Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 07-30-2004, 12:07 PM   #1 (permalink)
Banned
 
Location: Swooping down on you from above....
Additional reason why I'm not voting for Bush

Economic policies: In the toilet. What exactly has he done in the last 3 and a half years as president except run up record deficits, lose millions of jobs and reward companies who outsource in the name of economic prosperity?

Environmental policy: Non-existent. Plus, we can't dig for oil forever, which is Bush's answer to everything.

Education: No child left behind my ass.

International relations: Need I say more?

Energy: Again, we can't dig for oil forever so what are we going to do? Is Bush searching for the next source of energy or is he making sure that Dick gets to keep lining his pockets?

Health Care: If stem cell research has even a possibility to cure some of the worst diseases, the WHY THE HELL HAVEN'T WE TAKEN ADVANTAGE?????? Because of some right-winger's belief that god doesn't believe in it? Who the hell are Bush and his lackeys to say that they know what's good for the rest of us based on his backwards ass beliefs, which at least half of the country doesn't believe in?!?!

And finally, basically lying to the country about this fucked up war. I'm all for kicking terrorist ass, but TELL THE FUCKING TRUTH ABOUT IT!


And just to be non-partisan, there's not a damn thing I like about Kerry either. But, he still has my vote. His speech last night was nothing more that a speech that somebody else wrote. Its just words.

Disclaimer: No pop-up ads have influenced my decision in any way.

Last edited by Flyguy; 07-30-2004 at 12:10 PM..
Flyguy is offline  
Old 07-30-2004, 01:46 PM   #2 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Seaver's Avatar
 
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Quote:
Economic policies: In the toilet. What exactly has he done in the last 3 and a half years as president except run up record deficits, lose millions of jobs and reward companies who outsource in the name of economic prosperity?
Lower taxes give people back money which they spend, increasing the economy. The recession started before he even took office, and hit hard with the post-9/11 fears, and economies arent something you can turn around in a weeks time, it takes years.

Quote:
Environmental policy: Non-existent. Plus, we can't dig for oil forever, which is Bush's answer to everything.
I dont see Kerry being able or willing to change the way our economy works, it'll still be driven by oil.

Quote:
Education: No child left behind my ass.
He tried to do the same thing he did in Texas. It worked very well here (though Californian liberals claim otherwise). It didnt work on a National level, why? because education falls under states rights.

Quote:
Energy: Again, we can't dig for oil forever so what are we going to do? Is Bush searching for the next source of energy or is he making sure that Dick gets to keep lining his pockets?
God you people act like he's still working for them. He retired from his position a long time ago.

Quote:
Health Care: If stem cell research has even a possibility to cure some of the worst diseases, the WHY THE HELL HAVEN'T WE TAKEN ADVANTAGE?????? Because of some right-winger's belief that god doesn't believe in it? Who the hell are Bush and his lackeys to say that they know what's good for the rest of us based on his backwards ass beliefs, which at least half of the country doesn't believe in?!?!
1) I dont like people telling me that my religion is "backwards ass".

2) Show where half the country supports Stem Cell research.

Quote:
And finally, basically lying to the country about this fucked up war. I'm all for kicking terrorist ass, but TELL THE FUCKING TRUTH ABOUT IT!
Once again I'll state this. The US inquiry, the British, the UN, and even the Russian intelligence services ALL stated that WMDs were there and being built. Hell I remember Clinton stating about the stockpiles (something easily forgotten apparently). He didnt lie, what happened was a mistake became a truth because so many people believed it. Bush thought we were in danger, Congress agreed (even your boy Kerry), he acted on it. Now we realize there wasnt any there, but you have to be a man and stand up for what you did (read: Bush), not give petty excuses and hide behind the anti-war wave (read: Kerry).
Seaver is offline  
Old 07-30-2004, 01:55 PM   #3 (permalink)
Huggles, sir?
 
seretogis's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle
Re: Additional reason why I'm not voting for Bush

Quote:
Originally posted by Flyguy
there's not a damn thing I like about Kerry either. But, he still has my vote.
Well, that's all that I needed to read in order to dismiss this thread. Good day.
__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames
seretogis is offline  
Old 08-01-2004, 04:04 PM   #4 (permalink)
MSD
The sky calls to us ...
 
