1
   

Why Would Any Military Person Suppoert Bush?

 
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2004 03:28 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
If you believe that Bush didn't lie about the war, then you should want him removed from office for gross negligence, right? The fact-checking his admin did on the intelligence was non-existent.

If a corporate chair was in charge during such a fiasco, he's be out on his ass so quick you wouldn't have time to blink. We should hold the president to at least the same standard.

Either Bush knowingly lied, or he was so easily mislead as to show incompetence. Either way he is no longer fit to run the country.

Cycloptichorn

Disagree totally. At the time of invasion, the information available about Iraq's WMD and WMD programs suggested a real likelihood that they had not destroyed them. Many if not most people believed this. Even one of these weapons could be used to strike an absolutely crippling blow against a western city, much less several WMD. Bush acted properly to protect America and the west. We had been negotiating for a dozen years with inconclusive results, and we could not chance the possibility that Hussein was stalling for time as he completed his programs to a sufficient extent that he could either destroy a few of our cities or render himself too strong to attack.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2004 03:33 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
DTOM Wrote:
Quote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Sorry, but this is hilarious. As I think someone else asked here, since when is it proper to accuse someone of a crime and then demand that he prove his innocence?


ummm... i guess since the swift boat guys hit the stage a month or 2 back?


Priceless. Brandon, you are toasted on this one.

Cycloptichorn

When one debater rationally states his points and another responds with nothing but personal attacks, the meaning is that the first debater has won.

It is improper to accuse someone of crimes without conclusive evidence, and then demand that he prove himself innocent, and even more so for very old events. Accusations against Senator Kerry ought to follow this same rule. This does not, however, imply that it is improper to accuse someone of crimes if you have real evidence.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2004 03:55 pm
Baldimo wrote:
Do you know why there are so many jobs leaving the country? I can think of a person who was responsible for setting up trade with China, and allowed many American companies to move their manufacturing there. When was the last time you looked at a child's toy and saw "Made in the U.S.A." on it? Even my 7 year old asked me how come all his toys were made in China. I didn't know what to tell him.

How do we explain all the manufacturing jobs that have been shipped to Mexico? You can explain it by using the acronym N.A.F.T.A, which allowed a lot of jobs to be shipped over to Mexico and put thousands of US citizens who worked for US companies out of jobs. To claim anything else isn't being honest.


well, corporations have not been shy in saying that they outsource and remove to other countries to provide stake holders with a better return. that's a lot different than a desire to provide the u.s. with more affordable goods.

if i get your drift, you are referring to clinton. but, as you may remember, nixon was the president that opened the door to china. as far as the toy thing goes, when i was little most of my toys said made in japan. and taiwan.

and cafta, the central american version of the same thing. bush wants to get that going. more jobs to guatemala? can't blame clinton for that one.

free trade on it's own is not a bad thing. that's how the world has always worked. the difference between success and failure is negotiating favorable terms when it comes to controlling the trade deficit.

it doesn't help when, we the people, act just as the corporations and put aside our professed patriotism to get a cheaper dvd player at wal-mart, communist china's 8th largest customer.

i worked most of '80s in corporate america. for a while i was a buyer for a department store chain. suffice it to say that t.y. over l.y. increases were not only planned but demanded. big ones too. some in excess of 6%. 4% was great when i first got in the biz. part of the later '80s models were based almost entirely on cheaper imports that would garner as high as a 72% markup. the boys on mahogany row were dancin' in the isles. most of the stuff came from taiwan, vietnam, maylasia etc. a few items, like knock offs, could be gotten locally, but the, umm..," shop worker" profile wasn't much different than those places.

i got out of that business in 1988, when reagan was president.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2004 04:10 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
Your allegation was that the tax cut was for the wealthy. Aside from repeating the statement, how have you demonstrated it? The tax cut is not really that far from a flat percentage back across the different brackets. How is this for the wealthy?

Maybe you just missed this post where I explained all this to you before.
Mesquite wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
mesquite wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
The percentages in the Bush taxt cut are actually skewed slightly against the highest tax brackets.

I feel a need to keep you honest here. Let us just look at the tax brackets before and after the Bush tax cuts and see what happened to them.

