Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Dec 27, 2004.
there's your answer, IJ Reilly.
BTW, Texas has no state income tax.
Also, the maximum state income tax in Oregon is 9.0%, which should put it above NY...
I don't think this will fly - for example, CO and AK also have high state income taxes(I believe) and they are GOP states...I don't think anyone will like this, either side of the partisan aisle, as States are strapped for cash as it is...
ahh the NYTIMES!
Well, blue states have been saying that everyone needs to pay more taxes! here is their opportunity to lead the way!
On the subj, my bro-n-law, a big kerry fan, was asking me questions about how to pay less taxes!!!! I howled!!!!!!!!
Answer #1, dont vote democrat.
such a tired generality. do you truly believe the bush administration is the shining beacon of fiscal responsibility? do you have any evidence that the overall tax burden for the middle class has decreased under the bush administration?
also, please point me to the nytimes liberal bias in the article. i'd like the exact line, please.
No the W admin is not a bright shining beacon of fiscal responsibility, but I am tired of the so called balanced budget we were supposed to have too. those budgets were built on the lie of the 90s (enron worldcom and dotcom).
I am not aware of war time surpluses in the 20th century, and don't expect them in the 21st.
Liberal bias would be the alarmist title vs the buried quote.
You see there is no particular plan yet, so how could it imperil anyone?!
this is the buried quote which is also conveniently missing from your post as well...
Sorry stu, this cat was out of the bag long before I read about in a NY Times article. The administration began running this idea up the flagpole a couple of weeks ago. Don't believe for a second that this isn't something they'd like to do in the name of "tax reform;" the only question is whether it's politically feasible. I'm going to take a WAG and say it isn't. They'd sooner be able to eliminate the mortgage interest deduction.
Incidentally, I wonder what the administration would call this "reform" -- surely not "tax relief."
hey stu, here's some data on the kinds of things that are costing people more, even if they have seen nominal declines in federal tax rates. for good measure, i've thrown in some service cuts, too. this list is be no means exhaustive.
CS Monitor: Property taxes rising nationwide
CNN: College costs spike again
Economic Policy Institute: Weak Recovery Claims New Victim: Workers' Wages
LA Times, on job training funds
Detroit News, on job training
Yeah, but gas prices are down like 15 cents!
BTW, my out-of-pocket health insurance costs tripled this coming year while the benefits were slashed. Yay!
#2 put all your excessive spending on credit. Why increase income??
So I guess 'could' and 'will' now mean the same thing?
The meaning of the title is very simple and in keeping with the content of the article: Bush's tax plan for his upcoming term COULD (as in: might, maybe, we'll see in the future) cause New York to pay more in taxes through losses in eligible write-offs. Did not the president say all options were on the table? Has his administration, as well as other Republicans, not indicated this is a possibility? Would that change not be bad for New York state?
Friggin' unbelievable. No excuse to label the Times as biased is too low for you, Stu.
I guess I'm the lowest, but please tell me what plan that they are refering to! I'll be waiting, cause they don't have one yet!!!! So you read things differently, so what. But in your argument it COULD also mean they will pay less taxes, only the liberal bias would have W making hilliary's constituents panicing early.
Friggin Unbelievable! No excuse to defend the Times as not biases is too quick for you, taft.
So when the Chicago Tribune reports on comments made by Governer Blagojevich indicating changes in State tax policy and how that might impact the Chicagoland area, that is conservative bias? Maybe, but don't you think it is something Americans want to know about? And when the Economist reports on likely effects of, say, privatized social security (something Bush has indicated support for, though he doesn't have a concrete "plan" for at this time), are they exposing their liberal bias? Maybe, but don't you think that Americans might want to see an analysis on the likely effect of that policy which is being considered for future implementation?
I understand that Bush doesn't have a "plan" yet, so long you define plan as a concrete set of steps or policies that have been layed out. But the fact remains that politicians routinely indicate support for or opposition to ideas and possible future policy changes, and those indications are routinely analyzed by the press. And when the policies being explored by politicians are going to have a large effect on a particular region, the press in that region--*shock* *gasp* *horror*--usually reports on those issues. I know it might seem crazy to you, but the Times might have concluded this policy being considered is newsworthy for New Yorkers. If I was a New Yorker, I'd want to hear about possible future policies which would impact me.
BTW, I REALLY enjoyed how you slipped a conspiratorial reference to the Clinton family into your post. If you look hard enough, I'm sure you'll find that the French, the UN, the ACLU and John Kerry were somhow involved in getting this article published as well.
Trust no-one! ... unless they are a conservative...
Stu, how can you accuse democrats of wanting to raise taxes then? I haven't heard any specific plan yet, but that doesn't stop you from assuming that's what they're gonna do. Sure they've talked about repealing the Bush tax cuts, but where's the plan, man? Without a specific plan you cannot criticize them, right? Or are those rules suspended when a Democrat is in your sights?
First, prices have risen since the dawn of time and will continue to do so. College, property taxes etc...have risen under Dems and Repubs so spare me. Almost all tax relief since JFK ( who had it right ) has been under republican control ( congress or prez ).
If the press wants to report possible changes they shouldn't predict doom, or atleast state the other possible changes. But thats the press.
Zim, I am hopeful for service decreases/cuts, or at least the privatizing of them-government is awful at it. Taft, I refuse to address every article about every person you want to dredge up. NYTimes article has a liberal bias, period.
Mact, I have accused the dems based on historical precidence, not on any particular new quest.
My position on taxes has been stated adnausem.
The article is biased.
you exhibit a serious flaw of reasoning which ignores degree and specificity. yes, prices go up, but it's folly to dismiss all mention of price increases as partisan because of that while ignoring what is increasing in price and by how much.
because they speculate on a possible outcome? is imagination itself liberal? is concern for future situation liberal? you'll have to do better than that. way better.
Stu, what is your opinion of Medicare and/or the reforms passed during Bush's first term?
I'm a little confused by stu's opinions on this topic. I can't determine if he is for or against this possible change in federal income tax law, or if he just doesn't want to believe that the Bush administration or Republicans in Congress would consider making it. The only thing that seems apparent is that he'd rather we don't know or talk about it (which perhaps answers my other questions).
it's that the new york times has a liberal bias. therefore, democrats like to raise taxes.
Ah, I see. Thank you.
zim, darn close but actually
it's that the new york times has a liberal bias, AND democrats like to raise taxes.
I didn't dredge up any articles. I just gave some similar situations which occur in conservative leaning publications as an illustration of my point: the press analyzes hints left by politicans and the possible impacts of those hints on the populace. Everybody does it, but when its the Times, their bias is showing.
Whatever. Your mode of argument is frustrating beyond belief.
The earth is flat. Period.
Liberals hate America. Period.
I am the Lord almighty. Period.
Amazing! I've just proved three highly dubious statements in only three lines!
Ahhh, the power of "Period"...
Your argument that the world is flat will not float, but believe what you choose.
I don't think liberals hate america, but I believe you are allowed your opinion.
I am positive that you are not the Lord Almighty! but that may reveal part of the problem here.
Because this liberal bias theme seems strange to some, it has been discussed to death in the rest of the world. An example
Stu, you ignoring my question?
Regardless, here is a link for you to read:
(everyone else feel free to look also)
I found it interesting...
wow, that's quite a page.
How would you have titled or reworked this article in order remove its liberal bias? As far as I can see, boiled down it said "Bush considers plan that could raise taxes in NY". How is that biased? Would you prefer "Bush bravely leads nation in raising freedom-revenues to destroy evil-doers"?