Close

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst ... 3 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 108
  1. #61
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8516

    Default

    visit-red-300x50PNG
    Maybe. There's still a lot of

    undecided out there. The experts aren't sure which way they'll swing.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  2. #62
    Man of La Pancha
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The Pancho Villa
    Posts
    2,077
    Rep Power
    7943

    Default

    Experts estimate that most

    undecideds on Nov. 2 go to the challenger.

  3. #63
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pancho1188
    Experts

    estimate that most undecideds on Nov. 2 go to the challenger.
    They've also said that this year it may be

    different, that there are too many issues affecting the unusually high voter registrations.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  4. #64
    Man of La Pancha
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The Pancho Villa
    Posts
    2,077
    Rep Power
    7943

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by belgareth
    They've also

    said that this year it may be different, that there are too many issues affecting the unusually high voter

    registrations.
    They also guess that those new voters are most likely to be/vote Democrat. Two main

    reasons:

    1. People are voting out of spite (just to get Bush out)
    2. People who don't usually vote tend to be

    liberal and lean that way...either by being against the system or whatever. Since those people are either poor with

    a mindset that the government doesn't help them or they can't make a difference, they usually vote for the party

    that seems to be more for the working class, which tends to be the Democratic party. (This is under the assumption

    that Republicans are more likely to have already registered to vote)


    One could do an interesting

    psychological study on this...the mindset of voters, party affiliation, and locus of control. One could conjecture

    that those who don't vote have an external locus of control vs. those who do/internal locus of control. You could

    stretch your guess by saying those with internal locus of control believe they can accomplish something, go out and

    do it, make a lot of money, become more conservative in their politics and don't need the government interfering,

    and therefore tend to vote Republican...vs. external -> victim of circumstance -> not as successful -> believe in

    government protecting the working class -> vote Democrat.


    Hmmm...

    Although I would be an exception to

    this because I consider myself liberal with internal locus of control...because everything I do is my fault, dammit!


  5. #65
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pancho1188
    They also

    guess that those new voters are most likely to be/vote Democrat. Two main reasons:
    Not the article I

    read, they said they couldn't be sure what was going to happen. I tried to find it this morning but couldn't.

    We'll see, in any case.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  6. #66
    Man of La Pancha
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The Pancho Villa
    Posts
    2,077
    Rep Power
    7943

    Default

    True. I was merely stating the

    fact that those who have tried the hardest to get people to vote for this particular election are trying to get

    people to vote against Bush (I refer to people like Michael Moore and those in the typically liberal media..."Vote

    or Die"...I can't help but think that that insinuates that if we don't vote Bush out of office, we'll die...but

    maybe it's inferring that if we vote for Kerry we'll all die...I guess you have to give the benefit of the doubt,

    but I don't see how simply not voting is going to kill you---despite those rumors I've heard about potential

    drive-by shootings in areas of low voter turnouts. Just kidding.)

    Then again, I didn't see any statistics on

    how many new voters came from these untraditional methods of getting people to register as opposed to the national

    movement to vote more. Therefore, I would agree with you, Bel. It could just be everyone wants a piece of the

    action.


    Either way:

    1. It's going to be interesting.
    2. Whoever wins may have the most justified reason

    for being in office because this vote may see the biggest turnout in who knows how long. Good stuff.
    Last edited by Pancho1188; 10-25-2004 at 12:06 PM.

  7. #67
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8516

    Default

    One pundit suggested that many

    of the newly registered voters might even go for somebody outside the two big parties. I doubt that will happen but

    it would sure be fun to watch.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  8. #68
    Doctor of Scentology DrSmellThis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,233
    Rep Power
    8666

    Default

    The only thing we know for

    sure is that suprises are possible. I don't think Bush will win by a big margin unless something funky happens,

    though. He may win. They're predicting Bush will get twice the African-American vote this time, compared to 2000,

    due to the importance of religious issues like abortion, stem cell research, and gay marriage in this campaign. (It

    amazed me that these issues were discussed so extensively in the debates whereas the environment was never mentioned

    once.). Ohio papers are endorsing him. Bush is staying "on message" with the "I'll fight terrorism and

