Tuesday, January 29 is the Florida Presidential primary. Soon, most of the rest of the country will also have voted. Now no matter where you live, even if it is another country and you won't be voting at all in our elections, I have some questions. What I want to know is who are you voting for (or who would you be), and why.
Who would you like to see win?
Have you prayed about it?
I do have something to say to those who talk of a candidate being "unelectable", or something like that. Of course they are unelectable, if you don't vote for them.
81 comments:
JD, the "Have you prayed about it?" question sounds good, but you know, there are things I don't have to pray about. For example, unless the entire universe gets turned upside down, I know I will vote against every Democrat every time. I know it's the right thing to do. The primaries are not so clear cut. I know what to vote for, I just have to choose the man who best represents that. I do pray that I won't be fooled by disingenuous politicians.
Since you stopped by and asked why I put up the Ron Paul banner now that Thompson is out, it's like this:
There were only two Republican candidates that I liked, Paul and Thompson, in that order. But Paul is the idealists candidate. He'll never get the nomination. I believed Thompson could, so I went with him. I've fallen back into idealist mode. I'm chucking the small measure of pragmatism I had adopted and voting on principle.
Hey, it's not like the North Dakota caucuses actually influence the nomination. We just end up voting on the guys the rest of you choose.
By the way, have you Floridians figured out how to run those voting machines yet?
Indeed there are things you can discern with your biblically sanctified reason without praying first. My point is to ask what people do pray about when considering these things, if at all. Do they pray about the outcome, to not be fooled as you mentioned? Whatever else they might pray about in connection to the election, I'd be interestd to know.
voting on principle
Yes!
Yes again...we do have to pay some attention to pragmatic concerns, but the over arching guide must be principle...
have you Floridians figured out how to run those voting machines yet?
Of course not...but we are taking a vote on how to proceed...
;-)
So why Paul, in a "safe-place-I- won't-bark-back-you-don't-have to- defend-it" nutshell?
I would have liked Thompson as well.
It's going to be either Obama or Clinton. I could never vote for either of these. Number 1 reason for me is that they are staunch pro-abortion, but also, I do not see a Commander-in-Chief here.
If McCain, Romney, or Paul win and run against these, then I will vote for the republican. If Guliani makes it, I don't know what I'll do, probably have a write in vote for somebody. Or maybe not vote at all.
I don't like any of these canidates to be honest.
Whatever happened to satnding up for Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, and as the one true God.
President Bush said when Muslims, Jews, and Christains pray, we all pray to the same God.
Thanks JD for allowing us to unload a bit.
I do pray for our nation to be granted godly leaders. But it seems God may be giving us what we deserve.
I would never vote democratic because they are basically socialist. I do not like McCain because of several key issues such as McCain/Fiengold, stance on prisoner interrogation, and especially him being sold out to the global warming extremists who would ruin our economy and sell out our sovereignty over another liberal hoax. When Paul claimed we were the blame for 9/11, he forever lost me. Huckabee really angered me when he viciously attacked Bush’s foreign policy (Not that I am a big Bush supporter, but I have become sick of democrats doing that and I don’t want to hear from the R’s). Plus there are some other points on Huckabee that I don’t like. I can’t get past a lot of Rudy’s baggage. Had Thompson gotten in the ball game early enough, stayed, and been aggressive, I probably would have been for him. That leaves Romney and I am solidly behind him.
I will vote for the Republican in Nov. even if it is McCain.
When I said I know what to vote for, I guess I should have said what that it -- the Constitution. We need a government that will treat the Constitution like a Christian should treat the Bible. The Constitution is the supreme law of land, and it needs to be treated as absolutely authoritative and interpreted according to a strictly literal grammatical-historical hermeneutic.
Paul understands that much of what the federal government does today is actually illegal. The Constitution simply does not grant it the powers that it has taken. Most of the candidates just want to make government do what it does more efficiently and effectively. I want to make it stop doing most of what it does.
"The Constitution is the supreme law of land,"
I agree.
But how does it work with 9-11? How does it address such a war with terrorists? Are we allowed to go forth and hunt down the Bin Laden's?
Just wondering, I don't have any answers really.
(I saw this same type of debate on '24', the 6th season)
Thank you gentlemen for giving substance to your reasoning...Thirsty, that was what I was looking for from you, so again, thanks...
Don, that is a most excellent question...even if there is an easy answer, many people might not know it or might not have even considered it in this light, so very good to ask...
How does it address such a war with terrorists? Are we allowed to go forth and hunt down the Bin Laden's?
