I dare to say that in the USA of today you cannot be Republican and support civil rights.

Quote from: DarkLady on June 02, 2009, 02:37:18 PM
I dare to say that in the USA of today you cannot be Republican and support civil rights.

I dare to say that you are totally misguided in that belief.

Quote from: michellesofl on May 31, 2009, 02:47:27 AM
But Tekla is "right" about the current GOP. Some wack jobs have taken the Grand Old Party hostage in the past dozen to 15 years or so. That the GOP controlled Congress along with "W" started to spend like drunken sailors didn't help either. No offense to drunken sailors.

Accusing them of spending and not point at the current White House is hypocritical.   

Obama's spending has scared my daughter to death, and then to hear it mentioned that they would like to institute a 25% sales tax in addition to the standard income tax - no frigging way. 

Daisy

QuoteObama's spending has scared my daughter to death, and then to hear it mentioned that they would like to institute a 25% sales tax in addition to the standard income tax - no frigging way. 

Look at it this way the products you are buying are made with 10 cents an hours labor. If they raised there wages to $10 and hour it would be more than a 25% sales tax. The motive here is to stop being wasting consumers and start being responsible.

Quote from: Nichole on June 02, 2009, 03:06:57 PM

Quote from: DarkLady on June 02, 2009, 02:37:18 PM
I dare to say that in the USA of today you cannot be Republican and support civil rights.

I dare to say that you are totally misguided in that belief.

Darklady - Making a statement like that does nothing, except enrage the Republicans that believe you can only be a Democrat if you have your hand in my wallet trying to take more and give it to ones you choose are less fortunate.

Nichole - I dare say that was excellent unexpected response.

Daisy

Blaming this mess on one side or the other is pretty much the second grade politics that got us into it in the first place.  Both sides spend, its a question of what they spend the money on.  Both sides are guilty of jacking up the size of government to levels that seems astronomical.  All are guilty of playing fast and loose with the facts. 

Quote from: lisagurl on June 02, 2009, 03:14:03 PM
Look at it this way the products you are buying are made with 10 cents an hours labor. If they raised there wages to $10 and hour it would be more than a 25% sales tax. The motive here is to stop being wasting consumers and start being responsible.

Okay a carton of milk cost $3.00 , and minimum wage is $6.55.   You work one hour but take home $5.30 after income taxes ( conservative estimate).  Then you go to buy your milk, and the final bill comes to $3.99 (Local, state, and Federal Sales tax), and then you have $1.31 left for an hours work to buy milk ( wasteful -- I do not think so).  Just better to have not... I guess.    Or do you think Minimum wage workers will get an ID card exempting them from the national sales tax...

Daisy

Quote from: daisybelle on June 02, 2009, 03:08:51 PM
Accusing them of spending and not point at the current White House is hypocritical.  

Obama's spending has scared my daughter to death, and then to hear it mentioned that they would like to institute a 25% sales tax in addition to the standard income tax - no frigging way. 

First after 130 days I'm not shocked that the Texas secede crew make that disingenuos argument. You lot were blaming Clinton for everything that occurred negatively during the Bush Admin.

Time now to see that Bush policies and procedures actually had an effect that takes far longer than 130 days to amend.

Quote from: daisybelle on June 02, 2009, 03:15:47 PM
Nichole - I dare say that was excellent unexpected response.

Daisy

And that's because you imagine you know me and that I am strictly as predictable as the Limbaugh/Savage group only as a liberal.

Lots of Pubs believe in civil rights. Party affiliation doesn't seem a litmus test in that regard.

Drink water. Daisy

Quote from: daisybelle on June 02, 2009, 03:23:21 PM
Okay a carton of milk cost $3.00 , and minimum wage is $6.55.   You work one hour but take home $5.30 after income taxes ( conservative estimate).  Then you go to buy your milk, and the final bill comes to $3.99 (Local, state, and Federal Sales tax), and then you have $1.31 left for an hours work to buy milk ( wasteful -- I do not think so).  Just better to have not... I guess.    Or do you think Minimum wage workers will get an ID card exempting them from the national sales tax...

