Hybrid View
-
11-04-2006, 07:01 AM #1
Conservatives on why the republicans should lose
I guess this could be interesting reading for some
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/fea...610.forum.html
Has bush realy said this??
In 2002, Bush himself had said, “We need common-sense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God.”
-
11-04-2006, 02:38 PM #2
Bush is far far from being a right wing conservative. I have to admit Im disappointed in alot of his domestic issues. His tax cuts brought the economy back but he has allowed way to much spending.
He could have said the quote. Hes a very religious person and what it means is there are certain rights that we should have from birth. Like common sense rights. The freedom of speech, religion, etc. Basically everything outlined in our constitution.
-
11-04-2006, 09:39 PM #3Originally Posted by roidattack
-
11-05-2006, 02:33 AM #4Originally Posted by biglouie250
The Top 50% pay 96.54% of All Income Taxes
The Top 1% Pay More Than a Third: 34.27%
You want hard numbers, go to the following website:
http://www.house.gov/jec/publication...3taxshares.pdf
Do you expect the "rich" to pay 110% of all taxes, would this make you sleep better? This is not a socialist country, if you want that go to Sweden. Rangell and Pelosi want to repeal the Child tax credit & marriage credit, do you think that only the rich get married and/or have children? Do not confuse taxation with welfare, if you pay no taxes or if you get a refund, you are not entitled to a tax cut, how can you cut a negative number? Also in Economics 101, we could always reduce spending, perhaps on worthless social programs and crazy lawsuits that waste tax dollars and eat up more gov't money than the tax cuts did. The "rich" that you speak of include those who bring in $34,000/year. Hell, single moms who made $18,000/year got a tax cut as well with the increased deduction amounts. That may be perceived as "rich" in some countries, but not in this one. My idealogy is backed up by facts......Last edited by Logan13; 11-05-2006 at 02:36 AM.
-
11-05-2006, 03:46 PM #5Originally Posted by Logan13
those may be facts but your over thinking it bro. if you make more money of course your going to pay more tax as we have an incremental tax sytem. its only common sense. simple example: joe pays 1 dollar in tax because he made 10 bucks last year. mike pays 100 in tax because he made 1000 dollars. the rich paid more tax in this example but its the same % of income. Dont be fooled by tax brackets, the more logical way to look at is by looking at the persons marginal tax rate which even for the uber rich isnt that far off what the average person pays because of various deductions, or like the aforementioned reduction of taxes on capital gains.
-
11-05-2006, 07:26 PM #6Originally Posted by biglouie250
-
11-05-2006, 03:55 PM #7Originally Posted by Logan13
everyone got that "tax cut" with the creation of the 10% tax bracket, but in the end it didnt do a whole lot. the big 200 bucks she got back as a credit probably didnt do a whole lot either as a single mom making 18k a year probably isnt paying much tax besides social security anyway.
-
11-05-2006, 07:31 PM #8Originally Posted by biglouie250
-
11-08-2006, 05:18 AM #9
biglouie250
Originally Posted by biglouie250
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/dlambrow.htm
Washington Times
Two things will likely happen if the Democrats regain control of Congress tomorrow: Federal social welfare spending will go up and the core of the Republican tax cuts will be repealed.
We know this will happen because Democratic leaders have said so numerous times, in their campaign statements and in their election agenda.
Since President Bush's tax cuts were enacted in 2001, the Democrats have been calling for their repeal, repeatedly ridiculing them as "tax cuts for the rich" when the bulk of the provisions are aimed at those in the middle class and below. "I can't see Democrats opposing the rates that are being paid at the bottom two-thirds of the tax code," said Democrat Robert Reischauer, head of the liberal Urban Institute think tank.
But Rep. Charlie Rangel of New York, who would become the Democratic chairman of the powerful tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, told Bloomberg News not too long ago that he could not think of a single tax cut he would want to extend before they are due to expire by law in 2010.
An analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Foundation shows us just what is at stake for middle-income families if the tax cuts were repealed: A family of four (with two children under the age of 17), taking the standard deduction on an income of $50,000 a year pays a federal income tax bill of $1,365.
If the Bush tax cuts were never enacted, or if they were repealed, their tax bill would be $3,320. Not only does this family benefit from the lower income tax rates in Mr. Bush's cuts, but also from the doubling of the child tax credit to $1,000. A family of four earning $75,000 a year presently has an income tax bill of $5,115. That bill would shoot up to $7,538 if Democrats had their way and the Bush tax cuts were never enacted.
