I Suppose We Should Thank Joe Wilson

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

ALL of them. Where do you think they get the money other than from Soros?

We all know your stock response. The question was asked of quade.

Oh, so this is not a public free speech forum??

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,079]

>Oh, so this is not a public free speech forum?

Nope. It's a privately owned forum operated for profit by Willem.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Oh, so this is not a public free speech forum?

Nope. It's a privately owned forum operated for profit by Willem.

Cool, so no wonder moderation is not fair here

Funny though, others here have made statements similar to mine and you have not commented. Is now different than those times?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

FFS, if you want to find loonies on either side of the aisle it's not all that hard.

Yes, just look for the one making the most noises about "family values", or most loudly condemning someone caught in a recent scandal, and you have found one with 99% certainty.

Gawd, here's a list of them:

http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Republican_Sex_Scandals

But how Trent Lott, speaker of the House urging the Clinton impeachment andd voting for it, didn't make the list makes me feel that the list is very deficient.

http://bigheaddc.com/2007/11/26/trent-lott-fallout-the-gay-escort-who-knew-too-much/

BTW, family values Lott was involved in a gay scandal, the demon-seed of the right. Perhaps if CLinton had had a gay relationship it would have been ok, but instead he had an affair with an icky girl, in his thoughts.

[Royd 0]

All I've been hearing for a couple of years, now, is 47 million uninsured... In one fell swoop, Obama misplaced 17 million of them.
Now, that he is coming to reality, let's discount the self insured, and the young invincibles,and the number would be knocked in half, again.
It seems that health care reform is not such a big deal, any longer.

[billeisele 130]

Quote

Wilson has reported today that since his comments he has raised 1 million dollars toward his re-election fund raising!!

local interviews show 75% of folks agree with what he said and are glad he is "standing up", but almost 100% said he did it the wrong way, if the election was today he would win in a landslide, just a simple local boy that most folks trust

Fort Jackson, Parris Island and the Marine Corps Air Station are in his District - they love the guy, Ft Jax trains 50+% of Army recruits, houses the Chaplains School for all services, Drill Sergants School, Polygraph Institute and others
PI trains about 50% of the men and 100% of the women Marine recruits

Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

[dsandreas 0]

You are missing the entire point. Without a way to monitor whether someone is legal (there is no provision that requires proof of being here legally in this legislation) and associated penalties (there are none here) its meaningless drivel. If speeding is illegal but the authorities have no tools to monitor speed and there is no fine for speeding....how much speeding will be prevented?

You are quite naive to think these few words would prevent illegal immigrants being covered...it's a completely meaningless provision as it currently stands.

[Royd 0]

Quote

And to think for the last few hours I was thinking Wison was a Hero, my bad.

GWB State of the Union 2005 was Booed by the Democrats, no outrage from the Left Wing. I therefore have no outrage for a member of congress only stating the obvious.

In the spirit of bipartisanship, he should have offered up two apologies.[1] I'm sorry to have offended you. [2] I'm sorry, you were offended.

[kallend 2,108]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

It's in Capital Letters in the title NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS.

Correct. "Payment" != "coverage"

Quote

it doesn't say anything about coverage but is implied in the title.

No, it's not.

Twist and spin, twist and spin, it's all you can do.

"Words have meanings".

Right, and HR3200 doesn't provide taxpayer supported "coverage" for illegal aliens.

Whether they can buy it independently is another matter completely.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,108]

Quote

Quote

Should we also be denying illegal aliens the ability to buy car insurance because they're illegal?

HEll YES!!. They should not be able to get a license or a car

Of course, that means that when we get into an accident with one, we're the ones who pay, rather than them.

Personally, I think that requiring everyone to pay for insurance is better. Really. It's a separate problem from illegal aliens -- if someone is illegal and buys something should they get to keep it?

Right now there are companies that simply don't pay their day laborers, knowing that because most of them are illegal, there wno't be any repercussions. Does the fact that illegals are victimized make it OK?

