11 Reasons To Vote Democrat

1. I voted Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene, but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn't.

2. I voted Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.

3. I voted Democrat because Freedom of Speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.

4. I voted Democrat because I'm way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves.

5. I voted Democrat because I believe that people who can't tell us if it will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don't start driving a Prius.

6. I voted Democrat because I'm not concerned about millions of babies being aborted so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.

7. I voted Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a right to free health care, education, and Social Security benefits and we should take away the social security from those who paid into it.

8. I voted Democrat because I believe that business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as the Democrats see fit.

9. I voted Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.

10. I voted Democrat because I think that it's better to pay billions to people who hate us for their oil, but not drill our own because it might upset some endangered beetle, gopher or fish.

11. I voted Democrat because while we live in the greatest, most wonderful country in the world, I was promised "HOPE AND CHANGE".

How is that working out for you?

Voting democrat used to be acceptted back in the 30's and 40's. Now all democrats are for givaway programs, rob the rich and give to the unions. Very unnacepptable

I see Perry is on the flat tax bandwagon, only reason I noticed is because he wants deductions for those who make 500k or more....when you boys gonna wake up?

eric lavine wrote: I see Perry is on the flat tax bandwagon, only reason I noticed is because he wants deductions for those who make 500k or more....

Where did you see that?

im throwing out propaganda, i couldve swore he said above, thuinking of this, whatever happened to credit card interest?

Perry's plan is a huge tax reduction for the investor class. It completely eliminates taxes on capital gains and dividends, not to mention the estate tax.

Which means if you inherit 10 million in cash you can put it in government bonds earning 2.5% collect your 250,000 a year tax free for your entire life with no risk, no real investment, and no contribution to the economy and pass that on to your next generation indefinitely without that captiol ever getting back in circulation and without it ever producing anything.

Why do you think the ultra rich love government debt, it is a no risk investment.

Of course this silver spoon's neighbor is going to be working his ass off running a business earning 250,000 a year and paying 50,000 in taxes paying for the roads to be plowed, kids to educated, and army to protect the 10million in bonds the silver spoon is sitting on.

Well he would be earning 250,000 if he could get investors.. but since the first guy doesnt need to earn say 6% return to support his standard of living he won't invest because the risk doesnt bring any reward.. he already has all the money he and his future generations could ever spend without working and backed by the full faith and credit of our federal government.   

Its bad micro economics, its horrible macro economics, and it aint capitalism.. it is fuedalism.

We have been experimenting with it for the last 30 years it didnt work.. we cant affort to penalize those that risk thier capital and those that work for a living... I am not saying that we should treat the silver spoon class any worse as it is not thier fault they were born rich.. but we certainly shouldnt treat them better.

Cains plan does impose a sales tax but eliminates income tax. So yes you still pay, but everyone pays and you have the money saved from the income tax. When you lay them all out Cains does the most in the quickest way. The other flat taxes have faults as well. Check out Gingrich's plan as it is another good one.

Cains 999 plan is the closest that I have seen to having most people
living in this country paying Federal Taxes. It would be nice if the
other 48%+ that currently pay no Federal Taxes would contribute to
funding the country they live in. This would really help with infrustructure,
roads and bridge improvements.
Yes, I know that they pay State and local taxes as they purchase goods
but I am talking Federal tax contributions.
This would also stop the Prison inmates from getting refunds when filing
false returns. Lots of pluses here.

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.

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 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: 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 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.

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...