FYI- the last comment in here was on the 19th. What I write below is barely catching up through September 15th on Page 3 of this thread, but I'm on campus and need to be getting to other things.

"I can't understand why individuals like myself and others that actually worked ourselves to death literally should be punished for our success by giving our hard earned money to people that weren't as ambitious..." What the hell? That's a ridiculous generalization and you know it. Come on. You know better.

No, it’s not. If your income is X and you pay percentage Y in taxes but an income of 2X would cost a percentage (note, that’s percentage, call Y 20, meaning 20% of X) of 2Y (following the theoretical, this would be 40, or 40% of 2X), this is assessing a higher tax on higher incomes. Why? Justify taking a higher cut of taxes just because of a higher income. That’s punishing someone for success. At a flat tax rate, higher incomes would already pay more in actual dollars, so why arbitrarily hit them with a higher rate just because you can?

What I do know is that the past 8 years hasn't been working, and while we all know the outcome of Obama's possible win this November will *not* be outright socialism, it's obvious we're needing something different and better.

Now who’s generalizing? And how do you define “outright socialism”? We’ve been accepting creeping increments of socialism for years but few will call it that.

Under Obama, my taxes would likely be about the same. But I am not the type to whine about taxes anyway. If we were a society that truly looked out for each other, made sure that everyone would be fed and nobody would sleep on the streets; if we honestly cared to make parks and roads and schools and libraries that were free to all, then we wouldn't need taxes. But since we are, on the whole, fairly selfish people who don't like to share, I understand how the government has to step in like a parent and FORCE us to help each other. Taxes are NOT our enemy. Higher taxes mean a better life for everyone. I shudder to imagine a world without taxes. All the houses and cars would be bigger and better, but the rest of the city would be in ruins. No more education, roads would become undriveable, zoo animals would die, parks would become wildlands... I really think we need to get out of the mindset that taxes are wrong, and start seeing them as necessary and good for the country. (Yeah, I know, I am the only weirdo who thinks this!)

Go ahead and like taxes; Like paying them; Like paying more. That’s the beauty of having the freedom of choice. But what right do you have to take the rest of us along with you?

Government IS force. That’s why we limit the ability of government. As government power increases, individual freedom decreases. Do you have the right to make your neighbor buy a certain car, or tell him what church to go to? If not, then what right do you have to tell him how to raise his kids or what to do with his money? What you’re doing is saying you know better for everyone and want to use the force of government to make them see it your way.

As for higher taxes making life better; first, that depends on your view of “better”; second, the majority of economists would disagree and say that higher taxes makes life worse, economically speaking. If you tax or regulate something, you get less of it, not more. Read some Milton Friedman, Friedrich von Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, etc. Just because you want things to be one way doesn’t mean they should be that way or that you can insist on them. Either you recognize basic, inviolate rights of the individual, or you don’t. You can’t say you do and then willingly suppress them when they get in the way of what you want.

Secondly - which way do you want it - in one breath, you admit to the rich being able to escape taxes through a variety of means, thus obamas taxes would only hurt people like you. In the next breath, he's going to stifle the economy with the taxes on the rich - so which is it - are they going to be able to dodge them or not?

That’s not what she said at all. Are you referring to a far earlier post?

The payroll taxes Obama has proposed address the fact that certain taxes (while a percentage) are capped. So how it is unfair that people making a lot of money pay the same share, per extra dollar, that anyone else would?
You’re making it sound like Obama favors a flat tax system, yet I’ve never heard it stated that way. Also, a flat tax isn’t the same as cutting taxes for the “middle class” while raising taxes for the “rich”. If he’s going to apply the same percentage to everyone, no one should be saying one will go up while another goes down unless it’s the “rich” (whose are higher) go down and the “middle class” (whose are lower) go up and they meet in the middle. The lower going down and the upper going up does not meet on common ground.

The Republican standard tax cuts target the very rich, period. Some may trickle down, some may not. But capital gains tax cuts, etc, are huge gains for the very wealthy.

Nice rhetoric. Back it up.

Now you bring up a "Fair Tax", which I assume to be what is on sites like http://www.fairtax.org .
An interesting idea, but not sure how it would end up working out. Its basically a national sales tax, and a 'prebate' that basically compensates for a certain level of spending, which would theoretically result those at poverty level not paying taxes.
Why hasn't this been instituted? Because it would effectively result in a giant tax on corporations by removing all their business writeoffs. Aka - it would be viewed as one of the largest tax hikes in history, especially on business. Yet, if a democratic candidate tries to do that same thing, under the existing system - they are stifling our economy and leading us to ruin.
Which is it?

The FairTax doesn’t work by amending the current system. That’s the point. The current system is the problem. Which Democrats support the FairTax? The FairTax was before Congress in 2005. You’re right about why it didn’t get implemented, but your partisan bias is showing to claim Democrats even support it much less would get attacked for doing so.
In 2005 it was just Republicans supporting the FairTax and it died in the Finance committee.
It was actually re-introduced in 2007 but never got beyond the Finance committee. 1 sponsor, 4 co-sponsors, all Republican. Here’s who’s on that committee: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Finance_Committee#Members.2C_110th_C...
Btw- the “Fair and Simple Tax Act of 2008” is not the same thing, in case you were wondering.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html
So, people who earn over 3 million and, take home, say, 2.7 million, would basically see their take-home, their net, go up to 3 million under McCain or down to 2 million under Obama. Just think how much actual money that would be that can be circulating and spent or invested instead of just swallowed by the government.
And if you argue by percentage change (not actual tax percentages, mind you), McCain does more for everyone making $112K or more and the difference in the 67 to 112 range is minimal, so, ultimately, Obama's plan "benefits" people who, as a family, earn under $67K a year while simultaneously punishing the top earners for being successful. It's class warfare and nothing but.

Suzanne - Just heard on the Sarah Palin interview...she said that her ex brother in law wasn't in fact fired and is still a state trooper.

As per the emails, the original list of the emails they were reviewing, as they showed on CNN, was a print out showing who sent the email & to whom the email was for, along with the subject line. That much was known about the emails and that's why they know her husband was CC'd. Many of the actual 1100 emails not being turned over have subject lines that may pertain to the situation in question.

What would happen to most of us common citizens if we refused to testify under subpoena? If Palin has nothing to hide why don't witnesses testify and get this over with before the election. And... if she has nothing to hide, shouldn't it help the Palin/McCain ticket (oops, I mean the McCain/Palin ticket..lol)???

Eva, please accept my apologies on behalf of your friends at CNN. I was attempting to keep my list fair and balanced.... ;]

Yara, thank you so much for posting your friend Jill's experience. I think a candidate's behavior off-camera can sometimes be more compelling than any speech or campaign ad. And yes, it's interesting that the station's coverage cut away from Senator Obama's speech. Seems eerily similar to the Homeland Security Threat Level's elevation every time Bush's popularity dropped, non-Republicans were gaining ground in elections, or people were criticizing his and his administration's actions. I think a good way to express your disapproval would be to call or write the network. It may not listen, but at least you tried.

Ideas, it's just another example of her philosophy, that the rules that apply to everyone else do not apply to her. And why should she feel any differently? She is cut of the same cloth as W, Rove, Rumsfeld, and Cheney: righteous justification for any behavior or policy need go no farther than "it's a matter of national security." Hey, if the same strategy has worked over and over again the past, why change the play? Unfortunately for the neocon oligarchy, ordinary Americans are starting to figure out that ignorance is not bliss.

We have to keep asking questions, keep checking facts, and demand straight answers. And that applies to both sides of the aisle.

Ani

For a little perspective, in most corporate security courses, the first thing you are told is - email is NOT private. Nor should you have any expectation that it would be so. Anything that is truly sensitive in nature is recommended to NOT be communicated via email. Its just too fraught with security issues.

I do have a question, however. In my eyes, Palins one legitimate claim is that she sought out corruption in her party. But now, when the tables are turned, shes going to refuse to testify, her staff is going to refuse to testify, and her husband is going to refuse. Wow - that sounds like the exact opposite of what she claims to be, and it screams 'I have something to hide'.

Of course, in this country, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and you don't have to self incriminate. Yet if anyone had stood in Ms. Palin's way when she was the one brandishing the investigation, you got run over. She may have done nothing. But if thats really the case, why in the world would she not be eager to prove that? It would be total mud on the face of your adversaries. Instead, she is hiding behind excuses. This investigation of her began BEFORE she was a VP candidate. Why should she get to side-step it merely because she later became a candidate. And what could possibly be a national security risk in that info? If she put information like that in emails - she should be tried for divulging state secrets.

Papa S.,

That link disease you had a few days ago is contagious. :)

http://www.kansascity.com/276/story/798439.html

Carolyn

May I plead to not kill the messenger (or the supposed messenger) ;)

Leanne, sorry I misspoke about who posted the link, and that you've had a bad week. I hope it gets better :)

EZEZ
Suzanne Olden

"Looks like"..."may have"...I haven't read them either, but the site you posted showed screenshots of inbox lists. So are we overlooking the invasion of her privacy and making assumptions based on a list of emails? And given your logic, it would be okay to hack into Obama's email since he was the attorney for Acorn, an organization that has been prosecuted for, among other things, election fraud. No. No one should be subject to that kind of invasion of privacy. And btw, if they haven't been turned over, how do you know she cc'd her husband? Another round of conjecture???

As for the firing of her ex-brother-in-law - he was fired because he used to beat the crap out of her sister. I'd fire him too.

