What's your agenda?

[Jesda]

Do you have one or two key issues that drive you to like or dislike a candidate?

Mine are:Fiscal/Monetary Policy -- In favor of a very conservative approach to paying for government services and using government to provide services.

A candidate could be for or against abortion, for or against the war on drugs, for or against immigration. I could ignore all of it if the candidate had an overall belief in smaller and less involved government.

[HashiriyaS14]

My first criteria is very similar to Jesda's.

In general, I happen to be in support of a much smaller government than we presently have. Ultimately, my desire for "small government" translates less into "fewer dollars tied up in Government" (although this is important too), than it does to "fewer laws". I think that "fewer laws" is the answer to a lot of problems, and I tend to think that eliminating a lot of unnecessary legislation and the bureaucracies that come along with it is the best way to provide for a smaller government.

In regards to fiscal policy, I DO, in general, support less taxation coupled with an equal decrease in spending. That said, I am a firm believer that "fiscal responsibility" trumps "fiscal conservatism". I am very much against the idea of deep tax cuts without first decreasing spending, as to do otherwise simply creates a deficit. The numbers need to add up NOW, and not rely on any sort of supply-side "trickle-down" effect in the future, as I consider all that sort of thing to be voodoo nonsense that doesn't work. It seems to me to be spending tomorrow's presumed money today, which I don't care for.

Seeing as how the spending cuts required to satisfy my personal fiscal "litmus test" are not likely to be adopted by any electable candidate in the near future, my second biggest issue (which ties into "fewer laws") is increased personal liberties.

I generally support a person's right to do/say/own *anything* that does not somehow infringe upon the rights of other individuals. This means that I am pro-gun, pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-stem cell, anti-censorship, et cetera. This even means that I do not support things like "flag burning laws".

Additionally, my "do no harm to others" mantra extends, in a way, to the "church and state" issue. I believe that it does harm to others to teach any sort of religious-based material whatsoever in public schools, as those schools are funded by the parents, not all of which likely subscribe to said religion. Thus, for the government to be taking the tax dollars of a Hindu parent to pay for teaching Christian principles is, in my opinion, theft.

Lastly, I have a great passion for efficiency and pragmatism. I like to support candidates that seem to value both. I am not an ideologue and do not care much for blanket statements, and thus I will not entertain the idea that Government intervention is ALWAYS bad or ALWAYS good or what have you. In certain situations, public or private (or a partnership) involvement can be the most efficient way to go.

I happen to think that, if well-executed, , public health-care can be a good solution (likely in the form of insurance being public and operating at cost, and the rest remaining private). I also happen to think that the military could stand to improve from a serious dose of privatization.

There's plenty more, but I won't dive too far into minutiae.

[Encryptshun]

1) Fiscal Policy -- when you absolutely, positively, MUST spend my tax dollars, there better be a tangible outcome that I can either hear, see, smell, taste, or f*ck.

2) Separation of Church & State. I shall not espouse further for fear of the right-wing banhammer.

The typical juxtaposition of these two issues is what usually drives me nuts come election time.

[szh]

The issues I care about - and my views on them. Don't know if they are ones that the candidates would pick:

1. Balance the damn budget every year. No deficit spending allowed ever! Fire/layoff wasteful people or eliminate programs/entitlements to make this work. Aim for some positive cash flow, so that the national debt can be reduced over time. Use a zero-base approach (i.e., build-up rather than create a wish-list and build-down).

2. Reduce the size of government (related to first item). We waste too damn much money in the assured belief that all entitlements and programs must be automatically going to be funded. Question them all and re-justify them all.

3. No more political or military interference in other countries. Defend the US strongly, not offend mightily. Yes, chase the terrorists, with the active help of the other nations involved. Use humanitarian aid as a lever to make these terrorlst catching efforts requests succeed.

4. No automatic granting of citizenship to illegal aliens. I worked hard for my citizenship, paid the fees, abided by the rules, and it is unfair to people like me to see the automatic granting of citizenship to illegals.

5. No more molly-coddling of prisoners in jails. Prison is not supposed to be a fun place to be, and we don't need to make it so. Rehab should be limited to education (books, learning courses, etc.), but no free HBO or commercial channels.

6. Flat tax percentage rates for all individuals (notice I still allow for a percentage rather than an absolute value per person), with a minimum threshold for poverty (set high enough - let's say no tax on the first 20k of income - to avoid the "oh, the poor suffering low-income folk" commentary). About time we did this.

