I guess it's just plain coincidence that it is always republicans that go to war. They just happen to be the leadership when this stuff happens.

Try, they are always getting into everyone elses business. Even women's woombs.

Actually, I do see your point, but I don't believe in killing people EVER. And, Tax cuts should not be based on percentages. If they are, they should include every cent a person pays to the government in every form of tax. Not just income tax. So much of what every person needs for a minimum acceptable standard of living is taxed. This takes a heavy toll on those with little income.

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, NOT DUBBYA, BRING THEM HOME NOW.

 

DVPGSR
How much in actual dollars did W's tax cut increase your income?

 

Honestly I am not sure...I never did the analysis. Too much has happened in my life to know for sure since Bush was elected...getting married, buying a condo. My wife and I did get back a $150 refund this year as opposed to paying $2500 last year...and we only bought a house and had it for 1 month for 2002.

Oh and when it comes to all other forms of taxes...not income tax or luxury tax...they are distributed fairly to the rest of the population. We all pay the same tolls, sales tax, gas tax, prepared food tax, tourism tax. The only thing not equal is the income tax and the luxury tax.

 

DVPGSR

That is where the problem lies. The less money you make, the greater percent of your total income goes to the govt in one form or another, just for the things that everyone needs: Gas, Driver's liscence, electricity, phone... The taxes on basic necessities of life, make percent based income tax reduction unfair to those with less income.

If you make 20k a year, 45% of your total income may go to the govt, even though you are in a lower income tax bracket. If you make 200k a year, maybe it is 34%

 

Not true...the top tax bracket is already around 40% for income tax alone. Factor in that if you are in that tax bracket your property taxes are most likely considerably higher, not to mention all of the increased taxes on utilities that you have and you are probably paying over 50% of your pre-tax dollars to taxes. Lets look at an example.

Taken from here http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/busi...axes-headlines and I am using Single.

A person in the 28% tax bracket making $63,550 a year gets a 5% tax cut dropping them to 23%...they pay $14,617 (rounded to the nearest dollar) a year in taxes...down from $17,794, a savings of $3177 a year. I am currently in this tax bracket and I know with my lifestyle I would love to have another $3177 a year in my pocket. There is a lot I could do with that money.

Now lets look at a person in the 36% tax braket...a place I could conceivably be in the next 5 years. For arguments sake lets say that I am making the top of that tax bracket $288,350 and I too get a 5% tax break. That means I pay $89,389 (rounded to the nearest dollar) a year in taxes...down from $103,806, a savings of $14,417. I know that my lifestyle at that tax bracket could use that $14,417 since I would have larger expenses than I currently do now. I would have a larger house, more expensive cars, higher creditcard debt etc. that the additional money caould go to.

The money you save in each tax bracket would be relative to the lifestyle you live...it also gives you an incentive to work harder and make more. Lowering the lower tax brakets more than the higher ones makes a larger disparity between them...this increases the tax burden on a person as they make more money. You could conceivably have a person at the top of one tax bracket that when they get a raise to bump them into the next bracket they see less after-tax dollars. This would be detrimental to that person and would not be a motivating factor for them to advance more because for the next few years they would actually see less money than they did in the previous tax bracket. This is very key to people that work on commision...why would they work as hard as they know they can and earn what they truly could if the tax benefit is not there? People work hard for their money and I think that more of the money should be given back to them irregardless of which tax bracket they are in.

 

My only argument here is with the above. See, when incomes become extreme, I'm talking like over a mill/year, the tax bracket may be 39.6%, but taxes on utilities, property, driving expenses... are so miniscule in comparison to income level, they may only raise total tax burden to 41%. Conversely, someone making minimum wage, who drives, has a phone, electricity... (and these things are needed just in order to keep the job) may pay 50% of their income to the govt in overall expenses, taxes and fees.


As for the rest, I used your link and do see your point. It seems to me that it is the middle class who is getting skrewed.
I definately agree that the jumps in tax brackets from 15 to 28% and from 31 to 36% are drastic and that the income levels for every bracket are way too low.

My wife and I are in the 31% bracket and feel we are paying too much. If we made 2k less this year, we would be in the 28% bracket and would probably be keeping more of our money.

Thus far, however, my and your tax rates have not changed. You are not currently at your proposed 23%. Is this going to happen and when? I hope it happens soon and not at the end of the 10 year plan.

Also, maybe you have a link outlining W's tax policy. Maybe, and I mean maybe, I am being a bit hypercritical regarding his tax policy. Particularly in that I may be reacting mostly to conservative policy of the past, rather that what is going on now. I am always open to revieving and revising my perspective. Therefore, I am willing to give a read and investigate further.

 

which is pretty much like I said. Only so much money could be made.

Quote:

ok, bush won because of the electoral votes. Gore really won with popularity votes, but it doesn't matter since you can only get so many electoral votes per state, and those are what counts.

If that system fails, and the very state that decides the vote comes up bunk, what do you think people would think? Thats not a good omen.

Quote:

i don't feel like getting into an argument with you on this one.. to be frank, i'm tired of arguing with people that don't listen.

You don't seem to understand. We see things differently. Thats the deal. I'm not trying to push my veiws and say you're all wrong. I'm just providing lesser-known fact. Call them half-truths, but they're no better than the points you bring up. Like I've said time and time again, this is the war over who's less wrong. And whats worse, this war against terror is nothing but a open invitation for someone to royally fuck this country, and I rather not see that. But hey, whatever you get is usually deserved.

