Local and national elections
By
Monday November 5, 2007 11:30:28am







Click here for more on the presidential election.




[permalink]
Post a comment: You must be logged in order to comment.

 
maggie
Comments: 1554
Joined: 01/08/2006
01/21/2008 08:38:18 AM
Ringgoldone, that all sounds good, but will it work and are they going to fund SSI, Medicare, etc. from the tax revenue? How much in refunds for the average person? I am just not sure, but perhaps I will do what Hoosiermama has done and get the book that explains it. I am just not sure there will be enough extra money in our pockets to afford the big ticket items. If it causes people to only be able to buy existing homes and not new construction or all used cars and not new ones, I just see a huge backlash. I think a lot more research needs to be done.
 
hoosiermama
Comments: 402
Joined: 11/14/2007
01/21/2008 07:51:04 AM
Just finished preordering the Fair Tax book brian referred to on amazon.com. It will be out on Feb 12th. Just around $9. I love the idea of ridding ourselves of the whole IRS beast, but I want to have a better picture of fair tax before I can get on board.
 
ringgoldone
Comments: 627
Joined: 07/24/2006
01/21/2008 06:31:25 AM
But don't forget all the business taxes that they do pay, which when you add their profit margin on top of it, is quite a chunk of money. Small businesses struggle and sometimes fail because of taxes. I have known small businesses to struggle just to pay the employer's portion of SS/Medicare. And for those who are self-employed, they get to pay the full 15.3%.

Social Security and Medicare will not cease to exist, but the taxes withheld will under the FairTax.

Just think of the cost of everything you purchase dropping by 23%. Think of receiving a check each year to cover the taxes you will pay on essentials. Think of no deductions from your paycheck for FIT, OASDI, and Medicare.

Think of all those people who don't pay taxes now because of loopholes/tax shelters that all of us do not enjoy. Think of all those people who earn their money illegally and do not declare it. They all will pay because they purchase.

Think of politicians not being able to use taxes as a way to manipulate the American public.

Personally, I would like to see the 23% collected at the county level - keep what they need, send the remainder to the state - keep what they need, send the remainder to the federal government, with all of them forced to balance budgets on what they receive.

There would be no property, ad valorem, state/local income, SPLOST, or any other kind of taxes.
 
ATLANTABURNING
Comments: 58
Joined: 05/13/2007
01/21/2008 02:01:42 AM
How Bout it Nancy?

You and your party have failed the people miserably since you were given the power to change the system in November 2006. Now we are preparing to elect a new President, and our electoral process is just as flawed, if not moreso than when Bush stole the last two elections.

You could have ended this easily, but have chosen not to. I know why. Hillary is supposed to win the Presidential election this year. The self appointed leaders have deemed it so. We the people will not stand for another tainted election.

Ron Paul, whom I support 100% for President, is giving everyone a big scare. You are frightened that he will expose the lot of you for the fraudulent cut throats you are.

It is time to mandate methodical consistency in electing Congress and the President nationwide. Hack-proof machines which store each vote in a local, state, and national database are needed NOW. Each machine should print the vote for inspection of the voter, contain a unique serial code, and should have duplicate copies so that the voter leaves a copy with the precinct and retains a copy for his/herself. Should a recount be necessary, this system would be virtually impossible to manipulate.

I challenge you to introduce legislation to mandate this process when you arrive at the House on Tuesday morning. Since the lot of you rushed through the Patriot Act, H.R. 1955, and other such rubbish I am confident that you can pass this legislation into federal law effective immediately.
 
maggie
Comments: 1554
Joined: 01/08/2006
01/20/2008 08:20:45 PM
Actually businesses don't pay tax on what they buy for resale anyway, they get a tax ID number for when they buy for their business, so that is really a moot point. Ringgoldone, I think we are going to have to disagree on this one. I just feel like it will price a lot of people out being able to buy a new home and new cars will also become out of reach for many. On a $30,000 car that is adding $6,900 to the cost of the car, before interest is added. Talk about being upside down before you even drive it off the lot!! I know the I would like to have all of our income without any withholding taxes, but not sure if it will be enough to compensate for this tax. Also, what about SSI, will it cease to exist? SSI is the largest amount being taken out of our checks.

 
ringgoldone
Comments: 627
Joined: 07/24/2006
01/20/2008 04:17:24 PM
Maggie:

The builders and any other businesses will be exempt from sales tax on everything. Businesses will only collect and remit taxes. Businesses will be able to compete more in foreign markets with the FairTax. They should be able to hire more workers or increase the pay of their present employees in that they won't be paying taxes.

