Surely though, if you force companies to pay full minimum wage to illegal immigrants, then their insentive to hire them is gone. Therefore the insentive for the immigrants to come to your country is drastically reduced. And yeah, it won't be easy, or popular. It took William Wilberforce twenty/thirty years to get the slave trade abolished in the British Empire, but two centuries on, nobody thinks it was a bad thing, do they? Sometimes you have to fight for what's right. That doesn't mean it isn't the right thing to do.
Hmm, I just found some staggering differences between Palin's wasteful spending and Obama's frugality. Take a look: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122100927525717663.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
From the link: Let's compare. Mrs. Palin used her veto pen to slash more local projects than any other governor in the state's history. She cut nearly 10% of Alaska's budget this year, saving state residents $268 million. This included vetoing a $30,000 van for Campfire USA and $200,000 for a tennis court irrigation system. She succinctly justified these cuts by saying they were "not a state responsibility." Meanwhile in Washington, Mr. Obama voted for numerous wasteful earmarks last year, including: $12 million for bicycle paths, $450,000 for the International Peace Museum, $500,000 for a baseball stadium and $392,000 for a visitor's center in Louisiana. Mrs. Palin cut Alaska's federal earmark requests in half last year, one of the strongest moves against earmarks by any governor. It took real leadership to buck Alaska's decades-long earmark addiction. Mr. Obama delivered over $100 million in earmarks to Illinois last year and has requested nearly a billion dollars in pet projects since 2005. His running mate, Joe Biden, is still indulging in earmarks, securing over $90 million worth this year. Mrs. Palin also killed the infamous Bridge to Nowhere in her own state. Yes, she once supported the project: But after witnessing the problems created by earmarks for her state and for the nation's budget, she did what others like me have done: She changed her position and saved taxpayers millions. Even the Alaska Democratic Party credits her with killing the bridge. When the Senate had its chance to stop the Bridge to Nowhere and transfer the money to Katrina rebuilding, Messrs. Obama and Biden voted for the $223 million earmark, siding with the old boys' club in the Senate. And to date, they still have not publicly renounced their support for the infamous earmark. Mrs. Palin has proven courageous by taking on big spenders in her own party. In March of this year, the Anchorage Daily News reported that, "Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens is aggravated about what he sees as Gov. Sarah Palin's antagonism toward the earmarks he uses to steer federal money to the state." Mr. Obama had a chance to take on his party when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid offered a sham ethics bill, which was widely criticized by watchdog groups such as Citizens Against Government Waste for shielding earmarks from public scrutiny. But instead of standing with taxpayers, Mr. Obama voted for the bill. Today, he claims he helped write the bill that failed to clean up Washington.
Didn't Palin also cut her private driver, and other personal privliages that she got for being govenor. Tennis court irrigation system??? If that's what I think it is, (Which makes no sense) then ok not the governments job. Also with the campfire USA van, agreed with her. She has done nothing but save the US money, where as Obama will put us so deep in the whole and kill our economy so badly that we'll spend the next four or five presidents trying to save whats left of america. And honestly I'd vote for Palin for president if she was running.
Chad, what is your basis for this assumption? Obama plans to increase overall government revenue by shifting the tax burden around. How will that put us deeper in the hole? If you look at the last twenty years or so, the only time the US hasn't been in the red was under Clinton. If anyone is putting us "in the hole," it's this current fad for deficit spending, which somehow has gotten into the Republican party's collective heads as "a good idea." Honestly, if the Republicans actually DID advocate smaller government and fiscal responsibility, I'd probably vote for them. Unfortunately, right now it's a choice between "tax and spend" or "borrow and spend." I've seen what too much debt does; my friend works for a bankruptcy attorney.