The issues I don't care about:

1. Abortion. My personal belief is that it is not a contraception method, but it should still be a matter of choice for the woman - not the man - and her doctor.

2. The death penalty. I prefer having it, but it is not one that will keep me up at night if it ain't there.

3. Gay rights. I support equality without regard to sexual preference, because this is a personal belief and personal conscience issue, not a governmental legal issue.

Z

[96Qowner]

Huh. Mine are very similar.

I cannot, cannot abide Socialism. Government is a waster of resources and capital. While taxes are a hot button issue for many people, it doesn't set me off so much. I just want less government control of processes that can be handled by the private sector. Things cost what they cost and I'll pay whatever taxes are required to pay for them. I don't necessarily favor tax decreases. What I favor is less government spending, whether you call it "investment" or not - government spending is government spending and it's ALWAYS wasteful and inefficient.

In that same vein, when government is necessary or desirable, I want it to be on a distributed level as close to local as possible. State's rights. For instance, I've realized that that I often favor local "socialism", somewhat of an oxymoron, but something people can understand. In ND, I wish our State government could somehow subsidize widely distributed wind towers, owned by farmers, instead of the current process, in which the wind energy is being developed by Florida Power & Light and other large corporations. I think this would work because we have a small homogeneous population with similar interests and values. I would pay higher tax rates to support that, because it would make our community and our economy stronger.

I really don't care about most social issues. Live and let live.

It sounds like we're all classic Libertarians. Maybe we can toss the social whack jobs out of the Republican Party and turn it into a Libertarian Party.

[HashiriyaS14]

It sounds like we're all classic Libertarians. Maybe we can toss the social whack jobs out of the Republican Party and turn it into a Libertarian Party.

In the GOP, over the last couple decades, the social conservatives have had better luck tossing out the would-be Libertarians than the other way around.

It's certainly why I'm an Obama supporter this year, and why, I suspect, Gulati is a Barr supporter. I'd be a Barr supporter too if it wasn't for my compulsion to support someone electable.

EDIT: Z articulated some of my own fiscal preferences better than I did, it would seem.

[AZhitman]

My agenda is simple:

The "Common Sense" platform... where there are no "sacred cows".

Political correctness is unnecessary, because we disavow the concept of "Fair".

States are granted much more rights, as a result of a dismantling of most Federal agencies.

The giant sucking sound you'd hear under MY Administration would be thousands and thousands of government agencies, gutted and filleted to a bare minimum.

Community-based and faith-based programs of ALL stripes would be supported and encouraged. I'd create a new Cabinet position, Director of Community Service, to ensure they get what they need. Prisoner labor would be coordinated in order to achieve the goals of my next point...

Foreign aid would be reallocated to infrastructure restoration and improvement. The US would "take back" the Internet, and ensure our borders are secured, no matter the cost. A one-year moratorium on immigration would be imposed in order to get our affairs in order.

A quorum of scientists would be selected in order to review all environmental programs, and vote on their continued existence. If CAFE don't work, scrap it. If CARB don't work, scrap it.

The NHTSA would get its arse handed to it on a paper plate, it needs to get the hell out of auto manufacturers' faces. Let the market decide if a 5-star safety rating is needed. Let the market decide if a car gets good enough mileage. Let the market decide if a car's emissions are too much or if it needs airbags.

We'd walk out of the UN, and take all our money with us. Let's see how much work gets accomplished without our funding.

Iraq hands over the $87 billion they've got stockpiled, or they get glassed. Simple. We spend that money on their infrastructure, allowing their companies (and companies from all countries) to bid on the jobs under GAO oversight.

We tear up any and all treaties and accords, and make sure our covert ops programs are ready and freed up to deploy and carry out clandestine missions as needed.

Countries that require military intervention (in defense of our strategic global positioning) run the risk of being left "as-is" after our objectives are met... No need to rebuild them so they can challenge us a couple generations later. Imperialism in certain strategically-important theaters may be considered.

[skylndrftr]

It sounds like we're all classic Libertarians. Maybe we can toss the social whack jobs out of the Republican Party and turn it into a Libertarian Party.

Are you voting for Barr then?

Mineget the government off our damn phone lineget the government outta our bedroomsNO faith based initiatives no state sponsored religion mean none everBalance the budget (eliminate programs as needed...or ::shock:: RAISE TAXES)NO tax breaks for companies. You want to hire our workers you pay for the privlege...you don't well enjoy the shipping costs that come from LOTS AND LOTS of extra customs workers doing screening.

Free college...I go to school with so many ignorant self entitled self important morons who attend on mommy and daddies dime while I know lots of kids who are smarter and know the value of hard work who can't afford to be here.

[Jesda]

In the GOP, over the last couple decades, the social conservatives have had better luck tossing out the would-be Libertarians than the other way around.

It's certainly why I'm an Obama supporter this year, and why, I suspect, Gulati is a Barr supporter. I'd be a Barr supporter too if it wasn't for my compulsion to support someone electable.

The social conservatives don't bother me much, though they do annoy many mainstream conservatives and libertarian-leaning types. My biggest issue is with the so-called fiscal conservatives that spend and govern like Democrats.

[AZhitman]

NO faith based initiatives RAISE TAXESNO tax breaks for companies.

Interesting that you'd cast a vote for BO, as he supports faith-based initiatives, promises NOT to raise taxes, and has no clue as to how taxation of corporations affects the free market.

These matters not opinion, they're factual.

[HashiriyaS14]

The social conservatives don't bother me much, though they do annoy many mainstream conservatives and libertarian-leaning types. My biggest issue is with the so-called fiscal conservatives that spend and govern like Democrats.

Yeah, for whatever reason "fiscal conservative" has come to mean "cut taxes", and this isn't exactly so. It's part of it, but disciplined spending and a commitment to avoid spending tomorrow's money today is also required. Cutting taxes isn't how you BECOME a fiscal conservative, cutting taxes is the benefit of BEING fiscally conservative. In this respect, I feel that today's GOP puts the cart before the horse.

It's not so much that the social conservatives, as individuals "bother me" so much as it is that I feel the base of the GOP has gone from being primarily pro-small-government to pro-social-conservatism. It's now OK for the GOP to field a socially conservative candidate who isn't a fiscal conservative, but not the other way around. This didn't use to be so, not before the rise of the "Moral Majority". It seems to me that the focus of the party has changed markedly.

Greg: Your hawkishness and preference for unilateralism astounds me.

EDIT: Greg, it is not that BO does not understand how business taxes affect the markets. He is generally of the mind that American businesses are now too prone to outsource, and thus just because an American business receives certain benefits, it's no longer a given that these benefits will trickle down to AMERICANS. It's just as likely that they will trickle down to Chinese or Indians in the form of new jobs in those countries.

Yes, it will benefit SHAREHOLDERS of the US companies, but not so much the employees, and thus by extension not those little forgotten towns in OH and PA. If tax breaks go to corporations instead of individuals, those benefits are going to be felt in Bangladesh, not Ohio.

[skylndrftr]

fair point hitman...lets look at it

You see cutting taxes...I see correcting the imbalance between what the rich and the not rich pay.

I utterly disagree with him on faith based initiatives. However he is at least looking to fund programs to support people in need which is something John McCain wants to cut. I would prefer a different tactic but sometimes you lose the battle to win the war.

Just because John McCain is familiar with corporate financial laws from his time helping jumpstart the savings and loan scandal as a member of the Keating five doesn't mean OB "has no clue" have you asked him? have you seen him talk about it? Your going to trot out the tax rate in this country...well show me a company that actually pays that. The practical stax rates on corporations here are almost the lowest.

EDIT: thoguht I might include another one I missed the first time around. Executive power and understanding of the role of the presidency. Reference: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/....html as bad as spending 700B is, spending it without asking for permission is worse. Especially when the guy supporting it is actually against the idea..sometimes

[AZhitman]

He is generally of the mind that American businesses are now too prone to outsource, and thus just because an American business receives certain benefits, it's no longer a given that these benefits will trickle down to AMERICANS. It's just as likely that they will trickle down to Chinese or Indians in the form of new jobs in those countries.

Hmmmm.

So, it's OK for him to position himself as a "Citizen of the World", seek approval from non-voting non-citizens, prattle on and on about our place in a "global economy", yet continue to pander to the old-school thinking of "Buy American"?

Sorry. He can't have it both ways.

If I outsource HTML coding to my guy in the Netherlands because he'll do it for 1/10th of what a coder here in the US does, nothing BO can do with regards to taxes is going to change that. Nothing.

American companies outsource because of several reasons, all of them created in part by this kind of socialist thinking...

Outsourcing means not having to deal with unions and their meddling.Outsourcing means not having to fund someone's retirement.Outsourcing means lower ERE (employee-related expenses).Outsourcing means not having to carry liability coverage for those people.Outsourcing means getting an industry expert for a competitive wage.

I could go on and on.

Nothing BO does with corporate taxes (that he's outlined so far) has ANY impact on discouraging or encouraging outsourcing of jobs. Nothing.

[AZhitman]

Todd, I won't address your comments on McCain and S&L's until you read up on the history and events relevant to that issue. You'll see it's a non-issue, and FAR from "jumpstarting a scandal".

We've already addressed taxes on the "rich and non-rich". The rich already pay a higher percentage of their income, that's been established.

If you're all about fairness, you'll admit that having Bill Gates pay 10% of his gross (while he employs thousands of people) while Tammy Trailerpark pays 7% of her gross (while she contributes nothing to society) is unfair in the wrong direction.

[HashiriyaS14]

Hmmmm.

So, it's OK for him to position himself as a "Citizen of the World", seek approval from non-voting non-citizens, prattle on and on about our place in a "global economy", yet continue to pander to the old-school thinking of "Buy American"?

Sorry. He can't have it both ways.

If I outsource HTML coding to my guy in the Netherlands because he'll do it for 1/10th of what a coder here in the US does, nothing BO can do with regards to taxes is going to change that. Nothing.

American companies outsource because of several reasons, all of them created in part by this kind of socialist thinking...

Outsourcing means not having to deal with unions and their meddling.Outsourcing means not having to fund someone's retirement.Outsourcing means lower ERE (employee-related expenses).Outsourcing means not having to carry liability coverage for those people.Outsourcing means getting an industry expert for a competitive wage.

I could go on and on.

Nothing BO does with corporate taxes (that he's outlined so far) has ANY impact on discouraging or encouraging outsourcing of jobs. Nothing.

You have hit on the point that any attempts to prevent outsourcing are, in effect, protectionist. This is indisputably true, and it brings us to the argument of whether or not all protectionist activities are a bad idea.

Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. Few things are ALWAYS true or false, but we can certainly debate the merits of protectionism in general terms.

At any rate, BO CAN drive SOME outsourcing decisions with taxes, specifically tax incentives to companies that create jobs domestically that could otherwise be outsourced overseas. Maybe not when there's a 10x savings, but definitely some of the time.

Anyway, your response that I've quoted outlines precisely why GOP supply-side economics doesn't work, or at least it doesn't work for the people they say it works for. The driving principle behind "trickle-down" is that tax cuts and incentives for companies and shareholders will eventually trickle down to benefit the American workers in their employ. The Democrats have claimed for years that this is, in fact, not the case, at least not often enough.

You are, in effect, confirming this statement. You are advocating supply-side economics and completely shedding any pretenses of the benefits being shared with working society, instead rattling off all the ways they are beneficial for the aforementioned companies and shareholders.

This is obviously true, it DOES unquestionably create the best environment for companies and shareholders, but it is NOT politically viable. You NEED to court working America in order to be electable in America. You cannot have a "party of controllers of capital" and get elected. Maybe if each dollar bought a vote, as that contingent certainly holds the majority of the capital, but seeing as how it's one vote per human, that contingent quite obviously does not hold the majority of humans.

The GOP has been pretty good at convincing the working class that they will eventually see the benefits of supply-side economics. In some cases it's even true, such as with small businesses. It is quite obviously false with large/multinational corporations, however the public continues to buy into it. It is nothing more than an excuse, a ploy, to be able to justify spending tomorrow's money today by saying that it will be somehow returned vis-a-vis this abstract magical process. It's a fairy tale.

EDIT: Additionally, whilst the GOP is talking out of one mouth, convincing the working class that it is their best advocate, it talks out of the other mouth to satiate the flights of fancy promoted by its various minority backers (i.e. staunch social conservatives, controllers of capital, etc).

In regards to the social conservatives, the GOP sells them a lie that, when stripped bare of dressing, promises a return to 1950's America and a reversal of the social upheaval of the second half of the twentieth century. This is quite obviously an undeliverable commodity, and yet the GOP continues to (successfully) convince voters that a vote for candidate "x" or "y" will somehow return us to a time of fewer worries and simpler concerns. This is impossible because America has changed, and America has changed because AMERICANS have changed. The demographics of who makes up our nation has changed drastically, and thus people who are buying into this false promise are buying a lie.

In regards to the "controllers of capital", the GOP also sells a lie. They sell the lie that the United States (or any civilized nation) can somehow function as a strict Darwinian meritocracy wherein winners win and losers keep quiet about it. This ignores every historical precedent of societal wealth and power imbalance in existence. Revolutions have begun this way. The powerful minority cannot marginalize the powerless majority, not even fairly, and get away with it for long. This is akin to sitting in a row boat with another person and making a hole in the floor on his side, it will not sink him but still allow you to float. We are all far too interconnected financially to be looking out only for ourselves.

[AZhitman]

completely shedding any pretenses of the benefits being shared with working society

That statement is all I needed to see, as it boils down to a fundamental difference in beliefs.

If I, as a business owner, choose to serve the "greater good", fine.

If I choose to serve only my own selfish interests, that's fine too.

Government has no say. Period. Directly or indirectly.

Companies do NOT exist to benefit the workers. Never have, never should.

If the workers don't like it, they can join together and build a competitor - Build a better mousetrap, so to speak.

However, I will point out the fact that the US is the most charitable nation in the world, and a failure to consider all the assistance received by people who'd have otherwise come to the "Gubmint" with their hand out, is a mistake.

Last I checked, "Robin Hood" was a fairy tale.

[HashiriyaS14]

And I don't really believe that business somehow exists to benefit the workers either. Business exists to make money for the owners.

I just think that it won't work, I think that ultimately their benefit is too tied up with your benefit. I don't take this stance for moral or egalitarian reasons, I take it for pragmatic ones. Modern society is too intertwined.

EDIT: Your response, however, demonstrates that the GOP's sale of the supply-side economics idea to the working class is a blatant fabrication. Do all the rest of the conservatives here agree with that? I bet I'll never hear a candidate say that, as it would render the party unelectable for a generation. Does this then mean that you are OK with your party selling a lie so long as it benefits you in the end?

[skylndrftr]

Todd, I won't address your comments on McCain and S&L's until you read up on the history and events relevant to that issue. You'll see it's a non-issue, and FAR from "jumpstarting a scandal".

Actually I am quite read up on it. However what I said was basically meant as mainly a joke and the rest as a weak little cheap shot. No reason we can't have a little teasing.

Quote »We've already addressed taxes on the "rich and non-rich". The rich already pay a higher percentage of their income, that's been established.

If you're all about fairness, you'll admit that having Bill Gates pay 10% of his gross (while he employs thousands of people) while Tammy Trailerpark pays 7% of her gross (while she contributes nothing to society) is unfair in the wrong direction.[/quote] I don't think I remember me adressing it. I disagree with your characterization of fairness. It is based solely on the idea that financial value represents value to society. I challenge you to come visit my school and still hold that belief. Without those "who contribute nothing to society" Bill Gates would have a pile of trash on his lawn, no roads on which to drive his grey market 959, etc. His ability to employ people is an illogical arguement here because his company does that he does not.

[skylndrftr]

and as another note tieing this all together...

In another thread you made some semi-joking/teasing/whatever remark about my how my views will change over time about helping the poor. I bring this up again because I know what is coming next in your response. A society should be viewed on how it treats its poorest and most underprivileged citizens. The social injustices in this country don't change in my view just as I age. I am simply in a position to help fix it more as I go from being a student with a 'part time' (35+) hour a week job to one with a hire salary and benefits.

Your assessment in that other thread is based on the continued justification of the American people's existence solely to gather the most personal wealth. We as a country can and must do better than that. When the people are more concerned with their neighbors foreclosure hurting their McMansion's value than with the fact that their neighbor is losing their home then we are screwed. When people look at the government as something to help as opposed to something to hinder (and allow it to function as such) we will begin on the road to a better nation. Conutries in Scandanavia do just fine paying double or more the income tax we do. They have happier populations less citizens in jail and lots of other fun little metrics that jointly signify a much better country.

[AZhitman]

EDIT: Your response, however, demonstrates that the GOP's sale of the supply-side economics idea to the working class is a blatant fabrication.

Not necessarily.

When my income increased, it made more sense for me to hire someone to clean my house than for me to do it myself.

I no longer change my own oil on my daily drivers, it makes more sense to roll it into a Wal-Mart trip.

There's more opportunity spending 3 hours online or working on an audit than mowing my yard / trimming the shrubs.

That money would have never gotten to those three people otherwise.

An overly simplistic example, but perfectly valid.

[AZhitman]

His ability to employ people is an illogical arguement here because his company does that he does not.

