The information on the below chart is really scary, especially in relation to Obama's plan in relation to taxes. He is going to totally ruin our economy.
2008 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE COMPARISON TALKING POINTS
ISSUE | JOHN McCAIN | BARAK OBAMA | |
| Favors new drilling offshore US | Yes | No | |
| Will appoint judges who interpret the law not make it | Yes | No | |
|
| Yes | No | |
| Amount of time served in the US Senate | 22 YEARS | 173 DAYS | |
| Will institute a socialized national health care plan | No | Yes | |
| Supports abortion throughout the pregnancy | No | Yes | |
| Would pull troops out of Iraq immediately | No | Yes | |
| Supports gun ownership rights | Yes | No | |
| Supports homosexual marriage | No | Yes | |
| Proposed programs will mean a huge tax increase | No | Yes | |
| Voted against making English the official language | No | Yes | |
| Voted to give Social Security benefits to illegals | No | Yes | |
| CAPITAL GAINS TAX | |||
| MCCAIN | 0% on home sales up to $500,000 per home (couples). McCain does not propose any change in existing home sales income tax. | ||
| OBAMA | 28% on profit from ALL home sales. (How does this affect you? If you sell your home and make a profit, you will pay 28% of your gain on taxes. If you are heading toward retirement and would like to down-size your home or move into a retirement community, 28% of the money you make from your home will go to taxes. This proposal will adversely affect the elderly who are counting on the income from their homes as part of their retirement income.) | ||
| DIVIDEND TAX | |||
| MCCAIN | 15% (no change) | ||
| OBAMA | 39.6% - (How will this affect you? If you have any money invested in stock market, IRA, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance, retirement accounts, or anything that pays or reinvests dividends, you will now be paying nearly 40% of the money earned on taxes if Obama becomes president. The experts predict that 'Higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains would crash the stock market, yet do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit.') | ||
| INCOME TAX | |||
| MCCAIN (no changes) | Single making 30K - tax $4,500 | ||
| OBAMA (reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts) | Single making 30K - tax $8,400 | ||
| INHERITANCE TAX | |||
| MCCAIN | - 0% (No change, Bush repealed this tax) | ||
| OBAMA | Restore the inheritance tax Many families have lost businesses, farms, ranches, and homes that have been in their families for generations because they could not afford the inheritance tax. Those willing their assets to loved ones will only lose them to these taxes. | ||
| NEW TAXES PROPOSED BY OBAMA | |||
| New government taxes proposed on homes that are more than 2400 square feet. New gasoline taxes (as if gas weren't high enough already) New taxes on natural resources consumption (heating gas, water, electricity) New taxes on retirement accounts, and last but not least....New taxes to pay for socialized medicine so we can receive the same level of medical care as other third-world countries!!! | |||
| | | | |
You can verify the above at the following web sites:
38 comments:
Isn't it weird how these tax comparisons vary? For example, at
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/candidates_taxproposals_tpc/?postversion=2008061113
Here's how the average tax bill could change in 2009 if either John McCain's or Barack Obama's tax proposals were fully in place.
MCCAIN OBAMA
Income Avg. tax bill Avg. tax bill
Over $2.9M -$269,364 +$701,885
$603K and up -$45,361 +$115,974
$227K-$603K -$7,871 +$12
$161K-$227K -$4,380 -$2,789
$112K-$161K -$2,614 -$2,204
$66K-$112K -$1,009 -$1,290
$38K-$66K -$319 -$1,042
$19K-$38K -$113 -$892
Under $19K -$19 -$567
..which is difficult to reconcile with your data. In the above, McCain cuts all taxes at a cost of roughly $3.7 trillion, Obama's plan raises taxes on the high end
giving three times the break to
the average taxpayer..at a cost of roughly $2.5 trillion.
Yes, that is interesting. In my post, it is claimed that McCain proposes no change and Obama proposes increases. In your data, both candidates are proposing cuts within the same income range, but McCain's cuts are deeper. The first thing that comes to my mind is checking the dates to see what's more current, for the frustrating thing about politicians is that they are continually changing their minds.
Just as is expected, however, the Republican tax cuts are deeper than the Democratic ones. According to either set of numbers, Obama is the one with the higher taxes over all. High taxes are hard on the economy and because of this fact, often higher taxes can actually result in less, whether than more, tax revenue. Many Democrats just don't seem to get this, though you are probably smart enough to understand what I'm saying.
