?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

OMG! What if the Liberals Win!

October 11, 2006

Please help us get this information into the hands of as many people as possible by forwarding it to your entire email list of family and friends.

What if the Liberals Win in November?

Dear Chris,

How important are the upcoming elections? Extremely important! Below is a list of what we can expect if the liberals win. These elections are crucial. It is vitally important that you vote. Please vote and encourage others to do the same. As bad as things are, they will be infinitely worse if the liberals win.

The strategy of the liberals is to get Values Voters so disgusted and discouraged that they will not vote. If that happens, the liberals will have achieved their goal and they will be running our country.

Here is what we can expect if the liberals win:


  • Amnesty for 12,000,000 illegal immigrants.
  • A push to make homosexual marriage and polygamy legal in all 50 states.
  • Only liberal judges will be appointed. They will create laws to implement the social agenda liberals cannot get passed through the legislative process.
  • Liberals will make the killing of the unborn more difficult to stop.
  • Liberals will continue to try to rid our society of Christian influence, including any reference to God in our Pledge and on our currency.
  • A return to the "Fairness Doctrine" in broadcasting where opposing views must be given equal time. Every conservative talk show host will be forced to give a liberal equal time on every issue. The purpose of this rule will be to shut down conservative talk shows.
  • An increase in taxes to push new social programs.
  • Passing a new "hate crimes" law making it illegal to refer to homosexuality in a negative manner.
  • Liberals will give terrorists from other countries who try to kill Americans the same rights American citizens enjoy under our constitution.
  • We will withdraw from Iraq, sending the message to the terrorists that if they will just be patient they can win and bring their terrorist acts to the U.S.

Go Vote! Encourage Others To Do The Same.

Sign up to stayed informed! Visit the American Family Association at www.AFA.net today!

Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman
American Family Association

P.S. Please forward this e-mail message to your family and friends!

Comments

( 24 comments — Leave a comment )
csbermack
Oct. 12th, 2006 04:05 pm (UTC)
It's more accurate a list than some others I've seen...
tirianmal
Oct. 12th, 2006 04:12 pm (UTC)
Hmmm, get your base out ... I guess. Does this shit still work?
Here is what I hope we can expect if the liberals win:

* An honest discussion of our immigration laws and policies, especially as pertains to how corporations use work visas such as H2s to drive Americans out of jobs
* A push to continue to destroy discrimination in all forms in this country
* Only Judges who interpret laws based on the _laws_ of this country will be appointed.
* Liberals will make killing of any sort harder to accomplish
* Liberals will either leave the Pledge of Allegiance alone, or return it to its *original* form. I don't give a flying f*ck if my currency says "In God We Trust" or not.
* A move to stricter truth in broadcasting requirements. Slander, libel and misinformation should not be allowed on our airwaves, in any form. This pertains most to advertising for things like drugs, foods and health services. Feel free to have Conservative talk shows. Liberals will Liberal talk shows. Any problems with that?
* An increase in fairer taxes that do not favor the rich and harm the poor
* Enforcement of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution
* Liberals will give American citizens, whether accused as terrorists or not, their due rights under the Constitution. People from other countries who try to kill Americans don't enjoy any rights under our Constitution but do enjoy rights under the Geneva Convention articles to which we are signatories (in part) and their rights should also be protected as far as those treaties and laws require.
* We will withdraw from Iraq. Not because we want to send the terrorists any message, but because we don't belong there. But we won't leave Iraq until its government can stand on its own. We need to stop caring what the terrorists think and care more what the rest of the free world thinks.
tirianmal
Oct. 12th, 2006 04:19 pm (UTC)
Re: Hmmm, get your base out ... I guess. Does this shit still work?
"An increase in fairer taxes that do not favor the rich and harm the poor"

I guess I should have made that some more like

"Fairer taxes that do not favor the rich and harm the poor. And if you don't want social programs, then get your kids out of public schools, get yourself off of medicare, and stop taking loans from HUD. Oh, and stop using the freeways and the highways, you're ruining it for the rest of us."
abce
Oct. 12th, 2006 07:21 pm (UTC)
Re: Hmmm, get your base out ... I guess. Does this shit still work?
"An increase in fairer taxes that do not favor the rich and harm the poor"

Hmm. 50% of the populace pays less than 4% of the taxes. Their tax rate is one-sixth the tax rate of the top consumers.

Define "fair" for me, because if we aren't already at or past fair, then I'd like to know when you'll assert the tax rates are fair.
abce
Oct. 12th, 2006 07:21 pm (UTC)
Re: Hmmm, get your base out ... I guess. Does this shit still work?
(s/consumers/wage-earners/)
tirianmal
Oct. 12th, 2006 07:50 pm (UTC)
Re: Hmmm, get your base out ... I guess. Does this shit still work?
Hmmm, what is "fair" wrt taxes...