Yes, I think we are. Where we get on shakey ground is when we try to play policeman to the world and govern the affairs of other nations. Not only should we not do that, we can't do it. We are bankrupting ourselves trying to rule the world.
By the way, I will even vote for Giuliani against any Democrat because he is more likely to nominate strict constructionists to the Supreme Court, and there is really nothing as important as that. What is at stake is no less than the republic itself. We are steadily slipping into tyranny, and the Constitution is our only defense. Without a faithful court, we have no hope of recovering a genuine constitutional republic.
Besides, I'm used to voting for bad against worse. I haven't actually voted for a president since 1984 (I would have in '80, too, but I was only 15 years old).
That is a valid concern for sure, long term results because of appointments to the bench....
I am in basic agreement with thirstydavid. I think we are in big trouble with this trend toward socialism. Our understanding of Biblical principles tells us that socialism does not work, has not worked, and will never work. He is right that our very freedom is at stake in this struggle.
I like the fact that Romney is a free enterprise businessman that understands the benefits of capitalism.
I should have added the Biblical principle of mans depravity.
JD, thanks for the invite to add my 2 cents.
As an outsider I have a somewhat different view and maybe am a bit more objective. So here are my points.
I agree with Thirsty that Ron Paul is the most idealistic candidate. He understands the constitution and is exposing the corruption and abuse of government. That being said, I have not heard enough of a moral emphasis regarding the hot topics we are facing today. For that reason I think Huckabee would be the moral conservative's best vote. Maybe he can pick Ron Paul for his running mate? :)
As for McCain, I see him as the most moderate and one able to draw soft democrats. However, he has no moral compunction and will simply maintain the status quo. His coziness with Kennedy and Feinstein is also very concerning.
Guiliani is a NO GO; this guy has no more conscience than Hilary Clinton and is possibly the most connected with the establishment.
Romney is a good candidate from a business standpoint. However, my biggest concern is his Mormon religion of course. Mormons are NOT christians nor do they teach Biblical doctrine. They are a cult with connections at the highest levels to the occultic and nefarious secret societies.
As Christians, we must stop voting the lesser of two evils and begin standing for principle. Pragmatism leads to a constant decline in moral influence and prevention.
"We are bankrupting ourselves trying to rule the world."
Do our troops, 40,000 I think, in North Korea need to be there? And if not, would that mean the North would leave the South alone?
The danger of nuclear missile strikes upon our homeland calls for us to be out and about, does it not?
I agree though, we surely can not afford to be all over the world?
I don't know the answer, except we need to trust a sovereign Lord to help us. The nation needs to look to the Church, but it won't. It looks to human wisdom, instead of the Bible, God's truth.
I'm asking, because I'm just starting to think all these things through.
Thanks Jim for your input...greatly appreciated....
Don, I agree, we need to think through these things, which was and is one reason for this post and comments...
I do want to say right now that I am delghted that we are putting forth our views in the Christian way we are doing it, as these are complex facets we might not have considered had not they been brought up...
Many times otherwise well-read and well-thought people still need to have these items distilled into this sort of form to be able to consider them...
And so, as we have been blesssd with many readers from all over the country and the world, I am praying that some will be encouraged, informed, and equipped to make a more reasoned and thoughtful decision regarding these matters, not only for this vote, but about the ideas themselves...
I am grateful to God for this exchange taking place among men of like precious faith...
Ladies, you are certainly welcome too, and I am sure our guests will take the opportunity to answer questions asked...
Q:
Does anyone think the answers about the "stimulus package" from the last debate reveal anything?
Only Huckabee seemed to offer anything, and I really thought it revealed his wilingness to look at the issues that might come up suddenly in office with insight insteed of just sloughing off the question with a "yeah its okay", or a "I would do better, even more" dodge....
Q:
Running mates for VP?
Do our troops, 40,000 I think, in North Korea need to be there? And if not, would that mean the North would leave the South alone?
Here's a similar question: Do we (taxpayers) need to keep handing out food stamps and welfare checks? And if not, what will happen to those presently on welfare?
I'll give the same answer to both: they'll have to take care of themselves. It's a hard, cold answer, but I believe it's the right answer.
The danger of nuclear missile strikes upon our homeland calls for us to be out and about, does it not?
Does it? Maybe it does. But before you insist that we must, you have to consider how we'll do that. We can't just say "we must" and then put on Visa. It's got to be paid for.
Ron Paul is the most idealistic candidate. He understands the constitution and is exposing the corruption and abuse of government. That being said, I have not heard enough of a moral emphasis regarding the hot topics we are facing today. For that reason I think Huckabee would be the moral conservative's best vote.
Only if you believe the best way to effect morals is to legislate them. The best -- and only -- way to truly effect morals is to change hearts. Only the Holy Spirit, through the Gospel, can do that.
The best candidate is not necessarily a Christian candidate. There are plenty of Christians who are utter fools concerning how to govern a nation. I'll take an atheist who believes in liberty over a Christian socialist any day.
I didn't watch the debate, but I'll give you an economic stimulus package:
Stop trying to stimulate the economy. Leave it alone.
Stop spending on programs not Constitutionally mandated. Abolish all of them. Stop spending borrowed money.
Abolish all current taxes. Institute a retail sales tax.
Stop regulating businesses.
Leave the economy alone. Get out of the way, and it will run itself.
I'd better go away now. I'm beginning to rant.
No, David, please rant on, it is okay, we'll practice mercy and grace here, friend...
Abolish all current taxes. Institute a retail sales tax.
That was Huckabee's answer, David, as a long term solution instead of a short term shot in the arm we cannot afford anyway...he also mentioned using that money, 150 billion, if we were going to do that, to use it to widen I-95 two more lanes. He gave statistics to show a huge proportion of our population to be within 100 miles of this, and it would create new jobs and industry for a lot longer than the 1200 dollars a family will use to just pay current bills, not stimulate investment. As well the roads would still be there afterwards, a long tem idea. I realize this may just seem like populist politics, but at least he did have an idea, instead of like the other candidate’s just signing off because they didn't want to talk about not giving people money back.
Huckabee talked of the sales tax, and dispelled notions of how this would hurt rather than help the lower and middle classes economically, because of a rebate factor included in it, and that we wouldn’t be paying tax on necessities such as food. He also used it to speak of how it would help curb the social security mess by having it draw from the general pool, and how this would give us a real look at real dollars we are spending, instead of so much creative book keeping. He also talked about how this would help stop certain unscrupulous elements that would now be taxed, but I am not sure he really gave us reasons on how that would work, but it did lead me to want to investigate further this idea of a “fair tax”.
Basically it was all he talked about, given the time. Again, it may be too unrealistic, but he went into more detail than anyone I’ve ever heard on the subject.
BTW John McCain showed his total ignorance about a question Ron Paul asked him about the Fed. He went into default position about referring to advisors, when the point of the question was about exactly that, McCain had just said before this that he knew what to do with the economy and stopping certain regulations and waste, and then Paul asked the pointed question about eliminating part of an agency, and McCain didn’t even know what he was being asked, and proved he had just misrepresented himself.
I will vote for McCain before Hillary or Obama, but I will not be voting for him tomorrow.
David, thanks for speaking from your heart, and from the wisdom you have.
Appreciate it. Excellent food for thought.
"It's got to be paid for."
Yeah. I agree.
That's why I like getting rid of all the other money sucking government organizations, like Welfare and others; many others.
But continue to build roads and keep the military strong.
I hate all the taxes i pay. Would love to see this worked in a better way for all Americans.
Why not have a 10% tax? that's what the Lord had for Israel.
Or do away with the income taxes, if that will work.
Go for it, I say!
JD, I guess I don't know what you mean by a "rebate factor." If that means giving a refund to certain people based on income, I'd be opposed to that.
It also irritates me to hear that Huckabee has ideas about how to spend supposed new money. There's only one way to spend any increased revenue, and that's paying down the debt. And I don't care how many jobs it would create. Job creation is not the business of government, it's the business of business.
Yeah, he was saying, not that he agrees with the stimulus package, but that even if we did do it, it could be better spent...
To be truthful, I am not as well versed as I would like to be on this "fair tax" issue, but I do like the idea of limiting government in that area, as it would have many other benefits...
"I'll take an atheist who believes in liberty over a Christian socialist any day." I thought socialism was the doctrine of Athiests? :)
Here is my economic stimulus package: Ok, there is none. ;(
Actually the US economy has been falsely stimulated for too many years now. It has relied on a globally accepted greenback, high sales of oil, generous lending from foreign powers such as China and Japan, and an uncontrolled printing of currency; all of which have devalued the US dollar.
The real answer is that a true economic stimulus package will be painful and costly. We must change our mindset about finances and that begins with becoming personally responsible to live within our means.
But here is what I think should happen:
1. Abolish the IRS
2. Make welfare a state issue
3. Ban Porkbarrel spending
4. Abolish the FED and return to the gold standard. Let the international bankers pay back the exorbitant interest.
5. Bring most of the military back within the borders.
6. Make the military a defensive unit instead of policeman for the world.'
7. Withdraw from the UN
8. Stop fighting wars for the purpose of "advancing democracy or any archaic excuse". If we need to fight, then it must be in an unconditional way. Give no quarter until the enemy surrenders but don't become an occupational force.
9. Enact constitutional amendment regarding marriage.
10. Eliminate all taxes on domestic business.
Yeah, Jim, I'll go along with that. It would be costly and painful, which means you couldn't campaign on it in this country. Americans won't vote for sacrifice -- unless it's for their benefit at someone else's expense.
Socialism is a doctrine of atheists. Many Christians are political atheists. They call it "compassionate conservatism."
"Americans won't vote for sacrifice"
"Ask not what you can do for your country, but what your country can do for you!"
I'm voting for Jim, because so far he has the best ideas I have heard this election season.
Honestly, after perusing all of our candidates in the begining, I was a Fred Thompson fan, but was really pulling for Huckabee because of his outspoken pro FairTax stance. There are some things that I may not agree with him on, but there is much more good then bad.
My wife, who is standing over my shoulder says she is voting for Huckabee out of submission toward her husband. (Actually she just respects my opinions).
She says if God wanted us to vote, He would have given us candidates.
www.fairtax.org
I vote for Jim :)
Yay! Everyone is voting for ME!
Well, my first name IS Jim, and even if you voted for David, well that is my middle name (hence J.D.), so hooray, I'm gonna be the President...upon further review, I guess this means we all need to vote for Don, I don't trust me...
Thanks for the fairtax url Chris...
I apologize for discussing something outside of the question, but I feel the need to help explain the FairTax.
It is not to be confused with the flat tax discussed afew years ago.
HR25, The Fair tax proposal is the most researched piece of legislation ever concieved. It abolishes the IRS, and allows all Americans to keep 100% of their paychecks by getting rid of income, medicare, and social security taxes in the form of income re-distribution.
It brings forth a 23% consumption tax, which sounds exhaustive, BUT LISTEN! It gets rid of all embedded taxes. Lets say a tire sells for $100. The rubber factory was taxed when they sold the rubber to the refinery, and then the refinery was taxed when it was sold to the tire factory. Then we are taxed on the front end. Getting rid of embedded taxes would make that tire's retail price only about $76, then taxed one time only at 23%. The cost of all goods would go down.
Employers would no longer have to match all taxes paid by the employees, so there would be money to expand, create new jobs, and give raises to us existing employees. Not to mention TURN A PROFIT for a change.
The United States would become a tax haven, bringing overseas corporations back, and jobs back. It would also be inviting for foriegn companies to come, as it would be more profitable for them as well.
It would bring tens of billions in tax dollars back into the system by eliminating underground economies. Illegal aliens and drug dealers that have no income tax would suddenly be taxed like everyone else on everything they buy.
It also provides refunds in advance for the tax on purchases of basic necessities like utilities or food. Not only would the lower and middle classes get to keep their entire gross income check, but would monthly recieve a refund check for the taxes they spend on these necessities.
At the same time this FULLY FUNDS all medicare and social security so that debate can just go away and our politicans can concentrate on important things.
Unfortunately, most politicans do not like this because it takes away their 73,000+ pages of controling tax code that they can change whenever they decide to spend more of our money.
The pros just go on and on, and if you have a concern as I did or a question, goto fairtax.org and it's all there.
I said all of this to say, 'This is why I am voting for Mike Huckabee'.
Huckabee's comment about the 'stimulus package' was the best I have heard yet.
He said "We borrow thousands of dollars from China, and give it to Americans so they can go spend it at Wal-Mart and send the money back to China. Sure sounds like a great stimulus package......for China!"
I could put up with at least four years of that logic.
"Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" -Patrick Henry
Be nice to have a president like this. Don't you think?
But they're all gone. No more Patriots it seems. Maybe in 2012.
I like that tax thing that says we keep our whole paycheck. You wouldn't believe how much I have to put out with a small business to "Caesar".
Oh well, "Give to Caesar the things of Caesar, and to God the things of God".
Well, once again, I sure do appreciate all the interaction here...I will probably leave this post up on top for tonight and tomorrow, and I do pray that people will become more informed, and that they will get out and vote...may the Lord's will be done...
I would vote GOP, except if Rudy gets the nomination (shudder) - though being a Canadian, it doesn't really matter to me. If it comes down to a democrat - I would vote against hillary, but I don't know for who.
J. D.: you asked about my opinion on Huckabee. I'm sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. The short answer is, I'm against him.
He is not a small government candidate. He has no problem using tax money to spend for public goods, but that includes things like adding more government jobs and expanding welfare spending in the state of Arkansas.
But I think the thing that bothers me most is the "he that is not for me is against me" factor. Huckabee is fiercly loyal to those who vote with him, but at the same time, he is completely against you.
I found a telling quote recently from an article on the web. The article itself has a total anti-Huckabee slant, but I think the quote stands on its own.
Jake Files was a newly elected representative when all two dozen Arkansas House Republicans met for their first caucus in 1999. They had doubled their numbers in elections two months earlier, and were ready to join Republican Gov. Mike Huckabee in pushing for conservative government.
That was when Brenda Turner, the governor’s chief of staff, entered.
“Just walked in, shut the door and said, ‘There’s two kinds of people in the world: those who are for Mike Huckabee and those who are against Mike Huckabee. I’ll do everything I can to help the first group. I’ll do everything I can to hurt the second,’ ” said Mr. Files, who left the legislature after two terms.
And that’s the way it was.
“Not only would he not help you, he would go out of his way to do things in opposition to you,” Mr. Files said.
If it was just this one guy, it might be easy to dismiss. But several people tell similar stories, including two that know personally and consider to be both close friends and reliable sources.
As a result of both of these things, I've eliminated him. I don't have a clue who I'll be voting for (our primary is next week), but I will say quite candidly that this cycle's election choices are like shopping for fresh oranges in January - they are all pretty much the same, and none of them are really that great.
Gummby, I am very thankful indeed for your comment, and yes, I had thought about your opinion today as we were in this discussion. So your timing is fortuitous, and I hope others will see this tomorrow before they vote, not that it is the only thing we need to know, but I did think we did needed to know the opinion of a Christian man, blogger, and friend who lives in the state Mr. Huckabee was Governor of...if this is truly representative of this man's character, it is disturbing...I will be praying tonight (early this morning, I guess), and I will not be voting until after lunch, but I guess I will need to talk with Margie some more in the morning...
Matt, it is better late than never, and again, I sincerely appreciate the info, brother...
Dude! You're up later than I am (relatively speaking). I don't know how you do it. I'm about to crash.
FWIW, I'll be praying for you, and I sincerely appreciate the encouragement you've given to pray. I needed that, because when it comes to politics, I have a nasty and persistent habit of leaving God out.
Sincere thanks, my friend. Hope you sleep well.
Matt, and anyone, for that matter, I am in a serious season of prayer for our church, and for some of our wayward souls, and to be honest, I would covet any small prayer you might pray for the ministry of Riverside Christian Fellowship...
JD - it is always a privilege to pray.
Praying for Riverside Christian Fellowship.
Friends of God, thank you...
Didn't Jesus himself say "whoever is not with me is against me, whoever does not work with me is working against me." Matthew 12:30 and Luke 11:23. As far as issues like abortion, usually people are on one side or the other. There is no middle ground. As far as Truth, there is no middle ground. He sounds like a Christian who is willing to stand up for what's right and against what's wrong and not waver.
I am going to post an article from MSM Money giving pros and cons about the fair tax...
What the Fair Tax might do for the economy
Would the Fair Tax make for a better economy? The Huckabee team says yes, and here are the arguments:
Retail prices could fall. Fair Tax supporters say 20% of all prices today represent the hidden income and payroll taxes embedded in the price of everything we buy.
Eliminating corporate income taxes and capital-gains taxes would make the United States a more desirable place to do business. Cut transaction costs, and you encourage more people to get into the game.
There would be reduced losses of tax revenue from the underground economy.
Illegal immigrants, many of whom do not report income or pay taxes, would be forced to pay their share of the Fair Tax. So would the 40 million foreign tourists who visit the U.S. each year.
Social Security and Medicare taxes could be eliminated. These regressive taxes are probably the largest tax burdens on lower-income taxpayers. The Social Security Administration will get 6.2% of all wages and salaries up to $102,000 in 2008. Medicare gets an additional 1.45% from all wages and salaries.
The Fair Tax would minimize the congressional tinkering and behavioral manipulation that permeates our current tax code. Special benefit provisions and lobbyist-generated deductions and exclusions would be gone.
Substituting the Fair Tax could mean that the Internal Revenue Service could be disbanded. (That might sell the deal.)
