|
| Thread: Who Are George W. Bush's Supporters? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · «PREV |
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted October 24, 2004 10:04 PM |
|
|
Fellas,
I really don't fault the man for his changing positions. No matter how you slice it though, John Kerry is going to raise taxes. In the debates he specifically said to the camera that he would not raise taxes on anyone making under $200,000/yr. I don't believe it and no one in their right man could believe this to be true. His record, flip flop or not, clearly shows his tendency to raise our taxes to support his policies. I simply don't give a damn if he didn't support this bill or that bill. This man will absolutely raise our taxes based on his record in the senate. I think he is a good american and I greatly admired his courage before the congressional comittee to testify to the war-time atrocities of Vietnam but this is clearly a man who will raise our taxes! I don't care if Bush makes sweetheart deals with large companies. He's a president who is actually lowering our taxes and strengthening the military. Many professional economists would tell that this is not possible. They would say that you can't lower the taxes and still have a strong military but George W. Bush has done it! I simply don't believe Kerry's rhetoric about $200,000.00 income families.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
TheRealDeal
Promising
Supreme Hero
Foobum* of Justice!
|
posted October 24, 2004 10:58 PM |
|
|
I love you RSF. Pure Love.
I'm danish, and i'm only 16. So there is NO WAY at all that i can vote, but as far as i have read here and there, Bush is just the better choice.
Hard to explain, since i don't know everything they support, but one thing i know is that Bush is a man of his word, now thats something that should be rewarded.
____________
*We all know the that Foobum is the class of all that is Cake.
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted October 24, 2004 11:11 PM |
|
|
There are many devices which blind most people from the reality of govermental budgeting and their taxation.
There are several problems with the American economy (including college, job placement, economic ethics, ect)which niether presidental canidate will ever address, even those which they recognize. Their projects arent directed to common welfare
Our tax dollar gives them a budget, and its instinctual that our military improved while "Bush" gave tax cuts.
____________
What are you up to
|
|
csarmi
Supreme Hero
gets back
|
|
posted October 25, 2004 01:45 AM |
|
Edited By: csarmi on 24 Oct 2004
|
Quote:
lowering our taxes and strengthening the military
Can this be in any relation with the country's debts skyrocketing? From what I collect here, there was a significant change there.
Yea, the hungarian (communist) government did about the same in the 70's and 80's. They were able to raise wages, lower taxes and spend a lot more in the same time with some magic.
Well, not with magic as it turned out in the end.
They made 20.000.000.000 dollars debt for the country in the meantime and we are still paying it. (compare that to the 40$ worth HUF people used to get per month then) It was one of the reasons of that system collapsing.
|
|
Laelth
Famous Hero
Laelth rhymes with stealth.
|
|
posted October 25, 2004 03:01 AM |
|
|
I certainly hope Kerry raises taxes. We need the money. Bush's defecit is the largest in U.S. history, and just a couple of days ago he signed a bill that gave U.S. corporations another $140 bil. tax break.
Bush is fiscally irresponsible.
-Laelth
____________
Alan P. Taylor, Attorney at Law, LLC
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted October 25, 2004 04:26 AM |
|
|
Taxes should go up at the very same time as balance = restoring the economy. No one should be paid to not make food so people have to pay more for the raw materials like grains..
Thats BS and anyone who blames one person like bush or kerry for that is part of the problem too, its the ignorance in the country likewise to all communities subjecting to ill government.
My point is, niether canidate will address the real problems.
____________
What are you up to
|
|
RedSoxFan3
Admirable
Legendary Hero
Fan of Red Sox
|
|
posted October 25, 2004 08:12 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I certainly hope Kerry raises taxes. We need the money. Bush's defecit is the largest in U.S. history, and just a couple of days ago he signed a bill that gave U.S. corporations another $140 bil. tax break.
Bush is fiscally irresponsible.
-Laelth
In the 1960s John F Kennedy lowered taxes and more revenues came into through the IRS. In the 80s, Reagan lowered taxes. Same thing happened. Bush also gave tax breaks and again more taxes came back.
You don't understand that by lowering taxes, more money goes around and so you have more revenue to tax.
Think of it like wolves eating deer. If the wolves cut back on eating deer for a bit, they will have more deer to eat in just a year or so.
Our economy would be in the snowter right now if we didn't have those tax cuts. John Kerry is gonna raise taxes on the rich and the economy is gonna go in the snowter.
Doesn't anyone remember back in the 70s when for every dollar you make over 300,000 dollars you only take home 10 percent of it?
Do you really think rich people pay taxes anyway? John Kerry paid 91,000 dollars in taxes last year when he made millions.
Rich people don't pay taxes period. There are too many loop holes in the IRS. What ends up happening is when you cut taxes on the rich and get rid of the loopholes, more money comes in. And when you cut taxes especially on the middle classes, the people who really drive the economy. This is a large group of people with a considerable amount of expendable income. Tax breaks to these people will stimulate the economy.