I see no point in risking American soldiers lives to protect our interests with Isreal and Oil. It's strickly for the dollar, and I think thats sick. I don't understand what I'm not listening to. I know that Iraq poses no imidiate threat to us, and common sense would tell us attacking the man is just going to bring on more problems. Zelots are going to throw a fit. Things will be bombed. I don't understand how people fail to see that.

Maybe I'm not listening to the propaganda?

Quote:

you just proved my point.

its cool. Unlike most, I agree to disagree. We all have our own reasons to beleive in what we do. God bless a democrasy. But that in no way means we should be telling people they should be like us. Where's the diversity and culture in that?

 

translation: Not only are you wrong, you're also unpatriotic

Quote:

If the economy began to dive when Bush was President Elect that was on Clinton's watch...He chose to pardon people to the highest bidder instead of caring for the economy. I am sure the dot-com bust was because of the fear that Bush might get elected.

What would Clintons lax pardons have to do with buyer confidence?

Besides, he's not the first president to abuse that authority, and won't be the last, either.

When Clinton left office, the economy was heading down YES....BUT he left us with a budget surplus, AND the possibility of paying off the national debt within 8 years. Under Clinton the economy was the best it had been in history...and now under Bush its nearly as bad as during the great depression

People need to quit studying Bush-enomics instead of economics

Quote:

As for starting wars Vietnam was started by the North Vietnamese...we originally went in to assist as advisors a friendly non-Comunist government against the aggression of a Communist one.

The Korean War was started when the Communist North Korean army invaded South Korea where we had troops stationed after WWII had ended. Like Vietnam we were defending a non-Communist government against the aggressions of a Communist invader.

you know what, you're absolutely right.

But perhaps it was the Republicans who allowed those conflicts to esclate to the levels they respectivly did. Just a thought....

not that the democrats are much better. I just stick with my "wasted" third party vote.

Quote:

Gulf War I started after Iraq invaded Kuwait and Saudi Arabia asked for assistance out of the fear that they were next on Iraqs radar screen. The US then lead a coalition against Iraq to get them out of Kuwait...after Iraq had invaded it!

when he invaded Iran and Kuwait (the only 2 countries he has invaded) it was 1. for defense of himself and 2. to stop kuwait from over producing oil causing oil prices to plunge sending iraq into further economic trouble. Not to take over those countries.

also when he gassed the kurds (his own people) it was because Iran talked them into overthrowing saddam...so again it was protection of himself

Quote:

Gulf War II started as a result of Iraq's inability to relinquish WMD. We are the aggressors in this war because if we are not we could be the victims. And the fact that you call it operation oil proves that you base your opinions on conspiracy theories and not actual fact.

First of all, if you still beleive Iraq has WMD, you're ludicris.

Chemical or Biological? Maybe...... But it's still not proven.

Also by pre-emptive attacking Iraq, it gives countries like N korea and china the place to say they can launch pre emptive strikes when they feel threatened.

Another interesting fact:

North Korea has killed MANY of its own people, kid napped japanese students to the language for spies, and put dangerous weapons within close range of hitting its neighbors....but BUSH says diplomacy will work with NK but not Iraq? Do you people fail to notice these things? Or are the liberals the only ones who see them?

 

more?

(09/11/1973 and 12/07/1975)

Chileans, who lost at least 3,000 people because of a military coup that the U.S. supported on September 11, 1973, or the East Timorese, who lost 200,000 people (1/3 of the population) after we assisted Indonesia in their destruction of that nation beginning with the invasion of the small island on December 7, 1975. Of course, Chile's population was only 10-12 million at the time, and in comparison to our loss of 3,000 people on 09/11/2001, it would be like losing 80-90,000 U.S. citizens. The Chileans had no such recourse against us for aiding General Augusto Pinochet in his torture and murder of thousands of his people, which we supported.

Nor have the East Timorese, or the dozens of other poor nations we have assisted in the repression and/or destruction of, been given the right to retaliate against us. Government documents detailing the U.S. involvement in the Chilean coup and the genocide of East Timor are provided in full text on the National Security Archive's website, supported by George Washington University:
http://www.hfni.gsehd.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/.

The only reason we were involved was for profit. Not national security.

if you want to call it half truths, fine, but if you'd look into it you will find out its true

If one were to look closely at the past 58 years, one would be hard pressed to find a single U.S. military or C.I.A. intervention that has brought us one iota of safety, or, for that matter, that has actually been done for national defense purposes. The guy with the masters hit the nail right on the head. Its about politcs and business. Thats it.

Bush knows that this war will altogether increase the likely hood of terrorism, so whats his reason for going there...obviosly not to make this country a safer place...thats for damn sure. I mean fuck....

 

and about news media being liberal.... Lets think about how this works. Republicans support big business....those business' in turn donate money to republican canidates (enron giving to bush) so those canidates have it in their best interest to watch out for the business'. WELL those business' also advertise on networks, the networks get their money from those advertisments. SO if the networks were to put out a story to TAINT the companies canidates, which in turn would hurt big business, those companies would pull their advertisements from the networks and the networks would lose money....SOOO it is in the best interest of the networks to report to the RIGHT, so they get more money...cuase if they don't, they can kiss the cash good bye