The whole philosophy is different. Republicans feel that it is much better to stimulate the economy in a way that produces more jobs for people, whether than providing so many extra programs resulting in dependence, whether than available work. Low taxes stimulate the economy. High taxes grow government and create dependency. That's the Republican philosophy in a nut shell.
I'm sort of dense, so it took me awhile to understand this, but once I did, I have been Republican ever since.
Also, remember that the numbers you just quoted above only include Income tax. There were all sorts of other taxes mentioned in the above post and many of them hurt those who are retired.
"In the above, McCain cuts all taxes at a cost of roughly $3.7 trillion,"
"Obama's plan raises taxes on the high end
giving three times the break to
the average taxpayer..at a cost of roughly $2.5 trillion."
just using these statements to comment on
it looks like McCain is treating all the people as equals while Obama is treating them as unequals.
i will assume that the cost your refer to is the cost to government and that kinda makes me wonder. why do dems or liberals think of it as cost rather than as a savings to the people that they can use on their families?
or if we be in the throes of a weakening economy which plan allows the greater number of dollars to stimulate that economy?
"but McCain's cuts are deeper.."
Yes. Especially (see above) since
he provides healthy cuts for those making $227,000/yr and up, while
Obama's plan raises the tax on those. So, if I made $2.9 million a year, I would get my McCain taxes
reduced by $270,000. I could buy a yacht or feed, clothe and shelter 15 families of 4 for a year...either of which would be good for the economy. Obama, meanwhile, concentrates cuts for the middle and lower income people.
Either is a form of wealth redistribution, McCains concentrating it to the wealthy,
Obama to the less well off. It is fair to say that while the GOP decries 'wealth distribution', they
they do it: tipping the playing field so it flows to those who need it the least.
"Low taxes stimulate the economy" is the mantra, and it used to sort of work. Unfortunately, the economy
is growing more to foreign goods..
our tax savings are going the way of our jobs (recall Ross Perot's
'giant sucking sound'?) So, despite
the spate of tax cuts in recent years,
http://www.workinglife.org/wiki/Wages+and+Benefits%3A+Real+Wages+%281964-2004%29
real wages have continued their
decline. Small wonder, even with
'trickle down', 'smoke & mirrors'
tax policy, bailouts, etc, economics remains the 'dismal science'....
BB,
When the "Cost" to the Government is higher, such as with McCain's plan, the over all Tax Burden to the people and "Cost" to the Economy is lower and when the "Cost" to the Government is lower, such as with Obama's plan, the over all Tax Burden to the people and "Cost" to the Economy is higher. Thus the Higher Tax Burden, just as expected, fits with Obama's plan.
And let's not forget that when the Tax Burden is high, the Economy can suffer to the point of decreasing revenues and this will change the "Cost to the Government" numbers. In fact, it changes the Cost to the people numbers as well and everyone suffers.
My guess in relation to the discrepancy between your numbers and mine is that the numbers in my post were collected when the Economy was in better shape and the numbers you posted were collected at a time in which our Economy is hurting, thus the cuts, whether than increases. Both are a reflection, though, of the differences between the tax philosophies of the two candidates.
Griper,
Based on the fact that I seem to be continually disagreeing with you, perhaps you won't find it too odd when I tell you that I do not support the Flat Tax idea. I do not think that all tax payers should be treated equally in the form of equal tax percentages across the board. The problem is that there is an inequality in relation to genetic abilities.
We are created equally in the sense that we all have equal value and worth in the eyes of the Creator, but we are not all created with equal abilities. To find proof of this, all you need to do is look at the more obvious handicaps such as Retardation. There are other less obvious handicaps, such as slightly lower IQs, and there are all kinds of Genetic Strengths and Weaknesses.
Though, yes, Griper, there is such a thing as laziness, this is not the whole explanation of poverty. All that inequality of taxes does is help to balance out the inequality of Creation. This is why I do not support the "Equality" or "Flat Tax" idea and never will.
McCain's plan, however, stimulates the economy more than Obama's, so I'm still going with him even though he may at times favor the rich more than I think he should.
Hi BB,
Believe it or not, I do think that it is neat that Obama is giving greater cuts to the poor than McCain, yet don't think that his extra taxes to the wealthy is not going to have a negative effect on the economy because it will. For the most part, the Government is way less efficient than the private sector, so when ever the government has a larger amount of the money, the economy suffers.
