Posted By: Cheryl  on Thursday, August 28, 2008

Yours is the most intelligent explanation that I've heard re the gap between party leaders & the rank & file.  I'm 1 of the aging Hillary moderates.  I've voted for dems & repubs - both state & nation-wide.



I will be voting for Obama this year for a lot of reasons, but not without reservations.  In the simplest terms, I'm really tired of the idealogical divisiveness & nastiness in politics these days.



I don't think our country can continue to barely function in light of the problems we face today, so I've decided to cast my vote, in hope, for a change.  

Posted By: carlos  on Friday, August 29, 2008

Cheryl - you need to read this article http://www.caglepost.com/column.aspx?c=7597

Posted By: soapboxlady  on Saturday, August 30, 2008

I am switching parties this time to vote for McCain. The Democratic convention this year was an outlandish celebration of Obamamania that just flabbergasted me.  Most of middle America is centrist. Some lean left and some lean right but Obama is an extreme liberal. I would have voted for Clinton, but Obama with his celebrity followers and vague "changes" just makes me wring my hands for this country. He says that he is not going to raise taxes for 95% of the people but somehow is going to solve the healthcare crisis, fix our foreign relations problems, welcome the illegal immigrants with open arms and checkbook and take care of every poor, sick and disabled person. Now how is he going to do that and not raise taxes for every working American?  That's not the "change" I want. I want to cut spending by reducing the aid we give foreign countries. Get rid of lobbyist paybacks and other congressional graft and corruption. Start getting our oil from anywhere but the middle east. Encourage our nation to use less oil and make the alternatives more attractive.

People need to vote with their brains and not their hearts. Why oh why did the Democratic Party decide on Obama?  There were so many better and more qualified candidates out there.

Vote for the lesser of the two incompetents.  I think this time it is McCain.  

Posted By: Brian  on Saturday, August 30, 2008

soapboxlady,  The 5% of the population that is left over makes about 25% of the income in this country.  Raising the taxes on those people (> 250000/year) will bring in a few extra billion a year.  That is the rolling back of the Bush tax breaks that Obama speaks of getting rid of and McCain talks about keeping. In addition, pulling us out of Iraq will save a few billion per month. Fixing the foreign relations problem will probably not cost a lot of money. Welcoming the illegal immigrants is free because he will not be doing that.



Heaven forbid that as a society we should strive to take care of our poor, sick, and disabled people. For too long we have tried to just cast them aside. I think that trying to help them is really change I can hope for.



I too want to see us import less oil from the middle east.  But I think the way to stop it is to not drill more here, but to switch to alternative energy sources so that we can reduce the total amount of oil we use. I do not think that McCain really wants that.



I think there are definitely better candidates than both Obama and McCain.  I would only disagree with your assessment as to which was the more incompetent. :-)

Posted By: John Handforth  on Monday, September 01, 2008

Brian --

You've hit upon the perfect solution.  Why not tax the rich at 110%?  In a few years, their assets will diminish and we'll all be equal.  Then again, the American Dream is to improve yourself, your life and make things better for the next generation.  Where is the incentive, if we have to give it all to finance future wars?

That won't happen, of course.  Most of our Senators and Congressional Representatives are already millionaires.  They will devise special exemptions for those contributing to the betterment of America.  That exemption would also apply to business leaders, major atheletes and performers, to begin with.  We'd be no better off than before.

The only fair tax is a FLAT TAX.  It wouldn't have to be very high. 5-8% would provide more income for our government than they get now.  The trick would be to have it deducted from your pay, NEVER to be seen again.  No paperwork, less government workers (IRS) needed, saving even more money.

The real key would be NO exemptions for any reason.  As soon as one person gets a tax break, another one screams to their Congressman until they get one, too.  Before you know it, we have the same Internal Revenue Code back.

The current maximum tax rate is 35% but few people pay it, due to having so many loopholes.

If Obama would really do what he says, which is actually impossible when you think about it, I would vote for him.  But it won't happen, as both of the Obamas make more money annually, than most of us will ever see.  They're too smart to kill the Golden Goose.

Posted By: Good Life  on Tuesday, September 02, 2008

Handforth--When the economy was really good the top rate was 90% (not 90% of everything, 90% of the income over a certain amount).  The rich didn't complain because the economy was so hot they would quickly make it back.

The "flat tax" would only benefit the rich and hurt the poor.  The idea of tax has always been to take from the "excess" not the money needed for the basics of life.  There was an understanding that as income increased the "basics" also increased but the rich had money left over and that's what was taxed.  In the beginning that was defined as imported goods and property.  One could survive with domestic goods, but the rich bought the better imported goods.  With a "flat tax" you are taking the food out of the mouths of the poor while giving a break to the rich.

How would you define "NO exemptions"?  Does that mean I can't take off the seed cost, or the fuel for the tractor?  If you don't allow business expenses then you will totally destroy every business.  So then the problem becomes:  What is a business expense?  That is where the exemptions are today.  The poor guy that works for wages gets it in the shorts because they can't even take off commuting expense.  Whereas, I can take off every trip to town as long as I buy something for the farm.  I can even take off vacations.  Just find a convention where I want to go and write off the vacation.  That's why there are so many conventions in Orlando.

The real solution is to return money to the bottom rather than put it in the top.  Put it in the top and it instantly gets warehoused.  Which is good for the stock market but not the economy.  Put it in the bottom and they spend it (the rich are already spending all they want to spend)  then whoever they spend it with spend it, then they spend it, then eventually it gets to the top where it is warehoused.  But in the mean time it has moved product and employed people as it rippled through the economy.

If Obama makes more than we'll ever see, how do you define what McCain makes?