Brian...you should just email me! haha. I appreciate your comments! I think it is great that we can discuss this without hurting each others feelings! I do not let it impact me personally, FYI, so I hope you don't. It is just interesting and though I am passionate, I don't presume that I will change anyones mind about his individual political views, I just have to share my POV or I will burst. :) So thanks. I love this so I made this a political blog so people don't have to read if they don't want to. :)
I have to preface my response to you, Brian, with saying that I am typing fast and have little time to respond, so ignore typos and poor grammar. :) (If you would like to read Brian's comments click here).
Where to start!? I think we agree on more than I thought, however--or else you were trying to butter me up. :) I realize that SS is in trouble, but I don't think it is at all fair to say that "we" as in people our age, or younger,"have time" to prepare for retirement. Many people our age have no other means to prepare. They live paycheck to paycheck and many would LOVE to prepare, but have very little means to do so. Yet they aren't expecting a government hand out. They just work and work and most likely will have to work until they are too old to do so. I think many people we know will be fine, but I am more concerned about the "blue collar" folks, if you will. My family comes from a long line of hard workers, but unfortunately that didn't translate into having lots of extra money for retirement. My Great Grandpa was a janitor, my Grandpa was a mechanic, etc. On my other side we have farmers and musicians, teachers, etc. I don't know the answer...that is a bit above my head, but thank goodness I am not the one elected to deal with it. :) I can however choose someone I trust, whom I believe looks out for people who will be dependent on SS in their old age. I don't know what more to say on this topic. But I think we agree it has been an important government program that many fought against and thought it would turn our country into a socialist country...wait, this sounds familiar. Healthcare? :) I think healthcare can be another essential program that will take care of so many families who work really hard but somehow cannot afford insurance. I know way too many my own age who don't have insurance and can't afford it. So I think there are MILLIONS if I, here in UT know so many who seek an alternative to our over priced health care. We are the most expensive Health Care in the world! And yet we are at the top of the list in the world for having one of the largest amounts of low income households.
Sorry, I don't know how I got on health care. Are you still reading? :)
Next topic: the "flip-flopping"
I do believe that elected officials who change their votes based on the people they work for are very respectable. However, can you honestly say that is the reason Romney has changed his career long views within recent years? I think it was purely on a selfish part of wanted to be elected Rep candidate. But there is no way to know that for sure. It is irrelevant to me, why he changed his vote on some issues, as long as he can prove he has a backbone for the REAL issues.
More on Romeny:
In my view he is out of touch with the people. I try so hard to like him, and I think as a person, I like him. But politically I am not aligned with him on many topics. I think he demeans low income families, and he unknowingly says off hand remarks that are condescending to the working class. I am sure all of his comments (or at least most) were mistakes, and he regrets them, but they do give some insight into how out of touch (for lack of a better expression) he is with people making less than 6 figures a year.
TAXING the wealthy
As far as taxes and doing a "fair share," I think people making less than $250,000 (let's just say) still have a responsibility. They are responsible for being the working class...in which all of the economy would tumble without. So their responsibility is in a small spectrum, but still essential. They are to be employed and work up to purchasing homes and goods and help build the economy. In addition, their responsibilities lie in being active in communities through services that will help build up and improve the area. An example would be habitat for humanity, volunteering at Boy and Girls clubs, donating to things such as DI, food bank donations, volunteering for public school services, speaking up for those who cannot do so themselves, etc. But you cannot make anyone do these things; you can only inspire. Barrack and Michelle are very inspirational in this way. But where people do not have the funds to pay federal taxes, they still have a responsibility. You know more about the actual numbers with the taxes and what would be required of those who are wealthy enough to fall within that bracket would have to pay. And your example is fascinating. Would you suggest a change in the requiring percentage? Again, I am not the expert. I am DEFINITELY open to a tax which would require less wealthy to pay a percentage of tax. I just think in the whole picture of America...too many are struggling to say that we should cut taxes for everyone, but also cut essential government programs that help not only men and women but children...and it is definitely the low income families with children that concern me. Cut the programs that do not work, improve programs that need improvement? Definitely! Such as "No child left Behind"--great idea, but wasn't executed correctly. But--this is directed at Newt--we need food stamps, we need educational grants, we need programs that help educate and feed America. I can't stand the thought of hungry children, and I am sure there are improvements that could be made to WIC or food stamp programs...none are perfect I am sure, but it is important we provide basics to families who cannot manage it themselves. How can they imagine a future when they are just trying to make it through the day of hunger. Makes me sick. I am not saying "Let the rich take care of it." I am just saying that taxing the wealthy is a better way to help with the debt we are in than taking food off of low income family's dinner table. (That might sound like an extreme analogy, but it is kinda how I see it). In a different time when we had no debt, I would agree about not taxing anyone. But obviously that is not the time we are in.
As far as that law (what is the name? Like Pippa or something? I can't remember), but the one that supports non-pirating (mentioned in your comment)... I am against that law. I am with Obama on that one. According to Bryson, who knows more about the internet than I do, he said it would affect everything...not just music and movies...but blogs and everything. That is unconstitutional. But I am against pirating music and movies, don't get me wrong. It is interesting to note that Google was a supporter of Obama's campaign, but as you deem the "flip-flops" in Romney's record a part of politics, I am forced to shrug this one off. Maybe if I was in support of the law, I would be more concerned with why Obama was against it. It totally stinks that more money might win the candidacy and or presidency for a campaign. I wish it didn't cost money. :) Then we could have a fair fight. Kinda like a campaign in a school for student body president. Although, usually the wealthy kids passed out candy and soda and cool stuff to secure their win, so maybe that is not the best analogy.
In addition, have you read this? CLICK HERE
I probably missed something, but I gotta run. Feel free to keep the conversation going! :)
Emily!
ReplyDeleteIt looks like the water is warm, so I will jump in a little bit more! I have a lot of things I can comment on and I do look forward to commenting on all of them. In order to feel like I have accomplished something (I know, it’s the Republican in me), I’d rather take it topic by topic and see where our common ground lies before I respond to the barrage of the teasers you threw out there to tempt me!
Taxing the Wealthy
Individuals across all income tax levels participate in the workforce, buy goods, and keep the economy moving. The collective total of consumers in America account for 70% of the gross domestic product. No question, this group is critical to the success of our nation. All American’s consume goods in this country. I confess I am a little confused by your suggestion that the working class are responsible to work and buy things. Don’t we all do that? After all, the 70% of the GDP (consumers) are made up of all income levels.
I participate on a few boards of non-profit organizations in Salt Lake County. It is great to see so many volunteers from all income levels holding hands in an effort to help those in need and in improving our communities and schools. I am probably confused by your comment, in which you said, “[Those making less than $250,000 per year] are responsible for being active in the community through services that will help build up and improve the area. An example would be habitat for humanity, volunteering at Boy and Girls clubs, donating to things such as DI, food bank donations, volunteering for public school services, speaking up for those who cannot do so themselves.” This feels a little “touchy feely” but lacking real substance given my experience in the community is that those helping are represented by all income levels.
So, again, I’m looking for the shared sacrifice that Obama continues to assert while not supporting anything specific. Buying things and reading to students at a school are great things. But I recently sat next to an individual who makes much more than $250,000 a year taking part in a school learning moment in a low-income community. I suspect I just misunderstood your point of view on what those making less than $250k a year are contributing because we all do it together regardless of income.
The part that continues to be in large disparity is the income tax. This is one place where the wealthy are virtually standing very alone. Here are some statistics from “The Tax Foundation,” a bi-partisan tax group that reports the raw statistics from the IRS each year. There is a website full of the data that support this, however, for sake of space, I will point out just a few numbers:
The top 5% of income earners in the US account for 59% of the income tax paid each year.
The top 10% of income earners in the US account for 70% of the income tax paid each year.
The top 25% of income earners in the US account for 87% of the income tax paid each year.
The top 50% of income earners in the US account for 98% of the income tax paid each year.
The bottom 50% of income earners in the US account for the remaining 2% of the income tax paid each year. The bottom 50% earned less than $33,000 a year.
2 of 2:
ReplyDeleteWould you agree to this plan? All tax payers who live ABOVE the poverty line in their county, regardless of income tax bracket, pay a minimum 3% flat tax of their income, before deductions. This would create a tax responsibility for the bottom 50% of households to pay a MAXIMUM of $969 in federal income taxes annually, assuming the tax payer earned the maximum $33,000 to fit into the “bottom 50%.” If you are below the poverty line, this tax does not apply. Put food on your table instead. The aggregate income would generate $57 Billion in new revenue to the Gov’t annually…yes, that was BILLION. When Washington talks about budget matters on TV, they refer to a 10-year amount…that would mean this plan would create $570 Billion in new revenues from a “shared responsibility” where we ask those who pay nothing, and are not in poverty, to pay just a little bit. That’s just a Comcast bill per month. I noticed from living in a very low income area of Salt Lake City, most of those homes had dishes on their roofs. Last I checked, satalite TV and internet have nothing to do with food on the table, yet I saw those who fit into the bottom 50% still buying these services. How do I know, because I did many of their taxes for free so I saw their details. So let’s have a “shared sacrifice” as Obama says and ask our bottom 50% of tax payers to pay a MAXIMUM of $969 a year in federal income taxes.
So, what do you think? Can we ask for 3%? Can we cut off cable and internet if needed to share in the monetary sacrifice of this country? I struggle with the 98% - 2% split between the top 50% and bottom 50% of income earners. I think the low income folks hide behind “I can’t afford a MAXIMUM of $969 in taxes each year…my poor children will starve” while funneling their income to wants vs. needs. I believe we NEED all to share in the sacrifice. Sounds like Obama feels the same way…unfortunately, his comments are a campaign phrase geared at asking the top 50% of income earnings to pick up more of the tab…after all, there is still 2% they are still not paying! Those selfish punks!
I love examples because they speak more volume then words…I know a lady I do taxes for that makes $16,000 a year. She has two kids, she is divorced and her husband pays very little child support. Make no mistake about it, I am happy to see her getting a helping hand for a period of time. Here is my struggle with it…after getting the food she needs for her kids, she still has money left on her Horizon card. She goes to the grocery store with her sister to pay for food for her sister’s family and her sister then pays her cash so this woman can use the Horizon funds (after food) for other wants, including alcohol. Again, makes it tough me to agree that low income people can’t sacrifice. You don’t know how to sacrifice until we are faced with it. If we never ask them to, shame on us. Based upon real life experiences, I know those living above poverty levels have resources to make a very small sacrifice.
So what do you say? Can we co-author a letter to our congress members asking for the 3% flat tax on all income levels above poverty?
