Socialist, liberal, conservative - who cares?

If it is a graduated cut that favors the rich then yes it favors the rich.

ok and thats cool if thats what its supposed to be but it should not be sold otherwise.

Conservative Craven:

It's not being sold as a tax cut to the poor. It's being sold as a tax cut to spur the economy and the improved economy will help the poor.

after listening to the republicans in the senate and house ways and means today, they are definitely trying to sell it as helping the poor and denying that its skewed to the rich. makes no sense to me as they may have grounds to sell it as an investment strategy which has been typical of this adminstration. if you want to sell a pig dont call it a pony. people eventually notice its a pig.

Conservative Craven:

If it works it will help the poor. Do you have any quotes of it being sold as a tax cut weighted to benefit the poor?

i will see what i can find regarding todays committee meetings

ok Bush and Company have presented this tax cut as an investment strategy of reducing/eliminating dividend tax putting more money into the market ergo enhancing production, in his speech in Arkanasas Bush argued that tax cuts would put more spending money in people's pockets and increase business investment, which in turn would create jobs. so the shift in vision is from tax cuts for the rich to spur investments to renaming the tax cut putting cash in the hands of consumers thereby increasing consumption. Nothing as actually changed in the proposed tax cut other than how its defined away from rich/investment to middle class spending. Bush started off selling a pig and when that didn't fly renamed it a pig. this is all very much like the estate tax elimination that didn't fly because it only effected the rich so he renamed it the "death tax" (since we are all going to die we can all relate) but its still the same estate tax benefiting the rich. renaming the parts does not change the critter.

No tax cut shall ever EVER benefit the Poor.

For this one reason.

The poor, pay next to nothing in taxes.

The average 15% tax bracket person ends up paying only about 8% if he knows what he's doing.

Where as the rich unless they make it their lively-hood to avoid taxes, pays around 20-25%.


However, any tax cut is a good thing, regardless of who it benifits, because one thing it does no matter who it benifits, is cut back Government Spending.

The Democrats have long been burning the constitution, primarily through Budgeting Federal money in unconstitutional programs. The Federal Government's primary concern is only Postal Service and Defense.

Not all these Social Programs and regulation comittees, those should be reserved for the states and charities as the Republicans would like it.

I can't believe anyone would be a liberal.

The democrats survive because most Democratic voters are idiots.

They don't understand that for the past 30 years Democrats have seen the removal of "American patriotism" they have revised the definition of words to change their meanings and they have censored any last trace of American history from most Text books in High School. Now they are even seeing to the removal of "Founding Fathers" from the text books under the pretence it would offend people.

Have none of you read 1984? Hmm...I pitty any one who is a Democrat.

Some other things Democrats have done is try to remove Federalism as the primary basis of our government's functioning (This is my favorite one, thanks to Clinton).

Without Federalism the Central Government holds all the cards, might as well not have a Senate or House of Representatives, without the State's Rights there is no need for State representation.

But then most of you probably have no clue as to how Federalism is being attacked or supported.

Democrats attack it (whether conciously or unconciously) through Social Services.

There's nothing wrong with "health care" and other "social programs" however Democrats want to see it the job solely of the Central Government. (Hmm anyone ever hear of Communism?)

Republicans however want to see it the sole job of the States, and Charity.

This is an excellent alternative, for the Central Government's only constitutional powers are to provide for the common defense, and provide for a post office.

So why is it that the Federal government is paying for establishments that regulate your very mind, and will? Easy, democrats.

Now I don't know if it is a big plan, or just the root of their ideals, it is probably the later.

But democrats want to see aid distributed by the Central "federal" government, proportionally based on race, ethnic groups, and such.

Basically Whites, and Christians get the trump card.

The Democrats are inadvertantly destroying America.

How? By destroying her "past" her very soul.

Now you can not have even a simple holy symbol in your office of government, since when was it "Freedom FROM religion"?

There is no where in the constitution that says you can not have religion in the government, nor prayer in schools. This is a lie, or a misinturpretation passed on mainly by extreme liberals.

What you can not do, is favor one religion over the other.

But if the President wanted a Giant Cross with Jesus on it in the oval office, I (not a christian) could care less, and no one else should either.

That president is Christian and so should be allowed to do as he will, however no law should be passed for instance, saying everyone must have a giant cross in their living room.

This, and the fact that no one is being taught properly, what it means to be American now, is destroying our culture, our country.

You see these ads, "I am an American" blah blah, and they are all black or mexican and can barely speak english.

no, they aren't American. No one can say "I am an American." it is in your soul.

Not some peice of crap "propoganda" to be thrown around.

In the 1940s you were an American because you knew what the Founding Fathers did, you knew what the Patriots did in the Revolution, you didn't know what the Italians did, or what the mexicans did, even if you were from those countries.

You came over, and changed your name to something "english" and you learned english and you never asked anyone for anything.

That was what made America great.

Now you get Mexicans and other minorities moving in, not learning english, and immediately hopping on to social welfare programs all thanks to Immigration lawyers, and thanks to Democrats.

I can't even begin to point out the "litigated" society we live in today, but basically Liberals sue, conservatives generally are well moraled, respecting people who are family oriented and will help neighbors, not sue them.

You'll never find a Freemason who will take a case of a burglar trying to sue a granny because he hurt himself on her window. You'll find a Democrat taking that case though.

Democrats have greatly been able to destroy Family values.

Through several programs.

The acceptance of Abortions, and teen pregnancies (both should be shunned).

The acceptance of multiple sex partners...

The removal of religion from life. (not that I'm religious, nor that this is a main factor of anything, but removing the fact that people can be religious, could be causing problems).

But mainly there are the "Child Services" which take children away from "bad" parents.

