Senator Clinton "We're going to have to take things away from you..."

[PittsburghAfterDark]

I really can't make this up. If I did, you'd say I was taking something out of context, putting things together that don't belong but here it goes. This comes from SFGate.com, hardly right leaning partisan media.

"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

Isn't that just special? We now have a Senator that came right out and admitted the truth. They think your money is for them to give and take. They know a tax cut helped you. They know they're going to be robbing you, taking from you yet can never and will never define the common good.

Here's the bottom line people. The common good is how much money they have to spend. Their power is your money. They don't care that your money is wasted in incredibly inefficent way or ways. In Washington the measure of your worth, your power, is the size of your budget.

We've redistributed $5 trillion dollars in the "war on poverty" and the percentage of poor in America has not changed. That "common good" has not not helped change the face of America.

Remember those on the left, your money is their money. Instead of putting you hands in my pockets if your concsience demands it, if your beliefs are so strong that higher taxes help people I strongly suggest filling out a donation box on your tax returns and start sending extra money in.

It never ceases to amaze me that people will spit on homeless people looking for 50 cents or a quarter but will enthusiasticly elect socialists that will gladly confiscate 50% or more of their earnings.

Full story and text of Senator Clinton quote. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/06/28/politics2039EDT0165.DTL&type=printable)

[CTLesq]

I would spit on the homeless and never would vote for a socialist.

[Stryffe2004]

Something is going to have to give. Government spending is way out of control. You can't cut taxes and raise spending beyond the ability to pay for it. I like having lower taxes like the next person, but unless something is done about spending, the country is headed for financial ruin. The deficit is reaching if not passing record levels.

[Squirms]

The only way to control government spending is to dissolve the government. They always spend way to much on bullshit. I think it would be easier to give the states more control and pretty much gut the federal government. The country is to damn big to be run effectivily using a federal gov't.

[CTLesq]

Something is going to have to give. Government spending is way out of control. You can't cut taxes and raise spending beyond the ability to pay for it. I like having lower taxes like the next person, but unless something is done about spending, the country is headed for financial ruin. The deficit is reaching if not passing record levels.

Then just cut spending. And don't allow the states to turn around and increase taxes to make up the Federal shortfall.

[Indiana]

Yes spending does need to be cut. This is out of control. Unfortunately Bush wants to give tax cuts AND SPEND record amounts of money. This does not work people hello take an economics class every tax cut today will have to be paid for tomorrow. Hillary is speaking the truth the tax cuts will have to be repealed PLUS spending must be reduced.

[dtcarson]

And agreed, the government's 'war on poverty' has done nothing to improve the lot of the poor. Voluntary charities can do so much more with their money, and can raise much larger sums of money--if it weren't already being forcibly taken by the government.
Regarding the deficit--haven't we almost always had a deficit? The world hasn't ended yet. What's the difference between a deficit of 150 billion, and 500 billion? It's not getting paid off either way.
I do agree, that with tax cuts must come decreased spending. IN fact, I think federal spending should decrease anyway.
If the states have to increase taxes, to fund things *their constituents* have voted for and supported, that's fine with me--at least the money is being taken from the state's citizens, to benefit the state's citizens. Many of the things the states are needing to increase taxes to support, *should* have been in the state's control and budget anyway. if the citizens want the state government out of their wallet, they should take that into account when they vote, and vote for fiscally prudent politicians.
But yes, I think every single government body should look at their budget and say for each item, "Do we need this? Is there, or can we prove there will be, a benefit that outweighs the costs? Is this something that government can do better than the citizens, if we get out of their way and give them back their money?"
Too many governmental bodies think, "Hey, taxes--it's like a no-limit credit card with someone else's name! You want public transit? here you go! You want an upgrade stadium? NO problem!" It's very easy to be generous with other people's money.

[ZarathosNY]

Actually Clinton left Bush a surplus. Bush's tax giveaway to the rich is the biggest contributor to the deficit. 40% of his cut went to the top 1%. If he really wanted to help the economy, he should have made a bigger tax cut to the middle and lower class. That money would have been pumped back into the economy. Most people who make less than $50k got a tax cut of about $400, while Cheny got $90k.

[CTLesq]

Actually Clinton left Bush a surplus. Bush's tax giveaway to the rich is the biggest contributor to the deficit. 40% of his cut went to the top 1%. If he really wanted to help the economy, he should have made a bigger tax cut to the middle and lower class. That money would have been pumped back into the economy. Most people who make less than $50k got a tax cut of about $400, while Cheny got $90k.

No. It was a combination of the absurd spending levels and the lack of income generated by taxes because businesses stopped making money.

[CTLesq]

Yes spending does need to be cut. This is out of control. Unfortunately Bush wants to give tax cuts AND SPEND record amounts of money. This does not work people hello take an economics class every tax cut today will have to be paid for tomorrow. Hillary is speaking the truth the tax cuts will have to be repealed PLUS spending must be reduced.

You think for one moment Hillary is introduced in cutting spending?

I have a bridge I want to sell you.

[ZarathosNY]

Hey Pittsburgh, read what you posted. She is talking about rolling back the tax cut on ppl who can afford it. This is the position that Kerry has. He wants to roll back the tax cut on those who make $200k or more. It is something called fiscal responsibilty.

[O-Dog]

And to think, if Lazio hadn't whipped out that soft money ban, live, on camera, mid-debate...

...things would be different now.

[PsyClerk]

Someone said I was anti-socialist once.

[ZarathosNY]

Actually Clinton left Bush a surplus. Bush's tax giveaway to the rich is the biggest contributor to the deficit. 40% of his cut went to the top 1%. If he really wanted to help the economy, he should have made a bigger tax cut to the middle and lower class. That money would have been pumped back into the economy. Most people who make less than $50k got a tax cut of about $400, while Cheny got $90k.

No. It was a combination of the absurd spending levels and the lack of income generated by taxes because businesses stopped making money.

Sorry, but that comes from the CBO. Bush's tax cut and Iraq are the 2 biggest reasons for the deficit.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0613FD39550C7A8CDDA10894DB4044 82

[Storamin]

I would spit on the homeless and never would vote for a socialist.
Well said.

[ElwoodCuse]

gb2freerepublic.com

[PittsburghAfterDark]

I'm actually amazed at the near unanimous belief that government needs to look at, prioritize, defend and account for spending. I'm even willing to overlook the mistaken beliefs that tax cuts need to be "paid for" I'm so pleased.

However tax cuts pay for themselves. Let me offer this example. Let's say 500 people invested $100,000 each in a mutual fund. The fund has doubled ALL of their monies. Under an old tax plan those profits would incur a 35% tax burden. As a result only10% of those 500 people cashed out their earnings every year and willingly incurred the tax penalty. The rest kept their money invested and no taxes were paid on the earnings.

Now, those 50 people paid $1,750,000 in taxes at the 35% tax rate.

The following year the tax law was changed. Income gained from mutual funds was no longer going to be taxed at 35% and the rate was dropped to 20%. So this results in a net "loss" right? No.

Since the tax rate was cut 1,500 basis points 30% of those 500 investors cashed out their earnings. The resulting 150 investors paid $3,000,000 in taxes despite the rate being drastically dropped. So, if you change the rates, more money actually flows into government coffers.

The same is true with income. You're less likely to shelter, write off or incur the costs of protecting, hiding or sheltering money if tax rates are low.

[ryanbph]

actually clinton didn't hand a surplus to bush, it was a projected surplus, but guess what, the tech stock market bubble that everyone was floating on getting paid lots of money, for a worthless company, that burst, and we had an attack, and numerous corporate scandels..and the economy was in/or heading to a recession when bush took office...economic policy takes 3-4 years to show signs in the economy...currently the deficit is more in line with what bush had inherited, the projections now are practically the same as they were 4 years ago, and federal spending went up

[Sheik Rattle Enroll]

Tax cuts don't help anybody. If you save $100 one year, and that money is borrowed by the government at high interest, it's coming out of your pocket again later. The only time a tax cut makes sense is when the government is pulling in more money than it uses. But Bush is basically giving away money he doesn't have, and sometime in the future your taxes are going to have to go up higher than they ever were to pay back his loans. Probobly Kerry'll have to raise taxes to bring down the enormous deficit Bush created and all the conservatives'll be saying "The liberal is robbing us or some crap". The tax cuts are just a ploy to trick people not smart enough to realize what they really mean. What's so "conservative" about borrowing money at high interest and owing trillions of dollars?

[ZarathosNY]

Too bad this is not what happens Pitt. After Regan did his massive tax cut in 82, he had to RAISE taxes in 83 in order to make up for the shortfall.

[ElfAngel7]

Well, we're a very greedy country. We want lower taxes AND more services. Something has to give though. And I would rather have higher taxes then lowered services. And really, what's another 90K to these obscenly rich white men where they already have hundreds of millions of dollars?

[CTLesq]

Actually Clinton left Bush a surplus. Bush's tax giveaway to the rich is the biggest contributor to the deficit. 40% of his cut went to the top 1%. If he really wanted to help the economy, he should have made a bigger tax cut to the middle and lower class. That money would have been pumped back into the economy. Most people who make less than $50k got a tax cut of about $400, while Cheny got $90k.

No. It was a combination of the absurd spending levels and the lack of income generated by taxes because businesses stopped making money.

Sorry, but that comes from the CBO. Bush's tax cut and Iraq are the 2 biggest reasons for the deficit.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0613FD39550C7A8CDDA10894DB4044 82

You linked to an article in the NYT archives....all you got was a headline.

You didn't bother to address the substantive issues that companies during this recession made less money, resulting in a smaller tax base.

"Well, we're a very greedy country. We want lower taxes AND more services. Something has to give though. And I would rather have higher taxes then lowered services. And really, what's another 90K to these obscenly rich white men where they already have hundreds of millions of dollars?"

Re: Elf Angel:

I don't want any more services. I want more of my money returned to me.

[Indiana]

And agreed, the government's 'war on poverty' has done nothing to improve the lot of the poor. Voluntary charities can do so much more with their money, and can raise much larger sums of money--if it weren't already being forcibly taken by the government.
Regarding the deficit--haven't we almost always had a deficit? The world hasn't ended yet. What's the difference between a deficit of 150 billion, and 500 billion? It's not getting paid off either way.
I do agree, that with tax cuts must come decreased spending. IN fact, I think federal spending should decrease anyway.
If the states have to increase taxes, to fund things *their constituents* have voted for and supported, that's fine with me--at least the money is being taken from the state's citizens, to benefit the state's citizens. Many of the things the states are needing to increase taxes to support, *should* have been in the state's control and budget anyway. if the citizens want the state government out of their wallet, they should take that into account when they vote, and vote for fiscally prudent politicians.
But yes, I think every single government body should look at their budget and say for each item, "Do we need this? Is there, or can we prove there will be, a benefit that outweighs the costs? Is this something that government can do better than the citizens, if we get out of their way and give them back their money?"
Too many governmental bodies think, "Hey, taxes--it's like a no-limit credit card with someone else's name! You want public transit? here you go! You want an upgrade stadium? NO problem!" It's very easy to be generous with other people's money.

Actually if you go back before Regan and the deficit was small. If you go back to the 60's we had a surplus. So this deficit is a brand new thing actually.

[dtcarson]

Giving me back more of my own money would allow me to decide the services I need, and the rates I'm willing to pay for them. Thus getting more money flowing among average people.
The federal government's boundaries have been massively overstepped. Keep me protected, have a court system above the states for appeals, and provide some security with interstate trade. Almost everything else should be the local community's and states' domain. If that's the case, then you in Miami and Florida can decide you want more services and pay more taxes, while I here in NC can decide I'd do most of them better on my own, and vote for candidates who agree with me in my state elections.

[Sheik Rattle Enroll]

Wait a second, a mutual fund that doubles your money? Where do I sign up? I thought a 10% return was incredible. Anyway, if you invested in a mutual fund when bush took office you would have lost most of your money.

[Squirms]

Giving me back more of my own money would allow me to decide the services I need, and the rates I'm willing to pay for them. Thus getting more money flowing among average people.
The federal government's boundaries have been massively overstepped. Keep me protected, have a court system above the states for appeals, and provide some security with interstate trade. Almost everything else should be the local community's and states' domain. If that's the case, then you in Miami and Florida can decide you want more services and pay more taxes, while I here in NC can decide I'd do most of them better on my own, and vote for candidates who agree with me in my state elections.

:applause: I agree with you 100%.

[The_Continental]

All this brings me to a political epiphany.

Conservatives believe that they earn an income, and donate a portion of it for the good of the government.

Liberals believe that they earn an income for the government, the government takes what it needs, and gives the leftovers back to the wage-earner.

It is a very slight distinction, but accurate, I think.

[goldbean]

It's funny to see people complaining about tax cuts benefitting the rich, because it reveals a fundamental misunderstanding about our tax system. What do you expect when you have a progressive tax scheme? When the top 1% pays almost 35% of the federal tax burden, a fair tax cut will disproportionately benefit them (i.e., 35-40%).

What many people don't understand is that the large majority of economic growth (and most job growth/production) in the US is a product of small businesses. And many (if not most) small businesses are taxed at individual tax rates, not corporate rates. Increasing the highest individual tax rates hamstrings small businesses, limits productive reinvestment, and hampers job growth. Most people taxed at the highest individual rates are not obscenely rich, lazy men, but productive drivers of the economy.

Economics confirmed long ago that government spending is much less efficient and effective at stimulating national economic growth than private spending. In other words, a dollar you spend (or a dollar a small business owner invests in his community) is better for our economy than a dollar the government spends.

Economics education should be mandatory in high school. Eliminate ignorance, and fewer people would fall for misleading propaganda.

[The_Continental]

The only one who should decide how to invest my money is me.

It's like the liberals think wage earners are too stupid to know how to spend thier own money. They think it's a better idea if the government takes over that duty for them.

[The_Continental]

I've posted this before, but for those of you that missed it, here it is again:

This is a VERY simple way to understand the tax laws. Read on - it does make you think!!

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men -- the poorest -- would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1, the sixth would pay $3, the seventh $7, the eighth $12, the ninth $18, and the tenth man -- the richest -- would pay $59.

That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement -- until one day, the owner threw them a curve (in tax language a tax cut).

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.00.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six -- the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, Then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59.

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man, but he, (pointing to the tenth) got $7!". "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man, "I only saved a dollar, too, ........It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!". That's true!" shouted the seventh man, why should he get $7 back when I got only $2?" The wealthy get all the breaks!". Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what was very important. They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of paying the bill!

Imagine that!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. Where would that leave the rest?

Unfortunately, most taxing authorities anywhere cannot seem to grasp this rather straight-forward logic!

This is the best explanation I've ever read.

[MaxBiaggi3]

I don't want any more services. I want more of my money returned to me.

Ah, but you do want your big military spending, war on terror, war in Iraq, limp-wristed medicare reform, etc. in addition to tax cuts for the wealthy, and then you'll be a dear and donate only what you want to education, the poor, charities, etc. Sorry buddy, but you can't have it both ways.

[MrBadExample]

All this brings me to a political epiphany.

Conservatives believe that they earn an income, and donate a portion of it for the good of the government.

Liberals believe that they earn an income for the government, the government takes what it needs, and gives the leftovers back to the wage-earner.

It is a very slight distinction, but accurate, I think.

How about...

Liberals believe in paying taxes fairly so that the government has the funds to provide for us (Social Security, schools, welfare, defense etc.).

Conservatives could care less about anyone else as long as they have theirs and somebody else can pay for the huge military they like.

[The_Continental]

Sooo.... how does that square with the idea that the rich should pay a higher percentage than everybody else. Is that fair?

Also, I don't think the government should tax us for Social Security. Let me worry about my own retirement, that's none of thier business. Again, like I said, it's like lefties don't trust me to spend my own money and plan for my future.

All this brings me to a political epiphany.

Conservatives believe that they earn an income, and donate a portion of it for the good of the government.

Liberals believe that they earn an income for the government, the government takes what it needs, and gives the leftovers back to the wage-earner.

It is a very slight distinction, but accurate, I think.

How about...

Liberals believe in paying taxes fairly so that the government has the funds to provide for us (Social Security, schools, welfare, defense etc.).

Conservatives could care less about anyone else as long as they have theirs and somebody else can pay for the huge military they like.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

MrBadExample showing once again that Michael Moore and that wing of the left controls the way the debate is framed from the left.

[goldbean]

I need to borrow your dictionary. If 1% of the population paying 35% of total taxes is "fair," if 5% of the population paying 53% of total taxes is "fair," and if 50% of the population paying 96% of the total taxes is "fair," my dictionary must have the wrong definition of "fair." My dictionary defines that practice as "socialism."

All this brings me to a political epiphany.

Conservatives believe that they earn an income, and donate a portion of it for the good of the government.

Liberals believe that they earn an income for the government, the government takes what it needs, and gives the leftovers back to the wage-earner.

It is a very slight distinction, but accurate, I think.

How about...

Liberals believe in paying taxes fairly so that the government has the funds to provide for us (Social Security, schools, welfare, defense etc.).

Conservatives could care less about anyone else as long as they have theirs and somebody else can pay for the huge military they like.

[The_Continental]

hurrah

I need to borrow your dictionary. If 1% of the population paying 35% of total taxes is "fair," if 5% of the population paying 53% of total taxes is "fair," and if 50% of the population paying 96% of the total taxes is "fair," my dictionary must have the wrong definition of "fair." My dictionary defines that practice as "socialism."

[PittsburghAfterDark]

BRAVO, BRAVO!!!! STANDING OVATION!!!

[Sheik Rattle Enroll]

You seem to be implying that liberals spend more of your money than conservatives. But it's actually the case that conservatives have generally been the ones to take more of a bite. They lower taxes then raise them again, or run up a huge deficit for future administrations to sort out. Remember "read my lips, no new taxes"? Also under Clinton my friend was making $60-$80 as a top contract programmer and while Bush's tax break may have put more money in his pocket (albeit temporarily, that darn deficit again), we'll never know since he's out of work now. My dad's company just made him fire everyone that worked for him, think they're happy about their "tax breaks" or do you think they'd rather have a president that could keep the economy together?

[dtcarson]

All this brings me to a political epiphany.

Conservatives believe that they earn an income, and donate a portion of it for the good of the government.

