Did you Vote?

[Oatboat]

I didnt vote for McCain...... I just voted AGAINST Obama

[bodefeld]

I hope many people will vote -- no matter who their preferred candidate is.
I'll be watching tonight like the rest of the world.
Regards from Europe.

[aboron]

I couldn't bring myself to vote for anyone on the ballots, so i wrote myself in figuring i would at least do what i thought was right. We might get better candidates if more people voted for who they wanted, rather than for who the 2 main parties offer up for sacrifice.

Douglas Adams summed up how democracy works in this snippet:

http://wso.williams.edu/~rcarson/lizards.html

That and this one liner:

Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.

[hotdogsrgross]

I didnt vote for McCain...... I just voted AGAINST Obama^ This

[Harem]

Voted.

I care more that people do vote. more important to me is that I feel democracy is being taken advantage of used. Second to that is who wins.

[Hatred]

I totally agree here, none of us have the same views on politics however we all have an opinion. Make yours count, get out and VOTE!



Go McCain!

[elsegundo]

will vote right when i leave work.


voting for obama, not because i wanted to vote against mccain, but because i want to vote for someone.



oh and i live in california. so really, the more important bill to be voted on is Proposition 8.

No on 8.

[valkry]

Yay for seppos and and their optional voting lol. What's so bad about Obama that you have to capitilise the fact you are voting against him?

PS: I lold a lot at Palin's, "we want to work for you (wherever), will you hire us?" Seriously lold.

PPS: No, I won't be watching tonight, I'll be playing wow.

PPPS: Found this link, quite interesting imo... http://www.iftheworldcouldvote.com/results

[Kissell13]

PPPS: Found this link, quite interesting imo... http://www.iftheworldcouldvote.com/results

I found a similar article in a magazine somewhere. I find it highly interesting. Its a shame that neither of the candidates will probably be able to do much in the way of fixing this severly broken country.

[Skuggomann]

Knock it off Skuggo. There is no place for that kind of language here.

-Fur

[pinotnoir]

Voted Obama FTW!

There are other issues on the ballot besides president so I hope everyone registered got out to vote.

[hardcoded]

I feel great about Obama being the president. It's 2008, can racisim please die already.

I'm originally from South Carolina, and it makes me feel proud to have a black man as president.

It does make me sad to see that the same day that we elected a black man to office, we likely have set up another "separate but equal" institution in our country.

Perhaps we haven't learned from past mistakes.

[Ellette]

My first presidential election that I voted in! Yay!! :D

And awesome, Obama won, I couldn't be happier! Unfortunately, I heard that Prop 8 passed... just barely tho :( I am so disappointed :( :( :(

[TheBigBB]

Everyone should be happy, considering Bush's approval rating. We got a huge upgrade either way.

[pengwynman]

honestly, the thing i'm happiest about is the FCC freeing the white spaces

[elsegundo]

My first presidential election that I voted in! Yay!! :D

And awesome, Obama won, I couldn't be happier! Unfortunately, I heard that Prop 8 passed... just barely tho :( I am so disappointed :( :( :(yea, pretty sad day for equial rights, equality, human rights and progress. prop 8 passed 52% to 48%. but this does not include the absentee votes. those still need to be counted.

[Ellette]

Here's hoping that the absentee ballots can close the gap, because it's not a huge gap at all. But if they can't, I'm sure it will end up going for revoting soon because it is entirely unfair, and if it's that close, then there will be enough people to make it happen.

[elsegundo]

Here's hoping that the absentee ballots can close the gap, because it's not a huge gap at all. But if they can't, I'm sure it will end up going for revoting soon because it is entirely unfair, and if it's that close, then there will be enough people to make it happen.Actually thats not gonna happen. What will happen, which is what already happened before, but the judge threw out the case because there was nothing to argue, is that the case will go to court yet again. now there's an issue there's two conflicting laws. one is decided by the court, and one is decided by the polls. since it will be in conflict, im sure the courts will have to re-evaluate the whole thing again. its not over by a long shot. but it does show how people voted.

exit polls showed most who voted for prop 8 were blacks, latinos, and "religious" people. it's odd to me that blacks and latinos would vote against equal rights. i mean, let me put a measure on next year's ballot limiting black's rights to vote, and latino's right to have children. its a crude example but its the same concept. by saying gays cant marry, they're essentially saying that gays are less human than they are.

[Tsunami]

one major problem with issues like prop 8 is they are "20% issues". meaning they only directly effect 20% of the population and therefore easily passed or defeated depending on who is in political office at the time.

less than 10% of males are gay and less than 5% of females are gay, if you believe the these figures, i personally think they are a little high. that would avg. out to about 8% of the population being gay, factor in family and friends and your over 10% of the population that would be in support of prop 8.

It seems about an equal % of the population is religious enough to think it is a mortal sin and should not be allowed.

so you have 10% for, 10% against and 80% of the population not really affected either way but have an opinion on the subject. That opinion is easily moved depending one who is pushing the issue. today it seems the religious right has won the battle, but i suspect gay rights will win the war over the next 20 years.

[Haruko]

Seems that obama won, now you have a nigger as a president.

...how does that make you feel?



 

As a African-American mainly I will refrain from flipping out on that comment you've made X( . Overall, I hope this webiste doesn't cater to any racism at all. In conclusion to that, I did vote for Obama, not based on color, but based on viewpoints. I was born & raised in Arizona for 12 years & knew of McCain to a good extent. I am very curious of the times ahead, with a team that is going to be smart & aggressive in making change that will help this country.

[Coltimar]

I voted weeks ago, since election day was also baby day for me. I lived in Alaska for four years and really love Palin, but I wish she would have stayed out of the national politics. She is doing a great job with the mess in Alaska and I think she is best suited for that.

[aNiMaL]

http://www.longshotcreation.com/bilder/obama.jpg

[Tsunami]

is that the next hero class. combo priest and rogue.

[Shaden]

So thrilled Obama won! The Bush era is finally over but what a horrible mess it left in its wake.



I voted weeks ago, since election day was also baby day for me. I lived in Alaska for four years and really love Palin, but I wish she would have stayed out of the national politics. She is doing a great job with the mess in Alaska and I think she is best suited for that.

On another forum, a McCain supporter bemoaned the fact that he loss mainly because she was Alaskan and she was so hoping Palin would become Vice President so she would be out of their hair and someone elses problem, then the Lt govenor could pick up the pieces.

Someone elses problem?!?! I wanted to thump her on the forehead. THINK! She would be a 72 year olds heartbeat away from being President but some how she would no longer be YOUR problem?!

People like that scare me so much.

[Redbeard]

I didnt vote for him.. but heres to hoping that Obama can lead us in the right direction.

Good luck America =) (I say this without sarcasm).

[Prepared]

I voted YES on proposition 8 in California and I'm PROUD OF IT!!!

[valkry]

I voted YES on proposition 8 in California and I'm PROUD OF IT!!!
For those of us who aren't seppos, Prob 8 is what? (is it that gay marriage thingie?) And voting yes on it means you are voting to allow or disallow it?

[bizcotti4]

sigh i dont want either but i definatly dont want obama, i want the government small and out of my buisiness. im going to have to give the federal government more of my hard earned money to pay for some losers who want a hand out. socialism ftl

[Velassra]

Sarah Palin 2012!

[Frosty]

I didn't care who won, because I don't care too much for either of them.
I hope Obama can live up to all the ideas that people thing he stands for though.

I am very concerned that the vast majority of people in America think that just by Obama's win that it means the end of racism.
Joe-bob Chickenthumper in the deep South isn't going to stop putting on his pointy white hat every weekend. And I'd venture to say that it's still not a great idea for a nerdy white guy to go strolling through what might be considered a ghetto in any city/town. I do think it's a step in the right direction, but it's not the cure.

You can't end hundreds of years of racism and reverse racism in one day.

[Shaden]

Sarah Palin 2012!

I hope she comes back too! If she keeps running, we'll never have another Republican era ever again! Yes!!! :thumbsup:

[Twizted Clown]

PPPS: Found this link, quite interesting imo... http://www.iftheworldcouldvote.com/results



A very interesting site, to bad more didnt know about it before the voting was over... Looks like the world is smart anyways ;)

[Ughmahedhurtz]

So thrilled Obama won! The Bush era is finally over but what a horrible mess it left in its wake.And you really think that was entirely Bush's fault? Can you elaborate on why, exactly, if so?

[elsegundo]

I voted YES on proposition 8 in California and I'm PROUD OF IT!!!
For those of us who aren't seppos, Prob 8 is what? (is it that gay marriage thingie?) And voting yes on it means you are voting to allow or disallow it?Proposition 8 is california's initative to ban gay marriages.
vote yes if you want to ban gay marriages.

also, bush left a mess, but the current problems in the economy is not necessarily his fault. i think that he's a bad president. but i do not think that any economic downturn is due to his failure as a president.

[valkry]

I voted YES on proposition 8 in California and I'm PROUD OF IT!!!
For those of us who aren't seppos, Prob 8 is what? (is it that gay marriage thingie?) And voting yes on it means you are voting to allow or disallow it?Proposition 8 is california's initative to ban gay marriages.
vote yes if you want to ban gay marriages.

also, bush left a mess, but the current problems in the economy is not necessarily his fault. i think that he's a bad president. but i do not think that any economic downturn is due to his failure as a president.
Wanting to ban gays from marrying because they are different?..well, that's like wanting to ban multiboxing from wow to be completely honest.

[Shaden]

So thrilled Obama won! The Bush era is finally over but what a horrible mess it left in its wake.And you really think that was entirely Bush's fault? Can you elaborate on why, exactly, if so?


Certainly. Where to start...

Mass deregulation of Wall Street that pretty much led to our current financial crisis and allowed the crooks to flourish.

Damage to our relationships around the world. The world rejoicing about Obama's win speaks volumes.

Totally and completely blew the war in Afghanistan.

He politicized the Justice Department, tried to make it a partisan service. It's supposed to be impartial.

Removing basic constitutional rights like Habeus Corpus.

Appointing lobbyists to positions of oversight on the very interests they once lobbied for. Ie, putting a lumber lobbyist in charge of the forestry service.

Allowing Homeland Security to spy on anyone they want to without warrants.

The disastrous handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina - since he liked putting his friends in cushy jobs, like Michael Brown in FEMA, but unfortunately Mr. Brown had no experience to handle the crisis and thus, people suffered for it.

Tax cuts for the rich, the 'Haves and Have Mores', as he put it when referring to his base.

The list goes on and on and on and on...

For a complete Bush scandal list that is current at #392 and counting, visit http://www.netrootsmass.net/hughs-bush-scandals-list/

[valkry]

So thrilled Obama won! The Bush era is finally over but what a horrible mess it left in its wake.And you really think that was entirely Bush's fault? Can you elaborate on why, exactly, if so?


Certainly. Where to start...

Mass deregulation of Wall Street that pretty much led to our current financial crisis and allowed the crooks to flourish.

Damage to our relationships around the world. The world rejoicing about Obama's win speaks volumes.

Totally and completely blew the war in Afghanistan.

He politicized the Justice Department, tried to make it a partisan service. It's supposed to be impartial.

Removing basic constitutional rights like Habeus Corpus.

Appointing lobbyists to positions of oversight on the very interests they once lobbied for. Ie, putting a lumber lobbyist in charge of the forestry service.

Allowing Homeland Security to spy on anyone they want to without warrants.

The disastrous handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina - since he liked putting his friends in cushy jobs, like Michael Brown in FEMA, but unfortunately Mr. Brown had no experience to handle the crisis and thus, people suffered for it.

Tax cuts for the rich, the 'Haves and Have Mores', as he put it when referring to his base.

The list goes on and on and on and on...

For a complete Bush scandal list that is current at #392 and counting, visit http://www.netrootsmass.net/hughs-bush-scandals-list/
well, completely and utterly pwned...I'll jump in with a question? Found those WMDs yet lol?

[Biz]

Seems that obama won, now you have a nigger as a president.

...how does that make you feel?





You suck at life. You might want to consider killing yourself. It makes me feel pretty damn good and proud that my country can at least somewhat look beyond skin color, along with a majority of all US voters and a vast majority of the world's population.

[valkry]

stuff Skuggo said

You suck at life. You might want to consider killing yourself. It makes me feel pretty damn good and proud that my country can at least somewhat look beyond skin color, along with a majority of all US voters and a vast majority of the world's population.
The post was moderatored, now you went and quoted it so even more people can see it. Congratulations.

[Ughmahedhurtz]

Ya know, I sometimes wish I had the absolute faith in my party's talking points that you do. Unfortunately, my party demands a bit more voter oversight due to their occasional fits of self-aggrandizing, typically-human idiocy. Thank goodness the country isn't run by a single party with no checks and balances.

Ah well. Congrats on your party leader's impending coronation. May you receive everything you so richly deserve.

[Frosty]

I’m just a little curious... it would seem that by some of the posts here, there was NO “mess” before President Bush took office, and he has done all the damage himself.
Is that correct?
And Obama is going to solve all of these problems right?

Only time will tell if Obama is truly as great as you think he is. (I hope you are right)

Don't get me wrong, I am all for improvements to our country.
It's just scary to think people can be swayed to only see one person’s shortcomings and not the shortcomings of the leader they follow. The word "Cult" comes to mind.
And NO I am not saying Obama is a cult leader with this, so don't go there. It's just that the higher you put someone on a pedestal, the more damage they do when they fall.

[elsegundo]

obama's not gonna solve all our problems. people who say that havent really thought about it and probably parroting what someone else has said.

[Shaden]

Ya know, I sometimes wish I had the absolute faith in my party's talking points that you do. Unfortunately, my party demands a bit more voter oversight due to their occasional fits of self-aggrandizing, typically-human idiocy. Thank goodness the country isn't run by a single party with no checks and balances.

Ah well. Congrats on your party leader's impending coronation. May you receive everything you so richly deserve.

To tell you the truth, my standards aren't that high. At this point, ANYONE else is an improvement and the Republican party doesn't deserve another four years. Maybe the Democrats will screw it up but it's definitely their turn to give it a shot. After the last 8 years I've seen how quickly it can all go sour. Obama was the best choice any of us had.


I’m just a little curious... it would seem that by some of the posts here, there was NO “mess” before President Bush took office, and he has done all the damage himself.
Is that correct?
And Obama is going to solve all of these problems right?

Only time will tell if Obama is truly as great as you think he is. (I hope you are right)

Don't get me wrong, I am all for improvements to our country.
It's just scary to think people can be swayed to only see one person’s shortcomings and not the shortcomings of the leader they follow. The word "Cult" comes to mind.
And NO I am not saying Obama is a cult leader with this, so don't go there. It's just that the higher you put someone on a pedestal, the more damage they do when they fall.

No where in my post did I claim that Obama was 'great' or express blind obedience. I simply said I was thrilled he won. Sure some things were broke when Bush took office, a lot of things had been broken for years, in particular the disparity of wealth in this country which is greater than in any other industrialized nation.

[valkry]

Ya know, I sometimes wish I had the absolute faith in my party's talking points that you do. Unfortunately, my party demands a bit more voter oversight due to their occasional fits of self-aggrandizing, typically-human idiocy. Thank goodness the country isn't run by a single party with no checks and balances.

Ah well. Congrats on your party leader's impending coronation. May you receive everything you so richly deserve.

To tell you the truth, my standards aren't that high. At this point, ANYONE else is an improvement and the Republican party doesn't deserve another four years. Maybe the Democrats will screw it up but it's definitely their turn to give it a shot. After the last 8 years I've seen how quickly it can all go sour. Obama was the best choice any of us had.


I’m just a little curious... it would seem that by some of the posts here, there was NO “mess” before President Bush took office, and he has done all the damage himself.
Is that correct?
And Obama is going to solve all of these problems right?

Only time will tell if Obama is truly as great as you think he is. (I hope you are right)

Don't get me wrong, I am all for improvements to our country.
It's just scary to think people can be swayed to only see one person’s shortcomings and not the shortcomings of the leader they follow. The word "Cult" comes to mind.
And NO I am not saying Obama is a cult leader with this, so don't go there. It's just that the higher you put someone on a pedestal, the more damage they do when they fall.

No where in my post did I claim that Obama was 'great' or express blind obedience. I simply said I was thrilled he won. Sure some things were broke when Bush took office, a lot of things had been broken for years, in particular the disparity of wealth in this country which is greater than in any other industrialized nation.
Not to mention still using the Imperial system...

[Frosty]

No where in my post did I claim that Obama was 'great' or express blind obedience. I simply said I was thrilled he won. Sure some things were broke when Bush took office, a lot of things had been broken for years, in particular the disparity of wealth in this country which is greater than in any other industrialized nation.
Sorry, I wasn't trying to single you out with my post.

[Redbeard]

Who else needs a tax cut? The rich are paying all the taxes. Yay success tax.






So thrilled Obama won! The Bush era is finally over but what a horrible mess it left in its wake.And you really think that was entirely Bush's fault? Can you elaborate on why, exactly, if so?Tax cuts for the rich, the 'Haves and Have Mores', as he put it when referring to his base.
...

[Shaden]

Who else needs a tax cut? The rich are paying all the taxes. Yay success tax.






So thrilled Obama won! The Bush era is finally over but what a horrible mess it left in its wake.And you really think that was entirely Bush's fault? Can you elaborate on why, exactly, if so?Tax cuts for the rich, the 'Haves and Have Mores', as he put it when referring to his base.
...

Ah, so you must be one of the multi-millionaires who is receiving a tax cut currently.

[elsegundo]

lets stick to debating the arguments presented instead of debating the presenter.

[Ughmahedhurtz]

Who else needs a tax cut? The rich are paying all the taxes. Yay success tax.


Ah, so you must be one of the multi-millionaires who is receiving a tax cut currently.Which immediately invalidates everything he says without regards to merit, AMIRITE? Was there a point here? You do realize that "the rich" includes businesses, which do not pay taxes anyway, right? Do you know what I mean when I say businesses do not pay taxes?

[Shaden]

Who else needs a tax cut? The rich are paying all the taxes. Yay success tax.


Ah, so you must be one of the multi-millionaires who is receiving a tax cut currently.Which immediately invalidates everything he says without regards to merit, AMIRITE? Was there a point here? You do realize that "the rich" includes businesses, which do not pay taxes anyway, right? Do you know what I mean when I say businesses do not pay taxes?

We're not talking about small businesses here. We're talking about people making over $250,000 a year. And the Bush tax cuts affect--hugely disproportionately--the top 5% of the population. We're talking about people making millions of dollars. So unless you're planning on breaking into that multi-million dollar tax bracket, why are you so upset about the "success tax", as you call it?

The principle of taxation is simple here. There is a certain amount of money required--by necessity--to survive. Those on the lower end of the income spectrum need that money to survive, and taxes necessarily comprise a much higher percentage of their income, so their tax burden is higher than that of a multi-millionaire, who owns 12 houses. There's a difference between necessity and luxury. Similarly, the poor tend to have no savings and spend their paycheck--almost all of it--every month. So giving the poor a tax break leads to them spending more of their income.

Meanwhile, "the rich", who are in no danger of starving or trying to figure out how to put their kids through college end up shouldering a larger percentage of the tax burden. So, okay, a person who makes $20 million a year is now paying an extra $200,000 a year in taxes. Boo hoo for them. Do you really expect anyone to get up in arms about this "success tax"? The truth is, those who are 'successful' don't get there all by themselves. AIG, the company we're currently bailing out to the tune of billions of dollars, still has CEOs receiving lavish salaries and severence packages while the company that they are running is going belly up. The growing disparity of wealth in this country between the rich and the poor is only increasing, and few but the truly selfish would consider this a GOOD thing. What AIG and others are forgetting is that their wealth comes on the backs of their employees--working-class people who struggle every day to feed their families and make ends meet. Those people are the ones who need the tax breaks. Or to put it another way: 95% of this country (including, I suspect, everyone on this forum) deserves a tax break. The richest 5% clearly need it the least of any of us.

Finally, the Bush tax cuts were passed prior to a war with Iraq. This is the first time in the history of this country that taxes have been CUT during a war. This fiscal irresponsibility is a hallmark of the current economic trouble we find ourselves in, and why our national deficit has doubled over the past 8 years, at 10 trillion dollars and counting. Somewhere, sometime, at some point--people are going to have to get over their kneejerk terror over "OMG taxes" and realize that a tax is your patriotic duty as a citizen--and during a time of economic woe, I don't think you're going to find too many people who will support the ludicrous assertion that taxing those with their own private jet is a "success tax".

As for businesses not paying taxes, are you referring to the 60% of US Companies that pay no taxes, either due to tax loopholes or overseas tax shelters? I believe these loopholes should be closed, and incentives for keeping jobs and corporate headquarters in this country should be rewarded. Doing so would decrease the overall tax burden on the American people. But one thing at a time, starting with reversing the disastrous Bush tax cuts for the rich.

[Ughmahedhurtz]

We're not talking about small businesses here. We're talking about people making over $250,000 a year. And the Bush tax cuts affect--hugely disproportionately--the top 5% of the population. We're talking about people making millions of dollars. So unless you're planning on breaking into that multi-million dollar tax bracket, why are you so upset about the "success tax", as you call it?Uh, what does what I make have anything to do with it? You seem to be making a moral assumption (that rich people are all evil bastards that want to squash poor people) based on a non-moral fact of life (they make more income per year). Correct me if I'm wrong.

While it may be politically "cool" to talk shit about the Bush tax cuts really only affecting the top 5% of income earners, that statement doesn't jive with reality. According to government tax records, the progressivity of the tax system can be measured in four ways: (1) the share of taxes paid by different income groups, (2) the share of income paid in taxes, (3) the change in taxes relative to the change in income over time, and (4) a comparison of inequality of income to the inequality of taxes over time. By the first 3 measures:
The top 1 percent of income earners pay more than one in every three dollars the IRS collects in taxes. From 1986 to 2004, the total share of the income tax burden paid by the top 1 percent of earners grew from 25.8 percent to 36.9 percent, while the total share of the tax burden paid by the bottom half of earners fell from 6.5 percent to only 3.3 percent. During the same period, the percentage of income the top 1 percent of tax filers paid in federal income taxes rose from 18.3 percent to 19.6 percent. By contrast, the percentage of income the bottom fifth of tax filers paid in federal income taxes dropped from 0.4 percent to zero. The income share of the top 1 percent rose 7.7 percentage points, from 11.3 percent to 19 percent, while their income tax burden rose even more, by 11 percentage points, from 26 percent to 37 percent. The "progressivity index" measures, on a scale of 0 to 1 with numbers closer to 1 indicating a steeper rate of increased taxation, the inequality of income to the inequality of taxes paid over time.
From 1990 to 2000, the progressivity index increased from 0.476 to 0.617, during a period where marginal tax rates increased but capital gains tax rates fell. From 2001 to 2004, under George W. Bush's tax reforms, the tax progressivity index continued to rise from 0.608 to 0.664.It is critical, when arguing tax reforms, to consider the way the system reacts to them vis-a-vis the disretionary nature of the way high-income earners actually earn income and pay taxes. In terms of actual income, the "Bush tax cuts" have actually served to CLOSE the income gap between high-earners and the "poor."

Considering that, according to 2001 data, the top 5% of wage earners paid ~53% of ALL taxes while only earning ~32% of all income, with the top 50% of wage earners paying ~96% of ALL income taxes paid in the US while earning only ~86% of all income, just how much would you prefer the top 5% paid before we have "economic justice?" 75%? 90%? 100%?

The principle of taxation is simple here. There is a certain amount of money required--by necessity--to survive. Those on the lower end of the income spectrum need that money to survive, and taxes necessarily comprise a much higher percentage of their income, so their tax burden is higher than that of a multi-millionaire, who owns 12 houses. There's a difference between necessity and luxury. Similarly, the poor tend to have no savings and spend their paycheck--almost all of it--every month. So giving the poor a tax break leads to them spending more of their income.Again, why is it inherently evil to have enough money that you have more cushion to protect you from predatory taxation by the imperial federal (and sometimes state/local) government? You're right, the principle is quite simple: government taxes us so they can "run" the government. I don't recall anywhere in our constitution that it says "government shall tax the richest 5% and give that money to ACORN (to the tune of $8billion+) for screwing people out of loan equity."

Meanwhile, "the rich", who are in no danger of starving or trying to figure out how to put their kids through college end up shouldering a larger percentage of the tax burden. So, okay, a person who makes $20 million a year is now paying an extra $200,000 a year in taxes. Boo hoo for them. Do you really expect anyone to get up in arms about this "success tax"?

Sure! Everyone affected by this "tax the rich" mentality who will end up paying confiscatory rates on "real" income. When I say "real" income, I mean income earned from their businesses and investments and risked-money earnings. Now, guess who gets the shaft when the "rich" decide that it's just not worth it to stay in business or invest or risk money any more? Yep, you guessed it, those same "poor" who you think this will help. "Rich" people will just put it in relatively safe low-interest bonds and savings accounts or "tax shelters" such as trust funds for family. Which means they're no longer spending that money on hiring "poor" people or investing in startups started by "poor" people through venture capital and such. In the end, raping the "rich" has always shown the unintended consequence of retarding growth in the US's capitalist society.

Whereas every single time they've reduced capital gains and upper-bracket tax rates, the economy goes into a boom over the next decade. Why do you think Clinton enjoyed such a successful economy? It wasn't because he instantly made it happen, it was the results of the Reagan tax cuts. This stuff always takes years to actually start affecting things materially, so the correlation isn't always obvious, which makes it ripe for demagoguery. /shrug I can't help people being ignorant of the facts; that requires folks to actually go get edumacated.

(cont'd next post)

[Ughmahedhurtz]

The truth is, those who are 'successful' don't get there all by themselves. AIG, the company we're currently bailing out to the tune of billions of dollars, still has CEOs receiving lavish salaries and severence packages while the company that they are running is going belly up. The growing disparity of wealth in this country between the rich and the poor is only increasing, and few but the truly selfish would consider this a GOOD thing. What AIG and others are forgetting is that their wealth comes on the backs of their employees--working-class people who struggle every day to feed their families and make ends meet. Those people are the ones who need the tax breaks. Or to put it another way: 95% of this country (including, I suspect, everyone on this forum) deserves a tax break. The richest 5% clearly need it the least of any of us.
Regarding the wealth disparity in this country, that is absolutely a fact. The problem is when you selectively spout facts like that without telling people about the GOOD things our economy is doing versus the rest of the world. Like that out of 145 surveyed countries ranked by % of population living in poverty, ('http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty') the US is 23rd-lowest. ('http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_percentage_of_population_livi ng_in_poverty') Or that the folks in the US living in so-called poverty haven't known typhoid, rheumatic fever, malaria, AIDS, tuberculosis or a host of other lethal diseases in nearly half a century. Or that the "poor" here in the US have cell phones, running water, controlled waste and free transportation. Can you imagine someone in Mumbai bitching about not having free bus service?!? Or someone in Shen'Zhen whining that the trams weren't on time?

Finally, the Bush tax cuts were passed prior to a war with Iraq. This is the first time in the history of this country that taxes have been CUT during a war. This fiscal irresponsibility is a hallmark of the current economic trouble we find ourselves in, and why our national deficit has doubled over the past 8 years, at 10 trillion dollars and counting. Somewhere, sometime, at some point--people are going to have to get over their kneejerk terror over "OMG taxes" and realize that a tax is your patriotic duty as a citizen--and during a time of economic woe, I don't think you're going to find too many people who will support the ludicrous assertion that taxing those with their own private jet is a "success tax".Ya know, I have a real problem with this notion of "patriotic duty" to pay taxes. Where is it written that I have to go out, bust my ass to make enough to afford a decent car and then have a third of my pay hijacked to buy some stupid lamer a downtown condo because he needs to be close to the foodstamps and soup kitchens? Remind me again who the largest contributors to philanthropy are in the entire world? Remind me again who the largest per-capita contributors to world charity organizations are? Now you're telling me that on top of my already generous charity, I'm not paying ENOUGH?!? And remind me again how well the government's $3 trillion worth of "bailout" ideas on how to stop this "recession" have been panning out for us, eh?

And back on the moralist track, tell me again why the fact that someone owns a private jet inherently makes them evil? I don't think I've seen you clarify that position, with the possible exception of the ludicrous assertion that everyone that owns one "stepped on the little guy" to get their money in the first place. That wasn't really what you meant, was it?

As for businesses not paying taxes, are you referring to the 60% of US Companies that pay no taxes, either due to tax loopholes or overseas tax shelters? I believe these loopholes should be closed, and incentives for keeping jobs and corporate headquarters in this country should be rewarded. Doing so would decrease the overall tax burden on the American people.
Hmm...I wonder why there's even a need for a tax shelter or loophole or off-shoring accounts. Could it be that the taxes otherwise would be so high that we would fail to compete with the rest of the world on pricing? How would we correct that inability to compete assuming 100% tax compliance, zero loopholes and no off-shoring? Do you think the government would simply reduce tax rates once we "fixed" the ways around paying them? Really?

But to get back to my point there, businesses do not pay taxes because any increase in costs (and taxes are a "cost") are passed on to:
the consumers of their products and services (in the form of higher prices) the employees (in the form of layoffs, outsourcing, reduced benefits and vacation, etc.) the rest of the US (in the form of lost jobs, lost income and lost revenue)It seems like I'm oversimplifying things there but I guarantee you the beancounters at most companies absolutely apply the KISS principle when it comes to money. They, unfortunately, don't have the luxury of injecting politics into the bottom line: they must actually ensure the company stays afloat to be able to pay taxes, pay employees and still manage to evolve the business to stay competitive with new technology upgrades, better processes, more expensive upstream supplies, etc.


So, basically, the point I'm making is that your entire argument is predicated upon false assumptions, abrogation of responsibility and disproven generalizations about the "obvious targets" such as tax cuts. Do a little historical research and you'll begin to see which types of policy actually increase wealth and standard of living and which stagnate it.

And remember over the next year or two who the last president was that actually brought us "stagflation" due to completely moronic fiscal policies much like the bailouts we're seeing now. Hint: it wasn't Bush or any of his cronies.

[Frosty]

I voted but don't care who wins the election. The important thing is our condition. What will happen to us if Obama or Mccain is the next president?.Is it bad or good condition?.Hope it will be a good condition or else.You know somebody already won, right? :P

[elsegundo]

I voted but don't care who wins the election. The important thing is our condition. What will happen to us if Obama or Mccain is the next president?.Is it bad or good condition?.Hope it will be a good condition or else.You know somebody already won, right? :Plol omg thats so funny.

frolicz... im sorry but i dont think you made much sense. we vote because we think the candidate that we choose will make the condition better. we put the power in our own hands to make change or to keep the status quo. you voted but you dont care? wtf?

[Redbeard]

Wow omg took what I said and put some brains behind it, lol.

Well said.

[Shaden]

Uh, what does what I make have anything to do with it? You seem to be making a moral assumption (that rich people are all evil bastards that want to squash poor people) based on a non-moral fact of life (they make more income per year). Correct me if I'm wrong.
You mention that a couple times in your replies. I never said the rich are 'evil'. There's a straw man here, so yes, I feel the need to correct you on it. All I'm really saying is that the ultra-rich can afford to pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes. It's not a 'success tax' (any more than the estate tax is a 'death tax', except through creative PR), it's simply the core principle behind progressive taxation. As for what you're currently making? You're right, it doesn't have anything to do with the argument itself. I just happen to be amused at how red states traditionally vote against their own interests in supporting the policies of Republicans--who quite frankly do more to support the ultra-rich than the working joes in the Bible belt. In fact, red states largely receive more money in federal spending ('http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html') in their state than they actually pay in taxes. Blue states like my own home state? We receive less money from the government than we pay in taxes. In essence, we're subsidizing the South. You actually have to go to the wayback machine (http://web.archive.org/web/20040925231458/http://www.taxfoundation.org/ff/taxingspendingupdate.html) to find the original article, but it's not a 'point' per se, and not something central to this argument, just something I find interesting.

Your post is impressive at first glance, particularly in your statistical references, but unfortunately for you I have to call into question your sources and several of your assumptions, and break down your statistics a bit. Yes, it required me to get "edumacated" in a few cases, but I think this works both ways.


While it may be politically "cool" to talk shit about the Bush tax cuts really only affecting the top 5% of income earners, that statement doesn't jive with reality. According to government tax records, the progressivity of the tax system can be measured in four ways.... [snip]
For everyone else's benefit, let's disclose the source that you just plagiarized (pretty much word for word) as the National Center for Policy Analysis--a right-wing think tank. Your entire list of bullet points can be found here ('http://www.ncpa.org/prs/rel/2008/20080121.html').

I have a two main problems with this source:

First off, you mischaracterized the source. You said, "according to government tax records", but they aren't government tax records that sourced what you posted. The NCPA is the source, and as a conservative think tank, they have nothing better to do than spend their time coming up with talking points for Republicans. If these numbers were in some way sourced by the government, I'd ask you to provide links to sources. The definition of 'income'. This is what's fun about statistics, you can read them so many ways. What is meant by income? Do you (or the NCPA) mean 'wages'? Because wages don't include capital gains or CEO bonuses or stock options or severence packages--all of which are actually the main sources of wealth for the ultra wealthy. In fact, stocks comprise a disproportionate source of wealth for the top 20% of this country--something that the capital gains tax cuts of Bush were so keenly directed towards. Capital gains tax cuts really adds up when you are dealing in the sales of tens of thousands of shares.


It is critical, when arguing tax reforms, to consider the way the system reacts to them vis-a-vis the disretionary nature of the way high-income earners actually earn income and pay taxes. In terms of actual income, the "Bush tax cuts" have actually served to CLOSE the income gap between high-earners and the "poor."
From the above source: "Its important when discussing tax reforms to consider how the system reacts, because of the great discretion high earners have in how they earn income and therefore pay taxes," said Stroup. "Bush's reforms have helped diminish the income gap between rich and poor, rather than make it worse." Sound familiar? I can quote admittedly liberal sources as well, like this one ('http://lanekenworthy.net/2008/01/14/taxes-at-the-top/'), which claims:


The taxes paid by those at the top matter a great deal for government finances. As of 2005 the top 1% accounted for 28% of federal government tax revenues. That isn’t because they are taxed at an outlandish rate; an effective tax rate of 30-40% is hardly confiscatory. Instead, it’s because they get a very large share of the country’s income — 18% as of 2005.....But not so fast. It is commonly objected that higher tax rates on the affluent will reduce incentives for saving, investment, entrepreneurialism, and hard work. Economic growth will slow. Thus, taxes will be collecting a larger share of a less-rapidly-growing economy. In the end, higher tax rates will yield no increase (and perhaps a reduction) in government revenues...
His overall conclusion, primarily, is: "The effective tax rate on the richest appears to have had no noteworthy impact on economic growth. Averaging growth over several years does not change the picture." I'd encourage you to follow the link, however. One of the most interesting things he brings up is the change of the tax code over time. The top 1% certainly pay a much smaller percentage of their income now than they did in the 1950s - mid 1980s.


Considering that, according to 2001 data, the top 5% of wage earners paid ~53% of ALL taxes while only earning ~32% of all income, with the top 50% of wage earners paying ~96% of ALL income taxes paid in the US while earning only ~86% of all income, just how much would you prefer the top 5% paid before we have "economic justice?" 75%? 90%? 100%?
Again, the statisics hide a few relevant facts. I'll admit that this time you are sourcing actual IRS records, however, so I think your statistics are accurate, but they don't comprise the whole picture. Again, first question: "What is income?" For the 'average joe', income primarily includes wages. But how much of the country's wealth do these people own? As it turns out, I have an excellent source on the topic of wealth. I'd encourage you to read the entire thing (http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html).

I'd like to quote a few important bits, however, because I think they are very important in this discussion.


The income distribution also can be used as a power indicator. As Table 6 shows, it is not as concentrated as the wealth distribution, but the top 1% of income earners did receive 20% of all income in the year 2000. That's up from 12.8% for the top 1% in 1982, which is quite a jump, and it parallels what is happening with the wealth distribution. This is further support for the inference that the power of the corporate community and the upper class have been increasing in recent decades.

The most recent findings on income inequality come from the New York Times' analysis of a November, 2006, Internal Revenue Service report on income in 2004. Although overall income has grown by 27% since 1979, 33% of the gains went to the top 1%. Meanwhile, the bottom 60% were making less: about 95 cents for each dollar they made in 1979. The next 20% - those between the 60th and 80th rungs of the income ladder -- made $1.02 for each dollar they earned in 1979. Furthermore, the Times author concludes that only the top 5% made significant gains ($1.53 for each 1979 dollar). Most amazing of all, the top 0.1% -- that's one-tenth of one percent -- had more combined pre-tax income than the poorest 120 million people (Johnston, 2006).

