1
   

The true nature of patriotism

 
 
mamajuana
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 May, 2003 01:06 pm
Sofia - you know that child credit part? Where families were supposed to get a tax credit of so much for each child? Well, in a last-minute adjustment, Congress changed that. Families with incomes of 10,000 plus to 27,000 plus are not entitled. They get nada. The explanation was that in order to meet the Budget limits set, something would have to give. So rather than give up the capital gains tax reduction, they cut this, surprising many moderates on both sides who voted for the budget, but didn't find out about it until after it passed. Many feel that a stimulus in spending would have come more from this group, who need and can use the money, rather than from the people who stand to gain from the capital gains cut, but who so far haven't shown signs of enriching the country.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 May, 2003 01:14 pm
The Sons of Bitches.
If anyone happens upon the information as to who sponsered this change, please share it.

I will look myself, but probably not today.

The increased child credit for the working poor was one of the best aspects of the tax cut. I will sponser an e-mail or letter writing campaign against those who changed this cut.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 May, 2003 01:20 pm
Quote:
Wealthy families already don't get that benefit. But under a complex formula, families making between ten-thousand and 26-thousand dollars a year also are excluded. One liberal group says 12 million kids are affected.

Fleischer says Bush gladly signed the package -- which benefits investors by cutting rates on dividends and capital gains. He says simply, "choices get made." source: several newspapers of May 29th.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 May, 2003 01:29 pm
The Bush proposal carved out money for the working poor. I' m interested in knowing who cut it out.

I do wish he'd refused to sign it.

Edit:

I cursed congress too soon.
The tax credit is still in place.

5/23/03 -- House and Senate pass Jobs and Growth Reconciliation Tax Act; President's signature expected soon.
Early in the morning of May 23, the House of Representatives by a vote of 231-200 approved the conference report for H.R.2, the "Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003." This followed a contentious conference agreement that came close to deadlocking over state Medicaid spending.

The Senate started its debate on the bill at 8:30 A.M. today and quickly passed it by a vote of 51-50, with Vice President Cheney casting the tie-breaking vote. The bill is now cleared for signature by the President. See the May 22 Tax Watch entry for a description of the bill.

5/22/03 -- Tax bill conference bogs down on spending issue after deal is struck; House and Senate passage still expected before Memorial Day recess.
Late in the evening on May 21, after contentious negotiations, House Ways and Means Committee Chair Bill Thomas (R-CA) and Senate Finance Committee Chair Chuck Grassley (R-IA) reached agreement on a $350 billion tax cut package that was expected to be able to garner 50 votes in the Senate, setting up the likelihood of a tie-breaking vote for the bill by the Vice President.

The House appointed conferees today, and the House-Senate conference got underway in mid-afternoon. The conference committee was expected to report an agreement in short order, but it bogged down over the wording of a Medicaid spending provision. Despite this problem, House and Senate are expected to pass the bill before their Memorial Day recess begins at the close of business on May 23.

The tax provisions in the $350 billion conference agreement, which includes a $20 billion state aid package, are as follows:

Rate reduction for capital gains and dividends. Under current rules, an individual's adjusted net capital gain generally is taxed at a maximum rate of 20% (10% if it would otherwise be taxed at 10% or 15%) for regular tax and AMT purposes. Adjusted net capital gain is net capital gain (net long-term capital gains exceeding net short-term capital losses) less 28% rate gain (affecting collectibles and certain small business stock) and less 25% rate gain (generally, gain representing depreciation claimed on MACRS realty). Gain from property held more than five years that would otherwise be taxed at 10% is taxed at 8%, and gain from property held more than five years and the holding period for which begins after 2000, which would otherwise be taxed at 20%, is taxed at 18%.

Dividends received by an individual currently are taxed as ordinary income at rates up to 38.6% (for 2003).

Under the conference agreement:

Effective for sales and exchanges (and payments received) after May 5, 2003, and before Jan. 1, 2009, the 10% and 20% rates on adjusted net capital gain are reduced to 5% (zero, in 2008) and 15% respectively, for both regular tax and the AMT. The lower rates apply to assets held more than one year.
Effective for dividends received in tax years beginning after 2002 and before 2009, dividends received by an individual shareholder from domestic corporations are treated as net capital gain for purposes of applying the capital gain tax rates. In other words, the dividends are taxed at rates of 5% (zero, in 2008) and 15% for both regular tax and AMT purposes. Special rules and exclusions apply. For example, if a shareholder doesn't hold a share of stock for more than 60 days during the 120-day period beginning 60 days before the ex-dividend date, dividends received on the stock aren't be eligible for capital gain rates.
Accelerated reduction of tax brackets above 15%. For 2003 and thereafter, the tax rates above 15% would be 25%, 28%, 33%, and 35% (currently, rates for 2003 above 15% currently are 27%, 30%, 35%, and 38.6%). After 2010, rates above 15% will revert to the pre-2001 EGTRRA levels.

Increased AMT exemption amounts. For 2003 and 2004, the maximum AMT exemption amount would be $58,000 for joint filers and surviving spouses and $40,250 for unmarried taxpayers, reverting to $45,000 and $33,750 after 2004.

Increased child credit, partially refundable for 2003. For 2003 and 2004, the child credit would increase to $1,000 per qualifying child (up from current law's $600 per qualifying child for 2003-2004). After 2004, the child credit would drop back to $700 per qualifying child). For 2003, the increased amount of the child credit would be paid in advance beginning in July or August 2003 on the basis of information on each taxpayer's 2002 return filed in 2003. The payments will be made in a manner similar to the advance payment checks issued by Treasury in 2001 to reflect the creation of the 10% regular income tax rate bracket.

Marriage-penalty relief. The following marriage-penalty relief provisions would apply for 2003 and 2004 only:

The basic standard deduction amount for joint returns is double the basic standard deduction amount for single returns. For tax years beginning after 2004, a joint return filer's basic standard deduction will revert to levels enacted by the 2001 EGTRRA (e.g., for 2005, to 174% of a single return filer's basic standard deduction).
The end point of the 15% tax bracket for joint returns is twice the end point of the 15% tax bracket for single returns. For tax years beginning after 2004, the end point would revert to the levels enacted by the 2001 EGTRRA (e.g., for 2005, 180% of end point of 15% tax bracket for single returns).

Recent tax stuff.
0 Replies
 
mamajuana
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 May, 2003 10:58 pm
The child credit has limitations, regarding the size of the family income, as I stated. Your information is good, but not up to date. The exemptions were written in at the last minute (and not opened to discussion), and that figure, they estimate, will NOT cover about 12 million children (since so many now are considered the "working poor.") When they factored in all the costs, the figures covered by that exclusion could be used to keep the budget within the amount. Bush could have done something about this, but he chose to sign the budget the way it was finally presented. Some of the moderate republican congress people felt blindsided.

And the Headstart Program is scheduled to be disbanded, and, of course, funding for child care is out.

Your hearts in the right place, Sofia, but most news programs carried reports of that cut. And, of course, us liberals think the kids are being abandoned in favor of tax breaks for the rich. But what do we know?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2003 07:07 am
I thought I would throw my 2 cents in...

Most families making between 10k and 27K really do not pay federal taxes. By that I mean that they usually get a full refund of the taxes they paid in over the course of a year. The child tax credit is still $1000 for each child, even for those families mentioned.

So, whats the big deal? I hear the cries of "unfair" to the poor in the tax cuts, but what would ever be fair? The families that don't make a lot, don't pay a lot in taxes either.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2003 07:42 am
Lemme tell you something about taxes.

The poor CAN'T pay taxes -- they have no money.

The rich WON'T pay taxes -- they have plenty and they intend to keep it. (Leona Helmsley did America a big service when she mentioned: Rich people don't pay taxes!")

Almost all the taxes will be paid by the working middle class -- and that holds no matter how you torture the statistics.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2003 10:13 am
Sofia asks:

Quote:
............What do you feel about your country?


On my paternal side - can trace heitage back to the 1600's and maternal side, 1700's (at least). I fought as a grunt in the Viet Nam war, vote regularly, send eMails to congressmen, respect all about the country - including active dissent. Remember that this country was founded on dissent.

Hate current Fascist framed bend in Government! Loving the country doesn't mean you love the jerks in office!!!!!!!!!!!
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2003 10:18 am
Sofia, regarding the Tax question you raised:
Quote:
Working poor shafted in a tax cut footnote
By Thomas Oliphant, 6/1/2003
WASHINGTON: THE EVIDENCE of the greedy deed was hidden in plain sight
In a footnote - number 4 on Page 4 of the congressional report spelling out the details of the latest tax cut - it was ''explained'' in typical legislative gibberish:
''The increase in refundability of the taxpayer's earned income, scheduled for calendar year 2005 and thereafter, is not accelerated under the provision.''
In plain English, in the key section of legislation that speeds up tax benefits not scheduled to take effect for a few years, the working poor with children under 17 were being singled out for rejection.
With that one footnote, congressional Republicans and the Bush White House that supervised every detail of their final work, families with roughly 12 million children who work for the minimum wage and a little more got intentionally shafted.
This has happened before. In the first Bush tax cut two years ago, families with another 8 million kids were kept from benefiting from any increase in the children's tax credit. Putting the two actions together, President Bush and his Republican rubber stamps in Congress have managed to sock it to 20 million poor kids - constituting half of all the African-American children in this country and at least 40 percent of the Latinos.

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/152/oped/Working_poor_shafted_in_a_tax_cut_footnote+.shtml
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2003 10:25 am
BillW-- I completely agree. One can be devoted to their country and not have warm fuzzies about the current administration.

I was asking how members feel about their country. I wonder how many people think/assume I am trying to correlate love of country to the current administration..? I'm not. The assumin' in this place is outta control.

Glad to know someone else is e-mailing their congressman/woman. And, I appreciate your service to our country. Thank you. I can't imagine how difficult it has been for Vietnam vets to come to terms with what was asked of them. My thanks is sincere.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2003 10:32 am
Sofia

While you just referred to country, what exactly do you mean by this term:

- a region, a state, the land of birth and/or residence, or just any territory?
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2003 10:35 am
Geesh.
BillW--
I read your article. The writer didn't specify the tax groupings of the huge numbers of children he says were left out of the cuts.

I have an article I've posted elsewhere that states the children whose parents are too poor to pay taxes ARE STILL getting $400. It ws post-vote, but mamaj stated it wasn't complete, so I am still looking for something definitive.

This bears continuing research from me to see what the truth is after the dust settles. Thank you for the article. I do plan to seek out the truth.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2003 10:51 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Sofia

While you just referred to country, what exactly do you mean by this term:

- a region, a state, the land of birth and/or residence, or just any territory?


I mean one's nation; the spirit of all those who went before us to create the principles one's nation embodies; the highest and best aspirations of a nation's founding declarations; appreciation for the sacrifices of some for the freedoms of all....

I see many may think--a piece of land--
Some others think something altogether different.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2003 11:10 am
Sofia wrote:
I mean one's nation; the spirit of all those who went before us to create the principles one's nation embodies; the highest and best aspirations of a nation's founding declarations; appreciation for the sacrifices of some for the freedoms of all....

I see many may think--a piece of land--
Some others think something altogether different.



Well, at least members in other nations may have very different ideas.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2003 11:16 am
Walter--

You're not saying people in other countries don't love their country, are you?

I've read and heard different. I'm thinking of France, but there must be pockets of people in ALL countries who love their heritage and their country.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2003 11:50 am
Well, I'm saying that 'patriotism' in Germany is supported mostly ny neo-nazis, skinheads and, since 2001 - by "rightish" conservatives.

Loving a country, IMHO, has nothing to do with patiotism.