Note: This is not to say that I think that it's just fine for illegal aliens to be here. I don't. But not to require the same duties of them means that they will have fewer expenses than law-abiding citizens.

Wendy P.

Damn this is twisted logic wendy

I understand your point but sheeesh........

My step-daughter's car was written off when rear-ended by an uninsured illegal alien in Las Cruces NM. On the whole, illegal or not, I'd like them to have insurance so US taxpayers don't end up paying for their shit.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,108]

Quote

Quote

> The timing does not make his position false however, as he has stated.

Both republicans and democrats have agreed that it is indeed false.

They have agreed his outburst was wrong. Some a few many have said differnt, but not most of them

>Obama is lieing out his ass.

Both republican and democratic news sources and fact checkers have agreed he was telling the truth. Indeed, the actual facts support him. In order to dispute him you have had to go to some bizarre extremes, like claiming that since some amendments to the bill were not adopted that that changes the meaning of the actual bill - but it's clear that's a hail mary pass that no one but the extremists believe.

Today's fact check from Politifacts:

============
When we look at all of this evidence, it seems that health reform leaves in place the status quo on illegal immigration, and certainly does not provide any new benefits particularly for illegal immigrants....

The best argument that we find that health reform would help illegal immigrants is that some might be able to purchase the public option -- if it passes, and it might not -- on the new health insurance exchange. They would purchase that at full cost. Obama's said "the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally," which Wilson said was a "lie." Actually, Obama can make a pretty thorough case that reform doesn't apply to those here illegally. We don't find the public option argument enough to make the case that Obama "lied."

We rate Wilson's statement False.
================


>Fortunatly, the number believeing him are a changin rapidly.

Yes, they are.

=========
Before the speech:

Approval rating
Obama 52
Democratic party 39
Republican party 23

After the speech:

Approval rating
Obama 56
Democratic party 40
Republican party 22
==========

From people who watched the speech. Is the following statement true? (before speech/after speech)

Health care reform will get health care costs under control (42/64)
. . .allows you to keep your current insurance and doctor (54/80)
. . . will increase competition and lower prices (44/74)
. . . will give individuals and families more choice and control (36/60)
. . . will increase the deficit and raise taxes (62/40)
. . . will hurt seniors by cutting medicare (40/20)
===========

Fun stuff billvon. Dont change nothing though.

Nice sites. The ones with the most meaning you avoid however.

That's funny, coming from the person (rushmc) who was using Politifact himself quite recently when it suited him.

You should give up while only a little way behind (like 2 or 3 miles).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[dsandreas 0]

Quote

"Words have meanings".

Right, and HR3200 doesn't provide taxpayer supported "coverage" for illegal aliens.

Whether they can buy it independently is another matter completely.



reply

Words in this regard have no meaning with no enforcement provision and no penalties. Meaningless is what it is.

• Quote

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Should we also be denying illegal aliens the ability to buy car insurance because they're illegal?

HEll YES!!. They should not be able to get a license or a car

Of course, that means that when we get into an accident with one, we're the ones who pay, rather than them.

Personally, I think that requiring everyone to pay for insurance is better. Really. It's a separate problem from illegal aliens -- if someone is illegal and buys something should they get to keep it?

Right now there are companies that simply don't pay their day laborers, knowing that because most of them are illegal, there won't be any repercussions. Does the fact that illegals are victimized make it OK?

Note: This is not to say that I think that it's just fine for illegal aliens to be here. I don't. But not to require the same duties of them means that they will have fewer expenses than law-abiding citizens.

Wendy P.

Damn this is twisted logic wendy

I understand your point but sheeesh........

My step-daughter's car was written off when rear-ended by an uninsured illegal alien in Las Cruces NM. On the whole, illegal or not, I'd like them to have insurance so US taxpayers don't end up paying for their shit.

