[SkyGem]

Polls tend to fluctuate like a see-saw but there are some who literally swear by them. However, this current poll is most interesting and thought you'd like to hear about it!

Newsmax.com - Newsmax/Zogby Tracking: Hillary&#39s Pa. Lead Growing

[N0help4u]

I knew she would in Pa!
Where I live they love the Democrats that keep raising taxes thinking it will draw more money when actually it deters people! Not that Obama won't raise taxes but I swear she would tax us to death!

[George_1950]

Thanks, Sky; Obama sunk his candidacy in PA and if Dems are smart they will deep-six him before the convention.

[SkyGem]

I knew she would in Pa!
Where I live they love the Democrats that keep raising taxes thinking it will draw more money when actually it deters people! Not that Obama won't raise taxes but I swear she would tax us to death!

I'm not so sure about that. Having heard the recent debate between Obama and her (incidentally, the network observer after the debate declared Hillary as the winner!) I was much impressed! She spoke of ways to not tax Americans during her administration, especially the middle class. She went into greater detail about her other plans and said if anyone wanted to know more about those plans, to go to her website at: HillaryClinton.com - Hillary on the Issues

I think realistically speaking, no matter what one thinks of Hillary, taxes are inevitable to some extent (remember the elder Bush and his Read My Lips No New Taxes and how it embarrasingly backfired?) However, no party, Democrat or Republican can operate without some kind of tax elevation in order to operate efficiently in light of a wild, out-of-control tax-spending Congress with pork barrel projects on both sides. Therefore, Hillary's plan merits taking a good look at!

[SkyGem]

Thanks, Sky; Obama sunk his candidacy in PA and if Dems are smart they will deep-six him before the convention.

Yes, George, you are right. Now if people would only get the glaze out of their eyes for Obama and stop looking through rose-colored glasses and realize that he cannot win when it comes to a McCain vs. Obama scenario, they would deep-six him right now!

[progunr]

[QUOTE=SkyGem However, no party, Democrat or Republican can operate without some kind of tax elevation in order to operate efficiently in light of a wild, out-of-control tax-spending Congress with pork barrel projects on both sides. Therefore, Hillary's plan merits taking a good look at![/QUOTE]

Why is the answer always raise taxes?

Why doesn't ANY candidate mention the possibility of CUTTING SPENDING?

Why are we as voters conditioned to believe that the government spending must always increase, and NEVER decrease?

[Wondergirl]

Newsmax also has this to say:

"Obama Takes Big National Lead Over Clinton in Newsweek Poll

Friday, April 18, 2008 5:30 PM

-- THE RACE: The presidential race for Democrats nationally

___

THE NUMBERS

Barack Obama, 54 percent

Hillary Rodham Clinton, 35 percent"

[N0help4u]

Even if Hillary doesn't increase taxes directly I am sure she will find ways to pass costs off to us. Like her Hillicare, she has already said ALL AMERICAN's have to pay into it and be a part of it. Therefore the healthcare system would be monopolized by the government for the most part.

[SkyGem]

Why is the answer always raise taxes?

Why doesn't ANY candidate mention the possibility of CUTTING SPENDING?

As well they should! But then, it would not serve their interests now would it!

Why are we as voters conditioned to believe that the government spending must always increase, and NEVER decrease?

Another good question but it appears that it is a non-ending cycle that comes back full circle, 360 degrees, to the fact that the elected officials consider themselves citizens too, which they are, and they obviously feel that they are empowered to handle the job the way they want to, not the way their bosses, those who elected them, tell them to do. Until we can get a better handle on this situation and champion a law that will restrict and restrain their spending, the status quo will remain intact, most unfortunately. Let's get a national "Restrict and Restrain Congressional Spending Law" enacted! But who will have the gumption to step up to the plate and champion it and really carry it through is what remains the question!

[Wondergirl]

Another good question but it appears that it is a non-ending cycle that comes back full circle, 360 degrees, to the fact that the elected officials consider themselves citizens too, which they are, and they obviously feel that they are empowered to handle the job the way they want to, not the way their bosses, those who elected them, tell them to do. Until we can get a better handle on this situation and champion a law that will restrict and restrain their spending, the status quo will remain intact, most unfortunately. Let's get a national "Restrict and Restrain Congressional Spending Law" enacted! But who will have the gumption to step up to the plate and champion it and really carry it through is what remains the question!

