posted
The Bush plan wants to lower the lowest income tax bracket from 15% to 10%, effective immediately. Maybe even retroactively.
The new Democratic plan grudgingly wants to lower it from 15% to 12%, and then EVENTUALLY to 10%. (according to msn.com)
And the Bush plan is less favorable to the poor? Come again?
And i notice that the Dem proposal also favors getting rid of the inheritance tax, which until now they've been saying the Republicans want to get rid of in order to benefit the rich.
Hmm.. must be some rich Democrats after all...
------------------ The government that seems the most unwise, oft goodness to the people best supplies. That which is meddling, touching everything, will work but ill, and disappointment bring. - The Tao Te Ching
posted
No, that's just what they'd like you to think. They had no problem running up huge deficits for no reason at all during the eighties. Why would they care about keeping the budget balanced now?
------------------ Disclaimer: "All references to vices and of the supernatural contained in this game are for entertainment purposes only. _Over_The_Edge_ does not promote satanisim, belief in magic, drug use, violence, sexual deviation, body piercing, cynical attitudes toward the government, freedom of expression, or any other action or belief not condoned by the authorities." - `OverTheEdge'
------------------ I should've known you were the only one stupid enough to kidnap you! Now get down here so I can spank you in front of this gawking rabble ~ C. Montgomery Burns
posted
LOL -- you trip me up, Omega. You've got no problem crediting Reagan with bringing the USSR down by outspending them, then you go and blame it on someone else! WOW!
Actually, this is why I'm voting for Nader next election. The Democratic Party isn't liberal enough. Frankly, for all it's talk, they're a bunch of conservatives who appeal to the left only when it's time for election.
Although I will submit that the Democratic Plan must borrow heavily from the Republican Plan to win over possible Republican supporters. It still doesn't excuse this, however.
Just for clarification ... First, are you sure you're not talking about the estate tax, that people like to crow about hurting the average farmer? Or is that the same as the inheritance tax? I think they're the same, so bare with me:
Only the wealthiest 1.4 estates get charged this tax. 2/3rds of the revenue from this tax come from .02 percent of the wealthiest estate -- and you know what, that dead guy don't need no money. Now, farmers (95% of them) aren't effected by this, since the farm has to be worth $1.3 million per couple to have an estate tax (and the number is due to rise to $2 million in a few years). You want to not charge the estate tax to the five-percent that does get it? Fine by me.
That is the only cut acceptable. I've said it before, I'll say it again. The rich can easily afford it -- and since they're dead so they don't give a damn, I can guarentee you.
(Interesting note: Bush stands to inherit a large fortune. Gee, I wonder why he wants to repeal this. Greedy bastard).
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted) *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001 **** "The candidate who slimed John McCain in the primaries and smeared Al Gore in the general election is now the president who pledges to elevate the nation's tone and bring civility to our discorse. Kind of like Michael Corleone brought peace to the mob by killing the heads of the other four families." --Paul Begala, Is Our Children Learning?
posted
So what you're saying, is that even though someone works hard all their life, earning what they can, they're not allowed to give it to their children? WTF? You want to punish people for their success. "They're rich! They can afford to have half of all that they earn taken!"
I'm sorry, but the government has no right to decide that.
And you also are forgetting something. This tax cut is coming from money the government does NOT need. Why should we keep taxing people so much if we're not going to use it? *boggle*
And on the Reagan issue- Reagan made a deal early on with the Democrats in Congress; cut taxes AND reduce spending. Well, the Democrats did cut taxes, but they did not reduce spending. That's where the deficit came from.
------------------ "President Bush. It's fun saying that. Go ahead, you try." - M. Lucinsky, Spectrum Editor
"Being a liberal is one of the most gutless choices you can make. It doesn't require you to think, it only requires you to feel." - Rush Limbaugh
Saltah'na
Chinese Canadian, or 75% Commie Bastard.
Member # 33
posted
No, that's just what they'd like you to think. They had no problem running up huge deficits for no reason at all during the eighties. Why would they care about keeping the budget balanced now?
Omega, that is pure speculation based which seems to be completely baseless, unless you have pure hard-core evidence of this, like, say, a taped conversation with Hilary or something.
