1
   

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

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jan, 2008 12:55 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
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.


Ah, a rear-end fix.

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.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jan, 2008 01:48 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
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.
How so? A very progressive Sales Tax system could 'refund' in excess of 100%, if certain criterion are met. The system could be designed to replace the existing welfare system, by establishing a minimum "income" by way of the refund system for even the terminally lazy... if it's sponsors so desired. All of this could be accomplished while still allowing those who produce to do so unimpeded.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jan, 2008 01:48 pm
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

Do I interpret your post to indicate some interest in the national sales tax?

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.

In regard to Tancredo, I agree, I don't think he was a bigot, but he was too strident in his opinions and did not come across well. I don't like your common use of the word, bigot, as you have called me one among others, and you couldn't be more wrong. You could do yourself a favor and everyone else and knock it off.

You seem to be liberal socially, but somewhat conservative on certain other issues. You appear to favor Giuliani pretty strong. If he was the nominee, I would most definitely vote for him over any Democrat, but he is sort of at the bottom of my list of Republicans, next to McCain.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jan, 2008 02:03 pm
okie wrote:
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.
Your response betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of Roe Vs. Wade. That decision was intended to protect the viable fetus in the third trimester to begin with, unless a woman's life was at stake... 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. Idea)
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jan, 2008 03:12 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
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...

Interesting conclusion on Guilliani. If his plan is to take on dictators who don't toe the US line, I definitely don't want him in office. All we need is a series of wars against countries that don't threaten the US because they don't meet whatever arbitrary standards the current administration puts forth. By the criteria you put forth, we should be lining up for attacks on N. Korea and Zimbabwe next.

I agree that the improvements in NY's crime situation made Guilliani famous, but I don't agree that he had anything to do with in. NY's improvement while he was in office was spectacular, but the same thing was happening in other northeastern cities like Baltimore and Philidelphia. The reality was that Guilliani was in the right time and the right place to capture a demographic and society shift that changed crime rates in just about all large US cities. A good statistical analysis of this can be found in Freakonomics.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jan, 2008 03:28 pm
I've read (and enjoyed) Freakonomics... but it got that one wrong. Not only did new York improve along with the other cities; it also went from being among the most violent cities per capita to one of the least. Across the board improvements do nothing to explain this away.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jan, 2008 04:08 pm
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. Idea)

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.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jan, 2008 04:12 pm
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. Idea)

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
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jan, 2008 07:03 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
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. Idea)

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.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jan, 2008 07:56 pm
woiyo wrote:
But it is a live being.
So is a rat. What's your point?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jan, 2008 08:03 pm
comparing a fetus to a rat? You are sick.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jan, 2008 11:50 pm
okie wrote:
comparing a fetus to a rat? You are sick.
Your grade for reading comprehension... F
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jan, 2008 10:11 am
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jan, 2008 10:17 am
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.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jan, 2008 12:44 pm
This tax rebate scheme Bush and others are proposing is amusing. It is supposed to encourage us to buy things so as to spur the economy. Thus, we will use the money to buy things from China, India, et al. So whose economies will we spur?

It is interesting that the Reps are promising big tax cuts, with Rudy saying that his will be the biggest in history. He commented last night that the end result will be more revenue for the government. I guess he hasn't examined the results of tax cuts by the last three Rep presidents. Does anyone really doubt that the national debt will soar that much more?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jan, 2008 02:34 pm
Re: 2008 Issue by issue: Who do you prefer and why?
Okay, Okie & OCCOM disagree about Roe, Cyclo is certain the Republicans are worser, and Advocate has a compelling point about Tax refunds being pretty stupid right now. Anybody want to get back on topic? I for one would be very interested in seeing some more opinions about how people feel about various candidates on various positions. You can pull the categories out of my opining post for starters. In fact: I'll do it for you... just quote and type:


Immigration:

Health Care:

Iraq:

Taxes:

Taxes2:

Energy:

Trade:

Abortion:

Gay Marriage:

Scumbag Quotient:

Qualified candidates are as follows:

Conclusions:

(Feel free to add and/or subtract as you see fit)
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jan, 2008 03:35 pm
Advocate wrote:
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.


Would you really prefer that okie and people like him argue that a women should be charged with murder if she gets an abortion? I can't speak for okie, but perhaps he does believe this or perhaps he believes that in those cases where he believes abortion is acceptible, the death of a person (the fetus) is justifiable. If you happen to believe that abortion is OK, it seems foolish to taunt someone who might accept it in some cases but with great reservations.

Insisting that a fetus is not a person seems to me a convenient way to to easily reconcile morals with politics. Insisting that it is no more than a parasite or a lump of tissue is just base.

I don't think too many people have ever though about a fetus qualifying for a tax deduction or being counted in a census. Not much of an argument against the notion that the fetus is a person. (I'm OK with both by the way)
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jan, 2008 05:18 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jan, 2008 06:00 pm
Advocate wrote:
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.


I am being honest. The facile contradiction you seem to think you've caught okie with is totally besides the point.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jan, 2008 12:45 pm
That's a baseless assertion that doesn't further the discussion.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/02/2020 at 02:56:33