Before................After.........Delta
15........................10.............-5% First 25% of this bracket went to 10%
15........................15..............0% not much here
28........................25.............-3%
31%.....................28%..........-3%
36%.....................33%..........-3%
39.6%..................35%..........-4.6 Largest percent cut here


First of all, you don't need to keep me honest because I am honest. I may make an error from time to time, but that has nothing to do with honesty. I have had a very hard time getting comprehensible data on this tax cut, but I have seen responsible sites with statements to the effect that the highest bracket will have its burden increase slightly.

Re: keep you honest...Sorry, poor choice of words on my part. As to the highest bracket having it's burden increased slightly, that may be. The report at the beginning of this thread was addressing the top 1% which is a subset of the top bracket. It said that the top 1% would have their share of the burden reduced by 2%
Brandon9000 wrote:
Now, as to your figures, this isn't my area of expertise, but even by your own accounting, which I have no easy way to check, the largest percentage reduction is in the lowest portion of the lowest income bracket: 5%.

At first look it may appear that way, but the 10% bracket was a new bracket that replaced only the the first 1/4 of the old 15% bracket . It covers only a small amount of income 0-$7000 (for single). In any event, that reduction is also realized by those in higher brackets. Each bracket only applies to taxable income that is above a threshold.
Brandon9000 wrote:
Furthermore, I just found this:

"The richest Americans -- that's both singles and married couples whose AGI tops $311,950 -- now pay tax rates up to 38.6 percent. That rate would be cut to 35 percent."

at http://money.cnn.com/2003/05/22/pf/taxes/q_taxbill/

There seems to be a discrepancy between their figure of 38.6% and yours of 39.6%.

Their figure is only comparing the last tax cut. The 2001 cut took it from 39.6 to 38.6.
Brandon9000 wrote:
Would you please give me a reference for your figures?

Sure, direct from the no spin zone. I looked at my 2000 and 2003 1040 instructions for the tax rate schedules. Smile They can be found online here. The rate schedules are on the last page (13)
IRS 2000 Tax rate tables and schedule.

IRS 2003 Tax rate tables and schedule

When you look at the rate schedules, note that the taxable income group which got NO reduction in the marginal tax rates was
$7,000 to $28,400 (single)
$14,000 to $56,800 (Married filing jointly)
Keep in mind that those figures are for taxable income, not gross income, so you can see that is a rather large range of income that got nearly squat if no child tax credit was available. I rather think that many people in that income range consider themselves middle class.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2004 04:11 pm
Baldimo wrote:

As a US servicemen I don't like the idea of using foreign made ammo, due to the fact that we don't know what type of quality checks are do by those companies. What I don't understand is why you are mad at the govt for trying to save some of our hard earned tax money. Wouldn't you be happy for the govt to not spend so much money and save some?


you are far more charitable than i am. i am utterly outraged by this one. it plays into exactly what i'm talking about.

look. i hear it all the time that because i don't "stand with this president" on everything that i "don't support the troops". that's a load o' balogne.

in truth, i would rather spend the extra money on american made ammo
( the money of which, via employees paychecks, would flow back into the american economy) and have it be better and cost a little more than have the next round that you chamber either phzzz or explode in the mechanism.

i'm not mad at the government for "trying to save money". i'm ticked because they wanna cheap out on something important like this so they can spend the money on corporate tax cuts and faith based prisons in florida.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2004 04:26 pm
Brandon
You don't seem to get it. Many nations do not now trust the motives of the US. Why, because George Bush is at the helm. Again, and who can blame them?
Regarding nuclear arm development. How do you propose we stop sovereign nations from developing the capability? What makes you think we will be anymore successful in the future than we have been in the past?
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2004 04:27 pm
Baldimo wrote:
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
Quote:
as far as the va goes, they could probably do a lot of good with the 18 billion dollar, non-repayable gift to those liberated and grateful iraqis.


