Get Out and Vote

[dubbsy]

so I mentioned the 'anyone but Hillary, 2008" thing in class yesterday and damn near got mugged.

Never realized MSUM was full of diehard Democrats....

Then they wanted a reason why I didn't want Hillary but wouldn't accept me saying that Hillary is one of those people I can't stand to listen to for more than...well, the time it takes for her to open her mouth.

[SmitEvo]

Hillary wont win the primaries anyways...

[dubbsy]

99slowGSX wrote:
Hillary wont win the primaries anyways...

If she does...well..
lets just say I always wanted to live in Australia.

I'm really just sick of politics and whole 'choosing the lesser of two evils' crap.

I want to see someone who understands both sides of an arguments and pushes for a compromise instead of this extreme right/left bullshit.

[Bookem]

Jesse Ventura for prez!!!!!!

[Guest]

Hilary missed her opportunity, had she run this past election against Bush, I feel she would have had a better shot at winning the nomination than she does at this point in time.

[Stormwalker]

tjamz wrote:
Middle/lower class not only NEED the money, they spend the money at local businesses who in turn pay their employees, who in turn spend the money at more local businesses, who in turn pay their employees. I'm pretty sure a $20k tax break to someone that has $10million in liquid assets doesn't mean as much as a $200 tax break does to me and my family.

Having said that....flat tax is my best answer with ZERO deductions other than children and medical expenses. I'd be willing to bet that a FLAT 5 to 10% would take us out of debt FAST (haven't crunched the numbers on this yet)

Chuck, think a moment about what you are saying here and your proposal.

First of all, in regards to your first paragraph, giving tax breaks to companies can be beneficial for several reasons, but the general concept can be described as such; companies and businesses are the ones that create jobs, pay employees, and so to speak create wealth. By taxing the business sector less, it will be more likely for that money to be reinvested in the business sector (i.e., investment in capital, H.R., job growth, etc). That's the reasoning behind tax breaks for businesses. And when you referenced someone with 10mil in liquid assets, I can only assume you are talking about the business sector? Because on personal returns, someone with that kind of money does not get much for tax breaks at all!
Now, the lower class, or taxpayers in the lowest brackets, essentially do not pay any tax to begin with. Their tax withholdings on their paychecks? Yeah, they get it back in what is called a "tax refund", and in some cases they get more back than they paid in. If you supply more "tax breaks" to people that do not pay tax, it's not a "tax break" at all, it would simply be income redistribution.

Which brings me to the second paragraph in great confusion. A flat tax with no deductions (or exemptions, sounds like you might have been talking about them too) would absolutely slaughter the lower (and middle) class. Keep in mind most income taxes are paid by higher wage earners. And most low wage earners essentially do not pay any tax at all. You propose that they start paying tax? Higher wage earners would be the people that would benefit the most from an implementation of a flat tax, which from what I can see conflicts with your reasoning in the first paragraph. And I don't see how it would reduce debt (national debt I assume) any more than the current system of taxation.

I don't usually comment on this board, but I figured all that would help you, more so than start a debate with you. Though that might be fun, come to think of it.

[StangerBanger96]

Stormwalker wrote:
Keep in mind most income taxes are paid by higher wage earners. And most low wage earners essentially do not pay any tax at all. You propose that they start paying tax? Higher wage earners would be the people that would benefit the most from an implementation of a flat tax, which from what I can see conflicts with your reasoning in the first paragraph. And I don't see how it would reduce debt (national debt I assume) any more than the current system of taxation.

I don't usually comment on this board, but I figured all that would help you, more so than start a debate with you. Though that might be fun, come to think of it.

Exactly
The top 1% of Americans income-wise paid 37% of income taxes in 2004, the lower 50% ($30,100 annual income or less) of wage earners paid 3.3% There is already plenty of disparity.

[Guest]

Stormwalker wrote:
Chuck, think a moment about what you are saying here and your proposal.

First of all, in regards to your first paragraph, giving tax breaks to companies can be beneficial for several reasons, but the general concept can be described as such; companies and businesses are the ones that create jobs, pay employees, and so to speak create wealth. By taxing the business sector less, it will be more likely for that money to be reinvested in the business sector (i.e., investment in capital, H.R., job growth, etc). That's the reasoning behind tax breaks for businesses. And when you referenced someone with 10mil in liquid assets, I can only assume you are talking about the business sector? Because on personal returns, someone with that kind of money does not get much for tax breaks at all!
Now, the lower class, or taxpayers in the lowest brackets, essentially do not pay any tax to begin with. Their tax withholdings on their paychecks? Yeah, they get it back in what is called a "tax refund", and in some cases they get more back than they paid in. If you supply more "tax breaks" to people that do not pay tax, it's not a "tax break" at all, it would simply be income redistribution.

