he will bring. If he can come up with SOME form of substance, then I may change my vote.

 

[dako81]

Dako, Ok. You convinced me. Yep, YOU WIN. Let's repeal all capital gains taxes. However, since as a nation we're supposed to operate on a revenue/service balanced budget, what are you willing to give up in services to make up for the loss? Social Security? Medicare? The Army? The Navy? The Border Patrol? The Interstate Highway System? The Food and Drug Administration? The FAA? NASA? Or should we just cut taxes and rack up a little more debt instead while we think about what to cut that won't diminish anyone's safety and quality of life ... :rant:

I'm fine without Social Security, all the money could be making interest in a PRIVATE acccount with my name on it, sitting in a safe in house, or I could do whatever else with it like trade stocks or save for a vacation. I'm fine without medicare, doctors wouldn't have to hire so many staffers to push medicare papers and they would actually lower their rates. There's actually an older doctor who doesn't accept anything but cash and his rates are very very cheap since he doesn't have all of the overhead.

The army, navy, and border patrol haven't done anything to protect the freedom of Americans or give them rights for a very long time, and I've got my own guns thanks. I support the soldiers, but they're fighting politicians wars, not ours. Oh and they're getting attacked because they're over there and in many places. Osama Bin Laden said this himself, that if the American military was not over there, they would be fine with them. If I wanted I could hire my own security as well. And don't say the border patrol keeps Americans free and safe. This is already a country of immigrants, and if there wasn't the welfare system only hard working people would have a desire to come here. If you think that way the Indians should be deporting all of us.

Without the FAA, we could use flying cars to go everywhere and wouldn't need the Interstate Highway System. The FDA just points fingers and hurts businesses when something goes wrong (tomatoes). I'd rather have a private certification company evaluate the products I choose to buy similar to Underwritters Labs and Consumer Reports. This way there would be competing companies trying to earn business so they will have an incentive to do a good job and keep everything out in the open.

Don't get me started on NASA, lets see somewhere around $3 TRILLION tax dollars to put someone in space and no, they didn't invent a whole heck of a lot of things. They happened to use things that private companies invented, and purchased the rights to a good deal of technology and kept it to themselves for a very long time that would be better off open to the public. We've had the technology for cell phones since the 60's. What would life be like for you today if people would have had cell phones for the past 35 years or so? Oh and that private company sent a ship into space, did it for around $26 million. And that's more current money, not the stronger dollar of yesteryear.

Most Importantly:
How about cutting spending to what they actually take in for starters, and MAKE THEM ACCOUNTABLE FOR WHAT THEY SPEND. Then cut intake and make sure they're still accountable for what they spend. Now there is no accountability, and that's a really big part of the problem. There are many people who have worked for a major government contractor, or the armed services who would be happy to tell you about how much money is wasted on stupid things (like throwing tools overboard, or overcharging for services).

 

[Jman]

Just got back from work and WOW! There seems to be a lot of intelligent, healthy thought and discussion about this. Very cool! Kinda figured smart people would choose the FZ6!

 

[dako81]

Just got back from work and WOW! There seems to be a lot of intelligent, healthy thought and discussion about this. Very cool! Kinda figured smart people would choose the FZ6!

I'm just a dumb 20 yo engineering student. I don't know what you're talking about

No seriously I agree, I enjoy respectfully and (somewhat) calmly discussing points of view with people. I don't get to do it anywhere else but here...so I guess it is sort of special to me. I'm suprised it's been this civil thus far though, I mean not knocking FZers (that's why it is so civil), just most social experiments go the other direction fast. Especially on the internet.

:Flash:

 

[wolfc70]

It is staying civil because there is no name calling or other hostile language. These are just well thought out ideas expressed by intillegent people.:rockon: