If I was elected President of the United States I would enact the Death Penalty in every state!
If you take someone elses life, your life should be over, period! The person you killed is gone, dead, the lives of everyone around that person are now shattered, you took away someones friend, father, mother, son, daughter and so on. There should be no sitting around on death row for thirty years filing appeal after appeal.
We have enough murderers in this country now, once someone has killed someone do you really think they're not capable of murdering again? We live in a retarded nation where people actually think that the death penalty is "cruel and unusual punishment". How do we let murderers live that take children and light them on fire with gasoline and watch them burn, or sodomize and rape them first? How do we let mass murders live that first torture their victims and then cut them up into pieces or smash their heads in with a rock just to see their brains spill out? Is this compassion, if it is, who is it compassion for?
We let these people live, why? Not only do we let them live on death row for 20 years, we pay for them too, yeah its free for them! Some murderers we acutually let go free into society so they can cut someones throat again! The average sentence for someone convicted of murder is twenty years. The average time spent in jail for a convicted murderer before being released is around 8.5 years. These numbers mean that most murderers do receive parole and go back into society.
I dont get it someone takes another life and they're let free in 8.5 years, they torture and kill someone and 8.5 years is good enough?
No wonder their are so many murders in this country, they know they can get away with it and they will be free, there is no consequences! I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that if criminals knew that if they took a life, their life was over, they would be put to death immediately, murder rates in this country would plummet! I have met a few people in my life time that have taken another life that are walking around free, I think this is ludicris! Who wants to live in fear?
Violent crimes and murders in this country need real punishments, the criminals need to fear real consequences for their actions, not a slap on the wrist! Do you know that our prison systems are so full, that criminals serve shorter sentences just to make room for the next guy, WOW is that assinign! Here is a quote from a press release... " Almost 90 percent of the people now in Florida’s prisons will one day be released. Within three years of release, approximately one third will return to the Florida prison system for committing a new crime".
Link to the site
http://www.dc.state.fl.us/secretary/press/2007/mission2.html
If you vote for me for President of the United States in 2008 I will make a vow to lesson the number of crimes and murders in this country by making laws that the criminals and murderers will FEAR!!!! I would put to death all the current Death row inmates at once, THINK THAT WOULD SEND A MESSAGE????
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Friday, February 15, 2008
Here is a great Article I found regarding legalizing Prostitution
Margo St. James, a former social worker and a leading advocate of legalizing prostitution, writes:
Legalize Prostitution
In many communities throughout the U.S., the police investigate and arrest persons involved in prostitution. A careful examination of this practice shows that it reduces the quality of life in society.
Legalization improves neighborhoods and promotes safety
By forcing prostitution out of places where it would more naturally be found, such as in brothels or near motels, the police drive that activity into the streets of neighborhoods where it otherwise would not exist. As a result, residents of the neighborhoods are exposed to the activity against their will.
Also because of prostitution being forced into the streets, the dangers to many prostitutes greatly increase. Prostitutes whose jobs involve working at night and getting into cars with strangers can be, and often have been, easy pickings for serial killers and other sociopaths. James Alan Fox, a criminal justice professor at Northeastern University, says prostitutes are the most frequent targets for serial killers.
A sensible solution to these problems would be to follow the example of some European cities, where prostitution is allowed in certain designated areas. People who are interested in the activity go to places where it's permitted, and they leave alone the neighborhoods that don't wish to be associated with it. And the prostitutes can work in environments where they are much safer.
Legalization reduces crime
Another problem with prostitution arrests is that they cause long-term increases in crime and drug abuse in society. Margo St. James, a former social worker and a leading advocate of legalizing prostitution, writes: "When a woman is charged for a sex crime, it's a stigma that lasts her lifetime, and it makes her unemployable."
St. James identifies this stigma as a major reason why a large percentage of women who are in jail were first arrested for prostitution. The arrest record forecloses normal employment possibilities, keeps the women working as prostitutes longer than they otherwise would, and sets them up for a lifetime of involvement with drugs and serious crime.
Keeping prostitution illegal also contributes to crime because many criminals view prostitutes and their customers as attractive targets for robbery, fraud, rape, or other criminal acts. The criminals realize that such people are unlikely to report the crimes to police, because the victims would have to admit they were involved in the illegal activity of prostitution when the attacks took place.
If prostitution were legal, these victims would be less reluctant to report to police any criminal acts that occurred while they were involved in it. This would significantly improve the probability of catching the criminals and preventing them from victimizing others. In many cases, it could deter them from committing the crimes in the first place.
That view is consistent with the experience of the European countries where prostitution is legal. They have far lower crime rates than the U.S.
A similar situation applies in the Nevada counties where prostitution is legal. According to Barb Brents and Kate Hausbeck, two professors of sociology at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas who have extensively studied the Nevada brothel industry, those counties are quite peaceable and have very low crime rates.
No wonder that in November 2004 in Churchill County, Nevada, a ballot proposal to outlaw prostitution was rejected by a 2-to-1 margin. Although the county is mostly Republican and supported George W. Bush for president, the same voters saw no reason to stop brothels from operating there.
Legalization promotes liberty and privacy
Laws against prostitution violate Americans' fundamental rights of individual liberty and personal privacy. Thomas Jefferson and other founders of the U.S. envisioned a society where people can live without interference from government, provided they don't harm others.
As Jefferson said in his First Inaugural Address: "A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement." Or as Arthur Hoppe wrote about consensual acts in the San Francisco Chronicle in 1992: "The function of government is to protect me from others. It's up to me, thank you, to protect me from me."
Similar to issues such as birth control, abortion, and the right to death with dignity, this issue involves people's fundamental rights to control their own bodies and decide the best way to conduct their lives. Alan Soble noted, "The freedom to choose one's reasons for engaging in sex is an important part of sexual freedom."
In a free society, it makes no sense for the government to be telling persons - particularly the poor - they cannot charge a fee for harmless services they otherwise are at liberty to give away. To paraphrase George Carlin: Selling is legal, and sex is legal, so why isn't selling sex legal?
Legalization benefits sex workers and their clientsMany people work in the sex industry because they see it as their only means of alleviating serious financial problems. Other sex workers aren't poor but simply enjoy that type of work and receive both income and personal satisfaction from it.
As one sex worker wrote in an article for a national newspaper: "All in all prostitution has been good to me and I have been good to it. . . . I don't really have to work anymore, but I love the business, so I still see my regular clients."
Likewise for the customers, there's no reason their freedom should not include the right to purchase the companionship and affection they may want but, for whatever reason, don't find in other aspects of their lives.
For example, one disabled man told researchers he was lonely and visited prostitutes because "I'm ugly, no women will go out with me. . . . It's because of my disability. So prostitutes are a sexual outlet for me." Another man reported that he did the same for a number of years due to being "anorexic and very reclusive. There was no chance of forming a relationship." A physically unattractive man added, "I pay for sex because that is the only way I can get sex."
Another person said his experiences with prostitutes and other sex workers helped him overcome an extreme aversion to physical intimacy, which had resulted from years of physical and emotional abuse while growing up. He explained: "I very likely would have died a virgin if I hadn't somehow gotten comfortable with physical intimacy, and sex workers enabled me to do that. At least for me, it's been a healing experience."
Dr. John Money, a leading sexologist and a professor at Johns Hopkins University, similarly notes that sex workers, with proper training, can assist clients in overcoming "erotic phobia" and various other sexual dysfunctions. He says that for the clients, "the relationship with a paid professional may be the equivalent of therapy."
Can anyone, other than the ignorant or cruel, argue that sex workers should not be permitted to help such persons?
Legalization puts law-enforcement resources to better uses
Numerous legal commentators point out that using law enforcement resources against prostitution reduces substantially the resources available to fight serious crimes committed against persons or property. This nation desperately needs more efforts applied to solving those crimes, because arrests are being made in connection with only about 20% of them.
And according to the Multinational Monitor, massive amounts of white-collar crime are not being prosecuted. The magazine also says the damage inflicted on society by corporate crime and violence far exceeds the harm caused by all the street crime combined. The victims of the Enron and WorldCom scandals - many of whom lost their life savings - would probably support that claim.
As Ralph Nader stated in 2000: "Law enforcement, which is supposed to protect the incomes of consumers from corporate crime, fraud and abuse is a farce, devoid of resources and the will to apply necessary law and order. Hundreds of billions of dollars are being looted from consumers yearly."
Some researchers say a reason for the inordinate amount of police attention to prostitution is that certain officers prefer duties enabling them to be with attractive women in hotel rooms or massage parlors. The duties are more pleasant, far less dangerous, and less complex than assignments requiring them to be among violent criminals who may be carrying weapons.
For instance, in 1999 at least one of the vice-squad officers in Columbus, Ohio, was regularly having sexual intercourse with prostitutes before arresting them.
After receiving negative publicity about that practice, the police division issued new guidelines limiting officers to getting completely naked with prostitutes; touching their thigh, genitals, buttock, pubic region, breast, or other regions to the extent needed "to obtain the necessary elements of the offense"; being masturbated briefly; and "momentarily" having sexual intercourse if it's "in spite of all reasonable efforts of the officer to stop." (In practice, though, the officers apparently find it necessary to use those tactics only in arresting female - not male - prostitutes.)
Because of these "requirements of their assignments," the policy directs that officers receive periodic training on sexually transmitted diseases.Despite the revised guidelines, in 2003 the Columbus Dispatch quoted one court clerk as describing the officers' arrest reports as sometimes being so steamy she "should have a cigarette after reading it." The head of the vice squad acknowledged to the newspaper that "it appears officers are engaging in sexual contact."
His officers give new meaning to being "in hot pursuit." Unfortunately for the public, this nonsense goes on at the same time that Columbus has over 400 unsolved murders since 1990, including several prostitutes brutally murdered by a possible serial killer. When a frightened group of senior citizens and disabled persons asked in 2004 for more protection from violent crime, the Columbus police chief turned them down, saying, "Seventy-eight times a day we are unable to fill a cruiser because of lack of personnel."
As for white-collar crime, the police undoubtedly know that their jobs and careers are safer by making prostitution arrests than by investigating criminals who cause serious harm but either wield political power or have strong connections to those who do. And when the corruption involves others in the police force, the notorious "Blue Wall of Silence" leads all too many officers to ignore and protect the wrongdoing of badge-wearing criminals too.
Conclusion
Our society would be better served if the police directed their efforts away from the activities of consenting adults and toward preventing and solving real crimes involving clear victims and injustices.
Here is a link to the site..
http://www.humanismbyjoe.com/prostitution.htm
Legalize Prostitution
In many communities throughout the U.S., the police investigate and arrest persons involved in prostitution. A careful examination of this practice shows that it reduces the quality of life in society.
Legalization improves neighborhoods and promotes safety
By forcing prostitution out of places where it would more naturally be found, such as in brothels or near motels, the police drive that activity into the streets of neighborhoods where it otherwise would not exist. As a result, residents of the neighborhoods are exposed to the activity against their will.
Also because of prostitution being forced into the streets, the dangers to many prostitutes greatly increase. Prostitutes whose jobs involve working at night and getting into cars with strangers can be, and often have been, easy pickings for serial killers and other sociopaths. James Alan Fox, a criminal justice professor at Northeastern University, says prostitutes are the most frequent targets for serial killers.
A sensible solution to these problems would be to follow the example of some European cities, where prostitution is allowed in certain designated areas. People who are interested in the activity go to places where it's permitted, and they leave alone the neighborhoods that don't wish to be associated with it. And the prostitutes can work in environments where they are much safer.
Legalization reduces crime
Another problem with prostitution arrests is that they cause long-term increases in crime and drug abuse in society. Margo St. James, a former social worker and a leading advocate of legalizing prostitution, writes: "When a woman is charged for a sex crime, it's a stigma that lasts her lifetime, and it makes her unemployable."
St. James identifies this stigma as a major reason why a large percentage of women who are in jail were first arrested for prostitution. The arrest record forecloses normal employment possibilities, keeps the women working as prostitutes longer than they otherwise would, and sets them up for a lifetime of involvement with drugs and serious crime.
Keeping prostitution illegal also contributes to crime because many criminals view prostitutes and their customers as attractive targets for robbery, fraud, rape, or other criminal acts. The criminals realize that such people are unlikely to report the crimes to police, because the victims would have to admit they were involved in the illegal activity of prostitution when the attacks took place.
If prostitution were legal, these victims would be less reluctant to report to police any criminal acts that occurred while they were involved in it. This would significantly improve the probability of catching the criminals and preventing them from victimizing others. In many cases, it could deter them from committing the crimes in the first place.
That view is consistent with the experience of the European countries where prostitution is legal. They have far lower crime rates than the U.S.
A similar situation applies in the Nevada counties where prostitution is legal. According to Barb Brents and Kate Hausbeck, two professors of sociology at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas who have extensively studied the Nevada brothel industry, those counties are quite peaceable and have very low crime rates.
No wonder that in November 2004 in Churchill County, Nevada, a ballot proposal to outlaw prostitution was rejected by a 2-to-1 margin. Although the county is mostly Republican and supported George W. Bush for president, the same voters saw no reason to stop brothels from operating there.
Legalization promotes liberty and privacy
Laws against prostitution violate Americans' fundamental rights of individual liberty and personal privacy. Thomas Jefferson and other founders of the U.S. envisioned a society where people can live without interference from government, provided they don't harm others.
As Jefferson said in his First Inaugural Address: "A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement." Or as Arthur Hoppe wrote about consensual acts in the San Francisco Chronicle in 1992: "The function of government is to protect me from others. It's up to me, thank you, to protect me from me."
Similar to issues such as birth control, abortion, and the right to death with dignity, this issue involves people's fundamental rights to control their own bodies and decide the best way to conduct their lives. Alan Soble noted, "The freedom to choose one's reasons for engaging in sex is an important part of sexual freedom."
In a free society, it makes no sense for the government to be telling persons - particularly the poor - they cannot charge a fee for harmless services they otherwise are at liberty to give away. To paraphrase George Carlin: Selling is legal, and sex is legal, so why isn't selling sex legal?
Legalization benefits sex workers and their clientsMany people work in the sex industry because they see it as their only means of alleviating serious financial problems. Other sex workers aren't poor but simply enjoy that type of work and receive both income and personal satisfaction from it.
As one sex worker wrote in an article for a national newspaper: "All in all prostitution has been good to me and I have been good to it. . . . I don't really have to work anymore, but I love the business, so I still see my regular clients."
Likewise for the customers, there's no reason their freedom should not include the right to purchase the companionship and affection they may want but, for whatever reason, don't find in other aspects of their lives.
