If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Bush contemplates eliminating federal deduction of state Income taxes. California and New York prepare to secede from the Union   (story.news.yahoo.com) divider line 521
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

24217 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Dec 2004 at 9:02 PM (9 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



521 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2004-12-06 04:16:02 AM
Opposite George

Sounds about right.

For the cabal surrounding Bush, it's all about grabbing power and control.

If Ronald Reagan were suddenly reborn, and tried to push the exact same political platform he pushed in 1980, the Bush folks would be calling him a "liberal" who was "on the far left bank of American politics".

All of the core principles of the Republican party have been sacrificed for political expediency, and the short-term economic gain for the few who are "connected" to the cabal.

Pushing for limited government?

Decrying "tax and spend" policies?

Signing MUTUAL arms-reduction treaties?

Pushing for State's Rights?

Working with our allies in Europe?

Holding the fringe Fundies in the party at arms length?

Bush has abandoned every single core idea of the Republican party, while maintaining some of the buzzwords and catch-phrases with no substance behind them.

Reagan was known as the "great communicator". What will Bush be remembered as?

Reagan pushed hard against the Soviet Union, while at the same time single-handedly making the SALT treaty a reality.. making America a safer place than it had been during most of the Cold War.

What will Bush's legacy be? Will America be any safer in 2008 than it was when Bush took office?

Nope. Not if Bush can do anything about it. He needs Americans to be frightened and scared, because without the status of "War President" he's pretty much nothing.

Can a Bush supporter name ONE thing that Bush has accomplished in his entire presidency that a) benefited Americans making less than a million a year, and b)isn't connected to the "War on Terra"?

Bush = Worst president since Herbert Hoover. Even Nixon wasn't as unabashedly publically venal and as unappoligetically criminal as Bush has been.

Under Nixon, reporters had to investigate for years to come up with the Pentagon Papers and evidence of misdeeds.... yet Bush is more than happy to publically release memos on how torture is ok, and how the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to us.

And the Bush supporters will undoubtedly blame the coming "Second Great Depression" on Clinton somehow, or the eviiil liberals who currently control zero (0) branches of the government.
 
2004-12-06 04:19:53 AM
Great idea! If you're dumb enough to live in NY or CA you should be punished.

Liberal idiot tax. Too bad it's not targeted to just NYC, LA, and SF!


Yes, because that comment just reeks of intelligence.
 
2004-12-06 04:21:16 AM
America. Getting the country it voted for. Sympathy? In the dictionary between shiat and syphillis. Might have had some concern about it 2 years ago, but eh.. you made your mind up.
 
2004-12-06 04:28:26 AM
GeneralZang:
"Can a Bush supporter name ONE thing that Bush has accomplished in his entire presidency that a) benefited Americans making less than a million a year, and b)isn't connected to the "War on Terra"?

May I?
He had the stones to do the WHOLE job, rather than just threaten Baghdad (Like Bush 41), or just lob cruise missiles at "chemical" plants and "enforce" the UN "no fly zone" (Like Clinton)
Oh, and yeah, I got my tax rebate...(made a car payment with it...)

/makes less than 1 million/yr
 
2004-12-06 04:47:19 AM
Well, if people didn't live in liberal states that have state income taxes, this wouldn't be an issue.

Vote Democrat, get two kinds of income tax.
 
2004-12-06 04:49:16 AM
KleanKutKid:

You misread the question.

What has Bush done that a) benefitted Americans making under a million a year AND isn't connected to the "War on Terror"?

Anything?
 
2004-12-06 04:58:43 AM
KleanKutKid

Oh wait. Sorry. I just reread your post. My bad.

So, you got a tax rebate?

Nice. Very nice.

So, you got about $300?

Cool. So that $300 minus your share of the 8 trillion dollar deficit, leaves you with a net benefit of ... what exactly?

I'm bad with math, so maybe you can do the calculations of what benefit you derived from the rebate after subtracting your share of the 8 trillion?

Oh, and be sure to include your monthly share of the interest on the borrowed 8 trillion.... for however many months it takes the borrowed money to be paid back.

And remember, if the loan is paid off slower than new interest accumulates, you have to calculate interest on the interest.

Oh, and be sure to remember to calculate in the overall reduction in the value of the dollar.

What's that leave you, dollar-wise, from the tax rebate?

I'd calculate it all myself.. but I'm bad with math.

;)
 
2004-12-06 05:01:53 AM
I believe YOU General Zang didn't read kleankutkid's answer either.... He mentioned his tax cut. I won't enter the flame war other than to say that, and as the question asked for ONE example.
 
2004-12-06 05:03:21 AM
Wytchocolate : Oh yeah, I forgot, Bill Clinton was telling the truth under oath.

It never ceases to amaze me that, no matter how badly their own guys are farking things up, the righties manage to bring Bill Clinton and his penis in as a defense.

So explain to me how Clinton's penis is responsible for the Republicans and Bush kicking around proposals to raise taxes and proving that they have absolutely no principles whatsoever and are therefore pathetic liars and hypocrites. I must have missed that part of Rush's show.




"I don't spend more then oh... say... 18 hours a week thinking about Bill Clinton's penis... honestly!"
 
2004-12-06 05:21:07 AM
we're already carrying the red states, lets cut off our legs and just hand em over, they can have the wheelchair too.
 
2004-12-06 06:18:45 AM
mindbuzz - "Please, Bush voters, enlighten us on how you can continue to support this man and his adminstration. Not only is he a liar, he isn't even a conservative."


Because he wasn't Kerry.
 
2004-12-06 06:30:06 AM
Yes! Anybody but Kerry!
 
2004-12-06 06:39:02 AM
You Dems are amazing...

You always want to (1) raise taxes on the rich, and (2) give shiat to the poor.

Now it just so happens that (if I'm to believe you) the rich live in the Blue states and the poor live in the Red states.

And now you guys are biatching about (1) raising taxes on the rich, and (2) the fact that poor people get money?

Get a life people or at least a consistent argument, sheesh...
 
2004-12-06 06:55:15 AM
The biggest outrage in the article is found in this sentence:

The counterargument is that income used to pay for state and local government services is no different than income used to acquire anything else, and should be taxed the same.

Please, please, people - the proper word is from.

Oh yeah - you guys are going to be exhausted if you bite on every little trial tax reform "proposal" that comes out of D.C. over the next few months. This particular beauty would cost me tens of thousands of dollars - and I'm not worried in the least. You also need to keep in mind that what matters ultimately is the net change in taxes, not the changes in discrete pieces of the code.
 
2004-12-06 07:19:28 AM
Only by removing and jailing the Criminal Traitor BUSHTARD can America hope to survive his poisons.


When Criminal Traitor Lifetime-Pathological-Liar SUPERFRAUD George Worthless "Boss Hogg" Bush was appointed the Fake-President, America was $5,728,739,508,558.96 (or $5.7 trillion dollars) in debt.

THEN
01/02/2001 $5,728,739,508,558.96 ($5.7 trillion)
NOW
11/22/2004 $7,444,122,057,407.69 ($7.4 trillion)

A difference of $1,715,382,548,848.73 ($1.7 trillion)

An average cost of $1,404,029,821,525.23 / 1,420 Days = $1,208,015,879.47 per day ($1.2 billion per day).
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/~www/opdpen.cgi

IN ORDER PER COST FOR ENTIRE TERMS IN OFFICE
------------------------------------------------------
(1) (R) Criminal Traitor Ronnie ROTTEN Reagan
+$1,828,701,960,187.32 ($1.8 trillion)
PER YEAR AVERAGE = +$228,587,745,023.42 (average $228.6 billion cost, per year in office)

(2) (R) Criminal Traitor Pathological-Lifetime-Liar SUPERFRAUD George Worthless "Boss Hogg" Bush
+$1,715,382,548,848.73 ($1.7 trillion and growing)
PER YEAR AVERAGE = +$428,845,637,212.18 (average $428.8 billion cost per year in office and growing)

(3) (R) Criminal Traitor International-Cocaine-Opium-Kingpin GHOUL George H.W. Bush
+$1,554,057,922,952.06 ($1.6 trillion)
PER YEAR AVERAGE = +$388,514,480,738.02 (average $388.5 billion cost, per year in office)

(4) (D) Adulterer Bill Clinton
+$1,304,582,116,860.62 ($1.3 trillion)
PER YEAR AVERAGE = +$163,072,764,607.58 (average $163.1 billion cost per year in office)

(5) (D) Jimmy Carter
+$309,786,000,000.00 ($309.8 billion)
PER YEAR AVERAGE = +$77,446,500,000.00 (average $77.4 billion cost per year in office)

(6) (R) Gerald Ford the Disgusting Pardoner of the Criminal Traitor Richard Nixon
+$226,278,000,000.00 ($226.3 billion)
PER YEAR AVERAGE = +$75,426,000,000.00 (average $75.4 billion cost per year in office)

(7) (R) Criminal Traitor Richard Nixon
+$124,439,418,745.59 (+$124.4 billion)
PER YEAR AVERAGE = +$24,887,883,749.19 (average $24.9 billion cost per year in office)

(8) (D) Lyndon Johnson
+$58,878,736,195.24 (+$58.9 billion)
PER YEAR AVERAGE = +$9,813,122,699.21 (average $9.8 billion cost per year in office)

(9) (R) Dwight Eisenhower
+$21,000,641,085.53 (+$21.0 billion)
PER YEAR AVERAGE = +$2,625,080,135.69 (average $2.6 billion cost per year in office)

(10) (D) John F. Kennedy's short assassinated Presidency
+$13,178,083,844.25 (+$13.2 billion)
PER YEAR AVERAGE = +$6,589,041,922.13 (average $6.6 billion cost per year in office)

(11) (D) Harry Truman
+$7,388,874,228.64 (+$7.4 billion)
PER YEAR AVERAGE = +$923,609,278.58 (average $923.6 million cost per year in office)

COST PER POLITICAL PARTY

REPUBLICAN
(R) Criminal Traitor Ronnie ROTTEN Reagan --- +$1,828,701,960,187.32 ($1.8 trillion)
(R) Criminal Traitor Pathological-Lifetime-Liar SUPERFRAUD George Worthless "Boss Hogg" Bush --- +$1,715,382,548,848.73 ($1.7 trillion and growing)
(R) Criminal Traitor International-Cocaine-Opium-Kingpin GHOUL George H.W. Bush --- +$1,554,057,922,952.06 ($1.6 trillion)
(R) Gerald Ford the Disgusting Pardoner of the Criminal Traitor Richard Nixon --- +$226,278,000,000.00 ($226.3 billion)
(R) Criminal Traitor Richard Nixon --- +$124,439,418,745.59 (+$124.4 billion)
(R) Dwight Eisenhower --- +$21,000,641,085.53 (+$21.0 billion)
TOTAL = $5,469,860,491,819.23 ($5.4 Trillion of the current $7.4 Trillion National Debt = 73%)


DEMOCRATIC
(D) Adulterer Bill Clinton --- +$1,304,582,116,860.62 ($1.3 trillion)
(D) Jimmy Carter --- +$309,786,000,000.00 ($309.8 billion)
(D) Lyndon Johnson --- +$58,878,736,195.24 (+$58.9 billion)
(D) John F. Kennedy's short assassinated Presidency --- +$13,178,083,844.25 (+$13.2 billion)
(D) Harry Truman --- +$7,388,874,228.64 (+$7.4 billion)
TOTAL = $1,693,813,811,128.75 ($1.6 Trillion of the current $7.4 Trillion National Debt = 22%)

Addition --- By the end of the BUSTARD's junta against America, predicted spending from this Anti-Christ, Anti-Human, and Anti-American Republican DEATHCULT NECRO-CON will be...
+$3,430,765,097,697.44 (+$3.4 TRILLION DOLLARS)

With +$3,754,477,942,970.50 (+$3.75 TRILLION in spending by the last 6 Republican DEATHCULT Presidents and adding in the spending of the BUSHTARD we get...)

+$7,185,243,040,667.94 in predicted Republican DEATHCULT spending plus the existing spending alone, that will make the Republican DEATHCULT responsible for $7,185,243,040,667.94 (+$7.19 Trillion) of the predicted +$8,879,056,851,796.69 (+$8.88 Trillion) which makes them then responsible for 81% of the predicted National Debt. That will be an 8% increase in just 4 years.

This also makes the Patriotic American Democratic Party responsible for a mere 19% of that predicted National Debt.

/This is the truth by numbers, as horrible and simple as that.
 
2004-12-06 07:39:28 AM
Gawd, Rush is looking like crap. Must be all the drugs. He resembles a Killer Klown from Outer Space.

Republicans: totally against drugs and think addicts should be locked up, except for Rush who needs our prayers.
 
2004-12-06 07:42:03 AM
One more tidbit...

+$7,185,243,040,667.94 in predicted Republican DEATHCULT spending plus the existing spending alone, that will make the Republican DEATHCULT responsible for $7,185,243,040,667.94 (+$7.19 Trillion) of the predicted +$8,879,056,851,796.69 (+$8.88 Trillion) which makes them then responsible for 81% of the predicted National Debt. That will be an 8% increase in just 4 years. Before the BUSHTARD stole the Presidency twice, the Anti-American Republican DEATHCULT Party was only responsible for a mere 55% of the National Debt. The BUSHTARD is responsible for increasing the Republican DEATHCULT Party share of the National Debt from 55% to 73% and soon to 81%. Increases of 18% and eventually 26%.

This also makes the Patriotic American Democratic Party responsible for a mere 19% of that predicted National Debt.

/Had to be written.
 
2004-12-06 07:49:02 AM
I've often wondered what people like thought they were accomplishing. It's like they prefer to marginalize themselves rather than move opinion. Weird.
 
2004-12-06 07:50:22 AM
/bold
 
2004-12-06 07:52:27 AM
General Zang
What has Bush done that a) benefitted Americans making under a million a year AND isn't connected to the "War on Terror"?


Prescription drug coverage for seniors (something the Democrats wanted badly, but not if it meant Bush passing it to look like the hero, so they bash him over it.. ironic), No Child Left Behind, tax cuts for the middle class and additional child tax credits. My effective rate went down and it was very noticeable last year. It was a hell of a lot more than the $300 early tax rebate they sent out initially.

 
2004-12-06 08:03:08 AM
This tax proposal would simply eliminate taxes on interest earned, investments, and certain savings accounts.

Which means small businesses will get to keep more of the money they earn, and spend it the way they want, instead of being taxed for MAKING MONEY, and having it redistributed by the government into wasteful programs like welfare and other social services.

On average, people making more than $200,000 a year get taxed around 40% of what they earn, versus 20% taxation of those earning less than $100,000 a year.

If you're someone against these tax cuts, how is it fair that someone earning more than you gets taxed DOUBLE?

Its still THEIR money, and you don't deserve to keep more of what you earn than them, just because you don't earn as much as they do.
 
2004-12-06 08:09:16 AM
drsoran:

Prescription drug coverage for seniors (something the Democrats wanted badly, but not if it meant Bush passing it to look like the hero, so they bash him over it.. ironic), No Child Left Behind, tax cuts for the middle class and additional child tax credits. My effective rate went down and it was very noticeable last year. It was a hell of a lot more than the $300 early tax rebate they sent out initially.



Great examples:

No child left behind:
I think this is really the "let's teach our children to take multiple-choice tests, but not to think, reason, or enjoy learning act." It also undermines local control and allows the Fed gov't to meddle in every aspect of education without providing additional support.

Medicare prescription drug coverage:
The only fed program legally forbidden from negotiating a bulk discount. Also, Bush hid the actual costs from Congress. Finally, most seniors hate the complexity.

Tax cuts:
We're in the middle of a war and we have the highest deficits ever. Most of the cuts were skewed toward high-income earners. Not a smart move - it's called pandering.
 
2004-12-06 08:14:15 AM
General Zang
What has Bush done that a) benefitted Americans making under a million a year AND isn't connected to the "War on Terror"?"

You've GOTTA get over this whole "benefit the rich" crap, because those earning over $200,000 a year are taxed almost TWICE as much as those under $100,000, because of the old, class-envy school of thought that "rich people don't NEED all that money."

Its THEIR MONEY!

YOU don't have the right to tell them how much they do and do not "need".

Besides, the government taxes the crap out of people you consider "rich", and sends that money to welfare, children's services, and other wasteful programs that are designed to keep people dependent on the government.

Instead of spewing jealous envy at people who have more than you do, try figuring out how you can earn what they have too.

You'll be alot happier.
 
2004-12-06 08:15:48 AM
crap
 
2004-12-06 08:23:56 AM
Mike_71:

You've GOTTA get over this whole "benefit the rich" crap, because those earning over $200,000 a year are taxed almost TWICE as much as those under $100,000, because of the old, class-envy school of thought that "rich people don't NEED all that money."


And you gotta get some facts before you post online. The max federal income tax rate is 35% for those earning over $311,951. Earners between $98,251 - $159,100 are taxed at 28%. That's more like 7% -- not 100%.
 
2004-12-06 08:40:51 AM
I believe that the democrats have asked for this over and over. They want the rich taxed more.

Also, the article mentions that they pay 63% more to the fed than they receive... Well, according to democrats, that is how it should be.

Ha Ha. reap what you sow, Democrats!
 
2004-12-06 08:43:03 AM
Mike_71

You don't like 35% tax on the rich as opposed to 28% for the next tier? Oh, boo hoo, sniff sniff. Wussy. The highest rate on the rich was during the REPUBLICAN Eisenhower years: 91%.

So quit your snivelling.
 
2004-12-06 08:43:40 AM
"Great examples:

No child left behind:
I think this is really the "let's teach our children to take multiple-choice tests, but not to think, reason, or enjoy learning act." It also undermines local control and allows the Fed gov't to meddle in every aspect of education without providing additional support."

WRITTEN BY TED KENNEDY!

"Medicare prescription drug coverage:
The only fed program legally forbidden from negotiating a bulk discount. Also, Bush hid the actual costs from Congress. Finally, most seniors hate the complexity."

Medicare is a worthless cash-cow anyway, and getting RID of it, or replacing it with something more efficient would be a good thing.

"Tax cuts:
We're in the middle of a war and we have the highest deficits ever. Most of the cuts were skewed toward high-income earners. Not a smart move - it's called pandering."

The United States has had a deficit in all but 2 of the previous Presidential terms, and we are STILL the only superpower left!

For those who see a government SURPLUS as the goal, why in the hell would you want the GOVERNMENT to have a surplus?

That's OUR money! NOT the government's!

Besides, how do the tax cuts Bush implemented effect you in a NEGATIVE way?
 
2004-12-06 08:49:53 AM
for those curious on other states income tax levels >> here

it aint just cali and new york that would get screwed. indiana (which if ya remember right glew red 6 minutes after the polls closed) would take a hit.

just an idea, but before ya celebrate the biting of off of a nose, take a gander and make sure it didn't just come off of your own face.
 
2004-12-06 08:50:54 AM
Government surplus, yeah right. I hope nobody honestly believes that such a thing is even possible. On any given year a "surplus" like those Clinton had were only based on single year budgets and not the overall debt.

I'm sure Mike_71 can rattle off all the benefits of a $6 trillion national debt that will be close to $10 trillion by 2008 though. Hopefully he'll stop and check the dictionary for definitions of "deficit" and "debt" first though.
 
2004-12-06 08:54:26 AM
America has gotten the democracy it deserves.
 
2004-12-06 08:57:00 AM
"Some conservative activists" != "Bush administration"

Move along.
 
2004-12-06 08:57:20 AM
This is really funny. Take that blue states.
 
2004-12-06 09:01:38 AM
"cosmiquemuffin

You don't like 35% tax on the rich as opposed to 28% for the next tier? Oh, boo hoo, sniff sniff. Wussy. The highest rate on the rich was during the REPUBLICAN Eisenhower years: 91%.

So quit your snivelling."

That doesn't make it right, and I'm not snivelling.

The Republican and Democrat parties have reversed rolls within the past 20 years, where the Republicans have become the party of small business growth and keeping more of what you earn, while the Democrats want to expand the government and control the people by making lower income families jealous of the "rich", instead of helping them earn a better life.

Not only that, but your Eisenhower reference is just another example of a Bush-hater doing the only thing you people have left: Looking BACK at the past, and trying to use it to justify your hatred for what is going on now, even though that was 50 years ago.

Get over it.

Grow up.

Move forward.
 
2004-12-06 09:05:07 AM
Mike_71: Besides, how do the tax cuts Bush implemented effect you in a NEGATIVE way?

Approximately 25% of the US Gov't budget goes to pay interest on the national debt. That money could have been spent on better schools, improved infrastruture, science, etc.

When such a large portion of our government's spending it devoted to debt payments, it robs our children of their rightful opportunities -- now and in the future.
 
2004-12-06 09:07:51 AM
"Looking BACK at the past...

Learning from history not a big thing in your world, eh?
 
2004-12-06 09:08:28 AM
Mike_71:

The Republican and Democrat parties have reversed rolls within the past 20 years, where the Republicans have become the party of small business growth and keeping more of what you earn, while the Democrats want to expand the government and control the people by making lower income families jealous of the "rich", instead of helping them earn a better life.

Actually, you are wrong again. The size of the US government and their meddling in the lives of US citizens has increased dramatically under Bush (as well as our spending and debt).

The government actually shrank under Clinton.
 
2004-12-06 09:09:26 AM
"Approximately 25% of the US Gov't budget goes to pay interest on the national debt. That money could have been spent on better schools, improved infrastruture, science, etc."

That's going to be bitter to swallow for all the geniuses who are convinced that the only reason the budget is ever in trouble is because of welfare to crack whores. Better put the blinders on and start saying "NA NA NA NA NA" with your fingers in your ears.
 
2004-12-06 09:11:15 AM
" Mordant

I'm sure Mike_71 can rattle off all the benefits of a $6 trillion national debt that will be close to $10 trillion by 2008 though. Hopefully he'll stop and check the dictionary for definitions of "deficit" and "debt" first though. "

Can you tell me exactly what number the national debt will reach before the United States goes bankrupt, and is it even possible?

Because the last time I checked, the U.S. dollar is no longer backed by GOLD, but "The full faith.." yadda yadda, of the United States government.

Which means the value of the dollar is no longer regulated by the value of a material object.

The "6 trillion-dollar" debt is also dictated by the cost of living.

15 years ago, a gallon of gas was 89 cents, and the debt was around 2 Trillion.

Today, in some states, gas is over 3 bucks, which means its more than TRIPLED in the past 15 to 20 years.

That'll make a national debt appear bloated, which means you have to have the brains to consider WHERE these numbers come from, WHY they are what they are, and whether or not they directly affect you.

If they don't, STFU.
 
2004-12-06 09:20:06 AM
Heaps got an excellent point--
Ohio, too, has an income tax, and it glowed red. Nice going, downstate asshats that voted for Bush.
 
2004-12-06 09:21:05 AM
Huh...well if this means that Joe Harley-Dreamer and Jane SUV have to keep their tasteless sleves and families at home due to lack of funds....well...I'm all for it.
 
2004-12-06 09:23:25 AM
GWB is the devil.... ohhhh the hipocrisy
 
2004-12-06 09:26:54 AM
All hail King George!
 
2004-12-06 09:34:09 AM
Well, I am a veteran, college grad and a fiscal conservative. Unfortunately, that makes me a "Liberal" by today's standards, so take this however you want.

ANYTHING the administration does to bring in more money for the government will put us closer to fiscal solvency. Maybe taking away the rights of the states to manage small amounts of money will be a good thing. There is a great deal of government programs that entire regions rely upon for their mere survival (Any small town near a large military base, Tennessee Valley authority, etc.) and more money collected by the government would allow those programs to continue.

Somebody mentioned that we are no longer on a gold standard. What that means is that in our international economy, it is our word and our reputation that values our currency.

I'm only using the ideas from my first six semesters of economics theory, but wouldn't a reputation of spending only what we have be better than a reputation of a country that can't keep the credit card in our purse?

In addition, when we have these treasury bond auctions, do you notice that the value of the dollar dips down against gold-backed standards? This means that it costs LESS for Europeans and Middle-Easterners to buy up our debt. Since we never miss an interest payment, it is a pretty good investment for other countries to make.

I think The next step is to cut spending. The raise taxes (Like Reagan and Bush I) portion has been completed. Reagan called it the "Social Security Act" and Bush I called them "Revenue Enhancers", but they were tak hikes all the same. When faced with debt, eliminating it gives us better credit. Credit is all we have in the global economy.

Do you know your score?
 
2004-12-06 09:35:08 AM
Is this what Bush backers have come to? Defending a giant, interest-sucking deficit because we can't go bankrupt? We are involved in a war with a country that never attacked us, and gets worse by the day, bigger deficits, and higher taxes--all of which would be bitterly attacked if the president was a "d" rather than an "r."

Are you so emotionally involved in defending your choice to vote for the wrong guy twice? Don't you get tired of defending someone whose actions are the direct opposite of what you claim are your principles?
/Don't jump in all at once.
 
2004-12-06 09:40:37 AM
"Actually, you are wrong again. The size of the US government and their meddling in the lives of US citizens has increased dramatically under Bush (as well as our spending and debt).

The government actually shrank under Clinton."

The FARK it did!

My uncle was driving a milk truck for Smith Dairy for 15 years, and 10 years ago decided to start his own home improvement business.

He couldn't quit the milk job and go full-time at his new business during the Clinton years, because all he did was PAY TAXES! Which is how Clinton "shrunk the deficit".

Since Bush was elected in 2000, my uncle's taxes have been reduced to the point where he was not only able to quit the dairy job and do his thing full-time, but he now has 8 full-time employees, and he's opening a fireplace furnace business in town, where he'll need at least 4 people working at that store.

AAAAAaaand. I have a friend who USED to be employed by a local city department, but lost his job when Bush trimmed the number of redundant government workers.

As a result, he started his own business in electrical contracting and construction, and employs 6 guys at $25 bucks an hour each.

Funny thing is, under our current "employment stats" system, they don't count as being employed, even though they ARE, and are making MORE MONEY than they did working for the government!

You can take your Clinton crap and shove it, because the rest of us are making our own way, and moving forward.
 
2004-12-06 09:44:59 AM
I'm not sure if anyone is aware of this, but the US is risking the dollar's reserve currency status. That would mean a huge drop in value for the dollar (since more than 90% of US currency is abroad, which would all start flowing back to the US), unless the goverment does something about it's budget deficit.

The US can't keep up it's cocky approach with it's ever increasing budget-deficit, since most all it's debts are paid for with foreign currency, as a matter of fact, the only reason foreign goverments still buy US bonds is that they want to keep the value of their reserves at bay.

All that could change however, there _is_ a point for these banks when they say enough is enough, and start using a weighted basket of euro and yen (and -obviously- _some_ dollar) as their reserves.

That would be catastrophic for the US, supply would mount for the dollar, and since noone will want to buy it, it could enter into a downward spiral.

Actually, this is the first time, GWB is doing something that other countries are glad about. It's in your own interest.
 
2004-12-06 09:45:41 AM
"The "6 trillion-dollar" debt is also dictated by the cost of living.

15 years ago, a gallon of gas was 89 cents, and the debt was around 2 Trillion.

Today, in some states, gas is over 3 bucks, which means its more than TRIPLED in the past 15 to 20 years.

That'll make a national debt appear bloated, which means you have to have the brains to consider WHERE these numbers come from, WHY they are what they are, and whether or not they directly affect you.

If they don't, STFU."

Once again substituting words in CAPITALS in place of actual facts I see. Go look up the actual budget numbers and explain how the yearly amount for interest on the debt is no big deal and yet welfare is crushing the life out of the country. And yes, I am affected by all the spending in the budget because I pay taxes.

And, if you can't produce real numbers for those two then save your breath and don't even answer. I'm sick of your made up BS answers and I want proof that you can actually read and present real facts. If you can't then I won't ask you any more questions.
 
2004-12-06 09:46:27 AM
"theigorway


Mike_71: Besides, how do the tax cuts Bush implemented effect you in a NEGATIVE way?

Approximately 25% of the US Gov't budget goes to pay interest on the national debt. That money could have been spent on better schools, improved infrastruture, science, etc.

When such a large portion of our government's spending it devoted to debt payments, it robs our children of their rightful opportunities -- now and in the future."

..

..

YOU, didn't answer my question: How do the tax cuts affect YOU...in a negative way?

Your whole education angle is bullshiatt anyway, because number one, TED KENNEDY authored the "No Child Left Behind" Act, and all it did was build a bunch of new school BUILDINGS for our kids to be brainwashed in by liberal communist environmentalist atheist teachers.

In addition, the government does NOT do its own science, technology, or medical experimentation. It awards contracts to the PRIVATE SECTOR to do those things!

When are you gonna get it through your head that the government doesn't have any money, until they tax you and me, and when they do, they just redistribute it to the private sector to actually do things, like build planes, find a cure for cancer, and build roads?
 
2004-12-06 09:47:10 AM
No, Mike_71, taxes didn't shrink under Clinton, just the size of the government. That's why there was a surplus. Whereas, taxes for upper income people shrank under Bush, but the government did not, meaning that we incurred more debt.

I hope your uncle makes a bunch, because his grandkids will have to have a bunch to pay the debt.
 
Displayed 50 of 521 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report