OT: US President (US Dom Players only)

[Mithras]

Originally Posted by AdmiralZhao

It's not contradictory Mithras; the line about loving your neighbor was from MA Yaweh, while the city destroying was from EA Yaweh.

Unfortunately the LA version has summons from both ages, and freespawning rednecks... Watch out Abysia!

I had to give in to temptation didn't I?

[Tifone]

Damn! And they have a Greater Paliness coming out from the Gate

AAAH!!!

EDIT: Sorry, I know that's a Vastness, but the Greater Otherness really looks like... ehm... a cr*p and seemed offensive

[Aezeal]

I'm just gonna react on NTJEdi's post (reaction on mine, both page 8) since it contains SO MUCH I disagree with.

One of the biggest and most important long term benefits would be changing taxes into a flat tax rate.

Well as a lift wing person I of course disagree with this (and in our country only the most radical right pplz would even suggest this) I'm a firm believer in incom nivellation. Government needs money (how much is irrelevant, work for either high or low taxes) so pplz need to "give" it. Most fair and social and general "good" solution is to take more from the richest... even Robin Hood understood this (and in that role seen as a "Good guy" and not as a criminal) and I guess most of us have cheered at that as kids.. I'm surprised a lot of people lost that general sense of right and wrong when they grew up.

I do see higher taxes as money vanishing... I'll provide just two personal examples.

Sure if there is more money there is more too loose but I don't really think that makes it worse.. you 2 examples are somewhat flawed and more a reason to just improve the legislation around it all and not to say taxes should be lower. Even so I still have more to say about this.
1. The single mom thing: if there was yet MORE cash for the government then maybe there could be an arrangement where she didn't loose all when getting a job but there would be more of a gliding scale (costing more money)
2. university: well nothing new just want to sy again that this whole example has nothing to do with taxes, just with inefficency in general.

So until I have the option to vote where my taxes are being spent

you alway have an option to vote where you cash goes... candidates have different opinions on it.. to bad that in the american system of campaigning even though it takes a lot of cash etc etc a lot of these points don't seem to be adressed much. It's a daydream to think you'd ever be able to vote on all topics where spending cash is concerned it would create an unworkable situation to have either polls on all subjects (yeah about 500000 a year.. this is what you have a senate for they do the job of voting if you get (about) the right person there. Or the other solution would be there would need to be a zillion different parties all with the specific differences to their programs.. which would mean about half of them would need to team up to get a majority and they'd still need to comprimise with each other.

[NTJedi]

Originally Posted by Aezeal

Well as a lift wing person I of course disagree with this (and in our country only the most radical right pplz would even suggest this) I'm a firm believer in incom nivellation. Government needs money (how much is irrelevant, work for either high or low taxes) so pplz need to "give" it. Most fair and social and general "good" solution is to take more from the richest... even Robin Hood understood this (and in that role seen as a "Good guy" and not as a criminal) and I guess most of us have cheered at that as kids.. I'm surprised a lot of people lost that general sense of right and wrong when they grew up.

So many problems in this response... first stealing from anyone is WRONG and is one of the 10 commandments, but I guess you're not religious otherwise you'd have recognized this wrong. Second in referencing the true Robin Hood, he stole from the aristocracy; known to be the government of its time and he only started after the government began taking the mass majority of money from the people. If stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is good then it would be okay for the starving homeless to steal from you because to them you are rich. The point is its always easy to point the finger at anyone doing better than you and say take their money. Third my suggested gradual increased flat tax would actually provide those of lower income to pay less taxes and those such as Bill Gates to actually pay more, but somehow you failed to grasp the explanation.

Originally Posted by Aezeal

Sure if there is more money there is more too loose but I don't really think that makes it worse.. you 2 examples are somewhat flawed and more a reason to just improve the legislation around it all and not to say taxes should be lower. Even so I still have more to say about this.

That's the problem is neither of the candidates will be improving the legislation. Only the congress can change the legistation and this has not been improving during the last 15 years. Currently the democrats are running congress the last two years and the economy is only getting worse.

Originally Posted by Aezeal

1. The single mom thing: if there was yet MORE cash for the government then maybe there could be an arrangement where she didn't loose all when getting a job but there would be more of a gliding scale (costing more money)
2. university: well nothing new just want to sy again that this whole example has nothing to do with taxes, just with inefficency in general.

In both your responses the government having more money won't solve them. Both of them can be solved if the government provided a strong checks&balances system which better investigates how the money is spent and the end result. This would stop deans from giving themself a raise or wasting money in other ways I won't go into. This would also help the government realize why the single mom is not able to make her life better. Tossing more money at these departments won't solve the problem, they need to investigate and reorganize how current money is being spent.

Originally Posted by Aezeal

you alway have an option to vote where you cash goes... candidates have different opinions on it.. to bad that in the american system of campaigning even though it takes a lot of cash etc etc a lot of these points don't seem to be adressed much. It's a daydream to think you'd ever be able to vote on all topics where spending cash is concerned it would create an unworkable situation to have either polls on all subjects

Not voting on all subjects... that's just silly and funny to even think of such a thought. It would be nice if I could specify exactly which departments recieve my tax money. For example if I knew our government had a good Education system I could write "Education" on line 45 of my taxes form where 50% of my taxes would be sent to this department. The other 50% can be distributed evenly. This idea like the flat tax suggestion should be tested in two counties and then gradually expand.

