posted on June 8, 2001 09:38:32 AM new
Funny - the Senate just voted to pass it. IMO, the only liberals & conservatives that agree that it's a sham, were the same ones that didn't want it from the beginning.
President Bush has every reason to feel proud he got his tax bill through. Quite an accomplishment with the Senate being so close and all. What did the Democrats want..... I think they originally were willing to accept a tax bill around $700,000, but in the end agreed to close to what President Bush wanted.
posted on June 8, 2001 09:45:07 AM new
The bill isn't even close to what he wanted. All of the conditions and delays were giveaways by him so that it would make it through.
The only thing he got, which is really all he needs, is his name on a bill titled 'tax cut'.
He'd have done anything to get that. Unfortunately, he gave away most of the benefit to the people for his own political benefit.
posted on June 8, 2001 10:53:21 AM new
Actually you can thank the Democrats for the rebate checks, because that was not part of his original plan(well, not "his" plan since he cant do anything lol). See why I dont vote for republicans now? The democrats did get their taxcut, and thats why you will get a tax refund. Did you see the new poll where 66% like the democrats agenda better? Looks good for the Demo's next year!
posted on June 8, 2001 11:11:00 AM new
Oh krs, that's just called compromising and it's done all the time.
chum - Thank the democrats? Not me. If it had been up to them, this bill wouldn't have been presented.
My opinions: The democrats are the one's who like to 'spread the wealth'....by spending our tax dollars, not letting American's keep the money they earn. Seems to me most democrats want to take from the middle to upper-income taxpayers and give to the one's who chose to be dependent on the government. The more government programs the democrats can offer, the less self-reliant the people become on themselves. Creates dependence. Just my opinion, of course.
posted on June 8, 2001 12:49:12 PM new
Linda
Who do you think they spend it on?
I'd rather spend 26k as a taxpayer raising a poor kid than 2.6 million in corporate welfare.
Got to remember you and I are closer than the fella who sits in the corner office with stock options or trust fund. And I prolly make more than you as a freelancer.
posted on June 8, 2001 12:59:07 PM new"Just my opinion, of course."
Of course! You may have whatever opinion that you wish, however tired and proven to be wrong that it is.
I say that because opinion goes in one ear, then the real facts go in the other. The result: opinion makes you feel better than the reality, so you delete the facts. Personally, I'd rather dump the opinion and stick with the facts for my POV.
chum: You are correct in that middle to lower class people would hardly have seen a dime if the origional Republican "Tax Cut" was passed through. The Democrats did manage to get a real and meaningful tax refund out to the people, not just to the nation's wealthiest top 1% as it would have been under the origional Bush "Tax Cut". Of course, from now one, we'll have to hear about how successful Bush was in getting his "Tax Cut" bill in.
Lina_K is right about one thing though: the Democrats originally wanted to blow your tax dollars on public schools! Wouldn't that have been just the most terrible thing?
Yes, they did propose 1/2 the amount of tax cut than Bush's origional proposal stated. That's COMPROMISE, something that politicians are supposed to be able to do in order to get the nation's business done. That is something that the Republicans have failed to do for six years of dragging their feet and stalling or killing every piece of legislature to come out of Congress and the White House since 1994 that they could. Not for the good of the nation, but for their own good.
I'm so sick of the Republican one-way outlook on life that I'd like to puke. It's always me, ME, ME! and never US, as in "together we'll overcome our problems, because seperately we are powerless" or "We must indeed all hang together, or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately."
posted on June 8, 2001 01:05:53 PM new
Well, what does that mean to "blow the money on public schools"? It's cool if they have a plan of how money will better educate kids, but not if throwing money just means more money for the beauracrats to mismanage and lose. The solution to bettering public education is more about how we apply money then money itself. Increased budgets don't automatically equal better education or better anything.
posted on June 8, 2001 01:08:02 PM new
Hello Capriole - You said, "I'd rather spend 26k as a taxpayer raising a poor kid than 2.6 million in corporate welfare."
That's fine. I respect your opinion, I just feel differently. I feel the systems we set up (with the best on intentions) tend to become abused.
My feelings on this are that if it were my choice, I'd have the parents of the poor child (you speak of) raising and being responsible for their own child. If that weren't possible then I'd have their families helping them out. If that still weren't possible I'd have their communities or churches giving them help. I believe in smaller government and in personal responsibility.
As far as corporate welfare goes, I agree that many things in that area could/should be changed.
Both, probably most, political parties owe their contributors. It's been that way for a long time, and I don't see it changing in my lifetime. Do I think it's right? No, but so far no one has come up with an alternative.
Got to remember you and I are closer than the fella who sits in the corner office with stock options or trust fund. And I prolly make more than you as a freelancer.
posted on June 8, 2001 01:11:04 PM new
You said it, borillar, what a collection of blockheads I would never have imagined there to be.
Yes, Chum is quite right about the paltry refund that little dumbya now gloats about. He didn't want to give it, the democrats forced it--without compromise.
The only thing your little resident wants to give you is hot air because he's discovered the secret to his party--they're dumber than he is and will swallow anything as long as it's sugared in false claims of morality and fuels the desparate jealosies of stupid people who are incapable of gaining anything for themselves.
posted on June 8, 2001 01:19:38 PM new
Borillar - You said, "Lina_K is right about one thing though: the Democrats originally wanted to blow your tax dollars on public schools! Wouldn't that have been just the most terrible thing?"
Since you say you like dealing in facts instead of opinions, may I ask if you have looked at the increases that were voted in for the schools during Clinton's presidency? If you look at those statistics you will see that Clinton (and the Senate) gave schools great increases in funding. In the 8 years, did much change? Were the reading and math scores improved? Why then do we still have third and forth graders that can't read. How long should we wait? IMO, throwing more good money, where's it not making a difference, didn't seem to work. Maybe a different approach might. Making the teachers and the schools accountable for the children's progress, and rewarding that might just give some positive results.
posted on June 8, 2001 01:20:02 PM new
Sigh,
In a perfect world, say the Middle ages, this would be the case. But you can't superimpose something that may have been lost culturally.
Worse "faith based" means that someone won't like another's faith.
I wonder if Nation of Islam was the money behind all that "faith based" action if middle america would fall in love with the notion. Or what about Christian Science base Hospitals. Murkier and murkier.
Anyhow, just trying to get folks to stop and realize that it's not 1775 anymore and the enemy is one we enfranchise by buying Big Macs, Pepsis and a load of other stuff.
While we fuss over the morals of some impoverished family, americans are getting less healthy, and enriching corporations that treat their employees and customers like the meat they butcher: Factory farm animals.
I am not sure that we so much disagree but may have different levels of reality.
Best of Luck
My feelings on this are that if it were my choice, I'd have the parents of the poor child (you speak of) raising and being responsible for their own child. If that weren't possible then I'd have their families helping them out. If that still weren't possible I'd have their communities or churches giving them help. I believe in smaller government and in personal responsibility.
posted on June 8, 2001 01:28:00 PM new
Anyone hear of the word Capitolism and its not a dirty word.
Its what I anyway, like to have more of. People earn, work hard. Save, invest, so they have money? But thats bad.... because they pay a lot more taxes, so in this effect, get a tax break. Well dammit, they shouldn't. They should pay enough taxes to make their income the same as the guy working at WalMart.
Sometimes it sounds a little like class envy in some posts.
Spread the wealth? So someone who immigrates here long ago, starts a business, that business grows to great proportions, and what? No, you can't have all that money! There are people who work hard, and don't even own a home or less. We need to spread the wealth!
Also sounds a little like a socialistic type society, which I thought the U.S. was not.
posted on June 8, 2001 01:29:35 PM new
Borillar - When you said, " It's always me, ME, ME! and never US..." I feel you're making assumptions. I don't feel I live my life by thinking or doing for only me, me, me. I believe I should be able to keep more of what I earn and make my own choices as to how I'd like to see that money spent. I earn it, I should have a greater say as to how I choose to spend it.
posted on June 8, 2001 01:40:50 PM new
Bush will hold schools accountable? Bull.
Consider what's come out of his Texas "success story":
"It's a commonplace with the national media that the strongest card in Bush's play for the presidency is his education record in Texas. It's now becoming clear that the Bush
education record is nothing but "smoke and mirrors." That may be putting it kindly, if Boston College's Walt Haney is right in his in-depth study of education reform and statewide testing in Texas in the 90's, The Myth of the Texas Miracle in Education. Haney marshalls his facts to show that "The Texas 'miracle' is more hat than cattle."
Carlos Guerra's SAEN report of Haney's study caught the eye of Dave Munday of The Orange [Tx.] Leader, who summarized Guerra's conclusions: ""Because (TAAS) scores
were given such great importance, cheating scandals and "teaching to the TAAS' were inevitable," Guerra writes: "But Haney documents that many students have fared far worse. There has been dramatic growth in dropout and student retention rates (especially in the ninth grade), an explosion in special education classifications and an upsurge in students who skip graduation - and the TAAS - for a GED that isn't really a "high school equivalency' certificate." In a second column, Guerra also noted that the Texas Education Agency's number-jugglers
created classifications designed to mask the true dropout rate and make it appear that more students than ever before were staying in school. The number of special-education students in the state doubled from 1994 to 1998. To summarize, then, officials were able to gild the in-state education statistics by having more students drop out and by moving poorer students into categories that allowed them to skip the TASS tests, upon which Bush based his "miracle." Further, officials cooked the books to hide these negative outcomes. (Sounds like Pump Up the Volume starring Christian Slater (1990), doesn't it?)
posted on June 8, 2001 01:44:18 PM new
Uh, Nearthesea, may want to turn art bell off and read a history book: We are a democracy. That means we the people decide what kind of economic system we want. Capitalism is fine, but glorify it at the expense of other freedoms is naive.
And quoting Jessy Helms "class envy" argument only shows how deeply your concept is flawed. Besides, this country was founded on class envy. Holy christ on a crutch!
Might isn't right.
I often wonder why folks identify so stongly with the CEO's of fortune 500's or their board members. Watch a car commercial, or any commercial. Are they just selling a product or a lifestyle and attitude?
It's easier to bash each other than to really look at what should be fair and right for all americans.
But, listen to your am talk radio hosts, let them frame the argument, the idea and the answer, sweet little calf walking up the shoot. Bam, they've gotcha.
Best of luck!
posted on June 8, 2001 01:47:26 PM new
So, lindak, " I earn it, I should have a greater say as to how I choose to spend it"
You still have NO say in how it's spent, you only prefer to give your money to the Enron Corporation, affiliates, and all other feeders off the riches of the nation than give it to people, like yourself perhaps one day, who need it.
posted on June 8, 2001 02:01:59 PM new
Both JamesO and Linda_K: we all want what is best for our kids in public education. There's no denying those facts. Why did Republican politicians scream and cry about "accountability" when it comes to our kids in public schools, but want "unrestricted cash grants", read UNACCOUNTABLE CASH to be thrown at the public schools? The Republican politicians screamed and yelled about how "terrible" all of the "strings" and "government interference" that comes along with the Democrat's school funding proposal. The Republican politicians cried out about how States should receive the money "without interference from the government". For those of you who can not possibly read between the lines on this one, that means that TAX DOLLARS are to be funneled into state school operating systems and are not to held accountable for how they spend that money! Oh yes, the Republican Politicians argued, it was BIG GOVERNMENT telling STATES how to spend their money -- which has some room for argument. But when you cut our the government control of how the money they give is to be spent, I PERSONALLY GUARANTEE THAT KIDS WILL SEE LESS THAN 1/2 A PENNY ON THE DOLLAR OF TAX MONIES! The money would be all stolen away, just like what has been happening in federal and state governments for decades, but now at Oil Well Gusher levels in this Republican Administration. It is the RAPE OF A NATION and like KRS noted: so long as the Republican voters get their "facts" sugar-coated, they don't care how it goes down and sits in their stomachs afterwards!
I submit that if local corruption at the local and state levels were cut out, current tax dollars spent would pay for real improvement in more than a half of the nation's ailing schools! To pore more money into such a corrupt system is to waste nearly all of it, but to make sure that such tax dollars go unaccounted for - as the Republican politicians suggest, is sheer folly!
posted on June 8, 2001 02:06:07 PM new
Capriole - Believe it or not, that's just the way it was when I was young. Families helped each other when they fell upon hard times. They didn't look to the government to 'take care' of them. And this didn't happen during the middle ages. I'm not that old. In those days people were embarassed to accept 'charity' and had strong feelings of failure if they couldn't take care of themselves. They wanted to be independent. It was called Pride.
The way I see it is that this thinking is part of the problem. We've separated ourselves from our families, both in distance and in our relationships. So maybe most now feel more comfortable dealing or getting government help than they do turning to their families. Now even family members get paid by our government to care for their own family members. I just don't feel I should have to be responsible for all of them.
As far as the faith baised issue goes, I think any religious group that is willing and can show (be accountable) how they are helping 'their own' would be a great thing. I wouldn't agree with forming new 'groups or religions' (just for this purpose) but there are many religious groups that have long been caring for those less fortunate who share their same beliefs. And, I might add, better than the federal goverment has done.
So, sigh if you will, but while this board can't understand this way of thinking, there are many in the US who can. It's just not most of you here. And that's okay too.
posted on June 8, 2001 02:08:31 PM new
Well, it works both ways. You may or may not have realized, I'm far from a Republican. But just as you charaterize the Republicans with just saying any old thing that doesn't make sense when you think about it, same with the Democrats. Everyone knows a key Democrat solution to any and every problem is to just spend more money. But hey, if you think about it -- spend money how? See, that's never thought about or explained. The project is always "let's appropriate money" and then it ends right there.
posted on June 8, 2001 02:24:58 PM new
I would sooner have Democrats spend the money on programs to benifit people, than let the repubs hand it over to the oil companies which is what they were planning to do. Notice how the price of gas is dropping since the demos took the senate? Why? because the demos can have investigate them. Why does 66% of Americans like the Democrats agenda better? Well lets see they are for prescription drugs for seniors, raising the minimum wage, education, and they backed John McCain who I think may be the next president. I am happy that janet reno will run for governor in Florida. The people down there will finally have their say.
posted on June 8, 2001 02:36:40 PM new
James, I tried to lump all POLITCIANS into the same arguement. The Democrats indeed do want to appropriate money to fix the problem. Would you rather have the Republican solution? You know, where you pass legislation to make the program happen on the one hand and then on the other hand, you refuse to appropriate the money needed to make the legislation have any effect?
The bottom line is that the public schools need:
1) to be rebuilt so that they are structurally sound, wamr/cooled, and safe from asbestos/radon/etc. that make kids sick.
2) the latest textbooks, classroom materials, and furnishings; such as comfortable desks and chairs for all students.
3) money to hire enough well-paid teachers to have smaller classroom sizes. I recall classrooms that had 18 students and have been in ones with more than 24 - and I'm sold on ht enotion that classrooms need to have no more than 18 students apiece.
THAT, was just the stuff that we absolutely need to bring us up to parr. Now, for stuff that gets the agenda going:
1) Accountability: Standardized National Testing - please fund this, not just make it a law and then refuse to fund it!
2) A modern computer terminal at each desk for each student in school. I didn't say that they ought to be connected to the Internet! Appropriate content can be secured from the Internet at a teacher's terminal and then put on the classroom/school network for the kids to use.
