These people should be ashamed of themselves (Racist and Homophobia)

[FRE]

Even after reading all the material, I don't see anything that would make Obama unsuitable as president. The fact that he is imperfect should come as no surprise; no candidate is perfect. I'd certainly rather have him as president than McCain. At this point, there would be no point in comparing Obama with Mrs. Clinton.

I could list some of the things about Obama that I don't like, but I see no particular point in doing so. I could list more things that I don't like about McCain, including his short temper and proclivity to be impetuous. I think that we need a president who has human skills and who is able and willing to communicate with leaders of nations, some of whom are not friendly to the U.S. As I see it, Obama would be far better than that than McCain. As for lack of experience, that can be compensated for by having good advisors and carefully listening to all positions.

Although it's possible that I could change my mind before elections, if I had to vote today I'd vote for Obama, even though I am a registered Republican. And, I happen to be white, although that shouldn't matter.

 

[mista geechee]

Today , McCain said that he would fix the economy in his first term with all teh money he will save by winning the war in Iraq. :rofl:

Didn't he say , explicitly , that he didn't understand teh economy ? But he thinks he can lead a country whose economy is in shambles and is throwing money into the fire place known as teh middle east ?

 

[FRE]

Today , McCain said that he would fix the economy in his first term with all teh money he will save by winning the war in Iraq. :rofl:

Didn't he say , explicitly , that he didn't understand teh economy ? But he thinks he can lead a country whose economy is in shambles and is throwing money into the fire place known as teh middle east ?

I also don't think that McCain makes much sense on the economy. However, saying that it is in a shambles is at best a considerable exaggeration. Over the last 50 years or so, we have several times been in considerably worse shape than we are in now. During that time, several times unemployment has been much higher and at one point, we actually had double-digit inflation.

Of course we are having economic problems and there should be corrective action taken. The expensive war, failure to reduce our dependence on imported oil, lack of regulation leading to risky sub-prime lending for housing, and other factors, have created the problem and, for the most part, these factors could have been prevented to a considerable degree. Fortunately, our country is basically strong and well able to tollerate considerable mismagement before we get into serious trouble. I don't doubt that well get through this.

 

[D_Thoraxis_Biggulp]

Wow, even this turned into a Clinton vs. Obama vs. McCain thread.

Economically, we're getting hit with a double-attack of inflation and rising unemployment rates. Each individual statistic may not be at its worst, but the combination is what's killing us. Basic commodities are getting so expensive that employers are having to minimize the salaries and wages portion of their budget just to keep their heads above water. But, they're subject to limitations, both by law and by how little people are willing to do certain jobs for. So, they bump their prices up a bit more, and the cycle continues.

McCain's answer is to cut taxes for small businesses. Sure, this would be great if you just look at it from that one angle. But the last I heard, he plans to keep our military in Iraq for the foreseeable future. Unless he plans to bring back whatever number of soldiers and equipment it would take to match the budget cut that comes with those tax breaks, that means other federal services take an even stronger blow.
Obama's answer is to increase taxes temporarily so that we have enough to support things like education and healthcare. Meanwhile, start bringing home soldier from Iraq. As less money is being spent on that, taxes should come back down again. It's risky, but it has better potential than McCain's plan.

 

[EboniGoddess]

Not to be onesided towards Obama but when politicians say they'll do something temporarily it ussually becomes perm. Once he gets the support for healthcare and everything he won't take it way. He (like all politicians) will say that they can't lower the taxes back because they need the money to "maintain" the stuff. We pay 42 cents per gallon here in Maryland (18.5 for federal tax and 23.5 for state) and the governor is talking about raising the gas tax. The tax on gas is for the maintaining of roads but we all know that they don't use half of this money. Besides, we pay tolls to ride across the bridges that "we" pay for. Thats bull. And also, the feds don't pay for the roads. The states do. Each state is in charge of its roads and there are some exceptions such as 295 here. 295 is a gateway between baltimore and D.C. so they both contribute. I guess that may be like the bridge from NY to N.J. Basically we pay the feds 18.5 cents per gallon for something they don't even contribute to. What do they do with the money people give when they pay income tax. Has the government ever gave us a explenation as to what they do with this money. Things like schools are funded by each state. There is nothing in the constitution that says we have a right to public schools but each state's constitution does. This mean that the government isn't obligated but may contribute small amounts. Thats also why most states were mad when no child left behind was passed. The government is making all these demands but not giving us the money to do it and meet the requirements. If I were president I would tax the hell out of big coroperations like Walmart. I'd give small buisinesses and family owned buisinesses a break too. And to make the ecomy better here I would put an extremely high tax on foreign goods. I'd make the tax so high it would be in the best interest of stores that buy this stuff to sell things made in America. I feel bad for those people in China who are making Nike shoes for 10 cents a pair and then I go to Footlocker and the new Lebrons are $175. From the factory to the labor to the warehouse to the shipping and stuff it may only cost Nike $2 and the rest is pure profit. Maybe i'll run after I'm an established lawyer around the age of 40.

