Who is going to be the Vice President?

[steveny]

Re: some economic considerations... i'm not even going to bring up the important stuf

Are you hiring?

Depends on who wins the election.

If you, your family members, coworkers, employees, or friends supporting McCain for economic reasons, I can only assume it's because of an annual income that well exceeds half million per year - otherwise, it's a vote against your own economic interest.

See here is where most people miss the point. If Taxes are higher it doesn't automatically mean everything stays the same for the less fortunate AND they get more money through the trickle down effect of the rich being taxed more. What it means is their bosses are still going to make the same amount of money and those underneath the boss are going to be expected to work harder because there are going to be fewer people helping them. Quite simply when taxes increase you let people go and place more responsibility on the ones who stay. This offsets the new cost. The only way the poor can win is through hard work not hand outs.

Much like when minimum wage is raised. All the kids and unskilled labor pour into the streets and scream joy joy and jump up and down but what they don't understand is they are a commodity and when a commodity (gas) gets more expensive, business owners (people) use less of it.

So if Obama wins and you make less than the 600k or whatever the figure is you can expect to work a lot harder to pay what the company has to pay in increased taxes....I sure hope you didn't really think the boss was going to pay for it.

it's a vote against your own economic interest.

It's a vote against everyones best interest unless of course we all feel we should just get everything for free. It sends the wrong message to take from the rich and give to the poor. Why put in any effort at all if once you get rich someone will just tax it all away? See, that is the message being sent.

 

[Ponyboy]

Ojas, those are great figures and all but a bit misleading when taken out of context: Desert Storm, recessions, the internet boom and bust, Sept 11, Iraqi Freedom, etc.

 

[docjohn]

In broad terms Democrats believe that the government should be first in line before the populous in the redistribution of wealth amongst the top 3% of earners and corporations via taxation funding government programs.Republicans feel that easing taxation burden on the top will allow those wealthy americans to spend thier money in the economy in essence putting the free market first before the IRS.The idea that you reward success is sound.

 

[myguitar]

Let's see here... You've got 18 million liberal, or Democrat Hillary supporters, many of them females, and many of them are now "undecided"... and the best plan McCain has to steal those votes is to bring in a NRA member, Pro-Life, avid hunter Sarah Palin? Yeah, that will never happen. Every day I lose a little more faith in John McCain's judgment. I think I might sit this election out.

Fun fact: Sarah Palin's Husband and son are not Republicans but are actualy registered as "undeclared" voters.

 

[KSXNSX]

Re: some economic considerations... i'm not even going to bring up the important stuf

Are you hiring? I wish my employer and clients paid me enough to come out ahead on Bush/McCain's plan.







Whoa, now I know steveny is doing pretty well financially (I also know he's worked very hard to get where he is). So, his support of McCain from an economic perspective is completely rational.

Right or wrong, I also know for many folks, economic policy is cited as the primary issue in determining support for a given candidate. However, compared to the rest of you, I had no idea I was so poor. I mean, my parents, sister, cousins, uncles, aunts, friends, coworkers, managers, directors, professors, business owners... almost none of them would come out ahead on McCain's plan. Almost all of us earn less than $600,000 / year.

If you, your family members, coworkers, employees, or friends supporting McCain for economic reasons, I can only assume it's because of an annual income that well exceeds half million per year - otherwise, it's a vote against your own economic interest.

source




I think you got it backwards...

Bob Allen (R), Florida House of Representatives, co-chair of Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign in, arrested for offering $20 to perform sexual acts on an undercover police officer. Not a woman officer, but a male officer.

Mark Foley (R), US House of Representatives emailed and IM'd sexual explicit messages to teenage congressional pages. Not girl pages, but boy pages.

Robert Somma (R), Federal Judge rear-ended another motorist in his Benz after a visit to bar. Not a regular old bar, but a gay bar. Was wearing black women’s cocktail dress, fishnet stockings and high heels; had difficulty locating his drivers license in his purse.

Larry Craig (R), US House of Representatives for lewd conduct in a mens bathroom at an airport. Not lewd conduct with a chick, but lewd conduct with a dude.