If you were president, how would you go about restricting spending without raising taxes?

[SkyGem]

Another good question but it appears that it is a non-ending cycle that comes back full circle, 360 degrees, to the fact that the elected officials consider themselves citizens too, which they are, and they obviously feel that they are empowered to handle the job the way they want to, not the way their bosses, those who elected them, tell them to do. Until we can get a better handle on this situation and champion a law that will restrict and restrain their spending, the status quo will remain intact, most unfortunately. Let's get a national "Restrict and Restrain Congressional Spending Law" enacted! But who will have the gumption to step up to the plate and champion it and really carry it through is what remains the question!

Of course that is only part of the great equation. Even if such a person was found who would be strong enough to champion a "restrict and restrain" law it would ultimately depend on his or her supporters to carry it through to fruition. That is where the problem would remain. There simply would not be enough support for such a bill as Congress obviously feels that all is o.k. with the status quo and if it ain't broken, don't fix it. With that kind of mentality coupled with the lack of great candidates who would fight to the finish to bring new ways of doing things thereby minimizing costs to the taxpayers we would find ourselves only hoping those who have promised change would live up to their words and fully support that train of thought once they took office. But it is difficult, at best, because all requires support from Congress that makes the laws and then a president who would carry the torch.

[George_1950]

Why is the answer always raise taxes?

Why doesn't ANY candidate mention the possibility of CUTTING SPENDING?

Why are we as voters conditioned to believe that the government spending must always increase, and NEVER decrease?

It takes a president with a backbone (to veto) and the support of 35% of either the House or Senate (to confirm the veto) to cut spending; probably 90% of Democrats and 50% of Republicans will increase spending w/o batting an eye, which is, unfortunately, a majority in both houses. Those Bozo's call it, "representing their constituency". :eek:

If you were president, how would you go about restricting spending without raising taxes?

Eliminate payroll deduction for all taxes from employees and any liability of employer responsibility for collection of them. And, the national government cannot spend more than 99% of what is collected, except in the event of a national emergency (war).

[SkyGem]

If you were president, how would you go about restricting spending without raising taxes?

That is indeed a fair question but a tough one. If I was commander-in-chief I think the first thing I would need to do was to dissolve the factors that weigh into the current system of thinking about why we need things and how we are going to pay for them. I know I would immediately start to draw strong criticism and opposition from those who have high stakes with such a change. I would try to work with a strong coalition from both parties, including my cabinet, to work with me in passing on my message that would include only a few priority items for representatives of each state for each fiscal year and the rest of their proposals would go to a special committee, appointed by me, who would review each state Senator's and Representatives' request for spending and then have the committee decide whether that item or items was truly vital for that state's overall continued function. But before that could be done, I would need the support of every elected Congressional official to take a pledge to ACCEPT whatever the committee rules whether the terms be favorable or unfavorable to them. No appeals. No further action (that would be costly!). After the committee reviewed their proposals they would rule based upon the needs of the state and country with economists, statisticians and prognosticators along with the financial preparedness of the state in question to meet those needs, and the overall will of the people as a majority. Those would be my main points, to start with, that would need to be met by those Congresspeople in Washington.

If I could get them to pledge as stated above, I believe I would be in a good position to start to turn the economy around as there are little options, at present, to do that without raising taxes since Congress simply WON'T stop spending our money. Again, that would be a tall order but I would propose that in my first 100 days in office and try to garner support for it by reaching the media, individual state coalitions, supporters, etc. and the public would either support me in proposing this or would find a way to be non-responsive which would then tell me that the status quo is, after all, the way the nation wants to go when pitted against a viable proposal that would have a chance to work. It would then be back to square one or trying to re-think another proposal that would not be as effective but that might receive more cohesive support. Absent that, I would then have to regretfully report to the nation that they have no one but themselves to blame for higher taxes! It would not be a comfortable thing to do but a reality. But I would still continue to work in lowering taxes and finding ways to tighten the belt as much as I could, given the universe of thought about the matter and the non-support of those whose support would be most critical to get the job done.

