Election Day 2012

[Regulus]

Those are state taxes, which support the state governments that we (as far as I've thought about this) don't need.

We have federal income tax. There's no reason to have sales tax, or any other state tax. It is unnecessary, overcomplicated, and redundant.

[DGFone]

Don't need a state government? LOL!

By all seriousness, if we removed the state governments, the federal one will have to take up the burden. There is 0 ways that it will be able to properly address all the states' needs, so at best, all it will do...

is reinstate the state government.

[Regulus]

I'm being serious. What do the state governments do that the federal government could not, other than over-complicate the entire process?

[DGFone]

Make what the federal government would over-complicate beyond all belief a little less over-complicated. It is not Washington D.C.'s business to worry about Small Town, Mississippi. Mississippi can take of that.

You think it's bad now? I guarantee you: You let Obama take care of you (or even Romney. Whats important is that it's the federal gov.), and things will be worse.

[Dark Huntress]

You think it's bad now? I guarantee you: You let Obama take care of you (or even Romney. Whats important is that it's the federal gov.), and things will be worse.

Exactly! If you let the government take care of and support you, what are you going to do when they can't? It's unlikely you're going to go get a job and work then...you don't know a good work ethic.
Also, you don't need to be in debt to the government-you're basically forfeiting your freedom.

[KentuckyWildcat]

To me, it isn't fair to take away from people who have earned more in order to prop up those who haven't. Such a system discourages innovation and hard work because individuals lack any incentive.

We are humans. We do not need an external reward to desire to improve. It is what we do, naturally.

Anyone who is only doing something to make a quick dollar isn't putting out a quality product anyway. We've all experienced that.

Before you assume that I'm completely callous, I do firmly believe in charity. I just don't think that the government should mandate a redistribution of wealth.

Then what do you believe a government should do? If a government should not help to support its people, it exists instead to ______.

Please, help me out here. I really don't understand that.

Hmm. Interesting video and studies. I honestly wasn't aware of that, so kudos for showing it to me. While I'll have to keep thinking about it, my gut reaction is that while it is very intriguing from the standpoint of building a corporation, I'm not sure if it would exactly translate to government mandated socialism or not, at least not without drastic changes to more than just the tax code.

I thought it was key to note that the video advocated paying employees just enough that they aren't worried about money. Currently, the education required to enter cutting-edge fields like engineering and medicine is extensive and very expensive, so the amount of money that these people need in order to not worry about it would necessarily be higher. Also, I wonder what the study would show if you are essentially working for a greater reward, but having part of it taken from you and given to someone else because that's a bit of a different situation in my opinion. Finally, it didn't really address whether or not many people would choose the more complex mental tasks over simple mechanical work if everything paid equally let alone whether people would work at all if the government ensures that even those who don't work are completely equal to those who do like several others seem to be advocating on this thread.


As for what I think the government is for, I think it is primarily to provide internal structure and order as well as defense from outside threats. I think those who advocate for more government support of the disadvantaged truly mean well. I just don't believe that a mandatory government redistribution program is the best means to accomplish the goal.

[Regulus]

Make what the federal government would over-complicate beyond all belief a little less over-complicated. It is not Washington D.C.'s business to worry about Small Town, Mississippi. Mississippi can take of that.

Think bigger. There is no 'Small Town,' Mississippi. There is no Mississippi. These are all just abstract ideas. There's no reason why 'Small Town,' Mississippi needs its own set of laws from 'Buttcreek Canyon Falls,' Missouri.

You think it's bad now? I guarantee you: You let Obama take care of you (or even Romney. Whats important is that it's the federal gov.), and things will be worse.

How would this make things worse? I could understand fearing that the federal government would become more powerful, but it would still be bounded by the same principles. In fact, I think it would become less powerful, because it would give more control back to the people.

The way it is now, the states control the federal government. But without the states, it would be the people directly.

I thought it was key to note that the video advocated paying employees just enough that they aren't worried about money. Currently, the education required to enter cutting-edge fields like engineering and medicine is extensive and very expensive, so the amount of money that these people need in order to not worry about it would necessarily be higher.

And that's because of our extreme capitalism today. This is why the largest sum of taxes should go towards education. In fact, I'd even go as far to say that all levels of education should be entirely free, not just public school. But I really can't complain, Obama has done a good job so far with funding Pell grants.

Also, I wonder what the study would show if you are essentially working for a greater reward, but having part of it taken from you and given to someone else because that's a bit of a different situation in my opinion. Finally, it didn't really address whether or not many people would choose the more complex mental tasks over simple mechanical work if everything paid equally let alone whether people would work at all if the government ensures that even those who don't work are completely equal to those who do like several others seem to be advocating on this thread.

I don't really think that matters all that much. What does matter, though, is that a lot of 'cool' projects require a lot of funds. That's the real reason why Wikipedia and Linux have done so well. It doesn't take much funding to create a website or OS, only time. But, we can't do things like build space shuttles in our free time, just because it requires physical resources that all but professionals have access too.

Give me what I need to live, give me tools to play with, and I promise, I'll be able to create something freaking awesome. And I will ask for nothing in return. Knowing that I did something awesome is enough for me, as long as I'm living comfortably.

People are lazy in regards to physical work, but not mental work. Though I can't speak for everyone, I personally, can't turn my brain off if I wanted to. I will always be thinking about something. No matter if I get paid to or not, I'll always want to make something better. Money takes away from that focus, and the final product almost always ends up being of lesser quality as result.

As for what I think the government is for, I think it is primarily to provide internal structure and order as well as defense from outside threats. I think those who advocate for more government support of the disadvantaged truly mean well. I just don't believe that a mandatory government redistribution program is the best means to accomplish the goal.

