Bush Tax Cut - Round 2

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Where have you been? We HAD other programs for that. These people are the working poor. They pay taxes. FICA, sales tax, property tax (those who own property, the others pay property tax in their rent). They pay tax all year deducted from their pay checks. They just get it all back on April, 15th.

Whatever you want to call it they deserve $400 dollars just as some others deserve hundreds of thousands (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Snow - you get the picture). I can't believe in a nation like ours people are so heartless they refuse to help people who are less fortunate.

I like the line about taxes being a source of revenue for our gov't. That's funny. Since Bush created record deficits how is he stripping our gov't of the only form of revenue it has? Isn't that just a bit irresponsible of him?

Ok, now you've gone insane.
Ofcourse they pay taxes like FICA, sales, and property tax(in a way) - but the issue here is FEDERAL INCOME TAX!!! If you don't pay any (net) Federal income tax then you shouldn't get a refund. I propose that we say that your net tax liabilities(federal income tax) can't be less than $0. But that isn't the case, now is it? People can and do get gov't checks for more than they paid(if they paid) throught the year. THAT my freind IS welfare.

"HAD other programs"? Huh? Where do you live? You can't tell me that a family of 3 or 4 don't qualify for gov't programs and the like (welfare). I know because I could have used them. I chose not to because I didn't "need" them and felt others could benefit more than I. Ofcourse that isn't the only reason I didn't but it did factor into my decisions.

Do you realize how much money those "evil rich people who get all the money" actually pay? It sure is hell alot more than $0 (net )

No, decreasing the tax burden(on those that pay them) is not irresponsible. An over-spending gov't IS irresponsible - and ALL of them are to blame! I've said it before and I'll say it again! STOP WASTING MY MONEY!(to the gov't )

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: HJD1
BobDN,

I think America would be a much better country if we just did away with the poor, oh what the hell, and the middle class too! Nothing breeds success like success. Let's make this a land of CEO's and CFO's and all those C*O's. Who the hell wants to share the same air with those disgusting poor people?

I always say if the playing field isn't tilted in favor of the rich it just isn't a level playing field!

They'll all be much better off liberated from their poverty. They'll thank us in the end.

Hey, since it's my idea can I get a reprieve?

From getting thanked in the End? Not likely, unless you can proove you are among the elite in society. You must use all the 'buzz' words in context. Reach for but not pay the tab. Be able to say "look at that... why can't they play golf on their own courses... Hey buddy... wanna speed it up a little... don't even dress proper.. geez.. So what do you do? I'm into Dot Com Comback... Just got 50,000 suckers to donate to my little scheme... it's a no brainer... in two years it'll fold and I'll have my 25 mil and be set... Am I up... Mulligan...."

Zactly!

I hope CkG reads this. Real nice folks these compassionate conservatives.

Duped and Betrayed
By PAUL KRUGMAN


According to The New Republic, Senator Zell Miller ? one of a dwindling band of Democrats who still think they can make deals with the Bush administration and its allies ? got shafted in the recent tax bill. He supported the bill in part because it contained his personal contribution: a measure requiring chief executives to take personal responsibility for corporate tax declarations. But when the bill emerged from conference, his measure had been stripped out.

Will "moderates" ? the people formerly known as "conservatives" ? ever learn? Today's "conservatives" ? the people formerly known as the "radical right" ? don't think of a deal as a deal; they think of it as an opportunity to pull yet another bait and switch.

Let's look at the betrayals involved in this latest tax cut.

Most media attention has focused on the child tax credit that wasn't. As in 2001, the administration softened the profile of a tax cut mainly aimed at the wealthy by including a credit for families with children. But at the last minute, a change in wording deprived 12 million children of some or all of that tax credit. "There are a lot of things that are more important than that," declared Tom DeLay, the House majority leader. (Maybe he was thinking of the "Hummer deduction," which stayed in the bill: business owners may now deduct up to $100,000 for the cost of a vehicle, as long as it weighs at least 6,000 pounds.)

Less attention has been paid to fine print that reveals the supposed rationale for the dividend tax cut as a smoke screen. The problem, we were told, is that profits are taxed twice: once when they are earned, a second time when they are paid out as dividends. But as any tax expert will tell you, the corporate tax law is full of loopholes; many profitable corporations pay little or no taxes.

The original Bush plan ensured that dividends from such companies would not get a tax break. But those safeguards vanished from the final bill: dividends will get special treatment regardless of how much tax is paid by the company that issues them.

This little change has two big consequences. First, as Glenn Hubbard, the former chairman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers and the author of the original plan, delicately puts it, "It's hard to get a lot of progressivity at the top."

