|
Anonymous
|
 Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more  [Re: carbonhoots]
#1214896 - 01/13/03 01:48 PM (21 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I don't think any of these things are easy to solve with fundamental principles like "it's my money, dammit!" or "we need to provide services because it's our moral duty" or whatever.
I also think there are times when the government runs things cheaper and better than privatization ever could and I can give real life examples to prove it.
I wouldn't say that the welfare state is non-existent though. But it is a small portion of the debt.
During the time they were taking that much money from my check Clinton was in office and the amount for military spending was drastically reduced. Remember he cut 1/3 of our military budget.
At the time I got no return because of the way I filed. This was a short-term employment thing where I earned that for just a few short weeks but the government taxed me as if I was making that amount year round. I wasn't. Later after their thievery I changed my filing so that it equaled out in the end. Point is that they did take what wasn't theirs and gave it somewhere else.
I have never gotten over the shock of what they did to my check. Very few would.
I actually had it easy under Clinton. His highest tax bracket was about 38%. FDR's was in the 90's!
As I said these issues are difficult to come to terms with using easy answers about various ideologies. I think some things need to be funded by the government but others do not. I would have to look at each instance separately and study them to make a what I would consider to be a fair determination.
Cheers
|
 Dilauded
Sensability andrespectability
Registered: 10/29/02
Posts: 682
Loc: Krunkville, FL
Last seen: 20 years, 10 months
|
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: Innvertigo]
#1215559 - 01/13/03 05:59 PM (21 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Exactly, thank god you have a brain.
|
Dilauded
Sensability andrespectability
Registered: 10/29/02
Posts: 682
Loc: Krunkville, FL
Last seen: 20 years, 10 months
|
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: ]
#1215580 - 01/13/03 06:10 PM (21 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
During the time they were taking that much money from my check Clinton was in office and the amount for military spending was drastically reduced. Remember he cut 1/3 of our military budget.
I remember.  Don't forget cutting our intelligence funds in half.
Quote:
I have never gotten over the shock of what they did to my check. Very few would.
I havn't, my dad hasn't, my boss hasn't...
I'm curious, what're some examples of government funded programs that you have in mind???
Dilauded
|
 Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: Dilauded]
#1215752 - 01/13/03 06:46 PM (21 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Don't forget cutting our intelligence funds in half.
Corporate welfare increased more massively under Clinton than the days of Reagan tho.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Dilauded
Sensability andrespectability
Registered: 10/29/02
Posts: 682
Loc: Krunkville, FL
Last seen: 20 years, 10 months
|
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: Xlea321]
#1215834 - 01/13/03 07:04 PM (21 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Corporate Welfare is a bit of a broad subject.
Could you be more specific?
Edited by Dilauded (01/13/03 07:12 PM)
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: Dilauded]
#1216107 - 01/13/03 09:43 PM (21 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Dilauded
Sensability andrespectability
Registered: 10/29/02
Posts: 682
Loc: Krunkville, FL
Last seen: 20 years, 10 months
|
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: luvdemshrooms]
#1216111 - 01/13/03 09:51 PM (21 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
And what's the higher Corporate Welfare during Clinton than Reagan have to do with the CIA's funding getting cut???????
Alex123???????????????????????????????????????????????
Edited by Dilauded (01/13/03 10:46 PM)
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: Dilauded]
#1216132 - 01/13/03 10:16 PM (21 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
That would be a question better asked of he who made it.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
EchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
|
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: Evolving]
#1217387 - 01/14/03 09:07 AM (21 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
however if the goal is economic stimulous, should not the money be given to the people who will spend it? As one's income goes up, their average propensity to consume goes down, increasing thier average propensity to save. Ie: tax breaks for the rich do less for the economy than tax breaks for middle and lower class families.
You are operating under a fallacy in economic thought. Money put into saving can quite often be better for the overall economy than just spending it outright. If someone invests money into some sort of interest bearing instrument, that money is actually being lent or used for something (it's not just sitting in a mattress or a bank vault). The user of this money spends it with the expectations of higher earning which will offset the cost of borrowing (the interest paid). In the case of business borrowing, this money can be used to hire employees or buy machinery which the borrower believes will improve his total profit by increasing his profit margin, increasing his production or both. The employees or the producer of the machinery will in turn spend the money in a manner which will also pay wages, buy goods or invest in capital.
What he writes is not a fallacy at all: it is a theory, just as what you have written is also a THEORY. Your particular theory goes by a number of names: supply-side economics, "trickle down" theory, or, less kindly, "voodoo economics."
Supply-side economics makes sense when you have inadequate production and excess demand. In such a case, every additional penny that can be invested in production to meet demand will result in economic growth. This is assuming, of course, that the wealthy will invest their money in their own country. This is not guaranteed. Capital tends to seek the highest return, and if that highest return happens to be overseas at the moment, the domestic economy suffers.
The problem with the United States economy (and most other developed industrialized nations) is not underproduction, however, it is OVERproduction. Did you notice this past Christmas that auto companies were offering big discounts and leases at 0% interest with no down payment and no payments for a year? They sold a large number of cars that way, but their profit margins took a big hit. They went ahead and did it anyway because their fixed production costs are so high that scaling back production is actually MORE expensive than selling cars so cheap that they're practically selling them at cost. So yeah, they sold a lot of cars this past Christmas season, but their bottom lines are far from healthy, and the shit is really going to hit the fan when all of the potential car buyers have already bought their new cars and very few buyers are left. When that happens, they're going to have scale back production anyway and take a financial hit accordingly. A fresh influx of investment capital may save them from big "losses" on paper, but it does nothing to help the economy as whole, really.
The argument about the "fairness" of greater tax burdens for the wealthy is a completely different issue, one that has been debated back and forth ad nauseam in this thread and elsewhere. What I am addressing here is the efficacy of this particular tax cut in stimulating and improving the economy. In this particular instance, the theory that I Fart presents is more germane than the one you do. Your use of the word "fallacy" implies that supply-side economics is correct in all cases and demand-based economics is always wrong. This is absolutely incorrect. The correctness of either approach is contingent upon the present circumstances. This is the difference between real economic understanding and simple ideology.
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: EchoVortex]
#1217768 - 01/14/03 11:00 AM (21 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
What he writes is not a fallacy at all: it is a theory, just as what you have written is also a THEORY. Your particular theory goes by a number of names: supply-side economics, "trickle down" theory, or, less kindly, "voodoo economics."
Sorry, you are wrong about what I wrote. It is not supply side economics, trickle down theory or voodoo economics. Merely because you decide to label certain economic thought with disparaging leftists rhetoric does not invalidate it. Please read my words and notice what I bold, "Money put into saving can quite often be better for the overall economy than just spending it outright." Notice that I didn't state "will be better" or "always is better" but was pointing other possiblities when taxpayers are allowed to keep more of what they earn instead of having the fruits of their labor confiscated by the state. This is the difference between real economic understanding and simple ideology, humans make billions or individual economic choices based on their individual perspectives. Planning by any 'experts' is doomed to come up short of expectations due to the inherent lack of knowledge of all these perspectives.
Savings is very important for individuals and economies as a whole to weather downturns in economic cycles. Without capital reserves, families and business are in less favorable positions to respond effectively to reductions in income. It is foolish for anyone to only spend for today with no thought of the future or being prepared for possible rough times. When economic conditions improve, having savings to draw on helps businesses to more quickly hire more people or invest in capital improvements in response to market opportunities. Would you deny this?
I am well aware of the problems of over production and the resulting recessions and depressions which can follow. Some would argue the the Fed's loose money policies greatly contributed to this over production by flooding the country with money via easy credit, contributing to over spending in unrealistic anticipation of never ending increases in demand (because interest rates were/are so low and credit was easy to get) as well as bidding up the stock market into a bubble. Spend today and pay tomorrow is the achilles heel of consumerism and our fractional reserve/fiat money system. It has put us in a precarious economic position, we are ill prepared for inevitable economic cycles.
--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
|
EchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
|
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: Evolving]
#1218233 - 01/14/03 01:52 PM (21 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Notice that I didn't state "will be better" or "always is better" but was pointing other possiblities when taxpayers are allowed to keep more of what they earn instead of having the fruits of their labor confiscated by the state.
I'm not against a tax cut, I simply believe a greater portion of it should have gone to middle and lower income households. They are RELATIVELY more likely to either a) spend it, and thereby boost demand or b) put it in the bank and/or invest it domestically. Of course, wealthy households will also spend some of their added disposbale income and invest some of it domestically, but they are also RELATIVELY more likely than middle and lower income households to a) invest it abroad to "weather the storm" of the US economic downturn or b) squander it on speculation since it is purely disposable anyway
Planning by any 'experts' is doomed to come up short of expectations due to the inherent lack of knowledge of all these perspectives.
Which planning exactly are you referring to? Some economic planning has averted disaster, other economic planning has created disaster. That all depends on the perpicacity of the planning.
Savings is very important for individuals and economies as a whole to weather downturns in economic cycles. Without capital reserves, families and business are in less favorable positions to respond effectively to reductions in income. It is foolish for anyone to only spend for today with no thought of the future or being prepared for possible rough times. When economic conditions improve, having savings to draw on helps businesses to more quickly hire more people or invest in capital improvements in response to market opportunities. Would you deny this?
Not at all. Where did I ever disparage saving? But during economic downturns demand and consumption are necessary to revitalize the economy. Saving is something you should do when times are good, so that you have money to spend when times are bad. But the fact is that wealthy households are more likely to ALREADY have considerable savings, whereas middle and lower income households are less likely. This is not because they are more "irresponsible" (although that is surely the case with some of them) but because they have less disposable income to work with.
I am well aware of the problems of over production and the resulting recessions and depressions which can follow. Some would argue the the Fed's loose money policies greatly contributed to this over production by flooding the country with money via easy credit, contributing to over spending in unrealistic anticipation of never ending increases in demand (because interest rates were/are so low and credit was easy to get) as well as bidding up the stock market into a bubble.
Oh, so now you're saying that industries have TOO MUCH money to play with?
Well make up your mind, Evolving, which is it? You were saying before that tax breaks for the wealthy are good because the wealthy can then invest that money in industry. But if monetary policy is so loose, then a dearth of easy money for capital investments can't be the problem, now can it? Logical conclusion: the problem is a lack of demand. How to increase demand? Put more money into the hands of those who will actually consume instead of investing, shipping money abroad, or speculating--in other words, middle and lower income households. Thanks for proving my point for me! 
|
EchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
|
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: Evolving]
#1218490 - 01/14/03 03:39 PM (21 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Oh, and by the way, it's a little bit difficult to accept the conclusions of somebody who has to find a boogyman for everything, and the boogyman is always the same. For you and other libertarians, the root of all evil is government. You don't need to remind me. But that kind of thinking really reaches epically silly proportions when you make statements like:
Some would argue the the Fed's loose money policies greatly contributed to this over production by flooding the country with money via easy credit, contributing to over spending in unrealistic anticipation of never ending increases in demand (because interest rates were/are so low and credit was easy to get) as well as bidding up the stock market into a bubble.
Offering low interest rates is NOT the same thing as forcing people to borrow your money and then build unnecessary production facilities with it. It is the responsibility of the companies themselves to make accurate and realistic projections about what demand for their products is going to be. At least with low interest rates companies have the OPTION to take the money if they need it or leave it if they don't. Why should the government make that decision FOR THEM by prohibitively raising interest rates? Besides, raising prime lending rates would have a host of negative effects on the economy. Fewer people would be able to buy new homes, new cars, start new businesses, etc. It would be economic suicide.
The blame game just doesn't work. Companies make mistakes sometimes and do things right sometimes. The same goes for government. We all muddle through somehow. Blaming government for every single thing that goes wrong with the economy (or the world for that matter) is fine for internet forums, but it is too simplistic to be of any use for people who have to make decisions with real consequences.
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: EchoVortex]
#1218581 - 01/14/03 04:07 PM (21 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I'm not against a tax cut, I simply believe a greater portion of it should have gone to middle and lower income households.
I believe that everyone is entitle to a tax cut, up to what they pay into the system. I hold no grudge against the wealthy for having earned more than me or the average taxpayer.
Quote:
wealthy households ... are also RELATIVELY more likely than middle and lower income households to a) invest it abroad to "weather the storm" of the US economic downturn or b) squander it on speculation since it is purely disposable anyway
I'm not agreeing that this is true, I don't know that it is or isn't, but so what? It's their money, and as far as investing abroad - the world's economies are more and more interdependant... and what do you have against people in other countries benefitting from foreign investments, do they not count because they aren't Americans?
Quote:
Which planning exactly are you referring to?
Economic planning of governments, central planning. I have no qualms with private individuals planning for their economic well being.
Quote:
Where did I ever disparage saving?
The original post of I_Fart_Blue's which you were defending was relating to savings.
Quote:
But during economic downturns demand and consumption are necessary to revitalize the economy.
What is really necessary is for business to adjust their inventory and production to be more in line with demand. Simply increasing consumption without addressing fundamentals will only offer short term relief and will put off the inevitable, possibly making adjustments more painful. This is where I sharply disagree with the Bush administration, when they were telling people to go out and spend money to get the economy going. Businesses have to change their behavior to reflect the changing marketplace, government should take no actions which will put off the needed changes in business behavior. One need only to look at the monetary policies of Japan over the last decade to see that easy credit does not necessarily 'jump start' the economy.
Quote:
Well make up your mind, Evolving, which is it? You were saying before that tax breaks for the wealthy are good because the wealthy can then invest that money in industry. But if monetary policy is so loose, then a dearth of easy money for capital investments can't be the problem, now can it?
There is a fundamental difference between having money to spend because of easy credit versus spending money from savings or earnings. I am against the federal reserve system and fiat money, they are used to debase the currency which erodes savings and purchasing power through monetary inflation. Monetary inflation is in effect, a hidden tax that affects everybody, if the money supply is inflated by 50%, the poor person with only $10 in his pocket will see his buying power decreased by 33% and his $10 will only buy what $6.66 used to buy. When the government or the federal reserve inflate the money supply, they influence behavoir towards consumption and speculation instead of investment.
Quote:
the problem is a lack of demand. How to increase demand?
Demand is only so elastic, if everybody has enough widgets to satisfy themselves, giving them more money will not increase demand for widgets. In this instance, what is necessary is for the producers to modify their behavior.
Quote:
Put more money into the hands of those who will actually consume instead of investing, shipping money abroad, or speculating--in other words, middle and lower income households.
Even money that is invested is spent by someone, again it is not just put in a mattress nor does it just sit in a bank vault collecting dust.
The bottom line is this. You, I or any other taxpayers are not government property and we do not exists so that others may milk us like cows, we are not a public resource. I am not wealthy, but I am not consumed with envy like collectivists. The wealthy are not a means to my end. If a person has gained wealth through honest means, he should not be punished for his success by taking a greater portion of his wealth than is taken from someone who earns less.
Collectivists look upon successful people as a resource to be plundered. Self confident individuals look upon them as people to be learned from. I have no more right to take a wealthy man's earnings by proxy through the government than I do by breaking into his house and stealing his earning from his wallet while he sleeps.
--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
Edited by Evolving (01/14/03 04:10 PM)
|
carbonhoots
old hand
Registered: 09/11/01
Posts: 1,351
Loc: BC Canada
|
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: Evolving]
#1218746 - 01/14/03 04:54 PM (21 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Here's some more on the original subject...
