|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/26/2004 03:40:16 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by louddog:
Originally posted by myqyl:
Originally posted by louddog:
Originally posted by myqyl:
I oppose President Bush because I have children that will have to pay for the tax breaks I've received... And yes, I'm wealthy enough to have benefited from the Presidents "Rob from the future, Give to the rich" tax policies. |
Had Bush raised taxes or simply left them as is, we would still be in a recession or worse today. In which case you would probably balm him for that.
Also, must it be explained yet one more time that everyone received a tax cut, not just the rich. Some people like to look at the numbers and say just the rich got the cut, but if you look at is as percentage of income, which is how our tax system is based for the most part, everyone got a tax cut.
And my $.02, taxes should still be much lower. The government throws too much money away and pays elected officials far to much. Put a single mother of three in charge of government spending and we all get mind tax cuts. |
Future generations didn't get his tax cut... They get the bill. I oppose any president that is fiscally irresponsible enough to push off today's problems on tomorrows citizens. No other president in history has given a tax cut in a time of war. No other president would be so irresponsible. President Bush has no economic policy. We need someone in the White House that understands that being a good president doesn't mean putting quick fixes to long term problems. No world leader in his right mind would start a 2 front war unless there was no chance of containing one front till the other was won. I don't mind taking Iraq. I drive a car too. But at least disengage from one enemy before you invade another! Especially when the second enemy is contained. This is Strategy 101!!! Of course maybe he was doing something else the week they taught that in the Alabama National Guard. |
Had he not lowered taxes, future generations would have had a larger bill to pay, and no jobs to do it with.
Since you think the tax cuts were a bad idea, what should Bush have done to stop the recession and spur growth after 9/11? It's easy to say Bush was wrong, now tell us what would have been the right thing to do. |
Thank you for the opportunity :) It's rare for supporters of this administration to ask how it could have been done better :)
1 ~ End the tax breaks to corporations outsourcing jobs overseas... Personally I believe that American Express should not be allowed to use the word "American" in their name anymore, but that's a different rant.
2 ~ Give the tax breaks to the 90% at the bottom of the ladder. Note I said 90% instead of Senator Kerry's 98%... I believe a tax break to anyone making 100,000 a year is treason in a time of war.
3 ~ Don't invade any countries we don't absolutely have to.
4 ~ Trust Greenspan to keep the economy going, which is what he did... The President's tax cuts had little or no affect on our economy except to shake Consumer Confidence as deficits soared. Watch the relationship between the feds adjustment to interest rates and the economic recovery (which I believe may be a false recovery and I'm still concerned about) and you will see what I mean. The only economy helped by the President's gift to the rich was the European luxury car market...
5 ~ Truly invest in education... Not drum up a new slogan with no program... This is not the fix for the short term but MUST be done for the long term. Problem is, kids can't vote so why help them?
6 ~ Get tough (jail) on the heads of corporations that squandered the hard earned pension funds of hundreds of thousands of workers.
I won't unveil the rest of my economic strategy until I'm elected :) But that should give you a start :)
|
|
|
|
10/26/2004 03:44:36 PM · #52 |
Some notable Republicans on the modern Republican party:
John Eisenhower, longtime Republican and son of President Eisenhower (Republican):
"The fact is that today's "Republican" Party is one with which I am totally unfamiliar."
[...]
"In 1960, President Eisenhower told the Republican convention, "If ever we put any other value above (our) liberty, and above principle, we shall lose both." I would appreciate hearing such warnings from the Republican Party of today.
[...]
"I celebrate, along with other Americans, the diversity of opinion in this country. but let it be based on careful thought. i urge everyone, republicans and democrats alike, to avoid voting for a ticket merely because it carries the label of the party of one's parents or of our own ingrained habits." [article]
-----------------------------------------------------------
Former Representative Bob Barr, the same Bob Barr (Republican) that led Clinton's impeachment prosecution:
"Now we have the election of 2004. For the first time in my voting life, the choice in the race for president isn't so clear And, among true conservatives, I'm not alone."
[...]
But the concerns for many conservative voters -- concerns that may cause them not to vote for Mr. Bush on Nov. 2 -- fall generally into three categories: fiscal, physical (as in the physical security of our nation) and freedom (as in protecting our civil liberties).
