Log In Sign Up

The issues and what is important to you in a candidate.


Forum: Heated Debates

Notices

Welcome to the JustMommies Message Boards.

We pride ourselves on having the friendliest and most welcoming forums for moms and moms to be! Please take a moment and register for free so you can be a part of our growing community of mothers. If you have any problems registering please drop an email to [email protected].

Our community is moderated by our moderation team so you won't see spam or offensive messages posted on our forums. Each of our message boards is hosted by JustMommies hosts, whose names are listed at the top each board. We hope you find our message boards friendly, helpful, and fun to be on!

Reply Post New Topic
  Subscribe To Heated Debates LinkBack Topic Tools Search this Topic Display Modes
  #1  
July 7th, 2008, 01:25 PM
Christy72
Guest
Posts: n/a
What are the important issues to you?

What are you looking for in a canidate for president?

This doesn't have to be a debate, just what is important to you.

I will start off. I am a conservative bordering on libertarian. I believe in smaller government and less taxes.

I want someone who will lower our taxes, not increase them. In the state of the economy right now raising taxes will be terrible for everyone.

I want the US to reduce it dependence on foreign oil by drilling here and now. I also want them to be dedicated to researching new alternatives.

I believe that the market will give us the changes we require and that the government needs to get out. For example hybrid cars, less SUV's etc. This is something that is happening due to price and will happen naturally. Also more people are more concerned about the environement and thus want more green products. Business will go where the money is.

I don't like laws that infringe on my civil liberties. An easy example is the seat belt law. If I want to be a dummy and not wear my seat belt that really should be up to me. The government has no right to tell me that I have to.

I believe in a strong national defense and believe that a border fence is a good idea.

Oh and did I mention lower taxes, lol.

I have to run for now, but I will be back later with more thoughts.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
July 7th, 2008, 04:55 PM
Christy72
Guest
Posts: n/a
Lowering taxes has been proven to increase revenue to the govnerment not lower it. Giving people back more of their money allows them to have more to spend, business have more to to hire more workers or increase pay which yields more tax revenue. Cutting spending would be a good way to balance the budget.

As for Iraq, a viable pullout plan is a good idea, but not at the expense of letting it get turned over terrorists. Sadam was pure evil and getting rid of him was a good thing. Did you hear about the rape squads.

Not with you on the seat belt thing even after your nice graphic description. I personally would choose to wear one since it is the safest, but having as a law is insane and then having cops give tickets for it is even worse. I am big on car saftey and huge when it comes to child saftey seats, etc. I just don't like the government making laws that infringe on my civil liberties. I am adult and can choose those things for myself thank you very much.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
July 8th, 2008, 08:46 AM
Jessikaylee22's Avatar Super Mommy
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Maryland
Posts: 653
Quote:
What are the important issues to you?[/b]
Like most Americans, the state of the economy is extremely important to me right now. I think that we need to find a solution to the housing crisis ASAP. I like the idea of creating incentives for lenders to refinance in to the 30 yr fixed rate mortgages. Also in extreme situations there should be some sort of fund created (paid mostly by the lenders who commited fraud) to help families avoid foreclosure.

Lowering taxes will also help, especially for the lower/middle income households who the gas/food prices are hitting the hardest. Here is an interesting link that I have found regarding each candidate and their tax proposals:
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/econo...sion=2008061115

I understand that our country is in a huge amount of debt right now but, I feel that we still need to (at least temporarily) lower taxes. I feel that the government should cut out unnecessary spening. slowly withdrawing the troops from Iraq will help.

Quote:
Before the war, White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsay estimated the cost at $100 to $200 billion. So the White House got rid of him and "re-estimated" the cost at $50 to $60 billion. It's now over $500 billion.[/b]
Source: http://zfacts.com/p/447.html

Picture if every household in the US received their Iraq war bill of $5,840 per household or $2,147 per person!

