Tax Cut!

[sleuth]

Originally posted by demsformd
you ain't gonna be getting much more this tax cut unless of course you are a millionaire. And our children will have large debts to pay off and where might they turn? The Social Security surplus. The Democratic plan was much fairer than this terrible tax cut for the rich and CEO's.

Did you happen to see anything in my earlier post about how taxing the rich wasn't really a good plan for a strong economy?

The Democratic plan penalized the rich and the CEO's because of their ingenuity and achievements. How in the world is that fair? How in the world does that promote growth and a strong economy?

 

[sleuth]

Originally posted by demsformd
Why hasn't the president proposed that then sleuth?

He probably would if it wouldn't cost him his re-election.
The fact is that a majority of American people aren't able to comprehend why cutting those programs would in fact be a good thing.

Most are too short-sighted, and they feel that they are "entitled" to these things, when in fact they have done little if anything to earn them.

 

[demsformd]

Originally posted by sleuth14
He probably would if it wouldn't cost him his re-election.
The fact is that a majority of American people aren't able to comprehend why cutting those programs would in fact be a good thing.

Most are too short-sighted, and they feel that they are "entitled" to these things, when in fact they have done little if anything to earn them.

Well, I guess that conservatism is outside of the mainstream if they cannot enact what they want because they wouldn't win reelection.

The tax cuts also are short-sighted. They use yo-yo tactics to make the total cost of the cut to be $330 billion when in actuality the cuts could cost more than a trillion. From the Washington Post: "Indeed, by "sunsetting" all the tax cuts well before the bill's official 2013 expiration date, congressional tax writers took a measure that otherwise would have cost the Treasury more than $800 billion over the next decade and crammed it into a $350 billion price tag that could garner just enough support to pass the Senate. Democrats and Republicans alike predict that future Congresses and administrations will not let the tax cuts expire." So we are going to add an extra $800 billion in debt to our already $400 billion deficit.

Three Republicans in the Senate voted against this including John McCain, the maverick senator. Republican Senator Olympia Snowe said that the $350 billion tax cut was merely a masquerade for a trillion dollar tax cut.

Take a look at this article in the Post, has great analysis of the tax cut. Tax Cut Hurts Future Generationa

 

[sleuth]

:shrug:

maybe after Bush gets re-elected, he can cut all those liberal social programs completely from the budget.

Then our problems will be solved.

 

[sleuth]

Originally posted by demsformd
Well, I guess that conservatism is outside of the mainstream if they cannot enact what they want because they wouldn't win reelection.

That is absolutely a correct statement - that way of thinking is outside the mainstream.

But it doesn't mean that conservatism isn't the solution.

If everyone jumped off the Empire State Building, would you? Why not, it would be mainstream?

 

[demsformd]

You are right...it does not mean that conservatism is not a solution. But your conservative comrades on these boards often attempt to prove the point that liberalism is outside of the mainstream while conservatism somehow is not.

Anyway, conservatism is not the solution. The past couple of years have shown that.

 

[sleuth]

Originally posted by demsformd
Anyway, conservatism is not the solution. The past couple of years have shown that.

What is the solution.. communism?
That is the opposite of conservatism, isn't it?

 

[demsformd]

Originally posted by sleuth14
What is the solution.. communism?
That is the opposite of conservatism, isn't it?

No, moderation which provides real tax relief. Providing a $300 tax rebate for all taxpayers. Increasing the child tax rate and keeping it there. Ending the double taxation of social security. Giving the middle class the tax relief that they need.

Communism is not the opposite of conservatism. Goodamnit, liberals are not communists. Let us take a look at Communism. It advocates complete central planning for the economy (something that liberals do not) and they also hate civil rights and personal freedom, which liberals certainly do not. If anything, communists are closer to conservatives on that matter than any liberal.

 

[sleuth]

...You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer... - Abraham Lincoln...

ok... i'll visit this thread later...
i have to get going... gotta make money...
that's a nice phrase isn't it... "make money"...
no one is going to give it to me...
but the more i make... the more they take...
...what's the point?

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by demsformd
It advocates complete central planning for the economy (something that liberals do not) and they also hate civil rights and personal freedom, which liberals certainly do not.

Dems, I can't even believe you said that.

How about the welfare programs that Liberals are so fond of? That take hard earned money from workers and just GIVE it to people who haven't earned a thing? "To each according to his needs..." sounds EXACTLY like Liberalism.

Civil Rights and Personal Freedoms - don't make me laugh! How about seatbelt laws? Gun laws? Smoking laws? Telling business owners who they MUST hire? How about ALL those personal freedoms that Libs are getting outlawed? Hell, gun ownership is a right specified in our Constitution, for Pete's sake.

