Both Dean or Kerry would make great presidents. The race has just begun...
I'm sorry I read that article and it is full on bullshit. Bush is "uncompassionate" for passing a tax cut. Meanwhile he isn't compassionate for not extending the tax cut fully to some who claim the earned income tax credit.
Quote:
While he is fighting to allow the highest income class to pay nothing on investment earnings, he is tightening the requirements for those who seek the earned-income tax credit--meaning the working poor. Essentially a refund of a portion of regressive payroll taxes paid by low-income workers, the EITC is one of the most successful government initiatives directed toward Americans who work full-time but cannot earn enough to keep their families above the poverty line.
Pay nothing on investment earning? Try they pay the income tax when they earned it to invest. They pay capital gains when they get a return on the investment. Pure bullshit.
Likewise the Earned Income Tax Credit is claimed to be a relief from regressive payroll taxes. Except our payroll taxes are progressive. The working poor pay 15% while the rich pay 35%. (down from 38%) In what dictionary is that "regressive?"
Likewise the EITC goes out to folks who haven't paid a dime in taxes at all. It is a tax credit that you receive, not are credited against taxes owed or paid. In otherwords you could pay exactly $0 in federal taxes, and receive the EITC, federal child tax credit for 2 children and get $5000 back for not having paid in a dime.
It is not essentually a refund. That is essentually a flat out lie. It is called a credit and is treated as such. You get it back regardless of what you have paid in.
The EITC should be ABOLISHED. It is not a government program that brings about any sort of improvement. It is 100% PURE income redistribution.
Look, you are the one taking clear, but complex views and attempting to disparage them with inane associations with repression of certain groups.
If you don't like the final outcomes or the insinuations associated with what you do called out, then don't do it. If you make reference to what I "associate" and give implications regarding it, then consider the favor likely to be returned.
Nick
On the contrary it is you who brought up the subject of racism and sexism. If you'll read back through the thread it's you who have now twice assumed you know what I'm thinking before I've said anything that could be taken as definite.
As to the clear yet complex views keep in mind those are your takes on the situation not everyone's.
A small suggestion: Drop the phoney smugness, don't assume you're so smart you know what's on everyone's mind. You might find yourself taken more seriously.
However you're right about one thing you do come off sounding a bit like one of those people that like to single out a group ( not themselves of course ) and afix blame.
" If you don't like the final outcomes or the insinuations associated with what you do called out, then don't do it. If you make reference to what I "associate" and give implications regarding it, then consider the favor likely to be returned. "
Why should Republicans back a Democrat like Dean? Isn't he too far to the Left? Not really. He backs many ideals that we Republicans cherish (or used to cherish) such as fiscal responsibility.
As a Republican who voted for Bush, and now supports Dean, I applaud you for setting up this site. My primary reason for breaking with the current administration relates to the administration's fiscal policy. It is unconscionable that this administration would push forward with a tax cut scheme that is essentially a give away to the top 1% of tax payers, while placing us on the superhighway toward impending fiscal doom. Imagine, a Republican administration supporting a half-trillion budget deficit! Dean can gain more core Republican support if he hammers on this issue. He is the only candidate in either party who has balanced a budget, and who has practiced fiscal restraint. From Andrew in St. Louis.
Just to add some reasoning behind the graph. We have a pool of money. AKA the Loanable Funds Market. The amount of money we can borrow is for the most part fixed. The government is going to take what they want from this pool of cash. Investment spending gets the remainder. This is "crowding out". The government has first dibs, and they don't care about interest rates. The more the government takes the higher the interest rates for investment spending.
Clinton's main goal was to balance the budget in the early 90's. This set up low interest rates so that Tech could flourish.
Just to add some reasoning behind the graph. We have a pool of money. AKA the Loanable Funds Market. The amount of money we can borrow is for the most part fixed. The government is going to take what they want from this pool of cash. Investment spending gets the remainder. This is "crowding out". The government has first dibs, and they don't care about interest rates. The more the government takes the higher the interest rates for investment spending.