And when John Kerry talks about raising taxes for the rich. That's a bunch of crap. They don't pay taxes as it is anyway. Neither do corporations. They funnel tons of money out of the US as "expenses" so when they make billions of dollars one year, they don't get taxed as much as they would if they were honest and said they had made those billions of dollars.
I'm serious about this. It's the middle class that pays taxes and all those politicians know it. Why do you think George Bush made those tax cuts to those brackets specifically?
Trust me Kerry isn't going to get anymore money taxing the rich, cause they can find too many ways to get out of doing it. He's gonna raise taxes for everyone. I agree with Consis.
____________
Go Red Sox!
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 25, 2004 03:17 PM |
|
|
Hello Defreni!
Quote:
I remember when you got QPs for trying to smoothe things
over.
Did I ever do such a thing?? 
Well, I donīt really care about QPs, and whether Redsox has 28 or 29 of them . Just find it funny that Wolfboy, who thinks that foxnews is fair and balanced, and makes joke-threads about the Iraqui propaganda minister, cannot even distinguish between quality and whatīs-in-the-latest-anti-Kerry-TVspots.
And by the way, itīs not the first time that he tried to "win" an argument by editing earlier postings. What a great display of personal integrity.
-----
But letīs come to more pleasant subjects, itīs very nice to read you again here, too  . Hope you are going to stay for awhile. Iīm sorry you didnīt like the WoT books, even feel somewhat guilty because, if I remember well, they have been my recommendation?!?
I really loved books 1-6 (4-6 are the best ), but after the seventh I had the feeling that the author had lost track. The last one was so boring that Iīm not sure Iīm going to finish the series - probably Iīll wait until itīs finished and only then read it all once again.
And thanks for your tips, I promise that Iīll take a look at them when Iīm done with the next 2500 pages that are on my bed table.
By the way, if you are ever going to take advice on books from me again  , this would be my recommendation. Walter Moers is usually know for his distasteful (in the most positive sense of the word ) satiric cartoons, but after reading three of his Zamonien-books, he has actually become my favourite fiction writer.
____________
|
|
Laelth
Famous Hero
Laelth rhymes with stealth.
|
|
posted October 25, 2004 06:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You don't understand that by lowering taxes, more money goes around and so you have more revenue to tax.
Hmm ... It's not that I don't understand. I simply don't agree. I've been listening to the "supply-side economics" argument since 1980 (Ronald Reagan). Reagan ran against George H. W. Bush in the Republican primary that year. Reagan said tax cuts would generate more investment, which, in turn, would generate more jobs, which would, in turn, generate more tax revenues. George Bush Sr., on the other hand, said that Reagan's plan would create massive federal defecits. He called Reagan's plan "voodoo economics." You know what happend? Bush was right. Federal deficits soared under Reagan.
Consider this graphic produced using data from the Congressional Budget Office:
You notice deficits soaring under Reagan. Then, in 1988, Bush Sr. ran on a "no new taxes" pledge. He said, "Read my lips. No new taxes." Mercifully for us all, he lied, and in 1991 passed a tax increase that began moving the budget back into the green. Clinton added the 25 cent per gallon federal gasoline tax in 1993, and by the time Clinton left office, we had a nice surplus. As soon as George W. Bush gets into office, he passes a massive tax cut, and the numbers head south again. No net increase in jobs. Only a small net increase in investment in the U.S. No, a lot of rich people got a lot richer, and the majority of Americans are going to have to pay the bill.
Sorry. Supply-side economics is a farce. It's a lie that only serves to make the wealthiest Americans richer at the expense of the masses. We've tried it, and it failed.
Again, watching FoxNews is bad for your mind. This is the proof.
-Laelth
____________
Alan P. Taylor, Attorney at Law, LLC
|
|
Defreni
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 26, 2004 01:55 AM |
|
|
Hehee Laelth, was about to write a fairytale trying to say exactly what you just said. It would involve Mrs. Fiscalresponsible (Mrs. FR for short, same initials as my favourite president) and Mr. SpendItAll (Mr. SIA for short, not to be confused with Mr. KIA and Mr. MIA, which is something Mr. SIA knows nothing personal about).
But your graph shows just wonderfull what all economist not situated on the far right are trying to say. Tax-cuts for the highest bracket income in a society does not increase tax revenues. It didnt under Reagan, and it doesnt under Bush.
And Lews, I liked the first 3-4 books of WOT, but as you Im bored to death, especially by the last 2 installments. But nerdy as I am, Im probably going to finish the series anyway.
As to your recommendations, Im going to look at it sometime in the next decade Got a full platter as it is, reading up on my economic underdevelopment class, and trying to brush up on my general knowledge of European history.
Guess we better take this to a new thread, as its kind off off-topic
Find one of the old book recommendation threads Lews, and lets take it there. I always love to know what other people are reading.
Regards
Defreni
____________
|
|
Aquaman333
Famous Hero
of the seven seas
|
|
posted October 26, 2004 03:40 AM |
|
|
Bush will keep our taxes down while executing a well-defined economic plan to deal with post-war depression. Kerry has no plan and is soft on terrorism. Bush is the logical choice. Switching presidents during conflict is always a sign of weakness not to mention a bad idea.
____________
"Brian, look! There's a message in my Alphabits! It says,
"OOOOOOO!"."
"Peter, those are Cheerios."-Family Guy
|
|
RedSoxFan3
Admirable
Legendary Hero
Fan of Red Sox
|
|
posted October 26, 2004 05:36 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
You don't understand that by lowering taxes, more money goes around and so you have more revenue to tax.
Hmm ... It's not that I don't understand. I simply don't agree. I've been listening to the "supply-side economics" argument since 1980 (Ronald Reagan). Reagan ran against George H. W. Bush in the Republican primary that year. Reagan said tax cuts would generate more investment, which, in turn, would generate more jobs, which would, in turn, generate more tax revenues. George Bush Sr., on the other hand, said that Reagan's plan would create massive federal defecits. He called Reagan's plan "voodoo economics." You know what happend? Bush was right. Federal deficits soared under Reagan.
Consider this graphic produced using data from the Congressional Budget Office:
You notice deficits soaring under Reagan. Then, in 1988, Bush Sr. ran on a "no new taxes" pledge. He said, "Read my lips. No new taxes." Mercifully for us all, he lied, and in 1991 passed a tax increase that began moving the budget back into the green. Clinton added the 25 cent per gallon federal gasoline tax in 1993, and by the time Clinton left office, we had a nice surplus. As soon as George W. Bush gets into office, he passes a massive tax cut, and the numbers head south again. No net increase in jobs. Only a small net increase in investment in the U.S. No, a lot of rich people got a lot richer, and the majority of Americans are going to have to pay the bill.
Sorry. Supply-side economics is a farce. It's a lie that only serves to make the wealthiest Americans richer at the expense of the masses. We've tried it, and it failed.
Again, watching FoxNews is bad for your mind. This is the proof.
-Laelth
How many times does it have to be explained that spending was at an all-time high under the Reagan administration? The democratic house and senate spent too much money. Look at the gross revenues. Look at the spending. Too much spending. That's what caused the defecit.
____________
Go Red Sox!
|
|
Defreni
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 27, 2004 12:04 PM |
|
|
Yes RSF, spending under Reagan was high.
But cutting tax-revenues without cutting spendings is what?
Say it with me. Fiscally irresponsible.
It is somewhat like Mr. SIA buying a new car (Or a Star-wars project for that matter) on a credit card. But Mr. SIA is smart, he knows he cant make the payments, especially since he just gave his kids a raise in their allowance. So whats he gonna do?
Very simple, just put the credit cards in his kids names, and let then have the head-ache.
And in all this I havent even adressed the issue with a minimal state that doesnt pay for education or health for its population.
Im willing to make a bet, that if such a country ever where to become a reality, it would take less than 20 years before economic growth would be seriously stunted, if not spiralling ever downwards.
It is not a law of nature, that the economy is always growing. The nations who where most succesfull during the industrial revolution, where the ones where the state undertook the task of giving everybody an education.
My own country Denmark is a fine example of that. From being one of Europes poorest countries, and actually going through a state bankrupcy in 1813, we have become one of not only Europe, but the worlds wealthiest countries. This is mainly caused by the huge task to wipe out illiteracy in the 1860ies, which meant that by the time we finally got the industrial revolution underway in the 1880ies we quickly overtook most other European countries.
Another fine example is the 4 so-called "Asian Tigers", namely South-Korea, Taiwan, Hong-Kong and Singapore.
South-Korea had a government that during the 1950ies and 1960ies insisted on basic education and health measures for everybody. This coupled with a very aggressive government interference in all aspects of the economy (Under the motto, which funny enough where first used in Denmark after our 1864 defeat to Prussia, "What is outward lost, is to be gained inward") have lead South-Korea to go from being a developing country, to being what is termed a Newly-developed country. Countries all over Asia are trying to copy this feat, using more or less the same approach.
A nice feature about this view is the fact that countries who have copied South-Korea the most, namely China, where the ones who where hit with least impact by the 1998 crisis. While countries who choose to follow IMF and follow your views on economics, namely The Phillipines, where hit the most, and are actually still reeling from the impact.
Actually I can come up with examples in legio as to how it is beneficial with a pro-ative government (Roosevelts New-Deal amongst others), while eventhough Ive racked my brain, I cant come up with a single example supporting your views.
This could be because Im biased, so I dare you RSF. Find me an example, any example that Reagans and Bushs economic policies have brought something good with it.
And a good example is not, that Reagans tax-cuts made it possible for your parents to get you the new Star-war figure in birthday present.
A good example would be an industrialised nation getting out of a ressesion because of said economic policies, or a developing nation experiencing economical growth in 2 digit numbers.
Regards
Defreni
____________
|
| |
|
|
