First of all OB, Ford and Nixon were both worthless idiots regardless of party affiliation, to my knowledge they were nothing like Bush.

The tax breaks for the wealthy are the same tax breaks that are available to someone that only makes 35k a year, the difference is that the wealthy get taxed so much higher than a guy that makes 35k a year that they search out and find and use those tax breaks, the guy making 35k a year either doesnt care enough to find out how to save a few hundred extra bucks or he is too stupid to figure out the benefits. I personally am not using all of the tax breaks I could take because I havent had time to set them up yet but I still am able to run my adjusted gross income down to less than 50% of my gross income anyway so it hasnt been as much of a priority. If you look at 99% of every wealthy person on the planet they have a business in some form or another, that affords them a lot more tax cuts than someone that doesnt, anyone can start a business, a business license is cheap and even incorporation, which gives the most benefit is fairly cheap and easy. If I reopened the business I had years ago just to have a business then I could prolly cut my tax liability at least 50% more minimum. Its not the fault of the wealthy that the normal working man is either too stupid to take advantage or too lazy, thats why they are still the normal working man. Personally I am too Darn lazy, so sue me.

The flat tax example as you put it I used because thats the lame Butt example that all the liberal pazie asses use when they cry about the breaks to the wealthiest 10%, its also the easiest to twist into something you either are for or against depending on how you use it so hence my example. I realize we dont have a flat tax and I wish the hell we had a flat rate consumption tax, those rich pricks have to spend all those dollars sometime and its the most fair taxing system available. Either way the rich pricks will still get the most breaks as you call it because they have the resources to buy whatever they want from just about any country in the world they want to, they are just smart enough and motivated enough to do it and most people are not. That is not their fault that the rest of the country is lazy.

As for the unemployment rate, if someone is sitting at home on their lazy Butt for 2 and 3 years with no job then they are worthless and lazy anyway. The problem with that is they arent looking or they arent taking whats available. Thats like saying a guy that gets out of the Air Force as an F-15 pilot will never work a day in his life again because United Airlines planes have more than 2 seats and he just cant take a job like that. That is just plain stupid and their own Darn fault, not the economy.

As for Korn and his investment taxes, can you say capital gains taxes really suck, investment taxes really suck, taxes and expenses surrounding running a business really suck, what part of tax liability dont you understand? Some of the wealthiest people in the country pay over 70% of their income in taxes and other crap, the problem you have is they still have billions after they are done paying which means they should be making trillions instead. Buffet and Gates have billions but they also pay taxes and expenses for what they have, they are just smarter than you and have succeeded and that pisses you off.

As far as Iraq, I was in during the first Gulf War and I think we should have taken his Butt out then but Bush senior was a panzie Butt about it. He would have had to break a promise to the UN, which is just a world puppet and a corrupt organization anyway, and he didnt want to do that and look bad. Instead he chose to push Saddam back to Baghdad and leave with little consequences. All that did was show the world that the US can be just as much a bully as he is. Slick Willy should have taken care of Bin Laden 10 years ago like Bush had to do after 9-11, we would never have had a 9-11 if Clinton would have done his job instead of being sucked off in the oval office. I agree that war should be a last resort but instead of *****footing around the reasons the president should just say I am invading Iraq because Saddam is a terrorist prick and I want to kill his Butt and all of his associates and then do it. The truth is the reasons we went into Iraq were justified, he had everything we said he had because we gave it to him. Your never going to see any proof of it because all the communist news organizations in this country arent going to let you know that it was all shipped out to neighboring countries sympathetic to the cause. Hell we told Saddam we were coming and on what day, any preschool idiot can figure out that if you dont want to get caught playing with something you get rid of it or put it away before their parents get home. That would be admitting that the press was wrong and that can just never be.

If our country wasnt brainwashed by the media and actually think for themselves then everyone would be saying lets send more troops and make this an overwhelming decisive event instead of a balancing act of politics and public opinion.

Well, I posted a lengthy reply to you Orion which for some reason didnt go through and i dont have time to respond to each of your claims again right now so I will pick and choose.

1. Taxes
Have you ever been hired by a poor person? I havent. The rich people are the ones who drive the economy. Those investments that Ty is talking about not getting taxed SHOULDNT be taxed. Without rich people making investments how many new businesses are gonna start up? How many new jobs will be created then? The rich people are the ones who pay you for the jobs you do. If tax breaks for them promote new investments then they are good things. The dems KNOW this but are too busy trying to buy votes from the poor that they wont admit it.
2. Flat Tax
I am for it and most poor people would be for it as well if all the facts would be presented in a non-political way. I have seen many studies which show that America would bring in more taxes if we would go to a flat tax. Why dont we?
3. Jobs
Bush inherited a recession and then 911 happened. How good is the job market gonna be after that? How many people are gonna be investing immediately in the aftermath of 911. Do you remember the talk on Wall Street about what would happen to our economy after that? People were scared. The tax cuts you talk about PROMOTED new investments which in turn will drive the job market. It is really a simple process.
4. Orion in your arguments about drug companies you prove my point. Dems and the media complain in one area about outsourcing but in another area they are all for penalizing the US drug companies. You talk in one place about how we are losing jobs to foreign countries but then you turn around and say you are for penalizing the American drug companies. You criticize Bush for not protecting US jobs then you encourage policies that will cause people who work for drug companies to lose their jobs. Are you sure you are gonna vote for Dubya?
5. Corporations
Again, we have a president who is faced with the problems of a past administration. These CEO's who are in trouble today should have been in trouble in the 90's. Corporate fraud and cooking of the books is not something that began in 2000. It was happening long before and while I dont want to pin all the blame on slick, you surely cannot blame Bush for those problems. At least some of these guys are going to jail now, which I think everyone knows is more than what would have gone on under slick.
6. Unemployment
The jobs problem was created during the stock market run up during the 90's. I feel bad for those people who are out of work, but it is very difficult for me to sit here and listen to someone say they havent been able to find a job in 3 years. Please. There are tons of jobs out there. People everyday lose their job and find another one the same day. Stop being proud and get out and get you a job that you might THINK you are too for. You might not be able to live the lifestyle you grew accustomed to in the 90's but that is not Bush's fault. Please dont argue with the logic that new investments CREATES new jobs. It is common sense. The job losses are not Bush's fault and he is doing something to try to remedy the situation, which a lot of people think is working.
7. Terror
If anyone here really thinks we will be safer with someone like Kerry in charge you are silly. Terrorists are gonna try to influence this election just like they did with Spain. However, in order to better understand the thinking of those people you have to realize that they hate us no matter who is in charge. They believe they should kill anyone who doesnt believe the same things they believe. I know you hear all the time about how peaceful Islam is. That is BS. If you read books written by TRUE muslims they will tell you that it is not a peaceful religion. It was founded on violence and continues to preach violence today. It is really sad to me that in America we have people (dems) who think it is ok to let muslim schools teach their pupils to hate America. I would think anyone would see the danger in this, yet people like kerry continue to preach the importance of diversity and tolerance. Why should I be forced to tolerate someone who wishes I were dead? Until we get a government that has some backbone on issues such as diversity we are gonna constantly be in danger. Bush is taking a PROactive stance on this as much as he can while dems tend to take a REactive stance. I dont care one bit about the people of Iraq. We invaded that country for multiple reasons, not the least of which was our FUTURE safety. Yes, we (every major intelligence agency int he world included) thought he had WMD's, but there are many other reasons which noone in government will ever admit. Let me ask you this TYPHOON: Where is the oil that is powering your vehicle gonna come from in 20 years? Do you really want to rely on someone like Hussein to supply us that oil? You guys support the environment as long as it doesnt affect you personally. We are smart enough to know that without oil our entire way of life will change. Imagine the consequences if we dont have a supply of oil at our disposal. You guys dont want us to drill ANWR, yet you have no forward thinking peopel in the entire party. WHERE ARE WE GONNA GET THAT OIL? YOu would be silly to think we arent gonna need it. Now ask yourself who you would have blamed IF Saddam had sold weapons to terrorists and we hadnt went in. Bush? We did and are doing the right thing in Iraq. We are safer not having to worry about him. I will address other issues next time Typhoon. I invite debate on any issue without getting angry or flaming people.

Very well said BC.

-gives bone standing ovation-
clap clap clap
plus 2 bonus points for mentioning the ANWR.
bone knows his ****, heh
Slim

Well said BC, well said!

Saudi Arabia, some ally, evidence of them stabbing us in the back and no invesigation is done because we don't want to upset them diplomatically.

Bush's approval ratings are at an all time low, and I did not make that up:
http://www.gallup.com/content/?ci=11602

quote:Originally posted by Boss

First of all OB, Ford and Nixon were both worthless idiots regardless of party affiliation, to my knowledge they were nothing like Bush.


They did have their uses, like Nixon went to China. Not complete worthless idiots.

quote:
The tax breaks for the wealthy are the same tax breaks that are available to someone that only makes 35k a year, the difference is that the wealthy get taxed so much higher than a guy that makes 35k a year that they search out and find and use those tax breaks, the guy making 35k a year either doesnt care enough to find out how to save a few hundred extra bucks or he is too stupid to figure out the benefits. I personally am not using all of the tax breaks I could take because I havent had time to set them up yet but I still am able to run my adjusted gross income down to less than 50% of my gross income anyway so it hasnt been as much of a priority. If you look at 99% of every wealthy person on the planet they have a business in some form or another, that affords them a lot more tax cuts than someone that doesnt, anyone can start a business, a business license is cheap and even incorporation, which gives the most benefit is fairly cheap and easy. If I reopened the business I had years ago just to have a business then I could prolly cut my tax liability at least 50% more minimum. Its not the fault of the wealthy that the normal working man is either too stupid to take advantage or too lazy, thats why they are still the normal working man. Personally I am too Darn lazy, so sue me.


You obviously do not know what the taxes are for middle-class and the wealthy.

For example, someone who earns over $1M annually qualifies for a $42,800 tax cut that a person who makes $35,000 a year cannot qualify for. Therefore, how can you say that the tax cuts are equal? That is a 4.2% tax cut, and is just one of many for the wealthy that the middle-class and poor do not qualify for. This amount of $42,800, is almost three times the 2003 federal poverty line for a family of three, which is $15,260.

But wait, how did the wealthy tax change over the years?
http://www.ufenet.org/research/TrickleDown.html

quote:
The past 40 years have seen a gradual decrease in the top bracket’s income tax rate, from 91% in 1963 to 35% in 2003. It went as low as 28% in 1988 and 1989 due to legislation passed under Reagan, the trickle-down theory’s most famous adherent. The Clinton years saw the top bracket hold steady at a higher rate of 39.6%, but under the younger Bush’s tax-cut policies, the rich are once again paying less. The drastic change in tax policy that has taken place since the early 1960s gives us a great opportunity to study and evaluate the claims that lower taxes for the rich translate to more wealth for the average American.


More numbers are used from the federal government and the study reveals four reasons why Trickle Down does not work:

quote:
1. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to economic growth.

2. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to income growth.

3. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to wage growth.

4. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to job creation.


The reason why is quite simple, you give the wealthy more wealth and instead of using it to create jobs, raise wages, increase income, and increase the economy, they instead save it or invest it in other wealthy companies. They already have everything they need, so they will not spend it. Consumers, on the other hand, consume, and do spend most of what they make.

quote:
The flat tax example as you put it I used because thats the lame Butt example that all the liberal pazie asses use when they cry about the breaks to the wealthiest 10%, its also the easiest to twist into something you either are for or against depending on how you use it so hence my example. I realize we dont have a flat tax and I wish the hell we had a flat rate consumption tax, those rich pricks have to spend all those dollars sometime and its the most fair taxing system available. Either way the rich pricks will still get the most breaks as you call it because they have the resources to buy whatever they want from just about any country in the world they want to, they are just smart enough and motivated enough to do it and most people are not. That is not their fault that the rest of the country is lazy.


Incorrect, the rest of this country is not lazy. They work very hard and do not have the money or resources to invest and make more money or buy and sell from other countries. Most of them are paid so little that they live almost paycheck to paycheck. The flat tax is debatable, not all want it.

quote:
As for the unemployment rate, if someone is sitting at home on their lazy Butt for 2 and 3 years with no job then they are worthless and lazy anyway. The problem with that is they arent looking or they arent taking whats available. Thats like saying a guy that gets out of the Air Force as an F-15 pilot will never work a day in his life again because United Airlines planes have more than 2 seats and he just cant take a job like that. That is just plain stupid and their own Darn fault, not the economy.


It is really hard when you made $24/hr for a development job, and your company outsourced to India for $2/hr to replace you. Other companies did this as well and it displaced a lot of IT people. An estimated 3.5M IT jobs are left after a lot of them got lost in the past 3 years in the US, Bush claims to have created 350,000 jobs in the past year. There may be more IT jobs loss than that. I've talked to HR people and they tell me that they get between 500 to 2000 IT resumes a week for the same position. Faced with these facts, I went back to college to earn a Business Degree, as my computer degree is worth about as much as toliet paper now because I cannot work for $2/hr. My job went to the lowest bidder. Those people out of work for years have applied for an average of 43 jobs a week, and only get 5 interviews a week. They apply for low end jobs as well as high end ones. Never refusing a job, but then never being hired either.

quote:
As for Korn and his investment taxes, can you say capital gains taxes really suck, investment taxes really suck, taxes and expenses surrounding running a business really suck, what part of tax liability dont you understand? Some of the wealthiest people in the country pay over 70% of their income in taxes and other crap, the problem you have is they still have billions after they are done paying which means they should be making trillions instead. Buffet and Gates have billions but they also pay taxes and expenses for what they have, they are just smarter than you and have succeeded and that pisses you off.


Oh boo hoo, cry me a river. They make a ton of money off of others and complain because they get taxed. They are not smarter, they either were born rich like Gates, or got really lucky like Buffet. Being able to afford smart people to make the investments for one does not automatically make one smart, or smarter than someone else. When I invest and/or sell, I get taxed too. I just do not have as much money to earn the billions that others make. IIRC Gates got hit by the feds for investing and not reporting it. http://www.crn.com/sections/BreakingNew ... leID=49896 Such wealth-hiding tricks are often used to avoid paying taxes.

quote:
As far as Iraq, I was in during the first Gulf War and I think we should have taken his Butt out then but Bush senior was a panzie Butt about it. He would have had to break a promise to the UN, which is just a world puppet and a corrupt organization anyway, and he didnt want to do that and look bad. Instead he chose to push Saddam back to Baghdad and leave with little consequences. All that did was show the world that the US can be just as much a bully as he is. Slick Willy should have taken care of Bin Laden 10 years ago like Bush had to do after 9-11, we would never have had a 9-11 if Clinton would have done his job instead of being sucked off in the oval office. I agree that war should be a last resort but instead of *****footing around the reasons the president should just say I am invading Iraq because Saddam is a terrorist prick and I want to kill his Butt and all of his associates and then do it. The truth is the reasons we went into Iraq were justified, he had everything we said he had because we gave it to him. Your never going to see any proof of it because all the communist news organizations in this country arent going to let you know that it was all shipped out to neighboring countries sympathetic to the cause. Hell we told Saddam we were coming and on what day, any preschool idiot can figure out that if you dont want to get caught playing with something you get rid of it or put it away before their parents get home. That would be admitting that the press was wrong and that can just never be.


On that I agree, Saddam should have been taken out by Bush Sr. I congradulate you on serving in our military.

quote:
If our country wasnt brainwashed by the media and actually think for themselves then everyone would be saying lets send more troops and make this an overwhelming decisive event instead of a balancing act of politics and public opinion.


The root of the problem has not been removed. Terrorists loyal to Saddam, or other terrorist networks, still exist in Iraq or migrated there. As long as they are free, they pose a risk to our being there.

Bush's approval ratings may be at an all time low for his administration, but are not at all low in broader historical picture...

Well said, btw, BC.

-=Myth=-
Proud to be an elephant instead of a jackassz

quote:Originally posted by Bone Collector

Well, I posted a lengthy reply to you Orion which for some reason didnt go through and i dont have time to respond to each of your claims again right now so I will pick and choose.

1. Taxes
Have you ever been hired by a poor person? I havent. The rich people are the ones who drive the economy. Those investments that Ty is talking about not getting taxed SHOULDNT be taxed. Without rich people making investments how many new businesses are gonna start up? How many new jobs will be created then? The rich people are the ones who pay you for the jobs you do. If tax breaks for them promote new investments then they are good things. The dems KNOW this but are too busy trying to buy votes from the poor that they wont admit it.


You forget that this is a consumer driven economy. Yes I have been hired by a poor person who started up their own small business. Did you know that small businesses employ a vast majority of people in the workplace? I have myself started up two businesses on my own, due to lack of capital, I had to close them. Had I had small investments, I could have made more profit and hired more people and paid off shareolders more money. Programs that would have helped my business got cut, to give richfare to megacorps to ship jobs overseas. Rich people only invest mostly in existing large profitable firms, not the smaller struggling ones that need it. Therefore it can be said that the rich get richer. As I proved in a past post, tax cuts for the wealthy do not create jobs, or improve the economy, etc.

quote:
2. Flat Tax
I am for it and most poor people would be for it as well if all the facts would be presented in a non-political way. I have seen many studies which show that America would bring in more taxes if we would go to a flat tax. Why dont we?


Many independant candiates wanted a flat tax, so how did you vote? So what is a fair figure? 15%, 20%, 30%?

quote:
3. Jobs
Bush inherited a recession and then 911 happened. How good is the job market gonna be after that? How many people are gonna be investing immediately in the aftermath of 911. Do you remember the talk on Wall Street about what would happen to our economy after that? People were scared. The tax cuts you talk about PROMOTED new investments which in turn will drive the job market. It is really a simple process.


I have seen no proof of that, nor has there been any definate proof that tax cuts to the wealthy drive the job market. Many Economists like Pat Choate (Reform Party, has a PHD in Economics) have proved that trickle down does not work.

quote:
4. Orion in your arguments about drug companies you prove my point. Dems and the media complain in one area about outsourcing but in another area they are all for penalizing the US drug companies. You talk in one place about how we are losing jobs to foreign countries but then you turn around and say you are for penalizing the American drug companies. You criticize Bush for not protecting US jobs then you encourage policies that will cause people who work for drug companies to lose their jobs. Are you sure you are gonna vote for Dubya?


You have twisted my words, please do not do that. I did not talk about losing jobs, I talked about putting an end to the racketering that drug and health companies have for forcing US Citizens to pay more. That extra money goes for profits, which go into the campaign contributions to make sure that politicians pass laws to increase drug and health insurance costs. Nobody is going to lose their jobs if prices are made more affordable. Many US Citizens cannot afford health insurance or the drugs they need, thus it is a loss of revenue for the drug and health insurance companies. If they made more reasonable rates, they would lose the high prices but make up the money with the volume of sales that they have.


quote:
5. Corporations
Again, we have a president who is faced with the problems of a past administration. These CEO's who are in trouble today should have been in trouble in the 90's. Corporate fraud and cooking of the books is not something that began in 2000. It was happening long before and while I dont want to pin all the blame on slick, you surely cannot blame Bush for those problems. At least some of these guys are going to jail now, which I think everyone knows is more than what would have gone on under slick.


It is not a matter of who to blame, but who is going to clean up this mess. Bush has, so far, done a p*ss poor job of cleaning up and has practially stated "I did not make this mess, so I do not have to clean it up." The Corp Corruption goes back to the 1920's and has continued to slowly get out of control.

quote:
6. Unemployment
The jobs problem was created during the stock market run up during the 90's. I feel bad for those people who are out of work, but it is very difficult for me to sit here and listen to someone say they havent been able to find a job in 3 years. Please. There are tons of jobs out there. People everyday lose their job and find another one the same day. Stop being proud and get out and get you a job that you might THINK you are too for. You might not be able to live the lifestyle you grew accustomed to in the 90's but that is not Bush's fault. Please dont argue with the logic that new investments CREATES new jobs. It is common sense. The job losses are not Bush's fault and he is doing something to try to remedy the situation, which a lot of people think is working.


I worked a $9/hr Help Desk job for a while, when I lost my $24/hr job. I have worked as a temp worker, in fast food, as an election judge, and many other previous positions when times were tough. I am not afrid of working low paying jobs. Now I am not hireable, because the low paying jobs have managers who think "Well I could hire Orion, but once the IT Job Market bounces back, he will quit for a better job. I'd rather have someone who will stay with the company. Besides his work history shows he has a potential for much hiring earnings than this job offers." My current employment status is beyond my control anyway, I got several illnesses and my doctor ordered me not to work until I got better. So my only hope is to go back to college and earn a degree and when I get better find a Non-IT job to work at. I still apply for work, and I still am turned down, even for the "Joke Jobs".

quote:
7. Terror
If anyone here really thinks we will be safer with someone like Kerry in charge you are silly. Terrorists are gonna try to influence this election just like they did with Spain. However, in order to better understand the thinking of those people you have to realize that they hate us no matter who is in charge. They believe they should kill anyone who doesnt believe the same things they believe. I know you hear all the time about how peaceful Islam is. That is BS. If you read books written by TRUE muslims they will tell you that it is not a peaceful religion. It was founded on violence and continues to preach violence today. It is really sad to me that in America we have people (dems) who think it is ok to let muslim schools teach their pupils to hate America. I would think anyone would see the danger in this, yet people like kerry continue to preach the importance of diversity and tolerance. Why should I be forced to tolerate someone who wishes I were dead? Until we get a government that has some backbone on issues such as diversity we are gonna constantly be in danger. Bush is taking a PROactive stance on this as much as he can while dems tend to take a REactive stance. I dont care one bit about the people of Iraq. We invaded that country for multiple reasons, not the least of which was our FUTURE safety. Yes, we (every major intelligence agency int he world included) thought he had WMD's, but there are many other reasons which noone in government will ever admit. Let me ask you this TYPHOON: Where is the oil that is powering your vehicle gonna come from in 20 years? Do you really want to rely on someone like Hussein to supply us that oil? You guys support the environment as long as it doesnt affect you personally. We are smart enough to know that without oil our entire way of life will change. Imagine the consequences if we dont have a supply of oil at our disposal. You guys dont want us to drill ANWR, yet you have no forward thinking peopel in the entire party. WHERE ARE WE GONNA GET THAT OIL? YOu would be silly to think we arent gonna need it. Now ask yourself who you would have blamed IF Saddam had sold weapons to terrorists and we hadnt went in. Bush? We did and are doing the right thing in Iraq. We are safer not having to worry about him. I will address other issues next time Typhoon. I invite debate on any issue without getting angry or flaming people.


I thought I made it clear that I neither support Bush or Kerry. I'd rather vote for Mickey Mouse, a fictational character, than either of those two. I might vote for an independant canidate, maybe not Nadar, I wonder who the Reform Party will nominate? Too bad Jessie Ventura won't run until 2008, he'd get tougher on terrorists than Bush ever will. Being an Ex-Navy Seal, he was one of the elite and knows how to deal with these sort of situations.

As for oil, we have 50 years of oil left before the current sources run out. Hybrid cars are already being made. We need to invest in alternative energy. Apparently BP is already doing that, and I wish the other oil/gas companies would as well.

You also have to realize that the Muslim Terrorists are fundamentalists, and follow traditions set before the founding of Islam. They have twisted the words of Islam, in much the same way as we Christians did when we had the Inquisition, The Crusades, The Salem Witch Trials, etc. You take out the Muslim Terrorist leaders, and cut off their source of income (like the Saudi Princes who still wire them money), and you seriously limit their abilities. You fight them on their own terms and you lose. You either take out innocents as well as terrorists as they do use human shields, or you make yourself look so bad that they use it to recruit more terrorists. If you can convince them that they are being mislead, you may be able to break them up a bit. We need to fight terrorists in more than the conventional sense, apparently. Sun Tzu said "Know your enemy" and apparently we do not.

A book that described these current trends that most people ignored:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... 1?v=glance

It contains facts and figures and evidence on what when wrong with American and how to fix it. Too bad hardly anyone listened. This is not new stuff, BTW. Same old crud, different year. Neither the Democrats or Republicans can do anything to make it better, as they are too busy fighting each other and we are stuck in Political Gridlock.

quote:Originally posted by Bone Collector

Those investments that Ty is talking about not getting taxed SHOULDNT be taxed. Without rich people making investments how many new businesses are gonna start up? How many new jobs will be created then? The rich people are the ones who pay you for the jobs you do. If tax breaks for them promote new investments then they are good things. The dems KNOW this but are too busy trying to buy votes from the poor that they wont admit it.
2. Flat Tax
I am for it and most poor people would be for it as well if all the facts would be presented in a non-political way. I have seen many studies which show that America would bring in more taxes if we would go to a flat tax. Why dont we?


Taxes & investments : In general, i agree with what you said. Investments should be encouraged, and a flat tax is a good idea. However, in practice this isn't as easy as it sounds.

1. something to consider : the government's spending power in terms of investment should -not- be underestimated. A tax cut that adds to the budget deficit WITHOUT increasing the average income significantly hampers the governments ability to invest in schools, health, infrastructure, basic research, military. This is the equivalent of a whole TON of rich people & corporations investing less.

(opinion) : private investment is generally more important than public (government) - as long as private investment really is spurred enough by a tax cut to significantly outweigh government spending. Whether that is currently the case, i am not sure.

Flat Tax : many, including myself, agree that this is a good idea. Part of the reason that we don't have one yet is that its tricky to pinpoint what exactly is to be defined as income.

(opinion) : i think a flat salary tax would be a fair start

quick note (supply side economics) : supply side economics (tax cuts = economic growth) have a shaky track record at the very best, and historically has not proven itself. While i think some of its principles are sound - i'm not an economist (and i believe most economicsts are 'not' supply siders) - I would prefer if the government relied on a proven formula rather than one that may well sound better than it actually is.

quote: We invaded that country for multiple reasons, not the least of which was our FUTURE safety. Yes, we (every major intelligence agency int he world included) thought he had WMD's, but there are many other reasons which noone in government will ever admit. Let me ask you this TYPHOON: Where is the oil that is powering your vehicle gonna come from in 20 years? Do you really want to rely on someone like Hussein to supply us that oil? You guys support the environment as long as it doesnt affect you personally. We are smart enough to know that without oil our entire way of life will change. Imagine the consequences if we dont have a supply of oil at our disposal. You guys dont want us to drill ANWR, yet you have no forward thinking peopel in the entire party. WHERE ARE WE GONNA GET THAT OIL? YOu would be silly to think we arent gonna need it. Now ask yourself who you would have blamed IF Saddam had sold weapons to terrorists and we hadnt went in. Bush? We did and are doing the right thing in Iraq. We are safer not having to worry about him. I will address other issues next time Typhoon. I invite debate on any issue without getting angry or flaming people.


Oil & War : The bottom line is that our way of life is relying on a non-renewable source of energy. Taking control of Iraq is at 'best' a very temporary solution. Eventually, the oil will run out - whether or not we control every source of oil from the north atlantic to indonesia.

(opinion-oil) : The government should invest more heavily in the development and exploration of renewable sources of energy. Purely for the sake of long term economic sustainability. It would be more forward thinking to begin reducing our dependency on oil now, and at the same time invest in the economy - rather than to drain it for the sake of a band-aid solution to a monumental problem.

(opinion-war) : the Iraq war was/is a short-term solution, with significant short term problems. The problems outweigh the benefits (even though i am 'guessing' 10-15 years into the future, as very few of the potential benefits have manifested themselves - but many of the problems have) - bottom line : it is/was impractical, and a tactical mistake.

WMD & Terrorism : Historically, it is a challenge to trace a link between islamic radicals and Saddam. So while it is a possible 'what if' scenario, based on all available evidence it is an unlikely one.

(opinion) : We are no more secure now than before the Iraq war. Arguably, even less so. Radical muslims will not stop hating us, but we are giving even moderates a good reason to dislike us, as well as providing a cause for them to rally behind. Saddam was a brutal despot, but based on all available evidence i've seen - not a threat to us.

I have to ask one question about tax cuts that I have not seen anyone talk about.

How can tax cuts work if you do not decrease govt spending?



--OutKast

what do you mean by 'work' ?

state govts can't, i think, but the federal gov can always spend over its budget by borrowing - which increases the deficit

I'm a Liberal I've always been a Liberal I will ALWAYS be a Liberal. But I could NEVER vote for John Kerry. I have been an aide in a previous Liberal administration and frankly I'm glad he doesn't claim to be a Liberal.

Everytime he annouces a spending initiative or criticizes a government restraint he says he'll pay for it by repealing the Bush tax cuts on the top 1%. By his own numbers this is mathematically impossible.

Fact: Bush hires Democrats who are disloyal (Clark, Wilson) Clark's ONLY complaint is he wasn't given the access HE felt he should get, either as deputy homeland security secretary or as anti terrorism csar. Wilson has his poor outed wifes picture everywhere he can show it. Fact ex CIA agents identities are disclosed all the time.

The agenda was always to paint Bush as a liar because Clinton was and stupid which he isn't. When Clinton the admitted draft avoider ran Military Service didn't matter. Now that the Dems have a Vietnam Vet , Lt.JG Kerry, suddenly service is paramount. He was a full Navy Lt. for less than a week before discharge and NOT for a minute in country.

I encourage all to vote BUSH for the good of freedom loving peoples everywhere.

quote: Fact ex CIA agents identities are disclosed all the time.

i doubt it, but even so its irrelevant. She was still working for the CIA undercover when her identity was disclosed.