Sorry to hear that.
Hence the reason for the uninsured clause that you can buy and the best reason to not have them here to begin with (to the spinners I am speaking to those that should not be here in the first place)

Makes you point a non-point

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,108]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Should we also be denying illegal aliens the ability to buy car insurance because they're illegal?

HEll YES!!. They should not be able to get a license or a car

Of course, that means that when we get into an accident with one, we're the ones who pay, rather than them.

Personally, I think that requiring everyone to pay for insurance is better. Really. It's a separate problem from illegal aliens -- if someone is illegal and buys something should they get to keep it?

Right now there are companies that simply don't pay their day laborers, knowing that because most of them are illegal, there won't be any repercussions. Does the fact that illegals are victimized make it OK?

Note: This is not to say that I think that it's just fine for illegal aliens to be here. I don't. But not to require the same duties of them means that they will have fewer expenses than law-abiding citizens.

Wendy P.

Damn this is twisted logic wendy

I understand your point but sheeesh........

My step-daughter's car was written off when rear-ended by an uninsured illegal alien in Las Cruces NM. On the whole, illegal or not, I'd like them to have insurance so US taxpayers don't end up paying for their shit.

Sorry to hear that.
Hence the reason for the uninsured clause that you can buy and the best reason to not have them here to begin with (to the spinners I am speaking to those that should not be here in the first place)

Makes you point a non-point

Wishing them gone is fine, but doesn't help at all when one hits you. Insurance does, and I'd prefer they spend their money on it than I spend mine.

They'll all be gone about the same time that all tax cheats are gone, all murderers are gone, all rapists are gone, and all pot-smokers are gone. Until then, I WANT them paying for their own insurance.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

All I've been hearing for a couple of years, now, is 47 million uninsured... In one fell swoop, Obama misplaced 17 million of them.
Now, that he is coming to reality, let's discount the self insured, and the young invincibles,and the number would be knocked in half, again.
It seems that health care reform is not such a big deal, any longer.

I think this attitude is at the crux of why the Republican Party is on the downslide now. Democrats worry about providing positive support for Americans who are underpriv'd, Republicans are more worried about someone getting something for free. All the while, class disparity is spreading and more and more people are going without basics and all the Republicans offer is a semantic argument of whether it's 30 or 45 million without any medical coverage whatsoever. I guess I would ask if 30 million is a negligible amount. What if it's 5 million? In reality, mitigation of the number of uninsured only bolsters the drive for limited uni-care in that it will be less costly.

What the Republican Party should do is to be honest and say how they really feel; THEY COULDN'T CARE LESS ABOUT POOR PEOPLE AND STRUGGLING FAMILIES.

And the nuts irony behind all of this is that virtually all of the nation's debt has occurred due to Republicans and they are cringing at spending.

[dsandreas 0]

Quote

And the nuts irony behind all of this is that virtually all of the nation's debt has occurred due to Republicans and they are cringing at spending.

reply________________________________________________

I think this is the dumbest thing I have read on this website. Certainly both are culpable. Spending bills originate in Congress...Democrats have had more years of control over the last 50 years than Republicans.

Lastly...I am struggling to pay the massive tax burden so that politicians can hand out the money to those that sit on their ass and contribute little or nothing. Almost 50% of the people filing taxes pay zero income tax. Medicaid is for "poor people"...fraud and abuse are estimated at $80 billion plus per year. We don't need another government program....sorry. It will be mismanaged and it will exceed spending estimates just like every other government program. Medicare is basically broke, Medicaid the same...as well as Social Security payouts are not sustainable without more taxes.

• Quote

[freeflybella 0]

Quote

All I've been hearing for a couple of years, now, is 47 million uninsured... In one fell swoop, Obama misplaced 17 million of them.
Now, that he is coming to reality, let's discount the self insured, and the young invincibles,and the number would be knocked in half, again.
It seems that health care reform is not such a big deal, any longer.

The 17 million were non-legal aliens.

He adjusted the number because the bill would not cover them.

Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

[Bolas 5]

Quote

All the while, class disparity is spreading and more and more people are going without basics
...
What the Republican Party should do is to be honest and say how they really feel; THEY COULDN'T CARE LESS ABOUT POOR PEOPLE AND STRUGGLING FAMILIES.

And the nuts irony behind all of this is that virtually all of the nation's debt has occurred due to Republicans and they are cringing at spending.

So by destroying the middle class by making them take on the burden of providing for the people that don't provide for themselves this fixes class disparity? The upper class just uses their accountants and lawyers to find the loopholes.

Republicans (historically) were the party that was for less government intervention, so if someone is looking for the government to provide for them vs. give them or businesses opportunities then yes, they might think "THEY COULDN'T CARE LESS ABOUT POOR PEOPLE AND STRUGGLING FAMILIES."

Give a fish, teach to fish...

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[GeorgiaDon 379]

Quote

Words in this regard have no meaning with no enforcement provision

OK, so I have asked these questions of several "right-wing" posters, and no-one has ever bothered to respond. Wendy asked earlier in this thread, and no-one responded to her. I hope you will do me the courtesy of an answer.

Enforcement means that US citizens have to be able to prove citizenship.

1) What proof of US citizenship do you think would be adequate? A birth certificate is not an adequate document, as they are easily forged. In fact, the only real proof of citizenship that I have is a passport.

2) Would you support a law that required all citizens to have a passport? How do you feel about a "national identity card"? If you do not, then how can you reconcile "enforcement" with the fact that most US citizens do not actually have the ability to prove citizenship?

3) Suppose a US citizen is injured in a car accident, and is transported to the hospital. The victim is critically ill, and must receive immediate treatment or they will die. However, their identification was left at the accident scene when EMS transported them, so they arrive at the hospital without ID including proof of US citizenship. (This is not an imaginary scenario; according to a former student of mine who works EMS about 20% or more of critical patients don't have ID when they are transported). Would you really demand that the hospital refuse to treat them, and instead allow them to die, because they can't be sure of the persons citizenship status? How many US citizens would it be OK to allow to die, each year, just to ensure that no tax dollars were ever spent to treat an illegal alien?

I hope you will be able to explain to me how all this is supposed to work.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

And the nuts irony behind all of this is that virtually all of the nation's debt has occurred due to Republicans and they are cringing at spending.

reply________________________________________________

I think this is the dumbest thing I have read on this website. Certainly both are culpable. Spending bills originate in Congress...Democrats have had more years of control over the last 50 years than Republicans.

Lastly...I am struggling to pay the massive tax burden so that politicians can hand out the money to those that sit on their ass and contribute little or nothing. Almost 50% of the people filing taxes pay zero income tax. Medicaid is for "poor people"...fraud and abuse are estimated at $80 billion plus per year. We don't need another government program....sorry. It will be mismanaged and it will exceed spending estimates just like every other government program. Medicare is basically broke, Medicaid the same...as well as Social Security payouts are not sustainable without more taxes.

The problem is that this dumbest information has data to support it. When Reagan took office in Jan 81 the debt was about 900B, by the time GHWB left office 12 years later it was 4 trillion and climbing out of control. Clinton came in and curbed the debt increase to virtually shutting it down in 8 years where the debt increase was 1/9th of what it was the previous 12 years before him. Then GWB came in and cut taxes and spent like crazy and pumped the debt by about 5 trillion in 8 years.

So right off the bat the debt grew by 8 trillion under Reagan, Bush, Bush, it is now 12 trillion. That's 2/3rds. Now, let's look at where Reagan received the debt status. The debt was slightly climbing as it was when most presidents take office, but it wasn't crazy; very manageable. When Reagan/Bush handed it off, it went from 900B to 4 trillion and was climbing hard; 250-290b/yr increase. Clinton, thru tax increases and military cuts was able to virtually flatten the debt increase in 8 years, but in this process the debt grew about 1.5T. Is it fair to attribute that to him? The Debt and decreased and the deficit turned to a surplus every years he was in office, so how is it that he inherited a 12-year mess and he owns the blame? I think all of that can and should be attributed to Reagan's mess. To use an analogy, if a truck were coming at you at 80 mph versus 5 mph, how would it be your fault if the 80mph truck hit you?

So then what did GWB do with this surplus and taxation? He screwed them both away and increased the debt 5T.

So my point is this, there have been 4 presidential runs since 1981 including the current one:

-Reagan/Bush
-Clinton
-GWB
-Obama

-The Reagan/Bush run received a shaky economy, but a stable debt increase scenario.

-Clinton inherited a mess and left a very descent economy.

-GWB inherited a very descent economy and left a mess.

-Obama inherited a mess.

Just look at the debt picture since 1981: 900b = very manageable. We've had 7 full presidential terms and the new start of another one.

- 3R

- 2D

- 2R

Economically, the Democratic run was the only one that gave healing to the US, the other 5 were caustic. Now, as I say that, I do remove GHWB from the blame as he:

- Cut about as many troops as Clinton yet in 1/2 the time, so twice the rate.

- Signed the 1990 Debt Reconciliation Act to curb Reagan's mess. This cost him the election, but it was a patriotic thing to do, this set the stage for Clinton to be successful.

Then Clinton signed the 1993 Omnibus Spending Bill which drastically raised taxes on the rich, moderately on the MC. He slightly lowered taxes in 96-97 when the debt started to get repaired.

_______________________________________________

Now, for the Congress. You claimed 50 years, the fiscal health of the nation wasn't in question 50 years ago, in fact, the last real conservative, Eisenhower, actually lowered the debt then, so going back 50 years only supports my argument. Let's go from where the whole thing became ugly; 1981.

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm

If you scroll down and look at the chart you'll see who had majority in each chamber of Congress. From 1981 until now there were 14 different 2-year terms of Congress. If we break that down to each chamber, there were 28 2-yar blocks of the House and Senate. I know Senators for 6 years, but since they overlap it’s the most fair to follow 2-year blocks. Of the 28 blocks 14 were controlled by each. As a side note, this page considers the 07-09 Senatorial session to be owned by the Dems, when in reality the split was 49-49-2. One independent caucused and voted with the Dems, the other, Lieberman was a switch-hitter and was pro-war and pro McCain, so to call him a Dem is ridiculous. His state, I believe Connecticut, the Dems failed to nominate him in the primaries, so he ran as Indep and 2/3 of the voters for him were registered Repubs, so I think this is false to call him a Dem, hence the Senate was split 50-50 with the VP breaking some ties and the Senate in that frame ran more by the R’s than the D’s.

Now let’s look at who really ran the Congress at which times. During the Reagan years the Dems ran the House all of it and ran the Senate only the last 2 years. During the GHWB years the Dems ran the entire Congress all 4 years as well as Clinton’s first 2 years. This is when the 1990 Debt Reconciliation Act and the 1993 Omnibus Spending Bill were passed and this is what laid the groundwork for Clinton’s fiscal success. I hope you do think the Clinton years were fiscally successful, the data overwhelmingly supports that. Then the R’s took Congress and Clinton had to deal to get things done such as raise the minimum wage he had to give tax cuts, which is why taxes were slightly lowered in 96 and 97. But make no mistake, GHWB played a part in Clinton’s fiscal success by laying the groundwork. GHWB and Clinton were very much the same president, most notably with NAFTA. This is why we see them doing events together. GHWB is obviously ashamed of his son for his mess with massive tax cuts and the mishandling of the Middle East, something GHWB did masterfully.

And now the biggest mess of all, the GWB years. Who ran the Congress then? The chart shows 5 of 8 2-year terms, but really 6 of 8 unless you call Lieberman a Dem. The Dems almost ran him out of their caucus when Obama was elected for campaigning for McCain, as well as other tyrannies. Either way, the R’s ran the Senate for at least the first 6 years of Bush’s term.

I realize the knee-jerk reaction when a party you align with is screwing up is to try to share the wealth of blame, but it just doesn’t pan out. In realty all we have to do is look at the presidential runs:

- Reagan/Bush = inherited a bad economy but a stable debt/deficit, left a mess

- Clinton = inherited a mess and left a very descent economy

- Bush = inherited a very descent economy, left a huge mess

Clinton did nothing but fix the economy, GHWB helped but inherited Reagan’s mess as well, but GWB then took that gem and turned it to shit. Kennedy was the last Dem president to inherit a good economy and stable debt, most R’s have recently done that but left a mess. So Clinton and Obama weren’t left an economy they could do anything with but try to fix, they couldn’t run on a neutral economy.

• Quote

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

All the while, class disparity is spreading and more and more people are going without basics
...
What the Republican Party should do is to be honest and say how they really feel; THEY COULDN'T CARE LESS ABOUT POOR PEOPLE AND STRUGGLING FAMILIES.

And the nuts irony behind all of this is that virtually all of the nation's debt has occurred due to Republicans and they are cringing at spending.

So by destroying the middle class by making them take on the burden of providing for the people that don't provide for themselves this fixes class disparity? The upper class just uses their accountants and lawyers to find the loopholes.

Republicans (historically) were the party that was for less government intervention, so if someone is looking for the government to provide for them vs. give them or businesses opportunities then yes, they might think "THEY COULDN'T CARE LESS ABOUT POOR PEOPLE AND STRUGGLING FAMILIES."

Give a fish, teach to fish...

The first thing we should do is to vacate this silly notion that people who make 50k, 100k, whatever, hell, even 10M per year are paying for the poor. Congress collects what they want to or what they can, and they spend what they want; other than freeway or other projects where a bond measure is created, there is no "I pay and they (the poor) collect" process. Collections and expenditures are simply not connected at all.

Quote

Republicans (historically) were the party that was for less government intervention, ...

No, Republicans historically were the party of fiscal responsibility, but that went away with Eisenhower. It was briefly revisted with GHWB, but then the country was pissed because he did what he had to to curb the debt and was fired for it.

What destroyed the MC was largely Reagan killing unions and MASSIVELY cutting taxes for the rich. I don't know what you earn, but you would be shocked at how insignificant it contributes to the tax system, as well as everyone in our class.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

If you look at agenda from each side I think you can find the Dems far more noble in their agenda.

In your opinion, or if you agree with the changes they want to make.

Quote

whereas the Republican agenda seems to want tax cut, which only really help the rich, and they want social cuts.

Um, no - tax cuts take people from the lower income levels entirely OFF the tax rolls.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

It's in Capital Letters in the title NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS.

Correct. "Payment" != "coverage"

Quote

it doesn't say anything about coverage but is implied in the title.

No, it's not.

Twist and spin, twist and spin, it's all you can do.

"Words have meanings".

Right, and HR3200 doesn't provide taxpayer supported "coverage" for illegal aliens.

Whether they can buy it independently is another matter completely.

The word "coverage" is not included in Section 246 - try a different 'spin' on the section, professor.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Without a way to monitor whether someone is legal (there is no provision that requires proof of being here legally in this legislation) and associated penalties (there are none here) its meaningless drivel.

That is simply wrong. There are countless statutes in existence that do not specify application protocols in the body of the statutes themselves, and yet they are absolutely operative and functional.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

If you look at agenda from each side I think you can find the Dems far more noble in their agenda.

In your opinion, or if you agree with the changes they want to make.

Quote

whereas the Republican agenda seems to want tax cut, which only really help the rich, and they want social cuts.

Um, no - tax cuts take people from the lower income levels entirely OFF the tax rolls.

>>>>>>>In your opinion, or if you agree with the changes they want to make.

Well, if you posted the rest of what I wrote it would be explaned. Either side of Congress, we have a bunch of millionaires, some want tax breaks and overall help for themselves and their fellow rich guys, others want to help the poor at the cost to themselves. So my opinion is supported by self-sacrifice over personal greed; how do you support your opinions on this issue?


>>>>>>>>>>>>>Um, no - tax cuts take people from the lower income levels entirely OFF the tax rolls.


How do you pose this as the added $400 or whatever insignificant amount of benefit the poor person receives per year means nothing, versus the 100,000's of thousands of dollars or millions these breaks mean to the rich?

Mike, let me show you here with this data, when McCain says, "Tax cuts my friends" he means that his friends are the rich.

ttp://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6


So the poor, people in that 32 and sub-32k margin, account for less than 3% of the overall tax income for the government, so they don't pay shit anyway, the best way to help them is thru social programs, education, etc. Tax cuts, my friends, mean nothing to the poor. The poor have never been taxed off the poverty roles.

Macrostructurally, not to mention that federal tax cuts have never done anything positive. The biggest tax cuts over the last 100 years have led to disaster.

Early Hoover - pre Great Depression Hoover drastically cut taxes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hoover

Prior to the start of the Depression, Hoover's first Treasury Secretary, Andrew Mellon, had proposed, and saw enacted, numerous tax cuts, which cut the top income tax rate from 73% to 24%. When combined with the sharp decline in incomes during the early depression, the result was a serious deficit in the federal budget. Congress, desperate to increase federal revenue, enacted the Revenue Act of 1932. The Act increased taxes across the board, and the percentage increased with income, to near pre-1928 levels for top income earners. It also implemented a 13.75% tax on corporations.

To pay for these and other government programs and to make up for revenue lost due to the Depression, Hoover agreed to roll back previous tax cuts his Administration had effected on upper incomes. In one of the largest tax increases in American history, the Revenue Act of 1932 raised income tax on the highest incomes from 25% to 63%. The estate tax was doubled and corporate taxes were raised by almost 15%. Also, a "check tax" was included that placed a 2-cent tax (over 30 cents in today's dollars) on all bank checks. Economists William D. Lastrapes and George Selgin,[36] conclude that the check tax was "an important contributing factor to that period's severe monetary contraction." Hoover also encouraged Congress to investigate the New York Stock Exchange, and this pressure resulted in various reforms.


Then, after it was too late, he enacted a big tax increase in 1932 as he ws about leave office, this no doubt set the stage for FDR's succcess. The GDP fell and unemployment rose every year of Hoover's term. Unemployment fell from 25% every year and the GDP rose every year of FDR's 12+ years except 1937 when there was a tiny recession within the recovery. Oh, FDR raised taxes to a higher level than any other president in history.

Reagan's tax cuts - the debt flew from 900B to almost 3T and there wasn't even a war. In fact, I praised Reagan for his foreign policy, he wasn't prone to jump off into a pathetic foreign mess. This tax cut set took GHWB and Clinton to enact 2 major tax increases and until 5.5T debt before it was headed off.

GWB's tax cuts - 5T dollar increase; need we say more? Oh, the war? It acounted for 17% of that, where's the rest?


TAX INCREASES - I've already stated them but again:

Hoover's late term increase led to 2 decades of benefit.

FDR's most major tax increase led to success out of the GD.

GHWB's tax increase led to success in teh 90's and out of his recession.

Clinton's tax increase (1993) led to amazing success in the 90's.


So, yes, Mike, this is my opinion, but that is my support, please show me where it's flawed or you have other evidence that trumps it. All I'm saying is that when we cut taxes, we get disaster and when we raise them we heal, debt, unemployment, GDP, etc.