|
Reruns The Doghouse
Prince's Sound and Fury Guest
Editorial: ZEP Zeroes
in... Justin on Economics Repub's
Corner:
JayC's Soapbox |
Tax Debate
As election time drew near, PIC members were engrossed in the
proposals and pledges of both George Bush and Al Gore.
One of the most in-depth discussions, involving both taxes and
Social Security, was kicked off with this post titled “Choices”
(Post #42182, dated 9/8/00).
Part I
Choices
/ Taxes & the Surplus
domer_10:
With a huge surplus projected over the next ten years, do we
want to invest in America's future or give a windfall to the rich?
Gore proposes saving Social Security, paying down the debt, providing
prescription drug coverage through Medicare, securing health insurance
for all children. Bush proposes saving Social Security in a different
way and giving a huge tax break that in absolute dollar amounts will
grossly over-favor the wealthy, based on some ideological notion of
"fairness" and loyalty to kind. On this and so many other
issues, the choice is clear. Give Gore the chance to govern FOR THE
PEOPLE, NOT FOR THE RICH.
domer_10:
The mantra of the right regarding tax cuts seems to be
"It's my money!" Says who? That money was under a legislated
tax regime collecting from the populace the amounts that added up to
the surplus. At that point it's no longer "your" money. The
government, by law, through the legislative process, has the absolute
authority to spend or save it as it sees fit. Among all the possible
choices for use of that money, why on earth would one want to apply
perhaps nearly a trillion dollars or so (or more) to aid to the
wealthy? Put the money where it's needed. And I'll repeat: It has long
since ceased being "your" money. For you novices out there,
every economy operates on a social, political and legal context,
collectively known as the rules of the game. Those rules enable you to
earn your money, and those rules may and can dictate how the
government collects taxes to provide for the COMMON good.
dharkangell: domer:
<<That money was under a legislated tax regime collecting from
the populace the amounts that added up to the surplus.>> The surplus that is covered by tax cuts, oh great sage, has not been
collected yet.
<<At
that point it's no longer "your" money. The government, by
law, through the legislative process, has the absolute authority to
spend or save it as it sees fit.>>
That would include tax cuts right?
<<Among all the possible choices for use of that money,
why on earth would one want to apply perhaps nearly a trillion dollars
or so (or more) to aid to the wealthy?>>
So the rich are now people who make $50,000 a year? That's news to me,
cannot wait to go home and tell everyone I'm now part of the 'wealthy'
class.
<<For
you novices out there, every economy operates on a social, political
and legal context, collectively known as the rules of the game. Those
rules enable you to earn your money, and those rules may and can
dictate how the government collects taxes to provide for the COMMON
good.>>
Domer what is wrong with you? I mean really this is pretty lame attacking
the 'rich', constantly talking about unsupported 'feelings' about
Gore's character. And this "rulles of the game" stuff, all
to make some point about how taxes are not 'my money' or some such.
I am not sure wether to be sad that someone I once though was a fairly
intelligent person has bought into this quasi religous mantra or
whether to think you are nothing but a DNC shill.
dharkangell:
Do you really want to continue to purpotrate this line of
reasoning. Is it not better to work together toward a well balanced
economy. Have the 'rich' not provided the lowest unemployment rate,
the least inflation, and greatest period of economic growth on record
WITHOUT government interference?
Either the last 8 years have been a failure or a success. I am not longer
sure which. I also continually confused by the use of the term 'rich'.
Who are 'the rich' what income group do they fall into. $40,000?
$50,000? $60,000? $100,000?
Domer you are writing as if the only way people become wealthy is through
explotation and immoral action. Do you beleive that? Do you find that
those who are wealthy have somehow 'cheated' the rest of us?
<<Give
Gore the chance to govern FOR THE PEOPLE, NOT FOR THE RICH.>>
Finally the above quote I find most disturbing, in fact I am not just
tired of reading and hearing it I am sick of its ambiguity, its
unabashed appeal to the stupidity of mankind. Make someone an enemy
today its the rich, yesterday the Jew, tommorrow who will it be?
And one more point, if Gore is for the people, is he not for all people?
domer_10:
Dark, I don't particularly care what you think. My posts stand
on their own. As an American, I have the right to my views, the right
to express them to my fellows. And your supposed rebuttal is nothing
more than pap, canticlized to come across as sonorous. I don't buy it
a bit. What I say about Gore and the issues that are important is
clear and proud, with no apologies. Now as to your "points,"
regardless of when the tax is collected or when the duty of payment
accrues, the principle is the same: There are rules, the rules say
it's no longer your money, and the rules say the legislature can
devote it to socially beneficial ends. Indeed, not above sophistry,
your so-called "my money" argument is LESS persuasive when
applied to prospective cuts, as in you haven't even "earned"
the money yet.
Further, for your information, about 40 percent of Bush's tax cut would
go to the wealthiest one percent. I don't think the $50,000-a-year guy
would do poorly under Gore, but please don't say Bush doesn't favor
the rich. To have any credibility about the middle-income folks, you
must first address the great waste of money on the rich. And I use my
words carefully.
A little familiarity with political philosophy might go a long way. You
point me to a transcending political concern (certainly not a matter
of constitutional governance or societal equity) that is served by
Bush's tax cut, and I'll show you a counterargument, in spades.
richpo64:
It finally happened domer. You went over the edge.
I've never seen such twisted logic in my life. Well, not in this club
anyway.
domer_10:
Try to refute, Richpo, your ability to rule by fiat having come
under question.
dharkangell:
domer:
<<Dark, I don't particularly care what you think. My posts
stand on their own. As an American, I have the right to my views, the
right to express them to my fellows. And your supposed rebuttal is
nothing more than pap, canticlized to come across as sonorous. I don't
buy it a bit.>>
Well aren't you just the true the beleiver.
<<Now
as to your "points," regardless of when the tax is collected
or when the duty of payment accrues, the principle is the same: There
are rules, the rules say it's no longer your money, and the rules say
the legislature can devote it to socially beneficial ends.>>
Unfortunately this line of reasoning is quite moot. As we do not debate
wether or not the legislature has the right to tax, but rather wether
it properly appropriates that tax in the form of spending, saving, or
tax reductions.
<<Indeed, not above sophistry, your so-called "my
money" argument is LESS persuasive when applied to prospective
cuts, as in you haven't even "earned" the money yet.>>
I have not made any 'my money' arguments. In fact I could care less. You
are the one harping on Gore's character, attacking 'the rich' (whom
incidently you STILL have not defined) and making ludicrous strawman
arguments about the authrority of gov't to levy taxes.
<<Further,
for your information, about 40 percent of Bush's tax cut would go to
the wealthiest one percent.>>
Did you pull that number out of the DNC speaking points or just your ass?
<<To
have any credibility about the middle-income folks, you must first
address the great waste of money on the rich.>>
Repeating question: "Who are 'the rich'?"
<<A
little familiarity with political philosophy might go a long way. You
point me to a transcending political concern (certainly not a matter
of constitutional governance or societal equity) that is served by
Bush's tax cut, and I'll show you a counterargument, in
spades.>>
I don't think I have ever supported the Bush campaign's tax cut proposal
per se. In fact I find both fiscal proposals to be equally laughable,
each taking and 'spinning' economic factors to their favor. But at
least I recognize that fact you on the other hand seemed convinced
that Gore is some kind of second coming.
domer_10:
You're showing me nothing, kid; go back to dungeons and
dragons.
dharkangell:
domer:
<<You're showing me nothing, kid; go back to dungeons and
dragons.>>
I see so your answer to "Who are the rich?" is to make snide
comments. Ok, true beleiver whatever you say is true.
hcal99:
Dhark,
Dems definition of rich is probably anyone able to save money.
On to the next definition. Define 'working families'... Oh, another question for the Dems. What ever happened to the 'targeted
middle class tax cut' promised in '92 and '96? The same will happen to
the one promised in '00. And the beat goes on...
Mint_60:
hcal99:
<<Oh, another question for the Dems. What ever happened to
the 'targeted middle class tax cut' promised in '92 and '96?>>
Perhaps you could give some context to your charge?
Who promised a middle class tax cut and in what form?
Would you consider expansion of the EITC, the health insurance deduction
and the $500 dollar childcare credit targeted tax cuts?
domer_10:
For starters, the "rich" include the top one percent
of the wealthy who will receive about 40 percent of the Bush largesse.
Mint_60:
Or the top 5% that own 95% of the nations wealth. Only seems
"just" that they pay more in taxes considering how much they
have benifitted from this great economy.
Anneof1000days:
I just have to say this....Way to Go Dhark.......:-)......The
way you delievered that post....Well, you just made me Proud! :-)
hcal99:
They also pay 40 percent of the taxes... So what...
10% of 1,000,000 is 100,000 (pay more get more)
10% of 1,000 is 100 (pay less get less)
What is so unfair about that?
Anneof1000days:
In Gore's Mind....the Rich are those who make over $70
thousand.....put two married working people together , who make
$35,000....and voila...you are rich.......so you see Ganny.....not
being married has it's advantages.
richpo64:
domer:
<<your ability to rule by fiat having come under
question.>>
Well domer, I hope you didn't think I was trying to insult you. I wasn't.
The idea that tax money is anything other that the peoples is
ridiculous. What you did what try and justify this claim by basically
saying that once it's gone, it's gone. Technically and physically
correct, but sorry, this is a government supported by the people, not
the other way around.
domer_10:
Tax money is the people's, Rich says. OK what people. According
to my understanding, a legitimate tax regime takes part of one's money
to apply to public, common purposes. It belongs to no one but the ones
who benefit from its spending by the government.
I'll illustrate with two points. First, the state of nature. Say a man
accumulates a lot of wealth by growing food, mining minerals, etc. Did
he get the consent of the others who live nearby to do so. How were
these property "rights" created; did God bestow them?
Suppose that famine hits, and the nearby peons need food. What
prevents them, other than the lord's arms, from sacking the granaries,
or ousting the lord altogether? Nothing except the fear or certainty
of retaliation, in the face of which a wily bunch of peons will arm
and militarize themselves. There is no law against any of this,
because there is no state.
Second, jump ahead to modern times with a grand, complex, interdependent
society. The first hallmark of this new situation is law, the glue
that holds people together, that allows society to exist. Long since
past is the time when chieftains could appropriate what they want,
limited only by what they could physically protect. Instead, a regime
of laws has been established to settle disputes civilly, to mete out
justice and to assure that the fundamental aims of the republic are
fulfilled. The earning, accumulation, retention and distribution of
money is subject to complex sets of interrelated laws: the rules of
the game. One of the rules of the game says this: we can take your
earnings, we can tax transactions and events at a rate agreed upon by
the legislature, and devote all that money to the common cause, as
determined by the legislature. Once that law is in place and you are
taxed (we don't allow retroactive taxation on earnings), THE MONEY
BELONGS TO ALL THE PEOPLE. In one way, that is a cost of living in a
civilized society. It is fair, just, lawful and constitutional.
brandre:
You have it all wrong. Tax money is the property of the
liberals who are the elite that know what is best for us and any time
we question that we only show our ignorance...
domer_10:
(to brandre) You've
finally said something semi-intelligent. On that note, I retire.
dharkangell:
domer: <<How were these property "rights"
created; did God bestow them?>>
Ever heard of Montesquieu? Rousseau? Locke? Perhaps the Declaration of
Independence?
<<Suppose that famine hits, and the nearby peons need
food. What prevents them, other than the lord's arms, from sacking the
granaries, or ousting the lord altogether? Nothing except the fear or
certainty of retaliation, in the face of which a wily bunch of peons
will arm and militarize themselves. There is no law against any of
this, because there is no state.>>
Of course if there was a law and people were starving they would first
file a lawsuit before taking to arms. Perhaps they will also ask for
Santa Clause to bring them some seeds....
<<Second, jump ahead to modern times with a grand,
complex, interdependent society. The first hallmark of this new
situation is law, the glue that holds people together, that allows
society to exist.>>
Law does not hold society together. I have yet to see a single statute of
the infinite volumes so far written get up and arrest someone. Force
is what holds society together, laws provide the means and rules by
which force is used. But its force and the threat of force that is the
glue of any society.
How does this:
<<One of the rules of the game says this: we can take
your earnings, we can tax transactions and events at a rate agreed
upon by the legislature, and devote all that money to the common
cause, as determined by the legislature.>>
Differ with this:
<<Long
since past is the time when chieftains could appropriate what they
want, limited only by what they could physically protect.>>
You know Domer simply switching the term 'legislature' for 'cheiftain'
does not a republic make. And just who is 'we' and why is the 'we' not
included in the group being taxed?
<<THE MONEY BELONGS TO ALL THE PEOPLE.>>
Are we including 'the rich' now or not? I am very confused because before
it seemed 'we' pretty much hated 'the rich' and had to tax them as
much as possible. But now "The money belongs to all the
people" so are we including 'the rich' among 'the people' and the
'we'? I am sorry but you see my lack of political knowledge confuses
me about such simple things.
<<It is fair, just, lawful and constitutional.>>
Yah HOO! You know why? Cause Stone Cold said so! That's why!
Give me fricking break....
domer_10:
This stuff is so basic, Dark, that I am almost aghast at having
to explain it. Bottom line: nothing said in opposition to Bush's tax
gift to the wealthy is 1) immoral or 2) unlawful. It's squarely in the
political arena. If you can convince the average Joe to vote for Bush
so he can squander a surplus by giving 40 percent of a massive tax cut
to one percent of the population, then be my guest. My bet is that
Gore will make the case against much better than Bush will for. I will
only offer one philosophical comment: Jesus (for my purposes) would
spend on the needy.
hcal99:
domer: <<Jesus (for my
purposes) would spend on the needy.>>
Actually, Jesus would most likely teach a man to fish than give a man a
fish...
By the way, how would you feel if you worked all your life to achieve and
you realized financial success as a result only to have to government
come in a take half of what you worked so hard for? Explain to me how
this encourages hard work...after all you are advocating this.
dharkangell:
Domer your ability to obfuscate an issue is truely astounding.
Pray tell what exactly does Jesus, Bush's tax plan, or morallity have
to do with legislative authority to tax or rule of law?
I think you've been drinking too much of that fine New Jersey tap water
for a little too long.
dharkangell:
domer:
<<. . . so he can squander a surplus by giving 40 percent of
a massive tax cut to one percent of the population . . ..>>
Ok you keep throughing this out there perhaps you can explain how you
reached this conlcusion. And I already know you did not get it from
the Washington Post.
Part II
Who
Are The Rich?
dharkangell:
I want to know who 'the rich' are. Could any liberal or Gore
supporter explain to me to whom Gore is refferring to when he says
'the rich' or 'the wealthy'.
Thank you in advance.
Mint_60:
People
who can quit work tommorow and live comfortably off their trust funds
and interest on their investments.
dharkangell:
Mint:
<<People who can quit work tommorow and live comfortably off
their trust funds and interest on their investments.>>
So how large of a trust fund do you need to be considered someone who can
"live comfortably off their trust funds and interest and their
investments." When you talk about 'the rich' are you only
referring to people who have inherited their wealth through a trust
fund?
viaveritasvitas:
Pssst...be sure some will tell you about the rich, fat
cats...but the liberals won't mention your parents, grandparents who
may be retired and live on a small place with an ocean view...a place
they worked hard and where they dreamed of retiring...(however, the
liberals want to tell them...UP UP UP with the TAXES to support our
committees, our Bureacuratic Infrastructure...take your tired, poor
huddled asses, sell your home and go straight to the nursing home,
trailer park, get your ass on welfare, etc...WE know what's best for
you...we want to experiment with your future!...YOUR WAY IS
BULLSHIT!...They will take the future away from those who have worked
hard to have a "present" and a "retirement" and
transform it into one which permits them to live in extraordinary
discomfort until their death. (These liberals will take away their
living...like in California where they merely raise the school taxes
---and tell the older retirees...sell it pal, put a sheet over your
head and walk slowly to the nursing home right beside the
cemetery!....That's right after the "kiss and promise of
prosperity" and a "full dinner pail for all"...
"The Rich",according to the liberals in D.C., are the ones who
have income, savings and assets that can be confiscated through taxes
and/or death.
We're all looking for someone who can maintain a powerful economy,
balance the profit/wage issue, provide the best socialized/private
medical system and a bright leader with wisdom, vision and judgment.
There is not much light at the end of the tunnels being offered.
In a More Serious Mode..
Martha Steward should run. She could offer us all of the above and say,
"by the way Mr. Putin---while you're backing your tired, leaking
submarines into the newly redecorated drydocks and when you take a
break in the shop where you're melting your weapons into plowshares,
have a taste of this delicious pumpkin pie"...
Quite frankly I'm for world peace and pumpkin pie. Now there's a campaign
promise you can take to the voting booth.
Part III
The
Tax Plan
marinecorporal23:
Well, lets think, have you ever heard about what is called a
3rd candidate? The only reason Clinton won the election is because of
Ross Perot in the first place. If he wouldn't have stuck his nose in
the election George Bush would have been re-elected. Dole lost for the
same reason. ANd for the guy that was refering to Republicans as the
trailer trash, mabe you aught to look at who is who. Most of the
College educated intelligent people in this nation are Republicans,
Democrats are always the ones saying that we are always for the rich.
And most of the dirt poor trailer trash are Democrats anyway because
they know the Democrats are the ones that are giving the handouts.
Republicans would make them work for thier money.
jkstraw_01: There you go again..blaming
someone else, some other THING, other than your candidate, your
ideology, your campaign strategy...whatever. You find reasons for your
failure that are external to yourself, and your ideology. A lesson
never learned, a tactic oft-repeated. But to no avail.
BTW..source on the fact that more republicans are College educated than
liberals? That's a new one on me....
As far as being for the rich goes...we stick by that one. Both Time and
Newsweek magazine noted that over 50% of Bush's tax cut goes to the
wealthiest Americans.
marinecorporal23: Have you bothered to look at the actual tax plan?
Have you read it? I guess not, because if you did you would know that
the people that benefit most are the Lower and Middle class
richpo64: Setting the Record
Straight...Gore Website Shows Little Tax Relief
“Well, what Gore has proposed is a whole bunch of government spending
programs that would be run by the Internal Revenue Service. He's got a
plan to encourage people to buy more energy-efficient appliances.
Who's in charge of that? The Energy Department? No. The Internal
Revenue Service. And down the list. It adds up to about 500 billion in
spending programs that would be run by IRS.”
(Bob McIntyre, Citizens for Tax Justice, CNN’s “Inside
Politics, 8/22/00)
“Gore is profoundly not a one-size-fits-all tax cut.
If you do the things that he seeks to reward… then you win.
If you don’t do any of these things, your taxes are, by and
large, unchanged under his proposal.”
(Clint Stretch, Director of Tax Policy, Deloitte and Touche, as
quoted in the Cleveland Plain Dealer, 9/17/00)
Austin - Al Gore is unveiling a new website today that demonstrates the
absurd lengths he must go to show families who would benefit from his
tax plan. Using mythical
families to demonstrate how “real families” would benefit under
his tax plan, the website shows the complicated maze of qualifications
that families must meet in order to get any tax relief from Al Gore.
“Al Gore’s use of mythical families to show how real families would
benefit under his tax plan is laughable,” said Bush spokesman Dan
Bartlett. “Al Gore’s
new website will be a wonderful destination for taxpayers who want to
see just how complicated and ridiculous Al Gore’s tax plan really
is. Governor Bush has a
simple formula that will give tax cuts to everyone who pays income
taxes.”
Al Gore has conjured up five hypothetical families that he claims would
benefit more from his tax plan than from Governor Bush’s plan.
However, Gore’s examples are riddled with inaccuracies,
ridiculous assumptions and falsehoods. The following are just some examples of the problems with
Gore’s release:
Family 1 - A Family With Two Small Children Making $35,000
Gore Website: “A family with two small children making $35,000: $6,946
more from Gore-Lieberman than from Bush-Cheney. This family would
benefit from tax cuts to help pay for childcare, save for a first
home, and marriage penalty relief. This family would also benefit from
the minimum wage increase. In addition, this family would benefit from
the Gore-Lieberman plan for health coverage through the Children’s
Health Insurance Program expansion, guaranteed preschool, and
affordable and high quality child care.”
Without Gore’s ‘Behavioral Requirements,’ Family Benefits More
Under Bush: Under the
Bush plan, this family would have their federal income taxes
completely eliminated even without meeting any of Al Gore’s tests or
requirements -- that would be a savings of $1370.
If this family didn’t know about the details of Al Gore’s
complicated tax plan, they would wind up paying $1,145 in income
taxes.
This Family Will Likely Never Receive Gore’s Promised Pre-School Aid:
Gore assumes this family would receive $2,400 under his
“Qualified Universal Pre-School” plan that applies only to
four-year-olds. In
addition, Gore doesn’t even fully fund this program, leaving
questions as to how much help a family would really get under this
proposal.
* “A limited program that would cover just 4-year-olds would cost
roughly $100 billion over 10 years, according to Isabel V. Sawhill, a
senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Adding 3-year-olds would
more than double that figure.
Presented with that estimate, the Gore campaign revealed
yesterday that it is proposing only about $50 billion worth of block
grants to states to help make preschool available to all children. In
some cases, Gore officials said, parents would pick up the actual
cost.”
-Washington Post, “Democratic Duel's Costly Promises; Gore, Bradley
Plans Projected to Erase $1 Trillion Surplus,” 10/09/99
Family 2 - A Couple Making $50,000 And Caring For An Elderly Parent And
Saving To Send Their Child To College
Gore Website: “A family making $50,000, caring for an elderly parent
and hoping to send their child to college: $12,960 more from
Gore-Lieberman than from Bush-Cheney. This family would benefit from
tax relief that helps pay for long-term care, save for college, and
provides marriage penalty relief. Lower interest rates that result
from fiscal discipline will save this family on mortgage payments and
car payments. The mother, one of the best teachers in the district,
will receive a pay increase through “Higher Standards / Higher Pay
for Teachers.” In addition to the $12,960 advantage under the Gore
plan, this family will also accumulate twice as much to send their
children to college over the next 18 years.”
Gore Uses Example That Applies To Less Than One-Half of One Percent of
Taxpayers: Gore assumes
this family has a newly certified “master teacher” that would
qualify for his one-time benefit of $10,000.
Gore has allocated $8 billion for this program meaning that (at
$10,000 per teacher) it would benefit less than 80,000 teachers. There
are about 95 million income taxpayers in the nation, meaning this
proposal of Gore’s would benefit less than one-half of one percent
of all taxpayers.
Gore Assumes Savings From Lower Interest Rates That Don’t Exist:
Gore is assuming that his plan would lead to lower interest
rates, yet Alan Greenspan has said that he would prefer a Bush-style
tax cut to a Gore-style spending increase.
* “So I very strongly would argue against using the surplus for new
expenditure programs and if that, indeed, appears to be forthcoming, I
would favor tax cuts, even short-term, because they are - they would
be far less a concern on what would happen to the economy over the
longer run than were we to go the expenditure route.”
-Alan Greenspan, Hearing of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs
Committee, 7/28/99
Gore’s Imaginary “Real Families” Don’t Include Many Real Life
Scenarios: This family
owns their own home and would likely itemize their taxes, thus making
them ineligible for Al Gore’s marriage penalty relief.
Every one of Al Gore’s examples assumes the family doesn’t
itemize, and that the family doesn’t give any money to charity or
church. Under the current
tax code, taxpayers who don’t itemize cannot deduct their charitable
giving. Unlike Al Gore,
Governor Bush would allow 100 percent deductibility for charitable
giving to those who don’t itemize.
Family 3 - A Family With Three Children Earning $60,000
Gore Website: A family with three children making $60,000: $4,850 more
from Gore-Lieberman than from Bush-Cheney. This family will save
through tax cuts for working families, including marriage penalty
relief, tax cuts to help pay for college, and the Retirement Saving
Plus plan. Lower interest rates will save this family money on
everything from mortgages to student loans. This family will also
benefit from being able to participate in a high-quality after school
program and benefit from job training for the mother. Under the
Gore-Lieberman plan this family could ALSO enjoy a retirement income
that is nearly twice as large under the Bush-Cheney plan, both because
they save Social Security and because they provide greater
opportunities for saving through Retirement Savings Plus accounts.
Without Meeting Gore’s Behavioral Requirements, Family Fares Better
Under Bush: Under Governor Bush’s simple across-the-board tax cut,
this family would get a $1,825 tax cut even without any behavioral
requirements. With Al
Gore’s complicated tax plan, the family would only receive $225 of
marriage penalty relief -- any additional relief can only be
determined after going through Al Gore's bureaucratic hoops.
Gore’s “Real” Family Is Devoid Of Many “Real” Situations:
Since the family in this situation owns their own home, it is
very likely that they would itemize their taxes.
Therefore they would be ineligible for Al Gore’s marriage
penalty relief.
Gore Again Assumes Savings From Low Interest Rates That Don’t Exist:
In this example, Al Gore again assumes that a family would
benefit from lower interest rates that he claims would come with his
plan. Gore is ignoring
the fact that “Alan Greenspan has said he prefers Bush-like tax cuts
to Gore-style spending increases.”
(Wall Street Journal, 9/7/00)
Gore Does Explain Where Some Of His Proposals Come From:
Gore says this family saves $2,000 because the mother is in a
computer training course, but he doesn’t explain which new program
this money comes from. Gore
seems to be proposing a new $2,000 tax credit for computer training,
but this is program is nowhere to be found in his “detailed”
budget.
Gore Invents Numbers To Suit His Purpose: Al Gore says this family would save $1,000 per year because
they would put their youngest child in a new, government-approved
after-school program, but he doesn’t give any basis for this
calculation.
Family 4 - An Elderly Couple Receiving Medicare Prescription Drugs And
Buying Into Medicare
Gore Website: An elderly couple, making $45,000, in need of health
coverage and prescription drug coverage: $6,169 more from
Gore-Lieberman than from Bush-Cheney. This family will save money on
lower taxes through marriage penalty relief and fiscal discipline
which results in lower interest rates. The wife will be able to buy
into Medicare, saving her substantially on premiums, and to use the
health insurance tax credit to save even more. The husband will get a
prescription drug benefit through Medicare, rather than being forced
to pay all the bills himself.
Gore Does Not Include Governor Bush’s Prescription Drug Proposal:
Gore’s example conveniently neglects to include the benefits
this couple would receive under Governor Bush’s prescription drug
proposal. Furthermore,
this couple would qualify for Governor Bush’s catastrophic coverage,
giving them $1,320 in Medicare benefits that Gore does not include.
Gore Makes Untrue Statements About Governor Bush’s Medicare Plan:
In the accompanying chart, Gore falsely says that Governor Bush
supports raising the age for Medicare eligibility.
Governor Bush has said clearly that he would not raise the
eligibility age for Medicare.
Gore Ignores Penalties Incurred On Wife For Joining Medicare Early:
Gore says that his plan would not contain any increase in
Medicare premiums. However,
the wife in Gore’s example would have to pay an increased Medicare
premium. Under the
Clinton plan which Gore has adopted, beneficiaries who buy into the
Medicare program at age 62 must pay an increased premium for their
Medicare when they turn 65.
Family 5 - A Single Mother With Three Children Earning $22,000
Gore’s Website: “A single mother with three children earning $22,000:
$7,979 more from Gore-Lieberman than from Bush-Cheney. This family
benefits from guaranteed access to preschool, expanded health
insurance, increased child support payments, and tax cuts to reward
work and pay for child care. The mother, recently diagnosed with
breast cancer is receiving potentially lifesaving treatment. The
children are getting individualized attention in smaller classes. Once
a “deadbroke dad,” the noncustodial father is meeting his
responsibilities by going to work and paying child support. The
Bush-Cheney plan would not provide any benefits to this family.”
Gore’s Example Isn’t About Tax Cuts, It’s About New Spending:
The family in Gore’s example already pays nothing in any
federal income taxes. Therefore,
Gore’s proposal isn’t about cutting taxes, it’s about creating
new spending.
Gore Again Assumes Pre-School Benefit That He Can’t Pay For:
Gore assumes this family fully benefits from a pre-school
benefit he doesn’t fully fund (See Family 1).
If this family’s child was 3 years old instead of 4, they
would not qualify for any pre-school aid under Gore’s proposal.
Gore Makes Absurd Assumptions In Effort To Undercut Bush Tax Relief:
Under this example, Gore assumes the mother gets health
insurance through her employer, but that the employer doesn’t pay
for any portion of the coverage. Why would an employer offer a health plan but not pay for any
part of it? If this
employer didn’t offer any health plan, the mother would qualify for
a $2000 tax credit under Governor Bush’s plan.
JayC28: jk:
<<As far as being for the rich goes...we stick by that one. Both
Time and Newsweek magazine noted that over 50% of Bush's tax cut goes
to the wealthiest Americans.>>
Of course 'the rich' and the 'wealthiest' Americans are never actually
defined by Newsweek or Time or any Democrat for that matter.
Can
somebody define 'rich' for me?
dharkangell: Jay:
<<Can somebody define 'rich' for me?>>
We went throught that while you were gone. Try looking for my posts
titled "Who are the rich?" you may note that suddenly the
liberals were silent. Only one dared even reply.
Defining 'the rich' requires liberals to base their arguments on facts
rather than innuendo and rhetoric. It also requires a sudden examining
of the issue through a much more focused lense. This makes using the
term 'the rich' far less politically valuable.
You see as long the you and I don't really know who or what 'the rich'
are we can define it for ourselves. This ambiguity creates a wider
appeal and makes it easy to create the illusion that it is anyone but
yourself. Making all proposals easier to accept.
Mint_60: I think most people see
through what is pretty much a transparent ploy:
define rich
define working families
define inner city
define private tyrannies
etc..etc....
It really is a sad attempt to detract from the issue at hand by quibbling
over semantics.
domer_10: (to
dhark) As I said before, in pursuit of a comprehensive
definition, we can start by defining the "rich" as the top
one percent of the country in wealth (income?) who will receive over
40 percent of Bush's tax cut.
domer_10: There's another way to look
at it, Mint. Our opponents may want to identify the margins in our
programs, so as to be able to argue in that respect at least that they
are unfair.
JayC28: (to dhark) Silent huh? Well that
doesnt surprise me. Every time I ask the question, I never get an
answer.
The term rich or wealthy can be so subjective, its why I laugh every time
the phrase 'tax cut for the rich' is used.
For instance, my brother-in-law estimates that he will make $85,000 this
year. Sounds nice huh? Well, while 85 grand is a decent amount of
money, in order to make that (and be able to support his wife and 4
kids) he has to work AT LEAST 12 hours a day, 6 days a week.
He's never voted in a Presidential election before (politics is not his
thing), but when I first told him about Bush, he sneered and talked
about how Republicans are for 'business and the rich.' After
explaining to him about what GWB stood for (I brought him to Bush's
website) and what Gore stood for (I brought him to Gore's website) he
actually was impressed with Bush and what he wanted to do.
When I showed him that under GWB's tax plan he would get a tax cut of
almost $3200 (which he said would pay for a year of tuition of his
son's Catholic school) he was convinced. He's a Bush voter and that
same night, two of his neighbors were as well.
You see, contrary to what so many of the psuedo-enlightened in here
think, people DO want their taxes reduced, and DO believe they are too
high. And many people who will benefit from GWB's tax plan ARE NOT
RICH. They are hard working middle class Americans who dont want to
have to go through frigging Gore hoops to get a measly tax cut.
JayC28: (to Mint) Oh spare me the whiny
crap. When you use these little catch phrases you SHOULD be able to
explain what they are.
Define rich: A person making $20,000 a year might see somebody making
$100,000 a year as RICH, but making $100,000 a year doesnt make one
rich.
Define working families: I just posted where my brother in law will make
close to $90,000 this year. Now, by just looking at the AMOUNT, you
and the rest of the anointed would just lazily assume that he makes
good money and doesnt DESERVE a tax cut. But the fact is, that even
though he will make close to 6 figures he is part of a WORKING FAMILY.
Define inner ciyt: It's not my fault you cannot differentiate between a
city and an inner city. Just to point out to you, TriBeca is a trendy
neighborhood in lower Manhattan and does not house 'low income
families.' Section 8 would not be able to cover the rent in that area.
You want to see low income families? Go to the lower east side,
specifically the ABC's or Alphabet City as it is commonly known. There
you will find low income families, and you wont find community
theatres, or really any other kinds of business, except maybe for an
occasional liquor store.
Define private tyrannies: LOL...You still havent been able to explain
this one.....
Call it semantics if you wish, but the typical 'tax cut for the rich' BS
isnt going to fly.
Try actually DISCUSSING the issues instead of reducing them to little
phrases that sound good for campaign slogans.
JayC28:
domer:
<<we can start by defining the "rich" as the top one
percent of the country in wealth (income?) who will receive over 40
percent of Bush's tax cut.>>
Oh really? I thought I heard that it was over 40% goes to the top 5%.
Somebody else said 50% goes to the top 10 percent of wage earners.
All a bunch of crap. No real numbers. No real figures. Just blather.
Mint_60: I haven't sat down and
tried to figure out "what's in it for me"...Overall I'm more
concerned with what is in the best interest of our country. Taking
care of the elderly, paying down the debt and helping working families
seems to be a better plan than more upward redistribution of wealth.
domer_10: (to
Jay) I don't know whether I'm getting the West Point
"ignore" treatment, but I've given you a starting definition
of "rich." What's the matter, not convenient for you?
domer_10: Look, Jay, I don't sit
around all day pulling my dick each time I come up with a statistic or
a "nuance" or, really, another obfuscation. The figure is
from a NYT editorial, repeated as accurate (the numbers, that is) on
network news, probably ABC. Good enough for me.
mireilles_hubby: (to
Jay) Wouldn't we get a better long term return on our
investment (taxes) if we pay off our debt. What are we at 3 Trillion?
I say no tax cuts use the "extra" to pay off the debt. As a
whole this country is doing well. Right now. If we think the interest
on 3 Trillion is high now what will we do when we get that interest
plus what we didn't pay for when(if) the country goes through a slump.
We can't win all of the time. We are bound to come up to a brick wall
sooner or later. We can't predict what will happen in the future.
richpo64: (to
Mint) It's hardly squibbling to ask for a simple answer.
What actually detracts from the issue is the fact that your
"issues" are based on things you can't seem to define.
domer_10: (to
rich) That's a load of crap, as Mint has explained. The
only time these definitions matter is when they have real life
implications, such as use in a piece of legislation. I trust Gore and
his surrogates to define his tax cut, among other things. I'm not
especially fond of trolling for votes in the upper middle class based
on the amount of tax cut one will receive. That's shortsighted to say
the least. Some could argue that it smacks of "corruption."
The real goal, when all is said and done, is the overall health of our
people, our nation, our communities.
richpo64: domer:
<<the top one percent of the country in wealth (income?) who
will receive over 40 percent of Bush's tax cut.>>
Wait a minute. didn't someone earlier claim that the "rich"
would receive 50 percent?
40, 50, 60, what the hell, just make it up as you go along I suppose.
Never mind the fact that your definition doesn't jive with
Democrats/Gores definition.
And this just brings us back to who actually pays the most taxes.
domer_10: (to
rich) See ante.
JayC28: Mint:
<<Overall I'm more concerned with what is in the best interest
of our country. Taking care of the elderly, paying down the debt and
helping working families seems to be a better plan than more upward
redistribution of wealth.>>
Well, cutting taxes is in the best interest of our country as well, and
contrary to what the naysayers tell us it can be done and still take
care of the elderly who actually NEED HELP.
As for the debt, while it is high, we are not in any danger. The middle
class of this country was built on debt, and most people who own homes
and cars today are in debt. Debt is not always bad.
As I pointed out, the tax cut plan helps my brother who is part of a
working family.
Finally, cutting taxes is not an 'upward redistribution of wealth.' What
a reduction in taxes does is it allows people to KEEP MORE OF WHAT
THEY EARN. You make it sound like its bad (with your 'What's in it for
me' huffing) to want to keep more of the money people work hard for. I
dont. It's not the governments money that they are GIVING us. They are
TAKING less.
JayC28:
You must be pulling your dick or mentally masturbating if you
actually believe that a NY Times editorial is going to play straight
with the facts when it comes to cutting taxes.
richpo64: domer:
<<The only time these definitions matter is when they have real
life implications, such as use in a piece of legislation.>>
Well damn domer, isn't that what we're talking about here? The real life
burden the "rich" shoulder every day, and are continually
asked to shoulder more of? The real life implications of unfunded
mandates?
richpo64: (to
Jay) Taking care of the elderly?
WHAT ABOUT TAXES ON THE ELDERLY?
Thousands of middle-income elderly people with Individual Retirement
Accounts or other tax-deferred retirement plans who expected lower tax
rates in retirement instead face higher marginal tax rates than
younger people -- or even wealthy older people.
The major culprits are the earnings penalty, the so-called Social
Security benefits tax and the capital gains tax, says John Goodman,
president of the National Center for Policy Analysis. Congress passed
reforms in all these areas in its last term, but President Clinton
vetoed them all, except for an increase in the earnings penalty
threshold.
* The earnings penalty reduces the Social Security benefits of early
retirees (ages 62 through 64) who work by $1 for every $2 earned above
$8,280 per year (a 50 percent tax rate).
* Added to the income tax, a 64-year-old in the 28 percent tax bracket
faces a marginal tax rate of 78 percent.
* Working retirees 65 through 69 are penalized $1 for every $3 earned
above $12,500 (a 33 percent tax rate) -- and with income tax face a 61
percent marginal rate.
The marginal tax rate can go still higher due to the so-called Social
Security Benefits tax:
* On income beyond $32,000 ($25,000 for an individual), 50 cents of
benefits is taxed for each added $1 of income, making their effective
tax rate 50 percent higher than it would be otherwise. * Beyond $44,000 ($34,000 for an individual), 85 cents of benefits is
taxed for each $1 of income, making their effective tax rate 85
percent higher.
A recipient subject to both the earnings penalty and the benefits tax can
pay more than a dollar in tax on an additional dollar of income, says
Goodman. In addition, at least 15 states tax Social Security benefits,
and self-employed workers face additional payroll taxes (FICA).
And although the elderly constitute only 12 percent of the population,
they hold about 40 percent of all capital assets in the United States.
Thus the tax on capital gains hits them harder than any other age
group.
Source: John Goodman, "Soaking the Elderly,"
IntellectualCapital.com, November 14, 1996.
Mint_60: rich:
<<Well damn domer, isn't that what we're talking about here? The
real life burden the "rich" shoulder every day, and are
continually asked to shoulder more of?>>
Ha Ha
domer_10: (to
rich) The term "inner city," though argued by
some to have a definite meaning, nonetheless is too imprecise to be
used in legislation without internal definition. If we're talking
exclusively about real world implications, please cite me the statute
that uses "inner city" without a corresponding INTERNAL
definition. Otherwise, you're just playing "Gotcha," with no
other purpose than to obfuscate. Oh, and what about "private
tyrannies"? Does that have any real-world (i.e., legislative)
implications beyond the mind of its creator and like-minded folks.
What statute, praytell, employs that concept? It's just an example of
throwing mud at a barn; the broadside is a mess, but the goods are
inside, untouched.
JayC28: Then why use the terms at
all? If the terms, 'inner cities', 'private tyrannies', 'working
families' and 'the rich' don't mean anything, which is basically what
you are saying, then why bother?
YOUR side is one that uses these phrases (well not so much inner cities
and certainly not private tyrannies) Domer! People like YOU are always
talking about 'working families' and 'the rich', but then you guys get
all bent out of shape when we ask you to DEFINE who fits into these
categories. The phrases 'working families' and 'the rich' are so damn
subjective. One persons definition of 'rich' is not anothers.
So, please, don't you and everybody else sit there and whine when asked
to enlighten us as to who the 'rich' are and who the 'working
families' are. If you dont want to give us what you believe to be the
criteria for those two groups then dont use the damn words.
I havent seen a tax cut proposed YET that some Democrat or liberal
defines as a 'tax cut for the rich.' Hell even the ones that Clinton
has SIGNED has been bemoaned by those on the left as 'giveaways' to
the 'rich' and 'takes away' from 'working families.' It's all good
rhetoric, but ask a SIMPLE question....."Define the rich and
working families" and you can't do it. Amazing.
domer_10: No one lives in a vacuum,
certainly not someone who is affluent in America. An argument can be
made that the more you have, the more you are indebted to
infrastructure, service workers (police, etc.), stable government,
programs keeping the environment clean, and so on and on. If you're an
employer or a corporate manager, you're thankful for the education
system that supplies you skilled workers, the SEC that makes sure your
stock is honestly traded and so much, so very much more. Why shouldn't
you pay higher taxes? I can't think of a good reason. As to the
question of whether it's YOUR money (once collected into a surplus and
awaiting final destination according to the will of the
People--through their legislative and executive representatives),
please be advised that: 1) at the time of collection, the tax rate was
such & such, requiring you to pay in as much as you did; and 2)
that there is no constitutional provision or statute known to
humankind in America that prevents the government from applying
COLLECTED REVENUE as it sees fit. Any so-called
"philosophical" argument that the money is really YOURS is:
1) unconvincing; and 2) fruitless, since your opponents have the legal
authority to do what THEY want. So the matter boils down to a strictly
political issue. If I were setting policy, I'd exclude that top one
percent. If that proposal is properly understood, it can't possibly
sell. As for setting tax cut levels, I'd defer to those who care more,
but be sure the top levels (down to what? $200,000 or $150,000 family
income) would get very little. Gore approaches my vision much more
closely than does Bush, the champion of the rich.
Mint_60:
(to Jay) Please
define…
"family values"
"traditional values"
"christian values"
"compassionate conservative"
"armies of compassion"
"special rights"
"gay lifestyle"
"cultural war" "personal responsibility"
domer_10: (to
Jay) "Working families" and "the rich"
are terms of recent currency in political discourse (this time around)
though not of recent coinage, one could argue. As with most terms and
words, they will acquire definition as they are used. At the outset,
though, perfectly acceptably to me, they were used as broad statements
of principle or, more accurately, of interest groups that should be
served and ignored by tax cuts. I really don't know the specifics of
Gore's plan. Somebody should have access to it; he published that book
on economics. Find out from THAT source who are "working
families" and who are "rich" and then we can talk
further.
JayC28: (to
Mint) Well since I dont use those phrases, ask somebody
else. Oh and if you cannot define personal responsibility, that's not
my problem.
If the best you can do is this tit for tat nonsense, then don't bother
Mint. You want to disuss issues such as taxes, Social Security, and
Medicare, FINE. But leave this kind of nonsense for the chat rooms.
I cant remember the last time I saw somebody in here talking about
'family values' and 'Christian values.' But you and the rest of the
Gore flock just LOOOOOVE to tell us about 'the rich' , 'the wealthy'
and all those so-called 'working families' you want to help but you
cannot deal with the fact that you have a problem when 'the wealthy'
are sometimes comprised of the very same 'working families' you are so
concerned about.
jkstraw_01: (to marinecorporal) I read
breakdown's of both Gore's tax plan, and Bush's, and actually, a
typical family of 4 for example, with 1-2 kids in college would do
better under Gore's plan. So, you're not telling the truth.
While I admit that in some cases, you have to jump through hoops to
qualify for a Gore tax cut, I see an inherent value when we ENCOURAGE
certain kinds of behavior, by making it affordable. Sending kids off
to college is one example--I see it as an investment in our future
when we make some of the costs of a college education tax deductible,
or give tax credits to middle-class parents who are struggling to send
kids to school.
Look...nobody has ever been able to prove to me at least, that
"trickle down" economics works.
We gave everyone a nice tax cut in the 1980's..twice in fact, what
happened? The national debt tripled because we quite simply spent more
than we took in revenues, further stifling our ability to invest in
our future in things like health care, education, infrastructure, the
environment, and so on. So, the prediction that these huge tax cuts
would spur enough economic growth to actually increase revenues enough
to the point where we could pay for all the government services people
had become accustomed to, didn't pan out. And it was damned
irresponsible of the people in charge --yes Reagan, and Congress, to
spend us into the mess we're still digging out of.
I think targeted tax cuts are a viable way to provide tax relief to the
people who need it most, while at the same time encouragign
investments such as education, or home buying.
Janefinch: (to
Mint) You forgot "class war"....
jkstraw_01: (to
Mint) you forgot the "gay agenda"
justhavinfun_now: (to
domer) Be careful when you say tax the rich more, it just might be you they go
after this time around.
Using preliminary 1997 data from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the
Washington, D.C.-based Tax Foundation reports that the top 1 percent
of income earners are people with adjusted gross incomes of $250,000
and over.
These people earned 17.4 percent of all reported income. So what's their
"fair" share of federal income taxes? I don't know what's
fair, but the fact is they paid 33.2 percent of all federal income
taxes. By the way, earning $250,000 is nice, but it's hardly what
you'd call rich -- it's not even yacht money.
What about the lowest 50 percent of income earners, people with adjusted
gross incomes $24,000 and below? Gephardt and McCain call these the
"working class" people upon whom's backs George W. Bush's
proposed tax cuts will rest. It turns out that the lowest 50 percent
of income earners earned 14 percent of all income and paid 4.3 percent
of all federal income taxes, a trifling part of the cost of
government.
The top 5 percent of earners (income over $108,00) paid 52 percent of
federal income taxes, the top 10 percent (income over $79,000) paid 63
percent, and the top 25 percent of income earners (income over
$48,000) paid 82 percent. I'd like one of these Americans, who might
be paying a mortgage, a car note and college tuition for one or two
youngsters, to stand up and say, "I'm rich!"
Mint_60: (to
justin) Define income tax?
richpo64: domer:
<<Oh, and what about "private tyrannies"? Does that
have any real-world (i.e., legislative) implications beyond the mind
of its creator and like-minded folks.>>
Good question. Mint?
JayC28:
jk:
<<I read breakdown's of both Gore's tax plan, and Bush's, and
actually, a typical family of 4 for example, with 1-2 kids in college
would do better under Gore's plan. So, you're not telling the
truth.>>
Yes and Bush's plan would work better for families with YOUNGER children
and would allow people to actually keep more money they work for to
SAVE for college and wouldnt have to wait 10-15 years to take
advantage of Gore's measly plan.
<<While
I admit that in some cases, you have to jump through hoops to qualify
for a Gore tax cut, I see an inherent value when we ENCOURAGE certain
kinds of behavior, by making it affordable.
Sending kids off to college is one example--I see it as an
investment in our future when we make some of the costs of a college
education tax deductible, or give tax credits to middle-class parents
who are struggling to send kids to school.>>
No JK, what is better is giving people the incentive to SAVE MONEY. Why
give credits and deductions when just providing straight forward tax
relief can achieve the same ends? What if my son doesn't want to go to
college? What if he decides he wants to join the Air Force and be a
career military person? Should I not be able to recieve a tax
reduction simply because my son isnt going to go to college? It's
social engineering JK. "Do what we want you to do, and you can
get a tax break." It's bullshit.
<<Look...nobody has ever been able to prove to me at
least, that "trickle down" economics works.
We gave everyone a nice tax cut in the 1980's..twice in fact,
what happened? The national debt tripled because we quite simply spent
more than we took in revenues…>>
JK, more than enough people have given you enough facts to show that
Reagan's tax cuts in the early 80's were good for the country. You
dont want to listen and you never will. I am not going to get into
this entire debate with you again, but only to say that you are flat
out wrong.
<<So,
the prediction that these huge tax cuts would spur enough economic
growth to actually increase revenues enough to the point where we
could pay for all the government services people had become accustomed
to, didn't pan out.>>
REVENUES DID INCREASE!! Holy shit! How many times do I have to tell you
that! SPENDING outpaced those revenues however. Did you know that if
Congress had spend a measly 2.8% LESS during that entire time, when
Reagan left office there would have been a $160 billion SURPLUS
instead of a deficit. TAX CUTS DO NOT CAUSE DEBT AND DEFICITS.
SPENDING DOES.
<<I
think targeted tax cuts are a viable way to provide tax relief to the
people who need it most, while at the same time encouragign
investments such as education, or home buying.>>
Notice how I have been mentioning my brother in law JK? Under Gore's
plan, my brother in law is helped NOT AT ALL. His oldest is 7 years
from going to college and his wife stays at home so he has no need for
nursery school. He already owns a home. Yet under Bush's plan he gets
a tax cut of $3200. He needs a tax reduction.
Why can't we give tax cuts to people and allow THEM to decide what they
are going to do with it? Why do they have to conform to what Al Gore
wants?
Janefinch: (to
rich) Why don't you go and read chomsky? HE'S the one who
used the phrase in defining his personal philosophy...maybe HE will
explain it to you.
jkstraw_01: (to
rich) This is absolute nonsense. Economists can't even
agree on what constitutes "middle-class," and what
constitutes "upper-middle," or "rich." And you're
jumping on Mint ( or our) for not being able to give precise numbers?
There are single people that make 125,000 that one might consider
rich, while there are families of four on that salary that might be
considered upper-middle class, but live a modest lifestyle. It's
almost like defining when life begins, in a debate on abortion. Nobody
can ever really agree on it, and perhaps nobody ever will because
there are about 5 dozen different approaches to answering that VERY
complicated question. So..if you're asking us to define the rich, I
ask you to define the "poor." I think it's almost equally as
hard to do.
When I think of us think of the truly "wealthy," I think of
people that don't really have as much concern with the things most of
us worry about every day--having enough money to pay bills, send our
kids to school, save for retirement, for catastrophic illness, and so
on. I don't harbor any ill will towards the wealthy, what good would
that do? But from my perspective, they've benefited more from society,
live a more affluent life, and therefore, they have more to give back.
I don't think marginal tax rates of 38% are punitive, but it seems to
me that if you lower that rate to 33%, that burden has to be picked up
elsewhere, since the wealthiest pay most of the tax burden. So who's
left? The upper, middle, and lower classes. That's not class warfare,
it's just common sense and fairness.
Again, if we're going to lower taxes at all, I prefer targeted tax cuts
to middle and lower class families who have the most demonstrated
need. I'm sorry, my heart doesn't bleed for upper-middle and wealthy
families that are crying because they're struggling to send their kids
to Stanford while paying off that Lexus and Land Rover. My sympathy
goes out to middle-class families who live modestly and have to
practically mortgage their future to send their kids to decent
colleges.
dobberx: (to
marinecorporal) BULLSHIT!
Perot's presence had NO effect whatsoever on the elections in 92 and 96.
dharkangell: domer: <<As I
said before, in pursuit of a comprehensive definition, we can start by
defining the "rich" as the top one percent of the country in
wealth (income?) who will receive over 40 percent of Bush's tax
cut.>>
I will accept your difination of 'the rich'. But if you define 'the rich'
as the top 1 percent of the country in wealth then your next statement
is false or at least groundless.
As usual you have no evidence to support your claim. Care to show us how
you reached this conclusion above?
richpo64: (to
domer) You've said all this before. But this time you added
a rather interested twist.
<<An
argument can be made that the more you have, the more you are indebted
to infrastructure, service workers (police, etc.), stable government,
programs keeping the environment clean, and so on and on.>>
I'd be very interested to hear this arguement made. I'm indebted to the
government for these things? Nope. I pay for them like everyone else
who pays taxes. They are mine, not the governments. All these things
you feel the government, in it's infinite goodness, gives us come
ditectly from the people, not the other way around.
This is something I'll never understand about some liberals. The
fundamental falsehood of such reasoning.
JayC28: jk:
<<This is absolute nonsense. Economists can't even agree on what
constitutes "middle-class," and what constitutes
"upper-middle," or "rich." And you're jumping on
Mint ( or our) for not being able to give precise numbers? There are
single people that make 125,000 that one might consider rich, while
there are families of four on that salary that might be considered
upper-middle class, but live a modest lifestyle.>>
LOL!!! You say this but yet just TODAY you parroted the 'tax cut for the
wealthy' nonsense and you have said 'tax cuts for the rich' more times
than I can count!
