<p>1of42, you failed to support your thesis that Chavez would not have been elected were it not for hatred of the US. Don’t forget to include what it was about the US that his electorate hated so much. Afterall, in 1998, I doubt that it was Bush’s governorship that riled them up.</p>
<p>“Is it fun analyzing things so superficially, ff? Must be nice not having to look past the surface of issues like these…”</p>
<p>And it must be nice to ignore something that is obviously true because it doesn’t make your point. Nuance is a scary thing, isn’t it?</p>
<p>Chavez’s campaign in the 2004 recall election included a significant amount of anti-American posturing. What I said was an exaggeration (his initial election was focused much more on socialist policy), but it is certainly true that Chavez’s policies of trying to resist American interference in Latin America have played a huge part of his recent elections; the populace of his country consistently support those policies, thus it follows that his anti-American attitude is a large asset to his electability. Furthermore, since he has only become a real player in recent years, these reasons play a larger importance in analysis of his government than the reasons for his initial election in 1999.</p>
<p>What are you suggesting, exactly? That his defeating the recall vote and recent popular support had nothing to do with his anti-American sentiments and that he was elected in spite of them?</p>
<p>“ZM–could you be more specific about what Chavez does, beyond vague goals and intentions, that makes him an enemy.”</p>
<p>Garland, I’m not going to get into a situation here with you where we spend hours parsing each other’s words. We’ve done that before and it’s not cute. I view his alliance with Ahmadinejad as a dangerous thing in our own backyard. We’re both well-versed on Mr. Chavez and I view those “vague goals and intentions” along with the actions he takes to further those goals as detrimental to American interests. It is because he is so regionally powerful and flush with oil cash that his rhetoric becomes important, but those circumstances exist, so he must be taken more seriously than the usual crackpot. If you don’t share my view, that’s fine. Educated and informed adults can actually take certain things as given, but add their own perspective. There is no doubt that Chavez is no friend to America. Where one takes that information is up to the individual. You cast your vote as you see fit and I will do the same. I want a president who will keep Mr. Chavez, et al. in check. If you think there’s a better way, then we’ll see after the election.</p>
<p>“Of the three candidates, McCain is the only one who wants to promote free trade.”</p>
<p>I agree with McCain on the trade issue, and on the issue of long-time illegal aliens remaining here, and on his tax vote that went against Bush. But it’s not enough to tip me away from his 100-year war stance.</p>
<p>“but it is certainly true that Chavez’s policies of trying to resist American interference in Latin America have played a huge part of his elections; the populace of his country consistently support those policies, thus it follows that his anti-American attitude is a large asset to his electability.”</p>
<p>I don’t know one way or another, but it is not necessarily an indictment of America or in particular Bush as was the implication. Afterall, didn’t Hitler use anti-Jewish sentiment as an asset in his rise to power?</p>
<p>ZM–fine, we don’t have to discuss it. I’m not trying to be cute; usually you have specifics for what you say, and I have just really seen no sign at all of any threat from Chavez, which is why I ask. I honestly can’t even begin to know what you are concerned with regarding him; maybe, the price of Citgo is too high? (Okay, that was meant to be cute, but other than that, my puzzlement is sincere.)</p>
<p>We will have to remain in the dark, I guess.</p>
<p>"Honestly does anyone really think if we elect Obama we will become a communist state? seriously? Congress and the Senate will just lay down? </p>
<p>do you folks really believe this? Do you think things will change all that much? Outside of an estate tax and readjustment of tax brackets, what’s really going to happen?"</p>
<p>No, I don’t think we’ll turn into a communist state, but knowing more and more of Obama’s background tears to shreds any credibility he might have had (when?) as a centrist. Instead you discover just how much of a far left liberal he actually is. And I personally think we should get rid of the estate tax, it’s double taxation, first income tax when earned and then again when transferred. Kluge don’t bother with the lecture on how the rich don’t pay income tax; I’ve heard it already.</p>
<p>What will happen if Obama succeeds in becoming president? Among other things he’ll use the democratic congress to push us further and further into socialism and then 4 years later a conservative backlash will get Bobby Jindal elected president, an even younger ethnic wonder boy. Bye, Bye white old men.</p>