I fail to see how that makes Palin wasteful and Obama frugal. Frankly they're two different economic policies. Frankly I hate earmarks. Earmarks almost always go to redundant or unnecessary programs that no one needs, wants, nor asked for. Politicians just throw them in to fund their own private projects. The three most massive drains on the US Government are: Earmark Spending, Medicare and Medicaid, and Social Security. Two of those things are an absolute waste of money (Social Security and Earmark Spending). The problem with earmarks is that once they get put into use its really damn hard to get rid of them because they piggy back their way in on other bills (Often bills they have no connection too) and the only way to get rid of it is to go back on the legislation and go through the whole process again. We were still in a deficet under Clinton but he drastically reduced it by cutting government spending, not by increasing taxes. The problem with the US government isn't that there's a lack of funds (There's plenty) we just have hoards of useless and rendundant spending.
We still had our old debt, yes, but there was a brief moment when the US was actually making more money than it was spending. It lasted about as long as a steak in a room full of starving pit bulls, but it happened. Basically, the reason I'm voting Democratic lately is because at least the Dems admit that they plan to spend a bunch of money and raise taxes to pay for it, instead of pretending to be about shrinking spending and, well, not. As I said earlier; monkey, banana plantation, keys to. No politician is ever going to actually reduce the power and spending of the government.
Cat: Oboma plans to increase spending much more than his tax increase on the rich will help. Now I hate rich people as much as the next guy but all he's doing is punishing them because they know how to handle money, if they didn't they'd vary quickly not be rich. Also taxing the rich is bad for the economy, the more money they have the more they can spend on their bussnesses and such thus increasing the economy, if you tax them more they're going to hang on to what they got tighter, they are rich and greedy after all. That's why palin should run for presedent not vice. I'd vote for her, she actually cut spending, while increasing profits and the amount of people who wanted to live in alaska, she created a surge in people moving there. Palin would be great for the country if only she wasn't the vice, vice has no power really.
Obama and Palin have the same problem = no real experience. Comparing the two together really puts them at an experience tie. Sure Palin was governor of the most underpopulated state in the US, but she did thins. While Obama was in the State legislature and the Senate, but he really did nothing. IMO that really brings them out as a tie. If you ask me the Republicans will field Palin as a Presidential candidate in the future. The parties seem to be lacking groomed candidates for a few decades now but with some more experience under her hat Palin would be a very competetive candidate (whether or not she is one now really has to wait till after the hype fades). VP is a good place to get lots of executive experience even if she does little more than oversee the Senate. Your analysis of taxing the Rich is also accurate. Taxing corporations and businesses that are already suffering in the current economy is not a good idea. The reason Unemployment just took a big jump is because these businesses can't pay the works and have to lay them off.
I don't even know what Bloc Party is. And haven't we had enough of the "trickle down" theory yet? You can say that you're against taxation on principle - several of my friends are - and that you favor complete deregulation for reasons of personal freedom - same friends again (I disagree on both counts, to varying degrees) - but claiming that tax cuts on the wealthy is the way to help the poor is just silly.
As long as we're trying to make radical changes why don't we go with this guy? I HAVE DECIDED TO BECOME A WRITE-IN CANDIDATE. HERE IS MY PLATFORM: (1) Press 1 for English is immediately banned. English is the official language; speak it or wait at the border until you can. (2) We will immediately go into a two year isolationist posture to straighten out the country's attitude. NO imports, no exports. We will use the 'Walmart' policy, 'If we ain't got it, you don't need it.' (3) When imports are allowed, there will be a 100% import tax on it. (4) All retired military personnel will be required to man one of our many observation towers on the southern border. (six month tour) They will be under strict orders not to fire on SOUTHBOUND aliens. (5) Social security will immediately return to its original state. If you didn't put nuttin in, you ain't gettin nuttin out. The president nor any other politician will not be able to touch it. (6) Welfare - Checks will be handed out on Fridays at the end of the 40 hour school week and the successful completion of urinalysis and a passing grade. (7) Professional Athletes --Steroids - The FIRST time you check positive you're banned for life. (8) Crime - We will adopt the Turkish method, the first time you steal, you lose your right hand. There is no more life sentences. If convicted, you will be put to death by the same method you chose for your victim; gun, knife, strangulation, etc. (9) One export will be allowed; Wheat, The world needs to eat. A bushel of wheat will be the exact price of a barrel of oil. (10) All foreign aid using American taxpayer money will immediately cease, and the saved money will pay off the national debt and ultimately lower taxes. When disasters occur around the world, we'll ask the American people if they want to donate to a disaster fund, and each citizen can make the decision whether it's a worthy cause. (11) The Pledge of Allegiance will be said every day at school and every day in Congress. (12) The National Anthem will be played at all appropriate ceremonies, sporting events, outings, etc. Sorry if I stepped on anyone's toes but a vote for me will get you better than what you have, and better than what you're gonna get. Thanks for listening, and remember to write in my name on the ballot in November. God Bless America !!!!!!!!!!! Bill Cosby (He didn't actually write this, but it's still cool.)
On its own trickle down theory is pointless but CEO's don't have a salary. They make their money based on how well their companies do. They are taxed based on corporate income (It varies depending on if the company is private or publicly owned). If their corporation suffers, they suffer and they have to keep their company afloat by cutting expenses and the first expense to get cut is human labor. Trickle Down has to be mixed with a few other things like cutting taxes on the corporation itself and lowering interest so that more money is available for investment. That in turn helps the companies grow and thus they can expand which improves the overall economy. A country with a strong economy is better for everyone including the poor. We should tax the wealthy according to their income but overtaxing them is not a good plan. They already pay the lions share of the US's tax income but over taxing them will cost their companies and in turn effects their employees. Furthermore, right now is not the time to tax the rich. They are already suffering and making cut backs on their expenses (Job lay offs and closing factories. GM has taken it really hard lately). Like I said. The first expense to go is unnecessary man power and the closing of unnecessary resources. Furthermore it hurts the middle class too. When a company suffers stocks suffer and the middle and upper middle class make a large investor block for a lot of companies. Most people put their life savings in the stock market and when companies suffer the stocks drop. We don't need increased taxes on corporations, businesses, or rich CEO's right now they need all the money they can get to restore their businesses and in turn restore the economy. The current economic troubles in the US is caused by a horrible lack of understanding in basic economic principles and punishing those who do understand them isn't the answer to the problem. We're a capitalist economy. We rely on competition to succeed and over taxing people because they succeed is hardly a means of fostering competition. besides, I fail to see how it is Bill Gates' responsibility to support some workers without so much as a high-school diploma or college education to fall back on when they get laid off just because he knows how to run a very successful business.
When a company is forced through legislation to pay higher taxes, who actually pays the higher taxes? If a company doesn't make a profit, they go out of business. Taxes cut into the profit so the options are: Raise prices--thus the consumer pays the tax, not the corporation. Lower cost of doing business to cover the increased expense--taxes: No raises, pay cuts, or hour/job cuts to the workers. Reduced investment in a company to counter tax increases: No job growth or opportunities for workers to be hired--for building to take place--more workers hired, etc. Increased taxes hurts a company's competativeness overseas, reducing jobs and opportunities for exporting and expanding...thus hurting the worker. The answer is not to raise taxes. The answer is to lower taxes, or at least keep them the same. Consider the Fair Tax, which if implemented would boost the economy greatly without chaning the amout of revenue to the US. Government, and it remains progressive and does not burden the poor. Downside? It would greatly reduce the power of your average congressman and senator...thus it's unpopularity on Capitol Hill. Check it out: The Fair Tax Website Terry
I know I'm late on this but, Obama? I see very converging opinions on this, but I'm firmly seated that Obama is definitely not the good choice. I agree entirely with what LoH has just said about the "rich-man" tax increase and thoroughly say that I couldn't of said it better. Obama spells doom for the economy.
Lordofhats, I agree with your logic concerning taxing corporations. Like you said, everything really does trickle down.