What concerns me even more, though, is all his other taxes besides income tax. He is going to tax our economy to death and a lot of what he is taxing affects the retired. Even Capital Gains is a resource that is often used for retirement. Since retirement requires large amounts of money to be set aside, it may seem like wealth to some, yet retirement and wealth are two very separate things.
I'm sort of glad that we have two sets of comparisons, whether than only one, for it sort of shows what each of the Candidates would do in both good times and bad. What I posted really scares me because even though Obama may not impose all of the taxes that he at one time was considering, the minute the economy gets better again, that is exactly where he is heading.
BB,
In response to your last comment above that you submitted while I was writing the above, the foreign goods problem and also the job exodus problem are also things that need to be worked on, for you are absolutely right in your suggestion that the "trickle down" at times just trickles across the ocean. My opinion is that the government has not been taking this problem seriously enough and it's too bad.
If the "Low Taxes Stimulates the Economy" idea does not in any way work, however, than why are both of the Candidates, including Obama, currently considering Tax Cuts?
"and a lot of what he is taxing affects the retired." When we save for retirement in a Roth or 401K,
interest/dividend is untaxed. When we retire, we pay income tax
on what we draw out each year. Obama's plan includes "no income tax on retired persons earning less than $50,000 a year". Which most retired folks would find helpful. While some might find this a drain on gov't income, it would be a boon to the economy in terms of increased senior spending.
As far as McCain's plan 'stimulating the economy', it won't, based on the last 8 years of
tax-reduced 'stimulation'. My admittedly biased opinion based on
the stock market drop, huge number of bankruptcies and a whole lot of folk using their small income for food rather than drugs/health insurance. If one is working two jobs, can't afford the dentist for your kids and takes no vacation ever, that person cannot perceive
the wonders of the 'stimulus' we have been enjoying since 2000.
BB,
"no income tax on retired persons earning less than $50,000 a year"
Really? I wonder if that includes all forms of retirement income, including that which is based on Capital Gains.
My question remains, though. "If the 'Low Taxes Stimulates the Economy' idea does not in any way work, than why are both of the Candidates, including Obama, currently considering Tax Cuts?"
lista,
whether or not we are equals is one thing. the only thing i know is that if someone perceives that you are not seeing them as an equal they will crawl up one side of you and down the other. i have had it done to me too many times. they want to be seen as an equal and treated as an equal except when it comes to the way government sees them or treats them.
people don't mind being treated as if they have greater worth than they actually have but they sure do object to being treated in accordance to their worth or less than what they think they are worth.
now, whether or not the government should treat everybody equally is another thing.
and laziness has nothing to do with the issue of your post.
my comment above dealt with perception and how perception skews the viewpoint of an issue. you view the stances of the candidate from one viewpoint and one candidate's plan looks better. view it from another perception of it and the other candidate's plan looks better. which one is actually the best can never be known because only one of them will be enacted. and we will only see the end results of one.
the only other thing i know is that taking from the rich and giving it to the poor will not accomplish its intent, the closing of the gap between the rich and the poor. that rich man will remain in the class of the rich and that poor man will remain in the class of the poor.
"why are both of the Candidates, including Obama, currently considering Tax Cuts?" They want to get elected. Can you imagine a candidate offering a program of
tax increases ?
In the spirit of objectivity, your taxation chart with respect to Senator McCain appears to have left out two critical details.
He was chief author of an Amnesty bill which, had it passsed, would have amounted to the largest welfare increase in 35 years. What is more, that same bill would have put the American taxpayer on the hook for an estimated $2.6 TRILLION.
Secondly, it dismisses John McCain's culpability in Cap and Trade legislation and its exponential costs and burden upon the American taxpayer in the event that it too should pass. You're easily looking at 3/4 of a TRILLION dollars there.
As a public policy analyist, I must say that given these considerations, it's extremely disingenious to suggest that McCain's record on taxation is profoundly better than is Obama's.
Lista, this was actually the post I meant to post (I had posted it over at Daniel's blog) and wasn't sure if you'd seen it or were even willing to take it into consideration before promoting the virtues of John McCain with respect to the issue of Taxation.
