The Palen/McCain "reform" ticket

You're right about the chart being from 95. It was a quick find to illustrate my point.

When I did the preview on my post the chart came up fine. Now it looks like code. Can you see it OK?

My point in this is that the total tax structure in America remains skewed against the poor and favors the rich. The Federal tax code is more progressive and helps to even this out a bit.

George B and McCain have worked to make the federal tax code less progressive by giving tax breaks primarily to the rich and corporations. I believe that low income people need tax relief.

Admin,

After my previous post, I did a little research. Wikipedia defines your source, Citizens for Tax Justice, as: Citizens for Tax Justice is a liberal[1][2] organization founded in 1979 with the mission of giving ordinary people a greater voice in the development of tax laws. They state they fight for fair taxes for middle and low-income families, requiring the wealthy to pay their fair share, closing corporate tax loopholes, adequately funding important government services, reducing the federal debt, and taxation that minimizes distortion of economic markets. For instance, in their 2004 report Corporate Income Taxes in the Bush Years, they claimed that many corporations pay zero taxes because of loopholes and lobbying. There was also an external link on Wikipedia's page from The Heritage Foundation (admittedly a conservative organization) that painted a picture of Citizens for Tax Justice as not being accurate in their presentation of "facts" about taxation. (See http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm586.cfm) Again, Heritage is a conservative think tank that will push its agenda and slant its presentations, just as CTJ is a liberal organization and will spin their presentations in that direction.

Admin wrote:My point in this is that the total tax structure in America remains skewed against the poor and favors the rich. The Federal tax code is more progressive and helps to even this out a bit.

George B and McCain have worked to make the federal tax code less progressive by giving tax breaks primarily to the rich and corporations. I believe that low income people need tax relief.

I don't dispute that under Bush the corporate income tax liabilities were lessened. The fallacy with raising corporate income tax is that they (the corporations) will pass the increase back to their customers through higher prices. If we were discussing a company like Exxon/Mobil, their increased prices would affect all income levels, but it is felt more acutely by the lower income sector since a larger part of their disposable income goes toward transportation. I agree that tax relief is needed...but I rail against any tax proposal that appears to be income redistribution. I am not wealthy (I wish I were), but I don't feel that the government should increase the tax rate for the wealthy while reducing tax rates for middle- and low-income families and individuals. The high income people are wealthy because they (or someone in their family history) worked very hard to accumulate that wealth. They own the companies where middle and low income workers get their paychecks. If you penalize the wealthy for their success, what is to prevent them from cashing out, closing their businesses and moving/reinvesting in another country? With the proliferation of global commerce, there is nothing particularly attractive to operating in the United States. Developing countries offer lower labor costs and, in many cases, little or no taxation. I'm thankful for any corporation that continues to do business in the U.S., and I'll support almost any measure that will keep them in this country.
Here's a novel idea: How about pushing our federal, state and local elected officials to REDUCE SPENDING!! If that were accomplished, taxes would be lowered because the tax revenues needed to meet spending bills would be lower. You want to ease the tax burden? Tell the "tax and spend" crowd that you're taking away their allowance.

After watching John McCain in the debate the other night, it has become clear to me that the man is beginning to decline in his cognitive capacity. Unlike Ron Reagan, I don't believe John is dealing with alzheimers, but there is definately something going on there. I wish John McCain and his family all the best in the future, but I will not particiapte in kicking the man in his current mental state.

What about kicking JSN for her latest post about you? Talk about low blows! (I also agree that john mccain is losing it).

xmashen wrote:What about kicking JSN for her latest post about you? Talk about low blows! (I also agree that john mccain is losing it).

I had already addressed what actually happened in an ealier post. TRR's "report" on the situation doesn't warrant a response.

ANCHORAGE, Alaska - A legislative committee investigating Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has found she unlawfully abused her authority in firing the state's public safety commissioner.

The investigative report concludes that a family grudge wasn't the sole reason for firing Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan but says it likely was a contributing factor.

Full story here.

**Surprise!!!!***

Do you think this news will be posted on TRR?

has anyone seen this? YouTube - Hey Sarah Palin (with lyrics/subtitles) . warning ... it has a couple "f " words, so maybe you shouldn't play it for your kids. On the other hand...

sorry, i meant to post the link correctly:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DIc8jdra0o

OMG, that was so funny! Thank you, thank you!

Here's another

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8__aXxXPVc&feature=related

it's almost too easy to make fun of her. If the prospect of her becoming our VP weren't so truly scary, it could actually be funny.

This last guy didn't make fun of her. He was scared that she may get elected, and disgusted with her lack of even basic knowledge. She is scarey!!!

I can say that, prior to his selection of Palin, I had respected John McCain (and COULD have voted for him). Now I just feel slightly sorry for him.

xmashen wrote:I can say that, prior to his selection of Palin, I had respected John McCain (and COULD have voted for him). Now I just feel slightly sorry for him.

I was going to vote for McCain for a lot of reasons, until Palin. I can't now. I'm not excited about Obama. So, I'm not sure if I'll vote. That would be a first for me.

So, Palin not only allowed the "first dud" to pressure for the dismissal of the public safety director, but also built a house under suspicious circumstances using the same contractor as the multi-million dollar stadium down the road. Her own party members have declared her actions as unethical and in violation of the rules. If she keep this up, she will not only not be VP, she will probably be ousted as Governor.

Other headlines:
Hockey mom (Palin) booed off the ice...
Palin admonishes her own supporters

We are voting for Obama in our house.

Stephanie & Jason Thompson

Jason & Stephanie Tho wrote:We are voting for Obama in our house.

Well, then you must be using absentee ballots.

KevinNSaisi wrote:

Jason & Stephanie Tho wrote:We are voting for Obama in our house.

Well, then you must be using absentee ballots.

Correct

i think this brings a whole new meaning to " absentee"

xmashen wrote:i think this brings a whole new meaning to " absentee"

What do you mean XMASHEN

like absence of mind, conscience, ethics etc. etc.