PDA

View Full Version : debate 3...how'd GW do?



steelcomp
10-13-2004, 06:37 PM
I got home late and saw about the last 40 min. Had to turn it off because I just can't stand that arrognant condecending tone Kerry has, not to mention the fact that all he says is blah blah blah.

058
10-13-2004, 06:50 PM
Better that that condecending snob he was debating. He did however pass a couple of responses he should have caught. The health ins. debate GW didn't say anything about the trial lawyer wannabe V.P. and the cost of insurance unless I missed it.

Steve 1
10-13-2004, 06:54 PM
He could of slammed the POS a couple times but Bush took the high ground. The Rats are squeeking tonight.

Boy Named Sue
10-13-2004, 07:09 PM
I thought both had corrected a lot of their mistakes of the early debates, both did well, but.... after the first half hour it was all blah blah blah, and more blah blah blah, and I started to think this is all the Same Ol Shizzit that we always hear. Started doing chores and stopped paying attention.

eliminatedsprinter
10-14-2004, 09:58 AM
I think Bush did a little better than Kerry. The real loser was us the taxpayers.
Most of the things they were talking about are B.S. In as much as they are matters that it is best that the federal government stay out of in the first place...Jobs, healthcare, education, WTF, these are things that are too important and specific for the federal gov to be poking it's overly bureaucratic nose into....Like I said, we were the losers. To me it looked like they were both in a contest to see who could come up with the biggest way to piss money down the rat hole....I only think Bush won, because he, at least, acknowledged that it is our money they are talking about spending.

kahanamoko
10-14-2004, 11:10 AM
Bush embarrased himself. Kerry at least made an attempt to directly answer the questions. At times he would begin to answer directly and then stray into another area not related to the question. Bush on the other hand constantly heard a question about item A and provided some information about item B. Example: When asked about raising the minimum wage, Kerry answered directly that he would raise it to $7.00 an hour over four years. Agree or disagree with the decision, at least it was a direct answer. Bush on the other hand said something about the real problem being education (?) and went off on some strange tangent talking about the "No Child Left Behind" program. Now what the hell does the no child left behind program have to do with the minimum wage?
Example #2: The candidates were asked about the issue with constant and repeat deployments of the national guard and reserve forces. Some being deployed a second and now looking at a third time. They were asked how they could avoid a draft if this matter goes on further, about the current back door draft due to a stop loss for certain jobs in the military and refusal to allow current ETS (expiration term of service) transfers out of the military once a soldier's term of service expires. Kerry talked about increasing the military by two divisions (one combat and one combat support). He talked about increasing the number of special operations forces. He talked about involving other countries and getting their military to participate and thus reducing the number of U.S. Servicemembers. Agree or disagree with his answer, at least it was a direct answer to how we could lower the number and length of national guard and reserve deployments. That was the question. Bush on the other hand went on to talking about the wonderful jobs the servicemen were doing (hey, a little flag waving always makes me look good, right?), about how the best way to get our servicemen back is to continue the efforts in Iraq (by most analysts estimates the U.S military involvement in Iraq could last up to 10 years). Now, how in the hell is any of that bullshit going to do anything to reduce national guard and reserve deployments.
I mean, can this guy just please answer one single f***ing question directly?
He mangled several words of the English language (and even admitted that his wife spoke better English than he did). He still had that scowl on his stupid face (despite his admission that his wife and daughters had told him not to) as well as his stupid smirk.
Bush is an idiot. Kerry is an overly-slick politician. Personally, I think they both suck but I won't vote for an idiot like Bush.

Schiada76
10-14-2004, 11:18 AM
Bush on the other hand said something about the real problem being education (?) and went off on some strange tangent talking about the "No Child Left Behind" program. Now what the hell does the no child left behind program have to do with the minimum wage?
He wasn't addressing you fng simple minded liberals. I would go into detail to explain the ramifications of instituting a higher minimum wage, and try to educate you on how actuall MAKES a minimum wage and for how long but it would just a further waste of time.
To make it simple for a liberal nit wit.......................if you are educated you won't be making minimmum wage. Too fgn diffucult for a fng socialist to understand so have an adult explain it to you.
liberals are scum and DUMB AS DIRT :hammerhea

kahanamoko
10-14-2004, 11:37 AM
Bush on the other hand said something about the real problem being education (?) and went off on some strange tangent talking about the "No Child Left Behind" program. Now what the hell does the no child left behind program have to do with the minimum wage?
He wasn't addressing you fng simple minded liberals. I would go into detail to explain the ramifications of instituting a higher minimum wage, and try to educate you on how actuall MAKES a minimum wage and for how long but it would just a further waste of time.
To make it simple for a liberal nit wit.......................if you are educated you won't be making minimmum wage. Too fgn diffucult for a fng socialist to understand so have an adult explain it to you.
liberals are scum and DUMB AS DIRT :hammerhea
After reading this idiot's typical knee-jerk conservative opinion that completely avoids the apparent lack of ability to directly address a question by Bush, I believe that at least the author should do whatever he can to take advantage of further education. Sometimes I'll read someone's opinion here that has poor grammar or misspelled words but I can still understand what they are saying. In this case, it is so "fng" pitiful that the author has perhaps made a point about the miserable education system here in America that I don't think he intended to make.
I understand how increasing education will provide people with better jobs and they wouldn't have to rely on the minimum wage. The reality (idiot) is that Bush didn't answer the question. Period!

eliminatedsprinter
10-14-2004, 11:48 AM
Moko
To understand what education (or lack thereof) has to do with minimum wage is not a tough think through. :notam: :rolleyes: ....I don't agree with Bush's education bill, but I, at least, will give him credit for understanding that education is what limits peoples ability to make a good living, rather than the minimum wage. :coffeycup

kahanamoko
10-14-2004, 11:53 AM
Both are important and if he had said that then it would have somewhat answered the question. Why did he avoid saying he didn't like the minimum wage or any increase thereof? Because he's trying to ride both sides of the fence in order to get elected. Let's at least be intellectually honest about it. He wants it both ways and he's not going to say anything that loses him votes. To hell with honesty.

Jeanyus
10-14-2004, 11:58 AM
Bush embarrased himself. Kerry at least made an attempt to directly answer the questions. At times he would begin to answer directly and then stray into another area not related to the question. Bush on the other hand constantly heard a question about item A and provided some information about item B. Example: When asked about raising the minimum wage, Kerry answered directly that he would raise it to $7.00 an hour over four years. Agree or disagree with the decision, at least it was a direct answer. Bush on the other hand said something about the real problem being education (?) and went off on some strange tangent talking about the "No Child Left Behind" program. Now what the hell does the no child left behind program have to do with the minimum wage?
Example #2: The candidates were asked about the issue with constant and repeat deployments of the national guard and reserve forces. Some being deployed a second and now looking at a third time. They were asked how they could avoid a draft if this matter goes on further, about the current back door draft due to a stop loss for certain jobs in the military and refusal to allow current ETS (expiration term of service) transfers out of the military once a soldier's term of service expires. Kerry talked about increasing the military by two divisions (one combat and one combat support). He talked about increasing the number of special operations forces. He talked about involving other countries and getting their military to participate and thus reducing the number of U.S. Servicemembers. Agree or disagree with his answer, at least it was a direct answer to how we could lower the number and length of national guard and reserve deployments. That was the question. Bush on the other hand went on to talking about the wonderful jobs the servicemen were doing (hey, a little flag waving always makes me look good, right?), about how the best way to get our servicemen back is to continue the efforts in Iraq (by most analysts estimates the U.S military involvement in Iraq could last up to 10 years). Now, how in the hell is any of that bullshit going to do anything to reduce national guard and reserve deployments.
I mean, can this guy just please answer one single f***ing question directly?
He mangled several words of the English language (and even admitted that his wife spoke better English than he did). He still had that scowl on his stupid face (despite his admission that his wife and daughters had told him not to) as well as his stupid smirk.
Bush is an idiot. Kerry is an overly-slick politician. Personally, I think they both suck but I won't vote for an idiot like Bush.
Translation- Blaa blaa blaa

Back Forty
10-14-2004, 12:04 PM
Hey Kaksncheckers, as a GASPUMPER minimum wage is normal. You need to apply down the block at the Union Factory so you can get an early start in senority. You'll only have to push a broom until the guy above you in senority gets moved up or somebody down the line keels over. The only thing you have to worry about at this point is if they send your GAS PUMPER job overseas. :idea:
:sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping:

572Daytona
10-14-2004, 12:12 PM
Bush did say first that he supported an initiative to raise the minimum wage, then went on to talk about education. A perfectly good answer to me and one I prefer over Kerry's. The only people making minimum wage around here are those that just started in the workforce within the last few months. Any dependable worker quickly makes more than the minimum. If the libs had their way there would be minimum hourly rates for lawyers :argue:
As to Kerry's answer on adding more troops just how does he plan to do that without implementing a draft? He says he would put more troops on the ground in Afghanistan, Iraq and in the US patrolling borders but no details on how he would provide those troops. I'm sure that Michael Moore and the other libs will be very successful running recruitment drives :rolleyes:
It typical in everything about Kerry's platform, he says he has a plan but most of them are pie in the sky with no grounding in practicality. The libs had 8 years under Clinton focused on improving health care and what did they get accomplished other than Bill getting his helmet buffed? The tax increase is another big question, how can you just tax those that make over 200K? The current IRS tax brackets aren't structured that way, it depends on whether you are filing jointly or singly and then the brackets are different.

eliminatedsprinter
10-14-2004, 12:13 PM
Both are important and if he had said that then it would have somewhat answered the question. Why did he avoid saying he didn't like the minimum wage or any increase thereof? Because he's trying to ride both sides of the fence in order to get elected. Let's at least be intellectually honest about it. He wants it both ways and he's not going to say anything that loses him votes. To hell with honesty.
Perhaps it's because 90 seconds is not enough time to give and explain an intelligent position on an emotionally loaded straw man "issue" like the min wage. It is however, plenty of time to give a stupid and unconstitutional answer like Kerry's. After all, anyone who has bothered to read the constitution can see it's up to the states to decide if they even should have a min wage at all. Oooops, I just gave a short answer Bush could have.... :wink: I guess now I should, just go and give up on the idea of individual freedom and go vote for the life long, hard line, leftist he's running against... :notam: :yuk: .

kahanamoko
10-14-2004, 12:16 PM
Hey Kaksncheckers, as a GASPUMPER minimum wage is normal. You need to apply down the block at the Union Factory so you can get an early start in senority. You'll only have to push a broom until the guy above you in senority gets moved up or somebody down the line keels over. The only thing you have to worry about at this point is if they send your GAS PUMPER job overseas. :idea:
:sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping:
Why don't you tell us all what "senority" is idiot?

kahanamoko
10-14-2004, 12:23 PM
It typical in everything about Kerry's platform, he says he has a plan but most of them are pie in the sky with no grounding in practicality. The libs had 8 years under Clinton focused on improving health care and what did they get accomplished other than Bill getting his helmet buffed? The tax increase is another big question, how can you just tax those that make over 200K? The current IRS tax brackets aren't structured that way, it depends on whether you are filing jointly or singly and then the brackets are different.
It typical? Really?
Clinton failed in getting his health care initiative passed due to the republicans in congress. Period.
Don't think you can over simplify the tax code. Unless your a Lyndon LaRouche libertarian you agree that "some" tax is necessary in order to run this country. The only dispute is how to gather the taxes. Who is to pay what amount? Etc. Bush's tax cut unfairly benefitted the rich in this country. The rest of America got beer money at best. The FACT is that most rich in this country already have the ability to take advantage of many tax shelters for their income that other Americans do not. This results in a much lower overall tax rate for them that that which is reflected in the simple tax rate in the code. Thus, reinstating the former rates doesn't result in an unfair rate to the richest one percent but rather results in their paying a fair share. Period. End of argument.

kahanamoko
10-14-2004, 12:25 PM
anyone who has bothered to read the constitution can see it's up to the states to decide if they even should have a min wage at all.
Oh great legal sage! Please provide us the citation for the passage in the Constitution!

eliminatedsprinter
10-14-2004, 12:34 PM
One thing that bothers me, is that the biggist thing the prez does is act as CEO for all the federal agencies. This fact seems to be totally ignored by the press, pundits, and spinmeisters...If only the general public had some idea how the Clinton/ Gore administration screwed up our federal agencies. The chaos and disfunction they directly caused in the Justice dept, the dept of energy, the dept of education, and the dept of veterans affairs etc is absolutly unforgivable. The fact that Kerry is surrounding himself with those same hacks should scare the hell out of every american.....

kahanamoko
10-14-2004, 12:44 PM
One thing that bothers me, is that the biggist thing the prez does is act as CEO for all the federal agencies. This fact seems to be totally ignored by the press, pundits, and spinmeisters...If only the general public had some idea how the Clinton/ Gore administration screwed up our federal agencies. The chaos and disfunction they directly caused in the Justice dept, the dept of energy, the dept of education, and the dept of veterans affairs etc is absolutly unforgivable. The fact that Kerry is surrounding himself with those same hacks should scare the hell out of every american.....
Wow, and when did you undertake the independent on the spot investigation of each of these federal agencies? Or are you simply relying on facts obtained form some conservative news source with an obvious agenda? Do you think the Dept. of Homeland Security is a jewel of the federal system? It's only existed under Bush. Strange that a republican president would increase the size of the federal govt. by creating a whole new Department. Strange that the size of the federal govt. overall has increased under Bush. Strange that we even needed the Dept. of Homeland Security when we already had a CIA, FBI, Justice, FAA, Coast Guard and it would have only taken a presidential order to have them restructured in order to make them more efficient and to work together more effectively. Hmmmmm........
Even stranger that a republican president would now seem so inclined to want to have the U.S. military be the police force for the world. Wasn't it GW's daddy that spoke so ill of "nation building". Isn't that what we're doing in Iraq and Afghanistan?

eliminatedsprinter
10-14-2004, 12:48 PM
Oh great legal sage! Please provide us the citation for the passage in the Constitution!
Clever.
Since it's not in there.
That is the point. The constitution clearly spells out the specific powers of the federal government and nothing like setting a national min wage is there. Of course, the 10th amendment basically states those powers not there are reserved to the states. But of course, since you are a lawyer you already know that and you are just testing me --- right. :wink:

Schiada76
10-14-2004, 12:50 PM
After reading this idiot's typical knee-jerk conservative opinion that completely avoids the apparent lack of ability to directly address a question by Bush, I believe that at least the author should do whatever he can to take advantage of further education. Sometimes I'll read someone's opinion here that has poor grammar or misspelled words but I can still understand what they are saying. In this case, it is so "fng" pitiful that the author has perhaps made a point about the miserable education system here in America that I don't think he intended to make.
I understand how increasing education will provide people with better jobs and they wouldn't have to rely on the minimum wage. The reality (idiot) is that Bush didn't answer the question. Period!
How do you know when you've won an internet pissing contest with a dumbass liberal (yes I know that's redundant)?
When he checks your spelling. Hey momma's boy you forgot to call me a racist Nazi!
liberals are scum :crossx:

572Daytona
10-14-2004, 12:52 PM
It typical? Really?
Clinton failed in getting his health care initiative passed due to the republicans in congress. Period.
Don't think you can over simplify the tax code. Unless your a Lyndon LaRouche libertarian you agree that "some" tax is necessary in order to run this country. The only dispute is how to gather the taxes. Who is to pay what amount? Etc. Bush's tax cut unfairly benefitted the rich in this country. The rest of America got beer money at best. The FACT is that most rich in this country already have the ability to take advantage of many tax shelters for their income that other Americans do not. This results in a much lower overall tax rate for them that that which is reflected in the simple tax rate in the code. Thus, reinstating the former rates doesn't result in an unfair rate to the richest one percent but rather results in their paying a fair share. Period. End of argument.
Typical lib approach, blame someone else when you fail to acheive your goals. You think maybe they could have come up with some sort of compromise plan that would have had bipartisan support? On the other hand the libs blame the pres for everything, even stuff that is completley out of the presidents control such as crude oil prices which is a commodity set by free market forces. Yeah, I'm sure Bush has all of his rich cronies buying up the futures so that his big oil buddies can get rich (If you believe this I've got a great Micheal Moore DVD I can sell you, for only $99.99)
Bush didn't cut taxes on the "rich", all he did was return the brackets to what they had been for years before Clinton raised them. For me that was about 2% of my income (I wasn't eligible for his tax credits for children), my marginal tax rate was about 27% last year compared to 29% or so as it was for the previous few years. I am definitely middle class but I would be affected by Kerry's plan unless me or my wife quits working and that would probably mean we would have to cut back on our kids future education plans, not something I want to do. I pay a substantial amount of taxes and have for many years, how you can say I don't pay my "fair" share is beyond me. It disgusts me everytime I go to the grocery store and see people abusing the welfare/food stamp system as well as doctors and lawyers abusing the medicare system. The truly needy aren't getting the entitlements, it is ending up in the hands of conmen and crooks, kind of like the oil for food program.

kahanamoko
10-14-2004, 12:59 PM
After all, anyone who has bothered to read the constitution can see it's up to the states to decide if they even should have a min wage at all.
Let's try this again. Perhaps you can provide us the exact quotation from the U.S. Constitution where you find this prohibition from the federal government establishing a minimum wage. Perhaps you can provide us the exact quotation from the U.S. Constitution where you find the proposition that only the states can decide if they should have a minimum wage. Then, perhaps you can provide us the most recent U.S. Supreme Court or highest federal court case cite ruling on that issue. Don't forget to Shepardize your case citation or I'll do it for you to see if you're correct.

kahanamoko
10-14-2004, 01:03 PM
"I am definitely middle class"
Some might say low class. I'd be curious to see what you think "middle class" is in America, based on income. Average family. One wife, one husband, 2.5 kids. Give me a range of income that you think defines "middle class" and tell me why you think it is the correct range. I'll understand that your "average" has to take into consideration the fact that the cost of living is different in California than, say, Wheeling, West Virginia. I'd be willing to bet that you are not truly middle class.

kahanamoko
10-14-2004, 01:04 PM
How do you know when you've won an internet pissing contest with a dumbass liberal (yes I know that's redundant)?
When he checks your spelling. Hey momma's boy you forgot to call me a racist Nazi!
liberals are scum :crossx:
Don't have to "check" your spelling, loser. I simply learned how to spell in the first grade. You know, while you were being home schooled by your own bitch of a mother.

eliminatedsprinter
10-14-2004, 01:06 PM
Wow, and when did you undertake the independent on the spot investigation of each of these federal agencies? Or are you simply relying on facts obtained form some conservative news source with an obvious agenda? Do you think the Dept. of Homeland Security is a jewel of the federal system? It's only existed under Bush. Strange that a republican president would increase the size of the federal govt. by creating a whole new Department. Strange that the size of the federal govt. overall has increased under Bush. Strange that we even needed the Dept. of Homeland Security when we already had a CIA, FBI, Justice, FAA, Coast Guard and it would have only taken a presidential order to have them restructured in order to make them more efficient and to work together more effectively. Hmmmmm........
Even stranger that a republican president would now seem so inclined to want to have the U.S. military be the police force for the world. Wasn't it GW's daddy that spoke so ill of "nation building". Isn't that what we're doing in Iraq and Afghanistan?
In my 21+ years of federal service I have worked for 4 different administrations and met with 3 presidential cabinet members, 4 members of congress and the top aids of both our states senators. I have a tad bit of direct knowledge on how the gov works and I really don't think either the right or the left wing news sources give any kind of accurate picture of how it's run.
P.S. I'm no fan of the idea of the dept of homeland defense, although I dearly hope it works out and that it will serve it's intended purpose of forcing some cooperation between the previously (hopefully previously) competing agencies you have mentioned above.

