Anyone considering not supporting Obama in 2012?

[Krynn72]

well no... as of last wendsday my kid owed the obama administration 43,260$ that to me is a load of shit

That's weird. Were they personal loans or something?

 

[DEATHMASTER]

Reds will probably put some jackass up, so I'll end up with the less of two evils - Obama.

 

[WorldDman97]

That's weird. Were they personal loans or something?

no thats americas debt as americans thats what we owe because of obamas ****ing vacations, "war efforts" and bailouts

 

[Wanted Bob]

no thats americas debt as americans thats what we owe because of obamas ****ing vacations, "war efforts" and bailouts

I find it funny you mention Obamas vacations first, as if thats the primary reason why the US is in so much trouble right now. :upstare:

 

[CptStern]

no thats americas debt as americans thats what we owe because of obamas ****ing vacations, "war efforts" and bailouts

ya 8 years of war and building dept had nothing to do with it. you'll be a fun diversion to get us through the summer. post more

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Ron Paul 2012.

He came in second in the Iowa Republican straw poll. I'm going to vote for him in the primary.

If he loses the primary, I would vote for Bachman (Who I see as the only viable candidate that could be Paul in the primary). I won't vote for a 3rd party this election, sorry, too much on the line this time around to waste time on someone like Chuck Baldwin.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Again with the Ron Paul bullshit? The man wants to eliminate the federal income tax, and still somehow pay off the 14.5 trillion dollar national debt. He ranks alongside Sarah Palin in ignorance and potential for destruction.

It's called National Retail Sales Tax. The federal government has no business taking from my earnings. Take from my commerce- that's where they're authorized to do so by the Federal and Arizona constitution.

 

[Raziaar]

Ron Paul 2012.

He came in second in the Iowa Republican straw poll. I'm going to vote for him in the primary.

If he loses the primary, I would vote for Bachman (Who I see as the only viable candidate that could be Paul in the primary). I won't vote for a 3rd party this election, sorry, too much on the line this time around to waste time on someone like Chuck Baldwin.

Iowa straw poll means jack shit. I don't know why it gets the retarded buzz it does.

Also Bachmann is a ****ing nutter, on a degree higher than Palin. Palin is mostly dumb, unlike Bachmann... though she does occasionally say some really dumb shit.

It's called National Retail Sales Tax. The federal government has no business taking from my earnings. Take from my commerce- that's where they're authorized to do so by the Federal and Arizona constitution.

They do have business taking from your earnings. They also have business taxing what you buy. Please tell me how taxing purchases is really all that different from taxing income? It's not, and it puzzles me why you would say yay to one and nay to the other. Government's don't function without taxes, and those taxes go towards paying for things you take for granted in our modern society.

 

[Eejit]

They do have business taking from your earnings. They also have business taxing what you buy. Please tell me how taxing purchases is really all that different from taxing income? It's not, and it puzzles me why you would say yay to one and nay to the other.

Actually it is different. Income tax is progressive while sales tax is regressive - it hits the poor harder than the rich.

 

[Bad^Hat]

I would vote for Bachman

This should be interesting.

 

[Raziaar]

Actually it is different. Income tax is progressive while sales tax is regressive - it hits the poor harder than the rich.

Well I know they're different... but what I am asking Rakurai is what exactly is so special about the sales tax that government should be allowed to enforce it upon citizens, that income tax doesn't have. I want to know what his qualifier is for saying(note: not his quote), "Government can tax purchases, but not income."

I want to know what, in his words, makes sales taxes constitutional and income taxes unconstitutional.

 

[Escaep]

This should be interesting.

Room for one more?

If it is between someone like Obama or Bachman I'd probably vote for Obama, but then again I might just write my own name in.

 

[Sheepo]

Obama. Lesser of two evils and all that. I might vote for a third party. It's not as if it really ****ing matters. This two party system can just burn for all I care.

 

[leib10]

Gonna wait and see who ends up the Republican candidate. Unless it's a total nutjob like Bachmann, Obama probably won't be getting my vote.

 

[CptStern]

If he loses the primary, I would vote for Bachman (Who I see as the only viable candidate that could be Paul in the primary).

... ok

 

[Stigmata]

I think it would be funny if the Antichrist ended up being a woman.

 

[CptStern]

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

They do have business taking from your earnings. They also have business taxing what you buy. Please tell me how taxing purchases is really all that different from taxing income? It's not, and it puzzles me why you would say yay to one and nay to the other. Government's don't function without taxes, and those taxes go towards paying for things you take for granted in our modern society.

Because the federal income tax is pure thievery. Never was there meant to be income or capital gains tax in this nation when it was founded. The nation could be funded through a national retail sales tax once we returned to fiscal responsibility. Taxing commerce is fine. Do not directly steal from one's earnings. How can that be considered okay? Property and retail taxes should be funding our government.

That brings me to another issue- who could be against a balanced budget amendment wtih exceptions for extreme circumstances such as outbreak of conventional war or a pandemic? Why would you oppose the government being forced to spend less than it brings in. It's common sense. Any INDIVIDUAL spending more than they bring is is derided as fiscally irresponsible and an idiot on the way to bankruptcy- why is the state not?

 

[CptStern]

 

[Mogi67]

I can't believe people buy into this bullshit. It's insane that Bachmann is actually a potential candidate. I'm getting the **** out after this next shit show of an election, working on my dual italian citizenship so I can live in europe. Next thing you know I'll be sitting on the beach, earning twenty percent.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

What's insane is that the Democratic party is not considering running a primary challenger to Obama.

 

[The Monkey]

What's insane is that the Democratic party is not considering running a primary challenger to Obama.

I think they're all as likely to bend over to the GOP as Obama has been. They all seem to be a bunch of spineless cowards willing to sell out their principles at the smallest obstacle. Maybe the Democratic Party does contain an honourable person, but if so I have yet to see him/her.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

I think they're all as likely to bend over to the GOP as Obama has been. They all seem to be a bunch of spineless cowards willing to sell out their principles at the smallest obstacle. Maybe the Democratic Party does contain an honourable person, but if so I have yet to see him/her.

You'll never find it with the likes of Reid or Pelosi, or any of their cronies. A very corrupt lot. The closest I've seen is maybe Kucinich. I would fight him tooth or nail every step of the way to him gaining power, but the guy seems sincere in HIS views at least- haven't seen him flip flop or sell out. He's the left's version of Ron Paul I'd say (in terms of consistency only- NOT political views)

 

[Ennui]

If by some miracle Gary Johnson got the republican nomination I would consider voting for him over Obama (but ultimately probably wouldn't). I love Kucinich to death but he has even less chance than Johnson of ever being president... none at all.

 

[Eejit]

Because the federal income tax is pure thievery. Never was there meant to be income or capital gains tax in this nation when it was founded. The nation could be funded through a national retail sales tax once we returned to fiscal responsibility. Taxing commerce is fine. Do not directly steal from one's earnings. How can that be considered okay? Property and retail taxes should be funding our government.

Retail tax is regressive, it's a far bigger burden on the poor than the rich. Income tax is progressive and increases with ability to pay.

 

[Stigmata]

Income tax - if it were distributed fairly - should be considered a membership fee for society. When you get right down to the group dynamics, it's not right that one person in a group can hoard 90% of the wealth, and then throw the burden of supporting the group on the people with the last 10% spread between themselves. And it's not right that people can "take" from society - using roads, schools, garbage disposal services, police protection, which all cost money and require upkeep - without giving back according to their ability to pay.

Imagine your brain is the government of your body, your muscles are poor people (lots of them, not much high-level utility due to their circumstances), and your organs are rich people and corporations (few, but very large and specialised). Also imagine ATP, the chemical fuel source for cells, is money. Every part of your body needs that. Now imagine your organs start hoarding all the ATP, and force the brain to strip what it needs from the muscles. What's going to happen to your body? Your muscles will deteriorate, your arteries and veins will stop being repaired, your immune system will suffer. Your physical health and energy levels will fall precipitously. If it continues, your organs and brain won't have anything to pull them along. You will die.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Retail tax is regressive, it's a far bigger burden on the poor than the rich. Income tax is progressive and increases with ability to pay.