 

[mista geechee]

Not to be onesided towards Obama but when politicians say they'll do something temporarily it ussually becomes perm. Once he gets the support for healthcare and everything he won't take it way. He (like all politicians) will say that they can't lower the taxes back because they need the money to "maintain" the stuff. We pay 42 cents per gallon here in Maryland (18.5 for federal tax and 23.5 for state) and the governor is talking about raising the gas tax. The tax on gas is for the maintaining of roads but we all know that they don't use half of this money. Besides, we pay tolls to ride across the bridges that "we" pay for. Thats bull. And also, the feds don't pay for the roads. The states do. Each state is in charge of its roads and there are some exceptions such as 295 here. 295 is a gateway between baltimore and D.C. so they both contribute. I guess that may be like the bridge from NY to N.J. Basically we pay the feds 18.5 cents per gallon for something they don't even contribute to. What do they do with the money people give when they pay income tax. Has the government ever gave us a explenation as to what they do with this money. Things like schools are funded by each state. There is nothing in the constitution that says we have a right to public schools but each state's constitution does. This mean that the government isn't obligated but may contribute small amounts. Thats also why most states were mad when no child left behind was passed. The government is making all these demands but not giving us the money to do it and meet the requirements. If I were president I would tax the hell out of big coroperations like Walmart. I'd give small buisinesses and family owned buisinesses a break too. And to make the ecomy better here I would put an extremely high tax on foreign goods. I'd make the tax so high it would be in the best interest of stores that buy this stuff to sell things made in America. I feel bad for those people in China who are making Nike shoes for 10 cents a pair and then I go to Footlocker and the new Lebrons are $175. From the factory to the labor to the warehouse to the shipping and stuff it may only cost Nike $2 and the rest is pure profit. Maybe i'll run after I'm an established lawyer around the age of 40.

And what exactly is wrong with his support of universal healthcare ?

Of course taxes are raised or simply not lowered to "maintain stuff". We're spending 3 billion a week in Iraq. You can't do that and lower taxes at the same time. The lower taxes fantasy is nice to daydream about. But it's not practical. Stopping the war would lessen its blow , though. This country is full of impractical people who think that whoever will bring an instant fix.Which is wrong , but at least Senator Obama wants to put us on the right track instead of continuing what is going on now .And he's been the main one not flip flopping just to acquiesce to the masses.

 

[FRE]

Not to be onesided towards Obama but when politicians say they'll do something temporarily it ussually becomes perm. Once he gets the support for healthcare and everything he won't take it way. He (like all politicians) will say that they can't lower the taxes back because they need the money to "maintain" the stuff. We pay 42 cents per gallon here in Maryland (18.5 for federal tax and 23.5 for state) and the governor is talking about raising the gas tax. The tax on gas is for the maintaining of roads but we all know that they don't use half of this money. Besides, we pay tolls to ride across the bridges that "we" pay for. Thats bull. And also, the feds don't pay for the roads. The states do. Each state is in charge of its roads and there are some exceptions such as 295 here. 295 is a gateway between baltimore and D.C. so they both contribute. I guess that may be like the bridge from NY to N.J. Basically we pay the feds 18.5 cents per gallon for something they don't even contribute to. What do they do with the money people give when they pay income tax. Has the government ever gave us a explenation as to what they do with this money. Things like schools are funded by each state. There is nothing in the constitution that says we have a right to public schools but each state's constitution does. This mean that the government isn't obligated but may contribute small amounts. Thats also why most states were mad when no child left behind was passed. The government is making all these demands but not giving us the money to do it and meet the requirements. If I were president I would tax the hell out of big coroperations like Walmart. I'd give small buisinesses and family owned buisinesses a break too. And to make the ecomy better here I would put an extremely high tax on foreign goods. I'd make the tax so high it would be in the best interest of stores that buy this stuff to sell things made in America. I feel bad for those people in China who are making Nike shoes for 10 cents a pair and then I go to Footlocker and the new Lebrons are $175. From the factory to the labor to the warehouse to the shipping and stuff it may only cost Nike $2 and the rest is pure profit. Maybe i'll run after I'm an established lawyer around the age of 40.