Another misleading Obama tax - he promises to increase the payroll tax "on employers". This rhetoric makes for a great sound bite but it is a complete lie. When an employer creates an employment opportunity (a job), the employer figures out how much it will "cost" for that employee. Let's say the salary is $35,000 per year. The employer budgets for the salary . . . PLUS the cost of benefits (averaging $5000) . . . PLUS government taxes (Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment Insurance - this is currently around 9.1%) . . . PLUS government mandated Workers Compensation Insurance (varies from 5% to 30%). To pay that new employee $35,000, it costs the employer at least $44,935. If Obama raises "employer payroll taxes", where do you think the money will come from? I can tell you. Employees will NOT get their next pay raise and future hires will be paid less. For example, what if the example above happened AFTER an Obama increase in payroll taxes? Employer budget: $44,935 less Employee costs: $ 9,935 (before Obama tax increase) Wages to Employee: $ 35,000 Employer budget: $ 44,935 Employee costs: $ 10,950 (AFTER Obama payroll tax increase from 8.3 to 9.4%) Wages to Employee: $ 33,985 Notice: the employer's budgetary cost stays fixed - there is NO additional cost to the employer! But, compensation to the employee goes down. It is not practical to reduce wages for existing employees, so "new hires" are offered less and existing employees do not get pay raises. The Obama notion that taxing employers benefits the employees is pure BS. Higher payroll taxes are ALWAYS passed down to employees! I have been in the employee benefits business for 31 years.
i'd take Hilary over Palin anyday. And i think you guys are forgetting that Obama is running against McCain, not Palin. Though Palin will probably gain control after McCain suffers a heart attack a year into his term. as for foreign aid. we need to significantly decrease it. A guy one bill away from eviction shouldn't be giving money to the poor, it's a nice idea, but being nice will end up making him homeless too. The only aid we should be giving is education, teaching people how to live off their own resources and building schools and training teachers and leaders farmers and the like. Actually we could use a lot more education here in the states too while we're at it, seems like every time i turn on the tv someone even more ridiculously stupid/spoiled/skankish has captured the hearts of teenage america. Also most perps of the big 3 (violent crime, rape, murder) are highschool dropouts or just all around stupid people (discounting crimes of passion.). Build more schools, get teachers motivated, better america. Vote for flux.
I will never vote for Hillary, she should have given bill the boot, and not doing so just shows she stayed with him so that it wouldn't hurt her job. That is a horribly way to decide things, just look at the two togeather they look so fake trying to be happy, it's disgusting, they probably hate each other. I never said give the rich tax cuts, just don't increase the taxes. As for being against taxs, no taxes= no military which in turn = no USA vary soon.
Worse than that. No taxes = No Military, No Law Enforcement, No Public Education, No Judicial System, No Government = Anarchy. I never said no taxes either, just don't increase them and maybe lower them for a few years to see how much it helps the economy (Sunset Law anyone?). Anyone against taxes (being anyone who says we shouldn't have them) and a federal governmental system should read about early american history under the Articles of Confederation. If you don't want to, trust me, it was a disaster.
I have seen most posters subscribe to the fallacious premise in this forum that consumption drives an economy. Democrats do it by claiming that low income earners will better help the economy through tax cuts because they will spend the money, while the rich will sit on it. Republicans make the mistake of assuming that tax cuts will spur enough growth to increase tax revenue such that it will compensate for the loss of direct tax revenue. Both are completely wrong, and assume that future growth is driven by consumption, when it is in fact driven by savings. To illustrate: Consumption is done at the cost of savings. Imagine you have $600 in your checking at the end of your pay period. Your options are to spend the $600 on some item, or to save. So the cost of consumption is savings. To illustrate how savings helps future growth: Say Company X wishes to import an unfinished product, refine it, and sell it to consumers. They elect to build a refining plant in California. They, however, need more capital. Their finance people tell them that they will earn 35% on the new investment, if they can secure the capital. Company X obtains some from an investment bank, and to raise the rest of the capital, they issue bonds with an 11% interest rate to investors. Investors use their savings to purchase the bonds at an 11% interest rate, and thus, both sides win. Investors gain interest on their savings, and Company X is able to build the plan, turn a profit, and actually create jobs. Future growth, driven by savings, not by consumption. I bolded that last portion because I will come back to it shortly. Obama's plan is more fair to lower wage earners. McCain’s plan reduces more overall taxation, thus having a greater effect on savings. Therefore, I support Obama's plan for low wage earners, and McCains plan for the upper middle class and wealthy taxpayers, as well as McCains plan for corporate income tax decreases.
