Who will you vote for?

[Cotuit]

Russia has its own problems.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Speaking of Russia, I saw an interview with Gorbie the other day, I'm thinking of starting a write-in campaign for him.

[monsoon]

[MathNerd05]

If John Stewart or Rudolph Guilliani ran for president, I would vote for either in a heartbeat.

[Spartan]

[vote griffin]

[Cotuit]

[vote griffin]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

?

[BrandonTO416]

I voted already in early voting, starting this week here in Tennessee. I voted for Kerry/Edwards.

[josita]

I am not sure who I will vote for yet.

My political ideologies lean towards the left, but I don't really like Kerry. But the alternative IS evil. He is.

I think that it is really interesting that the whole election is turning around to be an issue about the war in Iraq. That in itself saddens me to think that we are not voting for the candidate who will better protect us from the terrorist network. Who is that candidate? They aren't running for office this year. The real problem isn't in Iraq -- Iraq was not an immenient threat. Did this administration stop to really think and ask themselves WHY we were attacked on 9/11? I don't think anyone in the government can give us a straight answer. That is where we should of started and answered before spending billions on creating guns, bombs, planes, and all that comes with paying for a war.

But this administration's answer was bombs and guns. Bush HAS NOT captured 60% the terroists because they are more being born each day.

The real issues should be surrounding our own problems at home, the deficit, the pension fund that will be going bust in a few years, health care, education, jobs.

And those who believe that they are getting a tax cut are right. But try to think about the tax rate structure. Is the fair? Is this equitable? Someone making 30,000 a year will probably get a tax cut of about, hm say $30? ANd the one making 500,000? Can someone answer that for me?

[monsoon]

[Spartan]

?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

you got it.

[BrandonTO416]

monsoon, the fact is that we're debating the wrong argument. Republicans are good at setting the argument, such as making the argument that lower taxes for business means more money for businesses to hire people. How can you argue that?

Yet the problem is that the top, top corporations evade the entire tax system altogether with their special loopholes.

You can't argue these points very eloquently in 30-90 second debate bits. All you can do is say that the working class needs a tax cut and the rich need to be taxed more, which doesn't come across very well at all. Especially when the rates themselves are set to where the rich supposedly pay a higher rate, the problem is that the most powerful among us evade taxes altogether. It also has nothing to do with small business, which the President so strongly misled us to believe in the debates.

[M. Brown]

Kerry for me...He seems much more presidential

[Spartan]

monsoon, the fact is that we're debating the wrong argument. Republicans are good at setting the argument, such as making the argument that lower taxes for business means more money for businesses to hire people. How can you argue that?

Yet the problem is that the top, top corporations evade the entire tax system altogether with their special loopholes.

You can't argue these points very eloquently in 30-90 second debate bits. All you can do is say that the working class needs a tax cut and the rich need to be taxed more, which doesn't come across very well at all. Especially when the rates themselves are set to where the rich supposedly pay a higher rate, the problem is that the most powerful among us evade taxes altogether. It also has nothing to do with small business, which the President so strongly misled us to believe in the debates.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Most of my state is emplayed by small/medium businesses. A benefit to them would benefit the majority of people here. Do you honestly believe that most companies evade their taxes? I don't claim that some companies don't or that loopholes don't exist, but don't you think that most companies want to avoid intrusions from the government? Seems to me it would still be better to try to benefit them, rather than penalize them. I agree that tax loopholes need to be found and closed. The reason you can't argue that point is because its one of the truest points out there. The fact is that if a company has more money at their disposal, they are more likely to invest in a new product, service, or employment, all of which contribute directly to the economy. You can't really argue against it.

[BrandonTO416]

Spartan, I'm talking about mega-corporations, not small business. Its easy to discern between the two.

Don't you think that lower energy costs, lower healthcare costs, and better policy in other areas equates to just as much of an economic boost as a small tax cut?