Translation: wealthy individuals who get most of their income from dividends and capital gains will often end up paying lower tax rates than ordinary Americans who work for a living.

Second, the tax cut ? originally billed as a way to reduce abuses ? may well usher in a golden age of tax evasion. We can be sure that lawyers and accountants are already figuring out how to disguise income that should be taxed at a 35 percent rate as dividends that are taxed at only 15 percent. Since there's no need to show that tax was ever paid on profits, tax shelters should be easy to construct.

Of course, the big betrayal was George W. Bush's decision to push this tax cut in the first place. There is no longer any doubt that the man who ran as a moderate in the 2000 election is actually a radical who wants to undo much of the Great Society and the New Deal.

Look at it this way: as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities points out, this latest tax cut reduces federal revenue as a share of G.D.P. to its lowest level since 1959. That is, federal taxes are now back to what they were in an era when Medicare and Medicaid didn't exist, and Social Security was still a minor expense. How can we maintain these programs, which have become essential to scores of millions of Americans, at today's tax rates? We can't.

Grover Norquist, the right-wing ideologue who has become one of the most powerful men in Washington, once declared: "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub." Mr. Bush has made a pretty good start on that plan.

Which brings us back to Senator Miller, and all those politicians and pundits who still imagine that there is room for compromise, that they can find some bipartisan middle ground. Mr. Norquist was recently quoted in The Denver Post with the answer to that: "Bipartisanship is another name for date rape."[/quote]

Sounds like a bunch of whining to me. "Boo Hoo Hoo, we suck so we demonize those that don't suck Boo Hoo Hoo." is what I read.

CkG

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: BOBDN
You must have really hated growing up poor to hold people in such disdain. What you say may be true for some people but most people I have known in or out of poverty want the same things for their children. They work very hard, more than one job. But as George HW Bush once said when asked about the cuts he was making in student loan programs, "Someone has to drive the garbage truck."

The problem is we hold people in low regard if they aren't on the proper "career path." There is dignity in any work. People should be paid a living wage for working. Instead we attack the poor simply because they cannot defend themselves.

The majority of the people earning poverty level wages in America want to better themselves. You were there. You must know that. But they are so busy running as fast as they can and still losing ground - how can they better themselves? Demand an increase in salary so they can learn a trade or work on that BA? I don't think so.

Meanwhile there are those among us who sit in board rooms and earn millions - not based on the job they do. Their corporations can be losing money every year, John Snow at CSX for instance, and they still get the fat check and the fat bonus and the fat stock options. Nice work if you can get it. Don't think the deck isn't stacked in their favor. You can't be that naive. Yet you don't mind at all attacking people who are working as hard as they can but can't find a way out of poverty.

Hardly. I actually had a pretty decent childhood. Not as good as many others, but I don't make the mistake of evaluating the quality of my life by comparing it against others. And you have once again misunderstood me. What I have disdain for is confused people like yourself who think you are helping people by turning them into "victims."

"Someone has to drive the garbage truck." - This is true. Wayne Huizenga, a college dropout, started his career driving a garbage truck, and from there created the Waste Management empire, and then Blockbuster Video. He is now one of the world's wealthiest persons.

You talk about people who aren't on the "right career path," when in fact most all of the extremely wealthy were college drop-outs. In addition to Wayne Huizenga, look at Bill Gates and Paul Allen for example. The fact is that we are all, at some point, offered opportunities. The questions is: do we take them? Most people don't, for any of a million reasons. Simple truth.

In the meantime, advancing an agenda that is designed to hurt the rich more than it is to help the poor (which IS what you do, don't deny it), by closing opportunities to poor people by dumbing down education in the name of "equal opportunity" and making it so a bachelor's degree is a requirement to get any job better than McD's... well, in short, you're what's hurting all us, including the poor. You most certainly aren't helping. We will never all be equal in success - it's simply not going to happen. But by reducing the reward for even making an average level of success, all you are trying to do is force us into a lowest common denominator.
You may want to take a long hard look at yourself.

edited: typo

 

[LunarRay]

Burnedout, quote

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 too grew up in poverty. The experience taught me about appreciation for setting and attaining specific goals as well as individual conservation of wealth. To me, it isn't so much what one has. The main point is how one applies that which one has. My opinion is that if a "normal" American (as in healthy and of average intelligence) would like to overcome poverty in this country, than the opportunities exist. Overcoming poverty may involve working in a capacity for quite some time which is not exactly conducive to one's desires or patience. However, overcoming poverty can be done with goals, strict discipline and a work ethic. This was how I did it.[/quote]

Yeah.. I carried the US Mail and worked OT and on days off and sundays if they'd let me while in Grad skules. It can be done. But, not all are genetically predisposed to interact with their enviornment in quite the same way.. There be other goesintas that play a role. Knowing to have discipline to achieve more through goals... but, what of the folks who are very proud of their achievement and it is earning 25$k a year... they have hit their objective because they see no higher and for lots or reasons... at times practicality.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: burnedout

How the heck can someone afford to raise two kids with both parents working when they only make 26K/year?

My ex-wife raises one on less than $12K per year by her own choice. Needless to say, our daughter does not go completely without and is one of the best students in her school. $5,100 of that $12K comes from me, by the way. Yes, my ex receives food stamps and lives near her large family - all of whom are also poverty-stricken. They are all involved in a mutual support system of their own for things like child care, sharing of transportation, etc. Come to think of it, every adult in my ex's immediate family (5 brothers ages 30s and 40s, 1 sister in her 40s, mother in her early 70s) brings in less than $12K per year. The majority of this income is from SSI and food stamps. My ex's immediate family members are also the most honest and trustworthy people I've ever known.

Ya move to Lybia or somewhere like that.... 26K$ pays for the electric bill and maybe the water bill.

Or move to parts of Tennessee, Kentucky, Georgia, Arkansas, Mississippi or Texas. Depends upon the locale. I could make it, albeit exist, in many places on $12K per year.

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 too grew up in poverty. The experience taught me about appreciation for setting and attaining specific goals as well as individual conservation of wealth. To me, it isn't so much what one has. The main point is how one applies that which one has. My opinion is that if a "normal" American (as in healthy and of average intelligence) would like to overcome poverty in this country, than the opportunities exist. Overcoming poverty may involve working in a capacity for quite some time which is not exactly conducive to one's desires or patience. However, overcoming poverty can be done with goals, strict discipline and a work ethic. This was how I did it.

I worked in jobs most people would walk away from the first day until I could improve my position. So, yes, it can be done. But there were times when the least set back could have had disastrous consequences that I would have been hard pressed to recover from.

Goals or no goals there are people who are trapped in poverty who are trying to break the cycle. Giving these people a hand should be a no-brainer. To hold them in contempt as some do is immoral.

 

[LunarRay]

CADguy, quote

Sounds like a bunch of whining to me. "Boo Hoo Hoo, we suck so we demonize those that don't suck Boo Hoo Hoo." is what I read.

CkG[/quote]

If you "hear" dogs howling then it is reasonable to shout... " shut up you dam mutts" If you've never heard a cat meow you may thing of its meow as a high pitched mutt howling... Its all in the ear of the beholder... Look and thou shall see... but see all that ye may know all.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BOBDN
Check this out. There may be more people in line for that $400 tax refund........OOPS! I mean handout, soon.

Nice job, George. At this rate we'll all be getting that $400.

Unemployment Rate Rises to 9-Year High
By DAVID LEONHARDT


ASHINGTON, June 6 ? The unemployment rate rose to 6.1 percent in May, its highest level in nine years, the Labor Department reported today, as the worst jobs slump since the early 1980's continued to spread its pain.

The pace of layoffs has slowed noticably in the last two months, however, suggesting that the economy might have stabilized and could begin adding jobs this summer, forecasters said.

The economy has now lost more than 2.5 million jobs since February 2001, more than was previously thought, according to annual revisions released today by the Labor Department. It is the longest sustained period without job growth since before World War II.

"Companies are still cutting costs," said Mark Vitner, a senior economist at the Wachovia Corporation in Charlotte. "But it looks like the worst of the layoffs are behind us."

Stocks rose in morning trading, largely because investors had expected larger job losses, analysts said. But they later gave back much of their gains. In early afternoon trading, the Standard & Poor 500-stock index was up 3.45 points, or 0.4 percent, at 993.59. Still, stocks are up substantially since March as hopes of an economic rebound have grown.

Economists said that the jobs report left the Federal Reserve likely to cut its benchmark interest when it meets on June 24 and 25. The Fed has already cut the rate 12 times since the start of 2001, but the continued hangover from the 1990's boom and the uncertainty caused by war and terrorism have kept the downturn from ending and companies from needing new workers.

In perhaps the most optimistic sign, companies added a small number of jobs in both April and May, after having reduced employment by more then 200,000 during the previous two months, the Labor Department said. Government cuts have caused overall employment to decline since April, but the private sector is typically a better predictor of the economy's future, analysts say.

Companies also increased the number of temporary workers on their payrolls by 58,000, a common sign that they are preparing for better times.

But hints of a solid economic recovery have popped have emerged at other points over the last two years, and they have yet to come to fruition.

Dare to compare?
"...the unemployment rate had leveled off to a nationwide average of about 7.7% by the time of the election campaign, but it was considerably higher in some industrial states."