Not in the least.

His company doesn't exist without him. Nothing illogical about it.

[AZhitman]

I bring this up again because I know what is coming next in your response.

Nope. Your crystal ball is broke.

Your assessment in that other thread is based on the continued justification of the American people's existence solely to gather the most personal wealth. .

Ummm, no.

However, the more I make, the more I give. The more I make, the more I help.

But I'll be DAMNED if some pinheaded nitwit radical socialist blabbermouth from Illinois is gonna tell me HOW to give and WHERE to give.

When the people are more concerned with their neighbors foreclosure hurting their McMansion's value than with the fact that their neighbor is losing their home then we are screwed. .

My neighbor who lost his home is a moron. He bought beer and cigarettes and a pair of jetski's and a bigscreen and cable and 3 computers (all on credit) instead of saving for a rainy day. When the housing market went south, his position as a framer was eliminated, and he STILL couldn't see that he doesn't DESERVE all that crap because HE DIDN'T EARN IT.

Count me in the group that cares MORE about what it does to my property values.

That guy had NO business living in an upper-middle-class neighborhood on $50K a year.

I lose $40K in equity and DID NOTHING WRONG. Damn right I'm pissed. Screw that guy and his lack of self-control.

When people look at the government as something to help as opposed to something to hinder (and allow it to function as such) we will begin on the road to a better nation. .

No, we'll be on the road to Socialism.

Show me ONE function, besides maybe highways and missiles, that the governement does BETTER than private industry or community groups and I'll buy that argument.

You can't. Smarter folks than you and I have established that already.

Conutries in Scandanavia do just fine paying double or more the income tax we do. They have happier populations less citizens in jail and lots of other fun little metrics that jointly signify a much better country.

Sure.

And every one I talk to wants to come to America.

Where's the mass exodus to Finland? Norway? Denmark? Pack your bags yet?

Nope.

p.s. Glad you're back, Todd!!!

[Cold_Zero]

Sure.

And every one I talk to wants to come to America.

Where's the mass exodus to Finland? Norway? Denmark? Pack your bags yet?

Nope.

p.s. Glad you're back, Todd!!!

And the reality is that the Scandinavian countries have some of the harshest anti Immigration Laws and violence against foreigners in Europe. While Germany is over run by Turks and France is over run by North Africans, they sit back and deport anyone that doesn't belong there. I am sure it is one thing to support your fellow citizens from cradle to grave, its another thing to support illegals. That kind of cradle to grave socialism would bankrupt the United States with the some 20 million illegals here.

[ishkabibble]

Show me ONE function, besides maybe highways and missiles, that the governement does BETTER than private industry or community groups and I'll buy that argument.

You can't. Smarter folks than you and I have established that already.

I've said it more than once in the past on this forum. Look up the history and statistics surrounding OMB Circular A-76. When government competes with private industry over who can do something better and cheaper, government wins more often than private industry.

It's not even close to as one-sided and black and white as you see it.

Where's the mass exodus to Finland? Norway? Denmark? Pack your bags yet?

Nope.

You can easily move from country to country around the world, just like you can move between U.S. states?

Nope.

[AZhitman]

No one's stopping anyone from moving to those countries...

And if they ARE, perhaps all is not as wonderful as it seems.

[ishkabibble]

Countries typically don't welcome immigrants with open arms - there are usually barriers. For example, you can't just up and move to Canada unless you are quite rich.

[skylndrftr]

His company also doesn't exist without the roads to get his employees to work, the water and power to power it, and the schools to educate his engineers. Without those things he wouldn't be in business. Obviously his employees are receiving a salary from it and pay taxes to support these things, but I believe he has a higher burden from the ways in which his income and his life require on those services being made available efficiently and effectively to others that make his business what it is.

[skylndrftr]

Sure.

And every one I talk to wants to come to America.

Where's the mass exodus to Finland? Norway? Denmark? Pack your bags yet?

Nope.

p.s. Glad you're back, Todd!!!

not really back just stuck in an airport for a while today...damn thesis

Love arguing with you greg but on that last point I think you would be surprised.

[AZhitman]

I believe he has a higher burden from the ways in which his income and his life require on those services being made available efficiently and effectively to others that make his business what it is.

Say huh?

Todd, get some sleep. Seriously.

[skylndrftr]

I'll will try and revise that in the morning. Maybe using punctuation.

Do we have any drinking games for the debate tomorrow?