kerry's speech thingy...

[Celeste]

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

[markie]

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?

[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!

[flawd101]

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.

[ggw]

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?

[Venerable Bede]

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.

[Herr Professor Doktor Doom]

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.

[sonickteam2]

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.

[chaz]

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.

[chaz]

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.

[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.

[ggw]

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.

[chaz]

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.

[chaz]

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]

[ggw]

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