ctfisherman.com logo
Page 68 of 177 < 1 2 ... 66 67 68 69 70 ... 176 177 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
Hop to:
#397572 - 10/11/04 11:04 PM Re: Political Discussion: One Thread Only!
FLAG-UP Offline
Member

Registered: 03/16/03
Posts: 888
What a joke!They just proved my point.I'll bet bush cant wait to sign that one.Why dont they just exempt any corporation from ever paying taxes and get it over with.Also goes to show you how bypartisan corporate lobbying is as well.
Top
Fishing Info
#397573 - 10/11/04 11:09 PM Re: Political Discussion: One Thread Only!
Anonymous
Unregistered


Nu2salt,

I LOVE YOU TOO!!! :rolleyes:

I second you on Communism! \:D

I'd love too see your comment on the latest tax break for corporations when you have a chance. It smells like the Republicans in Congress sense their LAME DUCK status. So they are trying to wreck the economy even more before the door hits them on the way out. Let Kerry figure it out.
Top
#397574 - 10/11/04 11:11 PM Re: Political Discussion: One Thread Only!
spin Online   content

Member

Registered: 07/27/02
Posts: 579
Why thank you Baitrunner, you are so kind,

however I did not graduate "magna cum laude", I graduated "cum laude". It is defined as : with honor; with academic distinction.

And I read Mr. Paul Krugman, Economics Professor at Princeton for my Economics lessons, though I have not had the opportunity to study under him.

Mr. Krugman has his BA from Yale and his Ph.D from MIT. He thinks that Bush has done incredible harm to the US economy.

For those that believe Bush is doing a good job, what published Economist are you using for a source?

Baitrunner? My Economist is smarter than yours, if you can even find one that backs Bush's economic policies.

And tell me Why should we borrow money from the Chinese to fight our War?
Top
#397575 - 10/11/04 11:15 PM Re: Political Discussion: One Thread Only!
Anonymous
Unregistered


 Quote:
Originally posted by Baitrunner:
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!

Are you F***in S***in' me? ARE YOU OUTTA YOUR MIND!?!?

Do you know what the tax rates paid by the respective candidates proves to me?

It proves that Bush is too freakin stupid to even take proper advantage of his own freakin' tax laws!!

Kerry must be the ONLY PERSON IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY who paid that rate, right?

Can you at least TRY to be consistent?

All your post proved is that the tax codes and the current structure allow the wealthy to get away with paying far less than their fair share!

Again, it doesn't matter WHO the specific tax payer is, KERRY COULDN'T HAVE DONE IT IF BUSH AND THE REPUCLICANS DIDN'T LET HIM!!!

That's the part that keeps going over YOUR HEAD!!

AND YES! I AM YELLING NOW!! HOLY FREAKIN' CHRIST!!!!

U musta gawn ta th' sam skool as gorg buch done gawn ta an fer jus as lawng!

\:o \:o \:o

;\) \:D
Top
#397576 - 10/11/04 11:16 PM Re: Political Discussion: One Thread Only!
DEN Offline

Member

Registered: 08/10/03
Posts: 4898
Loc: Newington
Bla-Bla-Bla.... Simple checks & balances, but it isn’t happening, earn a $100-spend a $1,000.

There’s no re-investment into big business, if anything, every shortcut to administer savings. Job reduction, healthcare cutbacks, pension reduction and discontinuation and so on.

 Quote:
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?
I find something a bit strange here; neither candidate has addressed the current problem with the highly unstable fuel prices/oil. Everyone here seems to have their own opinion as to why but I've heard the same BS from the days of gas rationing.

What I do find a bit curious is that China is second to the U.S. in crude oil demand and one of the reasons is that China is stockpiling huge amounts in reserve that is now only being questioned.

Is the American consumer repaying our dept to China?

There's also a report out today that crude prices are expected to diminish after the election.

BOHICA!!
Top
#397577 - 10/11/04 11:18 PM Re: Political Discussion: One Thread Only!
Anonymous
Unregistered


Paul Krugman, BTW, just barely missed getting the Nobel Price in Economics for 2004. At least he was nominated.

What are academic credentials of your genius, Baitrunner?
Top
#397578 - 10/11/04 11:18 PM Re: Political Discussion: One Thread Only!
FLAG-UP Offline
Member

Registered: 03/16/03
Posts: 888
Unfortunatly val the republicans had help from some democrats as well.Besides the corporate welfare I wonder how much pork was in that bill?
Top
#397579 - 10/11/04 11:23 PM Re: Political Discussion: One Thread Only!
Anonymous
Unregistered


Sure Dems take corporate money. If they didn't there would be 100% Republican Majority in the Congress and there would be no need for corporate tax breaks. There would be no corporate taxes, PERIOD.
Top
#397580 - 10/11/04 11:25 PM Re: Political Discussion: One Thread Only!
IceBusteR Offline
Member

Registered: 01/06/04
Posts: 596
Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/09/20040902-7.html

On Tax relief: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/reports/taxplan.html

On everything else: http://www.georgewbush.com/Agenda/

It is interesting to compare the tax relief strategies between Bush and Kerry, ther is no plan for simplification at the Kerry site.

 Quote:
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?

Exactly WHO should be paying the bulk of it?

And exactly HOW are we going to make that happen?
1&2) it pays for itself through lower spending and increased revenues via lower tax rates which would begin during the next budegtary cycle. I freely admit that the Bush administration has a piss poor record of controlling spending even considering the extenuating circumstances. Governments have historically had great trouble with this and the reasons for it go far beyond a single president, perhaps we can adress that another day. I am, however, unwilling to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

As to the "how" I think I addressed that already, did I not?

The difference you and I have seems to be the "how" You think taxing the rich will somehow give you immunity but we both know, form a historical perspective that it has never been the case.

I find the Bush approach to be not only the more reasonable on but also the one that has been proven to work.

In this season of political debate it is easy to forget where the real spending occurs. The president submits a budget and the legislature rips it apart then rebuilds it until it more closely resembles Frankenstiens monster than a real budget, the ultimate power resides not with the president but with the house and senate appropritations commitees.

Here's how it works;

February

President submits recommended budget to Congress in early part of the month. Both parties use the event as an opportunity to trash the other person and push their own agenda.

April 15

Congress fails, as it almost always does, to pass a budget resolution. A budget resolution is supposed to set the big picture goals, but it doesn't have any teeth and doesn't have the force of a law - the President doesn't have to sign it. Instead of doing the budget resolution as required by law, Congress passes a bunch of other bills that say, in other words, taxes suck. (They fail to acknowledge that taxes are paying for them to be able to stand up and say taxes suck.)

May

Congress finally passes the aforementioned virtually meaningless budget resolution with all kinds of instructions that the committee with real power, the Appropriations Committee, will ignore.

June and July

The House and the Senate pass as many of the 13 Appropriations bills as they are able. (For more information about the 13 bills, check out the 54 Kings page.) The real key is to see how many they have passed by the time Congress takes its annual summer break in August.

August Recess

After a week where they say they will tackle lots of thorny issues, but really put them all off until September, the House and Senate leave town for a month-long recess.

September 31

Fiscal year runs out with some work left undone. Congress passes a law which says, "Hey, we need just a little more time to figure out the rest of the budget." They repeat this until they actually get their work done. In 1999 they did this seven times.

Late September and October

Finally, Congress gets down to brass tacks, real negotiations happen, and agreements get ironed out. Whether it's through original 13 spending bills, or a giant bill where they combine a bunch of the bills that haven't been passed, the Congress and the President finally agree on the budget for the year.

October

After passing the last appropriations bill, Congress adjourns for the year. All the big issues they didn't get to will just have to wait until the next Congress.


So you see that any anger regarding spending that is directed at the president is pretty much a waste of time.

Want a proper budeget? get the president line item veto power.


oh, and my source for that lesson is: http://www.yourcongress.com/
Everyone who is engaged in this process should have a look at the site.
Top
#397581 - 10/11/04 11:29 PM Re: Political Discussion: One Thread Only!
Anonymous
Unregistered


Val,

i'm sorry you don't share my sincere affection for you. \:\( ;\) :p \:D

My comment on the latest tax cut is very simple:

What else should we expect? Same old same old! If nothing changes, nothing changes! I'm not the LEAST bit surprised! It's just more typical corporate welfare. How DARE they! Faced with mounting deficits, the legitimate war on terror and paying for our homeland security, not to mention healthcare, etc., they give more of OUR money away to the very people who have ALL the money to begin with!! Like I said before, the money is going straight from us to Uncle Sam (Uncle George is more accurate) and into the already bulging pockets of the wealthiest! Sick, obscene, immoral, and outright criminal!! But let's all jump on John Kerry and John Edwards for taking advantage of the very laws and codes put in place by the conservative republicans for lower taxes.

Tell me something BR, IB, and others, do you feel that it's only OK for republicans and corporations to keep their own money, but that democrats should pay a higher rate, and that there should be a totally seperate tax code for democratic Presidential candidates? Because that's sure what it sounds like to me?

Anyone else?


"``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,"


That's why Bush has got to go!
Top
Page 68 of 177 < 1 2 ... 66 67 68 69 70 ... 176 177 >

Moderator:  Editors, Jimbo, STRIPMINER 


Active Topics