Obama Kicks Hillary's Ass

[Jenny_Jackson]

If anyone watched Meet the Press last Sunday you got the real story. The right-wing Neo-Cons are pushing hard for an Obama/McCain race. They know they can't beat the Clinton Machine, so Obama is their only hope to hang onto the Presidency.

I watched in horror for more than half the program waiting for the other shoe to drop. Finally it did. The Republican Party is already planning their Obama/Raghead, Obama/Idiot, Obama/N***er campaign. This is something that Obama has brought on himself if you look back. He's the one who screamed "RACIST!" when Bill called his voting record a "fairy tail" and screamed "RACIST" again when Hilary pointed out that LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act into law and Martin Luther King, though he was insturmental in forming the Act, could not have made it law.

If anyone is continuously playing the race card, it's Obama, not either of the Clintons. Obama, oddly enough, wins in states with large populations of blacks (Virginia, Alabama, Georgia) and has Caucuses with a heavy black membership, not popular elections. He's their guy.

He has won some states (Washington, for instance) which has a heavy youth vote, but they tend to not vote in general elections. Teddy Kennedy et all, didn't help him at all in Mass. Oprah is shoveling money to his campaign, but I don't have much respect for her, anyway. Her only interest is seeing a black President. I could be some felony-ridden rapist as far as she's concerned as long as he's black. (No racial over or undertones intended.)

Vote for Obama and you have another Ronnie Rayguns. Vote for McCain and you have another Bush. That's fucked.

Hilary is likely to carry Texas. Hawaii makes little difference at this point. Wisconsin is a wait and see. But let me point out, Hilary said three weeks ago that the races in Mid-February would go to Obama and she would pick up after that. I suspect that's true.

The one thing that scews the whole thing is the press. Prior to "Super-Tuesday" the press was saying, "Hilary is ahead but stalled, while Obama is catching up." After "Super Tuesday" the verbage changed to "Hilary Losing, Obama Winning." I suppose they still want to claim "fair and balanced" but it's hard to justify.

 

[jeninflorida]

hum...I don't think McCain has a chance against Oboma, but I do think he has a chance against hillaryl hillary is to....Divisive. just look at how passionate you are towards her, and I feel the same against her. its been 20 years of bush/clintons and I'm ready to move on!

btw, I do respect your passion for her and not..nor would I ever try to change your mind. i do enjoy our little 'bashes' every now and then...makes me think! I'm Gray (little blue little red and that pisses off a lot of poeple as others try to force you in one or the others camp).

If anyone watched Meet the Press last Sunday you got the real story. The right-wing Neo-Cons are pushing hard for an Obama/McCain race. They know they can't beat the Clinton Machine, so Obama is their only hope to hang onto the Presidency.

I watched in horror for more than half the program waiting for the other shoe to drop. Finally it did. The Republican Party is already planning their Obama/Raghead, Obama/Idiot, Obama/N***er campaign. This is something that Obama has brought on himself if you look back. He's the one who screamed "RACIST!" when Bill called his voting record a "fairy tail" and screamed "RACIST" again when Hilary pointed out that LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act into law and Martin Luther King, though he was insturmental in forming the Act, could not have made it law.

If anyone is continuously playing the race card, it's Obama, not either of the Clintons. Obama, oddly enough, wins in states with large populations of blacks (Virginia, Alabama, Georgia) and has Caucuses with a heavy black membership, not popular elections. He's their guy.

He has won some states (Washington, for instance) which has a heavy youth vote, but they tend to not vote in general elections. Teddy Kennedy et all, didn't help him at all in Mass. Oprah is shoveling money to his campaign, but I don't have much respect for her, anyway. Her only interest is seeing a black President. I could be some felony-ridden rapist as far as she's concerned as long as he's black. (No racial over or undertones intended.)

Vote for Obama and you have another Ronnie Rayguns. Vote for McCain and you have another Bush. That's fucked.

Hilary is likely to carry Texas. Hawaii makes little difference at this point. Wisconsin is a wait and see. But let me point out, Hilary said three weeks ago that the races in Mid-February would go to Obama and she would pick up after that. I suspect that's true.

