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.

(MSNBC)   House and Senate pass President's tax plan.   (msnbc.com) divider line 942
    More: News  
•       •       •

4455 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 May 2003 at 10:15 AM (11 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



942 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2003-05-23 11:36:37 AM  
Pontechango: Property is a social construct.

So are any of your rights. The import thing is that by living in a society, you have implicitly signed a social contract to abide by its rules. In America, those rules are life, liberty, and property/pursuit of happiness.
 
2003-05-23 11:36:38 AM  
Bushies rejoice !!! Playstation 2 for everyone !!!!

Who cares if the Govt. has to borrow money for the cuts... right ?... right ?

Anything for a vote !
 
2003-05-23 11:37:19 AM  
Pontechango-

You sound like a communist. Your idea of democracy is very different than mine I guess.
 
2003-05-23 11:38:15 AM  
You say...

Ok ding dongs, you get a little more money right now, and if your like most idiots walking around your going to spend it.

I read...

single taxpayers with no children wont benefit at all.

/flawed before you even hit the post button.
 
2003-05-23 11:38:16 AM  
It's amazing to see so many people who are:

(1) so jealous of people who are wealthy that rather than being glad about the increase in their own take-home pay, they are just upset that someone else is getting more than them; and

(2) under some misguided notion that the government should keep more of U.S. taxpayers' money, because we all know that government is so efficent and well-run that all that money will of course be used effectively for the good of all Americans.
 
2003-05-23 11:38:26 AM  
"Kpar90
Vote on 15-20 year terms? Read up on George Washington and FDR... They elected a Congress that passed a Constitutional amendment prohibiting it."


Sounds like he was talking about TERM LIMITS, to me.
 
2003-05-23 11:38:42 AM  
Wheatweasel - Do you live like an idiot? Do you have people pay for your farked up choices?

Probably no on both, right? Well why don't we try not paying for people who choose to make bad choices. Then we won't be making that loan.
 
2003-05-23 11:38:44 AM  
SideshowRaheem: I give you kudos and huzzahs for your post.
 
2003-05-23 11:39:02 AM  
a reminder, in the mighty words of Hectomoo:

Trickle-down is a long term solution to a problem, rather than a short term fix. Regans's policies made the dot-com boom possible.
 
2003-05-23 11:39:13 AM  
MyrnaMinkoff: But if all these people are losing their jobs to machines, who has the money to buy all these paper airplanes?


Thes days, more people have jobs designing and creating machines than actually creating airplanes, or wooden chair, or metal work.

Your not afraid that robots are going to take over the country, are you? Good lord.
 
2003-05-23 11:39:16 AM  
I'm against giving tax credits to the poor. They will probably just drink it anyway.
 
2003-05-23 11:39:40 AM  
Pontechango: You just got a little too socialist for me.
 
2003-05-23 11:39:43 AM  
"if you want to stimulate the economy all you have to do is raise minimum wage by a dollar or two
Sarcasm?"

When Clinton was president there was no need to raise the minimu wage. Companies were so desperate for workers they were paying above and beyond min. wage.

Now that the economy sucks, something needs to be done to stimulate it. Putting more money in the pockets of consumers (those are the people that buy the products from the weathly corporate execs getting thses tax cuts) will go farther to boost the economy, it will cause an immedite increase in demand.

I'm not saying increasing min. wage is the answer, but something should have been done to boost spending now, rather then waiting for dividend checks to be cashed and Biff to buy a new BMW..
 
2003-05-23 11:40:39 AM  
The economy will automatically grow because the population grows. Each time you add a person to the mix, you have another person that needs to buy things. That person also needs to produce things in order to earn money. So the economy will always grow unless we all stop having kids.

The economy will improve when you have gains in efficiency, as I demonstrated with Paper Airplanes LTD. An improved economy means that people can do less work for the same or better standard of living.

All the technology that exists today to make your life better (microwave, phone, styrofoam cups) exists because some company somewhere found a better, cheaper way to do something.

