Obama Kicks Hillary's Ass

[R. Richard]

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".

If it's not about control, what is it about? A flat tax would greatly downsize the IRS and eliminate the payment of substantial amounts of tax prep[aration mone to H&R Block, et. al. The rate for the flat tax would be low enough that cheating would not buy much. Tax preparation would be a simple task requiring an hour or so every year. The only contrary argument would seem to be power.

 

[Belegon]

But, what to do with all the people disenfranchised 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)

That's not about power, it's about having the willingness to spend all the time and effort to accomplish something and then get thrown out on your ass for your efforts. Not to mention the economic costs of all that unemployment.

Assuming there are a few people in at least the house who are truly motivated to do the things they feel are best for there constituents.. it's still a hard thing.

What about the IRS agent with four kids and a mortgage? What about your brother the CPA?

Having an open eye about the human cost of the business decision is not being power-hungry...

 

[DesertPirate]

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)

Who said that the tax system was a jobs program for accountants and shysters? The way the damn thing is written no single person is capable of understanding it anyway. Those accountants might have to go back to CPA jobs instead of tax accounting. As for the lawyers? Does anyone really care? Lawyers are a blight on humanity, hell Shakspear wanted to kill them all.

 

[Belegon]

Who said that the tax system was a jobs program for accountants and shysters? The way the damn thing is written no single person is capable of understanding it anyway. Those accountants might have to go back to CPA jobs instead of tax accounting. As for the lawyers? Does anyone really care? Lawyers are a blight on humanity, hell Shakspear wanted to kill them all.

You're not listening.

I was explaining that it was political suicide for an elected official to support the flat tax and why.

I never said I didn't support it.

...and I suspect the families of the lawyers care very much...

 

[DesertPirate]

You're not listening.

I was explaining that it was political suicide for an elected official to support the flat tax and why.

I never said I didn't support it.

...and I suspect the families of the lawyers care very much...

If they "sold it" right it might decide the next President. Get rid of the bottom feeders, Lawyer jokes out the wazoo... This is how to make life simple for everyone, if you can do 4th grade math you can do your own taxes, don't pay anyone ever again!

Fat chance, I know.

Be wary of strong drink. It can make you shoot at tax collectors -- and
miss.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I prefer flat tax. Like, really flat.

Like "zero".

 

[R. Richard]

I prefer flat tax. Like, really flat.

Like "zero".

I don't think so. The government does provide certain essential services that only they can provide. They provide military protection, some very limited law enforcement protection and keep the interstate highway system functional. With no tax income, the few, inefficient services the government does provide would disappear. You would notice.

 

[sr71plt]

I prefer flat tax. Like, really flat.

Like "zero".

Hmmm. How do you plan to flatten the road you need to get to work on then? And the traffic light to let you get through the intersections on the way or the systems of protection that (usually) keep you from being mugged as soon as you walk out of your door (or told to salute that country who walked their troops in and took your world over last night), not incidentally?

I know, I know. "Let someone else pay my way." I have a cousin with that attitude; he's wanted in three states.

Opps, I wrote this before seeing R. Richard's posting above it.

 

[jeninflorida]

if your not with her, your against her...and her machine will do anything to get you out of the way....look at how many dead bodies lay around her? how many people went to jail for the clintons and didn't 1 or 2 people take their own lives?

dont give me the crap about the radical right wing, as there is just as a radical left wing.

a few poeple gave me crap before about not offering solutions, well i dont have any except that i think for myself. i dont fall in one camp or the other...just like if someone walked off a bridge i would not follow. why does one have to be rep or dem?

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]

in those years we were self employed, so didn't care or pay much attention to politics. we went out and got more business. so i never look at D.C. for solutions. yeah it sucked with taxes being so freaking high and the cost of insurance. we lost a few clients as they left CA for other states.

hillary has lost the last what, six or eight contests? she is a dividor and will not bring people together. it will be interesting these next two weeks will she win another state? also, when will the claws and dirt come out (and i mean that for all sides)....

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.

 

[jeninflorida]

when did some of these things really start? i remember (well listening to my parents) talk about interest rates, paying like 15% during the carter years on your mortgage. so was the s&l issue created before Regan? i'm just asking. Iran-contra, that is the wepons deal swap for hostiages?

