what do you thicnk of bush

[zen_master]

You guys probably know what us Brits think of your President, but i was wondering what do the Americans think of there leader.

[ratm1966]

I think he is a very good President. He is turning our economy around as he promised, and I believe the job market will soon follow. Yeah, it took longer than it should have, with the economy, but when it tanks right after 9-11, it is only expected to take a while to recover what it lost.

[zen_master]

I never knew that in Britan we only ever hear about the wars and rumors of stupid things he may or may not of done. Anyway we hate ou own leader because he does nothing so i will take what you said and tell people to cut Bush some slack.

[RobinHoodDaffy]

It seems like our President has very polarized feelings about him. Those who love him love him to the core. Those who don't like him don't like anything about him, from his politics to the color of his tie. It seems to me to run pretty much down the center of population.

[Dr3vil]

About the same it seems you brits think of your own Tony Blair, except without any of the admiration (for half of us at least). Blair may have his head stuck up Uncle Sam's ass, but he gets cussed out by the U.K.'s government on a daily basis and holds his on, I gotta admire that no matter how wrong he may be.

As for Bush more specifically, his current economic plan for the next four years is ludicrous on its face, causing even former sycophant Alan Greenspan to cease endorsement. Half the country would agree, not knowing what their talking about and the other half would deny it, still not having the slightest concept of the siplest economic priciple: scarcity (if you pay with printed money and glut the market via liberal funding of the military and conservative tax policy, it'll only be worth the paper its printed on, litterally).

My only hope is that the pitch of stupidity among voters will make the critera simpler: is it better than four years ago or suckier? If not, well, I hear Australia is nice these days.

[marksiwel]

What we think of our President...Well I'm from the state he ran for awhile (Texas) and the state he is "native" to.

Lets see, I would rather have a republican than a hard core left wing crazy like Kerry or Nader. I like to keep the money I make, and spend it without being punished with stupid taxes, so that why I vote Republican rather than Dem.

I dont like Bush per say though, I liked McKane Better. Better plans, more of a level headed kind of dude. Bush flys off the handle a bit, and I think he has too many ties to big companys (but then agian who in poltics doesnt?)

Also I dont like how Bush passed off the reason for going to War.And it didnt have much to do with Terrorists
but It wasnt Oil *or atleast not all about Oil :-)* Iraq was in a bad way and was unstable, if it got anyworse it would be a MAJOR harboring spot for Terror groups. hell if Bush popped up one day and said "Bitches, we going to War with Iraq, conference over PEACE OUT" I would have been more than happy.

But Bush is okay...for a poltician. Hes not Hitler, but he aint Mr. Rogers either. He beats Kerry by alot. Kerry is just an evil fuck, he says one thing and then does another. he would screw up any work done in the last 10 years in anything he touches. ALso he claims it was "Nixons War", and wants to be like JFK, but then agian JFK started Vietnam.!!!

Also Blair is okay, but then agian UK poltics are [censored] up (Look at Ireland!)

[Dr3vil]

Clarifications:
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
I would rather have a republican than a hard core left wing crazy like Kerry or Nader. I like to keep the money I make, and spend it without being punished with stupid taxes.

[/ QUOTE ] Actually, Kerry's plan is cutting taxes on middle and lower class families, the tax hikes are aimed at the 100k a year club, despite what the "Republican attack machine" would have you believe. If you fall in there, good job, but its an often confused statistic.</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Iraq was in a bad way and was unstable, if it got anyworse it would be a MAJOR harboring spot for Terror groups.

[/ QUOTE ]It did, and it is.

[marksiwel]

why punish the 100k+? They are more likely to spend money, which in turn trickles down to even the lowest eco bracket. Also a flat tax would be a better system. It would tax everyone based on how much they made a year. 10% no if and or buts. ALso you could still have welfare programs. So if you are making less than 10k a year, you still get taxed, but you would get that back (and more) from the goverment.

Also with a flat tax, you wouldnt have to worry about people dodging the taxes, with crazy loopholes.

[Razorback]

A majority of Americans support Bush. Brits are retarded and do not support their brilliant leader. This is why America is #1 and the UK #7.

[Asteban]

<font color="green"> I know having a leader is important to our country(and any country for that matter). Sorry, to state the obvious. But I hate politics, but of course without politics we really have no leaders. I just don't want to hear about it dammit.

So really, I don't have much of an opinion about Bush. Although, I would vote Rep. over Dem. though I can't vote yet. Heh. </font color>

[Razorback]

Grow up fast and save the country from Democrats.

[Matt1]

I like his personality quite a bit. I'm not of the club who think that the President of the United States has to be some kind of mental giant. Truman was no Einstein and he's one of my favorite President's. I think George Bush is the kind of guy I could go get a burger and have a good time with, provided we didn't discuss politics or religion. Which are things I usually don't discuss with my friends anyway.

As far as policy goes... I find myself admiring his idealism, yet seriously doubting the feasibility of it.

I guess the real determination of whether you like him or not is whether you will vote for him. As of this moment I remain undecided.

[Omaru]

RB, I don't support blair reasons that not political based, I back his actions in sending troops out to the middle east because I still feel the threat has yet to be taken care of. But what I don't aree with, pardon my slur, is how lenient he's allowed the country to become towards asylum seekers, every day more and more enter the country, and then they have 3 years to either become a UK citizen or go back, only theres far too many cases where maybe eight or more months down the line people are still here despite their asylum refusals, there are just too many here than can be monitored since some are entering illegally. So he represents us good in a military way, but he pretty much has an almost 10 year history of economy decline behind him.

[KingBison]

As i read all these posts I sit and reflect on the fact that we can all sit at our homes and jobs on our personal computers and post messages on a public website, critizing our leader. Wether its a whole hearted hate message, or just a friendly jab at our leader. This is all possible because of Democracy, Democracy and Nuclear Freaking Weapons, cause no matter how you spin it, we got the bombs and they dont. Hell Im sure we have smaller bombs just to take out the bombs that might have snuck by us. And we do it and our citizen live in nice homes with MTV and HBO. All this while the rest of the world completly destroys there morales and there economies trying to get one, maybe two. So Drink your beer, Eat you whopper, Drive you 12-liter 10 passenger SUV, and Salute the flag, because america just plain KICKS ASS.

Thank you.

http://logo.cafepress.com/3/74.32783.gif

[bwdial]

He's doing a fair job. The economy is picking up. Indicators are looking good. Of course, it's really a holdover from the Clinton administration, but let's not let economic fact get in the way. I supported going after Iraq, however, I wish the administration had used the "human rights" excuse. I don't doubt he had nasty weapons, but after playing three finger fuck around with the UN, they're probably all in Syria now.
I don't blame Bush for wanting a piece of Saddam's arse. If someone put out a hit on my dad, I'd go after him too.
Kerry scares me, because he is such a snake. He'll say anything to anyone to get a vote. At least Bush packs a side and stays there. Hell, Salon did an article on Kerry's waffling. Salon isn't exactly a Bush friendly publication.

[Threadkiller]

I support Bush, but I'm not going to vote for him.

[Droogan_Leader]

Good gosh, I've missed King Bison's posts... that's one of the funniest things I've read in a while.

I personally know too much about politics and politicians, and trust all of them as far as I can throw them. As a result, my thoughts on the matter are just determining who is the lesser of evils. And I think at least Bush has good intentions. Kerry to me represents all that is wicked--he is a product of PAC's and special interest groups--how can anybody even pretend he has the common man's interests at heart? On the other hand, Bush comes across as clumsy (to some in an appealing "he's-an-average-guy" kind of way), but I think the leader of the free world should have a little more polish. Still, he's worlds better than the devil's right hand man, the offspring of the Democratic party, in my book.

So, I'll cast my vote for Bush.

[DarthMaulRat]

I never liked Bush, but I'm not too excited about Kerry either. I'd vote for a third party if it had a chance, but we all know that isn't going to happen anytime soon.

[Threadkiller]

Of course you have a chance to vote for a third party. What little value your vote has is not 'wasted' when you vote for a third party in a presidential election. Consider this:

1. Your vote won't determine who is president anyway, the electoral votes do that.

2. Like him or not (and I don't), the issues Ralph Nader campaigned on four years ago will get a lot more attention from the democrats this time around so that it doesn't cost them another election. So if the goal of those voting for Nader was to have those issues be taken more seriously, they definitely succeeded.

So if you see a third party candidate that you really think would make a better president, vote for that person. They're still going to lose but the stuff they stand for might get taken more seriously by other politicians. Even your local politicians will take note if enough people in your area vote that way.

[DarthMaulRat]

That's true. I forget, but if any party gets a certain percentage of votes, don't they then get government funding?

Actually, I was a supporter of Dean for awhile, especially his education support, which is important if you live in PA, where Gov. Rendell just seems to enjoy taking large, healthy dumps on teachers, taking away their tax breaks, funding etc. It's stupid how one little yelp during a rally can destroy everything a person has worked towards.

[Threadkiller]

True, to get public funding grants your party's candidate needs to have received at least 5% of the vote in the last election. So only Bush and Kerry are getting those grants this year ($74 mil each I think). That's money well spent. They obviously both really need that cash. /forums/images/icons/tongue.gif

[Razorback]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
1. Your vote won't determine who is president anyway, the electoral votes do that.

[/ QUOTE ]

And in Florida the electoral votes were seperated by a few thousand citizen votes. Your vote does count, more than anyone ever imagined.

[Dr3vil]

In swing states, certainly, but most states have a long history of voting down one side or another for president and a small coup of dissenters isn't going to do anything.

