Topic awaiting preservation: State of the Union (Page 1 of 1)

was wondering who watched it and what your thoughts were?? i, unfortunately, fell asleep for the last half of it (which was the part i wanted to see..about iraq). on the economic side of it though, i was left with one main question...will any of what he said benefit me or is it just for the upper-middle and higher classes? another question i was curious about...do you think any of what he said would be implemented or was it just basically a "blowing smoke" kinda thing??
i'm also curious, since i didn't see it, did Bush make a better case for war??
i like to think i'm a pretty average schmo when it comes to politics (though i'm probably very nieve) and would just like everyone's views/opinions of the presidents speech.

Hmmm...yes. The State of the Union address...hoboy. I guess that really depends on who one asks...I kinda like this here

quote:

---

This year, Bush will deliver, for the 547th time, his long-awaited Comprehensive Case to the American People as to Why We Should Kick Saddam's Fanny. He'll urge the privatization of Medicare (though he won't quite say it that way). He'll demand a comprehensive tax reform package so that this coming April 15 we will each be assigned a billionaire to whom we will make our check out directly.


He won't quite say that unswervingly, either.


And what Bush won't say at all could fill volumes. The reasons why millions of people around the world are in the streets protesting against America each week; the reasons why many tens of thousands (at least) of Muslims have probably newly pledged their lives to committing terrorist acts against America; the reasons for the remarkably deep anger among those Americans who dislike Bush's presidency; all will not find voice tonight, either in Dubya's speech or the "reply" by yet another Democratic version of Republican Lite – this time Washington State Gov. Gary Locke.

--AlterNet

---

Whether or not he actually made a 'good' case for the looming conflict, is a question of...belief, IMHO. I personally don't think he did. I also don't think he is making a good case of improving things...again, my opinion.

Fazit : IMHO, a show. Nothing more, nothing less. I was in no way convinced, by any of Mr. Bush's words.

Our President is a Great Horse's Ass.

Thank you.

I didn't care to watch it .. I read enough of what is going on and have formed my own views on the subject


.::. cEll .::. 513

People actually *watch* the state of the union address?

just to pull one thing out, a comment in the address mentioned cutting taxes bringing the taxes for a family with a $40,000 income from something to the effect of $1200 to under $100. how exactly does that favor the rich? i'm asking coming from a neutral viewpoint here, i just don't follow how things like flat cuts are construed as unfair.

chris


KAIROSinteractive

Fig, maybe this will help

quote:

---

runaway spending which, combined with the tax cuts, amounts not just to class warfare but to a massive, and wildly successful, wealth transfer scheme.

--AlterNet

---

You have to ask yourself, who this is really benefiting...and where the revenue is going to come from, that is supposedly being 'saved' here...

Research it...Google is your friend...

You can't give tax cuts to people who aren't really paying that much in taxes. The top 3-5% in earnings are paying 50-56% of the income taxes in the US today. Not to mention the fact that a family making over $26,000 is above the 50th percentile for tax payers. The top 50% of tax payers are paying 95% of the income taxes in this country. how can you cut taxes for those below that 50%? Not to mention that its the rich that power the innovation in industry and fund 80% of the research projects throughout the country. The more money they have the stronger investments get and the more money is in the system to trickle into or loans and mortgages and isn't that where we're trying to go? A stronger economy and more money in the system?

The Article and
IRS information(requires Excel)



GrythusDraconis
I admire a man who can budget his life around his pint of Guinness and I envy a man who's wife will let him. ME, inspired by Suho1004 here.

The Reagan years proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Trickle-down economics doesn't work.

Neither does giving tax cuts to people who aren't paying taxes. Personally I think the rich are capable of paying the taxes on their money... so they should quit whining and do it. I also understand the necessity of having people with money at the top to, as I mentioned before, power the investment side of the economy. Whether it actually 'trickles' down to us isn't really what I meant. The fact that there is more money in the lender's hands to give out to people who want to spend money back into the economy (i.e. a home mortgage), and grow that money by paying interest on it is what I was really going after. It's the rich persons money, by and large, that we're using to buy our homes and cars and pay for college with. The more money the rich have and invest the more money is available to be loaned out to the rest of us. It gives the more common man more buying power and increases the flow of money into the economy. Not to mention the jobs created by research that is funded by the rich.

I am by no means defending Bush but, realistically, we can't give tax cuts to people who don't pay taxes. Why this immediately means we need to give tax cuts to the rich, I don't know. That's something for the human calculators to figure out.

That article is not worth the 'paper' it is written on...read the fine print, namely this

quote:

---

Data covers calendar year 2000, not fiscal year 2000 - and includes all income, not just wages, excluding Social Security

--Rush Limbaugh

---

You see? Includes all income. Then of course the pie graph is skewed...it represents taxes from everything. But giving those with more, less tax, won't put more money in the hands of those willing to give it out - the consumers (you, me, almost everybody else).

Look at it like this - you are rich, because you just inheirited millions. You pay tax on that. You still have x millons left. But that pie graph is figuring that tax (from your inherited millions) into it. So it is not an accurate measure, for the economy. Or for the working classes contributions to the Government in taxes. Don't fall for one of Rush's little tricks.

i see what you're saying GD. i for instance, make 7/8 dollars/hour...when tax time rolls around, i gets most of what i paid in back because if the EIC...actually i think i get more back then what i paid in ( i got 2700.00 back and i know i didn't pay that much in). needless to say, that extra money had to come from somewhere. i'm very greatful for the eic and it's only available to people who make under 40,000 a year i believe (could be completely wrong). i don't feel that *i* presonally need much more tax breaks...but i do think that the middle/upper middle classes do! they are the ones paying the majority of the taxes, as the rich always have loop holes to go through.
it is my understanding that, in times of war, people tighten the purse strings and spending goes way down...so since we are (nearly) in a time of war...would these tax cuts really stimulate the economy?? i don't see the point of tax cuts if people are just going to stash the extra money under their mattress instead of spending/investing it.
also, with all the big scandles, hasn't investing dropped of??
then, with all these tax cut, like WS said, where's the money going to come from?
it would be so nice if there were an easy answer to all of this