If you are unhappy with how the congress is performing, throw the bums out!!! When you go to the polls, ignore your party preference and vote AGAINST the incumbent - unless of course yours is one of the dozen or so that actually keeps the people in mind when voting rather than taking their opinions from the special interest groups. It is unfortunate that neither of my senators (Chris Dodd and Joe Lieberman) is up for reelection because they are at the top of my list of legislators who should be thrown out. However, house member Rosa DeLoro, is so I'll get to vote against her at least.

If the American public ousts enough incumbants, perhaps the rest will get with the program and stop the insane spending on earmarks and bailouts. We don't have "no confidence" votes so we can't get rid of sitting senate and house members so our only opportunity to make a statement is election day. Get out to vote. Shout it from the roof tops as they did in "Network", "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more".

I agree, and would like to apologize to the country for being from the state that sent Harry Reid to the party. Actually, it's all the liberal transplanted Californians that voted him in, so I'm not taking the heat on that one.

Unfortunately, if we don't oust *all* of congress, someone will be left to tell them how it used to work. If they were all to go then the new people would have to start from scratch. I like that idea.

If you are unhappy with how the congress is performing, throw the bums out!!!

The first to go should be that in-breed lifer 'boozer' kennedy :mad:

I'd really like to see term limits imposed. Since anyone can be elected with less than 50% of the vote (if a 3rd candidate is running), then 45% (or less) of the voters can impose their will on the other 55%.

If we're apologizing, I'll apologize for my state sending Carl Levin. :o

I usually do vote against the incumbent, but my state (MI) always goes democrat - so I'm basically forced to go republican.

National Lampoon did a little piece on "Things We'd Like To See In American Elections." Long time ago, so long I can't remember how long. Certainly before I joined this forum.

One idea they had that made me laugh then, and makes me think now, is the idea that all elected offices will have one extra mandatory box that someone could choose when voting: None of the above.

I got to thinking about it, and the implications are staggering:

#1 - If "None of the Above" wins by plurality then the office is declared vacant for one term and there is no run-off election. The office is run by existing bureaucrats who are barred from making new policy.

#2 - If "None of the Above" wins three elections in a row, the office is abolished. Its function gets subsumed into another office, or the function is no longer performed at all.

#3 - Every politician who LOSES to "None of the Above" is out of politics for as long a term as the office to which s/he aspired and lost. No running for other offices, higher OR lower, for the duration of that term.

#4 - For those rare cases where "None of the Above" is just not feasible, another election gets held but none who lost to "None of the Above" can run for the office.

#5 - If/When "None of the Above" wins enough seats in the state or federal legislature, the body lacks a quorum and cannot transact any business.

It's the perfect solution for too many politicians who think they're God's answer to disgruntled voters. (If in fact they ARE..., it proves either that God doesn't exist or that He is excessively cruel.)

Doc, I love it. Nevada actually has a "none of the above" selection on ballots, but it doesn't have any teeth. If it actually were to win an election, the person with the highest count wins the office anyway. It has never "won", but I have seen it win some fairly hefty percentages now and then.

Since when did politicians follow the wishes of the electorate or even care about us?:rolleyes:

Now this is serious

When Pat
1) Visits the Watercooler
2) Starts a thread
3) Has a thread title "throw the bums out"

Then you over the pond have a really serious problem

Pat
Please take this the way it is truly intended.

Len B

It's the perfect solution for too many politicians who think they're God's answer to disgruntled voters. (If in fact they ARE..., it proves either that God doesn't exist or that He is excessively cruel.)

It could also prove that God has a sense of humour or that he takes care of the mentally incompetent by finding them a job.

This is exactly my intention.

I also think the option to throw the bums out would be quite significant.

You know, in Australia they have mandatory voting, and from what I understand, US didn't adopt this on the premise that it would infringe the citizens' freedom of speech and thus choice to not make a choice. Even though I'm a libertarian, I wouldn't object to see something where we have a mandatory voting but with ballots as:

Bum A
Bum B
Either, I don't care
Neither, they both suck.

So all choices are enumerated on a ballot and everyone get to vote what they think. This solves the problem of turnout and freedom of speech. If a bum wins with a hefty percentage of Neither, it's more likely that the bum will be cautious in their term.

Consider that less and less people has voted in elections- Bush won 49% (?) of those who actually voted, which makes up 15% of rest of population. The other 60% stayed home and I'm quite sure they had valid reasons but ultimately, nobody bother to analyze why those 60% stayed home- were they unhappy with the choice or they just plain didn't care. I'd think that Bush thought 60% were just content with things, and took this as a license to do what he did.

Then we have to consider how Congress has single-digit approval rate yet 90% re-election rate. Something's seriously out of whack.


Yes, the 'throw out the bum' should be an option and have some teeth (as Doc suggested).

The problem is, you can adopt this philosophy for yourself, but you cannot adopt it for the guy in the next district over (or the next voting booth over).

What if a guy you really support gets voted in? Are all bets off then? Then you vote everybody out except your guy?

What if the guy in the next district has a representative in place that he/she really supports? Are all bets off for him? Would he vote everybody out except his guy?

I do allow for the fact that there are some members of congress who understand their fiduciary responsibility to the citizens who elected them and I am not suggesting that they be displaced. However, the vast majority of house members (all of whom are up for reelection) and the vast majority of senators (30% of whom are up for reelection - unfortunately not Connecticut's two bums) should be fired.

The internet is becoming a powerful political force. If enough people make enough noise, perhaps enough people will be conviced to vote against the incumbents to put the fear of god into the rest of them.

You're right Len. I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more!!!!

The fact that the infamous Wall St bail out bill didn't pass at $700 billion because it was too costly but did pass at $850 billion should be looked at as an act of treason by all those who allowed their votes to be BOUGHT by earmarks.

The fact that the infamous Wall St bail out bill didn't pass at $700 billion because it was too costly but did pass at $850 billion should be looked at as an act of treason by all those who allowed their
votes to be BOUGHT by earmarks.

I wonder how many voted one minute and then checked their portfolio the next?:mad:

AFTER they passed the bail out, the market took the biggest nosedive in history!!!!

Indeed and the yesterday's rally wasn't substantial.

It's funny- whenever the economy tanks, the answer is throw more money at it, cut the interest rate, give banks globs of cash among whatnots. And that has been done many times.

What was the definition of insanity again....

AFTER they passed the bail out, the market took the biggest nosedive in history!!!!


So their strategy was sell, vote, buy :confused::mad:

The NY Times recently did a report on investing your money with Democrats/Republicans.

If you had 10,000 with the 40 years the Repubs had control you would have about $11,00 today, if you don't count the great depression it would be closer to $50,000. With the Dem's your $10,000 would be over $300,000 in their 40 years.

So I am all about voting out incumbents. It's just that I'm interested in voting out the republican ones.

I think we do best with a Republican congress and a Democratic president than vice-versa. Although both of the candidates are pretty scary with their promises to not raise taxes. I wonder who they think will pay for the Iraq war and the Wall St bailout, not to mention the earmarks? But even more scary are the people who believe that you can spend, spend, spend and never pay for anything.

[quote=Banana;764980]This is exactly my intention.

I also think the option to throw the bums out would be quite significant.

You know, in Australia they have mandatory voting, and from what I understand, US didn't adopt this on the premise that it would infringe the citizens' freedom of speech and thus choice to not make a choice. /quote]

I can assure you, if voting wasn't mandatory in Aus, we would have zero politicians at all!!! Much like the rest of the democratic world, we have a choice of two identical, selfishly driven, out for themselves parties to pick from

Some choice!

So I take it you don't have the third or fourth option as I listed in my hypothetical ballot?

That would indeed be self-defeating if it were the case. The option to be able to say 'None of Above' and actually get new election or some variation of that would markedly influence people's behavior, and do less of 'voting for lesser of two evils', IMO.

So I take it you don't have the third or fourth option as I listed in my hypothetical ballot?

That would indeed be self-defeating if it were the case. The option to be able to say 'None of Above' and actually get new election or some variation of that would markedly influence people's behavior, and do less of 'voting for lesser of two evils', IMO.

No such luck, take one of the majors (if they bother to run a candidate in your electorate) or pick a no chance independant

What i find objectionable about the US/UK electoral systems is that if you have say 3 candidates and two of them are quite close in their views while the third has very different views the third can get elected with just over 33.33 percent which means the majority views are not being represented.

I think we do best with a Republican congress and a Democratic president then vice-versa. Although both of the candidates are pretty scary with their promises to not raise taxes. I wonder who they think will pay for the Iraq war and the Wall St bailout, not to mention the earmarks? But even more scary are the people who believe that you can spend, spend, spend and never pay for anything.

Actually, Obama has promised to raise taxes, i.e., undo the Bush tax cuts, for those making over 250k per year. The wealthy are the ones who are going to pay for all this nonsense, for ONCE.

McCain on the other hand, has promised not to raise ANYONE's taxes, which makes concerned- he is worse than a tax and spend liberal, he is a BORROW and spend republican. If you are going to support a 3 TRILLION dollar war Mr. McCain, AND an 850 billion dollar bailout plan, it is ridiculous to claim that NOONE's taxes need to be raised.

While I agree with your premise that borrow & spend are worse than tax & spend, I wouldn't go as far to say that Obama would be more fiscally conservative. NTUF had Obama as the biggest spend of all candidates, with $200+ billion deficit. McCain isn't any better with his $10 billion deficit (and I have serious doubt whether he'd actually keep it under $10 billion).

Taxes are really moot at this point because either parties know that if they need more money, they just crank up the printing press a notch. IOW, they tax us through inflation.

Finally, I think your ire against wealthy is somehow misplaced. When comparative advantage is considered in full, even the most poorest will benefit from wealthy's wealth. It's when we throw in government privileges, taxes, tariffs, regulations and other nonsense, does the transfer of wealth goes from poor to rich.

While I agree with your premise that borrow & spend are worse than tax & spend, I wouldn't go as far to say that Obama would be more fiscally conservative. NTUF had Obama as the biggest spend of all candidates, with $200+ billion deficit. McCain isn't any better with his $10 billion deficit (and I have serious doubt whether he'd actually keep it under $10 billion).

Taxes are really moot at this point because either parties know that if they need more money, they just crank up the printing press a notch. IOW, they tax us through inflation.

Finally, I think your ire against wealthy is somehow misplaced. When comparative advantage is considered in full, even the most poorest will benefit from wealthy's wealth. It's when we throw in government privileges, taxes, tariffs, regulations and other nonsense, does the transfer of wealth goes from poor to rich.

You wouldn't go "so far" as to say that Obama would be more fiscally conservative than the party that doubled the national deficit, that inherited a budget surplus and handily turned it into a half trillion dollar budget deficit? That got us into a multi-trillion dollar war?

Doesn't seem like very far to go to me.

As far as the wealthy, I have no ire against them. But I deeply believe in progressive taxation, and I have immense ire at the republican party who has sought and continues to seek regressive taxation. The wealthy should be paying their fair share, instead of useing their money and power to influence the government to shift what is rightfully their burden onto the rest of us.

In case you haven't noticed, you've turned this topic partisan when my point was simply that *both* candidates' promises to be fiscally conservative is just that- a promise. This is going to go nowhere as people look at this through partisan lens, calling out the sins of the other party while glossing the same sin of their own party.

As for progressive taxation, it sounds all nice in theory, but when you do the math, it always turn up that everyone are poorer for it. Nobody has ever successfully taxed or spent any nation into prosperity. All coercion can do is to reshuffle the wealth (and the bureaucrats take a cut of this). More likely than not, people will want to seek tax shelter or otherwise evade taxation, thus creating activities that wouldn't otherwise make sense in absence of such prohibition. Indeed, consider the Prohibition and how successful it was in creating underground market and raising crime rates. Same applies to taxation, if not in form of a bootlegging mob.

In case you haven't noticed, you've turned this topic partisan when my point was simply that *both* candidates' promises to be fiscally conservative is just that- a promise. This is going to go nowhere as people look at this through partisan lens, calling out the sins of the other party while glossing the same sin of their own party.

As for progressive taxation, it sounds all nice in theory, but when you do the math, it always turn up that everyone are poorer for it. Nobody has ever successfully taxed or spent any nation into prosperity. All coercion can do is to reshuffle the wealth (and the bureaucrats take a cut of this). More likely than not, people will want to seek tax shelter or otherwise evade taxation, thus creating activities that wouldn't otherwise make sense in absence of such prohibition. Indeed, consider the Prohibition and how successful it was in creating underground market and raising crime rates. Same applies to taxation, if not in form of a bootlegging mob.

This will go nowhere, but not because I am partisan. It is because you don't believe in progressive taxation. You say it has never been successful. I think we were doing pretty well at various times in our history when the tax burden was distributed more fairly. Obviously you don't agree.

I believe in fair taxation. I just believe I should get to define fair. That is, you guys send the government all your money and the government sends me a large percentage of that. And thank you for your patriotism.

It is really difficult when you say you want "fair". What is fair for one can be considered unfair for others. And do you really want to have someone else define what is fair? Who is in a better position to define fair? The PACs who send large contributions to your candidate or you. You can be assured your candidate (whoever he/she is) is going to listen to the large PACs, not you.

You need to get away from the squishy words used in political rhetoric. You may get what you asked for which could well be results you didn't want. Somebody has to think this stuff out beyond the 5 second rhetoric talking points. It seems that Obama has not done so. Hopefully his supporters will take longer than 5 seconds and do the math.

The wealthy should be paying their fair share

What do you consider fair? According to Kiplinger:

That top 1% of earners pay 37% of all the federal individual income taxes collected. The bottom 50% of earners pay just 3% of those taxes.

What do you consider fair? According to Kiplinger:

That top 1% of earners pay 37% of all the federal individual income taxes collected. The bottom 50% of earners pay just 3% of those taxes.

The key statement in that sentence is "earners." The super rich out of site people aren't technically "earners." They're owners. That statement is extremely misleading in this context.

Fair will be defined when John Galt withdraws his 37% and lets the bottom 50% try to cover it.

True fair would be to take the debt and opertional expenses and divide it by the number of working citizens. It doesn't take a 3rd grade education to know that the bills wouldn't be paid. That's why young, single people entering the job market have roomates and the biggest earner in the group gets the master bedroom because their higher contribution pays for the right.

It's unfortunate, but the definition of fair depends on who gets to define it. A particular definition of fair didn't work in Russia.

-dK

Indeed.

And I think it's easy to forget that once we introduce rules, everyone will want to game the system. This is how our tax code came to be such a mess- it started out with some groups petitioning for exemption/credits/deductions/whatever- they probably had a great argument for why they should be entitled to such benefits. Once granted, it was inevitable that other groups would want similar benefits and thus argue for their own loopholes. Lather, rinse and repeat.

If rules were never introduced and no taxation were required, there would be no point of gaming the system because there's nothing to game. Furthermore, we would have much more workers who were employed in unproductive bureaucracy now available for more beneficial employment and thus as whole, be richer. But hey I must be insane, right?

The key statement in that sentence is "earners." The super rich out of site people aren't technically "earners." They're owners. That statement is extremely misleading in this context.

Okay, take the net worth of whatever super rich person you want and divide it by the amount spent daily by the federal government, and tell me how long it will last. I'll give you a hint; it will be measured in days, not weeks, years, or months. So let's not just tax them, let's take everything all the billionaires own. That runs the country for a month or two. Now where are we?

In the immortal words of Ten Years After:

Tax the rich, feed the poor, till there are rich no more.

Tax the rich, feed the poor, till there are rich no more.
Europe manages the balance very well

Somebody has to think this stuff out beyond the 5 second rhetoric talking points. It seems that Obama has not done so. Hopefully his supporters will take longer than 5 seconds and do the math.
Where's the evidence that McCain has done the maths?:confused:

Europe manages the balance very well

Didn't you understand? He said you'll stop existing if we keep it up!

Where's the evidence that McCain has done the maths?:confused:

He doesn't talk about raising taxes on anyone during a financial crisis. Duh.

He doesn't talk about raising taxes on anyone during a financial crisis. Duh.
So he denies the facts simply by omission?

Didn't you understand? He said you'll stop existing if we keep it up!
But you haven't even started a fair aystem yet

Maybe it's time to raise this old suggestion.

A FLAT TAX

Everyone pays 7.5% of their gross earned income. No exemptions, no loopholes.
No more sales taxes, excise taxes or VATs.
If you earn more, you would keep more than you currently do.
If you earn less, you would probably pay a little bit less.
The Government gets this money and that's ALL they are allowed to spend.

Banana raised a good point to which I agree at least in large part.

Congress uses taxes as a method of social engineering. Taxes are fairer if we tell Congress to stop screwing around with directed tax breaks. Like, you get x% off for this activity, y% off for that activity, z% credit when doing this... In the land of the free, make your choices without Congress bribing you.

If you have to (in essence) bribe people to use a "governmentally preferred" activity, something is inherently wrong with the preference. If it isn't popular enough for people to do it just because it is a good idea, how good an idea is it for Congress to push it? Don't they follow the will of the people? (Don't answer that....)

To me, a graduated but otherwise unstructured tax is much better. If your income is less than X, no tax. Between X and Y, tax rate 1. Between Y and Z, tax rate 2. No deductions or exemptions for this, that, and the other. Deductions for every American citizen. (Which includes children, so it IS fair to allow deductions for kids.)

How many brackets do you need? Don't claim to know that, but I'd say that the right answer is to determine the "poverty" level and make the 0% bracket equal to either that amount or no more than 1.5 x that amount. Then the next breakpoint would be 3 x that amount. Then maybe 6, 12, 18, whatever. Add 5% at every break. The idiots who are taking down so many millions of bucks as CEOs would LOSE MONEY by accepting that high a salary. And they should lose money, given the performance I'm seeing in general for those fat cats.

There was an article in the newspaper here in N'Awlins regarding the AIG executives who went on a little junket that cost tens of thousands of dollars AFTER they got assistance from the feds. Damn if I wouldn't indict EVERY ONE OF THEM for fiduciary irresponsibility and make them reimburse the company (and therefore the taxpayers). What REALLY frosted my cookies was when one of the execs, questioned about that trip, said they would really TRY to do better. HOLY FLAMIN' GUACAMOLE! I remember Yoda's answer to such a comment. There is no "try." There is only do, or not do. There is no try.

I am also reminded of the great lawman, Buford T Justice, who threatened to "fry your hide in molasses" if you screwed up. Buford, where are you when we need you? (Yeah, I know - chasin' after the Bandit and the Iceman.)

Maybe it's time to raise this old suggestion.

A FLAT TAX

Everyone pays 7.5% of their gross earned income. No exemptions, no loopholes.
No more sales taxes, excise taxes or VATs.
If you earn more, you would keep more than you currently do.
If you earn less, you would probably pay a little bit less.
The Government gets this money and that's ALL they are allowed to spend.

Sure, as long as we stop funding the military.

Sure, as long as we stop funding the military.

That's what the last big liberal (Jimmy Carter) did as President. I have no doubt that is what your man wants to do to.

Our military became the laughing stock of the world under Carter and some radicals in Iran were emboldened to take over the US embassy in Iran. Our military's response under Carter was sad.

Are you sure you want to live in a country with as many enemies as we have with no military?

That's what the last big liberal (Jimmy Carter) did as President. I have no doubt that is what your man wants to do to.

Our military became the laughing stock of the world under Carter and some radicals in Iran were emboldened to take over the US embassy in Iran. Our military's response under Carter was sad.

Are you sure you want to live in a country with as many enemies as we have with no military?

Actually McCain is the candidate who in this election has proposed to cut military spending, even as he seeks to expand our military engagements around the world.

My point was not that I want to stop funding the military. My point was that a 7.5 % tax rate will not bring in enough revenue for us to fund the military, which absorbs the lion's share of our budget each year.

Actually, we have $63 trillion IOU in form of unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare. Military spending is a drop in bucket compared to that. And what's more- we're dead broke. Been living off the printing press, mortgaged to foreign investors, guaranteed by good ol' Government of USA!

Whoops.

Actually McCain is the candidate who in this election has proposed to cut military spending, even as he seeks to expand our military engagements around the world.

I'm not disputing you but it sounds suspicious. Do you have a reference?

My point was not that I want to stop funding the military. My point was that a 7.5 % tax rate will not bring in enough revenue for us to fund the military, which absorbs the lion's share of our budget each year.

I stand corrected. Did you do the math on that or did you eyeball/estimate it?

We have $63 trillion IOU in form of unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare. Military spending is a drop in bucket compared to that. And what's more- we're dead broke. Been living off the printing press.

Whoops.

It is not an "unfunded liability". Social security and medicare are ALWAYS paid for by the next generation. The demographic issue (of a smaller generation funding a larger generation) could be solved in about 2 seconds by either removing the cap and or means testing the benefits.

Military spending is not a drop in the bucket, it IS the federal bucket.

My point was that a 7.5 % tax rate will not bring in enough revenue for us to fund the military, which absorbs the lion's share of our budget each year.

Defense was 20% of the FY2007 budget. You call that the lion's share? Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid were 42%. You really should check your facts.

I'm not disputing you but it sounds suspicious. Do you have a reference?



I stand corrected. Did you do the math on that or did you eyeball/estimate it?

McCain said it straight out in the first or second debate (my memory fails me right now).

Military spending is about half our federal budget. Every reasonable estimate of a flat tax that I have seen proposes a 25% to 30% tax rate to maintain current levels of spending. I don't have to "do the math" to see that those numbers just don't add up.

Defense was 20% of the FY2007 budget. You call that the lion's share? Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid were 42%. You really should check your facts.

Really? Even with the additional $700 billion Iraq war spending bill that was passed this month?

McCain said it straight out in the first or second debate (my memory fails me right now).

Military spending is about half our federal budget. Every reasonable estimate of a flat tax that I have seen proposes a 25% to 30% tax rate to maintain current levels of spending. I don't have to "do the math" to see that those numbers just don't add up.

I'm really gonna have to ignore this, lacking any evidence but that it something you believe. It sounds uncharacteristic of McCain (if even in context) and your numbers aren't meshing for me. I'm willing to change my mind if you have any proof (not propaganda or rhetoric).

I'm really gonna have to ignore this, lacking any evidence but that it something you believe. It sounds uncharacteristic of McCain (if even in context) and your numbers aren't meshing for me. I'm willing to change my mind if you have any proof (not propaganda or rhetoric).

Here is a reference for you:
McCain's top economic adviser, Doug Holtz-Eakin, blithely supposes that cuts in defense spending could make up for reducing the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25% and the subsequent shrinkage in federal revenues. Get that? The national security candidate wants to cut spending on our national security. Wait until the generals and the admirals hear that.

http://www.forbes.com/home/2008/06/06/obama-mccain-economy-oped-cx_rl_0609croesus.html?partner=rcp

Ever pay attention to the similar threads at the bottom of the post? Posting what was showing on my screen ... had to chuckle at the irony as a slight reinterpretation of the words jumped out at me ....

"Unsourced Report" (for a post that was claimed as facts)
"Trying to create an argument that loops throw a low-blow set to split a voter from a party"

And finally ... after the previous two - didn't have to touch the last one ..

"Ready to throw my PC out of the window" (when you try to have a discussion against a closed mind).

Maybe there more than we suspect to artificial intelligence when we only use simple routines ...

-dk

Really? Even with the additional $700 billion Iraq war spending bill that was passed this month?

Given that I specifically stated FY2007, I'm sure spending approved this month is not accounted for. You're the one throwing numbers around without foundation, though. Why don't you provide a source?

FWIW, defense is one of the few things in the Constitution that the federal government is supposed to spend money on.

Given that I specifically stated FY2007, I'm sure spending approved this month is not accounted for. You're the one throwing numbers around without foundation, though. Why don't you provide a source?

FWIW, defense is one of the few things in the Constitution that the federal government is supposed to spend money on.

I guess my sentence was too short: Is defense spending at 20% THIS YEAR given the funding bill that was just passed THIS MONTH?

And I repeat, I am not saying that we should cut funding to the military. My point was that we won't be able to afford our military if we go to a flat tax system.

It is not an "unfunded liability". Social security and medicare are ALWAYS paid for by the next generation. The demographic issue (of a smaller generation funding a larger generation) could be solved in about 2 seconds by either removing the cap and or means testing the benefits.

Hey, you kid! Yeah, you kid! Look, here's my credit bill. You pay it off! Yeah, you! Now if you will excuse me, I'm late for my flight to Hawaii.

Also, there are no money in either account right now. It's paid for by freshly printed bills in exchange for debts to foreigners. So we're literally mortgaging our nation to pay for our 'entitlement'.

I've said it before and will say it again: Nobody has ever taxed or spent their way to prosperity. But for some reasons, they think it just doesn't apply to government as it would to private citizens.

As for military, we can do with less just as we can do with less entitlements. Close up bases all over the world and give kids a opt out from social security. Of course, this doesn't even address the deficit spending, made possible by fiat currency where a bunch of old farts make up some numbers and declare it is worth so and so. Silly fsckers.

So you're ignoring the Constitution on that one?

So you're ignoring the Constitution on that one?

You mean the part where it says wages shouldn't be taxed?

They probably wouldn't need to be if we limited spending to what's in the Constitution.

They probably wouldn't need to be if we limited spending to what's in the Constitution.
Or if we could all get in our time machines and travel back to the 18th century :rolleyes:

I'm leaving for lunch and errands soon. If history is any indication, this thread will have added so many posts that I won't have time to catch up. I apologize in advance if I seem to ignore anybody, but I'm sure others will pick up the slack for me.

You mean the part where it says wages shouldn't be taxed?

Hey, don't move the goalpost. Just before you were railing for progressive taxation and less military spending. Now you're appealing to Constitution for arguing *against* taxation (however it may be implemented) while ducking the question about defense being one of Federal government's enumerated power in Constitution.

This is exactly why I said it would go nowhere- it's pure partianship without thinking critically about the whole picture. I can't tell difference between partisans and sport fans complete with face paints and giant #1 hand. Seriously.

This is a question to all of you that rail against progressive taxation:
By what criteria do you judge the success of a country as a whole? What country do you consider to have the most successful economic system (current or historical)?

Hey, don't move the goalpost. Just before you were railing for progressive taxation and less military spending. Now you're appealing to Constitution for arguing *against* taxation (however it may be implemented) while ducking the question about defense being one of Federal government's enumerated power in Constitution.

This is exactly why I said it would go nowhere- it's pure partianship without thinking critically about the whole picture. I can't tell difference between partisans and sport fans complete with face paints and giant #1 hand. Seriously.

First of all, I have not made any posts argueing for less military spending. As for taxation, I think that wages should not be taxed at all - property should be taxed, capital gains should be taxed, net business profit should be taxed, stock dividends should be taxed. But the wages of working people should not be taxed. Now, given that the system we have now DOES tax wages, those taxes should be progressive, since wages are income that people actually NEED to live on, as opposed to other kinds of income.

It's funny how you support the Constitution when it's convenient, but not when it runs counter to what you want.

It's funny how you support the Constitution when it's convenient, but not when it runs counter to what you want.

How do I not support the constitution?

Our military became the laughing stock of the world under Carter

And it didn't do any better under Raygun:rolleyes:

Arms, including Hawk missiles, were sold to Iran via Israel (at a time when the USA was publicly calling for a worldwide ban on sending arms to Iran), violating the law prohibiting the sale of US weapons for resale to a third country listed as a ‘terrorist nation’, as well as the law requiring sales above $14 million to be reported to Congress.

McCain said it straight out in the first or second debate (my memory fails me right now).

.

And of course McCain cited the case of Joe the plumber who got Obama to admit that tax would rise by 3% for those earning over $250,000, Joe was most upset since he said he wanted to buy his employers firm with a profit of that amount.It turns out that Joe owes $1200 to the taxman, doesn't have a plumbers license and hasn't a hope in hell of buying out the firm in the first place, so much for McCain's research department.
Next he'll be telling us there are WMD's still in Iraq and producing further concoted evidence to support it:rolleyes:

And of course McCain cited the case of Joe the plumber who got Obama to admit that tax would rise by 3% for those earning over $250,000, Joe was most upset since he said he wanted to buy his employers firm with a profit of that amount.It turns out that Joe owes $1200 to the taxman, doesn't have a plumbers license and hasn't a hope in hell of buying out the firm in the first place, so much for McCain's research department.
Next he'll be telling us there are WMD's still in Iraq and producing further concoted evidence to support it:rolleyes:


You forgot the best part - "Joe" the "plumber" would actually benefit from Obama's tax plan, seeing as how he makes under 250k per year.

You forgot the best part - "Joe" the "plumber" would actually benefit from Obama's tax plan, seeing as how he makes under 250k per year.
He's worried in case he wins a lottery and can afford to buy the firm, of course why he would bother after winning so much in the first place beggars belief

And of course McCain cited the case of Joe the plumber who got Obama to admit that tax would rise by 3% for those earning over $250,000, Joe was most upset since he said he wanted to buy his employers firm with a profit of that amount.It turns out that Joe owes $1200 to the taxman, doesn't have a plumbers license and hasn't a hope in hell of buying out the firm in the first place, so much for McCain's research department.


That's all propaganda put out by the plumbers union. They're just pissed cause he's not a member. Buncha thugs...

You only need a license if you own the business. He doesn't own the business yet. How do you know he doesn't have a hope in hell of buying the business. This all happened about 10 minutes from where I'm sitting now. The guy's been all over the local news. His boss is in the process of retiring, and he's working out the deal with Joe.

As far as owing $1200 goes.... GOOD FOR HIM! I try to avoid paying taxes at every turn, too. If the government gets to concerned about it, they'll garnish his wages.

FAs for taxation, I think that wages should not be taxed at all - property should be taxed, capital gains should be taxed, net business profit should be taxed, stock dividends should be taxed. But the wages of working people should not be taxed. Now, given that the system we have now DOES tax wages, those taxes should be progressive, since wages are income that people actually NEED to live on, as opposed to other kinds of income.

Almost every old person I know lives off of income from their stock and bond portfolio. They need that money...they are on the edge of poverty. And they worked hard, and paid taxes while doing it, to accumulate enough wealth to provide them their pitiful retirement incomes.

So you're saying that you shouldn't tax their income when they're young and strong but should wait until they're old and weak?

Are you sure that's the position you want to take?

That's all propaganda put out by the plumbers union. They're just pissed cause he's not a member. Buncha thugs...

You only need a license if you own the business. He doesn't own the business yet. How do you know he doesn't have a hope in hell of buying the business. This all happened about 10 minutes from where I'm sitting now. The guy's been all over the local news. His boss is in the process of retiring, and he's working out the deal with Joe.

As far as owing $1200 goes.... GOOD FOR HIM! I try to avoid paying taxes at every turn, too. If the government gets to concerned about it, they'll garnish his wages.

So you think it fair that millions of Americans pay their tax on time and that this guy tries to get away with it:rolleyes:

You forgot the best part - "Joe" the "plumber" would actually benefit from Obama's tax plan, seeing as how he makes under 250k per year.