A key factor behind the high concentration of income, and the likely reason that the concentration has been increasing, can be seen by examining the distribution of what is called "capital income": income from capital gains, dividends, interest, and rents. In 2003, just 1% of all households -- those with after-tax incomes averaging $701,500 -- received 57.5% of all capital income, up from 40% in the early 1990s. On the other hand, the bottom 80% received only 12.6% of capital income, down by nearly half since 1983, when the bottom 80% received 23.5%.
A few important things to mention: The power of the upper class and corporate community has been increasing. Their influence on the political process has been increasing, and their designated party for influencing pubilc opinion is the Republican party. When you quote and paste a lot of specious arguments promulgated by propaganda factories for big business, you're helping do their work for them. Additionally, relating to capital gains, this was a Bush 'tax cut' that inarguably affects the rich more than the poor--and particularly the ultra rich.

The same article mentions that the top 1% of the country owns 33.5% of all the stock in this country. The next top 19% owns 55.8% of all stock. That leaves 10.7% of all stock owned by the lower 80% in this country. And no, you won't find stock ownership in the definition of 'income', but it DOES count as wealth. Sell it off, you might have to report your proceeds as income, but that particular type of 'income' has a Bush-mandated exception provided for it. Funny how that works.


(continued in next post)

[Shaden]

If you are the kind of person who just wants to read the summary, rather than the entire article, here is the main point the author is making:


And now we have arrived at the point I want to make. If the top 1% of households have 30-35% of the wealth, that's 30 to 35 times what we would expect by chance, and so we infer they must be powerful. And then we set out to see if the same set of households scores high on other power indicators (it does). Next we study how that power operates, which is what most articles on this site are about. Furthermore, if the top 20% have 84% of the wealth (and recall that 10% have 85% to 90% of the stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity), that means that the United States is a power pyramid. It's tough for the bottom 80% -- maybe even the bottom 90% -- to get organized and exercise much power.
There are many other interesting points in that article, I strongly encourage you to read it. Among them is the huge discrepancy between CEO salaries versus the lowest-level production worker. It's out of control in this country, and applies to what I said before regarding AIG. These people do not DESERVE their wealth--not while they are cutting pensions and laying off employees and taking all-expense-paid trips to some sunny locale. I don't think that the rich are evil. But those who are willing to lay off employees so that they can tuck an extra million under their arms--when an extra million might have saved those jobs--are selfish, spoiled, and completely undeserving of my respect.


Again, why is it inherently evil to have enough money that you have more cushion to protect you from predatory taxation by the imperial federal (and sometimes state/local) government? You're right, the principle is quite simple: government taxes us so they can "run" the government. I don't recall anywhere in our constitution that it says "government shall tax the richest 5% and give that money to ACORN (to the tune of $8billion+) for screwing people out of loan equity."
Or you could get up in arms about the U.S. military, who consequently spends more money in our national defense than every single other country in the world COMBINED. There's a lot of waste and excess in our spending, and we could both argue where that waste is found--but that doesn't invalidate the concept or need for taxes. You don't think that our military spending is out of hand? We spend almost 500 million dollars a day in Iraq alone. That's your tax dollars at work right there. And the U.S. Army has never, ever, successfully passed an audit. There are billions of dollars unaccounted for, that they can't explain where the money went. Why don't we demand some accountability for those expenses? Why aren't people up in arms about our socialist military's out of control spending habits? Because military expenses are politicized, that's why--largely by the Republican party, who insists on framing every cut in the miltary budget as the opposition party being "soft" on national defense. The only winners in this scenario are the arms manufacturers, who consequently have a strong lobbying arm in this country, like just about every other major industry. War profiteering is rampant, and criminal, and everyone should be outraged by it. But instead we'd rather chase down bogeymen, like the throughly discredited "welfare queen with a cadillac" scenario that Reagan just made up--or your equally implausible scenario of someone owning a luxury condo and living on foodstamps. Sources, please.

Also, I never used the word 'evil'.


Sure! Everyone affected by this "tax the rich" mentality who will end up paying confiscatory rates on "real" income. When I say "real" income, I mean income earned from their businesses and investments and risked-money earnings. Now, guess who gets the shaft when the "rich" decide that it's just not worth it to stay in business or invest or risk money any more? Yep, you guessed it, those same "poor" who you think this will help. "Rich" people will just put it in relatively safe low-interest bonds and savings accounts or "tax shelters" such as trust funds for family. Which means they're no longer spending that money on hiring "poor" people or investing in startups started by "poor" people through venture capital and such. In the end, raping the "rich" has always shown the unintended consequence of retarding growth in the US's capitalist society.
Says you. I actually provided sources that seem to indicate otherwise. Where are your sources?


I can't help people being ignorant of the facts; that requires folks to actually go get edumacated.
If you mean plagiarizing unsourced conservative think-tank reports and Rush Limbaugh, I'd rather get educated elsewhere.

As for your ludicrous assertion that Clinton enjoyed a boom because of Reagan's tax cuts, you're really stretching it there. I agree that presidents receive too much credit overall for boom/recession during their term as president, but let's back up a moment with some reasoned analysis ('http://www.pkarchive.org/column/81600.html') and some perspective on the saint of the Right, President Reagan ('http://www.pkarchive.org/column/060804.html'):


But Ronald Reagan does hold a special place in the annals of tax policy, and not just as the patron saint of tax cuts. To his credit, he was more pragmatic and responsible than that; he followed his huge 1981 tax cut with two large tax increases. In fact, no peacetime president has raised taxes so much on so many people. This is not a criticism: the tale of those increases tells you a lot about what was right with President Reagan's leadership, and what's wrong with the leadership of George W. Bush.

The first Reagan tax increase came in 1982. By then it was clear that the budget projections used to justify the 1981 tax cut were wildly optimistic. In response, Mr. Reagan agreed to a sharp rollback of corporate tax cuts, and a smaller rollback of individual income tax cuts. Over all, the 1982 tax increase undid about a third of the 1981 cut; as a share of G.D.P., the increase was substantially larger than Mr. Clinton's 1993 tax increase.

The contrast with President Bush is obvious. President Reagan, confronted with evidence that his tax cuts were fiscally irresponsible, changed course. President Bush, confronted with similar evidence, has pushed for even more tax cuts.
Nothing like a little historical perspective, eh?


Regarding the wealth disparity in this country, that is absolutely a fact. The problem is when you selectively spout facts like that without telling people about the GOOD things our economy is doing versus the rest of the world. Like that out of 145 surveyed countries ranked by % of population living in poverty, ('http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty') ....
Okay, now I have to call you out on this one. I was talking about how there was a wealth disparity. You agree, and then say it is a 'problem' that I haven't mentioned all the GOOD things our economy is doing versus the rest of the world. Uh no, it's not a problem. It's actually a distraction from the point. I wasn't saying that our economy screws over the rest of the world. I was saying that our country--this one, not some other one--has a huge wealth disparity between rich and poor. This doesn't invalidate the good things we do around the world. Far from it. In fact, it has absolutely NOTHING to do with that.

(continued in last post)

[Shaden]

Finally, the Bush tax cuts were passed prior to a war with Iraq. This is the first time in the history of this country that taxes have been CUT during a war. This fiscal irresponsibility is a hallmark of the current economic trouble we find ourselves in, and why our national deficit has doubled over the past 8 years, at 10 trillion dollars and counting. Somewhere, sometime, at some point--people are going to have to get over their kneejerk terror over "OMG taxes" and realize that a tax is your patriotic duty as a citizen--and during a time of economic woe, I don't think you're going to find too many people who will support the ludicrous assertion that taxing those with their own private jet is a "success tax".
Ya know, I have a real problem with this notion of "patriotic duty" to pay taxes. Where is it written that I have to go out, bust my ass to make enough to afford a decent car and then have a third of my pay hijacked to buy some stupid lamer a downtown condo because he needs to be close to the foodstamps and soup kitchens? Remind me again who the largest contributors to philanthropy are in the entire world? Remind me again who the largest per-capita contributors to world charity organizations are? Now you're telling me that on top of my already generous charity, I'm not paying ENOUGH?!? And remind me again how well the government's $3 trillion worth of "bailout" ideas on how to stop this "recession" have been panning out for us, eh?
There you go again, off topic. What does the charity that the US Government provides around the world have to do with providing compassionate (if not conservative) care for our OWN citizens in this country? But since you brought it up, and since statistics are so fun, I'd ask you to check out this page ('http://www.globalissues.org/article/35/us-and-foreign-aid-assistance'), which really puts things in perspective. To quote:


USA’s aid, in terms of percentage of their GNP has almost always been lower than any other industrialized nation in the world, though paradoxically since 2000, their dollar amount has been the highest. (Only since 2004 have they move up from last place, by just one or two places.) Since 1992, Japan had been the largest donor of aid, in terms of raw dollars. That was until 2001 when the United States reclaimed that position, a year that also saw Japan’s amount of aid drop by nearly 4 billion dollars (as tables and charts below will also show).
Sure, we pay a lot of dollars. We have, after all, lots of dollars. But as a percentage of our GNP, we pay a paltry sum. It's generous charity in the same way that a billionaire gives $1000 to a bum on the street, whereas a poor college student working 3 jobs to afford his tuition might give the same guy his last $20. Who is more generous?

But okay, fine. This is the rest of the world we're talking about, maybe you don't care. But what's wrong with being generous among our own people? What's wrong with providing a safety net for the poor or increasing the take home pay of working families, when that money is just going to get funneled right back into circulation anyway? It's not going to be hoarded or put into tax shelters by these guys, so let's get that money moving, eh?



And remind me again how well the government's $3 trillion worth of "bailout" ideas on how to stop this "recession" have been panning out for us, eh?
*shrug* I don't know? Not well, probably? If I had to give you an answer, I'd say that there's probably no stopping a recession, though maybe we can lessen the damage caused if we put some wise economists in charge of the thing. What else are we going to do? Are you just trying to come up with a long list of things that tick you off in the hope that I'll disagree with you so you'll have something else to quote at me? You're ranging really far afield from what we were originally discussing, namely that "the rich" are not a poor aggrieved minority because we expect them to pay a whole lot of taxes since they make a whole lot of money.


And back on the moralist track, tell me again why the fact that someone owns a private jet inherently makes them evil? I don't think I've seen you clarify that position, with the possible exception of the ludicrous assertion that everyone that owns one "stepped on the little guy" to get their money in the first place. That wasn't really what you meant, was it?
*sigh* Seriously, I never said "someone owning a private jet makes them evil". There's no position for me to clarify, because I NEVER SAID IT. Nor did I make an assertion that everyone that owns a jet "stepped on the little guy" to get their money in the first place. Probably the closest thing I said was that the rich don't make money by themselves. They have workers in their business that help them achieve their wealth. They might be visionaries, have great ideas, etc, and certainly the workers don't deserve credit for their ideas. But at the same time, I think there is definitely an obligation to those workers. Those workers don't deserve a whole lot, really--just fair treatment, decent living wages, safe working conditions--you know, everything that we've expected the government to help regulate since the Industrial Revolution, since corporations clearly weren't willing to regulate it themselves.


Hmm...I wonder why there's even a need for a tax shelter or loophole or off-shoring accounts. Could it be that the taxes otherwise would be so high that we would fail to compete with the rest of the world on pricing?

Hmmm, could be. But is it? I have an alternate proposal: It /could/ be that corporations believe in profit over people. It could be that corporations believe that their first obligation is to produce record profits, year after year, and make as much money as they possibly can, within the law (and sometimes outside of it). No, I'm not talking about Joe Bob's store here (because Joe Bob's store pays taxes), I'm talking about the multi-national corporations. It could be that there are loopholes in the first place because our government is overrun with lobbyists and greedy shills who serve the corporations, whose job is to pass public policy and deregulate industries so that these profits can continue to skyrocket, and CEO salaries can continue to rise.

It could be, but since neither of us provided sources for these things we're saying, I guess we'll just have to call these opinions.


So, basically, the point I'm making is that your entire argument is predicated upon false assumptions, abrogation of responsibility and disproven generalizations about the "obvious targets" such as tax cuts. Do a little historical research and you'll begin to see which types of policy actually increase wealth and standard of living and which stagnate it.

The point I'm making is that your entire argument, when it's not plagiarized outright, is based on a straw man argument ("rich people are evil"), petulant selfishness ("I want all my money!!"), and disproven generalities about the "benefits" of tax cuts. I've done my research. Have you?


