Voter Fraud In Ohio

[Beemnseven]

Can someone explain to me what is so great about increasing the taxes on ANY income level?

Do we really want to make it harder on corporations to do business these days? Don't we want to encourage economic growth, not inhibit it by nailing them to the wall with higher taxes?

[JWsleep]

Back to voter fraud.

Claiming voter fraud is a standard move by parties that have an interest in low voter turn out. Registering as many new voters as possible is a standard move for parties with an interest in high voter turn out. Can you guess which party is which in this election?

Much more serious than ACORN trying to register Mickey Mouse (Note: this is very different from Mickey ACTUALLY VOTING--see this for more on the ACORN stuff: ) is the attempts to disenfranchise legit voters. If legit voters are prevented from voting in an election, that's a serious blow to the whole idea of democracy. (See here for a partisan view: Voter Disenfranchisement: There's Nothing Some Fear More Than Citizens Exercising Their Constitutional Rights )

Can you guess which side I'm on?

[saden1]

Republican Voter Registration Chief Arrested for Fraud in California. How ironic.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by saden1

Republican Voter Registration Chief Arrested for Fraud in California. How ironic.

Gotta love it.

[JWsleep]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Can someone explain to me what is so great about increasing the taxes on ANY income level?

Do we really want to make it harder on corporations to do business these days? Don't we want to encourage economic growth, not inhibit it by nailing them to the wall with higher taxes?

I can, Charlie Brown. Lights, please...

Here's one line of thought:

The overall health of the economy suffers when we have these huge deficits and a ballooning national debt. People are unwilling to cut the defense budget, Social Security, highway funds, head start, homeland security, etc. So we need more revenue. Claim: the middle class is the engine of the economy, so don't tax them--cut their taxes. The poor have no money to tax. So tax the rich. They can most afford to pay (yes, they're angry about it, but they won't lose their homes, healthcare, etc.). Further, doing this in the past has been good for the economy--progressive taxation is better economically then trickledown economics. So it's the right thing to do.

Is it fair to tax one group of citizens more than another? (This, I think, is among the most important differences between conservatives and liberals.) My feeling: yes, if it can be shown that the overall economy gets better, and so a rising tide lifts all boats, even the big rich yachts. Also, it may be that the rich should give something back to help the overall health of the nation where they've done so well (and, BTW, I'd certainly make charitable donations tax deductible up the wazoo).

Worry: excessive taxation is a drag on investment and undermines the motivational energies of the economy. That seems a good worry. Solution: find the progressive tax polices that have the least negative effect on these things. There are lots of ways to do this, but none of them fit in a message board post or a campaign add. So we need leaders who are smart enough to find the right fit here. I thought Clinton's team wasn't bad. I think Obama is more of this stripe than his opponents (and many of his friends) think. I think McCain is open to this (or he was), but since running to the right, he may not be able to get back to this reasonable sort of view. Hence, I prefer Obama on this issue.

If you're against ANY taxation, or any progressive taxation, neither of these candidates is for you. See Bob Barr, maybe?

[firstdown]

[quote=JWsleep;492089]Back to voter fraud.

Claiming voter fraud is a standard move by parties that have an interest in low voter turn out. Registering as many new voters as possible is a standard move for parties with an interest in high voter turn out. Can you guess which party is which in this election?

Much more serious than ACORN trying to register Mickey Mouse (Note: this is very different from Mickey ACTUALLY VOTING--see this for more on the ACORN stuff: ) is the attempts to disenfranchise legit voters. If legit voters are prevented from voting in an election, that's a serious blow to the whole idea of democracy. (See here for a partisan view: Voter Disenfranchisement: There's Nothing Some Fear More Than Citizens Exercising Their Constitutional Rights )

Can you guess which side I'm on?[/quot

The word disenfranchised is also used by groups that do not want anyone enforcing the rules and that anyone who puts in an application should be allowed to just vote without question. Accorn had two people thrown in jail here in Va. for voter fraud and thats just VA. They are also under FBI investigation. I also find it funny how the dems seem to want no one to review these registrations claiming fear of disenfrnchising them but back in 2000 they wanted to throw out all of those ballots sent in from our servicemen over sea's. It seem they just want to be selective as long as its in their favor.

[JWsleep]

Originally Posted by firstdown

The word disenfranchised is also used by groups that do not want anyone enforcing the rules and that anyone who puts in an application should be allowed to just vote without question. Accorn had two people thrown in jail here in Va. for voter fraud and thats just VA. They are also under FBI investigation. I also find it funny how the dems seem to want no one to review these registrations claiming fear of disenfrnchising them but back in 2000 they wanted to throw out all of those ballots sent in from our servicemen over sea's. It seem they just want to be selective as long as its in their favor.

