Why I'm not voting for "W" (Resume)

[Guest]

dynasty_v6 wrote:
Tjamz, bush won fair and square period
I agree, you will NEVER hear me say that he didn't win the electoral fair and square. HE IS MY PRESIDENT. Not to often you hear a liberal say that now is it? But, he won't be in 16 days.....

[Guest]

well, thats not true, he will still be pres in 16 days, he won't have to leave until January.

[DaveH]

tjamz wrote:
Which is basically what I was trying to get at anyway. I agree, I think EVERYONE should pay the exact same percentage of tax as the next guy. IMHO the advantage the "Rich" have is that they (generally) have more things to write off against their taxes.

I don't think everyone should pay the same percentage... I think everyone should pay the same dollar amount. ei: I pay $3000 a year, you pay $3000 a year, Earl Pomeroy pays $3000 a year, etc. Everyone pays the same... how much more fair can it be than that. There would have to be a lower limit where people under a certain income don't pay, or get a reduction since you wouldn't want to take a entire persons income in taxes (altho thats about what it feels like now).

[NickB]

id be up for that

[n2o]

http://media1.stream2you.com/rnc/072304v2.wmv

[DaveH]

Last time I looked, the government didn't have anything to do with the way a hospital sets up their visitation rules. LAWS don't need to be changed here, the Dems should be lobbying the hospitals to change their visitation rules if that is what they are actually trying to do.

tjamz wrote:
I, personally am in favor of allowing the same benefits to gays/lesbians that are allowed to hetero-couples. For example, if one partner is in a hospital w/ a serious illness/disease/injury, I think that persons partner should have the same right to visit that person as ones spouse would have if they were a hetero couple. I'm not saying either side is in favor or against this, just stating my view. Having said this, I am NOT in favor of gay marriages, just equal rights under the law (give them the same priviledges w/o giving them a marriage license)

[Guest]

DaveH wrote:
I don't think everyone should pay the same percentage... I think everyone should pay the same dollar amount. ei: I pay $3000 a year, you pay $3000 a year, Earl Pomeroy pays $3000 a year, etc. Everyone pays the same... how much more fair can it be than that. There would have to be a lower limit where people under a certain income don't pay, or get a reduction since you wouldn't want to take a entire persons income in taxes (altho thats about what it feels like now).

Flat taxes do NOT work - proven time and time again, inefficient ways of stirring up economic growth since lower-middle class target markets, often the target markets to reoccuring products, have a lower available disposable income. Carter tried this, didn't work. We need to use Reagonomics, which Bush is modeling his tax income barrier after. Tax breaks for the upper class which will inspire economic growth, job opportunities, and enhanced research funding along with other side traits such as inreased/volume income to non profit organizations.

The best quote, "Have you ever been hired by a poor man?" my answer is No.

[HandoEX]

Well said, I agree 100%. Reagonomics = prosperous economy.

[Jim]

2k3WRXND wrote:
Flat taxes do NOT work - proven time and time again, inefficient ways of stirring up economic growth since lower-middle class target markets, often the target markets to reoccuring products, have a lower available disposable income. Carter tried this, didn't work. We need to use Reagonomics, which Bush is modeling his tax income barrier after. Tax breaks for the upper class which will inspire economic growth, job opportunities, and enhanced research funding along with other side traits such as inreased/volume income to non profit organizations.

The best quote, "Have you ever been hired by a poor man?" my answer is No.

I disagree, the tax breaks for the rich do not have a trickle effect, or work thier way in to the economy becuase the rich do not for sure spend the extra money that they get from the break.

The overal effect would be hugely multiplied if the government used the money it spent to give the rich a tax break. IE government spending. Government spending -> economic growth

[DaveH]

Jim wrote:
Government spending -> economic growth

Jim, that is really scary....

[DaveH]

Well, first of all a flat tax has not ever been implemented, so how can you say it does not work - proven time and time again? I can't follow what you are trying to say after that, please re-type in english...

2k3WRXND wrote:
Flat taxes do NOT work - proven time and time again, inefficient ways of stirring up economic growth since lower-middle class target markets, often the target markets to reoccuring products, have a lower available disposable income. Carter tried this, didn't work. We need to use Reagonomics, which Bush is modeling his tax income barrier after. Tax breaks for the upper class which will inspire economic growth, job opportunities, and enhanced research funding along with other side traits such as inreased/volume income to non profit organizations.

[Jim]

Ok Let me clarify WHY i think this:

1st) Bush cuts revenue and increases spending, thus increasing the national debt. Don't think it matters? think again. The money is going to be coming from somewhere... who's paying for it right now? foriegn countries. Who's going to have to repay them in the future? The citizens of the united states. Look, you can build an image of sucess by spending all of this money we DONT HAVE, that will, in the long term, have to be paid off.

2. Taxes suck. The rich hate them, the poor hate them. The fact of the matter is, the government needs them for revenue. Bush gave tax cuts to the rich, has it stimulated the economy in the short run? has it affected unemployment? nope. It's a proven fact, that when you depend on the rich and this "trickle" effect, they use the extra money to better thier personal finacial situation, not for the benifit of society as a whole.

3. Job loss. There is NO denying that the job outlook while bush has been in office has been terrible. This is a direct indiciation that the middle class (that bottom 60% in the tax brackets, aka the middle class), is suffering.

Reaganomics doesnt work.

[stephen bradley]

I like BUSH

[Jim]

Government spending does have an undeniable correlation to economic growth. THIS is the purpose of government spending. Think for a second. What got us out of the depression? was it giving tax breaks to the rich? nope. it was massive amounts of government spending.

The purpose of government spending is to encourage consumption, provide something for the public good, and influence the level of total demand in the economy

[HandoEX]

Gov't spending on what?!? Are you saying that the gov't should be kicking out more money to boost our debt? Gov't spending is already ridiculous. More economic growth can be generated by tax breaks for those with higher income than by simply increasing gov't issued freebies to those with low income.

[Jim]

Not talking about welfare, talking about government spending that creates incentives for investment. Government builds a new building on a public university. What the benifits? Contractors get $$$, People work to build it $$$$, the general public gets a better education -> better educated society -> etc.. etc..

Look. If you were in the top 1% of the tax bracket, chances are your not going to go out of your way to spend any extra money then you would have already on something for the public good.

[Jim]

I suppose though, the republican view would be that all those homeless people should get off thier asses and get jobs, the government doesnt need to provide healthcare, becuase if people worked, they would idealy have it anyway...

[DaveH]

I personally do not want the government spending my money for me. The job of the govt was not (as set up by the founding fathers) to provide health care, or whatever else private sector the govt is trying to get into now. I suppose you can argue that govt spending can influence the economy, but it is a flawed and anti-free market way to do it. IMO the govt should be in charge of as little as possible, and should be using as little of the peoples money as possible. As far as massive govt spending goes... we already have that every day of the week!

[fallguy]

Jim wrote:
Not talking about welfare, talking about government spending that creates incentives for investment. Government builds a new building on a public university. What the benifits? Contractors get $$$, People work to build it $$$$, the general public gets a better education -> better educated society -> etc.. etc..

Look. If you were in the top 1% of the tax bracket, chances are your not going to go out of your way to spend any extra money then you would have already on something for the public good.

Goverment doesn't create jobs....please. It was found out that Kerry will raise taxes on those making 85k or more ....not 200k like he said. Also, those making 200k or more are actually alot of small business owners who file S corp on their taxes. What your describing Jim is actually a socialistic society....something that we are close to right now. Take from rich and give to poor. The "rich" (200k or more) are the ones starting new businesses and creating jobs for the poor. Raising taxes like Kerry proposes will not spur economic growth...it defeats it.

[fallguy]

Jim wrote:
I suppose though, the republican view would be that all those homeless people should get off thier asses and get jobs, the government doesnt need to provide healthcare, becuase if people worked, they would idealy have it anyway...
The republican view is not to enable them more and have them rely on the goverement, but give them the skills so they can get a job and better themselves. The first step is to get off their asses I suppose.