And some of the moon-bats would vote for him again. Please, Please, Please make him the DNC nomination.

I’m happy to pay my taxes if it means my kids get to go to good schools and our country is safe.

Since 1986, FICA has been hijacked to drain $1.8 trillion from working people (and $400M more every day) above and beyond what is needed to pay for SS and Medicare. This money is stolen. That is, it is placed in a ‘trust fund’ that ‘loans’ money to the rest of the government. But since the borrowing is not counted as part of the deficit, the debt is not acknowledged. Thus the arrangement is indistinguishable from a regressive income tax that shifts another 25-30% of the general fund expenses (e.g., Iraq, interest payments) off of wealth taxes and onto wage taxes.

Thus the $1.8 trillion trust fund is only a moral obligation, but the obligation is not recognized or accepted by those with sufficient wealth to make good on it. Gore tried to crystallize political support for the trust fund with his ‘lockbox’, but that did not take.
We have no way to pay for boomer SS and Medicare needs, except general operating revenues (e.g., carbon tax revenues).

The trust fund system, while rational in an ideal world, is not politically practical in our country today. I would rather eliminate the FICA trust fund system than see it abused to steal $400M per day from working people. Moynihan, one of the architects of the trust fund system, came to the same conclusion in the late 1990s: that Greenspan and his ilk had abused his idealism and duped him into accepting a regressive tax system in this country, disguised as a social program.

Not really. You actually think there ever would be ‘no pollution’? Never taken chemistry have you?

Besides, the brilliant part of being a progressive is that if you see that pollution has decreased, and therefore your revenues, then you once again review and amend your policy… Welcome to real logic.

.
Wow… did you think that up all by yourself? Einstein, aside from the cliche and typos, you still have NOTHING.

I bet you’re just 4 letters away from getting banned…

I’m actually with you on post post #163. Quite frankly, I think the gov’t is entirely too involved in telling folks how to live their lives.

For example, if someone wants to sit at home and spend their days taking bong hits or injecting meth, that’s their choice. The gov’t should only step in when that person, say, gets behind the wheel of a car.

I haven’t fully committed to drug legalization, but I’m definitely leaning that direction in the same way you state. However, by the same token of that person making their choice, I believe the consequences are their responsibility. I certainly don’t advocate letting such a druggie starve to death or die of an OD when a simple adrenaline stab to the heart (!!!) might save him. But I cannot justify having the government provide ANY comforts because he chooses not to attain them for himself.

As a smoker, I have zero issues with ordinances that tell me where I can or cannot smoke. Why? Because my rights end where someone else’s begins.

Even as a non-smoker I was a little leery of my town’s anti-smoking ordinance. I definitely believe my rights end where another’s begins, but I felt that such an ordinance was denying proprietors their right to allow otherwise legal activities in their establishment. Like drug laws, I’m not incredibly passionate about smoking ordinances (probably because I personally benefit from them), but am still a little uneasy about the higher implications regarding personal rights.

…
What I find truly depressing is that our country has always been ran by individuals bent on furthering their own gains (and most of them have been rich white males) rather than looking out for the rest of us. Sure, there are exceptions to that rule, but for the most part that’s been the case.

But the current lack of compromise collaboration and competence is ruining this country. Add in a lack of personal accountability, massive corruption, politicians who see winning as the one and only goal, and leadership that demands total loyalty above all else, and it’s no wonder that we’re heading down the road to utter disaster.
…

This is pretty much exactly why libertarians prefer small government. We don’t trust human nature enough to give a small group of humans enough power to ruin our lives in so many ways. Pretty much all humans are corruptable. We can’t expect an entire Congress of Ghandis to keep our best interests in mind.

Even a libertarian model government has powers that can harm its people (military, currency, etc.), but those are powers that simply wouldn’t exist if pushed to the individual level. If each person were individually responsible for the defense of the country, or if each family (or even town) had their own currency, society couldn’t function at all. There would probably be enough bickering about those few government powers to keep a Congress busy at least half-time.

Why is this even in question?
Why isn’t it part of the Democrat Agenda?

There is no better way to Lower Taxes for the Poor.

Can ANYONE explain why the Democrats don’t push for this???