I would agree but that money is going to help the Iraqi govt get back on its feet. I would rather let them have the money then to not give it to them at all. I bet you would have been just as mad at Bush if they had made the money a loan. Then you would have been screaming that this was another attempt to make more money off of the poor Iraqi people.


iraq was on it's feet to start with. ugly, violent, "boy i'm glad i don't live there feet", but on it's feet all the same.

but since things are what they are, i don't mind helping them even if it's only so we can get our guys out of there.

but it bugs me that we are letting them off the hook when they should be learning to take responsibilty for their new iraq in every aspect.

that should also answer your last assumption. i don't have a problem with america making money off of iraqis. i reckon they owe us. just a little bit?

welll.... halliburton maybe i have a big problem with. they rake in entirely too much cash everywhere they go. Laughing
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2004 05:06 pm
Quote:

. Even one of these weapons could be used to strike an absolutely crippling blow against a western city, much less several WMD.


This is simply not true.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2004 05:20 pm
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
Do you know why there are so many jobs leaving the country? I can think of a person who was responsible for setting up trade with China, and allowed many American companies to move their manufacturing there. When was the last time you looked at a child's toy and saw "Made in the U.S.A." on it? Even my 7 year old asked me how come all his toys were made in China. I didn't know what to tell him.

How do we explain all the manufacturing jobs that have been shipped to Mexico? You can explain it by using the acronym N.A.F.T.A, which allowed a lot of jobs to be shipped over to Mexico and put thousands of US citizens who worked for US companies out of jobs. To claim anything else isn't being honest.


well, corporations have not been shy in saying that they outsource and remove to other countries to provide stake holders with a better return. that's a lot different than a desire to provide the u.s. with more affordable goods.


I would say they are one in the same. When you provide consumers with a cheaper (less expensive) product they will buy it more often. When they buy more often the company will make more money and the stock holders will be happier because they are making more money, why do you think wal*mart is always making more money. They almost always post a profit to the stock holders, and I know this is true because I worked for wal*mart and the store I worked at never had a slow quarter or year.

Quote:
if i get your drift, you are referring to clinton. but, as you may remember, nixon was the president that opened the door to china. as far as the toy thing goes, when i was little most of my toys said made in japan. and taiwan.


I was referring to Clinton because he was the one who opened up trade with China but then didn't guarantee and type of return in the trade. What does China get from the US? They get nothing so it is a one way trade deal and it is in favor of China. The trade deficit is huge and it can't be changed under the current model. Nixon only opened up diplomatic lines with China, from there on we didn't trade with them till almost 30 years later. Isn't it funny that after we opened trade with China and we had some guidance technology stolen China was able to put men in space? Interesting indeed.

Quote:
and cafta, the central american version of the same thing. bush wants to get that going. more jobs to guatemala? can't blame clinton for that one.


Your right I can't blame Clinton for that one, and it wouldn't make me happy to see it happen either. Trust me I don't like everything Bush does and this one would go down as one of them. I also wish he was tougher on immigration and dealing our borders.

Quote:
free trade on it's own is not a bad thing. that's how the world has always worked. the difference between success and failure is negotiating favorable terms when it comes to controlling the trade deficit.


I would agree and in the case of China and NAFTA we don't have that.

Quote:
it doesn't help when, we the people, act just as the corporations and put aside our professed patriotism to get a cheaper dvd player at wal-mart, communist china's 8th largest customer.


I buy USA made products every chance I get, even if it means paying a little bit more for the products. Notice I said made not owned products.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2004 11:33 pm
I dunno, ebrown; even a relatively small, confined rad, chem or bio attack on a major city would, if properly structured and carried out, likely have at the very least severe and broadspread economic impact, even if the actual casualty count and physical damage component were relatively insignificant. The mere carrying out of such an act itself, as opposed to that act's immediate local physical consequences, could be expected to have major, nation-wide politico-economic effect, far out of proportion to any actual material or human damage, which in point of fact is the prime motivator for any such attempt.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2004 01:59 am
Baldimo wrote:
Trust me I don't like everything Bush does and this one would go down as one of them. I also wish he was tougher on immigration and dealing our borders.


that's o.k. i didn't like evrything that clinton did.

and immigration and borders are a pet peave for me.

see? i'm not as bad as ya' thought

Quote:
I would agree and in the case of China and NAFTA we don't have that.


but that can be fixed if anybody cared to do it. bear in mind that people who bring up these concerns quickly get labeled "protectionists". as if protecting america was a bad thing. go figure...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 04/28/2024 at 03:17:14