No More Pres. Bush: 2004 Election & His Tax Cut

[Turtle]

In the 2004 election I hope Pres.Bush does not win. His tax-cut would only benefit the weathly. He is not for all americans ie. his support of senator santorium. When it comes to his campaign Bush will use the murder of people on 9-11 for his own good.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Turtle
In the 2004 election I hope Pres.Bush does not win. His tax-cut would only benefit the weathly. He is not for all americans ie. his support of senator santorium. When it comes to his campaign Bush will use the murder of people on 9-11 for his own good.

The war on terror and the war in Iraq will certainly work to Bush's favor. And with the economy improving, I don't think there is any possible way that Bush could lose. Democrats simply do not have a single compelling issue on their side.

I am starting to think the Democratic party is going to fold after the next election - or at least split up. As its failures continue to mount (losing an off-year election in a pseudo-recession is unheard of), people are going to start jumping ship in droves.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
The war on terror and the war in Iraq will certainly work to Bush's favor. And with the economy improving, I don't think there is any possible way that Bush could lose. Democrats simply do not have a single compelling issue on their side.

I am starting to think the Democratic party is going to fold after the next election - or at least split up. As its failures continue to mount (losing an off-year election in a pseudo-recession is unheard of), people are going to start jumping ship in droves.

You say that as though it would be a good thing...

 

[Dissident Dan]

I think that it's a little premature to call the death of the Democratic Party.

Democrats have many compelling issues on their side--the environment, energy independence, lack of tax cuts for the super-rich, tolerance...

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
You say that as though it would be a good thing...

We need to have two viable parties (at least). It would be nice to have a choice of two GOOD parties instead of one half decent one and one utter failure. Its bad if we end up with only one party, but good if the democratic party remakes itself into something viable.

Democrats have many compelling issues on their side--the environment, energy independence, lack of tax cuts for the super-rich, tolerance...

All of those issues get people out protesting, but they don't get people VOTING (and those issues aren't what you make them sound like). People vote based on national security and the economy (at least in the current political climate).

 

[damgo]

The parties will balance out, like they always have... I think we've already seen the start of it, with 'moderate' New Democrats gaining strength and moderate Republicans switching allegiences. Unfortunately, I can imagine several bad things coming out of this -- if the Democrats become more of a centrist party, the Republicans will naturally move more to the right, which would exacerbate the party split between libertarians and social conservatives. It will also further isolate the rather vocal far left. Hmmm.

In fact, if the Dems became economically and security-wise more centrist while the Republicans shift towards their very conservative base, I could see a lot of libertarian Repubs switching over; and the social conservatives can't IMO get enough support by themselves.

Perhaps we will see another major shift in the defining issues of the parties... any thoughts?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
We need to have two viable parties (at least). It would be nice to have a choice of two GOOD parties instead of one half decent one and one utter failure. Its bad if we end up with only one party, but good if the democratic party remakes itself into something viable.

All of those issues get people out protesting, but they don't get people VOTING (and those issues aren't what you make them sound like). People vote based on national security and the economy (at least in the current political climate).

Well, I wouldn't call the Republican party a failure...not completely, anyways.

 

[FZ+]

LOL... I want to see an end to the two party system in the US. It is a hinderance to the democratic representation of the will of the electorate, IMHO.

 

[LURCH]

Originally posted by FZ+
LOL... I want to see an end to the two party system in the US. It is a hinderance to the democratic representation of the will of the electorate, IMHO.

With what would you replace it?

 

[FZ+]

I don't really know. Proportional representation perhaps. Incentives for smaller parties maybe? Laws to break up the two big parties into smaller ones?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by FZ+
I don't really know. Proportional representation perhaps. Incentives for smaller parties maybe? Laws to break up the two big parties into smaller ones?

Well, it would be nice...but neither party would ever agree to something that would weaken them.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by damgo
In fact, if the Dems became economically and security-wise more centrist while the Republicans shift towards their very conservative base, I could see a lot of libertarian Repubs switching over; and the social conservatives can't IMO get enough support by themselves.

Perhaps we will see another major shift in the defining issues of the parties... any thoughts?

I tend to see the democratic party shifting the other way. Thats why they have been such a failure in the past couple of years. The democratic party seems to me to succeed only when there is plenty of money to spend and nothing important to do.

Well, I wouldn't call the Republican party a failure...not completely, anyways.

Ignored.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

He might not win, (and for the sake of democracy I hope he does not) but he has a chance. If the president is to be appointed by the supreme court from now on, he will of course win. However, there are many people out there who can do the math on the tax cut and are also out of work. The tax cut is totally insane, cutting rates starting at the top - 38% --> 15% for thousands of the richest americans.
Meanwhile, good paying jobs with health care benefits are going bye-bye because states can't fund them. $20E9 to the states and $500E9 to the richest. This stagnates the economy, because so much of it is capitalized (i.e. no longer going to hire people).

