Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: MrLars on January 22, 2004, 07:35:02 PM
-
If interested, here's what your tax burden will be under a Clark admimistration.
http://www.clark04.com/taxcalculator/
It has been said here that it was your money and tax relief was welcome, under Clarks plan most of you who have kids and an income less than 50K you will have to pay little or no taxes...I'm childless, but I think that, for the American families, this is a very good thing.
Try the calculator...see for yourself.
WES CLARK'S PLEDGE TO OPEN GOVERNMENT
Under President Bush, government has been of special interests, by special interests, and for special interests. President Bush has shut the people out of government, creating one of the most secretive Presidencies in history. As President, Wes Clark would reverse the Bush secrecy policy, and restore a government where the public's right to know comes before the President's right to keep politically inconvenient secrets. Specifically, Wes Clark will take two major steps to create the most open, transparent administration in American history:
Reverse the Bush Secrecy Policies
Establish a Clark Openness Doctrine
REVERSE THE BUSH SECRECY POLICIES
Reverse Bush's November 2001 Rollback of FOIA. In October 2001, President Bush signed a new Executive Order, rolling back the availability of public information under the Freedom of Information Act - a 30-year old law that protects the public's right to know. President Clark would sign an Executive Order on the first day of his Presidency reversing the Bush order, and restoring the public's right to know. In addition, Wes Clark would instruct his Attorney General to overturn Ashcroft's directive restricting responses to FOIA requests and return to a foreseeable harm standard for FOIA exemptions.
End the Energy Task Force Stonewall - Immediately. President Bush continues to withhold records of the Cheney Energy Task Force from the Congress and the public - and is spending unknown sums of taxpayer dollars defending this stonewall in federal court, up to the Supreme Court. On President Clark's first day in office, he will direct the Justice Department to drop its legal objections, and will have the records of the Cheney Task Force released publicly.
End the 9/11 Stonewall - Immediately. Clark would extend the life of the September 11th Investigative Commission until its work was complete - ending the arbitrary cut off that now exists, and is allowing the administration to "run out the clock" on the Commission. Also on Clark's first day in the White House, he'd sign a new Presidential Memorandum directing the National Security Council, the NSA, the CIA, the State Department, and the Defense Department to turn over all relevant records on September 11th to the Commission, to make sure that the American people know the truth about what happened that day - and what could have been done to prevent that tragedy.
Undo Bush's March 2003 Classification Extension. Wes Clark would reverse the Executive Order signed by George Bush in March 2003 that extended the length of time that classified documents are withheld from the public. In addition, President Bush has increased the number of agencies that can classify documents. Wes Clark would replace these Bush rules with an approach that balances national security and the public's right to know in a more appropriate way.
End the Bush Family "Secrecy is Forever" Doctrine. President Clark would also reverse President Bush's November 2001 interpretation of the Presidential Records Act, which allowed the President's father to maintain the secrecy of his Presidential records well beyond the 12 year period established by law. If the records of Presidents Nixon, Carter, and Reagan could be released after 12 years, why should the Bush family records be any different?
ESTABLISH A CLARK OPENNESS DOCTRINE
Restrict the Assertion of Executive Privilege. No President since Richard Nixon has been more aggressive in using Executive Privilege to withhold documents from the public and the Congress. As President, Wes Clark would create a new panel of three, nonpartisan, highly distinguished, independent experts to review all proposed assertions of Executive Privilege, and report to the President. Only if this independent panel supported the assertion of would President Clark allow it to go forward.
Keep Public Documents on the Internet Forever. As President, Wes Clark would require that all government documents posted on the Internet would stay there - unlike the Bush Administration which has removed rewritten history by removing politically inconvenient reports from the Internet.
No More Secret Task Forces. Wes Clark will disclose all meetings that corporate representatives and special interests have with public officials when preparing regulations or policy positions. A Clark Administration will commit to a policy that prohibits secret meetings with special interests.
Commit To Regular Press Conferences - at least Once a Month - and Town Hall Meetings. President Bush has hidden from the press, avoiding regular press conferences. As President, Wes Clark would be committed to holding at least one major press conference per month - along with regular town hall meetings.
Establish a National Declassification Center (NDC). Following the recommendations of the 1997 Moynihan Commission, Clark would create an NDC that would centralize coordination of declassification across the Government, streamlining the process of releasing information.
Require Federal Lobbyists to Disclose More Information In a More Timely Manner. Currently lobbyists only have to file disclosure forms every six months. Wes Clark would require monthly disclosure forms - and would require greater information including who the lobbyist met with, what they were lobbying on behalf of, and how much money was spent.
My note....above all things, IMO, GWB's administrations secrecy is the most frightening of all their faults. An open government is necessary to have a government of, by and for the people.
-
Originally posted by MrLars
If interested, here's what your tax burden will be under a Clark admimistration.
http://www.clark04.com/taxcalculator/
It has been said here that it was your money and tax relief was welcome, under Clarks plan most of you who have kids and an income less than 50K you will have to pay little or no taxes...I'm childless, but I think that, for the American families, this is a very good thing.
Try the calculator...see for yourself.
Most people in that catagory pay VERY LITTLE taxes as it is: here's what it spit out for me:
Your family will pay
NO Federal
Income Taxes!
A Savings of $69
Based On:
Income: $25000
Marital Status: married
Number of children: 2
Under the BUSH plan I had an average savings of $489 acording to HRblock.com
Wes Clark's Families First Tax Reform is a major tax simplification proposal that will restore progressivity to the tax code, relieve the working-family squeeze and reduce poverty.
Under Wes Clark's Families First Tax Reform, a family of four making up to $50,000 would pay no federal income taxes, and all taxpaying families with children making up to $100,000 would get a tax cut.
AGAIN MOST PEOPLE IN THIS CATAGORY PAY NO TO VERY LITTLE TAXES AS IT IS!!!!
posted by sabre in http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=106573 (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=106573)
According to the IRS, the top 50% of wage earners in this country pay 94% of the federal taxes. That means that the bottom 50% pays just FOUR percent. Sounds as if the rich are already paying more than their fair share.
This is more accurate than you might think. The POOR HARD WORKING familys got a huge boost from Pres. Bush by an increase in the tax child credit allready. I'm in that group and I virtually PAY NO TAXES AS IT IS!
I really dont think wes clark is the man for the job. I never knew him as a general but from what I've read about him I am not impressed.
Most people polled recently said the economy next to national security is the most important factors that will influence their votes and I dont see how declassifying a bunch of material will change either of those.
End the Bush Family "Secrecy is Forever" Doctrine. President Clark would also reverse President Bush's November 2001 interpretation of the Presidential Records Act, which allowed the President's father to maintain the secrecy of his Presidential records well beyond the 12 year period established by law. If the records of Presidents Nixon, Carter, and Reagan could be released after 12 years, why should the Bush family records be any different?
in all fairness he did this for Clinton as well. He sealed records relating to when clinton pardoned criminals for campaign contributions at the end of his tour in office.
-
Why should the tax code encourage the production of babies?
-
Clark seems like a good idea...
Yaerrrhhh!
-
Originally posted by Chewbacca
Why should the tax code encourage the production of babies?
Because it sucks to have a declning birth rate and shrinking population.
-
Shouldn't people who produce children pay more, because their children recieve public benefits like education (and health care and other benefits in some cases)?
People who don't have children are actually consuming less public resources - why should they be punished by higher taxes?
-
The tax thing reminds me of that plan Armey had a few years ago. I'm all for looking at something new. The current structure isn't fair, IMHO.
As for the rest of it... Clark's position on government secrecy is awesome.
-
Originally posted by Chewbacca
Shouldn't people who produce children pay more, because their children recieve public benefits like education (and health care and other benefits in some cases)?
People who don't have children are actually consuming less public resources - why should they be punished by higher taxes?
People are not only producing children, they are producing more tax payers. Ultimately the government will benefit by having a larger tax base. If you're not making babies, you're a burden. :)
-
its part of democracy, most people have children so they vote themselves cash. conservatives welfare.
-
Taxes are going to be paid by someone. If you think taxing the hell out of the corporations will make them want to stay in America, think again. That is after all what you're asking for when you demand a free ride for those under a certain level of income.
Clark's plan is built on the precept that there is a money pit out there ready to fund it. That pit has wheels and will leave.
I received a tax rebate- twice- and I would gladly give it back to pay down the deficit IF both parties would keep their hands off of it and do exactly that. But that isn't going to happen, is it? Free health care? No taxes? Breads and circuses friends, breads and circuses...
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
its part of democracy, most people have children so they vote themselves cash. conservatives welfare.
Dude, you are the fellow that once told me I made too much money, more than I deserved, and the government was right to take it from me. Don't even talk about "welfare".
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Clark seems like a good idea...
Yaerrrhhh!
I don't know why, but seeing "Yaerrrhhh!" typed out has me laughing my arse off. :)
Clark is the lesser of 6 evils (that how many we're down to now, counting Bush?). At least he's not a career scumbag - it'll take him years to reach the scum level of any of the other choices.
His tax scheme, like Kieran said - bread and circuses.
Flat tax.
-
Flat tax, complemented by national sales tax that exempts things like food and medicine.
