Bush Tax Cut - Round 2

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Explain to me how mass layoffs in the tech sector could have been avoided after the venture capital dryed up?
Explain to me how the corperate scandels would not have been avoided if Bush was not elected.
Explain to me how 9/11 would not have happened if Bush had not been elected?


The economic is cyclical, sometimes it up, sometimes it is down. Care to find me a bull market that was not followed by a bear market?

What do I look like, the answer man? I didn't steal an election. Go ask Bush. Oh, that's right.....he doesn't have any answers............or else he enjoys watching people suffer.

The cyclical economy? Wasn't cyclical for 8 years between Bushes. Or does a Bush presidency just happen to coincide with every downturn?
*edit* typo
And 9/11............well, let's just say someone should have recognized ONE of the signals. But they were all asleep at the switch. So much for tough on crime Republicans.

No answers, just partisan rhetoric. You asked a question and you got answers you did not like.

 

[BOBDN]

No answers, just partisan rhetoric. You asked a question and you got answers you did not like.

BS. You can characterize my answers any way you like. They're my answers. Where are yours?

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BOBDN

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Nice sig. But if it's true when the hell is someone going to wake up and be vigilant?

Looking for someone else to be vigilant for you?

I can handle myself fine thanks. I'm waiting for one of you people to wake up. If this is vigilance you better give up now. Ashcroft has the 1st & 4th ammendments in the shredder already and looking for more. Real vigilant. Freedom is safe.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

No answers, just partisan rhetoric. You asked a question and you got answers you did not like.

BS. You can characterize my answers any way you like. They're my answers. Where are yours?

You answers consist of its Bush's fault, even though you admit Bush had little control of events you mentioned.

 

[LunarRay]

BOBDN,

After reading your 1:03pm post regarding Jesus and his discussions with the folks at that time I wonder why someone never said... Well Jesus paid not a penny tax, nor did he work so what do you expect a liberal like him to say... but, no one said that. So I wondered why...

I also wondered if Jesus would have said. Render unto Bush that which is Bush's and unto me that which is mine... I want your soul so go forth and give all you have to the poor. When this is done we'll do coffee. Of course Jesus don't lie but, neither is it likely he'll be having coffee.

If there become enough poor there will be less rich for the rich live off the back of the less rich.. If enough become poor the economy will cease... and then the rich will also be poor... imagine that.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BOBDN

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Nice sig. But if it's true when the hell is someone going to wake up and be vigilant?

Looking for someone else to be vigilant for you?

I can handle myself fine thanks. I'm waiting for one of you people to wake up. If this is vigilance you better give up now. Ashcroft has the 1st & 4th ammendments in the shredder already and looking for more. Real vigilant. Freedom is safe.

Dont worry, you are not the only who has their eye on Ashcroft.

 

[BOBDN]

I will leave the war out of this. We will disagree on if it was needed or not.

How do you propose the goverment get the economy going again?
How did Bush cause this wholesale looting of major corporations?

You'll need to leave the war out of it.

If I were an economist I'd have some ideas about how to move the economy. I vote for people who I believe can get the job done. If I were chairman of the SEC I'd keep the thievery down to managable levels. Again I expect the people I vote for to appoint SEC chairmen who aren't affiliated with the companies they are regulating. Ditto energy companies while we're at it. Obviouslly I didn't vote for Bush. And he didn't do any of the things I expect people I vote for to do.

A sign was posted on the lawn at the White House the day Bush and Cheney moved in.

OPEN FOR BUSINESS
(and only business)

This all happened on Bush's watch. Ask him the same questions. He's in charge - LOL.

 

[BOBDN]

I gotta' go. I'll be back later. We can argue some more then.

Try some coffee in the mean time. Maybe it'll help wake you up.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

I will leave the war out of this. We will disagree on if it was needed or not.

How do you propose the goverment get the economy going again?
How did Bush cause this wholesale looting of major corporations?

You'll need to leave the war out of it.

If I were an economist I'd have some ideas about how to move the economy. I vote for people who I believe can get the job done. If I were chairman of the SEC I'd keep the thievery down to managable levels. Again I expect the people I vote for to appoint SEC chairmen who aren't affiliated with the companies they are regulating. Ditto energy companies while we're at it. Obviouslly I didn't vote for Bush. And he didn't do any of the things I expect people I vote for to do.

A sign was posted on the lawn at the White House the day Bush and Cheney moved in.

OPEN FOR BUSINESS
(and only business)

This all happened on Bush's watch. Ask him the same questions. He's in charge - LOL.

but you completely overlook the dealing with whitehouse and Enron while Clinton was in office and overlook global crossing because democrats where involved in that deal. This president gave the SEC a large boost in budget to help fight these problems, but you are going to overlook that as well.

