OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid

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')

 

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?

 

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>

 

"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.

 

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...

 

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.

 

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" <> rote in message


..1118$...

 

Mike telling us to check the facts is like Rush Limbaugh warning us
against oxycontin use.

Untrue, the proof being the worsening of income disparities between
the top and bottom.

Dumbass.

 

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

 

Are you really that stupid? LOL

 

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')

 

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...

 

LOL, you're the one supporting Saudi Arabia.

 

Yeah, the economy really sucked in the 1950s.

Really! Great, let's start another one so we can justify another
trillion in debt.

Iraq vs. WWII. Yeah, I guess the only difference there was the party
of the Commander and Chief.

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.)

Those people weren't paying much Federal income tax to start with.
They pay far more in the above taxes which are mostly regressive.

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.

They also have a disproportionately higher share of the total income
then they used to. Meanwhile the middle class is getting the shit
squeezed out of them, in case you haven't noticed.

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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'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