930 Forums
=> GENERAL DISCUSSION => Topic started by: flawd101 on July 29, 2004, 10:42:00 pm
-
i am extremely bored watching this. did anyone else view this...
i want ideas. right now hes bullshiting us by telling us what we want to hear...he reminds me of a televangalist....people eating his shit.
i have to say i'm happy i don't have to vote or an antibush person.
who is the real dumb ass?
<small>[ 07-30-2004, 02:13 PM: Message edited by: thirsty moore ]</small>
-
holy shit thats a big picture...stupid tricksy internet...
-
who's the real dumb ass?
uh. you.
john kerry is america's only hope.
unless you're interested in being drafted any time soon, young one.
i'm eating his shit up like chocolate cake with whipped cream and cherries.
help is on the way!
-
Originally posted by granita:
who's the real dumb ass?
uh. you.
john kerry is america's only hope.
unless you're interested in being drafted any time soon, young one.
i'm eating his shit up like chocolate cake with whipped cream and cherries.
help is on the way!
PRAISE JESUS!!!! PRAISE KERRY!!!!
i was talking about the picture genius...
hahaha you eat shit :D :D :D
-
Help is on the way!
Though Flawd, I hear what you're saying -- these speeches are all about pandering and getting votes. The Reps will be the same, it's the nature of the beast -- all this praise for the heartland and the little guy....
but.....
Help is on the way! :D
-
oh, the picture that's appearing as a red x on my computer with a dial up connection?
i tend to reply to posts based on the actual text.
you know. the "conversation" part.
-
those trees are cool looking
-
Originally posted by granita:
who's the real dumb ass?
uh. you.
john kerry is america's only hope.
unless you're interested in being drafted any time soon, young one.
i'm eating his shit up like chocolate cake with whipped cream and cherries.
help is on the way!
Please, just stop with the "Bush will reinstitute the draft" argument. Hate him all you want, but if that's your reason, then you have no case, because it won't happen, nor has he said he wants to do so.
Its really just lazy grabbing to use that argument when better critcisms can be made by simply thinking about it.
-
i wonder if it is a chick or dude in the bottom right(?) corner...
and those are cool trees...
-
i work in PR and i loooove watching these speeches. it's so... obvious... that they've hired people like me to scrub the language, build the patriotic metaphors.
I thought "Help is on the way" was okay but a little off. He needed something that will also get people energized and to the polls, and telling them that you'll help them doesn't make them want to get off their couches and do something, you know?
what wouldn't i have done though? those "america can do better" signs. sheesh. looking at the crowd it says "KERRY" "America can Do Better." "KERRY" I'm not sure that's the messaging you want on the screen... :roll:
-
What bothered me most about the whole proceeding last night was they way they played the Vietnam Vet card so hard and heavy. I just wish they didn't have to do that.
Did anyone happen to be watching CNN's coverage of the convention last night? After Kerry's speech there was a truly hilarious technical malfunction.
-
Right on, for instance how he described his parents passing last night. Who says this stuff?
"I wish my parents could share this moment. They went to their rest in the last few years...."
Originally posted by chimbly sweep:
it's so... obvious... that they've hired people like me to scrub the language, build the patriotic metaphors.
-
Originally posted by granita:
who's the real dumb ass?
You are, if you honestly believe the draft is coming back.
-
What I love about those speaches is the politicain promises so much, but when you look back the only tangible thing he seemed to offer was a lift on the stem cell research ban.
-
I thought is was great speech. If you vote Bush, you are personally contributing to the downfall of America.
-
Originally posted by mark e smith:
What I love about those speaches is the politicain promises so much, but when you look back the only tangible thing he seemed to offer was a lift on the stem cell research ban.
he said he'd roll back the tax cut the rich (>200K) enjoyed under Bush
-
Originally posted by Celeste:
he said he'd roll back the tax cut the rich (>200K) enjoyed under Bush [/QB][/QUOTE]
I guess that is why GGW wont be voting for him.
I wonder what proprtion of people earn over $200K?