It's a critical time for the US, perhaps we're defaulting to Fuedalist 'Monarcy?'

 

[Sting]

It's a critical time for the US, perhaps we're defaulting to Fuedalist 'Monarcy?'

I would like to quote a bumper sticker: "Democracy was getting old anyway"

Seriously, as for the monarchy, it somewhat feels like it. Do you think the Bush administration will declare an emergency state one of these days?

 

[LogicalAtheist]

I am going to be honest. I am an American. I would sooner vote for Saddam than vote for president Bush.

While Saddam may cause suffering to humans, Bush absolutely causes suffering to humanity. To me, humanity is far more important than the lives of even millions of humans.

But remember, humanity exists for me, within my life only. Thus, in a time of "peace with myself" meaning I'm not in danger, nor are people I am EMOTIONALLY (yes I do have emotions) attached to. WHile, if this was in danger, the humans I am close to take presidence.

My point is, humanity will have to take a lot longer to recover from the haults Bush has put on us than we will to have to deal with Saddams.

FIGHT THE REAL ENEMY

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
I am going to be honest. I am an American. I would sooner vote for Saddam than vote for president Bush.

While Saddam may cause suffering to humans, Bush absolutely causes suffering to humanity. To me, humanity is far more important than the lives of even millions of humans.

But remember, humanity exists for me, within my life only. Thus, in a time of "peace with myself" meaning I'm not in danger, nor are people I am EMOTIONALLY (yes I do have emotions) attached to. WHile, if this was in danger, the humans I am close to take presidence.

My point is, humanity will have to take a lot longer to recover from the haults Bush has put on us than we will to have to deal with Saddams.

FIGHT THE REAL ENEMY

By this, I assume you mean that Saddam Hussein, as bad as he was, had only a limited sphere of influence. Bush, on the other hand, while not in the same league as Hussein, can do much more lasting damage, since he has more power?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Bush absolutely causes suffering to humanity. To me, humanity is far more important than the lives of even millions of humans.

I was going to let this one go, but naa - what suffereing exactly is he causing or has he caused to humanity?

 

[damgo]

I can't go half an hour now without hearing egregious use of the word 'regime.' That's suffering enough to equate him with genocide-of-the-Kurds Saddam!

 

[Ganshauk]

"Oh! To hear the sanctified words of partisan politics!
To hear the unadulterated truths of selfinterested politicians!
To revel in the undeniability of intergovernmental propaganda!
I was there. I heard it with mine own ears!
Therefore it must be truth.

Forsooth facts and figures, forsooth accounting tricks.
Give me bombs and blasts and air force missions
Give me class warfare with aims towards my parties' agenda
Forget yesterday, or even last week, belie those Orwellian Seers
Ack, I bite upon that silver dollar, and come away with a broken tooth!"

Hmm, how does an across the board tax cut only help the rich?

IT IS YOUR MONEY!

Wake up peoples. Next paycheck, please do me a favor :

In a little box, somewhere down at the bottom of the stub, there is a space entitled FWIT or somesuch. It denotes Federal Withholding of Income Tax.
This is the amount of Income tax you are paying (raw) per pay check. Multiply this by 24 (assuming you are paid bi-monthly). Subtract from this amount how much you received back (it should have arrived quite recently) and divide the total by your total yearly income. Multiply by 100 and boom! This is the gross amount of taxes you have paid in the past year as a percentage of total income. Now factor in state income tax, property tax, school tax, sales tax and any other local taxes you are liable for and you will see :

The average American pays about 40% of his/her income tax!

WTF?!

Knowing this, I dare you to trash any tax cut, however small. Ok, the Bush plan says a 10% tax cut across the board (or some such). Yes, the rich gains most, assuredly. 10% of 1 million is 100,000 while 10% of 20,000 is only 2000.

The fact is, everyone gains. Period. The democrats try to make it out that the poor are getting reamed, which is untrue. They gain as much as the rich, evenly, in a wholly democratic manner. It may be a matter of scale, assuredly, but we all still win.

We, as a nation, prosper individualy, in the manner becoming a Republic. The average family (+- 35k a yr) will be up 1500 a year. So what, exactly, is wrong with that?

 

[Zero]

The Bush tax cut is specifically staggered to most benefit the rich, percentage wise. Of course, he's been lying about his numbers since the first debate with Gore, but that's no big deal, huh? A better deal would be to cut nonsense missle defense programs, and the like.

 

[Ganshauk]

Ahh, I see now.

Lets really shake down the big employers so that they will start laying off even more people.

Lets deny everyone their 1-3 k a year tax break (BTW, that's more than most people earn a year, globally)

Lets get rid of all advanced defense programs, especially since they are finally showing fruit, have greater significance (yes, west coast strike means you california), and astounding possibilities. Remember, the expensive technology of the sixties makes that high speed internet connection you have possible today! Should I even mention aerospace, satellite tech and that cell phone you got yesterday?

