I just don't understand why anyone would vote Kerry.... please explain.

cauze he isnt a retard (in contrast with bush)
cauze he isnt a war-monger
...

Yup.

Because he won 3 purple hearts. </sarcasm>

Because he wants to undo Bush's tax cuts. The tax cuts suck.

[quote author=jigsaw link=topic=9166.msg84532#msg84532 date=1097846905]
I just don't understand why anyone would vote Kerry.... please explain.
[/quote]

Trick question. Nobody would vote for Kerry!

Bush '04, Kerry is a fairy.

I'm all for Bush... I just don't like how Kerry holds himself. He doesn't seem honest at all...  Even if what he says is at points true... I just don't get a good vibe from him. He seems cold, and untrustworthy... BUSH/CHENEY '04.

vote based on this lol ;)
http://www.jibjab.com
funny stuff.

Isn't Bush just promising the same shit he promised 4 years ago? If he couldn't get any of it done in the last 4 years why would he get it done in the next four.

[quote author=vonLandenhausen link=topic=9166.msg84533#msg84533 date=1097847090]
cauze he isnt a retard (in contrast with bush)
cauze he isnt a war-monger
...
[/quote]

Honestly, if you're going to post on a serious forum and are going to spew off such lible, please back it up. Please, show medical records that Bush is a retard, please. I'm assuming you're talking about his way of being inarticulate at times. Well, in contrast to that - he was extremely articulate in his 30's, so I'm doubting he has a form of retardations. On the other hand, you could say that it's because of his college grades - he had a high C, little did you know - Kerry had a low C average. So, apparently, that argument you have is completely retarded (as you'd say.)

He's a warmonger? Please explain. He found somebody to be a threat (as did Kerry) and he removed him from power? He eliminated Al-Quadea (sp?) and now Afghanistan is able to have elections. The United States, since it's become a world power, has done a ton of humanitarian aid in other countries, so this isn't anything unusual. Clinton bombed Kosovo and other areas a good amount - why isn't he a "warmonger?" Is use of military force only permitted when a liberal is in office? In addition, Kerry is on the Senate Intelligence Committee - he saw the exact same intelligence President Bush saw, and he voted to go to war. Under the War Powers Act the President can only move troops, and that can only last ninety days. Thus, Congress would be your warmonger since only they can officially declare war. Maybe you'd rather call him a conflict-monger? Kerry also has a foreign policy plan that involves sending over fourt-thousand troops out around the world and also thousands of special forces personel.

Adron: You're undoubtedly one of the most intelligent people here, and I respect almost all of your comments/opinions/etc. However, I don't see how you can go so low as to agree with such an unfactual, mindless post such as that.

[quote]Because he wants to undo Bush's tax cuts. The tax cuts suck.[/quote]

Kerry wants to raise taxes on the rich, and lower taxes for the poor/middle class. Bush wants to lower taxes for the rich, poor, and the middle class. I don't see how that's bad; however, I also don't see how punishing somebody because they make a good living is a good thing either. The top 20% of Americans pay over 80% of our taxes, they fund welfare, the horrible thing we call the UN, schools, police, etc.

[quote] Isn't Bush just promising the same shit he promised 4 years ago? If he couldn't get any of it done in the last 4 years why would he get it done in the next four.[/quote]

No, he's not. He's, of course, promising to continue with what he's been doing and put his policy into full effect. Policy isn't fully implemented over night you know, it many times takes well over four years, in some cases it's taken decades for a law that was passed to actually be implemented.

[quote author=muert0 link=topic=9166.msg84561#msg84561 date=1097860417]
Isn't Bush just promising the same shit he promised 4 years ago? If he couldn't get any of it done in the last 4 years why would he get it done in the next four.
[/quote]Also, at least bush is making promises he can keep. Kerry is not going to be able to keep all of his economic promises. Its not feasible... at all. He is lowering corporate income tax, he is lowering taxes on just about everyone and only raising two tax brackets. He also said something to the extent that he will not create new taxes. How is he going to fund all of his programs, including raising funding to the schools which are apparently under funded (when school spending is up about 50%) and cut the deficit in half? The numbers just do not add up. The income of two tax brackets is not going to cover it. But he is going to tell everyone it will because it makes a vast majority of the people happy. Let a few rich people pay for it all, most of the voters are not rich so they will go for it.

[quote author=vonLandenhausen link=topic=9166.msg84533#msg84533 date=1097847090]
cauze he isnt a retard (in contrast with bush)
cauze he isnt a war-monger
...
[/quote]

President Bush graduated Magna Cum Lauda from Harvard. He's not a retard. If you're going to elect the next President based on who is a more eloquent speaker, God help you, and God help America because that is just plain retarded.

War monger? Moron. I'd rather have a President that stomps out a problem before it has a chance to escalate than a liberal pussy who will wait until we are SCREWED to attack.

[quote author=muert0 link=topic=9166.msg84561#msg84561 date=1097860417]
Isn't Bush just promising the same shit he promised 4 years ago? If he couldn't get any of it done in the last 4 years why would he get it done in the next four.
[/quote]

Four years just isn't enough. You can't turn a nation like this around after such serious devestation to all the parts of our lives on 9/11 in just over 2 years, and thats a fact. Listening to campaign promises is not the way to go, you have to look at the pricinples of the two individuals. When you do, you'll see that Kerry's principle is "Save your own ass, don't say things that will make people not like you."

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9166.msg84589#msg84589 date=1097875177]
[quote author=muert0 link=topic=9166.msg84561#msg84561 date=1097860417]
Isn't Bush just promising the same shit he promised 4 years ago? If he couldn't get any of it done in the last 4 years why would he get it done in the next four.
[/quote]Also, at least bush is making promises he can keep. Kerry is not going to be able to keep all of his economic promises. Its not feasible... at all. He is lowering corporate income tax, he is lowering taxes on just about everyone and only raising two tax brackets. He also said something to the extent that he will not create new taxes. How is he going to fund all of his programs, including raising funding to the schools which are apparently under funded (when school spending is up about 50%) and cut the deficit in half? The numbers just do not add up. The income of two tax brackets is not going to cover it. But he is going to tell everyone it will because it makes a vast majority of the people happy. Let a few rich people pay for it all, most of the voters are not rich so they will go for it.
[/quote]

Not to mention universal health care, which is one of the most retarded ideas on the planet.

The end all be all of the matter is that:

- I know exactly where President Bush stands on all the issues.
- Right or wrong, he stands by his convictions and stands by his decisions.
- He is a PROVEN leader in times of great moral crisis.
- He is a PROVEN war-time leader.
- We have been safe ever since that horrible September morning.
- National pride is at an unprecedented level.
- I don't put a plug nickel's worth of trust in Senator Kerry.
- I trust the judgment of President Bush on what is best for the nation. If it includes war, so be it, I'll go myself.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=9166.msg84575#msg84575 date=1097865918]
Adron: You're undoubtedly one of the most intelligent people here, and I respect almost all of your comments/opinions/etc. However, I don't see how you can go so low as to agree with such an unfactual, mindless post such as that.
[/quote]

Well... My view of Bush is that he is some kind of war-monger, because his administration has pushed false evidence in order to start a war with someone for very unclear reasons. I'm doubting his intellectual capabilities because of his trouble with unexpected questions, and in speeches.

In my eyes, he hasn't made a good impression at all. He seems to lack in knowledge (as shown in interviews) and in personal courage (evaded possibility of serving in armed conflict). He may have some good advisors filling him in, but I'd really rather see someone who knows things himself in that position.

I also don't like the way he's been presented as regularly praying / listening for advice from his god. People who believe there is a god who might command them to do things are completely unreliable. They can be persuaded to do anything without feeling personal responsibility for it - if god commands it, it's right.


The reason for the single "yup" btw, was that this topic comes from the fun forum, and that seemed like the least serious way of responding to it.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9166.msg84814#msg84814 date=1098007973]

Well... My view of Bush is that he is some kind of war-monger, because his administration has pushed false evidence in order to start a war with someone for very unclear reasons. I'm doubting his intellectual capabilities because of his trouble with unexpected questions, and in speeches. [/quote]

This is why I am so glad that you don't even have a vote. If you're going to decide you're vote over who is a slicker speaker, you've got problems. Also, you have no evidence that the President or his higher administration knowingly manipulated the facts to push his agenda. For all you know, it was just an intelligence failure.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9166.msg84814#msg84814 date=1098007973]

In my eyes, he hasn't made a good impression at all. He seems to lack in knowledge (as shown in interviews) and in personal courage (evaded possibility of serving in armed conflict). He may have some good advisors filling him in, but I'd really rather see someone who knows things himself in that position.[/quote]

Again, making your decision based on public speaking rather than core values and principles. Big mistake.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9166.msg84814#msg84814 date=1098007973]

I also don't like the way he's been presented as regularly praying / listening for advice from his god. People who believe there is a god who might command them to do things are completely unreliable. They can be persuaded to do anything without feeling personal responsibility for it - if god commands it, it's right.[/quote]

But you like the way that Senator Kerry attempted to do the same thing? He has never told people that God commands him to do what he does, he prays and reflects on things and comes to conclusions. Billions of people do the same thing.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9166.msg84822#msg84822 date=1098022458]
This is why I am so glad that you don't even have a vote. If you're going to decide you're vote over who is a slicker speaker, you've got problems. Also, you have no evidence that the President or his higher administration knowingly manipulated the facts to push his agenda. For all you know, it was just an intelligence failure.
[/quote]

I have a vote in our affairs, you might have one in yours. I'm not deciding who to vote for based on who's a slicker speaker, but on who makes the best impression. If a candidate doesn't even appear to be knowledgeable, that's not to his advantage....

And you're right, I don't have evidence that the president knowingly manipulated the facts, and it's likely noone ever will. The case is though: Either they knowingly manipulated the facts, or they were themselves clueless about the reality. Both are bad.


[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9166.msg84822#msg84822 date=1098022458]
Again, making your decision based on public speaking rather than core values and principles. Big mistake.
[/quote]

For core values and principles, the congress is more important than the president. They have the final say on the laws. But yes, I'd rather pick a democrat president than a republican. Those core values and principles are more in line with mine.


[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9166.msg84822#msg84822 date=1098022458]
But you like the way that Senator Kerry attempted to do the same thing? He has never told people that God commands him to do what he does, he prays and reflects on things and comes to conclusions. Billions of people do the same thing.
[/quote]

No, I don't like Kerry that much either. It's just that choosing from two evils, I think Kerry is the lesser evil. When the possible candidates were initially presented, I liked the one with the military background better. Bush gives me an impression of not too bright Texas county sheriff from somewhere far out. Kerry gives me an impression of smooth politician or used car salesman.