That doesn't mean I won't vote, I just won't pretend as if it matters.

EDIT: </font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
a flat tax would be a better system. It would tax everyone based on how much they made a year.

[/ QUOTE ]A flat tax would be an absolute godsend. It'd also put the IRS out of business, which is why it'll never happen until unemployment improoves. Even then it'll have to wade through more lobbyist bullshit than anything before.

EDIT2: Also, it's a little late, but had to respond to this:</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
why punish the 100k+?

[/ QUOTE ]First off, you're right, its not fair. This is one of the reasons I wish Dean was nominated, he didn't make that distinction. His plan was to tax people fairly, in relation to their disposable income (true this still taxes the rich more, but tax beyond disposable income and you're litterally taxing people to death). To answer, Kerry does it because it makes him an easier sell to most of the electorate.

Of course, the question arises, the economy's on an upswing, why do we even need higher taxes? Generally speaking, we don't. Spending usually works one of two ways:

Democratic: high taxes, high spending on public services
Republican: low taxes, low spending on public services

Now, before we consider political corruption of funds on the democrat side and the degradation of schools/roads/prisons on the republican, both ways are entirely coherent. Problem is Bush is doing neither of these, he's spending on army, but not funding it with taxes, which incurs national debt.

The nation debt isn't a fairly tale, its the difference between what our money should be worth and what it is worth. Money's just paper, it only has value because the government controls how much of it is out there. The government can just print more to pay its bills, but it weakens the value of every dollar out there when it spends more than it really has, which is a very bad thing in a competative international market and translates to major inflation here at home. The effect isn't so noticeable in the short term, and if Bush planned to build the dollar back up after the cuts, it'd be fine, but he doesn't. We're enjoying the short term effects of this policy right now, but as years go by that's going to fade out while inflation continues to rise. You can't have a strong nation with a weak currency, its never been true and it never will be, but if anything can get people to believe it, regardless, its this administration.

[Asteban]

<font color="green"> Holy crap. Droogan. It seems you've been gone a long time. Am I just halucinating? Either way, welcome back buddy. </font color>

[bwdial]

I'll go you one better than a flat tax, with the national sales tax. 23% across the board on new consumer goods, and eliminate all income taxes.
This plan is actually gaining real traction in Congress.
www.fairtax.org (http://www.fairtax.org)

[KingBison]

Listen, im not an economist and I dont pretend like I know tons about politics. This tax seems like it would cause our economy to crash. Since our economy is largly consumer based, if we start giving higher taxes for people who are bigger consumers(currently high level consumers are the reason we arent in a depression)they will slowly become small consumers. Once everyone is buying minimal amounts of goods, prices will go down, and when a rapid price drop happens, it causes all kinds of trouble in the economy. If im completely wrong I apologize now.

[ratm1966]

Yeah, I don't see this happening. I would rather have a flat rate income tax across the board than a sales tax of almost 25%. That will jack the prices of everything up so much, that people won't buy as much as they are now. They will be scared off, especially with the higher priced items like a car or house. If this applied to, lets say a $100,000 house, you just raised the price of the house to $123,000 and you haven't even figured in the interest you will be paying over the next 30 years. No, I believe our economy would go down the shitter with a Federal Sales Tax like this.

[Droogan_Leader]

Thanks for the welcome back greetings, Asteban. It's been a while! /forums/images/icons/grin.gif

[Threadkiller]

Well, I was going to wait to welcome you back 'til you had been around for more than a day or two. I just can't handle not knowing when are you coming back. Where have you been? Your own children barely even recognize you anymore, Droogan. Are you seeing someone else? Is that it? /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[Droogan_Leader]

Aww man, I feel bad now. /forums/images/icons/frown.gif I do. TK, I've missed you and all the Shooters. But really, who could ever make me feel the way you guys do?

[Matthew]

Heidi Fleiss ?

[ratm1966]

Heidi Fleiss.....I laughed my ass off when I read that.

[bwdial]

Harvard economists estimate that consumer prices would drop by 20-21%. Given the current consumption of our great nation, I don't think it would be that devestating. People that buy new Lexus SUV's every couple of years are still going to do so. Would you stop buying DVDs, CDs and the like, especially if you had your entire paycheck in your pocket, rather than the percentage your imperial federal government allows? /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

[ratm1966]

Ah, so we will lower the prices by 20%, then throw on a 23% tax, which will basically nullify the drop in prices. Kind of like when a store has a sale; they raise the prices 15% and then have a 10% off sale.

[KingBison]

Someone once told me that Income tax was an emergency war act impossed during WWII to help pay for it. IT was supposed to be dissolved right after the war was finished but they kept it saying that the overwhelming cost of the war was too great to stop the tax right away. If this is true, IM PISSED.

[Matthew]

Yes that is true.

