|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Mar 18, 2004 14:54:49 GMT -5
Just wait. It's coming soon: Re-elect Bush or the Terrorists Win! Yup. There has to be a reason the Europeans want Kerry to win. No American President should ever be a stooge for the European Union. Kerry looks good with strings. Reagan was the greatest President of our time (not subjecture, fact )
|
|
|
Post by itsallaboutme on Mar 18, 2004 14:55:04 GMT -5
I love Minneapolis & it would be a great place to live, but the winters are too rough. Yes, we have bad winters here but the winters in Minneapolis are much worse & last about 4 weeks longer so I can't move there until they change their weather. But on a positive note about GW, if he continues to ruin the environment we soon may be heading north to Minn to escape the brutal heat. We'll be able to get a good tan in Dec. while laying by the many lakes surrounding the Minneapolis.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2004 16:44:42 GMT -5
Yeah, but the year-round mosquitoes will be the pits.
|
|
|
Post by Eater on Mar 18, 2004 21:15:10 GMT -5
So basically he gets a free pass on his years as Governor, too. Yep. Pollution, poor education programs, mismanagement of State finances--they're all things he can be proud of. We're #1 in carcinogens! Can you not read or are you deliberately stupid? I said they fall into one (or possibly more) of those categories, not every one of them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2004 21:27:58 GMT -5
Can you not read or are you deliberately stupid? I said they fall into one (or possibly more) of those categories, not every one of them. This from the same person who just posted THIS in another thread: I read this, although I guess I'm too stupid to think it has any value whatsoever: So tell me, Eater, just what was it about my post that was not a direct response to the quote above? Every one of the items that places Texas #1 or top 5% in the country falls into these categories how? I repeat the first line of my post: "So basically he gets a free pass on his years as Governor, too."
|
|
|
Post by Eater on Mar 18, 2004 21:38:44 GMT -5
I think one thing all of us, including Bush supporters must agree on is that Bush's record on the environment is despicable & embarrasing. If you don't believe that then your just a liar & refuse to listen to the facts. One of the very first things GW did when he got into office was to withdraw the US from treaties we signed to reduce emissions to protect the ozone. No, I don't have to admit that, because his environmental record has been delibarely slandered the moment he stepped into office. As a republican, anything he does about the environemnt will automaticallly be assumed to be bad or will be blown out of proportion. Did he actually pull out of the ozone treaty, or was that just proposed? So what? I love the rhetoric that anyone who's worked in the oil industry is automatically corrupt and evil. And who cares if he wants to open some parks to drilling? Why does their being a national park make them magical? Do you have any idea how much of the US is owned by the federal governemnt, are we seriously going to disallow any development on that land for all time? There's not reason that small section of ANWR in Alaska couldn't be opened. It's a barren tundra, and would've had zero effect on the environment. The only administration that has ever been shown to have done favors for Enron is the Clinton administration. Every top Enron executive has been indicted or convicted, and there's no proof that Ken Lay did much wrong other than be ignorant of what Fastow, et al were doing anyway. He might've, but the indignation here seems to stem less from people being screwed over then not being able to connect Bush to anyone who's been convicted. I think people harp for Lay to go to jail because it will make Bush look bad, not because they have any evidence he's particularly horrible. He probably will go to jail, as most of the other people have agreed to cooperate with investigators and some will plea bargain in exchange for testimony. Yeah,e veryone looked good, like Gray Davis and....oh. And Bush wasn't just liked because the economy was doing well. Democrat friends tell me he was widely respected for being very bipartisan and was able to get the legislature to work together and get things done. Liked for non-economic things. What he's done as president doesn't changed that many fromboth parties liked him as a governor. What exactly did Clinton do to create 26 million jobs? He just road a growing economy that had already started in the last months of the Bush I administration. I admit he did good in not screwing it up, and he got NAFTA passed. Clinton was a pretty good pro-business democrat, but he didn't have some magical policy that created jobs that otherwise wouldn't have happened. And the economy clearly started sliding early in 2000, a year before Bush took office. Blaming him for those job losses isn't even remotely fair, the conomy has turned the corner and whatever president is lucky enough to be elected this year will get credit for the next economic expansion. NOt that there's any reason to think the internet economy will happen again. The late 90s were a freak occurence, and won't happen again until we have something as revolutionary as the internet and the IT revolution to base it on. Maybe in 20-30 years we'll have a huge jump in biotechnology or nanotech or space travel or something like that. And you guys accuse republicans of bringing up Clinton and his blow job in arguments in doesn't belong in. So if a administration official worked for a company that company can never do business with the government again? The rich get taxed much more than the poor. It's not possible to give a tax break without giving more to the rich, because they pay more. Its simple math. Whenever there is a tax hike the rich get harder, it only makes sense that when you lower taxes they will also get a bigger benefit. What do you have against people from other countries that you don't want them to have jobs? I have no more right to those jobs then they do. And you don't know what trickle down economics is. In fact, no one using that term usually knows what supply side economics is. Bush isn't a supplied sider, by the way. He just, like many others, believes that lower taxes are a good idea in principle, because the government shouldn't have that much control over our lives. Free trade is good, protectionism is incredibly stupid and if we take that route, that is the one way this economy WON'T recover, and will make us continue to lose jobs. The depression started bad, but then congress passed a massive protectionist bill, which threw the entire world into a depression and screwed over the US even worse. We do get something in return with free trade. We get cheaper products. And our companies get to export our goods to other countries. If you complain about companies exporting jobs, are you also going to explain about Honda having factories in Ohio to build cars?
|
|
|
Post by Eater on Mar 18, 2004 21:40:27 GMT -5
This from the same person who just posted THIS in another thread: I read this, although I guess I'm too stupid to think it has any value whatsoever: So tell me, Eater, just what was it about my post that was not a direct response to the quote above? Every one of the items that places Texas #1 or top 5% in the country falls into these categories how? I repeat the first line of my post: "So basically he gets a free pass on his years as Governor, too." You are stupid aren't you? What does that quote have to do with my answer to you? Yes, everyone one of them falls into one of those categories. Maybe there's a couple that don't, but I'm not going to go through all 50 of them individually. I said if you post a handful of the most damning or most solid I'd given specific reasons.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2004 22:56:13 GMT -5
Eater, Eater, Eater. You call me stupid again and I'm going to eat your lunch.
You know how many fall into your categories? The two you cited. Maybe. Except for the catchall category you have in there.
What does the quote have to do with what you posted? Here, I'll help you out. You, the Poster named Eater, is giving George Bush, our President, a free pass on his record as Governor as Texas. You, the Poster named Eater, claim George Bush had no control over any of the items in the list which do not fit the other four categories.
Let me know what else you don't understand.
Oh. And please tell us more about your Democratic friends from Texas who admire Bush.
|
|
|
Post by FreeBall on Mar 18, 2004 22:57:46 GMT -5
It's not possible to give a tax break without giving more to the rich, because they pay more. Its simple math. If it is such simple math, why do you obviously not have a grasp of how our tax system works? It is entirely possible to give a tax break without giving more to the rich. For example, if you reduce only the lowest bracket from 15% to 10%, all taxpayers will get the same break. They will pay 5% less on any income that they have up to the amount of income subject to the next higher tax bracket. I think that lots of people think that those with high incomes pay the highest tax rate on all of their income. That is not how the system works. It is called a progressive system because you pay a progressively higher rate of tax as your income increases.