MSD's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: CT
We really don't need threads bashing anyone. Whether intentionally or not, this teeters on the line between a frustrated rant and a troll. Think before you post, I'm going to consider the contributions that the next two posts make to the thread, and if they don't direct it in a positive direction, it will be closed. Anyone causing trouble with the sole intent of getting the thread closed will see the post removed and an official warning in his or her PM box.

Before I'm accused of being Pro-Bush for threatening to close this thread, understand that the only thing that would motivate me to vote for him is the voice of God ordering me to do so. By saying this, I want you to know that my only interest is preventing the Politics forum from degrading back to the level where I, as a moderator, avoided it for several weeks because seeing all the ignorant flaming raised my blood pressure to dangerous levels.
MSD is offline  
Old 08-01-2004, 08:10 PM   #5 (permalink)
Tone.
 
shakran's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Seaver
Lower taxes give people back money which they spend, increasing the economy. (SNIP)

and economies arent something you can turn around in a weeks time, it takes years.
OK. So when Reagan and Bush the First had 12 years to make this concept work, why couldn't they?

The trickle down theory works great on paper, but unfortunately, it assumes that people will always do what's best for the economy. That's a false assumption - people will do what they percieve as best for them.

i.e. if you give me $5,000, I could buy stock with it which would help generate jobs etc etc, or I could buy a nice TV, or I could stuff it under my mattress for a rainy day. Most people are gonna take the 2nd or 3rd option.

Trickle-down enriches the already wealthy while the underpriviledged have to wait at the feet of the rich hoping for a few small squeezings. It not only is a flawed economic policy, it's a damned heartless one as well.
shakran is offline  
Old 08-01-2004, 08:19 PM   #6 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Seaver's Avatar
 
Location: Fort Worth, TX
You act like the tax cuts only hit the rich. It was a % cut that affected everyone.

Yes the rich got a bigger sum back, but the same percent.

Quote:
or I could buy a nice TV
Which increases demand/output/profit in the TV industry, the middle-men selling it, and a whole lot of positive things to get the economy going again. They in turn spend the money on a new car/food/cloths/etc and gee wiz look we have a growing economy.

Quote:
or I could stuff it under my mattress for a rainy day.
Only retards would stuff it anywhere. If nothing else they put it in a bank, which uses it to hand out loans which lead to investment which leads to growth.

Quote:
Trickle-down enriches the already wealthy while the underpriviledged have to wait at the feet of the rich hoping for a few small squeezings. It not only is a flawed economic policy, it's a damned heartless one as well.
If Bush's tax cuts were the same as Reagan that may be so, but they didnt give them anymore of a cut than anyone else in America.
Seaver is offline  
Old 08-01-2004, 08:50 PM   #7 (permalink)
....is off his meds...you were warned.
 
KMA-628's Avatar
 
Location: The Wild Wild West
Quote:
So when Reagan and Bush the First had 12 years to make this concept work, why couldn't they?
Gov't spending wasn't kept in check. Reagan's plan actually significantly increased gov't revenue, but outlays grew too much. Then, Sr. raised the taxes thinking that would help--it didn't, never has.

Also, compare the numbers of the 70's with the numbers of the 80's, there was a dramatic difference. I remember the inflation rates under Carter--I also remember looking for gas stations that had a green flag in front (red flag = no gas). Those days were not fun.

Quote:
The trickle down theory works great on paper, but unfortunately, it assumes that people will always do what's best for the economy. That's a false assumption - people will do what they percieve as best for them.
That is incorrectly protraying "trickle-down" theory. It never says that people will do what's best for the economy. People will do what is best for themselves--Basic Economic Theory, taught the first week in Economics class. Claiming that "trickle-down" economics "assumes that people will always do what's best for the economy" - Is a False Assumption



Quote:
if you give me $5,000, I could buy stock with it which would help generate jobs etc etc, or I could buy a nice TV, or I could stuff it under my mattress for a rainy day. Most people are gonna take the 2nd or 3rd option.
Actually, the 3rd option is the worst thing anyone can do, regardless of the political persuasion - Cash never increases in value, it always decreases. That thinking applies to the pre-FDIC days when nobody trusted banks and their money wasn't safe in a bank.

Either Option 1 or Option 2 stimulate the economy, in a way (without having to argue the "broken windshield" theory).

To your last point, the "under-privileged" pay little or no taxes. There is no point giving a tax break to someone who has no burden. Giving a tax break to someone who pays almost nothing (I have prepared several of their returns, so I see the numbers) does absolutely nothing for the economy. Their ratio is already imbalanced (what they get versus what they pay).

I really cannot think of any economic theory involving the "under priviledged" which leads to economic growth.

Trickle Down/Supply-Side/Whatever has never had the chance to work. It and any other economic stimulus package has always been offset by spending.

Further Info:

Quote:
The JFK tax plan, passed after his death, reduced marginal tax rates from 91% to 65%, and unleashed a prosperity which lasted until 1971.
Quote:
Reagan's presidency began with the Kemp-Roth tax cuts, which were 25% across-the-board. But the Federal Reserve insisted on an overly tight monetary policy on the advice of monetarists like Milton Friedman, driving interest rates up to ridiculous levels.
Quote:
The 1986 tax reform in the U.S. contained a provision which raised the capital gains tax from 20% to 28%. This was the first in a series of factors which led to the 1990-91 recession. The others were the Bush 1990 tax hike, the oil price runup from the first Gulf War, and more monetary blundering by the Fed.
Quote:
Bush was elected, and he cut taxes, but the economy refused to improve. Why? He was running deficits, increasing defence spending, etc.; it seemed to be Reagan redux. However, not all tax cuts are created equal. Essentially, his cuts were based around expanded credits rather than dramatically lower rates. The 2003 tax plan was much more supply-side in nature, and sure enough GDP grew at 8.2% annualized a few quarters later. The bust has its roots in the Fed's policy. The Fed has always seemed to err against inflation, so it hiked rates several times despite the falling prices of gold, oil, metals, and other commodities, early indicators of deflation and an unstable dollar. Then when oil jumped up a bit, the Fed saw red and hiked rates again and again. Then the markets tumbled, and everything went to economic hell in a political handbasket.
__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.
KMA-628 is offline  
Old 08-01-2004, 11:03 PM   #8 (permalink)
Insane
 
Use some freakin' common sense people. Give $1000 to a poor person who can barely get by and give $1000 to a millionaire. Who do you think is more likely to spend it and thus stimulate the economy? There is a reason why the rich and well-to-do are pushing this "trickle down" idea and it's not because they think it will help the poor...
hammer4all is offline  
Old 08-01-2004, 11:17 PM   #9 (permalink)
....is off his meds...you were warned.
 
KMA-628's Avatar
 
Location: The Wild Wild West
That would be nice if the numbers were more accurate.

It doesn't equate the same. If the tax break to a "rich" person is $1000.00 then the same tax break to a "poor" or "under priviledged" person is a tiny, tiny fraction of that.

If it were $1,000.00 it wouldn't be a tax break it would be a gift.

Supply-side/Trickle-Down is not about gifts it is about reducing marginal rates.

I am all for you giving a "poor" person a gift of a $1,000.00

We just need to add a line to the 1040 that states "I want to give XXX dollars to the poor in addition to the taxes I am paying".

That gives me my tax break and it gives you the chance to give gifts. We both will feel better then.

/how many people would voluntarily increase their tax rate come April?
__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.
KMA-628 is offline  
Old 08-01-2004, 11:32 PM   #10 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Seaver's Avatar
 
Location: Fort Worth, TX
It's not a gift if you take half of what a farmer produces, and give him back a bread of loaf.
Seaver is offline  
Old 08-01-2004, 11:37 PM   #11 (permalink)
....is off his meds...you were warned.
 
KMA-628's Avatar
 
Location: The Wild Wild West
Seaver,

I'm afraid I didn't understand your post. Are you referring to crops or to taxes?

Does somebody take half of a farmers crops?

I can, however, understand if this is analogy to the farmers taxes. In that case a marginal tax break would help him/her (don't forget, the recent tax "breaks" were heavier in regards to increasing deductions then they were to decreasing marginal rates)
__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.
KMA-628 is offline  
Old 08-02-2004, 12:05 AM   #12 (permalink)
Psycho
 
as far as stem cell research, i would respect the conservative view more if it were consistent. the problem is that that genenic material can't be used for research because it kills a future life, right?

what about the same material being used in the myriad ways we artificially inseminate? lots of byproduct that gets flushed in those processes...

if the end justified the means, then stem cell research should be ok also. genetic goo is either to valuable to use for any purpose, or it's valuable if the end result is valuable. either way, picking on only stem cell research is hypocritical.

it's not just a political football, is it?
boatin is offline  
Old 08-02-2004, 12:42 AM   #13 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Seaver's Avatar
 
Location: Fort Worth, TX
It was using an analogy for taxes. People may not work the land but they sure devote the same amount of time for what they make.

My point was the same, it's not a "gift" if they first take it away from you and then give it back, it's taking less.
Seaver is offline  
Old 08-02-2004, 03:23 AM   #14 (permalink)
Kiss of Death
 
Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow
Quote:
Originally posted by hammer4all
Use some freakin' common sense people. Give $1000 to a poor person who can barely get by and give $1000 to a millionaire. Who do you think is more likely to spend it and thus stimulate the economy? There is a reason why the rich and well-to-do are pushing this "trickle down" idea and it's not because they think it will help the poor...
Poor person would spend the money no doubt, but the only way they would further benefit the economy is by their cigarette addiction or booze. By saying that I am in no way asserting all "poor people" are black death smoking cancer heads or booze hounds, I'm just saying that food to my knowledge is not taxed, what else are they going to spend it on that will generate revenue?

When a rich person invests do they not get taxed on their returns? Or at the very least they'll piss it away on a flat screen for their bathroom. Who knows maybe they will put the money towards at extra upgrade at the Mercedes dealership, bottomline is they will be redistributing money right back into the economy.

Also for all you "yeah but" anti-Bush economists who constantly bitch about job lose. On top of the good market and job growth from Nov 2002 Until just recently when it slowed up, the unemployment rate was below the Ten year average for the last 30 years (70-80, 80-90, 90-00).
__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.
Mojo_PeiPei is offline  
Old 08-02-2004, 04:28 AM   #15 (permalink)
Muffled
 
Kadath's Avatar
 
Location: Camazotz
Quote:
Originally posted by KMA-628
Gov't spending wasn't kept in check. Reagan's plan actually significantly increased gov't revenue, but outlays grew too much.
Argh, you make me crazy. Reagan submitted HUGE budgets to Congress. They gave him less than he wanted. He's the one who didn't keep it in check. Also, part of the reason government revenue went up was the richest people in the country more than doubled their income over his term, so it didn't matter that Reagan cut their taxes 15%. It's not like the man was some kind of economic visionary! Stop it.
__________________
it's quiet in here
Kadath is offline  
Old 08-02-2004, 08:23 AM   #16 (permalink)
....is off his meds...you were warned.
 
KMA-628's Avatar
 
Location: The Wild Wild West
Kadath,

With defense out of the budget (no one is going to argue that Reagan spent a ton on defense) please back up your assertion.

I ask because I have heard the reverse of what you state.

Seaver,

Read my post again.

It is a GIFT because you would be giving these "poor" and "under priviledged" souls back more than they paid. We are not talking farmers here. "Poor" and "Under priviledged" usually equates to being below the poverty line, destitute.

A lot of these people are actually making money when it comes to taxes. And, when you only pay $500.00 in taxes and you get a break of $1000.00 it is a GIFT because you never paid the money in the first place.

We went round and round because you didn't understand my post.
__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.
KMA-628 is offline  
Old 08-02-2004, 08:40 AM   #17 (permalink)
Banned
 
cthulu23's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
Poor person would spend the money no doubt, but the only way they would further benefit the economy is by their cigarette addiction or booze. By saying that I am in no way asserting all "poor people" are black death smoking cancer heads or booze hounds, I'm just saying that food to my knowledge is not taxed, what else are they going to spend it on that will generate revenue?
You seem to be confusing generating tax revenue with contributing to the economy. Food, utilities, shelter, gas, entertainment and every other thing that a citizen buys in our society contributes to the economy. Consumer spending, commonly cited as the primary driver of the economy, does not just mean luxury items.

It seems to be conventional wisdom that more money for the richest citizens means more economic investment. Following that line of thinking, does it not also stand to reason that increased spending by the lower echelons of society would drive up profits, thereby providing the invesment sector with more capitol?
cthulu23 is offline  
Old 08-02-2004, 08:42 AM   #18 (permalink)
Banned
 
cthulu23's Avatar
 
Most poor citizens pay much more in payroll taxes than income taxes. The earned income tax credit is a way of alleviating that tax burden, as well.
cthulu23 is offline  
Old 08-02-2004, 09:41 AM   #19 (permalink)
....is off his meds...you were warned.
 
KMA-628's Avatar
 
Location: The Wild Wild West
cthulu23,

I have seen some of their tax returns and that just doesn't hold true.

One example I am thinking of the person got back more than they paid in taxes in total (including non-income taxes). And this isn't the only case.

At or below a certain level, which could be described as poor, what the person receives is far more than they pay (including social programs as well). I just really don't see this as a burden. The burden is the amount of money they earn, not how much they are taxed.

Giving the poor free money is not considered a tax break and it is has nothing to do with lowering marginal rates. It is a totally different argument.

Plus, we are leaving out the multiplier effect in regards to lowering marginal rates versus giving away free money. The effect that the tax breaks have is compounded whereas the free money aspect into the economy isn't.
__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.
KMA-628 is offline  
Old 08-02-2004, 10:25 AM   #20 (permalink)
Junkie
 
james t kirk's Avatar
 
Location: Toronto
Well, this may be simplistic, but in terms of the economy, does it really matter who spends the money? The government, or Joe Schmo. It all goes to the bottom line.

In a perversely simple world.
james t kirk is offline  
Old 08-02-2004, 10:26 AM   #21 (permalink)
Banned
 
cthulu23's Avatar
 
What doesn't hold true? The EITC was intended to offset payroll taxes. The fact that the refund amount often surpasses the total amount of taxes paid is indicative of another facet of the program, which was to encourage the lowest income earners to work rather than to live on welfare.

The EITC was created in 1975 and expanded in 1986, 1990, 1993 and 2001. As the years seem to indicate, it has been suppported by both parties and has not always been a controversial subject. In fact, some consider it quite successful.
cthulu23 is offline  
Old 08-02-2004, 10:34 AM   #22 (permalink)
....is off his meds...you were warned.
 
KMA-628's Avatar
 
Location: The Wild Wild West
I am not arguing the EITC at all.

I am saying that any program that reduces taxes will not really benefit people who don't pay taxes or pay very little.

Long run, yes. Short term, in their paychecks, no.


James,

It is a debatable point, but yes it does matter who spends the money (IMO). I use the multiplier effect as my back-up on this.
__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.
KMA-628 is offline  
Old 08-02-2004, 10:48 AM   #23 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Seaver's Avatar
 
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Heh KMA we both didnt understand each other.

I was talking about middle-upper class and taxes while you were talking about the lower class. Yes giving money to the lower class would be a gift. What I was talking about is the tax cuts for the middle-upper not being a gift but taking less away.
Seaver is offline  
Old 08-02-2004, 10:56 AM   #24 (permalink)
....is off his meds...you were warned.
 
KMA-628's Avatar
 
Location: The Wild Wild West
Don't you hate it when that happens?
__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.
KMA-628 is offline  
Old 08-02-2004, 05:29 PM   #25 (permalink)
Muffled
 
Kadath's Avatar
 
Location: Camazotz
KMA
Upon research, I stand corrected. Congress upped Reagan's budget a total of 0.6%. They spent an extra 47 billion over the years 82-89 -- a period where the debt went up 1.042 trillion. So I guess you can blame them.
__________________
it's quiet in here
Kadath is offline  
Old 08-02-2004, 05:42 PM   #26 (permalink)
....is off his meds...you were warned.
 
KMA-628's Avatar
 
Location: The Wild Wild West
yeah, no kidding.

Regardless of the president or his party, congress just spends and spends...

I have mentioned this before, but we need an amendment that closely regulates gov't spending, increases, etc.
__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.
KMA-628 is offline  
Old 08-02-2004, 06:29 PM   #27 (permalink)
Muffled
 
Kadath's Avatar
 
Location: Camazotz
Serves me right, trying to be sarcastic with plain text.

I agree that government spending is wasteful -- I make much of my living off of it.
__________________
it's quiet in here
Kadath is offline  
 

Tags
additional, bush, reason, voting

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:22 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360