More happy tax cut news

[HBox]

http://www.msnbc.com/news/919762.asp?0cv=CB10

It speaks for itself. What a fucking lousy tax plan this. FUCKING LOUSY!

[Death Metal Moe]

Hows about we see how this tax cut effects the economy before we start ripping it apart.

I'd like to see the shit percent of taxes these people pay. Sure they could use a break, but who the fuck couldn't.

If the economy isn't better by November '04, I'm sure the country will vote accordingly.

<IMG SRC=http://www.unhallowed.com/sigs/Dutchboy.gif>
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>
<B>DEATH FACTION 4 LIFE!!!</B>
666%

[Yerdaddy]

Ripping it apart? These are minimum wage parents who got cut out of the tax cut. If anyone deserves a break it's this group. You can boo hoo for Bush all you want, Moe, but this is a serious slap in the face to working people to just cut these people out of the bill. I don't see any benefit to the economy from the last tax cut, how long should these people wait?

<IMG SRC="http://czm.racknine.net/images/yersig.gif">
CZM productions

FREE YERBOOBIES!

[Heavy]

I see someone making 30 grand saves 50 bucks a week and someone making 70 saves like ....alot more. i cant remember the number. what bullshit.

Mad props to Fluff for the sig and C.O.soup for hosting!
<img src="http://publish.hometown.aol.com/canofsoup15/images/jwaddsig.gif">
138%

Yes, he is hung like a horse. One female porn star describes having sex with Johneewadd as like giving birth.

[HBox]

This is a consumer based economy. If we put more money in the hands of working people it helps two-fold: these people get money they need and they WILL spend it. If we are going to put this country in a deficit, we could at least make sure everybody benefits. As it stands, only the highest tax bracket had their tax percentage lowered, many of whom will also greatly benefit from the dividend tax cuts. As for everyone else, you only get help if you make at least a decent amount of money (over $26,000) and have children. If you don't have children, no help. If you don't make enough money, no help.

[LiquidCourage]

Don't make me humiliate you silly liberals on the minimum wage situation.

[Death Metal Moe]

Don't you undestand that when you cut taxes, the people who pay the MOST will feel it the MOST?

I would REALLY like to see the tax bracket minimum wage earners fall into.

<IMG SRC=http://www.unhallowed.com/sigs/Dutchboy.gif>
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>
<B>DEATH FACTION 4 LIFE!!!</B>
666%

[HBox]

I would REALLY like to see the tax bracket minimum wage earners fall into.


It doesn't matter. If you had to live on your own on minimum wage, even if you paid no taxes you would barely, if at all, be able to support self. On the other hand, if you earned $500,000, even if you had to pay half your income in taxes you'd be able to live a comfortable life.

But the whole point of this is why give the rich such a huge tax break at a time when a lot of people who would usually be making a decent income have lost their jobs and are forced into these low paying jobs. Especially when these minimum wage earners are getting little to no tax breaks.

Don't make me humiliate you silly liberals on the minimum wage situation.


Oh, please do.

This message was edited by HBox on 5-29-03 @ 11:36 PM

[Death Metal Moe]

So that's grounds for YOU to tell people who make a decent living that they owe entitlement programs half their money in taxes?

<IMG SRC=http://www.unhallowed.com/sigs/Dutchboy.gif>
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>
<B>DEATH FACTION 4 LIFE!!!</B>
666%

[phixion]

So that's grounds for YOU to tell people who make a decent living that they owe entitlement programs half their money in taxes?


ok so u would rather see ppl starving and struggling to put clothes on tehir childrens back, and allow these rich folk to shower in gold plated tubs, and clean their asses with water fountains while i spend my fukin money on toilet paper? fuk the rich!!!! do they need all that money? cuz all these other ppl NEED to put food on the table.

ah yes i 4got certain ppl dont deserve jobs, or any means to better themselves.

<IMG SRC="http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/philex/phixion.gif">
"smoking weed, smoking weed doing coke, drinking beers
drinking beers, beers, beersrolling fatties, smoking bluntswho smokes the blunts?we smoke the blunts." -Jay

[HBox]

So that's grounds for YOU to tell people who make a decent living that they owe entitlement programs half their money in taxes?


I was just using a hypothetical example. It wasn't a serious suggestment. I'm just saying that it is stupid and unfair to give the rich such a handout when a large amount of people don't have enough to begin with. I'm not saying the rich don't deserve any tax cut at all, but they are getting a huge one right now and the people who really need the tax cut are getting little.

[Death Metal Moe]

Poor people need better jobs and ways of life, but punishing people who have money is not the way to do it.

We should NOT punish success. Letting people starve is not the American way, but neither is punishing success.

<IMG SRC=http://www.unhallowed.com/sigs/Dutchboy.gif>
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>
<B>DEATH FACTION 4 LIFE!!!</B>
666%

[TheMojoPin]

Don't make me humiliate you silly liberals on the minimum wage situation.

Read the article. It's not about the minimum wage "situation", it's simply about those in the minimum wage "bracket" who are parents being denied the "child tax cuts". And I have a feeling the lack of refunds extends PAST just those in the bracket with children. I make 26K a year, so apparently I fall just under it, and everything thus far indicates I as well will NOT be receiving a check.

You can't HONESTLY think this is fair, or is even remotely sensible.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[HBox]

We should NOT punish success. Letting people starve is not the American way, but neither is punishing success.


IT ISN'T PUNISHING!!!!! Being poor is the real, ultimate punishment, no matter how little they are paying in taxes. Lets not compound that in times like these by giving huge tax cuts to those who don't need it. More people have to live off of minimum wage jobs right now, so lets give them some real tax cuts so they can stay afloat until this economy is moving again.

[TheMojoPin]

We should NOT punish success. Letting people starve is not the American way, but neither is punishing success.

Whoa, wait, veer back on course. This tax cut is done. It's already been planned. It's not a matter of "punishing" anyone or raising one person's taxes over another. It's the fact that they could have alloted more of this "cut" for people who genuinely NEED it. It's a matter of shifting the figure around, not "punishing". The only people getting "punished" here are those in one of the lowest brackets, even if they have kids. No good.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[LiquidCourage]

ok so u would rather see ppl starving and struggling to put clothes on tehir childrens back, and allow these rich folk to shower in gold plated tubs, and clean their asses with water fountains while i spend my fukin money on toilet paper?



For one thing, not making minimum wage doesn't make you rich.


And two, yes I would.
It's called tough love. Liberalism got those people to where they are in the first place. It's certainly not going to get them out. Americans are turning into the fat lazy slobs that the world already thinks we are. People can't do a fucking thing without a government funded program of some kind anymore. It's time for people to learn how to do something on their own. Every year the government grows more and more, taking more and more from the average Joe's paycheck (contrary to the idea that only the rich get taxed. About 40% of mine gets taken away from me) and these programs still don't solve anything. The socialist programs started under FDR and thrown into overdrive under Clinton are going to sink this country!

[LiquidCourage]

It's the fact that they could have alloted more of this "cut" for people who genuinely NEED it. It's a matter of shifting the figure around


Oh, then wealth distribution.

You could have just said so, Stalin!

[LiquidCourage]

Exactly.
In the beginning of the 20th century there wasn't even an income tax. But then these failed government programs came along. Now they take 40%,50%, sometimes even more of your paycheck, and they STILL haven't changed anything!

I can't think of anything the federal government's pushing it's nose into our business has done. Okay, some legislature like the 40 hour work week, child labor laws, environmental restrictions are good, but that's it.


Civil rights laws are good, but the federal government caused that problem in the first place.

[Death Metal Moe]

That's a good point too.

You don't like shit jobs for people? Neither do I.

One of the things this tax cut will allow is the creation of more jobs. Better jobs.

Maybe instead of staying on the governments tit, they can help themselves for once.

<IMG SRC=http://www.unhallowed.com/sigs/Dutchboy.gif>
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>
<B>DEATH FACTION 4 LIFE!!!</B>
666%

[TheMojoPin]

Wait a minute! It's not "giving away money"! It's a REPUBLICAN-planned tax cut that's already going into effect, the money is already being "given away!" I'm not saying just "give it away" or "take it away" from someone else...they're already giving cuts to people! I'm saying if they feel they MUST pick and choose who gets the cuts, why NOT give it to the people who need and would desperately appreciate that money on a DAILY basis? Is it because all they can ultimately contribute is just a single vote per person? It's simply unfair. It may sound childish, but that's what it is, and it stinks to high heaven. This nonsense about "distributing the wealth" or "taking away money from the rich" in this case is such ridiculous spin, it's NOT ridiculous.

For the last time...these tax cuts were going to be given to SOMEONE anyway no matter what. The POINT is that it's really, REALLY shitty that yet another significant group really being pounded the economy is not being included. It's not "where can we get more money?" It's, "why is the money ALREADY PLANNED TO BE CUT" not going to the lower brackets, the people who NEED the money? Bush has tried to paint this as an altruistic gesture by the government to help the people and stimulate the economy. This is NOT how that's done.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."



This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 5-30-03 @ 12:35 AM

[LiquidCourage]

About the original minimum wage thing, it's just that they make it sound like all these families are completely dependent on minimum wage and again their getting the shaft, which is a lie.

Minimum wage jobs:

More than 50% are filled by 16 to 24 year olds.
63% are part time.
80% of minimum wage employees live in non poor households.
20% are households with annual incomes of more than $50,000.

On top of this, the term "minimum wage" is very twisted. Waiters rely on tips and make less than minimum wage actually, but people who work in extremely upscale restaurants can make over $40,000 per year via tips.


Factor in that the percentage of the workforce that's in these so called 'minimum wage' jobs is 7.6%, the number of people who are actually fully dependent on that miniscule income is microscopic.

[TheMojoPin]

About the original minimum wage thing, it's just that they make it sound like all these families are completely dependent on minimum wage and again their getting the shaft, which is a lie.

No, it's talking about the "minimum wage bracket", which can also mean the "minimum an individial company is shelling out to its employees." The bracket is very clearly defined as between $10,500 and $26.625. Pretty much anything above $12,000 is a fulltime (40+ hours) salary of some kind, so regardless of age, if you're working fulltime, odds are there's a reason that you have to do that (And odds are that you're not in school, and if you are, you and/or your family are in dire straits that necessitate you doing such), and you probably really, REALLY need the tax cut.

Nice try at diversion, but those figures have nothing to do with the article posted and the issue at hand in this thread.

"Spin-spin-SPINNING...I'm so dizzy/My head is spinning/Like a whirlpool it never ends..."

But PLEASE, keep making this a "liberals bad, UGH!!" an issue. Because that's what's REALLY important, right?

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[phixion]

shhhh the poor arent really pooor its just us liberals paying actors to act poor......

<IMG SRC="http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/philex/phixion.gif">
"smoking weed, smoking weed doing coke, drinking beers
drinking beers, beers, beersrolling fatties, smoking bluntswho smokes the blunts?we smoke the blunts." -Jay

[LiquidCourage]

Mojo, this is basically what you and your buddies are suggesting.



50,000 people go to a baseball game, but the game was rained out. A refund was then due. The team was about to mail refunds when the Congressional Democrats stopped them and suggested that they send out refund amounts based on the Democrat National Committee's interpretation of fairness. After all, if the refunds were made based on the price each person paid for the tickets, most of the money would go to the wealthiest ticket holders. That would be unconscionable. The DNC Plan says:

a.. People in the $10 seats will get back $15, because they have less money to spend. Call it an "Earned Income Ticket Credit". Persons "earn" it by demonstrating little ambition, few skills and poor work habits, thus keeping them at entry-level wages.

b.. People in the $25 seats will get back $25, because that's only fair.

c.. People in the $50 seats will get back $1, because they already make a lot of money and don't need a refund. If they afford a $50 ticket, then they must not be paying enough taxes.

d.. People in the $75 luxury seats will have to pay another $50, because they have way to much to spend.

e.. The people driving by the stadium who couldn't afford to watch the game will get $10 each, even though they didn't pay anything in, because they need the most help.

f.. Now do you understand? If not, contact Representative Richard Gephart or Senator Tom Daschle for assistance.

[TheMojoPin]

I can break it much easier into how it's REALLY going down. The people in the regular seats and the "fancy" seats get their money back. The people in the regular seats and the "fancy" seats with children get a free baseball cap in addition to the refund. Those in bleachers, kids or not, are shown the door and given nothing. Voila.

But nice analogy. I honestly liked it, and I wouldn't want a system like that to go into place. Again, I simply want everyone to get their ticket money back, fair and square, and a baseball cap per kid. Is that so wrong?

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Yerdaddy]

When did this thread turn into the balcony codgers on The Muppet Show? It was about minimum wage families getting left out of the tax cut, then all of a sudden the conservatives started harkening back to the "good ole days" of the 19th century, cursing the New Deal and shit. I guess it has all gone to hell in a handbasket, thanks to the commies and government cheese? I was afraid I was going to get sucked into a discussion about the merits of a progressive tax structure, but I'll be danged if I'm going to blame the Smoot-Hawley Tariff or the International Communist Conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids. I think this is my favorite thread of all time.

<IMG SRC="http://czm.racknine.net/images/yersig.gif">
CZM productions

FREE YERBOOBIES!

[Recyclerz]

^What Yerdaddy said.^

It is too late for me to start boreassing y'all with an economics lecture (since I have to get up to go to work tomorrow) but here are some fun facts for you:

Red states(Those that usually vote Republican) tend to get way more in government spending and grants than their populations contribute to the commonweal in taxes, making them the biggest sucklers of the government teat. Lib-er-al states like NY, NJ, CT kick in more than they get back.
Federal government spending goes for (in order) Soc. Security, defense spending, Medicare, interest on the national debt, Medicaid (including nursing homes), grants-in aid (to states, cities, etc.), Federal retiree payments, THEN Welfare type payments (incl farm subsidies). The only way for the Feds to save real money is to put Grandma and Grandpa on the next passing iceberg.
It would be nice for you to have at least cracked open an eco text book before opining on the marginal propensity to spend and/or save and social Darwinism. Don't make me go looking up Thorstein Veblen links.


If this group had a lick of sense you'd elect Yerdaddy philospher-king and then the rest of us could go back to dialling in the Big Sexy and enjoy ourselves.



[b]You're only young once but you can be immature forever[b]

[LiquidCourage]

I was just pointing out how addicted to government people are.
People can't do anything by themselves.



How about we just *gasp!* cut spending!?!?

My goodness, what an idea that is!

"But LC, those people are OWED that free money from the government. After all, the people that pay for those programs don't need it anyway."

[Death Metal Moe]

HOT SOUP! Dats what I say!

http://www.vegas.com/shows/clay.jpg

<IMG SRC=http://www.unhallowed.com/sigs/Dutchboy.gif>
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>
<B>DEATH FACTION 4 LIFE!!!</B>
666%

[SuperKarateMonkeyDeathFez]

But by that logic...why are we having tax cuts at all?

These people pay taxes. Perhaps they do not deserve as large a cut, but it's pretty obvious that they deserve at least somewhat of a return, just like the other people who pay more taxes.

Since when was the goal of this tax reform to simply play favorites?

This does not compute, Sonny Jim.

<img src=http://www.gadflyonline.com/01-07-02/images/sexybeast.jpg>



This message was edited by SuperKarateMonkeyDeathFez on 5-30-03 @ 1:27 AM

[Yerdaddy]

I was just pointing out how addicted to government people are.
People can't do anything by themselves.



How about we just *gasp!* cut spending!?!?

My goodness, what an idea that is!

"But LC, those people are OWED that free money from the government. After all, the people that pay for those programs don't need it anyway."
Bullshit. What does low-income working families have to do with addiction to government? You just wanted to dig into the old conservative bag of rhetoric to make some tired point about "it's their own damn fault!" and "the liberals did it." You threw out some stats about the sociological makeup of minimum workers, none of which had to do with the specific group this is about, which is minimum wage people with children. "*gasp!* cut spending!?!?" has to do with...what? And "the people that pay for those programs" - what programs?? Child tax cuts were given to all other income groups but this one. By conservative logic, that's a tax increase, isn't it? The question that the thread asks is basically: "why don't they deserve a tax break?" You're just talking crazy talk - which I have grown to love, by the way. That threat was priceless.

<IMG SRC="http://czm.racknine.net/images/yersig.gif">
CZM productions

FREE YERBOOBIES!

This message was edited by Yerdaddy on 5-30-03 @ 1:39 AM

[HBox]

How about we just *gasp!* cut spending!?!?


Why don't you ask your lord and savior Bush about that. The only reason we are about to have a huge deficit is because he doesn't have the balls to start slashing the funding for government programs.

[Death Metal Moe]

Why don't you ask your lord and savior Bush about that. The only reason we are about to have a huge deficit is because he doesn't have the balls to start slashing the funding for government programs.


OH PLEASE!!! And be ripped apart EVEN MORE by you people?

You have to pick and choose your moves VER CAREFUFULLY in politics, and he has.

But if he just starts trying to slash spending to all these excessive Government entitlement programs, then the Grandma's eating dogfood will return. The kids starrving without school lunches will return. And they will starve in failin school. The endangered species will return. The environmental catastrophies will mount to epic proportions.

The Doom and Gloom propaghanda would be enough to floor even the TOUGHEST politician.

<IMG SRC=http://www.unhallowed.com/sigs/Dutchboy.gif>
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>
<B>DEATH FACTION 4 LIFE!!!</B>
666%

[HBox]

OH PLEASE!!! And be ripped apart EVEN MORE by you people?


Yeah. Bush can have his cake and eat it too. And leave the cleanup for the next President.

But, GETTING BACK TO THE ACTUAL POINT OF THIS THREAD, at some point a choice had to be made between the dividend tax cut, lowering the tax rate for the highest tax bracket, and giving a child tax credit to lower income families where they could only choose two of the choices. THERE WERE NO TAX INCREASES ANYWHERE. They simply had to choose who to give tax breaks. Their choice was to give two separate tax breaks which would only help high income earners. Low income earners got nothing. No tax perecentage cut, no increased child credit, no refund check.

This message was edited by HBox on 5-30-03 @ 3:25 AM

[Death Metal Moe]

Yeah. Bush can have his cake and eat it too. And leave the cleanup for the next President.


Yea, I'm sure that's what he'll do, because he has been.

And NEXT president?

Not until '08 you mean.

<IMG SRC=http://www.unhallowed.com/sigs/Dutchboy.gif>
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>
<B>DEATH FACTION 4 LIFE!!!</B>
666%

[HBox]

Yea, I'm sure that's what he'll do, because he has been.


At some point, you will have to stop blaming everything that is wrong with this country on Clinton. This was a better country 4 years ago.

[Death Metal Moe]

When did I say anything about Clinton in that post?

You see, even YOU have the knee jerk reation to equate Immorality with Clinton.

<IMG SRC=http://www.unhallowed.com/sigs/Dutchboy.gif>
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>
<B>DEATH FACTION 4 LIFE!!!</B>
666%

[A.J.]

Maybe instead of staying on the governments tit, they can help themselves for once.

I can think of other tits I'd like to stay on.

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.

[FUNKMAN]

I can think of other tits I'd like to stay on.



Hopefully! Their not Moes's...

not to say Moe doesn't have nice ones....

<img src="http://www.markfarner.com/2001tour/ribfest8_small.jpg">

[FUNKMAN]

just the basic fact that the top tier gets a 3.6% reduction and the bottom tier gets 0% reduction is showing you that the "rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer" is still valid and the gap continues to widen...

Rome didn't last forever as the world superpower and this will be the demise of the US one day...

<img src="http://www.markfarner.com/2001tour/ribfest8_small.jpg">

[FiveB247]

It's always funny no matter what the issue, when the Dem's and Rep's start going at it. Clinton is better than Bush....no he's not...Bush is way better than Clinton.

How bout this one...they both suck.

CONservative goverMENt

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

[Wolf]

Why are minimum wage families having kids in the first place? Just curious. I want more money before bringing extra space fillers into the world. Maybe some of these people should stop fucking so much and get better jobs. But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong. (Even though I am not wrong...EVER!)

Just remember: The human race is a virus. Let's get back to survival of the fittest. Darwin rules.


I hope someone takes this seriously so that I can have a good laugh.

http://www.frichild.com - Friday's Child
www.azpeacemakers.com - Peacemakers
<img src="http://f2.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/IBDNPtpd6833nHz7wKlV4L3dDndxAJB4JSkP-B7WOqo6EOZ-FZ7UNbxxYwEePkY_jmGqwUOtaiWxzOFgC9kuPj5TiGk/cuttericeman/peacemakers.jpg">
Who is Cutter-Iceman?

[JerryTaker]

Why are minimum wage families having kids in the first place?


Oh, that's a whole new can of worms... I've always, always, always thought that people need a licence or something to have children, just because too many "parents" have proven that they just can't handle the responsibility, and all the rest of society has to pay for thier indescressions in one way or the other, but that's a whole new thread that I ain't startin'....



<IMG SRC="http://afs30.njit.edu/~gsm2321/faramir.gif">

<marquee width=300 scrollamount="5">Wet and raving, The needle keeps calling me back.. To bloody my hands forever. Carved my cure with the blade That left me in scars, Now every time I'm weak, Words scream from my arm</marquee>

[HBox]

When did I say anything about Clinton in that post?

You see, even YOU have the knee jerk reation to equate Immorality with Clinton.


When did immorality come up? I thought you implied that Bush has spent his term cleaning up a mess, which could have only been caused by Clinton. If that's not what you meant, the forget what I said.

[Recyclerz]

Since when was the goal of this tax reform to simply play favorites?



Since the beginning.

To throw some more gasoline on this flame war, and to answer (sarcastically) Yerdaddy's and H-box's question as to why the working poor were left off the goody list, here's a link from Slate that provides a good starting point for an examination of a particularly entertaining/infuriating mutant branch of Republican thought.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2074593/

For those of you too lazy to click I'll summarize:
Last Nov. the WSJ editorial page suggested that taxes be raised on the poor. Not to be egregiously Grinch-like and not to make up the revenue lost by the tax cuts to the affluent but because:


The poor don't hate the Fed. Gov't. as much as the monied class do.
The monied class hate the Federal Gov't. because they have to pay a lot of taxes
Therefore if the poor had to pay more in taxes they would finally see the light and hate the Federales like all right-thinking Americans (ie. the monied class) do


I over-simplify for effect but not by much.

[Edit] As long as I'm throwing around links, here's the companion piece to the one above.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2074630/

Bottom line: the whiny rich should just shut up.


[b]You're only young once but you can be immature forever[b][

This message was edited by Recyclerz on 5-30-03 @ 2:36 PM

[FiveB247]

God...some of you call me socialist...yet you want to control citizens from reproducing? Ok-horiffic!

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

[Bergalad]

Rome didn't last forever as the world superpower and this will be the demise of the US one day...
??? The tax cut will be the demise of American civilization? You've managed to take alarmism to a whole new level. Outstanding!

[FiveB247]

Nah tax cuts will just help further the deficit. Enjoy the short moment of spending and few dollars now and expect to get reamed at a later date.

Btw....the downfall of American democracy occurred when business/ corporate initiatives stepped between government and the citizens interest.

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

[Se7en]

Btw....the downfall of American democracy occurred when business/ corporate initiatives stepped between government and the citizens interest.

