Dobson un-American

Judy Moore, Golden

Published February 20, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size

More Letters to the Editor

Comments

February 20, 2008

6:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

LetsThink writes:

No. Judy, Dr. Dobson is NOT un-American.

But I can understand your frustration. We all want to vote. But there is no good candidate this year.

However, we Republicans must vote Republican. Because there will be disaster if the Democrats take total control of our government.

American will become even more 'socialistic'. And no one is moving to Europe from America. So socialism is obviously horrible.

The Democrat philosophy appeals to the masses, because it is based upon 'taking' from someone else.
And there will always be more people who want to 'take', than want to give.

Republicans: we need to come up with a solution; and soon. America is heading fast towards Socialism.
February 20, 2008

6:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

VVVV writes:

I have a way to improve the turnout at the polls. Add a line to every ballot to allow you to vote for "none of the above". If that is the leading vote, the parties have to find two more cantidates. Maybe then the reason behind people not voting would become more clear. Protesting by choosing not to participate is more honorable than voting for someone you don't want.

To me the most un-American thing in the world is jumping to the conclusion that someone isn't patriotic, loyal, or worthy just because you don't agree with thier position. It is extremely fascist to declare someone un-American just because you don't like their point. Treason is still a capital offense, and slinging words like un-American around is one step away from declaring them inhuman and worthy of extermination. If you have to argue, make a point with evidence. Name calling accomplishes nothing, and only makes you seem like the fool.
February 20, 2008

7:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

Old_Grouch writes:

Oh! Dearie Me! Horror of Horrors! That awful "Socialism" bogeyman might come out from under the bed, if we don't vote Republican.

Tell us, "belltennis", is that something like the "Toe Eating Monster" that frightens little Pasquale in the comic strip, "Rose is Rose"?

Do Mommy and Daddy have to hold your hand, so you can manage to go into the scary old voting booth, and scribble an X to keep us all from an awful disaster that threatens to emerge from its depths?
February 20, 2008

7:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

vudumom writes:

I thought we had the right to vote,not the duty to vote.The difference is having the right to vote ,you vote if you believe in a candidate.The duty to vote means you have to vote no matter how bad the candidates are.Vote no matter what?I guess I'm un-American then,because I see no candidate that I can vote for and feel like they are no good choices.That's what being American is.The rights and choices we have.Men and women have given their lives for the freedom of choice and rights in this country.Not to be bullied into voting when you personally feel you can't support the candidates.Being un-American is taking that right away.
February 20, 2008

7:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

Spencer writes:

whenever Dobson is not voting, it is a good election
February 20, 2008

8:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

VVVV,

I agree with much of what you say. There are patriots on both sides of most political issues. Just because someone disagrees with me or I with them doesn't make either of us traitors.

belltennis,

I agree, Dobson isn't being un-American, but, rather a frustrated American. I am one of those too, who frequently doesn't like my choices in elections. The concept of "the lesser of two evils ( or as I like to say: weevils!)" makes a rather thin porridge.

I am an independent who feels that we desperately need a third party formed from the middle of the other two parties. We would then have more choices and better balance in our government. In that way too, we could avoid some of these wild swings to the right and then to the left that we have experienced in our history. That isn't good for those of who live here or those in other countries who have to relearn how to deal with us every other election cycle.

I am concerned , though when you say: "we Republicans must vote Republican,,,". In the last 46 years, I have voted for Republicans, Democrats, and independents, depending upon a balanced assessment of their positions on multiple issues. Would you vote for Attila the Hun just because he was a Republican? Just because he wasn't a Democrat? I'm sorry, but that doesn't seem to be very thoughtful voting!

You also don't have to worry about socialism in this country, whether Dems or the GOP are in charge. We would have to have a Socialist party with that as it's primary platform. Then, a majority would have to vote for them. It isn't going to happen!

I also think you might need to consider the Republican business model of Government. "Trickle down economics" doesn't seem to "trickle down" any more, if it ever did. Tax cuts for the wealthy don't help me, or the rest of the middle class. You are now also the party of big government and the opposite of fiscal responsibility! The Evangelicals( this is the tie in to Dobson) have absconded with your party! You have moved soooo far to the right that THIS independent HAS to vote Democratic this year. Maybe you should deliver a message to your party and the world by doing the same!
February 20, 2008

9:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

you know when the extremists are mad about the crop of candidates then they must not be all bad.

why isn't dobson paying taxes again?
February 20, 2008

9:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

leftside writes:

greenleaf, your spot on when you opine that the Republican party has moved to far to the right.

