Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: AKcurly on April 14, 2004, 02:31:04 AM
-
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/8424619.htm?1c
Posted on Wed, Apr. 14, 2004
Tax cuts Bush sought saved him $31,000
WASHINGTON — President Bush and his wife, Laura Bush, saved nearly $31,000 as a result of the tax cuts he championed last year, according to documents the White House released Tuesday.
Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife lost nearly all of their Bush tax cuts to the alternative minimum tax.
Bush made only part of his 2003 tax return available, breaking with a tradition of full disclosure begun by President Jimmy Carter.
Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, the presumptive Democratic nominee, made available only his own tax return, which he files separately from his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry.
The Bushes reported adjusted gross income of $822,126, on which they paid a tax of $227,490, or 27.7 percent.
Without the tax cuts, they would have paid $30,858 more, two analyses showed.
The White House withheld Schedules A, D and E.
The Cheneys reported $1,267,915 of adjusted gross income and paid U.S. income tax of $241,392, or 19 percent.
They also paid $6,977 to foreign governments because of investment income abroad.
Under the regular income tax, the Cheneys would have paid $194,194, a $36,623 reduction because of the Bush tax cuts. But the Cheneys were forced into the alternative minimum tax system.
Kerry reported an adjusted gross income of $395,338. He paid a tax of $90,575, or 22.9 percent, compared with an average of 26.1 percent for his income group in 2001.
---------------------------------------
What a prince! :)
curly
-
Ya Curly, having to pay $227,000.00 in taxes ins't nearly enough for a family.
-
Originally posted by Steve
Ya Curly, having to pay $227,000.00 in taxes ins't nearly enough for a family.
Nope. Prior to the Bush tax cut, that would have been $258,000.00. Let's see, Steve. I'll bet me and you probably saved a hundred or two. What a deal. :)
curly
-
Originally posted by AKcurly
Nope. Prior to the Bush tax cut, that would have been $258,000.00. Let's see, Steve. I'll bet me and you probably saved a hundred or two. What a deal. :)
curly
Your math education did include the realtive values of percentages, right? Did you go to school? Did you sleep through math?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Your math education did include the realtive values of percentages, right? Did you go to school? Did you sleep through math?
Yah, my math education is ok, probably superior to yours. :) However, it's remotely possible that old Georgie and me are in different tax brackets. Have someone wipe your nose and maybe you'll learn about them in a few years, Grun.
curly
-
Grun, I believe he means "the more you earn, the more this system benefits you"
Daniel
-
Nope. Prior to the Bush tax cut, that would have been $258,000.00. Let's see, Steve. I'll bet me and you probably saved a hundred or two. What a deal.
I suppose you think you should get 31000 back too?
-
Originally posted by Steve
I suppose you think you should get 31000 back too?
Good lord no. I simply believe the tax cut behaved as advertised. I think it's obscene when we are spending approximately $1billion/day in Iraq, our national economy is foundering (once again), our national debt is accelerating and old Georgie is out there handing out tax cuts. And of course, he got his $31k share of the loot as well.
curly
-
Well, perhaps you should consider economics. It is a fact that every boom in the economy over the last 50 years was preceeded by a tax cut. Maybe you prefer to live in a recession, but I'll pass.
our national economy is foundering
Aww Baloney. We just had the biggest quarter of economic growth in the last 20 years. Take your democratic blinders off.
-
Originally posted by CyranoAH
Grun, I believe he means "the more you earn, the more this system benefits you"
Daniel
If people pay more money in taxes and they get a % tax break the actual cash value of that bear will be larger because they are paying more cash in taxes anyway.
Basically it seems curly is sayoing that Bush getting $31,000 in tax breaks is unfair because curly earns lessx in tax breaks. Which is totally stupid because curly pyas way less taxes than bush in the first place.
-
Originally posted by AKcurly
Good lord no. I simply believe the tax cut behaved as advertised. I think it's obscene when we are spending approximately $1billion/day in Iraq, our national economy is foundering (once again), our national debt is accelerating and old Georgie is out there handing out tax cuts. And of course, he got his $31k share of the loot as well.
curly
It does behave as advertized. The economy is growing strongly, bush halted the recession dead in its tracks, and people are getting the tax breaks which has had a clear impact on consumer behavior in terms of buying more goods which drives the economy.
Jobs are a problem but thats because the economy is enduring a shift where old innecfient jobs like manufacturing are being pushed out.
-
Originally posted by Steve
Well, perhaps you should consider economics. It is a fact that every boom in the economy over the last 50 years was preceeded by a tax cut. Maybe you prefer to live in a recession, but I'll pass.
Aww Baloney. We just had the biggest quarter of economic growth in the last 20 years. Take your democratic blinders off.
I see. You're one of the enlightened fellows who believes the VPs remark that Regan proved the budget deficit doesn't matter. Therefore, the country is free to ignore that input is considerably less than output.
Yep, that makes a lot of sense. For each one dollar of tax revenue, spend x dollars by the government, where x is considerably larger than 1.
No one is dumb enough to believe that is a responsible financial policy.
Concerning economic growth, what is your metric? Here's a simple one. Take the value of your stock market investments around year 1999 and compare them to todays values. I don't know about you, but someone swiped around 30% of mine. :)
curly
-
don't know about you, but someone swiped around 30% of mine.
Bummer.. I was more fortunate.
The unemployment rate for the Bush Admin is no higher than the previous 4 admins... as I've stated already about the economy...
I don't know what more you want... perhaps you should send your tax cut back since you don't think it was a good idea.
-
My COD I just found out that Bill gates got a bigger tax breakl than me!!!!!! He saved a cool $500,000 in Bush tax cuts this year....
Why didnt I???? When do I get my $500,000 dollar rebate chaeck???
WAAAAAAA! WAAAAAAA! WAAAAAAA! Bush is teh liar!!!! WAAAAAA! WAAAAAA!!!
Man you comminsts are funny, thanks for the humor curly...
-
Originally posted by Steve
Bummer.. I was more fortunate.
The unemployment rate for the Bush Admin is no higher than the previous 4 admins... as I've stated already about the economy...
I want fiscally responsible politicians. That's all. Instead, I get snowwhite and the 7 dwarfs (Condy is Snowwhite, georgie is dopey, cheney is grumpy ... you get the idea.)
Is it too much to understand that when you collect X dollars in taxes, that doesn't mean you can spend > X dollars?
curly
-
I have a brilliant idea, Grun. You run for office. Hell, we'll make an eighth dwarf for you. Your remarks are right up there with Dopey's. :)
curly
-
And on what mental level are your remarks? Whining that somebody who makes twentyfive times as much as you gets a bigger tax cut?
-
Originally posted by CyranoAH
Grun, I believe he means "the more you earn, the more this system benefits you"
Daniel
Actually, the more you earn, the more the system anally rapes you. Bush's tax cuts just slightly reduced the size of the night stick.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
And on what mental level are your remarks? Whining that somebody who makes twentyfive times as much as you gets a bigger tax cut?
Grun, I not concerned about compensation levels. Read the thread dude. I'm concerned about tax breaks when our budget deficit is accelerating.
I'm all for smaller taxes; I'm all for larger taxes if it's necessary to repay the budget deficit.
However, it's stupid to think we can cut taxes and increase government expenditures. Furthermore, to watch people at the top end of the tax bracket milk this cow is obscene.
While old Georgie is dumb as a box of hammers, it's abundantly clear to me that he knows how to take care of his buds. :)
curly
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Actually, the more you earn, the more the system anally rapes you. Bush's tax cuts just slightly reduced the size of the night stick.
OMG!!! I just realized that you lived in a communist country!!! Poor bastiges, I feel for you... :(
-
Originally posted by AKcurly
Grun, I not concerned about compensation levels. Read the thread dude. I'm concerned about tax breaks when our budget deficit is accelerating.
I'm all for smaller taxes; I'm all for larger taxes if it's necessary to repay the budget deficit.
However, it's stupid to think we can cut taxes and increase government expenditures. Furthermore, to watch people at the top end of the tax bracket milk this cow is obscene.
While old Georgie is dumb as a box of hammers, it's abundantly clear to me that he knows how to take care of his buds. :)
curly
If yourse not concerned about compensation why make comparsion between bush's 30k tax break and your smaller one. The only difference there is compensation.
Why do you think raising taxes will be beneficial?
-
Originally posted by deSelys
OMG!!! I just realized that you lived in a communist country!!! Poor bastiges, I feel for you... :(
Yep, The People's Republic of Northern Aztlan. Please send food and weapons so we can fight the Oppressor.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Yep, the The People's Republic of Northern Aztlan. Please send food and weapons so we can fight the Oppressor.
This is just a job for the UN! Hang on a little while!
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
If yourse not concerned about compensation why make comparsion between bush's 30k tax break and your smaller one. The only difference there is compensation.
Why do you think raising taxes will be beneficial?
I already answered why I was concerned about the tax break.
I didn't say raising taxes would be beneficial. I said "I'm all for smaller taxes; I'm all for larger taxes if it's necessary to repay the budget deficit."
In other words, I want government expenditures to not exceed tax revenue.
curly
-
Out of all the talk of economy I'm just wondering when it become wrong to be wealthy? Why do the wealthy have to pay more?
Granted there are some unbalances in the system but what it all comes down to is that alot of folks seem to think that if you are wealthy then you have to pay more?
Hypotheticaly if there was an across the boared 10% tax....well 10% is 10% regardless of what you make but you'd still have folks yelling about how the wealthy arent paying enough.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Yep, The People's Republic of Northern Aztlan. Please send food and weapons so we can fight the Oppressor.