From what I have read, it appears that we are spending more on healthcare than other developed countries, yet we have many people who lack access to adequate healthcare. A common cause of bankruptcy is inability to pay medical bills. I suppose that one could argue that good healthcare should be available only for the wealthy, but I think otherwise.

I have no problem with paying taxes, provided that the funds are used efficiently and fairly. Much of our federal deficit is the result of excessive tax cutting. And now that taxes have been “temporarily” cut, the cut may be permanent like other things which are supposed to be temporary. If so, we’ll pay by having our savings and retirement accounts taxed by means of inflation, so we pay one way or another.

My late father used to say that governments pay debts by repudiation. The inflation caused by deficit spending amounts to repudiation of debts. As a fiscal conservative, I oppose deficit spending, at least if it is excessive. However, it appears that the definition of conservative has changed. It seems that now a conservative is one who favors continually reducing taxes even if doing so results in ever increasing deficits.

Gas taxes, along with taxes on non-renewable energy, should be GREATLY increased to discourage unnecessary use and encourage a shift to renewable energy. This should be done by gradually shifting the tax burden from the income tax to energy taxes so that the over-all tax burden would not change. That would make it politically palatable. The problems we have with imported petroleum were predicted even before 1970 and could have been prevented, but politicians do not get elected by making people understand the necessity of making changes.

The federal government has required states to implement “No child left behind,” but without providing sufficient funds to do so. Even if it were fully implemented, it could be a disaster because it is based on testing which could encourage rote learning without teaching children to reason and think critically. I lived in Fiji for 10 years and saw the results of teaching to enable students to pass external examinations. They were so successful in pumping the kids full of knowledge that when kids migrated to the U.S., they could often skip ahead one grade. However, if a kid who received good grades in Fiji went to a college or university in another country, he / she had a real struggle because of not having learned to think independently and critically. Teachers in Fiji are aware of the problem, but they are graded on the basis of how well their pupils do on external examinations and therefore they teach accordingly to keep their jobs.

One of the things that lengthened the great depression was the imposition of high import taxes via the Smoot Hawley act of 1930. Increasing import taxes reduces imports, but it also reduces exports because then other countries enact retaliatory legislation. Trade treaties and agreements are extremely complicated, have many ramifications, and covering them adequately would require more than one college-level course. However, I would agree that there is something wrong when Chinese workers work for a pittance while the products they produce are very expensive here. But consider imported cars; cars produced here in the U.S. are of much higher quality than they would be without foreign competition. For example, although electronic fuel injection was invented in the U.S., no U.S. manufacturer made it available ‘til foreign producers forced them to. Similarly, the fully automatic transmission (first made available on the 1940 Oldsmobile) was an American invention, but their most rapid improvement did not occur ‘til the Japanese started making them and computerized them. So, despite the problems with imports, on balance they have caused superior products to become available to us at reasonable prices.

 

[EboniGoddess]

And what exactly is wrong with his support of universal healthcare ?

Of course taxes are raised or simply not lowered to "maintain stuff". We're spending 3 billion a week in Iraq. You can't do that and lower taxes at the same time. The lower taxes fantasy is nice to daydream about. But it's not practical. Stopping the war would lessen its blow , though. This country is full of impractical people who think that whoever will bring an instant fix.Which is wrong , but at least Senator Obama wants to put us on the right track instead of continuing what is going on now .And he's been the main one not flip flopping just to acquiesce to the masses.