And you do the same thing that Mint did by deflecting away from the issue
and telling us to define something else. Don't play frigging games. If
you dont know who the hell makes up 'the rich' and 'the wealthy' then
dont sit there and bitch a moan about the tax cuts 'going' to
them...damn.
<<I
don't think marginal tax rates of 38% are punitive, but it seems to me
that if you lower that rate to 33%, that burden has to be picked up
elsewhere, since the wealthiest pay most of the tax burden. So who's
left? The upper, middle, and lower classes. That's not class warfare,
it's just common sense and fairness.>>
No JK, what you do is slow the rate of government spending which is often
10-15 times HIGHER than the rate of inflation. Not CUT spending, but
SLOW spending.
richpo64:
Jay: <<Did you know that if Congress had spend a
measly 2.8% LESS during that entire time, when Reagan left office
there would have been a $160 billion SURPLUS instead of a deficit. TAX
CUTS DO NOT CAUSE DEBT AND DEFICITS. SPENDING DOES.>>
As a matter of fact, I did. It is an undisputable fact.
jkstraw_01: Jay, prove to me that
people's personal savings increased at any significant rate during the
1980's and I'll listen. After Reagan's 86' tax cuts, personal savings
actually DECREASED from 187.5 Billion in 1986, to 142.0 Billion in
1987 only to increase slightly to 155.7 Billion in 1988. It decline
again, in 1989 to 152.1 Billion. (US Bureau of Economic Analysis)
And one more thing, if you actually look at the percentage of families
owning financial assets, you see that from 1983-1989, the percentage
of people owning savings accounts plumeted significantly from 1983 to
1989, from 63.1% to 43.5%. (Federal Reserve Bulletin).
So, if you think "trickle down" economics encourages personal
savings, think again.
richpo64: (to
jk)
Actually "poor" is easy to define. The government has a
definition. On the other hand, rich seems to be a very subjective
term.
JayC28: jk:
<<After Reagan's 86' tax cuts, personal savings actually
DECREASED from 187.5 Billion in 1986, to 142.0 Billion in 1987 only to
increase slightly to 155.7 Billion in 1988. It decline again, in 1989
to 152.1 Billion.>>
Hey, you'll get no argument from me on this one JK. The 1986 Tax Reform
Act was one of the worst pieces of legislation that Reagan signed.
<<And
one more thing, if you actually look at the percentage of families
owning financial assets, you see that from 1983-1989, the percentage
of people owning savings accounts plumeted significantly from 1983 to
1989, from 63.1% to 43.5%.>>
JK this means nothing to me. People (such as myself) stopped putting
money into savings accounts because the interest rates started to
become a joke. My guess is, people started shifting their money from
savings accounts CD's and to mutual funds which at the time started
gaining popularity and offered a better return.
dharkangell: (to
jk) Rarely have I seen a liberal squirm as much as you.
<<This
is absolute nonsense. Economists can't even agree on what constitutes
"middle-class," and what constitutes
"upper-middle," or "rich.">>
Well it sures seems like you, Al Gore, and Domer know who they are. In
one post you criticize 'the rich' in the next you state you do not
even know who they are. Can you clarify?
<<And
you're jumping on Mint ( or our) for not being able to give precise
numbers?>>
Sir are you fan of rhetoric? Do you enjoy imprecise and utterly futile
exchanges of opinion?
We, the conservatives, have asked YOU, the liberals, to define what
EXACTLY is meant by the term 'the rich'. I beleive the slew of varied
and completely imprecise answers and your pathetic attempt to
obfuscate an issue which you created illustrates that 'the rich' is
simply a poll tested word of the pundocrity. It is meant to inflame
the senses and cloud intellectual thought, nothing more.
<<Nobody
can ever really agree on it, and perhaps nobody ever will because
there are about 5 dozen different approaches to answering that VERY
complicated question.>>
Oh good grief. The atom bomb was a complicated issue, writing the
Constitution was a complicated issue, calculating the speed of the
moon was a complicated issue, but for the sake of humanity defining
the word 'rich' is hardly one of astronomical portions. What is
fascinating and indicitive of the general state of the left, is its
inability to offer anything of substance in the face of scrutiny. You
must instead offer up some philosphy on complexity and abortion. Again
you try to obfuscate the issue at hand rather than refute the
arguments made.
This is the best part, I love this. This my friend has got to be the best
I ever read.
<<Again,
if we're going to lower taxes at all, I prefer targeted tax cuts to
middle and lower class families who have the most demonstrated
need.>>
Ok genius tell me how do we target tax cuts at lower and middle classes
when, and I quote here,
<<Economists
can't even agree on what constitutes "middle-class," and
what constitutes "upper-middle," or
"rich.">>
-AND-
<<Nobody
can ever really agree on it, and perhaps nobody ever will because
there are about 5 dozen different approaches to answering that VERY
complicated question.>>
QED.
Perhaps you could explain how we target tax cuts at groups of individuals
we cannot identify?
jkstraw_01: OK Jay...then lets just
assume that since we can't define who wealthy people are, we might as
well give them a huge tax cut, far more than any middle class person
would get, by virtue of the fact that they are at some
"mysterious" economic status we can't define. Everyone has
an IDEA of who the wealthy are Jay, you're acting like a two year old
with these silly semantic games.
And Jay, when you slow the rate of government spending, who gets hurt in
the slowing? Medicare reimbursement rates are at an all-time low under
THIS GOP CONGRESS. Seniors are getting unceremoniously BOOTED out of
their HMO's because President REAGAN and Congress couldn't see fit to
be responsible in the 1980's. You act like we don't have to make
choices in the fact of 1.2 Trillion dollar tax cut. Get real. I'm sick
of it. You explain to the elderly why we have to cut back on those
medicare payments, ok?
domer_10: (to
rich) There is no fundamental falsehood in my reasoning.
Government is a separate entity from you or me, though representing us
both and everyone else. The proposition is simple: Those with more
have more to protect, have used more to acquire their wealth, have a
much larger stake in preservation of the present level of services,
etc. (the status quo) than others. Once your tax dollars are collected
by the government under a fair and legal tax regime, they cease to be
your dollars, plain and simple, and belong instead, if you will, to
the people, all the people, for whatever legal use their elected
representatives decide is best. False reasoning? How about your
blindered ideology?
dharkangell:
(quoting jk) <<Jay, prove to me that people's personal
savings increased at any significant rate during the 1980's and I'll
listen. After Reagan's 86' tax cuts, personal savings actually
DECREASED from 187.5 Billion in 1986, to 142.0 Billion in 1987 only to
increase slightly to 155.7 Billion in 1988. It decline again, in 1989
to 152.1 Billion. (US Bureau of Economic Analysis)>>
This is somewhat misleading, you neglect to mention that peronsal savings
in the United States has been decreasing steadily since 1971. In fact
when adjusted for inflation household savings rate has been declining
for a very long time. There have been aberations in short term
periods, a few quarters, but the general pattern has been one of
steady decline.
<<And
one more thing, if you actually look at the percentage of families
owning financial assets, you see that from 1983-1989, the percentage
of people owning savings accounts plumeted significantly from 1983 to
1989, from 63.1% to 43.5%. (Federal Reserve Bulletin).>>
You know why this happened JK? Do you? The reason was the in 1982 Banks,
Credit Unions, and other financial instutions started to offer MONEY
MARKET INTEREST BEARING CHECKING ACCOUNTS, which had been illegal
until the deregulation of the banking business in 1981-2. The savings
accounts, on the hand, remained regulated and offered an interest rate
far lower -often two percnetage points- than a traditional savings
account. This says NOTHING about Reagan, savings, or the situation of
savings in the US.
Mint_60: (to
domer) lol...Now they are pretending they don't understand
"progressive taxation"....
Dharkangell:
(domer: <<I
trust Gore and his surrogates to define his tax cut, among other
things. I'm not especially fond of trolling for votes in the upper
middle class based on the amount of tax cut one will receive. That's
shortsighted to say the least.>>
Translation: I am a lazy true believer. I do not want to think for
myself, I want Gore and the government to think for me. I also find
this debate to be too challenging as I cannot offer any precise or
fact based argument to support my claims.
P.S. Speaking of 'trolling for votes in the upper middle class', then I
am sure you must HATE Gore having $10,000 a couple dinners in
Hollywood right?
JayC28: jk:
<<OK Jay...then lets just assume that since we can't define who
wealthy people are, we might as well give them a huge tax cut, far
more than any middle class person would get, by virtue of the fact
that they are at some "mysterious" economic status we can't
define. Everyone has an IDEA of who the wealthy are Jay, you're acting
like a two year old with these silly semantic games.>>
Oh please give me a huge break with the whining and blubbering JK,
allright? YOU and others are playing the damn word games, unable to
define who the rich are in one post but then railing about the rich in
another. Everybody has an idea of who the wealthy are JK? Yeah, to me
the WEALTHY are people that make MILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars a
year. Not those who make $85,000, $150,000 or even $200,000. The ones
who make the millions and billions comprise a VERY SMALL minority of
people in this country. Yet you seem to think that just because
somebody makes $100,000 that they have no problems at all with money.
I have already pointed out how that just because somebody can make
that kind of money, doesnt make them WEALTHY.
As for the rest of your post, you're blaming BUREAUCRACY on slower
spending rates? Give me a frigging break. Your last sentence looks
like it was pulled from a DNC playbook and doesnt even merit a
response.
jkstraw_01: Dhark, when the tax code is
altered or changed to adhere to some predetermined fiscal blueprint,
either set forth by Congress or the President, it's done so based on
certain econimic assumptions about what constitutes middle-class
families, or wealthy families. So, as long as there has been an income
tax, there have been people who have "defined" what
constitutes middle and upper-middle classes. So I urge you to get over
yourself. There is always disagreement about what PERFECTLY
constitutes middle or upper-middle class families because the precise
circumstances in which each family lives are different. For example, a
family in Idaho that makes 40K a year might be far better off than a
family in NYC that makes the same amount. So, I think your question
asking us to define EXACTLY what constitues middle or upper middle, or
"wealthy" is disingenuous and I'll explain why.
When I talk about the "wealthy," as I explained to Jay, I
really am reffering more to a more affluent lifestyle than I am any
specific economic strata. Again, you're delusional if you think that
because we can't perfectly "define" the wealthy, they don't
truly exist, and shouldn't be targeted. We "target" them as
best we can based on current economic assumptions, factoring as many
variables as possible in those assumptions to get accurate
refelections of reality. I think you know that. Again, Mint's
right..you and Jay are playing semantic games. Most of have common
sense, and have a general idea of who constitutes the
"wealthiest" of Americans, vs. who constitutes the
"poorest." Because we can't perfectly define each social
group doesn't mean that we can't "target" them with a
certain degree of accuracy.
Hey..as far as your claim that this was the best post you've ever read..I
wear it as a badge of honor, as I've found you to be one of the more
arrogant "know it all" people ever to have graced these
pages. I also suspect I ruffled your feathers a bit.
Mint_60: Why GOP is shifting from
tax cuts to reducing debt
Gail Russell Chaddock (chaddockg@csps.com)
Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
Congressional Republicans - who looked as if they were about to be
outmaneuvered again by the White House - have dramatically shifted
their strategy on next year's federal budget.
Gone are the big Republican tax cuts. Gone are even the little tax
reductions. Now they are putting top priority on reducing the national
debt.
After President Clinton vetoed GOP cuts of the estate tax and the
marriage-tax penalty, Republicans could have come back with versions
more to the liking of the White House. They didn't.
Instead - needing a good campaign issue - Republicans in Congress now
want to apply most of the $268 billion budget surplus to reducing the
federal debt.
The plan surprised even the White House. It also puts congressional
Republicans somewhat at odds with their presidential nominee, George
W. Bush.
"You're seeing a bifurcation between the congressional Republican
strategy and the Bush strategy," says Marshall Wittmann, a fellow
with the Washington-based Hudson Institute. "A few weeks ago,
they were looking to Bush's coattails to help them, and now they've
jettisoned the coattails and it's every man for themselves."
Mr. Bush has campaigned on a $1.3 trillion tax-cut plan. Although GOP
lawmakers would presumably work with Bush, should he win, to cut taxes
in future years, the Gore campaign is gleefully proclaiming that
congressional Republicans have "effectively declared their
nominee's budget dead on arrival."
But analysts say this new tack, which would apply 90 percent of the
surplus next year to debt reduction, could give Republicans leverage
on the budget with President Clinton. It also plays well with the
public, especially among swing independent voters.
"It's a smart move," says Frank Yang, a Democratic pollster.
"Paying down the debt clearly tracks better with voters than a
big tax cut."
Voters favor paying down the debt over cutting taxes by a 16-point
margin, according to a recent Hart-Teeter poll.
Given the issue's popularity, some analysts are surprised the GOP didn't
adopt this strategy earlier.
"It was polling well with the public, and, most significantly, is
high on the list of independent voters," says Mr. Wittmann.
"It also serves as a useful lever to guard against the spending
demands of the Democrats and of the Clinton White House."
Back in 1999, Republicans on the Hill were pushing tax cuts that would
have amounted to $778 billion over the next 10 years. After Clinton
rejected this plan, they repackaged their big tax cut as a call for
the repeal of "unfair" taxes, such as the estate tax and the
marriage penalty. This, too, failed to make it past the White House.
The new plan is a fallback, after Congress failed to override
presidential vetoes of tax cuts. But GOP lawmakers say that it will
have the same effect as a tax cut - putting money back into taxpayers'
pockets. Reducing the debt will lower interest rates, so that car
loans and college costs will be less costly.
Setting aside 90 percent of the projected surplus to pay down the debt
leaves only about $28 billion for new federal spending or tax cuts,
according to current projections. And that narrow window could sharply
refocus budget debates in the upcoming weeks. Analysts say the GOP plan is already changing the political dynamics of
this end of session. "This year's budget endgame now puts
[Democrats] on record of being in favor of less debt reduction or more
spending," says Michael Franc, vice president of government
relations for the Heritage Foundation in Washington.
It could also help Republicans in close reelection bids by giving them an
issue. "With Washington big spenders, if we don't take this money
off the table, it will be spent," says Rep. Ernest Fletcher (R)
of Kentucky, who is locked in a tight race for reelection and has been
given a leadership role on this issue.
Democrats charge that the new GOP plan is just a gimmick, since budget
surpluses not spent would automatically go into federal debt reduction
with or without a new law. Others say the plan amounts to an
"11th hour" conversion and will never make it through the
Senate.
Nonetheless, Democrats joined Republicans in unanimously passing the bill
when it came before the House Ways and Means Committee. No one wants
to be on record opposing debt reduction in an election year, analysts
say.
But the biggest downside to the new GOP strategy could be its impact on
prospects at the top of the ticket, Democrats say.
"They've been talking tax cuts for two years. Now, three weeks before we leave, they want to do debt reduction," says Rep. John Tanner (D) of Tennessee. "This is a reversal.... And they're leaving George W. Bush high and dry."
JayC28: (to
Mint) Stop it. The conversation has nothing to do with
'progressive taxation' and nobody was PRETENDING anything. You cannot
define frigging terms you use on a daily basis instead, meekly telling
us to define something else in response. Ooh.
Mint_60: lol...your desperation is
showing...the only advantage of Bush's plan over Gore's is its sheer
simplicity...I can't blame you for pretending to be confused and
overwhelmed by common everyday words like "rich" and
"wealthy"...
jkstraw_01: Jay, I think I said it best
to Dhark...because we can't pefectly define the "wealthy"
under every possible circumstance, doesn't mean that we can't trust
that smart people in govenrment can't determine with some degree of
accuracy who they are, or who the middle-class is, or who the poorest
are, for example. I guess it comes down to a question of trust and
maybe of fairness. You not only think it's unfair to place any extra
tax burden on the rich, you think it's unfair to even consider
targeting the rich since you can't even identify them. I think that
assumption is truly laughable. Again, semantic games Jay. I asked you
to define the poor..you didn't for the very same reasons I can't
perfectly define, in EVERY circumstance, who the rich are. But we can
agree with some degree of accuracy. Stop playing games.
As far as your last sentence..answer the damn question. Are you willing
to explain to the elderly what slowing growth rates in Medicare might
mean for them? As a "Compassionate Conservative"..lol..you
shouldn't have any trouble.
domer_10: (to
dhark) Don't even try it, muff-man. I don't know what a
true believer is; the last time I knew was when I read Eric Hoffer's
book when I was, actually, a lot younger than you. I will admit to
being a man of enthusiasms, a trait I cherish. And I enthusiastically
support Al Gore, with no apologies. In my wisdom, I actually do even
trust the man, within the context of our relationship
(aspirant-supporter; governing-governed). I make no apologies for
that. I am voting for Gore for it seems to be countless reasons,
seeing nothing even close in the other candidates on virtually every
key indicator. And you have the audacity to criticize me, your better
in both wisdom and sheer intellect, to adopt some stifling
economics-wonk approach to my Presidential "deliberations,"
taking all the fun out of it and leaving me with a humorless and
sterile orientation to life? I think not.
dharkangell: domer:
<<Government is a separate entity from you or me, though
representing us both and everyone else.>>
We have established that the gov't is a seperate entity. Now there is
another interesting point.
<<Those
with more have more to protect . . . have a much larger stake in
preservation of the present level of services, etc. (the status quo)
than others.>>
Then the gov't, which has the most to protect as an indpendent entity,
has the largest stake in the preservation of the present system.
<<Once
your tax dollars are collected by the government under a fair and
legal tax regime, they cease to be your dollars, plain and simple, and
belong instead, if you will, to the people, all the people, for
whatever legal use their elected representatives decide is
best.>>
This seems innocent enough on the surface, but read it closely. First we
have <<Once your tax dollars are
collected by the government under a fair and legal tax regime, they
cease to be your dollars, . . ..>>
then we have <<belong instead,
if you will, to the people, all the people, . . ..>>
So above we have a system that takes money from all the people who pay
taxes at which point it no longer belongs to all the people who pay
taxes instead it simply belongs to all the people. I did not know that
'all the people' means some of the people some of the time but all of
the people the rest of the time. Perhaps you could explain this?
jkstraw_01:
dhark: <<Translation: I am a lazy true believer. I do
not want to think for myself, I want Gore and the government to think
for me. I also find this debate to be too challenging as I cannot
offer any precise or fact based argument to support my claims.>>
Call me silly ...but I'd swear this is an "Ad Hominem" attack
on Domer, from the guy who swore off "Ad Hominem?"
Well..chalk it up to a moment of weakness. Have we no heroes left in
the world?
dharkangell: Jay:
<<Oh please give me a huge break with the whining and blubbering
JK, allright? YOU and others are playing the damn word games, unable
to define who the rich are in one post but then railing about the rich
in another. Everybody has an idea of who the wealthy are JK? Yeah, to
me the WEALTHY are people that make MILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars a
year. Not those who make $85,000,
$150,000 or even $200,000. The ones who make the millions and billions
comprise a VERY SMALL minority of people in this country. Yet you seem
to think that just because somebody makes $100,000 that they have no
problems at all with money. I have already pointed out how that just
because somebody can make that kind of money, doesnt make them
WEALTHY.>>
I think this is an excellent illustration of my initial point. To borrow
from a great quote.
Who is
'the rich'?
Its not you, and its not me, its the man behind the tree.
domer_10: (to
dhark) Look, kid, go back to college or something. I'm
tired of this nonsense.
dharkangell: jk:
<<And Jay, when you slow the rate of government spending, who
gets hurt in the slowing? Medicare reimbursement rates are at an
all-time low under THIS GOP CONGRESS. Seniors are getting
inceremoniously BOOTED out of their HMO's because President REAGAN and
Congress couldn't see fit to be responsible in the 1980's. You act
like we don't have to make choices in the fact of 1.2 Trillion dollar
tax cut. Get real. I'm sick of it. You explain to the elderly why we
have to cut back on those medicare payments, ok?>>
Jk, last time I checked we were defining the rich. I have no idea what
that has to do with medicare, the "GOP CONGRESS" or the fact
that the President has been Democrat. About the only thing you have
missed is that Newt Gingrich was once Speaker of the House.
fournotes_2000: (to
Mint) . . .and you are a HARD lady, Mint(LMAO). . .
JayC28: jk:
<<When I talk about the "wealthy," as I explained to
Jay, I really am reffering more to a more affluent lifestyle than I am
any specific economic strata. Again, you're delusional if you think
that because we can't perfectly "define" the wealthy, they
don't truly exist, and shouldn't be targeted. We "target"
them as best we can based on current economic assumptions, factoring
as many variables as possible in those
assumptions to get accurate refelections of reality. I think you know
that. Again, Mint's right..you and Jay are playing semantic games.
Most of have common sense, and have a general idea of who constitutes
the "wealthiest" of Americans, vs. who constitutes the
"poorest." Because we can't perfectly define each social
group doesn't mean that we can't "target" them with a
certain degree of accuracy.>>
This is what I am talking about JK. You cant put somebody into a category
just because of the lifestyle that they live. People often live beyond
their means. Personal debt is at an ALL TIME HIGH, mostly because we
are in good economic times and people aren't concerned about paying
off their credit card bills. So they run out and by a Lexus, and they
get the 48" television, and they buy the $250,000 home instead of
the $125,000 home. Just because they do that JK, does not make them
wealthy.
<<Again,
Mint's right..you and Jay are playing semantic games. Most of have
common sense, and have a general idea of who constitutes the
"wealthiest" of Americans, vs. who constitutes the
"poorest." Because we can't perfectly define each social
group doesn't mean that we can't "target" them with a
certain degree of accuracy.>>
No JK, YOU ARE. If you cannot define 'the rich' stop saying that tax cuts
are going to 'the rich.' Your position clearly lacks ANY kind of logic
whatsover and sounds like something out of a Seinfeld episode:
Jerry: They are going to cut taxes for the rich!
George: Who are the rich?
Kramer: Oh...you know who they are Georgie boy..
George: No I don't. That's why I'm asking.
Jerry: Why are you asking? Are you rich?
George: I don't know. Are you?
Jerry: Hmmm..Not sure. K-man...you rich?
Kramer: Cmon Jerry! You know what rich is! I'm not, but you are.
George W. Bush has proposed a SPECIFIC tax cut JK. It means that people
with kids will see their child credits go from $500 to $1500. If you
are married and make $99,000 your tax rate will go from 31% to 27%.
There are income levels here JK and yet you cannot seem fit to just
say "I DON'T KNOW" when asked "Who are the
wealthy."
You've been beaten at your own game JK. You were skipping merrily along
to the 'Tax cuts for the rich' tune and 'Working families' melody, but
now you cannot define the terms, instead resorting to "You define
this" or smarmy nonsense like "People with common sense know
who the wealthy are." Pfft.
JayC28: (to
Mint) I'm confused? You and your brethren cant even define
who the rich and wealthy in this country are...
lol....you're backs are against the wall...you now actually are being
asked to explain your rhetoric and YOU CAN'T. I love it.
xenorg_vii: (to
domer) You shouldn't pay higher taxes because it's up to
you what you want to do with your life. You shouldn't be punished for
choosing to become an executive rather than a janitor. A constant
percentage tax on all incomes (possibly above a certain minimum level)
would eliminate loopholes and treat everyone equally.
JayC28: I'm going to ask you a very
SIMPLE question JK. A very simple one and I dont want any more of your
bullshit. You and everybody else on your side here are playing games
ok? Knock it off. You cant defend your arguments so you brush off very
easy questions. You lost.
Here's the question. It deals with a person I have been talking about for
some time today: My brother in law. I just spoke to him on the phone
before and he told me that he is also going to get a bonus this year
which will push his (he's still estimating) income close to $95,000
for the year.
So, the question is: My brother in law who is married and has 4 kids (his
wife does not work) is going to make close to $100,000 this year. Now,
is he one of those rich people you know nothing about but know who
they are, or does he fit into Gore's category of a 'working family.'?
BTW, the government has established a criteria for what constitutes POOR
in this country JK. Go and read some Census Statistics to find out
what it is. Tell me when the government sets the standard (or when you
can figure out) for what makes a person RICH.
domer_10: (to
Jay) I'm getting SICK & TIRED of this Know-Nothingism
being displayed by our conservative friends. It's gotten to the point
of being downright annoying, vastly irritating. Try this:
There are dictionaries; there's common usage. Start there. This is a
political race, organized (at least on one side) around grand
principles. Political rhetoric is meant to move primarily, details to
follow. What are the details? Look at the goddamn proposals; don't
bitch at us. A political campaign runs as much on principles than
anything else. The details -- all terms defined -- will follow in the
legislation. Look at what GORE and LIEBERMAN say about their plan. If
it's not definite enough yet, I have no problem with that, because of
course the legislative process has to work on the matter, first.
JayC28:
(to domer) lol...I was
wondering how long it would take before somebody was the subject of a
Domer "I'm better than you are" zinger.
fournotes_2000: (to
dhark) . . .and for someone who makes less than $25,000 a
year for a family of four, that person has no money problems. He has
NO discretionary income to work for him, PERIOD.
Dharkangell: (to
Mint)
"family values" A catch phrase representing a traditional
outlook and outdated husband, wife, kids and a dog. Sometimes
associated with 'traditional values'.
"traditional values" Judeo-Christian ideas of morality and
ehtics. See Also: The Ten Commandments
"christian values" A mix of Puritanism and generally accepted
principals of moral conduct and action. Its root in American culture
dates back to the original colonies and references can be found in
documents dating back to the charter founding the Massachusetts Bay
Colony. Today it is often used as a 'catch all' phrase to mean anyone
who infers a higher moral authority than humanity.
"compassionate conservative" This word was an answer to the
continual association of the word 'conservative' with uncaring and
non-empathic policies. It was a reaction rather than a creation. It
really means very little.
"armies of compassion" I admit I do not know, rarely have I
heard this term banterd about except when some liberal or media pundit
wants to make fun of Christians or a GOP candidate.
"special rights" This is applied to many things, from
affirmitive action to ADA. It is like 'the rich' a created phrase to
end thought and stir emotion.
"gay lifestyle" I think others can define this better than I
can. Though you can find references to 'gay lifestyle' in many
gay-lesbian-bi-transgendered publications and information peices.
"cultural war" Another phrase like 'the rich'. But if memory
serves me this was coined by James Carville in 1994.
"personal responsibility"
You are an adult you accept the risks associated with being
alive and functioning. You accept that death is inevitable and that
your actions and choices have consequences which you, as an adult,
must deal with. You realize that life is not perfectly safe (you don't
mind eating non-pasturized cheese), you realize that everything is not
someone else's fault (poking yourself in the eye with a toothpick is
not due to faulty design by the manufacturer), and finally that you
are able to make decisions on your own (you do not need to be told
that diving into a pool that is 2 feet deep is dangerous).
domer_10:
(to Jay)
You want to be behave like a pissant, too? Well, be my guest. The
little fellow attacked me, and I responded in kind. So unlike you, you
hypocrite? Hahahaha.
JayC28: Domer, you can try to this
crap all day long if you want, but I am tired of you folks getting
away with it. You want to use the rhetoric but yet can't back up the
substance (or lack thereof) of that rhetoric.
I keep hearing, the 'tax cut goes to the top 10% of wage earners' which
tries to conjure up images of a people on yachts and private jets, yet
does anybody here KNOW who makes up the top 10% of wage earners? How
can you COMPLAIN about something if you dont know what it is? You JK
and Mint arent running for office so you cant live off of 'tax cuts
for the rich.' You need to provide some details and thus far, YOU HAVE
FAILED TO DO SO.
You don't want us to 'bitch at you?' Then stop using the vague rhetoric
then getting all huffy when asked to explain what you mean.
I'd be satisfied if somebody were just honest and said "Anybody who
makes over $100,000 is rich."
domer_10: Jay, I'm not kidding. I've
had enough of this puerile bullshit.
fournotes_2000: (to
dhark) . . .while i don't
always agree with your positions, your definitions, at least through
"compassionate conservative", were written as they were
explained ad nauseum to me. that's why i find those definitions so
distateful. . .
JayC28: (to domer) Yeah well
then cut the crap with the 'working families' and 'tax cuts for the
rich' bullshit.
I mean, have we become so enraptured by the government that we are so
concerned about taking the top tax rate of 39.6% and lowering it to
35.6%?
jkstraw_01: Jay brought up slowing the
rate of growth in government. I brought up that there's some pain
involved in that--witness the declining Medicare reimubursement rates,
in part, forcing HMO's to drop seniors from their rolls.
What's the problem again? You're a control freak, aren't ya Dhark?
dharkangell: jk:
<<Dhark, when the tax code is altered or changed to adhere to
some predetermined fiscal blueprint, either set forth by Congress or
the President, it's done so based on certain econimic assumptions
about what constitutes middle-class families, or wealthy
families.>>
Then my friend it should no problem for you to do the same. But more to
the point before you made the statement that:
<<Nobody
can ever really agree on it, and perhaps nobody ever will because
there are about 5 dozen different approaches to answering that VERY
complicated question.>>
Are you admitting that we can now define 'the rich' and that in fact year
in and year out Congress does so? But that neither you nor Al Gore
can?
<<So,
as long as there has been an income tax, there have been people who
have "defined" what constitutes middle and upper-middle
classes.>>
This is a direct contradiction with your previous statements. I was under
the impression that <<Nobody can
ever really agree on it . . ..>
<<There is always disagreement about what PERFECTLY
constitutes middle or upper-middle class families because the precise
circumstances in which each family lives are different.>>
No one asked for perfect but rather precise. Perfection comes from god
alone, precision comes with logic and fact.
<<For
example, a family in Idaho that makes 40K a year might be far better
off than a family in NYC that makes the same amount.>>
I fail to see your point. This statement bears no relevance to the issue
at hand.
<<So, I think your question asking us to define EXACTLY
what constitues middle or upper middle, or "wealthy" is
disingenuous and I'll explain why.>>
I have no idea how asking for a simple definition of a word used DAILY by
the candidate you support is not serious. What possible issue could I
or Jay try to muddle with this debate?
<<When
I talk about the "wealthy," as I explained to Jay, I really
am reffering more to a more affluent lifestyle than I am any specific
economic strata. Again, you're delusional if you think that because we
can't perfectly "define" the wealthy, they don't truly
exist, and shouldn't be targeted.>>
Whom are you targeting? How can you legislatively 'target' something you
cannot even define?
<<We
"target" them as best we can based on current economic
assumptions, factoring as many variables as possible in those
assumptions to get accurate refelections of reality.>>
And these assumptions would be your definition of 'the rich'. Care to
share them?
<<Again, Mint's right..you and Jay are playing semantic
games.>>
Oh for pete's sake. Semantics? You are joking right? You are the one who
insists that you can target people without even knowing who they are.
JK can you even define semantics?
<<Most
of have common sense, and have a general idea of who constitutes the
"wealthiest" of Americans, vs. who constitutes the
"poorest.>>
If it was such common sense you could have told Jay and I who 'the rich'
are 460 posts ago. But instead you continue to drag this argument out
by attempting to bury the issue behind other nonsensical arguments.
You are trying, once again, to obfuscate a simple question.
<<Hey..as
far as your claim that this was the best post you've ever read..I wear
it as a badge of honor, as I've found you to be one of the more
arrogant "know it all" people ever to have graced these
pages. I also suspect I ruffled your feathers a bit.>>
The only time you 'ruffled my feathers' was when you insisted that you
knew how to calculate statistics better then I did. I don't think we
need to raise that issue again now do we?
JayC28: (to
jk) How can you be certain that the problems you describe
are directly related to the slowing the growth of spending?
I believe Medicare was growing at a rate of 15 times that of inflation,
and now it is around 10 times the rate of inflation. How can that
cause problems? Sounds to me like we have more of a problem with
BUREAUCRACY than with money.
theterrortheterror: (to
rich…quoting domer) <<An argument can be made that the more
you have, the more you are indebted to infrastructure, service workers
(police, etc.), stable government, programs keeping the environment
clean, and so on and on.>>
(quoting
rich) <<I'd be very interested to hear this arguement made. I'm
indebted to the government for these things? Nope. I pay for them like
everyone else who pays taxes. They are mine, not the governments. All
these things you feel the government, in it's infinite goodness, gives
us come ditectly from the people, not the other way around.>>
Wow. Let's see, the infrastructure of the nation's economy belongs to the
people because they pay for it, and because it belongs to them it is
wrong to ask them to pay for it...
I think that I must have missed something here, and I will be genuinely
appreciative if you'll show me what. The point made was, I think
valid. Those who profit the most from the status quo should bear the
highest burden of upkeep. If you want, *I'll* happily claim that
position as my own and be happy to defend it.
This is something I'll never understand about some partisan individuals.
The fundamental falsehood of such reasoning...
dharkangell: jk:
<<Jay, I think I said it best to Dhark...because we can't
pefectly define the "wealthy" under every possible
circumstance, doesn't mean that we can't trust that smart people in
govenrment can't determine with some degree of accuracy who they are,
or who the middle-class is, or who the poorest are, for
example.>>
So are you saying you are too stupid to figure it out for yourself? BTW
are not those 'smart people in government' economists? Before you
said:
<<Economists
can't even agree on what constitutes "middle-class," and
what constitutes "upper-middle," or
"rich.">>
But now of course they can.
<<You
not only think it's unfair to place any extra tax burden on the rich,
you think it's unfair to even consider targeting the rich since you
can't even identify them. I think that assumption is truly laughable.
Again, semantic games Jay.>>
The only one playing games is you. Tell me why did you even bring up the
issue of 'fairness' that is not germane to the disucssion on the
precise definition of 'the rich'. So why did you bring it up?
<<I
asked you to define the poor..you didn't for the very same reasons I
can't perfectly define, in EVERY circumstance, who the rich are. But
we can agree with some degree of accuracy. Stop playing games.>>
What have we agreed on, could you summerize?
<<As
far as your last sentence..answer the damn question. Are you willing
to explain to the elderly what slowing growth rates in Medicare might mean for them?
As a "Compassionate Conservative"..lol..you shouldn't have
any trouble.>>
You are trying, once more, to create a new tangent.
dobberx: (to
Mint) Yeah, the REAL issues
are :
"Is our children learning" AND all those tarriers!
Gee more
sound, reasonable discussion from our resident cheesehead.
dobberx:
(to domer)
We
have GOT to do something to help those richest! Maybe Jerry Lewis can
do a telethon for them as well?
Mint_60: Vocabulary Primer
CTJ Analysis of Bush Tax Proposal
http://www.ctj.org/html/bush02pr.htm
Bush's tax plan would reduce federal revenues by more than $1.7 trillion
over ten years, according to an analysis of the plan released today by
Citizens for Tax Justice. The study found that almost two-thirds of
Bush's proposed tax cuts would go to the best-off 10 percent of
Americans.
According to the analysis:
Taxpayers in the lowest 60 percent of the income scale would get only 11
percent of Bush's tax cuts. Their average annual tax reduction would
be $249. The bottom 20 percent of taxpayers would get an average cut
of $43 a year. In contrast, the best-off 10 percent of all taxpayers
would get 61.6 percent of Bush's proposed tax cuts, and an average tax
cut of $8,362 a year. The wealthiest one percent of all taxpayers
would get an average tax reduction of $50,166 a year. "In terms
of who benefits the most, George W. Bush's tax plan looks remarkably
like the $800 billion tax cut plan passed by Congress last summer and
vetoed by President Clinton," said Robert S. McIntyre, director
of Citizens for Tax Justice. "The biggest difference is that the
Bush plan is even more irresponsible, since it would cost twice as
much." The estimates include Bush's proposals to repeal the
federal estate tax on the very largest estates, permanently extend the
corporate research tax credit, cut personal income tax rates, allow a
deduction for charitable contributions for non-itemizers, allow a
deduction for two-earner couples and boost the child tax credit.
jkstraw_01: Jay:
<<A very simple one and I dont want any more of your bullshit.
>>
Jay..first of all..I don't appreciate the tone of this whole debate
today. I've been trying to tone down my rhetoric and not make it too
personal. I'd appreciate it if you'd do the same--it's too late for
Dhark, who aleady mockingly called me a "genius." It's just
debate over taxation. I know you guys go to bed dreaming about lower
marginal tax rates...Lord knows Bob Novack has wet dreams about
them...but let's just take a deep breath, shall we?
Now..to answer the question about your brother in law. Generally, no, I
wouldn't call a family of 4 at 100K rich." In Massachusetts, I'd
have to say my best guess is that a family of 4 at that income would
be on the border between middle-class and upper-middle. BTW..I said as
much in a previous post, but you ignored it.
But you didn't tell me where he lives. What the standard of living is
where he lives. What his assets are. What his expenses are. You get
the picture.
Government has been defining the socioeconomic classes, via the tax code,
with SOME degree of accuracy, and HAS been classifying them with some
degree of accuracy for decades. So I really think you're kind of
playing games, mainly because most of you are so damn "hot"
for tax cuts that it borders on the ridiculous. By the way, as a
single male, with no children, I won't get a single dime from Gore's
tax plan. But I'll probably vote for him anyway because 1.) Tax cuts
aren't a big issue with me 2.) Bush is a proven bubblehead..
but that's an aside...
If there are "wealthy" and upper middlep-class families that
struggle to send thieir kids to school it's because they've made
moronic spending decisions--bought "trophy" houses, cars,
swimming pools, and so on. So, do us all a HUGE favor, and don't
insult our intelligence by trying to convince us that they share some
of the same struggles that middle-class Americans do.
These are silly little semantic games Jay, I'm tired of it, and I won't
have any part of it. I already told you...we can trust people to
define with some degree of accuracy, taking into account the (maybe)
hundreds of variables, who the "rich" are, who the
"middle-class" is, and who the "poor" are. It's
been going on as long as there has BEEN a tax code, and you know it.
batso10: (to Jay) Lets face it, gore and
the liberals can only get enough revenue from taxing the
"rich". That means taxing people whose combined income is
60k or greater. If you are unfortunate enough to live in a location
where 60k a year for a family is barely enough to keep a roof over
your head. People like domer and gore would insist that they are rich
and need to pay even more money for their services. Not only that they
are also ineligable for all the free goodies he gore has been yapping
about. No income credit, no college tuition credit, no free daycare,
etc. and certainly no tax cuts. These guys only favors tax cuts for
the bottom parcent who pay no taxes. And we are supposed to lap all
this up? Give me a break!
Mint_60: So as not to befuddle SOME PEOPLE, we will no longer use the
word "rich" (obviously to complex a word for SOME to grasp).
I suggest the terms: "wealthiest" or "best
off"...lol
In contrast, the best-off 10 percent of all taxpayers would get 61.6
percent of Bush's proposed tax cuts, and an average tax cut of $8,362
a year.
The wealthiest one percent of all taxpayers would get an average tax
reduction of $50,166 a year.
dobberx: (to
Jay) Some "family" man, eh. Didn't you say he
works 12 hours a day/ 6 days a week.
dharkangell: domer:
<<And you have the audacity to criticize me, your better in both
wisdom and sheer intellect, to adopt some stifling economics-wonk
approach to my Presidential "deliberations," taking all the
fun out of it and leaving me with a humorless and sterile orientation
to life? I think not.>>
You are incredulous old man, a buffoon, what one might term even stupid.
You have nothing to show for all your intellectual superiourity than
to offer a diatribe on why the election needs to remain humorous. Your
best argument is 'I am smarter than you because I said so.' I know
first graders who are more intellectually challenging than you. Domer
you are an 'eg-no-ra-moose', a grand po bah of idioacy. Your continual
and exceptionally simplistic arguments for Gore are shameful. They
remind me of a child desperately seeking some kind of recognition from
a preoccupied parent. This makes you perhaps the lowest of the low, a
pathetic wannabe. You have not a shred of honesty remaining in your
soul nor the decency to admit your callous disregard for even the
vaguest sense of intellectual honesty. I sometimes feel embarrassed
for you as I read your all too serious posts on how 'nice' Gore is. As
if the issue was personal charm, of course with those, like you, who
are seperated from any real sense of self it often is.
I bid you adou, you are left to your own vexations on the how 'nice' and
'kind' Gore is. I may on occasion point out your missteps if only to
illustrate you complete lack of coherent intellectual ability but that
is all.
jkstraw_01: Dhark..in my initial post,
I didn't say that one can't PRECISELY define who the rich are because
there are so many variables that can factor into a decision about who
is rich and who isn't. If you want numbers, I'll give you rough
numbers..but I'd be hard pressed to call them accurate because I'm
certainly not an economist, and I know, at age 22, or whatever you
are, you aren't either.
I'd have to say, based on my limited economic knowledge, that a family of
4, that earns 150K could be considered "wealthy" in
comparison to other families. A family of 4 under that income would be
roughly upper-middle, while a middle class family of 4 would earn
somewhere from 70-80K a year. Poorer families of 4 would earn perhaps
less than 30-35K a year. Again...those are rough guesses because I
understand that making such PRECISE (there's that word you seem to
have trouble with) definitions are problematic. But people in
government make general assumptions.
You're ridiculous to assume that we can't target people based on general
assumptions about who the wealthy, middle class, and poor are. I never
said I COULD do it...I suppose my trust is based elsewhere. You can't
accept that. Tough shit. Read the poll numbers. People seem to like
hearing what Al Gore has to say.
dharkangell:
jk: <<Call me silly ...but I'd swear this is an
"Ad Hominem" attack on Domer, from the guy who swore off
"Ad Hominem?" Well..chalk it up to a moment of weakness.
Have we no heroes left in the world?>>
Speaking of personal attacks....
jkstraw_01: (to
dhark) Well.. I never made the mistake in this forum, or
any other by saying I was above them...lol
richpo64:
domer: <<Government is a separate entity from you or
me...>>
Pardon me? Three words for you domer.
"We the People...."
<<Those
with more have more to protect, have used more to acquire their
wealth...>>
This gets weirder and weirder. What exaclty have these mythical
"rich" folks used besides their time, talent, and capital?
<<…have
a much larger stake in preservation of the present level of services,
etc. (the status quo) than others.>>
All of these "services" that represent the "satus
qou" are available to all and paid for by all, well, most. The
"rich" (who ever they are) are no more indebted to
government than anyone else, perhaps less, considering they pay for
the majority of these "serives" which everyone avails
themselves of.
dharkangell: xenorg:
<<You shouldn't pay higher taxes because it's up to you what you
want to do with your life. You shouldn't be punished for choosing to
become an executive rather than a janitor. A constant percentage tax
on all incomes (possibly above a certain minimum level) would
eliminate loopholes and treat everyone equally.>>
There is still hope for you yet.
theterrortheterror: Jay:
<<I believe Medicare was growing at a rate of 15 times that of
inflation, and now it is around 10 times the rate of
inflation...>>
Well, Jay, of course you never claim that these are facts, just
"beliefs," but do your beliefs reflect the overall inflation
rate, or the inflation rate of health care specifically? I believe
there's a difference...
domer_10: (to
dhark) Don't let the door hit you in the ass -- it might
injure your already-challenged ability to think, and could affect your
personality adversely, though that is unlikely given the pits its in
now.
jkstraw_01: dhark:
>>You are incredulous old man, a buffoon, what one might term
even stupid.>>
Ad Hominem, AND emotive. If I may bucther an oft repeated
phrase..."Philosopher..heal thyself."
Dhark...you truly are a Renaisannce man..a philosopher, an economist, and
now, with your extensive psychoanalysis of Domer, a psychologist. All
at the tender, young age of 22. A role model for all.
Now, having said that, I am reading your post to Domer and find it one of
the more brutal, unfair attacks on another member of this forum that I
have ever read. If you can't respect his views, at least respect his
contributions.
dharkangell: Jay:
<<lol...I was wondering how long it would take before somebody
was the subject of a Domer "I'm better than you are" zinger.
>>
Jay, don't you know liberals believe 'all the people' are equal. Except
for us conservatives, 'the rich', those old white guys known as
Founding Fathers, those evil corporate managers.
I only wish Domer were more creative.
richpo64: jk:
<<When I talk about the "wealthy," as I explained to
Jay, I really am reffering more to a more affluent lifestyle than I am
any specific economic strata.>>
Every now and then a grain of truth peeks through the liberal rhetoric.
So it IS about controlling behavior. This post, and Gore's tax
"credits" make me more certian than ever.
So it's, "do as we say, and we'll let you keep more of the money you
earn." That is if you can figure out the tax code, and they're
banking on the idea that you can't.
JayC28: (to
jk) Well just so you know
JK, the CTJ analysis that Mint just posted puts my brother in law into
that category of the 'best off 10% of Americans.' I can assure you
that while my brother in law makes decent money, he is hardly 'best
off' which basically proves the point that I have been making:
The 'tax cuts for the rich' argument is a BULLSHIT argument because. It
is so because:
1.) 'The rich' cannot even be defined. You made that point yourself in
the post I am responding to by asking questions about my brother in
law with respect to where he lives, standard of living, assets,
expenses (I can assure you that with children aged 9 mos to 11 years
they are HIGH) etc. The ANSWER to the question "Who are the
rich?" Jk should have been a simple "I dont know."
2.) People (such as those in CTJ study) that make $13,600 PAY HARDLY ANY
TAXES. It is completely unfair to sit there and bemoan the fact that
people making that kind of money are not going to get a tax cut when
they dont pay anything in federal income taxes to begin with.
domer_10: (to
jk) From where I'm sitting, brutal it may be but, more
importantly, it's ridiculous. Seems I hit a nerve with the kid, but
not vice versa.
dobberx:
(to rich)
Last time I checked 50% WAS "over 40%"
dharkangell: fournotes:
<<. . .and for someone who makes less than $25,000 a year for a
family of four, that person has no money problems. He has NO
discretionary income to work for him, PERIOD. . . >>
I fail to see how this helps us define whom exactly 'the rich' are.
Perhaps we could take one issue at a time.
theterrortheterror: rich:
<<This gets weirder and weirder. What exaclty have these
mythical "rich" folks used besides their time, talent, and
capital?>>
And tax incentives, and government contracts, and interstates, and
subsidized phone lines, internet backbone, postal service...
<<All
of these "services" that represent the "satus qou"
are available to all and paid for by all, well, most. The
"rich" (who ever they are) are no more indebted to
government than anyone else, perhaps less, considering they pay for
the majority of these "serives" which everyone avails
themselves of.>>
This is an interesting play on the word "indebted." The upshot
of your argument seems to be that the rich aren't indebted because
these things are already paid for. Then you go on to say that the rich
are "less indebted" because they paid more of the cost...
I think what you mean is this: Infrastructure is not a government
handout. It is an expenditure of common funds for the common good.
I agree with that.
The idea that the rich have paid more for this is not contradictory to
the original point, in fact, it supports it. The point is that the
rich derive the greatest benefit from this infrastructure, therefore
it is fitting that they pay the most for it.
MIB_Supervisor: (to
Mint)
"family values" - a code of principles which reflect
Anglo-European, neo-puritan, male-dominated constructs.
"traditional values" - a subset of 'family values' that give
tacit approval to authoritative institutional reinforcement of the
status quo.
"christian values" - a distorted application of Western
theology guised as spirituality.
"compassionate conservative" - a right-leaning American
political moderate who's attempting to disassociate themselves from
the American neo-conservative base.
"special rights" - Reactionary phraseology to counter
democratic reforms for females, persons of color and/or of
non-mainstream sexual preferences.
"armies of compassion" - a slightly oxymoronic term used to
imply a widespread volunteer movement reaching critical mass.
"gay lifestyle" - phrase employed to rationalize the
demonization homosexuality by way of informal referendum. Meant to
suggest the acts (i.e.; oral copulation, anal sex) in themselves
constitute a distinct and aberrant culture.
"cultural war" - PC term coined by arch-conservatives to
justify Orwellian initiatives that reinforce the institutional status
quo.
"personal responsibility" - Populist term designed to evoke the
romantic populism of the 'puritan work effort' while shielding the
speaker against their own duplicitous corruption.
JayC28: The only ones befuddled
are people like YOU Mint, who get up on a pedestal and yell, "NO
TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH! I WANT TO HELP WORKING FAMILIES!" but then
cannot even answer a simple damn question as to who the rich are and
who those working families are.
It's a joke. You don't want some people who you cannot identify, tax
relief because they are too 'rich' or 'wealthy' but cannot say what
makes them rich and wealthy and you want to help 'working families'
but cannot identify them as well.
Who has a problem with grasping complexes here? You can joke all you
want, but and your fellow "Sock it to the 'rich' crowd" got
trapped inside your own rhetoric and couldn't find a way out.
You were challenged, and you sunk faster that the Titanic.
dobberx: (to
rich) OH my! The "BURDEN" of the rich! Woe is the
rich!
richpo64: domer:
<<And you have the audacity to criticize me, your better in both
wisdom and sheer intellect...>>
And there you have it, what we've been saying all along. Liberals are
just so much better than everyone else, therefore we should except
what they say, and never question them, they know what's best.
Bullshit.
You're a legend in your own mind domer. But to few others.
JayC28:
(to dobber)
Yes moron, because it costs a LOT OF MONEY to support a wife and 4
children as well as helping out his mother in law.
domer_10: (to
rich) In some quarters I'm a legend, Rich, but that's none
of your concern. Otherwise, quite literally, I am one of the guys
(including women, of course). I will be judged here by my club
contributions, which distinguish me, with others. I am confident in my
abilities, but not necessarily yours. That's your burden. Henceforth,
I suggest you stay out of fights that are not yours.
dharkangell: Jay:
<<How can you be certain that the problems you describe are
directly related to the slowing the growth of spending?
I believe Medicare was growing at a rate of 15 times that of
inflation,
and now it is around 10 times the rate of inflation. How can
that cause
problems? Sounds to me like we have more of a problem with
BUREAUCRACY
than with money.>>
Jay the real issue is the reimbursement rate. Unfortunately one of the
main cost drivers at medical facilties is the simple fact that the
government does not pay for medical services at 100% of actual cost. I
am not sure what it is exactly at this point, but it must be something
like 65-70%. The 30%, or whatever the number happens to be, that
medicare does not cover must be paid for by people who have insurance.
This causes inflationary pressures on prices and subsidazation of a
government program. Much like an unfunded mandate.
JayC28: Give me a break JK. Domer
asked for it with his usual "I'm better than you are" crap
and his temper tantrum "I'm not going to talk about it
anymore."
He would be wise to heed your advice about respect first.
domer_10: (to
Jay) You've come back as a conquering Roman General,
spewing orders and "wisdom" in a continuous torrent. Since I
don't recognize your exalted position, I means nothing to me. In your
regular fashion, you distort the truth -- I RESPONDED TO HIM -- and
try to poise everything to serve your political agenda, which today is
to attack that Gore lead by making hay out of semantics.
Janefinch:
(to Jay) If your
brother is in that category of 10 percent of best off Americans, it
should put into sharper relief what the other 90 percent are
experiencing.
richpo64: dobber:
<<Woe is the rich!>>
Is this
an attempt at answering the question?
Who are the rich?....woe is the rich.
< chuckle >
dharkangell:
jk: <<Now, having said that, I am reading your post to
Domer and find it one of the more brutal, unfair attacks on another
member of this forum that I have ever read. If you can't respect his
views, at least respect his contributions.>>
If you like Domer continue to respond with half baked phrases about the
personal charm of a candidate. If you continue to insist that you are
right because you are none other than domer, then you are just as
foolish as he is.
richpo64: (to
domer) Suggest anything you like. Although I don't feel compelled to take the
advice of someone who's best defense is to claim he is
"better", therefore he is right.
That kind of arguement makes my skin crawl.
dharkangell: domer:
<<In some quarters I'm a legend, Rich, but that's none of your
concern. Otherwise, quite literally, I am one of the guys (including
women, of course). I will be judged here by my club contributions,
which distinguish me, with others. I am confident in my abilities, but
not necessarily yours. That's your burden. Henceforth, I suggest you
stay out of fights that are not yours.>>
Well here I am breaking a campaign promise and its not even November yet.
Domer, if you once would respond to a single post that refutes your
arguments without relying on statements of 'I am smarter than you.'
all this would be quite unnecessary. |