    Flipflopper won't" schtick. It plays well in speeches where you don't have any other side. Still, I'll give the

    edge to Kerry due to the new voters. Nader will be insignificant. I live right in the middle of Nader's strongest

    support base historically (Portland, or "Little Beirut", as George Sr. calls it), and he has alienated them.
    Last edited by DrSmellThis; 10-25-2004 at 12:58 PM.
    DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)

  9. #69
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8516

    Default

    I'd vote against Bush just on

    the abortion, Gay marraige and Stem cell issues. No, Doc. That does not mean I will vote for Kerry. I saw an article

    today that the Brits support Homer Simpson, I may write him in. Beats the alternatives.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  10. #70
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    63
    Rep Power
    7125

    Default

    You guys pay too much

    attention to the spin masters and polls both are going to be way off this time Kerry/Edwards ticket is on a roll and

    will stay on a roll right up to thru the finish. Get ready for a big surprize! The Truth. LOLOLOLOL

    Elk


  11. #71
    Sadhu bjf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    3,781
    Rep Power
    8182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by belgareth
    I'd vote against

    Bush just on the abortion, Gay marraige and Stem cell issues. No, Doc. That does not mean I will vote for Kerry. I

    saw an article today that the Brits support Homer Simpson, I may write him in. Beats the alternatives.

    Texas is a lost cause anyway.

  12. #72
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bjf
    Texas is a lost

    cause anyway.
    Surprisingly, Bush's home town newspaper is supporting Kerry. It never pays to generalize.



    Besides, I learned politics in California.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  13. #73
    DeMoKiLL
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pancho1188
    They also

    guess that those new voters are most likely to be/vote Democrat. Two main reasons:

    1. People are voting out

    of spite (just to get Bush out)
    2. People who don't usually vote tend to be liberal and lean that way...either by

    being against the system or whatever. Since those people are either poor with a mindset that the government doesn't

    help them or they can't make a difference, they usually vote for the party that seems to be more for the working

    class, which tends to be the Democratic party. (This is under the assumption that Republicans are more likely to

    have already registered to vote)


    One could do an interesting psychological study on this...the mindset of

    voters, party affiliation, and locus of control. One could conjecture that those who don't vote have an external

    locus of control vs. those who do/internal locus of control. You could stretch your guess by saying those with

    internal locus of control believe they can accomplish something, go out and do it, make a lot of money, become more

    conservative in their politics and don't need the government interfering, and therefore tend to vote

    Republican...vs. external -> victim of circumstance -> not as successful -> believe in government protecting the

    working class -> vote Democrat.


    Hmmm...

    Although I would be an exception to this because I consider

    myself liberal with internal locus of control...because everything I do is my fault, dammit!
    hey watch it

    mr. pancho, im a republican, they both are horrible canidates but you know those good democrats;-) tax the hell out

    of the rich who worked to get rich, then give it to the poor. Or of course the good old affirmative action which

    means, if your black and if they don't have many black applicants your guaranteed to get in. I think that, everyone

    needs to have a fair chance to get into college based on how hard you work and what grades you make. If a college is

    99.8% asian and .1 % white and .1% black so be it, its about working hard not about race or gender.

    -btw sorry

    if I offended anyone with this post
    Peace and <3 :-)

  14. #74
    Sadhu bjf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    3,781
    Rep Power
    8182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by belgareth
    Surprisingly,

    Bush's home town newspaper is supporting Kerry. It never pays to generalize.

    Besides, I learned politics

    in California.
    Yea, but when was the last time a Democrat won that state?

  15. #75
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bjf
    Yea, but when was

    the last time a Democrat won that state?
    Which one and which office?
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  16. #76
    Sadhu bjf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    3,781
    Rep Power
    8182

    Default

    President.

  17. #77
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8516

    Default

    Don't know as I haven't kept

    track. I do know that the state senate has been primarily democrats fr a long time and only changed with the last

    election.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  18. #78
    Phero Pharaoh
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,186
    Rep Power
    7682

    Default

    I seriously doubt Kerry will

    win the election. The media seem to be doing their darndest to paint Kerry as breathing down Bush's neck, but in

    driving from Florida to Texas and back, and in speaking to a lot of people, I haven't heard of much support for

    Kerry at all at the grass roots level.

