If you want Bush out, this is our man!!!!!!!!!!!! I've felt that way from the start of his campaign actually. I actually think that's honorable of Moore as a multi-millionaire to use his Bush tax cut for Clark's campaign, and it makes me see him in a better light.




That link in the Moore article about the primaries is faulty. I'll try and find the real info about every state’s primary for everyone.

Women for Clark:

http://clark04.com/women/

Chairman of Congressional Hispanic Caucus endorses Clark:

http://clark04.com/press/release/166/

Earth Day founder endorses Clark:

http://clark04.com/press/release/167/


Now if the dems would just lay off the gun control thing, Clark would be really unbeatable with the support of rural voters.

___________________
http://www.discoboomer.com/forums/

Uh-oh Clark recieves the "kiss of death."

Unfortunatly something tells me this will be a runaway re-election for Bush. He doesn't seem too concerned with all the mudslinging going on and all the polls that I have seen to this point show that he shouldn't be. I don't necessarily think that any of the Dems could do a better job than Bush, but a tight election can lead to many good compromises on an encumbent presidents policies.

I'm bored, so I figure I'd go through and comment on Michael Moore's "points." Maybe they'll start some fun mini-debates.

quote:

1. Clark has committed to ensuring that every family of four who makes under $50,000 a year pays NO federal income tax.

I really can't see the economics of this one. First of all I'll just tell you right off the bat, I'm all for a flat tax. I don't see why hard work through school and life should make you "responsible" for more taxes. Where is the incentive to work harder than your neighbor if you are just going to be taxed more for your efforts? 100,000 dollars a year is the top tax bracket if I'm not mistaken, being taxed just over 50%. So with this plan, someone making 100,000 a year would acutally now net less income then someone working a 50,000 a year job? That could really throw a kink in some professions I'd imagine. After all, why would you want to go through college to land one of these jobs, if you would ultimately make less than someone who never went to college and works in a factory pulling a lever making more money? I'm all for a flat tax that also removes loop-holes for the ultra-rich, who get away with paying no taxes due to "creative" book keeping.

quote:

2. He is 100% opposed to the draft.

A bit alarmist if you ask me. We still have hundreds of thousands of unused National Guard that would still be available for active duty before a draft would even be considered. Not to mention the Bush administration is already talking steps to lessen the amount of troops on the two major fronts. Besides, someday the draft probably will have to be used, God forbid...so whether a president is "opposed" to the draft or not makes no real difference, it is the situation of the country that determines whether a draft will or will not occur.

quote:

3. He is anti-war.

Well, I'm anti-war, as I think most people are, I'll even admit I consider myself a semi-isolationist. I also have no problem getting out of South Korea and Kosovo. However, I do think the damage to national psyche and military morale if we were to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan at this time would be killer. First, we would leave both Iraq and Afghanistan in a state of chaos if we were to just leave now. Secondly, the international back-lash and criticism of leaving both these countries "unfinished," would last for years. Lastly, with these two countries, there is a foreseeable end in sight...free elections and an autonomous, stable government. With Kosovo and South Korea, I'm not sure what our goals are anymore, besides acting as peace keepers, which I am strongly oppossed to.

quote:

4. He walks the walk. (Affirmative Action)

I still can't figure out the logic of affirmative action. Inequality somehow leads to equality. Affirmative action leads by definition, to inequality, but even more damaging, to the furthering of racial boundries and racially motivated hate. We live in an age where we can almost guarantee discrimination based on sex or ethnicity will be avoided, why do we have to insure that we go further, to the point of reverse desrimination?

I will say that if affirmative action is used to allow underprivelaged individuals into college, at least at the undergraduate level, I have no problem. Just make sure aid is given based on socio-economic conditions, not physical characteristics. A poor Appalachian white kid is far more deserving of affirmative action then the black son of a black doctor making millions in Beverly Hills, but as affirmative action is today, this is not the case.

