The Presidential Debate

[FredF]

This is for you and fred,
I was just looking back at the tax tables and in 1995 you paid 10,000 more in taxes if you made 256,500 per year.
Under the 2003 tax tables the highest rate I saw for people over 311,000 is 35 % tax liability.

Now when Fred talks about parties buying their vote, I think 10,000 is a pretty good trade for one vote.
This vote is nothing about money saved by GOP voters.
All the other issues are used as a smoke screen.

[post="189125"][/post]​

Not sure what you are smoking to cause the screen there but here are the actual numbers

Top 5% pay 53.25% of all income taxes (Down from 2000 figure: 56.47%). The top 10% pay 64.89% (Down from 2000 figure: 67.33%). The top 25% pay 82.9% (Down from 2000 figure: 84.01%). The top 50% pay 96.03% (Down from 2000 figure: 96.09%). The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.97% of all income taxes. The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 17.53 (2000: 20.81%) of all income. The top 5% earns 31.99 (2000: 35.30%). The top 10% earns 43.11% (2000: 46.01%); the top 25% earns 65.23% (2000: 67.15%), and the top 50% earns 86.19% (2000: 87.01%) of all the income.

 

[KCFlyer]

Fred, and USAir (since you agree with Fred on this), ponder this - Fred said:

The government is entitled to enough money to provide the basics of defense and other items such as infrastructure and such. They are NOT entitled to confiscate my money and give it someone else so that they don't have to get off their but and get a job.

Now that's all fine and good. But Bush has cut several social programs ( you know, the ones where money goes to pay someone "sitting on their butt") and we still have trillions of dollars in debt. Now....if the government is entitled to enough money to provide basics of defense, infrastructure and the like, just where exactly does Bush propose to get this money (outside of borrowing it from foreign countries)?

You talk about personal responsibity - if my bank account was overdrawn by a thousand dollars, much less a trillion dollars, then it's MY responsibility to fix that situation. If my cash flow every month is negative....I spend more than I bring in...then about the only option left is to file bankruptcy. Your boy has overseen massive spending and broad tax cuts. And since he is the leader of all
Americans, whether they like him or not, isn't it our responsibilty to take care of our national bank account? Or do we just file bankruptcy? Is that what is "best" for the USA? If Kerry said that he was going to roll back the tax cuts Bush put in place, but that money will only go to repay the national debt, would you support it? After all, he'd only be trying to get the national bank account back into a "break even" situation. The government doesn't hold bake sales and car washes to raise money to pay it's debts...it's source of income is from taxes.

In making this country "business friendly" (as Cheney said), they have cut the corporate tax rate dramatically. Big companies can even set up "headquarters" in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands and eliminate their tax liabilty. All the while, a good number of those companies have "offshored" several jobs, or they have hired a lot of foreign workers with H1B visas to replace American citizens who used to do those jobs...and those workers work for less money, which brings in less taxes. Now...the stock prices of those companies looks pretty good, but the stock price isn't indicative of actual taxable income being earned by "employees" of those companies. So...with these tax cuts, combined with lower paid employees, combined with a drastic reduction or elimination of corporate taxes...just how is anything going to "trickle down" to reduce the national debt? Will the deficit fairy show up one night and wave the magic wand? Or will this country eventually face bankruptcy? Oh yes...the "small business", which these tax cuts claim to help, and whose business will feed the economy, can't take advantage of setting their "corporate headquarters" in Bermuda or Cayman....Once again, it's the "little guy" who bears the brunt of corporate taxation.

And Fred, I suppose your a big fan of Bush's "ownership" of health care plan. I mean, give us a tax deferred (oh...even LESS to go towards providning basic defense and infrastructure needs) savings account and having folks buy a catastrohic insurance plan. So...when little Johnny gets a runny nose, you can either draw from the savings account and negotiate a "cash on the barrelhead" price, or they can let him just get over it, like they did in the pioneer days. But....the Average American household income is around $30,000 per year. If you make more, consider yourself "above average". The average family has 2.3 kids. They have a mortgage or rent. They have car and home insurance. They have utility bills (latest word in my neck of the woods is that home heating costs will average $1,000 per month this winter). They really need to save for their retirement, since company funded pensions are a thing of the past. So....where will they get the money to fund their medical savings account?

This is a great big country. Living in a neighborhood of $300,000 homes and $50,000 cars can make one feel that this is the "average" American lifestyle. It isn't. You can drive through less fortunate areas and consider them deadbeats or lazy asses, but the thing is, they are more "average" than you.

 

[FredF]

First off, the president cannot spend a dime. That is an absolute fact. Check it. The congress authorizes all spending.

The overriding factor here, and I have said this for years and years although not on this board but I did hint at it a bit is spending. There are way way way way toooooooo many social spending programs and entitlements out there. As I mentioned, the democrats, who held control of the house for 40 years, have managed to get passed that spending is totally out of control. That doesn't even take into account the billions and billions in prok spending going on. Now, the dems by no stretch of the imagination have lock on that, bot sides feel that they have to try to out spend each other to stay in office.

I have supported for years the notion "Fire Congress" because they are actually the ones responsable for the budget, but here is the problem. Ready?


For so long the dems and yes it has been mostly liberal democrats like Daschle, and Kennedy and yes even Kerry have been creating these monster entitlement programs that they keep trying to expand and expand and expand. Once they get a foothold then when someone like president Bush tries to reign then in, these very same liberals that managed to get thousands upon thousands of people dependant on these programs scream and rant and rave they these evil mean spirited republicans are trying to do away with these peoples "salvation"

GARBAGE

These programs need to be cut way back. These entitlements need to be re-worked, re-evaluated and some of them need to be done away with. You moan and groan about the solvency of social security then go on to complain about a measly 2%, yes 2% of funds of MY, I'll say that one again too MY money for retirement that can voluntarialry be set aside into some better investment vessel so that it might actually generate a little more money for when I retire.

I am in no way counting on crap from this government when I am ready to retire.


Now, before you go all off again in the wrong direction, I am not saying that all of the social progams out there need to be done away with. But I mean come on, did you know that welfare actually pays people more when they have more kids and do not get married? What a complete fraud. If you are on welfare, you should at the very least not have any more kids. That is ridiculous. The more kids you have on welfare the more money you get and the longer you can stay on it if you don't get married. Now tell me what type of behaviour does that promote, self reliance or government dependance? Who does a program like that benefit in the end? I will tell you but you won't like the answer. It benefits the politician that will stand up and tell these people that "I will tax the Rich since we know they were either lucky in life or inherited it and I will take care of you by increasing your benefits. Trust me, I support you" Any senators come to mind?

Again what a total load of excrement.


There are people out there that actually need the assistance until they can get back on their feet and become responsable for themselvs, yet why should they when mother government is willing to take care of them?

We need to get spending on these stupid programs and the ridiculous pork under control, then my goodness imagine all the mone that the government will have then.

Next example. North Dakota. Home of Tom Daschle recently dethroned as majority leader in the senate. That state is in a program that they get $2 back for every $1 they send to the federal government from gas taxes for road improvement. Where the heck do you think that other dollar comes from? My paycheck, your paycheck, my wife's paycheck. It sure isn't coming out of the check of those welfare recipients I mentioned because they get more money back from the system then they pay in.

What a scam. Today, people get elected by promissing to bring money back to where they are from. They forget that that money has to come from somehwere. And I have shown where it comes from already.


Now, KC, you want to balance the budget, go support that!

 

[KCFlyer]

Gee Fred...it sounds like you just described 1929. An excellent time in American History, based on what I learned in History class. Then again, those most likely were bleeding heart left leaning textbooks that I was reading from.

 

[atabuy]

Not sure what you are smoking to cause the screen there but here are the actual numbers

Top 5% pay 53.25% of all income taxes (Down from 2000 figure: 56.47%). The top 10% pay 64.89% (Down from 2000 figure: 67.33%). The top 25% pay 82.9% (Down from 2000 figure: 84.01%). The top 50% pay 96.03% (Down from 2000 figure: 96.09%). The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.97% of all income taxes. The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 17.53 (2000: 20.81%) of all income. The top 5% earns 31.99 (2000: 35.30%). The top 10% earns 43.11% (2000: 46.01%); the top 25% earns 65.23% (2000: 67.15%), and the top 50% earns 86.19% (2000: 87.01%) of all the income.

[post="189128"][/post]​

Fred,
You are doing the same thing as BUSH. TRYING TO MISLEAD THE PEOPLE!
I said if you earned 256,500 in 1995, the tax was 10,000 more than it is today.
Top income tax rate is 33 % and less for capital gains.
Taxes use to much higher than that. Over the years the rich have actually saved quite a bit on taxes
There is only one thing you can do if you don't want to pay such high taxes.
Don't make so much money.

Bush bought the republican vote and that is the rest of the story.

 

[FredF]

Fred,
You are doing the same thing as BUSH. TRYING TO MISLEAD THE PEOPLE!
I said if you earned 256,500 in 1995, the tax was 10,000 more than it is today.
Top income tax rate is 33 % and less for capital gains.
Taxes use to much higher than that. Over the years the rich have actually saved quite a bit on taxes
There is only one thing you can do if you don't want to pay such high taxes.
Don't make so much money.

Bush bought the republican vote and that is the rest of the story.

[post="189180"][/post]​

Riddle me this.

If you pay $1000 in taxes and you receive a 5% cut and I pay $100 in taxes and recieve a 10% cut, who got the bigger tax break?