Take it for what you will:
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams
The "Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007" (S. 1348) was born from the "Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act" (S. 1033), a bill proposed in May 2005 by Senators Ted Kennedy and John McCain. According to the Heritage Foundation: Amnesty Will Cost U.S. Taxpayers at Least $2.6 Trillion
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/wm1490.cfm
____________________________
Cap & Trade Legislation
"Washington – McCain’s cap-and-trade bill to limit CO2 emissions is badly flawed and would do great damage to the economy. Although McCain promotes the cap-and-trade plan as a market-based solution, it is just another heavy government regulation with tremendous costs to American businesses and economic growth."
"According to the Congressional Budget Office’s analysis, the legislation would amount to a $1.21 trillion tax over ten years. These costs will then be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices." - Club for Growth:
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2008/05/mccains_capandtrade_plan.php
____________________________
Stifling Free Spech:
McCain Asks N.C. GOP Not To Run Obama-Wright Ad
http://cbs13.com/politics/mccain.obama.ad.2.706646.html
And, certainly much more profound:
"Presidents swear to "protect and defend the Constitution." The Constitution says: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech."
On April 28, on Don Imus' radio program, discussing the charge that the McCain-Feingold law abridges freedom of speech by regulating the quantity, content and timing of political speech, John McCain did not really reject the charge:"
"I work in Washington and I know that money corrupts. And I and a lot of other people were trying to stop that corruption. Obviously, from what we've been seeing lately, we didn't complete the job. But I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I'd rather have the clean government."
http://www.gunowners.org/mcwill.htm
___________________________
I could offer a response to that last First Amendment issue but I think it apropos to invoke the following quote instead:
"Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter." - Thomas Jefferson
Well, I posted these and I'm out of time for now. If you guys want to respond to each other, be my guest. I've got a couple of things, though, that I need to run and do.
Thanks Saopbox for all the info. I haven't read all of it completely, yet I have a feeling you may have explained a few things that I've had some questions about, so thank you and I'll be back.
Griper,
We are equal in value and worth in the eyes of the Creator and if we perceive each other any differently, we are doing the other an injustice. This is a separate issue, however, than equality in abilities.
The reason why Laziness has to do with this post is because if Laziness really is what causes Poverty and there are no other factors, than there is no reason to ease their Tax Burden or even try and help them, yet if there are other factors that contribute to Poverty, which I believe there definitely are, than we shouldn't Tax them too much and should allow them too keep what little money that they do have.
How we perceive the Poor affects our decisions about how we feel they deserve to be treated and how much they deserve to be Taxed. Laziness, therefore, is indeed relevant to this post.
I do not believe in closing the gap between the rich and the poor. I only believe in easing their burden. Changing one's class is not the issue. A slight change in the quality of one's life is. You are still thinking in extremes. What I'm suggesting is far less than what you're suggesting.
BB,
Interesting point.
Soapbox,
I hope you don't mind, but I'm going to put you off for awhile cause I know that I'm going to have to put some thought into my response. I'll get to it, though. I promise.
Soapbox,
It's too bad about McCain's position relating to illegals. This does sicken me. I'm not as familiar with the Cap and Trade Legislation. I guess it's an Environmental one. Thanks for explaining it.
I still don't know what to make of all this. I only know that I mistrust Obama more. I really don't want Socialized Medicine, Soapbox. I really, really don't. How can I allow the decisions of a faulty Republican Party to back me into the Socialized Medicine corner. I simply won't allow that. I can't.
"How we perceive the Poor affects our decisions about how we feel they deserve to be treated and how much they deserve to be Taxed."
I don't know what you're defining as "poor" but if it's what I think it is, you're fooling yourself if you think for a moment that they carry any income tax liability at all Lista.
"A separate special report released by the nonpartisan tax research group the Tax Foundation, found that “America’s lowest-earning one-fifth of households received roughly $8.21 in government spending for each dollar of taxes paid in 2004. Households with middle-incomes received $1.30 per tax dollar (nearly breaking even), while America’s highest-earning households received a mere $.41 in government spending to their tax dollar.” The report further found that “government spending targeted at the lowest-earning 60% of U.S. households is larger than what they paid in federal, state, and local taxes.” Case in point, the wealthy are subsidizing the poor and, as the report indicates, to an estimated tune of between $1.03 and $1.53 trillion dollars which was redistributed from the two highest income quintiles to the three lowest."
_______________________________
"I really don't want Socialized Medicine, Soapbox. I really, really don't. How can I allow the decisions of a faulty Republican Party to back me into the Socialized Medicine corner. I simply won't allow that. I can't."
Lista, it seems to me that right now you are operating entirely on emotion rather basing your decisions on logic and reason.