Glenn Murphy Jr. (R), National Chairman of the Young Republicans for getting drunk at a party and performing unwanted oral sex on another party-goer. As you might have guessed: said party-goer was not a hot girl, but some guy.

Republicans sure do have more sex scandals and it's curious how few of them involve females.



The facts don't agree with the party propoganda...

Well, at least you got this one right - provided your religion is the same as their religion. They even want it in your classroom in place of science - something Palin supports in her home state. Just like Dover or Kansas. Does she really wish to bring this type of embarrassment upon herself?

A lot of those graphs are representing correlations--they don't show cause and effect. They also don't represent factors such as the actions of the Federal Reserve.

Sometimes the actions of one President won't be seen for years until long after he has left office--possibly even after he has died.

Bush has invaded Iraq for oil and spent a lot of money doing so. That ROI may not be seen until YEARS or DECADES later when we start benefiting from the oil contracts we gain. If a democratic president happens to be in office at that time and gains from the actions of Bush, that doesn't necessarily mean he did anything to benefit the economy.

 

[sahtt]

Re: some economic considerations... i'm not even going to bring up the important stuf

Are you hiring? I wish my employer and clients paid me enough to come out ahead on Bush/McCain's plan.







Whoa, now I know steveny is doing pretty well financially (I also know he's worked very hard to get where he is). So, his support of McCain from an economic perspective is completely rational.

Right or wrong, I also know for many folks, economic policy is cited as the primary issue in determining support for a given candidate. However, compared to the rest of you, I had no idea I was so poor. I mean, my parents, sister, cousins, uncles, aunts, friends, coworkers, managers, directors, professors, business owners... almost none of them would come out ahead on McCain's plan. Almost all of us earn less than $600,000 / year.

If you, your family members, coworkers, employees, or friends supporting McCain for economic reasons, I can only assume it's because of an annual income that well exceeds half million per year - otherwise, it's a vote against your own economic interest.

source




I think you got it backwards...

Bob Allen (R), Florida House of Representatives, co-chair of Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign in, arrested for offering $20 to perform sexual acts on an undercover police officer. Not a woman officer, but a male officer.

Mark Foley (R), US House of Representatives emailed and IM'd sexual explicit messages to teenage congressional pages. Not girl pages, but boy pages.

Robert Somma (R), Federal Judge rear-ended another motorist in his Benz after a visit to bar. Not a regular old bar, but a gay bar. Was wearing black women’s cocktail dress, fishnet stockings and high heels; had difficulty locating his drivers license in his purse.

Larry Craig (R), US House of Representatives for lewd conduct in a mens bathroom at an airport. Not lewd conduct with a chick, but lewd conduct with a dude.

Glenn Murphy Jr. (R), National Chairman of the Young Republicans for getting drunk at a party and performing unwanted oral sex on another party-goer. As you might have guessed: said party-goer was not a hot girl, but some guy.

Republicans sure do have more sex scandals and it's curious how few of them involve females.



The facts don't agree with the party propoganda...

Well, at least you got this one right - provided your religion is the same as their religion. They even want it in your classroom in place of science - something Palin supports in her home state. Just like Dover or Kansas. Does she really wish to bring this type of embarrassment upon herself?

That's pretty much the straight talk express, some of which I already touched on, besides the fact it's arguably way out of context. Regardless, there is a lot of talking that isn't connected with any walking on both sides. As the graphs show, even though they have to be taken in to context and aren't the end of the discussion, the smaller government/less spending route has just been "talk" as of recent by republicans. Were those due to war [for instance, if people were to elect republicans during war time environments on purpose for "better security", spending would proportionally be higher, debt would be higher, and so on, at no fault of the political party] or carelessness? Probably a little of both but the graphs alone, while powerful, aren't the whole story.

On the taxation issue, it's not so much the individual tax plans relating to income taxes I have issue with. Going back to before Bush tax cuts in itself in response to a ballooned deficit is not 'way out of line', but in this economic environment I'm worried it'll do more harm then good. Note this is in regards to the average American, I'm not that concerned about it because I'm paying the interest on the t-bills anyhow (some racardian equivalence theory for you).

