On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 22:18:28 +0100, andrel wrote:

>> I think most people are more complex than either ideology lays out -
>> for example, I consider myself a fiscal conservative
> 
> I don't know what that means (i.e. not a term used here.) Does that mean
> that you are against raising taxes? In favor of decreasing taxes for the
> rich? Or simply keeping the system as it is?

I'm in favor of paying for what we "purchase" from the government.  I 
don't like the debt/deficit spending that the US is engaged in, and it 
troubles me that the government doesn't have a balanced budget (but in 
order to keep from being bankrupt, I have to).

> Anyway, this outsider (yes I am, to the point that I do think the US is
> international, a point unfortunately missed by Stephen :( ;) ) thinks
> that the current US government has directly and indirectly borrowed so
> much money from other countries that one day they'll have to pay back
> one way or another. Even McCain will have to raise taxes if he doesn't
> want to continue Bush's irresponsible politics. He knows that, and I am
> frankly amazed that large parts of the US electorate let him get away
> with attacking Obama because he is a 'socialist' and will therefor
> surely increase taxes. But I am just an outsider.

I think either candidate would ultimately look to cut spending and raise 
taxes in some way.  Who they raise taxes on and what they cut spending on 
is the difference between the two, really.

I think that Obama will probably raise taxes on the "rich" (and where 
that cutoff is will ultimately depend on a cost/benefit analysis that 
he'll have to do once he's got *all* the numbers, which I don't think 
either of the candidates really have - just a gut instinct on my part), 
and i think he'll probably try to keep taxes down for those who aren't 
"rich".

But even if my taxes do go up (and I'm well below the $250,000/$200,000 
mark), I think it is important to pay for what we do, which means paying 
the troops and giving them health care.  That's a damned dangerous job 
they do, and while I'm certainly not for the war in Iraq, those who have 
chosen to serve have my respect and I would absolutely show my support 
for them by paying their salaries and making sure their families don't 
have to give up their homes because they're deployed in a dangerous part 
of the world.

There are too many people over here who think that "support the troops" 
means "support fighting in Iraq", but who don't think that paying a 
little more in taxes in order to actually pay them is important.

I'll get off my soapbox before I go longer. :-)

>> but not a social conservative.
> 
> Which means you wouldn't mind if neighbours moved? ;)

LOL - given that we've got a lousy garage band next door, no. ;-)

But what I mean by that was actually well summed up on Real Time with 
Bill Maher by one of the panelists this week, something to the effect of  
"fix yourself and help others.  Not the other way around; you don't go 
around trying to fix everybody else."

Jim

Post a reply to this message