Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
still just me wrote:
> ...hypocritical anti-abortion, pro death > penalty folks?... That's hypocritical because...? Turning the tables on you, would you not, by your logic, be hypocritical if you are in favor of abortion but you are against my being able to walk up to some random person on the street and just blow them away. I mean - come on - in one case you are in favor of killing, in the other you are against it. Sounds hypocritical to me (by your logic). "...hypocritical anti-random-person blowing away, pro abortion folks..." Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') |
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
still just me wrote:
> > First, your figures are suspect. Current estimates are that 1 million > abortions performed per year. If your simply taking the number of > abortions performed *today* and multiplying it time the years since > Rowe v. Wade, there's a problem: the number of abortions performed in > 1973 was not anywhere near the same level. Gotcha!!! Your more interested in the "figures" than the murder of unborn babies. Second of all, why do you post your drivel in these autos newsgroups -- you come on like you have something to say remotely related to these newsgroups -- then you bring up Bush or Cheney. There are newsgroups for people that want to discuss what you want to talk about -- they are the alt.politics newsgroups. They have thousands of posts a day. And you know what -- no one ever settles anything -- it just goes on and on and on and on. So lets get back to the real subject of these newsgroups, huh? |
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
Bill Putney wrote:
> still just me wrote: > >> ...hypocritical anti-abortion, pro death >> penalty folks?... > > That's hypocritical because...? > > Turning the tables on you, would you not, by your logic, be hypocritical > if you are in favor of abortion but you are against my being able to > walk up to some random person on the street and just blow them away. I > mean - come on - in one case you are in favor of killing, in the other > you are against it. Sounds hypocritical to me (by your logic). > > "...hypocritical anti-random-person blowing away, pro abortion folks..." > > Bill Putney > (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my > address with the letter 'x') And how did we get "blowing them away" into it? All I inferred from this is how liberals got the Constitution interpreted for that day -- hence "The Constitution of the Day". <sigh> |
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
"Jim" wrote:
Why do you post your drivel in these autos newsgroups? (You're) more interested the "figures" than the murder of unborn babies. The alt.politics newsgroups are for people to discuss what you want to talk about. They have thousands of posts a day, and no one ever settles anything -- it just goes on and on and on and on. So lets get back to the real subject of these newsgroups, huh? __________________________________________________ ________ Why do you post your drivel in these autos newsgroups? You're more interested in promoting your religious indoctrination by redefining legal abortions as murder. Religion newsgroups are for people to discuss what you want to talk about. They have thousands of posts a day, and no one ever settles anything -- it just goes on and on and on and on. So lets get back to the real subject of these newsgroups, huh? Rodan. |
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
On 2008-06-08, still just me <wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 00:14:08 -0500, Joe <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo.com> > wrote: > >>> "The solution to any problem is NEVER more taxes." >>> >>> This is the silly statement to which I responded. It isn't over my head. >> >>Clearly, it is... > > Someone call George Bush I and let him know about this ('cause he's > the one that recognized that Reagan's excesses could only be paid down > with new taxes...) > > Notice that Bush II decided to follow Reagan's path of record setting > deficits - thereby insuring that his successor will have to do what > his Dad did to pay down more record deficits. > > Again, I never said that I was against taxes. I said I was against punitive taxes. Taxation is a necessity in today's society, but taxes are for the raising of revenue, not for the control of the sheep. It is especially evident when you look at the people that punitive taxation affects the most. Liberals like the idea of controlling the masses through taxation. They also claim to want to hurt the rich and help the poor. But then, punitive taxation always affects the poor far worse than anyone with money. Higher gas taxes, cigarette taxes, alcohol taxes, junk food taxes, etc. The people that have the money will buy what they want, the poor get hurt the most. Yet the left claims to have the backs of the poor... In order to correct the serious defecits, major changes are needed. We need to reduce spending, much of which can be done through the dissoltion of several programs that are not constitutionally justifiable. On the other side, fair taxation throughout the populace will quickly increase revenues, and further help to reduce spending by helping to seriously pare down the albatross known as the IRS. I have no problem with taxation. I have a problem with social engineering and the law of unintended consequences... -- Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733 joe at hits - buffalo dot com "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the time..." - Danny, American History X |
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
Joe wrote:
> It is especially evident when you look at the people that punitive > taxation affects the most. Liberals like the idea of controlling the > masses through taxation. They also claim to want to hurt the rich and > help the poor. But then, punitive taxation always affects the poor > far worse than anyone with money. Higher gas taxes, cigarette taxes, > alcohol taxes, junk food taxes, etc. The people that have the money > will buy what they want, the poor get hurt the most. Yet the left > claims to have the backs of the poor... That's where Reagan, W, and the neo-cons really did a job on the middle class and the poor. They reduced progressive income taxes, benefiting mainly the wealthy, and the shortfall in revenue was made up with a combination of regressive taxes (the ones you mentioned), increased user fees at places like national parks, and huge deficits. Reduced revenue to state and local governments was similarly made up with tax and fee increases, which were regressive. If the horribly mis-named "fair-tax" ever came to pass, you'd see another huge round of tax increases on goods and services as governments struggled to make up the shortfall. What's especially sad about all this is that no one was screaming for more tax cuts, it was just political expediency by W, without looking at the big picture that got us into this mess. A tiny middle class tax cut that was more than offset by increases in other taxes and fees was no bargain. At least Bush Sr. clearly understood that Reaganomics was bogus, but now it's become a mantra for the neo-cons to claim that Reagan's tax cuts were beneficial to the economy, when all evidence is to the contrary. |
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
Better check you facts concerning the latest tax RATE cuts under Bush if
that is what you believe. Like the previous tax RATE cuts under Presidents Kennedy and Reagan, income to the US treasury. Before the Kennedy tax RATE cuts the marginal tax RATE was a staggering economy killing 90%. Even the budget deficit is not out of line, in time of war, as a percentage of GNP. The budget was out of balance far worse in ALL previous war, with WWII being the worse. When FDR was asked about the huge annual deficits because of the war he said, when ones house in on fire they do not worry about the water bill The rate cuts benefitted those at the bottom FAR more than those at the top. Millions of working poor were removed from the tax roles and many others had their tax rate REDUCED by 50%. The reduction in the long term capital gains tax RATE benefit many of the working poor and middle class as well, by greatly increasing their return on the stock they owned or they benefited via their various insurance policies, their pension plans, be they defined or 401s, and also the cost of supporting public employee pension plans with their taxes. States even benefited because of the extra taxes collected on the extra money spent by taxpayers in the various states The Dims have been fostering that big lie for seven years, the truth is quite the opposite. Sure those at the top saved more dollars but only because the pay more dollars at their progressively higher tax RATE. The fact is those at the top now pay a HIGHER percentage of all the federal income taxes paid to the US treasury. Since the Bush tax cuts fully 49% of American families do not pay a penny in federal income taxes and 34% of those that do have taxes withheld received a full return of their taxes paid, in ADDITIONAL they receive a greater amount in the form of the income tax credit to help pay their FICA. What we should be concerned about is why in the average workingman is now in the 28% tax bracket when up until the early eighties he was only in the 15% bracket? Guess who controlled the Congress when that happened? "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> rote in message news:flT3k ..1118$LG4.380@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com... > Joe wrote: > >> It is especially evident when you look at the people that punitive >> taxation affects the most. Liberals like the idea of controlling the >> masses through taxation. They also claim to want to hurt the rich and >> help the poor. But then, punitive taxation always affects the poor >> far worse than anyone with money. Higher gas taxes, cigarette taxes, >> alcohol taxes, junk food taxes, etc. The people that have the money >> will buy what they want, the poor get hurt the most. Yet the left >> claims to have the backs of the poor... > > That's where Reagan, W, and the neo-cons really did a job on the middle > class and the poor. They reduced progressive income taxes, benefiting > mainly the wealthy, and the shortfall in revenue was made up with a > combination of regressive taxes (the ones you mentioned), increased user > fees at places like national parks, and huge deficits. Reduced revenue to > state and local governments was similarly made up with tax and fee > increases, which were regressive. If the horribly mis-named "fair-tax" > ever came to pass, you'd see another huge round of tax increases on goods > and services as governments struggled to make up the shortfall. > > What's especially sad about all this is that no one was screaming for more > tax cuts, it was just political expediency by W, without looking at the > big picture that got us into this mess. A tiny middle class tax cut that > was more than offset by increases in other taxes and fees was no bargain. > > At least Bush Sr. clearly understood that Reaganomics was bogus, but now > it's become a mantra for the neo-cons to claim that Reagan's tax cuts were > beneficial to the economy, when all evidence is to the contrary. |
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
Mike hunt wrote: > Better check you facts Mike telling us to check the facts is like Rush Limbaugh warning us against oxycontin use. > The rate cuts benefitted those at the bottom FAR more than those at the top. Untrue, the proof being the worsening of income disparities between the top and bottom. Dumbass. |
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:flT3k.1118$LG4.380
@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com: > Joe wrote: > >> It is especially evident when you look at the people that punitive >> taxation affects the most. Liberals like the idea of controlling the >> masses through taxation. They also claim to want to hurt the rich and >> help the poor. But then, punitive taxation always affects the poor >> far worse than anyone with money. Higher gas taxes, cigarette taxes, >> alcohol taxes, junk food taxes, etc. The people that have the money >> will buy what they want, the poor get hurt the most. Yet the left >> claims to have the backs of the poor... > > That's where Reagan, W, and the neo-cons really did a job on the middle > class and the poor. They reduced progressive income taxes, benefiting > mainly the wealthy, and the shortfall in revenue was made up with a > combination of regressive taxes (the ones you mentioned), increased user > fees at places like national parks, and huge deficits. Reduced revenue > to state and local governments was similarly made up with tax and fee > increases, which were regressive. If the horribly mis-named "fair- tax" > ever came to pass, you'd see another huge round of tax increases on > goods and services as governments struggled to make up the shortfall. > > What's especially sad about all this is that no one was screaming for > more tax cuts, it was just political expediency by W, without looking at > the big picture that got us into this mess. A tiny middle class tax cut > that was more than offset by increases in other taxes and fees was no > bargain. > > At least Bush Sr. clearly understood that Reaganomics was bogus, but now > it's become a mantra for the neo-cons to claim that Reagan's tax cuts > were beneficial to the economy, when all evidence is to the contrary. The biggest problem with your thinking is it is based on incorect facts. The total amount of SPENDING has NEVER been lowered. The tax rate cuts or actuall cuts mean nothing because the actual spending was never cut, soooo they HAD to increase anywhere they could. There were never any actual cuts, only tax shifts to different areas of fees ect that don`t show up as taxes. This has only accelerated in the past years. EVERYONES actual taxes are up a bunch because there are never any spending cuts, just reductions in the increases. KB -- THUNDERSNAKE #9 Protect your rights or "Lose" them The 2nd Admendment guarantees the others |
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
Are you really that stupid? LOL
<beerspill@whoever.com> wrote in message news:eb076bdc-45e3-4105-9ab8-a51aaad23e7f@w8g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > > > > Mike hunt wrote: > >> Better check you facts > > Mike telling us to check the facts is like Rush Limbaugh warning us > against oxycontin use. > >> The rate cuts benefitted those at the bottom FAR more than those at the >> top. > > Untrue, the proof being the worsening of income disparities between > the top and bottom. > > Dumbass. |
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
Joe wrote:
> On 2008-06-08, still just me <wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 00:14:08 -0500, Joe <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo.com> >> wrote: >> >>>> "The solution to any problem is NEVER more taxes." >>>> >>>> This is the silly statement to which I responded. It isn't over my head. >>> Clearly, it is... >> Someone call George Bush I and let him know about this ('cause he's >> the one that recognized that Reagan's excesses could only be paid down >> with new taxes...) >> >> Notice that Bush II decided to follow Reagan's path of record setting >> deficits - thereby insuring that his successor will have to do what >> his Dad did to pay down more record deficits. >> >> > > Again, I never said that I was against taxes. I said I was against > punitive taxes. Taxation is a necessity in today's society, but taxes > are for the raising of revenue, not for the control of the sheep. > > It is especially evident when you look at the people that punitive > taxation affects the most. Liberals like the idea of controlling the > masses through taxation. They also claim to want to hurt the rich and > help the poor. But then, punitive taxation always affects the poor > far worse than anyone with money. Higher gas taxes, cigarette taxes, > alcohol taxes, junk food taxes, etc. The people that have the money > will buy what they want, the poor get hurt the most. Yet the left > claims to have the backs of the poor... Do you recall the "luxury" tax that was put on yachts - I think during the Carter admin? The damage that that did to the economy in New England was awful, and it hurt everyone, not just the rich that were the intended targets - they simply quit buying yachts - no skin off their teeth, so the little guys got laid off, and had to live off of the state for a while, not to mention the cost of those businesses going bankrupt. Talk about your so-called unintended consequences (though if liberals had more than half a brain they could anticipate much of the damage that they cause by such stupid acts created to punish). Rather than a gain in tax revenues to those states, there was a huge net loss. Duh!! And some people here say we don't know enough about Marxism to use the word to describe some modern-day candidates! B.S. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') |
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
On 2008-06-11, Bill Putney <bptn@kinez.net> wrote:
> Do you recall the "luxury" tax that was put on yachts - I think during > the Carter admin? The damage that that did to the economy in New > England was awful, and it hurt everyone, not just the rich that were the > intended targets - they simply quit buying yachts - no skin off their > teeth, so the little guys got laid off, and had to live off of the state > for a while, not to mention the cost of those businesses going bankrupt. > Talk about your so-called unintended consequences (though if liberals > had more than half a brain they could anticipate much of the damage that > they cause by such stupid acts created to punish). Rather than a gain > in tax revenues to those states, there was a huge net loss. Duh!! > > And some people here say we don't know enough about Marxism to use the > word to describe some modern-day candidates! B.S. It was under Clinton, during his 2 year reign with Dems in control of Congress... Completely decimated an entire industry, and eliminated those middle class jobs... Smooth Move... -- Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733 joe at hits - buffalo dot com "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the time..." - Danny, American History X |
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 09:43:26 -0400, "Topp@Work" <topprolmc@comcast.net>
wrote: > >"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message >news:qfX1k.3635$ZE5.2357@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com.. . > >> Every licensed non-commercial driver with a vehicle registered in their >> name gets the credit for one vehicle. Maybe a $5/gallon tax, with a >> $5/gallon tax credit for 365 gallons a year, i.e. an $1825 tax credit. >> Use less than 365 gallons a year and you're ahead of the game. Use more, >> well it's up to you to commute solo in an SUV, or to drive the kids >> around in a minivan, or to live 50 miles from work. > >I use 365 gallons a month, just for work and groceries... > >You are a friggin Communist Tyrant LOL, you're the one supporting Saudi Arabia. |
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 15:14:46 -0400, "Mike hunt" <mikehunt22@lycos.com>
