someone opposing Kerry saying that ???
LMAO
Bush has changed his position on so many issues and republicans are hitting Kerry for changing his position.
Captain1, sahib. When you get up from the floor...that is not because you are laughing too hard, it is becasue that is the person you have choseb to support, maybe you will look at what Kerry stands for? If you think for a minute that he is going to help poor or minorities you are sadly mistaken.
Baba G, which talk radio are you talking about.... I have not listened to any of the talk radio prgrams since August 1st. Anyway, maybe you can show us a study where it shows that giving tax credit to welfare moms stimulates economy and I will come up with the study that shows that tax credit to welathy helps job growth. :)
I can show where tax breaks to higher income earners have done nothing to stimulate our economy and once again introduced the Republican gift of trillion dollar deficits.
Honestly, to me, both Bush and Kerry are not far from each other even in changing their positions
Believe me, no matter what they say, only rich will get richer and poor will go poorer. Who gives BIG BUCKS to these candidates? poor? nah, then who would they support in return? poor? nahh.
Kaleem Bhai,
How do you define a 'good economy'? Less people unemployed, more jobs, better standard of living for the country, less people bellow poverty level?
Would you like me to give you stats on all the above during the past 4 years?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ahmadjee: *
Yes, I am all for not taxing income but instead taxing savings, especially estates with or without cattle or bushes.
[/QUOTE]
Getting closer but you're not quite there yet. CONSUMPTION. You tax CONSUMPTION. Ask yourself this: "What is it that rich people do with their money? (besides making more money). ** They spend it. ** They buy boats. They buy antique cars. They buy airplanes. They buy expensive homes. Some of them even have enough money to afford to buy Air Jordan tennis shoes. Instead of a glass of ripple with a chicken dinner, they order $400 bottles of wine to have with their 5 pound lobster tail.
myvoice bhaijaan, you are pushing it. 
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ahmadjee: *
Kaleem Bhai,
How do you define a 'good economy'? Less people unemployed, more jobs, better standard of living for the country, less people bellow poverty level?
Would you like me to give you stats on all the above during the past 4 years?
[/QUOTE]
ahmadjee, did you happen to forget 9/11, Enron, Global Crossings, MCI, Continental laying off 17000 people. Do you want me to carry on? I am sure you can tie all of these to Bush and his policies right...even thoug "book cooking" started under the watchful eyes of infallable clinton.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Seminole: *
I can show where tax breaks to higher income earners have done nothing to stimulate our economy ....
[/QUOTE]
No you can't.
Our economy is driven in a large measure by consumer spending. Unless you can show that high income earners disproportionately saved the money they didn't pay in taxes rather than spent it, you're way off base.
As ahmadjee asked in another thread which was left unanswered, what exactly are Bush's accomplishments in his 4 years? It has been established that all the negatives of his presidency are the fault of previous administrations, but what have they actually accomplished?
Kaleem Bhai, the last time I checked we used to measure a President's accomplishments from his years in office, not from what his predecessor did, unless off course you are in Pakistan. No?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
Our economy is driven in a large measure by consumer spending. Unless you can show that high income earners disproportionately saved the money they didn't pay in taxes rather than spent it, you're way off base.
[/QUOTE]
The rich are richer, the poor are poorer. More people don't have health insurance, manufacturing jobs have left for overseas, most state budgets are in the red, there's been a net loss of jobs for the first time since the Depression and any new jobs are burger flippers, so whatever effect the tax cut had I am not impressed.
BTW, am I also way off base about the trillion dollar deficits?
That is simply not an answer to the question of whether the tax cuts had a stimulative effect on the economy. While many debate the fairness of the tax cuts, I don’t think any reputable economist has claimed that they have not had a stimulative effect on the economy. I shudder to think where we would stand today on the economic front had we not had the tax cuts.
(Dispute any of these you can)
Fact 1: The economy was in a recession when GW Bush took office and before GW submitted his first budget.
Fact 2: The speculative bubble in the stock market was already at its peak and ready to burst when GW took office.
FACT 3: When the speculative stock market bubble burst, it wiped out billions of dollars of net worth causing a further drop in consumer spending during the inherited recession.
FACT 4: The corporate accounting scandals that burst out were financial accounting crimes that occured prior to GW taking office and they further accelerated the stock market losses and decline in consumer spending.
Fact 5: 911 created one of the biggest (if not the biggest) negative jolts to the US economy in its history.
You cannot place blame on GW for the recession, the stock market bubble, the accounting irregularities or 911. RIGHT???
In light of the above, it is remarkable that the econopmy is in as good a shape as it is.
