This will not stop until we have a flat tax. Until we restrain Congress from social engineering with the tax code, we will not have a system of a democratic republic, we will just have a system of democratic corruption. Congress should focus on arguing about how to spend the money the government receives, not deciding who gets to make more than everyone else. We continue to blame corporations and CEO’s for playing by the rules Congress has enacted. It is time to put the blame where it belongs with those who make the rules.

I recall during the primaries when Mitt Romney was accused of trying to buy the election in Iowa with the money he spent. Yet, nowhere do I see the same outrage at the enormnous disparity in the amount of funds being spent between Obama and McCain. Obama’s tally is $200 mill compared to McCain’s $90 mill. Not to mention a large amount of Obama’s contributions not being reported from overseas because they are under $200 per contribution even though they are coming from the same credit card.

Funny how you libs in the media don’t care so much when it’s your candidate with all the money, legal or illegal.

You know what gets me about all the “CHANGE” crap?

How come the people living under liberal Democratic mayors and governors for decades, where there is extreme poverty, 50% high school drop out rates, barbaric crime rates, failed schools, rampant drug use and 25% teen pregnancy rates never think about “CHANGING” the pathetic local leaders who continue to feed into the spirit hopelessness, dependency and anger?

Look at cities like Detroit, St. Louis, Chicago and Washington D.C! Look at the state of California that offers benefits and sanctuary to illegal aliens! Who looks at that and says; “If only we could spread that all over the United States!

Is it brain washing, or simply stupidity?

jjk,
What do you think all the money given by Coporate lobbyists is supposed to buy? A change in the rules. Get real.

We blame corportations because they get exactly what they pay for. Individuals tax payers that do not have a “lobbyist” get lip service to our needs.(by both parties) I agree, the rules for lobbying and donations need to be restrictive. Talk to McPain, he’s the one who said as president, he would never have appoint the only supreme court candidates that up held his campaign finance reform bill. (McCain/Feingold). He’s losing precisely because his positions are in a constant state of flux. The guy doesn’t know from day to day what he stands for! What a shame.

I am so sick of reading the conservative rants that only want to look at “liberals” as the problem. The republicans have always faired better on the receiving end of donations from corporations. But still we hear how democrats are to blame.

Obama has all the money because of individual donations, not corporate. Big difference.
I think I’ll give him another $100. Thanks for the reminder!

— jjk
“This will not stop until we have a flat tax.”

A flat tax would be a panacea to you the wealthy at the expense of the middle class and poor.
Isn’t 8 years of the Bush good times enough?

Please - no, pretty please oh greedy one - hold your breath until the flat tax is implemented.

Motto,
I don’t understand your anger with my post. It had nothing to do with either party. they both do it. When you allow Congress to decide the winners and losers in a tax system, lobbyists are going to try to game the system. The results will be some will pay too much, some won’t pay anything and everyone will try to pay less. A flat tax would treat all income equally. the more you make, the more you’d pay. No deductions. No shelters. As long as Congress sets the rules, people will play by them. Having political connections usually means you will pay less. Why do you like that system?

I just had someone read my post to see why Motto is upset. I think they hit on it. Motto took the term “democratic corruption” to mean the Deomcrat party. It was a play on democratic republic. Sorry you missed that. So, save your hunderd bucks. He doesn’t need it and you aren’t going to get anything in return.

STL - your thought process, like that of many liberals, is horribly flawed. I personally an a “Ron Paul Revolutionary”, although I don’t believe in a flat tax. But you are saying that a flat tax will quate to the continuation of Bush policy results. Ironically enough, I must point out to you that Bush NEVER had a flat tax, and therefore, you are talking out your rear. Apples to oranges. Because you are opposed to it, and because you are opposed to Bush (as are most of us), AND, because you are obviously wrong in equating the results of a flat tax to Bush, you give those of us who oppose a flat tax plenty of reason to actually consider one. But then again, all you offered was venom, and no hard figures of your own, to support your opinion.

— camdawggy
“STL - your thought process, like that of many liberals, is horribly flawed. . . saying that a flat tax will quate to the continuation of Bush policy results. . . Bush NEVER had a flat tax, and . . you are talking out your rear. . . . you are obviously wrong in equating the results of a flat tax to Bush. . blah, blah, blah”

You won’t get on my good side with your negative approach.
Reread my post, this time with your eyes wide open.

I said the flat tax would be great for the wealthy. My reference to Bush is not that he had a flat tax, rather that his tax policies heavily favored the wealthy and gave them 8 years of good times. The flat tax supposedly taxes all the same, say 10%. For the wealthy that’s a whole lot less than the 35% they are taxed at now. So who’d pick up the difference? Hmm, why the middle class and the poor of course, just like now after all the deductions are rolled into the returns of the wealthy. So they wealthy would benefit more, just like under the last 8 years of Bush.

btw - it is highly likely there will not ever be a serious effort toward the flat tax, because it would be almost impossible for the government to actually calculate what the revenues would be anticipated. The government would try and make it revenue neutral but I just don’t think the have the confidence they could really do it.

The flat tax sounds good until you start letting the greedy influentials load it up with their pet deductions, which will happen.

Simplifying today’s tax code will likely be a much lower risk option.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax

STL: Your comment indeed appears to tie Bush policy effect to the same results as a flat tax would have. Having never had a flat tax, you are merely speculating then, which is what I am pointing out, and therefore, I stand by that.

Personally, I do not think that a flat tax would work, and that it would too heavily favor “the wealthy”, so much so that either people would starve to death, or inflation would spiral out past Saturn or Uranus until the lowest adjusted wages were able to buy a loaf of bread, or we would default on the trillions of dollars of debt, because revues would collapse.

There would have to be some kind of standard personal exemption. Ironically enough, Huckabee, who I was not as fond of, was the one who had the idea closest to that. But that would definitely be a simplification of tax code. There is not really a way to simplify the code with the code structure that we have today. Too too too too too too too many of these policies and calculations are intertwined. So while I don’t believe that a flat tax would work as a true “fair tax”, I beleive simplification of what we have now would inlude scrapping it. The base/foundation would be similar (progressive), but the buildup would be much much different, very unlike the house of cards we have today.

You are not completely correct - most of the “wealthy” don’t even pay 35% - they pay 35% on the TAXABLE income, which is much lower than their “uber-wealth”. You are also not correct in that the middle class pays for everything. The AMT makes them pay what Republicans call “an unfair share”, but that is in comparison to all payors. The lowest brackets actually get credit refunds that exceed what they pay in, and the middle brackets pay in a little. The top 5% pay in almost 84% of the net paid in total, since they own the businesses that ARE taxed at 35%-39%, and they will all meet the threshhold where the death penalty applies. So when Obama says that the “tax cuts should not be for the wealthy”, really, what he is saying is that people who pay nothing (me included) should get even more back than what we paid in, because the few that actually do pay in, should continue to do so, so that others can take more out without puting anything in. That’s just bad business. But so is a flat tax.