|
|
|
Post by Eater on Mar 18, 2004 23:21:09 GMT -5
If it is such simple math, why do you obviously not have a grasp of how our tax system works? It is entirely possible to give a tax break without giving more to the rich. For example, if you reduce only the lowest bracket from 15% to 10%, all taxpayers will get the same break. They will pay 5% less on any income that they have up to the amount of income subject to the next higher tax bracket. I think that lots of people think that those with high incomes pay the highest tax rate on all of their income. That is not how the system works. It is called a progressive system because you pay a progressively higher rate of tax as your income increases. I'm well aware of how the tax system works thanks. Lowering only the bottom bracket would not result in much of a decrease in taxes. You have to adjust the upper brackets as well to do anything meaningful. If all you need do is move the bottom then why doesn't anyone use that logic when taxes are raised? And it's STILL going to be unfair, because the millions of people who don't even pay taxes, or who just barely break into the bottom tax bracket won't be getting the same size of tax brea,.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2004 23:23:10 GMT -5
And Eater, besides all the name-calling you are tossing our way, your fundamental argument is not one I agree with. I said Bush was a failure as Governor. You said he was popular.
Laverne and Shirley was popular. It doesn't make it art.
Let me add some more details about the Bush tenure:
*Largest volume of air pollution in the nation. Even if he inherited it, what did he do about it? Read on.
*1st in pollution and 49th in spending on the environment.
*The 152 executions during his terms are unmatched in U.S. History.
Teacher salaries at beginning of term - 36th in the nation. ( 1 )
Teacher salaries at beginning of 2nd term - 38th in nation. ( 1 )
Average salaries change in constant 1998-99 dollars - -1.1%. ( 1)
Teacher salaries plus benefits - 50th in nation. ( 1 )
High school completion rate - 48th in nation. ( 2 )
Percent of all students in Texas public schools who never receive a high school diploma - 42%
Percentage increase in drop-out rate since 1986 - 9%
SAT scores - 1996 combined math & verbal - 44th. ( 2 )
SAT scores - 1997 combined math & verbal - 45th. ( 2 )
SAT scores - 1998 combined math & verbal - 44th. ( 2 )
Spending for public libraries & branches - 46th. ( 3 )
Best place to raise children - 48th. ( 4 )
Resources for stats
1. National Education Agency, Rankings & Estimates: Rankings of the states 1999 2. U.S. Dept. of Education Office of Educational Research and Development 3. Statistical Rankings by State 4. U.S. Children's Rights Council
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Mar 19, 2004 3:00:28 GMT -5
I'm well aware of how the tax system works thanks. Lowering only the bottom bracket would not result in much of a decrease in taxes. You have to adjust the upper brackets as well to do anything meaningful. If all you need do is move the bottom then why doesn't anyone use that logic when taxes are raised? And it's STILL going to be unfair, because the millions of people who don't even pay taxes, or who just barely break into the bottom tax bracket won't be getting the same size of tax brea,. If the lowest wage earners pay such an insignifant share of the taxes why not just drop them from the requirement of paying taxes altogether? By your argument it won't make a difference to the country. It would certainly make a nice difference to the people at those income levels. Which millions of people aren't paying taxes? You again throw numbers out of thin air that aren't based in reality. There were only 300,000 individual (as opposed to corporate) returns last year that made EIC claims. There were over 12 million individual returns for adjusted incomes over $100,000. Where in the gaps are you finding "millions" of people not paying taxes? Are you complaining about of those those increasing numbers of people that are unemployed not paying their fair share of taxes now?
|
|
|
Post by itsallaboutme on Mar 19, 2004 8:28:13 GMT -5
I think we can all agree that the current tax structure is unfair to most people unless your very rich. How about a "flat tax". Where everyon pays the same percentage of tax on their earnings. Lets say everyone pays 15%. Guess what? the rich would be furious!!! Why? you might ask, because of the very large number of loop holes available to the rich they would actually have to pay more in taxes then they do now.
The most brilliant man in the world when comes to investment , Warren Buffet has called the Bush tax cuts extremely unfair to the middle class and a windfall for the rich.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2004 10:16:37 GMT -5
|
|