Cia Agrees With Kerry.

[AgMedallion]

How exactly have you benefitted?

[post="175298"][/post]​

Tax-free dividends. You know, all Americans with disposable income can buy common stocks and not have to pay taxes on the dividends. Yet to hear the elitist Dems, only the filthy rich upper class can do so. Just more class warfare BS.

 

[AA-MCI]

You know, all Americans with disposable income can buy common stocks

[post="175301"][/post]​

Yeah, those poor people who are working three jobs while their spouse works two jobs are just not investing properly!

Class War my Aspen ski condo!

 

[sentrido]

Tax-free dividends. You know, all Americans with disposable income can buy common stocks and not have to pay taxes on the dividends. Yet to hear the elitist Dems, only the filthy rich upper class can do so. Just more class warfare BS.

[post="175301"][/post]​

I was hoping for a specific dollar amount. How much did YOU benefit.

 

[NWA/AMT]

Also,, Bush cut everyones taxes not just for those paying the most. How much of a burden do you think peple shoul bear?

[post="175249"][/post]​

Yet those who make the least received the least benefit and he did it while setting a record for deficit spending, making us a debtor to almost every nation on the planet. How much of a burden do you think our children should bear?

First, one of the principles that this country was found on is Laze fare which means government should have the least amount of interferance with business as possable...

Fred, nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or US Constitution is the principal or laissez-faire implied or endorsed. Indeed, once you examine Webster's definition of the term:

Main Entry: lais·sez-faire
Pronunciation: "le-"sA-'far, "lA-, -"zA-, -'fer
Function: noun
Etymology: French laissez faire, imperative of laisser faire to let (people) do (as they choose)
1 : a doctrine opposing governmental interference in economic affairs beyond the minimum necessary for the maintenance of peace and property rights
2 : a philosophy or practice characterized by a usually deliberate abstention from direction or interference especially with individual freedom of choice and action

- it is fairly obvious that the concept is directly in conflict with both the Constitutional mandate to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide
for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the
Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" and the central concept of democracy itself; the principle of majority rule. I realize that the NeoCons have sold you on the concept of Laissez-faire economics, or 'Reagan-omics' (Which Bush the First himself once called 'Voo-Doo Economics'), but Laissez-faire is the pet principle of Anarchists and Libertarians, not Republicans.

If you wish a government based upon the principle of laissez-faire, are you prepared to abandon things like the Federal Trade Commission, the FAA and it's air traffic control system, the Federal Highway System, Social Security, and all the other organizations not necessary 'for the maintenance of peace and property rights'? You won't mind travelling in aircraft and other conveyances designed and maintained purely on the principle of which is cheaper, maintenance or lawsuits from the next of kin? If government is to abstain from 'interference especially with individual freedom of choice and action', what are we to do with the criminal code?

Sorry, Fred, our founding fathers had already experienced laissez-faire first hand in the form of an absentee ruler whose only interest was what he could get from his Colonies and they wanted no part of it.

...yet you are blaiming the Administration for companies exporting jobs overseas.

Indeed, and I blamed Clinton and Bush père, and Reagan before them. Any government that is unable to realize that allowing jobs to be exported reduces their citizens quality of life is barely worth the name. We cannot work for WalMart, Fred, and someone has to be the consumer for our economy to work. The ultimate extension of such lassiez-faire economic and social policies led to the French Revolution in just that manner.

Business exist to make money. Period.

And consequently should not be held accountable for the havoc their quest for money wreaks? Do the people who make up corporations bear no responsibility for the policies they enact? Judging by the Enron debacle and its aftermath it's fairly obvious that George Bush thinks not.

It is called a free market.

And the ultimate extension of the so-called 'free market' is chaos. A truly free market ensures the destruction of every company in a never ending cycle of striving for 'cheaper' while impoverishing all but those who control those corporations. One need only look at the chaos of the airline industry in the last twenty-five years to see that effect demonstrated. Is the US stronger without its shipbuilding, shipping, consumer electronics, tire and steel industries, not to mention countless others? What will we do when the foreign workers who make the products realize that they don't really need us?

Government control of business is called socialism

Yet the greatest economic security and stability this nation has ever enjoyed was under the liberal economic policies that provided mild government control of the free market forces to prevent the decending spiral inherent in the process. Even Teddy Roosevelt realized that uncontained corporate greed is bad for America, Fred.

Ask Gorbechev how well that worked out.

Implying, of course, that the only two systems are unrestrained capitalism or unrestrained communism. Fortunately not true, no matter how much the NeoCons wish to make us believe it was.

 

[KCFlyer]

Yet those who make the least received the least benefit and he did it while setting a record for deficit spending, making us a debtor to almost every nation on the planet.

Well, that's not that big of a problem, seeing how Bush/Cheney's attitude towards every other nation on earth is "Screw them". I'd look for them to default...with "terrorism" as the reason.

 

[NWA/AMT]

Like when Hillary demanded to know what Bush knew about 9/11 and when he knew it?

[post="175294"][/post]​

How dare a US Senator question the President!! Wait, isn't that part of their job? Or is that only when the President is a Democrat?

Or Teddy Kennedy calling GWB a liar?

How dare the Democrats abandon their policy of civility and begin to retaliate in kind!! Next thing they'll be telling the Vice President to 'Go F@#k' himself or referring to the Republicans as 'traitorous scum' as Rush Limbaugh has done many times since the late 1980s.

Or the hundreds/thousands of times that the Dems, just as those elitist snobs did with Reagan, called GWB, a Yale/Harvard grad, stupid?

Now, I'm unclear, are we all 'elitist snobs' or just the ones who point out the President's educational mediocrity or his unusual take on the english language? Thanks for making my point for me.

Or their continual claims that the Republicans are heartless racists who will abolish Social Security.

Not abolish, privatize, although since the end result would be the same I can understand you confusion.

The Dems constantly preach class warfare.

And the NeoCons constantly practice it, while denying they are doing it. Eventually the NeoCons will realize the fact that while the results of their policies may be unintentional it does not eliminate or limit their responsibility for those actions.

They truly do believe that there are two Americas.

Because for the last two decades it has become quite obvious that this is how the Republicans view the nation. It has not been the Democrats who have been recently been bragging about the 'red states' versus the 'blue states' or pretending that anyone who doesn't agree with their policies completely is probably a sleeper agent for Al Qaeda.

Even though I'm middle class and have benefitted greatly from GWB's tax cuts, to hear the Dems talk, I must be filthy rich.

You must be because I am exactly in the middle of the middle class and have suffered far more from Bush's policies than I have benefitted. Even now, as the retirement programs of millions are of Americans are in danger of collapsing and disappearing, he pretends that the problem doesn't exist. I don't think we can afford four more years of such 'leadership'.

 

[NWA/AMT]

Well, that's not that big of a problem, seeing how Bush/Cheney's attitude towards every other nation on earth is "Screw them". I'd look for them to default...with "terrorism" as the reason.

[post="175515"][/post]​

Hopefully we'll have the troops available to go to war when the Japanese banks try to take possession of Hawaii or seize the assets of US corporations within their country. Disregarding the fact, of course, that such a default would cause a economic catastrophy that would make the great depression look like good times.

Look on the bright side, when it happens I'm sure the NeoCons will be able to prove it's all Carter's .......err....... Clinton's .......err....... Gore's ......err...... Kerry's fault.

 

[FredF]

You guys keep insisting on going back to the tried and true liberal argument that those making the least benefitted the least from the tax breaks. Therefore, I will pose this question yet again. Either answer it or try to find another angle because that one will not fly.

Ready,

Here is the Question

If you PAY $1000 in taxed and I PAY $100 in taxes and we both get a 10% break. That means that you PAY $100 less and I only pay $10 less. Even if you only get a 5% break that still means that you pay $50 less while I still pay $10 less.

Who get the bigger break???


Either answer it or find another angle because this one will not fly anymore.

 

[KCFlyer]

You guys keep insisting on going back to the tried and true liberal argument that those making the least benefitted the least from the tax breaks. Therefore, I will pose this question yet again. Either answer it or try to find another angle because that one will not fly.

Ready,

Here is the Question

If you PAY $1000 in taxed and I PAY $100 in taxes and we both get a 10% break. That means that you PAY $100 less and I only pay $10 less. Even if you only get a 5% break that still means that you pay $50 less while I still pay $10 less.

Who get the bigger break???
Either answer it or find another angle because this one will not fly anymore.

[post="175577"][/post]​

Okay, I'll take a stab at it. Tax cuts were supposed to stimulate the economy. You know...."create jobs". In my area, what I have seen is thousands of jobs paying $40-$50k be "offshored" in an effort to cut costs. The taxes on that money are now gone, replaced by jobs paying considerably less. Meanwhile, the CEO who made $2 million before the job cuts, gets a bonus of another couple of million (with lowered taxes to boot) for a "job well done". If those benefiting the most from the tax cuts are "trickling down" layoffs, cutbacks and offshoring, eliminating thousands of jobs that could have been going to keep us out of a deficeit, then maybe we really should rethink those tax cuts for the wealthy, to help compensate from the taxes from the "middle class" that are no longer coming in.

For corporate taxes, it's amazing what million bucks in campaign funds can do for a company...take the money, smile and wave as the CEO heads over to Bermuda to open a PO Box to house the companies "headquarters", and that corporation, with millions or even billions in profits pays not a dime in income tax. Meanwhile, Joe Middle Class is becoming Joe I Need Government Assistance (which cost....tax dollars) because his job doesn't exist any more.

Hey...great news, Labor Day is coming up and WalMart has extended hours for their big Labor Day sale. What say we all head on down there and look at the minimum wage workers and tell them how fortunate they are that they have a tax cut. Sadly though, a lot of them paid as much as they are currently earning in taxes, back when they had a good job.

 

[AgMedallion]

How dare a US Senator question the President!! Wait, isn't that part of their job? Or is that only when the President is a Democrat?

There's a BIG difference between questioning a President and implying he is, in effect, an accomplice in the murder of 3,000 Americans. If you can't realize that, there's really no point in debating that particular subject. The vitriolic hatred the Dems feel towards GWB is, IMHO, absolutely incredible. You folks need to take some Prozac/Valium/Librium/several six packs of Bud/whatever. Chill, because you're gonna have FOUR MORE YEARS!!!

How dare the Democrats abandon their policy of civility and begin to retaliate in kind!! Next thing they'll be telling the Vice President to 'Go F@#k' himself or referring to the Republicans as 'traitorous scum' as Rush Limbaugh has done many times since the late 1980s.

What Cheney said to Leahy was in a private conversation on the Senate floor. I'm sure that if he knew a microphone was picking it up, he would have been more civil. Also, Leahy probably deserved it. 😀
Who cares what Limbaugh said? We were talking about office holders.

Now, I'm unclear, are we all 'elitist snobs' or just the ones who point out the President's educational mediocrity or his unusual take on the english language? Thanks for making my point for me.

I'm talking about office holders primarily. My point remains. Anyone who can seriously call a Yale/Harvard grad "stupid" or an "idiot", has some serious issues with reality, because if that were true, both Harvard and Yale should lose their accreditation. The other alternative is that the person doing that name-calling is an elitist snob who thinks that his or her poop doesn't stink. Interesting that a Bachelor's from Yale and a Master's from Harvard equals "educational mediocrity" in your book. You must have at least a Doctorate in Astrophysics from MIT and a medical degree with a specialty in Brain Surgery from Johns Hopkins to look down your nose at GWB's education.

It sure ain't the so-called 'Liberals' fault, they've been bending over backwards, (and forwards), for two decades trying to appear reasonable.

So I gather that your definition of "reasonable" includes calling the President, or at least implying that he is, an accomplice to mass murder? I sure would hate to see what "derogatory" would include in NWA/AMT World. That "world" is one helluva nasty place!

 

[AgMedallion]

Yeah, those poor people who are working three jobs while their spouse works two jobs are just not investing properly!
Class War my Aspen ski condo!

[post="175340"][/post]​

While both husband and wife working is the norm (in my case as well), one spouse working three jobs while the other works two is decidedly not . If that's the case with you, that's unfortunate. Perhaps you think that if Kerry were elected you'd soon be living large. I think you'll be sorely disappointed, despite what the Dems are promising. While those same Dems would have you think that since I'm benefitting from the Bush tax cuts, I'm filthy rich with a Learjet, yacht and three BMWs in my garage, such is definitely NOT the case (in fact, that's more like a description of Kerry, only Kerry is even richer than that). I have one house (no Aspen condo or any condo/summer home/whatever) and three cars, two of which have 90,000 and 130,000 miles on them and the third is a Kia. So don't believe the class warfare crap thrown out by the Dems. It's 100% bovine excrement.

 

[AgMedallion]

I was hoping for a specific dollar amount. How much did YOU benefit.

[post="175384"][/post]​

I missed the part where my personal financial information is any of your business. Let's just say it's more than several hundred worth of savings. The Dems would have you believe only the filthy rich benefit. BS!! Obviously they should benefit more because the pay more in taxes. Duh. Some Dems believe in "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need". They should move to Sweden or some other high tax rate country where life is more equitable.

You know, if you have $10,000 sitting in a checking (or even savings account nowadays with low interest rates) and get, say, $250 worth of interest which becomes maybe $180 after taxes, you could, instead, invest in $10,000 worth of a utility stock, for example, and get maybe $500 worth of dividends tax free. Depending on the stock, you might be able to sell a couple of calls per year for a few hundred more worth of income and clear almost $1,000 instead of the $180 with the checking/savings account. But to hear the Dems talk, you have to be some rich fatcat who votes Republican to benefit. To them, everyone lives in a trailer park and drives a rusted out 1986 F-150, or lives in a ghetto if they're black or hispanic, except the Republicans or those trailer park/ghetto folks too stupid to vote Democratic.

 

[KCFlyer]

While both husband and wife working is the norm (in my case as well), one spouse working three jobs while the other works two is decidedly not . If that's the case with you, that's unfortunate. Perhaps you think that if Kerry were elected you'd soon be living large. I think you'll be sorely disappointed, despite what the Dems are promising. While those same Dems would have you think that since I'm benefitting from the Bush tax cuts, I'm filthy rich with a Learjet, yacht and three BMWs in my garage, such is definitely NOT the case (in fact, that's more like a description of Kerry, only Kerry is even richer than that). I have one house (no Aspen condo or any condo/summer home/whatever) and three cars, two of which have 90,000 and 130,000 miles on them and the third is a Kia. So don't believe the class warfare crap thrown out by the Dems. It's 100% bovine excrement.

[post="175635"][/post]​

The "class warfare" isn't between the guy making $20k and the guy making $90k...It's about the guys making $20K (or less) who used to make $50K while the "leader" of their company who was making $2 million is given a bonus of $5 milion for keeping costs inline. It's about folks at...say US Airways or Delta or American being asked to give up their wages and benefits, while "retention bonuses" are paid to their top management..most of whom are responsible for getting them into the dire straits that they are in. It's about the people with food stamps and the "disgraced" CEO's who have a $15,000,000 house in Indiana and a $14,000,000 home in St Martin.

 

[FredF]

KC, you said you would try to answer it but you didn't

Here it is one more time.

Here is the Question

If you PAY $1000 in taxed and I PAY $100 in taxes and we both get a 10% break. That means that you PAY $100 less and I only pay $10 less. Even if you only get a 5% break that still means that you pay $50 less while I still pay $10 less.

Who get the bigger break???

You guys love to bemoan how the rich got all the tax breaks and the burden and all that wonderful stuff. Go ahead, it is a very simple question.

Answer it or don't try to use that argument again.

Real simple. Give the scenario above, who got the better tax break?

 

[diogenes]

There's a BIG difference between questioning a President and implying he is, in effect, an accomplice in the murder of 3,000 Americans.


She probably considered the question in bounds, considering she and her husband were accused of murdering their advisor.