Which brings me to the second paragraph in great confusion. A flat tax with no deductions (or exemptions, sounds like you might have been talking about them too) would absolutely slaughter the lower (and middle) class. Keep in mind most income taxes are paid by higher wage earners. And most low wage earners essentially do not pay any tax at all. You propose that they start paying tax? Higher wage earners would be the people that would benefit the most from an implementation of a flat tax, which from what I can see conflicts with your reasoning in the first paragraph. And I don't see how it would reduce debt (national debt I assume) any more than the current system of taxation.

I don't usually comment on this board, but I figured all that would help you, more so than start a debate with you. Though that might be fun, come to think of it.

Good points, and frankly I wasn't clear enough. My "ideal" flat tax would have to take into account poverty wage earners. There would have to be a standard personal deduction (For example $10k/adult in a family and $5k/child up to age 18...just rough numbers used for reference, bear with me here) so that a family of 3 would have ZERO tax liability on the first $25,000 earned (household income).

After the $10,000 personal exemption, EVERYONE would have to pay a flat 10% (again, just a nice round number to work with).

As for trickle down economics, I don't buy into it. It made more sense before everything was corporate. Right now if you offer a corporation a tax break, they distribute the money to their share holders, that never gets passed on to the workers who can use the money. I've been involved in a number of large corporations (Tyco, AON, etc...) and they are usually THE WORST at annual pay increases, cost of living increases, etc.. compared to their small business counterparts. Not to say there aren't benefits to working in a corporation, but for long term growth potential, working for (the right) sole proprietor is the way to go. Most sole proprietors are middle to upper-middle class. Give them a tax break and you'll see job growth on a local level.

Thank you Stormy for bringing out the error in what I posted, it made me re-post my original intents in better clarity. I will be the first to admit that the numbers I used in the above statement need tweaking, they were used only for illustrative purposes and a real accountant would need to put together the real numbers.

[Guest]

StangerBanger96 wrote:
Exactly
The top 1% of Americans income-wise paid 37% of income taxes in 2004, the lower 50% ($30,100 annual income or less) of wage earners paid 3.3% There is already plenty of disparity.

Ahh, but the top 2% control 98% of the money....you are right...big time disparity.

[MisterCMK]

MrScary wrote:
Is it too late to register?? Where do I go? I'm in college so I would have to do absentee

I believe that you can register at any government building such as the Moorhead DMV or library. I also believe that you can ask for a absentee ballot there as well. It shouldn't be too late to register to vote.

[DaveH]

tjamz wrote:
What I was getting at was that literally the only way to end the war in Iraq is to either:

A. Kill everyone over there, thereby eliminating all the terrorists

B. Sit down and negotiate a cease-fire.

Throughout the history of the world, those are the only 2 ways wars have ever ended.

I vote for solution A.

:icon_thumright:

But seriously, who would you sit down with to negotiate a end of the war in Iraq? And how could you take anything they say seriously?

[weshole]

Ya, good luck negotiating with a terrorist. Especially when they go out of there way to kill us. Remember, most of them hate America and Americans. We are the devil in there eyes and we all need to die.

[Guest]

First, I DO NOT WANT TO NEGOTIATE WITH AL-QAEDA

Well lets see, not everyone who is fighting us there is a terrorist, there is a strong Sunni-backed uprising amongst Iraqi natives. Sunni Muslims see us as an invader of their country, not a liberator. Sunni Muslims have in the past denounced Al-Qaeda and their terrorist actions and not until we invaded their country did they join forces with them. I say we start with them. Figure out what we need to do to get them on our side, what will need to happen?

Think about it this way, if for some reason China (for example) decided to invade America to "free" us from someone they see as a dictator (using Bush, ONLY because he's in charge now) wouldn't you be working to undermine their efforts, regardless of how noble they (the chinese) thought they were? Yeah, me too. I wouldn't trust any invading forces word that said "they came for peace and once peace is established they'll leave" and why should the Iraqi's? If we truly came to liberate their country, we need to show some effort towards proving we don't intend to stay and take over. How can we do this without talking with them? Maybe, just maybe, if we got them involved in helping squash the terrorist organizations in Iraq we could start pulling some of our troops out. Give them a list of things that need to happen (not a date) before a percentage of troops are pulled out, when those things happen, we remove some troops...if things stay stable, we go further down the list of things that need to happen...if they happen, we remove more troops, if they don't happen, we leave them there, if things get worse we re-deploy even more troops than we originally had.

For the record Dave, I have no problem with option "A" either. Nuke them til they glow and shoot them in the dark...

[Guest]

OK, now I've given my endgame for Iraq, what's the republicans?