EZEZ
Suzanne Olden

I'm not sure it's immaterial if the rules of your job, as GOVERNOR or MAYOR, stipulate that you may not do state business via private email... If she's willing to 'overlook' that rule, what other rules might she be willing to 'overlook'?
But yes, hacking her email account is indeed a felony, and whoever did it should be punished to the full extent of the law. Absolutely.

...hm. That is a little telling isn't it... Why should she be using a private email account to handle state business. You know, you look at how much they're fighting to keep those 1100 "official" emails private, and then you see this? So much for transparency... Not that there could be any reason at *all* why McCain's lawyer would be trying to shut down her investigation...

Yara ~ I was trying to watch some speeches yesterday too! But we kept getting interrupted for those special reports/alerts due to the financial state of the nation on Wall Street, and bailing out insurance group AIG for how many BILLIONS???? Now, if only our policies could help homeowners from losing the roof over our heads. Hmmmmm... And no, your right, the news did not go back to the speeches.

As for taxes, there's LOTS I can say on the subject.

The reason why people like myself must question fair usage of our taxes is NOT because we have no feeling towards the impoverished, the ill, and elderly. We have MORE than what we're given credit for. But in my state, when you see the amount of FRAUD in welfare/food stamp/social security/ disaster relief? You'd get pretty sick of handing over up to 30% of your income too. When you leave your home, you lock your house right? Your car doors? Of course! It's YOURS! You worked for it, and no thief is entitled to strip you of if it. Those who abuse the system are the same difference.

Member Parlance said there are many people who must pull up their bootstraps, but have no boots to pull up in the first place. And he/she is right (I'm sorry Parlence, I do not know if you are a man or woman, sorry!). There ARE people in TRUE need of assistance, and should be getting it. But we have GOT to get through an entire sea of fraudulent and careless applicants, just to get to those who honest to God NEED our support.

If I had some sort of choice, the most needy of our nation would be getting a hell of a lot more than what they’re getting now. That could be ME, or YOU one day. But for the fraudulent? They are no different than thieving fools who will take your kindness as a weakness, and will do so with a smile on their face. Meanwhile, the working class (the working poor we are becoming), still work our jobs, follow the law, and try to raise our children in a healthy manner despite this damned economy.

And speaking of breaking the law, I am really sick of "Chester the Child Molester/Meth Lab Entrepreneur having a shiny new set of dentures or partial bridge waiting for him in the meds department of the penitentiary (Dental work paid for by yours truly, by the way) While families such as my husband and I must delay our own childrens pain to skim off the top of our wages just to cover our daughters wisdom teeth surgery. No kid should ever have to break the law just to get decent medical/dental coverage.

My work's been absolutely busy here so I haven't been here for a few days and wow there are so many posts now! My friend Jill who lives in Grand Junction Colorado had the opportunity to be 7th in line and up close at Barack Obama's public speaking engagement there. She said her husband and his parents who were 'undecided' voters went and could truly feel the authenticity of his speech. It was better than they had expected. They had been standing by a WWII veteran in the audience who was discussing that many of his crucial health care benefits were cut/reduced and he was hoping that Obama would help if he's elected. After the speech when Obama was leaving and shaking hands, my friend Jill and her mom shook Obama's hand and said he should really hear the story of this WWII Veteran who was by them. Obama stopped and spoke with the man and knew exactly which section of his benefits were cut and obviously was familiar with the situation. He advised the vet that if he's in office this situation would be fixed and he wouldn't have to suffer with health issues that should be treated. The man just started bawling with 'hope'. My friend Jill said that Obama was so 'real' when speaking with them and the veteran and truly paid attention even in the midst of the crowd. It was nice to hear. Just thought I'd share this!!

After McCain's Orlando town hall meeting was shown in full on tv that Monday morning, the station announced that they would televise Obama's speech in Grand Junction, Colorado. After maybe a minute or two of Obama speaking, it went to a strangely coincidental White House Press conference with Paulson talking about the financial markets issues. The station never went back to televising Obama's speech. The timing of the Special Bulletin Press Conference was surely planned just right by the White House. There's definitely an election fight with desperate tactics going by the Repubs.

Please help get people to sign up to vote and make calls to remind people to vote!!! This is a crucial election as we all apparently know here =) I'm my neighborhood Precinct committee member here and there are lots & lots of volunteer opportunities. Just call your Party office and ask!!! This has been a public service announcement.... just getting tired by the end of the night here!

Ani,

I'm with you! I am really, really looking forward to these debates. All of them, but especially the one on 10/02.

I have a feeling that all of the cards are going to be laid out on the table, and America will be able to see both hands, and be able to see who is bluffing and has no idea how to play the game. I'm anticipating some evasion and double-speak will happen, but hopefully people will listen and see through it.

Should be very, very interesting!

Carolyn