The prebate will protect the lower and fixed income families from being adversely affected. It is based on the size of the family and will cover the tax on essentials. Now, they are paying the tax the businesses are passing along in the price of the goods and services.

There are no loopholes in this plan. You pay on what you consume.

Even with a flat tax, there are complications. What income will be taxed? Will you tax lower and fixed income families or will they be exempt? At what income level will you start applying the flat tax? What if they have multiple children? Why should someone who makes 50K and 5 children pay the same as someone who makes 50K and has 2 children?

All stuff for Congress to sort out and they will surely mess it up. Look at the tax code now.

The FairTax is simple, because it wasn't written by Congress.

 
catvoter
Comments: 100
Joined: 08/10/2007
01/20/2008 04:15:59 PM
Fair Tax is an interesting concept but;

If government spending is the same or close, the net cost to us citizens will be the same won't it? Our money will just go into the federal revenue via a different path.

Maybe the federal Fair Tax collector will have a different name than the IRS, but keeping up with the revenue collection will probably be as costly and cumbersome as the IRS is now.

Georgia is on the right path in the idea of using sales tax to replace property tax in school funding. It makes sense on the schools because of the almost common cost by each school district to educate a kid.

But the sales taxes being sent to Atlanta and getting back revenue for funding the General County budgets seems totally impossible. Each County has different needs and requirements. It was good that Richardson seems to have dropped that idea.

How would the Fair Tax program start? Would they pick a date and after that date everything would cost 30% more? I'd hate to be in Wal Mart the day before that 30% tax hits.

Wouldn't everybody buy everything before the Fair Tax hits? Even if they phased it in, people would buy early and slowly cut back on spending, particularly on hard goods that would be more expensive.

Some may say the phase in would also phase in higher wages netted when withholding decreases. But I would buy early at the lower pre-Fair Tax prices and then hang on to the extra cash from the future larger paychecks. A formula for recession?

But the real question still is why Fair Tax, if the spending is the same? The same total amount will still come out of our pockets.
 
bloggeye
Comments: 291
Joined: 08/18/2006
01/20/2008 04:00:05 PM
Maggie I forgot to add that the fairtax is to replace the federal income tax and other federal taxes. State and local taxes are, of course, seperate and have nothing to do with it. Fairtax proponents say that states can change over and do the same plan for their own state but they are different. In addition, essentials and everything even medical bills will have the fairtax added.

 
bloggeye
Comments: 291
Joined: 08/18/2006
01/20/2008 03:02:43 PM
The actual sales tax is 30%. The fairtax proponents use the 23% to compare it to an income tax. They say something that you pay 100,000 actually costs $77,000. You have to minus the $23,000. They consider that the 23%.I.e. when you do the math the sales tax on 77,000 at 30% ends up being about 23,100. Sounds like fishy math to me. Therefore if you buy something that actually cost 100,000 the sales tax on that is 30,000. Confused yet? Maggie, I too think the average and poor working people will suffer under this system. I couldn't find on the fairtax website any information on homes or property(land, etc.). I'm not sure if a used home is under the definition of the used rules in the proposed law. I wonder about land too. I appreciate ringgoldone trying to answer some of my questions though. However, my daddy is a retired auto worker. I think this law would hurt many of our industries and businesses that are already suffering.

 
maggie
Comments: 1554
Joined: 01/08/2006
01/20/2008 08:05:51 AM
If the tax is on all new goods, materials, etc. then the builder will pay sales tax on building materials and he will pass that on to the consumer and if you add 23% tax to the cost of a home, you knock a lot more people out of buying a home. Actually, existing homes will become more of a value and their prices will be driven up. As for cars, yes, you do lose a lot when you drive off the lot, but if people are only buying used cars, because they cannot afford the 23% tax, what is going to happen to the car manufacturers? If they all go bust, what will happen to thousands and thousands of workers and ultimately we will have no new cars to become used cars!!!! I am sorry, but I think this tax will hurt lower income and fixed income families. People in these tax bracketts don't pay much in income tax anyway and often most of what they pay in, they get back, so I can't see that their buying power will be greatly increased and in my opinion it will be decreased. Have you really thought about this, 23% on a $300,000 dollar home is $69,000. I don't know about you, but that on top of interest is a lot of money to pay!!!! Starter homes are already over 100,000 at 23% tax that adds 23, 000 to that house, knocking even more people out of affording to buy.

