Bush '04

[Arta]

Right on, Dyn - I totally agree.

[dxoigmn]

Also the tax cuts are meant to give money back based on what people payed in. If you give people back more then what they payed in then you are giving out welfare. Also, have you not heart of trickle down economics? Even if you give money to just the wealthy (which bush did not because his tax cuts were across the board), they are the ones who invest that money. Put it into physical assets or into the market.

Who said we're giving back more money than they put in? And, a lot of people are still waiting for that money to trickle down.  Money needs to be circulated.  If rich people keep investing their money to create products then no one will be able to purchase the abundance of products.

[quasi-modo]

Also the tax cuts are meant to give money back based on what people payed in. If you give people back more then what they payed in then you are giving out welfare. Also, have you not heart of trickle down economics? Even if you give money to just the wealthy (which bush did not because his tax cuts were across the board), they are the ones who invest that money. Put it into physical assets or into the market.

Who said we're giving back more money than they put in? And, a lot of people are still waiting for that money to trickle down.  Money needs to be circulated.  If rich people keep investing their money to create products then no one will be able to purchase the abundance of products.

We are giving back money based on what people paid in. Its based on a % of what you paid. Also if the rich are investing their money who said it was in a product that no one will ever buy, it could be in the stock market or in their own companies. But the point I am trying to make is, if you give all of the money to the lowest tax bracket it is not going to be invested properly, and it would just be another form of welfare instead of what it was intended to be... a tax cut. The lowest tax bracket would spend the money on jacking up the transmission of their truck or buying new rims for their old town car.

To say that the only people who got money back were 'the wealth 1%' would be ignorant. The people that buy into that crap are the same people who do not understand how a graduated income tax works.

[quasi-modo]

Right on, Dyn - I totally agree.

You would agree with any anti bush sentiment

[Banana fanna fo fanna]

Also the tax cuts are meant to give money back based on what people payed in. If you give people back more then what they payed in then you are giving out welfare. Also, have you not heart of trickle down economics? Even if you give money to just the wealthy (which bush did not because his tax cuts were across the board), they are the ones who invest that money. Put it into physical assets or into the market.

Who said we're giving back more money than they put in? And, a lot of people are still waiting for that money to trickle down. Money needs to be circulated. If rich people keep investing their money to create products then no one will be able to purchase the abundance of products.

Sure, John Doe will have more money, but he still won't have a job. Giving tax cuts to the 900,000 small business owners who generate 7/10 new jobs in the country sounds good to me.

I'm open to new ideas and I'm listening.

[Arta]

Right on, Dyn - I totally agree.

You would agree with any anti bush sentiment

No I wouldn't, and I've never said anything to indicate that I would.

[quasi-modo]

Right on, Dyn - I totally agree.

You would agree with any anti bush sentiment

No I wouldn't, and I've never said anything to indicate that I would.

That was hyperbole, but you have agreed with a lot of it that has been posted on this forum.

[Arta]

Because most of it is stuff I agree with... not all, though. I thought invading Afganistan was the right thing to do, for example.

[dxoigmn]

We are giving back money based on what people paid in. Its based on a % of what you paid. Also if the rich are investing their money who said it was in a product that no one will ever buy, it could be in the stock market or in their own companies. But the point I am trying to make is, if you give all of the money to the lowest tax bracket it is not going to be invested properly, and it would just be another form of welfare instead of what it was intended to be... a tax cut. The lowest tax bracket would spend the money on jacking up the transmission of their truck or buying new rims for their old town car.

To say that the only people who got money back were 'the wealth 1%' would be ignorant. The people that buy into that crap are the same people who do not understand how a graduated income tax works.

When people invest in something, it is usually a product or service.  For example, you buy stock in the stock market to help pay for some company to product some product.  Likewise, if they invest that money in their own company, they are most likely investing it in some product.  How do you expect the poor (who often buy these products, such as new rims of transmissions that company X makes) to pay for these products when they don't have the money because they didn't get a tax cut?  They won't and therefore you end up with an abundance of products which is bad for a company.  You need to give money to the lower brackets because they will spend it on products companies make which allows companies to make new products.

Sure, John Doe will have more money, but he still won't have a job. Giving tax cuts to the 900,000 small business owners who generate 7/10 new jobs in the country sounds good to me.