A worried Charlie Rangel late last month, as Republican congressional candidates pounded their opponents on the tax cut issue, put out a hasty statement denying that he had any intention of raising taxes on the middle class. "Democrats have a long history of supporting targeted relief for middle-income families," he said.
Mr. Rangel said he would only "close tax shelters and eliminate benefits for companies that move jobs overseas." As for the across-the-board tax rate cuts Mr. Bush enacted, he simply dodged the question about what he would do, saying, my gosh, 2010 was "light years away from the debate before us." He hoped he would be able to provide middle-class relief, however, he told reporters.
His evasiveness, following repeated claims by Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi of California that Democrats would raise taxes on upper income Americans, drew suspicion from Republican tax-cutters.
"Charlie Rangel's a master politician, but when he talks about everything being on the table and tax cuts for the middle class, my eyes begin to widen," said former Rep. Jack Kemp, the architect of the Reagan tax cuts in the 1980s.
"When you start targeting tax cuts to a class of people, you are entering the arena of redistribution of wealth," Mr. Kemp told me.
This is exactly what Mr. Rangel and Mrs. Pelosi have in mind. The "pay-go" rules they say they will institute would require that any tax cuts be offset by spending cuts or higher taxes on someone else. Thus their plan would call for raising taxes on the higher income brackets to finance lower rates elsewhere on the income scale.
-
11-08-2006, 08:30 AM #10Originally Posted by Logan13
those numbers are well and good..... a few things to consider:
1)My problem with the cuts isnt because i want more tax, its because you cant cut taxes AND increase spending. Also i have no problem with the idea of THESE cuts, my problem was with the reduction in capital gains tax which this article does not address. That is where the rich benefit.
2) a family of 4 earning 50k a year is NOT middle class, that is poor.
3) $1,365 represents 3% of the families income....are you comfortable with them paying only 3% tax while you pay 4-8 times that?? No becuase you stated earlier that your sick of paying through the nose on your salary to shoulder the burden of the poor.
4)the % change is a reduction from 6% tax to 3% tax, still not as big of a difference the uber rich felt which the reduction in capital gains tax.
here is a decent IRS article explaining who got the benefit of the capital gains tax cuts....(people who earn over 200k who have money to piss away in the market)
http://www.cbpp.org/11-7-05tax.htm
here is another:
http://www.cbpp.org/3-10-05tax.htm
-
11-08-2006, 10:39 AM #11Originally Posted by biglouie250
-
11-05-2006, 11:29 AM #12
A lot of people are totally oblivious to the fact of what deficit budgeting and debt are. We are a "credit society". It seems as though this is instilled in our minds. Yes it takes money to make money but what Im more concerned about is governement spending rather then taxing policies. It's the jingoistic policies that irks me.
-
11-05-2006, 12:32 PM #13Originally Posted by Prada
-
11-05-2006, 03:51 PM #14
and there is no way that "rich" is 34k a year. that is working poor for most of the northeast.
-
11-05-2006, 03:51 PM #15
and there is no way that "rich" is 34k a year. that is working poor for most of the northeast.
-
11-05-2006, 04:02 PM #16Banned
- Join Date
- Dec 2005
- Location
- Massachusetts
- Posts
- 7,379
Originally Posted by biglouie250
-
11-06-2006, 07:34 AM #17
i am not in favor of a flat tax. and i am not in favor of taxes in general. however we have a big problem on our hands regarding how our budget is run. so we have 2 courses of action massive spending cuts, which is really hard to do when we have troops abroad, or raise taxes. the problem has to be rectified. id restore capital gains tax to pre-bushg era rates and leave the brackets themselves the same. it would keep money in the economy and help it grow. i think the BIG problem is that in general lawmakers have no idea how our taxing system really works. and that is democrats and repubs across the board. thats what happens when you have lawyers instead of competant finance people in govt. but then again the private sector pays better so the govt will never attract the best and the brightest.
-
11-06-2006, 09:59 AM #18Originally Posted by biglouie250
The tax system is designed to exploit the middle class workers of America. Corporations will always find loopholes, leaving people who make 50,000 plus to hold the burden of taxes. Logan is correct in his stats though, the top 10% pay upwards of half the income tax in this country.