    It's sort of like the violence in Iraq. Very few people over there are

    actually being killed (in a country of 24 million, the deaths are only in the low thousands). Most people go about

    their lives and their situations are gradually improving. Do the media report that? No. They focus on the

    terrorist attacks.

    But you can tell there is less and less for the media to write about because every new story

    recaps the previous three stories.

    Take the situation with Bush's tax cut. Some media reports claim that it

    favored the rich. However, two thirds of the tax cut benefitted middle class and low-income people, and two-thirds

    of the people who benefitted from the tax cut were middle class and low-income people.

    How is it, then, that the

    tax-cut "favored" the rich? That's just political spin being picked up by the press.

    Most sources seem to

    agree that the tax-cut didn't create jobs as promised, but they don't bother to explain how raising taxes on the

    rich and lowering taxes still further for the low-income and middle class people will create more jobs. If your tax

    bill is cut by $1,000 more, how many people will you plan to hire in the coming year?

    There is no meat to the

    media coverage. No meat usually means no upset.

    Kerry needs a miracle to win the election. I don't see one

    arriving in the next week, but then, a week can be a very long time.

  19. #79
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    63
    Rep Power
    7125

    Talking

    Fla to Texas, LOLOLOLOL

    Nothing decided there.Look at Key States for the meat. The Miracle is happening,
    Kerry/Edwards are on a roll.

    Bush and Chaney playing catch up. Incumbents running like chicks with their heads off. Do you think they would do

    that if they had it in the bag?
    Until this campaign Bush was the guy who liked to be in bed by 7:00 PM, Chaney

    was seldom seen in public.Rice in her office, Laura in the Library, Babs and Jen in a bar, Its Its over thanks to

    PA,Oh,Mi,Minn. You can feel it in the air and your guts if your alert and not sucking your own pheromones.

    LOLOLOLOL

    Elk :

  20. #80
    Doctor of Scentology DrSmellThis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,233
    Rep Power
    8666

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Friendly1
    It's sort

    of like the violence in Iraq. Very few people over there are actually being killed (in a country of 24 million,

    the deaths are only in the low thousands). Most people go about their lives and their situations are

    gradually improving. Do the media report that? No. They focus on the terrorist attacks.
    http://pherolibrary.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11564
    DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)

  21. #81
    Man of La Pancha
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The Pancho Villa
    Posts
    2,077
    Rep Power
    7943

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Friendly1
    How is it,

    then, that the tax-cut "favored" the rich? That's just political spin being picked up by the press.

    All tax cuts that benefit all citizens favor the rich. Since the rich have more money, they save more

    money from tax cuts because they give more to the government in the first place.

    That doesn't make his tax cut

    targeted toward the rich, it's just that the more money you have, the more money you get back when your taxes are

    lowered. Simple math. The media just spins it and the people eat it up because they want to blame rich people for

    their problems.

    It's funny because if you actually ask people about our tax system, most people think it's a

    decent system (besides the complications of it all, the system in general). In fact, if you said, "How about we tax

    the rich 80% and tax people who make under $30,000 per year 0%?" People would actually not like that because they

    wouldn't feel it was fair to the rich and would feel that they weren't contributing to the government.

    People

    whine and complain, but statistics have shown that when polled on the actual system instead of idealogy like, "Do

    you think the rich or the poor should be taxed more?" our system does pretty well with citizens...

    That just

    goes to show you how the media and government can make something out of nothing.

    (Before everyone comes in and

    says, "I hate the tax system and would love to pay less," I'm just stating figures from my tax course a year or so

    ago that polled citizens on the tax system)

  22. #82
    Man of La Pancha
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The Pancho Villa
    Posts
    2,077
    Rep Power
    7943

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeMoKiLL
    hey watch it

    mr. pancho, im a republican, they both are horrible canidates but you know those good democrats;-) tax the hell out

    of the rich who worked to get rich, then give it to the poor. Or of course the good old affirmative action which

    means, if your black and if they don't have many black applicants your guaranteed to get in. I think that, everyone

    needs to have a fair chance to get into college based on how hard you work and what grades you make. If a college is

    99.8% asian and .1 % white and .1% black so be it, its about working hard not about race or gender.

    -btw sorry

    if I offended anyone with this post
    Peace and <3 :-)


    I'm laughing because I thought I was more

    likely to offend Democrats in my post than Republicans. I guess I just offend everyone.

    I agree

    with you on the rich who worked hard to get rich, but on the affirmative action thing: I think that you should get a

    job/college/scholarship/whatever based on merit, but you have to realize that the system is heavily divided by race.

    African Americans get worse education than many other races because many of them are located in inner-city schools

    or places with a bad education system. In other words, the current education system is very lopsided, and the

    effects of segregation, slavery, etc. are still being felt today with a divided class and education system. Isn't

    it wrong for African Americans to miss out on educational and vocational opportunities because they went to a bad

    school?

    I believe that it's not race that's the problem anymore; it's social class. However, most of the

    people in the lower class are, in fact, minorities.

    Again, I agree that education should be based on effort, but

    after living in DC and seeing these inner-city schools...I wonder about the divided system...not by race, but by

    class that just happens to correlate with race.

    I am personally an example of a person who grew up poor (if

    anyone knows the poverty line statistics, I could tell you where I was for a single mother with 2 kids) but went to

    a good school. I'm doing well now. Think about all of the other people who could do well, too, if they went to a

    good school regardless of their social class. Had I went to a bad school...well, I certainly wouldn't be where I

    am today. Since I'm not a minority, I would've been royally screwed because no one's going to help out a stupid

    'majority'.


    Anyway, I just felt like playing devil's advocate. You don't need to justify this

    with a response.

  23. #83
    Phero Pharaoh
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,186
    Rep Power
    7682

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Pancho1188
    All

    tax cuts that benefit all citizens favor the rich. Since the rich have more money, they save more money from tax

    cuts because they give more to the government in the first place.
    There is no logic in such a statement.

    MOST of the tax money saved was saved by people making less than $100K per year.

    Hence, the tax cuts favored the

    majority of people, not the rich.

  24. #84
    Doctor of Scentology DrSmellThis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,233
    Rep Power
    8666

    Default

    From economists at the

    Brookings Institution:

    "Making the tax cuts permanent would be regressive; that is, it would confer by far the

    biggest benefits on high-income taxpayers. After-tax income would increase by more than 6 percent for households in

    the top 1 percent of the nation's income distribution, 2 percent for households in the middle 60 percent, and only

    0.3 percent for households in the bottom 20 percent. The share of the tax cut accruing to high-income taxpayers

    would exceed their share of federal tax payments today, so their share of the federal tax burden would decline. The

    tax cuts will ultimately have to be financed with other tax increases or spending cuts. Once plausible methods of

    financing the tax cuts are taken into account, more than three-quarters of households are likely to end up worse off

    than they would have been if the tax cuts had never taken effect."



    http://www.brookings.edu/views/articles/2004

    0919galeorszag.htm
    DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)

  25. #85
    Man of La Pancha
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The Pancho Villa
    Posts
    2,077
    Rep Power
    7943

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Friendly1
    There is no

    logic in such a statement. MOST of the tax money saved was saved by people making less than $100K per year.



    Hence, the tax cuts favored the majority of people, not the rich.
    I think you're looking at it

    differently than I am. I am talking about each person. People say that a rich person benefits more than a poor

    person through tax cuts. This is absolutely true. If you reduce both of our tax rates by 1% and one guy makes

    $1,000,000 and I make $10,000, he just saved $10,000 while I only saved $100. Therefore, a tax cut favors the rich

    because they will always save more money. Notice in this black-and-white, unrealistic example that it would take 100

    of me to save the equivalent amount of money of one of him.

    You are speaking in terms of the number of people it

    affects. If you reduce the tax rate by 1%, most of the people who benefit will be working class because there are

    more poor than rich. That is true.

    However, the total money will always benefit the rich because the top

    20% pay 80% of the taxes and the bottom 80% pay 20% of the taxes. If anyone would like to do the math on how much

    you would have to deduct poor people's taxes to equal the deduction of the rich, be my guest. That's too technical

    for me. But if you take my example, to give me the same benefit as the rich guy, you'd have tax me 0% because his

    tax savings equalled my total income!

    "Favor the rich" means that they save more money than poor people, which

    will always be true because they have more money and pay more taxes. How is this not logical?

    However, if

    the total money saved by people making less than $100,000 per year was more than the total money of people making

    over $100,000 per year, then you could easily argue that it did not favor the rich. I'm just trying to defend

    politicians and the rich who always get the "tax cuts favor the rich" stigma because according the the media's

    definition, it will always be true.
    Last edited by Pancho1188; 10-26-2004 at 02:47 PM. Reason: Not sure...this is long and horrible. I just want to delete the thing but put too much thought into it to scrap it.

  26. #86
    Phero Pharaoh
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,186
    Rep Power
    7682

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Pancho1188
    I think

    you're looking at it differently than I am. I am talking about each person. People say that a rich person benefits

    more than a poor person through tax cuts.
    And a rich person is hurt less by raising taxes than a poor

    person, so all increases in taxes benefit the rich.

    Wealthy or poor, all people in the United States are

    expected to contribute part of their income to the government's budget. The wealthiest people in this country --

    the multimillionnaires -- invest their money in various tax-deferred plans, such as tax-free bonds (which means they

    are lending their money to the government). It has been argued through the years that they don't pay taxes.

    Hence, they aren't benefitting from any tax cuts.

    The less wealthy people, who nonetheless still fall in that

    ambiguous category of "the wealthy", do pay taxes. They pay proportionately more taxes than people with lower

    incomes, and they pay substantially more taxes (as individuals) than people with lower incomes.

    So, any tax cut

    across the board benefits them LESS than it benefits the people who earn less than they do.

    They may end up with

    thousands more dollars at the end of the year, but they earned those dollars to begin with. Some how, some way.



    Therefore, no tax cut can ever benefit the rich, unless it specifically targets the rich (and Bush's tax cuts

    didn't do that -- the wealthy taxpayers benefitted less than the middle class taxpayers).

    Having your money

    taken from you is not a benefit. The benefits really come from the programs those taxes pay for, and last time I

    checked, there were more programs benefitting the poor than benefitting the rich.

  27. #87
    Phero Pharaoh
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,186
    Rep Power
    7682

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by DrSmellThis
    From

    economists at the Brookings Institution:

    "Making the tax cuts permanent would be regressive; that is, it would

    confer by far the biggest benefits on high-income taxpayers.
    Blah, blah, blah.

    I've read all that

    hokum before. What all these tax-cut analysts conveniently neglect to point out is that the income taxes are

    deducted from income.

    We may not like the fact that we are making only 1 per cent of the income of the guy next

    door, but he is earning it.

    We already have a progressive tax system. The more you make, the more they take.

    The rich aren't benefitting from the tax system more than the middle class or the poor. The rich just earn more

    than the rest of us.

  28. #88
    Man of La Pancha
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The Pancho Villa
    Posts
    2,077
    Rep Power
    7943

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Friendly1
    Wealthy or

    poor, all people in the United States are expected to contribute part of their income to the government's budget.

    The wealthiest people in this country -- the multimillionnaires -- invest their money in various tax-deferred plans,

    such as tax-free bonds (which means they are lending their money to the government). It has been argued through the

    years that they don't pay taxes. Hence, they aren't benefitting from any tax cuts.

    ...

    Therefore, no tax

    cut can ever benefit the rich, unless it specifically targets the rich (and Bush's tax cuts didn't do that -- the

    wealthy taxpayers benefitted less than the middle class taxpayers).
    I'm not going to argue on the

    following points because you're right:

    1. The rich use tax shelters
    2. The rich pay a lot more percentage of

    their income to taxes
    3. Everyone deserves to contribute to the government in which they enjoy the benefits of

    living
    4. The rich (well, the ones that earned it through hard work and not by screwing people out of their

    pensions like Enron) deserve their income just like everyone else does
    5. Everyone will always complain

    about paying taxes, and the poor have the benefit of blaming the rich for no reason because the poor reap benefits

    (army, police, government, etc.) because of the money that rich people pay to the government---in fact, people

    should be thankful for what they already have to some extent

    #2 proves my point, however, since the rich pay so

    much more taxes then they would benefit from a tax cut...You can't say that Bush's tax plan didn't benefit the

    rich. Bush lowered every tax bracket with his new tax plan. He lowered the top tax bracket to like 33%

    (can't remember...might be 36 or something...I'm sure someone on the forum knows the exact numbers) from whatever

    it was previously. Again, I'm not saying this is a bad thing. In fact, if the rich have more money to spend, then

    they invest it into the economy and help get us out of a recession. You know the poor don't have that much control

    on whether they keep their jobs or not because of the economy. I know that I would like to reach that tax bracket

    one day, and I sure as hell don't want to be paying all of it in taxes.

    Anyway, your reference to non-taxable

    investments is:

    1. referring to interest income vs. non-interest income, and even if the rich

    invested all of their money in tax-deferred plans would still have to pay taxes on their non-interest

    income
    2. referring to only a portion of people's total investments (The reason why they're tax-free is because

    they're from the government and they're low-interest. No one is going to put all of their money in low-interest

    investments.)

    Again, I am not arguing that the rich don't deserve a tax break. Hell, I am with Bel (I think it

    was Bel who was for the flat tax) when I say that everyone should pay an equal share to the government unless

    you're, say, below the poverty line. I think that the rich deserve a tax break if the middle and lower class get a

    tax break. However, I'm against tax breaks all together because you're just going to have to raise taxes again,

    anyway...look at the deficit! Anyone who knows basic economics knows that it's a good temporary solution to rid

    the economy of a recession/depression, but as soon as the economy is back on its feet, the government will be right

    back at your door asking for that money they need to balance the budget that currently entered into the (how many 0s

    are in a trillion? 1,000,000,000,000) 13+ figure range.

    They have Kerry pegged as the guy who will increase

    taxes. How else are you going to pay for all of this? It's like the teenage girl who goes nuts with daddy's

    credit card and daddy has to start whoring his daughter out to pay for the debt---(okay, it's not like that, but I

    just wanted to say that)---I mean has to tax away all of his family's allowances to pay off the debt.

  29. #89
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8516

    Default

    You're right, Pancho, I

    brought up the flat tax and would support it under certain conditions. But it will never come to pass because the

    conservatives will fight it for one reason, the liberals (ok, progressives) for another.

    In a private discussion

    I tried to explain what I think is wrong with the way our country and most others is run. Look at it as a machine

    producing some product, the GDP. Currently our machine uses more than 50% of it's total output for it's control

    systems, ie: government. People complain all the time about their inefficient car that uses 5% of it's gross energy

    budget to operate but tolerate a government that uses ten times as much. As an engineer, if i were to design a

    machine that was so inefficient, I'd never work again.

    Some factions want to tax the richest to help support

    the poorest and within certain limits, that's not a bad thing. However, the way we are doing it, about 15% of every

    tax dollar taken from the wage earners to help the needy actually gets to the people it's intended for. The rest

    goes to support the machine. There's something terribly wrong with that and no matter who is paying the larger

    portion, no matter who gets the better tax breaks, we are all getting screwed. A flat tax would not make things

    better right now because of the inefficiency of the machine. It would only result in government having less

    accountability and greater deficits. We need to fix the mind set that ever increasing taxes are ok, that it is our

    responsibilty to pay for our leaders inability or unwillingness to operate in an effective and efficient manner.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  30. #90
    Bad Motha Holmes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,004
    Rep Power
    7990

    Default

    Franki?
    If a guy's a cocksucker in his life, when he dies, he don't become a saint. - Morris Levy, Hitmen

    Holmes' Theme Song

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst ... 3 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Question about body language
    By lordcrazyd in forum Pheromone Discussion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 09-11-2004, 03:51 AM
  2. Body Language
    By nemx2000 in forum Pheromone Discussion
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 09-10-2004, 01:13 PM
  3. Reading body language
    By ironration in forum Pheromone Discussion
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 09-01-2003, 01:05 PM
  4. Pheromones and Body Language
    By Alquimista in forum Pheromone Discussion
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 04-27-2003, 05:49 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •