Conservatives on why the republicans should lose

[Kärnfysikern]

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.”

[RA]

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.

[biglouie250]

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.

.

thank you for admitting this. this is a great day for us all! please people understand bush's tax cuts fpr the most part werent "tax cuts". the couple hundred bucks you saved a year is nothing comapred to the millions saved by the rich!!! but moreso it wasnt just the tax cuts.....you cant decrease the money you receive and increase the money you spend. its economics 101.

[Logan13]

thank you for admitting this. this is a great day for us all! please people understand bush's tax cuts fpr the most part werent "tax cuts". the couple hundred bucks you saved a year is nothing comapred to the millions saved by the rich!!! but moreso it wasnt just the tax cuts.....you cant decrease the money you receive and increase the money you spend. its economics 101.

Facts:
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......

[Prada]

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.

[Logan13]

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.

Exactamundo. The scary thing is that as much as we a credit society today, so was America in the 20's and 30's, during which we all know was not a good economic situation worldwide.

[biglouie250]

Facts:
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......

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.

[biglouie250]

and there is no way that "rich" is 34k a year. that is working poor for most of the northeast.

[biglouie250]

and there is no way that "rich" is 34k a year. that is working poor for most of the northeast.

[biglouie250]

Hell, single moms who made $18,000/year got a tax cut as well with the increased deduction amounts

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.

[SVTMuscle*]

and there is no way that "rich" is 34k a year. that is working poor for most of the northeast.

Yeah def, that 34k is barely above the welfare line I believe

[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.

Your above example is based a a 10% flat rate, which we know is not the case although I having always liked the idea of a flat tax rate across the board. So your arguement is that you want the "richer" to pay say 30% and the middle incomers to pay something like 10%? Fair and equal treatment under the law applies to successful people as well, in this capitalistic society we do not punish people for succeeding which is exactly what you seem to be proposing. If the rich pay more in taxes, what will this do for you, louie? Wealth redistribution should occur in a capitalistic society, no matter how much someone wants it.

[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.

So you never responded, are you in favor of what the dems leaders wish to do, repeal the marriage and child credits? What you fail to realize is that the Dems want more taxes, PERIOD. They keep talking about how much the federal gov't is losing because of these credits. In my mind the gov't is not losing anything that they should have had in the first place. The dems sure are looking out for the middle class by wanting to repeal these credits , unfortunately most people would not even realize what has happened until they go to do their taxes and find out that they owe more or are getting a smaller refund.

[biglouie250]

So you never responded, are you in favor of what the dems leaders wish to do, repeal the marriage and child credits? What you fail to realize is that the Dems want more taxes, PERIOD. They keep talking about how much the federal gov't is losing because of these credits. In my mind the gov't is not losing anything that they should have had in the first place. The dems sure are looking out for the middle class by wanting to repeal these credits , unfortunately most people would not even realize what has happened until they go to do their taxes and find out that they owe more or are getting a smaller refund.

these tax credits dont do much. and all the marriage tax was was a different standard deduction for married couples. it is NOT a tax, dont be fooled byt what they tell you. if your middle class, married have kid and bought a house you dont use the standard deduction any way so it has no affect on the middle class.

[biglouie250]

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.

[Phreak101]

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.

So, in essence, you want to tax the very people who know how to make and handle money? Why not tax the people who make 30,000 a year and spend 5,000 of it on rims? They need their money forefully taken from them moreso than people who reinvest their capital gains BACK into the economy.

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.

[biglouie250]

So, in essence, you want to tax the very people who know how to make and handle money? Why not tax the people who make 30,000 a year and spend 5,000 of it on rims? They need their money forefully taken from them moreso than people who reinvest their capital gains BACK into the economy.

when you reduce taxes on capital gains you encourage people to NOT keep their money in the economy, because they get there money and get out and dont reinvest. thats the whole point, they are selling their investments and taking money out of the economy not reinvesting it. if capital gains rate are higher but still lower then the normal income tax breackets, which they were, it encourages people to invest and leave their money in the economy and rely on divendends and interest on the securities and not the sale of securities.

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.

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.

again if you make more money you pay more tax. that is true even if it is a flat tax, just think about it. if its a 15% flat tax and you make 100k your paying 15% (15,000 in taxes), which is more taxes then if you made 15k and paid 15% of that(2250 in taxes). so of course the rich pay most of the tax its only common sense. its simple mathematics bro, not idealogical differences that the dems or repubs want you to think......

[Ufa]

Edit

[biglouie250]

I'll be so glad when these elections are over. It's time for a new
set of crooks.

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.

[Phreak101]

when you reduce taxes on capital gains you encourage people to NOT keep their money in the economy, because they get there money and get out and dont reinvest. thats the whole point, they are selling their investments and taking money out of the economy not reinvesting it. if capital gains rate are higher but still lower then the normal income tax breackets, which they were, it encourages people to invest and leave their money in the economy and rely on divendends and interest on the securities and not the sale of securities.

When you allow people to keep more of their money, they SPEND more of their money, I'm afraid I'm missing your logic...

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.

Agreed

again if you make more money you pay more tax. that is true even if it is a flat tax, just think about it. if its a 15% flat tax and you make 100k your paying 15% (15,000 in taxes), which is more taxes then if you made 15k and paid 15% of that(2250 in taxes). so of course the rich pay most of the tax its only common sense. its simple mathematics bro, not idealogical differences that the dems or repubs want you to think......

But this is not a flat tax. The plan of the dems is obvious. It's not fair that I, who make about 80-90,000 a year, am in the same tax bracket as Bill Gates, yet pays LESS of a % than I do because of the write off's. I don't mind that he pays less % wise, btu what I DO mind is that I am "officially" being taxed at 38% of my income because I am "rich". So now the corporations get all their write off's (which is good!), and I carry the welfare state on my back working until May to pay for overbloated programs. Do not raise taxes, CUT SPENDING!

[biglouie250]

But this is not a flat tax. The plan of the dems is obvious. It's not fair that I, who make about 80-90,000 a year, am in the same tax bracket as Bill Gates, yet pays LESS of a % than I do because of the write off's. I don't mind that he pays less % wise, btu what I DO mind is that I am "officially" being taxed at 38% of my income because I am "rich". So now the corporations get all their write off's (which is good!), and I carry the welfare state on my back working until May to pay for overbloated programs. Do not raise taxes, CUT SPENDING!

but you said your mad that your in the same bracket as gates, so why not redistribute how our brackets are made?

When you allow people to keep more of their money, they SPEND more of their money, I'm afraid I'm missing your logic...

not the uber rich. if i have 5 million dollars of cash im gonna be real conservative with it in times of contractionary business cycle(like the past 6 years) so i take my 5 million and put in a bank account and make 100k a year in interest and im happy. the problem here is that instead of having faith in the economy, lowering cap gains rates lets them take their money out more freely. now i understand that its there money to do whatever they want with but if the economy takes a hit it has a snowball affect shrinking GDP further. economy sucks -----> i take my money out ------> economy suffers further.

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.

[Logan13]

and I carry the welfare state on my back working until May to pay for overbloated programs. Do not raise taxes, CUT SPENDING!

Exactly! Cut the frivolous spending.

[biglouie250]

Exactly! Cut the frivolous spending.

what would you cut? 2 right off the bat id cut:

1) Id cut govt perks(car, cellphone, EZ pass, gas) for nonessential employees. They all take advantage of it anyway, google "alan hevesi"

2)Id consolidate a lot of branches of govt, there really isnt a need for dept of homeland defense.....if youve seen these guys at airports youd know what im talking about. they all look like that one retard that sweeps up at fast food joints(not that there is anything wrong with that just i dont want my tax dollars going to incompetant workers)

[Logan13]

what would you cut? 2 right off the bat id cut:

1) Id cut govt perks(car, cellphone, EZ pass, gas) for nonessential employees. They all take advantage of it anyway, google "alan hevesi"

2)Id consolidate a lot of branches of govt, there really isnt a need for dept of homeland defense.....if youve seen these guys at airports youd know what im talking about. they all look like that one retard that sweeps up at fast food joints(not that there is anything wrong with that just i dont want my tax dollars going to incompetant workers)

I concur with #1, but there are plenty of other wasteful programs that use our tax dollars. We need Homeland Security to bring all info from the other agencies under one roof. Go to citizens againgst government waste website
http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=homePage

[Kärnfysikern]

what about military spending

[Logan13]

what about military spending

Why would we reduce military spending in a time of war. That makes as much sense as reducing appropriations for vaccines during an epidemic. But the US has reduced our Army from 7 million in the 60's to 1 million soldiers today.

[Kärnfysikern]

Why would we reduce military spending in a time of war. That makes as much sense as reducing appropriations for vaccines during an epidemic. But the US has reduced our Army from 7 million in the 60's to 1 million soldiers today.

Well I dont know. Spending as much on the armed forced than the rest of the world combined seems like a bit of a overkill

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?

[RA]

Well I dont know. Spending as much on the armed forced than the rest of the world combined seems like a bit of a overkill

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?

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.

[biglouie250]

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.....

[RA]

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.....

UN troops are like tits on a bull

[RA]

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.

[Kärnfysikern]

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.

Well I acctualy agree on that. But what I am saying is that since there is so much money involved and alot of middle men I am sure a substantial ammount get "lost" in the way. I wonder how much that is and how much could be tightened up without it effecting the efficiency of your defence.

[biglouie250]

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.

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.....

[RA]

Well I acctualy agree on that. But what I am saying is that since there is so much money involved and alot of middle men I am sure a substantial ammount get "lost" in the way. I wonder how much that is and how much could be tightened up without it effecting the efficiency of your defence.

I understand what your saying. The problem is that government runs it so it will never be as efficient as it could be.

[RA]

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.....

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.

[Kärnfysikern]

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

[Logan13]

Well I dont know. Spending as much on the armed forced than the rest of the world combined seems like a bit of a overkill

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?

A cancer vaccine will not stop the terrorists. You and I will never see eye to eye on this because you fail to realize what exactly we are up against with radical Islam. They want the Western cultures DEAD, they have already infiltrated most of the world's populations. You give the benefit of doubt to the wrong group. You must learn to see what is going on in front of you, it may be incremental pieces here and there, but when you put them altogether even a blind man could see what the big picture is..........

[RA]

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

Well you know if it were up to me NASA would get more funding as well

[Logan13]

thank you for admitting this. this is a great day for us all! please people understand bush's tax cuts fpr the most part werent "tax cuts". the couple hundred bucks you saved a year is nothing comapred to the millions saved by the rich!!! but moreso it wasnt just the tax cuts.....you cant decrease the money you receive and increase the money you spend. its economics 101.

I thought that we could use some hard numbers to quell these misconceptions, please see bold below:
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.

[Kärnfysikern]

Well you know if it were up to me NASA would get more funding as well

Where do I sign up to become a us citizen so I can vote for you??