To run a country I'd like to see someone with an experience of leadership, either from the military, working their way up through proven command ability, or from some large company.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9166.msg84829#msg84829 date=1098027274]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9166.msg84822#msg84822 date=1098022458]
This is why I am so glad that you don't even have a vote. If you're going to decide you're vote over who is a slicker speaker, you've got problems. Also, you have no evidence that the President or his higher administration knowingly manipulated the facts to push his agenda. For all you know, it was just an intelligence failure.
[/quote]

I have a vote in our affairs, you might have one in yours. I'm not deciding who to vote for based on who's a slicker speaker, but on who makes the best impression. If a candidate doesn't even appear to be knowledgeable, that's not to his advantage....

And you're right, I don't have evidence that the president knowingly manipulated the facts, and it's likely noone ever will. The case is though: Either they knowingly manipulated the facts, or they were themselves clueless about the reality. Both are bad.[/quote] US intelligence drops the paper work on the presidents desk. Is the president supposed to ignore it because of the chance that it could possibly be inaccurate? Also the intelligence of  some of our allies said the same things our intelligence was saying.

[quote]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9166.msg84822#msg84822 date=1098022458]
But you like the way that Senator Kerry attempted to do the same thing? He has never told people that God commands him to do what he does, he prays and reflects on things and comes to conclusions. Billions of people do the same thing.
[/quote]

No, I don't like Kerry that much either. It's just that choosing from two evils, I think Kerry is the lesser evil. When the possible candidates were initially presented, I liked the one with the military background better. Bush gives me an impression of not too bright Texas county sheriff from somewhere far out. Kerry gives me an impression of smooth politician or used car salesman. [/quote] you would trust a used car salesman?
[quote]
To run a country I'd like to see someone with an experience of leadership, either from the military, working their way up through proven command ability, or from some large company.

[/quote]Cheyne Bush '04! Bush and Chneye together have a lot of political and private sector leadership experience under their belts.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9166.msg84919#msg84919 date=1098058602]
US intelligence drops the paper work on the presidents desk. Is the president supposed to ignore it because of the chance that it could possibly be inaccurate? Also the intelligence of  some of our allies said the same things our intelligence was saying.
[/quote]

Other intelligence spoke against US intelligence. Other countries, allies, voted not to attack because they realized that US intelligence was flawed. The president said things were one way, and they were another. He should've listened to those wiser. Typical of Bush to go ahead and do what's wrong. It matches up with the impression.


[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9166.msg84919#msg84919 date=1098058602]
you would trust a used car salesman?
[/quote]

I'd trust that he'd do what made the most money. Probably better at running things than an ignorant countryboy.


[quote]
To run a country I'd like to see someone with an experience of leadership, either from the military, working their way up through proven command ability, or from some large company.
[/quote]Cheyne Bush '04! Bush and Chneye together have a lot of political and private sector leadership experience under their belts.
[quote][/quote]

Has Bush ever had a real job where he executed plans efficiently?

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9166.msg84995#msg84995 date=1098099792]

Other intelligence spoke against US intelligence. Other countries, allies, voted not to attack because they realized that US intelligence was flawed. The president said things were one way, and they were another. He should've listened to those wiser. Typical of Bush to go ahead and do what's wrong. It matches up with the impression.[/quote]

The intelligence failure spans back to Clinton, so is he also at fault? Its not the President's fault if the greates intelligence gathering machine on the planet was incorrect.

Which allies voted against the war? France? Some ally. They had weapons contracts WITH the Iraqi regieme. OF COURSE THEY'D SAY NO! Thats why the UN  S - U - C - K - S. I agree it is typical of Bush to go ahead with it anyway. Fuck what the rest of the world thinks, he took action to protect us.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9166.msg84995#msg84995 date=1098099792]
Has Bush ever had a real job where he executed plans efficiently?
[/quote]

The President of the United States is not a real job? You're a damn fool, that solidifies it.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9166.msg85059#msg85059 date=1098138437]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=9166.msg84995#msg84995 date=1098099792]

Other intelligence spoke against US intelligence. Other countries, allies, voted not to attack because they realized that US intelligence was flawed. The president said things were one way, and they were another. He should've listened to those wiser. Typical of Bush to go ahead and do what's wrong. It matches up with the impression.[/quote]

The intelligence failure spans back to Clinton, so is he also at fault? Its not the President's fault if the greates intelligence gathering machine on the planet was incorrect.

Which allies voted against the war? France? Some ally. They had weapons contracts WITH the Iraqi regieme. OF COURSE THEY'D SAY NO! Thats why the UN  S - U - C - K - S. I agree it is typical of Bush to go ahead with it anyway. Fuck what the rest of the world thinks, he took action to protect us.
[/quote] Not to mention they were in bed with iraq with that whole un oil for food scandal.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9166.msg85059#msg85059 date=1098138437]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=9166.msg84995#msg84995 date=1098099792]
Has Bush ever had a real job where he executed plans efficiently?
[/quote]

The President of the United States is not a real job? You're a damn fool, that solidifies it.
[/quote]

Of course that's not a real job. It's an elected position!

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9166.msg85064#msg85064 date=1098140463]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9166.msg85059#msg85059 date=1098138437]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=9166.msg84995#msg84995 date=1098099792]
Has Bush ever had a real job where he executed plans efficiently?
[/quote]

The President of the United States is not a real job? You're a damn fool, that solidifies it.
[/quote]

Of course that's not a real job. It's an elected position!
[/quote] It is still experience, just like being governer of texas is experience. I would say sennate was experience for Kerry and Edwards... but they were not there all that often.

You call bush an ignorant country boy... but I Bush atteneded Yale. From what I have read he did decently in Yale as well, he was not there as just some rich kid who bought a degree, but he actually pulled his own weight school work wise like everyone else.

No, he had a C average. There ar eplenty of people who work there asses off to get into a school like Yale and they don't come out with C averages.

[quote author=muert0 link=topic=9166.msg85149#msg85149 date=1098156767]
No, he had a C average. There ar eplenty of people who work there asses off to get into a school like Yale and they don't come out with C averages.
[/quote]

And Kerry isn't one of them.

I've already said once before that I don't think anyone who made a C average in school should be president. America should be able to create a man that can lead our country. Not make false promises or change their minds all the  time. We are losing with both candidates just a little worse with Bush.

[quote author=muert0 link=topic=9166.msg85191#msg85191 date=1098196035]
I've already said once before that I don't think anyone who made a C average in school should be president. America should be able to create a man that can lead our country. Not make false promises or change their minds all the time. We are losing with both candidates just a little worse with Bush.
[/quote]

Kerry had a C average.

[quote author=muert0 link=topic=9166.msg85191#msg85191 date=1098196035]
I've already said once before that I don't think anyone who made a C average in school should be president. America should be able to create a man that can lead our country. Not make false promises or change their minds all the  time. We are losing with both candidates just a little worse with Bush.
[/quote] Because Bush had a C on his report card at an ive league school? He also has a masters in business that he got from Harvard....

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=9166.msg85246#msg85246 date=1098222742]
[quote author=muert0 link=topic=9166.msg85191#msg85191 date=1098196035]
I've already said once before that I don't think anyone who made a C average in school should be president. America should be able to create a man that can lead our country. Not make false promises or change their minds all the time. We are losing with both candidates just a little worse with Bush.
[/quote]

Kerry had a C average.
[/quote]
I was talking about both of them...

Kerry had a lower C, by the way. But it doesn't matter, you can't vote I don't think.

Personally I do not care too much about how someone did in college or high school. I care about what they have done in the past couple decades and what they are planning on doing.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9166.msg85364#msg85364 date=1098298629]
Personally I do not care too much about how someone did in college or high school. I care about what they have done in the past couple decades and what they are planning on doing.
[/quote]

Well from what Kerry promises, he's seemingly going to be the one to solve all of the world's ills.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9166.msg85385#msg85385 date=1098305154]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9166.msg85364#msg85364 date=1098298629]
Personally I do not care too much about how someone did in college or high school. I care about what they have done in the past couple decades and what they are planning on doing.
[/quote]

Well from what Kerry promises, he's seemingly going to be the one to solve all of the world's ills.
[/quote] While only raising the taxes of a few people, while cutting corperate income tax, while still cutting the deficit. The man is an economic miracle worker I tell yah.

He's got some good economic ideas, as does Bush. What you need is a meld of both and in this case I choose the ideas of Bush.

I'm not an American so this isn't directly my concern - but seeing as some of you are arguing over who had the better grades - well, in terms of making up policy that'll sure come in handy - but the bottom line is they both know enough.

What I'd be more interested in is how well they understand the needs and desires of the average American - which isn't always a matter of intelligence.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9166.msg85480#msg85480 date=1098357655]
He's got some good economic ideas, as does Bush. What you need is a meld of both and in this case I choose the ideas of Bush.
[/quote] some are good, but they will not work with the rest of them. Hist figure just flat out do not add up. He is going to be breaking a lot of promises if he gets elected.

[quote author=TangoFour link=topic=9166.msg85489#msg85489 date=1098367221]
I'm not an American so this isn't directly my concern - but seeing as some of you are arguing over who had the better grades - well, in terms of making up policy that'll sure come in handy - but the bottom line is they both know enough.

What I'd be more interested in is how well they understand the needs and desires of the average American - which isn't always a matter of intelligence.
[/quote] I both need and desire more money... it seems like both candidates are promising that, but George Bush will be able to make it work, and he already has delivered it  :)

Yeah cut taxes a little more, make another war, and leave our children and their children with twice as much debt as America has now. Sweet....

[quote author=muert0 link=topic=9166.msg85533#msg85533 date=1098387476]
Yeah cut taxes a little more, make another war, and leave our children and their children with twice as much debt as America has now. Sweet....
[/quote] Cutting taxes powers the economy. When you raise taxes it slows the economy. Any money the government is holding onto is money that is out of circulation. This is the good thing about deficit spending, all of the money is out ofthe governments hands. Everyone always says booo a deficit, but its not such a bad thing. Also, wars are another way of getting money into the hands of the people. Money goes to defence contractors for more ammo, armor, artillary, vehicles, money goes back into our economy into the form of pay for troops. I think it is kind of ammusing when people say we 'lost' 200billion in Iraq when the money was never lost. The vast majority of that money just left the hands of the government and entered our economy.

another thought: world war 2 brought us out of the great depression. It was a massive mobilization of our economy.

one more point: Taxes are inherently bad. They create a dead weight loss. The lower the tax, the lower the loss of efficiency. Some taxes are neccessary to power the government which is neccessary to compensate for market failiors, but the lower the tax the better the economy can function. A big tax cut is a great thing, especially when you are in a massive recession because of a tech bust that occured during the previous administration.