EDIT: I am sorry I did not read your post close enough. The Income Tax was supposed to be a temporary relief from the Civil War

"
In 1862, in order to support the Civil War effort, Congress enacted the nation's first income tax law. It was a forerunner of our modern income tax in that it was based on the principles of graduated, or progressive, taxation and of withholding income at the source. During the Civil War, a person earning from $600 to $10,000 per year paid tax at the rate of 3%. Those with incomes of more than $10,000 paid taxes at a higher rate. Additional sales and excise taxes were added, and an “inheritance” tax also made its debut. In 1866, internal revenue collections reached their highest point in the nation's 90-year history—more than $310 million, an amount not reached again until 1911."

Look at the percentages there, not the 17-24 % we all pay now.

"In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system. The amendment gave Congress legal authority to tax income and resulted in a revenue law that taxed incomes of both individuals and corporations. In fiscal year 1918, annual internal revenue collections for the first time passed the billion-dollar mark, rising to $5.4 billion by 1920. With the advent of World War II, employment increased, as did tax collections—to $7.3 billion. The withholding tax on wages was introduced in 1943 and was instrumental in increasing the number of taxpayers to 60 million and tax collections to $43 billion by 1945.
"

Source: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005921.html

[KingBison]

Now that I have confirmation, I just want to state that that is complete BULLSHIT!!!! The war is over. I wanna stop paying income taxes.

[bwdial]

Actually, it was WWI, but it doesn't really matter.
Income tax is an insidious form of penalizing achievement.

[Zens_7s]

Geez people, you turn every thread into politics! Why don't we answer the question he asked.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
"what do you thicnk of bush"?

[/ QUOTE ] I must admit, when the original album came out I have fond memories of Glycerine and Machinehead. They were straight on fun. But then all the albums began to sound the same.

I mean really, what the heck happened to them? I think republicans and democrats and packratocrats and libertarians agree that Gavin gettting mad pussy distroyed the band.

http://www.alternakid.de/pix/live/bush.jpg

[KingBison]

Is bush that band with the monk and all the colors and the monk is doing kung fu?? Cause if it is, I hate that band and I hope the burn in the fires of hell.

[bwdial]

So you're saying you'd rather pay the government roughly 30% of your salary and pay what you're paying for goods, now?
Or, would you rather not pay the government, and just pay roughly what you're paying for goods now?
Oh, and as an added bonus, products made in the USA would be far more competitive on the world market, because the cost would be lower. The 20-21% that the Harvard economists estimate prices would drop, is derived from the taxes corporations pay, and then pass on to we, the consumer.
That should help with the dreaded "outsourcing". /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

[Threadkiller]

I don't know, I liked the Adenalin song he did for the Daredevil Soundtrack even if it did get overplayed. The one I got too sick of was Glycerine. That song just got tired some time before the billionth time I heard it.

[Jason_Brown]

On its surface, a flat tax seems appealing. If you tax people at the same rate, then the wealthy will pay more taxes, the poor less.

The reason we have never had a flat tax system since the inception of the current Federal Income Tax in 1913, is that in reality, such a tax disproportionately burdens low and mid-wage earners. It is a regressive tax.

People who earn less money, spend a larger percentage of their income on necessities: rent, food, transportation, health care, child care, etc. Essentially this means that they place a higher value on every dollar they earn, than someone who makes more. If you take 10% of a dollar in taxes from a low wage earner, it is more burdensome to them than if you were to take 10% in taxes from a high wage earner, who spends a smaller percentage of their income on necessities.

In order to make sure that all wage-earners share the tax burden equally, we have a progressive system. We gradually increase tax rates as income increases.

You can argue all day about where tax rates should be set, but the concept of a progressive tax scheme is sound and unlikely to change.

[Zens_7s]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Income tax is an insidious form of penalizing achievement.

[/ QUOTE ]

An insidious form of penalizing achievement is the tax bracket concept. Every year that I become more successful I pay more taxes. Why? My reward for working harder, contributing to the American economy, and being a law abiding citizen means I get LESS. It is basic psychology gone backward. This, the second year of owning my own business, has brought more tax issues to my head than necessary.

Why Do We Need a Flat Tax? (http://www.library.unt.edu/govinfo/subject/flattax/fltxprso.html)

For example, I have to estimate this year. It requires a check each quarter estimating what my earnings will be. This does not account for slow periods in my business. If I hit a dead stop for three months I still pay the taxes based upon earnings during a 70 hr/week. project. IN CASH. It is the #1 reason why I am going back to corporate America. The cost to owning your own business today is stifling.

What percentage of all income taxes is paid by the bottom 50% of all families?

a. 30%
b. 20%
c. 15%
d. 4%

The answer is 4%.

What is the income tax rate (reflecting Bush's tax cuts for the "rich") for a four-person household with an income of up to $40,000 per year?

a. 20%
b. 15%
c. 10%
d. 0%

The answer is zero.

