Bush [Archive] - HP Deals, Computer Coupons And Bargains

mojo

09-06-2002, 03:37 AM

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
I think he has a very skilled cabinet who do all the real work, he is just a face man. Bush is a figurehead.

Originally posted by jase71
Gotta agree with Canta here...

I just don't get the feeling that Bush is running the show. He seems more like a Press Secretary than the President, trotting out to make the speeches about decisions other people have already made.

It doesn't help that every time someone points out a weakness of Mr. Bush, his defenders say "Oh, but look what a great cabinet he's put together!".

Political issues aside (where I expect to, and do disagree with him harshly) he's been a warm milk kinda president. Not BAD, but far from inspiring. ya, so he knows how to delegate...like a good leader should.

next question ;)

mojo

09-06-2002, 03:41 AM

Originally posted by InfiniteNothing
I'd like to criticize him for supporting Bill Simon (republican California gubernatorial canidate) who was convicted of fraud and seems like a pretty shady buisness man yet wants to promote buisness ethics and higher prison terms for corprorate fraud. at least your misspelling of the word "business" is consistent

jase71

09-06-2002, 04:03 AM

Originally posted by mojo

ya, so he knows how to delegate...like a good leader should.

next question ;)

Delegate -

a.) Allowing others to make decisions for you.

b.) Passing the buck.

:P

topane

09-06-2002, 05:43 AM

He's doing a good job of staying out of the way and letting people with experience do their jobs. He's sorta like Trent Dilfer - he does enough not to lose the game ;).

Merlin

09-06-2002, 05:44 AM

Well let's turn the question around a little. What should he have done differently?

I like the job he has done thus far. My only complaint, and it is a biggie, is the Patriot Act.

ribitch

09-06-2002, 06:07 AM

slam him all you want, but i like the guy, i think that our nation is doing alright based on what has been happening, and i think we could have been doing worse with some of the othe rcanidates of the time.

We were attacked, and we have had corporate scandals going on for years during the Clinton administration, which has now been revealed. Our nation may be slumping, but its not that bad. We are not in a depression. The stockmarket had risen too fast, and has finally corrected itself, and big businesses are exposing they f'ed some things up. This is not Bush's fault. It was bound to happen eventually. Because hes the president doesnt mean it happened due to him.

If the greens took office, we would all be screwed. From talking to many green supporters, they do not think a retalitory attack on afghanistan was the thing to do. That is just stupid. If a bully hits a kid, and the kid doesnt say anything, the bully will continue to do it. Same principal will apply here. You cant just ignore this, and delegation has had very little success with these regions of the world. If talking with the leaders of these regions of the world would stop this, then the violence in this area of the world would have stopped years ago.

If Gore took office, we would be doing about the same as now. Maybe the corporate scandals may not have been exposed, which would have helped our economy some, but eventually it would need to come out, and the economy will take a hit. The mideast effort may have also been done differently, but similar results would have come.

As a student, most of the people my age were in favor of gore. The kept saying our economy was screwed when his victory was "official". These are the same people who rely on their parents because they have not held a job, or not held a job since high school. I'm sorry, but these people are screwing our economy, not bush. If they worked, mnaybe they would have more extra cash, and therefore would have a positive effect on the economy. The people have an effect on the economy as well!!!!

Many of us can afford to go to the store and buy a cd or DVD, or even upgrade our computers. These are mainly leisure items, which means we are not pinching our money as tightly as possible. Therefore we are not as bad off as everyone thinks.

WhiskeyPapa

09-06-2002, 06:26 AM

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
The economy still sucks.
You're not old enough to know what a "sucky" economy is. I was about your age during the malaise of the late 70s and early 80s. I felt EXTREMELY fortunate to get my first job flipping burgers for $3.35 an hour. The manager told me he interviewed at least a dozen people for my job. That's twelve people applying for a part-time job at a burger joint. Back then it took weeks to get any job. Then you had to spend half your income on gasoline!

THAT economy sucked.

It wasn't as bad in the late 80s, but that still sucked more than now.

So if you think that this economy sucks, pray you never see a real bad economy.

jase71

09-06-2002, 06:27 AM

Originally posted by Merlin
Well let's turn the question around a little. What should he have done differently?

A.) Patriot Act. No need to go into details on this one.

B.) Handling of corporate scandals. Too little, too late. He jumped on the bandwagon only after public opinion was clear, rather than being a leader on the issue.