How about groceries, will we pay 23%tax on them or will all taxes on food and essentials be eliminated? How about property taxes, the taxes we pay on car tags, etc? Are these also be eliminated? I just don't think this is a good thing. I still think a flat tax rate and everyone pays regardless of income and no tax loop holes or ways to hide income, then this country would have all the money it needs.
 
familymom
Comments: 287
Joined: 11/29/2007
01/19/2008 10:38:48 PM
I have another question you might know the answer to. Currently the SS Administration keeps up with everyone's income from year to year and figures future benefits from the income. How will it work after the Fair Tax? If we are not filing each year or paying ss tax, how will the benefits be divided. Yes, this assumes SS does not go bankrupt. :-)
I am not a tax wiz so this idea is new to me. I'm trying to figure the pros and cons. It all seems logical, but I am still wondering if I am missing some fine print somewhere. Thanks for the input.
 
ringgoldone
Comments: 627
Joined: 07/24/2006
01/19/2008 07:31:24 PM
State income taxes would be eliminated as each state creates their local version of FairTax. Georgia is headed in the right direction.

Businesses pay no taxes under the FairTax. They only collect and remit. Now, you are already paying the taxes every business incurs, plus their profit margin added on top through the cost of the goods or service.

FairTax replaces all federal taxes including Social Security and Medicare.

There is a prebate that every family will receive each year that will cover the FairTax on essentials.

New homes - given that the builder will pay no tax on the materials, the lower cost of the home will offset the tax added at closing (which will be paid over the life of the loan).

New cars - so much is lost in value when you drive a new car off the lot that we all would be better off buying an older car anyway.
 
familymom
Comments: 287
Joined: 11/29/2007
01/19/2008 05:17:24 PM
One more thing! I could not find anywhere that it would eliminate State Income Taxes. It looked to me like we would still pay that as well.
 
familymom
Comments: 287
Joined: 11/29/2007
01/19/2008 05:15:36 PM
You all got me curious so I went to www.fairtax.org and read up on this idea. I suppose it seems like it might work, and it is true that only new houses and new cars would be taxed. I wonder about taxing services, however. Let's say I need to hire an electrician. He buys the supplies needed for my job and pays the 23% tax on those goods, well I expect he will pass that exta expense down to me. Then, his bill for the labor will be taxed at 23%. His gasoline to drive to my house will also be taxed to him at 23% and I expect again that price will reflect in his overall bill. That could end up being an expensive electrical job.
I like to keep my money and use any deduction at tax time possible. If we had the fair tax I would have to buy only used items and would attempt to be a "do it myselfer". I imagine many people would do the same. New construction would really slow down across the country and some services (plumbing, exterminators, etc) would not be used as often. (I imagine this anyway)
The fair tax assumes that the really rich buy new houses, cars, etc and that will help, however, they will find ways to hang on to their money too.

 
bloggeye
Comments: 291
Joined: 08/18/2006
01/19/2008 01:13:52 PM
I haven't read the book but have researched a little on it. You're right failedbelle, we still have all the state and local taxes. The percentage comes out to 30% and I am almost certain it would be on medical bills, medicine, etc. That seems like a real hardship to me. Ringgoldone, I haven't heard that about older houses or used cars. I certainly wouldn't buy a new house or car if that were true.
 
failedbelle
Comments: 393
Joined: 01/11/2006
01/19/2008 01:01:40 PM
I haven't read the book but I listen to Boortz from time to time and my understanding of the fair tax is that it won't replace anything but the federal income tax. We will still have local and state taxes, state sales tax, property tax, advalorem (sp) etc. The 23% is also misleading. It is a "tax inclusive" rate which I don't pretend to understand (need to do more research) But from what I understand, if you purchased someting for $1 you would pay the retailer $1.30 not $1.23. Now most of us, even higher income brackets, don't pay an effective rate of 30% or even 23%. Some of you who have read the book tell me if I am wrong. I'm too lazy to read it.

 
ringgoldone
Comments: 627
Joined: 07/24/2006
01/19/2008 07:20:29 AM
What people forget is with the FairTax, the taxes that are currently imbedded in the price of every good and service we purchase (23%) will be removed. Now, we are paying income tax, sales tax, and every tax that every business incurs.

With the FairTax, we only pay for NEW items we purchase. If we buy an older house or a used car - NO SALES TAX.