 

[demsformd]

Originally posted by sleuth14
...You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer... - Abraham Lincoln...

Abraham Lincoln, Mr. Republican, was the person that instituted the first income tax. Why? Because at that time liberals were Republicans and conservatives were Democrats.

 

[demsformd]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Civil Rights and Personal Freedoms - don't make me laugh! How about seatbelt laws? Gun laws? Smoking laws? Telling business owners who they MUST hire? How about ALL those personal freedoms that Libs are getting outlawed? Hell, gun ownership is a right specified in our Constitution, for Pete's sake.

Seatbelt laws have bipartisan support. Don't say that it is a liberal issue or a conservative issue.

Smoking laws...smoking is completely detrimental to one's health. It pains me vrai that you do not see it that way. When you get lung cancer, don't complain. Look many people in the public (myself included as well as my entire family) do not want to have to deal with second-hand smoke which is even deadlier because there is no filter. I have relatives that have died of lung cancer after decades of smoking. What was their biggest regret? Smoking. Liberals do not want to criminalize smoking at all...but people have the right to go into public without smoking at every corner. Raising cigarette taxes are bad and I will be the first person to say that. It is a regressive tax just as the sales tax is but liberals are not out to outlaw smoking. After all aren't we the ones that are fighting for the decriminilization of marijuana?

Affirmative Action laws....I do not recall us telling business owners who they must hire. There is this great thing called Affirmative Action which does not institute quotas. Yeah, that's the system where when all things being equal, the black applicant or the woman applicant or the gay applicant is accepted. This only applies to companies that have federal contracts. Anyways, conservatives defended the practices of segregation which forced people NOT to hire blacks or women or the such.

Let us talk about what else is stated in the Constitution...the freedom of religion. Conservatives push the institution of Christian morals in every facet of society from the pledge of allegiance to posting the Ten Commandments in public schools. They push the federal government funding religions. They blur the line between church and state at every corner.

The freedom of speech...the conservatives push the idea of creating English as the official language of the United States. How is that an American ideal? It is not...there are many many languages spoken within these great borders from Spainish to French to Slavic. How the hell can we make English the official language? How about the Republicans idea that flag desecration is not protected speech? No, no, flag desecration doesn't use words so then it can't be protected. Yeah, sign language doesn't use words so I guess that it can't be protected either. Forcing children to pledge allegiance to a state that is under God. That is not the freedom of speech.

How about civil liberties that the American people have? Take a look at the USA Patriot Act. There are some things that the American government can do right now that would turn you white. In fact I would guess that right now President Bush and Secretary Ridge are recording each of my keystrokes here because I may overthrow their government. How can the conservatives be for civil liberities and personal freedoms when they support things like this?

How about the freedom to live one's life as being gay or straight? Right now we have a conservative senator comparing homosexuality to beastality, incest, and other sexual acts that are nowhere near homosexuality. How about the freedom for women to decide whether or not their body can deal with having a child or not?

Liberals are wrong on gun laws, I will say that. But that is the exception and not the rule to the liberal idea of personal freedom. Liberalism is the ideology of personal freedom, it has seen its inception in Western Europe in the 1800s, while conservatism has always been the ardent supporters of tyrant monarchs, the old line of elitism, and repression of personal freedom. Take a look at a history book before you ever tell me that liberalism is not the ideology of personal freedom.

 

[jlabsher]

Bush knows nothing about business as evidenced by his past. Losing millions of other peoples money in the oil market and making money from a baseball team does not take a lot of brains. His family had deep pockets, most of us didn't go to Harvard business school.

The main impetus of the tax cut is to serve the wealthy, not Joe Sixpack. Buffet has even said that with the tax cut he will end up paying 10 times less on dividends proportionally than his receptionist. The child tax credit is thrown in as a political bonus, hoping to win some votes.

I agree that a smaller gov't is the answer, I don't like paying taxes either, but I like little things like roads, clean water, police, military (which costs over $1 BILLION a day), etc....

Bush is of course talking about smaller government, (read contracting out), which has dubious economic implications. The civil service people here know what I mean, and he is saying feds only deserve 1/2 the payraise the military does. If you are a DOD civilian you should be worried about this stuff, but thats another topic.

I don't think you can logically blame big government and big taxes on the dems. Welfare is a small portion of the budget, military is the biggest and the GOP loves the military as we all know.

Sorry, I still go with my original call that it is a political thing that is unwise economically. People like Buffett, George Soros, and Greenspan have all criticized the tax cut. I trust them more than W to know and understand money.

Trickle down didn't work in the past and won't work now, it is only taking care of the fatcats, instead of "Voodoo Economics" it is "Who do Economics."