Personally, it also doesn't make much of a difference to me [not in the highest earning bracket, even if I am it will be through unearned income]. These are the two issues that seriously concern me Ojas-his stance on corporate taxes and the capital gains tax. These two issues go beyond me and you, these are things that effect our standing internationally and if raised can have debilitating effects on our job growth and investment from abroad. I've read a lot of economic analysis of the consequences and benefits of varying levels of taxation with these two items, it's very straight forward unlike most economic topics unfortunately. Japan's corp tax rate is the only one higher then ours once all deductions etc. are considered, and they have been wading through an economic dumpster since the 80's. But like you illustrated, the deficit is high and I understand the political angle of going after that. The difference on personal income tax levels is not critical or noteworthy to me and I agree it's blown out of proportion by many.

 

[sahtt]

Re: some economic considerations... i'm not even going to bring up the important stuf

source

Also this particular data set is biased, though not necessarily inaccurate. If you want to make it fair, note that the top two bracket pays something along the lines of 80%+ of taxes and support a huge number of lower bracket members. Also noting that a large portion of the population gets freebies and never pays any income taxes is probably relevant. So while the bottom three brackets are 60% of the tax payer population, mostly because they are more numerous, their actual contribution dollar wise is only a fraction of the top earners, who are smaller in number. Therefore I see the argument that giving the top earners tax breaks is just, and I see the opposing view as well. You gut guts posting in here and I applaud you, not everyone gets quoted 15 times like going through a gauntlet.

 

[tosugrad]

Re: some economic considerations... i'm not even going to bring up the important stuf

source

So while the bottom three brackets are 60% of the tax payer population, mostly because they are more numerous, their actual contribution dollar wise is only a fraction of the top earners, who are smaller in number.

Are you sure about that???

 

[steveny]

Re: some economic considerations... i'm not even going to bring up the important stuf

source

Let us assume that this chart is 100% accurate. Ok, now McCain doesn't want to raise taxes on anyone, right? But Obama wants to raise taxes on only the wealthy. So IMO it would appear that the low income Obama supporters don't care that McCain will also lower taxes for low income earners. They just want to vote for the candidate who will raise taxes on those nasty rich people. In fact I firmly believe if Obama wanted to slightly raise taxes on low income but massively raise taxes on the wealthy he would get more support from the low income camp then McCain would get for lowering everyones tax bill.

IMO There is this mind set that low income earners don't really care what rate they are taxed at as long as the rich are taxed more. it's just asinine how easy these people can be blinded by "revenge."

The message sent should be, if you want to pay less tax then work more not work less.

 

[fullracehonda]

Let's see here... You've got 18 million liberal, or Democrat Hillary supporters, many of them females, and many of them are now "undecided"... and the best plan McCain has to steal those votes is to bring in a NRA member, Pro-Life, avid hunter Sarah Palin?

exactly:tongue:


alot of people will see her and relate immediatley, kind of like how black people see barrack obama and relate to him, or how an older white veteran will see john mccain and relate, it doesnt always matter about thier precise political views, because if you feel comfortable with someone you will trust that they take care of you, more so than somebody you dont have anything in common with.



i wish sarah palin the best, and being with john mccain in the white house for a few years i would love to see her be the first woman president of the united states of america :biggrin: starting in 2012, or even 2016 if mccain can tuff out 8 years:wink:

 

[sahtt]

Re: some economic considerations... i'm not even going to bring up the important stuf

Are you sure about that???

Pretty sure One can actually go much farther as you can see here.

*Government spending targeted at the lowest-earning 60 percent of U.S. households is larger than what they paid in taxes in 2004. Overall between $1.03 trillion and $1.53 trillion was redistributed downward from the two highest income quintiles to the three lowest income quintiles through government taxes and spending;

Here are some data points on federal taxes/spending:

Bottom 20% Received:$24,000 Paid:$1,600

Middle bottom 20% Received:$20,000 Paid:$7,000

Middle 20% Received:$17,000 Paid:$13,000

Upper middle 20% Received:$15,000 Paid:$22,000

Upper 20% Recieved:$18,000 Paid:$58,000

As you can see, federally speaking, the lower 60% of tax payers are actually net tax revenue receivers. While the bottom 20% receives over 10 times more funds then they pay out, the top 20% pay out 4 times more funding then they get back. This pattern becomes exponential towards the top, in which the top 50% pays 96% of taxes which is one thing, but the top 5% of tax payers pay a full 53% of all taxes. The top 1% pay a staggering 30%+ of all taxes. A whole welfare neighborhood in the ghettos of New York probably owe their monthly checks to steveny!

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr151.pdf

Now whether there are 'hidden' taxes paid by the poor, namely inflation through the lack of real assets, etc. is a different topic.

 

[Osiris_x11]

ridiculous...

As time passes, it's becoming more & more evident that the McCain camp have gift-wrapped the '08 Presidential election for Obama bin Biden...

http://www.codewolf.com/story/article_1067073.html


I really feel for Sen' John McCain. His years interned @ the Hanoi Hilton, inadvertent yet tumultuous involvement w/ the 80's S&L scandal ala' Keating-5, having the '00 GOP nomination stolen from him in his 'prime, and now bein' forced to select the likes of this individual. I can see him considering hara-kiri, when all is said & done this November...

 

[Ponyboy]

Re: ridiculous...

As time passes, it's becoming more & more evident that the McCain camp have gift-wrapped the '08 Presidential election for Obama bin Biden...

http://www.codewolf.com/story/article_1067073.html

I really feel for Sen' John McCain. His years interned @ the Hanoi Hilton, inadvertent yet tumultuous involvement w/ the 80's S&L scandal ala' Keating-5, having the '00 GOP nomination stolen from him in his 'prime, and now bein' forced to select the likes of this individual. I can see him considering hara-kiri, when all is said & done this November...

Just FYI, that link is NSFW.

 

[nsxotic911]

Re: ridiculous...

As time passes, it's becoming more & more evident that the McCain camp have gift-wrapped the '08 Presidential election for Obama bin Biden...

http://www.codewolf.com/story/article_1067073.html


I really feel for Sen' John McCain. His years interned @ the Hanoi Hilton, inadvertent yet tumultuous involvement w/ the 80's S&L scandal ala' Keating-5, having the '00 GOP nomination stolen from him in his 'prime, and now bein' forced to select the likes of this individual. I can see him considering hara-kiri, when all is said & done this November...

Quite the opposite. Picking Palin has electrified the Conservative base and brough them together. There is hardly any Conservative or Republican critic still around for McCain.

The MSM has it in for Obama, but you will see soccer Mom's come out in full swing. I see Palin supporters and sites, and mobilizations happening left and right. Volunteer groups are getting together, the local McCain offices are getting stormed with calls and emails.

Look at some of the comments here:
http://patdollard.com/2008/08/the-7-million-dollar-woman-and-then-some/

A Beaverton couple just came into our office who returned from attending the convention in Denver today. They are both lifelong Democrats and Hillary supporters/volunteers who are now strongly supporting John McCain. They LOVE the VP pick Sarah Palin and offered to join any coalition that would be help
-There are tens and hundreds like that.

The raly just after had 25,000 people show up with tickes sold out and people standing outside the field in parking lost b/c just to be at the event. The enthusiasm gap and attendence, and donation is getting very close to Obama's.

If McCain can get their act together and take advantage of the mysoginist and anti-family attacks occuring, they will win by a landslide. If you look into the ACCOMPLISHMENTS that Palin has vs Obama, you will realize that she will make a better CIF than even McCain. I fully expect her to be President and I know she'll be a better President then the 3 candidates combined.

BTW: this type of "reporting" is disgusting.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/gW4QXol1f4U&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/gW4QXol1f4U&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

BTW2, here's a video Gulliani talkign about Obama's experience v Palin... Fun starts arond 9:20, I lmao.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mPvPxZIbcnA&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mPvPxZIbcnA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

[Ponyboy]

Yeah, but it's not playing out very well in the polls so far:

^ taken from a Drudgereport link.

 

[Sig]

Figures, graphs and charts are always published with intent. They are almost always misleading in one way or another. How does that saying go? ... figures don't lie, but liars do figure. I will always remember my first day in college statistics when my professor stated, "Give me a set of data and I can prove any thing you want, even two opposing ideas." Either way, one candidate believes in more numerous & higher taxes... the other does not share this perspective. Slice and dice all you want, that's how it shakes out on that issue. One 'fact' that is always left out of this discussion is the relativity of taxation. The marketplace is global and therefore (business and individual) taxation needs to be looked at as related to other competing nations and NOT just in absolute value. The long-view of a higher taxed nation is a less competitive nation... that's the real damage. Innovation goes overseas and capital goes overseas. Capital, much like water, will always find the path of least resistance. It is hilarious when I hear the argument that higher taxes during the Clintons were just fine and as a country we did fine. This completely ignores the fact that it was a far less globalized economy, the taxes on competing nations as a whole were significantly higher, and we were in the middle of a internet boom-business cycle that turned out to have very little substance underneath all the injected capital. That combination would have masked an 80% tax burden if it existed.

We live in a different world now. The global tax burden in emerging markets and competitive markets has reduced significantly and we must measure ourselves against that.

I don't think everything below is completely accurate, specifically a 40% dividend tax under Obama (but he will raise it by some amount), but it is interesting to see how the righties slice it up vs. the summary chart put out by lefties that Ojas posted:

**************Pasted in below****************

Presidential Candidate Taxation Comparison
CAPITAL GAINS TAX

MCCAIN:
0% on home sales up to $500,000 per home (couples). McCain does not propose any change in existing home sales income tax.

OBAMA:
28% on profit from ALL home sales

How does this affect you?

If you sell your home and make a profit, you will pay 28% of your gain on taxes. If you are heading toward retirement and would like to down-size your home or move into a retirement community, 28% of the money you make from your home will go to taxes. This proposal will adversely affect the elderly who are counting on the income from their homes as part of their retirement income.

DIVIDEND TAX
MCCAIN : 15% (no change)
OBAMA : 39.6%

How will this affect you?

If you have any money invested in stock market, IRA, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance, retirement accounts, or anything that pays or reinvests dividends, you will now be paying nearly 40% of the money earned on taxes if Obama becomes president. The experts predict that 'Higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains would crash the stock market, yet do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit.'


INCOME TAX (find your bracket)
MCCAIN (no changes)
Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $31,250

OBAMA (reverse all tax cuts)
Single making 30K - tax $8,400
Single making 50K - tax $14,000
Single making 75K - tax $23,250
Married making 60K - tax $16,800
Married making 75K - tax $21,000
Married making 125K - tax $38,750

Under Obama, your taxes will more than double!

How does this affect you? No explanation needed. This is pretty straight
forward.


INHERITANCE TAX
MCCAIN 0% (No change, Bush repealed this tax)
OBAMA Restore the inheritance tax

How does this affect you?

Many families have lost businesses, farms, ranches, and homes that have been in their families for generations because they could not afford the inheritance tax. Those willing their assets to loved ones will only lose them to these taxes.


NEW TAXES BEING PROPOSED BY OBAMA
New government taxes proposed on homes that are more than 2400 square feet.
New gasoline taxes (as if gas weren't high enough already)
New taxes on natural resources consumption (heating gas, water, electricity)
New taxes on retirement accounts, and last but not least....
New taxes to pay for socialized medicine

 

[docjohn]

Thanks Sig:frown: I just vomited:wink:

 

[nsxotic911]

Yeah, but it's not playing out very well in the polls so far:

^ taken from a Drudgereport link.

Nearly every candidate gets a post convention bounce. This one is smaller than history and RNC's has been much more limited in it's ability.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/13068

 

[nsxotic911]

Figures, graphs and charts are always published with intent. They are almost always misleading in one way or another. How does that saying go? ... figures don't lie, but liars do figure. I will always remember my first day in college statistics when my professor stated, "Give me a set of data and I can prove any thing you want, even two opposing ideas." ...............

Personally, I don't mind revisiting taxation every few years. I don't even mind paying more taxes, what I do mind is hypocrisy which adds insult to injury.

Consider the fact that Obama gave between .5% -6% of his income ranging from 250K+ 1million+.

In perspective, that's $1400 from $250,000 income. That's just hypocrisy. A lot/most of it was to the church too.

Obama needs to put money where your mouth is. Studies have shown that government is grossly ineffective at social spending, private organizations are much more effective, and Conservatives generally give somewhat more than their liberal counterparts.