A tax cut won't necessarily result in a dramatic improvment in the economy, but it's definitely a start.

The government, on the other hand, cannot improve the economy if it keeps more of your tax dollars. That's not its job.

Taxes pay for services that we cannot provide ourselves, and that no single company or organization can oversee, like roads and national defense.

Almost every other government service would be better handled in the private sector, where improvements can be made through capitalism rather than legislation. Education, yes. Helping the poor, yes. Delivering your mail, yes.

If you want your life to get better, don't expect the government to do it for you.

"Ask not what your country can do for you ..."
 
2003-05-23 11:40:44 AM  
As a 20-year-old who has just made enough to pay taxes for the first time this year: thanks for giving me your debt, old people!
 
2003-05-23 11:40:44 AM  
Jcblack: I notice that you're not going to respond to my counter to that post either. I like how people say that, but can't really back it up in any way. Or explain why it had to wait 8 years, four of them under Clinton, before it kicked in.
 
2003-05-23 11:40:52 AM  
Ah yes, the only thing better than the smell of a well aged Cuban cigar is the smell of vindictive, angry, leftists.
It smells like... victory.


Yeah, because this whole thing is a GAME and it's about two distinctly defined parties fighting one another for VICTORY!!! Screw the whole "what's best for our nation" thing, this is about SWEET SWEET WINNING!!

De-FENSE!! De-FENSE!!
 
2003-05-23 11:41:07 AM  
Stephenb Read the post again Moron. I do not sympathize with terrorists. I was pointing out that historically violence on the level that we are seeing from terrorists comes from people who feel they have nothing left to lose.

CapnWacky
A flat tax? Oh yeah. That would leave me somewhat untouched. The rate, to be effective, would need to be in the mid-twenties right where I am now. It would decimate those earning less than I do however. Perhaps with your firm grasp of idiotic ideas you should run for President soon.
 
2003-05-23 11:41:15 AM  
Read the Constitution... Now review a list of federal agencies and their functions.

Tell me how many of them are really Constitutional?

If the states were responsible to run their own social programs independent of the federal government people could more easily choose whether they want to be subject to the higher taxes by moving to a state with fewer social programs in exchange for lower taxes.

See the Tenth Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Oh, and as for this being a tax cut for the rich... Whose definition are we using? If you go by what the Dems say its a family of four making over $40k. Also, I would suggest a review of the current tax burden by income percentile, see for yourself who really pays the taxes in this country.
 
2003-05-23 11:41:41 AM  
Wheatweasel:

You must be young.

In the 70's the U.S. had a very small deficit. It also had double digit inflation and high unemployment. (worse than now)

In the eighties after Reagan's tax cuts the economy recovered. Unemployment dropped, productivity increased, and the stock market shot up. Tax revenue for the government increased even though tax rates were lower. The problem was a congress controlled by liberals that would raise spending at a higher rate than tax revenue.

I agree that, in the long term, budget deficits should be avoided. In the short term they are necessary to have any type of control over harmful economic occurrences.
 
2003-05-23 11:42:30 AM  
See that Pontechango:

KPar agrees with me - you are a Marxist.
 
2003-05-23 11:42:36 AM  
Regans's policies made the dot-com boom possible.

You deperately need something more than a quote for me to even begin remotely considering this claim.
 
2003-05-23 11:42:38 AM  
Of course, Will, if he used to money to just hire employees to do it by hand, another 500 people would have jobs.

What it comes down to, in my opinion, is this.

When was the last time you saw a giant corporation receive larges sums of money and do anything with it that doesn't benefit THEM.
 
2003-05-23 11:42:49 AM  
Nothingyet
You sound like a communist. Your idea of democracy is very different than mine I guess.


Is that flamebait? You sound like a flaccid libertarian.
 
2003-05-23 11:43:03 AM  
In all seriousness, if I lived my life financially the way the government does, I would be in deep sh|t.

