This may be the hardest discussion for you yet this year. There is no topic. You get to write about whatever you wish to write about. The only limitation is that what you write must somehow relate to government, politics, or our classroom discussions. For those of you afraid of such an open-ended topic, you can wait till someone else posts and then comment on his or her post.
--Cicerone
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
In hopes of breaking the ice, I will leave the first comment. Fred Thompson has dropped out of the campaign. He was an interesting candidate who played by his own rules; he will be missed by this political observer. My favorite moment in the debates was when he refused to do the "hand show" type questions. I thought the "hand show" questions were not-deserving of a presidential debate. So did he, and he was the only candidate willing to put a stop to it.
See it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUn8GSbUl_4&NR=1
--Cierone
breaking the ice? heck I just got home.
Is this post limited to one topic of our choice? ANY topic? So like I could only rant about tax or abortion, not both?
This could be the first primary season in a long long time that ends with both parties having to pick their candidates at the convention. Wouldn't it be fun to watch the platforms of both parties constructed plank by plank this summer at the convention as candidates jostle for delegates, rather than a year or more in front of the general election. This election has the potential to actually maintain public interest right until the end. We should know after Super Tuesday if the delegate count is likely to remain diffused or if a consensus candidate will have a "super" Wednesday. I wager on no consensus pick.
I never paid too much attention to the character of Fred Thompson but now that he has dropped out of the race I realize how much I appreciate the straight-forwardness and confidence of his answers. His honest answers to complex and controversial questions that other politicians danced around is something that I wish would become more common in our government (even though that may be wildly idealistic). While we are talking about the election, I just heard on the news that Giuliani is losing his footing in Florida. That would be an amazing disaster for his campaign if after all the time and effort he has invested in the state only gets him a second or third place finish. Even though its not as if his campaign isn't already weak around the rest of the country...
The Fair Tax; Great new tax solution, Economic stimulator, and IRS abolisher (Also solves the $ side of illegal immigration!) There are big fat books fully describing it, this is just a summary to show how it works, Boortz's book on the issue is great)
What is the Fair Tax?
The Fair Tax is a tax reform that would completely replace the IRS, federal income taxes, payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare taxes included), business taxes, capital gain taxes, gift taxes and estate taxes. That’s a lot of taxes!!! All of those would be replaced with a national retail sales tax of 23% (23 cents on the dollar), similar to a state sales tax.
The Rebate System**
One of the ploys used by those against the Fair Tax is that it suddenly will create a large burden on those with lower incomes, while relieving those of high incomes from the heavier taxes. This is entirely false. The Fair Tax actually has a built in method of relieving tax burdens.
-- The effective tax rate on households and the rebate of those households is dependant upon the family size, and income. For example : a home of 3 spending $30,000 would ballpark 4-5% of their spending to go towards the Fair Tax. Where a home spending 125,000 a year would pay about 19% to the Fair Tax. (there are more in depth charts and equations on finding the effective tax rates, and rebate rates on line and in Boortz's Fair Tax book.)*
*Note that this is based upon annual spending, not income. The built in tax relief here is lower incomes spend less money, higher incomes spend more. Ya'll should have that down pat after H. Econ.
-- Also there are various rebates that give money back to those in lower income levels on a monthly basis as to not press an unreasonable burden upon them.
Is Everything Taxed?
No, not everything is taxed. There are many clauses in the bill allowing for tax free purchase of many goods that will directly cause growth in small business and therefore an increase in spending.
There is an entire section dealing with imports and exports that suggest the United States gaining a more competitive advantage on our international trade sales.
Also, along with the above stated rebate system is a list of goods/services that wouldn't be taxed; mainly necessities of life. Though this category is small and mainly for those in lower income levels.
Anything that requires more payment or was purchased before the Fair Tax is to be put in placed will be considered 'used' and will not be subject to the Fair Tax.
But Wont things cost more?
Yes, most things from popcorn to haircuts will cost more. However the consumer will not have their income taxed and will therefore have more to spend, balancing things out. There are special rules for items of high price such as real estate, automobiles, and medical coverage as to not make these unreasonably taxed.
Balance of Spending
While some politicians and economists believe that it is impossible to compensate for an income tax with a sales tax, most believe it is easily achievable. To simplify it : You make $100 and are taxed $23 dollars of income tax ($77) versus making 100$ and spending $23 dollars worth on goods ($77 again). Remember economics though, the more you have the more you spend. The less you have the less you spend.
What is the difference then?
1) The Fair Tax allows the individual to directly control their money, allowing them to decide how and when they wish to pay their taxes.
2) The Fair Tax is much harder for people to avoid paying, thus illegal immigrants and black market trade (estimated at 1-3 trillion per year) will be taxed.
3) Trading the current complicated tax system for a newer, simpler, and much cheaper to run tax system.
4) Is more encouraging to businesses to stay in the states than the IRS.
So, why is the Fair Tax controversial?
-Many believe that the Fair Tax is an attempt by the wealthy to not pay as many taxes. This is a factor in why more wealthy people are likely to support the Fair Tax. They say that the super wealthy will now have millions of unspent dollars being untaxed. The counter point is that very few of these mentioned elite hoard their money away to not be taxed. And if they didn’t want them to be taxed for a while, there are many savings programs right now to avoid taxes for a while. Also the constitutionality of showing bias in tax collection is an issue.
- Not trying to sound bias here, but it is true. The general populace of the democratic party for some reason has distorted the Fair Tax to try and present it with out the relief programs, calling it an assault against the poor.
- Some believe it to risky. They believe that people will hoard their untaxed incomes and not spend enough to have a sufficient tax system.
- Many aren’t using the equations right and come up with wrong variables and therefore think that some how and some way everybody is getting screwed over by the fair tax.
- Others believe it is unconstitutional based on the 16th amendment.
I personally believe that the Fair Tax bill is well written and covers itself very well. I think that it will bring in more tax than the current tax system does now while stimulating the economy by encouraging businesses and individual spending.
Confused about anything? Ask, or look it up
Question for you Mason. How could a government equip itself in response to a national emergency or disaster under a Fair Tax system? Would military operations or FEMA relief have to regulate itself according to the spending habits of the populace? Hold on Osama bin Laden, we have to wait for America to buy more widgets before we can afford to continue the war on terror.
Mason- I really liked your comment about fair tax. Although it was long, it made a lot of sense and helped explain the system well. After reading it I feel like the fair tax could be a cheaper, less complex but yet still efficient system than that which we have now. Unless I am misunderstanding it I do not see why people seem to object to it so much. It seems like an effective system.
Okay so, since I know very little about the fair tax and am in a bit of a rush, the girls and I decided on the topic of abortion. Yay controversy!!! So here's my stance: I'm a strong believer in a woman's choice. I don't consider unborn fetus's humans and don't think that the government should get to decide on what a woman can and cannot do with her own body. I, personally, know a woman who has gotten an abortion and I fully understand why she did it. I just don't think that women should have to have a child they're not ready to have. And I don't think that adoption is a good enough solution, atleast in some cases. I understand that teen pregnancy has grown and that many believe it is irresonsible and unfair for teens to carelessly abort babies. However, I don't believe thet they do it carelessly, abortion is a difficult and emotionally strainig prpcess that stays with you forever. And, adittionally, if a teen is not ready or prepared to have a child, I wonder what that child's life and upbringing would be like.
I know I am changing the subject, but I would like us to talk about something that might get us in a little bit of a heated discussion. So, lets just remember to be mature and maybe end up agreeing to disagree, since this subject involves ones personal beliefs.
Something that bugs me about some politicians is the fact that they can be pro-life, but at the same time support capital punishment. This does not make sense to me. Many people are against abortion because they do not think that we have the right to take away life. But capital punishment is taking away life. So where do they draw the line? And who has the right to judge whether somebody's life is worth being preserved?
At the same time, other politicians are pro-choice, and against capital punishment. This does not make sense to me either. They do not think we should kill adults, but they believe a mother has a right to kill her unborn baby?
Now, I know that abortion is a touchy subject, and often you have to look at the specific situation. There are some exceptions when it comes to why a woman is pregnant, but does not want her baby. For example, some pregnant women were raped and cannot be blamed for that situation. But according to this website, “ 1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).”
I guess that I just have a problem with the fact that some people believe its ok to take one life, but not another... and other believe that it is ok to preserve one life, but not another. Where do we draw the line? And do we even have the right to decide whether someone should live or die?
Mr. Shelnutt
This is a problem that many people have considered and several options have been tossed around.
1) Some suggest lowering the Fair Tax rate and keeping a very low income tax, a hybrid. This allows for the IRS to stay in place and gives the Government the ability to raise income tax in wartime situations.
2) Simiply bump the Fair Tax rate up. In any system, the economy will drop after a 9/11 like event. But people go on spending and buying what they want. Just use the extra tax collected now for wartime purposes.
3) Some have an idea of creating a savings type system in which some fraction of a percent is saved every year to help stockpile funds for wartime. I dont think this one would really do well though.
4) I highly doubt food stamps would ever happen again, because I doubt the average American would be that supportive of any war nowadays. Though this sould severly limit spending, and thus tax influx.
Melody, Mahssa can also find statements to her post in here.
While disappointed that the Fair Tax topic isn't catching on, I think I have a good answer for your questions.
Most people who are Pro Life see a baby as an innocent who has commited no crime, whereas an adult who has commited murder should be subject to the death penalty because people like that shouldn't be around.
Those who are Pro Choice and tend to think that the child would lead a lesser life, or some people like magneticmahssa think that the unborn baby isnt a human at all (must be a monkey or some odd mishapen tumor until birth). That or they think that aborting a child will help the mother avoid very unplesant social settings. They then are against Capital Punishment typically because the mind set is that you cant fight murder with murder.
-------
Personally, I'm against abortion. I believe that the choice of having sex was made, and sometimes the price is pregnancy. By giving people an out from the responsibilities of sex, increases the abuse of sex. I believe that unborn babies are humans (I certainly was unborn at sometime).
[Sarcasticly] "Now that I'm immune, I'm pro choice"
As far as the death penalty. I see it as a how much effort the government has to put into it thing for the time being. Which is cheaper jail or death? On one hand I see it as me having the right of being protected by murderous persons, but I also have faith in jail systems.
I do believe, and stats help show it, that by imposing a capital punishment for some crimes makes those crime rates go down. If jail is all a murderer gets, it isnt much of an incentive for him to not murder.
---
"Life, Liberty, and the Persuit of Happiness"
If we're all entitled to Life, but if someone destroys another's Persuit of Happiness, what then?
And you're right Melody, do we have such a right as to decide life and death? Isn't God very clear in the Bible that this is His job?
I completely agree with Melody. It drives me crazy how some politicians and people in general can be so hypocritical when it comes to capital punishment and abortion.
Since we have been studying the Constitution and the first ten amendments, I have a question about capital punishment. After reading the eighth amendment about cruel and unusual punishment, I was just wondering if capital punishment did not violate that Constitutional right. I know that some claim that we are killing in a more humane way through lethal injection, however the fact that a person is being killed, to me seems to be undoubtedly a cruel and unusual punishment.
Abortion is a very heated subject and I can see both sides of the argument. However, at the same time, I don't believe unborn babies should have their life taken away. I completely agree with Mason and Melody on this subject... we, as humans, should not be able to decide if one lives or dies, whether it be an unborn child or a person guilty of a crime. It is simply not our place to do so.
Like all situations, there is always an exception to the rule. There will always be someone with "legitimate" reasons or more difficult circumstances that wants to turn to abortion to rid themselves of the problem. However,I think there are better ways to deal with the problem and that would allow the baby to live. Abortion is not the only answer... I just think it is completely wrong to take away someone's life before they even have the opportunity to begin it. That's just my view on the matter.
Personally, I don't think I could have an abortion. As Mahssa says, it must be an emotionally straining process that a woman would never forget. But just because I wouldn't make that choice doesn't make it right for everyone.
Also, if abortion was made illegal, that doesn't mean its going to stop happening. So, is it better to have legal abortions that will not compromise the woman herself (in terms of physical health), done by doctors who know what they are doing OR is it better to make abortions illegal but still have them occur in unsafe places by people with questionable training that compromise the woman's body because there are no sanitary requirements?
I don't really know how to answer that question.
Um...I know i'm late but i'll post a comment anyways.
It doesn't bother me at all when some politicians are pro-life and for capital punishment and visa versa. I think there's a huge difference when someone takes away life that hasn't even had a chance to do any wrong and taking away life that has done something truly terrible to another person.
I'm undecided when it comes to abortion because it's usually a personal matter. What happens to the baby should really be the mother's choice - she's the one who's having it, after all. But then I'm kind of against it too because abortion technically is killing a person, whether they've had their first breath or not. They're still moving and growing.
However, capital punishment is also hard to decide whether i'm for or against it. It is unfair for us to take away the life of the criminal, but it's not like we're taking away their life for fun. They did something to warrant that kind of punishment. I know that right now, I'm leaning towards going against capital punishment however I think that if I had close family members who were brutally murdered for absolutely no reason by some serial killer, I would probably be a stronge capital punishment supporter.
Personally, being a guy, I wouldn't have an abortion. But that’s just me. As for a woman's right to have an abortion, it’s wrong to take a life. There are still painful, but alternative solutions to not keeping the child. Adoption is the first one that comes to mind. If you become pregnant, then you are pregnant, and it’s your responsibility to have that child. If it is God's will for the child not to be born then it will become naturally aborted, or die in childbirth. As a personal stand, killing is and always will be killing.
Post a Comment