Mcrain/ B2TM:

[mischief]

The impossible may have happened....

I think the three of us may agree on the Bush stimulus package. Less taxation on dividends would reduce profiteering and generally improve capital investing patterns.

Flame on... ;) :D

[pivo6]

Dividends are distributed from after tax dollars and should be not taxed at all in my opinion. I haven't read all of Bush's plan, so I'll hold off on that for the time being.

Glenn

[jefhatfield]

i will have to read up on this issue

wow, you all agree on something? that is amazing

i am not a typical democrat since i think that richard nixon was given a raw deal since he did more to help us than hurt us

but like many democrats though, i was not a fan of ronald reagan

people criticize this president we have now as an idiot, but he's way better off than the gipper was in the 80s:p

[SPG]

There are a lot of things that could use fixing, but no matter how you slice it this looks like one thing...a tax break for the rich.
$600 billion over ten years going to people who can afford to buy stocks.
An economic stimulous it ain't. Why not give the extension on the unemployment benefits? This money goes right into the economy and would produce a real stimulous, and besides this is for people who have been working and paying taxes, not people looking to shove some money away.

[Sun Baked]

Originally posted by mischief
The impossible may have happened....

I think the three of us may agree on the Bush stimulus package. Less taxation on dividends would reduce profiteering and generally improve capital investing patterns.

Flame on... ;) :D Might not work as well as the Clinton economic stimulus package which was, turn you back on criminal behavior in public companies.

But less taxation of divedends MAY shift the focus from wild speculation back to the old-style dividend producing stocks - imagine that a buy-and-hold mentality (shocking).

[pivo6]

Originally posted by SPG
There are a lot of things that could use fixing, but no matter how you slice it this looks like one thing...a tax break for the rich.
$600 billion over ten years going to people who can afford to buy stocks.
An economic stimulous it ain't. Why not give the extension on the unemployment benefits? This money goes right into the economy and would produce a real stimulous, and besides this is for people who have been working and paying taxes, not people looking to shove some money away.

If I'm not mistaken, the rich pay taxes as well. Not that I know, but I think I read that somewhere. ;) Actually, anyone who owns a mutual fund will benefit somewhat from the elimination of taxes on dividends. Like I said before, dividends are distributed after taxes are taken out. Taxing dividends again is just wrong in my opinion.

Glenn

[mcrain]

Wow, I don't agree with that at all.

Taxes are by definition a cost placed on the transfer of money. A dividend is a transfer of money from a company to its shareholders. To the shareholder, that is "new money," and I can't think of any reason to treat that any differently than money transferred as a result of labor (i.e. salary).

Sure, a company paid taxes on the money when the money was transferred to it by one of its customers. Sure, another tax is applied with that money is transferred to the shareholders in the form of a dividend. But, wasn't the money taxed when the customer received it? Wasn't the money taxed when the customer's employer received it? Wasn't the money taxed when the employer's customer received it? And so on, and so on.

The double taxation is fundamentally flawed. Every dollar is taxed repeatedly, but, only (usually) once per transaction/transfer.

Double taxation is one of the major spin arguments used by people who want to reduce or eliminate taxes on dividends, capital gains and estate taxes. Strange how, when you think about it, nearly everyone who has to worry about dividend income, capital gains and estate taxes already has a hole sh*tpot of money. Hmmmm, you think that is a coincidence?

[Roger1]

Taxes are by definition a cost placed on the transfer of money. A dividend is a transfer of money from a company to its shareholders. To the shareholder, that is "new money," and I can't think of any reason to treat that any differently than money transferred as a result of labor (i.e. salary).



Another way to put is when you pay your baby sitter for watching your kids, he/she is supposed to claim it as income. Hmmm... Wasn't there a big news thing about this recently (within a year or two)? Yeah I know, it's not exactly the same, but the theory is the same (money transfers from one person to another).

[Backtothemac]

Well, two things. 1 I am floored that Mischief and I agree on a political issue. 2. mcrain would never support tax cuts ;)

The only thing about this that bothers me is that the democrats are running around saying that this is the Charles Schawb tax cut, and that this is only for the rich.

Well, no offense to the democrats, but the dividend cut would reduce tax for 92 million Americans. Now, that is not the weathiest 1% as they claim because that is almost 1/3rd of the nation.

Think about that 92 million people invest in the stock market in this country, and would receive a tax break.

I think the extra money that he is wanting to put up for poor families, single mothers, and the unemployeed is a record for a republican.

Compassionate conservative :)

[drastik]

I have to agree here too. Misspending is rampant in government and there is no reason for it. I think the ax cuts will do a great deal of good. Saying that this tax cuts only reaches the top two thirds of income may be mostly true, but the bottom third doesn't pay income taxes. Anyone who does pay taxes gets a deal with this package. I just hope it puss the economy back up.

Next order of business, find someone who can actually manage government agencies efficently. That will be a one massive task, though.

[Ovi]

11

[Ovi]

11

[drastik]

Originally posted by mcrain

Sure, a company paid taxes on the money when the money was transferred to it by one of its customers. Sure, another tax is applied with that money is transferred to the shareholders in the form of a dividend. But, wasn't the money taxed when the customer received it? Wasn't the money taxed when the customer's employer received it? Wasn't the money taxed when the employer's customer received it? And so on, and so on.

The double taxation is fundamentally flawed. Every dollar is taxed repeatedly, but, only (usually) once per transaction/transfer.



Yes, but why is that a good thing?

Why are people penalized for success? If you have a ****pot of money, good for you. Most millionaires in this country worked for all that money. Most also drive used cars and have relatively small homes. Just an interesting side note.

I forgot to add that this package also increases marriage deductions and childcare tax, as well as addressing unemployment benifits that have run out. These breaks benifit more than the upper class.

[jefhatfield]

i was listening to the pete wilson show (kgo radio, sanfrancisco, 810 AM) and he was interviewing lynn jimenez (a business analyst) and they were talking about this bush plan

unlike other past republican plans, this one does help the elderly somewhat

now, one has to ask: "why haven't past plans from the republicans helped our older generation?"

they are the people who tom brokaw calls the greatest generation...the same people who saw us through a depression, wwII, the cold war, and the expansion of american business interests in the 50s

the gop seems so interested in such a narrow, rich few that it leaves out the average citizen or large numbers of the american populace...to the point that the republicans seem uncaring

why do the republicans have to use the term "compassionate conservative"?

is it to make up for all the years of caring for money/big business and not for the people of america?

but if it is true what lynn jimenez said about the bush plan and the benefit for the elderly, then i give W a lot of credit...it's about time the gop helps its older people...while they are still alive

i still believe the democrats, the reform party, the green party, and the libertarian party have a better chance to help those of us who are upper middle class or poorer

still, only the very rich have to gain from the gop being in office...and as a big believer in the right to bear arms and being very religious, it is a shame that the republicans cater to lesser intelligent gun owners and religious people and try to dupe them into getting votes

gun owners and/or religious people who know better will vote for or against george w bush based on the president's economic and foregin policy issues...not from a few fake buzzwords from some predatory gop strategists in order to scrounge up votes playing with feeble minded, but otherwise decent people

btw...any other special interest group has its intelligent and feeble minded members...even us mac users:eek:

[Ovi]

11

[Ovi]

11

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by drastik


Most millionaires in this country worked for all that money. [/edit]

while there a hundreds of thousands of people in america that have worked for every penny of the million or more they have now, 2/3 of all american millionaires were born that way (the miilionaire next door)

and of the estimated four million millionaries in the usa, (number during the height of the dot.com craze) only one fourth or so of those will be worth over one million dollars after taxes, and death taxes

i am not trying to bolster either side of the political aisle with these facts, but one could use them either way;)

with over 270 million americans, a million dollars, after taxes is still a sh**load of cash and very few, way less than one percent, have that in the bank after uncle sam gets a hold of them

when have you, or anyone you know, been one prcent of anything?

that would be like getting 690+ on the sat in math, having an iq over 160 and being smarter than the vast majority of people in mensa, who need about a 135 or so to get in, or who have, according to a medical show on the radio (dr dean edell) ...having a ***** over 8 inches in length

one percent is not common

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Ovi
By the way. Who are republicans getting more money from the rich or the poor?

Take a look at this.

"But among the fabulously wealthy, the Democrats cleaned house. Donors of $10,000 or more gave $140 million to Democrats, while only $111 million went to Republicans. Among those individuals who gave $100,000 or more, the Democrats raised $72 million compared to the Republicans' $34 million. And when it comes to the millionaires' club — those kicking in $1 million or more — the Democratic Party skunked the GOP, $36 million to $3 million. Needless to say, despite the near-parity in overall amounts — $384 million to the Republicans vs. $350 million to the Democrats — the number of individual donors to the GOP exceeded those to the Democratic Party by more than 40 percent. "

oh come on, ovi!!!

that is ridiculous and you know it

if you proved that, (that the rich tend to vote democratic), you would literally get the noble peace prize in economics the same way any physician would if they came up with a fat burning pill that was cheap and safe

it would be the biggest economic-political oversight in the history of...well, history!!!

i could hook you up with the head golf pro at cypress in pebble beach and maybe he could hook you up with its ultra rich members and you could try and pitch them your theory of the rich being democrats

well, at least you would be able to beat most of these 70+ year old rich, all male members in golf...they don't know how to hit a ball but have the second highest rated private course in the usa...next to augusta...another all male, and once all white, private golf club

i could see some democrats over there, however, due to it being the south and having had old money so tied up in the democrats, but in general the rich tend to be republicans

off topic...pebble beach is still better than cypress but i would love to one day at least see augusta...but too bad it's all male still

[Ovi]

11

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Ovi


Once again when a majority vote republican we are called stupid. But when they vote democratic than they are smart. Right.:rolleyes:

i think someone who is ultra rich and wants to hang onto their money, and voting republican, does so for defenedable reasons

but why would someone who is not worth a million, or even half a million, vote for the gop?

