Reply
Mon 5 May, 2003 10:01 pm
Arrogance, apathy, acceptance. What's it all mean, anyway?
Like, here we have a democratic filibuster (some kind of political first) going on for three months about a Bush nominee for a court, name of Estrada. I don't know if this is a good or a bad man, but why won't he let us know where he stands on some important issues? Why pretend about impartiality? To think, Kay Bailey Hutchison tonight claimed (as do many others) the man is highly recommended by the ABA. So what? Wasn't one of the first things Bush did when he got in was to get rid of the ABA as part of the recommendation process? Now that's a sort of arrogance, but the acceptance of the two-way thinking is apathy and acceptance.
I don't really care what you are, but I think it's past time for a lot of us to start thinking independently, and stop hawking party line.
Will somebody please explain to me what follows the statement about tax cuts creating all those jobs? How? Where will they come from? I know the party line about businesses investing, but that hasn't worked so far. Matter of fact, scary millions of jobs have been lost since the promise of that last tax cut.
I'm glad the Democrats in the Senate are showing some backbone with these filibusters. Of course, you can bet that Rove will be orchestrating (probably already is) an appeal to Latino voters over the Estrada fight. Undoubtedly, that was the rationale for nominating him in the first place!
As for the dividend tax cut creating jobs, it's the Big Lie being repeated over and over and over. I'll say this for Bush--when he has a goal in mind, he DOES NOT give up. I only wish Clinton had been so dogged about universal health care...
Yes, but D'art, where do the jobs come from? It is a big lie, stated over and over, but why don't the democrats ask the hard questions and show some straight figures? I don't think it's that complicated. This was the same lie raised just last year, and there is nothing to back it up, unless you count further job loss. What has actually happened is not the investment in business, creating job growth, but the cutting back on costs to make a company look more profitable. And when the growth in sales isn't there, what gets cut is the people. And if the people don't have paying jobs, they cannot buy the products of these companies. Second mortgages have fueled a continuing consumer spending, but that is now grinding to a halt.
And you know car sales - a leading indicator - are in bad shape when, after going to 0% financing over a longer period, they are now offering over-night try-out deals,
I don't Estrada had much of a Hispanic vote, and the WH should have been aware of this. They are, however, color blind in that sense. They have no awareness at all, unless they think they can sway it by advertising.
I almost get the feeling sometimes, when it comes to the Senate fight over the tax plan, that moderate Republicans are showing more backbone than the Democrats. The former are getting more coverage, at least. And Jim Jeffords is best of all, IMHO. I think it's great that he gave the Democrats' rebuttal last weekend to the weekly Bush drivel.
The House is a disaster. When did it become such a hotbed of conservatism? Didn't use to be that way, but now the House is to the right of Bush, it seems. "Want a tax cut? How about an even bigger one?"
Will somebody please explain to me what follows the statement about tax cuts creating all those jobs? How? Where will they come from?
_________________________________________
Bushy economy.
Since I think we have to envigorate and strengthen business to maintain a healthy capitalist economy, I agree with this stuff. I was a little chicken about SUCH A BIG TAX CUT. Bush's gamble for BIG TAX CUTS is like a high roller, with unshakeable faith that the gamble will pay off. I am a little mousier than he is... I would have opted for a reduced tax cut--but, I bet it pays off for him big.
It does create an environment for business growth-- which is jobs growth--
Uh-huh, a climate for business growth requires HUGE tax cuts for the rich. Seems to me I read about that before...yeah, it was in Kevin Phillips book, "Wealth and Democracy." They did that in the 1920's and nearly wrecked the country like they are doing now. I guess we have to have the equivelent of a stock market crash for Americans to understand what they have been hoodwinked into believing is best for the economy.
Mama...a whole lot of apathy and a whole lot of lies got us to this sorry place. It is time for a progressive revival.
What makes the tax cut a cut for the rich?
This page gives a pretty good picture of who gets the benefit of the tax cut.
http://65.40.245.240/voxpop/taxspnd4.htm
If tax cuts stimulate the economy -- why not eliminate taxes?
And if that makes no sense -- how do we decide where taxes should be?
Conservative Craven:
Depending on the numbers you use those who pay the most taxes will almost always be the recipients of the largest tax cuts.
anonymous wrote:Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men -- the poorest -- would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1, the sixth would pay $3, the seventh $7, the eighth $12, the ninth $18, and the tenth man -- the richest -- would pay $59.
That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement -- until one day, the owner threw them a curve (in tax language a tax cut).
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.00.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six -- the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"
The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, Then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59. Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.
But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man who pointed to the tenth. "But he got $7!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man, "I only saved a dollar, too . . . It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!".
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man, "why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what was very important. They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of paying the bill! Imagine that!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.
craven i am really surprised you used that rather trite logic, the basis of a graduated income tax demonstrates the opposite
Conservative Craven:
No it does not. Graduated income tax is exactly what the anecdote is talking about.
inverse of a graduated income tax would indicate that less would be reduced from a tax cut for the rich
use of a graduated income tax (rich pay more) equates to (rich get less back)
Conservative Craven:
A graduated reduction is not the same thing as a graduated tax.
In any case the stated purpose for this tax cut is NOT to help the poor but to stimulate the economy.
regardless of stated purpose, the logic does not follow
Conservative Craven:
Yes it does, certain people don't follow but the logic is both clear and sound to others.
If reducing the rich's taxes can spur the economy then the logic worked perfectly.
Craven de Kere wrote:What makes the tax cut a cut for the rich?
your statement, and your logic follows and yet contradicts itself, it is either a tax cut for the rich to stimulate the economy or it is not a tax cut for the rich and should therefore be equitable giving greater to the less paying as a graduated tax implies.
Conservative Craven:
If the tax cut is equal you can still use the right numbers to call it a cut for the rich.
Again, graduated tax does not mean a graduated cut.
if it is not, then it must be a tax cut for the rich
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace