NationStates Jolt Archive

Many liberals claim that the Bush tax cuts are a harbinger of doom for the US economy and that they should never have been enacted.

These same liberals now claim that “most” of the country does not support Bush, and he has no mandate, because, after all, Bush did not receive a true majority; only a majority of the votes from people who actually voted.

Funny thing though, liberals, there is, in fact, a line on the federal tax form that allows you to contribute more that the legal minimum when paying taxes.

So what I want to know is:

a) How many liberals here voluntarily overpay.

b) If you don’t why aren’t you a hypocrite.

c) If, as you indeed claim, “most people” do not support George Bush and his policies, how come there is not a vast amount of people using this voluntary payment option.

God, you're ignorant. You think you've stumbled upon some vast truth, but you're really just full of bullsh*t. The reason taxes exist in the first place is because people do not willingly give money to the government. Taxes must be imposed for the government to make any money. And, I think you should know that the majority of Americans support liberal economics, but voted for Bush on moral issues. At least that's what the exit polls said. And they didn't say that on a small margin, like they did in favour of Kerry. There are pretty large percentage differences. Plus, if all liberals gave a lot of money to the government, that still leaves all the conservatives who didn't, and thus the goal is not reached.

Well you're a hypocrite too. What do you think pays for the war? Or are service men and women's equiptment? TAXES, DUMBASS!

You can't support a costly overseas venture and denounce taxes in the same breathe

Very flamy. :rolleyes:

I might believe the war can be funded through deficit spending for all you know.

Now please be civil.

Oh, I haven't seen this thread a billion fucking times before.

God, you're ignorant. You think you've stumbled upon some vast truth, but you're really just full of bullsh*t. The reason taxes exist in the first place is because people do not willingly give money to the government. Taxes must be imposed for the government to make any money. And, I think you should know that the majority of Americans support liberal economics, but voted for Bush on moral issues. At least that's what the exit polls said. And they didn't say that on a small margin, like they did in favour of Kerry. There are pretty large percentage differences. Plus, if all liberals gave a lot of money to the government, that still leaves all the conservatives who didn't, and thus the goal is not reached.

Another mindless flame which does not answer the question.

Oh, I haven't seen this thread a billion fucking times before.


Eh?

You haven't

Many liberals claim that the Bush tax cuts are a harbinger of doom for the US economy and that they should never have been enacted.
Get real. The conservatives want to dig deeper into your pockets too.
Who else will pay for the HUGE Military-Industrial bill?
If you're that pissed about taxation (and other flaws of BOTH parties), check out my party, Libertarianism.

Answer mine, please!

I did. :rolleyes:

Many liberals claim that the Bush tax cuts are a harbinger of doom for the US economy and that they should never have been enacted.

These same liberals now claim that “most” of the country does not support Bush, and he has no mandate, because, after all, Bush did not receive a true majority; only a majority of the votes from people who actually voted.

Funny thing though, liberals, there is, in fact, a line on the federal tax form that allows you to contribute more that the legal minimum when paying taxes.

So what I want to know is:

a) How many liberals here voluntarily overpay.

b) If you don’t why aren’t you a hypocrite.

c) If, as you indeed claim, “most people” do not support George Bush and his policies, how come there is not a vast amount of people using this voluntary payment option.

The rich are getting the tax cuts. You really think they're going to give up their money?

oh for god's sake only an idiot pays more tax than they have to

if i want to spend more money on public stuff, ill choose a charity so i can avoid spending for things i dont support.

the problem with the tax cuts is that it leaves us with a mindbogglingly large deficit. it makes no sense to go this far out of budget.

MY extra $100 wont solve that, EVERYONES $100 will. (well ok it has to be more than that but you can figure that out)

liberals arent in favor of tax for tax sake, we want to pay for certain programs that we feel will have great social benefit. and, suddenly, to balance the budget. this USED to be a republican basic, now that they have power they dont feel the need to even get close

now THAT Is hypocricy

You didn't answer it.

How can you be "pro-war" but against funding the continuation of the war effort?

Or "pro-life" but against the very same social welfare programs that benifet those children and their families.
He's just being a jerk. Don't waste anymore metaphorical breath on him.

God, you're ignorant. You think you've stumbled upon some vast truth, but you're really just full of bullsh*t. The reason taxes exist in the first place is because people do not willingly give money to the government. Taxes must be imposed for the government to make any money. And, I think you should know that the majority of Americans support liberal economics, but voted for Bush on moral issues. At least that's what the exit polls said. And they didn't say that on a small margin, like they did in favour of Kerry. There are pretty large percentage differences. Plus, if all liberals gave a lot of money to the government, that still leaves all the conservatives who didn't, and thus the goal is not reached.
What is (your) definition of "liberal economics" and how do you know the majority of Americans support it?

Many liberals claim that the Bush tax cuts are a harbinger of doom for the US economy and that they should never have been enacted.

These same liberals now claim that “most” of the country does not support Bush, and he has no mandate, because, after all, Bush did not receive a true majority; only a majority of the votes from people who actually voted.

Funny thing though, liberals, there is, in fact, a line on the federal tax form that allows you to contribute more that the legal minimum when paying taxes.

So what I want to know is:

a) How many liberals here voluntarily overpay.

b) If you don’t why aren’t you a hypocrite.

c) If, as you indeed claim, “most people” do not support George Bush and his policies, how come there is not a vast amount of people using this voluntary payment option.

liberals don't claim that it is a "harbinger of doom" for the us economy,
they think that it is unfair that people with MONEY are getting tax cuts.
it's a social equality/rights issue, rather than an economic one.

it is more efficient to fight for a law that stops these tax cuts, getting everyone to pay. rather than singly paying more tax, when they could donate to a more worthy cause (a) a government that uses the money for social issues rather than war b) non-governmental organizations for social issue etc)

... are you in high school?

Hey ASSHOLE ANSWER THIS!


Way to promote civil discourse.

Deficit spending until the war is over. That could pay for it.

You just don't get it. Nobody wants to pay more than necessary. Some of us are willing for the necessary amount to be more, providing the money is used for the right things! Only an idiot thinks you can get something for nothing.

As for the 'mandate' bullshit the Repubs keep throwing about, Get over it. The margin of victory wasn't that big.

If you want a 'mandate', I can set you up with this guy I know who works at the local billards hall.........

The rich are getting the tax cuts. You really think they're going to give up their money?

Plenty of rich people are liberals. They want people with less money than them to pay higher taxes. They could set an example. George Soros for example.

What is (your) definition of "liberal economics" and how do you know the majority of Americans support it?
I told you, exit polls. Got to the CNN website. I don't know how to find them now, as they were up right after the election, but someone of your obvious great intellect should be able to at least open another window for your web brower, if not actually find it.

The rich are getting the tax cuts. You really think they're going to give up their money?


And why are you ignoring all these flames?

If you're that pissed about taxation (and other flaws of BOTH parties), check out my party, Libertarianism.
YES!! Libertarian is the way to go. It actually tries to follow the constitution, as in you can only be taxed once, not have income tax, property tax, car tax, and thank god they didn't pass the internet tax. Libertarians seek to eliminate income tax, which you liberals claim will cause the nation to implode, but it income tax is onlyh 10% of the governments cash flow, which is much less damaging than anticipated. And many of the lower income people get off without any income tax at all. So to all you liberals, :upyours:

liberals don't claim that it is a "harbinger of doom" for the us economy,
they think that it is unfair that people with MONEY are getting tax cuts.
it's a social equality/rights issue, rather than an economic one.

it is more efficient to fight for a law that stops these tax cuts, getting everyone to pay. rather than singly paying more tax, when they could donate to a more worthy cause (a) a government that uses the money for social issues rather than war b) non-governmental organizations for social issue etc)

... are you in high school?


So Bush's economic policy is sound then?

I told you, exit polls. Got to the CNN website. I don't know how to find them now, as they were up right after the election, but someone of your obvious great intellect should be able to at least open another window for your web brower, if not actually find it.
The exit polls are rather easy to access but I can find no such thing that says the majority of Americans support "liberal economics".

Here's the exit polls : http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

Now how about instead of trying to say I'm a dumbass, you show me? I'm really not finding it. In fact, I know I'll never find it on the exit polls, because exit polls are only of voters, not the majority of Americans. Anyway, thats besides the point, it should be rather easy to point out what you're talking about. The majority of voters said they prefer "liberal" economics in which question, exactly?

And why are you ignoring all these flames?

In my purely non-moderator opinion, it's probably because this thread is flamebait of the highest order.

Anyway, I give $5 extra each week in taxes. Do I win a prize or something?

YES!! Libertarian is the way to go. It actually tries to follow the constitution, as in you can only be taxed once, not have income tax, property tax, car tax, and thank god they didn't pass the internet tax. Libertarians seek to eliminate income tax, which you liberals claim will cause the nation to implode, but it income tax is onlyh 10% of the governments cash flow, which is much less damaging than anticipated. And many of the lower income people get off without any income tax at all. So to all you liberals, :upyours:
Actually individual income taxes make up about 44.5% of the government's revenue. Corporate income taxes make up about 7.4% more.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/Tfdb/TFTemplate.cfm?DocID=204&Topic2id=20&Topic3id=21

Sure, it's sound, even beneficial to the economy, if human life has no value, and poor people suffering due to wanton disregard by an elite class is acceptable.
But it's not.
Economic issues should be taken into consideration with social issues. Things work together in life, they are intertwined.
We can't just do things piece-meal.
If we truly want good growth, we need stability, consideration, and care.
Take some social sciences.

In my purely non-moderator opinion, it's probably because this thread is flamebait of the highest order.

Anyway, I give $5 extra each week in taxes. Do I win a prize or something?


Flamebait? How. It just asks a few questions.

Flamebait? How. It just asks a few questions.

You inferred that all liberals are hypocrites.

Against my better judgement, I'm going to attempt to end this flame-bait crap.

Before you bitch about liberals and taxes, Lacodaemon, learn some facts (http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html)

Your arguement is now fuct.

Against my better judgement, I'm going to attempt to end this flame-bait crap.

Before you bitch about liberals and taxes, Lacodaemon, learn some facts (http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html)

Your arguement is now fuct.


That has nothing to do with marginal tax rates or voluntary contributions.

You inferred that all liberals are hypocrites.

It is my understanding that exactly those types of inferences are allowed.

liberals don't claim that it is a "harbinger of doom" for the us economy,
they think that it is unfair that people with MONEY are getting tax cuts.
it's a social equality/rights issue, rather than an economic one.

it is more efficient to fight for a law that stops these tax cuts, getting everyone to pay. rather than singly paying more tax, when they could donate to a more worthy cause (a) a government that uses the money for social issues rather than war b) non-governmental organizations for social issue etc)

... are you in high school?
Ok, here is the logic behind Tax rebates. The wealthiest pay a hell of a lot more in taxes than everyone else. The sports car they have, costs a couple thousand more because of a luxury car tax (sports cars are not practical for daily travel or business and thats why they have a tax). Those who pay the most will get the most back. Its like an instant 10% what ever you buy at a store. If you spend $100, you get $10 off, 1000 you get 100 etc. Now those who spend a lot of money will also save the most. The margin of saving does not change though. The poorest of our citizens will not get much back because they hardly pay any taxes. Also, most of the 'rich' peoples assets are included in the business they own. Read "The Millionare next door" cause its true. When these people get extra money they are going to tend to put it into their business. That way that money will go to making them more money. By increasing product distribution. To make more money they need to produce more. They can do that by hiring another person or buying a new machine. Either way more money is going out. Now tell me, which is the smarter investment, putting money back into the business that have lost so much and as a result had to lay off workers or to give it to the people who already rely on taxes to live. You can give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day or you can teach him to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime.

Socialism does not work.

Ok, here is the logic behind Tax rebates. The wealthiest pay a hell of a lot more in taxes than everyone else. The sports car they have, costs a couple thousand more because of a luxury car tax (sports cars are not practical for daily travel or business and thats why they have a tax). Those who pay the most will get the most back. Its like an instant 10% what ever you buy at a store. If you spend $100, you get $10 off, 1000 you get 100 etc. Now those who spend a lot of money will also save the most. The margin of saving does not change though. The poorest of our citizens will not get much back because they hardly pay any taxes. Also, most of the 'rich' peoples assets are included in the business they own. Read "The Millionare next door" cause its true. When these people get extra money they are going to tend to put it into their business. That way that money will go to making them more money. By increasing product distribution. To make more money they need to produce more. They can do that by hiring another person or buying a new machine. Either way more money is going out. Now tell me, which is the smarter investment, putting money back into the business that have lost so much and as a result had to lay off workers or to give it to the people who already rely on taxes to live. You can give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day or you can teach him to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime.

Socialism does not work.

So, do you think abolishing taxes entirely would be a good idea?

That has nothing to do with marginal tax rates or voluntary contributions.

Missing the forrest for the trees. Bottom line: if liberals were such tight-fists with their own taxes (not wanting to pay anymore than anyone else, as you are implying through the mentioning of that particular line of the tax code), they would not vote for candidates whose platform conforms to the statistic I presented: that they would end up paying more and receiving less.

Therefore it is not a voluntary contribution in the respect that you are dealing with, but overall it means that they appear prepared to pay more even if they receive less. Now think about that last bit for a moment- sounds alot like a de facto version of voluntary contributions doesn't it....

Socialism does not work.

You might want to tell that to Sweden or some other impoverished socialist third-world country.

Lacadaemon is a walking troll. Every post he makes is flame-bait, and he refuses to accept any facts that don't fit into his view of the world. (sounds familiar....) Just yesterday he claimed to "check up on" Atheist's views on homosexuality. He also did the same for:
Buddism (cited one guy saying it was unnatural, but not condemning it in any way)
Hinduism (which up until he decided to fake their support for his opinion he refered to as "godless" (far from it) and "Hindooism")
Africa (I was not aware CONTINENTS had websites)

Actually... I think Lacadaemon might be the shrub himself....

Socialism does not work.
Socialism works just fine, its communism that doesn't. Here let me ask you a few questions. Did you go to public school? Did you go to a state funded college? Do you use the mail? Do you use anything that is government funded? Do you watch public television (few do, but still valid question)? If you can answer "Yes" to ANY of these questions then you are a walking example of Socialism working.

Lacadaemon is a walking troll. Every post he makes is flame-bait, and he refuses to accept any facts that don't fit into his view of the world. (sounds familiar....) Just yesterday he claimed to "check up on" Atheist's views on homosexuality. He also did the same for:
Buddism (cited one guy saying it was unnatural, but not condemning it in any way)
Hinduism (which up until he decided to fake their support for his opinion he refered to as "godless" (far from it) and "Hindooism")
Africa (I was not aware CONTINENTS had websites)

Actually... I think Lacadaemon might be the shrub himself....

Come now, all republican logic is flame-bait. The lefties don't either accept facts that don't fit their views, do they?

Come now, all republican logic is flame-bait. The lefties don't either accept facts that don't fit their views, do they?
If we are confronted with FACTS, then sure we do. And I am really tired of all the freaking labels on these forums. All liberals are not Micheal Moore, and all conservatives are not Anne Coulter. Get that through your thick head. I except conservative viewpoints, as long as it is backed up by fact and not dogmatic rhetoric.

Lacadaemon is a walking troll. Every post he makes is flame-bait, and he refuses to accept any facts that don't fit into his view of the world. (sounds familiar....) Just yesterday he claimed to "check up on" Atheist's views on homosexuality. He also did the same for:
Buddism (cited one guy saying it was unnatural, but not condemning it in any way)
Hinduism (which up until he decided to fake their support for his opinion he refered to as "godless" (far from it) and "Hindooism")
Africa (I was not aware CONTINENTS had websites)

Actually... I think Lacadaemon might be the shrub himself....


Socialism works just fine, its communism that doesn't. Here let me ask you a few questions. Did you go to public school? Did you go to a state funded college? Do you use the mail? Do you use anything that is government funded? Do you watch public television (few do, but still valid question)? If you can answer "Yes" to ANY of these questions then you are a walking example of Socialism working.


Of course, you omit the fact that the "one guy" I cited was the Dalai lama.

Nor, did I claim to check up on atheist opinions, I simply posited that there are, in fact, atheists that believe homesexuality is wrong.

I also cited that hindoos - which is how I learned to spell it - do, in fact, have religious proscriptions against homosexuality. Which everyone admitted some hindoos do believe.

Also you are not relating the context of the thread which started in not a dissimilar vein to this one. Nevertheless one persons trolling is anothers profound wisdom I suppose.

Of course, you omit the fact that the "one guy" I cited was the Dalai lama.

Nor, did I claim to check up on atheist opinions, I simply posited that there are, in fact, atheists that believe homesexuality is wrong.

I also cited that hindoos - which is how I learned to spell it - do, in fact, have religious proscriptions against homosexuality. Which everyone admitted some hindoos do believe.

Also you are not relating the context of the thread which started in not a dissimilar vein to this one. Nevertheless one persons trolling is anothers profound wisdom I suppose.

It's spelled Hindu, and even if it were spelled the way you learned, it would still be capitalized, Hindoo, not hindoo. That's like calling Christians "x-tians" or something similarly condescending.

Funny thing though, liberals, there is, in fact, a line on the federal tax form that allows you to contribute more that the legal minimum when paying taxes.

So what I want to know is:

a) How many liberals here voluntarily overpay.

b) If you don’t why aren’t you a hypocrite.

c) If, as you indeed claim, “most people” do not support George Bush and his policies, how come there is not a vast amount of people using this voluntary payment option.

You know who's a hypocrite? All those companies that take our money while shipping our jobs overseas and not paying a dime in income taxes because, guess what, they're headquartered in the Cayman Islands.

Cars pollute; they cause illnesses in people and destroy the environment. Nonetheless, I drive one because any other options are too inconvenient, even though I agree that cars cause problems. Likewise, I believe Bush's tax cuts are a step in the absolute wrong direction and help lead this country on the road to ruin. Nonetheless, I accept that I cannot pay the debt off by myself and instead reach a middle ground by deciding that, even if I do not give the government extra money, I will pay every cent that I owe, as well as give to charities that help cover the humongous domestic funding cuts Bush has instituted.

Unfortunately, the world isn't as black-and-white as you conservatives like to think.

If we are confronted with FACTS, then sure we do. And I am really tired of all the freaking labels on these forums. All liberals are not Micheal Moore, and all conservatives are not Anne Coulter. Get that through your thick head. I except conservative viewpoints, as long as it is backed up by fact and not dogmatic rhetoric.

Really? Do we not question some facts more than others, especially if they do not 'fit'? What do propose to replace the labelling? Of course all liberals are not MM, nor all cons AC. Is that somewhat unclear? What makes you think I have a thick head? You are doing some labelling yourself really in assuming that. Lefts are quite guilty of dogmatic rhetoric as well you know. Just need to take a step back and look. Thank you!

Ok, here is the logic behind Tax rebates. The wealthiest pay a hell of a lot more in taxes than everyone else. The sports car they have, costs a couple thousand more because of a luxury car tax (sports cars are not practical for daily travel or business and thats why they have a tax). Those who pay the most will get the most back. Its like an instant 10% what ever you buy at a store. If you spend $100, you get $10 off, 1000 you get 100 etc. Now those who spend a lot of money will also save the most. The margin of saving does not change though. The poorest of our citizens will not get much back because they hardly pay any taxes. Also, most of the 'rich' peoples assets are included in the business they own. Read "The Millionare next door" cause its true. When these people get extra money they are going to tend to put it into their business. That way that money will go to making them more money. By increasing product distribution. To make more money they need to produce more. They can do that by hiring another person or buying a new machine. Either way more money is going out. Now tell me, which is the smarter investment, putting money back into the business that have lost so much and as a result had to lay off workers or to give it to the people who already rely on taxes to live. You can give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day or you can teach him to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime.

Socialism does not work.

The problem is, giving the ultrarich more money does not result in further investment in business, but rather more money being shipped out of the country to the Cayman Islands or Swiss banks. Small businesses receive dozens of special tax benefits as is, completely separate of being able to file small business holdings as an individual account. If the aim is to benefit small businesses, the best way to do so is not to increase tax rebates to the richest people in the country but to specifically target small business holders OR do something to reduce the power of supercorporations.

Poor people spend the extra money they recieve, which stimulates demand, which causes more stuff to be made, which leads to increased hiring. Giving 100 poor people $1,000 appiece drives the economy exponentially more than giving a single rich person $100,000, because said rich person is exponentially more likely to save that money, which removes it from the market. And while that money may be used to upgrade the company or whatnot, corporate profits have increased 40% in the past two decades while average wages have stood still, so it's not looking as if the money is being reinvested into the company as you say.

It's spelled Hindu, and even if it were spelled the way you learned, it would still be capitalized, Hindoo, not hindoo. That's like calling Christians "x-tians" or something similarly condescending.


Like, I've heard of people learning to spell Christian, xtian -even though I've seen it on these boards. Also CRWN, is offensive.

I admit you are right about the capitalization however.

Another mindless flame which does not answer the question.

In a way, it actually does.

Of course, you omit the fact that the "one guy" I cited was the Dalai lama.

Nor, did I claim to check up on atheist opinions, I simply posited that there are, in fact, atheists that believe homesexuality is wrong.

I also cited that hindoos - which is how I learned to spell it - do, in fact, have religious proscriptions against homosexuality. Which everyone admitted some hindoos do believe.

Also you are not relating the context of the thread which started in not a dissimilar vein to this one. Nevertheless one persons trolling is anothers profound wisdom I suppose.
Yes, some athesist believe homosexuality is wrong, but the way in which you stated it yesterday was in such a context as to attest to ALL atheists thinking homosexuality was wrong. And yes, some Hindus (its the excepted spelling) think homosexuality is wrong, but you portrayed it as a tenant of their faith, when it a personal belief. Also, as we told you yesterday, the Dhali Lama does not represent all buddists. Buddism is like Wicca in the fact that each person is allowed, even encouraged to persue their faith in the way they see fit. And the actual quote of the Dhali Lama (which I currently do not have the time to track down in what ended up being a very lengthy thread) ended up essentially saying that homosexuality is unnatural which by no means is saying that it is ammoral. As I stated yesterday. The logic of everything unnatural being sinful is a point of view I will only except from a nudist living in a hollowed out tree, and somehow I doubt we have any of those on Nationstates. Also, the original post of the thread in question was by NO MEANS trolling. It made no overtly general statements. It merely asked why the same Christians who are up in arms about homosexuality because it is "sinful" care so little about adultery. And if you see a troll in that, you got bigger problems than I can help you with.

You know who's a hypocrite? All those companies that take our money while shipping our jobs overseas and not paying a dime in income taxes because, guess what, they're headquartered in the Cayman Islands.

Cars pollute; they cause illnesses in people and destroy the environment. Nonetheless, I drive one because any other options are too inconvenient, even though I agree that cars cause problems. Likewise, I believe Bush's tax cuts are a step in the absolute wrong direction and help lead this country on the road to ruin. Nonetheless, I accept that I cannot pay the debt off by myself and instead reach a middle ground by deciding that, even if I do not give the government extra money, I will pay every cent that I owe, as well as give to charities that help cover the humongous domestic funding cuts Bush has instituted.

Unfortunately, the world isn't as black-and-white as you conservatives like to think.


So you wouldn't overpay to help out though.

That's the difference between liberals and conservatives. We believe that an individual can make a difference.

So you wouldn't overpay to help out though.

That's the difference between liberals and conservatives. We believe that an individual can make a difference.

Do you always generalize so? BTW you haven't answered an earlier question. Do you think taxes are not neccessary?

So you wouldn't overpay to help out though.

That's the difference between liberals and conservatives. We believe that an individual can make a difference.

I think it bears asking: How much extra do you pay in taxes, and can you prove it?

So you wouldn't overpay to help out though.

That's the difference between liberals and conservatives. We believe that an individual can make a difference.
Okay, you are twisting the viewpoint of the left. The viewpoint is that the rich shouldn't get tax cuts, because if a multi-billionaire gets a 1% tax cut, thats millions of dollars that the government doesn't get. Now, for someone who is NOT rich to overpay in order to back up their beliefs would be like asking you to enter a civil union with the guy down the street in order to back up your belief in gay marriage being wrong.

I think it's pretty clear that I do not support income taxes, so what does that have to do with my original question.

My question was to those who think that income taxes should be higher, and why don't they live by their own beliefs.

Okay, you are twisting the viewpoint of the left. The viewpoint is that the rich shouldn't get tax cuts, because if a multi-billionaire gets a 1% tax cut, thats millions of dollars that the government doesn't get. Now, for someone who is NOT rich to overpay in order to back up their beliefs would be like asking you to enter a civil union with the guy down the street in order to back up your belief in gay marriage being wrong.

THANK YOU.

I do not think that the Bush tax cut aimed at me is a bad idea; I think those going to the ultra-rich are. Since I cannot pay off the tax cut I didn't get, and could not even if I felt I had to, how does not doing so make my a hypocrite?

I think it's pretty clear that I do not support income taxes, so what does that have to do with my original question.

My question was to those who think that income taxes should be higher, and why don't they live by their own beliefs.

I don't think the taxes on myself and those making less money than me should be higher! I think the taxes on people making many times as much as I do should be raised!

Okay, you are twisting the viewpoint of the left. The viewpoint is that the rich shouldn't get tax cuts, because if a multi-billionaire gets a 1% tax cut, thats millions of dollars that the government doesn't get. Now, for someone who is NOT rich to overpay in order to back up their beliefs would be like asking you to enter a civil union with the guy down the street in order to back up your belief in gay marriage being wrong.


Eh? In no way. The Bush cuts reduced the marginal rate for everyone who pays income tax. IF you don't agree with it you could figure out what you owed under the old system and make up the difference.

If, as, "some" people claim there is no large base of support for GWB, then all those people could just send more in (the taxpayers that is). This hasn't happened. It would make a huge difference. Apparently.

I think it's pretty clear that I do not support income taxes, so what does that have to do with my original question.

My question was to those who think that income taxes should be higher, and why don't they live by their own beliefs.

I can only assume you were responding to me.

If you're not contributing more than you're asked, then you're in no position to be criticizing others for not doing so.

I think it's pretty clear that I do not support income taxes, so what does that have to do with my original question.

My question was to those who think that income taxes should be higher, and why don't they live by their own beliefs.

If it is too much trouble then do not answer. Do you or do you not think that all taxation should be abolished?

I can only assume you were responding to me.

If you're not contributing more than you're asked, then you're in no position to be criticizing others for not doing so.

I think everyone is forced to pay too much.

I am criticizing others who think that some people are not contributing enough, yet do not utilize the option to pay more themselves.

Di you see the difference?

I think it's pretty clear that I do not support income taxes, so what does that have to do with my original question.

My question was to those who think that income taxes should be higher, and why don't they live by their own beliefs.Me kicking in an extra 1/2 % isn't gonna do squat for the country, it just takes away from my 5 kids. An extra 1/2 % REQUIRED OF EVERYONE is something else entirely. That will pay for some real social programs, help reduce the deficit, etc. You just don't get that there is a big difference between a voluntary contribution and a tax. You can't count on contributions to plan a fiscal budget.

I don't think the taxes on myself and those making less money than me should be higher! I think the taxes on people making many times as much as I do should be raised!

Why? Or do you believe that those people are there for your benefit?

Eh? In no way. The Bush cuts reduced the marginal rate for everyone who pays income tax. IF you don't agree with it you could figure out what you owed under the old system and make up the difference.

If, as, "some" people claim there is no large base of support for GWB, then all those people could just send more in (the taxpayers that is). This hasn't happened. It would make a huge difference. Apparently.
Once again, you are ignoring arguments that do not fit into your cookie cutter idea of the world. Okay, everyone gets a 1% tax cut, now, say I make 20 thousand a year. I pay 200 dollars less in taxes. Now lets say you make 40 million a year. You pay 400,000 a year less, quite a larger number. We are not objecting to the tax cuts that go to us, we are objecting to the tax cuts that go to the well to do.

And unfortunately there is a large base of support of GW, why I cannot fathom, but its a fact none the less. What I personally object to is Bush's argument that a 3% lead in the popular vote constitutes a "mandate" if he won by 10 percent, then I could see where he's coming from, but 3 percent is next to nothing. If 3% of the popular vote constitues a mandate, then I say Bush steps down and put Al Gore in his place. Also, his argument that he got more popular votes than any elected president in history is rendered null by the fact that Kerry also can make that same claim and be totally truthful.

If it is too much trouble then do not answer. Do you or do you not think that all taxation should be abolished?

Yes. But that is not realistic.

Taxing income. Bah it's like you want to punish it. I think wa should have either a sales tax or a wealth tax. Preferably the first, but either would be fairer. Failing that a flat tax assesed from every dollar made over $50,000 per person.

Why? Or do you believe that those people are there for your benefit?

Why should rich people be taxed at a higher rate than people less affluent than them? Let's see, perhaps because they can afford to give more in taxes while still maintaining a higher lifestyle than others?

Higher tax rates don't serve me; they serve the country. The more money the government has to do things with, the more beneficial programs people receive. Obviously I do not expect to personally be getting too many of those benefits, even if stuff like, say, having a balanced budget and therefore strong dollar and being able to have a military that keeps us from being invaded certainly would have a salutary effect on my life..

Once again, you are ignoring arguments that do not fit into your cookie cutter idea of the world. Okay, everyone gets a 1% tax cut, now, say I make 20 thousand a year. I pay 200 dollars less in taxes. Now lets say you make 40 million a year. You pay 400,000 a year less, quite a larger number. We are not objecting to the tax cuts that go to us, we are objecting to the tax cuts that go to the well to do.

And unfortunately there is a large base of support of GW, why I cannot fathom, but its a fact none the less. What I personally object to is Bush's argument that a 3% lead in the popular vote constitutes a "mandate" if he won by 10 percent, then I could see where he's coming from, but 3 percent is next to nothing. If 3% of the popular vote constitues a mandate, then I say Bush steps down and put Al Gore in his place. Also, his argument that he got more popular votes than any elected president in history is rendered null by the fact that Kerry also can make that same claim and be totally truthful.


Well that is not how the tax code works.

In any event, very few people make a "salary" over $1,000,000 a year because beyond that it is not deductible from company profits. So only partners in large partnerships are subject to that type of income tax burden.

Most people who have multi-million dollar compensation recieive it in the form of options, which are not subject to ordinary income tax.

You also seem to miss the concept of tax brackets.

Why should rich people be taxed at a higher rate than people less affluent than them? Let's see, perhaps because they can afford to give more in taxes while still maintaining a higher lifestyle than others?

Higher tax rates don't serve me; they serve the country. The more money the government has to do things with, the more beneficial programs people receive. Obviously I do not expect to personally be getting too many of those benefits, even if stuff like, say, having a balanced budget and therefore strong dollar and being able to have a military that keeps us from being invaded certainly would have a salutary effect on my life..

What do you need a strong dollar for?

The rest you already have.

What do you need a strong dollar for?

The rest you already have.

That is completely irrelevant to the argument that you started in the first place, giving me the impression that all you really want to do is piss people off and troll because, as a thirteen-year-old child, you find that entertaining.

Someone who makes 100,000 dollars should pay more in income tax than someone who makes 50,000 dollars. Assuming that their taxes are cut, it is not the person making 50,000 dollar's responsiblity to cover any tax gaps created by poor policy choice by the government.

That is completely irrelevant to the argument that you started in the first place, giving me the impression that all you really want to do is piss people off and troll because, as a thirteen-year-old child, you find that entertaining.

Someone who makes 100,000 dollars should pay more in income tax than someone who makes 50,000 dollars. Assuming that their taxes are cut, it is not the person making 50,000 dollar's responsiblity to cover any tax gaps created by poor policy choice by the government.


They do pay more. Already :rolleyes:

And as I have already said, everyones rate was reduced. If you believe it was bad, then pay the old rate. That's all.

Socialism works just fine, its communism that doesn't. Here let me ask you a few questions. Did you go to public school? Did you go to a state funded college? Do you use the mail? Do you use anything that is government funded? Do you watch public television (few do, but still valid question)? If you can answer "Yes" to ANY of these questions then you are a walking example of Socialism working.

Ummmm, the answers to these questions should prove that socialism (Big Governement) doesn't work. Let's review:

1.Did you go to public school?
Before college, yes. It was a perfect example of government wasting it's funding. Awful food, even worse education. I thank my lucky stars that I'm a voracious reader.
Have you ever met anyone who just went to high school but doesn't like to read? That's what I mean.

2.Did you go to a state funded college?
Sure, and after figuring out how much lower their standards were, I transferred to a private one that did the job I was paying them to do.

3.Do you use the mail?
Not if I can help it. I prefer FedEx or UPS. They're much better at getting the job done for the money. Don't you think? And using the USPS still costs you, even though you pay taxes. Send something without postage and you'll see what I mean.

Do you use anything that is government funded?
Like what? Our shitty roads here in Hudson, Florida? All the time and everybody's complaining. Good job again Mr. Government!

Do you watch public television (few do, but still valid question)?
Not since the Nova episode on String Theory. I'd much rather watch privately funded channels like The History Channel, Discovery and TLC. You can tune in to Lawrence Welk on PBS if you wish though. They'll still be relying on private donations though. Time for another Telethon week... Yay!

Any other questions about Big Brother vs. Capitalism?

What do you need a strong dollar for?

The rest you already have.
A strong dollar helps the economy, which is what I thought was the entire idea behind being Republican in the first place. Also, about your earlier comment about me not understanding tax code. I admit, I do not have a perfect knowledge of tax-code. And the concept of tax brackets I am familar with, but as you said yourself, Bush gave tax cuts that when across tax brackets, so my counter-argument is still valid.

I'm against income taxes and big government. I am an actual conservative with real ideas on how to reduce the deficit and cut taxes. Try these on:

1. Privatize the post office
2. Do away with welfare
3. Do away with medicare
4. Do away with medicaid
5. Privatize the prison system
6. Reduce military spending
7. Cut number of government employees
8. Privatize land owned by Bureau of Land Management
9. End US funding of the UN
10. Abolish the EPA, ATF, OSHA, and any other unessescary government agencies.

I'm against income taxes and big government. I am an actual conservative with real ideas on how to reduce the deficit and cut taxes. Try these on:

1. Privatize the post office
2. Do away with welfare
3. Do away with medicare
4. Do away with medicaid
5. Privatize the prison system
6. Reduce military spending
7. Cut number of government employees
8. Privatize land owned by Bureau of Land Management
9. End US funding of the UN
10. Abolish the EPA, ATF, OSHA, and any other unessescary government agencies.
I've never agreed more with anyone on the boards.

A strong dollar helps the economy, which is what I thought was the entire idea behind being Republican in the first place. Also, about your earlier comment about me not understanding tax code. I admit, I do not have a perfect knowledge of tax-code. And the concept of tax brackets I am familar with, but as you said yourself, Bush gave tax cuts that when across tax brackets, so my counter-argument is still valid.


Does it? How does a strong dollar help the economy. Sure it makes your BMW cheaper, but I thought the left was against outsourcing.

In fact there is considerable evidence that the dollar is still too high. (And that our economy is the only working one in the whole world, but that is a different issue).

In any event, if you look at the Bush cuts, as a proportion of income, the lower tax brackets gained the most.

Notwithstanding, if everyone who thought that the cuts were bad, then it would make a huge difference to treasury revenue. Which was my point. But they don't.

I'm against income taxes and big government. I am an actual conservative with real ideas on how to reduce the deficit and cut taxes. Try these on:

1. Privatize the post office
2. Do away with welfare
3. Do away with medicare
4. Do away with medicaid
5. Privatize the prison system
6. Reduce military spending
7. Cut number of government employees
8. Privatize land owned by Bureau of Land Management
9. End US funding of the UN
10. Abolish the EPA, ATF, OSHA, and any other unessescary government agencies.

Yes! What will you do when you find yourself with a horrible disease of the mind AND your insurance company bankrupt? Also, what do you want the government for anyway?

Ummmm, the answers to these questions should prove that socialism (Big Governement) doesn't work. Let's review:

1.Did you go to public school?
Before college, yes. It was a perfect example of government wasting it's funding. Awful food, even worse education. I thank my lucky stars that I'm a voracious reader.
Have you ever met anyone who just went to high school but doesn't like to read? That's what I mean.

2.Did you go to a state funded college?
Sure, and after figuring out how much lower their standards were, I transferred to a private one that did the job I was paying them to do.

3.Do you use the mail?
Not if I can help it. I prefer FedEx or UPS. They're much better at getting the job done for the money. Don't you think? And using the USPS still costs you, even though you pay taxes. Send something without postage and you'll see what I mean.

Do you use anything that is government funded?
Like what? Our shitty roads here in Hudson, Florida? All the time and everybody's complaining. Good job again Mr. Government!

Do you watch public television (few do, but still valid question)?
Not since the Nova episode on String Theory. I'd much rather watch privately funded channels like The History Channel, Discovery and TLC. You can tune in to Lawrence Welk on PBS if you wish though. They'll still be relying on private donations though. Time for another Telethon week... Yay!

Any other questions about Big Brother vs. Capitalism?
Lets consider a few counter arguments for a moment shall we?
1)Yes, I have met those people, now, imagine how bad off they would be were there not even public education.
2)Chances are, your college still recieved government funds (most, except seminary schools and the like, do)
3)I may be mistaken by FedEx is an off-shoot of the USPS
4)Without Socialism, chances are you would A) have to pay tolls on those roads, which would most likely be no better or B) have nothing other than a path resulting from where car after car has driven.
5)Yeah, last argument was weak, but (depending on your age) I bet you watched some of the few popular shows that have been on PBS over the years, such as Reading Rainbow (which you can most likely thank in part for you love of reading (I do)) or Sesame Street (mispelled, I know) And yes, they do rely heavily on donated funds, but in a way, thats socialism as well. Besides, a large chunk of the funding (which has recently be reduced) comes from the government.

Yes! What will you do when you find yourself with a horrible disease of the mind AND your insurance company bankrupt? Also, what do you want the government for anyway?

A "horrible disease of the mind"? If I was mentally ill, a state-run facility would be the last place you'd want to be, FYI.
Also, I want the government to do it's constitutional job, namely keeping a good military and ensuring that our civil liberties aren't infringed upon.
Answer your question?

A "horrible disease of the mind"? If I was mentally ill, a state-run facility would be the last place you'd want to be, FYI.
Also, I want the government to do it's constitutional job, namely keeping a good military and ensuring that our civil liberties aren't infringed upon.
Answer your question?
Do you know anything about state-run facilities? Where else would you be if you had no money?

The only function that the government has is to protect it's citizens. All of those items listed are excellent.

As to your question: Tough Luck, I shouldn't have to foot the bill for your healthcare. Find a religious charity hospital or whatever.

I think the government should only be funded by sales taxes. Get rid of everything except the military and the mint. Let the states deal with the other issues.

10. Abolish the EPA, ATF, OSHA, and any other unessescary government agencies.

Without the government, companies would rape the enivronment the likes of which you cannot imagine. You would also get to make the bare minimum income to avoid outright riots, with virtually no benefits, and certainly the company wouldn't waste any money fixing dangerous equipment or conditions. Yeehaw, back to 1820 we go.

Those "unnecessary" government agencies protect you from what capitalism has done in China and Thailand. The government makes it so that your kids don't have to sew soccer balls for 10 hours every day. The goverment protects the land and resources that you by rights own. Unbridled capitalism is a terror.

So no liberal, apart from the Saj guy, ever gives more in taxes than they have to.

Good job, authoritiarians. As far as I can see, the liberal philosophy is: make everyone else pay.

So no liberal, apart from the Saj guy, ever gives more in taxes than they have to.

Good job, authoritiarians. As far as I can see, the liberal philosophy is: make everyone else pay.

I pay all I owe. Thousands of people who make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year do not; they hire tax lawyers and make up crap and milk every loophole on Earth to save every penny they can. Hundreds of companies set up offshore headquarters specifically to avoid income taxes. Before bitching about how awful we are for not "following our principles" why not address these far more egregious problems?

Liberal philosophy? Play fair, and let the government help those who cannot, instead of trying to cheat the system to get ahead a half-inch.

I pay all I owe. Thousands of people who make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year do not; they hire tax lawyers and make up crap and milk every loophole on Earth to save every penny they can. Hundreds of companies set up offshore headquarters specifically to avoid income taxes. Before bitching about how awful we are for not "following our principles" why not address these far more egregious problems?

Liberal philosophy? Play fair, and let the government help those who cannot, instead of trying to cheat the system to get ahead a half-inch.

But you did oppose the decrease in the marginal rates?

And I am very against any kind of tax cheat. I never said otherwise. People should obey the law.

Notwithstanding, if you believe that your reduction was wrong, there is nothing stopping you from paying at the earlier rate. If you don't do that, but still want a repeal, it is somewhat hypocritical.

So no liberal, apart from the Saj guy, ever gives more in taxes than they have to.

Good job, authoritiarians. As far as I can see, the liberal philosophy is: make everyone else pay.All you've done with this thread is prove yourself an idiot.

You've ignored every post that strayed from your narrow 'Do you give more than required?' irrelevent line of thought.

You based your whole reasoning on a fallacy, that liberals want to pay more in taxes. They don't, lot's of posters have pointed that but you can't seem to understand. The truth is they are willing to pay more for the right reasons. And if everyone also shares the burden. Why should we carry your deadbeat ass, you'll more than likely reap the benifits.

We're liberal, not idiots. What you propose is idiotic.

A "horrible disease of the mind"? If I was mentally ill, a state-run facility would be the last place you'd want to be, FYI.
Also, I want the government to do it's constitutional job, namely keeping a good military and ensuring that our civil liberties aren't infringed upon.
Answer your question?
Actually, according to a nifty little document called The Constitution (all you lefties oughta read it someday, and try to find mentions of some of your pet government programs...make sure you have a very long time, you'll be searching forever,) the Federal Government's only functions are to provide for common defense, and regulate commerce. That's it. Nothing else. No provision for "education." No provision for environmental protection.

Read it. Learn.

All you've done with this thread is prove yourself an idiot.

You've ignored every post that strayed from your narrow 'Do you give more than required?' irrelevent line of thought.

You based your whole reasoning on a fallacy, that liberals want to pay more in taxes. They don't, lot's of posters have pointed that but you can't seem to understand. The truth is they are willing to pay more for the right reasons. And if everyone also shares the burden. Why should we carry your deadbeat ass, you'll more than likely reap the benifits.

We're liberal, not idiots. What you propose is idiotic.

Eh, if you are willing to do more you would do it.

If you want to force me to do more, you are a facist.

Well done for finally coming out.

Eh, if you are willing to do more you would do it.

If you want to force me to do more, you are a facist.

Well done for finally coming out.If I was a facist, I'd force you to do more but do less myself. Er, wait, that'd make me a republican. I always get those two confused.

I have an easy solution for this situation. It has already been tested at the State level, and it works wonders flushing out the hypocrites who complain about the unfairness of tax cuts.

Yes, it's called the "Tax Me More" fund.

As you may recall, a certain French-looking Senator (who apparently fought in Vietnam, though he never got around to telling anyone about it,) was caught by the hypocrisy during the Presidential campaign. It seems his state (Tax-achusetts) provides taxpayers the option to pay taxes at the older, higher rates when they file their taxes. Guess who NEVER takes such an option, but then consistently votes for higher taxes?

The IRS Form 1040 (and all its variants) ought to be modified, to give George Soros and his rich lib cronies the option to pay Federal taxes at the pre-Bush (i.e., Clintonian) rates. Then the IRS needs to make public the names of those who vote their conscience when they file their taxes.

Something tells me George Soros, Michael Moore and John Kerry (among many others) would NOT be on that list.

If I was a facist, I'd force you to do more but do less myself. Er, wait, that'd make me a republican. I always get those two confused.

So now you are a republican?

Or do you like the Bush tax cuts.

So now you are a republican?

Or do you like the Bush tax cuts.You're trying too hard kid.

That one was lame. You think a master troll like me is gonna bite on that weak comeback?

Many liberals claim that the Bush tax cuts are a harbinger of doom for the US economy and that they should never have been enacted.

These same liberals now claim that “most” of the country does not support Bush, and he has no mandate, because, after all, Bush did not receive a true majority; only a majority of the votes from people who actually voted.

Funny thing though, liberals, there is, in fact, a line on the federal tax form that allows you to contribute more that the legal minimum when paying taxes.

So what I want to know is:

a) How many liberals here voluntarily overpay.

b) If you don’t why aren’t you a hypocrite.

c) If, as you indeed claim, “most people” do not support George Bush and his policies, how come there is not a vast amount of people using this voluntary payment option.

taxes...funny thing when you think about it. if a government if run well, tthe amount in taxes you pay, and how much money you spend always brakes even. the more you pay to the government the more the government gives to you. most people dont pay more because:
1)they dont have any extra money to give
2)becuase they dont see the point of paying more taxes, and then getting a bigger refund back.

i pay more taxes then i should because i like to have a nice fat refund at the end of the year, but thats just me, the normal uses of paying extra taxes is if you have more then one source of income, the correct amount of taxes removed from there pay. therefore they dont owe the government money.

or i could be wrong i'm thinking from a canadian standpoint

if the government

You're trying too hard kid.

That one was lame. You think a master troll like me is gonna bite on that weak comeback?

You replied.

I can only put your response down to the fact that you are wrong and have nothing left to say.

You replied.

I can only put your response down to the fact that you are wrong and have nothing left to say. :p That's it? The forum equivelent of 'I know you are but what am I?' That's the best you can come up with?

You're funny kid, I like you despite the juvenile comebacks.

:p That's it? The forum equivelent of 'I know you are but what am I?' That's the best you can come up with?

You're funny kid, I like you despite the juvenile comebacks.

Oh I get it.

Anyone who says something you don't believe in, but can't find a good argument against, must be a troll - and a poor one at that.

Well, trolling motors - if that really is your name - I suggest you grow up and stop belittling people for holding different viewpoints.

2)becuase they dont see the point of paying more taxes, and then getting a bigger refund back.Perhaps they realize that overpaying in the hopes of getting a "fat refund check" simply means you're giving the government an interest-free loan, so that then Big Daddy Government can give you back what is legally yours anyway....

i pay more taxes then i should because i like to have a nice fat refund at the end of the year, but thats just me
That is just so lame. If someone were to tell me that the Government actually does use the money you overpay for something, then maybe I might see the point of overpaying. But what's the point if you'll get it all back, granted, in April of the following year? I will bet you that during the year you could have found much better uses for that money you lent the government, interest-free, than what the government could have used it.

Oh I get it.

Anyone who says something you don't believe in, but can't find a good argument against, must be a troll - and a poor one at that.

Well, trolling motors - if that really is your name - I suggest you grow up and stop belittling people for holding different viewpoints.Hooked 'em and reeling 'em in. :D

Kid, I owned you in logical arguements but they were wasted on a thread based on a fallacy.

So instead I twisted you and pissed you off. Kind of like you were doing to others.

liberals don't overpay because we're the broke ones getting screwed. it's the rich conservatives that should be paying more ;P

ok, so complete overgeneralization. But really, the rich should pay more, the poor should pay less. This current tax plan is not working. It doesn't take a genius to figure that one out. We're in the most debt we've ever been. We've lost record numbers of jobs over the last few years.

Drive to any big city. Each one has a street where one side holds multimillion dollar homes and the other side holds houses with barely a roof.

Somehow this makes sense to some people...

I don't believe all conservatives feel this is right. I just don't agree with the idea this administration has about how to get our country out of this mess. Cutting taxes for the rich does nothing. The trickle-down effect is a bunch of shit. It has never worked. It never will work. Why not just skip a step and give the poor money, and take the skrill from the rich? Can someone answer this for me? Cuz this administration sure as hell hasn't and never will...

The Equals

Do you know anything about state-run facilities? Where else would you be if you had no money?

Not really, as I'm not insane.
My point may have been missed. Yes, I want to break the chains of poverty and help the disabled. First remove laws that prevent work. Second, privatize welfare.

Permits, licensing, zoning, labor laws. They all stop people who want to work, especially minorities. Repeal those laws. Private charity is more compassionate and delivers the goods better than the government welfare plantation.

We can't make a perfect world. We can do more for the poor by replacing inefficient government programs with effective voluntary assistance.

Bigger government just means bigger bills and bigger problems.

I have an easy solution for this situation. It has already been tested at the State level, and it works wonders flushing out the hypocrites who complain about the unfairness of tax cuts.

Yes, it's called the "Tax Me More" fund.

As you may recall, a certain French-looking Senator (who apparently fought in Vietnam, though he never got around to telling anyone about it,) was caught by the hypocrisy during the Presidential campaign. It seems his state (Tax-achusetts) provides taxpayers the option to pay taxes at the older, higher rates when they file their taxes. Guess who NEVER takes such an option, but then consistently votes for higher taxes?

The IRS Form 1040 (and all its variants) ought to be modified, to give George Soros and his rich lib cronies the option to pay Federal taxes at the pre-Bush (i.e., Clintonian) rates. Then the IRS needs to make public the names of those who vote their conscience when they file their taxes.

Something tells me George Soros, Michael Moore and John Kerry (among many others) would NOT be on that list.Ignoring the racist comment about John Kerry's appearance (and its hypocrisy since Bush is also white), your proposed solution does not solve the problem of a high deficit. A few tens of thousands of extra dollars from John Kerry don't cancel out $500 billion in deficit spending.

Hooked 'em and reeling 'em in. :D

Kid, I owned you in logical arguements but they were wasted on a thread based on a fallacy.

So instead I twisted you and pissed you off. Kind of like you were doing to others.

I have yet to see a valid argument from you.

But you are funny ;)

Ignoring the racist comment about John Kerry's appearance (and its hypocrisy since Bush is also white), your proposed solution does not solve the problem of a high deficit.
"French-looking" wouldn't be racist (my race is caucasian, not american).
Although he may be being a nationalist.

C'mon liberals, explain this dichotomy.

"French-looking" wouldn't be racist (my race is caucasian, not american).
Although he may be being a nationalist."French-looking" is a derogatory term used to refer to white Americans. Or caucasian Americans if that's the word you prefer

C'mon liberals, explain this dichotomy.One person paying an extra $10,000 won't get rid of the deficit. It might even do more harm than good by encouraging Bush and the Republicans in Congress to increase spending by more than the amount voluntarily paid

C'mon liberals, explain this dichotomy.
If you spent half the time replying to intelligent posts instead of posting short, pissy quips, then maybe you wouldn't have so many questions.
Read why I think less taxes (even better, almost none) are the way to go above.
Do you read anything that isn't flameworthy?
You're like 15, am I right?
(No insult intended towards others of that age here).

If you spent half the time replying to intelligent posts instead of posting short, pissy quips, then maybe you wouldn't have so many questions.
Read why I think less taxes (even better, almost none) are the way to go above.
Do you read anything that isn't flameworthy?
You're like 15, am I right?
(No insult intended towards others of that age here).

No I'm 31 :rolleyes:

And i did just say that I am against taxes. What I want to know is why those who were against the tax cuts don't just keep on paying the old rate. (As they can, if they want).

What I want to know is why those who were against the tax cuts don't just keep on paying the old rate. (As they can, if they want).for the severalth time, it won't get rid of the deficit. Now you can stop asking. If an anti-Kerry person asks, you can give them the answer

No I'm 31 :rolleyes:

And i did just say that I am against taxes. What I want to know is why those who were against the tax cuts don't just keep on paying the old rate. (As they can, if they want).

Thanks for posting enough info for your post to be intelligible. (Typing ain't that hard bro).
That's why privatization would work. I'm sure all of these nice Libs would immediately start vollunteering their way to a better tomorrow.
And hopefully, some conservatives would too.

I have yet to see a valid argument from you.

But you are funny ;)Like I would look upon the guy who's whole thread is based upon a false assumption (I'll stop using 'fallacy', it's too close to 'Phalicy and it may be confusing you) to be a judge of a valid arguement.

Thanks for the 'funny' assessment, unfortunately your judgement has already been proven to be less than sterling. Oh well.

"French-looking" is a derogatory term used to refer to white Americans. Or caucasian Americans if that's the word you prefer
No it's not at all. Why would that be offensive? Of course, there's subtext there but it's political, not racist in the least. Not many whites are "French-looking", just the ones who are French. In fact, I'm not sure what a typical Frenchman looks like as they're pretty diverse.

If I said an Italian was "Latino-looking", that would be racist b/c Latino is a race.
This isn't a very important point, but I had to reply to you.

Like I would look upon the guy who's whole thread is based upon a false assumption (I'll stop using 'fallacy', it's too close to 'Phalicy and it may be confusing you) to be a judge of a valid arguement.

Thanks for the 'funny' assessment, unfortunately your judgement has already been proven to be less than sterling. Oh well.

I've read the thread and he is right. His judgement [sic] is sound.

C'mon liberals, explain this dichotomy.
We have, many times. You just refuse to except any viewpoint other than your own, a fact which most people on this forum have realized by this point. So I suggest you quit while your behind and stop posting all together.

Many liberals claim that the Bush tax cuts are a harbinger of doom for the US economy and that they should never have been enacted.

These same liberals now claim that “most” of the country does not support Bush, and he has no mandate, because, after all, Bush did not receive a true majority; only a majority of the votes from people who actually voted.

Funny thing though, liberals, there is, in fact, a line on the federal tax form that allows you to contribute more that the legal minimum when paying taxes.

So what I want to know is:

a) How many liberals here voluntarily overpay.

b) If you don’t why aren’t you a hypocrite.

c) If, as you indeed claim, “most people” do not support George Bush and his policies, how come there is not a vast amount of people using this voluntary payment option.


Talking about hypocrisy. The Cons have led America into fiscal crisis, so let the Cons pay for the mess. Poll tax the Reps into extinction.

During these years, "conservatives" disappeared from the American political scene, replaced by big government imperialists, who are often called neo-conservatives, although neo-cons is more accurate since they are really con men posing as conservatives. They are easy to spot since most wear nazi-style flag pins. According to the CATO Institute, federal government spending increased 0.9% annually after inflation during the eight years of the Clinton administration. Since "conservative" Republicans took over the Senate and White House two years ago, federal spending has shot up 4.3% annually after inflation, all funded by borrowing money and looting the Social Security "trust" fund.

Corporate America keeps such facts off their television news. Instead, they hire neo-con men like Larry Kudlow of CNBC to shout about the need for a big tax cut in one sentence and another huge increase in military spending the next. Kudlow should have been fired last year when it was revealed that he was frequently paid thousands of dollars by Enron for "speaking fees" while touting the value of Enron stock on his "news" show. Some neo-cons claim that budget deficits don't matter, or they are good for America. If that's the case, why not just eliminate all income taxes? And if trade deficits don't matter, the US Government should buy every American a foreign car.

Few Americans realize neo-cons have increased the size of the federal government faster in two years than during the eight years of the "liberal" Clinton administration. Military spending is now higher than Cold War levels, even after adjusting for inflation, and will continue to grow rapidly. Millions of Americans accept the neo-con ploy that it requires more money to defend against a few hundred Arab fugitives than the entire Soviet Union during the 1980s, and that another terror attack is far more threatening than total nuclear war was with the Soviets. This neo-con strategy is based on H. L. Mencken's revelation many years ago when he wrote: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

Meanwhile, the nation continues its worst economic decline since the Great Depression. Government workers and military personnel haven't noticed this impact as they continue to receive pay raises ahead of inflation, thanks to big spending neo-cons. However, since they depend on the soundness of the US government for their pensions, they should take an interest in the looming bankruptcy of the USA. This may seem unthinkable, but not to the millions of Russian veterans whose pensions disappeared when the Soviet Union went bankrupt. At the minimum, inflation will soar due to rampant spending, then Congress will take action by limiting cost of living increases for military personnel and retirees below the rate of inflation, which is what happened in the 1970s. Nothing is "guaranteed by law", because Congress changes laws every week.

Most Americans are confused about what's happening because they are told America's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) continues to rise. They are unaware that GDP is just a measurement of economic activity, not prosperity or advancement. The World Trade Center attacks were great for GDP since they caused billions of dollars in insurance and rescue "activity". Hurricanes, plagues, and smoking are great for GDP, as well as lawsuits, automobile accidents, and arson. However, we are told there is no recession, and certainly no economic depression, since GDP still grows slightly each quarter. Yet GDP has been buoyed by population growth and such things like airport security spending and rising credit card debt. A better measurement of American prosperity are tax revenues, which have fallen sharply as Americans become poorer. Last week, the US Labor Department announced that the median inflation-adjusted weekly pay for the average worker declined 1.5% this past year, but that didn't make news. The US dollar has lost 20% of its exchange value this past year, yet that's not newsworthy either.

It may seem odd for this magazine ( which is devoted to military matters ) to address economics, but the reality is that the biggest threat to the national security of the United States is hyperinflation and eventual bankruptcy. The Ross Perot movement which deterred massive government growth has faded, and the increasing corrupt US Congress is looting the nation. This year, the nation will borrow the same amount of money as it spends on the entire Department of Defense. We will also export enough dollars through trade deficits to fund the entire Department of Defense. In short, the current dying economy is already propped up by massive borrowing of nearly one trillion dollars a year, through treasury bonds and IOUs in the form of unspent dollar credits. America's leading export has become dollars, and we are lucky the computer age allows us to export computer bytes because printing and shipping tons of hundred dollars bills overseas would be a major burden. The USA is benefiting from a massive game where we export dollars and then borrow them from foreigners. The question is how long those foreign suckers will continue accept dollars?

This is why the neo-con hobby of insulting America's creditors is dangerous. Foreigners have worried about the creditworthiness of the USA for years, and the arrogant attitude of the Bush administration has made matters worse. The USA has always been considered a safe haven for foreign investors, until the Bush administration suspended the US Constitution and began seizing bank accounts of anyone "suspected" of helping terrorists. This involves no judicial process, money is just taken for use by the Justice Department. As a result, foreigners learned that property rights in the USA are no better than in other dictatorships, so hundreds of billions of dollars of foreign capital in US banks and stock brokerages has fled to Europe. In addition, America's tourism and airline industry is near collapse as insulted foreigners no longer spend their dollars in the USA, while US business suffers from boycotts overseas.

Rather than addressing serious economic problems and cutting spending, the neo-cons are pushing for tax cuts while finding new enemies to justify another expensive foreign expedition. The US government cannot afford an empire; it cannot even afford to run this nation of 50 states. Flooding the world with dollars is forcing other nations to evaluate the real value of dollars, and US treasury bonds. After the Soviet Union was destroyed by bankruptcy, the last premier of that other superpower, Michael Gorbachev, frequently said that an overemphasis on military power ultimately undermined other components of national security. The USA is now on the path to bankruptcy, led by the neo-cons and cheered by most Democrats as they scheme to introduce the next hobgoblin to appear on corporate television to distract the American public

During these years, "conservatives" disappeared from the American political scene, replaced by big government imperialists, who are often called neo-conservatives, although neo-cons is more accurate since they are really con men posing as conservatives. They are easy to spot since most wear nazi-style flag pins. According to the CATO Institute, federal government spending increased 0.9% annually after inflation during the eight years of the Clinton administration. Since "conservative" Republicans took over the Senate and White House two years ago, federal spending has shot up 4.3% annually after inflation, all funded by borrowing money and looting the Social Security "trust" fund.

Corporate America keeps such facts off their television news. Instead, they hire neo-con men like Larry Kudlow of CNBC to shout about the need for a big tax cut in one sentence and another huge increase in military spending the next. Kudlow should have been fired last year when it was revealed that he was frequently paid thousands of dollars by Enron for "speaking fees" while touting the value of Enron stock on his "news" show. Some neo-cons claim that budget deficits don't matter, or they are good for America. If that's the case, why not just eliminate all income taxes? And if trade deficits don't matter, the US Government should buy every American a foreign car.

Few Americans realize neo-cons have increased the size of the federal government faster in two years than during the eight years of the "liberal" Clinton administration. Military spending is now higher than Cold War levels, even after adjusting for inflation, and will continue to grow rapidly. Millions of Americans accept the neo-con ploy that it requires more money to defend against a few hundred Arab fugitives than the entire Soviet Union during the 1980s, and that another terror attack is far more threatening than total nuclear war was with the Soviets. This neo-con strategy is based on H. L. Mencken's revelation many years ago when he wrote: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

Meanwhile, the nation continues its worst economic decline since the Great Depression. Government workers and military personnel haven't noticed this impact as they continue to receive pay raises ahead of inflation, thanks to big spending neo-cons. However, since they depend on the soundness of the US government for their pensions, they should take an interest in the looming bankruptcy of the USA. This may seem unthinkable, but not to the millions of Russian veterans whose pensions disappeared when the Soviet Union went bankrupt. At the minimum, inflation will soar due to rampant spending, then Congress will take action by limiting cost of living increases for military personnel and retirees below the rate of inflation, which is what happened in the 1970s. Nothing is "guaranteed by law", because Congress changes laws every week.

Most Americans are confused about what's happening because they are told America's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) continues to rise. They are unaware that GDP is just a measurement of economic activity, not prosperity or advancement. The World Trade Center attacks were great for GDP since they caused billions of dollars in insurance and rescue "activity". Hurricanes, plagues, and smoking are great for GDP, as well as lawsuits, automobile accidents, and arson. However, we are told there is no recession, and certainly no economic depression, since GDP still grows slightly each quarter. Yet GDP has been buoyed by population growth and such things like airport security spending and rising credit card debt. A better measurement of American prosperity are tax revenues, which have fallen sharply as Americans become poorer. Last week, the US Labor Department announced that the median inflation-adjusted weekly pay for the average worker declined 1.5% this past year, but that didn't make news. The US dollar has lost 20% of its exchange value this past year, yet that's not newsworthy either.

It may seem odd for this magazine ( which is devoted to military matters ) to address economics, but the reality is that the biggest threat to the national security of the United States is hyperinflation and eventual bankruptcy. The Ross Perot movement which deterred massive government growth has faded, and the increasing corrupt US Congress is looting the nation. This year, the nation will borrow the same amount of money as it spends on the entire Department of Defense. We will also export enough dollars through trade deficits to fund the entire Department of Defense. In short, the current dying economy is already propped up by massive borrowing of nearly one trillion dollars a year, through treasury bonds and IOUs in the form of unspent dollar credits. America's leading export has become dollars, and we are lucky the computer age allows us to export computer bytes because printing and shipping tons of hundred dollars bills overseas would be a major burden. The USA is benefiting from a massive game where we export dollars and then borrow them from foreigners. The question is how long those foreign suckers will continue accept dollars?

This is why the neo-con hobby of insulting America's creditors is dangerous. Foreigners have worried about the creditworthiness of the USA for years, and the arrogant attitude of the Bush administration has made matters worse. The USA has always been considered a safe haven for foreign investors, until the Bush administration suspended the US Constitution and began seizing bank accounts of anyone "suspected" of helping terrorists. This involves no judicial process, money is just taken for use by the Justice Department. As a result, foreigners learned that property rights in the USA are no better than in other dictatorships, so hundreds of billions of dollars of foreign capital in US banks and stock brokerages has fled to Europe. In addition, America's tourism and airline industry is near collapse as insulted foreigners no longer spend their dollars in the USA, while US business suffers from boycotts overseas.

Rather than addressing serious economic problems and cutting spending, the neo-cons are pushing for tax cuts while finding new enemies to justify another expensive foreign expedition. The US government cannot afford an empire; it cannot even afford to run this nation of 50 states. Flooding the world with dollars is forcing other nations to evaluate the real value of dollars, and US treasury bonds. After the Soviet Union was destroyed by bankruptcy, the last premier of that other superpower, Michael Gorbachev, frequently said that an overemphasis on military power ultimately undermined other components of national security. The USA is now on the path to bankruptcy, led by the neo-cons and cheered by most Democrats as they scheme to introduce the next hobgoblin to appear on corporate television to distract the American public
Alright, if you were not a dude (most likely) I would give you the biggest kiss you have ever seen. Its a shame that the quickly moving nature of forums such as these actually discourages posts like this one. I wonder how the original poster will choose to "discredit" this...

I have an easy solution for this situation. It has already been tested at the State level, and it works wonders flushing out the hypocrites who complain about the unfairness of tax cuts.

Yes, it's called the "Tax Me More" fund.

As you may recall, a certain French-looking Senator (who apparently fought in Vietnam, though he never got around to telling anyone about it,) was caught by the hypocrisy during the Presidential campaign. It seems his state (Tax-achusetts) provides taxpayers the option to pay taxes at the older, higher rates when they file their taxes. Guess who NEVER takes such an option, but then consistently votes for higher taxes?

The IRS Form 1040 (and all its variants) ought to be modified, to give George Soros and his rich lib cronies the option to pay Federal taxes at the pre-Bush (i.e., Clintonian) rates. Then the IRS needs to make public the names of those who vote their conscience when they file their taxes.

Something tells me George Soros, Michael Moore and John Kerry (among many others) would NOT be on that list.

ROFLMAO! Moore gave his tax-cut away in public... in donations to liberal politicians. You probably missed your chance to help Mike spend his taxcut on election-campaign2004 at www.michaelmoore.com.

Alright, if you were not a dude (most likely) I would give you the biggest kiss you have ever seen. Its a shame that the quickly moving nature of forums such as these actually discourages posts like this one. I wonder how the original poster will choose to "discredit" this...

Libertarians like to keep track of the facts... so we keep good information on file.

And this here Libertarian happily voted for the Long Face, since the Liberal Kerry was and is a lot more fiscally correct than the waistrell Dubya, a spendthrift if ever I saw one... and I've been around since the Reagan-years, politically, so I've seen a few spendthrifts.

Wow. Myrth has been busy.

Talking about hypocrisy. The Cons have led America into fiscal crisis, so let the Cons pay for the mess. Poll tax the Reps into extinction.

Once that family in New York gets done suing the RNC, there may not be much money left in the Republican vaults.

Once that family in New York gets done suing the RNC, there may not be much money left in the Republican vaults.
Okay, I got to hear this... What's the charge?

To Dunbarrow,

I agree with a great deal of your post but you are off on a few things.

First the neoconservative movement has nothing directly to do with big business. It is a push to secure unilateral power through military expansion, so while it does involve military spending, it doesn't necessarily involve tax breaks or big business pandering.

Secondly, the dollar is falling on purpose. It had grown so strong over the past 20 years that it had been one of the major causes of the massive trade deficit. Many believe that the dollar still needs to depreciate another 15% to be at a reasonable level. Take a look at the euro, many European economists and CEOs are very worried about how strong it is getting and it has only eclipsed our dollar recently.

And as for dollar wages, the economy is just now catching up to the recent technology explosion. That is the explanation for the job increase/wage decrease.

But, to address the rest of your post, you are very correct about the neocon tactic of creating boogymen and exploiting fear. You are very correct about the danger of our fiscal policy right now. We do need to devalue the dollar to stem the present trade deficit, but at the present level of leverage we are at right now, that sort of action could cause a financial implosion.

Okay, I got to hear this... What's the charge?

During the RNC, a young girl (16) was riding her bike on the way to meet her parents at the movie theatre. Her route took her past (although not into) the area where the protesters were being herded. As she was riding along, a policeman struck her with a baton, knocking her off her bike and immediately arrested her. She was held without charge as a terror suspect, although she actually had nothing to do with terror, or even to do with the protestors. Her parents happen to be fairly well off and are currently suing the police department. Once they are done with that suit, they are planning on suing the RNC for instigating an atmosphere in which such behavior was encouraged.

During the RNC, a young girl (16) was riding her bike on the way to meet her parents at the movie theatre. Her route took her past (although not into) the area where the protesters were being herded. As she was riding along, a policeman struck her with a baton, knocking her off her bike and immediately arrested her. She was held without charge as a terror suspect, although she actually had nothing to do with terror, or even to do with the protestors. Her parents happen to be fairly well off and are currently suing the police department. Once they are done with that suit, they are planning on suing the RNC for instigating an atmosphere in which such behavior was encouraged.

This sounds really suspicious. Could you link me to it?

Why are people so afraid of taxes!! You NEED taxes otherwise you would not have hospital, schools, roads, I could go on for hours! You can't just cut taxes for the entire time, you will NEED to raise taxes at one point otherwise everyone will be ill, uneducated people!

During the RNC, a young girl (16) was riding her bike on the way to meet her parents at the movie theatre. Her route took her past (although not into) the area where the protesters were being herded. As she was riding along, a policeman struck her with a baton, knocking her off her bike and immediately arrested her. She was held without charge as a terror suspect, although she actually had nothing to do with terror, or even to do with the protestors. Her parents happen to be fairly well off and are currently suing the police department. Once they are done with that suit, they are planning on suing the RNC for instigating an atmosphere in which such behavior was encouraged.
:applauds:
Oh that is awesome. Cause we all know the current neo-con sentiment of Bush is the second coming of christ and anyone who speaks out against him, or knows someone who speaks out against him, or even looks like someone who speaks out against him, or is in the same zipcode of someone who speaks out against him and doesn't attempt to have said someone arrested is a terrorist.
Oh, and an aspect of the neo-con agenda has been left out, unabashed moral conservativism (the only place where they are TRUELY conservative) I mean come on, they're up in arms about Monday Night Football when a shampoo commerical not only contains MORE nudity, but also a feigned orgasm. The FCC is just upset because Howard Stern got tired of them and went where they couldn't get to him, so they attacked the first thing to move into their field of vision.

well some people say the tax cuts are only for the wealthy. my stepfather currently unemployed. my mom a school teacher. I am a college student. guess what all three of us had tax reduction. and damn... so did my grandmother. oh god... no average people have tax cuts from the Republicans.
as to the hole thing about hypocracy it is not. democrats want to have taxes so they can determine what you think,wear,dress,act. the republicans want to have taxes to have a large military, promote moral values, and other things I cant snap off the top of my head.
if you want lower taxes join the Libertarian party

to the dimwit who says we need taxes. we dont people can go to school without it being government funded. oh god there are hospitals that dont take government funding. oh no people and the private sector might be able to take care of themselves without the government dictating to them... holy crap its the end of the world "as we know it". ( listen to REM wonderful song)

to the dimwit who says we need taxes. we dont people can go to school without it being government funded. oh god there are hospitals that dont take government funding. oh no people and the private sector might be able to take care of themselves without the government dictating to them... holy crap its the end of the world "as we know it". ( listen to REM wonderful song)

To the dimwit who says we don't need capitalization:

There are a great deal of people who would not be able to afford school or hospitalization without some sort of subsidizing.

If the public doesn't regulate the private sector then the private sector will begin to regulate the public. Just ask anyone from a small town who works at Wal-Mart, just ask coalminers during the first half of this century.

I also suppose you would rather fund your own military, build your own roads, maintain your own parks, build your own stadiums, and grow your own food.

yes true.. you mean people who want to work someplace will actually let the boss tell them what to do.. oh god no... no one once said you have to work in this mine or I will kill you. they could of left and tried to find another job . THEY CHOSE NOT TOO. and there will always be people who would teach for free or nothing to do their good service. I guess the fact of groups that go out across the world and plant trees teach people how to read and write and how to farm. which by the way is funded privately. I do know this cause I have a tree hugging left wing nut of a cousin who I loove dearly who is over in africa right now doing that.
you just want controll over people that is the whole idea of government to controll everyone to fit the leaders own personal beliefs

This sounds really suspicious. Could you link me to it?

I can't seem to find the article that had more detail (although the girl was apparently 15 at the time, not 16), but these at least mention her.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/11/22/convention.lawsuit.ap/index.html

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/politics/ny-nygop234052537nov23,0,5717897.story?coll=ny-nycpolitics-headlines

If I can find the longer article about her family, I'll link it up.

oh yeahabout the military not sure what your asking should I myself create an army. hell no I'm a college student how am I going to do that my god I cant afford that but if lets say me and a few thousand other people or a million all decided to pitch in a few bucks to create one oh my god. I have a miliitary. yes I do grow a lot of my own vegetables. mmm nothing better then a nice tomato I just picked. mmm and the spicy cross polination of a banana pepper and a jalepano. though I cant handle spicy foods cause I had a brain tumor and had to cut part of the nerve that controlls my throat. which by the way the doctor donated his time so no bill from him and I went to a privately owned clinic for rehabilitation which was mostly paid for by a business I like to call my insurance company.
you can keep on with the what ifs and have nots and what nots but unfortunately I have a job I need to get to because well I enjoy it it pays my bills and well golly gee willakers it also pays my TAXES

oops forgot staduims... why the friggin hey should I pay for a stadium for a sport I dont even like?

oh yeah and roads well actually my grandmother, and where I live in the summer is actually on a privately maintaned road. we take up a collection ever few years and have it paved over and pot holes filled in with materials left over from projects at diffrent houses.

Can't you just put all of your complaints/ideas etc... in one post?

To Dunbarrow,

I agree with a great deal of your post but you are off on a few things.

First the neoconservative movement has nothing directly to do with big business. It is a push to secure unilateral power through military expansion, so while it does involve military spending, it doesn't necessarily involve tax breaks or big business pandering.

Secondly, the dollar is falling on purpose. It had grown so strong over the past 20 years that it had been one of the major causes of the massive trade deficit. Many believe that the dollar still needs to depreciate another 15% to be at a reasonable level. Take a look at the euro, many European economists and CEOs are very worried about how strong it is getting and it has only eclipsed our dollar recently.

And as for dollar wages, the economy is just now catching up to the recent technology explosion. That is the explanation for the job increase/wage decrease.

But, to address the rest of your post, you are very correct about the neocon tactic of creating boogymen and exploiting fear. You are very correct about the danger of our fiscal policy right now. We do need to devalue the dollar to stem the present trade deficit, but at the present level of leverage we are at right now, that sort of action could cause a financial implosion.

"First the neoconservative movement has nothing directly to do with big business. It is a push to secure unilateral power through military expansion, so while it does involve military spending, it doesn't necessarily involve tax breaks or big business pandering."

No, it sort of happened along the way. One of my biggest peeves with George Wrong Bush is that he is simply a waistrell. The original idea by TRA wasn't all that bad ( FORCE the Gov't to spend less by reducing it's income ) was sound enough... but while Gov't income was reduced, to spending-cuts just failed to materialise. Dubya went on a spending-binge, like a teenager grabbing hold of a Gold Credit Card. And guess who will pay for the dept?

"Secondly, the dollar is falling on purpose. It had grown so strong over the past 20 years that it had been one of the major causes of the massive trade deficit. Many believe that the dollar still needs to depreciate another 15% to be at a reasonable level. Take a look at the euro, many European economists and CEOs are very worried about how strong it is getting and it has only eclipsed our dollar recently."

The purpose is unsound. What is required to reduce the trade-deficit is a drastic curtailment of household-consumption, starting from the top.
The assertion that the Dollar had grown too strong is... nonsensical. The Dollar has been dropping since 1950 or so.
The best way to drastically reduce the trade-deficit is by simply curtailing... credit. It's ok to borrow to pay a home... but it is simply bad economics to borrow to buy a pizza... or a Rolex. So... here is my free hint: curtail interest to a max of 10% for individuals... and sit back and watch in amazement how the supply of usurious credit to private household dissapears, along with the trade deficit.

"And as for dollar wages, the economy is just now catching up to the recent technology explosion. That is the explanation for the job increase/wage decrease."

Sulk. Real-dollar discretionary expenditure-room for the median US household has been dropping since, what is it, 1960? Hey guys... it isn't a matter of catching up... it is about restoring fiscal sanity, and getting rid of inflation, which is sustematically underestimated by the CPI anyway.

"But, to address the rest of your post, you are very correct about the neocon tactic of creating boogymen and exploiting fear. You are very correct about the danger of our fiscal policy right now. We do need to devalue the dollar to stem the present trade deficit, but at the present level of leverage we are at right now, that sort of action could cause a financial implosion"

Sulk. Er... that is the strategy that many European countries ( Italy, France, to name just 2 ) tried... to no avail.

More Milton Friedman, and less fuzzy math. I'm not accusing Vittos of Fuzzy Math, but I'm certainly accusing George WRONG Bush of it.

Why is it that only liberals (or Labour) in Britian are the only ones that seem to be able to balance a budget. Conservatives seem to have a difficult time in the whole concept of spending only what you take in. Spend, spend, spend is the conservative mantra. It is only when a liberal gets elected that budgets get balanced and economic stability prevails.

yes true.. you mean people who want to work someplace will actually let the boss tell them what to do.. oh god no... no one once said you have to work in this mine or I will kill you. they could of left and tried to find another job . THEY CHOSE NOT TOO. and there will always be people who would teach for free or nothing to do their good service. I guess the fact of groups that go out across the world and plant trees teach people how to read and write and how to farm. which by the way is funded privately. I do know this cause I have a tree hugging left wing nut of a cousin who I loove dearly who is over in africa right now doing that.
you just want controll over people that is the whole idea of government to controll everyone to fit the leaders own personal beliefs

Seriously, work on your grammar/capitalization/punctuation, it would make your posts much easier to comprehend and respond to.

The "THEY CHOSE NOT TOO" was somewhat clear, however, and I will address that. I was not referring to the authority of bosses in my comment about coalminers and Wal-Mart. In coalmining towns, the mining company would build the houses, build the town general store, and then pay their workers in shelter and coupons for the company store. This would leave them with virtually no capital and therefore no way out. Wal-Mart is not near this bad thanks to advancements in labor rights over the past years, but they are far from perfect. This domination of the labor and working class by corporations that will inevitibly occur is what I was referring to.

As to parks and parkland areas, that is regulated and DNR which is a publicly funded organization. Forest rangers are not trained privately, but in universities, most of which are publicly funded. If government subsidies to farmers were done away with, most would belly up within the next five years. Take it from me, my neighbor is a forestry major at a PUBLIC university, and I grew up on a small farm.

I have no desire to control anybody. I actually prefer that we collect taxes and regulate big business in order to defend everyone's own personal beliefs.

So much on this thread since Gnostikos failed to respond to me :rolleyes:

oh yeahabout the military not sure what your asking should I myself create an army. hell no I'm a college student how am I going to do that my god I cant afford that but if lets say me and a few thousand other people or a million all decided to pitch in a few bucks to create one oh my god. I have a miliitary. yes I do grow a lot of my own vegetables. mmm nothing better then a nice tomato I just picked. mmm and the spicy cross polination of a banana pepper and a jalepano. though I cant handle spicy foods cause I had a brain tumor and had to cut part of the nerve that controlls my throat. which by the way the doctor donated his time so no bill from him and I went to a privately owned clinic for rehabilitation which was mostly paid for by a business I like to call my insurance company.
you can keep on with the what ifs and have nots and what nots but unfortunately I have a job I need to get to because well I enjoy it it pays my bills and well golly gee willakers it also pays my TAXES
The fact of the matter is the private market cannot regulate everything. I'm more to the capitalist side of things than 90% of the people on these boards, but even Adam Smith said that government should be around for a few reasons. One of these reasons was to take up things that the private market could not, such as creating a military. "Private" militaries would end up hurting the market more than helping it, because it would destabilize the country and make everything very insecure. It makes sense to say that we need less taxes and that the government is taking up more than it should, but to say that everything can be axed is wrong.

The assertion that the Dollar had grown too strong is... nonsensical. The Dollar has been dropping since 1950 or so.
The best way to drastically reduce the trade-deficit is by simply curtailing... credit. It's ok to borrow to pay a home... but it is simply bad economics to borrow to buy a pizza... or a Rolex. So... here is my free hint: curtail interest to a max of 10% for individuals... and sit back and watch in amazement how the supply of usurious credit to private household dissapears, along with the trade deficit.
Just because inflation is going up does not mean the dollar has been dropping. Heck, before Nixon we weren't in a true free float currency system yet.

oh yeahabout the military not sure what your asking should I myself create an army. hell no I'm a college student how am I going to do that my god I cant afford that but if lets say me and a few thousand other people or a million all decided to pitch in a few bucks to create one oh my god. I have a miliitary. yes I do grow a lot of my own vegetables. mmm nothing better then a nice tomato I just picked. mmm and the spicy cross polination of a banana pepper and a jalepano. though I cant handle spicy foods cause I had a brain tumor and had to cut part of the nerve that controlls my throat. which by the way the doctor donated his time so no bill from him and I went to a privately owned clinic for rehabilitation which was mostly paid for by a business I like to call my insurance company.
you can keep on with the what ifs and have nots and what nots but unfortunately I have a job I need to get to because well I enjoy it it pays my bills and well golly gee willakers it also pays my TAXES

Huh? :confused:
Just so you know, if you and a bunch of people (the entire nation, in this situation) just chipped in some money to fund a military, you have created a TAX.

But I can't really argue with someone who goes to college and does not understand the necessity of taxes.

oh yeah and roads well actually my grandmother, and where I live in the summer is actually on a privately maintaned road. we take up a collection ever few years and have it paved over and pot holes filled in with materials left over from projects at diffrent houses.

You told me to leave out the what ifs, and then you justify your position by explaining something that happens at best 1% of the time.

So much on this thread since Gnostikos failed to respond to me :rolleyes:


<snip> ( btw I agreed with the substance of what you said )

Just because inflation is going up does not mean the dollar has been dropping. Heck, before Nixon we weren't in a true free float currency system yet.

http://www.eh.net/hmit/exchangerates/

Try e.g. the Swiss Franc vz Dollar from say, 1920 through 1999.
It's a historical trend, not a bump.

The purpose is unsound. What is required to reduce the trade-deficit is a drastic curtailment of household-consumption, starting from the top.
The assertion that the Dollar had grown too strong is... nonsensical. The Dollar has been dropping since 1950 or so.
The best way to drastically reduce the trade-deficit is by simply curtailing... credit. It's ok to borrow to pay a home... but it is simply bad economics to borrow to buy a pizza... or a Rolex. So... here is my free hint: curtail interest to a max of 10% for individuals... and sit back and watch in amazement how the supply of usurious credit to private household dissapears, along with the trade deficit.

What do you mean by: "curtail interest to a max of 10% for individuals?"

I also don't feel that it is unsound. I believe it would be wise to lower consumption, but I think it would be more important to increase the level of our exporting.

http://www.eh.net/hmit/exchangerates/

Try e.g. the Swiss Franc vz Dollar from say, 1920 through 1999.
It's a historical trend, not a bump.
It went down against the Swiss Franc, a relatively unimportant currency. Since 1950 (the said date in earlier posts) it has gone up against the Pound, Lire, Franc (French), Canadian Dollar, Australian Dollar, New Zealand Dollar, Israeli Sheqalim, Korean Won, and Mexican Peso. The dollar only seriously declined vs Germany and Japan, both obliterated in WW2.

So, among important countries there is a trend... opposite of what you were suggesting.

http://www.eh.net/hmit/exchangerates/

Try e.g. the Swiss Franc vz Dollar from say, 1920 through 1999.
It's a historical trend, not a bump.

Check the dollar against the pound, the Canadian Dollar, or the Yuan, the dollar has appreciated compared to them.

It went down against the Swiss Franc, a relatively unimportant currency. Since 1950 (the said date in earlier posts) it has gone up against the Pound, Lire, Franc (French), Canadian Dollar, Australian Dollar, New Zealand Dollar, Israeli Sheqalim, Korean Won, and Mexican Peso. The dollar only seriously declined vs Germany and Japan, both obliterated in WW2.

So, among important countries there is a trend... opposite of what you were suggesting.

*shrugs* I traced it to the SDR, starting from the SDR's inception, and the trend is pretty clear. But the SDR is not part of this page.

What do you mean by: "curtail interest to a max of 10% for individuals?"

I also don't feel that it is unsound. I believe it would be wise to lower consumption, but I think it would be more important to increase the level of our exporting.

Oh, peg the max-rate a corporation ( such as a credit-card-company ) can charge to a consumer as interest for consumptive credit to a ceiling of 9.9%.

Exports ( like imports ) are not all that price-elastic, so I expect no miracles from it. Has a lower price for oil in Europe ( when expressed in €, previous to the latest oil-shockers ) led to an increased demand for middle east crude? It has not. Balancing trade-deficits starts with reducing imports.

This entire topic is a useless strawman.

Who cares if someone's a hypocrite? You can attack the messenger as much as you want, but it does nothing to discredit the philosophy.

By the way you've stuck to this for so long, topic creator, you seem like a major, if unintentional, troll.

Oh, peg the max-rate a corporation ( such as a credit-card-company ) can charge to a consumer as interest for consumptive credit to a ceiling of 9.9%.

Exports ( like imports ) are not all that price-elastic, so I expect no miracles from it. Has a lower price for oil in Europe ( when expressed in €, previous to the latest oil-shockers ) led to an increased demand for middle east crude? It has not. Balancing trade-deficits starts with reducing imports.

Oil is a inelastic commodity, period.

How can you say that exports are price inelastic? Most consumer goods are price-elastic whether they are imported or not. Obviously you understand the relationship between exchange rates and export pricing, so how can you not say that our exporting is unharmed by a high exchange rate?

The amount of economic experts we have on this forum is astounding.

The amount of economic experts we have on this forum is astounding.
And who says public schools suck ^_^

Oil is a inelastic commodity, period.

How can you say that exports are price inelastic? Most consumer goods are price-elastic whether they are imported or not. Obviously you understand the relationship between exchange rates and export pricing, so how can you not say that our exporting is unharmed by a high exchange rate?

*whispers* because most products and services in which the US has an inherent strength are not consumergoods... the US is mostly competitive in business based on extraction of resources. And most of it's competition in that area is also dollar-priced, or priced in currencies pegged to the dollar.


What is thoroughly bothering me is that the US has showed almost no real strenght post-1960 in any area with a high added-value-by-labour content.

Currency is a factor... but a rather minor one.

I'm quoting oil as one example... but let me give you a sector in which America is strong, really strong. Movies. Does demand for American movies increase or decline in any relation to the crossrates of the dollar and other currencies? It does not.

Socialism does not work.
And as we all know, when a country raises its taxes on the top bracket by 6%, it instantly turns socialist. :rolleyes:

Tax cuts must be accompanied by spending cuts.

*whispers* because most products and services in which the US has an inherent strength are not consumergoods... the US is mostly competitive in business based on extraction of resources. And most of it's competition in that area is also dollar-priced, or priced in currencies pegged to the dollar.

The US is strong in services and has had a surplus in the Balance of Payments in services for years. But in almost all goods manufacturing they have been sorely lacking. A devaluation of the dollar would do a great deal to balance our exporting in a tangible way.

What is thoroughly bothering me is that the US has showed almost no real strenght post-1960 in any area with a high added-value-by-labour content.

Agreed. That is due to the high cost of exporting.

Currency is a factor... but a rather minor one. Currency is a huge factor

I'm quoting oil as one example... but let me give you a sector in which America is strong, really strong. Movies. Does demand for American movies increase or decline in any relation to the crossrates of the dollar and other currencies? It does not.

Movies? How about automobiles, clothing, any consumer good. How can you use movies? There is a huge profit margin for any movie sent to Europe. Now compare that to the marginal profit of a jumbo jet sent to Europe.

The US is strong in services and has had a surplus in the Balance of Payments in services for years. But in almost all goods manufacturing they have been sorely lacking. A devaluation of the dollar would do a great deal to balance our exporting in a tangible way.



Agreed. That is due to the high cost of exporting.

Currency is a huge factor


Hmm... way back when I was still working on my bachelor's... some 15 yers ago... I had to suffer through a course of monetary matters ( several in fact )... I had to work my way through some 15 studies of the effect of devaluations on balance of payments. At best, evidence in favour of devaluation was... tenuous.




Movies? How about automobiles, clothing, any consumer good. How can you use movies? There is a huge profit margin for any movie sent to Europe. Now compare that to the marginal profit of a jumbo jet sent to Europe.
No mount of low-dollaring will offset the disadvantage Boeing has due to using outdated technology, specifically in gass-guzzling engines. Ditto for cars. The US is not very competitive when it comes to those kinds of goods.
Services are nice... but they don't add much value, labour-wise, nor balance-of-payments wise.


Notice btw how technical discussions like this make neocon's go very very silent... waaaay to difficult for their tiny brains.

Wazzamatta... dear chap who can't write Lakedaimon properly?

Many liberals claim that the Bush tax cuts are a harbinger of doom for the US economy and that they should never have been enacted.

These same liberals now claim that “most” of the country does not support Bush, and he has no mandate, because, after all, Bush did not receive a true majority; only a majority of the votes from people who actually voted.

Funny thing though, liberals, there is, in fact, a line on the federal tax form that allows you to contribute more that the legal minimum when paying taxes.

So what I want to know is:

a) How many liberals here voluntarily overpay.

b) If you don’t why aren’t you a hypocrite.

c) If, as you indeed claim, “most people” do not support George Bush and his policies, how come there is not a vast amount of people using this voluntary payment option.

a) since I live in NY state, our taxes pay for federal highways and everything else in the red states. We make more money and pay more than our share.

b)...

c) Voter turnout = 60%
Kerry got 49% - 29.4%
Nader - 1%
didn't vote - 40%

Those who dont support Bush = 70.4%

Still see a mandate? I'd like to sell you a bridge.

the exploiter class that lives in NY and has kept the red states as its personal slave labor pool for years and now exports those jobs to third world countries to exploit those innocent souls is complaining about paying too much taxes. right.

the exploiter class that lives in NY and has kept the red states as its personal slave labor pool for years and now exports those jobs to third world countries to exploit those innocent souls is complaining about paying too much taxes. right.

No. Red states are complaining, they shouldnt pay them and we shouldnt have to foot the bill evertime a hurricane hits your state. You should all live in squalor. We'll go ahead and pay more taxes and enjoy our good roads and schools. I'm fine with the taxes that I pay, I just think they should stay in my area instead of going to people who don't want to pay them. You are hilarious. We are the ones who vote for minimum wages and workers rights. Bush has done nothing but increase outsourcing. He even expanded NAFTA as part of the Patriot Act. Exploiter class? How about a billionaire Republican that you voted for? We all vote democrat here because we work hard to get by and want to protect ourselves.

the exploiter class that lives in NY and has kept the red states as its personal slave labor pool for years and now exports those jobs to third world countries to exploit those innocent souls is complaining about paying too much taxes. right.

The red states couldn't even keep up with the northern states when they shipped in people to do all of their work for them.

Hmm... way back when I was still working on my bachelor's... some 15 yers ago... I had to suffer through a course of monetary matters ( several in fact )... I had to work my way through some 15 studies of the effect of devaluations on balance of payments. At best, evidence in favour of devaluation was... tenuous.

I definitely understand your point of limiting the credit dependency in this country. That probably is the most important problem to address as it has us leveraged up through the roof and there isn't an economy in the world that could withstand the free fall if we started to collapse. However, I still believe in the benefits that would come from a slow devaluation. I think it could possibly promote an industry strong enough to avoid a collapse.

No mount of low-dollaring will offset the disadvantage Boeing has due to using outdated technology, specifically in gass-guzzling engines. Ditto for cars. The US is not very competitive when it comes to those kinds of goods.
Services are nice... but they don't add much value, labour-wise, nor balance-of-payments wise.

Yes, I agree. We need a great deal of work on fuel technology and it starts with the government (this one isn't to interested). And services are what we have right now in the balance of payments, it doesn't mean much, but it is all we have. That needs to be rectified.

Notice btw how technical discussions like this make neocon's go very very silent... waaaay to difficult for their tiny brains.

I think that goes both ways. I do believe that the liberals in the government right now are much more sound in their economic policies, however.

I tend to believe that the tax break has nothing to do with neocon economic policies, and everything to do with its foreign policies. The neocons have had a incredible track record of appeasing and manipulating the public in order to do things that the general populace would normally be appalled by. The rallying against abortion and gay marriage, tax breaks, the terror alert system, faith based initiatives, are all ways in which the government have made sure the people haven't cared that 1232 US troops are dead and have really accomplished nothing so far.

It also is a generally emperial hubris that neocons have in securing the Pax Americana they are so obsessed with. They seem to not realize that you cannot build peace with war, and you cannot be financially strong in debt.

I definitely understand your point of limiting the credit dependency in this country. That probably is the most important problem to address as it has us leveraged up through the roof and there isn't an economy in the world that could withstand the free fall if we started to collapse. However, I still believe in the benefits that would come from a slow devaluation. I think it could possibly promote an industry strong enough to avoid a collapse.



Yes, I agree. We need a great deal of work on fuel technology and it starts with the government (this one isn't to interested). And services are what we have right now in the balance of payments, it doesn't mean much, but it is all we have. That needs to be rectified.



I think that goes both ways. I do believe that the liberals in the government right now are much more sound in their economic policies, however.

I tend to believe that the tax break has nothing to do with neocon economic policies, and everything to do with its foreign policies. The neocons have had a incredible track record of appeasing and manipulating the public in order to do things that the general populace would normally be appalled by. The rallying against abortion and gay marriage, tax breaks, the terror alert system, faith based initiatives, are all ways in which the government have made sure the people haven't cared that 1232 US troops are dead and have really accomplished nothing so far.

It also is a generally emperial hubris that neocons have in securing the Pax Americana they are so obsessed with. They seem to not realize that you cannot build peace with war, and you cannot be financially strong in debt.


Vitos, a much briefer reply than your carefully made points merit:
Never forget that 911 was also a faith based initiave....

The red states couldn't even keep up with the northern states when they shipped in people to do all of their work for them.

Hey you guys had plenty of Irish.

VA kicks the ass out of every northern state.

a) since I live in NY state, our taxes pay for federal highways and everything else in the red states. We make more money and pay more than our share.


You also have more highways. Plus roads in the north require a much greater amount of money to maintain.



c) Voter turnout = 60%
Kerry got 49% - 29.4%
Nader - 1%
didn't vote - 40%

Those who dont support Bush = 70.4%


Eh? How does this work now? Kerry won 58-40%

No mount of low-dollaring will offset the disadvantage Boeing has due to using outdated technology, specifically in gass-guzzling engines. Ditto for cars. The US is not very competitive when it comes to those kinds of goods.
Services are nice... but they don't add much value, labour-wise, nor balance-of-payments wise.

Notice btw how technical discussions like this make neocon's go very very silent... waaaay to difficult for their tiny brains.


Probably becuase they know the neither Boeing nor Airbus manufacture engines, and in fact, airbus has a poorer range of engine options.

Also they probably know that the Boeing 777 is better aircraft than anything airbus offers in respect of fuel economy and safety.

All aircraft orders are down right now because the airline industry is in a shambles, and I wouldn't be surprised it a few "legacy" carriers dissappear. Nevertheless a weak dollar gives Boeing a massive advantage in a global industry. (Almost enough to overcome the ridiuclous govenrment subsidies that airbus gets.)

Stop being so patronizing. :rolleyes:

You also have more highways. Plus roads in the north require a much greater amount of money to maintain.



Eh? How does this work now? Kerry won 58-40%

It's math. Stay in school.

It's math. Stay in school.

60% Turnout

Kerry 58% = 34.8% in favor of
Bush 40% = 24% in favor of
Nader 2% = 1.2% in favor of
None = 40%

Those who didn't support Bush = 76%

See how they add up to 100%?

i dont know where to start with what's wrong with the first post.
For one thing, liberals aren't about paying more taxes. They say they want more programs to benefit people and want the taxes going to better places. Just giving more taxes to often wastful and destructive places doesn't do anything, so you shouldn't ask people to pay more for things that don't do any good.
Also, you can't make a generalization of liberals because of some Captain Obvious guy who says people who don't vote weren't being represented.

And most of Bush's support base are people who would greatly benefit from the economic plans of liberals. So they are either ignorant, want a worse standard of living while the rich get richer, or they voted for Bush on moral issues which from what i've heard fom them and seen in exit polls would be the first and the last.

60% Turnout

Kerry 58% = 34.8% in favor of
Bush 40% = 24% in favor of
Nader 2% = 1.2% in favor of
None = 40%

Those who didn't support Bush = 76%

See how they add up to 100%?

No. 49% of the turnout went to Kerry
that's 29.4% of eligible voters

Bush got 29.6% out of the eligible voters, of which only 60% voted.
40% did not vote
1% voted for Nader
70.4% did not vote for Bush.

Someone's talking about New York and someone's talking about the whole US. :p

Someone's talking about New York and someone's talking about the whole US. :p


Yeah, he mentioned NY earlier, in another argument, so that's what I thought he was referring to. Everything makes sense now.

Carry on

Ohhhhhhhhhh!

Probably becuase they know the neither Boeing nor Airbus manufacture engines, and in fact, airbus has a poorer range of engine options.

Also they probably know that the Boeing 777 is better aircraft than anything airbus offers in respect of fuel economy and safety.

All aircraft orders are down right now because the airline industry is in a shambles, and I wouldn't be surprised it a few "legacy" carriers dissappear. Nevertheless a weak dollar gives Boeing a massive advantage in a global industry. (Almost enough to overcome the ridiuclous govenrment subsidies that airbus gets.)

Stop being so patronizing. :rolleyes:

So how come Airbus is consistently trouncing Boeing in the global market place? I suppose we'll have Boeing trailing CASA-Nurtiano soon enough too.

In the unlikely event that the US recovers competitiveness in cars, it will be carmanufacturers operating out of California, not out of Tenessee, that are competitive. Working in a regulatory environment that helps you to anticipate the market-demands of tomorrow is a valuable asset. 'Loose Regulation' is a severe long-term drawback on the global marketplace.

As regards to patronizing... keep you voice down, you vile immitation of a human being, you inhuman exception to the human race.

So how come Airbus is consistently trouncing Boeing in the global market place? I suppose we'll have Boeing trailing CASA-Nurtiano soon enough too.

In the unlikely event that the US recovers competitiveness in cars, it will be carmanufacturers operating out of California, not out of Tenessee, that are competitive. Working in a regulatory environment that helps you to anticipate the market-demands of tomorrow is a valuable asset. 'Loose Regulation' is a severe long-term drawback on the global marketplace.

As regards to patronizing... keep you voice down, you vile immitation of a human being, you inhuman exception to the human race.

You know, that doesn't make much sense, what you just said.

You know, that doesn't make much sense, what you just said.


The Neocon-trolls need to learn their proper place, ie. at the edge of the Tarpeian Rock, about to be downcast... or cast down, or both :fluffle:

Get real. The conservatives want to dig deeper into your pockets too. Who else will pay for the HUGE Military-Industrial bill?

It doesn't matter what party you're from. The liberals would have asked for the money for that bill as well, same as the conservatives because no one can say no to funding the military and still live the next day.

I don't think that the problem is taxes, I believe that the larger issue is who is supporting who. And in this free nation, there is always going to be someone who is not supportive and unhappy because we all have differing opinions. By all means, voice your opinions and make yourself be heard, but no one will listen if you do not voice your opinions with reason and respectful language.

I may disagree with what you say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it. Voltaire