Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:I don't get that reasoning. If the republicans are doing such a great job then why are people so ticked off at them? Maybe it is because they are not as fiscally conservative like they want you to think. They have disenfranchised mainstream conservatives.

So, who should I vote for? The guys who talk the talk but don't walk the walk, or the guys who don't even talk the talk? Or in fact, talk the wrong talk?

Disappointment in Republicans not doing everything i wanted or everything they promised is NOT a reason to vote Democratic, when the Dems are promising to oppose everything I think important. I would rather have the Republicans doing only half what they promise than have the Democrats do even half what they threaten.

Truly, Niner was right, it IS cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Voting for a party/person who has no chance is OK - after all, that is partially how Texas went from Democrat to Republican in only half a century. But remember, third party votes usually benefit the frontrunner. In every case, they benefit the candidate you absolutely would have listed last on your list of possilbly getting your vote. Votes are two edged - they are important not only in who you vote for, but in who you took that vote from.

Rebulicans staying home benefit the Democrats. Republicans voting third party benefit the Democrats.

RebelKev Wrote:.....tell us DRW, why the "F" should the taxes go up AT ALL!!!???

Simple... because our spending outpaces our tax revenue. Either cut spending, or raise taxes. I hate seeing our government continue to run in the red...

mlb Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:.....tell us DRW, why the "F" should the taxes go up AT ALL!!!???

Simple... because our spending outpaces our tax revenue. Either cut spending, or raise taxes. I hate seeing our government continue to run in the red...

....and a Democrat is going to start cutting spending? Pigs haven't started flying that I know of, at least not in Augusta.

dwr0109 Wrote:NinerFan...I doubt your taxes will go up much unless you're in that top 1% income bracket. But something tells me if you had that much dough you'd have better things to do than sit around here with us.

Where does that top 1% start? Do you have any idea, or is it OK as long as it isn't you?

IIRC, the top 1% are already paying about 1/3 of taxes. Define fair share.

The dems have a long history of talking about taxing just the top X%, but when push comes to shove, their taxes and increases hit the middle clas first and hardest. Example: You can go to the Conngressional Record and read the rhetoric about how unfair it was that millionaires could get the benefit of a $2,000 IRA deduction. So they voted in a phase-out, starting at $25K for singles, $40K for couples. Democratically controlled Congress.

The Dems want to kill the tax cuts, which covered all Americans. Just because they are the BUSH tax cuts.

Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush have all sponsored tax cuts, and each time they have helped the economy. The Democrats have specifically said they want to reverse the tax cuts.

They have new taxes they want to enact, too, like a windfall profits tax. That will just serve to depress domestic exploration and production, like it did the first time. They don't care if it increases America's dependence on Arab oil, as long as they can tell (erroneously) the public that they are keeping individual taxes down by taxing those bad capitalistic coprorations.

dwr0109 Wrote:NinerFan...I doubt your taxes will go up much unless you're in that top 1% income bracket.

Or if you have kids, since the Democrats have said they won't extend the $1000/child tax credit.

If the Dems go back in power, it will fall back to $500/child.... so count your children and multiply by $500.... that will be (at least part of) your tax increase.

RebelKev Wrote:....and a Democrat is going to start cutting spending? Pigs haven't started flying that I know of, at least not in Augusta.

I'll say this for the democrats... during the late 90s they were turning some very impressive budget surpluses, allowing the US to pay down the national debt.

We hashed and rehashed this idea 2 years ago, but we should really overhaul the entire federal tax. Instead of taxing income we should be taxing spending. Give a break to the people 10% over and at or below the poverty line or something along those lines. Our tax code is antiquated.

Quote:I'll say this for the democrats... during the late 90s they were turning some very impressive budget surpluses, allowing the US to pay down the national debt.

Republicans controlled the congress and spending in the late 90's. You can credit them for the surpluses if you think it was due to government.

I however credit the economy and the increased tax revenues that came in.

Quote:I'll say this for the democrats... during the late 90s they were turning some very impressive budget surpluses, allowing the US to pay down the national debt.

Seems like a lifetime ago doesn't it? We couldn't stand prosperity could we? Think if those votes that were supposed to go to Gore that went to Buchanan were actually counted for Gore. What a different world we would have today.

Quote:Think if those votes that were supposed to go to Gore that went to Buchanan were actually counted for Gore. What a different world we would have today.

The thought gives me nightmares on a daily basis.

Alot of credit has to go to the Republican house and Senate too. Although alot of these guys around here wouldn't admit it. The govt. does work best with split branches of govt. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Machiavelli Wrote:Think if those votes that were supposed to go to Gore that went to Buchanan were actually counted for Gore.

If you can't figure out that the hole next to the arrow is the one you're supposed to punch, your vote probably shouldn't be counted anyway.



"I want to vote for Al Gore... look, there's a arrow next to his name and it points to a hole... let me punch the hole above it!"

Funny that this year in Palm Beach, Democrats sued to prevent signs from going up at the polls saying "A vote for Foley will be counted as a vote for Negron." A butterfly ballot confuses voters, but leaving a name on the ballot of a person not running doesn't? Yeah, okay....

Machiavelli Wrote:Alot of credit has to go to the Republican house and Senate too. Although alot of these guys around here wouldn't admit it. The govt. does work best with split branches of govt. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I 100% agree with this. It helps control spending, IMO. Since Bush got into office the "conservative" republicans have been spending money like it's going out of style. Time to cut some spending (especially this special interest crap) and start paying down the damn national debt.

mlb Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:....and a Democrat is going to start cutting spending? Pigs haven't started flying that I know of, at least not in Augusta.

I'll say this for the democrats... during the late 90s they were turning some very impressive budget surpluses, allowing the US to pay down the national debt.

You mean the Republican-controlled congress? Or did you think Clinton was a dictator?

Machiavelli Wrote:We hashed and rehashed this idea 2 years ago, but we should really overhaul the entire federal tax. Instead of taxing income we should be taxing spending. Give a break to the people 10% over and at or below the poverty line or something along those lines. Our tax code is antiquated.

For once, we agree.

http://www.fairtax.org

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

Quote:I'll say this for the democrats... during the late 90s they were turning some very impressive budget surpluses, allowing the US to pay down the national debt.

Republicans controlled the congress and spending in the late 90's. You can credit them for the surpluses if you think it was due to government.

I however credit the economy and the increased tax revenues that came in.

Beat me to it. I responded before scrolling.

RebelKev Wrote:You mean the Republican-controlled congress? Or did you think Clinton was a dictator?

You forget that it was a democratic congress that passed the balanced budget amendment in 1993. That hamstrung the congress from overspending for quite a while. However, you are correct, the republican controlled congress did help keep that budget surplus alive in the late 90's. Of course, the republican controlled congress also has spent all the money that the US collected in surplus and quite a bit more since 2000.

OptimisticOwl Wrote:So, who should I vote for? The guys who talk the talk but don't walk the walk, or the guys who don't even talk the talk? Or in fact, talk the wrong talk?

Clearly you failed to read the rest of my post where I said I refuse to listen to those who setup a false dichotomy.

Plus I can word the same statement above in a way that'll make it hard to vote the same way. Should I vote for the lier or the truth teller? Where does that get us?

Quote:Voting for a party/person who has no chance is OK - after all, that is partially how Texas went from Democrat to Republican in only half a century. But remember, third party votes usually benefit the frontrunner. In every case, they benefit the candidate you absolutely would have listed last on your list of possilbly getting your vote. Votes are two edged - they are important not only in who you vote for, but in who you took that vote from.

Rebulicans staying home benefit the Democrats. Republicans voting third party benefit the Democrats.

I subscribe the philosophy that voting third party, if they don't win, sends a message to those who are elected.

Quote:You forget that it was a democratic congress that passed the balanced budget amendment in 1993. That hamstrung the congress from overspending for quite a while.

A balanced budget amendment has never been passed. In the 90's the push for a balanced budget began in 1994 with the republican takeover of Congress. It was part of the Contract with America. The amendment was actually introduced into the house in 1997 and the balanced budget agreement was signed in July of that year.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

Quote:I'll say this for the democrats... during the late 90s they were turning some very impressive budget surpluses, allowing the US to pay down the national debt.

Republicans controlled the congress and spending in the late 90's. You can credit them for the surpluses if you think it was due to government.

I however credit the economy and the increased tax revenues that came in.

The economic expansion that Clinton took credit for began in 1990, Two years before he took office. It ended in 1999, 1.5 years before he left office.

I credit the Reagan tax cuts and the once-in-forever development of internet businesses. A lot of the instant millionaires in tech stocks paid a lot of taxes on those gains.