Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 1/7/2003 10:34:26 AM EST
OK, not a gun poll. This is an MSNBC poll asking if we support Bush's economic stimulus plan. [url]http://www.msnbc.com/news/854805.asp[/url] Now, I'm no fan of George Bush, but I've never met a tax cut I didn't like. I say screw the Democrats and push onward, George Bush (in this case, only)! Show those socialist journalists at MSNBC that real Americans realize tax cuts can only help us, and the media can't brainwash us otherwise! And a rhetorical question: Why the hell does the AP keep reporting, "Bush's plan will cost $XXX Billion?" I think it would be more accurate to say, "Bush's plan will [b][red]SAVE TAXPAYERS[/red][/b] $XXX billion." Whose money is it in the first place--ASSHOLES??? -Nick Viejo.
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 10:47:01 AM EST
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 10:52:00 AM EST
Voted yes - 56%. No is at 44%. Now if the DUh can stay away from this, we'll be all right. Bilster
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 10:54:28 AM EST
i don't get stock options!
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 11:11:09 AM EST
[democrap voice] Tax cuts dont work. HIS tax cut wont work. OUR smaller tax cut plan would work [/democrap voice]
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 11:20:09 AM EST
I love how Bush uses percent to show a true apples to apples comparison of the cut. Then the Delta Uniform type use dollars of Bill Gates' tax relief. They say, "See only the rich get a HUGE break. Bill Gates will get $25M back from taxes and Ineeda Humpalot from Harlem will only get $1000." Um, that's because Bill Gates makes about $1B (billion w/ a B)/year and Ms. Humpalot makes $5.15 at the WaWa working 27 hours per week. Nice comparo.......bzzzzt. Wrong. Ed
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 11:34:01 AM EST
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 11:35:17 AM EST
Voted yes. Its now at 55% yes, 45% no.
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 11:53:56 AM EST
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 12:10:37 PM EST
* 13711 responses Yes, it will rejuvenate the economy. 53% Yes - 47% No
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 12:16:50 PM EST
sorry because i really, really, HATE the democrats but bush's plan seems to benefit the rich. according to a business week (oct 23, 2000) article the top 1% pay 33% of the taxes and the top 10% pay the second 33% leaving 90% paying the final 33% of taxes. this was supposedly to justify the rich actually paying their fair share. but what this really means is the top 10% CONTROL 66% of the income in this country. a couple years ago the stock market was over 20,000 now it's under 8,000. where did that money go? it's in a bunch of rich guys pockets who are not re-investing in our economy. if you give that money to the rich they will only keep it. if you give those tax breaks to the 90% of us at the bottom we will spend it, supporting business and the economy. the best way to help business is to give that money to customers!!!
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 12:27:12 PM EST
53 Yes 47 no I'm in.
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 12:37:01 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/7/2003 12:48:24 PM EST by SHIVAN]
Originally Posted By thejokker: sorry because i really, really, HATE the democrats but bush's plan seems to benefit the rich. according to a business week (oct 23, 2000) article the top 1% pay 33% of the taxes and the top 10% pay the second 33% leaving 90% paying the final 33% of taxes. this was supposedly to justify the rich actually paying their fair share. but what this really means is the top 10% CONTROL 66% of the income in this country. a couple years ago the stock market was over 20,000 now it's under 8,000. where did that money go? it's in a bunch of rich guys pockets who are not re-investing in our economy. if you give that money to the rich they will only keep it. if you give those tax breaks to the 90% of us at the bottom we will spend it, supporting business and the economy. the best way to help business is to give that money to customers!!!
View Quote
A tax cut for the rich is a percentage reduction, but it is more helpful to them dollars-wise because they bring in more money. Even if it was a flat tax 18% for all citizens you'd still give the rich a dollar for dollar advantage over the poverty level people the democrats want to use as examples. If they change the deduction for children up you know it will only allow the rich a .00000001% reduction in tax burden. Why? Because that $1000 is only a fraction of a fraction of their total taxes paid. $1000/kid for Ineeda Humpalot with her 18 kids making $5.15 at WaWa represents 10% or more of her total tax burden. Now who does it help again? Looks like a DUher has actually paid for a membership to troll. [lol][nuts][lol] How silly. "jokker" Did you mean Joker? Or "jocker", since you like to jock Ar15.com?
