sv3n

No, nice try though. I'm using the example that some making gazillions of dollars doesn't need tax breaks while the guy scraping by at $20k does need them............regardless of where they come from. Dude, you really still don't get it, do you? Where do you think the JOBS that provide Joe Sixpack's money come from? Oh yeah...those rich folks and the companies they own/run. What do you do when money's tight? That's right - you take care of the essentials and get rid of non-essentials. Do you REALLY think companies don't do the same thing? The basis of good law is benefit to the entire public, not benefit to one certain demographic at the expense of another - you have not YET shown harm to Joe Sixpack from a break on dividend and capital gains tax that JOE HIMSELF CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF. The fact that Warren Buffet will get more gain out of the break than Joe Sixpack is immaterial. So - you want to take away those benefits that "only the rich get"? No problems, but your own argument about fairness says you also have to take away those benefits that the rich DON'T get. So - no earned income credit payments, no child care expense deductions, etc.... all of those tax breaks that "the poor" get that "the rich" don't - gone. Now, there's Joe Sixpack. He just got laid off, because the company that he worked for had to lay off 12% of the workforce in order to meet budget due to the increased taxes. The rest had to take a 10% cut in pay, and will end up paying more in taxes since they don't get the earned income credit or the childcare expense deductions anymore. They're also having to pay more at the store, since the companies passed on part of THEIR increased cost of doing business on to the customer, just like they always do. But you sure showed those rich fuckers...didn't you? Nice rant..........completely unfounded, but nice rant. So how exactly were people able to survive with only one person working an average job and able to afford a house and a car in the "good old days"? Was that on planet X in dream land? No it was in this country...............so try to figure out exactly what changed. So the costs kept rising, but the pay didn't..............so where did the extra money go? You think it might be in someone's bank account? I'm not sure, but work on it and let me know what you come up with. ...and you're in violation of your face!

http://www.cbpp.org/9-19-05tax.htm I liked what Bill Clinton had to say: I can keep getting more and more articles that talk about how the rich get tax breaks that the lower class don't or can't take advantage of. If you want reading assignments let me know. ...and you're in violation of your face!

That's funny, here's a completely different view. http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2064157,00.html ...and you're in violation of your face!

So you're saying you're not upset that billions are missing? And who is to blame since they are missing? That's gotta be probably the worst defensive post I've ever read............but to give you credit you're trying to defend someone else. A simple, you're right I suppose, would've proved you a lot more intelligent than another switch of topic or trying to nit pick out some different view that makes absolutely no sense. This isn't some faked lunar landing crap or inside job junk...............there's billions of dollars missing, it's been more than recorded from both sides. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What does this have to do with the article in the OP being "more propaganda from the US"? Well, you can read over the thread and figure it out. But let me give you a hint.......funding. Absolutely not, it has to do with funding. People don't want to be in a war, but we're stuck in it. You asked what makes anybody think twice about more funding. I offered the fact that billions are disappearing. Then it was compared to some fake lunar landing bs as if there was no confirmed data about it and as if it was no big deal. Seems that asking for more funding and what happened with portions of the previous funding would be on topic and relevant, especially when it pertains to people begin nervous about a request for more money. You're right it is the best for last............fake lunar landing (no solid proof, just theories) vs. missing money in the billions (well documented proof)..............that's a stupid comparison alright. ...and you're in violation of your face!