C.) Iraq. He's got his finger on the button, waiting for an excuse.

D.) Guantanemo Bay prisoners. Not that they deserved great treatment, but the whole thing was bungled.

And a host of other smaller issues that are disagreements on policy and political stances... but I can't blame the guy for acting like a Republican when he is one. I disagree with him, but don't blame him.

Really, 9/11 has given Bush a pass on most of the domestic issues he would otherwise have had to deal with. What substantive issues have popped up domestically since 9/11, other than the corporate scandals?
We've been distracted by our war on terrorism, so for better or for worse, Bush hasn't had to deal with much here at home. And that will likely continue. With the anniversary of 9/11, and the impending war on Iraq, no one is focused on domestic issues.

Since he hasn't really done much at home, that doesn't leave us a lot to point at and say "See, he did this wrong!". Of course, it also means he hasn't accomplished much at home that he can point to and say "See, I did this right!" either...

If we can somehow avoid a war with Iraq, maybe in 6 months things will settle down enough, and we'll be able to see what kind of President he might be under "normal" circumstances, dealing with the welfare of the country, rather than it's defense.

jase71

09-06-2002, 06:33 AM

Originally posted by kb0wwp

So if you thing that this economy sucks, pray you never see a real bad economy.

:stupid:

That's one thing I won't bash Bush for... the economy.

Presidents don't really have the effect on the economy that most people think. At least not in the long term health of it.

That means they don't deserve as much blame as they get when it's not going well. But it also means they don't deserve as much credit as they get when it does go well.

Clinton and Reagan both got too much credit for the economies of the 80's and 90's, and Bush Sr. got too much blame for the slow economy of the late 80's, early 90's. Carter got too much blame for the economy of the late 70's. Bush gets too much blame for our current economy.

attgig

09-06-2002, 06:35 AM

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
Bin Ladin isnt caught. The economy still sucks. People are pissed. Glad to see business is being attended to.

glad to know that like the rest of the public, you use him as a scapegoat for the economy sucking (gore - mr inventor of the internet- couldn't have done anything to save those .coms). And that you think the president actually should be in afghanistan combing the desert for bin laden...
should he use a pic? :hehehmm:

oh, and...yeah, stop being pissed. that's you and your shrink's problem, not his.

ribitch

09-06-2002, 06:58 AM

http://ribitch.com/images/humor/rocks.jpg

:hehe

i'm glad people are seeing my point on the economy not being the presidents fault entirely. The economy relies on the government, the businesses, and the people. All have vital roles in maintaining it, and all are factors of its slipping. Dont blame it on one man when everyone who can spend money in our nation is a factor.

The patriotic act does suck, but is designed to help protect us all. I dont agree with the entire thing, but some parts are needed. Bush was not the only person responsible for this act though, so dont blame just him, blame your congressmen as well.

Bush may have his finger on the button with iraq, but i think that its about time we do something about Saddam. Saddam should have been eliminated years ago, but hes still around. He screws with the UN, and tries to turn it on the US. There are 2 men that the US needs to get rid of, Bin Laden and Saddam. Bitch all you want about the risks involved, but remember the risks involved with not doing anything. These 2 men are dangerous, and therefore need to be controlled.

One thing i do wish bush would do is lift the embargo on cuba. They are so close, and should be embraced as a friend. Times have changed, and so should our policy on them. They may not be an ideal government by our standards, but they treat the people better than some of the mideast governments.

Merlin

09-06-2002, 07:21 AM

Originally posted by jase71

Clinton and Reagan both got too much credit for the economies of the 80's and 90's, and Bush Sr. got too much blame for the slow economy of the late 80's, early 90's. Carter got too much blame for the economy of the late 70's. Bush gets too much blame for our current economy.

Only partially right. Regan implemented many structural changes that reduced the reach of government and thereby allowed significant economic growth. If you would like to hear a little more on this you can review a PBS special that was done a couple of months ago called "Commanding Heights"

The others mainly just kept their hands on the rudder.

jase71

09-06-2002, 07:30 AM

Originally posted by Merlin

Only partially right. Regan implemented many structural changes that reduced the reach of government and thereby allowed significant economic growth. If you would like to hear a little more on this you can review a PBS special that was done a couple of months ago called "Commanding Heights"

Structural changes such as? And, did they pass as legislation from Congress, to be signed by Reagan? Did Reagan author them, or sign them when presented with them? Just curious. I recall his tax changes, but I don't specifically recall the structural changes you mentioned... then again, it's been a while since I read anything on the early 80's, so my memory may not be reliable. ;)

I'd also be curious as to how many of the ideas behind those changes were actually Reagan's, and how many were ideas of his staff and appointees. Credit where credit is due. I wouldn't credit Clinton for Greenspan's management of the economy in the 90's, for example.

