Date: 7/8/2008 6:06:00 AM
From Authorid: 2030
How does lowering taxes and allowing folks to keep money they earned put people out of jobs?  |
Date: 7/8/2008 6:33:00 AM
From Authorid: 51876
I think that it is our duty as americans to vote, at least for President.A protest vote for the Libertarian Barr, at least. Ron Paul would make a great President and Real Change would happen with RP at the helm.It's time to take the country back and realize our Foriegn Policies directly affect our Domestic ones.At least we are finally getting rid of the Mission Accomplishe "Decider".Bush's only saving grace is now the War in Iraq is finally ending.It seems like a ploy to give John McCain crediblity because he was for the surge all along.I am not saying it was planned with that in mind but that the White allowed the situation to progress this way on purpose.Things have gotten surreal.Now the subject of Race is a huge factor again, We have shades of 1963 open in that McCain represents a third term of the Bush legacy and Nixon was for Eisenhower, Obama is Kennedy, the young morally acute and highly intelligent leading a wave of "New ideas and changes" in our overall political driven world.  |
|
Date: 7/8/2008 6:34:00 AM
From Authorid: 51876
White House |
Date: 7/8/2008 6:44:00 AM
From Authorid: 10657
I don't normally talk politics lol. You are always going to find someone that thinks something about the other party that is either wrong or what not. That being said I am a republican and I have to say that I think it may appear that way to you because, we had Clinton in the white house for 8 years and now Bush has been in the white house for 8 years. We remember things as we see them. For most Clinton was a great president and things couldn't have been better however, there were issues in his presidency as well. We will forever remember Bush as the one with countless strikes against him. Given any president or candiate in our history I am sure we can find things wrong with both sides:)  |
Date: 7/8/2008 6:55:00 AM
From Authorid: 10245
I just peeked at The White House's Presidential history page. The bio's are quite brief, but Jr's doesn't give a single line towards anything he's accomplished as President (unless being sworn in twice counts...); it's all about his Governorship of Texas. You'd would think that there would be something positive to toss in there over the course of 8 years. Must be Democrats writing those things ;o)  |
|
Date: 7/8/2008 6:59:00 AM
From Authorid: 10657
Mercury I looked at the president bios too lol and the only notable event for him was 2001 lol. I don't remember how often it gets updated though:D Or if we were even looking at the same site lol! |
|
Date: 7/8/2008 7:02:00 AM
From Authorid: 10245
I'm at the official White House site, and just clicking on the row of photos for the first paragraph of their full bios. The rest are made to seem like total heroes in that first paragraph... even NIXON! LOL |
|
Date: 7/8/2008 7:15:00 AM
From Authorid: 10657
oh lol I was looking at POTUS lol. On POTUS they do list the watergate Scandal and a few other things but, they also neglect to list other notable events with other presidents. Wonder who decides what is notable and what isn't lol? |
|
Date: 7/8/2008 7:20:00 AM
From Authorid: 51876
As I have posted B4, TADA and Mercury, anything that is Bush jr's minutes of meetings, excetra get sequestered immidiatly in his Father's presidential library and unavaliable for Public View.They want to keep all his activiies and conversations sealed.Something smells rotten there.Not everything is kept unavaliable but practicly everything, after all the black sharpies get a hold of it. |
|
Date: 7/8/2008 7:21:00 AM
From Authorid: 10245
This one also included the watergate scandal, but that fact ended the paragraph and was preceded by some good stuff. Condensed version: "George has been sworn in twice as President. Before that he served 6 years as Gov of Texas, where he did all kinds of wonderful things. The end." It does make you wonder. |
|
Date: 7/8/2008 7:24:00 AM
From Authorid: 10245
We had a pig named Nixon when I was a kid ;o) |
Date: 7/8/2008 7:32:00 AM
From Authorid: 15228
Just a question maybe someone can answer for me: How does raising taxes create jobs??  |
|
Date: 7/8/2008 7:42:00 AM
From Authorid: 10245
Taxes are raised and there's more to grant to corporations in order to expand business thus creating jobs (is the theory). It usually works like this, though: higher taxes mean more funds to grant corporations to expand business. Corporations find the best way to expand business is to relocate outside of the country for cheaper labor, which leads to job loss, bigger profits and bigger bonuses for CEOs. |
|
Date: 7/8/2008 7:51:00 AM
From Authorid: 15228
Mercury, what??? If taxes are raised, the money goes to corporations??? I thought in a free market if taxes are lower, corporations could use their OWN money to expand business. but your saying that by raising taxes, you take money from the corporations...and than give it back to the corporations and they will expand there business??? |
|
Date: 7/8/2008 8:06:00 AM
From Authorid: 10245
well... quite often during the course of an economic downturn, the us government will grant waivers of corporate taxes for a term of years. Several years back, I recall one of the Big 3 corporations being granted multiple millions in tax advantages to "save" American jobs for 5 years. What they did was essentially cut those jobs to 1/2 time (extended lay-off periods, rotated with short term full time employment of 3-4 week spurts), stuck the tax payer with the additional burden of providing unemployment for those down weeks and took fat bonuses for the CEOs. At the end of that 5 year term, the jobs were history. It's all a numbers game and you can make the numbers say anything you want when you get creative with your accounting of them. |
|
Date: 7/8/2008 8:07:00 AM
From Authorid: 10245
so... in a sense, they are using their own funds, but those funds are redirected from what should have been a tax bill. |
|
Date: 7/8/2008 9:04:00 AM
From Authorid: 51876
Here in Fort Worth our City Council and Mayor Bent over backwards to give Companies Big tax-breaks to set up their headquarters or bring major construction.Radio Shack Corporate is right downtown Fort Worth.They tore down Public Housing gave away they land with Tax Breaks and Now Radio Shack almost went Bankcrupt and our local county college is now Buting the site.Whether it is Federal or Local, Corporations get Major Tax breaks, move their business in tax shelters or outsource.It is time to stop enabling Corporations, Enron and World Com taught Americans that. |
|
Date: 7/8/2008 9:06:00 AM
From Authorid: 51876
Buying the site for high millions. |
Date: 7/8/2008 9:57:00 AM
From Authorid: 19613
Whatever way you look at it, the fact is that under the Bush administration, the US national debt has increased considerably. Clearly there is something wrong with Republican taxation policy (perhaps the fact that the rich minority seem to be the ones benefiting is relevant?) Taxation is not simply about taking money from people and giving it to the government. Putting taxpayers’ money into education ensures a highly skilled workforce, more likely to attract investment. Similarly, putting taxpayers’ money into infrastructure will also increase the incentives for investment. Low corporation tax, however, is also a highly effective method to lure companies away from the US to places like Ireland (though we are now feeling the effects of competition from other countries). Either make it more difficult for companies to outsource, or provide greater incentives for them to stay, depending on your philosophy.  |
Date: 7/8/2008 9:58:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
The "game" of politics is really in need of much better officiating than what we have now (aka, the media). We, the paying public, who sit in our seats and root one team or the other team on, based on what we "see", aren't seeing what is taking place in the huddle, and, thus, have no clue as to whether the "game" is being thrown, the "other team" is cheating, or if the "score" accurately depicts a fair contest. To "change" the politics of this country, is to "change" who gets to play, and the paying public can effectuate that. Ron Paul has not dropped out of this race. He is on record as saying that he got in on the Republican Presidential primaries so that he could be heard, be included in debates, and get some national exposure. Barr and Nader, combined, poll for almost 10% of voter preference. There is no clear majority for any of the "current" choices and that is because the two front runners are pretty much saying whatever they have to say to appeal to the greatest number of voters. All any of that does is bring on the "flip-flopping" label and personal attacks which I thought was also going to be a part of the "change" we were supposed to be experiencing in this election, i.e., that candidates would just be sticking to the issues. Unfortunately and ultimately, the two major candidates are following the formula of the "game" that they (and their handlers;) think is the one that America wants to participate in, and that is to basically pound your opponent into the ground. Until and unless people cease to "root" for a person to "win" based not on their physical appearance, or their emotional appeal, but on THINKING with aforethought as to what will or could happen should each of these candidates have their "stated" policies enacted, and the effect on one's self and their community and the whole country, then the "game" will continue to be played in the same fashion. On that end, McCain has walked the walk as far as not pulling the pork and does seem sincere in his desire to cut the federal spending level which he says has escalated 60% under Bush . . . God Bless.  |
|
Date: 7/8/2008 10:33:00 AM
From Authorid: 51876
Dark Phoniex and Deb comments were spot on. |
|
Date: 7/8/2008 10:35:00 AM
From Authorid: 2030
The "Rich Minority" in America pay nearly 90% of the taxes collected. That said the answer to avoiding federal debt is not to increase taxes but to reduce spending, Both the Republicans and the party that controls Congress, The Democrats, have been dismal failures at that. What/ How you ask? Well, suppose a person gets a cut in pay, say 10%, do you reduce your spending by 10%? or do you do as Congress did and increase it by 20%? The party in power is heavily invested in failure fiscal mismanagement, it allows them to point fingers and cry for "Change". Yet the only change is the change in power, the jockying for power begins the day after the election looking forward to the next one. |
|
Date: 7/8/2008 11:05:00 AM
From Authorid: 51876
Well, BCAR how come every time the Republicans gain the office of President the legacy is of Increased debt and spending, Chairmen gone wild budgets and more secrecy than ever with corporations guiding energy policies.This all happens with Republicans not Democrats. |
|
Date: 7/8/2008 12:23:00 PM
From Authorid: 2030
I think if you read my reply from an unbiased view you'll see I included the Republicans. But to paint the Democrats as fiscally responsible is laugable at best. |
|
Date: 7/8/2008 1:04:00 PM
From Authorid: 2030
More accurately the President can't pass legislation or spend funds without legislative approval. He can call for bills, he can sign them or veto them. With a Republican controlled house and Senate one can say, yes it's the administration. But the fact of the matter is that at this point in time it is a Democratic controlled house, and looking back during the "golden years" of the Clinton Administration, it was a Republican controlled house. So honestly I think there is enough blame and bull to go around. I just think that handing my hard earned money over to the government to "do good things with it" is a fools game. |
Date: 7/8/2008 1:57:00 PM
From Authorid: 14909
All I have to say is that their all crooks in their own way.  |
|
Date: 7/8/2008 2:23:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
The title of this post, "Back and Forth . . .," coupled with BCAR's comment of "fool's game", is very well illustrated in this example: Recently a Montana (if my memory serves me correctly) Congressman put a provision at the end of a 3000 page bill that passed. What the 3000 page bill's subject is, I don't frankly know, but the provision stuck on the backside put an end to BLM funds to "caretake" free-roaming and "housed" mustangs in a few of the Western states. Of course, there is an uproar over how these poor horses are a part of the western heritage and how inhumane it would be to not look after them. Obviously, if a bill had just been introduced in the first place to cease this funding via BLM monies, there would have been an uproar then, also, and maybe weeks of hearings on the pro's and con's of this proposal. The lobbyists would all get involved with some of them supporting the cattle industry which has to compete for grazing land with the "wild" horses, which are not indigenous creatures to the west (but, hay!, neither are cows;) and some are actually drop offs by people who can no longer afford to feed a horse or no longer have an interest in having a horse or whatever reason. On the other hand you'd have lobbyists for organizations such as PETA bemoaning a cruel death by starvation if the government didn't arrange some sort of feeding program (some mustangs are actually "kept" in government-funded facilities to the tune of $6 billion a year, if again, memory serves me correctly;) for these horses. Then there is the environmental impact studies that would have to be undertaken and the replay of "Adopt a Mustang" programs, ad nauseam, all the while the American taxpayer foots the bill for keeping the horses, all the ridiculous studies, AND the salaries of those sitting on the behinds -- resulting in all the blood rushing out of their heads to the point where they can't even make a decision. So, this one congressman makes the decision, but it is done in such a sneaky, back-handed way, so that while the decision (cut off the funding for feeding these horse) is fiscally sensible and sound common sense, the manner in which it was achieved has the look of not coming into fruition as a "fair" piece of legislation. Our politicians are seen as either mealy-mouthed if they can't just institute common-sense legislation OR they are seen as sneaky if they just can't institute common-sense legislation out in the open. They really have no "win" in the present "game" OTHER THAN to remain in their position of doing nothing or doing things back-handedly (which may get them booted by their constituents). The "game" itself has become such a stagnate cesspool that nothing of any real consequence gets done other than to keep the players afloat in it until even their fellow-players believe they are stinking too bad. Oh, I know the response to that is that we the American voting public can put "new", "better", or a "change" of players into the game, but none of the new players can do anything about how the game is played unless they're willing to eat horse. God Bless. |
|
Date: 7/8/2008 4:34:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
As regards the issue of stagnation in politics, “back and forth” and the two-party system, I strongly suggest looking into revising the electoral system to a form of proportional representation which allows voters to list candidates in order of preference. The only real obstacles to such an initiative would be increased logistical difficulty in terms of counting votes (worth it though, since it advances the cause of democracy), and actually getting either the Republicans or Democrats to support a system which would damage their long-term interests in terms of the duopoly they currently enjoy. |
|
Date: 7/8/2008 4:40:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
The way it would work would be something like this: In a general election, you enter the booth and have a list of candidates in front of you, lets say McCain, Obama, Paul and Nader. Under the current system (as I understand it) you get a single vote, that’s it. The problem with this is that I may want to vote for Nader for example, but I may also believe that he has no chance of winning. Since I would rather Obama than McCain, my vote goes to him and not Nader. On the other hand, if you switch to preference voting, the scenario would play out like this: I enter the booth and have the four names in front of me. I mark a 1 next to Nader and a 2 next to Obama. I leave the others blank (though I could add 3 and 4 if I wished). When the votes are counted, my vote goes to Nader. However, when it becomes apparent that Nader does not have enough votes to win the district or state or whatever, his votes are recounted, this time, the second preference of these voters is taken into account. Thus my vote now transfers to Obama. |
|
Date: 7/8/2008 4:43:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
The advantage of a system like this, is that it allows voters to register their first preference - more people would probably vote for Nader or Ron Paul if they didn’t think it was a wasted vote. Under this system, not only are voters able to say who they think should get the job, they are able to say who they think shouldn’t
( if I really don’t want Obama to become president, I can vote the other candidates 1,2,3 to ensure my vote is a vote against Obama, regardless of who wins). With people safe in the knowledge that their vote won’t be wasted, more people will be encouraged to vote for third party candidates, thus undermining the power of the Republicans and Democrats in the long-term. |
|
Date: 7/9/2008 6:26:00 AM
From Authorid: 2030
Not a bad idea D.P. With our polarized electorate the person with the best chance would be the #2 choice or third party. |
64566 Category:(Discussion) Created:(7/8/2008 5:50:00 AM)