#397562 - 10/11/0409:55 PM
Re: Political Discussion: One Thread Only!
Anonymous
Unregistered
I still haven't made up my mind for this election. Bush wants taxes to stay low, then how is the war to be paid? Is that 200 billion or so? Borrow it..Let our kids pay for it. Funny With the "tax and spend liberals" like Clinton, the deficit virtualy vanished and with the the conservatives like Reagan the debt goes through the roof. The money has to come from somewhere. As far as saving 10 or 20$ per week for retirement I agree it is a noble effort, but unless you have 150 years or so to save, it won't help to much.. Pay off credit cards instead
lower taxes mean business gets to keep more of their money, with that money they generally invest in growing the business with new technologies, capital investment, expanding markets etc....all these things need more people to make the business successful.....the more people you have paying the lower taxes the more revenue goes to the government.
A gross simplification of this would be let's say that you have 100 people paying a tax of $100, they pay a total of $10,000. Now if the tax rate were $110 and only 80 people were paying it the total tax collected is only $8800.....now multiply that by 130 million people (give or take a few) and pretty soon you are talking about real money.
That's the theory that has been proven to work under Kennedy and Reagan...tax rates go down, revenue goes up. I know it sounds kooky, but there it is.
edit....oh, and people who get to keep more money invest it in things like savings, durable goods and even entertainment...all of which keep the economic wheels properly greased.
George Bush just gave the largest tax break to the rich - jobs have disappeared. Companies don't "invest" in people; they are moving jobs and their income offshore.
Bill Clinton raised taxes on the highest income earners and we had 8 years of job growth in the US AND 2 years of a balanced budget.
Do you realize we have borrowed the money from the Chinese to pay for the War in Iraq? Can you tell me with a straight face that this is sound financial policy?
#397565 - 10/11/0410:44 PM
Re: Political Discussion: One Thread Only!
Baitrunner
Member
Registered: 04/12/02
Posts: 1366
IB, I'm glad to see that you, at least, understand the implication of the tax rates paid by the respective candidates. It seems to have gone over some others heads!
Ah, Mr. Spin. So what your saying is we can tax our way to prosperity? :rolleyes: Congratulations; you've just graduated Advanced Democratic Economic Theory, Magna Cum Laude! :rolleyes:
"I think, that all right-thinking people, are sick and tired of being told that they are sick and tired of being sick and tired. I, for one, am not. And I'm sick and tired of being told that I am!"
John Kerry paid 12.8% tax rate.At least he paid taxes.He took advantage of the tax code just as everyone in all brackets would.What really fries me is the the big corporations that get tax REFUNDS every year.As long as the people that take the most advantage of the tax code also make big contributions or write the laws it wont get changed.
Did anyone see the debate on c-span yesterday between the minor party presidential candidates?Except for the socialist candidate the answers to the questions were quite good.It was refreshing to see unrehearsed answers to questions asked by the audience.
WASHINGTON, Oct. 11 - The Senate today approved a bill handing out about $140 billion in corporate tax breaks.
The 633-page bill, which has already been passed by the House, passed the Senate today on a vote of 69 to 17. It is loaded with hundreds of provisions that provide benefits to a wide range of interests, including the General Electric Company, oil drillers, shipbuilders, cruise ship operators, importers of ceiling fans, corn farmers, tobacco farmers and even foreign gamblers.
Despite widespread criticism of the bill as a Christmas tree of special-interest provisions, the House passed it by a vote of 280 to 141 on Friday, and the Senate voted, 66 to 14, on Sunday to cut off a potential filibuster.
But Senate leaders were blocked from voting until today by Senator Mary L. Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana, who was furious that the final bill did not include $2 billion in tax credits for companies that keep paying employees who are called to active duty from military reserves and the National Guard.
Ms. Landrieu finally won agreement for a vote - whose effect would be purely symbolic - on a measure that would declare the Senate's support for giving those employers some tax credits.
Ms. Landrieu refused today to concede ultimate defeat on the Guard and reserves measure. ``But as you know, the Senate leadership, unfortunately in my mind, can't dictate to the House leadership,'' she said at an afternoon news briefing.
