Bush thinks the American people are stupid

[pseudobrit]

CRAWFORD, Texas - President Bush said Saturday the choice for voters this November is clear: lower taxes to stimulate growth or higher taxes that will stunt job creation. Bush defended his record on the economy and implied that Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry would raise taxes and hurt the economy.

"Raising taxes will make it harder for people to find work,"

You arrogant little ****less bastard. How stupid do you think the American people are?

Four years of your ****ty tax cuts have thrown this nation into economic and unemployment hell.

You got all the tax cuts you wanted and it screwed us for decades. Now you want MORE??!! SOB!!

I am so disappointed that this drunken, lazy, spoiled waste of a human being can stand in front of the nation and say this crap and not be lynched out of office for it.

link (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040306/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_economy_9)

[Neserk]

Is his head in the sand or does he really think people don't realize that they are out of worked or have lost significant income?

[IIvan]

The American people are stupid. They (we) are not aware of the way things really are and believe what ever we hear. Hell- we still believe that we are winning a "war on terrorism"! :confused: :(

[vniow]

pseudo, put the hockey stick down and back away slowly....

[pseudobrit]

pseudo, put the hockey stick down and back away slowly....

ha. I just got thrown out of a game a few weeks back for going after a guy who slashed me. That's one thing Bush hasn't done to me yet. Lost a manufacturing job -- yes. Two handed slash across the wrists -- not yet.

must...control...temper.

[Savage Henry]

Your election fascinates me this side of the ponds more than our own, possibly because ours is a foregone conclusion.

With the Democrat race reporting, not just tiny, but massive increases in voter turnout, the Bush camp must genuinely worried considering how close it was when he got in.

His weak-ass "Democrats will raise taxes" remark is straight from his Dad's book. I listened to a Bill Hicks CD from 11 years ago and he ripped holes in Bush Snr. argument of the exact same bullplop remark. It was wrong then and it's wrong now.

You guys aren't stupid, not by a long shot. But when the day comes, make the difference and Vote .... please!!!!

[superbovine]

acutally lowering taxes will stimulate the economy according to the "trickle down economics theory". it will let business owners to save money, re-invest money and expand their business in theory. this will create jobs and new tax revenue for the goverment. raising taxes will only force ppl not to invest their extra money in their business, but pay taxes. remember that 10% of the american population pays 70% of the income taxes, but no one wins election raising taxes on the middle class either. i am not taking sides on the issue, but i like to point to you the basis for bushes argument (i said THEORY remember). i'd also like to point out kerry would not raise taxes on the middle class, but rather tax the rich as he has said in his speeches.

the reason why i said all that is that, an educate person with a little knowledge or economics could say that the bushes, taxes had some basis in economic theory therefore he does not take the american people to be stupid. just like kerry economic plan of cutting back most of the bush tax has some basis in economic theory. it just a matter of your perception, but you shouldn't think bush think the american people are stupid.

[diamond geezer]

acutally lowering taxes will stimulate the economy according to the "trickle down economics theory". it will let business owners to save money, re-invest money and expand their business in theory.

Actually, what they do with extra money is line their own pockets and make campaign donations.

A new study reveals growing pay gaps between workers and CEOs and between CEOs and government officials that are increasing inequality and undermining democracy. CEO pay jumped 535% in the 1990s, dwarfing the 297% rise in the S&P 500, 116% rise in corporate profits and 32% increase in average worker pay (not adjusted for inflation). The pay gap between CEOs and the President of the United States has grown from 2:1 to 62:1 since 1960, reports the Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy in Executive Excess 2000.

http://www.ufenet.org/press/archive/2000/exec_excess_2000_pr.html

[wwworry]

acutally lowering taxes will stimulate the economy according to the "trickle down economics theory". it will let business owners to save money, re-invest money and expand their business in theory. this will create jobs and new tax revenue for the goverment. raising taxes will only force ppl not to invest their extra money in their business, but pay taxes. remember that 10% of the american population pays 70% of the income taxes, but no one wins election raising taxes on the middle class either. i am not taking sides on the issue, but i like to point to you the basis for bushes argument (i said THEORY remember). i'd also like to point out kerry would not raise taxes on the middle class, but rather tax the rich as he has said in his speeches.

the reason why i said all that is that, an educate person with a little knowledge or economics could say that the bushes, taxes had some basis in economic theory therefore he does not take the american people to be stupid. just like kerry economic plan of cutting back most of the bush tax has some basis in economic theory. it just a matter of your perception, but you shouldn't think bush think the american people are stupid.

Can you tell me when this theory has ever worked to create jobs and resulted in acceptable deficits?

No???

because it never works. It's just a dumb theory that rich people have come up with to transfer the tax burden on the middle class. First look at the recent 40 year history of who is paying the taxes. You'll see the share paid by corporations and the top 1% is getting smaller and the share paid by the middle class is getting bigger. Then remember that federal income taxes are not the only taxes paid by people. Also realize that the federal govt. is shifting more and more of it's funding obligations onto the states and municipalities. State taxes that pay for these federally mandated programs usually hit lower and middle income people harder.

You could even look at the growing gap between the richest and the middle class and put two and two together - the middle class is being fleeced. Our children are going to be stuck with the bill.

Sure that theory sounds nice like communism sounds nice but it just doesn't work.

[wwworry]

I'm sorry to repeat myself but it is important. "trickle-down" and "supply-side" theories have been discredited. They do not work.

Trickle-UP works.

[Stelliform]

....

[zimv20]

I was able to hire an extra employee because of the tax cuts. I was off by just a little. The Tax cuts made it feasible.

i'm a fan of sample sizes > 1

[Stelliform]

....

[zimv20]

OK, I increased my employees by 50%! :p It is all in how you state your numbers. ;)

By the way, I doubt that anyone is going to take a survey and try to find the exact employment increase due to the tax cut.

it's also well nigh impossible to quantify that. small anecdotal evidence doesn't describe the larger picture, where there's still a net loss of 2 million jobs under bush.

clinton, like most other presidents, had a net gain. my anecdotal evidence from the 90s is that my company increased its employees by 600% from 96'-'00. but that doesn't mean that's what the overall job market did.

[IJ Reilly]

i'm a fan of sample sizes > 1

It's called the "for instance proof." It can be of great utility when you can't come with any real evidence.

[windowsblowsass]

You arrogant little ****less bastard. How stupid do you think the American people are?

Four years of your ****ty tax cuts have thrown this nation into economic and unemployment hell.

You got all the tax cuts you wanted and it screwed us for decades. Now you want MORE??!! SOB!!

I am so disappointed that this drunken, lazy, spoiled waste of a human being can stand in front of the nation and say this crap and not be lynched out of office for it.

link (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040306/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_economy_9)all right first of all this is not a bush recession Clinton caused this recession and it started to take affect when bush took office After 9/11 our economy was devestated people werent traveling were in fear and this caused economic problems tax cuts give people money which they spend on goods which helps buisness which helps our economy just because you are ignorant and dont understand this doesnt mean you have to flip out and call him a drunken b@$t@rd just because when he was in college and twenty some he partyed so what does this mean anything now no also tell me honestly that you never went to aprty during college

[windowsblowsass]

I'm sorry to repeat myself but it is important. "trickle-down" and "supply-side" theories have been discredited. They do not work.

Trickle-UP works.
actually they do the theory goes like this give a rich person money hell build a factory which will give money to many others its like you gve a man a fish he will eat for a day you teach a man to fish he will eat for a lifetime or you give aman money hell have it for a few days you give a man a job hell have money for a lifetime or until he gets fired*

[windowsblowsass]

Can you tell me when this theory has ever worked to create jobs and resulted in acceptable deficits?

No???

because it never works. It's just a dumb theory that rich people have come up with to transfer the tax burden on the middle class. First look at the recent 40 year history of who is paying the taxes. You'll see the share paid by corporations and the top 1% is getting smaller and the share paid by the middle class is getting bigger. Then remember that federal income taxes are not the only taxes paid by people. Also realize that the federal govt. is shifting more and more of it's funding obligations onto the states and municipalities. State taxes that pay for these federally mandated programs usually hit lower and middle income people harder.

You could even look at the growing gap between the richest and the middle class and put two and two together - the middle class is being fleeced. Our children are going to be stuck with the bill.

Sure that theory sounds nice like communism sounds nice but it just doesn't work.
REAGEN HW BUSH

[3rdpath]

all right first of all this is not a bush recession Clinton caused this recession and it started to take affect when bush took office After 9/11 our economy was devestated people werent traveling were in fear and this caused economic problems tax cuts give people money which they spend on goods which helps buisness which helps our economy just because you are ignorant and dont understand this doesnt mean you have to flip out and call him a drunken b@$t@rd just because when he was in college and twenty some he partyed so what does this mean anything now no also tell me honestly that you never went to aprty during college

shouldn't this be in the " have you ever been drunk" thread....

[pseudobrit]

all right first of all this is not a bush recession Clinton caused this recession and it started to take affect when bush took office After 9/11 our economy was devestated people werent traveling were in fear and this caused economic problems tax cuts give people money which they spend on goods which helps buisness which helps our economy

Bush has had control of this nation for over three years and has gotten nearly every economic plan he wanted passed. It's time to stop blaming Clinton and 9/11.

Tax cuts for the poor and middle class gives people money that is spent on goods. What we got were tax cuts for the rich which are not spent and no reinvested in the economy.

Your economic theory is not based in reality.

just because you are ignorant and dont understand

Show some manners or piss off.

doesnt mean you have to flip out and call him a drunken b@$t@rd just because when he was in college and twenty some he partyed so what does this mean anything now no also tell me honestly that you never went to aprty during college

He was an alcoholic until he was 40 years old. He was a father by then and quite out of college.

[Neserk]

actually they do the theory goes like this give a rich person money hell build a factory which will give money to many others its like you gve a man a fish he will eat for a day you teach a man to fish he will eat for a lifetime or you give aman money hell have it for a few days you give a man a job hell have money for a lifetime or until he gets fired*


IF that is how it is suppose to work than those tax breaks should have come with the stipulation that the money be used to create jobs for the rest of us!

It didn't and it didn't.

[acidrock]

I think that he doesn't realize that every (intelligent) person in this country thinks that he's stupid.

[superbovine]

Can you tell me when this theory has ever worked to create jobs and resulted in acceptable deficits?