-
11-06-2006, 10:15 AM #19Originally Posted by Phreak101
i wish we could tax the hell out of stupid items such as rims but then youd say im a liberal who wants to increase taxes. so i can enver win lol. i believe in certain taxes as "punishments" for stupity and costing the rest of us money. Like tobacco products. they would be 10 bucks a pack under my regime. and all the money raised goes to cancer research to help these dumbasses. taxes on mcdonalds......money goes to suplement healthcare coverage etc. i think on a BB board you can understand that a little more then a normal hardcore conservative.
Originally Posted by Phreak101
-
11-06-2006, 10:31 AM #20Originally Posted by biglouie250
-
11-06-2006, 10:43 AM #21Originally Posted by Phreak101
but you said your mad that your in the same bracket as gates, so why not redistribute how our brackets are made?
Originally Posted by Phreak101
even by taxing capital gains at the rates they were taxed you still made more money in a booming ecomny then if you had your cash in the bank.
-
11-06-2006, 04:17 PM #22Originally Posted by Phreak101
-
11-06-2006, 10:16 AM #23
Edit
Last edited by Ufa; 12-23-2006 at 04:13 PM.
-
11-06-2006, 10:29 AM #24Originally Posted by Ufa
yea basically lol. we can argue till were blue in the face. the fact of the matter is when you elect one set of millionaires over a different set of millionaires were gonna get screwed either way.
-
11-07-2006, 12:30 AM #25
what about military spending
-
11-07-2006, 12:50 AM #26Originally Posted by johan
-
11-07-2006, 12:56 AM #27Originally Posted by Logan13
I think there is alot of useless pork that could be trimmed of without effecting your military power. Something that has grown that humongous has probably grown fat, bureaucratic and ineffective.
Its not my tax money thank god I just think its funny that downsizing the military spendings never get mentioned despite how grossly disproportional it is compared to any military threats in the world. Cutting down on wellfare however always gets mentioned.
What could save most american lifes, a billion put into cancer research or a new cool fighterjet? A couple of billion put into increasing the safety on roads or a new brand of subs?
-
11-07-2006, 08:57 AM #28Originally Posted by johan
This is where you and I disagree. I can see your point because you guys never mix it up..but I believe we need the strongest military possible.
-
11-07-2006, 04:20 PM #29Originally Posted by johan
-
11-07-2006, 09:20 AM #30
maybe we could augment our military cuts by making UN nations provide more troops. If we could spend less and make other nations spend more on military maybe the arabs wouldnt hate the US so much.....make them hate the whole world that way the entire world has a common enemy, just a thought.....
-
11-07-2006, 02:50 PM #31Originally Posted by biglouie250
UN troops are like tits on a bull
-
11-07-2006, 02:52 PM #32
If we are going to send a bunch of Americans to fight a war they should have the very best equipment and training money can buy.
If we spend a billion dollars on an experimental aircraft but it saves soldiers lives then I see it as worth every penny.
-
11-07-2006, 02:58 PM #33Originally Posted by roidattack
-
11-07-2006, 03:01 PM #34Originally Posted by johan
-
11-07-2006, 02:59 PM #35Originally Posted by roidattack
whats your response to our troops not getting the best equipment tho? we heard stories of our boys putting their own homemade armor on hummers because we didnt send the heavily armed versions. or the flak jacket issues? im all for spending to save lives.....but lets see that it gets to where it needs to be and that the outcome isnt only that lockhead, northrop-gruman etc get loaded while others get dead.....
-
11-07-2006, 03:04 PM #36Originally Posted by biglouie250
Those vehicles werent designed to be armored. I think the assumption was made by the pentagon that we wouldnt need them armored in the beginning.
Its the kind of thing that you dont know you need until your in the shit.
-
11-07-2006, 03:07 PM #37
Offcourse there is also the question if putting 70 billion one one fighter jet project is more reasonable than dividing it up over alot of smaller projects.
I still cant belive one damn jet can cost that much to develop. Its insanity. I wish NASA would get the same priority of funding
-
11-07-2006, 05:08 PM #38Originally Posted by johan
Well you know if it were up to me NASA would get more funding as well
-
11-08-2006, 06:58 AM #39Originally Posted by roidattack
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
NPP ED or EOD?
Yesterday, 05:48 PM in ANABOLIC STEROIDS - QUESTIONS & ANSWERS