Bush Tax Cut - Round 2

[MrChicken]

Originally posted by: BOBDN
Oh, and corps don't pay taxes.

I have been told that economics 101 tells us that everything goes to the bottom line. If these corps have to pay taxes they raise prices to offset the tax. So we pay the taxes.

However many of these corps don't pay taxes. They move offshore (a little loophole the Republicans refused to close this time around in their tax cut package) as well as use tax strategies that limit the corporate tax liability. They move jobs overseas. They do anything they can to avoid taxes.

So is the tax cut for the rich the same as a tax cut for the poor? These people don't pay taxes. Isn't this a handout?

Ok, you raise taxes on a 13" tv until it costs $10000 (adjusted by the company to cover its tax burdern), now who buys one? Ok, and what happens to the guys that made, shipped and sold tv's?

Corps are in business to make money, you tax the crap out them and they move. You are forgetting that they compete with companies from overseas that use the same countries with minimal cost labors that US corps move to. You could force them to stay, and they will prompty go out of business.

Time to join the information age, where the real money is. Unfortunatley for the US the center of technology is rapidly going towards India as IT (and customer service, btw) is being outsourced to India.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK
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?

Bingo. Free Will. Voluntary. Charity at the point of the government's gun is not charity.

Mark 12:41-44 -
41 And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much.
42 And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing.
43 And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury:
44 For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.

However I do pay my taxes. From the same chapter -
14 And when they were come, they say unto him, Master, we know that thou art true, and carest for no man: for thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of God in truth: Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not?
15 Shall we give, or shall we not give? But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why tempt ye me? bring me a penny, that I may see it.
16 And they brought it. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? And they said unto him, Caesar's.
17 And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.

It is well to remember, btw, that the above "tax" to Caeser was not actually a tax, but tribute. The funds (believed to be 15% of income) immediately left Judea and went to Rome.

 

[MonkeyK]

And God does not want us to give food to other countries? Or liberate Iraq?
What else does God not want us to do Prophet Vic?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK
And God does not want us to give food to other countries? Or liberate Iraq?
What else does God not want us to do Prophet Vic?

Now you're just an ass. I said none of those things. I don't use God as an excuse for what my country does, neither positive nor negative.
You want to help the poor, do it yourself. That is what the Bible says (and I didn't bring up religion in this thread). You want to help the poor with other people's money, which is what you are advocating, then go to Hell.

They say it best in OT: stop posting

edited to add emphasis

 

[BOBDN]

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. 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.

You make your choices and I'll make mine. You're right about one thing - this is all about choice.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

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

You live in a welfare state. Grassley makes sure you folks get more than is coming to you. He's also the head of the budget committee (I believe). He came up with the idea of cutting all those poor kids out of Bush's tax cut. It is for the rich after all! Nice for a guy who has his entire state on welfare. You say taxes shouldn't be used for welfare. Why don't you write your elected officials and ask them to stop?

The unemployment figures can be found at the Department of Labor site if you dispute them tell the DOL not me.

Here is the thread I posted on "Off Topic." You can read through it if you like and check out the links I provided on economic data.

 

[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.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: MonkeyK
And God does not want us to give food to other countries? Or liberate Iraq?
What else does God not want us to do Prophet Vic?

Now you're just an ass. I said none of those things. I don't use God as an excuse for what my country does, neither positive nor negative.
You want to help the poor, do it yourself. That is what the Bible says (and I didn't bring up religion in this thread). You want to help the poor with other people's money, which is what you are advocating, then go to Hell.

They say it best in OT: stop posting

edited to add emphasis

So now Prophet Classy Vic is condemning people to hell. Nice. Perhaps it's time for another dose of your anti-psychotic Vic. You're really losing it.........big time.

 

[BOBDN]

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

One way you can be sure Bush supporters are certain their guy is screwing up..........they keep bringing up the "what if."
What if Gore won?

Bush is in the White House (although he didn't win) so why bring up hypotheticals? What is the point of this fantasy? Let's talk about how Bush is screwing up the economy, environment, foreign policy, education, social security etc.

Don't try to hide behind the what if. Let's talk about what now.

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: MonkeyK
And God does not want us to give food to other countries? Or liberate Iraq?
What else does God not want us to do Prophet Vic?

Now you're just an ass. I said none of those things. I don't use God as an excuse for what my country does, neither positive nor negative.
You want to help the poor, do it yourself. That is what the Bible says (and I didn't bring up religion in this thread). You want to help the poor with other people's money, which is what you are advocating, then go to Hell.

What is giving food to other countries if not helping those less fortunate than us with tax dollars? Why am I an ass? Because you want your argument both ways? You say that you don't use God as an excuse for what your country does, but you are using God as an excuse for what you want your country to do.

BTW: The Bible does not say that there is anything wrong with using tax dollars to help the poor. You have interpreted "Free Will" to mean that because it sounds good to you. So you don't like it that some of the taxes you pay somehow helps a poor person, that opinion is fine, but hardly God's word.

