Supporting Al Gore
- Thread starter Penn
- Start date
J
justhangn
Guest
Re: Re: Good Question!!!
No need to pack a lunch for some on here.
Originally posted by jazz lady
Maybe he's trying to drive us insane.
No need to pack a lunch for some on here.
Whatever
Dang, and I thought Reagan had a Repub Senate for most of his term. Oh well.
So now that the repubs are in charge, we should have an excellent economy soon, right? What's the goal?
Lower unemployment?
Lower inflation?
Stock market growth?
Lower taxes?
Economic expansion at what, 3%?
TELL ME.
What's the timetable? Should they be able to get this done in a year? Or is this going to take us past the next election?
TELL ME
Dang, and I thought Reagan had a Repub Senate for most of his term. Oh well.
So now that the repubs are in charge, we should have an excellent economy soon, right? What's the goal?
Lower unemployment?
Lower inflation?
Stock market growth?
Lower taxes?
Economic expansion at what, 3%?
TELL ME.
What's the timetable? Should they be able to get this done in a year? Or is this going to take us past the next election?
TELL ME
H
Heretic
Guest
The economy never actually went south, it just shed its costume and revealed its real self. Throughout the 90's dot com stocks soared with P/E ratios in the hundreds, this means the stocks were really really over priced. Many of these companies never actually made a profit but their stock kept soaring because of kooky investors. This gave the illusion of a great economy comming from the Tech sector, but as soon as people became cautious after dotcom after dotcom started failing because they never made any money people wouldnt pay the outrageous price for those stocks and they kept falling and falling. Stocks that had the traditional "good" P/E ratio kept chugging along at their slow growth. The problem why some people think the stock market is doing so bad is because they got use to "drive through fast" investments Im in Im out, I made thousands.
Democrat or Republican you cannot deny why the stock market fell, it had nothing to do with politics it wasnt Bush or Clinton that had anythign to do with it, it was all in the kooky investors looking to get rich quick.
I didnt even mention the false earning reports of other stocks such as Worldcom, Enron, etc. They needed to falseify their reports so their stocks would soar otherwise nobody would invest in them since the dotcoms were doing so good. Then there were all the very high paying jobs created just to take care of the Y2K bug, guess what after Y2k they were out of jobs, it wasnt the democrats fault, it wasnt the republicans fault it was just a fact of life.
Twist this all you want but the facts remain the state of the stock market/economy has nothing to do with who is in office right now or who was in office before. Bill Gates had more to do with the economy than Bill Clinton.
Democrat or Republican you cannot deny why the stock market fell, it had nothing to do with politics it wasnt Bush or Clinton that had anythign to do with it, it was all in the kooky investors looking to get rich quick.
I didnt even mention the false earning reports of other stocks such as Worldcom, Enron, etc. They needed to falseify their reports so their stocks would soar otherwise nobody would invest in them since the dotcoms were doing so good. Then there were all the very high paying jobs created just to take care of the Y2K bug, guess what after Y2k they were out of jobs, it wasnt the democrats fault, it wasnt the republicans fault it was just a fact of life.
Twist this all you want but the facts remain the state of the stock market/economy has nothing to do with who is in office right now or who was in office before. Bill Gates had more to do with the economy than Bill Clinton.
B
Bruzilla
Guest
C'mon Dems... how do you cut taxes for the lower two segments of "tax payers"? There is no lowest segment because these people DO NOT PAY TAXES!!! In fact the vast majority of them take money out of the pot through earned income tax credits!!! And the middle "segment" really turns out to be people making joint incomes of $30,000 to $75,000. That leaves people making joint incomes of $75k+ holding the bag for about 1/2 of all Americans. The dreaded "Top 1%" get the largest tax cut in an across the board tax cut because they are paying the most taxes.
If you guys would quit kissing up to the teachers unions and help us get our schools fixed, you might have learned some basic math. A guy who is paying $1,000,000 a year in taxes gets a 5% tax cut and gets $50,000, while some guy paying $0.00 in taxes gets nothing, and a person paying $3,000 in taxes gets $150. Dems love to complaign about that $50,000 Mr. Big is getting back, but never seem to complaign about the $950,000 that he's paying. Is $50,000 more than $3,000 or $0? Sure, but the lower two earners aren't paying $950,000 either.
What you really want to do is make Mr. Big keep paying his $1,000,000, and give that extra $50,000 to the people getting the $1,500 or $0 back, even though these people have not earned that money. If you want to redistribute wealth that way, than call it what it is, a wealth redistribution scheme. It is not the same thing as a tax cut.
By the way... it's the top and middle tiers of society that are making up most of the Republican party these days. It's the lowest rung of the ladder that makes up the majority of the Dems. If you want proof that the Republicans are for the common man, you need look no further than the post-election map for the 2000 Presidential election. You guys got the low-income inner-city types and social security voters, and the Republicans got most of the working, revenue generating, common people.
If you guys would quit kissing up to the teachers unions and help us get our schools fixed, you might have learned some basic math. A guy who is paying $1,000,000 a year in taxes gets a 5% tax cut and gets $50,000, while some guy paying $0.00 in taxes gets nothing, and a person paying $3,000 in taxes gets $150. Dems love to complaign about that $50,000 Mr. Big is getting back, but never seem to complaign about the $950,000 that he's paying.
Is $50,000 more than $3,000 or $0? Sure, but the lower two earners aren't paying $950,000 either.What you really want to do is make Mr. Big keep paying his $1,000,000, and give that extra $50,000 to the people getting the $1,500 or $0 back, even though these people have not earned that money. If you want to redistribute wealth that way, than call it what it is, a wealth redistribution scheme. It is not the same thing as a tax cut.
By the way... it's the top and middle tiers of society that are making up most of the Republican party these days. It's the lowest rung of the ladder that makes up the majority of the Dems. If you want proof that the Republicans are for the common man, you need look no further than the post-election map for the 2000 Presidential election. You guys got the low-income inner-city types and social security voters, and the Republicans got most of the working, revenue generating, common people.
Ok, let's get into it. Republican tax policy increases the taxes of a person making 45,000 by 2,000 because while their income tax rate would minimally decline, the amount of tax deductions that one can take would be limited. This is true for every other tax branch until the top branch for those of us who make 200,000 or more. These people get a 60,000 tax cut while the tax burden on the other 99% of the population drastically increases. Right now the middle class is 90% of our tax base. Far too much of the burden is on the people who do not need it. The people who have to pay for college, grandma's nursing home, and a score of other things. Meanwhile the top, who pay for dinner parties and sports cars, receive a nice chunk of money back. As a middle classer, I am pissed off to say the least. My taxes this year were 500 more than last and we got a "tax cut." BS!
H
Heretic
Guest
What really gets me is the Life Time Learning Credit that allows student loan repayments to be tax deductable. If you make more than $45k a year you can't take the full deduction.
The new tax laws do allow you to put more of your money away in your 401k and defer the taxes which is a good thing. My tax rate basically remained constant eventhough I made more money in 2001 than in 2002.
The old "the rich get a tax break" story doesn't fly with me because the rich have so many loopholes to avoid paying taxes all together I doubt that it does much.
Did you know that GE/Sanyo is the largest company in the world yet pays almost no taxes in the US. It owns many of the airplanes that the airlines use and each year the airplanes depreciation in value is a major tax cut. They have thousands of other ways to avoid taxes, thats what a tax lawyer does.
The new tax laws do allow you to put more of your money away in your 401k and defer the taxes which is a good thing. My tax rate basically remained constant eventhough I made more money in 2001 than in 2002.
The old "the rich get a tax break" story doesn't fly with me because the rich have so many loopholes to avoid paying taxes all together I doubt that it does much.
Did you know that GE/Sanyo is the largest company in the world yet pays almost no taxes in the US. It owns many of the airplanes that the airlines use and each year the airplanes depreciation in value is a major tax cut. They have thousands of other ways to avoid taxes, thats what a tax lawyer does.
Do you want to know why GE does not pay much taxes - Republican tax policy for corporations. Corporation tax policy, which the Clinton Administration tried to fix is as pourous as our skin. If only the Republicans would understand that the rich should pay taxes would it happen.
Dems, if you don't start actually finding facts instead of just making them up on the fly, I'm going to
you. Who do you think pays the billions and billions of taxes in this country - poor people? Here's your facts:
http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/
I say we go to a MUCH MORE PROGRESSIVE tax system.
Below $20,000.00 = Pay nothing
Above $20,000.00 but below $50,000.00 = Pay 5% of income.
Above $50,000.00 and Republican or Libertarian = Pay 10% of income.
Above $50,000.00 and Democrat or Green = Pay the balance needed.
Lets put it to a vote or send it to Congress
Below $20,000.00 = Pay nothing
Above $20,000.00 but below $50,000.00 = Pay 5% of income.
Above $50,000.00 and Republican or Libertarian = Pay 10% of income.
Above $50,000.00 and Democrat or Green = Pay the balance needed.
Lets put it to a vote or send it to Congress
J
justhangn
Guest
Re: I say we go to a MUCH MORE PROGRESSIVE tax system.
Works for them, they swear they don't pay enough taxes as it is.
Works for them, they swear they don't pay enough taxes as it is.
Re: I might go for that.
OMG OMG OMG!!! You walked right into that! So what you're saying is that, because people on welfare don't pay taxes, THEY don't get to use the highways, the food inspectors, visit the Smithsonian or anything else...right?
to Kyle - I typed REALLY fast so no one would post that before me!
Penn
Dancing Up A Storm
On Life Support
You people are seriously cracking me up! I started this thread on the 17th of the month, and here it is ,
the 22nd.
Everytime I thought it was going to die of unnatural causes, someone comes to the rescue and breathes new life into the beast. It also tells us who the political wonks are! Go for it, guys!
penncam
You people are seriously cracking me up! I started this thread on the 17th of the month, and here it is ,the 22nd.
Everytime I thought it was going to die of unnatural causes, someone comes to the rescue and breathes new life into the beast. It also tells us who the political wonks are! Go for it, guys!
penncam