I'm often called a liberal in here but mostly refer to myself more correctly as a 1970's conservative. Reason being that the religous extremists, prolife extremists and NRA extremists have taken the Republican party so far to the right that my values and beliefs find themselves on the "leftside".

The best thing that could happen for the country is for a Democrat to win this election and for the Republicans to revamp their party focusing on how to win elections without having to cater to these extremist groups.
February 20, 2008

10:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

leftside,

It sounds as though you are more of a traditional Republican, moderate or even "leftside" as you describe yourself! I am a moderate independent with more liberal leanings. You and I would more logically fit in the NEW MIDDLE party ( we could call ourselves "Middlins":>) ) than in either of the current models.

I have problems with both parties on the subject of fiscal conservatism, I don't trust either to do the right thing. Republicans today believe in rewarding the wealthy and connected just for being wealthy and connected! Democrats are too quick with entitlements and "something for everybody" regardless of expense.

The GOP is atrocious when it comes to anything for the environment. They are also too interested in letting religion meddle in my government. The GOP comes across as mean spirited and the Dems often lack a backbone and tend to circle shoot each other.

Bottom line: WE NEED A THIRD PARTY! Maybe then, even Dobson could find someone to vote for!
February 20, 2008

10:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

leftside writes:

greenleaf, it would be nice to have a third choice and would be better for America. Unfortunately, the American people are so entrenched in the two party system I fear it will be a long time coming. However, I am not unhappy with the choices we have this year. Obama is to liberal for me but not bad, Clinton, regardless of misdeads, has proven herself through Bill's terms to be fiscally conservative and even though McCain appears to be pandering to the neo-conservative I believe that if elected he'll go back to his middle ideals.
February 20, 2008

10:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

leftside writes:

Actually, Obama is way to the left for me but we may need that to counter the past 7 years.
February 20, 2008

11:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

Jeff writes:

Spencer,
Good point, if neither Dobson nor his followers vote in the coming election, that's probably a good thing for all rational and thinking Americans ... so I say, 'You go, Dobson! Refrain from voting to your heart's content!'
February 20, 2008

11:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

jgd writes:

Greenleaf,

The idea of a legitimate third party may sound good, but it will never happen until we have realistic campaign finance reforms. Both of the existing parties are being financed from one side of the aisle or the other and as long as campaigning involves huge amount of funds a third party would never be able to keep up.

I can't think of one organization or industry that would benefit more from a third party, that they would from one of the established parties. This leave little or no capital available for a third party campaign.

Limiting contributions would, to a degree violate the 1st Amendment and would be difficult to control. When a solution is found to reform campaign financing, then a third party maybe be viable.
February 20, 2008

11:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

I'm with Spencer...I think Dobson and all flock should refrain from voting for these "godless" candidates. The fact that mccain was cast from mount crazy dobson and still received the nomination from the party speaks volumes about the trend away from religious fundamentalism...seen here and in places like iran where upcoming elections should prove an end to their little experiment (like ours with w) in putting a fundie in charge.

jdg said, "The idea of a legitimate third party may sound good, but it will never happen until we have realistic campaign finance reforms."

Finally something upon which we can agree. A viable (that's the operative word there) third party candidacy is simply a pipe dream until we overhaul campaign finance laws.
February 20, 2008

12:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

jgd writes:

Old Grouch,

***Do Mommy and Daddy have to hold your hand, so you can manage to go into the scary old voting booth, and scribble an X to keep us all from an awful disaster that threatens to emerge from its depths?***

What ever it takes to keep the socialist out of power!!!!
February 20, 2008

12:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

vudumom writes:

I read this today and thought is was appropiate considering what this country is going through and all the promises that are spoken like a true candidate,from what is left in the race.
Maybe some voters can remember this when they go to the voting booth.

A government big enough to give you everything you want,is strong enough to take everything you have.
Thomas Jefferson
February 20, 2008

12:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Hey guys,

Wow, there is a lot more agreement than disagreement in this forum. I think I'm in shock!

jgd: Excellent point about campaign finance reform! Until we have that, a third party is probably just as Jay said: "a pipe dream". You guys are in agreement for now! That's great!

And leftside,

you are right too! We had worse choices in the last two election cycles, but I still would like a 3 way race.

And nearly everyone: we're all a little wary of Dobson. I don't fault him for his opinion and his one vote, which he can use or not as he pleases. My problem with the man is his ability to swing an election on a single issue (religion) to re elect a man who has so many glaring faults and failures. Bush would never have won last time without Dobson and the evangelicals stealing the Republican party. My sense as an independent is that he over reached and now it's payback time. I hope so!
February 20, 2008

1:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

belltennis, so is America socialist ("will become more socialist"), or not socialist ("heading fast toward socialism"). I think you're confused. I'm also guessing you probably know very little about socialism to begin with--and that may be part of your confusion.

As to the letter writer's charge of disloyalty: a great number of people don't vote (50% in a general election?). That doesn't mean they're disloyal to their country. I agree with her in the sense that I feel a duty to vote. But not everyone shares that feeling. Many think the government is something outside their world, instead of part of it.
February 20, 2008

1:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

Public funded campaigns: they have them in Arizona and Maine. We could probably learn something from them. Big money, however, hates the idea, as it will no longer be able to exert disproportional influence.
February 20, 2008

3:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

LetsThink writes:

Will the people who want more government programs (supposedly free handouts), please tell me if they are Democrats?

And is there anyone in this chat session that want more taxes and government intervention?

If so, I would like to hear why you want America to continue in this direction.

Wouldn't it be simpler to just move to Europe; which is Socialism (most countries pay 50% tax). Yuk.
February 20, 2008

3:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

If we had the social safety nets, and concern for the public that most European nations have (e.g. good public transport, national health care, recyling), I'd be all for it.

If it meant I had to pay more taxes to effect those changes, I'd still be for it.

I'm not moving to Europe any time soon, because this is my country. And this government is my government.
February 20, 2008

4:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

primafacie writes:

I couldn't care less about public transportation, don't want socialized health care and leave recycling to the trash-collection professionals I pay every month. This nation does have safety nets, thankfully not to the degree of most European nations but, unfortunately, headed that way.

This is my country, and this is my government. The road we're on today is not what the founding fathers envisioned and it's not representative of the rugged individualism, unfettered by bureaucratic hurdles, that built the greatest nation in the history of the world.

Do we really want all of life's necessities provided by our kindly Uncle Sam, or do we want to excel (or not) on our merits, with the liberty to pursue success without someone else deciding what is the right way or how much is too much?

Sadly, the preference of far too many is toward the former.
February 20, 2008

5:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

Ideologues love to resort to rhetorical exaggeration to make their case. With that sort of talk beating down upon us every day, from all angles, why not?

Either:
we want *all* of life's necessities provided by Uncle Sam; and,
we *don't* want to excel on our own merits; and,
we want *someone else* making decisions for us, and,
we are sad,

<or>

we want to be *rugged* individuals, and
eschew safety nets (cause they might make us weak)

Not much wiggle room in there, is there? With such a clear black and white picture, akin to a good infomercial, how could we possibly *not* want to be that rugged individual? And if I'm over, say, 70 and can't be so rugged anymore, I guess I'll jest die and get out of the way.
February 20, 2008

6:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

anderson,

I like your use of the phrase "rhetorical exaggeration"! I hope you don't mind if I borrow it sometime! It's especially pertinent when speaking of Mr. Dobson, a man who used rhetoric to help elect George Bush, a man who is in the Bush leagues when it comes to rhetoric and needs all the help he can get ( sorry for the too obvious pun guys).

belltennis,

For the record, I am an independent. What I want from government is balance, as in a balanced budget. Republicans were once masters of fiscal conservatism, and then along came George - twice! He is still travelling on his endless war tour, rebuilding a country that at least some of us saw little point in attacking in the first place ( Afghanistan was a different matter). So first we blow up Iraq, and now we have to rebuild it, while others try to blow it up yet again! Now, as if spending nearly a trillion dollars on this war so far isn't bad enough, we cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans and don't assess windfall profit taxes for George's buddies in the oil industry!

I think before you travel as far as Europe to criticize their "socialism" you need to consider the very serious hole the Administration continues to dig for this country, while cutting the social and environmental programs you might wish were more robustly funded some day.

