Who's the next president?
- Thread starter MikesToy
- Start date
Jeff Kleb
New member
Thai said:
Most people today have absolutely no clue about the "Founding Fathers" - or the principles of limited government, enumerated powers or even the ideas behind the US Constitution & our Bill of Rights.
I don't know if it is the media, the public education system or just general apathy.....but our nation as a whole seems to be lacking just a bit regarding the "how" and "why" our country became great - as well as the reasons for our current mess.
:bash:
It matters not that you ride a donkey or an elephant - but both seem to be leading us down the wrong road. We cannot tax ourselves into prosperity, folks; ain't gonna happen!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Those ignorant of history are destined to repeat it." -- George Santayana
RonMAIDEN
Super Moderator
I don't have anything to say since I'm not focused on the health care issue but i am curious of what McCain is going to do since it's just all negative attacks on Barack. What is McCain going to do that's much better.
I really don't think Obama's health plans are going to change abit once he's in office and one man doesn't push the plans through.
Throw me a link for McCcain's plan as I am seriously interested since I didn't pay much attention to either's plans on health as much as I should've.
It's all a moot point when Barack wins anyway and you'll have to deal with it whatever happens just as I would if McCain won.
Plus I'm wheeling today and tomorrow so I won't be by a computer til Monday.
Have a good weekend all.
I really don't think Obama's health plans are going to change abit once he's in office and one man doesn't push the plans through.
Throw me a link for McCcain's plan as I am seriously interested since I didn't pay much attention to either's plans on health as much as I should've.
It's all a moot point when Barack wins anyway and you'll have to deal with it whatever happens just as I would if McCain won.
Plus I'm wheeling today and tomorrow so I won't be by a computer til Monday.
Have a good weekend all.
Thai said:
Thai, I agree with you, you shouldn't have to share your hard earned money with a bum. Luckily, I am fairly sure not much of your tax money will go to said bum. With our costly war and and horrible financial market, I haven't heard much talk about money being spent on wellfare programs. The large majority of tax income will be spent on the war and these massive bailouts we keep hearing about. If you would have to pay higher taxes under Obama's tax plan, then you are in the top 5% of our country and I would be grateful for that. Things for you could certainly be a lot worse.
There is a tax calculator, try it out.
http://taxcut.barackobama.com/
As far as social programs, I do feel they deserve some tax money. It is in our best interests to help some people out who need it for a little bit to help them get to a point where they can support themselves. Of course, everyone has heard of cases where people abuse wellfare and live on it for years. But I don't think this is the case with most people. Some people are born into less than ideal circumstances, they should get a leg up, some extra help to overcome obstacles where the odds are against them. This way they can become tax paying citizens who help the country and put money into the economy instead of take from it. There are some people who can rise above bad situations, but these are few and far in between.
Personally, I would like to hear your opinion on McCain's new plan to spend $300b buying up bad mortgages and refinancing at current market values.
RonMAIDEN
Super Moderator
Ok,we're leaving a bit later than I thought.
Also remember it's not only bums that don't have health care,it's middle class and I bet a few members here struggle to get health care for themselves or their families. It's not just about the poor.
Thai,post some supporting facts about McCain since you are running a negative streak against Obama;give me some good reasons to vote for McCain instead of reasons not to vote for Obama.
I know you and I get a bit heated in our discussions but I do respect what you say for the most part since you are a smart guy and do your research so I am listening.
Also remember it's not only bums that don't have health care,it's middle class and I bet a few members here struggle to get health care for themselves or their families. It's not just about the poor.
Thai,post some supporting facts about McCain since you are running a negative streak against Obama;give me some good reasons to vote for McCain instead of reasons not to vote for Obama.
I know you and I get a bit heated in our discussions but I do respect what you say for the most part since you are a smart guy and do your research so I am listening.
Thai
Elite Member
benormous said:
Both of my wife and I have spent many years (and $$$$) to get where we are today...and have a comfortable (not wealthy) living. We are also generous with our donations...but that is where it should be...donations. Why should i give away money on a mandatory basis??
Like Joe the Plumber, in Obama's plan, you are PUNISHED for the rewards of life from hardwork! Does this not make people work less since the gain is not much at all???????? Think about this for a minute...this is pure human nature.
And, possibly unlike you, i have grown up in bad neighborhoods and have seen plenty of fraud in the welfare system.
OUR COUNTRY IS BUILT ON HARDWORK AND CAPITALISM. WORK HARD AND YOU WILL BE REWARDED. This is why this country has been the envy of so many around the world. Why is this concept so hard to understand by Obama supporters?? Why are we trying to destroy this very concept??
If you are in a bad situation, then work harder! Nothing in life is free...that should be the basic thinking of every American.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for other points, i will defer that to people who know more. Healthcare and this tax issue are what bothers me the most because i don't see why anyone support this...let me correct that...i don't see why anyone who has worked hard their whole life would see Obama's vision as good. I don't get it.
Is McCain a better option?? I have no idea, but his ideas do not bother me as much because it does not affect me (and many other hardworking Americans) on a personal basis as much.
Remember, vote for the "lesser of two evils."
I cannot change the vote of many of you, but i do encourage you to think about the consequences. Think about how it will affect you and your family.
For example, a member on here had a heart problem and needed quick evaluations by several specialists. He was treated quickly and is now in good health. How will Obama's healthcare plan affect him in the future if problems arise again?? That is what i am talking about.
Last edited:
Mark86
Super Moderator
I am an independent and not really a fan of either party. For this election, I am completely against Obama. His plans are going to cripple this economy. Think about Obama's tax plan for just a second. Who is it really going to affect? The celebrities and CEO's make millions per year and donate enough of their earnings to charity. So what affect will an increase on taxes really do to their lifestyles? What is another $500,000 or so for them? Now lets look at your doctors, lawyers, stock brokers, and small business owners. I don't want to generalize, but the majority of these people may make $250,000 or a bit more. An increase in taxes is going to hit these people hard. These people work EXTREMELY hard for their money and are trying to live the American dream. I have spoken to many people in each profession and they said that they would reduce their hours to only make $250,000. These people are a large contributor to our economy as well. Think about the repercussions this plan would have on our economy. The tax system is just fine the way it is now. In any economy, it is extremely important to keep one's incentive to work high. Giving back to people who do not want to work is not effective. Finding jobs, forcing employers to give health care or increasing minimum wage would be much more effective in my view- especially to stimulate the economy.
I just read an article that Obama wants to push back the start of Game 6 of the World Series so he could buy 30 minutes of time on FOX. Who is he to control an American past time such as baseball? What is he going to turn our government in to?
While I do not like McCain/Palin either, I find Obama's plans extremely scary. Now this is only my opinion and I don't want to offend anybody or cause any fights.
I just read an article that Obama wants to push back the start of Game 6 of the World Series so he could buy 30 minutes of time on FOX. Who is he to control an American past time such as baseball? What is he going to turn our government in to?
While I do not like McCain/Palin either, I find Obama's plans extremely scary. Now this is only my opinion and I don't want to offend anybody or cause any fights.
Thai said:
Actually it is a form a socialism, just like the one forced through by the Republicans and Democrats alike. As a side, this was the largest in the history of the country. No ones hands are clean.
However, I'd like to point out of your use of the word "Socialism" is just a scare tactic used by Republicans who are too ignorant to consider their environment. The roads you drive on are socialized, the fire department that comes to your house is socialized, same with the police, the school you went to, the school you're send your kids to... all socialized. Social Security, Medicaid? Yup, those are socialized. Removing any one of these "socialized programs" would very likely spell disaster.
The other point you're alluding to is Barack Obama's health plan. If you read more about it, you would actually know that his plan does not run the Health System through the government. He simply seeks to offer a health insurance plan subsidized by the government. You would still visit your same doctors, etc. Health insurance would simply be a lot more affordable.
Last edited:
Mark86 said:
Your idea that the rich will somehow be affected is unfounded. The new higher tax rate only applies to income above $250,000; otherwise the rate is the same. This isn't some ridiculously high tax rate either, it's the same as the one during the Clinton Economy, you know, when the economy was good?
Since 1776 there has never been a period of more wealth at the top 1% of our nation. Consider this quote:
"As in a poker game where the chips were concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, the other fellows could stay in the game only by borrowing. When their credit ran out, the game stopped."
Marriner S. Eccles, who served as Franklin D. Roosevelt's Chairman of the Federal Reserve from November 1934 to February 1948, detailed what he believed caused the Depression in his memoirs
Obama will win this election barring any major misstep. There are places where you can actually bet on the race and they're extremely reliable in predicting the odds: Obama is favored heavily.
