A Fan
Liverwurst
Level: 67
   
Posts: 935/1164
EXP: 2559845
For next: 33041
Since: 3.1.02
Since last post: 3036 days
Last activity: 3036 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: 59
Posts: 721/859
EXP: 1623103
For next: 50035
Since: 2.1.02
Since last post: 1714 days
Last activity: 581 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: 205
Posts: 5318/15434
EXP: 123965949
For next: 1502927
Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス
Since last post: 25 min.
Last activity: 21 min.
| #3 Posted on 5.11.04 1035.16
Reposted on: 5.11.11 1035.49 | | HOPE IS ON THE WAY | whatever
Lap cheong
Level: 78
Posts: 487/1641
EXP: 4264414
For next: 117831
Since: 12.2.02
From: Cleveland, Ohio
Since last post: 23 hours
Last activity: 4 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: 122
Posts: 4247/4700
EXP: 20292784
For next: 345288
Since: 11.7.02
From: MD
Since last post: 748 days
Last activity: 545 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: 67
Posts: 937/1164
EXP: 2559845
For next: 33041
Since: 3.1.02
Since last post: 3036 days
Last activity: 3036 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: 59
Posts: 722/859
EXP: 1623103
For next: 50035
Since: 2.1.02
Since last post: 1714 days
Last activity: 581 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: 122
Posts: 4249/4700
EXP: 20292784
For next: 345288
Since: 11.7.02
From: MD
Since last post: 748 days
Last activity: 545 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: 78
Posts: 488/1641
EXP: 4264414
For next: 117831
Since: 12.2.02
From: Cleveland, Ohio
Since last post: 23 hours
Last activity: 4 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: 62
Posts: 521/1040
EXP: 1947533
For next: 37164
Since: 25.2.04
From: Keystone State
Since last post: 1837 days
Last activity: 306 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: 97
Posts: 1454/2759
EXP: 9225701
For next: 91657
Since: 16.4.02
From: Green Bay, WI
Since last post: 3 hours
Last activity: 2 hours
| #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: 127
Posts: 2377/5062
EXP: 23217939
For next: 508692
Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.
Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 39 min.
| #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: 44
Posts: 205/449
EXP: 609703
For next: 1586
Since: 20.2.02
From: Columbia, MO
Since last post: 25 days
Last activity: 1 hour
| 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: 122
Posts: 4251/4700
EXP: 20292784
For next: 345288
Since: 11.7.02
From: MD
Since last post: 748 days
Last activity: 545 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: 135
Posts: 2880/5879
EXP: 29143484
For next: 191597
Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR
Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 1 day
| 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: 48
Posts: 330/535
EXP: 796344
For next: 27204
Since: 17.1.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA
Since last post: 18 days
Last activity: 14 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
Andouille
Level: 87
Posts: 454/2126
EXP: 6292237
For next: 100562
Since: 7.2.02
From: Queens, NY
Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 1 hour
| #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: 80
Posts: 1651/1759
EXP: 4633608
For next: 149381
Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA
Since last post: 795 days
Last activity: 13 days
| #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
Andouille
Level: 87
Posts: 455/2126
EXP: 6292237
For next: 100562
Since: 7.2.02
From: Queens, NY
Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 1 hour
| #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: 44
Posts: 206/449
EXP: 609703
For next: 1586
Since: 20.2.02
From: Columbia, MO
Since last post: 25 days
Last activity: 1 hour
| 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. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
