What will the Democrats do? — Page 2

That's just silly scare tactics. She's not going to pull her money because she has to pay taxes on it.

If I have to pay taxes, she has to pay taxes. That's the American way.

---

It's a silly argument.

---

Let's go back to Auggie's point for a minute. I happen to agree with him...Hillary is not electable. Maybe on the coast she'll get the votes, but I don't see it happening anywhere else.

After watching the debate the other night, I had a sinking feeling that we (the non-Republicans...) are in deep trouble. I have issues with Hillary, but would vote for her if push came to shove. I like Obama, but I'm not sure I see him as presidential yet. I think he'll get nailed on the "experience" factor. And Edwards...eh. And is it my imagination, or has Kucinich traveled even farther down the New Age path. Lordy.

---

Why do you want to punish your own investment profit just so the government can pocket more of her money?

ETA: If your love for America is judged by how much you pay in taxes, the Waltons (and any other business owner, small or large) have paid out more in taxes over the years than you as a W2 employee ever will.

Updated On: 7/25/07 at 12:51 PM

"So Goth why do you think Helen Walton shouldn't pay taxes? I don't think there should be off-shore shelters, either by the way."

I never said she shouldn't pay taxes. I'm saying if you soak it to the rich too much, they have other options that are perfectly legal. The idea is to keep the money in the US economy rather than in the European Union or Japanese economy.

And you liberals who are whining about the "rich" need to understand that if you elect any of your candidates, you are going to be taxed a whole lot more. The US has a small tax bill compared to other countries that have huge tax bills.

---

"LOOK I NEVER SAID "SOAK THE RICH"- I never said to 'punish' investment profit. Fair share. That's all."

Democrats seem to have a problem. You hear it in Hillary's rhetoric and you hear it in Obama's rhetoric and you hear it in Silky Pony's rhetoric. It's the term "fair". But "fair" really can't be defined, can it? What is "fair" to you, is not "fair" to other people.

---

"If we could agree that 'fair' was defined as 15% (or whatever number balances the budget), would everyone agree to removing all the loopholes and having EVERYONE pay 15% of ALL their income? If not, how do you define 'fair'?"

I think that the flat tax that Republicans have been talking about is a good place to start. Unfortunately, the Dems keep fighting it. I guess they like the fact that the IRS keeps tabs on everyone.

Part of the problem is that Democrats don't want to work for fair taxes. People like Hillary want a socialist (I'd say communist) society where all your money goes to the government and the government decides how all money is spent.

An example of the Dem disagreement was when Bush tried to reform Social Security. His plan would have allowed people like me who wanted to invest in stocks and get a better return to do so. The Dems won't be satisfied until they have their hands on 100% of everyone's money.

---

you hear it in Silky Pony's rhetoric"

I haven't got the slightest idea about whom you are referring.

Why do conservatives think it BOLSTERS their arguments to make up schoolyard epithets for their opponents? It just makes you look childish--and in a case like this, only listeners of Rush Limberger, Man Coulter and Sean Tinymeat and Mark Le-Whiner know who the hell you're talking about.

---

And Goth I think I've said in every post on the subject: "FAIR" is the same percentage paid by working people. Not Zero. Zero percent is NOT FAIR. 100% would be NOT FAIR. (That's why no one- EVER has proposed that, despite your contention that "ALL democrats" say it.)

And AMEN PJ! I am so sick of the thrid grade namecalling. Who likes that? I hate it when either side resorts to it.

Johnboy I hate to correct you, but the expression is "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

And that is straight from the horses....erm...mouth.

Slightly off topic, but am I the only one who hears Julie Andrew's voice singing "what will the Democrats do" a la "what do the simple folk do" from Camelot every time I read this thread title?

Back to the debate...

i have a feeling that the breck girl thinks he's got the inside track to the all important netroots vote (remember how well that worked out for howlin' howie) over both the carpet bagger and o-bama-lama-ding-dong. the environmentalator is not gonna run, pj. the mouth won't make it past the third primary. the angry elf may not even make it to the primary. the sand pounder can barely still make it to debates much less primaries. dodd's so laughable, he doesn't even get a nickname. why is he even still pretending? i see senor wences as the vp for whoever gets the nod.

---