Why wouldn't you vote for John Kerry?

[Bestinshow]

From listening to John Kerry and watching the debates I finally understand John Kerry's platform.

1) Hes going to get the whole world to help us in Iraq. That plus he knows how to fix things there (He says he has a plan) and hes going to bring the troops home fast.

2) hes only going to raise taxes for people who can afford it and hes going to cut the taxes for everyone else.

3) Hes going to make sure "everyone " has healthcare coverage

4) He's going to create jobs.

5) He's going to prevent companies from sending jobs overseas.

6) he's going to fix global warming

7) he's going to cure parkinsons and cancer

8) He's going to cut the deficit in half

9) Oh , and hes bringing back Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny and an old lady in the post office told me the Toothe fairy too.

I guess that covers everything. How can you not vote for him?




<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>
<marquee>I am not part of any percentage. I am the Bestinshow<marquee>
[center]Kiss a Doberman Today

[East Side Dave]

Why wouldn't you vote for John Kerry?




Because I have no arms!

<img src=http://www.richstillwell.com/ESD.gif>
Big Ass Mafia

Click this link (http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/thenight/ppr/index.shtml) to hear my show on 90.5 The Night FM;
Friday and Saturday Night: Midnight to 5 AM you bastards!

[silera]

Yeah, talk about stretching the truth!


<center>http://hometown.aol.com/bonedaddy5/images/silerass.jpg
<font size="3" color="red">AND WHAT?</font></center><font color="FBF2F7">

[GodsFavoriteMan]

It's amazing how pessimism can lead someone to vote for Bush. The idea that it's so fucked up no one can fix it, leave it to the guy who fucked it up is just beyond me. God forbid someone else comes along and says, "hey, yeah, this is pretty shitty, but I think I can fix it up a bit." He has to be a liar, because if the guy who fucked it up couldn't fix it, who can?


<img src="http://home.comcast.net/~stan_ferguson/goodluvin_copy.jpg">

[Tall_James]

Because I'm voting for Chuck Floyd.

<img src=http://www.christpuncherrecords.com/sigs/layla.jpg>
[center]"Freakshow Makes...Tall James Takes"

[Bestinshow]

I was going to vote for cliff Floyyd but hes always hurt.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>
<marquee>I am not part of any percentage. I am the Bestinshow<marquee>
[center]Kiss a Doberman Today

[A.J.]

God forbid someone else comes along and says, "hey, yeah, this is pretty shitty, but I think I can fix it up a bit."

The problem is that he's not offering specifics. He's keeping it vague for a reason. We all know what it's going to come down to: raising taxes. Ask Walter Mondale how being that forthright works in an election.

<img src=http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Canofsoup15/Sigs/AJinDC-Sig.jpg>

A Skidmark/canofsoup15 production.

Red Sox Nation

[Yerdaddy]

Could some of the grown-up conservatives on the board please take over the thread-creation wing of the party? For your own sake.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
Fuck it from behind.

[Reephdweller]

Mostly it's the long face thing.

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20041019/capt.sge.thv93.191004171553.photo00.photo.default-278x346.jpg

<center><IMG SRC="http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/randomizer/random.php?uid=3">
Reefy's website... (http://www.osirusonline.com/)</center>
<font size="1" color="red">
<center>Check out The Ron and Fez Show Logs...UPDATED!!!!! (http://www.osirusonline.com/ronfez.htm)</center>
<marquee behavior=alternate bgcolor="#FFFFFF">Right now you could care less about me...
but soon enough you will care, by the time I'm done</marquee> </font>

[A.J.]

Could some of the grown-up conservatives on the board please take over the thread-creation wing of the party? For your own sake.

Chuck Floyd volunteered to do it.

<img src=http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Canofsoup15/Sigs/AJinDC-Sig.jpg>

A Skidmark/canofsoup15 production.

Red Sox Nation

[Reephdweller]

Chuck Floyd volunteered to do it.



Chuck Floyd once danced on Soul Train.



























Oh.....wrong thread.

<center><IMG SRC="http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/randomizer/random.php?uid=3">
Reefy's website... (http://www.osirusonline.com/)</center>
<font size="1" color="red">
<center>Check out The Ron and Fez Show Logs...UPDATED!!!!! (http://www.osirusonline.com/ronfez.htm)</center>
<marquee behavior=alternate bgcolor="#FFFFFF">Right now you could care less about me...
but soon enough you will care, by the time I'm done</marquee> </font>

[Bestinshow]

Could some of the grown-up conservatives on the board please take over the thread-creation wing of the party? For your own sake.


Good one Pottsy. Maybe some of the stalking liberals on the board can find somewhere else to post their propaganda. Noone stops you from posting your sewage.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>
<marquee>I am not part of any percentage. I am the Bestinshow<marquee>
[center]Kiss a Doberman Today

[silera]

I truly hope NY state offers picture ballots instead of ones with writing on them so that Reef can get through the voting process without having to have one single thought process occur.

I'm afraid reading or writing might make him faint.


<center>http://hometown.aol.com/bonedaddy5/images/silerass.jpg
<font size="3" color="red">AND WHAT?</font></center><font color="FBF2F7">

[Reephdweller]

I truly hope NY state offers picture ballots instead of ones with writing on them so that Reef can get through the voting process without having to have one single thought process occur.


Oh please. I was only having fun. Jesus.

<center><IMG SRC="http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/randomizer/random.php?uid=3">
Reefy's website... (http://www.osirusonline.com/)</center>
<font size="1" color="red">
<center>Check out The Ron and Fez Show Logs...UPDATED!!!!! (http://www.osirusonline.com/ronfez.htm)</center>
<marquee behavior=alternate bgcolor="#FFFFFF">Right now you could care less about me...
but soon enough you will care, by the time I'm done</marquee> </font>

[Yerdaddy]

Good one Pottsy.

I thought so Ralph Mouth.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
Fuck it from behind.

[silera]

You're entitled to your opinion and your vote. At this point, after at least a half dozen various thread and countless others where you post these random stupid pictures, I can't stand it.

Are you seriously going to vote for Bush because he's more photogenic? No. You have thoughts, you obviously have based your opinion on something, I've read it.

It's fine to be funny, but dragging the same fucking joke into every discussion is wearing on my nerves.

I'll blame my tampon for my attitude before anyone else does.



<center>http://hometown.aol.com/bonedaddy5/images/silerass.jpg
<font size="3" color="red">AND WHAT?</font></center><font color="FBF2F7">

This message was edited by silera on 10-19-04 @ 2:06 PM

[Reephdweller]

It's fine to be funny, but dragging the same fucking joke into every discussion is wearing on my nerves.



Yet there's about 90 threads on this board that make some reference to the Chuck Floyd thread, but that's okay.

<center><IMG SRC="http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/randomizer/random.php?uid=3">
Reefy's website... (http://www.osirusonline.com/)</center>
<font size="1" color="red">
<center>Check out The Ron and Fez Show Logs...UPDATED!!!!! (http://www.osirusonline.com/ronfez.htm)</center>
<marquee behavior=alternate bgcolor="#FFFFFF">Right now you could care less about me...
but soon enough you will care, by the time I'm done</marquee> </font>

[A.J.]

I'll blame my tampon for my attitude before anyone else does.

"I blame my vibrator for MY attitude."

http://www.newsmax.com/columnists/images/oreilly.jpg

<img src=http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Canofsoup15/Sigs/AJinDC-Sig.jpg>

A Skidmark/canofsoup15 production.

Red Sox Nation

[silera]

1) Hes going to get the whole world to help us in Iraq. That plus he knows how to fix things there (He says he has a plan) and hes going to bring the troops home fast.
Hopefully Georgia will stay on board the coalition of the willing if Kerry comes into power.

We couldn't make it without them.

2) hes only going to raise taxes for people who can afford it and hes going to cut the taxes for everyone else. ]My heart aches for General Electric, IBM, and Microsoft (http://www.ctj.org/corpfed04pr.pdf)

3) Hes going to make sure "everyone " has healthcare coverage
I'd rather make sure we lose 5 million more.
4) He's going to create jobs.
I'd rather lose another net 500K.
5) He's going to prevent companies from sending jobs overseas. The world is a better place when jobs and freedom are on the march!
6) he's going to fix global warming
It doesn't exist.
7) he's going to cure parkinsons and cancer We should all just pray for a cure or visit with Jesus. George can take us to him. They chat often.
8) He's going to cut the deficit in half What a quitter! I bet we can DOUBLE it in the next four years!
9) Oh , and hes bringing back Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny and an old lady in the post office told me the Toothe fairy too. George Bush IS Santa Clause the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.

Holy trifecta!

<center>http://hometown.aol.com/bonedaddy5/images/silerass.jpg
<font size="3" color="red">AND WHAT?</font></center><font color="FBF2F7">

This message was edited by FMJeff on 10-19-04 @ 4:54 PM

[Bestinshow]

I truly hope NY state offers picture ballots instead of ones with writing on them so that Reef can get through the voting process without having to have one single thought process occur.


Thats only if Reef's sigpics are the pictures on the ballots. I'd vote for some of them.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>
<marquee>I am not part of any percentage. I am the Bestinshow<marquee>
[center]Kiss a Doberman Today

[curtoid]

Worst case scenerio for the conservatives out there - John Kerry is elected.