How do you say "Don't vote for Dopey" in Nahuatl?
curly
-
Originally posted by Wolf14
Out of all the talk of economy I'm just wondering when it become wrong to be wealthy? Why do the wealthy have to pay more?
Good question, Wolf. I would love to see a flat rate tax. Everyone pays the same percentage. BTW, not that it matters, I'm happy with the idea of folks being wealthy. I have no problem with it whatsoever.
I am unhappy with the idea of wealthy people driving the tax reduction. Either increase taxes or decrease federal expenditures. But for the love of pete, don't decrease taxes and increase federal expenditures when we've already got red ink out the gazoo. A total idiot wouldn't do that, but a crook would. ;)
curly
-
Originally posted by AKcurly
I am unhappy with the idea of wealthy people driving the tax reduction. Either increase taxes or decrease federal expenditures. But for the love of pete, don't decrease taxes and increase federal expenditures when we've already got red ink out the gazoo. A total idiot wouldn't do that, but a crook would. ;)
curly
There you go again mentiong high compensation... Who should set tax policy, bums on the street?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
There you go again mentiong high compensation... Who should set tax plovy, bums on the street?
Obviously the net worth of an individual is irrelevant if they are government employees (or at least it should be.)
But clearly net worth drives your ability to be elected to public office. For example, the finanical reserves of Kerry's wife makes it possible for Kerry's campaign to exist w/o worry about financial contributions.
I don't want like tax cuts when we have a budget deficit. It's moronic and it should be criminal. I believe Bush's tax cuts represent the delivery of earlier compaign promises to corporate hoodlums.
Whatever the tax cuts represent, I know one thing: They don't represent common sense and offer real harm to future generations.
curly
-
lower home mortgage interest and higher standard deductions this year, killed the schedule A for many folks (me included)
even with that, I went from owing $2000 to payin $200 - wtg GW!
washington j has to figure out how to manage with less, j like the rest of us do everyday
LANDSLIDE BUSH!
-
I'm still fuming about this. You know, before Grun was born, I was a card carrying Republican. You could count on fiscal responsibility. It was a Republican credo -- Fiscal Responsibility. Don't spend money you don't have.
Man, all of that went out the window with all republicans after and including Reagan. Go figure. Now, it's the democrats preaching fiscal responsibility.
A long time ago, Oklahoma had a liberal democratic senator who gained notoriety by wanting to give thousands of dollars to each American citizen. This wasn't a tax break, rather it was a one-time gift. Hell, this was before Vietnam and we could have easily afforded it.
But, the whole idea who so offensive to most Americans -- giving someone something for nothing -- it didn't go over well at all.
And now look at the sorry mess we're in. We have a flock of clowns guiding our political ship who not only think it's great to give away money, but hell, let's give away money we don't even have!
I hope snow white puts crab lice in dopey's shorts. :(
curly
-
akcurly
you do realize the tax breaks probably prevented this country from slipping from a recession to a depression right?
the romans did the same thing but were not as successful in the end
yes, both parties spend too much, the only way to control that is give them less
-
Poooey. If you don't earn enough you're not entitled to the benefits. Let them eat cake.
-
Originally posted by AKcurly
Yah, my math education is ok, probably superior to yours. :)
curly
ROFLMAO....oh Curly, you just made my morning.... Maybe Grun should ask you what you do for a living... :)
Oh yeah, and on topic, I happen to agree with you. I'd much rather have a balanced budget/lowered deficit than a couple hundred back at the end of the year.
-
The less of my money I send to Washington the more I like America. President Bush (43) is the Best thing that has happened to America since President Reagan. What about that speech last night? What a bunch of ninnies in the press huh? My favorite was Mr. Gonyea from NPR. what a pinhead, we should not fund NPR and send me back my $.000001. What a waste of taxpayer money. So I agree with curly WTG President Bush. I'm glad he got to keep an extra $31,000 of his hard earned money. Thank you for the post curly. I'm glad you are so supportive of our great President. Tell me where I can send you a Bush/ Cheney bumper sticker.
Looking forward to future generations of the Bush family to ably serve my State and our Nation. God bless President Bush, God Bless America.
-
Curly if you concern is budget deficits then dont frame your initial arguments with these words:
"Tax cuts Bush sought saved him $31,000" (From article maybe not your words, I donno?)
"What a prince!"
"Nope. Prior to the Bush tax cut, that would have been $258,000.00. Let's see, Steve. I'll bet me and you probably saved a hundred or two. What a deal."
This kind of wording made it seem like whine about the fact that he got a bigger tax cut than you.. This wording from the very begging directed the tone of your comminication whether you intended it r not.
And yea what do you do for a living?
-
Originally posted by storch
The less of my money I send to Washington the more I like America. President Bush (43) is the Best thing that has happened to America since President Reagan. What about that speech last night? What a bunch of ninnies in the press huh? My favorite was Mr. Gonyea from NPR. what a pinhead, we should not fund NPR and send me back my $.000001. What a waste of taxpayer money. So I agree with curly WTG President Bush. I'm glad he got to keep an extra $31,000 of his hard earned money. Thank you for the post curly. I'm glad you are so supportive of our great President. Tell me where I can send you a Bush/ Cheney bumper sticker.
Looking forward to future generations of the Bush family to ably serve my State and our Nation. God bless President Bush, God Bless America.
problem with this place is you never know when people are expressing irony, sarcasm or honesty......
-
I made so much money last year it is obscene. MORE MORE!!!
-
Good lord no. I simply believe the tax cut behaved as advertised. I think it's obscene when we are spending approximately $1billion/day in Iraq, our national economy is foundering (once again), our national debt is accelerating and old Georgie is out there handing out tax cuts. And of course, he got his $31k share of the loot as well.
No offense, but read an economics book. A basic one.
When you do, you'll realize that what bush is doing is economically sound for reviving a bad economy.
You'll also realize that what Kerry wants to do will incite a depression worse then the great one.
-
"No offense, but read an economics book. A basic one."
Why not share with him the title of the one you've studied from?
Share your expertise on how "trickle down" economics is a benefit and a successful story for anyone who's not already rich.
-
I have never been employed by a poor person. least not since my pre teens and allowance..
No country ever taxed itself into prosperity or taxed itself out of debt.
We need to spend less... that is the real solution. Tax cuts are an excellent way to start.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Westy
"No offense, but read an economics book. A basic one."
Why not share with him the title of the one you've studied from?
Share your expertise on how "trickle down" economics is a benefit and a successful story for anyone who's not already rich.
Not trying to get involved in any pissing contest, just a website thats interesting to read: (http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/images/smilies/uhoh2.gif)
http://www.henrygeorge.org/bearings.htm (Under "Readings", right hand side)
One of the highlights:
"The best tax by which the public revenues can be raised is evidently that which will most closely conform to the following conditions:
1. That it bear as lightly as possible upon production so as least to check the increase of the general fund from which taxes must be paid and the community maintained.
2. That it be easily and cheaply collected, and fall as directly as may be upon the ultimate payers - so as to take from the people as little as possible in addition to what it yields the government.
3. That it be certain so as to give the least opportunity for tyranny or corruption on the part of officials, and the least temptation to law-breaking and evasion on the part of the taxpayers.
4. That it bear equally so as to give no citizen an advantage nor put any at a disadvantage as compared with others.
-
Originally posted by AKcurly
Concerning economic growth, what is your metric? Here's a simple one. Take the value of your stock market investments around year 1999 and compare them to todays values. I don't know about you, but someone swiped around 30% of mine. :)
curly
But your trying to blame the Stock market on the president. Fact of the matter is and contrary to what people like to think is the president doesnt control the market OR the economy. He may institue policies to help try to influence it but thats more a matter of luck then an exact science.
Presidents get way too much credit for a good economyand way too much blame for a poor one.
the econmy is going ot do what the economy is going to due reguardless of who is in office
had the roles been reversed and bush been in office when Clinton was and vise versa the ecomomies during both administrations would still have gone exactly the way they did.
I remember before Clinton took office the economy was already starting to turn up and all the major economists were saying that "all Clinton had to do to help the economy was absolutely nothing."
I remember Greenspan being quoted as saying about the runaway economy "I'd like to stick a pin in this bubble"
I also remember well BEFORE the election the economy was already on a downswing before Bush was elected.
Now if your going ot say Clinton was responcable for the good economy you would also have to blame him for convincing people to buy $50 stock that was only really worth $10 which is in a sence what happened.And in the end something had to give.
And it finally did
Thing is every big upswing is always followed by a big downturn. Doesnt matter who is in office.
Mickey Mouse coulda been in office in the 90's and Bugs bunny now or vise versa. And the market, and the economy would still be exactly where it is now.
-
I'l look at that Ripsnort and see what's there. But I'd rather hear from the expert lasersailor184 himself too.
-
The book is made by McConnel and Brue. It's called "Macroeconomics."
Btw Lazs, government spending is the biggest way to affect the economy. While it seems counter intuitive, you spend during a recession, and save during a peak.
Cutting off the spending now will slam the economy into a brick wall, quite possible recoiling it back into a recession.
Cutting off the spending **AND** increasing taxes will double the recoil.
Your budget might be balanced, but you are now pulling in a heck of a lot less revenue from Taxes and the like then you were before. So you'd have to cut spending even more, and revenues would go down even further until you hit a point where it can't go down anymore (using balanced budge Fiscal policy).
Conversely (to the spending), if you spend during a peak, it will drive inflation to insane levels. Like you could be paying double or even triple what things cost now if the spending during a peak gets out of hand.
-
Curly, most stock analysts even back in 1999 were saying how overinflated Tech stocks were, I mean my GOD, MS stock was trading for $160 a share! Yahoo was somewhere in the neighborhood of $240 for a while! Companies with overinflated stock valuations like Amazon.com didn't even have the assets to cover their stock valuation!
Get real man! Some of us pulled our stocks out of the tech sector after reading reports like this before the big downturn in the tech sector. (My dad should have been a stock analyst)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I have never been employed by a poor person. least not since my pre teens and allowance..
No country ever taxed itself into prosperity or taxed itself out of debt.
We need to spend less... that is the real solution. Tax cuts are an excellent way to start.
lazs
Wrong..... Spending less is an excellent way to start...
dude
-
184... I agree that you can't simply stop spending but you can slow it on worthless entitlement programs and at the same time give tax breaks. the cash put back into the hands of the taxpayers will fuel the economy. I admit that the government needs to be weened slowly tho.
spending on temporarry things like wars or infrastructure is nothing like setting up more entitlement programs that need to be be fed forever and do nothing but grow more expensive.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Westy
"No offense, but read an economics book. A basic one."
Why not share with him the title of the one you've studied from?
Share your expertise on how "trickle down" economics is a benefit and a successful story for anyone who's not already rich.
And explain to me how taxing the rich does any better.
In fact the rich already pay the bulk of the taxes.
You really think taxing the rich more will help? it wont.
reason being that they will simply offset any increace by raising the prices of their products orrr in cutting the costs of their labor.
As a buisness man myself I can tell you that ANY time my costs go up. Be it because of Material, Gas, food,or yes, Taxes. I raise my prices to offset the difference. My profit margin is not going to change period because of my rising costs. I will simply charge you more to offset them and then some. and I will either layoff or simply not hire more people.
Now, does this help the little guy or hurt him?
On the other side. people more to spend he generally will do just that. Thus making the rich man richer. and how does this help?
Well this means he now has more to spend and can now afford to pay more people to do more things he would otherwise have to do himself
Old saying "Those that earn the most do the least"
And from what I've observed . This is true
When was the last time you saw a rich person mowing their own lawn? Or painting their own house? or any of a billion other mundane things.
And the more ya make the more things that become mundane.
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
Wrong..... Spending less is an excellent way to start...
dude
Are you the dude that just posted this?:
CLAIM: "We increased funding for counterterrorism activities across several agencies."
FACT: Upon taking office, the 2002 Bush budget proposed to slash more than half a billion dollars out of funding for counterterrorism at the Justice Department. In preparing the 2003 budget, the New York Times reported that the Bush White House "did not endorse F.B.I. requests for $58 million for 149 new counterterrorism field agents, 200 intelligence analysts and 54 additional translators" and "proposed a $65 million cut for the program that gives state and local counterterrorism grants." Newsweek noted the Administration "vetoed a request to divert $800 million from missile defense into counterterrorism." [Sources: 2001 vs. 2002 Budget Analysis; NY Times, 2/28/02; Newsweek, 5/27/02]
:rofl :rofl
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by lazs2
I have never been employed by a poor person. least not since my pre teens and allowance..
No country ever taxed itself into prosperity or taxed itself out of debt.
We need to spend less... that is the real solution. Tax cuts are an excellent way to start.
lazs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
Wrong..... Spending less is an excellent way to start...
dude
I for one would like to see a detailed explanation on how Laz was wrong.
Cause I was never employed by a poor person either.
the poor cant affordt to hire people. thats one of the reasons we say they are "poor"
I've also never heard of a country that taxed its way out of debt.
Or is Laz wrong on this simply because you say he is?:rolleyes:
-
"You really think taxing the rich more will help?"
More? Not more. Just the same as the majority in this country are.
"Tax cuts are an excellent way to start."
I agree. Across the board and for all. IMO it would help if the US government stops spending far more than it collects. Which it is doing right now worse than at any time before.
BTW, Henry George's central idea was that "all kinds of taxation tend to stifle growth and hurt the interests of the poor. A high income tax, for instance, would produce unemployment. Only land tax, therefore, should be collected as the “single tax”.
His idea seems to be void of any notion that "trickle down" economics work and from a quick perusal of his ideas it's quite apprarant that he never advocated that the poor need to shoulder a higher burden of collected taxesd while the rich got breaks and loop holes.
-
Flat tax.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by lazs2
I have never been employed by a poor person. least not since my pre teens and allowance..
No country ever taxed itself into prosperity or taxed itself out of debt.
We need to spend less... that is the real solution. Tax cuts are an excellent way to start.
lazs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I for one would like to see a detailed explanation on how Laz was wrong.
Cause I was never employed by a poor person either.
the poor cant affordt to hire people. thats one of the reasons we say they are "poor"
I've also never heard of a country that taxed its way out of debt.
Or is Laz wrong on this simply because you say he is?:rolleyes:
way too much of a quote..
I have worked for 'non-rich' folk... But this has nothing to do with what I said..
If spending less is the action that is sought, government tax-cuts have little effect on spending.. Spending less effects spending... Simple, eh? Not to say Lazs was wrong all together, but the first place to start is spending.. It goes without saying (forsome) , spending more and making less is not too productive...
dude
-
Originally posted by Westy
More? Not more. Just the same as the majority in this country are.
I agree. Across the board and for all.
Westy, the more the income, the higher the income tax. I agree, the rich should be taxed just the same as the majority in this country (which translates into LESS taxes paid for them)
Where Tax Brackets Come From
Congress establishes tax rates that apply to different levels of taxable income. Current law provides rates from 10% to 35%. The higher your income, the higher your tax rate.
The range of income where you stay at any particular rate is known as a tax bracket. For a single person in 2004 the rate on taxable income between $29,050 and $70,350 is 25%. So those numbers establish the 25% bracket. If you're single and your taxable income is between those two numbers, your tax bracket is 25%.
-
Ok. We're talking the same thing essentially for I too am all for less taxes (less spending too).
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
way too much of a quote..
I have worked for 'non-rich' folk... But this has nothing to do with what I said..
If spending less is the action that is sought, government tax-cuts have little effect on spending.. Spending less effects spending... Simple, eh? Not to say Lazs was wrong all together, but the first place to start is spending.. It goes without saying (forsome) , spending more and making less is not too productive...
dude
Please, dude, read this slowly and carefully and don't be too partisan when reading it.
Low Taxes Do What?
The Wall Street Journal 02/24/04
author: Thomas Sowell
Some years ago, the distinguished international-trade economist Jagdish Bhagwati was visiting Cornell University, giving a lecture to graduate students during the day and debating Ralph Nader on free trade that evening. During his lecture, Prof. Bhagwati asked how many of the graduate students would be attending that evening's debate. Not one hand went up.
Amazed, he asked why. The answer was that the economics students considered it to be a waste of time. The kind of silly stuff that Ralph Nader was saying had been refuted by economists ages ago. The net result was that the audience for the debate consisted of people largely illiterate in economics and they cheered for Mr. Nader.
Prof. Bhagwati was exceptional among leading economists in understanding the need to confront gross misconceptions of economics in the general public, including the so-called educated public. Nobel Laureates Milton Friedman and Gary Becker are other such exceptions in addressing a wider general audience, rather than confining what they say to technical analysis addressed to fellow economists and their students. By and large, the economics profession fails to educate the public on the basics, while devoting much time and effort to narrower and even esoteric research.
The net result is that fallacies flourish in discussions of economic policy issues, while the refutations of those fallacies lie dormant in old books and academic journals gathering dust on library shelves. As former House Majority Leader Dick Armey -- an economist by trade -- put it: "Demagoguery beats data in making public policy."
Sometimes the fallacies are based on something as simple as a failure to define terms accurately. Everyone has heard the claim that a high-wage country like the U.S. loses jobs to low-wage countries when there is free trade. When the North American Free Trade Agreement went into effect a decade ago, there were dire predictions of "a giant sucking sound" as American jobs were drawn away, to Mexico especially.
In reality, the number of jobs in the U.S. increased by millions after Nafta went into effect and the unemployment rate fell to low levels not seen in years. Behind the radically wrong predictions was a simple confusion between wage rates and labor costs.
Wage rates per unit of time are not the same as labor costs per unit of output. When workers are paid twice as much per hour and produce three times as much per hour, the labor costs per unit of output are lower. That is why high-wage countries have been exporting to low-wage countries for centuries. An international study found the average productivity of workers in the modern sector of the Indian economy to be 15% of that of American workers. In other words, if you paid the average Indian worker one-fifth of what you paid the average American worker, it would cost you more to get the job done in India.
In particular industries, such as computer software, Indian workers are more comparable, which is why there is so much outsourcing of computer work to India. But virtually every country has a comparative advantage in something, whether it is a high-wage country or a low-wage country.
Those who complain loudly about how many jobs have been "exported" to other countries because of international free trade totally ignore all the jobs that have been imported to the American economy because of that same free trade. Siemens alone employs tens of thousands of American workers and Toyota has already produced its ten millionth car in the U.S. Management guru Peter Drucker has said that this country imports far more jobs than it exports and no one has contradicted him. Indeed, those who are loudest in denouncing the exporting of jobs totally ignore the importing of jobs.
