2008 Issue by issue: Who do you prefer and why?

Forums: Politics, Us Politics, American Politics, 2008 Election, U S Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I started putting this together for something else, and just kept going. With as little or as much explanation as you like; what issues matter most to you, who's got it right and wrong, and who do you favor to be the next President of the United States. No proof of citizenship necessary.

Immigration:
None of the candidates support my position. I would open our borders to all who can show a clean record and the ability to support themselves. Only candidates that will provide a path to citizenship will be considered. Democrats + Rudy and McCain.

Health Care: It would appear that only Dennis Kucinich has this one right. It is time for a not for profit single payer system to be established. Democrats have got it closer than Republicans across the board.

Iraq: We broke it Republicans - Ron Paul as if he matters.

Taxes: IRS should be replaced with a Sales Tax. Only Gravel, Ron Paul, Huckabee and Thompson score positive points here.

Taxes2: Death Tax, by any name, is a good idea. I'd rather pay a greater share of my personal tax burden after I'm dead. How anyone got talked into believing anything else; I have no idea. Democrats have this right. Republicans don't.

Energy: Nuclear energy is the way of the future and should have been pushed, rather than held back, long ago. In the mean time; rapidly escalate taxes on gasoline to encourage smarter choices (perhaps $.50 per gallon, per year). After a grace period; gradually increase taxes on all other fossil fuels until they are specialty items that are too expensive compared to alternatives. Use all excess moneys to pay down the National debt. Mostly meaningless babble going on here Rudy scores and Republicans in general nod along.

Trade: Free Trade is a matter of human decency. However, it is also the perfect carrot to increase human decency so a set of minimum standards should be established and enforced by the green light of doing business with us. Democrats lead here, especially Hillary and Obama I think.

Abortion: Women's decision with one exception: Viable fetuses should not be killed in partial birth abortions. That really is murder. Democrats + Rudy and I'm not sure I believe McCain (obviously; I don't want to Rolling Eyes

).

Gay Marriage: Nobody's business. Democrats + Rudy score and to a lesser degree McCain, Paul and Thompson get credit for at least minding their own business.

Scumbag Quotient: Obama and McCain get extra points for showing decency. Edwards gets cannonballed from consideration for pretending to channel dead babies.

Qualified candidates are as follows: Rudy Giuliani, Barrack Obama, John McCain (I'm not sure of the order for these three. I'm closer to sure as the list goes on), Hillary, Romney, Thompson.

No Amnesty on immigration AND a threat to stack the SC against Roe Vs Wade separates the two tiers of Republicans IMO. These issues coupled with Health Care and the Death Tax are what have me leaning further Left than ever before.

Obama Vs. either Giuliani or McCain strikes me as a win/win situation overall. This is unprecedented in a presidential election in my lifetime.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 5,559 • Replies: 79

No top replies

Quote:

Taxes2: Death Tax, by any name, is a good idea. I'd rather pay a greater share of my personal tax burden after I'm dead. How anyone got talked into believing anything else; I have no idea. Democrats have this right. Republicans don't.

I must disagree, but then again, I am much older than you. I have already paid taxes on what I have earned over my lifetime. If I have increased my estate through thrift and appropriate management of my funds, I want my heirs to enjoy it, not the government. IMO it is patently
unfair for the government to "double-dip".

Taxes- I agree about a sales tax replacing the I.R.S. It is a much simpler, and ultimately fairer, system.

Immigration- Borders need to be sealed. Immigrants need to wait their turn, and prove that they will not be a burden to the U.S. Illegal immigrants, by defintion, are conducting a criminal activity by being here.
I don't believe that they are entitled to any of the rights that legal immigrants enjoy.

Free Trade- Essential to global progress.

Abortion- Nobody's business but the pregnant woman's. Partial birth abortion acceptable in extraordinary cases.

Energy- We need to become involved with energy sources that will extricate ourselves from dealing with the middle east.

I'll be back. It is early in the morning, and I am not fully awake!

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Quote:
Taxes2: Death Tax, by any name, is a good idea. I'd rather pay a greater share of my personal tax burden after I'm dead. How anyone got talked into believing anything else; I have no idea. Democrats have this right. Republicans don't.

I must disagree, but then again, I am much older than you. I have already paid taxes on what I have earned over my lifetime. If I have increased my estate through thrift and appropriate management of my funds, I want my heirs to enjoy it, not the government. IMO it is patently
unfair for the government to "double-dip".

Taxes- I agree about a sales tax replacing the I.R.S. It is a much simpler, and ultimately fairer, system.

Immigration- Borders need to be sealed. Immigrants need to wait their turn, and prove that they will not be a burden to the U.S. Illegal immigrants, by defintion, are conducting a criminal activity by being here.
I don't believe that they are entitled to any of the rights that legal immigrants enjoy.

Free Trade- Essential to global progress.

Abortion- Nobody's business but the pregnant woman's. Partial birth abortion acceptable in extraordinary cases.

Energy- We need to become involved with energy sources that will extricate ourselves from dealing with the middle east.

I'll be back. It is early in the morning, and I am not fully awake!

Youhave NOT paid taxes on "everything" youown. Have you paid taxes on appreciated property?

My guess is that you do not have a net worth in excess of 2.5M (5M if married) and would not be subject to any federal estate tax. Since you support the repeal, you are in favor of a tax break for the top of the top 1% of Americans.

Thanks for supporting middle class! Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Quote:

Abortion- Nobody's business but the pregnant woman's.

You don't think that fathers have any interest in this?

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Quote:

Abortion- Nobody's business but the pregnant woman's.

You don't think that fathers have any interest in this?

I do think that the man is entitled to his input in the matter. In a perfect world, the decision should be a joint one. But if the woman wants an abortion, and the man does not, IMO, it is the woman's decision, since she carries the pregnancy.

0 Replies

Quote:

Federal Estate and Gift Taxes
A Federal Estate Tax Return must generally be filed for the estate of every U.S. citizen or resident whose gross estate, taxable gifts, and specific exemptions exceed $2,000,000 for decedents dying in 2006, and according to the following table if dying in succeeding years:

Decedent dying in Exclusion amount
2006, 2007, and 2008 $2,000,000
2009 3,500,000
2010 repealed
2011 1,000,000

The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 completely phases out the federal estate and gift tax by 2010. The tax rates are lowered and the exemption is raised between 2002 and 2009, and the tax is completely eliminated in 2010. However, the post-act law will bring the Estate and Gift Tax back into existence in 2011.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005949.html

If the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 is not made permanent, in 2011, the estate tax exclusion rolls back to $1,000,000. I really don't believe that an estate of a little over a million dollars qualifies a person as wealthy.

0 Replies

Quote:

Youhave NOT paid taxes on "everything" youown. Have you paid taxes on appreciated property?

Really! It seems to me that when a home is assessed upwards, you DO pay more in property taxes.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Quote:
Taxes2: Death Tax, by any name, is a good idea. I'd rather pay a greater share of my personal tax burden after I'm dead. How anyone got talked into believing anything else; I have no idea. Democrats have this right. Republicans don't.

I must disagree, but then again, I am much older than you. I have already paid taxes on what I have earned over my lifetime. If I have increased my estate through thrift and appropriate management of my funds, I want my heirs to enjoy it, not the government. IMO it is patently unfair for the government to "double-dip".

Really? Do you think it's fair for the last couple of generations to spend their kids and grandchildren's money by caring not a wit about balancing the budget? If not; what would you do to remedy this clearly unfair situation? Your grandchildren might consider that rather than double dipping; the government is simply collecting the past due portion of your burden.

In the mean time; future generations can rightly consider that a "Death Tax" is nothing more than the payment of taxes deferred in favor of allowing them to use their incomes more effectively towards building for retirement. I would argue that he who wishes to pass on a larger estate will be better equipped to do so if the government allows him to defer a portion of his tax burden in favor of investment.

ebrown_p wrote:

Quote:

Abortion- Nobody's business but the pregnant woman's.

You don't think that fathers have any interest in this?

Ultimately, no. Until such time comes that fathers can carry their own children; it will remain impossible to legislate a father's interest without simultaneously granting him ownership (even if temporary) of a woman's body. I reject this as the greater of two injustices.

0 Replies

Once again I agree with Woiyo.. He may be a pretty hardcore conservative, but he's definitely an independent thinker.

Phoenix32890 wrote:

I really don't believe that an estate of a little over a million dollars qualifies a person as wealthy.

What would it take to BE considered wealthy in your eyes?

What percentage of Americans has an estate of over a million dollars?

0 Replies

Quite simply; the Bush "Tax Cuts" are in reality a Tax increase for most Americans. Every dollar not collected because of this law change is another dollar that has to be raised elsewhere, which... let there be no doubt; will be raised by taxing less wealthy Americans. If half of the people in America support this; then at least 49% of them are voting against their own best interest which really is astounding.

Even the other 1% would be wrong to oppose a "Death Tax" that was no more progressive than your average tax. Who among us wouldn't choose to defer all income taxes till death if it were a realistic option? Why would anyone not choose to do so incrementally? This one just doesn't make sense.

0 Replies

Quote:

Ultimately, no. Until such time comes that fathers can carry their own children; it will remain impossible to legislate a father's interest without simultaneously granting him ownership (even if temporary) of a woman's body. I reject this as the greater of two injustices.

Of course a father doesn't have ownership of a woman's body and can not prevent an abortion.

I would like equal rights in this way. Right now a woman can make a mistake and choose not to be a parent. A man should have the same rights. A man could, once the baby is conceived, decide not to be a parent and doing so have no rights or responsibility. This would not interfere with the woman's right to make the same decision-- she could chose abortion or adoption or to raise the child.

The other point I was trying to make is that saying a man doesn't have a voice in the very controversial political debate is foolish. Reproductive issues affect men as much as they affect women.

0 Replies

How would the man reimburse the woman for her services as a carrier for his child?

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

How would the man reimburse the woman for her services as a carrier for his child?

Do you mean to imply that childbirth is a form of prostitution? (and... how does this question make sense since I have never suggested that one partner can force the other to carry a child to term).

People should have equal rights to decide if they are ready to become a parent.

A man can't force a woman to become a parent (even after she made a mistake that led to an unwanted pregnancy). Why should a woman be able to force the man?

0 Replies

ahh, ok.

I was thinking that if the man decided he was ready, but the woman wasn't, that you'd have some plan for her carrying to term on his behalf. In theory, it's a possibility.

Which could be interesting. I couldn't quite see how to assess the various costs. It would be different than someone who was willingly carrying a child, and simply had medical costs reimbursed.

~~~

It could just be the fever and antibiotics talking.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Quote:

Ultimately, no. Until such time comes that fathers can carry their own children; it will remain impossible to legislate a father's interest without simultaneously granting him ownership (even if temporary) of a woman's body. I reject this as the greater of two injustices.

Of course a father doesn't have ownership of a woman's body and can not prevent an abortion.

Precisely the point of Roe Vs. Wade. This is what's at issue.

ebrown_p wrote:

I would like equal rights in this way. Right now a woman can make a mistake and choose not to be a parent. A man should have the same rights. A man could, once the baby is conceived, decide not to be a parent and doing so have no rights or responsibility. This would not interfere with the woman's right to make the same decision-- she could chose abortion or adoption or to raise the child.

First I've heard this angle... and it is interesting. Is there any precedent whatsoever that you're aware of? Perhaps a sexual contract that states unequivocally that in the event of accidental pregnancy; no fatherly responsibility signed by the would-be mother?

Other worms to be found in that can: Does the woman then become obligated to inform man of pregnancy, and when? Does he, in turn, have X amount of time to sign on or off? Would she then be able to choose to have the baby, but exclude the father anyway?

ebrown_p wrote:

The other point I was trying to make is that saying a man doesn't have a voice in the very controversial political debate is foolish. Reproductive issues affect men as much as they affect women.

This is complete nonsense, Ebrown. No one is suggesting that the unwanted use of a man's body (against his will) be legislated into law. This is simply not comparable.

0 Replies

EhBeth,

The issue is that neither partner should be forced to become a parent if they don't want to. You are asking whether the man should be able to force the woman to become a parent-- this is the exact opposite of what I am suggesting. (i.e. the answer is no).

Bill,

1. I am strongly pro-choice. We apparently in violent agreement on this one.

2. There is no need for a contract. The decision to not be a parent is made by either person after the fact of the pregnancy.

The woman already has this right, I am saying we should extend the same right to the man.

3. There is a controversial debate in society in general about whether abortion is moral or not. Men, as part of society with a vested interest in the process of reproduction absolutely have a voice in this debate.

You are saying that the only issue is whose body is "used" during a pregnancy. The other side is saying the only issue is morality.

This is the debate... and I think my voice on this important and controversial issue is as important as anyone else.

The funny thing is I am on your side on this debate... and I am trying to defend you right to have an opinion. I don't understand why you have a problem with this, since if you really felt men had no voice, then why aren't you silent on the issue?

0 Replies

nimh- I have read where a couple is considered wealthy when their net worth is around two million. I cannot find a citation, but it seems right to me. At that asset level, a couple could maintain themselves in a comfortable position even if they both have to spend a number of years in a nursing home.

I know that in reading articles about long term care insurance, it is the middle class who requires that protection. The poor will exhaust their funds, and go on Medicaid. Couples with assets over two milllion have enough of a cushion not to have to be concerned about the insurance.

Quote:

The premiums for long-term care insurance are not cheap, but unless you have assets of $2 million or more, you probably need it -- especially if you want to preserve some assets for your children. Premiums vary based on your age, sex, geographical location and policy type, but annual costs can vary from $400 a year for a 40-something male to more than $3,000 for a man or woman aged 70 or older.

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Retirementandwills/Retireinstyle/P34818.asp

0 Replies

Bill- To me it is patently unfair to penalize thrifty people who invest their funds, and want to leave something for their heirs. If the person chose to piss away their money during their lifetime, there is no penalty, but the frugal are punished for their efforts through the death tax.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Bill,

1. I am strongly pro-choice. We apparently in violent agreement on this one.

ebrown_p wrote:

2. There is no need for a contract. The decision to not be a parent is made by either person after the fact of the pregnancy.

The woman already has this right, I am saying we should extend the same right to the man.

So, you are suggesting the default position should be no responsibility for the man? At what point does he become responsible? Marriage? Visitation? Never? Can he change his mind... and when?

ebrown_p wrote:

3. There is a controversial debate in society in general about whether abortion is moral or not. Men, as part of society with a vested interest in the process of reproduction absolutely have a voice in this debate.

You are saying that the only issue is whose body is "used" during a pregnancy. The other side is saying the only issue is morality.

This is the debate... and I think my voice on this important and controversial issue is as important as anyone else.

The funny thing is I am on your side on this debate... and I am trying to defend you right to have an opinion. I don't understand why you have a problem with this, since if you really felt men had no voice, then why aren't you silent on the issue?

This is a mischaracterization of my position. My opinion isn't whether or not abortion is moral or not. In many cases, IMO, it probably isn't. Philosophically this could be discussed at length... but legally; any attempt for men to ban this procedure results in women losing control of their own bodies which is the greater of two injustices.

My concrete position that women have the absolute right to choose what to and what not to do with their own bodies supersedes any thoughts of morality I may have about the choices they make. Hence; legally I should be entitled to no opinion whatsoever, right? The fact that there are serious forces at work that would like nothing better than to take this absolute right away is most certainly something I can, should and do have an opinion about.

I would also vehemently oppose legislation that legalized spousal rape, though some men seem to think they're entitled to the use of women's body's by virtue of being married. Would you argue that the men who favored such a law are entitled to their opinion? Because the issue effects them just as much as the women? I think not.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Bill- To me it is patently unfair to penalize thrifty people who invest their funds, and want to leave something for their heirs. If the person chose to piss away their money during their lifetime, there is no penalty, but the frugal are punished for their efforts through the death tax.

You are forgetting, or ignoring that he who "pisses away" their money during their life time; pay tax not only for what they purchase; but that the money being added to the publicly circulated funds will be taxed and re-taxed many times... as more and more citizens enjoy it's use... which in turn boosts the economy while reducing the tax burden on everyone else, including the thrifty, who's habits are anathema to the health of the free market and most indirect taxing schemes.

Also; you have flat out ignored the Debt question. Do you think it's fair to pass that on to the next generation? Or do you think there's a fairer way to collect this past due tax? Would you prefer the Fed to bill you for this transgression more directly and immediately?

0 Replies

2008 Issue by issue: Who do you prefer and why?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know