The Difference Between Obama and Romney ?

[plank white]

So, I'm sitting in the Cleveland airport with an hour or so to kill, so I'll jump into this fray with my thoughts. Someone reported the thread, and as I was reading through it with my moderator's glasses on, I had some additional thoughts from my perspective. Before anyone accuses me of being "impartial" as a moderator, I'm jumping in here as a member. Feel free to debate my thoughts and opinions. That said, we have a code of conduct for a reason. If you've resorted to name calling, you either need to get a better position or better rhetoric.

From my perspective, there isn't a heck of a lot of difference between Romney and Obama. There are a few, and I think those few may prove to be important, but there aren't many, and even those may prove to be insignificant.

I think most of the problem we find ourselves in has to do with the fact that both the GOP and the DNC don't really give a hoot about their bases. If you are a diehard democrat, or a diehard republican your party doesn't care about you. At all. They are both going for that 3-5% of the electorate that calls themselves "independents", and telling them whatever they want to hear. Think about it. If you're going to vote "Anybody but Obama" anyway, what need does the GOP have to reach out to you. They'll do just enough to keep you from staying home on election day and put someone as vanilla and "moderate" as possible out there to try to reach out to the independents. Same for the DNC. Most liberals are never going to jump ship and vote for a republican candidate. So, it doesn't matter that Obama abandoned them on environmenntal issues or gun control or taxes or whatever. They're going to try an tell the independents whatever they want to hear (with an interesting strategic play this time by Obama with young hispanics and gays.)

Look at this chart from politicalcompass.org. You can go take the test for yourself and see for yourself how you rank with your candidate of choice. The survey could probably phrase a few questions better, but it's a fair swag. It's interesting to compare the main field, though:

So, if you're a diehard republican or democrat, your party has already sold you out. To which I say, good. Let's move on.

Next. The "race card". If you think race doesn't play an issue here, you've not spent much time with the issue. I think it's important and being used in at least three ways. FIrst, on your drive into work in the morning, spend some time listening to your local (or maybe not so local) urban talk radio station. Race is an issue with urban radio voices essentially saying, "vote for Obama because he's one of us." Listen to Tom Joyner or Bev Smith. Listen to Al Sharpton for that matter.

Race is also certainly an issue, unfortunately amongst the population of non-blacks who really are racist or are simply predjudiced against a black candidate. Say whatever you want in public, but what really matters is what you do in the election booth when the curtain is closed. I hope this group is not that big and continues to shrink every day. But I've been to those places. Racism still exists. I'll pay $100 to anyone who finds me one person who has a rebel flag on their truck and also pulled the lever for Obama in 2008 and will go on this forum to admit it.

As much as real racism continues to be an issue, I think they may roughly be canceled out by the white urban voters under the age of 45 who feel that they need to somehow make amends for historical wrongs by voting for the black guy now. This is the third way race plays in. I had these conversations in 2008, and I'm hearing them now. They're relevant.

All three of these racially motivated perspectives suck in my opinion. I can't change any of them on any global level, but I can recognize them and talk about them on a personal level.

Let's talk about the marxist/socialist/muslim/communist/America hater piece. I have no doubt that Obama has a different vision of America, but I think you're underselling your adversary to say he hates America. And, after 8 years with George Bush, the American public gave them a chance to take a swing at their vision. I expect come November, a lot of the public with have some buyers' remorse with "Hope and Change". He may in fact have some socialist tendencies. Being wrapped up in two wars in the midst of a recession/depression sure hasn't given him a big chance to implement much of his vision. And really, we got the basis for TARP under Bush. We got the first part of the automotive bailout under Bush. Both parties are working for different interests, and none of them are necessarily in your best interest.

There was a comment above to the effect of "He may not be a muslim, but he prefers Sharia law to the constitution." I'm not going to comment more on this than just to say, seriously? Think about this. What possible sense does this make? Put what you think are his objectives on the table, and then ask how this furthers them. From my perspective, it doesn't unless you secretly think he's a muslim and just don't want to express it in this thread.

Barack Obama doesn't look a whole lot different from Bush in a lot of his policies. Ask him about Guantanamo Bay, extrajudicial renditions, drone strikes or the use of executive orders for that matter, and you'll find that he looks a lot like George Bush. In fact in each of the above cases, he's expanded President Bush's policies. When Robert Byrd sent you a letter about your abuse of the constitution, you're not different. Explain that to the base.

So put all this together and what does it matter? I am an "Anybody but Obama" voter because I do think there are some issues that matter. As has been discussed here previously, the next president may be in the position to appoint up to four Supreme Court justices. If Barack Obama is making those nominations, they'll be so far to the left that Elana Kagan won't be able to see them with a pair of binoculars. I don't hold out much hope for Romney's nominations other than they'll be more conservative than Obama's. We may well get a bunch of Stephen Breyers as opposed to Clarence Thomas's. Again, this is all to appeal to the "independents" and to his "legacy".

Romney does have some business experience under his belt. I discount most of that on the personal level because he started somewhere between third base and home plate, but do give him some credit for being able to assemble good teams and to reach a consensus. That and a $1.50 will get you a small cup of coffee, so I don't know that it really matters much in the grand scheme of things.

So, from my perspective, there's not a heck of a lot of difference here. If you're a diehard conservative, you're doing yourself an injustice by pretending that this guy really aligns with your principles. Likewise, if you're a diehard liberal, it probably galls you a little bit that this guy is really somewhere to the right of Nixon. Don't grab your ankles and pretend to like it. Make your voice heard. I think this is why the Tea Party and the Ron Paul folks are so disturbing to the establishment. They're not playing along.

Gotta board a flight. Have fun discussing this.

Nice Read I agree..

[JAB]

That political compass thing is interesting. I'm not sure how accurate it is (at least in my case) but it is interesting. I took the test and wasn't surprised to find that my responses put me nowhere near any of the crop of presidential candidates for this year (not even Ron Paul.) In fact, it put me in almost exactly the same place as it put the Dalai Lama. Interesting but I don't quite buy it - I'm might be considered fairly 'liberal' on some social issues (although not on others) but I ain't anywhere near that far to the left.

Edited July 31, 2012 by JAB

[MacGyver]

That political compass thing is interesting. I'm not sure how accurate it is (at least in my case) but it is interesting. I took the test and wasn't surprised to find that my responses put me nowhere near any of the crop of presidential candidates for this year (not even Ron Paul.) In fact, it put me in almost exactly the same place as it put the Dalai Lama. Interesting but I don't quite buy it - I'm might be considered fairly 'liberal' on some social issues (although not on others) but I ain't anywhere near that far to the left.

I'm with you on that. Some of the questions you would answer as a conservative leave you feeling like you're choosing 'evil' or 'more evil'. I think what the survey does a good job of showing is how closely the candidates resemble each other both in their actions and policy statements.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I've taken those tests several times and ended up right there with the same position with as Paul. Didn't surprise me,

but the label did at first. I never said anything about Paul, other than he could have polished his appearance.

Figure out how to get him elected. That should have been done four or five years ago because it is too late to matter. I

don't like to waste my time on someone I see as un-electable.

Every cycle, there are exceptable candidates and they get eliminated. It has nothing to do with race. At this point and

for quite a while back, it looks like we have two viable choices, one incumbent, and a challenger. Another is running,

still, for his own reasons, and I agree with him, but you get the votes for him, while changing the system and running the

risk of letting that incumbent stay there and do more of what he has been doing.

I don't think I have criticized Paul, other than what I previously stated, which is purely tactical, and a requirement in an

American Idol society. I can only make my choice based on what I view, at this point, a viable contender.

Get the rest of America to take that political compass to see where they are. Maybe they will change their minds.

One thing I see as a flaw in that compass, purely my opinion, so don't take it too seriously, is that the four candidates

that show up in that box labeled "Authoritarian Right" must have some flaw in the samples, or the person taking the test

for Obama considers something I haven't thought of, but he doesn't belong there. Nothing right sided can be claimed

by actions. The other three, Hell throw him back in there, would have three completely different styles of administration

that the box becomes meaningless. We went through all of this, some time back.

Like I said before, pick your guy and stick with it. I did. I think you all know my candidate wasn't even in the field. The media

destroyed her in the last election cycle. The others, this time, were eliminated. It is what it is.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I've taken those tests several times and ended up right there with the same position with as Paul. Didn't surprise me,

but the label did at first. I never said anything about Paul, other than he could have polished his appearance.

Figure out how to get him elected. That should have been done four or five years ago because it is too late to matter. I

don't like to waste my time on someone I see as un-electable.

Every cycle, there are exceptable candidates and they get eliminated. It has nothing to do with race. At this point and

for quite a while back, it looks like we have two viable choices, one incumbent, and a challenger. Another is running,

still, for his own reasons, and I agree with him, but you get the votes for him, while changing the system and running the

risk of letting that incumbent stay there and do more of what he has been doing.

I don't think I have criticized Paul, other than what I previously stated, which is purely tactical, and a requirement in an

American Idol society. I can only make my choice based on what I view, at this point, a viable contender.

Get the rest of America to take that political compass to see where they are. Maybe they will change their minds.

One thing I see as a flaw in that compass, purely my opinion, so don't take it too seriously, is that the four candidates

that show up in that box labeled "Authoritarian Right" must have some flaw in the samples, or the person taking the test

for Obama considers something I haven't thought of, but he doesn't belong there. Nothing right sided can be claimed

by actions. The other three, Hell throw him back in there, would have three completely different styles of administration

that the box becomes meaningless. We went through all of this, some time back.

Like I said before, pick your guy and stick with it. I did. I think you all know my candidate wasn't even in the field. The media

destroyed her in the last election cycle. The others, this time, were eliminated. It is what it is.

Hi 6.8

The simpler, earlier Nolan test measures some portions of the USA practical spectrum better. While missing some aspects as well. There are many tests and scales invented over the years by amateurs and also academics in political science. Some of the poli sci spectra to me seem least applicable.

I think the political compass test is expanded to better-measure a "full spectrum" over the world and the USA is a right-wing place compared to the world as a whole. The spaces far down at the bottom would score anarchists. Individualist anarchists toward the bottom right and communitarian (or communist) anarchists toward the bottom left. Down toward the bottom left, for instance, might be the place some primitive tribes might score-- peoples who don't have much but most of whatever they have "belongs to everyone" and there is very little government except custom. Selected religious or hippy communes might score down there as well.

There is at least one "euro centric" spectrum that is confusing for a usa citizen to read, because everywhere except the USA, a liberal is a libertarian, except perhaps a little more socialist. Can be confusing tor a usa libertarian or human-rights conservative to take that test and be told that he is a liberal. Wha???

Now deceased, Harry Browne was one of the most presentable and "palatable to the masses" libertarian candidates, and a heck of a debater. There was much disgruntlement especially in the 1992, 1996 and 2000 elections because Browne and some others were "frozen out" of the final presidential debates. You can't get a mass following without exposure, and you can't get exposure without a following. At that time the debate committees rules required "nationally respected polls" to measure support at least 15 or 20 percent before allowing a candidate in the "big boy" debates. And even if measured in unbiased fashion, a national poll couldn't find that many ordinary citizens who wouldn't answer, "Harry who???" or "Nader? Never heard of him."

I'm prejudiced but Browne would have put the hurt on Clinton vs Dole debates, but Browne on-stage with Bush vs Gore would have made the major candidates look like a complete laughingstock, because neither were quite what you would consider "intellectually nimble or verbally adept". Just sayin, control over the debates is just one more way to freeze out third parties and make sure the average doofus who only pays attention to politics right before election day, never even knows he has more than a binary choice in his vote.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Hey Lester,

As usual, you put a good assessment out there of third party candidates. And most probably right, but I never heard Harry Browne speak, so it wouldn't be reasonable of me to comment. For the reasons you mentioned, I imagine they are why I never heard his views, but the third party candidate is usually viewed,

by the media or it's political competitors as some kind of quack. That's why it is important for any serious new party type or other group to start from the ground up. Rome wasn't built in a day. Going for the presidency takes money, a coalition of like minded people and takes years.

Putting all your eggs in the same basket, year after year, and getting the same response from the voter,

for whatever reason or blame, seems to be a self-defeating strategy whether or not it has merit, and it should have that, also. Perot even had merit. Paul does, too.

I don't oppose Paul or Romney. It's a matter of which one I think can beat Obama. Simple as that.

All this conservative can do is try to get people to agree to get Alexander and Corker replaced and try to work to get a constitutional Congress back, and that's kind of a tall order judging by how we can disagree

on the many minutiae associated with the political beast.

The libertarian movement has been trampled on by the media and the left and right for so long. i'm glad it

is still around. I just wish it would get it's ass together and work from the ground up. The power still can reside with the people when you convince them to think for themselves, using reason and logic. That's a

tall order, though.

I don't need to be sold on libertarianism. I already agree with it. Most of my views are libertarian, already. If libertarians were a strong enough group, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I want Obama and his kind out of power, period. I think Romney is the only person, this time, who can beat him. I hope I'm right. Romney may be the Anti-Christ, for all I know, but I think that one is already possessing the office.

Debating skills don't equate necessarily to good presidents or any elected official, but it gets them elected. Dole was a lousy debater. I would have liked to see anyone other than him debating Clinton.

I guess what I'm trying to say is I don't care, one iota, how Romney and Obama are similar. I know their differences. I'm satisfied with my available choice, this year.

Edited August 1, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[MacGyver]

I think one of the great disservices of our modern two party system is that it forces lumping everyone into one group or the other. There are no shades. Either you're in or you're out.

Think about the single issue abortion voters. They don't give a damn about the economy, and would throw you under the bus on guns. But, so long as the candidate says the right thing - and they will to get the vote - people will vote for them.

Why people continue to get on the bus as opposed to doing something different, I have no idea. Politicians are kind of like Walmart. If the people demand more of them, eventually they'll get it and respond.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Sometimes it has to be reduced to the ridiculous, but we're getting forced into the "expediency of the moment" type of country and that's dangerous. The single issue stuff just won't go away, though. There are always things near and dear to some more than others. My single issue would be keeping the Constitution in the forefront. And it already addresses the single issue you used as an example well enough for me.

It's so easy for us to contradict ourselves because of the issues. I know, I do it every day.

Good points, MacGyver

Edited August 1, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[plank white]

Sometimes it has to be reduced to the ridiculous, but we're getting forced into the "expediency of the moment" type of country and that's

dangerous. The single issue stuff just won't go away, though. There are always things near and dear to some more than others. My single

issue would be keeping the Constitution in the forefront. And it already addresses the single issue you used as an example well enough

for me.

It's so easy for us to contradict ourselves because of the issues. I know, I do it every day.

Good point, MacGyver

I agree

I would support any candidate who said I promise to Read the bill of rights and follow it "And Meant it"

Edited August 1, 2012 by plank white

[TMF]

I think one of the great disservices of our modern two party system is that it forces lumping everyone into one group or the other. There are no shades. Either you're in or you're out.

Think about the single issue abortion voters. They don't give a damn about the economy, and would throw you under the bus on guns. But, so long as the candidate says the right thing - and they will to get the vote - people will vote for them.

Why people continue to get on the bus as opposed to doing something different, I have no idea. Politicians are kind of like Walmart. If the people demand more of them, eventually they'll get it and respond.

It would only take 10% of the population to send a message to the two parties by voting out incumbents in every seat. If we did this for a decade eventually it would weed out most of the career politicians and give rise to real leaders in he parties. I'll vote for Romney this time, but in 4 years I'm voting Democrat if the economy isn't back on track.

[Dolomite_supafly]

It would only take 10% of the population to send a message to the two parties by voting out incumbents in every seat. If we did this for a decade eventually it would weed out most of the career politicians and give rise to real leaders in he parties. I'll vote for Romney this time, but in 4 years I'm voting Democrat if the economy isn't back on track.

That is what I have decided to do. If they are sitting in office the day of the election they are not getting my vote. I don't care if they are Republican or Democrat, they are hopefully voted out. That way when they take office they know they will be going back into the workforce very shortly. Once they realize that then they will make positive changes for everyone else in the workforce.

Another thing that would be great for this country is get rid of the "R" and "D" next to a candidates name. I would settle for that to happen on the ballot only but in a perfect world I would like the words "Republican" and "Democrat", or any variation, against the law to be uttered. This would force people to actually research the candidates and not just vote party lines. Once people start voting for what they actually want then the country would be more intune with its populace. Maybe not to your particular liking but I would rather people vote on what they personally believe rather than vote for some letter next to a name.

Right now we have a bunch of representatives that do not represent us, Republican and Democrat both. They represent their own interests and do whatever they like in order to achieve their personal goals. I cannot think of a single representative that isn't part of it. They ALL, Democrats and Republicans alike, work out back room deals in order to further their own goals while stepping on the necks of those who support them financially. It has gotten to a point now that representatives don't go to Washington to make a positive change for our country, they go to because they don't want to miss out on the cash cow. They have forgotten what it is like to have to actually work hard for what you have.

The one thing that is really bothersome to me is they want to control us. The government has enslaved those on welfare in order to control them and their vote. I would be really upset with my representatives if they took my life's hopes and dreams away from me for what amounts to less than minimum wage. It also controls those who work through the tax system and promises of better days. I believe those "better days" will never come or at least not without a major shake up of the current system. Our representatives as well as governement offices pass laws or change laws to control us and not make the country a better place. They stiffle those who work hard in order support those that don't.

Dolomite

[daddyo]

This would force people to actually research the candidates and not just vote party lines.

I don't think this would happen at all. Many people are so incredibly lazy that they simply would not vote if they actually had to do any preliminary work.

Edited August 1, 2012 by DaddyO

[Guest HvyMtl]

Obama has better handlers than Mitt.

That has been proven in the recent media.

Differences? More like similarities, like Plank wisely states.

Neither are middle class. Neither understand the needs of the people. Neither ever will.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

What difference would it make being

middle class? Agreed about the

handlers. People's needs? I don't

need a damned thing from the

government, except for leaving me

alone and taxation.

I'm glad you're happy with the taxes.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TGO David]

I'm glad to see that the most recent posts in this thread are moving back toward discussing the issues and away from attacking each other. Good job all.

[bigwakes]

.

Edited August 1, 2012 by bigwakes

[Guest Lester Weevils]

What difference would it make being

middle class? Agreed about the

handlers. People's needs? I don't

need a damned thing from the

government, except for leaving me

alone and taxation.

I'm glad you're happy with the taxes.

Dunno if it would make a diff regarding middle class. Maybe or not. Folks been rich forever or a long long time, might have tendency to let them eat cake. A fella who grew up living on stock market money, whose adult friends all live on stock market money, might think that fixing the economy means a booming stock market, regardless what main street looks like. A fella who goes to school then works for the gov afterward, might think fixing the economy is making sure academics and gov employees get paid good. Po folks rarely get elected, or middles either. Maybe if a fella can learn from his experiences, a rich guy candidate who some time in his life lived in a crap apartment and dug ditches, picked cotton, or worked a factory because he didn't have any other choice if he wanted to eat-- Maybe that kind of fella would understand a little more. Or maybe not. Gov really can't fix economies but it doesn't keep politicians from trying. It is easy for gov to ruin an economy though. Oftentimes as an unintended consequence of trying to fix it.

Regarding tax, the cruelest tax is inflation from printed money and deficit spending. Maybe some methods of extracting a pound of flesh are better and some worse but there's no good way to tax. Changing the tax method won't necessarily fix anything as long as we run a deficit and debase the money. Minor improvement at best. The pound of flesh extraction method could probably be improved, but isn't a huge part of the problem as long as we have deficits and continually debased money.

