Election results

[xspike77x]

You know, as a CPA who works on taxes it bugs me when people make it sound like republicans only offer tax breaks to the rich. First of all, as far as I am concerned, the only fair tax is a flat tax. Everyone pays at the same rate. Now a flat tax is not quite simple since a flat tax that would be proposed does in fact take many circumstances into consideration to answer all of the charges against it. Bottom line? It would be the most fair tax out there. Now some say that the bush tax cuts were unfair, but all those who have children were granted a $1,000 tax credit for each child. Now who was excluded from the benefit of the child tax credit? Only the rich, it is phased out when you get over a certain income level. McCain proposed increasing the child tax credit, once again, who were the only individuals who would not be able to take it? The rich. How is that looking out for the rich? Sounds more like looking out for your average Joe to me. It is true that the bush cuts did provide rate cuts to the highest income tax brackets, but the highest tax pay bracket was 39%! Outrageously high. I never understood how it was "only fair" to take from those who have given much. Now it is true that some are indeed overpaid, but with companies what goes around comes around. It may take time for that to occur, but it is true. You know, although I did vote for McCain and disagree with Obama, Obama himself is not what concerns me. What concerns me is the fact that not too long from now, one party will have complete control over every branch of our government. NO party should have control of every branch. All checks and balances are virtually eliminated which means that the purpose of the separate branches can no longer be fulfilled. This may result in some serious damage to our democracy, may I am being radical in thinking that.

[Oldsalt]

xspike77x
Here's my view. Yes, the socialist Democrap Party has been pushing their Robin Hood agenda for many years. But, and I'm talking the long view here, everytime the ding-dongs elect a far-left president he screws up. Screws up so badly that it results in a consevative president being elected as soon as his term is over. Carter, who decided that it would be a good idea to GIVE AWAY THE PANAMA CANAL [after we stole it fair and square] was nothing short of a jackass. Still is. But remember what happened then? A conservative era. What about Zipper Clinton? Unfortunately it took two terms for the Democraps to see what he was. But then we got another conservative era and started once more to make the country safe. J.F.K.? That idiot left wing limosine-liberal would not have went down as a great president if he didn't get shot before he could start screwing up even worse than his Bay of Pigs Invasion and his fumbled attempts to start WW3. But he got shot and that gave us good ol' Johnson and his Great Society legislation. It took 30 years to get over that bumbling fool. But, again, he screwed up so badly, both domestically and foreign policy, that even left-wingers again started seeing it.

The future? O-bomb-us will screw up big time. For sure. Is there danger in the future? Yes. the worse thing that can happen is for him to get shot like J.F.K. There would be a lot of, should I say, inter city restlessness. And then, like J.F.K., there would be sainthood. Then, again as in the J.F.K. case, passage of a lot of unwise socialist legislation, before it got thought out, just to please his memory.

[tblumer]

Well 54% of the country disagrees with you. And I'm sure it would be larger if it weren't for a bunch of ignorant racists.

I will admit a single party system isn't a good idea either.

I also prefer less religion in my government. I don't think one mans faith should decide a course of action for this country either.

Oh yeah, while I'm at it: Her body, her choice.

[xspike77x]

Our Tax System Explained: Bar Stool Economics



Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten

comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would

go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.



So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day

and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw

them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the

cost of your daily beer by $20." Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.



The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the

first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.

But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they

divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that

from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end

up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be

fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded

to work out the amounts each should pay. And so:



The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).

The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).



Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to

drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare

their savings.



"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to

the tenth man," but he got $10!"



"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too.

It's unfair that he got ten times more than I got"



"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I

got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"



"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get

anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"



The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man

didn't show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had beers without him.

But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important.

They didn't have enough money between all

of them for even half of the bill!



And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how

our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most

benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and

they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking

overseas; where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.



David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.

Professor of Economics

University of Georgia



For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not

understand, no explanation is possible.

[xspike77x]

It may be that the majority of the US thought that Obama was the best choice and I am in no way going to say that the majority should not decide since after all, that is how our democracy works and I think that is great. That does not necessarily mean though that I think the majority always knows what is best. However, once again, the majority decided and so it should be. I am no racist, disagreeing with Obama on his political affiliations and ideology does not make me racist. If he had been white I would feel the same way. If a black man were to hold conservative ideas and run for office then I would most likely vote for him. What I am saying is, I couldn't care less what color their skin is, but I care very much about what they intend. I do not disagree with the change in the skin color of the president, I just disagree with the social and economic change that he desires.

As for abortion, which is what I believe you are referencing, do you not view an unborn baby as a person deserving of rights? Or do you see it as a person, a human being, but just do not care if a woman wants to kill it so that she can live as she pleases? I really do want to know what you think though since I do not know all that many pro-choice individuals personally. I would like to understand the logic to a greater depth beyond, her body her choice.

[Oldsalt]

Originally Posted by xspike77x

It may be that the majority of the US thought that Obama was the best choice and I am in no way going to say that the majority should not decide since after all, that is how our democracy works and I think that is great. That does not necessarily mean though that I think the majority always knows what is best. However, once again, the majority decided and so it should be. I am no racist, disagreeing with Obama on his political affiliations and ideology does not make me racist. If he had been white I would feel the same way. If a black man were to hold conservative ideas and run for office then I would most likely vote for him. What I am saying is, I couldn't care less what color their skin is, but I care very much about what they intend. I do not disagree with the change in the skin color of the president, I just disagree with the social and economic change that he desires.

As for abortion, which is what I believe you are referencing, do you not view an unborn baby as a person deserving of rights? Or do you see it as a person, a human being, but just do not care if a woman wants to kill it so that she can live as she pleases? I really do want to know what you think though since I do not know all that many pro-choice individuals personally. I would like to understand the logic to a greater depth beyond, her body her choice.

xspike77x
I'll try to explain the pro-death stance to you. It's like a driver smashes his car at an intersection. Of course the person does not wish to be responsible for the patently obvious lack of due caution and basic skills. If it were possible to do the person would like to have a second chance. You know, back up a block and make another run at the open intersection hopeing this time their luck will be better. The liberals see nothing wrong with this. In this same manner liberals promote the killing of any unborn child if it stands in the way of any womans life style. Their belief is that no one should ever be responsible for their actions so a second or third or maybe a forth chance if O.K. So the U.S. Supreme Court decided, in Roe vs. Wade, that life starts after the third trimister!!!!! The Warren court really believed they had a hot line to God. Well, I thought I could explain it but I now see I don't understand it ether.

[jimh]

I've heard that if an election lasts more than 4 hours, you should consult a physician.

[Austin T]

Lol!^^^^^

[priggs1]

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D. didn't write that piece on economics - nor does he endorse the ideas of that piece; it was a viral email. David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D. has written over 10 books on economics and has become a very distinguisehd professor of economics and consultant; also a member of the American Bar Association.

[xspike77x]

Priggs, I am totally behind you (even though I posted it) that it is most likely not written by the individual, but I did not post it with the intent of using him as any sort of authoritative source. The post was mainly because I do believe that it is a good representation of how things really do work. At an extremely basic level anyway.