The oil crisis is a huge issue right now and is having the biggest impact on the economy. I am going to cut and paste my thoughts on this from the debate board:


Quote:
I do not believe that off shore drilling and drilling in Alaska is the solution. There is not enough oil to even put a dent in the prices that we have been seeing. It's just not worth it in my opinion especially since we would not even get any oil from the sites for 8-10 years. I am all for reducing our dependence on foreign oil but, I think that there are other solutions. Ideally I would like to see us investing money in investigating renewable sources of energy. I know that this will also be time consuming but it is not going to be a temporary fix either. In the CNN special they were talking about how Brazil now uses Sugar Cane Ethanol as 40% of their energy. All of Brazil's gas stations have the Ethanol fuel (which is obviously much cheaper) and all new cars are made with engines which can run off the fuel. Electric cars would also be something that would be worth investigating. I just feel that at some point we are going to run out of oil (maybe not in our lifetime) but, why not spend the funds to investigate other sources of energy now instead of waiting for the crisis to become worse[/b]
Quote:
Here is some interesting information regarding drilling in the ANWR

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/...il-prices.html

Attached are some quotes from the article


QUOTE
But the U.S. Energy Information Administration, an independent statistical agency within the Department of Energy, concluded that new oil from ANWR would lower the world price of oil by no more than $1.44 per barrel—and possibly have as little effect as 41 cents per barrel


Is it really worth it?


QUOTE
If Congress approved development in 2008, it would take 10 years for oil production to commence, EIA said. With production starting, then, in 2018, EIA said the most likely scenario is that oil would peak at 780,000 barrels per day in 2027 and decline to 710,000 barrels per day in 2030. Currently, the United States consumes about 20 million barrels of oil per day.


It doesn't appear to be the quick fix that everyone is looking for. I wouldn't be opposed to the idea but it just seems like its not worth it. Too little, too late.[/b]


Quote:
What are you looking for in a canidate for president?[/b]
CHANGE
__________________
<div align="center">Mommy to</span>
<span style="color:#DDA0DD">Kaylee Elizabeth 7/17/06
</div>
[/size]
Reply With Quote
  #6  
July 8th, 2008, 10:27 AM
Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Gainesville, FL
Posts: 2,306
Quote:
As for such things as the seat belt law, as long as the publicly funded ambulance crew has to scrape your guts off the street after you go through the windshield, the government has every right to require you to wear a seat belt.[/b]
The ambulance crew might get public funding, but you still get billed for the service in most cases. Plus the public-funded police department is spending time (read: tax dollars) stopping drivers without seatbelts and ticketing them. So that argument is a wash as far as I can see.

I'm pretty much on Christy's page here - but no candidate matches every item on my wish list. So I look at what a president can directly affect, and the candidate who matches me most in that area is the one I'll usually support.

For example, in social issues I'm fairly liberal. I am pro-choice until a fetus is viable to live outside the mother (with some assistance), and I support gay marriage. In that way I match more with Obama than McCain, even though McCain has supported civil unions and last I checked is against a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

But how directly can the president affect these? Sure, the next president will possibly nominate as many as 3-4 Supreme Court justices, but he is not the one who decides whether Roe v. Wade is overturned. First the nominees have to get approved by Congress. Then the case has to be brought through all of the channels and eventually get to the court. Then the court has to rule - and while the president has nominated the justices, he's not the one who makes the final decision. In other words, it's a fairly roundabout way that he affects this issue - so it doesn't take as high a priority for me.

Conversely, I'm more conservative in economic and foreign policy issues - which matches me much better with McCain. These are far more directly affected by the president, especially foreign policy. An economy goes through natural cycles of good and bad times, but I don't think federal intervention should be the primary "weapon" in tougher years (i.e. universal health care). And while I think going into Iraq was a mistake, I don't think we should start leaving now. A president has a direct hand in issues like these, so I consider them more important in a general election.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
July 8th, 2008, 12:35 PM
Christy72
Guest
Posts: n/a
Quote:
CHANGE [/b]
So I guess we can all guess who you are voting for then, lol.


Quote:
[http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/econo...sion=2008061115[/url][/b]
I read this article. What if find interesting in Obama's plan is the increase in the earned income tax "credit". What you need to understand about this, is this isn't a credit. You can't credit taxes that you didn't actually pay in the first place. This is welfare and redistribution of wealth at it's finest.

Quote:
Quote:
As for such things as the seat belt law, as long as the publicly funded ambulance crew has to scrape your guts off the street after you go through the windshield, the government has every right to require you to wear a seat belt.[/b]
The ambulance crew might get public funding, but you still get billed for the service in most cases. Plus the public-funded police department is spending time (read: tax dollars) stopping drivers without seatbelts and ticketing them. So that argument is a wash as far as I can see.

I'm pretty much on Christy's page here - but no candidate matches every item on my wish list. So I look at what a president can directly affect, and the candidate who matches me most in that area is the one I'll usually support.