When Bush became president Jan. 20, 2001, he inherited an enviable fiscal situation. Congress, then controlled by his own party, had -- through discipline and tough votes -- whittled down decades of deficit spending under presidents of both parties, so that annual deficits of hundreds of billions of dollars had been transformed to a series of real and projected surpluses. The heavy lifting had been done. All Bush had to do was resist the urge to spend, and he had to exert some pressure on Congress to resist its natural impulses to do the same. Had he done that, he might have gone down in history as the most fiscally conservative president in modern times." [article]
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lee Iacocca endorses John Kerry:
Former Chairman of the Chrysler Corporation Lee Iacocca endorsed Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry for President. Having backed George W. Bush in 2000, Iacocca is switching his support in 2004 after over three years of jobs failure by the Bush administration. [article]
Message edited by author 2004-10-26 15:47:02.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2004 05:00:16 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
Thank you for the opportunity :) It's rare for supporters of this administration to ask how it could have been done better :)
1 ~ End the tax breaks to corporations outsourcing jobs overseas... Personally I believe that American Express should not be allowed to use the word "American" in their name anymore, but that's a different rant.
2 ~ Give the tax breaks to the 90% at the bottom of the ladder. Note I said 90% instead of Senator Kerry's 98%... I believe a tax break to anyone making 100,000 a year is treason in a time of war.
3 ~ Don't invade any countries we don't absolutely have to.
4 ~ Trust Greenspan to keep the economy going, which is what he did... The President's tax cuts had little or no affect on our economy except to shake Consumer Confidence as deficits soared. Watch the relationship between the feds adjustment to interest rates and the economic recovery (which I believe may be a false recovery and I'm still concerned about) and you will see what I mean. The only economy helped by the President's gift to the rich was the European luxury car market...
5 ~ Truly invest in education... Not drum up a new slogan with no program... This is not the fix for the short term but MUST be done for the long term. Problem is, kids can't vote so why help them?
6 ~ Get tough (jail) on the heads of corporations that squandered the hard earned pension funds of hundreds of thousands of workers.
I won't unveil the rest of my economic strategy until I'm elected :) But that should give you a start :) |
You're Welcome, Thanks for answering, and answeing with though out answers.
My response, and only my opinion:
1. I agree, but remember it wasn't a Bush that put that tax loophole in place. And... it's not much of a tax loophole, not enough to encourage outsourcing. Cheap labor overseas is the reason for outsourcing and we can't do much about it. The tax loophole is just a talking point Kerry likes to bring up.
2. I think all Americans should be treated equally, regardless of income. Flat tax rate for all. People shouldn't be punished for earning more money. If you cut taxes, everyone should see it, not just the low income people.
3. Some would argue we had to. I'm not going to say who is right or wrong because I don't know. another thread...
4. So all the extra money in people's pocket thanks to the tax cut went just to purchase luxury cars? Everyone (not just the rich) got more money in their pocket, most spent it, that spurs growth.
5. I don't know a whole lot about this issue, but agree that education should be better and college education should be more affordable.
6. Agree 100%
|
|
|
|
10/26/2004 05:17:16 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by louddog:
4. So all the extra money in people's pocket thanks to the tax cut went just to purchase luxury cars? Everyone (not just the rich) got more money in their pocket, most spent it, that spurs growth.
|
Thanks for the response :) Just one point I want to clarify... The bottom of the tax ladder spent their cuts on (most likely) entertainment, paying down debt, and their childrens future. All of these things spur the economy. The rich were going to spur those things anyway, with or without a cut. I would be willing to bet the top 10% on the wealth ladder spent their cuts on luxury goods, be it cars, stereos, boats, or computers. Most of these items are not built in our country. (and I would debate that the current tax law is indeed responsible for them not being built here.) I just feel that that money (much of it mine) would be better spent securing our borders and paying down the national debt.
