Democrats or Republicans?

[DeusProto]

I thought freedom was patriotic. :wacko:

586841766[/snapback]

Who do you think protects those freedoms? Liberals? If liberals were in power after 9/11 we'd be suing al-Qaeda instead of fighting them! The Republicans are the only ones willing to protect us from the evildoers at the gates that want to take away our way of life.

[ShaneSparky_YYZ]

I'm Liberal, but I have a bit of Conservative in me.

However I don't pick my party based on my religion and their beliefs.

I pick what I think is best to offer at the moment and who wants what done.

I know most of it never happens anyways, and people will say its all lies but who knew a hurricane was going to happen, or a major snow storm. Something needs to be cut to make up for the expense.

One thing that annoys me tho is certain religions that interfere with political issues.

They shouldn't brainwash people into thinking they must vote for a certain party because "god" said thats right or wrong. Meh. Thankfully i'm agnostic ;)

[Diffused Mind]

As for your second comment, this nation was founded on Judeo-Christian values and it is in a citizen's best interest to be compatible with those values, at the least.

586841791[/snapback]

You cannot be serious. This is just bloody outrageous. :laugh:

[DeusProto]

Wow. I think you should take a step back and look at how irrational you are being. Democrats will not ever win another election? Think again. America sees that the Republican party is the one true American party? That's why the last election was so close, right?

You also fail to realize that not everyone in the country is Christian. Sheesh. :rolleyes:

586841760[/snapback]

In 2004 President George W Bush won by an astonishing margin of 3.7 MILLION votes. That sir is by many definitions a MANDATE. The American people spoke loud and clearly, that only one party is able to keep our nation secure and running: The Republican party.

As for your second comment, this nation was founded on Judeo-Christian values and it is in a citizen's best interest to be compatible with those values, at the least.

[icecaveman]

To comment on icecaveman's response: Its actually not crazy. With all of the tax cuts we've had, we've actually collected MORE tax revenue. The reason is because those who get a tax break (not just the high rich, janitors I know got a tax rebate) spend their excess money on goods and services. Capitalism at its finest folks...

586841718[/snapback]

Yes but that's what they say all the time and then reduce them some more, now that's some very far-sighted process you got going there.

These people who want to cheat, most of them will always cheat anyway. Or they might not cheat but once they get used to the reduced taxes they'll start feeling like they are unfair again.

Now if they were extremely high like they are in some european countries where the rich people escape the countries to avoid taxes I would understand your frustration with the taxes.

[runningking7]

One thing that annoys me tho is certain religions that interfere with political issues.

They shouldn't brainwash people into thinking they must vote for a certain party because "god" said thats right or wrong.  Meh.  Thankfully i'm agnostic ;)

586841796[/snapback]

Are you sure you are not a clone of moi?

[DeusProto]

And you honestly believe that the society quality would be sustained using that tactic?

586841815[/snapback]

Society should be self sufficient. If someone is too lazy to get an education and get a real job then why should the rest of society hold them up with welfare and other social services? People should make their own way. Society would prosper much under a flat tax. You would see massive GDP growth, among other things.

[ZTrang]

I believe parties are a necessary evil that provide another check in our political system; however, because of their very nature, parties are bad. They inevitably grow to exist first and foremost to perpetuate their own existance and power at any cost. Thankfully, two such parties provide a perfect system of balance, allowing the evils of both parties to be kept in check as they both vie for the support of the populace. As a corollary of this state of affairs, I prefer not to claim to be a staunch supporter of either party - this would lead to my being forced to support views that I don't necessarily agree with, and leads to a mindset where one perpetually has to justify their allegiance to the party (or not think about it at all), rather than continually and freely re-evaluating their position.

My advice? Don't affiliate with either party. When an office comes up for a popular vote, review the voices on both sides, especially the voices of those who you believe have the smallest conflict of interest and the most knowledge and experience, and cast your vote for the candidate whom you support the most. In this way, you can expand your own knowledge and contribute the most to the political process, as well as keeping the politicians most accountable by ensuring that they don't have your vote solely because you are a member of their party - they have to actually work to gain your favor.

[y0sh]

There should be a flat income tax regardless of income. No more of this pay higher percent because you earn more crap that the leftists installed over the years. Success should not be punished.

586841690[/snapback]

And you honestly believe that the society quality would be sustained using that tactic?