[/b]
Exactly!

Quote:
For example, in social issues I'm fairly liberal. I am pro-choice until a fetus is viable to live outside the mother (with some assistance), and I support gay marriage. In that way I match more with Obama than McCain, even though McCain has supported civil unions and last I checked is against a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

But how directly can the president affect these? Sure, the next president will possibly nominate as many as 3-4 Supreme Court justices, but he is not the one who decides whether Roe v. Wade is overturned. First the nominees have to get approved by Congress. Then the case has to be brought through all of the channels and eventually get to the court. Then the court has to rule - and while the president has nominated the justices, he's not the one who makes the final decision. In other words, it's a fairly roundabout way that he affects this issue - so it doesn't take as high a priority for me.

Conversely, I'm more conservative in economic and foreign policy issues - which matches me much better with McCain. These are far more directly affected by the president, especially foreign policy. An economy goes through natural cycles of good and bad times, but I don't think federal intervention should be the primary "weapon" in tougher years (i.e. universal health care). And while I think going into Iraq was a mistake, I don't think we should start leaving now. A president has a direct hand in issues like these, so I consider them more important in a general election.[/b]
So you are pretty much a libertarian then, lol.

there isn't a candidate that matches my beliefs 100% either. Though McCain matches much better than Obama.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
July 8th, 2008, 08:33 PM
Jessikaylee22's Avatar Super Mommy
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Maryland
Posts: 653
Quote:
QUOTE(jessikaylee22 @ Jul 8 2008, 09:46 AM)
[http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/econo...sion=2008061115[/url]


I read this article. What if find interesting in Obama's plan is the increase in the earned income tax "credit". What you need to understand about this, is this isn't a credit. You can't credit taxes that you didn't actually pay in the first place. This is welfare and redistribution of wealth at it's finest[/b]
I am guessing that you are referring to this excerpt:

Quote:
Obama would also introduce new tax breaks for lower and middle-income groups. Such breaks include expanding the earned income tax credit, giving those making less than $150,000 a $500 tax credit per person on the first $8,100 in income, giving those making under $75,000 a 50% federal match on the first $1,000 of savings, and exempting seniors making less than $50,000 from having to pay income tax.[/b]
I agree that this is a redistrubition of wealth. I wouldn't quite call it "welfare" as you can make up to 37k and still qualify. This "redistribution of wealth" keeps people OFF of welfare! There are families (especially single parents) struggling to survive day to day. For these people that are making extremely low wages and paying daycare it almost makes more sense for them (financially) to just stay home and collect welfare. This tax credit is an incentive NOT to do that. These people are the working poor and if they are holding down a job they will most likely move up in their jobs/careers and eventually no longer qualify for this credit :-)

I guess I look at the earned income credit as a very positive thing, especially in todays struggling economy. The cost of gas/food has impacted the lower/middle class the most. The lower/middle class make up a huge amount of our overall population and when they are struggling..they aren't spending, which worsens the economy further.

I noticed a lot of people on this board are for lower taxes. I would also guess that the majority of those on this board (and American's in general) make under 250k. That is the only income bracket that would receive tax increases under Obama's plan. I really would like to encourage everyone to review the link that I had listed above as it gives a simple breakdown of how each candidate would affect your tax bill. Obviously that is not the only important issue but, I think its important for everyone to understand how who they vote for is going to impact their lives/finances directly.

Edited for spelling errors
__________________
<div align="center">Mommy to</span>
<span style="color:#DDA0DD">Kaylee Elizabeth 7/17/06
</div>
[/size]
Reply With Quote
  #9  
July 9th, 2008, 08:35 AM
Christy72
Guest
Posts: n/a
Quote:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE
Quote:
QUOTE(jessikaylee22 @ Jul 8 2008, 09:46 AM)
[http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/econo...sion=2008061115[/url]


I read this article. What if find interesting in Obama's plan is the increase in the earned income tax "credit". What you need to understand about this, is this isn't a credit. You can't credit taxes that you didn't actually pay in the first place. This is welfare and redistribution of wealth at it's finest[/b]
I am guessing that you are referring to this excerpt:

Quote:
Obama would also introduce new tax breaks for lower and middle-income groups. Such breaks include expanding the earned income tax credit, giving those making less than $150,000 a $500 tax credit per person on the first $8,100 in income, giving those making under $75,000 a 50% federal match on the first $1,000 of savings, and exempting seniors making less than $50,000 from having to pay income tax.[/b]
I agree that this is a redistrubition of wealth. I wouldn't quite call it "welfare" as you can make up to 37k and still qualify. This "redistribution of wealth" keeps people OFF of welfare! There are families (especially single parents) struggling to survive day to day. For these people that are making extremely low wages and paying daycare it almost makes more sense for them (financially) to just stay home and collect welfare. This tax credit is an incentive NOT to do that. These people are the working poor and if they are holding down a job they will most likely move up in their jobs/careers and eventually no longer qualify for this credit :-)

I guess I look at the earned income credit as a very positive thing, especially in todays struggling economy. The cost of gas/food has impacted the lower/middle class the most. The lower/middle class make up a huge amount of our overall population and when they are struggling..they aren't spending, which worsens the economy further.

I noticed a lot of people on this board are for lower taxes. I would also guess that the majority of those on this board (and American's in general) make under 250k. That is the only income bracket that would receive tax increases under Obama's plan. I really would like to encourage everyone to review the link that I had listed above as it gives a simple breakdown of how each candidate would affect your tax bill. Obviously that is not the only important issue but, I think its important for everyone to understand how who they vote for is going to impact their lives/finances directly.

Edited for spelling errors
[/b][/quote]

I know that it can help some people. The problem is that I have seen is abused by many many people. But I don't see how you can't call it welfare. It is giving people money that they did not earn. I guess my post wasn't very clear. I don't think it is necessarily bad, but I don't believe it needs to be raised. My dh's ex-wife gets the earned income tax credit with one child and and effective income of $48K after child support. How is that even remotely right? She isn't even close to poverty level. I think that money needs to go to those that really need it. As for the tax cuts, what I don't like about Obama's plan is the raising of the taxes for those in the higher tax brackets. They already pay a lions share of the taxes and since the system is a graduated system they already pay a higher percentage than you and I and no we are not in that over 250k range that you are speaking of. Personally I would like to see either a flat tax or a consumption tax and an overhauled tax code that doesn't allow for loopholes or way to get of paying taxes. I this is going to anger some of you and you are going to think I am cold and unfeeling, but I am not. I just don't believe in the idea of the government run welfare system as it is today. Of course I don't think people should be pushed out on the street or not be able to eat. Of course I think those type of people need to be helped. My issue is more with the evening the pot mentality that seems to be so prevelant in government right now. That is a socialist mentality and that has never worked. No where it has been tried. You kill peoples desire to work hard and achieve. I believe that America can be a great country. I believe that the government really needs to get out of the way and let it happen.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
July 9th, 2008, 09:43 AM
Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Gainesville, FL
Posts: 2,306
Quote:
So you are pretty much a libertarian then, lol.[/b]
Hee... like you, I lean libertarian. But if you look at the official party platform, I don't agree with their foreign policy (i.e. immediate withdrawl from Iraq). I look at the Lib candidates each year, but they're always too extreme in their views for my taste.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
July 9th, 2008, 11:40 AM
Jessikaylee22's Avatar Super Mommy
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Maryland
Posts: 653
Quote:
But I don't see how you can't call it welfare. It is giving people money that they did not earn.[/b]
Then I guess under your definition people who inherit money, who get scholarships, win the lottery ect are receiving welfare too???

Quote:
I know that it can help some people. The problem is that I have seen is abused by many many people.[/b]
I am not sure if I understand how it can be abused? To QUALIFY for this credit you have obviously have to be working hence the term "Earned Income Credit". Its not like people can be not working and living off of the credit KWIM?

Quote:
I guess my post wasn't very clear. I don't think it is necessarily bad[/b]
I apologize if I misunderstood your last post but, when you call it welfare and then go in to a whole essay about how terrible welfare is in the post...it still makes it seem like you miiight think that its bad

Quote:
I just don't believe in the idea of the government run welfare system as it is today. Of course I don't think people should be pushed out on the street or not be able to eat. Of course I think those type of people need to be helped.[/b]
I know the topic of welfare is a popular one when discussing politics. But, I believe that there are a lot of misconceptions regarding welfare programs and how much of our National Budget actually is spent on it. I would encourage everyone to take a look at this article http://www.apa.org/pi/wpo/myths.html