Red Eye
10-14-2004, 01:11 PM
Why don't you tell us all what "senority" is idiot?
cock "n" balls is quick to correct everyone's grammar, however he failed to realize that his statement was, in fact a statement and not a question as he indicated w/ the question mark.

kahanamoko
10-14-2004, 01:13 PM
In my 21+ years of federal service I have worked for 4 different administrations and met with 3 presidential cabinet members, 4 members of congress and the top aids of both our states senators. I have a tad bit of direct knowledge on how the gov works and I really don't think either the right or the left wing news sources give any kind of accurate picture of how it's run.
P.S. I'm no fan of the idea of the dept of homeland defense, although I dearly hope it works out and that it will serve it's intended purpose of forcing some cooperation between the previously (hopefully previously) competing agencies you have mentioned above.
21 years of federal service could have been with the post office. I still don't understand how that is supposed to support your arguments. I've met a couple of presidents. I've also met U.S. Senators and Congressmen. I've spoken with General Officers of the military. I've had discussions with Federal Judges. I've also spoken with hundreds of federal employees (military, post office, etc.). I can throw out all kinds of irrelevant "acquaintances" to support my credibility too. What investigation did you personally do to support your allegations?

CrazyHippy
10-14-2004, 01:20 PM
<SNIP>
Bush didn't cut taxes on the "rich", all he did was return the brackets to what they had been for years before Clinton raised them. For me that was about 2% of my income (I wasn't eligible for his tax credits for children), my marginal tax rate was about 27% last year compared to 29% or so as it was for the previous few years. <SNIP>
The Kerrys are worth roughly 600 million dollars, and payed less than 90K in taxes....
90,000 / 600,000,000 = well under one percent
Must have been one HELL of a tax cut :eek:
And he is supposed to relate to the common man how?
BJH

kahanamoko
10-14-2004, 01:23 PM
The Kerrys are worth roughly 600 million dollars, and payed less than 90K in taxes....
90,000 / 600,000,000 = well under one percent
Must have been one HELL of a tax cut :eek:
And he is supposed to relate to the common man how?
BJH
You are so right CrazyHippy. This is a perfect example of why we need to increase the upper tax brackets for the rich. Too many loopholes which allow them to avoid paying their fair share. I'm sure the tax bracket for Kerry would be higher than that resulting in a 90,000 tax payment, but with all of the other benefits of the tax code that only the rich can take advantage of, you end up paying less overall. Not fair, is it. But it's legal.

CrazyHippy
10-14-2004, 01:26 PM
So why raise taxes on everyone? Everyone benefited from the the tax cuts.
I'm looking at moving back to So cal. 200K is middle class (Ventura) hell 300K is middle class. Should the middle class be getting screwed just because they live somewhere nice?
BJH

kahanamoko
10-14-2004, 01:31 PM
So why raise taxes on everyone? Everyone benefited from the the tax cuts.
I'm looking at moving back to So cal. 200K is middle class (Ventura) hell 300K is middle class. Should the middle class be getting screwed just because they live somewhere nice?
BJH
Based on average income in the SoCal area, and based on statistics I reviewed a couple of years ago from the U.S. Govt. (IRS, Etc.) I would actually guess that the "average" income for a family of two parents and 2.5 kids here in SoCal would be in the 40,000 to 65,000 range. Not much, huh. That's average (remember the bell curve in school). That would be the "middle" class everyone is always talking about. I once saw a poll which found that most people that are not filthy rich like to consider themselves in the middle class because everyone in the government is always talking about bringing relief to that class, is talking about how they are overly abused with taxes (and everyone already feels they are being targeted). Most people, however, don't know what the "middle class" actually means.

CrazyHippy
10-14-2004, 01:34 PM
i know that @ 150K... i'd have trouble buying a decent house right now.
I've been making 50-55K a year and going to school... some people need to stop sucking on my teet, and get to work. Get rid of welfare, and people will find work.
BJH

572Daytona
10-14-2004, 01:38 PM
Yeah, it is disgusting what Kerry paid in taxes. I almost paid as much as he did last year and no have where near the income. The system is broke, raising my taxes isn't going to fix it.
Whether you are rich or middle class can't be determined by looking at a single year's income it's determined by your lifestyle. My income pays the monthly bills, when my wife went to work we had some extra income so we were able to send my daughter to a private school since I think education is important and I want to send both of my daughters to college (It will probably have to be a public college since I doubt that I will be able to afford private) I also put a percentage of my income into a retirement plan since I'm pretty much convinced SS will be broke by then and aren't counting on it. In the end of the day I really don't have a lot of disposable income, the car that I'm driving is 8 years old with 160K miles on it, I looked at new ones but decided I couldn't afford it now. My boat I bought used, would love to add some HP to the motor, but can't afford it right now. We had planned to finish the basement of our house but we can't afford it right now. The bottom line is that if we are as "rich" as Kerry is making us out to be I wouldn't have to think twice about spending money on stuff.
When Clinton raised taxes he did it accross all income levels, now Bush has restored that tax hike to where it was across all income levels. Kerry would only restore the tax hike for the lower bracket, I personally don't think that is fair.