I'm not suggesting that Obama wouldn't try to cram through a Socialized Healthcare plan. BUT, consider this....
Who was President in 1994? Which Political Party Controlled both the House and Senate? And lastly, what major piece of legislation was being crafted and out there front and center and who's big "idea" was it?
Give up????
Bill Clinton was president. The House and Senate were both controlled by Democrats. And, the major piece of legislation was Hillary's socialized healthcare plan which went down in flames and which was largely culpable in the Republican rise to power in 1994 with Newt Gingrich and Co.
I've had Minimum Wage Jobs, Soap. There are taxes taken out of them, though you do get most of it back at the end of the year.
The context of that comment, though, was the idea of Flat Tax in that everyone should be taxed equally and those at the lower end should not get any additional breaks. I tend to disagree.
In relation to all your Government spending verses taxes paid numbers, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that it is the poor, not the rich, who need help from the Government in order to cover what resources they use. I just don't understand why it is that so many people seem to think that they shouldn't be helped out in any way. The only answer that I can come up with is that the rich think that the poor are lazy.
Though, I can't deny that there are cases in which laziness does exist, this does not explain all of poverty and if you would like me to define poverty, I just mean low income, or perhaps I should make use of your numbers above and call the poor those who the government has to spend more on than they get back in taxes. I must admit, though, that it's interesting that this would include the middle class.
One of my favorite posts that I did on this blog is the one entitled "Lessons for the Strong and the Weak". It talks about what God has instructed each of us to do, whether we are Strong or Weak. The instruction given to the Strong is to not be proud and and to give to the poor. The link to the post is on the right under "Favorite Ramblings".
I have logical reasons for not trusting Socialized Medicine, Soap, and the Democrats did indeed get a lot of stuff done during Clinton's term in office. It is time for things to be turned around and brought back the other way. I don't see how refusing to vote for McCain, though, is going to cause that to happen.
" I just don't understand why it is that so many people seem to think that they shouldn't be helped out in any way."
I don't find your assessment to be true as presented. I think what you will find is that the vast majority of people have no compunction whatsoever with helping out the poor and downtrodden.
What they do take issue with, and something I myself take issue with, is in using government as a means to achieving this goal.
In a free society, people should not be forced to do something they otherwise may or may not do. While you are perfectly free to think it one's moral duty/obligation to help the downtrodden, it is unjust in a free society to look to government as a means to Legislate that morality upon people who do not agree with it.
Because, as soon as you do, someone on the other side of the aisle might very well think it our moral obligation to provide everyone with healthcare.
And you know what??? They'll look to government as a means to achieve their goal in doing just that.
Seems quite contradictory doesn't it?
Yet, it is said there is no such thing as a contradiction. Whenever contradictions seem to exist, it is said that one ought to check their premises because one of them is wrong.
"It is time for things to be turned around and brought back the other way. I don't see how refusing to vote for McCain, though, is going to cause that to happen."
Just as I don't see how voting for McCain (who is but a conduit to the message/cause) is going to "turn [things] around and [bring it] back the other way.
The only way you're going to bring things around the other way (i.e. preserving the Republic, preserving the First Amendment, preserving the right of the people from gross taxation, etc.) is to have someone who fights FOR those very things.
As I've pointed out quite candidly, John McCain's record in fighting FOR those very things is hardly exemplary.
It appears that at present, we can't turn things around, no matter what we do, so this being the case, my goal switches to slowing the progression towards the left down and in relation to this, Obama is worse than McCain. I do not know why you don't see that. It seems so obvious to me and voting for someone other than these two, opens up the possibility that Obama will win the election.
Glad you've correctly asserted your premise (that being the progression by Obama).
However, while I wholeheartedly respect your decision, I honestly shudder to think how those that are operating on this very premise would in fact vote if given the choice between Stalin or Mussolini. It is as I said in that either way, they would be sanctioning one or the other.
Some countries with universal health care:
Afghanistan*, Argentina, Austria, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Cuba, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iraq*, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway,Oman, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Ukraine and the United Kingdom
*Universal health coverage provided by United States war funding
..curious these countries pay quite a bit less per capita than our rather unique system. They seem fairly happy and unoppressed.
..curiouser still, we the U.S pay for it in the countries we 'saved'.
