<p>to clarify… I am speaking about the income tax, and only the income tax.
Other, non progressive taxes I do not have a problem with, and that’s the point. Reagan raised other taxes, not the income tax.</p>
<p>My personal opinion is that the “tax the rich” call that Democrats always love to bring out at election time is a farce. If you really look at the numbers, any meaningful tax increase which has any chance of bringing in significant tax revenues will ALWAYS involve the middle classes. It’s simple math.
If you are only raising revenue on the top 2% or 5% of earners, there just are not enough of them to raise much money by increasing their rates by 3,5 or even 10%. It has been done in the past, and it never works. It’s the next 20% or 30% of earners (by income) where there are enough of them to make a difference. And these are always the taxpayers that end up suffering, and paying the burden of the nation’s taxes and debt. And the top 0.5% will continue to pay almost nothing as they have the tax shelters, have huge real estate holdings, etc. </p>
<p>We should switch to a VAT tax which does not penalize you for being successful, unless you choose to consume goods. It is still progressive, yet taxes consumption instead of resourcefullness and productivity. This could be combined with a small flat tax on income.<br>
Unfortunately, the politicians who have tried to push such a plan have always been rebuffed because the American public has been so brainwashed to believe that it’s only a fair system if the rich pay for everyone and everything. So we will continue to have the middle classes bearing the burden, but convinced that they are not by the political rhetoric.
They will feel better when the Democrats rescind the Bush tax cuts because it will seem like the rich are being punished, and that’s a good thing. </p>
<p>Remember when the yacht tax was instituted? In 1990, a democratic congress wanted to show that they were really going to punish those rich guys that were buying those hugely expensive yachts. Oh yeah, they were going to show them. If you want a yacht you pay a 20% luxury tax… could be millions!!<br>
All the rich guys stopped buying yachts. Completely. Or if they really wanted one they bought it overseas. Congress almost singlehandedly with that one tax law destroyed the entire New England yacht building industry, which dates back to the 18th century. Good job. Democratic congress, by the way. There were massive layoffs, and the companies were almost going to have to shut down. In addition there was almost NO tax revenue collected. This is just an example of how when tax policy is based on expedient politics and static assumptions, rather than sound economics, it can go astray. Oh and want a good laugh? Bush Sr. repealed the tax in 1992, and then Patrick Kennedy proposed a 20% tax credit for buyers of luxury yachts, to help the yachting industry. Thankfully that didn’t get far.
Brilliant.</p>
<p>Post 229 …you said, If an opinion is made regarding a political candidate that you support that is contrary to your opinion it doesn’t make it untruthful or misleading either</p>
<p>I agree with your statement, given above, completely. </p>
<p>Would you agree with me, that if someone claims that a political candidate said something, the political candidate did not say, that the person making the claim, could be saying something that is, untruthful and misleading?</p>
<p>“Would you agree with me, that if someone claims that a political candidate said something, the political candidate did not say, that the person making the claim, could be saying something that is, untruthful and misleading?”</p>
<p>People often interpret what others say very differently. It does not make one interpretation truthful and another interpretation not truthful or misleading. </p>
<p>If you agree with an interpretation that is wonderful. However, if someone disagrees with YOUR view, it does not make their interpretation untruthful or misleading. </p>
<p>Poltical candidates say many things that are subject to many interpretations. Some political candidates may say nothing of significance when asked a question. That is also subject to interpretation. In my opinion, one interpretation or opinion is as good as the next. Neither is necessarily untruthful or misleading. Sorry. :o</p>
<p>It’s misleading to suggest that this was a direct result of policies instituted by Clinton, and that he should get all the credit for this economic boon time.</p>
<p>Of course he had nothing to do with the recession that began less than a year after he left office. And he just missed getting Bin Laden too.</p>
<p>Post 245 No need to be sorry, your personal opinion is, the truth is a very flexible thing and that people can hold any interpretation of statements or events they wish. </p>
<p>However, your position today seems to be at odds with one of your earlier posts. Earlier you were ask why you had been so harsh, and unpleasant, to a high school student, who in a post, said he had been taken off the wait list, and admitted to a school he was very excited about. You didnt even try to excuse your harsh treatment of this child, you simply said of your conduct and manner of questioning, The reason I asked is that there are other posters who are often deceptive on these threads, and spout out a lot of things that may not be completely accurate. That is really not fair to the other posters who are looking for information.</p>
<p>It is my personal opinion that it is hypocritical of you to excuse yourself when you attack a high school kid, by saying you are trying to insure complete accuracy, and then you claim someone said something they didnt say, is just your interpretation. </p>
<p>A high school kid needs to be completely accurate and you get to interpret another persons comments any way that fits your personal needs or wishes. </p>
<p>As for whether your conduct in this whole matter is hypocritical or not it is just my my opinion, one interpretation or opinion as good as the next.</p>
<p>^ I’ll ignore. (My personal opinion is that this is another personal inappropriate dialogue.) The fact that this references a post from many moons ago that is not related at all to this thread suggests that someone has way too much time on their hands. I don’t remember most posts from other posters from hour to hour…nor would I want to.</p>
<p>Again, let’s not get off topic. This thread is about the election and politics. Much more interesting than some very obsessive (psycho)-analyses that no one gives a
%*&# about! (Especially the one to whom its directed. :eek:)</p>
<p>Let’s Move on…</p>
<p>Or perhaps we can discuss (moveon.org) in getting back to the topic of the thread.</p>
<p>"Hillary Clinton proposes $5,000 ‘baby bonds’ </p>
<hr>
<p>DAILY NEWS STAFF</p>
<p>Friday, September 28th 2007, 1:59 PM </p>