A 'straight up' retail tax is. If you actually read the proposed National Retail Sales Tax along with it's code/regulations, you'll see that it is not. Different things with it such as nontaxation of food, tax refund based on various factors, etc. Look into it if you've never seen it. It's a much better option than an income/capital gains tax.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Income tax - if it were distributed fairly - should be considered a membership fee for society. When you get right down to the group dynamics, it's not right that one person in a group can hoard 90% of the wealth, and then throw the burden of supporting the group on the people with the last 10% spread between themselves. And it's not right that people can "take" from society - using roads, schools, garbage disposal services, police protection, which all cost money and require upkeep - without giving back according to their ability to pay.

Imagine your brain is the government of your body, your muscles are poor people (lots of them, not much high-level utility due to their circumstances), and your organs are rich people and corporations (few, but very large and specialised). Also imagine ATP, the chemical fuel source for cells, is money. Every part of your body needs that. Now imagine your organs start hoarding all the ATP, and force the brain to strip what it needs from the muscles. What's going to happen to your body? Your muscles will deteriorate, your arteries and veins will stop being repaired, your immune system will suffer. Your physical health and energy levels will fall precipitously. If it continues, your organs and brain won't have anything to pull them along. You will die.

Over half of the United States would not be permitted to use any infrastructure then, as over half in the US are not required to pay income tax.

 

[CptStern]

ya canada has exactly what you're describing (HST) ..we also have property taxes and capital gains tax. you seem to be under the impression that a HST style tax is all that's needed when in reality that's not even remotely true. the right wing ninnies will just scream socialism and the liberals will wonder where they're going to get money to fund anything

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

It's different. It's called in proper name "Fair Tax"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax

"Under the FairTax, family households of lawful U.S. residents would be eligible to receive a "Family Consumption Allowance" (FCA) based on family size (regardless of income) that is equal to the estimated total FairTax paid on poverty level spending according to the poverty guidelines published by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services"

It's not socialism, it's just returning taxes they already would pay later in the year. Making sure that it's not a regressive tax. The current system is socialistic (IE: Paying $300 in taxes, and getting a $1500 refund), the FairTax is not.

Take a look if you're not familiar with it. It's a national retail sales tax that eliminates the issues that cause it to be regressive on lower incomes. FAR better than thieving income tax.


As the article states, this would effectively tax wealth (not INCOME), and increase purchasing power. It is not regressive.

 

[delusional]

Over half of the United States would not be permitted to use any infrastructure then, as over half in the US are not required to pay income tax.

Everyone pays Payroll taxes, which a portion inevitably ends up in the general fund anyway, since Social Security takes in more money than it spends. So there.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Everyone pays Payroll taxes, which a portion inevitably ends up in the general fund anyway, since Social Security takes in more money than it spends. So there.

You don't seem to understand how it works. Everyone that works on payroll has money WITHHELD from their paycheck for taxes, yes. But the refund over half the nation receives back from the government is more than they had withheld.

Have $1500 withheld from your check, get $1500 back after filing = not paying taxes. Even though yes, your weekly check will show an amount withheld, you still did not pay taxes in the end through various loopholes or credits. Half the nation does not pay taxes. Especially due to the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) or as I like to call it, the "unearned income tax credit."

The EITC is what causes people to get $3000 tax refunds when they only had like $700 withheld throughout the year. Pure redistribution of wealth.

They're called fully refundable tax credits. Where even if the credit brings your tax liability to a NEGATIVE amount, then the government will cut your a check for that amount. It's pretty dumb in reality, it's caused a lot of people to be dependent on that yearly check instead of budgeting accordingly for their real income.

