NationStates Jolt Archive

Since much of the Republican stance against Kerry is based on disinformation, exaggeration, and repetition, it would do Kerry well to be able to clearly and definitively refute it on live television. Turning perceived weakness into strength has been a Kerry hallmark for his entire political career (hence why he has such a reputation as a closer.)

Since much of the Republican stance against Kerry is based on disinformation, exaggeration, and repetition, it would do Kerry well to be able to clearly and definitively refute it on live television. Turning perceived weakness into strength has been a Kerry hallmark for his entire political career (hence why he has such a reputation as a closer.)
So he even flipflops on weaknesses and strengths?

So he even flipflops on weaknesses and strengths?

*gives the parrot a cracker.

What the hell is the cracker for?

What the hell is the cracker for?

It's a reward for mindlessly repeating the Republican party line, even though it applies just as much, if not more, to their own candidate. The fact that you uncritically regurgitate it here means you deserve it.

At the risk of sounding like I'm not as smart as I think I am:
What's a Freeper?

It's a reward for mindlessly repeating the Republican party line, even though it applies just as much, if not more, to their own candidate. The fact that you uncritically regurgitate it here means you deserve it.
Well also Kerry wants to raise taxes. Who wants raised taxes? He also wants to provide free healthcare for everyone. Now that would be wonderful but if Kerry's so worried about the economy that'll just make it worse. Its impossible to provide free healthcare for all U.S. citizens without turning our rebuilding economy into a depression.

Well also Kerry wants to raise taxes. Who wants raised taxes?

No one. But fiscally responsible people realize that you can't cut taxes and increase spending indefinitely. Someone has to pay the bill eventually, but while Bush is happy to pass the buck to a later administration, Kerry is willing to say that some of the tax cuts (the ones on people making over $200,000, don't you know) will have to be repealed.

He also wants to provide free healthcare for everyone. Now that would be wonderful but if Kerry's so worried about the economy that'll just make it worse. Its impossible to provide free healthcare for all U.S. citizens without turning our rebuilding economy into a depression.

Wonderfully unwarranted argument here. If you have some figures that take into account Kerry's funding plans and estimated costs and how that would bankrupt the economy, please feel free to post them. Until then, you're playing the parrot again and just spewing back what those oh-so-honest political advertisements tell you to say.

At the risk of sounding like I'm not as smart as I think I am:
What's a Freeper?
Don't worry, I had no idea either 'til I looked in the Urban Dictionary:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=FReeper

Freeper

Right-wing political activist. So-called, because it is the nickname of the denizens of the ultra-right wing Web site FreeRepublic.com. Similar to "ditto-head."
Also spelled FReeper

Also: Right wingnut, Repugnantcan and Fox Force Five.

No one. But fiscally responsible people realize that you can't cut taxes and increase spending indefinitely. Someone has to pay the bill eventually, but while Bush is happy to pass the buck to a later administration, Kerry is willing to say that some of the tax cuts (the ones on people making over $200,000, don't you know) will have to be repealed.



Wonderfully unwarranted argument here. If you have some figures that take into account Kerry's funding plans and estimated costs and how that would bankrupt the economy, please feel free to post them. Until then, you're playing the parrot again and just spewing back what those oh-so-honest political advertisements tell you to say.

We dont need estimates, its common sense. He wants to make healthcare free, but you cant supply free healthcare without spending money on supplies. If you make it free, you spend money and get none in return MEANING you LOSE money. This creates a deficet, the only way to eliminate that deficet is to raise taxes. See this is where it gets confusing for you democrats so try and stay with me.

All he does is transfer the healthcare payments from healthcare and places it in your income tax to supply medical supplies that you claim is "free". It may be "free" to you, but medical supplies regardless if healthcare is free still costs money, where is Kerry going to get this money? FROM TAXES!

Same with social security! The medical companies arent going to all of a sudden to charities to supply our government for free regardless of what dreamworld you guys are in. Social Security and Healthcare increase taxes, which pretty much mean that the government tells you how much money you get to spend out of the money you earned. Republicans believe you should have responsibility over the money you earn. It is commonly assumed that Republicans are for the rich and Democrats are for the poor, truth is, Republicans are for opportunity to "become rich" by giving you more responsibility over your own money, where democrats pamper you so you dont make mistakes that will make you poor, so they support you being "borderline" poor, by taking more taxes. They take your money, tell how much you are allowed to spend through welfare and social security.

Also: Right wingnut, Repugnantcan and Fox Force Five.
Synonyms for Liberal: Commie, Treehugger, Tofu-farting fairy, hippie, Gymoor.

We dont need estimates, its common sense. He wants to make healthcare free, but you cant supply free healthcare without spending money on supplies. If you make it free, you spend money and get none in return MEANING you LOSE money. This creates a deficet, the only way to eliminate that deficet is to raise taxes. See this is where it gets confusing for you democrats so try and stay with me.

All he does is transfer the healthcare payments from healthcare and places it in your income tax to supply medical supplies that you claim is "free". It may be "free" to you, but medical supplies regardless if healthcare is free still costs money, where is Kerry going to get this money? FROM TAXES!

Same with social security! The medical companies arent going to all of a sudden to charities to supply our government for free regardless of what dreamworld you guys are in. Social Security and Healthcare increase taxes, which pretty much mean that the government tells you how much money you get to spend out of the money you earned. Republicans believe you should have responsibility over the money you earn. It is commonly assumed that Republicans are for the rich and Democrats are for the poor, truth is, Republicans are for opportunity to "become rich" by giving you more responsibility over your own money, where democrats pamper you so you dont make mistakes that will make you poor, so they support you being "borderline" poor, by taking more taxes. They take your money, tell how much you are allowed to spend through welfare and social security.


Okay, let's make this crystal clear for the slower people out there. HOW MUCH YOU PAY IN TAXES MEANS NOTHING IF YOUR AFTER-TAX INCOME IS STILL MORE THAN IT WAS UNDER THE LOWER TAX RATE.

Get it? Under Bush, salaries for the middle class went down to such an extent that after-tax income was actually lower, even with the tax break.

Let's make it elementary school simple

50 - 15 > 40 - 10 right? It doesn't matter how much is subtracted, as long as the final number is bigger. Under Bush, that final number has, on average, been lower.

Simple arithmetic, folks.

Well also Kerry wants to raise taxes. Who wants raised taxes? He also wants to provide free healthcare for everyone. Now that would be wonderful but if Kerry's so worried about the economy that'll just make it worse. Its impossible to provide free healthcare for all U.S. citizens without turning our rebuilding economy into a depression.
ok cpt moron

you tell me how cutting taxes and tripling military spending is helping our economy

ok cpt moron

you tell me how cutting taxes and tripling military spending is helping our economy
cutting taxes is how you make more businesses established. It gives people a chance of oppurtunity and the amount of taxes payed then will give you an equal number of tax dollars as before.

Hickdumb: How much do you currenty pay for your health care?

As for pulling the money from taxes ... isn't that were the 120+/- Billion dollars that are being used in Iraq? Ever think that instead of being confused or not realizing that government spending comes from taxes it is that they would just rather pay upfront instead of reducing revinue and increasing spending?

Personally I do not understand why repubicans seem like they are willing to jump through hoops to get the money to kill people but make excuses why they cannot get the money to educate and care for them.

Synonyms for Liberal: Commie, Treehugger, Tofu-farting fairy, hippie, Gymoor.

Tofu-farting fairy, that's funny. Too bad you had to ruin it by going personal.

Neo-coNazi, Fascist Thug, Flag-Draped Bible Thumper, McCarthy Minion, Conservadrone.

Thats the point of free enterprise you liberal simpleton. Middle Class gets to make there own salaries, and the tax cuts allow more money to go into small business which is the majority of job creation these days. If the small businesses have more money to work with, they can raise salaries and hire more people like you Gymoor. This middle class tax cut will get out of being a bag boy at Albertsons or other grocery store you work at and put you into a higher paying job if you work for it. Thats the point, social responsibility.

Democrats raising taxes to support social security and healthcare (which is the only way they can support it) will dampen job development, because small businesses will be overtaxed and restricted on there wages and labor cost.

Tofu-farting fairy, that's funny. Too bad you had to ruin it by going personal.

Neo-coNazi, Fascist Thug, Flag-Draped Bible Thumper, McCarthy Minion, Conservadrone.
Pothead, Pansy, Flower-lover.

cutting taxes is how you make more businesses established. It gives people a chance of oppurtunity and the amount of taxes payed then will give you an equal number of tax dollars as before.Wouldn't that only apply if there were better incentives to keep jobs in the US and not outsource them to other countries?

Liberal=Surrender Monkey. There I'm done writing off names for Liberals and God that felt good.

cutting taxes is how you make more businesses established. It gives people a chance of oppurtunity and the amount of taxes payed then will give you an equal number of tax dollars as before.

Ah, so that's why the deficit is growing smaller...oh, wait. Let me try something else. I guess that's why there are fewer people in poverty...damn, wrong again. Uh, I guess that's why take-home pay for the average American has gone up...nope, strike three. The number of personal bankruptcies has gone down...dang, that's not true either.

Pay is down, expenses are up, and this is Bush's great economic plan? What world do you live in?

Take it easy, fellas. No need to flame.

Thats the point of free enterprise you liberal simpleton. Middle Class gets to make there own salaries, and the tax cuts allow more money to go into small business which is the majority of job creation these days. If the small businesses have more money to work with, they can raise salaries and hire more people like you Gymoor. This middle class tax cut will get out of being a bag boy at Albertsons or other grocery store you work at and put you into a higher paying job if you work for it. Thats the point, social responsibility.

Democrats raising taxes to support social security and healthcare (which is the only way they can support it) will dampen job development, because small businesses will be overtaxed and restricted on there wages and labor cost.

Rising healthcare costs due to Bush's pandering to the medical industry at the expense of the average American have already inhibited small business growth.

Ah, so that's why the deficit is growing smaller...oh, wait. Let me try something else. I guess that's why there are fewer people in poverty...damn, wrong again. Uh, I guess that's why take-home pay for the average American has gone up...nope, strike three. The number of personal bankruptcies has gone down...dang, that's not true either.

Pay is down, expenses are up, and this is Bush's great economic plan? What world do you live in?What? You're nuts! If people would get of their ass and do something about their economic woes we wouldn't have this problem. You know why people are usually in poverty? Because they are lazy. Do you know why Americans would have less take home pay? Because their bosses are greedy assholes. Do you know why people have gone bankrupt? Because they decided to blow money on something.

Hickdumb: How much do you currenty pay for your health care?

As for pulling the money from taxes ... isn't that were the 120+/- Billion dollars that are being used in Iraq? Ever think that instead of being confused or not realizing that government spending comes from taxes it is that they would just rather pay upfront instead of reducing revinue and increasing spending?

Personally I do not understand why repubicans seem like they are willing to jump through hoops to get the money to kill people but make excuses why they cannot get the money to educate and care for them.

Funny how you bring that up since your canidate wants to add more funding to the war with his plan. You got no room to criticize there because his plan requires even more money to fund such a effort. Drunken Perv's also brought up the topic of outsourcing, how he opposes it, but the multi-billion dollar ketchup company he married into does 76% outsourcing themselves. I guess Kerry isnt one of those people that leads by example right? Talks about being there for poor people while he owns 5 mansions all over the US, partially owns a multi-billion dollar company, and only pays 12% income tax between him and his wife meaning 6% for him 6% for his wife. Thats half of what the average american pays in taxes. Not really a guy who leads by example.

THAT'S IT! I AM SO SICK AND TIRED OF THESE TEENAGE LIBERALS WITH THEIR STUPID IDEAS! SURE YOU DON'T CARE IF KERRY WOULD RAISE TAXES BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT PAYING THEM! YOU WANT THAT FREE HEALTHCARE SO EVERYTIME YOU'RE DONE HAVING SEX YOU CAN GO GET A FREE ABORTION! YOU SAY YOU WANT FREE EDUCATION, BUT MOST OF YOU AT SCHOOL NEVER LISTEN OR GIVE A CRAP ABOUT WHAT THE TEACHER IS SAYING! :mad: :mad: :mad:

Funny how you bring that up since your canidate wants to add more funding to the war with his plan. You got no room to criticize there because his plan requires even more money to fund such a effort. Drunken Perv's also brought up the topic of outsourcing, how he opposes it, but the multi-billion dollar ketchup company he married into does 76% outsourcing themselves. I guess Kerry isnt one of those people that leads by example right? Talks about being there for poor people while he owns 5 mansions all over the US, partially owns a multi-billion dollar company, and only pays 12% income tax between him and his wife meaning 6% for him 6% for his wife. Thats half of what the average american pays in taxes. Not really a guy who leads by example.Hate to disappoint you but I am not a democrate and I am not voting for Kerry nor Bush.

As for the 5 mansions they are owned by his wife and the prenuptual agreement that they signed before marriage keeps them as her homes and not his.

Holy Paradise is blaming the "greedy bosses" for causing low salaries while Hickdumb expects them to raise salaries and hire more people. I thought that they were arguing for the same side.

Hickdumb is attacking about the Heinz Corporation using the system that Bush is currently protecting and that he previously stated would help the midddle class prosper.

THAT'S IT! I AM SO SICK AND TIRED OF THESE TEENAGE LIBERALS WITH THEIR STUPID IDEAS! SURE YOU DON'T CARE IF KERRY WOULD RAISE TAXES BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT PAYING THEM! YOU WANT THAT FREE HEALTHCARE SO EVERYTIME YOU'RE DONE HAVING SEX YOU CAN GO GET A FREE ABORTION! YOU SAY YOU WANT FREE EDUCATION, BUT MOST OF YOU AT SCHOOL NEVER LISTEN OR GIVE A CRAP ABOUT WHAT THE TEACHER IS SAYING! :mad: :mad: :mad:Not sure who you are refering to, but 1.) I am not a teenager. 2.) I have not been in school for some time but when I was in school I did listen. 3.) We already have "free" education and I am not advocating extending that, I support the increased funding to improve the quality of the existing public education system. 4.) I do support free health care but would have no objection to omitting abortion from state / federal funded programs.

Feel any better?

We dont need estimates, its common sense. He wants to make healthcare free, but you cant supply free healthcare without spending money on supplies. If you make it free, you spend money and get none in return MEANING you LOSE money. This creates a deficet, the only way to eliminate that deficet is to raise taxes. See this is where it gets confusing for you democrats so try and stay with me.

Wow. An amazingly simplistic understanding of how things are paid for by the government. According to Kerry, yes, the money comes from taxes, but they come from taxes that Bush has eliminated. Which means that people making over $200,000 a year go back to the tax levels in 2000, and everyone else keeps all their current tax cuts. See how this works, now? Maybe "you Republicans" don't understand how not giving huge tax cuts to the wealthy and increasing spending increases the deficit, but I guarantee you that Clinton did. That's why he actually reduced the "deficet"...because he was willing to increase spending but also raise taxes. This is called a fiscally "responsible" position, unlike the current adminstration's one.

All he does is transfer the healthcare payments from healthcare and places it in your income tax to supply medical supplies that you claim is "free". It may be "free" to you, but medical supplies regardless if healthcare is free still costs money, where is Kerry going to get this money? FROM TAXES!

Wow. Brilliant. I think I answered this all above, because 1) I've never claimed it was free. What I did claim is that all Americans would have health coverage under Kerry. See the difference? Maybe reading comprehension isn't a strong point of "you Republicans".

Same with social security! The medical companies arent going to all of a sudden to charities to supply our government for free regardless of what dreamworld you guys are in.

The rules of English grammar "arent going to all of a sudden to" disappear for your posts, which makes it difficult for me to understand what the second sentence in this quote means. If this is a non-clarifying repeat of your "free" argument above, I've already answered it.

Social Security and Healthcare increase taxes, which pretty much mean that the government tells you how much money you get to spend out of the money you earned.

Ah, but I'm sure you know that both of those programs are from different tax sets, right? Social Security comes from FICA (or payroll) taxes, which Dubya hasn't cut. Ironically, a large majority of poorer families pay more payroll taxes (taxes that Bush didn't cut) than income taxes (taxes that Bush cut). But I'm sure you knew that, didn't you?

Additionally, the government always is telling you where to spend your tax money. This is nothing that is unique to Republican or Democratic governments. Any government that taxes you (*gasp* the Republicans TAX YOU. OH NOES!) tells you where certain parts of your income are to be spent.

Republicans believe you should have responsibility over the money you earn.

This ignorant argument is answered above.

It is commonly assumed that Republicans are for the rich and Democrats are for the poor, truth is, Republicans are for opportunity to "become rich" by giving you more responsibility over your own money, where democrats pamper you so you dont make mistakes that will make you poor, so they support you being "borderline" poor, by taking more taxes. They take your money, tell how much you are allowed to spend through welfare and social security.

This congealed mass of ridiculousness has so many insane arguments that I won't refute them all here. However, I'll touch on the particularly inane ones.

1. "Republicans give you the opportunity to be rich" - That's absurd. "The Republicans" structure more opportunities for the rich to become richer. The Bush tax cuts have shifted a larger percentage of the tax burden to the middle class and almost 70% of Bush's income tax cuts have gone to the wealthiest 20% in this country. While $1000 may help some middle class families out, the ability for $1000 per year to make you rich is laughable, particularly when the middle and lower class families have to pay for things like health insurance out of their own pockets.

2. Please point which families were made "borderline poor" by taxes. Also, please tell me how repealing Bush's tax cuts on people making over $200,000 makes them "borderline poor". And while you're at it, stop making terrible arguments.

Free health care is only free for those who don't pay taxes.

Get it?

cutting taxes is how you make more businesses established. It gives people a chance of oppurtunity and the amount of taxes payed then will give you an equal number of tax dollars as before.
It is called "Voodoo Economics", just ask George Herbert Bush? He says it doesn't work and he should know because he was Vice President under Reagan who tried the "trickle down" theory but it failed miserably.

Apparently it doesn't work.

If you gave the tax refunds to those who would spend 100% of it (lower income people), then jobs would be created, the economy would be stimulated, and tax revenues would start to increase due to higher unemployment.

If you gave the tax refunds to those who would spend 100% of it (lower income people), then jobs would be created, the economy would be stimulated, and tax revenues would start to increase due to higher unemployment.

You do realize that the lower 1.8% of income taxes are paid by the lower 50% of wage earners in the US right?

If you give tax rebates (which is the proper term, not refunds) to people who don't pay taxes, isn't it called welfare?

You do realize that the lower 1.8% of income taxes are paid by the lower 50% of wage earners in the US right?

If you give tax rebates (which is the proper term, not refunds) to people who don't pay taxes, isn't it called welfare?
I quite clearly said lower income people, and did not necessarily suggest people who pay no taxes. Certainly givng huge tax cuts to the wealthiest 2% of the population did not garner the expected boost in economic activity. Most of those people must have banked it, spent it on their foreign corporations, or took holidays outside the country?

Either way, Bush's tax cut policy fizzled and flopped, leaving the US economy weaker than ever.

Net job loss 1,000,000 (worst since the Depression under Herbert Hoover).

BTW poverty has increased by millions due to lack of jobs.

THAT'S IT! I AM SO SICK AND TIRED OF THESE TEENAGE LIBERALS WITH THEIR STUPID IDEAS! SURE YOU DON'T CARE IF KERRY WOULD RAISE TAXES BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT PAYING THEM! YOU WANT THAT FREE HEALTHCARE SO EVERYTIME YOU'RE DONE HAVING SEX YOU CAN GO GET A FREE ABORTION! YOU SAY YOU WANT FREE EDUCATION, BUT MOST OF YOU AT SCHOOL NEVER LISTEN OR GIVE A CRAP ABOUT WHAT THE TEACHER IS SAYING! :mad: :mad: :mad:

Um, I'm 30. I listened at school, which is why I can understand the logical fallacies that the Bush campaign is primarily based on.

Lastly, I do not think the liberals are the one's doing the ranting and raving here.

THAT'S IT! I AM SO SICK AND TIRED OF THESE TEENAGE LIBERALS WITH THEIR STUPID IDEAS! SURE YOU DON'T CARE IF KERRY WOULD RAISE TAXES BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT PAYING THEM! YOU WANT THAT FREE HEALTHCARE SO EVERYTIME YOU'RE DONE HAVING SEX YOU CAN GO GET A FREE ABORTION! YOU SAY YOU WANT FREE EDUCATION, BUT MOST OF YOU AT SCHOOL NEVER LISTEN OR GIVE A CRAP ABOUT WHAT THE TEACHER IS SAYING! :mad: :mad: :mad:
Kerry is only talking about raising taxes on those making $200,000 plus in income and if you are in that tax bracket I sorta feel sorry for you that your taxes are going to go up again. :eek:

Did I say I feel sorry for you? Well maybe that is not the truth. :eek:

What I'd like to see Bush do at the debate:

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view.php?id=5278

Well also Kerry wants to raise taxes. Who wants raised taxes?

Which do you care about more, money or freedom?

S N I P

Same with social security! The medical companies arent going to all of a sudden to charities to supply our government for free regardless of what dreamworld you guys are in. Social Security and Healthcare increase taxes,
S N I P

I'm a wee bit confused. Social Security has been withheld from my paychecks for the past 35 years as a set aside for my later years. It was never a tax.

It was, & should remain, my money - in escrow. One problem, Bush & Greenspan changed the retirement age from 65 to 66. Now they are telling us that the whole retirement thing is overrated anyway. http://www.seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Money/4-08-27Greenspan.htm (LINK)

This is Enron on a much larger scale. They took our money on a promise and they want to renege on the deal as those who paid in are expecting their just due from THEIR escrow.

This may seem irrelevant to some of the younger people in here. But it will be the same for you, and perhaps worse, in the here and now since as you advance in age you will have to foot the bill on your ta . . . uh, I mean withholding.

All because the neo-cons were busy nailing down who blew who when and how, followed by a moron who has hundreds of billions to spend on makework in Iraq but can't manage to see to it America keeps it's word at home.

The Bush Tax: How Much Is It Costing You?

http://www.bushtax.com/

Rather than take responsibility for our common future, Bush has shifted costs to states and communities, who then pass them on to you. Across the country, people are seeing their property taxes skyrocket. State college tuition at 4-year schools has increased this year by an average of $579 nationwide. Half a million children have been deprived of health coverage. States and local government have cut vital services, and we’re all having to pay more for less. That’s the Bush Tax.

Bush is largely to blame for the fiscal crisis that has forced states and communities to raise taxes and slash services. According to the non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), “A conservative estimate suggests that federal policies are costing states and localities about $185 billion over the four-year course of the state fiscal crisis.” Bush has shifted health costs to states and forced states to pay for unfunded mandates for homeland security, election reform, and No Child Left Behind. As a result, states and communities have had no choice but to raise taxes and cut services. That’s the Bush Tax. (For details, see the link below to the CBPP report.)


Our children and grandchildren will be paying the Bush Tax. Bush promised, "I came to this office to solve problems and not pass them on to future presidents and future generations." Yet as a direct consequence of his tax policy, over six years an American family of four will take on $52,000 more in its share of the national debt. That’s the Bush Tax.


How is Bush paying for his tax cuts? To pay for his tax program, Bush raided Social Security Trust Funds and made off with $500 billion, eroding our protections for the elderly. Then he borrowed another $500 billion from foreigners, putting our future in their hands. For every $100 you got back in tax cuts, $40 was borrowed from foreigners, $20 was borrowed from Americans, and $40 was taken from Social Security.

The Bush Tax is huge – many times greater than most people’s income tax cut under Bush. For the bottom 60 percent of Americans, the average tax cut was just $304. The median tax cut for all Americans was only $470. In contrast, the average tax cut for those making over $1 million a year was $112,925.

Enjoy!! :eek:

No one. But fiscally responsible people realize that you can't cut taxes and increase spending indefinitely. Someone has to pay the bill eventually, but while Bush is happy to pass the buck to a later administration, Kerry is willing to say that some of the tax cuts (the ones on people making over $200,000, don't you know) will have to be repealed.


True, But....
if we keep raising taxes on them, many of us will be calling these "rich" people "our former employer" instead. I say leave the small business level "rich" alone. Otherwise, expect every tax increase on these people to amount to a job lost by a person working for a small business.

It's not like 200k amounts to all that much after taxes already. And why does someone who runs even a modestly successful small business and employs several other people have to be included in the "stick it to 'em" rich people column?

Not only does Kerry/Edwards want free healthcare for everyone, but they also want every American to have the same healthcare benefits that congress has. Needless to say, this is like a candidate running on the promise that "Every single American under me's going to be filfthy rich". It's either (1) a promise you can't keep, or (2) Horrifying, because "somebody" is going to be paying for that, and paying more than we can possibly imagine.

Raising taxes for people with salaries over 200,000 is bad too. I'm a middle class guy, no where near an elitest, but I'm a centrist, capitalists, and probably a confederalist, and I believe that the government should not and cannot punish people with higher taxes because they were more sucessful in our capitalist nation fair and square. Capitalism is based on fairty, oddly enough. My Sudanese neighbor who's family was killed off by the muslims in the Christian genocide going on there now can tell you that nothing is holding us back from success in America but ourselves, and thats as fair as it can logically get. Kerry/Edwards and the democrats seem to think thats not fair. Socialism is fair to them, and to me, thats legalized stealing.

My preferred method of helping the less fortunate is using extreme tax breaks as incentive to get diploma holding Americans to dedicate their time in the teachings of the illiterate and helpings of others. Of course no one listens to me.

Wow. An amazingly simplistic understanding of how things are paid for by the government. According to Kerry, yes, the money comes from taxes, but they come from taxes that Bush has eliminated. Which means that people making over $200,000 a year go back to the tax levels in 2000, and everyone else keeps all their current tax cuts. See how this works, now? Maybe "you Republicans" don't understand how not giving huge tax cuts to the wealthy and increasing spending increases the deficit, but I guarantee you that Clinton did. That's why he actually reduced the "deficet"...because he was willing to increase spending but also raise taxes. This is called a fiscally "responsible" position, unlike the current adminstration's one.



Wow. Brilliant. I think I answered this all above, because 1) I've never claimed it was free. What I did claim is that all Americans would have health coverage under Kerry. See the difference? Maybe reading comprehension isn't a strong point of "you Republicans".



The rules of English grammar "arent going to all of a sudden to" disappear for your posts, which makes it difficult for me to understand what the second sentence in this quote means. If this is a non-clarifying repeat of your "free" argument above, I've already answered it.



Ah, but I'm sure you know that both of those programs are from different tax sets, right? Social Security comes from FICA (or payroll) taxes, which Dubya hasn't cut. Ironically, a large majority of poorer families pay more payroll taxes (taxes that Bush didn't cut) than income taxes (taxes that Bush cut). But I'm sure you knew that, didn't you?

Additionally, the government always is telling you where to spend your tax money. This is nothing that is unique to Republican or Democratic governments. Any government that taxes you (*gasp* the Republicans TAX YOU. OH NOES!) tells you where certain parts of your income are to be spent.



This ignorant argument is answered above.



This congealed mass of ridiculousness has so many insane arguments that I won't refute them all here. However, I'll touch on the particularly inane ones.

1. "Republicans give you the opportunity to be rich" - That's absurd. "The Republicans" structure more opportunities for the rich to become richer. The Bush tax cuts have shifted a larger percentage of the tax burden to the middle class and almost 70% of Bush's income tax cuts have gone to the wealthiest 20% in this country. While $1000 may help some middle class families out, the ability for $1000 per year to make you rich is laughable, particularly when the middle and lower class families have to pay for things like health insurance out of their own pockets.

2. Please point which families were made "borderline poor" by taxes. Also, please tell me how repealing Bush's tax cuts on people making over $200,000 makes them "borderline poor". And while you're at it, stop making terrible arguments.

1) Tax cuts were created so that more money would go to the people. Where does this money go? It goes to product purchase, a certain amount of money goes to the government through commodity tax. Commodity tax is more then income tax. Catching on yet? Government gets more money when people "spend" more money. Thats why people boycott things, why americans boycott french wine. This increases profits for small businesses as well as big businesses and increases profits for the government as the economy develops through commodity sales.

2) Kerry cannot lower healthcare costs without raising taxes on the middle class because face it, medical companies set the prices on their products, the government does not. They have a set price to pay and if he wants to lower premiums he has to get the funding from somewhere and it wont be from the sky. It'll come through raised taxes. Its a constant circle. They call it cash flow, might of heard of it.

3) Medical companies wont give anything for free, they offer their medications and a set price and the government of all things dont get discounts and to make a profit, they buy medicine and sell it through healthcare for more money then they bought it. This wont change regardless of who the president is.

4) I never said they didnt tax, i said they tax less so more money goes to you for commodity spending. Bush's last tax cut was a payroll tax cut to refute your rebuttal. Yes the taxes that are collected are used based on the governments idea's, but the money you have (and republicans give you more) you spend for yourself.

5) Republicans have always believed this since the days of Alexander Hamilton, far from ignorant, its a historical fact.

6) This making the rich richer garbage is utterly ridiculous, and congress says so, otherwise the democrats in congress would never have gone along with it just to boost Kerry's support. How do i know they made you borderline poor? im a result of it. I lived in the ghetto's of Downtown LA, i know what its like to live in poverty alright? Live in San Fernando and Downtown LA for 12 years and survive then you could show me up. Many middle class people are Bush supporters, i would know, i live around them now in the suburbs. They like his economical policies and this will increase job creation and better pay follows as a result of job creation, its a business fact.

cutting taxes is how you make more businesses established. It gives people a chance of oppurtunity and the amount of taxes payed then will give you an equal number of tax dollars as before.

*sigh*

Yes, yes, yes. In theory, the Laffer curve is correct (the Laffer curver is a model proposed by an economist by the name of Laffer, his first name escaping me at the moment. Basically, his argument was that at some point, which we'll call x, taxes would deprive the economy of so much wealth that capital generation would be impossible, leading to a state of diminishing returns--as we increase the tax rate, our net income actually decreases instead of increases. This Curve was measured in the form of an inverted parabola). The problem with this is that there is no clear point at which this hypothetical x actually is. Consequently, every time we've tried to juggle tax rates on the basis of where we think x is, we usually misjudge and incur losses in tax income.

Now, I can already hear you screaming "In English, you liberal!" What that means is that dropping taxes does not automatically increase the amount of tax revenue we get, and people who say that don't even understand what the guy who originated the concept was saying. [i]Sometimes, I'll grant you, when the tax is extraordinarily high, by lowering our taxes, we do in fact increase the amount of income paid in taxes. For example, when we eased back on taxes for the extraordinarily rich in the '80's, we did in fact get more revenue from those same people the next year. However, overall, the tax cut of '81 decreased revenue by 9%. Those who can't remember Reagan without tearing up tend to forget both this and the fact that there were tax increases in '82 and '83 to cover this loss. Simply put, those who believe in trickle-down economics in all instances are either uneducated goofballs who know nothing about economics, or they need to come off their glue bender.

This leads us to the second point: people usually say when they hear this that the Congress had controlled their damn spending, this loss in income would never have been a problem. My response to this is usually to ask where do you think we should cut programs. Just to cut to the chase, I'll provide you with a brief description of such a debate:

Act I, Scene 1

abortionist/hippie/pinko liberal (Me): Okay, what do you think we should cut?

Republican: We need to cut welfare programs so people would get off their duffs!

abortionist/hippie/pinko liberal (Me): Well first of all, most of the people who are on welfare [i]are working. The welfare queen as described by Reagan never existed. He made that up. Secondly, the reason why they are on welfare is twofold: their jobs do not provide a living wage that they actually pay all their bills, feed their children, etc., and additionally, they do not have the education needed to escape their current job and go elsewhere. Each of these are solved by government intervention, not by avoiding the issue.

Republican: *sputtering* But that's communism!

abortionist/hippie/pinko liberal (Me): I prefer to call it "reality" myself, but I noticed you didn't answer the thrust. Whether or not it's socialism is irrelevant; in point of fact, if it is socialism, then you as a capitalist should be able to prove me wrong easily. Simply put, I lay out two reasons, supported by the statistics, why people are firstly impoverished, and secondly unable to come out of their poverty. I then suggested a solution: government involvement. If the problem is government as you say, then tell me how the free market can change this.

Republican: They can come out of their poverty on their own by working harder. If their job doesn't treat them well, then they should change jobs.

abortionist/hippie/pinko liberal (Me): Well, according to new rules that "free up" the market and avoid some of the dangers of socialism as you were describing, that were almost implemented, people would have been required to work overtime, and yet not be paid for that overtime. In point of fact, the whole notion of the 40-hour workweek came about only after a long and bloody struggle on the part of socialist organizations like the labor union. Had those rules actually gon into effect, people would be working harder, and yet not have made any more money.

Furthermore, I have to question the relationship between working hard and more money. A farmer in Africa usually works about 80 hours per week, and yet earns less than a dollar per day--a value below what is required to keep him alive. On the other hand, Bill Ford was hardly picked as the head of Ford Motor because he was the hardest-working person in Ford Motor Corp--he might have been the best out of the small pool of people already preselected for the top job--and yet he earns millions of dollars per year for the equivalent of paper-pushing. So clearly, there doesn't seem to be a link between effort and reward in the current system.

Even further, I have to question the idea that you can simply "change jobs." When you've only got a high-school degree and lack the money for college, you don't really have the pick of the litter when it comes to what jobs you can take; you are already limited to those jobs that will hire you, and you are usually also limited to those jobs close by. Incidentally, all of those jobs tend to have about the same wage. So the idea that you can pick a better job doesn't often pan out in reality.

Republican:. . .Then they should have gone to college!

abortionist/hippie/pinko liberal (Me):. . .Well, okay. On that point we agree, but then again, most universities get the bulk of their funding from the public. Additionally, most people are only able to go to college because of public funds like the Pell Grant and Student Loan Program. So you're right back to the problem of what programs to cut.

Republican:. . .Well. . .I don't like all that money we send to foreigners either. They need to stop mooching off us.

abortionist/hippie/pinko liberal (Me): Um, alright. How much do you think we spend on foreign aid, and how much do you think we should spend?

Republican: We must spend 25% of our funding on those thieving suckers. I'm generous, but that's way too much. We shouldn't spend any more than 10% of our money on foreign aid.*

*people in surveys tend to come up with these exact numbers when asked that question

abortionist/hippie/pinko liberal (Me): Well, I'd agree with the notion of paying 10%, but the problem is that we don't spend right now anywhere close to that. In point of fact, we spend the lowest percentage of GDP on foreign aid of any industrialized nation: about .25% of our annual federal budget. That isn't going to cover a 9% shortfall.

To go even further, though, I'd like to commend you on at least being open to the idea of foreign aid. Some people tend to think that foreign aid is an a priori evil, forgetting of course that things like the Marshall Plan are the sole reason why Western Europe a) didn't turn communist after WWII, b) did turn into one of our staunchest allies, and c) was able to rebuild to a point where they can buy our goods, which is usually considered a good thing, because it keeps our people employed.

Republican: Well, thank you. . .hey wait a minute, you just said I was wrong! Well. . .Social Security! By God, if that isn't a source of government largesse, I don't know what is!

abortionist/hippie/pinko liberal (Me): Okay, well, what's wrong with it.

Republican: Well, first of all it's so damned innefficient.

abortionist/hippie/pinko liberal (Me): Okay, Congressional records tend to show that they lose somewhere in the range of the high tens to low hundreds of millions of dollars per year. . .

Republican: *triumphant* Ha Ha! Got you, you abortionist/hippie/pinko liberal!

abortionist/hippie/pinko liberal (Me): You didn't let me finish. As I was saying, yes, they lose a lot of money, but that loss is infintesimal when you consider that the Social Security Administration handles literally trillions of dollars per year. Their efficiency therefore is somewhere in the neighborhood of 99.95%--far above any private industry.

Republican: *gasps* What do you mean "more efficient". Everyone knows that government is corrupt and business has a vested interest in cutting costs. That means that business is more efficient.

abortionist/hippie/pinko liberal (Me): And those companies also have to turn a profit. . .which oddly enough is an expense that the government Social Security doesn't have to worry about. That's one of the reasons why, for example, legislators found out that they'd actually have to pay more for elderly patients who opted out of the Medicare system in recent Republican legislation than they would had they stayed in the old system (IIRC, it was a dollar for every patient out of the system against $.93 for every patient in the system). I'm sure it was quite a shock to people, especially considering said program had been touted to cut costs.

Republican: Well, the system in and of itself is corrupt!

abortionist/hippie/pinko liberal (Me): How so? In the olden days before Social Security, most people that age that survived either died quickly from massive impoverishment, or they survived because they spent their time mooching off their sons/daughters. So in that sense, you could say that the old system was corrupt too, because in either case, someone is footing the bill for the elderly. The difference now is that firstly, elderly are rich enough to move out on their own (and considering the net effect is that I only have to deal with in-laws two times per year instead of every day, this is a good thing in my book), and seconldly, they aren't starving when their kids can't/won't look out for them in their old age. So I'm failing to see how this is somehow less moral.

Republican: *sputtering* But. . .you abortionist/hippie/pinko liberal, can't you just see how wrong you are? I mean, for the love of God, "I AM SO SICK AND TIRED OF THESE TEENAGE LIBERALS WITH THEIR STUPID IDEAS! SURE YOU DON'T CARE IF KERRY WOULD RAISE TAXES BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT PAYING THEM! YOU WANT THAT FREE HEALTHCARE SO EVERYTIME YOU'RE DONE HAVING SEX YOU CAN GO GET A FREE ABORTION! YOU SAY YOU WANT FREE EDUCATION, BUT MOST OF YOU AT SCHOOL NEVER LISTEN OR GIVE A CRAP ABOUT WHAT THE TEACHER IS SAYING!"

*world implodes due to a deluge of retardedness, scene ends*

I think that should cover most of the arguments presented by conservatives. I apologize for the invective, but Jeez, it's hard to see people offering the same goofy rationales for even more goofy, and eminently false, ideas long after you've shown them in blinding neon lights how wrong they are. It makes me question my assumption that people really are rational at base, and that makes me irritable.

We dont need estimates, its common sense. He wants to make healthcare free, but you cant supply free healthcare without spending money on supplies. If you make it free, you spend money and get none in return MEANING you LOSE money. This creates a deficet, the only way to eliminate that deficet is to raise taxes. See this is where it gets confusing for you democrats so try and stay with me.

All he does is transfer the healthcare payments from healthcare and places it in your income tax to supply medical supplies that you claim is "free". It may be "free" to you, but medical supplies regardless if healthcare is free still costs money, where is Kerry going to get this money? FROM TAXES!

Same with social security! The medical companies arent going to all of a sudden to charities to supply our government for free regardless of what dreamworld you guys are in. Social Security and Healthcare increase taxes, which pretty much mean that the government tells you how much money you get to spend out of the money you earned. Republicans believe you should have responsibility over the money you earn. It is commonly assumed that Republicans are for the rich and Democrats are for the poor, truth is, Republicans are for opportunity to "become rich" by giving you more responsibility over your own money, where democrats pamper you so you dont make mistakes that will make you poor, so they support you being "borderline" poor, by taking more taxes. They take your money, tell how much you are allowed to spend through welfare and social security.
Le sens commun n'est pas si commun.

5) Republicans have always believed this since the days of Alexander Hamilton, far from ignorant, its a historical fact.

You'd have more credibility if you knew history at all. The Republicans did not exist in the time of Alexander Hamilton. The rest of your points make almost as little sense.

Liberal=Surrender Monkey. There I'm done writing off names for Liberals and God that felt good.
Probably indicative of the relief of the obvious tax on your intellectual faculty. *sigh*
Actually, the fairy one was funny.

Wow. An amazingly simplistic understanding of how things are paid for by the government. According to Kerry, yes, the money comes from taxes, but they come from taxes that Bush has eliminated. Which means that people making over $200,000 a year go back to the tax levels in 2000, and everyone else keeps all their current tax cuts. See how this works, now? Maybe "you Republicans" don't understand how not giving huge tax cuts to the wealthy and increasing spending increases the deficit, but I guarantee you that Clinton did. That's why he actually reduced the "deficet"...because he was willing to increase spending but also raise taxes. This is called a fiscally "responsible" position, unlike the current adminstration's one.



Wow. Brilliant. I think I answered this all above, because 1) I've never claimed it was free. What I did claim is that all Americans would have health coverage under Kerry. See the difference? Maybe reading comprehension isn't a strong point of "you Republicans".



The rules of English grammar "arent going to all of a sudden to" disappear for your posts, which makes it difficult for me to understand what the second sentence in this quote means. If this is a non-clarifying repeat of your "free" argument above, I've already answered it.



Ah, but I'm sure you know that both of those programs are from different tax sets, right? Social Security comes from FICA (or payroll) taxes, which Dubya hasn't cut. Ironically, a large majority of poorer families pay more payroll taxes (taxes that Bush didn't cut) than income taxes (taxes that Bush cut). But I'm sure you knew that, didn't you?

Additionally, the government always is telling you where to spend your tax money. This is nothing that is unique to Republican or Democratic governments. Any government that taxes you (*gasp* the Republicans TAX YOU. OH NOES!) tells you where certain parts of your income are to be spent.



This ignorant argument is answered above.



This congealed mass of ridiculousness has so many insane arguments that I won't refute them all here. However, I'll touch on the particularly inane ones.

1. "Republicans give you the opportunity to be rich" - That's absurd. "The Republicans" structure more opportunities for the rich to become richer. The Bush tax cuts have shifted a larger percentage of the tax burden to the middle class and almost 70% of Bush's income tax cuts have gone to the wealthiest 20% in this country. While $1000 may help some middle class families out, the ability for $1000 per year to make you rich is laughable, particularly when the middle and lower class families have to pay for things like health insurance out of their own pockets.

2. Please point which families were made "borderline poor" by taxes. Also, please tell me how repealing Bush's tax cuts on people making over $200,000 makes them "borderline poor". And while you're at it, stop making terrible arguments.
Amen to that.

Wouldn't that only apply if there were better incentives to keep jobs in the US and not outsource them to other countries?
You wouldn't be referring to all the high tech jobs that were all the rage to hold up as Americas new employment base while we outsourced manufacturing until the tech jobs followed the manufacturing jobs to points far east (or west) of here - are you?

What? You're nuts! If people would get of their ass and do something about their economic woes we wouldn't have this problem. You know why people are usually in poverty? Because they are lazy. Do you know why Americans would have less take home pay? Because their bosses are greedy assholes. Do you know why people have gone bankrupt? Because they decided to blow money on something.
maybe, just maybe, some are older and don't have the wherewithall to make such bold moves now that their life savings has been eaten up and blown away by the connected corps like Enron.

A poor jerk robs a Bank of America for $5,000 and gets 15 years. Corporates execs run a company into the ground, lie like hell, sell off their shares, hide millions overseas and get suspended sentences or a couple years in a country club.

Most people are doing what they can. They don't have the freedom to bet the farm on starting a new business. There are mouths to feed, children to raise, rent/mortgages and doctor bills to pay and too few nickels to cover even the basics. They are out there every day doing the grunt work that moves the economy while their bosses deny even cost of living increases to hardworking staff so they can rake in the bonuses for cutting costs and making the owners richer than they already are.

This is the real America for most Americans. You sound young and optimistic still. Good for you. Maybe you'll pull it off. But you'll never pull it off and remain a decent human being. The game is weighted in favor of the house. And the house is full of whores.

Off to bed - email notification on Good night all.

Free health care is only free [...]

Well, generally, something that has "Free" in it's name is actually free ;)

Well, generally, something that has "Free" in it's name is actually free ;)

You'd like to think so, but it has to be paid for some how. Doctors won't work for free, and neither will the hospitals "pay" for the materials without compensation. So, taxes would pay for this service, and who pays taxes? I know I do, I know my neighbors do so we would be paying for the "free" health care the government supplies us, therefore it is not free.

You'd like to think so, but it has to be paid for some how. Doctors won't work for free, and neither will the hospitals "pay" for the materials without compensation. So, taxes would pay for this service, and who pays taxes? I know I do, I know my neighbors do so we would be paying for the "free" health care the government supplies us, therefore it is not free.
The fact is we are already paying for free health care. The medical treatment providers have it worked into their fees. They know that they will have a certain amount of unrecoverable receiveables so they factor that into the costs for those that do pay.

Okay, let's make this crystal clear for the slower people out there. HOW MUCH YOU PAY IN TAXES MEANS NOTHING IF YOUR AFTER-TAX INCOME IS STILL MORE THAN IT WAS UNDER THE LOWER TAX RATE.

Get it? Under Bush, salaries for the middle class went down to such an extent that after-tax income was actually lower, even with the tax break.

Let's make it elementary school simple

50 - 15 > 40 - 10 right? It doesn't matter how much is subtracted, as long as the final number is bigger. Under Bush, that final number has, on average, been lower.

Simple arithmetic, folks.In addition, the government has less money to fritter away on those silly programs like teaching people to read and curing disease.

You'd like to think so, but it has to be paid for some how. Doctors won't work for free, and neither will the hospitals "pay" for the materials without compensation. So, taxes would pay for this service, and who pays taxes? I know I do, I know my neighbors do so we would be paying for the "free" health care the government supplies us, therefore it is not free.
It means free at point of access, which means that life and death decisions don't have to be decided based on financial concerns or ability to pay.

It's a reward for mindlessly repeating the Republican party line, even though it applies just as much, if not more, to their own candidate. The fact that you uncritically regurgitate it here means you deserve it.

*Claps hands* Bravo!! Couldn't have put it better. Bush is the world's biggest flip flopper. Anyone remember back when he was running for President, he said a little something about America not doing any nation building with him as President???? WTF ever happened to that one? One sandal in the air, one sandal firmly in mouth, eh Bush?

But you little dittoheads keep on toeing the party line, as those with low IQ's are are so accustomed to doing.

It means free at point of access, which means that life and death decisions don't have to be decided based on financial concerns or ability to pay.
Is not what you said common sense of the term?

It means free at point of access, which means that life and death decisions don't have to be decided based on financial concerns or ability to pay.

Um ... last I knew a hospital couldn't turn down a patient in a life and death situation, so that aspect already exists in todays health care.

1. "Republicans give you the opportunity to be rich" - That's absurd. "The Republicans" structure more opportunities for the rich to become richer. The Bush tax cuts have shifted a larger percentage of the tax burden to the middle class and almost 70% of Bush's income tax cuts have gone to the wealthiest 20% in this country. While $1000 may help some middle class families out, the ability for $1000 per year to make you rich is laughable, particularly when the middle and lower class families have to pay for things like health insurance out of their own pockets.


You need to do some research into the facts.

How much should the rich pay in taxes?
Looking at 2004 projections from the Congressional Budget Office, the top 1% of wage earners pay 32.3% of the taxes.
The top 5% pay 53.7% of the taxes. Just think about that, 5% of the taxpayers are footing over 50% of the bill and for some Marxist thinking people out there that isn't enough.
Carrying it out we see that the top 10% pay 66.7% of the taxes and the top 20% pay 82.1% of the taxes.

The Treasury Department also did a study and their numbers come out close
to the CBO study. Looking at the same income groups the % of taxes paid look like this:
32.3% 52.8% 64.8% 83%

The Treasury study also showed the % of tax revenues paid by the top 50% (or
half) of the tax payers, which is 96.4%. Which in turn means that the bottom 50% of taxpayers pay 3.6% of the tax revenues.

Now the Treasury Department did something else in their study and played a "what-if" game. What if the Bush tax cuts never took place? You know those EVIL tax cuts that allowed the rich to keep more of their money at the expense of everyone else? Looking at the same 5 tax brackets (1% to 50%) we see these numbers:

30.5% 50.2% 62.6% 81.8% 95.9%

That's right, lowering marginal tax rates according to the Treasury Department report caused the rich to pay more in taxes. It should be pointed out that tax revenues have been rising this year due to the economic growth.

So how much should the rich pay in taxes?


I am looking at the IRS data for 2001* (numbers in millions)

Total Gross Income: 6,241,036
Top 1%: 1,094,296 (17.5% of gross)
Top 5%: 1,996,492 (31.99% of gross)
Top 10%: 2,690,589 (43.11% of gross)
Top 25%: 4,071,034 (65.23% of gross)
Top 50%: 5,379,286 (86.19% of gross)


*Wages and tax revenues were higher then average for 2001 (tax year 2000) due to the dot com boom taking place, before the bubble burst.

Data gathered from the following Excel spreadsheet

http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls

You need to do some research into the facts.

How much should the rich pay in taxes?
Looking at 2004 projections from the Congressional Budget Office, the top 1% of wage earners pay 32.3% of the taxes.
The top 5% pay 53.7% of the taxes. Just think about that, 5% of the taxpayers are footing over 50% of the bill and for some Marxist thinking people out there that isn't enough.
Carrying it out we see that the top 10% pay 66.7% of the taxes and the top 20% pay 82.1% of the taxes.

The Treasury Department also did a study and their numbers come out close
to the CBO study. Looking at the same income groups the % of taxes paid look like this:
32.3% 52.8% 64.8% 83%

The Treasury study also showed the % of tax revenues paid by the top 50% (or
half) of the tax payers, which is 96.4%. Which in turn means that the bottom 50% of taxpayers pay 3.6% of the tax revenues.

Now the Treasury Department did something else in their study and played a "what-if" game. What if the Bush tax cuts never took place? You know those EVIL tax cuts that allowed the rich to keep more of their money at the expense of everyone else? Looking at the same 5 tax brackets (1% to 50%) we see these numbers:

30.5% 50.2% 62.6% 81.8% 95.9%

That's right, lowering marginal tax rates according to the Treasury Department report caused the rich to pay more in taxes. It should be pointed out that tax revenues have been rising this year due to the economic growth.

So how much should the rich pay in taxes?


I am looking at the IRS data for 2001* (numbers in millions)

Total Gross Income: 6,241,036
Top 1%: 1,094,296 (17.5% of gross)
Top 5%: 1,996,492 (31.99% of gross)
Top 10%: 2,690,589 (43.11% of gross)
Top 25%: 4,071,034 (65.23% of gross)
Top 50%: 5,379,286 (86.19% of gross)


*Wages and tax revenues were higher then average for 2001 (tax year 2000) due to the dot com boom taking place, before the bubble burst.

Data gathered from the following Excel spreadsheet

http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls

That is because they can afford to pay that much. Apparently that shows that tax cuts for the rich cause deficients, after all they pay most of taxes.

That is because they can afford to pay that much. Apparently that shows that tax cuts for the rich cause deficients, after all they pay most of taxes.


You do realize that to give tax cuts to people who don't pay taxes is ludicrous right?

You do realize that to give tax cuts to people who don't pay taxes is ludicrous right?
But the Govt isn't losing then, correct? So if it feels good and doesn't hurt anyone economically, morally, or physically why not allow it?

But the Govt isn't losing then, correct? So if it feels good and doesn't hurt anyone economically, morally, or physically why not allow it?

No what I'm trying to explain is cutting from 0 is still 0. It is physically impossible to cut something that isn't there. They don't pay taxes (or what they do pay is given back to them 100%) so you can't cut what you don't get.

No what I'm trying to explain is cutting from 0 is still 0. It is physically impossible to cut something that isn't there. They don't pay taxes (or what they do pay is given back to them 100%) so you can't cut what you don't get.
Actually that is false the poorest worker pays at least .1% if not .01%. And you can cut that. If you work and paid a wages you will get money taken as taxes.

Well also Kerry wants to raise taxes. Who wants raised taxes? He also wants to provide free healthcare for everyone. Now that would be wonderful but if Kerry's so worried about the economy that'll just make it worse. Its impossible to provide free healthcare for all U.S. citizens without turning our rebuilding economy into a depression.

according to holy's horribly unsound logic, every nation with free healthcare (i.e. Canada, Germany, France, Norway, ETC.) are all in a horrible depression. the truth is, nationalized healthcare is a good thing. people say it increases waiting time. thats a lie. i know not from biased research or so-called "professional opinion" from american doctors and hmos, but personal experience. i lived in Canada for sixteen years before i came to the US three years ago. i have been forced to wait for 3 hours to get an injury treated in the US while my wait in Canada for a comparative injury was about an hour. the US healthcare system is worthless, and not worthy of a place in a first world nation. when will people learn that the system that is in place is not working? The US should get free healthcare now, this coming from one of the over 40,000,000 people without insurance right now.

You need to do some research into the facts.

(bunch of stuff here)

*Wages and tax revenues were higher then average for 2001 (tax year 2000) due to the dot com boom taking place, before the bubble burst.

Data gathered from the following Excel spreadsheet

http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls

This is the same list of simplistic arguments that are often made to support tax cuts to the wealthiest in this nation. These types of arguments always seem to forget that people who make a huge amount of money can much more easily afford higher tax rates. There are other arguments I think that support higher tax rates on the wealthy. For instance, they make a large part of their money from the labor of people who get paid far less than them. They use the fact that those people don't have a college degree or lack certain experience to justify paying them less (sometimes not even close to a living wage). For example, the wealth of the CEO of McDonald's is built at least in part by paying the unskilled labor force minimum wage. Hence, the tax burden being lower on poorer people at least helps to offset somewhat this disparity.

Now, let's address your claims that the wealthiest 20% are paying more now than they would've under 2000 tax law. That statement is correct insofar as it pertains to federal income tax (. However, the CBO released reports showing that the top 20% are paying LESS of the TOTAL federal tax burden than they would have under 2000 tax law. So while income taxes are a convenient figure to point out, they don't describe the picture of effective federal tax rates. Effective federal tax rates are taxes paid dividied by comprehensive household income. According to those rates (which are far more representative of the impact federal taxes - not just income tax, but ALL federal tax), the tax liability of the top 20% in this country has gone down. This means that the tax liability has been shifted MORE to the middle class instead of more onto the wealthiest.

Check it out for yourself: http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5746&sequence=1#pt2

SCHNIPED
Capitalism is based on fairty, oddly enough. My Sudanese neighbor who's family was killed off by the muslims in the Christian genocide going on there now can tell you that nothing is holding us back from success in America but ourselves, and thats as fair as it can logically get. Kerry/Edwards and the democrats seem to think thats not fair. Socialism is fair to them, and to me, thats legalized stealing.

My preferred method of helping the less fortunate is using extreme tax breaks as incentive to get diploma holding Americans to dedicate their time in the teachings of the illiterate and helpings of others. Of course no one listens to me.
Using you Sudanese neighbor about America is like asking a starving man about McDonalds. His opinion is stilted by the fact that he came from such an extreme background.

What you are suggesting is unbridled capitalism in a vacuum. Didn't your American history classes tell you anything about the robber barons and the impetus their actions had on social development in the 20th century?

*sigh*


A MASSIVELY LARGE SNIP HAVE BEEN PERFORMED


It makes me question my assumption that people really are rational at base, and that makes me irritable.

Xeno, Xeno, Xeno - humans are rationalizers based on emotional predispositions. :headbang: They are not rational.

Vulcans are rational.

Live long and prosper!

Fascinating