What Bush Did Right

[parker00]

So as not to sidetrack this thread i will agree that it probably does depend on where you live and who you know. Although i don't agree with the way you pick and choose rights for certain people but that is a topic for another thread.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
One more question for our dear Raider. You asked us to add to this thread, yet you said to keep the negative stuff in another thread. Yet, you can't even abide by your own rules.  Isn't that just like the democratic party? "I can do what I want, but you have to do what I say!"

Show me the quote where I posted something negative bush did? All I pointed out was something negative steve did which I thought hurt the thread.

But that is fine, and neither of you still "quoted" a source, instead posting it as if it was your own work is reprehensible. But that is fine ignore that along with outdated facts on the Troops-to-teachers program and tell me again how  I am listing negatives that bush has done.

[Nash]

Originally posted by Seagoon
So for instance, a 2001 National Center for Health Statistics study on marriage and divorce statistics reported that 66 percent of first marriages last ten years or longer, with fifty percent lasting twenty years or longer and this data was confirmed by a 2002 U.S. Census Bureau study...

Huh?

Is that it?

Lets say you get married in your twenties. That means that by your thirties you only have a 6 in 10 chance of still being married?

Lets again say that you get married in your twenties. That means that by your forties you only have a 50/50 chance of still being married?

A 50/50 shot at it?

Is this for real?

Assuming you aint lying about it..... then I got one question.

Why the hell are you worrying yourself over gays?

[Seagoon]

Hi Nash,

Originally posted by Nash
Huh?

Is that it?

Lets say you get married in your twenties. That means that by your thirties you only have a 6 in 10 chance of still being married?

Lets again say that you get married in your twenties. That means that by your forties you only have a 50/50 chance of still being married?

A 50/50 shot at it?

Is this for real?

Assuming you aint lying about it..... then I got one question.

Why the hell are you worrying yourself over gays?

Yes, sadly that's for real, almost 50% of all the marriages entered into in the USA will end in divorce, and yes I'm worried about that. I wrote in a published essay on the subject quite a while back:

"Even the most cursory examination of the statistics concerning divorce in America reveals figures that are nothing short of staggering. In the 60 years between 1920 and 1980 the divorce rate more than tripled. The United States now has the highest divorce rate in the world and at least half of all U.S. marriages will end in divorce. About half of those divorces will involve children, for a total over one million children experiencing the divorce or separation of their parents yearly.

What these figures should tell us is that America has become what one author has called a "Divorce Culture," and as such we can expect divorce to continue to impact every part of our society, including the church."

But the solution to our problems on this front doesn't lie in further weakening the institution of marriage or making divorce even easier (which will inevitably the result of allowing people who are seldom together for more than even three years to marry), but sadly this isn't an issue that President Bush or DOMA are going to be able to fix by legislation alone. Either we commit to reform as a culture, or I don't seriously expect you'll have much of a society left to reform. No society in history has long survived the kind of disintegration we are enduring, we won't be the first. But hey my job is to call people out of the prevailing culture, I haven't been empowered to fix it.

- SEAGOON

[Nash]

Originally posted by Seagoon
Hi Nash,

"But the solution to our problems on this front doesn't lie in further weakening the institution of marriage or making divorce even easier..."

- SEAGOON

Of course it doesn't.

But do you really think the solution can be found in attacking something which has nothing to do with these sad statistics?

Let me answer for you: No of course it can't.

So why do you do it?

[Nash]

Heh... upon a re-read, you can answer my question by just repeating what you already said (..."further weakening").

Duh. My apologies.

I guess I wouldn't be so thick to it if it weren't for my perception that the church exhausts boundless energies protecting the dismal record on the institution of marriage by attacking something that has had absolutely zero effect on said dismal record.

Which you are doing.

Somebody is getting something wrong. Gays aren't your problem.

[Steve]

So MT.... why should the government get any of the money that was earned by the deceased and allready had taxes paid on?

Answer the question.

[lazs2]

most people would agree that estate taxes should start at a level just above what they would have accumulated in a lifetime to leave their children and..

I would agree with all of them.

lazs

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Steve
Answer the question.

Ask nicely.

[lazs2]

I think I answered it for him.

lazs

[midnight Target]

OK,

Estate taxes should be the favorite child of the Republiclowns. I mean, they are all about self reliance and personal responsibilityand getting the Government out of your hair  (unless you do something they don't like).  So the only income they should be in favor of taxing should be income you didn't really earn. Like inheritance ..you get the picture.

I think $10 million is a fair set-point for the Estate tax. maybe adjusted regularly for inflation.

[Holden McGroin]

Well MT, a limit of inheritance may be fair if you look at it from the receiver's POV.

If someone has worked to build a business and wants to pass it to his son, why should the government put a limit on his generosity to his children?

Why is the government taking his money, which he has already paid taxes on, any more fair than him passing it to whomever he wants?

[Clifra Jones]

Originally posted by midnight Target
OK, one!

One? Try thousands over the years. The death tax is the single most prevelant cause of the destruction of the family farm in America.

Dad bearly eaks out a living from the farm but the land is worth $5 million. Dad dies and the wife/kids have to come up with $3.5m for the government. Where do you think these "rich" folk are gonna get that kind of cash? You think a banks gonna give them a $3.5m loan? Nope, sell the farm. Most often to some corporation.

[Clifra Jones]

Originally posted by midnight Target
OK,

Estate taxes should be the favorite child of the Republiclowns. I mean, they are all about self reliance and personal responsibilityand getting the Government out of your hair  (unless you do something they don't like).  So the only income they should be in favor of taxing should be income you didn't really earn. Like inheritance ..you get the picture.

I think $10 million is a fair set-point for the Estate tax. maybe adjusted regularly for inflation.

The only un-earned income int his world comes either from the lottery of the government (welfare). If you make money on the stock market your EARNED it through your sound investment and intellegence. Just because the money came from Dad or the husband doesn't mean it wasn't earned.

$10m? most family farms are worth 10x that.

You would probably agree with these 2 statements wouldn't you?

A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

Do you know where this comes from?

[REP0MAN]

Raider,

Allthough I am usually on the other side of the pollitical scope from you, I do agree with you in this sense. You did start a thread asking for opinion. Not cut and paste opportunities from Pro-Bush sources. My 'thought' is this.....

I was born and raised on the border of Scottsdale and Phoenix, Arizona. Currently serving my time with my employer in Tulsa, Oklahoma but will return to my home in January. Anyway, I have three children. My oldest is 10. She has excelled at every mark in her studies at the public school. When Bush came to office and allowed changes in the private and charter school systems, we were blessed. We found a biblically based Charter school that had an excellent curricullum (<--SP?) and the changes had allowed for us "paycheck to paycheck" type people to put our kids in schools like this. She was really challenged and still excelled as her grades stayed at all "A's". We moved to Oklahoma where she has to go to public schools and her grades are poor because she is bored and unchallenged. Now that we are going back we can fix the problem.

My point is that if Bush hadn't pushed for changes like these to take place we would have a severly bored 10 year old who is failing out of 4th grade.

Oh yeah, the biblically based part of the school is a before and after school thing, not during sanctioned "school hours", it also cost us $200 per year, per child to send them to the biblically based programs. Didn't want to fire up any church/state moderators. They can be vicious.


*Edit: I should add that, yes, this is a state government change that obviously hasn't made it to Oklahoma yet. But my point was that Bush made the changes at the Federal level and allowed the individual state choose the option of implementing the plan.