More bush Contradictions

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

the price of gas was never supposd to go down, the profit to a select few in the bushinc club was supposed to go up.....mission accomplished.....

How much of the oil being sold on the market right now is owned by Bushs "friends"?

The idea isn't in the selling of the oil, it's in the procurement, manufacturing and refinement of the oil. The money is in the form of US taxpayer funded money to large republican firms.

The money is in the form of US taxpayer funded money to large republican firms. It comes in the form on no-bid contracts. A tax payer giveaway to these companies, it's direct profiteering on the war by companies with a financial investment in the RNC. Doesn't this even remotely bother you? Doesn't this even stir your intrest in looking further into the matter?

Halliburton, Bechtel and others are companies who directly profited off the war. For example, Halliburton employees are making upwards of $10K a month, while our soldiers are making under 2K. There is something extremely wrong with this picture.

The stock of Halliburton has gone up over 200% in the past year, this money and stock increase is DIRECTLY from the American taxpayer. Look at the top % companies on profit margin and you'll find oil at the top right now.

Which leads directly to the question, if they aren't porking the consumer, then how are they able to maintain such a high profit margin?

The image below is the stock preformance of Haliburton from the time of the vote on Iraq until now. Pretty big gain in stock, 14 to 35, a 250% increase over two years, pretty hard to do considering the dow has decreased during that span.

Embryonic stem cell research cannot even be imagined without the deliberate and expressed intent to sacrifice an innocent.

At Thursday's debate President Bush said most of his tax cuts "went to low- and middle-income Americans."[1] That statement is flatly false.

An analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that, in 2004, the top 20 percent of earners received 69.8% of the tax cuts enacted by President Bush.[2] While the middle 20 percent of earners received an average tax cut of $647, the top 20 percent received an average tax cut of $5,055.[3] As a result, those in the middle class are paying a greater share of the federal taxes today than they were four years ago.[4]

Sources:

1. "Transcript of Debate Between Bush and Kerry, With Domestic Policy the Topic," New York Times, 10/13/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=62975.
2. "Tax Returns: A Comprehensive Assessment of the Bush Administration Tax Cuts," Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 04/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=62976.
3. Ibid, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=62976.
4. "Tax Cuts Go Mostly to the Rich," OMB Watch, 2004, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=62977.

Baldimo
You must have missed or maybe you did not understand this sentence?
As a result, those in the middle class are paying a greater share of the federal taxes today than they were four years ago.

Baldimo

There is no reason why those who pay the most taxes in dollar amount needs to get the largest taxcutts in dollar amount when taxes are cut.

Goverment spending is distributed either equally among people with various incomes, or more goes to those who earn the least. If a taxcut is not meant to alter the level of "redistribution of wealth", the tax cut should have the same distribution as the programs cut, which is to say an equal dollar amount per head, or a larger dollar amount to those with lower income than to those with higher income.

That said, I get the impression that say the richest 1% now pay a lower percentage of total US taxes than they did in 2000. Is that not correct?

It only makes sense that those that pay the most get the most back, if it didn't work that way then it wouldn't be fair. We need a fair tax system, if it is to work properly. There is no reason why those that pay the least to get the most back. If this were the case then they wouldn't be paying their fair of taxes.

I don't really favor a progressive tax system, I would rather see a flat tax based on percentage.

The way I would like to see it do is like this. If you earn below $29,000 a year, you don't pay anything. For everyone who earns above $30,000 then they all pay the same percentage, like around 15-17%. This would be on the federal level. On the state level, we should only pay sales tax and no income tax on what we earn, it is the same as being double taxed except the amount is different.

It is backward for someone to receive back more then they pay. This would cause an imbalance in the system. Why do people see a need for the Robin Hood syndrome?

The amount of money coming out of the middle class would remain the same. If I'm being taxed at 15% and that percentage doesn't change then I am still paying the same. I don't pay anymore and I don't pay any less. To me it doesn't matter how much of my share is being used, it only matters to me that my taxes don't change in amount I pay. My share doesn't matter because the $ amount didn't change.

Quote:

That said, I get the impression that say the richest 1% now pay a lower percentage of total US taxes than they did in 2000. Is that not correct?

When you get a tax cut that is the general idea, and what is wrong with that.

finn wrote

Quote:

Embryonic stem cell research cannot even be imagined without the deliberate and expressed intent to sacrifice an innocent.

What innocent is that. Those in fertility clinics that are destined for the garbage bin.

That is just another reason to get rid of that Moron in the oval office.

Einherjar:

Retarded is too kind of a description for Bush.

Quote:

The idea isn't in the selling of the oil, it's in the procurement, manufacturing and refinement of the oil. The money is in the form of US taxpayer funded money to large republican firms.

Do these "republician firms" include regular oil companies? Companies like Exxon/Mobil, Shell and Phillips 66? These are the oil companies that work the oil business around the world. Have these companies been gaining in profits? I think to look at just Halliburton is being disingenuous. Sure Halliburton has made money but isn't that the point.

I know none of you like the truth about the no bid contracts but here is the truth. There was a bidding process early when Bush got into office. This bidding process was to have a contractor on hand to perform short notice jobs without having to wait for many months to fulfill contracts on jobs that would be needed now.

Iraq and Afghanistan troop support for the soldiers is a perfect example of this. When the troops took up posts across Iraq and Afghanistan, they needed barracks, chow halls and personal facilities to handle business. If the govt were to wait for these services to be fulfilled by companies bidding for the process, they would have been waiting for several months just for the contract to be approved, let alone the companies to get into the area and supply said services. Would you have had the troops wait for some type of comfort, wait to shower and even have decent meals? During a time of war, someone is always going to profit, so to me it doesn't matter who gets the money, because it is always going to be someone.

Quote:

The money is in the form of US taxpayer funded money to large republican firms. It comes in the form on no-bid contracts. A tax payer giveaway to these companies, it's direct profiteering on the war by companies with a financial investment in the RNC. Doesn't this even remotely bother you? Doesn't this even stir your intrest in looking further into the matter?

No it doesn't bother me, because I know someone is going to make money, and I would rather it be an American company and American workers then a foreign company and foreign workers. Is there a single company in the US that isn't attached at the hip to some political party? Most if not all companies contribute to a political party and people running for office. Some contribute more to others but more often then not, they all contribute to everyone. I'm sure if you look through Halliburton's records, you will find that they paid money into both parties not just the RNC.

Quote:

Halliburton, Bechtel and others are companies who directly profited off the war. For example, Halliburton employees are making upwards of $10K a month, while our soldiers are making under 2K. There is something extremely wrong with this picture.

The difference between Halliburton employees and soldiers, is that you don't go into the military because of the money. If you did then you are delusional. Soldiers don't have a choice of where and when they will be stationed somewhere, and they know this in advance. Civilian employees are going to work in Iraq by choice, and they are indeed working in a very dangerous place with little to no protection while they work. They are not allowed to be armed and there for are in much bigger danger. When was the last time you heard about a soldier being kidnapped while working? You don't, because soldiers are told to not travel alone and to do so is violation of orders. Civilians are not under these same orders. I don't have an issue with civilian employees making that much money and neither should you. If the US military paid soldiers the same amount as their civilian counter parts did, you would have a complaint about that because of how much money the govt spent on the military. Most of you already complain that the US spends too much on the military, can you imagine how much they would have to increase the budget to provide that type of pay. The current % of military spending is about 3%, in order to compete with civilian pay we would have to increase spending by at least double. You won't like that, because you already think the military budget is already too high according to people such as yourself.

Quote:

The stock of Halliburton has gone up over 200% in the past year, this money and stock increase is DIRECTLY from the American taxpayer. Look at the top % companies on profit margin and you'll find oil at the top right now.

Oil has just about always been on the high end of profit making because it is such a necessary commodity. I don't care who makes the money, if you want the companies to make less money then demand for drilling in places like ANWR where the companies will have to spend their own money to procure oil instead of from foreign sources. If we were to drop our dependence on foreign oil supplies and increase our own procurement then prices would drop, because we wouldn't be dependent on how much oil someone else is willing to provide and how fast they are willing to provide it. With oil currently at a record high do to outside factors we could lower the price by drilling, refining and using our own supplies.

Quote:

Which leads directly to the question, if they aren't porking the consumer, then how are they able to maintain such a high profit margin?

Companies are in the business of making money and if their price to produce goes up, then so is the consumer's price to consume. I'm not happy with how high gas prices are, but there are reasons why the price has gone up. Follow the news on this one and you will see why.

Quote:

The image below is the stock preformance of Haliburton from the time of the vote on Iraq until now. Pretty big gain in stock, 14 to 35, a 250% increase over two years, pretty hard to do considering the dow has decreased during that span.

You are wrong on part of that, the DOW has increased in the last year plus. Before the war the Stock market was down to about 7,000 and in that time has gone up to about 10,000 depending on what is going on. Now with the increase in oil prices, the market has gone down. I would say an increase of almost 3,000 points is pretty good, and reflects how well the economy has done in that same amount of time.

Stating that most of the tax burden went to the lower tax groups is crap. My tax bracket didn't increase at all, I am still paying the same amount of taxes now as I did before the tax cut. In fact I'm getting more back because of certain aspects of the tax cut. I get more money back due to being married and having children. I know I got money back a few years ago and was happy to have it at the time.

Is it any wonder that the people who received the most back in dollar amount are the same people who pay the most in dollar amount? Bush even created a new tax bracket, which is taxed at the 10% rate, where before they were being taxed at a higher 15% tax bracket. These people received a bit of money back due to this change, and now bring home more of their money.

Everyone who pays taxes should have a tax cut.

Finn, the "innocent" was pretty much sacrificed to begin with, which is also what au said. If you tried, you would see that.

Since Bush isn't doing anything about fertilityclinics, who will toss these embryo's in the dustbin if the scientific comunity doesn't put them to use, I can only conclude that he is either retarded, or he is not worried about sacrificing "embryos" but about loosing support from his religious base.

Bush is either a religious fanatic or is catering to the religious fanatics of his base. No matter how you twist it he would rather see the embryos destroyed than to put them to use for the good of the sick and disabled. I doubt that God, even Mr. Bush's would condone that deviant thinking.

As for the military closing down abortion clinics. He has not as yet achieved the rank of dictator..