Originally Posted by cbwm

I would answer your statement that lowering taxes is unsustainable with the comment, raising taxes is unsustainable. The idea of raising or lowering is only relative to where you are today. Most certainly we have a higher federal tax rate today than we did in 1776, by a long shot.

Not another Windows reference! If I want to run Oracle at home, I can do it, but I probably want a good CPU, a lot of RAM, a good NIC, and a fast disk subsystem. I could run Access instead on a crummy 486, but sometimes you just want to have more.

I want a society with a safety net. If not for Christian reasons (the poor were Christ's co-stars in the Gospel) so people with no money and no hope don't rob me. I want a society with highways (Eisenhower, by the way, a Republican spending on public infrastructure!) so they can bring my food to the supermarket. Funny thing is, Safeway wants tax money spent on freeways for the same reason.

These things and many others are essential for society to function, and the money has to come from somewhere. Ralph Nader proposed there should be no income tax for anyone earning less than $100,000 per year, and that the revenue should be made up for by a sales tax on the stock market.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Giuliani would have the best crack at it.

Giuliani ... Who?



fastreplies

Originally Posted by whym

Do they?

Maybe if Ron Paul gets the nomination. I'd like to see him get a chance to run the United States

Originally Posted by joder

I don't understand your comment Phil. The revenue was rising under Clinton prior to 2000.

Bush has drastically increased the national debt. I don't think anyone else could be worse in terms of making it rise (in percentages).

Taxes will go up on the top few %. Not everyone. Don't believe the FUD.

If you look at the graph, our national revenue started to decline when Bush first took office (Due to things Clinton did, but I will leave that alone for now). So near the beginning of his career in office it was at a low, then it started to rise, big time, the most it ever has before I might add, and it was the cause of him cutting taxes. That and only that is my point, because that was the argument, whether or not cutting taxes worked, not whether or not he spent a lot of money( and which branch of our government is charged with that? I’ll give you a hint it’s not the executive).

Originally Posted by JeremyMiller

They further attribute the tax revenue increase "with the effects of legislation excluded" to be due to their profits increasing. Sounds like it's business running well. Now, that is likely in a large part due to increased revenues by defense related contractors which are being paid with borrowed money. I haven't found statistical data, though, on which business sectors have shown substantial growth in profits.

You mean to tell me you think that our countries revenues are at an all time high, higher than they have ever been before, due to a few large military contracts?

Originally Posted by JeremyMiller

Well, just pulling out the numbers you don't like seems very drive-by to me! We wouldn't be at war if not for incompetence, so ignoring that incompetence doesn't put the money back in the account. (Yes, I did catch the Rush Limbaugh hate speech.)

Which numbers am I pulling out?

Originally Posted by JeremyMiller

First, your assumption is wrong. None of the top-tier candidates are saying that the trooops will be home "the next day." Most are saying combat troops out in a year. But, throwing that error aside and considering "

First, let me say that you are obviously well read and I admire that. Too many people shoot off at the mouth with empty assumptions, and I enjoy intelligent debate (just ask John). Second, I do not want to come off as a Bush defender; I realize that he has made a lot of dumb mistakes and I probably would not vote for him if he could run again (I say probably because if Kerry was his opponent again I would choose Bush). Having said that I personally believe in cutting taxes (a primary reason for being conservative), I don’t like big government programs when I see them being abused every day. And that’s the kind of things liberals like to throw money at, and cut spending in things like the military (and the war is something different, they might bring us all home, but I will assure you that they will cut military expenses when we are all back, and then when a war that is unavoidable is knocking at our door were will we be? – but that’s for another time as well).

Originally Posted by JeremyMiller

Good catch! When trying to do a drive-by, never let your opponent see the whole picture -- you might miss the shot! And he was accusing others of being the drive-by media ... apparently we're seeing that Limbaugh has been blinding his own followers. Well, not much of a surprise there.

I’ll say again just in case anyone missed it, I did not take out any information. The graph shows the year 2000, Bush was inaugurated in 2001; it was going down before he even took office. My whole point is that one, Bush did cut taxes and two, and our federal revenue is the highest it’s ever been (including Clinton the great).

