NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 The tax cuts and the neo-conservative agenda on the economy is not a left-right battle it is an ultra rich-everybody else battle. That's exactly how socialists like you wish to frame this debate. Class warfare. Class envy. Punishing success with aggressive taxation and wealth re-distribution may make the socialist class envy crowd happy in the short term but it hurts us in the long run. What incentive is there to be better than the next guy when you will be no better off for it? What incentive is there to take risks and innovate when you will be robbed by the tax man for your trouble? It's those risk takers and innovaters that make us better than all the rest and they dont deserve to be punished. Bush was totally right to go after the death tax. Is it really fair to have someone's money taxed twice by the government and at a much higher rate the second time around? I think not. Ronald Reagan signed the largest tax increase in American history? You are losing it my friend. Bill Clinton did that in 1993. You want to talk about health care costs skyrocketing? How bout you stop blaming HMO's and drug companies and start blaming trial lawyers and their frivolus lawsuits. You have men like JOHN EDWARDS amassing a 8 figure fortune suing the health care industry, an industry which is forced to pass those costs along to their customers. But you won't even hear about tort reform will you? Thought not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 In the 1980s, Osama was advocating that we were the infidels as well. How could we not see that he would be hating us? Saddam Hussein was hiding international terrorist Abu Nidal at the exact same time Reagan was selling weapons, intel etc. to the Baathists. So how again didn't we see that they didn't like the US? Myopic "enemy of my enemy is my friend" policy leads to dangerous things like what happened to us on 9-11. The Soviet Union was a far greater threat to us in the 1980's than terrorists were but you're still mad they're gone aren't you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 Am I the only one who wishes that we'd of elected John McCain... John McCain had some pretty nice things to say about W last night. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted August 31, 2004 Author Share Posted August 31, 2004 Nuke, it's not just ultra-left liberals discussing it in terms of class. It's far right wing Republicans. In an interview with Altantic magazine, Reagan's budget director David Stockman said the following about the Reagan tax cuts: He described them as a 'Trojan Horse' to reduce the top income tax rate paid by the wealthiest families. Working families saw their tax burden continue to rise, while the rich enjoyed tax breaks on capital gains, personal investments, estates, depreciation and profits. Under Reagan's plan, a family earning $30,000 a year would suffer a slight increase in taxes while a family with an annual income of $200,000 would enjoy a tax break of 10%. Let's not forget that HW Bush called the bulls*** of supply side economics "voodoo economics" and all credible and knowledgable economic theorists have debunked it. The whole point of these tax cuts, which have been touted by Republican administration for years, is as Grover Norquist put it "draining its lifeblood" of government. Without a government that allows for protection of regular citizens against predatory assholes (read Enron, Global Crossing etc.), then these ultra rich pricks will be able to be total greedheads and run roughshod. As Larry Flynt's studious research has proven: THE US PAYS LESS IN TAXES AS A PERCENTAGE OF OUR WEALTH THAN ANY OTHER INDUSTRIALIZED NATION ON EARTH. Tax cuts for the ultra rich and corporations, many of which are being promoted by the Bush II administration have been smashmouthed by Republicans as well. Dr. N. Gregory Mankiw, chairman of Dubya's own Council of Economic Advisors called Reagan's supply siders "charlatans and cranks." Irving Kristol, the godfather of the neo-cons, admitted that it is crap economics but good politics. It's a Trojan Horse for getting inside the walls of government to dismantle government. After tax cuts create monumental deficits, government won't have funds to stop the mean and greedy from doing whatever the f*** they want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 Nuke, it's not just ultra-left liberals discussing it in terms of class. It's far right wing Republicans. In an interview with Altantic magazine, Reagan's budget director David Stockman said the following about the Reagan tax cuts: He described them as a 'Trojan Horse' to reduce the top income tax rate paid by the wealthiest families. Working families saw their tax burden continue to rise, while the rich enjoyed tax breaks on capital gains, personal investments, estates, depreciation and profits. Under Reagan's plan, a family earning $30,000 a year would suffer a slight increase in taxes while a family with an annual income of $200,000 would enjoy a tax break of 10%. Let's not forget that HW Bush called the bulls*** of supply side economics "voodoo economics" and all credible and knowledgable economic theorists have debunked it. The whole point of these tax cuts, which have been touted by Republican administration for years, is as Grover Norquist put it "draining its lifeblood" of government. Without a government that allows for protection of regular citizens against predatory assholes (read Enron, Global Crossing etc.), then these ultra rich pricks will be able to be total greedheads and run roughshod. As Larry Flynt's studious research has proven: THE US PAYS LESS IN TAXES AS A PERCENTAGE OF OUR WEALTH THAN ANY OTHER INDUSTRIALIZED NATION ON EARTH. Tax cuts for the ultra rich and corporations, many of which are being promoted by the Bush II administration have been smashmouthed by Republicans as well. Dr. N. Gregory Mankiw, chairman of Dubya's own Council of Economic Advisors called Reagan's supply siders "charlatans and cranks." Irving Kristol, the godfather of the neo-cons, admitted that it is crap economics but good politics. It's a Trojan Horse for getting inside the walls of government to dismantle government. After tax cuts create monumental deficits, government won't have funds to stop the mean and greedy from doing whatever the f*** they want. Thanks for repeating yourself. I really dont give 2 s***s about what the wealthy have. I care about what I have. Stomping up and down about how rich the rich are isin't going to improve your lot in life or mine or anyone elses so I fail to understand why you people spend so much time worrying about it. I also dont care that Larry Flynt ( Insert porn joke here ) thinks we're undertaxed. We also are not the provider of a socialist nanny state either. I'd much rather have the free market providing for me than some government brueaucrat (sp). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 The difference between Democrates and the GOP is Democrates are at elast honest enough to say "we have to raise taxes to do this" the GOP says, hey these tax cust will stimulate the economy and will pay for themselves. If we go $1 in debt today it will bering back $5 down the road. Raise taxes and still not have nearly enough money to pay for the lollypops they are offering to hand out. To the tune of $1.3 Trillion (with a T) more added to the deficit. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nati..._deficit26.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted August 31, 2004 Author Share Posted August 31, 2004 Larry Flynt isn't an advocate of the nanny state either. He believes that corruption in this government should be rooted out and minimized and government reformed. He's actually quite libertarian and believes that people should pay their fair share in taxes. When the ultra rich don't pay their fair share, their tax burden goes to us...the everyday schmoes. Hence it impacts the rest of us. When big corporations get away with offshore tax havens, it cuts down on the ability of the government to have money to go after the assholes but also allows them to have government protections and liberties without having to pay for them. We lose out on billions of dollars that could adequately fund education (with the underfunding of NCLB) and other basic social services. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 Am I the only one who wishes that we'd of elected John McCain... I would have voted for him in a second. I like moderates of either party, expecially ones that are not blinded by party loyalty. I really hope he is a candidate in 2008. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 I would have voted for him in a second. I like moderates of either party, expecially ones that are not blinded by party loyalty. I really hope he is a candidate in 2008. I gave him a pointless vote in the primaries (Bush had already wrapped up the nomination). I'd have done it in the election, and I would vote for him over any of the assclowns running right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 I'd much rather have the free market providing for me than some government brueaucrat (sp). Wow. And in your line of work how would that be? Accept job offers from any country that provides the best mix of benefits, working conditions, and whatever you find important? High dollars, high risk (some middle east oil country) or low dollars, low risk (Sweden?) You are working and being paid by some government program. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 When big corporations get away with offshore tax havens, it cuts down on the ability of the government to have money to go after the assholes but also allows them to have government protections and liberties without having to pay for them. We lose out on billions of dollars that could adequately fund education (with the underfunding of NCLB) and other basic social services. Do you mean companies like Heinz? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted September 1, 2004 Author Share Posted September 1, 2004 Do you mean companies like Heinz? I hate Kerry. I'm voting Badnarik/Campagna for this election. Bush/Kerry - 2 Parties/1 Agenda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soxman352000 Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 i'll say it again it is a disgrace that the Illinois Gop had to go outside the state to find a candidate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 i'll say it again it is a disgrace that the Illinois Gop had to go outside the state to find a candidate I get the impression they were not in this to win but to wound Obama. I could almost understand Hillary's moving to NY since her husband's job had forced her to relocate to Washington DC for 8 years. And as soon as his contract ran out they moved to NY. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.