-
I think it's so sad the way the working and middle class have been mesmerized by bush's tax cuts. They think he's on their side by lowering taxes for them, but don't they realize that 50% of the tax cuts bush has made go right into the pockets of the richest 1-2% of Americans?
One other thing...duh...if you lower taxes it's generally a good idea to reduce government spending, not increase it!
-
did anyone else watch the daily show coverage....i thought that that was good. especially the john kerry piece.
"John Kerry. Not george bush."
tough crowd got to me with that dumb ass mark and the black chick who believes michael moore.
-
Originally posted by chaz:
I think it's so sad the way the working and middle class have been mesmerized by bush's tax cuts. They think he's on their side by lowering taxes for them, but don't they realize that 50% of the tax cuts bush has made go right into the pockets of the richest 1-2% of Americans?
Would that be the same 1-2% that pay 50% of income taxes?
-
Originally posted by chaz:
I think it's so sad the way the working and middle class have been mesmerized by bush's tax cuts. They think he's on their side by lowering taxes for them, but don't they realize that 50% of the tax cuts bush has made go right into the pockets of the richest 1-2% of Americans?
One other thing...duh...if you lower taxes it's generally a good idea to reduce government spending, not increase it!
well, for example. . .if you made $50,000 a year and i made $1,000,000 a year, and congress lowered taxes at a flat 10%, your taxes would be lowered by $5,000 and mine would be lowered by $100,000. . .by saying the richest recieve the benefits in mis-leading. . they get the biggest deduction because they make the most money, and have a bigger pie to take from, as the above illustrates.
btw, i agree. . .government should be cutting spending and programs in order to make the budget balanced in the wake of tax cuts. . .you'll hear no argument on that part from me.
-
Kerry may be a letdown in some ways, though I think he's better than he's made out to be. But the bottom line is that anyone who votes for Bush is a freakin' idiot. There's simply no way around that.
-
i think the bottom line is a Bush is a drooling idiot. Not the kind of guy i would want to talk to me on the street, have over for dinner, my friends to see me with, or anything else!
he's just WIERD. and i know my vote doesnt matter, but can you really look at Bush and think, "leader" lol, i dont see how.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by chaz:
I think it's so sad the way the working and middle class have been mesmerized by bush's tax cuts. They think he's on their side by lowering taxes for them, but don't they realize that 50% of the tax cuts bush has made go right into the pockets of the richest 1-2% of Americans?
Would that be the same 1-2% that pay 50% of income taxes? [/b]
But it doesn't really work that way does it?
Before EGTRRA (bush's 2001 tax cut) the percentage of federal tax paid the top 1% (who average like $1.1 million) year was 19%, while american families bringing home a total of between $73k and $97k paid 25% of their income to the feds. And that's before bush's tax cuts.
After EGTRAA the federal tax payment made by the top 1% went down by 12.5% while the 73-97k groups payment went down by only 7%.
So what wasn't fair to begin with was made even less fair by this administration.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
well, for example. . .if you made $50,000 a year and i made $1,000,000 a year, and congress lowered taxes at a flat 10%, your taxes would be lowered by $5,000 and mine would be lowered by $100,000. . .by saying the richest recieve the benefits in mis-leading. . they get the biggest deduction because they make the most money, and have a bigger pie to take from, as the above illustrates.
[/QB]
Do you really think it's this simple?
*News-Flash* We don't have a flat tax in this country.
-
Originally posted by chaz:
Do you really think it's this simple?
*News-Flash* We don't have a flat tax in this country.
i don't believe i ever said anything about a flat tax. . .you merely mentioned how tax cuts benefit the rich, and i pointed out that that's obvious since the rich make more money and have more money that can be taken away or given back to them.
-
Source?
Originally posted by chaz:
But it doesn't really work that way does it?
Before EGTRRA (bush's 2001 tax cut) the percentage of federal tax paid the top 1% (who average like $1.1 million) year was 19%, while american families bringing home a total of between $73k and $97k paid 25% of their income to the feds. And that's before bush's tax cuts.
After EGTRAA the federal tax payment made by the top 1% went down by 12.5% while the 73-97k groups payment went down by only 7%.
So what wasn't fair to begin with was made even less fair by this administration.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by chaz:
Do you really think it's this simple?
*News-Flash* We don't have a flat tax in this country.
i don't believe i ever said anything about a flat tax. . .you merely mentioned how tax cuts benefit the rich, and i pointed out that that's obvious since the rich make more money and have more money that can be taken away or given back to them. [/b]
Yes but the in the example you gave the guy who makes $1,000,000 was taxed at the same rate as the guy who makes $50,000 (hence my use of the term flat tax). The point is that the rich are taxed at a lower rate than the rest of us. Your example implies otherwise.
-
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=220 (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=220)
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Source?
Originally posted by chaz:
But it doesn't really work that way does it?
Before EGTRRA (bush's 2001 tax cut) the percentage of federal tax paid the top 1% (who average like $1.1 million) year was 19%, while american families bringing home a total of between $73k and $97k paid 25% of their income to the feds. And that's before bush's tax cuts.
After EGTRAA the federal tax payment made by the top 1% went down by 12.5% while the 73-97k groups payment went down by only 7%.
So what wasn't fair to begin with was made even less fair by this administration.
[/b]
-
Originally posted by chaz:
The point is that the rich are taxed at a lower rate than the rest of us.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/rates.html (http://taxes.yahoo.com/rates.html)
-
isn't there more to the picture than just income tax...weren't capital gains taxes decreased?
-
Flawd, I took the pic down because it took up the whole screen.
-
Originally posted by thirsty moore:
Flawd, I took the pic down because it took up the whole screen.
thank you, that shit's annoying!
-
The numbers on the link below are nowhere near what you cited.
Also, this doesn't tell you anything about why the numbers changed. Was it the effect of the Bush tax cut? Was it capital losses? Was it better tax-advantaged investment planning?
Originally posted by chaz:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=220 (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=220)
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
The numbers on the link below are nowhere near what you cited.
Be more specific please....
Any way, my origional point is this - 50% of the tax cuts put in place by bush have benefited the top 1% of taxpayers. The top 1% of taxpayers foot 25% of the total tax bill. How can you spin that to make me believe it is fair?
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
well, for example. . .if you made $50,000 a year and i made $1,000,000 a year, and congress lowered taxes at a flat 10%, your taxes would be lowered by $5,000 and mine would be lowered by $100,000. . .by saying the richest recieve the benefits in mis-leading. . they get the biggest deduction because they make the most money, and have a bigger pie to take from, as the above illustrates.
It's such a misnomer to talk about flat tax reductions. That's not what happened, there's a labyrinth of tax reform and changes that disproportionatly benefit the extremely wealthy.
And, Chaz made the key point. If you reduce taxes, you have to reduce spending in areas that don't impact/cost those you just "gave" their taxes back to (thereby nullifying the tax cut), for instance on social and locality services (no, not welfare, but the administration of local government, local services, local law enforcement/fire/highway & transportation budgets, etc).
-edit- Hadn't read down and read all chaz's answers yet.
-
PS, thanks Thirsty for taking the picture off.
-
Hallelujah Bags! Well put indeed.
What does GGW stand for anyhow..."Go Go W"? ;)
Originally posted by Bagalicious Tangster:
It's such a misnomer to talk about flat tax reductions. That's not what happened, there's a labyrinth of tax reform and changes that disproportionatly benefit the extremely wealthy.
And, Chaz made the key point. If you reduce taxes, you have to reduce spending in areas that don't impact/cost those you just "gave" their taxes back to (thereby nullifying the tax cut), for instance on social and locality services (no, not welfare, but the administration of local government, local services, local law enforcement/fire/highway & transportation budgets, etc). [/QB]
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Was it better tax-advantaged investment planning?
Joe and Mrs. Blow in middle America who are both working, and working extra jobs, just to pay the bills don't have time to research "tax-advantaged investment planning?"
-
Originally posted by chaz:
Be more specific please....
The numbers you supplied don't show that the top 1% were ever paying 19%. They were paying 25.9% and that is now 24.9%
Also, this statement:
the federal tax payment made by the top 1% went down by 12.5% while the 73-97k groups payment went down by only 7%.
...is fuzzy math. The dollar amount paid may have fallen by 12.5%, but that says nothing about how far the dollar base upon which those taxes were paid may have fallen. Again, as a percentage of total federal tax, the fall was 1%, not 12.5%.
Originally posted by chaz:
Any way, my origional point is this - 50% of the tax cuts put in place by bush have benefited the top 1% of taxpayers.
Where are you coming up with this?
Originally posted by chaz:
The top 1% of taxpayers foot 25% of the total tax bill. How can you spin that to make me believe it is fair?
Do you mean that it is unfair that those that earn only 19% of the income pay 25% of the taxes?
-
Originally posted by Bagalicious Tangster:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
well, for example. . .
It's such a misnomer to talk about flat tax reductions. That's not what happened, there's a labyrinth of tax reform and changes that disproportionatly benefit the extremely wealthy.
And, Chaz made the key point. If you reduce taxes, you have to reduce spending in areas that don't impact/cost those you just "gave" their taxes back to (thereby nullifying the tax cut), for instance on social and locality services (no, not welfare, but the administration of local government, local services, local law enforcement/fire/highway & transportation budgets, etc).
[/b]
what part of a for example was missed by y'all?? chaz argued that the rich don't pay enough in taxes, my point was that they pay alot in taxes, simply because they have more money that's taxed.
i agree, cutting spending is a key part of cutting taxes, and one that i agree with - to a point. having a balanced budget and bringing down the deficit is much more fiscally responsible, than cutting taxes. . .but cutting government spending is always a good option.
-
Let me add that I'm not saying that Chaz is 'wrong.' The fact is, I don't know. But neither does he. There are a lot of factors at play here and saying that the top 1% pay less in taxes than they did three years ago solely because of Bush's tax cuts ignores all those other factors.
And, while we are on the subject...has everyone noticed Kerry's tax plans? They include a cut in the topline corporate tax rates as well a host of other corporate tax incentives. These revenue losses will dwarf the increased taxes on those earning above $200k.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
They include a cut in the topline corporate tax rates as well a host of other corporate tax incentives.
But will this be offset by the closed loopholes for companies outsourcing labour?
-
OK...this one is driving me nuts. I'm not an expert on tax law. Christ.....every year I damn near have a fit filling out my 1040 ez and schedule a and itemized chartiable donation sheet etc etc. I could pull numbers from here and there all day long that purportedly support my opinion that could just as easily be shot down by the differing opinion. The fact of the matter is this - I'm of the belief that Bush's economic policies disproportionately benefit the weathiest of Americans. I guess I just have to leave it at that...we could go back and forth all day with this.
I'm pretty psyched for the election in Nov....it's bigger than any election any of us have probably ever lived through, in my opinion at least. The country is also more divided than I ever remember it being. Maybe I'm just older and more aware of things...I don't know...I just feel like this election is more important than just about anything I can ever remember.
-
GGW...you never answered my question...what does your username stand for, or is it just your initials?
-
Originally posted by chaz:
I just feel like this election is more important than just about anything I can ever remember.
Do you ever stop and wonder if things would be any different right now if someone else was the president? Much as I dont think very much of the current moronocracy, I am not convinced things would be very different if someone else was in charge.
-
Originally posted by chaz:
GGW...you never answered my question...what does your username stand for, or is it just your initials?
<img src="http://www.megadoc.net/TV/img/girlswild3.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
Originally posted by mark e smith:
Originally posted by chaz:
I just feel like this election is more important than just about anything I can ever remember.
Do you ever stop and wonder if things would be any different right now if someone else was the president? Much as I dont think very much of the current moronocracy, I am not convinced things would be very different if someone else was in charge. [/b]
Gosh...good question. I know I wouldn't feel so much loathing and spite towards the current administration, that's for sure. I also think I'd feel a little better about the country's trejectory on environmental matters, record on cival liberties...but the WMD's (where did the iraqis hide those things, anyway ;) ) and the economy, who knows how it would have gone with someone else.
And what's the deal with the Hyperdic banner?
-
Originally posted by chaz:
And what's the deal with the Hyperdic banner?
does this work?
<img src="http://www.ratingmylooks.com/girls_gone_wild.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
Originally posted by mark e smith:
Do you ever stop and wonder if things would be any different right now if someone else was the president?
Things wouldn't be much different:
After the biggest and longest economic boom in history, the roof was coming off no matter who was in office.
Had 9/11 happened under a Gore presidency, he would have been under more pressure to take drastic measures than Bush was, as he had been in the administration for 8 years before that.
The war in Iraq is a toss-up:
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
However, one would assume Gore would have at least attempted to build a better coalition. Then again, I don't think he complained about going into Kosovo without UN approval.
_________________________________
Don't forget that immediately following the 2000 election, the activist left vowed to protest every action taken by Bush. So, many people see all the bitching as sour grapes that would have happened no matter what policies Bush enacted.
__________________________________
GGW is simply my initials.
-
Originally posted by mark e smith:
Do you ever stop and wonder if things would be any different right now if someone else was the president? Much as I dont think very much of the current moronocracy, I am not convinced things would be very different if someone else was in charge.
as long as we're still operating under the current capitalist system, it will be mostly the same, I think, maybe a little bit better with international relations and a tiny bit better econimically here, but they (Kerry et al) can't undo the damage the existing system has wreaked on society in one administration
-
I have never jumped on the 9/11 Bush bashing bandwagon. This is such a precarious and difficult issue; I'm amazed the we catch and stop any major terrorist initiatives, and I know that the public has no idea of what really goes on, what the intelligence is, whether and how it's spun within any particular administration much less by any particular administration.
As to Iraq, I believe there were detrimentally poor decisions made in terms of negotiating with other entities. I don't think Iraq would have happened with another President.
These areas, though, are so outside of my knowledge base that I don't stand on these. The domestic issues make me wretch, and I think GW is misguided and arrogant to a degree that causes harm to the U.S. While some of the current economic issues and factors would exist in any administration, I believe they've been worsened by the Bush administration activities.
And yet, as I've learned within my own family, good and smart minds can see this differently. How, I swear I don't know, but that's one of the mysteries of life to me...
Hope is on the way. :D
-
Originally posted by Celeste:
but they (Kerry et al) can't undo the damage the existing system has wreaked on society in one administration
Which is why the Dems need the House and the Senate back!! :D [couldn't resist]
-
i'm happy i dont have to worry about taxes for a couple of years.
another president would probably go in if they recieved bad information. A lot of americans have changed their minds on going in since they found out there were no weapons. do you think kerry will end the war? no he won't. i pray he does a worse job then bush if he wins.
hope is on the way....bullshit.
there is no hope. only dreams of hope.
-
Originally posted by flawd101:
another president would probably go in if they recieved bad information.
Not sure I understood what you said, but if you are referring to receiving bad information about Irak, then the thing is that Bush didn´t receive bad information, that's what he wanted to do and he and the rest of the gang created this bad information. If I missunderstood your post, then forget about my reply.
-
Originally posted by Barcelona:
Originally posted by flawd101:
another president would probably go in if they recieved bad information.
Not sure I understood what you said, but if you are referring to receiving bad information about Irak, then the thing is that Bush didn´t receive bad information, that's what he wanted to do and he and the rest of the gang created this bad information. If I missunderstood your post, then forget about my reply. [/b]
Though I often don't agree with many of your political views, especially regarding America, I have no choice but to agree with you 100% on this one. In fact, I had been saying to a few people way back in the Clinton days that this was going to happen regardless of who was president. It all has to do with the corruption of nations (NOT just America) by the corporations and other very high level ultra-rich New World Order types.
Again, my new slogan: I hate election days. You have a choice of either the right cheek or the left cheek both of which are controlled by the same asshole!