I'd love to call up my credit card company and tell them that I'm increasing my spending limit to oh... a million dollars or so. And by the way, I don't think I'll be paying as much monthly anymore, so you guys need to lower my payment to three dollars a month. Oh and I think I'm going to max out my card in a year by helping my buddies pay off their credit cards, so we're going to have this conversation again pretty soon and I'll probably need to bump my limit up to about three million or so.

Hello?

Hello?
 
2003-05-23 11:43:16 AM  
Will N. Dowd: All you proved is they laid off half of their work force. Oh, I forgot, they got jobs at the machine factory. But if that factory is already producing machines, that means they've already got a work force. A skilled work force that can build complicated machines. These people who only know the unskilled trade of folding paper wouldn't be able to get a job there, even if they had any openings. Now they're just unemployed with no dough to get education to get a better job.
 
2003-05-23 11:43:41 AM  
Cliff_Yablonski
I think tax cuts are great but shouldn't they be preceeded by an equivalent reduction in spending?

A massive tax cut coupled with large increases is spending on defence and homeland security must leave people wondering where the money is coming from.
 
2003-05-23 11:43:42 AM  
CapnWacky
Thes days, more people have jobs designing and creating machines than actually creating airplanes, or wooden chair, or metal work.
Your not afraid that robots are going to take over the country, are you? Good lord.


My post was a response to Will N. Dowd's hypothetical scenario.

He suggests that companies laying off many people will make a profit from their product and then be able to hire more people. However, if many companies are laying off many people, there will not be a huge market for ANY product, because no one will have money.

Read his post, then get back to me.
 
2003-05-23 11:44:06 AM  
Mr. Wright: He was talking about who stays in power and for how long.
 
2003-05-23 11:44:28 AM  
When Clinton was president there was no need to raise the minimu wage. Companies were so desperate for workers they were paying above and beyond min. wage.

That's specious. Personally, I attribute the 90's economy boom to Pam Anderson's breast implants. Once she took em out, the whole thing collapsed!
 
2003-05-23 11:44:58 AM  
Thank you Bildo!

Finally Reaganomics explained correctly. His liberal Congress promised him support that they never delivered. Reagan gets blamed for that all the time. The man was the greatest president we have ever had in my opinion. George Bush is a lot like him.
 
2003-05-23 11:45:30 AM  
05-23-03 11:42:30 AM Nothingyet
See that Pontechango: KPar agrees with me

You're one of about three Farkers who have ever said that...
 
2003-05-23 11:45:32 AM  
"You sound like a communist. Your idea of democracy is very different than mine I guess."

damn, your democracy is for selfish rich bastar....
damn, my college fee has already increase...

owhh wait.....gun price going down? cool, i can buy some and put some bullets on my freaking college pres head..aight?
 
2003-05-23 11:46:30 AM  
"Regans's policies made the dot-com boom possible."

I love stuff like this.

So, Reagan's policy decided to skip GW I and wait to kick in once clinton was in office, but it was also GW I policies that made the clinton economic boom possible, according to many republicans.

Clinton sat around for 8 years benefiting from GW I, and now Reagans, policies, and decided to screw up the economy just as GW II comes into office?

WOW. I just gotta say WOW.
 
2003-05-23 11:46:41 AM  
MyrnaMinkoff: I did read his post, and your hypothetical arguments are all well and good. However, what he described is exactly what happened in the industrial revolution. History backs him up.
 
2003-05-23 11:46:41 AM  
Well, the argument is that this only helps the rich, so let's see what a rich person has to say about it like, for example, Warren Buffett:
Washington Post
 
2003-05-23 11:46:52 AM  

You know what the real problem with this country is? Money buys power. Ok - sounds pretty obvious, right? We all know it, but none of us does a single thing to stop it. You want to know how to /stop/ money from buying power (or at least scale it back quite a bit)> It's obvious.

We must do two simple things:


1. Put a government controlled spending cap on election spending. In fact, IMO, the government should pay for election funds - seriously. Each person that is actually running for a federal office (I say fed, but this could work at the state level too) should get X dollars to spend on their campaign and that's it. This way, candidates are more likely to be elected because of their politics than becauase they had more money to spend.


2. Eliminate all lobbyists. I know this sounds harsh, but who do you think has the ear of politicians? And who can afford lobbyists? the people with the most money.


I am not against the rich and I am not against success. However, just because you are rich does not mean you should have /any/ more say about what happens in the government than me, but that's just not how it works. Eliminate big business' and special interests' abilities to strongly influence your political leaders and all of us will end up having more say in what goes on - and I bet that those tax cuts for the rich will stop at the same time.

 
2003-05-23 11:47:10 AM  
Slykens1:

The civil war pretty much put that provision of the Constitution in the paper shredder.
 
2003-05-23 11:47:40 AM  
"That's specious."

And this rock I'm holding keeps away tigers.
 
2003-05-23 11:48:52 AM  
Slykens1-

This is mostly a rate cute on taxes on dividends. How many dividends do you get?

Let me check my finances....hmmmm....lets see....carry the one....divide by something percent.....Oh Yeah! NONE!

So we're giving all the poor people a pittance, because we want them to buy products from the rich people who just got a huge tax break.

ALL of this money goes to the rich.
 
2003-05-23 11:49:41 AM  
Of course, Will, if he used to money to just hire employees to do it by hand, another 500 people would have jobs.


And we'd never have come as far as we have over the last 100 years, technologically, medically, and standard of living wise. Yes, we have a long way to go to eliminate poverty, but poor people have better standards of living than they ever did. If you don't believe me, ask your grandfather or someone else with life experience. Or, would you still rather be working in a factory where the conditions are so bad that you could lose a finger after a single slip up?
 
2003-05-23 11:50:08 AM  
MyrnaMinkoff: I did read his post, and your hypothetical arguments are all well and good. However, what he described is exactly what happened in the industrial revolution. History backs him up.

So you're suggesting this tax cut is going to spawn industry changes on par with the industrial revolution?
I'd like some of what you're smoking.....

He used that scenario to suggest what these tax cuts would do for our economy. But honestly, how much more industrial can our country get? With the incredible unemployment rates, and with even more unemployment (per his scenario), who is going to be buying all these products?
 
2003-05-23 11:50:43 AM  
The man was the greatest president we have ever had in my opinion. George Bush is a lot like him.

Obviously difficult since he's dead; however I think you should be forced to personally apologise to Abraham Lincoln for that comment.
 
2003-05-23 11:51:05 AM  
MrWright

Your theories about a 15-20 year reign by one political party may come to fruition anyway. The audience who accepts the old Democrat mantra of "tax cuts for the rich" is not nearly as large as it once was. If that's the argument they wish to push to the forefront of every election, then they will lose everytime. People just don't buy it anymore.
 
fb-
2003-05-23 11:51:14 AM  
Well, if this tax cut works half as well as the last one, everybody in America will soon be millionaries!!
 
2003-05-23 11:51:26 AM  
Pontechango: Property is a social construct.
So are any of your rights. The import thing is that by living in a society, you have implicitly signed a social contract to abide by its rules. In America, those rules are life, liberty, and property/pursuit of happiness.


Not true. Those are natural/divine rights. Property is always socially contingent. For the record, private property rights are fundamental for economic growth. But they are not, contrary to Libertarian thought, universally applicable.
 
2003-05-23 11:51:28 AM  
Bildo

Doesn't change the fact that its still there in black and white. Only problem is no court is ballsy enough to chop the federal government in half.
 
2003-05-23 11:51:30 AM  
If all someone is capable of doing is folding paper airplanes and is not handicapped in some way, they deserve to starve. The world has too many paper airplane folders as it is.
 
2003-05-23 11:52:11 AM  
who is going to be buying all these products?

That was my original question, which was never answered. I didn't want to get into a debate over industry, I just think that key point is lacking in his scenario.
 
2003-05-23 11:52:12 AM  
Tigger: Hey, Lincoln never got away with a bunch of illegal stuff by either pretending to be an idiot, or actually being an idiot. Reagan does have that up on him.
 
Displayed 50 of 942 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report