Cia Agrees With Kerry.

[KCFlyer]

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?

[post="175653"][/post]​

Fred...correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that these tax cuts were supposed to help the economy. Apparently they aren't. And the guy who was making $50k and is now making $20K most likely would rather have not had the tax cut and kept his previous wage. That might actually kick start the economy better.

 

[diogenes]

Business exist to make money. Period.



Really? Then is it ok for American business to buy goods made from slave labor in China to boost the bottom line? How about when Nike and Kathy Lee make $$ off child labor?

How about when Enron cooks the books to pump up the profits?

How about when Halliburton and GE, via the 'legal' manuvuer of a mail-drop in the Caymans, currently trade with Iran and Syria ? That's very illegal, as according to our President, those countries are our enemies.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/22/...ain595214.shtml


Look, there is no question capitalism-meets-democracy is the best arrangement the world has ever seen. But the Founders set this republic up for the citizens to be sovereign, not the state, and not corporations.

 

[NWA/AMT]

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.

[post="175577"][/post]​

Your question is based on faulty assumptions, Fred. Those at the lower end of the economic spectrum received a SMALLER percentage tax cut, not larger as you imply. In fact, for those near or below the poverty level there was effectively no tax cut at all. That means you pay less and they still pay the same.

George Bush knows that ten percent of Americans control ninety percent of our nations wealth and that the top ten percent of that ten percent controls seventy-five percent of that ninety percent. It was the top ten percent of the top ten percent who benefitted most from the Bush tax cuts; they are his people, those he grew up with and did business with, and that is who he really represents.

 

[NWA/AMT]

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.

[post="175628"][/post]​

She was attempting to find out, as was he job on that commission, exactly what the president knew and when he knew it. Any implication drawn from that is yours, not hers. The standard set, and set by the NeoCon extremists, is that there is NO limit to what may be implied about a president. You guys set the standard, now live with it.

If you can't realize that, there's really no point in debating that particular subject.

"If you don't agree with my interpretation then we can't debate"? How unique!

The vitriolic hatred the Dems feel towards GWB is, IMHO, absolutely incredible.

Almost equal to that the Reps felt for Clinton. Contrary to what you wish to believe, I don't have any personal feelings about Bush at all beyond those I have for his actions as president.

You folks need to take some Prozac/Valium/Librium/several six packs of Bud/whatever. Chill, because you're gonna have FOUR MORE YEARS!!!

Seen the Florida results already, have you?

What Cheney said to Leahy was in a private conversation on the Senate floor.

A private converstaion with dozens of senators and photograhers present? Stop pretending it was anything other than what it was, a calculated attempt to humiliate an opponent.

Also, Leahy probably deserved it.

On what evidence do you base your assessment? Because he dared to disagree?

Who cares what Limbaugh said?

You guys used to treat Rush's every word as gospel, are you going to dump him now over a little drug problem? Kind of like how you guys suddenly didn't know Newt Gingrich when the world discovered that he was worse than Clinton, huh?

We were talking about office holders.

At no point was that stated and the distinction is ludicrous. Ann and Rush set the NeoCon agenda just as much as if they were elected.

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.

A Yale grad who acheived a straight "C" average, an honor awarded to many other 'legacy' students whose fathers made large donations, and who has spoken of that mediocrity with pride? Harvard or Yale lose their accreditation? Now THAT is funny.

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.

So anyone who criticizes the president is an elitist snob?

Interesting that a Bachelor's from Yale and a Master's from Harvard equals "educational mediocrity" in your book.

It is if you graduate with 'legacy Cs' and brag about it. It is if you invent your own version of english daily. It is if you refer to those whose educational advantages were identical to yours, as Kerry's was to Bush's, as "elitist intellectuals" in an attempt to pretend you're 'just a regular guy', as Bush has.

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 gather that your definition of 'constitutional duties" includes not asking the President any questions that he may find embarrassing, as long as he's a Republican President, that is? The implication you draw from her question is your own.

I sure would hate to see what "derogatory" would include in NWA/AMT World.

You've already seen it for the last twenty years, only aimed mostly at the Democrats so you didn't mind.

 

[NWA/AMT]

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 .

[post="175635"][/post]​

Actually it's becoming far more common as the good jobs leave for offshore and are replaced with low paying, part time jobs. George Bush is going to be the first president since Herbert Hoover to preside over a term of office in which the total number of jobs DECREASED. If you exclude part time jobs from the equation he almost surpasses Hoover.

If we leave Bush in office, before too long the flow at the Mexican border is going to reverse.

 

[NWA/AMT]

You know, if you have $10,000 sitting in a checking...

[post="175638"][/post]​

Come on, give a real life example: How about if you're sitting on $10,000 in debt and lose your job and medical benefits and then your spouse gets sick? How will being a 'savvy investor' help you then? Since Medicare is now underfunded and even the VA hospitals are being cut by Bush your investments better pay off quickly.

...you could, instead, invest in $10,000 worth of a utility stock...

Like Enron?

The fact that you even try to make these arguments show just how insulated you have been from the effects of the Bush presidency.

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.

The only ones I see saying things like that are the NeoCons trying to SCARE people into voting for them.

 

[FredF]

No I do not have a faulty question in that there was not a larger percentage and I ireally don't care about what the taxes were supposed to be for. You want to complain that the "RICH" got more releif than others but when you look at dollar amounts, of course they are going to get more releif, they PAY MORE taxes.

 

[NWA/AMT]

No I do not have a faulty question in that there was not a larger percentage...

[post="175718"][/post]​

Yes, Fred, they did. Between the cuts in income taxes, capital gains and other tax cuts which only apply to the wealthy, the rich did receive a larger percentage of tax cuts.

I ireally don't care about what the taxes were supposed to be for.

So we can pretty much count on you to refuse to help pay off the Bush deficits then? How about your kids? Or their kids? That's how long it's going to take.

You want to complain that the "RICH" got more releif than others but when you look at dollar amounts, of course they are going to get more releif, they PAY MORE taxes.

They pay more taxes because they make more, or are you advocating the NeoCon fantasy of the 'Flat Tax'? They also get more tax deductions as well so they often end up paying less than those at the other end of the spectrum.

How does a capital gains tax cut help my neighbor who lost his job to outsourcing, his portfolio to Enron and MCI and now works for Lowes, part time, and Starbucks part time to make ends meet? "Freeing up capital for investment in business"? Maybe in India, Fred, because it sure ain't happening here.

 

[FredF]

You are soo wrong.

These taxes were income taxes. Capital gains taxes have noting to do with income. As incomes go up, taxe breaks actually go down.

For example, interest deductions aree only go up to a certain amount of a mortgage. If you have a bigger mortgage, you don't get to deduct the interest over $100,000.

There are caps on the amount of money you can contribute to a 401K. As you income goes up, and you exceed that cap, your taxable income actually goes up.

Now that I have dispeled that myth, care to try another one?

Why do you keep insisting that tax cuts had anything to do with jobs being shipped overseas. You keep tying them together and I wonder why because they are not related.

 

[KCFlyer]

Why do you keep insisting that tax cuts had anything to do with jobs being shipped overseas. You keep tying them together and I wonder why because they are not related.

[post="175777"][/post]​

I guess because since the tax cuts were implemented in the name of helping the economy a boat load of jobs started being sent offshore. That means those jobs that USED to be here had their effective US tax cut to zero. If the corporation was smart enough to move their "Headquarters" to the Mailboxes to Go store in Bermuda, the increased profits caused by the decreased expenses tied to labor were also taxed in US dollars at....zero.

 

[NWA/AMT]

You are soo wrong.

Just me Fred? How about the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office:

Yahoo Article on CBO Report

And the Citizens For Tax Justice:

CTJ Release

Even the conservative Tax Foundation:

Tax Foundation Release

Even Alan Greenspan:

Greenspan Quote

Sorry, Fred, you haven't 'dispelled' anything. People a lot more credible than you say otherwise.

Also, cutting the international tax rates for corporation doing business overseas, one of Bush's first actions, has encouraged companies to invest in infrastructure in other countries, moving jobs overseas. A direct link, Fred.

 

[AA-MCI]

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.

[post="175635"][/post]​

Not yet but we're on our way. My wife now works two jobs to make up for the money we lost when Sprint moved their call center to India. Even with two jobs she doesn't get 40 hrs per week and no benefits woth the name. I would have to work three to replace mine and would still never match the benefits or retirement.

I don't think I'll be living large if Kerry wins, but its my best chance of not living smaller and smaller.

 

[KCFlyer]

Not yet but we're on our way. My wife now works two jobs to make up for the money we lost when Sprint moved their call center to India. Even with two jobs she doesn't get 40 hrs per week and no benefits woth the name. I would have to work three to replace mine and would still never match the benefits or retirement.

I don't think I'll be living large if Kerry wins, but its my best chance of not living smaller and smaller.

[post="175955"][/post]​

AA-MCI - maybe Fred should visit Kansas City to see how "great white collar jobs" are harder and harder to find. And what really burns me is that Sprint is laying off thousands, but still found $64,000,000 to buy the naming rights of the new arena.

 

[AA-MCI]

AA-MCI - maybe Fred should visit Kansas City to see how "great white collar jobs" are harder and harder to find.

[post="175976"][/post]​

He doesn't care because it doesn't affect him, yet. That's why it's easy to be a republican, you don't have to care about things until they affect you. That and you get to blame the victims.

And what really burns me is that Sprint is laying off thousands, but still found $64,000,000 to buy the naming rights of the new arena.

[post="175976"][/post]​

My wife worked 60hr weeks for a decade to help make Sprint what it is today and they gave her 2 hrs notice when they laid her off. They knew for months they were setting up call centers in India and pretended nothing was going on when the US employees asked. The Friday after she was laid off the Sprint board voted to give bonuses to themselves and select management people. Shortly after that they made the deal for the arena.

The reason given for the layoffs?

Cost savings, of course.

 

[AgMedallion]

She was attempting to find out, as was he job on that commission, exactly what the president knew and when he knew it. Any implication drawn from that is yours, not hers.

Bullcrap!!!! Everyone knows what she meant when she was screeching it to her KoolAid-sipping followers.

Look, I am not a Clinton idolizer who believes, like a simpleton, that there are numerous meanings for basic words like "is" and "alone". If you chose to be played for a fool like that, that's your problem.
Btw, Hillary Clinton was not a member of the 911 Commission. She was just throwing out red meat for her acolytes.

"If you don't agree with my interpretation then we can't debate"? How unique!

You know what I meant, i.e. that if you feel that a U.S. Senator (or even a presidential candidate like Howard Dean, because he implied the same thing) making such an utterly ridiculous statement like that is acceptable, then we have a basic difference in our perceptions of what's acceptable political discourse and what's not that are so incredibly far apart that no amount of debate or discussion would change either of our opinions. You bring up crap like the Vince Foster murder allegations which, to the best of my knowledge, were never made in a public statement by any Republican office holder.

A Yale grad who acheived a straight "C" average, an honor awarded to many other 'legacy' students whose fathers made large donations, and who has spoken of that mediocrity with pride? Harvard or Yale lose their accreditation? Now THAT is funny.

What I said is that if GWB is "stupid" and an "idiot" as many elitist Dems claim, then Yale and Harvard should both lose their accreditation because such a dolt, if he is a dolt, should never be allowed to earn a degree from either institution. Also, fyi, Bush's combined SAT score of 1206 equates to an IQ of 124

http://www.sq.4mg.com/IQformula.htm



If a 124 IQ equals an idiot or stupid person, then you must be visiting us from a planet with a civilization far advanced to that of Earth. The alternative is that you're simply a liberal elitist Democrat snob with a visceral hatred of GWB.