Merlin

09-06-2002, 07:42 AM

Originally posted by jase71

Structural changes such as?

Ah, I'm being called out on that one! :P It is quite a bit of stuff. Follow this link....

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/hi/story/index.html

And take a look at episode 2. Talks a lot about the economic impact thar Regan and Thatcher had on their respective economies.

But to bottom line it for ya... Yeah there was the tax reform act that removed many tax havens and kept inefficient businesses afloat, but more importantly there was significant deregulation across a myriad of industries. Removing the regulation allowed the natural competitive forces to drive innovation, lower prices, and forced capital to flow to its best uses. Kind of like uncuffing the invisible hand :P

jase71

09-06-2002, 08:02 AM

I'll have to take a closer look tonight. A quick scan of the transcript of episode 2 doesn't say much more than that they (Reagan and Thatcher) deregulated and privatized. Didn't even list details that I saw. And I think most of the privatizing was by Thatcher in the UK, not here. Most of it seemed to be about Latin America, Poland, and the old USSR.

But I'll read it closer tonight, and look through episode 3 too. Looks like it might have more domestic coverage, and the details I'm looking for. Thanks for the link. Looks like some interesting material. Maybe I can catch it on tv. I'd like to watch it.

Edit:// There it is.. end of episode 1. They talk about bringing on a recession to bring down interest rates, which then allowed for a recovery. That, along with cutting taxes gave us an improving economy and huge deficits. One good, one not so good. But then, there's no free lunch, I suppose.

Remember, though... deregulation is a double-edged sword. We saw booms in the 80's and 90's partially as a result of deregulation, but we also saw the downsides as well, with the Savings and Loan scandals of the 80's, and the recent corporate scandals of the 90's.

gear02

09-06-2002, 08:09 AM

We'd be better off if Josiah Bartlett was is office.

Bartlett for President!

Cantacuzene

09-06-2002, 08:25 AM

I never said the president can control the economy. I just mentioned it sucks. It sucks, and his economic policy isnt helping me feel more 'investor confidence.'

If you want me to be specific I will be. The $300 (or more) tax refund was ridiculous. The working poor didnt recieve a check, only the upper middle and up. What do they need that money for? To make the next payment on their 5 series bmw? The average American was so ripped off there I cannot believe it. Sad part is, when Bush is up for re-election he will cite the tax refund as one of his biggest accomplishments in helping America.

Next, the fake 'oil crisis.' There was no oil crisis, OPEC did not cut back enough to make the gas jump 33% in price. The so called crisis was perpetrated on us by the American oil barons and Dick Cheney so they could get support for the presidents energy policy. That energy policy is so whack its ridiculous. They let the oil companies write it. That would be like letting the military industrial complex write our foreign policy. (oh wait, they do, hence Iraq.) Way to lie to us. You said drilling for oil in Alaska would help the prices go down. The prices for gas are the same as they've been the whole time of the 'crisis.' Scam.

I have more, but I have to go to class. Finish this later.

dbax791

09-06-2002, 08:26 AM

Originally posted by kb0wwp

You're not old enough to know what a "sucky" economy is. I was about your age during the malaise of the late 70s and early 80s. I felt EXTREMELY fortunate to get my first job flipping burgers for $3.35 an hour. The manager told me he interviewed at least a dozen people for my job. That's twelve people applying for a part-time job at a burger joint. Back then it took weeks to get any job. Then you had to spend half your income on gasoline!

So if you think that this economy sucks, pray you never see a real bad economy.

:stupid:

I was a kid during the Carter days and I have vague memories of double-digit interest rates, double-digit unemployment, gas shortages, etc.

When I was 16, I applied to every fast-food and restaraunt job and it took 3 months to get one.

When I graduated college, I did not have a job - took me 5 mos after graduation before I landed one.

This economy "sucks" because its not the insane everybody-gets-rich environment of a few years ago, but with low interest rates and fairly low unemployment, it could be a helluva lot worse.

sbp

09-06-2002, 09:05 AM

I recall the Carters years. :2far:
As a man I respect him, as a President :ugh:

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
I never said the president can control the economy. I just mentioned it sucks. It sucks, and his economic policy isnt helping me feel more 'investor confidence.'

If you want me to be specific I will be. The $300 (or more) tax refund was ridiculous. The working poor didnt recieve a check, only the upper middle and up. What do they need that money for? To make the next payment on their 5 series bmw? The average American was so ripped off there I cannot believe it. Sad part is, when Bush is up for re-election he will cite the tax refund as one of his biggest accomplishments in helping America.Looks like the economy has improved already. Gee now you got money to invest. Just think a few days ago you was a starving college student. :P

The tax cut allowed people to keep more of what they worked hard for. It is after all the people's money and they earned it not government. You are not against that are you?

Isn't some better than none? Living would be made even get harder to do. A little here, a little there, it all adds up.

Here's a new flash: the top 1% or so pay a BIG percentage of the income taxes. So if there's an income tax cut across the boards like Bush's, then people will get the cut according to percentage paid.

And its funny cause my parents and other working class folks benefited from the lowered tax cuts.

Cantacuzene

09-06-2002, 10:54 AM

The tax cut allowed people to keep more of what they worked hard for. It is after all the people's money and they earned it not government. You are not against that are you?

From a purely economical standpoint, the $300 refund didnt help the economy one bit. Taking money from someone in taxes, then immediatly giving it back doesnt revive the economy. The economy depends on movement of the money. That $300 didnt move anywhere. You could say, "well they are going to spend it, so that makes it move." That would be an economic fallacy however. If you want to make an economy improve you have to take money and start it at the bottom and let it trickle UP to the top, not vice versa.

I am not opposed to them getting the $300 back, thats fine, they earned it. But when the administration starts calling it, "tax relief" and claiming it helped the economy or that it gave money to "people in need," thats when I call bs. I say give them their money, but dont lie to me while doing it.

Isn't some better than none? Living would be made even get harder to do. A little here, a little there, it all adds up.

The problem is, living is even harder for the people that were too poor to get the $300. Granted, your working class parents might have a lot of debt and the $300 may have a helped make ends meet that month, but think about a single mother, living in a 1 room apt making 15,000$ a year struggling to feed her kids AND keep the electricity on. That $300 would have gone a lot farther and helped a lot more needy people.

I still contend that $300 for groceries for the working poor would have done a lot better for America then $300 off some guys BMW payment.

Here's a new flash: the top 1% or so pay a BIG percentage of the income taxes.

The top 1% SHOULD pay a higher percentage of the taxes. If you make a lot, you should pay a lot. Thats the way taxes have alwaysed worked through history, but it seems like to the rich, its a news flash.

If you are making $300,000 a year and the government takes 40%, you arent starving. If you make $20,000 a year and the government takes 15% you are in definite trouble.

Taxes should be paid by the people most able to pay them. I could go into numerous historical examples of how when the upper class manages to avoid paying taxes it leads to disaster but Im sur eyou know most of already.

So if there's an income tax cut across the boards like Bush's, then people will get the cut according to percentage paid.

Dont you see what that does? If you give a retrograde-progressive tax cut it increases the percentage of the total tax revenue paid by the poor relative to the rich, which increases the tax burden on the poor. What logical sense does it make to tax rich people less but the poor more? Any rational person can see the folly in that.

Next topic: no sooner will I mention that rich people who make 300k a year dont have serious problems, someone will reply with, "my parents make a decent amount but we still have bills to pay and we struggle."

Thats such a flawed arguement. If the said family wasnt living beyond their means they wouldnt have this problem. If the dad was driving an Accord not a BMW they wouldnt need a tax break. If they lived in a 150,000$ house rather than a $250,000 house, they wouldnt need a property tax break.

A family of 5 that makes over a combined $40,000 shouldnt run into serious financial problems unless they live beyond their means. If you make $40,000 a year you should be able to afford food and electricity. When you start considering not being able to afford a Benz a financial problem, you need to take a long look in the mirror.