It's nice to actually debate these issues and not get into the name calling and schoolyard behavior that so often kills political discourse on the web... Thank you to everyone involved :) I have found several points made that I don't agree with but that I will certainly have to think about :)
Message edited by author 2004-10-26 17:18:47.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2004 08:37:37 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by ericlimon:
...This is a nation that has never before been so extremly divided... |
You weren't around in 1968! |
|
|
|
10/26/2004 09:15:59 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by frychikn:
Originally posted by ericlimon:
...This is a nation that has never before been so extremly divided... |
You weren't around in 1968! |
Or in 1860!
|
|
|
|
10/26/2004 09:18:08 PM · #57 |
wait -- did you... did you just refute yourself?
|
|
|
|
10/26/2004 09:20:58 PM · #58 |
well, 1860 WAS the start of the American Civil war, and fortunately we aren't THAT divided yet. So, yes, I did just refute myself, but hey, I'll be the first to admit it :P
|
|
|
|
10/26/2004 09:21:31 PM · #59 |
Yeah, I know what it was. I was just checking.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2004 09:49:14 PM · #60 |
You're sounding more and more like a true candidate!
MYQYL for president 2008 !!!
It's too late for this year, unfortunately.
Originally posted by myqyl:
Thank you for the opportunity :) It's rare for supporters of this administration to ask how it could have been done better :)
1 ~ End the tax breaks to corporations outsourcing jobs overseas... Personally I believe that American Express should not be allowed to use the word "American" in their name anymore, but that's a different rant.
2 ~ Give the tax breaks to the 90% at the bottom of the ladder. Note I said 90% instead of Senator Kerry's 98%... I believe a tax break to anyone making 100,000 a year is treason in a time of war.
3 ~ Don't invade any countries we don't absolutely have to.
4 ~ Trust Greenspan to keep the economy going, which is what he did... The President's tax cuts had little or no affect on our economy except to shake Consumer Confidence as deficits soared. Watch the relationship between the feds adjustment to interest rates and the economic recovery (which I believe may be a false recovery and I'm still concerned about) and you will see what I mean. The only economy helped by the President's gift to the rich was the European luxury car market...
5 ~ Truly invest in education... Not drum up a new slogan with no program... This is not the fix for the short term but MUST be done for the long term. Problem is, kids can't vote so why help them?
6 ~ Get tough (jail) on the heads of corporations that squandered the hard earned pension funds of hundreds of thousands of workers.
I won't unveil the rest of my economic strategy until I'm elected :) But that should give you a start :) |
|
|
|
|
10/26/2004 10:38:17 PM · #61 |
The division that exists is directly attributed to the loony left. Here is why:
The left feels it is finally posed to take over. They have the activist judges, the wacko environmentals, the leftish professors in the school system. They have pushed the real democrats to the rear because they, the loony left, yells the loudest. They accuse the right as being fascist but it is they, the loony left, that wants to tule by fiat.
This is apparant in the onslaught unleashed on the present administration. Notice that the right does not go out and litigate the right of these folks to speak their mind. Now look at the left. Look at the way they they use the law to inhibit free speech. Example is that the right did not try to stop the Moore film and the countless others. Yet, the loony left goes about serving warnings to bookstores, movies and tv to suppress free speech.
Now, the split started with the Bush/Gore elections. Gore resigns and then he takes it back and runs to the court. You see, it is the left that went to the courts first. The Florida Supreme court then rewrites the law and offers extensions which under federal law are not allowed.
Well, even the NY Times, the cadillacs of the left rags, admits that Bush won. However, they wanted to keep this alive and not concede their loss. The loony rabid left believes that if they repeat a lie over and over it will stick.
So the left tries to steal an election right under the nose of America and they proceed without shame. They are stopped. They felt the momentum is with them and their best minds go to argue and lose before the Supreme Court. Ah, there are some there that still defend the constitution...but these must be replaced with activist judges to make the dream of the left come true.
The lies are repeated and the ignorant rank and file pick it up. While I have high respect for Democrats, I wince when I hear the loony left speak. They never discuss ideas. All they do is use talking points from terrible sources. And they are very loud and very uncooth for they lash out like rabid dogs.
All they do is find fault and attack but never, never reveal their own virtues and they always hide the fact that they are socialist. I can see why. Their leaders are socialist but do not reveal their complete plan. Look there is nothing wrong with being a socialist but at least try to understand your vantage point.
The country is split: sligthly more capitalist and the rest socialist. Since the socialist feels he has the superior goal, he uses any means to affectuate his end.
My advise is to be patient your time may come but at least follow the current system's rules until your world vision comes into being. I know, the temptation is to lie and cheat and even get the dead to vote, but why not be patient?
If you feel that much of America finds your beliefs abhorent, do not despair. After all, you can not expect the rest of us to see your image with the clarity you see it. Some of us simply find socialism not quite to out taste but please, do not feel insulted that we feel different.
We will certainly let you speak your mind and if you can be so kind please allow us the same courtesy.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2004 11:17:21 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
The division that exists is directly attributed to the loony left. Here is why: |
***
What proof do you have that the left want to take over? I thought it was the republicans that have control of the executive branch, judicial branch and the legislature? If you want people who yell the loudest and have the greatest access to the airways, why don't you first look to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly? They are yelling louder with their hate filled messages than anyone else.
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
The left feels it is finally posed to take over. They have the activist judges, the wacko environmentals, the leftish professors in the school system. They have pushed the real democrats to the rear because they, the loony left, yells the loudest. They accuse the right as being fascist but it is they, the loony left, that wants to tule by fiat. |
***
Could you be more specific as to how the left is trying to inhibit free speech? If anything, I think the left is very tolerant of free speech issues. The Bush administration punished Joe Wilson for using his freedom of speech when he went agasint the administration and said that Niger was not supplying Iraq with any nuclear weapons grade material to build bombs. What did Bush do? He outed his wife, Valerie Plame who at the time was a CIA agent. A big no no!
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
This is apparant in the onslaught unleashed on the present administration. Notice that the right does not go out and litigate the right of these folks to speak their mind. Now look at the left. Look at the way they they use the law to inhibit free speech. Example is that the right did not try to stop the Moore film and the countless others. Yet, the loony left goes about serving warnings to bookstores, movies and tv to suppress free speech. |
***
Sorry to burst your bubble here, GF, but it was the Bush brothers, along with sec of state, Kathryn Harris, who stole the election of 2000.
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Now, the split started with the Bush/Gore elections. Gore resigns and then he takes it back and runs to the court. You see, it is the left that went to the courts first. The Florida Supreme court then rewrites the law and offers extensions which under federal law are not allowed. |
***
YOu mean like the lies that the Bush administration keep stating such as the links between Iraq and al Qaeda? Or maybe the wmd lies? Those are still being touted by the Bush administration despite having been totally proven false, even by their own appointed weapons inspector!
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Well, even the NY Times, the cadillacs of the left rags, admits that Bush won. However, they wanted to keep this alive and not concede their loss. The loony rabid left believes that if they repeat a lie over and over it will stick.
***
I think the neocons should reveal their true plans for the global domination they are pushing for with their pre-emptive wars. Instead we are fed lies about wmd's. Btw, you are wrong about all left leaning people being socialists.
[quote=graphicfunk]All they do is find fault and attack but never, never reveal their own virtues and they always hide the fact that they are socialist. I can see why. Their leaders are socialist but do not reveal their complete plan. Look there is nothing wrong with being a socialist but at least try to understand your vantage point. |
***
Not exactly sure why you're not putting your words and energy into exposing the corporate crooks who stole millions from their employees and investors, such as Enron and WorldCom, etc.
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
My advise is to be patient your time may come but at least follow the current system's rules until your world vision comes into being. I know, the temptation is to lie and cheat and even get the dead to vote, but why not be patient?
***
We have not let the conservatives speak their minds?
[quote=graphicfunk]
We will certainly let you speak your mind and if you can be so kind please allow us the same courtesy. |
|
|
|
|
10/26/2004 11:36:18 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Sorry to burst your bubble here, GF, but it was the Bush brothers, along with sec of state, Kathryn Harris, who stole the election of 2000. |
I don't have time to comment on all of your dribble tonight, so I just wanted to pull these piece out. Are you so freaking brain-washed, close minded and unwilling to educate your self that you still believe this?
That little crying game worked pretty good for a month or so after the election, but grow up and just learn to deal with the facts. |
|
|
|
10/26/2004 11:46:46 PM · #64 |
So then what are your facts, Russell?
Originally posted by Russell2566:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Sorry to burst your bubble here, GF, but it was the Bush brothers, along with sec of state, Kathryn Harris, who stole the election of 2000. |
I don't have time to comment on all of your dribble tonight, so I just wanted to pull these piece out. Are you so freaking brain-washed, close minded and unwilling to educate your self that you still believe this?
