The W
Views: 99994266
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
24.10.07 1216
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Bush outlines second term agenda. Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 Next(527 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (28 total)
A Fan
Liverwurst
Level: 68

Posts: 935/1164
EXP: 2715834
For next: 12980

Since: 3.1.02

Since last post: 3558 days
Last activity: 3558 days
#1 Posted on 5.11.04 1029.04
Reposted on: 5.11.11 1029.18
Well, here it comes...http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/041105/480/nyet26511051458

Anyone else think that half of these will blow up in his face or is all hope lost?
Promote this thread!
DrOp
Frankfurter
Level: 60

Posts: 721/859
EXP: 1721978
For next: 50810

Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 2236 days
Last activity: 1102 days
#2 Posted on 5.11.04 1033.36
Reposted on: 5.11.11 1034.22
(image removed)

Somehow (and I am only half joking)--I read all of those and I see benefits to big business written all UNDER those points.

The Tax Code *is* overly complicated, however.

And can we finally agree to make SUVs conform to admissions and estimated gas mileage rules? I mean, if we're going to focus in Energy and all...
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator
Level: 213

Posts: 5318/16301
EXP: 142708816
For next: 658091

Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 18 hours
Last activity: 2 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#3 Posted on 5.11.04 1035.16
Reposted on: 5.11.11 1035.49
HOPE IS ON THE WAY
whatever
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 487/1738
EXP: 4933948
For next: 58922

Since: 12.2.02
From: Cleveland, Ohio

Since last post: 15 days
Last activity: 5 hours
#4 Posted on 5.11.04 1035.51
Reposted on: 5.11.11 1036.38
Not a fan of the privatization of Social Security - that just seems like asking for trouble.

Also not a fan of the Alaskan drilling. What happened to his "proposed Hydrogen car"? Push *that* development, instead of impacting the environment further.

Finally, hey tax cuts are fine, IF you keep the government spending down. Don't spend what you don't have. (If you *know* you are in the middle of a war, perchance you should budget for it.)
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 4247/4700
EXP: 21586406
For next: 250256

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1270 days
Last activity: 1067 days
#5 Posted on 5.11.04 1139.30
Reposted on: 5.11.11 1139.30
    Originally posted by whatever
    Also not a fan of the Alaskan drilling. What happened to his "proposed Hydrogen car"? Push *that* development, instead of impacting the environment further.
Quiet you....

    Originally posted by DrOP
    Somehow (and I am only half joking)--I read all of those and I see benefits to big business written all UNDER those points.
Nah. Think about the benefits to everybody:

- Tax Code: Flat tax means lower taxes for the middle class
- Social Security: We all know that...
- Tax cuts permanent: back-up plan to the flat tax
- Energy: Lowers gas prices, even if gas prices arent' that high compared to inflation.
- Democracy to Iraq: duh...

A Fan
Liverwurst
Level: 68

Posts: 937/1164
EXP: 2715834
For next: 12980

Since: 3.1.02

Since last post: 3558 days
Last activity: 3558 days
#6 Posted on 5.11.04 1147.14
Reposted on: 5.11.11 1147.14
Does anyone else see privitization of social security having about as much success as playing the lotto. I don't trust the Market at all considering the Euro is kicking our ass. Drilling in Alaska is just stupid, build the cars that rely on alternative sources. We wouldn't have to worry about the price of gas anymore.
DrOp
Frankfurter
Level: 60

Posts: 722/859
EXP: 1721978
For next: 50810

Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 2236 days
Last activity: 1102 days
#7 Posted on 5.11.04 1151.54
Reposted on: 5.11.11 1152.20
    Originally posted by Grimis
      Originally posted by DrOP
      Somehow (and I am only half joking)--I read all of those and I see benefits to big business written all UNDER those points.
    Nah. Think about the benefits to everybody:

    - Tax Code: Flat tax means lower taxes for the middle class
    - Social Security: We all know that...
    - Tax cuts permanent: back-up plan to the flat tax
    - Energy: Lowers gas prices, even if gas prices arent' that high compared to inflation.
    - Democracy to Iraq: duh...




Are you telling me that my slant and yours (and I agree with the benefits) are mutually exclusive? (That was mostly a rhetorical question)
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 4249/4700
EXP: 21586406
For next: 250256

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1270 days
Last activity: 1067 days
#8 Posted on 5.11.04 1158.02
Reposted on: 5.11.11 1159.01
    Originally posted by DrOp
    Are you telling me that my slant and yours (and I agree with the benefits) are mutually exclusive? (That was mostly a rhetorical question)
No. But I see more of a benefit to the middle class than to big business on all of those points...
whatever
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 488/1738
EXP: 4933948
For next: 58922

Since: 12.2.02
From: Cleveland, Ohio

Since last post: 15 days
Last activity: 5 hours
#9 Posted on 5.11.04 1201.45
Reposted on: 5.11.11 1205.42
    Originally posted by Grimis
    Tax Code: Flat tax means lower taxes for the middle class

That seems like reading a lot into that statement. I like the idea of a flat tax, but his statement only said he was appointing a commission to look into complicated forms and codes. That's quite the assumptive leap to make.
Roy.
Pepperoni
Level: 63

Posts: 521/1040
EXP: 2092809
For next: 4354

Since: 25.2.04
From: Keystone State

Since last post: 2358 days
Last activity: 828 days
#10 Posted on 5.11.04 1210.23
Reposted on: 5.11.11 1211.47
I was reading somewhere (I think it was this Time Magazine article (time.com) that the Alaskans don't really care if we drill in their preserves. It's people outside of Alaska that are outraged. I especially like how the biggest anti-drilling organization is located in California.

I think this is what changed my mind (somewhat) about it. If the people up there don't care if we drill in their backyards, what's the big deal? Yes, there's natural beauty there, but I'm not sure that the proposal is to pave over the land and salt the earth, is it? We need the energy, since nobody's invented anything better than decayed dinosaurs.

That said, alternative energies would be superb. Of course, I think that's a pipe dream until the oil wells start to sound like sucking soda through a half empty cup. Then we'll be decades behind and we'll all grind to a hault (except for those people who ride bikes).
The Thrill
Banger
Level: 99

Posts: 1454/2781
EXP: 9919126
For next: 80909

Since: 16.4.02
From: Green Bay, WI

Since last post: 190 days
Last activity: 36 days
#11 Posted on 5.11.04 1338.13
Reposted on: 5.11.11 1338.35
    Originally posted by whatever
    What happened to his "proposed Hydrogen car"?


(image removed)
Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator
Level: 131

Posts: 2377/5216
EXP: 25764993
For next: 659697

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 22 hours
#12 Posted on 5.11.04 1349.45
Reposted on: 5.11.11 1356.24
The tax brackets for personal income go from 35% (for $319,100+) all the way down to 1% ($7150 and under) if I'm not mistaken. (For single persons)

People who make between $29,050 and $70,350 (middle class, and most people fall into this bracket) pay 25%.

The flat tax would have to be lower than 25% to benefit the middle class. Does anyone know what the proposed flat tax would be, I bet it would be 30%

No matter what the tax will be, I bet people below the poverty line will be paying MORE (those below $29,050 and pay 20% or less)

Little note that only accountants would appreciate:

The top bracket was lowered to 35% from like 38.5% to put it in line with corporations. Sole proprietorships pay taxes on the personal income schedule. On the same bracket, the small mom-and-pops were paying 38.5%, but the corporation was paying 35% so there was a disadvantage to the mom-and-pops. They lowered the top bracket.

I would have raised the 35% to 38.5% Corporations are a small sector of the business world, but make up about 90% of the revenue.
messenoir
Summer sausage
Level: 45

Posts: 205/449
EXP: 647280
For next: 12889

Since: 20.2.02
From: Columbia, MO

Since last post: 547 days
Last activity: 413 days
AIM:  
#13 Posted on 5.11.04 1408.10
Reposted on: 5.11.11 1410.37
    Originally posted by Roy.
    I was reading somewhere (I think it was this Time Magazine article (time.com) that the Alaskans don't really care if we drill in their preserves. It's people outside of Alaska that are outraged. I especially like how the biggest anti-drilling organization is located in California.

    I think this is what changed my mind (somewhat) about it. If the people up there don't care if we drill in their backyards, what's the big deal? Yes, there's natural beauty there, but I'm not sure that the proposal is to pave over the land and salt the earth, is it? We need the energy, since nobody's invented anything better than decayed dinosaurs.

    That said, alternative energies would be superb. Of course, I think that's a pipe dream until the oil wells start to sound like sucking soda through a half empty cup. Then we'll be decades behind and we'll all grind to a hault (except for those people who ride bikes).


Well, except the native tribes living on the land DO care, and have taken several tours across the US to express their caring.

And there is not enough oil in that area to solve anything, and can't be drilled anytime soon.

Wind power is cheap and now, as well as being beneficial to farmers and also a source of new jobs.

Biomass for vehicles is cheap and available now and beneficial to farmers. Constructing new biomass vehicles also creates jobs.

We have technologies to make all vehicles more fuel efficient available now. http://www.sierraclub.org/freedompackage/freedom9b.pdf has some of the technoligies we can place on any vehicle to make it more efficient. And guess what? Implementing new technologies creates jobs. Investing in new technologies would help US manafacturers lead in a market that will become neccessary at some point.

Drilling in the Arctic is such a miniscule, small-term solution that does very little to help our oil problem, and is simply being used to divert attention from any real solution.
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 4251/4700
EXP: 21586406
For next: 250256

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1270 days
Last activity: 1067 days
#14 Posted on 5.11.04 1419.31
Reposted on: 5.11.11 1419.31
    Originally posted by Zeruel
    The flat tax would have to be lower than 25% to benefit the middle class. Does anyone know what the proposed flat tax would be, I bet it would be 30% .
The number I keep hearing is 17%...
Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator
Level: 139

Posts: 2880/6013
EXP: 31971843
For next: 495684

Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 11 hours
Last activity: 11 hours
AIM:  
#15 Posted on 5.11.04 1455.26
Reposted on: 5.11.11 1455.58
The part about "environment friendly" energy that I love is that no one seems to think that there is any cost in removing the energy from the environment.

If we remove kinetic energy (in the form of wind) from the environment in a large scale manner, what does this do to our weather?

If we remove the energy present in light from the environment, how does this change things? Can you create low pressure zones by creating localized colder areas due to radiant heat not existing in the area of solar farms?

Granted - fossil fuel based energy seems to have downfalls. I'm just saying - don't be so quick to assume that alternative energy forms are harmless. They appear to be so on the small scale - but I just don't know what happens on a large scale.

I guess I'm thinking that it's like throwing one rock in a river. You don't notice the effect - that's where we are today with the friendly energy stuff. What happens once you throw a thousand rocks in the river - does it make a dam at some point?

(edited by Guru Zim on 5.11.04 1256)
brick
Bockwurst
Level: 49

Posts: 330/535
EXP: 845026
For next: 38863

Since: 17.1.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 540 days
Last activity: 536 days
#16 Posted on 5.11.04 1523.15
Reposted on: 5.11.11 1524.52
    Originally posted by Grimis
      Originally posted by Zeruel
      The flat tax would have to be lower than 25% to benefit the middle class. Does anyone know what the proposed flat tax would be, I bet it would be 30% .
    The number I keep hearing is 17%...


Any Links Grimis? I had been looking for a % recently and didn't find anything firm.

Its going to be hard to convince people that this isn't just another gift to the rich. It will take alot of showing them, with deductions John Q. Rich actualy only paid 10% last year but will pay 17% this year without deductions.

I'm not sure where I stand on this right now. On one hand It seems more fair to me, on the other, now that I can't deduct the interest on my morgage's will I actually be paying more?
Leroy
Boudin blanc
Level: 91

Posts: 454/2266
EXP: 7349263
For next: 119678

Since: 7.2.02

Since last post: 8 days
Last activity: 8 days
#17 Posted on 5.11.04 1525.37
Reposted on: 5.11.11 1526.11
    Originally posted by Grimis
    The number I keep hearing is 17%...


Which is a tax increase overall, mostly affecting the bottom 75%. Yeah, that's a great middle class tax cut.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/prtopincometable.html
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 1651/1759
EXP: 4930545
For next: 62325

Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1316 days
Last activity: 83 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#18 Posted on 5.11.04 1533.54
Reposted on: 5.11.11 1534.26
I can't wrap my brain around the idea that everyone paying the same percentage of their income in taxes is somehow unfair....

Sure, some people are going to have to pay more. Some less. Short term, it seems evil. But long term? No more "tax cuts for the rich" nonesense. If you cut taxes, it will be an equal percentage across the board. No more obscure loopholes. Normal people will actually be able to understand what the hell the politicians are talking about when they decide to change the tax code.

Sign me up.
Leroy
Boudin blanc
Level: 91

Posts: 455/2266
EXP: 7349263
For next: 119678

Since: 7.2.02

Since last post: 8 days
Last activity: 8 days
#19 Posted on 5.11.04 1623.08
Reposted on: 5.11.11 1623.15
    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    I can't wrap my brain around the idea that everyone paying the same percentage of their income in taxes is somehow unfair....


Hey, I don't really have a problem with that either.

But just don't call it a "middle-class tax cut" when - in order to "even things out" - you're raising taxes on the middle and lower class, and only cutting taxes for the top 10%.

(edited by Leroy on 5.11.04 1424)
messenoir
Summer sausage
Level: 45

Posts: 206/449
EXP: 647280
For next: 12889

Since: 20.2.02
From: Columbia, MO

Since last post: 547 days
Last activity: 413 days
AIM:  
#20 Posted on 5.11.04 1628.38
Reposted on: 5.11.11 1629.01
    Originally posted by Guru Zim
    The part about "environment friendly" energy that I love is that no one seems to think that there is any cost in removing the energy from the environment.

    If we remove kinetic energy (in the form of wind) from the environment in a large scale manner, what does this do to our weather?

    If we remove the energy present in light from the environment, how does this change things? Can you create low pressure zones by creating localized colder areas due to radiant heat not existing in the area of solar farms?

    Granted - fossil fuel based energy seems to have downfalls. I'm just saying - don't be so quick to assume that alternative energy forms are harmless. They appear to be so on the small scale - but I just don't know what happens on a large scale.

    I guess I'm thinking that it's like throwing one rock in a river. You don't notice the effect - that's where we are today with the friendly energy stuff. What happens once you throw a thousand rocks in the river - does it make a dam at some point?

    (edited by Guru Zim on 5.11.04 1256)


You do have a point, Guru. The same argument has been forwarded with bird impacts, building generators in environmentally sensitive areas, etc.

And the answer is: Nothing we do will be environmentally neutral, but there are levels. We must make sure not to build generators in bird migration areas, or in national parks.

With the affects generators could have on wind patterns, I guess I see it as thus: The generators don't really remove the wind from the environment, they redirect it slightly. But our electric poles or cell phone towers do the same thing, and there are far more of those then will ever be needed of wind generators. Generator will be fairly scattered, and I just don't see the redirecting as ever being enough of a problem to worry about, especially considering everything else on this planet that already redirects thw wind.

And solar panels fall under the same category to me. If the planet was covered with them, I could see problems. But rooftops are far more numerous, and soak up far more sunlight the solar panels could ever hope to accomplish. And many solar panels are on rooftops, at that.

But yea, there could be problems. We shouldn't go into anything blindly, and we should monitor the effects we are having on the environment. But the wind and solar industries are far more likely to do that then the coal industry or the oil indsutry. Witness the great steps the wind industry took to reduce impacts on birds after the raptor problems in California.

You have to force the coal industry to care about the mercury in our water, and they're still complaining about costs.
Pages: 1 2 NextThread ahead: Elections in Iraq
Next thread: Obama: I'm not running in 2008....
Previous thread: Global Economy
(527 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Bush outlines second term agenda.Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.208 seconds.