[dubbsy]

tjamz wrote:
First, I DO NOT WANT TO NEGOTIATE WITH AL-QAEDA

Well lets see, not everyone who is fighting us there is a terrorist, there is a strong Sunni-backed uprising amongst Iraqi natives. Sunni Muslims see us as an invader of their country, not a liberator. Sunni Muslims have in the past denounced Al-Qaeda and their terrorist actions and not until we invaded their country did they join forces with them. I say we start with them. Figure out what we need to do to get them on our side, what will need to happen?

Think about it this way, if for some reason China (for example) decided to invade America to "free" us from someone they see as a dictator (using Bush, ONLY because he's in charge now) wouldn't you be working to undermine their efforts, regardless of how noble they (the chinese) thought they were? Yeah, me too. I wouldn't trust any invading forces word that said "they came for peace and once peace is established they'll leave" and why should the Iraqi's? If we truly came to liberate their country, we need to show some effort towards proving we don't intend to stay and take over. How can we do this without talking with them? Maybe, just maybe, if we got them involved in helping squash the terrorist organizations in Iraq we could start pulling some of our troops out. Give them a list of things that need to happen (not a date) before a percentage of troops are pulled out, when those things happen, we remove some troops...if things stay stable, we go further down the list of things that need to happen...if they happen, we remove more troops, if they don't happen, we leave them there, if things get worse we re-deploy even more troops than we originally had.

For the record Dave, I have no problem with option "A" either. Nuke them til they glow and shoot them in the dark...

:cough: Schwan 2008 :cough:

(even if he is a democrat)

[Guest]

thanks Dubbsy... I just think there is a really bad perception of the Democratric Party by a lot of people. A lot of us are NOT tree huggers, or anti-gun, or even pro-abortion...the ones that make the most noise in our party generally are, but the far right of the republican party is just as fucked up. The "Bush can't do anything wrong" crowd drives me crazy. Bush is human, he fucks up...the drugged up, hypocritical spin-meisters at EIB cough Limbaugh cough seem to think this guy shits golden turds though. When was the last time you heard a right-wing talker say ANYTHING bad about Bush? I can point to numerous occasions where the hosts on Air America and even Ed Schulz (not officialy w/ air america btw, though they do pay to have his show on in some markets) have pointed out things that are wrong with Democrats and THAT is why I prefer the Democratic party over the Republican party.

[DaveH]

Put down the crack pipe Chuck. :icon_silent: Rush has said many negative things about Bush. Bush is waaaay too liberal for Rush's taste and he has pointed out numerous things that he disagrees with him on (crazy spending being the biggest). That said, Rush is a conservative/Republical cheerleader and realizes that a liberal republican is still better than a liberal democrat. lol I listen to Rush a little, but he is a little too much of a cheerleader for my taste. I haven't heard air america, other than I hear that it's going bankrupt. Without a doubt the finest talk radio is Bill O'Reilly. He says it as it is and has a good mixture of guests from the right and left. Check his radio show out if you haven't yet.

[Guest]

O'Reilly isn't too bad, I'd consider him the Republican version of my views...close to the middle, but a little to the right (whereas I am a little to the left). You are correct about Rush being critical of Bush's spending, he hasn't talked about it lately and it kinda slipped my mind...however listening to him defend Foley (saying the whole ordeal was a joke, it was all in fun, etc....) was rather disturbing, as is the fact that the Republican party was informed about this behaviour of Foleys for several years and said/did nothing (according to the head of the Page committee amongst other people). Rush basically wants to turn this into something politically motivated and try and discredit anyone who has proof that this behaviour was on-going. I'll be the first to suggest that the timing of this coming out was very favorable to the democratic party, but no more favorable than the coverup was for the republican party for the last 5 years....and certainly no more politically timed than the verdict date in Saddams trial (the day before the elections in the US). Both parties certainly have egg on their face over the way they've handled the country over the past 10-16 years. Basically the bickering needs to end, they need to both get over their petty differences and do the freakin' job they were elected to do....SERVE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, if they can't do that w/o following party lines on EVERY SINGLE VOTE, they need to get the hell out of Washington.

[98sh]

It would be wonderful to think that our elected officials would vote for our best interests, but in reality they most often vote for their own benefit. What will keep me in office, what will give me more power, and what will get me more money are the thoughts that cloud the judgement of reps and senators in Washington. Nothing will change if the system remains the same. I wish I had a reasonable proposal on how to remedy this beyond more term limits.

[StangerBanger96]

The sad truth is, there is no real way to fix it completely. People will always crumble to money and power, and they will do what they can in order to get and retain it as well. Doesn't really matter what sort of checks they put in place to try "cure" it, there will just be under the table deals that won't change anything. Thats human nature for you, and the only real way to change it is to somehow elect people who are least likely to give in to bribery and most likely to vote in favor of the people of America rather than their own self interests...Good Luck with that.