I'm sorry if it seems I'm singling you out of all the other posters. I know I addressed you in my first posting too. It's just I think you are being a little naive being so concerned about socialism. I think the Republican party is in serious trouble, and I'm not certain that you have a clue! For one thing you seem to be worried about the Democrats, when you really should be worried about independents like myself who will probably vote Republicans from office in wholesale numbers this fall!
February 20, 2008

6:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

IronmanCarmichael writes:

Dobson's petulant "If you don't play my way, I'm not going to play!" refusal to vote is like many of his fellow fundamentalists' threat to boycott stores that don't bid customers "Merry Christmas" in December.

Good! Stay home and sulk and see what that gets you. More parking spaces and shorter waiting lines for the rest of us.
February 20, 2008

7:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

jgd writes:

Greenleaf,

Wow! For an independent you sure have a good grasp of the Liberal talking points.
February 20, 2008

7:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Hi jgd,

Yeah, I probably do! Remember, I'm a conservative on fiscal issues, a moderate on social issues and very liberal on environmental issues. So tonight, I'm disappointed in Republicans (they make me fiscally ill:<) ), but I've had more than my share of problems with Democrats too. Much as I try to be diplomatic, I know the time is coming when I will say things that piss off people on both sides and everybody will pile on. If so, I'm sure it will serve me right.

I actually don't want a weak Republican party, or a weak Democratic party. If I can't have my third party to keep the other two in line, I want balance and compromise between the 2 parties we have. I'm sick of everybody protecting their own turf and not being willing to compromise for the good of all. This is why I don't like the concept belltennis was talking about where Republicans HAVE to vote for Republicans. I would react the exact same way to a Democrat saying they HAVE to vote for a Democrat. Refer to my "would you vote for Attila the Hun" comment above.

I want the parties to do a better job of attending to the people's business by doing a little more reaching across the aisle. Does any of that make sense jgd?

Stay tuned, I'm sure to go after the Democrats on something soon!
February 20, 2008

8:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

primafacie writes:

JGD, the parties would do a better job of tending to people's business by staying out of the way and letting me tend to my business. Both the GOP and the Demos have their faults, but one tends to believe more in the individualism that built this country (although they're certainly not governing that way lately). Demos tend to favor our ol' Uncle Sam holding our hands through life.

So, no, there isn't a compromise or balance. Good. I'd rather have my side win, because I believe it's right (or, dare I say, less wrong?). No problem there.
February 20, 2008

8:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

primafacie writes:

Sorry, that should be addressing Greenleaf....
February 20, 2008

8:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

it's amazing that i dont hear more right wingers decrying the now infamous republican practice of refusing to enact the will of the majority of anericans. is it ideology over majority? are you folks alright with that as long as you're in the vocal minority?
February 20, 2008

9:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Hi primafacie,

One question: You as a Republican believe it would be good for this country and everyone in it for the Republicans to always win?

Whenever one party is all powerful or powerful for too long they become consumed by corruption, graft and cronyism. How would the Republican party you propose escape that scenario? Or are you actually proposing a one party system of government such as the communists and fascists were so fond of?

I don't know, doesn't sound like good governance to me!
Seriously, we all like to win. but would you really like to have a large disenfranchised minority growing more frustrated and determined to do something about it with every passing day?
February 20, 2008

9:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

jgd writes:

Greenleaf

The two Democrats nominees are about as farleft as you can get, Obama has been rated the #1 liberal in Congress with his voting record. Hillary was #16. How much compromise do you think will be on the table with either one of them in the office?
February 20, 2008

9:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

LetsThink writes:

Greenleaf
Do you really want to pay taxes until May of every year??

Does that encourage you to work harder? To carry those who don't want to work?

Why not just give them money out of your pocket, rather than force the rest of us to give them our money??

These are seerious (but respectful) questions that I wish a Democrat would answer.

In 50 years, I've never understood their logic. And I've tried.
February 21, 2008

7:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

jgd,

I know buddy, that's the way it appears to me too! My answer to the second question is : " it beats the heck out of me! ". Their rhetoric speaks of "reaching across the aisle", but, like you, I have my doubts. In the 2000 election Bush claimed he was "a uniter not a divider...". You see where HE went with that. IN the aftermath of the 2004 election he said: ..." I have political capital and I'm going to spend it." That with a less than 1% popular majority in that election!