Free international trade produces both the benefits of increased productivity and the adjustment problems that all other forms of increased productivity produce -- namely, job losses in the less competitive firms and industries. The typewriter industry was devastated by the rise of the computer, as the horse and buggy industry was devastated by the rise of the automobile. Histories of the industrial revolution lament the plight of the handloom weavers when power looms were introduced. * * *
International trade has no monopoly on economic illiteracy. One of the apparently invincible fallacies of our times is the belief that President Ronald Reagan's tax cuts caused the federal budget deficits of the 1980s. In reality, the federal government collected more tax revenue in every year of the Reagan administration than had ever been collected in any year of any previous administration. But there is no amount of money that Congress cannot outspend. Here again, the confusion is due to a simple failure to define terms.
What Mr. Reagan's "tax cuts for the rich" actually cut were the tax rates per dollar of income. Out of rising incomes, the country as a whole -- including the rich -- paid more total taxes than ever before.
At the state and local levels, this confusion of tax rates and tax revenues has led some local politicians to see higher tax rates as the answer to budget problems, even though higher tax rates can drive businesses out of the city or state, with adverse effects on the total amount of tax revenues collected.
Price controls are another area where very elementary economics is all that is needed to show what the consequences are: shortages, quality deterioration and black markets. It has happened repeatedly in countries around the world, over a period of centuries. Yet politicians keep selling the idea of price controls and voters keeping buying it.
Many economic issues are complex, but sometimes a single fact will tell you all you need to know. When you know that central planners in the Soviet Union had to set 24 million prices -- and keep adjusting them, relative to one another, as conditions changed -- you realize that central planning did not just happen to fail. It had no chance of succeeding from the outset. It is a wholly different ball game when hundreds of millions of people individually keep track of the relatively few prices they need to know for their own decision-making in a market economy.
Simple stuff like this is not very exciting for economists and there is no payoff in one's professional career for clarifying such things for the general public. The only reason to do it is that it very much needs to be done -- especially during an election year.
Mr. Sowell, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, is the author, most recently, of "Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy, Revised and Expanded," just published by Basic Books.
-
Curly just retired from teaching at some backwater school ;) in Oklahoma and has a PHD in math, physics too maybe. Though that was before God invented electrons. ;)
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
Flat tax.
Yes, we all need to agree on this as it benefits all of us, any income level.Either a flat tax or "Consumer tax". The latter being a tax you only pay taxes on what you consume. If you're rich, and you consume alot, you pay alot. If you're frugel(sp) and don't spend much, you don't pay much.
Abolish the IRS all together.
-
Kids Rip??
Get to work!! (http://mms://windowsmedia.dvlabs.com/adcritic/bushin20-childs_play.asf)
dude
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
Kids Rip??
Get to work!! (http://mms://windowsmedia.dvlabs.com/adcritic/bushin20-childs_play.asf)
dude
Thats alright, we're quite used to people changing the subject when they can't debate targeted subject....
Carry on...
(http://home.comcast.net/~ripsnort60/ostrich.gif)
-
why should we fire bush on the economy when its growing at a huge rate
and why should we hire kerry when all i hear is how his plans would ruin the economy
-
Originally posted by simshell
why should we fire bush on the economy when its growing at a huge rate
and why should we hire kerry when all i hear is how his plans would ruin the economy
cause he's a "war hero" LOL
-
Really Rip?? I thought the vid went well with our topic of tax cuts and overspending..
Trickle Down econ 101 has been shown that it 'could' work in the short term. But somewhere we missed the point of this. The moneies spent by the government to help out hte economy is meant to be spent in OUR economy.. Care to guess where our government's money is going? Our tax money? NM.. I guess this is off subject..
But my video suits the conversation just fine..
dude
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Thats alright, we're quite used to people changing the subject when they can't debate targeted subject....
Carry on...
(http://home.comcast.net/~ripsnort60/ostrich.gif)
You call a steady stream of cut-n-paste jobs a "debate?" :rolleyes:
You are a funny guy.
-
Yes.. A flat tax would benefit the entire economy.. The IRS needs to disband and give up their WMDs....
dude
-
Originally posted by simshell
why should we fire bush on the economy when its growing at a huge rate
and why should we hire kerry when all i hear is how his plans would ruin the economy
Incidently, the stock market is taking profits (sell off) because of fears of inflation...inflation is a result of a booming economy, no? ;)
-
Originally posted by Airhead
You call a steady stream of cut-n-paste jobs a "debate?" :rolleyes:
You are a funny guy.
I can understand why you hate facts and data, and choose not to engage debate about them. Mirrors scare some folks to death.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
I can understand why you hate facts and data, and choose not to engage debate about them. Mirrors scare some folks to death.
LOL So posting "cut n paste" jobs from two dissenting positions is your idea of a debate? And then attacking your opponents' credibility by resorting to namecalling?
You are brilliant, Rip.
:aok
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Incidently, the stock market is taking profits (sell off) because of fears of inflation...inflation is a result of a booming economy, no? ;)
Wrong... You can have inflation in a declining economy..
In the long run inflation is determined by the growth rate of the money supply.. An increase in the quantity of money reduces the value of money by increasing the price level.
While there are many causes of inflation in the short-run, such as changes in the sales tax rate and/or changes in oil prices, over the long run inflation is a monetary phenomenon.
dude
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
Flat tax.
Amen.
-
The funny thing about this thread is with a flat tax in place, Bush would have saved even more, and most here would have saw a drastic increase in their taxes.
Curly, if you payed closer to 30% in federal taxes, you either made more than GW or you're a bit rusty on the math skills from calculator overuse in college. Research the tax cuts... what tax brackets were paying % wise before and after. The wealthy are still paying a large % more than the poor (twice the % as a matter of fact).
Really... look at the numbers and present them. Talk about those. Posting this article and ranting the way you have is simply pathetic.
MiniD
-
The federal government is getting bigger, the military is trying to get bigger (nothing wrong with that), and theres one helluva debt this country is sitting on.
Just exactly where are these "tax breaks" coming from? Sure as **** ain't reality.
-SW
-
BTW... you want to have some fun with taxes this year, move to Multnomah County in Oregon. We can show you what kind of fun a democratic majority can vote for despite tax surplusses.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
And explain to me how taxing the rich does any better.
In fact the rich already pay the bulk of the taxes.
You really think taxing the rich more will help? it wont.
reason being that they will simply offset any increace by raising the prices of their products orrr in cutting the costs of their labor.
As a buisness man myself I can tell you that ANY time my costs go up. Be it because of Material, Gas, food,or yes, Taxes. I raise my prices to offset the difference. My profit margin is not going to change period because of my rising costs. I will simply charge you more to offset them and then some. and I will either layoff or simply not hire more people.
And if the situation gets too taxing, a smart businessman like yoruself moves his operation to Mexico or India..
Does this help or hinder the economy?
I think we all know the answer.
-
"And if the situation gets too taxing, a smart businessman like yoruself moves his operation to Mexico or India.."
Well Bush himself encourages this exact thing with the tax breaks under senate legislation S. 1637 (that lets U.S. companies defer tax payments on income earned abroad). So not only would his profit margin increase by way of significantly lower manpower costs but he'd get relief from the gold, old US government to boot!
-
Sending less money to the government won't make them spend less. Cripes it's called debt. The only difference is that they have to pay interest on the money they are spending. And what does that mean long term? Either higher taxes or the insolvency. Geez Louise!
-
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=568&u=/nm/20040414/bs_nm/economy_trade_dc_2&printer=1
Curly, how do you explain this if things are so terrible?
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Incidently, the stock market is taking profits (sell off) because of fears of inflation...inflation is a result of a booming economy, no? ;)
Dead on, Rip. The CPI EX FOOD AND ENERGY was much higher than anticipated this morning...fueling an inflation fear sell off of the equity markets. It is being debated now whether or not the federal reserve wil raise rates as early as this summer to curb inflation and avoid overheating the economy.
Rip's article is excellent. People, do yourself a favor and read it. It's worth educating yourself on this matter.
Everyday we hear the word "Inflation" but how many really know what it is?
In it's simplest, crudest definition, inflation is too many dollars chasing too few goods and services, producing more demand than supply and driving prices of those items higher.
Why do we have too much demand? There's too much money in people's and companies pockets, be they from mortgage rate savings, tax cuts, etc.
This is one reason the federal reserve raises rates to curb inflation.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Sending less money to the government won't make them spend less. Cripes it's called debt. The only difference is that they have to pay interest on the money they are spending. And what does that mean long term? Either higher taxes or the insolvency. Geez Louise!
Exactly.. Hence spending is an excellent place to start rather than taxes...
dude
-
So can we cut the National Endowment for the Arts first?
-
Lazs, taxes have much less of an affect on the economy then Government spending does.
It does really seem counterintuitive, but trust me, this is how it works. You spend now to stimulate the economy into higher levels. (This is working). Then when the economy reaches Full Employment or higher, you cut spending and save money.
If you were to do what kerry wants, I'd be willing to bet on it that the economy will drop faster then a rock. Sure, the government's budget will be balanced. But no one will have any money and Inflation would really kick in.
Btw, it's just dumb to tax the people more who are spending the most amount of money in the economy.
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
So can we cut the National Endowment for the Arts first?
How about the missle defense program first?
dude
-
Cut veterans benefits!!!
Oh wait. He's done that.
-
He sure did!!! right when I need to have my appendix removed also. So what???
-
"So what?"
So what? I imagine there's not many veterans who would be so eager to "take a bullet" for the "supreme" commander as you apparantly are. Well done soldier.
-
Curly,
You might want to pick up a book on economics some day. When the economy sags it's best to drop interest rates and cut taxes to get the economy back in motion. Spending more than income via debt to do so is considered advisable by most any economist since the more these 2 things are done the faster the economy recovers. Once the economy is back to normal you let it run, as it starts to inflate you raise interest rates and taxes. This serves to cool the economy off to lessen the impact of infaltion and can then be used to pay down national debt.