<p>Sen. Hillary Clinton said today the government should give every child born in the United States a $5,000 “baby bond” to help pay for college.</p>
<p>“I like the idea of giving every baby born in America a $5,000 account that will grow over time, so that when that young person turns 18 if they have finished high school they will be able to access it to go to college or maybe they will be able to make that downpayment on their first home,” the Democratic presidential hopeful told a Washington forum hosted by the Congressional Black Caucus.</p>
<p>Clinton did not say how much her proposal would cost or how it would be paid for.</p>
<p>About 4 million children are born each year in the United States.</p>
<p>The New York senator said these “baby bonds” would help Americans struggling to save enough money to cover rising education and housing costs.</p>
<p>Wealthy people “get all kinds of tax incentives to save, but most people can’t afford to do that,” she said."</p>
<hr>
<p>My favorite line: “Clinton did not say how much her proposal would cost or how it would be paid for.”</p>
<p>To be clear, Hillary Clinton did not propose the baby bonds nor did she say the government “should” do this. She said, in response to a question from the audience, that she “liked the idea”. I have not gone hunting for it, but I understand that Time Magazine proposed the idea of a $5000 baby bond in last week’s issue. That is probably what generated the question from the audience.</p>
<p>England just instituted a similar proposal. One long term economic issue in many highly-developed Western economies is that as the birth rate falls below 2 children per couple, the population starts to decline. This may be why European countries are considering proposals such as these. This is part of the wave of immigration into Western European countries as they struggle to maintain an adequate workforce.</p>
<p>The maximum cost is is pretty easy to calculate: 4 million births per year times $5000 each is $20 billion a year, or about two months in Iraq. The cost may be lower if it were to offset federal college loan and grant programs.</p>
<p>In post 249 1Sokkermom says that Sen. Clinton said, “the government should,” in fact Sen. Clinton said "I like the idea.” A reasonable and fair minded person will tell you that there is a great deal of difference between, “the government should,” and "I like the idea.” </p>
<p>The mixing, and misusing of words, in an effort to confuse the facts, and prejudice public opinion, is an example of the kind of duplicity, which should not be allowed to go unchallenged.</p>
<p>Disputing duplicity, and challenging hypocrisy, is a very important part of politics</p>
<p>Hillary is the Master of mixing and misusing words. </p>
<p>Post #249 was a quote. It wasn’t my words, nor did I take credit for it.</p>
<p>The obsessive persistent and annoying supporters that seem to flock to Hillary do her no justice. Ok, tommybill, those ARE my words. In my opinion they are very TRUE !!</p>
<p>Sorry, you didnt have quote marks around the paragraph that was mixing and misusing words, so I didnt know it was the newspaper and not you that was mixing, and misusing of words, in an effort to confuse the facts, and prejudice public opinion. Thanks for straighten it out for me.</p>
<p>Thompson’s less-than-grueling schedule the man seems a tad lazy . He made just one appearance last week, in Wyoming Even his folksy speaking style has been denigrated as rambling. "Like watching Bob Dole–without the Viagra </p>
<p>“Can Hillary Clinton win?” That is one of the most common questions in American politics these days, except among people who flatly declare, "There is no way Hillary Clinton can win.</p>
<p>" Clinton, the Democratic front-runner, is widely derided as “too polarizing.” Although there is no definitive way to measure the size of the anti-Hillary vote, a number of reasonable gauges exist that, together, produce an educated guess. </p>
<p> One way to measure the opposition is to look at Clinton’s “unfavorable” ratings </p>
<p> .A second approach is to ask people directly if they would vote for Clinton. </p>
<p> …A third way is to simply match Clinton up in trial heats with a variety of Republican candidates. </p>
<p> the evidence just doesn’t support the idea that she cannot win </p>
<p>The Democratic presidential candidates continued to raise significantly more money during the last three months than their Republican counterparts, according to official and unofficial third-quarter fund-raising tallies that were released yesterday.</p>
<p>Strategists in both parties said that the fund-raising imbalance showed that Democrats, and their donors, are more energized this year as they battle to reclaim the White House after nearly eight years of Republican rule. And they said President Bushs sagging popularity is hurting the Republicans who are vying to replace him.</p>
<p> The Republican Party, known since the late 19th century as the party of business, is losing its lock on that title.
New evidence suggests a potentially historic shift in the Republican Party’s identity – what strategists call its “brand.” The votes of many disgruntled fiscal conservatives and other lapsed Republicans are now up for grabs, which could alter U.S. politics in the 2008 elections and beyond.</p>
<p>Most Americans oppose fully funding President Bush’s $190 billion request for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a sizable majority support an expansion of a children’s health insurance bill he has promised to veto, putting Bush and many congressional Republicans on the wrong side of public opinion on upcoming foreign and domestic policy battles.</p>
<p>Overall fundraising between the two parties is one interesting metric. Normally, the Democrats lag behind…right now, they’re killing the GOP. Add in the “enthusiasm” numbers between Democrats and Republicans regarding their Presidential candidates and then look at the candidate recruitments for both the House and the Senate. </p>
<p>I just hope the Democrats remember that when your opponent is down on the floor, that’s the time to kick 'em in the head and then step on their throat, HARD.</p>
<p>One of the Democratic frontrunners understands that. The other two have agreed to limit their general election spending under public financing if the Republican candidate does, thus wiping out the entire Democratic fundraising advantage. That’s like the New England Patriots saying, “OK, we won’t play Tom Brady in the SuperBowl because you don’t have ProBowl caliber QB and we want to be fair…”</p>
<p>Sometimes I just shake my head at Democrats.</p>
<hr>
<p>It’s not just money the Democrats are raising. Scroll down this blog entry to see some crowd shots of Hillary’s rally in Oakland on Sunday. The Democrats are drawing general election rally crowds three months before the Iowa caucus:</p>
in getting back to the topic of the thread.</p>