The one thing that scews the whole thing is the press. Prior to "Super-Tuesday" the press was saying, "Hilary is ahead but stalled, while Obama is catching up." After "Super Tuesday" the verbage changed to "Hilary Losing, Obama Winning." I suppose they still want to claim "fair and balanced" but it's hard to justify.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

hum...I don't think McCain has a chance against Oboma, but I do think he has a chance against hillaryl hillary is to....Divisive. just look at how passionate you are towards her, and I feel the same against her. its been 20 years of bush/clintons and I'm ready to move on!

btw, I do respect your passion for her and not..nor would I ever try to change your mind. i do enjoy our little 'bashes' every now and then...makes me think! I'm Gray (little blue little red and that pisses off a lot of poeple as others try to force you in one or the others camp).

You are right, Jenn, I am passionate towards Hilary. But for well thought out reasons. I love the line she said a week ago, "It took a Clinton to straighten out a Bush mess once. It will take a Clinton to straighten out a Bush mess again." There's a lot of truth there.

I see an Obama/McCain race a much closer race than a Clinton/McCain race. McCain might win against Obama. That appears to be the Republican hope.

I listen to Obama an all I hear is "Change". He's going to change this. He's going to change that. I keep asking, "How you going to pay for it and get it through congress?" He has no answer. Hilary has a genuine plan for both funding and change that makes sense to me. Can she get it through congress any better than Obama? Who knows, but, at least, she's been an insider a lot longer than Obama. That gives her an edge with the people in DC who really count when it comes to passing legislation.

 

[R. Richard]

The bitch may lack ethics, but she makes up for it with a complete lack of courtes and class. Comment?

Clinton: Still no congratulations for Obama

Clinton did not acknowledge Obama's winnings or congratulate him on his victories over the past two nights.

EL PASO, Texas (CNN) – For the second election night in a row, Hillary Clinton failed to acknowledge or congratulate Barack Obama after he won the day in dominating fashion.

On Tuesday in El Paso, hours after Virginia had been called for Obama, she stuck to her “Texas campaign kickoff” message and did not stray from an energetic, Lone Star-themed stump speech. She did mention Obama by name, only to chide his health care plan.

On Saturday night in Richmond, Virginia, Clinton spoke to a crowd of thousands at the state’s annual Jefferson-Jackson dinner, but she ignored Obama’s quartet of blowout primary and caucus wins that day as well (Obama also won the Maine caucuses the next day).

The courtesy of conceding a primary or caucus loss — and then congratulating your opponent — is by no means required. But it has become standard practice during campaign season.

Clinton congratulated Obama and John Edwards after their first and second place finishes in the Iowa caucuses. Obama returned the favor in New Hampshire, saying Clinton “did an outstanding job.” That courtesy continued through the early states.

But as the race has shifted to a delegate chase with dozens of states in play around the country, the notion of congratulating one’s opponent seems, for Clinton, to have fallen by the wayside.

 

[jeninflorida]

here is my issue, what did billie do? I'm stuck on this thought...one thing with Regan. the was the massive spending in military. that military spending gave us Digital, Oracle, and several others. keeping it short we then had IBM, Microsoft, Apple, nintendo and others which later fueled the dot com (bush/clinton)...and then the dot bust (g.w. bush). so i can't give any credit to clinton for the economy (unless someone can point something out).

bush I - we went into Iraq. bush I was not strong and led Sadam into thinking that the u.s. would not attack.

bush I - raised taxes

now, I can't remember what else he did + or - was dealing with other issues. CA was in a housing crunch and people were walking away from their homes (just like today).

what experience does hillary have?

now, my point about McCain, is that if he goes up against hillary, she has soooooo many enemies (and billie) that some dems will vote for McCain. will be close and we will have red hot elections, the country will be torn just like the last 2 elections (hum, is that media based or are people really that upset). if its Obama, people will vote blindly as to wanting change and lots of Rep will vote for him...also the religious right might vote for him (or just not vote) as the reg, right is not happy with McCain.....

So i think that Obama might bring people together, guessing it would be the same feeling as when JFK was in office or ran for office (just a guess - was not there)

You are right, Jenn, I am passionate towards Hilary. But for well thought out reasons. I love the line she said a week ago, "It took a Clinton to straighten out a Bush mess once. It will take a Clinton to straighten out a Bush mess again." There's a lot of truth there.

I see an Obama/McCain race a much closer race than a Clinton/McCain race. McCain might win against Obama. That appears to be the Republican hope.

I listen to Obama an all I hear is "Change". He's going to change this. He's going to change that. I keep asking, "How you going to pay for it and get it through congress?" He has no answer. Hilary has a genuine plan for both funding and change that makes sense to me. Can she get it through congress any better than Obama? Who knows, but, at least, she's been an insider a lot longer than Obama. That gives her an edge with the people in DC who really count when it comes to passing legislation.

 

[trysail]

When two former paper shufflers and itinerant lawyers turned professional politician start telling automobile manufacturers and energy producers how to run their businesses we can heave a sigh of relief. All of us can rest assured that the advice is undoubtedly based on superior knowledge and vast experience.

I'll rest much easier tonight.

Democrat Obama to Propose $60 Billion U.S. Infrastructure Bank
By Brigitte Greenberg

Feb. 13 (Bloomberg) -- Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama in a speech today in Wisconsin will announce a plan to create what he describes as a national bank to invest $60 billion in U.S. infrastructure over 10 years.

The investment, Obama says, would generate almost 2 million jobs, many of them in the construction industry, which has been affected by the nation's stalled housing market.

``The repairs will be determined not by politics, but by what will maximize our safety and homeland security; what will keep our environment clean and our economy strong,'' Obama will say, according to excerpts released by the campaign.

``It's time to stop spending billions of dollars a week trying to put Iraq back together and start spending the money on putting America back together instead,'' Obama says, according to the text.

The Illinois senator is scheduled to give his speech at a General Motors assembly plant in Janesville, Wisconsin. General Motors, the world's largest automaker, yesterday reported a loss of $722 million and buyouts for up to 74,000 United Auto Workers members.

Obama, 46, is locked in a tight battle with New York Senator Hillary Clinton, 60, for the Democratic presidential nomination. Obama yesterday swept primaries in Virginia, Maryland and Washington, D.C.

Obama's plan includes an investment of $150 billion over 10 years to establish a ``green energy sector'' that would create up to 5 million jobs and provide funding to help manufacturers convert to more energy-efficient technologies.

Clinton also has a ``green jobs'' plan, which she announced Feb. 11 at a GM plan in White Marsh, Maryland. Her plan would invest $5 billion in alternative energies to ``jumpstart green collar job growth'' and create a $50 billion strategic energy fund for research over 10 years. She would also raise fuel economy standards and authorize $20 billion in low-interest bonds to help auto manufacturers retool their plants.

 

[Belegon]

In my opinion, there are two ways a President gets things done. Conspire and Inspire.

Conspire: Barack Obama has plenty of experience in putting together coalitions and voting blocs as an organizer in Chicago at the grass roots level, in the Illinois state senate and now as a U.S Senator. And that is the weak side of the two for him. It can be addressed by the proper choice of a VP... and since the VP is the one that spends the most time on Capitol Hill, the VP is the person that needs that experience the most.

Inspire comes down to the ability to fire up both legislators to pull things through and the general public to push things through. Barack Obama is without doubt the most dynamic speaker running for President. He is, IMHO, without doubt the one best able to inspire.

As such, the major argument people put against him, lack of experience, doesn't wash with me. He has the tools.

It's just a matter of whether or not you believe he will use them in a way that is beneficial for the country. Since I believe he will, I support Obama.

I'm not terribly anti-Clinton. But she doesn't make me feel like she is anything other than a lesser of evils. Barack Obama makes me believe in America again.

John McCain is at least a person whom I respect for some of the things he went through due to his service to the nation. I respect him for being willing to publicly disagree with someone in his own party. But I wouldn't vote for him over Hilary.

I have zero respect for Bush. ZERO. I look forward to the end of an error... or rather, the end to a presidency that was stolen in the first place.