And remember over the next year or two who the last president was that actually brought us "stagflation" due to completely moronic fiscal policies much like the bailouts we're seeing now. Hint: it wasn't Bush or any of his cronies.

I guess I'll have to take the National Bureau of Economic Research ('http://econ4obama.blogspot.com/2008/10/nber-for-obama.html')'s word for it, then. A survey by the Economist (I'm sure you read the Economist, right?) found that 80% of NBER members supported Obama's economic policies over McCain's. (Btw, McCain, as a Bush crony, supported the bailout, too)

I'll leave you with the words of two prominent Republicans. The first, General Dwight D. Eisenhower, who warned of the rise of the military-industrial complex:


We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

And lastly, Abraham Lincoln, whose words I think speak most eloquently behind the ideas in this thread:


I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me, and causes me to tremble for the safety of our country. Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people, until wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the republic is destroyed.

[Redbeard]

I dont have sources, I dont have articles to quote by economists.

How is it not a success tax?

Look. Joe Millionaire uses the same public services as John the Pauper. Why does Joe pay more in taxes than John? Notice I didnt mention who could afford more. That's irrelevant here. If you think its not, then you support a tax on successful people.

For the record, I am not a multimillionaire, though I do make a decent living. It doesnt hurt to think about things logically though, regardless of your own situation.

You bring up the death tax... uhhh taxed on money that youve already paid taxes on?

I guess im just not following you.

Maybe I should go read the Economist?

[Basilikos]

I don't intend to hop into the debate as it stands right now, despite agreeing with Ughmahedhurtz, but I thought I'd pull something out and expand on it.


Among them is the huge discrepancy between CEO salaries versus the lowest-level production worker. It's out of control in this country, and applies to what I said before regarding AIG. These people do not DESERVE their wealth...

Whether or not someone deserves what they have is totally irrelevant to the situation at hand, or any other for that matter, unless you believe that someone in power ought to be able to determine how much each of us should have and, if necessary, take things away. Do you believe that? If so, how does that influence your support for progressive taxation?

Also, and this is just a matter of principle despite it's immediate relevance, it's NOT a right-wing thing to do (and I ought to know, since I self-identify as a right-winger) to cut taxes and not eliminate what those taxes were going towards. Borrowing and spending is even worse. If we're going to spend, I'd rather pay for it now since it will only get worse later. This might seem obvious to everyone here, but I thought I'd bring it up as a reminder of what is really being debated (i.e. neo-conservative ideas versus outright left ideas).

[Ughmahedhurtz]

My apologies for not linking you the data ('http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st312/st312k.html') behind that NCPA study. But would me linking that data even matter? I mean, it's just a bunch of right-wing nutjobs spouting talking points, right? It would appear that we can google fight all day long and not get anywhere, as the data can mean whatever you want it to mean, especially so considering it is so freakin difficult to link a specific policy detail to a long-term trend. I believe that the conservative economists like Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell have a better grasp on how to increase the standard of living for all humans than Al Gore, Obama or George Soros. On that point, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree, unless I'm missing your angle.
And lastly, Abraham Lincoln, whose words I think speak most eloquently behind the ideas in this thread:

A most excellent quote. Do you think it applies to people like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and George Soros?

[gfd333]

I didn't vote too.

[pinotnoir]

Shadens and Dons Wall of text just Crit me for over 9000!

Don I had no idea you were a hardcore republican. I still love you! :thumbsup: Your my favorite republican. I hope you find a new job soon. Now come back to wow because everyone is leaving us!

[Shaden]

How is it not a success tax?

...

I guess im just not following you.

Maybe I should go read the Economist?
Again, going back to the resource ('http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html') I mentioned before:


In terms of types of financial wealth, the top one percent of households have 44.1% of all privately held stock, 58.0% of financial securities, and 57.3% of business equity. The top 10% have 85% to 90% of stock, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and over 75% of non-home real estate. Since financial wealth is what counts as far as the control of income-producing assets, we can say that just 10% of the people own the United States of America.
In light of things like this, yes, I support a tax on extravagantly successful people (the top 10%) disproportionate to the share of tax for the working class, which we can generously for this example call the other 90% of us. Yes, since those people hold a disproportionate share of the wealth in this country, I think they are the most reasonable people to tax, disproportionate to the rest of us.

There's more there, about the estate tax, in fact:


Figures on inheritance tell much the same story. According to a study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, only 1.6% of Americans receive $100,000 or more in inheritance. Another 1.1% receive $50,000 to $100,000. On the other hand, 91.9% receive nothing (Kotlikoff & Gokhale, 2000). Thus, the attempt by ultra-conservatives to eliminate inheritance taxes -- which they always call "death taxes" for P.R. reasons -- would take a huge bite out of government revenues for the benefit of less than 1% of the population. (It is noteworthy that some of the richest people in the country oppose this ultra-conservative initiative, suggesting that this effort is driven by anti-government ideology. In other words, few of the ultra-conservatives behind the effort will benefit from it in any material way.)
So you're not a multi-millionaire--it doesn't affect you at all. What convinced you to fight so hard for that ideal, without considering the historical perspective for why the estate tax exists in the first place?

As for being "taxed twice", that happens all the time. Corporations pay taxes on their earnings, and then the shareholders get taxed again. The entire thing about the "death tax" has been horribly distorted, mostly for ideological reasons, but it's another example of bad economic policy. A couple highlights on estate tax myths from Responsiblewealth.org ('http://www.responsiblewealth.org/tax_fairness/Estate_Tax/Estate_Tax_Myths.html') more fully illustrate the hysteria over this benign and completely fair tax policy:
98% of Americans who die pass their estate on to their heirs completely tax-free — in fact, they get a valuable tax break on capital gains. Zero estate tax is charged on assets left to a spouse or to charity. For 98% of Americans, the Estate Tax takes away nothing, and it actually shields assets from capital gains taxes. For the other 2%, the average effective tax rate is 17%. It's not a death tax. Death tax is just propaganda. No one lost a family farm because of it, there's not a single documented case of it. That story was just PR, spin, and lies.

[Shaden]

Whether or not someone deserves what they have is totally irrelevant to the situation at hand, or any other for that matter, unless you believe that someone in power ought to be able to determine how much each of us should have and, if necessary, take things away. Do you believe that? If so, how does that influence your support for progressive taxation?
I should have been more clear. When I said they don't deserve their wealth, that was my own personal opinion. I'm not advocating that the government gets involved and starts deciding to start selling off assets of people, purely on whim. I don't think the executives who ran AIG (into the ground) deserve their wealth. Just my opinion. I'm not suggesting that should lead to any government policy. But my point for this example is that these people are extremely wealthy, these are the kinds (and income bracket) of people I think should pay a greater share of taxes. This includes Bill Gates, George Soros, Michael Moore, and any other bogeyman of the left that might happen to fit into that income bracket. (I suspect Michael Moore probably doesn't, though I don't doubt he does well for himself).

I think it's also incredibly selfish and irresponsible to plunder your company's resources and take expensive trips and make cuts to the workforce while expecting no sacrifice for yourself simply because you're a wealthy executive. People "on the bottom" make sacrifices every day, and they are not expecting the wealthy to be brought down to their level. Quite the contrary. The alarmist position here is that liberals just want to move to a communist state in which everyone, at least on paper, has the same amount of money whether they deserve it or not. I think all anybody wants is to know that executives have sacrificed a small slice of their wealth so that those who helped them acquire that wealth can also have a better life. It's a symbiotic relationship, and everybody wins. It has never been to any society's benefit to have a struggling poor or working class during a time of economic hardship, while an exorbitantly wealthy class (who could afford to promote the general welfare at little cost to themselves) sacrifices little.

[Frosty]

Let’s just all put our money into one big pot, then we’ll divide it back out to everyone equally.
It won’t matter if you invented the wheel or never worked a day in your life.

Problem solved.

[Shaden]

Let’s just all put our money into one big pot, then we’ll divide it back out to everyone equally.
It won’t matter if you invented the wheel or never worked a day in your life.

Problem solved.
I never said to put all your money in a big pot and divvy it up. In fact, I specifically lampooned that very alarmist caricature in my previous post.

Not saying, "spread the wealth out evenly". I'm saying "pay according to your means".

[Frosty]

Let’s just all put our money into one big pot, then we’ll divide it back out to everyone equally.
It won’t matter if you invented the wheel or never worked a day in your life.

Problem solved.
I never said to put all your money in a big pot and divvy it up. In fact, I specifically lampooned that very alarmist caricature in my previous post.

Not saying, "spread the wealth out evenly". I'm saying "pay according to your means".

I wasn't aiming this at you or anyone else for that matter. If I was, I would have quoted you. ;)
I meant it more for an example of no matter how you try to solve this problem, there is always going to be someone who loses. And no one wants to be the loser.

[Shaden]

My apologies for not linking you the data ('http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st312/st312k.html') behind that NCPA study. But would me linking that data even matter? I mean, it's just a bunch of right-wing nutjobs spouting talking points, right? It would appear that we can google fight all day long and not get anywhere, as the data can mean whatever you want it to mean, especially so considering it is so freakin difficult to link a specific policy detail to a long-term trend.
Agreed on your last point. As I said before, too many presidents get the blame/credit for positive changes in the economy during their adminstration. It is fine to argue on a moral level ('is it right for the government to do this versus that?') This is fine, but as soon as statistics and data are brought into the picture, it's important to deconstruct them and be aware of the sources. Definitions of things like 'income' are important, for example. Wealth is not the same as wages.


I believe that the conservative economists like Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell have a better grasp on how to increase the standard of living for all humans than Al Gore, Obama or George Soros.
Well, Obama isn't an economist. Nor is George Soros, really. Al Gore, unless I miss my guess, is a former presidential candidate. So it's not like any of them should be put on the same pedestal as an economist--a conservative one, or otherwise.

Luckily for us, Obama is consulting with economists on how to deal with the economy, rather than George Soros or Al Gore. Noteable economists seemed to prefer Obama to McCain, too...maybe for that reason.


I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me, and causes me to tremble for the safety of our country. Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people, until wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the republic is destroyed.
A most excellent quote. Do you think it applies to people like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and George Soros?
I fail to see what it has to do with Bill Gates, Warren Buffet or George Soros, actually.

[Ughmahedhurtz]

Shadens and Dons Wall of text just Crit me for over 9000!

Don I had no idea you were a hardcore republican. I still love you! :thumbsup: Your my favorite republican. I hope you find a new job soon. Now come back to wow because everyone is leaving us!Heh, I don't identify myself as a republican (though I usually vote with them as the lesser of two evils). I'm mainly the kind of guy that believes what you earn through fair, hard work is yours and that I'm perfectly willing to give some of it to needy folks that ask but, generally speaking, when you tell me that you and your buddies got together and voted that you think I've made "too much" wealth and you're sending people with guns and flashing lights to come confiscate part of my wealth like it or not, I get all antsy and start cleaning my guns. But hey, what do I know. I'm just glad we here in the US can fight it out over internet forums and on paper/electronic ballots instead of with machetes (like in Rwanda) or machine guns (like in Georgia/Chechnya/etc.). I'd rather lose my shorts in the stock markets than my life at the hands of a Somali warlord's goons.


Oh, and I'll definitely be back on Mag in a couple months. Just bought a new car before the layoffs hit so I'm having to save pennies where I can. ;)

[Tsunami]

First off, I have never been hired by a poor person. In this modern day and age it is far too easy to move money around the world, so if you make it too costly to have money in this country it will simply move to another country. There are more and more countries that will welcome wealthy people and their money. What needs to happen is corporate tax rates need to be lowered. make it more attractive to invest in u.s. based corporations, instead of just buying u.s. stocks.

Second, I just came back to the U.S. after spending a year in thailand. it is insulting to call people here poor. I know families in thailand that can only afford to eat two bowls of rice a day, and the family has to share what ever fish they catch that day. maybe 2-3 small fish for 5 people. As long as our poor are eating 3x a day, sleeping in a bed with clean sheets, have air conditioning/heat, color t.v. with cable, running water in their house, a car in the driveway, anything but dirt for a floor, and screens and glass to keep the elements out of their house. Our poor are rich by almost any standard you can think of.

Just consider yourself lucky to live in a country that has food stamps, unemployment insurance, welfare, free schools, honest police, knowledgeable doctors and only 6% unemployment. Not to mention, being able to talk bad about the president. The rich pay too much in taxes and the poor ask for too much free stuff. this is a negative to our great form of government. the poor vastly out number the rich and that is all you need to pass laws to take from the few and give to the many.

comparisons can be made with america now and the roman empire around 400 a.d. right before the empire collapsed.

[Shaden]

First off, I have never been hired by a poor person.
Neither have I. Does that make them less deserving of my compassion and respect?


In this modern day and age it is far too easy to move money around the world, so if you make it too costly to have money in this country it will simply move to another country.
That's one rather fatalist way of looking at it, sure. Or it could be that those countries have no labor laws, minimum wage requirements, or mandated health insurance, so corporations have found they can make exorbitant profits by offshoring these 'cheap workers'. Until we get rid of private health insurance, minimum wage laws, or labor laws (ie., no children should work in the coal mines), we're always going to fall behind those countries without ethical working standards. So what? Aren't we better than that? Are our principles so much for sale in these mercenary times that we're willing to tailor our economic and trade policy around excusing unfettered greed?


There are more and more countries that will welcome wealthy people and their money. What needs to happen is corporate tax rates need to be lowered. make it more attractive to invest in u.s. based corporations, instead of just buying u.s. stocks.
No, no, no. What needs to happen less than anything is another freaking useless tax cut. Seriously! We have a 10 trillion dollar deficit. We need to cut spending AND raise taxes, and make a few sacrifices if we're going to pay it back. That means that the wealthy might have to only have 4 sushi dinners a week, instead of 5. Our economy is a joke partly because we are completely irresponsible with our wealth. Our currency backs oil, you know. The only reason we're allowed to have such egregious deficit spending is because OPEC mandated back in the 1970s that every barrel of oil in the world /must/ be purchased in American dollars. That means other countries have to buy our currency in order to buy oil, and as long as OPEC does this, the American dollar is a magic dollar. However, as soon as OPEC decides to use another currency (say the Euro) for the sale of oil, suddenly our entire economy becomes worthless, and entities begin demanding that we repay the trillions of dollars to them, and our economy goes into freefall, and the Great Depression ends up looking like the Mild Bummer by comparison.


Second, I just came back to the U.S. after spending a year in thailand. it is insulting to call people here poor.
No, it's not insulting. It's insulting to ignore people that are struggling, homeless, and in poverty in our own country. This is a common deflection among many conservatives, I've noted. You can't stand the concept of criticism of our own country, so we go on to talking about the horrible conditions in Rwanda, or Haiti, or Thailand to show everyone just how great we've got it in this country, and how everyone should just shut up and be thankful for what we've got. The thing is, it's our job to think of ways to improve our own country, just as it is the responsibility of people in Thailand to think of ways to improve theirs. Suggesting ways that things could improve doesn't make you selfish or ungrateful or even unaware of the hardships of others--just optimistic.


Just consider yourself lucky to live in a country that has food stamps, unemployment insurance, welfare, free schools, honest police, knowledgeable doctors and only 6% unemployment. Not to mention, being able to talk bad about the president. The rich pay too much in taxes and the poor ask for too much free stuff. this is a negative to our great form of government. the poor vastly out number the rich and that is all you need to pass laws to take from the few and give to the many.
Yes, things are awesome in this country. But since we're already talking about this country, and things that should be improved in this country, I thought I could maybe say a few things about THIS country, without it devolving into a chest-thumping parade about how awesome the USA is, and how we're the best country ever, and how other countries aren't allowed to criticize the government, etc. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand, other than to say "Everyone who doesn't think things are awesome is wrong, and as proof of that I'm going to compare the United States to a third-world country."


comparisons can be made with america now and the roman empire around 400 a.d. right before the empire collapsed.
Oh really? The Roman Empire? You mean the same Roman empire in which the corrupt Senate bankrupted the government which led to its demise?

[Ughmahedhurtz]

I fail to see what it has to do with Bill Gates, Warren Buffet or George Soros, actually.So you don't think the multinational conglomerates owned outright, in part or by proxy of those folks fall under your corporate largesse paradigm? Especially where profiteering by the nominal CEOs/owners is concerned? Or is there something that excludes them from being effectively considered modern-day robber barons?






http://www.dual-boxing.com/forums/../forum/icon/quoteS.png Quoted from "Tsunami" ('http://www.dual-boxing.com/forums/index.php?page=Thread&postID=150864#post150864')

In this modern day and age it is far too easy to move money around the world, so if you make it too costly to have money in this country it will simply move to another country. That's one rather fatalist way of looking at it, sure. Or it could be that those countries have no labor laws, minimum wage requirements, or mandated health insurance, so corporations have found they can make exorbitant profits by offshoring these 'cheap workers'. Until we get rid of private health insurance, minimum wage laws, or labor laws (ie., no children should work in the coal mines), we're always going to fall behind those countries without ethical working standards. So what? Aren't we better than that? Are our principles so much for sale in these mercenary times that we're willing to tailor our economic and trade policy around excusing unfettered greed? How does India figure in your considerations? Some would have said the same thing (and still do) about the massive off-shoring to India that my current company, HP, Dell and others have been doing there for years. I just got through having dinner with a group of Indians (from Bangalore) that are, interestingly enough, picking up the jobs my team and I just got laid off from and they (carefully, obviously) regaled us with tales of their economic successes of the last decade or two. India has poor but the guys that just got my job aren't poor any more -- they're now middle-class Indians. With benefits packages. And don't exactly think of themselves as having been exploited. /shrug
No, it's not insulting. It's insulting to ignore people that are struggling, homeless, and in poverty in our own country. This is a common deflection among many conservatives, I've noted. You can't stand the concept of criticism of our own country, so we go on to talking about the horrible conditions in Rwanda, or Haiti, or Thailand to show everyone just how great we've got it in this country, and how everyone should just shut up and be thankful for what we've got. The thing is, it's our job to think of ways to improve our own country, just as it is the responsibility of people in Thailand to think of ways to improve theirs. Suggesting ways that things could improve doesn't make you selfish or ungrateful or even unaware of the hardships of others--just optimistic. Now now. If I'm not allowed to use the straw man of the Evil Rich(tm), you're not allowed to use the straw man of conservativism being mean-spirited and not caring about the poor. Nobody's saying things don't need to improve. We just differ on whether we think things aren't improving fast enough and government should force it by fiat via wealth redistribution or whether we think society, given the freedom to self-correct (with obvious caveats about exploitation that's already covered by laws), will improve all on its own.

On a related note, you speak of insults. What about poor (usually minorities) who are insulted by the government telling them they're poor, pitiable and deserve government handouts because they apparently can't succeed on their own? I've worked with a few of those that had a rather vehement dislike for handouts of any color, government or otherwise.




comparisons can be made with america now and the roman empire around 400 a.d. right before the empire collapsed. Oh really? The Roman Empire? You mean the same Roman empire in which the corrupt Senate bankrupted the government which led to its demise? Hoo, boy. This thread could reach epic proportions if we start discussing the collapse of Rome. It is interesting, though, that you chose to focus on the senate bankrupting it and don't mention the treasury looting by the barbarian invasions or the mass hoarding of currency by Roman citizens. One would hope neither of you are being prophetic. :P

[Shaden]

I fail to see what it has to do with Bill Gates, Warren Buffet or George Soros, actually.So you don't think the multinational conglomerates owned outright, in part or by proxy of those folks fall under your corporate largesse paradigm? Especially where profiteering by the nominal CEOs/owners is concerned? Or is there something that excludes them from being effectively considered modern-day robber barons?
I'm not saying they don't play in the very ethically murky waters of finance and corporate ownership. I'm not even claiming that any of them are model human beings. I just meant that I don't think they are great exemplars of Lincoln's quote, as they generally are not good examples of corporations that use their 'money power' to promote policies advantageous to the concentration of wealth. Soros, for example, is very liberal and we all know that liberals want to spread the wealth, not concentrate it. :)


How does India figure in your considerations? Some would have said the same thing (and still do) about the massive off-shoring to India that my current company, HP, Dell and others have been doing there for years. I just got through having dinner with a group of Indians (from Bangalore) that are, interestingly enough, picking up the jobs my team and I just got laid off from and they (carefully, obviously) regaled us with tales of their economic successes of the last decade or two. India has poor but the guys that just got my job aren't poor any more -- they're now middle-class Indians. With benefits packages. And don't exactly think of themselves as having been exploited. /shrug
That's kind of my point, though. I consider myself a patriot. I have nothing against people in India, but I don't think that it should be so easy or so desirable for American companies to outsource work to other countries, unless they truly have no other options available. Tsunami is arguing tax cuts and giveaways to the wealthy, when 60% of corporations in this country don't pay any taxes, anyway, and find it beneficial to outsource jobs because we demand certain compensation for our own workers. Among these is health insurance, as it turns out--an expense that would be completely eliminated by universal state-run healthcare--and we wouldn't have to put that burden on employers if it was provided, gratis, by virtue of being an American. So long as we have SOME standards for the treatment of workers, and expect employers in this country to abide by those rules, we'll always find another country in the world with more lax standards of employment--so what do we do? Reduce our own expectations to the world's lowest common denominator in order to compete?


Now now. If I'm not allowed to use the straw man of the Evil Rich(tm), you're not allowed to use the straw man of conservativism being mean-spirited and not caring about the poor.
Yet you're using another straw man. :) I didn't say that conservatives are mean-spirited and don't care about the poor. Instead there seems to be a common tactic (and you've done it yourself in this thread) of suddenly bringing up the plight of a completely different country as a way of saying, "This country is doing fine." And it's also pretty easy to justify a lack of consideration for the poor (of this country) when you claim "there aren't really any poor in this country".


Nobody's saying things don't need to improve. We just differ on whether we think things aren't improving fast enough and government should force it by fiat via wealth redistribution or whether we think society, given the freedom to self-correct (with obvious caveats about exploitation that's already covered by laws), will improve all on its own.
Like Bush claiming that private industry would be better left to regulate itself, without government interference? Yes, that worked out very well, since clearly the corporate class really cares about the community and is motivated all on its own to provide higher wages, safety standards, and salaries that increase relative to inflation. They also do a great job keeping their word about pensions, I've heard, too. Or respecting the prohibitions against insider trading. Why have laws against insider trading at all? I'm sure the industry would just regulate itself, and we'd all be fine. Right?


On a related note, you speak of insults. What about poor (usually minorities) who are insulted by the government telling them they're poor, pitiable and deserve government handouts because they apparently can't succeed on their own? I've worked with a few of those that had a rather vehement dislike for handouts of any color, government or otherwise.
I guess if the government told me that, I'd feel that way too. But I don't think the government really tells them that. The 'handouts' are a direct outgrowth of the Great Depression, when our society recognized the need for a safety net for its citizens. We didn't want our elderly to be living in poverty, hence there was social security. We wanted to provide for the welfare of our citizens, so we adopted an unemployment program to provide government benefits for the unemployed to help them stay afloat. I'm sure back then in the Great Depression there were several very notable sorts who harrumphed all of this federal largesse and how all of those struggling people just needed to "work harder", and how they didn't see why they should be sharing any of THEIR money with people "less successful" than they.

Thankfully, back then, no one cared what those people had to say.

As for Rome, yeah....let's stay off of Rome. I had a schoolteacher who tried to explain to us that the fall of Rome was caused by the acceptance of homosexuality in the society and the erosion of the family unit. Everyone has a theory on that one, probably greatly oversimplified--but I don't think "giveaways to the poor who always want stuff for free" (as Tsunami claimed) were behind the fall of the Roman empire.

[Ughmahedhurtz]

Among these is health insurance, as it turns out--an expense that would be completely eliminated by universal state-run healthcare--and we wouldn't have to put that burden on employers if it was provided, gratis, by virtue of being an American.
So, where is the money for said state-run healthcare coming from? Higher taxes? Somebody's gotta pay for it and, as the basic unit of wealth creation, individuals WILL be paying for it.