Once we are talking about jobs or graduate level education, the most qualified, regardless of race, creed or sex should be selected. Make equality through equality, not by furthering inequality due to physical traits.

quote:

5. On the issue of gun control

No problems here. I believe people should be able to own a gun, as long as it's not an automatic assault rifle (a people-killer). I also have no problem with keeping tighter records on gun owners. Even though I don't own a gun, I'm not going to tell someone else not to own one. I also don't smoke, because I know it'll kill me and hurt the ones who live with me, but on the same token, I'm not going to take away someone else's right to smoke.

quote:

6. He will gut and overhaul the Patriot Act and restore our constitutional rights to privacy and free speech. He will demand stronger environmental laws. He will insist that trade agreements do not cost Americans their jobs and do not exploit the workers or environment of third world countries.

Okay, sounds good...

quote:

7. He will cut the Pentagon budget, use the money thus saved for education and health care

I have mixed emotions on this one. On a human front, cutting money from the Pentagon ultimately means lost jobs. Yes, we would be cutting billions out of the deficit, but we'd also be cutting thousands of jobs. If we really want to save money in the governement, do so by removing regulatory agencies and beaurocracy in departments, not by wholesale cuts. The pentagon right now spends more money on the paperwork behind traveling (2.2 billion) then on actual traveling expenses (2 billion) due to the overwhelming beaurocracy found in government. Find me a president that will do away with that, and he'll get my vote regardless of his other stances. Paperwork and all-encompasing regulatory agencies will be the downfall of our governement and are the cause of the majority of our increasing deficit. To me it is a fixable although difficult problem that will need to be remedied, or will continue to slowly kill our government.


Well, comments...concerns?

I think you've made some very good points--particularly about Clark's tax proposal--it's quite possibly one of the worst economic ideas ever proposed, and does little other than show how truly naive Wesley Clark is when it comes to economic issues.

I don't think you can call Wesley Clark anti-war based on some of yesterday's developments. He may be pro-peace, but I don't think that makes him unique in his stance at all--I'd say at least 95% of the population is pro-peace--some of them just have the sack to stand up for their beliefs and take assertive action.

His views on affirmative action are anything but progressive--if anything they are regressive and promote continued discrimination. I agree with your points here.

Michael Moore is utterly pathetic. It absolutely makes me furious when people equate rich to evil, yet Moore is extremely wealthy--isn't he therefore an extremely evil person as well by his own logic? I sure as hell don't trust him. He's a lost mind and a sad soul.

The exclamation point on that whole article was ending it with the term 'moral imperative'. What a joke.

Dammit the last thing Clark needs is fucking Moore's endorsement .

But it seems that the republicans fear Clark more than Dean and have begun their attacks on him:

Clark Hit by Republican Assault Over Iraq Testimony
Thu January 15, 2004 08:34 PM ET

(Page 1 of 2)
By David Morgan
MANCHESTER, N.H. (Reuters) - Democratic presidential hopeful Wesley Clark faced a barrage of questions over his much-touted opposition to the Iraq war on Thursday, after Republicans released excerpts of congressional testimony in which he appeared to back the use of force against Saddam Hussein.

In excerpts posted on the Republican National Committee's Web site, the former NATO commander described Saddam to the House Armed Services Committee on Sept. 26, 2002, as a threat who already had chemical and biological weapons and was seeking nuclear arms.

"It needs to be dealt with and the clock is ticking on this," Clark was quoted as telling committee members six months before U.S. forces invaded Iraq last March.

He also told lawmakers that a U.S. president was justified in taking military action without U.N. approval, just as NATO forces did in Kosovo under his command.

A retired general who has made vehement opposition to the Iraq war a hallmark of his campaign, Clark fired back by accusing the Republican leadership of trying to discredit him by taking his remarks out of context.

He said Congress should investigate whether the Bush administration had committed a criminal act by misleading the nation into war.

"This is material that's been dug up by the Republican National Committee. (They) should have read the whole testimony because it totally refutes the Bush position," Clark said during a heated 35-minute press conference in Manchester, N.H.

"What I was saying then is what I'm saying today, that Saddam Hussein was not an imminent threat ... Was he troublesome? Sure. Was he a threat eventually? Sure. Was a clock ticking in a two-year, five-year, 10-year time period? Sure. Did we have to do this? No."

The Republican broadside against Clark came as his campaign showed signs of closing in on Democratic front-runner Howard Dean in the Jan. 27 New Hampshire primary. Clark is not running in next Monday's Iowa caucuses, with which the 2004 presidential race formally begins.

"It looks like they've finally figured out that I'm George Bush's greatest threat," Clark said.

The latest New Hampshire tracking poll by Manchester-based American Research Group showed Clark closing to within five percentage points of Dean after trailing the former Vermont governor by 17 points just a few days ago.
This weekend, prominent Democrats, including several former members of the Clinton administration and film-maker Michael Moore, are due in New Hampshire to rally for Clark's presidential bid.
A career officer who has never held elective office, Clark entered the presidential race late but has quickly gained ground in New Hampshire with campaign rhetoric that includes bitter criticism of President Bush's leadership on security issues including Iraq.

At the same time, the lanky 59-year-old from Arkansas has been sensitive to charges of flip-flopping on Iraq after he stumbled over whether he would have supported a congressional resolution authorizing military action in Iraq. He told reporters he probably would have, then switched his stance 24 hours later.

Clark also came under fire from Dean this week who said he was not a true Democrat after voting for Republicans Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.

Faced with mounting questions about his congressional testimony, Clark tried to shift the spotlight onto Bush by accusing the president of ignoring half a century of U.S. adherence to international law to pursue the war with Iraq.

Asked if it was "criminal" to mislead a country into war, Clark responded: "I think that's a question that Congress needs to ask. This Congress needs to investigate precisely why this administration determined to take us into a war with Saddam Hussein that wasn't connected with the threat of al Qaeda."

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka The exclamation point on that whole article was ending it with the term 'moral imperative'. What a joke.

President Bush is as much a "Christian" as Saddam is a "Muslim."

___________________
http://www.discoboomer.com/forums/

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Uh-oh Clark recieves the "kiss of death." Unfortunatly something tells me this will be a runaway re-election for Bush. He doesn't seem too concerned with all the mudslinging going on and all the polls that I have seen to this point show that he shouldn't be. I don't necessarily think that any of the Dems could do a better job than Bush, but a tight election can lead to many good compromises on an encumbent presidents policies. I'm bored, so I figure I'd go through and comment on Michael Moore's "points." Maybe they'll start some fun mini-debates. I really can't see the economics of this one. First of all I'll just tell you right off the bat, I'm all for a flat tax. I don't see why hard work through school and life should make you "responsible" for more taxes. Where is the incentive to work harder than your neighbor if you are just going to be taxed more for your efforts? 100,000 dollars a year is the top tax bracket if I'm not mistaken, being taxed just over 50%. So with this plan, someone making 100,000 a year would acutally now net less income then someone working a 50,000 a year job? That could really throw a kink in some professions I'd imagine. After all, why would you want to go through college to land one of these jobs, if you would ultimately make less than someone who never went to college and works in a factory pulling a lever making more money? I'm all for a flat tax that also removes loop-holes for the ultra-rich, who get away with paying no taxes due to "creative" book keeping.

I believe your figures are incorrect. Earnings above $92,754 are taxed 21.4%. Furthermore, the no taxes cut only applies to families that have 4 or more children. They currently pay $1,549 in taxes. Those who make up to $100,000 will similiarly get tax cuts based upon family size. So don't worry, there will still be incentive to make money .

http://www.taxfoundation.org/prtopincometable.html

quote:

A bit alarmist if you ask me. We still have hundreds of thousands of unused National Guard that would still be available for active duty before a draft would even be considered. Not to mention the Bush administration is already talking steps to lessen the amount of troops on the two major fronts. Besides, someday the draft probably will have to be used, God forbid...so whether a president is "opposed" to the draft or not makes no real difference, it is the situation of the country that determines whether a draft will or will not occur.

Well I think he is directly referencing the current war. Of course if the US is attacked or committed to a great (and hopefully just) conflict the draft could be instated. Clark is against the draft, he's not trying to remove it from the law. Hopefully what this mentality will accomplish would be to force Pentagon officials to come up with ways to retain those in the military. From what I've read in papers, it looks like the turnover ratio is going to be exceedingly high in a few months.

quote:

Well, I'm anti-war, as I think most people are, I'll even admit I consider myself a semi-isolationist. I also have no problem getting out of South Korea and Kosovo. However, I do think the damage to national psyche and military morale if we were to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan at this time would be killer. First, we would leave both Iraq and Afghanistan in a state of chaos if we were to just leave now. Secondly, the international back-lash and criticism of leaving both these countries "unfinished," would last for years. Lastly, with these two countries, there is a foreseeable end in sight...free elections and an autonomous, stable government. With Kosovo and South Korea, I'm not sure what our goals are anymore, besides acting as peace keepers, which I am strongly oppossed to.

He's anti-war but he's not advocated a departure from Iraq or Afghanistan. Here is his stance:

"So how to we get out of the mess that the Bush Administration has created for America and Iraq?

First, we shouldn't give the President $87 billion until he has a plan that will work. President Bush keeps telling us we should stay the course. But what we really must do is change course.

Second, we must be honest with the American people. That's something that President Bush hasn't done. There is no silver bullet - no magic solution in Iraq. There is no easy way out.

Every American should understand: early exit means retreat or defeat. There can be neither. We need a success strategy -for it is only success that can honor the sacrifice of so many American men and women; it is only success that will allow Iraq to stand on its own; and it is only success that will allow our soldiers to come home."

His entire speech on Iraq policy:
http://clark04.com/speeches/009/

quote:

I still can't figure out the logic of affirmative action. Inequality somehow leads to equality. Affirmative action leads by definition, to inequality, but even more damaging, to the furthering of racial boundries and racially motivated hate. We live in an age where we can almost guarantee discrimination based on sex or ethnicity will be avoided, why do we have to insure that we go further, to the point of reverse desrimination? I will say that if affirmative action is used to allow underprivelaged individuals into college, at least at the undergraduate level, I have no problem. Just make sure aid is given based on socio-economic conditions, not physical characteristics. A poor Appalachian white kid is far more deserving of affirmative action then the black son of a black doctor making millions in Beverly Hills, but as affirmative action is today, this is not the case. Once we are talking about jobs or graduate level education, the most qualified, regardless of race, creed or sex should be selected. Make equality through equality, not by furthering inequality due to physical traits.

Yea I agree with you on affirmative action. Oh well, if I keep looking for a candidate that I agree with on every issue, I might as well save myself the time and effort and simply run for office myself.

quote:

No problems here. I believe people should be able to own a gun, as long as it's not an automatic assault rifle (a people-killer). I also have no problem with keeping tighter records on gun owners. Even though I don't own a gun, I'm not going to tell someone else not to own one. I also don't smoke, because I know it'll kill me and hurt the ones who live with me, but on the same token, I'm not going to take away someone else's right to smoke.

Agreed.

quote:

I have mixed emotions on this one. On a human front, cutting money from the Pentagon ultimately means lost jobs. Yes, we would be cutting billions out of the deficit, but we'd also be cutting thousands of jobs. If we really want to save money in the governement, do so by removing regulatory agencies and beaurocracy in departments, not by wholesale cuts. The pentagon right now spends more money on the paperwork behind traveling (2.2 billion) then on actual traveling expenses (2 billion) due to the overwhelming beaurocracy found in government. Find me a president that will do away with that, and he'll get my vote regardless of his other stances. Paperwork and all-encompasing regulatory agencies will be the downfall of our governement and are the cause of the majority of our increasing deficit. To me it is a fixable although difficult problem that will need to be remedied, or will continue to slowly kill our government. Well, comments...concerns?

The deficit needs to be tackled and tackled soon. I was all for the tax cuts for economic stimulus and now that growth and factory orders are on the up and up, it's time to stop spending what we don't have. And Bush has been pumping more and more money into defense over the past 2 or 3 years than we really need. So a modest cut seems like a good adjustment to me.

Like I always say, don't ever ever listen to Moore if you want info. Simply go straight to the source:

http://clark04.com/issues/

Tax cuts don't create deficits--overspending creates deficits. Bush isn't the only one guilty of overspending, so I don't think it's fair to pin blame on him alone for our current deficit. I don't think that California's $30 Billion deficit is a result of Bush tax cuts. Politicians have a terrible habit of overspending that they need to get under control.