No???

because it never works. It's just a dumb theory that rich people have come up with to transfer the tax burden on the middle class. First look at the recent 40 year history of who is paying the taxes. You'll see the share paid by corporations and the top 1% is getting smaller and the share paid by the middle class is getting bigger. Then remember that federal income taxes are not the only taxes paid by people. Also realize that the federal govt. is shifting more and more of it's funding obligations onto the states and municipalities. State taxes that pay for these federally mandated programs usually hit lower and middle income people harder.

You could even look at the growing gap between the richest and the middle class and put two and two together - the middle class is being fleeced. Our children are going to be stuck with the bill.

Sure that theory sounds nice like communism sounds nice but it just doesn't work.

look i called in a theory. geez i never said it worked....i just was pointed facts. so all you ppl flaming for saying it doesn't, i never said it did!

[zimv20]

look i called in a theory. geez i never said it worked....i just was pointed facts.

"it's not theory, it's fact!"

awesome. prove it.

[wwworry]

actually they do the theory goes like this give a rich person money hell build a factory which will give money to many others its like you gve a man a fish he will eat for a day you teach a man to fish he will eat for a lifetime or you give aman money hell have it for a few days you give a man a job hell have money for a lifetime or until he gets fired*


Yes, I know the theory. I have lived through much of it. Truely, it does not work. You have got to start looking at the actual numbers instead of relying on this faith-based economic plan.

Look at February's job numbers: 21,000 jobs created (much less than normal and fewer than population growth).

No jobs were created in the private sector.
All new jobs were govt. jobs.
With two years of massive cuts no new jobs are created.

What do you say to that? That is a fact. There is no way Bush can cut taxes any more because we are already dangerously in debt, which is bad by the way. So there's your proof. End of story. Trickle down has again been proven false.

[Dippo]

Yes, I know the theory. I have lived through much of it. Truely, it does not work. You have got to start looking at the actual numbers instead of relying on this faith-based economic plan.

Look at February's job numbers: 21,000 jobs created (much less than normal and fewer than population growth).

No jobs were created in the private sector.
All new jobs were govt. jobs.
With two years of massive cuts no new jobs are created.

What do you say to that? That is a fact. There is no way Bush can cut taxes any more because we are already dangerously in debt, which is bad by the way. So there's your proof. End of story. Trickle down has again been proven false.


Has any thought that may trickle-down economics might take awhile, like more than just a few years???

It's really ignorant to give credit/blame to a president about the economy when in reality it's really not under his control or anybodys control for that matter.

[2jaded2care]

I have seen groups of PhDs argue Dems vs. Reps, Bush vs. Clinton. I don't think education or intelligence (or stupidity) is necessarily the determining factor here, as much as we'd all like to believe it when it supports our cause. The determining factor may be more emotional or related to upbringing, something, but I'm sure there are plenty of examples of "smart" and "stupid" on all sides of the political fence. That's just my observation.

As a Republican (usually), I don't want my taxes raised. However, I will admit that Clinton did it (retroactively, even -- how's that legal?) and the economy improved, much to my chagrin. Can I say beyond a shadow of a doubt that there's a causal correlation? No. But, it does cause me to question my beliefs about economics, or at least to admit I don't know everything.

Then again, economists don't always agree amongst themselves either, so that tells me something too.

[pseudobrit]

Has any thought that may trickle-down economics might take awhile, like more than just a few years???.

Yeah, like when Reagan did it and it gave us a recession under George the First.

[wwworry]

Has any thought that may trickle-down economics might take awhile, like more than just a few years???

It's really ignorant to give credit/blame to a president about the economy when in reality it's really not under his control or anybodys control for that matter.

Yeah, Reagan did it and we had huge deficits so that eventually Bush 1 had to raise taxes. Middle and lower class wages did not rise during Reagan and Bush 1. Eventually, long after Clinton was in office middle and lower income workers did see some wage gains.

Trickle-down and supply-side is a faith-based fiscal policy. The faith is "voodoo-economics". It has never been shown to work.

[Opteron]

Coup:D

[pseudobrit]

Coup:D

Here we call it Election Day.

[IIvan]

Coup :D

I second this! Its been way to long...

[jayb2000]

actually they do the theory goes like this give a rich person money hell build a factory which will give money to many others its like you gve a man a fish he will eat for a day you teach a man to fish he will eat for a lifetime or you give aman money hell have it for a few days you give a man a job hell have money for a lifetime or until he gets fired*


The problem is, President Bush has given tax cuts to corporations and billionaires, who generally invest in moving plants and work to Mexico, China, India, etc. Give the tax cuts to people who live paycheck to paycheck (or close to it) and the money goes directly into the economy, right away. Give it to a billionaire and it takes months or years if it EVER gets back into the US economy.

Besides, its not just the tax cuts, its the spending packages and energy bills that contain billions in subsidies for corporations. If "free trade" and the "free market" is really a good thing, then this President sure does not act like it.

I loved how he talked about "trade isolationists" the other day, conveniently forgetting about the steel tariffs he put in and the French tariffs the neocons wanted after the French did not want to invade Iraq. :rolleyes:

[mactastic]

Has any thought that may trickle-down economics might take awhile, like more than just a few years???

Then it's not an appropriate strategy to employ when you need immediate stimulus. And that's if you believe that voodoo-economics crap actually works.

It's really ignorant to give credit/blame to a president about the economy when in reality it's really not under his control or anybodys control for that matter.

Has Bush been trying to take credit for the economic recovery? Is he ignorant for doing so?

[IJ Reilly]

I loved how he talked about "trade isolationists" the other day, conveniently forgetting about the steel tariffs he put in and the French tariffs the neocons wanted after the French did not want to invade Iraq. :rolleyes:

I noted the irony here too. I suppose he's hoping the the voters have the same short-term memory problems as he's got. It's up to Kerry to make sure they don't.

[parrothead]

Bush doesnt think that Americans are stupid, he knows it. He told us all what he was going to do when he ran for President. He pretty much has done what he said. Only problem is that most of what he said, most americans dont like. Who ACTUALLY thinks that weaker clean air regulations are good for this country (one example)? Americans are stupid for electing him and for then letting him get away with creating all this harmful policy. All we had to do was look at Texas. Some of the worst schools, the worst environmental problems, a divided state government, and tax cuts for corporations and the rich. So I say it is not Bush's fault. It is OUR fault.

[Frohickey]

Lower taxes mean more money available for the people that earned them.
More money available means more sales of non-basic items such as more clothing, computers, cars, newer appliances, etc.
More sales of these items mean more need for labor and capital to expand businesses
More expansion of businesses means more employment.
More employment means an increase in the number of people that pay taxes
More taxes mean more revenue for government.
More revenue for government have mixed results. If government uses the additional revenue for lower taxes, then you get another cycle of the above. If government uses the additional revenue for more spending, then the cycle ends.

Higher taxes means that government has more revenue.
More revenue for government have mixed results. If government uses the additonal revenue for lower taxes, then you are back to the earlier cycle. If government uses the additional revenue for more spending, then the cycle ends.
Plus, if the spending is sufficiently higher than revenue, and taxes are raised...

Higher taxes means people have less money available for items.
Less demand for items means businesses don't need as many employees.
Less demand for employees means that businesses start layoffs.
Less people working means less tax revenue.
Less tax revenue means higher disparity between govt spending and govt revenue.

[Frohickey]

The other side of the coin is...

More taxes on the rich.
The rich can take advantage of tax benefits that the poor cannot.
Taxes on the rich are not enough to provide for additional tax revenue.
Even more taxes on the rich.
Some of the rich decide to move to another country, like Switzerland. All of that tax revenue is now gone for good.
More taxes on the not-as-rich.
Repeat cycle until taxes go up for the poor, but they are not classified as poor.

Remember the initial round of tax cuts, and how Gephart/Daschle were going on about how the tax cuts would only pay for a muffler for a car for the average taxpayer, but the rich would get a Lexus. Tell that to the new guy that is hired to make more mufflers for all the people that can afford new mufflers.

Envy is a horrible thing.

[Frohickey]

I noted the irony here too. I suppose he's hoping the the voters have the same short-term memory problems as he's got. It's up to Kerry to make sure they don't.

Hehehe...

Kerry has more of a short-term memory problem. You never know which way he's gonna blow. Oh wait, its always in the direction of the wind at the time. :p

[zimv20]

Hehehe...

Kerry has more of a short-term memory problem. You never know which way he's gonna blow. Oh wait, its always in the direction of the wind at the time. :p

another one lost to the rove spin machine

[2jaded2care]

As opposed to those lost to the McAuliffe spin machine...

[wwworry]

George Bush as a candidate was against nation building.
George Bush as a candidate was for reductions in carbon monoxide emmissions.
George Bush as a candidate pledged to keep a balanced budget.
George Bush as a candidate was a uniter, not a divider.
George Bush as a candidate was "compassionate".

Now none of that is true. Who is the flip-flopper?

George Bush lied about WMDs.
George Bush lied about aircraft carrier photo-op.
George Bush lied about who benefits most from his tax cuts.
George Bush lied about job creation.
George Bush lied about the cost of the Iraq war.
George Bush lied about the cost of the medicare bill.
George Bush lied about all the above promices he made as a candidate.
George Bush lies in govt. reports about science.
George Bush delayed talking to the independant 9/11 commision.
George Bush won't talk about who was in the energy policy meetings.

It just goes on and on.

We don't want a president who lies so much.

[wwworry]

The other side of the coin is...

More taxes on the rich.
The rich can take advantage of tax benefits that the poor cannot.
Taxes on the rich are not enough to provide for additional tax revenue.
Even more taxes on the rich.
Some of the rich decide to move to another country, like Switzerland. All of that tax revenue is now gone for good.
More taxes on the not-as-rich.
Repeat cycle until taxes go up for the poor, but they are not classified as poor.

Remember the initial round of tax cuts, and how Gephart/Daschle were going on about how the tax cuts would only pay for a muffler for a car for the average taxpayer, but the rich would get a Lexus. Tell that to the new guy that is hired to make more mufflers for all the people that can afford new mufflers.

Envy is a horrible thing.

If a hundred people can buy mufflers there is more work for muffler repair men than if one person has one expensive muffler.

Frohickey, your theory is just empty air. Were the rich moving out of the country in 1997? No. Did the rich decide not to invest in 1997? No. Did the rich not have more earnings growth than anyone else in 1997? No. It's just another stupid talk radio theory that has no basis in reality.