Originally Posted by whym

People's quality of life is more important than the economy IMO. The poor have suffered under Bush and under the capitalism of the late 90s and 2000s. What is needed is someone who can put money into healthcare and education and start to improve social mobility. This is one of the most important aspects of education - allowing any individual to achieve their best.

Tax increases are needed to improve education and ensure that the economy is healthy in the VERY LONG TERM. That should be a focus, rather than a short term tax cut.

People’s quality of life and the economy go hand and hand. Now you say that the poor has suffered under Bush, I will now ask you why? (I will warn you that I have worked very closely with the poor for the last 7 years of my life). And by the way, Bush never decreased the amount of spending on education he actually increased it.

Originally Posted by whym

How on earth do you work that out?! More tax increases = more tax revenue - it's simple! If you want a privatize education, why not start a party and propose this. IMO, for society to be somewhat fair, companies (which are only self interested in the end) should be out of education entirely (as in no private schools at all) and also out of healthcare - this is not impossible as our NHS system has been around for about 60 years providing the general populace with free health care.

I work for FedEx they are paying for my education, that is a company with invested interests, and it they were not I would not be able to receive the same quality education. Are you telling me that it’s not fair that I busted my A in high school and at my job to receive a better education then my friend in high school who dropped out in the 10th grade?

Originally Posted by whym

By the way, privatized education = total destruction of social mobility. The rich can pay for a good education while the poor go to the equally poorly funded states schools

That’s life man, so are you telling me that we should make everything equal? My friend has more money than me, he drives a Mercedes, I drive a Cavalier, by your thinking he should have to give his car up and then pay so I can have a better one.

Originally Posted by Cheshire_cat

That’s life man, so are you telling me that we should make everything equal? My friend has more money than me, he drives a Mercedes, I drive a Cavalier, by your thinking he should have to give his car up and then pay so I can have a better one.

If there is one thing that has proven valuable for the economy of the United States, it is public education. If you don't have a certain percentage of the work force educated, you won't have the skilled workers to fuel the economy. Many people would simply never be able to afford private education and economic growth would move to other countries with public education. Libertarianism is a really bad bunch of sick philosophy.

Another reason I don't want to see an end to public education is the majority of private schools are religious. I don't think for a child to get an education, they should be forced to go through partaking in any religious exercises or be indoctrinated.

Originally Posted by jamestl2

Maybe if Ron Paul gets the nomination. I'd like to see him get a chance to run the United States

I would vote for Bush over Paul. No Libertarian for president

Originally Posted by joder

I would vote for Bush over Paul. No Libertarian for president

Hey, Bush WON the last two elections (Well, at least the 2004 election for sure, right?)

Originally Posted by Cheshire_cat

If you look at the graph, our national revenue started to decline when Bush first took office (Due to things Clinton did, but I will leave that alone for now).

How do Republicans justify (to themselves) blaming Clinton for people getting too excited and investing in any tech stock, causing the industry to overheat and then self correct, yet excuse Bush for Enron? The only role Clinton played in the tech bubble was bringing enough wealth into the hands of ordinary Americans that more people could afford to invest in their future. Bush's guilt in Enron was, well, not imagined - Ken Lay had sleep overs at the White House.

This is like the Republicans who try to "spin" Katrina, ignoring Bush's bold faced lies ("who could guess the levies would break" a day after being told the levies will break) and drunken mismanagement (heckuva job, Brownie) and tell themselves Democrats and Colored People are really mad at Bush for not preventing the storm. What those people imagine is what Republicans who blame Clinton's policy of paying down the public debt on Bush's horrific mismanagement of the economy.

Please notice the chart I posted here shows America's debt in proportion to America's economy.



Sorry, guys, but Steve Colbert was dead right. Reality has a well known liberal bias.

You had to post that silly graph again... didn't you. That does it. I wasn't going to post this, but you've left me no choice. I have photographic evidence proving Bush was on the scene personally lending a hand at the Superdome.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

How do Republicans justify (to themselves) blaming Clinton for people getting too excited and investing in any tech stock, causing the industry to overheat and then self correct, yet excuse Bush for Enron?

The only role Clinton played in the tech bubble was bringing enough wealth into the hands of ordinary Americans that more people could afford to invest in their future. Bush's guilt in Enron was, well, not imagined - Ken Lay had sleep overs at the White House.

Truth be told, I don't credit Clinton(we're talking zero here) for the Web boom, or the bust. I also don't care if Dubya was swapping spit with Ken Lay, it doesn't put him at fault for Enron.


Little Steven Cole-Burt used to be a lot funnier. He seems to mostly suck these days. Anyone catch his introduction of Nancy Pelosi? He should have stuck with Jon Stewart, a Truly funny man, regardless of his political preferences.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Truth be told, I don't credit Clinton(we're talking zero here) for the Web boom, or the bust. I also don't care if Dubya was swapping spit with Ken Lay, it doesn't put him at fault for Enron.

Now that's what I'm talking about!! Equal opportunity for both parties to mess up, or get lucky. (Without an intern, mind you!)

So why isn't Clinton backing GWB up with some sax licks? How are they gonna cheer those poor New Orleans people up without a full band? They like jazz down there, right? Don't answer that, I bet we know where Bill was.

EDIT - In all seriousness, I agree Bush had far less to do with Enron than people like to make out, and I'd give you +rep for being objective and using the same criteria on both of them, only I need to spread some more around to other people first.

Originally Posted by jamestl2

Hey, Bush WON the last two elections (Well, at least the 2004 election for sure, right?)

And ?

Bush is not a Libertarian.

Originally Posted by joder

I would vote for Bush

Sorry. I just wanted to take your quote out of context so I could look at it and smile.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Truth be told, I don't credit Clinton(we're talking zero here) for the Web boom, or the bust. I also don't care if Dubya was swapping spit with Ken Lay, it doesn't put him at fault for Enron.

Correct. One problem with politics is many people think one party can do no wrong while the other one does everything wrong. Conservatives/Liberals aren't always right or wrong.

And just to be clear I never said anything about the “web bubble” or Enron.

And cbwm, very funny photo, was that you that had the one of Bush catching a fish in the flooded streets of New Orleans? I feel kind of bad for laughing at it though.

Originally Posted by joder

Correct. One problem with politics is many people think one party can do no wrong while the other one does everything wrong. Conservatives/Liberals aren't always right or wrong.

Your right man, I always said that if the liberals and conservatives could learn to work together (not having to agree on everything) then America would get a lot more done.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Sorry. I just wanted to take your quote out of context so I could look at it and smile.

Did you ever see the Letterman bit, when he took segments from the Dr. Phil show out of contents. Good stuff.

Originally Posted by joder

Correct. One problem with politics is many people think one party can do no wrong while the other one does everything wrong. Conservatives/Liberals aren't always right or wrong.

In the parlance of our youth, true dat! I like Ron Paul - me, a tree hugging left wing extremist. I would never want him to be president because full blown libertarianism is Lord of the Flies, but we've gone so far off kilt that a return to some of those values mixed with everything else would help us.

I don't believe Bush was legitimately elected in 2000. I do believe he was in 2004. The Democrats played the terrorist card, saying "Bush is the worst president in history, if he wins again the world will end tomorrow, bleet bleet bleet". Anyone but Bush elected Bush.

You people won't believe this, but I've made my liberal friends hate me the two or three times when I felt like GWB went out on a limb and did the right thing. I made sure to congratulate him in front of them for it.

Originally Posted by Cheshire_cat

And cbwm, very funny photo, was that you that had the one of Bush catching a fish in the flooded streets of New Orleans? I feel kind of bad for laughing at it though.

Guilty as charged. I would feel bad about laughing, but then I remember that these photos were produced by the left, in an effort to promote a visceral reaction and hatred of Bush, and I laugh all the harder. Probably not the intended effect, who really gives a sh*t.