Then what?

What is he going to do during his four years as President?

What the fuck is a Republican congress going to let him do???

You know what he'll do? He'll be forced to work with them and together they will get some shit done, like the last few years of Clinton's Presidency when the pissing wars stopped.

He's not going to be able to push through some sort of scary agenda, and it is in his, and the country's, best interest to step up the fight on terrorism.

I swear to god - the way the neo-cons, the religious right and the mindless turds that follow them have charactured John Kerry you would think he was a dribbling retard without the common sense to do a damn thing except steal our money, force us into gay marriages, and give our daughters abortions.





http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v64/curtoid/22.jpg
"One of our normal friends." - RB

[Mike Teacher]

While I'm not affiliated with either party; i'll play devil's advocate for those who wished for debate and i'll start at the top:



1) Hes going to get the whole world to help us in Iraq.


Ok; thats a statement not even a claim. I'll pretend it's a claim. Let's say Kerry claims he will get the whole world to help us in Iraq.

Well, the whole world cant even help the world. A decade ago the UN and US and 'world' watched as a million were slaughtered in Rwanda. So much for that one. Now, as I type this, in the Sudan, genocide continues. The UN has it's head so far up it's ass that it's doing essentially, nothing about this. Nothing.

So, forget that its Kerry making the claim, lets assume it's Bush, or Nader, or Kofi Annan, or the Pope, or...

If the rest of the world [I'm speaing UN nations, actually, for this] dont give a flying fuck about sudanese genocide, sub-saharan/asian indian HIV, and a few other ongoing atrocities, on what evidence would they help us in Iraq?

Oh, I just forgot the news about the complete and utter lack of control the UN had in the Food for Oil program, essentially making sanctions a joke.

=

The world dont give a fuck.

<IMG SRC="http://members.aol.com/miketeachr/esig">

[Bestinshow]

Hopefully Georgia will stay on board the coalition of the willing if Kerry comes into power.


I'd rather have France and germany because god knows, I wouldnt make a move without checking their opinion.



My heart aches for General Electric, IBM, and Microsoft


I say Fuck all big business, especially the conglomorates making over $200,000. Thats the best way to fix an economy and create jobs.



I'd rather make sure we lose 5 million more.


Yes , George Bush is taking health insurance away from all of us. Of course those numbers arent fluffed up by the temporary loss of insurance from the people on unemployment who will be reinsured when they get new jobs. Than again see point above for all those new jobs.
Im sure Kerry will fix health insurance just like the Clintons did. Bad George Bush.



I'd rather lose another net 500K.


Of course, thankfully Kerry is giving the right employment figures. Its not like Kerry is giving inaccurate employment figures.
Oh, and Im sure the recession that started in 2000 and 9/11 didnt hurt employment. Kerry says he'll fix it, thats good enough for me.



The world is a better place when jobs and freedom are on the march!


I say government regulation is the key to Democracy. But than again Im sure Kerry will find another way to make companies keep all jobs here. He has a plan. He will do it different.



It doesn't exist.


Oh sure it does. Plate techtonics, continental drift, the effect of melting glaciers and cyclical changes in temperature are the myths.



We should all just pray for a cure or visit with Jesus. George can take us to him. They chat often.


I thought Kerry was Jesus. Thats why he knows the path.



What a quitter! I bet we can DOUBLE it in the next four years!


No silly, Kerry says he can. Therefore he will. He has a plan.



George Bush IS Santa Clause the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.


And kerry is Jesus,which beats santa claus, the easter bunny and the tooth fairy.

I'd vote for him but Im Jewish so I cant.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>
<marquee>I am not part of any percentage. I am the Bestinshow<marquee>
Kiss a Doberman Today

This message was edited by mikeyboy on 10-19-04 @ 7:27 PM

[Bestinshow]

I swear to god - the way the neo-cons, the religious right and the mindless turds that follow them have charactured John Kerry you would think he was a dribbling retard without the common sense to do a damn thing except steal our money, force us into gay marriages, and give our daughters abortions.


Hey, I never said he dribbled!!!!!!!!

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>
<marquee>I am not part of any percentage. I am the Bestinshow<marquee>
[center]Kiss a Doberman Today

[Bestinshow]

Btw, Silera, your link is an article that claims the biggest corporations only report half their income to the IRS. Maybe a little bit of propaganda? These are all public companies requiring audits by both independent accounting firms and the sec. And they are only reporting half their income? Please, if this special interest group had this info, dont you think everyone else would?

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>
<marquee>I am not part of any percentage. I am the Bestinshow<marquee>
[center]Kiss a Doberman Today

[keithy_19]

We should all just pray for a cure or visit with Jesus. George can take us to him. They chat often.


I take offense to that. I have a disease that could be cured with the help of stem cell research and I don't agree with taxing the American people. Think about that.

Most of the break throughs are in private labs. Not in government funded agencies.

http://64.177.177.182/katylina/tarasig.jpg

[silera]

Btw, Silera, your link is an article that claims the biggest corporations only report half their income to the IRS. Maybe a little bit of propaganda?

Method of Calculation (http://www.ctj.org/corpfed04an.pdf)


You don't have to agree with it. I don't agree with you.

Basically, your arguments/satire in this thread are exagerations, as are mine. George Bush isn't the Devil, but he isn't the second coming either. Same goes for Kerry.

My vote is going to the candidate that has convinced me that he is going to try to make America better for me. Bush hasn't proven that to me over the last four years. I don't trust his administration and furthermore, I think they purposely manipulate the truth, and the American people to push an agenda that only furthers personal gain at the expense of the have nots in America and the world.

The best thing that happened to Bush was 9/11 and that sickens me.


<center>http://hometown.aol.com/bonedaddy5/images/silerass.jpg
<font size="3" color="red">AND WHAT?</font></center><font color="FBF2F7">

[A.J.]

John Kerry you would think he was a dribbling retard

I fear his retard strength!

<img src=http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Canofsoup15/Sigs/AJinDC-Sig.jpg>

A Skidmark/canofsoup15 production.

Red Sox Nation

[GodsFavoriteMan]

We should all just pray for a cure or visit with Jesus. George can take us to him. They chat often.


I take offense to that. I have a disease that could be cured with the help of stem cell research and I don't agree with taxing the American people. Think about that.

Most of the break throughs are in private labs. Not in government funded agencies.

Most, if not all, of these breakthroughs are found in universities (both public and private) and information is shared with labs. Also, these labs are heavily dependant on government investments. Aside from that, assuming what Kerry says is true, and that the tax increases will simply be rollbacks upon those earning 200,000 a year, I don't think it'll be too much of a hardship on the American people to help fund this program.

<img src="http://home.comcast.net/~stan_ferguson/goodluvin_copy.jpg">

[Bestinshow]

If only you people actually understood what $200,000 a year meant. I'm tired of trying to explain it but trust me, you'd see things in a different light. It has to do with flow through entities such as Sub S Corps and partnerships. I'm not going to give an accounting lesson here but i'm a CPA and I'm talking fact, not theory. You are all being takin for a ride.

If you weren't all so jealous of those making more than you(Which I always thought was the American dream) maybe you would find out what this tax cut actually was.

And before everyone piles on, I'm not attacking anyone in particular. It's just a general consensus I get about people leaning to the left when the $200,000 income is mentioned. I know it doesnt apply to everyone.

BTW, if anyone actually is interested in me explaining how that number is deceiving and effects small business, PM me and I will explain to you (Facts, not opinion) how a partnership or Sub S is taxed.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>
<marquee>I am not part of any percentage. I am the Bestinshow<marquee>
[center]Kiss a Doberman Today

This message was edited by Bestinshow on 10-20-04 @ 11:41 AM

[silera]

If you weren't all so jealous of those making more than you(Which I always thought was the American dream) maybe you would find out what this tax cut actually was.


That statement is completely assinine.

30% of the top earners in this country own 70% of the wealth. It is only fucking reasonable that those with the most money pay more taxes than those with the least money. It's not about jealousy or fucking over rich people, it's about the shared responsibility of keeping our country afloat.

Furthermore, the Kerry is only proposing to roll back the tax cuts to levels that existed during the Clinton years. So, it's not even a fucking increase in taxes.

I'm not a left wing liberal commie socialist. I just want whats fair for everyone. You cannot choose to reward those that have at the expense of the struggling. There is a direct correlation between Bush's administrations policies and the shrinking middle class.

If only you people actually understood what $200,000 a year meant. I'm tired of trying to explain it but trust me, you'd see things in a different light. It has to do with flow through entities such as Sub S Corps and partnerships. I'm not going to give an accounting lesson here but i'm a CPA and I'm talking fact, not theory. You are all being takin for a ride.

Kerry Proposal Information (http://www.factcheck.org/article265.html)
[quote]Who Would Be Affected?

When the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center ran the Kerry plan through its computer model, it projected that in 2005 a total of 995,000 persons with "business income" (or business loss) would see a personal tax increase under Kerry's plan. That's in line with various Republican calculations that put the total at up to 1 million or more.