Fre and mista geechee you both have compelling points. I'm not saying I don't support universal healthcare because I do. We (atleast in Maryland) have adequate healthcare. Ours in one of the best in the country 9not to brag). Every Maryland resident is able to get free healthcare (if they meet income guidelines). When I was 12 (my bro was 7) my mother died from breat cancer. I was living with my grandmother and was uninsured. The state of maryland requires EVERY child to have medical insurance. In Maryland we have MCHIP (Maryland Childrens Health Insurance Program)Maryland Children's Health Program. My grandmother was refered to sign us up for medical assistance. We qualified (of course) and every since then we were insured. My grandmother had her choice of kaiser perm., united health care, ect... but she decided to go with Amerigroup (a health insurance company directly in MD) and I was with them until I turned 19. For people 19-65 (medicare age) they a PAC (Primary Adult Care) program where anyone who is unemployed or 200% below the national income guidelines can get free health insurance. I didn't think it was much different but it was. This plan is great for homeless people and all but when I turned 19 I was switched over to this plan (I chose united health care as my MCO) and soon learned that I couldn't see any specialist. When I didn't have my period for a few months and couldn't see a specialist I go worried. I then went to HTYA (Healthy Teens Young Adults). They are a state run health program ran by the Baltimore City Health Department (they have their own clinics too) and they have doctors and nurses there able to help with any problem (I'm on the ring now thanks to them). They provide immunizations, testing, physicals, std medication and any birth control you please all for free. I then got fed up with not being able to see a specialists (I have eczema) and wen to social services and applied for medical assistance as an adult. Free things do take time. I applied on May 6,2008 and TODAY I just got a paper saying I was accepted. In 10-15 days I will recieve a packet in the mail where I will be able to choose my own health care company. I've decided to not stay with united health and go back to Amerigroup.


I bugs me when I'm in a law or political class (Law and society major:wink and I hear people talk about how Maryland sucks when it comes to health insurance. I sometime want to say "Shut the fuck up because I get free health insurance!!!!!" Its always there but sometimes you have to do research to find it. When I was 19 and dropped for my medical assistance I called them up and begged and pleaded with them to let me keep it. They said I had no choice and the only thing I could get was the PAC program. Obviously it didn't take long for the Law side of me to step in and try to find a loophole or something. I couldn't find anything. i then said to myself "can it be that easy? Could I get it by simply going into social services and applying for it. Naw, that sounds too easy but I guess its worth a try". It was right under my nose all the time. Next thing I know they were telling my stuff I didn't ask to know. They told me I qualified for food stamps and could get $156 a month (I declined). Its always something there but you gotta look hard. The best stuff isn't easy to find!


Now when it comes to the war in Iraq I think that politicians are still liars. They spent 3 billion a week according to you but thats money the government said they didn't have when the states were asking for more funding for schools. Thats money they said they didn't have when communities came together and said they wanted grants to fix up communities. We're laying off police officers in one of the most dangerous cities in the county. About 5 years ago when I was in the 10th grade we got a new super. They found out we were in MAJOR DEBT and the school system started talking about not paying the teachers. Of course the teacher union has lawyers and it didn't take long for them to figure out it wasn't goona work. What was their next idea? They decided to close school for a day and take all the teachers by bus to the Baltimore Convention Center and set up voting booths where the teachers could vote whether or not they wanted a 20% decrease in pay. WTF???? Did they really think poorly paid teachers would agree to a 20 percent pay cut? Of course you know how they voted. Look at what I found below. The stats aren't as bad as they were 5 years ago (the debt was a few BILLION then) but Baltimore City Schools are still in debt:


Baltimore City School System Debt
Long Term Debt
-Beginning Of Fiscal Year: $78,662,000.00
Short Term Debt
-Beginning Of Fiscal Year: $42,000,000.00


Oh, if you've seen sicko you know that HILLARY CLINTON fought for universal healthcare in the 1990s and it was rejected by a landslide. They critisized her saying that she gets to make bills like that because she was the first lady. She was just as active as bill was during his tenure as president. I don't understand what they expected her to do:hold his arm, stand behind him doing speeches, clap at state of the union addresses but please don't talk or make bills that would benefit the country. 95% of congress is paid by a health care company. I doubt if things have changed.Below is some of John McCains plan:

• By reforming tax code to eliminate the bias toward employer-sponsored health coverage and providing everyone with a $2,500 tax credit; families will receive $5,000. This will increase incentives for health care coverage.
• Allowing families to purchase health care insurance nationwide to maximize choices and heighten competition.
• Providing multi-year coverage that moves with you from job to job and from home to home.
• Requiring states with Medicaid to develop a financial risk adjustment bonus to high-cost and low income families that will supplement tax credits and funds for Medicaid.
• Allowing people to purchase insurance through any organization or association of choice (i.e. churches, employers, individual purchases, and professional associations). The policy chosen will be available to small businesses and the self-employed; and will be portable across jobs. It will also automatically bridge the time between Medicare eligibility and retirement. Certification and rigorous standards would have to be met before plans are approved.

Note: all plans like the ones I listed will still be in affect. Medical Assistance will still be available.