It's really sad. A couple of years ago when I started paying attention to politics I had a lot of people tell me that some people regardless of what the facts are will come up with any excuse just so they don't have to get out of their own mindset. Naive me, I was thinking "what a bunch of BS, people aren't that f'in stupid if the facts are right in front of them". It took me about a month to get over that. Regardless of what the facts are.... sort of like the idea that gov't is somehow responsible for making sure that everyone has health insurance, per se? No, once again...........off topic and to use simple terms, just a stupid comparison. The fact is that a large sum of money in the billions is missing and nobody has any idea where it went. With healthcare, the problem is that people are dying in the tens of thousands because prices are rising and the care costs are over-inflated. The difference is that with the healthcare the debate is wether or not we should provide healthcare with government funding or leave people to fend for themselves. So with healthcare the debate is over the solution to the problem. Now with the missing money, the fact is the money is missing.........it's been documented not just by our government or our press but also foreign sources. There is no argument about the solution.....just an off topic response to change the subject. The comparison is absolute BS. No, it's valid...because you're doing exactly what you accuse others of on the healthcare issue. You don't have actual *proof* that those people died due to not having insurance, or (more importantly) that they would have lived *had* they had insurance - just estimates from pro-socialized healthcare sites that you take as gospel. What does this have to do with healthcare................absolutely nothing. This isn't some leftist blog poster that wrote a story. You've got: CNN: http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.audit/ NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/12/world/middleeast/12oil.html BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6129612.stm The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1522983,00.html Vanity Fair: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/10/iraq_billions200710 And last, but obviously not the least............you can't get any further away from leftist blog liberal media crap than: FOX News: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,129489,00.html So, I think it's time to take the blinders off. This isn't some "leftist tripe" or an only documented once instance. PS - you wanna talk about healthcare, do it in the thread started for it. stay on topic. ...and you're in violation of your face!

Just because the article says it favors those making 1M annually doesn't mean it is true. As I told you earlier, this benefits anyone that is in the 25% ($31,850 AGI) or higher brackets. Those people want to increase their wealth too, and it's all about the marginal tax rate. It benefits all investors, not just the wealthiest of them. And cut it out with the counter examples of the 20k salary person. That person is barely paying income taxes, and the 7.65% for FICA will be generate a much better return than for those paying 7.65% on a much higher salary. Let's put it this way..........just like the article says, the higher your salary the more you're going to benefit. So it favors the wealthy, which is BS. It should be the other way around.........it should favor the low end of the income scale. And to that person that according to you "is barely paying taxes", he's giving everything he's got. He's living paycheck to paycheck and stuck. With that in mind, why would someone who's income is in the billions need to benefit from this while the person just scraping by doesn't get any benefits from it? Dude - you're shooting yourself in the foot, here. You're using the example of someone that can't afford a mortgage as needing MORE benefit from a tax on dividends and capital gains??? You REALLY need to do some more research on this... especially when (as shown) the advantages are equally available to those with an AGI of ~32k/year or above. No, nice try though. I'm using the example that some making gazillions of dollars doesn't need tax breaks while the guy scraping by at $20k does need them............regardless of where they come from. ...and you're in violation of your face!

Neither did I - but you seem to imply that the rich person should pay out even MORE of his money than he already is, since that other person can't afford to buy a house. And this is germane to the conversation, how? Then perhaps owning their own home isn't feasible at their income level. I was 35 before I signed my mortgage - I couldn't afford it before that, so I rented. If there are tax breaks that only affect the super wealthy, as there seem to be............then yes. They don't need those tax breaks............an extra million in the bank for bill gates is gonna do what for him? And good word usage, look at the big brain on mnealtx. Germane, well it's relavent to the conversation because you seem to have some notion that the top 1% of our income payscale need tax breaks while the low end of that scale doesn't get them. And it's a prime example of why they don't. There is a big difference in the worth of a million dollars to someone that has a sum of several billions in the bank and to someone else that has a couple hundred or thousand in the bank. Which do you think can afford to pay more in taxes? And which needs the tax breaks? Obviously the person with more money can pay more in taxes and the person with less money needs all the tax breaks he can get. Then why has the system changed over the last 7 years to one that has given extra tax breaks to the people with very large sums of money that doesn't affect the people that really need it? Where exactly does the logic come into that? Of course, let's not make the "american dream" feasible to anyone except the wealthy because the billionaire wants that extra million a year in tax break savings. Sounds logical. At one time the economy here would have allowed a father to work at an average job and be able to support a family, a house, and a car. Nowadays there's no way, now everybody in the family needs to work..........inflation vs pay raises are nowhere in balance. So rather than giving breaks to the guy trying to struggle we give breaks to the guy who's already well off? ...and you're in violation of your face!

Just because the article says it favors those making 1M annually doesn't mean it is true. As I told you earlier, this benefits anyone that is in the 25% ($31,850 AGI) or higher brackets. Those people want to increase their wealth too, and it's all about the marginal tax rate. It benefits all investors, not just the wealthiest of them. And cut it out with the counter examples of the 20k salary person. That person is barely paying income taxes, and the 7.65% for FICA will be generate a much better return than for those paying 7.65% on a much higher salary. Let's put it this way..........just like the article says, the higher your salary the more you're going to benefit. So it favors the wealthy, which is BS. It should be the other way around.........it should favor the low end of the income scale. And to that person that according to you "is barely paying taxes", he's giving everything he's got. He's living paycheck to paycheck and stuck. With that in mind, why would someone who's income is in the billions need to benefit from this while the person just scraping by doesn't get any benefits from it? ...and you're in violation of your face!

It's really sad. A couple of years ago when I started paying attention to politics I had a lot of people tell me that some people regardless of what the facts are will come up with any excuse just so they don't have to get out of their own mindset. Naive me, I was thinking "what a bunch of BS, people aren't that f'in stupid if the facts are right in front of them". It took me about a month to get over that. Regardless of what the facts are.... sort of like the idea that gov't is somehow responsible for making sure that everyone has health insurance, per se? No, once again...........off topic and to use simple terms, just a stupid comparison. The fact is that a large sum of money in the billions is missing and nobody has any idea where it went. With healthcare, the problem is that people are dying in the tens of thousands because prices are rising and the care costs are over-inflated. The difference is that with the healthcare the debate is wether or not we should provide healthcare with government funding or leave people to fend for themselves. So with healthcare the debate is over the solution to the problem. Now with the missing money, the fact is the money is missing.........it's been documented not just by our government or our press but also foreign sources. There is no argument about the solution.....just an off topic response to change the subject. The comparison is absolute BS. ...and you're in violation of your face!

It's really sad. A couple of years ago when I started paying attention to politics I had a lot of people tell me that some people regardless of what the facts are will come up with any excuse just so they don't have to get out of their own mindset. Naive me, I was thinking "what a bunch of BS, people aren't that f'in stupid if the facts are right in front of them". It took me about a month to get over that. ...and you're in violation of your face!

You're better off using literal text..............as trying to guess "what people really meant" by what they wrote isn't going to get you anywhere. (example: George Bush said that we found the weapons of mass destruction, but what he really meant was that we hadn't found them yet but he hoped we would). Comparing the Preamble to the United States Constitution to some spin by President Bush??? What a stupid analogy. really, stupid? "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002 ...and you're in violation of your face!

You're better off using literal text..............as trying to guess "what people really meant" by what they wrote isn't going to get you anywhere. (example: George Bush said that we found the weapons of mass destruction, but what he really meant was that we hadn't found them yet but he hoped we would). Ah, no guessing going on here. Before you chalenge this you may want to read the Federalist Papers http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/ and where is this "no need to guess" proof.........come on, point it out. ...and you're in violation of your face!

Depends on how well they can budget and save. A smarter move would be to get a better paying job before buying a house. Why do you think it's the other person's responsibility? You're quite good at championing causes...as long as it's someone ELSE'S money that pays for it. Did I say that anybody should pay their house payments or rent? No, I didn't. But there's a great difference between 5% from this person and 35% from that person as far as taxes are concerned. A billion from Bill Gates doesn't mean crap to him......but a billion to most of us is more money than we will ever see unless we work in a bank. Some people can't just pick up a new career and make an extra $10k next year..........they didn't inherit millions or their daddy's didn't buy them oil companies for birthdays. Yes there's always the going back to school thing, and people do that as well. But if you're only making $20k a year and scraping by.........what's the likelyhood that you're going to drop your hours down so you can go back to school and survive off of even less money each year with more expenses? Or you keep the same hours, but your expenses go up because of tuition, books, school supplies? I'm not saying these things are impossible, but they're easier said than done and that's just a single person. Let's say they had a child. ...and you're in violation of your face!

Things like this quote don't ring a bell? This is just one point how things are geared towards people that are wealthy and hav extravagent incomes. And there's tons more in all three of those articles. Seriously now, the "but there's one sentence in one of the three articles that on my side" is getting really tired. Oh and yeah, the "oh that source is so shady" junk is getting tired as well. It's the new york times not some liberal journal.......it's an actual newspaper. Just because they wrote an article that doesn't agree with your point doesn't mean they're not a viable outlet for information. I seriously thought you were past that petty junk and up for some serious conversation. And no, the market is not regulating itself.............health insurance for instance, there's six main companies that run health insurance in this country and prices aren't dropping while they're competing................the prices are rising. When does this miracle effect take place, is it before or after the magic beans are planted? Great example is oil..............there's several large oil companies that deal in the same products..........are prices dropping due to competition? Nope they just keep rising. The demand hasn't changed.............but they keep the supply down to keep the prices up. Same thing happens with healthcare............the companies keep the healthcare prices high so that they can get discounts on the rates from the providers and charge large amounts for their policies. They're not stupid, this is their business..........they make more profits if they keep the prices up. ...and you're in violation of your face!

This isn't some faked lunar landing crap or inside job junk...............there's billions of dollars missing, it's been more than recorded from both sides. All I'm saying is that things like billions of dollars that "go missing without a trace" and then there's no real inquiries as to where it went..............that makes a lot of people nervous to put more money into a war that only 25% of the country wants to be in. Doesn't a sum in the billions missing without a trace make you a little upset? ...and you're in violation of your face!

Ok.....think about it this way. You make $20k a year..........your monthly expenses: $500 rent $200 car $100 car insurance $250 health insurance $50 renter's insurance -------------------------- $1,100 total -------------------------- $13,200 a year* +$1,296 tax -------------------------- $14,496 *that doesn't include things like food, fuel, clothing, going to do things like skydiving or seeing a movie, or putting any money aside in a savings account. Now let's say you wanted to own a house, your payments are pretty much going to double...........add $6k onto your expenses, you just exceeded your income. Now let's look at our individual making $20billion a year: $20,000,000,000 income -$6,999,976,012 taxes ------------------------------ $13,000,023,988 Do you think they'll be able to pay rent or buy a house with that income while paying for all the other expenses? ...and you're in violation of your face!

Tax Breaks only available to the wealthy: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E05E2DC1631F933A2575AC0A9649C8B63 http://www.worldproutassembly.org/archives/2006/04/warning_tax_cut.html http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/11/business/11cuts.html So there's just a couple articles from sources like the NY Times about how the tax breaks help the wealthy. And yes, there's different ways to save some money from taxes such as IRA's, but will they save you $1 million a year in taxes? I definitely agree with you on your points about the expenses in healthcare............but what or who is going to regulate that and drive prices to a realistic level? And a tax cut for people paying cash is once again going to reward the wealthy that are able to afford to pay the $60k in cash for Chemo, but your average american isn't gonna be able to afford that. So they're screwed and out of luck? People end up having to sell their houses and everything they own and after the price of treatment and meds they're still broke and need more treatment. So what do we do about that............get healthcare for everybody or reward the rich for being able to pay their own bill? Once again, I completely agree with you.........the politicians are gonna have a field day with this. Money lost here, money misappropriated there......but in the end you know what? These are the guys who are supposed to be taking care of this stuff, if they're not doing their job..........then get somebody who can to do it. That's where accountability comes in, which we seem to be missing right now. By "big boys", I meant the politicians not the wealthy.......sorry I should've made that a bit clearer. ...and you're in violation of your face!

You're better off using literal text..............as trying to guess "what people really meant" by what they wrote isn't going to get you anywhere. (example: George Bush said that we found the weapons of mass destruction, but what he really meant was that we hadn't found them yet but he hoped we would). ...and you're in violation of your face!

I think what bothers a lot of people about this is that billions of dollars keep disappearing and nothing is being done about it...............they just keep asking for more money that we don't have. And I'm not talking about money being wasted either, I'm talking about straight up...."oh we don't know what happened with that". http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6129612.stm http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2008189,00.html ...and you're in violation of your face!

What tax breaks are you talking about? Are you under the impression that wealthy people pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than poor people pay? provide for the common defence........like dying because you can't afford insurance? or general welfare.......like health? justice? You really should learn what that means before trying to use it. The tax breaks mr b hands out that only affect the upper and middle class. great example............healthcare is the best defence against an early death. ...and you're in violation of your face!

provide for the common defence........like dying because you can't afford insurance? or general welfare.......like health? justice? "Promote the general welfare" is NOT equivalent to "Provide the general welfare"... unfortunately, that seems to be all too prevalent of both an action and an opinion. If you're allowing prices for insurance and healthcare to skyrocket then you're not promoting welfare...........you're making it harder for people to stay well. If people can't afford insurance or healthcare, then what are you going to do to promote it? Giving the rich healthcare tax breaks isn't going to help. Telling people you can go to the ER and they'll treat you but you'll get more into debt isn't promoting it either.........it's avoiding the problem. Sometimes you're just gonna have to man up..................a healthcare system that everybody pays for through taxes and everybody uses is a system that works for everybody. What do you believe would work for everybody? And I'm not talking about off-topic arguments about somantics..........changing the subject isn't going to further this discussion. If you don't believe a government run healthcare system would work, then what would work? And it needs to work for everybody, you also gotta think about the people that make $15k a year and are just scraping by. ...and you're in violation of your face!

I've never said that the UK system is perfect or any of the other systems out there.............but I do believe that we have one of the best chances of making such a system excel. ...and you're in violation of your face!

I'm not speaking of loopholes, but rather of the tax breaks the middle & upper class get while the lower class does not. The ratio doesn't really surprise me...........if you're making $20k a year or $20 billion a year, I would expect the $20 billion dollar salary to be paying quite a larger chunk of taxes. And yes, I assumed the tax breaks were included................but what I want to know is if that top 1% didn't get the tax breaks the lower class doesn't get, then how much more in taxes should they really be paying? And it's not a disparity, it's part of making that much money. I'm really curious if the system would work better with a standard tax, like a sales tax, across the board.................everybody pays the same percentage. If people can't afford healthcare, then we need to promote it. And that may include government run healthcare for those or all people. If we don't do anything about it..........then we're doing nothing to promote it. If we keep allowing prices to skyrocket, then we are not promoting welfare at all. We're actually making it harder for people to make sure they get healthcare. And if everyone pays taxes, then government run healthcare isn't paid for by just the wealthy...........it's paid for by everyone. Also by giving people who pay for their own healthcare breaks you're giving breaks only to people who can afford to do that...........another break for the wealthy. Are our democratic traditions on vacation currently because it doesn't seem like the "big boys" want to listen to the population? ...and you're in violation of your face!

um.......really? So Kerry, Clinton et al, Biden, Kennedy, and on and on and on........ all lied too, right? You said he couldn't prove that he lied..........I guess you were wrong. Really weak or you just choose not to understand Buy the way I can provide quotes from before Bush was even running. You care to see them? Sure.............why not. And by the way your original comment was that it couldn't be proven that he, specifically Mr. Bush, lied..............that's been accomplished. It's not weak, it's fact. Trying to change the subject to another person doesn't make that fact wrong. ...and you're in violation of your face!

That's a pretty good way of saying it............actually, after reading it again it's probably the best way to explain it to people so they'll think about it for a second. Things like the new north passage opening up don't happen because nothing has changed. ...and you're in violation of your face!