 

[delusional]

You don't seem to understand how it works. Everyone that works on payroll has money WITHHELD from their paycheck for taxes, yes. But the refund over half the nation receives back from the government is more than they had withheld.

Have $1500 withheld from your check, get $1500 back after filing = not paying taxes. Even though yes, your weekly check will show an amount withheld, you still did not pay taxes in the end through various loopholes or credits. Half the nation does not pay taxes. Especially due to the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) or as I like to call it, the "unearned income tax credit."

The EITC is what causes people to get $3000 tax refunds when they only had like $700 withheld throughout the year. Pure redistribution of wealth.

They're called fully refundable tax credits. Where even if the credit brings your tax liability to a NEGATIVE amount, then the government will cut your a check for that amount. It's pretty dumb in reality, it's caused a lot of people to be dependent on that yearly check instead of budgeting accordingly for their real income.

I'm talking about Fica taxes which is separate from the statistic that half the nation doesn't pay Federal income taxes. So while someone may receive more money than what they put in when it comes to Federal income taxes. They still pay over 6% of their income as well as another 6% from their employer that goes into Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare. But, since these programs are running a profit that money (2.7 trillion) eventually ends up in the General Fund.

So your statistic that "over half of US does not pay income tax" is misleading since it doesn't take into account Fica Taxes. Oh, and its 47% not over 50% as you say. But it has only gotten that bad due to the recession. In 2007 it was 38%.

 

[Uriel]

With the economy being my main concern, I vote for the man with the golden touch.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

I'm talking about Fica taxes which is separate from the statistic that half the nation doesn't pay Federal income taxes. So while someone may receive more money than what they put in when it comes to Federal income taxes. They still pay over 6% of their income as well as another 6% from their employer that goes into Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare. But, since these programs are running a profit that money (2.7 trillion) eventually ends up in the General Fund.

So your statistic that "over half of US does not pay income tax" is misleading since it doesn't take into account Fica Taxes. Oh, and its 47% not over 50% as you say. But it has only gotten that bad due to the recession. In 2007 it was 38%.

FICA shouldnt be considered them paying their fair share into the general fund just because Congress continually raids social security for money. If I was allowed to invest FICA funds in private investments of MY choosing I'd have far better retirement than social security could EVER provide for me. This pyramid scheme needs total overhaul or opt out option. I should be allowed to opt out of contributions on the condition that I'm barred from any of the SS funds.

You are right about it being 47%. I'll correct myself and say nearly half from here on out.

 

[Raziaar]

Those poor people, they're not poor enough! Pay more money! Reduce that quality of living!

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Those poor people, they're not poor enough! Pay more money! Reduce that quality of living!

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm against the income tax, period. But if there is going to be one at all, there definately shouldn't be redistribution of wealth. Your refund should never exceed what you paid. If your tax liability is 0 then that's fine, get everything back. But don't have the IRS pay people and subsidize others poor financial choices. That's pure money redistribution. The EITC is terrible.

 

[Stigmata]

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm against the income tax, period. But if there is going to be one at all, there definately shouldn't be redistribution of wealth. Your refund should never exceed what you paid. If your tax liability is 0 then that's fine, get everything back. But don't have the IRS pay people and subsidize others poor financial choices. That's pure money redistribution. The EITC is terrible.

Couldn't it be said that many of those same poor financial decisions were the result of having a bunch of shitty financial options presented to the poor people by the rich people?

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Couldn't it be said that many of those same poor financial decisions were the result of having a bunch of shitty financial options presented to the poor people by the rich people?

I don't understand what you mean. I'm not talking about any options given by another person, I'm talking about someone independently making bad choices. Not creating a budget and spending less than they earn, and saving up for hardship and retirement. These people have become dependent on their $3000 EITC checks at refund time because they don't budget it out to be a sudden surplus, they factor it into their budget as given guaranteed money and overspend the rest of the year.

 

[Stigmata]

But you can't generalise like that. Not all financial problems are the result of poor spending.