And you still going to dodge how any president could have avoided the 3 major things that happened to this economy.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BOBDN
I gotta' go. I'll be back later. We can argue some more then.

Try some coffee in the mean time. Maybe it'll help wake you up.

least clever ad hom i have seen in a while.

 

[MrChicken]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: MrChicken

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: MrChicken
The Reps just out manuevered the Dems again.

Already the country knows that ~350B was the sticking point for a couple of Reps and all of the Dems on the tax cut. So the Reps cut out the handout to the poor and got the bill passed. Now most Reps never saw a tax cut they didnt like, so passing one for the "poor" is in line for them too. They just got a double tax cut done. The Dems will try to play as Rep meanspiritedness, but the Reps will pass the final bill overwhelmingly and smile the whole time. Bush will declare it as a great thing for the poor.

Bush will be on the campiagn trail touting BOTH of these tax cuts, one to spur the economy and the other as a sign of "compassionate conservatism".

And what possible good can come out of this for our country?

Well, if you love this country and really want the best for it, you will hope it works towards a better economy. That's what I am doing.

Oh, I get it. I disagree with you so I don't love my country. Uh huh. I guess I should just fall in line behind Bush and hope for the best like you.

I read your reply as a simple question. I did not read into it that you disagree, I read into it that you were asking my opinion. My opinion was exactly what I wrote.

I will try to clarify my opinion by overstating the obvious for you. The deed is done, all you should do now is hope for the best, ala the "if you love this country". If you hope the tax cut fails miserably, you should really look at yourself and decide how much you love this country and the people in it that would suffer if your hopes come to fruition.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: HJD1
BOBDN,

After reading your 1:03pm post regarding Jesus and his discussions with the folks at that time I wonder why someone never said... Well Jesus paid not a penny tax, nor did he work so what do you expect a liberal like him to say... but, no one said that. So I wondered why...

I also wondered if Jesus would have said. Render unto Bush that which is Bush's and unto me that which is mine... I want your soul so go forth and give all you have to the poor. When this is done we'll do coffee. Of course Jesus don't lie but, neither is it likely he'll be having coffee.

If there become enough poor there will be less rich for the rich live off the back of the less rich.. If enough become poor the economy will cease... and then the rich will also be poor... imagine that.

Why is because Jesus did work. The ancient Jews had a caste-like system, and he was a skilled laborer - a carpenter to be exact. Solidly middle class for those times. We can only assume that he must have paid taxes.
And for someone who plays themselves off as so smart, it's almost shocking that you don't know that rich and poor are relative terms. There cannot be rich without poor, nor poor without rich. Also, the poor of today live in more lavish conditions that many kings just a few hundred years ago.

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BOBDN
I gotta' go. I'll be back later. We can argue some more then.

Try some coffee in the mean time. Maybe it'll help wake you up.

least clever ad hom i have seen in a while.

All he appears to know is disingenious ad hominems. Best just to ignore them and him. Arguing with a 16 year-old is annoying at best.

BTW, when did you allow AT to get run over by these pathetic misguided socialists? I'd rather live poor and free than pampered slave in a nanny state.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: HJD1
BOBDN,

After reading your 1:03pm post regarding Jesus and his discussions with the folks at that time I wonder why someone never said... Well Jesus paid not a penny tax, nor did he work so what do you expect a liberal like him to say... but, no one said that. So I wondered why...

I also wondered if Jesus would have said. Render unto Bush that which is Bush's and unto me that which is mine... I want your soul so go forth and give all you have to the poor. When this is done we'll do coffee. Of course Jesus don't lie but, neither is it likely he'll be having coffee.

If there become enough poor there will be less rich for the rich live off the back of the less rich.. If enough become poor the economy will cease... and then the rich will also be poor... imagine that.

Why is because Jesus did work. The ancient Jews had a caste-like system, and he was a skilled laborer - a carpenter to be exact. Solidly middle class for those times. We can only assume that he must have paid taxes.
And for someone who plays themselves off as so smart, it's almost shocking that you don't know that rich and poor are relative terms. There cannot be rich without poor, nor poor without rich. Also, the poor of today live in more lavish conditions that many kings just a few hundred years ago.

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BOBDN
I gotta' go. I'll be back later. We can argue some more then.

Try some coffee in the mean time. Maybe it'll help wake you up.

least clever ad hom i have seen in a while.

All he appears to know is disingenious ad hominems. Best just to ignore them and him. Arguing with a 16 year-old is annoying at best.

BTW, when did you allow AT to get run over by these pathetic misguided socialists? I'd rather live poor and free than pampered slave in a nanny state.

I'm referring to your response to my post to BobDN.

Well.... someone better splain that to the Jesuits. They have not a clue as to his whereabouts from age 12 and they're not to sure about that either.. If, you have some first hand information regarding the early years of Jesus I'd like to know about that.
I'm not smart... stupid actually... really dumb... without a clue... ain't got the sense god gave a penny... retarded to below the intellectual capacity of a rock... (Bet ya thought I was gonna say ... but, smarter than you... Nope! Not that nasty)

Edit: Well lets set up some kingly castles for the poor so they can feel relativly king like.. I'll have one too. I want a moat

 

[Tal]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: Vic
The only people who "live in grinding poverty" in the US do so out of their own personal choice. I know, I know... you fools sit there and say, "Who would be poor out of choice?" Well, get it through your head - if you choose not to get an education, it's a choice. If you choose not to show up for work on time, it's a choice. If the sum result of you choices causes you to be poor, then that too is a choice.
And the "moral compass" in the US never "pointed north." Liberals should not try to point back to some enlightened day when people lived kinder lives because such a day never existed in all of human history. Right here and right now is the best that people have ever had it throughout the whole world.
And this "while billionaires are making billions more at our expense." Don't buy their products then, dipsh!t

Dipsh!t, real class. You must be one of those folks who took the bull by the horns and made yourself all that you are today. LOL

Children who grow up in poverty don't have the opportunities that the children of more affluent parents have. They are more likely to live their lives in poverty. Poverty breeds poverty. And the playing field isn't level so those choices you mention are so much dipsh!t - to borrow your term.

Not to say there aren't people who break the chain of poverty. I'm one. We grew up in poverty not by choice but because we were a one parent household, latch key kids before there were latch key kids. Don't preach to me about poverty. Unless you've lived through it. With your attitude I'm pretty sure you've had your future planned for you from the start. Nice to have that advantage. Not so nice to realize you have an advantage.

I sincerely hope you have the opportunity to experience poverty for yourself someday soon.

Pot calling the Kettle black anyone? I sincerely hope you have the opportunity to experience poverty for yourself someday soon. In other words: I wish misfortune on you? Talk about class. WTG! I didn't grow up with much. My parents were just above the line of poverty most of the time, but there was a good stretch where they were well below it. Difference between you and me? I recognize that I didn't have it worse than EVERYONE else. You, on the other hand, assume that you did. "Nice to have that advantage...." Shut it. You don't know crap about people's history unless they share it with you. Before you go around spouting that others have had it easy, you better take a hard look around. My future wasn't planned for me. I know my parents wanted good things for me, but they sure didn't know how they were going to go about making that happen. Spare me the sob story about your life. You making ends meet now? Then Shut up. You aren't poor so don't tell me about how those "other" people live.

You wanna know the biggest reason that people don't get ahead? Liberals spend a great deal of time and money (Which could be spent saving those poor unfortunates, BTW) on reinforcing a "victim" mentality that teaches poor and/or minorities that they will NEVER get ahead in life. Cause "Rich Whitey" is keeping them down. Instead of focusing on opportunity you whine about a "level playing field." It may make me sound old, but "back in the day" people simply worked to get ahead. There weren't systems put into place to bulldoze down the societal differences between people. I believe all were created equal in God's image. I think that if we as Christians mean what we say, then we should be the ones who help out those less fortunate. Not government. Not by forcing people to pay to help others. A forced generosity breeds resentment. Give me my money back that I pay for these programs in Taxes and see how quick I put it back in to programs to help others. My personal generosity that is not forced and is simply a reflection of the rules laid down for me by my Lord.

-Tal

Edit: Changed - "ones you help out" to "ones who help out."

 

[Netopia]

Ok then... back on topic.

Let's look at the "black and white" of the issue. Anytime you have the IRS DISTRIBUTING money which is not an overpayment of taxes to a person, you have totally side-stepped the whole purpose of the IRS. Allow me to quote DIRECTLY from the IRS website:

The Internal Revenue Service is the nation's tax collection agency and administers the Internal Revenue Code enacted by Congress. Its mission: to provide America's taxpayers with top quality service by helping them understand and meet their tax responsibilities and by applying the tax law with integrity and fairness to all.

emphasis added

The IRS is all about collecting taxes and handing it over to the Government so that the Government can spend it as budgeted. PERIOD! This isn't really about the tax credit not being given to the lowest earners as much as it is about a simple principle that should have been a law from the start... i.e. you can pay NO TAXES but never NEGATIVE TAXES.

If the Federal Government wants to distribute money to any group of individuals, there should be a bill passed into law and the money should be distributed through the proper agency whose job it is to distribute money, but that is NOT the job of the IRS!

I hope that for a moment we can step around the political hot button here and just agree to the root issue, which should really be whether the IRS should be a conduit for the redistribution of wealth or whether it should simply be the "collection agency" it was chartered to be.

Joe

 

[LunarRay]

The IRS does not send checks the treasury does. EIC does refund, by law, up to tax owed and the balance, although not a refund, is considered a refund for purposes of semantics and the law.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Netopia
Ok then... back on topic.

Let's look at the "black and white" of the issue. Anytime you have the IRS DISTRIBUTING money which is not an overpayment of taxes to a person, you have totally side-stepped the whole purpose of the IRS. Allow me to quote DIRECTLY from the IRS website:

The Internal Revenue Service is the nation's tax collection agency and administers the Internal Revenue Code enacted by Congress. Its mission: to provide America's taxpayers with top quality service by helping them understand and meet their tax responsibilities and by applying the tax law with integrity and fairness to all.

emphasis added

The IRS is all about collecting taxes and handing it over to the Government so that the Government can spend it as budgeted. PERIOD! This isn't really about the tax credit not being given to the lowest earners as much as it is about a simple principle that should have been a law from the start... i.e. you can pay NO TAXES but never NEGATIVE TAXES.

If the Federal Government wants to distribute money to any group of individuals, there should be a bill passed into law and the money should be distributed through the proper agency whose job it is to distribute money, but that is NOT the job of the IRS!

I hope that for a moment we can step around the political hot button here and just agree to the root issue, which should really be whether the IRS should be a conduit for the redistribution of wealth or whether it should simply be the "collection agency" it was chartered to be.

Joe

Exactly.

Net $0

HJD1 - how does your statement play with the extra child tax credit? See, if you let one "credit" be "refundable" then they all will be due to the tax preparing process. It'd be interesting to find out the amount of money [net: (tax liability-payment-credits)*(# of people)=?] that those in the 10-26k range get back. I think what people are forgetting here(like Netopia and others have stated) is that our tax collection process shouldn't be the means to redistribute money(welfare) to people that "need" it.

Net $0

CkG

 

[LunarRay]

HJD1 - how does your statement play with the extra child tax credit? See, if you let one "credit" be "refundable" then they all will be due to the tax preparing process. It'd be interesting to find out the amount of money [net: (tax liability-payment-credits)*(# of people)=?] that those in the 10-26k range get back. I think what people are forgetting here(like Netopia and others have stated) is that our tax collection process shouldn't be the means to redistribute money(welfare) to people that "need" it.

Net $0

CkG[/quote]

Its got not to do with need Mein Herr, it's to do with retroactive tax law implementation. The child tax credit would not have resulted in a refund if the credit had no tax due to offset. One of the items of tax to offset is schedule SE (Social Security tax due) To the extent that someone paid into SS the credit by law is applicable to that offset and refundable. Now then, having said that, I must agree to the extent no Fica/Medicare or Income or other applicable federal tax was paid the portion of child tax credit that exceeds that amount could be considered a "windfall" return of CAD's tax paid to to poorer than CAD. You are feeding the poor and downtrodden and bless you. The multitude will carry signs proclaiming your genorosity, in fact, free food at your house... Lass' sie nach CAD's House kommen. what you be serving?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: HJD1
HJD1 - how does your statement play with the extra child tax credit? See, if you let one "credit" be "refundable" then they all will be due to the tax preparing process. It'd be interesting to find out the amount of money [net: (tax liability-payment-credits)*(# of people)=?] that those in the 10-26k range get back. I think what people are forgetting here(like Netopia and others have stated) is that our tax collection process shouldn't be the means to redistribute money(welfare) to people that "need" it.

Net $0

CkG

Its got not to do with need Mein Herr, it's to do with retroactive tax law implementation. The child tax credit would not have resulted in a refund if the credit had no tax due to offset. One of the items of tax to offset is schedule SE (Social Security tax due) To the extent that someone paid into SS the credit by law is applicable to that offset and refundable. Now then, having said that, I must agree to the extent no Fica/Medicare or Income or other applicable federal tax was paid the portion of child tax credit that exceeds that amount could be considered a "windfall" return of CAD's tax paid to to poorer than CAD. You are feeding the poor and downtrodden and bless you. The multitude will carry signs proclaiming your genorosity, in fact, free food at your house... Lass' sie nach CAD's House kommen. what you be serving?[/quote]

Don't confuse the IRS with with welfare or "helping the poor". Like I've said(and many others) - don't use the tax collection system as a welfare program. We have multiple programs to help those in need - even though those programs are in need of great reform.

net $0

CkG

 

[BOBDN]

Don't confuse the IRS with with welfare or "helping the poor". Like I've said(and many others) - don't use the tax collection system as a welfare program. We have multiple programs to help those in need - even though those programs are in need of great reform.

net $0

CkG

And where does the money for those programs come from?

 

[Netopia]

And where does the money for those programs come from?

Taxes collected and turned over to the US Treasury. It then is put through proper channels and supports whatever programs there may be.... just how it was designed to work.

Joe

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Netopia

And where does the money for those programs come from?

Taxes collected and turned over to the US Treasury. It then is put through proper channels and supports whatever programs there may be.... just how it was designed to work.

Joe

Exactly!

<Joe bleeding heart mode>
"How come those with jobs (ie. file tax returns) get free money. I have 4 kids and can't afford to work(daycare) - why are these people getting free money and those of us that REALLY use free money don't get it. We have to use "programs"."
</joe bleeding heart mode>

So - anyone want to think about the non-working poor?

CkG

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Netopia

And where does the money for those programs come from?

Taxes collected and turned over to the US Treasury. It then is put through proper channels and supports whatever programs there may be.... just how it was designed to work.

Joe

Exactly!

<Joe bleeding heart mode>
"How come those with jobs (ie. file tax returns) get free money. I have 4 kids and can't afford to work(daycare) - why are these people getting free money and those of us that REALLY use free money don't get it. We have to use "programs"."
</joe bleeding heart mode>
So - anyone want to think about the non-working poor?

CkG

At worst a distinction without a difference... Call it applepitdumpling for that matter. The point is the law seeks to stimulate the economy.... If giving a return of taxes and some goes to folks who had not paid taxes matters not. It is an economic recovery issue. To follow your logic each should get back in proportion to what they've paid in. So to the extent one receives back or garners a reduction in excess of the ratio it is hand out or applepitdumpling to them and the folks who are below the ration get an irrational tax reductionincreaseinproportiontotherestofthefolksanditain'tfair.
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: HJD1

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Netopia

And where does the money for those programs come from?

Taxes collected and turned over to the US Treasury. It then is put through proper channels and supports whatever programs there may be.... just how it was designed to work.

Joe

Exactly!

<Joe bleeding heart mode>
"How come those with jobs (ie. file tax returns) get free money. I have 4 kids and can't afford to work(daycare) - why are these people getting free money and those of us that REALLY use free money don't get it. We have to use "programs"."
</joe bleeding heart mode>
So - anyone want to think about the non-working poor?

CkG

At worst a distinction without a difference... Call it applepitdumpling for that matter. The point is the law seeks to stimulate the economy.... If giving a return of taxes and some goes to folks who had not paid taxes matters not. It is an economic recovery issue. To follow your logic each should get back in proportion to what they've paid in. So to the extent one receives back or garners a reduction in excess of the ratio it is hand out or applepitdumpling to them and the folks who are below the ration get an irrational tax reductionincreaseinproportiontotherestofthefolksanditain'tfair.
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

No - there is no "proportion" factoring. It is simple addition/subtraction. You pay in $2500 over the year in income tax, then file you taxes. Your tax liability is $2000(on taxable income, but with credits and what not it reduces your tax liability to $0(or less). Therefore you should only get the $2500 you paid in back. the "(or less)" comes from EIC or child tax credit, or misc other credits. This is NOT money you have paid in -so it shouldn't be "refunded".

2500 - paid in
-2000 - gov't says you owe on amount earned(tax liability)
-------
500 - "refund"

500 - refund
+2000 - child tax credit
+1500 - EIC (ficticious)
--------
$4000 total "refund"

Now how does someone who only paid $2500 during the year expect that they should get $4000 back ($1500 more than they should) as a "refund".

Net $0 would mean that they only can get a "refund" of what they actually paid in ($2500).

CkG

*note* numbers in above example are pulled from thin air and are only used to state figures instead of variables.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: Netopia

And where does the money for those programs come from?

Taxes collected and turned over to the US Treasury. It then is put through proper channels and supports whatever programs there may be.... just how it was designed to work.

Joe

So those people who support smaller government want the money to take a trip around Washington before it's "channeled" properly (sounds like they'll need a medium)?

And their usual support for any tax cut disappears if the tax cut favors someone "below" them on the socioeconomic ladder?

And if the design is faulty.........fix it.

*edit* typo