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 12:45:41 PM EST
[url=http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=163438&page=1]Taxes Simplified[/url]
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 12:46:53 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/7/2003 12:54:34 PM EST by Torf]
Originally Posted By thejokker: a couple years ago the stock market was over 20,000 now it's under 8,000.
View Quote
I'll leave out the rest of your drivel and simply refute this: The DOW never broke 12,000 before taking a 2 year slump. It is currently at 8,700 and making a slow comeback. The 52 week low was 7,200, so it seems that things are looking up. OK I'll feed the [:K]. [img]http://chart.yahoo.com/c/5y/_/_dji.gif[/img] This chart does not show "rich bastards taking their money and socking it". It shows a longterm market correction. Economic numbers were fudged under the last administration in order to make the economy look good, and boost the chances of reelection. It didn't work. The market began slipping in 2000, and hit rock bottom in 2002. These stock prices are merely based on demand and future expectation of profits. In order for a rich guy to sell, there has to be others to buy. If no one wants what the rich guy is selling, it loses it's value, and Mr. Richguy loses his shirt.
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 12:48:19 PM EST
I got my first dividend check today!!!!! $0.60 Scott
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 12:49:29 PM EST
well you can kiss 33% of THAT goodbye....[nuts]
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 12:51:02 PM EST
Originally Posted By Torf:
Originally Posted By thejokker: a couple years ago the stock market was over 20,000 now it's under 8,000.
View Quote
I'll leave out the rest of your drivel and simply refute this: The DOW never broke 12,000 before taking a 2 year slump. It is currently at 8,700 and making a slow comeback. The 52 week low was 7,200, so it seems that things are looking up. [url]http://chart.yahoo.com/c/5y/_/_dji.gif[/url]
View Quote
Dammit Torf!! You posted that while I was typing up the same thing!
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 12:51:25 PM EST
Hit.
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 12:53:37 PM EST
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 12:55:00 PM EST
Originally Posted By Helldog40: Thank goodness somebody else got to this before me....Jokker, are you a comedian or just real bad at math? Hmmm...sounds like a Duh-er amongst us....[:D]
View Quote
But he actually paid for a membership which is VERY scary! [peep][grenade]
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 2:02:05 PM EST
your missing the point; granted my numbers were wrong but if we correct those figures aprox. 25% to 30% of the money that was in the market has been withdrawn. giving money back to the "wealthy" has never worked before. i am suggesting that trickle-up economics historically works better then trickle-down. My point really is that i am afraid the president will shoot himself in the foot (like his father) and we will have to suffer with president h. clinton or someone like graham/feinstein. giving the money to the MIDDLE class rather then the upper class will keep the president in office (and the democrats out)>
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 2:12:08 PM EST
in with a yes vote. [pistol]
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 2:27:20 PM EST
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 2:42:04 PM EST
done
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 3:25:54 PM EST
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 5:11:01 PM EST
Originally Posted By thejokker: your missing the point; granted my numbers were wrong but if we correct those figures aprox. 25% to 30% of the money that was in the market has been withdrawn. giving money back to the "wealthy" has never worked before. i am suggesting that trickle-up economics historically works better then trickle-down. My point really is that i am afraid the president will shoot himself in the foot (like his father) and we will have to suffer with president h. clinton or someone like graham/feinstein. giving the money to the MIDDLE class rather then the upper class will keep the president in office (and the democrats out)>
View Quote
Good cover.[rolleyes] Look at the thread I provided above. Forget your example.
