DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: erieangel In the end, we all vote our own interests. A person on welfare, of social security would be unlikely to vote for somebody who vows to end to those programs. A pro-life Christian would be unlikely to vote to for a pro-choice, anti-death penalty, pro-homosexual equal rights Democrat. And here is where the rubber truly meets the road, erieangel. If, in my zeal to vote my own interests, I vote for the candidate that promises me the most stuff while promising to tax me the least, is that really what Government is all about? If I were to run on a platform of providing housing, food, and health care to everyone in the bottom 75% at the expense of the top 25%, would that be acceptable? Is that the role of Government, to give everyone that is below some %-ile everything? And a tax-dodging, tax-sheltering wealthy person would be certain to vote for a tax-dodging, tax-sheltering multimillionaire who is rumored to have not paid any federal income taxes for 10 years. Did Obama take any credits/deductions? Isn't that "tax-dodging?" And, now, you're going to support the "rumor" of someone not having paid federal income taxes for 10 years? Know how the rich get that way? They figure out how to reduce their outflow, while increasing their inflow. If parking money outside the US is going to reduce their outflow without hurting their cash flow, why wouldn't they do it? You want to bet that the majority of Obama's "rich" friends took pretty much every exemption/deduction/credit they could, instead of "paying their fair share?"
_____________________________
What I support: - A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
- Personal Responsibility
- Help for the truly needy
- Limited Government
- Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
|