They could abolish all tax and run the gov entirely on printed money. In that case your tax would be that prices perpetually rise a little faster than your pay. Your tax bill would be the perpetual loss over time.

It isn't politically possible to raise tax on po folks and middles while cutting tax on anybody else. That would only last until the next election. If politicians raise tax on the guy on the street, they also have to raise tax on the rich, unless they want to get fired next election. If politicians cut tax on middles, they have to cut tax on the rich or the rich will campaign against them and they will be replaced. If they cut tax on middles and the rich and don't increase rebates to the poor, they are out of a job next election.

A flat tax or sales tax at a high enough rate to balance the budget would reduce the tax that rich folks pay and increase the tax everybody else pays. Except a generalized "transaction tax" that has no exceptions for any kind of transaction. Middles would get mad at their tax increase, and po folks would get really mad at paying any tax at all, and the rich would be outnumbered and the law would be changed to something else after lots of politicians get fired.

I don't like tax and I get socked pretty bad with tax. However the last time the budget was close to balanced was the Clinton tax levels. The most politically feasible fix would be to let the bush tax cuts expire. Expire ALL the tax cuts, not just the ones on the rich. Revert back to Clinton balanced-budget levels, then try to reduce spending back to those levels to match.

But maybe the only politically feasible thing is to leave tax about the same, or even pretend to cut it, and keep printing money, and get the tax out of everybody with inflation rather than picking their pockets.

Edited August 1, 2012 by Lester Weevils

[Guest ThePunisher]

My observation of this thread, is that there is not total unity to fire Obama from the WH. Seems many still want 4 more years of the sinking ship. The Titanic is taking water fast.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

You can't fix everything by taxation.

Severe budget cuts are coming also.

They have to, or nothing gets fixed.

Lester, I've never bought the argument

that poor folks can't pay the same rate.

A consumption tax like the Fair Tax

could easily work. Anything else is

class warfare. Income taxes of any

kind only punish.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sigmtnman]

You can't fix everything by taxation.

Severe budget cuts are coming also.

They have to, or nothing gets fixed.

Lester, I've never bought the argument

that poor folks can't pay the same rate.

A consumption tax like the Fair Tax

could easily work. Anything else is

class warfare. Income taxes of any

kind only punish.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not arguing here, but consider there is no way the $16,000,000,000,000.00 (trillion) debt will ever be paid back through budget cuts. Taxation and printing will happen. Budget cuts are less likely due to the government needing people on the dole... Whether directly employed, personal/corporate welfare or through contracts for service.

Edited August 1, 2012 by sigmtnman

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Not arguing here, but consider there is no way the $16,000,000,000,000.00 (trillion) debt will ever be paid back through budget cuts. Taxation and printing will happen. Budget cuts are less likely due to the government needing people on the dole... Whether directly employed, personal/corporate welfare or through contracts for service.

I agree with you, but Hell, if someone doesn't start down the road on simplifying the tax code like that, and axing stuff off the budget, it will only get worse. At least it is a step in the right direction.

What I think you're saying is there will eventually be a "reset" like Hillary said concerning the Russkies,

except in total global debt write down. If that's what you are inferring. I think it will happen. We ain't the

only ones, are we?

The government will eventually be forced into the mode I suggest, or there will be confiscation, which is someone's goal.

Edited August 1, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[Guest ThePunisher]

You can confiscate all the wealth of the rich, and you cannot pay down the 16 trillion debt. Tax everyone to the hilt and you don't grow the economy. Grow the economy with a pro business agenda and a little tightening of the belt , less taxation and maybe we can steer the ship back to prosperity. Private job creation instead of growing government is the direction for economic recovery. And it's going to take some time and pain.

[Guest ThePunisher]

http://www.foxnews.c...on-issues/There is an article on FoxNews.com in the US section under Trending on Fox News entitled Obama and Romney: Where they stand on the issues. I'm computer challenged to be able bring the source on my post, maybe someone can do that. Fits in with the title of this thread.

Disregard being computer challengened, with OS's help i got the article pasted. Thanks again OS. i finally got my picture put on also. This old dog is learning something new everyday.

For those that want to know the differences of Obama and Romney, this article paints a pretty good picture of where each stand on the issues.

Edited August 2, 2012 by ThePunisher

[Guest Lester Weevils]

You can't fix everything by taxation.

Severe budget cuts are coming also.

They have to, or nothing gets fixed.

Lester, I've never bought the argument

that poor folks can't pay the same rate.

A consumption tax like the Fair Tax

could easily work. Anything else is

class warfare. Income taxes of any

kind only punish.

Thanks 6.8. I agree that spending cuts are the solution but can't see it ever happening. The problem is political feasibility of cuts rather than desirability of spending cuts. Most folks would pitch a kid-kicking-and-screaming-in-the-floor tantrum if they ever cut his favorite pet budget items. Hard to find even a budget hawk who doesn't have a laundry list of "non-negotiable" items that can't be cut or the world will end.

Regardless whether class warfare is good or bad, it exists and will prevent raising any group's tax unless you raise all groups taxes. Or vice-versa on tax cuts. Obama thinks he can just raise tax on the rich, but I don't think he can. I also don't think a tax hike on the rich would raise enough money to make a difference on the budget.

The rich are outnumbered and there are class resentments, but the rich will find a way to un-elect any politicians who raise their tax unless all classes get a tax hike. That would be an example of class envy-- The rich envying the low tax rate of the poor and feeling persecuted. Works both directions, upward and downward. You hear rich guys call talk shows all the time peed-off that they pay more tax than the other fella. O'Reilly and Hannity bitch constantly that they are single-handedly supporting the entire US of A. They pay a slightly higher income tax rate, but they pay a tiny fraction of my 15.3 percent social security rate on every penny I make, no deductions or exceptions. (well it is temporarily lower because of the temporary payroll tax cut). Add SS and Income tax and our rates are not very much different, but they bitch a whole lot more than I do.

Every viable flat tax and consumption tax plan has the poorest people paying zero tax. Even if in principle they SHOULD pay the same tax rate, there is no better way to get all of em out on election day to vote for a commie, than to raise their taxes. There are enough of em to elect a commie in a heartbeat if you get em mad enough to show up on election day. If you raise everybody's taxes the same time, then maybe the po would grudgingly accept it as shared sacrifice. But that's the only way a tax hike on the poor could ever fly.

The middle class is class-envious that the po don't pay as much income tax, so they are about the same as the rich in that regard.

You can call me class envious if you wish but I don't think so-- I don't care how much money some other guy has as long as he leaves me alone. Sometimes rich folk don't leave you alone, but that is a different topic. I also don't get torqued if people barely getting by pay little or no tax. It would be better for our democracy if everybody paid at least a little, but it doesn't bug me.

I don't care if the other guy has a mansion or private jet but damned if I will willingly pay a higher tax rate than a rich man. Equal tax rate is fine. Higher tax rate than the rich guy, no way jose. The only way to have a completely even tax load consumption tax is a flat transaction tax on all transactions, with no exceptions. I'm not aware of any detailed proposals which go that far. The proposals I have studied have exclusions that would make my effective rate significantly higher than a rich man's tax rate. In addition, in order to balance the budget, I'd be paying MORE than today, and today I'm paying enough to buy a new car cash on the barrel every year. Call it class envy, but that won't fly with me, and there are millions with drastically more severe class envy, and they can all vote.

If they pass a flat tax or consumpton tax with me paying a bigger percentage than fat cats, then an obvious conclusion to jump-to, would be that fat cats called in special favors to get it set up thataway. It just wouldn't fly.

[Oh Shoot]

There is an article on FoxNews.com in the US section under Trending on Fox News entitled Obama and Romney: Where they stand on the issues. I'm computer challenged to be able bring the source on my post, maybe someone can do that. Fits in with the title of this thread.

Could NOT find it.

When you do, open article, then copy what's in your browser address bar and paste it in post.