Savers and investors would win big
The biggest winners under the Huckabee plan would be most savers and investors. A consumption tax gives savers something like an unlimited-deductible individual retirement account. There would be no tax hit until the dollars were actually spent. While the money was saved or invested, it would grow fully tax-free.
Financial companies would get an enormous windfall. Most of their expenses are payroll-related, and, relatively speaking, they spend little on goods and services. Much of their profit is generated by investments. That wouldn't be taxed until spent.
Investors should also gain by the increased value of shares in companies that they bought or owned. That's because of the elimination of both corporate income and payroll taxes.
And the wealthy, who now pay 35% on their marginal income, would rejoice at a big tax break down to 30% of their consumption expenditures. In other words, a round of golf at Pebble Beach would cost them, but merely collecting dividends would not.
What's not to like about the Huckabee plan
The opponents have strong arguments of their own. Here's a rundown:
How much must pretax prices go down before you're comfortable paying an additional 30% on your home purchase, kid's tuition and doctor appointments? Increasing the cost of buying a home by 30% would not stimulate the housing market. On a house currently selling for $200,000, a 30% tax means you have to borrow $60,000 more just to get in the door. That doesn't make a lot of sense.
Arguments that the Fair Tax would eliminate the underground economy are less than persuasive. Add a 30% federal hit to a 6% state sales tax, and you have created a golden opportunity for smuggling. Look at what happened to cigarettes when states increased their prices with higher sales taxes. They're now marketed out of the trunks of cars. Those cheating on their income taxes would cheat on their sales taxes. Just substitute the term "black market" for underground economy.
The idea that the Fair Tax would eliminate complexity in the tax code also fails to recognize reality. Special interests would almost certainly hire lobbyists to propose exemptions for such things as home purchases, medical services and education. I spent some time in Washington, D.C., and I never met a lawmaker who wanted to run for re-election on the platform of hitting housing, medical services and education with a 30% tax.
The poor would get little from the Fair Tax because they really don't pay income taxes under our current system. For 2008, if you're married with one child under 17, you have no tax on your first $31,400 in income. The Fair Tax can't beat a zero tax liability. Any real savings would come from the elimination of Social Security and Medicare taxes.
Bush administration economists have projected that the Fair Tax would actually increase taxes for those making more than $30,000 and less than $200,000. That's because a flat 30% rate on their gross consumption would suck more dollars than a graduated rate on taxable income, after deductions, exemptions and the like. Taxpayers in that range would lose the benefit of the 10%, 15%, 25% and 28% rates on their taxable income.
Transition rules -- the rules that would apply as one shuttered income taxes and started up the Fair Tax -- would cause chaos. Consider your Roth IRA account. You've already paid income taxes on those dollars. You wouldn't be happy when you spent the money and had to pay a tax again.
Somebody would have to enforce the sales tax law or it would have no teeth. So, in practical effect, the plan would not eliminate the IRS. The plan would just convert its function from income-tax compliance to sales-tax compliance. Some agency would have to step in.
Would the national sales tax be enough to raise as much revenue as our current system? Yes, if the rate was high enough, no if it wasn't. I'd bet everything I have that the 23% rate wouldn't remain fixed.
The biggest losers: Municipal bond holders
A subgroup of the wealthy -- those who escape income tax under the current system by investing in federal-tax-free municipal bonds -- would be big losers here. Under the Fair Tax, current tax-free dollars would be hit when they were spent. That would decrease the attractiveness of such investments and potentially increase their cost.
Higher interest rates for state and local projects would result in increased costs for schools, bridges and jails that are normally financed with tax-exempt bonds. Or it might mean higher state and local income and real-estate taxes to cover those costs.
Home values -- and people who work in the real-estate industry -- would suffer. So would those who sell high-priced goods. Cars, appliances and high-ticket items like, say, Tiffany jewelry, could immediately become 30% more expensive. Would the corporate income and payroll tax savings be enough to offset this addition cost? It's arguable, and economists disagree. It's arguable, and economists disagree. Personally, I have my doubts.
My biggest fear is the inability of Congress, no matter which party is in control, to control spending.
We raise more tax money today than ever before in our history. The problem is that we increase spending faster than we increase tax revenues. We may end up with both an income tax and a national sales tax. Wouldn't that be a kick in your wallet?
Nettie: If I recall correctly, the issue in question was actually on raising taxes. A local legislator had run on a no-tax pledge, and got on the wrong side of Governor Huckabee when he said that he would oppose any tax increases from the governor.
You invite comments from other countries, so here is mine. I have never ever heard of anyone, ever, praying before an election. Is that a particularly American phenomenon?