I'm open to new ideas and I'm listening.

Since when did people who are unemployed have to pay taxes?  That doesn't make sense.

[quasi-modo]

We are giving back money based on what people paid in. Its based on a % of what you paid. Also if the rich are investing their money who said it was in a product that no one will ever buy, it could be in the stock market or in their own companies. But the point I am trying to make is, if you give all of the money to the lowest tax bracket it is not going to be invested properly, and it would just be another form of welfare instead of what it was intended to be... a tax cut. The lowest tax bracket would spend the money on jacking up the transmission of their truck or buying new rims for their old town car.

To say that the only people who got money back were 'the wealth 1%' would be ignorant. The people that buy into that crap are the same people who do not understand how a graduated income tax works.

When people invest in something, it is usually a product or service.  For example, you buy stock in the stock market to help pay for some company to product some product.  Likewise, if they invest that money in their own company, they are most likely investing it in some product.  How do you expect the poor (who often buy these products, such as new rims of transmissions that company X makes) to pay for these products when they don't have the money because they didn't get a tax cut?  They won't and therefore you end up with an abundance of products which is bad for a company.  You need to give money to the lower brackets because they will spend it on products companies make which allows companies to make new products.

The people at the bottom do have money though becuase they have jobs (which is where the trickle comes in... pay) and if they don't then they are abusing welfare to get cash. But you forget the fact that everyone got a tax cut except for those who were not paying any taxes.

Also, if Kerry raises the top two tax brackets it will raise the cost of small businesses keeping them from making more products. So that would cancle out the whole give the little man all the money idea.

Once again I would like to say the tax cuts are not welfare, they were distributed based on what was payed in. Why should those who pay no taxes get money back?

Since when did people who are unemployed have to pay taxes?  That doesn't make sense.

Income tax is based on income. My dad is not employed by a company but he pays plenty of income tax because he is personal investor. He does not really work for a living, infact he claims to be retired. But every day he is watching the news looking at how his stocks are doing. He is not a day trader, but a long term invester and he buys new stocks and sells old ones that he has held for a while monthly. My dad also pays capital gains btw.

Also even those who are unemployed but looking for jobs have to pay an income tax. But the government has many forms of relief.

[dxoigmn]

The people at the bottom do have money though becuase they have jobs (which is where the trickle comes in... pay) and if they don't then they are abusing welfare to get cash. But you forget the fact that everyone got a tax cut except for those who were not paying any taxes.

Also, if Kerry raises the top two tax brackets it will raise the cost of small businesses keeping them from making more products. So that would cancle out the whole give the little man all the money idea.

Once again I would like to say the tax cuts are not welfare, they were distributed based on what was payed in. Why should those who pay no taxes get money back?

Income tax is based on income. My dad is not employed by a company but he pays plenty of income tax because he is personal investor. He does not really work for a living, infact he claims to be retired. But every day he is watching the news looking at how his stocks are doing. He is not a day trader, but a long term invester and he buys new stocks and sells old ones that he has held for a while monthly. My dad also pays capital gains btw.

Also even those who are unemployed but looking for jobs have to pay an income tax. But the government has many forms of relief.

No one has ever said that people who don't pay taxes should get money back.  You act is if you're making minimum wage it is enough to sustain yourself.  I make $12.00 per hour full time and it would be difficult to live on my own in LA. I can only imagine a family of 3 or 4 trying to live on this income which many do.  Most of their money goes towards rent/utilities/food and the majority of things their purchase is on credit (not real money).  If they can get a tax break then that will help them very much.  Just because a business gets a tax break doesn't mean their up the wages of everyone, they'll probably invest it in better things (e.g. expansion).  Small businesses are not going to be hurt.  http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?DocID=265  check for yourself by a site even Cheney (tried) endorses.  What I want to see are the large corporations paying their dues when most of them pay next to nothing on billion dollar gains.  You really think people who don't have a job but are seeking one really have investments in the stock market?  Be real, most of these people are poor with nothing to invest.

[quasi-modo]

The people at the bottom do have money though becuase they have jobs (which is where the trickle comes in... pay) and if they don't then they are abusing welfare to get cash. But you forget the fact that everyone got a tax cut except for those who were not paying any taxes.

