F**kin Conservatives

[N:ck]

AzDon:
058:
Don, you're not going to kick me off your forum for being a conservative are you? Kick you off? I thought you got mad about something and stopped coming around! I don't hold political disagreements against anybody! Heck, I can even sometimes change my mind when presented with a factual and eloquent argument. All I seem to be getting here is namecalling.....It appears I win! Actually, we were told some "facts" too, and they're gonna let you know it!
[ July 14, 2003, 05:42 PM: Message edited by: N:ck ]

[AzDon]

eliminatedsprinter:
"Social security funds" go into and ultimatly comes out of the General Fund. How can one tax break steal it?? Thats just dopey, meaningless, Demogogic, retoric and very few of us on this forum are dumb enough to buy into it.
People getting back some of their tax money = stealing my retirement? pig_flyi . How hysterically emotional, demogogic and (when thought through) stupid....
Another typical DNC sucker slogin..... The General fund takes from the SSI trust fund and puts in IOU's except in the case there's a budget surplus which would hopefully entice them to buy back the IOU's. Deficit budget=more IOU's= less chance of ever getting the fund solvent again!
Learn how the system works and discuss facts instead of launching into some ignorant name calling tirade!
[ July 14, 2003, 05:37 PM: Message edited by: AzDon ]

[N:ck]

AzDon:
[ July 14, 2003, 05:37 PM: Message edited by: AzDon ]OH MY GOD! Another edited post! jawdrop
[ July 14, 2003, 05:44 PM: Message edited by: N:ck ]

[twistedpair]

Ok, I gotta weigh in. Never trust ANY politician who says he's working for you. It's all about 'special interests'. Personal gain, power brokers and pals are what politicians care about, not you. You are just the schmuck that they need to con to get elected.
That being said, all you can do is gravitate toward the group that is closest your interests. Me, I'm a gun toting, gas guzzling, blue collar (union even) kind of guy. All I want is to keep a respectable percent of what I earn and to be left the F alone.
Lets see, one party panders to oil men, the NRA, and "big business". The other party panders to trial lawyers, the sierra club, and any "victim" who can get his or her self in front of a camera.
I think my choice is obvious, don't you?

[Jrocket]

Well I went back and read from the beginning.Sorry I did!!!Too many analyst in here.
THOR.....

[Catmando]

TRIMDOG:
Ask the guy who started this thread what he tows with. Ford Ranger

[Catmando]

THOR:
AzDon:
The economy was declining before the election? That is a complete and total lie! I suppose that the economy was recovering before Clinton took office? (another lie!!) I guess it also doesn't bother you that the Bush administration conspired with Enron to F__k California's residents and then did nothing to fix it when it happened. I suppose you'll also deny that Haliburton got exclusive restoration contracts for Iraq oil fields before the war was even fought! I am pissed that this counterfeit president has squandered my social security. You Bush supporters are in total denial about the damage this administration is doing to the country. The economy was f*&^ed up from Clinton. Bush inhereted his screw ups. High Roller said it well with his point. You my friend are just a radical. And YOU, my friend, are just an idiot.

[mickeyfinn]

AzDon:
And about this tax cut going disproportionately to the wealthy: Is it fair? ABSOLUTELY! Will it help the economy? Probably not!
The administration's assertion that this tax cut will be spent back into the economy is based on a failed Reagan era concept called "supply side" or "trickle down" economics.
The scheme goes like this: The rich guy/ corporation is going to "trickle down" the money by hiring and increasing production or otherwise expand his payroll, simply because he has recieved this tax cut......AND IN TOTAL DISREGARD OF SOFT DEMAND FOR WHAT HIS COMPANY PRODUCES!
What really happens is that the mid-level "rich guy" entity pockets the money or "trickles it down" by buyin himself personal luxuries, such as fancy cars, vacation houses, and boats.This MIGHT work as an economic stimulus except that the mid-level tax return recipient represents a very small percentage of the overall tax cut dollars with most of them going to billionaires who haven't really got unmet spending needs. The folks at the bottom who would spend, spend, spend aren't able to help the economy much because their taxcut is small.
The budget left by Clinton was responsible and was the last hope for restoring the solvency of the Social Security trust fund before the "baby boom" generation starts asking for our stored funds(SSI) Mr. Bush's taxcuts have essentially been a giveaway of future tax funds whose amounts were based on Clinton era prosperity. This is partially how a balanced budget became a 6-trillion dollar deficit ( balanced budget and deficit are terms that apply to the current calendar year, so the situation is WAY worse!)
I would have much preferred having the accumulated deficit(which is mostly IOU's to SSI) paid down than to have Mr Bush borrow against future revenues so he can give people like his oil cronies and Bill Gates large taxcuts and put more IOU's in the SSI trustfund while doing so. This is irresponsible economics run amok and I believe it is not out of line to blame the stock market's failure on the paranoia and pessimism that has been developed and fueled by this guy's presidency!
Another thought: Bush senior was seen as wimpy by the muslim world for not finishing off Saddam in '91 and juniors are seen as less than the father by most societies! It's entirely possible that blaming Sept 11 on the last presidential election would not be that far-fetched! Actually the tax cut is very fair. The last numbers I saw shows the middle class receiving over 50% of the benefit from some of those cuts. The people who whine about the tax cuts not going to the ones who need it most forget one thing. IT IS A TAX CUT!!!! The people who are whining and complaining are complaining because these tax cuts are not WELFARE for those who don't pay taxes anyway. The more taxes you pay the more of a benefit you see. If you didn't pay any taxes to begin you don't get a tax cut. This was not meant as an entitlement program. It was meant to put some of your hard earned money back in your pocket instead of the governments. It was never supposed to put some of your hard earned money in some lazy good for nothings pocket that is laying back collecting welfare, or who can not contribute enough to this society to even fall into the minimum income bracket to have to pay taxes. Since this is a boating website I have to assume that most if not all of the members here own a boat of some kind. This usually means that the people here earn enough money to have some amount of disposable income which in turn implies that you are probably making enough money to have to pay taxes. EVERYONE WHO PAYS TAXES WILL RECEIVE SOME KIND OF TAX RELIEF. If you don't pay much you want get much.
OK,
I'll get off my soap box now but I really get tired of hearing all the liberal Democrats complaining because something that is supposed to be a tax cut isn't being used as a gift program to help them buy more votes.
once again just my .02 worth....and maybe now I'll get to actually keep more than .01 of it.
[ July 14, 2003, 06:14 PM: Message edited by: mickeyfinn ]

[Catmando]

ROZI think it was Clinton who was not inhaling in Russia during the Vietnam Policing,,errrr War.. [/QB]I was inhaling then, I'll tell you that right now. And Clinton put his name back in the draft also. A brave thing for him to do, considering he was against the war.
So how "brave" was cokehead Bush? His daddy got him into the National Guard ahead of 500 more-qualified candidates. When orders were cut for him to transfer to the Alabama NG from Texas, he never showed up. He went AWOL longer than 30 days, which qualifies as desertion under the UCMJ.
Here's his enviable Vietnam war record;
www.awolbush.com

[N:ck]

mickeyfinn:
AzDon:
And about this tax cut going disproportionately to the wealthy: Is it fair? ABSOLUTELY! Will it help the economy? Probably not!
The administration's assertion that this tax cut will be spent back into the economy is based on a failed Reagan era concept called "supply side" or "trickle down" economics.
The scheme goes like this: The rich guy/ corporation is going to "trickle down" the money by hiring and increasing production or otherwise expand his payroll, simply because he has recieved this tax cut......AND IN TOTAL DISREGARD OF SOFT DEMAND FOR WHAT HIS COMPANY PRODUCES!
What really happens is that the mid-level "rich guy" entity pockets the money or "trickles it down" by buyin himself personal luxuries, such as fancy cars, vacation houses, and boats.This MIGHT work as an economic stimulus except that the mid-level tax return recipient represents a very small percentage of the overall tax cut dollars with most of them going to billionaires who haven't really got unmet spending needs. The folks at the bottom who would spend, spend, spend aren't able to help the economy much because their taxcut is small.
The budget left by Clinton was responsible and was the last hope for restoring the solvency of the Social Security trust fund before the "baby boom" generation starts asking for our stored funds(SSI) Mr. Bush's taxcuts have essentially been a giveaway of future tax funds whose amounts were based on Clinton era prosperity. This is partially how a balanced budget became a 6-trillion dollar deficit ( balanced budget and deficit are terms that apply to the current calendar year, so the situation is WAY worse!)
I would have much preferred having the accumulated deficit(which is mostly IOU's to SSI) paid down than to have Mr Bush borrow against future revenues so he can give people like his oil cronies and Bill Gates large taxcuts and put more IOU's in the SSI trustfund while doing so. This is irresponsible economics run amok and I believe it is not out of line to blame the stock market's failure on the paranoia and pessimism that has been developed and fueled by this guy's presidency!
Another thought: Bush senior was seen as wimpy by the muslim world for not finishing off Saddam in '91 and juniors are seen as less than the father by most societies! It's entirely possible that blaming Sept 11 on the last presidential election would not be that far-fetched! Actually the tax cut is very fair. The last numbers I saw shows the middle class receiving over 50% of the benefit from some of those cuts. The people who whine about the tax cuts not going to the ones who need it most forget one thing. IT IS A TAX CUT!!!! The people who are whining and complaining are complaining because these tax cuts are not WELFARE for those who don't pay taxes anyway. The more taxes you pay the more of a benefit you see. If you didn't pay any taxes to begin you don't get a tax cut. This was not meant as an entitlement program. It was meant to put some of your hard earned money back in your pocket instead of the governments. It was never supposed to put some of your hard earned money in some lazy good for nothings pocket that is laying back collecting welfare, or who can not contribute enough to this society to even fall into the minimum income bracket to have to pay taxes. Since this is a boating website I have to assume that most if not all of the members here own a boat of some kind. This usually means that the people here earn enough money to have some amount of disposable income which in turn implies that you are probably making enough money to have to pay taxes. EVERYONE WHO PAYS TAXES WILL RECEIVE SOME KIND OF TAX RELIEF. If you don't pay much you want get much.
OK,
I'll get off my soap box now but I really get tired of hearing all the liberal Democrats complaining because something that is supposed to be a tax cut isn't being used as a gift program to help them buy more votes.
once again just my .02 worth....and maybe now I'll get to actually keep more than .01 of it. Quoting that post was counter-productive. It not only explains why the Bush tax cuts are ridiculous in the first place, but it also explains why the "'trickle-down' economics" concept that's in play is ineffective, or maybe even damaging, to the economy.
[ July 14, 2003, 06:24 PM: Message edited by: N:ck ]