Originally posted by AKcurly
I'm still fuming about this. You know, before Grun was born, I was a card carrying Republican. You could count on fiscal responsibility. It was a Republican credo -- Fiscal Responsibility. Don't spend money you don't have.
Man, all of that went out the window with all republicans after and including Reagan. Go figure. Now, it's the democrats preaching fiscal responsibility.
A long time ago, Oklahoma had a liberal democratic senator who gained notoriety by wanting to give thousands of dollars to each American citizen. This wasn't a tax break, rather it was a one-time gift. Hell, this was before Vietnam and we could have easily afforded it.
But, the whole idea who so offensive to most Americans -- giving someone something for nothing -- it didn't go over well at all.
And now look at the sorry mess we're in. We have a flock of clowns guiding our political ship who not only think it's great to give away money, but hell, let's give away money we don't even have!
I hope snow white puts crab lice in dopey's shorts. :(
curly
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
And if the situation gets too taxing, a smart businessman like yoruself moves his operation to Mexico or India..
Does this help or hinder the economy?
I think we all know the answer.
Naa cant drink the water in either of those places.
I'd just stop hiring high paid americans and hire the Mexicans instead:aok
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
Wrong... You can have inflation in a declining economy..
In the long run inflation is determined by the growth rate of the money supply.. An increase in the quantity of money reduces the value of money by increasing the price level.
While there are many causes of inflation in the short-run, such as changes in the sales tax rate and/or changes in oil prices, over the long run inflation is a monetary phenomenon.
dude
Wrong?...WRONG???
Hey, I'm just repeating what they said (Profit taking due to inflation fears based on a good economy) on the Stock Market report this morning as I drove into work, but I'm sure you know more about it than a stock analyst ;) .
Oh and hey, read Mucks reply, he does this for a living :p
-
I make plenty of money and it is wrong of me to expect to amble up to the trough and eat for free. They took care of my apendicitis and I repaid the VA for the services rendered. Then went out and bought health insurance. I don't feel like I'm entitled to anything because I served for 6 years 22 years ago.
-
I extra money I got back in taxes this year goes into buying gas. So it goes into Bush's pocket anyways!
-
TDDV was right about there being inflation because of the increase in money supply from Monetary Policies in effect. But it's very minor.
The inflation I was referring to starts to occur when the US starts to produce at above the full production level. Everyone has more money and more demand, so the prices go up and inflation goes up.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
The funny thing about this thread is with a flat tax in place, Bush would have saved even more, and most here would have saw a drastic increase in their taxes.
Curly, if you payed closer to 30% in federal taxes, you either made more than GW or you're a bit rusty on the math skills from calculator overuse in college. Research the tax cuts... what tax brackets were paying % wise before and after. The wealthy are still paying a large % more than the poor (twice the % as a matter of fact).
Really... look at the numbers and present them. Talk about those. Posting this article and ranting the way you have is simply pathetic.
MiniD
Dj, read the entire thread dude. I don't care if they cut or raise taxes. My primary complaint is decreasing taxes, increasing federal expenditures and all with an increasing federal deficit. It's called "Voodoo Economics" and the phrase was first applied to Reagan by George Bush, Sr (when he was a candidate running against Reagan.)
None of you wart hogs (including me and the rest of the known universe) know enough Economics to have any idea what's driving our economy. Economics is not a science with a collection of rules. Rather it's an ah-hoc collection of ideas where they use positive feedback to control an unstable system. That is a certain formula for disaster.
If you guys want to believe that deficient spending coupled with budget cuts makes sense, why be my guest. If you want to believe you can spend your way out of trouble, again, be my guest. Both make no sense.
Pathetic? Nah, just honest, but you wouldn't know anything about that.
curly
-
If you guys want to believe that deficient spending coupled blah blah blah
Jimmy carter balanced the budget... and put us in the worst recession in years. When are you going to learn that carrrying a deficit is not necessarily bad for the economy?
-
Originally posted by Steve
Jimmy carter balanced the budget... and put us in the worst recession in years. When are you going to learn that carrrying a deficit is not necessarily bad for the economy?
Balancing the budget is sorta like making heroin users quit cold turkey. There will be repercussions. After all, there are so many contractors with their nose in the federal feed trough, yeah, things are going to slow down for a period of time.
Steve, you're old enough to have at least read Eisenhower's greatest concern as he left office.
Steve, you do understand the futility of trying to control an unstable device with positive feedback, right?
curly
-
Wow curly, you adressed every issue I didn't bring up. All the while ignoring the fact that you posted a stupid bellybutton anti-bush propaganda article in regards to his tax statement and somehow turned it into a state of the economy debate.
It's pretty damn funny curly. I especially liked the implication that somehow you paid a larger % to the fed than someone who made more than you. Especially the part where you pretend you weren't completely wrong with that assumption.
Read up on economics curly. A little reading will go a long way. If that's not enough for you, read up on history. Look at the biggest depressions in U.S. history and what was done to pull out of them.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Steve
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=568&u=/nm/20040414/bs_nm/economy_trade_dc_2&printer=1
Curly, how do you explain this if things are so terrible?
Well, it makes sense since the consumer price index is up for the 4th month in a row. Is that good? No. Do they balance out? Dunno. Is it good to spend more money than you have revenue? No.
curly
-
Originally posted by lazs2
quote:
No country ever taxed itself into prosperity or taxed itself out of debt.
We need to spend less... that is the real solution. Tax cuts are an excellent way to start.
lazs
There ya go. It's as simple as that. It doesn't even require a complex statement of economics - it's just common sense. Live within your means.
curly
-
You can not continue to spend more than you earn. I don't care how long you string the debt. Living off your Credit Cards will tell you that, the interest will eat you alive. Spending IS a good thing, if you spend it on the right things (i.e infrastructure, WPA) that will pay you back. This is not the type of spending we are seeing. I am all for lower taxes, but we need to lower the governments spending budget first.
-
Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
Curly,
You might want to pick up a book on economics some day. When the economy sags it's best to drop interest rates and cut taxes to get the economy back in motion.
So says the Keynesians, the problem is that it simply initiates another boom/bust cycle.
I seem to recall Regan proceeded spending like a madman and to racking up debt like crazy. Debt you haven't paid off yet, and indeed is growing.
-
Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
Curly,
You might want to pick up a book on economics some day. When the economy sags it's best to drop interest rates and cut taxes to get the economy back in motion. Spending more than income via debt to do so is considered advisable by most any economist since the more these 2 things are done the faster the economy recovers. Once the economy is back to normal you let it run, as it starts to inflate you raise interest rates and taxes. This serves to cool the economy off to lessen the impact of infaltion and can then be used to pay down national debt.
Yes, I've read a book or two on economics, even taught a course or three. :)
All of what you suggest makes sense if you forget federal expenditures are increasing due to causes other than tax cuts.
During sustained down cycles, sure, you jump start the economy. However, if the feds are pouring money into areas outside the country, then it's complete nonsense. It's like pouring gasoline on a fire in hope of quenching it.
It is lunacy at its greatest to legislate tax cuts when the federal deficit is climbing AND a substantial fraction of federal expenditures occur outside of the country .
You know, this is really ironic. When I was a registered republican voter, the republican party was famous for 1) fiscal responsibility and 2) not starting wars. The democrats were famous for 1) irresponsible spending and 2) starting wars. Now the two have traded positions.
Well, at least my politics have stayed consistent. 1) Responsible federal fiscal policies and 2) defend yourself, but don't start wars.
curly
-
"I make plenty of money and it is wrong of me to expect to amble up to the trough and eat for free. They took care of my apendicitis and I repaid the VA for the services rendered. Then went out and bought health insurance. I don't feel like I'm entitled to anything because I served for 6 years 22 years ago."
AFAIK to get veterans benefits you have to retire after at least 20 years or have been disabled to some extent during your time on duty. In other words you didn't have any veterans benefits to lose let alone experience a cut back on.
-
Wow curly, I'm continuing to wonder what you just said has to do with you're original post.
A quick question for you (one you seem to be dodging):
Did you pay a higher percentage on your federal income tax than Bush did?
Baby steps here curly... you can do it.
MiniD
-
Steve is correct, take as an example
A family that has a combined income of $70,000.00 in a stable work situation, that is to say money is coming in regularly and is likely to continue to do so.
The liabilities are $130,000.00 in a mortgage
two car loans totalling $18,000.00
additionally there is $6000.00 in unsecured consumer debt.
Does this look like they are in bad shape?
Yet that is "a deficit" and there is nothing to fear. the balance the budget troll is used shamelessly used by both parties to gain political points with us "the herd"
The US Gov't can operate well while carrying a "deficit" easier than you or I could.
There is no need to have a balanced budget. Frankly that money we send to Washington needs to come back to us, moreso at times like these.
Er no Westy when I signed up even 6 years service granted you lifetime medical care at the VA. GWB cut that back to what you are saying on Jan 1, 2003. my appendix ruptured in Sept 2003. prior to that I had never needed to see a Doctor. Had I gone into the VA even once ever since my Honorable Discharge prior to Jan. 1, 2003 I would have those benefits for life, or if a liberal Dem. is elected I'm sure he will reverse the decision by GWB to suspend benefits to veterans that earn more than $25,000 annually. that was an administration policy decision (an executive order) and can be reversed at any time. not that it matters to me.
-
It is not a deficit, that is debt.