Bush's tax cut plan: The economics of the American plutocracy
By Patrick Martin
8 January 2003
The tax cut plan announced Tuesday by President Bush is a transparent scheme to plunder the federal treasury and enrich the financial oligarchy. Nearly all of the $664 billion in tax cuts go to the top income brackets, while working class families, and especially the poor and unemployed, will receive little or nothing.
The centerpiece of Bush's program is the abolition of all taxation of corporate dividends, income that goes almost entirely by the wealthiest individuals in America. This huge tax break for the wealthy accounts for more than half the total, $364 billion over ten years.
In calling for the total elimination of the tax on dividends, Bush went beyond earlier predictions by the pundits and the expectations of even his most fervent corporate backers. Prior to the new year it was reported that Bush would call for a reduction in the tax by as much as 50 percent, itself a massive windfall for the rich that would have been considered politically unthinkable even a few years ago.
The ending of dividend taxation will have no effect on 401(k) accounts, because dividends paid to these retirement accounts are already non-taxable. The benefit will go entirely to those who receive dividends as direct income disproportionately the rich. Approximately half of the $364 billion will go to the top one percent of Americans, those with incomes of $350,000 a year or more. Some 65 percent will go to the top ten percent. The bottom 80 percent of the population, in income terms, gets less than 10 percent of the tax break.
According to the calculations of the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research group, people with incomes over $316,895 will save an average of $13,243 on their taxes. People earning $21,350 will save an average of $47, less than $5 a year.
The other elements of the Bush tax cut plan also favor the rich, although less flagrantly than the abolition of taxes on dividends. These include:
* Accelerating tax rate cuts scheduled for 2004 and 2006, making them effective this year. The estimated cost is $114 billion.
* An immediate boost in the child tax credit from $600 to $1,000, costing $99 billion.
* Accelerating the phase-out of the so-called marriage penalty, which affects upper-middle-class families with two incomes. The cost is $58 billion.
According to one study, 64 percent of the benefits from moving up the tax rate cuts scheduled for 2004 will go to the wealthiest 5 percent of the population, while only 7.7 percent goes to the bottom 80 percent. 70 percent of the benefits from accelerating the planned 2006 tax cuts will go to the top 5 percent of taxpayers, and only 6.4 percent to the lowest four-fifths. Only the increase in the child tax credit provides the bulk of its benefits to middle-income families.
Bush also called on Congress to make permanent the $1.35 trillion in tax cuts enacted in 2001, now scheduled to expire in 2010. This would include permanent abolition of the estate tax, which affects only those who inherit estates of $1 million or more.
If Bush succeeds in winning congressional approval of his latest tax cut plan and there is little doubt that he will get most, if not all, of his proposed windfalls for the rich, given the bipartisan support for the 2001 cuts and the prostration of the Democrats his administration will have largely eliminated taxation of the wealthy in the United States in the space of two years.
The White House and congressional Republicans seek to preempt criticism of the tax cut as a massive handout to the rich by accusing opponents of carrying out “class warfare.” Their methods resemble those of a hold-up man who shouts “stop thief” as he flees the scene of the crime. Robbing the poor to pay the rich is perfectly legitimate, the Bush administration maintains, but it is “class warfare” to tell the poor they are being robbed.
The most immediate and direct beneficiaries of Bush’s plan are the stock market and the largest Wall Street investers and speculators—precisely those layers of the ruling elite that accumulated the most massive fortunes in the stock market frenzy of the 1990s. That his scheme for “economic growth” at a time of rising unemployment and growing social distress is patently aimed, above all, at boosting share values on the stock market is highly significant.
It underscores the social character of his government as the political incarnation of the most predatory and parasitic sections of the financial oligarchy. It reflects, moreover, the increasingly decadent character of American capitalism as a whole, in which profit-making and the private accumulation of wealth by the privileged few are increasingly separated from the production process, and rely instead on swindling, accounting fraud and outright theft.
Leading corporate spokesmen and even some within the Bush administration hardly bothered to conceal the greed and self-interest that fueled their delight at the tax plan. They were all but salivating and rubbing their hands in anticipation of another massive diversion of social assets into their personal and corporate bank accounts.
R. Glenn Hubbard, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, suggested that the elimination of taxes on dividends could lift stock prices by 20 percent. Kevin Hasset, an economist at the right-wing American Enterprise Institute, said he was surprised and happy and added, This will provide a lot of juice to the market.
Jerry Jasinowski, president of the National Association of Manufacturers, said, The animal spirits of business have been depressed. There is no question but that the impact of this on confidence will be immediate. The first thing that chief executives do when they get up in the morning is check the price of their stock.
The politics of tax-cutting
The Bush administration first indicated that a significant tax-cut bill would be introduced just after the November 5 election, in which the Republican Party gained control of both houses of Congress. At the time the size of the cut was pegged at $150 billion. By Christmas, the size of the cut was estimated at $300 billion, including a 50 percent cut in the tax on dividends.
On January 3, White House aides told the press that the administration would propose complete elimination of the dividend tax as part of a package costing $500-$600 billion. When Bush finally made his speech January 7 to the Economic Club of Chicago, the cost had ballooned to $674 billion $10 billion in additional spending, in the form of subsidies to crisis-stricken state governments, and the balance going to tax cuts for the wealthy.
One Senate Republican tax aide described the political atmosphere in the White House as officials discussed whether to accelerate the child tax credit or the phase-out of the marriage penalty, and then decided to do both. They've taken steroids, he told the Washington Post.
This near-frenzy represents a combination of greed and fear. The Bush administration not only wishes to enrich the wealthy, it also is looking desperately for a way to revive the stock market and prevent a financial calamity that would undermine it both internationally and at home.
The scale of the tax cut grew as the Bush administration became increasingly troubled about future financial prospects, and the impotence of the Democratic Party became ever more obvious. Nothing more than token opposition can be expected from the congressional Democrats, even though they could easily tie up and block the legislation in the Senate, where they hold 48 of 100 seats.
Congressional Democratic spokesmen have focused most of their criticism on the tax plan's fiscal irresponsibility, not its class character. Their alternative plan, introduced the day before Bush's speech, would provide only a rebate of $300 for individual workers or $600 for two-income families, and an extension of unemployment benefits, but no increase in federal spending to create jobs.
The administration is employing lies and double-talk to sell its package to the public. Bush is presenting a program tailor-made for the coupon-clipping elite as a growth and jobs plan to aid working people. The administration claimed that 92 million taxpayers would benefit from the tax cuts and receive an average reduction of $1,083, although this figure combines the windfall going to the millionaires and the pittance going to the vast majority of working people. (If one millionaire gets $45,000 and 40 workers get $50 apiece, the average of their combined tax breaks approximates the administration figure.)
In pursuit of this massive handout to the rich, the most vulnerable sections of the working class are being held hostage. That is the meaning of Bush's decision to allow extended unemployment benefits to expire December 28 for nearly 800,000 jobless with the total rising to over 1.5 million by mid-February. The Bush administration now proposes to renew the extension of unemployment benefits, but only if Congress ties the measure to the passage of hundreds of billions in new tax breaks for the privileged.
The White House aims to push the legislation through Congress under conditions where it will be overshadowed by impending war with Iraq, and the public caught off guard. This is more than a politically fortuitous bit of timing. Bush's war policy and his tax policy are of one piece: both involve the looting of vast resources the oil of Iraq, the American treasury for the benefit of the American plutocracy
--------------------
-I'd rather have a frontal lobotomy than a bottle in front of me
CANADIAN CENTER FOR POLICY ALTERNATIVES
|
Anonymous
|
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: carbonhoots]
#1218773 - 01/14/03 05:00 PM (21 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Ok, you win.