What percentage of all income taxes is paid by the top 50% of earners?

a. 15%
b. 20%
c. 30%
d. 96%

The answer is 96%.
Kerry is promising more than $1.7 trillion in new federal spending programs. He has promised to pay for this spending spree by raising taxes on the "rich". These tax increases generate only $700 billion over the next 10 years, which leaves a trillion-dollar hole in his budget. Where is that money coming from? I have yet to hear Kerry declare what the "rich" are, but I sure bet the "rich" are households making over $40,000 /yr. The same people that are more likely to take their own money and invest it into the economy.

John F. Kennedy was approached directly after a tax cut legislation by a left leaning constituent. "Mr. President, isn't it true that your tax cuts favor the rich?" "I hope so," he replied. He also said "a rising tide lifts all boats." A sound tax policy increases general prosperity.

The paradoxical thing about the liberal side is that they claim to be for the "people" but they never want to trust the "people" to make their own economic decisions. Hence the constant taxation to control how we spend our money. But the fact is, they are bad investors for us, and it is the ultimate form of elitism to believe they know better than we what to do with our checks.

They claim to support tax cuts only for the rich. True. Support the tax cut so that a family that makes $80,000 (40/40 hub and wife and 2 kids) for 4 of them has less money to buy a Plymouth mini-van this year. A mini-van made by a company that is laying people off for lack of work. And where does that invested extra "rich" taxes go? To some program to talk to displaced auto workers about where their job went. /forums/images/icons/smirk.gif

[bwdial]

Ah...another advantage for the National Sales Tax.
Every citizen would, according to the plan, receive a check each month for the necessities. It would be based on a national average and multiplied by the number in the household. This would offset what is spent on food, medicine, etc.
Also, this tax would only be applied to new products. This means stuff at the flea market and Goodwill would not be taxed.

[bwdial]

Smart and beautiful! /forums/images/icons/ooo.gif

[Jason_Brown]

Your kidding! That's what they are proposing?

How can you use a national average as a basis for the stipend, when living expenses vary so widely from region to region?

[Zens_7s]

[blushes] /forums/images/icons/grin.gif That She-Ra avatar is like Spanish Fly!

[Threadkiller]

As I understand it, the check is going to cover the taxes you have paid for those necessities. So if they calculate that an average person would pay X dollars in taxes for necessities in a month they will reimburse everyone that amount. So if you have a lower than average standard of living you will get a bit of a break.

[bwdial]

Actually, I think it is adjusted for various regions...I just said national average because...well...I dropped out of college. Okay are you happy?!? ***buries head in hands and cries***

[bwdial]

Dammit! Now Threadkiller exposes more of my intellectual challenges. You are right, and that's what I meant to say.
You get reimbursed for the taxes you pay for the necessities. **shakes head**

[Jason_Brown]

Hi Zens 7s,

Sorry to here about your tax woes. I hope everything works out.

As for a progressive tax structure, I would argue that the price one pays for being successful in this country is additional tax responsibility. One has a duty as a citizen to contribute their fair share to the well-being of the nation that fostered their success. Even though one pays a higher percentage of their income in higher tax brackets, they are still taking home more money in the end.

[Jason_Brown]

Interesting. I may have to do some research on this. I'm not convinced such a system would still not be regressive on some level, but it is a radical concept.

Does anyone know if any other countries have implemented a similar "Sales Tax Plus Benefits" system?

[Mighty_Wingman]

"Gonna fly to Los Angeles ...
Find my A$$hole brother "

It seems some of have us forgotten how to just have fun around here ( shtoopud polaticks ).

Thanks for tryin' Sweetness, and for reminding me why I like it here.

[Dr3vil]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Zens:Kerry is promising more than $1.7 trillion in new federal spending programs. He has promised to pay for this spending spree by raising taxes on the "rich". These tax increases generate only $700 billion over the next 10 years, which leaves a trillion-dollar hole in his budget. Where is that money coming from? I have yet to hear Kerry declare what the "rich" are, but I sure bet the "rich" are households making over $40,000 /yr. The same people that are more likely to take their own money and invest it into the economy.

[/ QUOTE ]CLARIFICATION OF GROSS MISINFORMATION: As I believe I already posted in this thread: Kerry is going to CUT taxes on those 40k families.</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Kerry will protect tax cuts for the middle class, such as the child tax credit, the reduced marriage penalty and the new tax bracket that helps people save $350 on their first level of income. In fact, John Kerry wants to give more tax breaks to the middle class including new tax credits to pay for health care and college tuition. He has also proposed a $50 billion State Education and Tax Relief Fund that is designed to help states provide tax relief for state, local and property taxes for working families.

