I will have this tune stuck in my head allllll day now

 

Wohoo! Flat tax debate. I'm definately curious about how well this would work out. It would definately reduce overhead and processing costs (no longer need a lawyer or turbotax, but bad for CPA's). Can anyone agree on where the % level would need to be in order to maintain a government funding level near what it is today? Income tax is only part of the revenue stream, so if they need more after the cap look to have to pay it from other sources.

My main question is would it be better to completely get rid of the existing structure with unknown consequences or get someone with a spine to stand up and close the loopholes on our current tax code? With the flat tax you get rid of all the corrupt breaks but potentially get rid of as well those breaks that some people really need, like medical expenses, student loans, etc. The government's biggest carrot for encouraging behavior is through tax breaks for stuff like solar and wind, small business, hybrid vehicles, etc. Take that away and how do you encourage renewed energy and growth, people won't do it just because it's a good thing if it costs more.

Freedom costs a buck 'o five.

 

Well, there are just as many tax breaks that encourage questionable behavior and corner-cutting as there are good behavior. And that's a simple rebuttal, too; just offer different ways for the government to give out Gold Stars. Doesn't have to be tax breaks.

Finding an acceptable flat-tax percent to maintain present levels of funding into the government seems like it would be a pretty simple process, too. Not quite simple enough for me to figure out (with my "Some College Courses Completed" education) in one post, but I'm sure some talented CPA's could do it.

That's another point, too; America hates making jobs redundant, even in the name of progress. What are all these CPA's going to do if they can't fill out a bunch of forms for us and get money thrown at them all day?

 

Dogbert, no rebuttal needed. I think you and I are in agreement.

My position is that the current tax system is broken, and to fix it either the current loopholes (i.e. shady tax breaks) will need to closed and eliminated or a new system (flat tax) is needed. My concern with a flat tax is that the baby might be thrown out with the bathwater. If not tax breaks / incentives, how does the government go about encouraging responsible behavior when doing the opposite is still legal and cheaper to implement?

Also, Rumsfeld's famous "unknown unknowns" do actually hold true, even if his netcentric warfare view is complete bs. With a change of that magnitude, what unintended consequences might occur?

Like you said, smart people should be able to figure something out (paraphrasing), but when's the last time you saw a scientist, engineer or even someone with a degree in math or the physical sciences in the halls of Congress? I think it may have been John Glenn.

 

I'd say just do away with federal tax altogether. I'd have the federal government require whatever they need from each state to keep running, and have it depending on the resources used and things done for that state. Then the states would do the same thing for every county, and the counties may even do the same thing for every city/town. So when someone in Houston is paying taxes, they only have to worry about Houston, and if things seem out of whack, they can concentrate on making Houston better, which is alot less daunting than saying 'fix America'.

 

Well, there still needs to be some funding for the federal government, and I don't think they can constitutionally directly tax a state government.

Overaching responsabilities need to remain outside of state level government. The military and federal court systems come to mind first. National guard units should do just that, guard the nation in each state and not get sent overseas. The active duty service should do that, as they are charged to protect the constitutional rights of each citizen, regardless of state, here and abroad.

The federal court must also remain as the keepers of constitutional law, otherwise each state would have their own set of rules and I'd be afraid to travel to Texas, California or Utah. Speaking of travel, someone still needs to regulate interstate commerce and maintain the interstate highway, rail and air travel systems.

Congress and the Executive branch I could take or leave.

I finally got a chance to watch Barack's full speech yesterday on Tivo. I must say I was a little dissappointed. He spent much of it taking shots at McCain and the failed Bush policies, time which may have been better spent outlining his agenda for Iraq withdrawal, the Russian resurgance, and increasing our security level (making me wait in line at the airport and building a fence with Mexico are not the ways to do it). He needs to be more hawkish when it is the right thing to do; where is the Barack who would follow Bin Laden into Packistan?

 

Two videos on John McCain
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdJUCU1UH2w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWX5u69hmzY

 

 

haha i didn't see that. Glad somebody's reading that blog!

 

So I guess one has to post impartial, factual information when defending Conservatives...

Yet, completely partial attack ads against Conservatives are kosher?

(Referring to both this thread, and to media in general)

I'm getting a huge kick out of the Media attacking Sarah Palin... they've got nothing on her, and have resorted to personal attacks and conjuration.

 

The crap about her daughter and her baby are out of line. But where's the media bias? Fox news is the highest rated cable network and Novak is still reporting for the Washington Post even after being completely discredited in the Valerie Plame incident. CNN's own polls gave Obama a 1% lead when every other poll in the nation had him from 3% to 8%. I for one can't wait for the vice presidential debate to see what Palin has to say when there isn't a teleprompter in front of her.