But here's what the Tax Policy Center also found about those "small business owners" who would see their taxes go up:

Only 49% of them actually got most of their income from business (485,000 of them).
The large majority have no employees aside from themselves. Of the 487,000 who reported any business income on Schedule C, only 71,000 claimed deductions for wages -- fewer than 15% .
To be sure, Kerry's plan would in effect raise taxes on considerably more than 71,000 small-business owners with employees. The Tax Policy Center could not determine how many owners whose businesses are partnerships or Subchapter S corporations both had employees and reported income high enough to be affected. Those types of businesses tend to be larger and more likely to have employees than the owners of sole proprietorships who typically report on Schedule C. Census Bureau figures from 1997 show that 28% of all partnerships had employees, and 77% of all Sub-S corporations. It is also true that at least some businesses that have no direct employees other than the owner still create jobs by hiring contractors for services.

Still, it is clear that the Bush ad's 900,000 figure greatly exceeds the number of job-creating businesses that would be affected by Kerry's proposed tax increase. And the vast majority of small businesses would not be affected at all.

(Update, Oct 1: The Tax Policy Center refined its estimates after we posted this article and came up with a figure of 471,000 small employers who would see a tax increase under Kerry's proposal, including an estimate of sub-S and partnership filers who have employees. Buy this estimate, the figure used in the Bush ad is nearly double the real number.)

Who Would Not Be Affected

Bush's own Treasury Department estimates that a total of 33 million "small businesses" benefited from the Bush tax cuts on individuals, but most of them are in lower tax brackets. So -- even accepting the 900,000 figure used in the Bush ad -- that leaves more than 32 million "small businesses" not affected by an increase in the top rates on individuals.

It should also be noted that Kerry is proposing several tax cuts specifically targeted to small businesses, including a refundable tax credit aimed at re

[Bestinshow]

The Tax Policy Center could not determine how many owners whose businesses are partnerships or Subchapter S corporations both had employees and reported income high enough to be affected. Those types of businesses tend to be larger and more likely to have employees than the owners of sole proprietorships who typically report on Schedule C. Census Bureau figures from 1997 show that 28% of all partnerships had employees, and 77% of all Sub-S corporations. It is also true that at least some businesses that have no direct employees other than the owner still create jobs by hiring contractors for services.


I guess you didn't read that paragraph. That is my point.



It is only fucking reasonable that those with the most money pay more taxes than those with the least money.


We have already hashed out in this forum, using real numbers that those with more money do pay more taxes. You are relying on unsubstantiated numbers from some intern that did a report for a special interest group. I read most of your link.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>
<marquee>I am not part of any percentage. I am the Bestinshow<marquee>
[center]Kiss a Doberman Today

[silera]

(Update, Oct 1: The Tax Policy Center refined its estimates after we posted this article and came up with a figure of 471,000 small employers who would see a tax increase under Kerry's proposal, including an estimate of sub-S and partnership filers who have employees. Buy this estimate, the figure used in the Bush ad is nearly double the real number.)


I guess you didn't read that one. Do yourself a favor and figure out that I can fucking read.


We have already hashed out in this forum, using real numbers that those with more money do pay more taxes. You are relying on unsubstantiated numbers from some intern that did a report for a special interest group. I read most of your link.


a) I meant proportionately. No one is debating that the wealthy pay most of the taxes in this country. Distribution of Federal Taxes and Income, 1979-2000 (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/template.cfm?PubID=1000566)

b) Factcheck.org is non-partisan. Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center is not partisan.

Just because you don't agree with facts doesn't mean your opinion can overide them, or that they're biased.



<center>http://hometown.aol.com/bonedaddy5/images/silerass.jpg
<font size="3" color="red">AND WHAT?</font></center><font color="FBF2F7">

This message was edited by silera on 10-20-04 @ 4:01 PM

[Tall_James]

I'm voting for Bush and I generally vote Conservative but in the past I have (on several occasions) crossed party lines and voted Democrat in major elections because I felt the Dem would be a better choice.

Problem is, for me, I look at Kerry and say to myself - Is this the best that this Democratic Party has to offer? There wasn't anyone else out there better that they could have put up as the standard bearer for the party? Where are the Daniel Moynahans, the Bill Bradleys, hell - even the Bill Clinton's in today's Democratic party? And why aren't they on the ticket?

I believe Bush could have been beaten soundly. But not by Kerry. History may prove me wrong but that's the way that I see it.


<img src=http://www.christpuncherrecords.com/sigs/layla.jpg>
[center]"Freakshow Makes...Tall James Takes"

[Yerdaddy]

We have already hashed out in this forum, using real numbers that those with more money do pay more taxes.

When the hell did this happen?

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
Fuck it from behind.

[Yerdaddy]

Problem is, for me, I look at Kerry and say to myself - Is this the best that this Democratic Party has to offer?

Do you ask the same about Bush and the Republican Party? And what do you come up with? Just curious.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
Fuck it from behind.

[Tall_James]

Do you ask the same about Bush and the Republican Party? And what do you come up with? Just curious.

A valid question but moot for this election since he is the incumbent. The incumbency as a bully pulpit made him relatively unchallengable within the party.

In 2000, however, I did question whether or not he would have been the best choice for the party. I was hoping that McCain would have come out with the nomination and if he did, he would have crushed Gore (IMO) thereby lessening the divide between the parties that only grew due to the 2000 election controversy.

<img src=http://www.christpuncherrecords.com/sigs/layla.jpg>
[center]"Freakshow Makes...Tall James Takes"

This message was edited by Tall_James on 10-20-04 @ 4:18 PM

[Yerdaddy]

What I mean though is that you seem to be saying you're rejecting Kerry because he's not the best the Democrats could do. I agree. He wouldn't have been my first choice either. What I don't understand is: why that test rather than the best between what there is to offer - Bush and Kerry?

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
Fuck it from behind.

[Bestinshow]

When the hell did this happen?


OH GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK. You even went back and forth with me several times on that thread. I was using the numbers from links that the libs on the board were supplying. Convenient how you forget.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>
<marquee>I am not part of any percentage. I am the Bestinshow<marquee>
[center]Kiss a Doberman Today

[Yerdaddy]

then it shouldn't be too hard for you to link to it, because I think you're full of shit.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
Fuck it from behind.

[Reephdweller]

Do you ask the same about Bush and the Republican Party? And what do you come up with? Just curious.


I know you didn't ask me this, though as far as I'm concerned I ask the very same question. I mean, I am going to vote for Bush though it is with great reluctance. I've done a lot of soul searching on this and I'm not at all happy with either candidate. I think that a good portion of people who are voting the same way I am are of the same mindset. I mean when I talk to people who 4 years ago were staunch Bush supporters they were ready to bleed and do everything they could. Including taking personal time to put signs up, go to rallys etc. I don't see the same enthusiasm.

If I were given an option for someone else I have no idea who I'd pick on the republican or democratic side. It's depressing. As TJ said with some of the names of democrats I agree, I wish there were good leaders on the democratic side.

As for the republicans, the only names that seem slightly appealing to me are Rudy Guiliani, and Jeb Bush. I don't say that with great joy, but I think of those as big ticket names that may come up. I believe in our system, but I do question the leadership of both parties.

Personally I like John McCain though I think he may be a little to old by 2008.

<center><IMG SRC="http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/randomizer/random.php?uid=3">
Reefy's website... (http://www.osirusonline.com/)</center>
<font size="1" color="red">
<center>Check out The Ron and Fez Show Logs...UPDATED!!!!! (http://www.osirusonline.com/ronfez.htm)</center>
<marquee behavior=alternate bgcolor="#FFFFFF">Right now you could care less about me...
but soon enough you will care, by the time I'm done</marquee> </font>

This message was edited by Reefdweller on 10-20-04 @ 4:48 PM

[curtoid]

''Because blood is thinner than oil! ... As the election approaches, we feel it is our responsibility to speak out about why we are voting for John Kerry, and to do our small part to help America heal from the sickness it has suffered since George Bush was appointed President in 2000. We invite you to read our stories, and please, don't vote for our cousin!"

Bush Relatives For Kerry (http://www.bushrelativesforkerry.com)

Now that is just sad.



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v64/curtoid/22.jpg
"One of our normal friends." - RB

This message was edited by curtoid on 10-20-04 @ 4:49 PM

[Bestinshow]

b) Factcheck.org is non-partisan. Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center is not partisan.




Just because you don't agree with facts doesn't mean your opinion can overide them, or that they're biased.


Who the Fuck is Fastcheck.org? Facts?????? I don't agree with the FACTS? Quote me a reputable source than we'll talk facts.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>
<marquee>I am not part of any percentage. I am the Bestinshow<marquee>
[center]Kiss a Doberman Today

[Bestinshow]

then it shouldn't be too hard for you to link to it, because I think you're full of shit.


You know what, Fuck you. Im tired of wasting my time with your ignorant ass.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>
<marquee>I am not part of any percentage. I am the Bestinshow<marquee>
[center]Kiss a Doberman Today

[mdr55]

Bush Relatives For Kerry (http://www.bushrelativesforkerry.com)

If you go far enough, I'm related to Bush too. I trace my roots all the way to Adam and Eve. :p

Hafa Adai.

[silera]

Who the Fuck is Fastcheck.org? Facts?????? I don't agree with the FACTS? Quote me a reputable source than we'll talk facts.
You're an ass.

The article I posted is from factcheck.org. It's so partisan that Dick Cheney referred people to the site during the debate. The table I linked to is Urbans Hastings. My original link is to a report I got to through Responsiblewealth.com, a site that Bill Gates himself help develop.