...and just to clarify, I don't hate Reagan. I feel he was a better President than W. But that is damning with awful faint praise in my book.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

here is my issue, what did billie do? I'm stuck on this thought...one thing with Regan. the was the massive spending in military. that military spending gave us Digital, Oracle, and several others. keeping it short we then had IBM, Microsoft, Apple, nintendo and others which later fueled the dot com (bush/clinton)...and then the dot bust (g.w. bush). so i can't give any credit to clinton for the economy (unless someone can point something out).

bush I - we went into Iraq. bush I was not strong and led Sadam into thinking that the u.s. would not attack.

bush I - raised taxes

now, I can't remember what else he did + or - was dealing with other issues. CA was in a housing crunch and people were walking away from their homes (just like today).

Your list of Bush I atrocities is short by one big one, Jenn - The largest economic shit storm since the great depression. I noticed early one in the Bush II administration that there have been only two periods in my life I've seen beggers standing at freeway entrances begging for food. The first was during the Bush I administration. The second is going on right now under Bush II. Both Bush's claim a strong and vibrant economy. Bullshit!

If memory serves correctly, the last president we had in this country got us not out of, but deep into WW I - remember Woodrow Wilson? He talked a good talk, but ideology fails in the face of hardball politics. That's Obama's big problem - Lots of Ideology and not much practice.

I disagree that Hilary is a divider. Maybe there are some Democrats who will vote for McCain rather than her. But I would guess from what I'm hearing from the people around me, there are a lot more Republicans who will vote for Hilary than McCain. I don't hear the same about Obama.

 

[trysail]

A great illustration of how our tax system works:


Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten
comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers, he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. What happens to the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).


Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings:
'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!'
'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!'
'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'
'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get
anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important.

They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Kinda like Obama. Mostly don't like Huckabee. Don't like Clinton or McCain at all.

Terrified, economically, of all four of them.

None of them are fiscal conservatives.

 

[R. Richard]

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

An interesting example. However, it is a consumer example. The richest man not only pays the most for the nightly beer, he also runs a business that employs a lot of people. If the richest man departs for friendlier climes, he not only takes the beer money with him, he also take jobs with him, a lot of jobs. He not only spends his beer money overseas, he also [in effect] spends his workers former rent money, food money, medical money, etc. overseas. Worse yet, instead of contributing to the USA, he is now a competitor.

It is not really practical to 'soak the rich' taxwise. The rich will find ways to avoid paying outrageous taxes and the effort leaves the government with less money, not more money.

Then why do some politicians try to 'soak the rich?' Class warfare. If the other guy has more money, he must be doing sonething wrong. So the benevolent government 'evens things up.' Of course the 'even share' is smaller than the previous 'uneven share,' but 'we sure showed that rich guy!'

 

[keeblercrumb]

An interesting example. However, it is a consumer example. The richest man not only pays the most for the nightly beer, he also runs a business that employs a lot of people. If the richest man departs for friendlier climes, he not only takes the beer money with him, he also take jobs with him, a lot of jobs. He not only spends his beer money overseas, he also [in effect] spends his workers former rent money, food money, medical money, etc. overseas. Worse yet, instead of contributing to the USA, he is now a competitor.

It is not really practical to 'soak the rich' taxwise. The rich will find ways to avoid paying outrageous taxes and the effort leaves the government with less money, not more money.

Then why do some politicians try to 'soak the rich?' Class warfare. If the other guy has more money, he must be doing sonething wrong. So the benevolent government 'evens things up.' Of course the 'even share' is smaller than the previous 'uneven share,' but 'we sure showed that rich guy!'

Oh yeah... I got it..... What the hell? Let's just give the "rich" a free ride and fuck everyone else.....Think of all the good things they do with their money...... Class warfare indeed..... Declared on the "let 'em eat cake" poor and declared on the middle class because... well.... somebody has to pay for the government..... and the rich don't want to.

The graduated income tax in it's previous pre="simplified" incarnation, was an attempt to get the "rich" to pay their fair share... and the free ride they get on everything from sales tax (The middle class MUST spend a much higher percentage of their income just to live... the rich "bank it"... to Medicare, to gas tax, etc... Everything the governments (Federal, state, local) collects from its citizens is a "tax" no matter what else you may call it. Until Bill Gates pays the same share of his income than I do.... the system is wrong.

Yeah class warfare... you got THAT right....