WhiskeyPapa

09-06-2002, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
The $300 (or more) tax refund was ridiculous. The working poor didnt recieve a check, only the upper middle and up. What do they need that money for? To make the next payment on their 5 series bmw? The average American was so ripped off there I cannot believe it. Sad part is, when Bush is up for re-election he will cite the tax refund as one of his biggest accomplishments in helping America.
Allow me to highlight a small contridiction in your statement. As you mentioned, the $300 was a tax refund!!! Why didn't the "working poor" get one? Because they didn't pay any Federal income taxes! I didn't get one either. Why? Because of the number of children I have, and the deductions I take, I rarely have a Federal tax liability. Are you suggesting that I should have received someone else's $300? Maybe I should send an email to Bill Gates and tell him that he doesn't deserve the money he earned and he should give it to me??

I'll tell you who is getting ripped off: The "average American" who works hard, uses his brain, and saves money. They end up paying more than their share of taxes so the "working poor" aren't burdened by it. Do they even get a "thank you"? No, they get a big kick in the jimmy whenever the liberals start screaming "tax the rich"!!

sbp

09-06-2002, 11:09 AM

Take money from one to give to another. Smells suspiciously like socialism. Also its kind of punishing those who are productive.

If people want the benefits like Social Security, then they have to pay for it.

Sticking it to others doesn't help poor people improve their lives.

And finally anyone for a flat tax?

jase71

09-06-2002, 11:15 AM

Originally posted by sbp
Take money from one to give to another. Smells suspiciously like socialism. Also its kind of punishing those who are productive.

So... a few years ago when the top 1% of Americans paid 40% of the income taxes, but actually controlled 42% of the working capital, we were Socialist, and punishing the productive poor for the benefit of the unproductive rich? :P :D

sbp

09-06-2002, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by jase71

So... a few years ago when the top 1% of Americans paid 40% of the income taxes, but actually controlled 42% of the working capital, we were Socialist, and punishing the productive poor for the benefit of the unproductive rich? :P :D Of course many poor people work, as do many middle class and rich folk. Like it was said before, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Since people want the programs, they should contribute to the programs.

Should working class folks pay more for groceries than poor folk?

The real problem is this belief that taxing people is the way to go and that people should feel guilty about keeping more of what they work hard for.

Even you want to reduce the size and scope of government. :)

Cantacuzene

09-06-2002, 11:36 AM

Originally posted by sbp
Take money from one to give to another. Smells suspiciously like socialism. Also its kind of punishing those who are productive.

Maybe you don't realize it, but the world works in socialistic manners. This country is as socialist as any European country, we just dont like to bring it up, because socialism = communism in the minds of the uneducated. From an economic standpoint redistributing wealth even on a small scale, such as we have in America is a tremendously beneficial and healthy practice.

If people want the benefits like Social Security, then they have to pay for it.

Fine, then if the people want nuclear warheads and a 300,000+ man army they have to pay for it. Who do you think the army defends? The American people? The military in Somalia, eastern europe and the far east protect American business interests. If the businesses want the protection, they should pay for it. I myself do see we need a military, but I dont think our military should be galavanting around the glove like a police force running up a bill for the tax payers to foot. Dont make it seem like its just the poor that use government services.

Sticking it to others doesn't help poor people improve their lives.

I hardly call "paying your fair share" the same as "sticking it to people." And I think you are wrong. It does improve their lives. When a poor child is fed a decent meal and given a quality education it does improve his or her life. I don't see how you can possibly say that financial programs for the poor does no good.

And finally anyone for a flat tax?

The worst idea ever. Lets run through what would happen if we had a flat tax, shall we?

1. Hundreds of thousands of citizens go bankrupt because paying the 17% is economically impossible for anyone making under $20,000 a year. Especially with a family.

2. Because you just gave the rich a 23% tax break, the government tax revenue just dropped 80%! Looks like we cant even afford to pay the salaries of the congressmen, senators, president, federal court judges... The goverment could not function on 20% of its current income.

3. How are we going to pay for our 300,000 man military and equip them? I dont think 20% of the current federal budget could even afford to pay their salaries.

Flat tax sounds great at first until you look at it for what it really is: a massive beyond belief tax break for the rich and a tremendous tax increase for the poor. Wanna know why it hasnt happened yet? Because no respectable economist in the world has even come close to proving it works. Its unmanagable, unfair and financially impossible.

CynJon

09-06-2002, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by sbp
Take money from one to give to another. Smells suspiciously like socialism.

"To each, according to his need. From each, according to his ability"--Karl Marx

jase71

09-06-2002, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by sbp
Even you want to reduce the size and scope of government. :)

Starting with the Executive Branch, perhaps... :P

I don't blame anyone for wanting to keep a bigger part of their paycheck than they currently do. That's only natural.

But there's the flipside to that as well. We all want to keep more of our money, but I see very few people willing to contribute to try and make our government more effective, and our society a better place. They just want to pay less. Everyone (almost) wants good police, fire department, military, road, and educational services, just to name a few. But no one wants to admit that yes, perhaps they should have to help pay for that as well. There's no free lunch there either. They're not free.

Not many people seem to admit that there's a balance to be struck there. Keeping our money, versus keeping a smoothly functioning country. Either extreme results in a breakdown of society.

sbp

09-06-2002, 11:48 AM

Too many people have this attitude of "I gave at the office" and now expect BIG government to do everything and be the solution for everything. Thats not what America was ever about.

About the military: the Europeans and others have for decades sponged off the US. http://home.earthlink.net/~sbp777/smilies/disgusted.gif

Please define "fair share". Is it 50%? How about 70%?

Is it fair that some who can contribute don't and will get the benefits? Is it fair there are those who work their asses off and get reamed and can't enjoy the fruits of their labor?

Here's a novel concept that has never crossed the minds of fat cats up on Capital Hill-cut $pending! Everyone knows there's pork in that budget which now over 2 trillion dollars http://sbp777.homestead.com/files/ugone2far.gif
http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/
Citizens Against Government Waste (http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer)

So poor people should pay no taxes? How about poor people pay nothing at all. Their home, food, transportation, child care and everyting is taken care of by Nanny government. Hell everyone should be. Now burp me, I just drank some beer. :dodgy:

Cantacuzene

09-06-2002, 12:14 PM

I think "fair share" is prolly more than what the top %1 is currently paying.

Should a working class family who makes 50k pay 40%? No, but someone who makes 300,000$ should.

SBP, you seem to think that poor people could instantly become successful fruitful if they were just "more American" and worked harder. Just not true. In a free market economy, for every dollar someone makes above the average salary, someone makes below it to make up for it. There is only so much money to go around.

Is it fair there are those who work their asses off and get reamed and can't enjoy the fruits of their labor?

Sounds like you are saying someone who makes 50k works harder than someone who makes 15k. A guy who works 14 hours a day to feed his family works hard too and he deserves to be paid for his work too. Also, I've never heard of someone who makes a decent living getting "reamed" so bad by taxes they cut off his electric and he stopped eating. Granted, he made more money and deserves to enjoy it, and he should. But he should also be prepaired to do his civic duty as a good american and help out people who work just as hard if not harder but arent smart/educated/lucky enough to have as good a job.

I dont understand why you middle class Republicans are so eager to stick up for the wealthiest 1%. Do you think the wealthiest 1% have your best interests in mind? When they and their businesses lobby Congress, do you think they are looking out for you? The answer is no, and I still cant understand why you are so quick to defend the interests of someone who would just as soon spit at you as talk to you.

Merlin

09-06-2002, 03:42 PM

Great, so I turn by back for an afternoon and this thread turn into a philisophical debate on taxes. :2far:

There are a couple of theories to compare here that are geared at answering the question of what is your fair share. Should it be based of everyone paying a set percentage of their income? I had the opportunity to meet Steve Forbes a few years ago when he was running on that platform and it made a lot of sense to me. As it stands right now wealthy people are taxed at about 40% of their income, but after paying tax games they wind up "only" paying in the low teens. So why bother with any of it? Just use a flat tax. Get rid of 90% of the IRS and make tax season easier on most of us. Oh and some people on this thread have thrown out a stat that is not right. The top 1% in terms of wealth pay virtually no tax as they have the means to hire good tax attorneys and get out of it. Its the people in that next traunch that bear the full burden for both the rich above them as well as all the poor below. :disa: If you institute a flat tax this inequity would be addressed. Canta threw out some reason why the flat tax didn't fly, well here is the real reason. The wealthiest 1% contribute A LOT to politicians (aw hell, many of them are politicians) to keep the system as it is. Makes sense, do you think politicians will enact a plan that would result in them paying more? I think not.