The CBPP had this figure on a review of Bush tax policies from 2005. "Some 54 percent of the tax cuts from these two measures will go to households with incomes of more than $1 million a year, the top 0.2 percent of households. Another 43 percent of the tax-cut benefits will go to the 3.5 percent of households with incomes between $200,000 and $1 million. Thus, 97 percent of the tax cuts from these two provisions will go to the 3.7 percent of households with incomes over $200,000."

I know you understand progressive tax systems and why we use it. But progressive tax systems should also have progressive tax breaks, not the sort that we've had the last few years.
abce
Oct. 12th, 2006 08:50 pm (UTC)
Re: Hmmm, get your base out ... I guess. Does this shit still work?
You are incorrect. If you have a progressive tax system, and the tax system is beyond the fair point, then tax breaks will be corrective.

So again, define fair. Your assertion about tax breaks only holds if you assert we need to increase the proportional taxes paid by the upper end. I assert that we do not. What point do you define as "fair"?
tirianmal
Oct. 12th, 2006 09:39 pm (UTC)
Re: Hmmm, get your base out ... I guess. Does this shit still work?
The reality is that no one's definition of fair is going to match. I can define fair in ways that will not jive with your definition of fair.

If you define fair to mean "equal" (under some measure) then progressive tax systems are never going to be fair to you. But even then you have to choose equal under what measure. Percentage of income that goes to taxes? pure tax burden as number of dollars? Percentage of income over some level of subsistence?

If I define fair to mean that everyone gets to live above a certain subsistence level and the rest gets used to contribute to the funding of their government then I can tax the rich a whole lot more than we are currently and still be "fair". A whole lot more.

But even if I use the "equal treatment" use of "fair" ... then in the above I was commenting that the tax-breaks were unfair to the majority of the population in that they a) did not provide them with the same or even unequal but helpful benefit as it did to a tiny minority and b) it actually costs all of us in terms of a larger national debt and increasing chance of failure in the social security systems. a) is unequal treatment to the positive and b) is also unequal treatment to the negative because in the case of economic turmoil caused by our debt or by a bad economy, the poor would suffer more.
crs
Oct. 12th, 2006 10:06 pm (UTC)
Re: Hmmm, get your base out ... I guess. Does this shit still work?
I call it right and fair that I pay a higher percentage of my income as taxes than someone who makes less than me, since I gain more from the continued smooth operation of society. I scale this principle up, as a general rule, to the very astronomical top.

From a certain point of view, you could call it paying off blackmail. Or, you could say it's a form of feudalism where the "haves" protect the "have-nots" from whatever dangers are out there.

I will admit that there have been a few very high-profile cases recently of charity that do kinda go along with the Republican point of view, "let them keep their money so they can donate it to charity." Gates, Buffett, Turner...

*shrug*
tirianmal
Oct. 12th, 2006 11:26 pm (UTC)
Re: Hmmm, get your base out ... I guess. Does this shit still work?
Yes, but they're so far up in the stratosphere, it doesn't even matter talking about them. Most of their wealth will never go to the government or near the IRS anyways. They sell a small percentage to live on, leverage the rest, and give away what they don't need.

Again, those darn loopholes.
abce
Oct. 13th, 2006 03:40 am (UTC)
Re: Hmmm, get your base out ... I guess. Does this shit still work?
So if you paid 100% of all of your income above a certain threshold, would you call that right and fair? That meets your definition above.
tirianmal
Oct. 13th, 2006 01:45 pm (UTC)
Re: Hmmm, get your base out ... I guess. Does this shit still work?
In one of the defintions I chose that was exactly what I was suggesting. Will anyone ever go for it? No. And I know several reasons for it. But don't bet that I haven't thought of it.

Like I said, if you chose a definition of fair, and can make it work, then there's a whole lot more (or less) you could do. It's up to all of us to make certain we're being not just fair, but also humanitarian and economically intelligent about the way we allow the government to tax us or to spend the money they get.
abce
Oct. 13th, 2006 03:39 am (UTC)
Re: Hmmm, get your base out ... I guess. Does this shit still work?
I'm not asking for the what you think I think fair is. Ignore the delta. Tell me what baseline you think is "fair" (I guarantee I won't agree with you, as, by my definition, taxation is not fair).

If the current state is more progressive than your fair system, then a fair tax cut would look like the one we are seeing, as it is correcting to a more fair state. If the current state is less progressive than your fair system, then we would see the opposite.

So, again: what is fair? How unfair is our current progessive system, and how would you define fair in a measurable way?
tirianmal
Oct. 13th, 2006 01:50 pm (UTC)
Re: Hmmm, get your base out ... I guess. Does this shit still work?
I think I've already answered that. And I'm not going to play the game.

Put it this way. I didn't believe that the taxes repealed were correcting to a more fair state. I felt that the previous system was fair (enough).

As for the how to measure fair? or unfair? Use actual incomes, costs of living, and real inflation numbers to make sure that the people who earn less that 30k (I pick randomly), can make ends meet, save enough to be helpful, and still help out the government. Heck, under something like 10k, you don't pay taxes at all. But you can't live at that level in most places.

I say that if the government used real information on poverty levels and income levels, not just at a national but regional level, they could tax folks more proportionally and equitably so as to cause less stress on those already struggling, while ensuring that it has the money it needs to do the things it wants. I also demand a balanced budget so that the government knows how much it _can_ spend. I also demand living wages, not 5.15 an hour.
dcltdw
Oct. 12th, 2006 10:12 pm (UTC)
Re: Hmmm, get your base out ... I guess. Does this shit still work?
Out of curiosity, do you support progressive or flat tax rates? (I haven't thought about it much myself, and so something like a flat tax rate past a minimum point, with very few loopholes, appeals to me. The part I haven't thought about is how to make it creeping-loophole-proof.)
tirianmal
Oct. 12th, 2006 11:17 pm (UTC)
Re: Hmmm, get your base out ... I guess. Does this shit still work?
I like a flat tax rate IF and only IF, there's a budget that would be balanced at the rate that would be sustainable for those at the bottom. And believe me, right now we could not do that with our budget. The problem with a flat tax rate is that when you need more revenue (Iraq war anyone?) a raise of 1% across the board affects those at 20k salary much more than it does those at 200k salary. There's no way that the guy at 200K is going hungry for giving the IRS another 2K but the other guy is giving up 200 dollars and that could be the difference between rent and food on the table or just paying bills.

So, I like a progressive tax rate in general, since those at the top are much more capable of sustaining payments than those at the bottom. Also, charging them 1% more gets you most of the revenue that charging everyone 1% more would anyways, so why bother nickel and diming the guy struggling to survive? Like crs, I have no problem being in the highest tax bracket (well, second to highest?) and paying out my greater share.

Now, I'm much more altruistic than most, and to be honest, when the tax man cometh, I bitch like the best of them, but the alternative is much worse.
abce
Oct. 13th, 2006 03:45 am (UTC)
Re: Hmmm, get your base out ... I guess. Does this shit still work?
I would prefer a two-tiered flat tax rate (pay a pittance below a certain point, and a large amount above that point), with as few deductions or credits as possible. I would also support a national sales tax instead of an income tax, as it taxes consumption, which is arguably the most progressive measure there is.

To get there, we need to start removing the loopholes that allow the uber-wealthy - like our Congresscritters - to pay taxes on a fraction of their wealth, and flattening out the tax rate at the higher end.

We absolutely need a balanced budget, but to get there will require solving the earmark and entitlement problems, which, if left unchecked, will do a fine job on their own of breaking our economy.
tirianmal
Oct. 13th, 2006 01:53 pm (UTC)
Re: Hmmm, get your base out ... I guess. Does this shit still work?
But there's ways to hide consumption, as well as the fact that consumption fluctuates, especially in economically hard times. If you're going to make it a tax on consumption, you could just as easily make it a tax on production, or a value added tax. A VAT (easily ?) kills most loopholes, especially those caused by folks moving production centers overseas. And, you can tax foreign companies for importing goods without making them "tariffs".
crs
Oct. 12th, 2006 05:12 pm (UTC)
Re: Hmmm, get your base out ... I guess. Does this shit still work?
* Only Judges who interpret laws based on the _laws_ of this country will be appointed.

...how do we manage to affect which judges get appointed even if we win in November?
tirianmal
Oct. 12th, 2006 05:28 pm (UTC)
Re: Hmmm, get your base out ... I guess. Does this shit still work?
ianal, but federal judges get confirmed by the Congress, Senate I believe. If liberals (==democrats?) retake the Senate (are there even enough seats open in the Senate for that to happen?), then the engine for confirming judges is in the hands of the libs.

Also, impeachment of federal Judges is handled by the Congress.
dzm
Oct. 12th, 2006 04:23 pm (UTC)
...where conservatives will only make killing of the undead more difficult to stop.
svenden
Oct. 12th, 2006 06:32 pm (UTC)
Is that list real or did you add some items yourself? In particular, the one about the fairness doctrine is really shocking to me. I mean, I know they don't want that to happen, but in this email they didn't even disguise the fact that they're opposed to having truly fair and balanced news coverage. Wow. That's bold.

But most importantly, it's good to see the strong Christian influence in these bullet points. This group really do preach the word of God.

:rolleyes:
abce
Oct. 12th, 2006 07:17 pm (UTC)
Balanced news coverage? That's an oxymoron. If the news isn't balanced, don't balance. The news should be the truth, don't you think?
willtruncheon
Oct. 13th, 2006 12:23 am (UTC)
We Are So Busted
Damn, I knew I shouldn't have left that list lying around. Sorry, guys! At least they didn't get page two, where I talk about passing out heroin in schools, setting clergy of all denominations on fire, and mandating "Old Glory Toilet Paper" in all Federal bathrooms.
( 24 comments — Leave a comment )