Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 16

Thread: In 2010 I won't vote

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    80

    In 2010 I won't vote

    The Democratic Party has decided to wait until after the elections to vote upon the tax cuts.

    I fully support Obama’s position that we cannot afford to continue the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest taxpayers. I’d prefer that the discounted tax rates for long term capital gains incomes be eliminated and replaced with more populist tax cuts.

    Since 1959 after leaving the service, I’ve voted in every general election and have missed very few primary elections. I will wait until the tax bill is brought to the floors of both U.S. Congressional houses and is brought to a floor vote in the House of Representatives before I vote in a general election.

    This is my 74th year. Finally in 2008 I stopped voting for the least evil and determined that I require a candidate at minimum substantially concur with my opinion upon at least one issue and methods to achieve our perceived goal. I won’t absolutely always vote for a candidate that simply only meets my minimum standard.

    Obama’s speaks well on the issues but lacks explicit explanation of how he prefers the laws should be drafted to achieve specific goals. His campaign office has written, (but I’ve never actually found a direct quote from Obama), that he was a proponent of the federal minimum wage tied to a cost of living adjustment, (i.e. COLA). Based upon that minimal but substantial agreement I voted for Obama. I fear that true to his normal behavior, Obama and the Democrats will acquiesce to Republicans. If the minimum is increased, The Democrats will not press for it being thereafter COLA’d.

    A COLA’d minimum wage rate will not substantially improve USA’s economy but it is certainly an improvement of a non-COLA’d minimum wage. Any significant federal minimum wage is preferable to an ineffective minimum wage. I suppose it is feasible for a minimum wage rate to be excessive and detrimental to an economy. The greater harm occurs within jurisdictions adjoining others having inadequate wage scales and goods and persons have unrestricted passage over their borders. I have never encountered a historical reference to a nation’s economy being harmed by an excessively great minimum wage. I don’t believe there’s ever been an excessive minimum wage within any nation.

    Obama is the titular head of the Democratic Party. Obama and our nation were lucky he achieved anything. It was due to chance rather than political competence that gave our nation comparatively less superior health insurance legislation. I am not angry because of what he and his party failed to achieve. I’m furious of what positions he surrendered without fully negotiating for anything better. Politics is not a dirty word and negotiation is respectable. Acquiescence and submission are despicable words and are generally cowardly and despicable acts.

    It is my patriotic duty not to vote for a party that leads in the wrong direction or a second party that lacks leadership and has no definite direction. The Republicans will lead us until we recognize that it’s the wrong direction. Retaining no consistency of direction, Democrats will are unable to correct our nation’s course.

    I will not vote for any Democrats until Obama and his party finds and retain some courage. Thus far it appears that I will not vote for Obama in 2012.

    Respectfully, Supposn

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    12,657
    Overly taxing the rich is a losing proposition. They raised taxes on the rich in New York and a lot of them left the state, including Rush Limbaugh. Even the mayor of NY admitted they screwed up. Revenues to the state actually went down. STUPID.

    All the rich do when they get a new tax levied against them is spend their time figuring out ways to avoid the taxes, instead of investing the money in new business ventures, R&D, bonds, etc. Sometimes they move their money offshore, like the Clinton's did, to avoid taxes. Sometimes they leave the country entirely. And when you tax the corporations they usually just pass the expense down to the little guy in the form of increased prices for goods and services.

    You may remember when the liberals did a 10% "get the rich" (surcharge) tax on yachts. Well, the rich quit buying them for the most part and the yacht companies started going broke. They had to start laying off the little guy and taxes to Uncle Sam suffered because business stunk. So the little guy took it in the shorts, along with Uncle Sam. STUPID.

    The little guy is the one who usually gets screwed when liberals start their new programs. Welfare created the welfare state. $400 stipends for the homeless in San Francisco brought every bum across America into their back yard. Crime and violence went up and people suffered.

    Liberals are either ignorant of these things or they just keep pumping the same dead horse thinking they might get a new outcome next time.

    Now they're spending money like drunken sailors and running up an enormous debt that's going to cost $600 billion or more a year just to pay the interest on the debt. Pretty soon we won't be able to afford submarines and military hardware to protect ourselves.

    And those are more reasons why liberals are dangerous.
    “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” - Robert Jastrow

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    80

    Those earning the least are the most "overly taxed"

    Easy Rider, you begin your message by stating “Overly taxing the rich is a losing proposition”.

    The issue is the overly taxing that begins with our working poor and reaches up from there to all of our middle income earners. It is they rather than the rich that are being overly taxed. The bush administration has shifted greater portions of the federal tax burden upon those who earn the least incomes.

    Refer to the discussion thread
    . . entitled “FICA’s the most regressive federal tax” within the tax debate bosrd.
    .
    Respectfully, Supposn
    Last edited by Supposn; 10-06-2010 at 10:28 PM. Reason: insetedrefered board name.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,718
    Quote Originally Posted by Easyrider View Post
    Overly taxing the rich is a losing proposition. They raised taxes on the rich in New York and a lot of them left the state, including Rush Limbaugh. Even the mayor of NY admitted they screwed up. Revenues to the state actually went down. STUPID.

    All the rich do when they get a new tax levied against them is spend their time figuring out ways to avoid the taxes, instead of investing the money in new business ventures, R&D, bonds, etc. Sometimes they move their money offshore, like the Clinton's did, to avoid taxes. Sometimes they leave the country entirely. And when you tax the corporations they usually just pass the expense down to the little guy in the form of increased prices for goods and services.

    You may remember when the liberals did a 10% "get the rich" (surcharge) tax on yachts. Well, the rich quit buying them for the most part and the yacht companies started going broke. They had to start laying off the little guy and taxes to Uncle Sam suffered because business stunk. So the little guy took it in the shorts, along with Uncle Sam. STUPID.

    The little guy is the one who usually gets screwed when liberals start their new programs. Welfare created the welfare state. $400 stipends for the homeless in San Francisco brought every bum across America into their back yard. Crime and violence went up and people suffered.

    Liberals are either ignorant of these things or they just keep pumping the same dead horse thinking they might get a new outcome next time.

    Now they're spending money like drunken sailors and running up an enormous debt that's going to cost $600 billion or more a year just to pay the interest on the debt. Pretty soon we won't be able to afford submarines and military hardware to protect ourselves.

    And those are more reasons why liberals are dangerous.
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._President.jpg

    If you look at this graph you will see that every republican administration starting with Ford has increased the debt and every democratic administration since Truman has reduced the debt.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Sydney, Oz
    Posts
    3,253
    You mean except for Obama.
    He or she who supports a State organized in a military way – whether directly or indirectly – participates in sin. Each man takes part in the sin by contributing to the maintenance of the State by paying taxes.

    ~ Gandhi

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,718
    Quote Originally Posted by Symbiote View Post
    You mean except for Obama.
    That has more to do with the previous administration then the current administration.

    Clearly Obama inherited quit a mess and I don't think anyone, republican or democrat, could have done anything about it with out generating disapproval.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Sydney, Oz
    Posts
    3,253
    Don't give me that partisan excuse, there were two ways this crisis could have been handled:

    1) Cut the spending and head in the direction of sanity. Most the rest of the world is going this way, despite in the US it being unthinkable, since the XXXXXX in Washington have latched onto the notion that more and more spending is the solution to every problem.

    2) XXXX the budget on more XXXX than ever.

    This administration chose door number two, and now you want to let them off the hook because either option would "generate disapproval?".
    He or she who supports a State organized in a military way – whether directly or indirectly – participates in sin. Each man takes part in the sin by contributing to the maintenance of the State by paying taxes.

    ~ Gandhi

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,718
    Quote Originally Posted by Symbiote View Post
    Don't give me that partisan excuse, there were two ways this crisis could have been handled:

    1) Cut the spending and head in the direction of sanity. Most the rest of the world is going this way, despite in the US it being unthinkable, since the XXXXXX in Washington have latched onto the notion that more and more spending is the solution to every problem.

    2) XXXX the budget on more XXXX than ever.

    This administration chose door number two, and now you want to let them off the hook because either option would "generate disapproval?".
    Unless you have an infallible crystal ball that could have predicted the results of both scenarios I see no reason to regard your opinion as anything but amateur speculation.

    The fact remains that the democrats have a much better track record when it comes to fiscal responsibility and there is evidence to back that up unlike your speculation.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Sydney, Oz
    Posts
    3,253
    The democrats did have a marginally better record on responsibility (although Clinton's was largely a combination of gridlock and creative accounting), up until Obama.

    Obama apparently decided voter repudiation of Bush's warmongering and overspending was a ringing endorsement of his plans for overspending and warmongering.

    Obama has a much worse track record on fiscal responsibility than any other president with the possible exception of Bush. Obama has more partisan excuses for the spending, but he also is or at least should be more immediately aware of the catastrophic outcome this path will lead the US on.

    Incidentally, we do have such a crystal ball - it's called economics, and it's very good at telling us what happens when stimulus generates a bubble, which is why the likes of Ron Paul and Peter Schiff were able to see it coming, and it's very good at telling us what happens when that bubble bursts. It's also very good at telling us what happens when the bubble isn't allowed to burst, and instead the government keeps the zombie industries going that were riding on it. How's that working out?
    He or she who supports a State organized in a military way – whether directly or indirectly – participates in sin. Each man takes part in the sin by contributing to the maintenance of the State by paying taxes.

    ~ Gandhi

  10. #10
    J Miro Guest
    If you're going to let things take care of themselves, you need a strong social safety net.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    3,021
    GOP war spending put us in debt | Letters to the Editor
    In the 20 of the past 30 years the U.S. has had a Republican president. Yet, living in a conservative region, all I hear is how it is the Democrats fault for overspending. What about the trillions of dollars Republican presidents have spent on wars?

    The Cold War – Reagan

    Desert Storm – Bush Sr.

    Iraq War – Bush Jr.

    Afghan War – Bush Jr.

    The most expensive war of all

    The Drug War – Reagan

    Nobody seems to include the cost of these wars when finding reasons why America is in debt. Instead we hear from the conservatives how Obama’s stimulus bill and over spending got us into this mess, really? He has been president for less than two years!

    When Clinton took office in 1993 the Debt/GDP was at 66.1% at the end of his first term the Debt/GDP was at 65.4% .. a -0.7 % decrease in national debt. at the beginning of his second term in 1997 the Debt/GDP was at 65.4% at the end of his second term the Debt/GDP was at 56.4 % another 9.0% decrease in national debt...

    then it gets really bad when Bush is elected... check the numbers..

    when bush took office 2001 the Debt/GDP was at 56.4 % by the end of his first term the debt/GDP was at 63.5%.. a +7.1 Increase in national debt. and it continued to rise. by the end of Bush's second term the Debt/GDP was a whopping 83.4 % an increase of +20.0 %.. and higher than it had been in more than 50 years...

    Obama inherited a 83.4 % debt/GDP .. he didn't create this mess. If we're lucky by the end of his first term we will see the debt start to go down again. The Problem is that most Conservatives would rather cast blame on a Democrat than to admit that the Republican party is the one spending like there's no tomorrow. Once the Bush Tax cuts are reversed in January you will see a turn around in the economy. A 3 % increase to the richest 2 % of the country isn't going to cause anything except healing what Bush has destroyed over his 8 years . Obama will turn it around if given the chance, he's only had 2 years to work with ...
    "You're too stupid to be saved." -- EasyRider.


    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
    Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
    Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
    Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
    Epicurus

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    80
    Republicans are on the wrong side of almost every issue but Democrats are unable to behave as a political party. The Democrats do not generally concur and stand for anything explicit. My Democratic Congressman is a candidate in 2010. He follows Obama’s example.

    A politician has to know what he wants, what he can reasonably expect to negotiate and what will he himself has determined to be his absolute last possible line of resistance. That’s the line beyond which there should be no retreat without a battle because further retreat is much more costly than the battle losses. Obama has acquiesced, and retreated too much.

    The Democratic Senate leader must have urinated in his trousers due to his fear of a Republican filibuster regarding a tax bill. Harry Reid should have welcomed the opportunity to run his re-election campaign on that issue. It doesn’t matter which candidate wins the contested Nevada seat in the U.S. Senate; Nevada and our nation will not be well represented from that seat.

    I believe that if that a reformed Democratic Party or a third party that will actually strive to oppose the Republican’s platforms are (for the benefit of our nation) are the only alternatives to Republican policies becoming our entire national policies. A vote for an empty suit is a vote of approval for the status quo.

    Respectfully, Supposn

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    80

    I can vote!

    I’ve just received the official sample ballot for my U.S. Congressional District.

    A candidate was nominated by petition and was provided a web page by the Green Party. Both the Green Party’s and the candidate’s web pages lack explicit proposals for the accomplishment of their platforms but there’s no reason in principal that I could not vote for this candidate.

    Green Party candidates have never been elected. It’s when we actually have to negotiate with others that things become messier. For too many years our congresses and presidents have been unable to work and negotiate in a meaningful manner.

    [Negotiations are more often than not difficult. Each proposal should be judged upon its own merits. There is no “good” in compromise simply for the sake of compromise itself. Too often a compromise is less rather than more nationally beneficial than the other opposing concepts and methods. The “middle ways” or mid-points are not intrinsically sacred or magical].

    I’m pleased that there's an alternative that permits me to demonstrate my dissatisfaction with Democrats that will not scheme and fight and negotiate for our nation's best interests. Obama and his followers talk pretty but they acquiesce and surrender too much without good reason.

    There is a congressional candidate I can vote for.

    Respectfully, Supposn

  14. #14
    J Miro Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
    I’ve just received the official sample ballot for my U.S. Congressional District.

    A candidate was nominated by petition and was provided a web page by the Green Party. Both the Green Party’s and the candidate’s web pages lack explicit proposals for the accomplishment of their platforms but there’s no reason in principal that I could not vote for this candidate.

    Green Party candidates have never been elected. It’s when we actually have to negotiate with others that things become messier. For too many years our congresses and presidents have been unable to work and negotiate in a meaningful manner.

    [Negotiations are more often than not difficult. Each proposal should be judged upon its own merits. There is no “good” in compromise simply for the sake of compromise itself. Too often a compromise is less rather than more nationally beneficial than the other opposing concepts and methods. The “middle ways” or mid-points are not intrinsically sacred or magical].

    I’m pleased that there's an alternative that permits me to demonstrate my dissatisfaction with Democrats that will not scheme and fight and negotiate for our nation's best interests. Obama and his followers talk pretty but they acquiesce and surrender too much without good reason.

    There is a congressional candidate I can vote for.

    Respectfully, Supposn
    I hope we see Green Party candidates on ballots elsewhere in the country.

    Write-in's are now a more viable option, too, not necessarily having to be about "protest" alone.

    The two-party system is not working.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Xcaliber View Post
    GOP war spending put us in debt | Letters to the Editor



    When Clinton took office in 1993 the Debt/GDP was at 66.1% at the end of his first term the Debt/GDP was at 65.4% .. a -0.7 % decrease in national debt. at the beginning of his second term in 1997 the Debt/GDP was at 65.4% at the end of his second term the Debt/GDP was at 56.4 % another 9.0% decrease in national debt...

    then it gets really bad when Bush is elected... check the numbers..

    when bush took office 2001 the Debt/GDP was at 56.4 % by the end of his first term the debt/GDP was at 63.5%.. a +7.1 Increase in national debt. and it continued to rise. by the end of Bush's second term the Debt/GDP was a whopping 83.4 % an increase of +20.0 %.. and higher than it had been in more than 50 years...

    Obama inherited a 83.4 % debt/GDP .. he didn't create this mess. If we're lucky by the end of his first term we will see the debt start to go down again. The Problem is that most Conservatives would rather cast blame on a Democrat than to admit that the Republican party is the one spending like there's no tomorrow. Once the Bush Tax cuts are reversed in January you will see a turn around in the economy. A 3 % increase to the richest 2 % of the country isn't going to cause anything except healing what Bush has destroyed over his 8 years . Obama will turn it around if given the chance, he's only had 2 years to work with ...
    Obama has done nothing AT ALL to indicate he intends to "turn it around". He is as bad, or worse, than Bush when it comes to spending. And that is if we are as foolish as whoever wrote the article you quoted and believe that the president is actually responsible for all that spending. He isnt. While the president does submit a budget to congress, what he gets back from them is not, and has not for the last 50 years bee, what he sent them.

    There is absolutely no possibility that the Bush tax cuts being reversed are going to result in a turnaround in the economy. It is WAY to little WAY too late. At this point the Bush tax cuts are a drop in the bucket.
    If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. —Samuel Adams

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •