Originally posted by Darth SpongeThe've had wiretaps in the last 50 years and I have news for you tax breaks for the rich has been around a lot longer. Have you ever seen a poor Congressman or Senator?
what? there's no wiretaps? no national debt? no tax breaks for the rich? no expansion of the Federal Government? ... I mean, are you trying to be funny?
Originally posted by Darth SpongeGet a clue. Of course there are all these things. They are part of "growth" and "living". You have not explained why tapping the phones of terrorists or suspected terrorists is a bad thing. Or why the national debt is a bad thing. Or why tax breaks for the rich are bad things. Or why the expansion of the federal government is a bad thing. You just happily assert that they are bad things and think that they MUST be bad things.
what? there's no wiretaps? no national debt? no tax breaks for the rich? no expansion of the Federal Government? ... I mean, are you trying to be funny?
The items you list are not simple questions. Try to add a bit of HELPFUL complexity to your childish questions. And forget the funny part. You are as funny as a goat who ate two quarts of laxative at a young communist league sleep-over party.
Originally posted by princeoforangein the interest of focus, I'll pick one issue: spending more money than we make and plunging heavily into debt in order to cover the gap is unsustainable to say the least. It creates a tax on future generations of Americans, diminishes the international standing of the US and places us at the mercy of our foreign creditors, like communist China.
No, then all the other decent people on this site might mistake me for a Bush-basher. Besides, if every Bush-basher has logic of your calibre (and I haven't met many of them who are better) then I can't see logic getting involved at all but merely an irritating old leftist rant from the likes of redmike and marauder. I don't want to be responsible f ...[text shortened]... ible or logical criticisms of Mr. Bush (apart from petty ones) then cough up, if not shut up.
Originally posted by Darth SpongeThese assertions are in direct contradiction to Milton Freidman in his 1962 book Capitalism and Freedom .
in the interest of focus, I'll pick one issue: spending more money than we make and plunging heavily into debt in order to cover the gap is unsustainable to say the least. It creates a tax on future generations of Americans, diminishes the international standing of the US and places us at the mercy of our foreign creditors, like communist China.
He says that refusal to go into debt (as the USSR and China and virtually all communist nations DID refuse) is why capitalism is superior. "If we as a national government refute the workings of capitalism, and refuse all debt, then how can we expect capitalism to triumph?"
I think that he is the one with the Nobel for economics here. Sorry. You lose.
1 edit
Originally posted by StarValleyWywiretaps: the FISA law in place allows for wiretaps without a warrant for 72 hours. the Bush Admin didn't even try to get a warrant- why not? They argue there is no time in the "hot pursuit" of terrorists, but why is 72 hours not enough? The fact is that the Bush admin broke the law and this should be investigated thoroughly. but it's not.
Get a clue. Of course there are all these things. They are part of "growth" and "living". You have not explained why tapping the phones of terrorists or suspected terrorists is a bad thing. Or why the national debt is a bad thing. Or why tax breaks for the rich are bad things. Or why the expansion of the federal government is a bad thing. You just happi ...[text shortened]... funny as a goat who ate two quarts of laxative at a young communist league sleep-over party.
tax breaks for the rich: trickle down economics assume that the wealthy will re-invest whatever money they save on taxes, and the economy will surge towards greater prosperity. Reagan tried this and it didn't work due to one particular flaw: what if the wealthy don't re-invest? or what if they don't re-invest in the American economy?
and why not tax breaks for the poor? where do the poor spend their money? they buy things, which helps the economy. but this idea isn't talked about.
expansion of the Federal Govt: come on now- you're supposed to be a conservative and you're asking me why bigger government is worse!? ok, since I'm the only real conservative here: beaurocracy is ineffecient and wasteful. creating more beaurocracy is a drain on our tax revenues. Bush has overseen the largest expansion of government since the New Deal. how is this conservative?
ok, there... now your turn.
1 edit
Originally posted by Darth SpongeThe FISA laws don't apply.
wiretaps: the FISA law in place allows for wiretaps without a warrant for 72 hours. the Bush Admin didn't even try to get a warrant- why not? They argue there is no time in the "hot pursuit" of terrorists, but why is 72 hours not enough? The fact is that the Bush admin broke the law and this should be investigated thoroughly. but it's not.
ta ment since the New Deal. how is this conservative?
ok, there... now you're turn.
That was easy.
Trickle down doesn't work? Did not "reagonomics" set the stage for the nineties? Were we not the richest and fastest growing economy on earth since "trickle down" didn't work? Just wondering.
Sigh. Tax breaks for the poor is a non-sequiter. They pay no or little taxes to start with. The richest 5% pay by far MOST of the tax bill.
laugh out loud!!! ha hahhahahahhahhah
I'm a conservative? ok. I think that is quite funny. good one. clueless, but funny.
