Apostolic Friends Forum
Tab Menu 1
Go Back   Apostolic Friends Forum > The Fellowship Hall > The Newsroom > Political Talk
Facebook

Notices

Political Talk Political News


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old 01-04-2008, 09:52 AM
deltaguitar's Avatar
deltaguitar deltaguitar is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Flower Mound, Tx
Posts: 2,791
Yep. One of the greatest moves in political history.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 01-04-2008, 10:43 AM
Apprehended's Avatar
Apprehended Apprehended is offline
DOING THE FIRST WORKS


 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,069
Quote:
Originally Posted by deltaguitar View Post
Yep. One of the greatest moves in political history.
I don't see the greatness in it. He damaged himself more than he helped.

Speaking of great political moves. Since politics can be so dirty I am reminded of a dirty trick that ol' Lyndon Johnson pulled while runnng for Seantor many years ago.

He said to his campaign staff, "We will secretly let the people know that my oponent has been having sex with animals."

Shocked, one of the staff memebers asked. "Oh my God, is that true?"

Johnson replied, "Well, I don't know if it is or not but I would like to see him running all over Texas trying to deny it."

Politics is a dirty business. That is why I hate to see the ever encroaching specter rise up in the Apostolic movement.
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 01-04-2008, 12:08 PM
Pragmatist Pragmatist is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: West
Posts: 1,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristopherHall View Post
We do need to level the tax burden so that the burden of taxation is more fair. If Corporations have "corporate personhood" rights in regards to free speech and political funding...they should share the tax burden with all Americans. Right now you and me shoulder a greater share of the "tax burden" than the nation's largest corporations in comparison to their profits. We also need stronger incentives to keep jobs here and stiff tax penalties for moving jobs overseas. Corporations that move jobs overseas should face strong tax penalties on products sold in the US or relocate to their foreign markets entirely. Right now they get tax cuts though they move labor overseas, over generous tax cuts. They should only receive tax cuts if they keep jobs in the US, the more jobs kept here...the greater the tax benefit. Move 200 jobs overseas and loose your tax cuts. Oh too stiff for you? Well...relocate. I assure you that most reputable companies will opt to stay seeing that most other nations have higher taxes than we do. If they leave...great...we're innovative and it opens the field for new businesses and corporations that will remain in the US.
Just a couple points...

Competition forces corporations to move jobs overseas. Do you want more collapses like the automotive industry is seeing?

Relocation ensures that they will pay zero in taxes. I am sure that will be helpful.
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 01-04-2008, 01:17 PM
Ferd's Avatar
Ferd Ferd is offline
I remain the Petulant Chevalier


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 17,521
Taxing corporations, is just adding a hidden tax to the people who purchase the goods and services provided by the corporations.

what a silly idea.
__________________
If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
My Countdown Counting down to: Days left till the end of the opressive Texas Summer!
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 01-04-2008, 01:17 PM
Ferd's Avatar
Ferd Ferd is offline
I remain the Petulant Chevalier


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 17,521
ChrisHall, i have no idea why you call yourself a moderate.
__________________
If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
My Countdown Counting down to: Days left till the end of the opressive Texas Summer!
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 01-04-2008, 01:24 PM
ChristopherHall's Avatar
ChristopherHall ChristopherHall is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,781
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apprehended View Post
Christopher Hall.

There is a growing chorus of "I will vote for the candidate that promises to give me the keys to the national treasury."
I think you’re misunderstanding how we on the other side see it. The national treasury belongs to all of us. Our government is of the people, by the people, and for the people. The national treasury belongs to…the people. The people democratically choose what to do with the national treasury by voting for individuals and issues. I know most of you guys on the far right don’t like democratic processes, even Bush admitted a dictatorship would be far easier to manage, but that’s the way it is here in the US. We the people can vote and decide if we feel we’d rather see more of our money go to cover tax refunds and tax cuts for the lower, middle, or upper classes. Most of the time when dealing with tax cuts and tax rebates progressive relieve the middle class…the conservatives relieve the top 2% and promise it will trickle down to us somehow…and we stand on that promise like it’s gold even after we get a pink slip and our wages drop in relation to cost of living, our benefits are cut, and our jobs move overseas. We the people can also vote and decide if we’d rather the funds of the national treasury be used for domestic programs and policies here at home. Some would rather see money go for federal block grants to fund TANF or CDBG programs. Others would rather expand Medicare funding or fund unfunded Republican ideas like No Child Left Behind or non-profit and faith based initiatives.

Quote:
Do you feel that the path to more entitlements is the answer to what our economy needs? What is about the free enterprise (emphasis on "enterprise") system that you disagree with? Why do you feel that more entitlements would be helpful for the common good?
I’ve not mentioned any additional entitlements; I do believe the programs we have committed to should be properly funded. Would I support additional entitlements? It depends. Is it really necessary? Is it economical? Sure, I might. There’s nothing stating that entitlements are a “sin”. Even in ancient Israel the poor (widows, orphans, needy) were entitled to glean, receive the third year’s tithe, and not be charged usury. The Bible’s socio-economic structure is rather progressive, more progressive than most conservatives realize. The prophet Daniel’s counseled the King of Babylon regarding the domestic policy the King should adopt stating that he should relieve the poor. How was this to be done? By lessening the burdens upon the poor, burdens were taxes. Tax breaks and tax relief was to be targeted to those who actually needed it to survive. The book of Amos is virtually a progressive manifesto of the Scriptures if the historical context is understood. Please note…this is why so many Jewish authorities are progressive politically and why Israel is a nation with a mixed economy.

But in all honesty, I don’t think I’d support increasing any entitlements in the area of welfare. If I were to increase entitlements in any way it would be to properly fund Social Security and draft a National Health Insurance program by incrementally expanding Medicare as an option for all Americans. The cost of health insurance premiums are currently far higher than any tax increase that would be necessary. Also by expanding Medicare a National Health Insurance program to cover the uninsured would be almost 60% funded the moment the ink dried. My logic is this, and you’re free to disagree, we’re paying for the uninsured anyway you cut it. The uninsured/underinsured go to hospital emergency rooms or can’t pay their medical bills (medical bills are the leading cause of bankruptcy in the United States, 25,000 people last year alone filed bankruptcy because they couldn’t pay their medical bills). We’re not talking about bums and derelicts. We’re talking about those who are known as the “working poor”. These individuals often work two jobs to make ends meet or work one low end service job and raise a family, live paycheck to paycheck, and have little or no health insurance coverage. When they go to the emergency room and get billed they can’t pay the bill. Hospitals don’t just eat the loss…they pass it on by raising the costs of health care. When the cost of health care rises the insurance companies have to raise premiums to maintain their profit margin (sometimes they use this as an opportunity to boost profit margins based on “projects” that are debatable). So once health insurance premiums rise, fewer people can afford it and so the number of the uninsured grows. That means there are more individuals that cannot pay their medical bills, hospitals raise their health care costs again, and insurance companies raise premiums again, and viola, now a few more can’t afford health insurance. So the system begins to implode on itself until premiums are so high the working class cannot afford it. This hurts businesses too seeing that all too often their greatest expense is health benefits. With the system as it is and looking at where it is heading the taxes to sustain a National Health Care Insurance program would be cheaper on both the individual and businesses. An optional National Health Insurance program might be a good start. First it would guarantee that all Americans are insured. This would mean hospitals would be paid for what they do and the cost of health care would stabilize…or even go down. Insurance companies would then be forced to compete with the national system and lower insurance premiums to stay competitive. This would be the market force that prevents them from maintaining high premiums though the cost of health care goes down. Once the beast is deflated, if the system achieves balance keep the duel system…but if not take the next step and nationalize it. The national system could be drafted by looking at the best and greatest systems throughout the world, avoiding the pitfalls, we wouldn’t have to reinvent the wheel. Or we could simply shift things into government issued high deductible HSA’s supplemented by state or federal funding to cover the deductible. This would boost the banking industry. There are many different ways to do this…we just have to get the guts to do what we’ve convinced ourselves as something that just cannot be done. It can be done and I firmly believe that right or wrong…it will be done. Just let another 10 million Americans loose their health insurance in the next 5 to 10 years….our premiums will be so high (I won’t be able to afford it) and viola, instant mandate of the people. We’re paying for everyone either way. The question is how can we do it in the least expensive fashion. In our current health care system nearly 30% of cost goes strictly to clerical records keeping etc. Just having a centralized medical database would reduce costs drastically. But conservative leaders are bought and paid for by the insurance companies…they can nickel and dime us with fees etc. and not only and the cost of clerical and records keeping down to us…but add to that profit margin by justifying increases based on market projections (that debatable) so they can stay ahead of the curve…so they claim.

That’s the only real “entitlement” program I would consider supporting. As far as Welfare etc, make the program temporary and set strong goals (professional or educational) and fund it with block grants not exceeding what’s currently allocated.

Those are my thoughts bro. Sure, feel free to disagree, but just understand that the progressive side of things is based on a logic and isn’t purely irrational. Also, those on the progressive side are just as Christian as y’all on the conservative side.

God bless.
__________________
"For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for wholeness and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jeremiah 29:11 (English Standard Version)
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 01-04-2008, 01:34 PM
ChristopherHall's Avatar
ChristopherHall ChristopherHall is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,781
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pragmatist View Post
Just a couple points...

Competition forces corporations to move jobs overseas. Do you want more collapses like the automotive industry is seeing?

Relocation ensures that they will pay zero in taxes. I am sure that will be helpful.
If they relocate good for them...however, we're the world's biggest importer. You see our current system gives them tax breaks with a whimper and a plead to not leave. THEY LEAVE ANYWAY…they leave with the tax cuts and invest that money overseas also. So here’s what needs to be done. You need someone with enough guts to stand up to these corporations. Only offer tax cuts, shelters, rebates, etc. to those corporations that create jobs HERE and invest in our markets. If a corporation moves jobs overseas…cut their tax benefits and place heavy taxes on goods sold here in our markets. Make it painful to do business here while producing overseas. They don’t want China or Central American markets…we’re the biggest market. Make it hurt to leave and do business with us from the outside. Plus their markets are far more fragile. Most corporations will line up and bring jobs home because the real tax benefits will go to those doing business in the US and they will want to remain a part of the largest and most wealthy market on earth. If they leave…it will open the door for new corporations that stay in the US to fill the vacuum. Markets will always find a way to achieve balance and fill any void. Sadly right now those voids are being filled by service jobs at McDonald’s.

You got to be creative and willing to play hardball with corporate interests. Not to mention….think outside the box on how you can persuade them to play the game by the rules.
__________________
"For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for wholeness and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jeremiah 29:11 (English Standard Version)
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 01-04-2008, 01:35 PM
ChristopherHall's Avatar
ChristopherHall ChristopherHall is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,781
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferd View Post
Taxing corporations, is just adding a hidden tax to the people who purchase the goods and services provided by the corporations.

what a silly idea.
Only lay heavy taxes on the purchase of goods produced overseas. Make it hurt to sell things to Americans. Also this will use market forces to convince Americans to...buy American instead of committing treason with their wallets.
__________________
"For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for wholeness and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jeremiah 29:11 (English Standard Version)
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 01-04-2008, 01:39 PM
ChristopherHall's Avatar
ChristopherHall ChristopherHall is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,781
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferd View Post
ChrisHall, i have no idea why you call yourself a moderate.
Personal jab? lol

Remember...what I've said before; I'm expecting a tidal wave of personal attacks from my brothers for disagreeing politically. But that doesn't sway me. Reaganomics is a dismal failure and Americans know it. That's why economic progressives won on both sides in Iowa. If a conservative holding to trickledown economics gets the nomination for the R's...it's a sure win for the Democrats. Guys, Reaganomics is on the way out. Like a fad diet, it didn't work like they expected it to and now it's on the way out. Time to try a new theory.
__________________
"For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for wholeness and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jeremiah 29:11 (English Standard Version)
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 01-04-2008, 01:49 PM
deltaguitar's Avatar
deltaguitar deltaguitar is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Flower Mound, Tx
Posts: 2,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristopherHall View Post
Personal jab? lol

Remember...what I've said before; I'm expecting a tidal wave of personal attacks from my brothers for disagreeing politically. But that doesn't sway me. Reaganomics is a dismal failure and Americans know it. That's why economic progressives won on both sides in Iowa. If a conservative holding to trickledown economics gets the nomination for the R's...it's a sure win for the Democrats. Guys, Reaganomics is on the way out. Like a fad diet, it didn't work like they expected it to and now it's on the way out. Time to try a new theory.
OMG!!! The whole theory is that people know what to do with their money better that the Federal Government. As you free up the supply of money it will be better used for growth. Lets get the government out of our lives and then we will really see the economy grow. These corporations are leaving because they can't compete in large part because of government regulation.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Look Out---Mike Huckabee is on the Rise! deacon blues The Newsroom 6 01-04-2008 07:39 PM
The UPC is gaining ministers! ChicagoPastor Fellowship Hall 64 10-09-2007 01:24 PM
Huckabee answers question on evolution vrblackwell Fellowship Hall 10 06-11-2007 02:35 PM

 
User Infomation
Your Avatar

Latest Threads
- by Salome
- by Esaias
- by n david
- by mfblume

Help Support AFF!

Advertisement




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.