 

[mista geechee]

All that sounds nice . But the objective is universal healthcare. Not having to go on a dummy mission for something that may not even be there.

And , in this case , the government wasn't lying. They didn't have money for healthcare and education , because it was (and still is) already tied up in Iraq.

McCain wants to keep throwing away money over there while he cuts taxes at teh same time (deadly combination). Then he voted against he GI Bill that put him through college. Yet people stil want to vote for him , mainly because war is a touchy thing. And I don't even know where to begin on the flip flopping. He talks about saving the environment , yet he wants nuclear power ? Rather paradoxal isn't it?

 

[EboniGoddess]

The government was lying because i'm talking about a period before 9/11. They said they didn't have the money but when 9/11 came along and they decided to run after bin laden mystery money came from nowhere. In school we were sharing ripped outdated textbooks and they had the money all along. Even if they went after osama and invaded Iraq they should never deprive their own citizens of what they need. Yes, there will always be problems here but your main goal in your state of the union address shouldn't be Iraq because they aren't the people who voted your sorry ass in. Americans did!

as far as McCain i'm shakey about him too. I'm thinking about voting independent. Seems like a better decision to do. He won't win but i'm letting my voice be heard.

 

[FRE]

I guess that I don't really care whether health care is totally funded by the government or via private means, as long as it is efficient, everyone is covered, and it is of high quality.

Years ago, I had a co-worker who hated his job but was unable to leave. He had developed diabetes and knew that if he left the company, he would be unable to get health insurance. If he had been laid off, he'd really have been in trouble from the standpoint of health care. We'll hope that whoever becomes the next president will succeed in implementing a good health care system.

Obviously health care is not the only important issue, but if we were to discuss all the important issues in this thread, it would never end.

 

[EboniGoddess]

impotant issues: global warming, rising college tuition cost, government spending, war in iraq, healthcare, space travel, SOCIAL SECURITY (they just took 10 bucks from my 15 y.o. brothers check and social security won't be here), grants to small buisinesses, ect....

Oh, if I were president the 1st thing I would do is outlaw congressional lobbying. Most of these representatives are pocketing cash from big corperations such as Walmart, health insurance companies and gas companies. I would definately make that illegal because they were voted by their people to represent them and not some companys best interest. Ok, maybe i'd only allow lobbying from unions. Teacher, coalmine and othere types of unions are fine because the unions represent the people too. Besides that lobbying needs to go.

While I'm at it i'd outlaw tax breaks to companies that make over 2 million dollars in profit. If you're making more than 2 million dollars you shouldn't have a problem with paying taxes. This would have a few exclusions like non-profit organizations and churches/temples/synagogues/whatever.

 

[FRE]

I see problems with those proposals.

Lobbying can create problems because of undue influence. On the other hand, what about public interest lobby groups, such as the Sierra Club and civil rights organiztions which have actually educated legislators and caused them to enact legislation which is in the public interest? Rather than proscribing lobbying, it seems to me that lobbies for businesses should be prohibited from making campaign contributions. It is already illegal for politicians to receive gifts from lobbies, but it may well be that that proscription is inadequately enforced.

Also consider that businesses have just as much right to communicate with politicians as individual citizens have. Many of us individual citizens have written or 'phoned our political representatives regarding particular bills, so why shouldn't business be able to do the same?

Regarding tax breaks, exactly which tax breaks are you concerned with? Many tax breaks are established to motivate companies to act in the public interest. For many decades, our income tax system has been used as a motivating force to induce desired behavior. Tax breaks have been used to induce companies to hire minorities or to use minority-owned companies as subcontractors. They have also been used to induce companies to invest more money into research projects which are considered to be in the public interest or to invest in equipment to reduce pollution.

And how did you arrive at the figure of $2 million? What if a company has profits of $2 million, but on an investment of 100 times that $2 million? That would mean that the company is making only 1% on investment, which is totally inadequate. On the other hand, what about a company with an investment of $2 million that is making a profit of $2 million annually? That would be a return on investment of 100%!! And yet you would have the same restrictions on tax breaks on both?? Obviously that would not make sense. If you really want restrictions on tax breaks, the restrictions should be based on rate of return, not on the total amount of profit. Also, there are two ways to measure rate of return. It can be measured on investment or on sales. In theory, a company could have a return on investment of 100%, but yet have a return on sales of only 1%.