Liberals believe that they earn an income for the government, the government takes what it needs, and gives the leftovers back to the wage-earner.

It is a very slight distinction, but accurate, I think.

How about...

Liberals believe in paying taxes fairly so that the government has the funds to provide for us (Social Security, schools, welfare, defense etc.).

Conservatives could care less about anyone else as long as they have theirs and somebody else can pay for the huge military they like.

Fairly? Fair would be a flat tax of some sort. What's fair about one person getting back a thousand dollars, when s/he never put anything in, and someone else getting soaked for an additional 10 grand because they have investments, planning for their future, that are doing well?
The government is not there to 'provide for us.' At least, not in America. The government is there to protect us from 'enemies without or within' [thus constitutionally demanding a 'huge military' or at least a military].
Government schools are not an efficient way to 'teach' young people. And both my parents taught in public schools, for a total of at least 50 years. Homeschoolers and private schools, religious or not, consistently turn out a higher proportion of 'successes' than public schools.
Welfare--I don't disagree with welfare as a concept. If someone needs a hand, I'll give them a hand. I don't want to, nor do I think we should, take care of them [except in those few situations where they can't take care of themselves or have no family to take care of them].
If you fall down, I'll grab your hand and help you up. I'm not going to carry you on my shoulders unless you can't move on your own.
I do care about other people. I'll be honest, I care about myself, my family and friends, more than people I don't know. But I don't want anyone to suffer hardship undeservedly. Funneling my money to someone else, after you have taken almost 1/2 of it by force, and just giving it to them so they're now dependent on that money, is not helping them.
And really, does it matter if I 'care'? If someone falls down, even if he's a total jerkoff and i detest him, I'll still help him up. I don't 'care' about him, but I do the right thing. Actions, not words or 'emotions.'

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Wow Sheik, I guess 1.8 million new jobs since August, soaring consumer confidence, record home ownership, record low mortgage and interest rates mean nothing to you.

Your "friend" and "your dad" are the sum total of the entire economy. I never knew. Thanks for sharing how bad things truly are. I can go await Hillary Clinton to vote me 5lbs of government cheese so I don't starve 6 months from now.

[Sheik Rattle Enroll]

Stupid public schools, they're sure not working in the rest of the developed world.

[PsyClerk]

Mmmm...gubment cheese.

[Sheik Rattle Enroll]

1.8 million new jobs. Great. I guess he's put back about half the jobs he lost now. Am I supposed to get on my hands and knees and be thankful? Also take note that replacing high paying jobs with McJobs doesn't constitute economic growth. And yes consumer confidence has been improving, after hitting record lows under Bush. Using your logic, if I poop all over your head and then wipe up some of it I'm a great hero.

[peteloaf]

Before everybody continues to misquote and misinterperate the American Tax Sysytem, I would suggest you all look into a book called "Perfectly Legal" by David Cay Johnston ISBN: 1591840198

That should put things into perspective

BTW in the 1920's congress actually said something along the lines of: It is moraly irresponsible to tax a working man's wages more than an investers earnings.

Is would seem that is exactly the opposite now...

If you want to start fixing things here in America, the first step is taking away corporate rights. As it stands American corporations have all of the rights of an individual, yet none of the responsibilities...

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Sheik, do you not remember that Bush inherited a recession from Clinton? Do you not remember that on 9/11/01 this country suffered the single greatest loss of life from a foreign enemy in its entire hisotry? Greater than Pearl Harbor, greater than D-Day, greater than any day during the battle of the Chosun Resivor in Korea, Tet Offensive in Vietnam, or any WWI battle?

Did you expect the economy to go chugging right along? Did you expect this country to overlook 3,000 murdered countrymen and go right on spending, investing and not consider parting with any of their money like things were just business as usual?

You are beyond dumb.

[Sheik Rattle Enroll]

Nothing like personal insults to make me kowtow before your intelligence. So Bush is a great president because bad things happened is your new argument?

[CTLesq]

I don't want any more services. I want more of my money returned to me.

Ah, but you do want your big military spending, war on terror, war in Iraq, limp-wristed medicare reform, etc. in addition to tax cuts for the wealthy, and then you'll be a dear and donate only what you want to education, the poor, charities, etc. Sorry buddy, but you can't have it both ways.

Oh I absolutely can.

I just won't spend on the programs you value, because they are of no value to me.

So I can have my cake and eat it to.

Speaking of which "let them eat cake".

[dtcarson]

do you think they'd rather have a president that could keep the economy together?

The only way a 'president' keeps the economy together is if he's actually called Premier, Dictator, Shah, Fuehrer, or Duce. A president should do what he can to encourage small business, encourage spending, encourage investment, encourage saving, and get the hell out of way.
People keep the economy together.

And yes, 9/11 was probably the biggest single event to hit our economy ever.

Side note:
Sheik Rattle Enroll:
Is your handle from "Sonic Disruptors", or somewhere else?

[MrBadExample]

I need to borrow your dictionary. If 1% of the population paying 35% of total taxes is "fair," if 5% of the population paying 53% of total taxes is "fair," and if 50% of the population paying 96% of the total taxes is "fair," my dictionary must have the wrong definition of "fair." My dictionary defines that practice as "socialism."

All this brings me to a political epiphany.

Conservatives believe that they earn an income, and donate a portion of it for the good of the government.

Liberals believe that they earn an income for the government, the government takes what it needs, and gives the leftovers back to the wage-earner.

It is a very slight distinction, but accurate, I think.

How about...

Liberals believe in paying taxes fairly so that the government has the funds to provide for us (Social Security, schools, welfare, defense etc.).

Conservatives could care less about anyone else as long as they have theirs and somebody else can pay for the huge military they like.

You might also want to look up "progressive tax system" in there too. And DUH, there are lots of socialist elements to our "All Capitalism, All the Time" system - Social Security, welfare, Head Start. It's funny how it's never labeled "socialism" when it's corporate welfare.

[The_Continental]

well said

Sheik, do you not remember that Bush inherited a recession from Clinton? Do you not remember that on 9/11/01 this country suffered the single greatest loss of life from a foreign enemy in its entire hisotry? Greater than Pearl Harbor, greater than D-Day, greater than any day during the battle of the Chosun Resivor in Korea, Tet Offensive in Vietnam, or any WWI battle?

Did you expect the economy to go chugging right along? Did you expect this country to overlook 3,000 murdered countrymen and go right on spending, investing and not consider parting with any of their money like things were just business as usual?

You are beyond dumb.

[The_Continental]

Bad Example... I doubt you'll find any right-winged welfare proponents here, corporate or otherwise.

I need to borrow your dictionary. If 1% of the population paying 35% of total taxes is "fair," if 5% of the population paying 53% of total taxes is "fair," and if 50% of the population paying 96% of the total taxes is "fair," my dictionary must have the wrong definition of "fair." My dictionary defines that practice as "socialism."

All this brings me to a political epiphany.

Conservatives believe that they earn an income, and donate a portion of it for the good of the government.

Liberals believe that they earn an income for the government, the government takes what it needs, and gives the leftovers back to the wage-earner.

It is a very slight distinction, but accurate, I think.

How about...

Liberals believe in paying taxes fairly so that the government has the funds to provide for us (Social Security, schools, welfare, defense etc.).

Conservatives could care less about anyone else as long as they have theirs and somebody else can pay for the huge military they like.

You might also want to look up "progressive tax system" in there too. And DUH, there are lots of socialist elements to our "All Capitalism, All the Time" system - Social Security, welfare, Head Start. It's funny how it's never labeled "socialism" when it's corporate welfare.

[Sheik Rattle Enroll]

Well said indeed, nothing like letting terrorists kick the crap out of us. That's what makes a good president yessiree.

[PsyClerk]

I once forced my co-workers to call me Premier.

I was fired a couple of days later. Damn you Bush and your shoddy economy!

[The_Continental]

which post was this in refernce to?

Well said indeed, nothing like letting terrorists kick the crap out of us. That's what makes a good president yessiree.

[ryanbph]

When regan came in the rich were being taxed at almost a 70% rate, and regan also had to deal with a democratic controlled house and senate, the president has very little power, just a big platform to speak off of...bush hasn't used his platform to speak that often..their is a republicain controlled house, but the senate is a wash due to the slim amount lead the republicains have

[RedvsBlue]

Why don't we take away some of Senator Clinton's things? I mean how much have her and her husband made off their books alone?

[MrBadExample]

To borrow a popular conservative argument - if you don't like America (and its tax system), leave.

Find another country where the obscenely wealthy don't pay high taxes to support the state.

[Admiral Ackbar]

I'd like to add a few thoughts...

First, it's obvious that Hillary Clinton has been posessed by the spirit of Richard Nixon.

Second, flat taxes don't really work. If they did, every government would be rushing to do it. Like communism.

I think the biggest problem is corporate taxes. Individuals are paying more taxes, but corporations are paying way, way less. In a sense, the burden of taxes has been shifted from the corporation to the individual.

Conceptually, you lower taxes on the corporation, they earn more money, expand capacity, hire more workers, and the economy grows. That's why lowering corporate taxes, tax loopholes like offshore holdings, are popular with government. Along with the reduction of corporate taxes has also been a rise in corporate "rights" and authority. But, that cost in taxes and "rights" is shifted to the individual in a negative fashion. In a sense, more people are hired and working, but each earns less indivdually because more taxes are taken from their paycheck.

I think I read that it use to be that companies payed 40% of their income in taxes. Now they pay very little, in the single digits I believe on average. I don't really recall at the moment but I'll look it up if you wish.

Also, among certain groups there is a lack of reality in how much as a percentage of wealth that the rich pay. I read one story, I think it was at a democratic debate, where someone asked Al sharpton about the rich and taxes. And he stated that they should pay more taxes. And the reporter baited him by asking something like, "How much, is 15% good?" And Al Sharpton agrees and states that the rich are currently paying less than that. It just shows he doesn''t know anything, because rich individuals are sure as hell paying more than 15% on taxes. And if a rich person is only paying that much, he's using a legal loophole that doesn't defend liability and is probably tax evasion. I'm using a democratic example, but theer are similar examples in republican camps.

The continental had an interesting comment. About how liberals see money as "due" to the government and conservatives seeing taxes as "charity." I can't really agree with that, it's too broad and cut along party lines. But I do get a similar sense in another fashion. For example, if a man makes ten million dollars, and gets four million taken away in taxes, he has two ways of looking at it. He can either see it at the government "taking" the four million that's rightfully his or can see that he earned six milion dollars with the four million being a cost of doing business. This is an extreme case in the million. However, there will always be a threshold between "taking too much" and "cost of doing business." That threshold depends on the individual. Personally, If I could make ten milion dollars, and owed six with taxes, I'd be a happy camper. I mean, six million is six million! But then again, if I worked my ass off, and I just went through hell to earn ten million,l and then I found out I had to forfeit half of that, I might be pissed! I worked hard for that ten million!

[The_Continental]

because they earned that money, and as much as it pains me to say it, they deserve it.

Why don't we take away some of Senator Clinton's things? I mean how much have her and her husband made off their books alone?

[MrBadExample]

Why don't we take away some of Senator Clinton's things? I mean how much have her and her husband made off their books alone?

If you read the entire article, she was referring to the tax cuts as "things." And she and Bill would just as affected as others in their tax bracket.

[The_Continental]

I'd like to see a quote of a conservative using that argument seriously.

To borrow a popular conservative argument - if you don't like America (and its tax system), leave.

Find another country where the obscenely wealthy don't pay high taxes to support the state.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Bush knew about 9/11, he let it happen. He wanted to invade Afghanistan to ensure Conoco could build an oil pipeline through there. The Taliban went and visited him in Crawford before he was President. The Bushes made their money from the Nazi's and Bin Ladens. It wasn't Richard Clark but George Bush that got Bin Laden family members on 9/12/01 before the FBI finished their interviews with them. We invaded Iraq for oil... too bad we left the $12 billion in oil sales in an account and gave it back to the iterim Iraqi government. Well, I'm sure they've paid off Bush. Bush profits from millions of lost American jobs going overseas. Cheney runs Haliburton from the "undisclosed location". The Senate, Supreme Court and House of Representative are all bought off by Bush.

Bush is a chimp that is too dumb to tie his own shoes and can barely speak.

Hmmmm wait, I'm trying to remember if I have everything correct here.

[The_Continental]

Be careful, some people here might not sense your sarcasm.

Bush knew about 9/11, he let it happen. He wanted to invade Afghanistan to ensure Conoco could build an oil pipeline through there. The Taliban went and visited him in Crawford before he was President. The Bushes made their money from the Nazi's and Bin Ladens. It wasn't Richard Clark but George Bush that got Bin Laden family members on 9/12/01 before the FBI finished their interviews with them. We invaded Iraq for oil... too bad we left the $12 billion in oil sales in an account and gave it back to the iterim Iraqi government. Well, I'm sure they've paid off Bush. Bush profits from millions of lost American jobs going overseas. Cheney runs Haliburton from the "undisclosed location". The Senate, Supreme Court and House of Representative are all bought off by Bush.

Bush is a chimp that is too dumb to tie his own shoes and can barely speak.

Hmmmm wait, I'm trying to remember if I have everything correct here.

[dtcarson]

But I do get a similar sense in another fashion. ally agree with that, it's too broadFor example, if a man makes ten million dollars, and gets four million taken away in taxes, he has two ways of looking at it. He can either see it at the government "taking" the four million that's rightfully his or can see that he earned six milion dollars with the four million being a cost of doing business. This is an extreme case in the million. However, there will always be a threshold between "taking too much" and "cost of doing business." That threshold depends on the individual. Personally, If I could make ten milion dollars, and owed six with taxes, I'd be a happy camper. I mean, six million is six million! But then again, if I worked my ass off, and I just went through hell to earn ten million,l and then I found out I had to forfeit half of that, I might be pissed! I worked hard for that ten million!

I can kinda see that, but then again, not.
A few years back, I won some money in a Reader's Digest sweepstakes [Admittedly, this is somewhat different, since I didn't "earn" it, but still.] The government *instantly* took about a third of it from me. Then at tax time they figured that into my income. My instant thought was 'Why are you taking this money?'
And the government should make it *easier* for people to run a business [while not allowing fraud], not more difficult. There already is a cost of doing business--warehousing, inventory, salaries, OSHA compliance, regulatory compliance, taxation, zoning, inspections, etc. And the bigger the company is, the more likely they can hire smart accountants/lawyers to make sure more of that 10 million stays with them. Ol' Jack who runs Jack's Food Mart, one of those small businessmen that exemplify our nation, isn't going to have that smart team of accountants, so he's not going to be able to take advantage of those loopholes [which,yes, shouldn't be there in the first place.]

[MrBadExample]

I'd like to see a quote of a conservative using that argument seriously.

To borrow a popular conservative argument - if you don't like America (and its tax system), leave.

Find another country where the obscenely wealthy don't pay high taxes to support the state.

Just google "If you don't like America" - you'll get tons of hits although I make no claims on their seriousness.

[epobirs]

Well said indeed, nothing like letting terrorists kick the crap out of us. That's what makes a good president yessiree.

So what does that say about the President who was offered the terrorist's leader's head on a silver platter and turned it down. Al-Qaeda didn't spring into existence on January 20, 2001. It had engaged in in attacks and provocations throughout the 90's, all of which were answered with ineffectual repsonses that assured AQ that the US was weak and incapable of dealing with first-hand confrontation.

[Sheik Rattle Enroll]

Bush had specific information that terrorists were going to seize commercial airplanes. Now you could say that from that there was no way to predict 9/11, and you'd be right. However he instituted NO security measured at all. Not too weak ones, not the wrong ones, NONE. For someone who's supposed to be tough on defense, you'd think you'd defend crap you knew people were going to be attacking. So yes, he is a dumb chimp who can't tie his own shoes. And haliburton getting contracts without bidding, making multi million dollar billing "mistakes", and Bush forming a shadow government isn't fishy to you at all? You want to talk about fiscal liberty? Why are my tax dollars going to pay for subsidies so Iraqis can buy gas for 3 cents a gallon while soon I'll be paying $3?


And you want to talk about encouraging terrorists? Then let's talk about everyone's favorite conservative: Ronald Reagan. Whose own son, by the way, won't vote to re-elect Bush.

[The_Continental]

Tried it - didn't find a quote from a conservative on the first five pages - should I keep going?

I'd like to see a quote of a conservative using that argument seriously.

To borrow a popular conservative argument - if you don't like America (and its tax system), leave.

Find another country where the obscenely wealthy don't pay high taxes to support the state.

Just google "If you don't like America" - you'll get tons of hits although I make no claims on their seriousness.

[Ikohn4ever]

Why can I always count on PittsburghAFterDark to show a quote about what some democrat says. Why dont u just waste your time and do the same for Bush. You could show the speeches were he link Iraq with the terrorists. How the patriot act is for the people and how his cuts on the estate tax is for the small working farmer. But I guess people get blinded by their political party. You need to get you head out of the Republican asshole cause you aint smellin the shit comin out of it

[The_Continental]

Actually dude, he has two sons, Ron Reagan isn't voting for Bush. Michael Reagan is.



And you want to talk about encouraging terrorists? Then let's talk about everyone's favorite conservative: Ronald Reagan. Whose own son, by the way, won't vote to re-elect Bush.

[MrBadExample]

Tried it - didn't find a quote from a conservative on the first five pages - should I keep going?

Maybe google works differently for you. Or are you looking for specific conservative commentators using the phrase? I never said that.

[epobirs]

Sheik, do you not remember that Bush inherited a recession from Clinton? Do you not remember that on 9/11/01 this country suffered the single greatest loss of life from a foreign enemy in its entire hisotry? Greater than Pearl Harbor, greater than D-Day, greater than any day during the battle of the Chosun Resivor in Korea, Tet Offensive in Vietnam, or any WWI battle?

Did you expect the economy to go chugging right along? Did you expect this country to overlook 3,000 murdered countrymen and go right on spending, investing and not consider parting with any of their money like things were just business as usual?

You are beyond dumb.

Don't forget the property damage. While it can be easy to overlook in the face of mass murder, the loss of one of the most valuable pieces of real estate on the planet in terms of construction cost to replace and the economic activity normally generated by that property's tenants is no small matter. Wiping out billions of dollars in value in a single morning is going to be felt deeply even after the survivng tenants have gotten up and running elsewhere.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Bush had specific information that terrorists were going to seize commercial airplanes. Now you could say that from that there was no way to predict 9/11, and you'd be right. However he instituted NO security measured at all. Not too weak ones, not the wrong ones, NONE. For someone who's supposed to be tough on defense, you'd think you'd defend crap you knew people were going to be attacking. So yes, he is a dumb chimp who can't tie his own shoes. And haliburton getting contracts without bidding, making multi million dollar billing "mistakes", and Bush forming a shadow government isn't fishy to you at all? You want to talk about fiscal liberty? Why are my tax dollars going to pay for subsidies so Iraqis can buy gas for 3 cents a gallon while soon I'll be paying $3? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Stop it, stop it, I can't breathe.

[The_Continental]

yeah, that's what I was looking for. The fact of the matter is, you might be able to convince me that someone like Ann Coulter has probably said it, but I've never read it .

Tried it - didn't find a quote from a conservative on the first five pages - should I keep going?

Maybe google works differently for you. Or are you looking for specific conservative commentators using the phrase? I never said that.

[dtcarson]

Be careful, some people here might not sense your sarcasm.

Bush knew about 9/11, he let it happen. He wanted to invade Afghanistan to ensure Conoco could build an oil pipeline through there. The Taliban went and visited him in Crawford before he was President. The Bushes made their money from the Nazi's and Bin Ladens. It wasn't Richard Clark but George Bush that got Bin Laden family members on 9/12/01 before the FBI finished their interviews with them. We invaded Iraq for oil... too bad we left the $12 billion in oil sales in an account and gave it back to the iterim Iraqi government. Well, I'm sure they've paid off Bush. Bush profits from millions of lost American jobs going overseas. Cheney runs Haliburton from the "undisclosed location". The Senate, Supreme Court and House of Representative are all bought off by Bush.

Bush is a chimp that is too dumb to tie his own shoes and can barely speak.

Hmmmm wait, I'm trying to remember if I have everything correct here.

He had me going! Sad thing is, that's quite an accurate summary of what many in the media say/'believe'.

If on 9/10, GWB had said 'We're searching everyone who is going on a plane', or 'We're not allowing any Muslims to fly' or anything else, the media and the left would have EXPLODED with 'Free speech! Free travel! Quit taking our rights! Quit being racist!'
If he had blocked certain commercial flights, the company's lawyers would have been fighting it.

Do you know what Halliburton does as a company? How many other companies can do what they are doing? Who are their competitors? Who could do what H. would be doing? And more importantly, who had the every-five-years [I think] exclusive/first dibs contract at the time, a procedure which has been going on for DECADES.

Hey, I want to know why my tax dollars are going to subsidize tobacco farmers and buy their product at the same time we're taxing the crap out of cigarettes, *and* the government and the left has made smoking as much of a sin as killing babies [well, the ones outside of the womb.]

If anything, the government should be lending Iraq a few high priced lawyers, accountants, and businessmen so they can start processing the crap out of some oil and investing that money back into their economy/infrastructure.

And the only difference between a 'subsidy' and 'welfare' is that subsidies generally stop sometime, or are used only when the industry/etc is performng poorly.

[The_Continental]

Do you have any idea how ridiculous this sounds?

Bush had specific information that terrorists were going to seize commercial airplanes. Now you could say that from that there was no way to predict 9/11, and you'd be right. However he instituted NO security measured at all. Not too weak ones, not the wrong ones, NONE. For someone who's supposed to be tough on defense, you'd think you'd defend crap you knew people were going to be attacking. So yes, he is a dumb chimp who can't tie his own shoes. And haliburton getting contracts without bidding, making multi million dollar billing "mistakes", and Bush forming a shadow government isn't fishy to you at all? You want to talk about fiscal liberty? Why are my tax dollars going to pay for subsidies so Iraqis can buy gas for 3 cents a gallon while soon I'll be paying $3?


And you want to talk about encouraging terrorists? Then let's talk about everyone's favorite conservative: Ronald Reagan. Whose own son, by the way, won't vote to re-elect Bush.

[CTLesq]

Sheik, do you not remember that Bush inherited a recession from Clinton? Do you not remember that on 9/11/01 this country suffered the single greatest loss of life from a foreign enemy in its entire hisotry? Greater than Pearl Harbor, greater than D-Day, greater than any day during the battle of the Chosun Resivor in Korea, Tet Offensive in Vietnam, or any WWI battle?

Did you expect the economy to go chugging right along? Did you expect this country to overlook 3,000 murdered countrymen and go right on spending, investing and not consider parting with any of their money like things were just business as usual?

You are beyond dumb.

Don't forget the property damage. While it can be easy to overlook in the face of mass murder, the loss of one of the most valuable pieces of real estate on the planet in terms of construction cost to replace and the economic activity normally generated by that property's tenants is no small matter. Wiping out billions of dollars in value in a single morning is going to be felt deeply even after the survivng tenants have gotten up and running elsewhere.

And as someone who walks past the WTC site everyday to get to work - you all should realize there are a SIGNIFICANT number of buildings that have yet to be returned to service 3 years after the attacks.

It just wasn't the loss of WTC1&2 and WFC7.

[The_Continental]

yes, consider this -

If W had gone into the middle east to look for terrorists and enacted some sort of tight security at airports, screening for arabs prior to 9/11, and the event still happened - all you people would be BLAMING him for 9/11, saying that his over-tight security and preemption policy caused 9/11.

[Lil Stinky]

Then just cut spending. And don't allow the states to turn around and increase taxes to make up the Federal shortfall.

Go tell this to your Republican controlled White House, Senate and Congress. LMAO!!!!! Funny how Republicans only cry about spending when Democrats do the spending. Also funny that the spending Republicans do always breaks records. Bush Jr. is breaking deficit increase records set by Mr. Rondald Reagan. What a bunch of hypocrits.

[CTLesq]

Then just cut spending. And don't allow the states to turn around and increase taxes to make up the Federal shortfall.

Go tell this to your Republican controlled White House, Senate and Congress. LMAO!!!!! Funny how Republicans only cry about spending when Democrats do the spending. Also funny that the spending Republicans do always breaks records. Bush Jr. is breaking deficit increase records set by Mr. Rondald Reagan. What a bunch of hypocrits.

Ah, and you think that sits well with us?

You really don't watch the news do you?

[Sheik Rattle Enroll]

Sorry, what's ridiculous about it? You're saying we shouldn't have had any increased airplane security after being warned that our airplanes would be attacked?

Or are you saying it's ridiculous that we pay $3 a gallon for gas while our taxes go to pay subsidies so Iraqis pay 3 cents, in which case I agree with you.

Or are you saying the idea of a shadow government is ridiculous? If so, I also agree. However we have one: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1850236.stm

Or are you saying Ronald Reagan never caved to terrorists, which I'd assume you know isn't true unless your History of Great Conservatives TM tapes got lost in the mail.

Anyway, please let me know which point of mine is so obviously hilarious because your mind is obviously vastly more powerful than mine in that I can't comprehend your thinking. Or, if you don't have a specific point, you could always start calling me names again.

[ElwoodCuse]

Wow Sheik, I guess 1.8 million new jobs since August

there's still negative job growth over the total term.

That's going losing $100 on the lottery, then winning $20 and thinking "wow this lottery sure is working I just got $20!"

[dtcarson]

That is funny, seeing as how I have specifically stated I'm very disappointed in GWB's non-defense spending increases [I can definitely see an increase in defense/military spending right about now]. I'm more disappointed in the Left, since many of the things he's approved spending on are their pet projects [GWB virtually had Tedward Kennedy write the education bill], then *still* acting like GWB kicked their dogs. They can't even say 'Hey, you're a Republican, but you're reaching out and funding our pet topics!' No, they're saying it's not enough. Or too much. Or both.
My main hope is that after GWB gets re-elected, since he can't get re-elected again, that he suddenly turns the financial spigots off and shows some fiscal conservatism.
Every time a Republican tries to say 'Hey, Democrat, let's work together', he gets stabbed in the back, insulted, or 'It's not good enough'. We sure are a trusting, optimistic, positive party.

[Lil Stinky]

You think for one moment Hillary is introduced in cutting spending?

I have a bridge I want to sell you.

Funny but didn't Bush Jr. say the same thing during a speech as Governor of Texas.

"It will take a Republican President to balance the budget"

Two years later Mr. William Jefferson Clinton made him a liar!

[epobirs]

Why can I always count on PittsburghAFterDark to show a quote about what some democrat says. Why dont u just waste your time and do the same for Bush. You could show the speeches were he link Iraq with the terrorists. How the patriot act is for the people and how his cuts on the estate tax is for the small working farmer. But I guess people get blinded by their political party. You need to get you head out of the Republican asshole cause you aint smellin the shit comin out of it

Why don't you produce some quotes? You may have a hard time finding what you want.

The President never stated that Iraq was directly involved in 9/11. Just the opposite. They've been on record as saying they did not think there was a direct involvement. What Iraq had been involved with is general aid and comfort to many groups including Al-Qaeda. This was one of several issues making Iraq prominent among the world's problem child sector.

I think you've clearly never read the actual text of the PAtriot nor the actual applications of it in real life. Hysterical fearmongering is not a useful contribution to debate. The Patriot Act provides nothing like the sweeping powers many critics claim and in many case only re-establishes capabilites lost as recently as the Clinton years. (Look up up the 1995 Gorelick Memo and ask yourself why the hell this person is on the 9/11 Comission instead of appearing before it to answer questions about the disastrous policy she enacted.)

THe estate tax is indeed a disaster for small businesses that often have option but to be dissolve because it is too expensive to survive an owner or primary partner's death. This is a remarkably backward policy for us to adopt. One of the reasons Islamic countries have had so much difficulty entering the modern age is their archaic laws regarding business. (Yes, the Koran and hadiths cover business management.) Under those laws it was required that a business be dissolved upon the death of a primary partner. This largely insured that no business would grow beyond a limited acale. If you want to live by the business acumen of a 7th Century camel merchant keep voting for the guys who want to crank up estate taxes.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

I just want to point this out then I'm calling this thread played out.

The original topic was Hillary Clinton saying "We're going to have to take somethings away from you."
and instead it turns out into one Bush/9.11/Iraq/Haliburton thread. The left cannot stay on a topic of debate if it's negative towards them.

I will argue taxation rates, Iraq, mandatory military service or any other topic ad nauseum and have. However the focus never stays on the stated topic long when it's pessimistic towards Democratic candidates or ideals. It all turns over to "Well we have to fix things cause Bush f'd them up." which is debatable.

They will never argue on merits, they will never justify the "rightness" of making people pay higher and higher taxes for a $2.2 trillion federal government. Of that 20% is going to national defense. No, these things are never the focus of a tax argument. It becomes "someone's not paying their fair share", we need to tax those who "benefitted from life's lottery' (Dick Gephardt sid this.) it never becomes what's fair.

I was never hired by a poor person. I never got a job from someone defined by leftist political terms as a member of the working class. I never looked over a stockholders meeting and saw people on foodstamps who had put their money at risk to fund a round of expansion, a new building, factory or new equipment. I have yet to recieve health care as part of a part of a compensation package due to a government program.

When I earned my Series 7, 31, 66 and Pennsylvania LAH licenses working for Morgan Stanley I wasn't told to take money from working people. Hell, we were discouraged from it. Nothing but headaches. Too much time spent managing not enough money. Guess what, the "working people" in this country aren't econmically saavy enough or wealthy enough to deal with. It's the rich that benefit from working the system.

The poor and working class get taken for a ride by the system. The system in this case is the government. If you want to help the "little guy" eliminate all income taxes for incomes below $45,000. They don't contribute enough to begin with to be included in the debaate. However that will never happen because then John Kerry and Senator Clinton can't play class warfare anymore. No issue, no votes.

You Democrats support this gunk have bought the company bull hook, line and sinker. Someone has more than you and only "THEY" can help "YOU" "get even".

[dtcarson]

Sorry, what's ridiculous about it? You're saying we shouldn't have had any increased airplane security after being warned that our airplanes would be attacked?

In March 2004, 54.2 million domestic passengers were carried on airlines.
There were 814,340 flights, up 1% from march 03. Probably up a bit from October/Sept 00, but not much.
Hartsfield-Jackson International in Atlanta had 3.3 million passenger boardings in March 2004.

http://www.bts.gov/press_releases/2004/bts015_04/html/bts015_04.html

Without more specific data as to when, where, from what airplane, and how a terrorist attack would have occurred, there were only threeoptions:

* Try to get more information.

* Spend ungodly sums of money to 'increase security' on EVERY SINGLE ONE of those flights, and checking every single passenger/luggage. Thus of course getting air travelers pissed off, losing the airlines money, and having the press say 'Cut spending, you're spending too much on something that may never happen!' And quit violating our rights!

* Spend still-ungodly sums of money to check NOT every single one of those flights, in the interest of saving money. Miss one the terrorists used, then be accused of not doing enough, not 'caring' about the people, etc.

Tragic as it is, given the level of our information and the roadblocks between information sharing [installed there, I believe, under the Clinton admin], I think the government did the best it could have both before and after the attacks.

[CTLesq]

You think for one moment Hillary is introduced in cutting spending?

I have a bridge I want to sell you.

Funny but didn't Bush Jr. say the same thing during a speech as Governor of Texas.

"It will take a Republican President to balance the budget"

Two years later Mr. William Jefferson Clinton made him a liar!

That you miss how the internet/stock market wealth effected the Federal coffers is either convient or out of ignorance.

[Ikohn4ever]

Estate taxes barely effect small businesses and farmers. It effects the rich, it is only for them. You need to be worth so much money for the tax to even effect you. I guarantee that effects just about nobody on this site. Its just a rich to get richer ploy that is mascaraded as helping the working man

[epobirs]

You think for one moment Hillary is introduced in cutting spending?

I have a bridge I want to sell you.

Funny but didn't Bush Jr. say the same thing during a speech as Governor of Texas.

"It will take a Republican President to balance the budget"

Two years later Mr. William Jefferson Clinton made him a liar!

Some people seem to have difficulty distinguishing between opinions and claimed statements of fact. These things are all too easily forgotten when seeking to smear a target.

[Lil Stinky]

The really sad thing is that some of his drivel is probably true. I know the last line about Bush being a chimp is. The other sad thing is that this guy is using a picture of Reagan is this forum group. Talk about being an ate up fanatic.


Be careful, some people here might not sense your sarcasm.

Bush knew about 9/11, he let it happen. He wanted to invade Afghanistan to ensure Conoco could build an oil pipeline through there. The Taliban went and visited him in Crawford before he was President. The Bushes made their money from the Nazi's and Bin Ladens. It wasn't Richard Clark but George Bush that got Bin Laden family members on 9/12/01 before the FBI finished their interviews with them. We invaded Iraq for oil... too bad we left the $12 billion in oil sales in an account and gave it back to the iterim Iraqi government. Well, I'm sure they've paid off Bush. Bush profits from millions of lost American jobs going overseas. Cheney runs Haliburton from the "undisclosed location". The Senate, Supreme Court and House of Representative are all bought off by Bush.

Bush is a chimp that is too dumb to tie his own shoes and can barely speak.

Hmmmm wait, I'm trying to remember if I have everything correct here.

[epobirs]

Estate taxes barely effect small businesses and farmers. It effects the rich, it is only for them. You need to be worth so much money for the tax to even effect you. I guarantee that effects just about nobody on this site. Its just a rich to get richer ploy that is mascaraded as helping the working man

You've made it completely clear you have no understanding of capital investment and the valuation of businesses based of things that cannot be converted back to funds without destroying the business in the process.

[epobirs]

James Lileks offered a pretty good anecdote the other day about people who think the government knows best how to spend your money.

http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/04/0604/062804.html

At the bottom of the page starting after the picture of Silvio.

[Lil Stinky]

Then just cut spending. And don't allow the states to turn around and increase taxes to make up the Federal shortfall.

Go tell this to your Republican controlled White House, Senate and Congress. LMAO!!!!! Funny how Republicans only cry about spending when Democrats do the spending. Also funny that the spending Republicans do always breaks records. Bush Jr. is breaking deficit increase records set by Mr. Rondald Reagan. What a bunch of hypocrits.

Ah, and you think that sits well with us?

You really don't watch the news do you?

The answer is real easy then! I will spell it out for you that are hard headed. VOTE THEM OUT OF OFFICE!!!!!!!!!!

[epobirs]

I just want to point this out then I'm calling this thread played out.

The original topic was Hillary Clinton saying "We're going to have to take somethings away from you."
and instead it turns out into one Bush/9.11/Iraq/Haliburton thread. The left cannot stay on a topic of debate if it's negative towards them.

I will argue taxation rates, Iraq, mandatory military service or any other topic ad nauseum and have. However the focus never stays on the stated topic long when it's pessimistic towards Democratic candidates or ideals. It all turns over to "Well we have to fix things cause Bush f'd them up." which is debatable.

They will never argue on merits, they will never justify the "rightness" of making people pay higher and higher taxes for a $2.2 trillion federal government. Of that 20% is going to national defense. No, these things are never the focus of a tax argument. It becomes "someone's not paying their fair share", we need to tax those who "benefitted from life's lottery' (Dick Gephardt sid this.) it never becomes what's fair.

I was never hired by a poor person. I never got a job from someone defined by leftist political terms as a member of the working class. I never looked over a stockholders meeting and saw people on foodstamps who had put their money at risk to fund a round of expansion, a new building, factory or new equipment. I have yet to recieve health care as part of a part of a compensation package due to a government program.

When I earned my Series 7, 31, 66 and Pennsylvania LAH licenses working for Morgan Stanley I wasn't told to take money from working people. Hell, we were discouraged from it. Nothing but headaches. Too much time spent managing not enough money. Guess what, the "working people" in this country aren't econmically saavy enough or wealthy enough to deal with. It's the rich that benefit from working the system.

The poor and working class get taken for a ride by the system. The system in this case is the government. If you want to help the "little guy" eliminate all income taxes for incomes below $45,000. They don't contribute enough to begin with to be included in the debaate. However that will never happen because then John Kerry and Senator Clinton can't play class warfare anymore. No issue, no votes.

You Democrats support this gunk have bought the company bull hook, line and sinker. Someone has more than you and only "THEY" can help "YOU" "get even".

You could hope but no, they'll create a new entitlement program and call it a tax credit for people who didn't make enough to pay taxes in the first place. Because otherwise it wouldn't be fair!

[Lil Stinky]

I just want to point this out then I'm calling this thread played out.

The original topic was Hillary Clinton saying "We're going to have to take somethings away from you."
and instead it turns out into one Bush/9.11/Iraq/Haliburton thread. The left cannot stay on a topic of debate if it's negative towards them.

I will argue taxation rates, Iraq, mandatory military service or any other topic ad nauseum and have. However the focus never stays on the stated topic long when it's pessimistic towards Democratic candidates or ideals. It all turns over to "Well we have to fix things cause Bush f'd them up." which is debatable.

They will never argue on merits, they will never justify the "rightness" of making people pay higher and higher taxes for a $2.2 trillion federal government. Of that 20% is going to national defense. No, these things are never the focus of a tax argument. It becomes "someone's not paying their fair share", we need to tax those who "benefitted from life's lottery' (Dick Gephardt sid this.) it never becomes what's fair.

I was never hired by a poor person. I never got a job from someone defined by leftist political terms as a member of the working class. I never looked over a stockholders meeting and saw people on foodstamps who had put their money at risk to fund a round of expansion, a new building, factory or new equipment. I have yet to recieve health care as part of a part of a compensation package due to a government program.

When I earned my Series 7, 31, 66 and Pennsylvania LAH licenses working for Morgan Stanley I wasn't told to take money from working people. Hell, we were discouraged from it. Nothing but headaches. Too much time spent managing not enough money. Guess what, the "working people" in this country aren't econmically saavy enough or wealthy enough to deal with. It's the rich that benefit from working the system.

The poor and working class get taken for a ride by the system. The system in this case is the government. If you want to help the "little guy" eliminate all income taxes for incomes below $45,000. They don't contribute enough to begin with to be included in the debaate. However that will never happen because then John Kerry and Senator Clinton can't play class warfare anymore. No issue, no votes.

You Democrats support this gunk have bought the company bull hook, line and sinker. Someone has more than you and only "THEY" can help "YOU" "get even".

You buy that George W. Bush is a good president. Nuff said!

[dtcarson]

And that's ultimately the question:
"Can the government [state or federal] use this money, for this purpose, better than I/We/the Citizens can?"

heh--I like that story :)

[Lil Stinky]

You think for one moment Hillary is introduced in cutting spending?

I have a bridge I want to sell you.

Funny but didn't Bush Jr. say the same thing during a speech as Governor of Texas.

"It will take a Republican President to balance the budget"

Two years later Mr. William Jefferson Clinton made him a liar!

That you miss how the internet/stock market wealth effected the Federal coffers is either convient or out of ignorance.

Your post shows that you can't handle the simple fact that Clinton balanced the budget. This shows your just ignorant or just plain stupid.

[epobirs]

Then just cut spending. And don't allow the states to turn around and increase taxes to make up the Federal shortfall.

Go tell this to your Republican controlled White House, Senate and Congress. LMAO!!!!! Funny how Republicans only cry about spending when Democrats do the spending. Also funny that the spending Republicans do always breaks records. Bush Jr. is breaking deficit increase records set by Mr. Rondald Reagan. What a bunch of hypocrits.

Ah, and you think that sits well with us?

You really don't watch the news do you?

The answer is real easy then! I will spell it out for you that are hard headed. VOTE THEM OUT OF OFFICE!!!!!!!!!!

Sure but if others that are of high importance to you are also at risk you must make yourself heard short of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. THat this can be done has been demonstrated already. When the administration floated a plan for yet another disastrous illegal alien amnesty program they got a massively negative response from vital voting sectors including, to their shock and surprise, many Latinos who understand the relation between their wages and labor markets. The adminstration backed away from the proposed program very quickly after that. It isn't their last word on the subject but they now know it isn't a sure-fire method to build on the Latino base that helped Bush win in Texas repeatedly.

[Lil Stinky]

You think for one moment Hillary is introduced in cutting spending?

I have a bridge I want to sell you.

Funny but didn't Bush Jr. say the same thing during a speech as Governor of Texas.

"It will take a Republican President to balance the budget"

Two years later Mr. William Jefferson Clinton made him a liar!

Some people seem to have difficulty distinguishing between opinions and claimed statements of fact. These things are all too easily forgotten when seeking to smear a target.

Funny how some people(Bush Jr.) say things during a speech in a matter-of-factly way to get a reaction and then have to bite the bullet just two years later.

[CTLesq]

You think for one moment Hillary is introduced in cutting spending?

I have a bridge I want to sell you.

Funny but didn't Bush Jr. say the same thing during a speech as Governor of Texas.

"It will take a Republican President to balance the budget"

Two years later Mr. William Jefferson Clinton made him a liar!

That you miss how the internet/stock market wealth effected the Federal coffers is either convient or out of ignorance.

Your post shows that you can't handle the simple fact that Clinton balanced the budget. This shows your just ignorant or just plain stupid.

No what it shows is I understand that during a period of unmatched prosperity, coupled with a split government, Clinton couldn't spend the money fast enough to create a deficeit.

Yes, I must be ignorant and stupid.

[Ikohn4ever]

Yes, I must be ignorant and stupid.

Finally we agree on something :rofl:

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Lil Stinky's responses remind me of Al Bundy arguing with Marcie and the only thing he could say in response was "Oh yeah, well.... you're a chicken!".

[epobirs]

You think for one moment Hillary is introduced in cutting spending?

I have a bridge I want to sell you.

Funny but didn't Bush Jr. say the same thing during a speech as Governor of Texas.

"It will take a Republican President to balance the budget"

Two years later Mr. William Jefferson Clinton made him a liar!

Some people seem to have difficulty distinguishing between opinions and claimed statements of fact. These things are all too easily forgotten when seeking to smear a target.

Funny how some people(Bush Jr.) say things during a speech in a matter-of-factly way to get a reaction and then have to bite the bullet just two years later.

Take on a job that involves public statements and that is guaranteed to happen regardless of your alignment. Nobody has 100% track record. Nitpicks do not make for triumphalism.

You might also consider who was holding Clinton's feet to the fire on those budget issues. Hint: It wasn't anyone named Kennedy or Byrd.

[Indiana]

Estate taxes barely effect small businesses and farmers. It effects the rich, it is only for them. You need to be worth so much money for the tax to even effect you. I guarantee that effects just about nobody on this site. Its just a rich to get richer ploy that is mascaraded as helping the working man

You've made it completely clear you have no understanding of capital investment and the valuation of businesses based of things that cannot be converted back to funds without destroying the business in the process.

If your business has grown that large why not convert it to a corporation?

[Indiana]

You think for one moment Hillary is introduced in cutting spending?

I have a bridge I want to sell you.

Funny but didn't Bush Jr. say the same thing during a speech as Governor of Texas.

"It will take a Republican President to balance the budget"

Two years later Mr. William Jefferson Clinton made him a liar!

That you miss how the internet/stock market wealth effected the Federal coffers is either convient or out of ignorance.

Your post shows that you can't handle the simple fact that Clinton balanced the budget. This shows your just ignorant or just plain stupid.

No what it shows is I understand that during a period of unmatched prosperity, coupled with a split government, Clinton couldn't spend the money fast enough to create a deficeit.

Yes, I must be ignorant and stupid.

Actually Clinton had a goal of having a balanced budget or surplus. Bush has no understanding of why this would be a good thing to have. I guess he figures that he will be retired and it will be the next generations problem on how to pay it back.

[Lil Stinky]

You think for one moment Hillary is introduced in cutting spending?

I have a bridge I want to sell you.

Funny but didn't Bush Jr. say the same thing during a speech as Governor of Texas.

"It will take a Republican President to balance the budget"

Two years later Mr. William Jefferson Clinton made him a liar!

That you miss how the internet/stock market wealth effected the Federal coffers is either convient or out of ignorance.

Your post shows that you can't handle the simple fact that Clinton balanced the budget. This shows your just ignorant or just plain stupid.

No what it shows is I understand that during a period of unmatched prosperity, coupled with a split government, Clinton couldn't spend the money fast enough to create a deficeit.

Yes, I must be ignorant and stupid.

What was that? A period of unmatched prosperity? LMAO! Nice to see your finally accepting some of the facts oh ignorant one. A split government=balanced budgets and restrained spending. Don't let this simple fact that you just stated keep you from voting ignorant. Keep those great Republicans in control of both houses and definately keep that straight shooter in the Whitehouse. We all know that the world is a much safer place now than ever before. LMAO!!!!!

[Lil Stinky]

Lil Stinky's responses remind me of Al Bundy arguing with Marcie and the only thing he could say in response was "Oh yeah, well.... you're a chicken!".

Your responses/original post/little picture remind me of a fanatic.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

"And you're a chicken!" he clucked.

[Lil Stinky]

You think for one moment Hillary is introduced in cutting spending?

I have a bridge I want to sell you.

Funny but didn't Bush Jr. say the same thing during a speech as Governor of Texas.

"It will take a Republican President to balance the budget"

Two years later Mr. William Jefferson Clinton made him a liar!

That you miss how the internet/stock market wealth effected the Federal coffers is either convient or out of ignorance.

Your post shows that you can't handle the simple fact that Clinton balanced the budget. This shows your just ignorant or just plain stupid.

No what it shows is I understand that during a period of unmatched prosperity, coupled with a split government, Clinton couldn't spend the money fast enough to create a deficeit.

Yes, I must be ignorant and stupid.

Actually Clinton had a goal of having a balanced budget or surplus. Bush has no understanding of why this would be a good thing to have. I guess he figures that he will be retired and it will be the next generations problem on how to pay it back.

Shut up dammit! Your making way to much sense for these guys.

[CTLesq]

You think for one moment Hillary is introduced in cutting spending?

I have a bridge I want to sell you.

Funny but didn't Bush Jr. say the same thing during a speech as Governor of Texas.

"It will take a Republican President to balance the budget"

Two years later Mr. William Jefferson Clinton made him a liar!

That you miss how the internet/stock market wealth effected the Federal coffers is either convient or out of ignorance.

Your post shows that you can't handle the simple fact that Clinton balanced the budget. This shows your just ignorant or just plain stupid.

No what it shows is I understand that during a period of unmatched prosperity, coupled with a split government, Clinton couldn't spend the money fast enough to create a deficeit.

Yes, I must be ignorant and stupid.

Actually Clinton had a goal of having a balanced budget or surplus. Bush has no understanding of why this would be a good thing to have. I guess he figures that he will be retired and it will be the next generations problem on how to pay it back.

I think what people are missing that no-one thinks Bush's spending is good.

To claim however that Clinton decided on his own have a balanced budget, is absurd. Of the 8 budgets Reagan passed 7 were budgets passed by a Democratically controlled Congress - only his tax cut (82)budget when the Republicans controlled the Senate was his own.

Yet he is blamed for deficiets. Yet in the later years of Clinton when Congress reverted to Republican control, it was all Bubba...not.

When you compare Bush to Kerry the sad fact is they are both going to spend. The difference is under Bush at least I get a tax cut. And don't think for a moment Kerry is paying for his spending with tax increases, he will just spend more.

[Lil Stinky]

"And you're a chicken!" he clucked.

Cluck...cluck....cluck. I'd rather be a chicken than a ignorant fanatic. Like Dean Wormer said in Animal House...................
"Being fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life son"

[Sheik Rattle Enroll]

Eliminate all taxes for people making less than $45,000 a year? Sounds like a good idea to me. Not very traditionally republican though, is it? But kudos to you anyway.

Actually let me revise that, eliminate the taxes so long as spending gets cut or the rich get taxed more. I.e. I'm all for it so long as it gets paid for somehow and doesn't just wind up going towards the giant defecit reagan, bush, and bush were all about creating

[Lil Stinky]

You think for one moment Hillary is introduced in cutting spending?

I have a bridge I want to sell you.

Funny but didn't Bush Jr. say the same thing during a speech as Governor of Texas.

"It will take a Republican President to balance the budget"

Two years later Mr. William Jefferson Clinton made him a liar!

That you miss how the internet/stock market wealth effected the Federal coffers is either convient or out of ignorance.

Your post shows that you can't handle the simple fact that Clinton balanced the budget. This shows your just ignorant or just plain stupid.

No what it shows is I understand that during a period of unmatched prosperity, coupled with a split government, Clinton couldn't spend the money fast enough to create a deficeit.

Yes, I must be ignorant and stupid.

Actually Clinton had a goal of having a balanced budget or surplus. Bush has no understanding of why this would be a good thing to have. I guess he figures that he will be retired and it will be the next generations problem on how to pay it back.

I think what people are missing that no-one thinks Bush's spending is good.

To claim however that Clinton decided on his own have a balanced budget, is absurd. Of the 8 budgets Reagan passed 7 were budgets passed by a Democratically controlled Congress - only his tax cut (82)budget when the Republicans controlled the Senate was his own.

Yet he is blamed for deficiets. Yet in the later years of Clinton when Congress reverted to Republican control, it was all Bubba...not.

When you compare Bush to Kerry the sad fact is they are both going to spend. The difference is under Bush at least I get a tax cut. And don't think for a moment Kerry is paying for his spending with tax increases, he will just spend more.

Oh so Clinton didn't spend more because we had a split government but Kerry will somehow wave his magic liberal wand and spend money like it was water. You guys are so full of it this has become a comedy show.

[CTLesq]

You think for one moment Hillary is introduced in cutting spending?

I have a bridge I want to sell you.

Funny but didn't Bush Jr. say the same thing during a speech as Governor of Texas.

"It will take a Republican President to balance the budget"

Two years later Mr. William Jefferson Clinton made him a liar!

That you miss how the internet/stock market wealth effected the Federal coffers is either convient or out of ignorance.

Your post shows that you can't handle the simple fact that Clinton balanced the budget. This shows your just ignorant or just plain stupid.

No what it shows is I understand that during a period of unmatched prosperity, coupled with a split government, Clinton couldn't spend the money fast enough to create a deficeit.

Yes, I must be ignorant and stupid.

Actually Clinton had a goal of having a balanced budget or surplus. Bush has no understanding of why this would be a good thing to have. I guess he figures that he will be retired and it will be the next generations problem on how to pay it back.

I think what people are missing that no-one thinks Bush's spending is good.

To claim however that Clinton decided on his own have a balanced budget, is absurd. Of the 8 budgets Reagan passed 7 were budgets passed by a Democratically controlled Congress - only his tax cut (82)budget when the Republicans controlled the Senate was his own.

Yet he is blamed for deficiets. Yet in the later years of Clinton when Congress reverted to Republican control, it was all Bubba...not.

When you compare Bush to Kerry the sad fact is they are both going to spend. The difference is under Bush at least I get a tax cut. And don't think for a moment Kerry is paying for his spending with tax increases, he will just spend more.

Oh so Clinton didn't spend more because we had a split government but Kerry will somehow wave his magic liberal wand and spend money like it was water. You guys are so full of it this has become a comedy show.

Because I presume, as reasonable people will, that there is a high likelihood with a Kerry win he will be able to carry the House which has a razor thin Republican majority to begin with.

Or alternatively, this Congress hasn't shown any amount of fiscal restraint, so they will continue spending.

See its not that hard.

[ryanbph]

I don't think if kerry is in office he could be any worse then what the dems claim gw is, or what the republicain's claim bubbah was..Unless he uses excutive power to elimate the tax cuts...this election doesn't look like the dems can make a power move in either house or senate, due to the amount of seats they can gain, compared to loose. So for the next 3 years if kerry was elected, everything will for the most part be status quo...It isn't the president that writes policy, he only puts his stamp of approval on it, and gets the big microphone to hopefully sway voters..

[epobirs]

Eliminate all taxes for people making less than $45,000 a year? Sounds like a good idea to me. Not very traditionally republican though, is it? But kudos to you anyway.

Actually let me revise that, eliminate the taxes so long as spending gets cut or the rich get taxed more. I.e. I'm all for it so long as it gets paid for somehow and doesn't just wind up going towards the giant defecit reagan, bush, and bush were all about creating

The change in revenues in eliminating federal income tax below $45K is so minor that it doesn't call for adding any taxes for higher earners. History has demonstrated quite well that those people who are no longer taxed will engage in economic activity that ultimately increase revenues. As well, those people are likely to apply their money in ways that improve their earning ability to the extent they are now in the taxable range.

If you examine Congressional behavior during the Reagan years you'll find that very little of the deficit originated at the White House. The area of spending driven most by the administration was for defense and that paid off very nicely, unless you actually miss having the Soviets around. As apercentage of GDP the Defense spending never came close to entitlements costs. If you want to blame a Republican consider how much of the entitlements infrastructure grew up under Nixon. The bills came due under Reagan but that doesn't make it his doing.

[epobirs]

Because I presume, as reasonable people will, that there is a high likelihood with a Kerry win he will be able to carry the House which has a razor thin Republican majority to begin with.

Or alternatively, this Congress hasn't shown any amount of fiscal restraint, so they will continue spending.

See its not that hard.

Inthe case of Kerry his inclination to spend is the least of my concerns. He has so many other bad ideas that mere fiscal excess is lost in the crowd.

[Lil Stinky]

Or alternatively, this Congress hasn't shown any amount of fiscal restraint, so they will continue spending.

See its not that hard.

Your right its not. Vote the bastards out of office.

[epobirs]

Estate taxes barely effect small businesses and farmers. It effects the rich, it is only for them. You need to be worth so much money for the tax to even effect you. I guarantee that effects just about nobody on this site. Its just a rich to get richer ploy that is mascaraded as helping the working man

You've made it completely clear you have no understanding of capital investment and the valuation of businesses based of things that cannot be converted back to funds without destroying the business in the process.

If your business has grown that large why not convert it to a corporation?

Because incorporation carries its own pitfalls and issues. It can dramatically change the way one does business in ways that a small family run operation often find offensive. Small business is a vital source of tax revenue when they are allowed to prosper. Tax structures should reflect that but all too often there are elected officials who think that anyone with their own business must be rolling in cash. This attitude has created a disaster here in California.