Well, which are you talking about, because now I am confused. Are you addressing what you think is right about welfare, or what you think a taxpayer benefit is?
Well first when you quote another person do not add your paragraph in between. My point is if we are going to get rid of welfares we need to get rid of all including student loans.
What makes you think Bush/McCain are less socialist/tax & spend than Obama? If you object to tax so much, why not move to a tax haven? Your actions speak louder than your words here. If low/no tax was so important, you would already have resigned your citizenship and moved to Monaco, Bahamas etc. The fact that you have remained in the USA so long indicates that you think the benefits of living there outweigh the tax burden.
At what point do you draw the line? Would you like the idea of no taxes and no army, no law enforcement, no courts, no law? In that case it's most likely all your wealth would be stolen from you by force - your "tax" rate would go from 35% to 100% and you'd die too.
teh current tax levels are fine..... tehy need to cut the pork barrel spending programs and put a slow down on war spending. this and in addition to the high gas prices over the last year or so starved the poor and middle classes. the worst choice now would be to elect a ridical leftist like obama.. the worst is yet to come if our spending and no business incentives get worse.
its not the high rates its the loop holes and the potential obama spending directions that is worring to me. obama is not going to give any incentive for middle classes that are tring in normal times.... he is most likely going to create a disincentive to work or produce... for example a lower income mother with 10 kids will continue having more kids and be rewarded for her past unfuitful actions by this system great deal of them have distoryed themselves by doing drugs and have no parental figure to guide them ( this snow balls) form generation to generation. we should be helping the middle and higher middle classes not the rich or the poor
Perhaps initially we can dead cat bounce further but the two environments aren't at all analogous. For one, contrary to revisionist history, stocks did very well under Bush Sr. (2200 in 1/89 to 3200 in 1/93). Despite the Clinton slogan "it's the economy stupid" stocks were even up 10% the 12 months prior to the election. Political scientists in America know that without Ross Perot in the mix the 1992 election would've been won by Bush. Probably by a 6-8pt margin. Perot was such a solid draw in many GOP states that even a few traditional red states like Montana(!!) went to Clinton off the split. Hence Clinton DID NOT have any sort of "left wing" mandate (he only received 42% of the vote) and Congress was becoming more Republican with a GOP majority just 2 years away. The comparisons to the early 90's are night and day. Obama will enjoy a slavish Democratic majority that's far larger and also MORE LIBERAL than the Dem's of the early-mid 90's. Plus the nation itself is more liberal, more entitlement hungry and far less non-Latin white. While in 1992 there was a tremendous peace dividend from the fall of the Soviet empire today there's increased hostility from Islamic nations, Putin, South America and potentially China. Last but not least stock prices don't matter. The market virtually crashed on Truman's surprise victory in 1948 vs. Dewey and then rallied most of his term. Was that a sign of a healthy America? Not if you were one of the 50k who died in Korea or a homemaker dealing with 10% a year inflation. People tend to miss the point about stocks. Rallies are often systematic of inflation. Seeking stable equity and home prices is just as noble as seeking steady consumer prices. End of day they're hat in hand.....
This is a disingenuous argument. I am sure you are aware that the US government has enacted an onerous exit tax and requires post expatriation filing with the IRS. In addition, how do you suggest one obtain an alternative passport? It is not that simple.