wrote: >Better check you facts concerning the latest tax RATE cuts under Bush if >that is what you believe. Like the previous tax RATE cuts under Presidents >Kennedy and Reagan, income to the US treasury. Before the Kennedy tax RATE >cuts the marginal tax RATE was a staggering economy killing 90%. Yeah, the economy really sucked in the 1950s. > Even the >budget deficit is not out of line, in time of war, as a percentage of GNP. Really! Great, let's start another one so we can justify another trillion in debt. >The budget was out of balance far worse in ALL previous war, with WWII being >the worse. When FDR was asked about the huge annual deficits because of the >war he said, when ones house in on fire they do not worry about the water >bill Iraq vs. WWII. Yeah, I guess the only difference there was the party of the Commander and Chief. >The rate cuts benefitted those at the bottom FAR more than those at the top. The people at the bottom got nothing because they didn't earn enough to pay taxes. (Except for FICA, Medicare, State income tax, sales tax, etc.) >Millions of working poor were removed from the tax roles and many others had >their tax rate REDUCED by 50%. Those people weren't paying much Federal income tax to start with. They pay far more in the above taxes which are mostly regressive. > The reduction in the long term capital gains >tax RATE benefit many of the working poor and middle class as well, by >greatly increasing their return on the stock they owned or they benefited >via their various insurance policies, their pension plans, be they defined >or 401s, and also the cost of supporting public employee pension plans with >their taxes. So it really helps poor and middle class people with lots of assets? BTW, you are totally wrong (what a surprise) with regards to the 401Ks and a lot of the other items above which are not taxed at the capital gains rate. 401K profits are taxed as regular income when you withdraw them. > States even benefited because of the extra taxes collected on >the extra money spent by taxpayers in the various states > >The Dims have been fostering that big lie for seven years, the truth is >quite the opposite. Sure those at the top saved more dollars but only >because the pay more dollars at their progressively higher tax RATE. The >fact is those at the top now pay a HIGHER percentage of all the federal >income taxes paid to the US treasury. They also have a disproportionately higher share of the total income then they used to. Meanwhile the middle class is getting the squeezed out of them, in case you haven't noticed. >Since the Bush tax cuts fully 49% of American families do not pay a penny in >federal income taxes and 34% of those that do have taxes withheld received a >full return of their taxes paid, in ADDITIONAL they receive a greater amount >in the form of the income tax credit to help pay their FICA. Never heard of that. The only FICA credit I could find on a Google search was a credit to restaurant owners who pay FICA contributions on tips. >What we should be concerned about is why in the average workingman is now in >the 28% tax bracket when up until the early eighties he was only in the 15% >bracket? Guess who controlled the Congress when that happened? Guess who controlled Congress when the "Reagan" tax cuts were enacted? The last time the tax rates were adjusted, it was the Republicans in Congress. >"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> rote in message news:flT3k > > > >.1118$LG4.380@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com... > >> Joe wrote: >> >>> It is especially evident when you look at the people that punitive >>> taxation affects the most. Liberals like the idea of controlling the >>> masses through taxation. They also claim to want to hurt the rich and >>> help the poor. But then, punitive taxation always affects the poor >>> far worse than anyone with money. Higher gas taxes, cigarette taxes, >>> alcohol taxes, junk food taxes, etc. The people that have the money >>> will buy what they want, the poor get hurt the most. Yet the left >>> claims to have the backs of the poor... >> >> That's where Reagan, W, and the neo-cons really did a job on the middle >> class and the poor. They reduced progressive income taxes, benefiting >> mainly the wealthy, and the shortfall in revenue was made up with a >> combination of regressive taxes (the ones you mentioned), increased user >> fees at places like national parks, and huge deficits. Reduced revenue to >> state and local governments was similarly made up with tax and fee >> increases, which were regressive. If the horribly mis-named "fair-tax" >> ever came to pass, you'd see another huge round of tax increases on goods >> and services as governments struggled to make up the shortfall. >> >> What's especially sad about all this is that no one was screaming for more >> tax cuts, it was just political expediency by W, without looking at the >> big picture that got us into this mess. A tiny middle class tax cut that >> was more than offset by increases in other taxes and fees was no bargain. >> >> At least Bush Sr. clearly understood that Reaganomics was bogus, but now >> it's become a mantra for the neo-cons to claim that Reagan's tax cuts were >> beneficial to the economy, when all evidence is to the contrary. > |
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
Joe wrote:
> On 2008-06-08, still just me <wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 00:14:08 -0500, Joe <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo.com> >> wrote: >> >>>> "The solution to any problem is NEVER more taxes." >>>> >>>> This is the silly statement to which I responded. It isn't over my head. >>> Clearly, it is... >> Someone call George Bush I and let him know about this ('cause he's >> the one that recognized that Reagan's excesses could only be paid down >> with new taxes...) >> >> Notice that Bush II decided to follow Reagan's path of record setting >> deficits - thereby insuring that his successor will have to do what >> his Dad did to pay down more record deficits. >> >> > > Again, I never said that I was against taxes. I said I was against > punitive taxes. <snip> Actually, you said: "The solution to any problem is NEVER more taxes." |
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
On 2008-06-12, Gib Bogle <bogle@ihug.too.much.spam.co.nz> wrote:
> Joe wrote: >> On 2008-06-08, still just me <wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 00:14:08 -0500, Joe <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>> "The solution to any problem is NEVER more taxes." >>>>> >>>>> This is the silly statement to which I responded. It isn't over my head. >>>> Clearly, it is... >>> Someone call George Bush I and let him know about this ('cause he's >>> the one that recognized that Reagan's excesses could only be paid down >>> with new taxes...) >>> >>> Notice that Bush II decided to follow Reagan's path of record setting >>> deficits - thereby insuring that his successor will have to do what >>> his Dad did to pay down more record deficits. >>> >>> >> >> Again, I never said that I was against taxes. I said I was against >> punitive taxes. <snip> > > Actually, you said: "The solution to any problem is NEVER more taxes." Right. We already have plenty as it is. Get a dictionary. Look up "More". I'll wait for you. -- Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733 joe at hits - buffalo dot com "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the time..." - Danny, American History X |