[/ QUOTE ] Middle class is defined as 25k to 50k, so he could only tax those 40k families if the above was a blatant lie, and his "rich" more than earn the title:</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
“I am going to ask America’s wealthiest people – those making over $200,000 a year – to pay the same fair share they paid under Bill Clinton. Back then the rich got richer – but everyone else did too. By rolling back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest among us, we can start to restore fiscal responsibility and invest in education and health care for our people."

[/ QUOTE ]Don't feel bad if you missed this, its a factoid republicans have spent millions in advertising to wash away from the lime-light.</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Zens: The paradoxical thing about the liberal side is that they claim to be for the "people" but they never want to trust the "people" to make their own economic decisions. Hence the constant taxation to control how we spend our money.

[/ QUOTE ]Nations don't run on good will, they run on money. Money is what funds your schools, prisons, roads, and everything else your society provides that you have the luxory of taking for granted. Money also funds our disastorously misinformed army.

Well, no tax cuts, no money comming in, how are we funding our army? Debt. You know how you're not supposed to run up your credit card till kingdom come? That's what bush is doing by paying for the army with money he printed out of thin air instead of financing his war with tax money which every president, rebuplican or democrat, here to fore has had the common sense to do. It's not just a policy doomed to failure, it has no conceivable chance of working.</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
But the fact is, they are bad investors for us, and it is the ultimate form of elitism to believe they know better than we what to do with our checks.

[/ QUOTE ] There are things such externalities which don't hugely impact all individual citizens, but drastically effect the public as a whole: schools, prisons, roads, polution, THESE are the sort of things starving for funding state-to-state, nationwide because Bush's spending policy. California, specifically, is purposefully letting convicts out early because there is no funding to keep them in for their full sentence, the money just isn't there. I mean, sure, you can say they're likely only going to mug and rape the poor, why's it have to come out of my paycheck? This is the nature of an externality, it sucks for some people, but if it isn't dealt with the society itself is threatened.</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Zens: They claim to support tax cuts only for the rich. True. Support the tax cut so that a family that makes $80,000 (40/40 hub and wife and 2 kids) for 4 of them has less money to buy a Plymouth mini-van this year. A mini-van made by a company that is laying people off for lack of work. And where does that invested extra "rich" taxes go? To some program to talk to displaced auto workers about where their job went.

[/ QUOTE ] As stated above, not all tax programs are fruitless, some of them are an actual necessity. Luckily, we are far from worrying about pointless programs like this because so many states are struggling to find money for the basics. The central government is only the only public entity with funds these days, and only because they're tunneling us into a debt that's already caused major inflation (check your gas station) and could threaten us with another economic collapse in 5-10 years if the value of the dollar continues to drop and major international investors start pulling our en masse in favor of the strong euro.

...and it's also worth mentioning that, because of inflation and the under-funding of states, we're already paying for the for the tax cuts in many ways:</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
· Income Decrease: $1,462. Under President Clinton, family income increased $7,202 from 1992 to 2000. Under President Bush family income has declined $1,462 from 2000 to 2002. [Source: U.S. Census Bureau]

· Tuition Increase: $1,032. Nationally, four-year public college tuition and fees increased by an average of $1,032 since Bush took office, a 28 percent increase, the highest three-year increase on record. [Source: The College Board, Trends in College Pricing 2003-04 compared to 2000-01]

· Health Increase: $793. Health care costs have increased by an average of $793 since Bush took office, a stunning 49 percent increase. [Source: Kaiser Family Foundation, Employer Health Benefits Survey 2000 and 2003, www.kff.org (http://www.kff.org)]

· Gas Increase: $245. The average U.S. household has seen an increase of $245 annually in gasoline prices and an average household with children has seen an increase of $289 in gasoline prices since Bush came into office. [Source: Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration]

· State and Local Tax Increases. Since the beginning of the Bush administration 32 states have been forced to raise taxes and fees by a total of $16.2 billion. At the local level, county and city governments have been raising taxes as well. In 2002, property tax collections were rising more than 10 percent. [Source: Blueprint Magazine, “Bush’s Tax Shakedown,” June 30, 2003]

[/ QUOTE ] Glad to see you joined the conversation, though (I can't stand tax brackets either, the system persists because those rich enough to change it, politicians and their funders, are usually rich enough to evade most of their taxes), nice post /forums/images/icons/grin.gif .

EDIT: unquoted quotes were uncerimoniously ripped from Kerry's website, if any of it was blatantly untrue, you'd have heard it all over CNN, or at least FOX news.

[ozchick]

Don't know if you guys are interested at all in this but I thought I'd post Australia's Income Tax Rates for your comparison. I've heard they're among the highest in the world:

Taxable Income [Tax on this Income]

$0 – $6,000 [Nil]
$6,001 – $21,600 [17c for each $1 over $6,000]
$21,601 - $52,000 [$2,652 plus 30c for each $1 over $21,600]
$52,001 – $62,500 [$11,772 plus 42c for each $1 over $52,000]
Over $62,500 [$16,182 plus 47c for each $1 over $62,500]

Plus we pay 1.5% of Taxable Income for our Medicare Levy
Also, University fees are going up 25%; Car Registration &amp; Private Health Insurance have gone up about 10% in the past 2 years and we now have a 10% GST (Goods &amp; Services Tax) on everything we purchase.

[Zens_7s]

Guess we will agree to disagree. I have never been a fan of the concept of entitlement.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
One has a duty as a citizen to contribute their fair share to the well-being of the nation that fostered their success.

[/ QUOTE ] Exactly. Fair share. Fair would be an equal percentage of income. Last I checked the 96%/4% concept cannot possibly be seen as fair. Not even the same ballpark as fair. Maybe the county fair. I LOVE county fairs. But I digress.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Even though one pays a higher percentage of their income in higher tax brackets, they are still taking home more money in the end.


[/ QUOTE ] Yes, because they EARNED more money in the first place. It isn't a magical check dropped from the sky. Even with a flat percentage tax the people that earn less pay less and the people who earn more pay more.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Even though one pays a higher percentage of their income in higher tax brackets, they are still taking home more money in the end.


[/ QUOTE ] True. And those people in those tax brackets will take their "more money" and purchase consumable goods and services that benefit the American people as a whole instead of giving the money to the government where it will be stockpiled, surplused, and used in one of thousands of useless programs.

[Zens_7s]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Well, no tax cuts, no money comming in, how are we funding our army? Debt. You know how you're not supposed to run up your credit card till kingdom come? That's what bush is doing by paying for the army with money he printed out of thin air instead of financing his war with tax money which every president, rebuplican or democrat, here to fore has had the common sense to do. It's not just a policy doomed to failure, it has no conceivable chance of working.

[/ QUOTE ] Au contraire, Dr. Evil. It has EVERY chance of working. What happens to the people who overdo debt in credit cards? Bankrupted, [censored] their creditors, and then moved on. No matter who gets screwed by a bankrupted military contract, companies will continue to clamor to be part of the supply chain. It is too lucrative a gamble to pass up. It is nothing more than overspending a Target Visa on a massive scale. It not only will work, it DOES work on a daily basis and has since the words "National Debt" were first pieced together.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
This is the nature of an externality, it sucks for some people, but if it isn't dealt with the society itself is threatened.

[/ QUOTE ] Last I checked we were not debating whether I wanted to support the systems of schools, prisons, roads, the military, etc. I don't feel the need to support them with twice as much as the guy next to me on the freeway. The same guy who works a few hours, then spends his afternoons buying Old Style, not working to avoid paying child support, and then whines about his difficult lot in life. As I said, not a big fan of entitlement.

Anybody for an Old Style? /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

[Matt1]

At the risk of sounding anachronistic, I still believe in the American dream. That any child in this country can grow up and be whatever he wants to be. This is an opportunity unlike any offered by any other nation in the world. If someone benefits from this opportunity, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be asked to give something back.

Rich people won't spend any extra money they get. They already spend what they want to spend. That's the definition of being rich.

The best and the fastest way to get more money into the pockets of people who are likely to spend it quickly and boost up the economy is to cut the taxes of average working people.

[Zens_7s]

I think everyone is skipping the current definition of "rich". Figure the higher tax bracket of $80,000 is "rich". Then figure that income is achieved by two working parents with two children in the state of California. You tell me if that is "rich". Heck, as you know Matt1, with the current cost of living out there those people may have a small house and a car but would be in debt up to their ear lobes.

[karmattack]

Ah, so NOW you're talking "relativity." /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

[Jason_Brown]

Zens,

I was not necessarily arguing that taxes are not too high or that the tax brackets are correct where they are currently placed. I honestly don't know if the current tax levels are equitable.

Whether or not you agree with my more philosophical justification for a progressive tax scheme, the economic theory I described in my earlier post (that a flat tax does not distribute tax burden equitably) is widely accepted by economists and has been the model for the Federal Income Tax during its entire existence, in times of big government and small.

The devil, of course, is in the details. Saying we should have a graduated tax system that distributes tax burden equitably is one thing. Designing an equitable tax system is another. I honestly can't say whether our current tax schedules are just, I merely know the theories behind them are correct.

So feel free to read my original post again. I'd love to discuss it further if you have any questions. (My Economics Minor is a little dusty though, so bear with me).

[Zens_7s]

My minor and majors are dusty by now, also. (It is sad to think I have a double major/double minor and use none of the four)

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
The devil, of course, is in the details. Saying we should have a graduated tax system that distributes tax burden equitably is one thing. Designing an equitable tax system is another. I honestly can't say whether our current tax schedules are just, I merely know the theories behind them are correct.

