11 Reasons To Vote Democrat

Low-risk, but pay off compared to the stock market average. Investors "Loaning" of money to the government, government spending, which is in constant circulation.

now Dave, if you would just let loose of that soft spot in your heart to let the rich pay some of the burden

Eric, I should not tease you, You make good observations, There is definitly a line where most people will go from need to greed (not just the rich), and alot of government workers have crossed it. I think it is worse when the government does it because they have a monopoly,I cannot send my kids to or pay taxes to the "other" public school.

Eric, Did you roll off the republican side of the bed this morning?

we got a big issue up here in Ohio, issue 2, collective bargaining for the state employees, the only ones babbling about it are those involved, well we get a teacher on the radio complaining about her thistle rope at her hanging, she goes onto to telling the DJ how hard she fcn works, up late grading papers, 4 years of school, blah blah blah. well she rakes the school system for 69k a year, paid retirement, paid health insurance, tenure, dont know if thats the spelling. plus her hubby makes 29k a year
from my point of view, 2 months off, kids here in the US rank about 47th on the list of brains in the world, 50% of Americans make 26k a year, living on that,
more energy is spent towards sports in school than scholastics. so, I will vote yes on issue 2, why do people always kick the gift horse?

[QUOTE=panda] Nice list. I wonder if there are any ski boat owners who actually do vote democrat? QUOTE]

Never have and never WILL!!

Thanks for your and your families service Andy.
I really appreciate it, and always will.

JoeinNY wrote: I can say it because it is a fundamental fact of both reality and economics. As the money is already long spent...( the definition of debt) the contribution to the economy is long ago taken and the capitol is there by definition “out of the economy” until such time as the bonds are cashed in and the capitol reinvested or spent.

Joe, I see what you are getting at but it does not match up with reality. My state does a bonding every two years, for roads and infrastructure, It is also used at the local level for cities and schools. I have to admit I have not paid much attention to it at the federal level, but when I buy savings bonds they must be using the money for something. Are you saying there would be no noticeable changes if no one bought bonds starting today? I think we would quickly see how much work that money is doing.

Joe, I just had an idea ....
Since the wife and I fit your description for the 46% that pay
no Federal Income Taxes and you seem to support this, maybe you
and John can get together and send Cathie and I a check to cover
our actual taxes each year. I would even send you a receipt for
the donation. I am not too proud to cash that check and it would
make you feel good too   

OverMyHead wrote: Joe, I do think zero is to low for a capital gains tax, but how can you say there is no contribution to the economy.

I can say it because it is a fundamental fact of both reality and economics. As the money is already long spent...( the definition of debt) the contribution to the economy is long ago taken and the capitol is there by definition “out of the economy” until such time as the bonds are cashed in and the capitol reinvested or spent. Deficit spending contributes to the economy in the year that it is spent, but once added to the Debt it is idled capitol. I would say it is basic economic theory.. but it isn’t theory it is one of the givens that all economic theory is based on. Conversely, when government pays back a bond and does not make a replacement available (ie pays down the debt) then that capitol must either be consumed (which is a direct influx of demand into the economy) or invested into the private market where it contributes to growth in a variety of ways. Unfortunately only one time in the last three decades has that happened and that was the last four years under Clinton... and it worked to bring up significantly incomes across the board… also the only time that has happened in the last 30 years. Halting the paying down the debt and returning us to deficit spending was the first thing GWB did when he got into office… we were told it would increase growth but it didn’t. You show me a republican who actually cares about paying down the debt and I will show you someone that will never make it through the primary as some astroturf group funded by big big money will take them out… with a guy like Cain.    
Roger - I just don’t get how you justify an opinion that these 46% aren’t contributing their fair share just because they fail to pay federal income taxes... the majority of them are retirees who paid their fair share during their productive working years not to mention that they paid to educate the bill gates and steve jobs of the world in public schools. They continue to pay through their property taxes to educate and train those that become our soldiers and workers. In my town they could feel just as put off that they must pay in many cases 10-20% of their income in school taxes to educate workers that then move down to NYC and make JPM chase multi-billion dollar profits that never find their way back to contribute to our property tax base.   
I would be all in favor of a true nationwide flat percentage income tax that replaced all the consumptive taxes and fees add up the cost of government... figure out what percentage of the GDP that is (hint around 40 percent) and charge everyone that…   But a flat tax or one that eliminates capital gains without addressing all sources of government income favors only the ultra-rich. What do you think the Koch brothers pay as a percentage of their income a year into taxes (I mention them specifically because they are the ones that created Herman Cain and his subsequent 999 plan)... currently it is significantly less than 20 percent of their incomes in combined taxes (state local property fees gas etc).   Almost all that is in federal income taxes on their capital gains... under 999 they would pay somewhere under 5%. A self-employed mechanic making 40k a year living in a 100,000 dollar house and commuting 25 miles to work each way in these parts will pay in excess of 35% of their 40k in taxes and fees a year… if he is paying on his house and has a wife and one kid he wouldn’t pay one penny in federal income taxes. He isn’t the problem, 999 would get him about 2.5% closer to a 40% share though
I like the way the current income tax works (once you strip out the BS deductions) in that everyone pays the exact same rate on the first 100,000 dollars a year they make, everyone also pays the exact same rate on the next 100,000 dollars a year they make. I was to believe what I am told by the billionaire fronted shills running for the republican nomination that if I increase the tax rates on everyone in the country’s 11th 100,000 dollars a year they make then they are less likely to want to make that money and it will be bad for the economy and growth but I don’t know one person who wouldn’t work 30 days for 60k and would rather sit idle that would work those days for 70k.
Instead of everyone paying a percentage of their incomes we could just divide the total cost of government up and divide it by the number of people in the country but nobody would ever be able to have kids again because everyone in your house needs to cough up a bit over 18k a year. Jobs that paid under 18k a year would definitely go to tax evaders... realistically you would need to make 100k to survive with a family of 4. You wouldn’t want to live in a country that taxed in that manner...

