Bush the apprentice

[pajarito 0]

I'm no economist but it makes sense to me that, if you want to grow the economy, you have to encourage people to put money into it instead of taking a significant amount of it away. If I have more money in my pocket, I'm a lot more prone to go out an spend some of it. That's good for everybody.

[PhillyKev 0]

That works as a temporary stop gap to a sliding economy, but it is not an effective method for sustainable growth (ask an economist).

Also, some economists stated yesterday, specifically, the IMF, that the US deficit threatens the world economy and if not put into check soon will cause massive interest rate increases world wide.

[billvon 3,110]

>I'm no economist but it makes sense to me that, if you want to grow
> the economy, you have to encourage people to put money into it
> instead of taking a significant amount of it away.

So cut taxes when the economy's doing badly, to help the economy. Then cut taxes when the economy's doing well because the government has all that extra money. And cut taxes during election years, of course, to get re-elected. When do we raise them to pay for all the money we're spending?

Taxes should support the government. That's it. They should not be used as election year footballs or for economic tricks. Spend $50 trillion? Take in $50 trillion in taxes. Want a tax cut? Then cut spending. We've had enough disasters with massive national debts to think that we can just "print money" or something to finance our expenditures.

[SkydiveNFlorida 0]

Quote

You want some billionaire to have the power to "fire" an elected official?

.

LMAO!! Elected, haha. That's a good one!

Angela.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

You want some billionaire to have the power to "fire" an elected official?

LMAO!! Elected, haha. That's a good one!
Angela.

Angela, I think you need to have voted in Florida in 2000 to make that complaint. It wouldn't have taken many non voters to turn that state the other way. If you want Bush out this year, you owe it to yourself to show up. If it's close, Florida will be a key state and has to be won by Kerry.

Unfortunately, the notion that McCain Feingold dramatically increases the power of billionaires in elections is true. Should favor the GOP side.

[Kennedy 0]

Obviously you didn't bother to heed the suggestion to read up on "527"s or George Soros.

How can you claim that McCain Feingold made republican big money more of a factor? The limits are set now, no soft money. Meaning no matter how rich you are, you can only give so much. ($2,000 if memory serves)

Republican donors are going through the proper FEC channels. Democrat donors are the ones creating new organizations in an attempt to circumvent McCain-Feingold BCRA.


ps - as I recall, the recounts were done afterwards for shits and giggles, and every which way you sliced it, Bush won the state. Remember, if Gore even had the clout to win his own home state, Florida would never have mattered.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[benny 0]

Billvon, thanks for taking the torch while I was away working and drinking... mostly drinking but that's beside the point. Pajarito, I'm all for paying less in taxes, every self-loving human being alive is. The question is, which is better for the economy, lower marginal rates, or a balanced budget. I think the answer is clearly a balanced budget. As for someone's earlier claim that everyone got tax cuts, that's a fallacy. The lowest income earners in America received no tax break whatsoever (independent of child tax credits etc.). Now, you may claim that you and the rest of the ludicrously rich people deserve a tax break, but what about needing one... surely those who are below or just barely above the poverty line needed a tax break worse than you? But back to the point of actually helping the economy, maybe you all have heard of a little thing known as the marginal propensity to consume? This means, what portion of every extra dollar earned will you tend to spend... For that poor schmuck (oh damn I am that poor schmuck) below the poverty line, it's nearly 100 percent. For the rich guy who deserves the tax break, we'll assume and statistics support that it's much lower. What does this mean? Give a dollar to me or a dollar to Donald (Trump that is). If you want to help the economy, give the dollar to me, I'll spend it all. Or balance the budget and give it to the gov't, either way it's spent and recycled throughout the economy, not the case when you hand it back to a fat cat who doesn't need it. Not that he doesn't deserve it but the "tax breaks for the rich will save the world" myth has been debunked many times over.

Never go to a DZ strip show.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Obviously you didn't bother to heed the suggestion to read up on "527"s or George Soros.

I believe there are more Ruperts out there than George Soros types. And that there are more Democrats getting hozed because their unions have been neutered than us single issue righters in the NRA.

Quote

ps - as I recall, the recounts were done afterwards for shits and giggles, and every which way you sliced it, Bush won the state. Remember, if Gore even had the clout to win his own home state, Florida would never have mattered.

I know both of those. As well as if just a tiny percentage more residents in Florida had gone to the polls, it would have gone the other way. Believing a single vote didn't matter was a big part of the Florida defeat, and one that cannot be blamed on anyone else.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

As for someone's earlier claim that everyone got tax cuts, that's a fallacy. The lowest income earners in America received no tax break whatsoever (independent of child tax credits etc.).

well of course, they weren't paying any in the first place! Given that the 'upper class' got hit with all of the increases during the Clinton Administration to briefly balance the budget, it doesn't seem unfair that they should be enjoying any tax cuts.

Should tax cuts be given in a non recession at the expense of a deficit? No. I'm no fan of that. But it does have the one benefit of restricting increases in expenditures. I'd like to see limitations on spending in exchange for higher taxes. Otherwise, what keeps Bush from starting another war, or Gore from putting everyone in free nursery schools when they should be paying down the debt?

[tcnelson 1]

hahahaha! hilarious, bullshit, but hilarious. i wish i had that much free time.

"Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch
NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

I believe there are more Ruperts out there than George Soros types. And that there are more Democrats getting hozed because their unions have been neutered than us single issue righters in the NRA.

Actually I doubt that, but regardless of numbers, it's the "Soros types" who are creating, funding, and operating groups in an attempt to circumvent FEC rules. You have yet to address 527s. "America Coming Together" and the other dozen or so created after McCain Feingold.

Quote

As well as if just a tiny percentage more residents in Florida had gone to the polls, it would have gone the other way. Believing a single vote didn't matter was a big part of the Florida defeat, and one that cannot be blamed on anyone else.

You somehow assume that all voters in Florida who didn't vote are democrats. Why? If a "tiny percentage" more voters had gone to the polls, they could have expanded Bush's lead in the state, or kept the razor thin difference.

Indifference is to blame. There are quite a few states that chage from red to blue on a regular basis. They have voter turn out just as low as New York or Alabama, two of the most consistent states in the Union.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

As for someone's earlier claim that everyone got tax cuts, that's a fallacy. The lowest income earners in America received no tax break whatsoever

I paid less taxes for 2003 than I did during the Clinton years. I had a household income of less than $60,000 last year. Are you saying that I am rich?

Quote

independent of child tax credits etc

These are called "tax breaks". What you are actually saying is "independent of the tax breaks that everyone received, no one really got any tax breaks".

Being jealous of and punishing successful people in America might appeal to some people but that doesn't make it right. This is actually the agenda that the Democrats are trying to push. They are playing on people's jealousy.

The Democratic party is far from the defender of the poor and poverty stricken. Hell, some of the richest people in the country are supporting Kerry. Not to mention that Kerry is a millionaire because of his wife. Let's name a few: George Soros, Peter Lewis, Alec Baldwin, Kim Basinger, Rob Reiner, Rosie O'Donnell, Whoopi Goldberg, Martin Sheen, Susan Sarandon, Robert Altman, Barbra Streisand, Ted Kennedy. They could move to a $200,000 house, get rid of their maids, drivers, sell their extra cars, extra houses, jewelry, and bring almost everyone in the US out of poverty if they wanted to. Why don't they do that? Because that is not their real goal. The bottom line is the liberals are trying to gain the moral high ground with these popular causes in order to pursue their other, less popular, liberal goals.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

[benny 0]

Quote

Quote

As for someone's earlier claim that everyone got tax cuts, that's a fallacy. The lowest income earners in America received no tax break whatsoever

I paid less taxes for 2003 than I did during the Clinton years. I had a household income of less than $60,000 last year. Are you saying that I am rich?

Quote

independent of child tax credits etc

These are called "tax breaks". What you are actually saying is "independent of the tax breaks that everyone received, no one really got any tax breaks".

Well, I don't know your specific situation so I couldn't sat but if you are single with no dependents then 60k may not make you "rich" but it's certainly on the higher end of the income spectrum. As far as the latter statement and reply by you... umm, no, if you're poor and not popping out babies then you received no tax breaks. Republicans and democrats alike give such "child tax credits" because they like to appear
pro-family". I say fuck that, they should be giving me money back for not reporducing when I can't afford to! Give us incentive not to overpopulate, the incentive otherwise is great enough as it is.

Never go to a DZ strip show.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

You somehow assume that all voters in Florida who didn't vote are democrats. Why? If a "tiny percentage" more voters had gone to the polls, they could have expanded Bush's lead in the state, or kept the razor thin difference.

It's been long established that non voters tend to be Democrat, poorer, and younger than the voting population. This is why voter registration at the DMV is a Democrat supported concept, opposed by the GOP. An increase in the voting population favors the Democrats. The single example we have here, Angela, would have voted for Gore, or certainly not Bush.

So yes to erase the 500 (?? what was the final official delta?) vote lead, you'd likely need an extra 4 or 5 thousands voters to show.

[Erroll 80]

Quote

Liberal policy: Cater to the uneducated and impressionable masses. Hell, lying is almost expected within their ranks. It looks good on their resume.

I received this resume via email. You guys are more qualified than I to gauge it's accuracy.


George W. Bush

The White House, USA


EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE:

LAW ENFORCEMENT: I was arrested in Kennebunkport, Maine, in 1976 for

driving under the influence of alcohol. I pled guilty, paid a fine,

and had my driver's license suspended for 30 days. My Texas driving

record has been "lost" and is not available.


MILITARY: I joined the Texas Air National Guard and went AWOL. I

refused to take a drug test or answer any questions about my drug

use. By joining the Texas Air National Guard, I was able to avoid

combat duty in Vietnam.


COLLEGE: I graduated from Yale University with a low C average. I was

a cheerleader.


PAST WORK EXPERIENCE: I ran for U.S. Congress and lost.

I began my career in the oil business in Midland, Texas, in 1975. I

bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas. The

company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.


I bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that

took land using taxpayer money.


With the help of my father and our right-wing friends in the oil

industry (including Enron CEO Ken Lay), I was elected governor of

Texas.


ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS GOVERNOR OF TEXAS: I changed Texas pollution laws

to favor power and oil companies, making Texas the most polluted

state in the Union.


During my tenure, Houston replaced Los Angeles as the most

smog-ridden city in America.


I cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas treasury to the tune of billions

in borrowed money.


I set the record for the most executions by any governor in American

history.

With the help of my brother, the governor of Florida, and my father's

appointments to the Supreme Court, I became President after losing by

over 500,000 votes.


ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT: I am the first President in U.S.

history to enter office with a criminal record.


I invaded and occupied two countries at a continuing cost of over one

billion dollars per week.


I spent the U.S. surplus and effectively bankrupted the U.S. Treasury.

I shattered the record for the largest annual deficit in U.S. history.

I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any

12-month period and the all-time record for most foreclosures.


In my first year in office, over 2 million Americans lost their jobs.

I'm proud that the members of my cabinet are the richest of any

administration in U.S. history. My "poorest millionaire," Connie

Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker named after her.


I set the record for most campaign fundraising trips by a U.S. President.

I am the all-time U.S. and world record-holder for receiving the most

corporate campaign donations.


My largest lifetime campaign contributor, and one of my best friends,

Kenneth Lay, presided over the largest corporate bankruptcy fraud in

U.S. History, Enron.


My political party used Enron private jets and corporate attorneys to

assure my success with the U.S. Supreme Court during my election

decision.


More time and money was spent investigating the Monica Lewinsky

affair than has been spent investigating one of the biggest corporate

rip-offs in history.


I presided over the biggest energy crisis in U.S. history and refused

to intervene when corruption involving the oil industry was revealed.

I presided over the highest gasoline prices in U.S. history.

I changed the U.S. policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded

government contracts.


I've broken more international treaties than any President in U.S. history.

I withdrew the U.S. from the World Court of Law.



I refused to allow inspectors access to U.S. "prisoners of war"

detainees and thereby have refused to abide by the Geneva Convention.


I am the first President in history to refuse United Nations election

inspectors (during the 2002 U.S. election).


I set the record for fewest number of press conferences of any

President since the advent of television.


I set the all-time record for most days on vacation in any one-year

period. After taking off the entire month of August, I presided over

the worst security failure in U.S. history.


I garnered the most sympathy for the U.S. after the World Trade

Center attacks and less than a year later made the U.S. the most

hated country in the world, the largest failure of diplomacy in world

history.


I am the first President in U.S. history to order an unprovoked,

preemptive attack and the military occupation of a sovereign nation.

I did so against the will of the United Nations, the majority of U.S.

citizens, and the world community.


I am the first President in history to have a majority of Europeans

(71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and

security.


I have cut health care benefits for war veterans and support a cut in

duty benefits for active duty troops and their families -- in war time.


I am supporting development of a nuclear "Tactical Bunker Buster," a WMD.

I have so far failed to fulfill my pledge to bring Osama Bin Laden to

justice.


RECORDS AND REFERENCES: All records of my tenure as governor of

Texas are now in my father's library, sealed and unavailable for public

view.


All records of SEC investigations into my insider trading and my

bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public

view.


All records or minutes from meetings that I, or my Vice-president,

attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and

unavailable for public review.


PLEASE CONSIDER MY EXPERIENCE WHEN VOTING IN 2004.


PLEASE SEND THIS TO EVERY VOTER YOU KNOW.

[wmw999 2,584]

I don't like Bush as President and am extremely unlikely to vote for him. While I'm sure that piece is full of verifiable facts, it doesn't show the whole picture. It's pure spin and slant, and I'll bet something similarly slanted can be made about each person here.

The ones we do ourselves are called our resumes

Trust me when I tell you I'm not defending Bush; I live in Houston (that's the now-formerly most polluted city - LA has taken the trophy back), in Texas (the state with the "bankrupted treasury" and the most executions); George Bush is no stranger.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Erroll 80]

Quote

I don't like Bush as President and am extremely unlikely to vote for him. While I'm sure that piece is full of verifiable facts, it doesn't show the whole picture. It's pure spin and slant, and I'll bet something similarly slanted can be made about each person here.

The ones we do ourselves are called our resumes

Trust me when I tell you I'm not defending Bush; I live in Houston (that's the now-formerly most polluted city - LA has taken the trophy back), in Texas (the state with the "bankrupted treasury" and the most executions); George Bush is no stranger.

Wendy W.

Hi Wendy. I posted that with my tongue firmly in my cheek. If someone had sent me a similar one about Kerry I would've posted that too. I obviously have no direct interest in the two candidates but I do follow all political the debates on here closely and recognised several of the Bush-bashers' statements in the above CV. Believe me,I leave the real Bush-bashing and Kerry-kicking to the experts while I watch from a (considerable) distance!

[juanesky 0]

Sure, but you are already doing a great job bashing US.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[Erroll 80]

Quote

Sure, but you are already doing a great job bashing US.

I have explained to Wendy the purpose of my posting that resume. Either you did not get it, or you will have to show me where else I have bashed YOU/The US. (I am not sure which you are referring to in your post).

[Ron 10]

Quote

You have a lot of options for income tax computation:

-Per amount used. In some ways this is the most "fair." Those who use the most services get taxed the most. Since the poor often make heavy use of government assistance programs, they would get taxed the most heavily. This is impractical since we'd have to spend trillions on all the prisons we'd need to throw the poor into when they couldn't pay their taxes.

-Flat amount. Another "fair" way. Everyone pays the same amount; would be around $12k a year. Again the problem with the prisons though.

-Flat rate. Tax everyone 25% (or pick a number based on budget.) This is also "fair" because everyone pays a percentage of their income, and less people end up in prison.

-Progressive. Tax everyone on a sliding scale based on their income. The more inflection the curve has, the more "fair" it becomes if you define fair as taxing the people who can afford to pay more.

I go with Flat...Its not my fault I make more than some...It's not Bill Gates fault he makes more than me.

Its fair, its easy...Its unrealistic to think that just cause I worked harder than someone else I should have to pay a larger %...

You would be punishing me for doing well.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

You want some billionaire to have the power to "fire" an elected official?

.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


LMAO!! Elected, haha. That's a good one!

Do your homework...Recount after recount Bush won.

Gore tried to throw my and other military members votes out...Thats also proven.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[juanesky 0]

Quote

Quote

Sure, but you are already doing a great job bashing US.

I have explained to Wendy the purpose of my posting that resume. Either you did not get it, or you will have to show me where else I have bashed YOU/The US. (I am not sure which you are referring to in your post).

So what is this

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[Ron 10]

Quote

The question is, which is better for the economy, lower marginal rates, or a balanced budget. I think the answer is clearly a balanced budget

Agreed.

Quote

As for someone's earlier claim that everyone got tax cuts, that's a fallacy. The lowest income earners in America received no tax break whatsoever (independent of child tax credits etc.).

Uh, well the child tax credits ARE a break...so your argument is moot.

Quote

Now, you may claim that you and the rest of the ludicrously rich people deserve a tax break, but what about needing one...

How about being fair on how much you have to pay...If I make more than you thats your fault, not mine...Why should I be punished since I worked harder?

This is a typical Dem stance...You can afford more so you should pay more. Uh, how about a flat tax rate and my amount will be bigger than yours since I make more...Thats fair...Makeing me pay a higher % just cause you want me to is not.

Quote

This means, what portion of every extra dollar earned will you tend to spend... For that poor schmuck (oh damn I am that poor schmuck) below the poverty line, it's nearly 100 percent.

You are out of collage right? Well I don't have a degree....So you have greater potential than me (On paper) why am I makeing more than you?

OH, I know why....Reference this post

Quote

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=915841#915841

----------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Nothing serious though, just cooking at restaurants. Something to make dough to jump with, I don't want a "real" job.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Ladies and gentelmen...a Dem for you.
I don't want a "real" Job.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Note, by this I mean a job commensurate with my level of education as I don't have any desire to end up stuck behind a desk in a 9 to 5. I'm willing to work very hard for my money but would rather do this for awhile simply to make dough because I really want to jump my ass off every chance I get and eventually occupy a trailer on a DZ somewhere and teach new skydivers. That's m true ambition and I'll do whatever is necessary to get there.

So you would rather jump than make money...But you complain about how others do what it takes to make money and you want to punish them for it?

And as for this:

Quote

This means, what portion of every extra dollar earned will you tend to spend... For that poor schmuck (oh damn I am that poor schmuck) below the poverty line, it's nearly 100 percent. For the rich guy who deserves the tax break, we'll assume and statistics support that it's much lower

Maybe if you didn't spend as much drinking you would not spend almost 100% of your funds.

And if you used your degree to get a job that as you say is "commensurate with my level of education" you would be able to not spend 100% of all your money.

Simple fact is you CHOOSE to be in the economic situation you are in..By picking to have a dead end job and drinking your money away.

Quote

working and drinking... mostly drinking but that's beside the point.

Your life goal may be to be a DZ bum, but don't punish me for wanting more and doing what it takes to get more.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[billvon 3,110]

>I go with Flat...Its not my fault I make more than some...It's not Bill
>Gates fault he makes more than me.

Flat rate, I assume.

>Its fair, its easy...Its unrealistic to think that just cause I worked
>harder than someone else I should have to pay a larger %...

Although it's also unrealistic to assume that a family that makes $20K a year finds it as easy to raise their kids as a family that makes $200K a year, and that each can pay the same percentage as easily. If compassion is to be part of the tax rate, a flat tax is less compassionate than a progressive tax. Of course, you could just say that's not the purpose of taxes (to be compassionate) and have a valid argument.

>You would be punishing me for doing well.

True of any tax scheme except the first two, which you didn't go for.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Flat rate, I assume.

Yes sorry I should have made it clearer.

Quote

Although it's also unrealistic to assume that a family that makes $20K a year finds it as easy to raise their kids as a family that makes $200K a year

So? I mean I bet the family that makes 200K a year did something to earn that 200K. I don't hate Dr's or lawyers that get paid the big bucks...They earned it.

Quote

If compassion is to be part of the tax rate, a flat tax is less compassionate than a progressive tax. Of course, you could just say that's not the purpose of taxes (to be compassionate) and have a valid argument

Compassion has nothing to do with taxes.

Lets look at my thoughts on each of your ideas (Cause I know you just HAVE ta know)

Quote

-Per amount used

By far the most "fair" tax. You only pay for the services you use...I don't have kids, so why should I pay for schools? Well I think we have a duty to our future generations..Adn I don't mind helping them to be honest. The problem with a "pay as you go" tax is that it would be a pain in the butt to do. It would be arecord keeping nightmare. And it would severly underfund some things...Schools are one, but public funded airports is another.

Quote

-Flat amount

This is a very fair tax structure....We the people pay for the government we voted for....However, some guesses of what that would be is around 12,000.00 per person. Well, that would kill some families. So It would not work.

Quote

-Flat rate

You owe "X" percent of your income to the government....I like this one best....Yes, the rich pay more taxes, but they can afford it most times. Not as fair as the other two, but very workable. There is no "penalty" for working hard and doing well...You owe "X" percent just like the guy working at Walmart Part time.

Quote

-Progressive

I don't like this one since it punnishes the people that do well.

Given the 4 choices (Which are the best 4 I could think of)...

The third is a good balance between fair and ability and it is workable.

What we need to do is eliminate some of the loopholes....I could have saved a ton of money if I worked it right...But I really don't care that much. I have a good life, and I make enough money, so I didn't mind paying the "extra" taxes I could have skipped out on.

Maybe next year I'll do some.. but its alot more work than I care.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334