IRS Rebate Thread Offshoot

[MTBMaven]

Originally Posted by drclark

I think it is ironic that some people are touting the fact that the two dem. are both minority classes (female, african american) shows how far America has come yet when a candidate expresses their religious (which is also a protected category) views it give everyone the hee-bee-gee-bees (both Romney who is Moron and Huckabee). I suppose it would be different if Huckabee was a muslim or other non-christian religion.

I don't think it's ironic. I think it's unamerican to build a platform around one's religious views. This country was founded by people fleeing religious persecution. Now they happened to be religious but they wanted to practice their religion without government intervention. American doesn't need a government which uses one particular set of religious values to set laws, enforce existing laws, or set foreign policy.

The fact that in 2008 we have one of the first viable opportunities to have a black or woman president is sad. But hey at least it's happening.

[Abui]

Originally Posted by el_d00der1n0

How they feel about the Iraq mess gives some indication of how they will likely deal with Iran, et al.

They don't address the Iraq mess, only the past.
Their view of a world without an Iraq war is a fantasy, you might as well fantasize about the South winning the Civil War (and the consequences).

That's the genius of campaigning on the past. The candidates know you will convert your "feelings" about them into a positive. They never have to answer the hard questions with answers that would lose votes.

[MTBMaven]

Oh BTW I do like reading opinions from other even when I don't agree with them. It helps to see where other people are coming from. A healthy debate about issues is rare these days. Thanks for sharing.

[stinkyrider]

Originally Posted by MTBMaven

I don't think it's ironic. I think it's unamerican to build a platform around one's religious views. This country was founded by people fleeing religious persecution. Now they happened to be religious but they wanted to practice their religion without government intervention. American doesn't need a government which uses one particular set of religious values to set laws, enforce existing laws, or set foreign policy.

The fact that in 2008 we have one of the first viable opportunities to have a black or woman president is sad. But hey at least it's happening.

Have you forgotten that this country was founded by religious prudes?
In fact, they were such prudes that even the English didn't want them.

[allison]

Also enjoying the healthy discussion.. and the fact that it hasn't even gotten close to out of hand..

I'm really not paying attention to the candidates at the moment (I hate politics and don't like any of them that are running, but didn't last time around either), so it's good to get the info!

Thanks!

[el_d00der1n0]

Originally Posted by Caveman

They don't address the Iraq mess, only the past.
Their view of a world without an Iraq war is a fantasy, you might as well fantasize about the South winning the Civil War (and the consequences).

That's the genius of campaigning on the past. The candidates know you will convert your "feelings" about them into a positive. They never have to answer the hard questions with answers that would lose votes.

What I mean is, if they think it's right that we went there, they'll probably have a list of other military campaigns they'd like to do in the area.

The real debate we should be having is Linux vs. BSD.

[lmnop]

Ron Paul for Prez! seriously

[Fired Yo Momma]

You know if Hillary got into office my boy Billy is going to tell his old lady to step aside and me handle this for ya baby. I loved Bill Clinton. I really hope Hillary loses the Democratic nomination. To me she just just looks like she can't handle the preasure and I have been following a bit of the debates and she brings out dirty political practices.

I am going to go out on a limb and I know I will get quite a bit of backlash on this especially from the girls here but I really don't want a women as the commander and chief and President of these United States. My point is simple the majority of women are very emotional thinkers. To me and this is just my opinion I don't want a emotional, too sensitive person running the most powerful country in the world. At this time in the state of world affairs (middle eastern Muslim countrys) they don't show the respect to a women that they would show to a man. I am not 100% opposed to a women as a President but that women is going to have to be strong and stable.

Now let the roasting begin! Muaaaahahaha!!!!

Oh and if Hillary gets elected President I am moving to either Canada or South America. I don't want to be here when she P.O the wrong person (North Koreans or the Pakis) and we end up getting nuked.

[agenthaas]

I too am voting for Ron Paul in the primary. I doubt that he will win the Republican nomination though

[Abui]

Originally Posted by MTBMaven

I totally applicate your comments and agree whole heartedly. Though I will never vote for Huckabee. I think he is the last thing this country needs. I have NOTHING against his religious views and respect him highly as a person. I think he actually is a true believer in the Christian values he preaches; unlike the wolf in sheep's clothing we have in office now - who IMO is a huge hypocrite. But this country does not need someone with such extreme religious views and wants to legislate morality. That is not what this country is about. I feel it sets us on a path no different that many Muslim states. While not as extreme as an Afghanistan under the Taliban mind you.

I did find your link with information on the "FairTax", which is nothing more than a euphemism for Flat Tax, quite interesting. It's not like big corporations pay taxes now so that's a wash. I found the MIT study showing our current tax laws cost the USA 1 billion in lost exports weak and un-compelling. 1 billion, that's it. 1 billion is not much money when considered as a percent of national GDP or annual exports. Hell this government spends that in a day or week in Iraq. I don't want to hear crap about the deficit and how I need to help fix it as long as we are in Iraq. A war we never should have been in to some how keep America safe; meanwhile the real terrorists are running free in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Bahh

I tell you who I do like is McCain. And I'm a liberal Democrat. I like his integrity. I loved his stance against Big Pharma in one of the debates when he called them evil. I thought that was truly rad. I can't say I agree with is position on issues rather I feel like he would be one of the most decent and honest presidents since Carter.

Regardless people...get out there and vote.

Carter was the worst President in history. He brought on hyper-inflation, national malaise, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Ayatollah to Iran, and stood by while Americans we held hostage for 444 days. His only response was to boycott the Olympics and ruin the life-long dream of American athletes.

[lmnop]

Originally Posted by agenthaas

I too am voting for Ron Paul in the primary. I doubt that he will win the Republican nomination though

Yeah, but my vote is about making a statement, and hopefully starting something that will gain momentum. I'm an Independant who usually votes Libertarian, though I have and will vote who certain individuals in the "major" parties that I feel strongly about.

I like the fact that the guy is up there speaking his mind, despite the consequences this may have on his future in politics, and his future in his own party.

[stinkyrider]

[quote=Fired Yo Momma;191184]You know if Hillary got into office my boy Billy is going to tell his old lady to step aside and me handle this for ya baby. I loved Bill Clinton. I really hope Hillary loses the Democratic nomination. To me she just just looks like she can't handle the preasure and I have been following a bit of the debates and she brings out dirty political practices.
quote]

I disagree. I would like to see Hillary sit in the oval office.

I think it would be awesome if Hillary got elected to the presidency and got busted for recieving oral from a 23 year old chubby male intern in the oval office.
I soooo want to see that deposition on CNN some day.

[allison]

Originally Posted by stinkyrider

I disagree. I would like to see Hillary sit in the oval office.

I think it would be awesome if Hillary got elected to the presidency and got busted for recieving oral from a 23 year old chubby male intern in the oval office.
I soooo want to see that deposition on CNN some day.

Uh... right.

Besides, that was totally not a problem.

[reflux]

Several thoughts.

Huckabee is a racist. Gizoogle Huckabee and racism and you'll come up with a few stories on his ties to racism. Great, exactly what this country needs. To polarize this thread even more, Regan was a racist too, albeit not as open with it as the Huckster is.

A good friend of mine was very involved in the Young Republicans back in college. One could say that he had a massive man-crush in Dubya. Anyway, he did some work out in North Carolina after college, near the naval(?) base, for a touch over 1 year. He left a Republican and returned a Democrat. In his words, "Man, I thought I was a real Republican until I went to NC. Dude, they're on a completely different world."

A "Fair Tax" is a very bad idea. I receive a weekly newsletter from John Mauldin and this was included on an email from the prior week
http://www.safehaven.com/article-9206.htm
Fair Tax Nonsense
The only candidate I will specifically mention is Mike Huckabee. His espousal of the Fair Tax demonstrates his lack of understanding of reality and economics. Basically, Fair Tax proponents want a 23% sales tax to replace every type of government tax. No more income, corporate, social security, or Medicare taxes. And everyone gets a $5,000 or so "prebate" which covers the taxes up to the poverty level. What could be simpler or more fair?
No one would like to get rid of the IRS more than I. I spend way too much on accounting for taxes and such. But this is not the way to do it.
First of all, the 23% they talk about is really 30%. Under the proposal, if an item sells for $100, then $23 of that would go to the government (said to be tax-inclusive). That means the item really costs $77 and the tax is an additional $23 or about 30% (said to be the tax-exclusive rate). Add an average 7% for state sales tax and we are now up to 37%. But wait, it gets worse.
That 23% number simply won't produce the revenues they suggest. That assumes the government will pay the tax, so the budget has to go up. It also assumes that there is 100% compliance and everyone pays that 37% (yeah, right - just like they do the income tax). Bruce Bartlett writes this week in the Wall Street Journal:
"A 2000 estimate by Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation found the tax-inclusive rate would have to be 36% and the tax-exclusive rate would be 57%. In 2005, the U.S. Treasury Department calculated that a tax-exclusive rate of 34% would be needed just to replace the income tax, leaving the payroll tax in place. But if evasion were high then the rate might have to rise to 49%. If the Fair Tax were only able to cover the limited sales tax base of a typical state, then a rate of 64% would be required (89% with high evasion)."
44 states have income taxes. They would have to repeal their income taxes and raise their sales taxes in order for individuals not to have to file annual income tax returns.
Do you really want to add 30% to the cost of a new home? And pay an extra 30% in interest on the borrowing price? 30-40% more for your legal services? Do you want your rents to go up 30%? Do you really think that massive evasion would not follow? We would move back to a black market cash economy so fast it would take all of Ben Bernanke's printing presses working overtime to create enough cash for the black market economy.
Yes, in theory it would mean that exports would be priced more competitively, as corporate taxes are removed. The idea as theory is not entirely without merit, but every independent study I have read suggests the number for the tax when combined with state taxes would be north of 40% and maybe more like 50%.
Further, this is a tax hike on the middle class. If you make less than $15,000 you win. If you make more than $200,000 you win, because you actually save more and spend less of your income. This is a nice populist proposal which sounds good but is economically challenged. It only works on someone who has not read about the problems.
Let me give you two links if you want to read more. One is to Bartlett's article and the other is to the people at Fact Check (a very good site for lots of facts on a lot of things) http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010523 and http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinning_the_fairtax.html.
What would I do about tax reform? Dick Armey had it right: flat and low and simple. It seems like every ex-communist country has it figured out. It is just we capitalists that can't get it right.

Oh yeah, the $600 rebates will do nothing more than earn brownie points for politicians. The simple fact is that this economic meltdown has been a long time coming and it signals a new era where the US is nowhere near the econimic (and military) power it has been in the past.

[nappyt]

Originally Posted by el_d00der1n0

The real debate we should be having is Linux vs. BSD.

I typically stay out of things on religion, politics and money but I had to help out the Independent (MAC) voters.

For the undecided MAC voters, BSD is what's under the hood of OS X.

[chauvinist_youth]

Ron Paul, serious business.

[Roadstar_Rider]

Originally Posted by queenwilhelmina

I haven't read about the candidates nearly as much as I'd like to, but what I've read about Huckabee's tax plan sounds incredible.

However, most of his other views disgust me. He wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade, does not support gay marriage, etc. Typical Republican stuff.

I'm a Libertarian and I believe that people should have the freedom to make these choices for themselves. The tax plans sounds great and everything, but I don't think I'd like the direction the country would take with him in office. We really need to get away from all those Puritan values IMO.

I think it's the right thing for the government not to allow gay marriage. I have nothing against gay people, and if they want to be together then so be it, however marriage is a religious institution. You cant say that you want the government to keep religion and governemt seperate, then expect them to make laws on things like gay marriage. It's bad enough that their are all kinds of laws on regular marriage, some I agree with and some I dont, however the ones who should regulate marriage are really the churches. They should make decisions on gay marriage, and regular marriage for all that. Now the government should make some federal laws on a domestic partnership type thing, for gay or non gay couples so that they can have some of or all of the same benefits of bering married.

[SheDevil]

Here's a major no no to admit.... I don't vote!!! I also have no opinion other than if you're an American do your best to support whatever meat puppet is in office Go ahead...start the flaming....I'm use to it XOXO

Oh...but I'll take that rebate Thank you VERY much....that'll put my sram red shifters on