[Mithras]

Originally Posted by NTJedi

So many problems in this response... first stealing from anyone is WRONG and is one of the 10 commandments, but I guess you're not religious otherwise you'd have recognized this wrong. Second in referencing the true Robin Hood, he stole from the aristocracy; known to be the government of its time and he only started after the government began taking the mass majority of money from the people. If stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is good then it would be okay for the starving homeless to steal from you because to them you are rich. The point is its always easy to point the finger at anyone doing better than you and say take their money. Third my suggested gradual increased flat tax would actually provide those of lower income to pay less taxes and those such as Bill Gates to actually pay more, but somehow you failed to grasp the explanation.

A moral argumant about Robin Hood!
I think the idea is it's ok to steal from a theif especially if the theif is greedy grabbing and power hungry. Lets think a modern day parralel:
To rashly generalise one of the most religious american states (read texas)also backs the death penalty, so its ok to kill a killer (also one of the ten comandments incase you were wandering, thou shalt not kill) is perfectly ok but stealing from a theif is just wrong?
Robin Hood is a great myth. Why? Because he believed in equality. He saw rich landlords and took them down a peg to feed some starving peasants (and yes I'm aware its fiction) Are you saying its wrong to steal to save the life of another?

Now on to taxes yes graduated taxes... so lets make sure I'm getting this, Bill Gates gives out 8% of his income ie small change for him, while the single working mother who just happens to live in extreme povert (lets say $2 a day) gives up 20 cents of that a day which could mean the differance betweeen say the existance of the next meal? Ok extreme example but is that what your getting at, lowest income still pay taxes but its a smaller percentage? No exceptions, what if I earn $200 a week but have 10 children to support?

Oh and stop blaming the civil servants! Pay the elected representatives less, and make the presidental candidates donate their campaign money instead of throwing it at the voters. Never mind wastage in govenrment any elected represntative of the people is forced to wastefull... I prefer the argumant over Robin Hood, its hard to argue over government efficiency because making something like that more efficient would require genocide

[NTJedi]

Originally Posted by Mithras

A moral argumant about Robin Hood!
I think the idea is it's ok to steal from a theif especially if the theif is greedy grabbing and power hungry.
Lets think a modern day parralel:
To rashly generalise one of the most religious american states (read texas)also backs the death penalty, so its ok to kill a killer (also one of the ten comandments incase you were wandering, thou shalt not kill) is perfectly ok but stealing from a theif is just wrong?

In the story Robin Hood was returning the money to the now large groups of poor people from the government which was overtaxing its people. Let's hope this does not happen in the USA. The death penalty is another different ball of wax and I'm sure there's two dozen other major topics to discuss as well, but we don't want this thread splitting in too many directions.

Originally Posted by Mithras

Robin Hood is a great myth. Why? Because he believed in equality. He saw rich landlords and took them down a peg to feed some starving peasants (and yes I'm aware its fiction) Are you saying its wrong to steal to save the life of another?

As I wrote earlier Robin Hood was stealing from the government... not hardworking farmers who had extra food. And in regards to your question... would it be wrong for a starving homeless individual to break into your home so he has the nourishment to continue living? Because you weren't home when he knocked on the door and to him you are rich.

Originally Posted by Mithras

Now on to taxes yes graduated taxes... so lets make sure I'm getting this, Bill Gates gives out 8% of his income ie small change for him, while the single working mother who just happens to live in extreme povert (lets say $2 a day) gives up 20 cents of that a day which could mean the differance betweeen say the existance of the next meal? Ok extreme example but is that what your getting at, lowest income still pay taxes but its a smaller percentage? No exceptions, what if I earn $200 a week but have 10 children to support?

LOL... if you earn $200 a week paying $2 for that week in taxes won't be changing anything. Second I never said EVERYONE would be paying taxes... nice jump of wild assumptions.

Originally Posted by Mithras

Oh and stop blaming the civil servants! Pay the elected representatives less, and make the presidental candidates donate their campaign money instead of throwing it at the voters. Never mind wastage in govenrment any elected represntative of the people is forced to wastefull... I prefer the argumant over Robin Hood, its hard to argue over government efficiency because making something like that more efficient would require genocide

Unfortunately none of these suggestions will occur because elected representatives will never vote for a pay decrease, presidential candidates won't donate their money lottery ticket for the presidency, and tossing more money at the government has not worked in the past and won't work in the future. Finally Robin Hood stole from the government and returned the money to the poor.

[thejeff]

What you might still have missed in McCain's health care approach, is not only is the $5000 a tax credit, but it's a credit to offset any health care benefits you might get from your employer now being taxed as personal income.

And $5000 doesn't buy a lot of health insurance. Maybe a high deductible plan to cover emergencies for the young and healthy. Anyone else is out of luck.

[capnq]

Whenever a third party candidate starts to get some traction on an issue, one or both of the major parties co-opts their position and folds it into their platform (e.g. sustainable energy). If you don't expect your vote to effect the outcome, voting third party at least sends a message.

I expect the economy to continue to tank regardless of who wins the Presidency.

[Edratman]

I don't mind paying taxes; it buys me civilization.

[coobe]

im not an American, but damn any vote for Palin =)