<p>"ZM–fine, we don’t have to discuss it. I’m not trying to be cute; usually you have specifics for what you say, and I have just really seen no sign at all of any threat from Chavez, which is why I ask. "</p>
<p>ok, I thought you were being cute, but I didn’t mean to be snarky which is how it came out. Sometimes it’s hard to communicate intent (at least for me) through a keyboard.</p>
<p>Anyway, I’m leaving work shortly, so the specifics will have to wait. That said, my point wasn’t that Chavez is a serious threat, but that he would be if he felt he could get away with it. I absolutely believe that he will push and pull, consort with terrorists, deal in drugs, etc. with impunity if he doesn’t fear the American president. Truly sincerely believe that.</p>
<p>Good. I want America to be pushed into socialism. Look at how it wrecked those Scandinavian countries.</p>
<p>The estate tax is great. What better way to tax the hereditary wealth that so often evades the same tax burdens so many people pay?</p>
<p>Am about to leave myself; thanks for the cordial answer. haven’t seen him linked to terrorism. Drugs? don’t know, I think we need to deal with that problem from the demand end, rather than supply. In another sphere, we paid money to the Taliban to keep down drug production–that didn’t work out so well.</p>
<p>Have a good evening, ZM.</p>
<p>I think McCain would be no slouch in foriegn affairs. If he loses, I would hope he is drafted into the administration to work internationally. I do think it is a strength of his. His America is a strong silent type, whereas GW’s is a “what? you looking at me?” type. Same party different demeanors. McCain would not hurt us internationally in the same ways gw has. </p>
<p>The only thing I hold against him is the polictics of the body, mine. He’s had to join the side of some very religous zealots (mr. robertson) that makes me uneasy. I was willing to vote for him in the past, it’s the friends he had to make this time around that bother me. What concessions has he had to make? </p>
<p>As far as internationally, either hillary or obama would hope to be as good as McCain. It doesn’t mean I’m voting for him, but really it’s not his weakness. And as much as I hated the invasion, we aren’t going to leave because we can’t. It is the iconic “tarbaby” that we will never get our hands unstuck from. Just how it is at this point, can’t be helped anymore.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>The people who inherit your wealth have not worked for the money they are about to receive. You are taxed on your earned income, and they are taxed on a windfall that is (usually) a result of being related to you. So no, it is not double taxation of any individual. </p>
<p>This country prides itself on NOT being built around aristocracy, which is what you get when wealth keeps accumulating over the generations.</p>
<p>"The people who inherit your wealth have not worked for the money they are about to receive. "</p>
<p>Sure they have… haven’t you seen paris hilton’s show or the kardassians? 
I think there were many, many ways to reduce the impact of estate taxes on the books then and now. The tax is coming back, we can’t run the government this way forever and it only will effect about 1% of the popluation.</p>
<p>As always good planning will minimize the impact. A person can always transfer prior to death to remove money from the tax table or purchase an insurance policy to pay estate taxes for pennies on the dollar. Lots of ways to do it. the free lunch is over.</p>
<p>“And I personally think we should get rid of the estate tax, it’s double taxation, first income tax when earned and then again when transferred.”</p>
<p>I pay my dentist with money I’ve already paid tax on, and she pays again; it’s double taxation. Inheriting is income, and the super rich (the only ones who pay inheritance tax) should pay income tax just like the rest of us.</p>
<p>Agreed; I pay my property taxes with money I’ve already paid taxes on; ditto sales tax. Why should “estate taxes” be especially burdensome?</p>
<p>Your dentist paying her taxes and you paying yours are two different people paying taxes, so it’s not double taxation at all. The deceased who paid the income tax is also the one who pays the estate tax (it’s paid from the deceased’s property before it’s transferred to the heirs). </p>
<p>Last I checked there is no federal property tax and no federal sales tax either, so no double taxation there as well - different taxing entities.</p>
<p>Nice to see a little honesty - that for most Republicans it comes down to their own piece of the pie.</p>
<p>Zoosermom, I’m curious about your comment regarding McCain and how important perceived strength is. Don’t you think being strong economically as a country is a huge part of strength? Did you know McCain admits that he doesn’t understand or know much about the economy.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I pay federal gasoline tax of 18.4 cents/gallon with money on which I’ve already paid federal income tax. Same taxing entity.</p>
<p>I pay state sales tax with money on which I’ve already paid state income tax. Again, same taxing entity. “Double taxing” happens all the time.</p>