Of all the people that have benefited from distance and nostalgia... *sigh*

Ronald Reagan's name brings up the collapse of the Soviet Union to most people and he is thus "sainted"... but his name should also remind you of:

Iran-Contra
Bitburg
Scandal in:
the EPA
HUD
Justice Department
the NRC
the Pentagon
Michael Deavers
Edwin Meese
Sam Pierce (the first cabinet official to take the Fifth since Teapot Dome)
Caspar Weinberger
Rita Lavelle
James Watt
Richard Secord
Clair George
Thomas Demery
retroactively enforcing ill-considered legislation that created the Savings & Loan disaster

Ronald Reagan was incredibly charismatic. But to go back and "crown" him as a great President? Why, because someone shot him? Quick, someone tell McKinley!

 

[jeninflorida]

Can you imagine if the u.s. came up with an alt fuel source? just like the u.s. moved from whale oil to petro...or like the rail system went from coal to oil. can you imagine if we dind't purchase any oil from the middle east or chavez, what would happen to the middle east and Ven.?

KEEBLER

What you say is not the conventional wisdom. The US provides stability to the region, and plenty of people in the Middle East want us to remain. So says the paper.

 

[sr71plt]

if your not with her, your against her...and her machine will do anything to get you out of the way....look at how many dead bodies lay around her? how many people went to jail for the clintons and didn't 1 or 2 people take their own lives?

dont give me the crap about the radical right wing, as there is just as a radical left wing.

a few poeple gave me crap before about not offering solutions, well i dont have any except that i think for myself. i dont fall in one camp or the other...just like if someone walked off a bridge i would not follow. why does one have to be rep or dem?

Funny, when you posted "if your [sic] not with her, your [sic] against her," the first political machinist who sprang to my mind wasn't the Clintons, it was George Bush the Lesser.

 

[jeninflorida]

Jen, are you going to tell me that there is no radical left-wing?

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]

I don't think so. The government does provide certain essential services that only they can provide. They provide military protection, some very limited law enforcement protection and keep the interstate highway system functional. With no tax income, the few, inefficient services the government does provide would disappear. You would notice.

I agree, the military, police have to stay as a service and we all need to pay for that. however, i do no not understand our educational system. why do we have a federal education dept, and then the same for each state, and then local school boards. i see no reason why not combine each county to a state level after all what is different between counties? we compete on a global basis and therefore we need one education system. think about how many usless administration people the goverment could cut and that money could go to hire more teachers and pay more. the basic problem, goverment is broken and has no reason to be efficent. the more people they have working in the dept., the more money that gov dept can spend.

flat tax, this tax, that tax - until we take care of the beast the beast will always run free.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Funny, when you posted "if your [sic] not with her, your [sic] against her," the first political machinist who sprang to my mind wasn't the Clintons, it was George Bush the Lesser.

Me, too.

 

[jeninflorida]

Me, too.

I would have loved to be a fly on the wall, when bush II was talking about Iraq. You look at the poeple around him, most of the team was from Bush I and even before that. our current VP, wasn't he from the Regan years?

(I'm getting way off subject)

 

[sr71plt]

I would have loved to be a fly on the wall, when bush II was talking about Iraq. You look at the poeple around him, most of the team was from Bush I and even before that. our current VP, wasn't he from the Regan years?

(I'm getting way off subject)

There was a real divide even then between the advisers from the George Bush the Greater years and the Cheney crowd (Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle) in that room. George Senior's advisers kept trying to point out why they didn't go to Baghdad and Cheney's crowd kept revving the engines on their HumVees. (And we went to Baghdad, and hasn't that been a barrel of laughs?)

 

[R. Richard]

Jen, are you going to tell me that there is no radical left-wing?

The main difference between the radical right wing and the radical left wing, aside from their political stance is rather well known. If you get a radical right winger mad enough, he will shoot you down. You may not agree with the reasoning behind the shootimg, but the shooting will be competently carried out. If you get a radical left winger mad enough, he will try to shoot. He may fail to release the safety and not shoot. He may shoot himself, usually in the foot. He may shoot innocent bystanders.

 

[sr71plt]

The main difference between the radical right wing and the radical left wing, aside from their political stance is rather well known. If you get a radical right winger mad enough, he will shoot you down. You may not agree with the reasoning behind the shootimg, but the shooting will be competently carried out. If you get a radical left winger mad enough, he will try to shoot. He may fail to release the safety and not shoot. He may shoot himself, usually in the foot. He may shoot innocent bystanders.