This, jgd speaks directly to what I have been saying right along: we desperately need a viable third party formed out of the middle. That would eliminate these wild swings to the right when the Republicans are in power and to the left when the Democrats take over. It would dilute the power of any one party and force them to reach across the aisle to compromise and form coalitions with the other two.

I do want you to know, that as a realist and a bit of a cynic, that I doubt we will see such a third party in my lifetime, but maybe you're younger and you will. I hope so, my friend!
February 21, 2008

7:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

belltennis,

Directly and indirectly I have answered your questions about as well as an old independent can. You keep addressing Democrats, but what will probably decide this election cycle are the independents. I am not sure that you get that point. I am also not sure that you understand the logic of your own party let alone the Democrats ( Don't feel badly - on any given day they both confuse me).

As for your questions directed at me: address a few of mine directed to you and we'll have a conversation. That's what this is: a point and counterpoint forum. Without that, it's a series of monologues and how interesting is that?

Okay? Give it a try, it might be fun!
February 21, 2008

9:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

Old_Grouch writes:

greenleaf,

The experiments with 3rd party in the history of this nation have all been failures in the end. And, insofar as the 21st Century be concerned, it is most likely that a repetition of such an experiment would also be a failure.

The underlying reasons are to be found in the vast differences between our Nation's growth and development and the growth and development of those Nations where a successful multi-party system does exist. And the first, and most obvious, difference is the reality of the difference between a Nation structured on the basis of a single culture, single language, and limited geographical boundaries enclosing the majority of those who are part of that singularity.

One might observe a parallel in Canada, where the English dominance of both language and culture is still in conflict with the French areas of dominant language and culture. Add in our own geographical divisions, and political entities, that we call "States", and the viability of a multi-party system becomes even more unlikely here.

That there are a goodly number who remain - more or less - "non-partisan", or "independent", in their approach to both local and National affairs, including politics, is, indeed, a large factor in the success, or failure, of either of the two current political parties over time. But, that very independence is too varied in its nature to serve as a strong point upon which to coalesce a well founded additional party as such.

A Ralph Nader, and/or Greenpeace, may be very strong and influential in certain areas; but, there are vast areas in which neither of these entities is of great importance at all to the majority of the local population. And, this is just one example of the diversity that exists. Additionally, the "causes" at any one time for which "independents" will rally, and/or act to split party votes, are equally limited, both in wide-spread appeal and application to Government as a whole in the Nation.

The whole of successful politics in the United States is the art of compromise.
February 21, 2008

9:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Old_Grouch,

Reluctantly I have to agree that this is largely an intellectual exercise, and in my case, an opportunity to vent my frustrations. I still believe in some deep recesses of my mind that this theoretical third party could form only in the moderate middle. For example: McCain and Lieberman and not the radical fringes as represented by Ralph Nader and Ross Perot. The latter could only hope to be short term spoilers, and not be any more viable than Libertarians or Socialists in the long run.

Your last point is my biggest frustration with the entire process: the dying art of compromise. I have little faith that either Party is willing to negotiate in good faith unless they negotiate from a position of strength and, then, only offering crumbs to their opponents!

I appreciate your reasoning and the logic of your argument. I just wish that our two party system didn't leave so many feeling disenfranchised! Thanks for your comments my friend!
February 21, 2008

10:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

jgd writes:

Greenleaf,

The idea of the swings also concern the Liberals, which is why they are so intent on passing more socialist programs. The more people depended on the liberal government for their financial well being the more assured that party will maintain the control. Every time this "tax the rich" arguments comes up it is nothing more than decreasing the number of people paying taxes and increases the number collecting some form of welfare.

Once the liberals reach somewhere around only 40% of the population paying taxes, there will be no reason for them to compromise, even the independents will become irrelevant. The 60% of people collecting their welfare will keep them in permanent power.

One of the things I find highly ironic is the Dems wanting to raise the taxes on entities like the oil companies but some of their top campaign donaters have huge amounts of money in offshore accounts, earning money tax free. For the benefit of all of the Libs that will be responding, "SO DO THE REPUBLICANS", this is true but they do not want to tax everyone into poverty either.

I am for a consumption tax or some form of fair tax, instead of this corrupted IRS.
February 21, 2008

11:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

jgd, your suggestion that greenleaf is repeating liberal talking points after he gives you an honest thought out statement shows that you wouldn't understand a reasoned independent argument if it hit you in the ass. He says he's voted for Republicans before, but you ignore that and cherry pick the things you want to see--all toward your end goal of seeing the world as standing against you. It's us v them, good consumer, and you've swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.