You're an ass.


<center>http://hometown.aol.com/bonedaddy5/images/silerass.jpg
<font size="3" color="red">AND WHAT?</font></center><font color="FBF2F7">

This message was edited by silera on 10-20-04 @ 5:01 PM

[Recyclerz]

I'm voting for Bush and I generally vote Conservative but in the past I have (on several occasions) crossed party lines and voted Democrat in major elections because I felt the Dem would be a better choice.

Problem is, for me, I look at Kerry and say to myself - Is this the best that this Democratic Party has to offer? There wasn't anyone else out there better that they could have put up as the standard bearer for the party? Where are the Daniel Moynahans, the Bill Bradleys, hell - even the Bill Clinton's in today's Democratic party? And why aren't they on the ticket?


TJ

I'll concede that Kerry isn't the most attractive candidate to moderates the Democrats could have found and that, in fact, he is a Massachusetts Liberal (although I suspect he would govern in a more moderate groove, not unlike Clinton).

I have a question for you as well though. Why do Conservatives like Bush? I understand that social conservatives, whose only issues may be banning abortions and getting prayer back into schools, would be on board. But it seems to me that the "traditional" conservatives, which I define as people who want limited government influence on their everyday lives but a level playing field for everybody and strong enforcement of the agreed upon rules, (eg. somebody like George Will) would be pulling their hair out over W. I believe he is fiscally irresponsible (spending for politically expedient pork is not challenged and taxes are cut in a manner that is designed to lower the burden on wealth generated income and raise it on wages) and his foreign policy is not only quixoticly ambitious (defeating terror without ever defining it) but also peevish (we'll do it by ourselves if we have to) and incompetent (see Iraq). I ask this question to my conservative pals all the time: Is this the guy you want leading your cause? or your country?

I'm not trying to be a wise-ass but I have yet to get a satisfactory answer. The "purer" conservatives take a swipe at Kerry and say I'm voting Libertarian anyway. Some folks I work with say I just don't trust Kerry and I'll take my chances with Bush cuz the tax cuts are paying for my kids' braces. I've pointed the question at you because you come across as a thinking adult with a sense of humor and little use for cant, but I'm putting it in an open forum for anyone of good will to set me straight. I'm seriously confused as to why half the people in this country see things so differently than me and I'm open for suggestions as to how it is me that's wrong.

EDIT: Wow, do I type fucking slow or what.

<IMG SRC="http://www.hometown.aol.com/recyclerz/myhomepage/sigpic1.gif?mtbrand=AOL_US">
[b]There ain't no asylum here.
King Solomon he never lived 'round here.[b]

This message was edited by Recyclerz on 10-20-04 @ 5:13 PM

[Yerdaddy]

You know what, Fuck you. Im tired of wasting my time with your ignorant ass.
:) Now I can sleep good tonight.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
Fuck it from behind.

[CaptClown]

Umm.... I found a link and BIS did explain some of the things he was going on about and Yerdaddy was in the thread but he wasn't talking to him.

Carry on I enjoy a good argument.

Director of the C.Y.A. Society.
Field Marshal of the K.I.S.S. Army
Poison Clan rocks the world

[Bestinshow]

You're an ass

The article I posted is from factcheck.org. It's so partisan that Dick Cheney referred people to the site during the debate. The table I linked to is Urbans Hastings. My original link is to a report I got to through Responsiblewealth.com, a site that Bill Gates himself help develop.


You're an ass.




Your original posts were from CTJ.org which is hardly non-partisan. As a matter of fact, i did a search on google which listed them as a liberal site, but I didnt need them to tell me that. Sorry I misread the name Factcheck.org. But since you like their site im sure you read this.

http://factcheck.org/article281.html

But than you would know that the top 20% earners pay 63.5% of the total tax burden and 81% of total income tax. Obviously people who are only paying 10-15% of the tax are not going to get most of the cut.

One of you says I'm full of shit, one of you calls me an ass. Usual class I expect from many of you on the left.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>
<marquee>I am not part of any percentage. I am the Bestinshow<marquee>
[center]Kiss a Doberman Today

[Bestinshow]

I have a question for you as well though. Why do Conservatives like Bush?


I would give you my laundry list but its pointless because most of the liberals on this board will deny the existence of any of his accomplishments anyway, and i'm tired personally of the animosity directed at anyone who doesnt see things their way.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>
<marquee>I am not part of any percentage. I am the Bestinshow<marquee>
[center]Kiss a Doberman Today

[keithy_19]

I'm seriously confused as to why half the people in this country see things so differently than me and I'm open for suggestions as to how it is me that's wrong.


'Cause the world don't move to the beat of just one drum. What may be right for you may not be right for some. You take the good you take the bad you take them both and then you have your answer.

http://64.177.177.182/katylina/tarasig.jpg

[TheMojoPin]

Yerdaddy, Silera, Bestinshow hasn't said anything that rates him getting called an ass or told he's full of shit. The guy's just arguing his point. Yeah, everything gets heated here, but why does someone deserve the personal attacks just because he supports the last string of tax cuts?

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << I love my drug buddy... >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[canofsoup15]

I ask this question to my conservative pals all the time: Is this the guy you want leading your cause? or your country?


No, he isn't. Neither is Kerry. But when you're in the position of not wanting either candidate, you choose the one whose closer to your political affiliations.



I would give you my laundry list but its pointless because most of the liberals on this board will deny the existence of any of his accomplishments anyway, and i'm tired personally of the animosity directed at anyone who doesnt see things their way.


This is the EXACT reason I try my hardest not to post in the political forum anymore, regardless of the comment I'm about to make. People are so close-minded these days.

<img src=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Canofsoup15/Sigs/ERUZIES1.gif>

<marquee behavior=alternate><Font size="1" Color="blue">
I got the glass, I got the steel. I got the love to hate.
</font><font color=red> All I need is your head on stake.</font></marquee><Font Color = White>

[TheMojoPin]

I try my hardest not to post in the political forum anymore

That's actually why the forum was created. People are gonna start political threads no matter what, and they're almost ALWAYS a clusterfuck. At least with a "Politics & Current Events" forum, there'd be one place to herd the little buggers, and make it easier for people to join in OR avoid.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << I love my drug buddy... >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Tall_James]

I've pointed the question at you because you come across as a thinking adult with a sense of humor and little use for cant, but I'm putting it in an open forum for anyone of good will to set me straight. I'm seriously confused as to why half the people in this country see things so differently than me and I'm open for suggestions as to how it is me that's wrong.

The thing is, I don't think you're wrong. You obviously have your core set of beliefs and you stick to them. I respect anyone who can do that while respecting the fact that others may have a different opinion than them. I don't believe that all Dems are government-loving socialists, just as I don't believe that every Republican wants to toss bombs at Planned Parenthood clinics. There are many shades of gray here.

I will vote for Bush for my own reasons. I think he's a decent man doing his best for our country. My life under his administration has been pretty good. I have many other reasons as to why I will be voting for him but to tell you the truth, those reasons, like my vote, are my own. I'm not going to actively campaign for Bush or against Kerry. I'm just one man with an opinion who is going to vote for the man he feels can do a better job for this country in the next 4 years.

That's it.

<img src=http://www.christpuncherrecords.com/sigs/layla.jpg>
[center]"Freakshow Makes...Tall James Takes"

[HBox]

I'd hate to be the client of Bestinshow who forgets to save his receipts at tax time.

http://www.myimgs.com/random/hbox/sig

[torker]

9) Oh , and hes bringing back Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny and an old lady in the post office told me the Toothe fairy too.

___________________________
will he bring back wade edwards?
___________________________


"You know how to read, you ignorant fuck?" ~ Andy Dufresne

[Yerdaddy]

Yerdaddy, Silera, Bestinshow hasn't said anything that rates him getting called an ass or told he's full of shit.
I said he was full of shit because he was trying to claim that he has proved in the past that the rich pay higher taxes. But he's being disingenous becuase he's only proved that they pay higher TOTAL taxes, but not a higher PERCENTAGE of taxes. He's done this several times and it's deliberately deceptive. Thus - he's full of shit. I'm not going to pretend he's not full of shit when clearly he is, regardless of how much boo hooing he does about all the liberal oppression he suffers here. He's full of shit about that too.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
Fuck it from behind.

[TheMojoPin]

Dude, it's his opinion.

It doesn't change yours.

Why get all up in arms over it?

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << I love my drug buddy... >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[GodsFavoriteMan]

he was trying to claim that he has proved in the past that the rich pay higher taxes. But he's being disingenous becuase he's only proved that they pay higher TOTAL taxes, but not a higher PERCENTAGE of taxes.

Help us out here, Yerdaddy. I think I get your point, but I'm having a hard time pinpointing it. I know they pay higher total taxes, but when you say higher percentage, do you mean the percentage of all taxes paid? Or relative to earned income?

<img src="http://home.comcast.net/~stan_ferguson/goodluvin_copy.jpg">

[Yerdaddy]

not up in arms, just calling it like i see it.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
Fuck it from behind.