Personally, I think 23% is too high and that the FairTax ought to be tied to cutting the fat ought of the national budget. But, 23% was determined by numerous financial brains - not a politician or a lawyer among them. If 23% is what it will take to get it through Congress, it will be far better than the system we have now.
 
fixem
Comments: 104
Joined: 11/16/2007
01/18/2008 09:54:34 PM
i came across this and thought that i would share it with everyone. can muslims be good americans?=========== theologically- no... because his allegiance is to allah, the moon god of arabs. ======== religiously-no... because no other religion is accepted by his allah execpt islam(quran, 2:256) ======scripturally-no...because his allegiance is to the five pillars of islam and the quran.============geographically-no... because his allegiance is to mecca, to which he turns in prayer five times a day===socially-no... because his allegiance to islam forbids him to make friends with christians or jews.=====politically-no... because he must submit to the mullahs (spirtual leaders) who teach annihilation of isreal and the destruction of america( the great satan)================domestically-no... because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him(quran 4:34)============================ intellectually-no... because he cannot accept the american constitution because it is based on biblical principles and he believes the bible to be corrupt.==========philosophically-no... because islam,muhammad, and the quran does not allow freedom of expression... democracy and islam cannot co-exist. every muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.=====spiritally-no... because when we declare' one nation under god' the christian god is loving and kind, and is never refered to as the heavenly father, nor is he called love in the quran's list of excellent names.========therefore, after much study and deliberation .... perhaps we should be very suspecious of all muslims in this country. they obviously cannot be both good americans and also good muslims. call it what you wish... it's the truth. you had better believe it. the more people that understand this , the better it will be for our country and for our future. the religious war is bigger than most know or understand. ======and BARACK HUSSIEN OBAMA, a muslim wants to be our president? you have got to be kidding!!! obama even says that if he wins the election he will take his oath and be sworn in on the quran... not the bible! ======FOOTNOTE: he was sworn in on the quran for his current office. also, he refuses to pledge allegiance to the united states or place his hand over his heart when the national anthem is played! they have sworn to destroy us from within and it looks like the timing is right for them to attempt it. are you going to trust this man with our nations secrets?
 
maggie
Comments: 1554
Joined: 01/08/2006
01/18/2008 09:52:18 PM
Bloggeye, I have just always thought that if 10% is good enough for God, it ought to be good enough for the government!!!!! I really think that if we add more sales tax, that the purchasing power of some groups will be less than it is now. Lower income people don't pay much in income taxes anyway, so they really won't have much more in their pockets and if they have to pay more in sales tax, it will limit their buying power. I don't like taxes of any kind, but unfortunately they are a necessary evil, I just think it ought to be fair for everyone. I dare say that if the rich paid equitable taxes to the rest of us, our country would have a surplus of funds.
 
bloggeye
Comments: 291
Joined: 08/18/2006
01/18/2008 09:24:12 PM
Maggie your idea makes more sense than the fair tax. I have read that home prices, medical services, contractor bills, pretty much all goods and services would have the sales tax applied. I find it hard to believe that goods would be that much cheaper; the ceo's and upper executives will just continue to line their pockets with even larger bonuses. Do we really believe drug companies will pass on their extra earnings as savings to the consumer? Let me know what you find out hoosiermama. I've read that that the elderly that paid income taxes on their earnings are not too happy to have to pay an extra 30% tax when they spend their savings. They'll be hit with a double whammy. Doesn't sound fair to me. I'm open for more info though. I don't think the fair tax is applied to stocks or bonds though. Hmmmm...
 
maggie
Comments: 1554
Joined: 01/08/2006
01/18/2008 08:44:00 PM
I have always thought that an across the board 10% income tax would be the fairest tax. Everyone pays no exceptions. That way, the rich don't have any loop holes and everyone pays.
 
hoosiermama
Comments: 402
Joined: 11/14/2007
01/18/2008 08:15:34 PM
I'm not sure how the medical bills would work, but if the fair tax is like a retail sales tax, then you pay your taxes at the time of purchase, like we already do now. I think it will just be added in the bill. Good questions, though. I think I'll head over to amazon.com and preorder that book brian told us about.
 
bloggeye
Comments: 291
Joined: 08/18/2006
01/18/2008 08:10:46 PM
I also don't like the IRS. Who does? I don't like the idea that if I purchase a home I now have to add a huge tax to that as well. Don't even get me started on medical bills. I don't imagine insurance companies will cover the tax bill. I had a premature child with bill of over 100,000. Would I have to pay taxes on that? What if I don't pay my huge tax bill. Who's going to make me? No IRS. Can the fairtax garnish my wages?
 
bloggeye
Comments: 291
Joined: 08/18/2006
01/18/2008 05:44:12 PM
The Georgia Department of Revenue runs Georgia's state tax revenues. So would the state revenue departments (they would have to hire many more folks I imagine) manage the additional sales taxes? I imagine there would be some type of federal revenue department.
 
