why do you think that raising tax rates on anyone is going to help? History shows that lowering tax rates increases revenue. Also, "high-income families" are generally employers of low- and middle-income people, and how do you think that "rich" people got rich? they understand the way finances work. the same thing that mcmichael pointed out about taxing the oil companies will apply to taxing the rich. they will pass the expense on to employees and customers. on that note, you know why the oil companies are posting record profits? people are buying record amounts of oil. their profit margins have been pretty consistent for years. one great way to increase the price of gasoline would be to tax oil companies. and dont even think about having the government interfere with the pricing structure. That IS socialism (communism really).

Modern drilling operations are fantastically efficient and clean. all over the world, there is offshore drilling, with little or no sign of it even happening. and if more people understood finance and commodities trading, more people would support the offshore drilling research. All industry, including oil, is, by nature, forward looking. If it looks like there is going to be an increase in supply, prices will drop remarkably fast. as soon as there is a lift in the ban on offshore drilling, the market will see that there could be an increase in supply coming, and the people who trade in oil futures will not be willing to pay as much, and the price that they can get for them will drop, the oil companies will see that, and prices will come down, probably a few cents in a few days, with bigger drops coming over the next few months as the supply catches up with demand, and the market price stabilizes. the new supply of fuel doesnt even need to hit the market to lower prices. Let alone the fact that other countries (China, I believe) are pulling oil from offshore rigs off of Cuba, so Us not drilling isnt going to stop the possibility of a disaster hitting our shore.

 

and while I dont agree with the current tax bracket system either, its set up that way (progressively) because a flat tax rate is effectively a regressive tax, since the less money you make, the higher percentage of your money you spend on "stuff". it allows them to offer tax breaks for anyone to encourage smart use of their money. Investments, Homes, Retirement accounts, Municipal Bonds, etc, without furthering the regressive effect.

 

(triple post> damnit)
Fun Fact: look who else did.

House of Representatives:

* Douglas Applegate (D-OH-1 8)
* William Reynolds Archer, Jr. (R-TX-7)
* Robert Badham (R-CA-40)
* Steve Bartlett (R-TX-3)
* Herbert Bateman (R-VA-1)
* Michael Bilirakis (R-FL-9)
* Hank Brown (R-CO-4)
* Carroll Cambell, Jr. (R-SC-4)
* William Carney (R-NY-1)
* William Clinger (R-PA-23)
* Barber Conable, Jr. (R-NY-30)
* Larry Craig (R-ID-1)
* Daniel Crane (R-IL-19)
* Philip Crane (R-IL-12)
* Dan Daniel (D-VA-5)
* William Dannemeyer (R-CA-39)
* Bill Dickinson (R-AL-2)
* David Dreier (R-CA-33)
* John Erlenborn (R-IL-13)
* Bobbi Fiedler (R-CA-21)
* Jack Fields (R-TX- 8)
* Webb Franklin (R-MS-2)
* Bill Frenzel (R-MN-3)
* William Goodling (R-PA-19)
* Phil Gramm (R-TX-6)
* Sam Hall, Jr. (D-TX-1)
* John Paul Hammerschmidt (R-AR-3)
* James Hansen (R-UT-1)
* Marjorie Holt (R-MD-4)
* Earl Hutto (D-FL-1)
* Andy Ireland (R-FL-10)
* James Jeffords (R-VT)
* Ed Jenkins (D-GA-9)
* Thomas Kindness (R-OH- 8)
* Ken Kramer (R-CO-5)
* Robert Lagomarsino (R-CA-19)
* Delbert Latta (R-OH-5)
* Marvin Leath (D-TX-11)
* Tom Loeffler (R-TX-21)
* Trent Lott (R-MS-5)
* Manuel Lujan, Jr. (R-NM-1)
* Ron Marlenee (R-MT-2)
* David Marriott (R-UT-2)
* Lynn Martin (R-IL-16)
* James Martin (R-NC-9)
* David Martin (R-NY-26)
* John McCain (R-AZ-1)
* Al McCandless (R-CA-37)
* Bill McCollum (R-FL-5)
* Larry McDonald (D-GA-7)
* Clarence Miller (R-OH-10)
* Guy Molinari (R-NY-14)
* G. V. “Sonny” Montgomery (D-MS-3)
* William Moore III (R-LA-6)
* Carlos Moorhead (R-CA-22)
* Bill Nichols (D-AL-3)
* Howard Nielson (R-UT-3)
* Ron Packard (R-CA-43)
* Chip Pashayan (R-CA-17)
* Ron Paul (R-TX-22)
* Thomas Petri (R-WI-6)
* Carl Pursell (R-MI-2)
* James Quillen (R-TN-1)
* Richard Ray (D-GA-3)
* James Robinson (R-VA-7)
* Hal Rogers (R-KY-5)
* Toby Roth (R-WI- 8)
* Eldon Rudd (R-AZ-4)
* Dan Schaefer (R-CO-6)
* Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI-9)
* Richard Shelby (D-AL-7)
* Norman Shumway (R-CA-14)
* Bud Shuster (R-PA-9)
* Virginia Smith (R-NE-3)
* Denny Smith (R-OR-5)
* Robert Smith (R-OR-2)
* Gene Snyder (R-KY-4)
* Gerald Solomon (R-NY-24)
* Floyd Spence (R-SC-2)
* Arlan Stangeland (R-MN-7)
* Charles Stenholm (D-TX-17)
* Bob Stump (R-AZ-3)
* Don Sundquist (R-TN-7)
* Tom Tauke (R-IA-2)
* Gene Taylor (R-MO-7)
* Barbara Vucanovich (R-NV-2)
* George Whitehurst (R-VA-2)
* Larry Winn, Jr. (R-KS-3)
* C. W. Bill Young (R-FL- 8)
* James Scheuer (D-NY- 8) did not vote on the resolution, although he was present that day.

Senate:

* James Abdnor (R-SD)
* John East (R-NC)
* Jim Exon (D-NE)
* Jake Garn (R-UT)
* Barry Goldwater (R-AZ)
* Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
* Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
* Chic Hecht (R-NV)
* Jesse Helms (R-NC)
* Gordon Humphrey (R-NH)
* Roger Jepsen (R-IA)
* James McClure (R-ID)
* Frank Murkowski (R-AK)
* Don Nickles (R-OK)
* Larry Pressler (R-SC)
* Jennings Randolph (D-WV)
* Warren Rudman (R-NH)
* John Stennis (D-MS)
* Steve Symms (R-ID)
* John Tower (R-TX)
* Malcom Wallop (R-WY)
* Edward Zorinsky (D-NE)


Seems he wasnt alone.

 

I stand behind the political viewpoints of Trustdestruction and, I hope, of many other Americans.

I see McCain's stances on issues being too similar to those of President Bush, whom I feel has weakened our country. The country's poor economy and health care system, as well as the dislike of the Bush administration throughout the world, underscore this point. Our great nation needs and deserves an intelligent leader who will gain the respect of not only Americans but also the people of other countries. The latter is especially urgent in the current global economy and in a time when cooperation with other countries is so important.

Intelligent Americans see through negative labels like "liberal", "socialist", and "communist" when the use of such terms seeks only to discredit ideas that place an emphasis on the well being of the average American. In times when so many are struggling, it only seems appropriate for the government to develop programs that address this issue. So yes, there clearly comes a time when the government must intervene directly to assist in improving the well being of the average American. A classic example comes from the FDR administration whose "socialistic" New Deal program led to a recovery from the Great Depression, a victory in World War II, and many decades of prosperity in the United States. I don't think such an important task can be entrusted to occur through the trickle-down economics process alluded to by Sacicons. I feel that the country needs fresh ideas from an intelligent leader and that Obama more than McCain can help in solving the many important problems now facing our country.

 

McCain is not going to solve anything, but the economic policies that Obama wants to see enacted will damage our country far more than coasting through four years under McCain. "Communist" and "Socialist" are oh so much more than labels. (Liberal IS a label, but the negativity of it is up to the individual. I consider myself a Fiscal Conservative, if someone thinks thats negative, thats their problem, not mine.) If you think that socialism is a good thing, why do you live in one of the last vestiges of a Capitalist nation? And then try to enact policies to strip it away. This country was founded on free market, why try to make it like every other country? especially when so many of those countries look to/depend on us economically?

"In times when so many are struggling, it only seems appropriate for the government to develop programs that address this issue."

everything that the government does could be better handled by the free market. when is the last time you went to the DMV? not exactly the epitome of efficiency.

The effectiveness of the "New Deal" is still debated, and its pretty clear that it was mostly WWII that ended the Depression.

"I don't think such an important task can be entrusted to occur through the trickle-down economics process alluded to by Sacicons."

Many people believed the same thing in Russia in the late 1800s and early 1900s. They felt so strongly about it that they started the "Revolution". History shows how well that worked out, with a central government controlling prices, wages, goods, jobs, education, entertainment etc etc. the effect of that policy is not being debated so much. The use of such terms as Socialist, or Communist, is absolutely to discredit ideas that "place an emphasis on the well-being of the average American." when those ideas do so by trying to make everyone average by pulling the rich down to the level of the poor, rather than the other way around. that is the effect of many of those ideas. punish the successful for succeeding. the more research you do on communist belief, the more similarities you will see with some of these ideas. An idea which benefits someone who wont do what they can to succeed in a free market economy, through planning and hard work, at the expense of those who are willing to do what they can, will always meet with resistance from me, and I will be among the first to point out the similarities to the NEP. Trying to dismiss the use of words like that in instances where they fit, is just as bad as misusing them.

 

Consider into this all of the people who have succeeded by pushing someone else down. Like how Bill Gates stole "his idea" for windows from someone else. Does he really deserve all of his success? Sure he was good at marketing it and expanding, but the fact that he stole the idea is completely wrong. There are so many people out there who are successful only by corruption. Those people should be paying money to help the people they screwed over and pushed them into possibly poverty in some cases. Not saying all people are like this of course, but just thought i'd throw that into the mix.

and the tax hike on the wealthy and cuts for the poor might only be necessary in this situation we're in. Maybe it will help and then once we're out of the recession, they can come up with something else that's a little more fair. People that can help us out of the recession by contributing should. It's kinda like donating to charity. It's just the right thing to do. Just in this case, the government has to force the donations, because people are too stubborn to do their part to help our country out of the recession. Everyone should be doing what they can to help.

 

That is such a distortion of facts. So many people are so quick to point out that Bill Gates "stole" his ideas, without knowing the story. they assume he is just a brutal businessman who happened on a program for computers. He was brilliant with computers from a young age, and brilliant overall. he scored a 1590 on the SATs. that takes more than good business sense. he took an unwanted program from its originators, refined it and marketed it. if it was just a stroke of dumb luck, he wouldnt have continued to succeed.

taxes are nothing like donations. forcing "donations" from someone already has a name. stealing. if everyone should be doing what they can to help, why are you picking the pockets of employers (who write the paychecks of the lower income population) instead of going after the people defrauding unemployment? the rich generally pay their taxes on time and willingly. they haven't done anything wrong, and you want to punish them for their success.

 

yea you're right about my last post i'm losing my mind on this right now. for a minute there i couldn't think of a good way to say it. For one, i couldn't think of a better example to use. i've been up for like 36 hours between trying to get obama tickets, going to the event, and working on my stupid compressor and drive belts. i need a break. lol.

All i can say is that it's not "punishment" for success. It's for the common-good of the people and will help. The people who pay the taxes will benefit from the taxes in one way or another. I already used my indirect example (welfare can help keep a person who would otherwise be desperate enough to mug you from actually doing so.) You pay taxes. They build roads, run power lines, run sewers, etc. Do you drive on the road? Yes. You are using the money your taxes contributed. Do you use electricity? Without your taxes, they might have not been able to build power lines in your area. Do you like indoor plumbing? That's great, but do you think the infrastructures just magically appeared? No. Your tax dollars are at work and helping you. I think that the raised taxes on the wealthy would only be temporary, until we either find out if it doesn't work or we get out of the recession. Big oil should be taxed though because they are sitting back making record profits while the average man is having trouble filling up his tank. That is not right, and proves that gas prices are way higher than they need to be. It's almost like price gauging before a hurricane in a way. It is them taking advantage of a bad situation, and people are still buying it because we rely on it so much. Like supplies you buy for hurricane season.

Also, what I don't understand about your argument is that we shouldn't tax, it sounds like you want to abolish taxes completely. So how are we going to pay for the Iraq war that the person you probably voted for started? Let's borrow money. Great idea. All republicans want to do is borrow borrow borrow. When people max out their credit cards are in huge debt, do you look at them and go "oh that's really responsible spending, i should do what they're doing if i want to be successful". I think not. At least when Democrats raise taxes to get funding, it's american money, so we're not accumulating interest and debt. Bush is an idiot and has caused our nation to feel this pain of debt for decades to come. You want to vote for McCain, and keep doing what we're doing? Go ahead. At least when this country is worse off than now, i'll know it's not my fault.

EDIT: sorry for getting a little mean in that post. I don't mean to come off as a dick if i am.

 

my gf told me that, i was just going off what i heard.
see a trend? most of those people listed are republicans. there are still some democrats, but mostly republicans.

 

Another thing i don't like about McCain, is he will say anything bad about Obama, i mean ANYTHING, no matter how ridiculous, to try to gain upper ground. and it doesn't work, if he hasn't noticed. Obama's quite a bit more wittier than McCain and knows how to stand up for himself pretty well. Like the whole comparing him to a celebrity thing. Do i sense a little jealousy from McCain? He wishes that people would do whatever they could to get a seat in a stadium to see him speak too.

Obama fills up a stadium because he can.
McCain criticizes Obama for filling up a stadium because he can't.

You know that Urban League thing that went on friday and saturday in Orlando, FL? Well about 3 times as many people showed up to see Obama than McCain. Obama's supporters are typically more passionate and dedicated to his campaign than McCain's supporters are to his own campaign.

McCain's campaign does screening with all the "town hall meetings" attendees to make sure no one there disagrees with him. What's he afraid of? So does that mean no one can come to his event if they are undecided in the election? [sarcasm] Well that's a great way to attract undecided voters[/sarcasm]

And about the "liberal" label being taken as an insult... it's because when you guys say it, you say it with a negative connotation. Plus when you say conservative many people first think of the conservative christian beliefs. and when you think of that, the word "christian" doesn't really have a bad schema for anyone besides like radical muslims or devil worshipers.

Republicans are afraid to try new things, that's why they don't like liberals.