Link Posted: 1/8/2003 3:04:16 AM EST
regarding your link: not logical. The french upper class tried that in the 18th century. The Russians tried it last century. we had the worse Christmas in 30 years and the scary thing is that working class consumers have been supporting the economy for the last couple. now we're tapped out. the wealthy already have money; how will making them richer help everyone else? During the great depression there were still a lot of wealthily people. It took Roosevelt creating programs to get money into the hands of the working people. give the money to the consumers so consumer spending can keep doing what it has been doing. The wealthy don't need the money; the middle does...
Link Posted: 1/8/2003 3:33:30 AM EST
[Last Edit: 1/8/2003 3:41:56 AM EST by Guess]
bush's plan seems to benefit the rich. a couple years ago the stock market was over 20,000 now it's under 8,000.
View Quote
Dow 20,000? WTF? If the rich pay most of the taxes, shouldn't they be benefiting from tax cuts the most? The poor do not pay that much in taxes. A couple of years ago, my wife made less than $18,000 a year. She paid no taxes whatsoever. In fact, she made money for the year after her "refund" or wealth redistribution check from the IRS. What is the incentive to work hard and better yourself if the govt is going to confiscate more money at a disproportionate rate the more income you earn. Who do you think creates jobs? Entrepreneurs create jobs, not the fucking government. Government can make it easier or harder for entrepreneurs to create businesses which create jobs. The Bush's tax cut will benefit me and my family. I should get at least an extra $1,000 if his plan goes through. My income is less than $75,000. Do you consider that rich? I don't. My boss makes high six figures and we joke every year about how much taxes he must pay compared to me. You would truly be shocked, or should be, if you knew how much money he sent to the federal govt. every year. How does a $1,000 tax credit per child benefit only the rich? Last I checked "poor" people had kids too. How does eliminating the marriage penalty benefit only the rich? Do "poor" people get married?
Link Posted: 1/8/2003 3:38:32 AM EST
The wealthy don't need the money; the middle does...
View Quote
Last time I checked the Federal Government considers me to be a wealthy american. But I can tell you that I am not. I am an average working class white american male with a mortgage and two kids. It pisses me off when people bitch about "it only benefits the rich" so we should be against it.
Link Posted: 1/8/2003 3:42:03 AM EST
49 yes 51 no 51% of senior citizens collect dividends. As does anyone with a retirement plan. Calls for doing away with the marriage penalty now. Also calls for dropping the lower end income into a lesser tax bracket. Sorry, hate to see how all that is benfitting just "the rich". Don't be suckered by the media, go out there and research this stuff. Micro and macro economics 101 in a HS or college is a good start. Besides "the rich" pay about 95% of all the taxes, so isn't it logical that they would benefit from any tax cutting plan more than anyone else?
Link Posted: 1/8/2003 3:43:20 AM EST
He must watch too much cnn.
Link Posted: 1/8/2003 4:34:06 AM EST
If you are a part of a household that makes $70,000 a year, you are part of the rich, and should not get a tax cut according to liberals and Joker. I say we raise taxes on the poor. They haven't been pulling thier weight in the country. The average tax bill in this nation is about $10,000 a year. Anyone paying less than that is getting a free ride.
Link Posted: 1/8/2003 4:40:53 AM EST
done
Link Posted: 1/8/2003 4:45:45 AM EST
[Last Edit: 1/8/2003 4:47:52 AM EST by SHIVAN]
Originally Posted By thejokker: regarding your link: not logical. The french upper class tried that in the 18th century. The Russians tried it last century. we had the worse Christmas in 30 years and the scary thing is that working class consumers have been supporting the economy for the last couple. now we're tapped out. the wealthy already have money; how will making them richer help everyone else? During the great depression there were still a lot of wealthily people. It took Roosevelt creating programs to get money into the hands of the working people. give the money to the consumers so consumer spending can keep doing what it has been doing. The wealthy don't need the money; the middle does...
View Quote
So what is your Democratic Underground handle -- just so we know?[bannana] Also, I believe this is considered trolling.[:K] Further, the rich do have a ton of money, they also pay more in taxes in one year than [b]you[/b] take home in 5 years. Right? Riiiiiiggghhhhhtttt....... How are we making them richer, by lessening their tax burden? Quite honestly, most of them probably pay way over what they actually owe per year and then file to get a refund. I know I do, every year. I am considered "wealthy". Um, YEAH RIGHT!!!!!! I'm somewhere in the middle. I know, let's take all of Bill Gates' money and split it up, so we can all be equal. That is what the founding fathers said we should be, right. "All men are created equal..." [rolleyes] Get the fuck out troll.
Link Posted: 1/8/2003 5:02:34 AM EST
Voted yes yes 49% no 51% I keep hearing about tax cuts for the rich. But, the cuts should go to those that pay the taxes. Our tax system is very unfair. Punish those that work hard and make money. We need a national sales tax. Then everybody is punished equally.
Link Posted: 1/8/2003 5:19:45 AM EST
The top %50 percent pay something like %96 of all taxes! Plus the 'welthy' are usualy the ones who give other people jobs. Why is it fair to punish people for being sucessfull! I am all for an across the board tax cut but beleive me, the top bracket needs it the most.
Link Posted: 1/8/2003 5:24:14 AM EST
Originally Posted By FullRange:
The wealthy don't need the money; the middle does...
View Quote
Last time I checked the Federal Government considers me to be a wealthy american. But I can tell you that I am not. I am an average working class white american male with a mortgage and two kids. It pisses me off when people bitch about "it only benefits the rich" so we should be against it.
View Quote
Um, Why does the goverment have the right, at all to decide what people NEED? Last time I checked we were still a free market economy.
Link Posted: 1/8/2003 5:29:41 AM EST
Enough of the Class Warfare, let's cut to the bottom line of the stimulus! The economy is supposedly slow but not in my corner of the world. My town is big time RV country. The company I work for supplies high end electronics to the motorhome industry. these are motorhomes that start at $300k and go up to $3Mil. We are setting sales records each month at a 20 year old business. Each time a record is broken EVERY employee gets a cash bonus. The economy of this community has never been better. Do I mind if the rich have more money to spend? No, because they spend some in my town. I then make more money and am able to spend it at other local businesses. People are buying cars, boats, homes, eating well and tipping better. Everybody that works prospers! I'm just an engineer not a business owner and even I can see that the plan works!
Link Posted: 1/8/2003 5:30:33 AM EST
Originally Posted By thejokker: how will making them richer help everyone else?
View Quote
Socialism? Helping everyone else? Maybe if the government got their hands out of my pocket for 33% every year I would be better off. However, I need to help everyone else (well the welfare cases, unemployment collectors) get food, shelter, and clothing. I think 15% - 18% flat tax would be amusing. I also know for a fact that some of these "poverty" level fuck offs would be well served to get off their ass because guess what, the handouts would get few and far between with everyone only paying a flat 18% tax. Captain John Smith said, "If you don't work, you don't eat." I think that can be applied today too. Are you a Michael Moore type sellout? Where you own guns -- maybe you are even in the military or ex -- but you like the socialistic, fascist ways of our government?
Link Posted: 1/8/2003 8:10:23 AM EST
i'm not talking about penalizing the rich!! i am a conservative republican and wish to stay that way. i DO NOT think the presidents economic plan will simulate the economy short-term. the presidental campaign will be starting in a little over a year and if the economy stays it's present course things may change for the worse (politically speaking). the presidents proposals will have a gradual, long-term, evolutionary effect but that is not what is needed. if the economy does not get better, if it stagnates, we will be in the same situation as george bush senior... and we will (god forbid) have a democratic president. it sounds to me like that is what you all want!? i certainly don't. the economy has problems because middle class faimlys throughout the country are struggling (hence the worse christmas season in 30 years). give the tax breaks to the middle class and they will stimulate business and american business will prosper. the scope of the presidents plan imho is legislating profits to business (ignoring market forces). giving the tax breaks to the middle class makes business earn their profits! Capitalism depends upon a healthy middle-class and that is todays problem.