A moment later, she said, ``I think it's going to be very, very, very difficult for the House of Representatives, for the Republican leadership, over the next few weeks to try to explain their position and to the American public why the tax bills keep flying out of this Congress, one after another after another, and leaving out the Guard and reserve every time.''
The largest provisions of the corporate tax bill repeal a $5 billion annual tax break for exporters that has been declared illegal by the World Trade Organization, and replace it with a tax reduction for manufacturers in the United States.
The bill's tax breaks are worth about $140 billion over 10 years, but it is supposed to raise the same amount of money by closing tax shelters, raising customs fees and eliminating the old tax benefit.
On Friday night, Senate leaders overcame objections by opponents of the bill, including Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, who were angry that it would provide a $10 billion buyout for tobacco farmers without subjecting tobacco products to regulation by the Food and Drug Administration.
Opponents could not muster enough votes to block the bill through a filibuster, so Mr. Kennedy and his allies settled for separate voice votes in favor of tobacco regulation and against new overtime rules.
But those bills are unlikely to become law because the House has not passed similar measures.
Voting for the bill were 25 Democrats, 43 Republicans and the Senate's one independent, James Jeffords of Vermont. Voting against it were 14 Democrats and 3 Republicans, Susan Collins of Maine, Mike DeWine of Ohio and Judd Gregg of New Hampshire.
#397571 - 10/11/0410:58 PM
Re: Political Discussion: One Thread Only!
Anonymous
Unregistered
BP: I wish that were really true, but it's not. Once again, privilege is invisible to those by whom it is enjoyed. This is not my opinion, I did not make it up, it is a well researched, well documented, and well proven sociological fact!
Val, FFA, Spun, and Naugy Joe: I LOVE YOU, MAN!!!
Richard4878: NO!!! If I had described communism, "Comrade Dan" would have had the same meal he had in the first place, and the other 99 of us would ALL get the bologna sandwich and sour milk, and would have had to wait in line to get it, (AND WE'D LIKE IT!) and those at the end of the line would have gotten NOTHING AT ALL!!
ISN'T THAT RIGHT, VAL?!?
(And besides, I told you it was an oversimplified analogy, and like IceBuster said, I am NOT to be taken seriously! )
IceBuster: I am interested in your post regarding Mr. Bush's tax reform plans. Could you please identify your source? I also have a concern regarding this, in that he has not made any such inroads in this direction in the last four years; rather he has merely slashed taxes wholesale, with the bulk of his cuts by far benefitting the top 1 % the most. Therefore, please forgive me if I am skeptical based upon his record. I am sure you will indulge me, since all of you on the right are constantly pointing our Kerry's record when defending your reluctance to take him at his word. Also, how much will all that added "research and study" cost us, and how long will it take before any meaningful relief and results are actually realized? (I saw the 2005 date, but again I am skeptical, as are you, apparently, from what you said at the end of your post.)
Mr. Kerry has repeatedly and unequivically stated that he will immediately roll back the tax rate on the top 1% to what it was four years ago, while maintaining the current rate for the rest of us, and he has PROMISED! :rolleyes: not to increase our taxes! That seems to offer the most immediate and promising results, at least for now, by comparison.
Wynd Knottt: Thank you for weighing in! It's about freakin' time! Even though you are reluctant to jump on our Kerry bandwagon, at least I know that you are open minded and intelligent, and bring some valuable insight to the table, and I know that you can be reasoned with! Welcome to the discussion, I hope you can continue to participate as much as possible!
IceBuster: I realize the merit and value of what you submitted in your last post, but we really have to put everything in context. Huge deficits, the cost of the legitimate war on terrorism, the cost of the war in Iraq, the gross disparity between very rich and very poor, the tax advantages given to the top 1% and to corporate America, the excessive profits being earned by companies like Haliburton et al, the totality of the big picture; unfortunately, wether any of us like it or not, we're gonna have to pay for all of this sooner or later.
I asked this before, and never got an answer, so I'll ask it again:
Exactly WHEN should we start to pay for all of this?
Previous Topic
Index