 

[SurfaceTension]

Dems:

I started an in-depth rebuttal to your assertions (freedom OF religion v. freedom from religion, Dem overreaction on Santorum commenting only that that the SCOTUS ruling would prohibit ANY laws against consenting participants, yada yada) when I noticed that (besides getting way OT) you had couched a couple of the points by saying YOU don't agree with the Democrats' position. Most conservatives here do not agree with everything in the Repub platform either.
"The difference between Democrats and Republicans is: Democrats have accepted some ideas of Socialism cheerfully, while Republicans have accepted them reluctantly."
-- Norman Thomas

Because at that time liberals were Republicans and conservatives were Democrats

One could easily argue that the switch ocurred in the 1960's but had switched back by 1970...Generally speaking, Liberals tend to be more paternalistic, with the "you can't make it without our help" attitude....(True) conservatives tend to have a "don't care 'bout your melanin/preferences/issues, just show me what you can do" attitude.

Back to the thread....Most folks with kids will be getting a nice little rebate. Kinda unfair, really, when you consider that they typically use gov't services out of proportion to the taxes they pay. But then again, making the top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of the income tax isn't fair either.
If your family makes more than $75,000, you, "the rich", are responsible for paying 84.2% of the Federal income take. I guess you rich SOB's should be paying more of your fair share!

Give them less to play with and, eventually, when people actually become concerned with the deficit/debt, there'll be less pork in the budget. Give them free reign over your wallet and they (both parties) will continue buying votes with your money, with no regard to its source.

 

[willie]

Re: Dems:

Originally posted by SurfaceTension

Give them less to play with and, eventually, when people actually become concerned with the deficit/debt, there'll be less pork in the budget. Give them free reign over your wallet and they (both parties) will continue buying votes with your money, with no regard to its source. [/B]

Get rid of Senator Byrd and we could afford a bigger tax cut

 

[demsformd]

Re: Dems:

Originally posted by SurfaceTension
I started an in-depth rebuttal to your assertions (freedom OF religion v. freedom from religion, Dem overreaction on Santorum commenting only that that the SCOTUS ruling would prohibit ANY laws against consenting participants, yada yada) when I noticed that (besides getting way OT) you had couched a couple of the points by saying YOU don't agree with the Democrats' position. Most conservatives here do not agree with everything in the Repub platform either.

One could easily argue that the switch ocurred in the 1960's but had switched back by 1970...Generally speaking, Liberals tend to be more paternalistic, with the "you can't make it without our help" attitude....(True) conservatives tend to have a "don't care 'bout your melanin/preferences/issues, just show me what you can do" attitude.

To blindly agree with your party's position is completely contrary to the spirit of American democracy. I disagree with the party on their position on gun control (it is a personal choice to own a gun or not) and recently the position on Iraq (true liberals love liberation...I feel that if we do not stand for the freedom of speech, religion, etc. there then we do not here). I support free trade which is a divisive issue for the party as well. I am sure that there are others but can't really think of one right now.

A little history...Liberalism was endorsed in the Republican Party from their inception until the 1920s. During that period of time progressive interests dominated the party but the start of the 20th Century saw the party become more and more conservative on trade issues concerning labor. The Democratic form of liberalism began limitly with the failed candidacies of William Jennings Bryan and the presidency of Woodrow Wilson. FDR was the complete manifestation of liberal Democratic ideas for the economy and creation of a welfare state while Truman and his desegregation of the military started the national Democratic liberalism concerning social interests. Meanwhile starting with Harding for the Republicans, the party moved to a solidly conservative image. The Republicans opposed government control and later the Civil Rights Act and embraced state rights' with the same vigilance as southern state righters. Now we have a Democratic Party that is solidly liberal and a Republican Party that is solidly conservative and the rest majority of the population is stuck in the middle.

 

[KAHUNA]

Reply to demsformd

When will you liberal democrats get the message???? Capital that's not taxed generally becomes capital that get's invested. Yeah, the already rich man is doing it (in part) to get richer, but if in the process it builds new businesses & hires new employees, where's the wrong?? Capitalism and free enterprise BUILT this country! Maybe I'm wrong, but I often wonder, are you (demsformd) a government employee? Many liberal dems are, because that's where their bread is buttered! Bigger government, bigger bureaucracy, more job security. That's how many of them think. Maybe you aren't. I was just wondering.

 

[Hollywood Bound]

Dems

Let us look at that First Amendment to the Constitution. I will save the religion part for another day

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Source -http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmenti

You wrote-

"The freedom of speech...the conservatives push the idea of creating English as the official language of the United States. How is that an American ideal? It is not...there are many many languages spoken within these great borders from Spainish to French to Slavic. How the hell can we make English the official language? "

You are confusing freedom of speech with freedom of language. There is no federally protected right to freedom of language, so I as an American do have the right to petition my representatives in congress to makwe such a law or an amendment requiring english to be used in all official federal government transactions. The Sovereign States(pretty much in name only due to the Tyranny produced by state level politicians feeding like pigs at the federal funding trough) have the right to choose a language(be Spainish to French to Slavic) or even pig latin by right of the tenth amendment. (You do remember that discarded amendment). Requiring English as the official language does not forbid you from speaking whatever language you want in your private dealings in society.

Now let us take this into absurdity. By your assertion then just about every federal government document should be translated into every foreign language.(Just a little extra cost in that). Or according to that logic all the hot air expelled by our representaves in the congress should have an interpreter for every language spoken in the United States.

You say the requirement does not follow the American Ideal, The American Ideal I was taught in school (before the leftist intelligentsia obtained control of the education system) was that this is a great Nation because we allow immigration. But there is one difference that is missing today and that is the concept of assimilation. To blend in with American Society and adopt this country, not to just come here and make money to send home. The ideal is for immigrants come to America and make a better life for themselves and theirand your families. To become a truly functioning member of American Society one must speak the language. Which is the long term goal and ideal.

My impression of the leftist ideal is for the country to be MULTICULTURAL, well duh we have always been Multicultural, we embrace our past and culture but also become American. Without an official language we break down into hyphenated americans as we are doing today(Asian, Hispanic, Chinese, Thai, Arab etc American) This leads to Balkanization and a permanent underclass because they do not know the language and can not do more than menial labor due to the language difference.


You wrote again "Forcing children to pledge allegiance to a state that is under God. That is not the freedom of speech. "

You are correcdt in that assertion but can you provide documentation of this because I would like to fight this abridgement of the First Amendment.

You also wrote "Anyways, conservatives defended the practices of segregation which forced people NOT to hire blacks or women or the such." This is very inflammatory please provide some facts, follows is some information on the Civil rights Act of 1964. I redacted the inflammatory words about Sen. Byrd and Al Gore Sr.

Here is a cut from
Bill Bradley Fouls the Civil Rights Act
by R.D. Davis

New Visions Commentary-The National Leadership Network of Conservative African-Americans


The Congressional Quarterly of June 26, 1964 (p. 1323) recorded that, in the Senate, only 69% of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as compared to 82% of Republicans (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democratic senators voted against the Act. This includes the current senator from West Virginia .......... Richard C. Byrd and former Tennessee senator Al Gore, Sr. (the father of Bradley's Democratic opponent). Surely young Bradley must have flunked his internship because ostensibly he did not learn that the Act's primary opposition came from the southern Democrats' 74-day filibuster. In addition, he did not know that 21 is over three times as much as six, otherwise he would have become - according to the logic of his statement - a Republican.

In the House of Representatives, 61% of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act; 92 of the 103 southern Democrats voted against it. Among Republicans, 80% (138 for, 34 against) voted for it.

read the whole article at
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NVDavisBradley1299.html

Well You bring up some good points, I see it differently.
Thanks

 

[SmallTown]

One thing I have noticed over the past few months... Everytime something bad (in their mind) happens, it is always the liberals causing it because they have control. Republicans claim the liberals control the media, and now you hear about liberals controlling the education system thus causing all the Fed up things to happen. These are just two of the most talked about issues, but as republicans I'm sure you can think of many other situations where the liberal control is having an adverse impact on your life. My question is, if the "liberal way" is so bad, and the "conservative way" is the best, how in the world did the conservatives ever let the liberals gain the power in the first place? We know republicans are the ones with the money, so "buying" the power can't be it. We all know that republicans are well armed, thus a "hostile" takeover through agression and physical manipulation isn't the answer. So what is it? How did you let them gain the power in the first place?

 

[demsformd]

To Hollywood bound, your post was completely off the mark and I need to respond to ever part of it but my time here is limited right now.

But about the whole Democrats v. Republicans thing and the Civil Rights Act. I was not talking about partisian politics, I was discussing ideological politics. Liberals supported the Act, conservatives did not. Southern Democrats are conservatives and since the Civil Rights Act many of them have changed their party affiliation. Anyway, a Democrat was the one that proposed the Civil Rights Act and it was a Republican, Barry Goldwater, who opposed it in the 1964 Election because it violated state's rights.

Btw, Kahuna, I am a corporate lawyer and I am in the top tax bracket. What have I done with my extra money from the tax cuts? Saved it because there is nothing to invest in right now.