BUSH's Policies Begin To Bear Fruit.

**Mike** · November 28th, 2003, 02:28 PM

Pexter: It depends on which Republican was responsible.

I didn't like Ashcroft before Bush was in office, now I hate him more...

**wallie_x** · November 28th, 2003, 04:33 PM

Pexster sez:

If I recall, there was concern about children being sexually abused inside the compound, another possible Jonestown, or even the loony-tune blowing the whole thing up himself.

You actually think that burning them alive was an acceptable alternative?
Why didn't they just slowly knock the building down?
And what did the government offer them? Even if you didn't pull a trigger a murder charge and life without parole was what awaited; no wonder they didn't surrender.
If Bloody Reno hadn't gone in there with guns-a-blazin, shoot first and ask questions later they might have surrendered; and nobody might have gotten killed.
The point is the government most seriously violated their civil rights. The media demonized them and we burned them alive just as surely as the witches at Salem.
Bill 'oral office' Clinton was at the helm and Janet Bloody Reno was Attorney General
(This started with MTAtech defending Clinton's clone appointee's)

**Pexster** · November 28th, 2003, 07:15 PM

This is the funniest thing I've read in quite a while. Their civil rights were violated?! What part of "come out with your hands up" didn't they understand?

And "the media demonized them?" Yeah, right. Maybe they were just roasting marshmallows and singing songs around the campfire.

And the law enforcement folks were supposed to "slowly knock the building down?" Going up to a heavily-armed fortress with a Caterpillar or two? Gimme' a break!

Maybe we should have just left them to their devices . . . "Sorry we disturbed you. Go back to raping your children. We don't want to abuse your civil rights." NOT!

**MTAtech** · November 28th, 2003, 07:23 PM

Social Security tax is not "insurance," else the money would be put away instead of part of the general revenue. The only reason the budget deficit is 'only' $400B is because the SS surplus is sheltering 160B of the $560B deficit.

**Chuckiechan** · November 28th, 2003, 08:20 PM

No, Social Security is an insurance. By statute, that is.

Problem is, the government keeps "borrowing" from it. It's just a crappy little non-paritsan game. Who cares, you'll get paid.

Anything that comes out of my paycheck is a tax, as far as I am concerned.

Waco shouldn't have been done during strong winds, for one. And they should have waited them out like people wanted to do to Saddam. Women and kids dying of thirst and starvation, call the Peace Corps.

I believe at issue was "Illegal firearms". They made up the child abuse stuff later after everyone was dead except those seeking a plea bargan.

It was handled badly all the way through. Too bad the Democrats aren't as hard on mass murderers as they are on religions extremists.

**RedFury** · November 28th, 2003, 08:35 PM

MTAtech sez:

Sure, the waitress gets a $365 cut in income tax, but still has to pay $3,825 in payroll taxes. The lawyer gets a $6,000 tax-cut and no additional payroll taxes because he was at the capped maximum. (Notice, ten times the income but about 18 times the tax-cut.)

Do you think it would be fair to give the waitress a $6000 tax-cut too MTAtech?

To make up for the loss of an after-school-programs the waitress would have to spend an additional $700/yr for her kids. That’s twice her tax-cut. The waitress’ lost housing voucher was worth about $1,500/yr and the cut in Medicaid about $3,000/yr.

Ummm, it isn't the Governments duty to babysit our kids. The Gov't's job is National security and providing Macro management, not micromanagement.

Now, I know what critics are going to say, ‘why should a rich person have to pay so much in taxes just because they die? They paid the taxes on that money when they originally earned it. That’s double taxation.’ Not so, for estates over $10 Million, over 56% of the asset is from unrealized capital gains. In other words, it was money nobody actually worked for and was never taxed on in the first place. So, the new law now will give children of the very rich a tax-free inheritance on money their parents never paid tax on in the first place. That’s a $60 Billion gift to the richest people in the country.

Now tell me this, what incentive do you have to become one of the wealthy if you know in the end that you can't hand it down to your kids without the gov't raping all that you worked for after you die? I see this on a smaller scale everyday...guys that won't work more than 45 hours a week because after that the don't make as much money because they jump into a higher tax bracket!

ChuckieChan sez:

If anyone is to blame for the recession it is Alan Greenspan.

He started raising interest rates because the economy was "getting too hot". That is what burst the bubble. It happened on Clinton's watch.

Alan G. started lowering interest rates when the economy was bottoming to get things going again. This happened on GWB's watch. However, tax cuts and other economic incentives were the idea of GWB & Co. More spending money means a quicker recovery, period.

The economy goes from boom to bust every eight years or so.
.

Dude, think about this for a second. If AG had lowered the interest rates when the economy was "booming", were do you think we'd be right now? I'd have to make 2x what I make now to keep the standard of living I enjoy because inflation would have gone unchecked and you'd be paying $15 at McDonalds for a Value meal. Greenspan is an extremely intelligent man, and I dare anyone to refute that.

Sorry this is so long, but all of this just sounded like stuff propogated by the Democrats when they try to make Bush look bad. Seriously, any of you affiliated with the Democratic National committee?

**wallie_x** · November 29th, 2003, 11:34 AM

Pexster sez:

This is the funniest thing I've read in quite a while. Their civil rights were violated?!

Children were burned alive!!
(deprivation of one's life is not a violation of thats person's civil rights?)
And you consider that funny?
YOU ARE SICK!!

**wallie_x** · November 29th, 2003, 11:54 AM

RedFury sez:

Seriously, any of you affiliated with the Democratic National committee?

Nah!! It's just their home web page is there and the junk filters in through osmosis.
Look at the unadulterated tripe pasted across the some of these leads:

President Bush's failed economic policies are placing an enormous burden on working families.

Send a message to Bush telling him it's time to abandon his failed policies that haven't created new jobs or gotten our economy moving.

Bottom Right.

And:

Republicans have spent billions on wasteful pet projects, and have found creative new ways to push their pork through the legislative process. The enormous increase in pork barrel spending is just one more piece of evidence that Republicans are the party of fiscal irresponsibility

Like the Dems are innocent..right?
HERE!

This is why I call this web page the leftist feces machine. It’s designed for intellectual lemmings who need mind control to think.

**MTAtech** · November 29th, 2003, 12:01 PM

No Red, if the tax-cut were at least proportional, the waitress would have gotten a $600 cut instead of $385, which would have been the same proportion the lawyer got. If the tax-cut was fairer than that, payroll taxes wouldn't be capped. If they were fairer than that, dividends, which the lions share go to high-incomer people, would be taxed too.

As for day-care centers and social services for the lower-incomes, I refer to the example of my rich cousin that has a house located in a wealthy area where the houses are spread far apart. If she had to pay for the public road to the next house, it would cost 10X more than her house. However, that's not a problem because the government pays for the roads.

Think that the wealthy don't get benefits? Ivy League universities get the most federal funds even though those colleges have almost no low-income students. http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjourna...on/7219882.htm

A disproportionate number of wealthy people use air transportation compared to low-income people. However, since the airline industry is heavily subsidized, these benefits go to the wealthier class and not the lower income people.

**Pexster** · November 29th, 2003, 12:53 PM

from wallie-x
Children were burned alive!!
(deprivation of one's life is not a violation of thats person's civil rights?)
And you consider that funny?
YOU ARE SICK!!

wallie-x, please re-read my comment. What I thought was funny was your characterization of what I believe we all consider to be a tragic event. You, however, are trying to score some political points with it. BTW, ever heard of "suicide by cop"?

As to your last comment, it doesn't deserve a response.

**Chuckiechan** · November 29th, 2003, 01:04 PM

MTA, do you feel everyone should be equal, and the all money should be equally distributed via taxes?

**TOAD6147** · November 29th, 2003, 01:05 PM

But I noticed insensitive twits like you don't seem to care.

So, I take that response to mean you're off your meds as well as off your freakin' ROCKER!?
Pexster,
Don't argue with him about this crap 'cause it's off topic and if you ignore him he may go away.

**MTAtech** · November 29th, 2003, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by Chuckiechan
MTA, do you feel everyone should be equal, and the all money should be equally distributed via taxes?

When you say 'equal' do mean equal in dollars or equal in proportion? I don't think that everyone should get equal dollars as tax-cuts and nothing that I said suggested that. What I did say, is that at least, the low incomes should not get a smaller proportion (percentage) of the tax-cut. That is Robin Hood in reverse.

Moreover, the tax plan was officially offered as a stimulus package. Stimulus is best given to the people that will spend it not bank it.

**RedFury** · November 29th, 2003, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by MTAtech
When you say 'equal' do mean equal in dollars or equal in proportion? I don't think that everyone should get equal dollars as tax-cuts and nothing that I said suggested that. What I did say, is that at least, the low incomes should not get a smaller proportion (percentage) of the tax-cut. That is Robin Hood in reverse.

Moreover, the tax plan was officially offered as a stimulus package. Stimulus is best given to the people that will spend it not bank it.

Well, then you better call your congressman and push for a flat tax. The tax system is on a curve for a reason. If she got back an equal percentage as the Lawyer, then she should pay an equal percentage to the gov't. What you don't seem to understand is that even with the taxation "cap", those that fall in the range right at the "cap" are paying a huge percentage of their income! Don't they have a right to complain about that?

You do know that the top 5% pay for 70% of the taxes the Gov't collects, right?

Oh, and one other thing. Waitress Betty spending $50 at Walmart isn't doing <blank> to stimulate the economy. It's CEO Joe picking up his new Jaguar, building a new addition onto his house, and buying new machinery for his factories that's stimulating the economy, because he isn't being burdened as heavily by taxes, and can justify the spending...which is good for all of us.

CEO Joe is what keeps the raises coming and the Health benefits available to Waitress Betty. If you want to talk about the economics of economics, you aren't going to get far by leaning or relying on those with low incomes. The only way the low incomes are going to go higher, is if the guys that make the money feel that they can afford to pay us yokels more money an hour.

Tell ya what, let's rape the rich by taxing them to death, and we'll see how long you keep your job, k?

**MTAtech** · November 29th, 2003, 06:42 PM

Except that the CEO is more likely not to spend the tax cut and just bank it, not stimulating the economy at all.

I won't challenge your 5% of the tax payers pay 70% of the income taxes. That may sound like they are getting soaked until we learn that 5% of the tax payers make 90% of the income.

In addition, the richer are getting richer. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...AF0894DB404482

**RedFury** · November 29th, 2003, 10:09 PM

good, that means the economy is going in the right direction. God save us if the rich start getting poorer.

**MTAtech** · November 29th, 2003, 10:41 PM

Red, it seems that you missed the point of the article. From '92 to '02 the richest people owned more of a percentage of the wealth of the country. Moreover, they paid less taxes. Sorry, that has nothing to do with economic expansion.

"ABSTRACT - Internal Revenue Service releases data showing that 400 wealthiest taxpayers accounted for more than 1 percent of all income in United States in year 2000, more than double their share eight years earlier, but their tax burden plummeted during same period; average income of 400 wealthiest taxpayers was almost $174 million in 2000, as compared to $46.8 million in 1992, and they reported 1.1 percent of all income, up from 0.5 percent; their taxes grew at much slower rate, from 1 percent of all taxes in 1992 to 1.6 percent in 2000, when their tax bills averaged $38.6 million each and 22.3 percent of their incomes; figures are seen as providing ammunition to both sides of debate on Pres Bush's tax cuts; charts illustrate data (M)"

**RedFury** · November 30th, 2003, 01:48 PM

You can't be for real! It's 400 people! It's like an economic witchhunt. So what if 400 people figured out how to make more money and pay less taxes, isn't that what we ALL want to do?

**Atomic Rooster** · November 30th, 2003, 01:58 PM

Well almost Redfury, except for those wacky Democrats. They are so excited to pay "their fair share of the taxes" that they all sent back their tax refund checks because they didnt' need the extra money and they also know that the government knows how to spend that money better than they do.

**Chuckiechan** · November 30th, 2003, 02:13 PM

In 1999 and 2000, many of the "rich" were taking in extra income from capitol gains and were paying more in taxes due to this windfall.

On the contrary, in 2001 and 2002 many of the "rich" suffered economic losses on stocks and claimed them, reducing their taxable income.