...unless they don't care about their pocketbook and feel it is absolutely necessary to help the fellow brother...in that top one, two, or five percent

when i give a handout to someone, they are poorer than me...and you don't see me at the local beach and yacht club waving down a mercedes so i could give the driver a dollar

[drastik]

Originally posted by jefhatfield


off topic...pebble beach is still better than cypress but i would love to one day at least see augusta...but too bad it's all male still

I actualy have the solution to Augustas problem, but no one is asking for my advice. They need to ease in, and they need to allow Martha Ingram frst. Her position is beyond reproach. She's a Billionairess, a charity nazi, an incredible businesswoman in her own right. Both of her sons and her late husband are members. ALmost ever member of Augusta probably knows her, any that are actiely playing there at least. This would be the way I would go.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Ovi


No what this proves is that democrats are hyprocrates. They claim republicans cater the rich vote

and the claim is true

who else are the republicans catering to?

the religious, gun owners, libertarians?

nope...that's just lip service

how many full on gun owners/hobbyists and judeo/christian believers are a part of that ultra rich 1 percent?

to me, anyone in the top one percent, in other words, worth somewhere upwards of 400 or 500k in cold hard cash, after taxes, is rich or ultra rich

someone who makes 50k a year, personal or household income, is benefited far more by the democrats

when you start being able to live off of interest from dividends, then i could see your reason to vote republican for "economic" reasons

but i just don't understand how a regular working person like you, of which i am, has any business voting for a president who wants to help his rich texas, harvard, yale, or andover buddies

are you one of them?

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by drastik


I actualy have the solution to Augustas problem, but no one is asking for my advice. They need to ease in, and they need to allow Martha Ingram frst. Her position is beyond reproach. She's a Billionairess, a charity nazi, an incredible businesswoman in her own right. Both of her sons and her late husband are members. ALmost ever member of Augusta probably knows her, any that are actiely playing there at least. This would be the way I would go.

i would admit condoleeza rice...but i don't know if she plays golf...but that doesn't matter in these clubs...i get to hear a lot of the dirt from another well known rich club...damn rich people, they just don't ever learn how to swing a club...why am i giving them lessons? he he

actually, myself being a democrat, i would jump the political fence and vote for her

condoleeza rice is liked and well respected by everybody and she would be the first monority woman to join augusta and forever end the debate....i think augusta admitted its first minority member not too long ago...relatively (1969 i think) so they are still living in the past and it still may be a decade or more before augusta wakes up...but it's still the world's greatest course, followed by the british open, some courses in hawaii, and maybe some courses where i live in monterey county, CA

but you golfers out there know how subjective rating a golf course is!!!

in theory, it would be the coolest to play a course designed by jack nicklaus himself...or by tiger woods

[sturm375]

Originally posted by Ovi
By the way. Who are republicans getting more money from the rich or the poor?

Take a look at this.

"But among the fabulously wealthy, the Democrats cleaned house. Donors of $10,000 or more gave $140 million to Democrats, while only $111 million went to Republicans. Among those individuals who gave $100,000 or more, the Democrats raised $72 million compared to the Republicans' $34 million. And when it comes to the millionaires' club — those kicking in $1 million or more — the Democratic Party skunked the GOP, $36 million to $3 million. Needless to say, despite the near-parity in overall amounts — $384 million to the Republicans vs. $350 million to the Democrats — the number of individual donors to the GOP exceeded those to the Democratic Party by more than 40 percent. "

Key word here is "individuals." Check to see who, and how much was spent by corporations to each party.

By the way, this is why I want Corporate funds out of politics completely. I believe GWB set the record in 2000, by having a little over $1 Billion in campaign funds. Think about that, He could have given each voting american at least $5 to vote for him. Or bought himself a Stealth Bomber to take out Gore.

Not that I am condoning the Dems, as they were close runners up coming in at just under $1 Billion.

That's around $2 Billion spent just on 2 Canadates for president, and how much spent to fix the brokent election process discovered in the 2000 fiasco.

Too much money!

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by sturm375


Key word here is "individuals." Check to see who, and how much was spent by corporations to each party.

By the way, this is why I want Corporate funds out of politics completely. I believe GWB set the record in 2000, by having a little over $1 Billion in campaign funds. Think about that, He could have given each voting american at least $5 to vote for him. Or bought himself a Stealth Bomber to take out Gore.

Not that I am condoning the Dems, as they were close runners up coming in at just under $1 Billion.

That's around $2 Billion spent just on 2 Canadates for president, and how much spent to fix the brokent election process discovered in the 2000 fiasco.

Too much money!

corporate giving is too much for sure

at least the democrats earned their keep with 7 or 8 good years of economic growth

with bush sr we had a recession

and with this president, it looks the same so far

[drastik]

Originally posted by jefhatfield


in theory, it would be the coolest to play a course designed by jack nicklaus himself...or by tiger woods

well, I play regularly on a course designed by Nicklaus' firm. Its a great course but they dd have a problem on nine when it rained. The right side (slopping deep roug that ends on a roadside) flooded the fairway. nicklaus' people steeped right up and fixed the problem though, s that was good.

[wwworry]

Originally posted by Ovi

No what this proves is that democrats are hyprocrates. They claim republicans cater the rich vote, which according to you is very small in comparision to the whole country.

Every argument I hear from the democrats is that the republican proposals are designed to help the rich. Yet they get more money from the rich simply to stay in power and make it appear they help the poor.

Actually based on economic breakdown there are a large number of rich folks that do vote democratic. Trial lawyers, actors, producers, rich jewish folks, and few I have missed of course.

More rich people do vote republican because the very poor are usually too lazy to go and vote anyway.

I consider anyone who makes over $50k a year rich. I am not there yet but with my wife I am.

.... well I was going to do it but there is no hope. I work and I work presenting factual numbers, links and arguments any reasonable person would find illuminating. Instead, all I get is spin, false assumptions about the poor and wierd ideas about what you have to earn to be considered "rich"

Forget it. it won't make a difference. I am too lazy.

[wwworry]

and "rich" too!

[Durandal7]

As far as I'm concerned both of the major parties are essentially the same. Boths main goals do not involve any social programs or helping the downtrodden or saving the world. The main goal of them is to sap our bank accounts as much as they can while making it look like they are helping us out. Both parties are set up for their respective giant business groups. They are about the same, the only difference is that they take slighty different paths to win over different groups (OK, the country is half and half and we can't cater to both so we'll just go slighly conservative or slightly liberal.) The whole 2 party system is shot and we need to get a 3rd party to finally get into high level offices (Oh, and the 2 parties other goal is to prevent the advent of 3rd parties) As far as I'm concerned you should just go with whatever Republican/Democrat candidate you feel like because there is no chance of anything truly progressive happening while they are in power.

[pivo6]

Originally posted by Durandal7
As far as I'm concerned both of the major parties are essentially the same. Boths main goals do not involve any social programs or helping the downtrodden or saving the world. The main goal of them is to sap our bank accounts as much as they can while making it look like they are helping us out. Both parties are set up for their respective giant business groups. They are about the same, the only difference is that they take slighty different paths to win over different groups (OK, the country is half and half and we can't cater to both so we'll just go slighly conservative or slightly liberal.) The whole 2 party system is shot and we need to get a 3rd party to finally get into high level offices (Oh, and the 2 parties other goal is to prevent the advent of 3rd parties) As far as I'm concerned you should just go with whatever Republican/Democrat candidate you feel like because there is no chance of anything truly progressive happening while they are in power.

Well said.

We had a third party governor here in Minnesota (insert your favorite ex-wrestler joke here) and he was always blocked by the republican controlled house and the democratic controlled senate from changing the way government conducts himself.

Before any other Minnesotans chime in , I know that his "leadership" style contributed to this problem, but both the republicans and democrats went out of their way to block any change.

Glenn

[SPG]

Originally posted by Ovi
By the way. Who are republicans getting more money from the rich or the poor?

Take a look at this.

"But among the fabulously wealthy, the Democrats cleaned house. Donors of $10,000 or more gave $140 million to Democrats, while only $111 million went to Republicans. Among those individuals who gave $100,000 or more, the Democrats raised $72 million compared to the Republicans' $34 million. And when it comes to the millionaires' club ? those kicking in $1 million or more ? the Democratic Party skunked the GOP, $36 million to $3 million. Needless to say, despite the near-parity in overall amounts ? $384 million to the Republicans vs. $350 million to the Democrats ? the number of individual donors to the GOP exceeded those to the Democratic Party by more than 40 percent. "

Care to quote a source on that? How about a date? From what I've been reading the past two years, the Republicans have been cleaning up with all the contributions. Not only that, but it's obvious why...contributors to the RNC are making an investment, and guess what? They get their moneys worth!

[SPG]

Originally posted by Ovi


No what this proves is that democrats are hyprocrates. They claim republicans cater the rich vote, which according to you is very small in comparision to the whole country.

Every argument I hear from the democrats is that the republican proposals are designed to help the rich. Yet they get more money from the rich simply to stay in power and make it appear they help the poor.

Actually based on economic breakdown there are a large number of rich folks that do vote democratic. Trial lawyers, actors, producers, rich jewish folks, and few I have missed of course.

More rich people do vote republican because the very poor are usually too lazy to go and vote anyway.

I consider anyone who makes over $50k a year rich. I am not there yet but with my wife I am.

I was once hanging out with a couple who each earned a quarter million a year when politics and taxes came up (I didn't bring it up!). The husband's quote to which the wife wholly agreed:
"I would probably save a bunch with Republicans in office, but I couldn't live with myself if I voted for them."
That pretty much sums it up.

[SPG]

Originally posted by sturm375

snip...
I believe GWB set the record in 2000, by having a little over $1 Billion in campaign funds. Think about that, He could have given each voting american at least $5 to vote for him.
...snip

Why bother with $5? Dubya offered everyone $300 in a tax cut to buy their vote instead!