I don't know why the media focuses on them when they can go after her support for the bridge to nowhere (while McCain supposedly is against these kind of earmarks), the Alaskan Independance Party claiming her as a member in 1994, the same group that advocates Alaska be independant of the US, her support for Buchannan in 1999, her husband's DWI arrest, her abstinance-only views when millions are dying from AIDS; it's not a moral choice, it's a health issue, her push to have creationism taught in schools when every single scientific body rejects it as a valid theory, her experience only being 20 months as governor of the least diverse and least populated state, and a mayor of a town of 6,000 before that, now-indicted Senator Ted Stevens's endorsement of her during her governorship campaign, and finally her own potential indictment for the firing of her ex-brother in law from a state trooper position after he divorced her sister. McCain's own vetting process picked Palin only a day after interviewing her and he's only met her once before now. The RNC had to change her introduction speech because they had it written BEFORE she was even selected and it wasn't "feminine" enough. Please, show me the conjecture in there, but don't dismiss it until you do some research.

I find it amazing that the GOP supposedly advocates smaller governenment but then wants to caudify moral choices into law. I thought only Islamic states still did that. We are a democracy, not a theocracy. They seem to need to make these wedge issues a big deal in order to distract people from the issues that actually affect them, namely the war in Iraq, the current housing / financial / economic crisis, lost credability on the world stage, a massive debt, the selling of America to foriegn interests, etc.

I'm a heterosexual male, the relevance to that being I really don't care about abortion or ___ marriage as neither have the slightest affect on my life. What Jack and John or Juno do in their houses is their own business (assuming they still have one). I want a president who will help me keep my house and my job. Also, my wife has MS and could greatly benefit from stem cell research, something Palin opposes and somehow links to birth control when the embryos aren't viable and will end up being destroyed during disposal under Bush's policies anyway. If they were really pro-life, they would seek to take these discarded tissues and actually allow them to be used to help people.

I'm not an Obama supporter but I'd rather take my chances in an unknown fog than stay on the beach when I can see a tsunami headed straight for me. I'm a registered Republican and voted for McCain in the primaries to hopefully keep the fundamentalists at bay but sadly with this VP pick that battle is lost. I miss the McCain who labeled Jerry Falwell and Farahkan agents of intolerance. He's abanded his own values and campaigning on the issues to adopt the tactics of fear and hate just to get elected. "Country First?" Like if you're not a Republican you aren't patriotic and don't love America? Talk about conjecture. The Libertarians are looking better and better.

 

I saw this in a newspaper at work, and I was damn near infuriated. Anyone who gives a damn that her daughter had a kid out of wedlock and that her husband got arrested for drunk driving over 20 years ago... I'm sorry, but they should stay home coming voting time. We're in a dismal war in two countries, the economy is pretty poor, unemployment is just as bad, our education system is... colorful, and the rest of the world is either laughing at us or scowling at us. But nevermind all that, lets watch The Real World: Alaska! This is why we, as a nation, are boned. And why the deuce didn't Bush's spawn get as much attention?

OH MY GOD OH MY GOD OH MY GOD OH MY GOD

INNNNNNN this corner, weighing in at one-hundred and seventy pounds... he's Chairman of both the Judiciary and Foreign Relations Senate committee's, and he's both one of the youngest ever elected and one of the longest serving Senators in history... the vice-presidential nominee for Barack Obama... Joe Biden!

AAAAAAND IN this corner, weighing in at one hundred and five pounds... she's the governor of Alaska, runner-up in the 1984 Miss Alaska pageant, and personal friend of Ted Stevens... the vice-presidential nominee for John McCain... Sarah "Barracuda" Palin! (I'm not making that up; Wikipedia says she's called "Sarah Barracuda" "because of her intense play and was the leader of the team prayer before school basketball games.")

FIGHT!

 

Dang, did y'all see Palin's speech? I'm still not happy about anyone running... but dayum!

Obama must feel pretty bad right now, because all that was missing tonight was him and a red, white and blue strap-on, because she pretty much boinked him in the buttocks.

 

 

I completely missed it

I'm starting to really not care anymore and thinking about what country to move to.

 

This is what happens when you actually use the talent of the current administration's White House speechwriters (Palin), instead of just ignoring them because you're "smarter" (W).

 

INNNNNNN this corner, weighing in at one-hundred and seventy pounds... he's Chairman of both the Judiciary and Foreign Relations Senate committee's, and he's both one of the youngest ever elected and one of the longest serving Senators in history... the vice-presidential nominee for Barack Obama... Joe Biden!

AAAAAAND IN this corner, weighing in at one hundred and five pounds... she's the governor of Alaska, runner-up in the 1984 Miss Alaska pageant, and personal friend of Ted Stevens... the vice-presidential nominee for John McCain... Sarah "Barracuda" Palin! (I'm not making that up; Wikipedia says she's called "Sarah Barracuda" "because of her intense play and was the leader of the team prayer before school basketball games.")

I find this quite hilarious.. when people talk about in experience. John mccain has been in the senate for four terms now.. and how long has obama been in for one term..

Now my math might not be the greatest but that is less time then mccain spent in a vietanmese prison camp. and he thinks he knows what the american military needs/wants to do in iraq and afganitstan.. obama is a joke... period

 

I find it quite hilarious that your only retort about my remarking on the experience of the Vice Presidential candidates... is about the Presidential candidate's political experience. Not only is that unrelated to what I was talking about, but at best, what you said just means both parties have equal weighting as far as Pres/VP experience goes.

I don't care what Obama thinks we should do about the war. I don't care what McCain thinks we should do about the war. I don't care how long McCain spent in a prison camp. I don't care how long Obama has been in any political office. What I do care about is who they're going to listen to about the war. You know, the generals they appoint, the various committees our elected officials make to discuss these sort of things, the experiences of servicepeople who are actually in the thick of things. What the hell is the point of all of that if they're just going to have their own opinion of what should happen and do what they ultimately want anyway? Because McCain thinks he and he alone thinks he knows what the American military needs is a mark against him in my book. The role of the President should be to manage and appoint intelligent people to make intelligent decisions, and to report those decisions to the public in an intelligent manner... NOT dictate policy on their own and make their own decisions.

 

cdogbert- I do agree with you that both have alot of inexperience.. as well as alot of experience

And as far as me saying what i think about mccain is becuase I am in the thick of things right now.. and from being with all branches of the military of all ranks we all have the same basic views on this war.. If we leave Iraq afganistan there will be another attack on american soil. I want a president that isnt going to back down from adversity just to get the title... americans lives are on the line for there country and thats what we signed up for. We would rather stand up and fight now then have to pick up the pieces just like 9/11.

 

Alright, you fall into one of those three categories of people that the President should listen to about the wars. Fair enough. But again, I want a President that takes into account when you say we shouldn't back down... not a President that just isn't going to back down because of "gut feelings" or stubborn "stay the course" garbage. I want a President that doesn't make that decision on his own.

And so wait, you're saying that if we left Afghanistan; which so far as I can tell is becoming increasingly under Taliban control again and is becoming a bloodbath for both sides... and if we left Iraq; which so far as I can tell is a giant sandbox with bombs and body parts in it... that we're going to be attacked again? You seriously think that just because we got rid of the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and destroyed pretty much every building in Iraq, that there aren't any more terrorist (namely al-Qaeda) training camps in the entire world? And furthermore, to keep the world's terrorists at bay, we have to "stay the course" in Afghanistan and Iraq and just keep doing... whatever it is we're doing?

No.

What exactly has the past five years in Iraq and seven years in Afghanistan gotten us, besides military casualties in the four digits, civilian casualties mounting in five digits, damage and expenses for the combined wars exceeding ten digits... and a simple restructuring of the international terrorism ring? We haven't gotten bin Laden. We haven't eliminated the Taliban. We haven't squashed al Qaeda. It's been seven years. In the immortal words of Bob from Office Space, "what exactly would you say... you do here?"

I've had a brain wave. Unfortunately, I'm wired for analogies. so this is no different:

You've just been elected governor of a state. A year after you've been elected, massive gang wars erupt all over once of the largest cities. The worst crime wave in the city's history. Epic damages and casualties. You make a statement to the city that you're going to get to the bottom of it, and you say the problem is coming from a neighboring run-down city, which has been a major gang haven for a long time. Everyone in the state is behind you. And you know what? You actually do a pretty good job, albeit with some police casualties. Crime hasn't been coming out of the city nearly as much. Gangs go into hiding, mostly fleeing to neighboring cities.

So then you say that you suspect that a major gang war is going to come out of a different city now. You tell the state senate that the mayor is corrupt and that organized crime is going to threaten the entire state. Again, everyone rallies behind you. You gather the largest amount of money the state has seen in decades towards the effort. The entire National Guard and State Police are mobilized for the effort. You say it's going to be a cakewalk, and the city will be better than ever once the initial fight is over. In fact, you're going to revolutionize the city into a wonderful spectacle of the area.

And then it all goes wrong. Casualties everywhere for both sides, and the entire city is ground to a halt. You manage to depose the corrupt mayor, and declare that you've won from the steps of the capitol. Except, for some reason, you keep everyone fighting there. It's not over. It keeps getting worse, in fact. And while it's getting worse in that city, gangs are regaining control of the original city that you said was necessary to keep the state safe. Not only that, the state itself plunges into a recession, and public opinion of mayoral approval plummets to one of the lowest ever recorded.

If you seriously came out of the capitol, after seven years, and said "hey, we aren't doing so bad, really... if we just stay a bit longer, both cities are going to be fine again! By the way, can I get some more money for this?"... YOU WOULD BE VOTED OUT OF OFFICE. Not only that, you would probably end up being shot by the family of someone that was killed in one of the crime efforts. The fact that this is not only on a much larger scale, but the ultimate result is completely different for Bush... AND someone wants to actually continue on the exact same course... is truly staggering.