Hmm... great guy that Carter, maybe we should give him a medal


CkG

 

[BOBDN]

Hardly. I actually had a pretty decent childhood. Not as good as many others, but I don't make the mistake of evaluating the quality of my life by comparing it against others. And you have once again misunderstood me. What I have disdain for is confused people like yourself who think you are helping people by turing them into "victims."

"Someone has to drive the garbage truck." - This is true. Wayne Huizenga, a college dropout, started his career driving a garbage truck, and from there created the Waste Management empire, and then Blockbuster Video. He is now one of the world's wealthiest persons.

You talk about people who aren't on the "right career path," when in fact most all of the extreme wealthy are college drop-outs. In addition to Wayne Huizenga, look at Bill Gates and Paul Allen for example. The fact is that we are all, at some point, offered opportunities. The questions is: do we take them? Most people don't, for any of a million reasons. Simple truth.

In the meantime, advancing an agenda that is designed to hurt the rich more than it is to help the poor (which IS what you do, don't deny it), and closing opportunities to poor people by dumbing down education in the name of "equal opportunity" and making it so a bachelor's degree is a requirement to get any job better than McD's... well, in short, you're what's hurting all us, including the poor. You most certainly aren't helping. We will never all be equal in success - it's simply not going to happen. But by reducing the reward for even making an average level of success, all you are trying to do is force us into a lowest common denominator.
You may want to take a long hard look at yourself.

I am not turning anyone into a victim. I am proposing we give help to those who need help while we are giving it to those who don't.

Most of the extremely wealthy are not college drop outs. Your examples are certainly inspiring to us all but they are the exceptions, not the rule. Most of the extremely wealthy are born to wealth or belong to the good old boy club of corporate America. And while opportunity may knock for some it never does.

How could I hurt the rich? They are so insulated from misfortune no matter what they do they can't hurt themselves! Bush is a PRIME example!

Your argument doen't hold water. I'm not reducing anyone's reward for achievement. There are children who have basic needs in America which are not being met. Maybe you should take a look at yourself.

Biggest joke in all this - these people who are drowning us in debt and sharing the wealth with the already wealthy have the nerve to portray themselves as Christians!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: HJD1

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Sounds like a bunch of whining to me. "Boo Hoo Hoo, we suck so we demonize those that don't suck Boo Hoo Hoo." is what I read.

CkG

If you "hear" dogs howling then it is reasonable to shout... " shut up you dam mutts" If you've never heard a cat meow you may thing of its meow as a high pitched mutt howling... Its all in the ear of the beholder... Look and thou shall see... but see all that ye may know all.

After listening to and reading this stuff since before the 2000 election, I am confident in my interpretation of that article. Might be a bit short, but drives home the point well. And before I hear more whining - yes the Repubs did it to Clinton - Both sides do it - so don't give me this holier-than-thou tripe.



CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: burnedout

How the heck can someone afford to raise two kids with both parents working when they only make 26K/year?

My ex-wife raises one on less than $12K per year by her own choice. Needless to say, our daughter does not go completely without and is one of the best students in her school. $5,100 of that $12K comes from me, by the way. Yes, my ex receives food stamps and lives near her large family - all of whom are also poverty-stricken. They are all involved in a mutual support system of their own for things like child care, sharing of transportation, etc. Come to think of it, every adult in my ex's immediate family (5 brothers ages 30s and 40s, 1 sister in her 40s, mother in her early 70s) brings in less than $12K per year. The majority of this income is from SSI and food stamps. My ex's immediate family members are also the most honest and trustworthy people I've ever known.

Ya move to Lybia or somewhere like that.... 26K$ pays for the electric bill and maybe the water bill.

Or move to parts of Tennessee, Kentucky, Georgia, Arkansas, Mississippi or Texas. Depends upon the locale. I could make it, albeit exist, in many places on $12K per year.

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 too grew up in poverty. The experience taught me about appreciation for setting and attaining specific goals as well as individual conservation of wealth. To me, it isn't so much what one has. The main point is how one applies that which one has. My opinion is that if a "normal" American (as in healthy and of average intelligence) would like to overcome poverty in this country, than the opportunities exist. Overcoming poverty may involve working in a capacity for quite some time which is not exactly conducive to one's desires or patience. However, overcoming poverty can be done with goals, strict discipline and a work ethic. This was how I did it.

I worked in jobs most people would walk away from the first day until I could improve my position. So, yes, it can be done. But there were times when the least set back could have had disastrous consequences that I would have been hard pressed to recover from.

Goals or no goals there are people who are trapped in poverty who are trying to break the cycle. Giving these people a hand should be a no-brainer. To hold them in contempt as some do is immoral.