[quote author=muert0 link=topic=9166.msg85533#msg85533 date=1098387476]
Yeah cut taxes a little more, make another war, and leave our children and their children with twice as much debt as America has now. Sweet....
[/quote]

Well Kerry's plan is to slash spending on the military and homeland security, dump it all in some other crappy place, and put taxes through the roof. Its not a solution. You have to raise taxes a little, and cut some spending a little. But if you just start slashing, re-appropriating, and kill off the stimulation on the economy, you will get no where and that is Kerry's plan.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9166.msg85591#msg85591 date=1098403680]
Well Kerry's plan is to slash spending on the military and homeland security, dump it all in some other crappy place, and put taxes through the roof. Its not a solution. You have to raise taxes a little, and cut some spending a little. But if you just start slashing, re-appropriating, and kill off the stimulation on the economy, you will get no where and that is Kerry's plan.
[/quote]

Perhaps Kerry's plan is that instead of stimulating the economy by having people produce things that go up in smoke, he'll stimulate the economy by having people produce things that improve quality of life. The cost and effect on the economy will be the same, but quality of life will be improved. Sounds reasonable?

I saw one very large misconception in this thread I feel I need to clear up.

I will be voting Kerry for the following reasons:

Kerry did not vote to go to war, he voted to give the president the power to go to war as a last resort in case of complete diplomatic failure, and to provide diplomatic leverage. Bush straight up wanted to fight. Though, He did go through more diplomacy than I expected him to.

Bush has not lowered my taxes, I'll tell you that right here and now (I consider myself middle class, I make 35,000 a year, I'm also a student for my Master's Degree from the University of North Florida). Knowing however that the doctor across town with 2 corvets pays less taxes than before Bushg went into office kind of fuels my discontent for his policies.

How can universal healthcare not be a good idea? Canada has full healthcare for all of there citizens as a Canadian citizen's right. It doesn't seem to be working too bad up there. Not to mention the fact that a Flu Vaccination today will cost you in the neighborhood of 100-150$ per shot due to lack of availability in America. That is not good.

I disagreed with Bush's reasoning for War, I feel Al-Quada and Osama Bin Laden is far more important. As soon as Bush got the ability to go to war he pulled 95% of our troops out of Afghanistan and moved them into Iraq, leaving the Afghani military which was allied with Osama prior to our invasion to deal with the fighting there.

Recently a platoon of American soldiers refused to go on a mission of delivering contaminated fuel because they were ill-equipped and had no armed soldier reinforcements with them. They were court-marshalled.

I did not agree with Bush getting elected in the first place. More people in America that voted wanted Gore in office.

I am Pro Gay/Lesbian citizens rights. Under Bush/Cheney, citizens like Dick Cheney's daughter will never be able to get married.

I have relatives and friends in Iraq; It is estimated that if Bush is re-elected they will not be able to return any time soon.

I disagree with how Bush implemented his policies in Iraq. He went in, dissolved a stable government with Administrative authority in place and removed all order despite it being a Dictatorship without putting new form of government in place properly. It is chaotic there, and it is a situation that any greedy power wanting financial well off warlord can use to push their own agenda. It is no longer a rogue state but simple open chaotic rebellion and anarchy.

Bush's policies allow evil terrorist leaders to provide the middle eastern citizens and people with Good Vs. Evil propaganda; They can now say "Look! The evil christain infidels are invading, just they they invaded Iraq and Afghanistan! LEt's unite to repel them!". It gives the terrorists not only more woldwide support but local support as well, they can use this to their advantage.

there are a plethora of other reasons but I feel this is ufficient enough.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9166.msg85624#msg85624 date=1098407541]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9166.msg85591#msg85591 date=1098403680]
Well Kerry's plan is to slash spending on the military and homeland security, dump it all in some other crappy place, and put taxes through the roof. Its not a solution. You have to raise taxes a little, and cut some spending a little. But if you just start slashing, re-appropriating, and kill off the stimulation on the economy, you will get no where and that is Kerry's plan.
[/quote]

Perhaps Kerry's plan is that instead of stimulating the economy by having people produce things that go up in smoke, he'll stimulate the economy by having people produce things that improve quality of life. The cost and effect on the economy will be the same, but quality of life will be improved. Sounds reasonable?
[/quote] Perhaps Kerrys plan is non existant. What he has been saying will flat out not work.

[quote author=Dyndrilliac link=topic=9166.msg85626#msg85626 date=1098409736]

Bush has not lowered my taxes, I'll tell you that right here and now (I consider myself middle class, I make 35,000 a year, I'm also a student for my Master's Degree from the University of North Florida). Knowing however that the doctor across town with 2 corvets pays less taxes than before Bushg went into office kind of fuels my discontent for his policies.[/b][/quote] how can you say that when the tax cuts were based on what you payed in to taxes. Its a % back. The rich got the most back because they payed the most in, but if we got something back (and we are middle class) then you should have definatly gotten something back. The only people who did not were those who are on welfare and are not paying taxes.
BTW: Hello fellow jacksonville resident
[quote]
How can universal healthcare not be a good idea?[/quote] because the government is ineficient. The private secter can handle things much better then the government can. The reason health care is so screwed up at the moment is because of insurance and law suits. That is why bush proposes a reform.
[quote]
I disagreed with Bush's reasoning for War, I feel Al-Quada and Osama Bin Laden is far more important. As soon as Bush got the ability to go to war he pulled 95% of our troops out of Afghanistan and moved them into Iraq, leaving the Afghani military which was allied with Osama prior to our invasion to deal with the fighting there.[/quote] this is a war on terror. There were clear link to terrorist in Iraq. I guess you do not call him sponsoring palestinian suicidie bombers or the fact that we have found terrorist training camps in iraq actual terrorism because those groups never hit the us... only our allies.
[quote]
Recently a platoon of American soldiers refused to go on a mission of delivering contaminated fuel because they were ill-equipped and had no armed soldier reinforcements with them. They were court-marshalled.[/quote] because they would not go another group which was supposed to be on break had to. The mission was a success, no issues what so ever. PS: Kerry voted against raising spending for more supplies for soldiers.
[quote]
I did not agree with Bush getting elected in the first place. More people in America that voted wanted Gore in office.[/quote] its called the electoral college, it prevents mob rule.
[quote]
I am Pro Gay/Lesbian citizens rights. Under Bush/Cheney, citizens like Dick Cheney's daughter will never be able to get married.[/quote] that is really a non issue. I know plenty of gay people who actually do not really care about the marriage issue much. They realize there are other issues then just them being able to share some inssurance if they are married. PS: Dick Cheney and Bush are not going to step on the gays, after all Dick's own daughter is a lesbian.
[quote]
I have relatives and friends in Iraq; It is estimated that if Bush is re-elected they will not be able to return any time soon.[/quote] You mean you support an immediate withdraw from iraq? Just so another tyranical dictator can take over? Oh jeese. You have gone off the deep end with that one. I have friends in Iraq too and they want US forces to stay then until the job is done, otherwise they have been over there for nothing.
[quote]
I disagree with how Bush implemented his policies in Iraq. He went in, dissolved a stable government with Administrative authority in place and removed all order despite it being a Dictatorship without putting new form of government in place properly. It is chaotic there, and it is a situation that any greedy power wanting financial well off warlord can use to push their own agenda. It is no longer a rogue state but simple open chaotic rebellion and anarchy.[/quote] I disaggree with that completely. It is seedy in some places, but Iraq as a whole is on the right track. School attendance is up 80% since Saddam was removed from power. They now have a functioning interum government. The government they dissolved was stable ebcause if anyone stepped out of line they 'disappeared'. Saddam killed his opposition. It was opprossion, rule by fear.
[quote]
Bush's policies allow evil terrorist leaders to provide the middle eastern citizens and people with Good Vs. Evil propaganda; They can now say "Look! The evil christain infidels are invading, just they they invaded Iraq and Afghanistan! LEt's unite to repel them!". It gives the terrorists not only more woldwide support but local support as well, they can use this to their advantage.[/quote]they were going to do that no matter what. Look us supports israel they are evil. Its a very small price to pay.[quote][/quote]

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9166.msg85538#msg85538 date=1098387867]
Cutting taxes powers the economy. When you raise taxes it slows the economy. Any money the government is holding onto is money that is out of circulation. This is the good thing about deficit spending, all of the money is out ofthe governments hands. Everyone always says booo a deficit, but its not such a bad thing. Also, wars are another way of getting money into the hands of the people. Money goes to defence contractors for more ammo, armor, artillary, vehicles, money goes back into our economy into the form of pay for troops. I think it is kind of ammusing when people say we 'lost' 200billion in Iraq when the money was never lost. The vast majority of that money just left the hands of the government and entered our economy.

another thought: world war 2 brought us out of the great depression. It was a massive mobilization of our economy.

one more point: Taxes are inherently bad. They create a dead weight loss. The lower the tax, the lower the loss of efficiency. Some taxes are neccessary to power the government which is neccessary to compensate for market failiors, but the lower the tax the better the economy can function. A big tax cut is a great thing, especially when you are in a massive recession because of a tech bust that occured during the previous administration.
[/quote]

The government pays very little for troops.  They get payed around $15,000 (the ones doing all the work).  That is comparable to a movie usher or a crossing guard.  I'm sure many of these troops are had better jobs before going to iraq.  The tech bust did not happen during the Clinton administration, it happened in 2000-2001 which is the beginning of the Bush administration.  Yes it is good to lower taxes, but for the lower class.  The lower class is more likely to spend that money than the upperclass.  If taxes are inherently bad, how do you propose we fund the government that "protects" us?

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=9166.msg85636#msg85636 date=1098415640]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9166.msg85538#msg85538 date=1098387867]
Cutting taxes powers the economy. When you raise taxes it slows the economy. Any money the government is holding onto is money that is out of circulation. This is the good thing about deficit spending, all of the money is out ofthe governments hands. Everyone always says booo a deficit, but its not such a bad thing. Also, wars are another way of getting money into the hands of the people. Money goes to defence contractors for more ammo, armor, artillary, vehicles, money goes back into our economy into the form of pay for troops. I think it is kind of ammusing when people say we 'lost' 200billion in Iraq when the money was never lost. The vast majority of that money just left the hands of the government and entered our economy.

another thought: world war 2 brought us out of the great depression. It was a massive mobilization of our economy.

one more point: Taxes are inherently bad. They create a dead weight loss. The lower the tax, the lower the loss of efficiency. Some taxes are neccessary to power the government which is neccessary to compensate for market failiors, but the lower the tax the better the economy can function. A big tax cut is a great thing, especially when you are in a massive recession because of a tech bust that occured during the previous administration.
[/quote]

The government pays very little for troops.  They get payed around $15,000 (the ones doing all the work).  That is comparable to a movie usher or a crossing guard.  I'm sure many of these troops are had better jobs before going to iraq.  The tech bust did not happen during the Clinton administration, it happened in 2000-2001 which is the beginning of the Bush administration.  Yes it is good to lower taxes, but for the lower class.  The lower class is more likely to spend that money than the upperclass.  If taxes are inherently bad, how do you propose we fund the government that "protects" us?
[/quote] The government is still putting a lot of money in the pockets of the troops. It is a lot of money that leaves the hands of the government and enters the economy.