Also see http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/
Also see http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/
Mark86
Super Moderator
SonRunner said:Your idea that the rich will somehow be affected is unfounded. The new higher tax rate only applies to income above $250,000; otherwise the rate is the same. This isn't some ridiculously high tax rate either, it's the same as the one during the Clinton Economy, you know, when the economy was good?
Since 1776 there has never been a period of more wealth at the top 1% of our nation. Consider this quote:
"As in a poker game where the chips were concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, the other fellows could stay in the game only by borrowing. When their credit ran out, the game stopped."
Marriner S. Eccles, who served as Franklin D. Roosevelt's Chairman of the Federal Reserve from November 1934 to February 1948, detailed what he believed caused the Depression in his memoirs
I can't find the exact article I read, but here is something similar that made me make that conclusion: http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1031678,obamamccaintaxplans.article
Actually, the surge in the economy under Clinton's rule is probably a result of being in the right place at the right time. He had the luxury of riding the tech era. Just remember, Fannie May and Freddie Mac were established because of pressure from Clinton. He wanted corporations to loan money to risky borrowers. You usually see the results of the previous administrations economic plans years after they are out of office. I actually thought Clinton was a fairly good president too (despite his personal life).
Mark86 said:
That's a pretty cool little chart to break it down. It would actually be cheaper for my wife and I under McCain but at least Obama acknowledges we have to pay our debt down and stop hemorrhaging 10 billion dollars a month in Iraq that we could use right about now!
Thai
Elite Member
SonRunner said:
You're right...we do have some "socialism" in our current society, but I surely do not want anymore of it! In the past, the filthy rich got taxed more than the common folks. However, with Obama's plan, the filthy rich now includes more of the common hardworking folks.
Mark is right...financial punishment of hardworking Americans will only hurt us. Take Joe the Plumber...why is he (along with many other small business owners) being punished for their years of hardwork?? Same goes for our family...we will cut back on work to keep us from the $250k mark. This will hurt ALL business alike.
Are we not AMERICANS?? Again, what is our country built on?? Share the wealth with everyone??!! Our country is built on competition and capitalism. We can live the "American dream" by hardwork and dedication. You get what you work for...and you keep what you make.
Again, it's not that i like McCain's financial plan any better, but i find that Obama's plan hurt me (and many other hardworking Americans) more! Simple truth of the matter.
Ahhh, his health plan. Of course, we have to pay for this. Then, you have decrease pay to doctors and nurses, which is already low to begin with, esp. if everyone gets on this gravy train! Do you ever wonder why Medicaid is not accepted by many doctor offices?? And do you know that many doctors do not like the concept of Medicaid?? It not just the low payments, but because it's FREE to the patients. So, every little runny nose will be a doctor's or ER visit. They don't even go to their doctor's office, they go straight to the hospital. What does this create?? Long waiting times everywhere...higher healthcare costs that the government (e.g. hardworking taxation) has to absorb. Doctors are less encouraged to work harder because the compensation is lower...payment takes longer to come back and the loopholes (beauracracy!) that you have to go through to get payment. It doesn't pay to be a doctor anymore...and it is much less so in the future. Hmmm, why would my son go into the medical field if he has to go through years and years of studies and pile up huge debts, only to be screwed financially when he gets out???
Just remember, where in the world has Obama's healthcare plan succeeded?? Obama is not the only who has thought of this "great" plan. Universal healthcare, in one form or another, is a BIG failure in the big countries (e.g. Canada, England, etc.)...it has become a financial burden and patients and doctors alike hate it. Remind me why we will be any different???
Last edited:
Thai said:
That's not true, it only affects the top 1% of society making more than 250k. Add to that, the new rate only applies to income ABOVE 250k a year. This means the vast majority of Americans will receive a tax cut... a substantial one. The bottom 99% are the ones hurting right now, not the top 1%.
Thai said:
You're apparently late on the news cycle.
It's since been found out that Joe the Plumber makes less than 40k, has $1000 in back taxes he owes, he's in no position to buy any business, let alone the one that makes $250k a year. The one he proposed buying only make $110k a year. Add to that, his name isn't Joe (yeah, seriously.). He was a plant by the McCain campaign. He would not see higher taxes under Obama, in fact they would be lower than with McCain! Frankly, people making a quarter of a million dollars are year are not struggling. To suggest so is almost insulting to those who are scraping by like our Teachers, Cops, Fire Fighters, etc who are making about 40k a year. It's about what's fair.
