Bush '04

[dxoigmn]

if they cannot afford their housing they need to move down a notch, at some point the government subsidizes it. But if you give money to people who are not paying taxes then it is welfare. I ave said that numerous times, but you are not acknowlegeing it. Basically do you think we should just more welfare? Because  if the tax cut were engineered to give all the money to the bottom that is what it would be.

Ahh, then you have no real world experience.  To qualify for section 8 housing, you must have a low income, extremely low (varies by state and city due to differing costs of living).  So what about those people who are just above the line?  And there are many people like this.  And even if you do have such a low income, it is still very difficult to pay for other basic necessities.

No one has ever said anything about giving money back to people who don't pay taxes, so leave it alone.

That site you linked is not fact because reaganomics did infact work. It worked marvelously. http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Reaganomics.html

The site I linked is fact.  It is obvious that there is no correlation between cutting the top tax bracket and real gdp, annual median income growth, annual average hourly wage growth, and job creation.

[quasi-modo]

People who don't make a lot money (e.g. < $200,000) should not have to pay more or the same as people who make a lot of money.

That is simply not happening. Percentagewise, actual dollar amount, it doesn't matter how you cut it, people in the top tax brackets always pay substantially more than those in the middle or bottom tax brackets.

Another oft-neglected impact of the Bush tax cuts were that an estimated 7.8 million of the poorest people paying taxes were dropped off the bottom end of the tax brackets such that they no longer pay federal income taxes. Many of the same families benefitted greatly from the per-child tax credit and other features of the Bush plan.

To support the Kerry plan over the Bush plan is simply to promote class warfare. Everyone who pays taxes deserves money back. Besides the top income brackets, the Kerry plan is the same as the Bush plan. Bush is across the board, Kerry drops the top earners. It seems quite fair that those who overwhelmingly pay the most in taxes should receive more money, in sheer dollars, back, even if percentagewise their refund is equal in size or smaller than that received by the lower and middle brackets.

Yes I understand.  What I meant to say is the more income earn the more you should pay, and it should be substantially more than those who don't make as much.  Poor people need the money to pay for necessities while rich people can afford to give money to the government.

That is how it works now. Those who have more income pay more money, and substnatially so because they pay a higher percent because of the tax bracket.

[quasi-modo]

if they cannot afford their housing they need to move down a notch, at some point the government subsidizes it. But if you give money to people who are not paying taxes then it is welfare. I ave said that numerous times, but you are not acknowlegeing it. Basically do you think we should just more welfare? Because  if the tax cut were engineered to give all the money to the bottom that is what it would be.

Ahh, then you have no real world experience.  To qualify for section 8 housing, you must have a low income, extremely low (varies by state and city due to differing costs of living).  So what about those people who are just above the line?  And there are many people like this.  And even if you do have such a low income, it is still very difficult to pay for other basic necessities.

That is why people limit their hours to qualify for it... that is what happens in reality. Look man, we have food stamps, welfare, subsidized housing. We have tons of forms of finantial aid. This tax cut if given to the lowest people is not going to do anything for them because they money will be spread to thin. The bush tax cut was big, but giving everyone in the lowest tax brackets n dollers would just be another welfare check.

No one has ever said anything about giving money back to people who don't pay taxes, so leave it alone.

If you give the top less money back then the bottom that that is exactly what it is. Because the tax break is no longer based on what was payed in.

That site you linked is not fact because reaganomics did infact work. It worked marvelously. http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Reaganomics.html

The site I linked is fact.  It is obvious that there is no correlation between cutting the top tax bracket and real gdp, annual median income growth, annual average hourly wage growth, and job creation.

Then how come reaganomics worked?  The economy's rate of growth increased immediately by about 2% and its effects were long lasting.

Also, if these tax cuts only favor the rich, and trickle down does not work, then how come the bush tax cuts and deficit spending brought us out of a major reccession that began during the tech bust under clinton?

ps: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle_down_effect
also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market
http://www.bigissueground.com/politics/blair-trickledownreagan.shtml
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20031108-111533-9600r.htm
http://www.wanniski.com/showarticle.asp?articleid=2803
http://www.joeuser.com/articlecomments.asp?AID=89&s=1

[Hazard]

Vote for Kerry and he'll give you handouts. Vote for Bush and you can actually work for your money.

[quasi-modo]

Vote for Kerry and he'll give you handouts. Vote for Bush and you can actually work for your money.

