New Bush attack ad.

[Quackzilla]

Have you all seen it?
It is litterally 100% lies. It accuses Kerry of hiking ALL taxes like a 50 cent gas tax and others totalling $900,000,000,000.

Am I the only one who thinks the FEC and FCC needs to stop the lies?

[WildWop]

This administration plays dizzy bats too often... when they put a spin on something, the damn thing becomes a tornado, sweeping away truth in the name of "faith" and "patriotism"

If I had a good sum of money, and Bush gets re-elected, I think I'd move myself and my family out of this country.

[jdpimp]

Yeah, the FCC and the FEC are gonna stop the president ---that's funny. Lets think for a moment. Who pays the people who work for the FCC? the Government. Who makes the budget for the FCC? The Cabinet. Who assigns the cabinet members? The president.

If you want to see how it all works, go up to your boss and tell him to get off the phone, its unbecoming of a good employee, and then witness the fun firsthand!

My suggestion: Tell everyone you know everything you can about the candidates. I'm sure you know someone who doesn't vote, and get them to vote. Don't expect the FCC to bite the donkey that feeds it.

[thecolonel2323]

Kerry actually did vote yes on many taxes and I wouldn't be surprised if the ad is technically true. It is however taken completely out of context. Kerry supported a gas tax back in the early 90's when gas wasn't $1.80 a gallon. Bush however is a money grubbing prick along with Cheney who both stand to profit from higher gas prices.

[PsyClerk]

Yeah, and we all know the saintly Democratic party would NEVER EVER EVER NEVER EVER run an ad like this, because they are 100% genuine good compassionate human beings who have only YOUR interests at heart. No really!

Vote Libertarian, dumbasses.

[WildWop]

Kerry actually did vote yes on many taxes and I wouldn't be surprised if the ad is technically true. It is however taken completely out of context.

Would you like some detergent with that spin cycle, Mr. Bush?

I hate that this retarded notion that taxes are somehow "bad" and that tax cuts for the rich should be made permanent... yet spending shouldn't be reduced to meet the decreased influx of funds. I hate even more that the average dumbass in this country will likely buy into the offal that this administration is constantly shoveling in their mouths. No one pays any attention, and since Bush comes across as a moron, it's like he can do no wrong since he "isn't intelligent enough" to pull one over on us.

Where's Clinton when you need him? At least when he lied, it wasn't from some platform of high morality and religious fervor. Clinton served you bullshit uncovered on a gleaming silver dish, right where you could see it. He also acknowledged when he was wrong [personal indiscretions aside], which Bush is incapable of doing.

Must... stop... hate... rising...

must... stop... using... elipses...

[punqsux]

does anyone here actully expect an election, or a politition to be fair and truthful? it'd be nice but in todays age of govment controlling everything, i wouldnt count on it anytime soon

[magilacudy]

I don't think there's been a fair election in this country since the 1800s. I think this election is going to come down to a miscount and some electoral college wackiness like our previous one did. Those ads are just traditional decorations to another Bush reelection unfortunately. =/

[PittsburghAfterDark]

I thought this forum was "Cheap Ass Gamer" not "Dumb Ass Gamer".

Have you all seen it?
It is litterally 100% lies. It accuses Kerry of hiking ALL taxes like a 50 cent gas tax and others totalling $900,000,000,000.

Just out of curiosity, do you not realize that Kerry has the biggest tax increase of all time as a central theme to his campaign? Oh what would that be? Universal health care. That's 1/7th of the U.S. economy which is now $12 trillion dollars. What would that be? $1.68 trillion. OH BOY! LETS GIVE THEM THAT MONEY! WHERE DO I SIGN!

Yeah, the FCC and the FEC are gonna stop the president ---that's funny. Lets think for a moment. Who pays the people who work for the FCC? the Government. Who makes the budget for the FCC? The Cabinet. Who assigns the cabinet members? The president.

Is this the kind of bull they teach in civics classes these days? You actually think this is how government spending is decided? The cabinent members have NOTHING to do with budgeting. The only entity in the United States that can raise and spend money is congress. The cabinent can't spend dime one, they can't allocate dime one. They can't raise taxes.

DAG!

[thecolonel2323]

Kerry actually did vote yes on many taxes and I wouldn't be surprised if the ad is technically true. It is however taken completely out of context.

Would you like some detergent with that spin cycle, Mr. Bush?

I hate that this retarded notion that taxes are somehow "bad" and that tax cuts for the rich should be made permanent... yet spending shouldn't be reduced to meet the decreased influx of funds. I hate even more that the average dumbass in this country will likely buy into the offal that this administration is constantly shoveling in their mouths. No one pays any attention, and since Bush comes across as a moron, it's like he can do no wrong since he "isn't intelligent enough" to pull one over on us.

Where's Clinton when you need him? At least when he lied, it wasn't from some platform of high morality and religious fervor. Clinton served you bullshit uncovered on a gleaming silver dish, right where you could see it. He also acknowledged when he was wrong [personal indiscretions aside], which Bush is incapable of doing.

Must... stop... hate... rising...

must... stop... using... elipses...

It's funny how I critise Bush for taking shit out of context and you are to ignorant to realize this and proceed to take what I say out of context to make it sound like I love and support the man. You are no better than bush himself.

I'll try to make this a little bit clearer for you. What I was saying is that Kerry supported a gas tax when gas was cheap and bush is using that against him now attempting to insinuate that Kerry would support a gas tax now. Which we all know Kerry would not. Anybody should be able to see what truth and that is gas rises when a Bush is in office and thats why there will never be a woman president....that didnt come out right...

[alongx]

If you think these ads are pretty bad lies, you should take a look at Al Franken's book 'Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them.' It'll make your head spin.
I'm certainly not going to hail the laurels of the democratic party - but Clinton, moral issues aside, did a much better job than either Bush ever did.

[WildWop]

Dude, you completely missed my point, I wasn't directing that at you. Hence the "Mr. Bush." I was AGREEING with you, man.

[JSweeney]

Yeah, Kerry's supporters aren't spinning the truth with thier attack ads on GW either. Please.

This election seems like it's going to be selecting between the lesser of two evils.

Vote Libertarian? Only if you feel like throwing your vote away.

You know what? It doesn't matter who you vote for. Someone, somewhere is always going to be disatisfied with something. Bush scares me because he's appearing less than honest right now. Kerry scares me because in his campaigning he's promising everything to everyone... giving simple answers to complex problems. I have absolutely no faith in him, and don't believe that he'd even be capable of delivering on even 1/64th of what he's actually promising.

Sure, it's easy to sit behind a podium and promise people that you'll lower thier gas prices, guarentee them jobs, improve the economy and keep them safe... it's a whole lot harder when it actually comes time to deliver.

Right now, I have no idea who I'm going to vote for... the thing that scares me is that so many people already have.

[thecolonel2323]

Dude, you completely missed my point, I wasn't directing that at you. Hence the "Mr. Bush." I was AGREEING with you, man.

If thats the case then I apologize.

[WildWop]

Really, I see it as a choice between the evil that you DO know, and the evil that you DON'T. Kerry could end up sucking just as bad, or worse, than Bush, but there is still that chance that he will be better. We know what we're getting with Bush. I will likely vote for Kerry, not because I particularly like him or whatever position he stands for this week, but because of the chance that things might improve with a change in leadership.

[ZForce915]

Yeah, and we all know the saintly Democratic party would NEVER EVER EVER NEVER EVER run an ad like this, because they are 100% genuine good compassionate human beings who have only YOUR interests at heart. No really!

Vote Libertarian, dumbasses.

And if we do that, Bush wins. God I hate Bush!

[dtcarson]

Regarding Kerry, it's hard to tell what he would support now, since he's supported virtually everything at one time or another.
And false, out-of-context political ads aren't limited to one party or candidate--remember the ones that showed Bush shoving an old lady in a wheelchair off a cliff? I haven't seen him do that....Oh, and don't forget, 'Republicans want to poison school children.'
They do it because we watch it, and because we vote based on those thirtysecond commercials. We are, in general, a nation with a short attention span, who needs a powerful stimulus to react at all.
Not to mention, given a few facts, one can spin virtually anything in any direction--it's up to YOU to educate yourself as to the truth behind a soundbite, whether that sound bite be a paid political commercial, or a clip on the news [who of course has their own agenda].
FWIW, I'm disappointed in your poll options--they are the 'two sides' of the argument I often see from many Democrats, like if I don't support, say, welfare, I support starving children. Rather misleading in and of itself.
And hey, the ads are doing their job--people are thinking about them, and hopefully researching them. Which ultimately makes it a more fair election anyway.
Here's a pretty funny article about voting, entitled 'A Voters' Guide for Idiots'
http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=1978
And yes it's on ConservativeTruth.org, but this article is non-partisan. Pretty funny/sad, though.
For interesting studies on the 'truth' behind many political ads, from both sides, check out www.factcheck.org.
Here's the one about the 50-cent gas tax bite:
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=165
And to be bipartisan, here's a recent one from Kerry's camp putting words in Bush's mouth he never spoke, about another hot topic, offshoring:
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=168
"Kerry's ad would have been closer to the mark had it said "The Bush administration says sending jobs overseas 'makes sense' for America." That would merely be taking words out of context and oversimplifying a complex economic argument. But falsely putting words in Bush's mouth is deception."

[organicow]

Don't get me wrong, I like bush, but I don't want anyone NAMED Bush in the White House.

...get it??? hee hee...

[thecolonel2323]

What I really want to know is how did Bush get elected in the first place? Why would anyone vote for him?
Did we all forget what his father did in 80s?
I know you really shouldn't judge someone by the example that thier father sets but honestly I don't want the son of a major player in the Iran Contra scandal as my president. Bush the elder also was part of the administration that put Saddam Hussein in power is the mid 80's. Bush senior screwed up the gulf war. He was part of all this crap and people actually believed his son wouldn't follow suit.

[punqsux]

What I really want to know is how did Bush get elected in the first place?

he didnt

[blackjaw]

i hate smear campaigns...thats why republican senetor john mckain didnt get the republican vote a few years ago....cause of bush's smear campaign him and his cronnies used against him...oh well, just vote for the better man

so what has bush done in his period as president??
http://www.tilenut.com/yo/BUSH_record.html

[thecolonel2323]

What I really want to know is how did Bush get elected in the first place?

he didnt

Thats a very good point. He was appointed by a court. He still however managed to recieve an extensive amount of the popular vote.

[Indiana]

This administration plays dizzy bats too often... when they put a spin on something, the damn thing becomes a tornado, sweeping away truth in the name of "faith" and "patriotism"

If I had a good sum of money, and Bush gets re-elected, I think I'd move myself and my family out of this country.

If you had a good sum of money they you would love Bush. He is writing laws for the RICH. It is the middle class and poor that need to worry.

[dtcarson]

If you think these ads are pretty bad lies, you should take a look at Al Franken's book 'Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them.' It'll make your head spin.


I haven't read that book, but your mention of it brings to mind an important concept to understand with regards to this situation: Regarding ads like this, or news articles, or books, or anything--You have to be aware of two additional things: the target audience, and the person/entity saying it. I fully believe that Franken's book would 'make my head spin.' I also fully believe that in that book are many examples of the exact thing we're talking about here, misrepresenting, rephrasing in emotional terms, taking out of context, etc. Which, since it's a book about his opinions, he has every right to do. But I think most people would acknowledge that Franken personally doesn't like/hates Bush. And I would hope that people who read that book would know that, and would take that into account. But odds are, most people who are reading that book, are at least somewhat in Franken's camp, while many supporters of Bush probably aren't going to read it.
And one more interesting thing: Why do so many people 'hate' Bush? It sometimes sounds like a little kid stamping his feet, 'I hate you!'. I didn't like Clinton, I didn't trust him, from the first time I saw him, I thought, "That man is a used-car salesman." But I didn't *hate* him. So many people have this blind rage/hate against GWB, and it just helps to prove to me why emotions should stay out of politics, because generally, the people who are the most hating, are the ones with the least facts behind their hate ['Well, he killed Iraqis for oil! He wants to arrest gays! He wants old people to not get their medicine!']. [This portion of my comment is not directed at anyone here, but the 'public figures' who are so outspoken with their hate, that we see on tv and newspapers etc.]

[Indiana]

I thought this forum was "Cheap Ass Gamer" not "Dumb Ass Gamer".

Have you all seen it?
It is litterally 100% lies. It accuses Kerry of hiking ALL taxes like a 50 cent gas tax and others totalling $900,000,000,000.

Just out of curiosity, do you not realize that Kerry has the biggest tax increase of all time as a central theme to his campaign? Oh what would that be? Universal health care. That's 1/7th of the U.S. economy which is now $12 trillion dollars. What would that be? $1.68 trillion. OH BOY! LETS GIVE THEM THAT MONEY! WHERE DO I SIGN!

Yeah, the FCC and the FEC are gonna stop the president ---that's funny. Lets think for a moment. Who pays the people who work for the FCC? the Government. Who makes the budget for the FCC? The Cabinet. Who assigns the cabinet members? The president.

Is this the kind of bull they teach in civics classes these days? You actually think this is how government spending is decided? The cabinent members have NOTHING to do with budgeting. The only entity in the United States that can raise and spend money is congress. The cabinent can't spend dime one, they can't allocate dime one. They can't raise taxes.

DAG!

But the executive branch does have Veto power. But Bush is too stupid to use it. :D

[WildWop]

Really, we haven't had very good options for President in either election (though I would have voted for McCain in 2000 had Bush not bought his way in).
Bush is awful.
Gore is an automaton that refused to take a strong stance.
Kerry is like a fish out of water, flopping from one point to another.
Nader should just shut up and go buy a lemon without a collapsable steering column or seatbelts.

It's really depressing, when you think about it.

[punqsux]

What I really want to know is how did Bush get elected in the first place?

he didnt

Thats a very good point. He was appointed by a court. He still however managed to recieve an extensive amount of the popular vote.

i have no way of prooving this but im assuming he got that vote on name recognition. i mean isnt there a local official around u that has held office for like 20 years and you dont have a clue what they've done or where they stand, and how do they continue getting elected? people think the name is familiar, and therefore good

dont get me wrong im such bush had people that wanted to see him win, but id assum alot of people had no clue where he or gore stood, and just voted thinking "oh, his dad was a president"

[Indiana]

If you think these ads are pretty bad lies, you should take a look at Al Franken's book 'Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them.' It'll make your head spin.


I haven't read that book, but your mention of it brings to mind an important concept to understand with regards to this situation: Regarding ads like this, or news articles, or books, or anything--You have to be aware of two additional things: the target audience, and the person/entity saying it. I fully believe that Franken's book would 'make my head spin.' I also fully believe that in that book are many examples of the exact thing we're talking about here, misrepresenting, rephrasing in emotional terms, taking out of context, etc. Which, since it's a book about his opinions, he has every right to do. But I think most people would acknowledge that Franken personally doesn't like/hates Bush. And I would hope that people who read that book would know that, and would take that into account. But odds are, most people who are reading that book, are at least somewhat in Franken's camp, while many supporters of Bush probably aren't going to read it.
And one more interesting thing: Why do so many people 'hate' Bush? It sometimes sounds like a little kid stamping his feet, 'I hate you!'. I didn't like Clinton, I didn't trust him, from the first time I saw him, I thought, "That man is a used-car salesman." But I didn't *hate* him. So many people have this blind rage/hate against GWB, and it just helps to prove to me why emotions should stay out of politics, because generally, the people who are the most hating, are the ones with the least facts behind their hate ['Well, he killed Iraqis for oil! He wants to arrest gays! He wants old people to not get their medicine!']. [This portion of my comment is not directed at anyone here, but the 'public figures' who are so outspoken with their hate, that we see on tv and newspapers etc.]

I think the reason for the hate is the fact that the MAJORITY of Americans voted for Gore. Yet Bush won the election. Also many of things that have happened during his presidencey did not help. (9/11, Iraq war, Unemployment, tax cuts for the wealthy).

[CaseyRyback]

McCain was a good chioce and Edwards was a good choice.

I probably will not vote as I do not care for either of them. I will vote for senate though.

Also universal healthcare is needed. It is insane how much coverage costs if you employer does not offer it. I would be willing to pay far more taxes in an effort to eliminate greedy insurance companies and make sure everyone can afford to get attention who is sick

[punqsux]

carson i will agree with you that uneducated people really shouldnt be so opinionated, i dont know about everyone else, but i dont blame bush for sept11th, unemployment, or the stock market because they are all directly related and im sure if they could have been prevented they would have

but tax cuts? iraqi war? patriot act?
those are just bullshit

i know the war wasnt for oil, but you know part of it was to show up his old man

[Indiana]

What I really want to know is how did Bush get elected in the first place?

he didnt

Thats a very good point. He was appointed by a court. He still however managed to recieve an extensive amount of the popular vote.

i have no way of prooving this but im assuming he got that vote on name recognition. i mean isnt there a local official around u that has held office for like 20 years and you dont have a clue what they've done or where they stand, and how do they continue getting elected? people think the name is familiar, and therefore good

dont get me wrong im such bush had people that wanted to see him win, but id assum alot of people had no clue where he or gore stood, and just voted thinking "oh, his dad was a president"

No actually Bush only had a 4 year term and was known for the "Read My Lips" quote. He did not win on the name.

[WildWop]

And this whole hooplah about pre-9/11 intelligence is rather disturbing too. If you're a conspiracy nut, events are starting to scream: Bush let 9/11 happen to give him the support to invade Iraq.

He wanted to avenge the assassination attempt on his father, while at the same time one-upping George HW by finishing what he started.

Just look how the American people were browbeaten into supporting the war in Iraq... through that specter of "Terror" and the always-ephemeral "Patriotism." "If you don't support your President in times like this, you are unpatriotic and un-American!"


Not that I buy into that sort of thing.

[dtcarson]

What I really want to know is how did Bush get elected in the first place?

he didnt

Thats a very good point. He was appointed by a court. He still however managed to recieve an extensive amount of the popular vote.

DING DING DING, okay, we're done. Much like Godwin's law, I believe that when someone pulls out the old 'Bush stole the election!/Supreme Court gave it to him' claptrap, that political 'discussion' is finito.

I personally think the fact that GWB's father was president is, or can be, an incredible benefit to him. Yes, GHWB made mistakes. Yes, every president makes mistakes. Every person makes mistakes. In our lives, we can usually learn from those mistakes. But a president in many cases doesn't have the time, or the opportunity, to learn from his mistakes. For most adults, who are two people you [in general] trust the advice of most? Your parents. To have a parent who actually held a job only 43 people have ever held, and can advise you on that, would be an incredible resource. If nothing else, you can get together and talk about 'your day at work', which would be impossible for almost any other president.

GHWB didn't 'screw up' the first Gulf War. He fulfilled the goal which was to drive Saddam away from, Kuwait? Had he moved on and tried to capture or kill Saddam, there would have been even more backlash than there was for this one. Especially considering France and Germany were getting milliion dollar kickbacks from Saddam, they didn't want their cash cow to be eradicated.

"If you had a good sum of money they you would love Bush. He is writing laws for the RICH. It is the middle class and poor that need to worry."

Funny..."the Bush cuts do reduce income taxes for many middle-income families to zero this year -- taking them off the federal income tax rolls entirely." And already "35.6 million individuals and families got zero benefit from the Bush cuts because their income was so low they were not paying federal income taxes before the cuts. "
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=145

And of course, the myth that 'the rich don't pay taxes'
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?DocID=103
". In fact, the most affluent still pay significantly higher rates even after the two Bush tax cuts"
"[taxes] have been going down for virtually everybody who earns enough to pay any income tax at all. "

The 'rich' do now pay a lesser rate overall, and their rate did drop the most, but it was also the highest in the first place.

Besides, I don't understand this animosity toward 'the rich' [which is, what, people making over 100k/year?] Who *doesn't* want to be rich, or at least, have more money/assets? I'm honest, I know I do. And when the top 50% of earners pay 96% of the taxes _anyway_, you bet I'd want to cut my tax bill as much as I could. [I do that now, taking advantage of legal tax shelters]. I'm surprised there are actually as many rich people as there are, because the higher the tax rate, the lower the motivation to work harder, do better, improve yourself, which usually eventually results in more money. We can't all marry millionairessess, like certain presidential candidates.

[rodneyincali]

I agree with PittsburghAfterDark, you're all a bunch of dumbasses!

It doesn't matter how much the gas prices are, Kerry is a Democrap and will try to raise not only the gas tax, but any other tax he can, just to buy more votes.

To the dumbass who's looking for Clinton; where do you think he is? Committing Adultery! Just like he was for the entire 8 years he was supposedly running this country. Oh yeah, he inhaled, and more! A cigar anyone!

Does anyone here remember 9/11? I thought not!
This had a serious effect on the economy, one in which we are just recovering from.

Bush is in the No Spin Zone telling it like it is! John F-ing Kerry however, is Not!

Go get some chicken thecolonel!
Please WildWop, move! And take all of your left-wing commie pricks with you!

[punqsux]

To the dumbass who's looking for Clinton; where do you think he is? Committing Adultery!

wow you make some very valid points, and im sure youre info on this must be accurate :roll:

[Squirms]

Every time people talk about tax cuts they say that they are for the rich. I am far from wealthy, but I do know that I am paying less taxes, and got a larger return last year then in any of my previous taxable years.
As far as Bush goes, I think his foreign policy is good, but his domestic policy sucks. Kerry at best will just flip those, because his foreign policy is to placate all the other world leaders by doing whatever they want and to bow to the will of the do nothing U.N. Basically he wants to turn us into a bunch of pussies. He does have some good ideas on improving our domestic lives, but he has stated he will raise taxes by $900 Billion in his first 100 days in office.He says he is committed to retaining jobs in this country, yet he voted for numerous trade agreements that are making jobs hemmorage out of this country.
The nuts and bolts of this is that neither candidate is going to be perfect, and neither one is going to do a whole lot of good for the country. I think I'm going to pack my bags and move to Petoria.

[alongx]

If you think these ads are pretty bad lies, you should take a look at Al Franken's book 'Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them.' It'll make your head spin.


I haven't read that book, but your mention of it brings to mind an important concept to understand with regards to this situation: Regarding ads like this, or news articles, or books, or anything--You have to be aware of two additional things: the target audience, and the person/entity saying it. I fully believe that Franken's book would 'make my head spin.' I also fully believe that in that book are many examples of the exact thing we're talking about here, misrepresenting, rephrasing in emotional terms, taking out of context, etc. Which, since it's a book about his opinions, he has every right to do. But I think most people would acknowledge that Franken personally doesn't like/hates Bush. And I would hope that people who read that book would know that, and would take that into account. But odds are, most people who are reading that book, are at least somewhat in Franken's camp, while many supporters of Bush probably aren't going to read it.
And one more interesting thing: Why do so many people 'hate' Bush? It sometimes sounds like a little kid stamping his feet, 'I hate you!'. I didn't like Clinton, I didn't trust him, from the first time I saw him, I thought, "That man is a used-car salesman." But I didn't *hate* him. So many people have this blind rage/hate against GWB, and it just helps to prove to me why emotions should stay out of politics, because generally, the people who are the most hating, are the ones with the least facts behind their hate ['Well, he killed Iraqis for oil! He wants to arrest gays! He wants old people to not get their medicine!']. [This portion of my comment is not directed at anyone here, but the 'public figures' who are so outspoken with their hate, that we see on tv and newspapers etc.]

I retort.
I would be the first person to tell you that Franken's book is biased against Bush. He stated a few times, in his book, on television, and on the radio, that he likes Bush as a person, but not as a president, and hopes that his book pushes people to vote against him. I just brought it up for one simple point: it is well researched and uses facts. And, if you read the book, you'd notice that not many of the quotes he used were snippets or soundbytes taken out of context. Usually, he took sizable exerpts from political speeches or other public statements and used them in his argument.

As for the comment about people 'hating' Bush, I think it might be because of some of the blatant dishonesty that our President has displayed. As comedian Lewis Black joked about in his stand up routine (which was recorded on the CD 'Rules of Enragement'), if the President wants to have a war, that's fine, he should just make sure his reasons are justified. The exact quote was something like, "After we got in there, all I needed was a picture. He should have sent someone over to Kinkos and had them make a picture of a camel with a missle on its back. Then I could have been happy."
Or maybe how Bush turned the majority of other nations in the world against the US, even after a period of worldwide sympathy past 9/11. There are dozens of things I'm displeased with Bush about - though I wouldn't say I hate him. I'd just like him a lot better if he were out of office.

[WildWop]

The problem with the tax cuts isn't really that it benefits the rich, it's that the damn administration can't curb its own spending to match. Hence the obscenely large deficit.

The rich pay higher rates for a number of reasons.

First, they have enough $$ that paying more per year won't significantly affect their quality of life. Raise taxes on a middle class person, with a lot less available funds, and their quality of life would see significant change.

Next, the government spends a LOT of money per year. Things like a "flat tax" would require that all involve make up the difference. Say the rich pay 26%, while the rest 14%. The 26% makes up 96% of the operating budget for the government. Slight changes to that 26% make a huge difference in the amount of money flowing into the government.

Say you drop the tax on the rich by 1%. Rich: 25%, rest 14%. You have now lost nearly 4% of the total going in to the government (1/26 * 96, correct me if my math is off). To make up for that difference, and keep the same amount of money flowing in, the middle and lower classes would have to increase their share of the total by 4%, thus DOUBLING their current 4% to an 8% share.

Now follow that type of math to a flat tax of 15 or 18% across the board, and it just doesn't work well for the little people.
=======================

Really, they just need to fix the AMT [Alternative Minimum Tax], which was meant to target the rich that attempt to dodge the capital gains tax by purposely taking capital losses or by filing for too many deductions. The AMT allows the government to set an alternative tax amount for people with too many deductions, thus making the taxpayer liable for more than they should have to pay.

The level is set at 100k and above.

They have not adjusted that amount for inflation.

Do YOU consider a household income of 100k to be RICH? It ISN'T anymore. AT the time AMT was instituted (in the 70's I think), people making 100k+ were rare, and considered rich. It's only upper-middle class these days. Many, many people get screwed over on their taxes due to the AMT.

===================

[dtcarson]

I think the reason for the hate is the fact that the MAJORITY of Americans voted for Gore. Yet Bush won the election. Also many of things that have happened during his presidencey did not help. (9/11, Iraq war, Unemployment, tax cuts for the wealthy).

Actually, no they didn't. Less than 60% of the registered voters voted in the 2000 presidential election. 70% of the people eligible to vote actually were even registered to vote.
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2003/section2/indicator15.asp
Out of a total 105,363,298 votes cast, 50,456,062 were for Bush/Cheney, 50,996,582 were for Gore/Lieberman.
http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/electoral_college/2000/popular_vote.html
That is a difference of just about 1 percent. Many states have automatic recounts at the 1% mark. In 2000, there was a US voting-age population of about 209 million. So fewer than 146 million cared enough to register to vote EVER; fewer than 105 million cared to vote in 2000, and fewer than 51 million voted for *either* Bush or Gore. Neither one could be called a 'mandate of the people', and neither one represent a 'majority of Americans.' [Unfortunately, these stats are not unusual--I think only 3 or 4 pres elections since 1900 had a voter turnout higher than 70% of registered votes, and on average, it's probably 55-60%].

You still didn't answer my question--if these people are relying on this 'hate' as their argument, they must not have much of an argument. Let's say you and I are debating. You say something. I say, 'I hate you, you stupid treekilling jerk.' What sort of argument is that? Is that going to convince anyone to change their opinion? I don't think so.
9/11 did happen during his presidency, I think he handled the immediate aftermath MUCH better than Al Gore would have. I think this hubbub about it being 'predictable' or 'preventable' is 20/20 hindsight. Anything is visible looking back at it, and anything is preventable if you're willing to pay the cost. We could ground all planes forever, and another 9/11 would never happen. We could close our borders to ANYONE, and deport anyone even remotely connected to terrorism, and we'd be okay. But the solution is worse than the cure. Unemployment--unemployment is always a lagging indicator of an economy. I believe a majority of the unemployment can be directly attributed to the DotCom bubble, where an entire industry was overpopulated, overrated, and overvalued. Clinton happened to preside over it and hype it up, Bush happened to preside on the downturn. I also don't believe a president can wave his magic wand and either create millions of jobs instantly, nor destroy millions instantly, so I don't praise or vilify either Clinton or Bush for either of those. [Exception, of course, if direct federal payrolls are raised, but that of course would take tax dollars to pay the salaries, and I think many can agree that our current federal government is already quite bloated.]
And I discuss the myth of 'tax cuts for the wealthy' in another post. And again, even if all those were Bush's direct fault, I can't see how 'We hate him!' is a good argument. To me, when someone starts shouting how they hate, that means they've lost the ability to use logic or their intelligence, and are running solely on emotion and reaction. And you can't really debate with someone like that, but it sure does provide a more interesting news clip or sound bite than, say, my posts, with all their numbers and words.

[WildWop]

I agree with PittsburghAfterDark, you're all a bunch of dumbasses!

It doesn't matter how much the gas prices are, Kerry is a Democrap and will try to raise not only the gas tax, but any other tax he can, just to buy more votes.

To the dumbass who's looking for Clinton; where do you think he is? Committing Adultery! Just like he was for the entire 8 years he was supposedly running this country. Oh yeah, he inhaled, and more! A cigar anyone!

Does anyone here remember 9/11? I thought not!
This had a serious effect on the economy, one in which we are just recovering from.

Bush is in the No Spin Zone telling it like it is! John F-ing Kerry however, is Not!

Go get some chicken thecolonel!
Please WildWop, move! And take all of your left-wing commie pricks with you!

Dude, that was uncalled for. I have made no personal attacks, and seeing as how you cannot make a point without being insulting, your stance on your "issues" is weak.

Go read a book. Or a newspaper. Stop interjecting stupidity in a discussion that up until your post, was intelligent.

[thatstoobad]

i don't care about the negative ads. you want to take things out of context? go for it. i'll tell you what does need to end, though. i hate how you hear Bush narrate a whole minute long commercial, and then at the end you hear him say "i'm president bush and i approved this message." of course you did, you were just talking.

i would also like to see commericals that have absolutely no truth to them whatsoever. something like "john kerry is in favor of gas taxes, did you know that? did you also know that kerry is also in favor of legalizing drugs and prostitution? did you know john kerry drives at 60 miles per hour down sidestreets, and once hit a kid while he was coked up? did you know that john kerry is in favor of janet jackson's boob? did you know that kerry like rap music? is that the kind of president you want? 'i'm president bush and i approved this message.' "

and then kerry's rebuttal can be "president george bush likes the taste of inftants brains. if he stays in office for four more years, he will have every newborn carted away to a warehouse where their brains can be harvested for his own personal enjoyment. ' let's get that baby killer out of office. i'm john kerry and i apporoved this message.' "

and then it would just go back and forth. you have digitally edited video of george bush's face on r. kelly's body in his teenage love video, and then you'd have john kerry's face on paris hilton's body in her video, and then i'm sure there would be something in there having to do with feces and bestiality. then, instead of an election determining the new president, we could just watch them duke it out on a special edition of "celebrity boxing" with kathy griffin as the referee.

i think that would be better than the new ad.

[ZarathosNY]

Every time people talk about tax cuts they say that they are for the rich. I am far from wealthy, but I do know that I am paying less taxes, and got a larger return last year then in any of my previous taxable years.
As far as Bush goes, I think his foreign policy is good, but his domestic policy sucks. Kerry at best will just flip those, because his foreign policy is to placate all the other world leaders by doing whatever they want and to bow to the will of the do nothing U.N. Basically he wants to turn us into a bunch of pussies. He does have some good ideas on improving our domestic lives, but he has stated he will raise taxes by $900 Billion in his first 100 days in office.He says he is committed to retaining jobs in this country, yet he voted for numerous trade agreements that are making jobs hemmorage out of this country.
The nuts and bolts of this is that neither candidate is going to be perfect, and neither one is going to do a whole lot of good for the country. I think I'm going to pack my bags and move to Petoria.


Dude, Kerry never said that he would raise taxes by $900 billion his first 100 days. That is a lie put out by Bush. Look here http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=163

Kerry does not want to turn us into a bunch of "pussies". He wants us to act like adults. Bush ran into Iraq on lies and against the will of the world because the rest of the world heard facts on Iraq while we were fed lies. We had the world on our side after 9/11 and willing to do anything to help, and Bush squandard it by running into Iraq. Bush let Al-queda and the Taliban get strong again by diverting resource out of Afghanistan to go attack Iraq. I think it's funny that people are more concerned that Clinton lied about a blowjob, while Bush lies about policy and what his administration is doing

[evilmax17]

Heh did anyone see this?

http://www.wiredvideo.com/clips/av3/stateoftheunion.wmv

At least Bush isn't a liar.

[dtcarson]

The problem with the tax cuts isn't really that it benefits the rich, it's that the damn administration can't curb its own spending to match. Hence the obscenely large deficit.

=======================

Really, they just need to fix the AMT [Alternative Minimum Tax], which was meant to target the rich that attempt to dodge the capital gains tax by purposely taking capital losses or by filing for too many deductions. The AMT allows the government to set an alternative tax amount for people with too many deductions, thus making the taxpayer liable for more than they should have to pay.

The level is set at 100k and above.

They have not adjusted that amount for inflation.

Do YOU consider a household income of 100k to be RICH? It ISN'T anymore. AT the time AMT was instituted (in the 70's I think), people making 100k+ were rare, and considered rich. It's only upper-middle class these days. Many, many people get screwed over on their taxes due to the AMT.