Thai said:
Our country is built on the premise of fairness, and certain inalienable rights that guarantee our freedom. If you're making more than $250k, you are blessed and are at the top 1% of this nation. To amass such fortunes in this country is one of the benefits of living here. Throughout the world peoples dreams would simply be an impossibility. The United States makes it a possibility. Especially in a time of hardship for so many it's only fair that those that are successful and have the means help our country out. Rather than cling to amounts of money that are going to have 0 effect on their standard of living. And again, we're not talking about some outrageous tax level. We're talking about the same ones under the Clinton administration when we were actually paying down the national debt. A huge priority right now!!!
Thai said:
You need to elaborate here rather than throw out generalities.
It's been pointed out numerous times than Obama's plan will favor 99% of Americans, the working class that exists as the bedrock of this countryThai said:
Like I said in my last post: His health plan is not nationalized health care. It simply subsidizes health insurance. If you can't afford it, the government will offer you the same plan government employees get at a discounted rate (eg Blue Cross Blue Shield).
I travel to Europe for business occasionally and obviously have dealings with my European counterparts. Since this issue is such a flashpoint in Americans politics I ask them what they think about it. They all think it's absurd that so many Americans do not have coverage. They also do not loathe their national plans and think that it is a great service to their country.
The United States is the largest industrialized country in the world, yet we have the worst health care system of all of them as you can see by some of the posts on this very thread. Consider that $800 of your health insurance plan at work is just to cover the uninsured. Something HAS to be done. McCains plan simply punishes small businesses by way of a tax on benefits and only offers a 5k tax credit when insurance on average costs more than twice that!
Do the math!
Jeff Kleb
New member
Socialism
Correct! The growth of government has occurred under the hegemony of both the Reboobligans and the Dummycraps. What really differentiates a welfare state versus the nanny state? It's a very thin line indeed.
While it is true that we need a certain amount of 'socialism' in life, those things should almost always be limited only to things that we cannot do for ourselves as individual citizens. For instance, the military, police protection, highways, courts/justice system, some basic infrastructure, etc., etc.
Those of us who favor more individual liberty will naturally be opposed to the government, particularly at the federal level, being involved in every other aspect of our lives. It is also unconsitutional for Uncle Sham to be doing that anyway.
Can you find anything about health care, retirement or education itemized in Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution? I doubt it. Those are the "enumerated powers" -- what our Founders wanted the federal government to handle. Such things would included foreign relations, war, military, regulation of interstate commerce, coining money, federal courts, etc., etc. As per the Tenth Amendment, the other things shall remain the domain of the states and the people.
Something about quacking, having feathers and walking like a duck comes to mind here. With federal money {which is what a subsidy really is} comes federal strings and federal control. Not only will this simply not work, it is outside the constitutional power of the federal government. (Not that such a limitation ever stops a determined bureaucrat.....but it is what it is.)
Hate to rain on your parade, but I'll have to agree with history on this issue. Since when does government involvement, federal subsidies or legislative fiat ever reduce the cost of something or improve quality? Has federal involvement reduced the cost of anything lately? Come on, now.
:girl:
Remember that you're talking about the same folks who brought us Medicare, Medicaid, public education, the IRS, Social Security, the banking/financial crisis and the DMV.
:bash:
Just what has federal involvement done to lower the cost of anything or make it more affordable? Look at what has happened to the cost of colleges since more federal money has been set aside for student loans! Yep, costs have skyrocketed - only to lead to more calls for more money so that more kids can go to college. What has happend to the cost of health care with so much federal mandates and money? There is a noticeable pattern, grasshopper.
My old age may have made more more cynical, but I doubt that trying to do an end run around both the US Constitution and market forces is going to do anything at all to lower costs or improve quality.
Our kids and grandkids are going to look at us in thirty years and say, "Just what were you people thinking in 2008, Gramps?"
Correct! The growth of government has occurred under the hegemony of both the Reboobligans and the Dummycraps. What really differentiates a welfare state versus the nanny state? It's a very thin line indeed.
While it is true that we need a certain amount of 'socialism' in life, those things should almost always be limited only to things that we cannot do for ourselves as individual citizens. For instance, the military, police protection, highways, courts/justice system, some basic infrastructure, etc., etc.