Here is an excerpt from that article

Quote:
Myth: A Huge Chunk of My Tax Dollars Supports Welfare Recipients

Fact: Welfare Costs 1 Percent of the Federal Budget

Widespread misperception about the extent of welfare exacerbate the problems of poverty. The actual cost of welfare programs-about 1 percent of the federal budget and 2 percent of state budgets (McLaughlin, 1997)-is proportionally less than generally believed.[/b]

Quote:
I believe that America can be a great country. I believe that the government really needs to get out of the way and let it happen.[/b]
I believe that America IS a great country. But I also believe that our Country is only as good as the lowest rung on the social ladder. If we want a better stronger Country and Society, we need to help those that are NOT making it. Even the ones who are not working and living off of actual welfare. We need to take a look at the underlying issues such as lack of education, drug abuse and mental illness. We need to try and fix the underlying factors to prevent them from becoming generational problems which they tend to do.

Quote:
You kill peoples desire to work hard and achieve.[/b]
Again, the earned income credit is for people that WORK. Alot of these people work and they work hard. I think that it is a shame that there are hard working people in this country who still do not make enough money to survive. In most other developed countries people are able to survive by working hard no matter what the job/career. Here income vs. living expenses are off balance. I am not saying that everyone should be able to work at McDonalds, support 3 kids and live comfortably BUT-they should be able to survive.


Quote:
As for the tax cuts, what I don't like about Obama's plan is the raising of the taxes for those in the higher tax brackets. They already pay a lions share of the taxes and since the system is a graduated system they already pay a higher percentage than you and I and no we are not in that over 250k range that you are speaking of. Personally I would like to see either a flat tax or a consumption tax and an overhauled tax code that doesn't allow for loopholes or way to get of paying taxes.[/b]
They SHOULD pay the lions share of the taxes. I'm not sure if you have noticed but, the middle class seems to be dissapearing these days. The wealthy are getting wealthier while the middle class are barely hanging on. I noted that one of your big concerns is the economy, when the middle/lower class isn't thriving it impacts our economy SIGNIFICANTLY. There is no WAY that having a flat or consumption tax would HELP our economy during this time or EVER.
__________________
<div align="center">Mommy to</span>
<span style="color:#DDA0DD">Kaylee Elizabeth 7/17/06
</div>
[/size]
Reply With Quote
  #13  
July 9th, 2008, 05:30 PM
LadyCoconut's Avatar Platinum Supermommy
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Georgia
Posts: 35,234
Quote:
There is no WAY that having a flat or consumption tax would HELP our economy during this time or EVER.[/b]
Do you know anything about the Fair Tax?
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #14  
July 9th, 2008, 08:57 PM
Jessikaylee22's Avatar Super Mommy
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Maryland
Posts: 653
Quote:
There is no WAY that having a flat or consumption tax would HELP our economy during this time or EVER.


Do you know anything about the Fair Tax?[/b]
I do and I think it should be called unfair tax (of course) This idea is so extreme and unrealistic that even my conservative friends are against it.

The poor and the middle class must spend a much greater percentage of their earnings on necessities, and they would be taxed for everything at a rate around 25%. Even IF necessities were exempt who is to decide what is and isn't a necessity? How would the government predict how much people would actually spend and how much in taxes they would receive? The wealthy would most likely spend LESS on non necessities. When the economy is bad and everyone is trying to save money and penny pinch, they would purchase even LESS non necessities and we would run an even bigger deficit.

Not to mention the fact that it would open the doors to a black market of ALL products/goods...

It's just a horrible and unrealistic idea period..
__________________
<div align="center">Mommy to</span>
<span style="color:#DDA0DD">Kaylee Elizabeth 7/17/06
</div>
[/size]
Reply With Quote
  #15  
July 9th, 2008, 09:09 PM
LadyCoconut's Avatar Platinum Supermommy
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Georgia
Posts: 35,234
Quote:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE
Quote:
There is no WAY that having a flat or consumption tax would HELP our economy during this time or EVER.


Do you know anything about the Fair Tax?[/b]
I do and I think it should be called unfair tax (of course) This idea is so extreme and unrealistic that even my conservative friends are against it.

The poor and the middle class must spend a much greater percentage of their earnings on necessities, and they would be taxed for everything at a rate around 25%. Even IF necessities were exempt who is to decide what is and isn't a necessity? How would the government predict how much people would actually spend and how much in taxes they would receive? The wealthy would most likely spend LESS on non necessities. When the economy is bad and everyone is trying to save money and penny pinch, they would purchase even LESS non necessities and we would run an even bigger deficit.