-KC

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

No one is happy with the 3 Musketeers.

Conservatives hate McCain and wont vote for him. Ann Coulter notes that Hillary is more conservative than McCain on more issues. True. Imagine! Jenny and Ann supporting the same candidate! Statistically, though, Hillary can no longer win the nomination because of how the delegates are apportioned. And she's out of money.

But, regardless of who you choose...you lose.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

KEEBLER?

Why the fuss?

When I beat the drum about the Elites, you react like I'm badmouthing your granny.

The Elites own 73% of America. They make the rules. In fact I wonder if this ONE PERCENT pays any taxes at all. What I suspect is the tax net catches new wealth, not old. That is, people who spend 20 years building a business or growing pine trees or write a best-seller book, then get tagged when they finally make a buck. Think about it. You spend 20 years making nickles and dimes writing, then publish GONE WITH THE WIND, and Keebler crawls up your ass with cleats on his boots.

 

[keeblercrumb]

KEEBLER?

Why the fuss?

When I beat the drum about the Elites, you react like I'm badmouthing your granny.

The Elites own 73% of America. They make the rules. In fact I wonder if this ONE PERCENT pays any taxes at all. What I suspect is the tax net catches new wealth, not old. That is, people who spend 20 years building a business or growing pine trees or write a best-seller book, then get tagged when they finally make a buck. Think about it. You spend 20 years making nickles and dimes writing, then publish GONE WITH THE WIND, and Keebler crawls up your ass with cleats on his boots.

And wearing spurs.

-KC

 

[R. Richard]

Oh yeah... I got it..... What the hell? Let's just give the "rich" a free ride and fuck everyone else.....Think of all the good things they do with their money...... Class warfare indeed..... Declared on the "let 'em eat cake" poor and declared on the middle class because... well.... somebody has to pay for the government..... and the rich don't want to.

The graduated income tax in it's previous pre="simplified" incarnation, was an attempt to get the "rich" to pay their fair share... and the free ride they get on everything from sales tax (The middle class MUST spend a much higher percentage of their income just to live... the rich "bank it"... to Medicare, to gas tax, etc... Everything the governments (Federal, state, local) collects from its citizens is a "tax" no matter what else you may call it. Until Bill Gates pays the same share of his income than I do.... the system is wrong.

Yeah class warfare... you got THAT right....

-KC

From Wiki:
"IRS data indicate that the wealthiest 5% of taxpayers (ranked by AGI, counting only returns with positive AGI) paid roughly 60% of all income taxes; the bottom 50% of taxpayers account for just 3% of income taxes paid."

I was unaware that paying 60% of all income taxes was a 'free ride.' The sales tax falls on everyone, at the same rate. If a person chooses to spend more of his/her income on taxable items, then he/she pays more tax.

The rich mostly don't bank their excess income and receive a poultry [I am talking chickenshit here] 4%. The rich would rather start a business and make 10%, 20% or more. However, to start and run a business, the rich need to hire workers and managers. The wages that the rich pay their employees are not a tax, but said wages are what keeps a lot of people in the USA alive.

In the past, certain of the very rich could pay zero income tax [it was called an oil depletion allowance.] However, the class warfare people put a stop to that. They created the Alternate Minimum Tax (AMT). However, the AMT is now beginning to impact a lot of middle class people in 'blue states.' Thus Congress changed the rules for the AMT to exempt those 'blue state' people, without passing the required offsetting tax increases. It is OK to 'soak the rich,' but when you start to soak your blue state constituency, it has to stop. Class warfare.

 

[DesertPirate]

The thinly disguised wealth redistribution scheme (approved by all socialists since Marx) called the income tax is the most unfair thing around. Fair would be everyone paying the same. If there was a flat tax around 17% and no loopholes of any kind, the thundering herd of dumbass in Washington would have more money to waste than ever. When I say everyone I also mean all businesses and corporations. 17% of ever nickle made in this country. Instead of the rape the rich and give it to those who do nothing farce we have now.


Most people would quit complaining about taxes if they thought half was being spen wisely.