Those of us who favor more individual liberty will naturally be opposed to the government, particularly at the federal level, being involved in every other aspect of our lives. It is also unconsitutional for Uncle Sham to be doing that anyway.
Can you find anything about health care, retirement or education itemized in Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution? I doubt it. Those are the "enumerated powers" -- what our Founders wanted the federal government to handle. Such things would included foreign relations, war, military, regulation of interstate commerce, coining money, federal courts, etc., etc. As per the Tenth Amendment, the other things shall remain the domain of the states and the people.
Something about quacking, having feathers and walking like a duck comes to mind here. With federal money {which is what a subsidy really is} comes federal strings and federal control. Not only will this simply not work, it is outside the constitutional power of the federal government. (Not that such a limitation ever stops a determined bureaucrat.....but it is what it is.)
Hate to rain on your parade, but I'll have to agree with history on this issue. Since when does government involvement, federal subsidies or legislative fiat ever reduce the cost of something or improve quality? Has federal involvement reduced the cost of anything lately? Come on, now.
:girl:
Remember that you're talking about the same folks who brought us Medicare, Medicaid, public education, the IRS, Social Security, the banking/financial crisis and the DMV.
:bash:
Just what has federal involvement done to lower the cost of anything or make it more affordable? Look at what has happened to the cost of colleges since more federal money has been set aside for student loans! Yep, costs have skyrocketed - only to lead to more calls for more money so that more kids can go to college. What has happend to the cost of health care with so much federal mandates and money? There is a noticeable pattern, grasshopper.
My old age may have made more more cynical, but I doubt that trying to do an end run around both the US Constitution and market forces is going to do anything at all to lower costs or improve quality.
Our kids and grandkids are going to look at us in thirty years and say, "Just what were you people thinking in 2008, Gramps?"
Last edited:
Jeff Kleb
New member
Socialism (Cont'd)
After spending some time on-line and reading various bulletin boards (not just this one), I cannot help but worry about the future of our nation.
Doesn't anyone have an understanding of basic history, fundamental economics or elementary civics anymore? It is crazy to see how many people believe in some type of monolithic federal government that can be all things to all people. Even more frightening is the number of folks who believe that either of the two parties really have the best interest of the American people at heart.
We've fought wars - both here and abroad - to rid ourselves of tyranny & corruption; only to have millions of voters apparently embrace a different version of the same thing.
:bash:
There's also an emerging crowd that somehow has fallen under the spell that we're able to tax ourselves into prosperity. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but that just is not going to happen.
Be careful what you wish for, folks, because some of you just might get it.
"Government is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it can be both a dangerous servant and a fearful master." -- George Washington
After spending some time on-line and reading various bulletin boards (not just this one), I cannot help but worry about the future of our nation.
Doesn't anyone have an understanding of basic history, fundamental economics or elementary civics anymore? It is crazy to see how many people believe in some type of monolithic federal government that can be all things to all people. Even more frightening is the number of folks who believe that either of the two parties really have the best interest of the American people at heart.
We've fought wars - both here and abroad - to rid ourselves of tyranny & corruption; only to have millions of voters apparently embrace a different version of the same thing.
:bash:
There's also an emerging crowd that somehow has fallen under the spell that we're able to tax ourselves into prosperity. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but that just is not going to happen.
Be careful what you wish for, folks, because some of you just might get it.
"Government is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it can be both a dangerous servant and a fearful master." -- George Washington
Thai
Elite Member
SonRunner said:That's not true, it only affects the top 1% of society making more than 250k.
You're apparently late on the news cycle.
Like I said in my last post: His health plan is not nationalized health care. It simply subsidizes health insurance. If you can't afford it, the government will offer you the same plan government employees get at a discounted rate (eg Blue Cross Blue Shield).
I travel to Europe for business occasionally and obviously have dealings with my European counterparts. Since this issue is such a flashpoint in Americans politics I ask them what they think about it. They all think it's absurd that so many Americans do not have coverage. They also do not loathe their national plans and think that it is a great service to their country.
The United States is the largest industrialized country in the world, yet we have the worst health care system of all of them as you can see by some of the posts on this very thread. Consider that $800 of your health insurance plan at work is just to cover the uninsured. Something HAS to be done.
Unfortunately, if my wife and I work to our potential, then we are in this "1%" tax bracket. Am i struggling?? I struggle like the average American...we watch our budget, we watch how much we drive and spend on gas, we watch our 401k, etc..