As for our current highly progressive, well in name anyway, tax system, it is based on the theory that everyone should contribute not a fixed percentage of income but rather a fixed level of "pain" to the government. Now obviously the more you make the more they will have to take in order to make you feel it. The problem with this system is that it progressively provides a disincentive for economic development. I am sure you've heard stories of people doing things to aviod being bumped up into the next tax bracket. Bottom line is that progressive tax is bad for the economy however, "socking it to the rich" makes for good politics. What does that leave you with? The highly disfunctional system you have today. :mad:

Personally, I agree with a flat tax on both a practical as well as philsophical level.

sbp

09-06-2002, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
SBP, you seem to think that poor people could instantly become successful fruitful if they were just "more American" and worked harder. Just not true. In a free market economy, for every dollar someone makes above the average salary, someone makes below it to make up for it. There is only so much money to go around.Not at all. Instead of having the attitude they are victims and should not even bother trying, in this country people can become successful. And you forget Soul Brother was a starving college student and now he's making 85k a year. Hell, he's probably underpaid for what he does. One of my brother-in-law's is the same way. They got families to feed and bills to pay. They aren't bad people and shouldn't be treated like so.

Sounds like you are saying someone who makes 50k works harder than someone who makes 15k. A guy who works 14 hours a day to feed his family works hard too and he deserves to be paid for his work too. Also, I've never heard of someone who makes a decent living getting "reamed" so bad by taxes they cut off his electric and he stopped eating. Granted, he made more money and deserves to enjoy it, and he should. But he should also be prepaired to do his civic duty as a good american and help out people who work just as hard if not harder but arent smart/educated/lucky enough to have as good a job.Sounds like you are saying someone who makes 50k a year plus is just lazying around and don't deserve it. That they didn't work to get where they are. Got news for you: some people work their butts off to get where they are. Let them enjoy what they worked for! Is that so bad?

I dont understand why you middle class Republicans are so eager to stick up for the wealthiest 1%. Do you think the wealthiest 1% have your best interests in mind? When they and their businesses lobby Congress, do you think they are looking out for you? The answer is no, and I still cant understand why you are so quick to defend the interests of someone who would just as soon spit at you as talk to you. Sticking up for the working American people is something you are not understanding. You think all these lobbies have your best interests at mind? Hell no. There is too much money in DC and too many greedy hands grabbing for it. Big government is not your friend. Time to cut it back.

Cantacuzene

09-06-2002, 05:06 PM

Merlin, the rich not paying taxes because of tax shelters and whatnot is a complete myth. Rich individuals pay tax out the nose. Rich corporations on the other hand have tax shelters. Corporate tax structure is so messed up its ridiculous. Its easy for millionaire steve forbes to say, if he has tax shelters he pays in the teens and if he doesnt with a flat tax he pays in the teens, so he wins either way. You forget that the majority of americans dont pay 17% in taxes. That means a flat tax is a tax increase for the poorest americans. I've never seen any math that shows how raising taxes on the poor helps anyone.

Sticking up for the working American people is something you are not understanding. You think all these lobbies have your best interests at mind? Hell no. There is too much money in DC and too many greedy hands grabbing for it. Big government is not your friend. Time to cut it back.

I'm all for slashing spending. And I do realise the lobbies dont have my interests in mind, I never said they did. But you missed my whole point of my statement. The uber rich and the upper middle class vote the same way. That doesnt make sense to me. The uber rich arent looking out for the upper middles best interests. I think the upper middle class have a lot more in common with the lower middle class than they do with the extremely wealthy, and its a shame they dont vote together, because together they are the majority.

Cantacuzene

09-06-2002, 05:24 PM

In an effort to get back to the pros and cons of Bush let me sum up my tax arguement and then I wont post about taxes anymore...

I am not opposed to the $300 rebate as is. I am opposed to the fact that Bush claims he did it to help revive the economy and help the American people. I dont like how he claimed it as a victory for "everyone." It was only a victory for people who already won.

As for taxes in general, I'm against a flat tax because it hurts the majority of americans while benefitting the incredibly wealthy. I'm for tax cuts in general, but not for the rich. Lower class, yes, middle class, yes, upper class, no. The super rich dont need financial help, and they should be the ones who pay for the government. Corporations should pay tax based on their INCOME, rather than PROFIT. The way it stands now Pepsi paid nothing in tax last year. For a company that takes in 900 million in income thats ridiculous. Me, you and even Mr. Rich pay our tax based on income, why do corporations get this incredible benefit?

All said, if Bush wants to give tax breaks to the rich, and convinces congress to do it, fine. Just dont lie to me about what they are and try tell me it helps most americans when it doesnt. Just let everyone know the facts and we'll see ya in November, thats what I feel.