| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/31/2004 12:02:15 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
Originally posted by frychikn:
"Taxing the rich" sounds real nice and all; the problem with the Democrat version of this is that they seem to consider anybody making over, say, about $25,000 a year as rich and fair game for taxing. The real rich people simply hire top-flight tax lawyers to open the loopholes for them no matter how high the 'official' tax rates might be, while the not-really-rich middle class workers get stuck with the majority of the tax burden. |
Hate to be so blunt, but you're either woefully misinformed or utterly deceitful.
The Democratic party, under John Kerry, has called for repealing Bush's tax give-away to those individuals making over $200,000 a year.
"And let me tell you what we won't do: we won't raise taxes on the middle class. You've heard a lot of false charges about this in recent months. So let me say straight out what I will do as President: I will cut middle class taxes. I will reduce the tax burden on small business. And I will roll back the tax cuts for the wealthiest individuals who make over $200,000 a year, so we can invest in job creation, health care and education."
You can read the full text here. |
Hate to be so blunt in return, but you are a jerk. If you wish to disagree, then fine, do so, but leave off the insults. I did NOT listen to the God-damn speech (nor did I claim to); that in itself does NOT make me 'mis-informed' and I don't know where the hell you got deceitful from. I was replying to a poster who stated that the Democrats will finance all their campaign promises by taxing the rich. The democrats traditionally through the years have been very liberal (pun intended) in their definition of 'rich', generally sneaking the middle-class into this designation. |
|
|
|
07/31/2004 01:40:33 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by frychikn:
I was replying to a poster who stated that the Democrats will finance all their campaign promises by taxing the rich. The democrats traditionally through the years have been very liberal (pun intended) in their definition of 'rich', generally sneaking the middle-class into this designation. |
You speak the truth brother! I also love how the rich are expected to pay for everything. How is this fair? The richest 10% pay 90% of the taxes. That hardly seems fair since they donĂ¢€™t enjoy much of the benefits. Also, what exactly is the incentive to be productive in a society when someone will reward you for doing nothing? I propose raising taxes on Democrats to fund their own stupid projects. How may liberals itemized their deductions to reduce their taxes last year? Maybe they should practice what they preach. |
|
|
|
07/31/2004 04:25:35 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by thelsel:
The richest 10% pay 90% of the taxes. |
I'm not sure you have acccurate numbers, thelsel.
From the Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of the Urban Center and the Brookings Institute: ( see here: //www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=221)
If you are talking about Federal income tax, for the year 2000, the figures are , for the richest 10%, that they paid 48.5% of taxes, yet they earned 61.3% of all *taxable* income in the country.
Now, these numbers may not even reflect the large tax breaks Bush passed for the benefit of the most wealthy. And they are also not truly reflective of the wealth of the investor class, as they are not taxed as heavily for dividend and capital gain income as those of us who merely earn paychecks and get taxed at full employment rates. The truly rich earn lots of untaxable income as well.
So, even if your figures were correct, they are not persuasive to me on their own. What is important to me is how rich are the rich? How much wealth do they accrue each year?
Should they not be paying closer to 95% of all the taxes, in other words, because that would in fact be their fair burden considering just how much incredible amounts of lucre they are piling up? |
|
|
|
07/31/2004 04:40:56 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I think they are short in Iraq and the military's "stop loss" program is preventing people from retiring after fulfilling their required committments. Sounds to me like we're very short of military personnel and that's one of the blunders of the Bush administration for going ahead with a war when they thought that it would be over very soon. I believe that soon after the elections a conscription will be instituted by either Bush or Kerry. |
I fear you're correct. "Stop loss" can be nothing more than a temporary, stopgap measure. They can't run that way forever.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
07/31/2004 04:56:49 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by MusicAngel:
...its almost like kerry is trying to be like bush in some respects now, such as bringing his family out with him and pulling out the bible verses and God talk now. |
Do you really think John Kerry or any Democrats do not have the same legitimacy about their family or their faith as does Bush?
The convention is a time for people who don't know him as a person to meet him - so he introduced himself and his family.
But he did say that he doesn't go around like Bush wearing god on his sleeve and telling everybody that "God is on my side". He said instead, that, "like Lincoln, I hope to be on God's side".
On the other hand, I don't think you will see him prancing around like Bush in his flight suit pretending to be an actual soldier. I thought that was unforgivable. |
|
|
|
07/31/2004 05:03:04 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I think they are short in Iraq and the military's "stop loss" program is preventing people from retiring after fulfilling their required committments. Sounds to me like we're very short of military personnel and that's one of the blunders of the Bush administration for going ahead with a war when they thought that it would be over very soon. I believe that soon after the elections a conscription will be instituted by either Bush or Kerry. |
I fear you're correct. "Stop loss" can be nothing more than a temporary, stopgap measure. They can't run that way forever.
-Terry |
***
So with our military being spread so thin in Iraq and Afghanistan and many National Guard personnel being sent into Iraq, the question becomes who's defending the "homeland?" Seems to me the Bush administration has left us woefully vulnerable in the US contrary to his campaign's rhetoric about improving the security of the nation. |
|
|
|
07/31/2004 05:06:10 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I think they are short in Iraq and the military's "stop loss" program is preventing people from retiring after fulfilling their required committments. Sounds to me like we're very short of military personnel and that's one of the blunders of the Bush administration for going ahead with a war when they thought that it would be over very soon. I believe that soon after the elections a conscription will be instituted by either Bush or Kerry. |
I fear you're correct. "Stop loss" can be nothing more than a temporary, stopgap measure. They can't run that way forever.
-Terry |
I have a feeling that the heads of state around the world are waiting to endorse Kerry soon, and will pledge to offer many tens of thousands of troops to a new coalition if and when he and he alone is elected.
Bush is truly despised and feared by the world, and they have already been talking to Kerry - remember the brouhaha about "heads of state" in the spring ready to endorse him?
Plus, Kerry has been making some pretty big promises about coalition building - I think he may have his own October suprise in the bag. :) |
|
|
|
07/31/2004 05:28:52 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
So with our military being spread so thin in Iraq and Afghanistan and many National Guard personnel being sent into Iraq, the question becomes who's defending the "homeland?" Seems to me the Bush administration has left us woefully vulnerable in the US contrary to his campaign's rhetoric about improving the security of the nation. |
Agreed. Our biggest mistake was starting this war when we were unable to commit the resources necessary to ensure a swift and decisive victory. While I do not believe we need to seek, as Mr. Bush stated, a permission slip to defend our nation's freedom, I do not believe that Iraq posed an imminent threat justifying engaging them at any cost. We could have been more patient and worked to build the support of the international community. If nothing else, it would have at least bought us time until some of our troops were back from Afghanistan.
The one point that no one has mentioned is that on September 12 2001, most of the world was ready to come to the aid of the United States if we needed it... now if we were attacked -- less than three years later -- I would not be surprised if many of those countries were inclined to sit back and let us get "what's coming to us." This could very well be one of the biggest diplomatic failures in history. Now, tell me again how turning the world against us helps our national security?
-Terry
|
|
|
|
07/31/2004 05:34:46 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
I have a feeling that the heads of state around the world are waiting to endorse Kerry soon, and will pledge to offer many tens of thousands of troops to a new coalition if and when he and he alone is elected.
Bush is truly despised and feared by the world, and they have already been talking to Kerry - remember the brouhaha about "heads of state" in the spring ready to endorse him?
Plus, Kerry has been making some pretty big promises about coalition building - I think he may have his own October suprise in the bag. :) |
This would not surprise me. I believe there are many world leaders who are unwilling to deal with Mr. Bush on principle at this point. While "many tens of thousands of troops" may be an overstatement, I do believe a Kerry administration could quickly coordinate significant international support of the rebuilding of Iraq in terms of military, security and financial support.
-Terry
Message edited by author 2004-07-31 21:42:35.
|
|
|
|
07/31/2004 01:34:21 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
So with our military being spread so thin in Iraq and Afghanistan and many National Guard personnel being sent into Iraq, the question becomes who's defending the "homeland?" Seems to me the Bush administration has left us woefully vulnerable in the US contrary to his campaign's rhetoric about improving the security of the nation. |
Yeah, I hear Canada and Mexico are building up on the borders and getting ready to move in if we cut back on outsourcing. Plus I heard an army of angry North Koreans are on boat heading to the coast of New York ready to invade if we don't let them build some more nukes and China is planning the biggest paratrooper drop ever in Montana if we don't let them invade Tiawan. |
|
|
|
07/31/2004 01:37:20 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I didn't hear his speech, except for excerpts on the news, but hasn't Kerry already pledged to increase our military presence in Iraq by 40,000 troops? I don't think I would be for that. |
Not in Iraq. The overall number of troops in the military as a whole.
Sounds like a good idea, since the military is currently recalling musicians from the IRR. BTW, these are people who have fulfilled their commitment to serve their country. |
***
I think they are short in Iraq and the military's "stop loss" program is preventing people from retiring after fulfilling their required committments. Sounds to me like we're very short of military personnel and that's one of the blunders of the Bush administration for going ahead with a war when they thought that it would be over very soon. I believe that soon after the elections a conscription will be instituted by either Bush or Kerry. |
No way will they start a draft.
1. It would be political suicide, on an epic scale for the entire party who supported it. Would almost guarantee that the next pres would come from the other party as well as any Congressional memebers who were behind it. The draft is that unpopular with the people.
2. The military doesn't want it either. They had enough of trying to train unwilling conscripts with Vietnam.
3. The mechanisms to implement it are not in place and are not funded. The Selective Service Administration barely has enough money to register 18 year-old men as it is. No way do they have the resources to ramp up for war.
|
|
|
|
07/31/2004 01:39:19 PM · #37 |
ClubJuggle,
Your last two posts are right on. I think anyone who looks at our situation logically will come to the same conclusion. |
|
|
|
07/31/2004 01:47:44 PM · #38 |
I don't think we are too thin, only a few of the many reservist I know have been deployed. I know the sample group of my friends may or may not be a good sample of the entire population, but that's what I see.
|
|
|
|
07/31/2004 03:12:19 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
[
3. The mechanisms to implement it are not in place and are not funded. The Selective Service Administration barely has enough money to register 18 year-old men as it is. No way do they have the resources to ramp up for war. |
I have to disagree, Spazmo99.
The Bush administration is currently well along the way in its quest to hire 10,000 people for Selective Service board review panels for the draft. People are being interviewed, and I believe are being offered positions in the future.(!)
They already have a bill before the House and a bill before the Senate explicitly to set up a draft, and get this - there are NO deferments for college and there is no escaping to Canada, etc - they have set up agreements to return political emigrees.
(I guess the "Liberal Media" missed another story ;) )
So, hide your sons and daughters now - they can't save their butts like the Cheney, Rush, Newt et al did during the Viet Nam war, no siree Bob. :( |
|
|
|
07/31/2004 04:54:46 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
(I guess the "Liberal Media" missed another story ;) )
|
Then by all means fill us in where we can find out about this.
|
|
|
|
07/31/2004 05:05:15 PM · #41 |
Sure. This is from the website Congress.org :
Pending Draft Legislation Targeted for Spring 2005
The Draft will Start in June 2005
There is pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills: S 89 and HR 163) which will time the program's initiation so the draft can begin at early as Spring 2005 -- just after the 2004 presidential election. The administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed now, while the public's attention is on the elections, so our action on this is needed immediately.
$28 million has been added to the 2004 Selective Service System (SSS) budget to prepare for a military draft that could start as early as June 15, 2005. Selective Service must report to Bush on March 31, 2005 that the system, which has lain dormant for decades, is ready for activation.
Please see website: //www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html to view the sss annual performance plan - fiscal year 2004.
The pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots nationwide.. Though this is an unpopular election year topic, military experts and influential members of congress are suggesting that if Rumsfeld's prediction of a "long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan [and a permanent state of war on "terrorism"] proves accurate, the U.S. may have no choice but to draft.
Congress brought twin bills, S. 89 and HR 163 forward this year,
//www.hslda.org/legislation/na...s89/default.asp
entitled the Universal National Service Act of 2003, "to provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons [age 18--26] in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes." These active bills currently sit in the committee on armed services.
Dodging the draft will be more difficult than those from the Vietnam era.
College and Canada will not be options. In December 2001, Canada and the U.S. signed a "smart border declaration," which could be used to keep would-be draft dodgers in. Signed by Canada's minister of foreign affairs, John Manley, and U.S. Homeland Security director, Tom Ridge, the declaration involves a 30-point plan which implements, among other things, a "pre-clearance agreement" of people entering and departing each country. Reforms aimed at making the draft more equitable along gender and class lines also eliminates higher education as a shelter. Underclassmen would only be able to postpone service until the end of their current semester. Seniors would have until the end of the academic year.
Even those voters who currently support US actions abroad may still object to this move, knowing their own children or grandchildren will not have a say about whether to fight. Not that it should make a difference, but this plan, among other things, eliminates higher education as a shelter and includes women in the draft.
|
|
|
|
07/31/2004 05:13:10 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Sure. This is from the website Congress.org :
Pending Draft Legislation Targeted for Spring 2005
The Draft will Start in June 2005
There is pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills: S 89 and HR 163) which will time the program's initiation so the draft can begin at early as Spring 2005 -- just after the 2004 presidential election. The administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed now, while the public's attention is on the elections, so our action on this is needed immediately.
$28 million has been added to the 2004 Selective Service System (SSS) budget to prepare for a military draft that could start as early as June 15, 2005. Selective Service must report to Bush on March 31, 2005 that the system, which has lain dormant for decades, is ready for activation.
Please see website: //www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html to view the sss annual performance plan - fiscal year 2004.
The pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots nationwide.. Though this is an unpopular election year topic, military experts and influential members of congress are suggesting that if Rumsfeld's prediction of a "long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan [and a permanent state of war on "terrorism"] proves accurate, the U.S. may have no choice but to draft.
Congress brought twin bills, S. 89 and HR 163 forward this year,
//www.hslda.org/legislation/na...s89/default.asp
entitled the Universal National Service Act of 2003, "to provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons [age 18--26] in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes." These active bills currently sit in the committee on armed services.
Dodging the draft will be more difficult than those from the Vietnam era.
College and Canada will not be options. In December 2001, Canada and the U.S. signed a "smart border declaration," which could be used to keep would-be draft dodgers in. Signed by Canada's minister of foreign affairs, John Manley, and U.S. Homeland Security director, Tom Ridge, the declaration involves a 30-point plan which implements, among other things, a "pre-clearance agreement" of people entering and departing each country. Reforms aimed at making the draft more equitable along gender and class lines also eliminates higher education as a shelter. Underclassmen would only be able to postpone service until the end of their current semester. Seniors would have until the end of the academic year.
Even those voters who currently support US actions abroad may still object to this move, knowing their own children or grandchildren will not have a say about whether to fight. Not that it should make a difference, but this plan, among other things, eliminates higher education as a shelter and includes women in the draft. |
Well, I'll wait til it looks like it's going anywhere. Lots of crazy stuff gets put into bills, but that's a long way from becoming law.
As far as any activities of the Pentagon, I highly doubt that they are anywhere near enthusiastic about this.
As far as women being included in the draft, why shouldn't they be?
|
|
|
|
07/31/2004 05:45:42 PM · #43 |
The text of your message is from an email that has been circulating for a while. Its facts are not quite accurate. The links go to a home school web site. Both of the draft bills were introduced by Democrats early in 2003 as a protest to the invasion of Iraq and have been "in committee" ever since. S 89 has not had any action since January of 2003 S 89 HR 163 is a similar bill which has been shelved since Feb 2003 HR 163 Those are not bills to be concerned about.
That said, I do believe that a universal draft is inevitable and will appear as an option as soon as someone is elected president - either way. Neither party wants to talk about it because they are both in the same boat. Too few people in the military for the jobs we have on hand. Personally I hope it happens. I can't see any other way to wake up people. I have two kids of draftqable age and I would prefer that either of them be drafted than to have my-son-the-marine-in-Afghanistan to spend more than four years of his young life over there.
a related article |
|
|
|
07/31/2004 05:52:04 PM · #44 |
I agree with much of what you say.
What intrigues me is why it doesn't seem to be political suicide as you said before - because most would agree it would have been.
This should be a HUGE political issue!
Let's put it this way: If these b*stards think they are going to sneak under the radar using their power over the press to supress this story til after the election, and then draft my daughter to go fight their misbegotton war for their personal oil profits, they are mistaken. (I just edited this sentence so I wouldn't be arrested, if you can believe it. :( )!
And I dare say slightly more than half of the country would agree with me on that one.
Sorry to have hijacked this thread.
Message edited by author 2004-07-31 17:52:34. |
|
|
|
07/31/2004 06:15:16 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by emorgan49:
The text of your message is from an email that has been circulating for a while. Its facts are not quite accurate. The links go to a home school web site. Both of the draft bills were introduced by Democrats early in 2003 as a protest to the invasion of Iraq and have been "in committee" ever since. S 89 has not had any action since January of 2003 S 89 HR 163 is a similar bill which has been shelved since Feb 2003 HR 163 Those are not bills to be concerned about.
That said, I do believe that a universal draft is inevitable and will appear as an option as soon as someone is elected president - either way. Neither party wants to talk about it because they are both in the same boat. Too few people in the military for the jobs we have on hand. Personally I hope it happens. I can't see any other way to wake up people. I have two kids of draftqable age and I would prefer that either of them be drafted than to have my-son-the-marine-in-Afghanistan to spend more than four years of his young life over there.
a related article |
emorgan - thank you for that. I am removing egg from my face as I type in regard to the two bills, as you are correct. I have learned a valuable lesson here today. :(
However, I did take a look at the Selective Service site, and, as best as I can interpret the jargon, it sure does look like they are gearing up for a huge increase in conscription across the country, despite a very carefully worded denial on the front page of the site that they are not actually starting a draft per se yet!
I do understand your concerns about your son, and send my heartfelt best wishes for his swift safe return. |
|
|
|
07/31/2004 06:20:57 PM · #46 |
| I haven't been able to find the link to where the SSS is recruiting local Board members. Can someone post it? |
|
|
|
07/31/2004 06:39:24 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by emorgan49:
...I do believe that a universal draft is inevitable and will appear as an option as soon as someone is elected president -- either way. Neither party wants to talk about it because they are both in the same boat. Too few people in the military for the jobs we have on hand. Personally I hope it happens. I can't see any other way to wake up people. I have two kids of draftqable age and I would prefer that either of them be drafted than to have my-son-the-marine-in-Afghanistan to spend more than four years of his young life over there. |
emorgan49, I agree with you... at present it's hard to say whether a national draft will actually happen. However, that such a step is being considered is more than mere folklore. As you allude to, a draft is something that is seriously being looked at as a bureaucratic exercise or possibility of last resort -- though nothing firm is public. Again, I agree with you, unfortunately a draft might be necessary to "wake up people." I'm afraid that far too many of us confused nationalism for patriotism, and blindly accepted the rationale for going into Iraq. Accordingly, John Kerry has it just right: we must now share in the reconstruction of Iraq (i.e., benefits, a.k.a. contracts) in order to diminish the burden on our men and women in-country.
And, whether the Bush administration owns up to it or not, our allies will not play (share the burden), as long as this administration remains in office. Again, John Kerry has it right, our allies are eager to help, but cannot do so because they don't belive that they can trust the Bush administration.
Message edited by author 2004-07-31 21:04:14.
|
|
|
|
07/31/2004 08:41:32 PM · #48 |
Note that on the selective service site it is a proposal for the FY 2004 budget written in April of 2003 and probably has wording very similar to the FY2003 and FY 2002 proposals. It is not addressing the current military short comings, the Stop Loss program ot the Ready Reserve.
(I feel like I am arguing on the wrong side here - but check your facts before you use them to support any position). |
|
|
|
07/31/2004 09:55:23 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
Accordingly, John Kerry has it just right: we must now share in the reconstruction of Iraq (i.e., benefits, a.k.a. contracts) in order to diminish the burden on our men and women in-country.
And, whether the Bush administration owns up to it or not, our allies will not play (share the burden), as long as this administration remains in office. Again, John Kerry has it right, our allies are eager to help, but cannot do so because they don't belive that they can trust the Bush administration. |
***
How exactly, and with whom, does Kerry want to share in the burden of Iraqi reconstruction? What's his plan here? From what I know, Kerry wants to increase our military presence there to the tune of 40,000 more enlisted men/women. To guard oil wells? |
|
|
|
07/31/2004 10:30:13 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
From what I know, Kerry wants to increase our military presence there to the tune of 40,000 more enlisted men/women. To guard oil wells? |
That's absolutely incorrect. Here's what John Kerry has actually said:
"We will add 40,000 active duty troops -- not in Iraq, but to strengthen American forces that are now overstretched, overextended, and under pressure. We will double our special forces to conduct anti-terrorist operations. We will provide our troops with the newest weapons and technology to save their lives -- and win the battle. And we will end the backdoor draft of National Guard and reservists."
You can read the full text here.
|
|