(edited to correct spelling of exuse)

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

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

One way you can be sure Bush supporters are certain their guy is screwing up..........they keep bringing up the "what if."
What if Gore won?

Bush is in the White House (although he didn't win) so why bring up hypotheticals? What is the point of this fantasy? Let's talk about how Bush is screwing up the economy, environment, foreign policy, education, social security etc.

Don't try to hide behind the what if. Let's talk about what now.

No- you keep blaming these unemployment figures on Bush. Explain how he is caused them. Oh, that's right - YOU CAN'T.

Seems like some likes to blame everything on Bush.

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

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

You live in a welfare state. Grassley makes sure you folks get more than is coming to you. He's also the head of the budget committee (I believe). He came up with the idea of cutting all those poor kids out of Bush's tax cut. It is for the rich after all! Nice for a guy who has his entire state on welfare. You say taxes shouldn't be used for welfare. Why don't you write your elected officials and ask them to stop?

The unemployment figures can be found at the Department of Labor site if you dispute them tell the DOL not me.

Here is the thread I posted on "Off Topic." You can read through it if you like and check out the links I provided on economic data.

Ignorance shining through

Welfare state? WTF does that have to do with anything? ** Grassley cut "poor kids out of the tax-cut"? Are you sure he is the one responsible for that? ** Unemployment figures? Again, how is unemployment relevant to the Federal income tax "debate"?(besides an excuse to bash Bush) **You sure seem to be all over the board here trying to demonize Bush, Grassley, and etc. Do yourself a favor and pick one battle at a time, maybe then you'd make some sense.

I don't believe that I said taxes shouldn't be used for welfare Go back and read what I said

CkG

 

[BOBDN]

CkG

You just covered about 6 topics in one post. Why should I stick to one?

Bush is responsible for the economy because he's been in charge for over 2 years and hasn't been able to improve it. What is the point of stealing an election if you can't make things better? Oh, that's right - his goal isn't making things better - it's getting those tax dollars back to his contributors in time for the next election.

Oh, and the welfare state thing - some states, like the one I live in, pay more in federal taxes than others. But those other states get way more back than they put in. I thought you were against using tax dollars for a handout but your representatives have you folks on the federal tax redistribution welfare program.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BOBDN
CkG

You just covered about 6 topics in one post. Why should I stick to one?

Bush is responsible for the economy because he's been in charge for over 2 years and hasn't been able to improve it. What is the point of stealing an election if you can't make things better? Oh, that's right - his goal isn't making things better - it's getting those tax dollars back to his contributors in time for the next election.

Oh, and the welfare state thing - some states, like the one I live in, pay more in federal taxes than others. But those other states get way more back than they put in. I thought you were against using tax dollars for a handout but your representatives have you folks on the federal tax redistribution welfare program.

1. YOU are the one that keeps bringing up topics
2. Oh, so because he couldn't instantly improve it, he is somehow to blame for the loss?
3. Re-read my posts. I AM NOT AGAINST WELFARE (perse) - I AM AGAINST USING THIS CHILD TAX-CREDIT AS A BACKDOOR WELFARE PROGRAM!(net $0).

CkG

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BOBDN
CkG

You just covered about 6 topics in one post. Why should I stick to one?

Bush is responsible for the economy because he's been in charge for over 2 years and hasn't been able to improve it. What is the point of stealing an election if you can't make things better? Oh, that's right - his goal isn't making things better - it's getting those tax dollars back to his contributors in time for the next election.

Getting money back to his contributers. I guess that is why the first round of taxcuts he was forced to backload them and they did not take effect until after 2004. I think are you confused.

You may not agree with the taxcuts, but we have yet to hear about a serious economic stimulus plan from the other side of the congress.

 

[BOBDN]

. YOU are the one that keeps bringing up topics
2. Oh, so because he couldn't instantly improve it, he is somehow to blame for the loss?
3. Re-read my posts. I AM NOT AGAINST WELFARE (perse) - I AM AGAINST USING THIS CHILD TAX-CREDIT AS A BACKDOOR WELFARE PROGRAM!(net $0).

CkG

Yes I keep bringing up topics, because they are related.

Yes it is his fault. I don't believe the BS they're selling about the economy under Clinton. I remember a LONG stretch of VERY GOOD times.

Before the 2000 election I asked everyone I know, "Don't you rememner what happened last time there was a Bush in the White House?" Well there's one back there now and what has he brought with him?

Same as the last one. Recession. War. Attack on the environment. Attack on any federal program large corporations don't benefit from. Huge budget deficits.

You may support Bush. I can't understand how anyone would unless they were wealthy enough to benefit as well. If they aren't the only logical explanation is they enjoy being totally duped.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BOBDN
CkG

You just covered about 6 topics in one post. Why should I stick to one?

Bush is responsible for the economy because he's been in charge for over 2 years and hasn't been able to improve it. What is the point of stealing an election if you can't make things better? Oh, that's right - his goal isn't making things better - it's getting those tax dollars back to his contributors in time for the next election.

Getting money back to his contributers. I guess that is why the first round of taxcuts he was forced to backload them and they did not take effect until after 2004. I think are you confused.