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 05:46:21 -0500, Joe <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo.com>
wrote: >On 2008-06-12, Gib Bogle <bogle@ihug.too.much.spam.co.nz> wrote: >> Joe wrote: >>> On 2008-06-08, still just me <wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 00:14:08 -0500, Joe <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> "The solution to any problem is NEVER more taxes." >>>>>> >>>>>> This is the silly statement to which I responded. It isn't over my head. >>>>> Clearly, it is... >>>> Someone call George Bush I and let him know about this ('cause he's >>>> the one that recognized that Reagan's excesses could only be paid down >>>> with new taxes...) >>>> >>>> Notice that Bush II decided to follow Reagan's path of record setting >>>> deficits - thereby insuring that his successor will have to do what >>>> his Dad did to pay down more record deficits. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Again, I never said that I was against taxes. I said I was against >>> punitive taxes. <snip> >> >> Actually, you said: "The solution to any problem is NEVER more taxes." > >Right. We already have plenty as it is. Get a dictionary. Look up >"More". I'll wait for you. Maybe we should stop sending troops all over the world to protect the investments of the wealthy. Since we spend more on offense than the rest of the world combined, spending less would mean lower taxes. The rich can go protect their investments themselves, using their kids. |
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
dgk wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 05:46:21 -0500, Joe <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo.com> > wrote: > >> On 2008-06-12, Gib Bogle <bogle@ihug.too.much.spam.co.nz> wrote: >>> Joe wrote: >>>> On 2008-06-08, still just me <wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 00:14:08 -0500, Joe <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> "The solution to any problem is NEVER more taxes." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is the silly statement to which I responded. It isn't over my head. >>>>>> Clearly, it is... >>>>> Someone call George Bush I and let him know about this ('cause he's >>>>> the one that recognized that Reagan's excesses could only be paid down >>>>> with new taxes...) >>>>> >>>>> Notice that Bush II decided to follow Reagan's path of record setting >>>>> deficits - thereby insuring that his successor will have to do what >>>>> his Dad did to pay down more record deficits. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Again, I never said that I was against taxes. I said I was against >>>> punitive taxes. <snip> >>> Actually, you said: "The solution to any problem is NEVER more taxes." >> Right. We already have plenty as it is. Get a dictionary. Look up >> "More". I'll wait for you. > > Maybe we should stop sending troops all over the world to protect the > investments of the wealthy. Since we spend more on offense than the > rest of the world combined, spending less would mean lower taxes. The > rich can go protect their investments themselves, using their kids. Investments of the wealthy??!!??!! ROTFLMAO. Yeah, wealthy, if you consider living in the U.S. wealthy. I think you need to do a little homework. The $$ cost of the wars we're fighting is insignificant compared to the cost of entitlement programs, Medicare and Social Security. Entitlement programs cost hundreds of times that of funding the war. Want to reduce taxes? Start by eliminating some of the entitlement programs. It makes sense to eliminate as much taxation as possible, then to start cutting the entitlement programs to match the tax cuts. Then start cutting again and eliminating programs again. Repeat. Tax revenues will actually increase due to the economic stimulii tax cuts produce. The current tax structure places a heavy and uncompetitive burden on businesses. They have trouble competing globally unless the dollar is weak. The current weak dollar makes U.S. business competitive globally by lowering the cost of their merchandise and/or services. But from your post, you would not seem to have any clue about economics. |
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
Peaceful Bill wrote:
> It makes sense to eliminate as much taxation as possible, then to start > cutting the entitlement programs to match the tax cuts. Then start > cutting again and eliminating programs again. Repeat. Tax revenues > will actually increase due to the economic stimulii tax cuts produce. You've fallen for the big con. The cut of the top rate from 70% down to 28%, by Reagan, did stimulate the economy, but it was too far of a cut and Reagan eventually raised taxes, as did Bush Sr, and Clinton. The result was an eventual balancing of the budget during the Clinton administration. Bush Sr. can blame his very minor tax increase on his loss in 1992. Just how low do you think taxes should be cut? Do you believe that there a lower limit where they no longer produce any stimulus? Or do you believe, along with the neo-cons, that bankrupting the country through massive deficit spending is the preferred path to take. I suggest you read _THE BIG CON_ The True Story of How Washington Got Hoodwinked and Hijacked by Crackpot Economics, by Jonathan Chait. |
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 08:22:08 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote: >You've fallen for the big con. > >The cut of the top rate from 70% down to 28%, by Reagan, did stimulate >the economy, but it was too far of a cut and Reagan eventually raised >taxes, as did Bush Sr, and Clinton. The result was an eventual balancing >of the budget during the Clinton administration. Bush Sr. can blame his >very minor tax increase on his loss in 1992. >Just how low do you think taxes should be cut? Do you believe that there >a lower limit where they no longer produce any stimulus? Or do you >believe, along with the neo-cons, that bankrupting the country through >massive deficit spending is the preferred path to take. Silly boy. Don't you know that Reagan and Bush II were _forced_ into the massive, record setting, deficit spending by the Democrats? Just check the RNC blogs and talk shows - it's all there. >I suggest you read _THE BIG CON_ The True Story of How Washington Got >Hoodwinked and Hijacked by Crackpot Economics, by Jonathan Chait. I'd