You can't really argue against that. Bush supporters and right-wing economists really don't take entire situations into context. They focus on overly simplified scenarios, which is apparent each time I hear from one.

If you want to dumb it down, here goes:

Money is a means of exchange. Wealth is not the active exchange of currency.

When the wealthy stack away money in accounts that goes unused, it does nothing for the economy.

Taxing ultra-wealthy people pushes that money into the economy in the form of government job wages/salaries, or contract spending which goes through the private sector in much of the same way.

The money is then spent into the economy, and those who benefit most are active-business owners. Especially small business where people shop at for services and goods.

Ever heard of trickle-up economics? It makes more sense then trickle-down.

If your business is providing a good service at a competitive rate, then you'll survive in a system where you are taxed fairly and can operate your business just fine. If there is no demand for your product or service, you die.

Its that simple.

I believe in low, fair taxes. On the other hand, we need taxes to fund needed services. And in order to do that, I believe in taxing wealth more then the working classes because they spend every dime they make back into the economy.

My ideology is based on a keynesian economic policy rather then the classical "anti-government at all costs" view which most economists seem to support nowadays.

Government supporting a capitalist economy will always be stronger then a capitalist economy with no support.

I go back to my earlier statements: sky high healthcare costs, skyrocketing energy costs alone have undone any potential benefits the Bush tax cuts have given us. Government has the bargaining and law power to change these things. Classical libertarians don't believe the gov't has a role, I do, along with every other intelligent economist out there.

Remember all those stock brokers who told you to buy DOT.COM stocks in the 90's. They were idiots. They didn't even look at the company to see if they had profits and a product in huge demand. Those idiots tend to be dumbass libertarians who want to make a quick buck and not pay attention to detail and reality.

You see what happened to the DOT.COM'ers eh?

To put it in most simplistic terms, this simplistic, short sighted view is what Bush economic policy is doing to our national well-being. "Tax cuts" don't automatically work when you have no other types of policy to back up what your goal is. Sounds nice though to label the opponent as a tax and spender while you believe in letting people decide for themselves. That's why Republicans get elected: dumb arguments and 5 second sound bites that work.

[cityboi]

Kerry seems like he will make more stable decisions then Bush. Kerry thinks things through and I dont think he would have drove us in Iraq without a plan to win the peace. Daddy Bush backed out from taking out Saddam because he knew that too.

[paulblackgsx]

Ahh nevermind.....

Yep, we need to tax those who make money, give it to the middle class. That will solve all of our problems.

[MathNerd05]

Why not just a 7% or 8% tax across the board? That would generate lots more money than we currently make and would eliminate most arguments over class. Regardless, everyone would pay the same percentage or their income.

(Just go with the oversimplification. )

[BrandonTO416]

Ahh nevermind.....

Yep, we need to tax those who make money, give it to the middle class.

[BrandonTO416]

Why not just a 7% or 8% tax across the board? That would generate lots more money than we currently make and would eliminate most arguments over class. Regardless, everyone would pay the same percentage or their income.

(Just go with the oversimplification. )

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A flat rate income tax of 8% simply will not pay for government services, that would require cutting out most government programs.

A flat rate income tax of 8% could happen, but:

*You would have to be willing to completely eliminate the Department of Education (including all grant/loan programs)

*The Food and Drug administration could not hire inspectors to test food products at food factories around the nation, it would be limited mostly to approval of drugs.

*The Department of Energy would have to be abolished, and all federalized corporations would have to run independent of tax money (such as TVA).

*All farm subsidies would have to be ended, no questions asked

*Government research for diseases and prevention through the National Institutes of Health as well as the CDC would have to be ended.

*You would have to vastly reduce infrastructure spending through the Department of Transportation. States would have to be responsible for funding their Interstate reconstruction programs, and obviously public transit would be hurting badly.

A matter of fact, with an 8% income tax about the only things you could fund would be the exploding Department of Defense with little else left over, and I don't think anyone wants to cut the Department of Defense at this time and stage - me included.

[paulblackgsx]

I did listen. You clearly stated, tax wealth (most wealth of course, has already been taxed once on income tax) to help pay for the programs to benefit the middle class and generate jobs through government.

Taxing ultra-wealthy people pushes that money into the economy in the form of government job wages/salaries, or contract spending which goes through the private sector in much of the same way.

Not communist, socialist.

None of that solves the real problem that has hit our economy since the 90s. In fact, you don't even need to be economist, to look at the trend that started in 2000. Consumers makes up 2/3 of the economy (non-government)... but they are still spending (and spending themselves into debt I might add). So what's missing? That's where improvement needs to come. And taxing wealth, not taxing wealth, middle class programs, etc aren't the other 1/3.

But what needs to fix that last 1/3 won't happen. Because it's not popular, it doesn't win votes.

Government does create wealth, right wingers do not believe this concept. Who do you think authorizes the Fed to print money? What do you think government workers do with their money? Save it all and never invest or buy products?

Yes it does. Politicans use the potential wealth of the government to buy votes. Conservatives mainly through business deals, liberals historically through hand outs. Neither solves the problem. Bill Gates getting richer won't solve our economic problems, and neither will gas being $1.50 instead of $2.00.

[BrandonTO416]

You mean to tell me that job training programs, educational spending, infrastructure, and economic development are just handouts? I don't believe you are taking into account the full picture.

[paulblackgsx]

You mean to tell me that job training programs, educational spending, infrastructure, and economic development are just handouts? I don't believe you are taking into account the full picture.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sure I am. These programs are all very noble. What's the discussion here, I'm going to take away from these comments:

That rising costs in a weak economy is hurting our middle class.

sky high healthcare costs, skyrocketing energy costs alone have undone any potential benefits the Bush tax cuts have given us. Government has the bargaining and law power to change these things. Classical libertarians don't believe the gov't has a role, I do, along with every other intelligent economist out there.

To put it in most simplistic terms, this simplistic, short sighted view is what Bush economic policy is doing to our national well-being. "Tax cuts" don't automatically work when you have no other types of policy to back up what your goal is. Sounds nice though to label the opponent as a tax and spender while you believe in letting people decide for themselves.

Now, to my point specifically. Our nation could always use improved education and educational programs. Infrastructure does create some jobs and can lead to certain types of job growth. But these do not provide relief to high costs, nor do they provide any immedate impact to our economy. In fact, they are slower to benefit our economy than tax cuts. But there is something our economy could have, that generates jobs, income growth (the #1 way to combat rising costs without entering into a system where the benefits of those cost increases are lost - in this case I'm refering specifically to health care). Do we need to help people with Health Care? Absolutely! But there is more than one way to accomplish this, and it doesn't have to be 100% done by government policy.

No you won't hear me defending Bush's economic policy. But that's because, as I said, what's missing from the 90s economy is still missing, both Kerry and Bush missed it. And I'll give ya a hint, it ain't infrastructure, education, tax cuts. But hey, if you don't know what it is, then I guess I'm not the only one not looking at the big picture. Because I wasn't, I'm comment was as shortsighted as yours on a specific couple of issues that were mentioned.

If you want to bring the educational problems of our work force into this, that's fine, but that has little to do with the current state of the economy as a whole, or the rising costs. That is aimed squarely at an individual group of people.

[monsoon]

[BrandonTO416]

On healthcare, its obvious that the government cannot handle everything. But government has an obligation to set policy and insure people who can't find healthcare via any other means. Promoting lower cost is the key to keeping government spending under control.

[paulblackgsx]

On healthcare, its obvious that the government cannot handle everything. But government has an obligation to set policy and insure people who can't find healthcare via any other means. Promoting lower cost is the key to keeping government spending under control.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would certainly agree with that statement. But I still don't see how that relates to tax increase, since I could think of a couple of ways to lower healthcare costs without increasing government size or spending.

[monsoon]