I guess if Madeira wins office, he’ll make it so you’ll not only not miss it, you won’t ever remember we had one.

Herein lies the problem with the Republican party. All they’re worried about is winning. They don’t care whether the candidate has the guts to stand up and do what’s right. They don’t care if their candidates support the party platform. All they’re worried about is winning in Nov. This sums up why people aren’t flocking back to the Republicans, but are joining Tea Parties in droves

Nicholas is right. Sestak’s bid as the “insider-outsider” is not very convincing. Sestak has been in congress since 2006.
There needs to be tax code reform. Its a total disaster and lumps for example true small businesses in w wealthier ones for starters.

ha-
Well if they are not concerned with winning, the Tea Party movement is the way to go.

Hopefully the independents will endorse any candidate that supports their values and was not endorsed by the Republican party.

People are leaving the Republican party in droves and they aren’t picking up speed, they are losing it with their same old corrupt politics.

I will officially leave the Republican party after the primary and register independent for the first time in my life. The censorship going on with their fb page is just one example of their perfidy.

Remember…no one forsaw the rise of the middle class, they will also miss the rise of the independents…We are coming and it signals the end of the stranglehold corrupt politics of the Republican and Democratic parties. Good Riddance!

Madeira’s billboard is awesome! I wanted to post a picture of it … he has a picture on his web site, madeiraforcongress.com

The only problem with being an independent in Pennsylvania (as in with many states) is that you are unable to vote int eh primary.

I was always registered as an Independent but when i found that I would be shut out of the primary, I picked a party.

Allowing independents to vote in the primary would be interesting. I suppose one argument is that it is believed that independents can vote for a bad candidate on the opposing party. But would people really do that? The only other reason why they are not allowed is that it would be too unpredictable for the parties.

Either way incumbents are in trouble in 2010

The whole problem with the Federal tax system, is not that we are taxed, but in the way we area taxed. The tax code is archaic, and made that way on purpose. The liberal mindset that purports that we should give more and more, without any sense of outrage is another problem. The “progressive” tax policy is another problem. A flat tax, which would tax everybody, lets say, 15% is fair and equitable. It cannot be convoluted, beaten or otherwise gotten around. To those who will wail and moan about the “poor” paying a greater % of their earnings based upon salary, a few thoughts; too bad and paying taxes should not be based upon the ability to pay, it should be based upon equal burden. That is why most whiny liberals hate it, they cannot monkey with the flat tax for their social engineering goals.

David, if you are not still snooping on college students, I will specifically await your reply.

1) Someone deleting comments off their own forum is not an infraction of free speech. Free speech does not mean you have a right to say whatever you want using someone else’s resources.

2) Why would a political party keep negative comments on its site? That would be like Pepsi letting people insult their products on their website.

3) I am pretty sure the Democratic Party is about winning elections too.

95 South-
A flat tax sounds “equitable” only to the simple-minded. A family of four making $40,000 to $50,000 is at the poverty level and even 15% is crushing to them making rent and paying the bills, let alone saving money for college, investing, etc.
The people with tens of millions just keep hoarding, rolling over assets, investing, etc.
A “flat tax” would tax the poor beyond their means, whereas a 15% on the rich wouldn’t even be felt. The rich will continue to hide assets and income (offshore if need be, or as jewels, paintings, etc.) Also, 15% wouldn’t nearly begin to cover the costs to run the US.
We spend 40% of the entire global military budget on our own military. That’s insane.
Taxing the rich at 40% vs 30% or 35% may mean some getting a 120 ft yacht instead of a 150 ft yacht. Boo. Hoo.
How about this for a flatter tax: 25%, but NO taxes on the first $50,000?
It’s the same rule for everybody, but it takes the burden off the poor.
For a family making $100,000 they pay 25% on the second $50,000, so they pay $12,500 (12.5%). But the guy making $1 million is paying 25% on $950,000.

David Diano-

You’re completely correct about the flat tax, up until you get to the “flatter tax”. The bulk of our expenditures on discretionary spending is for corporations, yet many corporations end up, year after year paying nothing on their Federal income taxes. The progressive taxation plans that have been instituted are the most fair forms of taxation. Flat taxes and consumption taxes largely are regressive and a bad idea for the economy and for most taxpayers.

Ed H-
I was just talking about the personal income taxes. I still favor a progressive tax, where the scale shifts from 20% to 40% above a zero-tax baseline on the first $50K for families and $30K for singles (with some adjustment for # of dependents). I was just making a small modification to improve the existing flat-tax concept that is often touted.

Corporations hide so much wealth/taxes in havens it’s ridiculous.

Dave, guilty as charged, I am for a simplification of the tax code. The laws, incluidng tax laws should apply equitably.