I don't vote, nor do I associate myself with any party. I think for myself. Basically I am a liberal by thought, though I do relate to some conservative attitudes (Immigration, partially fiscal, etc.).

'Ethical Issues': I don't believe in religion or God, and I have a disdain for Christianity's converting methods. Conservatives don't seem to realize that Christianity isn't the only religion, and it is NOT correct by any means. I am pro-science to the fullest extent - It is the only worthwhile thing in life; This makes me pro-choice.

Edited November 23, 2005 by y0sh

[JK1150]

And you honestly believe that the society quality would be sustained using that tactic?

586841815[/snapback]

He is probably more referring to the more common "flat tax cut" issue that many people claim is unfair. While richer people will usually have to pay higher taxes, we should not raise their taxes to be able to lower the middle class taxes more. What would be the motivation to succeed if getting rich just means getting taxed back down to the middle class?

[cork1958]

Woot! I just made it a tie between the Democrats and those "other" guys.

[Jaded]

Society should be self sufficient. If someone is too lazy to get an education and get a real job then why should the rest of society hold them up with welfare and other social services? People should make their own way. Society would prosper much under a flat tax. You would see massive GDP growth, among other things.

586841824[/snapback]

Ok how about this, lower income people would be paying a much larger share of their income than more well off people. That is plain unfair and gives them no incentive to work to their potential at their job, if they end up at a lower paying job. This would also have more people clamouring for higher paying jobs so they can actually afford to live.

It would not raise enough money for national expendatures such as military, education, health care, etc

10's of thousands of lawyers and accountants would loose their job since anyone with a $5 cacluator could figure out their taxes with the simpler system

[Whiffle]

I'm a right wing nut job. I drive a four bah four, I like guns, I like to camp, I eat meat, I voted for Bush.

Not a Registered republican, though definitly conservative. I disagree with both parties on plenty of issues, but the way I see it alot of the left has gone off the deep end as of late, and I've always been pretty conservative anyway.

Speaking of which:

[ZTrang]

And you honestly believe that the society quality would be sustained using that tactic?

586841815[/snapback]

I'm not sure whether you meant "social equality" in that statement. However, in both cases I believe that yes, a flat tax would help to accomplish that, given a certain interpretation of the phrase "social equality." A flat tax (by percentage, mind you - so more income would still mean more taxes, but you would be taxed an equal percentage no matter your level of income) encourages people to make more money - you are not punished for rising to a higher tax bracket, so the government rewards you for your ambition, rather than punishing you. Hence, a flat tax creates a society more conducive to success, which as a by-product produces consumer wealth (which is returned to the economy in terms of purchased goods), as well as jobs (since many individuals become wealthy by running corporations). As for social equality, I believe a flat tax would produce a situation where all people are rewarded equally for their success - I believe that equality means equality of opportunity, not equality of conditions (the latter is tantamount to socialism, which I strongly disapprove of both idealistically and practically).

In fact, I believe that income taxes should be abolished (as they were pre-1911, if I remember correctly), and they be replaced by a national sales tax on "luxury" goods (i.e. goods other than those required for basic existance, such as food). This would 1) prevent rich individuals from dodging tax laws and cheating the government of money, and 2) link your taxes to your spending. This would in fact be an even more equitable way to assess taxes, as if you're richer, you spend more, meaning the rich still end up paying more, but they are not penalized for earning more (and in fact the poor end up paying a smaller portion of their income in taxes, as they tend to buy far fewer luxury goods). The downside to this is that you could potentially discourage consumer spending, hurting the economy - but if you're encouraged to make more money by the abolition of an income tax, then this downside seems to be more than made up for.

Edited November 23, 2005 by ZTrang

[y0sh]

Society should be self sufficient. If someone is too lazy to get an education and get a real job then why should the rest of society hold them up with welfare and other social services? People should make their own way. Society would prosper much under a flat tax. You would see massive GDP growth, among other things.

586841824[/snapback]

Thats no society then. You live in a society, and this is how a society works - it shares. If you want to be self sufficient, implement your own system. Though, I'm not saying I agree with the welfare system entirely, I see it's benefits. I upholds a society. My family is well off, but I realize that not everybody can be comfortable. Believe it or not, it is symbiotic.

You're kidding yourself, bro. Many of the pleasures you take advantage of in your society are there due to the excess tax income from the rich. Could it be a little moderated than it is? Sure! But it shouldn't be a abolished, as it is essential.

Also, is it really worth your effort/trauma/thought? You seem like the type who is focused on only what is beneath your nose. There's a whole universe out there. There is an infinite amount of time, past and future. Is your miniscule time-frame on this little planet worth all the thought?

As a spectator, to me it feels like the Republican party is darker than it wants to appear. I see quite a lot of corruption, but if thats their strategy, go for it.

[ineedsleep]

I am a member of the AMERICAN PARTY also known as the Republican party! The party of patriots the party of common sense.  Most importantly, the party of our LORD and savior.

The traitor and coward party, the democrats, need to do the honorable thing and disband. Democrats will NEVER win ANY election ever again because America sees that the Republican party is the one TRUE American party.

Do your patriotic duty and vote Republican down the line in 2006 and 2008!

586841664[/snapback]

Wow...These kind of ignorant and moronic creatures do exist. I wish we could somehow remove them from the gene pool.

[icecaveman]

Society should be self sufficient. If someone is too lazy to get an education and get a real job then why should the rest of society hold them up with welfare and other social services? People should make their own way. Society would prosper much under a flat tax. You would see massive GDP growth, among other things.

586841824[/snapback]

What would you say if you were a fairly bright boy raised by a poor family?

Most American parents save a lot of money just to get their kids to go to a good school, now what if your parents are losers and had nothing? The kid would have to work for it and could never afford to go to a good school of his dreams unless he got extremely lucky and made a lot of sacrifices. Now how is the kid who gets everything given into his hands from his rich parent not considered lazy when the poor boy works his behind off?

Thankfully for the Army this way gets a lot of new recruits...

The way I see republicans in general is most of them are quite short sighted, they think only about their own benefits, even though evidence points to harder times in the coming decades it usually gets neglected. Like they either have given up all hope for the future or delude them selves thinking everything will just automatically turn great.

[ZTrang]

Ok how about this, lower income people would be paying a much larger share of their income than more well off people. That is plain unfair and gives them no incentive to work to their potential at their job, if they end up at a lower paying job. This would also have more people clamouring for higher paying jobs so they can actually afford to live.

It would not raise enough money for national expendatures such as military, education, health care, etc

10's of thousands of lawyers and accountants would loose their job since anyone with a $5 cacluator could figure out their taxes with the simpler system

586841848[/snapback]

I think you misunderstand - a flat tax does not imply a fixed amount of money, but rather a fixed percentage of your money. Thus, lower-income citizens would pay exactly the same proportion of their income in taxes as the highest-income citizens, which, if we believe that all citizens should be equal, seems the most fair in principle (though practical arguments can and are made against it).

[Whiffle]

Wow...These kind of ignorant and moronic creatures do exist. I wish we could somehow remove them from the gene pool.

586841870[/snapback]

With posts like that, you're doing no better.

[Jaded]

I think you misunderstand - a flat tax does not imply a fixed amount of money, but rather a fixed percentage of your money.  Thus, lower-income citizens would pay exactly the same proportion of their income in taxes as the highest-income citizens, which, if we believe that all citizens should be equal, seems the most fair in principle (though practical arguments can and are made against it).

586841857[/snapback]

No I took it as a fixed percentage, not a fixed amount of money. And yes it still would be unfair to the poor and only benefit the rich.

Say you have a person who makes 15,000 a year and tax is 20% (example), their share would be 3,000.

Now take a person who makes 150,000 a year. With the same percentage their share is 30,000.

Now I ask, who is going to notice the money paid out in taxes more?

[icecaveman]

No I took it as a fixed percentage, not a fixed amount of money. And yes it still would be unfair to the poor and only benefit the rich.

Say you have a person who makes 15,000 a year and tax is 20% (example), their share would be 3,000.

Now take a person who makes 150,000 a year. With the same percentage their share is 30,000.

Now I ask, who is going to notice the money paid out in taxes more?

586841895[/snapback]

Don't try that logic, rich people never get this because they don't even understand what it is having to reduce their food quality just to survive and live in horrible appartments with everyhing in bad condition.

They would rather notice it if they'd had to get a 42" TV instead of a 54" one than if they were missing some important minerals from their dish.

[ZTrang]

No I took it as a fixed percentage, not a fixed amount of money. And yes it still would be unfair to the poor and only benefit the rich.

Say you have a person who makes 15,000 a year and tax is 20% (example), their share would be 3,000.

Now take a person who makes 150,000 a year. With the same percentage their share is 30,000.

Now I ask, who is going to notice the money paid out in taxes more?

586841895[/snapback]

Okay - it's just that in that case you were inaccurate in saying the poor would end up paying a greater portion of their income (all portions would be the same). However, while it's true that the rich would in general "notice" the taxes less (where by "notice" we both mean feel an impact in their standard of living, since even the rich will notice when 40% of their income is taken by the government), I don't think that's a justification for taking more of their money. In principle, I believe that all people, rich or poor, should be treated equally - socioeconomic status should not advantage or disadvantage you in the eyes of the government. Also, from a practical standpoint a progressive tax system discourages ambition, as it penalizes you for making more money - bad thing, since making more money generally stimulates the economy in ways I've outlined in previous posts.

I don't think that the tax system should in fact "benefit" anybody; if everybody has equality of opportunity (which I acknowledge is not always the case, but this should be solved in other ways than by entrenching the inequities), then everybody should be treated equally, because no side deserves a benefit. Also, note that by equality of opportunity I don't mean that all people from this fact should be able to obtain the same positions and status - only that individuals with equal amounts of intelligence and ambition in any beginning status should be able to reach the same levels of achievement.

[Jaded]

Okay - it's just that in that case you were inaccurate in saying the poor would end up paying a greater portion of their income (all portions would be the same).  However, while it's true that the rich would in general "notice" the taxes less (where by "notice" we both mean feel an impact in their standard of living, since even the rich will notice when 40% of their income is taken by the government), I don't think that's a justification for taking more of their money.  In principle, I believe that all people, rich or poor, should be treated equally - socioeconomic status should not advantage or disadvantage you in the eyes of the government.  Also, from a practical standpoint a progressive tax system discourages ambition, as it penalizes you for making more money - bad thing, since making more money generally stimulates the economy in ways I've outlined in previous posts.

586841909[/snapback]

Ok i'll admit I miss typed by saying a greater portion. But the point still remains that if you translate the current tax system to a flat tax as it would affect a persons quality of living for a lower income person, the change would have more of an impact to them. Also so what if a person makes more money, that just means they are in a better position to contribute to social programs without it being detrimental to their lifestyle. Sure they may have to save a bit longer for that SUV or 51" plasma...but its not like they have to decide where they are going to get food for their kids that day.

[Whiffle]

Thats no society then. You live in a society, and this is how a society works - it shares. If you want to be self sufficient, implement your own system. Though, I'm not saying I agree with the welfare system entirely, I see it's benefits. I upholds a society. My family is well off, but I realize that not everybody can be comfortable. Believe it or not, it is symbiotic.

You're kidding yourself, bro. Many of the pleasures you take advantage of in your society are there due to the excess tax income from the rich. Could it be a little moderated than it is? Sure! But it shouldn't be a abolished, as it is essential.

Also, is it really worth your effort/trauma/thought? You seem like the type who is focused on only what is beneath your nose. There's a whole universe out there. There is an infinite amount of time, past and future. Is your miniscule time-frame on this little planet worth all the thought?

As a spectator, to me it feels like the Republican party is darker than it wants to appear. I see quite a lot of corruption, but if thats their strategy, go for it.

586841866[/snapback]

OK, we all know governments, by nature, are wasteful. Why the heck would anyone want to pay money into a government, only to have that government loose a % of it, and then redistribute it to those people that some politician on capitol hill decided fits some unflexible definition of "needy"? Welfare should not be the government's business, as it is too wasteful and inflexible. When I pay into it, I really have no idea where that money is going to end up. I would much rather live in a society where I can give money to whom I please, when I please, and how much I please. Not only is there better satisfaction of knowing where my money is going to end up, its more efficient.

Republican party is darker than it wants to appear? Without proof, that is pure silliness. I'm not saying they are angels by any means, but there is going to be just as much corruption on the other side of the aisle. Humans are humans, red or blue, and all of them are susceptable to corruption. Saying one party is more corrupt than the other is just silly, especially when its based on feelings. In my world, I base as much as I can on facts, not "how I feel" or "what I percieve to be true, the truth be damned." Emotions are not facts, and allowing emotions to replace facts in decision making is insanity.

[ClubNinja]

I am a Democrat :)

Republicans are the Anti Christ.