Clinton's main goal was to balance the budget in the early 90's. This set up low interest rates so that Tech could flourish.
ceteris paribus
Arguing about economics is funky.
Thinking a bit further: All that money people gets their hands on due to the tax cut, would it be resonable to expec that to come back into the Loanable Funds Market for the government to loan?
And you ignore the substance of the piece. Name one thing that Bush has brought about to help the working poor in this country? Or education.. he claimed to be the education president.... or the environment... he claimed to be an environmentalist too.
The ONLY people who are doing BETTER in this country are those making over $200,000. It's funny 19% of this country thinks they're in the top 1% of wealth.
On the contrary it is you who brought up the subject of racism and sexism. If you'll read back through the thread it's you who have now twice assumed you know what I'm thinking before I've said anything that could be taken as definite.
As to the clear yet complex views keep in mind those are your takes on the situation not everyone's.
A small suggestion: Drop the phoney smugness, don't assume you're so smart you know what's on everyone's mind. You might find yourself taken more seriously.
However you're right about one thing you do come off sounding a bit like one of those people that like to single out a group ( not themselves of course ) and afix blame.
" If you don't like the final outcomes or the insinuations associated with what you do called out, then don't do it. If you make reference to what I "associate" and give implications regarding it, then consider the favor likely to be returned. "
Yes well I call actions as I see them. I don't associate and insinuate in an attempt to assasinate someone's character instead of debate their ideas.
However I'll keep your actions in mind when discussing future ideas with you. I'll understand that you won't understand them, you won't debate them and you will intentionally mischaracterize them as a result.
Just to add some reasoning behind the graph. We have a pool of money. AKA the Loanable Funds Market. The amount of money we can borrow is for the most part fixed. The government is going to take what they want from this pool of cash. Investment spending gets the remainder. This is "crowding out". The government has first dibs, and they don't care about interest rates. The more the government takes the higher the interest rates for investment spending.
Clinton's main goal was to balance the budget in the early 90's. This set up low interest rates so that Tech could flourish.
ceteris paribus
Arguing about economics is funky.
Really? I remember Clintont projecting $250 billion plus deficits for his entire term. He didn't balance a single budget until the Republicans had come into power in Congress.
I assure you I am not hypocritical in this regard. There have been several threads where I have criticized current Republicans and especially Bush for deficit spending right now. He should make the spending cuts to go with the tax cuts, not be creating entirely new departments within the government.
Clinton's main goal was nationalizing health care. When it caused his party to lose control of Congress in 40 years, he quickly changed his course.
And you ignore the substance of the piece. Name one thing that Bush has brought about to help the working poor in this country? Or education.. he claimed to be the education president.... or the environment... he claimed to be an environmentalist too.
The ONLY people who are doing BETTER in this country are those making over $200,000. It's funny 19% of this country thinks they're in the top 1% of wealth.
It would be a hit piece... if it weren't true.
Bush's education legislation was passed in part with Ted Kennedy. It funded eduacation at even higher levels than before. It just didn't fund it on the huge scale that Kennedy wanted.
Even your piece says that Bush hasn't cut education and it is profoundly biased against Bush. However dishonest they have been even they can only muster up "more funds but not fully funded."
As for the only people diong better making over $200,000? That's a lie. I'm earning more and have had my networth go up profoundly in the last 4 years. I earn less than $60k a year.
We have record homeownership. You think all those homes are only owned by people who make over $200k a year?
And now that the Republican's are in control of the whole enchilada... they're doing everything they can to help the poor and middle class... right?
The same year that Bush passed the tax cut on dividends, he passed an increase in the child tax credit.
As I mentioned these credits are given whether you have paid in any money.
So working family has 3 children, own a small home and make about $28,000 a year. Because of their deductions, they owe no federal taxes. Because of their three children, they are given the child tax credit. Before this would have given them $600 per child which is $1800. After the Bush tax cut, it was increased to $1000 per child which means this family get $3000 back from the government while not having paid a dime in.
Giving $3000 to a family that hasn't paid in a dime of taxes, in some neighborhoods that is called "help."
The same year that Bush passed the tax cut on dividends, he passed an increase in the child tax credit.
As I mentioned these credits are given whether you have paid in any money.
Dividend cuts will valid even if you pay no other taxes. What's your point again? Are you being disingenuous and pretending that the credit is bad because they might not pay taxes while the dividend cut is somehow different?
Why don't we look at the numbers and find out which one generates more cash for what groups. There are probably some investors that save more money than all of the credits combined because of the cut on dividends.
AND you want to get rid of it. As do many republican's.
So that's the republican's working hard for the poor and middle class?
It's less than the tax break people get when they buy a SUV.
Voodoo I say. voo doo.
Of course I want to get rid of it. I don't believe in pure wealth redistribution. If you said you wanted the taxes for infrastructure improvements or things of that nature we could debate it, and I likely would side with you in promoting the tax and the program.
However just taking money from one person to give it to another, outside of the government that is called stealing.
Lastly please prove your assertion that you get a tax break from buying a SUV. Businesses might be able to get a break from leasing, but how does an individual get a tax break from buying any vehicle?
Comments
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Dean is much more centrist that Bush has ever been.
Bush posing with black children and saying he's compassionate doesn't undo the fact that he has no interest in helping the poor in any meaningful way.
Bush's answer to everything is a TAX-CUT and underfunding programs he says he endorses.
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i...&c=1&s=conason
Both Dean or Kerry would make great presidents. The race has just begun...
I'm sorry I read that article and it is full on bullshit. Bush is "uncompassionate" for passing a tax cut. Meanwhile he isn't compassionate for not extending the tax cut fully to some who claim the earned income tax credit.
While he is fighting to allow the highest income class to pay nothing on investment earnings, he is tightening the requirements for those who seek the earned-income tax credit--meaning the working poor. Essentially a refund of a portion of regressive payroll taxes paid by low-income workers, the EITC is one of the most successful government initiatives directed toward Americans who work full-time but cannot earn enough to keep their families above the poverty line.
Pay nothing on investment earning? Try they pay the income tax when they earned it to invest. They pay capital gains when they get a return on the investment. Pure bullshit.
Likewise the Earned Income Tax Credit is claimed to be a relief from regressive payroll taxes. Except our payroll taxes are progressive. The working poor pay 15% while the rich pay 35%. (down from 38%) In what dictionary is that "regressive?"
Likewise the EITC goes out to folks who haven't paid a dime in taxes at all. It is a tax credit that you receive, not are credited against taxes owed or paid. In otherwords you could pay exactly $0 in federal taxes, and receive the EITC, federal child tax credit for 2 children and get $5000 back for not having paid in a dime.
It is not essentually a refund. That is essentually a flat out lie. It is called a credit and is treated as such. You get it back regardless of what you have paid in.
The EITC should be ABOLISHED. It is not a government program that brings about any sort of improvement. It is 100% PURE income redistribution.
Thanks for the link to the nonsensical hit piece.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Look, you are the one taking clear, but complex views and attempting to disparage them with inane associations with repression of certain groups.
If you don't like the final outcomes or the insinuations associated with what you do called out, then don't do it. If you make reference to what I "associate" and give implications regarding it, then consider the favor likely to be returned.
Nick
On the contrary it is you who brought up the subject of racism and sexism. If you'll read back through the thread it's you who have now twice assumed you know what I'm thinking before I've said anything that could be taken as definite.
As to the clear yet complex views keep in mind those are your takes on the situation not everyone's.
A small suggestion: Drop the phoney smugness, don't assume you're so smart you know what's on everyone's mind. You might find yourself taken more seriously.
However you're right about one thing you do come off sounding a bit like one of those people that like to single out a group ( not themselves of course ) and afix blame.
