In an ideal society everyone would be able to earn enough money to afford decent housing, proper health care, a good education if desired, and all the essentials such as food, clothing, etc. But society is not ideal and realistically some people are going to need help.

Fair would be everyone paying the same tax rate no matter how much income but that's not how income taxes are assessed and society would be in total chaos under a fair plan.

Living in California and more specifically in Los Angeles County, has taught me to abandon fairness when it comes to property tax. From there I have expanded my newfound indifference to all forms of taxes. In Los Angeles County, property tax owners are always the first in line to have to pay extra taxes for funding schools. I used to think it was unfair that anyone who didn't have children in school or in public school should have to pay for it when parents who live in apartments and have one to however many kids in public school skated.

The only real gripe I have about taxes is when they are not used for the purpose for which they were intended as in don't raise taxes to fix a hole in the road and then end up using it to remodel some senator's office.

Has the so called religious right got a stranglehold on the Republican party?

If I didnt know any better, I would have mistaked Bristol Palin for Jenna Bush!

He did smoke once upon a time didn't he? How long ago did he quit? Not that it should really matter politically LOL if he smokes or not.

He quit last year when he started his White House Run and backslided some during his Battle with Hillary but by all account he's hasn't smoked for most if not all of 2008. Kind of shocked the anti-smoking groups didn't go after him but guess since he quit or isn't trying to they left him alone?

If I didnt know any better, I would have mistaked Bristol Palin for Jenna Bush!

As long as she has a Gun in 1 hand GOP peeps are fine with the drinking and having a baby at 17 deal-eo!

Because, in many cases, those people are the ones hiring you. And given how they enjoy profit, they would rather lay you off to offset the increase in their taxes rather than be out the money. How do you think Big Oil has remained rich with record profits? When the going got rough, they passed their increased costs to us rather than eat away at their bottom line. We can take from the rich... it won't hurt them, but it always manages to bite US in the butt!

Very well said. I could not agree more.

Has the so called religious right got a stranglehold on the Republican party?

I think only those that side against the Republicans have that mindset. I am a fiscal conservative and do not agree with the social agenda. I think it would be hard to find a person that agrees with every aspect of their party's stances. I side with the party that would make government less intrusive rather than bigger.

With the continuation by the Democrats to push for an increase in government it only allows for Republicans to push their social agenda further once gaining power. If you give government more power then it matters not which party is in control, it only matters that they now have the power to affect the social lives of Americans.

It boggles my mind as to why some Democrats want government to be big but on the other side of the coin they want government to stay out of social affairs.

Do the radical war protesters and Code Pink members have a stranglehold on the Democratic Party?

Edited September 6, 200817 yr by Casey008

As long as she has a Gun in 1 hand GOP peeps are fine with the drinking and having a baby at 17 deal-eo!

I think many are not fine with her being unmarried and pregnant. However, many would agree that it should not be an issue because she is not a candidate.

Because, in many cases, those people are the ones hiring you. And given how they enjoy profit, they would rather lay you off to offset the increase in their taxes rather than be out the money. How do you think Big Oil has remained rich with record profits? When the going got rough, they passed their increased costs to us rather than eat away at their bottom line. We can take from the rich... it won't hurt them, but it always manages to bite US in the butt!

And when have these very same people start giving a damn about the wroking people even when their taxes were lowered 7 years ago? They have had more tax return dollars put in their pockets, and they are STILL laying off and outsourcing jobs. But now working people are supposed to care that they will have to receive higher taxes after screwing us all these years?

once again, I don't feel sorry for them.

I dont know if you should.

But i sure as hell dont think its fair or right to make those who do better in life and support the lifestyle they want by making them pay more than people who do not do as well in life as they do. They worked for it, they deserve it. Everyone should pay the same amount.

So Warren Buffet, who is worth $56 biliion dollars, should pay the exact same amount of taxes as someone working 3 jobs and is being taxed to death? That is what you are saying?

In an ideal society everyone would be able to earn enough money to afford decent housing, proper health care, a good education if desired, and all the essentials such as food, clothing, etc. But society is not ideal and realistically some people are going to need help.

Fair would be everyone paying the same tax rate no matter how much income but that's not how income taxes are assessed and society would be in total chaos under a fair plan.

Living in California and more specifically in Los Angeles County, has taught me to abandon fairness when it comes to property tax. From there I have expanded my newfound indifference to all forms of taxes. In Los Angeles County, property tax owners are always the first in line to have to pay extra taxes for funding schools. I used to think it was unfair that anyone who didn't have children in school or in public school should have to pay for it when parents who live in apartments and have one to however many kids in public school skated.

The only real gripe I have about taxes is when they are not used for the purpose for which they were intended as in don't raise taxes to fix a hole in the road and then end up using it to remodel some senator's office.

Has the so called religious right got a stranglehold on the Republican party?

The RR and the ultra-right wing of the party have it in their control. More mainstream Republicans, like Lincoln Chaffey and the Governator are not at the top oreven near the top of the leadership of the party. Hell, I don't even think GWB is a ultra conservative. I think he's a good guy outside of the presidency.........he's just a beyond-lousy president whose policies and those of his party helped lead us to where we are now.

With the continuation by the Democrats to push for an increase in government it only allows for Republicans to push their social agenda further once gaining power. If you give government more power then it matters not which party is in control, it only matters that they now have the power to affect the social lives of Americans.

It boggles my mind as to why some Democrats want government to be big but on the other side of the coin they want government to stay out of social affairs.

And on the other side of the coin, it boggles my mind why some Republicans want government to be smaller, yet they want government to be all up in my social business.

Six of one; half dozen of the other.

Considering that the Republican party, in the name of "Homeland Security," pushed its way into our homes and daily lives, I always find it ironic that they are supposed to be the ones in the name of "less intrusive government."

BTW, I've enjoyed the debate so far, even if Casey and Peyton seem to be the only ones holding up the McCain side of things

Didn't Zel Miller speak at the Republican Convention in 2004? If he did, that is pretty much renouncing them without saying it. I seem to recall that he appeared there... Of course, what did he have to lose? He was on his way out anyway...

See that's what bothers me. Yes, he did speak at the RNC about ONE issue. If you check his voting record, he is absolutely a Democrat and has complete Democratic stances on EVERY other issue. He's been a foot soldier in the party for years and years and years. Is he not allowed to have one independant thought? Can he not vote his conscience and speak his mind without being ex-communicated from the party?

And I'm not saying the Democrats are alone in this. Rudy Guiliani is as Republican as they come. He's a party man and has towed the party line more times than any of us can count BUT he does not believe in overturning Roe v Wade and he's too liberal for the party. I mean, WHAT???? Can the man not have his own opinion?????

And as a voter, WE are getting screwed because people learn the game. They spout what the party wants them to spout in order to get funding for the larger campaign and to get recognition on the ballot but how much do they believe in what they are saying? That's what we have to figure out. I have NEVER in my life met anyone that completely and totally believes in every part of either party's platform. Each party would serve themselves well to allow independant thinking without condemining it.

Edited September 6, 200817 yr by wiccachick_1

And on the other side of the coin, it boggles my mind why some Republicans want government to be smaller, yet they want government to be all up in my social business.

I think the important thing to note as far as this election is concerned, is that McCain is one of those Republicans that wants government smaller. You have the far left and the far right. John McCain is much more moderate than his opponent, IMO.

I believe that the majority of Republicans (voters and leaders) do not want to be "all up in your social business". While many have a conservative stance on social issues, that does not translate into wanting to dictate how Americans live their lives. I think belief in smaller government reflects this, and out weighs stances on social issues.

Considering that the Republican party, in the name of "Homeland Security," pushed its way into our homes and daily lives, I always find it ironic that they are supposed to be the ones in the name of "less intrusive government."

BTW, I've enjoyed the debate so far, even if Casey and Peyton seem to be the only ones holding up the McCain side of things :lol.

George Bush was not a typical Republican in the sense of wanting smaller government. He has disappointed me a great deal in respect to that.

Edited September 6, 200817 yr by Casey008

The RR and the ultra-right wing of the party have it in their control. More mainstream Republicans, like Lincoln Chaffey and the Governator are not at the top oreven near the top of the leadership of the party. Hell, I don't even think GWB is a ultra conservative. I think he's a good guy outside of the presidency.........he's just a beyond-lousy president whose policies and those of his party helped lead us to where we are now.

I dont agree with that. I might agree if say Huckabee had won the primaries. McCain was chosen by Republicans which voices a much more moderate view on the religous aspect.

I dont agree with that. I might agree if say Huckabee had won the primaries. McCain was chosen by Republicans which voices a much more moderate view on the religous aspect.

I stated who I felt was the moderate Republicans to me.

McCain is very consevative, IMO, as is Huckabee. Ok?

And on the other side of the coin, it boggles my mind why some Republicans want government to be smaller, yet they want government to be all up in my social business.

Six of one; half dozen of the other.

Considering that the Republican party, in the name of "Homeland Security," pushed its way into our homes and daily lives, I always find it ironic that they are supposed to be the ones in the name of "less intrusive government."

BTW, I've enjoyed the debate so far, even if Casey and Peyton seem to be the only ones holding up the McCain side of things

Less intrusive government........yet want to push social agendas to make a segment of the praty feel more at ease.

For smaller government........but the federal government grew at a substantial rate the past 8 years, with the current president not vetoing one single bill from 2000-2007.

It happens on both sides, that I can assure you......but I think I see your point. It sounds like hypocricy to you, is that what you are saying?