disagree that it's "crackpot economics" but the "con" is massive. There's a clear group of powerful neo-cons at/influencing the RNC/party who clearly know there's nothing to their alleged economic "theories". They're smart people, they can read statistics. But, they put hold up a good front and have the most remarkable marketing and sales team ever. Their only goal is to put more money in their already fat robber-baron like pockets through massive government spending economically directed to them and through tax and regulatory policies designed to put billions into their pockets (not ours). They don't give two hoots about the USA and will sell the country out in a NY second if it benefits them personally (examples available). Meanwhile, their marketeers and sales staff cleverly sell these tax cuts as benefitting the small guy (they do, but in a very small relative way). They also sell to various other causes & crowds through alleged social and patriotic goals, none of which are really important to them as long as they can fill their pockets fuller. Note how they are willing to sell out any principle (patriotism, liberty, conservatism, loyalty, honesty, etc, etc) if it will make more money from them. But, unfortunately most people don't read and certainly aren't clever enough to read between the lines. Not to mention, the Democrats are hardly a viable alternative to the neo-consfor most folks - being beleaguered by well meaning, but often mis-guided, ideological goals at the expense of pragmatism (at least they're sincere though :-) |
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
In message news:wbb4k.7598$uE5.3573@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> burned some brain cells writing: > Bush Sr. can blame his > very minor tax increase on his loss in 1992. You mean "for his loss". > Just how low do you think taxes should be cut? This is a two-part question. First the national debt must be paid off. In order to do that you can either raise taxes or cut spending. Since it has been established that raising taxes is detrimental to the economy, spending cuts are the way to go. Spending cuts also make it easier to accomplish the post-national-debt-payoff phase: eliminating the income tax completely. > Do you believe that there > a lower limit where they no longer produce any stimulus? No. Elimination of the income tax would be the best thing that could be done to stimulate the economy, and it would result in revenue to the government equivalent to 1999 levels. > Or do you > believe, along with the neo-cons, that bankrupting the country through > massive deficit spending is the preferred path to take. Your argument seems to lean on guilt-by-association (the "neo-con" reference) rather than stand on its own strength. I reject deficit spending in its totality, and demand immediate, deep, across-the-board spending cuts to bring the budget to balance NOW. |
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
SMS wrote:
> Peaceful Bill wrote: > >> It makes sense to eliminate as much taxation as possible, then to >> start cutting the entitlement programs to match the tax cuts. Then >> start cutting again and eliminating programs again. Repeat. Tax >> revenues will actually increase due to the economic stimulii tax cuts >> produce. > > You've fallen for the big con. > > The cut of the top rate from 70% down to 28%, by Reagan, did stimulate > the economy, but it was too far of a cut and Reagan eventually raised > taxes, as did Bush Sr, and Clinton. The result was an eventual balancing > of the budget during the Clinton administration. Bush Sr. can blame his > very minor tax increase on his loss in 1992. > > Just how low do you think taxes should be cut? Do you believe that there > a lower limit where they no longer produce any stimulus? Or do you > believe, along with the neo-cons, that bankrupting the country through > massive deficit spending is the preferred path to take. > > I suggest you read _THE BIG CON_ The True Story of How Washington Got > Hoodwinked and Hijacked by Crackpot Economics, by Jonathan Chait. You should consider real-world economics and not be fooled by those more in favor of income redistribution. You might even consider taking a real college economics class once you graduate from high school in a few years. |
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
Klark Kent wrote:
> In message news:wbb4k.7598$uE5.3573@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com, SMS > <scharf.steven@geemail.com> burned some brain cells writing: > >> Bush Sr. can blame his >> very minor tax increase on his loss in 1992. > > You mean "for his loss". > >> Just how low do you think taxes should be cut? > > This is a two-part question. First the national debt must be paid off. In > order to do that you can either raise taxes or cut spending. Since it has > been established that raising taxes is detrimental to the economy, spending > cuts are the way to go. Spending cuts also make it easier to accomplish > the post-national-debt-payoff phase: eliminating the income tax completely. > >> Do you believe that there >> a lower limit where they no longer produce any stimulus? > > No. Elimination of the income tax would be the best thing that could be > done to stimulate the economy, and it would result in revenue to the > government equivalent to 1999 levels. > >> Or do you >> believe, along with the neo-cons, that bankrupting the country through >> massive deficit spending is the preferred path to take. > > Your argument seems to lean on guilt-by-association (the "neo-con" > reference) rather than stand on its own strength. I reject deficit > spending in its totality, and demand immediate, deep, across-the-board > spending cuts to bring the budget to balance NOW. FINALLY someone who understands economics. |
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
SMS wrote:
> ...Or do you > believe, along with the neo-cons, that bankrupting the country through > massive deficit spending is the preferred path to take. Why yes - we believe that bankrupting the country is the answer. LOL! Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') |
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
Bill Putney wrote:
> SMS wrote: > >> ...Or do you believe, along with the neo-cons, that bankrupting the >> country through massive deficit spending is the preferred path to take. > > Why yes - we believe that bankrupting the country is the answer. Please vote for more Republicans if you like uncontrolled spending without the revenue to fund it. |
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
On 2008-06-12, dgk <dgk@somewhere.com> wrote:
> Maybe we should stop sending troops all over the world to protect the > investments of the wealthy. Since we spend more on offense than the > rest of the world combined, spending less would mean lower taxes. The > rich can go protect their investments themselves, using their kids. I am all for investigating any way to decrease spending. In most cases, these nasty little wars are more of a defense than an offense, though. Let's face facts, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are doing a great job in keeping the bulk of the community tied up. When those actions are done, you will see a marked increase in Islamic terrorism in North America. Most of the public justification for the war was plain bullshit, and I am not sure that the war is justified even if I'm right, but it makes sense to call it for what it is... And while National Defense (or Offense if we're to use your words) is quite expensive, it is at least a constitutional role of the Federal government, while many of the things they are spending gobs of OUR money on are absolutely NOT. -- Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733 joe at hits - buffalo dot com "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the time..." - Danny, American History X |
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
Bill Putney wrote: > >Do you recall the "luxury" tax that was put on yachts - I think during >the Carter admin? > Untrue, because when the last federal luxury tax was in effect, Cadillac had economist Alfred Laffer perform in a commercial where he said Cadillacs were exempt from the tax, and Laffer was not a celebrity during the Carter years. This occurred when Bush I was President. |
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
SMS wrote: >Peaceful Bill wrote: > >>It makes sense to eliminate as much taxation as possible, then to start >>cutting the entitlement programs to match the tax cuts. Then start >>cutting again and eliminating programs again. Repeat. Tax revenues >>will actually increase due to the economic stimulii tax cuts produce. > >You've fallen for the big con. > >The cut of the top rate from 70% down to 28%, by Reagan, did stimulate >the economy, but it was too far of a cut and Reagan eventually raised >taxes, as did Bush Sr, and Clinton. The result was an eventual balancing >of the budget during the Clinton administration. Bush Sr. can blame his >very minor tax increase on his loss in 1992. > The Reagan tax cut dropped the top rate to 50%, but in reality few of the wealthy paid even that much when the top was 70%, or even 90%, as it was in the 1950s, thanks to wasteful tax shelters. The top rate was cut to 28% during the second Reagan term, as part of a tax reform plan that also eliminated any tax advantages for capital gains. On a percentage basis, Reagan raised taxes as much as Clinton did. |
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
SMS wrote:
> Bill Putney wrote: >> SMS wrote: >> >>> ...Or do you believe, along with the neo-cons, that bankrupting the >>> country through massive deficit spending is the preferred path to take. >> >> Why yes - we believe that bankrupting the country is the answer. > > Please vote for more Republicans if you like uncontrolled spending > without the revenue to fund it. Sorry, that argument doesn't fly. The Dems are in control of both houses. They are responsible for the budget. |
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
Joe wrote:
> On 2008-06-12, Gib Bogle <bogle@ihug.too.much.spam.co.nz> wrote: >> Joe wrote: >>> On 2008-06-08, still just me <wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 00:14:08 -0500, Joe <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> "The solution to any problem is NEVER more taxes." >>>>>> >>>>>> This is the silly statement to which I responded. It isn't over my head. >>>>> Clearly, it is... >>>> Someone call George Bush I and let him know about this ('cause he's >>>> the one that recognized that Reagan's excesses could only be paid down >>>> with new taxes...) >>>> >>>> Notice that Bush II decided to follow Reagan's path of record setting >>>> deficits - thereby insuring that his successor will have to do what >>>> his Dad did to pay down more record deficits. >>>> >>>> >>> Again, I never said that I was against taxes. I said I was against >>> punitive taxes. <snip> >> Actually, you said: "The solution to any problem is NEVER more taxes." > > Right. We already have plenty as it is. Get a dictionary. Look up > "More". I'll wait for you. "We"? Who is that? The internet is accessible to the whole world, you know. |
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
rantonrave@mail.com wrote:
> > Bill Putney wrote: >> Do you recall the "luxury" tax that was put on yachts - I think during >> the Carter admin? >> > Untrue, because when the last federal luxury tax was in effect, > Cadillac had economist Alfred Laffer perform in a commercial where he > said Cadillacs were exempt from the tax, and Laffer was not a > celebrity during the Carter years. This occurred when Bush I was > President. According to Joe, it was during Clinton. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') |
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
Better do a search of the Congressional Record, if that is what you believe.
When you do you will discover it is the Dims who are the ones trying to pass higher spending bills. That has been the primary reason for his many recent vetoes "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message news:VWh4k.13693$co7.2922@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com... > Bill Putney wrote: >> SMS wrote: >> >>> ...Or do you believe, along with the neo-cons, that bankrupting the >>> country through massive deficit spending is the preferred path to take. >> >> Why yes - we believe that bankrupting the country is the answer. > > Please vote for more Republicans if you like uncontrolled spending without > the revenue to fund it. |
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
The luxury tax was on items that sold above $40,000 and it was passed by the
DIMS <rantonrave@mail.com> wrote in message news:9625b9a8-df0c-43d3-bbdd-6d7d9ecdc53b@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > > Bill Putney wrote: >> >>Do you recall the "luxury" tax that was put on yachts - I think during >>the Carter admin? >> > Untrue, because when the last federal luxury tax was in effect, > Cadillac had economist Alfred Laffer perform in a commercial where he > said Cadillacs were exempt from the tax, and Laffer was not a > celebrity during the Carter years. This occurred when Bush I was > President. |
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
Your source is?