You apparently cannot argue without making broad generalizations ("the liberals"--hoowee! Look out!), without seeing yourself in opposition to half the world (rather than in the same boat with anyone), and without demeaning said opposition, and making rhetorical claims (asserting as truth something that is obviously in dispute) to do so.

You too, belltennis. Watch out for those Democrats.
February 21, 2008

11:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

redwhiteandBLUE writes:

It's James Dotson "perogative" to vote or not to vote.

To vote for whom he chooses, that doesn't make him un-American.

Because this ia a free country.
Why be forced to vote for a canidate if you don't agree with the issues, especially immigration.
February 21, 2008

11:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

jgd,

I know that Forbes proposed a flat tax some years ago that went nowhere. How would a consumptive tax work? Speaking as a business man, it sounds as though it could turn me into "the tax man". Would it?

As to the socialist agenda of the Democratic party, I don't think that does or ever has existed. Socialism with it's concepts of community and or government owned property and industry and farms is the antithesis of our free enterprise system, whether you are a Democrat or Republican.

The confusion comes in the form of semantics, which trips all of us up from time to time. The root word is "social" and I DO believe that The Dems have a social agenda that sometimes runs contrary to mine. While I do believe that some members of society will always need help from government and other sources, I don't believe in the concept of welfare as brought to us by LBJ's great society in the 1960's. I would fight against ever going back to that.

I think that our economy would have ceased functioning long before we reach the 60% figure you mention unless you are including dependent children, the elderly and disabled who basically don't pay taxes anyway.

One of my complaints is the child deduction on taxes that rewards people for having larger families which they may or may not otherwise afford. On the other side of the argument, I am offended when oil companies aren't taxed for their windfall profits, or cut slack for environmental clean up (the administration eased some regs for well site clean up under the clean waters act).

Unfortunately, jgd, while you point fingers at the liberals, I can point fingers both directions and even at myself sometimes :>).

Any information you have on a consumptive tax I would be curious about.

Thanks
February 21, 2008

11:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

jgd writes:

Anderson,

Go back to bed and this time get out on the other side, because you are obviously having a bad day.
February 21, 2008

12:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

greenleaf, someone, probably sooner than later, will link to the "fair"tax website--a favorite of the Ron Paul crowd, in which you will learn it is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Thank you for pointing out he distinction between socialism and the Democratic party--although it amazes me that any educated American doesn't understand this.

Those who've studied American history might also know that Socialists were once a fairly strong party (garnering at least 2.2% in a Presidential election before the New Deal reforms came into play), but they are not today.

General assertions: We are based on a market economy (not socialism), and have been as far back as the eye can see. Also, we, like everyone else in the world, have a mixed economy. So we are neither capitalist, in the pure sense of the word, or socialist, in the pure sense of the world. This mixed feature is apparently fertile ground for rhetoriticians everywhere.

For fear of repeating myself (although I haven't said it for awhile), the first question that comes to mind when someone talks about major reform of the tax code, is: what do we do about the numerous public policies we've implimented via the tax code, with its carrot and stick approach? The mortgage tax deduction is just one. Flexible spending accounts are another. I'm sure there are plenty affecting small businesses but I couldn't begin to enumerate them (okay: offer employee benefits, don't pollute, etc.). You won't find this answered on the fairtax website.

I must disagree with your characterization of "rewarding" large families. We can debate whether or not they should get tax breaks (I say yes) but a simple tax break is hardly an incentive for having children, much less a reward to Mama and Papa who will be investing a good 18 years or more of their lives, and a considerable amount of their resources, toward their offspring.
February 21, 2008

12:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

jgd writes:

Greenleaf,

"There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise" American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition

Our capitalist economy is rapidly moving in the direction of socialism. The government is using the current tax system to control the industries, taxing the oil companies is just one example. Universal Healthcare is a method to control the profits of the Insurance, Medical, and Pharmaceutical industry. Many of our industries are seeing more and more control by the government, look at the control the government will have if we sign the Kyoto accord. How many industries will be told what they can do or can't do?

I haven't read much about Ron Paul's fairtax, but a consumptive tax would make more sense to me. No matter how you got your money you will pay tax when you spend it. Everyone would be exempt from paying the first $3000 of taxes, by the government sending everyone a check for $3000 on the first of the year. The actual numbers would need to be determined, so the $3000 I mention is just an example. People would receive all of the money they earned and all of the illegal money (drugs, criminals, etc) would be taxed.

Businesses would be required to charge taxes on everything, no different than what they do now with the state sales tax.

The biggest upside of this program is the government would have nothing to say about who pays how much, it would all be determined by your personal spending habits.
February 21, 2008

12:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

anderson,

As I told you in an earlier posting : " you don't miss much"! I am impressed by how thoroughly you read these postings. I'm guilty of skimming or outright ignoring trollish or insulting contributions. I admire your attention to detail.

I hope that jgd picks out my negative comment regarding the deduction for children. I knew that a Democrat would rise to swat me on that one. Good for you! The irony of that statement is that as a father, I have always loved children, the more the merrier( for the record , my wife and I stopped with one)! My problem with it is less economic than environmental: anything that encourages large families I reject out of principle. Would you call this a conservative argument, a liberal argument or my own uniquely independent argument? Whatever it is, I think the joke's on me!

I guess I need to check out the fairtax website. I only "skimmed" Ron Paul's platform since I knew early that he was going nowhere.

Thanks anderson
February 21, 2008

12:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

"Our...economy is moving rapidly toward socialism".

When are we expected to get there and how will we know?
Since we are rapidly falling downward with no signs of arrest, when did this slide start? During the Bush administration?

What are the signs? Campaign promises about national healthcare? Unsigned treaties? Vague allegations of more and more control?
February 21, 2008

1 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

greenleaf, I knew from our previous conversations where you were coming from on the large family thing, with your concerns about population and the environment.

How would I classify your argument? I don't think it needs classification. If someone asked I would say this is what a concerned, educated American thinks about the matter. However, if you want to view it within the classical definitions of conservatism and liberalism, I'd say it is definitely more of a conservative argument (you are seeking to preserve what we have).
February 21, 2008

1:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

jgd writes:

Greenleaf,

Your statement about the deduction for children is the same as Anderson's about home mortgage interest. We as tax payers are fighting to find crumbs while many others have found numerous loopholes in the existing tax codes. This country receives no taxes from interest earned in offshore accounts, illegal money, (drugs crime etc) and illegal immigrants, to name a few. Maybe if we could find a way to tax this money our total tax bill will be substantially lower. Collect the tax when it is spent not when it is earned, that way everyone pays.

Anderson
***Campaign promises about national healthcare? Unsigned treaties? Vague allegations of more and more control?***

When these become reality, we will be one step closer.
February 21, 2008

1:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

jgd writes:

DoubleChubbyChuck,

Great idea, With bacon!!
February 21, 2008

1:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

I'm going for a burger now. Maybe with jalepenos on it.
February 21, 2008

2:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

Old_Grouch writes:

greenleaf,

A while back, on another line of postings, Earl proposed a straight 17% sales tax. But the opportunity to actually debate the matter didn't come through, as, for some reason or other, the thread where Earl posted was shunted off to "old Stories", before anyone was able to follow up.

Again, it is a very interesting idea; and, in one form or another, it does seem to work - more or less - elsewhere. But . . . ! Again, we come to the very vast difference between a Government that derives from a "single", or "top", source - such as a Monarch originally - and our Government, which derives from a Union of already functioning separate Governments, the States.

The European - basically feudal - model can collect a "flat tax", and disburse according to the "needs" of its smaller units - "Counties", etc., - simply because the model comes from the basic idea of a feudal "Lord" who owns everything to begin with, and allows his "under-officers" - Dukes, Counts, Earls, and those Knights and Burghers who are appointed to run an area - to "draw on account".

In reality today, of course, the Parliament of the land actually disburses; but, since they too were originally appointed by the Monarch, the feudal model merely adapts accordingly.

On the other hand, the HUGE QUESTION in America would be: What does one do with Municipalities, Counties, States, and local Special Tax Districts, while collecting XX% off the top for Federal purposes? Even attempting to figure what the individual would have to put out for a "flat tax" in each and every taxing area is mind boggling.

There are places in the USA where a "product" worth, say $1.00, for round number purposes, could come to cost as much as $1.68, just figuring 17% - 17cents - "flat tax" in each taxing area, Federal, State, County, Municipal. Of course, this is ridiculous. BUT . . . ? How would one solve the problem? And, most particularly, how would one even begin to do away with the multiplicity of taxing entities?

I'm not into the blather about "States Rights"; nor do I care to begin to deal with all the nonsense about stoping the clock, and turning everything backwards to the 18th Century, where the Federalist model would have to replace Jeffersonian concepts when it comes to Constitutionality, etc., etc. All that's just a waste of time. But, so far anyway, it's all that seems to come up, whenever a matter of REAL tax revision - including some kind of EQUITABLE "flat tax" idea - appears.

Economics isn't even really an art, much less "dogma", "science", or such like. But, a decent discussion of the ways by which to make some kind of "single-tax", or "flat-tax", work would be interesting.
February 21, 2008

6:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

WOW, I went away for a couple of hours and look at all the catching up I have to do! Even though we seem to have left Dobson in the dust ( can you forgive me for saying "that's just as well"?), this is a very high quality forum and I am really enjoying it!

jgd, I'm sorry for not commenting on the consumptive tax concept. It sounds as though it has some merit, even though it WOULD make me the tax man! I am trying to imagine how much more federal money I would be handling and how much more frequently I would have to provide accounting and settle up with Uncle Sam? Would this apply somehow to businesses purchasing from other businesses? How would it affect corporate tax structure? From a purely businessman's point of view it raises some concerns, but all business people hate handling tax money in any form anyway. One other thought, it would give criminals even more reason to steal. The value of goods they steal would be increased by what they save on taxes. Hey, would it be theft AND tax evasion?

Old_Grouch,

You are right, any flat tax or consumptive tax could result in a simplification of some aspects of existing tax code while replacing them with a different set of complications and unintended consequences.

You mention that this system would work better under a monarchy. We might all agree with that after the States, cities, counties and special tax districts wade in.

My theory is that they would let the feds keep their flat or consumptive tax, while keeping their own, existing sales tax structures. This would add to the bookkeeping nightmare that small businesses endure currently. We now have to maintain tax licences and make quarterly reports for each municipality and under the new system we would add the federal government. Due to the dollar amounts involved they would want monthly deposits if not monthly reporting. I would become the village "tax collector".

I also wonder if this would serve to dampen business activity when people think about the additional tax load associated with every purchase they make.

One thought though, speaking of unintended consequences: some unintended consequences are actually good. Such a flat tax might turn more people into fiscal conservatives, as the price they pay for the essentials of life go up. They might actually become less likely to buy on impulse. They might even become unintentional environmentalists by conserving less electricity, water, gasoline wood and a whole list of other consumables.

There's a lot to think about here!
February 21, 2008

8:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

Some issue that arises besides those already mentioned (and a huge one for me), is the regressive nature of a consumptive or flat tax. Poorer people spend a greater portion of their income on goods and services, than do wealthier people. The "fair"tax people have some smoke and mirrors answer for this about getting refunds, but I don't really trust them.

I also have to ask the basic question: is the current tax system broken? If so, how? Or, is it inconvenience we're talking about? I imagine it can be quite a burden on businesses, but is that cause for overthrow and installation of a new constitution? Like healthcare, we have to consider the effect of the tax system on all people.
February 21, 2008

11:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

jgd writes:

Anderson,

***The "fair"tax people have some smoke and mirrors answer for this about getting refunds, but I don't really trust them.***

Are you saying you don't trust our government to send out these refunds?

***I also have to ask the basic question: is the current tax system broken? If so, how?***

The current tax system is not just broken it is a disaster. The IRS has a budget in the billion of dollars, the people spend billions of dollars trying to figure out the tax codes and we have people legally paying no taxes on billions of dollars of income. If that is a broken system I don't know what is.

Even the IRS doesn't fully understand the tax codes, call them sometime and ask them a question. You may get five or ten different answers, but yet you are expected to do the right thing or face major interest and penalties.

In the fair tax system, the poorer families would be spending very little or nothing at all in taxes, however the wealthy would be paying more based on their buying habits. Like I said before all of the money being made in offshore accounts, among others, that is now tax free would be subject to taxes when it used to make purchases. The tax burden on the middle and lower income people would be greatly reduced, and it would be done in a way that is not controlled by the government.

Home › Opinion › Letters to the Editor

Dobson un-American

Judy Moore, Golden

Published February 20, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

More Letters to the Editor

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs