The W
Views: 100056120
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
25.10.14 1924
The W - Current Events & Politics - The Bush Tax plan only helps the RICH!
This thread has 44 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 Next(2338 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (34 total)
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1318 days
Last activity: 84 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#1 Posted on
Then how do you exlpain these things?
-Reducing the marriage penalty and increasing the child tax credit to $1000 to help middle-income working families;
-Help lower income workers by moving them into lowest tax bracket of 10% now;
-Eliminate the double taxation on dividends, almost half of this savings will benefit Americans 65 and older;
-Aid unemployed workers through new personal re-employment accounts of up to $3,000 and help them find a job.

I really am surprised that no one has started a thread yet bashing this plan. Surprised indeed, especially when all I hear from the Deomocrats on the news is how it will "Only help the rich." Damn, it seems like if you give anyone who makes over $15,000 a year any sort of tax break, you are helping the rich...




My attempt at a webpage

Promote this thread!
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1272 days
Last activity: 1068 days
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
That's because obviously anybody not on welfare is rich and working to better their lives, thus making them the bain of Democratic existence.



Tank: So what do you need? Besides a miracle.
Neo: Guns. Lots of guns.
The Matrix
asteroidboy
Andouille








Since: 22.1.02
From: Texas

Since last post: 1432 days
Last activity: 340 days
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.95
I like how when there's no one around to disagree with you guys, y'all make up an imaginary liberal boogeyman to argue with.





"My brother saw the Undertaker walking through an airport." - Rex
"Was he no-selling?" - Me


"...release the dogs, or the bees, or the dogs with bees in their mouths, and when they bark, they shoot bees at you?"
-- Homer Simpson
oldschoolhero
Knackwurst








Since: 2.1.02
From: nWo Country

Since last post: 1989 days
Last activity: 1923 days
#4 Posted on
Oooooh boogie boogie boogie

Sorry. Couldn't resist.
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1318 days
Last activity: 84 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#5 Posted on

    Originally posted by asteroidboy
    I like how when there's no one around to disagree with you guys, y'all make up an imaginary liberal boogeyman to argue with.



2 hours and 1 post later and we are "making things up."
I like to think of it as "cueing." The normal liberal folks were obviously lacking a response, so we were feeding them their usual arguments, in order to stimulate their smearing.
Hell, it is annoying to hear, but in cases where it is just flat out wrong, it is fun to listen to...



My attempt at a webpage

oldschoolhero
Knackwurst








Since: 2.1.02
From: nWo Country

Since last post: 1989 days
Last activity: 1923 days
#6 Posted on
Eh. Bush and all his (copious) faults have been done to death; the man is nothing more than a joke, although that is somewhat disturbing when said joke is the most powerful man in the world. But hey, if calling this a smear means you sleep safer at night then by all means do so.
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 2 days
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.73
This is the thing about tax cuts: the money comes from somewhere. In Republican fantasy-land, it doesn't. Somehow cutting taxes means you get more tax revenue, or you save money from the "government waste" or "welfare queens" or whatever straw-man they set up, or, most often, they don't even bother to address that issue.

Does everyone get a tax cut? Sure. And if you give people a choice between "you get 50 bucks, or you don't get 50 bucks" it's not a hard choice. But that's not the choice. The choice is "you get 50 bucks, Dick Cheney gets a few hundred grand, and you've got to make up that money somewhere." I mean, if someone gives me a cookie and gives the guy next to me a cake, I'll be happy with my cookie and not really give a shit what the guy next to me got. But if you tell me that me and the guy next to me actaully owe the cost of the cookie AND the cake, then that's a different story. This is what Republicans don't understand, and haven't since Reagan. This has nothing to do with who gets what and how much and all like that. It has to do with the fact that the GOP would like you to believe that there are no consequences to this. And there are, even if you don't see them today.

That money is made up by borrowing now, which means that while I'll get 50 bucks in my pocket today, I'm going to be paying for it in the future, when my taxes are going to be raised to pay off interest on the debt we've created. And it's going to be a whole lot more than 50 bucks. Why is this so hard to grasp? If Bush offered a way to pay for these giveaways, I'd take a look at who benefits and what's fair and all like that. But he hasn't, which means the default is borrowing money, which I'm going to pay for later. And as a matter of my own self-interest, because I'm young, I'm probably going to be paying for these when I'm making more money than I am now, and therefor will be in a higher tax bracket, and therefor am going to be paying a lot more than I'm getting now.

Regardless of ideology, any young person who plans on making more money in the future is an idiot to support any kind of increased spending, tax cut, or anything that balloons the deficit like Bush is doing. If you're an 60+ year old multi-millionaire, Bush is great. You'll probably be dead by the time the countries economy is ruined by the Reagan/Bush/Junior debt, you're making off like a bandit now (and you can give it all to your spoiled-brat kids tax-free if you manage to hang on until 2008), and you can afford to buy things like perscription drugs yourself without much of a problem. If you're anyone else, he sucks. And, hey wait, let's take a look at who's in the Bush administration and inner-circle. Why, it's 60+ year-old multi-millionaires! What a coinckiedink!

(edited by MoeGates on 13.1.03 1745)


It seems that I am - in no particular order - Zack Morris, John Adams, a Siren, Aphrodite, Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel, Amy-Wynn Pastor, Hydrogen, Spider-Man, and Boston.
ges7184
Lap cheong








Since: 7.1.02
From: Birmingham, AL

Since last post: 47 days
Last activity: 2 hours
#8 Posted on
Er, we had a Reagan tax cut, the debt ballooned, and we didn't end up in economic ruin.

And it is possible for tax revenues to increase after a tax cut. Check out the national tax revenues/year and tax rates throughout the last couple of decades. You will see tax cuts, and increased revenues after said taxs. Whether you believe that the tax cuts LED to the increase revenues probably will depend on your ideology. But the facts remain that you can't predict your exact revenues based on the tax rate, and they can go up after cuts. That's because we don't live in a stagnant world and economy, and many factors determine what kind of revenues the government will receive in a given tax period.(the fact is, the better the economy, the more money government will receive)

Also, it's not a giveaway. It's not the government's money to begin with. So this is just a determination of how much of our money are we going to kick in in the future.

And I never realized there were so many 60+ year-old millionaires on this board.

(edited by ges7184 on 13.1.03 1722)
asteroidboy
Andouille








Since: 22.1.02
From: Texas

Since last post: 1432 days
Last activity: 340 days
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.95

    Originally posted by MoeGates
    Regardless of ideology, any young person who plans on making more money in the future is an idiot to support any kind of increased spending, tax cut, or anything that balloons the deficit like Bush is doing. If you're an 60+ year old multi-millionaire, Bush is great. You'll probably be dead by the time the countries economy is ruined by the Reagan/Bush/Junior debt, you're making off like a bandit now (and you can give it all to your spoiled-brat kids tax-free if you manage to hang on until 2008), and you can afford to buy things like perscription drugs yourself without much of a problem. If
    you're anyone else, he sucks. And, hey wait, let's take a look at who's in the Bush administration and inner-circle. Why, it's 60+ year-old multi-millionaires! What a coinckiedink!



Exactly. Welcome to the Republican party. The rest of their constituents are getting an enema and are convinced that they like it. Time will tell.... though why does it always seem like we go into a recession when the Republicans are in power?


By the way, Moe, please run for Prez in '04. You're making more sense than any of the Dems who've thrown their hats in the ring. By gawd, we need a smark in the White House!



"My brother saw the Undertaker walking through an airport." - Rex
"Was he no-selling?" - Me


"...release the dogs, or the bees, or the dogs with bees in their mouths, and when they bark, they shoot bees at you?"
-- Homer Simpson
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1272 days
Last activity: 1068 days
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29

    Originally posted by asteroidboy
    though why does it always seem like we go into a recession when the Republicans are in power?


That is a fair question....but this recession started during the Clinton administration so I have to call foul here.

Nevertheless, the debt wouldn't go through the roof if, and I know the Liberals hate to hear this, government cut spending. Now, the Bush administration is as guilty of this as anybody at this point, but the government need to feed off of tax revenues and grow is getting way the hell out of control and needs to be reduced simultaneously along with furhter tax cuts.



We need more like Senator Taft
calvinh0560
Boudin rouge








Since: 3.1.02
From: People's Republic of Massachusetts

Since last post: 563 days
Last activity: 20 hours
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00

    Originally posted by oldschoolhero
    Eh. Bush and all his (copious) faults have been done to death; the man is nothing more than a joke, although that is somewhat disturbing when said joke is the most powerful man in the world. But hey, if calling this a smear means you sleep safer at night then by all means do so.


Yes and Clinton getting a blow job in the oval office then lying about it did not make him the biggest joke in the last 50 years.
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1318 days
Last activity: 84 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#12 Posted on
All I have to say is that whole speal about where taxs cuts really come from is BULLSHIT.
I am sorry, it was simply not well thought out.
Take California for example. This state was ROARING in tax dollars from the DotCom boom last decade. Tax revenues went UP UP UP because the economy was doing so well. So what did our government do? INCREASED SPENDING. So now we are facing a record deficit, because all of the sudden the cash cow is gone, and we are in trouble.
The Republican answer to this problem is to cut taxes. (especially instead of increasing spending) THEN, when there is a lack of funds, cut the budget. There is no denying that there is a huge glut of government spending that needs to be dealt with. The thing that Democrats seem to convienently forget is that under Reagan, this WORKED. Everyone was better off during Reagan, finantially.
One might say that you should cut spending first, and then give a taxbreak. But everyone knows that no matter what party you are from, a politician is going to fight tooth and nail against a budget reduction for their pet projects if there is still the money to spend on it. We need the tax cuts NOW to help the economy, we can work on the budget after it is a done deal. I am sure that we will live on a deficit for a few months to a year.
As far as the cake vs. cookie analogy, you are right. The rich ARE getting a cake back, and you a cookie. But that being said, they are INITIALLY giving a whole damned bakery to the government, while you are donating your dozen cookies. I, too, fall into the dozen cookie crowd. And you know what? I will gladly take my cookie, and not begrudge the rich their cake, because when it is all said and done, they are still paying the Lion's Share of taxes. And I am not going to be so greedy as to complain that they are super rich, so I should not pay my share of the expenses of keeping this country on its feet. It is NOT the job of the rich to take care of us, and insisting that they not get an equivalent tax break is just plain greedy. Yeah, there are certain tax cuts that benefit them and not the lower income brackets, but you know what? That is a tax you are not paying AT ALL so I do not understand the complaints.
I do not understand why something that helps people everywhere is so terrible, because it happens to help rich people too. This is not a government hand out- this is the government giving you YOUR MONEY BACK! Why ever would you insist that it give you THEIR money too?

(edited by Pool-Boy on 13.1.03 1538)


My attempt at a webpage

ScreamingHeadGuy
Frankfurter








Since: 1.2.02
From: Appleton, WI

Since last post: 751 days
Last activity: 751 days
#13 Posted on
I believe that the idea of "he who pays the most taxes should get the biggest benefit of a tax cut" is sound reasoning. Taxing dividends is double taxation: the money was taxed when it was earned, and now that it's being invested and showing a return, it's being taxed again.

Pool-Boy, you may use your California example. But here in Wisconsin, when we had a surplus, the legislature decided to pass a perscription drug benefit, because we had ALL that extra money (this was in the summer of 2001, when the effects of the latest slowdown were beginning to show).

Tax cuts are a sound and proven way to stimulate spending, investment, and the consequent economic growth.



Fashion Reporter Extraordinare

Thhhor tries to explain economics to SPP, but he doesn't use the phrases "freaks and peaks", "boomshakalaka", or "booty daddy" so SPP can't understand him.

How ironic. Now he's blind, after a lifetime of being able to see.

Because ten billion years' time is so fragile, so ephemeral...
it arouses such a bittersweet, almost heartbreaking fondness.

Jaguar
Knackwurst








Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 201 days
Last activity: 2 days
#14 Posted on
Okay, think about it like this. Say they cut taxes in your state across the board. Everybody gets the same share of their money back. Rich people get a few hundred thousand, and I get a few hundred dollars back. Now, of course, the state starts running a deficit, because they can't meet their budgets. Let's say that the state catches on to this relatively quickly, so the amount of interest isn't really that high. Now they need to make up the amount of money they gave back in taxes PLUS INTEREST to balance their budget. How're they going to do that? By cutting spending. What's going to get cut? Whoever has the weakest lobby (gives the government the least amount of money). So what gets cut? Well, you can always slash the school budget. The people who have enough money to lobby against it can afford private schools, and the ones who have to put up with the failing public schools can't afford to do anything about it. The only thing they can do is wait another 2 or more years and try and vote you out of office.

-Jag

If you want lower taxes, cut spending first. If you don't, the little guy always gets screwed.



War is when you kill people with no names.
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1318 days
Last activity: 84 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#15 Posted on

    Originally posted by Jaguar
    Okay, think about it like this. Say they cut taxes in your state across the board. Everybody gets the same share of their money back. Rich people get a few hundred thousand, and I get a few hundred dollars back. Now, of course, the state starts running a deficit, because they can't meet their budgets. Let's say that the state catches on to this relatively quickly, so the amount of interest isn't really that high. Now they need to make up the amount of money they gave back in taxes PLUS INTEREST to balance their budget. How're they going to do that? By cutting spending. What's going to get cut? Whoever has the weakest lobby (gives the government the least amount of money). So what gets cut? Well, you can always slash the school budget. The people who have enough money to lobby against it can afford private schools, and the ones who have to put up with the failing public schools can't afford to do anything about it. The only thing they can do is wait another 2 or more years and try and vote you out of office.

    -Jag

    If you want lower taxes, cut spending first. If you don't, the little guy always gets screwed.


You have a point about the lobby, but you seem to forget that a lot of legislations get PANICKED when their constituants are clling en masse about something. This DOES work, believe me.
That aside- the solution to the evil results of "big money lobbying" is not to take more of my tax money. I am sorry, it just isn't. Try again.



My attempt at a webpage

Jaguar
Knackwurst








Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 201 days
Last activity: 2 days
#16 Posted on
I never said anything about raising taxes. I said cut spending, THEN lower taxes. Bush's plan is just setting us up for failure. Paul O'Neill knew it.

-Jag



War is when you kill people with no names.
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1272 days
Last activity: 1068 days
#17 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29

    Originally posted by Jaguar
    Paul O'Neill knew it.


That's not a ringing endorsement. O'Neill should've never been SecTreas to begin with. I always had my doubts about him.



We need more like Senator Taft
Jaguar
Knackwurst








Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 201 days
Last activity: 2 days
#18 Posted on
Which doubts were those? Everything I've read about O'Neill and his opinions on Bush's economic plans seemed pretty logical to me. But I look at things from a different side (sometimes) of the fence than you, so I'm interested to know what you thought of him?

-Jag

Beyond the fact that he didn't jibe with Bush's plan so he must have sucked.



War is when you kill people with no names.
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1272 days
Last activity: 1068 days
#19 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
My problem with O'Neill was the fact that he was not in lockstep wiht the administration on fiscal policy i.e. tax cuts, supply-side economics etc. While I certainly would hope that the administration does not have a cabinet full of yes-men, it is important in my book to have the SecTreas as somebody who is idealogically similar to the big boss, especially when you consider the riple effect any comments by the aforementioned SecTreas can have on the American stock market, and by default the American and Global economy.

A long answer to a short question!



We need more like Senator Taft
calvinh0560
Boudin rouge








Since: 3.1.02
From: People's Republic of Massachusetts

Since last post: 563 days
Last activity: 20 hours
#20 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
I have seen leading economic annalist some love the idea of the tax cut some hate the idea of the tax cut at this time. Its hard for someone like me who has 1 college class in economics to know who to believe.
Pages: 1 2 Next
Pages: 1 2 NextThread ahead: Liberation Day
Next thread: One step closer to Big Brother
Previous thread: George Ryan -- your anti-death penalty saviour
(2338 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Bush is screwed when it comes to the important jackrabbit vote.
The W - Current Events & Politics - The Bush Tax plan only helps the RICH!Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.284 seconds.