Eliminating tax breaks has an effect similar to increasing taxes, although it is not identical. If taxes on a company are increased, the money to pay the taxes has to come from some place. Where it comes from depends on a number of factors, including the elasticity of demand for the product. If the demand is not elastic, the company can pass the tax on to the consumer. If the demand is elastic, it cannot do that since sales would drop. So then, the taxes have to be paid either by reducing wages paid to employees or by reducing profits. If profits are reduced, growth may be impacted because of reduced incentive to invest, and that would not be desirable. Nor would it be desirable to reduce wages. In extreme cases, increasing the taxes on a company could make the business insufficiently profitable to justify its operation, in which case it might close down.

This isn't to say that your proposals are without merit. However, it is obvious that they would have to be more carefully thought out, else they would surely do more harm than good.

My degree is in business administration and I also have the equivalent of a minor in economics. That isn't to say that I totally and completely understand the ramifications of all proposals related to business and economics; no one does. That's why legislative bodies spend so much time modifying previous legislation - it hasn't worked as expected. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act, of about 1890, was our first anti-trust legislation. Since then, there have been other acts because the Sherman Act didn't work as well as hoped. This just goes to show the extreme difficulty of designing legislation to do what it is supposed to do - quite often it does not, sometimes even when the proposals have been designed and carefully examined by experts before being enacted. Sometimes legislation has the opposite effect of what was intended. Also, legislation can quickly become obsolete because of changing conditions.

 

[B_stanmarsh14]

Being in the UK i do not actually know of any skinhead style faschist groups but no doubt they exist...quite ironic that consider they want supremacy for white people they tend to keep a low profile only able to communicate with others like themselves...they are a dying breed. An open mind is the evolving kind and the sooner these dicks dissapear off the earth the better a world it will be.
Thanks by the way Rommette, i'm going to go and see what i can find about these sorts of people in the UK

Around the North Erewash / Northern Derbyshire, these scum are rife, especially around the Ilkeston / Cottmanhay. Last black guy to live in Cottmanhay lasted just 2 weeks before getting fire-bombed out of his home.

Most noted groups are Combat 18

 

[EboniGoddess]

I see problems with those proposals.

Lobbying can create problems because of undue influence. On the other hand, what about public interest lobby groups, such as the Sierra Club and civil rights organiztions which have actually educated legislators and caused them to enact legislation which is in the public interest? Rather than proscribing lobbying, it seems to me that lobbies for businesses should be prohibited from making campaign contributions. It is already illegal for politicians to receive gifts from lobbies, but it may well be that that proscription is inadequately enforced.

Also consider that businesses have just as much right to communicate with politicians as individual citizens have. Many of us individual citizens have written or 'phoned our political representatives regarding particular bills, so why shouldn't business be able to do the same?

Regarding tax breaks, exactly which tax breaks are you concerned with? Many tax breaks are established to motivate companies to act in the public interest. For many decades, our income tax system has been used as a motivating force to induce desired behavior. Tax breaks have been used to induce companies to hire minorities or to use minority-owned companies as subcontractors. They have also been used to induce companies to invest more money into research projects which are considered to be in the public interest or to invest in equipment to reduce pollution.

And how did you arrive at the figure of $2 million? What if a company has profits of $2 million, but on an investment of 100 times that $2 million? That would mean that the company is making only 1% on investment, which is totally inadequate. On the other hand, what about a company with an investment of $2 million that is making a profit of $2 million annually? That would be a return on investment of 100%!! And yet you would have the same restrictions on tax breaks on both?? Obviously that would not make sense. If you really want restrictions on tax breaks, the restrictions should be based on rate of return, not on the total amount of profit. Also, there are two ways to measure rate of return. It can be measured on investment or on sales. In theory, a company could have a return on investment of 100%, but yet have a return on sales of only 1%.

Eliminating tax breaks has an effect similar to increasing taxes, although it is not identical. If taxes on a company are increased, the money to pay the taxes has to come from some place. Where it comes from depends on a number of factors, including the elasticity of demand for the product. If the demand is not elastic, the company can pass the tax on to the consumer. If the demand is elastic, it cannot do that since sales would drop. So then, the taxes have to be paid either by reducing wages paid to employees or by reducing profits. If profits are reduced, growth may be impacted because of reduced incentive to invest, and that would not be desirable. Nor would it be desirable to reduce wages. In extreme cases, increasing the taxes on a company could make the business insufficiently profitable to justify its operation, in which case it might close down.