[/ QUOTE ] There is one thing I know; EVERYTHING looks great on paper. I am not discounting your opinion, or the theories our current structure is based on. [Her own dusty philosophy minor creeps up from behind...] "Theories" can be viewed correct or incorrect based on the series of arguments and the manner in which they are provided. You know this well, as an attorney. It isn't the theories that are the problem. It is the implementation.

U.S. citizens pay taxes as a part of our daily lives, yet it is not possible to devote enough time to learning the tax code. Thinking of my old motto for building software applications, "If it requires a manual the size of 'War and Peace' to use then it isn't usable."

Here we have asked "Why does it stink?", and maybe a few of us know parts of the answer, or parts to dispute the question. As you said, "The Devil is in the Details". Other countries have different tax structures that are successful, or sound good on paper. I will always go back to the concept that communism sounds good on paper also, with BAD implementation. A flat tax may not be the answer, but it is always wise to look at alternatives.

As a non-economist it took me a while to realize why I should be saying "Why?" more often. However, the answers will not be discovered on a web board by three of us with the name "poop" in it.

[Thinks to herself, damn that would be a great CNN headline..."Tax Code Solved By Three Carpal Tunnels at the Poop Shoot"]

It is unfortunate that healthy conversations like these are rarely able to occur. They usually degenerate into a flame fest.

[Jason_Brown]

Zens,

It's been fun debating with you. I, too, am glad no one had to resort to physical violence.

I found a nice overview of alternative tax proposals over at the Washington Post. It also has links to more in-depth information.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/tax/tax.htm

And with that, I'm off to give my brain a rest and play some video games.

Sincerely,

[ratm1966]

Ummm, I don't pay the government 30% of my salary to begin with.

[Dr3vil]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Au contraire, Dr. Evil. It has EVERY chance of working. What happens to the people who overdo debt in credit cards? Bankrupted, [censored] their creditors, and then moved on. No matter who gets screwed by a bankrupted military contract, companies will continue to clamor to be part of the supply chain. It is too lucrative a gamble to pass up. It is nothing more than overspending a Target Visa on a massive scale. It not only will work, it DOES work on a daily basis and has since the words "National Debt" were first pieced together.

[/ QUOTE ]Have you ever actually declared bankruptcy? My mom did once, and it was practically impossible for her to get a loan of any sizeable amount from that point on (about 15 years now), because creditors learned that she ignored her debt instead of paying it.

I know we like to have pride in American ingenuity, but we're not the only game in town anymore, the simple fact is that once inflation escalates past most opportunities for investment its bad news, and with an $8 billion per month war and no taxes in sight, there ain't nothing that's going to hold back inflation. True the national debt has gone up since our country's inception, but take a look back, so have taxes, and you're right, you can manage quite a large amount of debt just as you can overcharge a card without loosing your shirt, but the creditors have to have some indication that you can and intend to pay that debt back.

If you could run a successful country by just printing out more money when you neeeded it, no republican would ever deny funding public services, because everything the government bought would be free. Bush of course doesn't give a damn about the "revolving door" underbudgeted prisons or his own abandoned "leave no child behind behind" initiative, he understands there's consequences to paying for these things with thin air, he just makes the military an exception because a focus on national security statistically makes him much more appealing than if the economy became the focus (that's always been true reguardless of the state of the economy or a war, if the former's the issue, we vote democrat, the latter, republican). As I said, point to me one strong nation with a currency, there aren't any, and if our money keeps tumbling, we're eventually going to follow.

Greenspan was two-timing bastard for three years of the Bush administration. After using Clinton's policies to bring on the most tremendous boom of the last half-century, he turned tail and endorsed all of Bush's plans which turned 200 billion of surplus into 500 of debt, but earlier this year this year finally caved in, finally couldn't stomach it anymore, because he saw there was no horizon. As long as things continued at this rate, international investors would eventually stop enjoying the tax breaks and start bemoaning infation rates, and the collective booey which makes us the most powerful nation in the world would slowly be siphoned away.</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Last I checked we were not debating whether I wanted to support the systems of schools, prisons, roads, the military, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]Actually, if they're only funded by taxes, you were and didn't know it, but then again, if they run on the same invisible fuel as the military, that's not the case. </font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
I don't feel the need to support them with twice as much as the guy next to me on the freeway. The same guy who works a few hours, then spends his afternoons buying Old Style, not working to avoid paying child support, and then whines about his difficult lot in life. As I said, not a big fan of entitlement.

[/ QUOTE ] Yes, so long as its someone else's entitlement. As I said, the rich pay more proportionately because as they go up in salary, less and less of their income is spent on the necessities of food, clothing, and shelter. The alternative to taxing you is taxing the poor until they can't eat. As I said before, that's the bitch of an externality, you pay more for schools and roads because you have more disposable income while you may not even take advantage of many public services, but the nation doesn't exist just for your sake, its exists for its own sake, and without enough to fund the basics it'd have a small army of street-educated criminals deal with.