Most of the "poor"  I know work their asses off and still can't make it without robbing peter to pay paul.

So it goes

Chris

Quoted: Quoted: I forgot, those less fortunant were doomed to failure by the bibles teachings of helping your fellow man , etc,etc. You mean like this one? 2 Thessalonians 3:10   For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. Or, just maybe, you don't know any more about Bible teachings as you do about politics.

Called a troll.
on your own fellas and ladies.

Back to the slap fight........................


Chris

Quoted: Well, if all bush and kerry are going to do is lie,cheat and steal, neither one of them deserves the presidency . as to the swift boat vets. what a sham! Chris

So the fuck what? If you think anybody involved in politics is not connected to each other, you are naive. Just remember, everybody knows somebody who is connected to Kevin Bacon too. Big fucking deal. I'm glad they are getting the word out about this fuckstick. I know a lot of people I would praise in a heartbeat, but I sure as hell wouldn't want them as president.

No problem Chris Kerry will appreciate your vote.
  FREE

Quoted: Ok, Well, first off . neither kerry nor Bush deserve a single vote from any of us. Both are liars, cheats theives and bottom line. rich as all get out. Ever get a chance to meet either one. Ask them this " how much is a gallon of milk" "a dozen eggs" neither one has a clue. Secondly. MM and move on.org have been bashing bush for what now 3 almost 4 years? to lump kerry in with that as compared to what the "swift vets" are doing a few months before the election is a non argument. grasping for straws at best IMHO Now for the word " liberal" yeah, they're just as bad as the religious right and the rest of these "live  only the freedom we give you" bunch I'll vote libertarian this time just as last, as they are the ONLY ones who actually care about freedom in this country. Do what you want, don't harm another. <<<< That's freedom flame away all you wish to, but your comparisons are severely flawed on the swift vets +bush, and  kerry + move on MM BS. No comparison. Chris PS: What I posted on page one of this thread sums up who and why this even came about. Karl rove need a short length of rope and a long drop. IMHO Republicans and democrats have sold our freedoms and this country out. when will America wake up already? [rant off] Chris

Quoted: How about not heap the largest section of the tax burdon on those who can least afford it? that'd be a good start IMHO Woo Hooo $300 tax rebate  for those poor schmucks. how about reading up on the taxes actually paid by the larger corporations in America?( very little to ZERO) and their owners who benefited from said tax rebate. how about reading up on the 6-7 figure bonuses these corporate schmucks get for screwing the people of this country to the tune of "record profits" All the while getting a huge handout of that tax money you seemed in your post to hold so dear. corporate welfare is fandamntastic, helping poor people eat. why, that's just stupid!  right? Does the working stiff get a raise? Nope did the $5 billion in cash we "gave" to the airlines help their workers? Nope But as I said, I forgot where I was. sorry to assume people actually follow the bible I hear touted in here in some threads. I'm not having a problem with money right at this second, but I sure can and have walked a mile in their shoes. Can you?<<< this is just a question, not a slight or any other put down. a simple yes or no question I can't confirm nor deny is truth. only you know the truth, I posted mine. please accept my apology for the silly idea of helping those that need it most. God forbid I do the opposite.   Oh yeah, he does! Some people I know are christians when it's conveinant, just like i hear now from people. Again, sorry for the silly idea. I can't think of WHERE it came from. oh yeah, it was the bible Chris Quoted: Quoted: Maybe not the best example for you then. I was refering to them (bush and kerry) as not having a clue what essentials( food, shelter, water) cost in America.( not a clue, nor a care from either side IMHO Forgive me for thinking of those that are suffering a monetary low right now. While the steak and lobster flow without a care for some of us. I forgot, those less fortunant were doomed to failure by the bibles teachings of helping your fellow man , etc,etc. back to the reps Vs the dems I suppose........................ same shit..... different day....... Chris What is the president supposed to do for all those poor unfortunate people?  Wave a wand and give them jobs, a house, and free health care?  Who pays for that?  How is it administered?  What will these people produce? Your silly views about what the role of the government is in America make you sound a lot like a liberal Democrat.  Bear in mind, crying about how much you care about the plight of the poor and less fortunate makes you sound like a nicer, more compassionate person.  If you feel that way, get out there and volunteer, bring those unfortunate souls into your home, start a business and give these folks a job. DO NOT expect the government to do this, because if you poke around and examine the Constitution and the thinking of the Founding Fathers, you will find nothing in their writings about the mission of the government being a welfare state.  Nothing. If you find that to be harsh or mean, I really feel bad for you.  Move to Sweden or something.

your first sentence is absolutely false,and ignorant.get your facts straight,the numbers disproving that nonsense are easy to find.

[kerry]Only Bing, Lewis and Soros are allowed to run attack ads damit!!!

We've got movie stars and singers!!! Barbara fucking Streisand!!!! WE MADE A FEATURE FILM!!!!

Awwwww it's not fair.[/kerry]  


BTW: The DNC gave tons of money to Moore... shit, they bought half a million copies of "09/11"

Kerry is a little bitch. The title is accurate.

hey kerry, here's an attack for you, one I think the FEC should know about
down at the bottom
www.democrats.org/wvc/weekinreview/200305120002.html

The Democratic Party is PARTNERING with MoveOn.org, People for the American Way, Campaign for America's Future, and dozens of other groups representing millions of Americans to organize a massive public mobilization. On Wednesday, May 14, join us by calling and emailing your representatives in Congress to let them know that the majority of Americans oppose more irresponsible tax cuts that go overwhelmingly to the wealthiest sliver of Americans.

virginia22-

You obviously don't know shit.  But that is ok, because ignorance is only temporary.  First off, the Bush tax cut, cut the taxes of EVERY tax payer.  Poor people don’t pay taxes.  The Bush tax cut also shifted majority of the tax burden on “the richest 1%”- look it up!  I have no clue what milk costs because I don’t drink it.  I have no clue what eggs or bread cost either.  I just buy it because I need it.  I DO pay attention to what steaks cost though.

Before you start waving the Libertarian flag, you had better figure out what that party stands for.  I would be willing to bet a couple hi-caps that all you know about the Libertarian party is that the some of the members are against Bush.

Quoted: Most of the "poor"  I know work their asses off and still can't make it without robbing peter to pay paul. So it goes Chris Quoted: Quoted: I forgot, those less fortunant were doomed to failure by the bibles teachings of helping your fellow man , etc,etc. You mean like this one? 2 Thessalonians 3:10   For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. Or, just maybe, you don't know any more about Bible teachings as you do about politics.

Most of the poor I know spend their money on cheap beer, cigarettes, WWF pay per view, lottery tickets and expensive coon dogs.  If they were smart and WORKED harder they could easily raise out of the poverty level like most people do.

Quoted: Quoted: I have no idea what a gallon of milk or a dozen eggs costs.  I do most of the grocery shopping, too.  What does this have to do with anything.  I'll tell you what.  Nothing. You said it DigDug! I don't drink milk, but I just came from the grocery store where I buy a dozen eggs every week.....Know what? I have no freakin' idea how much they cost. See, I'm so rich, I just grab whatever I want off the shelves without looking at the prices. Let me clue any socialist s here in to something: Do you know what the cutoff amount of gross earnings is for the top "10%" of wage earners in this country? You know, the "rich who don't pay their fair share because they get all the tax breaks"? Um...how's about $68,000 bucks? I probably make in the top 5% by myself and if you were to add that to my g/f's salary we'd be in the top 3%. Now, does anyone see any spot on a federal 1040  where it says "cost of living adjustment"??? Hmmmm?? The cost of everything in NYC means I probably live as well as somebody in Kansas or South Dakota making 1/3 of my income...but oh no, I'm a filthy rich money-grubber, I profit on the backs of the working class.... Let me have your address so I can send you a few $, maybe you can buy a clue....

uhh,helldog,i agree with you but i can i.m. you my address and you can send me some money so i can buy a clue,or maybe an Acog.

Quoted: Called a troll. on your own fellas and ladies. Back to the slap fight........................ Chris

If you were a Vietnam Vet, then I might allow as that you could have a dog in this fight.You obviously are not.I am.And I do.So about the Swift boat guys...STFU.About kerry kommie and his fucking bullshit Vietnam tales of blazing combat...Again...STFU.

Now then,as you are a self incriminated/admitted socialist/communist you will find little play on a conservative gun board that for sure does not endorse fucking commie gun grabbers for any political office or position.You sound much like kerry himself.Are you John Kerry?  

Quoted: Quoted: Called a troll. on your own fellas and ladies. Back to the slap fight........................ Chris If you were a Vietnam Vet, then I might allow as that you could have a dog in this fight.You obviously are not.I am.And I do.So about the Swift boat guys...STFU.About kerry kommie and his fucking bullshit Vietnam tales of blazing combat...Again...STFU. Now then,as you are a self incriminated/admitted socialist/communist you will find little play on a conservative gun board that for sure does not endorse fucking commie gun grabbers for any political office or position.You sound much like kerry himself.Are you John Kerry?

Don't hold back, tell him how you really feel!

the fact that some people are quoting NY TIMES EDITORIALS shows how desperate they are getting!

Quoted: virginia22- You obviously don't know shit.  But that is ok, because ignorance is only temporary.  First off, the Bush tax cut, cut the taxes of EVERY tax payer.  Poor people don’t pay taxes.  The Bush tax cut also shifted majority of the tax burden on “the richest 1%”- look it up!  I have no clue what milk costs because I don’t drink it.  I have no clue what eggs or bread cost either.  I just buy it because I need it.  I DO pay attention to what steaks cost though. Before you start waving the Libertarian flag, you had better figure out what that party stands for.  I would be willing to bet a couple hi-caps that all you know about the Libertarian party is that the some of the members are against Bush.

The "tax cuts" that most working Americans have received under the Bush administration are actually not tax cuts, but tax shifts. Here are the five most fundamental:

Tax Shift #1: From Federal Taxes to State Taxes. Since 2002, state governments have closed $200 billion in budget gaps by raising taxes and cutting services. During those same years, newly enacted federal tax cuts delivered about as much money ($197.3 billion) in new tax breaks for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans (households making more than $337,000 a year).

Tax Shift #2: From Progressive to Regressive Taxes. President Bush has focused on reducing income tax rates. But 71 percent of us pay more in payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare) than in income taxes. Payroll taxes are regressive: high-income people pay a lower tax rate than low-income people. The opposite is true of progressive taxes, such as federal income, corporate and estate taxes. Since the early '60s, this trio of progressive tax rates has dropped precipitously. But the regressive payroll tax rate has risen.

Tax Shift #3: From Taxes on Wealth to Taxes on Work. Politicians talk about the virtues of hard work, but their tax policies speak otherwise. Between 1980 and today, the main tax rate on work income (the payroll tax) has jumped 25 percent. In the same period, top tax rates on investment income and large inheritances have been cut between 31 and 79 percent.

This tax shift from wealth to work means that a person who derives millions of dollars in dividend income solely from his investments now pays a marginal tax rate of just 15 percent. Compare that with a schoolteacher with taxable income over $28,400 who pays a payroll tax rate of 15.3 percent, plus a marginal income tax rate of 25 percent, for a total marginal rate of more than 40 percent!

Tax Shift #4: From Corporations to Individuals. Corporate lobbyists complain that the United States overtaxes business. But since 1962, the share of federal revenues contributed by corporations has declined by two-thirds, while the share contributed by individuals and unincorporated small business has risen 17 percent.

Tax Shift #5: From Current Taxpayers to Future Generations. President Bush sold his tax cuts using the line, "It's your money." He left out the other side ofthe story: "It's your children's debt." According to Citizens for Tax Justice, between 2002 and 2007, Bush's fiscal policies will impose $13,000 in additional debt on each man, woman and child in America.

Because of this tax shift, any "cuts" that ordinary taxpayers get will be lost to state and local tax increases and services cuts. Even the "married with children" families who have been thought to be big beneficiaries are losers after the tax shifts. The real winners in three years of Bush "tax cuts" are the very wealthy, those with incomes of more than $500,000. For them, these tax cuts are real windfalls. For the rest of us, though, they end up being burdens.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: virginia22- You obviously don't know shit.  But that is ok, because ignorance is only temporary.  First off, the Bush tax cut, cut the taxes of EVERY tax payer.  Poor people don’t pay taxes.  The Bush tax cut also shifted majority of the tax burden on “the richest 1%”- look it up!  I have no clue what milk costs because I don’t drink it.  I have no clue what eggs or bread cost either.  I just buy it because I need it.  I DO pay attention to what steaks cost though. Before you start waving the Libertarian flag, you had better figure out what that party stands for.  I would be willing to bet a couple hi-caps that all you know about the Libertarian party is that the some of the members are against Bush. The "tax cuts" that most working Americans have received under the Bush administration are actually not tax cuts, but tax shifts. Here are the five most fundamental: Tax Shift #1: From Federal Taxes to State Taxes. Since 2002, state governments have closed $200 billion in budget gaps by raising taxes and cutting services. During those same years, newly enacted federal tax cuts delivered about as much money ($197.3 billion) in new tax breaks for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans (households making more than $337,000 a year). Tax Shift #2: From Progressive to Regressive Taxes. President Bush has focused on reducing income tax rates. But 71 percent of us pay more in payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare) than in income taxes. Payroll taxes are regressive: high-income people pay a lower tax rate than low-income people. The opposite is true of progressive taxes, such as federal income, corporate and estate taxes. Since the early '60s, this trio of progressive tax rates has dropped precipitously. But the regressive payroll tax rate has risen. Tax Shift #3: From Taxes on Wealth to Taxes on Work. Politicians talk about the virtues of hard work, but their tax policies speak otherwise. Between 1980 and today, the main tax rate on work income (the payroll tax) has jumped 25 percent. In the same period, top tax rates on investment income and large inheritances have been cut between 31 and 79 percent. This tax shift from wealth to work means that a person who derives millions of dollars in dividend income solely from his investments now pays a marginal tax rate of just 15 percent. Compare that with a schoolteacher with taxable income over $28,400 who pays a payroll tax rate of 15.3 percent, plus a marginal income tax rate of 25 percent, for a total marginal rate of more than 40 percent! Tax Shift #4: From Corporations to Individuals. Corporate lobbyists complain that the United States overtaxes business. But since 1962, the share of federal revenues contributed by corporations has declined by two-thirds, while the share contributed by individuals and unincorporated small business has risen 17 percent. Tax Shift #5: From Current Taxpayers to Future Generations. President Bush sold his tax cuts using the line, "It's your money." He left out the other side ofthe story: "It's your children's debt." According to Citizens for Tax Justice, between 2002 and 2007, Bush's fiscal policies will impose $13,000 in additional debt on each man, woman and child in America. Because of this tax shift, any "cuts" that ordinary taxpayers get will be lost to state and local tax increases and services cuts. Even the "married with children" families who have been thought to be big beneficiaries are losers after the tax shifts. The real winners in three years of Bush "tax cuts" are the very wealthy, those with incomes of more than $500,000. For them, these tax cuts are real windfalls. For the rest of us, though, they end up being burdens. You really shouldn't cut and paste verbatim from "progressive" sites.  Bitch. www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/10222