..most curious, how come we let big pharma lead us around by our shortsighted noses? :)
Oh Soapbox,
What can I say to you? You accuse me of "operating entirely on emotion" and yet what I sense is a lot of emotion in you and one thing that I have noticed is that when people become emotional they begin to speak in extremes and assume that anyone who disagrees with them to even the slightest degree will be willing to take the idea they express to it's furthest extreme, yet this is usually not the case.
I know that I would never go to the extent of voting for one of the two Candidates if the choices were Salin and Mussolini. The reason why I know this is true is because of the seriousness of thought that I gave to the issue when the options were Obama and McCain, just prior to Sarah Palin. This is evidence that there is a limit to my party loyalty and I agree with you that there definitely should be.
I have already expressed to you on Kris' blog how I feel like the decision to vote Third Party or Write-in is valid in terms of making a statement, yet I feel that the selection of Sarah Palin as VP Running Mate shows evidence that the message has already been delivered.
You feel that that is like a Appeasement Bouquet a Flowers and yet you are not impressed. I guess you feel that what ever statement has already been made is not good enough and that the Appeasement Bouquet is not enough to make up for the extent to which you are unhappy with the Republican pick of McCain.
I respect your decision, but just because I do not agree with you does not prove that there is no limit to my party loyalty. There most certainly is a limit to it and maybe one of these elections, I'll be proving it.
"...how come we let big pharma lead us around by our shortsighted noses?"
Because, most of us are the beggars to our own demise. We want simple solutions. We are fixated upon curing the symptoms rather than curing the ailment itself.
Perfect example is Acid Reflux. There is a drug to treat the symptom. However, what many people don't realize is that the ailment itself is largely attributable to one's diet. Thus, making changes to that diet could eliminate much of the ailment itself.
There is seemingly a drug for every symptom. Taking that drug then sets off a chain reaction which facilitates one's desire to take yet another drug to treat yet another symptom.
But, with respect to "Big" Pharma, it's saddens me that people's interpretation of a business that becomes "big" (i.e., profitable) by way of providing a good or service to the general populace that the populace can then purchase voluntarily or not, is somehow worthy of damnation.
Miracle drugs don't just materialize out of thin air. The amount of R&D which goes into creating these drugs is MASSIVE. That said, it is only sensible that a pharmaceutical company would then charge an amount which can permit them to recoup such costs (and fund ongoing R&D) by charging a price which the market dictates.
Soapbox,
Well, it looks like I'm a couple of comments behind again and am having trouble keeping up. I'm sort of hoping that maybe BB will respond to your comment, because I just responded to your last one and now I'm feeling tired and I guess it was addressed to him anyway.
BB,
Well, I've heard negative reports about the Socialized Medicine in Canada and I know there have been negative reports relating to some of the others as well.
PS - Here is the link to where the conversation between Soapbox and I began if anyone is interested in the rest of it.
Elephants are people too! - What a Speech!
Maybe eventually I'll find some of the Socialized Medicine links that I've also been looking at.
"There most certainly is a limit to it and maybe one of these elections, I'll be proving it."
I am so sure to the contrary Lista that, if I had it, I would bet $1 Million on it. I sincerely mean that.
The reason I say that is because everytime another election should come around where you might initially feel that way, the party establishment will once again offer up yet another bouquet of flowers.
And, if they don't offer up another bouquet, then what they do is invoke the use of fear (i.e., "If you elect the Democrats we won't be safe from terrorists". "If you elect the Democrats they'll pass Universal Healthcare"., "If you elect the Democrats, they'll raise your taxes".) and so on and so on and so on thus leading to the cycle of perpetuity.
I must say I admire your level of tolerance with respect to your "limit".
I don't have it in me to foster Preventative Wars without end, exacerbation of a disastrous inflationary monetary policy, the stifling of Free Speech, Amnesty for people who do not respect our laws, Government expansion and excessive regulation, etc.
There are a few things about me, Soap, that you may not realize.
First of all, I am not your typical News Junky and maybe it is a good thing, because so many of the News Junkies are quite obsessive about their opinions. Just this morning, I was thinking about obsession and feeling a little bit that way myself and yet also realizing that it is at least in part because I'm allowing myself, perhaps a little too much, to get caught up in the obsessiveness of other bloggers.
In my quest to control my own obsessions, I need to be aware of the obsessions of others and at times detach myself from it.
The real thing that makes me different, though, is that I have not been following the Primaries for years and years the way you have. This is actually the very first one that I've followed and I couldn't believe the fiasco that I witnessed.