For example, one disabled man told researchers he was lonely and visited prostitutes because "I'm ugly, no women will go out with me. . . . It's because of my disability. So prostitutes are a sexual outlet for me." Another man reported that he did the same for a number of years due to being "anorexic and very reclusive. There was no chance of forming a relationship." A physically unattractive man added, "I pay for sex because that is the only way I can get sex."
Another person said his experiences with prostitutes and other sex workers helped him overcome an extreme aversion to physical intimacy, which had resulted from years of physical and emotional abuse while growing up. He explained: "I very likely would have died a virgin if I hadn't somehow gotten comfortable with physical intimacy, and sex workers enabled me to do that. At least for me, it's been a healing experience."
Dr. John Money, a leading sexologist and a professor at Johns Hopkins University, similarly notes that sex workers, with proper training, can assist clients in overcoming "erotic phobia" and various other sexual dysfunctions. He says that for the clients, "the relationship with a paid professional may be the equivalent of therapy."
Can anyone, other than the ignorant or cruel, argue that sex workers should not be permitted to help such persons?
Legalization puts law-enforcement resources to better uses
Numerous legal commentators point out that using law enforcement resources against prostitution reduces substantially the resources available to fight serious crimes committed against persons or property. This nation desperately needs more efforts applied to solving those crimes, because arrests are being made in connection with only about 20% of them.
And according to the Multinational Monitor, massive amounts of white-collar crime are not being prosecuted. The magazine also says the damage inflicted on society by corporate crime and violence far exceeds the harm caused by all the street crime combined. The victims of the Enron and WorldCom scandals - many of whom lost their life savings - would probably support that claim.
As Ralph Nader stated in 2000: "Law enforcement, which is supposed to protect the incomes of consumers from corporate crime, fraud and abuse is a farce, devoid of resources and the will to apply necessary law and order. Hundreds of billions of dollars are being looted from consumers yearly."
Some researchers say a reason for the inordinate amount of police attention to prostitution is that certain officers prefer duties enabling them to be with attractive women in hotel rooms or massage parlors. The duties are more pleasant, far less dangerous, and less complex than assignments requiring them to be among violent criminals who may be carrying weapons.
For instance, in 1999 at least one of the vice-squad officers in Columbus, Ohio, was regularly having sexual intercourse with prostitutes before arresting them.
After receiving negative publicity about that practice, the police division issued new guidelines limiting officers to getting completely naked with prostitutes; touching their thigh, genitals, buttock, pubic region, breast, or other regions to the extent needed "to obtain the necessary elements of the offense"; being masturbated briefly; and "momentarily" having sexual intercourse if it's "in spite of all reasonable efforts of the officer to stop." (In practice, though, the officers apparently find it necessary to use those tactics only in arresting female - not male - prostitutes.)
Because of these "requirements of their assignments," the policy directs that officers receive periodic training on sexually transmitted diseases.Despite the revised guidelines, in 2003 the Columbus Dispatch quoted one court clerk as describing the officers' arrest reports as sometimes being so steamy she "should have a cigarette after reading it." The head of the vice squad acknowledged to the newspaper that "it appears officers are engaging in sexual contact."
His officers give new meaning to being "in hot pursuit." Unfortunately for the public, this nonsense goes on at the same time that Columbus has over 400 unsolved murders since 1990, including several prostitutes brutally murdered by a possible serial killer. When a frightened group of senior citizens and disabled persons asked in 2004 for more protection from violent crime, the Columbus police chief turned them down, saying, "Seventy-eight times a day we are unable to fill a cruiser because of lack of personnel."
As for white-collar crime, the police undoubtedly know that their jobs and careers are safer by making prostitution arrests than by investigating criminals who cause serious harm but either wield political power or have strong connections to those who do. And when the corruption involves others in the police force, the notorious "Blue Wall of Silence" leads all too many officers to ignore and protect the wrongdoing of badge-wearing criminals too.
Conclusion
Our society would be better served if the police directed their efforts away from the activities of consenting adults and toward preventing and solving real crimes involving clear victims and injustices.
Here is a link to the site..
http://www.humanismbyjoe.com/prostitution.htm
If I was elected president of the United States I would legalize prostitution
If I was elected president of the United States I would legalize prostitution!
Why you may ask?
Well, EVERY employed person in this country sells either their brain or body for money period! I once worked for a furniture company delivering furniture and I was selling my back in exchange for 7.75 cents an hour, I felt like a slave literally. The company I worked for was extremely cheap, they never gave raises or any kind of benefits. Now, the company was profiting greatly and growing by leaps and bounds by exploiting their workers by paying slave wages for extremely hard work! I got hurt on the job many times because of all the awkward lifting that you do delivering funiture. My point is we all sell ourselves everytime we go to work and we risk getting hurt so why cant someone sell themselves for the purpose of providing pleasure? What would be so wrong with that? Prostitution is one of the oldest professions that exist!
Their is and will continue to be prostitution in this country wether it is legal or not, nobody will ever stop it! If it is legalized it gets taken off the streets and it would also get taxed and the tax money could be used to provide for education or maybe to reduce medical insurance premiums. Instead of the government raising our taxes to meet deficits, their would be a completely new industry that allready exist that would provide millions in tax dollars! I would much rather have police stopping murders from taking place and getting killers of the streets, then have them spending their time trying to stop prostitution.
And besides we all have sex don't we, what's the big deal if someone pays somebody for it? Why does paying for sex make it wrong, isnt that like saying thank you, a waitress gets a tip when you like the service she gives you, right?
Why you may ask?
Well, EVERY employed person in this country sells either their brain or body for money period! I once worked for a furniture company delivering furniture and I was selling my back in exchange for 7.75 cents an hour, I felt like a slave literally. The company I worked for was extremely cheap, they never gave raises or any kind of benefits. Now, the company was profiting greatly and growing by leaps and bounds by exploiting their workers by paying slave wages for extremely hard work! I got hurt on the job many times because of all the awkward lifting that you do delivering funiture. My point is we all sell ourselves everytime we go to work and we risk getting hurt so why cant someone sell themselves for the purpose of providing pleasure? What would be so wrong with that? Prostitution is one of the oldest professions that exist!
Their is and will continue to be prostitution in this country wether it is legal or not, nobody will ever stop it! If it is legalized it gets taken off the streets and it would also get taxed and the tax money could be used to provide for education or maybe to reduce medical insurance premiums. Instead of the government raising our taxes to meet deficits, their would be a completely new industry that allready exist that would provide millions in tax dollars! I would much rather have police stopping murders from taking place and getting killers of the streets, then have them spending their time trying to stop prostitution.
And besides we all have sex don't we, what's the big deal if someone pays somebody for it? Why does paying for sex make it wrong, isnt that like saying thank you, a waitress gets a tip when you like the service she gives you, right?
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
If I was elected president of the United States I would......
If I was elected president of the United States I would......
I would change many things as you will read in my blog post everyday. There are many answers to the problems and challenges that face this country. Their is not one magical answer that will solve everything, I believe the changes I would make if I was elected president of the United Sates would start to lead this country in the right direction of growth, prosperity, freedom and peace. The pursuit of the american Dream would once again become a realization and not just a dream for the average person!
The United States is like a great big wheel and if you dont have all the parts the wheel wont roll. The parts must work independently from one another but also together, to keep the wheel on the right path.........I believe I could keep this country rolling and on the right path!!!
