Closed Thread Icon

Topic awaiting preservation: Kerry or Bush? (Page 1 of 1) Pages that link to <a href="http://ozoneasylum.com/backlink?for=21532" title="Pages that link to Topic awaiting preservation: Kerry or Bush? (Page 1 of 1)" rel="nofollow" >Topic awaiting preservation: Kerry or Bush? <span class="small">(Page 1 of 1)</span>\

 
Bugimus
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: New California
Insane since: Mar 2000

posted posted 04-24-2004 18:28

Ok, it comes up a lot and it "pollutes" many threads of another topic. If we need to air anything about how much we hate Bush or despise Kerry then let's try it here.

Pesonally, I only have two choices in a practical sense. In this country (USA), we have a two party system and you either get Bush or Kerry, period. It is a no brainer for me to go with Bush since the vast majority of my political views align far more with the Reps than the Dems.

One of the biggest issues for me in this election is our foreign policy and particularly how we deal with terrorism. I believe Kerry would drastically reduce our effectiveness in fighting terrorism. I believe he would do everything he could to recast this effort from a war footing to a criminal investigation. I then believe this would fail so miserably that he would be forced to take hasty and poorly planned military action that ends up getting soldiers and civilians killed with no clear goal in mind other than to save political face.

One of the best bumper stickers I've seen so far this year has been "I voted for Kerry before I voted against him".


. . : DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

WebShaman
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: Happy Hunting Grounds...
Insane since: Mar 2001

posted posted 04-24-2004 19:18

I will cast my vote (in absentia) for Mr. Kerry, just to get Mr. Bush out of office.

I see it as a choice of two negative things, with Kerry being the less negative. I would normally cast my vote for Nader, but Kerry will get my voite this time...I have learned from the Al Gore thing.

This has nothing to do with Rep. or Dem. IMHO. This has something to do with getting someone out of office, who is a clear and present danger to the US and the world through incompetence.

Lacuna
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: the Asylum ghetto
Insane since: Oct 2002

posted posted 04-24-2004 19:33

i couldn't agree more ws! (nice to see you back, by the way)
i voted for bush the first time...won't make that mistake again! i really see him as a vile lil mouthpiece for a much larger evil that's lurking in the shadows, behind the scenes. possibly a bit dramatic... but that's really how i feel based on what he's done since he's been in office.

my vote will most definitely be with kerry!

Bugimus
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: New California
Insane since: Mar 2000

posted posted 04-24-2004 19:51

Anybody but Bush. ABB!!!

Actually, most of the friends I have who hate Bush don't like Kerry one bit. They just want Bush out. I think it speaks to the level of disarray the Democrat party has gotten itself into that they can't find a candidate that people actually would *want* to vote for.

Bush and Kerry are thus far in a statistical dead heat which really has me worried we may have a repeat of the 2000 election fiasco. I would prefer one or the other pull out clearly into the lead than repeat that mess!!!

[edit]

For Democrats, It's Still 'Anybody But Bush'

quote:
Focus groups have found him cold, and a ponderous, meandering speaking style on the campaign trail often leaves his crowds flat.

"On the affability scale ... it's almost Al Gore Two," pollster John Zogby said, referring to the 2000 Democratic nominee whose stilted personal style was seen as a liability against Bush.

"That election was Al Gore's to lose and he just never bonded with voters -- that has to be the great shadow that overhangs John Kerry," Zogby said.




. . : DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 04-24-2004 10:54)

DL-44
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: under the bed
Insane since: Feb 2000

posted posted 04-24-2004 22:21

I want John McCain dammit.

Ramasax
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: PA, US
Insane since: Feb 2002

posted posted 04-25-2004 02:42

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
Amendment XIV
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

http://www.wintersoldier.com

You know my choice. Back to my vacation.

Dan
Paranoid (IV) Mad Scientist

From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Insane since: Apr 2000

posted posted 04-25-2004 02:51

Gary Nolan

Bugimus
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: New California
Insane since: Mar 2000

posted posted 04-25-2004 06:45

Are you a Libertarian, Dan? Or the Canadian equivalent? Umm... what would be the Canadian equivalent for that matter?


. . : DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

DL-44
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: under the bed
Insane since: Feb 2000

posted posted 04-25-2004 07:25
quote:
that he would be forced to take hasty and poorly planned military action that ends up getting soldiers and civilians killed with no clear goal in mind other than to save political face.



Now that sounds familiar....



Ram - I have to ask: do you ever actually *think* for yourself? Do you ever actually analyze the contents of these things you post, as opposed to jsut accepting what you want to believe from the start?

Bugimus
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: New California
Insane since: Mar 2000

posted posted 04-25-2004 07:37

Kerry would not have a goal and that would be the difference for me. Agree with it or not, Bush is getting soldiers killed with the goal of fighting the GWOT. I acknowledge it is a gamble, but it is based in a long term strategic approach to the problem as opposed to a purely knee-jerk response.


. . : DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

DL-44
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: under the bed
Insane since: Feb 2000

posted posted 04-25-2004 16:24

What is the goal exactly?

Because I certainly can't see it.....fighting the"gwot" is far too vague for my tastes.

austizmo
Nervous Wreck (II) Inmate

From: Texas
Insane since: Apr 2004

posted posted 04-25-2004 17:13

For me, Kerry is the lesser of two evils. I'm strongly against Bush and what he's doing in Iraq. The election for me isn't about who I want in office, it's more who I don't want in office. This web site title pretty much sums up how I feel:

http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com/

Edit -Spelling mistake

(Edited by austizmo on 04-25-2004 08:15)

WebShaman
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: Happy Hunting Grounds...
Insane since: Mar 2001

posted posted 04-25-2004 18:10

^Amen. And what DL said...amen!

Ramasax
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: PA, US
Insane since: Feb 2002

posted posted 04-25-2004 21:21
quote:
DL-44 said:

Ram - I have to ask: do you ever actually *think* for yourself? Do you ever
actually analyze the contents of these things you post, as opposed to jsut
accepting what you want to believe from the start?



No DL, I never think for myself.

Really, WTF kind of question is that? Is it simply because you don't agree with my opinions or something more. Please explain to me why you think I don't. If I wasn't thinking for myself, as you say, would I not just be another Bush basher running around spouting ignorance? Once again, please explain.



(Edited by Ramasax on 04-25-2004 12:28)

krets
Paranoid (IV) Mad Scientist

From: Right-dead center
Insane since: Nov 2002

posted posted 04-25-2004 22:07

That's the point Ram, you never seem to have an opinion of your own. You just cut/paste from some article or link to it. Is there an original thought rolling around in that head of yours?

As for me, I'm probably not going to vote for president in this election unless some independent comes around. I feel that both of these men are equally bad for our country and I refuse to support either of them.

:::11oh1:::

Ramasax
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: PA, US
Insane since: Feb 2002

posted posted 04-26-2004 01:14

When making a point or expressing a belief/opinion, what is so wrong with backing those up with other sources? Whether those sources are imagery, news articles, historical quotations, or mystic writings on the rear-end of a donkey makes no difference. Sorry, but it is my thinking that opinion and thought are nothing without some sort of anchor. What are your thoughts based off of? Do they just materialize out of thin air? Is it possible that my choice of sources is at question here?

In my first post in this thread, I quoted the constitution of the United States and then linked to a site about John Kerry showing, IMO, that he had committed those types of acts, acts which are not secret and not denied, thus by our nationís law he should not even be allowed in office. Something wrong there? I was making a point, one at the time I though to be very valid. If I am misinterpreting something or just plain wrong with that above post, then by all means Iíd be glad to have someone point them out.

His actions immediately following the Vietnam war are just one of countless reasons why I think he is not fit to be commander in chief, not the paramount reason, but something that makes me question his ideas of loyalty and commitment to his country. He has marched under the flag of the enemy during a time of war. He even had the nerve to throw away someone elseís medals away and not his own, which to this day he displays on the wall of his HQ office. I interpret that as highly hypocritical. He calls himself a president for the poor, but owns how many homes all worth well over a million dollars each? Four? Five? He says he is in favor of the environment, but he has his own personal jet, yacht, and who knows how many other vehicles, and uses more fuel in a month than I will likely use in my entire lifetime. He is pro-abortion, and even voted no to the partial birth abortion ban. Over his career, he has consistenly voted yes to tax hikes, social program expansion, and basically bigger government on the scale of full blown socialism. He opposes privatization of social security. I believe the American people should have a choice in where they invest their money. I am not even going to go into his ideas on foreign policy.

It is my opinion that he shows contempt for everything that America stands for. He is about as left wing as they come, excluding maybe Ted Kennedy.

Rather than divert from the topic, why not tell me whether you agree/disagree or if I misinterpreting something? Anything but attacking me for being small-minded, bigoted, stupid, and lacking contemplation, and whatever else you might come up with. Maybe I am taking these criticisms the wrong way, that has been known to happen over this medium. To be honest, I question my beliefs everyday of my life, and people suggesting that I am incapable of individual thought makes me very unhappy, and I take it as a very personal insult.

Maybe the motives of those who criticize are intended to help me grow. I really donít know. The point is, you don't see me diverting from the topic to tell DL that I think he is overwhelmingly arrogant and pompous at times, do you? I don't say this because I understand that it is most likely not true, and he just comes across that way at times in his writing. Or maybe he is arrogant, but when it comes down to it, I don't know him and choose to not judge him or insult him in a public forum. Common decency. If you donít agree with my opinions fine, but I donít really know what you people would like me to say. If you feel that I am not intelligent enough to hang in this forum, there are plenty of others I am sure would be glad to have me. I just happen to like it here, or so I thought a short while back. Honestly I have been questioning this as of late as well.



(Edited by Ramasax on 04-25-2004 16:16)

DL-44
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: under the bed
Insane since: Feb 2000

posted posted 04-26-2004 01:31

^ exactly what Krets said.

I'm all for quoting sources of information, but when all you do is spit out the "authorized right-wing rhetoric" copied from books and websites, it gets pretty old pretty quick, and makes me truly wonder if you do ever think for yourself.

~shrug~

so it goes...

Dan
Paranoid (IV) Mad Scientist

From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Insane since: Apr 2000

posted posted 04-26-2004 04:05
quote:
Are you a Libertarian, Dan? Or the Canadian equivalent? Umm... what would be the Canadian equivalent for that matter?



I'm not affiliated with any political party. But I'm much more inclined to vote for the party which best represents my views, and would best serves me rather then voting for one of two generic authoritative leaders.

A libertarian is a libertarian, no matter where you live.

Ramasax
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: PA, US
Insane since: Feb 2002

posted posted 04-26-2004 05:15
quote:
DL-44 said:

I'm all for quoting sources of information, but when all you do is spit out the
"authorized right-wing rhetoric" copied from books and websites, it gets pretty
old pretty quick, and makes me truly wonder if you do ever think for
yourself.



*sigh*

So now I'm a plagiarizer. Whatever DL, get off your pedestal.

Bugimus
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: New California
Insane since: Mar 2000

posted posted 05-08-2004 23:09

I am now convinced that very few people like John Kerry. I am not going to waste any time attacking him because I'll probably just get everyone nodding their heads.

So, this comes down to whether or not one likes Bush. Got it.

With this prisoner scandal just heating up, it must take a toll on the reelection efforts. I think it does some damage of that there is no doubt. However, I still see Bush's numbers holding rather steady.

I was thinking about why. I remember back when the Monica Lewinsky scandal was beginning and Clinton had a chance to come before the American people and come clean (don't say it!) Anyway, I said at that time if he would just apologize, the scandal would die out before it even got started but he couldn't do that and the rest is history.

I point that out because I believe all of this apologizing by the Bush administration is a very good political move. I think the public responds very well to leaders that seem to have a good heart. Bush is one of those leaders. I think he may just weather this current storm as a result. We are a very forgiving people when it comes to such things and public apologies (assuming they are perceived to be genuine) go a long way in our current society.

Thoughts?


. . : DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

Sanzen
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: Raleigh, NC
Insane since: Jan 2003

posted posted 05-09-2004 00:06

There's nothing that hasn't been said, as far as the issues go. So in reference to the topic itself. I'm voting for Kerry, for numerous reasons.


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

Wolfen
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: Minnesota
Insane since: Jan 2001

posted posted 05-09-2004 00:18

I pick the lesser of the two evils... So I will probably go Bush. Kerry just rubs me the wrong way.

Ramasax
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: PA, US
Insane since: Feb 2002

posted posted 05-09-2004 03:19

Sanzen, what are those numerous reasons?

Seems to me that the ABB reason is all anyone has because Kerry doesn't seem to have a core. He supports it, he's against it. I think Kerry needs to discover himself before he is in charge of a country. It would seem the public is finally starting to come around. Although many still hate Bush, people are starting to see Kerry for what he really is, a man who will do anything and say anything to gain power.

I still think Hillary has something up her sleeve. She will take his place, or at least join in as VP. Of course, for some reason I do not see Hillary as accepting being second to anyone, so in the case of a VP ticket, watch for an assasination of Kerry early on in the presidency with the patsy being an American, most-definately a right-winger so that the Liberals can crack down on all us loudmouth right-wing rhetoric spewers.

Sanzen
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: Raleigh, NC
Insane since: Jan 2003

posted posted 05-09-2004 03:53

Too lazy to type out all my reasons, because I've done this so many times. So I'll give you a reference post on another forum. All posts by "AFunGuillotine" are mine.

http://www.sicrecords.net/~lovesick/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1412&start=0&sid=6ec4c6266de5a2ba73991e2b1030928f

Its from the message boards of a local band that I support heavily.

Just so you know, I'm pretty leftest when it comes to most things.


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

(Edited by Sanzen on 05-09-2004 03:55)

Ramasax
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: PA, US
Insane since: Feb 2002

posted posted 05-09-2004 04:17

Sanzen: Read through the thread you posted, I did not see any reasons why you are voting for Kerry, only reasons why you dislike Bush, some of which are half-truths and liberal myths. ABB once again.

I can tell you why not to vote for Kerry and why to vote for Bush. Not going into it here as I see it as a waste of time, most here are 'informed' and have made their choice. I'd be glad to chat with you sometime about it though.

Sanzen
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: Raleigh, NC
Insane since: Jan 2003

posted posted 05-09-2004 04:26

Everyone's biased.

But if you wanna talk, you can find out how to get in contact with me in my profile


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

(Edited by Sanzen on 05-09-2004 04:28)

Xel
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From: Trumansburg, NY, USA
Insane since: Nov 2002

posted posted 05-10-2004 01:14

I'm going to be either voting for no one at all, or for Kerry.

One of my primary reasons, comes simply from the international community reaction. As far as I can remember in my limited lifetime, there has never been more *hate* generated by people I know in other countries by the word "American", and the most of that has happened in Bush's presidency. What a coincidence, eh?

My other big reason, is the economy. The whole supply-side economics idea, to me, is total BS. I don't know of a single time when the economic theories that Bush expounds have worked to do any good. Personally, I think a tax hike *would* be better for the U.S. right now. At least, if you're going to cut taxes, don't cut it for just the wealthiest 1-5% of the country, those people who *don't* need it. Let the people who need it have their money, so they can buy things, so our economy can run. Is that too difficult a concept to grasp?

Dinnertime, I guess I'll leave it at that, though there are certainly more reasons why I hate Bush.

-Xel

Sanzen
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: Raleigh, NC
Insane since: Jan 2003

posted posted 05-10-2004 01:50

Well, we kind of need a tax increase right now to fix this 7 trillion dollar deficit that bush has created. Or maybe he can just cut down his and his cabinet's salaries.


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

WarMage
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: Rochester, New York, USA
Insane since: May 2000

posted posted 05-10-2004 02:23

I must say that I really dislike the idea that you would abstain.

Abstaining from a vote is just chickening out. There *is* a candidate out there who would fit the bill of what your ideologies are.

http://www.vote-smart.org/election_president_party.php?party_name=All&sort=candidate_lastname

By not voting you are giving up the remainder of the freedoms that you might have had. I can not accept not voting by any way you put it. Each vote that you place that is not for one of those in the major party's is a vote that will either further the aims of those party's who are more in line with real american thought, or will cause the two major partys to take notice of a growing trend of disatisfied citizens.

Now, ultimately I will be voting for John Kerry. As oposed to what many believe, the American news is not the place to get your candidate information, it only reports the inflamitory. His stance on many of the issues is very much in line with my thinking.

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/

There are a number of issues that I am satisfied with on many levels.

1) Kerry has proposed 10 billion for developing energy using hydrogen. This money would also be spent towards harnessing renewable energy sources like wind and solar. I feel that this issue is very pertinent, by taking america out of the Oil market we will be able to avoid placing ourselves in the midst of much of the conflict in the middle east. If we did not need their (middle eastern) oil we would not have invaded iraq. This sort of endevor will create more jobs for americans, and will also work towards improving many of the enviornmental issues that many currently complain about.

2) I am also for Kerry because of his powerful stance against the war in Vietnam. I believe that this was a horribly unjust war, in which many atrocities did occur. Even on case of rape, murder or distruction caused by the American millitary in any country not our own is a crime and should not be tolerated. Vietnam was a crime. I hope this stance would carry over to the war in Iraq. I was against this war from the start, and I feel even worse about it now. We have not found weapons of mass destruction, we do not have a peaceful situation, and we are now torturing Iraqi citizens. If we are torturing the citizens why did we remove Sadam. The only justification we currently have for our ousting of Sadam was his unjust treatment of Iraqi citizens and now we are made aware that American's are doing the same things?

3) I believe that John Kerry's stance on Educations is by far the best stated by any candidate in many many years. He is against many of the standardized tests that force teacher to stop teaching to impart knowledge on their students but to teach so that students can pass a test.

4) I am very much for Kerry's stance on gun control. Which is not to dis-allow individuals from owning a gun, but to make sure that those who do, have gone through a background check, to crack down on those who distribute guns illegally, and to make sure all handguns have a child safety lock. This is a huge step in the correct direction for gun control. In america it is clear that we are not going to have a ban on gun ownership, however, if we are going to allow ownership we much increase the checks that go along with their use.

5) I also am in strong support of Kerry Pro-choice (not pro-abortion) stance. You must have a strong commitment to stand firm on this issue facing so much of the oposition that one who supports a woman's right to choose. I will not restate my issues on this topic they have been fully covered else where.

There are numerous other issues that Kerry makes a stand for where I feel that he makes a claim to be the correct person to have the presidency.

I would also state that I do not care how strong a personality he has while he talks in public. I care if he can get the job done that he says he can get done. This is not a fucking personality contest, I don't give a shit who makes me feel warm and fuzzy on the inside when they speak in public. The president's need to stop talking so much in public, making more and more statements and spend their time actually working on their issues. I don't need to know everytime Bush takes a shit, but I would like to know that the military is torturing prisoners. Just give us the necessary details, don't keep making promises you are not going to keep.

As for the wealth the Mr. Kerry has amassed. I wouldn't vote for a poor guy any day of the week. If you don't know how to make and manage a good deal of money, I don't want you in charge of a multi-trillion dollar econemy. If you don't know money I don't want you managing it.

Ramasax continues to make assinine statements.

quote:
He says he is in favor of the environment, but he has his own personal jet, yacht, and who knows how many other vehicles, and uses more fuel in a month than I will likely use in my entire lifetime.



And he drives each and every one of his vehicles twentry four hours a day. How the fuck can you know how much fuel he is using. He has the most comprehensive renewable energy plan that I have ever seen. Not many candidate would stand up to big oil and put 10 billion, and many statments that tell big oil that we don't want them, and we are planning on leaving them. Your statement is just ignorant.

quote:
Of course, for some reason I do not see Hillary as accepting being second to anyone, so in the case of a VP ticket, watch for an assasination of Kerry early on in the presidency...



I couldn't even bring myself to copy the rest of your statement. I can hardly even comment on this statement. She was the wife of a president, how the fuck is that being first in line. She handled an adulterous husband with dignaty, and stood by him, maintaining her marital vows. But she won't come in second? You just make yourself sound less and less informed and logically based the more you post. Please put in some time next time you spout off like that.

DL, get off your pedestal? I thought you were under a bed? Now I just keep getting more and more confused.



(Edited by WarMage on 05-10-2004 02:26)

Ramasax
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: PA, US
Insane since: Feb 2002

posted posted 05-10-2004 02:24
quote:
The whole supply-side economics idea, to me, is total BS. I don't know of a single time when the economic theories that Bush expounds have worked to do any good.



Worked for Reagan... same basic principles being used here.

quote:
Personally, I think a tax hike *would* be better for the U.S. right now.



"Give us a tax hike!!!" Come on. Can you say SOCIALISM? The more dependent we become on the government the more power they have over us and that equals less freedom to live our lives as we choose. Isn't freedom the basic concept of a democracy? Now people are asking for a tax hike. I guess we have forgotten what its all about, damn shame.

quote:
At least, if you're going to cut taxes, don't cut it for just the wealthiest 1-5% of the country, those people who *don't* need it.



umm, helllo. The rich are not the only ones who benefit from the tax cut. Where does this myth come from? Someone show me some statistics, because I know damn well that I and most of the people I know have benefited as well. Tax freedom day is the lowest it has been since 1964. You might be surprised to learn that the rich currently pay a much larger percentage of their income to the government than the average middle class american.

Just to give you an idea, in 2002, 20.8% of Americans paid 85.2% of the nation's taxes, simply because they have done better in life. That is not freedom.

quote:
Let the people who need it have their money, so they can buy things, so our economy can run. Is that too difficult a concept to grasp?



How about this concept: Tax everyone evenly, and let people be rewarded for their hard work. People should not be punished because they make more money. The more you tax the rich, the worse the economy is going to be, because the rich are the ones who create jobs. The government does not. The better the rich do, the better we all do. Like it or not, that is how it works in a democratic society. You cannot have democracy coupled with a government controlled economy, which we are well underway to having. Go too far over that line, and you no longer have democracy, but socialism.

Ramasax
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: PA, US
Insane since: Feb 2002

posted posted 05-10-2004 02:34

WarMage, I should know better to be a little on the silly side in this forum as most of you do seem to have something lodged in your tight liberal asses.

Sanzen
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: Raleigh, NC
Insane since: Jan 2003

posted posted 05-10-2004 02:51

I know I've been gone for a while, but... man, ramasax, have you gained the tendancy to piss people off lately?

and besides, the conservatives are the ones with the figurative tight asses.


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

WarMage
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: Rochester, New York, USA
Insane since: May 2000

posted posted 05-10-2004 02:52

God, now I have to go and post again because you are spouting out of your ass again.

By your statements increased taxes equals socialism? While decreased taxes means we live in a democracy. Getting rid of the deficite would be a really good idea right now. As the money that is currently being spent is not creating jobs. A tax cut is not going to solve any more of our economic problems.

quote:
By 2010, when (and if) the Bush tax reductions are fully in place, an astonishing 52 percent of the total tax cuts will go to the richest one percentówhose average 2010 income will be $1.5 million. Their tax-cut windfall in that year alone will average $85,000 each. Put another way, of the estimated $234 billion in tax cuts scheduled for the year 2010, $121 billion will go just 1.4 million taxpayers.
http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm



I know my family who is solidly in the middle class receive only a couple of hundred dollars. I don't know what the fuck this did for us. I know those couple of hundred dollars made me feel a whole lot better about my college tuition hike of $73 per credit hour. I was taking 16 per semester. I also know that I feel a whole lot better taking those few hundred dollars in exchange for librarys and parks that close earlier, and huge financial cuts to our fire department.

Also I think it is a lot nicer if I were to pay even 50% of my income if someone who make 1/4 of what I make only had to pay 10%. Paying 50% of $100,000 is a lot easier than paying $1,000 out of $10,000. It makes a lot of sense for those who make more to have to pay more.

quote:
because the rich are the ones who create jobs. The government does not.



Oh, so the government doesn't create jobs. Sort of like the Rosevelt New Deal didn't create jobs. Sort of like the 2,654,589 federal employees that don't have jobs from the government or do you mean the 5,072,130 state government employees that don't have a job created by the government? http://www.census.gov/govs/www/apesfed02.html

So having a corporate controlled society is better than a government controlled one? It doesn't seem like you can find a society that has both.



(Edited by WarMage on 05-10-2004 02:54)

Emperor
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist with Finglongers

From: Cell 53, East Wing
Insane since: Jul 2001

posted posted 05-10-2004 03:05

With the experience of the last election and especially the looming one I am curious to know if people would be more in favour of a multi-party system in the US? I know the UK's first past the post system isn't an awful lot better especially when Blair wins such landslide victories but it does allow people to vote for the party that best matches ther views rather than the one to get current administration out (although it does seem like the UK is slipping into that pattern the Lib Dems are making a strong showing exactly because people are tired of this flip flop style of politics). I'd imagine the left in the US must be tired of having the option between the centre or the right too

Ramasax: Again your debating technique leaves me in awe.

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org | Justice for Pat Richard | FAQs: Emperor | Site Reviews | Reception Room

Xel
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From: Trumansburg, NY, USA
Insane since: Nov 2002

posted posted 05-10-2004 05:27
quote:
Ramasax said:

Worked for Reagan... same basic principles being used here.



Last time I checked in with American History class, it didn't.

quote:
"Give us a tax hike!!!" Come on. Can you say SOCIALISM? The more dependent we become on the government the more power they have over us and that equals less freedom to live our lives as we choose. Isn't freedom the basic concept of a democracy? Now people are asking for a tax hike. I guess we have forgotten what its all about, damn shame.



This coming from the administration that put the so-called "Patriot" Act into place, one of the largest invasions of privacy that I've seen to date. Just so you know, whether or not we are in a several-trillion dollar deficit or in a several trillion dollar surplus has absolutely no relevance to our basic freedoms. Dependance on government is not a direct function of the quantity of money they are bringing in/using.

quote:
umm, helllo. The rich are not the only ones who benefit from the tax cut. Where does this myth come from? Someone show me some statistics, because I know damn well that I and most of the people I know have benefited as well. Tax freedom day is the lowest it has been since 1964. You might be surprised to learn that the rich currently pay a much larger percentage of their income to the government than the average middle class american.



I have it from a very knowledgeable lawyer that my grandfather pays more in taxes for his few-hundred-thousand dollar home than several class-C *companies*, thanks to tax loopholes and extremely slanted cuts. I'll take my facts from someone who's seen the legislation.

quote:
Just to give you an idea, in 2002, 20.8% of Americans paid 85.2% of the nation's taxes, simply because they have done better in life. That is not freedom.



Who is talking about freedom? How is that relevant at all? What I'm looking at is *fairness*.

quote:
How about this concept: Tax everyone evenly, and let people be rewarded for their hard work. People should not be punished because they make more money. The more you tax the rich, the worse the economy is going to be, because the rich are the ones who create jobs. The government does not. The better the rich do, the better we all do. Like it or not, that is how it works in a democratic society. You cannot have democracy coupled with a government controlled economy, which we are well underway to having. Go too far over that line, and you no longer have democracy, but socialism.



Y'know what, I would be *entirely* for the idea of equal taxation, but as far as the reality of it is concerned, it's not happening. Have you seen what's happened to the employment in the past 3.5 years? Employment is at an all time HIGH, not LOW. Jobs are *not* being created, and that should hint that at least *something* isn't happening quite right! The better the *poor* do, the better the economy, because it's the middle class that gets the upper class its money. You're drawing a line between economy and the government that isn't there. The government already controls the economy a good deal, through taxes and grants and similar things.

Just to satisfy you though, I think I'll send an email to my lawyer friend, perhaps he can provide me with some statistics to prove that the so-called myth, is in fact a fact.

(Though I do have finals monday and wednesday, so I may not get to post back here for a bit, and by then the post count will be up to 200, and I probably won't have time to read through it all, but here's hoping.)

-Xel

DL-44
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: under the bed
Insane since: Feb 2000

posted posted 05-10-2004 14:03

Ram - we live in a semi-socialist society. We have for a very long time. Things are at a point now where that will simply never go away. It is not truely socialism. However, the dangers that come in are not the ones you are worried about. What we end up with is, rather than one conglomerated 'big brother' controlling us, we have a series of absurdly large corporate entities controlling us, both directly and through their buying of government policies.

The rich create jobs? Seems to me the rich tend to take away jobs more than anything, or outsource them to foreign countries.

Now, as far as needing a tax increase? Dear god no.

What we need is actual accountability for the spending of tax money. There is none at this point, and it is completely ridiculous.

WebShaman
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: Happy Hunting Grounds...
Insane since: Mar 2001

posted posted 05-10-2004 14:13

^Amen DL. Now THAT is the truth!

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

« BackwardsOnwards »

Show Forum Drop Down Menu