[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

. . . Actually I am for the fair tax as well, however, capital gains taxes DO affect consumer spending as capital gains are what attracts investors to invest in companies and employ people. Because interest rates are too low, the only incentive any investors have to invest in the US at all would be capital gains. Thus raising the tax on this, without simultaneously raising interest rates will plunge us into a depression.

The amount he wants to raise capital gains tax is relatively negligible. Moreover, the masses spending money is the main factor that drives earnings. If you take away spending power from 3/4 of the people, companies cannot work. I agree that capital gains has an effect, but we are not talking about capital for start ups here. We are talking about gain in the stock market, which has little to do with raising capital for a new plant, etc. It is income for the speculator for the most part. Note - I am all for speculation. However, if I had several million dollars already and I saved $50,000 in cap gains taxes, I likely would not put that $50,000 back into the actual economy in the same way as the mil worker who paid $100 less in taxes would.

Note - I do not think he should raise the capital gains tax. If we have to have an income tax, I think the Bush tax cuts were fairly well thought out, even if I would have not given the rich ($500,000 + a year) so much in them. The Bush tax cuts provided a jump start for the economy. However, W's crazy spending (with McCain's blessing) quickly extinguished any flame by those cuts.

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

As far as oil goes, ANWR would only be the tip of the iceberg. We would have to drill pretty much everywhere, which I am all for. It would put people to work and lower gas prices.

True, it would put people to work, which is a good thing. However, the price of gas will not be affected until ten years from now and it assumes too many variables, like the cost of exploration and drilling will remain stagnant, the expected oil is actually there, and the cost in oil to get the oil will not drive up the price even more. So, the argument is not really that accurate. Again, I am all for drilling and extracting al of the oil from the earth right now because I think that is the only way to stop polluting the earth in the long run. Sad, but very true IMO.

Also, I have seen no reports that the US in total has any relatively significant deposits of oil. Yes, she has some, but, I think the aggregate is less than 5% untapped. That is really nothing on a global scale.

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

Sorry, but you can't blame the Republicans for blue laws exclusively. Can you even name a Republican that wants to imprison anyone for their sexual practices? I sure can't. Besides, most of these laws were passed long before either party became what it is today. This is a ridiculous argument. No one has EVER proposed making Christianity the state religion. This is an outright lie!

1. I never blamed the R's on Blue Laws or their inception. The Southern D's (arguably now the cornerstone of the R party) had a heavy hand in those laws.

2. Currently, you are very misinformed here. First, the case of Bowers v. Hardwick. Please read it. In that case, which was in the 80's, the Republican state and Federal governments argued that the prosecution of two men for engaging in consenual fellatio was a valid state interest that the government should not prevent. The governments also argued that the Georgia law's prohibition of consenual extra marital sex and or ANY (marital or otherwise) consenual sodomy (which the statute described as fellatio as well as anal sex) should not be over ruled. In other words, people should be put in jail for having consenual sexual acts. Fast forward to 2003, when the Bush Administration and the Texas government (both R's) argued vehemently that the state of Texas has the right to prosecute and put in jail gay people for having consenual sex. I am pretty sure no D regime has argued at all much less so vehemently for putting people (gay and straight) in jail for consenual sex.

As for Christianity being the official religion, you are incorrect there as well. Let's start with the Pledge of Allegiance. Bellamy's original 1892 Pledge read, "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. America." Inj the 50's and allegedly to stop godless Communism from spreading in the US, which had a God -- the Knight of Columbus began a huge campaign to get "under God" put into the POA. The KC felt the pledge was incomplete without any reference to a deity.

This is just one example. Another is the far right and the R's in the Fed. and State govt.'s wanting to put the Ten Commandments in the court houses and referring to it as "the law." Another example is the prayer breakfasts that the Bush Administration has made common in the Federal Govt workplace. While they are not mandatory, not to go based on your religion will exclude you from an important venue where work is discussed. Then, gay marriage. Why does any religion's view of homosexuality come into the govt.'s def. of marriage. Even if youy believe that gay marriage is a hidious thing, that is not the point. The point is that the govt.'s are giving financial and other benefits to one group of people and excluding another based solely on religion -- can you think of a compelling reasons to shun gay marriage other than religion

All of that is the far right, the R's, and the crazy Christians wanting to put Christianity as the lead religion of the US. Have they said it outright. No, they have not. But their actions shriek it.

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

Most Republicans are for the fair tax, which doesn't tax the lower or middle class at all. You are lying again here.

Um, please show me where I said who other than myself was for the Fair Tax

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

US Law does prohibit guilt by association, which is why we've been trying so damn hard to keep Guantanamo open. So, your point only proves my point that it keeps us all safer to not give terrorists constitutional protections.

Good - white people bombed Oklahoma City and were responsible for many other terrorist acts in the Clinton and other Administrations. Are you white? If so, please report to Gitmo. Simialrly, all Arabs are not terrorists. Moreover, all Arabs are not in Al-Q. Finally, if the govt. can prove by the rule of law or on the field of combat that someone is a terrorist, I am all for locking them away, etc. But, the US cannot just lock people up and keep them there forever. Hitler did that.

Also, just how exactly do you know who is in Gitmo and what the acts that put them there were? I admit that I think the majority of the people there deserve to be locked up because they were in Al-Q. But, to suggest that locking them away forever without any supervision suggests ignorance of the Geneva Convention, US Law, and just about every other law of every other civilized nation. Maybe you just believe in W and that he would not lie to you. If that is the case, this argument we are having needs to go no further because you cannot see facts, which are all that interest me.

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

The insane borrowing, which I agree is insane, happened long before W ever took office. He just simply didn't help. The borrowing started under Hamilton, so you can hardly blame Bush for our national debt when it has been accumulating for 200 years. You must be one of those dems who believes Bush is responsible for slavery too. He should have stopped borrowing, cut spending and paid our debt down. Also, you have confused the national debt with the deficit in your statement. They are NOT the same thing.

Yes, the US had borrowed for a long time. However, when W took office we had a surplus -- now we have deficit W also said he would cut spending, blah blah balh - He never did, and he never did in any significant manner even before 9/11. So, to think McCain, who supported W and argued for W all the way down the line, will be any better is not really a logical conclusion.

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

The only guy who has promised to cut spending is McCain. Obama plans on spending more than Bush ever dreamed of.

Well, McCain certainly voted for W's spending. Also -- please provide exact figures of how much more than W and McCain Obama means to spend. I suggest you can't.

You might do better to investigate a little before posting. Certainly you don't have to. But, it would make you and your arguments appear more intelligent