That little crying game worked pretty good for a month or so after the election, but grow up and just learn to deal with the facts. |
|
|
|
|
10/27/2004 04:48:18 AM · #65 |
A Republican is just a Libertarian that hasn't been arrested yet.
I forget who originally said that but I think it perfectly describes the situation.
|
|
|
|
10/27/2004 05:42:36 AM · #66 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
So then what are your facts, Russell?
Originally posted by Russell2566:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Sorry to burst your bubble here, GF, but it was the Bush brothers, along with sec of state, Kathryn Harris, who stole the election of 2000. |
I don't have time to comment on all of your dribble tonight, so I just wanted to pull these piece out. Are you so freaking brain-washed, close minded and unwilling to educate your self that you still believe this?
That little crying game worked pretty good for a month or so after the election, but grow up and just learn to deal with the facts. |
|
Mind you the Electoral College isn't some possibly existant entity. It's for real.
Besides. Al Gore lost his home state and Bill's home state. You can complain all you want about Florida, but if you lose your home state, I wouldn't be complaining too loud.
|
|
|
|
10/27/2004 06:15:53 AM · #67 |
Couldn't resist...
... from graffiti.
"When we draft young men for a war, we reject the physically unfit, the mentally inferior and the morally deficient - leaving them home to reproduce the race, while we send out the finest stock to be killed; This is called "Defending the Future of the Nation" - unknown
|
|
|
|
10/27/2004 06:19:14 AM · #68 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Example is that the right did not try to stop the Moore film and the countless others. |
Are you kidding me? Of course it did. Do some research.
|
|
|
|
10/27/2004 07:36:39 AM · #69 |
Jeb Bush and Kathryn Harris compiled a purge list of supposed felons in their state. Florida is one of the only states remaining that don't allow former felons to vote. Most of those on the purged list they compiled were wrongly added to that list and almost all were african American who had committed no crimes and were prevented from voting. They totaled nearly 100,000 people and would have mostly voted democratic and so would have given Gore the majority of votes in Florida and also the electoral college votes, as well as, the presidency. Just one of the many shananigans that the Bushs' have pulled since 2000. You can read about it at www.gregpalast.com
Originally posted by xtabintun:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
So then what are your facts, Russell?
Originally posted by Russell2566:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Sorry to burst your bubble here, GF, but it was the Bush brothers, along with sec of state, Kathryn Harris, who stole the election of 2000. |
I don't have time to comment on all of your dribble tonight, so I just wanted to pull these piece out. Are you so freaking brain-washed, close minded and unwilling to educate your self that you still believe this?
That little crying game worked pretty good for a month or so after the election, but grow up and just learn to deal with the facts. |
|
Mind you the Electoral College isn't some possibly existant entity. It's for real.
Besides. Al Gore lost his home state and Bill's home state. You can complain all you want about Florida, but if you lose your home state, I wouldn't be complaining too loud. |
|
|
|
|
10/27/2004 02:26:27 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by AmiYuy:
I'm sure Kerry and Edwards have sworn too, the only mistake Cheney made was he did it where the public could see it. Whoops, he's screwed forever. *inserts view on the liberal media* I bet if K/E had done it we would have never heard. *ends view on media* |
There was the time Kerry called a secret service agent, whose job was protecting Kerry's life, a "son of a bitch". But without all those evil right-wing, neocon web sites out there, you're right, nobody would probably ever know. |
|
|
|
10/27/2004 02:38:28 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
Originally posted by Russell2566:
good post Ami
MyQyl: What Cheney said in private to someone on the floor is very different to what someone does or says on a debate floor.
Also, Personally I applaud the VP for barking at a backstabber. |
Sorry, but the fact of the matter is he said it on the floor of the US Senate, during a photo op. Not in private... I have no problem with the language, but it shows tremendous disrespect for the office of the Senator and for the Senate as a whole. I only bring it up because of the allagation that Senator Edwards was disrespectful of his opponent in a debate. I don't believe either instance is relavent to the election. |
My only "spin" on the subject will be to put it in context: "On the floor of the Senate" makes it sound like senate was in session, and this was an "official" statement made on the record. In reality, it was a remark made to a fellow republican (I don't recall offhand who), which was why Russel refered to it as "in private", in reference to Senator Leahey, and was not directed at him. The fact that they were having their photo taken at the time was pretty much irrelevant, I think.
That said, I don't personally approve of his use of the words, think it was at best a lapse in judgement, and think its the one rare instance which I know of where Chenney has not conducted himself as a gentleman. |
|
|
|
10/27/2004 03:45:05 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
Originally posted by louddog:
4. So all the extra money in people's pocket thanks to the tax cut went just to purchase luxury cars? Everyone (not just the rich) got more money in their pocket, most spent it, that spurs growth.
|
Thanks for the response :) Just one point I want to clarify... The bottom of the tax ladder spent their cuts on (most likely) entertainment, paying down debt, and their childrens future. All of these things spur the economy. The rich were going to spur those things anyway, with or without a cut. I would be willing to bet the top 10% on the wealth ladder spent their cuts on luxury goods, be it cars, stereos, boats, or computers. Most of these items are not built in our country. (and I would debate that the current tax law is indeed responsible for them not being built here.) I just feel that that money (much of it mine) would be better spent securing our borders and paying down the national debt.
It's nice to actually debate these issues and not get into the name calling and schoolyard behavior that so often kills political discourse on the web... Thank you to everyone involved :) I have found several points made that I don't agree with but that I will certainly have to think about :) |
Here are some problems with your line of thinking (based on the first numbers I could find quickly, but they are from the CBO, as published in the Washington Post in August of this year):
* The top 20% of taxpayers pay nearly 65% of the taxes. So only giving a tax break to the bottom 80% cuts the econimic stimulus provided by the tax break significantly.
* While dropping terms like "luxury goods" sounds good for class envy, that spending is every bit as valid, and possibly more so, than that of the lower income brackets. Even if a luxury car is completely build outside the US, there are people who earn a living delivering, preping, selling, repairing, and even cleaning that car. Aren't there also laws which require a certain percentage of a car to be made or assembled in the US, otherwise a tarrif (i.e. a tax) is required? Its always a good class-warfare tactic to pooh-pooh the purchase of luxury items, but some portion of that money does make it to the pockets of the middle and lower class.
I recall, about 10 or 12 years ago, hearing about one of the more liberal leaning states of the north-east (maybe Rhode Island?) decided that yachts were a luxury that should be heavily taxed, since if you could afford a yacht, you could obviously afford to pay a high tax for buying it. So did the state make a windfall on that tax? No, people who would have otherwise bought yachts either opted to not make that purchase (since they could no longer afford it) or purchased yachts built outside the state. The result was that the yacht-building industry was decimated and hundreds of workers lost their livelyhood. People at all economic levels benefit from the purchase of "luxury goods".
On the other hand, what types of goods do middle and lower income people buy? Most of their purchases come from WalMart and other bargain outlets, where probably 90% or more of the goods are manufactured in China. So there goes the "most luxury goods are not built in our country" arguement - far fewer consumer goods are built in this country. (And don't the left hate WalMart, et al, for exploiting workers? So a middle and lower class tax cut actually benefits WalMart. That can't be good, can it?)
* How does paying down debt spur the economy? Its certainly a good thing, and I suppose can free up cash for other purposes, but the money doesn't really go directly into the economy, but just meets obligations for money that already went into the economy. But I'll defer to other economics experts on this point, if someone has some proof I'm wrong.
* Now, its still too early (as far as I know) to have any hard numbers on the stimulus effects of the tax cut on future tax revenue - i.e. the tax cuts spur the economy, which spurs growth, which increases overall earnings, which increases the total amount of taxes collected in future years. However, you can compare the numbers being thrown around and determine that, in fact, the tax cut really only accounts for a tiny piece of the total debt issue. Consider these numbers, which are my recollection of numbers being thrown around by democrats: Bush has supposedly turned a 5 trillion dollar surplus (realy a projected surplus, but all these numbers are projected, and I believe over the same timeframe of 10 years) into a 5 trillion dollar debt - a net "loss" of 10 trillion dollars. (During the debates, Kerry/Edwards claimed a 3 trillion dollar debt and 8 trillion dollar turnaround, but in the last week I've heard dems spouting the new numbers, so I'll take their word for it.) Now, how big is the tax cut, the portion on the top 20% of wage earners, which Kerry wants to roll back? As I recall, he kept talking about an 80-something billion dollar "tax giveaway". So lets just be generous and roll it up to 100 billion, since the economy is doing better and they'll probably have more income to account for. So, this 100 billion dollar tax cut is responsible for a 10 trillion dollar deficit? And rolling back this tax break, which accounts for 1 percent of the turnaround is supposed to make a difference? Even if the light suddenly dawns on us that, in fact, the entire tax cut was a bad idea, and we'll roll the whole thing back, what was it, something like 500 billion? That's still only 5%.
So, that leaves the simple question: How does this tax cut, or the rolling back of the tax cut, have any affect on this "massive debt"?
The answer: it doesn't. Its all class warfare propoganda.
And, by the way, if you really do want more of your income to go into the government for the purposes of securing the borders and paying down the debt, then please, by all means pay extra taxes. Just because you must pay at least a certain amount, it is at your sole discretion to choose to pay more than you're asked. Just like the Heinz-Kerry's, who chose to take advantage of all the tax savings available and pay a mere 12% of their income in taxes, while most in their tax bracket paid something like 20%, you have the choice to not take advantage of all those the tax breaks and loopholes. |
|
|
|
10/27/2004 03:48:08 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
You're sounding more and more like a true candidate!
MYQYL for president 2008 !!!
It's too late for this year, unfortunately. |
Feel free to write him in. :) |
|
|
|
10/27/2004 04:04:39 PM · #74 |
Yet, as I recall, perhaps one case has actually been brought forward of someone who claimed to be inapporpriately denied the opportunity to vote. On the other hand, several thousand known felons were found to have illegally had their votes counted. Also, no recount that I've heard of, including many by liberal news agencies, have ever given Gore a win. Also, investigations by state and ferderal agencies, some controlled by dems, have all come to the conclusion that no fraud could be found.
On the other hand, the Gore team chose to contest the election (something that even the dastardly Richard Nixon chose not to do when he probably had a far better case in 1960) on the grounds that repeated recounts should be conducted by partisan officials who were manufacturing votes by guessing the intentions of voters with questionable ballots.
Then there's the fact that four other states were won by Gore by extremely thin margins, which had allegations of fraud by Democrats, such as buying votes with cigarettes, which were not contested by the Republicans, which could have made Florida meaningless.
As I heard mentioned yesterday, the one thing we can agree on is that there was an attempt to steal the election in Florida in 2000. Where we differ is: We believe the attempt failed, while you believe the attempt succeeded.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Jeb Bush and Kathryn Harris compiled a purge list of supposed felons in their state. Florida is one of the only states remaining that don't allow former felons to vote. Most of those on the purged list they compiled were wrongly added to that list and almost all were african American who had committed no crimes and were prevented from voting. They totaled nearly 100,000 people and would have mostly voted democratic and so would have given Gore the majority of votes in Florida and also the electoral college votes, as well as, the presidency. Just one of the many shananigans that the Bushs' have pulled since 2000. You can read about it at www.gregpalast.com
Originally posted by xtabintun:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
So then what are your facts, Russell?
Originally posted by Russell2566:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Sorry to burst your bubble here, GF, but it was the Bush brothers, along with sec of state, Kathryn Harris, who stole the election of 2000. |
I don't have time to comment on all of your dribble tonight, so I just wanted to pull these piece out. Are you so freaking brain-washed, close minded and unwilling to educate your self that you still believe this?
That little crying game worked pretty good for a month or so after the election, but grow up and just learn to deal with the facts. |
|
Mind you the Electoral College isn't some possibly existant entity. It's for real.
Besides. Al Gore lost his home state and Bill's home state. You can complain all you want about Florida, but if you lose your home state, I wouldn't be complaining too loud. |
|
|
|
|
|
10/27/2004 06:10:23 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
What proof do you have that the left want to take over? I thought it was the republicans that have control of the executive branch, judicial branch and the legislature? If you want people who yell the loudest and have the greatest access to the airways, why don't you first look to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly? They are yelling louder with their hate filled messages than anyone else. |
You mean to tell me that the left are campaigning that hard and do NOT want to take over? Give me a break.
