Posted on 02/05/2008 7:48:49 PM PST by SeekAndFind
LOL isn’t the Philippines taken over by Islamists?
What a stupid headline. Who wins? Who has always won, the Gestapo known as the IRS.
when they scream fairness we should run
Appealing to whom? I have an appealing way to fix it, abolish it.
Honestly folks,
Your one liners are funny and interesting...
But, I’d be curious to read your opinions/analysis as to who among the 4 is the least economically damaging or most tax payer friendly in terms of their tax policies.
Look for lower and middle income houses with Huckabee, McCain or Romney signs or stickers on the cars, just to drive home the lesson.
Of course we know who wins. It’s the one they don’t talk about. The most Un American agency in the US known as the IRS
Whoever wins, we lose.
Romney.
Next question.
Haha! After tonight I am thinking the same thing.
The most ironic thing is that if one of the ‘candidates’ ensures my healthcare availability via universal healthcare, this ‘top 1%’ wage earner will have absolutely no reason to keep working and paying taxes so that other’s don’t have too.
No, most of the Philippines is Roman Catholic, actually. Only a few Southern islands are Muslim.
That’s like asking: Do you want to be beheaded, hung by the neck, go before a firing squad or gassed? There are no good choices when it comes to Juan McAztlan/Gomer Pyle vs. Shrillary/Osama.
It's no contest. From their promises and position papers, you must give the title to the world champion panderers and promisers, the Democrats.
What, part of the competition is that you expect the candidate to actually deliver on their promises? Well, that's different. I'm still waiting for the Middle class tax cut Bill promised me in 1990. And this "donut" concept Obama is throwing out? I can imagine what the hole in the middle is for - you and me.
Not that the Republicans are much better. They promise much less, but then they deliver it.
In short, this thread is a fool's errand. There is no surplus for anyone to give back to the taxpayer any more - only debts and obligations. There are no quick fixes, no easy answers. None of the candidates even pays lip service to "limited government" any more. "None of the Above" has the best shot for my vote.
Regardless of their plans to change federal spending in some way, most of the candidates are unthinkingly carrying on the unconstitutional federal spending practices started by FDR. This post (<-click), in another tax related thread, attempts to explain how FDR's disdain for 10th A. protected state powers created an environment where most presidential candidates have irresponsibly ignored their oaths to defend the Constitution by proposing federal spending programs based on non-existent federal government powers.
In fact, Obama, followed by Clinton, have actually been ranked by some observers as the first and second of the big-time spenders respectively for '08 spending proposals.
Big-shot federal spendersRegardless that the above referenced page shows John McCain is a "small potatoes" spender when compared with Obama and Clinton, he is undoubtedly disregarding constitutional spending restraints like the others are.
Again, people need to wise up to the very serious problem of a federal government that is not operating within the restraints of the Constitution, particularly where high taxation as a consequence of unauthorized spending is concerned. The people need to get in the faces of spending-happy presidential candidates and make them commit to making the federal government once again operate within constitutional spending restraints. (The Democrats might as well go home.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.