Example: McCain's just donated $25,000 to charities helpin the hurricane efforts. That's $25,000 more than Obama afaik.

 

[Sig]

Personally, I don't mind revisiting taxation every few years. I don't even mind paying more taxes,

I only mind when they are revised in a direction that makes the US a less competitive nation 10 years down the road. Aside from taxes, there are other major issues that can hurt our competitiveness in play too (i.e. the bill that eliminates the union secret ballot voting system). Why is Obama so stridently for this? This is a horific policy that will open the doors to all sorts of intimidation of union members. Who will want to vote for an unpopular position in public when those that affect your career are watching? Sounds like the old Iraqi elections where Sadaam garnered 99% of the vote. Very sad.

 

[CL65 Captain]

Presidential Candidate Taxation Comparison
CAPITAL GAINS TAX

MCCAIN:
0% on home sales up to $500,000 per home (couples). McCain does not propose any change in existing home sales income tax.

OBAMA:
28% on profit from ALL home sales

How does this affect you?

If you sell your home and make a profit, you will pay 28% of your gain on taxes. If you are heading toward retirement and would like to down-size your home or move into a retirement community, 28% of the money you make from your home will go to taxes. This proposal will adversely affect the elderly who are counting on the income from their homes as part of their retirement income.

Who the hell in this country has been able to sell their house in the last two years or near future and actually make a profit?

 

[Sig]

Who the hell in this country has been able to sell their house in the last two years or near future and actually make a profit?

I did and I know of many others.... most of them were long-time home owners though. That said, the overall real estate market is dismal for most sellers. However, the state of the market is immaterial to fair taxation. I understand (but don't support) the short-term gain penalty and different tax rules for non-primary residence sales. However, penalizing all home sales with a cap gains penalty, regardless of years owned, is a MAJOR tax increase for most Americans.

Take my mother as an example, she has lived in the same house for 30 years and will use the proceeds of the house sale in the reitrment years to help fund the rest of her life. If down the road, she gets taxed upwards of 30% on the gain from the house on top of the 6% she will most likely pay in agent commissions.... it would put a good-sized dent in her retirement capital.

 

[docjohn]

All of the people who paid cash or have owned thier house for many years and paid off thier mortgage.Newly retired downsizing ect.Again this puts more money in peoples pockets to spend back in the economy.If small business owners ,those people who are vigilant and risk takers who employ a vast number of americans get squeezed and profits decrease,who really pays for thatYou will be better off being a section 8 handout no work lazy ass then to go to work with no bonus ,lower wages and unhappy bosses.

 

[CL65 Captain]

All of the people who paid cash or have owned thier house for many years and paid off thier mortgage.Newly retired downsizing ect.Again this puts more money in peoples pockets to spend back in the economy.If small business owners ,those people who are vigilant and risk takers who employ a vast number of americans get squeezed and profits decrease,who really pays for thatYou will be better off being a section 8 handout no work lazy ass then to go to work with no bonus ,lower wages and unhappy bosses.

I work for an airline. I already go to work with no bonus, lower wages and unhappy bosses. :biggrin:

 

[sahtt]

I only mind when they are revised in a direction that makes the US a less competitive nation 10 years down the road. Aside from taxes, there are other major issues that can hurt our competitiveness in play too (i.e. the bill that eliminates the union secret ballot voting system). Why is Obama so stridently for this? This is a horific policy that will open the doors to all sorts of intimidation of union members. Who will want to vote for an unpopular position in public when those that affect your career are watching? Sounds like the old Iraqi elections where Sadaam garnered 99% of the vote. Very sad.

It is very sad. You can have opinions based on logic and understanding, not 'left' or 'right'. In the current global market place, higher corporate taxes will have an immeasurable negative effect on our position internationally. They are already plenty high (2nd behind Japan last time I checked) and its costing our nation problems that without a decent education/understanding you can't even imagine. It's just wrong. If I had to make the choice between cutting a bunch of social programs I really liked or raising the corp tax rate I'd lose the programs. The programs might put food on the table, but our international competitiveness puts EVERYTHING in, on, and around the table!