The MSNBC Matrix

[GalensGhost 0]

I spent a lot of time reviewing the various candidate's positions on key topics in this MSNBC matrix. I tried to examine only the stated positions and ignore which candidate proposed them by having my daughter read them to me without informing me which was which.

After completing this exercise, I don't see how anyone of reasonably sound mind could ever vote for any of the democratic candidates. And despite my avowed support of Rudy (which will not change) I discovered I need to spend some time learning more about Huckleberry and am closer to Fred Thompson than I would have imagined.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21116732

[AURaptor 1,126]

Except for the war, I'm with Ron Paul on other issues.. I found I was more aligned w/ Fred Thompson t han I had thought, even with his stance on Campaign Finance Reform.

[otterinbham 0]

I'm pretty much aligned with Ron Paul.

[autiger4life 3]

You know I really liked what Obama says about the war. Some people just yell, "BRING OUR TROOPS HOME" vs. Obama redeploying them to areas in the middle east so that we can actually fight terrorism and not just Iraq. I also liked his energy plan by having 20% by 2020. I think that is entirely possible and reasonable. From that, nuclear can pick up a good bitt of the other 80% by then(hopefully).

As far as the economy: I like line item veto even though it can be dangerous at times. I don't like the flat tax or removing all taxes and just increasing the sales tax. If we have a 23% sales tax, then people in the lower tiers of society as far as money will have to spend a considerable larger percentage of their income on tax. Since people who are poorer spend a higher percentage on items such as food and other needed items to survive and are able to save less money, they will be hurt much more by this than the upper middle class and upper class who spend a much lower percentage of thier income on renewable goods. Also, the numbers do not fully reflect the decrease in spending that will occur when people have such a higher tax rate. This decrease in spending will not only hurt the government because less tax money will be being spent, but it will also hurt the economy because less money will be being spent which will negatively affect other areas as well.

[autiger4life 3]

Oh, I know I mentioned nuclear power. Even though I am a democrat, I am a fully support nuclear power plants. I think it is the only real viable way to power the country when we can't depend on non-renewable sources.

[AUloggerhead 2,253]

You know I really liked what Obama says about the war. Some people just yell, "BRING OUR TROOPS HOME" vs. Obama redeploying them to areas in the middle east so that we can actually fight terrorism and not just Iraq. I also liked his energy plan by having 20% by 2020. I think that is entirely possible and reasonable. From that, nuclear can pick up a good bitt of the other 80% by then(hopefully).

As far as the economy: I like line item veto even though it can be dangerous at times. I don't like the flat tax or removing all taxes and just increasing the sales tax. If we have a 23% sales tax, then people in the lower tiers of society as far as money will have to spend a considerable larger percentage of their income on tax. Since people who are poorer spend a higher percentage on items such as food and other needed items to survive and are able to save less money, they will be hurt much more by this than the upper middle class and upper class who spend a much lower percentage of thier income on renewable goods. Also, the numbers do not fully reflect the decrease in spending that will occur when people have such a higher tax rate. This decrease in spending will not only hurt the government because less tax money will be being spent, but it will also hurt the economy because less money will be being spent which will negatively affect other areas as well.

Line item veto was previously struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The only way it can become law is by amending the Constitution. Keep that in mind when you hear a candidate being in favor of a line item veto in a campaign speech. It's an easy throw-away applause line.

Seven states operate just fine with no state income tax (Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington & Wyoming.) Generally food items are not taxed with state sales taxes unless the food is prepared in restaurants, etc. Eliminating the federal income tax can be done. It will take an enormous amount of political will & action to do it though. Again, another easy throw-away applause line in campaign speeches.

[GalensGhost 0]

I'm pretty much aligned with Ron Paul.

Ron Paul is insane.

[War Eagle 96 10]

You know I really liked what Obama says about the war. Some people just yell, "BRING OUR TROOPS HOME" vs. Obama redeploying them to areas in the middle east so that we can actually fight terrorism and not just Iraq. I also liked his energy plan by having 20% by 2020. I think that is entirely possible and reasonable. From that, nuclear can pick up a good bitt of the other 80% by then(hopefully).

As far as the economy: I like line item veto even though it can be dangerous at times. I don't like the flat tax or removing all taxes and just increasing the sales tax. If we have a 23% sales tax, then people in the lower tiers of society as far as money will have to spend a considerable larger percentage of their income on tax. Since people who are poorer spend a higher percentage on items such as food and other needed items to survive and are able to save less money, they will be hurt much more by this than the upper middle class and upper class who spend a much lower percentage of thier income on renewable goods. Also, the numbers do not fully reflect the decrease in spending that will occur when people have such a higher tax rate. This decrease in spending will not only hurt the government because less tax money will be being spent, but it will also hurt the economy because less money will be being spent which will negatively affect other areas as well.

Wow. First, "having 20% by 2020," is not a plan, it's an ideal. Second, on the sales tax issue, you have no idea what you're talking about. Ever heard of the "imbedded" tax already in our cost of goods? You need to read the "Fair Tax" by Boortz.

[otterinbham 0]

I'm pretty much aligned with Ron Paul.

Ron Paul is insane.

I'm not sure how you can say that. His position is simply put: The Federal government's expansion poses a danger both to the country's long-term economic health and the civil rights of its citizens. If you read Milton Friedman's economic theories, who proved right in so many different spheres of economics, then it's a pretty clear cut choice.

As I've argued before, the government has interposed itself into countless areas that were formerly areas of personal choice. I don't advocate drug use (In fact, if one of my kids were using, I'd slap them into Bradford in a skinny minute), but the alleged War on Drugs has caused more problems than it has solved in terms of the decay of civil liberties, the creation of war zones in the inner city because of rival drug gangs fighting over turf, etc. etc. And that's just one of the many areas where government intervention has actually created a worse situation than the original problem itself.

I'm not sure if his foreign policy is completely realistic, but he also asks some excellent questions, such as why do we continue to have bases in places such as Germany, long after the need for them has gone away?