I certainly have an interest in simplifying our tax code, but I feel at this time our government is pretty good at collecting taxes, I would call that a strength area. What our government cannot seem to do is show restraint in spending. We have a system that spends first without clear evidence that it will make a difference. I see the 999 plan and flat tax as a distraction from our first problem which is spending.If the government is going to take a thousand dollars of my money away from my family I want them to invest the same consideration I would as to how it will be spent. To me it does not matter how the government takes the money,whether it takes a thousand dollars from my left pocket or my right, I am still out a grand. I like the idea of everyone paying some federal tax, even if we give them more just to take it back. If someone has no skin in the game, they will not be concerned with what the government spends, but if they see 9% taken from them every time they spend money, and then the government says now we need 10% so we can stop global warming on mars, people will question the spending and evaluate its necessity.

phospher wrote: critter wrote: phospher wrote: What a bunch of right wing propaganda Waterdog. Crit, you right wingers think supporting our military means putting a bumper sticker on your car. This makes no sense to me ?? I served for 4 years in the Navy, my brother for 10 in the Army, my Daughter for 4 years in the Army with a tour in Iraq, my son-in-law is currently on his 4th Iraq tour in 6 years. So can you expain this comment for me ?? My window stickers say "USO volunteer" and the emblem for having a family member in a combat zone. I'll re-phrase it. Most people think putting a bumper sticker on their car(as of the recent two wars mainly republicans that I've personally come across) means supporting our troops. How about they raise our taxes and pay our soldiers better! Or better yet, keep us out of the wars to begin with.

Here is your darn problem. You lefties are all the same. You think "freedom" is free!!!! It is not!!

I cannot, at this moment, name a single relationship where some do all
but others are expected to do nothing.
In a family, each member contributes. cooks or mows or cleans but there is usually no family member that does nothing but take.
In a business, each member contributes to the business or is removed.
At a CCF gathering, each member contributes in some manner to make the
event more enjoyable. I know of no-one that just shows up and partakes.

Why is a country any different. Why should I not expect everyone that
is benefiting from the experience to contribute. Maybe not all equally
but at least a contribution other than to exist and accept. There are
currently too many with their hand out but do nothing to contribute to
the experience. Paying no Federal Income Taxes is an example of this to me.

phospher wrote: What a bunch of right wing propaganda Waterdog. Crit, you right wingers think supporting our military means putting a bumper sticker on your car.

This makes no sense to me ?? I served for 4 years in the Navy, my brother for 10 in the Army, my Daughter for 4 years in the Army with a
tour in Iraq, my son-in-law is currently on his 4th Iraq tour in 6 years.
So can you expain this comment for me ??
My window stickers say "USO volunteer" and the emblem for having a family member in a combat zone.

JoeinNY wrote: I mean it crushes almost all those freeloadin 46%’s you are talking about (except the 12 million that come from the top half of the countries earners ) more than the ones currently paying federal income taxes but it is based on usage.

You are making a big assumption if you think that most of the 46% own cars and can actually afford to drive them any distance. I am talking
about supporting the Military, the Government (that has grow to an
unbeleiveable level), the current uninsurred Health Care System, the Illegal Immigration system. Those 46% could contribute 9% and make a difference.