The average yearly unemployment rate in the United States since 1975 is … 6.4%. In 11 of those 29 years, the average yearly unemployment rate was over 7%.
Source: http://www.rescueamericanjobs.org/a...nemployment.pdf
During GW’s 3 1/2 years in office, the unemployment rate has been as follows:
2001-- 4.8%; 2002 – 5.8%; 2003 – 6.0%; 2004 – 5.6%.
In the immediate aftermath of 911, the unemplyment rate went up almost a full percentage point.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
start taxing wealth and STOP TAXING INCOME
[/QUOTE]
And how are you going to determine who is wealthy without looking at their income. Anyone who earns more than 200,000, regardless of their expenses, should be considered as rich and should be taxed more.
Kaleem
I am against the corporate tax increase too but for a different reason than you explained. I believe corporate tax increase does not hurt the companies like you said because they pass the tax burden to consumers. The reason I am against it because consumers than have to pay higher price of goods. I am in favor of higher taxing rich individuals like trial lawyers not corporations.
Actually, I do think the tax cuts provided a small stimulous to the economy (and so did massive defense spending). But the distribution was not wise or fair, especially with the very expensive war he was waging, and the long term consequences were not accounted for.
Fact 6: Anything positive from the past 4 years was due to Bush (I guess the low unemployment figure is the sole factor we can point to?)
Fact 7: Anything negative from the past 4 years was due to the previous administration.
"Kaleem yaar, 99% of what you pay goes for services you receive… in fact, less than one penny per $600 spent goes for welfare (food stamps, etc.). you are very mistaken if you think that your tax dollars are paying for single mothers on welfare. Did you know that 17 cents of ever tax dollar is spent on education, 19 goes towards social security, and stuff….if you need a breakdown, let me know. I do that for living. "
Ahem,
This is pretty innaccurate.
The actual amount that make it's way to a beneficiary is pretty stinkin' low. Do an analysis of how much is spent on government emloyees, as opposed to teachers, doctors, nurses and direct caregivers, and you will find a pathetically low ratio. The Washington bureaucracy is staggering in it's proportions. About 50 cents on the dollar would be generous, with almost any not-for profit agency being far more efficient, with 10 to 12% administrative cost being the norm. To that degree, Myvoice is quite correct, that the private sector is far more efficient, at both making jobs, and solving social ills.
A far more efficient way of handling social needs would be to allow a tax credit for donations to approved charities that show effcient organizations, as opposed to a tax deduction.
Its funny that Republicans give credit to Bush when any good economic news comes, but when things go bad they say that Bush has got nothing to do with economy and start blaming Clinton’s policies. This kind tactics worked when Bush was new in Office, but after 4 years presidency and no accomplishments this a lame excuse.
I guess you don’t dispute that the things I listed are truthful facts. What you list as Fact 6 and 7 is hyperbole and rhetoric. I don’t credit GW for everything good that has happended on his watch. I also believe that he has made some mistakes and that some negative things that have occured are his responsibility. In fact, I was not a big GW supporter in the last election and wasn’t impressed with him as governor of Texas. His performance in the most difficult job in the world has exceeded my expectations.
You’re kidding me right??? Did you take Economics 101 at uni??
You measure wealth by looking at … 
WEALTH. You know, assets, liabilities, things like that. A guy who owns a $10 million house without a mortgage and has $20 million in stocks is more wealthy than the guy who owns a $400,000 house with a $250,000 mortgage and has a $100,000 saved in an IRA. The fact that both of them might earn $200,000 this year doesn’t make them both “rich.” Repeat after me, “Income is not a measurement of wealth.”
It is sooo hypocritical of the Republicans to claim that they are for small government. The fact of the matter is that Clinton administration slashed the most federal jobs in the past 2 decade.
Here is a run down of the net Executive branch employees added.
Government Employees Added or (Subtracted)
Civilian Defense Non-Defense
Kennedy (12,000) 73,000
Johnson 312,000 105,000
Nixon/Ford (333,000) 213,000
Carter (25,000) (14,000)
Reagan 91,000 3,000
George H.W. Bush (184,000) 104,000
Clinton (244,000) (115,000)
Source http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy01/sheets/hist17z5.xls [Look at Columns H & J]
[QUOTE]
And how are you going to determine who is wealthy without looking at their income. Anyone who earns more than 200,000, regardless of their expenses, should be considered as rich and should be taxed more.
[/QUOTE]
In podunk Idaho maybe, but you wouldn't/couldn't say this if you lived in the bay area (along with most other parts of CA). My two-income family is in this vicinity and we aint no where near "rich".
I like MVs idea. Tax the people who are rich, not the ones trying to get there.