Bill Putney

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')

Joe

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

Gordon McGrew

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.

Gordon McGrew

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.
>

Gib Bogle

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."

Joe

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

dgk

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.

Peaceful Bill

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.

SMS

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.

still just me

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 :-)

Klark Kent

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.

Peaceful Bill

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.

Peaceful Bill

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.

Bill Putney

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')

SMS

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.