Well, I’d like to say that if the author applied the same strenuous cost/benefit analysis he used in a previous post to determine if a second freezer should be purchased(http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2007/07/16/is-a-deep-freezer-worth-it/) to the question of voting, i would think the only advice would be… don’t vote. The chance of an individual vote affecting the outcome of the election is extremely unlikely. Thus, informing yourself to vote for the right candidate can be seen as a waste of time economically since whether you vote “correctly” or “incorrectly”
doesn’t matter. To tip the scales of an election, the election has to be tied and your vote has to be the one vote that elects the politician. That rarely happens in large electorates however.

If one enjoys learning about politics then sure, go learn about the candidates and have fun debating. I personally enjoy politics and follow it for that reason. To follow politics because you believe your individual action in the voting booth will affect your pocket book, however, is foolish.

The tip about getting free meals at political events is good too. I’ll have to try that sometime.

-Elliot

6. Cut whose taxes? Republicans have done a gret job drastically cutting the taxes for the rich while throwing a few scraps to the poor.

7. At the expense of which services? I’d be happy to pay more in taxes for the security of knowing my bridge won’t collapse for disrepair, my kids will have a decent education and having health care no matter if my employer lays me off.

8. Are they willing to lower spending? Republicans have boosted spending in all the wrong areas, and future generations will suffer paying for our deficit.

I’d just point out, tax is good. I enjoy paying my state tax, knowing all the good that comes of it. I dislike paying my federal tax, knowing all the money pissed away on a stupid war.

I read through them for several candidates and they do not map well.

I.e. If a candidate supports long prison sentences for gun crimes then this tool indicates that they are against gun ownership.

If a candidate is ok with a moment of silence, then this tool says they are in favor of teacher led prayer.

etc.

So, at best, you should be sure to read the whole site and not just see your top matches.

Our government needs to get with it and join every other western nation in providing fully, tax funded, universal health care for all citizens. If our taxes were spent to help people instead of killing them we would need no new taxes.

In the end, I will vote for the most Socialist candidate. As a Christian I have to support those who have the most Christ like stance. If they have to raise taxes to care for the least of us then so be it. I’ve had enough of elite leaders who pretend to be Christians while oppressing needy Americans for gain.

Here is some more information: http://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/docs/practical_christianity.php

@rhbee Nice point. I would have thought that the more they raise the more turned off we should be.

When President Reagan left office, every man, woman, and child living in this country owed $23,000 dollars as his share of the federal deficit.

When President Clinton left office, for the first time since President Kennedy, we had a budget surplus. Clinton’s growth policies plus some good luck managed to wipe out the federal deficit.

And then along came Bush. When Bush leaves
office in 2009, every man, woman, and child will
owe $300,000 toward the federal deficit. That
chicklette brain managed to go through the Clinton
surplus and make Reagan’s administration look
like a balanced budget.

Nobody mentions the federal deficit and the
mind bogling interest we pay to support this
administration’s policies.

But it has to be paid! This means tax increases
and eliminating the tax breaks for the wealthy.

This should have been done yesterday.

Secondly, I don’t think you people are taking into consideration the new taxes that were created that were supposed to be push education over the top – everything from the lottery to 300% tobacco taxes. How about the new trend for taxation in the form of fees? In Louisiana, they added a $1 fee to milk after dropping the taxes on groceries to 3%.

For one, a politicians primary source of power is the ability to tax. The first bullet point in their job description is to get re-elected.

I am seriously beginning to question every bit of information that I read here. Especially when one very tragic bridge collapse in a nation with hundreds of thousands of bridges can all of a sudden mead the infrastructure of the country is in collapse. Speak to fresh from surviving the shark filled waters of the Gulf fleeing Cuba if you want to know what a crumbling infrastructure is like.

* “reducing households’ tax liability under the regular income tax without changing what they owe under the AMT … increases the number of households that owe the AMT”

* AMT is estimated to affect (by 2010) “37% of households with income between $50,000 and $75,000 and 73% of households with income between $75,000 and $100,000 (compared to less than 3 percent for each group in 2002).”

It also compromised the public transportation system; the excess my parents pay in gas since they can no longer commute easily by bus is significantly more than the $60 a year.

Focusing solely on whether a candidate cuts taxes is a mistake. They could simply be making a huge mess that needs to cleaned up (and paid for) by later administrations with the taxes of our children and grandchildren.

And just what is wrong with Ron Paul, pray? He’s the only Congressman whose voting record is 100% consistent with his principles. Now THAT’s the kind of guy you want as president. (Which is exactly why he’ll never BE president, I guess.)

Every Minnesota Governor that I can think of has invoked the 1974 image of Gov. Anderson on the cover of Time magazine with the caption “the Good Life in Minnesota” during State of the State speeches as if to say “We could have this again!”. Sorry, but we are not all going to have it at this rate, only the few who can afford it.

There is nothing wrong with taxes if they are well spent. Think of it like economy of scale. There are places in Mexico were each block has to come up with the money to pave the street. If they can’t come up with it their block stays dirt. There are some streets the are paved, dirt, paved, etc. In the end it costs more to pave the streets, that’s not a very efficient way of spending money.