Vote For Me in 2008 for President of The United States!
I would change many things as you will read in my blog post everyday. There are many answers to the problems and challenges that face this country. Their is not one magical answer that will solve everything, I believe the changes I would make if I was elected president of the United Sates would start to lead this country in the right direction of growth, prosperity, freedom and peace. The pursuit of the american Dream would once again become a realization and not just a dream for the average person!
The United States is like a great big wheel and if you dont have all the parts the wheel wont roll. The parts must work independently from one another but also together, to keep the wheel on the right path.........I believe I could keep this country rolling and on the right path!!!
Vote For Me in 2008 for President of The United States!
If I was elected president of the United States I would stop sending all of our companies and jobs overseas!
If I was elected president of the United States I would stop sending all of our companies and jobs overseas!
The United States must change its current policies in order to retain its thriving economy and keep our businesses healthy. Working americans is what drives our economy machine, making and spending or investing money. We can not keep pushing American companies to relocate to foreign soil! See we all operate on making a profit wether it be individuals, businesses or huge corporations, at the end of the day we all want to know that we made money and got ahead. Nobody will go to work everyday for free and neither will the corporate giants of america, so if they dont profit they close their plants here and move!
The question is how do we change our current policies to keep american companies located here, knowing today we do live in a world economy where we trade freely with many countries and many of these countries buy our goods and services as well?
I think one possible solution would be to start offering tax break incentives to corporations for keeping their doors open here and offering other incentives for employing american citizens. We need to help companies grow and thrive here in the United States so they will want to stay here!
We need to keep a welcoming business environment that will help companies prosper and keep people employed!
We still need at the same time to keep trade channels open and going because we do live in a world economy and other countries buy our goods and services too, this also helps the US prosper.
One of the other problems that needs immediate attention is corporations are leaving the US and going to places like China and basically using slave labor to produce goods and services that are then sold back to the United States. We need to create policies that will not endorse or enable these kinds of practices! One of the best solutions to this problem of course is keep American companies here by offering incentives and tax breaks and helping them thrive here at home.
Keep Americans Employed!!
The United States must change its current policies in order to retain its thriving economy and keep our businesses healthy. Working americans is what drives our economy machine, making and spending or investing money. We can not keep pushing American companies to relocate to foreign soil! See we all operate on making a profit wether it be individuals, businesses or huge corporations, at the end of the day we all want to know that we made money and got ahead. Nobody will go to work everyday for free and neither will the corporate giants of america, so if they dont profit they close their plants here and move!
The question is how do we change our current policies to keep american companies located here, knowing today we do live in a world economy where we trade freely with many countries and many of these countries buy our goods and services as well?
I think one possible solution would be to start offering tax break incentives to corporations for keeping their doors open here and offering other incentives for employing american citizens. We need to help companies grow and thrive here in the United States so they will want to stay here!
We need to keep a welcoming business environment that will help companies prosper and keep people employed!
We still need at the same time to keep trade channels open and going because we do live in a world economy and other countries buy our goods and services too, this also helps the US prosper.
One of the other problems that needs immediate attention is corporations are leaving the US and going to places like China and basically using slave labor to produce goods and services that are then sold back to the United States. We need to create policies that will not endorse or enable these kinds of practices! One of the best solutions to this problem of course is keep American companies here by offering incentives and tax breaks and helping them thrive here at home.
Keep Americans Employed!!
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
The Truth about Taxes, the Rich, and the Poor
Had to pass on this article I read, enjoy........
The Truth about Taxes, the Rich, and the Poor
October 31st, 2006
For as long as I can remember, allegations and accusations about taxes and the rich and the poor have been a part of every election--well, except the current 2006 election which has not substantively addressed any issue other than Republicans prodding voters to "stay the course" and Democrats prodding voters to vote against Bush.But in a normal election, Democrats inevitably accuse Republicans of promoting tax cuts that benefit primarily the rich, and the slogan "The rich got richer while the poor got poorer" is something that no election can go without. The same arguments are made election after election, so when someone recently made that accusation on a message board, I decided to investigate whether it is really true or if it's just been repeated so much that it's accepted as truth with no supporting evidence.
Do Tax Cuts Benefit Primarily The Rich?In a word, yes. Now before anyone rushes to conclusions, it must fairly be pointed out that the reason the rich benefit most from tax cuts is because the rich are the ones that pay taxes. If I don't buy milk very often, I'm not going to see much benefit if there's a decrease in the price of milk. Likewise, if I don't pay much in taxes, I'm not going to see much benefit if there's a decrease in taxes. That doesn't mean a decrease in the price of milk or a tax cut is a bad thing, it simply means it will only effect those people that buy milk or pay taxes.IRS data shows that in 2004, the richest 50% of the taxpayers paid 96.7% of all income taxes. From 1986 to 2004, the share paid by the richest half increased from 93.5% to 96.7%, and the share paid by the richest 1% increased from 25.75% to 36.89%. At the same time, the amount paid by the poorer half decreased from 6.5% in 1986 to 3.3% in 2004. While the poor's contribution was cut in half, the richest Americans saw their contribution increase by nearly 50%.
When you get past the propaganda, for the last two decades the rich have been paying more and more while the poor have been paying less and less.To put it simply, of the $832 billion in personal income taxes collected in 2004, the richest half of the country paid $804 billion while the poorest half only paid $27.4 billion.Those that make the claim "the tax cuts help the rich" will claim that the reason why the rich paid so much more in taxes is because they made so much more money. There is truth to that, though the progressive nature of the tax code also insures that the rich pay more than they should, proportionally speaking. However, the reason for the rich paying so much more is irrelevant to this discussion: If the "rich" are paying 96.7% of the income taxes and the poor are only paying 3.3%, then it's simply common sense that most of any income tax cut will benefit those that are paying it. You can't reduce taxes on someone who isn't paying any.
Are the poor paying taxes? In 2005, a family of four was considered to be at the poverty level if they earned less than $19,350 . If you complete a 2005 1040 considering an income of $19,350 and four family members, you will find that the standard deduction for the couple is $10,000, and an additional $3200 deduction is given for each of the four family members for an additional $12,800. So, in all, the family earning $19,350 has $22,800 in income deductions which means they pay no federal tax. In fact, a family of four will not pay a single dollar in federal tax until the family earns at least $22,800. Since these people pay no taxes whatsoever, a tax cut will obviously not be of any direct benefit to them since they aren't paying taxes to start with. This doesn't make the tax cut a bad idea, but it stands to reason that it won't directly benefit anyone that isn't paying taxes any more than a price reduction in milk won't help anyone that isn't buying milk.
A tax cut cannot be given to someone who is not paying taxes. The poor do not pay taxes so, by definition, a tax cut won't help them. Saying that "a tax cut favors the rich" is either based on ignorance (given that you can only give a tax cut to someone that pays taxes, and that the "rich" are really the only ones that pay taxes in any substantial manner) or is disingenous (because the person knows this to be true, but makes the accusation anyway). The statement "a tax cut favors the rich" should be reworded "a tax cut favors those that pay taxes." It would be just as accurate but obviously without the class warfare undertones. Unfortunately, those that state "tax cuts favor the rich" are usually hoping for those class warefare undertones, so hoping for them to use the more accurate and less divisive words is probably utopian.Do the Rich get Richer and the Poor Poorer?First, we should agree that there's nothing wrong with the rich getting richer.
It would require a selfish, ignorant, and hateful person to want anyone to get poorer. I might not be rich, but I have no vindictive anger that desires that those who've had better fortune do poorly just because I've not done as well myself. That kind of trite material jealousy is best left in grade school.Second, we should agree that even if the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, the good fortune of the rich is only objectionable if it came at the expense of the poor. It is not honest or useful to complain about some people doing well simply because other people aren't doing as well unless it can be shown that one's success came at the expense of other people's failure.
So what do the numbers say? As usual, the numbers can pretty much say whatever you want them to say. If you check the U.S. Census Bureau , we can see that in 1967 the lowest fifth of wage earners earned 4.0% of the total national income and in 1998 they earned 3.6%--a decrease of 0.4% over 20 years. In the same time, the highest fifth of wage earners went from 17.5% to to 21.4%. Using these numbers, you might make the argument that the rich did indeed get richer while the poor got poorer.However, this is--in and of itself--a shallow argument. It's entirely possible that everyone got richer, but the rich got a larger portion of the new wealth. For example, perhaps the poor earned $100 and the rich earned $1000 while a few years later the poor earned $150 and the rich earned $2000. In this case, even though the poor person is earning 50% more, his share of total income will have dropped from 9.1% to 7.0%. The fact that their share of total income dropped doesn't mean they got poorer.In fact, that's exactly what appears to have happened. Referring to the chart on page 5 of the same link, we see that the top of the lowest fifth bracket went from $13,471 in 1967 to $16,116 in 1998, a growth of 19.6% in real terms. During the same time, the top fifth of wage earners went from a minimum of $53,170 in 1967 to $75,000 in 1998, a growth of 41.1%.
Similar increases can be observed in each of the income brackets.Everyone got richer, but the rich got richer faster.This is hardly surprising. Someone that is rich is going to have more extra money that they can invest which, in turn, creates more money. Money generates money and no-one disputes that being rich is, by definition, a financial advantage in a capitalistic society. Short of draconian wealth redistribution, this will always be the case. However, the macro-economic data from 1967 to 1998 does not support the assertion that the rich got richer and the poor got poorer.
The data supports the position that everyone got richer. While there may be year to year variations in a negative direction, the long-term trend is that all Americans are getting richer.ConclusionAs has been shown above, the claim that "tax cuts benefit the rich" is true inasmuch as the rich are the ones that pay taxes in the first place. The statement is true but could be more accurately (and less divisively) stated as "tax cuts benefit those who pay taxes." The assertion that the rich have gotten richer while the poor have gotten poorer is patently false and is simply not supported by the evidence.I hope readers will keep this in mind as they evaluate the current and future assertions made by politicians.
Here is a link to the site
http://www.letxa.com/articles/9
The Truth about Taxes, the Rich, and the Poor
October 31st, 2006
For as long as I can remember, allegations and accusations about taxes and the rich and the poor have been a part of every election--well, except the current 2006 election which has not substantively addressed any issue other than Republicans prodding voters to "stay the course" and Democrats prodding voters to vote against Bush.But in a normal election, Democrats inevitably accuse Republicans of promoting tax cuts that benefit primarily the rich, and the slogan "The rich got richer while the poor got poorer" is something that no election can go without. The same arguments are made election after election, so when someone recently made that accusation on a message board, I decided to investigate whether it is really true or if it's just been repeated so much that it's accepted as truth with no supporting evidence.
Do Tax Cuts Benefit Primarily The Rich?In a word, yes. Now before anyone rushes to conclusions, it must fairly be pointed out that the reason the rich benefit most from tax cuts is because the rich are the ones that pay taxes. If I don't buy milk very often, I'm not going to see much benefit if there's a decrease in the price of milk. Likewise, if I don't pay much in taxes, I'm not going to see much benefit if there's a decrease in taxes. That doesn't mean a decrease in the price of milk or a tax cut is a bad thing, it simply means it will only effect those people that buy milk or pay taxes.IRS data shows that in 2004, the richest 50% of the taxpayers paid 96.7% of all income taxes. From 1986 to 2004, the share paid by the richest half increased from 93.5% to 96.7%, and the share paid by the richest 1% increased from 25.75% to 36.89%. At the same time, the amount paid by the poorer half decreased from 6.5% in 1986 to 3.3% in 2004. While the poor's contribution was cut in half, the richest Americans saw their contribution increase by nearly 50%.
When you get past the propaganda, for the last two decades the rich have been paying more and more while the poor have been paying less and less.To put it simply, of the $832 billion in personal income taxes collected in 2004, the richest half of the country paid $804 billion while the poorest half only paid $27.4 billion.Those that make the claim "the tax cuts help the rich" will claim that the reason why the rich paid so much more in taxes is because they made so much more money. There is truth to that, though the progressive nature of the tax code also insures that the rich pay more than they should, proportionally speaking. However, the reason for the rich paying so much more is irrelevant to this discussion: If the "rich" are paying 96.7% of the income taxes and the poor are only paying 3.3%, then it's simply common sense that most of any income tax cut will benefit those that are paying it. You can't reduce taxes on someone who isn't paying any.
Are the poor paying taxes? In 2005, a family of four was considered to be at the poverty level if they earned less than $19,350 . If you complete a 2005 1040 considering an income of $19,350 and four family members, you will find that the standard deduction for the couple is $10,000, and an additional $3200 deduction is given for each of the four family members for an additional $12,800. So, in all, the family earning $19,350 has $22,800 in income deductions which means they pay no federal tax. In fact, a family of four will not pay a single dollar in federal tax until the family earns at least $22,800. Since these people pay no taxes whatsoever, a tax cut will obviously not be of any direct benefit to them since they aren't paying taxes to start with. This doesn't make the tax cut a bad idea, but it stands to reason that it won't directly benefit anyone that isn't paying taxes any more than a price reduction in milk won't help anyone that isn't buying milk.
A tax cut cannot be given to someone who is not paying taxes. The poor do not pay taxes so, by definition, a tax cut won't help them. Saying that "a tax cut favors the rich" is either based on ignorance (given that you can only give a tax cut to someone that pays taxes, and that the "rich" are really the only ones that pay taxes in any substantial manner) or is disingenous (because the person knows this to be true, but makes the accusation anyway). The statement "a tax cut favors the rich" should be reworded "a tax cut favors those that pay taxes." It would be just as accurate but obviously without the class warfare undertones. Unfortunately, those that state "tax cuts favor the rich" are usually hoping for those class warefare undertones, so hoping for them to use the more accurate and less divisive words is probably utopian.Do the Rich get Richer and the Poor Poorer?First, we should agree that there's nothing wrong with the rich getting richer.
It would require a selfish, ignorant, and hateful person to want anyone to get poorer. I might not be rich, but I have no vindictive anger that desires that those who've had better fortune do poorly just because I've not done as well myself. That kind of trite material jealousy is best left in grade school.Second, we should agree that even if the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, the good fortune of the rich is only objectionable if it came at the expense of the poor. It is not honest or useful to complain about some people doing well simply because other people aren't doing as well unless it can be shown that one's success came at the expense of other people's failure.
So what do the numbers say? As usual, the numbers can pretty much say whatever you want them to say. If you check the U.S. Census Bureau , we can see that in 1967 the lowest fifth of wage earners earned 4.0% of the total national income and in 1998 they earned 3.6%--a decrease of 0.4% over 20 years. In the same time, the highest fifth of wage earners went from 17.5% to to 21.4%. Using these numbers, you might make the argument that the rich did indeed get richer while the poor got poorer.However, this is--in and of itself--a shallow argument. It's entirely possible that everyone got richer, but the rich got a larger portion of the new wealth. For example, perhaps the poor earned $100 and the rich earned $1000 while a few years later the poor earned $150 and the rich earned $2000. In this case, even though the poor person is earning 50% more, his share of total income will have dropped from 9.1% to 7.0%. The fact that their share of total income dropped doesn't mean they got poorer.In fact, that's exactly what appears to have happened. Referring to the chart on page 5 of the same link, we see that the top of the lowest fifth bracket went from $13,471 in 1967 to $16,116 in 1998, a growth of 19.6% in real terms. During the same time, the top fifth of wage earners went from a minimum of $53,170 in 1967 to $75,000 in 1998, a growth of 41.1%.
Similar increases can be observed in each of the income brackets.Everyone got richer, but the rich got richer faster.This is hardly surprising. Someone that is rich is going to have more extra money that they can invest which, in turn, creates more money. Money generates money and no-one disputes that being rich is, by definition, a financial advantage in a capitalistic society. Short of draconian wealth redistribution, this will always be the case. However, the macro-economic data from 1967 to 1998 does not support the assertion that the rich got richer and the poor got poorer.
The data supports the position that everyone got richer. While there may be year to year variations in a negative direction, the long-term trend is that all Americans are getting richer.ConclusionAs has been shown above, the claim that "tax cuts benefit the rich" is true inasmuch as the rich are the ones that pay taxes in the first place. The statement is true but could be more accurately (and less divisively) stated as "tax cuts benefit those who pay taxes." The assertion that the rich have gotten richer while the poor have gotten poorer is patently false and is simply not supported by the evidence.I hope readers will keep this in mind as they evaluate the current and future assertions made by politicians.
Here is a link to the site
http://www.letxa.com/articles/9
If I was elected president I would end the current tax system the way it is now
If I was elected president I would end the current income tax system the way it is now!
Why you may ask???
Well, I have been both poor and well off and I have experienced both ends of the spectrum when it comes to paying income taxes. I also have been employed by someone else as well as employed other people and have prepared taxes for many people over the years. The current tax system is extremely unfair !
The myth is the poor and middle class pay the majority of taxes in this country and let me tell you this is by no means true in any way shape or form it is an out right lie!!!! While reading this, lets be honest and see if you can relate to or remember any of these circumstances you may have been in or know of when it comes to paying taxes.
Who are the poor, lets start with the extreme? How many homeless people do you know who pay some if any income taxes? How about people who are solely on social security? What about people on welfare or some other form of government assistance, do they pay taxes? Now lets talk about anyone with children that makes less than 35,000 a year, most of the people who fall into this category qualify for what is called earned income credit and working family credit and usually get a huge tax refund at the end of the year. How can you consider them paying taxes when their refund is usually two to three times larger than the amount they paid in? Most working familes with children that fall in the income bracket between 35,000 and 60,000 a year also either receive a refund or pay very little at the end of the year when it is all said and done. I would also like to point out that most of these people in these circumstances are receivers of programs that are paid for by people who actually pay taxes!
Over seventy percent of the population falls into one of these categories, so who is paying all the taxes in this country? Well, single people who dont have children because they dont have as many tax breaks or credits, and people who make over 60,000 a year. The further people climb in income the more they pay in taxes. Think of it this way : less than four dollars out of every $100 paid in income taxes in the United States is paid by someone in the bottom 50% of wage earners, the Top 5% pay 53.25% of all income taxes (Down from 2000 figure: 56.47%). The top 10% pay 64.89% (Down from 2000 figure: 67.33%). The top 25% pay 82.9% (Down from 2000 figure: 84.01%). The top 50% pay 96.03% (Down from 2000 figure: 96.09%). The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.97% of all income taxes. The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%!
I worked in the furniture business for some time and you know what is amazing, is at tax refund time people on welfare and the working poor came in by the hoards and would buy thousands of dollars worth of brand new furniture because they got their huge refund checks from the government!
We never at tax time had an incline in people making 60,000 or more only a decline when tax season hits? I worked with this guy once who kept grumbling over and over "the poor pay all the taxes and the rich get all the breaks" so I asked him some simple questions, how much do you make ? 17,000 a year he said, I said okay how many exemptions durring the year do you claim? He said 5, I said how much do you get taken out every paycheck for taxes? He said nothing, I said how much of a refund did you get this year? He said about 56oo hundred dollars! So I asked him do you consider your self poor? He said yes, I said why didnt you pay any taxes then? He never answered and never grumbled again about who pays taxes.....
I think the tax burden in this country should not have to be on the shoulders of just a few just because they worked harder and learned to make more money"alot of these people created businesses and gave people jobs" why should they carry the majority of the burden when they created most of the jobs in this country? Everyone should share the tax burden in this country, if everyone paid at least a little it would make the whole system alot simpler and alot easier for everyone and would stimulate the economy! Do you know how many peole would get off their butts and try to better themselves if they werent waiting every year to collect their big refund check, to alot of these people its like winning the lottery every year! I was poor to I remember what it was like.............
Why you may ask???
Well, I have been both poor and well off and I have experienced both ends of the spectrum when it comes to paying income taxes. I also have been employed by someone else as well as employed other people and have prepared taxes for many people over the years. The current tax system is extremely unfair !
The myth is the poor and middle class pay the majority of taxes in this country and let me tell you this is by no means true in any way shape or form it is an out right lie!!!! While reading this, lets be honest and see if you can relate to or remember any of these circumstances you may have been in or know of when it comes to paying taxes.
Who are the poor, lets start with the extreme? How many homeless people do you know who pay some if any income taxes? How about people who are solely on social security? What about people on welfare or some other form of government assistance, do they pay taxes? Now lets talk about anyone with children that makes less than 35,000 a year, most of the people who fall into this category qualify for what is called earned income credit and working family credit and usually get a huge tax refund at the end of the year. How can you consider them paying taxes when their refund is usually two to three times larger than the amount they paid in? Most working familes with children that fall in the income bracket between 35,000 and 60,000 a year also either receive a refund or pay very little at the end of the year when it is all said and done. I would also like to point out that most of these people in these circumstances are receivers of programs that are paid for by people who actually pay taxes!
Over seventy percent of the population falls into one of these categories, so who is paying all the taxes in this country? Well, single people who dont have children because they dont have as many tax breaks or credits, and people who make over 60,000 a year. The further people climb in income the more they pay in taxes. Think of it this way : less than four dollars out of every $100 paid in income taxes in the United States is paid by someone in the bottom 50% of wage earners, the Top 5% pay 53.25% of all income taxes (Down from 2000 figure: 56.47%). The top 10% pay 64.89% (Down from 2000 figure: 67.33%). The top 25% pay 82.9% (Down from 2000 figure: 84.01%). The top 50% pay 96.03% (Down from 2000 figure: 96.09%). The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.97% of all income taxes. The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%!
I worked in the furniture business for some time and you know what is amazing, is at tax refund time people on welfare and the working poor came in by the hoards and would buy thousands of dollars worth of brand new furniture because they got their huge refund checks from the government!
We never at tax time had an incline in people making 60,000 or more only a decline when tax season hits? I worked with this guy once who kept grumbling over and over "the poor pay all the taxes and the rich get all the breaks" so I asked him some simple questions, how much do you make ? 17,000 a year he said, I said okay how many exemptions durring the year do you claim? He said 5, I said how much do you get taken out every paycheck for taxes? He said nothing, I said how much of a refund did you get this year? He said about 56oo hundred dollars! So I asked him do you consider your self poor? He said yes, I said why didnt you pay any taxes then? He never answered and never grumbled again about who pays taxes.....
I think the tax burden in this country should not have to be on the shoulders of just a few just because they worked harder and learned to make more money"alot of these people created businesses and gave people jobs" why should they carry the majority of the burden when they created most of the jobs in this country? Everyone should share the tax burden in this country, if everyone paid at least a little it would make the whole system alot simpler and alot easier for everyone and would stimulate the economy! Do you know how many peole would get off their butts and try to better themselves if they werent waiting every year to collect their big refund check, to alot of these people its like winning the lottery every year! I was poor to I remember what it was like.............
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Which 2008 Presidential candidate should you vote for and why?
Which 2008 Presidential candidate should you vote for and why?
"Who should I vote for?" There are many candidates for President in 2008, and it's hard to figure out who you should vote for. How will you vote this year, what factors will determine how you vote, age, sex, race, religion, looks? Or will you vote purely on their qualifications "are they qualified to serve as President of the United States" Will they run this country in the right direction?
Here is what a Harrisinteractive poll said about some of these issues
The Harris Poll® #12, January 31, 2008
Harris Poll/BYU Study Finds More People would be Angry or Upset if Mitt Romney was President than if Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton was President Using Experimental Survey Design to Gauge Underlying Voter Sentiments
As the race towards the White House heads into the February 5th, super duper Tuesday primaries, there are a lot of unanswered questions which linger. Will Americans vote for a female president? A black president? A Mormon president? Utilizing an experimental survey design called a "list experiment", the answers to these questions may be a little clearer. The most striking is that just under half (47%) of Americans would be upset or angry if Mitt Romney was serving as President, one-third (33%) of adults would be angry or upset if Barack Obama was serving as President and just under this (30%) if Hillary Clinton was serving as President.
Granted, a great deal of this may have to do with the individuals themselves, so how do the American people respond to the various characteristics? Well, just over one-quarter (27%) would be angry or upset if a Mormon was serving as President and almost the same number (25%) if a woman was serving as President. A very small number, just under one in ten Americans (9%), would be angry or upset if a Black person was serving as President.
These are the results of a nationwide Harris Poll of 2,302 U.S. adults surveyed online between January 15 and 22, 2008 by Harris Interactive®. This survey was conceived and developed by Harris Interactive and was not commissioned by any organization. Harris Interactive worked closely with the Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy at Brigham Young University in developing these questions and experiment and then in the analysis of the results.
When the pairings between the candidate and their personal characteristic are compared to each other, it seems that having a Mormon as President does not make people as angry or upset nearly as much as having Mitt Romney serving (27% versus 47%). The same situation is true regarding a Black person or Barack Obama serving as President as more say Obama serving would make them angry or upset compared to a Black person serving (9% versus 33%). Whether Hillary Clinton or a woman is serving does not seem to make much of a difference as the just slightly more people say having her specifically serve would make them angry or upset compared to the generic woman (25% versus 30%).
Race versus Gender
One of the main factors in the Democratic nomination fight these past few weeks has boiled down to a question of race. Who will White Democrats and Black Democrats vote for? When race is looked at, the numbers do not change substantially. Only one in ten (10%) of non-white adults are angry or upset at the notion of a Black person serving as President with 13 percent of White adults feeling the same way — an imperceptible change. However, when the idea of Barack Obama serving as president is examined, dramatic differences between Whites and non-Whites emerge. No non-white adult is angry or upset at the idea of Barack Obama serving as President compared to two in five (41%) of White voters.
While not as much in the forefront as race, this election has also seen the issue of gender emerge. Among men, gender is an issue. Just over two in five men (43%) say the idea of a woman serving as President makes them angry or upset while 48 percent of men are upset or angry about the prospect of Hillary Clinton serving as President. As might be expected, gender doesn’t appear to be as serious an issue among women. Only 12 percent of women say a woman serving as President would make them angry or upset while 21 percent of women say Hillary Clinton serving as President would make them angry or upset.
Looking at Party
When it comes to these issues, Republicans and Democrats, not surprisingly, have some major differences in how angry or upset these all make them. When it comes to a black person or woman serving as president, Democrats are fine with either, while Republicans are much more likely to say a woman would make them angry. Just one in ten (11%) of Republicans say a Black person serving as President would make them angry or upset while 16 percent of Democrats say the same. There is a much larger difference when it is a woman serving as President as one in five Democrats (20%) say that would make them upset or angry while two in five (41%) Republicans say that.
When the actual candidates themselves are examined, there is almost no difference for Democrats between Senators Clinton and Obama. One-quarter (25%) of Democrats say Hillary Clinton serving as President would make them angry or upset while almost the same number of Democrats (23%) say Barack Obama serving as President would make them angry or upset. Republicans are also of similar mind as just under half (48%) say Barack Obama serving as President would make them angry or upset while over half (56%) of Republicans say Hillary Clinton serving as President would make them angry.
On religion, Republicans are not angry or upset about a Baptist serving as President while one-quarter (25%) of Democrats are, although the difference is not statistically significant. When it comes to a Mormon serving as President, Republicans are slightly more likely than Democrats to be angry or upset (34% versus 27%). A larger and more significant difference is seen if Mitt Romney was serving as President – 41 percent of Democrats would be angry or upset while 51 percent of Republicans would be angry or upset. When it is Mike Huckabee serving as President, only one in ten Republicans (9%) would be angry or upset while three in ten (30%) Democrats would feel the same way.
Read More here
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=864
I personally dont like any of the candidates yet, none of them have proven to me yet that they are capable of taking this country in the right direction. Their are lots of issues that need to be changed before we a have a major economic and social collapse. I will talk more about these issues in depth in future post......
People vote for candidates for many of the wrong reasons, alot of time people dont vote on what they stand for or their qualifications..........I have heard people many times say things like..my dad votes for democrats so I vote for democrats, or I always vote for republicans it dosnt matter who is running. I find most people dont even know what their party stands for they just vote that way because they vote that way...........Its amazing that people wont take the time to educate themselves about who they are voting for!
"Who should I vote for?" There are many candidates for President in 2008, and it's hard to figure out who you should vote for. How will you vote this year, what factors will determine how you vote, age, sex, race, religion, looks? Or will you vote purely on their qualifications "are they qualified to serve as President of the United States" Will they run this country in the right direction?
Here is what a Harrisinteractive poll said about some of these issues
The Harris Poll® #12, January 31, 2008
Harris Poll/BYU Study Finds More People would be Angry or Upset if Mitt Romney was President than if Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton was President Using Experimental Survey Design to Gauge Underlying Voter Sentiments
As the race towards the White House heads into the February 5th, super duper Tuesday primaries, there are a lot of unanswered questions which linger. Will Americans vote for a female president? A black president? A Mormon president? Utilizing an experimental survey design called a "list experiment", the answers to these questions may be a little clearer. The most striking is that just under half (47%) of Americans would be upset or angry if Mitt Romney was serving as President, one-third (33%) of adults would be angry or upset if Barack Obama was serving as President and just under this (30%) if Hillary Clinton was serving as President.