Daisy

I've lived in five states.  None of them taxed unprepared food, including milk.

Here's CA's text on the exemption..

QuoteFOOD PRODUCTS — Sales of food for human consumption are generally exempt from tax unless sold in a heated condition (except hot bakery items or hot beverages, such as coffee, sold for a separate price), served as meals, consumed at or on the seller's facilities, ordinarily sold for consumption on or near the seller's parking facility, or sold for consumption where there is an admission charge.

Quote from: Mister on June 02, 2009, 03:36:27 PM
I've lived in five states.  None of them taxed unprepared food, including milk.

Here's CA's text on the exemption..

The 25 % national tax was stated to be for everything..  so I got the 8% wrong.

The point is -- How much do you think is acceptable for the goverment to take out of every dollar you make? 
For the rich living off of inhertance - 
For the rich working - 
For the Middle class working -
For the Poor working -
For the Poor unemployed -
For the Unworkable -

Or should it all be the same rate....

Daisy

I find it very hard to believe that there wouldn't be exemptions to the tax.  Things that are essential (i.e. food, medical treatment, etc.) would be very hard to tax without public outcry.  "OMG, they're taxing tea and sugar...   screw you, king george."  Whoops, sorry, wrong century.

Personally I believe in a flat tax, with no exemptions or deductions.  Added to that would be a sales tax with exemptions for food and rent and medicine/medical care. 

Quote from: Nichole on June 02, 2009, 03:24:41 PM
First after 130 days I'm not shocked that the Texas secede crew make that disingenuos argument. You lot were blaming Clinton for everything that occurred negatively during the Bush Admin.

Time now to see that Bush policies and procedures actually had an effect that takes far longer than 130 days to amend.

And that's because you imagine you know me and that I am strictly as predictable as the Limbaugh/Savage group only as a liberal.

Lots of Pubs believe in civil rights. Party affiliation doesn't seem a litmus test in that regard.

I was not trying to insult.  I was more than a bit impressed but that has been washed away.

QuoteYou lot were blaming Clinton for everything that occurred negatively during the Bush Admin.

How can you solve the spending problems of the BUSH era with spending at ginormous rates going on now.   This spending will last long past Obama's term of presidency (1 or 2), and our children will pay for it dearly.

QuoteDuring the first 100 days of his presidency, Obama has signed a $787 billion stimulus bill into law, proposed an eye-popping $3.6 trillion budget for the next fiscal year, taken over a massive $700 billion Wall Street bailout program and created other billion-dollar programs to help grease the economic wheels.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/23/obamas-federal-spending-spree-raises-management-issues/

Note: the war in IRAQ 100 million less than this over the whole 8 year period http://costofwar.com/

QuoteObama is not the anti-Bush. He is Bush on steroids.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aYgo3fufKIbI

And to be fair from MSNBC ( NBC and they are now known as the obama propoganda channel ):

QuoteThe budget outline also makes it plain that Democrats won't let a mountain of deficits and debt interfere with advancing Obama's ambitious but costly agenda.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nbcchicago.com%2Fnews%2Fus_world%2FSenate-OKs-Obamas-34-Trillion-Budget-Plan-.html&ei=E5IlSreiDoy9twen-b3YBg&rct=j&q=obama+spending+spree+nbc&usg=AFQjCNHuQVlIRFjihztdPGOjNCbtKPpYFg


Daisy

---

Post Merge: June 02, 2009, 03:04:31 PM

---

Quote from: tekla on June 02, 2009, 03:51:09 PM
Personally I believe in a flat tax, with no exemptions or deductions.  Added to that would be a sales tax with exemptions for food and rent and medicine/medical care.

