When you go to the polls in November, don't forget the Constut

[Cybrvanr]

We have been basically looking through the wrong end of the scope when it comes to solving our country’s woes. We are looking to the government to solve our problems, and most haven’t noticed that the government IS our problem! Why is it’s a problem? Well, we’ve basically voted away the constution, and voted ourselves all sorts of handouts. Here are some things to keep in mind:

The Constution does not guarantee your happiness or well-being, but it does protect your pursuit of it.

Taxation is a necessary evil, not a system of social reform, or a method to re-distribute wealth.

The basic reason for the federal government exists is to protect the country, the country is it’s citizens’ life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. There are some other components outlined in section 8 concerning maintaining post offices and roads, but if it’s not there, the government should not be doing it!

The basis behind the United States government is that the people are empowered to run their country, not the country running it’s people.

The first amendment separates church and state. Not only does this mean that religion cannot be supported or backed by the government, but it also says that the government cannot impede the citizens from practicing religion…this means ANY religion. No religion should be given any special treatment, nor should they be impeded in any way! The same goes for the freedom of speech, also outlined in the first

I will save going over all the details, since a copy of the US constitution is easily found online. There has been a considerable amount of political bantering going on here about donkeys and how bad the elephants are. No matter who you support, what I think everyone should do is read the constitution from start to finish, familiarize yourself with it, and then vote for whichever candidate holds their position as closely as possible to it.

I an not satisfied with either party, as they have totally basterdized the constitution with their support for special interests and big business.
The basic stance of us going on offense in Iraq, while leaving our own border porous and undefended is going against the basic constution, because we are not defending our country in Iraq, we are taking offense at another country, and with our borders being unsecured, our citizens are placed at risk.

Wall recent street and other corporate welfare also goes against our constution, along with welfare to individuals, as government is supposed to be separated from business, and it's not the government's responsibility to guarantee financial stability...that's socialism. Besides, how the heck are we going to pay for it! We are sliding down a slippery slope towards socialism. This may be happiness to some, but when one looks at the basis of socialism, it does not work. The government has no competition, and so therefore, it has no incentive to perform. When socialism is applied to the people, they too will become lazy and unproductive. We need to empower our people, and let capitalism run it’s course.
This idea about universal healthcare is a big problem. When looking at it in the short term, how the heck are we going to pay for it?!?!?! Our government is already deeply in debt and cannot afford what we are doing now. We are already having problems paying for Pres. Bush’s prescription drug program! Second, it will remove whatever performance based initiative the healthcare industry has. What we need to do is look a bit upstream. The reason people do not have health insurance is because it’s too expensive. It’s expensive because healthcare is expensive. Why is healthcare expensive? Malpractice suits. Like a little child, we can continue asking “why” and before we know it, it will all wind up back to a government regulatory issue!

Obama really scares me. He wants to “punish” businesses for being successful by taxing the wealthy. Do you think that businesses will stand by and just pay his huge tax bills? No! They will do one of two things. Either pack up and leave the country (and leave many people unemployed) or they will just shut down (again, unemployment). The reason why companies are moving to China and India now is because it is becoming too expensive to run their businesses here instead. This goes back to protecting live, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We need to level the playing field and either impose the same restrictions on foreign imports, or lower the barriers and restrictions on our native businesses so they can compete fairly. This is something the Repubicans and their “free trade” mantra are wholly against, so McCain has his issues too, especially as some of his policies follow right behind Bush and his disasters. Still, I favor McCain because he tends to follower closer to the constutional fundamentals,
This is what you should keep in mind, not voting with your feelings, or who is more attractive, or who speaks in front of a crowd better, or whatever…it’s about the constitution and core values!!!

 

[dalangdon]

The reason why companies leave is not because of taxes, it's because of lower wages overseas. Interestingly enough however, when they start making shoes in China instead of Portland, the prices for the shoes don't go down, even though the production costs are much lower.

In times of our greatest economic prosperity, we have had MUCH higher corporate taxes than we do now. The same is true of taxes on the rich (during the Eisenhower administration, it was something like 80% on the top 5% of income earners. Kennedy lowered them somewhat, but not much)

In my opinion, it's appropriate to tax corporations and wealthy individuals more, because they use more of the country's resources. They couldn't operate without our infrastructure of highways, airports, utilities, regulatory agencies, etc, etc, etc. But they increasingly get a free ride, while the working class bears more of the burden.

For a very even-handed assessment of both candidates positions on taxes, check out the link below. It goes to an article in Forbes from late July.

Obama's Taxing Policies

The Democratic candidate would consider cutting the corporate tax rate, his top economic advisor says.

www.forbes.com

 

[mihi]

much of what you say cybrvant has merit. I think where you're not hitting the primary costs which are bankrupting our country are the military costs we incur to run our "Empire". We cannot afford it just as the Soviet Union couldn't afford it. We should be closing some of the 700+ bases we have overseas, not trying to build new ones in Iraq. Then if that, the largest cost, could be brought under control we could determine what social programs also need to be brought under control, and there certainly are some. and we can determine where we need to invest, starting with bridges and education is a good point.

I look at it this way, if the US were a company, spending money on the education of our employees and on their health will pay us dividends. But the company spending money on a country club for a few elite in the company will have much less benefit. Our huge military spending is helping a few, not the many.

Our vast military spending will bankrupt the US given time. Dwight Eisenhower was right, the military-industrial complex is the most dangerous issue we'll face.

 

[peterh770]

Dan: "In my opinion, it's appropriate to tax corporations and wealthy individuals more, because they use more of the country's resources."

Marxist! Yes, tax them more because they don't need all that money! Give it to the poor, poor working class! Yes, punish them! Never mind these are the people who start their own businesses and create jobs. Never mind these are the people spending the money! They are taxed the most and they get a free ride? GET REAL! Nothing is for free, unless you are poor poor getting the free ride with section 8 housing, food stamps, welfare, and still have wide screen TVs, cable, cell phones and a car. Oh, and then throw in the tax rebate plan thing they are discussing where people who don't pay taxes STILL get a check! Class warfare and wealth envy and wealth redistribution is so ugly, but Socialists see it just as Marx wanted it.

The rich get rich, stay rich and get richer because they do the things they do. The poor stay poor and get poorer because they do what they aways do.

When our corp tax rate here in the USA average about 40 percent and many other countries getting our jobs is 30 or lower, then it is much more attractive to move overseas or get bought out by overseas interests. And then the states have to lure and create incentives for companies to stay and attract other companies by lowering the state tax rates, so the states take a tax hit and the Feds still collect the lionshare. Why do you think that Exxon/Mobil is the only oil company still based here in the US and every single one else is based overseas? For manufacturing jobs, I'm not saying that lower wages paid to Asian children working 18 hours a day in rooms without windows is not a reason, but it isn't the only reason.

And you think Marxist lable is over dramatic? Would you prefer Socialist? I sure wouldn't call it American.

 

[dalangdon]

Peter, you're so campy! Where DO you get your talking points from, now that Ray Cohn is dead?

Was it my citing an article from a magazine owned by that old "Fellow Traveler" Steve Forbes that got you all upset, or was it the assertion that everyone should pay their fair share to keep up the society we desire to have, that got you so John Birchey?

And yes, you can call me a Socialist. Nothing wrong with that in my book. We seem to already have Socialism for the wealthy and the multinational corporations in the US - as the last eight years have made abundantly clear - so why not extend it to the rest of us?

 

[dalangdon]

Oh, and by the way....

If you had bothered to read that Marxist screed from Forbes, you would have learned that corporate taxes are 35% - not the "average 40%" you apparently pulled out of somewhere down south.

I, Marxist/Socialist that I apparently am, would actually agree that 35% might be considered a bit much IF the corporations were actually paying that. But they're not - that's the trouble. Obama is suggesting that by closing some of the loopholes (details are laid out in that Pravda-esque Forbes article) they could lower the corporate tax rate and still maintain revenues. McCain just wants to lower taxes, keeping the loopholes intact which means that we - the middle class - end up being their benefactor. Cindy can keep her nine houses and her jet, which means that John doesn't have to worry about where his next dinner is coming from.

Who's the welfare queen in this picture?

 

[Cybrvanr]

I just know I earn my living off the backs of rich people...The middle class just doesn't buy audiovisual systems that cost $50,000 or more. When the rich are doing good, my company does good too, so I really don't have any qualms about them owning seven houses, or even a hundred for that matter...Chances are, they are going to want home-theater systems in those houses...and that's where I come in!

 

[dalangdon]

Wealthy people can have as many houses and jets and home theater systems as they want. All I'm saying is that they (and corporations) should pay a bigger chunk of the costs of running our society, since they control the society.

We are, after all, all in this together. There's no such thing as a free lunch.