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

Cycloptichorn wrote:

OB,

A national sales tax would supposedly be enacted on the purchase end, correct? IE, you purchase a car, you pay national sales tax. Like the VAT in England.

How would a retiree's savings be exempted from this? How is the salesman supposed to differentiate from where the money comes from?

Just wondering; I can't figure out how those who have been saving tax-free are going to avoid paying taxes on those savings. I agree that there's an argument that could be made that they just have to suck it up. Political suicide to try and enact, though.

Cycloptichorn

For starters; I see nothing coincidental about Tax-free savings and the National debt. The government's window of opportunity to collect past due tax from retirees are quite limited. But no one wants to address that either.

To answer your question: The tax itself exempts no one, nor is it progressive in anyway. These modifiers would likely be implemented by way of refunds... in order to satisfy a burden of proof for eligibility.

Example: Low income family provides proof of low income in order to receive a sales tax refund.

A retiree, if the law is so written to exempt them, to any extent and with whatever qualifiers and modifiers, would simply apply for the refund the same way. Those not qualifying for refunds would need to fill out nothing.

It's not that I think it's a bad idea, but I prefer the progressive tax code. It more accurately reflects the responsibilities and duties of the rich towards society.

OB,

A national sales tax would supposedly be enacted on the purchase end, correct? IE, you purchase a car, you pay national sales tax. Like the VAT in England.

How would a retiree's savings be exempted from this? How is the salesman supposed to differentiate from where the money comes from?

Just wondering; I can't figure out how those who have been saving tax-free are going to avoid paying taxes on those savings. I agree that there's an argument that could be made that they just have to suck it up. Political suicide to try and enact, though.

Cycloptichorn

Note to ob, thanks for your answers again to all the issues. We won't agree on abortion, but I just think basic decency should prevent us from killing our offspring, as a culture. As long as it is the law that we have now, we live with it, but hopefully the culture at some point could swing the pendelum back to compassion and decency. As far as a woman having control of her body, that is a common but fraudulant argument. We have always had laws prohibiting activities of one's body, both men and women. At least, we could ban abortions in the last trimester, as we know a person can survive outside the womb after 6 months. Sorry, a baby is the fetus form of a person, not just a fetus. To see it any other way is cold, cruel, and heartless.

okie wrote:

I am going to say something here I've not said before. I have a few trepidations here that Giuliani may be too hawkish for my liking. He is pretty much a one trick pony so far, a one issue man, terrorism, and we have alot of other problems too, and I don't want a president that feels like he has to prove something on that one issue just to be validated. It could lead to an overextension of the wise and prudent policy. I have supported the Iraq war, as Congress did, for all the reasons discussed at length, but I think we will be well served to back off a bit, carry a big stick, but use it very sparingly. This issue is one reason I am leary of Giuliani, so I don't consider it a strength of his necessarily.

Yes, I'm familiar with the party line on Rudy. But it makes no sense. The only way Iraq makes sense in a "war on terror" is if it is a starting point. Like minded Tyrants need to be convinced of the necessity to make changes or face the same fate as Saddam. Otherwise; it's all been for naught. What is accomplished by taking one criminal off the streets, if there is no disincentive to the dozens of others standing by? Nothing.

And one trick, my a$$. The improvements in NY's crime situation made Rudy world famous before 9-11 even took place...

... and I agree completely that viable fetus's should be protected. For this reason; I did not object to the last two SC nominations; because I believe the current court is far enough Right to correct some of the abuses of Roe Vs. Wade without reversing the decision itself. I would agree with you that the partial birth abortion, for instance, is murder. This is simply not the same thing as a forced miscarriage in the first trimester, where only 3 out of 4 are going to survive the pregnancy in the first place. (And that's a conservative estimate; many studies indicate that one third of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. )

OCCOM BILL wrote:

... and I agree completely that viable fetus's should be protected. For this reason; I did not object to the last two SC nominations; because I believe the current court is far enough Right to correct some of the abuses of Roe Vs. Wade without reversing the decision itself. I would agree with you that the partial birth abortion, for instance, is murder. This is simply not the same thing as a forced miscarriage in the first trimester, where only 3 out of 4 are going to survive the pregnancy in the first place. (And that's a conservative estimate; many studies indicate that one third of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. )

I know we will not agree on this, but I would like to point out that every person born will die at some point also, so we might as well kill them if they are an inconvenience? In other words, your reasoning is flawed. But anyway, abortion is a subject where we could argue forever, but I know one thing, I feel very very secure in my conviction on this, on the side of life, on the side of a helpless unborn child. There is absolutely no question in my mind, and absolutely no trepidation. If you couldn't personally kill the fetus yourself, ob, I know you can't feel good about the mother doing it. Enough said.

okie wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

... and I agree completely that viable fetus's should be protected. For this reason; I did not object to the last two SC nominations; because I believe the current court is far enough Right to correct some of the abuses of Roe Vs. Wade without reversing the decision itself. I would agree with you that the partial birth abortion, for instance, is murder. This is simply not the same thing as a forced miscarriage in the first trimester, where only 3 out of 4 are going to survive the pregnancy in the first place. (And that's a conservative estimate; many studies indicate that one third of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. )

I know we will not agree on this, but I would like to point out that every person born will die at some point also, so we might as well kill them if they are an inconvenience? In other words, your reasoning is flawed. But anyway, abortion is a subject where we could argue forever, but I know one thing, I feel very very secure in my conviction on this, on the side of life, on the side of a helpless unborn child. There is absolutely no question in my mind, and absolutely no trepidation. If you couldn't personally kill the fetus yourself, ob, I know you can't feel good about the mother doing it. Enough said.

A person can exist without another body supporting their every heartbeat. When that situation doesn't exist, it isn't a person.

Therefore, before viability, an embryo/fetus just isn't a person.

Cycloptichorn

But it is a live being.

comparing a fetus to a rat? You are sick.

Okie, people like you who persist in referring to fetuses as persons are hypocrites. You, and the others, would never contend that the woman arranging for an abortion should be tried for the murder of a person. Further, no one contends that a fetus should generate a dependency tax deduction, or be counted in a census.

I am sure that Okie can take it. He can certainly dish it out.

Finn, you don't address my point, but make a silly point about what \i would prefer \okie argue.

\If you were honest, you would admit the discrepancy in the logic of the pro=choice people.