The most recent unjust case left unchallenged is the one where the Child Services took a child away from a good home, simply because the husband took a picture of his wife breast feeding, and it was deemed "child pornography".

You mean pornography something that the Democrats won't make laws against?

I've often wondered, to have freedom, do you have to have "Morals". (A word that when I speak to most liberal californians they all shudder and cry at).

I believe yes. Does this mean you can't do things? No. What it means, is that the Morals must be the umbrella, a rope that ties all society together, this doesn't mean if you don't follow a moral explicitly you must be stoned or some whacko thing like that.

What it means, is people understand the importance of being decent, not killing, not stealing, having a close "nuclear" family, obeying the law.

Things which are fading away now.

Now you have people doing the most heinous things saying "it's their right".

You only have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Not the right to destroy other people's lives by suing them for stupid crap. Not the right to deny someone from praying, or to censor history from the youth.

Nazism took over so strongly, because Hitler and his crew realized, if you got rid of the old people, you could convince the Youth to do whatever you wanted.

Oddly similar to our "The Youth is our Future" huh?

This was said before, but not in english, rather German, and it was hailed to all in Hitler Youth.

"You are our future."

It is dangerous to ignore the Elders, our elders, they lived through more, and know what paths we should take.

Yet the Democrats have instituted more and more programs to seperate the youth from their elders, indeed even their parents.

Lastly, the Democrats want to take away our god-given right and ability to rise up and revolt against a tyranical government.

Did you know that before the Civil War began, there was limitless debate about it.

The south openly discussed with the north, that there would be Civil War. People traveled south in Southern Uniforms, and vice versa, and no one stopped them.

The Freedom to revolt against the government is the most important, in fact, it is arguably the only freedom we have, that must be maintained at all costs.

If only the Germans had the spirit we have, that spirit of independance, they would have rose up to stop Hitler.

Just as the South rose up to stop the centralization of the Government, and while they failed to Seceed they did in part stave off the Centralization of the Government. It would not start again until the Great Depression.

But now we don't need Civil War, we just need awareness, too bad I've yet to find a Democrat who is aware that the Democrats want to destroy the power of the states.

When that happens, they own your soul.

See, conservative craven? I did not have to invent my cartoon of conservatives on that other thread. I find more material as I go.

cartoons of the far right invent themselves

Actually, when it was originally conceived by whoever conceived of it for Dubya -- the economy was extremely robust -- and it was sold as a device both for cooling the economy and for returning part of the surplus to the people.

It only became a "tax cut to spur the economy" after the economy went into the dumps -- and Dubya had no other way to characterize his gift to the rich -- who of course are his base of support.

Craven wrote:

"In any case the stated purpose for this tax cut is NOT to help the poor but to stimulate the economy."

Precisely. And my question is - how does it do this? If we had some data on this, some proof, okay. But we have a very recent instance to look at which says the opposite. The tax cut not only did not spur the economy, it worsened it. Most recipients did not receive the spendiforous sums they were told they would; they received small amounts. (And were never told they would be taxed on those returns.) And the rich did not invest in anything to make the economy grow. There was more job loss than ever; Wall Street purchases declined; businesses went out of business. I am not against tax cuts. But the government is run on public money raised on one tax or another. And if the revenues from these taxes are not available, then we not only suffer the loss of what republicans obviously consider frills (like school lunches and better health care),but the economy also begins to slump.

A basic question that should be asked is "what do we get for our money?" In this land of greed and corruption and privatization, all that's looked at is what the government is taking from us that is ours. And we want it back. It's ours. You have no right to it. But we also want our public services to work, we want better health care, we want our public education system to work, we want our cars inspected at a reasonable time. We want, we want, we want. What are we willing to give so that we can have what we want?

The stated purpose - except that it starts out as a lie. Analogies and little stories are all very good - but it's lala land. You will never find the rich dining with the poor. Aside from the social taboos, the rich have never been known to share. And the poor on their own wouldn't be eating with them. Their incomes wouldn't allow it. And if the rich already put up such a smell about how much they - the poor things - have to pay, never would they let charity get in the way of holding onto what's rightfully theirs.

This administration is operating under the theory that most people are too dumb or too unthinking to look at what's happening. In some measure that's correct. And the only thing that could save them. But something is seriously wrong with the economic policies of an administration that in two years went from a huge surplus to a huger deficit. And altered its very public criticism of deficits to now say that it's okay.

Herbert Hoover, here we come.

5PoF

You sound like the tip of an iceberg I hope we never see here in A2K.

Perhaps the problem is that you are in the wrong forum.

Where you looking for Abuzz by any chance?

5PoF--
You are welcomed here. You have as much right to your opinion as the liberals do, though they may not agree.

This hasn't been declared a Liberals Only Site,
yet.

Sofia - of course he (or she) is welcome here. So far as I know, all sites are open. And heaven knows, we are all of us an opinionated bunch. Most of us also come armed with some knowledge, some references, something to back up what we are saying. And a lot of us are impassioned about our beliefs, although we do veer off sometimes into unknown territories.

This is the way it began at Abuzz.

A brand new poster posting like someone who has experience with the site -- no personal information -- raging, inflamatory comments.

Sure, 5PoF is welcome here.

Everyone is.

But the tip of an iceberg is the tip of an iceberg -- and it never hurts to call attention to one of those tips. Ask anyone who sailed on Titanic.



Anyway -- if 5PoF is still with us and not changing identities -- here is something for he/she to consider.

American conservatism is the scum of the earth -- and most of the conservative legislators now working in Washington are bottom feeders.

And there is absolutely nothing more comical than listening to a conservative give lectures on "the American way" or on "patriotism." Most of them wouldn't recognize either if they fell over them.

Frank,

Is it not possible and likely that the other side might consider you along much the same lines?

My experiment is opening my eyes to lots of cartoonish liberal behavior.