Your Presidential pick?

Post here, who you're voting for and why.

I'm voting for Ralph Nader, because I agree with the point he's making.

Squeek is INSANE!!!!

Well obviously! It takes one to know one

If I was US citizien I would vote for Obama. There is a lot positive feelings for this guy outside of the USA. He might not live up to the expectations but (if elected) he will have some handy start up capital to work with.

If it's Obama vs. McCain, I may well vote 3rd party, just as a form of individual protest, unless one of them does something that really scares me.

If it's Hillary vs. McCain, I am working on McCain's campaign.

zahratustra said:

Well obviously! It takes one to know one

If I was US citizien I would vote for Obama. There is a lot positive feelings for this guy outside of the USA. He might not live up to the expectations but (if elected) he will have some handy start up capital to work with.

Click to expand...

True, but his ideas on taxation should scare anyone in the middle class or above.

Ohh, and his wife is an American hating witch.

I'm voting for FDR. Prime Junta has a resurrection scheme going.

zahratustra said:

Well obviously! It takes one to know one

Click to expand...

:lol:

blatantninja said:

True, but his ideas on taxation should scare anyone in the middle class or above.

Click to expand...

How so?

I'm truly up in the air on this one. Each possibility (McCain, Clinton and Obama) has a significant list of positives and negatives. I'm looking forward to the debates...

Well, if we can vote for dead folks a la Magerette, I vote for FDR as well.

I'm not even going to comment on that ridiculous slam against Michelle Obama...sigh.

How so?

Click to expand...

Well, he wants to raise them!

I'm not even going to comment on that ridiculous slam against Michelle Obama...sigh.

Click to expand...

Read here quotes, and tell me different.

As for dead presidents, for me it would be either Reagan or Teddy!

blatantninja said:

Well, he wants to raise them!

Click to expand...

And where's the ultimative problem with that? Okay, instead of asking you about your personal opinion towards taxes perhaps I should rather ask if you understand why people for different reasons want to raise taxes?
Because whether or not you are middle-class or above doesn't necessarily mean you are against taxes.

Asbjoern said:

And where's the ultimative problem with that? Okay, instead of asking you about your personal opinion towards taxes perhaps I should rather ask if you understand why people for different reasons want to raise taxes?
Because whether or not you are middle-class or above doesn't necessarily mean you are against taxes.

Click to expand...

As I said, I'm not against taxes, but the rates are high enough. Cut the fat, trim the handouts. If we still need raises after that, I'd consider it, so long as EVERYONE pays more. I am perfectly aware of the various excesses in our government spending, everything from wasted money regarding Katrina to lost money in rebuilding Iraq.

However, our taxation rates are already reasonably high. Too high taxes produce a very real drag on long term economic growth, just as too low produce a drag through the lack of infrastructure and other friction it produces.

I just finished my taxes. When you add up federal, state and local income taxes (I live in NYC, so I get them all), social security (which even at current rates is insolvent long term) and medicare/medicaid, my tax rate is right at 40%.

And the funny thing is that while yes I make a lot of money, because of where I live, I still barely fit into a middle class lifestyle (doesn't stop the federal government from taxing me the same as someone that lives in a palce with half the cost of living though).

Like I said, I will support additional taxes if we trim the fat, cut the handouts and then STILL need additional revenue. Of course, we won't trim the fat or cut the handouts because politicians like getting re-elected.

Well said, BN. I don't know why our friends on the left find that so hard to understand. It ain't rocket science...

Because our friends on the left are of the opinion that they have a right to redistribute the money you earn as they see fit.

blatantninja said:

Because our friends on the left are of the opinion that they have a right to redistribute the money you earn as they see fit.

Click to expand...

That's a very loaded way of putting it, BN... especially as it appears that, when we get down to the practical level, we don't really differ all that much. We've agreed that we need some kind of social safety net, some kind of general educational system, some kind of unemployment insurance, and some kind of universal or near-universal health care system. Hell, I suspect we may even agree that the squillion-dollar executive compensation packages we've been seeing recently are a tad on the generous side and we just might want to think of some ways to limit that kind of excess. All that adds up to a pretty big redistributive effect.

Basically, us lefties don't believe that redistribution is a "right" or an end in itself. Moreover, you won't find any mainstream leftie who'd want to completely flatten wealth differentials -- most of us would consider the income distribution of the USA in the 1960's as plumb near ideal.

We just recognize that (1) left to itself, the market tends to concentrate wealth, (2) excessively concentrated wealth leads to extremes of wealth and poverty, and (3) something can be done about (1) and (2) without going all Commie on it -- and, by definition, this "something" is a redistributive effect. I for one think that actually taking money from X and giving it to Y would be an extreme case and a very small part of the whole -- pensions, unemployment benefit, very basic social security. (You're well aware of the "pyramid" nature of the pension system, I'm sure.)

Make the market serve democracy, rather than the other way around, or something like that.

blatantninja said:

Well, he wants to raise them!

Click to expand...

Oh really? On the middle class, you say? How do you define "middle class"? And can you link to where Obama says he's raising taxes for these "middle class" folks, please? Thanks.

NYC aside, the US actually taxes its citizens less than most first world nations. Saying, "cut all the fat first, then raise taxes" is just as extreme as saying "raise taxes first, then look at spending". It's not really an either/or type of thing. Both need to be done. The rich and corporations get taxed way too little for the benefits they receive from living/operating here. Plain and simple. Or as dte would say: "not rocket science". Something needs to be done about that. And, in fact, it could be seen as "cutting the fat" as a lot of tax breaks and corporate welfare are what I'd consider both a "fat" issue and a "tax" issue.

Conversely, the working poor get taxed too much. Something needs to be done about that.

As with most things, a better balance needs to be struck between cutting taxes and reducing spending. And the spending reduction needs to be in the right place: i.e. not at the expense of the poor, public transportation or art. But rather at the expense of the rich and corporations jumping through so many tax loopholes they get dizzy.

As PJ said, us left-leaners aren't just a bunch of Mad Taxers...

So, you're saying that a portion of the money legally earned by the rich and corporations should be taken away from them and redistributed to the working poor thru vehicles of your choosing (in this case, a restructuring of the tax code more favorable to lower incomes), yes?

"Because our friends on the left are of the opinion that they have a right to redistribute the money you earn as they see fit."

Thank you very much, my work here is done.

magerette said:

I'm voting for FDR. Prime Junta has a resurrection scheme going.

Click to expand...

I would doubt check that if I were you.
Wilson-Lusitania-WWI
FDR-Pearl Harbor-WWII
Dubya-911-Iraq

Research done by G. Edward Griffin
Days of Infamy http://www.freedom-force.org/pdf/futurecalling3.pdf

My man Ron Paul is still in the race despite all obsticles. Thanks to the system of delegates, we might have a surprise when the Republican National Convention comes around. Nothing is set yet despite what mis-info MSM is pumping out. check out the exact number here http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/R-PU.phtml

comprehensive comparison: http://www.knowbeforeyouvote.com/

mudsling3 said:

I would doubt check that if I were you.
My man Ron Paul is still in the race despite all obsticles. Thanks to the system of delegates, we might have a surprise when the Republican National Convention comes around. Nothing is set yet despite what mis-info MSM is pumping out.

Click to expand...

Believe that, I'm showing up on 15 Mar 2008 here in Missouri to help out with the delegate situation. We are not done fighting.

blatantninja said:

Because our friends on the left are of the opinion that they have a right to redistribute the money you earn as they see fit.

Click to expand...

Nice self-slam. You mentioned a post or two above that you're all for redistributing the money people earn the way you see fit...