Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[G-Flex]

Yeaaaaaaah no that's not what Republicans want. We favor a less progressive system of axes, with low for everyone, not "Oh goody our good buddies the rich people get no taxes everyone else gets 100% hurr." Also we aren't for spending government money in corporations.
Although Obama certainly has done that to a massive scale.
We believe that if you make it so that the government isn't spending every cent it doesn't have, then it'll help balance the budget.

• Speak for yourself, please.
• A low tax rate for everyone does mean that the tax burden disproportionately lies on the backs of the poor.

[kaijyuu]

Everyone has flat expenses (food, rent, etc), so an equal percentage tax takes away far more from the poor than the wealthy, especially for those in the poverty level. When 90% or more of your paycheck goes simply to staying alive, a 5% tax on your income eats a huge amount of your spare cash that could go to things like recreation or investment in your future. Whereas on the other end of the scale where all the base expenses are paid with a trivial amount of your paycheck (the rest going to luxuries), a 5% tax is a drop in the bucket. Everyone in between is, well, in between.

The poorer you are, the worse a flat percentage tax is for you. True flat taxes (food taxes, etc) that don't count income are even worse.

[Glowcat]

Calls for lower taxes on corporations despite many paying 0% in taxes, attempts to incite anger against the impoverished whose income in too low to pay federal taxes while suggesting their taxes should be raised, refusal to support a tax cut for the middle class until they started getting major crap for it (at which point they pretended the idea was theirs all along), and at least one instance that I can think of where state Republican legislators increased taxes on the Middle/Lower Class to make up for tax cuts they gave to the wealthy. Yes... the Republicans stand for lower taxes on everybody... yep... because they say it and it's in their rhetoric, it must be true.

I don't know why I haven't taken up drinking yet.

[Bauglir]

In all fairness, you're judging the voters by the actions of the corrupt politicians. There are similar charges to be leveled at Democrats, although not so many and none so grievous, to my mind. It's not an excuse, exactly, but it really is important to keep in mind when determining your approach the differences between malice, stupidity, and naivety.

[Glowcat]

In all fairness, you're judging the voters by the actions of the corrupt politicians. There are similar charges to be leveled at Democrats, although not so many and none so grievous, to my mind. It's not an excuse, exactly, but it really is important to keep in mind when determining your approach the differences between malice, stupidity, and naivety.

Well, I did have the politicians in mind when I said that. Most voters probably believe they stand for lower taxes on everybody even though the things they support end up only favoring what becomes an elite of society.

[Tilla]

Powder Miner, I suggest you take a good long look at your party's actions and not their rhetoric/lies for a moment. What you're describing is a fantasy they have assembled to maintain control of their uneducated masses, but the voting records do not support it. At all.

[Heron TSG]

Does [Hunstman] have his dark side as well?

He has the usual conservative dark side. Cut taxes for the rich, increase govornment spending (in wealthy owned businesses) and that god will balance the budget for you somehow. He is anti-choice and against the gays, but not as much as most of his competitors.

From what I've read in TIME and that Secular scorecard thing from a ways back in this thread, he is in fact against pro-choice, but he does support civil unions. (Better than most of them by far.) He's also exposited on the fact while he has his own faith, not everyone agrees with it so it shouldn't be a focal point of governance. A pretty smart assertion, I reckon.

[Sirus]

Does [Hunstman] have his dark side as well?

He has the usual conservative dark side. Cut taxes for the rich, increase govornment spending (in wealthy owned businesses) and that god will balance the budget for you somehow. He is anti-choice and against the gays, but not as much as most of his competitors.

From what I've read in TIME and that Secular scorecard thing from a ways back in this thread, he is in fact against pro-choice, but he does support civil unions. (Better than most of them by far.) He's also exposited on the fact while he has his own faith, not everyone agrees with it so it shouldn't be a focal point of governance. A pretty smart assertion, I reckon.

That last statement sounds downright reasonable to me. One's religion shouldn't have an effect on one's candidacy after all.

[nenjin]

That last statement sounds downright reasonable to me. One's religion shouldn't have an effect on one's candidacy after all.

Which he begins undercutting with non-religious voters when he goes on long speeches about what god means to him and everything else. I know he's (probably?) doing it to connect with the evangelicals, but it makes secular-minded people nervous that it's the pre-show to a religious bias when in office.

To my mind, it's unnecessary. No American president has been elected without stating and supporting SOME religion. Sort of like every American president has had a nuclear family. It's one of the assumed litmus tests every candidate has to pass. So when candidates harp on it, to me, it'd be the same thing as an atheist presidential candidate denigrating religion. Which would freak religious voters right the hell out.

If he wants to practice what he preaches, I'll be all for it. But so far, he's done quite a bit of talking about his relationship to god on the campaign trail. Seems more like an issue of saying what potential voter wants to hear. "Religion doesn't factor into my presidential aspirations. (Don't worry though, I'm really religious.)"

[Heron TSG]

I kinda doubt the religious bias, considering he and his family apparently celebrate Diwali with his daughter.

[nenjin]

Just out of curiosity, I wonder what a cursory search other candidates supporting religious pluralism would turn up. Because I'm guessing several would have one or two examples to cite of their own tolerance of religion.

[KaelGotDwarves]

I remember when Obama drew a ton of flak from conservatives for saying that he's would represent atheists as president as well.

[Sirus]

I remember when Obama drew a ton of flak from conservatives for saying that he's would represent atheists as president as well.

IIRC, they used it as proof that he was secretly a fascist Muslim from Kenya. And was also a Nazi.

Ok, that was mostly the likes of Ann Coulter, but someone out there must have believed it.

[Glowcat]

Which he begins undercutting with non-religious voters when he goes on long speeches about what god means to him and everything else. I know he's (probably?) doing it to connect with the evangelicals, but it makes secular-minded people nervous that it's the pre-show to a religious bias when in office.

Eh, I'm rather used to being tossed under the public relations bus with speeches which favor the Christian majority. If I were a Republican I'd never hope to get a candidate who shares my views on religion, and even with a Democratic president the best I can hope for is inclusion in an address about... well... inclusiveness. Which immediately receives a media backlash spearheaded by right-wing pundits...

Most non-believers I've heard seem to feel the same. It's only when a politician begins talking about the crazy beliefs he or she wants to implement via government that I start to get worried.

[G-Flex]

To my mind, it's unnecessary. No American president has been elected without stating and supporting SOME religion.

If by "SOME religion" you mean Christianity, yes.