ringgoldone
Comments: 627
Joined: 07/24/2006
01/18/2008 05:39:02 PM
It is my understanding that the IRS will cease to exist. Not sure who will receive the sales tax revenue. States could do it and forward it on. Somehow it will end up at the Dept of Treasury.
 
hoosiermama
Comments: 402
Joined: 11/14/2007
01/18/2008 05:23:17 PM
blog, my understanding of the fair tax is that it is a 'consumption' tax or sales tax. If we needed any agency to oversee it, I'm pretty sure it could utilize what we already have in place. IRS wouldn't be the overseeing agency.

brian, I know you are well versed in Fair Tax. What say you?
 
bloggeye
Comments: 291
Joined: 08/18/2006
01/18/2008 05:00:12 PM
I have one question about the fair tax. Won't we need another gov't beurocracy to run the fair tax program? I mean it's just not going to run itself.

 
bygracethrufaith
Comments: 1353
Joined: 07/13/2007
01/18/2008 10:43:20 AM
brian...I just realized why you don't like Paul.

It's because he didn't "invoke" the spirit of Ronald Reagan every time he got an opportunity to speak...

LOL...just kidding...had to say that because of your pic.

I think Reagan was a great president.....but you have to admit that hearing his name repetetively out of so many of thier mouths was just plain wierd. I heard more about what Reagan did than I heard about what any of the ones who spoke his name were going to do. Seems their advisors all had the same plan:
"Say the name of "Reagan" as much as possible. Republicans won't care what else you say just as long as you say his name over and over...and if you get in a tight spot or have a hard time answering the questions...just say you want to do what Reagan did."

Talk about "cults." Wow.
 
bygracethrufaith
Comments: 1353
Joined: 07/13/2007
01/18/2008 10:37:28 AM
brian.....
Is that your theory...or do you have proof of that statement?

I voted....never thought of myself as a "cult member."

Also...they only allowed one vote per phone number....as my husband told me to send a vote in for him as well, and it wouldn't allow me to do so after I had voted.

Those Ron Paul cult people sure must have alot of different phone lines. Think of the cell phone bills...wow. They....er.. we must have alot of money to be able to afford multiple lines as well..
LOL.
 
wes
Comments: 75
Joined: 04/09/2006
01/16/2008 10:47:12 AM
Has anybody looked at how much money the presidential hopefulls are spending? Or who is giving them money?

At the end of the third quarter Mitt Romeny had spent more money than Huckabee, Paul, and Thompson added together.

The top two democrates have spent massive abouts of money.

The question is - are they trying to buy votes? and will we let them buy us out?
 
bygracethrufaith
Comments: 1353
Joined: 07/13/2007
01/15/2008 08:58:10 PM
brian: "Does all this sound kind of harsh? I didn't mean it to...... it just seems like Paul drums up most of his support on the internet, but elsewhere it he has left more to be desired."

Was it his supporters that he drummed up on the internet that all participated in the poll on Fox news as well?

It seems that some candidates just get more media attention than others from what I can tell. If I were running, I'd probably utilize the internet as well. They probably wouldn't want to put me on TV either, and when they did, just ask me stupid questions concerning my "electibility" rather than the real issues at hand.

BTW, I didn't take you as "harsh."
 
hoosiermama
Comments: 402
Joined: 11/14/2007
01/15/2008 06:40:31 PM
brian, I am somewhat familiar with the Fair Tax and first heard about it on the Neal Boortz radio program quite a while ago. I do plan on reading the book you recommended. I know that there is a lot of chatter about it and losing the bureaucracy of the IRS sounds like a winning proposition in itself.
 
bygracethrufaith
Comments: 1353
Joined: 07/13/2007
01/15/2008 02:20:01 PM
I understand completely! I can't stand it when that happens!
I just wanted to make sure that no one assumed that I was one of those "radical" supporters that I've been hearing horror stories about! Many times my thoughts are not exactly in line with most people, therefore, it may be easy to assume that I'm some weirdo....LOL. That hadn't occurred to me concerning Ron Paul until I read your post. My clarification was bascally for anyone that may read my comments.
 
hoosiermama
Comments: 402
Joined: 11/14/2007
01/15/2008 02:03:15 PM
bygrace,
Believe me, my comment was not directed to you. I always enjoy your insights even when we may disagree. I just didn't want to clog up the board with copy and paste comments instead of actual dialogue.

 
bygracethrufaith
Comments: 1353
Joined: 07/13/2007
01/15/2008 02:00:23 PM
hoosiermama,
For the record, I just wanted to clarify that i'm not in the "passionate" category of Ron Paul supporters. I've heard some bad stories about some of the "passionate" ones. And you won't be getting copying and pasting from any Ron Paul sites from me. I'm not assuming that you were speaking to me...but just incase anyone gets any ideas....I'm not really all that "passionate" about this one. Just a preference. That's all.
 