If the government doesn't support the disadvantaged, then who will? Historically, it has typically been family, but today, family isn't really as important as it once was; we're too focused on the individual. That's fine and all, but what happens when you're 70 years old, sick, can't work, and can't pay for your medical bills? What if your family is either dead at that point, or simply doesn't care? What if the government doesn't help you? What do you do? Shoot yourself in the head? In all honesty, that's what I'd do in that situation, but I'd rather not think about it.

[TheRoguePrince]

Think bigger. There is no 'Small Town,' Mississippi. There is no Mississippi. These are all just abstract ideas. There's no reason why 'Small Town,' Mississippi needs its own set of laws from 'Buttcreek Canyon Falls,' Missouri.

Go visit San Francisco, and just the west coast in general, and then go to Louisiana, Alaska, etc. They are very different places, different people, different attitudes. Different ways of life. Those are the extreme. I live in WV. When I go to Florida or Ohio, I see some differences. North of the Mason-Dixon line can be like a whole new world. You’d be surprised what you learn when you get off your furry butt and into the real world

In fact, I'd even go as far to say that all levels of education should be entirely free, not just public school.

You think it's expensive now?
Just wait until it's "free"
(And you think it's piss-poor now? Same quote applies!)

Nothing is free. If you get rid of the registration and class fees, as I am assuming that is what you are talking about, taxes will just rise to cover the deficit. Education is payed by taxes on the state, county, and local levels and getting rid of them to cover schools would cause the system to crumble. If education is free, where are the teachers getting a salary, the school building paying off the electric bills, and buses paying for gas to drive the students there?

It doesn't take much funding to create a website or OS, only time.

I know a website designer making six figures in Atlanta that would like to have a word with you

If the government doesn't support the disadvantaged, then who will?

Um. Charities, lol. United Way, Salvation Army, etc. I don't know about you, but I've seen the "TXT 90999 to the Red Cross" multiple times during the Hurricane Sandy.

[Azdgari]

So then, do you believe that we do not have a real responsibility to take care of our impoverished, but rather a luxury, something to be done when and if we feel like it?

[TheLionPrince]

So you don't believe it's ironic that someone who stands on the stump bellowing about lowering taxes across the board actually plans to, essentially, raise taxes?

Not really. Politicians have stating they will do this and that while campaigning, but when in office, they do something else entirely. Now concerning taxes, both Presidents Reagan, H.W. Bush, and Clinton campaigned to not raise taxes, but raised taxes during office. Romney, if elected, will be no exception.

Why vote for him if nothing he says is reliable? Which, notably, it is not, as he changes his position unlike any other politician that I've certainly ever seen. He's turned his back on abortion, gay marriage, and climate stances since he governed my state, and gosh, what does that all have in common? It's not on the party platform he wants. So he's happy to sell out his principles as long as he satisfies his party.

Obama campaigned on ending war in Iraq. It is over. He campaigned on killing Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden is dead. He campaigned on saving the economy: it has grown for 31 straight months and is far from the cliff it teetered on, and the deficit is shrinking each year. He campaigned on saving the auto industry: he saved it. He campaigned on environmental issues: he has followed through. He campaigned on cracking down on wall street: he created the financial Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. He campaigned on revolutionizing health care: whether you like the bill or not, he certainly kept the promise.

Why vote for someone you admit will not do what he says ? Why vote for a chameleonic idealogue like Romney?

I will vote for Romney because he's proven enough himself to be able to take troubled situations and turn them around despite the flip-flops he had. Since you feel the need to list the President's accomplishments, it's only fair I should list Romney's accomplishments. He took a position at Bain & Company, and turned the declining business around, and made a successful spin-off business, Bain Capital. In 2002, he took over the troubled management at the 2002 Winter Olympics to be held in Salt Lake City in Utah, and the games profitted $100 million in fiscal surpluses. And though I have some disagreements with Romneycare as well as Obamacare, he at least collabrated with the Democrats on the other aisle, and passed a decent health care plan that covered 95% of the state's uninsured civilians.

And yes, Obama has "saved" the economy with 12.3 million Americans unemployed and record-level unemployment rates in ethnic communities according to the October statistics by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. While I will give Obama credit for the declining weekly unemployment aid applications, USA Today reports, "the total number of Americans seeking unemployment benefits rose to just over 5 million" slightly up from 4.9 million the previous week. The report also states that the economy grew at 2% annual [economic growth] rate last quarter, and that it needed a 3% or more growth rate in order to put a dent in the unemployment rate. Reaganomics did the complete opposite concerning economic growth:

From 1950 to 1973, real economic growth in the U.S. economy averaged 3.6 percent per year. From 1973 to 1982, it averaged only 1.6 percent. The Reagan economic boom restored the more usual growth rate as the economy averaged 3.5 percent in real growth from the beginning of 1983 to the end of 1990.

The deficit under Obama was "shrinking" each year. Well, not exactly:

•FY 2013 - $901 billion.
•FY 2012 - $1.327 trillion.
•FY 2011 - $1.299 trillion.
•FY 2010 - $1.293 trillion.
•FY 2009 - $1.413 trillion.

Don't I see an increase in the budget deficit from fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2012? Not to mention, President Obama promises early during his term that he will cut in the deficit in half before his first term is over. From the statistics above, he's not even close.

Yes, Obama kept his promise on ending the Iraq War and cracking down on Wall Street, and crammed down health care reform despite a Reuters/Ipsos poll released in June 2012 showing 56% of Americans opposed the healthcare overhaul.