TH - please stop with the name calling. Thanks
Bush-not sure if he's helping Joe Average American
by roybatty 24 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Trauma_Hound
you won't change your point of view and god knows you babbling democrats aren't going to change mine.
And what is that? ^
-
Witch Child
Trauma Hound, you seriously remind me of my friend Jon. Don't worry he is a great guy. Rock on!
Spartacus, while I would theoretically prefer Gore in the White House due to his being a democrat, which I generally prefer to republicans, I have no love for him. I hear he is a condecending, arrogant prick. I have not heard that he has a special gift for butchering the English language. I have trouble believing there is anyone to rival Dubbaya in that department unless it was the infamous Dan Quayle.
~Witch
-
email
Yale! What a joke! I absolutely LOVE his tax break for the rich... how about a break on payroll tax??? Does he want to help average Americans? Of course not, all his friends are rich!
That statement is amusing... You sound like you're parroting what the head of the democrats say and repeat over and over again... hoping people will repeat it without knowing the facts.
This is the democrats view of how a tax break should benefit everyone (the communist way)
I'll give you an example:
Lets imagine there are 2 college students... both are equally smart, equally capable of accomplishing things. Student#1 studies hard... some weekdays and weekends she/he decides NOT to go out with his buddies and instead study for his/her clasess while student #2 goes out... party hard... doesn't study for his/her classes.
When they take tests student#1 always gets good grades let's say a 5 while student#2 doesn't do THAT well but doesn't do as good as student#1 he/she gets a 3.
Later on the teacher of the class asks Student#1 that because she/he got a 5 that he/she should give student#2 at least 1 point of his/her grades so that both of them have 4.
My question is... Is that fair? That's what DEMOCRATS WANT TO DO... DON'T YOU GET IT?!?!? (I'll wait for your comments... bashings)
P.S. TH - what's up with the name calling man... we're all friends here... and I get equally offended when you try to belittle other friends of mine.
Edited by - email on 23 January 2003 13:27:22
-
freedom96
It might be interesting to note that George Bush has not always been "rich." He sold his portion of a ball team, and made most of his money from that. He is not nearly as wealthy as some are assuming.
As far as his tax break, the majority of it DOES in fact help the middle class. If you have a average police officer for example, and his wife is a school teacher, would you consider them rich?? Their income level is what is affected by the tax break. It is not geared just for the Bill Gates etc.
-
Spartacus
Witch Child I am an Independent Voter, I'm not interested in Party Affiliation but results. This country spin it's wheels for 8 years under Clinton, can you name one good thing he did while he was in office? I voted Clinton too BTW.
Witch Child said:
"We have the stupidest president I can imagine... Yale! What a joke! I absolutely LOVE his tax break for the rich... how about a break on payroll tax??? Does he want to help average Americans?"
On the Tax Relief. If the Democrats were in office you can bet your bottom dollar on tax increases for everybody. Hell, Clinton increased Social Security Taxes on the Elderly yet I heard no Liberal cry foul. So far since Bush has been in office we have seen Tax Relief for example: Look for yourself:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/reports/taxplan.html
Under the Presidents tax relief plan, the typical American family of four will be able to keep at least $1,600 more of their own money.
- Replacing the current tax rates of 15, 28, 31, 36, and 39.6 percent with a simplified rate structure of 10, 15, 25, and 33 percent (see Appendix for rate schedule);
- Doubling the child tax credit to $1,000 per child and applying the credit to the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT);
- Reducing the marriage penalty by reinstating the 10 percent deduction for two-earner couples;
- Eliminating the death tax;
- Expanding the charitable deduction to non-itemizers; and
- Making the Research and Experimentation (R&D) tax credit permanent.
This does not sound like Tax Relief for the RICH. Are we really interested in truth?
Edited by - Spartacus on 23 January 2003 13:20:59
-
pettygrudger
Spartacus - I appreciate your knowledge on the subject of tax relief - can you tell me where the money is going to come from for these credits without a large deficit?
Also, as regards to the UM's "20-points" for Affirmitive Action - if you actually ever filled out their application, that 20 points can be gotten in a lot of ways, but is not "double-dippable". I.E. if you have a strenght in arts, sports, sciences, etc., or if you are low income then you receive the 20 points, but you cannot get more than those 20 points (i.e. can't get 20 for being of a minority & 20 for being low income). This is 20 points for which I believe 165 points are available......Bush didn't even read the damn thing!
But I would say that I would be interested in the Texas plan, regardless of who created it....it sounds like an interesting concept.
-
Texas Apostate
I used to try and come into threads like these and argue my position on why I believe that Bush is a good President in my opinion, and while I agree with most of political his views there are some I don't agree with. I agree with him on affirmative action. Race based preferential treatment is IMHO not good. I am a first generation Mexican-American. I grew up in a neighborhood that was 95% mexican and poor. My parents had instilled in me to always excel in whatever I was doing. During my elementary school years my paintings won 1st place several times in city competition. I had also demostrated strong mathematical, english and science skills. I had also excelled in sports. I was even asked to compete in a school district marathon. The school was to sent only two representatives from each school year. I got to be one. By the time I reached Junior High I was in advanced honors classes. There was only 1 other hispanic in these classes. I was also continually asked by my P.E. coach to join the football team and track team. This time my parents did not want me to join (They were beginning to became hardcore witnesses by this time). Fast forward to my last two years at high school. I was no longer in advanced classes (I didn't see a reason to, JW's restricted college). Although I was in regular classes, my teachers noticed that the school work seemed easy to me. I still managed to graduate with a pretty good GPA. If I could I would have been accepted at pretty much any state college just because my grades where pretty good for a "Hispanic". I didn't thought. Fast forward 3 years. I had a sucky job, and was living at home with Mom and Dad. I got tired of my measly check. I got tired of my lifestyle. I sucked it up, and enrolled in tech school. I took out loans with the help of my parents. I decided that I was going to give it my best. I graduated top of the class. Fast forward to 2003. I have great job, and make good money. My wife also has a good job, and makes good money. She is also Hispanic. We just recently purchased a new home in a great side of town, with enough room for our daughter to run around. Both of us have gotten to where we are at without preferential treatment or a government hand out. She is also someone who excelled in school. She even graduated top 5 percent of her high school. We both do not believe in race based preferential treatment. I do agree on talent preferential treatment. If you are good at something, and the school is looking for those talents so be it. I do not believe that just because you are hispanic, black or green you should be able to have a leg up over an anglo. As far as Tax break for the "rich". From what I understand, the government considers those who make more than $120,000/yr "rich". My wife and I are pretty close to that mark for this year, and I by no means consider myself "rich". Also from what I understand, the top 20% percent wage earners (120,000/yr?) pay for over 50% of the taxes in America. Believe me, I have compared my taxes for the last 5 years, and the more you make, the more taxes you pay.
That's my take
TA
Edited by - Texas Apostate on 23 January 2003 13:48:45
-
RandomTask
you won't change your point of view and god knows you babbling democrats aren't going to change mine.
Seems like a hell of a lot less volatile statement than:
I'm not a democrap, you dumbass,
Scarlets statement was made towanrds Democrats in general. If you arent one then why do you feel so threatened by this statement?
TH, you jump down peoples throats for the slightest percieved provocation. You are overly sensitive and you are rude to people who do not share your world view. Please do not call my wife a dumbass, she didn't do anything to you. She simply has a different opinion than you, or do you find that unacceptable?
-
Spartacus
Hi pettygrudger, I'm sure you are reminded of the Reagan Years of deficit spending. You asked:
"can you tell me where the money is going to come from for these credits without a large deficit?"
Each President who lowered taxes collected more tax revenues as a consequence. I think Roosevelt was the first, then Kennedy, Reagan now Bush. During the Reagan years, Congress kept spending more money than what was coming in even though it was collecting more money than it did before taxes were decreased. Budgets were getting bigger out of control spurred on by huge revenue receipts delivered by a stimulated economy because it was allowed to keep more money via tax relief. By Law Congress had to finally bring spending under control it was the first time in more than 40 plus years when they produced a balanced budget. Deficit spending has been a tradition between both Parties.
Each dollar that goes to the Fed, only 35 cents comes back to the public, do the math and there is no advantage for all citizens except the political officer who decides where that money goes who is made more powerful.
My problem with Democrats is that their mantra is "MORE POWER" "MORE GOVERNMENT" "MORE TAXATION" until they have achieved a socialist state.
My Problem with Republicans is they want to lower taxes to spur on the economy because people will have more spending money, we shop, the market pops but they "only" want do it on the government side. If it's a matter of putting more dollars in consumers pockets then why don't the PRIVATE side do it's part? We all know how greedy CEO's and heads of Businesses are, MORE of the "Profits" should be shared with the Rank and File of employees but as it is Billions of dollars in forms of stock options and bonuses go to "executives" they are unfairly pocketing virtually all the profit that everyone had a part in achieving yet paying the Rank and File whatever Salary they get. This is wrong.
Example: I work for a Mutual Fund Company and we merged with another Fund Company 4 years ago. The founder of this company got 650,000,000 bucks, executives below him got millions in bonuses a few 100 plus many got more than 50 to 5 and less. After that the rest of us 2500 Rank and File had only a million bucks to split up, that year I got 6000 dollars. I appreciated it but imagine if the executive shared 20 million instead of just 1 what difference that would make, that would have been wonderful. How much better off our economy would be if the Private Sector shared profits more fairly. I think it is immoral for one man to get 650,000,000 bucks and not share more of that with the Rank and File.
This in a nutshell is the problem with the Economy, too much money is going to only a few, they can only buy so many homes, clothes, toys and stuff. Its masses of consumers with plenty of money that makes the economy go. Something has to be done about getting these greedy executives to share the money, they are killing the golden goose.
I think there should be laws on the books that forces companies to share more profits with it's employee's. Imagine all the more money government would collect if Businesses spread the money out?
Edited by - Spartacus on 23 January 2003 18:1:44