From reading your comments, Soap, I'm getting the distinct impression that the Republican Party has not only compromised their original values in this election, but have been doing so for many years and that is why you are so upset, because basically, you have had enough!
I really do get what you're saying, because though it is true that you can put a frog in water and slowly heat the water and he will not jump out, in a lot of ways, this frog just jumped in and I can tell very well that the water is way above room temperature and the center has moved way to the left.
Yep. That's it in a nutshell. And, what pains me more than ever is that although WE have the power to change it. Far too many within our ranks haven't the fortitude to do it.
You really think we have the power to change it. Really! I'm going to actually pray about this, Soapbox.
You want to know something really frustrating, Soap. My parents actually voted for McCain in the primaries. They thought that McCain might have a better chance at winning against the Democrats. Can you believe that?! Without the addition of someone Conservative like Sarah Palin, that wasn't even a true assumption, if it was, than adding Palin to the ticket would not have been necessary.
I know we have the power to change it Lista because we are doing just that here at the local level in Minneapolis. Our libertarian brand of conservatism resonates with even some Democrats. And, we're beginning to gain seats at the Congressional District level, Senate District level, County level, School board, et al.
But, the key to changing the system is to accept the fact that you first have to get rid of the ailment. And, as you well know, the ailment is liberal Republicans who have tarnished the brand.
The only way to get rid of them is to have them either challenged by a real conservative (which doesn't happen very often) OR, you have to vote for their opponent (which I don't do because I don't support Democrats) OR, simply do not vote for them in the hope that they lose the election.
Of course, you have to in some cases then be subjected to a Democrat (as could be the case now) but you cannot be effective trying to buck the system while the liberal Republican is still there.
I know that which I speak. I see it with my own eyes and I can only imagine that on the state and national level it is even more apparent.
I live in California, Soap. Our state is so blue it's pathetic.
So you're a Libertarian? That's interesting. Do you think there is any chance of uniting some of the Conservative Third Parties? That's what I think of when I think of Third Party Power.
I'm not a libertarian. What I said was our "libertarian brand of conservatism". Think Goldwater..or heck...think of Reagan's own words from 1975 when he spoke of the correlary between the two in Reason magazine.
"REAGAN: If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path."
Yeh, Libertarians are pretty extreme, yet when you say...
"We're beginning to gain seats at the Congressional District level, Senate District level, County level, School board, etc."
Who is the "we"? Your party does have a name doesn't it? You're not going to get anywhere with a No Name Party.
Actually, though, you are probably going to be disappointed to hear, Soap, that I spoke with a friend of mine today that explained a little better some of the complaints that you had against McCain. It appears that a lot of these things have been exaggerated and if they are understood more fully, things are not really as bad as you say. I know you are going to come back and try and convince me otherwise and I'm probably going to be growing quite tired of you before you stop doing so.
I guess I ought to tell you that we will be picking up a new puppy from the airport tomorrow and I expect that this might make me a little more busy and less able to talk to you in depth about these issues. Maybe I can print up some of the links you have left me and read them in the same room where the puppy is, so I can watch him. Too bad I don't have a lap top. I sure could use one, but oh well.
Funny, I'm picking up my puppy today as well (7wk old Male Labradoodle).
When I say "we" I'm referring to a sizeable group of individuals that are engaged on the local level here and who are discontented with the Establishment within the Republican party. Some of us are engaged with other PACs as well (like our MN Sons of Liberty) or what have you.
As for the McCain thing, everyone's got their analysis of it. For me, (and I won't continue beating a dead horse here) I challenge anyone to explain to me how the things I've posted with respect to McCain (as outlined herein up above) could be interpreted as an "exageration" quite frankly.
I'll let it go but I will say that I do not take lightly massive tax increases which oppress the freedom and liberty of Americans towards pursuing their own endeavors. And, I do not take lightly suppression of Free Speech by any member of government to name but a few.
You should get your friend to stop by here and put his/her $.02 in.
I've only got a minute, so I'll leave more of a response later and hopefully post a picture of our new friend, Shasta, a 9 Week old, Male, Samoyed.
That's interesting that you have picked up a puppy also. Apparently, not from the Airport. They will not ship them that way until they are at least 8 Weeks old.
Shasta's finally asleep. He cried for a good part of the night. I'm probably going to be tired today.
My puppy's name is Winston (as in Winston Churchill or Winston Rodney).
He's a blast. I love him.
Post a Comment