Even our liberals wouldn't think of such Garbage. The Ontario Conservative government? Maybe.
Obviously you have never been on the other side of the fence. Just for once I wish you could sit there so that you would have a more broader view of the entire political spectrum, left AND right.
------------------ "My Name is Elmer Fudd, Millionaire. I own a Mansion and a Yacht." Psychiatrist: "Again."
I think you may have that backwards, pal. At some point, after the Democrat-controlled congress created such huge deficits, Reagan made a deal with them. He'd RAISE taxes (which they wanted, BTW, even though his huge tax CUTS doubled revenues within eight years; wonder why...), if they'd cut spending by twice as much. He kept his word. They didn't. That was one of the four "acts of congress" (read: tax increases) that Gephardt and Daschel claim got us out of the supposedly horrible economy of the eighties. Bush made a similar deal, and got burned, too. The lesson: never trust the Democratic party to keep its word.
JK:
You've got no problem crediting Reagan with bringing the USSR down by outspending them, then you go and blame it on someone else!
Go look up the numbers, Jeff. Tax revenues nearly doubled during Reagan. Spending on the military only went up by 5% of total spending. Where'd the rest go? Well, the DNP controlled the House, and thus the money. Ask them.
Oh, and we didn't really outspend the Soviets. They tried to outspend US. They increased their military funding by something like six times what we increased ours by. I'm not sure whether that was absolute dollars, or by percentage, but they still spend themselves into destruction.
Frankly, for all it's talk, they're a bunch of conservatives who appeal to the left only when it's time for election.
Oh, now THAT has to be the funniest thing I've ever heard. They're a bunch of LIBERALS, that simply pretend not to be when the election comes around. Remember HillaryCare? Hillary's a Democrat, last I checked, and that's about as commie/lib a program as they get. Democrats have consistantly been for increasing the size of government. They ain't conservative.
Although I will submit that the Democratic Plan must borrow heavily from the Republican Plan to win over possible Republican supporters.
Translation: the DNP lies to you and pretends to be conservative so as to get your support, then does what they were planning to do anyway.
that dead guy don't need no money
A) How is this your business? It belonged to him, and it will be done with as he layed out. What he NEEDS is not your concern, nor is it the government's.
B) What about the employies at the business that he may have owned? THEY need their salaries. How're they gonna collect them when the family has to sell off the business to pay the taxes?
Jeff, nothing personal, but you need to take a class in economics. That, and you need to learn a bit about what people actually do with their money. You think anyone just leaves some huge wad of CASH to their kids? No, they leave businesses, homes, stocks, things that have to be SOLD to pay the taxes, and that selling hurts people, AND the economy in general.
Bush stands to inherit a large fortune. Gee, I wonder why he wants to repeal this.
You don't have much faith in humanity, do you? You just ASSUME that he has the worst possible motivation. I probably stand to inherit nothing at all, and yet I want to repeal this. Why? Because it is by definition unfair! You still don't get that, do you? When you treat a certain segment of the population worse than the rest, that is usually considered wrong. But, NO! They're RICH! They MUST have done something to deserve being treated so badly!
Tell me, Jeff: WHY do you want to see the rich treated badly? It doesn't do ANYONE, least of all you, any good, and it hurts the economy, and thereby hurts everyone. So what could your motivation be? We've shown that it can't be rational, so some emotion? Envy? Sheer hatred? What?
------------------ Disclaimer: "All references to vices and of the supernatural contained in this game are for entertainment purposes only. _Over_The_Edge_ does not promote satanisim, belief in magic, drug use, violence, sexual deviation, body piercing, cynical attitudes toward the government, freedom of expression, or any other action or belief not condoned by the authorities." - `OverTheEdge'
Saltah'na
Chinese Canadian, or 75% Commie Bastard.
Member # 33
posted
never trust the Democratic party to keep its word.
At first I thought you were being biased and stereotypical towards the Democratic party because they were Liberal. At least this explains things, EVEN THOUGH I don't quite share your point of view, or agree with your evidence.
Then again, I'm not American.
------------------ "My Name is Elmer Fudd, Millionaire. I own a Mansion and a Yacht." Psychiatrist: "Again."
[This message has been edited by Tahna Los (edited March 01, 2001).]
posted
The Democratic Party (as a whole) of today is hardly liberal. Although they certainly talk-the-talk, and certainly consists of a few liberal members. However, for the most part, the Party is made up of moderates. The DNP appeals to liberals only when it is convenient too -- elections. Of course, at the same time, they're also appealing to the moderates, too. Both parties do that at election time, and the Republican Party sometimes leans to the left a bit -- or they would've been talking about scrapping Social Security and Medicare not fixing it (of course, Bush's figures to do that don't make much sense, but ...)
Omega, we had this conversation over what is "fair" before. You really want to get this started again? Do you really? Then shut up. Yes, I do believe it's fair for those who are more fortunate financially to contribute more to society. Got a problem with that? I really don't give a damn, so please stop trying to tell me what I think "fair" should be. Hey, dude, listen, you go and believe it's un-fair. Hey, that's totally fine, I ain't gonna call you a dip-shit about it, but then ... I am a liberal. I do believe in letting people with other views have their say (which is why I'm supporting a racist group's right to speak in another thread -- not because I agree with their views, because I'm not into censorship). No wonder you try and shoot me down -- as far as you're concerned, conservatives should be allowed to censor as much as possible. Thank god most conservatives don't think like you or we'd be really fucked.
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted) *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001 **** "The candidate who slimed John McCain in the primaries and smeared Al Gore in the general election is now the president who pledges to elevate the nation's tone and bring civility to our discorse. Kind of like Michael Corleone brought peace to the mob by killing the heads of the other four families." --Paul Begala, Is Our Children Learning?
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 01, 2001).]
posted
Then why are you so offended on his views about American Liberals, and the American Democratic party?
To the best of my recollection, I don't think Omega has , or attempted to, slam the Canadian Liberals, or the NDP. If he does, then attack him.
And, this is not a case of "Well, he's attacking the ideas". I think that we get enough of American everything, to notice the large gulfs between whatever 'ideas' they have, and whatever we think.
Sure, if the need be to label me, I guess I'd be a liberal, with a little bit of fascism thrown in for good measure. I never get 'offended' by any generalizations of Liberals, for a few simple reasons.
1) It's an opinion. I have one. So do you. We're all entitled to one. If we all cried at someone else's, we'd be wetter than any girl in the presence of Simon.
2) 99.999999% of Political discussions here are about American politics. Which, to a Canadian, should be about as Boring as Andromeda. It's a good think there is Porn out there, else I'd have no refuge for a good American Political Debate.
3) Why get offended? Is it really that bad? Use that energy to go protest at some Homeless rally on Parliament Hill, or shake your fist at the damn Liberals in office who "don't give none attention to us farmers". Or something.
Life's to short to argue, be mad at, or be emotionally crippled by the opinions of, like, three guys on a Star Trek-oriented messageboard. Really.
------------------ "This is such an amazingly minor complaint. Does anyone actually watch episodes anymore, or is it just a notebook + pause button exercise these days?" -Sol System on what constitutes modern day Star Trek watching, 02-22-01
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted) *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001 **** "The candidate who slimed John McCain in the primaries and smeared Al Gore in the general election is now the president who pledges to elevate the nation's tone and bring civility to our discorse. Kind of like Michael Corleone brought peace to the mob by killing the heads of the other four families." --Paul Begala, Is Our Children Learning?
posted
Whenever people here started calling people one thing that Canada calls another. A word means whatever everyone intends it to mean. People in the US use conservative to describe GW. However, by every other country's definition as I understand it, he'd be a liberal, as he wants to change pretty well everything. Thus, our definition is different. Bill Clinton is another example. He's called liberal, and yet he changed next to nothing.
------------------ Disclaimer: "All references to vices and of the supernatural contained in this game are for entertainment purposes only. _Over_The_Edge_ does not promote satanisim, belief in magic, drug use, violence, sexual deviation, body piercing, cynical attitudes toward the government, freedom of expression, or any other action or belief not condoned by the authorities." - `OverTheEdge'
Printer-friendly view of this topic