The family would be in deficit if they spent more than 70K coming in that year, and their debt grew.
Incurring debt (deficit spending) is not bad, as long as you do not over do it and go into bankruptcy.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Wow curly, I'm continuing to wonder what you just said has to do with you're original post.
A quick question for you (one you seem to be dodging):
Did you pay a higher percentage on your federal income tax than Bush did?
Baby steps here curly... you can do it.
MiniD
Com'on Mini D... His first post was a complaint about tax cuts during a time of excessive spending and deficits... He was commenting on fiscal irresponsibility.. Thats how I have read him anyway..
dude
-
Let's take baby steps here mystery poster. One thing at a time. He did say he pays closer to 30% taxes in response to Bush's 27.5%. He responds to that, we move on to the next.
So, how about it curly, you answer this one and we can move on to the next one.
Do you feel you paid a higher % of taxes than GWB?
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Let's take baby steps here mystery poster. One thing at a time. He did say he pays closer to 30% taxes in response to Bush's 27.5%. He responds to that, we move on to the next.
So, how about it curly, you answer this one and we can move on to the next one.
Do you feel you paid a higher % of taxes than GWB?
MiniD
WTF are you talking about dj? Are you on drugs or something? Where did I say what my taxes were?
Concerning higher or lower, I have absolutely no idea concerning the percentage of my gross that went to taxes. I have 2 sources of income (me, wife) and a small business that yields additional income and a small farm. It's too complicated - an accountant does it. I have absolutely no idea (or interest) in whether I paid more or less than georgie.
I know two things for certain. a) My revenue exceeded my expenditures and b) I don't participate in federal farm programs.
curly
-
Concerning economic growth, what is your metric? Here's a simple one. Take the value of your stock market investments around year 1999 and compare them to todays values. I don't know about you, but someone swiped around 30% of mine.
My mistake curly, I thought you were talking about fed income tax here. The statement in and of itself is pretty ****ing stupid considering that 30% (More for most) was "swiped" in 2000, but I'll let that one go for now.
OK... then let's move on to the next stupid question:
Do you think a flat tax would raise or lower the ammount of taxes you pay and the ammount of taxes GWB pays?
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Mini D
My mistake curly, I thought you were talking about fed income tax here. The statement in and of itself is pretty ****ing stupid considering that 30% (More for most) was "swiped" in 2000, but I'll let that one go for now.
OK... then let's move on to the next stupid question:
Do you think a flat tax would raise or lower the ammount of taxes you pay and the ammount of taxes GWB pays?
MiniD
It's not clear to me how my remark was stupid. The context was a discussion between me and Steve about the general direction of the American econmy over the last few years. I cited the general downward trend of my stock holdings.
Depends on the rate of the flat tax (obviously.) I suspect if a flat tax were enacted, they would attempt to make it revenue neutral for most of us.
So far as bush is concerned, as long as he's president and and all investments are in a blind trust, I would guess his taxes would decrease. After he leaves elected office, my guess would be his taxes would go up.
I think his taxes would gradually increase because his ability to generate revenue would increase (fixed percentage over an increasing base.)
It's all speculation for me.
curly
-
ok curly... I guess I never did get your point...
Are you for higher taxes or lower taxes or for keeping them the same?
lazs
-
Originally posted by AKcurly
It's not clear to me how my remark was stupid. The context was a discussion between me and Steve about the general direction of the American econmy over the last few years. I cited the general downward trend of my stock holdings.
What was the trend in the last year... not since 1999. Everyone know's what happened then Curly, and pretty much why it happened. Of course, nobody from "then" had to try to do anything ot fix the mess.
Depends on the rate of the flat tax (obviously.) I suspect if a flat tax were enacted, they would attempt to make it revenue neutral for most of us.
Depends on the rate of the flat tax? The highest tax % is 35% right now, the lowest is 15%. Who will definately be paying much higher taxes as a result?
MiniD
-
Genuine curiousity (and ignorance): Why did Cheny pay 19% in taxes and I pay 30%? I am pretty sure he made more than me. Is that because he had a lot more deductions and was able to reduce his taxable income to something less than mine, thus moving into a lower tax bracket?
Nim
-
Originally posted by lazs2
ok curly... I guess I never did get your point...
Are you for higher taxes or lower taxes or for keeping them the same?
lazs
Pretty much what you said earlier, Lazs. I don't mind higher taxes if they reduce federal spending (in an attempt to reduce the federal deficit.) I don't mind lower taxes if they greatly decrease federal spending. I just want a conservative fiscal federal spending policy.
curly
-
Originally posted by AKcurly
Pretty much what you said earlier, Lazs. I don't mind higher taxes if they reduce federal spending (in an attempt to reduce the federal deficit.) I don't mind lower taxes if they greatly decrease federal spending. I just want a conservative fiscal federal spending policy.
curly
They are going to take away your liberal party membership if you keep talking like that Curly. Just a friendly warning. :D
-
Originally posted by Mini D
What was the trend in the last year... not since 1999. Everyone know's what happened then Curly, and pretty much why it happened. Of course, nobody from "then" had to try to do anything ot fix the mess.
Depends on the rate of the flat tax? The highest tax % is 35% right now, the lowest is 15%. Who will definately be paying much higher taxes as a result?
MiniD
dj, taxes aren't as simple as you're trying to make them. For example, because of deductions, it's possible for a large corporation to have a virtually tax free year. I'm not complaining, just pointing it out.
When one says "flat rate tax," does this preclude the possibility of deductions? If flat rate means "a flat rate based on gross",
then sure, georgie will pay more taxes than I.
However, if the gross is adjusted, then who knows who would pay more tax. I sure don't!
curly
-
Ah.. quite the cop-out.
Given more deductions, more itemizations, and so forth. But none of that has anything to do with the tax rate. A flat tax is a fat tax. It's premise is complete simplification of the tax system. They "complexities" you cite would be irrelevant. Given the presented "gross" and the taxes, you're looking at 27%. Do you know what % the lowest tax bracket has for a rate? It's 15%. Once again, will a flat tax result in bush paying more or less? Will it result in the lowest brackets paying more or less?
I'm still trying to read what you posted initially and trying to figure out how you've taken this article to be representative of anything other than numbres from two boxes in a tax statement.
It's progressed from there to a non-related flat tax statement then to an indictment of the spending habits and reduction of taxes. Then to the point that the money is "going overseas" (which... nearest I can tell, you've not substantiated). All of this from a statement saying bush saved 10% on his taxes this year.
So many people are posting stupid articles and starting pissy bellybutton ***** sessions based on media hype. Sad to see you join the crew.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by AKIron
They are going to take away your liberal party membership if you keep talking like that Curly. Just a friendly warning. :D
Heh, Iron. I used to be 1 of 2 registered republicans in a township of 750 people. Of course, that was back in the day when republicans were fiscally conservative.
curly
-
Originally posted by Mini D
So many people are posting stupid articles and starting pissy bellybutton ***** sessions based on media hype. Sad to see you join the crew.
MiniD
The information I provided was of course my opinion. Since my opinions have always varied considerably from your opinions, it's no great revelation that once again, you believe me to be dead wrong/stupid/whatever.
Let me give you a tip. In the future, when you see AKcurly as the author, just think to yourself, "ah, more bs - I don't need to read nor respond to it."
Besides, you never read the entire thread, you just look for something that you might be able to disagree with (eg, citing my 30% rate) when in actuality, I said nothing about my taxes.
curly
-
I read the thread curly. The entire pissy assed whine session where you took an article that was basically written solely by looking at two lines of a 1040 and transformed it into a state of the union address. All the while attributing your current financial woas to a presedent's policies that don't even come close to affecting your current status as a taxpayer.
Your whole concept seems to be we should be paying a flat tax, as long as GWB's don't go down, and taxing more while spending less... and the less spending should be a result of reducing spending overseas.
I could ignore it, but damn curly... when did you turn into such a whiney *****?
MiniD
-
Originally posted by AKcurly
Nope. Prior to the Bush tax cut, that would have been $258,000.00. Let's see, Steve. I'll bet me and you probably saved a hundred or two. What a deal. :)
curly
Lol, I saved about $9600.00 this year on my taxes. I am a fan of the tax cuts, and I did not make anywhere even close to Bush, Kerry, or Rumsfeld.
cripes if getting a couple hundred back is such a bad thing, why not donate it to a worthy cause.
:rolleyes:
some people are never satisfied.
-
they'll get their wishes
taxes will rise at some point - then they'll cry about that also
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Curly just retired from teaching at some backwater school ;) in Oklahoma and has a PHD in math, physics too maybe. Though that was before God invented electrons. ;)
just curious....
what is an integral of sin(x)/x
-
Dunno who you're asking mietla. I struggled through one semester of Calculus 20 years ago and don't have a Ph.D in anything.
-
Mr. math PHD of course. Curly
-
I think he's more accustomed to giving tests than taking them but he is quite capable of speaking for himself, even though I did for him earlier.
-
Originally posted by mietla
just curious....
what is an integral of sin(x)/x
I'm not sure about your sneer (next note down.) I didn't say anything about my academic credentials. Iron did.
You must be an engineer mietla -- only an engineer would ask something like the above in an attempt to discover if someone is a mathematician. Your question is sort of like asking a physician "what are the best nail clippers."
The answer is there is no answer in closed form. You can approximate the answer using a Taylor series. Sometimes the approximation is called "Si(x.)" I guess you know the approximation, so there's no need for me to write it here. Just take the Taylor series for sin(x), divide it term by term by x and then integrate each part of the sum.