===================

I agree with you 110% here. I think the federal government is in too much control of too many things, and I am rather disappointed in GWB for not using his veto, and for signing virtually every budget that crosses his desk.
To bring it to an at-home analogy: like you say, if you cut taxes [that is, have lower income], there's only three things you can do about it. Cut spending [when you're out of a job, or have a pay cut, you don't go to Ruth's Chris Steak House every Friday anymore] [and this includes using your current money more wisely]; get more money [for the government, this means raising taxes, which the tax-ee can't do anything about--for us, it would mean looking for another job, or asking for/demanding a raise]; or borrow [which both the government and many Americans are very experienced at doing, unfortunately.] Obviously a deficit is bad; the current one isn't the worst we've ever had, relative to the economy; and most budget figures are spread out over a period of years, so things can change, but it's much better to prevent it in the first place.
And yes, that AMT is another case where what worked then, doesn't work now [of course, I have a problem with the whole concept of 'punish the rich', but that's another story.]

alongx: That's pretty much exactly what Ann Coulter did in her book [I haven't read Treason, but the previous one]. There were more sources referenced in that book than I used in four years of college. I might go browse thru that book at the library sometime.
I may disagree with someone [as I do with Franken], and I may not 'like' someone's personality [that case where he attacked that citizen at the political rally for Dean, I believe], but if he uses the same attention to detail and specific quotes and analysis that I saw in the Coulter book, I can respect that. And I personally think respecting someone is better than liking him.
Regarding Iraq: personally, even if WMD are never found [which they might not be, they're over in Iran or North Korea now, but remember, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence], those huge pits of children's skeletons we saw are justification enough for me.
Regarding world opinion: Not to be flippant, but you can't please everyone. I'm all for having support of as many powerful nations as possible, but ultimately, we really don't need it. And after all the Pres of the US, is precisely that--the Pres of the US, not of the world. And there are some leaders I wouldn't want to agree with us. That's one thing that bugs me about Kerry--he keeps talking about how 'other world leaders' would like him better than Bush. Well hey, you're not running for president of Other World Leaders, you're running for president of the US. Also, I'd like someone too, if I knew, like someone earlier in the thread said, they would be more amenable to compromise, and giving me what _I_ want. There's a place for compromise, but not with people like Saddam Hussein, OBL, AlQaeda, terrorists, etc.

"but tax cuts? iraqi war? patriot act?
those are just bullshit "

Tax cuts: Everyone who pays federal income taxes got a decrease. Good thing.
Iraqi war: A brutal dictator who ruled by terror, flouted repeated UN resolutions, and possibly/probably either had or was working on major CBW weapons, is now out of power. Iraq is starting to get their first taste of freedom. Good thing. [I know it's not over, but come on, WWII lasted 4-5 years, Korea lasted 3 years, Vietnam 9, and we've still got troops all around the world.]
Patriot Act: The vast majority of the Patriot Act merely brought together in one bill [good thing] a bunch of already-existing laws. Yes, taken together some of them could be used in negative form [like many laws], but the core of what the PA is about, is really nothing new. It's just much easier to stir up opinion when one can say, 'The Patriot Act is taking all your rights away!'

[dtcarson]

i don't care about the negative ads. you want to take things out of context? go for it. i'll tell you what does need to end, though. i hate how you hear Bush narrate a whole minute long commercial, and then at the end you hear him say "i'm president bush and i approved this message." of course you did, you were just talking.

i would also like to see commericals that have absolutely no truth to them whatsoever. something like "john kerry is in favor of gas taxes, did you know that? did you also know that kerry is also in favor of legalizing drugs and prostitution? did you know john kerry drives at 60 miles per hour down sidestreets, and once hit a kid while he was coked up? did you know that john kerry is in favor of janet jackson's boob? did you know that kerry like rap music? is that the kind of president you want? 'i'm president bush and i approved this message.' "

and then kerry's rebuttal can be "president george bush likes the taste of inftants brains. if he stays in office for four more years, he will have every newborn carted away to a warehouse where their brains can be harvested for his own personal enjoyment. ' let's get that baby killer out of office. i'm john kerry and i apporoved this message.' "

and then it would just go back and forth. you have digitally edited video of george bush's face on r. kelly's body in his teenage love video, and then you'd have john kerry's face on paris hilton's body in her video, and then i'm sure there would be something in there having to do with feces and bestiality. then, instead of an election determining the new president, we could just watch them duke it out on a special edition of "celebrity boxing" with kathy griffin as the referee.

i think that would be better than the new ad.

Your ads would definitely be very entertaining : )
But please don't give that attention-grubbing skank Paris Hilton any part of them :(
Regarding 'I approved this ad': I *believe* this has something to do with the campaign finance 'reform'/anti-free-speech legislation that went into effect a little while back. I'll have to research and find a citation, but I'm pretty sure that's why they're doing it. It is kind of annoying, however.

Got it:
"it's a new requirement under the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms. Political experts say it's supposed to cut down on attack ads and make candidates "stand by" their commercials. "
"many TV viewers are finding them annoying"
http://www.crestonnewsadvertiser.com/statenews/278770189538951.php

More details:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2086194/
"because it's mandated by Section 311 of the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reform act. "
and the bill itself:
http://www.law.stanford.edu/library/campaignfinance/107.155.pdf

[Indiana]

i don't care about the negative ads. you want to take things out of context? go for it. i'll tell you what does need to end, though. i hate how you hear Bush narrate a whole minute long commercial, and then at the end you hear him say "i'm president bush and i approved this message." of course you did, you were just talking.


A law was passed requiring them to state this.

[E-Z-B]

At least Bush isn't a liar.

How about when Bush says that he's "fulfilled his obligations to the armed forces", when he really means that he was AWOL.

Attack ads will continue until the end of time, using twisted half-truths. The Republicans use it, and the Democrats use it. They will continue to air them because most of the public is more educated on who JLo is dating now instead of domestic and foreign issues. So when the elections come around, those that are actually motivated to vote will see a negative ad and say "how can this guy be running for office?!" when in fact, they've been mislead.

I'm not so sure about Gore, but I wish McCain was running our country right now. It's a shame that his own party depicted him as a P.O.W. lunatic. We need someone with real combat experience to lead our nation through post 9/11 and Iraq (a war which should've never happened anyway). This is much like how Sen. Arlen Spectre is being depicted by Pat Toomey in PA as being a liberal republican. In reality, the right-wing republican party members don't like Arlen Spectre for being a moderate, much like McCain. What our country needs are moderate leaders, not right or left wing extremists.

As for Kerry "flip-floping" on issues -- that's likely to happen when you have someone who's been in office for years and years. For example, I'm guessing he would've supported a decrease in military spending, say around '96 when we were mostly at peace, but now would like to increase it due to our military being strained all over the world right now. Also, NBC news last night said that when he "voted to raise taxes", it usually was when he was supporting another amendment that would've actually lowered taxes from the original bill, but the end result with and without the amendment would mean higher taxes anyway. Again, twisted half-truths.

[WildWop]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&ncid=703&e=7&u=/ap/20040407/ap_on_el_pr/nader

Ah.. I can only dream...

..then maybe McCain '04!!!

[gamefreak]

Jumping into the fray here, sorry if I have repeated anyone comments, I'm a bit too lazy to read it all ;)

First off, many things people hate Bush for is not his fault. While that seems naive and cliche, it's the truth. When you lose so many people in one day as well as the two tallest buildings in New York, of course the economy and stock market are instantly in trouble. That's what's happened before and will happen again, during emergencies people don't buy things. Not that much you can do about it.

Second, well I'm sorry Gore got the popular vote but didn't win, that's how we elect people in our country. Don't like it? Move to Iraq.

[thatstoobad]

Your ads would definitely be very entertaining : )
But please don't give that attention-grubbing skank Paris Hilton any part of them :(

i don't know. there's something about the way she looks that gives me the impression that you could walk up to her with a tin full of muffins and say "paris, i made these muffins for you. see, there's your name and mine inside a heart. i hope you like them." and then she would slap them out of your hands and spit on you. and i think i like that.

i would have expected some flack for kathy griffin. she's really, really not funny.

and...

A law was passed requiring them to state this.

i know that. it's still stupid.

[Indiana]

What I really want to know is how did Bush get elected in the first place?

he didnt

Thats a very good point. He was appointed by a court. He still however managed to recieve an extensive amount of the popular vote.

DING DING DING, okay, we're done. Much like Godwin's law, I believe that when someone pulls out the old 'Bush stole the election!/Supreme Court gave it to him' claptrap, that political 'discussion' is finito.

I personally think the fact that GWB's father was president is, or can be, an incredible benefit to him. Yes, GHWB made mistakes. Yes, every president makes mistakes. Every person makes mistakes. In our lives, we can usually learn from those mistakes. But a president in many cases doesn't have the time, or the opportunity, to learn from his mistakes. For most adults, who are two people you [in general] trust the advice of most? Your parents. To have a parent who actually held a job only 43 people have ever held, and can advise you on that, would be an incredible resource. If nothing else, you can get together and talk about 'your day at work', which would be impossible for almost any other president.

GHWB didn't 'screw up' the first Gulf War. He fulfilled the goal which was to drive Saddam away from, Kuwait? Had he moved on and tried to capture or kill Saddam, there would have been even more backlash than there was for this one. Especially considering France and Germany were getting milliion dollar kickbacks from Saddam, they didn't want their cash cow to be eradicated.

"If you had a good sum of money they you would love Bush. He is writing laws for the RICH. It is the middle class and poor that need to worry."

Funny..."the Bush cuts do reduce income taxes for many middle-income families to zero this year -- taking them off the federal income tax rolls entirely." And already "35.6 million individuals and families got zero benefit from the Bush cuts because their income was so low they were not paying federal income taxes before the cuts. "
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=145

And of course, the myth that 'the rich don't pay taxes'
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?DocID=103
". In fact, the most affluent still pay significantly higher rates even after the two Bush tax cuts"
"[taxes] have been going down for virtually everybody who earns enough to pay any income tax at all. "

The 'rich' do now pay a lesser rate overall, and their rate did drop the most, but it was also the highest in the first place.

Besides, I don't understand this animosity toward 'the rich' [which is, what, people making over 100k/year?] Who *doesn't* want to be rich, or at least, have more money/assets? I'm honest, I know I do. And when the top 50% of earners pay 96% of the taxes _anyway_, you bet I'd want to cut my tax bill as much as I could. [I do that now, taking advantage of legal tax shelters]. I'm surprised there are actually as many rich people as there are, because the higher the tax rate, the lower the motivation to work harder, do better, improve yourself, which usually eventually results in more money. We can't all marry millionairessess, like certain presidential candidates.

There is a piece of the puzzle missing here. The first 14,000 for married peopel is only taxed at 10% for everyone! . The rich only pay the higher percentage on income over the amount made of the bracket below it. So, yes you would pay more because you made more! So married people who make over $311,951 pay 35% on every dollar made above that number! Let's just say that if I made over $350,000 I would not complain about paying 35%. These numbers are adjusted for inflation as well. I also like how the government has decided that the most wealthy single people should get a little break. They can have pay equal to a married couple in the 33% bracket but not in the lower brackets.

[dtcarson]

Jumping into the fray here, sorry if I have repeated anyone comments, I'm a bit too lazy to read it all ;)

First off, many things people hate Bush for is not his fault. While that seems naive and cliche, it's the truth. When you lose so many people in one day as well as the two tallest buildings in New York, of course the economy and stock market are instantly in trouble. That's what's happened before and will happen again, during emergencies people don't buy things. Not that much you can do about it.

Second, well I'm sorry Gore got the popular vote but didn't win, that's how we elect people in our country. Don't like it? Move to Iraq.

Good point, I forgot to mention the electoral college in my post.
Hey, Saddam's elections were fair--he always seemed to get right around 100%, didn't he.

And that's exactly what the terrorists were trying to do--all the economists in the world can't 'tell' you what the economy's going to do, all they can do is 'predict.' And attacking a major symbol of free trade and commerce, in a major symbol of America, while also killing thousands of American and world citizens, is a scenario that no economist ever even thought about.

[jdpimp]

I'll tell you the real problem here:

George W. Bush eats fetuses.

John Kerry goes out hunting for peregrine falcons

George Bush is a member of the Baby Seal Clubbin Organization (widely known as BSCO)

John Kerry wants to make a law so that old people have to cross the street by themselves, and without the assistance of a cane and/or walker.

GWB lied about my xbox

JK raised taxes on my PS2

GWB threw out the first pitch of the Cardinals home opener

JK didn't


That really opens your eyes, doesn't it?

[evilmax17]

At least Bush isn't a liar.

How about when Bush says that he's "fulfilled his obligations to the armed forces", when he really means that he was AWOL.


Heh watch the movie first!!!!

http://www.wiredvideo.com/clips/av3/stateoftheunion.wmv

[E-Z-B]

Jumping into the fray here, sorry if I have repeated anyone comments, I'm a bit too lazy to read it all ;)

First off, many things people hate Bush for is not his fault. While that seems naive and cliche, it's the truth. When you lose so many people in one day as well as the two tallest buildings in New York, of course the economy and stock market are instantly in trouble. That's what's happened before and will happen again, during emergencies people don't buy things. Not that much you can do about it.

Perhaps after 4 years, and worst econonic record since WWII might have more to do with failed econonic policies like encouraging companies to send jobs overseas, a record-breaking deficit, tax-cuts for the wealthy using "Reaganomics", and so on.

Second, well I'm sorry Gore got the popular vote but didn't win, that's how we elect people in our country. Don't like it? Move to Iraq.

I think what they're upset about is the fact that democracy, according to dictionary.com, is government by the people; especially : rule of the majority. Where we still use an archaic electoral college, and Bush won that due to a Supreme Court ruling with Florida, people are still angry.

[E-Z-B]

At least Bush isn't a liar.

How about when Bush says that he's "fulfilled his obligations to the armed forces", when he really means that he was AWOL.


Heh watch the movie first!!!!

http://www.wiredvideo.com/clips/av3/stateoftheunion.wmv

I can't - I'm at work. I'll have to see it tonight when I get home.

[dtcarson]

There is a piece of the puzzle missing here. The first 14,000 for married peopel is only taxed at 10% for everyone! . The rich only pay the higher percentage on income over the amount made of the bracket below it. So, yes you would pay more because you made more! So married people who make over $311,951 pay 35% on every dollar made above that number! Let's just say that if I made over $350,000 I would not complain about paying 35%. These numbers are adjusted for inflation.

I'm not sure why this makes a difference. If the tax rate is, say, a flat 25% of income, and someone makes 10k, they pay 2500. If someone else, say, me [I can dream; )] makes 1,000,000, I would pay 250,000. Yes, i'm paying more, and I'm making more--that's why it's a percentage. But in the case of the graduated brackets like we have now, people are basically being 'punished' [ie, taxed more, both in real dollars and at a higher rate] than people earning less.
If I make 200k, and am taxed at 25%, that's a net of 150k. If I make 250k, and am taxed at 33%, that's a net of 165k. I am theoretically doing 50k more worth of 'work' or whatever, but I only benefit 15k. So I am seeing diminishing returns, which leads to my realization that, well, why work 20% harder/longer, when I only profit 5% more?
And you saw you'd gladly pay 35% if you made 350k. I challenge that. People want stuff. People want money. Odds are, if you make 350k, you are working very hard and/or very long for that. Friendly IRS comes in and says, "Hey, congrats, you've doubled your income from 175 to 350k this year! Now instead of paying us 25%, you pay us 35%!" The whole premise of capitalism is that I benefit from my work. I'm not totally against taxation, but I think this 'progressive' tax is actually 'regressive.'
Personal note: A couple years back, I won $23,500 in a Reader's Digest sweepstakes [Yes, people really do win!] Obviously that's not the same as earned income, but bear with me. The fed government IMMEDIATELY took, I believe 25% of it. The state took a little more. I ended up with something like 16k. And when April 15th came around, that money counted as income, thus raising my total taxable income, and they both took some more. Anyway, my first response was, 'This is *my* money. I won it from RD. Why are you taking it?' Yes, it was 23,500 of 'free' money, but it turned out being around 14-15k. That was definitely an eye-opener. Now, imagine getting a monthly paycheck for 25k, and knowing the government is taking more and at a higher rate because you're making more. I can honestly tell you, some of that 25k would be going to hire a good accountant who can find me the applicable loopholes so I get to keep as much of my money as possible.

[jdpimp]

I was going to make a smart reply, you know one with facts, and maybe even link the facts to articles about the facts. I was going to present my opinion in a way that could not be disputed.....

But then I remembered how presenting views on the internet works. How it really doesn't matter the data you present if someone objects to your views they will disagree and the matter will never reach resolution. In conclusion, I am changing my response to this ongoing debate to:

+1

[dtcarson]

Jumping into the fray here, sorry if I have repeated anyone comments, I'm a bit too lazy to read it all ;)

First off, many things people hate Bush for is not his fault. While that seems naive and cliche, it's the truth. When you lose so many people in one day as well as the two tallest buildings in New York, of course the economy and stock market are instantly in trouble. That's what's happened before and will happen again, during emergencies people don't buy things. Not that much you can do about it.

Perhaps after 4 years, and worst econonic record since WWII might have more to do with failed econonic policies like encouraging companies to send jobs overseas, a record-breaking deficit, tax-cuts for the wealthy using "Reaganomics", and so on.

Second, well I'm sorry Gore got the popular vote but didn't win, that's how we elect people in our country. Don't like it? Move to Iraq.

I think what they're upset about is the fact that democracy, according to dictionary.com, is government by the people; especially : rule of the majority. Where we still use an archaic electoral college, and Bush won that due to a Supreme Court ruling with Florida, people are still angry.

Actually, we have a representative republic, where we rely on our representatives to 'think' for us. And there has never been a 'rule by the majority' in the US, based on voting records.
Should the electoral college be changed/removed? Perhaps. But it's not yet. If it's that big a deal, where are the petitions? Where's the outcry? This actually isn't even the first time this has happened.
Re: encouraging companies to go offshore. Isn't that basically 'globalization', which is one of the Democrats' buzzwords? We're helping people in India and Zaire get decent jobs. That's a good thing, isn't it?
Also, why do you think the companies are looking offshore?
A couple reasons:
Lower labor costs
Lower taxes
Lower infrastructure costs
Fewer government regulations to comply with [some of these, certainly, are good, but many of them are gratuitous expressions of govt power]
And, bottom line, a fact from my own industry--
"Offshoring saves call centers 20-50% on operating costs and often-but not always-improves service."
'Expect offshoring to grow as the US economy bounces back."
"The low-end, nback office data entry, email and chat will stay in India with many higher-end voice services coming back to North America." says King White, senior VP of Trammell Crow.
And why should we keep these centers onshore?
The primary reason given is something like 'keep jobs in America', or 'only Americans can give the best service to Americans'. Apart from being nationalism of the worst kind, that's patently false.
More than 60% of employers rate grad's skills in basic skills as 'fair to poor.'
53% of college students take at least one remedial English or Math class.
Remedial training cost employers in one state nearly 40 million $ a year.
Based on math and science education, American 8th graders placed 17th worldwide, just ahead of Latvia.
[all data taken from Call Center magazine; the first article is also on their website, called The Lure of Offshore. www.callcentermagazine.com It's ten pages, so I didn't C&P it.]

[DCriminal]

I was going to make a smart reply, you know one with facts, and maybe even link the facts to articles about the facts. I was going to present my opinion in a way that could not be disputed.....

But then I remembered how presenting views on the internet works. How it really doesn't matter the data you present if someone objects to your views they will disagree and the matter will never reach resolution. In conclusion, I am changing my response to this ongoing debate to:

+1

Best response on this thread so far. At this rate the thread will boil down to responses of "Commie!" and "Facist!" in no time at all. Political discourse is dead in this country. It's sad really.

[dtcarson]

I was going to make a smart reply, you know one with facts, and maybe even link the facts to articles about the facts. I was going to present my opinion in a way that could not be disputed.....

But then I remembered how presenting views on the internet works. How it really doesn't matter the data you present if someone objects to your views they will disagree and the matter will never reach resolution. In conclusion, I am changing my response to this ongoing debate to:

+1

You are SO wrong!
It's -1!
Geez, no wonder nothing gets agreed upon on the internet :)

I don't necessarily want 'resolution', I know everyone does have different opinions, and that's what makes life interesting. I just want everyone to acknowledge that I'm right.....: )
Kidding...Obviously changing someone's mind, or rather, helping them change his/her own mind, would be great, because people do want to be agreed with, but I'd be satisfied with a nice, calm, intellectual respectful discussion, with either facts and figures or logic [or both, ideally], and not too many random buzzwords, talking points, or snarky comments that can't be responded to. [Note: this is not directed at anyone.]

[dtcarson]

I'm actually going to comment on the poll question:

First, I didn't vote because I don't like either answer, and it's obviously a biased poll, and thus, statistically meaningless. In fact, I'm going to assume it was meant as some sort of satirical/ironic reference to the later discussion of phrasing/careful editing/quoting out of context that occured, and not just as a set of leading questions.

Secondly, if it were simply 'Yes' or 'No', I would say No....after all, that's free speech [or was before McCain Feingold]. If there are things that are truly slanderous, libelous, or defamatory in them, then that's obviously wrong, but we already have a civil system in place to counter that.

[E-Z-B]

I was going to make a smart reply, you know one with facts, and maybe even link the facts to articles about the facts. I was going to present my opinion in a way that could not be disputed.....

But then I remembered how presenting views on the internet works. How it really doesn't matter the data you present if someone objects to your views they will disagree and the matter will never reach resolution. In conclusion, I am changing my response to this ongoing debate to:

+1

You are SO wrong!
It's -1!
Geez, no wonder nothing gets agreed upon on the internet :)

I don't necessarily want 'resolution', I know everyone does have different opinions, and that's what makes life interesting. I just want everyone to acknowledge that I'm right.....: )
Kidding...Obviously changing someone's mind, or rather, helping them change his/her own mind, would be great, because people do want to be agreed with, but I'd be satisfied with a nice, calm, intellectual respectful discussion, with either facts and figures or logic [or both, ideally], and not too many random buzzwords, talking points, or snarky comments that can't be responded to. [Note: this is not directed at anyone.]

You're BOTH wrong! It's +0.99999....

[Quackzilla]

I think that if a president lies about something HUGE they have to get a shot of ricin.

Iraq has WMDs! We must send soldiers over there to help "protect" the oil.

Okay, pres, enjoy your 8 hours of violent seizures before you go nuts and rip yourself apart.

It would prevent all future presidents from lying.

[JSweeney]

What I really want to know is how did Bush get elected in the first place?

he didnt

Thats a very good point. He was appointed by a court. He still however managed to recieve an extensive amount of the popular vote.

DING DING DING, okay, we're done. Much like Godwin's law, I believe that when someone pulls out the old 'Bush stole the election!/Supreme Court gave it to him' claptrap, that political 'discussion' is finito.

I personally think the fact that GWB's father was president is, or can be, an incredible benefit to him. Yes, GHWB made mistakes. Yes, every president makes mistakes. Every person makes mistakes. In our lives, we can usually learn from those mistakes. But a president in many cases doesn't have the time, or the opportunity, to learn from his mistakes. For most adults, who are two people you [in general] trust the advice of most? Your parents. To have a parent who actually held a job only 43 people have ever held, and can advise you on that, would be an incredible resource. If nothing else, you can get together and talk about 'your day at work', which would be impossible for almost any other president.

GHWB didn't 'screw up' the first Gulf War. He fulfilled the goal which was to drive Saddam away from, Kuwait? Had he moved on and tried to capture or kill Saddam, there would have been even more backlash than there was for this one. Especially considering France and Germany were getting milliion dollar kickbacks from Saddam, they didn't want their cash cow to be eradicated.

"If you had a good sum of money they you would love Bush. He is writing laws for the RICH. It is the middle class and poor that need to worry."

Funny..."the Bush cuts do reduce income taxes for many middle-income families to zero this year -- taking them off the federal income tax rolls entirely." And already "35.6 million individuals and families got zero benefit from the Bush cuts because their income was so low they were not paying federal income taxes before the cuts. "
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=145

And of course, the myth that 'the rich don't pay taxes'
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?DocID=103
". In fact, the most affluent still pay significantly higher rates even after the two Bush tax cuts"
"[taxes] have been going down for virtually everybody who earns enough to pay any income tax at all. "

The 'rich' do now pay a lesser rate overall, and their rate did drop the most, but it was also the highest in the first place.

Besides, I don't understand this animosity toward 'the rich' [which is, what, people making over 100k/year?] Who *doesn't* want to be rich, or at least, have more money/assets? I'm honest, I know I do. And when the top 50% of earners pay 96% of the taxes _anyway_, you bet I'd want to cut my tax bill as much as I could. [I do that now, taking advantage of legal tax shelters]. I'm surprised there are actually as many rich people as there are, because the higher the tax rate, the lower the motivation to work harder, do better, improve yourself, which usually eventually results in more money. We can't all marry millionairessess, like certain presidential candidates.

Now aren't you glad that I've been working to instill the knowledge of Goodwin's Law of Usenet on to this message board? It's just so handy a tool to end arguments right as they are begining to take the turn to uselessness.

[dtcarson]

Now aren't you glad that I've been working to instill the knowledge of Goodwin's Law of Usenet on to this message board? It's just so handy a tool to end arguments right as they are begining to take the turn to uselessness.

Godwin's is quite useful, and I can see the '2000 Election Corollary' being very popular also : )

[WildWop]

I'm not sure why this makes a difference. If the tax rate is, say, a flat 25% of income, and someone makes 10k, they pay 2500. If someone else, say, me [I can dream; )] makes 1,000,000, I would pay 250,000. Yes, i'm paying more, and I'm making more--that's why it's a percentage. But in the case of the graduated brackets like we have now, people are basically being 'punished' [ie, taxed more, both in real dollars and at a higher rate] than people earning less.
If I make 200k, and am taxed at 25%, that's a net of 150k. If I make 250k, and am taxed at 33%, that's a net of 165k. I am theoretically doing 50k more worth of 'work' or whatever, but I only benefit 15k. So I am seeing diminishing returns, which leads to my realization that, well, why work 20% harder/longer, when I only profit 5% more?


The difference here is that the one making 10k has to now try and live on 7.5k rather than 8.6k, while the one making 1m has to try and live on a meager 750k. You get diminishing returns, yes, but it is a way of bolstering the lower- and middle- classes that are quickly disappearing in this country. By charging a higher rate to the rich, you are helping those in lower income brackets make a living.


And when April 15th came around, that money counted as income, thus raising my total taxable income, and they both took some more. Anyway, my first response was, 'This is *my* money. I won it from RD. Why are you taking it?' Yes, it was 23,500 of 'free' money, but it turned out being around 14-15k. That was definitely an eye-opener. Now, imagine getting a monthly paycheck for 25k, and knowing the government is taking more and at a higher rate because you're making more. I can honestly tell you, some of that 25k would be going to hire a good accountant who can find me the applicable loopholes so I get to keep as much of my money as possible.

That is why there's an Alternative Minimum Tax in the first place. Shame on you.

Also, you delved away from the area that a Tax Cut effects. Winning a contest falls in the realm of the Gift Tax, which is somewhere around 40%, and completely separate from income tax. The latter 1-2k that you said you lost to taxes is viable, as that is a capital gains area, but the first 10k doesn't fit in this discussion.

[Squirms]

Every time people talk about tax cuts they say that they are for the rich. I am far from wealthy, but I do know that I am paying less taxes, and got a larger return last year then in any of my previous taxable years.
As far as Bush goes, I think his foreign policy is good, but his domestic policy sucks. Kerry at best will just flip those, because his foreign policy is to placate all the other world leaders by doing whatever they want and to bow to the will of the do nothing U.N. Basically he wants to turn us into a bunch of pussies. He does have some good ideas on improving our domestic lives, but he has stated he will raise taxes by $900 Billion in his first 100 days in office.He says he is committed to retaining jobs in this country, yet he voted for numerous trade agreements that are making jobs hemmorage out of this country.
The nuts and bolts of this is that neither candidate is going to be perfect, and neither one is going to do a whole lot of good for the country. I think I'm going to pack my bags and move to Petoria.


Dude, Kerry never said that he would raise taxes by $900 billion his first 100 days. That is a lie put out by Bush. Look here http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=163

Kerry does not want to turn us into a bunch of "pussies". He wants us to act like adults. Bush ran into Iraq on lies and against the will of the world because the rest of the world heard facts on Iraq while we were fed lies. We had the world on our side after 9/11 and willing to do anything to help, and Bush squandard it by running into Iraq. Bush let Al-queda and the Taliban get strong again by diverting resource out of Afghanistan to go attack Iraq. I think it's funny that people are more concerned that Clinton lied about a blowjob, while Bush lies about policy and what his administration is doing

While it is true that Kerry never specifically stated that he would raise taxes by $900 billion, he is saying that he is proposing a health care plan that would cost $895 Billion. Add to that the fact that he has an extra $165 Billion in new program, plus his promise to cut the deficeit in half in four years, then to think that he would raise taxes only on the people making over $200K is ridiculous. Everyone will be pinched by these tax hikes, not just the rich.

As far as Iraq goes, liberals always claim "Where are the WMD's?" The simple answer is Syria, or Iran, buried in the dirt. Saddam knew we were coming, plus he had months to hide any weapons programs that he was working on while we went through the proper U.N. channels trying to get approval. There are numerous reports out there from Iraqi scientists that say Saddam was preparing weapons programs against U.N. sanctions. http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/31/1080544556813.html?from=storyrhs
The countries that opposed us the most were the ones that were owed money by Iraq. France and Germany were owed millions upon millions of dollars by Iraq, and I seriously doubt it was due to them shipping in food and water.

[thecolonel2323]

It doesn't matter if Iraq actually had wmd's. Saddam was a dispicable tyrant. Everyone always says how bad the Holocaust was and it surely was. However nobody ever complains about the thousands upon thousands of people that were gassed and put in front of firing squads in Iraq just because of thier ethnicity. I think that alone was a good reason for getting rid of Saddam. However, we did not have to let Iraq sit in utter turmoil the past decade and what has been done in Iraq over the past year has been for the most part handled poorly.

[WildWop]

However, we did not have to let Iraq sit in utter turmoil the past decade and what has been done in Iraq over the past year has been for the most part handled poorly.

Well put. We should have taken Saddam out of power after we dismantled his army after the Persian Gulf War in '91. It's horrible to think of all the Iraquis killed by Saddam and his regime in the 10 years it took for us to get back in there and rectify our mistake.

It's a shame we couldn't have gotten the UN to back us, since they are much better at running peace keeping efforts. We apparently suck at it.

[dtcarson]

The difference here is that the one making 10k has to now try and live on 7.5k rather than 8.6k, while the one making 1m has to try and live on a meager 750k. You get diminishing returns, yes, but it is a way of bolstering the lower- and middle- classes that are quickly disappearing in this country. By charging a higher rate to the rich, you are helping those in lower income brackets make a living..

Not really--you're feeding their feelings of class envy/class warfare. How does punishing one person, help another? Unless you take from Peter to pay Paul...in which case, you will always get the support of Paul.
I don't want people in 'lower income brackets' to 'make a living'. I want them to GET OUT of the lower income brackets, and move into the middle and upper classes. You say yourself the lower and middle classes are disappearing. That's a good thing! There will always be people with less and more, but what's considering 'less' now, was considering middle class a hundred years ago.
If someone is 'living on' 8.5k or whatever, and they're given another 2k in credits, refunds, assistance, etc, that was taken from the eeeevil rich; or they could work/work harder/work smarter and earn more, but then be taxed more, many people unfortunately will take the easy way out. Why work for 10, when I can be given 2.5?
If I tax everybody at a certain rate, that leaves more for the rich to invest with, or start companies with, or hire people with, so those lower-class can get out of that class, by getting a job or a higher wage in a more free marketplace, and then not have to rely on the forced volunteerism of the 'rich.'

*snip*

That is why there's an Alternative Minimum Tax in the first place. Shame on you.

Also, you delved away from the area that a Tax Cut effects. Winning a contest falls in the realm of the Gift Tax, which is somewhere around 40%, and completely separate from income tax. The latter 1-2k that you said you lost to taxes is viable, as that is a capital gains area, but the first 10k doesn't fit in this discussion.

*Legal* loopholes, like the dependent care and health care spending accounts. I guess those aren't really loopholes, but I couldn't think of another word for it. But it's sheer idiocy [not you, the people who write the tax laws] to think that people *aren't* going to try to interpret the millions of pages of tax laws to their benefit. If they simplified the tax structure [as in, Pay this percentage] and eliminated the progressive nature of it, I think there would be a lot less wiggle room, and a lot less motivation to wiggle. Already approximately 1/2 of my income goes to various taxes. The logical extension of both that, and a progressive tax, is that eventually, there will be one ultrarich Bill Gates paying a 99% tax rate covering everyone else's tax bill. Then no one would care [except for him, of course.]
But making it that complex, is an open invitation for anything from loophole usage, creative interpretations, to outright fraud. And is inherently biased against the lower class, whom these higher tax rates allegedly 'benefit.' Joe SixPack, making 14k/year at the cannery, probably doesn't have an accountant to help him make the most of his income. He might not have the education to understand the intricate forms and rules [since even those at the IRS don't--understand, that is] and odds are, he doesn't have the interest to do it. You can bet Bill Gates, A-Rod, heck, even GWB and John Kerry, have at least one accountant, whose only work directive is, 'Make sure I keep as much of my money as possible.' So the fairest thing all around would be to toss the current tax code, al million pages of it, and say, Up to X$ earned, is tax free. Above X$, everyone pays Y%. Or even, The first 20% of income you spend, or the first X$, is tax-free, everything else, has a standard sales tax of Y%, for anything you buy. Food, cigarettes, cars, houses, video games, etc. The numbers could be configured by some math genius to result in tax revenues equal to or higher than the current.
Again, the basis is: People want. People want money/stuff/assets. And they're willing to go to various lengths to get, or keep, money/stuff/assets. I point you no farther than that EB/Reservation Rewards fiasco a while back. That's a perfect example of it.
But if you make it very simple to comply, not only will that reduce class warfare/envy, it will of course limit the options for tax avoidance/evasion.

I actually forgot the details of where that contest money went--it was a couple years back, and my wife does the taxes. But I do know, after printing out the IRS forms, we had a lot less than we started with. And that's part of the problem--Capital Gains, Gift, Income, Sales, Value Added, Homeowners, Auto, Social Security, FICA, Estate, taxes. I think it's the Advocates for Self-Government who sell a t-shirt saying 'taxation is slavery'. I hesitate to use that word, because it certainly does have some historical connotations, but I can see where it comes from--was it Franklin, who said, 'He who produces, while others dispose of his product, is a slave' or something like that.

[gamefreak]

I was going to make a smart reply, you know one with facts, and maybe even link the facts to articles about the facts. I was going to present my opinion in a way that could not be disputed.....

But then I remembered how presenting views on the internet works. How it really doesn't matter the data you present if someone objects to your views they will disagree and the matter will never reach resolution. In conclusion, I am changing my response to this ongoing debate to:

+1

Best response on this thread so far. At this rate the thread will boil down to responses of "Commie!" and "Facist!" in no time at all. Political discourse is dead in this country. It's sad really.