hoosiermama
Comments: 402
Joined: 11/14/2007
01/15/2008 01:53:14 PM
Before things get out of hand and we have just tons and tons of Ron Paul links plastered all over the boards, please know that I am just so tickled that all of you Ron Paul supporters are so passionate, but please, can we just try to have a simple dialogue instead of the copy-paste routine.
 
hoosiermama
Comments: 402
Joined: 11/14/2007
01/15/2008 01:47:48 PM
wes, What do you mean is a $600 haircut responsible? Edwards earned his money, he can spend it on anything he wants. Can I afford it? No, but hey if he wants to spend HIS money on HIS haircut, what do I care. The fact that he spends a lot of money on haircuts shouldn't earn him a label of not being trustworthy.

Please save your Brief Overview of Ron Paul's record that you copied and pasted from his website. I have already seen it.

 
bygracethrufaith
Comments: 1353
Joined: 07/13/2007
01/15/2008 01:44:27 PM
Go Ron Paul!!!! :)
 
wes
Comments: 75
Joined: 04/09/2006
01/15/2008 01:29:50 PM
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/
 
wes
Comments: 75
Joined: 04/09/2006
01/15/2008 01:26:56 PM
Hoosiermama, do you think 600.00 for a haircut is responsible? Do you think the numerous allegations of wrong doing on Clintons part should cast some doubt? Everyone of the canadiates are more wealthy that ALL of us on this chat board added together, but that doesn't make me have a grudge becuase they are rich. I don't like them becuase they are not trust worthy.


Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record:

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.
 
hoosiermama
Comments: 402
Joined: 11/14/2007
01/15/2008 12:37:07 PM
Actually, wes, I am somewhat confused about your political stance. In this thread you state "I am leaning toward....Ron Paul," yet a mere 3 minutes earlier in the Obama is no better than Hillary thread you state "I will be voting for.....Ron Paul." I'm not trying to beat you up here, it's just that it appears to be just a little wishy-washy on your part. You encourage us to take a look at the voting record and get away from the talk, yet you do not offer up Ron Paul's record against Edward's or Clinton's records, but instead throw out a cheap shot at their financial status as a reason not to vote for them. FYI, I have already looked at Ron Paul's records. I mean no disrespect, but he is not my candidate of choice. Do not automatically assume because I am not interested in voting for him that I haven't looked at him and his record. I have and no thank you.
 
hoosiermama
Comments: 402
Joined: 11/14/2007
01/15/2008 11:11:32 AM
wes, whoa...hold on a minute. While I would agree that looking at a candidate's voting record/history would be a good reason to vote (or not vote) for a particular candidate, your last line concerning Edward's expensive haircut and the money that Clinton made through cattle futures leads me to believe that you hold a grudge against them primarily because of their financial success.

 
wes
Comments: 75
Joined: 04/09/2006
01/15/2008 10:17:28 AM
"The differences between the top three Democratic candidates are slim. Barack Obama, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton are all intelligent people with a solid history of serving Americans. I would be honored to cast my vote for any of them. "

Serving or disservice? Instead of listing to the babble. Look at the voting records and the effects of it. Look at thier history. Barack is the only one that looks good on paper - becuase he hasn't had a chance to really do anything. Ie no experience.

John Edwards and his 600.00 hair cut and Hillary a lawyer who made 100k in cattle futures. lol
 
wes
Comments: 75
Joined: 04/09/2006
01/15/2008 10:13:45 AM
I am leaning toward the only Honest person with a proven voting record. Ron Paul. Sure he doesn't have the looks of Obama or the personal money or Romeny. But he is honest and clear about what he says. Some of his ideals are just that, ideals. Congress would still be in control. But he can shed some HONEST light on the topics and get the people to be aware of the issues. God help us if a Democrat is president with a democrat controlled congress.

 
jaydubya
Comments: 193
Joined: 11/05/2006
01/11/2008 01:24:06 AM
John Kerry needs to keep making ketchup and leave politics alone. I agree Brian, who cares what he thinks. For that matter, who cares what Ms. Winfrey thinks either. What is important to me is what this woman and these men think. But can you trust any of them? That was a cheap ploy by Ms. Clinton to cry and sob. Is that how she will react when something along the lines of 9/11 happens? She showed a great weakness whether it was real or planned. I can just see and hear her now "let me have a moment to cry and then regain my composure". Maybe we should elect Scarlet O'Hara, at least she said she would think about it tomorrow. Oh, fiddle dee dee. But then if she is menopausal that could be bad for Iran and Iraq!!!!!!!!!!!! Can't you see it now.

Don't scold me, she tipped her hat first.
 
bygracethrufaith
Comments: 1353
Joined: 07/13/2007
01/08/2008 01:54:31 PM
ringgoldone,

It's a really good example of being biased, as well as being without the ability to look at both sides equally.

And I guess that you can look at me as one of those people who refer to Hilary as "just not THAT woman." I don't like her. And it's not because she's a woman. That would be stupid too.

Also, check out this statement:

"Women comprise the majority of voters, but only 16 percent of Congress. No female presidential candidate has ever before appeared on the national ballot for either major party."

What does that fact tell you? It tells me that WOMEN are not voting for OTHER women, just because they are WOMEN.
Is that a fair assessment?
Looks like I'm not the ONLY woman with the view that I hold.- Looks like I, as a WOMAN, am in the majority on this one.

:)
 
ringgoldone
Comments: 627
Joined: 07/24/2006
01/08/2008 01:45:35 PM
That is why I let someone address it first. Absolute loss for words.

I hope no one takes it seriously, because Mike Huckabee is a person of character. And we need more people in Washington who are people of character and conviction and not power hungry, lifetime politicians who view people as political pawns.

And as far as the FairTax is concerned, JBT needs to research that better. There is already an imbedded tax of 23% in everything we buy. If the FairTax is passed, the imbedded tax will be removed, so the effect will be nil. Also, a Prebate will be issued to every family based on size to cover the tax on basic expenses. So, no one will be hurt.

But, there will be no more income, SS, or death taxes. No more forms to file. No more confusing tax code. Taxes will only be assessed when new items are purchased or services are performed. Americans will no longer have to pay taxes on their earnings and the business taxes passed along in the price of goods sold.
 
bygracethrufaith
Comments: 1353
Joined: 07/13/2007
01/08/2008 01:12:02 PM
ringgoldone,
That JBT has a way with sarcasm...that's the funniest joke...uh, I mean column I've ever read! LOL.

IMHO, the first few paragraphs don't really deserve response...as I don't think that many people will really fully adhere to that truly OVEREXAGGERATED view.

It was the last line that got me:

"What do you call it when a woman votes for Hillary Clinton because she’s female, or a black person prefers Obama because of the color of his skin? It’s called representation."

LOL....I call it STUPIDITY....among other things.

That is about the most racist, gender discrimanatory statement I have ever seen! The only person that can represent ME is the one who I agree with on the issues. It doesn't matter thier SKIN COLOR or their GENDER.
So now we're promoting voting for the candidate that best represents your skin color or sex?
That's ubsurd!

Why aren't we looking for someone that could, oh...say......perhaps, run the country???
 
ringgoldone
Comments: 627
Joined: 07/24/2006
01/08/2008 12:09:15 PM
Anyone care to comment on this?


Jeannie Babb Taylor: Racism, sexism and representation: Primary picks to make your vote count in 2008

Several readers have requested my primary picks. Here they are, from numerous angles and with a humorous twist.

If I were a super-conservative religious male (Christian, Muslim or otherwise) who believes that men are created in God’s image and women are lesser beings, I’d vote for Mike Huckabee. I’d sing hymns in my head while standing in line, and whisper “Amen” when I put my hand on the TV screen. On the way home, I would buy six months’ worth of groceries in anticipation of the 23 percent “Fair Tax” to come.

If I were a rich libertarian who wants to tell other Americans that their education and health care are none of my concern, I’d vote for Ron Paul. I would still have to stop for groceries on the way home. I would especially stock up on medicines, meats and other FDA-approved goods. There is no telling what toxins might be added once Ron Paul eliminates the FDA and gives us back our “health freedom.”

If I were the head of a powerful and corrupt corporation, I would vote for Mitt Romney. He’d be someone I could work with — someone who understands that the bottom line is far more important than the lives of a few babies or the long-term health of women. Romney understands that government is just another form of business.

If I were a secretly gay conservative male bent on suppressing the lifestyles of openly gay liberal males, I’d vote for Rudy Giuliani. With his quick flip-flop from supporting Gay Pride to suddenly endorsing a marriage amendment, it is obvious he has no real scruples and will comply with whatever his handlers say on the matter. I’d try to remember to remove my lipstick before going the polls, and make sure my slip was not showing.