If he's a true radical left winger, he won't have a gun at all, will he? He'll try to bludgeon you with a daisey, won't he?

 

[R. Richard]

If he's a true radical left winger, he won't have a gun at all, will he? He'll try to bludgeon you with a daisey, won't he?

Far worse than that. He will try to bludgeon you with dialectic. [I can face a gun, dying of boredom is a secret terror of mine.]

 

[Belegon]

when did some of these things really start? i remember (well listening to my parents) talk about interest rates, paying like 15% during the carter years on your mortgage. so was the s&l issue created before Regan? i'm just asking. Iran-contra, that is the wepons deal swap for hostiages?

the double digit inflation rates of the late seventies were a product of many factors, not the least of which was the war in Vietnam and the effects of pandering to the Military Industrial complex that saw such great profits from that war... and actually, it wasn't Blackwater or Halliburton... those would be the ones profiting NOW.

The other things were all purely created by the Reagan Administration and their appointees. To show how and where is not a one post subject. Find an objective book. One not written by a hardline democrat or hardline republican.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I don't think so. The government does provide certain essential services that only they can provide. They provide military protection, some very limited law enforcement protection and keep the interstate highway system functional. With no tax income, the few, inefficient services the government does provide would disappear. You would notice.

The services I need the US Federal Government to actually do don't require the income tax. Military, its own infrastructure. Done.

Hmmm. How do you plan to flatten the road you need to get to work on then? And the traffic light to let you get through the intersections on the way or the systems of protection that (usually) keep you from being mugged as soon as you walk out of your door (or told to salute that country who walked their troops in and took your world over last night), not incidentally?

The Federal Government has no reason to do any of those things (last time I checked, they don't do them now), why would I give them taxes, then, to do them?

I know, I know. "Let someone else pay my way." I have a cousin with that attitude; he's wanted in three states.

Opps, I wrote this before seeing R. Richard's posting above it.

My attitude isn't "let someone else pay". Its "the US Federal Government isn't supposed to do that, why would I pay them to do it?".

Fuck the income tax.

 

[sr71plt]

The services I need the US Federal Government to actually do don't require the income tax. Military, its own infrastructure. Done.


The Federal Government has no reason to do any of those things (last time I checked, they don't do them now), why would I give them taxes, then, to do them?


My attitude isn't "let someone else pay". Its "the US Federal Government isn't supposed to do that, why would I pay them to do it?".

Fuck the income tax.

You didn't check too well, then.

Tell you what. Go out and take bids on the cost and effort of providing your share of these services between your house and your office and then schedule the work and supervise getting it done and set up a maintenance schedule for it . . . and then come back and tell us how much better off you are not paying taxes to get this done.

If, of course, you can wrap your thought processes around this concept in a realistic way. Of course it's so much easier to sit back and complain about them--since someone's going to do your work for you anyway, for the good of everyone who has half an understanding of economics and ecomomies of scale.

You're just blowing lazy smoke, Joe. You're just going to go on and on with the stupid comments--knowing that someone is going to take care of you regardless. Ain't America great?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

You didn't check too well, then.

I believe I checked fine. The things on the list given to me are done by my state, not the Federal government. Taxes paid to my state I haven't any problems with, income tax to the Federal government I do. I think that was reasonably clear, if not then there's the clarification.

Tell you what. Go out and take bids on the cost and effort of providing your share of these services between your house and your office and then schedule the work and supervise getting it done and set up a maintenance schedule for it . . . and then come back and tell us how much better off you are not paying taxes to get this done.

The services between my house and office don't require a tax on my income paid to the Federal Government.

If, of course, you can wrap your thought processes around this concept in a realistic way. Of course it's so much easier to sit back and complain about them--since someone's going to do your work for you anyway, for the good of everyone who has half an understanding of economics and ecomomies of scale.

This part is just kinda rude. There really isn't a need to personally belittle anyone, here--certainly not to the tune of "if you can wrap your thoughts around this concept in a realistic way". Unnecessary. Is it intentional or are you not aware that you're doing this?

You're just blowing lazy smoke, Joe. You're just going to go on and on with the stupid comments--knowing that someone is going to take care of you regardless. Ain't America great?

"Someone's" going to take care of me? Who is that? And, just because the comments aren't to your preference of how I should think, does not make them "stupid". What about my comments is "stupid"? I'm perfectly willing to address what you think constitutes stupidity.