Voter Fraud In Ohio

Can someone explain to me what is so great about increasing the taxes on ANY income level?

Do we really want to make it harder on corporations to do business these days? Don't we want to encourage economic growth, not inhibit it by nailing them to the wall with higher taxes?

Back to voter fraud.

Claiming voter fraud is a standard move by parties that have an interest in low voter turn out. Registering as many new voters as possible is a standard move for parties with an interest in high voter turn out. Can you guess which party is which in this election? ;)

Much more serious than ACORN trying to register Mickey Mouse (Note: this is very different from Mickey ACTUALLY VOTING--see this for more on the ACORN stuff:http://www.newsweek.com/id/164722 ) is the attempts to disenfranchise legit voters. If legit voters are prevented from voting in an election, that's a serious blow to the whole idea of democracy. (See here for a partisan view: Voter Disenfranchisement: There's Nothing Some Fear More Than Citizens Exercising Their Constitutional Rights (http://jezebel.com/5061161/theres-nothing-some-fear-more-than-citizens-exercising-their-constitutional-rights) )

Can you guess which side I'm on?

Republican Voter Registration Chief Arrested for Fraud in California (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/20/republican-voter-registration-chief-arrested-fraud-california/). How ironic.

Republican Voter Registration Chief Arrested for Fraud in California (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/20/republican-voter-registration-chief-arrested-fraud-california/). How ironic.

Gotta love it.

Can someone explain to me what is so great about increasing the taxes on ANY income level?

Do we really want to make it harder on corporations to do business these days? Don't we want to encourage economic growth, not inhibit it by nailing them to the wall with higher taxes?

I can, Charlie Brown. Lights, please...

Here's one line of thought:

The overall health of the economy suffers when we have these huge deficits and a ballooning national debt. People are unwilling to cut the defense budget, Social Security, highway funds, head start, homeland security, etc. So we need more revenue. Claim: the middle class is the engine of the economy, so don't tax them--cut their taxes. The poor have no money to tax. So tax the rich. They can most afford to pay (yes, they're angry about it, but they won't lose their homes, healthcare, etc.). Further, doing this in the past has been good for the economy--progressive taxation is better economically then trickledown economics. So it's the right thing to do.

Is it fair to tax one group of citizens more than another? (This, I think, is among the most important differences between conservatives and liberals.) My feeling: yes, if it can be shown that the overall economy gets better, and so a rising tide lifts all boats, even the big rich yachts. Also, it may be that the rich should give something back to help the overall health of the nation where they've done so well (and, BTW, I'd certainly make charitable donations tax deductible up the wazoo).

Worry: excessive taxation is a drag on investment and undermines the motivational energies of the economy. That seems a good worry. Solution: find the progressive tax polices that have the least negative effect on these things. There are lots of ways to do this, but none of them fit in a message board post or a campaign add. So we need leaders who are smart enough to find the right fit here. I thought Clinton's team wasn't bad. I think Obama is more of this stripe than his opponents (and many of his friends) think. I think McCain is open to this (or he was), but since running to the right, he may not be able to get back to this reasonable sort of view. Hence, I prefer Obama on this issue.

If you're against ANY taxation, or any progressive taxation, neither of these candidates is for you. See Bob Barr, maybe?

[quote=JWsleep;492089]Back to voter fraud.

Claiming voter fraud is a standard move by parties that have an interest in low voter turn out. Registering as many new voters as possible is a standard move for parties with an interest in high voter turn out. Can you guess which party is which in this election? ;)

Much more serious than ACORN trying to register Mickey Mouse (Note: this is very different from Mickey ACTUALLY VOTING--see this for more on the ACORN stuff:http://www.newsweek.com/id/164722 ) is the attempts to disenfranchise legit voters. If legit voters are prevented from voting in an election, that's a serious blow to the whole idea of democracy. (See here for a partisan view: Voter Disenfranchisement: There's Nothing Some Fear More Than Citizens Exercising Their Constitutional Rights (http://jezebel.com/5061161/theres-nothing-some-fear-more-than-citizens-exercising-their-constitutional-rights) )

Can you guess which side I'm on?[/quot

The word disenfranchised is also used by groups that do not want anyone enforcing the rules and that anyone who puts in an application should be allowed to just vote without question. Accorn had two people thrown in jail here in Va. for voter fraud and thats just VA. They are also under FBI investigation. I also find it funny how the dems seem to want no one to review these registrations claiming fear of disenfrnchising them but back in 2000 they wanted to throw out all of those ballots sent in from our servicemen over sea's. It seem they just want to be selective as long as its in their favor.

The word disenfranchised is also used by groups that do not want anyone enforcing the rules and that anyone who puts in an application should be allowed to just vote without question. Accorn had two people thrown in jail here in Va. for voter fraud and thats just VA. They are also under FBI investigation. I also find it funny how the dems seem to want no one to review these registrations claiming fear of disenfrnchising them but back in 2000 they wanted to throw out all of those ballots sent in from our servicemen over sea's. It seem they just want to be selective as long as its in their favor.

Who's saying anyone should be allowed to vote without question? That's obviously wrong as well (two wrongs, etc.) And disenfranchising servicemen is certainly wrong and undemocratic. And as I said in my post, the campaign challenging the registrations will be the one with an interest in throwing out votes. My point is it's wrong, whoever does it. But there's no doubt that's it's a staple of the Republican playbook from way back (at least the 1960s) and they are playing it big time now.

Who's saying anyone should be allowed to vote without question? That's obviously wrong as well (two wrongs, etc.) And disenfranchising servicemen is certainly wrong and undemocratic. And as I said in my post, the campaign challenging the registrations will be the one with an interest in throwing out votes. My point is it's wrong, whoever does it. But there's no doubt that's it's a staple of the Republican playbook from way back (at least the 1960s) and they are playing it big time now.
Its a staple of both parties so don't put the dems above any of this. Parties worry about voter fraud in areas where it is likley that the voter will be voting for the other party. Thats why the Dems tried to discredit the military over seas vote because they knew it was in the Rep. favor and its why the rep. go after certain voters.

Brad Friedman: The Republican voter fraud hoax | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2008/oct/13/election-acorn-voter-fraud)

The overall health of the economy suffers when we have these huge deficits and a ballooning national debt. People are unwilling to cut the defense budget, Social Security, highway funds, head start, homeland security, etc.There's the problem, bloated government programs. They take on a life of their own. Many need to be cut back.

Further, doing this in the past has been good for the economy--progressive taxation is better economically then trickledown economics. So it's the right thing to do.This is a very debatable point many economists disagree with. Also, we've always had some form of progressive taxation since the inception on the income tax. But at what point is the "progression" too much? I would argue when the top 1% of income earners are paying 34% of the Federal tax burden and the next 2-10% are paying the next 33% than it's too much. The bottom 50% are only paying a total of 3% of the tax burden.

Also, it may be that the rich should give something back to help the overall health of the nation where they've done so wellWhy? What government programs or government advantages have they received? What government services do they use more than anyone else? Answer: probably none. (I'm not talking the top 1%, I can't speak to how they got where they are, but the 2-10% have mostly gotten there by their own hard work and financial risk taking.)