Well, you've managed to convince me.

Nothing left to do now but sit back and wait while the barbarian tribes slowly conquer our empire from its borders inward.

LOOK OUT! The Visigoths have just invaded Maine!!!!!

<img border="0" src="http://se7enrfnet.homestead.com/files/captainamerica.jpg" width="300" height="100">

[FiveB247]

It's not for convincing...take a look around you...the government, policies, actions..etc. Citizens are simply around to work and cosume.

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

[high fly]

Hey gang, how bout another analogy. I gotcha a beaut:
You own a small business, and things ain't going so well.
You see this swell machine advertised that wiil help you bring in more business, so you buy it.
Sho' nuff, you now are bringing in another ten thousand dollars a month.
Too bad the payments on the machine are twelve thousand dollars a month.
This analogy reflects the interest payments that must be made on the money the government must borrow. The economy has never grown faster than the interest on the debt.
What the tax "cuts" do is reduce the amount that the rich will have to pay on the debt they are running up.

" and they ask me why I drink"

[FUNKMAN]

??? The tax cut will be the demise of American civilization? You've managed to take alarmism to a whole new level. Outstanding!


hey listen man,

i said it was the "rich getting richer and poor getting poorer" ... the tax cut is just a small contributer...

Jesus, Mary, and Joseph....

THE BOTTOMLINE IS...

If you don't take more from the rich then where the FUCK is it gonna come from?

And i want an answer!!!!!!

The only other way is for the Gov't to sjust start printing pallet loads of fresh money, and from what I understand they just can't do that...

if they take half of Bill Gates assets and he is only worth 30 Billion then I am sorry to say that I will not shed a tear.... he will just have to rough it...

if the CEO of Peoplesoft only gets 100million in stock options instead of the 250million he got last year(besides his multi million dollar salary) then TOO FUCKING BAD!!!!!!!

If Chris Dudley(who avg'd 2 rebounds and 2 points a game) only makes 3 million a year instead of the 7 million he was making with the Kinicks then so be it....

If A-ROD only got 50million instead of the 120 or so million contract, I would TEND to believe he would not go hungry...


PEACE

<img src="http://www.markfarner.com/2001tour/ribfest8_small.jpg">



This message was edited by FUNKMAN on 6-2-03 @ 2:27 PM

[A.J.]

Funkman, you should be more concerned about why Terry Knight is still getting royalty payments. :)

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.

[Bergalad]

If you don't take more from the rich then where the FUCK is it gonna come from?

And i want an answer!!!!!!
Alright, here you go. Budget cuts. Increased trade revenue. Tax reform. And budget cuts again.
if they take half of Bill Gates assets and he is only worth 30 Billion then I am sorry to say that I will not shed a tear.... he will just have to rough it...
This is frightening. He earned his money, whether you agree with how he got it or not. Who the hell are you to tell him he has enough and can't keep it all? You might be considered rich by some poor people, I don't know, so would it be fair if they thought you should pay half your money to the government as well? You're making all this sound like alimony to the government or something. This is what America is all about, becoming successful. Your goal is to strip every ounce of drive and motivation out of the average worker because he knows he will be paying HALF his salary to the government if he becomes successful. That isn't a solution to anything.

[silera]

Your goal is to strip every ounce of drive and motivation out of the average worker because he knows he will be paying HALF his salary to the government if he becomes successful.

Completely wrong. The average worker gets fucked over royally right now. This tax cut that benefits people that don't fucking need it is what makes the average worker pissed off.


Your dramatic take on escalating tax scales fails to take into account the VAST difference between taxing 20% of my take home pay and 50% of let's say someone that earns 1million a year.

20% of mine is a little over 9K.
50% of 1mil is 500K.

Wow that guy is paying so much you say!

Guess what, he's still left with 500K over ten times what I've got.

Life is only more expensive for this guy because he can afford a higher caliber lifestyle. THAT is elective.

On 38K a year after taxes let me make this quite clear:

a) The average american doesn't qualify for earned income credit.
b) Average housing costs make up half most americans monthly salaries.
c) The average american doesn't qualify for ANY of the so called entitlement programs.

The thing is, people that are against an escalating tax scale fail to let go of the dream that they too might someday be filthy rich. God forbid that anything they work hard for get used for the benefit of the country that enables it to happen.

What kills me is that usually, the most hard core "America Love it or Leave it" political minds are the first to display absurd selfishness when it comes to the mechanisms that make it work.

It can't only work to the benefit of those that have money. This is supposed to be a classless society, and aside from our fascination with McDonalds and fanny packs, we're far from that dream.


<center>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/silera/files/Silera/sig4.gif

<font size=3><font color=red>I can't stand myself either.</font></font></center>
<font color=FBF2F7>

This message was edited by silera on 6-3-03 @ 10:13 AM

[TooCute]

Your goal is to strip every ounce of drive and motivation out of the average worker because he knows he will be paying HALF his salary to the government if he becomes successful.

Ahem. Haven't we already discussed how retarded this statement is?

<img src=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/toocute2.gif>
!! 2% !!<font color=FBF2F7>

[FiveB247]

Your goal is to strip every ounce of drive and motivation out of the average worker

Sorry to break the news, but the average worker in our nation is not a white collar business man who's motivated for making millions in corporate ladder climbing. Average american workers are in factories, restaurants and stores. If I remember correctly, the average American income for a single person is around $25,000. Just enough to be above and off government programs, yet high enough to be be properly taxed. But don't let the numbers fool you, it's not like 80% of the US's wealth is owned by about 20% percent of the population.

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

[Bergalad]

Completely wrong. The average worker gets fucked over royally right now. This tax cut that benefits people that don't fucking need it is what makes the average worker pissed off.

You're the first to scream when you are selectively quoted Silera, so why are you doing it to me? I was responding to Funkman's idea that it's alright to take half of what the rich make, not this current tax cut.
Your dramatic take on escalating tax scales fails to take into account the VAST difference between taxing 20% of my take home pay and 50% of let's say someone that earns 1million a year.
20% of mine is a little over 9K.
50% of 1mil is 500K.
Wow that guy is paying so much you say!
Guess what, he's still left with 500K over ten times what I've got.
And it's for you (the poor) to decide how much he (the rich) should pay? How about a fair and equal tax for all? How about everyone pay the same percentage, as I have continually mentioned in this very thread about the Flat Tax? Why should you keep more take-home pay than some other guy solely on the basis that you make less? As it is his "fault" that he (or she) has a lot of cash, isn't it also your "fault" that you don't have it? Penalizing success is against what this country stands for.
The thing is, people that are against an escalating tax scale fail to let go of the dream that they too might someday be filthy rich.
I know I won't ever be rich (I work for the government after all) but I think it's only fair that everyone pay the same into this society. We all get the same equal rights, we should all have equal responsibilities. I say again, Flat Tax!
Ahem. Haven't we already discussed how retarded this statement is?
Well TooCute, if you read what I was commenting on, then you might understand what I meant. And thanks for your insightful commentary on this subject.

[DarkHippie]

I don't mean to swerve the topic, but I think you're missing something:

my problem with the tax cut is not that it favors the rich, but that it means less money in the federal coffers. that equates to less money to be allocated to the states.

The states are already in budget crisises, closing down schools (in Oregon), cutting police and firemen (in NYC) and so on. They need this money. Without it, they will have no choice except to either continue to close their infrastructure or --you guessed it--raise taxes!!

What a cruel twist of fate that would be--to have our federal taxes go down, making Bush a hero, only to have our state taxes go up to compensate. No benefit for the people at all. the money might as well be used to kill the deficit.

<IMG SRC=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/darkhippie2.gif>
<marquee>"And there are times when you are walking/ and looking and seeing/ everything in a brand new light/ Like trees with three trunks wrapped around each other tight/ Like her legs 'round my body in the middle of the night" --"Colleen's Song", <a href=http://www.Osvaldooyolaortega.com>Osvaldo Oyola Ortega</a>
</marquee>
<i>LABELS ARE FOR PRODUCTS, NOT PEOPLE! DON'T HUG A TREE, PLANT ONE!
</i><a href=http://www.freeopendiary.com/entrylist.asp?authorcode=A537085>Gonads and Strife: a journal</a>

[silera]

Bergelad I understand what you're saying. A Flat tax would be a great idea, but it's not going to happen.

The notion that the average american won't attempt to excel and earn more because he's going to be taxed more doesn't hold water.

I won't turn down a job where I would earn 500K a year just because I'll be paying more taxes. I'd still be taking home 210K more than I do now.

The poor don't decide what the rich should pay. The rich do. We cannot deny that our government is made up of disproportionately wealthy men. The sliding tax scale is a means to try and spread the tax burden evenly over the wealth distribution.

Let's put it this way:

I'm moving. I have 2 sturdy trunks, 10 corrugated card board boxes, and a dozen trash bags.

I can't put my dishes or books in the trash bags, because they can't support them. I'm not going to waste the trunks to transport my pillows and linens. It just wouldn't make sense. I'm not going to set my cardboard boxes out in the rain to wait for the movers, because I'll damage everything in them.

Common sense says we weigh our resources against our needs and only then is it possible to truly have an even tax system.


<center>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/silera/files/Silera/sig4.gif

<font size=3><font color=red>I can't stand myself either.</font></font></center>
<font color=FBF2F7>

[high fly]

Let's not forget that those of us who aren't filthy rich can't afford to hire expensive tax advisors to find us the obscure loopholes and figure other ways to avoid paying taxes; nor can we afford to buy political influence so our congressmen can slip in exemtions for us into various tax and spending bills.
The Republicans WERE going to simplify the tax code and eliminate a lot of the loopholes and exemptions and other bullshit with that "A to Z" thing a number of years ago, but, once again, like the balanced budget amendment, the Republican universal health care alternative to the Clinton proposal, it was all ANOTHER BIG FAT REPUBLICAN LIE!

" and they ask me why I drink"

[Bergalad]

The states are already in budget crisises, closing down schools (in Oregon), cutting police and firemen (in NYC) and so on. They need this money. Without it, they will have no choice except to either continue to close their infrastructure or --you guessed it--raise taxes!!
Why is eliminating fire or police jobs automatically bad? Frankly, we have too many cops. This is for a different thread, and I would happily debate the board about the need for us to have LESS police, but this thread is about taxes. I agree with you DH that this cut means (at least initially) less for states overall, but if it works (a big "if") then the states would benefit as would the nation. It remains to be seen if that will happen or not.
A Flat tax would be a great idea, but it's not going to happen.
Maybe, maybe not. It probably never will because the tax lawyer lobby will bribe both sides of the aisle to keep the tax law as complicated as it is now. Where High Fly lambasts the Republicans for failing to eliminate the confusion of the current tax law, he fails to blame also the Democrats who have had ample (more than the Republicans in fact) time to fix it as well.
The notion that the average american won't attempt to excel and earn more because he's going to be taxed more doesn't hold water.
Yes, I know, but I am alluding to a potential problem with mindset. There is a measurable change inflicted on a person who is not rewarded for their efforts. It's a psychological effect that, given time across an entire society, can bring about a more passive, lazy populace. It's similar to negative reinforcement.
The sliding tax scale is a means to try and spread the tax burden evenly over the wealth distribution.
The answer to it all is the Flat Tax. Everyone pays the same percentage, and those who are poor pay nothing at all. The rich actually pay a slightly higher percentage than everyone else, but nothing compared to what it is now. There are no loopholes, no tax lawyers, no shortcuts. It's even and fair, even to the point of including deductions for charities. I just can't honestly argue with the fact that if we all have the same equal rights as citizens, then morally we should all give the same back to the nation.

Here's the link to Dick Armey's Flat Tax page. Try the tax calculator Silera and tell me if you would what the difference would be for you under this plan. http://flattax.house.gov/. It's not perfect yet, but it is a hell of a start.

[Death Metal Moe]

The states are already in budget crisises


Yea, and they need to cut taxes and spending a lot too.

<IMG SRC=http://www.unhallowed.com/sigs/Dutchboy.gif>
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>
<B>DEATH FACTION 4 LIFE!!!</B>
666%

[phixion]

If Chris Dudley(who avg'd 2 rebounds and 2 points a game) only makes 3 million a year instead of the 7 million he was making with the Kinicks then so be it...


dudley... what bout luc longley he doesnt even play and we pay his ass...... and i want some of lebrons money too

and silera, high fly, and five thanx for arguing my thoughts without forcing me to type

<IMG SRC="http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/philex/phixion.gif">
"smoking weed, smoking weed doing coke, drinking beers
drinking beers, beers, beersrolling fatties, smoking bluntswho smokes the blunts?we smoke the blunts." -Jay

[high fly]

Sure wish one-a them conservatives on the board would address my analogy about a dozen posts back.
Are you guys chicken, or what?

" and they ask me why I drink"

[FUNKMAN]

dudley... what bout luc longley he doesnt even play and we pay his ass......


and what about Kenny "SKY" Walker... wasn't he the most dominant inside force in the history of the NBA... i saw him throw a slap at another player one time and it hit the ref in the face...

:)

<img src="http://www.markfarner.com/2001tour/ribfest8_small.jpg">

[A.J.]

Sure wish one-a them conservatives on the board would address my analogy about a dozen posts back.
Are you guys chicken, or what?


You mean this one?:

Hey gang, how bout another analogy. I gotcha a beaut:
You own a small business, and things ain't going so well.
You see this swell machine advertised that wiil help you bring in more business, so you buy it.
Sho' nuff, you now are bringing in another ten thousand dollars a month.
Too bad the payments on the machine are twelve thousand dollars a month.
This analogy reflects the interest payments that must be made on the money the government must borrow. The economy has never grown faster than the interest on the debt.
What the tax "cuts" do is reduce the amount that the rich will have to pay on the debt they are running up.

So the lesson is "don't live above your means by spending more than you have"?

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.

[Bergalad]

Sure wish one-a them conservatives on the board would address my analogy about a dozen posts back.
Are you guys chicken, or what?
I wasn't that impressed with it actually, so didn't feel the need to comment. It would be nicer if you actually were able to support the numbers you throw out (at least the percentages). The tax cut doesn't benefit just the "rich" you keep talking about, and you know it. It's not as comprehensive as you or I would like, but to say that only wealthy people get any benefit from it is an outright lie. It's hard to have an honest debate with someone who willfully distorts the truth HF.

[TooCute]

Well TooCute, if you read what I was commenting on, then you might understand what I meant. And thanks for your insightful commentary on this subject.

I certainly have read what you've been writing. And in theory, a flat tax is a great idea. I'm not commenting on that. I was only commenting on your assertion that the fact that people who earn more money are taxed more heavily dissuades people from wanting to earn more.

More money is more money. Show me one single person who will turn down a chance to make more money - or who doesn't want to make more money - than they do now because more of it will go to the government.

I'll be waiting.

<img src=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/toocute2.gif>
!! 2% !!<font color=FBF2F7>

[Death Metal Moe]

I just heard a story about casinos cutting back on shifts and other spending so the DON'T make more money, thereby shvoing them into a higher tax bracket. I have no link, sorry.

But if true, that is an example of a company NOT wanting to expand because the high taxes make success not worth it.

And this is not the 1st example I've heard, but again I have no links so take it or leave it.

<IMG SRC=http://www.unhallowed.com/sigs/Dutchboy.gif>
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>
<B>DEATH FACTION 4 LIFE!!!</B>
666%

[FiveB247]

You're using Casino's as an example of how to make revenue cuts? haha Nice choice.

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

This message was edited by FiveB247 on 6-3-03 @ 4:12 PM

[silera]

I can believe that Moe.

That would be a corporation trying to spread out its income.

Another thing that happens is that corporations would make the money and then expend on large tax deductible items, so as to gain value but not pay more to the government.

It's a fucked up situation.

I still think I don't feel sorry for anyone but myself and the millions of other Americans like me who do not have the choice to work less.


<center>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/silera/files/Silera/sig4.gif

<font size=3><font color=red>I can't stand myself either.</font></font></center>
<font color=FBF2F7>

This message was edited by silera on 6-3-03 @ 2:35 PM

[high fly]

BERGALAD What part is "willfully" distorted?
Ennyway, the numbers in the analogy are just for purposes of illustration.
The point about the interest on the money borrowed by the government rising faster than the increased income from the tax "cut" is one I'd like to see you tackle.
I put "cut" in quotation because we'll have to pay it all back with INTEREST. In fact, it's a tax deferral scheme.
Sadly, the Republicans have abandoned their fiscally conservative "principles" [ever heard of the "Contract With America?]

" and they ask me why I drink"

This message was edited by high fly on 6-3-03 @ 2:45 PM

[Bergalad]

BERGALAD What part is "willfully" distorted?

Ennyway, the numbers in the analogy are just for purposes of illustration.
Exactly that.

[FUNKMAN]

Funkman, you should be more concerned about why Terry Knight is still getting royalty payments.



AJ,

you are a true FUNK friend...

i try to be open minded. he should get an EVEN share... he did help them get on their way... he just didn't have to stick it to e'm as hard as he did when they split-up... they were naive and could've used a little more understanding ...

<img src="http://www.markfarner.com/2001tour/ribfest8_small.jpg">

[silera]

I'd pay 3600 a year with the flat federal tax.

Sounds nice. I'd save maybe 1400 a year in Federal Taxes.

State and local taxes would be affected. Neither would sales tax, or property tax ( which doesn't affect me because I can't afford to buy my own home).

I'm a jaded person, and my problems with taxes don't stem from the fact that I mind paying them. My problems stem from the fact that I feel a disproportionate burden is placed on the middle working class and the government doesn't give us much back in return.

After taxes, I pay tuition, health insurance, sales tax, tolls, and a myriad of other expenses.

The high cost of living is directly related to the mismanagement of federal, state and local funds. I'm paying up front for shit I'm not getting. That's what pisses me off.

With this new tax cut, I'd get $800 in July.

Guess what, it's not going to much more than pocket change in comparison to what I spend on my children, on healthcare and on sales tax.

I'd mention social security and medicare, but I think that I'd have a seizure. Let's just say, I've drafted my letter requesting to opt out of the program and accept that I'll be shot at 65 so that I don't have to contribute anymore or live below poverty level as most of our seniors do.

<center>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/silera/files/Silera/sig4.gif

<font size=3><font color=red>I can't stand myself either.</font></font></center>
<font color=FBF2F7>

[Bergalad]

I'd pay 3600 a year with the flat federal tax.

Sounds nice. I'd save maybe 1400 a year in Federal Taxes.
Thanks for taking the time to look at it. 1400 a year is a lot, any way you cut it. Understood that the Flat Tax won't affect local taxes, but at the Federal level this looks like a winner. I just hope the lobbyists can be put down so this sort of plan can go through. Then we won't have any more "unfair" tax cuts in the future.

[JerryTaker]

1400 a year is a lot, any way you cut it.


What planet do you live on?

<IMG SRC="http://afs30.njit.edu/~gsm2321/faramir.gif">

<marquee width=300 scrollamount="5">Wet and raving, The needle keeps calling me back.. To bloody my hands forever. Carved my cure with the blade That left me in scars, Now every time I'm weak, Words scream from my arm</marquee>

[Bergalad]

What planet do you live on?
Sorry Moneybags. You don't think it's much? Then send me a fucking check. $1400 more for a person making 30k-40k per year is significant, especially if you are not paying it out to the government. You don't think 1400 is a big deal, great, but don't let me catch you bitching about the "poor" not getting any of this tax cut then. If 1400 isn't anything, then they don't need it, right?

[JerryTaker]

Sorry Moneybags. You don't think it's much? Then send me a fucking check.


Now who's a liberal whiner about allocation of wealth?


And I'm by no means rich, but $1400 over a year will not improve my situation , if 1400 fell out of the sky all at once, then yeah, but not over a year, and not if my state taxes go up, too. It just means I have to pay more for eveything else...


<IMG SRC="http://afs30.njit.edu/~gsm2321/faramir.gif">

<marquee width=300 scrollamount="5">Wet and raving, The needle keeps calling me back.. To bloody my hands forever. Carved my cure with the blade That left me in scars, Now every time I'm weak, Words scream from my arm</marquee>

[TheMojoPin]

$1400 is basically four months rent for me.

I'm as "green" as they come, but hell, for that much, I'm remaining on the flat tax-bandwagon.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[TooCute]

$1400

Must be nice to live in a place where you can have a rent that's less than $400 a month.

Even living in a houses with four other people my rent was about $650 a month + utilities, both here on Long Island and also when I lived out in Palo Alto.

Oh how nice living in a co-op in college was, where $900 a month covered all, and $400 a month covered food (mostly organic, no less). Alas...

<img src=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/toocute2.gif>
!! 2% !!<font color=FBF2F7>

[JerryTaker]

$1400 is basically four months rent for me.


Not if the property taxes have to go up...





<IMG SRC="http://afs30.njit.edu/~gsm2321/faramir.gif">

<marquee width=300 scrollamount="5">Wet and raving, The needle keeps calling me back.. To bloody my hands forever. Carved my cure with the blade That left me in scars, Now every time I'm weak, Words scream from my arm</marquee>

[TheMojoPin]

It's a nice, four-level brick townhouse in the Dulles 'burbs that goes for about $1600 a month. Luckily, I have four roommates, so it's cheap and it sounds like I'm living in an orgy. And I get my own bathroom and the other master bedroom. SCORE.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[HBox]

You mean I could have saved $1400? Dammit, I wanted another Ivory backscratcher!

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

[JerryTaker]

It's a nice, four-level brick townhouse in the Dulles 'burbs that goes for about $1600 a month.


Nice. Up here in Jersey it's a different story entirely. Unless you live in the boonies, typical rent around here is $750 / month + utilities, which can run another $200. Add to that Vehicle maintenence and food, and 1400 a year doesn't seem like much at all, and that was my point...



<IMG SRC="http://afs30.njit.edu/~gsm2321/faramir.gif">

<marquee width=300 scrollamount="5">Wet and raving, The needle keeps calling me back.. To bloody my hands forever. Carved my cure with the blade That left me in scars, Now every time I'm weak, Words scream from my arm</marquee>

[INFOSTUD]

Heres the low down as per this site:

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/2003statecut.pdf

2003 average tax reductions = $19

2004 = $19

2005 = $5

2006 = $4

Thanks for nothing!!!!



<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/infostud10.jpg">

[silera]

$1400 a year is an extra $26.92 a week in my pocket.

Seriously, it wouldn't do me any good.

I want public schools to send my kids to. I want to be able to buy a house. I want health coverage that doesnt cost me $75 a week. I want to believe in the dream that if you work hard you will get rewarded for it.

Right now, if you don't fall into either end of the spectrum, be it rich or poor, you get fucked over.






<center>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/silera/files/Silera/sig4.gif

<font size=3><font color=red>I can't stand myself either.</font></font></center>
<font color=FBF2F7>

[high fly]

Any benefits you recieve now from the tax "cuts" will be far outweighed by the tax increases that must follow that will pay for the "cuts".
Reagan claimed that his tax cuts would stimulate the economy so much that the deficit would be eliminated in 2 years or less and all it got us was deeper in debt- all-time record debt, debt we had to pay,WITH INTEREST! ....just like we will have to pay for these tax "cuts" WITH INTEREST!

" and they ask me why I drink

This message was edited by high fly on 6-9-03 @ 12:31 PM