Link Posted: 1/8/2003 8:26:41 AM EST
If a gazillonaire like Bill Gates can get away from a tax burden he will take his factories to everywhere but here. Oh wait, all the discs and stuff for his products ARE done somewhere else. Wonder why? Labor unions and taxes are my two leading guesses.[bow] Everybody has to make $20/hour doing minimum wage grunt work right? Socialism? Right? Take the total pool of available resources for labor and get a contract that best allocates those funds based on a job title. Whether or not the person in that title is worth it, pay them top grade anyway. Then tax the shit of that person because they now fall up in to the higher tax bracket. The cusp of the 28%-33% or whatever the federal numbers are. Stifle those high paid union workers with higher taxes, or pay them what the market bears and tax them accordingly. My guess is middle America would rather stick with the higher wages and higher taxes. I got my refund back when Bushie did it the first time. I put it in the bank. That didn't really stimulate the economy. A lot of the middle class schmucks like me will take it to pay of existing debt, which also does not do much to stimulate certain market indicators. Sure it helps show a profit/positive cash position at VISA/MC, but does it do much else? Sounds like you think he should sit on his hands and hope it gets better. [rolleyes] You can not keep dipping in the pockets of the extremely wealthy to fund the extremely poor. I don't care what you FEEL is the right thing to do. You are just being silly. I don't for a minute buy that you are a staunch Republican. You view on taxation and the take from the rich to feed the poor line is way to DU'ish and socialistic.
Link Posted: 1/8/2003 8:31:17 AM EST
Originally Posted By bilster: Voted yes - 56%. No is at 44%. Now if the DUh can stay away from this, we'll be all right. Bilster
View Quote
Looks like the DUmbocRATS heard you. 49% Yes, 51% No. I voted yes, as you can bloody well imagine...
Link Posted: 1/8/2003 8:34:51 AM EST
Will Bush's economic stimulus plan work? * 47687 responses Yes, it will rejuvenate the economy. 48% No, it does not do enough for the average American. 52%
Link Posted: 1/8/2003 8:45:56 AM EST
Originally Posted By thejokker: we had the worse Christmas in 30 years and the scary thing is that working class consumers have been supporting the economy for the last couple.
View Quote
Please show me a moment in history when this was NOT the case? There are thousands of "middle" people for every rich one. It stands to reason that the "middle" supporting the economy is a normal thing.
now we're tapped out. the wealthy already have money; how will making them richer help everyone else?
View Quote
Because they will INVEST that money in new businesses (creating jobs for the "middle"), or will SPEND it on new homes (helping the construction "middle", or a new yacht (helping the boat-building "middle"), or a new car (helping the UAW "middle").
During the great depression there were still a lot of wealthily people. It took Roosevelt creating programs to get money into the hands of the working people.
View Quote
Wrong. It took the attack on Pearl Harbor and all the economic activity that followed to get us out of the depression.
give the money to the consumers so consumer spending can keep doing what it has been doing. The wealthy don't need the money; the middle does...
View Quote
Why should they get it if the guys at the top paid it all? Also, I remember the Clintonistas claiming that anyone who made more than $60K a year was rich. I make just a hair above that, and I can ASSURE you that I am NOT rich! Bill Gates is worth approximately $42 billion dollars. The Government now spends $2 TRILLION dollars a year. That means that, in ONE YEAR, your saviors spend enough to BANKRUPT 45 Bill Gates'. 45 EVERY YEAR! Therefore, if we did EXACTLY what you want to do, it would only take one (Democrat) 4-year administration to decimate America's rich. Of course, only the government would have money after that, but that's what you guys want anyway, isn't it?
Link Posted: 1/8/2003 8:47:39 AM EST
Yes to lowering taxes, but please President Bush and Congress......[b]CUT SPENDING TOO!!![/b] It will set you free, and is the reason we are in a predicament in the first place.