Aside from that, I'm sure everyone here hates Ann Coulter, but she makes some pretty interesting points about Clark's past in one of her latest editorials.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/...c20040115.shtml

quote:

The Democrats' idea of a general Ann Coulter January 15, 2004 Democrats are so delirious about finding a general who is a pacifist scaredy-cat that no one seems to have bothered to investigate whether Wesley Clark is sane. On "Meet the Press" back in November, Clark described intelligence as "a sort of gray goo as you look at it. You can't see through it, exactly, and if you try to touch it, it gets real sticky and you might actually interfere with the information that you're getting back. So you have to draw inferences from it." No, wait. I'm sorry. I think that was Clark talking about Monica Lewinsky's dress, not national security intelligence. Meanwhile, Clark recently said that the "two greatest lies that have been told in the last three years" are: "You couldn't have prevented 9-11 and there's another one that's bound to happen." If he were president, Clark says, there would be no more terrorist attacks. The adversarial watchdog press did not ask Clark to explain how he could guarantee an end to terrorist attacks, but recited Clark's prior statements calling for better intelligence. Apparently, if we could just refine the gray goo of intelligence to a magical terrorist-prediction machine, Clark could put an end to this terrorism nonsense once and for all. Yes, I suppose if our intelligence agencies knew who the terrorists were and when they were going to strike, we could stop them. And if we knew who all the raving lunatics were, we could prevent these infernal Democratic presidential primary debates. Which reminds me, I think I know how we can win the lottery every week, too. Liberals scoff at a system to shoot down incoming missiles, but believe that all random suicide bombers can be located and stopped before they strike. Hitting a bullet with a bullet just isn't feasible, so let's concentrate on something doable like predicting the future. Democrats are utterly unfazed by the fact that Clark is crazier than a March hare. They are so happy to have a pacifist in uniform, they ignore his Norman Bates moments. When this peacenik criticizes the war in Iraq, he can puff up his puny chest and cite his own glorious experience with blood, sweat and tears in the Balkans. Asked on "Meet the Press" what advice he would give Bush, Clark said: "I'd say, 'Mr. President, the first thing you've got to do is you've got to surrender' – stop right there and the Kucinich crowd is yours – 'exclusive U.S. control over this mission. ... Build an international organization like we did in the Balkans.'" Because, as everyone knows, Wesley Clark "built" NATO. This guy sounds more like Al Gore every day. Asked what countries he proposed to bring into Iraq that weren't there already, Clark said, "I think you ask NATO ... just as I did in Kosovo, because this brings NATO into the problem." NATO is the logical choice for this job because of Iraq's extremely close proximity to the North Atlantic. Evidently, Clark is sublimely confident that no one remembers anything about his misadventures in the Balkans. Yugoslavia posed absolutely no threat to the United States – not imminent, not latent, not burgeoning, not now, not then, not ever. (Unless you count all the U.S. highway deaths caused by Yugos.) The president of Yugoslavia, Slobodan Milosevic, never tried to assassinate a U.S. president. He never shook his fist at the Great Satan. He didn't shelter and fund Muslim terrorists – though the people we were fighting for did. In humanitarian terms, Milosevic didn't hold a candle to Saddam Hussein. Milosevic killed a few thousand Albanians in a ground war. Hussein killed well over a million Iranians, Kurds, Kuwaitis and Shias, among others. Milosevic had no rape rooms, no torture rooms, no Odai or Qusai. He didn't even use a wood chipper to dispose of his enemies, the piker. And yet NATO, led by Gen. Wesley Clark, staged a pre-emptive attack on Yugoslavia. Under Clark's command, the U.S. bombed the Chinese Embassy by mistake, killing three Chinese journalists. Other NATO air strikes under Clark mistakenly damaged the Swiss, Spanish, Swedish, Norwegian and Hungarian ambassadors' residences. Despite the absence of ground troops, Yugoslavia took three American POWs, whose release was eventually brokered by Jesse Jackson. America was standing tall. Clark's forces bombed a civilian convoy by mistake, killing more than 70 ethnic Albanians, and then Clark openly lied about it to the press. First he denied NATO had done it, and when forced to retract that, Clark pinned the blame on an innocent U.S. pilot. As New York Newsday reported on April 18, 1999: "American officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the staff of Army Gen. Wesley Clark, the NATO commander, pointed to an innocent F-16 Falcon pilot who was castigated by the media for blasting a refugee convoy." Eventually, even a model of probity like Bill Clinton was shocked by Clark's mendacity and fired him. At the end of major combat operations led by NATO Supreme Allied Commander Gen. Wesley Clark, arch-villain Slobodan Milosevic was still in power. (At least Clark won't have to worry about any embarrassing "mission accomplished" photo-ops coming back to haunt him.) Today, almost a decade and $15 billion later, U.S. troops are still bogged down in the Balkans. No quagmire there! That's the Democrats' idea of a general.