Quote:
Nationalism
Or maybe it should be more benignly called "patriotism"; in any event, it is ubiquitous in the US: flags, the anthem, "pledge of allegiance" every morning in every grade school, politicians regularly praising "the greatest nation on earth" etc. This is nauseating to the average German, but it is also rather difficult to understand given the widespread hatred of the government and its institutions in the US. Apparently, the nation is seen to be a completely separate entity from the nation's institutions. Atrocities committed by the army in the various wars, crimes committed all over the world by the CIA, and the huge social problems of the country are openly discussed and part of the public consciousness, but all of this does not seem to have much of an impact on the American's love of their nation. When asked directly, they usually explain that they love the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence and in the constitution, most of all the commitment to freedom. The economic system of free entrepreneurship is also often an object of love.
The situation in Germany, of course, is radically different. To love Germany is to love its history, its culture, its political and economical system, the government's institutions, the whole enchilada. Obviously, Germany's history cannot be loved, and so it is a pretty safe bet that someone wearing a shirt with a German flag on it is either a soldier or a foreigner or a neonazi. At best, it is considered to be in bad taste to claim that one is proud to be a German.

The jobless youth in big German cities and in the eastern part of the country however often present an aggressive nationalistic attitude, to the extent of harassing, beating and even killing foreigners with the wrong skin color. This kind of violence is unheard of in the US.

A subjective comparison of Germany and the United States
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2003 12:28 pm
Walter--
I've heard you say this before, and it makes me sad for anyone who loves Germany.

To love Germany is to love its history, its culture, its political and economical system, the government's institutions, the whole enchilada. Obviously, Germany's history cannot be loved, and so it is a pretty safe bet that someone wearing a shirt with a German flag on it is either a soldier or a foreigner or a neonazi. At best, it is considered to be in bad taste to claim that one is proud to be a German.
-------------------
It is unfair that because of the mistake of Hitler, Germans can't feel free to love all that is good and beautiful about Germany. I wish Germans wouldn't buy into the discredit of their country. Germany addressed her error, and shouldn't be continually reminded of it. I wish you would wear your flag with pride.

And this--
The jobless youth in big German cities and in the eastern part of the country however often present an aggressive nationalistic attitude, to the extent of harassing, beating and even killing foreigners with the wrong skin color. This kind of violence is unheard of in the US.
---
...is not to be confused with patriotism or nationlism, IMO. It is merely hatred. Anyone can pervert something good. The fault lies within the people perpetrting the violence, not in Germany. IMO.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2003 12:38 pm
Well, I must add to the above quotations that the patriotism - as seen between 1871 and 1918 - was really kitsch for Germans of our days.

Besides, I honestly think that we always should remember our history.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2003 12:40 pm
You know, when i've returned to the United States after any appreciable absence, i have not experienced the sense of being home at customs and immigration, nor yet again in the passenger terminal--in fact, it doesn't strike me in an arresting manner until i've reached a point at which i can smell the soil itself. This may sound contrived or cornball, but in fact, i've had the greatest surge of a sense of being home when i could smell a corn-field, when i smelled the ozone of a thunderstorm and heard the meadowlark singing its storm-crow warning. Sting had a song several years back in which he sang: ". . . the Russians love their children, too . . ." Paraphrasing that, i would say that everyone deeply reacts to smell of their native soil--all of the political or sociological trappings which people would attempt to hang on patriotism or love of country are as nothing in the face of such a strong association.

This can be problematic, of course. For much of the history of the United States, when a man or woman spoke of "my country," they only referred to the home state, or an even narrower scope. And this may likely still describe many Americans. Certain it is, to me at least, that an Afghan of Uzbek descent who speaks of "my country" not only means something very divergently different than does an Afghan of Pushtun descent, but that the both of them say it so heavily freighted with tribal baggage, that violence not only could possible ensue, but is very likely to do so. And i am recalled to the poem we were required to admire in the Eisenhower era grammar schools (although i am convinced that our teachers viewed this with only a superficial comprehension), the one with the lines: Breathes there a man with soul so dead/Who never to himself has said/This is my own, my native land . . .
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2003 12:51 pm
Setanta--

I really enjoyed your comments here. I think 'cornball' plays heavily into the love of country I speak of.

I like that Sting song, as well.

It is a largely 'sense' thing, I think. An indescribable feeling of place, but you came close with your description. And you went far in divesting the feeling from mere politics.

I don't think patriotism or love of country is an Us or Them. I think it's universal.
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 0.03 seconds on 05/19/2024 at 02:08:30