<rantonrave@mail.com> wrote in message news:52a96e70-44d0-4b65-bd40-2299b3104434@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > > SMS wrote: >>Peaceful Bill wrote: >> >>>It makes sense to eliminate as much taxation as possible, then to start >>>cutting the entitlement programs to match the tax cuts. Then start >>>cutting again and eliminating programs again. Repeat. Tax revenues >>>will actually increase due to the economic stimulii tax cuts produce. >> >>You've fallen for the big con. >> >>The cut of the top rate from 70% down to 28%, by Reagan, did stimulate >>the economy, but it was too far of a cut and Reagan eventually raised >>taxes, as did Bush Sr, and Clinton. The result was an eventual balancing >>of the budget during the Clinton administration. Bush Sr. can blame his >>very minor tax increase on his loss in 1992. >> > The Reagan tax cut dropped the top rate to 50%, but in reality few of > the wealthy paid even that much when the top was 70%, or even 90%, as > it was in the 1950s, thanks to wasteful tax shelters. The top rate > was cut to 28% during the second Reagan term, as part of a tax reform > plan that also eliminated any tax advantages for capital gains. On a > percentage basis, Reagan raised taxes as much as Clinton did. > |
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
Klark Kent wrote: > In message news:wbb4k.7598$uE5.3573@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com, SMS > <scharf.steven@geemail.com> burned some brain cells writing: > > Just how low do you think taxes should be cut? > > This is a two-part question. First the national debt must be paid off. The national debt never has to be paid off, but it probably is desirable to have it be a much lower proportion of the GDP than it is now (roughly 60%, or double what it was before the Reagan revolution). Interest on the national debt is a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich and currently amounts to roughly (very roughly) $1,000 a person annually. Lowering the debt/GDP ratio will allow for interest rates to be lower, and that can't be bad for consumers and business. > In order to do that you can either raise taxes or cut spending. Since > it has been established that raising taxes is detrimental to the economy, > spending cuts are the way to go. It has not been established that raising taxes is always or even usually detrimental to the economy. > Spending cuts also make it easier to accomplish the > post-national-debt-payoff phase: eliminating the income tax completely. Spending cuts are difficult because powerful politicians are behind spending, especially the most wasteful spending. Also taxes can be hard to cut without incurring deficits. > > Do you believe that there a lower limit where they no longer produce any stimulus? > > No. Elimination of the income tax would be the best thing that could be > done to stimulate the economy, and it would result in revenue to the > government equivalent to 1999 levels. Cite proof from someone who has a good track record of forecasting revenue. Cutting taxes hasn't resulted in revenue gains unless the top marginal rate was very high or the average rate was very, very high, and neither situation exists today. Any tax cuts will have to be accompanied by some spending cuts to avoid deficits. |
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 16:02:16 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>Bill Putney wrote: >> SMS wrote: >> >>> ...Or do you believe, along with the neo-cons, that bankrupting the >>> country through massive deficit spending is the preferred path to take. >> >> Why yes - we believe that bankrupting the country is the answer. > >Please vote for more Republicans if you like uncontrolled spending >without the revenue to fund it. Or vote for the Democrats for uncontrolled spending AND taxation. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant. Speak softly and carry a loaded .45 Lifetime member; Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Web Site: www.destarr.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - |
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
Mike hunt wrote:
> Better do a search of the Congressional Record, if that is what you believe. > When you do you will discover it is the Dims who are the ones trying to pass > higher spending bills. That has been the primary reason for his many > recent vetoes > And the dimwit in the White House has vetoed how many higher spending bills? Jeff |
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
In article <aUC4k.1310$cm.406@trndny09>, Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com>
wrote: > Mike hunt wrote: > > Better do a search of the Congressional Record, if that is what you > > believe. > > When you do you will discover it is the Dims who are the ones trying to > > pass > > higher spending bills. That has been the primary reason for his many > > recent vetoes > > > > And the dimwit in the White House has vetoed how many higher spending bills? > > Jeff I say good!! Congress has passed nothing but pork. Good thing we have a president who can strike a veto pen. Thankyou GWB. -- |
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
larry moe 'n curly wrote:
> ...Spending cuts are difficult because powerful politicians are behind > spending, especially the most wasteful spending. If they Fox News runs it again, catch Chris Wallace's "Porked: Earmarks for Profit" Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') |
Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
dbu wrote:
> In article <aUC4k.1310$cm.406@trndny09>, Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> > wrote: > >> Mike hunt wrote: >>> Better do a search of the Congressional Record, if that is what you >>> believe. >>> When you do you will discover it is the Dims who are the ones trying to >>> pass >>> higher spending bills. That has been the primary reason for his many >>> recent vetoes >>> >> And the dimwit in the White House has vetoed how many higher spending bills? >> >> Jeff > > I say good!! Congress has passed nothing but pork. Good thing we have > a president who can strike a veto pen. Thankyou GWB. Thank him for what? Bush vetoed 10 bills, including two stem cell research bills, two children's health insurance bills, a US Farm bill (2008), an appropriations bills for NIH, the DOE and related programs, a water resources bill and the rest were related to the Defense Department or Intelligence activities. Two of the vetos (water-resources bill and Farm bill) were overridden by Congress. BTW, a lot of the pork that was passed by Congress includes the pork passed by both parties. Jeff |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:16 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands