Who should be our next Commander in Chief?

[Praxus]

That works if you have 1 teacher for like 50 kids, textbooks from 1862, remove several subjects from the curriculum, and operate out of a cardboard box...okay so I'm exagerating a little, but the gap between the private education and the "union" education would be so vast as to make class mobility exceedingly difficult.

This "union" would be to pay for private schools or the supplies for home schooling if the parents are intelligent. You have to remember that the price of going to private school would be very small. Because there are no taxes to speak of and the shear ammount of people attending private schools would drop the price per student. You also have to remeber there would be all types of private schools, since the chericulum(sp?) is not dictated by the state. So there could be an all engineering school(etc...) if that peaks the childs interest.

Huh? Who's job is it? Maybe you mean its not the federal governments job. But some government's got to pay for it. Or do you believe every single road, from highways to little side streets, should be built and tolled by companies?

Every road outside of ones required for national defense should be privately built and tolled. Given the fact that building roads could not be a very profitable thing, this would actually encourage alternate means of transpertation and inspire innovation to allow it to become more profitable.

I did not include this in the excerpt cause I thought the one I put in was more appropriate, but they also argue that when easily available oil runs low, companies will scour the Earth for all the harder-to-pump oil, which will mean that things will keep running smoothly, if milidly more expensive. However, because of this prolonging of the production plateau, when we reach the end of the plateau, it won't be the steady decline which would result in market forces taking action, it will be like falling off a cliff instead, because we won't have the energy sources available to mass build the alternative energy infrastructure.

This is not true, we have means of artificially producing oil from dead animals and plants. If we ran out of oil(which is highly unlikely to happen for the next 50 or so years) we could produce it artificially at all beit much higher prices until a realistic alternitive can be created by private buisness.

That will eventually happen. The argument that the site makes is that by the time it becomes worthwhile to do so, the energy required to construct the alternatives will be so expensive as to make it nearly impossible. .

What, how so?

Are you saying that Fission and coal power would not be availabe?

We have enough coal to last for the next 250 years in the US a lone. We have enough Uranium for an even more significant ammount of time.

If oil and natural gas were to dissappear tommorow we could simply build more nuclear and coal fire power plants!

[Semper Fi]

Im not voting for either one its pretty pathetic when those 2 are your only choices i think who ever your vote for the US is getting screwed i just hope who ever wins doesnt weakend the military or the economy even more.

[Praxus]

What is the point of not voting?

If you agree that one is less evil then the other, then wouldn't the logical thing to do is to vote for the lesser evil?

[Confed999]

i just hope who ever wins doesnt weakend the military or the economy even more.

If those are your primary concern, then the choice should be simple.

[phalanx]

Christine you need to research the tax distribution/burden before you quote liberal propaganda. You can't argue against Numbers!!!!!

___________________

http://www.ncpa.org/edo/bb/2004/20040407bb.htm

Just in time for tax season, the Congressional Budget Office has released new data on distribution of the tax burden. Contrary to popular belief, they show that taxes on the wealthy have risen over time and that the Bush tax cut in 2001 barely kept it from rising further.



A convenient starting point is 1984. The Reagan tax cut was then fully phased in (which reduced the top statutory income tax rate from 70 percent to 50 percent) and the 1983 Social Security tax increase had already taken effect (which raised the OASI tax rate from a combined 9.5 percent to 10.4 percent). In that year, those in the bottom quintile (20 percent of households) paid an average federal tax rate (individual, payroll, corporate and excise) of 10.2 percent.



Those in the top quintile paid 24.5 percent, the top 10 percent paid 25.2 percent, the top 5 percent paid 26.1 percent, and the top 1 percent paid 28.2 percent. Thus, those at the top paid about two and a half times more than those at the bottom.



Fast forward to 2001 (latest year in the CBO study). The top statutory income tax rate has fallen to 39.1 percent and the total payroll tax rate has risen from 14 percent to 15.3 percent. If one knew these figures in 1984, almost all economists would have projected a sharp decline in taxes paid by the rich and an increase in those paid by the poor.



In fact, the data show that those in the bottom quintile are only paying about half what they did 20 years ago: 5.4 percent. This is down from 6.4 percent just the year before, owing to the Bush tax cut.



Those in the top quintile did pay a little less in 2001 than they did in 2000: 26.8 percent versus 28 percent. But this is still well above the average tax rate they paid in 1984. Interestingly, those at the very top saw virtually no cut at all, even though liberals constantly say that they got the lion's share of the 2001 tax cut. Between 2000 and 2001, those in the top 10 percent of households saw a drop from 29.7 percent to 28.6 percent and those in the top 5 percent saw a decline from 31.1 percent to 30.1, but those in the top 1 percent saw their effective tax rate virtually unchanged: 33.2 percent versus 33 percent.



All of those in the middle 3 quintiles paid less in 2001 than they paid in 1984. In other words, between 1984 and 2001 average tax rates for the wealthy substantially increased, while at least 80 percent of households paid considerably less. Progressivity rose as the wealthy now pay about 6 times more than the poor.



Looking at the share of taxes paid shows a similar pattern. From 1984 to 2001, those in the bottom quintile reduced their share of the total tax burden from 2.4 percent to 1.1 percent. Those in the top quintile saw their share rise from 55.6 percent to 65.3 percent. Among the ultra wealthy, the top 10 percent increased their share from 39.3 percent to 50 percent, the top 5 percent raised their share from 28.2 percent to 38.5 percent, and that of those in the top 1 percent went up from 14.7 percent to 22.7 percent.



In short, the poor paid half as much of the federal tax burden in 2001 as they did in 1984, while the rich paid about 50 percent more. Those in the middle paid about a third less.

[phalanx]

Education: This Administration has not respected the “No Child Left Behind Act”;

Bush signed the largest education funding bill in history, which was also written by Ted Kennedy. The problem is not funding it is with how states disburse money for education. There is a severe problem right now with regards to that.

Democrats should be very happy with the Bill the president signed. I know that I and many other republicans did not agree with what he did.

[Confed999]

Progressivity rose as the wealthy now pay about 6 times more than the poor.

Descrimination, for any reason, is wrong. The Dems shout about class warfare, well here it really is. I'm for the national sales tax instead of the income tax, it's alot more fair and it promotes economic growth instead of hampering it.

[ZFBoxcar]

I'm for the national sales tax instead of the income tax, it's alot more fair and it promotes economic growth instead of hampering it.

Sales taxes doesn't promote economic growth! Its bad for 2 reasons. One is that the low and lower-middle class need to buy things too, and then they have to pay more or consquently buy less. Sales taxes punishes people who make the least money because they still have to buy a lot of the same things that those who make more money have to buy. The other reason is that it restricts growth as people may buy less if every item is taxed. My ideal is low income taxes that are nearly flat (the rich should pay a slightly higher percentage than everyone else but not much more, and I would also raise the amount of money they qualifies as "rich" because right now a lot of the middle class takes the brunt of it) and no sales taxes. I would also eliminate property taxes because it makes it harder and more pointless for people who don't make much to own land.

[Confed999]

Sales taxes doesn't promote economic growth! Its bad for 2 reasons. One is that the low and lower-middle class need to buy things too, and then they have to pay more or consquently buy less. Sales taxes punishes people who make the least money because they still have to buy a lot of the same things that those who make more money have to buy. The other reason is that it restricts growth as people may buy less if every item is taxed. My ideal is low income taxes that are nearly flat (the rich should pay a slightly higher percentage than everyone else but not much more, and I would also raise the amount of money they qualifies as "rich" because right now a lot of the middle class takes the brunt of it) and no sales taxes. I would also eliminate property taxes because it makes it harder and more pointless for people who don't make much to own land.

Actually our proposed sales tax does, and it provides a rebate automaticly up to poverty level. The tax is also only on new end level purchases, allowing companies to opperate tax free, reducing costs dramaticly and promoting further investment. It doesn't work as well as no tax, but it's better than what we got, and a million times more fair. Since I come from a country of equals, fairness counts alot to me.


"The FairTax
Imposes a 23% (tax-inclusive) sales tax on the purchase of new goods and services in the U.S.

Lets workers keep their entire paycheck and retirees keep their entire pension.

Abolishes the IRS and ends all audits of individual taxpayers.

Replaces the federal income tax. Frees individuals from ever filing a tax return again.

Replaces all payroll taxes including Social Security and Medicare taxes. Current Social Security and Medicare benefits would not change.

Replaces corporate and self-employment taxes.

Eliminates all hidden federal taxes.

Provides a universal rebate equal to the sales taxes paid on essential goods and services to ensure that no American pays taxes on necessities.

Replaces all estate, gift, and capital gains taxes.

Dramatically lowers tax rates for low- and middle-income Americans.

Closes all tax loopholes.

Brings accountability to tax policy.

Lets American-made products compete fairly.

http://www.scrapthecode.com/facts.htm

There's a link to the actual bill there also.

[Praxus]

Sales taxes doesn't promote economic growth! Its bad for 2 reasons. One is that the low and lower-middle class need to buy things too, and then they have to pay more or consquently buy less. Sales taxes punishes people who make the least money because they still have to buy a lot of the same things that those who make more money have to buy. The other reason is that it restricts growth as people may buy less if every item is taxed. My ideal is low income taxes that are nearly flat (the rich should pay a slightly higher percentage than everyone else but not much more, and I would also raise the amount of money they qualifies as "rich" because right now a lot of the middle class takes the brunt of it) and no sales taxes. I would also eliminate property taxes because it makes it harder and more pointless for people who don't make much to own land.
__________________

So I suppose looting the money before you get to spend it promotes economic growth?

[Christine]

[QUOTE=M21Sniper]The concept of national healthcare is socailist on it's very face.

No I am not a socialist in anyway or shape. If you want me to label my beliefs, I guess I consider myself as a person who believes in Democracy, Freedom and Human Rights (not the rights of terrorists or criminals. I believe that military men and women's rights are included; their rights are and have been violated thousand times too. So when I say “Human Rights” the innocent are included and the guilty ones are excluded. Don’t tell me Human Rights is about defending terrorists, because some idiots may be using such platform for their own crooked objectives but I am not one of them). Our country has fought and is fighting for the very principles I just mentioned. I also believe that as Americans we have to support the mission that we have embarked on in the Middle East; most importantly we have to support our troops and our Commander in Chief. On the other hand, most of us fail to see at times that we have the obligation to question our current Administration simply because a lot is at stake. Additionally, it is election year and we have to be united to make sure that our country is represented by the right people. If we fail to choose the right person, we will fail as a nation. Last but not least, as how I put it before, this is not about taking sides. If I already knew who was the best option I would have not asked for all of your opinions. I didn't know the facts that you listed though, and thank you for sharing them with me. The fact that disturbs me the most is about the picture you say hangs in the Vietnamese museum. I also agree with you that Kerry flip-flops many times and that's why I included it on my post. Do we want a flip-flopper? I don't think we have the luxury of doing that right now but I still don't know which one is the best option, because the question remains: Do we have to keep on sacrificing our men and women in Iraq? That is actually one of my biggest concerns; a lot of kids are losing their parents because it has become our moral obligation to free Iraq...since when is our obligation to put our interests in second place?

[Confed999]

since when is our obligation to put our interests in second place?

Removing tyrants from power is allways in our best intrest.

[Christine]

[QUOTE=mtnbiker]now back to your regularly scheduled programming..... ;)

Thank you MTNBIKER, you understood my question, some of your facts straigtened some of my doubts about Bush. :)

[Bill]

Bush, for all his stammered speaking and ineptitude truly believes that this is a war for our way of life. I believe that without question.

Kerry....well if he'd stop switching his position every 1.5 seconds, we might even have some remote clue what to believe that comes out of his mouth- but he doesn't.
He changes his mind when the wind shifts.

There is also that whole hero of the enemy, war crimes, and fake awards thing that troubles me juuuuuuuuuuuuuust a little too.

Kerry is one of the most liberal of all the left's senators. That's the one thing he's been solidly consistent in.
He would turn this country into his version of socailist Europe.

[Praxus]

No I am not a socialist in anyway or shape. If you want me to label my beliefs, I guess I consider myself as a person who believes in Democracy, Freedom and Human Rights (not the rights of terrorists or criminals. I believe that military men and women's rights are included; their rights are and have been violated thousand times too. So when I say “Human Rights” the innocent are included and the guilty ones are excluded. Don’t tell me Human Rights is about defending terrorists, because some idiots may be using such platform for their own crooked objectives but I am not one of them).

You obviously are one if you believe in Nationalized Healthcare!

There is but one set of rights and they are individual rights. Human Rights as declared by the UN is a farce.

"their rights are and have been violated thousand times too."

Blame that on the dictators and islamofascists not someone fullfiling his obligation to defend the United States.

That is actually one of my biggest concerns; a lot of kids are losing their parents because it has become our moral obligation to free Iraq...since when is our obligation to put our interests in second place?

Why is invading Iraq not in our interest?