Also, if Kerry raises the top two tax brackets it will raise the cost of small businesses keeping them from making more products. So that would cancle out the whole give the little man all the money idea.

Once again I would like to say the tax cuts are not welfare, they were distributed based on what was payed in. Why should those who pay no taxes get money back?

Income tax is based on income. My dad is not employed by a company but he pays plenty of income tax because he is personal investor. He does not really work for a living, infact he claims to be retired. But every day he is watching the news looking at how his stocks are doing. He is not a day trader, but a long term invester and he buys new stocks and sells old ones that he has held for a while monthly. My dad also pays capital gains btw.

Also even those who are unemployed but looking for jobs have to pay an income tax. But the government has many forms of relief.

No one has ever said that people who don't pay taxes should get money back.

giving money to the bottom would do this.

You act is if you're making minimum wage it is enough to sustain yourself.  I make $12.00 per hour full time and it would be difficult to live on my own in LA.

that is why you do not get a job that pays 12 an hour in la. Plus their are pay differences in different parts of the country. A jobt hat pays 12 bucks an hour there might pay 6 bucks an hour here.

I can only imagine a family of 3 or 4 trying to live on this income which many do.

then they must also live on welfare.

If they can get a tax break then that will help them very much.

they would already have tax breaks because of their circumstances. You get tax braks for having kids. If they are below the poverty line they are not paying taxes at all.

Just because a business gets a tax break doesn't mean their up the wages of everyone, they'll probably invest it in better things (e.g. expansion).

it means they can increase production and hire more people though.

Small businesses are not going to be hurt.  http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?DocID=265  check for yourself by a site even Cheney (tried) endorses.  What I want to see are the large corporations paying their dues when most of them pay next to nothing on billion dollar gains.  You really think people who don't have a job but are seeking one really have investments in the stock market?  Be real, most of these people are poor with nothing to invest.

Its not corperations that get hurt. Its small businesses. Let me break this down for you. You have 4 types of business, they are:
sole proprietership - where one man has the company as his personal property, all gains the company makes are taxed to him in personal income taxes.
llc - like a sole proprietership but your liability is limited, if the company tanks the owner will not be in the poor house
partnership - also similar to sole proprietership but their is an aggreement between the partners to split cost and earnings up.
corperation - no one owns it, has its own tax, corperate income tax.

Of course corperations will not be hurt by kerry when he plans to drop the corperate income tax, which will also kill a lot of govt revenue. But if you tax the heck out of the top two tax brackets you are going to create real problems for a ton of small businesses.


Bush's tax cuts were accross the board, what you got back was based on what you payed in. The more you payed the more you recieved. Of couse those in a higher tax bracket would get a larger amount of money back because they no only have the most taxable income, but they also pay a higher % of it in taxes.

Even if this were aimed at being trickle down economics, you refuse to acknowledge that trickle down works. It worked for reagan and set the nation up for major long term prosperity up until the tail end of the clinton administration when the market took a nose dive because of the tech bust.

ps: where did I say poor people are trying to invest in the stock market? When did I say that? I said the rich do, and the middle class does too to an extent. That is much wiser then buying some new rims for your car. Lets face it, people will a low soceoeconomic status might be their becuase they do not manage their funds wisely. If you go into a low income neighborhood (the streets, the hood, the ghetto, whatever) you will see some cars with very expencive paint jobs, very expencive wheels, very expencive stereos, but you will see them in front of houses that are falling apart. That is some real fine investing right there. I bet those rims made that car a lot more fule efficient to justify their cost... that spinning when the car is stopped is such a long term money saver.

[YaYYo]

Bush is a bullshit artist. Not to mention Kerry as well. which is why Raulph Nator is the man to vote for.

[quasi-modo]

Bush is a bullshit artist. Not to mention Kerry as well. which is why Raulph Nator is the man to vote for.

BWAHAHA. Nader is not a bser? Please, go on, explain this.

Ps: How is bush a bser? He makes promises he can keep. He does not make bogus promises to please everyone like his democrat opponent does.

[Kp]

Bush is a bullshit artist. Not to mention Kerry as well. which is why Raulph Nator is the man to vote for.

I am deeply moved that YaYYo supports Nader so strongly that he cannot even spell Nader's name correctly.  This can only be because YaYYo was trembling in awe of his chosen political candidate.