I am okay with:
1. a flat income tax (for all) or
2. a flat sales national tax (for all)

Daisy

Really, political stuff should be left to adults who can see the differences - or, more to the point, the NON differences - that are going on and going down.  So much of this left/right, pub/dem, liberal/conservative has been a careful smokescreen to conceal the real truth and who the real masters are.

Quote from: daisybelle on June 02, 2009, 04:01:48 PM
I was not trying to insult.  I was more than a bit impressed but that has been washed away.

O, I didn't think you were trying to insult. I believed you were surprised that people do not follow party-lines. 

As far as being "impressed" was concerned. I don't anticipate that from you to ever last very long anyhow., Daisy! 

I may as well tell what appears to be the truth in that case.

As for the rest, believe and think what you wish. "Our children" have been "paying for it" since the first Bank of the US and the Federalist plan to build the country on debt and bonds. This country was never, ever, based on "common people" ever being anything but common and working very hard to finance through their labor the needs of the wealthy.

To do otherwise would be to invite all sorts of terrible immoral activity due to the "common men" getting all sorts of silly notions in their heads! Can't have that, can we?

Besides, someone's gotta pay. Can't be the one's who "own" the deal, they need to "pass that on." Learn your capitalism.

With the possible exception of about one hour of the Eisenhower admin when Ike got realer than anyone wanted him to get, or thought he would, the government, including the so-called confederacy, always operated in the interest and for the purpose of furthering the interest of banks and industrialists.

About 1980 or so the Reagan-admin decided we could live without the industrialists. Ever since we have operated soley in the interest of the bank and financial markets.

Do I think Obama is gonna make a difference? Hell no! That ship sailed already, prolly the day he entered Harvard. Surely by the day he decided his financial policy would be in the hands of Geithner, Summers, et al. Notice that the Pubs have had no great anger about any of those policies thus far.

They'll use them in electoral politics, but they vote for them, now don't they?

Nichole

QuoteNote: the war in IRAQ 100 million less than this over the whole 8 year period

No it will cost trillions when you count the medical issues of all those who are having health problems.

Then why count? It is all an artificial value placed on life.  The facts tell both parties are corporate supporters and the common folks are slaves supporting their life styles. It does not matter much for the future will have reduced resources and reduced support for consumption.  Less to go around. So population will reduce itself one way or another. Those that are left will have to find new ways to happiness other than consumption.

Even though I started this thread, I think I am going to stand back and play Switzerland for the most part.

Then again that wouldn't be much fun.

Reading the replies thus far has proven one thing to me. "Wingnuts" have both a left and right "handle" to them. Theres one from each side posting here.

I didn't include foreign policy because that would have clouded the question up quite a bit.
Besides both Democratic and Republican administrations have initiated/prosecuted wars in the past.

Oh, Daisy.

Obama was the one to walk thru the door of current spending. However Bush certainly opened it for him.

Darklady.

Can you offer anything beyond a one sentence reply?

For costs on the Iraq war (not counting out year obligations) try this:
http://costofwar.com/

Currently, its about 863 billion (that's Billion with a B) dollars.

What the banks want, the banks get, no matter who is in the White House.  It was both the Pubs and Dems who passed the Personal Bankruptcy Act (which ought to have been called the GoodFellas Law, because the banks now are pretty much like those guys.)

But now the guy's gotta come up with Paulie's money every week no matter what. Business bad? Fark you, pay me. Oh, you had a fire? Fark you, pay me. Place got hit by lightning huh? Fark you, pay me." *

They got all their bad paper taken away, without a penny of cost to them, and walk with the profits.  What are they doing with the bailout, buying out other banks of course.

It's so bad, its criminal.  Vito, Guido and Vinnie from Jersey never had it that good.

*Rent the movie, you're old enough to do that, just don't read the script, you aren't that old yet I guess.

and our grandchildrens, grandchildren will still be paying it all off.

nice Goodfellas ref. Tekla... I love that movie.