Tell ya what, mietla. Let's agree not call me Mr Phd and I won't call you an extrahunk, how's that? Seriously, if you want to continue the testing, do it through private e-mail.
curly
-
I told ya he could speak for himself. Next time I'll let him. :D
-
Heh, Curly are those burn marks on your feet from the welcome mat or what eh?
cheers...
-
Originally posted by AKcurly
Nope. Prior to the Bush tax cut, that would have been $258,000.00. Let's see, Steve. I'll bet me and you probably saved a hundred or two. What a deal. :)
curly
I've saved alot....thousands.
I'm suprised you have a problem with this.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
I read the thread curly. The entire pissy assed whine session where you took an article that was basically written solely by looking at two lines of a 1040 and transformed it into a state of the union address. All the while attributing your current financial woas to a presedent's policies that don't even come close to affecting your current status as a taxpayer.
Your whole concept seems to be we should be paying a flat tax, as long as GWB's don't go down, and taxing more while spending less... and the less spending should be a result of reducing spending overseas.
I could ignore it, but damn curly... when did you turn into such a whiney *****?
MiniD
Well, I guess it is a whine. I'm not whining about Bush's tax cut, rather the obscenity of the whole tax cut concept when we have such a massive federal debt in the face of tax cuts.
Here, let me ask it another way. The other day, I read (somewhere in time or the wall street journal) that 17% of all tax revenue is required to service the interest on the federal deficit. Now, as I understand it, servicing the interest on the federal deficit isn't a choice - they must do it.
How can tax cuts make sense given the above?
I have no source for the 17% figure other than to say "I read it in Time or the WSJ." I would appreciate a source if someone stumbles across it.
curly
-
Originally posted by Rude
I've saved alot....thousands.
I'm suprised you have a problem with this.
Rude, I have no idea about the size of my savings. I just threw the $200 figure out. In reality, my tax savings was probably larger. I honestly don't know. I don't do my taxes and I don't read the returns. I just sign them. My wife (bank officer) closely scrutinizes them. I would rather eat puke covered popcorn than look at a tax return.
I have tried (and obviously failed) to state that tax cuts in the face of massive federal debt coupled with increasing federal spending is either obscene, stupid or criminal or possibly a combination of the above.
Hey Rude - cya at the CON. :)
curly
-
Originally posted by AKcurly
I'm not sure about your sneer (next note down.) I didn't say anything about my academic credentials. Iron did.
You must be an engineer mietla -- only an engineer would ask something like the above in an attempt to discover if someone is a mathematician. Your question is sort of like asking a physician "what are the best nail clippers."
The answer is there is no answer in closed form. You can approximate the answer using a Taylor series. Sometimes the approximation is called "Si(x.)" I guess you know the approximation, so there's no need for me to write it here. Just take the Taylor series for sin(x), divide it term by term by x and then integrate each part of the sum.
Tell ya what, mietla. Let's agree not call me Mr Phd and I won't call you an extrahunk, how's that? Seriously, if you want to continue the testing, do it through private e-mail.
curly
You are right, that was uncalled for.Sometimes I do behave like an a*hole, and you called me on it.
I do apologize.
-
Originally posted by mietla
You are right, that was uncalled for.Sometimes I do behave like an a*hole, and you called me on it.
I do apologize.
No sweat. :)
curly
-
Originally posted by Steve
Well, perhaps you should consider economics. It is a fact that every boom in the economy over the last 50 years was preceeded by a tax cut. Maybe you prefer to live in a recession, but I'll pass.
Aww Baloney. We just had the biggest quarter of economic growth in the last 20 years. Take your democratic blinders off.
ha. prove it.
-
Its funny, I read this entire thread and I'm not really sure what the **** this last page is about. I'm bored as ****, at home on a friday night because my car is a le suck and about to fall apart. So I'll try one more time to re-iterate my one post to this thread on page 2.
Curly is noting that the tax breaks are giving a crap load of money back to people, whether they be low/middle/high income class brackets. The higher your income, the more you recieved back. Makes sense, right?
Well, then we run into this little doozey: We've got a federal government thats expanding, this costs money. We've got 2 operations over seas with a crap load of troops, and a crap load of troop movements, and a crap load of troop activation, and probably a crap load of other things I'm missing here - this costs a whole ****load of money. We've got a national debt in the trillions now, and its growing like a high malignent potential tumor.
On top of that, we are getting money back... tell me exactly how this works with a huge amount of federal spending going on?
Today you'll be nice and happy because you got some money in the mail, meanwhile the debt is growing. The dollar's worth is falling faster than someone doing a nose dive off the empire state building.
It has nothing to do with taxes and how that all works - it has everything to do with giving these faux tax breaks in the face of greatly increased federal spending with a huge national debt.
Ding! Fries are done.
-SW
-
You pull a country out of a recession by spending and cutting taxes. Yes... both at the same time. Just go back through history to see this for yourself. And guess what... the deficit grew every single time.
There isn't a need to cure the deficit.
It's really all this whole silly thread is boiling down to... the feel to reduce the deficit vs pull out of a recession.
MiniD
-
This isn't the same world, let alone US, that history had.
Back then, all the money was held within the US - circulated here. Yes, you only recieve tax cuts and breaks if you file taxes... but nevertheless, a lot of our money is leaving our borders.
Now we have migrant workers that send the money made in the US back home, and outsourced jobs where the money goes to another country - and lots of it.
Time to revise and rethink, you can't keep relying on the old ways from a different time when today is far different.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKcurly
No sweat. :)
curly
Thank you... and now back to the topic.
I have no problem with balancing the budget, and I would be willing go forgo my tax cut to do that, but... It will never, ever work. As soon as you give them a extra penny in order to decrease the deficit, they'll piss it away on some other very important project (like study of the sexual habits of a rat, or some important art exhibit involving excrement) and keep the deficit intact.
If you think of, the deficit and a massive debt seems to be the only thing that seems to slow Congress' will to spend.
Don't know why, but it works.
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Time to revise and rethink, you can't keep relying on the old ways from a different time when today is far different.
The problem is coming up with a new way. You can pretend things would be better if you did them differently, but based on what data? Based on what history? None... nodda... zilch.
The more things change... the more they stay the same.
MiniD
-
If *I* did them differently, everyone would be ****ed and I'd be the richest man in the world.
Now, if most realised voting a party based on pre-determined rhetoric that is obviously null and void in this administration and their party's typical main points - then maybe we could have a worthwhile 4 years. The past 11 (and 3 1/2 months) ain't been the best, the only thing the last administration brought was surfing on an industry boom - and the surf broke the past two years they were on their way out.
You want to look at data and history for a new type of world that is completely new. This **** just ain't happened yet, kind of like inventing the bridge - its new, and some people best be figuring it out.
-SW
-
What hasn't happened yet? A recession?
You've spent an entire post saying absolutely nothing wulfie. Saying "it has to be done different" doesn't mean ****. You don't know it does, you don't know it doesn't.
The thing you really don't know is if pulling out of a recession is more important than reducing the national deficit right now. I think pulling out of a recession is more important in the here and now.
MiniD
-
What hasn't happened yet is the new world we all live in - the global one. Its sort of been there, but the past 4 or 6 years has really seen it come to fruition. We are now at a point where national borders only extend to the physical land boundaries - the economy has become completely global. This can be seen by the outsourcing of what used to be American jobs that were fairly well paid, to India - and in a few limited cases China - and now going back to past incidents of what worked best are completely different. With a global economy, our debt becomes a bit of problem - because our dollar means less around the world.
We can all sit around and say, ah well we don't really know what to do other than it needs to change and well since you don't know then you don't know ****... in the end, it will mean something. Most likely a failed economy and nation.
The recession was nice to temporarily begin a recovery from, but at the same time we have seen an increase in price in necessary goods - anything oil related. Gas for one thing, since the majority of Americans commute.
Sure, I don't have the answers. You know me virtually and the extent of experience I could have had in this world, it ain't much. I'm just stating my point on this, because I sure as **** don't want to deal with bread lines and rationed food when/if I have a family.
-SW
-
Originally posted by mietla
I have no problem with balancing the budget, and I would be willing go forgo my tax cut to do that, but... It will never, ever work. As soon as you give them a extra penny in order to decrease the deficit, they'll piss it away on some other very important project (like study of the sexual habits of a rat, or some important art exhibit involving excrement) and keep the deficit intact.
If you think of, the deficit and a massive debt seems to be the only thing that seems to slow Congress' will to spend.
Don't know why, but it works.
Think of it this way, mietla. One of the above responses cited someone with $70k gross, making home and car payments & so on. They favorably compared this situation to the federal debt. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Here's why.
Mr. $70k gross has his debt under control. He knows that in X years his home will be paid out; he knows that in Y years his car will be out. While his gross is approximately the same, his total liability is decreasing. He is making periodic payments towards a profitable future.
The federal deficit is accelerating (and has been for most of Bush's term.) We are no longer at a point where we can see the federal deficit being reduced, much less when it will be paid off.
Fully 17% of our tax revenue is required to service the interest on our federal deficit. When you add the insult that the federal deficit is actually increasing, it seems clear to me that a massive financial adjustment of some type is store for the USA.
All of us are familiar with individuals who spend more than they make. They borrow from banks until the banks won't lend more; they max their credit cards out. Eventually, they lose their house and car.
I'm not sure what the federal equivalent is of losing a house or car, but I'll bet me and you won't like it. :)
American politicians (both democrats and republicans) have forgotten that all financial institutions, including the USA's ability to generate revenue (taxes) have limits. Our ability to fight wars, explore space, maintain surplus military establishments is limited.