Like Bush claiming that private industry would be better left to regulate itself, without government interference? Yes, that worked out very well, since clearly the corporate class really cares about the community and is motivated all on its own to provide higher wages, safety standards, and salaries that increase relative to inflation. They also do a great job keeping their word about pensions, I've heard, too. Or respecting the prohibitions against insider trading. Why have laws against insider trading at all? I'm sure the industry would just regulate itself, and we'd all be fine. Right? In areas where the free market was actually allowed to punish mistakes, excess and bad judgement, yes, it absolutely has served as the fastest route to improved conditions, pay and tax income for the government. What happens when a company provides bad conditions, meager pay, etc.? In a free market with monopoly regulation, others create companies that DO offer decent working conditions/pay/etc. and employees leave the former for the latter. Company A realizes people are leaving because of it and they fix the problems to incentivize people to work for them, or they decline. Self-correction at its finest. Were I not under NDAs, I could give you some prime examples of this in the modern PC OEM, ODM and supplier industry.

Now, I'm sure you can find some examples of the "big xxxxxx" company driving out the "little guy" which, taken individually, may make things seem like the system is broken but I'd then ask you: how did any of those companies get where they are? Same system. Nobody is infallible or invincible assuming regulations are in place so they don't "game the system." And gaming the system, I might add, is made so much easier with government regulations like perpetual copyrights, frivolous/unscrutinized patents, Sorbaines-Oxley and a raft of other retarded legislation.

[Shaden]

So, where is the money for said state-run healthcare coming from? Higher taxes? Somebody's gotta pay for it and, as the basic unit of wealth creation, individuals WILL be paying for it.
That's what I said in my post. We're ALREADY paying for it. If we're willing to pay pre-tax money to private insurance companies--why not have that money taken out as an increase to our taxes?

A Princeton economist wrote a couple ('http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/14/why-does-us-health-care-cost-so-much-part-i/') columns ('http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/why-does-us-health-care-cost-so-much-part-ii-indefensible-administrative-costs/') on why health care costs us so much, relative to other countries.

Right now, the United States health care spending is 40% in excess of what our G.D.P. would predict based on other nations of the world. Reinhardt provides 4 factors to explain this, offered by health-services researchers:
higher prices for the same health care goods and services than are paid in other countries for the same goods and services; significantly higher administrative overhead costs than are incurred in other countries with simpler health-insurance systems; more widespread use of high-cost, high-tech equipment and procedures than are used in other countries; higher treatment costs triggered by our uniquely American tort laws, which in the context of medicine can lead to “defensive medicine” — that is, the application of tests and procedures mainly as a defense against possible malpractice litigation, rather than as a clinical imperative.Okay, so how much is that in dollars?


The United States spends nearly 40 percent more on health care per capita than its G.D.P. per capita would predict. Given the sheer magnitude of the estimated excess spending, it is fair to ask American health care providers what extra benefits the American people receive in return for this enormous extra spending. After all, translated into total dollar spending per year, this excess spending amounted to $570 billion in 2006 and about $650 billion in 2008. The latter figure is over five times the estimated $125 billion or so in additional health spending that would be needed to attain truly universal health insurance coverage in this country.
Yeah, sure, Reinhardt. Universal health care. But how are you going to pay for that kind of thing?


One thing Americans do buy with this extra spending is an administrative overhead load that is huge by international standards. The McKinsey Global Institute estimated that excess spending on “health administration and insurance” accounted for as much as 21 percent of the estimated total excess spending ($477 billion in 2003). Brought forward, that 21 percent of excess spending on administration would amount to about $120 billion in 2006 and about $150 billion in 2008. It would have been more than enough to finance universal health insurance this year.
Oh. Well...I guess that explains it, then. We're already paying for it. It won't cost us any more than we're paying now, and probably less. It's just that right now we happen to be paying into a wasteful, broken system.


In areas where the free market was actually allowed to punish mistakes, excess and bad judgement, yes, it absolutely has served as the fastest route to improved conditions, pay and tax income for the government. What happens when a company provides bad conditions, meager pay, etc.? In a free market with monopoly regulation, others create companies that DO offer decent working conditions/pay/etc. and employees leave the former for the latter. Company A realizes people are leaving because of it and they fix the problems to incentivize people to work for them, or they decline. Self-correction at its finest.
Yes, AIG and Merril Lynch--working within the free market--never punished a single mistake, excess or bad judgment. And look at the quagmire we're in now. In fact, these groups (and other 'free-market' ecomonists) have repeatedly pushed for deregulation as the best way of managing the economy. Have we learned nothing? Without government controls on the worst excesses of corporate America, we're screwed.

As for self-correction: What about Wal-Mart? Since when have they been on a kick to improve conditions, provide health insurance to all employees, or pay their share of taxes ('http://www.ctj.org/pdf/walmart041607.pdf')? Their business model is pretty much the emblem of unfettered corporate greed, yet it is lauded mostly because of the enormous profits it generates. To drive down prices (and maximize their profits) they use their considerable negotiating and buying power to set prices of their vendor's products. They are the only business in the world that can do this. Setting such low prices literally forces vendors to outsource jobs to countries that don't have to pay our exorbitantly overpriced health insurance, not coincidentally. This exports our workforce overseas, kills local economies, and is one more example of something that has to change. 'Profit over people' is a fine (albeit selfish) bottom line for corporations, but 'people before profit' needs to be the policy of our government. It is supposed to be a government of the people, by the people, for the people, after all.

[Tsunami]

just to add my 2 cents about health care costs. Another factor that you didn't mention about why health care cost are so high in the u.s. is the cost of education. most good medical college cost about $50k a year. Harvard has an endowment worth $35 billion, why don't you mention about the greed of harvard and how they over charge their students. Harvard could provide more than 35 years of free education with that money.

How come nobody ever talks about the high salaries of professional athletes or how much money celebrities make. tom cruise made $65 million for mission impossible 2, and that movie sucked. all the cast members of friends made over $90 for the entire series. sandra bullock makes $20 million a movie, which takes less than 2 months to make.

And wal-mart passes those lower costs to it's customers. nobody is forcing the employees to work there, if they don't like it they can find work somewhere else. if customers don't care about low prices and where those products come from then they are free to shop somewhere else. you cannot apply american work standards and laws to third world countries. if you understood economics you would understand. first nobody is forcing those workers to work in those factories, those workers are happy to have a job that pays them money every month. second, those factories are not owned by american companies but contracted to manufacture products for american companies. most 3rd world countries have laws against foriegners owning land in their country or laws against foreign own or controlled companies operating in that country. Last, paying workers more than the market rate will cause inflation and hardship for the people not employed at that factory or cause family members to stop working at their job because they have someone making so much more money in the factory. please don't think you can take our system and copy it somewhere else, it won't work. My sister-in-law works in a factory outside bangkok, she makes 250 baht a day(less than $8 a day) and she is happy. that is enough money for her to have her own apartment, eat as much as she wants(a meal in thailand costs 25-30 baht) have money for beer, cell phone and disco on the weekends.

think of ways to lower prices in america not raise costs in other countries. the states with the highest unemployment in america also have the highest corperate taxes and union membership.

[Shaden]

just to add my 2 cents about health care costs. Another factor that you didn't mention about why health care cost are so high in the u.s. is the cost of education. most good medical college cost about $50k a year. Harvard has an endowment worth $35 billion, why don't you mention about the greed of harvard and how they over charge their students. Harvard could provide more than 35 years of free education with that money.
That's because Harvard is a private industry. Haven't I been railing about private industries? About how their first priority is profit versus people? What Harvard wants is lots of money (and prestige, which helps it make more money). Harvard's priority is not to create affordable education for everyone. In fact, that's what the PUBLIC university system is for. We're not regulating private businesses, and every time someone proposes that we do, suddenly we get shouted down about how it's a free market, and they should be able to do what they want, and if we don't like it we can "shop somewhere else". In any case, I didn't mention the cost of education because it really doesn't have anything to do with our health care costs. You fail to draw any correlation between the high cost of sending a child to med school and how that affects the cost of health care. A /direct/ correlation to the high cost of health care is the waste that the US spends on health care administration. From a report ('http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/8800.php') released in the New England Journal of Medicine:


The U.S. wastes more on health care bureaucracy than it would cost to provide health care to all of the uninsured. Administrative expenses will consume at least $399.4 billion out of total health expenditures of $1,660.5 billion in 2003. Streamlining administrative overhead to Canadian levels would save approximately $286.0 billion in 2003, $6,940 for each of the 41.2 million Americans who were uninsured as of 2001. This is substantially more than would be needed to provide full insurance coverage.
I think this is a far more relevant point to be discussing, since it actually relates--directly--to the cost of health care. Harvard's tuition doesn't, quite frankly.


How come nobody ever talks about the high salaries of professional athletes or how much money celebrities make. tom cruise made $65 million for mission impossible 2, and that movie sucked. all the cast members of friends made over $90 for the entire series. sandra bullock makes $20 million a movie, which takes less than 2 months to make.
Why? I'll tell you what I tell everyone who rails about this--usually while they are complaining about the low salaries that teacher receive. And I think everyone can agree that teachers (and soldiers, while I'm on the topic) are far more admirable and necessary than Sandra Bullock or Tom Cruise (okay, especially Tom Cruise).

Entertainment industry salaries: sports, tv, movies, music, what have you, these are all paid AT WILL by consumers with after-tax income. If it were a tax, it would be a truly voluntary tax in which we only pay for it if we want to pay for it. This money isn't being taken away from your schools, your local economies, etc....at least not in lieu of taxpayer dollars or government spending dollars bestowed upon your state. Why don't we pay teachers a million dollar salary? Quite frankly, because corporate Washington has decided that money is better spent elsewhere. Largely on the military-industrial complex as a whole. We could raise salaries for teachers, but that would probably require us raising taxes, and we all know how reactionary people are when it comes time to raise taxes. So we'll just say "no" to raising taxes no matter what--because we've decided that deficit spending on credit works so well for so many Americans, that we might as well make it our national policy: Don't raise taxes--just borrow more.


And wal-mart passes those lower costs to it's customers.
And in return, they are exporting those customers' jobs overseas. There's a great anecdote about a county, I think it was in North Carolina, who residents worked at a local factory that made socks. They bought socks at Wal-Mart (made in China) because it was cheaper...and their factory ended up having to export all of their jobs overseas. I'd provide a source for this, but since I'm not sure anyone is reading my sources, I guess you can take my word for it.


nobody is forcing the employees to work there, if they don't like it they can find work somewhere else. if customers don't care about low prices and where those products come from then they are free to shop somewhere else.
My family lives in Kentucky, so I have a good idea of what small-town America is like. Gas costs money. You can take a 20 minute drive to go to Wal-Mart, and buy a bunch of cheap stuff that you probably need to survive--or on principle you can drive an hour or more away, to another county, and shop at a Target (although it's almost the same business model)...or if you can find one anymore, "Ralph and May's Store".

The same problem applies for small town America, with regards to employment. When the local hardware store closed, and the local bookstore closed, and the local grocery store closed, and the local toy store closed--as a direct result of the low, low prices of Wal-Mart--what are your options for employment? Where else are you going to go? I could just as easily have said to you, "If people in Thailand don't like how they are living, they can always move somewhere else."

Well why not? They can move, right? Nothing's stopping them, at least, somehow we still have Thai immigrants in this country. But if I were to say that (and actually mean it, which I don't) I'd be guilty of implying that people in Thailand need to stop complaining, or go somewhere else. And why is that always the option? "If you don't like it, leave"? How about, "If you don't like it, try to change it." If you do like it? If people in Thailand love their jobs? Great, I never said we should force people in Thailand to receive American salaries. But I'll bet they'd sure love to know that getting their hand mangled in some factory equipment entitles them to some form of social safety net.


you cannot apply american work standards and laws to third world countries. if you understood economics you would understand.
Ignoring the ad hominem, I never claimed that. I am voicing support for a /baseline/ of conditions that American companies support. In other words, no slave labor. Can we at least agree that employing slaves to make goods is indefensible? Or am I going to get lectured about my American work standards? No? Okay? So slavery is wrong, and we should never support it? Okay, great. Then we have to draw a line somewhere. Remember back when the South argued that the end of slavery would lead to economic collapse for the South? There was also a lot of complaints about how the North didn't benefit from slavery as much as the South, and so it was unfair for the North to apply its "standards" to the South. Somehow we managed to apply that "standard", and say "to hell with the economics" for once--and miraculously, America survived. It did take the South awhile to recover from that, not to mention the dire cost in lives from the civil war, but in the end the nation made a hard choice, and the darkest chapter in American history was closed--but not without a lot of hand-wringing from slave profiteers. I'm not trying to change the subject, I'm just pointing out that everyone agrees there is a certain humanitarian standard that exists. So let's debate where we should draw the line, rather than whether we should have a line at all.


think of ways to lower prices in america not raise costs in other countries. the states with the highest unemployment in america also have the highest corperate taxes and union membership.
Not true, sorry. Here's a breakdown ('http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2000/09/rgtrends.htm') of union membership by state. Here's a breakdown ('http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/state_unemployment/') of the unemployment rates by state. Top states with union membership: New York, Hawaii, Michigan, Alaska, and New Jersey. States with the least union membership: North Carolina and South Carolina. (For comparison: New York has a 25.3% unionization rate. North Carolina has a 3.2% unionization rate.

Some things in the unemployment list match what you are saying: Michigan is tied for the highest unemployment rate in the nation: 9.3% with Rhode Island. I think, at least in Michigan, we could explain the high unemployment rate by considering the failing Detroit auto market, but for argument's sake let's not get tied up in explaining the data. Right after Michigan is California, with a 8.2% unemployment rate. Right after California, #48? South Carolina with an 8% unemployment rate. North Carolina is at 37 with a 7% unemployment rate. Then there's New York and Hawaii, boasting 5.7% and only 4.5% unemployment, respectively. Hawaii is #11 on the list, there are only 10 states ahead of Hawaii in terms of their low unemployment rates. Another is New Hampshire, which has a similar unionization rate as Kentucky does, yet New Hampshire is #6 on the unemployment list (4.1%) and Kentucky is #36 on the list (6.8%). Care to explain why the actual data is directly at odds with your made up statistic?

[blast3r]

I say 'bubble up' instead of 'trickle down'. So much of the money gets swindled by CEOs and upper management. Planes, expensive trips, yachts. I am for being rich but when it comes to taxes give the people that pay for their services some money to use.

Better yet how about a 'flat tax'. I would be all for that. The average person would pay way less in taxes and the rich would no longer have the shelters they usually use. So I guess it is kind of the same thing in the long run.

[Redbeard]

Ive been trying to keep up on this post, a lot of good back and forth here. Has anybody provided a good reason why the rich should be paying more in taxes that I missed?
I say 'bubble up' instead of 'trickle down'. So much of the money gets swindled by CEOs and upper management. Planes, expensive trips, yachts. I am for being rich but when it comes to taxes give the people that pay for their services some money to use.

Better yet how about a 'flat tax'. I would be all for that. The average person would pay way less in taxes and the rich would no longer have the shelters they usually use. So I guess it is kind of the same thing in the long run.

[Basilikos]

Ive been trying to keep up on this post, a lot of good back and forth here. Has anybody provided a good reason why the rich should be paying more in taxes that I missed?

That's what I've been trying to watch here, too. Honestly, I could care less what people's opinion of Walmart (just using them as an example) is, I just what to know what people intend to do politically. And I'm also for a flat tax rate (not amount, a RATE). I don't think anyone ought to be more responsible than the next person (percentage-wise, anyway).

[Shaden]

Ive been trying to keep up on this post, a lot of good back and forth here. Has anybody provided a good reason why the rich should be paying more in taxes that I missed?
I did, yes. Directly in reply to your last post in this forum, which I'm assuming you either didn't read or skimmed. :(

Please read it again ('http://www.dual-boxing.com/forums/index.php?page=Thread&postID=150722#post150722'), and let me know if I didn't accurately address something you were saying.

[Shaden]

I say 'bubble up' instead of 'trickle down'. So much of the money gets swindled by CEOs and upper management. Planes, expensive trips, yachts. I am for being rich but when it comes to taxes give the people that pay for their services some money to use.

Better yet how about a 'flat tax'. I would be all for that. The average person would pay way less in taxes and the rich would no longer have the shelters they usually use. So I guess it is kind of the same thing in the long run.
Finally, someone who agrees with me! I was beginning to wonder what that felt like. :)

Well, sort of. I agree with your first paragraph, but I'm not sold on the idea of a flat tax either, and here's why: Progressive taxation suggests that people should pay taxes according to their means, but a flat tax essentially means that the poor/middle class pay a disproportionate share of their income in taxes, because people in these income brackets often spend their entire paycheck and don't keep a lot in savings or other investments--needing that money instead of pay mortgages, utilities, food, etc. A nationwide flat sales tax sounds like a good idea, but there are currently people living below at the poverty line and below in this country who pay no taxes at all under our current system, but would be forced into paying in a flat sales tax system.

I think it's a much simpler system, and I think for that reason it has merit, but I also think it a dangerously oversimplified system because it actually reverses one of the very best things about our current tax system. (I'm not arguing it's not a mess, but it's not all bad, either).

[Redbeard]

I just read it again. I guess we disagree on your explanation being a "good reason" (Which, if im not brain dead after a day at work, seems to amount to "Tax them because they can afford it, not because they deserve to be taxed more," please disregard if I am misrepresenting what you said).


Ive been trying to keep up on this post, a lot of good back and forth here. Has anybody provided a good reason why the rich should be paying more in taxes that I missed?
I did, yes. Directly in reply to your last post in this forum, which I'm assuming you either didn't read or skimmed. :(

Please read it again ('http://www.dual-boxing.com/forums/index.php?page=Thread&postID=150722#post150722'), and let me know if I didn't accurately address something you were saying.

[Shaden]

I just read it again. I guess we disagree on your explanation being a "good reason" (Which, if im not brain dead after a day at work, seems to amount to "Tax them because they can afford it, not because they deserve to be taxed more," please disregard if I am misrepresenting what you said).


Ive been trying to keep up on this post, a lot of good back and forth here. Has anybody provided a good reason why the rich should be paying more in taxes that I missed?
I did, yes. Directly in reply to your last post in this forum, which I'm assuming you either didn't read or skimmed. :(

Please read it again ('http://www.dual-boxing.com/forums/index.php?page=Thread&postID=150722#post150722'), and let me know if I didn't accurately address something you were saying.
Okay, I'm trying to make sense of this. You asked for a good reason, and I'd already given you what I consider to be a good reason. Now what you're saying is that I have to prove they deserve it as well? I'm not sure what you want. You want a religious argument on why the rich deserve to share their wealth with the less fortunate, who have less wealth to share? Do you want a moral argument? I don't think you're constructing an open discussion for me here, because basically you're just saying, "No, I don't think what you've said are good reasons'", without explaining why. Except you use that word, 'deserve'. Doesn't the very fact that they make more provide the reason as to why they deserve to be taxed more? What would be more fair? Everyone pays the exact same amount in taxes? Too low and you bankrupt the government, too high and not everyone can pay it. What about a flat rate? Everyone pays 35% of their income in taxes? Okay, so does that include everyone, of every income bracket? Even the poor who don't pay taxes now?

I guess what I want to know is: What is YOUR ideal tax situation? I know what you're railing against, but what are you for? You don't like my reasons, and I've taken time to explain them and even provide sources for you, with a ton of other related information as to why this is a good idea, to four different people on this thread. Reasons both practical and ethical (depending what kinds of reasons sway you more). But I haven't heard anything from you that suggests you have a good "fair" tax policy. And if you want your idea to be rated better than what I'm proposing (a modified version of our current system), you're going to have to tell me something besides, "I don't agree" before I'll be able to see your side of it.

You might have enjoyed the back and forth so far, and I obviously enjoy being in a discussion as well. But I'm beginning to wonder what my point is in continuing in this thread, because I don't really feel like it's a true debate, or even a discussion. I spend quite a long time crafting each post, providing backing and sources. I have been called a know-nothing with regards to economics by people on this thread, in fact my faulty understanding of things seems to come up quite often. But I am the only one in this thread consistently reinforcing my position with facts, rather than unproven assertions, opinions, and flat out lies in some cases. When my knowledge on the subject began being called into question, or when I was accused of supporting Obama merely because I'd been brainwashed or something, this became a discussion about facts, rather than just about opinions.

I supported Obama, and proudly. I think he had a far greater economic plan than McCain, and 80% of the economists of the National Bureau of Economic Research agree with me. I have made clear my positions, and I think I have been clear on what are my opinions, and the words and research of others which I think support my opinions. If you want, I can explain how I've familiarized myself with the opposing positions, but I've spent enough time on this thread providing elaborate, detailed, and researched posts rebutting point by point the positions of others. And not just one person on this thread, but four other people. Rarely do I get any kind of response to the points I raise, certainly not point by point, and often I get replies that seem to indicate that the poster isn't even reading what I posted. Usually what I get is a couple snips from my post, a few sentences (which I then rebut) and then...nothing. *crickets*

So what else is there for me to say, really? Is my position really unclear at this point, after so many explanations to so many people? Do you think I've established at this point that I made an informed decision about our future President, and wasn't just brainwashed or "stupid" for choosing as I did? Does anyone think at this point that I really don't understand basic economics, or that I do don't do my own share of reading or "edumacating" myself?

I honestly feel like the other four most vocal of you on the other side of the fence have some catching up to do, content-wise, because I have conducted a far more reasonable and well-sourced discussion at this point. I haven't just been making up statistics out of thin air. I've actually taken the time to respond to virtually every question that has been posed to me, and tailor my response directly to the person who asked me the question.

I'm not trying to be mean or disrespectful, but I don't know what else I need to say at this point.

[Coltimar]

I think a big point is being missed. If someone makes a ton of money they SHOULD spread it around. To whom much is given, much is expected. But you shouldn't make anyone do anything. As my income has grown over the years the percentage of my income that I give to those less fortunate has increased. But you should not make this a government mandate. It isn't fair. More laws do not reduce crime. You cannot now, and never will be able to, legislate the heart of man.

[Ughmahedhurtz]

I honestly feel like the other four most vocal of you on the other side of the fence have some catching up to do, content-wise, because I have conducted a far more reasonable and well-sourced discussion at this point. We can all "source" until we're blue in the face. This argument is like global warming: thousands of scientists think global warming is critical to address now before we kill the planet while thousands of other scientists think global warming is the biggest scam the world has ever seen. Some of us believe government is the answer, where others believe government is the problem.

And while you claim a reasonable angle, your arguments seem to indicate a preference for taking down the top as a means of building up the bottom. I.e.: punishing success. I'm just surprised that, through all that "research," you can't see the pitfalls of making our already progressive tax system even more onerous.

As you said, I'm not sure what else there is to discuss.

[Tsunami]

we could discuss what a scam global warming is. how can we go from global cooling in the 70's to global warming in the 90's. And what is really so bad with global warming. I for one am all for a warmer planet. Nobody in gov't really believes global warming is real... if they did they would not try to rebuild new orleans, they would start building a wall around manhattan and no new construction would be approved for waterfront property.

the positives of global warming far outweigh the negitives. A warmer planet means longer growing seasons so we could grow more food to feed the planets population. more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere means plants will grow faster. a warmer planet can support more people. Very few people will die from global warming, many rich people will lose their expensive beach front property and many poor people will find they now have waterfront property.


Was Greenland called Green Land because Iceland was already taken? no, it was actually green about 1,100 years ago when the vikings discovered it. The Dark ages weren't Dark because they didn't have electricity. It was the dark ages because the sun didn't shine that much, it's because of a mini ice age and the sky was under a constant blanket of clouds. So less food could be grown and millions of people were forced to stay inside which led to out breaks of the plague and other deadly diseases. another ice age will cause billions of people to die. So lets keep the planet as warm as possible.

The romans produce wine in England 1500 years ago, this is something they are only starting to be able to do recently again in England.

The cause of global warming is the sun.

[Hachoo]

I've been keeping up with this post and reading everything intently, and while I don't intend to get involved in the main argument here (even though I definitely support one side of it), I will say this. Those who are saying there should just be a flat tax % that applies to everyone are either very young and inexperienced, or ignorant. Go get married and have a kid or two and then come back and say that.

Taking corporations, poor people, etc OUT of equation, I'm not sure why anyone would think its "fair" to tax someone 35% of their salary, and then after they get married, have 2 kids, and their wife stops working, now they're supporting an additional 3 people, they should still get taxed 35%. LOL. If you want people to stop getting married and having kids, do that. I for one wouldn't be able to support my family at ALL if I still got taxed what I did before I was married with a child.

[Ellusionist]

I didn't vote.

Reason: People bitch no matter what president is elected. I'd rather not play a part of it. What's going to happen is going to happen.

President #1 gets elected, people bitch. Citizens claim it'd be a lot better if we had President #2.
President #2 gets elected, people bitch. Citizens claim it'd be a lot better if we had President #1.