-------------------------------------------------------------
" If you don't like the final outcomes or the insinuations associated with what you do called out, then don't do it. If you make reference to what I "associate" and give implications regarding it, then consider the favor likely to be returned. "
-------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sure you know that's also true here.
http://republicansfordean.blogspot.com/
E-mail of the Day:
As a Republican who voted for Bush, and now supports Dean, I applaud you for setting up this site. My primary reason for breaking with the current administration relates to the administration's fiscal policy. It is unconscionable that this administration would push forward with a tax cut scheme that is essentially a give away to the top 1% of tax payers, while placing us on the superhighway toward impending fiscal doom. Imagine, a Republican administration supporting a half-trillion budget deficit! Dean can gain more core Republican support if he hammers on this issue. He is the only candidate in either party who has balanced a budget, and who has practiced fiscal restraint. From Andrew in St. Louis.
(requires the free adobe reader)
http://www.ibew.com/JusttheFacts0403.pdf
Originally posted by futuremac
do large deficits mean high unemployment? you decide!
(requires the free adobe reader)
http://www.ibew.com/JusttheFacts0403.pdf
Just to add some reasoning behind the graph. We have a pool of money. AKA the Loanable Funds Market. The amount of money we can borrow is for the most part fixed. The government is going to take what they want from this pool of cash. Investment spending gets the remainder. This is "crowding out". The government has first dibs, and they don't care about interest rates. The more the government takes the higher the interest rates for investment spending.
Clinton's main goal was to balance the budget in the early 90's. This set up low interest rates so that Tech could flourish.
ceteris paribus
Arguing about economics is funky.
Originally posted by lemon
Just to add some reasoning behind the graph. We have a pool of money. AKA the Loanable Funds Market. The amount of money we can borrow is for the most part fixed. The government is going to take what they want from this pool of cash. Investment spending gets the remainder. This is "crowding out". The government has first dibs, and they don't care about interest rates. The more the government takes the higher the interest rates for investment spending.
Clinton's main goal was to balance the budget in the early 90's. This set up low interest rates so that Tech could flourish.
ceteris paribus
Arguing about economics is funky.
Thinking a bit further: All that money people gets their hands on due to the tax cut, would it be resonable to expec that to come back into the Loanable Funds Market for the government to loan?
The ONLY people who are doing BETTER in this country are those making over $200,000. It's funny 19% of this country thinks they're in the top 1% of wealth.
It would be a hit piece... if it weren't true.
Originally posted by jimmac
On the contrary it is you who brought up the subject of racism and sexism. If you'll read back through the thread it's you who have now twice assumed you know what I'm thinking before I've said anything that could be taken as definite.
As to the clear yet complex views keep in mind those are your takes on the situation not everyone's.
A small suggestion: Drop the phoney smugness, don't assume you're so smart you know what's on everyone's mind. You might find yourself taken more seriously.
However you're right about one thing you do come off sounding a bit like one of those people that like to single out a group ( not themselves of course ) and afix blame.
-------------------------------------------------------------
" If you don't like the final outcomes or the insinuations associated with what you do called out, then don't do it. If you make reference to what I "associate" and give implications regarding it, then consider the favor likely to be returned. "
-------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sure you know that's also true here.
Yes well I call actions as I see them. I don't associate and insinuate in an attempt to assasinate someone's character instead of debate their ideas.
However I'll keep your actions in mind when discussing future ideas with you. I'll understand that you won't understand them, you won't debate them and you will intentionally mischaracterize them as a result.
Have a nice day.
Nick
Originally posted by lemon
Just to add some reasoning behind the graph. We have a pool of money. AKA the Loanable Funds Market. The amount of money we can borrow is for the most part fixed. The government is going to take what they want from this pool of cash. Investment spending gets the remainder. This is "crowding out". The government has first dibs, and they don't care about interest rates. The more the government takes the higher the interest rates for investment spending.
Clinton's main goal was to balance the budget in the early 90's. This set up low interest rates so that Tech could flourish.
ceteris paribus
Arguing about economics is funky.
Really? I remember Clintont projecting $250 billion plus deficits for his entire term. He didn't balance a single budget until the Republicans had come into power in Congress.
I assure you I am not hypocritical in this regard. There have been several threads where I have criticized current Republicans and especially Bush for deficit spending right now. He should make the spending cuts to go with the tax cuts, not be creating entirely new departments within the government.
Clinton's main goal was nationalizing health care. When it caused his party to lose control of Congress in 40 years, he quickly changed his course.
Nick
Originally posted by chu_bakka
And you ignore the substance of the piece. Name one thing that Bush has brought about to help the working poor in this country? Or education.. he claimed to be the education president.... or the environment... he claimed to be an environmentalist too.
The ONLY people who are doing BETTER in this country are those making over $200,000. It's funny 19% of this country thinks they're in the top 1% of wealth.
It would be a hit piece... if it weren't true.
Bush's education legislation was passed in part with Ted Kennedy. It funded eduacation at even higher levels than before. It just didn't fund it on the huge scale that Kennedy wanted.
Even your piece says that Bush hasn't cut education and it is profoundly biased against Bush. However dishonest they have been even they can only muster up "more funds but not fully funded."
As for the only people diong better making over $200,000? That's a lie. I'm earning more and have had my networth go up profoundly in the last 4 years. I earn less than $60k a year.
We have record homeownership. You think all those homes are only owned by people who make over $200k a year?
Try again...
Nick
Originally posted by chu_bakka
And now that the Republican's are in control of the whole enchilada... they're doing everything they can to help the poor and middle class... right?
The same year that Bush passed the tax cut on dividends, he passed an increase in the child tax credit.
As I mentioned these credits are given whether you have paid in any money.
So working family has 3 children, own a small home and make about $28,000 a year. Because of their deductions, they owe no federal taxes. Because of their three children, they are given the child tax credit. Before this would have given them $600 per child which is $1800. After the Bush tax cut, it was increased to $1000 per child which means this family get $3000 back from the government while not having paid a dime in.
Giving $3000 to a family that hasn't paid in a dime of taxes, in some neighborhoods that is called "help."
Nick
So that's the republican's working hard for the poor and middle class?
It's less than the tax break people get when they buy a SUV.
Voodoo I say. voo doo.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Name one thing that Bush has brought about to help the working poor in this country?
He's reduced the total number of working poor by sending them off to fight in Iraq.
Originally posted by trumptman
Clinton's main goal was nationalizing health care. When it caused his party to lose control of Congress in 40 years, he quickly changed his course.
Wow, this spin hurts my neck!
Originally posted by trumptman
The same year that Bush passed the tax cut on dividends, he passed an increase in the child tax credit.
As I mentioned these credits are given whether you have paid in any money.
Dividend cuts will valid even if you pay no other taxes. What's your point again? Are you being disingenuous and pretending that the credit is bad because they might not pay taxes while the dividend cut is somehow different?
Why don't we look at the numbers and find out which one generates more cash for what groups. There are probably some investors that save more money than all of the credits combined because of the cut on dividends.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
AND you want to get rid of it. As do many republican's.
So that's the republican's working hard for the poor and middle class?
It's less than the tax break people get when they buy a SUV.
Voodoo I say. voo doo.
Of course I want to get rid of it. I don't believe in pure wealth redistribution. If you said you wanted the taxes for infrastructure improvements or things of that nature we could debate it, and I likely would side with you in promoting the tax and the program.
However just taking money from one person to give it to another, outside of the government that is called stealing.
Lastly please prove your assertion that you get a tax break from buying a SUV. Businesses might be able to get a break from leasing, but how does an individual get a tax break from buying any vehicle?
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
Wow, this spin hurts my neck!
You are welcome to prove that he didn't try to nationalize health care.
You are welcome to prove that his party didn't lose control of Congress two years after he took office. (1994)
You are welcome to have a sore neck.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
You are welcome to prove that he didn't try to nationalize health care.
That's not what you said. You said it was his main goal. You should show us all that this was his main and only plan.
Originally posted by trumptman
You are welcome to prove that his party didn't lose control of Congress two years after he took office. (1994)
That's not what you said. You said he lost Congress because the health care plan failed. You should show us all how this is the case.
I'm at least showing how you're a pain in the neck.
Get it...pain in the neck...never mind.