Re: Excellent News - Bush Approval Slumps

TravelinMan wrote: 
In article <lyS3f.2284$6l.1423@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
 TheLetterK <theletterk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


TravelinMan wrote:

In article <lloydparsons-367AAB.12473714102005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@xxxxxxx> wrote:



In article <gmgraves-801739.10384614102005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
George Graves <gmgraves@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



In article <DoNotSpamthegoat4-20A648.23244613102005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"B.B." <DoNotSpamthegoat4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



In article <gmgraves-898EF5.18295513102005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
George Graves <gmgraves@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



In article <11ku0hp5p7p0n9a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
John <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051013/pl_nm/bush_politics_dc

OK, I'll bite, why is this excellent news? I mean the guy is a lame duck. He can't run again, so why should he (or you for that matter) give a flying fornicatore what his approval rating is? I could see getting excited about it if our system of Federal government allowed for recalls but it doesn't. In early 2009, Mr, Bush is HISTORY, until then, his approval rating could fall to double naughts and it wouldn't mean squat.

It's good news because it means some of the people who were just way the *** too stupid to catch on yesterday "got it" today. It's an indication that at least 60% of the population still has some functional neurons. 

That's specious at best.



But I have to ask this one question: Is the US ready for the Clinton Bitch? Because we're going to get her.

Fine by me. I'm not a huge fan, but I honestly believe she'll clean up some of what Bush has royally fucked for the last few years.

You don't know "fucked-up", and won't until you see what that bitch has in store. Higher taxes, socialized medicine for a start. Her idiot husband was a moderate compared to this left wing ***.

George, I think higher taxes are a given, regardless of who comes next. This huge debt/deficit will have to be paid someday you know. 


Maybe.

If, for example, we got someone who got tough with China on the exchange rate and illegal trade practices, and IF they could handle the transition successfully (avoiding a crash), the added business and taxes from increased production in the US would go a long way.

And increased cost of consumer goods. I'm not sure that's a good trade.


Keeping a few million people employed makes it a good trade - especially since the savings aren't all that great when going to China.

I know a company, for example, who switched production of a product to China - allegedly to save about 10% of the cost. They laid off a couple dozen people. But then, they found that with extra trips to China, higher QC, and the long lead times, they really weren't saving much of anything. 

The difference to consumers wouldn't be all that great.


Drop income tax entirely, and impose a use tax (e.g fair tax). Combine that with spending cuts and we'd be able to legitimately *lower* tax rates while keeping a near-$0 surplus. What's more, legalizing marijuana and taxing it heavily would greatly help out our budget problems. Not only would there be a huge influx of new income, but the cost of fighting the 'war on drugs' would be dramatically reduced. We'd even be able to start clearing the jails of non-violent drug offenders (which would allow us to start imposing real sentences on real criminals, rather than letting many go free much too early, on parole).



I can't stand the idea of a use tax - particularly when it's presented as a 'fair' tax. That hits the poorest people hardest (since they typically spend close to 100% of their income on goods, while the wealthy spend much more on services that might or might not be taxed or on savings).
This is why the idea of prebates came up--hand people a check for living expenses.


I much prefer a simple, flat income tax. First $50 K in family income is tax free, everything above that at x% (or perhaps a few brackets:
Income taxes hit the middle class the hardest--those who make above the poverty line, yet not enough to shelter their costs.


First $50,000 tax free, next $100 K at x %, next $100 K at y % and the rest at z % - with z > y > x. 
.