And, yes, Emily...I have read that report from my friends over at the Communist News Network (CNN). Nothing new there. Money influences politics. Campaigns aren't free to run. Campaigns, both Republicans and Democrats, need money to operate. Rich people donate. Rich people will expect a return on their investment. Both sides have provided that return on investment. Right now, The Red team is on top but the Blue team is hot on the trail after Obama's plea for more money to come into his Super PAC coffers. I think we are all up to speed. Thanks, CNN, for cracking that case wide open! :)
ReplyDeleteOK here is where we differ tremendously. :) Yet another reason we are in opposing parties, Brian. :) Which I just have to mention, I was always an Independent until the first 4 yrs of Bush presidency in which he pushed me with the "strength of a bear" (one of Bryson's favorite sayings) into the Democratic party. My biggest regret: falling for his "I will unite the country" campaign! Ha! It became so broken since his candidacy! Why do I always start ranting about "W"?!I always leaned to the left way on some issues/topics, but just kinda a funny tidbit about what made me open my eyes to politics. Firstly, the "responsibility" and tax issue. I want to clarify that I realize "we" all buy products, etc...but it isn't so difficult for people on the top to keep purchasing products, etc and not as difficult to maintain his/her occupation...and so I simply meant people above poverty and trying to get out of poverty should focus on work, and bettering their own lives, families and communities bc they--or should I say "I"--not sure :)-- do not have the luxury other Americans can afford; that luxury being something like, "I am full. How can I help another?" Their struggle is too deep to see out from, in most cases. And in other situations with less financial struggle (in the upper middle class, for instance), need to focus on saving money for their children's education, to pay off their homes, etc. So my point is just that the middle class and those wanting to get into the middle class or on the lower end of the middle class (which I would probably fall under) do not have the luxury of monetary foresight, and therefore should not be required to pay 3% taxes. And I disagree that under the current situation in our economy that we should put any more financial strain on the middle class. I, personally, even though we do not make very much money, would be happy to pay a 3% for my country. It would not hurt us financially, especially if we prepared and knew it was coming and so forth. But if you are suggesting EVERYONE outside of poverty pay 3%--even Mr. Trump or Oprah Winfrey--it seems unfair, to me. So in short, I will not write a letter with you...sorry. :) Personally, I would consider it as a viable alternative--if the higher income paid a larger percentage; but as a country, no we should not put that into place. I think it is a good idea more suited for better economic times. This might sound contradictory to you bc your reasoning for the 3% is bc of our current situation (aka deficit), but I think more people would be in trouble with the IRS for not being able to fork out the money. Especially with people struggling and under water on their homes.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, I understand that it can be frustrating to see people use government money (tax payer's money) on things other than it is meant for. Similarly, though aren't we told by prophets and leaders that we should not assume the worst about another who is asking for money on the street. We should not justify not giving to that person bc we do not want to pay the addiction. Instead, we should hand over the money or whatever they are in need of, pray for that person, do more if we are able for that person, but not point fingers or turn a cold shoulder. I agree many people turn to addictions instead of turning to God or turning within themselves for the ability to rise above. But we shouldn't do away with all government programs bc they are ALL (most likely) imperfect. I think instead, improve them, comb through them; Weed out the ones that do not do enough and find solutions. I want to share a personal frustration with you, but I won't just in case someone reads this who might know who I am talking about. :) But I have seen people who live like they are entitled to receive constant help from the government. School grants, help with insurance, rebates, etc... and then they continue to buy expensive items or go on trips--instead of planning and preparing and paying for those things themselves. I was eligible for student grants and I also had to take out student loans to get through school, but I am grateful for being able to get my degree and have the sense of the government backing my achievements in education. So I am not dissing grants at all. But just the "I deserve it bc I want it and I am American" mentality. I can't go any deeper on that. :) But it frustrates me as well. Unfortunately and thankfully we have freedom of choice. I choose to still support food stamp programs and healthcare, in addition to other basic need programs.
ReplyDeleteBrian, even though we disagree I respect you for being so passionate about what you believe and for trying to come up with solutions. Maybe you should run for office some day! You probably won't have my vote, but you will have my respect. :) haha.
I really need to start taking time to edit...sorry. I ramble on and on. haha. Not to mention, the errors...but maybe next time I will take the time to edit.
AND OH, PLEASE tell me you don't like Fox News! IF you think CNN is biased! WHOA...you must hate Fox News as much as I do! :) PLus, how could you ever turn the channel from silver fox? (Anderson Cooper). :) They have all parties at least...and do not become adolescent children in the school yard bullying and yelling at one another. Please tell me...even if it is not true, you do not like Fox News.
Hey Emily,
ReplyDeleteThis is fun!!