Death by length of post.
*sigh*
Just kidding.
Take care, Bro seriously
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: carbonhoots]
#1218885 - 01/14/03 05:31 PM (21 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
blah blah blah...In pursuit of this massive handout to the rich, the most vulnerable sections of the working class are being held hostage.... blah blah blah
Since when is allowing someone to keep their money a handout? Come on, use some LOGIC. If instead of taking 38% of your money, I take 37% - am I giving you a handout? You are operating under the unstated assumption that all wealth generated belongs to the state, and that in fact that all individuals are government property and any money they earn belongs to the state.
Sorry, but I don't believe in slavery to any state or any individual. I am very sorry that you do.
--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
|
carbonhoots
old hand
Registered: 09/11/01
Posts: 1,351
Loc: BC Canada
|
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: Evolving]
#1219318 - 01/14/03 07:23 PM (21 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Evolving...It's not 'the state' as in some Orwelian or Comunist dictatorship nightmare. It's the democratic government. You must believe in the concept of, of the people, by the people, for the people. Us. What's best for us as a whole. Not just Joe Zillionaire. Of course the individual must be respescted but the lengths it's gone to now-a-days??
COME ON!!!! The billionaires have no legitimate claim to that kind of fortune. It was earned by the blood sweat and tears of their workers.
Now, if you earn your income from 'capital', your not taxed. If you earn your income from labour, your taxed. If that ain't class warfare, I don't know what is! Even if we all had enough disposable income to 'invest', there would still be need for workers. We can't all be capitalists...why aren't workers included in the formula?
--------------------
-I'd rather have a frontal lobotomy than a bottle in front of me
CANADIAN CENTER FOR POLICY ALTERNATIVES
Edited by carbonhoots (01/14/03 07:25 PM)
|
Dilauded
Sensability andrespectability
Registered: 10/29/02
Posts: 682
Loc: Krunkville, FL
Last seen: 20 years, 10 months
|
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: carbonhoots]
#1219331 - 01/14/03 07:31 PM (21 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
It was earned by the blood sweat and tears of their workers.
And who's the brain's behind their work????
Knowledge=Power,
Dilauded
|
Skikid16
fungus fan
Registered: 06/27/02
Posts: 5,666
Loc: In the middle of the nort...
Last seen: 19 years, 14 days
|
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: carbonhoots]
#1219339 - 01/14/03 07:37 PM (21 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
COME ON!!!! The billionaires have no legitimate claim to that kind of fortune. It was earned by the blood sweat and tears of their workers.
Companies are similar to football teams, you can have all the talent in the world, but if the players aren't coached properly, you won't win. The billionaires are usually rich because they were great "coaches" (excluding those who inherited their fourtunes, these are just lucky bitches that don't deserve it, but that's a different story) and they were able to organize their company with good leadership skills and organizational vision.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that anyone can start up a business, but not everyone can be successful.
--------------------
Re-Defeat Bush in '04
|
Dilauded
Sensability andrespectability
Registered: 10/29/02
Posts: 682
Loc: Krunkville, FL
Last seen: 20 years, 10 months
|
Re: help the rich...step on the poor, some more [Re: Skikid16]
#1219356 - 01/14/03 07:49 PM (21 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
COME ON!!!! The billionaires have no legitimate claim to that kind of fortune. It was earned by the blood sweat and tears of their workers.
Companies are similar to football teams, you can have all the talent in the world, but if the players aren't coached properly, you won't win. The billionaires are usually rich because they were great "coaches" (excluding those who inherited their fourtunes, these are just lucky bitches that don't deserve it, but that's a different story) and they were able to organize their company with good leadership skills and organizational vision.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that anyone can start up a business, but not everyone can be successful.
That's a good way to put it.
Nice metaphor,
Dilauded
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck 
Red Vein Kratom 
Bulk Cannabis Seeds 
Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 3 4 5 all )
Innvertigo
Baby_Hitler
ehud
kaiowas