3 edits
Originally posted by StarValleyWy
Lol... Say what? Ok. I screwed up. We are not in debt 9 months of the yearly gdb. It is 7.99 months. Sorry. Thanks for your correction. We are a very rich and wealthy nation. Sorry again, but 8 months of debt is nothing. Absolutely nothing. If i take my taxes that I pay this year and divide it by the budget of the us and determine a multiplier to use aga ...[text shortened]... ped a decimal lol - $228.80 not $22.88. god i hate math... And that is for me and my wife combined.
That's still some fuzzy math. The national debt averages about 30k for every man woman and child in the US. So if you and your wife paid down $228 PER MONTH with ZERO interest it would take about 21 years to pay your share down. Do you have kids? If so, add some more, or pass it down to them.
Originally posted by Darth SpongeBecause FISA is enacted law that TRIES to impose on the right of the executive branch. It has no authority to do so. The kicker is that in times of war, the president, as the leader of the military MUST do all in his power to intercept the enemy. To let a bunch of dick head lawyers prevent listening to terrorists is absurd.
why not?
1 edit
Originally posted by shaktipalooza[/b]Silly you. I pay a very low tax because I only make about 40 grand per year. Now if you count FICA, self-employment, state,property etc... then I guess you might be right. But these don't go to the feds to spend on the debt. Do they?
Originally posted by StarValleyWy
[b]Lol... Say what? Ok. I screwed up. We are not in debt 9 months of the yearly gdb. It is 7.99 months. Sorry. Thanks for your correction. We are a very rich and wealthy nation. Sorry again, but 8 months of debt is nothing. Absolutely nothing. If i take my taxes that I pay this year and divide it by the budge years to pay your share down. Do you have kids? If so, add some more, or pass it down to them.
Trust me. Based on the formula I gave and the amount I ACTUALLY WILL PAY for fiscal 1995, my share is exactly that amount.
You forget that the rich pay my way here in this socialist den of iniquity. Is this a great place to live er what?
Originally posted by StarValleyWythe internet boom and new technology in the 90s pulled us out of the recession imposed by Reagan's fiscal policies. it not likely that something like that will happen again (and certainly not something to count on as part of a fincancial plan).
The FISA laws don't apply.
That was easy.
Trickle down doesn't work? Did not "reagonomics" set the stage for the nineties? Were we not the richest and fastest growing economy on earth since "trickle down" didn't work? Just wondering.
Sigh. Tax breaks for the poor is a non-sequiter. They pay no or little taxes to start with. The richest 5% pay b ...[text shortened]... h
I'm a conservative? ok. I think that is quite funny. good one. clueless, but funny.
are you ready to make your logical arguments yet?
Originally posted by Darth SpongeAnd there we have it. You are just another commie who can't stand the US.
the internet boom and new technology in the 90s pulled us out of the recession imposed by Reagan's fiscal policies. it not likely that something like that will happen again (and certainly not something to count on as part of a fincancial plan).
are you ready to make your logical arguments yet?
You are so ... boring. lol.
Spoken like a true Luddite that you are.
"And I tell you gentlemen, This passing fancy with horse drawn carriages is just a fad. Don't expect to be taking your family to town any time soon!!!"
"If god had wanted me to talk over long distances, he would have endowed me with a stronger voice! Telephone! Phteweee! It won't amount to anything."
"This crazy notion that little animals make us sick is crazy! Why would god invent such beasties?"
"the internet boom and new technology in the 90s pulled us out of the recession imposed by Reagan's fiscal policies. it not likely that something like that will happen again "
giggle. Really? sigh. I hate commies. You all have absolutely no imagination.
Originally posted by StarValleyWythank you Mike, for providing a brief, frightening glimpse into the troubled mind of a Bush supporter.
And there we have it. You are just another commie who can't stand the US.
You are so ... boring. lol.
Spoken like a true Luddite that you are.
"And I tell you gentlemen, This passing fancy with horse drawn carriages is just a fad. Don't expect to be taking your family to town any time soon!!!"
"If god had wanted me to talk over long distance ...[text shortened]... n "
giggle. Really? sigh. I hate commies. You all have absolutely no imagination.
Originally posted by Darth SpongeYou list a lot of issues. Let's take just one and see what happens. Let's look at tax breaks for the wealthy. Can you give me a dollar amount (money earned in a year that would qualify you as wealthy? Would it be $30K? $100K? $1 million?
It's difficult for me to understand how Bush's policies are beneficial to the continued prosperity and security of the US. To me, skyrocketing debt, illegal wiretaps, manipulating intelligence to go to war, tax breaks for the wealthy, corporate welfare, expanding beaurocracy, erosion of civil rights (the list goes on and on and on...) are all bad thing ...[text shortened]...
Are there any Bush supporters who can make a logical argument in favor of Bush's policies?
I am getting a tax refund this year. I kept a careful record of receipts for medical expenses, mortgage interest, and taxes. I also have 2 children which were deductions that I claimed. I also gave a little bit to charity. I had some business expenses and losses. I played by the rules that everone else plays by. So what is wrong with my getting a refund?
My refund will go to help contribute to the economy. Let's say I decide to buy a new lawnmover or get new carpet. Isn't my refund helping more than just me?