kahanamoko
10-14-2004, 01:45 PM
Whether you are rich or middle class can't be determined by looking at a single year's income it's determined by your lifestyle.
Kerry would only restore the tax hike for the lower bracket, I personally don't think that is fair.
If "middle class" is not defined by an objective and not subjective fact such as income, then perhaps you can tell me who you would appoint to determine on a case by case basis which person is in the middle class based on their "lifestyle". So, if a person has billions of dollars but lives under a freeway overpass, he's poor. It has to be based on income and only income. If you've overextended yourself into a house that is bigger than you can affored to keep up, sell it and move to one you can afford.
Raise if for the lower bracket? No, he wants to raise it for the upper bracket.

572Daytona
10-14-2004, 01:51 PM
If "middle class" is not defined by an objective and not subjective fact such as income, then perhaps you can tell me who you would appoint to determine on a case by case basis which person is in the middle class based on their "lifestyle". So, if a person has billions of dollars but lives under a freeway overpass, he's poor. It has to be based on income and only income. If you've overextended yourself into a house that is bigger than you can affored to keep up, sell it and move to one you can afford.
Raise if for the lower bracket? No, he wants to raise it for the upper bracket.
I wouldn't appoint anyone, I don't think there is any value to the labels at all and anyone who says that they are only going to tax the "rich" is ignorant and making a baseless claim. I can afford my house fine, and it is the only real tax break that I get so it wouldn't make financial sense to sell it. Not to mention that it will be a substantial part of my retirement income when I do sell it.
You missed my point on the taxes, Bush effectively repealed Clinton's tax hike, Kerry want to restore Clinton's hike but only on the top brackets which I don't think is fair. If you going to raise taxes, raise them for everyone. I don't want to pay more taxes and either does anyone else, but if they have to be raised, everyone should share in the burden.

CrazyHippy
10-14-2004, 01:56 PM
I'm a HUGE fan of the Flat tax. I dont car if you make $5 per year or 50 Trillion. The flat tax means you pay equally.
No more of this super rich paying less than 1%... That is BS, but so is the crack baby producer not paying any taxes.
BJH

Steve 1
10-14-2004, 02:16 PM
I favor the National sales tax. Why should anyone be taxed extra for working hard and achievement??????????

572Daytona
10-14-2004, 02:20 PM
Let's do some math, lawyer boy ought to be good at percentages since he is used to taking 75% of the awards from his clients.
Say my kid wants to go to college, I determine that it will cost 25K/year in tution in fees. So all my wife needs to make on top of my income is 25K right?
I wish, to figure out how much she needs to make I would calculate the following:
Marginal Income Tax Rate = 35%
Self Employed SS taxes = 12.4%
Self Employed Medicare Taxes = 2.9%
State Tax = 6%
Total Taxes = 56.3% :2purples:
Income needed = 25,000 / (1 - .563) = ~ $57,208
Now factor in 2 kids, Kerry's tax hike and fact that the extra income will put us in a higher bracket still and we are looking at having to make about $150K more per yr to pay 50K worth of tuition.

CrazyHippy
10-14-2004, 02:21 PM
Sales tax works too... Doesn't matter if it's taxed incomming or outgoing realistically
As long as it's the same for everyone. Get rid of the loopholes.
BJH

eliminatedsprinter
10-14-2004, 03:26 PM
21 years of federal service could have been with the post office. I still don't understand how that is supposed to support your arguments. I've met a couple of presidents. I've also met U.S. Senators and Congressmen. I've spoken with General Officers of the military. I've had discussions with Federal Judges. I've also spoken with hundreds of federal employees (military, post office, etc.). I can throw out all kinds of irrelevant "acquaintances" to support my credibility too. What investigation did you personally do to support your allegations?
Oh well, I guess you told me.... :notam: :rolleyes:
You know what, I really don't care if you don't think that qualifies me to have an opinion on how Clinton/Gore managed the government. But guess what, I do. I have a professional position in the gov and some expieriances. I don't think it makes me a big expert. But you more than implied that I was just some rube who got my info from right wing propaganda. That is not true, I have some direct expieriance and I read all sorts of materials. However, my low opinion of the last administration comes from the words, writings, and policies of the last administration. Hell,(prepare for a long a$$ run on sentence) when one of V.P. Gore's staff comes from C.O. (for us mere civilians, that's central office :wink: ) and explains "Al Gore's 7 year plan" for "re-inventing" your agency and it's the stupidist thing you have ever heard, then you see your agency become more and more dysfunctional and you see the "costomer satisfaction" survey results go down the toilet, you really don't need The Nation, Time, Newsweek, or The Weekly Standard to tell you there is a problem. :notam:
This is just a lightweight political forum and what is supposed to be a friendy debate. I'm not going to share my CV or write a disertation just to try to impress you. It wouldn't do any good anyway, as one thing we all can see is that your mind is set...Like I said, I see major flaws with president Bush's administration, but "anybody but Bush" doesn't work for me, when that anybody is the likes of Senator John Kerry. Sorry, I know you don't agree, but I think I'll still sleep tonight anyway, even if your open mind makes you stereotype me as an idiot or any of the other insults you seem so eager to hurl upon those who dare to disagree with you---The Great Rambo Wendell Holmes...Sorry, I just couldn't re..... :wink:

v-drive
10-14-2004, 04:01 PM
This guy kahanamoko is a lib and a lost one at that. Today I went to get a haircut and while I was there in walked a young man home from Iraq on leave. He was a friend of one of the ladies that works there but it was like they all knew him. He brought pictures and everyone was just standing around talking and I shook his hand and thanked him for what he and all the military were doing. He told us that it was something that they all felt needed doing and that the only thing that bothered them is john kerry and how could anyone want him as president. A woman asked (you could tell she was a democrat) How about what kerry and the media says about what a mess it is. he politely told her they weren't talking to any of them about it or they would know the truth. I was proud to have had the chance to talk with him
:cool: v-drive

kahanamoko
10-14-2004, 04:11 PM
I wouldn't appoint anyone, I don't think there is any value to the labels at all and anyone who says that they are only going to tax the "rich" is ignorant and making a baseless claim. I can afford my house fine, and it is the only real tax break that I get so it wouldn't make financial sense to sell it. Not to mention that it will be a substantial part of my retirement income when I do sell it.
You missed my point on the taxes, Bush effectively repealed Clinton's tax hike, Kerry want to restore Clinton's hike but only on the top brackets which I don't think is fair. If you going to raise taxes, raise them for everyone. I don't want to pay more taxes and either does anyone else, but if they have to be raised, everyone should share in the burden.
So, when Reagan substantially lowered the tax rates for the upper income earners as much as cutting it in half but at best reduced the lower income earners only slightly, if at all, you must have been right there shouting "unfair". Right? The fact is, one has to look at the tax table as it is currently and decide where to raise or lower taxes, if at all, in order to establish a fair system. That may mean raising the upper tax brackets. It may not. It may mean raising or lowering somewhere else. Just because it's raised at the top doesn't necessarily mean it has to be raised anywhere else. And that doesn't necessarily make that tax hike "unfair". Not if the original tax rate for the upper earners was unfairly low to begin with. Obviously, that is the position of Kerry. And keep in mind, raising the upper tax rate will personally affect him, Edwards, and most of the politicians in Washington (Republican, Democrat and Independent).

572Daytona
10-14-2004, 04:51 PM
So, when Reagan substantially lowered the tax rates for the upper income earners as much as cutting it in half but at best reduced the lower income earners only slightly, if at all, you must have been right there shouting "unfair". Right? The fact is, one has to look at the tax table as it is currently and decide where to raise or lower taxes, if at all, in order to establish a fair system. That may mean raising the upper tax brackets. It may not. It may mean raising or lowering somewhere else. Just because it's raised at the top doesn't necessarily mean it has to be raised anywhere else. And that doesn't necessarily make that tax hike "unfair". Not if the original tax rate for the upper earners was unfairly low to begin with. Obviously, that is the position of Kerry. And keep in mind, raising the upper tax rate will personally affect him, Edwards, and most of the politicians in Washington (Republican, Democrat and Independent).
Find me a reference to support your theory on the Reagan cuts, everything I can find is that he reduced taxes in all brackets and I find it really hard to believe that it was a 50% reduction. Kerry's income primarily comes from tax free trusts so he is marginally affected by his increase. So you think that paying more than 50% of every additional dollar that I make isn't enough right now? Just curious, how much did you pay in federal taxes last year?

kahanamoko
10-14-2004, 05:00 PM
Find me a reference to support your theory on the Reagan cuts, everything I can find is that he reduced taxes in all brackets and I find it really hard to believe that it was a 50% reduction. Kerry's income primarily comes from tax free trusts so he is marginally affected by his increase. So you think that paying more than 50% of every additional dollar that I make isn't enough right now? Just curious, how much did you pay in federal taxes last year?
I've had my class on Tax Law in Law School. A little homework assignment for you though. What was the highest individual tax rate prior to 1981 and what was it after the first Reagan tax cut?
Took my taxes to a CPA. I paid whatever was the least amount I was legally required to pay. And you?

572Daytona
10-14-2004, 05:20 PM
I've had my class on Tax Law in Law School. A little homework assignment for you though. What was the highest individual tax rate prior to 1981 and what was it after the first Reagan tax cut?
Took my taxes to a CPA. I paid whatever was the least amount I was legally required to pay. And you?
It was 70% in 1980 and 69.125% in 1981, hardly a 50% decrease. Of course I was only making $2.00 an hour then so I didn't pay a whole lot of attention to the higher brackets. Typical dodge on the the question as to your taxes, if you don't want to say how much you paid, how about the effective rate of taxes that you paind? Just because a CPA prepared your taxes doesn't make it legal, if you are a lawyer you should know that already though. I've had some accountants recommend some pretty dodgy deductions that I've refused to take, such as deducting a big screen TV that is mostly used for personal use since it happens to get a channel for Real Estate eduction. If I get audited, it's my ass on the line not the CPA's. I took a tax law course in college as well.

kahanamoko
10-14-2004, 05:37 PM
It was 70% in 1980 and 69.125% in 1981, hardly a 50% decrease. Of course I was only making $2.00 an hour then so I didn't pay a whole lot of attention to the higher brackets. Typical dodge on the the question as to your taxes, if you don't want to say how much you paid, how about the effective rate of taxes that you paind? Just because a CPA prepared your taxes doesn't make it legal, if you are a lawyer you should know that already though. I've had some accountants recommend some pretty dodgy deductions that I've refused to take, such as deducting a big screen TV that is mostly used for personal use since it happens to get a channel for Real Estate eduction. If I get audited, it's my ass on the line not the CPA's. I took a tax law course in college as well.
From the Associated Press:
Twenty years ago, in 1981, new President Ronald Reagan prodded Congress to pass a huge tax cut, mostly for the wealthy. One of his aides slipped and said the plan's small cut for lower brackets was a "Trojan horse" to lure Congress members into supporting it.
Okay, 1982 when Reagan lowered the previous top tax bracket of 70% to 28%. Let's see, did he lower it an equal amount for those in the middle? NO.

572Daytona
10-14-2004, 06:14 PM
From the Associated Press:
Twenty years ago, in 1981, new President Ronald Reagan prodded Congress to pass a huge tax cut, mostly for the wealthy. One of his aides slipped and said the plan's small cut for lower brackets was a "Trojan horse" to lure Congress members into supporting it.
Okay, 1982 when Reagan lowered the previous top tax bracket of 70% to 28%. Let's see, did he lower it an equal amount for those in the middle? NO.
No hits in the AP archive for Reagan and Trojan Horse:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/external/archive.ap.org/cgi-bin/APdisplay.cgi?doc=results.html&query=reagan+trojan+horse
Nice try, I'm sure 60 minutes would hire you as a research analyst though. Also the top bracket bracket didn't become 28% until 1988, not 1982. And that was after the tax code was changed to remove a lot of deductions that people previously could take, so you can't make a direct comparison between the rates.

Back Forty
10-14-2004, 06:39 PM
I've had my class on Tax Law in Law School.
What law school GAS PUMPER? We saw your resume and it didn't say anything about Lawyer class. The only thing you went to school for was how to make birdfeeders on your duty weekend AIN'T THAT RIGHT GAS PUMPER...
Here's a new birdfeeder for you to study while your watching Law and Order up in your room at mommy's house.
http://www.eggs.ab.ca/recipes/craftcorner/images/birdfeeder.gif

kahanamoko
10-14-2004, 06:41 PM
Glastron?

Steve 1
10-14-2004, 06:56 PM
From the Associated Press:
Twenty years ago, in 1981, new President Ronald Reagan prodded Congress to pass a huge tax cut, mostly for the wealthy. One of his aides slipped and said the plan's small cut for lower brackets was a "Trojan horse" to lure Congress members into supporting it.
Okay, 1982 when Reagan lowered the previous top tax bracket of 70% to 28%. Let's see, did he lower it an equal amount for those in the middle? NO.
You are full of crap!

steelcomp
10-14-2004, 06:57 PM
Don't have to "check" your spelling, loser. I simply learned how to spell in the first grade. You know, while you were being home schooled by your own bitch of a mother.
At least he has a mother...since you've come out of the closet admitting to wanting some guy's lever in your face and this continual reference to ass humping, I think it's your DADDY that's behind (pardon the pun) you!!!
You're a filthy little fat boy!

kahanamoko
10-14-2004, 06:57 PM
You are full of crap!
No, that would be you. I'm too far away for you to smell. Check your pants.

Steve 1
10-14-2004, 07:02 PM
No, that would be you. I'm too far away for you to smell. Check your pants.
No not true I can smell a Rat from here.

kahanamoko
10-14-2004, 07:09 PM
Or in your case, panties.

Steve 1
10-14-2004, 07:18 PM
Or in your case, panties.
In your case brain leakage.

kahanamoko
10-14-2004, 07:32 PM
In your case brain leakage.
Doesn't fit into the conversation. Pitiful try for a comeback.

Steve 1
10-14-2004, 07:36 PM
Doesn't fit into the conversation. Pitiful try for a comeback.
Really that Dumb ? Ever consider the suicide option??? That would be an Improvement to your life...

572Daytona
10-15-2004, 08:09 AM
A quick quiz for Mr Tax and Spend, who said the following (hint: it wasn't Klinton)
I am talking about the accumulated evidence that our tax system, developed as it was in good part during World War II to restrain growth, exerts too heavy a drag on growth in peace time; that it siphons out of the economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power; that it reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment and risk taking.
It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power - an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough jobs or enough profits.
It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now.