SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic - McCain wins the Republican Primary in NH.

Posted: Jan 13 2008 03:07 am

Cattivo wrote:

Syd Lexia wrote:

But when the government starts steps in and strong arms money out of your paycheck and gives it to some worthless crackhead who then uses it to buy a $300 cellphone, people don't like that so much.

That's why choice is at the crux of the matter. I'd rather write a check annually to charities of my interest such as The National Wildlife Fund or Catholic Charities USA instead of giving to the government through taxes and then have them probably either waste it, pocket it, or use to fund programs that are either inefficient or not the cause of my choice.

Hear hear! Finally something I can agree with you on.

Posted: Jan 14 2008 12:37 am

I guess some people are more optimistic than others. I have a hard time believing that, given the option, most people would actually give to charity if their taxes were cut. I think it'd end up just like the 80's, when the unemployment rate was up around 7.5-8% and the homeless rate was at the same level. Once there were more social programs and less of this "pick yourself up by your bootstraps...even if you're a homeless vet, mentally ill, or a single mother holding down 3 jobs to support her kids", the unemployment and homeless rates nearly halve by 1996.

Now, I'm not for expanding welfare past where it stands now. I'm not for amnesty for illegal immigrants, going overboard in helping drug addicts/child molesters "overcome their diseases", or or even simply giving homeless people cash (because you know they'll spend it on booze). But the whole "help people help themselves" does resonate with me in situations where there are no viable alternatives for people.

I just think that given the option, people want more than to be well-off; they want to be more well-off than the people around them...and that's why I believe that most people would put that extra money directly into savings or checking accounts, or even spending it on themselves than giving it to charity.

If people really want to be committed to putting tax cuts back into charity, the government should regulate a percentage of your tax break to the charity of your choice. And remember, charity is already tax-deductible every year, so you'll save every year in a cyclical manner. Otherwise, all the talk about the tax break NOT being about greed is total bullshit.

Posted: Jan 14 2008 01:00 am

Cutting taxes does no one any good in the long run. Cause down the road the Gov will raise them even more to balance out what they keep spending.

Posted: Jan 14 2008 02:40 am

Okay, heres a tax everyone can agree to keep. The estate tax.

This is the tax that at its worst keeps Paris Hilton from getting all of her daddies money when he dies.

Contrast to lets say... the food tax.

Posted: Jan 14 2008 07:21 am

Actually, I'm against the estate tax. I don't like most of the people who would benefit from its removal, but the government shouldn't be allowed to double dip like that.

Posted: Jan 15 2008 12:43 pm

A few observations, please bear with me:

If you're a middle class American, you a very rich compared to about 65% of the rest of the world.

Hell, even if you're working class, you still have access to food, clean water, electricty, and teh internet, so count your blessings.

My biggest pet peeve is Social Security. I guarantee that, if it is even still around, it will exist in a greatly dimished capacity by the time any of us are old enough to collect it. And how much money will we be forced to pay into it over the course of our liftimes? Oh, and the retirement age will be at least 80.

Social Security wouldn't even exist if people just saved money like they were supposed to. It didn't exist for years, and people got by or died in their boots.

Lower taxes are generally better for everyone. This is based on the libertarian argument that people know how to spend their money better than the government and that free markets distribute wealth in a way that, while not necessarily equitable, is most beneficial for people of every income bracket.

Of course we have to have a strong federal government which protects this market and our political freedoms, and for that we do need taxes. But this nanny state, redistribution of income b.s. has got to stop.

Also, I believe that the progressive tax system that is currently in place is flawed. Progressive taxation means that, the richer you are, the greater percentage of your income you pay in taxes. This system only encourages the government to spend more. This is accomplished by stiring up class conflict. The government says: "We'll pay for these expensive, inefficient and dubious social welfare programs by taxing some rich bastard." And the people love it.

If everyone paid the same percentage of their income in taxes, (flat tax) then we might feel like we were all in this together and be less likely to support any increase government spending.

Posted: Jan 15 2008 04:46 pm

Grimmriffer wrote:

A few observations, please bear with me:

If you're a middle class American, you a very rich compared to about 65% of the rest of the world.

Hell, even if you're working class, you still have access to food, clean water, electricty, and teh internet, so count your blessings.

My biggest pet peeve is Social Security. I guarantee that, if it is even still around, it will exist in a greatly dimished capacity by the time any of us are old enough to collect it. And how much money will we be forced to pay into it over the course of our liftimes? Oh, and the retirement age will be at least 80.