If the republicans have "control" of the legislature, explain why it is that more of Bush's nominees aren't sitting on the judicial benches to which he has tried to appoint them?
Neither Limbaugh, Hannity, nor O'Reilly PAY for access to the airwaves the way that AirAmerica does. They have access to the airwaves because they have an AUDIENCE that tunes in to their shows - and advertisers actually pay THEM for the privilege of running advertisements for their goods and services on those shows. If the people didn't tune them in, their access would disappear.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Could you be more specific as to how the left is trying to inhibit free speech? If anything, I think the left is very tolerant of free speech issues. The Bush administration punished Joe Wilson for using his freedom of speech when he went agasint the administration and said that Niger was not supplying Iraq with any nuclear weapons grade material to build bombs. What did Bush do? He outed his wife, Valerie Plame who at the time was a CIA agent. A big no no! |
For one, by pressuring the Bush campaign to ( illegally ) demand that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to stop running their advertisements.
For another, by petitioning the FEC to stop the Sinclair Group from running "Stolen Valor" on their own stations.
What PROOF do you have that the Bush Administration punished Joe Wilson? Absolutely NONE, I'll bet - it's just innuendo and unsubstantiated accusation. ( P.S. the Bush Administration NEVER maintained that Niger was supplying Iraq with weapons grade uranium - only that Hussein was SEEKING yellowcake from Niger )
What PROOF do you have that Bush "outed" Valerie Plame? Absolutely NONE, I'll bet - just more left wing innuendo and unsubstantiated accusations repeated ad nauseum.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Sorry to burst your bubble here, GF, but it was the Bush brothers, along with sec of state, Kathryn Harris, who stole the election of 2000. |
Funny, but if that had actually happened, why wasn't anyone ever charged with a crime? Could it be because there wasn't any?
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
You mean like the lies that the Bush administration keep stating such as the links between Iraq and al Qaeda? Or maybe the wmd lies? Those are still being touted by the Bush administration despite having been totally proven false, even by their own appointed weapons inspector! |
There WERE links between Iraq and al Qaeda - the Weekly Standard, in an article called "Case Closed", dated 11/24/2003, references a document it had obtained. "According to the memo--which lays out the intelligence in 50 numbered points--Iraq-al Qaeda contacts began in 1990 and continued through mid-March 2003, days before the Iraq War began. Most of the numbered passages contain straight, fact-based intelligence reporting, which some cases includes an evaluation of the credibility of the source.".
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I think the neocons should reveal their true plans for the global domination they are pushing for with their pre-emptive wars. Instead we are fed lies about wmd's. Btw, you are wrong about all left leaning people being socialists. |
We were not fed any lies about WMD. In the year I have been posting in these threads, no one has yet been able to prove a single LIE from the Bush administration. Many liberals claim that Bush is STUPID, but then turn right around and complain the you can't catch him in a LIE ( a statement known to be false when it was made ), because he's too SMART to get trapped. Mind you, in hindsight, we HAVE discovered that Bush & Co ( including the Senate Intelligence Committee on which Kerry is supposed to sit ) were given erroneous information - but that's not Bush's fault, and doesn't make his repetition of that intelligence information LIES.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Not exactly sure why you're not putting your words and energy into exposing the corporate crooks who stole millions from their employees and investors, such as Enron and WorldCom, etc. |
Because you do that so much better than the conservatives do. In fact, I don't know why we Americans even need the CIA, FBI, NSA, etc. since you seem to know a heck of a lot more than they do. For example, why is anyone investigating the Valerie Plame "outing", since you already know that Bush did it?
Originally posted by Olyuz:
We have not let the conservatives speak their minds? |
You have, but not by choice. If given the choice, I'm fairly sure that you would stifle us. As it is, we get the right to speak, but not to have what we say given any consideration. Instead the liberals find fault with every media outlet know to man that isn't founded by, funded by, and fronting for liberals. As in, "Oh that must be propoganda - it was put out by the Washington Times - and that's owned by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, who I think was convicted of tax evasion 20 years ago." |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 06/17/2025 03:31:00 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/17/2025 03:31:00 PM EDT.
|