 

[KCFlyer]

Riddle me this.

If you pay $1000 in taxes and you receive a 5% cut and I pay $100 in taxes and recieve a 10% cut, who got the bigger tax break?

[post="189185"][/post]​

How about we both take a 0% cut and work on paying down the war debt?

 

[USAir757]

There is only one thing you can do if you don't want to pay such high taxes. Don't make so much money.

Isn't that a quote from Karl Marx?

 

[FredF]

How about we both take a 0% cut and work on paying down the war debt?

[post="189186"][/post]​

Fine with me.

You get congress to agree that there will be no more additional spending and then I will be happy to allow them to keep taxes where they are for 2 years so that they can use that money to pay down the debt.

 

[NWA/AMT]

The difference between what Haliburton did and what france did is that one of them worked withing the UN sanctions and one worked outside them in fact in violation of them.

[post="189107"][/post]​

Considering that the same "Iraqi oil officials" who are offering this alledgedly damning evidence against France are thae same ones appointed by the Bush administration, and considering that Dick Cheney and Halliburton STILL refuse to answer questions regarding their dealings with Iraq, you are making some large assumptions there. Since Cheney first tried to deny dealing with Iraq, Iran and Libya and only admitted to dealing with Iraq when confronted with the evidence, one wonders what else he might by trying to hide. Even after he was confronted with his Iraqi dealings, his company STILL signed over $30 Million in contracts with Saddam.

Now back to that redistribution of wealth idea. I go back to say that socialism will not work nor has it ever.

Yet for the last 20 years the wealth has been slowly 'redistributed' OUT of the middle class without them being able to cry 'class warfare'. In fact, when someone points out any of the inequities inherent in our current system, they are accused of conducting 'class warfare'.

...liberal socialist democrats...

Name calling, Fred? I would have thought that beneath you. After all, you don't hear us referring to you as a NeoCon Fascist republican, do you?

See, this is not about doing what is right for the country, it is about getting the democrats in power so they can stay there. The whole of their efforts this campaign season has not been about doing what is right for america is has been about doing what they can to get back in power.

Couldn't have anything to do with the central concepts of democracy, could it? The obvious loathing you have for those who disagree with you and the conspiracy theories that this hatred engenders in you have finally come to the surface, Fred. It couldn't be that roughly half of America thinks there might be a different way to accomplish things, it has to be a 'liberal socialist democrat' conspiracy that has nothing to do with wanting what they think is best for the nation. So much for the concept of a 'loyal opposition', huh?

Their ideals are to get as many people dependant on the federal government as they can so that they can sit up in washington and stay in power and tell each other how important they are.

For over a century the Democrats have stood for a larger federal government just as the Republicans have stood for a smaller federal government, yet you now choose to ascribe these motives to them in an attempt to demonize the opposition. Classy.

They are not about bringing this nation together.

And Bush is? His idea of compromise is when everyone agrees to do things his way and he lets them.

They are about dividing this country into the haves and the have nots...

That's already been done for them, Fred.

... and they siding with the have nots...

That's us, always siding with the little guy.

...and thelling them that they haves are responsable for their lot in life...

Well, since the 'haves' could only get to be haves by taking it from the 'have nots', they might have a point there.

...and than only the democrats can feel what it is like and will take care of them.

No, they just have to point out that the Republicans have consistently made it worse.

The country should be about people taking care and responsability for themselvs.

The myth of the nation of rigged individualists, Fred? Taking your logic to its obvious conclusion, why is there a need for a government at all? Why did our founding fatjers start a nation to 'provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare' in the first place?

This country is about opportunities to make something of yourself not to rely on monther government to provide for you. Somewhere along the line that is what the republicans stood for and that has gotten lost.

"The purpose of government is to provide for the people those things they cannot provide for themselves" - Abraham Lincoln - Father of the Republican party

The kind of government you espouse is actually more in line with the traditional view of Libertarian party than the traditional Republican party, the fact that the NeoCons hold those same values helps explain how traditional Republicans like John McCain and Pat Buchannan find themselves on the outside looking in.

The liberals in congress have for so long created soo many programs to provide for soo many people, that they are winning this battle.

How dare they help people! What were they thinking! Obviously they only did it for political reasons...

It is not the governments responsability to provide you medical coverage.

If you cannot afford coverage and your employer does not provide it, are we to let you die?

It is not the governments responsability to provide you with a job.

If you cannot find a job are we to let you starve?

It is not the governments responsability to ensure that your children get an education above public schooling.(12 grade for all you government school products)

(Yet they should, if only to help show that the word is responsibility, not responsability. But that's just my public schooling talking.) Considering that a college degree will soon be necessary for just about any of the jobs left in this country, if you cannot afford one are we to let you starve?

It is not the responsability of the government to provide for your retirement...

Yet, if government regulations don't prevent your employer from bankrupting your pension plan, are we to let you starve? If your employer doesn't choose to provide on and you cannot afford one, are we to let you starve?

...nor to ensure that you can afford medicine.

And if you can't afford it, you can just suffer?

This country has turned from a society where everyone was responsable for them selves to one where everyone is trying to get the other guy to pay the bill.

This country was never a "society where everyone was responsable for them selves", Fred. That society would be an anarchists dream, not a Republican one.

Is it the governments responsibility to provide an interstate highway system? An air traffic control system? Regulation regarding food and drug quality? We form governments to provide those things that we cannot provide for ourselves individually and complaining because we have to pay for them isn't a political philosophy, it's just being cheap.

 

[atabuy]

Isn't that a quote from Karl Marx?

[post="189187"][/post]​

I never heard him say that.lol
By the way, A 10 % cut will always beat a 5% cut. Simple math.
What's your point here. It has always been that the people who can afford it take care of those that can't.
Now if you make 1,000,000 a year, 330,000 will go for taxes if you don't have any deductions.
That means you have somewhere around 550,000 cash after state and local taxes.
This means you have been very fortunate to make so much money.
Give back a little and help out the unfortunate. Most of the time it is the lower payscales that give their lives to allow you the great freedoms we have in this country.
Just a plea for the unfortunate people of this world.
You know the USA does give money away to other countries who don't even pay us taxes.

 

[atabuy]

NWA/AMT,
I like the way you think and answer.
I guess with my support of you we have become conspiritors in the overthrow of the Repulican party.
God, I hope so.
Label me happy. 😀

 

[NWA/AMT]

You're so stuck on this consipiracy theory... one that clearly isn't provable unless you were sitting in the war room with the president himself.

[post="189111"][/post]​

As were the Bush administration officials interviewed by historian John Keegan, whose book The Iraq War clearly explains what data Bush chose to believe and which was sent back to be 'reconsidered'. Before you dismiss Mr. Keegan as some 'left winger', you should know that his book is dedicated, in part, to Donald Rumsfeld.

Your internet blogs don't always tell the absolute truth... the President looked at the same data as John Kerry did. Plain and simple.

Wouldn't know about 'my internet blogs', because I don't read them. I prefer good, old fashioned books published by people who are responsible for checking their facts first, like The Iraq War or The Sorrows of Empire by Chalmers Johnson, which clearly show that the intelligence provided by the Bush administration to Congress and the American people was far from as 'plain and simple' as you would have us believe.

And they both voted the same way

The president doesn't vote in the Senate, does he? Based on his statements it is obvious that Bush 'voted' on Iraq long before 9/11, and regardless of any intelligence information.

Just as John Kerry says, he would have done the same thing Bush did in going into Iraq. But then he said later that he wouldn't have because he needed it as an edge for his election.

No, he said that Saddam was a threat that needed to be removed but he did not believe that it was the most immediate threat this nation faced and that the method Bush chose was not the best, or only, method to accomplish that. That's quite a bit different from saying that 'he would have done the same thing Bush did', isn't it?

The warning signs to a terrorist attack have been around since the 80's...

Yet, according to the 9/11 Commission report, the warnings in the summer of 2001, long after Clinton was gone, were frequent and specific, yet nothing was done by the Bush administration. Talk about bad intelligence, you say? It doesn't matter how good the intelligence is if you ignore it.

 

[NWA/AMT]

I guess with my support of you we have become conspiritors in the overthrow of the Repulican party.

[post="189209"][/post]​

I don't know about that but, thanks to the cynically mis-named Patriot Act, it will still be available for reading when we are tried as "Enemy Combatants".

 

[FredF]

NWA

You draw conclusions that fit your own ideas and try to use them to demonize me. You take things completely out of context and then try to pass your own infinate wisdom about it and yet you still have no argument against any of it.

In some instances you even help to illustrate my point. Now surely you can do better than that.

case in point

Yet for the last 20 years the wealth has been slowly 'redistributed' OUT of the middle class

How has this been able to happen. Do you mean to tell me that the government has taken money away from the so called middle class and given it to the weathy. Actually transfered money in that fassion.

What program have the Rich, as you call them, been able to sign up for so that they get government checks? What is the criteria to be able to sign up? How can I get my check?

Please tell me.

My republican cigar smoking friends want to know?



Atabuy

By the way, A 10 % cut will always beat a 5% cut. Simple math.

If you agree with this statement, and it is a statement, then why are you complaing that those paying the most is taxes get the largest dollar break. In the example I gave you, you would have received a $50 tax break while I would only have received $10 yet you seem to be complaining that you would have gotten the better break.

One more question for you, it seems as if you are coming from the position that the wealth in this country stems from the government and is not created by individuals.



This reminds me so much of a Quote from Gen. George S. Patton