kerry's speech thingy...

Originally posted by Bagalicious Tangster:

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
well, for example. . .

It's such a misnomer to talk about flat tax reductions. That's not what happened, there's a labyrinth of tax reform and changes that disproportionatly benefit the extremely wealthy.

And, Chaz made the key point. If you reduce taxes, you have to reduce spending in areas that don't impact/cost those you just "gave" their taxes back to (thereby nullifying the tax cut), for instance on social and locality services (no, not welfare, but the administration of local government, local services, local law enforcement/fire/highway & transportation budgets, etc).

what part of a for example was missed by y'all?? chaz argued that the rich don't pay enough in taxes, my point was that they pay alot in taxes, simply because they have more money that's taxed.

i agree, cutting spending is a key part of cutting taxes, and one that i agree with - to a point. having a balanced budget and bringing down the deficit is much more fiscally responsible, than cutting taxes. . .but cutting government spending is always a good option.

Let me add that I'm not saying that Chaz is 'wrong.' The fact is, I don't know. But neither does he. There are a lot of factors at play here and saying that the top 1% pay less in taxes than they did three years ago solely because of Bush's tax cuts ignores all those other factors.

And, while we are on the subject…has everyone noticed Kerry's tax plans? They include a cut in the topline corporate tax rates as well a host of other corporate tax incentives. These revenue losses will dwarf the increased taxes on those earning above $200k.

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:

They include a cut in the topline corporate tax rates as well a host of other corporate tax incentives.

But will this be offset by the closed loopholes for companies outsourcing labour?

OK…this one is driving me nuts. I'm not an expert on tax law. Christ…..every year I damn near have a fit filling out my 1040 ez and schedule a and itemized chartiable donation sheet etc etc. I could pull numbers from here and there all day long that purportedly support my opinion that could just as easily be shot down by the differing opinion. The fact of the matter is this - I'm of the belief that Bush's economic policies disproportionately benefit the weathiest of Americans. I guess I just have to leave it at that…we could go back and forth all day with this.

I'm pretty psyched for the election in Nov….it's bigger than any election any of us have probably ever lived through, in my opinion at least. The country is also more divided than I ever remember it being. Maybe I'm just older and more aware of things…I don't know…I just feel like this election is more important than just about anything I can ever remember.

GGW…you never answered my question…what does your username stand for, or is it just your initials?

Originally posted by chaz:
I just feel like this election is more important than just about anything I can ever remember.

Do you ever stop and wonder if things would be any different right now if someone else was the president? Much as I dont think very much of the current moronocracy, I am not convinced things would be very different if someone else was in charge.

Originally posted by chaz:
GGW…you never answered my question…what does your username stand for, or is it just your initials?

<img src="http://www.megadoc.net/TV/img/girlswild3.jpg" alt=" - " />

Originally posted by mark e smith:

Originally posted by chaz:
I just feel like this election is more important than just about anything I can ever remember.

Do you ever stop and wonder if things would be any different right now if someone else was the president? Much as I dont think very much of the current moronocracy, I am not convinced things would be very different if someone else was in charge.

Gosh…good question. I know I wouldn't feel so much loathing and spite towards the current administration, that's for sure. I also think I'd feel a little better about the country's trejectory on environmental matters, record on cival liberties…but the WMD's (where did the iraqis hide those things, anyway ;) ) and the economy, who knows how it would have gone with someone else.

And what's the deal with the Hyperdic banner?

Originally posted by chaz:


And what's the deal with the Hyperdic banner?

does this work?

<img src="http://www.ratingmylooks.com/girls_gone_wild.jpg" alt=" - " />

Originally posted by mark e smith:
Do you ever stop and wonder if things would be any different right now if someone else was the president?

Things wouldn't be much different:

After the biggest and longest economic boom in history, the roof was coming off no matter who was in office.

Had 9/11 happened under a Gore presidency, he would have been under more pressure to take drastic measures than Bush was, as he had been in the administration for 8 years before that.

The war in Iraq is a toss-up:

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

However, one would assume Gore would have at least attempted to build a better coalition. Then again, I don't think he complained about going into Kosovo without UN approval.
_________________________________

Don't forget that immediately following the 2000 election, the activist left vowed to protest every action taken by Bush. So, many people see all the bitching as sour grapes that would have happened no matter what policies Bush enacted.
__________________________________

GGW is simply my initials.

Originally posted by mark e smith:
Do you ever stop and wonder if things would be any different right now if someone else was the president? Much as I dont think very much of the current moronocracy, I am not convinced things would be very different if someone else was in charge.

as long as we're still operating under the current capitalist system, it will be mostly the same, I think, maybe a little bit better with international relations and a tiny bit better econimically here, but they (Kerry et al) can't undo the damage the existing system has wreaked on society in one administration

I have never jumped on the 9/11 Bush bashing bandwagon. This is such a precarious and difficult issue; I'm amazed the we catch and stop any major terrorist initiatives, and I know that the public has no idea of what really goes on, what the intelligence is, whether and how it's spun within any particular administration much less by any particular administration.

As to Iraq, I believe there were detrimentally poor decisions made in terms of negotiating with other entities. I don't think Iraq would have happened with another President.

These areas, though, are so outside of my knowledge base that I don't stand on these. The domestic issues make me wretch, and I think GW is misguided and arrogant to a degree that causes harm to the U.S. While some of the current economic issues and factors would exist in any administration, I believe they've been worsened by the Bush administration activities.

And yet, as I've learned within my own family, good and smart minds can see this differently. How, I swear I don't know, but that's one of the mysteries of life to me…

Hope is on the way. :D

Originally posted by Celeste:
but they (Kerry et al) can't undo the damage the existing system has wreaked on society in one administration

Which is why the Dems need the House and the Senate back!! :D [couldn't resist]

i'm happy i dont have to worry about taxes for a couple of years.

another president would probably go in if they recieved bad information. A lot of americans have changed their minds on going in since they found out there were no weapons. do you think kerry will end the war? no he won't. i pray he does a worse job then bush if he wins.

hope is on the way….bullshit.
there is no hope. only dreams of hope.

Originally posted by flawd101:

another president would probably go in if they recieved bad information.

Not sure I understood what you said, but if you are referring to receiving bad information about Irak, then the thing is that Bush didn´t receive bad information, that's what he wanted to do and he and the rest of the gang created this bad information. If I missunderstood your post, then forget about my reply.

Originally posted by Barcelona:

Originally posted by flawd101:

another president would probably go in if they recieved bad information.

Not sure I understood what you said, but if you are referring to receiving bad information about Irak, then the thing is that Bush didn´t receive bad information, that's what he wanted to do and he and the rest of the gang created this bad information. If I missunderstood your post, then forget about my reply.

Though I often don't agree with many of your political views, especially regarding America, I have no choice but to agree with you 100% on this one. In fact, I had been saying to a few people way back in the Clinton days that this was going to happen regardless of who was president. It all has to do with the corruption of nations (NOT just America) by the corporations and other very high level ultra-rich New World Order types.

Again, my new slogan: I hate election days. You have a choice of either the right cheek or the left cheek both of which are controlled by the same asshole!