If I were a warhawk with a T-shirt reading, “Kill ‘em all, let God sort ‘em out,” I’d vote for John McCain. I’d invest some money in Dyancorp and Halliburton. Then I’d send my son to Canada, knowing that McCain has stated he does not mind if the troops are in Iraq for a hundred, a thousand, a million or even 10 million years.

If my greatest concern were the economy or health care — perhaps as a plant worker, a school teacher, a parent, an honest business owner or just a middle-class American struggling to pay the bills on time — I would vote for a Democrat. Any Democrat I liked.

Then I would breathe a big sigh of relief, confident that if Democrats win the economy will soon improve and taxes will be held at bay. Democrats are historically much better at managing the national budget, and they don’t tax things like groceries and medical bills.

I’d go home with a smile on my face, knowing that soon our borders will be secure and the government will be targeting the corporations who bus in illegal workers — not raiding and breaking up families. I would feel relieved that our men and women in uniform will soon be coming home — with solid veterans benefits when they return. I’d take my family out to eat, hopeful that my candidate will win and the American economy will at last begin to recover from eight devastating years of Bush.

The differences between the top three Democratic candidates are slim. Barack Obama, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton are all intelligent people with a solid history of serving Americans. I would be honored to cast my vote for any of them.

The differences between the Republican candidates are greater, and the chasm between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party is gaping wider every day. Republicans want to kill, and Democrats want to heal. Republicans want to squeeze the life out of the American lower and middle class, while Democrats want to salvage the economy and strengthen the middle class. Most Republicans want to expand and escalate the war in the Middle East. Democrats want to bring ‘em home.

On Feb. 5, Georgia voters have the opportunity to make history. We can help put the first black person or the first woman on the national ballot. People of color are underrepresented in American government, as are women.

Women comprise the majority of voters, but only 16 percent of Congress. No female presidential candidate has ever before appeared on the national ballot for either major party.

Point this out to some Republicans and they will act like they’re vaguely sorry they didn’t think of it first. “It’s not that I’m against a woman president,” they’ll say, “just not THAT WOMAN.”

Very few can give a substantive reason for opposing Hillary Clinton. More common are knee-jerk reactions based on mischaracterizations or outright lies. Republicans frequently characterize Clinton as a super-divisive liberal, but anyone who follows her actual votes and agendas sees a very different picture. Clinton is a moderate.

Then there is the so-called “Clinton Body Count” that has been regurgitated from the 1990s and is recircling the Internet. This piece of work claims to be a list of all the people who have died “mysteriously” because of their connections to the Clintons. The connection may be tenuous (such as Bill’s chiropractor’s mother, or a person who once lived in Arkansas) and the mysterious death usually is not mysterious at all. Nonetheless, it’s good fodder for fools who say “I got it in an email, so it must be true.”

Sadly, the United States is far behind the times in granting women full access to the government. Other countries have had women in the highest office as far back as the sixties. Great Britain has had Margaret Thatcher, India had Indira Gandhi, and Israel had Golda Meir. Pakistan, Turkey and Bangladesh are all Muslim countries that have placed women at the helm. This short list does not even touch on the extensive list of women who have ruled as royals, stretching from pre-history to modern times.

Who could have imagined that America would cross into the new millennium and journalists would still be asking, “Is America ready for a woman in the White House?”

We should ask ourselves how satisfied we are with the male who has been in office the last seven years. If we elect another man like Bush, we can expect four more years like the last seven.

Hardly anyone favors a candidate solely on sex or skin color. Such traits elicit more votes against than for. Yet there are many people who consider Clinton’s sex and Obama’s color an important part of who they are and how they will lead. All else being equal, many women (and indeed some men) prefer a female candidate. Likewise, many people consider Obama’s skin tone a perk rather than a liability.

What do you call it when a woman votes for Hillary Clinton because she’s female, or a black person prefers Obama because of the color of his skin? It’s called representation.





 
DOGWOOD
Comments: 13
Joined: 11/23/2007
01/08/2008 09:16:59 AM
ONLY 3 THING'S CAN MAKE ME VOTE FOR A REP. HILLERY, OBAMA,AND EDWARDS,AND WITH THE REP.
PARTY WITH A LONG AGO P.O.W. TRADIOR, A MAYOR,WHO TAKES ALL THE CREDIT FOR CLEANING
UP AFTER 9/11, AND ALL THE REAST ARE AS BAD AS HITLER ON WAR-MONGENERING,THATS NOT
GOING TO HAPPEN AT ALL. I GUESS I WILL JUST HAVE TO WRITE IN THE NAME POOR OLD AVRAGE JOE.
<< < Prev - Next > >>