bwahahahaahahaha. Another troll OWNED!

Wow, and here I thought that the money in my pocket was real.

Silly me.

One of the inconvenient facts for the foes of the Bush tax cuts is that the percentage of total taxes paid by the rich rose after the economic stimulus plan was put into effect. This consequence of the Bush tax cuts is highly damaging to the case by the Bush-haters that his tax cuts disproportionately benefit Halliburton executives and Bill Gates. Moreover, the Bush tax cuts took some 2 million low-income taxpayers off the tax roles entirely, so it’s hard to argue that working families didn’t get a financial benefit. But the Left continues to work as best it can around these facts. The Kerry-Edwards campaign is now touting a new study by the Congressional Budget Office which purportedly finds that last year’s tax cut was tilted to the rich. There’s just one problem with this class-warfare whine: It just isn’t true. What the CBO report did conclude was that the total tax share by the richest 1 percent declined modestly from 2001 to 2004. But that wasn’t because of the tax cut. It was because of the recession. When the economy contracts and incomes fall as they did in 2001 and 2002, tax payments by the wealthy fall the fastest. This is because of the progressive rate structure of the income tax. In other words, if everyone’s income falls by 10 percent, the overall percentage of taxes paid by the wealthy falls, because they pay a higher marginal tax rate. What this means is that the best way to get the rich to pay more taxes is to incentivize their incomes to rise. For every extra dollar the rich person earns, about 30 to 40 cents goes into the government coffers. And since the Bush tax cuts have helped put the economy back on track, as evidenced by the 4.5 percent real growth rate of the economy since May 2003, the share of taxes paid by the rich has started to rise again. Those who actually read the CBO study will discover that it confirms exactly this point. From 2001 to 2004 incomes have fallen sharply for the highest income groups. IRS data shows that in 2002, taxable income fell by about 4.3 percent, with declines steepest among the highest income groups. In 2002, income fell for the second year in a row. Prior to 2000, annual incomes hadn’t fallen since 1953. The New York Times recently reported that income fell 63 percent from 2000 to 2002 for the highest income bracket. When the rich make less; so does the government. So why do members of the Left hate the rich so much? Without them, there would be no money to finance the government. A recent report from the Treasury Department confirms that the rich are paying a bigger share of taxes than they would if the Bush tax cuts hadn’t passed. The Treasury estimates that the top 1 percent of earners will pay about 32.3 percent of taxes this year, which is the same as the CBO estimate. The Treasury also estimates, however, that absent the tax cuts, the top 1 percent would be paying only 30.5 percent of taxes, down 10 percent from 2001. The Treasury data confirm that the real impact of the tax cuts on the rich has been precisely the opposite of what the CBO study suggests. By resuscitating the economy and spurring a turnaround in income growth, the tax cuts have increased the share paid by the rich. Real income growth has increased significantly since the 2003 tax cuts were passed, increasing at faster than a 6 percent rate in the first two quarters of 2004. With the economy now growing more quickly, we can expect the tax shares paid by high-income groups to increase. There is another reason to suspect that as the Bush tax cuts continue to kick in, they will increase tax payments by the wealthy. People are much more likely to work harder, engage in entrepreneurial activity, and make investments when the government is confiscating less of the monetary rewards for these activities. When you tax something, you get less of it. This is obvious to most people. It’s why we tax socially undesirable activities like smoking and drinking. It’s why we fine people for traffic violations. Similarly, when we tax income, people tend to have less of it — either from working less or spending their time, effort, and money on tax-avoidance schemes. JFK understood this, writing that “Middle and higher-income families are both consumers and investors — and the present rates not only check consumption but discourage investment, and encourage the diversion of funds and effort into activities aimed more at the avoidance of taxes than the efficient production of goods.” Those who argue that the Bush tax cuts were a “give-away” to the rich assume that incomes grow at a constant rate, regardless of how heavily they are taxed. That is the fallacy of the recent CBO study. The report concedes: “Our analysis does not account for incomes changing in response to the tax cuts.” It’s like assuming that you’re not going to take off any weight if you stop eating hot fudge sundaes with whipped cream and cherries on top. This is the same whimsical logic that compelled the tax accountants on Capitol Hill to famously estimate that a 100 percent income-tax rate would bring in billions of dollars in federal revenue. One final point: The CBO study confirms that the rich carry the bulk of the tax burden on their shoulders. The CBO estimate says that the share of income taxes paid by the richest 20 percent of earners fell from 82.5 percent to 82.1 percent in 2004. The report also states that the top 10 percent of earners will pay “only” 66.7 percent of 2004 taxes, with the top 1 percent paying 32.3 percent. Fully 80 percent of Americans pay less than 18 percent of total income taxes. Not even Al Sharpton could look at this data and say the rich are getting a free ride. How much exactly does the Kerry-Edwards team want the rich to pay? Seventy percent? Eighty percent? One hundred percent? Does the Left want rich people like Barbara Streisand, George Soros, Teresa Heinz, and Ted Kennedy to pay all the taxes? Hey, now there’s an idea . . .

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: virginia22- You obviously don't know shit.  But that is ok, because ignorance is only temporary.  First off, the Bush tax cut, cut the taxes of EVERY tax payer.  Poor people don’t pay taxes.  The Bush tax cut also shifted majority of the tax burden on “the richest 1%”- look it up!  I have no clue what milk costs because I don’t drink it.  I have no clue what eggs or bread cost either.  I just buy it because I need it.  I DO pay attention to what steaks cost though. Before you start waving the Libertarian flag, you had better figure out what that party stands for.  I would be willing to bet a couple hi-caps that all you know about the Libertarian party is that the some of the members are against Bush. The "tax cuts" that most working Americans have received under the Bush administration are actually not tax cuts, but tax shifts. Here are the five most fundamental: Tax Shift #1: From Federal Taxes to State Taxes. Since 2002, state governments have closed $200 billion in budget gaps by raising taxes and cutting services. During those same years, newly enacted federal tax cuts delivered about as much money ($197.3 billion) in new tax breaks for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans (households making more than $337,000 a year). Tax Shift #2: From Progressive to Regressive Taxes. President Bush has focused on reducing income tax rates. But 71 percent of us pay more in payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare) than in income taxes. Payroll taxes are regressive: high-income people pay a lower tax rate than low-income people. The opposite is true of progressive taxes, such as federal income, corporate and estate taxes. Since the early '60s, this trio of progressive tax rates has dropped precipitously. But the regressive payroll tax rate has risen. Tax Shift #3: From Taxes on Wealth to Taxes on Work. Politicians talk about the virtues of hard work, but their tax policies speak otherwise. Between 1980 and today, the main tax rate on work income (the payroll tax) has jumped 25 percent. In the same period, top tax rates on investment income and large inheritances have been cut between 31 and 79 percent. This tax shift from wealth to work means that a person who derives millions of dollars in dividend income solely from his investments now pays a marginal tax rate of just 15 percent. Compare that with a schoolteacher with taxable income over $28,400 who pays a payroll tax rate of 15.3 percent, plus a marginal income tax rate of 25 percent, for a total marginal rate of more than 40 percent! Tax Shift #4: From Corporations to Individuals. Corporate lobbyists complain that the United States overtaxes business. But since 1962, the share of federal revenues contributed by corporations has declined by two-thirds, while the share contributed by individuals and unincorporated small business has risen 17 percent. Tax Shift #5: From Current Taxpayers to Future Generations. President Bush sold his tax cuts using the line, "It's your money." He left out the other side ofthe story: "It's your children's debt." According to Citizens for Tax Justice, between 2002 and 2007, Bush's fiscal policies will impose $13,000 in additional debt on each man, woman and child in America. Because of this tax shift, any "cuts" that ordinary taxpayers get will be lost to state and local tax increases and services cuts. Even the "married with children" families who have been thought to be big beneficiaries are losers after the tax shifts. The real winners in three years of Bush "tax cuts" are the very wealthy, those with incomes of more than $500,000. For them, these tax cuts are real windfalls. For the rest of us, though, they end up being burdens. You really shouldn't cut and paste verbatim from "progressive" sites.  Bitch. www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/10222 bwahahahaahahaha. Another troll OWNED!

+1. PWN3D

Quoted: Quoted: virginia22- You obviously don't know shit.  But that is ok, because ignorance is only temporary.  First off, the Bush tax cut, cut the taxes of EVERY tax payer.  Poor people don’t pay taxes.  The Bush tax cut also shifted majority of the tax burden on “the richest 1%”- look it up!  I have no clue what milk costs because I don’t drink it.  I have no clue what eggs or bread cost either.  I just buy it because I need it.  I DO pay attention to what steaks cost though. Before you start waving the Libertarian flag, you had better figure out what that party stands for.  I would be willing to bet a couple hi-caps that all you know about the Libertarian party is that the some of the members are against Bush. The "tax cuts" that most working Americans have received under the Bush administration are actually not tax cuts, but tax shifts. Here are the five most fundamental: Tax Shift #1: From Federal Taxes to State Taxes. Since 2002, state governments have closed $200 billion in budget gaps by raising taxes and cutting services. During those same years, newly enacted federal tax cuts delivered about as much money ($197.3 billion) in new tax breaks for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans (households making more than $337,000 a year). That is due to liberals in the state legislatures.  Please show me how cutting federal taxes increases the taxes on a state level. Tax Shift #2: From Progressive to Regressive Taxes. President Bush has focused on reducing income tax rates. But 71 percent of us pay more in payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare) than in income taxes. Payroll taxes are regressive: high-income people pay a lower tax rate than low-income people. The opposite is true of progressive taxes, such as federal income, corporate and estate taxes. Since the early '60s, this trio of progressive tax rates has dropped precipitously. But the regressive payroll tax rate has risen. That is because payroll taxes are INSURANCE PREMIUMS!!!! Tax Shift #3: From Taxes on Wealth to Taxes on Work. Politicians talk about the virtues of hard work, but their tax policies speak otherwise. Between 1980 and today, the main tax rate on work income (the payroll tax) has jumped 25 percent. In the same period, top tax rates on investment income and large inheritances have been cut between 31 and 79 percent. Again, that is because payroll taxes are INSURANCE PREMIUMS!!!! This tax shift from wealth to work means that a person who derives millions of dollars in dividend income solely from his investments now pays a marginal tax rate of just 15 percent. Compare that with a schoolteacher with taxable income over $28,400 who pays a payroll tax rate of 15.3 percent, plus a marginal income tax rate of 25 percent, for a total marginal rate of more than 40 percent! Yeah and what is your point here? Tax Shift #4: From Corporations to Individuals. Corporate lobbyists complain that the United States overtaxes business. But since 1962, the share of federal revenues contributed by corporations has declined by two-thirds, while the share contributed by individuals and unincorporated small business has risen 17 percent. They are overtaxed!  Why do you think they go to other countries? Tax Shift #5: From Current Taxpayers to Future Generations. President Bush sold his tax cuts using the line, "It's your money." He left out the other side ofthe story: "It's your children's debt." According to Citizens for Tax Justice, between 2002 and 2007, Bush's fiscal policies will impose $13,000 in additional debt on each man, woman and child in America. Bull shit!  When you decrease taxes, you stimulate the economy which increases the amount of money collected.  The problem is that you have people in the government who hand out money to every single poor or downtroden person.  Government should not exists to handout money to people Because of this tax shift, any "cuts" that ordinary taxpayers get will be lost to state and local tax increases and services cuts. Even the "married with children" families who have been thought to be big beneficiaries are losers after the tax shifts. The real winners in three years of Bush "tax cuts" are the very wealthy, those with incomes of more than $500,000. For them, these tax cuts are real windfalls. For the rest of us, though, they end up being burdens. The real winners will be everyone because anyone with a brain knows that people who have money are the ones that spur economic growth.

Quoted: Just imagine his response to 9/11 if he's this much of a pussy over two little ads....

Imagine hell. In his own words, John F'in Kerry describes sitting on the BULLSEYE that day for 40mins doing NOTHING. He was going to a meeting in Daschle's office, with Feinstein, when the attacks happened. He further claimed they watched the smoke rise from the Pentagon - which I find ridiculous as Daschle's office is on the fifth floor or the Hart Senate office building, ENE of the Capitol building with that huge edifice on The Hill laying directly between the Hart and the Pentagon.
Maybe he saw the smoke on TV and thought he was in Cambodia on XMas.

40minutes, KNOWING there'd been huge attacks on the WTC and the Pentagone - and the Dem Senate Leadership SAT ON THEIR ASSES ON THE PRIMARY TARGET - not even enough self-preservation or sense of Duty to maintain a functional FedGov to GET THE HELL OUT OF DODGE.

Let's see them make THIS hero stop spanking them.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: virginia22- You obviously don't know shit.  But that is ok, because ignorance is only temporary.  First off, the Bush tax cut, cut the taxes of EVERY tax payer.  Poor people don’t pay taxes.  The Bush tax cut also shifted majority of the tax burden on “the richest 1%”- look it up!  I have no clue what milk costs because I don’t drink it.  I have no clue what eggs or bread cost either.  I just buy it because I need it.  I DO pay attention to what steaks cost though. Before you start waving the Libertarian flag, you had better figure out what that party stands for.  I would be willing to bet a couple hi-caps that all you know about the Libertarian party is that the some of the members are against Bush. The "tax cuts" that most working Americans have received under the Bush administration are actually not tax cuts, but tax shifts. Here are the five most fundamental: Tax Shift #1: From Federal Taxes to State Taxes. Since 2002, state governments have closed $200 billion in budget gaps by raising taxes and cutting services. During those same years, newly enacted federal tax cuts delivered about as much money ($197.3 billion) in new tax breaks for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans (households making more than $337,000 a year). Tax Shift #2: From Progressive to Regressive Taxes. President Bush has focused on reducing income tax rates. But 71 percent of us pay more in payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare) than in income taxes. Payroll taxes are regressive: high-income people pay a lower tax rate than low-income people. The opposite is true of progressive taxes, such as federal income, corporate and estate taxes. Since the early '60s, this trio of progressive tax rates has dropped precipitously. But the regressive payroll tax rate has risen. Tax Shift #3: From Taxes on Wealth to Taxes on Work. Politicians talk about the virtues of hard work, but their tax policies speak otherwise. Between 1980 and today, the main tax rate on work income (the payroll tax) has jumped 25 percent. In the same period, top tax rates on investment income and large inheritances have been cut between 31 and 79 percent. This tax shift from wealth to work means that a person who derives millions of dollars in dividend income solely from his investments now pays a marginal tax rate of just 15 percent. Compare that with a schoolteacher with taxable income over $28,400 who pays a payroll tax rate of 15.3 percent, plus a marginal income tax rate of 25 percent, for a total marginal rate of more than 40 percent! Tax Shift #4: From Corporations to Individuals. Corporate lobbyists complain that the United States overtaxes business. But since 1962, the share of federal revenues contributed by corporations has declined by two-thirds, while the share contributed by individuals and unincorporated small business has risen 17 percent. Tax Shift #5: From Current Taxpayers to Future Generations. President Bush sold his tax cuts using the line, "It's your money." He left out the other side ofthe story: "It's your children's debt." According to Citizens for Tax Justice, between 2002 and 2007, Bush's fiscal policies will impose $13,000 in additional debt on each man, woman and child in America. Because of this tax shift, any "cuts" that ordinary taxpayers get will be lost to state and local tax increases and services cuts. Even the "married with children" families who have been thought to be big beneficiaries are losers after the tax shifts. The real winners in three years of Bush "tax cuts" are the very wealthy, those with incomes of more than $500,000. For them, these tax cuts are real windfalls. For the rest of us, though, they end up being burdens. You really shouldn't cut and paste verbatim from "progressive" sites.  Bitch. www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/10222

Why not?

Please keep your emotions in check.

Whoops. I was branded a troll here.

post pulled

Chris

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You really shouldn't cut and paste verbatim from "progressive" sites.  Bitch. www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/10222 Why not? Please keep your emotions in check. Okay.... how's about "You shouldn't post verbatim........"WITHOUT ATTRIBUTION? Since I guess you didn't learn in the 4th grade that you can't copy your Social(ist) Studies report from the encyclopedia, here's a few reasons: 1) It's plagiarism 2) It doesn't demonstrate any true grasp of the subject matter 3) It's intellectually dishonest 4) It's statistically invalid 5) By doing so, the body of work on the subject is not being subjected to peer review i.e. being vetted. 6) It shows you to be about as fucking intelligent as a parrot. If you want to make a VALID argument, make at least a SEMI-original analysis referenceing a variety of sources to both demonstrate your knowledge and, by some small chance (like a snowball in Hell apparently) come to a new comclusion that ADDS to the general body of knowledge... Otherwise you're just playing parlor games.....smoke and mirrors, etc. Gee, are you a liberal by any chance there Sparky?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You really shouldn't cut and paste verbatim from "progressive" sites.  Bitch. www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/10222 Why not? Please keep your emotions in check. Okay.... how's about "You shouldn't post verbatim........"WITHOUT ATTRIBUTION? Since I guess you didn't learn in the 4th grade that you can't copy your Social(ist) Studies report from the encyclopedia, here's a few reasons: 1) It's plagiarism 2) It doesn't demonstrate any true grasp of the subject matter 3) It's intellectually dishonest 4) It's statistically invalid 5) By doing so, the body of work on the subject is not being subjected to peer review i.e. being vetted. 6) It shows you to be about as fucking intelligent as a parrot. If you want to make a VALID argument, make at least a SEMI-original analysis referencing a variety of sources to both demonstrate your knowledge and, by some small chance (like a snowball in Hell apparently) come to a new conclusion that ADDS to the general body of knowledge... Otherwise you're just playing parlor games.....smoke and mirrors, etc. Gee, are you a liberal by any chance there, Sparky? edited for my usually atrocious spelling

Correct, I did not make any attribution. You can either consider the data or discard it.

The ARFCOM general forum is no place for "semi-original analysis" or any analysis for that matter, about anything. The vast majority of posting in this forum demostates that.

It is a place for the like-minded to reenforce their out-sourced analysis.

i disagree kinaed.most all of the outsourced analysis seems to come from the trolls,like yourself.go back through the posts and see for yourself.i mean it is one thing to state ones argument and use other stories as a reference but something else entirely to cut and paste from some liberal(read;mainstream)news org. and act as if it is your work.

Quoted: How about not heap the largest section of the tax burdon on those who can least afford it? that'd be a good start IMHO

From www.house.gov/jec/press/2003/05-07-03.pdf :

JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE
VICE CHAIRMAN JIM SAXTON
PRESS RELEASE
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES
For Immediate Release Press Release #108-22 May 7, 2003
Contact: Christopher Frenze Chief Economist to the V.C. (202) 225-3923
TAX RELIEF CRITICS OFTEN FAIL TO DISCLOSE TAXPAYER BURDEN --
Top One Percent Pay 37.4 Percent of the Income Tax Burden -- WASHINGTON, D.C. –

Opponents of tax relief should disclose who bears the individual income tax burden before attacking tax relief as “tilted,” Vice Chairman Jim Saxton said today. Attacks on tax relief legislation often are based on figures showing various tax benefits by income group, but typically fail to disclose the amount and proportion of income taxes paid by different groups. IRS data show that taxpayers in the top half, ranked by adjusted gross income (AGI), bear almost all of the income tax burden. “The IRS data show that the top half of taxpayers pay 96 percent of the federal income tax, while the bottom half account for slightly less than 4 percent,” Saxton said. “The top half starts at an income threshold of $27,682, hardly qualifying these taxpayers as ‘rich’. “The share of federal income taxes paid by the top one percent amounted to 37.4 percent, according to IRS statistics, while the top ten percent accounted for 67.3 percent of federal income taxes paid. These figures are typically not disclosed by those who attack tax relief legislation for supposedly being tilted toward the rich,” Saxton concluded.



ETA:  This is not gross income.  This is AGI, line 34 on form 1040.  A big difference.

Quoted: How about not heap the largest section of the tax burdon on those who can least afford it? that'd be a good start IMHO Woo Hooo $300 tax rebate  for those poor schmucks.

The "wealthy" (those who make more than $60k per household shoulder FAR more of the tax burden.  The richest 10% pay 58% of the tax burden in this country, and use less governmental benefits than other class of society.

I hear this shit all the time - "waaah, the rich don't pay their fair share"......bullshit.  Besides, the "rich" are the ones most likely to start a business and give other people jobs, so yes, the tax breaks they get are well deserved.  Corporations aren't evil, corporations create jobs.  Look at a GAO revenue report sometime, would ya?   Hell, just pull out your 1040 booklet and look at the graduated tax tables.  Damn.

Edited to add:  Never mind, I see this ground has already been covered, plus my figures are a bit out of date.[/b}

Kerry Urges Bush to Demand Attacks Stop


Shut that F up and take your crying away, you whining baby.

I cant feel sorry for Kerry. The ass played war hero at the Democratic convention. He is just getting called out on it.

I seem to recall complaints coming from people who earned under the poverty line that they, "didn't get no tax rebate." Wel, Gee Numbnutz, I wonder why? A percentage rebate on 0 dollars = 0 dollars.

Generally, the same people could be seen in the 2000 election, clamoring for a "re-vote" because they were: 1. Too stupid to follow directions, and 2. Too stupid to ask for assistance at the polling place.