Joe the Plumber is named Joe, isn't he?? Maybe i am outdated, but his name is Joe and some long last name?? What is his name??
He may be a fake, but his situation is NOT. My wife's aunt owns a small corner store and is indeed concern about Obama's tax plan.
You need to ask your local doctors and hospitals about how they feel about Blue Cross Blue Shield in general!! Only a rare few BCBS plan is widely accepted. Why i know this?? My wife works for the government (indirectly) and has BCBS.
Your European friends are lying to you!!
It is widely acknowledged the failure of universal healthcare in other countries. See my previous links in this thread.
Last edited:
Jeff Kleb
New member
Tax Plan
A lot has been said about Obama's tax plans and the "250k" threshold for being 'wealthy'.
First of all, is that 250k of income, revenue or what? This seems more and more like a contrived figure designed to appeal to the "class envy" crowd. It really won't do much to affect the really wealthy or the 'super rich' because they already got theirs. More accurately, it will end up knocking the legs out from those who are trying to become wealthy. It could also be potentially harmful to small businesspeople (of whom I was one for about fourteen years), and might make the difference between staying in business & keeping your employees on the payroll - or folding up, going under and leaving your workers on unemployment.
250k is darn good money around here, but is not much more than chump change in some parts of the country. That is a relative figure, I am sure. Try being "rich" on 250 grand of income in San Francisco, New York City or Northern Virginia.
As for not taxing the middle class or the lower classes, don't people realize that tax rates trickle down as well? There are also other taxes that must be paid besides the income tax. FICA, fuel taxes, corporate 'value added' taxes, Medicare, toll roads, excise taxes, energy surcharges, "gas guzzler" taxes, user fees and gazillions of other hidden levies are going to work their way down to the rest of us when they get "passed on" by the supposed targets of them.
:bash:
The best "tax sytem" would no doubt be simpler, fairer and flatter than anything we have here now. A flat-rate income tax - with a simple, single exemption per taxpayer is one idea. A 'national sales tax' is yet another. Both have problems inherent with getting people to understand what should or should not be exempt, but either option is preferable to the morass and imbroglio that we currently have.
No matter whether the next President of the US rides to work on a donkey or an elephant, I doubt much will be changed. It appears that one may be the lesser of two evils, but the "Joe Six Pack" taxpayer is still going to get hosed. It is also going to be a problem for kids not even born yet when all that green ink and white paper will be combined to 'monetize' our debt in the coming years.
Okay - end of rant for now. Places to go and people to see, you know?
:chair:
A lot has been said about Obama's tax plans and the "250k" threshold for being 'wealthy'.
First of all, is that 250k of income, revenue or what? This seems more and more like a contrived figure designed to appeal to the "class envy" crowd. It really won't do much to affect the really wealthy or the 'super rich' because they already got theirs. More accurately, it will end up knocking the legs out from those who are trying to become wealthy. It could also be potentially harmful to small businesspeople (of whom I was one for about fourteen years), and might make the difference between staying in business & keeping your employees on the payroll - or folding up, going under and leaving your workers on unemployment.
250k is darn good money around here, but is not much more than chump change in some parts of the country. That is a relative figure, I am sure. Try being "rich" on 250 grand of income in San Francisco, New York City or Northern Virginia.
As for not taxing the middle class or the lower classes, don't people realize that tax rates trickle down as well? There are also other taxes that must be paid besides the income tax. FICA, fuel taxes, corporate 'value added' taxes, Medicare, toll roads, excise taxes, energy surcharges, "gas guzzler" taxes, user fees and gazillions of other hidden levies are going to work their way down to the rest of us when they get "passed on" by the supposed targets of them.
:bash:
The best "tax sytem" would no doubt be simpler, fairer and flatter than anything we have here now. A flat-rate income tax - with a simple, single exemption per taxpayer is one idea. A 'national sales tax' is yet another. Both have problems inherent with getting people to understand what should or should not be exempt, but either option is preferable to the morass and imbroglio that we currently have.
No matter whether the next President of the US rides to work on a donkey or an elephant, I doubt much will be changed. It appears that one may be the lesser of two evils, but the "Joe Six Pack" taxpayer is still going to get hosed. It is also going to be a problem for kids not even born yet when all that green ink and white paper will be combined to 'monetize' our debt in the coming years.
Okay - end of rant for now. Places to go and people to see, you know?
:chair:
