Romney Bails!

Remove all ads!

Drew:

That's why the basics of life aren't being taxed, isn't it? And anyway, if the end result of cost is the same, would you rather pay taxes on your spendings, savings, earnings, investments, inherritance, and half of every breath you take, or just on how much you spend? It seems to me that this system will allow the poor to save much more effectively. Of course, that requires them to have a modicum of self control, the lack of which is why many of them are poor to begin with.

@Chandos:
A weak or unstable national government in Iraq is going to make it a prime target for terrorist organizations to set up bases in. That's simple. Add in Iran and several other neighbor states eyeing it and licking their lips, and I see a VERY bad future for Iraq if we pull out too soon, and a not too good future for the rest of the region.

@Rally:
And that's going to be his one biggest challenge. So tell me, who would you prefer:
1.)A cut throat feminist who's established as the 'will say anything for support' type
2.)A candidate who's most defining feature is that he hasn't really defined his positions on much of anything, much less how he plans to achieve them
3.)A republican, no wait, he was going to join the democrats for a while, but he's conservative, but what about all those liberal bills he's supported in congress
4.)A southern baptist preacher possibly looking for a national pulpit

As for my age comments, it was more just my noticing it and remembering what big a deal age has played in past elections. There have been more than a few candidates who lost, at least partly, because they seemed old.

Anyway, I'm not sure exactly how Huckabee has preached, but I would remind you all that it has been a long, long time since there was a president that actually acted out the Christianity he claimed to profess. Who last:
1.)Loved their enemies
2.)Blessed those that cursed them
3.)Gave to the poor, orphaned, and widowed
4.)Forgave and asked for forgiveness
5.)Admitted his faults and mistakes and took steps to correct them

If Huckabee brings truely Christian values to the office, I see a bright future ahead for the US. If he brings standard 'christo-american' values to the office, things are still looking up, though decidedly not as much.

 

No matter how much self control it has, an impoverished family isn't going to be able to afford a 30-50% increase in its monthly expenses. Under the proposal as it currently stands, the only thing that the poor will not pay taxes on will be their rent. Food....30% more. Clothing...30% more. School supplies...30% more. Light bulbs, batteries, repair parts, gas, oil changes, pots, pans, silverware, the electricity, water, and heating bills...sure, some of these necessities may be exempted, but every exemption increases that rate even further.

No matter how you implement it, a consumption tax will shift the vast majority of our tax burden to the poor and middle class. The poor spends nearly 100% of its income each month. Every dime of their income will be either directly or indirectly taxed (while rent would not be taxed, the landlord who buys his apartment or home will be...and will pass that cost onto his tenants). The wealthy spend a much smaller portion of their income. Instituting the "Fair Tax" would amount to taxing the poor for nearly 100% of their income and taxing the very wealthy for practically none of it. So, yeah, if you make over 250K per year and save more than you spend, the consumption tax would be great! Support it if you want, but let's call it what it really is: the Unfair Tax!

The IRS is not broken, it doesn't need to be replaced, and since capital gains -- the majority of the wealthiest Americans' income -- is taxed at a mere 15%, it is already skewed in their favor. The Unfair Tax will just skew it even more.

 

Chandos: I think Somalia is a good example of what happens when there is no strong national government. It is not improbable that Iraq could degenerate to separate fuedal states run by the different religious sects. It is also possible another military force within the region will expand into Iraq if the government proves to be unable to adequately protect itself.

I was against the reasons for the war (and expressed such several times here on the boards). However, once we committed to the war and destroyed all infrastructure of the previous regime, it became our responsibility to rebuild that infrastructure -- the military and our government failed to realize how completely Hussein controlled Iraq (I'm absolutely astounded by such an oversight, but then that appears to be par for the course in Iraq).

Without rebuilding the infrastructure and leaving a stable government in place, Iraq has very little chance of surviving. As I said, I do not believe either Bush's assessment or the democrats proposals I've heard are very reasonable

 

Well put. In my opinion, the antique store rule should definitely apply, here. One thing I will add, though, is that neither Clinton nor Obama plans to abandon Iraq by any measure. Obama's Iraq plan is here. Hillary Clinton's plan, while in my opinion entirely too vague, is here.

 

Maybe for you, but not for those who believe the war is a complete waste. There are any number of people who live in Iraq, not just "terrorists." There actually are people just like we are, living there, doing the same things we do. Contrary to what some may believe not everyone needs the big "Nanny" USA to fix the problems of the world. We can help them work out their differences, but, at the end of the day, it's really their problem, and there is lot they can do for themselves, if they are given a chance.

As for Iran, would they invade Iraq? Not if we redeploy and are sitting right on the border in Afghanistan with a sizable army. I hope you are not that afraid of the bullies n Iran. I think the big Nanny USA can handle them if need be. But really, the whole argument that we can save the world from the "Isamo-Nazis" is thin logic, to say the least. It's like the old agrument they had about Vietnam, that if it fell to the nationalists, that the rest of the world would be overrun with Commies. Yeah, we saw how that happened....

And any of those above would be light-years ahead of what we have now.

 

@NOG: Of your list, I'd go for #2, without a doubt. Better someone who may not have proved himself to be RIGHT on the particular issues that I hold dearest, than those who have time and again proved themselves WRONG.

 

Believe me, NOG, I understand your cynicism, given what this country has been through the last 7 years, and given the way that this primary season has turned into largely a personal contest of "personalities." Nevertheless, I'm sorta inclinded to agree with Rally, and for much the same reasons. I'm still going to withhold my support until I see something of more substance, but I think she has the right of it.

As much as I want to support the Hill, mostly because she is a smart and accomplished woman, she seems to lack Bill's savvoy in dealing with people and the issues. And I don't think she gets it quite the same way that he did. Bill understood that as a president you have to rise above the petty and the personal side of politics and stay focused on getting to the heart of the issues, even if it meant having to compromise to accommondant a broader range of divergent viewpoints in getting to the final result. I think Obama is not really at that place either, but as Rally points out, he seems to moving in the direction of getting to the heart of the issues that matters most to a great number of the electorate; which is very much unlike what we have now, an arrogant "leader," who thinks it's ALL about himself.

 

So then you should only allow those with no jobs to have the opportunity to hold political office? Either that or you would oppress the faithful by telling them that their ministers can't seek such office.

Interestingly enough, your idea would outright disqualify Mormons. Even though Mitt Romney may not currently be a Bishop or Stake President, he still holds the office of a High Priest. Part of the priesthood responsibility given to them is to be standing ministers within their ward (congregation).

 

1. I don't get how you go from "Clergy can't run for office" to "only... those with no jobs". Explain your connections, please?

2. Similarly, I don't see how keeping ordained clergy out of office translates into "oppress[ion of] the faithful," but I expect this is the same old argument that you and I always have; namely, that I see "freedom of religion" as including a protection of "freedom from religion," and you don't. People with strong religious beliefs would still be able to run for office, simply not those who have already decided to serve the one Boss who never goes away.

3. I'm suggesting a blanket rule, not one tailored with dozens of exemptions and special conditions. If the Mormon community wants to get someone into the White House, they'd have to find someone who never held authority within the religious hierarchy - same as any other religion.

 

@T2Bruno:

As Drew mentioned, the plans I've seen so far to emerge from the Democratic party suggest a withdrawal that is far from complete. They speak of removing combat brigades, but leave a notable door for troops that protect vital positions, such as embassies, and for combatting Al-Queda and, by extension, other terrorist groups (as I understand both Clinton and Obama support such measures). I'm quite certain that no matter which candidate is elected and what they say about Iraq in front of their supporters, the US won't completely leave the country alone in the next few years.

Also, some of the troops withdrawn from Iraq will probably end up in Afghanistan, and imo that's not a bad thing. From its surging drug production to recent advances of the Taliban, I think the situation in Afghanistan has been sadly underreported, partly due to what's been happening in Iraq.

 

Rally, the problem is that the system you're proposing is, in half, exactly what the founding fathers wanted to avoid. Essentially, you are biassing the system toward the atheist and agnostic 'clergy' who, by dint of their religious beliefs (specifically the lack thereof), never hold any official possition within their 'religion', yet still hold the same bias and blind fervor.

And actually, Chandos, it's more my cynicis over what's happened in the past 15 years.

 

Why stop there? You may as well go back a good 27 years. We haven't had a scandal-free administration since Jimmy Carter.*

* Being a weak president is not a scandal.

 

That is a pretty profound statement. I know some Agnostics and Atheists who would vehemently disagree with your characterization of their beliefs as a religion. I happen to agree with you.

Wouldn't the banning of members of organized religion be a defacto establishment of unorganized religion in violation of the first amendment?

 

That depends on how you define "members". I am assuming that the only people who would be banned from holding elected office are those people who have been ordained, not just anyone who has declared an affiliation with a particular organization.

 

What a concept. If only guys like McCain and Feingold would trust voters enough instead of creating silly, Bizantine laws to try and protect us from ourselves.

 

Correct, but what do you do about religions that are unorganized and don't "ordain" anybody such as the atheists/agnostics?

 

Atheism and agnosticism aren't religions, even of the unorganized variety.

As much as I have distaste for the idea of clergy of any rank in any faith holding elective office, banning them on this basis would violate their first amendment rights. An ordained minister has as much right to run on his status as do the voters to vote against him for that status. It's a pretty weak qualification for elected office if that's all you've got, but unfortunately it's THE qualification for most evangelical Christians...hence Huckabee's support. Not that being a minister is in and of itself bad - quite the contrary - but if he wasn't a minister he wouldn't have ANY support. His policy positions are pretty ridiculous and he's shown an astonishing amount of ineptitude in international and political affairs throughout theis campaign. He's very charming and personally I like the guy a lot, but in terms of competence and preparedness for the office, he's W all over again. His faith is pretty much his meal ticket.

It's for this reason that I, like others here, find it very tempting to want to ban clergy outright from seeking political office. But I believe in the constitution more, and to me it's quite clear on this subject.

Sidenote: Every time I see this topic's title, I briefly mis-read it as "Romney's Balls!" /end 12-year-old

 

Which "silly" laws do you mean?

 

I assume he's referring specifically to McCain/Feingold.