Who's saying anyone should be allowed to vote without question? That's obviously wrong as well (two wrongs, etc.) And disenfranchising servicemen is certainly wrong and undemocratic. And as I said in my post, the campaign challenging the registrations will be the one with an interest in throwing out votes. My point is it's wrong, whoever does it. But there's no doubt that's it's a staple of the Republican playbook from way back (at least the 1960s) and they are playing it big time now.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by JWsleep

Who's saying anyone should be allowed to vote without question? That's obviously wrong as well (two wrongs, etc.) And disenfranchising servicemen is certainly wrong and undemocratic. And as I said in my post, the campaign challenging the registrations will be the one with an interest in throwing out votes. My point is it's wrong, whoever does it. But there's no doubt that's it's a staple of the Republican playbook from way back (at least the 1960s) and they are playing it big time now.

Its a staple of both parties so don't put the dems above any of this. Parties worry about voter fraud in areas where it is likley that the voter will be voting for the other party. Thats why the Dems tried to discredit the military over seas vote because they knew it was in the Rep. favor and its why the rep. go after certain voters.

[MTK]

Brad Friedman: The Republican voter fraud hoax | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by JWsleep

The overall health of the economy suffers when we have these huge deficits and a ballooning national debt. People are unwilling to cut the defense budget, Social Security, highway funds, head start, homeland security, etc.

There's the problem, bloated government programs. They take on a life of their own. Many need to be cut back.

Further, doing this in the past has been good for the economy--progressive taxation is better economically then trickledown economics. So it's the right thing to do.

This is a very debatable point many economists disagree with. Also, we've always had some form of progressive taxation since the inception on the income tax. But at what point is the "progression" too much? I would argue when the top 1% of income earners are paying 34% of the Federal tax burden and the next 2-10% are paying the next 33% than it's too much. The bottom 50% are only paying a total of 3% of the tax burden.

Also, it may be that the rich should give something back to help the overall health of the nation where they've done so well

Why? What government programs or government advantages have they received? What government services do they use more than anyone else? Answer: probably none. (I'm not talking the top 1%, I can't speak to how they got where they are, but the 2-10% have mostly gotten there by their own hard work and financial risk taking.)

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I thought it was funny the Republicans didn't do their homework on good old Joe before making him the poster child of the last debate.

Joe himself doesn't matter, his point does.....But why did it take the GOP this long to make the argument. Obama hasn't hidden the fact he'll raise taxes on those making over $ 250K. McCain and his spin doctors should've been hammering the "wealth redistribution" angle since before the first debate.

[JWsleep]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

There's the problem, bloated government programs. They take on a life of their own. Many need to be cut back.

Reagan couldn't do it in '81. W and co most certainly didn't do it, even with a repub congress. Clinton managed to cut a fair bit off Federal welfare. But neither party has shown the stomach for real change. I'm fine with gov't playing a role, but it must be done with some intelligence. And some restraint! The issue here is that the repubs had there shot--what did it get us? Smaller gov't? Better economy? Improved health care? Improved education? Talk is cheap. Maybe Obama won't be able to do anything. But he's worth a shot because the other side messed up.

This is a very debatable point many economists disagree with. Also, we've always had some form of progressive taxation since the inception on the income tax. But at what point is the "progression" too much? I would argue when the top 1% of income earners are paying 34% of the Federal tax burden and the next 2-10% are paying the next 33% than it's too much. The bottom 50% are only paying a total of 3% of the tax burden.

Ah, the dismal science. The historical analysis I saw recently suggested otherwise, but no doubt it's debatable, as is everything in economics. Why do you think 34/33 is too much? What is the right amount? In any event, if we are going to pay for the programs we want, we need to tax. The bottom 50% has experienced stagnating and sinking wages in relation to inflation. Plus, they can least afford to pay, because the loss of income directly effects basic stuff like mortgage payments, health care, food, gas, etc. So raise the rate to 39 (back to the Clinton number). And if I'm right about the debatable economic point (the post war boom? the Clinton years?), it's better overall. I'm not sure how McCain's further ballooning of the debt is going to help--we can only borrow so much from China.

Why? What government programs or government advantages have they received? What government services do they use more than anyone else? Answer: probably none. (I'm not talking the top 1%, I can't speak to how they got where they are, but the 2-10% have mostly gotten there by their own hard work and financial risk taking.)

You are taking a too narrow view of the benefits. It's not simply a matter of direct gov't assistance (protectionism and corporate welfare--but that's for another post), it's a matter of the benefits of living in a free and open society like this one. That it exists and allowed them the opportunity to succeed as much as they have. The top 10% have benefited from that. So they can reasonably be asked to bear a greater share of the load of supporting this system. Isn't this the rationale for progressive taxation? If you are ok with progressive taxation in general, we're only disagreeing about the numbers here. I think 39 (i.e. back to Clinton's numbers) makes sense.

[JWsleep]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Joe himself doesn't matter, his point does.....But why did it take the GOP this long to make the argument. Obama hasn't hidden the fact he'll raise taxes on those making over $ 250K. McCain and his spin doctors should've been hammering the "wealth redistribution" angle since before the first debate.

My conservative father-in-law has been making this point for months.

I think the McCain folks recognize that it's not going to play in hard-hit economic areas. Plus, it was Bush's line, so it's been a tad discredited. What is McCain's positive policy here? Is it just Bush, or is it something different? If it's just Bush, it's electoral poison. If it's something different, how is it different in principle from Obama? My feeling is McCain's recent economic stuff looks more socialist than Obama's. That's why the right wasn't into his "buy and re-negotiate the bad mortgages" thing. And I agree with them on this one!

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by JWsleep

Reagan couldn't do it in '81. W and co most certainly didn't do it, even with a repub congress. Clinton managed to cut a fair bit off Federal welfare. But neither party has shown the stomach for real change. I'm fine with gov't playing a role, but it must be done with some intelligence. And some restraint! The issue here is that the repubs had there shot--what did it get us? Smaller gov't? Better economy? Improved health care? Improved education? Talk is cheap. Maybe Obama won't be able to do anything. But he's worth a shot because the other side messed up.

Obama has proposed at least several hundred billion in new programs and is promising a tax increase already. My money is on government will expand greatly and taxes rise to levels above the Clinton years if Obama wins and the dems gain a supermajority. Gov't expansion and tax increase happened both times before when the dems had it.

Why do you think 34/33 is too much? What is the right amount? In any event, if we are going to pay for the programs we want, we need to tax. The bottom 50% has experienced stagnating and sinking wages in relation to inflation. Plus, they can least afford to pay, because the loss of income directly effects basic stuff like mortgage payments, health care, food, gas, etc. So raise the rate to 39 (back to the Clinton number). And if I'm right about the debatable economic point (the post war boom? the Clinton years?), it's better overall. I'm not sure how McCain's further ballooning of the debt is going to help--we can only borrow so much from China.

I think the top 10% of the wage earners paying 2/3 of the taxes in the country is very unfair. The top 10% can't out vote the other 90% so there's no incentive to cut any programs, or increase taxes on a larger section of the population, just keep taxing the "rich". When the bottom 90% feel no pain, or even get tax cuts, where is the incentive to control gov't? BTW $ 250K / yr. isn't rich, it's upper middle class, but not rich.

Look at it this way; you work a full-time job as an attorney, dentist, sales professional or you own a couple of small stores or restaurants. You job it 60 hours + per week to hopefully over time become independently wealthy. You live below your means and make smart financial decsions. You take your income from $ 250K to $ 350K with no help from anyone or the government, just hard work and the investments you made in your own education or financial risks you took. So of the $ 100K over $ 250K you made, you keep only $ 61K of, not to mention state and local taxes, at the end of the day you've busted your hind quarters and only take home about $ 55K. Is that fair for the Fed to take more than most people earn in a year in taxes on just the $ 100K to support people who haven't made the sacrifices you do?

You are taking a too narrow view of the benefits. It's not simply a matter of direct gov't assistance (protectionism and corporate welfare--but that's for another post), it's a matter of the benefits of living in a free and open society like this one. That it exists and allowed them the opportunity to succeed as much as they have. The top 10% have benefited from that. So they can reasonably be asked to bear a greater share of the load of supporting this system. Isn't this the rationale for progressive taxation? If you are ok with progressive taxation in general, we're only disagreeing about the numbers here. I think 39 (i.e. back to Clinton's numbers) makes sense.

I'm not talking about CEOs who are making mega-bucks here. Those guys do have corporate lobbyists and get benfits for themselves and the corporations they work for from folks in the government, on both sides of the aisle.

I'm talking about the guys/gals I mentioned in the paragraph above. What additional benefit of a "free & open society" do they get that the other 90% of wage earners don't get? It is not reasonable based on that to, not ASK but DEMAND, they pay higher and higher percentages of their income. The IRS doesn't "ask" for your tax payment. I understand progressive taxation is necessary, but it's too high at 35% and certainly is at 39%.

The only way to control government expansion is to slow down the funding and force cuts in programs and more frugal expenditures of OUR money.

Pretty scary stuff here. We've got to put the brakes on spending and revamp SS, Medicare, Medicaid now.

United States public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[JWsleep]

Again, I agree that we should cut bloated gov't spending. But I don't think McCain will be able to do anything serious--so we're just going to get a continuation of the Bush debt spending. Is that good policy? My guess is Obama will end up raising middle class taxes at some point. And I am not against that, so long as it's part of balancing the budget.

And I'm still not sure where you'd set the tax rates if we drop them across the board. If you want to keep defense strong, and you want to pay even for a "revamped" SS, medicare, etc. the monies have to come from somewhere. Past progressive tax rates have been much higher on the top tier, and the economy did well (See the Eisenhower years, e.g.). 39 is not too much of a burden. And there ought to be ways to deduct for charitable contributions--rather than sending your money to the gov't, send it to the charity of your choice. That would help the nation as well.

I reiterate that I think the issue of fair taxation policy if the #1 divide between libs and conservatives. Doubt we'll ever agree, but it sure beats talking about all the red herring stuff in this campaign!