[progunr]

Well, if I restrict spending, why would we need to raise taxes?

The government should not be everybody's sugar daddy, contrary to the Liberal and Socialistic beliefs.

I would eliminate welfare completely. Take things back to the way they were before the infamous FDR created our welfare system. If someone was in dire need, the churches and various civic organizations filled in the gaps. If you wanted something better than a bowl of soup for dinner, you went out and worked and earned the money to have something better.

Once this welfare system was created, it started the downfall of the poor in this country.
It made them dependent on the government for their every need. It took away the incentive to be responsible for yourself and your family. It created teen mothers who could cared less about the baby, what really mattered was how much more the check would be if they could have another one.

Yes, I blame the Dems for our welfare mess, and if we did away with this one government entitlement, we would not have any budget problems at all. We could lower taxes and still have money left over every year to spend on other programs.

When you take away the incentive for an individual to be responsible for themselves, you create an individual without pride, without purpose, without dignity, and who will be standing there with their hand out for the rest of their life.

Ok, off the soap box, today has been a doozy!!

[Wondergirl]

Eliminate payroll deduction for all taxes from employees and any liability of employer responsibility for collection of them. And, the national government cannot spend more than 99% of what is collected, except in the event of a national emergency (war).

How are you going to support Defense and Social Security and education and unemployment insurance et al. If payroll deductions are eliminated, what's to be collected?

If you wanted something better than a bowl of soup for dinner, you went out and worked and earned the money to have something better.

Working at what job? For how much? Do you know how much a loaf of white bread costs? A gallon of skim milk? A jar of cheap peanut butter? And where will that person live? In your basement?

There is a better way to go than just dumping the welfare program. It can be tweaked so there is less chance of abuse.

[progunr]

The system we have now is abusing the very people it provides for.

Why didn't you quote my other point?

When you take away the incentive for an individual to be responsible for themselves, you create an individual without pride, without purpose, without dignity, and who will be standing there with their hand out for the rest of their life.

I will just agree to disagree with you on this topic.

[George_1950]

How are you going to support Defense and Social Security and education and unemployment insurance et al.? If payroll deductions are eliminated, what's to be collected?

Very little of either education or unemployment comes from Washington. Social Security and Medicare need to be scaled back, over time. Defense is a national expenditure and there is plenty of revenue for that.

[Wondergirl]

Very little of either education or unemployment comes from Washington. Social Security and Medicare need to be scaled back, over time. Defense is a national expenditure and there is plenty of revenue for that.

You must be very young to discount SS and Medicare so easily.

The current president has spent how much out of the Defense budget? And it's still in the black? Where is "plenty of revenue" coming from?

[George_1950]

You must be very young to discount SS and Medicare so easily.

The current president has spent how much out of the Defense budget? And it's still in the black? Where is "plenty of revenue" coming from?

I wish I were young! SS and Medicare will be scaled back; mark my words. Revenues go up every year. "According to the CBO’s long-run forecast in December 2005, federal taxes under current law will rise from 18.3 percent of GDP to nearly 19 percent within five years and reach almost 24 percent of GDP by 2050. This means that the federal tax burden on Americans, as a proportion of income, will increase by almost one-fourth. When state and local taxes are included, the U.S. tax burden will be comparable to the burden in today’s slow-growth Europe." Read more at: What Is Really Happening to Government Revenues: Long-Run Forecasts Show Sharp Rise in Tax Burden

[Wondergirl]

I wish I were young! SS and Medicare will be scaled back; mark my words. Revenues go up every year. "According to the CBO’s long-run forecast in December 2005, federal taxes under current law will rise from 18.3 percent of GDP to nearly 19 percent within five years and reach almost 24 percent of GDP by 2050. This means that the federal tax burden on Americans, as a proportion of income, will increase by almost one-fourth. When state and local taxes are included, the U.S. tax burden will be comparable to the burden in today’s slow-growth Europe." Read more at: What Is Really Happening to Government Revenues: Long-Run Forecasts Show Sharp Rise in Tax Burden

And what happened to all the money that was being held in trust for SS?