Social Security wouldn't even exist if people just saved money like they were supposed to. It didn't exist for years, and people got by or died in their boots.

Lower taxes are generally better for everyone. This is based on the libertarian argument that people know how to spend their money better than the government and that free markets distribute wealth in a way that, while not necessarily equitable, is most beneficial for people of every income bracket.

Of course we have to have a strong federal government which protects this market and our political freedoms, and for that we do need taxes. But this nanny state, redistribution of income b.s. has got to stop.

Also, I believe that the progressive tax system that is currently in place is flawed. Progressive taxation means that, the richer you are, the greater percentage of your income you pay in taxes. This system only encourages the government to spend more. This is accomplished by stiring up class conflict. The government says: "We'll pay for these expensive, inefficient and dubious social welfare programs by taxing some rich bastard." And the people love it.

If everyone paid the same percentage of their income in taxes, (flat tax) then we might feel like we were all in this together and be less likely to support any increase government spending.

Few counter observations

Count your blessings is a flawed argument. If your eating expired beans in your unheated home, and people are starving and dying in africa, that still doesn't change the fact that your eating expired beans in your unheated home.

Flat tax suffers from a few flaws. For one, lets say a man owns a $100 home and another man owns 3 10,000,000 homes. The first man may not have very much disposable income, so when tax time comes, he'll lose almost all of it. Contrast with man number two, who has a great deal, especially if he is wise and took out loans on the above houses and invested that money into some relatively safe stocks with a higher return that the morgage rate. Second, because the second man has significantly more property to lose, he benefits more from social programs that keep it safe, such as firefighters and policemen.

Free market isnt a wand that fixes all problems. Some things do not work as well with it as others. For example; oil has always been a trouble industry because of the very high cost in entering it, which significantly curtails competition. Medicine is another problem, in that the consumer usually does not have the education necessary to discern which medical treatments or prescriptions are needed or not, nor does he in a emergency situation have the ability to shop around for the best hospital to recieve treatment from.

Posted: Jan 16 2008 07:17 am

Dammit, fucking Romney won Michigan. I was hoping McCain would eke out the victory, because if the Mormon Moron lost his home state that would have been the final fucking nail in his campaign's coffin.

Joined: Aug 24 2005 Location: Mount Holly, NJ Posts: 1062

Syd Lexia wrote:

Dammit, fucking Romney won Michigan. I was hoping McCain would eke out the victory, because if the Mormon Moron lost his home state that would have been the final fucking nail in his campaign's coffin.

Yeah, I was kinda disappointed too. Now Huckabee will win SC (probably) and it will be one big clusterfuck with all three claiming to be the "real Republican." The good news is that Romney's last stand should be in Michigan. He won b/c his dad was governor and 4 in 10 voters said that "family ties" were important to them when they voted, which is gay.

It would have been nice to completely disregard Romney though.

Posted: Jan 16 2008 05:29 pm

Lowering the drinking age is gonna cause a ton of problems. You'd pretty much be making it legal for high schoolers to drink and that would piss of schools pretty bad. Now most people would say high schoolers drink anyway. Thats true but making it 18 would mean they could do it legally outside of their campus boundaries and just go to class sloshed. And the schools can't do a thing about it cause its legal. Dropout rate would probably increase as well.

Posted: Jan 16 2008 05:31 pm

Is it legal to go to work sloshed? Yes. Does your work allow you? No. The schools could just make coming to school drunk against school rules.

Posted: Jan 16 2008 05:36 pm

But as it stands it isn't. I doubt school systems would want to go through that trouble. Colleges yes because they are private but I've worked in public school system and its a bitch to get anything to go through. Imagine a high school football celebration or some sort of school sponsored party. They cant legally not let you drink but i doubt they want you too.

Posted: Jan 16 2008 05:40 pm

Smoking is still illegal in schools even though the legal age is 18.

Posted: Jan 16 2008 05:44 pm

Actually, most schools have it in their handbooks that you can't come to school drunk/high, much like they have dress codes. Also, public intoxication is a crime in most states. Also, it's not illegal for you to be drunk if you're underage; it's illegal for anyone to sell/serve you alcohol. If you're a minor, and you get drunk and slam your car into a building, you will probably be prosecuted. However, unless you stole it, the person who gave you alcohol will be prosecuted even more severely.

Also, the drinking age USED to be 18. Shortly after the end of the Vietnam War, there was a push to raise the drinking age. The main reason why the drinking age isn't eighteen is because statistically speaking, an 18 year-old is much more likely to buy alcohol for a sixteen year-old than a 21 year-old.

Posted: Jan 16 2008 05:46 pm

Right. But how many high schools across The U.S.A. do you see kids puffing away across the street off campus? Probably most if not all high schools have a spot where kids smoke off campus. The problem is the way alcohol affects you. In most places the school is responsible for you until you get home. I can bet they don't want a bunch of kids going around drunk. Thats just a huge can of worms.

Posted: Jan 16 2008 05:52 pm

So if they're drunk, you suspend them.

Posted: Jan 16 2008 05:52 pm

I don't know how many times you have to hear it, but it's not the school's fault if you get drunk. If they say you can't drink on school premises, then it's not their fault if you do. It's legal for an 18 year-old to smoke Marlboros, but at my old high school, they'd confiscate them and give you detention regardless of how of you were because it was against the rules.

Posted: Jan 16 2008 06:28 pm

When kids get in car crashes from driving home they are still under school jurisdiction. Or imagine School sponsored trips such as Football games or Marching band or any time of traveling. Awhile back a bunch of kids got suspended for vandalizing property on their way home. Personally I'm all for lowering drinking age. Ive known a few guys who went off to Iraq and didn't come back. The fact that the ycan do that but not give a toast at a wedding is pretty fucked up.They didn't even turn 20. Its just it would be extremely messy in terms of how it would affect the social atmosphere around the country.

Posted: Jan 16 2008 07:43 pm

It's actually illegal to be drunk and underage. I know personally, its called "minor in consumption."

Posted: Jan 17 2008 01:52 am

But The discussion is if the age is lowered to 18.

Posted: Jan 17 2008 09:25 am

Ah ok. Then I have nothing to say to that.

Well, I actually believe if teens can be tried as adults, then they should have the same privileges as adults do.

Posted: Jan 17 2008 01:04 pm

an editorial on John McCain I read in the Phoenix New Times (very liberal free newspaper) that I enjoyed and thought it showed McCain in a positive light:
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2008-01-17/news/after-john-mccain-s-win-in-new-hampshire-sarah-fenske-puts-dibs-on-a-seat-on-the-bandwagon/

Joined: Apr 14 2006 Location: Lake Michigan Posts: 3332

Well, it looks like I'm going to have to vote for McCain in the Illinois primary next week, as Rudy is wisely dropping out. It won't be an enthusiastic vote, however.

I'll still holdout some hope for a VP nod for Rudy, but as Kubo said earlier, that is highly doubtful. Their respective egos are too big for one ticket, plus if McCain wins the nomination, he'll have to mollify the base with a more traditional republican. Crying

Joined: Aug 24 2005 Location: Mount Holly, NJ Posts: 1062

Cattivo wrote:

Well, it looks like I'm going to have to vote for McCain in the Illinois primary next week, as Rudy is wisely dropping out. It won't be an enthusiastic vote, however.

I'll still holdout some hope for a VP nod for Rudy, but as Kubo said earlier, that is highly doubtful. Their respective egos are too big for one ticket, plus if McCain wins the nomination, he'll have to mollify the base with a more traditional republican. Crying

I've heard that he's leaning towards Huckabee if he eventually drops out. As a McCain supporter, that decision will piss me off. I suppose it makes strategic sense in order to get the Bible Republicans on board, but still... fuckin Huckabee.

I heard a rumor he was considering Colin Powell. As amazing as that might seem, I'm 99.9% sure that it's nothing but a nonsubstantive rumor.

Posted: Jan 30 2008 04:46 pm

McCain doesn't need Huckabee, nor should he make him VP. That is NOT a man we need one heartbeat away from the presidency. McCain should pick whoever he genuinely wants, not who he thinks is politically advantageous. Colin Powell would be fucking amazing. I wouldn't mind Giuliani either.

Here's the thing, McCain may not play to the Bible-thumpers, but in a choice between him or Hillary and/or Obama, they're going to back McCain. That, or they'll throw their vote away on some new William Jennings Bryant wannabe and end up looking like idiots... you know, more than they already do.

But as Colin Powell has repeatedly refused to seek elected office, I think McCain's best choice would be Elizabeth Dole. She's an all-around decent person who has mainstream appeal and she's got major cred with the conservatives as well. If Hillary loses the primary and McCain takes Libby Dole, then the Republicans would become the first party to run a viable presidential ticket with a woman on it.