[mcrain]

Originally posted by SPG
I was once hanging out with a couple who each earned a quarter million a year

Did you ask them to adopt you? The best way to get rich in this country is to pick your parents wisely.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by SPG


Care to quote a source on that? How about a date? From what I've been reading the past two years, the Republicans have been cleaning up with all the contributions. Not only that, but it's obvious why...contributors to the RNC are making an investment, and guess what? They get their moneys worth!



when the gop went off into its religious spin, pseudo religious spin, and got gun crazy in the 90s, the dems stepped into the wall street spotlight and they were the heroes

now the gop seems to be the wall st party this round and the money is flowing and the hope is that the gop will give us their version of a day in the sun with economic expansion

but so far, in 2003, nothing and w has a good year before the dems jump his butt re: the sluggish economy...if w gets re-elected next year on top of a flat economy, he will be the first since fdr in 1936 to pull that feat off and as reluctant as i would be to say it, i would call him a political genius...this on top of the fact that he did well in midterm elections...the first president to do so in 100 years

if the dems win in 2004, i will feel happy and confident that domesic issues will get taken care of again...but if the republicans win because of an economic turnaround, then both my businesses will profit and that will also be a good thing

so the worst thing will be to have a two term republican sitting on eight bad years pointing the finger at the dems in the senate and house and saying that they sabotaged him

ronald reagan had a good economic first term and when it turned mediocre and then sour in the second term, the republicans blamed the nebulous imaginary evil democratic congress...as if they were out to get him:p

and unfairly so, george bush senior was blamed for short term reagan voodoo economics

to his credit, bush sr was a far better president than reagan and was far better than his son is now

[jefhatfield]

..and just so you dont flame this dem, realize that i greatly admire some past gop presidents...nixon, ford, and bush sr....one took down the iron curtain by splitting it wide open with a friendship with china, one finally got us out of southeast asia once and for all, and one put saddam in his place in the most one sided war in history

but the fake religious rhetoric of reagan and w in order to scrounge up votes taking advantage of the forgiving, good natured religious people of this country leave a bad taste in my mouth

let the church be run by the ministers and priests, not politicians

and let the gop once again be the party of big business in the theory that it will stimulate the ecomony, while simultaneously, the dems could watch out for the common man, and with both those bases covered, america can be great again and not hated by so many around the world

[Ovi]

11

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by wwworry


.... well I was going to do it but there is no hope. I work and I work presenting factual numbers, links and arguments any reasonable person would find illuminating. Instead, all I get is spin, false assumptions about the poor and wierd ideas about what you have to earn to be considered "rich"

Forget it. it won't make a difference. I am too lazy.

while so many of us on the so called left have a whole range of beliefs including some right wing ideals, ovi seems to be a conservative republican true believer...gathering his facts from the right wing spin machine

i would like to debate with ovi on his personal political beliefs like i do with conservatives wdlove and backtothemac...but i know what you mean, i get the latest flavor of the month conservative spin from him

while i find him pleasant and very willing to talk, maybe just once, one of us liberals or moderates will get him mad enough to think outside the box and give us an original political viewpoint from his belief system and experiences

this is meant to be constructive since we know where just about everybody else on the right wing side are coming from...wdlove is a dedicated christian, backtothemac is a very educated political scientist and military history expert...and on the left mcrain is a government tax lawyer and i am an entrepreneur who leans left but has some right wing to moderate beliefs stemming from former service in the cia then department of defense

instead of spin, i want to hear what you do and how that shapes what you believe and why you believe in your stands and even if someone disagrees with you, they will at least realize that you are not putting out right wing campaign spin

and having started the political threads here a long time back, there are others i have seen who blindly spouted out left wing spin;)

[Ovi]

11

[Ovi]

11

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Ovi


What do you define as rich?

I went to private school. I was one of the few who's parents were not doctors or lawyers. In fact my parents barely had a high school education.

Now 90% of those kids who had rich parents are becoming rich themselvs. No they are not inheriting a bunch of money. They all went on to college, and then medical school or law school. And guess what they are now all lawyers and doctors making good money. (once they pay off their school debt that is)

Now I can give you a ton of examples of those like myself who had no rich heritage but will become rich themselfs.

My parents did not buy their own house until the age of 45. I bought my own house at the age of 28. In this country anyone can do it.


It is a big lie that all those who are rich are born rich. All those who are rich work their butts off and that is how they get rich.

I deal with rich people every day (net worth over 500K, which does not include their homes). Not one stays home watching the money roll in. There is an exception. There are a few who are retired and have invested well in real state or the market and are just seeing the money roll in.

read the "millionaire next door"

2/3rds inherit it

next time you come this way, let me take you to the bars where the ultra rich trust fund babies hang out

dude, wake up...we are in a caste system here in america and the pitiful few examples who go from log cabin to mansion won't make a difference anytime soon

the power lies with those with big money...tens of millions and more...where income comes from securities, stocks, bonds, and not paychecks

the rich marry within the rich the vast majority of the time...look at the dating services in stanford magazine...arranged marriages with a fee...looking for a spouse at stanford...yeah, one does to keep the money in the family and keep the connections going

sure, they can get the same quality of education a few miles away at public uc berkeley, but you don't see the rich standing in line to go there unless jr is on some leftist soul searching mission which starts with cal berkeley and ends with a decade following the dead or phish

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Ovi



by the way it is that left wing spin that makes me adopt even stronger and conservative ideals. and even you give plenty of left wing spin but I am also too lazy to show you from previous posts perfect examples.

The more I hear you guys attempt to defend yourselfs and your party the more determined I become. Not because I am right but because you show me how right I am.

i want to hear what YOU believe, ovi ;)

why do you believe what you believe? see any post from conservative backtothemac and you will find no mistake why he has a certain point of view...i may not agree with him a lot, but i do respect he came up with a conclusion based on a life experience

if you put a little bit of "you" into your arguments, you may find that you don't get bashed/flamed so much on these political forums...no one is asking you to change their left leaning thinking patterns, but they want to hear from your point of view

if they wanted to hear the right wing point of view, all they have to do is to listen to rush limbaugh or dr. laura, due to their time constraints, really only have the time to air the beliefs based on the right wing spin and give the rest of the time to radio advertisers

but on these forums, we don't have to cater to real time or to advertisers so real political commentary from voting people can be read by all who visit this site

[Ovi]

11

[Ovi]

11

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Ovi


I have no intention on attempting to persuade you guys that you are wrong.

I have expressed enough personal info in the past to cleary show you why I believe what I believe. I am an immigrant who has been exposed to enough poverty and wealth and have read the Bible enough to show me that conservative beliefs are the right ones.

the bottom line is what you call righ wing spin is the core behind my beliefs.

ok, we are getting somewhere

why am i wrong...i went to seminary school and i am a christian and the last time i checked the gates of heaven are opened to members of both parties

but back to the wrong thing...what am i or any other left wing poster wrong about

under clinton the usa had the longest stretch of economic prosperity in its history

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Ovi


and this is where hyprocracy is shown so well in all you liberals.



are we hypocrites because we say one thing and do another

or is a hypocrite something in your definition...someone who disagrees with you and sees the world in a more moderate or liberal light

what if i said all republicans were insolent and uncaring? how would that help this thread?

[mischief]

Sorry to burst your bubble Ovi but I'm neither a Republican nor a conservative nor a Democrat nor a liberal. I'm a Canadian born/US Born (it's possible but would take too long to explain) Patriot, Idealist, Populist and Socialist.

Much as I hate Republican agendas and political sellouts on BOTH sides of the aisle I also acknowledge that at the moment anything that encourages people to spend money and invest is a good thing. Any incentive to spend money or invest will always disproportionately effect those who have the means to spend or invest disproportionate sums.

At this point it's more cost effective to day-trade stocks in time with the quarterly rise and fall in value than it is to leave the $$ in a given stock precisely because of that double taxation.

The whole bad attitude about people being wealthy is getting old. Can we please get away from the moronic " Rich/Poor people are BAD people." thing?

If you want to make money through investment you want to get the most possible return on investment. Right now dividends aren't that route.... day-trading is. The problem with day-trading is that it de-stabilizes the economy. If you want stable economic growth you want Dividends to be the preferred choice.

The NIMBY principal works both ways. If you want to get wealthy you can either: start a wildly successful business (rare) or you can invest in something.

Currently investing in any cost-effective sense involves selling out of a stock on a regular basis. In order to simplify non-brokered investment you need simpler taxation.

[Ovi]

11

[mischief]

Originally posted by Ovi


I agree with most of your post, but I am not sure what your point is.

Heh. I guess I just translate an agressive tone into rabidly Right/Left.

• Mischief cream-puff (mini-Pie!)splats himself for being too reactionary•
;) :p :D

[wwworry]

I would like to say that my point about me being lazy was satirical.

[Ovi]

11

[Ovi]

11

[mischief]

Isn't Ladie's GOLF an Oximoron?

If you invest wisely you'll be playing a LOT more GOLF.

Okay. Back on topic.:D ;) :rolleyes:

[SPG]

Originally posted by mcrain


Did you ask them to adopt you? The best way to get rich in this country is to pick your parents wisely.

Haaa! I've thought about, they do really like me and they share my political views...but my mom might disapprove.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Ovi


off topic.

I played poppy hills twice over thanksgiving. it was awesome since i shot an sub 90 round only for the second time there in about 20 tries.

anyway someone mentioned that one way to play cypress is to drive up get your bag out and just tee off. there is no starter and most ot the members are not known since they don't live in the country or locally. v

there are very few young members so you may stick out;)

[wwworry]

Originally posted by Ovi


how 24 hours and a good night's sleep can change one's emotions.;)

It was a joke when I posted it and it's still a joke. It was in reference to your comment that poor people are too lazy to vote. The reasons I gave to refrain from pointing out the numerous and consistent logical mistakes in almost all of your posts are the same reasons poor people vote in lesser numbers than those in other classes.

There is no hope.
&
You are a dope.

[Ovi]

[

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by Ovi
by the way it is that left wing spin that makes me adopt even stronger and conservative ideals.
I'm just wondering - would your ideals be any different if there were no crazy left-wingers out there? (Anyone can answer this question - substitute right-wingers for left-wingers if necessary)

For example: I suppose most of my political beliefs could be characterized as left-wing, although there are a few that wouldn't be. One thing I've noticed in forming my ideals is that radicals can really piss me off. For example, vegetarianism: I think vegetarianism is a good thing, and that if everyone were vegetarian, the world would be a better place in many ways. But whenever I think about becoming vegetarian myself, it's not the thought of having to do without meat that turns me off - it's the thought of associating with the stereotypical hemp-wearing Rastafari-haired Green-Party-hive-mind ELF-backing idiot who is into vegetarianism not because he/she has formed any rational basis for it on his/her own, but because it's the cool thing to do. So I'm not vegetarian, even though, as I said, I think I should be; my beliefs in theory are pro-vegetarian, but in practice, the anti-idiot outweighs the pro-vegetarian.

I wonder if Republicans, for example, do feel guilty about the damage their economic policies cause to the environment, but find that this guilt is outweighed by the sense of satisfaction gained from knowing they are fighting off "extreme" liberal groups like Greenpeace / the WWF / the Sierra Club etc. I don't want to believe that any group of people could possibly value money and a "free market" over public health, so perhaps this theory of mine (of course it can be applied to other topics than environmentalism) hints at an explanation for why both Reps and Dems allow things to go to such ****.

[Ovi]

11

[wwworry]

Ben Franklin was a vegetarian at certain points, if that makes you feel better. There are idiots who will believe anything. Your personal beliefs should not be affected by which "crowd" "hangs with" you. Vegetarianism makes sence economically, environmentally and morally (though the last is harder to prove). I would be a vegetarian except for the tempting pleasures of bacon.

Now, as to why Ovi is a dope.

He has stated in posts in various threads:

Poor people are lazy.
FALSE

Rich people work harder than poor people.
FALSE

earning $50,00/yr. in the USA makes one rich.
FALSE

He personally benefits from the first round of th Bush v.2 tax cuts. (earning btw. 30 and 40 k per year)
FALSE

Rich people that vote the democratic party are "hyprocrats".
FALSE

If anything, he should be extolling the virtues of education and pushing it as a solution for this country's evils. Instead, everyone who is not rich, including those who choose lesser income paths, are lazy and stupid.

[Durandal7]

Originally posted by alex_ant

I'm just wondering - would your ideals be any different if there were no crazy left-wingers out there? (Anyone can answer this question - substitute right-wingers for left-wingers if necessary)

My ideals would probably be quite a bit different. I have my own personal reasons for not wanting anything to do with the ELF. I respect WWF, I would respect Greenpeace a lot more if they used a tad bit better judgement in some matter.

I am pretty centrist, I will never register as a member of either of the "big 2." I don't really want to be associated with the Republican party because of their overblown defense spending and some of their "security" initiatives.

I don't want to be associated with the Democrats either because I have a very low opinion of the way they conduct themselves. This mostly comes from the fact that they hang out with these idiot actors who have never lifted a finger and come up with insane hypocritical statements. (Case in point: one of the backers of the SUVs supports Terrorism jets around the country in a private jet)

Both parites exaggerate the "harm" that the other is doing to an incredible degree.

Blech.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Ovi


Being conservative by nature I always leaned republican. I became a citizen 4 years ago so I start to vote and pay more attention. After seeing more what many call right wing spin, I was surprised to see how much in common I had with the way republicans viewed the world.

When I was 14 I would clean my school in order to pay for the tution. I would goof off by reading time and newsweek since I always like politics and international affairs. I can still recall vividly reading about the big demonstrations in Europe over the placement of missles by Reagan. I knew that was the right thing to do (arm Europe) but never really understood why. Now I feel enlightened after the fall of the Sovie Union.

Now is very easy to get caught in a trap of constantly being exposed to only one view and accept it as such and never looking at the opposite view.

By seeing the left wing view I am developing a better understanding of how I view the world and life in general.

I don't envy the rich or look badly at them. The more I hear those protest against what they persive as unfairness, the more I appreciate my view regarding the rich. This country allows anyone and I mean anyone to make it. All that is required is hard work. The more I hear democrats and liberals about how wrong the view is about America the more I appreciate America.

when i was asking for you to put your personal input into a statement or belief, what you just said just now was what i am talking about

btw...very well said;)

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Ovi


exellent point. when i come up with a plan that will work I will let you know

the different courses in pebble beach are all so highly regarded by golfers...it's just that cypress not being open to the public is the mystique which makes it the most desireable

but as for history and name recognition, the large pebble beach golf links gets the most publicity

but nowhere as much as the augusta national golf course....for men only

it's the all male and at one time all white nature of the course which has always given it a lot of press...and bad press as any golfer will know

osama bin laden has also gotten a lot of press too... and again, bad press...but press is press and it's hard to argue a more newsworthy topic than bin laden this past year

[SPG]

Ovi, this one's for you:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/08/national/08PIPE.html

[SPG]

Another New York Times piece for you, this time an editorial...

An Irrelevant Proposal
By PAUL KRUGMAN



Here's how it works. Faced with a real problem ? terrorism, the economy, nukes in North Korea ? the Bush administration's response has nothing to do with solving that problem. Instead it exploits the issue to advance its political agenda.

Nonetheless, the faithful laud our glorious leader's wisdom. For a variety of reasons, including the desire to avoid charges of liberal bias, most reporting is carefully hedged. And the public, reading only praise or he-said-she-said discussions, never grasps the fundamental disconnect between problem and policy.

And so it goes with the administration's "stimulus" plan.

Boosting a stumbling economy ("It's Clinton's fault!" shouted the claque) isn't rocket science. All a sensible plan must do is focus on the present, not the distant future; on those who are suffering, not on those doing well; and on those who are most likely to spend additional money.

Right now a sensible plan would rush help to the long-term unemployed, whose benefits ? in an act of incredible callousness ? were allowed to lapse last month. It would provide immediate, large-scale aid to beleaguered state governments, which have been burdened with expensive homeland security mandates even as their revenues have plunged. Given our long-run budget problems, any tax relief would be temporary, and go largely to low- and middle-income families.

Yesterday House Democrats released a plan right out of the textbook: aid to states and the jobless, rebates to everyone. But the centerpiece of the administration's proposal is, of all things, the permanent elimination of taxes on dividends.

So instead of a temporary measure, we get a permanent tax cut. The price tag of the overall plan is a whopping $600 billion, yet less than $100 billion will arrive in the first year. The Democratic plan, with an overall price tag of only $136 billion, actually provides more short-run stimulus.

And instead of helping the needy, the Bush plan is almost ludicrously tilted toward the very, very well off. If you have stocks in a 401(k), your dividends are already tax-sheltered; this proposal gives big breaks only to people who have lots of stock outside their retirement accounts. More than half the benefits would go to people making more than $200,000 per year, a quarter to people making more than $1 million per year. ("Class warfare!" shouted the claque.)

Even the administration's economists barely pretend that this proposal has anything to do with short-run stimulus. Instead they sell it as the answer to various other problems. (It slices! It dices! It purées!) Above all, it's supposed to end the evil of "double taxation."

Now lots of income faces double taxation, in the sense that the same dollar gets taxed more than once along the way. For example, most of us pay income and payroll taxes when we earn our salary, then pay sales taxes when we spend it. So why has it suddenly become urgent to ensure that dividends, in particular, never be taxed more than once?

That is, if they're taxed at all. In practice, the Bush plan would exempt a lot of income ? rich people's income ? from all taxes. Thanks to the efforts of lobbyists, today's corporate tax code has as many holes in it as a piece of Swiss cheese, and today's corporations take full advantage. Case in point: Between 1998 and 2001 CSX Corporation, the company run by the incoming Treasury secretary, John Snow, made $900 million in profits, but paid no net taxes ? in fact, it received $164 million in rebates. This wasn't exceptional; the average tax rate on profits has fallen to a nearly 60-year low.

Anyway, even to debate the pros and cons of dividend taxation is to play the administration's game, which is to change the subject. Weren't we supposed to be talking about emergency economic stimulus?

No doubt the final version of the "stimulus" plan will contain a few genuine recession-fighting measures ? a child credit here, an unemployment benefit there, a few crumbs for the states ? for which the administration will expect immense gratitude. But the man in charge ? that is, Karl Rove ? is clearly betting that the economy will recover on its own, and intends to use the pretense of stimulus mainly as an opportunity to get more tax cuts for the rich.

Ideology aside, will these guys ever decide that their job includes solving problems, not just using them?

[Ovi]

\

[Ovi]

11

[jefhatfield]

ovi,

i can see how the current gop can help the very rich and the corporations, which being healthy, can lead to more jobs

that's good for that sector

but who will take care of the middle class, the working class, and the poor under the republican's plan?

do you think that rich people becoming richer and healthier corporations could make up for all the hardship of the majority of the people in a recession?

in other words, do you still believe in the gop trickle down theory?

the reagan-bush era pretty much proved that it doesn't work long term

[SPG]

Again from the New York Times...
Jobless, and Stunned
By BOB HERBERT



Left behind by the great Republican raid on the national Treasury are folks like Karelia Escobar and Joe Bergmann, middle-aged New Yorkers who have worked most of their lives but now find themselves traveling the anxious paths of the long-term unemployed.

With bills mounting and each day bringing a heightened sense of dread, they could use a little help. But the jobless are at the bottom of the economic heap, and the Bush administration's help seems always to go to the top.

Ms. Escobar is 43 and single, and lives in a small apartment in Queens. She has worked for a number of airlines over the past several years, most recently as a ticket agent for T.W.A. That job vanished with the World Trade Center.

"We were laid off Oct. 14, 2001," she said. "I haven't been able to find work since then. I've applied everywhere. I've gone back to school to improve my computer skills. I've learned another language. I feel very bad because I want to work so I can pay my bills. I've always worked. But now I can't find a job."

That plaintive comment is echoing from coast to coast. Unemployment is rising. And as the millions of jobless Americans (including many in the middle class) exhaust their benefits and run through their savings, they are finding themselves face to face with the horror of destitution.

In his speech in Chicago on Tuesday President Bush said, "I worry about people who are out of work. They need our help." But the hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of "help" that he proposed would go overwhelmingly to the princes of the new American plutocracy, not to the likes of Karelia Escobar.

Or Joe Bergmann. Mr. Bergmann, who lives in Midtown Manhattan, was a creative director for a firm that did interactive advertising. He was laid off Oct. 2, 2001, and, to his amazement, has been out of work ever since. When I asked if he ever imagined it would be so hard to find a job, he said, "Not at all. There's no way."

Mr. Bergmann, 54, is married and has two daughters. His wife works, but her employment outlook, even in the short term, is uncertain. The family has had the benefit of some savings and a bonus Mr. Bergmann earned at a previous job. But he does not know what will happen if he doesn't get another job soon.

Mr. Bergmann believes that many of the layoffs by large corporations could have been avoided. He said, "Companies have been living from quarter to quarter for so long they've lost their long-distance planning ? their vision of what the company is going to be like in five years. When there's a downturn, they just get rid of people.

"I don't know if we can change the heart of C.E.O.'s into thinking, `Well, you know, I'm getting $30 million, but I can save some jobs if I give back $15 million and live on just $15 million this year.' They never think like that. And until they begin to think like that, we'll be at their mercy."

Unemployment benefits for Ms. Escobar and Mr. Bergmann ran out last July. The extension signed by President Bush yesterday does not apply to them.

Ms. Escobar's situation is extremely precarious. Her savings are gone. She received help from a local charity when her electric service was about to be discontinued.

"I cannot even pay my car insurance," she said. "I have an old car but they've canceled the insurance."

"So you can't drive," I said.

"I can't drive. I'm afraid I'll hit somebody and then I'll end up with no money, no job, and in jail. I don't want that."

Her biggest concern is February's rent. "I don't have it," she said.

The centerpiece of the economic plan proposed by Mr. Bush on Tuesday is the elimination of taxes on stock dividends, an unconscionable giveaway to the rich at a time when so many working Americans are struggling merely to survive.

The plan contained no job creation program, no investment in the nation's critical infrastructure needs, and no assistance for the many states sinking in the quicksand of mammoth budget deficits.

Ms. Escobar has taken the president's policies somewhat personally. "I'm a Republican and I'm not ashamed to say it," she said. "But I'm very upset that they have done nothing for us."

I asked if she had voted for Mr. Bush. "I sure did," she said, then added, "I feel very betrayed."

[Ovi]

11

[SPG]

okay Ovi, How are more Dems "going to vote for Bush because they see the economy in a better light"? That trend I have not seen developing at all.
You also say that the stock market won't go up for many years because of the dividend tax elimination, so then how can we call it an "economic stimulus"?
The elimination of the dividend tax is nothing but a tax cut for the wealthy. How is it possibly going to give a result for the average Joe Paycheck? Trickle Down? Don't even start that BS line.
So what you are saying then is that the whole US economy should be based on a state of deficit spending to fund constant wars on the boogeyman of the moment.
I'm really not too interested in the politics of this one, and who reacts how to it, just how is it going to get the economy pumping and get more people back into good well paying jobs with futures.
I was just pulling New York Times stories because that was what I was reading at the time, but I don't think that reality and bush's spin are the same thing these days. There's a lot of people hurting right now, and it's not looking much better yet.

[Ovi]

11

[jefhatfield]

the bush economic plans are very long term as his war on terrorism is also

and we won't know if they worked while he is in office

ronald reagan's voodoo economics turned out just to be that when george bush sr had to try and clean up reagan's short sighted trickle down economics

i voted for clinton but i didn't think the soft economy was goerge bush's doing at all...i realized it was due to reagan's policies in his first term which led to the eventual defecit and recession

i voted for the democrats thinking that it could hopefully lead to a long term recovery and bull market which it did

part of the reason gore lost in 2000 with a great 8 year track record was due to his rather dull personality and if he had been even a little bit more charismatic, he would have won the election...he certainly couldn't blame his loss on a bad track record economically

it's less than two years until the election and i will keep a very open mind...if w has a trickle down theory that is showing signs of elevating the economy long term then that will count far more than him catching a terrorist or two

i like some of the people on his cabinet and their ideals...only time will tell if this bush can do what his father couldn't...which is win a second term

[SPG]

Originally posted by Ovi


Over 45% of those who benefit from dividen tax elimination make less than 50K a year. That does look pretty even to me rather than benefiting the top 1% like liberals want us to believe.

Don't listen to me just sit back and watch. We just need to be patient.


okay then, let's look at your stats here.
If I make less than $50,000 a year, I would guess that even with a very liberal estimate of investing 10% of my income and being at the highest end of the income bracket, $5,000 invested in stocks (ignoring all other uses of money) one third of my investments would pay a 3% dividend, so $50 dividend. Let's compound that with multiple years of investments and now we're looking at maybe $500 in dividends, now tax that. Wow, the most liberal application of the numbers to favor the dividend tax elimination and it's barely enough to buy a copy of Turbo Tax!
Seriously, where do you think the $670,000,000,000 is going to come from? Huge investments held by the very wealthy. How else? Run the numbers any way you like but they never add up to anything but the lion's share directly benefiting the wealthy.
So when you say that 45% benefit, I think that when you really look at it you'll realize that the same 45% will face increased taxes and fewer services down the road to pay for the lost revenues going to the top 10%. In my eyes this will not be an economic stimulus, but a delayed tax increase on the poor.

[jefhatfield]

very well said, spg

[mcrain]

Originally posted by Ovi
The great republican revolution has just started and with each passing year it will get bigger and bigger.

Yes, with Republican's legislating morality and dictating who has rights and who doesn't, while committing our country to war, I'm sure things will get better and bigger. The fourth reicht?

[mcrain]

I've said it once, I've said it twice, I sound like a broken record.

Yes, I'm a democrat, but as far as tax policy is concerned, both sides are WRONG. OVI, you're smoking crack if you think the stuff you are regurgitating is true.

Same with you liberals.

Taxes are like math. There are numbers, and they are what they are.

The problem is taxes are such a contentious issue, people try to spin and characterize them in ways that are just wrong. Both sides.

[Ovi]

11

[Ovi]

[11

[wwworry]

Talking to a wall...

You can't talk about numbers, numbers are spin.
All the evidence in the world is class resentment and anger. The deliverer of solid evidence needs to quit and go enjoy a movie or something.
:confused:

Clearly this wall is one of the 19% of Americans who believes they are in the top 1% of earners. If not, he might be the further 20% who believes he will one day be in the top 1%.

That's 39%, by the way, who, against their own self-interest, will vote in the interests of the very few. Ironic considering the way Ovi is always criticizing buyers of lottery tickets. You can't blame him for hoping.

[sturm375]

Originally posted by Ovi



I am not sure what else to say, eventhough I must admit I made a very feable attempt to defend the tax cut. I just don't have that much time and as much as I enjoy this, my family and business does come first.

Right now those over 50K a year and above, pay a lion's share of the income tax. If taxes do go up for the poor I am sure it will be well justified and defended by you in about 50 years when liberals will raise them again.

However if you are still on line in a couple of years, I will remind you that what was past in 2003 did benefit the economy.

Looking at these websites:
http://ferret.bls.census.gov/macro/032002/perinc/new11_001.htm

http://ferret.bls.census.gov/macro/032002/perinc/new11_002.htm

We can see that (with some work on our part by putting the numbers into a spread sheet) those making $50K+ make up: $13.9% of the population, and 50.8% of the total income.

Seeing as how this benifites only the top 13.9% of the pop., how does the rest of the 86.1% of the pop. get helped?

[SPG]

Use all the rhetoric you like, but the numbers just don't add up to anything but a tax cut for the wealthy.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by wwworry
Talking to a wall...

You can't talk about numbers, numbers are spin.
All the evidence in the world is class resentment and anger. The deliverer of solid evidence needs to quit and go enjoy a movie or something.
:confused:

Clearly this wall is one of the 19% of Americans who believes they are in the top 1% of earners. If not, he might be the further 20% who believes he will one day be in the top 1%.

That's 39%, by the way, who, against their own self-interest, will vote in the interests of the very few. Ironic considering the way Ovi is always criticizing buyers of lottery tickets. You can't blame him for hoping.

maybe from where he came from his income would put him in the top 1 percent, but he wasn't born and raised here so he has no notion of what the top 1 percent in the richest country in the world is like

it takes a lot of years being here to see it, and preferably being around a lot of rich people to see that they are still doing quite well, even after all the taxes they pay

fiscally speaking, i don't feel sorry for the rich

he will realize that if he even makes it to the top 1/4 of the income earners, he will have more money than the vast majority of the citizens of the world

[mischief]

Just to stir the pot MORE (as if it's neccessary!) :

For my own research into a sci-fi piece I'm building in another thread.... How would a Universal downstream transaction tax work? Say 2%?

If we're looking down the line a bit (50 to 100 years) and talking about a world with more homogenous and automated economic infrastructure would a 2% tax on every transaction be enough to cover global infrastructure?

This would be a Tax on money ONLY when it's spent or withdrawn from an account as cash. This would also be the ONLY form of Taxation. The idea would be to use a universal and de-centralized global banking system with a very high degree of security, built in anonymity and totally bulletproof biometric verification. This is a BIG what-if with a lot of assumptions but it's a neccesary what-if to get the background for the sci-fi piece writtten.

BTW: As much as the Bush plan is off kilter in the short term ENTITLEMENT BREEDS A LAZY AND CATTLE-LIKE MENTALITY IN THE CULTURE. BAIL-OUTS CREATE EXACTLY THE KIND OF **** UPS FREE-MARKETEERS LIKE TO USE AS SCARE TACTICS TO AVOID REAL SOCIAL PROGRAMS LIKE UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE. Now that I'm done with my little socialist rant you can get on with argueing about symantics while the world's economy collapses.:rolleyes: ;) :D :eek:

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by mischief


while the world's economy collapses.:rolleyes: ;) :D :eek:

the world economy has been collapsed since the early 90s...and george w bush is gonna save em all:p

[SPG]

The world economies have been in big trouble for a while. Let's take an example many of you have seen already.
Corp X can produce service/product A at 20% less than the existing model.
Corp X then sells service/product A at 10% less, and captures 50% of the market.
The companies in the existing model cannot compete and many close shop altogether while others make do with less market share and lower income.
This is what business strives to do, but more often today the X is simply cutting costs to achieve the market share and sales with little regard for improving anything outside their immediate sales cycle. Where do those costs get cut from? Cheap overseas labor, buying in volume, financial advantages, and other benefits of economies of scale...but no improvement in the product or service itself and often a negative impact on the comunity it is supposed to serve.

Look at Wal-Mart. They come in to a community and set up on the edge of town. Low rent, no spillover of customers to neighboring business. Consumers will go there to save 10-20% on their purchases and who can blame them. The end result however is that the businesses in the center of that community are unable to compete based on price alone, and so they let employees go or shut down. Now the center of the community loses the entrepeneurs who were making good salaries, the landlords lose high rent spaces, and those same people wind up working Part Time for minimum wage at Wal Mart. The plus side is that average shoppers save money on their purchases, but the downside is that the rest of the community will suffer long term.

I'm not proposing banning of Wal Mart or any other company that can do it cheaper, I'm just pointing out that not all of what business models view as positive are ultimately that. A push to improve shareholder values of stock can translate into massive layoffs. Other Corporations follow the trend. The unemployed won't have the resources to purchase the products and keep the economy moving and so all stock values will fall. Now that there are fewer people buying the corporations cut back further and on we go.

A cut in the dividend tax can mean a much greater tax on all further down the road.

[mcrain]

Originally posted by mischief
If we're looking down the line a bit (50 to 100 years) and talking about a world with more homogenous and automated economic infrastructure would a 2% tax on every transaction be enough to cover global infrastructure?

This would be a Tax on money ONLY when it's spent or withdrawn from an account as cash. This would also be the ONLY form of Taxation. The idea would be to use a universal and de-centralized global banking system with a very high degree of security, built in anonymity and totally bulletproof biometric verification. This is a BIG what-if with a lot of assumptions but it's a neccesary what-if to get the background for the sci-fi piece writtten.

BTW: As much as the Bush plan is off kilter in the short term ENTITLEMENT BREEDS A LAZY AND CATTLE-LIKE MENTALITY IN THE CULTURE. BAIL-OUTS CREATE EXACTLY THE KIND OF **** UPS FREE-MARKETEERS LIKE TO USE AS SCARE TACTICS TO AVOID REAL SOCIAL PROGRAMS LIKE UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE. Now that I'm done with my little socialist rant you can get on with argueing about symantics while the world's economy collapses.:rolleyes: ;) :D :eek:

I have no idea if the 2% on transactions would be sufficient to cover the world's expenditures. That's a far more complicated economics question than I am qualified to even guess at.

The problem I see with a tax on transactions is that is discouraging transactions. The oil for the economy is transactions. The more money flows freely from person to person, business to business, the better the economy does. When people hold onto their money or just let it sit, that money doesn't do anything, and the economy just stagnates.

The spin liberals would put on that is that for those people who live from paycheck to paycheck, the 2% will apply to every dollar they earn, while the wealthy can shield the vast majority of their assets from taxation merely by sticking it in mutual funds, real estate, and other long term investments.

Republicans would argue that the tax is fair, flat and would point to the statistical evidence showing the large amounts of taxes collected from the wealthy.

I don't know if it would work. I think fundamentally, I'd be opposed to the idea, but that's an opinion based on speculation and a massive lack of information.

[wwworry]

If you have seen the footage of local dairy farmers in Jamaica pouring out their milk because of cheaper imports it makes you think.

What happened after that was that the local agriculture was destroyed and then a lot of people could not afford the supposedly cheaper imports. Hunger went up because of cheaper imports!

Take the example of local fishermen. One guy gets a power boat, because of more supply local prices fall and previously independant fishermen are all now working for the guy with the powerboat. He is now making money at a much faster rate and everyone else has less than before. More fish are being caught but the local fishermen are not benefiting from it. The real benefits go to the global market and lower prices there.

I will be the first to admit that the world's food supply is much larger than ever before and supporting more people than ever before. The above examples were just to point out that inclusion into the global marketplace is not always beneficial to everyone and is complicated.

The really crazy thing is that there is not more research into sustainable energy and more emphasis on population control. In 50 years there will be no more oil. Then what?

PS: maybe we will have the G5 by then.

[mischief]

Originally posted by mcrain


I have no idea if the 2% on transactions would be sufficient to cover the world's expenditures. That's a far more complicated economics question than I am qualified to even guess at.

The problem I see with a tax on transactions is that is discouraging transactions. The oil for the economy is transactions. The more money flows freely from person to person, business to business, the better the economy does. When people hold onto their money or just let it sit, that money doesn't do anything, and the economy just stagnates.

The spin liberals would put on that is that for those people who live from paycheck to paycheck, the 2% will apply to every dollar they earn, while the wealthy can shield the vast majority of their assets from taxation merely by sticking it in mutual funds, real estate, and other long term investments.

Republicans would argue that the tax is fair, flat and would point to the statistical evidence showing the large amounts of taxes collected from the wealthy.

I don't know if it would work. I think fundamentally, I'd be opposed to the idea, but that's an opinion based on speculation and a massive lack of information.

Being that this is for futurist fiction you most certainly ARE qualified.;)

I am certainly aware of the effect it would initially have but I was guessing that because the tax happens only when money goes out of an account it would ballance out after a while as people realize they have more disposable income overall.

The 2% was just a number I pulled out of the air.... I'm quite confident that a significantly smaller number could cover budgetary needs.

I could honestly care less what the 2 major USA parties would say on the subject as I concieved of this to be a truely global system designed to pay for global infrastructure and socialized medicine.

Basically I was wondering what the raw economic merit would be as this is something I'd be using to design a fictitious interstellar civilization and need to make some basic cultural shifts to make the whole thing work.

Besides, I feel that a Tax that both encourages you to THINK before spending money and pays for essential services can't help but be a good thing.:cool:

[Durandal7]

I'm inclined to agree with Mcrain, both parties have fundamental flaws in their tax plans. These flaws ought to be fairly obvious to an objective observer who understands the system even marginally.

mischief, I agree with you on socialized medicine in theory. The only problem I have supporting it is that the US government won't be able to get it's head out of it's ass and make a fast, efficient system of health insurance. You need only look to the Veteran's health insurance program to see a government train wreck. Once the government comes up with a plan that will somehow cut the BS down to a manageable level then I will support it. Otherwise I fear that the plan would turn into Amtrak for hospitals.

[mischief]

The timeline I'm using has this starting off as a private service of online banking and unified data services that grows into a Global network which is later adopted as the official global system. I'll write it all out soon in the other thread.

[Ovi]

11

[sturm375]

Originally posted by Ovi


sturm375 I am going to give you the benefit of doubt on the way you interperted the data shown and did not think about before you made your statements.

this goes for all you liberals who agreed with him by not pointing out the errors.

but if you did think about it and used simple logic and analytical ability, then you suddenly become guilty of all those sins we republicans accuse liberals of. mostly hyprocracy and telling half truths.

50K+ group does not equate to 13.9% of the population who benefit from the tax cuts.

From that chart we don't know the following info.

What percentage of those in the 13.9% are married?

This question alone could increase the number significantly if half of those are married and have kids. How about if the 50K professional or skilled laborer is married to someone who does not work at all or someone who makes 30K or 40K. Or maybe they have one child or have 6 children.

Does the income specified include non taxable income or just actual wages?

This also can increase the number of people as well.

For now I will have to believe the Vice-President when he said the following. If he lied than the media will make sure and call him on it.

"And it's important to remember that more than 23 million small businesses will benefit from the President's plan, and within this group are to be found many women and recent immigrants. In fact, over the last five years, the number of women-owned businesses has increased by 14 percent nationwide -- twice the rate of the creation of firms overall. For the small business owners of this country, success comes through great effort and perseverance. And thanks to that enterprising spirit, smaller firms create the majority of new jobs and account for half of the private sector output of our entire economy.

Other critics have suggested that ending the double taxation of dividends is somehow tilted toward a small number of wealthy beneficiaries. The fact is that 54 million Americans own stocks that pay dividends. Moreover, 45 percent of all dividend recipients make under $50,000 per year. Let me repeat that: 45 percent of all dividend recipients make under $50,000 per year. Three-fourths of them make less than $100,000 per year. And it's important to remember that more than half of all dividend income goes to America's seniors, many of whom rely on these checks as a steady source of income in their retirement. "

The bottom line is that most socialists thinkers which most of you liberals here qualify as, would never accept the fact that the rich pay most of the income tax, because as far as you are concerned that is ok.

the rich make much more so why shouldn't they pay a bigger burden of gov. spending

You are right, these numbers don't take into account marrage, or children. On the flip side, this data does include those that don't make any money, and those that make so little money that they effectivly don't pay income taxes.

I enjoy being called a liberal, as I take it to mean that I go beyond what others have "told" me, and go find impartial data. Both the Dem's and the Repbub's statements seem fishy to me, but I could just be jaded and synical when it comes to these two parties.

The glaring statment that this data shows, is how much money in the US is in so few hands. It suprised me when I found it. I went looking for it after the first time I heard Rush talking about the: 50% pop paying 96% of the income. What I questioned, not the accuracy of this statement, but what more can be learned. Truth is, looking at the data, the top 49% of the pop (including poverty, homeless, and unemployed) are paid 86+% of the total income. This means that the upper 50% are paying an extra 10%. In order to get the same amount of money to the governemt, and even out the tax (flat tax) the lower 51% would be further driven to being poor. Forgive me for any weird math, it's late, and I'm tired.

Good Night:)

[SPG]

ovi, getting a tax break of $15 is not the same as getting a tax break of $150,000 or a tax break of $15,000,000.
Great. I will see an extra $15 this year, but should that be grounds to loot the treasury for the extremely wealthy?

[Ovi]

11

[SPG]

Another quote for you Ovi,

I?ve never met Representative Donald Manzullo (R.-Ill.), and I?m sure, if he ever reads this, he won?t want to meet me. But, if you visit his Web site, you?ll find the best argument possible against President Bush's plan to abolish taxes on stock dividends.

Mr. Manzullo chairs the House?s Small Business Committee; like any good Republican -- indeed, like any good American -- he is a booster of the kind of adventurous spirit that makes people go out and start up Mom and Pop companies. These are the corner stores, the dry-cleaning shops, the hardware stores, even the boutiques and art galleries that individuals put their hearts and souls into to get a purchase on the American Dream while performing a service to the community.

As Congressperson Manzullo points out, there are more than 22 million small businesses in this country. They employ 51 percent of workers in the private sector. They produce between two-thirds and three-quarters of new jobs in the private sector.

Women are the primary owners of more than five million small businesses, and at least partial owners of more than nine million. According to the latest figures available to the representative, Native American ownership of small businesses increased 84 percent in the 1990s; Asian and Hispanic firms rose by 30 percent; African-American-owned firms went up 24 percent.

Half of our nation?s gross domestic product in the mid-90?s came from small businesses.

The point of this is simple: If Bush's current stimulus plan had gone into effect last year, George W. Bush would have paid almost $45,000 less in taxes. According to The New York Times, a small business owner who made $40,000 might have saved $126; the wealthiest one percent of taxpayers would benefit the most.

But big businesses that pay dividends on stock, and the people who own their shares, are not the engine of the American economy. What keeps us economically safe and whole are those small businesses that get the fewest tax breaks, take the biggest risks, and can?t get senators and congresspeople on the phone when they run into trouble. You can have an honest debate on whether or not it was proper for the Feds to bail out Chrysler; you wouldn?t even imagine them bailing out Joe?s Pizzeria or Maggie?s Taxi.

Typically, small business don?t issue stock. The "little people," as many politicians often condescendingly call them, take the risks, do the work, and create the jobs, with no Skull and Bones protector waiting in the wings to bail them out and shovel money into their pockets. When the economy does a pratfall, they feel the pain long before General Electric does.

Mr. President, enjoy your tax break. But don?t be surprised if, by this time next year, you can?t find any place in Washington where you can get a shoeshine or find a slice with pepperoni.

This is Mike Ryan for TomPaine.com
http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/7063

[SPG]

Ovi, I think that for a moment we need to remove the claim of class warfare and focus instead on how cutting a tax that falls mostly on the wealthy is an economic stimulus.
What is it, if not trickle down?

[3rdpath]

mischief...good points...i think rep. alan keyes actually proposed a transactional tax during the 2000 debates. it would work...but it'll never be embraced by the wealthy members of either major political party.

regarding the dividend tax break...yes statistically many people with incomes under 50k own stocks that pay dividends...but the majority of these stocks are in tax-deferred investments such as 401k's and IRA's...the tax break on dividends would have a neglible effect on these investments..and absolutely no effect on them in the near-term. this tax break is only a good deal for the very very wealthy. we're talking the top 1% of the top 1%. thats the bottom line no matter how you spin it. and if thats the lead component for economic stimulus...we're in a world of trouble.

what will stimulate the economy? programs that relieve some of the financial burdens of the tax payer...health programs would be a good start. another would be better tax breaks for schooling and child care. and anything to help small business owners would be a wise investment in our country's future.

will this happen..probably not.

what we're going to see, im afraid, is a US version of the japanese recession. their market has done nothing for almost 2 decades...they're still not sure if their index has bottomed out. now that's frightening. and don't forget that 25 to 30 years ago we( the US) were worshiping the japanese as the best managers, economists and producers in history...funny how things change.

[wwworry]

Not only are some of the people who benefit from the tax cut married, they also KNOW a lot of people. For instance, each of the major beneficiaries of the tax cut probably have at least 5 good friends. Those friends will be happy for their friend who got the tax cut. The friend who got the tax cut might buy them all a nicer gift. So in that way, it's really a tax cut for everyone.

and now another one from the NYTimes

Stimulus For Lawyers (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/14/opinion/14KRUG.html)

In fact, even some of the lobbyists you would have expected to cheer the plan now believe that it is so complex as to be unworkable.

By now you've probably read a lot about the economics of the administration's plan; all the criticisms are true. The plan has nothing to do with stimulus, since less than a dime on the dollar will arrive in the next year. Its benefits are almost ludicrously tilted toward the very, very affluent. (Exercise for readers: Explain how the administration can claim that the average family receives a $1,083 tax cut, when 80 percent of families will receive less than $1,000, most less than $300.)

But you may not be aware of the huge technical problems with the plan's centerpiece, an end to taxes on dividends.

The slogan was simple enough: "No more double taxation." Corporations, it was said, pay taxes on their profits — so let's not tax the same income again, when it's paid out as dividends. But the slogan was simplistic. On one hand, in our loophole-ridden system many profitable corporations pay little or no profits tax (and the new plan, by the way, will still leave corporations eager to exploit every loophole they can). On the other hand, retirement accounts, which receive most of the dividends paid to middle-class investors, are already sheltered from taxes.

A simple end to dividend taxation, then, would be a blatant giveaway to the rich: it would allow some wealthy investors to pay no taxes at all. That's too much, even for the Bush administration.

So the actual plan is much more complicated: Dividends will be tax-free only if the company that pays them is deemed to have paid sufficient profits taxes.

That's only a minor complication, but it gets worse. Companies that reinvest their profits complained about the plan. So there's another fix: when companies choose not to pay the allowed amount of tax-free dividends, the dividends not paid will be counted against capital gains for stockholders, reducing their taxes when they sell the stock. This makes sense, sort of; but it means that individual taxpayers will have to maintain elaborate records, and it also opens substantial new possibilities for abuse.

Are you confused? So are the experts.

[sturm375]

Originally posted by sturm375


You are right, these numbers don't take into account marrage, or children. On the flip side, this data does include those that don't make any money, and those that make so little money that they effectivly don't pay income taxes.

I enjoy being called a liberal, as I take it to mean that I go beyond what others have "told" me, and go find impartial data. Both the Dem's and the Repbub's statements seem fishy to me, but I could just be jaded and synical when it comes to these two parties.

The glaring statment that this data shows, is how much money in the US is in so few hands. It suprised me when I found it. I went looking for it after the first time I heard Rush talking about the: 50% pop paying 96% of the income. What I questioned, not the accuracy of this statement, but what more can be learned. Truth is, looking at the data, the top 49% of the pop (including poverty, homeless, and unemployed) are paid 86+% of the total income. This means that the upper 50% are paying an extra 10%. In order to get the same amount of money to the governemt, and even out the tax (flat tax) the lower 51% would be further driven to being poor. Forgive me for any weird math, it's late, and I'm tired.

Good Night:)

Here are some more numbers for you. Since Rush, and many conservitives seem to like a "flat tax" lets see what that will do. I am making some assumptions here, and I'll list them:
1) Government Spending does not decrease (Big Assumption!)
2) Since I can't break my data up into upper and lower 50% of the population, I'll break it up to upper 49% (paying 95% of the taxes) and lower 51% (paying 5% of the taxes). This is slightly adjusted from the Rush numbers of Upper 50% paying 96% of the taxes.

Total tax burdon on individuals (ie not corporate taxes):
$1.991 Trillion found here (http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0#t3)

To get a flat tax, the upper 49% of the population, which takes in more than 85% of the income, should pay 85% of the taxes right?

Total income: $5.599827898 Trillion
95% of the taxes=$1.89145 Trillion
Flat Tax: 85% of the taxes=$1.69235 Trillion
Adjusted by: -$199.1 Billion

Total Income: $845.864826 Billion
5% of the taxes=$99.55 Billion
Flat Tax: 15% of the taxes=$298.65 Billion
Adjusted by: +$199.1 Billion

After the adjustment
Upper 49% pay 30.2% of their income
Lower 51% pay 35.3% of their income

This is why Rush Limbaugh is WRONG. Just a 10% adjustment would drive the poor to be poorer(is that a word?) and the rich, richer.

[sturm375]

My mistake, I pulled the wrong number for taxes from the CBO website. Instead of 1.991 Trillion, it should be 994.3 Billion This changes the numbers I calculated, but not the message:

Originally posted by sturm375


Here are some more numbers for you. Since Rush, and many conservitives seem to like a "flat tax" lets see what that will do. I am making some assumptions here, and I'll list them:
1) Government Spending does not decrease (Big Assumption!)
2) Since I can't break my data up into upper and lower 50% of the population, I'll break it up to upper 49% (paying 95% of the taxes) and lower 51% (paying 5% of the taxes). This is slightly adjusted from the Rush numbers of Upper 50% paying 96% of the taxes.

Total tax burdon on individuals (ie not corporate taxes):
$1.991 Trillion found here (http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0#t3)

Should be: $994.3 Billion for Total Tax Burdon
Originally posted by sturm375

To get a flat tax, the upper 49% of the population, which takes in more than 85% of the income, should pay 85% of the taxes right?

Total income: $5.599827898 Trillion
95% of the taxes=$1.89145 Trillion
Flat Tax: 85% of the taxes=$1.69235 Trillion
Adjusted by: -$199.1 Billion

Numbers should be:
$5.599827898 Trillion Total Income
$944.585 Billion Taxes @ 95% of the burdon
$845.155 Billion Taxes @ 85% of the burdon
-$99.43 Billion Adjustment

Originally posted by sturm375

Total Income: $845.864826 Billion
5% of the taxes=$99.55 Billion
Flat Tax: 15% of the taxes=$298.65 Billion
Adjusted by: +$199.1 Billion

Numbers should be:
$845.864826 Billion Total Income
$49.715 Billion Taxes @ 5% of the burdon
$149.145 Billion Taxes @ 15% of the burdon
+$99.43 Billion Adjustment

Originally posted by sturm375

After the adjustment
Upper 49% pay 30.2% of their income
Lower 51% pay 35.3% of their income



Numbers should be:
Upper 49% pay 15.1% of their income
Lower 51% pay 17.6% of their income

Prior to the change the numbers are:
Upper 49% pay 16.9% of their income
Lower 51% pay 5.9% of their income

Originally posted by sturm375

This is why Rush Limbaugh is WRONG. Just a 10% adjustment would drive the poor to be poorer(is that a word?) and the rich, richer.

At least I will admit my mistakes, and make corrections. I am sure these numbers are not totally accurate, but they are the best I've found to go on. If you know of any better place for numbers on these subjects, please post a link, I'd like to review them, and possible adjust my assesment.

I've also heard about a Dynamic way of finding the results of tax cuts, that includes some formula for increased tax revenues after a tax cut.

I've yet to find this formula, I think it's a matter of National Security, and no-one outside the White House is allowed to have this formula. :D (to those without a sense of humor, that was a joke.)

[wwworry]

you cant do it by splitting it 50/50. Or, at least, it would be better to calculate the before and after using a more subtle range of numbers. It's more grey than 50/50. The thing to watch is the top 1% and the bottom 20%.

If there was a way to get everyone to pay exactly what they are paying now (actually 2 years ago) but with less dependence on arcane lobbiest generated exceptions I would be all in favor of that. Then we could have an actual debate instead of all this talk-radio lying and spin. It would also have to account for local taxes.

It's weird how much greater the wealth is in the top 1% is than the top 10%. That difference is not as great at the bottom end of the scale.

[jefhatfield]

hey y'all

look at this weeks cover of businessweek at the newsstand!

...and golly...from a right of center mag!!!

[Ovi]

11

[wwworry]

Bush gets $44,000 from his tax cut.
Cheeney gets $327,000 from his latest tax cut on dividends.

If anyone can tell me how this is anything but a money grab, let me know.

[SPG]

Originally posted by Ovi
well guys it has been fun.

Bush in my mind has been greatly influenced by Churchill and I see many similarities between the two.
Yup, they were both drunks!

Originally posted by Ovi
i have no idea when we will go to war, but when it starts this tax debate becomes trivial.
So the war is just a ploy to take attention away from the economy!

Originally posted by Ovi
the tax debate is over as far as i am concerned. most of you made up your minds and will always be stuck on how unfair it is and how it will do nothing for the economy. ( i will put in your concerns to my white house buddies) bush will get it passed and its size will surprise even us die hard conservatives.

this thread will die unless someother conservative joins it, othewise it will follow a typical pattern once i no longer comment. you are more than welcome to pat each others backs and preach to the choir among yourselves.

good night:)
So, what you're saying is that we are all right, that it is just a big old payback to the very rich with no regard for actually stimulating economic growth, but since the war will conveniently start nobody will pay attention to it and it will pass whether it's the right thing or not. Thank you for the clarification that you cannot come up with any logical explanation or rationalization of this idiotic plan

[3rdpath]

Originally posted by Ovi

Bush in my mind has been greatly influenced by Churchill and I see many similarities between the two.


i just spewed dr pepper on my computer screen...

that is without a doubt the single most fantastically humorous comparison i have ever read. my microwave oven has more in common with churchill than bush does.

please ovi, list your comparisons of bush and churchill.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by 3rdpath


i just spewed dr pepper on my computer screen...

that is without a doubt the single most fantastically humorous comparison i have ever read. my microwave oven has more in common with churchill than bush does.

please ovi, list your comparisons of bush and churchill.

bush will have to do quite a lot to get compared to churchill...and if he does, it will be a lot better than the bush we have had so far

[sturm375]

Let me interpret

Originally posted by Ovi
well guys it has been fun.

Since I can't come back with numbers that support my ideas.

Originally posted by Ovi

i just finished Churchll's first book on the history of WW II and loved every minute of it. i now have 2500 more pages to read from the rest of the other 5 books.
Bush in my mind has been greatly influenced by Churchill and I see many similarities between the two. Churchill was much more controversial and less diplomatic i might add.

I'm smarter than you, read more important books than you, and my buddy Bush is better than you too.

Originally posted by Ovi

next week I have been invited once again to observe an army unit conduct desert warfare. the last brigade that i observed was part of the 1st calvary division from Ft. Hood Texas. they have been put on alert last week so you should here a call up in the next two week.

i have no idea when we will go to war, but when it starts this tax debate becomes trivial.

the tax debate is over as far as i am concerned. most of you made up your minds and will always be stuck on how unfair it is and how it will do nothing for the economy. ( i will put in your concerns to my white house buddies) bush will get it passed and its size will surprise even us die hard conservatives.

I have even more friends in high places. I still can't come up with counter arguments against actual numbers. My mind is set, and I can't hear you Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Bush will make it better, so I don't have to listen to you.


Originally posted by Ovi

this thread will die unless someother conservative joins it, othewise it will follow a typical pattern once i no longer comment. you are more than welcome to pat each others backs and preach to the choir among yourselves.

good night:)

I've been proping this thread up, and without me, it will die.



Now that I am done interpreting Ovi-speak. I would seriously like to hear some real arguments on the other side. I want to see numbers, formulas, and proof. If these can be provided, I will look at them with an open mind (that's the definition of a liberal). At this point, I don't see any reason to trust Bush43. I haven't trusted him, or his adminastration since he instituted the Steel Tariffs. Just point me in the right direction, please.

[SPG]

I don't think we'll be hearing back from ovi on this one.

[mischief]

Funny thing is... I started this thread by stating that I agree with 1 thing about Bush's tax plan: That dividends shouldn't be taxed higher than capital gains from trading.

I also stated that I was neither conservative nor liberal but a Socialist raised with Canadian values. The two main parties in Canada were, for the longest time the Conservative and Liberal Parties. The two terms as applied here in the States have been mutated somewhat from there core definitions.

"Liberal" Is now a term used by the Republicans to describe an archetype of politician that was constructed by their spin doctors to frighten their Free-Market and Christian Fundamentalist voting base with imges of a white, intellectual "Tax-and-spend" booggie man.

"Conservative" Is now a term invented by the same group to be the fiscally responsible Palladin in those same Spin Fairy Tales.

The terms "Right" and "Left" wing are now terms used by the corresponding Democrats to describe similar boogie man vs. Palladin archetypes.

Interestingly enough both boogiemen have been taken to heart by most Americans leaving a very few to adopt the Palladin models from either side. The result is that both parties are viewed in their negative-spin archetype as created by the other side and the populus assumes all politicians to be scumbags. the natural result is that social pressures turn even the most dedicated public servants into narcissistic, bitter assholes.

[diorio]

Originally posted by sturm375



Now that I am done interpreting Ovi-speak. I would seriously like to hear some real arguments on the other side. I want to see numbers, formulas, and proof. If these can be provided, I will look at them with an open mind (that's the definition of a liberal). At this point, I don't see any reason to trust Bush43. I haven't trusted him, or his adminastration since he instituted the Steel Tariffs. Just point me in the right direction, please.

Oh, and none of his arguments were valid? That is why Ovi left the thread, because no matter what he said, it was said to be false, even if there were numbers, formulas or proof to back it up.

[diorio]

Originally posted by SPG
I don't think we'll be hearing back from ovi on this one.

And hopefully not SPG.:rolleyes:

[vniow]

Originally posted by diorio


Oh, and none of his arguments were valid? That is why Ovi left the thread, because no matter what he said, it was said to be false, even if there were numbers, formulas or proof to back it up.


Okay, instead of being Ovi's bodyguard here for a minute, why don't you back up his arguments or present some of your own?


Originally posted by diorio
And hopefully not SPG.:rolleyes:


Productive. Really.

[diorio]

Originally posted by vniow



Okay, instead of being Ovi's bodyguard here for a minute, why don't you back up his arguments or present some of your own?
Productive. Really.

Us conservatives have to stick together, but anyways, did you read SPG's post before it was edited? Talk about closed minded immaturity.

[SPG]

Originally posted by diorio


And hopefully not SPG.:rolleyes:

Oh pooh!

Originally posted by diorio


Us conservatives have to stick together, but anyways, did you read SPG's post before it was edited? Talk about closed minded immaturity.

Yeah, I read it, in fact I wrote it and the frustration of debating a blockhead that won't ever admit that he's wrong, or that his beloved leader is trying to screw the common man brought out some potty mouth on my part. Big Deal. My only apology is to Arn, for having to go in and edit it.

When this tax cut was announced, oh wait "economic stimulus" my first reaction, was: Good! Finally some effort to improve the economy.
I heard the "double taxation" claim and thought, well my paycheck gets taxed, then my purchases get taxed, and that money gets taxed all the way through the system.
I also realized that my investments are mainly in 401k so they're not subject to dividend tax.
So who's going to benefit? Big established corporations that pay dividends and the very wealthy people who own very large blocks of stock.
New and growing corporations won't benefit since they generally reinvest their profits to keep their companies growing. So if this is an incentive to pay dividends then won't it discourage growth in small companies? Whoa, I thought the plan was to increase growth.
Well then, $670,000,000,000 is a lot of money, even if over ten years. So surely that will spur growth, won't it? Yes, but...
And this is where the turnaround happened. Outside of the RNC mouthpieces very few experts are saying this plan is the right way to go. It's not the best path to stimulating the economy. To kickstart the economy there needs to be an infusion of cash at the bottom end to spur spending, investment, ....ah this is a brick wall with the hardcore conservatives...

[wwworry]

I could see a conservative saying we need a smaller government, less taxes, pro-life, less gun control etc. These are all legitimate arguments.

But I can not see anyone who is not in the top 5% of income earners supporting the latest Bush tax cuts. It just does not make any sence, nor does it add up in any way that's good for the people not in the top 5%. Bigger deficits which lead directly to more taxation eventually on those whose taxes are not being cut.

Nor can I see how one can talk about taxes without considering ALL the taxes people pay. Not just the federal income tax.

Just to let you know that there are plenty of conservatives who do not support the Bush tax cuts. Thay can find a way to look at federal policy as more than just sport and blind loyalty to a particular party. For instance there are a lot of people that are pro-life and anti- deathpenalty. Pro gun control and pro school vouchers is another common set of beliefs that do not sit neatly within the particular parties.

My problem with Ovi is his blind loyalty to Bush even when all the evidence ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE points to it being a rather foolhardy position. I see it as our responsibility to think clearly about each particular issue and make our voices clear as well. We do not have to choose the sides given to us. We can make our own sides.

[wwworry]

This just in:

WASHINGTON, Jan. 15 — The White House said today that the federal deficit would exceed $200 billion in this fiscal year and probably go over $300 billion next year, the largest budget shortfall in dollar terms in history.