| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| more (disturbing) poll results for the President | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Sep 29 2003, 07:11 PM (609 Views) | |
| qubed | Sep 30 2003, 04:19 PM Post #16 |
|
Ensign
|
The economy is in a recovery, just unfortunatley for Bush its a jobless recovery. The top is seeing thing level out but the bottom is continuing to lose work and benefits. Bush is gonna be, unless the situation changes drastically, the first Presidnet since Hoover to have 0% job growth. You can look at all the indicators you want but unless there is posotive job growth Bush is in trouble. This goes to show why his tax cuts are on par with the economic genius of a freshman 101 course. 3 points about the tax cut: 1. It gave dispraportionatly to the top. To wealthy people who weren't spending the money they already had in the first place. The absolute worst thing internally for an economy is unused money. Giving money to the wealthy to build more money forts out of isn't gonna jump-start a thing, just remove capitol from the system. 2. The old stand-by that tax cuts spur an economy is dust in the modern world. Less then 15% of the things we buy come from America anymore, in manufacturing its less then 10%. If you use the money you get from the tax cut to buy something made in China you've done nothing but help spur the Chineese economy all while the tax cuts are making sure that the money that was suppose to go to social programs is no longer there. 3. The tax cut was always the plan. The only change in the proposed plan Bush made in 99, before the economic slide, was to have the cuts come sooner. His "plan" to spur the econmy was no more different then the "plan" he had all along, he just changed the reason. If the tax cut wasn't to "spur the economy" it would have happened because "the wealthy pay in unfairly" or some other excuse. As much as the right needs fairy-dust to make the economy seem chipper it simply ain't. Not unttil there are more jobs at the bottom. We have to wake up and realize (on both sides of the aisle) that we have to protect and reinvegerate our self-produced manufacturing sector, which is the foundation of any economy! |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Sep 30 2003, 04:37 PM Post #17 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
You do realize that the so-called rich pay most of the taxes, right? They are not receiving a disproportionate share of a tax cut. In fact, the poor and the UNDERTAXED received the majority of the tax cuts. Who are the "top", by the way? Here's the breakdown: In 2000, the top 1% of taxpayers paid 37.42% of all income taxes. In 2000, the top 5% of taxpayers paid 56.47% of all income taxes. In 2000, the top 10% of taxpayers paid 67.33% of all income taxes. In 2000, the top 25% of taxpayers paid 84.01% of all income taxes. In 2000, the top 50% of taxpayers paid 96.09% of all income taxes. The "rich" pay even more tax now than just fourteen years earlier In 1986, the top 1% of taxpayers paid 25.75% of all income taxes. In 1986, the top 5% of taxpayers paid 42.57% of all income taxes. In 1986, the top 10% of taxpayers paid 54.69% of all income taxes. In 1986, the top 25% of taxpayers paid 76.02% of all income taxes. In 1986, the top 50% of taxpayers paid 93.54% of all income taxes. So, the top ONE PERCENT, roughly a million people, pay over a THIRD of all income taxes. Tax cuts DO spur the economy. Economics 101. So what if a smaller percentage of what we buy comes from domestic sources. What about the sales and distribution jobs created by marketing products? The United States has been moving away from being a manufacturing economy for decades and moving toward a service economy. So, if you do spend tax cut money on anything in this country, no matter where it comes from, you create and maintain jobs. The unemployment rate is dropping again. From its high of 6.4% it is now at 6.1% and shall continue to fall. Yes, jobs were lost (see my previous post in this thread), but these things DO happen in an evolving economy. Low skill jobs are going the way of the dinosaur, and no president from either party is going to change that. Am I happy that job growth has been slow and that we've lost nearly 3 million jobs? No. Yes, the tax cut was always in Bush's economic plan. I have no problem with that. What you have to realize is that low taxes spur growth, whether coming out of a recession or maintaining growth. I'd like to see further cuts in the capital gains rate. The orginal cuts helped the 2001 recession stay shallow. Further cuts will ignite a boom like you've never seen. Please don't give me that "that will only help the rich" argument. Nearly SIXTY PERCENT of households own stock nowadays. This benefits everyone! |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| benetil | Sep 30 2003, 05:07 PM Post #18 |
|
Unregistered
|
Dandandat/Wichita: I'm glad things are going well for you guys. I'm not suffering myself - life is good and the USA is a great nation. But here is what I look at when I express concern about the Bush administration's economic policy - I think this is what more and more Americans (maybe about 55% of us, right now) are looking at as well: 1) the 6+% unemployment rate 2) an economy that is STILL shedding jobs (negative job growth isn't a good thing) nearly two years after the recession ended 3) a measly tax cut that will cost us far more than it is worth (OUR GOVERNMENT IS BORROWING THE "TAX-CUT" MONEY FROM FUTURE GENERATIONS OF AMERICANS IN ORDER TO GIVE US A MINISCULE TAX CUT NOW - A TAX CUT THAT WILL BE REVERSED THE INSTANT THAT PRESIDENT BUSH LEAVES OFFICE) 4) deficit spending that our government (CBO) projects could add trillions of dollars to our existing national debt over the next decade (if the current irresponsible spending levels and short-sighted tax cut persist) I (and maybe 55% of us) am seeing the warning signs - and it doesn't help that the Republican spin machine dismisses the warning signs, calls any news bureau that reports on the question an anti-American institution, and labels Americans who call for change traitors. The warning signs are real and the concerns really exist. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| Hoss | Sep 30 2003, 05:18 PM Post #19 |
![]()
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
|
I still don't understand how some people can say that a tax cut costs us money.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Sep 30 2003, 05:22 PM Post #20 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Because some don't understand, and the others simply wish ill will. The whole "Tax cuts will cost us money" is more of the old class envy bait and switch. Unlike Rose, this won't be my best year. Last year was my best, but I'll still (unfortunately) get into the 33% tax bracket.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | Sep 30 2003, 06:35 PM Post #21 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