Not to mention the fact that it would open the doors to a black market of ALL products/goods...

It's just a horrible and unrealistic idea period..
[/b][/quote]

It sounds to me like you aren't educated on the subject. First of all, I think if we were already living with the Fairtax and someone tried to introduce our current tax system... everyone would think it was absolutely INSANE. Further, I don't know what your statement about "even my conservative friends are against it" has anything to do with anything, considering its a bipartisan plan.

Everyone would be paying the same amount they currently are for goods, and would be paying nothing in taxes if they truly only purchased the necessities. Each month you would receive a prebate check that would cover the 'necessities' based on that year's poverty level. It would be ridiculous for the government to try to predict what is deemed a necessity, considering the rich would obviously spend more (30k on catering, etc.) than the poor. It's really the best thing that could happen to the poor, because if they really don't have $ for more than necessities, they wouldn't be paying taxes at all. Not to mention it would be the biggest boost to our economy ever, considering the US would be a safehaven for all companies not having to pay tax. All our companies and jobs would come back from overseas, plus some.

and opening the doors to a black market on everything you buy? that's pretty extreme! how about bringing in taxes for strippers, drug dealers, hookers, illegals, tourists or ANYONE who spends $ in our country.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #16  
July 9th, 2008, 10:15 PM
Jessikaylee22's Avatar Super Mommy
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Maryland
Posts: 653
Quote:
Everyone would be paying the same amount they currently are for goods, and would be paying nothing in taxes if they truly only purchased the necessities. Each month you would receive a prebate check that would cover the 'necessities' based on that year's poverty level.[/b]
I've heard about the possibility of "prebate checks" (mainly in Huckabee's fair tax plan...) and think that idea is also ridiculous...It cost the U.S. Treasury $300 million this year just to send out the economic stimulus money... And the FairTax would send out checks on a monthly basis?

Quote:
It would be ridiculous for the government to try to predict what is deemed a necessity,[/b]
It would be insane for the government to determine how much each person/family SHOULD spend on necessities! Additionally, the necessities people need vary month to month..some months they would need a prescription, some months new shoe, another month an expensive car repair ect. For poor people who are already living pay check to paycheck an unexpected prescription and car breakdown (in the same month) being taxed 23% would make life impossible! I make okay money but I pay $265 a week in daycare..if the government determined childcare wasn't a necessity and taxed it 23%..I would have to consider quitting my job! Which brings me to the middle class who wouldn't even be receiving one of those fun little prebates?

Right now the majority of our taxes are being paid by the wealthy, who only make up a very small amount of our population. Even considering the fact that they spend more on non necessities then the rest of America, they still will be receiving a HUGE tax cut. Who is going to make up the difference? EVERYONE ELSE as in the middle/lower class. The idea is not only unrealistic..its just plain silly...and never going to happen anyway.

Now as far other impacts on the economy..Alot of wealthy people would curb (at least some) of their unnecessary spending and use the new system as an incentive to save their money. The middle class who again aren't receiving "prebates" will be suffering even further then they are now...and they will defnetly not be spending. Demand for "throw away" products would go down, demand for higher quality products would go up. Since people would be taxed based on sale they would want to buy a more expensive quality product that will last..which would curb both both production and sales..worsening the economy even further.


Quote:
and opening the doors to a black market on everything you buy? that's pretty extreme![/b]
No it is realistic! People smuggle TOBACCO products (mainly ciggerates) to sell them to people who want to avoid the ciggerate tax!! If EVERYTHING was taxed that high...there would definetly be a black market for everything!!
__________________
<div align="center">Mommy to</span>
<span style="color:#DDA0DD">Kaylee Elizabeth 7/17/06
</div>
[/size]
Reply With Quote
  #17  
July 9th, 2008, 10:28 PM
LadyCoconut's Avatar Platinum Supermommy
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Georgia
Posts: 35,234
I'm sorry, but it couldn't be more evident that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. First of all, this is not "Huckabee's fair tax plan" ... this is a bipartisan plan that has been researched more than ANY other tax plan... over $22 million dollars has been put into the research for it. The government has found efficient and effective ways of getting people their welfare money each month... and the same will be done for the prebate checks. Which, by the way, *everyone* gets ... not just the poor. The problem with the fairtax is that it's easy for people who don't understand to demagogue. There are already embedded taxes in everything you buy. Companies just pass them down to the consumer in the price. When you take away those taxes, the prices of goods will drop, and then you add in the 23% consumption tax, and all that researched I talked about before shows that the prices will remain where they are now. You really aren't going to be paying an EXTRA 23%.