 

[Belegon]

The thinly disguised wealth redistribution scheme (approved by all socialists since Marx) called the income tax is the most unfair thing around. Fair would be everyone paying the same. If there was a flat tax around 17% and no loopholes of any kind, the thundering herd of dumbass in Washington would have more money to waste than ever. When I say everyone I also mean all businesses and corporations. 17% of ever nickle made in this country. Instead of the rape the rich and give it to those who do nothing farce we have now.


Most people would quit complaining about taxes if they thought half was being spen wisely.

If we had a true and enforced flat tax, we would not need anywhere near 17%. 10% would be enough. The cost savings on bureaucracy alone could do much to help balance the federal budget.

But, what to do with all the people disenfrachised by the move? The IRS, H & R Block, CPA's... all the specialized legislation, specialists who work for the private sector to help corporations avoid tax penalties...

That's a hell of a hit to the unemployment figures. Not to mention all the people who will feel cheated over their IRA's and 401K's that now don't seem to work the same. (and the idea that they will actually save money on the deal won't occur to those people in the middle of their outrage)

 

[R. Richard]

The problem with a flat tax is that such a tax is open and easy to understand. Thus, when a politician tells you, "I am gonna' reduce your tax burden" he then has to lower the tax rate. If he raises the tax rate, even the dullest will see that the politician is lying.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

If we had a true and enforced flat tax, we would not need anywhere near 17%. 10% would be enough. The cost savings on bureaucracy alone could do much to help balance the federal budget.

Back in the 1970's, my dad called into a national radio show and in the midst of the call, suggested a well-presented and well-thought-out argument for a flat tax. Callers everywhere started calling in and agreeing.

An hour later, my dad got a phone call. From the FBI. They told him, "Mr. XXXX, don't make another call like that again."

That was it.

The world's always been run by the rich and powerful...

 

[R. Richard]

Back in the 1970's, my dad called into a national radio show and in the midst of the call, suggested a well-presented and well-thought-out argument for a flat tax. Callers everywhere started calling in and agreeing.

An hour later, my dad got a phone call. From the FBI. They told him, "Mr. XXXX, don't make another call like that again."

That was it.

The world's always been run by the rich and powerful...

And by the politicians.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

SELENA

A flat-tax wont happen.

An entire industry exists to deal with taxes.

BUT! Throughout the course of history, when foreign invaders sought to conquer people they offered significantly lower taxes, and the people opened the gates to them. Low taxes is how you make successful revolutions.

 

[trysail]

Back in the 1970's, my dad called into a national radio show and in the midst of the call, suggested a well-presented and well-thought-out argument for a flat tax. Callers everywhere started calling in and agreeing...

The world's always been run by the rich and powerful...

...such as Steve Forbes (the zillionaire heir and publisher of "Forbes" magazine), who ran on a platform that was almost exclusively based on implementation of a flat tax... and who's campaign went nowhere.

Face it; the electorate are a bunch of hypocritical dimbulbs- they'll say one thing but behave completely differently when push comes to shove.

 

[R. Richard]

One of the problems that things like the flat tax face are that the are violently opposed by those in Washington. You may recall the Jimmy Carter ears when he tried to run roughshod over the Washington establishment. Instead, the Washington establishment ran roughshod over him.

With the current tax system, members of Congress are incredibly powerful. They control the tax system, including the loopholes. If you go to a simple flat tax system, there are no loopholes and Congress is a LOT less powerful.

 

[Belegon]

One of the problems that things like the flat tax face are that the are violently opposed by those in Washington. You may recall the Jimmy Carter years when he tried to run roughshod over the Washington establishment. Instead, the Washington establishment ran roughshod over him.

With the current tax system, members of Congress are incredibly powerful. They control the tax system, including the loopholes. If you go to a simple flat tax system, there are no loopholes and Congress is a LOT less powerful.

The power is certainly part of it. But I feel it is inaccurate to break down all discussions about flat tax to "its a way for them to keep control".

There would be very legitimate and distressing growing pains from the switch. It would take a person not interested in getting re-elected and with dramatic powers to enact it, and that person would be a pariah in the aftermath... and then hailed as a genius after their death.

It's all very nice to leave a legacy. But very few of us are willing to face the destruction of our current lives to achieve it. Including me.

Carter is a good example of how hard it is to get things changed in the face of widespread opposition.