To most English people I am sorry to admit that GWB as has made rather a fool of himself with his multitudinious gaffs. The one that caused most comment was when he confused "foetus" with faeces" in a discussion on abortion. I believe that most people in UK would now like to see a Democrat elected. We are starting to feel the fall-out from economic difficulty (regarding credit, debt, etc.) in the USA. There seems to be a more or less equal division between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Personally I see Hillary as the more convincing.
That "the poor" would have to pay taxes that they now do not is no argument against a retail sales tax. No one who uses the services funded by tax revenue should get out of paying taxes. No one would expect to leave a restaurant without paying, but they don't mind using public services and sticking everyone else with the bill.
I happen to be among those who would pay more taxes if a sales tax were enacted, and yes, I still want it. Because it's the right thing to do.
I like the idea, too, David, but it will be difficult to enact...
Hey Maalie, thansk for the input from the other side of the pond...good to get that perspective...
Gummby, interesting, and thanks again...
Nettie, I talked with your hubby earlier, so he will give you the lowdown on my thoguhts...
P.S. Regarding Barak Obama, he is on record as opposing the proposed infant protection bill while a state senator.
The Illinois Senate wanted to make a law stating that if an abortion failed and the infant was born alive, that the infant would be considered a person and be given medical care, etc. That is actually not all that controversial - even hard-core pro-abortion folks recognize that a "viable fetus," as they call it, should be protected. (I won't get into the ethics here, but there are some crazy double-standards to make this logic work). In any case, Obama was opposed to it, because he thought it would raise too many constitutional questions, including, that abortion might be completely banned and declared unconsitutional.
You can download the transcript of the session here. His remarks start on page 85. And frankly, the comments are chilling.
Gummby: first of all I think the only candidate who would actually honor his pledge to not raise taxes or spend wastefully would be Ron Paul.
That being said, I have much more trust in a candidate who is willing to campaign on the moral issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage than one who caters to economic and foreign policy.
It seems pragmatism is alive and well even amongst the evangelical camp. Do we really believe what the Bible says or is it merely convenient on Sunday mornings. The nation that fears the Lord will be blessed. Promoting abortion and same-sex marriage obviously show a high level of disdain for God and His righteous standard. Romney, Guiliani, and McCain all fail in that respect.
Jim: with respect, it seems to me that "to campaign on the moral issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage" while misrepresenting your record on economic issues is also "showing disdain for God and His righteous standard."
And just so my previous point was clear: a state legislator here in Arkansas was elected on a no-tax-hike promise, and made enemies with Mike Huckabee because he vowed to stick to that promise. Mr. Huckabee is also on record as calling members of his own party "Shi'ites" when they opposed his plan to use taxpayer funding to provide college scholarships for the children of individuals who are not here legally.
I'll be holding my nose in the voting booth because I don't like any of the candidates. I don't think that makes me a pragmatist--at least not in the sense that I assume you mean. My point, and I'll stand by it, is that Huckabee on the campaign trail is different than Huckabee the governor.
Although I'm all for godly leaders, I don't think having a president, even a godly one, makes us a godly nation. I suspect you don't either.
Obama was in Rick Warren's pulpit. Does anybody think this was good?
This man says it's fine to let a baby die after it's born alive. Incredible!
He says it has to be 9 months old to be considered a baby?
My daughter was born early, 7 months, and weighed in at 2 lbs, and had an operation on her heart, and she lived, and now has three sons herself.
This guy needs the oil of God's mercy to open his callous heart, and scaled eyes. May the open his eyes. Amen.
Thanks gummy for that link.
Sorry for the rabbit path, but I didn't start it.
"Although I'm all for godly leaders, I don't think having a president, even a godly one, makes us a godly nation. I suspect you don't either."
No not necessarily. We had our kick at the can with GWB and that was a miserable failure. No ground gain on the moral front.
A leader however is a powerful reflection of the spiritual climate of a nation. That being said, it doesn't look very promising.
If you want to put economic issues on the same level as moral ones then more power to you. I for one do not trust a politician who can support the murder of innocent life while also granting the rights of marriage to sodomites. Politics may be about compromise but leadership definitely is not.
FairTax Comment:
The tax would only be 23% and not 30%.
Also, there is only tax on new items. Used homes, used cars, used anything would be exempt. I also believe that there is an exception for health care and services, so you would not have to pay an extra 23% to take your child to the doctor.
It's all in the Fair Tax book and mostly online. I encourage everyone to read up from the source, and not listen to the interpretations of journalists and columnists.