I can't find what Obama's tax plan really is. This is what I know now -
Bush's tax cut lowered my bracket by 3% (I'm less than $250k:rolleyes:)
That will expire in 2010/11, unless Pelosi kills it on innauguration day.
So I go back up 3%. Is Obama going to lower me by... say... 4%?

I can't help but be skeptical.

It turns out that Joe owes $1200 to the taxman,

It must be nice. I owe over $30K (2006 & 2008), paying it off in dribs and drabs.

$1200 is inconsequential for people who do contract work and is not an outrageous amount to be owed by a regular employee. I rack up that much in taxes (income and self-employment) in less than 2 weeks.

So you think it fair that millions of Americans pay their tax on time and that this guy tries to get away with it:rolleyes:

As mentioned earlier...it is a very small amount. I owe a lot and am not "trying to get away with it". And believe me, there are stiff penalties involved.

What nonsense.

It must be nice. I owe over $30K (2006 & 2008), paying it off in dribs and drabs.

$1200 is inconsequential for people who do contract work and is not an outrageous amount to be owed by a regular employee. I rack up that much in taxes (income and self-employment) in less than 2 weeks.
Pay it regularly George or put it aside in the bank where it'll earn you interest;)

I can't find what Obama's tax plan really is. This is what I know now -
Bush's tax cut lowered my bracket by 3% (I'm less than $250k:rolleyes:)
That will expire in 2010/11, unless Pelosi kills it on innauguration day.
So I go back up 3%. Is Obama going to lower me by... say... 4%?

I can't help but be skeptical.

He's got a calculator up on his website - why don't you go find out?

Almost every old person I know lives off of income from their stock and bond portfolio. They need that money...they are on the edge of poverty. And they worked hard, and paid taxes while doing it, to accumulate enough wealth to provide them their pitiful retirement incomes.

So you're saying that you shouldn't tax their income when they're young and strong but should wait until they're old and weak?

Are you sure that's the position you want to take?

If your retirement income is all tied up in the stock market, that is scary - what if the market crashes and all of the sudden you have no income? The stock market is no place for money that people depend on. Retirement should be social security, savings, IRA's in money market accounts, things like that that can't vanish at the drop of a hat.

As mentioned earlier...it is a very small amount. I owe a lot and am not "trying to get away with it". And believe me, there are stiff penalties involved.

What nonsense.
You're not bragging about buying a $250,000 company on one hand and claiming poverty on the other
You're right, utter nonsense George

You're not bragging about buying a $250,000 company on one hand and claiming poverty on the other
You're right, utter nonsense George

That's kinda what caused this whole mess....
People living in "poverty" going out and buying $250,000 houses...

That's kinda what caused this whole mess....
People living in "poverty" going out and buying $250,000 houses...

That's what FOX news wants you to believe - poor black people buying homes has completely wrecked the global economy :rolleyes:

No. All Obama has said is that "he won't raise your taxes." I am not sure if he has reversed himself on Bush's tax cuts but by letting them expire will be the same as raising your taxes.

Per Joe the Plumber. I beg everyone to take note of it because this is what happens when you make the Democrats look bad. They (and the press) will rail against you even though this is the same person they are claiming they want to help.

So, now you have Obama and Biden laughing about what plumber makes 250k a year? If Joe buys the business, then I am sure he will be in that tax bracket. It doesn't take an idiot to figure out that if a small business has 6 employess and pays them 30k a year, thats 180k the biz is paying out. By the time you add business inputs in there plus taxes ... their gross sales better be above 250k to stay in business. Go ahead and play with the number of employees vs pay scale, you will see that there are many businesses exactly like this. The only people that are safe are the 1099's and very small businesses.

So who will be getting the shaft? The small businesses. The same people (that Joe represents) the Democratic candidates are smearing all over the front pages because the Republicans used him as an example for the people they want to help. It just provided an assist that Obama said what he said to him on camera.

So what if the guy doesn't decide to pay his taxes until the end of the year? You don't hear them railing on Rep Charlie Rangle (D) who owes on his taxes and this is the guy that has the top job on the Senate Congressional Tax Committee. I don't know many 1099ers that do pay their taxes until the last moment. I am outstanding every year because I might die in an accident before I have to pay them - I'd rather enjoy my money before I have to hand it over.

The Dems (and the press) are even railing that Joe's middle name is Joseph and it first name is Samuel in order to slander this guy. Funny they didn't rail on Obama about a middle name. Alot of people go by their middle name. Anything to dig on this guy and this is the same type of people they hope to help.

Remember this and remember your first amendment when you want to speak out about those in power or ask them questions that finally reveal specifics about what they want to do in this country.

At least now we know where the marxists and communist party stands. They are right, it's not about judgement, it's about philosophy. That is their philosophy, it's our judgement to decide if we let the country go in this direction.

I can only hope that is Joe, the small man like us, who's example they have castigated, smeared, and laughed at that takes down the very party that claims to want to help.

-dK

dk, exactly how many SMALL businesses make over 250k per year?

Thats 250k AGI, not 250k GROSS btw

That's what FOX news wants you to believe - poor black people buying homes has completely wrecked the global economy :rolleyes:

Are you insinuating that all people living in poverty are black?;)

Besides, I haven't had cable for about 2 years, so Fox News is unable to influence my opinions. When I do watch the nightly news, it's usually CBS.

Does the company pay tax on the Gross or Net profit?:confused:

Are you insinuating that all people living in poverty are black?;)



Just the ones getting blamed for this crisis.

Does the company pay tax on the Gross or Net profit?:confused:

Net.
. . .

He's got a calculator up on his website - why don't you go find out?

The calculator wouldn't come up :( I'll have to try it from home. But just a quick perusal of his policy makes me think my taxes will go up when the Bush tax cuts expire, and Obama will give me a few credits that won't make up the difference.

Pay it regularly George or put it aside in the bank where it'll earn you interest;)

I do pay it regularly. I just couldn't in 2005 & 2006 and got way behind. I'm catching up slowly.

Net.
. . .
Then DKinley and Joe the plumber's complaints are pointless

then Dkinley And Joe The Plumber's Complaints Are Pointless

Exactly.
.

I do pay it regularly. I just couldn't in 2005 & 2006 and got way behind. I'm catching up slowly.
Been there before;)

The calculator wouldn't come up :( I'll have to try it from home. But just a quick perusal of his policy makes me think my taxes will go up when the Bush tax cuts expire, and Obama will give me a few credits that won't make up the difference.

Really? Try this link: http://taxcut.barackobama.com/
If not, I would be happy to calculate for you, what is your annual gross and your filing status?
Here are the ranges:
20k
30k
40k
50-75k
75k-100k
100k-150k
Should I keep going?

makes me think my taxes will go up when the Bush tax cuts expire,
Of course they will, somebody's got to pay for Bush:rolleyes:

If your retirement income is all tied up in the stock market, that is scary - what if the market crashes and all of the sudden you have no income? The stock market is no place for money that people depend on. Retirement should be social security, savings, IRA's in money market accounts, things like that that can't vanish at the drop of a hat.

I've noticed that most old people have their money in bonds and some in preferred stocks.

Notwithstanding, are you sure that we should be taxing them on their retirement income while they are weak but not taxing them on their regular income while they are strong? Isn't that just an extension of the poor (weak old people) paying for the rich's (young healthy vibrant people's) taxes?

There is no right or wrong answer to me, I just want to know where you stand and you seem to be making a contradiction, unless you can explain what you meant a little better.

dk, exactly how many SMALL businesses make over 250k per year?

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/five-things-you-might-not/story.aspx?guid=%7B6488D5F9-1F6B-4CF2-B2BF-1D7E9A51C077%7D&dist=hppr


-dK

I've noticed that most old people have their money in bonds and some in preferred stocks.

Notwithstanding, are you sure that we should be taxing them on their retirement income while they are weak but not taxing them on their regular income while they are strong? Isn't that just an extension of the poor (weak old people) paying for the rich's (young healthy vibrant people's) taxes?

There is no right or wrong answer to me, I just want to know where you stand and you seem to be making a contradiction, unless you can explain what you meant a little better.

On the flip side, if 25-30% of your paycheck weren't going to the government for your entire working years, you would probably be able to save so much that paying taxes on your stocks wouldn't be that big a deal.

You're not bragging about buying a $250,000 company on one hand and claiming poverty on the other
You're right, utter nonsense George

I'm thinking the company Joe the Plumber is looking at purchasing is worth much more than $250K if he expects his income to be in excess of that after he purchases it.

And if I had the ambition to own a company, I'm not sure that a small tax liability like that would dissuade me. There are people in the US who spend more than that on lottery tickets.

Really? Try this link: http://taxcut.barackobama.com/


LMAOOOOO ....

That like the Devil posting a "Sin Calculator" and for me to use it to to check if I am going to Heaven or not.

Anything I put in will reply, "Naw, go out and sin some more - you're fine, plenty of room."

-dK

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/five-things-you-might-not/story.aspx?guid=%7B6488D5F9-1F6B-4CF2-B2BF-1D7E9A51C077%7D&dist=hppr


-dK


Still waiting for an answer . . . how many?
And no, I have no sympathy for those making over 250k. They should be paying their fair share of taxes, period.

I'm thinking the company Joe the Plumber is looking at purchasing is worth much more than $250K if he expects his income to be in excess of that after he purchases it.

And if I had the ambition to own a company, I'm not sure that a small tax liability like that would dissuade me. There are people in the US who spend more than that on lottery tickets.

Nobody except dk said that he expected his income to be over that amount after purchasing the company. And even if it was, I just don't see how raising the marginal rate from 36% to 39% would seriously deter someone who wanted to own that business. What is a few thousand dollars if you've got hundreds of thousands of dollars in profit?

dk, exactly how many SMALL businesses make over 250k per year?

Only the successful ones. There's no point if you can't make that much or more.

Does it matter if I answer? I am sure you have a number that has been reworked and supplied by some communist organization that is IRREFUTABLE.:rolleyes:

Of course if elected, it still won't matter because all dissenters will be rounded up and silenced along with the rest of our rights.

-dK

Really? Try this link: http://taxcut.barackobama.com/
If not, I would be happy to calculate for you, what is your annual gross and your filing status?
Here are the ranges:
20k
30k
40k
50-75k
75k-100k
100k-150k
Should I keep going?

Thanks for the link. That worked:)
My savings would be 1500 if I take the mortgage credit, 1000 if I don't. Bush's tax cut saved me about 1800.

I have a problem though. The mortgage credit applies only to those who don't itemize. Since I already itemize, I'm already getting that credit. Seems like Obama's program, if he let's Bush's tax cuts expire, is going to cost me $800. I hope my math is wrong, but I think it's just a shell game.

It said my savings with McCain's plan would be $322, but I'm pretty sure he wouldn't let Bush's cuts expire, so I truly do come out ahead.

Just the ones getting blamed for this crisis.

You're telling me that the rich CEOs of the companies you've been blaming are poor black people? How is that possible?

What is a few thousand dollars if you've got hundreds of thousands of dollars in profit?

Here ya go .. I will throw you some fodder.

I wanted a better life than my parents had, so ...
I used my time and my effort to put myself through school so that I could raise my earning potential.

The difference is I worked for that money.
I put in my time to earn that money.
If I want to give my money away to a charity, I should be able to decide where my money goes ... not a bureacrat.

Whatever happened to that story about the chicken that made the bread and after she did everything herself, everybody wanted some of it? I bet you thought it wasn't fair when you first read that.

-dK

Since it is Thanksgiving and all have the socialist party rework this message ...

http://www.mises.org/article.aspx?Id=336&FS=The+Great+Thanksgiving+Hoax

-dK

Only the successful ones. There's no point if you can't make that much or more.


Really? Every successful small business nets over 250k per year? Would you care to provide a source?

Thanks for the link. That worked:)
My savings would be 1500 if I take the mortgage credit, 1000 if I don't. Bush's tax cut saved me about 1800.

I have a problem though. The mortgage credit applies only to those who don't itemize. Since I already itemize, I'm already getting that credit. Seems like Obama's program, if he let's Bush's tax cuts expire, is going to cost me $800. I hope my math is wrong, but I think it's just a shell game.

It said my savings with McCain's plan would be $322, but I'm pretty sure he wouldn't let Bush's cuts expire, so I truly do come out ahead.

The question I don't know the answer to is what is the baseline? Is it showing you what you will save over and above what the Bush tax cuts saved you? Or is it showing you what you will save starting from your baseline taxes before the Bush tax cuts?

Either way, doesn't look very significant for you. It is a much more substantial number for me.

Here ya go .. I will throw you some fodder.

I wanted a better life than my parents had, so ...
I used my time and my effort to put myself through school so that I could raise my earning potential.

Is that the American dream?

The difference is I worked for that money.
I put in my time to earn that money.
If I want to give my money away to a charity, I should be able to decide where my money goes ... not a bureacrat.

You seem to be obsessed with money and the making thereof.

Whatever happened to that story about the chicken that made the bread and after she did everything herself, everybody wanted some of it? I bet you thought it wasn't fair when you first read that.

-dK

Never heard of it, how does it go?

Col

I was trying to work out what a "bum" is in the USA. I thought it was a tramp or homeless person who drinks moonshine from a paper bag.

A bum in the UK is another name for someone's bottom. I believe Americans call it a fanny. In the UK, a fanny is. . . . . oh well, we'll skip that.

What is Pat's reference to do with tramps or homeless people?

Col

You seem to be obsessed with money and the making thereof.
Col

You say that like it's a bad thing, Col. I've found that the more money I have, the happier I am. Money can't buy happiness... bah!

The question I don't know the answer to is what is the baseline? Is it showing you what you will save over and above what the Bush tax cuts saved you? Or is it showing you what you will save starting from your baseline taxes before the Bush tax cuts?

Either way, doesn't look very significant for you. It is a much more substantial number for me.

I'm assuming that's over and above the Bush tax cuts. I can't imagine he and Pelosi are going to let them stay in place, though. That's why I think it's a shell game. Since you've said you and your husband both work, let's assume your in one of the two tax ranges that had a 3% tax cut under Bush. Take your yearly taxable income X .03 to see how much more tax you'll be paying when they expire. Does Obama's plan offset that amount for you?

I'm assuming that's over and above the Bush tax cuts. I can't imagine he and Pelosi are going to let them stay in place, though. That's why I think it's a shell game. Since you've said you and your husband both work, let's assume your in one of the two tax ranges that had a 3% tax cut under Bush. Take your yearly taxable income X .03 to see how much more tax you'll be paying when they expire. Does Obama's plan offset that amount for you?

I thought he was going to revoke the Bush tax cuts for those making over 250k, and increase them for everyone else?

Ok, found it:
"The top two income tax brackets would return to their 1990’s levels of 36% and
39.6%. All other tax brackets would remain as they are today."

Then, add the various tax credits. So it is a net decrease, not an increase, as long as you are not in one of the two top brackets.

I thought he was going to revoke the Bush tax cuts for those making over 250k, and increase them for everyone else?

Ok, found it:
"The top two income tax brackets would return to their 1990’s levels of 36% and
39.6%. All other tax brackets would remain as they are today."

Then, add the various tax credits. So it is a net decrease, not an increase, as long as you are not in one of the two top brackets.

Well, I suppose every penny I get to keep is a good thing. At least there might be one bright spot to this whole mess:cool:

But congress HATES the Bush tax cuts, so I think they'll let it expire. They'll asume we'll have forgotten about campaign promises - just all politicians are wont to do.

Is that the American dream?
You seem to be obsessed with money and the making thereof.
Never heard of it, how does it go?
Col

lol ... my American Dream is to be as successful and higher wage earner than my parents (yes, there is a difference). The reason for the higher wage earner is because they could not afford air conditioning during a hot, humid Southern summers when I was growing up. I wanted more creature comforts.

My obsession is a basic mathematical formula. I am obsessed with my money in proportion to the amount of obsession other people have with my money. It should be my private property andI should be able to defend it any way that I choose. The only free access anyone should have to it is my immediate family, even though my ex-wife would tell you otherwise. :D

I looked it up. It is the story of Little Red Hen.
http://www.bres.boothbay.k12.me.us/wq/nnash/WebQuest/little_red_hen.htm

We are, wait were, taught to be socialist and communist haters from our earliest reads. ;)

-dK

Dang, the little red hen isn't very RED, is she?

Dang, the little red hen isn't very RED, is she?


Yes for she turned blue
when the rains failed to fall
the winds blew away the soil
and she was left with f*** all

What is Pat's reference to do with tramps or homeless people?

Col

I was puzzled by that phrase as well, but guess Pat's refering to assholes :confused:

I was puzzled by that phrase as well, but guess Pat's refering to assholes :confused:

I heard that Bush had an asshole transplant - but the asshole rejected him.

Col

lol col

A bum here has as many translations as well known expletives. I read as a "good for nothing" bum, e.g., the politicians that aren't doing anything?

-dK

Dang, the little red hen isn't very RED, is she?

hehehe ..

It popped up on Wiki first, said it was probably of Russian origin. I would guess prior to the Marxists taking over.

-dK

lol col

A bum here has as many translations as well known expletives. I read as a "good for nothing" bum, e.g., the politicians that aren't doing anything?

-dK

The main problem I have found is that the politicians try to do too much to justify their jobs.
I for one would be happy to pay them just to sit at home. This seems to work very well in agriculture and other areas. :D

The main problem I have found is that the politicians try to do too much to justify their jobs.

Interesting take. Never thought of it that way, but in the realm of office politics that is what people (bootlickers) do in order to attempt to keep their jobs (for some even though they know they are on their way out).

I reckon that does apply.

-dK

One way to tell the Republicans from the Democrats is by their views on the military.
The Republicans want low military spending and a small standing army but they want to send it everywhere. The Democrats what high military spending and a large standing army but they don't want to send it anywhere.

One way to tell the Republicans from the Democrats is by their views on the military.
The Republicans want low military spending and a small standing army but they want to send it everywhere. The Democrats what high military spending and a large standing army but they don't want to send it anywhere.


You forgot one: the independents want low military spending, a small standing army, and they don't want it to go anywhere unless all other efforts at diplomacy have completely failed.

I was trying to work out what a "bum" is in the USA. I thought it was a tramp or homeless person who drinks moonshine from a paper bag.

A bum in the UK is another name for someone's bottom. I believe Americans call it a fanny. In the UK, a fanny is. . . . . oh well, we'll skip that.

What is Pat's reference to do with tramps or homeless people?

Col
There were not many names I could call career politions that would get past the censors so I selected "Bum". Bums in the sense I was using it are leaches on society. They make no useful contribution but stand in line for handouts.

As usual, this thread took a turn somewhere into partisian bickering. The point is - no matter what side of the political spectrum you are on - change is necessary. We cannot continue the way we are going. The only way to convince congress that we are serious is to upset the incumbents.