Benetil, that's the third thread in which you have made the charge that people are called traitors for disagreeing. Specifically who was called a traitor - using that word - and by whom? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Swidden | Sep 30 2003, 07:39 PM Post #22 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
I won't repost your whole post Admiral, but I am delighted with it. THough you know that some folks will never be satisfied until the folks in that upper 1 or 2% pay for everybody. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| benetil | Sep 30 2003, 08:31 PM Post #23 |
|
Unregistered
|
Wichita: I remember one of Ann Coulter's appearances - she's been a ubiquitous presence on the talk shows peddling her book(s) - in which she actually cited Ambassador Joe Wilson. In her book, she "dresses down" all sorts of Democrats (even President Franklin Roosevelt). In my opinion, Ann Coulter's venomous writing (she's an brilliant writer, great speaker) has caught the ear of conservatives - in my opinion, conservatives have been taking her lead (as established in her best seller ) by calling saying that liberals are guilty of treason against the United States.In my opinion, liberals and conservatives both love this country - they just hate each other so much that they're willing to tear the country to shreads as the one tries to get the better of the other. This is part of the reason that I despise the two party system in the US. This is also why I consider politics such great entertainment! I heard Senator Mitch McConnell say something earlier this evening - something about a possible struggle between the CIA and the White House - kind of hinting that maybe Director George Tenet or someone at the CIA was playing politics by calling attention to the "CIA operative" issue that is attracting so much attention right now. If the CIA was playing games with this information, then appropriate action needs to be taken there as well. Maybe it is time for some changes in the CIA. By the way - I cannot understand why the CIA and the FBI are not more directly under Secretary Ridge's department. If I were trying to protect my nation - unify intelligence and centralize mission - I'd put more of the intelligence functions under the control of the department called Homeland Security. I guess that's why I'm sitting in my chair and the President is sitting in his. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| Wichita | Sep 30 2003, 08:56 PM Post #24 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
*shrugs shoulders* Ann Coulter is a writer attempting to sell books. She is not a member of the Bush administration or a conservative member of Congress. Conservative, just like liberals, are individuals who think for themselves. They hardly do anything as a group. Personally I have not heard a "all liberals are traitors" conversation among my conservative friends. I also don't "hate" liberals. Pity them maybe ....
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Sep 30 2003, 09:01 PM Post #25 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
The CIA and FBI are more closely aligned with the Department of Homeland Security now, but back in the 1970s (post Watergate) some very rigid lines were laid down that restricted contact between the two agencies. The agencies have completely different computer systems to keep them from communicating. Additional CIA restrictions came about from the Church Committee investigations that claimed the CIA was a "rogue elephant rampaging out of control". Other investigations included one headed by Congressman Otis and a final one chaired by then Vice President Nelson Rockefeller. These curtailed the power of all domestic intelligence agencies, and quite honestly, left us wide open for 9/11. No Republican blaming, no Democrat blaming... this was a collossal government screw-up. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| benetil | Sep 30 2003, 09:08 PM Post #26 |
|
Unregistered
|
I've also never understood how politicians can say, "How are we going to pay for this tax cut." But that is the way that the government views tax cuts. The fact is that if the government "gives" us a tax cut by running a deficit, we're not really gaining anything (long-term) we're just racking up debt that will be a burden to us in the future. I'm not a proponent of high taxes or flamboyant domestic spending (especially at the federal level). The less of our money that goes to the govenment, the better. But the deficit spending has to be controlled. If the government is collecting less revenue, it must adjust its spending habits and spend less. Right now, President has increased spending at the same time that he has cut tax revenues. President Bush has a very big hole in his pocket - and the hole is not 100% attributable to the terrorism/war issues that our nation faces. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| nztrekkie | Sep 30 2003, 09:08 PM Post #27 |
|
Lieutenant
|
without having heard Dean speak, or even really knowing much about him, but it seems to me that a Dean / Clarke ticket - in either order - would not be a bad platform for the Dems this time round. After all, the wheels do seem to be falling off a bit for the Reps - now a Whitehouse investigation on the CIA leak thing to add to the equation. It would be a sin if the Dems can't pull off the election in 2004 - they seem to have plenty of ammo if they used it properly. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Swidden | Sep 30 2003, 09:30 PM Post #28 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
Benetil, Coulter is a pundit. She is in the same category, as far as conservatives go, as Rush Limbaugh. The Republican party may well appreciate these folks (I did read her book "Slander" and thought it was well done) but they have no official position with their party. Nz, as far as the Democrats ammo goes, at the moment it is not as strong as they would like to think. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| benetil | Sep 30 2003, 09:45 PM Post #29 |
|
Unregistered
|
Wichita: you're too much! You start off nice, what seems to be a conciliatory statement and wham you deliver the punch line! Pretty funny.Sorry that my example (Ann Coulter) didn't rise to your standards. I could swear that I've heard other people (real Republicans ) on television make the "anti-liberal" statement that I've put in my post, but I couldn't remember any specifics. The next time I hear or read of an occurrence, I'll make a post to let you know.
|
| | Quote | ^ | |
| nztrekkie | Sep 30 2003, 11:43 PM Post #30 |
|
Lieutenant
|
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |



) by calling saying that liberals are guilty of treason against the United States.
) on television make the "anti-liberal" statement that I've put in my post, but I couldn't remember any specifics. The next time I hear or read of an occurrence, I'll make a post to let you know.
2:31 PM Jul 11