Kerry will not give anyone a thing. His numbers do not add up at all. He cant cut corperate income tax, while increasing spending in a lot of areas (education is up 50% under bush, he will raise it more?), while cutting the deficit, if he only raises the tax on the top two tax brackets. It simply will not work.

[dxoigmn]

That is why people limit their hours to qualify for it... that is what happens in reality. Look man, we have food stamps, welfare, subsidized housing. We have tons of forms of finantial aid. This tax cut if given to the lowest people is not going to do anything for them because they money will be spread to thin. The bush tax cut was big, but giving everyone in the lowest tax brackets n dollers would just be another welfare check.

I see how you think now: keep the rich rich and the poor poor.

[quasi-modo]

That is why people limit their hours to qualify for it... that is what happens in reality. Look man, we have food stamps, welfare, subsidized housing. We have tons of forms of finantial aid. This tax cut if given to the lowest people is not going to do anything for them because they money will be spread to thin. The bush tax cut was big, but giving everyone in the lowest tax brackets n dollers would just be another welfare check.

I see how you think now: keep the rich rich and the poor poor.

Yes sure thats it, you hit the nail on the head, because I want to keep the poop poor because I am not a big proponent of hand outs, and give money back according to how much was paid in . Except for the fact that I am in no way rich. Read some of those links so you know exactly how supply side economic theory (or trickle down) is supposed to work.

I am very libertarian in my economic views. I believe that the less government screws with the economy the better. I believe taxes hurt the economy, and regulation hurts the economy, aside from stopping market failiors like negative externalities.

[dxoigmn]

Yes sure thats it, you hit the nail on the head, because I want to keep the poop poor because I am not a big proponent of hand outs, and give money back according to how much was paid in . Except for the fact that I am in no way rich. Read some of those links so you know exactly how supply side economic theory (or trickle down) is supposed to work.

I am very libertarian in my economic views. I believe that the less government screws with the economy the better. I believe taxes hurt the economy, and regulation hurts the economy, aside from stopping market failiors like negative externalities.

By saying people should work less hours so they can qualify for government assisitance completely baffles me.  You're essentially saying, "Don't work so many hours so we can give you some money" despite the fact the government gives out just enough to get by and sometimes less.  Also, just because something is supposed to work one way in theory, doesn't mean it will work that way in practice.  In the case of trickle down, it doesn't work; there are just too many external variables.

[quasi-modo]

I am not  saying people should work less hours. I am saying they do work less hours. They work just enough to support themselves but still get welfare. I have heard of people having more children just because they get a bigger welfare check.

All economics is theory except for the basic supply and demand laws. How can you say supply side economics does not work when it worked during reaganomics. You keep saying it does not work it does not work, it has worked in the united states and in england.

[muert0]

You've heard this and that but you don't know shit. How many people do you know on welfare? And of those people how many of them work less hours just to get a welfare check? I'm guessing zero on both counts. You relly shouldn't just spout off crap about things you haven't experienced and you know nothing about.

[quasi-modo]

You've heard this and that but you don't know shit. How many people do you know on welfare? And of those people how many of them work less hours just to get a welfare check? I'm guessing zero on both counts. You relly shouldn't just spout off crap about things you haven't experienced and you know nothing about.

Fuck you. You just say you don't know shit to people? I do infact know people who do it. I do not like those people but I know them. The people that live behind me do it. They are low life people too that just want to be lazy and cheat the system. I never said I have heard of people working less hours for a welfare check, I said I have heard of people having more children for more welfare money. Now I do not know anyone who has actually done that. But I do know people who have deliberately limited their work availability (the people behind me) so they can still receive welfare.

[Hazard]

You've heard this and that but you don't know shit. How many people do you know on welfare? And of those people how many of them work less hours just to get a welfare check? I'm guessing zero on both counts. You relly shouldn't just spout off crap about things you haven't experienced and you know nothing about.

I did a study in my social problems class regarding that very phenomenon... turns out the ex-brother-in-law of my AFR teacher/football coach mooches the social security system in that very way.

[muert0]

Quasi do you live with your parents? If so what's the house valued at?

[hismajesty]

I hate it when I go into the super market and get behind a lady who's in nice name brand clothes, has nicely done nails, but her children have no shoes (or on the contrary nice shoes/clothes), and she pays her bill with WIC. Then, minutes later, I see her getting into a nice new Escalade (or other nice car.) I think that's why I hate welfare so much.

[Hazard]

Quasi do you live with your parents? If so what's the house valued at?

You need to stop asking people such arbitrary questions that don't matter at all. He could live with his parents in a house valued at $750,000 and still understand the system.