[Dont Hurt Me]

We are stupid we elected him! he has more spin then a kenmore washer. he is spinning everything that he talks about. He is also part of the reason Nasa is killing the Hubble space telescope. Brilliant. he has done so many things wrong. everywhere you look. economics,war,social programs,enviroment,tax cut for the Rich, etc. we are stupid and a little slow but I bet we vote his Keester out this next time.

[Frohickey]

If a hundred people can buy mufflers there is more work for muffler repair men than if one person has one expensive muffler.

Frohickey, your theory is just empty air. Were the rich moving out of the country in 1997? No. Did the rich decide not to invest in 1997? No. Did the rich not have more earnings growth than anyone else in 1997? No. It's just another stupid talk radio theory that has no basis in reality.

You are just proving my point for me. That the tax cuts which amounted to $300 for the average taxpayer did improve the prospects for muffler repair men.

Also, if you don't pay taxes, you should not expect more if taxes are cut, since your rate is already at zero. But you would not hear that from the pro-tax politicians. All you hear is that the rich are getting more money back. (Need to keep that class warfare going, dontcha know.) Then the spin is that poor pay taxes too, but what they don't say is that its payroll tax, which is social security taxes. Income taxes are what were cut.

Maybe we should cut the payroll tax to zero. That way, the poor get a tax cut too. Oh, but that would not be fair, the rich get their taxes cut even more.

Then, when someone proposes a flat tax, guess who are the ones coming out of the woodwork saying that its regressive, and that we have to be progressive, as if hitching their idea to the root word 'progress' means that the ugly pig with a wig should be the county fair beauty queen.

[IJ Reilly]

You are just proving my point for me. That the tax cuts which amounted to $300 for the average taxpayer did improve the prospects for muffler repair men..

You seem to have a never-ending supply of shells for that blunderbuss. Once again, you've fired off in all directions and managed to hit nothing.

[Frohickey]

You seem to have a never-ending supply of shells for that blunderbuss. Once again, you've fired off in all directions and managed to hit nothing.

How so? This I gotta hear.

(I guess if someone is not in the camp of Wegottastickittotherich, they have to be wrong.)

[IJ Reilly]

How so? This I gotta hear.

(I guess if someone is not in the camp of Wegottastickittotherich, they have to be wrong.)

Supporting one ad hominum argument with another? Now, that's truly desperate.

[Thanatoast]

You are just proving my point for me. That the tax cuts which amounted to $300 for the average taxpayer did improve the prospects for muffler repair men.
Exactly. So the middle class wage earners who were able to purchase a new muffler did. How many mufflers did the rich person who got $30,000 buy? We could have kept the $300 tax cut for the middle class, ditched the disproportionate tax cut for the rich, still gotten the economic benefit, and been less than $450 billion in the red this year.

[vwcruisn]

We are stupid we elected him!

Did we really?

[wwworry]

You are just proving my point for me. That the tax cuts which amounted to $300 for the average taxpayer did improve the prospects for muffler repair men.

Also, if you don't pay taxes, you should not expect more if taxes are cut, since your rate is already at zero. But you would not hear that from the pro-tax politicians. All you hear is that the rich are getting more money back. (Need to keep that class warfare going, dontcha know.) Then the spin is that poor pay taxes too, but what they don't say is that its payroll tax, which is social security taxes. Income taxes are what were cut.

Maybe we should cut the payroll tax to zero. That way, the poor get a tax cut too. Oh, but that would not be fair, the rich get their taxes cut even more.

Then, when someone proposes a flat tax, guess who are the ones coming out of the woodwork saying that its regressive, and that we have to be progressive, as if hitching their idea to the root word 'progress' means that the ugly pig with a wig should be the county fair beauty queen.

Frohickey, what is the class warfare going on here?
One class gets a huge tax break, up to $200,000 off their bill.
THe other class sees higher fees for public transportation, university, local taxes go up to pay for unfunded federal programs, jobs go overseas and the profit goes to the above class, and their only retirement fund is threatened by those same tax cuts for the one class.

So one class benefits disportionatly than the other class. One class leaves the bill to the other classes children.

If I complain about it that's class warfare??? The super-wealthy get almost all the benefits and the middle class picks up the bill and that's NOT class warfare???? You are crazy.

[Sayhey]

Class antagonisms and conflicts are an objective fact of life. Republican rhetoric would have us believe that there are no differences between those who work for others and those who buy and sell the labor of others. All of this while the Bush administration gives every advantage possible through their tax policies to the class of folks who already have most of the resources of our society. The phrase "class warfare" is only a part of the spin used to paint any who criticize the tilt of this administration to the "needs" of the upper class as marxists or communist. The irony is that the best way to really bring about the "warfare" that the Republicans keep talking about is to continue on the path they are taking us.

[IJ Reilly]

Well said, Sayhey. It's one of the peculiar conceits of American culture that we prefer to believe that we're a classless society. Ask nearly anyone you meet, whether they earn $20,000 a year or $200,000, and they'll probably tell you that they're "middle class." This desire for self-identification with the middle class masks the real stratification in our society, and the growing gulf between the people clinging to the lower rungs the middle class and affluent living very comfortably on the other side of the divide. To suggest that somehow we're mostly "middle class" in the US denies the fact that upwards mobility is hardly a fact of life anymore. For those of us who believe that the real middle class, and the upward mobility that it once represented, is in real trouble today get kind of depressed when talking about this issue is dismissed as "class warfare." To them I say, if you want to see real "class warfare" in the US, then allow the middle class to continue to erode. Continue to make the business of government about comforting the comfortable and we'll see class warfare alright, of the kind other nations know only too well.

[Frohickey]

Exactly. So the middle class wage earners who were able to purchase a new muffler did. How many mufflers did the rich person who got $30,000 buy? We could have kept the $300 tax cut for the middle class, ditched the disproportionate tax cut for the rich, still gotten the economic benefit, and been less than $450 billion in the red this year.

The rich person probably bought a new Lexus, and now we have a newly employed muffler repair guy, as well as a few other newly employed Lexus assembly workers over in Tennessee or Kentucky churning out new Lexuses, each one paying income taxes.

Or, the rich person could have put the money away in a savings account earning interest, and another guy wanting to expand his business borrowed the $30K and bought new equipment to increase his factory's productivity.

[Frohickey]

Class antagonisms and conflicts are an objective fact of life. Republican rhetoric would have us believe that there are no differences between those who work for others and those who buy and sell the labor of others. All of this while the Bush administration gives every advantage possible through their tax policies to the class of folks who already have most of the resources of our society. The phrase "class warfare" is only a part of the spin used to paint any who criticize the tilt of this administration to the "needs" of the upper class as marxists or communist. The irony is that the best way to really bring about the "warfare" that the Republicans keep talking about is to continue on the path they are taking us.

Work for others == sellers of work
Buy and sell the labor of others == ???, labor unions, perhaps?

My experience with America is that you can be mobile in economic status, mobile being both upwards AND downwards.
My experience with America is that I was able to move up in economic status via my hard work and providence. What I see and hear though is that my upward mobility in economic status should be penalized.
What is higher taxes for the wealthy if not a penalty?

And what to do with the spoils of this penalty? The spoils should be given to the ones that experience downward mobility in economic status. Isn't that a reward?

How about this instead? People seeking help to alleviate their economic status can get a zero-interest loan from the government up to a set amount. After their economic status has improved, they should repay their loan, along with a low interest rate to sustain the program, and offset the losses incurred by the program to people who failed in improving despite the aid.

[wwworry]

The worst thing is rich people who cry all the time about how hard it is for them. How they need extra incentives or they won't work anymore. Or how their extra hundreds of thousands are somehow getting them penalized. Boo Hoo

[pseudobrit]

The rich person probably bought a new Lexus, and now we have a newly employed muffler repair guy, as well as a few other newly employed Lexus assembly workers over in Tennessee or Kentucky churning out new Lexuses, each one paying income taxes.

There are no Lexus manufacturing plants in the United States.

[pseudobrit]

What is higher taxes for the wealthy if not a penalty?

Fair.

[zimv20]

What I see and hear though is that my upward mobility in economic status should be penalized.
What is higher taxes for the wealthy if not a penalty?
just to be sure...

you do understand the graduated nature of the tax system, right? if there's a new tax bracket at $30k, and i make $29,999 and you make $30,001, you realize that you're still making more post-tax money than i am, yes?

[Sayhey]

Work for others == sellers of work
Buy and sell the labor of others == ???, labor unions, perhaps?

My experience with America is that you can be mobile in economic status, mobile being both upwards AND downwards.
My experience with America is that I was able to move up in economic status via my hard work and providence. What I see and hear though is that my upward mobility in economic status should be penalized.
What is higher taxes for the wealthy if not a penalty?

And what to do with the spoils of this penalty? The spoils should be given to the ones that experience downward mobility in economic status. Isn't that a reward?

How about this instead? People seeking help to alleviate their economic status can get a zero-interest loan from the government up to a set amount. After their economic status has improved, they should repay their loan, along with a low interest rate to sustain the program, and offset the losses incurred by the program to people who failed in improving despite the aid.

Frohickey,

it is not difficult to see class distinctions in how people relate to the production of goods and services. Some people do the work of production or delivery of services; others own the goods that are produced and the profits from their sale or the sale of services. There are a few folks who fall into both categories. The degree to which there are antagonisms because of these different class positions varies in each individual case. That is a reality of the society in which we live. You may want to believe that "class" doesn't exist, but you are living in a fantasy world.

Labor unions certainly employ people to service their membership. In that regard they are part of an employer class, but that is not their main function.

The government already has many programs that give out low interest loans, do you want to add another? It is a contradiction of your previous positions, but what the heck it might work.

As to social mobility, it is getting less and less possible in this country. The great heyday of social mobility was right after the Second World War, but it has been restricted more and more since the end of the Sixties. I could post you some sources, but it might do you some good to look up some basic sociological studies.

Do we have to go over the horrible "penalties" of taxes on the rich again? It is getting old.

[Rebel]

Flat tax is once again a hot topic on Capitol Hill. In the U.S. Senate, Arlen Specter proposed a flat 20% tax on earned income (working people's wages), from which rich people's unearned income (capital gains, interest and dividends) would be exempt. Congressman Dick Armey supports similar legislation in the House. Former presidential candidate Steve Forbes (who became wealthy by inheriting his late father's publishing empire) made as a centerpiece of his failed campaigns, a flat tax scheme that salutes the idle rich by exempting UNEARNED income gained as a return on investment (not merely protecting the value of the principal, but allowing those who gain wealth without working for it, to avoid taxes while those who work hard for what they gain pay all the taxes). Once again, it means the middle class working people would be the ones squeezed to make up for benefits to the rich.

In addition, these systems only flatten federal taxation. Your local, county, state and homeowners tax is not included.

U-ACT flattens our entire taxation system, at every level, and does not distinguish from rich to poor. Neither will it allow exemptions to the wealthy. Truly, this system is fair for every American.

UCAnation.org (http://www.ucanation.org/uact.htm/) - Changing the nation for you.

[applebum]

It's called the "for instance proof." It can be of great utility when you can't come with any real evidence.

What real evidence does he need. This thread started by saying that Bush thought Americans were stupid. This guy is an American and I am guessing he is a voter. He tends to like Bush's policy because it has affected him in a positive manner. When he goes to vote, he doesn't need proof that Bush's policy is working for everyone else. We determine our views, particularly economic, by our own situations and what is happening with the people around us. I am employed and my wife is employed. We are in better shape now than we were in 2000. The same is true for both of our extended families and our friends. Everyone that wants to be is working - and in a job they want to be in. Outside my personal circle, I seem to know as many people that have no problem with the economy as do have a problem. Their opinions seem very tied to their personal employment status.

The biggest problem I have seen with the economy is that the technology bubble burst. This began to happen in early 2000 - before Clinton left office. It created a snowball and many other industries lost ground as well. I don't believe this was Clinton's fault any more than it was Bush's. The economy that the technology boom created was an anomoly. Amazon traded at over $200 a share at one point - having never turned a profit. AOL's amazing stock performance was not justified in the numbers in it business reports. (During the boom, AOL would split about every 6 months hitting about 140 and then splitting back to 70. You could have made millions investing in AOL in 98 & 99.) They merged with Time Warner before Clinton left office and have gone down ever since. Look at Yahoo's 5 year stock chart. Look at their price between Jan 00 and Jan 01 - huge drop. Bush didn't take office until Jan 01, so all he could have done to affect that was get elected - don't think that was the problem. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=YHOO&t=5y (http://) Go back and look at the charts of other techno stocks. You will pretty much see the same thing - they took a huge dive between 00 and 01 - prior to Bush taking office. You will also see they are close to being back where they were at the start of 01. I tend to believe that our both our economy boom and bust were less affected by the Presidents and more affected by new emerging technologies.

[zimv20]

We determine our views, particularly economic, by our own situations and what is happening with the people around us. I am employed and my wife is employed. We are in better shape now than we were in 2000. The same is true for both of our extended families and our friends.

good for them. now, i have friends who cannot find work either in their desired area or at all. so where does that leave us?

perhaps we need to look at national data. this data would indicate millions out of work who want jobs.



Everyone that wants to be is working - and in a job they want to be in.
that is an unsupported, unprovable assertion.

[applebum]

that is an unsupported, unprovable assertion.

Sure it is - I see them every day - they are my family and friends after all. I think I know whether they are working or not. Perhaps my punctuation threw you off - would this have made more sense,

"The same is true for both of our extended families and our friends - everyone that wants to be is working, and in a job they want to be in. "

As far as the numbers you throw out regarding the lack/loss of jobs, here is what I have seen that seems to counter those numbers.

"Faulty Counting


The problem is the areas of biggest job growth are usually not even being counted at all.


Though 75 percent of jobs are created by small companies, according to the Small Business Administration, this sector’s entrepreneurial activity and the jobs it creates are left out by Washington bean counters when calculating official new job numbers.


The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) does its Payroll Survey by phoning businesses to crunch the number of jobs that have been gained or lost. This is where Democrats grabbed onto their lifeline, the 2.3 million figure. Look only at the Payroll Survey, and there has been a gain of only 522,000 jobs since Bush took office.

But here’s the rub. The Household Survey is used to determine the unemployment rate and accounts for those who are self-employed, and small emerging businesses that might be overlooked by the Payroll Survey. But the number of U.S. firms isn’t static, and the "fixed list" used by the BLS for phoning established businesses does not reflect new entrepreneurial activity.

People are called at home and asked if they have jobs, or if they are in the market for a job. In contrast to the Payroll Survey, the Household Survey shows that 2.4 million jobs have been created so far during Bush's time in office.

As Economy.com writer Haseeb Ahmed recently wrote, "something is amiss in the [Payroll] survey." Link (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/2/25/171833.shtml)

This is what I think is truly wrong with politics - each side can always produce data that says completely opposite things. Do we go with the Payroll Survey or the Household Survey? And for the average citizen, how can we ever truly know what is actually going on. The above article also points out other signs for the growing economy. So, with conflicting data, all I can do is look around me and see what is happening with family, friends, and others I come into contact with. When I look at that, the economy is doing pretty well and seems to be getting better. I am truly sorry if it is not that way for you.

[mactastic]

The problem is the areas of biggest job growth are usually not even being counted at all.



If only that were actually the problem... The area of biggest job growth last month was the government. In fact, it appears to have been the only sector that has added jobs over the last month.

Seems like Dubya is doing all he can to expand government. All the while slashing tax revenue needed to fund government growth. What can you conclude from that?

Link (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/03/06/MNG4F5FR1A1.DTL)

Job gains for January and December were revised downward, which means that payroll growth hasn't topped 100,000 anytime in the last three years. And February's increase came entirely in the government sector. Private sector jobs were unchanged.

[Rebel]

America ’s unemployment rate remained stuck at 5.6 percent in February as the economy added a paltry 21,000 positions. The latest snapshot of the employment climate released by the Labor Department Friday depicted the painfully slow job growth the country has been enduring. The net gain in payrolls in February fell well short of the 125,000 jobs that economists had been forecasting. Moreover, the job gains in January were revised to show a pickup of just 97,000 positions, down from the 112,000 first estimated a month ago. There were some 8.2 million people unemployed in February, with the average duration of 20.3 weeks without work (not counting the 5+ million who have dropped off unemployment benefits). That marked the highest average duration of joblessness in over 20 years. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan is optimistic that job growth, which has been poking along, will speed up. “We could get a pop in employment at any time,” Greenspan said last week.

Let us clarify the above. There is a job boom going on right now. Unfortunately, unless you live in India , Pakistan , China , Malaysia , Singapore etc., you will not see it.


United Citizens of America (http://www.ucanation.org/) - Changing the nation for you.

Definition of foreign aid - Tax Poor People in Rich Countries for the Benefit of Rich People in Poor Countries.

[Frohickey]

Do we go with the Payroll Survey or the Household Survey? And for the average citizen, how can we ever truly know what is actually going on.

Hmm...

Sounds like the same situation me and zimv20 were in when we were trying to figure out crime rates. One number of crime statistics was the UCR (Uniform Crime Report), which is the actual number of crimes reported to police. While the other was the NCVS (National Crime Victimization Survey), which was a survey of 80K or so households, extrapolated to 280million.

I think that both surveys would be flawed.
The correct measure should be the number of W2 withholding jobs, or the number of income tax returns, whichever one is greater.

[Sparky's]

So we went from a president who boinks his staff in the oval office (confirmed) to a president who (not proven) was an alcoholic (ha).

So "Stupid is as Stupid Does" I know, but it is so apropos

just think that if no one voted.... woah...just think no president. What does the constitution say about there having to be a minimum amount of the population voting?

[mactastic]

I thought Dubya himself confirmed that he was a boozer back in the day. That is, before Christ changed his heart from a normal human one that pumps blood into something else.

[Sparky's]

OK confirmed, but still what kind of people are left in this world who are above reproach? None I know of.

[IJ Reilly]

"I would like to conclude by this promise. Should I be fortunate enough to become your president, when I put my hand on the Bible, I will swear to not only uphold the laws of the land, but I will also swear to uphold the honor and the dignity of the office to which I have been elected, so help me God." -- George W. Bush, October 17, 2000.

[zimv20]

Do we go with the Payroll Survey or the Household Survey?

alan greenspan has dismissed the household survey as telling only part of the picture.

the best measure is to add the unemployment rate to the numbers that have stopped looking for work altogether. that rate is about 7.5%

[Frohickey]

alan greenspan has dismissed the household survey as telling only part of the picture.

the best measure is to add the unemployment rate to the numbers that have stopped looking for work altogether. that rate is about 7.5%

I thought we were talking about the number of people working. Seems to me that if you can get the total number of people that had W2 withholding, or the total number of people that filed income tax returns, you would have a definitive answer to the number of people working.

This would tell you exactly how many new jobs were created/lost from pay period to pay period. Minus the ones that are paid under the table, or make their money via capital gains, dividends, etc.

[zimv20]

I thought we were talking about the number of people working. Seems to me that if you can get the total number of people that had W2 withholding, or the total number of people that filed income tax returns, you would have a definitive answer to the number of people working.

This would tell you exactly how many new jobs were created/lost from pay period to pay period.

you'd need to factor in more, like new workers entering the workforce, who's leaving due to retirement / maternity / leave of absence / disability, population growth, etc.

the unemployment rate -- examining who's actively looking for jobs -- captures the number of that group in a much more direct manner. but as been discussed, it doesn't tell the whole picture.

[Mac|caM]

all right first of all this is not a bush recession Clinton caused this recession and it started to take affect when bush took office After 9/11 our economy was devestated people werent traveling were in fear and this caused economic problems tax cuts give people money which they spend on goods which helps buisness which helps our economy just because you are ignorant and dont understand this doesnt mean you have to flip out and call him a drunken b@$t@rd just because when he was in college and twenty some he partyed so what does this mean anything now no also tell me honestly that you never went to aprty during college

Um, Clinton gave us the largest SURPLUS in US history. Now we've got the largest DEFICIT in US history because of a crackpot economics theory that has never worked.

[Neserk]

you'd need to factor in more, like new workers entering the workforce, who's leaving due to retirement / maternity / leave of absence / disability, population growth, etc.

the unemployment rate -- examining who's actively looking for jobs -- captures the number of that group in a much more direct manner. but as been discussed, it doesn't tell the whole picture.


True. My father was laid off a few weeks ago (he is 59 and was 2 years from retiring). Now he has a 17 week severence pay then will collect 26 weeks of unemployment then retire from that job. So it isn't a simple matter of who is filing for unemployment and who is not. And some people have simply given up on looking until things improve. They may no longer qualify as unemployed. We also have to look at who is working in permanent jobs with living wages and who has health benefits. I'm working but it is iffy and the wages are barely liveable and I have no health benefits. That is not where I should be right now!

[Frohickey]

We also have to look at who is working in permanent jobs with living wages and who has health benefits. I'm working but it is iffy and the wages are barely liveable and I have no health benefits. That is not where I should be right now!

Where should you be right now? Does it take two to tango? Doesn't it take an employer willing to pay your desired wages, and an employee willing to work at a particular skill level?

If you are not where you should be, are you being underpaid, or overworked?

I still maintain that the proper way to figure out the number of jobs made is by tax returns or W2s submitted, or tax withheld, compare this from one period to another, and you get your job gain or job lost.

If you are outside a candy store licking the glass, looking at the $5 jawbreaker, are you a customer if you have $4 in your pocket?

If you are not where you are supposed to be, that is your perceived value of your worth. Apparently, others like you have thought otherwise, and took the same type of job you are in, at the same pay.

[Neserk]

Where should you be right now? Does it take two to tango? Doesn't it take an employer willing to pay your desired wages, and an employee willing to work at a particular skill level?


In a permanent teaching position with health benefits. I have the skills and the right stuff to do it (ie an intern credential). There are two theories as to why I haven't been hired yet. The first is that it is because I have a master's degree which requires higher pay. The second is politics. Either way it is outside of my control.


If you are not where you should be, are you being underpaid, or overworked?


Yes, both. Subbing is far more stressful than a regular teaching position. So even though I don't have papers to correct at night or lessons to plan I'm overworked in the form of stress. And definately underpaid!


I still maintain that the proper way to figure out the number of jobs made is by tax returns or W2s submitted, or tax withheld, compare this from one period to another, and you get your job gain or job lost.


That sounds reasonable to me.


If you are not where you are supposed to be, that is your perceived value of your worth. Apparently, others like you have thought otherwise, and took the same type of job you are in, at the same pay.


:confused:

[Frohickey]

You believe that you should be in a permanent teaching position with full benefits. Employers willing to hire you believe that you do not belong in a permanent teaching position with full benefits.

Both you and your employer disagree on where you should be.

But, in taking the substitute teacher temporary job, you have validated your employer's belief that you do not belong in a permanent teaching position with full benefits. The fact that you took the job confirms it.

[skunk]

You believe that you should be in a permanent teaching position with full benefits. Employers willing to hire you believe that you do not belong in a permanent teaching position with full benefits.

Both you and your employer disagree on where you should be.

But, in taking the substitute teacher temporary job, you have validated your employer's belief that you do not belong in a permanent teaching position with full benefits. The fact that you took the job confirms it.
That is the most circular and meaningless analysis I have seen in a long time.

[Frohickey]

That is the most circular and meaningless analysis I have seen in a long time.

The welfare rolls are filled with people with hardly any skills that believe they deserve a job that pays more than employers are willing to pay.

Now, Neserk is not on welfare, and Neserk has valuable skills as well, but employers are only willing to pay a certain amount for these skills.

I think that AAPL stock is worth at least $85 per share, but the buyers of AAPL stock do not think its worth that much. They think its worth $25 or so, and therefore, that is how much AAPL stock is bought and sold for. Doesn't matter how much I think AAPL stock is worth, or what its really worth. What matters is how much I (seller) AND the buyer thinks AAPL stock is worth.

Same thing happened during the dot com bubble, same thing is happening now, and since time started and people started trading.

[gujar]

Without 9/11 Bush and his team would be no where. In fact most of the job growth that happened last year was in government sector and majority of it was due to the Dept of Homeland Security (Largest ever expansion of the goverment).

If there was no 9/11 (we all wish it did not happen) and terrorism what would be Bush's platform for reelection. There would be No terrorism, No Iraq, 2 million job loss and encounting, Largest budget deficit ever, Largest trade deficit ever in the US histroy, Job's being outsourced left and right. And president's priorities are to get rid of Steroid use in Baseball and pass a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

I still have faith in American people and I think Bush is going to lose by the largest margin in US presidental election history

[numediaman]

The welfare rolls are filled with people with hardly any skills that believe they deserve a job that pays more than employers are willing to pay.

Frohickey, where does this hatred of the poor come from? What is inside you that forces you to constantly beat on the poor? Are you a frustrated former schoolyard bully?

Guys, I've had it with these forums. I'm tired of people saying that Richard Clarke's a liar, and we should take money from the poor and give it to the rich. Starting now I am banning myself.

See ya, Zim, I think your heart's in the right place. And you guys in the UK and elsewhere, good luck. Keep using Macs. Not everyone thinks the world begins and ends in the U.S.

[Neserk]

You believe that you should be in a permanent teaching position with full benefits. Employers willing to hire you believe that you do not belong in a permanent teaching position with full benefits.

Both you and your employer disagree on where you should be.


that is actually not true. The problem is the economy and BUSH. Not me or potential employers. If I had been looking for the position in 1998 with the same qualifications I would have been hired w/o a problem


But, in taking the substitute teacher temporary job, you have validated your employer's belief that you do not belong in a permanent teaching position with full benefits. The fact that you took the job confirms it.


You really don't understand how all this works. People who get hired are more often than not substitutes first and then become regular classroom teachers. Especially in today's economy, created by Bush. Personally, I think they should skip the student teaching and potential teachers should have to be substitutes for 1 year before they can get hired. I can't stand working for teachers who have no experience substituting and try to write sub plans.

[Neserk]

Frohickey, where does this hatred of the poor come from? What is inside you that forces you to constantly beat on the poor? Are you a frustrated former schoolyard bully?


It's modern Christianity. I heard similar things spewed by my sister.


See ya, Zim, I think your heart's in the right place. And you guys in the UK and elsewhere, good luck. Keep using Macs. Not everyone thinks the world begins and ends in the U.S.

Don't leave!

[zimv20]

See ya, Zim, I think your heart's in the right place.
thanks man, be good. but don't be surprised when ya get pulled right back in :-)

hey everyone else -- when chicago gets nuked, you guys are gonna miss us! even you frohickey!

[zimv20]

The welfare rolls are filled with people with hardly any skills that believe they deserve a job that pays more than employers are willing to pay.
i'd bet that most working people think they're underpaid.

expectations must be managed! people who **** around their whole lives and never learn any skills should expect a living that's not terribly comfortable. but i don't expect society to turn its back on them, either.

let's start w/ pricing gas what it actually costs (e.g. the military might needed to keep it cheap) and see how many people figure out pretty quickly that to participate positively in society takes some effort.

but -- programs to provide people w/ job skills should be readily available

[Backtothemac]

You arrogant little ****less bastard. How stupid do you think the American people are?

Four years of your ****ty tax cuts have thrown this nation into economic and unemployment hell.

You got all the tax cuts you wanted and it screwed us for decades. Now you want MORE??!! SOB!!

I am so disappointed that this drunken, lazy, spoiled waste of a human being can stand in front of the nation and say this crap and not be lynched out of office for it.

link (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040306/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_economy_9)

Well, as someone that only made $34,000 last year, I love the tax cut. No penalty for married filing jointly. Got a $600 child tax credit, and a $400 additional credit, and after I lowered my AGI to 15,000 I got about 2200 back in earned income credit. So, it looks good to me. Oh, and i don't know a single person that has lost their job since Bush came into office, and hasn't found another one.

[Backtothemac]

Frohickey, where does this hatred of the poor come from? What is inside you that forces you to constantly beat on the poor? Are you a frustrated former schoolyard bully?

Guys, I've had it with these forums. I'm tired of people saying that Richard Clarke's a liar, and we should take money from the poor and give it to the rich. Starting now I am banning myself.

See ya, Zim, I think your heart's in the right place. And you guys in the UK and elsewhere, good luck. Keep using Macs. Not everyone thinks the world begins and ends in the U.S.

Wait dude, don't leave! Seriously, I think Clarke is a liar. So what, does that matter? I don't think that money should be taken from anyone and given to anyone. Not from Rich to poor or poor to Rich.

People should get to keep what they earn without the government forcing you to give them your money because they know better what to do with it than you?

Don't leave.

[Frohickey]

Frohickey, where does this hatred of the poor come from? What is inside you that forces you to constantly beat on the poor? Are you a frustrated former schoolyard bully?

Guys, I've had it with these forums. I'm tired of people saying that Richard Clarke's a liar, and we should take money from the poor and give it to the rich. Starting now I am banning myself.

See ya, Zim, I think your heart's in the right place. And you guys in the UK and elsewhere, good luck. Keep using Macs. Not everyone thinks the world begins and ends in the U.S.

What hatred for the poor? I don't hate the poor. I don't hate the rich. I don't like either one particularly either, unless they are good-looking. ;)

What I do not like are people that attempt to take from me, saying they are only taking from the rich, in order to give to the poor. I am perfectly able to give to the poor. I don't need busybodies to tell me that taking things from me is for my own good.

[Frohickey]

that is actually not true. The problem is the economy and BUSH. Not me or potential employers. If I had been looking for the position in 1998 with the same qualifications I would have been hired w/o a problem

You really don't understand how all this works. People who get hired are more often than not substitutes first and then become regular classroom teachers. Especially in today's economy, created by Bush. Personally, I think they should skip the student teaching and potential teachers should have to be substitutes for 1 year before they can get hired. I can't stand working for teachers who have no experience substituting and try to write sub plans.

If you were qualified in 1998, why didn't you start working then? In going for more education, you hedged your bets that the economy would remain steady, and you would get work when you wanted to, at a higher salary than at your 1998 education level.

Aside from the deficit spending, I don't see anything else that Bush could have done for the economy. Even the deficit, the money, is spent on the economy making it busier, keeping people working to make the stuff that the money is spent on. The bad part is that the deficit acts as a damper for the money that could be borrowed by businesses for expanding operations.

Here in California, spending increase far more than revenue did, but revenue did increase. So, what is the problem with hiring teachers? Could it be that the money that should have gone for education is spent on other pet projects? Too bad California budget doesn't work on a first come first served basis. Meaning that if you don't have enough money in the budget, you start cutting the most recently enacted programs until you have a budget. Then when the budget is better, these programs start coming back depending on when they were enacted in the first place.

If we didn't need these new programs until recently, they must not be that needed to begin with.

[Frohickey]

expectations must be managed! people who **** around their whole lives and never learn any skills should expect a living that's not terribly comfortable. but i don't expect society to turn its back on them, either.

but -- programs to provide people w/ job skills should be readily available

How about getting rid of the minimum wage laws so that employers would hire people with no skills and employees gain skills while on the job, and get paid for it as well?

How much skill does it take to wash dishes and sweep the floor? If it costs too much to pay someone to wash dishes and sweep the floor, wouldn't you rather fire the dishwasher/floorsweeper, pay for an automatic dishwashing machine, and pay a little extra to the cook to push a vacuum cleaning around? But what happened to the guy that doesn't know how to cook, but can work as a dishwasher/floorsweeper?

It's modern Christianity. I heard similar things spewed by my sister.

Who's a christian? I never said I was. I could be Hare-Krisha, or Muslim, or even a Scientologist. :p

[zimv20]

How about getting rid of the minimum wage laws so that employers would hire people with no skills and employees gain skills while on the job, and get paid for it as well?

are there studies that show lowering or eliminating the minimum wage will create jobs?

i don't want a reasoned argument (you've made it before and i'm clear on what you said), i want to know if there's some cold, hard data.

[Frohickey]

are there studies that show lowering or eliminating the minimum wage will create jobs?

i don't want a reasoned argument (you've made it before and i'm clear on what you said), i want to know if there's some cold, hard data.

I don't know if the studies exist. They might, but that would be a theoretical exercise since when has there been a lowering or elimination of minimum wage laws?

Now, there is the reverse argument though, how many jobs have been lost/eliminated when minimum wage laws are passed. Living-Wage Laws Hurt Poor the Most.(Brief Article)(Statistical Data Included) (http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m5072/13_23/72809104/p1/article.jhtml)

[Neserk]

Well, as someone that only made $34,000 last year, I love the tax cut. No penalty for married filing jointly. Got a $600 child tax credit, and a $400 additional credit, and after I lowered my AGI to 15,000 I got about 2200 back in earned income credit. So, it looks good to me. Oh, and i don't know a single person that has lost their job since Bush came into office, and hasn't found another one.


Lucky you! My dad lost his job in the last month. Along with half of Grand Rapids, Michigan. I have been prevented from getting a permanent job. So now you know someone who has not gotten a job!

You should look beyond yourself at the stats of how many people are not working compared with when Clinton was in office. That will give you a more accurate picture then the little world you live in.

*wonders how long it will be before you lose your job*

[Neserk]

If you were qualified in 1998, why didn't you start working then? In going for more education, you hedged your bets that the economy would remain steady, and you would get work when you wanted to, at a higher salary than at your 1998 education level.



Because I lived in PA not in CA.


Aside from the deficit spending, I don't see anything else that Bush could have done for the economy. Even the deficit, the money, is spent on the economy making it busier, keeping people working to make the stuff that the money is spent on. The bad part is that the deficit acts as a damper for the money that could be borrowed by businesses for expanding operations.


For starters, there is the no child left behind act. Otherwise known as no child left a dime act. And then there is the ridiculous amount of money that he is giving back to the rich who don't need it anyhow...


Here in California, spending increase far more than revenue did, but revenue did increase. So, what is the problem with hiring teachers?

you aren't taking into account the increase in population ;)

[Backtothemac]

Lucky you! My dad lost his job in the last month. Along with half of Grand Rapids, Michigan. I have been prevented from getting a permanent job. So now you know someone who has not gotten a job!

You should look beyond yourself at the stats of how many people are not working compared with when Clinton was in office. That will give you a more accurate picture then the little world you live in.

*wonders how long it will be before you lose your job*

I feel for you and your family, and will pray that you find work. But, here is the fact. A lot of the jobs that were created under Clinton were not "solid" jobs. They were in the tech sector, and it inflated numbers. Now (you can thank microsoft for some of this) companies are not outsourcing the way they were, the .Com bust has occured, but mostly, you can thank NAFTA and the WORLD ECONOMY for the outsourcing of jobs to other countries. Automation is also a huge problem in the industrial sector.

[IJ Reilly]

Well, as someone that only made $34,000 last year, I love the tax cut. No penalty for married filing jointly. Got a $600 child tax credit, and a $400 additional credit, and after I lowered my AGI to 15,000 I got about 2200 back in earned income credit. So, it looks good to me. Oh, and i don't know a single person that has lost their job since Bush came into office, and hasn't found another one.

I just got my taxes back from my CPA. I don't qualify for the procreation subsidy so whatever I saved in taxes went straight to my CPA. Yes, that's precisely what my CPA told me -- the new tax laws are so horrendously complicated, tax preparation charges are up around 20% this year.

[Frohickey]

Because I lived in PA not in CA.

For starters, there is the no child left behind act. Otherwise known as no child left a dime act. And then there is the ridiculous amount of money that he is giving back to the rich who don't need it anyhow...

you aren't taking into account the increase in population ;)

Sounds like you took a bet, and it didn't pan out. Now, you are crying over your own spilled milk.

Maybe that money belonged in the states to begin with. Less administrative overhead. More goes to teaching.

Even with the increase in population, revenue increased, but spending went over the revenue increase.

[Frohickey]

I just got my taxes back from my CPA. I don't qualify for the procreation subsidy so whatever I saved in taxes went straight to my CPA. Yes, that's precisely what my CPA told me -- the new tax laws are so horrendously complicated, tax preparation charges are up around 20% this year.

You need to get into the procreation subsidy business. :p

[IJ Reilly]

You need to get into the procreation subsidy business. :p

If this is a joke, I don't get it.

[G4scott]

For starters, there is the no child left behind act. Otherwise known as no child left a dime act. And then there is the ridiculous amount of money that he is giving back to the rich who don't need it anyhow...

You say that the rich don't need their money, but considering that these are the businessmen who control the majority of jobs in this country, if you give them a tax break, they will feel more comfortable expanding their business and hiring more people.

Besides, this is America. You can make all the money you want (as long as it's done legally). To take this right away would discourage people, and most likely make us communist.

I know somebody who paid $500,000 in taxes. He gave up roughly 1/3 of his income to the Government. He pays more of what he makes just because he is more successful than others who don't make nearly as much money. He's basically been penalized for being successful. To tax these people more would discourage them from making money, and discouraging the business leaders of America, I imagine, would have a negative effect on our economy. This guy was also laid off last year, but currently has three job offers.

[IJ Reilly]

Hearing about the woes of multimillionaires always breaks my heart.

Get this, I'm no multimillionaire, but I'd be happy to pay only 1/3 of my income in taxes.

[Frohickey]

Hearing about the woes of multimillionaires always breaks my heart.

Get this, I'm no multimillionaire, but I'd be happy to pay only 1/3 of my income in taxes.

"Taxes on consumption, like those on capital or income, to be just, must be uniform." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Smith, 1823.

How about you pay 10% of your income in taxes, and then you can give 23% to government after that. No one says you can't write a check out of the goodness of your heart to whoever you want to.

Me, I'll pay 10% of income in taxes, save the other 23% and retire earlier.

[Neserk]

Sounds like you took a bet, and it didn't pan out. Now, you are crying over your own spilled milk.


wrong again.



Maybe that money belonged in the states to begin with. Less administrative overhead. More goes to teaching.


wrong again.


Even with the increase in population, revenue increased, but spending went over the revenue increase.


Strike 3 and you are out!

[mactastic]

"Taxes on consumption, like those on capital or income, to be just, must be uniform." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Smith, 1823.

How about you pay 10% of your income in taxes, and then you can give 23% to government after that. No one says you can't write a check out of the goodness of your heart to whoever you want to.

Me, I'll pay 10% of income in taxes, save the other 23% and retire earlier.

Why 10%? Why don't you only pay 2% of your income to the government? You could retire much faster.

[Frohickey]

I think that income records ought to be treated the same way as medical records. Medical records are only between you and your doctor. Income records ought to be between you and your employer only.

[mactastic]

Medical records are only between you and your doctor.
Oh really? Then how do insurance companies get hold of them?

[Backtothemac]

Look, the reality of taxes is that they are not fair. Period. They are progressive against those that make more. That is not fair. The arguement that you make more so you can afford to pay more is not fair. Period. The problem is not a lack of income from people being paid to the government, but that the government is very friggin bad with OUR money.

[skunk]

Look, the reality of taxes is that they are not fair. Period. They are progressive against those that make more. That is not fair. The arguement that you make more so you can afford to pay more is not fair. Period. The problem is not a lack of income from people being paid to the government, but that the government is very friggin bad with OUR money.

Why should a poor person pay 20c of every dollar income and a rich man pay practically nothing out of each dollar?

[zimv20]

Look, the reality of taxes is that they are not fair. Period. They are progressive against those that make more. That is not fair. The arguement that you make more so you can afford to pay more is not fair. Period. The problem is not a lack of income from people being paid to the government, but that the government is very friggin bad with OUR money.
it seems you are referring mostly to the federal income tax, which is indeed progressive. but studies cited in these forums show that, once the entire tax burden and deductions are taken into account, each group (as defined by income brackets) pays a fairly flat tax rate.

if this is indeed true, does this satisfy you?

[wwworry]

Progressive taxes have been shown to be beneficial to the wealthy class and the lower and middle income classes, as well. Period. Go back to 1890 and take a look at the kind of society America had then if you don't like it. Period. Obviously the super-wealthy are not suffering over higher tax rates. Period. Clearly their rate of growth in income is faster than anyone elses. Period. You can't tax the poor becasue they do not have money. (period) The middle class is being taxed more than ever before as taxes on the super-wealthy decrease. PERIOD. We have a "friggin'" bill to pay and if the super wealthy don't pay the middle class will have to pay it. period period period ... End of story.

[Backtothemac]

Progressive taxes have been shown to be beneficial to the wealthy class and the lower and middle income classes, as well. Period. Go back to 1890 and take a look at the kind of society America had then if you don't like it. Period. Obviously the super-wealthy are not suffering over higher tax rates. Period. Clearly their rate of growth in income is faster than anyone elses. Period. You can't tax the poor becasue they do not have money. (period) The middle class is being taxed more than ever before as taxes on the super-wealthy decrease. PERIOD. We have a "friggin'" bill to pay and if the super wealthy don't pay the middle class will have to pay it. period period period ... End of story.

Damn, be civil will ya. Fact is that money that the government collects from individuals should be 5% in my opinion. They should tax corporations, and foriegn interests. I don't think that we should end up paying 40 - 50% of our income in taxes. I am not talking about income only tax, I am talking about all taxes. All classes. I don't hate people for being wealthy, and I don't hate poor people for being poor. I think ALL people should keep their money.

[Backtothemac]

it seems you are referring mostly to the federal income tax, which is indeed progressive. but studies cited in these forums show that, once the entire tax burden and deductions are taken into account, each group (as defined by income brackets) pays a fairly flat tax rate.

if this is indeed true, does this satisfy you?

Zimv, that is the problem that I have. Why have a system that forces people to find deductions. Why not just have a simple system of everyone, no matter what pays 5%. Then have the government tax buisnesses the way they should. shift the burden from the people to the buisness

[zimv20]

Zimv, that is the problem that I have. Why have a system that forces people to find deductions. Why not just have a simple system of everyone, no matter what pays 5%. Then have the government tax buisnesses the way they should. shift the burden from the people to the buisness
i agree that
1) taxes are too complicated
2) corporations need to pay more

from what i understand, corporations' share of all tax revenue collected has been steadily declining for decades, just as upper management compensation has skyrocketed. i think some adjustment is in order.

regarding your specific numbers, i'm not sure 5% would work -- i don't want to cripple business to make up the difference. but a plan a la jerry brown (iirc), 17% flat income tax w/ no deductions allowed, is something that might be viable.

[wwworry]

You guys are in a dream world throwing around numbers like 17%, 5% or 23% etc. and talking about "fair".

and let me just say that if my rate was in the low 20's it would make me very happy. I am in favor of middle class tax cuts. THe middle class has been getting the roughest deal this past 40 years.

THe only part of this plan that increases revenue is a higher tax on poor people. I just don't think that is possible. THey really don't have the money.

Who is going to be paying more taxes? We have a deficit? So what is the answer?

I, for one, will not sit quietly if middle class people end up paying more and the super-wealthy get to pay even less. Do you really think this administration will somehow raise taxes on the super-wealthy. No. They do all they can to give the super-wealthy tax cuts and claim "the vast majority" of the tax cuts will go to lower and middle income tax payers. That was a lie. Now they want to make temporary tax cuts permanent and anyone who disagrees "wants to raise your taxes". They do stupid tricks like lowering the inheritance tax until 2011 and then bumping it up in 2012 so the numbers look good.

They claim dividend income and capital gains income is not really income and it gets taxed at a lower rate.

The real problem is not loopholes and deductions for ordinary Americans. We pay our fair share and with W-2s you can't really get out of it. The problem is the way this system has been rigged for people who can afford stellar accountants and the kind of dubious proclamations used to get these loopholes put through.

You may be right about a flat tax but first cut the loopholes and see how that works or if it is even possible against the vested interests. Then see how what can be done about rates. It's the only responsible way.

[Sayhey]

Flat tax rates are simple. They are also completely regressive and hurt the poorest at the expense of the wealthiest. When I can go the store and get a sliding rate for the purchase of my groceries then I will support a flat tax, not before.

[Rebel]

Flat tax rates are simple. They are also completely regressive and hurt the poorest at the expense of the wealthiest. When I can go the store and get a sliding rate for the purchase of my groceries then I will support a flat tax, not before.

Besides our current tax system, there are three other proposals being discussed within our government ranks. Regardless of what you think or write within these forums, one of these three will be your new future tax system.

Check out the side-by-side comparrisons (http://www.ucanation.org/) , choose the one you like the best, and get behind it with a passion. You do not have any other choices available to you.

[Sayhey]

Besides our current tax system, there are three other proposals being discussed within our government ranks. Regardless of what you think or write within these forums, one of these three will be your new future tax system.

Check out the side-by-side comparrisons (http://www.ucanation.org/) , choose the one you like the best, and get behind it with a passion. You do not have any other choices available to you.

Sorry, I don't think our choices are limited to what your "organization" thinks they are. Flat taxes have been resisted for years, even though they provide a simple answer to complex problems. I've lived long enough to not be persuaded by simplistic rhetoric wrapped in red, white, and blue.

[Frohickey]

Zimv, that is the problem that I have. Why have a system that forces people to find deductions. Why not just have a simple system of everyone, no matter what pays 5%. Then have the government tax buisnesses the way they should. shift the burden from the people to the buisness

Hehehe... tax businesses.

Lets see... I make a new hip-cool lightweight music player. I call it the iPod maxi. The material cost of it is $75. The development cost of it is $5 million. The advertising and sales cost of it is $5 million. I think I can sell about 1 million of these before I have to come up with the next generation iPod maxi.

I decide to sell it for $99.95. Thats $75 for the cost, $5 for the R&D, $5 for advertising, and $14.95 profit.

Now, goverment comes along and says, we are gonna tax businesses, and they tax me $10.

I change my prices, I sell it for $109.95. Thats $75 for the cost, $5 for the R&D, $5 for the advertising, $14.95 profit, and $10 for the tax. (Forget the fact that the $75 for the cost actually grew also, as well as the $5 for advertising, to make the math simpler.)

What is needed is to curb government spending to only the required basics. These required basics were listed out, EXPLICITLY, way back in 1788.

[mactastic]

These required basics were listed out, EXPLICITLY, way back in 1788.

And nothing has changed since then... :p

[Rebel]

Hehehe... tax businesses.


What is needed is to curb government spending to only the required basics. These required basics were listed out, EXPLICITLY, way back in 1788.

Here is what our founding fathers declared for taxes in our nations beginning:

Original: No captivation or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken. (Meaning that they cannot tax citizens without a citizen census being taken first.)

They made this declaration because the reason we became a country was due to excessive taxation.

201 years later, our modern day politicians thought they knew better than our founders when they implemented the 16th amendment. Coincidently, this is the exact point in time that our nations debt skyrocketed.

Changed in 1977 to: Amendment XVI The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. (Meaning that they could care less what the citizens think if they want to tax us, they can and there isn’t a darn thing we can do about it.)

Unbelievably, we are at the same crossroad that we faced in our nations beginning. Should we fight to keep more of our own money? Or do we just keep giving half of our paycheck to the kings and hope they take care of us when we need it?

You all know my choice - UCAnation (http://www.ucanation.org/)

[pseudobrit]

What is needed is to curb government spending to only the required basics. These required basics were listed out, EXPLICITLY, way back in 1788.

Government spends an awful lot on the military, and that's "allowed."

Why not worry about what's needed rather than bicker over interpretation of the Constitution?

[Opteron]

I really feel I should post in this thread.

I will be most disapointed in the american people come this next election if Bush wins again.

[Rebel]

Government spends an awful lot on the military, and that's "allowed."

Why not worry about what's needed rather than bicker over interpretation of the Constitution?


Our military budget is $400 billion-plus annually, and growing. Looking at the details, items look fairly well-laid-out: $100 billion for personnel, $117 billion for operations and maintenance, $73 billion for procurement, $62 billion for research and development, $16.5 billion for atomic energy, $3 billion for management funds (whatever that is), and $18 billion for "other."

In most companies, a 5 percent "other" category is somewhat acceptable to cover odds and ends you may have missed in your planning efforts. But $18 billion should have a little more explanation than just "other."

Keep in mind this is just looking at the military budget. Every other department budget has an "other" category with billions of dollars allocated in it.

How many billions of dollars are being wasted because, as in most companies, if you do not use it, you lose it. Our government employees owe Americans more fiscal control than what we are seeing in these budgets.

Initial estimates put the combined "other" category of dollars at about $90 billion annually.

UCA (http://www.ucanation.org/)

[Backtothemac]

Government spends an awful lot on the military, and that's "allowed."

Why not worry about what's needed rather than bicker over interpretation of the Constitution?

Actually, the number 1 responsiblity of the government is defense fo the boarders. It isn't all of the social programs that we have, and it isn't to rob out money from us.

[Rebel]

Actually, the number 1 responsiblity of the government is defense fo the boarders. It isn't all of the social programs that we have, and it isn't to rob out money from us.


I agree. However, defense of our boarders does not mean placing troops all over the world.

In addition, some of the social programs are good to support. Nevertheless, the vast majority should not receive public funding (such as therapeutic horseback riding). Organizations like that should be able to stand on their own.


UCA (http://www.ucanation.org/uact.htm/)

[IJ Reilly]

Come on people, the word is borders, borders. A "boarder" is somebody who lodges in another person's home.

[zimv20]

Come on people, the word is borders, borders. A "boarder" is somebody who lodges in another person's home.
and you don't think these people need protection? shame on you!

[IJ Reilly]

and you don't think these people need protection? shame on you!

Do you mean the boarder patrol? When somebody stays at my house, they're required to walk the perimeter at least once a day. It's a small price to pay for homeland security.

[Frohickey]

and you don't think these people need protection? shame on you!

These people deserve the best kind of protection... lubricated and ribbed for maximum pleasure would be the best kind, IMHO. :eek:

[Rebel]

Come on people, the word is borders, borders. A "boarder" is somebody who lodges in another person's home.


Hey, I just copied Backtothemac. Don't bust my chops....

[Backtothemac]

:rolleyes:

Some people obviously don't know what it is like to post from a PDA.

:rolleyes:

As for the comment about not placing troops around the world. Actually it does, when it comes to protecting the vital interests of this country.

[IJ Reilly]

:rolleyes:

Some people obviously don't know what it is like to post from a PDA.

Obviously the response to this is too obvious so obviously I don't need to say it.

[Frohickey]

Some people obviously don't know what it is like to post from a PDA.

There is no excuse for bad spellung. ;) <-- that was intentional
Now, if you were posting via a cellphone, we might cut you some slack.

As for the comment about not placing troops around the world. Actually it does, when it comes to protecting the vital interests of this country.

Protection of the country can be done multiple ways. Putting the military on the border means that there is an impending foreign invasion under the force of arms. But the current situation is not like that at all. What we have are illegal aliens crossing the porous border, but not under the force of arms. The correct response would be for Border Patrol and citizen involvement (militia) to guard the borders and dissuade and capture illegals.

I could see increasing the Border Patrol personnel, and bases along the border, and having citizens with radios observing the border, and reporting illegal activity to the Border Patrol.

[Backtothemac]

There is no excuse for bad spellung. ;) <-- that was intentional
Now, if you were posting via a cellphone, we might cut you some slack.



Protection of the country can be done multiple ways. Putting the military on the border means that there is an impending foreign invasion under the force of arms. But the current situation is not like that at all. What we have are illegal aliens crossing the porous border, but not under the force of arms. The correct response would be for Border Patrol and citizen involvement (militia) to guard the borders and dissuade and capture illegals.

I could see increasing the Border Patrol personnel, and bases along the border, and having citizens with radios observing the border, and reporting illegal activity to the Border Patrol.


I can agree with what you have stated, and yea, I was posting from my cell, IJ, just hates me thats all :D

[zimv20]

Protection of the country can be done multiple ways.
diplomacy included

[IJ Reilly]

IJ, just hates me thats all :D

Obviously.

[Backtothemac]

Obviously.


CONFORMATION! Finally. The truth is out. He hates me!

:P

[pseudobrit]

CONFORMATION!

Still posting from that PDA/cell? :p

BTW, zim said something about the "defending our borders/people/homeland is the no. 1 priority" thing awhile back and I think it holds true here.

The paramount fuction of government and its officials is upholding the Constitution.

[Backtothemac]

Still posting from that PDA/cell? :p

BTW, zim said something about the "defending our borders/people/homeland is the no. 1 priority" thing awhile back and I think it holds true here.

The paramount fuction of government and its officials is upholding the Constitution.
Yea, I was actually ;)

Anyway, I can agree with your contention.

Wow, WE AGREE!

[Frohickey]

The paramount fuction of government and its officials is upholding the Constitution.

Whoa!!!

First it was zimv20 that was kidnapped and held against his will, and someone else posting using his account and now its pseudobrit.

What is the world coming to?!!!

To the people that kidnapped zimv20 and pseudobrit:
Please let these two go. Sure, they haven't read the US Constitution, and do not know the intent of the Founding Fathers, as documented in the various pamphlets and articles of the time, but its not right to hold them against their will and use their accounts to post stuff like above. :p
Before you do though, could you whack them a couple of times upside the head with the ClueBat™.
Thanks.

:D :D :D

[Rebel]

Whoa!!!

Originally Posted by pseudobrit
The paramount fuction of government and its officials is upholding the Constitution.
:D :D :D

I agree. I trust that our founding fathers had more vision in their little finger than any modern day politician could ever hope to posses. We should not let these yokels change it anymore. I.e. the 16th amendment etc...


UCAnation (http://www.ucanation.org/)

[zimv20]

To the people that kidnapped zimv20 and pseudobrit:
Please let these two go.
no. they're teaching us to play chess.

seriously, as the one who made the original statement, i submit that my desire to have the constitution protected is different from your position as a constitutional literalist.

[timmyOtool]

Bush has failed. The only thing he has been successful at is lining the pockets of his buddies, but everything else is a failure.

economy=failure

war on terror=failure

education= (are you kidding???)FAILURE

Healthcare= failure

I can't even stand to hear the sound of his voice. Is Kerry any better? who knows, but at this point I would elect a chimp if he could tie his own tie.

[Rebel]

Bush has failed. The only thing he has been successful at is lining the pockets of his buddies, but everything else is a failure.

economy=failure

war on terror=failure

education= (are you kidding???)FAILURE

Healthcare= failure

I can't even stand to hear the sound of his voice. Is Kerry any better? who knows, but at this point I would elect a chimp if he could tie his own tie.



The Chimp has my vote.........

[timmyOtool]

Bubbles the chimp has officially thrown his feices into the ring.......

[pseudobrit]

at this point I would elect a chimp if he could tie his own tie.

Unless he wears a clip-on, I beleive Bush is your man.

[timmyOtool]

I think you could teach chimps simple tasks like how to tie a neck tie and lie to the American public. What more does he need to know.

[Neserk]

Bush has failed.

I can't even stand to hear the sound of his voice. Is Kerry any better? who knows

I feel the same way.

[Rebel]

I feel the same way.


I heard today that the Bush family has a history of dealings with the Bin Laden family. Supposedly, it spans over 4 generations of Bush's and Bin Laden's.

[IJ Reilly]

Just heard about it? The multi-generational Bush family Middle East connection was addressed in detail in Kevin Phillips' book "American Dynasty," which came out around the beginning of the year.

http://www.npr.org/display_pages/features/feature_1595494.html

[Rebel]

Just heard about it? The multi-generational Bush family Middle East connection was addressed in detail in Kevin Phillips' book "American Dynasty," which came out around the beginning of the year.

http://www.npr.org/display_pages/features/feature_1595494.html


I'm a little slow-an-all............

Trying to save a nation from itself is time consuming.

[zimv20]

Trying to save a nation from itself is time consuming.
start w/ the carlyle group

[Neserk]

I'm a little slow-an-all............

Trying to save a nation from itself is time consuming.

not to mention exhausting and frustrating...

[skunk]

start w/ the carlyle group

of which our dear ex-PM John Major is a director. Talk about a shady bunch...

[Rebel]

not to mention exhausting and frustrating...


Extremely frustrating.........

Sometimes I just want to walk away and let the dream of the UCA (http://www.ucanation.org/) and what we are trying to do, die.

But then I keep witnessing the trash from our political ranks, and it re-energizes my will. When the nation is ready, this organization will be there.

[Neserk]

Extremely frustrating.........

Sometimes I just want to walk away and let the dream of the UCA (http://www.ucanation.org/) and what we are trying to do, die.

But then I keep witnessing the trash from our political ranks, and it re-energizes my will. When the nation is ready, this organization will be there.


I particularly dislike the "Bush lowered taxes, Kerry is going to raise taxes" part of the Republican platform. Please. If taxes were fair then they wouldn't be able to run on making people afraid of some mysterious tax increase that is going to put them into debt...

[Frohickey]

Actually, I would settle for income taxes that is payable on a monthly basis, the same way your mortage, rent, car payment, insurance payment, etc is structures. Right now, with income tax returns being done once a year, people do not know how much they are paying out in taxes off the top of their heads.

[zimv20]

Actually, I would settle for income taxes that is payable on a monthly basis, the same way your mortage, rent, car payment, insurance payment, etc is structures. Right now, with income tax returns being done once a year, people do not know how much they are paying out in taxes off the top of their heads.
for anyone who's a w-2 employee (and that's a lot of people), they can look at their paystub and get a pretty good idea.

[Frohickey]

zimv20

How many people look at their paystubs? Most just tear the check from the paystub and cash the check, or it goes automatically into their checking account.

Now, if you have to write a check every month, then you would know exactly how much taxes you are spending, and you'd act accordingly to try to keep more of it. Sure, some people would have automatic payment as well, but at least its still something you have to set up. What happens if you do not file income tax returns? Money is still collected.

[zimv20]

How many people look at their paystubs? Most just tear the check from the paystub and cash the check
i'm not sure who these people are. you're proposing a historic overhaul of the tax payment system, 'cuz some people might be a little confused on how much they're paying. i don't buy it.

i think this would create more work for the taxpayer. a reckoning would still have to be done annually (if not quarterly). i'm self-employed, and paying taxes even quarterly is a pain.

i don't think it would solve anything.

[mactastic]

zimv20

How many people look at their paystubs? Most just tear the check from the paystub and cash the check, or it goes automatically into their checking account.


Wait a sec! Are you calling the general public stupid? :eek:

[IJ Reilly]

Wait a sec! Are you calling the general public stupid? :eek:

Heaven forfend. Only liberals believe in social engineering and coddling.

[Frohickey]

i'm not sure who these people are. you're proposing a historic overhaul of the tax payment system, 'cuz some people might be a little confused on how much they're paying. i don't buy it.

i think this would create more work for the taxpayer. a reckoning would still have to be done annually (if not quarterly). i'm self-employed, and paying taxes even quarterly is a pain.

i don't think it would solve anything.

Its not more work that what is done by taxpayers when they pay their rents, mortgages, insurance premiums, cable bills, etc.
Imagine, no income tax withholding. No free loans to the government if you are getting a lot back in refund. No big tax bills to pay if you end up oweing (sp?) on April 15th. Less stress, the way I see it.

[mactastic]

Its not more work that what is done by taxpayers when they pay their rents, mortgages, insurance premiums, cable bills, etc.
Imagine, no income tax withholding. No free loans to the government if you are getting a lot back in refund. No big tax bills to pay if you end up oweing (sp?) on April 15th. Less stress, the way I see it.

Have you taken a job lobbying for the USPS lately? 'Cause they're surely the biggest beneficiarys of an extra 100 million or so pieces of mail from the government, and then an equal number mailed back and then processed every month.

And here I thought you were for cutting governemnt....

[zimv20]

Its not more work that what is done by taxpayers when they pay their rents, mortgages, insurance premiums, cable bills, etc.
Imagine, no income tax withholding. No free loans to the government if you are getting a lot back in refund. No big tax bills to pay if you end up oweing (sp?) on April 15th. Less stress, the way I see it.
you're combining two different concepts.

one is the reckoning of taxes owed. the other is method of payment.

whether one pays once, four times, of twelve times a year is a separate consideration from how often one reckons their taxes. my fear is that moving to a pay-once-a-month method would mean that reckoning would happen 12x / year. unlike rent and mortgate, there are a number of factors that determine how much tax is owed. deductions and expenses tend not to be very fixed.

now -- if you're suggesting that reckoning happen once a year (i.e. april 15), but taxpayers are given the option of paying any tax bill over 12 months, that's another thing entirely. is that all you were suggesting? if so, i misunderstood.

i wonder how many people who are w-2 employees are actually surprised by a big tax bill. short of those nasty AMT surprises, if they figured their withholdings correctly, the amount withheld by an employer (who doesn't take into account deductions), should be more or less correct.

[pseudobrit]

Unless Congress starts passing budgets on a monthly basis, there is no point in filing taxes once a month.

The dynamic nature of your income and tax status throughout the year and the static nature of the yearly revenue collection formula would nullify any benefit of monthly tax filing.

You'd still have to go back at the end of the year and find out where you ended up overpaying, underpaying or what deductions ended up included/exculded.

But I know why you're proposing it, and it's not for simplicity. You think that if the people have to write out a cheque once a month for the outrageous sum they pay in taxes, they would quickly revolt against the current system and government would be forced into being smaller.

It's a stupid gimmick.

[Rebel]

An income only taxation system, that feeds every level of government, is quite possibly the best solution for our nation.

Under U-ACT (http://www.ucanation.org/uact.htm) , if you're working you pay. If not, you don't. If you're over the age of 70, you pay no taxes. Seniors will get to enjoy their last 5 years (avg) of their life, tax free.

Obviously, this system does not eliminate all of the IRS, so there can be some tweaking to adjust for income levels of Seniors and unemployed.

If the American worker is receiving annual raises, promotions and bonuses, the government will get more money. Companies will thrive because if people keep more of their own money, they will spend it. Plus, with taxes being taken off of goods sold, Companies will make more profit thus driving more American jobs.

The only organizations that will be affected by this system is government, and even that will be minimal for the most part. It will, however, force governments to be more frugal in their spending habits.

It is time for another Boston tea party.