Only a commie mutant traitor would say such a thing! </end Paranoia reference>

Good point Colonel, no one would care if it was Hitler we were going after instead of Saddam. I think I'll use that next time someone tells me we shouldn't have gone into Iraq because there aren't/we haven't found any WMD.

I also agree with that other point- how the heck do you expect to find weapons burried in the frickin desert from the get go? Oh you'd rather have us looking for them then have our soldiers get shot at by terrorists still there? Well frickin pick (an option) one!

What's this about Bush loving the rich? How is giving equal benefits to everyone loving the rich? Oh yes we need the riches taxes for welfare! Last time I checked the government protects your rights, it doesn't look after you.

Oh and you gotta love the poll responses, either you hate Bush or you are a corrupt dirtbag.

[WildWop]

You misunderstand the point I made about the middle and lower classes disappearing. I mean, the middle class is merging BACKWARDS into the lower class. There is an increasing disparity between the haves- and the have-nots in this country, and that is decidedly bad. The only reason the statistics aren't worse is the fact that they put the poverty line somewhere about $17k/year, which doesn't seem to have been adjusted for inflation in a good while.

And the AMT was instituted because the rich were abusing the system, legally at the time, that allowed them to get a tax break for investing in limited partnerships called Direct Participation Programs [Oil & Gas Drilling Program in the 70's was the first]. The abuse was so bad that they instituted the AMT to cover those that invested so much in DPPs that they wouldn't pay any taxes at all, or even have the government owe them [DPPs have since been replaced by the less beneficial Tax Shelter, the last DPP issued in 1986]. Because of those people, and the inattentiveness of the government to adjust AMT for inflation, people well below what should be considered rich are being charged more than the normal rate for their tax bracket [AMT is often weighed in at a penalty, paying a premium to the government above and beyond normal amounts].

So there you go. Abuse the system and you get it thrown back in your face and everyone else's.


=====

So the fairest thing all around would be to toss the current tax code, al million pages of it, and say, Up to X$ earned, is tax free. Above X$, everyone pays Y%.

That is what the tax bracket system IS, man, just with more than two tiers. Up to X, you get all your money back, then as you go up the brackets, you get less back in your tax return. It is unfair to say that some high school or college kid that jumps that $5k a year tax-free bracket should have to pay 25%.

[dtcarson]

If it's legal, it's not abuse.
By making the code so complex, and with so many exceptions aimed at a small portion of the citizenry, eventually everyone has at least one exception, and many people fit into more than one. If Document A says this, and Document B says this, and they're not mutually exclusive, and they both apply to me, how is it 'abuse' if I use them both? And I'm not talking about things like writing off my house for working at home one day.
What we see is that when politicians try to get elected, they promise tax breaks for certain types of people/organizations. They get in there, enact those breaks, then tax revenues go down because it's too wide-open a definition, or more people actually take advantage of it ['We gave you a tax break, but didn't expect you to actually USE it.']. Using their rules isn't 'abuse.' And again, the more complex it is, the easier it is to interpret widely.
Regarding my tax code suggestion--the 'Up to X$ earned free' wasn't meant as a bracket, but as a 'living expenses credit', so people who spend a greater portion of their income on the necessary living expenses, aren't penalized for buying what they 'have' to to survive.
And by adding more tiers, again, you are adding a class structure to it, which increases the psychological divide between the rich and the poor. And why is it unfair that a high school college kid who earns 5k, 10k, whatever, has to pay taxes on it?
I might say what's a high school kid doing, working enough to get into that tax bracket? That might have something to do with why we've got so many companies offshoring, because the kids spend so much time working to earn money for their Adidas or their Ipod, or, yes, for their video games, that they can't read, write, or perform the basic skills at their grade level. I think it's unfair that someone making 200k pays 35%, while someone who makes 199k pays 29%. That's exactly what happened with those CEO's in the last couple years--they kept their salaries in one bracket, then played games with 'options' and 'benefits' so their actual assets/income were much much higher, but they were only taxed on the actual 'income.'
So there are two main issues here:
Simplify the tax code, eliminating all the loopholes and exceptions, thus reducing motive and opportunity for people to use these to their advantage [again, I don't feel this is abuse, in general.]
Reduce the tax brackets so as not to punish people as they try to earn more money.
Otherwise, you're still hurting the people you're allegedly trying to help, the 'poor.' I make decent money, and I am saving about 1375/year on my taxes by using the Flexible Spending Accounts. Am I abusing the tax system? No, that's exactly what they're there for. But odds are, many of the lower class either can't afford to put money in those accounts, or they don't know about them, so if they have to pay taxes, they are paying anything they're remotely responsible for, and not using the features in the tax structure that are there to benefit them.

[ZarathosNY]

Every time people talk about tax cuts they say that they are for the rich. I am far from wealthy, but I do know that I am paying less taxes, and got a larger return last year then in any of my previous taxable years.
As far as Bush goes, I think his foreign policy is good, but his domestic policy sucks. Kerry at best will just flip those, because his foreign policy is to placate all the other world leaders by doing whatever they want and to bow to the will of the do nothing U.N. Basically he wants to turn us into a bunch of pussies. He does have some good ideas on improving our domestic lives, but he has stated he will raise taxes by $900 Billion in his first 100 days in office.He says he is committed to retaining jobs in this country, yet he voted for numerous trade agreements that are making jobs hemmorage out of this country.
The nuts and bolts of this is that neither candidate is going to be perfect, and neither one is going to do a whole lot of good for the country. I think I'm going to pack my bags and move to Petoria.


Dude, Kerry never said that he would raise taxes by $900 billion his first 100 days. That is a lie put out by Bush. Look here http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=163

Kerry does not want to turn us into a bunch of "pussies". He wants us to act like adults. Bush ran into Iraq on lies and against the will of the world because the rest of the world heard facts on Iraq while we were fed lies. We had the world on our side after 9/11 and willing to do anything to help, and Bush squandard it by running into Iraq. Bush let Al-queda and the Taliban get strong again by diverting resource out of Afghanistan to go attack Iraq. I think it's funny that people are more concerned that Clinton lied about a blowjob, while Bush lies about policy and what his administration is doing

While it is true that Kerry never specifically stated that he would raise taxes by $900 billion, he is saying that he is proposing a health care plan that would cost $895 Billion. Add to that the fact that he has an extra $165 Billion in new program, plus his promise to cut the deficeit in half in four years, then to think that he would raise taxes only on the people making over $200K is ridiculous. Everyone will be pinched by these tax hikes, not just the rich.

As far as Iraq goes, liberals always claim "Where are the WMD's?" The simple answer is Syria, or Iran, buried in the dirt. Saddam knew we were coming, plus he had months to hide any weapons programs that he was working on while we went through the proper U.N. channels trying to get approval. There are numerous reports out there from Iraqi scientists that say Saddam was preparing weapons programs against U.N. sanctions. http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/31/1080544556813.html?from=storyrhs
The countries that opposed us the most were the ones that were owed money by Iraq. France and Germany were owed millions upon millions of dollars by Iraq, and I seriously doubt it was due to them shipping in food and water.


Again, Kerry NEVER SAID he was going to raise $900 billion in taxes in his 1st 100 days. This is a lie.
Saddam never had the weapons to move to another country. It also makes no sense to move the weapons to another country that would use it on him!! David Kay, Bush's weapon inspector, has said there were no weapons, and Saddam did not have the capability to produce any due to the sactions that Iraq was under.

[Quackzilla]

As far as Iraq goes, liberals always claim "Where are the WMD's?" The simple answer is Syria, or Iran, buried in the dirt.

Do you choose to be this way, or did your parents raise you like that?

I know a lot of kids whose parents do force political and religious beleifs on them and punish them for expressing their own opinions.
If you are a minor and your parents are doing that to you just call 1-800-4ACHILD, and if they hit you call 911.

__________________________________________________ __

Also, with all of the Bush propaganda I have noticed that many Americans hate the French, and often say if it weren't for us the French would speak German.

If it weren't for the French we would be ruled by the Queen of England!

[azel]

That is so true, thank god the royal family doesn't run this country (although the Bushes are somewhat of an ancient dynasty who have had lucrative deals with everyone from the Nazis to the Bin Ladens, but they're not royalty I guess).

Anyways, my two cents ---

Our country is going to hell in a handbasket. We have a president (note lack of capital P) who is intent on solving every problem with FORCE as opposed to true solutions. I'm far from a Christian, but I'll say that one thing that the bible holds true is that he who lives by the sword dies by it. That's what happening to our soldiers (and those of our puppe... errr... allies) on a daily basis. But the sad fact is that they (aside from enslisting in a honorable service to defend their country) have nothing to do with the force aside from following orders. Iraq and the situation in the Middle East are not getting any better, and due to our enthocentric focus we ignore genocide in Serbia, Zimbabwe, and Haiti.

The problem boils down to one simple word people, and we all know it. It's OIL dammit. How do you piss off americans? Raise their gas prices. But wait... where do we get this blood, this nutritive of western capitalism??? From Venezuela, yes... but mainly from the MIDDLE EAST!!!!
We are paying for these people to hate us.

It would be like Cheapy D buying all his games from Best Buy after they screwed the site. But yet we continue to buy OIL OIL OIL!!! Why???? Because we have no choice other than to drive our petrol based vehicles and buy products that require transport by petrol based vehicles. When are we going to wake up and realize that if we derive other forms of energy from other sources that the "threat" of terrorism will be somewhat quelled. Best Buy wouldn't be the behemoth that it is if it didn't have massive sales. Just like Osama Bin Laden wouldn't be a mega-criminal with 8 wives if his family wasn't insanely rich from OIL sold to WESTERNERS in companies that both our president and vice president have large stakes in (Haliburton).

We need alternative energy, we need to cut the flow of money off to terrorists NOW. If we stop funding their field trips to New York and Madrid the only offense they'll have is slinging camel shit at us from their dust bowls.

The real enemy is OIL, the real enemy is those in power, and the only solution is to vote those in power now OUT OF OFFICE in November!!! I'm not a huge Kerry fan myself, but anything is better than Damian... I mean... Dubya.

[gamefreak]

Where are you from now Quack?

In response to your thread, are you saying children shouldn't listen to their parents? Saying that you opinion or viewpoint is "right" and therefore their parents are stupid morons? I don't know if your aware of it but there are some awful liberals out there too. You guys say Bush as if it were a bad thing ;)

Let's use a bit of logic here. How hard is it to sneak some box cutters onto a plane and then hijack and crash it into a building? Now, how hard is it to drive a car through some remote desert, dig a hole, drop some stuff in it, cover it up and leave? I think that if they're capable of the first they're clearly capable of the second.

[ryanbph]

Maybe we should drill in Alaska, and maybe we should stop selling oil to Japan for cheaper then what we import it from the middle east for

[azel]

Let's use a bit of logic here. How hard is it to sneak some box cutters onto a plane and then hijack and crash it into a building? Now, how hard is it to drive a car through some remote desert, dig a hole, drop some stuff in it, cover it up and leave? I think that if they're capable of the first they're clearly capable of the second.[/quote]

I'd just like to note that the terrorists commited the act of physically demonstrating the first intelligence failure of the Bush adminstration (9/11) were NOT IRAQIS!!! They are not the ones hiding WMD's in the sand. The fact of the matter is, it's WAAAAY easier to conceal a box cutter than it is to hide an ARSENAL of WMD's as our president put it in his famous speech in early 2003. Studies have shown that it is easy to sneak just about anything into an airport. But after SCOURING the Iraqi landscape... NOTHING.

And if the weapons got smuggled into Syria or Iran, that's more need to worry than if a central target (Hussein) posseses them. Maybe bush should've considered the outcomes of his escapade, or maybe he realised all along that they did not exist.

[azel]

Maybe we should drill in Alaska, and maybe we should stop selling oil to Japan for cheaper then what we import it from the middle east for

You're missing the point.... We don't need to drill in Alaska or stop selling oil to Japan. We need to make use of and develop new energy technologies that will be more cost-effective and do not come from terrorist-sponsoring nations.

Did it ever dawn on you that the gas-powered auto is like the Bally Astrocade of videogame systems?

[gamefreak]

Let's use a bit of logic here. How hard is it to sneak some box cutters onto a plane and then hijack and crash it into a building? Now, how hard is it to drive a car through some remote desert, dig a hole, drop some stuff in it, cover it up and leave? I think that if they're capable of the first they're clearly capable of the second.

I'd just like to note that the terrorists commited the act of physically demonstrating the first intelligence failure of the Bush adminstration (9/11) were NOT IRAQIS!!! They are not the ones hiding WMD's in the sand. The fact of the matter is, it's WAAAAY easier to conceal a box cutter than it is to hide an ARSENAL of WMD's as our president put it in his famous speech in early 2003. Studies have shown that it is easy to sneak just about anything into an airport. But after SCOURING the Iraqi landscape... NOTHING.

And if the weapons got smuggled into Syria or Iran, that's more need to worry than if a central target (Hussein) posseses them. Maybe bush should've considered the outcomes of his escapade, or maybe he realised all along that they did not exist.[/quote]

It's hypocritical to think that 9/11 could have been completly avoided. Something like that has never happened before (on that scale at least). That's like expecting aliens to come or expecting the moon to randomly explode. As for all those who "knew" about it before it happened- it seems to me that they're trying pretty hard to divert the blame from themselves...

[azel]

Of course 9/11 could not have been avoided. Not with all the partisan squabbling and bureaucratic red tape that Dick Clarke so elqouently spoke of to the 9/11 commission. But the fact of the matter is, we have a man (bush) who is attacking another man (Kerry) for things he did 5-10+ years ago. It seems to me this is a double standard to judge Kerry for the fact that he supported some tax cuts and defense/intelligence cuts YEARS AGO.

If you're going to slam Kerry for wanting a 50cent gas tax years ago (which is apparently false, but anyways) you have to put it in the context of what the world was like at that time. Gas wasn't $2.50 a gallon then in some places, and it seemed logical for both environmental reasons and also for innvation in energy. Look at how many smokers you see in NYC nowadays versus 20 years ago. People definitely cut back when cigarettes are $6.00 and up per pack. Just like people will move to cleaner, more fuel efficient vehicles, such as hybrids and fuel cells if they are paying $$$ for gas. In a few years, we're likely to have landfills of Suburbans and Expeditions and the world will be a much better place.

But back to the point, if you're going to slam Kerry for things he did years ago, you can slam bush for things he did (or didn't) do years ago. The intelligence we're seeing from the 9/11 commission is SCARY. Bush did NOTHING about fighting the real enemy, just as he's doing now. And geez, can't anyone aside from Mr. Clarke give all these poor famillies an APOLOGY FOR THEIR FAILURE TO ACT AS PUBLIC SERVANTS IN PROTECTING INNOCENT PEOPLE????

I know there are people on this board aside from me who lost loved ones due to bush, whether it be because of New York, DC, Pennsylvania, or Iraq. And we all deserve an apology, a right to the truth, and an impeachment.

[gamefreak]

So you're saying FDR should have been impeached because he might've knowen about Pearl Harbour ahead of time? If Bush had used money protecting against 9/11 you all would probably be yelling at him for doing that now too (assuming 9/11 didn't happen).

Don't yell at Bush for critizing Kerry's past actions and then yell at him for what he did as a governor and in the armed forces.

Edit: Word Clarification

[dtcarson]

Maybe we should drill in Alaska, and maybe we should stop selling oil to Japan for cheaper then what we import it from the middle east for

You're missing the point.... We don't need to drill in Alaska or stop selling oil to Japan. We need to make use of and develop new energy technologies that will be more cost-effective and do not come from terrorist-sponsoring nations.

Did it ever dawn on you that the gas-powered auto is like the Bally Astrocade of videogame systems?

Do you drive? If so, what do you drive? The auto companies make big gas guzzling suv's and trucks because that's what sells. I know there are a few hybrid vehicles out there, but from what I've heard, the price/performance ratio isn't there yet. And, of course, the demand isn't there. If EVERYBODY who plans to buy a new car in 2004 were to buy or demand a hybrid or alternative-fuel auto, you can bet by 2005 there'd be more than you can shake a stick at.
I do agree, I think we should expand our options, just because it's better not to have all your eggs in one basket. I also think we should go ahead and drill in ANWR, or at least start to, to show the Middle East we're not totally depending on their oil.

And I don't think people will necessarily start going to more efficient vehicles just because gas is 1.75-2.75 a gallon. That's still the cheapest in the world, and there are the same people who buy 20 ounces of Evian for 1.19. We had an SUV, a Jeep Cherokee, and then we traded it on something smaller. Then we traded that in on another SUV, because we liked its features, safety, and comfort better. And this has happened before-remember gas rationing under Carter? There the autos were the big sedans from Detroit, which led to the influx of Japanese compacts, but guess what, they still used oil.

Regarding Clarke: Wow, an apology. That'll go far. 'I feel your pain.' I'll believe him when he donates the sales from his book, that would be win-win: he'd back up words with action, and he wouldn't be one of the evil rich.

[azel]

Do you drive? If so, what do you drive? The auto companies make big gas guzzling suv's and trucks because that's what sells. I know there are a few hybrid vehicles out there, but from what I've heard, the price/performance ratio isn't there yet.

I don't drive. I live in a city where it is not required. But I do buy goods that require shipment from trucks that require petrol. But you're exactly right. People do fuel the market, no pun intended. But have you tried to buy a Toyota Prius (hybrid) lately? The waiting list is about a YEAR LONG!!!! That's demand if I've ever seen it.

And, of course, the demand isn't there.

Call Toyota and ask yourself before you talk out of your ass. :wink:

I do agree, I think we should expand our options, just because it's better not to have all your eggs in one basket. I also think we should go ahead and drill in ANWR, or at least start to, to show the Middle East we're not totally depending on their oil.

How about we do some drilling in your backyard to see if there may be oil there? You never know...

And I don't think people will necessarily start going to more efficient vehicles just because gas is 1.75-2.75 a gallon.

It's not just consumer gas prices that will rise. With the inflation in gas prices, transport costs rise, therefore raising the price of all goods, from food to videogames.

And this has happened before-remember gas rationing under Carter? There the autos were the big sedans from Detroit, which led to the influx of Japanese compacts, but guess what, they still used oil.

But at least the tiny little Honda Civics were more fuel economical than those before. Let's hope the same thing will happen soon, but instead we can focus on hybrid/fuel cell/etc technology.

Regarding Clarke: Wow, an apology. That'll go far. 'I feel your pain.' I'll believe him when he donates the sales from his book, that would be win-win: he'd back up words with action, and he wouldn't be one of the evil rich.

I would love to see him do that. But that's not the point, at least he's making a public apology. You may be too cynical to realize the importance of such an action.

[Quackzilla]

Syria and Iran were Sadams MORTAL ENEMIES. They would never let him hid ANYTHING in their countries.

And Bush cancelled all federal funding for altenative fuel at the request of a campaign fund contributor.

[blackjaw]

And Bush cancelled all federal funding for altenative fuel at the request of a campaign fund contributor.

yep, and until we get someone in the oval office that isnt funded primarly by special interests (expecially those of oil/fuel companies) we wont have the funding to explor alternate fuels

[Mr. Anderson]

Yargh, stop all the political debates! I can't take it anymore!

[dtcarson]

Every politician recieves funds from 'special interests.' If you give money to a candidate, you could be considered a 'special interest', because obviously you hope to benefit if you candidate wins.
According to opensecrets.org [here I go, bringing facts into it again], the current breakdown of bank accounts for the 2004 election for Bush is:
Individual--155,779,955
PAC -- 2,437,527
The PAC money breaks down to:
81% business, 1% labor, 18% ideological/single issue.
With a 94% Full Disclosure rate.

Kerry:
Individual: 31,541,248 [76%]
PAC: 94,884 [0%]
Self: 6.387.965 [15%]
'Other' 3,406,394 8%
You might argue that 'Self' is the ultimate in 'special interests.'
And of course, we don't know what 'Other' is. Also, his donors only show an 86.8% Full Disclosure rate.
The average Full Disclosure rate for Congressmen in the 2000 election cycle was 91%. What Special Interest links is Kerry trying to hide?
So please, do some research before spouting the usual DNC platitudes.

If there were studies saying there were oil in my backyard, I'd be all for it. We know there's oil in ANWR, one of the most desolate places on the planet.

I haven't tried to buy a Prius lately. Nor will I, until they make them a little bigger and it scores a little higher on the safety tests than 'Average.'
And a waiting list doesn't mean much, when only 20000 were sold in 2000, and their goal for this year is 36,000. Honda Acura, for instance, sold 17,285 in the month of March 2004 alone. Not that just because something's popular means it's good, but the widespread demand isn't there yet.
It's like having a two-hour wait at a restaurant that only seats 4. Does that mean that restaurant is better, or more popular, than McDonald's, where the wait is no more than 5 minutes?

Not to mention, if we do shift to alternate fuel methods, don't forget the Law of Unintended Consequences: Isn't Africa generally considered a continent that could use some economic help? Well, by cutting our oil/gas usage, we are actually *harming* them.
"West Africa is a conflicted region that is suffering the effects of corruption, political instability, border disputes, ethnic and religious strife, governance issues, and poverty. Conflicts produce risks that have a destabilizing impact on the investment climate, on the social and economic development aspirations of the African people and on our energy security."
West Africa "one of the world's fastest growing sources of oil and gas. Oil production generates a large share of revenue in many African countries". True, "Accountability and transparency are necessary to ensure that oil revenues benefit the population and support economic and social development." But "revenues from expanding oil and gas production could be the engine for national and regional economic development and political stability in West Africa."
Again, globalization, people having better, safer, more stable lives. I would think that would be a good thing.
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/031028/2003102836.html


And yes, I'll admit, I am a little cynical. Words mean little unless you back them up. It's nice that he said 'I'm sorry', but sorry neither brings back people's loved ones, nor punishes those responsible for it. Especially when the person saying that, claims some of the responsibility for it, *and* is profiting from it. I admit, I haven't lost anyone in an attack or military. But the situation, I believe, is not that rare--say you get in a car wreck that's either someone else's fault, or something unpreventable. Having the other guy say 'I'm sorry' gets a Thank you from you, but your car's still broken. If it's his fault, he should take care of repairing it, and if it's not, he shouldn't make a movie out of it and profit from that while crying crocodile tears.
And I am all for expressions of sympathy for people directly affected by these events. I'm sorry anyone lost family members, loved ones, or friends, in the attacks or in the military, and extend my deepest sympathies to them.

[Quackzilla]

You forgot to mention the most of Bush's campaign donations were on the form of soft money from large corporations that subsequently received huge tax breaks.

Get the facts strait, lying a president into office is how Nazi Germany began.

Ooh, I am going to bring this country back to its original glory, vote for m3h. I won't kill you!

*spoilers*

He killed them.

[dtcarson]

Two Godwins in one thread! Mods, we can probably kill this one now.

How did I forget to mention anything? My posts have been full of facts
1% of GWB's total receipts have come from PACs. The majority of those [82%], yes, were from Business versus Ideological, but 82% of 1% is still not a lot.

And show me a business or industry who donates to *any* candidate for almost *any* office, and doesn't hope for a tax break or some other quid pro quo.