Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest donaltopablo

Kerry's Speech

Recommended Posts

Guest donaltopablo

I didn't get to watch it, but I just read it.

Actually, I'm rather impressed. It was a pretty good speech. There were a few things I would like to have seen that I think is commonly over looked by Democrats and Republicans in general.

First, I'm disappointed he didn't even touch on gay marriage, or gay rights in general. He made references to defending the constitution from politics. I know Kerry doesn't necessarily support this, but I still wish someone would take a real stand on this issue of denying a group their civil rights. While we're concerned about the patriot act, I feel like this is widely over looked.

Fiscal Equality - It's obvious he was playing the middle class, by discussing tax cuts for them while repealing tax cuts for the weathly. Personally, I'd rather see both Democrats and Republicans stop pandering to one group or the other, and come out with a system that is fair. Either flat tax, or preferably something like a national sales tax where you are taxed based on what you buy (necessaities excluded).

Iraq/Security - He made reference to inspecting container ships, restoring relationships with allies and trying to bring them in to share the burden. But hell, the other side has this same plan. Neither side that I've seen yet, and certainly wasn't touched on this speech, explained how that was going to occur. Unless of course, Kerry is going to go ahead and open up rescontruction contracts as an way to bring people back in. Which is understandable, just wasn't mentioned.

But I was surprising impressed. I was very impressed at his willingness to reach out across party lines in the speech, which I find rare. I think it helps cement his stance as a moderate.

Oh, and for those who are going to come back to anything I said with the 'well Bush blah blah blah'. This isn't my intent. I just wanted to have a real discussion about Kerry's ideas and speech, not that 'he isn't George Bush'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


He can't take a strong stand on gay rights, the religious right will grill him and he'll lose a lot of potential voters he wants to be open to. I clearly understand this living in a rural southern bible-belt fanatic region and being gay myself.

Regardless - I don't think your vote matters in this election Paul (that is your real name, no?). Georgia is solidly behind Bush and its not a battleground state.

I apparently do live in a quasi-battleground state. Not sure I care anymore.

If Kerry wins, I feel it'll be good for the country, but he won't be able to get anything done. A Republican congress will be there to block everything he tries. It'll be a veto presidency with little results. If Bush is re-elected, its going to be more of the same, the same of which I highly disagree with.

I'm not optimistic at this moment, although I think Kerry has a good shot at winning.

My predictions are this: if Kerry wins, but the congress remains in Republican hands (even if the Senate is gained back - the House stays Rep.) he'll be a one-term president. He won't be able to get anything done, the House will block everything meaningful that he will try. Because of this inaction, the nation won't go anywhere and it'll be anti-Kerry in 2008.

My key issues aren't being tended to - I believe in universal healthcare delivered through a public/private system. Kerry doesn't support fundamental change to the system - he just wants to implement cost savings and government negotiation of prices in Medicare to save money there. I believe in equal rights for all Americans. Gay marriage is too touchy to talk about during a campaign season in a positive manner, let alone get action out of. The war in Iraq is already done. You can't pull out, you can't just make things better. No matter who is president - the killing will continue unless we pull out completely. We can't pull out completely, its too risky to allow Iraq to fall into a bed of terrorism - something it wasn't even under Saddam. Whether we like it or not, Bush made the decision in Iraq and no matter who is president - they are going to have to face the negative consequences and be blamed for it.

Ya know, I don't think the future looks very bright either way. Its just a little better /w Kerry over Bush.

And this is coming from someone with a Kerry bumper sticker on his car... I may be removing the sticker soon. I'm not sure I care enough anymore. I'll still be voting, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have opined elsewhere that Kerry is the most ambiguous candidate in recent memory. It is the fervent hope of he and his handlers that he can eke out a victory on the strength of widespread anti-Bush sentiment without having to reveal many details of his plans and views which might alienate undecideds that he desparatly needs to win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My predictions are this: if Kerry wins, but the congress remains in Republican hands (even if the Senate is gained back - the House stays Rep.) he'll be a one-term president. He won't be able to get anything done, the House will block everything meaningful that he will try. Because of this inaction, the nation won't go anywhere and it'll be anti-Kerry in 2008.

Ya know, I don't think the future looks very bright either way. Its just a little better /w Kerry over Bush.

I'll still be voting, though.

I think that is a sound prediction in terms of a Kerry win.

My disagreement is that I think it will be the other way around. Despite Bush's failures as a president, he is clear in what he stands for, and I think that will get him alot of votes. I don't know what the heck Kerry wants to do except raise my taxes, and maybe he can give me one of those purple hearts? ;)

I agree that the futures doesn't look wonderful either way. Just so long as there is not another attack on America, the economy should roll right along.

Voting is key. If anyone out there thinks there vote doesn't count then you need to wake up. Just think, if a few more people had voted in Florida last go around, we might be listening to a much more monotonous (but no less entertaining) president!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fiscal Equality - It's obvious he was playing the middle class, by discussing tax cuts for them while repealing tax cuts for the weathly. Personally, I'd rather see both Democrats and Republicans stop pandering to one group or the other, and come out with a system that is fair. Either flat tax, or preferably something like a national sales tax where you are taxed based on what you buy (necessaities excluded).

Flat taxes are the way to go. nobody can complain about it not being fair. Everyone pays the same percentage of their income, or whatever you want. If Russia (a former commie!!!) can do this, why can't we? More people than ever paid thier taxes in Russia after they passed it. Flat texes are the most fair way to me.

Sales taxes are another good option. If you have a high income, you buy more, you pay more. Pretty striaght forward stuff.

--------

I never saw Kerry's speech, but i did see Edwards's speech. he did a good job. He is a good speaker, and definately a rising democrat (if he isnt on the winning side this time).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest donaltopablo

Flat taxes are the way to go. nobody can complain about it not being fair. Everyone pays the same percentage of their income, or whatever you want. If Russia (a former commie!!!) can do this, why can't we? More people than ever paid thier taxes in Russia after they passed it. Flat texes are the most fair way to me.

Sales taxes are another good option. If you have a high income, you buy more, you pay more. Pretty striaght forward stuff.

We could have a whole thread on this. I definitely like the national sales tax, since I don't have a problem with the rich paying more of the tax burden, as long as it's fair.

Voting is key. If anyone out there thinks there vote doesn't count then you need to wake up. Just think, if a few more people had voted in Florida last go around, we might be listening to a much more monotonous (but no less entertaining) president!

:lol: No doubt. It's people who always think someone elses (or there own) vote doesn't count that causes nearly elections to be lost.

As for GA being republican, maybe the democrats just don't deliver a message GA want to hear anymore. I will remind you we have our first republican governor in 100 years here, always democrats before that. There are lots of democrats here...

And oh yeah, I guess it real is anyone but Bush. I was just trying to have a discussion about Kerry's ideas and plans....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To think means to go with what is right at the moment. Therefore I support a thinking president, rather then a dogmatic person who can't admit when he's wrong.

Good point. Go with the demogogue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand the compulsion to soak the rich, the envy and all that, but taxing the top 1% is not going to fund Kerry's initiatives as I understand them.

Maybe this is why he will not reveal his financial plans until after the election, if he is elected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flat taxes are the way to go. nobody can complain about it not being fair. Everyone pays the same percentage of their income, or whatever you want. If Russia (a former commie!!!) can do this, why can't we? More people than ever paid thier taxes in Russia after they passed it. Flat texes are the most fair way to me.

Sales taxes are another good option. If you have a high income, you buy more, you pay more. Pretty striaght forward stuff.

--------

I never saw Kerry's speech, but i did see Edwards's speech. he did a good job. He is a good speaker, and definately a rising democrat (if he isnt on the winning side this time).

You couldn't be more wrong. High sales taxes hit the poor far more then the rich.

And you know - Bush flip flops with the best.

If Bush wins, it will be a sad day for the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With 1/2 trillion dollar deficits now, (remember these are unprecidented in the country's history) the tax increases are coming no matter who is president. You have to decide if you want a President who will place this burden on the lower 90% of the population or the top 1% who got most of the tax cut in the first place. The Chinese are not going to loan us money forever.

Remember when Clinton left office the projection was that the government would have a $250B dollar surplus this year. It has been squandered by Bush on the War and the give aways to the rich now we are are going to have to pay. The economy is slowing down again BTW as the effects of the above give away are dying off.

A monotonous President who has a handle on english and can read is fine with me. We would not be in Iraq now if the Supreme Court had not decided the election.

People always talk about the tax cuts for the rich. But you know, no matter how you slice it, the rich will get more money back everytime. Here is an interesting piece of trivia for you: the top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of all income taxes. The people who pay the most taxes will always get more money back because they pay a higher percentage of their income, and pay more real dollars. They actually get less money back in terms of a percentage. Thats why I like the flat tax idea. Its totally fair to everyone.

The Chinese don't actually loan us money. This is just legal stuff. They just kinda give the government an excuse to make up more money. The Chinese aren't that well off. Also remember that while the numbers in the deficit are high, the debt is not out of line with past debt relative to the current size of the economy.

If the tax cuts stay, people will have more of their own money to keep for themselves and do with as they please. Over time this will create a better economy. I would much rather keep my money that i earned than have the government raie taxes, then give me tax credits towards __________ . Whatever you want to put in there, its just not right. I resent the fact that the government thinks it can just tell me what to do with my money like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest donaltopablo

You couldn't be more wrong. High sales taxes hit the poor far more then the rich.

That's not true in this case. Most national sales tax plans exclude that tax for need to live items. If they are 'truly' poor, i.e. struggling to support a family and put food on the table, they will pay almost no tax. If they are some 30 year old living at home with mom and dad spending their under 20K salary TVs and car, they will get taxed heavily.

I would not support a national sales tax plan that does not include no tax for need to live items.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People always talk about the tax cuts for the rich. But you know, no matter how you slice it, the rich will get more money back everytime. Here is an interesting piece of trivia for you: the top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of all income taxes. The people who pay the most taxes will always get more money back because they pay a higher percentage of their income, and pay more real dollars. They actually get less money back in terms of a percentage. Thats why I like the flat tax idea. Its totally fair to everyone.

The Chinese don't actually loan us money. This is just legal stuff. They just kinda give the government an excuse to make up more money. The Chinese aren't that well off. Also remember that while the numbers in the deficit are high, the debt is not out of line with past debt relative to the current size of the economy.

If the tax cuts stay, people will have more of their own money to keep for themselves and do with as they please. Over time this will create a better economy. I would much rather keep my money that i earned than have the government raie taxes, then give me tax credits towards __________ . Whatever you want to put in there, its just not right. I resent the fact that the government thinks it can just tell me what to do with my money like that.

Spartan, you miss the point.

As Democrats, the platform is to KEEP the tax burden that way so that the top 50% pay the vast majority of taxes. Republicans want to reverse that so that the top 50% of tax payers pay far less then that.

The one thing that is misunderstood about Democrats/liberals and taxes is that we also want to simplify taxes. You can simplify taxes without going to a national sales tax and/or flat tax.

You know what - you may find this surprising as I'm very liberal, so much so that the Democrats are too conservative for me many times - but I believe we should simplify the tax system.

I also believe in a graduated progressive income tax. You want to know why? Because we can't pay for the services demanded without it - unless we unleash very high taxes on lower brackets. It is estimated that with a flat tax, the flat tax rate to fund current services would have to be no less than 30%, and that the front end exemption couldn't go over several thousand dollars. We'd still be running a deficit under the current budget plans under Bush, remind you! So really the flat tax rate would have to be above 30% to balance Bush's budgets.

I disagree with taxing those with incomes under $50,000 at a rate of 30% for this reason: the average household income is only $40,000 in this country. The bottom 50% of income earners would be paying a far higher margin of their income into taxes under a flat tax scheme. This discourages consumer spending (consumer spending makes up 2/3rds of the GDP, if you are wondering), particularly hurtful for small businesses.

Taxing people that make under $30,000 at this rate, even with an exemption of a few thousand dollars, would leave far less money to invest into better housing, needed items. People who make under $40-50,000 a year generally spend every dime of income they get, at least what they don't invest into retirement savings or etc.

Its *VERY POSSIBLE* that if a flat tax were implemented, and the taxes would shifted to a lower end of the spectrum, that total GDP growth would actually be negative until the economy adjusted to the new tax bracket and gross consumer spending ability. With the negative consumption, there would have to be an adjustment which would cost thousands (or even millions) of jobs - particularly small business jobs. After this adjustment, it would stabilize. But we'd have a set-back where the economy got smaller before it started to grow again. The shock would cause major job losses, and government would start running enormous deficits.

I've studied economics enough to know that it will greatly damage the economy to tax the lower end this much. A flat tax is simply bad for the economy - unless you cut the government into a libertarian style military-only and judicial-only system. Maybe you understand what I'm saying, maybe you don't - but that's my position.

The vast, vast majority of American's don't agree with going to a real libertarian form of government - mind you.

Spartan... as well as others... tell me what you think abotu this:

You know what kind of simplified tax code I'd support?

Trash all current tax codes - all of it, isn't it up to many thousands of pages? 20, 30, 40+ thousand?? That is rediculous.

Start with a progressive scaled income tax system that simply states the basics:

Front end exemption of $10,000 for singles, $20,000 for married couples (benefits should be extended to gay couples in my opinion of course)

$0-$40,000 of income is taxed at a rate of 5%

$40,000-$80,000 taxed at 10%

$80,000-$200,000 taxed at 25%

$200,000-$300,000 taxed at 35%

$300,000+ taxed at 45% (until we stabilize and finish the war in Iraq, this is NEEDED to keep deficits from running)

Note: why do I pick these particular numbers? The average househole income in the USA is approximately $40,000. The lower 50% of the people would be paying a very low proportion of the tax revenue government gets - hence why I've picked $40,000 as the first super-low tax bracket. Of that, the first $10k isn't even taxed - $20k for couples. Congress would have to readjust the numbers every few years to adjust the brackets according to the new median income averages of course.

Of course another page or two should be dedicated to a corporate income tax and investment/investment income tax.

Add a simple clause that says if you want to invest into a retirement savings account, that can be tax deductible. Same for a medical savings account - of course I think more comprehensive medical reform is also needed, but that's a separate issue.

Bottom line - you could make a progressive income tax code that is simplified into barely 5 pages if they wanted.

That's my idea of tax reform. A front end $10,000 deduction, $20k for couples. Using the brackets above to measure income taxes. NO other exemptions, credits, special loopholes allowed. Straight up and simple.

Last word: Democrats believe in a simplified tax system just as much as Republicans and hardcore libertarians. We just believe in a different type of tax system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, Spartan, here is why you are greatly mistaking when you say the rich would pay more under a sales tax. BTW, I'm not 100% opposed to a sales tax either, but I don't support one unless we see a government benefit coming from it, such as universal healthcare insurance.

When I studied basic economics, we took it from an economic standpoint - not a partisan standpoint. The facts state the following:

People who make less then the median income average - roughly $40,000 of household income - tend to spend every dime in order to pay bills. It isn't any small percent - its the vast, vast majority.

Those with incomes starting around $30-40,000 a year (singles can easily save at $30,000 a year if you don't have a family to support) are able to save some of that in retirement funds thus it isn't taxed. Obviously no sales taxes will be paid on that.

When you start getting into $100, $200, $300k income tax brackets - where real wealth begins - a majority of people's incomes aren't spent in sales taxes. They spend the most sales taxes when they purchase one-time items such as automobiles, but they generally don't have to buy anymore toilet paper then a poor person. They may buy higher grades of food, higher grades of services, etc - but they won't be spending half their income. They tend to purchase things such as homes/property, stocks, bonds, etc.

None of this is taxed with a sales tax. Particularly investments.

A person with annual income of $1 million will be spending more in sales taxes then a poor person for sure, but a majority of their money is tied up in investments, property (homes), and savings. They don't pay a high percentage of their income in sales taxes.

Sales taxes are regressive - since the lower end of the scale spends all their money from paycheck to paycheck - when sales taxes are high - they get soaked more.

Again, it goes back to consumer spending. When the lower 50% of incomes spends more in taxes, it lowers consumption rates, hurts small business particularly.

Same deal all over again.

This is why progressive taxes are good. It clings to the "ability to pay" model in where if you have more ability to pay taxes, you should pay your share so that lower income folks have more expendable income to make the whole pie (economy) bigger. Therefore the rich will theoretically get even richer because if they keep being productive - they will make more money.

There's two types of rich people - those who get rich by inheritance, winning money (lottery), and etc. They don't really work or have a job, they are just rich.

Then there are those who get money from making products, services, running a business, trading stocks and investing their money.

A flat tax system encourages inheritance, no-work wealth. It does not protect growth of the economy.

A progressive tax system encourages active-working wealth - encourages the economy to actually grow. Flat taxes actually HURT active-working wealth because it constricts the majority of people against spending their money as they wish. When the lower 2/3rd's can spend more money - it grows the entire economy, and there is more potential for active-wealth seekers to make even more.

Does any of this make sense?

Part of what I'm promoting is Keynesian economics which began in the 1930's. Its more or less what we've been operating on ever since the progressive revolution began in the early 1900's. The New Deal programs really started it, although Woodrow Wilson's progressive reforms in the 1910's also started some of this type of thinking - a lot of which got trashed in the 1920s and led to the depression.

That's yet another thing I could start talking about - without government involvement, we risk having another depression. If our government didn't have as much power as it did in 2001, we could have fallen into another 1930's depression instead of a simple recession.

This is why I am very much against libertarian/conservative economic "reform" ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does any of this make sense?

It does make sense- I don't have time to read everything and reply now, so stay tuned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, just so you know, I don't think you are "wrong" on everything. I just pointed out that you are wrong with the idea that sales taxes mean the rich pay more - its factually inaccurate to say that. The rich pay far less in taxes under a high sales tax scheme.

I do disagree with your viewpoint on taxes though, for the reasons I stated above. LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, there is one particular caveat with what I said about a flat tax protecting no-work wealth.

This is not true when you have a bare-bones government that does not need 30% of a tax bracket.

Again - if you are a genuine libertarian, then it would work. You'll just have to get rid of almost all the government - including abolishing the Department of Education, abolishing the Energy Department, abolishing Health and Human Services.. ALL of it. You'd have to scale back to only the military and law enforcement (judiciary).

That's the ONLY circumstance under which a flat tax would work - but I disagree with a libertarian classical viewpoint of the economy because poverty rates skyrocket, the economy is proned to depressions - and generally unstability. The economy could boom (such as the 1920s) then go into a major bust (1930s) literally overnight.

A hundred years ago we didn't have lots of practice. Now that we have seen both a classical libertarian and progressive keynesian economy compared to one another - I think its pretty clear we don't want a judicial and military only government.

Too much poverty, too much unstability and depression-proned after an economic boom.

If you study economic history, you'll learn that we had severe recessions and worker abuses repeatedly throughout the late 1800's leading up to the 1910 progressive bull moose era. Then when libertarian thought took back over in the 1920's, it happened all over again in the 1930's. There's a reason why the economy - even in recession - has been tame and mild ever since the New Deal and Great Society era. Just study the past, or hell - study the present. Mexico has tiny tax revenue system that conforms to what we were like before our Keynesian reforms. Would you like to move there considering the working conditions?? There's a reason why Mexicans are jumping the border in droves. I think, if I remember correctly, the Mexican tax system heavily penalizes the low end - doesn't tax the high end much at all - and government is only a mere 15% of the GDP (as opposed to over 30% of the GDP here in the USA being government related). There's examples all around you - both past history lessons and present day situations alike - of why classical libertarian economics is a FAILURE.

You may be surprised, but poverty rates today are nothing what they were before the Great Society. All these liberal programs are rumored to have failed - but generally speaking they've worked tremendously in my opinion. True - its being abused now, but reform has been occuring ever since Clinton signed the welfare-to-work law that abolished Aid to Families with Dependent Children and created Temporary Assistance to Needy Families.

"Welfare" goes well beyond TANF anyway. That's not even 1% of the federal budget (little do anti-welfare voters know). "Welfare" such as student grants and loans (which I take advantage of), healthcare through Medicaid/Medicare, and other programs like this do a tremendous job of helping people help themselves. That's the key thing - the majority of so-called "welfare" programs are not handouts like TANF. Most programs are genuinely trying to help people to be independent and productive, which in turn makes the pie bigger overall regarding the economy.

The best example is helping people get an education - when you subsidize education (something many Republicans are against, actually. The current congressional Republican leadership has many times proposed abolishing the Federal Department of Education - they give out all those grants and student loans - the reason they don't pass the proposal is because there's still enough Democrats in congress to fillibuster and block it), once a person graduates from college - their disposable income over their lifetime becomes much, much greater. This in turn more then pays for itself in terms of more tax revenue, more consumption in the private economy. The entire economy grows vs. no government program here to subsidize it.

In a state like Mexico, or the USA in 1900 - education was more of a priviledge, and public systems were piss poor. Today in modern America, after our "damn welfare state" has been put in place as many libertarians put it, we have far more people helping themselves, growing the economy as a result, and in turn a higher educated populace.

My own opinion is that its pathetic we have to discuss this issue and argue in sake of keeping things like the Dept. of Education. This day in age, we're having to reteach my generation - which has no concept of real poverty - the reason why these programs were put in place, and what's caused so much economic success over the decades of time.

America seems to be headed backwards in my opinion - too much religious fundamentalism being introduced into government operations in social policy, and economic policy that wishes to return us to a libertarian system with no basic level of economic security that helps people help themselves. I agree with any libertarian that there can be excesses - but that's why you reform instead of abolish things like the Dept. of Education and Medicare/Medicaid. Reforming doesn't mean privatizing by gov't contracting, then refusing to put cost controls on those privatization techniques to keep your corporate buddies happy and supporting your candidacy. Hint hint...

I could ramble all day..... This is just how I see the world guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I like the idea of a national sales tax (excluding "necessary" items). It would put an end to all the class warfare that income taxes provoke. Also, it would reward those who are frugal with their money, and punish those who are hyper-consumeristic. Are you a trophy wife who rents a limousine every day and takes all your friends shopping at upscale retail stores? Cha-ching! Are you living in the projects, and unable to provide (tax-free) food for your kids because you just had to buy those 22" rims for your car? Cha-ching! Are you a spoiled teenager who has free access to mommy and daddy's credit cards? Cha-ching! Conversely, are you an overly permissive parent who lets your kids have everything they want? Cha-ching!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you imagine the sticker shock we would go through if we enacted a national sales tax? What would the tax rate be anyway? 30%? Native Americans would go from selling cigarrettes to cars, tv's and furniture.

I think we do well enough to revamp the tax code and cut most if not all the deductions. Let's get spending under control then we can think about lowering taxes again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spartan... as well as others... tell me what you think abotu this:

You know what kind of simplified tax code I'd support?

Trash all current tax codes - all of it, isn't it up to many thousands of pages? 20, 30, 40+ thousand?? That is rediculous.

Start with a progressive scaled income tax system that simply states the basics:

Front end exemption of $10,000 for singles, $20,000 for married couples (benefits should be extended to gay couples in my opinion of course)

$0-$40,000 of income is taxed at a rate of 5%

$40,000-$80,000 taxed at 10%

$80,000-$200,000 taxed at 25%

$200,000-$300,000 taxed at 35%

$300,000+ taxed at 45% (until we stabilize and finish the war in Iraq, this is NEEDED to keep deficits from running)

heckles, you wrote alot of stuff, and I have tried to reply to it all section by section, but intsead I'll hit a few kep points-

I will concede that I had not thought of the impacts of the flat tax. I still think that ideally, thats how it should be- but in reality, that is not the best choice. The fact is that our tax code in America is very very complex. It creates problems just due to its length (like you said- thousands of pages). I see no reason why it shouldn't be one or two pages.

Your tax brackets are simple, and I like that. I don't think that anyone should have 45% of their income taken by the government (this setup excludes prperty taxes right?). People who have higher incomes will most likely pay more in property taxes, and I don't see why its necessary to tax them so much. I don't like the idea that "the rich can afford it, so tax them."

No credits, exemptions, etc is kind of extreme. These things encourage giving to charity, and they encourage businesses to buy things to expand.

Add a simple clause that says if you want to invest into a retirement savings account, that can be tax deductible. Same for a medical savings account

I can agree with that.

A flat tax system encourages inheritance, no-work wealth.

That's yet another thing I could start talking about - without government involvement, we risk having another depression. If our government didn't have as much power as it did in 2001, we could have fallen into another 1930's depression instead of a simple recession.

This is why I am very much against libertarian/conservative economic "reform" ...

I won't start on what I think of the Death tax- double taxation. (AKA- "Estate Tax")

Believe it or not, I know that the goverment has fail-safes to insure that a depression on the scale of the 1930s wont happen again. I respect that the government does need certain control over things, but I believe that it is possible to implement a system of government that doesn't require a bureaucracy to translate for a regular guy. In my view, Democrats are more quick to make that happen that Republicans (Not to say that Republicans don't do it! :angry: )

America seems to be headed backwards in my opinion - too much religious fundamentalism being introduced into government operations in social policy...

What???????????? There is too much of the exact opposite! Too much political correctness. Too much sensitivity on everyone's part. Too much division (hypenated Americans). Our laws are founded on Judeo-Christian ideology, but we can't say "under God" in the pledge anymore, because it might offend someone.

-People need to get a grip. Everything offends people, and then they sue over it.

There will always be classes, and "class warfare." Even communism, which tried to eliminate it, did not succeed. The rulers just lived in luxury at the citizens expense. Humans require classes. People need goals to strive for. In America, that goal, overall, is to become wealthy. That is what drives us. That is why we are so successful- in order to become wealthy you have to be educated, you have to be skillful, creative, etc. People have to better themselves to get what they want. Not only are classes necessary, but they benefit society.

Check out China- They are communitst, but they have had to let in some capitalism in order to survive. People can actually own private businesses in Communist China.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What???????????? There is too much of the exact opposite! Too much political correctness. Too much sensitivity on everyone's part. Too much division (hypenated Americans). Our laws are founded on Judeo-Christian ideology, but we can't say "under God" in the pledge anymore, because it might offend someone.

-People need to get a grip. Everything offends people, and then they sue over it.

Why should I have to say "under god"?

I agree somewhat with your point, but I don't see what that has to do with it. It does offend me and my opinion that church and state are sepparate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.