There is no "contempt" - pull your head from the Daschle "trough of deeply concerned" for a minute. Ofcourse these people need a helping hand - but don't do it by bastardizing the income tax.

CkG

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: BOBDN
I am not turning anyone into a victim. I am proposing we give help to those who need help while we are giving it to those who don't.

Most of the extremely wealthy are not college drop outs. Your examples are certainly inspiring to us all but they are the exceptions, not the rule. Most of the extremely wealthy are born to wealth or belong to the good old boy club of corporate America. And while opportunity may knock for some it never does.

How could I hurt the rich? They are so insulated from misfortune no matter what they do they can't hurt themselves! Bush is a PRIME example!

Your argument doen't hold water. I'm not reducing anyone's reward for achievement. There are children who have basic needs in America which are not being met. Maybe you should take a look at yourself.

Biggest joke in all this - these people who are drowning us in debt and sharing the wealth with the already wealthy have the nerve to portray themselves as Christians!

I say it again - you are confused.
It is true that there are super-rich who are born to privilege. I will not deny that GW is one of them. You are also correct when you say that you can't hurt them. So when you take from the rich to give to the poor, who are these "rich" that you are taking from? The middle class.
There is almost no reward to be middle class in America anymore. As represented by what is needed to survive, we pay the bulk of the tax burden, we have the overwhelming majority of the debt. Because of political influence by special interest groups representing the "poor," the elderly, and the super-rich, the middle class always get squeezed. The only reward for acheiving middle class in our society anymore is that we're too proud to live on the dole.

And don't give me this crybaby BS that "there are children who have basic needs in America which are not being met." To me, it sounds the same as the fascists who say that we need to surrender all our freedoms and liberties - "think of the children!"

The only thing people actually need in this world (if you want to talk about "basic needs) is some gruel to eat, some rags to wear, and a mud hut. Everything else is a want. Not that you care about those peoples' wants anyway. You have already made yourself clear - you hate the rich. You are not seeking to help the poor. If you actually wanted to help them, you would be against the handouts that keep them slaves and victims to the system, and instead you would support plans that would actually teach them to be better than what they are.

As for the people "portraying themselves as Christians", please do not demonstrate your ignorance anymore than you already have. Everything about Christianity is about faith and free will. Paul wrote that if men became righteous only because of the law, then Christ died in vain. You are not asking people to give to the poor, you are forcing them to do so using the government. If you cannot see the difference...

 

[LunarRay]

CADyewompus,

After listening to and reading this stuff since before the 2000 election, I am confident in my interpretation of that article. Might be a bit short, but drives home the point well. And before I hear more whining - yes the Repubs did it to Clinton - Both sides do it - so don't give me this holier-than-thou tripe.



CkG[/quote]

Four hail Mary's and a Good act of contrition..

Each time I visit the zoo I wonder what pain the Elephant's foot apon my own would bring... and why the donkey is an a$$. Now a days, I wonder if the donkey is really an a$$ while knowing the pain the elephant's foot can bring. As it is I can easily understand why both live at the zoo. There is always a third way!...

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: BOBDN
Check this out. There may be more people in line for that $400 tax refund........OOPS! I mean handout, soon.

Nice job, George. At this rate we'll all be getting that $400.

Unemployment Rate Rises to 9-Year High
By DAVID LEONHARDT


ASHINGTON, June 6 ? The unemployment rate rose to 6.1 percent in May, its highest level in nine years, the Labor Department reported today, as the worst jobs slump since the early 1980's continued to spread its pain.

The pace of layoffs has slowed noticably in the last two months, however, suggesting that the economy might have stabilized and could begin adding jobs this summer, forecasters said.

The economy has now lost more than 2.5 million jobs since February 2001, more than was previously thought, according to annual revisions released today by the Labor Department. It is the longest sustained period without job growth since before World War II.

"Companies are still cutting costs," said Mark Vitner, a senior economist at the Wachovia Corporation in Charlotte. "But it looks like the worst of the layoffs are behind us."

Stocks rose in morning trading, largely because investors had expected larger job losses, analysts said. But they later gave back much of their gains. In early afternoon trading, the Standard & Poor 500-stock index was up 3.45 points, or 0.4 percent, at 993.59. Still, stocks are up substantially since March as hopes of an economic rebound have grown.

Economists said that the jobs report left the Federal Reserve likely to cut its benchmark interest when it meets on June 24 and 25. The Fed has already cut the rate 12 times since the start of 2001, but the continued hangover from the 1990's boom and the uncertainty caused by war and terrorism have kept the downturn from ending and companies from needing new workers.

In perhaps the most optimistic sign, companies added a small number of jobs in both April and May, after having reduced employment by more then 200,000 during the previous two months, the Labor Department said. Government cuts have caused overall employment to decline since April, but the private sector is typically a better predictor of the economy's future, analysts say.

Companies also increased the number of temporary workers on their payrolls by 58,000, a common sign that they are preparing for better times.

But hints of a solid economic recovery have popped have emerged at other points over the last two years, and they have yet to come to fruition.

Dare to compare?
"...the unemployment rate had leveled off to a nationwide average of about 7.7% by the time of the election campaign, but it was considerably higher in some industrial states."

Hmm... great guy that Carter, maybe we should give him a medal


CkG

You can choose to live in the past if you like. I'm more interested in the present.

That was 1976, this is 2003. Wonder boy George is up at the plate and he's striking out. Not for his friends, he's corked his bat for them. He's striking out for us and he's leaving us a legacy of debt that will take generations to pay off.

 

[BOBDN]

And I'm talking about Bush who was handed the largest budget surplus in history. He didn't take long to distribute the surplus to his campaign contributors and plunge us into record deficits. Great job. Maybe we should give him a medal. What would we call it? The Economic Surplus Reversal Prize?

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: HJD1
CADyewompus,

After listening to and reading this stuff since before the 2000 election, I am confident in my interpretation of that article. Might be a bit short, but drives home the point well. And before I hear more whining - yes the Repubs did it to Clinton - Both sides do it - so don't give me this holier-than-thou tripe.



CkG

Four hail Mary's and a Good act of contrition..

Each time I visit the zoo I wonder what pain the Elephant's foot apon my own would bring... and why the donkey is an a$$. Now a days, I wonder if the donkey is really an a$$ while knowing the pain the elephant's foot can bring. As it is I can easily understand why both live at the zoo. There is always a third way!... [/quote]

Dude.....................the Brothers taught you well.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: BOBDN
I am not turning anyone into a victim. I am proposing we give help to those who need help while we are giving it to those who don't.

Most of the extremely wealthy are not college drop outs. Your examples are certainly inspiring to us all but they are the exceptions, not the rule. Most of the extremely wealthy are born to wealth or belong to the good old boy club of corporate America. And while opportunity may knock for some it never does.

How could I hurt the rich? They are so insulated from misfortune no matter what they do they can't hurt themselves! Bush is a PRIME example!

Your argument doen't hold water. I'm not reducing anyone's reward for achievement. There are children who have basic needs in America which are not being met. Maybe you should take a look at yourself.

Biggest joke in all this - these people who are drowning us in debt and sharing the wealth with the already wealthy have the nerve to portray themselves as Christians!

I say it again - you are confused.
It is true that there are super-rich who are born to privilege. I will not deny that GW is one of them. You are also correct when you say that you can't hurt them. So when you take from the rich to give to the poor, who are these "rich" that you are taking from? The middle class.
There is almost no reward to be middle class in America anymore. As represented by what is needed to survive, we pay the bulk of the tax burden, we have the overwhelming majority of the debt. Because of political influence by special interest groups representing the "poor," the elderly, and the super-rich, the middle class always get squeezed. The only reward for acheiving middle class in our society anymore is that we're too proud to live on the dole.

And don't give me this crybaby BS that "there are children who have basic needs in America which are not being met." To me, it sounds the same as the fascists who say that we need to surrender all our freedoms and liberties - "think of the children!"

The only thing people actually need in this world (if you want to talk about "basic needs) is some gruel to eat, some rags to wear, and a mud hut. Everything else is a want. Not that you care about those peoples' wants anyway. You have already made yourself clear - you hate the rich. You are not seeking to help the poor. If you actually wanted to help them, you would be against the handouts that keep them slaves and victims to the system, and instead you would support plans that would actually teach them to be better than what they are.

As for the people "portraying themselves as Christians", please do not demonstrate your ignorance anymore than you already have. Everything about Christianity is about faith and free will. Paul wrote that if men became righteous only because of the law, then Christ died in vain. You are not asking people to give to the poor, you are forcing them to do so using the government. If you cannot see the difference...

What kind of tortured logic is this?

You quote Paul but you have missed his meaning. Righteousness is of obedience to the word of God not from the laws of man.

I don't think you want to discuss the poor in this context.

I am not the person to carry this message. But I read it and I try to understand.


Matthew 19:16-26
16 And behold, one came up to him, saying, "Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?"
17 And he said to him, "Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments."
18 He said to him, "Which?" And Jesus said,"You shall not kill, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness.
19 Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
20 The young man said to him, "All these I have observed; what do I still lack?"
21 Jesus said to him, "If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."
22 When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful; for he had great possessions.
23 And Jesus said to his disciples, "Truly, I say to you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven."