Granted, a great deal of this may have to do with the individuals themselves, so how do the American people respond to the various characteristics? Well, just over one-quarter (27%) would be angry or upset if a Mormon was serving as President and almost the same number (25%) if a woman was serving as President. A very small number, just under one in ten Americans (9%), would be angry or upset if a Black person was serving as President.
These are the results of a nationwide Harris Poll of 2,302 U.S. adults surveyed online between January 15 and 22, 2008 by Harris Interactive®. This survey was conceived and developed by Harris Interactive and was not commissioned by any organization. Harris Interactive worked closely with the Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy at Brigham Young University in developing these questions and experiment and then in the analysis of the results.
When the pairings between the candidate and their personal characteristic are compared to each other, it seems that having a Mormon as President does not make people as angry or upset nearly as much as having Mitt Romney serving (27% versus 47%). The same situation is true regarding a Black person or Barack Obama serving as President as more say Obama serving would make them angry or upset compared to a Black person serving (9% versus 33%). Whether Hillary Clinton or a woman is serving does not seem to make much of a difference as the just slightly more people say having her specifically serve would make them angry or upset compared to the generic woman (25% versus 30%).
Race versus Gender
One of the main factors in the Democratic nomination fight these past few weeks has boiled down to a question of race. Who will White Democrats and Black Democrats vote for? When race is looked at, the numbers do not change substantially. Only one in ten (10%) of non-white adults are angry or upset at the notion of a Black person serving as President with 13 percent of White adults feeling the same way — an imperceptible change. However, when the idea of Barack Obama serving as president is examined, dramatic differences between Whites and non-Whites emerge. No non-white adult is angry or upset at the idea of Barack Obama serving as President compared to two in five (41%) of White voters.
While not as much in the forefront as race, this election has also seen the issue of gender emerge. Among men, gender is an issue. Just over two in five men (43%) say the idea of a woman serving as President makes them angry or upset while 48 percent of men are upset or angry about the prospect of Hillary Clinton serving as President. As might be expected, gender doesn’t appear to be as serious an issue among women. Only 12 percent of women say a woman serving as President would make them angry or upset while 21 percent of women say Hillary Clinton serving as President would make them angry or upset.
Looking at Party
When it comes to these issues, Republicans and Democrats, not surprisingly, have some major differences in how angry or upset these all make them. When it comes to a black person or woman serving as president, Democrats are fine with either, while Republicans are much more likely to say a woman would make them angry. Just one in ten (11%) of Republicans say a Black person serving as President would make them angry or upset while 16 percent of Democrats say the same. There is a much larger difference when it is a woman serving as President as one in five Democrats (20%) say that would make them upset or angry while two in five (41%) Republicans say that.
When the actual candidates themselves are examined, there is almost no difference for Democrats between Senators Clinton and Obama. One-quarter (25%) of Democrats say Hillary Clinton serving as President would make them angry or upset while almost the same number of Democrats (23%) say Barack Obama serving as President would make them angry or upset. Republicans are also of similar mind as just under half (48%) say Barack Obama serving as President would make them angry or upset while over half (56%) of Republicans say Hillary Clinton serving as President would make them angry.
On religion, Republicans are not angry or upset about a Baptist serving as President while one-quarter (25%) of Democrats are, although the difference is not statistically significant. When it comes to a Mormon serving as President, Republicans are slightly more likely than Democrats to be angry or upset (34% versus 27%). A larger and more significant difference is seen if Mitt Romney was serving as President – 41 percent of Democrats would be angry or upset while 51 percent of Republicans would be angry or upset. When it is Mike Huckabee serving as President, only one in ten Republicans (9%) would be angry or upset while three in ten (30%) Democrats would feel the same way.
Read More here
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=864
I personally dont like any of the candidates yet, none of them have proven to me yet that they are capable of taking this country in the right direction. Their are lots of issues that need to be changed before we a have a major economic and social collapse. I will talk more about these issues in depth in future post......
People vote for candidates for many of the wrong reasons, alot of time people dont vote on what they stand for or their qualifications..........I have heard people many times say things like..my dad votes for democrats so I vote for democrats, or I always vote for republicans it dosnt matter who is running. I find most people dont even know what their party stands for they just vote that way because they vote that way...........Its amazing that people wont take the time to educate themselves about who they are voting for!
Investments or social security which will you depend on for retirement?
Investments or social security which will you depend on for retirement?
If I was elected president of the United States I would end the current social security system. Everyone currently receiving social security would continue to get it. I would put the rest of the money in some kind of low risk mutual funds and then calculate what people have paid into social security and then divide the funds up accordingly. Every person eligible to receive these funds would then have to take a mandatory financial class sponsored by and paid for by the government on investing for their future. I would also make it mandatory for all schools to teach children about money and investing and the importance of it.
I dont understand why this is not already mandatory for all schools to educate people about money. Everyone is always saying education is the key to a successful future but the one thing they forget to teach children about, is money!!
Think about it, there are record numbers of people right now filing bankruptcy and having their homes foreclosed apon! Remember education is the key!
I personally would rather have my own choice of what I do with my money. Think about this, we put money into the social security system for say 45 years, basically borrow hundreds of thousands of dollars to the government in the hopes we will get a few dollars a month when we are ready to die. I know beyond a shadow of doubt that anyone who is educated about money who invests money from the time they are 18 years old would end up with over a few million dollars by the time they are ready to retire. We all know people who try to live off their social security check, I dont know about you but I dont want to try to live off 800 dollars a month when I am retired do you?
If I was elected president of the United States I would end the current social security system. Everyone currently receiving social security would continue to get it. I would put the rest of the money in some kind of low risk mutual funds and then calculate what people have paid into social security and then divide the funds up accordingly. Every person eligible to receive these funds would then have to take a mandatory financial class sponsored by and paid for by the government on investing for their future. I would also make it mandatory for all schools to teach children about money and investing and the importance of it.
I dont understand why this is not already mandatory for all schools to educate people about money. Everyone is always saying education is the key to a successful future but the one thing they forget to teach children about, is money!!
Think about it, there are record numbers of people right now filing bankruptcy and having their homes foreclosed apon! Remember education is the key!
I personally would rather have my own choice of what I do with my money. Think about this, we put money into the social security system for say 45 years, basically borrow hundreds of thousands of dollars to the government in the hopes we will get a few dollars a month when we are ready to die. I know beyond a shadow of doubt that anyone who is educated about money who invests money from the time they are 18 years old would end up with over a few million dollars by the time they are ready to retire. We all know people who try to live off their social security check, I dont know about you but I dont want to try to live off 800 dollars a month when I am retired do you?
Saturday, February 9, 2008
What would you do if you were elected president of the united states?
What would you do if you were elected president of the united states?
What would you do????, What would you want to change and why?
Do you think the current agendas of president Bush and his administration are running our country in the right direction or do you think they are heading us for disaster? I am very interested to find out what the majority of americans think about these issues and how they would change them if they were elected president.
What would you do differently?
What would you do????, What would you want to change and why?
Do you think the current agendas of president Bush and his administration are running our country in the right direction or do you think they are heading us for disaster? I am very interested to find out what the majority of americans think about these issues and how they would change them if they were elected president.
What would you do differently?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
