Fun Facts

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:

Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
scaremongering? republicans can't play that card after the wmd fiasco. just because your party nominated and elected a guy doesn't make him perfect. people vote for republicans because they are supposed to be good with money. and jesus.

and why are taxes the greatest evil in the world? when clinton raised taxes, i couldn't tell, when bush lowered them i couldn't tell either. if deficit spending is ok, why not cut taxes to 0 and borrow the whole $1.3 trillion budget?

I never said Bush was perfect. In fact, my point was that he is merely better than the alternative.

Taxes are not the greatest evil in the world. But the political tactic of using them as a ploy to divide society into the haves and the have-nots is. The haves already pay more taxes both in absolute terms and as a percentage of their income. But the democratic candidates would have you believe that there are a whole host of special tax breaks that "the rich" receive that everybody else doesn't. What are those tax breaks? Anyone? Anyone?

I can't deduct my first two years of college from my taxes, although most can. I can't contribute to my IRA anymore. I could name a dozen other tax credits that I am unable to take advantage of. And it's not like I'm pulling down $500k/year or anything.

Now these "caring" liberals stand up and bemoan that there are "essential services" that are missing. And they know just how to pay for them – more taxes on other people who are already paying more taxes than them in the first place. All of which is just a further abdication of personal and communal responsibility in favor of some glorious welfare state in which nobody has to do anything except sit on their fat ass and point fingers at those who have worked harder than them.

bah…….

but wouldn't you rather pay slightly higher taxes for a more stable economy? as in a balanced budget?

SUVs need to get larger, not smaller. Have you tried driving over the ruts in downtown Charm City? I need a tracked vehicle.
<img src="http://pages.prodigy.net/indianahawkeye/newpage41/4.gif" alt=" - " />
Close the border to Canada. We need to open the border with Mexico. Let all of the central Americanos in and tax each and every one until they can't stand it anymore and miss good, old Tegucigalpa.

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
And you're in favor of that?

I doesn't matter what I'm in favor of…I was describing how it is…

I don't quite get your comments…your criticism of my argument against a gas tax seemed to leap out of context into a much grander scale…though it could just be that my attention is too divided…

Every time I logon to a hot bboard topic…it suddenly withers on the vine, and dies.

I know! I must be a 'cooler'. Just like in that movie…

Originally posted by Dupek Chopra:
Every time I logon to a hot bboard topic…it suddenly withers on the vine, and dies.

I know! I must be a 'cooler'. Just like in that movie…

I can fix it, Dupek.

"Wilco SUCKS" ;)

Originally posted by Dupek Chopra:
Every time I logon to a hot bboard topic…it suddenly withers on the vine, and dies.

I know! I must be a 'cooler'. Just like in that movie…

I feel that way sometimes!

Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
but wouldn't you rather pay slightly higher taxes for a more stable economy? as in a balanced budget?

No. I'd rather the government spend less.

But my point was broader than that. My point was that some segments of the political spectrum keep trying to expand the state into unnecessary areas by putting more taxes on another segment of society who is already paying more.

And a balanced budget doesn't necessarily lead to a more stable economy. In fact, many economists recommend deficit spending as a way of smoothing out the effects of the business cycle (i.e., when the private sector can't make expenditures due to an economic downturn, the government should step in and pick up the slack through running deficits, which would be offset by running surpluses during boom times).

Moreover, when it looked like the government was going to pay off most or all of its debt, many people claimed that this would exacerbate volatility, as the most secure market instruments – U.S. government bonds – would disappear.

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:

Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
but wouldn't you rather pay slightly higher taxes for a more stable economy? as in a balanced budget?

No. I'd rather the government spend less.

But my point was broader than that. My point was that some segments of the political spectrum keep trying to expand the state into unnecessary areas by putting more taxes on another segment of society who is already paying more.

And a balanced budget doesn't necessarily lead to a more stable economy. In fact, many economists recommend deficit spending as a way of smoothing out the effects of the business cycle (i.e., when the private sector can't make expenditures due to an economic downturn, the government should step in and pick up the slack through running deficits, which would be offset by running surpluses during boom times).

Moreover, when it looked like the government was going to pay off most or all of its debt, many people claimed that this would exacerbate volatility, as the most secure market instruments – U.S. government bonds – would disappear.

ok, i see your point, but mine (like 2 pages ago) was the conservatives should be pulling their hair out because not only are we now taxing less but spending more. and intruding on things that the government is foolish to put their hands in, like promoting marriage.

I'm sure we can all agree that the Bush plan is just brilliant. Decrease taxes. Increase spending. Worry about it later.

Isn't it great Bush wants to rid sports of steroids?

Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
ok, i see your point, but mine (like 2 pages ago) was the conservatives should be pulling their hair out because not only are we now taxing less but spending more. and intruding on things that the government is foolish to put their hands in, like promoting marriage.

I agree. And many conservatives are pulling their hair out. But, like I said, they look at the alternative – democrats who will likely spend more and increase taxes – and they are more put off by that.

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:

Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
but wouldn't you rather pay slightly higher taxes for a more stable economy? as in a balanced budget?

No. I'd rather the government spend less.

But my point was broader than that. My point was that some segments of the political spectrum keep trying to expand the state into unnecessary areas by putting more taxes on another segment of society who is already paying more.

And a balanced budget doesn't necessarily lead to a more stable economy. In fact, many economists recommend deficit spending as a way of smoothing out the effects of the business cycle (i.e., when the private sector can't make expenditures due to an economic downturn, the government should step in and pick up the slack through running deficits, which would be offset by running surpluses during boom times).

Moreover, when it looked like the government was going to pay off most or all of its debt, many people claimed that this would exacerbate volatility, as the most secure market instruments – U.S. government bonds – would disappear.

Yes, see Keynes.

Originally posted by chaz:
I'm sure we can all agree that the Bush plan is just brilliant. Decrease taxes. Increase spending. Worry about it later.

The best I can figure, the administration looked at the two traditional methods of economic stimulus – cutting taxes or increasing government spending – and believed that if they combined the two, they would create some sort of synergistic boom.

Sounds like a great topic for an MBA thesis, but perhaps not so great in practice.

I've been playing Simpsons: Hit &amp; Run all week long, and all I can say is, "Vote Quimby.".
<img src="http://images.rottentomatoes.com/images/games/coverg/82/649282.jpg" alt=" - " />

Originally posted by Celeste:

Originally posted by Dupek Chopra:
Every time I logon to a hot bboard topic…it suddenly withers on the vine, and dies.

I know! I must be a 'cooler'. Just like in that movie…

I feel that way sometimes!

hello, story of my life. i can think of like 5 or 6 recent threads that i have destroyed. ahhhh :(

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:

Originally posted by Ms. Lipps:
Put the burden on the corporations, not the people.

Yes please. Let's make it so that corporations dictate what is best for us. :roll:

If you put a burden on a corporation it'll just be passed on to the consumer anyway. Higher taxes on gasoline won't limit the use of automobiles either. The UK has an extremely high tax on petrol and the roads are still chocker…and there ARE SUV's over here too!

Do you really trust the politican's to put any new gas tax to where it's needed or promised? They've done an outstanding job with social security. It was never intended to use the money to fund every other project that came along.

Oh cry me a river.

Despite being so heavily taxed, you still managed to afford a hiking trip to the Grand Canyon and a ski trip to Colorado in the same year, and are now considering a concert trip to California.

And in spite of your working soooooo hard, you still manage to have the work time to bang out long rants on this board and research all kinds of music news for us. I'll bet the person cleaning your office floors doesn't have the work time to do all that.

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:

Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
scaremongering? republicans can't play that card after the wmd fiasco. just because your party nominated and elected a guy doesn't make him perfect. people vote for republicans because they are supposed to be good with money. and jesus.

and why are taxes the greatest evil in the world? when clinton raised taxes, i couldn't tell, when bush lowered them i couldn't tell either. if deficit spending is ok, why not cut taxes to 0 and borrow the whole $1.3 trillion budget?

I never said Bush was perfect. In fact, my point was that he is merely better than the alternative.

Taxes are not the greatest evil in the world. But the political tactic of using them as a ploy to divide society into the haves and the have-nots is. The haves already pay more taxes both in absolute terms and as a percentage of their income. But the democratic candidates would have you believe that there are a whole host of special tax breaks that "the rich" receive that everybody else doesn't. What are those tax breaks? Anyone? Anyone?

I can't deduct my first two years of college from my taxes, although most can. I can't contribute to my IRA anymore. I could name a dozen other tax credits that I am unable to take advantage of. And it's not like I'm pulling down $500k/year or anything.

Now these "caring" liberals stand up and bemoan that there are "essential services" that are missing. And they know just how to pay for them – more taxes on other people who are already paying more taxes than them in the first place. All of which is just a further abdication of personal and communal responsibility in favor of some glorious welfare state in which nobody has to do anything except sit on their fat ass and point fingers at those who have worked harder than them.

bah…….

Originally posted by Rutherford J. Balls:
Oh cry me a river.

Despite being so heavily taxed, you still managed to afford a hiking trip to the Grand Canyon and a ski trip to Colorado in the same year, and are now considering a concert trip to California.

And in spite of your working soooooo hard, you still manage to have the work time to bang out long rants on this board and research all kinds of music news for us. I'll bet the person cleaning your office floors doesn't have the work time to do all that.

Way to miss the point, Einstein.

Sorry, I didn't have time to read through the miles of posting and catch the point.

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:

Originally posted by Rutherford J. Balls:
Oh cry me a river.

Despite being so heavily taxed, you still managed to afford a hiking trip to the Grand Canyon and a ski trip to Colorado in the same year, and are now considering a concert trip to California.

And in spite of your working soooooo hard, you still manage to have the work time to bang out long rants on this board and research all kinds of music news for us. I'll bet the person cleaning your office floors doesn't have the work time to do all that.

Way to miss the point, Einstein.

Originally posted by Rutherford J. Balls:
Sorry, I didn't have time to read through the miles of posting and catch the point.

Then why post?