It's kinda depressing that through all the riffraff of media I heard today, I never once heard Huckabee's name. They have already decided that McCain is the national favorite and they are ramming it down our throats.
Gummby:
I just listened to the Huckabee debate you had on your site.
I must say, his detractors had very weak criticism...especially compared to the other candidates. Furthermore they had been paid by Ron Paul to cast slander upon Huckabee prior to the Iowa Caucus, which he handily won.
I will admit he is far from perfect, but still the best choice for any pro-life and pro-family advocate.
Um, their expenses were paid by Ron Paul. And the other two gentlemen had their expenses paid by the Huckabee campaign. The Huckabee folks actually had five people up there, but apparently the station would only allow two to speak.
Huckabee may end up getting the nomination, and if that's the case, he'll certainly be my choice for president over either Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama. That said, I think it is important to have all the facts out on the table, and that's what I was trying to do. I commend you for doing your homework. It kind of stinks that well-informed votes are worth no more than uninformed votes, in the end.
And I must say, I'm thankful to even have the right to vote. We just got an e-mail from our missionaries in Kenya, and marauding bands are going around killing and maiming people. For all its faults, our government surpasses many other forms of governance in the world.
I guess we'll be seeing results come within just a few minutes here...
Wow James David - I just popped over (supposed to be working) to say hi and look at all the political conversation. I think I might have to come back and read what you guys think since our primary isn't until Feb 5th!
Thans for stopping by Susan...
BTW, the J in J.D. stands for only Jim, not James, the short version, like me (5'3")...
Okay, so McCain in Florida, Romney still in it ofr sure, Huckabee saying he going to be "playing all nine innings", and Rudy drops out and endorses McCain...
Next Tuesday will be the real test...
Gummby:
Your political and governmental system are the envy of the world. There is much power up for grabs and therefore playing hardball is a very tempting strategy by many candidates.
You are right though that compared to what is going on in other countries we have nothing to complain about.
I sometimes wonder what the outcome would if the media did not hype up the establishment candidates so much. All you hear on the news is Clinton-Obama, and McCain-Romney. All insiders (well maybe Obama isn't totally) and all less than favourable. Maybe there is some justice though since Guiliani will most likely be packing it in after tonight.
It seems the cap on donations doesn't affect the media's "objective" coverage and promotion of their picks.
It seems the cap on donations doesn't affect the media's "objective" coverage and promotion of their picks.
Yep, I agree...I used to think that was just cynical talk, but not any more...
Humm, Jim David? sounds very southern to me!
since the height of a man's character is not related, at all, to his physical height, I'd say you're just fine - and, as I tell Andrew (my Olivia's Andrew, writer of blogs on baptism, who stands 5'5") you're just the height God intended for you to be.
I sometimes wonder what the outcome would if the media did not hype up the establishment candidates so much. All you hear on the news is Clinton-Obama, and McCain-Romney. All insiders (well maybe Obama isn't totally) and all less than favourable.
Jim, your views are interesting, but you have totally missed the mark here. You list three senators and 1 former governor who was also a very successful business man. You leave out calling your guy Huckabee who was also a governor an insider. Therefore you are claiming one governor to be an insider and one not to be....
I also need to make a correction on my saying I would vote for McCain in November. If he comes out in support of some form of socialized medicine or supports drastic government solutions to the global warming scam, then I will either be voting for a third party candidate or not at all.
"Therefore you are claiming one governor to be an insider and one not to be...."
In essence yes!
I left out Huckabee because the media was leaving him out.
Any ever thought of the fact that McCain is either Scottish or Irish (the Mc being son of). Son of Cain?
I was thinking a hybrid of McDonald's and Cain, like a mass produced, generic brand...
McNuggets
McRib
McMuffin
McMinistry
McCain
McHelp
I wonder if Ron Paul will go third party, and who John Edwards will back now that he is droping out?
...if Rudy Guiliani and Ron Paul were a ticket, it would be known as RuPaul...
Seriously, though, what about the VP thing? Will Fred Thompson be McCain's running mate? He was his campaign coordinator in 2000...
I often thought that perhaps a candidate might have a stronger showing if he revealed his choice for VP earlier during the process...
Wow, the VP question is really open ended.
I don't remember the 2000 election but did anyone see GWB picking Cheney for his running mate?
McCain would probably pick someone with strong economic senses as he is quite the bulldog himself.
I did see where Romney said "no way" to a possible VP nod from McCain...
Here comes Super Tuesday...
Post a Comment