You may not agree with the taxcuts, but we have yet to hear about a serious economic stimulus plan from the other side of the congress.

It's like a deferred compensation plan. And don't worry about them. The folks who are benefitting from Bush's tax cuts (and I'm not talking about the guy who gets a dividend check for $500/yr) have plenty to stay afloat until after 2004. With the unwritten promise that there's plenty more where that came from in the second term. Long term financial planning. They get long term income - we get long term debt.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

. YOU are the one that keeps bringing up topics
2. Oh, so because he couldn't instantly improve it, he is somehow to blame for the loss?
3. Re-read my posts. I AM NOT AGAINST WELFARE (perse) - I AM AGAINST USING THIS CHILD TAX-CREDIT AS A BACKDOOR WELFARE PROGRAM!(net $0).

CkG

Yes I keep bringing up topics, because they are related.

Yes it is his fault. I don't believe the BS they're selling about the economy under Clinton. I remember a LONG stretch of VERY GOOD times.

Before the 2000 election I asked everyone I know, "Don't you rememner what happened last time there was a Bush in the White House?" Well there's one back there now and what has he brought with him?

Same as the last one. Recession. War. Attack on the environment. Attack on any federal program large corporations don't benefit from. Huge budget deficits.

You may support Bush. I can't understand how anyone would unless they were wealthy enough to benefit as well. If they aren't the only logical explanation is they enjoy being totally duped.

The environment from the president.
Wants congress to pass a bill that requires coal scrubbing tech being installed.
Legislation for much cleaner off road deisel equipment.
Slightly higher cafe standards.
Which one of these things is destroying environment?

Budget.
How would the democratic party kept the recession(this includes corperate scandels,9/11) from happening. The recession and lowered tax receipts is what caused the defecits. Bush was able to pass a budget with only a 4% increase in spending(this has not been done in a while)

War. Would you have prefered the US tuck its tail with Al Queda?


No matter who was in office, the issues would have been same.

 

[BOBDN]

The environment from the president.
Wants congress to pass a bill that requires coal scrubbing tech being installed.
Legislation for much cleaner off road deisel equipment.
Slightly higher cafe standards.
Which one of these things is destroying environment?

Budget.
How would the democratic party kept the recession(this includes corperate scandels,9/11) from happening. The recession and lowered tax receipts is what caused the defecits. Bush was able to pass a budget with only a 4% increase in spending(this has not been done in a while)

War. Would you have prefered the US tuck its tail with Al Queda?


No matter who was in office, the issues would have been same.

Republican congress Republican president. Strange he can get a war or a deficit feeding tax cut approved if he wants one but his own party wont pass any of his environmental legislation. Real conservationist.

And what makes you think a recession was inevitable?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

The environment from the president.
Wants congress to pass a bill that requires coal scrubbing tech being installed.
Legislation for much cleaner off road deisel equipment.
Slightly higher cafe standards.
Which one of these things is destroying environment?

Budget.
How would the democratic party kept the recession(this includes corperate scandels,9/11) from happening. The recession and lowered tax receipts is what caused the defecits. Bush was able to pass a budget with only a 4% increase in spending(this has not been done in a while)

War. Would you have prefered the US tuck its tail with Al Queda?


No matter who was in office, the issues would have been same.

Republican congress Republican president. Strange he can get a war or a deficit feeding tax cut approved if he wants one but his own party wont pass any of his environmental legislation. Real conservationist.


Most of his environmental legislation has been passed. The democrats have been beating on the economy, so bills on that got passed.


And what makes you think a recession was inevitable?

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?

 

[BOBDN]

War. Would you have prefered the US tuck its tail with Al Queda?


No matter who was in office, the issues would have been same.

I would have preferred the US use the information at hand and stop terrorism before it happens. But that didn't happen, did it? And the Bush administration has been blocking an independent investigation into 9/11 ever since. Now that a "blue ribbon" commission has been formed to investigate 9/11 this administration is doing all it can to derail the proceedings.

And you can't know if the issues would have been the same. Minus a $1.3 trillion and another $350 billion tax cut, an unnecessary war and the wholesale looting of major corporations by their board of directors, the looting of the social security system and the loss of investor confidence in the stock market things just might have been a wee bit different.

 

[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?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

War. Would you have prefered the US tuck its tail with Al Queda?


No matter who was in office, the issues would have been same.

I would have preferred the US use the information at hand and stop terrorism before it happens. But that didn't happen, did it? And the Bush administration has been blocking an independent investigation into 9/11 ever since. Now that a "blue ribbon" commission has been formed to investigate 9/11 this administration is doing all it can to derail the proceedings.


This should be investigated. This was a major intel failure. I am not cynical enough to beleive that the president knew and allowed this happen.



And you can't know if the issues would have been the same. Minus a $1.3 trillion and another $350 billion tax cut, an unnecessary war and the wholesale looting of major corporations by their board of directors, the looting of the social security system and the loss of investor confidence in the stock market things just might have been a wee bit different.

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?

 

[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.

 

[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?