[TheMojoPin]

Well, it's usually more effective if you let your actual POINTS argue for you. Outside of that, you're just a nut ranting on a message board like everyone else.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << I love my drug buddy... >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Yerdaddy]

Well, it's usually more effective if you let your actual POINTS argue for you.

Who has done this more than me? Who has posted more substantive infomation, backed up his points with reliable sources and made thorough fully developed arguments to back up their claims more than me?

Do I expect special status or priviledge because I'm obsessed with politics? No. But I think it's reasonable when faced with unreasonable, disingenuous or outright false claims to call it what it is. Especially when you've got a guy who constantly tries to thinly veil his insults so he can cultivate this oppressed status and whine to the mods when I call him out on his shit. I'm not talking about being able to call him names, just call bullshit when I see it. Because most of us know what's implied, (and there's someone else who's even better at this than BIS - note that you have no question in your mind who I just referred to), and are expected to just sit through it, or repeat the same tired fucking rational deconstructive arguments over and over - not because the same logical point is made, but because of the claim that they have proved this tired point to "the other-viewed people" before.

All I'm saying is pretending not to be uncivil does not make you civil.

Besides, "full of shit" is a sweet term. I'm a big fan.


Outside of that, you're just a nut ranting on a message board like everyone else.

Dude, I'm jellin' like Magellan.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
Fuck it from behind.

[Yerdaddy]

Help us out here, Yerdaddy. I think I get your point, but I'm having a hard time pinpointing it. I know they pay higher total taxes, but when you say higher percentage, do you mean the percentage of all taxes paid? Or relative to earned income?
Because I'm tired of dealing with the same bullshit I oversimplified. Here's an old post where I was willing to deal with pretty much the same claim. Actually I let Warren Buffett answer the question.

[edit: the Warren Buffett Op-Ed link is still working, so read that before you try to make sense of my bullshit.]

[quote]The top 20% of wage earners pay something like 79% of all income taxes...

OF COURSE they're going to get more back than people who don't have to pay taxes.
And the top 20% of wage earners control over 70% of the income, (see figures in your own link). The distortion of the tax cuts is not that the more you make the more you get back, it's the more you make the higher percentage you get back, (or don't have to pay). That's how it favors the rich, rather than simply cut taxes at an equal rate among all levels of income. If it were an equal tax rate cut across the income levels then I wouldn't even be calling it a "tax cut for the rich" and, in fact, the president and republicans would have defended themselves against the charge of "tax cuts for the rich." But that's exactly what it was/is. They simply tacked on some recycled trickle-down rhetoric about "creating jobs" and such horseshit, while shooting down Democratic compromise ammendments that would have made the cuts contingent on actually creating jobs. Instead, it was a gift.

This is why <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A13113-2003May19?language=printer" target="_blank">Warren Buffett</a>, the second richest man in America said this about Bush's dividend tax cut:

[quote]"The Senate decided that the dividends an individual receives should be 50 percent free of tax in 2003, 100 percent tax-free in 2004 through 2006 and then again fully taxable in 2007. The mental flexibility the Senate demonstrated in crafting these zigzags is breathtaking. What it has put in motion, though, is clear: If enacted, these changes would further tilt the tax scales toward the rich.

Let me, as a member of that non-endangered species, give you an example of how the scales are currently balanced. The taxes I pay to the federal government, including the payroll tax that is paid for me by my employer, Berkshire Hathaway, are roughly the same proportion of my income -- about 30 percent -- as that paid by the receptionist in our office. My case is not atypical -- my earnings, like those of many rich people, are a mix of capital gains and ordinary income -- nor is it affected by tax shelters (I've never used any). As it works out, I pay a somewhat higher rate for my combination of salary, investment and capital gain income than our receptionist does. But she pays a far higher portion of her income in payroll taxes than I do.

She's not complaining: Both of us know we were lucky to be born in America. But I was luckier in that I came wired at birth with a talent for capital allocation -- a valuable ability to have had in this country during the past half-century. Credit America for most of this value, not me. If the receptionist and I had both been born in, say, Bangladesh, the story would have been far different. There, the market value of our respective talents would not have varied greatly.

Now the Senate says that dividends should be tax-free to recipients. Suppose this measure goes through and the directors of Berkshire Hathaway (which does not now pay a dividend) therefore decide to pay $1 billion in dividends next year. Owning 31 percent of Berkshire, I would receive $310 million in additional income, owe not another dime in federal tax, and see my tax rate plunge to 3 percent.

And our receptionist? She'd still be paying about 30 percent, which means she would be contributing about 10 times the proportion of her income that I would to such government purs

[TheMojoPin]

Can I MAKE the two of you not hate each other somehow? What if I pay you both?

In flesh?

Keithy's flesh.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << I love my drug buddy... >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Yerdaddy]

Why aren't you on AIM? I don't want to have this little talk when he's obviously not here to defend himself.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
Fuck it from behind.

[silera]

But than you would know that the top 20% earners pay 63.5% of the total tax burden and 81% of total income tax. Obviously people who are only paying 10-15% of the tax are not going to get most of the cut.


30% of the top earners in this country own 70% of the wealth. It is only fucking reasonable that those with the most money pay more taxes than those with the least money.

At no point did I say they didn't pay more taxes. I just say that it's right that they do.


But since you like their site im sure you read this.

Yes I did read it. Unlike you, I'm quite capable of digesting both positive and negative facts about those that I choose to represent my views.

Bush claims most of his tax cuts went to low- and middle-income persons. Kerry says Pell Grants were cut. Don't believe either.

Quote me a reputable source than we'll talk facts. I've cited two, and you've only chosen to focus on the one that you do not deem credible.


Usual class I expect from many of you on the left.


I'm a classless, illiterate, jealous, liar.



<center>http://hometown.aol.com/bonedaddy5/images/silerass.jpg
<font size="3" color="red">AND WHAT?</font></center><font color="FBF2F7">

[silera]

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/Content/GIF/corporate_gdp.gif

From Tax Policy Center-- Tax Policy Center (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=263)

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxModel/tmdb/Content/GIF/T04-0052.gif

Before the tax change, the top percentile paid an average tax rate of 27%. After they paid an average 24%. Everyone else got a 2% reduction. They got 3%.


<center>http://hometown.aol.com/bonedaddy5/images/silerass.jpg
<font size="3" color="red">AND WHAT?</font></center><font color="FBF2F7">

This message was edited by silera on 10-21-04 @ 9:12 AM

[silera]

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxModel/tmdb/Content/GIF/T04-0051.gif

So you make 75000 and pay an 18.5% income tax rate. You make 1,000,000 and pay a 29.6 income tax rate. 10% difference in tax burden as opposed to a 1300% difference in income.



<center>http://hometown.aol.com/bonedaddy5/images/silerass.jpg
<font size="3" color="red">AND WHAT?</font></center><font color="FBF2F7">

This message was edited by silera on 10-21-04 @ 9:25 AM

[Reephdweller]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but why would we punish those who make more money and produce wealth? I'm not saying your wrong, I just don't understand why we should penalize people who take the initiative to grow their wealth, and build their business and be successful and make them pay more taxes.

Someone once said that people who are successfully rich know how to stay rich. If you take more from them they will find ways to get that money back, whether it is by laying people off or outsourcing jobs, or whatever. I've always I thought that there is something to that argument.

Now I'm not saying Silera, or Yerdaddy are wrong. In fact if they can explain to me how taxing the rich will somehow solve the problems I'd like to know. I'm not being sarcastic by saying this. I honestly would like to know because that has long been the argument of the left that the top 2% should have to pony up more cash because they have it. Is it really possible to do this without an offset somewhere else? I don't think so. I also think this will increase the likelyhood that those in the top 2% will move money to offshore accounts, and they always find ways to get around it anyway. I just don't think if we do it it will have the benefits that people think it will. Though I'd like it if someone could explain it to me from the other point of view.

<center><IMG SRC="http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/randomizer/random.php?uid=3">
Reefy's website... (http://www.osirusonline.com/)</center>
<font size="1" color="red">
<center>Check out The Ron and Fez Show Logs...UPDATED!!!!! (http://www.osirusonline.com/ronfez.htm)</center>
<marquee behavior=alternate bgcolor="#FFFFFF">Right now you could care less about me...
but soon enough you will care, by the time I'm done</marquee> </font>

[silera]

Reef, your question assumes that taxes are a punishment as opposed to the responsibility of American Citizens. We are at war. There is a deficit. Our national debt is growing.

I have no problem paying my taxes. I use highways, public transportation, send my kids to school. We are all indebted to keep this country afloat. However, the scales need to be so that everyone is putting in their fair share.

More money doesn't necessarily fix everything, you are right and I agree strongly with the republican ideals of smaller government. However, this administration hasn't reduced government outlays in order to offset the tax cuts. Therefore, we're spending more and receiving less.

It's not sound economics. It's bad for the country. It's bad for our future.

Furthermore, 3% of the population fall into tax brackets above 200K. Why are we looking out for the few when the many are in need and our future as a nation is affected?


<center>http://hometown.aol.com/bonedaddy5/images/silerass.jpg
<font size="3" color="red">AND WHAT?</font></center><font color="FBF2F7">

[Freebird]

So you make 75000 and pay an 18.5% income tax rate. You make 1,000,000 and pay a 29.6 income tax rate. 10% difference in tax burden as opposed to a 1300% difference in income. More fun with math. The 75K person pays $13,875 and Ted DiBiase pays $296,000, or 2,133% more in taxes for making a 1300% greater salary.

None of which addresses those very wealthy who pay less than the 29.6% tax rate....like the Kerry's.

-----------------------------
Now I'm starving

I'm about to turn it up a notch!

[silera]

More fun with math. The 75K person pays $13,875 and Ted DiBiase pays $296,000, or 2,133% more in taxes for making a 1300% greater salary.


Therein lies the complete difference of opinion regarding the tax system. What's the more important marker for comparison? What each person contributes or what that contribution is relative to each person's income?

This is where idealogies veer into different directions. I agree with the latter method because I remember being in church as a kid, when the collection tray was passed around. There were some that could only give $5 a week, some that could only give $1 weekly, and those that could give $20 weekly. Every dollar counted the same, and those that could give nothing, were still welcomed to come.

There comes a point where money is discretionary. I am not one to judge at which point it is, but I do know that the current system value's the $20 contribution more than it values the $1 contribution.

Maybe a flat tax, combined with a national sales tax, and elevating the minimum income level at which taxes are paid are a way to deal with addressing both the disparity in the wealth distribution of this country and the burden of taxes on the wealthiest.

What I am sure of is that the Bush Tax cuts did not stimulate job growth, and benefitted the wealthy disproportionately. I'd forego my extra $1,000 if it meant not having a deficit and indebting my children to pay for this war.


<center>http://hometown.aol.com/bonedaddy5/images/silerass.jpg
<font size="3" color="red">AND WHAT?</font></center><font color="FBF2F7">

[GodsFavoriteMan]

Maybe a flat tax, combined with a national sales tax, and elevating the minimum income level at which taxes are paid are a way to deal with addressing both the disparity in the wealth distribution of this country and the burden of taxes on the wealthiest.

A flat tax would only work to ease the burden of taxes on the wealthiest and increase the burden on the middle class. Same thing with a national sales tax. A sales tax works completely as a regressive tax and a disproportionately large burden is placed on lower income workers.

<img src="http://home.comcast.net/~stan_ferguson/goodluvin_copy.jpg">

This message was edited by GodsFavoriteMan on 10-21-04 @ 1:11 PM

[silera]

Yeah, I know. The more I read on the subject, the less appealing the flat tax seems. In theory, the current tax system is progressive, but it's broken.

I guess it could be fixed by reworking all the stupid loopholes.



<center>http://hometown.aol.com/bonedaddy5/images/silerass.jpg
<font size="3" color="red">AND WHAT?</font></center><font color="FBF2F7">

[Freebird]

Of course you have valid points. However, you can say the higher earning person pays 10% more, or you can say that person pays 160% greater percentage compared to the other. Or you can say the million dollar person pays about 1/3 of what they earn in taxes, versus the other who pays about 1/5. I'm saying that you're looking at the data from one perspective and not another which is just as true and not really up for debate.

The church example is a good one. However, the Catholic church at one time (and probably still) promoted tithing as 10% of a person's salary or earnings, or like a flat tax. By that estimation, the federal taxes unfairly target the richer person by demanding a higher percentage of money. By your logic, the rich not only pay their share, they pay more. I wouldn't agree that a flat tax in conjunction with a sales tax would address the disparity of wealth, except to make the gaps even bigger. Both of those systems favor the richer, who as a rule spend a far lower percentage of their total wealth.

On top of that, it's not that the $20 contribution is more valued than the $1, but that $20 does a whole lot more in real terms.

-----------------------------
Now I'm starving

I'm about to turn it up a notch!

[Freebird]

Oddly enough, part of Bush's convention speech was to fix and simplify the tax code. That meant eliminating and closing loopholes. And that's something Kerry and the Democrats have not even mentioned they would look to correct. At best though, Bush is well-intentioned.

What some people would prefer is that wealth is taxed, not earnings.

-----------------------------
Now I'm starving

I'm about to turn it up a notch!

[silera]

Bush's tax changes have benefitted the 3% over the 97% for the last 4 years. I can only assume that any simplifications or adjustments to the tax system would reflect that policy.

I thought of it this way while having a cigarette.

If I weigh 100 pounds and lose 20, I'd look pretty sickly. If I weigh 1300 pounds and lose 390, I'd still be a fat fuck. If there was an even weight loss, I'd be a fatter fuck.



<center>http://hometown.aol.com/bonedaddy5/images/silerass.jpg
<font size="3" color="red">AND WHAT?</font></center><font color="FBF2F7">

[GodsFavoriteMan]

I thought of it this way while having a cigarette.


Dammit, I'm out of smokes.

<img src="http://home.comcast.net/~stan_ferguson/goodluvin_copy.jpg">

[Reephdweller]

If I weigh 100 pounds and lose 20, I'd look pretty sickly.



Yeah but then you'd look more like the boys that Alkey likes to play with.


:)

<center><IMG SRC="http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/randomizer/random.php?uid=3">
Reefy's website... (http://www.osirusonline.com/)</center>
<font size="1" color="red">
<center>Check out The Ron and Fez Show Logs...UPDATED!!!!! (http://www.osirusonline.com/ronfez.htm)</center>
<marquee behavior=alternate bgcolor="#FFFFFF">Right now you could care less about me...
but soon enough you will care, by the time I'm done</marquee> </font>

[Bestinshow]

I'd hate to be the client of Bestinshow who forgets to save his receipts at tax time.


Wow, surprising, another cheap personal shot. Thats okay, I would hate to take you away from H&R Block


TextI said he was full of shit because he was trying to claim that he has proved in the past that the rich pay higher taxes. But he's being disingenous becuase he's only proved that they pay higher TOTAL taxes, but not a higher PERCENTAGE of taxes. He's done this several times and it's deliberately deceptive. Thus - he's full of shit. I'm not going to pretend he's not full of shit when clearly he is, regardless of how much boo hooing he does about all the liberal oppression he suffers here. He's full of shit about that too


http://factcheck.org/article281.html

Do I have to draw you a map? Are these percentages high enough for you.


At no point did I say they didn't pay more taxes. I just say that it's right that they do.


So whats your point? They are still paying drastically more tax than everyone else. You always say how you don't feel bad for the big companies. Nobody is asking you too. But you don't have the right to say that because they are rich, let them pay for everything. In this country, you have a right to be rich. I think 60-80% (depending on what kind of tax) is a pretty sizable chunk.


Yes I did read it. Unlike you, I'm quite capable of digesting both positive and negative facts about those that I choose to represent my views.


Oh, get real. Now you post something negative about your facts. give me a fucking break. And i can't digest the facts? How fucking arrogant are you? I don't need to go to any site to explain the tax cut. I use my tax guide.


I've cited two, and you've only chosen to focus on the one that you do not deem credible.


Thats right! Some of your links are to liberal watch dog groups. Some are not. I choose to read the ones that are legit. There is a reason why financial statements for investment purposes are prepared according to accounting standards and audited using generally accepted auditing standards. Subject to testing by the sec. I don't give a crap about some micromodel created by some special interest group.

I'm going to waste my time one final time and try to explain my position which for some reason give you people the arrogant notion that you can attack me for it.

The following information is taken out of the Federal tax guide which is an official guide on the tax code.

the following are the projected tax brackets married filing jointly in 2004

0-$14,300 10%
14,300-58100 15%
58100-117250 25%
117250-178650 28%
178650-319100 33%
319100...... 35%

in 2000 they were the following

0-$43,850 15%
43,850-105950 28
105950-161450 31
161,450-288350 36
288,350.... 39.6

You can do the math. Nobody is going to tell me there were no significant cuts to the lower and middle classes.

And yes I acknowledge investment income is taxed at a much lower rate. Dividends and capital gains are taxed at 15% in the higher brackets and at 5% for people in the 10-15% brackets. This is a better tax break for people in lower brackets but obviously richer people have more money to invest. This results in more investment income and more tax savings.

But this is for a reason. What those of you on the left get arrogant about is this is the Republican philosophy of economics. Dividend and capital gain tax breaks stimulate sale of stock. This A) helps the stock market which our economy hinges on and B)creates investment capital for business. This investment capital is than used for capital expansion of business. This is what creates jobs. Jobs create opportunies.

But I'm sure I'm going to hear the cliche sour grapes conspiracy theories now how all the executives steal all the money and big business is corrupt and all the pretty little graphs spinning

[HBox]

Wow, surprising, another cheap personal shot. Thats okay, I would hate to take you away from H&R Block

That was a joke. This isn't: If you'd lighten up every single thread you start or post in wouldn't end up like this one. Just about everyone else in this thread has been able to engage in a civil debate about something except YOU, and that's including the people you've been slinging mud with.

http://www.myimgs.com/random/hbox/sig

[JerryTaker]

That meant eliminating and closing loopholes. And that's something Kerry and the Democrats have not even mentioned they would look to correct.


holy crap! Do you want me to send you a VHS copy of either of the last 2 debates? Kerry mentioned that in the answers to nearly a third of the questions!

<br><B>
[The Patriot Act has decreed this sig indecent, and has put JerryTaker under suspicion]</B>

[Bestinshow]

That was a joke. This isn't: If you'd lighten up every single thread you start or post in wouldn't end up like this one. Just about everyone else in this thread has been able to engage in a civil debate about something except YOU, and that's including the people you've been slinging mud with.


Sorry, its hard to "lighten up" when the thread turns into personal name calling at my expense. And you expect me to take that as a joke? What timing. You must be the kind of person who goes up to someone in the middle of an argument and tells him his shoes are untied. Youve got some case telling me to lighten up.

And BTW, with the exception of silera who I dont usually argue with, most of my arguments are with the same handful of people. Funny how that is.



<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>
<marquee>I am not part of any percentage. I am the Bestinshow<marquee>
[center]Kiss a Doberman Today

[silera]

This is what creates jobs. Jobs create opportunies.


But, there's been a net job loss.

We're looking at the same numbers, quoting the same numbers. As I stated previously, the clear difference is what you value more. The amount contributed as a percentage of the amount collected, or the amount contributed as a percentage of the amount you earn.

I don't mind discussing politics with you. But you consistently ignore my statements and quotes and then proceed to assume things about what I think when I'm quite clear about it. It shows to me a complete lack of respect for my opinion, and a clear effort to conduct a discussion based on non issues.

"You people" "Liberal agenda" "If you weren't all so jealous" "Conspiracy theory" "Pretty spinning little graphs" "Stalking liberals" "Some Intern"
"I guess you didn't read"

You don't have to call someone stupid in order for them to figure out that's what you mean.


<center>http://hometown.aol.com/bonedaddy5/images/silerass.jpg
<font size="3" color="red">AND WHAT?</font></center><font color="FBF2F7">

This message was edited by silera on 10-21-04 @ 4:18 PM

[silera]

Your mama.

This message was edited by silera on 10-21-04 @ 4:19 PM

[Bestinshow]

you can rip upon my posts all you want. I never called you stupid, i was just trying to emphasize how some of your links backed my points, whether you see them or not. I never said you didnt read them. And the graph remark was not meant specifically for your postings. Ive seen many graphs and charts in this forum, some legit and many are spin. And if i do happen to think one of your sources is spinning, that is no personal reference to you.

The stalking liberal remark was directed at one specific poster. Had nothing to do with you or anyone else.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>
<marquee>I am not part of any percentage. I am the Bestinshow<marquee>
[center]Kiss a Doberman Today

[TheMojoPin]

most of my arguments are with the same handful of people. Funny how that is.

It's surprising when people who hold political opinions the complete opposite of yours always disagree with you?

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << I love my drug buddy... >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[silera]

The basic premise of this thread is that anyone that votes for Kerry is deluded.



You think paying more tax to the government to pay out social programs is going to create jobs.? have fun and vote for Kerry. But don't ram your shit down my throat.



I specifically said this More money doesn't necessarily fix everything, you are right and I agree strongly with the republican ideals of smaller government. However, this administration hasn't reduced government outlays in order to offset the tax cuts. Therefore, we're spending more and receiving less.

Why start a thread if you're not going to participate productively in it?

Instead of pretty much stating, that your opinion is SO right that you don't even have to defend it, maybe you can participate by providing reasons and sources as to your opinion.



<center>http://hometown.aol.com/bonedaddy5/images/silerass.jpg
<font size="3" color="red">AND WHAT?</font></center><font color="FBF2F7">

This message was edited by silera on 10-21-04 @ 4:48 PM

[Bestinshow]

I said argue, not disagree.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>
<marquee>I am not part of any percentage. I am the Bestinshow<marquee>
[center]Kiss a Doberman Today

[Freebird]

Jerry, John Kerry has been a senator for how many years, and now that he can become president and will have no direct say in amending the tax code, he's going to fix it?

I'd love it if it happens, but you've got better responses than records of some speeches he's making in order to get elected.

-----------------------------
Now I'm starving

I'm about to turn it up a notch!

[IrishAlkey]

I do not fuck 80 pound boys.

<center>http://artemis.gamedaemons.net/alkey.gif</center>

[Reephdweller]

No anymore you don't.

<center><IMG SRC="http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/randomizer/random.php?uid=3">
Reefy's website... (http://www.osirusonline.com/)</center>
<font size="1" color="red">
<center>Check out The Ron and Fez Show Logs...UPDATED!!!!! (http://www.osirusonline.com/ronfez.htm)</center>
<marquee behavior=alternate bgcolor="#FFFFFF">Right now you could care less about me...
but soon enough you will care, by the time I'm done</marquee> </font>

[IrishAlkey]

Stupid Megan's Law...

<center>http://artemis.gamedaemons.net/alkey.gif</center>

[TheMojoPin]

I said argue, not disagree.

And there's nothing that says people can't argue.

If it turns into a flame war, fine, but all I'm seeing here are big debate posts capped off with a few stupid insults. The personal shots are worthless, but they're not dominating the thread at all. Look at ALL of the threads in this forum. They're ugly, flat-out. That's why this forum was created...to keep these nasty ass threads off the rest of the board. And, quite honestly, this thread is actually one of the more civil ones.

Again, people, just let your points argue for you. Calling someone an "idiot" or a "dumbass" or railing about "liberal harassment" accomplishes dick. If you don't have enough confidence in your argument to post it without taking a shot at someone just for the hell of it, don't bother posting it in the first place.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << I love my drug buddy... >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[curtoid]

Wow, surprising, another cheap personal shot. Thats okay, I would hate to take you away from H&R Block

Come off the cross - we need the wood.



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v64/curtoid/22.jpg
"One of our normal friends." - RB

[jeffdwright2001]

we need the wood.


Are we talking about Alkey again?



<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=jeffdwright2001"><br>
"It is not best to use our morals weekdays, it gets them out of repair for Sunday." - Mark Twain 1898

Thanks to Reefy & M1 for my sigs!!

[Freebird]

All that talk about 80 lb boys, and Alkey's got enough wood

-----------------------------
Now I'm starving

I'm about to turn it up a notch!

[Bestinshow]

Come off the cross - we need the wood.


might as well pile on. Its the same fare.

You feel better now?

I mean after all that was so funny, calling me a lame ass accountant in a thread that im backing my argument with my accountanting knowledge. Where did I get so sensitive?

What do you do for a living? maybe we can laugh some more?
<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>
<marquee>I am not part of any percentage. I am the Bestinshow<marquee>
[center]Kiss a Doberman Today

This message was edited by Bestinshow on 10-21-04 @ 5:26 PM

[Bestinshow]

Instead of pretty much stating, that your opinion is SO right that you don't even have to defend it, maybe you can participate by providing reasons and sources as to your opinion.


Oh my god, after all of your screaming that I dont pay attention to your posts!!!!!!!!!!! Did you just pick out the pieces of my post that you wanted to address? I just wrote a freakin paper explaining the tax cut , using the federal tax code as a source. I explained how it creates jobs. My source? Economics and Finance in college? Is that good enough? Do we need footnotes now? How much defense do I need to be allowed to post my position on the board. How many reasons do you need?

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>
<marquee>I am not part of any percentage. I am the Bestinshow<marquee>
[center]Kiss a Doberman Today

[TheMojoPin]

Wow, surprising, another cheap personal shot. Thats okay, I would hate to take you away from H&R Block

Come off the cross - we need the wood.

Hey, nobody came to YOUR job and told you to stop putting babies on spikes.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << I love my drug buddy... >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[jeffdwright2001]

How many reasons do you need?


Uno mas. Uno mas.



<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=jeffdwright2001"><br>
"It is not best to use our morals weekdays, it gets them out of repair for Sunday." - Mark Twain 1898

Thanks to Reefy & M1 for my sigs!!

[Recyclerz]

Best in Show

Thanks for laying out your argument. I think for most of recent history, this standard conservative POV would be a perfectly reasonable way to want to order our society; I may disagree with some of its features but I respect it. Let me explain for myself (& I think for some of the others here) why I think it is wrong now.

At the same time the gov't. is returning "the people's money to the people", it is also borrowing like mad to pay for current spending on both the foreign (paying for Iraq) and domestic (politically expedient pork like ag subsidies and sales of natural resource rights at below market rates) fronts while continuing to write IOUs to itself for the future liabilities of SS and Medicare. Now short term Keynesian stimulus of the economy is the right thing to do to fight a recession and gov't. spending vs. tax cuts is a matter of taste, I'll grant you.

But you know that isn't what Bush is doing here: Through the tax cuts already passed and the proposals he's floated but haven't passed yet ("lifetime savings accounts" that are tax exempt; elimination of the estate tax; permanent lowering of the cap gains and dividends tax rates; "privatizing" SS) he's proposing a tax structure that goes easy on income derived from wealth while leaving the burden of paying off the debt and paying for all other government services on wage income taxes (payroll and income). I'm sure the fact that this new structure would benefit his biggest contributors (His base: the haves and the have mores) is NOT a coincidence. When you throw in the half-assed philosophical ramblings of that Grover Norquist guy (the poor should bear more of the tax burdens so they realize that their food stamps and free lunch cards for their kids aren't "really" free), I believe this administration is pulling off a radical change in the social contract that benefits the few way more than the many while distracting everybody with smoke and mirrors.

I believe "Bushonomics" is not much more than a high stakes Ponzi scheme to keep current consumption high (making it palatable to the masses through deficit spending and some small tax breaks) while continuing to write IOUs for liabilities that are being incurred but not paid for yet (SS & Medicare) as the tax breaks for capital are put in place. (We can debate separately as to whether capital deserves those breaks or not offline.) However, if all the Bush proposals were put into effect, it would prevent the gov't. from reaping windfalls in the good economic times (remember the `90's) to alleviate the pain of paying for government since cap gains and dividends are taxed at a permanently lower rate. (Notice how NYC always does well when Wall Street does - cuz those investment bankers are kicking more into the social kitty thru taxes on restricted stock sales, et al.) Now since you have to pay for defense and interest on the debt and you're doing it from a smaller tax base it becomes more difficult to get people to agree on what government should be doing beside that. The old people will be demanding their SS checks. The young people will be saying they're already paying too much in taxes and getting nothing for them. Both will be right. And government will be necessarily smaller.

Now I'm sure Bush & Co. really believe this is a good thing (smaller gov't. = more "freedom"). But they don't believe they can sell it to a majority of the voters since they're hiding it behind a smoke screen and they sure don't appear to have the balls to come right out and say it (except for Norquist).

And that, class, is my long-winded reason as to why I hate this administration enough to put both money and time into backing a flawed horse like Kerry.

Sorry for using all the bandwidth.


<IMG SRC="http://www.hometown.aol.com/recyclerz/myhomepage/sigpic1.gif?mtbrand=AOL_US">
[b]There ain't no asylum here.
King Solomon he never lived 'round here.[b]

[JerryTaker]

Jerry, John Kerry has been a senator for how many years, and now that he can become president and will have no direct say in amending the tax code, he's going to fix it?

I'd love it if it happens, but you've got better responses than records of some speeches he's making in order to get elected.


OK... here's why this discourse makes my head explode.....

Here's what I responded to:


Oddly enough, part of Bush's convention speech was to fix and simplify the tax code. That meant eliminating and closing loopholes. And that's something Kerry and the Democrats have not even mentioned they would look to correct. At best though, Bush is well-intentioned.


you started your argument by pointing to Bush's convention speech, which is a speech a candadate uses to get elected, incumbant or not.

Then you say Kerry and the Democrats have not even mentioned closing the tax loopholes.

I responded by pointing out that I can show you video of the debates where Kerry talks about closing the tax loopholes extensively.

Then you say that a) the president has no say, and b) don't trust speeches candidates use to get elected, even though your initial argument uses b) the president's speech to try to get elected.... a) where he speaks about closing the tax loopholes.... which by your argument he can't do anyway.... and use that to justify voting for Bush?

Does that really make any sense? I don't mean to go off, but this is just why these discussions drive me nuts...

And Kerry DID vote agains tax loopholes, Bush includes it in his 395... oops I mean 89 times Kerry voted for "higher taxes"

<br><B>
[The Patriot Act has decreed this sig indecent, and has put JerryTaker under suspicion]</B>

[IrishAlkey]

My monitor is covered in yellow highlighter.

I ain't failing this exam tomorrow!

<center>http://artemis.gamedaemons.net/alkey.gif</center>

[TheMojoPin]

Oral exam?

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << I love my drug buddy... >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[silera]

Oh my god, after all of your screaming that I dont pay attention to your posts!!!!!!!!!!! Did you just pick out the pieces of my post that you wanted to address? I just wrote a freakin paper explaining the tax cut , using the federal tax code as a source. I explained how it creates jobs. My source? Economics and Finance in college? Is that good enough? Do we need footnotes now? How much defense do I need to be allowed to post my position on the board. How many reasons do you need?

Yet again, there has been a net loss of jobs under the Bush administration.

So, if the cuts are good because they create job growth, where is the growth? In the deficit and national debt?


<center>http://hometown.aol.com/bonedaddy5/images/silerass.jpg
<font size="3" color="red">AND WHAT?</font></center><font color="FBF2F7">

[Bestinshow]

So, if the cuts are good because they create job growth, where is the growth? In the deficit and national debt?


According to Kerry there are a reduction in jobs. I have read articles and seen data giving all kinds of numbers some saying both sides of the argument. And when Kerry gave the unemployment numbers at the debates, he conveniently left out the last reportable quarter. I don't remember the number but when he was corrected he didnt dispute it.

My post backs up how tax cuts create jobs. Obviously, there are other factors that effect the job market. It takes time for these things to bare fruit and it is just now starting to show results. I wish I had the numbers handy but I don't and i dont have time to research them but they were mentioned at the debate. I already wasted enough time on this bullshit today and if i don't get something done at work, I will be one of those numbers.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>
<marquee>I am not part of any percentage. I am the Bestinshow<marquee>
[center]Kiss a Doberman Today

This message was edited by Bestinshow on 10-21-04 @ 6:10 PM

[Freebird]

Jerry, you're correct and you're wrong. If you had not reacted so strongly and simply read what I said, you wouldn't have had to worry about your head exploding. I said that, at best, Bush was well-intentioned. I don't think I have to point out that means that he might like to have it done. No where do I say he's the better candidate because he will fix the tax code, nor do I say he can. However, you could reasonably infer that if I am correct (which you seem to agree) that as president Kerry doesn't write or correct tax code, then I must know that Bush can't do the exact same thing.

And before your head explodes further, yes, if they've gone on record and campaigned for fixing the tax code, you're absolutely right and that's nice. However, as a casual listener, I don't hear it. But a tirade does not inform my vote any more than a campaign promise.

And just to add to my post, at no point did I say I'm voting for Bush or Kerry, Mr. Taker. But you decided that I did. That presumption makes my head explode.


-----------------------------
Now I'm starving

I'm about to turn it up a notch!

This message was edited by Freebird on 10-21-04 @ 6:13 PM

[HBox]

Kerry keeps saying that the economy has lost 1.5 million jobs in Bush's term, which is more wrong than right. It's right because that's how many private sector jobs have been lost, but Kerry never mentions that so it's highly misleading. When taking into account the number of government jobs created we've lost something like 500,000-600,000. These are payroll statistics from the Labor Department.

The Bush Administration often mentions the household survey as another indicator of jobs, but it's very volatile. It supposedly is a better inidicator of small business hiring, but its is rarely used in any economic articles I read. All I know is that it has often gone in the opposite direction of the payroll numbers. In fact, I believe the household survey was down something like 800,000 last month when the payroll numbers were up around 90,000.

http://www.myimgs.com/random/hbox/sig

[HBox]

My post backs up how tax cuts create jobs.

Yes, in the context of your post that makes sense but it just isn't happening right now in the real world. The economy needs to create at least 150,000 jobs just to keep up with the growing workforce, and it hasn't done even that in the last few months, let alone getting anywhere near the projections the administration made. Just because Kerry wants to bring upper-income tax levels to 2000 levels doesn't mean he hates business or rich people. They did fine in the nineties at those tax levels.

Look, the income gap is growing. Look at gas prices. Health care costs. Everything costs more and middle-class incomes are not keeping up with inflation. And yet, the deficit grows. We will be pouring money into Iraq for the forseeable future. How are we going to pay for this? Are we really communists for going to rich people first under these circumstances?

Because Bush has no plans to raise taxes. If you are going to judge by the past four years, he's going to spend more. If you judge by his campaign promises, he's going to spend more. He's proposed privatiing Social Security. Any kind of Social Security Privitization plan would be enourmously expensive. And he's said he won't raise taxes. In fact, he proposed MORE tax cuts.

Kerry at least says he's going to attempt to pay for his plans. He at least says he will be willing to change his plans as needed. He says he will adopt a pay as you go plan for any new spending. You don't have to believe him, but look at the alternative.

http://www.myimgs.com/random/hbox/sig

[Bestinshow]

I understand what you are saying, and I agree the Republicans have been irresponsible with overspending (Which is one area that needs to be addressed) but I really don't feel Kerry will be any better in that department. As far as the unemployment situation, there are so many other factors out there also and as long as we have such uncertainty out there, there is no way we are going to have an ideal situation where we can compare apples to apples.

I guess I look at it this way, the only way you are going to create jobs is by giving penecilin to that which creates jobs, businesses. So we need artificial stimulation in the way of lower taxes and investment capital to keep them going while the climate out there is so negative.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>
<marquee>I am not part of any percentage. I am the Bestinshow<marquee>
[center]Kiss a Doberman Today

[HBox]

Well, I guess we'll just disagree. I just think we need to prioritize, and tax cuts are down the list. Homeland Security, Iraq, Afghanistan, the deficit are all bigger priorities right now, and the current tax cuts haven't done enough, IMO, to justify the deficit. I have no confidence more tax cuts will help, and I don't see how the 2000 level tax rates are a hinderance to job creation.

I know there's a theory out there, I can't remember the name, where it says you can tax increase revenue by lowering taxes, but that certianly isn't happening now and I've haven't seen any evidence of it ever working.

http://www.myimgs.com/random/hbox/sig

[Recyclerz]

The New Republic: Kerry for President (http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041101&amp;amp;s=editorial110104)

These guys said what I was tryin to say earlier in the thread but they use their tongues prettier than a $2 whore.

<IMG SRC="http://www.hometown.aol.com/recyclerz/myhomepage/sigpic1.gif?mtbrand=AOL_US">
[b]There ain't no asylum here.
King Solomon he never lived 'round here.[b]