|
2004 Ballot Cast. My vote has gone to ........ (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| speedracer_mec |
| quote: | Originally posted by wolverine16
As far as tax cuts, how is Bush planning to pay for tax cuts, Iraq, Afghanistan and the deficit? He's not! Just leave it for the next guy. If you do give tax cuts,you should give it to those with less,because it does stimulate the economy. People with little money will spend it, because they don't have enough. That money then goes into businesses who are providing a service and allows the owner of the business to make money and hire more people or provided better incentives for existing workers. Trickle down economics doesn't work, because by giving to people who already have money and are presumed to be buisness owners, there is no free market competition to earn money, which is the main idea of capitalism. Investing in the lower class works it's way up and helps all. |
I found it funny during the debates when Kerry looked into the camera and said he wasn't going to raise taxes and yet he is now proposing all these new plans under his big "PLAN"
Does he plan to pull the cash out of the ketchup fund? |
|
|
| wolverine16 |
| quote: | Originally posted by speedracer_mec
I found it funny during the debates when Kerry looked into the camera and said he wasn't going to raise taxes and yet he is now proposing all these new plans under his big "PLAN"
Does he plan to pull the cash out of the ketchup fund? |
I don't think his numbers add up, but Bush doesn't even try to explain how he'll pay for the deficits he's run up. I thought Republicans were supposed to be fiscally responsible. |
|
|
| ResonantDrag |
| quote: | Originally posted by speedracer_mec
I found it funny during the debates when Kerry looked into the camera and said he wasn't going to raise taxes and yet he is now proposing all these new plans under his big "PLAN"
Does he plan to pull the cash out of the ketchup fund? |
tell me again how we're paying for the war in iraq.. i must not have been listening the first time. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Everybody who pays taxes got a cut. If you don't pay any taxes, why would you be entitled to receive anything back that you never put in in the first place? Tax credits are nothing but glorified tax warfare and government controlled distribution of wealth, when it's not the government's wealth in the first place.
Redundant. You could've consolidated these points and wasted less space.
Sounds like you haven't got a clue about the whole flu shot issue--why it came about and how the dynamics actually work. It has nothing to do with Bush, but if you've been sucking John Kerry's dick for a few weeks, you probably got the impression that Bush is responsible for the law of entropy, gravity, lunar cheese, etc.
Who? France? What "lies" are you speaking of. Very general comment there.
I don't know how many war plans have ever been executed perfectly, but it sounds like you've been listening to Kerry again. Of course, Kerry says he "Outsourced the job to the warlords"--nice use of a negative buzzword. Nevermind that those warlords presumably(and logically so) know the terrain of those mountains much better than the marines who have never been there before, and therefore it was probably a very logical strategy to implement. Nevermind the fact that it was never proven definitively that Osama was even in the areas where they were searching.
America is a ty place? How so specifically for you? My income has gone up over 100% in the last 4 years, I own a house, and have a steady job to boot. I've seen much tier. Your healthcare comments are hooha.
If more of the "same sorry " is a bad thing, I don't wanna be good!:disbelief
Maybe, but Kerry sure ain't the right guy. |
Excellent, so essentially you're saying conditions are ripe for a tax hike so we can finally curb our deficits? Or are you saying conditions are ripe for 4 more years without a spending bill veto and permenant tax cuts? |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Excellent, so essentially you're saying conditions are ripe for a tax hike so we can finally curb our deficits? Or are you saying conditions are ripe for 4 more years without a spending bill veto and permenant tax cuts? |
I'm ripe for him to step up and veto some spending initiatives, for sure. That's my main point of contention with this administration. But I know that a Kerry administration will spend far more. |
|
|
| LiquidX |
| quote: | Originally posted by speedracer_mec
poopyheads vote for kerry |
and caca heads for Bush ?:rolleyes: |
|
|
| LiquidX |
| quote: | Originally posted by speedracer_mec
I found it funny during the debates when Kerry looked into the camera and said he wasn't going to raise taxes and yet he is now proposing all these new plans under his big "PLAN"
Does he plan to pull the cash out of the ketchup fund? |
Have you visited the johnkerry.com site?? you might find an answer there. Some of the money will be obtained by raising taxes to the upper 1% rich peeps.. and he's said it various time. He said he was not raising taxes to the middle class. |
|
|
| policerobots |
yeah...its always the rich's fault....its always economics, capitalism, society, etc....
i tried going to georgewbush.com yesterday and it didnt work for an hour or so...hacked by dems? hmmmm |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
I'm ripe for him to step up and veto some spending initiatives, for sure. That's my main point of contention with this administration. But I know that a Kerry administration will spend far more. |
And what in his past 4 years of Presidancy would lead you to believe that he would veto any spending initiative? He's clearly shown no concern about the deficit. This is all the more evident since he's been seeking to make the tax cuts permenant at the cost of $1.7 trillion. Plus his plan to privatise social security at this juncture would either A) require significantly more deficits or B) More taxes. At least Kerry is seeking to repeal some of the tax cuts, and this, by the way, is the effect on the American taxpayers:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6339017/
Furthermore, Kerry, at least, has made deficits a key issue in his campaign. Therefore he's far more likely to curb discretionary spending by limiting his spending promises should he be unable to raise the money necessary to pay for his reforms. And I have 10 times more faith in Kerry's willingness to limit discretionary spending than George Bush as evidenced by his record. |
|
|
| wolverine16 |
| quote: | Originally posted by policerobots
yeah...its always the rich's fault....its always economics, capitalism, society, etc....
i tried going to georgewbush.com yesterday and it didnt work for an hour or so...hacked by dems? hmmmm |
It's not the fault of rich people, it's that when money is needed for things considered important, such as the war in Iraq, you need to find money from somewhere to pay for it. Instead money was given away in addition to increasing costs and in terms of actual dollar amounts, the rich got more back.
Not all, but certain corporations also fail to pay taxes anymore by officially locating offshore, which has shifted the tax burden on rich AND poor Americans, even though these companies use our roads, ports, airways,communications and are protected by our police and fire departments, etc. Not only that,but in some instances these companies get government contracts despite not being tax-paying American companies. If everyone paid their fair share there would be less of a tax burden on all of us. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by wolverine16
If everyone paid their fair share there would be less of a tax burden on all of us. |
What is a fair share? The Kerry's only paid something like 12% last year--is that a fair share? The wealthy in this country pay a higher amount and a higher percentage. Is the progressive tax system fair in that regard? I'm curious just what is fair? 25%? 50%? If we're being "Fair", shouldn't we all pitch in the same amount?:conf: |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
And what in his past 4 years of Presidancy would lead you to believe that he would veto any spending initiative? He's clearly shown no concern about the deficit. This is all the more evident since he's been seeking to make the tax cuts permenant at the cost of $1.7 trillion. Plus his plan to privatise social security at this juncture would either A) require significantly more deficits or B) More taxes. At least Kerry is seeking to repeal some of the tax cuts, and this, by the way, is the effect on the American taxpayers:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6339017/
Furthermore, Kerry, at least, has made deficits a key issue in his campaign. Therefore he's far more likely to curb discretionary spending by limiting his spending promises should he be unable to raise the money necessary to pay for his reforms. And I have 10 times more faith in Kerry's willingness to limit discretionary spending than George Bush as evidenced by his record. |
It's clear who you will be voring for, Occ. That's fine by me. And while Bush certainly has the power to veto, remember that it's ultimately Congress that controls the purse strings, so if you're looking for someone to tighten up the wallet, you should be equally, if not moreso, focused on putting the kibosh on runaway porkbarrel spending. I've harped on it before, and I don't want to get started again. There are plenty of places where money can be saved and we can all enjoy a lower tax bracket, but something needs to be done to control special interest spending, runaway lawsuits, and the multitude of other problems which are both a drag and a drain on the overall health of our economy.
btw, I'm still voting for Bush. Imo, he stands on his convictions and he doesn't waver with the winds of the polls, only to say what is more popular. He has a clear stance on issues and a vision for the future, not just some vague "plan".;) |
|
|
|
|