Or, just divide up the total federal budget each year, divide by the number of registered voters for that year and send them all a bill.
;)
That'd make for some warm receptions when the Congressmen went home to "talk to the people".
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
I don't know why, but seeing "Yaerrrhhh!" typed out has me laughing my arse off. :)
Clark is the lesser of 6 evils (that how many we're down to now, counting Bush?). At least he's not a career scumbag - it'll take him years to reach the scum level of any of the other choices.
His tax scheme, like Kieran said - bread and circuses.
Flat tax.
"Yaerhhhh!" Its classic Americana already, history in the prsent! :)
Not to mention on e of the more bizzare real life things I have even seen on TV... :)
But back on topic.
The things I have read about Clark lead me to belive that he is especially political even for a general. Further he is no political novice and hardly much of an outsider to washignton - if that really means anything anymore. :) If nothing else his cynical and opportunistic adoption of the Democratic party only months after glowingly praising Bush, Cheney et all at Republican fundraisers should make one doubt his sincerity and honesty.
So:
Dean is nutz.
I kinda like Edwards but that mostly because i know nothing of him <---- makes politicians rather likeable.
Lieberman I like from his adult debates with Cheney in 2000, caomare that to the grade school debates of Bush and Gore. Unfortunately he cant win.
Kerry - liked him till I read of his post vietnam behavior and really extreme left voting record. Indefintie shifting stance on iraq war is annoying but not yoo crucial.
Clark - He is a republican running for democratic presidential nominantion - basically not honest, in addition to other standard politicians lies.
Bush - I'm used to him by now....
Thats why i dont vote. :)
-
Originally posted by Toad
Flat tax, complemented by national sales tax that exempts things like food and medicine.
Or, just divide up the total federal budget each year, divide by the number of registered voters for that year and send them all a bill.
;)
That'd make for some warm receptions when the Congressmen went home to "talk to the people".
Toad for president :)
-
We have no children, not by choice as we have tried and spent tens of thousands trying, but it is not to be. My question is why are we so penalized by not adding to the crowding of the schools and to the needs of society?
Will my wife and I have to pay for the folks who have more children then they can afford? yes.
Is it right that they are rewarded for spawning at a rate the requires my taxes to support them?
just asking
-
I think the what you may not understand is when you retire Social Security has to be paid by people. If there are fewer people, SS is less solvent.
I am paying SS for people even though I am not old. I may never get old. Is it wrong for me to pay? Not in my opinion.
-
SS = Ponzi scheme
If anybody but the feds tried to do something like that, they'd be jailed.
-
Wow, that tax calculator (for whatever it's worth) surprized me very much. Denise and I are in the "just take my wallet *******" Democrat tax bracket, yet this site says I'll save some cash.
Must tax the hell out of the Millionares lol (actually, I wonder if the screws tighten in the next income bracket? the calculator only goes up to 100k )
-Sik
-
Originally posted by Kieran
I think the what you may not understand is when you retire Social Security has to be paid by people. If there are fewer people, SS is less solvent.
I am paying SS for people even though I am not old. I may never get old. Is it wrong for me to pay? Not in my opinion.
I am not planing on any of Social Security for my retirement.
It was never intended to be your means to retire but only as an aid to pensioners (big voters in there day) If you would allow me to I will gladly stop paying in to the program and never take anything out of it, I will even let you keep half of what I have put in over the last 27 years.
Hows that sound?
-
Why I think that's a perfect solution for the millions of elderly already dependent on it. We certainly have more park benches than bodies right now, and something ought to be done about that.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Why I think that's a perfect solution for the millions of elderly already dependent on it. We certainly have more park benches than bodies right now, and something ought to be done about that.
My advice to you is not to count on SS to be there for you in any big way. My expected monthly check corrected for inflation after the C.O.L.A allowances will be like $534 in today’s spending money. I plan on using that for gas in my boat. I started my retirement account saving and investing at the age of 24 and wish I started at the age of 18, time is on your side.
I have seen personally what happens to folks who have only SS to retire with, you don't want that.
I only offered the earlier post as a form of example, I wish no ill on the elderly, God willing I will become one and you can work for me ( I will need the gas money remember twin Diesels burn a lot).
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
Wow, that tax calculator (for whatever it's worth) surprized me very much. Denise and I are in the "just take my wallet *******" Democrat tax bracket, yet this site says I'll save some cash.
Must tax the hell out of the Millionares lol (actually, I wonder if the screws tighten in the next income bracket? the calculator only goes up to 100k )
-Sik
Mr. Clarks plan is funded by moderatley increasing the tax burden on the 250K and up bracket. Over a ten year period some one trillion dollars will be collected to offset the cost of these cuts....imagine that, a tax cut that is actualy funded and won't increase the Ntl. Deficit....what a concept < sic >.
-
Originally posted by Scootter
We have no children, not by choice as we have tried and spent tens of thousands trying, but it is not to be. My question is why are we so penalized by not adding to the crowding of the schools and to the needs of society?
Will my wife and I have to pay for the folks who have more children then they can afford? yes.
Is it right that they are rewarded for spawning at a rate the requires my taxes to support them?
just asking
I'm childless also...but by choice. My view is that this is a good plan for the whole of America in that it would, could and should help families to raise kids that are less susceptable to the negative forces that surround them. Whether you have kids or not, this is an issue that you pay for every day in local taxes for police, fire and EMS services. Lower retail prices because of less delequency resulting in lower shoplifting stats etc.
Ya gotta look at the big picture rather than a narrow self centered view.
-
Originally posted by MrLars
I'm childless also...but by choice. My view is that this is a good plan for the whole of America in that it would, could and should help families to raise kids that are less susceptable to the negative forces that surround them. Whether you have kids or not, this is an issue that you pay for every day in local taxes for police, fire and EMS services. Lower retail prices because of less delequency resulting in lower shoplifting stats etc.
Ya gotta look at the big picture rather than a narrow self centered view.
It takes a village to raise a child - not a government.
-
I actually agree with MrLars... you are going to deal with those kids one way or another sooner or later, and educating them is the smarter way. How is the question.
If you think it would be better to have more uneducated, unemployable thugs standing on our street corners, fine. Better realize people will eat, and they need money to do that. They're gonna get that money somehow, whatever it takes, or die.
We may not like to have our tax dollars put into public schools, or even private schools for that matter, but we're better off doing so. In case people haven't noticed it isn't the 19th century anymore, and there aren't too many farms or factories left to absorb the excess of uneducated manpower available even today. Today's jobs require higher and higher levels of sophistication and education, and more, CONTINUED education.
What I guess I am saying is, you can pay for other peoples' kids to go to school for 12 years, or you can pay for welfare or prison for the same people for 50-60 years. Your call.
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
its part of democracy, most people have children so they vote themselves cash. conservatives welfare.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kieren then said
"Dude, you are the fellow that once told me I made too much money, more than I deserved, and the government was right to take it from me. Don't even talk about "welfare"."
i reply
yea when somone makes alot less than you and pays into taxes every year money they could have used to live on.whereas you got a refund simply because you have a religious imperitive to breed( i.e. you effectivly are taxed at a much lower rate because you have children), we are paying for your kids, this is one form of welfare i dont support. the fact that you dont have a problem with it shows you are a "new" or neo type conservative or to put it simply somone riding the gravy train on the backs of the poor with a self percieved right to do so.
:aok
-
Tax the rich, eat the poor!!
-
The question is not about education, the question is should people be rewarded with money to produce offspring?
I am all for education and pay my taxes, I pay more then someone with children yet I add not to the poulation in the classroom. I only ask is this fair should people get lower tax bill that have children, should there be a scale that after say 2 kids you start to pay more not less?
How about welfare should the size of you welfare check be unlimited as to your ofspring or should there be a cap?
-
Scooter,
I think the fair thing would be to find the compromise in the middle. No way should there be a penalty to be married (as there was under the old system). No way should there be a penalty to be single (as there is now). I am not smart enough to presume I know the answer, I can only say the pendulum has swung the other way for a time.
Towd-
I am a school teacher. I teach in a poor rural district. How in the world could you perceive I could be anything but lower middle class? You knew this when you told me I made too much money. In addition, at the time of the statement the tax law favored singles and had nothing to do with your comments.
The gist of that conversation was I felt what I made (money) was mine; you felt what I made was yours (through the government).
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Scooter,
I think the fair thing would be to find the compromise in the middle.
agreed
:)
-
Just a thought.......
Quoted from ABC news 20/20
"But that's so silly because — and I bet most of you don't know this — the IRS says the richest 1 percent of taxpayers already pay 34 percent of all income taxes. Twice what Sharpton wanted them to pay.
Still you may feel the rich should pay even more. It's a tempting thought, since they have so much.
But let's remember the facts: the top 1 percent of Americans — those who earn more than about $300,000 a year — pay 34 percent, more than a third of all income taxes, and the top 5 percent, those making over $125,000, pay more than half. "
Finally some media folks that are willing to spout some facts and not just "myths" in my opinion!!!!
:aok
-
I know they're Democrats. They can't seem to realize that it's possiable to be single and have NO children.
-
Or they cant believe that you are married and your combined income is over 100K.