Clark getting endorsed by Moore.....

Oh goody.

Sooner or later John Kerry's going to get endorsed by the tooth fairy.

Christ I can't stand Moore. But I do like Clark, and if Dean doesn't get the nod, I certainly won't lose sleep if Clark wins. Actually, aside of Sharpton and Bush-lite Lieberman, I don't care who wins anymore.

As for some of his issues-

1. Tax plan-

I'm not crazy about this tax plan, though it would effect me in a positive way since I make under $50,000. I think a progressive (step ladder) tax plan is effective and fair, though the details of where the lines are drawn could use a little reform.

A flat tax? Gimme a break. How can anyone feel this is economically fair to those who don't earn six figures? I applaud those who go to school, earn their 2-3 degrees, and work hard throughout their lives. But is that fair to allow them to %-wise keep more than a teacher? No sale with me, sorry.

2. The draft-

In today's times, I would agree with his opposition, considering Bush sent a couple hundred thousand people off to a war that didn't need to be fought (and was sold to the public with lies). Now we're stretched too thin, and should another disaster break out somewhere, we're toast. If Bush has the gall to start up a draft, this country should throw his ass out of office immediately.

But overall, I don't believe a draft should be banned. Where would we be if a draft was banned before WWII?

3. Anti-war

I'm not sure how Clark is supposedly anti-war. And I agree with NeoPhono, who isin't anti-war? Who advocates a war? War is and always should be a last option. Anyone who thinks otherwise is quite dangerous.

Oops, who does that sound like?

4. Affirmative Action

I've always been an advocate of Affirmative Action. Overall I think a balance must be maintained somehow between giving equal opportunity amongst minorities to the majority, and allowing the most qualified for a job. Considering societal difficulties against minorities, I still feel strongly the playing field should give them a little more benefit:

Source: http://www.hr.ucdavis.edu/FAQS/SAAD/001/006a

It's a pretty socialist view, I realize, but I still feel it's somewhat valid. However, I also concede the fact that we want the most qualified people in the workforce, and must therefore have the most qualified attend colleges. If this is truly the stance, then Bush Jr. and the other legacies need to have their diplomas revoked from their respected colleges, and legacies should never be used again as a means of college qualification along with ethnic status. You get rid of one, you must get rid of the other.

5. Gun control-

Honestly, I'm not crazy about guns. I think outside of hunting, guns should be strictly regulated. The only reason why they aren't today is because of the powerful lobbying of the NRA (something like the 2nd most powerful lobbying group behind energy lobbyists), and that is a fact. Assault weapons, including handguns should be banned altogether. The vast majority of people being shot in the households are family members, not burglers.

But I won't lose too much sleep if they advocate gun laws that aren't quite as strict. I just don't like 'em much.

6. Patriot Act overhauling-

Sounds fine to me. Though I'll be the first progressive to admit that there's probably more hype against the Patriot Act than there should be. Much of what the Act pushes was already in place - we just didn't know much about it or it wasn't enforced as much.

7. Gutting the Pentagon budget-

I certainly wouldn't gut it. Probably keep it level for now. But money does need to come into the social programs, and defense spending as well as tax increases are usually the likely candidates for Democrats. We need much more social spending for our country, and Bush needs to stop gutting that himself in the name of "fighting terrorism" (i.e. fighting a war that has little to do with terrorism). It sickens me when Bush gives nothing but lip service to social programs, then turns around and cuts funding when he's finished. There are military programs that could use a little cutting (missle defense system comes to mind), but overall we unfortunately need the keep the money flowing for our military, given the current times. With the neocon influence as it is, I don't see this changing anytime soon either.

I think Moore means well, but Jesus man why couldn't he just affirm his message without stretching/distorting truths? It creates major credibility problems, and he could do much better (though it probably wouldn't sell as many tickets). I'm personally scared what his next movie is going to bring (Fahrenheit 911). He'd better be a little more careful with his facts and spin, or it'll piss more people off rather than stir them up against Bush.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 1. Tax plan- I'm not crazy about this tax plan, though it would effect me in a positive way since I make under $50,000. I think a progressive (step ladder) tax plan is effective and fair, though the details of where the lines are drawn could use a little reform.

Dammit people get it right! The no-income tax wouldn't affect every earner under $50,000. Only those under $50,000 with 4 or more kids! So you can forget about your liberal pipedream of living off the taxes of the wealthy unless you wanna start pumping out the babies. Get a job already!

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 1. Tax plan- I'm not crazy about this tax plan, though it would effect me in a positive way since I make under $50,000. I think a progressive (step ladder) tax plan is effective and fair, though the details of where the lines are drawn could use a little reform. A flat tax? Gimme a break. How can anyone feel this is economically fair to those who don't earn six figures? I applaud those who go to school, earn their 2-3 degrees, and work hard throughout their lives. But is that fair to allow them to %-wise keep more than a teacher? No sale with me, sorry.

I agree that our teachers should be paid more, and it would raise the overall level of education for those who want to put forth the effort to actually learn.

Now as far as fair--isn't it equally unfair to those who make the 6 figure salaries to have the less productive members of society be such a drag and a drain on their incomes? Fair is a 2 way street--you have to view it from both sides. Too often I think people try to argue a position from a single point of view without seeing the equal/opposite impact it has on their target. What's fair for you ain't necessarily fair for me. You've just taken 'equality' and crapped all over it.

Flat tax sounds nice, but will never happen. I've found myself warming up to the idea of a consumption tax, which I guess is like sales tax, but on a higher level. You pay taxes on what you consume--you wanna be a greedy bastard with a 200 foot yacht and a private jet? No problem, but the more you consume, the more you will end up paying in taxes--seems fair, right? One issue I see with that though is akin to what Ahnold bitched about in Caulifornia--being taxed on everything. The gov't might get so greedy with such a tax system that you can't do anything without having to pay a little extra for it. Gives the goverment a little too much power to get their hands in people's pockets. I don't think people will ever be happy with the tax code--it's just one of those things that is a fact of life. Death and taxes--deal with it. Just don't give me some shit about the government having a right to 50% of my income simply because I'm a bigger earner. Hell, I think 33% is a good cap. I mean giving more than 1/3 of everything I make to the government seems absurd, yet when I look at my pay stub, that's already what's happening. What's worse is when I get a bonus for performance--something that's based solely on my ability to do my job very well--the government hits me with a tax rate that's WELL over 35%. That strikes me as unfair. Why should the government have a clain to a bigger chunk of money that I earned purely by my own individual efforts?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I've found myself warming up to the idea of a consumption tax, which I guess is like sales tax, but on a higher level. You pay taxes on what you consume--you wanna be a greedy bastard with a 200 foot yacht and a private jet? No problem, but the more you consume, the more you will end up paying in taxes--seems fair, right?

You know somethin', that doesn't sound half bad. I actually think I might agree with you a little bit here.

Look, I'm not wanting to take away most of the money the upper class makes. They do the hard work, they deserve to get paid more, they deserve to keep their money. But as a member of society, everyone owes a debt TO society; everyone has an obligation to make society succeed as a whole. I imagine this is what our forefathers had in mind when allowing a tax system to take place (I rarely cite them).

Based on that premise, a flat tax makes absolutely no sense to me. A 20% tax on a person making 100k allows that person to keep 80k, whereas a person making 20k makes 16k. This is not a logical means of benefiting society as a whole, and why I feel a progressive step ladder tax rate is sufficient, similar to the one we have today. If a stronger middle class helps keep the economy (and society in general) strong, a flat tax would effectively help aid the opposite - take more money out %-wise for the lower class, while allowing the upper class to keep more of their money. IOW, aiding the class gap increase.

quote:

Originally posted by Occrider Dammit people get it right! The no-income tax wouldn't affect every earner under $50,000. Only those under $50,000 with 4 or more kids! So you can forget about your liberal pipedream of living off the taxes of the wealthy unless you wanna start pumping out the babies. Get a job already!

Damnit, Damnit, Damnit!!! Why you go bustin' my chops everytime? How da hell am I gonna get a job when I can barely read?!?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...