?

Back in 2008, during the democratic primary, Charlie Rose asked then candidate Obama about his proposal to raise the capital gains tax from 15% to 30%. Rose cited the fact that when Clinton lowered the rate from 28% to 20%, the federal government actually took in MORE revenue, as was the case when Bush lowered the rate from 20% to 15%. Rose said this was the case since more investments were made due to the lower rate, which obviously insinuates that raising the rate would likely come with a decrease in revenue due to a decrease in investment. Obama’s response: “I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.”

So if history shows us that raising the capital gains rate may decrease investment, thus decrease revenue, and the only reason why Obama wants to raise the rate is for “fairness” reasons, how is that going to be good for the country? Assuming that revenues do fall because of an increase in captial gains, how does the average American benefit from raising the rate on capital gains?

Apparently, there is a new witness that is being identified as "John" that has now come forward and stated he seen the whole thing. He said he gave his testimony to the Police that night, and confirmed almost entirely everything that Zimmerman said happened that night, which was that Zimmerman was attacked from behind after a brief, non-violent confrontation, then, after yelling out for help numerous times, used his gun in self-defense. Do you think this witness may be the reason why the police have not arrested Zimmerman?

Police in Norway do not carry firearms on a regular basis, they keep the firearms locked up for special occasions like this. However, to use the firearms, they need permission from the commissioner. Could a man like this do so much damage in a country like the U.S.?

I keep seeing many liberal posts that say we need to raise taxes and cut spending. So, would you be in favor of the government raising your taxes, or is it only the wealthy that you think need to pay more? Also, are you willing to cut entitlements like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (which consume approximately 43% of the entire federal budget)?

The President's proposal on raising taxes on the wealthy, according to the NY Times, would only increase revenues by $700 billion over ten years, or $70 billion on average per year. This is also assuming a static reaction to the increase in taxes, meaning that GDP and the reaction from business will virtually go unchanged. So if this is the liberal plan to lower the annual deficit how can we expect to ever reach a balanced budget without cutting spending?

Keep in mind that this is the deficit were talking about here, not the entire national debt.

Most liberals I see posting here on Y/A are in favor of raising taxes on the wealthy, and most conservatives like myself think that raising taxes on anybody will have a negative impact on the economy, and would not raise anywhere near the revenues necessary for bringing down the deficit (NY Times projected $700 billion in extra revenue over ten years, so approximately $70 billion per year, or about 5% of the deficit). So how is raising taxes on the wealthy going to make our economic conditions better?

Scientists have noticed that the sun spots on the sun seem to be in “hibernation” which most scientists are predicting will cause a massive cooling not seen since the 17th century, known as the “Little Ice Age.” Isn’t this more proof that solar activity has a far greater impact on climate on Earth rather than human activity?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110614/ts_afp/usspac...

First off, there is no such thing as a perfect system, simply because we are not perfect people. But to blame capitalism for greedy people using their wealth for corruption, is displacing blame. Capitalism is faulty by nature because it is man-made, since we are faulty by nature.

Capitalism allows for individuals to accumulate wealth to dispose how they feel. Just as it is easy for a wealthy person to use his wealth for corruption, it is just as easy to use it for good. Bill Gates donated a half of his fortune to AIDS research. Jon Huntsman, who is also a billionaire has vowed to invest every last dollar into helping others with cancer treatment. Disregarding all of the advancements and great things that have come from American capitalism, and only focusing on the negative aspects of it, is just so disingenuous.

Labeling people African-American or Mexican American, etc. just another way of segregating people? Why don’t we just refer to everybody as American, and why do we keep census records that based on demographic? Isn’t that divisive in nature?

Obama has shown a valid Certification of Live Birth according to the state of Hawaii. Therefore, it is no longer his burden to show the public his birth certificate, but rather birthers’ burden to prove the document is a fraud. Until that happens, this conversation is meaningless and debilitating to conservative principles. Am I wrong?

Many Democrats and Liberals frequently call for the “Wealthy” to pay their fair share of taxes. This I completely agree with. However, are you aware that the top 20% of income earners in this country pay roughly 80% of the federal income tax (which is the largest federal tax), with about 40% of federal income taxes coming from the top 1% of income earners? Also take into consideration that the bottom 50% pay roughly 3% of the total income tax. Based on these numbers, is it fair that Democrats, who claim that everybody must pay their fair share, only raise taxes on the wealthy, when so little is contributed by the lower class?

I know that many of you liberals will dismiss this source since it is the Heritage Foundation, however consider the fact that they source it from the IRS.

http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/top10-perc...

Honestly, would you prefer the only Mainstream somewhat conservative outlet be shutdown? Because I haven’t heard any conservatives claiming that liberal outlets like MSNBC be shutdown.

A commenter by the name of “Smug Liberal” gave me this definition about conservatism. “Conservatives by definition either want things to stay the way they are, OR want things to be like they used to be in the past. They don't like change. Why in the hell would any minority want things to be like they were in the past? Think about it. Minorities want change and acceptance. Conservatism doesn't really offer that, but liberalism does.”

Do you agree with this?

I haven’t heard one conservative of legitimacy make a claim to return to the days of slavery or Jim Crow.

I contest that conservatives believe in preserving the founding PRINCIPLES of our great nation, not the founding PRACTICES. Why do liberals resort to these “catastrophic ends” arguments anytime a conservative wants to reform something that is clearly broken in our system, like our debt for example? How am I wrong on this?

I’m white, however I have a number of black friends, most of whom are liberal. The one black friend that I have that is conservative is often referred to as being an Uncle Tom on many issues that many black and white liberals think he should be liberal on. For example, he believes that welfare and food stamps are the reason why black poverty is still so high, however liberal thought thinks opposite. He also generally thinks tax cuts on business is a good idea to encourage economic growth. For this he was chastised. I have also noticed many people here on YA make comments about other prominent black conservatives like Allen West, Herman Cain and Clarence Thomas as being Uncle Tom’s, and generally think that there is nothing racist about it which I find major exception to.

So is it safe to say that most liberals think black people are Uncle Tom’s if they are not liberal?

It seems to me that most conservatives are very non-sympathetic to Latinos in this country. I am baffled by this because I see vast similarities in the Latino culture and conservative nature. Most Latinos are very hard working, entrepreneurial in nature, highly religious, family oriented and determined to succeed (but may different standards of what success is). The problem that I see is that Republicans and Conservatives have generally shunned the Latino community over one issue, immigration, which in my opinion is the reason why so many vote democrat. Because they don’t seem to be in line with the liberal ideology, however since immigration is usually their #1 issue, Democrats seem to be the lesser of two evils, at least they pretend to be. So shouldn’t Conservatives and Republicans be more inclusive with Latinos?

I’m a white conservative who recently married into a Latino family whose eyes have been opened to many things in which I had prior misconceptions about the reality.

What is the MAIN reason why you will not be voting for Obama, and what is the MAIN issue you think is most important to the country?

It has always been my opinion that government assistance programs are designed not to encourage poor people to rise out of poverty, only to maintain the status quo of the individual. Through programs like Medicaid, Welfare, Food Stamps and WIC, all of which a single-mother can utilize at one time, most of the basic necessities are provided to them, and traditionally, the moment that single-mother gets a job, many of those entitlements are cut down, or cut completely out. This either forces that same single-mother back into the same situation, or struggle more, either way, she remains in poverty. Wouldn’t funds used for government entitlements be of better use to that single-mother to try and make the standard of living more bearable in terms of promoting job growth via lower taxes on business and incentifying more competition in areas where government assistance is high to better their quality of life?

http://www.physorg.com/news195325880.html

With the exception of the sick, elderly and disabled, what reasons can you give that would justify why an able-bodied person (meaning somebody who can obviously work various types of jobs) should not have to earn their government paycheck via community service, or other various tasks in which the federal, state, or local governments just cannot afford to allocate additional funds towards?

If you walk down any street in most urban neighborhoods where the percentage of those on government assistance is high, you will find streets that need to be repaired, condemned buildings that need to be restored, trash that needs to be picked up, graffiti that needs to be cleaned, etc. Why are we not utilizing the able-bodied people that are currently receiving government assistance, including welfare, SSI (except for those over the retirement age) Unemployment insurance, WIC, Food Stamps, etc?

Many on the left call people like Herman Cain, Clarence Thomas and Allen West “Uncle Toms” for being black conservatives. How is this not racist? And do black liberals think that black people can only be liberal, if not, they are traitors to their race? Because that is how it seems since just about every black conservative is vilified by black liberals as being such.