rushmc 23 #76 May 11, 2006 >Yes, I took you to school twice and you will still deny it.< sorry but BBBBBbbbbbwwwwwwhhhhhhhhaaaahhhaaaaahhhhha Thanks I needed that"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #77 May 11, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteMy point was we were not in a recession when Clinton came into office. He started that with the tax increases..... Next thing you know someone will try to convince us corporations pay taxes. - Got a headace yet?? Remember when Clinton was trying to sell his 15% tax increase on corporations and he claimed businesses like a pizza parlors could simply raise the price of pizza to cover the increase. Clintonomics at it's best. - And the result wassssssssssssssssss???? Most sustained furtile economic growth in US history. Not making your argument.... Sure I am. I just undermined your assertion that Corporations pay taxes. I am still amazed at the seemingly intelligent people who fail to understand this. - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #78 May 11, 2006 QuoteQuote Also, if we kill SS, then what do seniors do? What do disabled do? Die in the streets, litterally? You can't seriously propose a change w/o addressing problems. Social Security does a number of things. It provides disability insurance, life insurance, and a safety net for people who reach the ends of their work lives with insufficient savings to retire. Nearly everybody agrees these things are good although we disagree on who should pay for them. It's also a mandatory retirement savings plan with horrible benefits. I have to make it six years past my statistically expected lifetime to earn a 0% inflation adjusted rate of return on my investments and can't leave anything to heirs other than my wife. If I invested the same money in stock and bond indexes I'd probably have triple the annual benefits. This should end. It's an excuse for a regressive tax which costs low wage earners 12.4% of their income of which only half shows up on their pay stubs. This should end. Quote And then you or I need SS, disability, etc..... I'll put $15K into my 401K this year, my take home pay will increase if I become disabled (60% of base pay, but without any taxes or retirement savings deductions), and our mortgage gets paid off if either my wife or I die... QuoteIt's also a mandatory retirement savings plan with horrible benefits. I have to make it six years past my statistically expected lifetime to earn a 0% inflation adjusted rate of return on my investments and can't leave anything to heirs other than my wife. If I invested the same money in stock and bond indexes I'd probably have triple the annual benefits. This should end. Making the assumotion that some corporate scumbag (Enron, lincoln Savings, United Airlines, list too long to include) won't raid the account, lock it up and refuse you to sell, or just plain old abscond with the company assets and bankrupt it. And when it occurrs, not if, then we have no governmental appliance in place to care for teh elderly and disabled. This is more Libertarian hocus-pokus. Nice to think, but not realistic. How about people who place their investments in high risk funds.... personal responsibility? Let em die in the streets? What about low wage earners who won't have that much in their accounts? What about people who outlive their savings? Too many if's and buts.... Too many factors to risk with no safety net. We are the most radical nation when it comes to capitalism, we should be looking to go the other way with it, not more extreme. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #79 May 11, 2006 QuoteHell, I don't know why I ever replyed wikopedia? I'm seeing lots of one liners and emoticons.......but not a lot of citations to back up any criticisms. Feel free to embelish, we're not paying by the word here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #80 May 11, 2006 > Two questions that I have are 1. Is a tax cut what this country needs right now? 2. If so, who should benefit from these tax cuts? #1 YES #2 ME The more that goes back into our pockets the better we or the wealthy can use that money for a better good. Dick Cheny gave several Million to Charitable orgin. last year 2005, Bill Gates has funded many millions to different orgin. as well as a Billion to Aids research. Tax Cuts are a good thing, I like em. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #81 May 11, 2006 Oh, yeah, it's better the money be put into the hands of a politician who we know will spend it on pork projects. You do realize the actual return on SS is about 1% don't you? Proving once again the left thinks people are too stupid to invest in their own retirement. - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #82 May 11, 2006 QuoteHell, I don't know why I ever replyed wikopedia? Gee, interest was what, 9% in 1991? No recession here to see, just move along people. I'm sure Senate.gov is a liberal stronghold too.... oh well, anything to avoid the fact that we were in a recession for most of Bush's term. http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/VP_George_Bush.htm George Bush served one term as president of the United States. His years of experience in foreign policy prepared him well to serve as the nation's first post-cold war president. When the Iraqi army under Saddam Hussein invaded Iraq's oil-rich neighbor Kuwait, Bush responded promptly and boldly on both the diplomatic and military fronts. The lightning-quick Persian Gulf war lifted his public approval rating to an astonishing 91 percent. On the domestic front, his administration fared less well, diminished by a persistent economic recession, mounting federal deficits, and his broken campaign pledge not to raise taxes. Bush also suffered from his lack of what he called "the vision thing," a clarity of ideas and principles that could shape public opinion and influence Congress. "He does not say why he wants to be there," complained columnist George Will, "so the public does not know why it should care if he gets his way." Standing for reelection, Bush faced a "New Democrat," Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton, and a scrappy Texas billionaire independent candidate, Ross Perot. In November 1992, President Bush finished second with 38 percent of the vote to Clinton's 43 percent and Perot's 19 percent. ________________________ I can post reference after another, but unless you're under 25 years old, everyone remembers the recession of the late 80's to early 90's. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #83 May 11, 2006 Quote>Yes, I took you to school twice and you will still deny it.< sorry but BBBBBbbbbbwwwwwwhhhhhhhhaaaahhhaaaaahhhhha Thanks I needed that Where? I established that Clinton inherited a recessed economy and left a surplus for the first time in 40 years..... prove differently. You one-liners don't even fool your proponents. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #84 May 11, 2006 >You are not serious....right? I didn't really expect you to answer. Suffice to say that most people in the US don't think increasing our spending while reducing our ability to pay it back is a good idea - even if it personally means more money for them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #85 May 11, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteMy point was we were not in a recession when Clinton came into office. He started that with the tax increases..... Next thing you know someone will try to convince us corporations pay taxes. - Got a headace yet?? Remember when Clinton was trying to sell his 15% tax increase on corporations and he claimed businesses like a pizza parlors could simply raise the price of pizza to cover the increase. Clintonomics at it's best. - And the result wassssssssssssssssss???? Most sustained furtile economic growth in US history. Not making your argument.... Sure I am. I just undermined your assertion that Corporations pay taxes. I am still amazed at the seemingly intelligent people who fail to understand this. - How so? Again, you failed to even look at other issues that I've posted. Just a lot of one-liners witth no reference posted. I established that the rich and corporations had tax increases as he first came into office, this contributed to his great economic success. Are you going to argue Clinton's economic success? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #86 May 11, 2006 QuoteQuoteHell, I don't know why I ever replyed wikopedia? I'm seeing lots of one liners and emoticons.......but not a lot of citations to back up any criticisms. Feel free to embelish, we're not paying by the word here. Feel for them, and I'm not being sarcastic. They've refused to come off of their political stance, yet are forced to argue an impossible argument. There isn't 1 economic indicator that they can dig a thumbnail into to establish their point. Contrarily, it's easy for the other side. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #87 May 11, 2006 Quote> Two questions that I have are 1. Is a tax cut what this country needs right now? 2. If so, who should benefit from these tax cuts? #1 YES #2 ME The more that goes back into our pockets the better we or the wealthy can use that money for a better good. Dick Cheny gave several Million to Charitable orgin. last year 2005, Bill Gates has funded many millions to different orgin. as well as a Billion to Aids research. Tax Cuts are a good thing, I like em. Tax cuts are good if the economy and the fiscal health of the nation are healthy. Tax increases are essential if the gov is...let's say, 8.4 trillion in the hole. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #88 May 11, 2006 China: Current account balance: $129.1 billion (2005 est.) Reserves of foreign exchange and gold: $795.1 billion (2005 est.) Debt - external: $242 billion (2005 est.) USA: Current account balance: -$829.1 billion (2005 est.) Reserves of foreign exchange and gold: $86.94 billion (2004 est.) Debt - external: $8.837 trillion (30 June 2005 est.) Yeah, Bush is doing a BANG UP job. Shitwad. Zipp0 -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #89 May 11, 2006 QuoteThe more that goes back into our pockets the better we or the wealthy can use that money for a better good. Dick Cheny gave several Million to Charitable orgin. last year 2005, Bill Gates has funded many millions to different orgin. as well as a Billion to Aids research. Tax Cuts are a good thing, I like em. I respectfully disagree with your proprosal to give all of a tax cut equally to Bill Gates and Dick Cheney and you. That's seems slightly disproportionate to those of us that pay taxes. If you put me in there and split it 4 ways, we can talk. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #90 May 11, 2006 QuoteOh, yeah, it's better the money be put into the hands of a politician who we know will spend it on pork projects. You do realize the actual return on SS is about 1% don't you? Proving once again the left thinks people are too stupid to invest in their own retirement. - You haven't addressed other contengencies of pople outliving their funds, etc... Well, going on Bush I would say you are corect, he would spend it on pork. Clinton was prudent and the results establish that - Bush is a trainwreck (Bith Bushs and Reagan too), care to differ with some fact? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #91 May 11, 2006 QuoteChina: Current account balance: $129.1 billion (2005 est.) Reserves of foreign exchange and gold: $795.1 billion (2005 est.) Debt - external: $242 billion (2005 est.) USA: Current account balance: -$829.1 billion (2005 est.) Reserves of foreign exchange and gold: $86.94 billion (2004 est.) Debt - external: $8.837 trillion (30 June 2005 est.) Yeah, Bush is doing a BANG UP job. Shitwad. Zipp0 It would be an awesome time to be in "THE CLUB" tho...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #92 May 11, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteMy point was we were not in a recession when Clinton came into office. He started that with the tax increases..... Next thing you know someone will try to convince us corporations pay taxes. - Got a headace yet?? Remember when Clinton was trying to sell his 15% tax increase on corporations and he claimed businesses like a pizza parlors could simply raise the price of pizza to cover the increase. Clintonomics at it's best. - And the result wassssssssssssssssss???? Most sustained furtile economic growth in US history. Not making your argument.... Sure I am. I just undermined your assertion that Corporations pay taxes. I am still amazed at the seemingly intelligent people who fail to understand this. - How so? Again, you failed to even look at other issues that I've posted. Just a lot of one-liners witth no reference posted. I established that the rich and corporations had tax increases as he first came into office, this contributed to his great economic success. Are you going to argue Clinton's economic success? I cannot debate with someone who thinks corporations pay taxes. The fact that Clinton was President at a time the budget was balanced and the debt paid down does not mean he had anything to do with it. I already posted several sources that refuted your claim he did, which you immediately claimed were "right wing" without so much as giving a reason why. I can post direct quotes from Clinton where he claims the deficit, and the govt. running deficits isn't a big deal but it would just amount to an endless debate. ***CBO Puts Clinton Deficit at $69 Billion Clinton's 5th Unbalanced Budget Shows Why America Needs the BBCA "I would present a five-year plan to balance the budget." (Bill Clinton, Larry King Live, June 4, 1992) America must have misunderstood. Evidently what Bill Clinton meant five years ago was that he would plan for five years to balance the budget -- but never do it. At least that's the way it has worked out. Every year he has been in office, President Clinton has submitted a budget that does not balance. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Clinton's FY 1998 budget leaves a deficit of $69 billion in 2002. It's time for him to admit that there's only one way to achieve true, lasting balance -- a balanced budget constitutional amendment. Instead of doing what it takes to balance the budget, the White House did what it took to increase spending. According to CBO, President Clinton's latest budget spends nine trillion dollars over the next five years -- $132 billion more than the White House admitted to. In order to hide this fact, the White House budgeteers produced favorable economic assumptions and a gimmicky automatic-spending-reduction mechanism that they claimed would allow for more spending and still balance. When these are stripped away, as CBO has done, we are left with a budget that leaves the deficit higher than last year's $107 billion for the next four years. In the last Congress, after shutting down the government and vetoing the first balanced budget bill since 1969, President Clinton promised three things: To balance the budget, to balance the budget by 2002, and to balance the budget by 2002 using CBO's numbers. With his latest budget, he has not kept even one of those three promises. Clinton's budget spends $9.119 trillion over the next five years. In its first year, Clinton's budget increases the deficit $38 billion above last year's, $30 billion above the estimate of this year's, and $24 billion above the estimate of next year's. Clinton's budget leaves a $69 billion deficit in 2002 and adds $586 billion in deficit spending over the next five years. 98.5 percent of the deficit reduction occurs after Clinton leaves office. In fact, under Clinton's latest budget deficits will not go below last year's deficit ($107 billion) or even below $100 billion until 2001 (when it will reach $95 billion). During his term, Clinton's budget reduces the deficit just $1 billion from CBO's currently projected levels. Clinton's budget only eliminates 35% of last year's $107 billion deficit from 1998-2002. More Spending = More Deficits President Clinton's budget will spend $9.119 trillion over the next five years. That is $132.2 billion more than the White House admitted to when they released it. To hide that spending, the Administration relied on favorable assumptions, one-time savings, and a gimmick providing that all but $1 billion -- 98.5 percent -- of the necessary deficit reduction will be made in the next century -- and by another President. As CBO demonstrates, without these devices, there is no balance, only more deficits -- $69 billion in 2002, and $586 billion over five years; the deficit even increases over what it was projected to be both this year ($116 billion vs. $115 billion) and next year ($145 billion vs. $121 billion). Clinton's budget leaves spending higher throughout his final term than it was last year -- in 2000 the deficit would be $137 billion vs. $107 billion in 1996. During his last term, Clinton's budget would add $110 billion in additional deficits on top of last year's $107 billion deficit: $116 billion in 1997, $145 billion in 1998, $142 billion in 1999, and $135 billion in 2000 -- $28 billion higher in Clinton's last year than last year's deficit. Under Clinton's budget, the deficit will not go below last year's $107 billion level until the next century and the next President -- when it hit $95 billion in 2001. Hiding these Deficits Behind Phony Assumptions Won't Work Despite OMB's best efforts of optimistic obfuscation, CBO stripped away the gimmicks. While Clinton recognized CBO as its official estimator last year, CBO now states: interest rates (10-year Treasury rates: 5.5% vs. 5.1%), inflation (CPI-U: 3.0% vs. 2.7%), and unemployment (Civilian Unemployment: 6.0% vs. 5.5%) will all be higher and GDP lower (Real GDP Change: 2.3% vs. 2.1%) in 2002 than Clinton forecast. According to CBO, one-time asset sales -- like selling part of the electromagnetic spectrum, which can only be sold once and therefore reduce spending just once -- will bring in less than the President claims (for the spectrum, $11 billion less in 2002). After increasing the deficit to $135 billion over the next four years, Clinton then claims to eliminate it in the next President's first two with a so-called trigger mechanism that would reduce spending he increased and end the tax cut he barely delivered (just $18 billion from FY97-02, according to the Joint Tax Committee). http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1997/FY98CBOR.JT.htm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #93 May 11, 2006 QuoteQuoteChina: Current account balance: $129.1 billion (2005 est.) Reserves of foreign exchange and gold: $795.1 billion (2005 est.) Debt - external: $242 billion (2005 est.) USA: Current account balance: -$829.1 billion (2005 est.) Reserves of foreign exchange and gold: $86.94 billion (2004 est.) Debt - external: $8.837 trillion (30 June 2005 est.) Yeah, Bush is doing a BANG UP job. Shitwad. Zipp0 It would be an awesome time to be in "THE CLUB" tho...... His policies are putting the USA in the most vulnerable position in our nation's history. Zipp0 -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #94 May 11, 2006 Quote$132 billion more than the White House admitted to. In order to hide this fact, the White House budgeteers produced favorable economic assumptions and a gimmicky automatic-spending-reduction mechanism that they claimed would allow for more spending and still balance. When these are stripped away, as CBO has done, we are left with a budget that leaves the deficit higher I think I read something like this earlier today....oh yea...here it is. Same old song and dance, except that we're dealing with billions instead of millions now. To stuff the tax cuts into a $70 billion package, lawmakers used a gimmick that not only disguises the true cost of the tax cuts but also ends up, down the road, dramatically increasing it. A change in retirement savings rules would allow upper-income taxpayers to convert their ordinary individual retirement accounts into what are called Roth IRAs, in which savings are taxed at the time of deposit but can then grow tax-free. This would bring in money in the short run ($6.4 billion over the next 10 years) but cost billions more in the long term. Indeed, because the legislation doesn't specify that the converted accounts already exist, the change appears to be a backdoor lifting of all income limits for Roth IRA contributions for those clever enough -- or with clever enough accountants -- to exploit the loophole. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/10/AR2006051002067.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #95 May 11, 2006 QuoteI cannot debate with someone who thinks corporations pay taxes. The fact that Clinton was President at a time the budget was balanced and the debt paid down does not mean he had anything to do with it. I already posted several sources that refuted your claim he did, which you immediately claimed were "right wing" without so much as giving a reason why. I can post direct quotes from Clinton where he claims the deficit, and the govt. running deficits isn't a big deal but it would just amount to an endless debate. I am in a hurry now so I will replly to rest later, but here is your most bold assertion. I will post this so you chew on it. http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/objectID/D557CF7D-3BAE-4550-93F37C97C455A2D4/111/182/241/ART/ Corporate Tax Payments The corporation must file a corporate tax return, IRS Form 1120, and pay taxes at a corporate income tax rate on any profits. If a corporation will owe taxes, it must estimate the amount of tax due for the year and make payments to the IRS on a quarterly basis -- in April, June, September, and January. Corporations are taxed differently than other business structures: A corporation is the only type of business that must pay its own income taxes on profits. In contrast, partnerships, sole proprietorships, and limited liability companies (LLCs) are not taxed on business profits; instead, the profits "pass through" the businesses to their owners, who report business income or losses on their personal tax returns. __________________________________________________ OK, YAWN. You're too easy .... now go skydive and leave the tough stuff to us Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #96 May 11, 2006 Quote Corporate Tax Payments The corporation must file a corporate tax return, IRS Form 1120, and pay taxes at a corporate income tax rate on any profits Which is why the corporations go multinational and post their profits on the books of the subsidiaries whose liability is the least while showing little to no profit here at home, where they would be subjected to the tax. That's why we have 90,000 pages of tax code, it's not because of us skydivers who actually pay our taxes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #97 May 11, 2006 > If you put me in there and split it 4 ways, we can talk. I'll see what I can do when I go before the Board Members. We will need to put some money in your hands under the table to keep you quite I see. No need to put this in the open, I'm sure we can come to some agreement. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #98 May 11, 2006 QuoteQuote>Yes, I took you to school twice and you will still deny it.< sorry but BBBBBbbbbbwwwwwwhhhhhhhhaaaahhhaaaaahhhhha Thanks I needed that From wikepedia? OH Where? I established that Clinton inherited a recessed economy and left a surplus for the first time in 40 years..... prove differently. You one-liners don't even fool your proponents."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #99 May 11, 2006 And that means the economy is bad huh? whatever bill..."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #100 May 11, 2006 Where the hell are you getting your economic info?? First 7 months of this fiscal year. Income taxes up 11% 137 billion Corp taxation up just under 30% Yep, cutting taxes reduced government money. But I do understand you don't care about that, You only care (and are bummed by) someone having more than you. IMO By the way the CBO also printed for may that the top income earners in the US increase thier portion of the tax burden in those 7 months. Ya, Bush is taking care of the rich. Nice BS line but not supported in fact"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
