Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: muckmaw on June 29, 2004, 02:01:22 PM
-
Oh, boy.
If nothing else, she's being honest...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/06/28/politics2039EDT0165.DTL&type=printable (http://)
-
Oh well. It's not like they're talking about my Constitutional rights or anything such as that. Which is what I initially I thought your topic was going to talk about. Something about a Patriot Act III coming up or the sunset clauses being removed and the changes made permanent
But Bush's tax cuts. So what. I'm not well off so I didn't get any benefit from those anyway. Hence I've nothing to lose either.
-
not to mention huge cuts in conjunction with starting an expensive war wasn't the brightest idea...
-
Tax cuts help everybody.
Those cuts came long before the war.
We didn't start the war but we'll finish it.
-
Hmmm... clicking the link got me nothing. Cutting and pasting the link and I've got a story about the Clintons supporting Barbara Boxer.
:confused:
-
Originally posted by Westy
But Bush's tax cuts. So what. I'm not well off so I didn't get any benefit from those anyway. Hence I've nothing to lose either.
So, if your income improves with time you'll change your principles, right?
Or, are you planning to stay where you are for the rest of your life mooching off the rest of us
-
You're way off base tard. I'm not mooching off of anyone and while my income has grown it's been due to my being one of the fortunate few not to get laid off and to raeses from busting my ass. Not from tax cuts for the wealthy.
-
Linky no worky?
Sorry, Sandy.
The leftiest big city on the Left Coast was Clinton country on Monday, with former President Clinton continuing his blockbuster book tour and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton headlining a Democratic fund-raiser where she vowed to defeat the Republicans' "extraordinarily ruthless machine."
Headlining an appearance with other Democratic women senators on behalf of Sen. Barbara Boxer, who is up for re-election this year, Hillary Clinton told several hundred supporters -- some of whom had ponied up as much as $10,000 to attend -- to expect to lose some of the tax cuts passed by President Bush if Democrats win the White House and control of Congress.
"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
Just blocks away at San Francisco's historic Ferry Building, President Clinton kicked off the latest leg of his West Coast tour promoting his best-selling book, "My Life." Wearing a navy blue suit and a rust-colored tie, Clinton signed books for at least 3,000 people, many of whom had waited hours under brilliant sunshine to catch a glimpse of him.
At one point, Clinton stopped the fast-moving line of fans to pose for a photo with 14-year old Thomas Nelson and his 12-year old brother Joseph, who had traveled 50 miles with their father from Petaluma.
"I've never shaken the hand of a president," said Thomas, who added that he had one grandma who couldn't stand Clinton and one who thought he was the best president ever.
"Even better than George Washington," said Thomas.
While Sen. Clinton's duties in Washington and the former president's far-flung speaking engagements can keep them apart for weeks at a time, friends said the Clintons' joint visit to the Bay Area was a homecoming of sorts for both of them.
As president, Clinton visited California some 70 times and focused much of his political and fund-raising energies on the heavily Democratic San Francisco Bay area. The visits by both Clintons increased while their daughter, Chelsea, was a student at Stanford University in Palo Alto.
"He was here so dad gum much when he was president that outside of Arkansas, his highest level of support is probably the Bay Area," said Martha Whetstone, executive director of the Bar Association of San Francisco and a longtime friend of both Clintons. "And San Francisco has always been Hillary country. They get her here -- there's a real appreciation for independent, intelligent women."
The Clintons were following largely separate schedules throughout the day, with Sen. Clinton heading two hours south to Monterey County to appear at a public policy forum hosted by former White House chief of staff Leon Panetta, and President Clinton headlining a fund raiser Monday evening for the American Himalayan Foundation, a charity run by Sen. Dianne Feinstein's husband, Richard Blum.
Sen. Clinton called the transfer of sovereignty from the U.S.-led coalition to an interim Iraqi government two days early a "positive step" but said it was too early to predict if the new government would be successful.
"Whether they take over today or take over Wednesday, the problems are still the same," she said.
Before leaving the forum, Sen. Clinton was asked what she thought of her husband's book. "I loved it," she replied. "You've got to read all of it."
On Tuesday, President Clinton will continue his book tour at several stops around the Bay Area and will be the star attraction at a fund-raiser for House Democrats.
With Boxer leading her Republican opponent, Bill Jones, by a wide margin in recent public polls and California considered safely in Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry's hands, the Clintons' visit served more as a vehicle to promote progressive political activism than to move a lot of votes, according to Bruce Cain, a political analyst at University of California, Berkeley.
"There's a lot of stirring up of the Democratic base -- the juice is flowing among Democratic activists in an unprecedented way right now," Cain said. "It comes at a time when groups need to get mobilized to make contributions and get themselves organized to go out and do grass roots activity in battleground states."
California Republican Chairman Duf Sundheim said that while the Clintons were welcome to come to the state and express their views, "history shows their influence is minimal."
He pointed to both Clintons' support last fall for Democratic Gov. Gray Davis, who went on to be recalled in a landslide and replaced by Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger.
-
Originally posted by Westy
You're way off base tard. I'm not mooching off of anyone and while my income has grown it's been due to my being one of the fortunate few not to get laid off and to raeses from busting my ass. Not from tax cuts for the wealthy.
The benefit of the tax cut is proportional to the tax you pay. The fact that you (as you said) are not benefiting from the tax cut, implies that you are paying low taxes to begin with.
You are not interested in a tax cut because it does not benefit you. Would you be for tax cuts if they did benefit you?
-
I'm interested in tax cuts AFTER they cease thier horrendous spending spree first. Can't have one without the other.
As for the taxes I pay? I'm in a % bracket (Average Joe American) and saw such a small break that it amoutns to nothing at all and it's quite an insult in comparison to those who have high 6/7 figure incomes.
-
Originally posted by Westy
I'm interested in tax cuts AFTER they cease thier horrendous spending spree first. Can't have one without the other.
Well, I'd like to see the spending cut as much as you would, but reverting the tax cut does not make the situation better. In fact it makes it worse. It's like giving cash to an alcoholic in debt hoping that your help will let him see the light, pay off his debts and sober up.
Originally posted by Westy
As for the taxes I pay? I'm in a % bracket (Average Joe American) and saw such a small break that it amoutns to nothing at all and it's quite an insult in comparison to those who have high 6/7 figure incomes.
You've got a percentage of what you've paid. What is so insulting about that.
It's basic fairness. The cut cut is not the governments gift to the people as a whole. It is simply the governemnt taking less from those who pay taxes.
-
As I said I see no loss as I never saw a gain.
But "It's basic fairness" is hogwash.
This is why it is insulting:
http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm
-
Again, you've got a percentage of what you've paid.
Why on Earth does it surprise (or even outrages) you that the millioner benefits more.
Basic math and basic fairness. You can deny this statement only if you believe that that it is ok to take away someone's property to and give it to someone else, and that the noble goal of income/wealth redistribution justifies all means used to achieve it.
I wil never accept this premise. I find it extremely repugnant.
-
Basic fairness.
Like a flat % tax you mean on individuals and corporations So accountants cant get millionairs out of there tax obligation?
That kind of basic fairness?
-
What flat tax are you talking about?
Corporations do not pay taxes. They simply collect them from me and you on behalf of the government.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Basic fairness.
Like a flat % tax you mean on individuals and corporations So accountants cant get millionairs out of there tax obligation?
That kind of basic fairness?
Pongo: It is a verifiable fact (per the IRS statistics) that the top 50% of wage earners in the United States pay approximately 96 percent of income taxes collected in my country, with the lower 50% paying only 4%. You need to understand, you don't pay taxes on wealth in the US, you pay it on income. So, a flat tax would work just fine for me; it's the most progressive and fair way to tax, in my opinion. But that's not how it works here. Actually, a simple national sales tax has a certain appeal from a fairness standpoint, as it puts how much tax each person pay completely within that person's control; however, it would make the Federal budget process much harder, I suspect.
I strongly believe that the tax cuts were a significant factor in the economic recover (some would say an economic acceleration, at this point) currently going on. Not the only factor, but certainly one that fostered the strong economic growth we've seen. Across the board, the last 12 months can only be seen as an economic success.