*anyway* Christy, I'm sorry to have threadjacked.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #18  
July 9th, 2008, 10:50 PM
Jessikaylee22's Avatar Super Mommy
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Maryland
Posts: 653
Quote:
I'm sorry, but it couldn't be more evident that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. First of all, this is not "Huckabee's fair tax plan" ... this is a bipartisan plan that has been researched more than ANY other tax plan... over $22 million dollars has been put into the research for it.[/b]
I never said that "fair tax" was something that Huckabee came up with , I had just never heard of the prebate checks until I researched Huckabee's plan. Even if you are more educated on the subject there is no getting around the fact that imposing taxes like this will ultimately hurt the lower/middle class.

I find it interesting that you can't respond/debate anything else in my post above except the fact that Huckabee didn't create "fair tax" .

If everything (including necessities) is going to decrease 23% what is the point of the prebate checks???

I would love for you to address the question bolded below..

Quote:
Right now the majority of our taxes are being paid by the wealthy, who only make up a very small amount of our population. Even considering the fact that they spend more on non necessities then the rest of America, they still will be receiving a HUGE tax cut. Who is going to make up the difference? EVERYONE ELSE as in the middle/lower class. The idea is not only unrealistic..its just plain silly...and never going to happen anyway.[/b]
__________________
<div align="center">Mommy to</span>
<span style="color:#DDA0DD">Kaylee Elizabeth 7/17/06
</div>
[/size]
Reply With Quote
  #19  
July 10th, 2008, 09:06 AM
Christy72
Guest
Posts: n/a
Quote:
"Socialism" means government ownership and operation of the means of production. Public assistance, whether in the form of welfare, earned income credit, etc. is at best a social-democratic measure, well within the traditions of ordinary Western liberalism.[/b]
I do not believe we are currently in a socialist system, but I do believe that we are heading there. Public assistance should be short term and for those who really need it. Wefare should never be a lifestyle.


Quote:
I'm sorry, but it couldn't be more evident that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. First of all, this is not "Huckabee's fair tax plan" ... this is a bipartisan plan that has been researched more than ANY other tax plan... over $22 million dollars has been put into the research for it. The government has found efficient and effective ways of getting people their welfare money each month... and the same will be done for the prebate checks. Which, by the way, *everyone* gets ... not just the poor. The problem with the fairtax is that it's easy for people who don't understand to demagogue. There are already embedded taxes in everything you buy. Companies just pass them down to the consumer in the price. When you take away those taxes, the prices of goods will drop, and then you add in the 23% consumption tax, and all that researched I talked about before shows that the prices will remain where they are now. You really aren't going to be paying an EXTRA 23%.

*anyway* Christy, I'm sorry to have threadjacked.[/b]
No need at all to appologize. I am finding this all rather interesting!
Reply With Quote
  #20  
July 10th, 2008, 09:14 AM
Christy72
Guest
Posts: n/a
What you all need to realize is that I am also a member of the seemingly disappearing middle class. I have to pay over $1600 a month in child care. My dh and I also live paycheck to paycheck. When we got married we were killed with taxes. Just getting married just killed us. I do NOT like the graduated tax system and to look at Obama's plan makes me cringe. The rich pay the lionshare of taxes because it already is a graduated system and it is % based. 20% of 100K is way more than 20% of 25K. Even if they pay the same percentage. BUT then you have to pay even more because as you make more the % goes up. If you include all the taxes we pay including sales tax, real estate taxes etc we are paying more than 50% of income in taxes. Well of course not everyone. Just those of us who actually pay taxes. Of course I don't think the lottery or inheritance is welfare that is crazy, but giving tax dollars to people because of how much they earn even if they didn't pay that much in taxes, I am sorry that is. They are getting a check solely on the fact of their income. Regardless it doesn't matter if it is welfare or not. I do believe that this fair tax idea has some merit. The tax system as it is crap. People can jump through loopholes and hide money. Of course not me and my family, but I digress.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Topic Tools Search this Topic
Search this Topic:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:04 AM.