I was misunderstood...I am not asking Mr. Trump to pay 3%. I am asking the bottom 50% of the population that are not designated as "in poverty," those currently paying a collective 2% toward our government programs to pay a flat tax of 3% of their income. I am asking all those who are above the 50% line to continue paying their taxes as it is currently outlined. Honestly, if I could get the bottom 50% to pay the flat 3% tax, I'd be open to even higher taxes for the top 50%. At the core of my concern is the Government's divergence from the Church Welfare System where recipients are asked to help out. When I was in the Bishopric in SLC, the welfare training we received from the Brethren noted that recipients should have "vested interest" in their assistance. The government requires no "vested interest" from recipients. A 3% flat tax would establish that necessary "vested interest."
But please don't misunderstand, I still expect our over 50% earners to make up the VAST majority of the tax base...which as we have mentioned is currently at 98% of all taxes.
So let me just confirm...if elected to office, President Warnick would have as her campaign promimse, "Thank you top 50% for paying 98%...I'd like to ratchet that up to 99% to accomodate my campaign objectives. Those who are paying 2% of our bills, just keep on doing what you are doing...I'll get our 98% folks to chip in more money!" Am I correct on that one?
One question you avoided was addressing what "shared sacrifice" means in the context of taxation...given that is the context Mr. Obama continues to use that phrase in as he talks about taxes. Please define it. I suspect you must view shared sacrfice as more then donating to the DI and reading with first graders in our public schools. Because that is certainly not the context Mr. Obama has been referring to "shared sacrifice." It wasn't part of his "No Child Left Behind" comments last week.
"Shared sacrifice in the arena of taxation means.....what?"
Once I tie that bow off and know where we stand, I can move on to other great issues you have eluded to.
I watch all channels and cruise all websites. Fox News is one of many. Besides, Fox News if fair and balanced! :)
And PS...I can't help but to notice that the specific questions and suggestions I pose go unanswered in lieu of non-specific feelings based commentary. One of the other specific points I was hoping you would comment on is this:
ReplyDeleteThose making $33k a year, which officially puts them in the bottom 50% of income earning Americans...I'm asking them to pay $956 a year, or about $80 a month. Is it your position that their $33k of income is 100% fill to capacity with "needs" and there are not "wants" in there? These are comcast and internet free households? These are price-matchers who troll through weekly ads to get the biggest bang for their buck and after its all said and done...not a dollar is left in the monthly budget? I suspect every household has discretionary means. And if they have discretionary means while wishing not to offer their "shared sacrifice" or their "widow's mite," aren't we, as a Country, just enabling them into a circumstance where they learn to become reliant, even expect, the big tax refund each year without an appreciatation of those households that pay a large tax bill to enable them to receive these refunds that are full of tax credits? Again, looking for that shared sacrifice Obama slips into every camapaign style message he sends out from the Oval office. I think it is appropriate in the spirit of having a vested interest that we expect those under 50% of the income earning population, regardless of the economy, to share in the sacrifice before we simply expect higher income families to make it 40% instead of 35%.
If we don't ask for the sacrifice, it will (and I believe already has) turn many American families into permenant residents of an Entitlement Society where the annual tax refund checks just flow with no questions asked.
So in summary...homework assignment from this post: If you pay no income tax and have comcast or go on vacations or any other "want," why is it not fair to ask for $80 or less (depending on income) a month and ask them to sacrifice a want or two?
Professor Brian, here is my home work assignment. haha You are funny. :) OK. Firstly, I will not ever run for President, nor do I pretend I know it all. OBVIOUSLY. But I still disagree with asking for more taxes from the middle class--right now. I am glad to hear that you were not trying to cut the top 50% taxes. Phew. :) So you would disagree with the Republican candidates in wanting to cut those taxes? I am not sure which candidates were campaigning for it, maybe all of them, and I do not know the % they were asking for, but I like Obama's plan much more. Where you are frustrated with the low income families, I am frustrated with the whining and complaining from the wealthier Americans who claim, "I earned it. It's mine!" I applaud them for becoming so financially successful, but they need to own up to the fact that their country is a small part in the reason for them becoming so wealthy. As far as the taxes increasing to 3% for the $33K...sorry, I thought I answered it--probably rambled on about something else. :) But, no, I do not think you should require more from those families at this time. I think that in doing so you would crush the currently week moral in saying, "Yes, you might never own a house, you might not have enough money for anything farther than basic day to day needs, but because you spend some money on satellite tv (which is cheaper than cable most the time), we have decided to tax you an extra $80 a month." I don't know. It seems like not much to ask $80...but it wasn't long ago that we struggled and $80 a month would help pay car insurance or home insurance, or groceries for the week, etc. And didn't you say that people waste money on internet? Internet is not very expensive and if you think about the many ways it can be used to make money, find jobs, learn, etc, you cannot mark a family for wasting that money, when you don't know what they use it for. I think the internet is essential. Now, I have a husband who's job depends on computer technology, but it is worth more than it costs a month to have. I wish some people could have someone budget their finances-- like you--to clean up their monthly expenses and have them realize their financial potential...I would like that! :) But do you think it would be OK for the government to say that the Jones' make $33K a year and they have cable and internet and they even bought a new tv last year, so if they can do those things...let's tax them more!" I just don't get your argument. It would not stand up in any political campaign to go at it at that angle...ya know? However, I do get what you mean, and I agree to a degree...but as far as our government increasing taxes on people who are already struggling. No.
ReplyDeleteOh, and I don't think it is the government enabling people and making them feel entitled. It stems from our obsession with the wealthy and famous and trying to emulate their lives. It is unfortunately the society we live in with Paris Hilton's and people thinking they are the next American Idol. It has little to do with government in most cases. Other cases, I would agree have become dependent on government programs to feed their families...but again people are imperfect..so then are the programs that people establish. Furthermore, people will always abuse things and try to get away with things...poor people and rich people--don't the wealthy try to avoid taxes?
Sorry to be a pest! I still need an answer. It's Obama's own phrase. I checked Dictionary.com to make sure I have not put words in his mouth.
ReplyDeleteHe said "shared sacrifice" in the same sentence referencing the wealthy paying more in taxes. Who are we "sharing" with? Ourselves?
So again, I have asked and have not heard yet...in your eyes, what does "shared sacrifice" mean in terms of taxes? Or is that just a campaign phrase to garner more votes from middle and lower class Americans? If that is what it is, lets just call it that.
What say ye?
Dude! haha. I have said that I do not think that an increase in taxes should be put forth for middle class...but I am sure Obama says "sharing" bc taxes are still being paid by the middle class...he just expects more from the top. I can't say for sure, but that is how I hear it. And I think that the term he used "sharing the responsibility" is mostly in reference to sharing the burden that the current recession and economic situation has burden must more deeply the middle and lower classes. So more of a "sharing the burden" in order to find some relief in the future... I thought I implied that... but maybe this is more sufficient. :) You are so funny. "What say ye?"
ReplyDeleteSo, you and Obama are looking for the 99/1% shift then? Or should we just take all of it? Why burden the middle class with anything? Wouldn't want the middle class to sacrifice in a shared manner or anything. :)
ReplyDeleteWill you co-sign a letter to our congress reps asking for the top 50% to pick up the tab on taxes entirely? I mean, we are only off by 2% at this point, that is just a rounding error, right? So what do you say, I will draft it if you will sign it!
Well, Brian, I think it is time and safe to say we will disagree on the taxing issue and what the middle class should be responsible for in paying taxes. Don't you agree? Now you are saying we should not share the burden AT ALL... or are you kidding? haha. Or do you agree with Romney? That the top 1% should get a tax cut of like $80,000 a yr and then the middle class should get an increase on taxes? I don't! I don't think it is unfair to require the millionaires to pay the same tax rates that middle class people spend. Darn I have to run...but are you familiar with the Buffet Rule--Obama's proposal? Let me know what ya think, if you like. But I think we are just going to disagree.
ReplyDeleteI think you are lost on your facts...the middle class does not pay the same tax rates as the millionairs. Your average family in America, making $60,000 a year with a few kids does not pay a dime of federal income taxes...not one. Their exemptions and child tax credits wipe out their entire tax bill. So let's not joke ourselves into thinking millionaires are paying the same percentage. $0 is still 0% tax any way you look at it. Even if a millionaire only paid 15% in taxes, 15% is still bigger then 0%. I wasn't a math major and I probably couldn't tell you what a prime number is...but 15 is bigger then 0 for sure.
DeleteYeah, I suppose we ought to call it quits. To be fair, I was hoping to get more out of this interaction. Being a Republican in a bright red state, I don't know many democrats and have found myself often wondering, "What's their logic? What numbers do they have to support their position that we would be economically better off in our Country enacting the policies of the Blue Team vs. enacting policies of the Red Team or where can there be a combination of both to take us to higher heights."
ReplyDeleteI suppose I engaged in this interaction hoping for insightful details and facts that support the claims asserted by the Blue Team and President Obama. I have often said to my friends that I wish I could get a moment with a true blue democrat to help me better understand these positions, policies, and prapaganda.
I admire your drive and passion for your views. But it seems your views are more based on feelings, the heart, and compassion -- all very admirable traits. I have feelings, a heart, and compassion too. I can do that part on my own. The logic, numbers, etc is what I was hoping to gain from this as I have a sincere desire to move towards the center in an effort to build something greater on a common ground. I do think the far left and the right are way out of control and moving in "A" direction is better then standing still. However, your passion and heart doesn't seem to have the facts and circumstances to back up your emotion filled claims. That's a difficult dialogue for me to stay engaged in. Fun to read every now and again, but probably not something I can stay actively engaged in. Bummer, cuz this was just getting fun!
I am sure we will see each other around! Don't be a stranger!
I appreciate your insights. I wish I could be more help to you, but I figure you can look up all the details and facts, numbers, etc on your own, just as easily as I do. I don't really feel like I have the time or position on all the issues to spew all that out, but I wanted to share my feelings and why the views and stances of the democratic party have inspired me and attracted me. I do think that I am an open person, though. It is important to have the pendulum swing every now and then in order to keep balance in the country--meaning it is a healthy thing to alternate between parties in the White House. It just seems like after a Rep has been president then the Democrats have to come in and clean up. :)JK that was just "Junior." I don't understand Republicans view points! I wish I got more insight into that...but I don't feel like you shared the same values I have seen in recent Republicans. My only view of Republicans in short is that most care about themselves and the upper class...but not a good view for the country as a whole. If you want the rich to get richer...vote Republican, if you would like to set an example for the world of how democracy and equality can also mean a thriving middle class; how we welcome all people into our beautiful mixing pot of citizens, then Democrats are a much clearer choice. I feel like the middle class is diminishing and none of the current Republican candidates offer a solution...I have seen change with Obama's candidacy and therefore I support it. I think you would prefer to debate with a Democratic candidate himself or any Democratic official...I don't think you wanted to hear why people vote for them, or what about the Democratic policies attract voters. So I don't think this debate is what you ARE looking for. i don't get this arbitrary comment I have gotten from so many Republicans that compassion can be achieved on his/her own. Isn't it more affective to have a strong but compassionate government? Why should they be separate? I also wished to understand the overwhelming support of Mitt Romney from people around me...I don't get it. Wish I did bc then my vote would actually count! I wish I lived in a different state...BELIEVE ME! Anyway it was fun. :) I will not be posting very often...but occasionally throughout the year and feel free to weigh in if you like. :) Take care of those women/girls of yours, whom I love! :)
ReplyDelete