Should I mention your crispy relatives that lived in LA back in '05? Oh, wait, that hasnt happened...yet.

 

[damgo]

Originally posted by Ganshauk
IT IS YOUR MONEY!

Try telling that to the IRS. Or the courts.

We get all sorts of things in return for taxes... security, police, a small stipend when we retire or are unemployed, basic research that boosts productivity and wealth in the long run, stable institutions, education, roads, economic help through faciliation of international trade. What's the big fuss?

And actually, to call this a "tax cut" is erroneous. Spending is increasing, so it's really a "deficit increase" not a tax cut -- we're going to have to pay every penny back later, with interest. It's like paying with a credit card instead of a check -- in the long run we will pay more in taxes than we would without this plan because of interest.

And guess who's most likely going to pay it in the end? The rich whose taxes are being cut now, or the middle class?

 

[schwarzchildradius]

WTF?!

like you said, the average american pays %40 of their income taxes. How's a tax break on stock dividends going to effect this hypothetical person in the slightest? Instead of earning $75 on dividends you will cash in on the big triple diget givaway. If you want to help the average american, give them a tax break, after all the country can afford it, not this infrastructure wrecking heavily propagandized mess for future generations to clean up.
too late.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by damgo
And guess who's most likely going to pay it in the end? The rich whose taxes are being cut now, or the middle class?

Since the rich already pay the vast majority of all taxes, they are of course the ones who are going to "pay it in the end." No one else has the money to pay for liberal largesse. And since the rich are the ones who need the LEAST from the government, their tax burden is actually even higher than the typically quoted numbers. Most people don't subtract the handouts from the taxes to get the real net payment. We can't do that because that would turn the bottom 75% or so of the population into freeloaders.

Also, I know we've been over this already, but since the rich pay the vast majority of all taxes, the vast majority of all tax cuts go to the rich. This should be self evident.

 

[Zero]

What is with this insane hatred of taxes? It sounds pretty unresonable to me.

 

[damgo]

russ, did you happen to read this editorial by Warren Buffet a couple days ago? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13113-2003May19.html

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.

...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 pursuits as fighting terrorism, waging wars and supporting the elderly. Let me repeat the point: Her overall federal tax rate would be 10 times what my rate would be.

...

When you listen to tax-cut rhetoric, remember that giving one class of taxpayer a "break" requires -- now or down the line -- that an equivalent burden be imposed on other parties. In other words, if I get a break, someone else pays. Government can't deliver a free lunch to the country as a whole. It can, however, determine who pays for lunch. And last week the Senate handed the bill to the wrong party.

Supporters of making dividends tax-free like to paint critics as promoters of class warfare. The fact is, however, that their proposal promotes class welfare. For my class.

 

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Zero
What is with this insane hatred of taxes? It sounds pretty unresonable to me.

I wonder the same thing, nobody likes taxes, but would we have security and protection without them?

I don't know about taxing your paycheck so much, we don't work for the government, and I don't know about paying the government for my work. It seems odd that the government taxes you for making money, but I agree wholeheartedly with property tax, sales tax, import tax and such. I would even say up the tax on the above mentioned and lower income taxes etc.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Since the rich already pay the vast majority of all taxes, they are of course the ones who are going to "pay it in the end." No one else has the money to pay for liberal largesse. And since the rich are the ones who need the LEAST from the government, their tax burden is actually even higher than the typically quoted numbers.

I think that most rich people use public roads a good deal, whether driving or being chauffered. I think that a lot of rich people benefit a great deal from FAA (Federal Aviation Administration or something like that) guidelines and enforcement. A lot of rich people benefit a lot from copyright, trademark, and patent laws.

Most people don't subtract the handouts from the taxes to get the real net payment. We can't do that because that would turn the bottom 75% or so of the population into freeloaders.

Handouts like welfare, or public services? Most people don't get welfare, and most people, including the rich, use public services.

Also, I know we've been over this already, but since the rich pay the vast majority of all taxes, the vast majority of all tax cuts go to the rich. This should be self evident.

So, because they're richer, they should get more tax cuts? How is it that you should pay less percent in taxes as you make more money?

 

[schwarzchildradius]

I love that Buffet quote.

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.

Even HE doesn't see that as fair! Why? It's not fair. Nor will it do the things that politicians say. Rather it will do things that economists say.

Also, I know we've been over this already, but since the rich pay the vast majority of all taxes, the vast majority of all tax cuts go to the rich. This should be self evident.

That's exactly why its unfair. If you make over $300,000 per year, congratulations, Bush is your man. Otherwise, you must be a welfare sucking leech. It's no crime to be rich, but y'know, its a privilage to live in this country and benefit from the protection and freedom here.

 

[Dissident Dan]

I should have also pointed out all the rich businessmen who get governmental subsidies...big agriculture people and such.