The tech bust did happen under clinton. The whole economic down turn happened before bush was in office. The 9/11 and it was a spiral that was unstoppable. But the economic down turn did happen during the clinton administration. Bush inherited a weak economy. Bush was inogurated january 20th 2001.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A38826-2004Jan22

Also the tax cuts are meant to give money back based on what people payed in. If you give people back more then what they payed in then you are giving out welfare. Also, have you not heart of trickle down economics? Even if you give money to just the wealthy (which bush did not because his tax cuts were across the board), they are the ones who invest that money. Put it into physical assets or into the market.

Right on, Dyn - I totally agree.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9166.msg85638#msg85638 date=1098416826]
Also the tax cuts are meant to give money back based on what people payed in. If you give people back more then what they payed in then you are giving out welfare. Also, have you not heart of trickle down economics? Even if you give money to just the wealthy (which bush did not because his tax cuts were across the board), they are the ones who invest that money. Put it into physical assets or into the market.
[/quote]

Who said we're giving back more money than they put in? And, a lot of people are still waiting for that money to trickle down.  Money needs to be circulated.  If rich people keep investing their money to create products then no one will be able to purchase the abundance of products.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=9166.msg85688#msg85688 date=1098476044]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9166.msg85638#msg85638 date=1098416826]
Also the tax cuts are meant to give money back based on what people payed in. If you give people back more then what they payed in then you are giving out welfare. Also, have you not heart of trickle down economics? Even if you give money to just the wealthy (which bush did not because his tax cuts were across the board), they are the ones who invest that money. Put it into physical assets or into the market.
[/quote]

Who said we're giving back more money than they put in? And, a lot of people are still waiting for that money to trickle down.  Money needs to be circulated.  If rich people keep investing their money to create products then no one will be able to purchase the abundance of products.
[/quote] We are giving back money based on what people paid in. Its based on a % of what you paid. Also if the rich are investing their money who said it was in a product that no one will ever buy, it could be in the stock market or in their own companies. But the point I am trying to make is, if you give all of the money to the lowest tax bracket it is not going to be invested properly, and it would just be another form of welfare instead of what it was intended to be... a tax cut. The lowest tax bracket would spend the money on jacking up the transmission of their truck or buying new rims for their old town car.

To say that the only people who got money back were 'the wealth 1%' would be ignorant. The people that buy into that crap are the same people who do not understand how a graduated income tax works.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=9166.msg85652#msg85652 date=1098438108]
Right on, Dyn - I totally agree.
[/quote] You would agree with any anti bush sentiment

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=9166.msg85688#msg85688 date=1098476044]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9166.msg85638#msg85638 date=1098416826]
Also the tax cuts are meant to give money back based on what people payed in. If you give people back more then what they payed in then you are giving out welfare. Also, have you not heart of trickle down economics? Even if you give money to just the wealthy (which bush did not because his tax cuts were across the board), they are the ones who invest that money. Put it into physical assets or into the market.
[/quote]

Who said we're giving back more money than they put in? And, a lot of people are still waiting for that money to trickle down. Money needs to be circulated. If rich people keep investing their money to create products then no one will be able to purchase the abundance of products.
[/quote]

Sure, John Doe will have more money, but he still won't have a job. Giving tax cuts to the 900,000 small business owners who generate 7/10 new jobs in the country sounds good to me.

I'm open to new ideas and I'm listening.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9166.msg85699#msg85699 date=1098478219]
[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=9166.msg85652#msg85652 date=1098438108]
Right on, Dyn - I totally agree.
[/quote] You would agree with any anti bush sentiment
[/quote]

No I wouldn't, and I've never said anything to indicate that I would.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=9166.msg85777#msg85777 date=1098535771]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9166.msg85699#msg85699 date=1098478219]
[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=9166.msg85652#msg85652 date=1098438108]
Right on, Dyn - I totally agree.
[/quote] You would agree with any anti bush sentiment
[/quote]

No I wouldn't, and I've never said anything to indicate that I would.
[/quote]That was hyperbole, but you have agreed with a lot of it that has been posted on this forum.

Because most of it is stuff I agree with... not all, though. I thought invading Afganistan was the right thing to do, for example.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9166.msg85698#msg85698 date=1098478170]
We are giving back money based on what people paid in. Its based on a % of what you paid. Also if the rich are investing their money who said it was in a product that no one will ever buy, it could be in the stock market or in their own companies. But the point I am trying to make is, if you give all of the money to the lowest tax bracket it is not going to be invested properly, and it would just be another form of welfare instead of what it was intended to be... a tax cut. The lowest tax bracket would spend the money on jacking up the transmission of their truck or buying new rims for their old town car.

To say that the only people who got money back were 'the wealth 1%' would be ignorant. The people that buy into that crap are the same people who do not understand how a graduated income tax works.
[/quote]

When people invest in something, it is usually a product or service.  For example, you buy stock in the stock market to help pay for some company to product some product.  Likewise, if they invest that money in their own company, they are most likely investing it in some product.  How do you expect the poor (who often buy these products, such as new rims of transmissions that company X makes) to pay for these products when they don't have the money because they didn't get a tax cut?  They won't and therefore you end up with an abundance of products which is bad for a company.  You need to give money to the lower brackets because they will spend it on products companies make which allows companies to make new products.

[quote author=Banana fanna fo fanna link=topic=9166.msg85722#msg85722 date=1098490745]
Sure, John Doe will have more money, but he still won't have a job. Giving tax cuts to the 900,000 small business owners who generate 7/10 new jobs in the country sounds good to me.

I'm open to new ideas and I'm listening.
[/quote]

Since when did people who are unemployed have to pay taxes?  That doesn't make sense.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=9166.msg85865#msg85865 date=1098594278]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9166.msg85698#msg85698 date=1098478170]
We are giving back money based on what people paid in. Its based on a % of what you paid. Also if the rich are investing their money who said it was in a product that no one will ever buy, it could be in the stock market or in their own companies. But the point I am trying to make is, if you give all of the money to the lowest tax bracket it is not going to be invested properly, and it would just be another form of welfare instead of what it was intended to be... a tax cut. The lowest tax bracket would spend the money on jacking up the transmission of their truck or buying new rims for their old town car.

To say that the only people who got money back were 'the wealth 1%' would be ignorant. The people that buy into that crap are the same people who do not understand how a graduated income tax works.
[/quote]

When people invest in something, it is usually a product or service.  For example, you buy stock in the stock market to help pay for some company to product some product.  Likewise, if they invest that money in their own company, they are most likely investing it in some product.  How do you expect the poor (who often buy these products, such as new rims of transmissions that company X makes) to pay for these products when they don't have the money because they didn't get a tax cut?  They won't and therefore you end up with an abundance of products which is bad for a company.  You need to give money to the lower brackets because they will spend it on products companies make which allows companies to make new products. [/quote] The people at the bottom do have money though becuase they have jobs (which is where the trickle comes in... pay) and if they don't then they are abusing welfare to get cash. But you forget the fact that everyone got a tax cut except for those who were not paying any taxes.

Also, if Kerry raises the top two tax brackets it will raise the cost of small businesses keeping them from making more products. So that would cancle out the whole give the little man all the money idea.

Once again I would like to say the tax cuts are not welfare, they were distributed based on what was payed in. Why should those who pay no taxes get money back?
[quote]
Since when did people who are unemployed have to pay taxes?  That doesn't make sense.
[/quote] Income tax is based on income. My dad is not employed by a company but he pays plenty of income tax because he is personal investor. He does not really work for a living, infact he claims to be retired. But every day he is watching the news looking at how his stocks are doing. He is not a day trader, but a long term invester and he buys new stocks and sells old ones that he has held for a while monthly. My dad also pays capital gains btw.

Also even those who are unemployed but looking for jobs have to pay an income tax. But the government has many forms of relief.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9166.msg85868#msg85868 date=1098594888]
The people at the bottom do have money though becuase they have jobs (which is where the trickle comes in... pay) and if they don't then they are abusing welfare to get cash. But you forget the fact that everyone got a tax cut except for those who were not paying any taxes.

Also, if Kerry raises the top two tax brackets it will raise the cost of small businesses keeping them from making more products. So that would cancle out the whole give the little man all the money idea.

Once again I would like to say the tax cuts are not welfare, they were distributed based on what was payed in. Why should those who pay no taxes get money back?

Income tax is based on income. My dad is not employed by a company but he pays plenty of income tax because he is personal investor. He does not really work for a living, infact he claims to be retired. But every day he is watching the news looking at how his stocks are doing. He is not a day trader, but a long term invester and he buys new stocks and sells old ones that he has held for a while monthly. My dad also pays capital gains btw.

Also even those who are unemployed but looking for jobs have to pay an income tax. But the government has many forms of relief.
[/quote]

No one has ever said that people who don't pay taxes should get money back.  You act is if you're making minimum wage it is enough to sustain yourself.  I make $12.00 per hour full time and it would be difficult to live on my own in LA. I can only imagine a family of 3 or 4 trying to live on this income which many do.  Most of their money goes towards rent/utilities/food and the majority of things their purchase is on credit (not real money).  If they can get a tax break then that will help them very much.  Just because a business gets a tax break doesn't mean their up the wages of everyone, they'll probably invest it in better things (e.g. expansion).  Small businesses are not going to be hurt.  http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?DocID=265  check for yourself by a site even Cheney (tried) endorses.  What I want to see are the large corporations paying their dues when most of them pay next to nothing on billion dollar gains.  You really think people who don't have a job but are seeking one really have investments in the stock market?  Be real, most of these people are poor with nothing to invest.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=9166.msg85995#msg85995 date=1098668228]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9166.msg85868#msg85868 date=1098594888]
The people at the bottom do have money though becuase they have jobs (which is where the trickle comes in... pay) and if they don't then they are abusing welfare to get cash. But you forget the fact that everyone got a tax cut except for those who were not paying any taxes.

Also, if Kerry raises the top two tax brackets it will raise the cost of small businesses keeping them from making more products. So that would cancle out the whole give the little man all the money idea.

Once again I would like to say the tax cuts are not welfare, they were distributed based on what was payed in. Why should those who pay no taxes get money back?

Income tax is based on income. My dad is not employed by a company but he pays plenty of income tax because he is personal investor. He does not really work for a living, infact he claims to be retired. But every day he is watching the news looking at how his stocks are doing. He is not a day trader, but a long term invester and he buys new stocks and sells old ones that he has held for a while monthly. My dad also pays capital gains btw.

Also even those who are unemployed but looking for jobs have to pay an income tax. But the government has many forms of relief.
[/quote]

No one has ever said that people who don't pay taxes should get money back.[/quote] giving money to the bottom would do this. [quote]  You act is if you're making minimum wage it is enough to sustain yourself.  I make $12.00 per hour full time and it would be difficult to live on my own in LA.[/quote] that is why you do not get a job that pays 12 an hour in la. Plus their are pay differences in different parts of the country. A jobt hat pays 12 bucks an hour there might pay 6 bucks an hour here.
[quote] I can only imagine a family of 3 or 4 trying to live on this income which many do.[/quote] then they must also live on welfare.
[quote] If they can get a tax break then that will help them very much. [/quote] they would already have tax breaks because of their circumstances. You get tax braks for having kids. If they are below the poverty line they are not paying taxes at all.
[quote]Just because a business gets a tax break doesn't mean their up the wages of everyone, they'll probably invest it in better things (e.g. expansion).[/quote] it means they can increase production and hire more people though.
[quote] Small businesses are not going to be hurt.  http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?DocID=265  check for yourself by a site even Cheney (tried) endorses.  What I want to see are the large corporations paying their dues when most of them pay next to nothing on billion dollar gains.  You really think people who don't have a job but are seeking one really have investments in the stock market?  Be real, most of these people are poor with nothing to invest.
[/quote] Its not corperations that get hurt. Its small businesses. Let me break this down for you. You have 4 types of business, they are:
sole proprietership - where one man has the company as his personal property, all gains the company makes are taxed to him in personal income taxes.
llc - like a sole proprietership but your liability is limited, if the company tanks the owner will not be in the poor house
partnership - also similar to sole proprietership but their is an aggreement between the partners to split cost and earnings up.
corperation - no one owns it, has its own tax, corperate income tax.

Of course corperations will not be hurt by kerry when he plans to drop the corperate income tax, which will also kill a lot of govt revenue. But if you tax the heck out of the top two tax brackets you are going to create real problems for a ton of small businesses.


Bush's tax cuts were accross the board, what you got back was based on what you payed in. The more you payed the more you recieved. Of couse those in a higher tax bracket would get a larger amount of money back because they no only have the most taxable income, but they also pay a higher % of it in taxes.

Even if this were aimed at being trickle down economics, you refuse to acknowledge that trickle down works. It worked for reagan and set the nation up for major long term prosperity up until the tail end of the clinton administration when the market took a nose dive because of the tech bust.

ps: where did I say poor people are trying to invest in the stock market? When did I say that? I said the rich do, and the middle class does too to an extent. That is much wiser then buying some new rims for your car. Lets face it, people will a low soceoeconomic status might be their becuase they do not manage their funds wisely. If you go into a low income neighborhood (the streets, the hood, the ghetto, whatever) you will see some cars with very expencive paint jobs, very expencive wheels, very expencive stereos, but you will see them in front of houses that are falling apart. That is some real fine investing right there. I bet those rims made that car a lot more fule efficient to justify their cost... that spinning when the car is stopped is such a long term money saver.

Bush is a bullshit artist. Not to mention Kerry as well. which is why Raulph Nator is the man to vote for.

[quote author=YaYYo link=topic=9166.msg86001#msg86001 date=1098670312]
Bush is a bullshit artist. Not to mention Kerry as well. which is why Raulph Nator is the man to vote for.
[/quote] BWAHAHA. Nader is not a bser? Please, go on, explain this.

Ps: How is bush a bser? He makes promises he can keep. He does not make bogus promises to please everyone like his democrat opponent does.

[quote author=YaYYo link=topic=9166.msg86001#msg86001 date=1098670312]Bush is a bullshit artist. Not to mention Kerry as well. which is why Raulph Nator is the man to vote for.[/quote]

I am deeply moved that YaYYo supports Nader so strongly that he cannot even spell Nader's name correctly.  This can only be because YaYYo was trembling in awe of his chosen political candidate.

[quote author=Kp link=topic=9166.msg86007#msg86007 date=1098670831]
[quote author=YaYYo link=topic=9166.msg86001#msg86001 date=1098670312]Bush is a bullshit artist. Not to mention Kerry as well. which is why Raulph Nator is the man to vote for.[/quote]

I am deeply moved that YaYYo supports Nader so strongly that he cannot even spell Nader's name correctly.  This can only be because YaYYo was trembling in awe of his chosen political candidate.
[/quote] I didn't even catch the spelling error  :P

The problem with Nader is that he is by no means a realist and has nothing to offer.

Well a vote for nader is twice as good as a vote for kerry and half as good as a vote for Bush.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9166.msg85997#msg85997 date=1098669771]
[quote]Just because a business gets a tax break doesn't mean their up the wages of everyone, they'll probably invest it in better things (e.g. expansion).[/quote] it means they can increase production and hire more people though.
[/quote]

There's a small problem with this: Increasing production won't help if there aren't people around with money to buy what they produce. If you cut taxes to companies, they'll have to lower the prices of what they sell for it to increase flow in economy. When was the last time you saw that happen?

It's much easier to increase flow by feeding in more money at the bottom, to the people who buy stuff. When they buy stuff, the companies get the money and can increase production and hire more people.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9166.msg86025#msg86025 date=1098673475]
Well a vote for nader is twice as good as a vote for kerry and half as good as a vote for Bush.
[/quote]

The only purpose he serves is to detract votes from the liberal/Democratic candidate.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9166.msg86066#msg86066 date=1098713372]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9166.msg85997#msg85997 date=1098669771]
[quote]Just because a business gets a tax break doesn't mean their up the wages of everyone, they'll probably invest it in better things (e.g. expansion).[/quote] it means they can increase production and hire more people though.
[/quote]

There's a small problem with this: Increasing production won't help if there aren't people around with money to buy what they produce. If you cut taxes to companies, they'll have to lower the prices of what they sell for it to increase flow in economy. When was the last time you saw that happen?[/quote] any time the company wants to make more money and the company is not a monoply and there is still demand for the product. If they make more and charge a little less, the equilibrium will still be higher then it was before.
[quote]
It's much easier to increase flow by feeding in more money at the bottom, to the people who buy stuff. When they buy stuff, the companies get the money and can increase production and hire more people.[/quote] Yes that is why reaganomics was a complete failure... because it was trickle down. Humm.

The problem is when you feed to the bottom you are feeding to a very large number of people so no one gets very much so you cannot invest that money in anything worth while. Nothing that will appreciate in value atleast.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9166.msg86144#msg86144 date=1098755258]
any time the company wants to make more money and the company is not a monoply and there is still demand for the product. If they make more and charge a little less, the equilibrium will still be higher then it was before.
[/quote]
If people don't have money and the companies do, then there will be no demand from the masses.  You don't seem to understand this.

[quote]
Yes that is why reaganomics was a complete failure... because it was trickle down. Humm.

The problem is when you feed to the bottom you are feeding to a very large number of people so no one gets very much so you cannot invest that money in anything worth while. Nothing that will appreciate in value atleast.
[/quote]

Didn't you just argue me that trickle down economics works?  And now you're saying it's a failure?  Fact is: it was a failure and will still fail.  Even if people get some money back, that money will be spent and hence circulated.  Just because they get a smaller amount doesn't mean anything.  As a whole, they will usually spend that money, thus amounting to a large sum.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=9166.msg86214#msg86214 date=1098816346]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9166.msg86144#msg86144 date=1098755258]
any time the company wants to make more money and the company is not a monoply and there is still demand for the product. If they make more and charge a little less, the equilibrium will still be higher then it was before.
[/quote]
If people don't have money and the companies do, then there will be no demand from the masses.  You don't seem to understand this.[/quote] But people have to work for the companies and companies pay thee workers. Companies do not run themselves you know. If people have no moeny, then they are on welfare. You either have a job, you are a bum, or you are on welfare, those are the three options. You seem to thing that companies are holding people down.
[quote]
[quote]
Yes that is why reaganomics was a complete failure... because it was trickle down. Humm.

The problem is when you feed to the bottom you are feeding to a very large number of people so no one gets very much so you cannot invest that money in anything worth while. Nothing that will appreciate in value atleast.
[/quote]

Didn't you just argue me that trickle down economics works?  And now you're saying it's a failure?  Fact is: it was a failure and will still fail.  Even if people get some money back, that money will be spent and hence circulated.  Just because they get a smaller amount doesn't mean anything.  As a whole, they will usually spend that money, thus amounting to a large sum.
[/quote] That was sarcasm. I was being sarcastic, it does work. Trickle down economics was a massive success dude. Liek I have been saying all along, giving the money to the poor would leave you giving a very small sum to every poor person and it would lead to a purchase/investment that does not improve the life of that porr person. It would be much more effective in the hands of someone who can do something and will do something better with the money. Also if you are giving money to a poor person it is not coming back to the governmnet and time soon because the poor person is not going to invest it into something that gains value over time, like a stock, or real estate, because it would not be enough money two. Once again this is a tax cut btw, not welfare. It was based on what you paid in.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9166.msg86245#msg86245 date=1098832883]
But people have to work for the companies and companies pay thee workers. Companies do not run themselves you know. If people have no moeny, then they are on welfare. You either have a job, you are a bum, or you are on welfare, those are the three options. You seem to thing that companies are holding people down.
[/quote]

People have to pay for basic necessities like rent, utilities, and food.  A large portion of their money (or all in some cases) goes towards that monthly.  A tax break gives them money they can spend on luxaries.

[quote]
That was sarcasm. I was being sarcastic, it does work. Trickle down economics was a massive success dude. Liek I have been saying all along, giving the money to the poor would leave you giving a very small sum to every poor person and it would lead to a purchase/investment that does not improve the life of that porr person. It would be much more effective in the hands of someone who can do something and will do something better with the money. Also if you are giving money to a poor person it is not coming back to the governmnet and time soon because the poor person is not going to invest it into something that gains value over time, like a stock, or real estate, because it would not be enough money two. Once again this is a tax cut btw, not welfare. It was based on what you paid in.
[/quote]

Here is a analysis of trickle down economics: http://www.faireconomy.org/research/TrickleDown.html  All fact.  But here again you're assuming things.  You can't tell me every poor person is buying stupid stuff.  It's almost as if you're saying poor people are stupid and rich people are smart becuase they make smarter decisions about their finances.  And you just told me that money not in the hands of the government is better, yet you tell me here that it's bad that the money is not going to be in the hands of the government any time soon?  Which is it?  Stop bring up the welfare argument.  It's has no bearing, and no one is arguing you against it.  People who don't make a lot money (e.g. < $200,000) should not have to pay more or the same as people who make a lot of money.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=9166.msg86282#msg86282 date=1098847073]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9166.msg86245#msg86245 date=1098832883]
But people have to work for the companies and companies pay thee workers. Companies do not run themselves you know. If people have no moeny, then they are on welfare. You either have a job, you are a bum, or you are on welfare, those are the three options. You seem to thing that companies are holding people down.
[/quote]

People have to pay for basic necessities like rent, utilities, and food.  A large portion of their money (or all in some cases) goes towards that monthly.  A tax break gives them money they can spend on luxaries.[/quote] if they cannot afford their housing they need to move down a notch, at some point the government subsidizes it. But if you give money to people who are not paying taxes then it is welfare. I ave said that numerous times, but you are not acknowlegeing it. Basically do you think we should just more welfare? Because  if the tax cut were engineered to give all the money to the bottom that is what it would be.
[quote]
[quote]
That was sarcasm. I was being sarcastic, it does work. Trickle down economics was a massive success dude. Liek I have been saying all along, giving the money to the poor would leave you giving a very small sum to every poor person and it would lead to a purchase/investment that does not improve the life of that porr person. It would be much more effective in the hands of someone who can do something and will do something better with the money. Also if you are giving money to a poor person it is not coming back to the governmnet and time soon because the poor person is not going to invest it into something that gains value over time, like a stock, or real estate, because it would not be enough money two. Once again this is a tax cut btw, not welfare. It was based on what you paid in.
[/quote]

Here is a analysis of trickle down economics: http://www.faireconomy.org/research/TrickleDown.html  All fact.  But here again you're assuming things.  You can't tell me every poor person is buying stupid stuff.  It's almost as if you're saying poor people are stupid and rich people are smart becuase they make smarter decisions about their finances.  And you just told me that money not in the hands of the government is better, yet you tell me here that it's bad that the money is not going to be in the hands of the government any time soon?  Which is it?  Stop bring up the welfare argument.  It's has no bearing, and no one is arguing you against it.  People who don't make a lot money (e.g. < $200,000) should not have to pay more or the same as people who make a lot of money.
[/quote] That site you linked is not fact because reaganomics did infact work. It worked marvelously. http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Reaganomics.html
I am telling you a poor person with the money back can only buy stupid stuff. Name one thing you can buy with the ammount of money they will get back that will appreciate in value at any substantial rate (by that I mean they could put the money in the bank or buy a govt bond, but those will not pay off for a long long long time)? Money out of the hands of the government is better. But money has to circulate. The money has to get its money back in order to spend it again. I keep bringing up the welfare argument because if you do not have it based on the tax bracket and you are giving those at the bottom more then they payed in then that is exactly what it is. People who do not make a lot of moeny do not pay more or the same as people who make a lot of money. People who make a lot of money pay a staggering ammount more. That is why they get the most back (in % of the total money given back to everyone), because their group payed the most in.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=9166.msg86282#msg86282 date=1098847073]
People who don't make a lot money (e.g. < $200,000) should not have to pay more or the same as people who make a lot of money.
[/quote]

That is simply not happening. Percentagewise, actual dollar amount, it doesn't matter how you cut it, people in the top tax brackets always pay substantially more than those in the middle or bottom tax brackets.

Another oft-neglected impact of the Bush tax cuts were that an estimated 7.8 million of the poorest people paying taxes were dropped off the bottom end of the tax brackets such that they no longer pay federal income taxes. Many of the same families benefitted greatly from the per-child tax credit and other features of the Bush plan.

To support the Kerry plan over the Bush plan is simply to promote class warfare. Everyone who pays taxes deserves money back. Besides the top income brackets, the Kerry plan is the same as the Bush plan. Bush is across the board, Kerry drops the top earners. It seems quite fair that those who overwhelmingly pay the most in taxes should receive more money, in sheer dollars, back, even if percentagewise their refund is equal in size or smaller than that received by the lower and middle brackets.

[quote author=Stealth link=topic=9166.msg86290#msg86290 date=1098851192]
To support the Kerry plan over the Bush plan is simply to promote class warfare.[/quote]

Of course it does.  How could Kerry encourage the proletariat to rise up and revolt if it didn't encourage class warfare?

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9166.msg86245#msg86245 date=1098832883]
it would lead to a purchase/investment that does not improve the life of that porr person. It would be much more effective in the hands of someone who can do something and will do something better with the money.
[/quote]

You're saying that rich people do better things with money than poor people? It seems to be the reverse to me: Rich people waste a lot of money on luxuries, drinking, cars, that kind of minorly life-improving things. Poor people spend it on food, their houses, basic stuff that does improve quality of life. For the amount of money a rich person spends on a Lamborghini, you could repair a lot of leaking roofs.


[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9166.msg86245#msg86245 date=1098832883]
Also if you are giving money to a poor person it is not coming back to the governmnet and time soon because the poor person is not going to invest it into something that gains value over time, like a stock, or real estate, because it would not be enough money two.
[/quote]

I thought the republican idea was to minimize the amount of money "going to waste" in the government? And besides: Investing in something that gains value over time isn't any better than spending the money as quickly as possible. Actually, when a lot of people start saving money instead of consuming, it's bad for the economy. So I think you've just explained why it's better to give money to the poor?

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9166.msg86296#msg86296 date=1098878713]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9166.msg86245#msg86245 date=1098832883]
it would lead to a purchase/investment that does not improve the life of that porr person. It would be much more effective in the hands of someone who can do something and will do something better with the money.
[/quote]

You're saying that rich people do better things with money than poor people? It seems to be the reverse to me: Rich people waste a lot of money on luxuries, drinking, cars, that kind of minorly life-improving things. Poor people spend it on food, their houses, basic stuff that does improve quality of life. For the amount of money a rich person spends on a Lamborghini, you could repair a lot of leaking roofs.[/quote] the wages of the lower class can repair the roofs too. But the money that a poor person would get back witht he tax cuts if all the money was divided among the poor would not fix a roof.


[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9166.msg86245#msg86245 date=1098832883]
Also if you are giving money to a poor person it is not coming back to the governmnet and time soon because the poor person is not going to invest it into something that gains value over time, like a stock, or real estate, because it would not be enough money two.
[/quote]

I thought the republican idea was to minimize the amount of money "going to waste" in the government? And besides: Investing in something that gains value over time isn't any better than spending the money as quickly as possible. Actually, when a lot of people start saving money instead of consuming, it's bad for the economy. So I think you've just explained why it's better to give money to the poor?

[quote][/quote] When you invest your money in a stock the money is not sitting idle. Plus putting loney int he hands of the government to spend does not mean it is sitting in the hands of the government... it was under clinton with the surplus, but it is not under bush now. When the government spends money it is good for the economy.

[quote author=Stealth link=topic=9166.msg86290#msg86290 date=1098851192]
[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=9166.msg86282#msg86282 date=1098847073]
People who don't make a lot money (e.g. < $200,000) should not have to pay more or the same as people who make a lot of money.
[/quote]

That is simply not happening. Percentagewise, actual dollar amount, it doesn't matter how you cut it, people in the top tax brackets always pay substantially more than those in the middle or bottom tax brackets.

Another oft-neglected impact of the Bush tax cuts were that an estimated 7.8 million of the poorest people paying taxes were dropped off the bottom end of the tax brackets such that they no longer pay federal income taxes. Many of the same families benefitted greatly from the per-child tax credit and other features of the Bush plan.

To support the Kerry plan over the Bush plan is simply to promote class warfare. Everyone who pays taxes deserves money back. Besides the top income brackets, the Kerry plan is the same as the Bush plan. Bush is across the board, Kerry drops the top earners. It seems quite fair that those who overwhelmingly pay the most in taxes should receive more money, in sheer dollars, back, even if percentagewise their refund is equal in size or smaller than that received by the lower and middle brackets.
[/quote]

Yes I understand.  What I meant to say is the more income earn the more you should pay, and it should be substantially more than those who don't make as much.  Poor people need the money to pay for necessities while rich people can afford to give money to the government.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9166.msg86284#msg86284 date=1098848094]
if they cannot afford their housing they need to move down a notch, at some point the government subsidizes it. But if you give money to people who are not paying taxes then it is welfare. I ave said that numerous times, but you are not acknowlegeing it. Basically do you think we should just more welfare? Because  if the tax cut were engineered to give all the money to the bottom that is what it would be.
[/quote]
Ahh, then you have no real world experience.  To qualify for section 8 housing, you must have a low income, extremely low (varies by state and city due to differing costs of living).  So what about those people who are just above the line?  And there are many people like this.  And even if you do have such a low income, it is still very difficult to pay for other basic necessities.

No one has ever said anything about giving money back to people who don't pay taxes, so leave it alone.

[quote]
That site you linked is not fact because reaganomics did infact work. It worked marvelously. http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Reaganomics.html
[/quote]

The site I linked is fact.  It is obvious that there is no correlation between cutting the top tax bracket and real gdp, annual median income growth, annual average hourly wage growth, and job creation.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=9166.msg86342#msg86342 date=1098910041]
[quote author=Stealth link=topic=9166.msg86290#msg86290 date=1098851192]
[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=9166.msg86282#msg86282 date=1098847073]
People who don't make a lot money (e.g. < $200,000) should not have to pay more or the same as people who make a lot of money.
[/quote]

That is simply not happening. Percentagewise, actual dollar amount, it doesn't matter how you cut it, people in the top tax brackets always pay substantially more than those in the middle or bottom tax brackets.

Another oft-neglected impact of the Bush tax cuts were that an estimated 7.8 million of the poorest people paying taxes were dropped off the bottom end of the tax brackets such that they no longer pay federal income taxes. Many of the same families benefitted greatly from the per-child tax credit and other features of the Bush plan.

To support the Kerry plan over the Bush plan is simply to promote class warfare. Everyone who pays taxes deserves money back. Besides the top income brackets, the Kerry plan is the same as the Bush plan. Bush is across the board, Kerry drops the top earners. It seems quite fair that those who overwhelmingly pay the most in taxes should receive more money, in sheer dollars, back, even if percentagewise their refund is equal in size or smaller than that received by the lower and middle brackets.
[/quote]

Yes I understand.  What I meant to say is the more income earn the more you should pay, and it should be substantially more than those who don't make as much.  Poor people need the money to pay for necessities while rich people can afford to give money to the government.
[/quote] That is how it works now. Those who have more income pay more money, and substnatially so because they pay a higher percent because of the tax bracket.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=9166.msg86343#msg86343 date=1098910859]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9166.msg86284#msg86284 date=1098848094]
if they cannot afford their housing they need to move down a notch, at some point the government subsidizes it. But if you give money to people who are not paying taxes then it is welfare. I ave said that numerous times, but you are not acknowlegeing it. Basically do you think we should just more welfare? Because  if the tax cut were engineered to give all the money to the bottom that is what it would be.
[/quote]
Ahh, then you have no real world experience.  To qualify for section 8 housing, you must have a low income, extremely low (varies by state and city due to differing costs of living).  So what about those people who are just above the line?  And there are many people like this.  And even if you do have such a low income, it is still very difficult to pay for other basic necessities.[/quote][quote][/quote] That is why people limit their hours to qualify for it... that is what happens in reality. Look man, we have food stamps, welfare, subsidized housing. We have tons of forms of finantial aid. This tax cut if given to the lowest people is not going to do anything for them because they money will be spread to thin. The bush tax cut was big, but giving everyone in the lowest tax brackets n dollers would just be another welfare check.
[quote][quote]
No one has ever said anything about giving money back to people who don't pay taxes, so leave it alone.[/quote][/quote] If you give the top less money back then the bottom that that is exactly what it is. Because the tax break is no longer based on what was payed in.
[quote]
[quote]
That site you linked is not fact because reaganomics did infact work. It worked marvelously. http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Reaganomics.html
[/quote]

The site I linked is fact.  It is obvious that there is no correlation between cutting the top tax bracket and real gdp, annual median income growth, annual average hourly wage growth, and job creation.
[/quote] Then how come reaganomics worked?  The economy's rate of growth increased immediately by about 2% and its effects were long lasting.

Also, if these tax cuts only favor the rich, and trickle down does not work, then how come the bush tax cuts and deficit spending brought us out of a major reccession that began during the tech bust under clinton?

ps: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle_down_effect
also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market
http://www.bigissueground.com/politics/blair-trickledownreagan.shtml
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20031108-111533-9600r.htm
http://www.wanniski.com/showarticle.asp?articleid=2803
http://www.joeuser.com/articlecomments.asp?AID=89&s=1

Vote for Kerry and he'll give you handouts. Vote for Bush and you can actually work for your money.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9166.msg86380#msg86380 date=1098928156]
Vote for Kerry and he'll give you handouts. Vote for Bush and you can actually work for your money.
[/quote] Kerry will not give anyone a thing. His numbers do not add up at all. He cant cut corperate income tax, while increasing spending in a lot of areas (education is up 50% under bush, he will raise it more?), while cutting the deficit, if he only raises the tax on the top two tax brackets. It simply will not work.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9166.msg86354#msg86354 date=1098915679]
That is why people limit their hours to qualify for it... that is what happens in reality. Look man, we have food stamps, welfare, subsidized housing. We have tons of forms of finantial aid. This tax cut if given to the lowest people is not going to do anything for them because they money will be spread to thin. The bush tax cut was big, but giving everyone in the lowest tax brackets n dollers would just be another welfare check.
[/quote]

I see how you think now: keep the rich rich and the poor poor.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=9166.msg86452#msg86452 date=1099001919]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9166.msg86354#msg86354 date=1098915679]
That is why people limit their hours to qualify for it... that is what happens in reality. Look man, we have food stamps, welfare, subsidized housing. We have tons of forms of finantial aid. This tax cut if given to the lowest people is not going to do anything for them because they money will be spread to thin. The bush tax cut was big, but giving everyone in the lowest tax brackets n dollers would just be another welfare check.
[/quote]

I see how you think now: keep the rich rich and the poor poor.
[/quote] Yes sure thats it, you hit the nail on the head, because I want to keep the poop poor because I am not a big proponent of hand outs, and give money back according to how much was paid in ::). Except for the fact that I am in no way rich. Read some of those links so you know exactly how supply side economic theory (or trickle down) is supposed to work.

I am very libertarian in my economic views. I believe that the less government screws with the economy the better. I believe taxes hurt the economy, and regulation hurts the economy, aside from stopping market failiors like negative externalities.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9166.msg86472#msg86472 date=1099015080]
Yes sure thats it, you hit the nail on the head, because I want to keep the poop poor because I am not a big proponent of hand outs, and give money back according to how much was paid in ::). Except for the fact that I am in no way rich. Read some of those links so you know exactly how supply side economic theory (or trickle down) is supposed to work.

I am very libertarian in my economic views. I believe that the less government screws with the economy the better. I believe taxes hurt the economy, and regulation hurts the economy, aside from stopping market failiors like negative externalities.
[/quote]

By saying people should work less hours so they can qualify for government assisitance completely baffles me.  You're essentially saying, "Don't work so many hours so we can give you some money" despite the fact the government gives out just enough to get by and sometimes less.  Also, just because something is supposed to work one way in theory, doesn't mean it will work that way in practice.  In the case of trickle down, it doesn't work; there are just too many external variables.

I am not  saying people should work less hours. I am saying they do work less hours. They work just enough to support themselves but still get welfare. I have heard of people having more children just because they get a bigger welfare check.

All economics is theory except for the basic supply and demand laws. How can you say supply side economics does not work when it worked during reaganomics. You keep saying it does not work it does not work, it has worked in the united states and in england.

You've heard this and that but you don't know shit. How many people do you know on welfare? And of those people how many of them work less hours just to get a welfare check? I'm guessing zero on both counts. You relly shouldn't just spout off crap about things you haven't experienced and you know nothing about.

[quote author=muert0 link=topic=9166.msg86539#msg86539 date=1099080903]
You've heard this and that but you don't know shit. How many people do you know on welfare? And of those people how many of them work less hours just to get a welfare check? I'm guessing zero on both counts. You relly shouldn't just spout off crap about things you haven't experienced and you know nothing about.
[/quote] Fuck you. You just say you don't know shit to people? I do infact know people who do it. I do not like those people but I know them. The people that live behind me do it. They are low life people too that just want to be lazy and cheat the system. I never said I have heard of people working less hours for a welfare check, I said I have heard of people having more children for more welfare money. Now I do not know anyone who has actually done that. But I do know people who have deliberately limited their work availability (the people behind me) so they can still receive welfare.

[quote author=muert0 link=topic=9166.msg86539#msg86539 date=1099080903]
You've heard this and that but you don't know shit. How many people do you know on welfare? And of those people how many of them work less hours just to get a welfare check? I'm guessing zero on both counts. You relly shouldn't just spout off crap about things you haven't experienced and you know nothing about.
[/quote]

I did a study in my social problems class regarding that very phenomenon... turns out the ex-brother-in-law of my AFR teacher/football coach mooches the social security system in that very way.

Quasi do you live with your parents? If so what's the house valued at?

I hate it when I go into the super market and get behind a lady who's in nice name brand clothes, has nicely done nails, but her children have no shoes (or on the contrary nice shoes/clothes), and she pays her bill with WIC. Then, minutes later, I see her getting into a nice new Escalade (or other nice car.) I think that's why I hate welfare so much.

[quote author=muert0 link=topic=9166.msg86588#msg86588 date=1099116032]
Quasi do you live with your parents? If so what's the house valued at?
[/quote]

You need to stop asking people such arbitrary questions that don't matter at all. He could live with his parents in a house valued at $750,000 and still understand the system.

Yeah and if he lived in a house valued at $750,000 there is no way his neighbors could be living on welfare. I was thinking probably more around the range of 100,000+ though.
My roommate is a hemopheliac who got hepatitis C when he was a baby because they didnt test blood for transfusions around the time he was born. He gets $500 a month. Could any of you honestly live off of $500 a month?

Yes.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9166.msg86380#msg86380 date=1098928156]
Vote for Kerry and he'll give you handouts. Vote for Bush and you can actually work for your money.
[/quote]

THANK YOU! Finally some one opens their eyes and understands! Democrats for the most part (not by any means all) are uninformed and lack the ability to see the big picture.... If you are an intelligent democrat, why are you shooting yourself in the foot? Start taking what you deserve by working hard, don't give it away.  Someday certain people think a welfare check is, free money.... And most of them are not white.. which leads to other issues. None the less, This is America, you get what you earn, nothing more, nothing less.

[quote]I am not  saying people should work less hours. I am saying they do work less hours. They work just enough to support themselves but still get welfare.[/quote]
[quote]I never said I have heard of people working less hours for a welfare check.[/quote]

[quote author=muert0 link=topic=9166.msg86588#msg86588 date=1099116032]
Quasi do you live with your parents? If so what's the house valued at?
[/quote] Don't know what it is values at. The one behind us just sold for about 100,000.

[quote author=muert0 link=topic=9166.msg86627#msg86627 date=1099155074]
[quote]I am not  saying people should work less hours. I am saying they do work less hours. They work just enough to support themselves but still get welfare.[/quote]
[quote]I never said I have heard of people working less hours for a welfare check.[/quote]
[/quote] And what does that prove? I never said I have heard of people working less for a welfare check. I am saying they do. And I have known people who do it. What I said I have only heard of happening was people having more children to get a bigger check.

[quote author=jigsaw link=topic=9166.msg86620#msg86620 date=1099153916]
THANK YOU! Finally some one opens their eyes and understands! Democrats for the most part (not by any means all) are uninformed and lack the ability to see the big picture.... If you are an intelligent democrat, why are you shooting yourself in the foot? Start taking what you deserve by working hard, don't give it away.  Someday certain people think a welfare check is, free money.... And most of them are not white.. which leads to other issues. None the less, This is America, you get what you earn, nothing more, nothing less.
[/quote]

I believe in helping people who truely need help and if that means giving me income to help others then I don't mind.  What I do mind is using my income to fight wars and for other foreign affairs.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=9166.msg86678#msg86678 date=1099177547]I believe in helping people who truely need help and if that means giving me income to help others then I don't mind.  What I do mind is using my income to fight wars and for other foreign affairs.[/quote]

That's fine, but why should I give my money to people who allegedly need help based on your say-so?  If they need help, let them get it from people like you who want to give up your money.  I have no problem with the idea of charity, but I have a big problem with people who think they have an obligation to confiscate funds to pay for it.

[quote author=jigsaw link=topic=9166.msg86620#msg86620 date=1099153916]THANK YOU! Finally some one opens their eyes and understands! Democrats for the most part (not by any means all) are uninformed and lack the ability to see the big picture.... If you are an intelligent democrat, why are you shooting yourself in the foot? Start taking what you deserve by working hard, don't give it away.  Someday certain people think a welfare check is, free money.... And most of them are not white.. which leads to other issues. None the less, This is America, you get what you earn, nothing more, nothing less.
[/quote]

I've certainly noticed the same failing in multitudes of Republicans. It's not like Democrats have a monopoly on stupidity.

I would say it's more to the effect of "the majority of the American public is incapable of seeing the big picture." It doesn't matter what party they vote for, most people choose their votes for the wrong reasons.

I'm cynical and already disgusted with the American election process; can you tell?

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=9166.msg86678#msg86678 date=1099177547]
[quote author=jigsaw link=topic=9166.msg86620#msg86620 date=1099153916]
THANK YOU! Finally some one opens their eyes and understands! Democrats for the most part (not by any means all) are uninformed and lack the ability to see the big picture.... If you are an intelligent democrat, why are you shooting yourself in the foot? Start taking what you deserve by working hard, don't give it away.  Someday certain people think a welfare check is, free money.... And most of them are not white.. which leads to other issues. None the less, This is America, you get what you earn, nothing more, nothing less.
[/quote]

I believe in helping people who truely need help and if that means giving me income to help others then I don't mind.  What I do mind is using my income to fight wars and for other foreign affairs.
[/quote] You mind using your money for the defense of our nation?

We currently use too much money on defense, while mis-applying it. That money could be more WISELY spent, although certainly defense spending is a major priority. Would be nice if it wasn't, but such is today's world...

With as much as we have to defend, I feel that the amount that we spend is perfect.

Well, I suppose it's rather difficult for me to properly evaluate the amount, because I feel like we don't spend the money the right way. It's entirely possible that a defense spending methodology that I agree with could wind up being just as expensive as now, but regardless, we're currently spending more than we should be on some things while underfunding others.

[quote author=Zakath link=topic=9166.msg86706#msg86706 date=1099188194]
Well, I suppose it's rather difficult for me to properly evaluate the amount, because I feel like we don't spend the money the right way. It's entirely possible that a defense spending methodology that I agree with could wind up being just as expensive as now, but regardless, we're currently spending more than we should be on some things while underfunding others.
[/quote] Such as? Why don't you just quit dancing around it and say why you are not in favor of the two wars.

Afghanistan I didn't mind so much. The reasons for going in there made sense to me, even if I might not have come to the same decision myself. Iraq, though, has been an unmitigated disaster. Badly planned, badly executed, and it's turned into a money-sucking cesspool.

I'm not talking about war funding specifically, though. I refer more to things like the Star Wars missile defense system that Bush was trying to resurrect a while back. Not sure if he's still pushing it (I hope he's given up on the idea), but it's a huge waste of money even researching it imo.

[quote author=jigsaw link=topic=9166.msg86620#msg86620 date=1099153916]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9166.msg86380#msg86380 date=1098928156]
Vote for Kerry and he'll give you handouts. Vote for Bush and you can actually work for your money.
[/quote]

THANK YOU! Finally some one opens their eyes and understands! Democrats for the most part (not by any means all) are uninformed and lack the ability to see the big picture.... If you are an intelligent democrat, why are you shooting yourself in the foot? Start taking what you deserve by working hard, don't give it away. Someday certain people think a welfare check is, free money.... And most of them are not white.. which leads to other issues. None the less, This is America, you get what you earn, nothing more, nothing less.
[/quote]

I totally agree. Minorities, especially, fail to see that all welfare and the liberals do is hold them back. If they're on welfare they're not going to become anything - that's why alot of hispanics (depending on where they come from) and I think Asians too are Republican, because they support working and trying to make it in a land where they can come here with nothing and become something.

[quote author=Zakath link=topic=9166.msg86710#msg86710 date=1099189741]
Afghanistan I didn't mind so much. The reasons for going in there made sense to me, even if I might not have come to the same decision myself. Iraq, though, has been an unmitigated disaster. Badly planned, badly executed, and it's turned into a money-sucking cesspool.

I'm not talking about war funding specifically, though. I refer more to things like the Star Wars missile defense system that Bush was trying to resurrect a while back. Not sure if he's still pushing it (I hope he's given up on the idea), but it's a huge waste of money even researching it imo.
[/quote] Badly planned? We took the country easily as I recall. Do not give me a plan for the peace answer bcause you cant exactly plan for peace when you hold 50% of the cards and the insurgents the other 50%. Iraq will soon be standing on its own feet. PS: You act like the money spent in Iraq is gone forever, most of it is coming back to the states and going right back into our economy. Deficit spending is a pretty thing when the economy is down.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9166.msg86687#msg86687 date=1099183039]
You mind using your money for the defense of our nation?
[/quote]

No I don't, defense is fine.  But defending is not the same thing as attacking.  Unless we're attacked, we shouldn't be attacking.

[quote author=Kp link=topic=9166.msg86682#msg86682 date=1099180847]
That's fine, but why should I give my money to people who allegedly need help based on your say-so?  If they need help, let them get it from people like you who want to give up your money.  I have no problem with the idea of charity, but I have a big problem with people who think they have an obligation to confiscate funds to pay for it.
[/quote]

Then move to another country.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=9166.msg86738#msg86738 date=1099199992]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9166.msg86687#msg86687 date=1099183039]
You mind using your money for the defense of our nation?
[/quote]

No I don't, defense is fine.  But defending is not the same thing as attacking.  Unless we're attacked, we shouldn't be attacking.
[/quote] We were attacked. That is what started the war on terror.

This may be an unpopular statement, but I'm making it anyway: The belief that Welfare is merely an indulgence for the lazy is simply a product of ignorance, and there's no two ways about it. Some people are in need, and those people need help, and that's really all there is to it.

Don't even bother responding to this if you've never lived on welfare. You aren't qualified. I don't care what your book-smarts tell you.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=9166.msg86739#msg86739 date=1099200072][quote author=Kp link=topic=9166.msg86682#msg86682 date=1099180847]That's fine, but why should I give my money to people who allegedly need help based on your say-so?  If they need help, let them get it from people like you who want to give up your money.  I have no problem with the idea of charity, but I have a big problem with people who think they have an obligation to confiscate funds to pay for it.[/quote]Then move to another country.[/quote]

That's hardly an answer, as I could've thrown the same thing at you when you whined about spending on foreign affairs.  Instead, I responded to your opinion with an explanation of why I disagree and where I stand.  Perhaps you'd like to offer a real solution, rather than just telling me to get out if I don't like the direction the country has been dragged?

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9166.msg86380#msg86380 date=1098928156]
Vote for Kerry and he'll give you handouts. Vote for Bush and you can actually work for your money.
[/quote]
That's the first time I've seen somebody say something so true. If we had karma, I'd give you like +100.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=9166.msg86790#msg86790 date=1099233434]
This may be an unpopular statement, but I'm making it anyway: The belief that Welfare is merely an indulgence for the lazy is simply a product of ignorance, and there's no two ways about it. Some people are in need, and those people need help, and that's really all there is to it.

Don't even bother responding to this if you've never lived on welfare. You aren't qualified. I don't care what your book-smarts tell you.
[/quote] Arta, welfare is made to be temporary, not long term. I don't live on welfare but I still have every right to comment about it.

I do not agree with the Kerry will give you handouts statement. He promises to give you handouts, but I doubt he will be able to deliver them.

Nobody said you can't comment, but don't try to justify eliminating a system by only considering the cases where the system doesn't work. There are many people who rely on that system to survive. Are you willing to kill them just to make a point? Or are you offering to find jobs somewhere for every single person currently collecting a welfare check?

[quote author=Zakath link=topic=9166.msg86879#msg86879 date=1099263397]
Nobody said you can't comment, but don't try to justify eliminating a system by only considering the cases where the system doesn't work. There are many people who rely on that system to survive. Are you willing to kill them just to make a point? Or are you offering to find jobs somewhere for every single person currently collecting a welfare check?
[/quote] I never said to eliminate it. I believe in this thread I said we need a mjoar reform and that the bush tax cuts are not to be a form of welfare, but rather a real tax cut based on what was payed in. After all, that is what a cut in taxes is. I personally believe that welfare should be for one year only, if someone is on welfare for longer he should be subject to an evaluation or something like that to see if he is actively looking for a job or what is going as to why he can't get on his feet. It could be something like an audit. Make sure his money isn't going towars fancy rims on a bmw that he financed.

That's how the system is supposed to work now; I agree it needs reform. I thought you were trying to argue that it should be eliminated entirely.

[quote author=Zakath link=topic=9166.msg86888#msg86888 date=1099264149]
That's how the system is supposed to work now; I agree it needs reform. I thought you were trying to argue that it should be eliminated entirely.
[/quote] No, but I am in favor of reform of many systems. Such as social security. No politician will go near that though... its suicide.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9166.msg86881#msg86881 date=1099263582]
I personally believe that welfare should be for one year only, if someone is on welfare for longer he should be subject to an evaluation or something like that to see if he is actively looking for a job or what is going as to why he can't get on his feet. It could be something like an audit. Make sure his money isn't going towars fancy rims on a bmw that he financed.
[/quote]

TANF, as it is called now and run by the states, does have these limits.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/opa/fact_sheets/tanf_factsheet.html

Welfare should be setup the same way then.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9166.msg86892#msg86892 date=1099264319]
Welfare should be setup the same way then.
[/quote]

There is no such thing as welfare anymore since the Welfare Reform Law of 1996.  It was terminated and now the states take care of it.  Learn your facts, it is now obvious you're arguing against something you don't even know or understand.

The federal government is still spending on welfare, they are providing just about all of the cash. The states are deciding who gets it maybe, but that does not make it no longer welfare. The whole thing is still not temporary because people still manage to abuse it.

Further reforms are being talked about now btw.

PS: I thought TANF was a separate thing from straight up finantial aid. I thought it only applied for families with children, etc.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=9166.msg86893#msg86893 date=1099264435]
There is no such thing as welfare[/quote]

Ah, so the $97+ billion dollars spent every year is actually being spent on nothing? WTF GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY++.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9166.msg86900#msg86900 date=1099265335]
PS: I thought TANF was a separate thing from straight up finantial aid. I thought it only applied for families with children, etc.
[/quote]

Did you read what was said at the link posted? It wasn't that long... I don't know what all your old welfare systems were, but it sounds very much like they were all replaced by TANF.

But this all seems more geared to families with kids.
4 goals.
[quote]
#  assisting needy families so that children can be cared for in their own homes
# reducing the dependency of needy parents by promoting job preparation, work and marriage
# preventing out-of-wedlock pregnancies
# encouraging the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.
[/quote]
Welfare is setup with block grants to states now (so the govt is still paying for it, the states are just picking who), but I had thought there was a distinction. I am going to read more, but that was what I thought before the link was posted too.