Luke 14:7-14

7 Now he told a parable to those who were invited, when he marked how they chose the places of honor, saying to them,
8 "When you are invited by any one to a marriage feast, do not sit down in a place of honor, lest a more eminent man than you be invited by him;
9 and he who invited you both will come and say to you, 'Give place to this man,' and then you will begin with shame to take the lowest place.
10 But when you are invited, go and sit in the lowest place, so that when your host comes he may say to you, 'Friend, go up higher'; then you will be honored in the presence of all who sit at table with you.
11 For every one who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."
12 He said also to the man who had invited him, "When you give a dinner or a banquet, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your kinsmen or rich neighbors, lest they also invite you in return, and you be repaid.
13 But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind,
14 and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just."

Luke 16:19-31

19 "There was a rich man, who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day.
20 And at his gate lay a poor man named Laz'arus, full of sores,
21 who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man's table; moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and was buried;
23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes, and saw Abraham far off and Laz'arus in his bosom.
24 And he called out, 'Father Abraham, have mercy upon me, and send Laz'arus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame.'
25 But Abraham said, 'Son, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Laz'arus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish.
26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.'
27 And he said, 'Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father's house,
28 for I have five brothers, so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.'
29 But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.'
30 And he said, 'No, father Abraham; but if some one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.'
31 He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if some one should rise from the dead.'"

Luke 19:1-10

1. He entered Jericho and was passing through.
2 And there was a man named Zacchae'us; he was a chief tax collector, and rich.
3 And he sought to see who Jesus was, but could not, on account of the crowd, because he was small of stature.
4 So he ran on ahead and climbed up into a sycamore tree to see him, for he was to pass that way.
5 And when Jesus came to the place, he looked up and said to him, "Zacchae'us, make haste and come down; for I must stay at your house today."
6 So he made haste and came down, and received him joyfully.
7 And when they saw it they all murmured, "He has gone in to be the guest of a man who is a sinner."
8 And Zacchae'us stood and said to the Lord, "Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have defrauded any one of anything, I restore it fourfold."
9 And Jesus said to him, "Today salvation has come to this house, since he also is a son of Abraham.
10 For the Son of man came to seek and to save the lost."


*edit* typo

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: BOBDN
Check this out. There may be more people in line for that $400 tax refund........OOPS! I mean handout, soon.

Nice job, George. At this rate we'll all be getting that $400.

Unemployment Rate Rises to 9-Year High
By DAVID LEONHARDT


ASHINGTON, June 6 ? The unemployment rate rose to 6.1 percent in May, its highest level in nine years, the Labor Department reported today, as the worst jobs slump since the early 1980's continued to spread its pain.

The pace of layoffs has slowed noticably in the last two months, however, suggesting that the economy might have stabilized and could begin adding jobs this summer, forecasters said.

The economy has now lost more than 2.5 million jobs since February 2001, more than was previously thought, according to annual revisions released today by the Labor Department. It is the longest sustained period without job growth since before World War II.

"Companies are still cutting costs," said Mark Vitner, a senior economist at the Wachovia Corporation in Charlotte. "But it looks like the worst of the layoffs are behind us."

Stocks rose in morning trading, largely because investors had expected larger job losses, analysts said. But they later gave back much of their gains. In early afternoon trading, the Standard & Poor 500-stock index was up 3.45 points, or 0.4 percent, at 993.59. Still, stocks are up substantially since March as hopes of an economic rebound have grown.

Economists said that the jobs report left the Federal Reserve likely to cut its benchmark interest when it meets on June 24 and 25. The Fed has already cut the rate 12 times since the start of 2001, but the continued hangover from the 1990's boom and the uncertainty caused by war and terrorism have kept the downturn from ending and companies from needing new workers.

In perhaps the most optimistic sign, companies added a small number of jobs in both April and May, after having reduced employment by more then 200,000 during the previous two months, the Labor Department said. Government cuts have caused overall employment to decline since April, but the private sector is typically a better predictor of the economy's future, analysts say.

Companies also increased the number of temporary workers on their payrolls by 58,000, a common sign that they are preparing for better times.

But hints of a solid economic recovery have popped have emerged at other points over the last two years, and they have yet to come to fruition.

Dare to compare?
"...the unemployment rate had leveled off to a nationwide average of about 7.7% by the time of the election campaign, but it was considerably higher in some industrial states."

Hmm... great guy that Carter, maybe we should give him a medal


CkG

You can choose to live in the past if you like. I'm more interested in the present.

That was 1976, this is 2003. Wonder boy George is up at the plate and he's striking out. Not for his friends, he's corked his bat for them. He's striking out for us and he's leaving us a legacy of debt that will take generations to pay off.

I was merely pointing out the "sky is falling" nature of peoples reaction to <gasp> 6.1% unemployment. You reactionaries make it worse by scaring the general public. It has been bad before, it will be bad again,but life still goes on - The sky is not falling.

If you have read any of my posts in this forum you'd know that I don't back Bush's Beurocratic expansion Oh and about that surplus...care to show some hard numbers? Or better yet, back on topic...care yet, to explain why someone should get more money back then they paid in? Hmmm...welfare indeed.

CkG

 

[BOBDN]

was merely pointing out the "sky is falling" nature of peoples reaction to <gasp> 6.1% unemployment. You reactionaries make it worse by scaring the general public. It has been bad before, it will be bad again,but life still goes on - The sky is not falling.

If you have read any of my posts in this forum you'd know that I don't back Bush's Beurocratic expansion Oh and about that surplus...care to show some hard numbers? Or better yet, back on topic...care yet, to explain why someone should get more money back then they paid in? Hmmm...welfare indeed.

CkG

The sky is falling for the 2.5 million people whose jobs have disappeared since Bush took office (and I do mean took).

As for the hard numbers I posted a topic in "Off Topic" with all the numbers you'd like to read and I'm not going to do all that research again. Especially since even faces with the hard numbers people still make excuses for Bush. Go do a search in "Off Topic."

As for welfare...............so what? The largest welfare system in our country is the welfare system for the rich. I don't hear anyone complaining about that. And let's not forget the federal economic redistribution program wherein states that pay the most in federal taxes get the least back while states which pay the least are compensated the most.

Seems unfair. Welfare states. But statistics I read form "election" 2000 showed that the states which are unfairly compensated voted for Bush while those states which pay in and receive little in return voted for Gore. Ironic isn't it?

 

[BOBDN]

BTW..............what state do you live in?

 

[Vic]

BOBDN, you merely continue in your confusion. You quote some of my favorite passages, but you still do not understand the intent of God. Just because God says that a rich man will not enter into Heaven (He also said "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." in Matt 6:24, mammon being the ancient god of acquiring riches for their own sake), but He did not say, at any time, that we did not have the power to choose. In fact, it is extremely important to God that each of us be allowed to choose (note how Christ allowed the wealthy prince to walk away). This crucial difference is appears to be completely lost on you. What you seek to do is force people, and that is its own evil.

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: Vic
BOBDN, you merely continue in your confusion. You quote some of my favorite passages, but you still do not understand the intent of God.

The intent of God??? Who can claim to understand the intent of God?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BOBDN
BTW..............what state do you live in?

Me? Sherlock Holmes you are not

2.5 million people are out of work because of Bush? Buahahaha!!! Yeah, all those people would still be working if Al "intarweb" Gore has been president - he'd have saved the intarweb bubble from popping....RIIIIIGGHHT

He'd have prevented 9/11 too i suppose

Yes, I've known for a long time that the "working poor" people vote republican(as they should) if that is what you are implying.

Now for Welfare - You seem to be missing the point here. People who don't pay money(net) into our income tax system shouldn't get an income tax rebate. If you want to make a case for more welfare "for the poor" then please inform your elected representatives. Don't let bad tax law redistribute wealth.

Infact I'm going to send yet another batch of emails and letters to my elected officials(including Bush ), to propose a "Net $0" income tax bill.

CkG

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: Vic
BOBDN, you merely continue in your confusion. You quote some of my favorite passages, but you still do not understand the intent of God.

The intent of God??? Who can claim to understand the intent of God?

Don't be obtuse.
Christ is extremely clear that free will is God's greatest gift to man. Socialism is the antithesis of free will (or Russia would not have had those barb-wire borders with machine gun towers). It is not "charity" if it's not given of free will, particularly when it is done by taxation. I think this is all pretty self-explanatory. Don't worry, I pay my taxes. I have no problem giving unto Caesar. But if the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, then we have built a super-highway there.

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: Vic
BOBDN, you merely continue in your confusion. You quote some of my favorite passages, but you still do not understand the intent of God.

The intent of God??? Who can claim to understand the intent of God?

Don't be obtuse.
Christ is extremely clear that free will is God's greatest gift to man. Socialism is the antithesis of free will (or Russia would not have had those barb-wire borders with machine gun towers). It is not "charity" if it's not given of free will, particularly when it is done by taxation. I think this is all pretty self-explanatory. Don't worry, I pay my taxes. I have no problem giving unto Caesar. But if the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, then we have built a super-highway there.

Obtuse? OK, I guess that I do have some problem understanding your argument. Are you saying that God doesn't want us to use taxes to help out those less fortunate?

 

[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.