Author Topic: Vote for us, we're going to raise your taxes. (Read 4297 times)

Steve · « **Reply #15 on:** June 30, 2004, 12:40:27 PM »

Quote

Did anyone read that quote? Did it sound disjointed? Makes you wonder what she really said. Makes you wonder how people can trash Michael Moore for quotes out of context, then turn around and do the same thing.

What a tard you are. Come right out and call me a liar, don't mince words.

It's the exact quote, *******.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/06/29/politics0307EDT0010.DTL

Denied!

_Schadenfreude_ · « **Reply #16 on:** June 30, 2004, 01:00:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by VOR
Thanks for the post Beetle; it's an eye opener.

Ask Beetle what the current rate of inflation and what the current unemployment figures are for the UK.

_Schadenfreude_ · « **Reply #17 on:** June 30, 2004, 01:02:51 PM »

oh and I forgot to add - what is the current income tax on $58,000 in the US - here's it's 22% and you get healthcare and education thrown in.

midnight Target · « **Reply #18 on:** June 30, 2004, 01:18:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Steve
What a tard you are. Come right out and call me a liar, don't mince words.

It's the exact quote, *******.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/06/29/politics0307EDT0010.DTL

Denied!

I never thought you edited it Steve. And now I'm sure you would have been incapable *******.

Westy · « **Reply #19 on:** June 30, 2004, 01:28:39 PM »

"what is the current income tax on $58,000 in the US - here's it's 22% and you get healthcare and education thrown in."

That would fall into the 25% Federal tax bracket in the US. No healthcare thrown in. Education from kindergarten to high school is handled at the state level. Most Americans also have to pay social security, real estate, personal property and state income taxes on top of that. and before you can get away with anything left over they also nail you with taxes on your phone services, electrical usage and on just about everything you purchase.

ra · « **Reply #20 on:** June 30, 2004, 01:33:37 PM »

Quote

In short, a "male hen"-up of monumental proportions.

You probably meant "male chicken", but in a thread about Hillary this type of mistake is understandable.

10Bears · « **Reply #21 on:** June 30, 2004, 01:40:51 PM »

You guys just going to ignore Lance’s post?.. I can’t explain it any better, we now have a $500 billion deficit which causes interest rates to rise. A large part of this deficit is due to Bush’s tax cuts. In the meantime the Repubs actually increased spending causing the deficit to rise even more. What happens?.. You end up paying more to service the interest rate than to pay the debt. What else happens?.. The higher interest rates scare away potential new investors.

Why big business would prefer to not have a balanced budget is beyond me. The more money is freed up to buy new equipment and to train new workers helps float everybody’s boat and lessens the need for social services.

What Sen. Clinton might be suggesting here is to bring back to 38% cap on income tax on folks who make over 200k$ a year and can afford it. Seems to me people this wealthy wouldn’t mind giving back a little to the country that made them rich. A balanced budget would bring more wealth to them and would negate the higher tax rate they would pay.

To refute my argument, you need to explain how to balance the budget in other ways. If you suggest cutting social services, follow this train of thought to a logical conclusion. Would cutting social services like public health care end up costing tax payers more or less in the long run?.

Oh I could run w/ Toads comments on public schools.. but I’m buying redwood stain and trim for my new house in OV today.

AKIron · « **Reply #22 on:** June 30, 2004, 01:44:39 PM »

Cutting social services would force many currently enjoying a free ride to get a job and start paying taxes. Hey, that would help to reduce the deficit, right?

ra · « **Reply #23 on:** June 30, 2004, 01:48:32 PM »

Quote

I can’t explain it any better, we now have a $500 billion deficit which causes interest rates to rise.

Why don't you explain it better by citing the last time large deficits caused interest rates to rise? And how can you pretend to believe that letting government tax us even more than they already do will reduce the deficit? The only thing that reduces the deficit is economic growth and higher taxes hold down economic growth.

Westy · « **Reply #24 on:** June 30, 2004, 02:09:38 PM »

Why cut social services at home? It's sickening to think you'd rather screw over someone who needs support in order to get at the few who do not while millions are wasted trucking sailboat fuel in the desert and billions are sent to countries such as Isreal and to fund the attack on Iraq.

AKIron · « **Reply #25 on:** June 30, 2004, 02:15:23 PM »

Westy, I happen to believe that many of those sucking the social services teat would be much happier if they became self sufficient and no longer slaves to the democratic party. Certainly the enslavers will never recognize or acknowledge this.

10Bears · « **Reply #26 on:** June 30, 2004, 02:16:36 PM »

Why don't you explain it better by citing the last time large deficits caused interest rates to rise?

Late 80s, I remember buying a brand new '86 Dodge Ram 50 pickup and interest rates were 17%.. I ended up spending about 4k$ more for that truck.

And how can you pretend to believe that letting government tax us even more than they already do will reduce the deficit?

A) Not us.. folks making over 200 grand a year.
B) It has already happened. The Economic Stimulation package of 1993 went a long way to balancing the budget. That's not by me that's from Paul Volker and Alan Greenspan.

The only thing that reduces the deficit is economic growth and higher taxes hold down economic growth.

The only thing?.. Keep in mind corporate taxes have been reduced as well so the government is not bringing in receipts needed to balance the budget. Balancing the budget is the key to economic growth as witnessed in the late ’90s.

Westy · « **Reply #27 on:** June 30, 2004, 02:22:02 PM »

I agree to some extent. Drastic social welfare changes need to be made in this country. But IMO those who are lazy and are taking advantage of the current system in order to park thier tulips on a couch to watch the Jerry Springer show while collect $1800/mo are not nearly as bad as the foreign "interests" freely given access to some bigger teat by the US government.

rpm · « **Reply #28 on:** June 30, 2004, 02:36:29 PM »

Wait a second before you go blaming all the social programs for the current fiscal situation. This administration has gone thru money like **** thru a goose and somebody has to start paying for it. I don't like higher taxes, you don't like higher taxes. You spend, you pay. You can't just ignore the bill when it comes due. They never go away by themselves.

The extra money you pay in will be to pay for the war on terror. Did you think freedom is free?

lazs2 · « **Reply #29 on:** June 30, 2004, 02:38:13 PM »

six... I supported all bussiness play by the same rules. I did not support tax exemption based on race.

ten bears... you do know that the interest rate was as high as 19% under carter.

also... in england they are taxed even more heavily than us on everytday items they are even taxed on television! How would you like to pay nearly $6 a gallon for gasoline with most of it going for taxes.

so what do they get for all that tax burden? crappy health care (don't even mentin dentistry) and crappy roads.

oh.. and someone want to explain just what these wasteful things are that the bush administration is spending all this money on?

lazs