fast vs. slow service centers?
Feb 8th 2001, 9:07 pm
#16
Guest
Posts: n/a
So, I guess you're one of the rich people who will be able to get a new lexus car every
year with his tax break?
As opposed to the people who make $50K a year, who'll be able to get a new muffler for
their used car every year with their tax break...
Of course the money for the rich people's lexus cars will cause to cut benefits. So even
though the $50K/year person will save money on the new muffler, he/she will have to put
much more money for other things.
About your "Have you ever thought that there are at least half of this country's people
who believe in what he is doing? " -- less than half of the people voted, and less than
half of them voted for Bush (he didn't get the popular vote!).
Marjeta
In article <[email protected]>,
> Oh give me a break! I'm assuming that you are democrat since you
think so
> lowly of Bush. You just go ahead and listen to the democrats tell
you that
> he is dividing this country. Have you ever thought that there are at
least
> half of this country's people who believe in what he is doing? And
he's not
> against immigration. I'm more proud now to call myself an American
than I
> was prior to Jan 2001! I was embarrassed with the prior occupant of
the
> White House, and he was from my state!
>
> By the way, TSC is now only processing I-130 applications from May
2000,
> while VSC is on July 2000.
>
> Cath
>
> > Speed up under Bush? You are joking aren't you? The country is
now in
> > backward motion and perhaps this will be the administration that promotes a new
> > revolutionary war.
> >
> > BTW VSC is one of the slowest for the I-130.
> >
> > Rita
> >
year with his tax break?
As opposed to the people who make $50K a year, who'll be able to get a new muffler for
their used car every year with their tax break...
Of course the money for the rich people's lexus cars will cause to cut benefits. So even
though the $50K/year person will save money on the new muffler, he/she will have to put
much more money for other things.
About your "Have you ever thought that there are at least half of this country's people
who believe in what he is doing? " -- less than half of the people voted, and less than
half of them voted for Bush (he didn't get the popular vote!).
Marjeta
In article <[email protected]>,
> Oh give me a break! I'm assuming that you are democrat since you
think so
> lowly of Bush. You just go ahead and listen to the democrats tell
you that
> he is dividing this country. Have you ever thought that there are at
least
> half of this country's people who believe in what he is doing? And
he's not
> against immigration. I'm more proud now to call myself an American
than I
> was prior to Jan 2001! I was embarrassed with the prior occupant of
the
> White House, and he was from my state!
>
> By the way, TSC is now only processing I-130 applications from May
2000,
> while VSC is on July 2000.
>
> Cath
>
> > Speed up under Bush? You are joking aren't you? The country is
now in
> > backward motion and perhaps this will be the administration that promotes a new
> > revolutionary war.
> >
> > BTW VSC is one of the slowest for the I-130.
> >
> > Rita
> >
Feb 8th 2001, 9:43 pm
#17
Guest
Posts: n/a
So, I guess you're one of the rich people who will be able to get
> a new lexus car every year with his tax break?
>
> As opposed to the people who make $50K a year, who'll be able to get a new muffler for
> their used car every year with their tax break...
It's the Democrat's fault that tax breaks won't benefit poor and middle class people more.
Bush's proposed 10/15/25/33% tax rates are fair, and progressive. The more you make, the
more % of your income you pay. But at 33%, even if you're rich, you're not being gouged
too badly.
What's the most regressive tax program in existence? The 15% payroll (i.e. FICA, social
security) tax. This 15% tax starts on dollar 1 of your income. But it stops when you
income reaches $80K. Who the hell thought up THAT scheme? Oh, sorry, it was a Democrat.
Worse yet, this tax is placed only on earned (working) income. No payroll tax on interest
income. Rich people living off investment income don't pay this tax! Plus, this tax hits
young working people, and pays out to older, retired people, who are statistically more
likely to have higher net worths.
And yet, the Democrats only want to protect and expand social security!!!
Sure, social security prevents destitute old people. They deserve respect, right? Well, if
you want to be progressive about it, then banish social security, and set up a welfare
program for poor old people, paid for by an income tax surcharge only on higher incomes.
THAT's the fair way of doing
it.
Paulgani
> a new lexus car every year with his tax break?
>
> As opposed to the people who make $50K a year, who'll be able to get a new muffler for
> their used car every year with their tax break...
It's the Democrat's fault that tax breaks won't benefit poor and middle class people more.
Bush's proposed 10/15/25/33% tax rates are fair, and progressive. The more you make, the
more % of your income you pay. But at 33%, even if you're rich, you're not being gouged
too badly.
What's the most regressive tax program in existence? The 15% payroll (i.e. FICA, social
security) tax. This 15% tax starts on dollar 1 of your income. But it stops when you
income reaches $80K. Who the hell thought up THAT scheme? Oh, sorry, it was a Democrat.
Worse yet, this tax is placed only on earned (working) income. No payroll tax on interest
income. Rich people living off investment income don't pay this tax! Plus, this tax hits
young working people, and pays out to older, retired people, who are statistically more
likely to have higher net worths.
And yet, the Democrats only want to protect and expand social security!!!
Sure, social security prevents destitute old people. They deserve respect, right? Well, if
you want to be progressive about it, then banish social security, and set up a welfare
program for poor old people, paid for by an income tax surcharge only on higher incomes.
THAT's the fair way of doing
it.
Paulgani
Feb 9th 2001, 12:27 pm
#18
Guest
Posts: n/a
> -- less than half of the people voted, and less than half of them voted for Bush (he
> didn't get the popular vote!).
>
> Marjeta
Gore did not get his home state. Go VOLS !
The popular vote does not count, no recount
necessary here.
> didn't get the popular vote!).
>
> Marjeta
Gore did not get his home state. Go VOLS !
The popular vote does not count, no recountnecessary here.
Feb 9th 2001, 1:12 pm
#19
Guest
Posts: n/a
Lets analyze this "the rich folks will benefit from a tax break more then the poor folks"
reasoning.
Here is a known fact. 80 percent of the income tax is paid by the top 20 percent of income
earners. So if the top 20 percent of the income earners pay 80 percent of the income tax
then when an across the board tax cut is made it is only logical that those that pay the
most income tax will get the largest tax cut.
Believe it or not some folks are actually catching on. Here is a quote from the Washington
Post, a very left-wing paper, from 2/6/01
"But, no matter how the data is sliced in the upcoming debate in Congress and the country,
most of the tax cut dollars go to wealthier Americans who in fact pay the majority of
income taxes."
I will break it down even farther. Let's say that they were to give a tax cut of 10%
across the board. This would mean that every person PAYING taxes(you can't get a tax break
if you do not pay taxes to start with) would get to KEEP 10% more of their OWN money.
Let's say that you make 50,000$ a year and your neighbor makes 500,000$ a year. You would
get to keep 5000$ dollars more of your OWN money each year. You neighbor would get to keep
50,000$ dollars more of his OWN money each year. You say "wait a minute that is not fair
because he gets to keep more money then me" well DUHHHH because he made more money then
you. If they were to take some of HIS own money and give it to you, would that be
fair??????
Also keep something else in mind. This is a TAX BREAK. Which means the government will
collect less taxes from you and me in the future. They are not going to be GIVING any
money to you. They are going to let you KEEP more of your OWN money. It is YOUR money. I
don't see how anyone, liberal or republican, can just sit there and say, "It is my money
but I will let you take more of it away from me then you really need and give it to
someone else that does not deserve it."
Look at history. When the economy is good and people are making money what do they do?
They spend that money and it goes back into the economy. Maybe some people will buy
themselves a new Lexus or others will get a new muffler but think of it this way. Someone
has to make that Lexus and muffler. If no one was buying them then lots of people would be
out of a job. It is a known fact that when people are allowed to keep more of their OWN
money they turn around and spend that money which in turns helps stimulate the economy
because spending increases which means there becomes more of a demand for goods, which in
turns means companies have to increase output to meet those demands, which means they have
to hire more workers to make those goods.
reasoning.
Here is a known fact. 80 percent of the income tax is paid by the top 20 percent of income
earners. So if the top 20 percent of the income earners pay 80 percent of the income tax
then when an across the board tax cut is made it is only logical that those that pay the
most income tax will get the largest tax cut.
Believe it or not some folks are actually catching on. Here is a quote from the Washington
Post, a very left-wing paper, from 2/6/01
"But, no matter how the data is sliced in the upcoming debate in Congress and the country,
most of the tax cut dollars go to wealthier Americans who in fact pay the majority of
income taxes."
I will break it down even farther. Let's say that they were to give a tax cut of 10%
across the board. This would mean that every person PAYING taxes(you can't get a tax break
if you do not pay taxes to start with) would get to KEEP 10% more of their OWN money.
Let's say that you make 50,000$ a year and your neighbor makes 500,000$ a year. You would
get to keep 5000$ dollars more of your OWN money each year. You neighbor would get to keep
50,000$ dollars more of his OWN money each year. You say "wait a minute that is not fair
because he gets to keep more money then me" well DUHHHH because he made more money then
you. If they were to take some of HIS own money and give it to you, would that be
fair??????
Also keep something else in mind. This is a TAX BREAK. Which means the government will
collect less taxes from you and me in the future. They are not going to be GIVING any
money to you. They are going to let you KEEP more of your OWN money. It is YOUR money. I
don't see how anyone, liberal or republican, can just sit there and say, "It is my money
but I will let you take more of it away from me then you really need and give it to
someone else that does not deserve it."
Look at history. When the economy is good and people are making money what do they do?
They spend that money and it goes back into the economy. Maybe some people will buy
themselves a new Lexus or others will get a new muffler but think of it this way. Someone
has to make that Lexus and muffler. If no one was buying them then lots of people would be
out of a job. It is a known fact that when people are allowed to keep more of their OWN
money they turn around and spend that money which in turns helps stimulate the economy
because spending increases which means there becomes more of a demand for goods, which in
turns means companies have to increase output to meet those demands, which means they have
to hire more workers to make those goods.
Feb 9th 2001, 9:49 pm
#20
Guest
Posts: n/a
no one was buying them then lots of people would be out of a job. It is a
> known fact that when people are allowed to keep more of their OWN money
they
> turn around and spend that money which in turns helps stimulate the
economy
> because spending increases which means there becomes more of a demand for goods, which
> in turns means companies have to increase output to meet
those
> demands, which means they have to hire more workers to make those goods.
Too simplistic. If the government takes your money, it also spends it, thus stimulating
the economy as well.
Now, one could argue that an individual could spend that money more *efficiently*, thus
better contributing to increasing the standard of living in the U.S. For example, the U.S.
spending $600 on a toilet seat doesn't do much to improve the lives of the average
American. You paid someone $600, and all you got out of it was enough labor to make and
put a single toilet seat on some military base. But, have the average person spend $600 on
a few dinners at some restaurants, perhaps a new TV, and lots of household goods at
Walmart, and you've extracted quite a bit of labor from lots of people for your $600. Not
to mention, you've spread it around to people who are in turn, likely to spend it as
efficiently as yourself.
Of course, rich people don't spend money quite as efficiently. They buy high value added
imported luxury goods, such as a $600 Hermes scarfs, which, is arguably as inefficient of
a purchase as a $600 toilet seat.
Paulgani
> known fact that when people are allowed to keep more of their OWN money
they
> turn around and spend that money which in turns helps stimulate the
economy
> because spending increases which means there becomes more of a demand for goods, which
> in turns means companies have to increase output to meet
those
> demands, which means they have to hire more workers to make those goods.
Too simplistic. If the government takes your money, it also spends it, thus stimulating
the economy as well.
Now, one could argue that an individual could spend that money more *efficiently*, thus
better contributing to increasing the standard of living in the U.S. For example, the U.S.
spending $600 on a toilet seat doesn't do much to improve the lives of the average
American. You paid someone $600, and all you got out of it was enough labor to make and
put a single toilet seat on some military base. But, have the average person spend $600 on
a few dinners at some restaurants, perhaps a new TV, and lots of household goods at
Walmart, and you've extracted quite a bit of labor from lots of people for your $600. Not
to mention, you've spread it around to people who are in turn, likely to spend it as
efficiently as yourself.
Of course, rich people don't spend money quite as efficiently. They buy high value added
imported luxury goods, such as a $600 Hermes scarfs, which, is arguably as inefficient of
a purchase as a $600 toilet seat.
Paulgani
Feb 10th 2001, 5:46 pm
#21
Guest
Posts: n/a
Actually the government (Democrats) want to take your money and give it to someone else
"less fortune" (their words not mine) by way of social programs. When was the last time
you saw any Democrats vote against a spending increase? Remember AlGore and his campaign
promises of about 20+ new social programs? The total cost of his new social (spending)
programs was more then the propose budget surplus and then some.
But you are right, the imperial federal government (Dems and Repubs) thinks that they know
how to spend your money better then you do. They think that if you were to get to keep
more of your own money you might waste it on something like your kids education, buy a new
house, or, heaven forbid, you might actually invest your own money in your own retirement
account and then you would not need to rely on social security.
> > no one was buying them then lots of people would be out of a job. It is
a
> > known fact that when people are allowed to keep more of their OWN money
> they
> > turn around and spend that money which in turns helps stimulate the
> economy
> > because spending increases which means there becomes more of a demand
for
> > goods, which in turns means companies have to increase output to meet
> those
> > demands, which means they have to hire more workers to make those goods.
>
> Too simplistic. If the government takes your money, it also spends it,
thus
> stimulating the economy as well.
>
> Now, one could argue that an individual could spend that money more *efficiently*, thus
> better contributing to increasing the standard of
living
> in the U.S. For example, the U.S. spending $600 on a toilet seat doesn't
do
> much to improve the lives of the average American. You paid someone $600, and all you
> got out of it was enough labor to make and put a single toilet seat on some military
> base. But, have the average person spend $600 on a few dinners at some restaurants,
> perhaps a new TV, and lots of household goods at Walmart, and you've extracted quite a
> bit of labor from lots of people for your $600. Not to mention, you've spread it around
> to people
who
> are in turn, likely to spend it as efficiently as yourself.
>
> Of course, rich people don't spend money quite as efficiently. They buy high value added
> imported luxury goods, such as a $600 Hermes scarfs,
which,
> is arguably as inefficient of a purchase as a $600 toilet seat.
>
> Paulgani
>
>
"less fortune" (their words not mine) by way of social programs. When was the last time
you saw any Democrats vote against a spending increase? Remember AlGore and his campaign
promises of about 20+ new social programs? The total cost of his new social (spending)
programs was more then the propose budget surplus and then some.
But you are right, the imperial federal government (Dems and Repubs) thinks that they know
how to spend your money better then you do. They think that if you were to get to keep
more of your own money you might waste it on something like your kids education, buy a new
house, or, heaven forbid, you might actually invest your own money in your own retirement
account and then you would not need to rely on social security.
> > no one was buying them then lots of people would be out of a job. It is
a
> > known fact that when people are allowed to keep more of their OWN money
> they
> > turn around and spend that money which in turns helps stimulate the
> economy
> > because spending increases which means there becomes more of a demand
for
> > goods, which in turns means companies have to increase output to meet
> those
> > demands, which means they have to hire more workers to make those goods.
>
> Too simplistic. If the government takes your money, it also spends it,
thus
> stimulating the economy as well.
>
> Now, one could argue that an individual could spend that money more *efficiently*, thus
> better contributing to increasing the standard of
living
> in the U.S. For example, the U.S. spending $600 on a toilet seat doesn't
do
> much to improve the lives of the average American. You paid someone $600, and all you
> got out of it was enough labor to make and put a single toilet seat on some military
> base. But, have the average person spend $600 on a few dinners at some restaurants,
> perhaps a new TV, and lots of household goods at Walmart, and you've extracted quite a
> bit of labor from lots of people for your $600. Not to mention, you've spread it around
> to people
who
> are in turn, likely to spend it as efficiently as yourself.
>
> Of course, rich people don't spend money quite as efficiently. They buy high value added
> imported luxury goods, such as a $600 Hermes scarfs,
which,
> is arguably as inefficient of a purchase as a $600 toilet seat.
>
> Paulgani
>
>
Feb 11th 2001, 3:52 am
#22
Guest
Posts: n/a
My favorite political comment from "Politically Incorrect". The difference between
Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans lie to help rich people and Democrats lie to
help poor people.
Diane
RJLiles wrote:
> Actually the government (Democrats) want to take your money and give it to someone else
> "less fortune" (their words not mine) by way of social programs. When was the last time
> you saw any Democrats vote against a spending increase? Remember AlGore and his campaign
> promises of about 20+ new social programs? The total cost of his new social (spending)
> programs was more then the propose budget surplus and then some.
>
> But you are right, the imperial federal government (Dems and Repubs) thinks that they
> know how to spend your money better then you do. They think that if you were to get to
> keep more of your own money you might waste it on something like your kids education,
> buy a new house, or, heaven forbid, you might actually invest your own money in your own
> retirement account and then you would not need to rely on social security.
>
> "
Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans lie to help rich people and Democrats lie to
help poor people.
Diane
RJLiles wrote:
> Actually the government (Democrats) want to take your money and give it to someone else
> "less fortune" (their words not mine) by way of social programs. When was the last time
> you saw any Democrats vote against a spending increase? Remember AlGore and his campaign
> promises of about 20+ new social programs? The total cost of his new social (spending)
> programs was more then the propose budget surplus and then some.
>
> But you are right, the imperial federal government (Dems and Repubs) thinks that they
> know how to spend your money better then you do. They think that if you were to get to
> keep more of your own money you might waste it on something like your kids education,
> buy a new house, or, heaven forbid, you might actually invest your own money in your own
> retirement account and then you would not need to rely on social security.
>
> "
Feb 12th 2001, 3:54 am
#23
Guest
Posts: n/a
The one I like is that" if you want to live like a republican vote democratic" from
Will Rogers
Diane M wrote:
> My favorite political comment from "Politically Incorrect". The difference between
> Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans lie to help rich people and Democrats lie
> to help poor people.
>
> Diane
>
> RJLiles wrote:
>
> > Actually the government (Democrats) want to take your money and give it to someone
> > else "less fortune" (their words not mine) by way of social programs. When was the
> > last time you saw any Democrats vote against a spending increase? Remember AlGore and
> > his campaign promises of about 20+ new social programs? The total cost of his new
> > social (spending) programs was more then the propose budget surplus and then some.
> >
> > But you are right, the imperial federal government (Dems and Repubs) thinks that they
> > know how to spend your money better then you do. They think that if you were to get to
> > keep more of your own money you might waste it on something like your kids education,
> > buy a new house, or, heaven forbid, you might actually invest your own money in your
> > own retirement account and then you would not need to rely on social security.
> >
> > "
--
Join the Egroup for Asian American Couples
http://www.egroups.com/group/Asian_American_Couples
Will Rogers
Diane M wrote:
> My favorite political comment from "Politically Incorrect". The difference between
> Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans lie to help rich people and Democrats lie
> to help poor people.
>
> Diane
>
> RJLiles wrote:
>
> > Actually the government (Democrats) want to take your money and give it to someone
> > else "less fortune" (their words not mine) by way of social programs. When was the
> > last time you saw any Democrats vote against a spending increase? Remember AlGore and
> > his campaign promises of about 20+ new social programs? The total cost of his new
> > social (spending) programs was more then the propose budget surplus and then some.
> >
> > But you are right, the imperial federal government (Dems and Repubs) thinks that they
> > know how to spend your money better then you do. They think that if you were to get to
> > keep more of your own money you might waste it on something like your kids education,
> > buy a new house, or, heaven forbid, you might actually invest your own money in your
> > own retirement account and then you would not need to rely on social security.
> >
> > "
--
Join the Egroup for Asian American Couples
http://www.egroups.com/group/Asian_American_Couples
Feb 12th 2001, 4:19 am
#24
Guest
Posts: n/a
Here you go again spouting things as facts with nothing to back it up.
> Lets analyze this "the rich folks will benefit from a tax break more
then
> the poor folks" reasoning.
>
> Here is a known fact. 80 percent of the income tax is paid by the top
20
> percent of income earners. So if the top 20 percent of the income
earners
> pay 80 percent of the income tax then when an across the board tax cut
is
> made it is only logical that those that pay the most income tax will
get the
> largest tax cut.
Lets take your statement as true that 80 % comes from the top 20 but the tax cut gives 47%
of the money to the top 1% so that leaves 53% of the cut for the other 99% which means
that the people that need the most help get the nothing while the people that can afford
the tax get the most Sounds fishy to me and dont try that trickle down bull because we all
saw the effects on the economy in the 80's. You like history so look back and see that
during Democratic leadership the economy has boomed Roosevelt, Kenndy, Johnson, Clinton
and under the republicans it goes down the drain, Hoover, Eisenhower, Nixon(price
controls) Raygun, Bush (read my lips) and now his son. Will you ever learn. Liumang
> Lets analyze this "the rich folks will benefit from a tax break more
then
> the poor folks" reasoning.
>
> Here is a known fact. 80 percent of the income tax is paid by the top
20
> percent of income earners. So if the top 20 percent of the income
earners
> pay 80 percent of the income tax then when an across the board tax cut
is
> made it is only logical that those that pay the most income tax will
get the
> largest tax cut.
Lets take your statement as true that 80 % comes from the top 20 but the tax cut gives 47%
of the money to the top 1% so that leaves 53% of the cut for the other 99% which means
that the people that need the most help get the nothing while the people that can afford
the tax get the most Sounds fishy to me and dont try that trickle down bull because we all
saw the effects on the economy in the 80's. You like history so look back and see that
during Democratic leadership the economy has boomed Roosevelt, Kenndy, Johnson, Clinton
and under the republicans it goes down the drain, Hoover, Eisenhower, Nixon(price
controls) Raygun, Bush (read my lips) and now his son. Will you ever learn. Liumang
Feb 12th 2001, 4:35 am
#25
Guest
Posts: n/a
That is fact not opinion Gore had over 300,000 more votes than Bubba did and if not for
his brother here in Florida and the justices that his father put on the Supreme court Gore
would be in office. Where do you think Bubba willcut cost first maybe where it deals with
people that can't vote, hold your hat and enjoy a longer ride with INS now that he is in
office. Liumang
in message
> > Actually I'm a Conservative (another name for Republican). Hey you
are
> > entitled to your opinion. No not half of the country is for him.
He
> > didn't win the majority popular vote ... only won it because of the electoral college
> > vote and a brother in office in a pivotal state
and a
> > set of judges in the pocket of the party who procrasinated on making
a
> > decision until it was too late.
his brother here in Florida and the justices that his father put on the Supreme court Gore
would be in office. Where do you think Bubba willcut cost first maybe where it deals with
people that can't vote, hold your hat and enjoy a longer ride with INS now that he is in
office. Liumang
in message
> > Actually I'm a Conservative (another name for Republican). Hey you
are
> > entitled to your opinion. No not half of the country is for him.
He
> > didn't win the majority popular vote ... only won it because of the electoral college
> > vote and a brother in office in a pivotal state
and a
> > set of judges in the pocket of the party who procrasinated on making
a
> > decision until it was too late.
Feb 12th 2001, 12:52 pm
#26
Guest
Posts: n/a
Guess you should check your economy booming facts. The economy started to "boom" 18 months
BEFORE Clinton took office.
That is typical liberal thinking. The wealthy people can afford to pay taxes so they don't
deserve to get to keep any more of THEIR OWN money. We (liberals) need to take their money
away from then and give it to those that are less fortunate and are already paying little
or no taxes already.
You probably think that a person not paying any taxes already should get a tax break.
The tax break gives 47% to the 1% that pay taxes because THEY PAY THE MOST TAXES. That is
sound reasoning, unless you are a liberal.
It only makes sense that if you give an across the board tax break, it would benefit those
that pay the most taxes. Even in your statement you admit that the wealthiest 1% pay more
then their fair share of the taxes.
And while we are at the leadership aspect, your great leader Clintax made the biggest
RETROACTIVE tax increase since WWII.
Have a nice day.
> Here you go again spouting things as facts with nothing to back it up.
>
>
> > Lets analyze this "the rich folks will benefit from a tax break more
> then
> > the poor folks" reasoning.
> >
> > Here is a known fact. 80 percent of the income tax is paid by the top
> 20
> > percent of income earners. So if the top 20 percent of the income
> earners
> > pay 80 percent of the income tax then when an across the board tax cut
> is
> > made it is only logical that those that pay the most income tax will
> get the
> > largest tax cut.
> Lets take your statement as true that 80 % comes from the top 20 but the tax cut gives
> 47% of the money to the top 1% so that leaves 53% of the cut for the other 99% which
> means that the people that need the most help get the nothing while the people that can
> afford the tax get the most Sounds fishy to me and dont try that trickle down bull
> because we all saw the effects on the economy in the 80's. You like history so look
> back and see that during Democratic leadership the economy has boomed Roosevelt,
> Kenndy, Johnson, Clinton and under the republicans it goes down the drain, Hoover,
> Eisenhower, Nixon(price controls) Raygun, Bush (read my lips) and now his son. Will you
> ever learn. Liumang
>
BEFORE Clinton took office.
That is typical liberal thinking. The wealthy people can afford to pay taxes so they don't
deserve to get to keep any more of THEIR OWN money. We (liberals) need to take their money
away from then and give it to those that are less fortunate and are already paying little
or no taxes already.
You probably think that a person not paying any taxes already should get a tax break.
The tax break gives 47% to the 1% that pay taxes because THEY PAY THE MOST TAXES. That is
sound reasoning, unless you are a liberal.
It only makes sense that if you give an across the board tax break, it would benefit those
that pay the most taxes. Even in your statement you admit that the wealthiest 1% pay more
then their fair share of the taxes.
And while we are at the leadership aspect, your great leader Clintax made the biggest
RETROACTIVE tax increase since WWII.
Have a nice day.
> Here you go again spouting things as facts with nothing to back it up.
>
>
> > Lets analyze this "the rich folks will benefit from a tax break more
> then
> > the poor folks" reasoning.
> >
> > Here is a known fact. 80 percent of the income tax is paid by the top
> 20
> > percent of income earners. So if the top 20 percent of the income
> earners
> > pay 80 percent of the income tax then when an across the board tax cut
> is
> > made it is only logical that those that pay the most income tax will
> get the
> > largest tax cut.
> Lets take your statement as true that 80 % comes from the top 20 but the tax cut gives
> 47% of the money to the top 1% so that leaves 53% of the cut for the other 99% which
> means that the people that need the most help get the nothing while the people that can
> afford the tax get the most Sounds fishy to me and dont try that trickle down bull
> because we all saw the effects on the economy in the 80's. You like history so look
> back and see that during Democratic leadership the economy has boomed Roosevelt,
> Kenndy, Johnson, Clinton and under the republicans it goes down the drain, Hoover,
> Eisenhower, Nixon(price controls) Raygun, Bush (read my lips) and now his son. Will you
> ever learn. Liumang
>
Feb 12th 2001, 2:34 pm
#27
Guest
Posts: n/a
Where were you in 92 the American people vote thier pocketbook and if the economy had been
booming for 18 months then daddy bush would have won but that is typical republican
thinking that if the economy is doing good it must be something we done.
> Guess you should check your economy booming facts. The economy
started to
> "boom" 18 months BEFORE Clinton took office.
>
> That is typical liberal thinking. The wealthy people can afford to
pay
> taxes so they don't deserve to get to keep any more of THEIR OWN
money. We
> (liberals) need to take their money away from then and give it to
those that
> are less fortunate and are already paying little or no taxes already.
The American people are a team that can only come out on top if the strong help weak. Just
like in any team sport when one player is not able to get it done another player has to
step forward and get the job done with out whining about like republicans do. So with out
the rich and the poor working together this Country will just be another has been.
>
> You probably think that a person not paying any taxes already should
get a
> tax break.
That would be hard to do but by republican way of thinking that is what they are doing
>
> The tax break gives 47% to the 1% that pay taxes because THEY PAY THE
MOST
> TAXES. That is sound reasoning, unless you are a liberal.
>
> It only makes sense that if you give an across the board tax break, it
would
> benefit those that pay the most taxes. Even in your statement you
admit
> that the wealthiest 1% pay more then their fair share of the taxes.
Bushs tax plan would cut the high fron 39% to 30% while the low end would only drop 5%
lets see the rich get a 9% tax cut while the poor get a 5% tax cut that seems fair, NOT
>
> And while we are at the leadership aspect, your great leader Clintax
made
> the biggest RETROACTIVE tax increase since WWII.
Sorry the biggest tax increase since WWII went to RAYGUN in 85
>
> Have a nice day.
booming for 18 months then daddy bush would have won but that is typical republican
thinking that if the economy is doing good it must be something we done.
> Guess you should check your economy booming facts. The economy
started to
> "boom" 18 months BEFORE Clinton took office.
>
> That is typical liberal thinking. The wealthy people can afford to
pay
> taxes so they don't deserve to get to keep any more of THEIR OWN
money. We
> (liberals) need to take their money away from then and give it to
those that
> are less fortunate and are already paying little or no taxes already.
The American people are a team that can only come out on top if the strong help weak. Just
like in any team sport when one player is not able to get it done another player has to
step forward and get the job done with out whining about like republicans do. So with out
the rich and the poor working together this Country will just be another has been.
>
> You probably think that a person not paying any taxes already should
get a
> tax break.
That would be hard to do but by republican way of thinking that is what they are doing
>
> The tax break gives 47% to the 1% that pay taxes because THEY PAY THE
MOST
> TAXES. That is sound reasoning, unless you are a liberal.
>
> It only makes sense that if you give an across the board tax break, it
would
> benefit those that pay the most taxes. Even in your statement you
admit
> that the wealthiest 1% pay more then their fair share of the taxes.
Bushs tax plan would cut the high fron 39% to 30% while the low end would only drop 5%
lets see the rich get a 9% tax cut while the poor get a 5% tax cut that seems fair, NOT
>
> And while we are at the leadership aspect, your great leader Clintax
made
> the biggest RETROACTIVE tax increase since WWII.
Sorry the biggest tax increase since WWII went to RAYGUN in 85
>
> Have a nice day.
Feb 12th 2001, 3:05 pm
#28
Guest
Posts: n/a
I guess you can't argue with the facts now can you. Look at any economic report and you
will see the economy started up 18 months prior to clinton getting elected.
But then you liberals never saw a fact that you liked anyway. You just spew forth retoric.
Later
will see the economy started up 18 months prior to clinton getting elected.
But then you liberals never saw a fact that you liked anyway. You just spew forth retoric.
Later