Now, if we did ONLY THESE THINGS as a minimum, then 90% of Americans would agree that we'd get somewhere!
posted on June 8, 2001 02:55:10 PM new
Linda, helping one another is a good thing and yes, people have done so for a long time. But along comes the Industrial Revolution and that upsets everything. Society becomes mobile, people leave the rural farms and become workers, old ties and associations are gone, non-existent and there is no one there to help you when you get down on your luck.
These are the sort of facts that Conservatives are ignoring that I am talking about. Society has changed and the Old Ways can not be counted upon to make up the difference. How fair is it that a factory up in the North asks for workers in WWII and you leave the rural farm behind you to go north to work. And then, when the war is over, the white soldiers come back and you are let go of so that they can take your job? Suddenly, you have no way to pay your bills and nothing to go back home to. The best that you can do is to hope to pick up another job somewhere else quick. However, the story is the same all over - the jobs that were there during the war have vanished and what jobs there are have been replaced by returning veterans.
Now, Linda, how is your system supposed to work in that case? How will your system educate the person so that they can get another job doing something else, while giving them a place to live and food to eat? How will your system help this person, maybe of color, to get those new skills AND overcome the prejudice against your skin color or religion?
LINDA: TELL ME HOW CONSERVATIVES HAVE FIGURED OUT HOW TO DO THIS ONE AND MILIIONS AND MILLIONS OF OTHER STORIES JUST LIKE IT!?!?
posted on June 8, 2001 03:00:31 PM new
Capriole - I agree with you on the "Are they just selling a product or a lifestyle and attitude?
It's easier to bash each other than to really look at what should be fair and right for all americans."
That's why I voted for Nader. In his speechs he voiced concern that corp america owns us. He spoke of his belief to decrease our dependence on gas and oil. But there are many American's are buying the SUVs etc. that use more fuel. Buying bigger and bigger homes that cost more to heat and cool. It seems to me they're making their own choices.
But I do agree with NearTheSea and what she shared about America being a capitalist country. That's how (as a nation) we've prospered.
We can support corp america or we can choose not to. But, IMO, if we earn the money and we want the luxury car (etc.) then that is what we choose. I believe that the people who pay 50% of their income in total taxes shouldn't be 'forced' by our government to give it all away (to share the wealth), at least not to the degree it is now.
When you say "what should be fair and right for all americans" it gives me the impression (maybe not a correct one) that you believe more in socialism. All share in the wealth. And if that is the case, I respectfully disagree.
posted on June 8, 2001 03:16:39 PM new
krs - You still have NO say in how it's spent
Sure I would. If the tax rate levels were decreased like Bush tried to do, a lot of people would have more money in their paychecks.
(They were decreased, but not by as much as he proposed.)
And "you only prefer to give your money to the Enron Corporation, affiliates, and all other feeders off the riches of the nation than give it to people" I have never said that. You are, once again, stating things I have never said. Again, if the tax rates were lowered, less of our money would be going to the corporations you mention.
I believe this part of the tax program was going in the right direction. Of course, the democrats didn't see it that way. They want more and more of our money. When will it be enough? When people are working from January until August, September, October and then the tax payers can keep the rest of what they've earned.
posted on June 8, 2001 03:20:58 PM new
Its not the AM radio shows I listen too, and yeah Art Bell used to be a conservative talk show host long ago
Thats not it at all.
Like LindaK? said 'people were different, a long time ago, helping each other out' sure, they were, during the depression, and other hard times, families would help families. You would never think of putting grandma in an 'old folks home' you take care of your own.
As you might notice, things have changed, I don't like that attitude, I wish families were different.
I am not in a position, where I have a parent or grandparents to wonder what they are going to do. Everyones gone. My dad, did well, very well, lives well, and he earned that right to do so.
Even at 77 he's still has a 'postition' and works. Yes a corporate type postition, so what????? He did it. He made it there. A long time ago. Should he have given all his wealth away, while he had 5 kids? I'm sure a lot of people would probably think so. His father was an immigrant who made one small business a fortune, and his sons worked that business, and took that over. So? They all worked hard for it.
But then that just isn't right is it? Everyone should have the same? This is America, where you can 'be anything you want'. Think thats bs? then you are not trying.
Here's a talk show host (NON political) that will tell you JUST that, Bruce Williams.
If your in debt, take a second job, if your still not getting out of debt, then take a third. He gives his callers the straight sh*t. If your spending too much, then decrease the spending, and increase the income.
People have become 'wealthy' by starting 2 or even 3 jobs.
Yeah I do believe there is such a thing as Class Envy. If you have it..... do something about it. Increase your income, save, invest, whatever, but don't be crying about it. If your a healthy able bodied person you can.
I can't believe all this. A Democracy? No, I thought you all agreed this is a Republic if you don't think so, say the Pledge of Allegiance to yourself.....
posted on June 8, 2001 03:29:57 PM new
Linda, how do people get into the 50% Tax Bracket Before Lots And Lots And Lots Of Deductions And Credits Reduce That Amount In Many Cases To Nearly Nothing?
I'll tell you how aside from those who inherit the money or those who win the lottery. They have an opportunity to make great wealth. This happens through many causes, not the least of which is personal ingenuity, inspiration, and hard work - the American Way! However, after a point, it stops. It stops, because you can only personally do so much, then no more! Therefore, you need to hire less imaginative folks, or at least those without the same opportunities that YOU had!
Now you're cookin'! Now you're making DOUGH! and Re! And ME!
So, you climb your way into the 50% Tax Bracket Before Lots And Lots And Lots Of Deductions And Credits Reduce That Amount In Many Cases To Nearly Nothing and no one can claim that you didn't do it through being a slacker! Yes, you rightfully have more because you deserve more!
But, what tends to be forgotten in the process is that without people - workers, you never would have gotten there! To climb to the top by stepping upon the backs of others, crushing spines whenever necessary, and then complaining about how you are being required to compensate for some of the misery that you caused on the way up is absolute hypocrisy!
No, only those who win the lotto or hit the jackpot in Vegas are the ones who have any right to complain about the 50% tax bracket - they actually do pay about that amount! All the others don't actually pay that much. Let me explain why.
Linda, our tax code and politics are geared towards manipulating the economy. You make a 50% tax bracket first, then you create ways to reduce that amount that benefits the economy the most: a tax credit on your home mortgage in order to keep the real estate market going, and so forth. It gets to a point where it is worthwhile to hire a great CPA to do your taxes and end up paying little or nothing to Uncle Sam! Yes, for those who MAKE 1-5 BILLION DOLLARS a year, that "paying little" may come to several millions of dollars. But SHEESE! I WISH I HAD THEIR TAX PROBLEM!! I mean, if I had to pay millions of dollars every year in taxes just to keep BILLIONS of dollars, I wouldn't complain!
Am I talking socialism there? Socialism, contrary to the Republican Blather Machine Hype, is not about the re-distribution of wealth! That is Communism, not Socialism! There IS a large difference between the two!
I think that describes America and what Americans want more than capitalistic fascism that is the goal of the conservatives and the Republican Party:
capitalism(kàp´î-tl-îz´em) noun
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.
Linda, if you can't see that this is what people are complaining about and we here are attempting to fight, there are many here and nationwide who do see it for what it is. You are intelligent -- can't your opinions simply submit to the facts?
edited for sp.
[ edited by Borillar on Jun 8, 2001 03:33 PM ]
posted on June 8, 2001 03:48:08 PM new
Gee...I wonder if self-appointed Democratic letter-writer and 50% tax-bracket actress/singer Barbara Streisand is using those Lots And Lots And Lots Of Deductions And Credits Reduce That Amount In Many Cases To Nearly Nothing?