Link Posted: 1/8/2003 11:04:52 AM EST
what happened to george bush senior? the economy got worse and worse and he was voted out and we were stuck with clinton. you may wish to deny it but... the economy is getting worse and worse... and we may soon be stuck with more democrats. i am a computer technican by trade. in order to fix a problem you must correctly identify the problem. trying to fix a software problem when your network card is bad will take you no where. the problem with the economy (imho) is the middle class is suffering from lay-offs and down-sizing. business is bad for many people and it is getting worse. the upper class is not suffering it is the working class. This is not england with a king and queen, this is america and was built with the sweat and blood of the middle class. what is so wrong with helping the majority of americans rather then elite? it i'm right and the presidents plan does not work then the majority will vote him out. my question has always been: is that what you want? do you want history to repeat itself? do you want a democrat in office degrading mainstream values and attacking the bill of rights? the wealthy are already paying these taxes and thriving, the middle class is not. the wealthy are buying homes and recreational vechiles, the middle class cannot. give the tax breaks to the middle class who has been sustaining this economy and the wealthy also will benefit.
Link Posted: 1/8/2003 11:47:29 AM EST
Originally Posted By thejokker: the problem with the economy (imho) is the middle class is suffering from lay-offs and down-sizing.
View Quote
Why do you think they are suffering from lay-offs and down-sizing? It's because the companies they work for, and the people who own them, are also suffering. If you give the owners/companies a break, then they can afford not to down size, and the middle class workers keep their jobs. If you give the break to the middle class, they are still out a job.
Link Posted: 1/8/2003 2:14:53 PM EST
let's see; i must be a democrat because i distrust the same class of people who brought you enron, worldcom and adelphia. money does not corrupt, we can trust these people to do the right thing. really i must be mistaken in my belief that the average joe is the one responsible for the greatest of this country. i'm talking about the man or woman making $20,000 to $78,000 a year. you know fireman, teachers, policeman, small and medium business owners, farmers, the guy who fixs your car or your computer or your dryer. you know the old guy done the road who landed at normandy or my dad's friend chuck who was one of the few survivors of the arizonia at pearl. the guys in afghanistan or the old vietnam war vets. none of these people seem to deserve a break in some of your opinions. your posts reak with contempt when i mention these are the people who can rebuild this economy. this country was built with the blood and sweat of the middle class. they (we) are the builders. your boys at worldcom are the users who raped and pillaged our economy and many, many peoples future. simple average americans are the people who deserve a tax break not the very rich. some of you make me sick. i spit in your face, you are not americans. remember the maine, remember the alamo. god bless the simple average american who have made this country great and will continue to do so. if the economy tanks, and the democrats regain control then you are to blame. don't cry about the attack on the second amendment when hillary is sitting in the oval.
Link Posted: 1/8/2003 2:48:18 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/8/2003 2:49:05 PM EST by RichinCM]
The concept of a graduated income tax is essentially unconstitutional because it no longer treats people as 'equals'. Those who earn more money from their labors are required to give up a higher percentage of it to the government. Why is that fair? Why not tax at 100% of all income exceeding 10 times the minimum wage, as the Green Party prescribes? [url]http://www.greenparty.org/Platform.html#7[/url] (click on 'Progressive and Ecological Taxes') Now there's an incentive to produce!!! [rolleyes] The Bush tax plan tries to level the scales out a bit. As far as eliminating the tax on dividends, Bush is entirely correct that they are taxed twice: once at the corporate level and once at the individual level. thejokker, you need to spend some time reading here: [url]boortz.com[/url]
Link Posted: 1/8/2003 2:55:27 PM EST
BTW: The DemocRATS consider any family earning more than 60-70K to be 'wealthy' and subject to higher taxation. Their concept of the 'middle class' are the people who currently do NOT pay taxes. That is the focus of their tax plans to give them some of the money YOU earn. Bush's plan reduces the amount of money that the government TAKES from you. You pay at a higher rate, you deserve a bigger rollback. The DemocRATS have succeeded in poisoning your mind into believeing that a 'wealthy' person's fair share should be a greater portion of their total income. Why? Why don't you think that these people won't spend or invest their money and stimulate the economy? Do you think wealthy people go swimming in vaults full of money like Scrooge McDuck?
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top