I won't vote in 2010

Supposn · Sep 26, 2010

Democrats have decided to delay the tax cuts bill vote until after the election.
I?ll refrain from voting in general elections until the tax bill reaches the floors of both Congressional houses and the bill is voted upon the House of Representatives? floor.

I fully support Obama?s position that we cannot afford to continue the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest taxpayers. I?d prefer that the discounted tax rates for long term capital gains incomes be eliminated and replaced with more populist tax cuts.

Since leaving the service in 1959, I?ve voted in every general election and have missed extremely few primary elections. Finally since 2008 I?m no longer voting for the least evil and I require a candidate (at minimum) to substantially concur with my opinion upon at least one issue and methods to achieve our perceived goal. I won?t absolutely always vote for a candidate that simply meets the minimum standard.

Obama?s speaks well on the issues but lacks explicit explanation of how he prefers laws be drafted to achieve what he professes to be (and are too often less than explicit) goals.

Obama?s campaign office had written, (but I?ve never actually found a direct quote from Obama), that he was a proponent of the federal minimum wage pegged to a cost of living adjustment, (i.e. COLA). Based only upon that minimal but substantial agreement I voted for Obama. I now fear that his behavior thus far gives me good reason to fear Obama and the Democrats will acquiesce to Republicans. If Obama?s administration increases the minimum wage, Democrats will not press for it also being thereafter COLA?d.

A COLA?d minimum wage rate will not substantially improve USA?s economy but it is certainly an improvement of a non-COLA?d minimum wage. Any significant federal minimum wage is preferable to an ineffective minimum wage. I suppose it is feasible for a minimum wage rate to be excessive and detrimental to an economy. The greater harm occurs within jurisdictions adjoining others having inadequate wage scales and goods and persons have unrestricted passage over their borders. I have never encountered a historical reference to a nation?s economy being harmed by an excessive minimum wage. I don?t believe there?s ever been an excessive minimum wage within any nation.

Obama is the titular head of the Democratic Party. I appreciate the federal health act?s future benefits to our nation. Obama and the Democratic Party acted despicably to achieve an inferior bill?s passage. Democrats offered exceptions to a few states rather than negotiating and arguing for consideration to help all congressional districts with inadequate availability of health facilities. If such honorable negotiation couldn?t sway senators of less densely populated states, it would have certainly ?held their feet to the fire?.

I am not angry because of what he and his party failed to achieve. I?m furious of what positions he surrendered without fully negotiating for anything better. Politics is not a dirty word and negotiation is respectable. Acquiescence and submission are despicable words and are generally cowardly and despicable acts.

It is my patriotic duty not to vote for a party that leads in the wrong direction or a second party that lacks leadership and has no definite direction. The Republicans will lead us until we recognize that it?s the wrong direction. Retaining no consistency of direction, Democrats are unable to correct our nation?s course.

I will not vote for any Democrats until Obama and his party finds and retain some courage. Thus far it appears that I will not vote for Obama in 2012.

Respectfully, Supposn

obtuseobserver · Sep 26, 2010

Supposn said:
I fully support Obama’s position that we cannot afford to continue the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest taxpayers.

Actually the bigger problem is the 47% of Americans who pay NO income tax.

Thank you for your service.

David · Sep 26, 2010

Why not vote? Nobody ever said it has to be a Dem or Repub. If you want, you could vote for any number of 3rd parties that are enjoying growing relevance. Examples include the Libertarians, Socialists, Greens and Conservatives. It's your patriotic duty to vote, not bury your head in the sand.

obtuseobserver · Sep 27, 2010

David said:
Why not vote? Nobody ever said it has to be a Dem or Repub. If you want, you could vote for any number of 3rd parties that are enjoying growing relevance. Examples include the Libertarians, Socialists, Greens and Conservatives. It's your patriotic duty to vote, not bury your head in the sand.

Um... he went to elaborate lengths to explain exactly why he wasn't voting and exactly what he believed the results to be.

I'm going to go out on a limb and sussgest Supposn is aware of other parties fielding candidates as well as their odds of being elected.

There is no patriotic duty to vote. The highest rates of voting occur in totalitarian states where they impose a duty to vote - not liberal democracies, republics etc.

David · Sep 27, 2010

obtuseobserver said:
Um... he went to elaborate lengths to explain exactly why he wasn't voting and exactly what he believed the results to be.

I'm going to go out on a limb and sussgest Supposn is aware of other parties fielding candidates as well as their odds of being elected.

There is no patriotic duty to vote. The highest rates of voting occur in totalitarian states where they impose a duty to vote - not liberal democracies, republics etc.

And I disagree with his reasoning as it's that kind of thinking that has us stuck in the current situation. Until people stop whining and start acting, nothing will change.

obtuseobserver · Sep 27, 2010

David said:
And I disagree with his reasoning as it's that kind of thinking that has us stuck in the current situation.

It is one thing to disagree. However, he was pretty clear about why he made his decision. Your offer of reasons for why he should change his mind far less so.

Also, you are again operating with an opinion that's floating free from the facts. Our voter turnout in recent federal elections has been increasing as a rate of population each cycle since at least 2000. So, you'd be more accurate to assert that too many people voting got us into this mess.

David said:
Until people stop whining and start acting, nothing will change.

A lot of people stopped whining. They elected Obama and a lot of Democrats with record voter turnout. We got lots of change. To the tune of quadrupling the deficit and bumping the debt ten percentage points to GDP. Unemployment rates have not been improved upon. etc etc

Now people like Supposn and many others who have actually looked to the facts to guide their opinions are pissed off. The last thing those people need is some one spouting conclusions based on bad information telling them they are wrong.

AK_ID · Oct 1, 2010

Supposn, all I have to say regarding your decision not to vote is "Thank you."

Supposn · Oct 6, 2010

The working poor

obtuseobserver said:
Actually the bigger problem is the 47% of Americans who pay NO income tax.

Thank you for your service.

Obtuse Observer, wage earners directly contribute 7.65% of their entire wages for the FICA payroll tax. Employers match those contributions. I?m a populist and I accept conservatives? logic that customers rather than businesses generally pay taxes levied upon commercial enterprises.

If labor is 1/3 of prices directly and indirectly imbedded within all aggregate purchases, than employers? contributions to FICA are effectively a (1/3)(.0765) = 2.55% sales tax upon all purchased USA goods and services.

Lower income wage earners, the working poor and their families with incomes insufficient to purchase health insurance and too much to qualify for Medicaid are paying (.0765 + .2550 = 10.15% of their entire gross incomes for only the federal FICA payroll tax.

[Millionaires in aggregate directly contribute extremely insignificant proportions of their incomes for FICA and they, (as all of us) indirectly pay what is effectively the 2.55% sales taxes upon all purchases of USA goods.

If labor portion of all aggregate purchases is ?, than we all pay a 3.625% rather than 2.55% of what effectively is a federal sales tax].

In addition to the 10.15% - 11.475% of the working poor?s entire gross wages that are directly and indirectly contributed to the FICA payroll tax, a tax upon payrolls (unlike an income tax), directly discourages job creation and hiring. Taxes upon payrolls (more than any other tax I recall), are directly detrimental to the nation?s median wage.

That?s a significant tax upon the working poor that pay ?no income taxes?.

Refer to the discussion thread within the economics board entitled ? FICA?s the most regressive federal tax?.

Respectfully, Supposn

obtuseobserver · Oct 6, 2010

A pretty long and round about way to refute a claim not made.

I said nearly half of Americans will pay no income tax for tax year 2009. FICA is not income taxation unless you batter and abuse the term to mean something other than what it is.

For examples: If that's the case then all americans kill baby seal every monday. If by all you mean none. If by Americans you mean Canadians. If by baby seals you mean cans of Mountain Dew. If by every you mean never. If by Monday you mean whatever you'd like it to mean t fit your argument... then yes all Americanns kill baby seals every Monday

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0&.v=1

Supposn · Oct 6, 2010

The direct FICA tax upon employees is certainly a tax upon their incomes.

obtuseobserver said:
............. I said nearly half of Americans will pay no income tax for tax year 2009. FICA is not income taxation unless you batter and abuse the term to mean something other than what it is.

Obtuse observer, although the FICA payroll tax is not entitled as an income tax, it most certainly is a tax upon income.

?A rose is a rose by any other name?. I assume your stating that FICA payroll taxes directly levied upon wage earners is not a tax upon incomes is your attempt at ironic sarcasm. Otherwise the title you have chosen, ?Obtuse? is certainly appropriate to your process of logic and your chosen name, ?obtuse? certainly describes your logic.

Similarly ?if it walks, moves and quacks like a duck, it?s essentially considered to be a duck?. The taxes levied directly upon employers and based upon their payrolls act essentially as sales taxes and should be economically considered as a form of sales tax.

USA?s working poor, (who are directly paying FICA, are among our nation?s lowest income earners) are subject to our most regressive of all federal taxes (and it is a tax upon their incomes).

Respectfully, Supposn

obtuseobserver · Oct 6, 2010

Supposn said:
Obtuse observer, although the FICA payroll tax is not entitled as an income tax, it most certainly is a tax upon income.

Sure. But there are well understood distinctions and we all know what they are.

I used the term income tax in the sense of "income tax" not in the sense of FICA taxes. Apparently you got confused somewhere. For future reference when I refer to income tax I mean income tax. When I refer to payroll or FICA taxes I mean payroll or FICA taxes. Hope I'm not moving too fast for you.

Supposn said:
“A rose is a rose by any other name”.

Not if it is called a festering bucket of infectious puss.

Supposn said:
I assume your stating that FICA payroll taxes directly levied upon wage earners is not a tax upon incomes is your attempt at ironic sarcasm. Otherwise the title you have chosen, “Obtuse” is certainly appropriate to your process of logic and your chosen name, “obtuse” certainly describes your logic.

You can assume that when some one refers to income tax they are referring to income tax.

You can assume when some one refers to FICA (or payroll) taxes they are talking about FICA (or payroll) taxes.

What you are doing is an example of tedious pedantic crap. Redefine well understood terms for your own purposes? Give me a break. Even my children have given that nonsense up.

Lionel Hutz: Oh, Judge Brown has had it in for me ever since I kinda ran over his dog..... if you replace dog with son and kinda with repeatedly.

Supposn · Oct 6, 2010

FICA payroll tax is a clasification of an income tax.

obtuseobserver said:
Sure. But there are well understood distinctions and we all know what they are.

I used the term income tax in the sense of "income tax" not in the sense of FICA taxes. Apparently you got confused somewhere. For future reference when I refer to income tax I mean income tax. When I refer to payroll or FICA taxes I mean payroll or FICA taxes. Hope I'm not moving too fast for you.

Not if it is called a festering bucket of infectious puss.

You can assume that when some one refers to income tax they are referring to income tax.

You can assume when some one refers to FICA (or payroll) taxes they are talking about FICA (or payroll) taxes.

What you are doing is an example of tedious pedantic crap. Redefine well understood terms for your own purposes? Give me a break. Even my children have given that nonsense up.

Lionel Hutz: Oh, Judge Brown has had it in for me ever since I kinda ran over his dog..... if you replace dog with son and kinda with repeatedly.

Obtuse Observer,
. . . we apparently do not agree as to what are the distinctions or characteristic attributes that are distinctive to income taxes.

I concur with the economic community’s generally acceptance that an income tax is government’s mandating individual persons or entities to surrender a portion of their incomes to the government. The mandated amount to be surrendered is directly related to the determination of the person’s or entity’s income. To that extent what we both refer to as FICA or a payroll tax, it is certainly also an”income” tax.

I'm apparently moving too fast for you, but I’ve yet to conceive a simpler explanation that you seem capable of understanding.

Shakespeare’s point was that if you choose to refer to an unchanged rose by any other name or word, (such as a “ festering bucket of infectious puss”, your choice of names or nomenclature does not in itself modify the rose. To the extent it retained its full attributes that characterized it as a rose, it remains a rose.

Regardless of your opinion, when the economic community refers to FICA (or payroll) taxes they are also referring to a particular classified income tax.

You are attempting to obscure what we well understand as “income taxes” for your own purposes.

FICA would not be an income tax if it were not mandatory upon individual persons or other entities or if the amounts to be surrendered to the government was not dependent upon the determination of individual income amounts that are applicable to the tax.

Respectfully, Supposn

obtuseobserver · Oct 7, 2010

Supposn said:
Obtuse Observer,
. . . we apparently do not agree as to what are the distinctions or characteristic attributes that are distinctive to income taxes.

That's true.

But to suppose no one else understands the distinction is specious; and for you to further illustrate your confusion redundant.

If you'd like to continue this silly exercise, I'm game. I'd rather not. Apprently you think I'm slow. OK.

I think you're wasting everyone's time parsing something understood in pursuit of some goal I don't get and have absolutely zero interesting getting.

danstevens80 · Oct 11, 2010

Did someone say "festering bucket of infectious puss"?

obtuseobserver said:
That's true.

But to suppose no one else understands the distinction is specious; and for you to further illustrate your confusion redundant.

If you'd like to continue this silly exercise, I'm game. I'd rather not. Apprently you think I'm slow. OK.

I think you're wasting everyone's time parsing something understood in pursuit of some goal I don't get and have absolutely zero interesting getting.

Man, when did this thread become so informative and productive?

I love it when this happens.

Supposn · Oct 27, 2010

I can vote!

I?ve just received the official sample ballot for my U.S. Congressional District.

A candidate was nominated by petition and was provided a web page by the Green Party. Both the Green Party?s and the candidate?s web pages lack explicit proposals for the accomplishment of their platforms but there?s no reason in principal that I could not vote for this candidate.

Green Party candidates have never been elected. It?s when we actually have to negotiate with others that things become messier. For too many years our congresses and presidents have been unable to work and negotiate in a meaningful manner.

[Negotiations are more often than not difficult. Each proposal should be judged upon its own merits. There is no ?good? in compromise simply for the sake of compromise itself. Too often a compromise is less rather than more nationally beneficial than the other opposing concepts and methods. The ?middle ways? or mid-points are not intrinsically sacred or magical].

I?m pleased that there's an alternative that permits me to demonstrate my dissatisfaction with Democrats that will not scheme and fight and negotiate for our nation's best interests. Obama and his followers talk pretty but they acquiesce and surrender too much without good reason.

There is a congressional candidate I can vote for.

Respectfully, Supposn

obtuseobserver · Oct 27, 2010

No administration or Congress has compromised just for compromise's sake. They do it to secure enough vote's to get a bill passed.

Obama and his followers passed a number of very large pieces of legislation.

Zero house Republicans voted for the healthcare bill.

3 Senate Republicans voted for the Stimulus bill.

Where is this compromise that has your panties in a bunch? Because it certainly has shown up in congressional votes.

Supposn · Oct 27, 2010

obtuseobserver said:
No administration or Congress has compromised just for compromise's sake. They do it to secure enough vote's to get a bill passed....... Where is this compromise that has your panties in a bunch? Because it certainly has shown up in congressional votes.

Obtuse Observer, there?s truth in what you wrote but I?m pleased that an alternative permits me to demonstrate my dissatisfaction with Democrats.

My vote should not be granted to party that deliberately does less than strive, scheme AND fight AND negotiate for our nation's best interests.

Obama and his followers acquiesced and surrendered too much without good reason. (Particularly during the two years for passage of the health bill); Obama and his followers for all tasks acquiesced and surrendered too much without good reason. After two years the health bill had less rather than more support in congress.

Obama's own lack of fortitude equally to Republicans' and Blue Dogs' obstructionism hindered negotiations to pass superior bills.

I will vote for the Green Party?s U.S. Congressional candidate.

Respectfully, Supposn

obtuseobserver · Oct 27, 2010

Supposn said:
Obtuse Observer, there?s truth in what you wrote but I?m pleased that an alternative permits me to demonstrate my dissatisfaction with Democrats.

me too

Supposn said:
My vote should not be granted to party that deliberately does less than strive, scheme AND fight AND negotiate for our nation's best interests.

agreed

Supposn said:
Obama and his followers acquiesced and surrendered too much without good reason. (Particularly during the two years for passage of the health bill); Obama and his followers for all tasks acquiesced and surrendered too much without good reason. After two years the health bill had less rather than more support in congress.

and less from the people as well

though I'd offer the discontent was a belief that the bill went too far

however, without regard both camps regard the bill as a failure

lastly, the only o compromise on this waqs within the DNC not Congress as a whole

early but - have a good weekend

David · Oct 27, 2010

Supposn said:
Obtuse Observer, there?s truth in what you wrote but I?m pleased that an alternative permits me to demonstrate my dissatisfaction with Democrats.

My vote should not be granted to party that deliberately does less than strive, scheme AND fight AND negotiate for our nation's best interests.

Obama and his followers acquiesced and surrendered too much without good reason. (Particularly during the two years for passage of the health bill); Obama and his followers for all tasks acquiesced and surrendered too much without good reason. After two years the health bill had less rather than more support in congress.

Obama's own lack of fortitude equally to Republicans' and Blue Dogs' obstructionism hindered negotiations to pass superior bills.

I will vote for the Green Party?s U.S. Congressional candidate.

Respectfully, Supposn

So you're and anti-Dem leftist?

I'm also dissatisfied with the Dems (and bewildered by the sudden insanity of the Repubs) but I'd never vote Green.

WilliamKBunker · Nov 1, 2010

if you won't vote in 2010 that is one more vote of strength for me who will.

an argument against voting is that it lends credence to an illegitimate state. Surely you have a vote for someone, be they a runner or not.

I won't vote in 2010

Similar threads