This isn't to say that your proposals are without merit. However, it is obvious that they would have to be more carefully thought out, else they would surely do more harm than good.

My degree is in business administration and I also have the equivalent of a minor in economics. That isn't to say that I totally and completely understand the ramifications of all proposals related to business and economics; no one does. That's why legislative bodies spend so much time modifying previous legislation - it hasn't worked as expected. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act, of about 1890, was our first anti-trust legislation. Since then, there have been other acts because the Sherman Act didn't work as well as hoped. This just goes to show the extreme difficulty of designing legislation to do what it is supposed to do - quite often it does not, sometimes even when the proposals have been designed and carefully examined by experts before being enacted. Sometimes legislation has the opposite effect of what was intended. Also, legislation can quickly become obsolete because of changing conditions.

You make very good points. Ok, i'll let some lobbying groups but not groups that lobby for buisinesses. Yes, they do have a right to contact representatives but I think its unfair if the people who voted for you believe something and a gas company slides you some money on the side and you vote as the gas company would want you to. As far as the tax break thing that was just a blueprint. Of course each case deserves different outcomes. At the same time last year my grandmother's taxes on her home was just $39 because as a senior citizen and a widow they understood that she couldn't pay much. This year she's making the same income and she was DENIED a tax break. In the mail today she recieve her bill. Guess how much it was? 932 dollars!!!! How the hell is she supposed to pay that? There's no way for her to report how she spends her money. If she could she would tell them she's raising her grandson and our dead beat dad owes $12,000 in back child support, she supports me going to college, She pays $3,000 every 6 months in car insurance every since I got my license at 17 (before that she paid just $1,700 for the whole year), Her car went up so he had to buy a new car and has to make the payments, gas and electric is outragous, and BP is hella high with gas. I tend to think that maybe (just maybe) they could put people before companies. Now back to the $2 dollar profit thing. Of course someone has money and decided to build an apartment complex and it cost 2 mil to build it and they made 2 mil in revenue I wouldn't expect to ask for 2 mil in taxes. I never said how much I would tax them. I would never tax 100% becuase thats just stupid. There are always explusions....it was just a blueprint

 

[mista geechee]

Poorly placed (and timed) tax cuts are a major contributor to the current situation. If it were me i would start extracting troops. Then raise taxes on oil companies. Make tougher emmisions standards. Find alternative energy. Put more money into education and attempt to establish universal healthcare.

 

[EboniGoddess]

great ideas mista geechee. We could save billions by pulling our troops out. If anyone has seen sicko there was this counrty that said they'd save their oil and let the other countries use theirs up. They foound a way to tap into RAW sewage to power their buildings and so everytime they went to the bathroom they were helping by bringing electricity to the country. Why can't our government do the same?

 

[FRE]

Poorly placed (and timed) tax cuts are a major contributor to the current situation. If it were me i would start extracting troops. Then raise taxes on oil companies. Make tougher emmisions standards. Find alternative energy. Put more money into education and attempt to establish universal healthcare.

According to some news reports, the government in Iraq is now asking us to withdraw troops, which seems to be a new development. It's too soon to tell what will happen. I wonder how many people really know what is happening there. Some of our soldiers claim that they have talked to Iraqis and know what they are thinking. However, I have my doubts. In many cultures, when you ask someone a question, he will tell you exactly what he thinks you want to hear. Anthropologists are well aware of that problem.

I don't know enough about oil companies to know whether their taxes should be raised. They might simply pass the taxes on to consumers, but that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. Our oil problems were predicted decades ago, but we did nothing. A very heavy tax on non-renuable energy sources offset with a reduction in income taxes, would provide a very powerful incentive to conserve energy.

We've permitted urban areas to develop in such a way that public transportation cannot be efficient. Often people have little choice but to drive long distances to work. Moving closer to work, when possible, is often a short-term solution because when one has to change jobs, one can end up driving even farther; it's happened to me. Before private automobiles were common, development generally occurred along public transportation lines and urban areas were more compact. Inefficient development patterns are an important cause of our energy problems, perhaps even more so than inefficient vehicles.

Years ago, I noticed that those states with the highest taxes tended to have the highest per capita incomes, and vice versa. The higher taxes enabled funding a better educational systems, and I think that that accounted for the higher income levels. So, sometimes when taxes are high, we get something for our money. Here in NM, the poverty rate is close to the highest in the nation.

Obviously our health care system fails to provide adequately for many people, a problem which we have not adequately addressed as a nation. Instead, those of us who point out the problem are called "liberal," as if name-calling would solve all problems. The word "conservative" is also used as a pejorative. If we put more effort into solving problems instead of engaging in name-calling, perhaps we'd get some place.

 

[mista geechee]

According to some news reports, the government in Iraq is now asking us to withdraw troops, which seems to be a new development. It's too soon to tell what will happen. I wonder how many people really know what is happening there. Some of our soldiers claim that they have talked to Iraqis and know what they are thinking. However, I have my doubts. In many cultures, when you ask someone a question, he will tell you exactly what he thinks you want to hear. Anthropologists are well aware of that problem.

I don't know enough about oil companies to know whether their taxes should be raised. They might simply pass the taxes on to consumers, but that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. Our oil problems were predicted decades ago, but we did nothing. A very heavy tax on non-renuable energy sources offset with a reduction in income taxes, would provide a very powerful incentive to conserve energy.

We've permitted urban areas to develop in such a way that public transportation cannot be efficient. Often people have little choice but to drive long distances to work. Moving closer to work, when possible, is often a short-term solution because when one has to change jobs, one can end up driving even farther; it's happened to me. Before private automobiles were common, development generally occurred along public transportation lines and urban areas were more compact. Inefficient development patterns are an important cause of our energy problems, perhaps even more so than inefficient vehicles.

Years ago, I noticed that those states with the highest taxes tended to have the highest per capita incomes, and vice versa. The higher taxes enabled funding a better educational systems, and I think that that accounted for the higher income levels. So, sometimes when taxes are high, we get something for our money. Here in NM, the poverty rate is close to the highest in the nation.

Obviously our health care system fails to provide adequately for many people, a problem which we have not adequately addressed as a nation. Instead, those of us who point out the problem are called "liberal," as if name-calling would solve all problems. The word "conservative" is also used as a pejorative. If we put more effort into solving problems instead of engaging in name-calling, perhaps we'd get some place.

For some reason people don't comprehend that. We're getting nothing for it now because we're in a war.

 

[FRE]

You make very good points. Ok, i'll let some lobbying groups but not groups that lobby for buisinesses. Yes, they do have a right to contact representatives but I think its unfair if the people who voted for you believe something and a gas company slides you some money on the side and you vote as the gas company would want you to. As far as the tax break thing that was just a blueprint. Of course each case deserves different outcomes. At the same time last year my grandmother's taxes on her home was just $39 because as a senior citizen and a widow they understood that she couldn't pay much. This year she's making the same income and she was DENIED a tax break. In the mail today she recieve her bill. Guess how much it was? 932 dollars!!!! How the hell is she supposed to pay that? There's no way for her to report how she spends her money. If she could she would tell them she's raising her grandson and our dead beat dad owes $12,000 in back child support, she supports me going to college, She pays $3,000 every 6 months in car insurance every since I got my license at 17 (before that she paid just $1,700 for the whole year), Her car went up so he had to buy a new car and has to make the payments, gas and electric is outragous, and BP is hella high with gas. I tend to think that maybe (just maybe) they could put people before companies. Now back to the $2 dollar profit thing. Of course someone has money and decided to build an apartment complex and it cost 2 mil to build it and they made 2 mil in revenue I wouldn't expect to ask for 2 mil in taxes. I never said how much I would tax them. I would never tax 100% becuase thats just stupid. There are always explusions....it was just a blueprint

It might be best to have a flat personal income tax, but tax only the amount over a certain minimum, perhaps of $40,000. That way, poor peope would pay no tax at all. In the case of your grandmother, probably she should be able to deduct some of those expenses.

One of the causes of poverty is our extreme dependence on private automobiles. Even people with limited incomes are often forced to own a car because of a combination of poor urban planning and poor public transportation. And, if they actually can't get a car, their job opportunities can be very limited, which makes their economic situation worse.

At one time, employers were careful to build along public transportation lines so that the employees could get to work. Now, they expect everyone to have a car, so they build in out-lying areas where land is cheap, and they do not take into consideration how much their employees have to spend to own and maintain a car to get to work.

Recently, on Charlie Rose, the CEO of J. P. Morgan Chase was a guest. He stated that the needs of poor people are not being met. In his opinion, the Democratic Party had a tendency to favor extreme regulations which would strangle the economy whereas the Republican Party tended to give large businesses everything they wanted to the detriment of individuals. In general, I agree with him. We need better balance.