We're a rich nation and we can do a lot, but we do have limits. Providing tax cuts while the federal deficit is accelerating reminds me of a bankrupt guy taking his last credit card, withdrawing all possible cash and giving it to his friends under the theory that someone will like him because of this and help him out.
curly
-
Looks like all of us have the same goal, return sanity and purpose to the feds. The differrence between us is, how to do it.
And the real problem is, none of our proposed solution would work.
My solution is, take all the money form the drunk, let him wither and sober up cold turkey (nothing we tried before worked, why should we try any more).
Your solution is, give him a "last" chance. We'll pay off his debt, and he'll be appreciative and in return will straighten up.
Guess what...
We are all screwed. The founding Father created a little cute Gremlin. They had to create something, and we all owe them a debt for putting a lot of effort into making a Gremlin tiny.
Give and take a couple of centuries, FDR, LBJ, both Bushes and a lot of "greater good" ideas, and voila...
-
Ok curly fair enough... I am for a "conservative" spending program myself But.... I see no reason for higher taxes if we are still spending so much... I believe in a strong defense.. If we need money for defense then it should come out of the other 70% of government spending. We should allways strive to lower taxes.
As for corporations.... we are the corporations.. all of us that work have investments in corporations and profit when they do. Even insurance and health care... if the rates go down we all gain.. Well... all of us who are paying our way.
thing is... you will never convince any of us who have been around for a few adminestratins that raising taxes will send that money right to the debt.. it may take a few years but the government takes that increase and spends it along with about 50% additional on new social programs.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Ok curly fair enough... I am for a "conservative" spending program myself But.... I see no reason for higher taxes if we are still spending so much... I believe in a strong defense.. If we need money for defense then it should come out of the other 70% of government spending. We should allways strive to lower taxes.
Couldn't agree more, Lazs - of course lowering taxes necessarily requires the feds to rein in spending.
curly
-
yep curly... we agree but... I have been around about as long as you and it has been my experiance that if you give more money they will fund more social programs not pay anything off... We would be much better off if we simply cut taxes and forced em to make do. We would certainly not be worse off. Presidents would still spend in a war situation..
An example.. One of the many branchs of the EPA around here claimed that due to lack of funding they were gonna close the doors and no longer regulate and protect us from the boogey men.... they were also gonna stop their certification program (mine and my workers certifications that are required for employment) I laughed my bellybutton off...
no less than three semi private certification groups stepped forward and offererd their far superior programs... The EPA suddenly "found" enough to continue with it's half assed program.
We woulda been FAR better off without em.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
We need to spend less... that is the real solution. Tax cuts are an excellent way to start.
lazs
And let's continue with not pissing away 87 Billion to Iraq, 15 billion to the airline industry, and 16 million per day to Israel. Let them all fend for themselves.
screw the Welfare states. Damn Spendocrats...:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
And let's continue with not pissing away 87 Billion to Iraq, 15 billion to the airline industry, and 16 million per day to Israel. Let them all fend for themselves.
screw the Welfare states. Damn Spendocrats...:rolleyes:
I'd go for that, but you are talking peanuts here. A 100 billion? laughable. Cut the socialist wealth redistribution which is strangling us and you are saving 1.5 trillion easy. Not only we could eliminate the deficit, we could actually pay the debt in a couple of years.
-
Originally posted by mietla
I'd go for that, but you are talking peanuts here. A 100 billion? laughable. Cut the socialist wealth redistribution which is strangling us and you are saving 1.5 trillion easy. Not only we could eliminate the deficit, we could actually pay the debt in a couple of years.
Step away from the Kool-Aide!
-
Originally posted by strk
Step away from the Kool-Aide!
Unfortunately you are right.
Socialism is a one way street. It is practically impossible to return to a limited and Constitutional government now. Too many people benefit from other people's hard work without paying taxes themselves. Critical mass.
-
Originally posted by mietla
I'd go for that, but you are talking peanuts here. A 100 billion? laughable. Cut the socialist wealth redistribution which is strangling us and you are saving 1.5 trillion easy. Not only we could eliminate the deficit, we could actually pay the debt in a couple of years.
They would just find another way to swindle it from us, like the SS scam or the S&L debacle. The war on terror is starting to line alot of pockets too. Ok, it's for the war on terror, we won't ask, go ahead, take it. What was the total number of tax dollars it took to bail out SS after Reagan swiped the money and to bail out the the S&L's?
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
... What was the total number of tax dollars it took to bail out SS after Reagan swiped the money and to bail out the the S&L's?
Several orders of magnitude less than the wealth spent of LBJ's Great Society. A series of well-intentioned programs intended to ease poverty in America, which failed in it's intended purpose, but instead subsidized the breakdown of the family structure in low-income households.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Several orders of magnitude less than the wealth spent of LBJ's Great Society. A series of well-intentioned programs intended to ease poverty in America, which failed in it's intended purpose, but instead subsidized the breakdown of the family structure in low-income households.
If that was another swindle, I agree.
-
If that was another swindle, I agree.
It was. It was just authorized by congress as was the S & L bailout...
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Several orders of magnitude less than the wealth spent of LBJ's Great Society. A series of well-intentioned programs intended to ease poverty in America, which failed in it's intended purpose, but instead subsidized the breakdown of the family structure in low-income households.
Great Society is one of the most idiotic idea ever.
First we define a poverty, not with some objective metric, like 1 kg of bread/person/day, but instead we use statistics. Say 20% of lowest income people are below the "poverty level".
Then we steal from the producers and pump the money to the "poor". The "poor" have multiple cars, DVDs and a satelite TV, buy hey, they are still under 20 percentile so they are still poor.
It's like f* dog chasing his own tail.
The only way this insane scheme would be satisfied if we oppress the producers into giving up and then everybody will be poor.
A success at last.
The real reason for all those socialist schemes is ever increasing power for the professsional politicians. They don't give a hoot about the poor. They need them to stay poor and dependent, forever.
But then again, half the public cheers on (even on this board). They don't care that their lunch is not free, as long as they don't have to pay for it.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
It was. It was just authorized by congress as was the S & L bailout...l
It had to be, what was Congress gonna say, no? Remember all those old people and families that lost every penny they had? Remember them in tears and their lives in shambles? Of course Congress authorized it. They had no choice, they were answering to the people who elect them. The same people who lost their life savings. The politicians and their corporate buddies(left and right) made a killing by not having to pay back loans. They knew that Congrees would get tax money to pay back the shmucks I shouldn't call them that, they didn't know any better, just working stiffs, they swindled. Remember the youngest Bush that was in charge of that Colorado S&L? Remember him laughing at the commitee asking him questions about what happened? " I did nothing wrong"(while laughing). And really, he didn't, if you consider swindling people out of their life's savings in a legal way nothing wrong. Wrote out loans to all these wealthy buddies, who in turn defaulted. The perfect scam, and we paid.
-
excerpted from Federal Savings and Loan Reform (H.R. 1278, P.L. 101-73)
Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC): Establishes the RTC to
obtain and approve the use of Resolution Funding
Corporation (REFCORP) funds to resolve thrift failures
prior to FDIC's commitment of the funds; authorizes the RTC
to acquire, hold, manage, and dispose of assets of
institutions placed into a liquidating conservatorship or
receivership;
Yeas (91)
Democrats (46 or 85%)
Adams, Bentsen, Biden, Bingaman, Boren, Breaux, Bryan,
Bumpers, Burdick, Byrd, Cranston, Daschle, DeConcini,
Dixon, Dodd, Ford, Fowler, Glenn, Graham, Harkin, Heflin,
Inouye, Johnston, Kennedy, Kerry, Kohl, Lautenberg, Leahy,
Levin, Lieberman, Matsunaga, Mikulski, Mitchell, Moynihan,
Nunn, Pell, Reid, Riegle, Robb, Rockefeller, Sanford,
Sarbanes, Sasser, Shelby, Simon, Wirth
Did you vote for your senators, Sixpence?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Did you vote for your senators, Sixpence?
I do not understand the point you are making.
-
Your Senators (as well as mine) were answering to the people who elect them, as was the President at the time. Yet you say "Reagan swiped the money and to bail out the the S&L's?"
Do you not hold your Senators responsible?
After all constitutionally, "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States;"
Congress controls the pursestrings.
That is the point I was trying to make.
(incidently 1989 was on GHW Bush's watch)
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Your Senators (as well as mine) were answering to the people who elect them, as was the President at the time. Yet you say "Reagan swiped the money and to bail out the the S&L's?"
Do you not hold your Senators responsible?
After all constitutionally, "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States;"
That is the point I was trying to make.
(incidently 1989 was on GHW Bush's watch)
Oh, i'm not blaming one party, or one inividual, it's a collective effort. I remember an interview with Tip O'neal, they knew what Reagan was doing, but went along with it to use it against him( social security). Lots of politicians had their hands in the S&L, I don't blame Bush alone(can you say whitewater?). It was one big "I won't say anything if you won't". My original point was they will find a way to dupe us out of our tax dollars, that's the history anyway.
-
So when someone says "Reagan swiped money from SS" this is a New England colloquialism that refers to the entire body of federal elected officials... didn't realise that.:)
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
So when someone says "Reagan swiped money from SS" this is a New England colloquialism that refers to the entire body of federal elected officials... didn't realise that.:)
Well, I give him credit for the idea, seeming he used it as his slogan to say it was the democrats who want to raise your taxes and went on how he didn't raise taxes. He wants to take credit, i'll give it to him.