Who here supports the current administration?

[snuffbox 0]

I wouldnt classify this movement/administration as 'conservative'...more like 'rednecks with lots of money'.

[Guest JustPassinBy]

Most real conservatives have already realized that Bush is no conservative at all.

 

Yes he is.

 

Certainly not in terms of government spending, foreign policy, or immigration issues. I guess he's conservative in that he's pro-life but hasn't done anything to curb abortions, much like Republican deity Ronald Reagan.

 

He appointed two conservative Supreme Court justices.

Thats really all you can ask from a president on abortion.

[Guest JustPassinBy]

My point is that Bush is a conservative, and his failures (Iraq, Katrina, fiscal policy et al ad infinitum) are failures of conservatism.

 

If, say, William Buckley were President...those things would have never happened. Im not saying hed be a great President or anything but his kind of conservative would have never initiated the same huge mistakes as this current administration.

 

Also, on another note - About these Bush 'tax cuts'...I work in a factory and earn less than $20,000 a year and my weekly taxation is a little over 25%. The times are pretty bad for anyone not very wealthy, yet there are still pliable/moronic folk who voted Bush in '04 for issues like guns, gays, goddamwomensrights and ignored their own financial problems.

 

Would you feel better if you were taxed 30%?

How would a liberal policy make you more money, or benefit you?

I'm interested in the reasoning.

 

Do you honestly think the Libs are just gonna tax the ultra rich, and then send that money directly to you in the form of a check?

 

This is crazy.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

My point is that Bush is a conservative, and his failures (Iraq, Katrina, fiscal policy et al ad infinitum) are failures of conservatism.

 

If, say, William Buckley were President...those things would have never happened. Im not saying hed be a great President or anything but his kind of conservative would have never initiated the same huge mistakes as this current administration.

 

Also, on another note - About these Bush 'tax cuts'...I work in a factory and earn less than $20,000 a year and my weekly taxation is a little over 25%. The times are pretty bad for anyone not very wealthy, yet there are still pliable/moronic folk who voted Bush in '04 for issues like guns, gays, goddamwomensrights and ignored their own financial problems.

Do you honestly think the Libs are just gonna tax the ultra rich, and then send that money directly to you in the form of a check?

 

Yeah, cuz that's what he said.

 

There's a thing that we used to have called a progressive taxation. It pretty much doesn't exist anymore. Oh yeah, and we used to tax corporations. And tax wealth and not just work.

[sfaJack 0]

Also, on another note - About these Bush 'tax cuts'...I work in a factory and earn less than $20,000 a year and my weekly taxation is a little over 25%. The times are pretty bad for anyone not very wealthy, yet there are still pliable/moronic folk who voted Bush in '04 for issues like guns, gays, goddamwomensrights and ignored their own financial problems.

Just asking out of curiosity: do you get a vast majority (perhaps all) of the amount you pay in income taxes each year refunded back to you when you file your return each year?

[snuffbox 0]

Yes, I do get most of it back the next year in a refund...but that is only the federal income tax. It would be nice to have that money when I actually need it though (when bills are due) and not some lump sum in April.

 

And for the newbie gimmick poster (justpassinby) - No, I dont want to keep this liberal policy that the Republicans are continuing. I want an actual conservative/libertarian taxation...I want to be paying less than 10% in taxes from my lower/middle class paycheck. I dont want to keep paying 25-30% just so people who already swim in pools of cash can get taxed less.

 

With the power that this current government has and this ridiculous taxation...maybe the proper term for what this current government wants is 'dictatorial communism'. If Goldwater (had to say it, Smitty) were in the senate today hed be telling Bush to 'get out' just like with old Dick Nixon.

[NoCalMike 0]

Booming Economy right? Well was everyone aware that the big real estate market was pushed by people buying second homes...4/10 homes sold were the wealthy buying second homes. So as we can see, just because the economy is booming for the wealthy doesn't mean it is booming across the board.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

No, I dont want to keep this liberal policy that the Republicans are continuing. I want an actual conservative/libertarian taxation

 

Zuh? If that's what you want, you got it.

[snuffbox 0]

NO. A real conservative/libertarian taxation would be where low/middle class people pay next to zero taxes and the percentages grow higher as you get richer (but never too big). This kind of minimal taxation is possible when $50 billion (and up) isnt spent on fighting marijuana, when pointless wars arent waged, when pork isnt the national food, and tax cuts are not only given to the people that dont need them. In a pure libertarian society...there would be little or no taxes period.

 

You really need to stop confusing 'conservatism' with what this current administration is doing bigolsmitty. Social conservatism is only one part of it...high taxes for the working class, gigantic govt, wars for profit, spying on Americans, etc is not 'conservativism'. What we are looking at here is something wholly different than was started by William F Buckley. This is a whole new genre of politics and I think I might stick with my label of 'dictatorial communism' for it.

[snuffbox 0]

To further illustrate my point about 'conservatism' is a quick excerpt from an essay on politics that I wrote...

 

---

 

The concept of ‘conservatism’ as a political ideology in America had a core in something not particularly terrible or hateful, and if nothing else startlingly honest…but the bizarre miscreant green filled gulf between Barry Goldwater and George W. Bush is a hundred billion (yep, that was with a ‘b’ Mr. Reagan) miles wide. Goldwater was esteemed by even those colleagues with deepest of political disagreements for his inability to bullshit anyone or speak anything less than the truth of his mind. Today his revolution of conservativism has given way to a sick ugly breed of socialcons and elephantbudget liberal spenders. Leaders taking in pride in victory by theft in draining a nation of its money or a generation of its spirit. Today’s Republicans carry not the war scarred torch of the Goldwaters and Eisenhowers but the cowardice of Wizardhunting Lions. They are a tragically elected body who collectively see no fault in allowing an economy to fall to shambles then herd its young poor and jobless off to foreign lands to defend our nation for reasons lost in a dense mindless fog.

 

When Goldwater spoke proudly in March of 1956, “I am a conservative”, he made a point in his intellectual bourbon fueled clarity to add that, “I am also a liberal, for I will never, either in private or public life, accept the terrifying philosophy that the dark shadows of regimentation and control must inevitably blot out the sunlight of freedom.”

Somewhere in the span of not altogether too many years the new mindset sprouted and nurtured by Goldwater and his ilk had descended (to use the word ‘evolved’ would be sinful and might lead to my State-funded public deathbeating by thrown stones) into this neo-Neanderthal breed of paranoid hatebrained social ultraconservativism and mega liberal government power and spending. Dr. Hunter S. Thompson was right on rifle target with Nixon and his frightening words still ring ominously true today as we sit stunted beneath an Administration that so creepy accurately represents ‘that dark, venal, and incurably violent side of the American character’.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

It seems like you're talking about progressive taxation. I've never seen this labeled as conservative or libertarian. I have always thought of it as liberal/progressive, straight out of FDR's playbook.

 

Conservatives/libertarians usually argue for some kind of flat tax or national sales tax.

[snuffbox 0]

The libertarian goal is to have no income tax...but, obviously, this will probably never happen. But it is very possible to have much less of an income tax.

 

Conservatives are supposed to be for a small govt, and thus less need for heavy taxation. Unfortunately there is no fiscal conservatism now so the working people are being brutally taxed.

 

Yeah...what I want (low/no taxes for working class that desperatly needs the funds...some taxes, though not '50% or more', for the very wealthy) is a progressive idea, but with the libertarian/real conservative idea in mind. What we have right now is a system that enslaves the vast majority of Americans to corporations/govt control...not too much unlike Communism. I wonder if Ann Coulter will make the connection between Americans working to run the big govt and Communist people working to run their big govt. I doubt it.

[Guest Felonies!]

Snuffy, some of your little parenthetical asides and "His intellectual bourbon-fueled clarity" kinda ruined it for me. Other than that, I liked it.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Did Hunter Thompson really have a doctorate?

[snuffbox 0]

No. He labeled himself a 'doctor of gonzo journalism' but never actually earned a doctorate.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Blaming the budget deficits on spending and not tax cuts is like eating a steady diet of Twinkies and cheeseburgers for a year, and then blaming the Diet Coke you drank with them for making you gain weight.

Its nothing like that at all.

 

Under Bush, spending has gone up from $1.8632 trillion in 2001 to $2.4722 trillion in 2005--a 24% increase. As of 2005, revenue finally bounced back to pre-Bush levels, and was 8% higher in 2005 than it was in 2001.

 

Here, knock yourselves out, guys.

 

Okay, I was being hyperbolic. My point was that the tax cuts tend to cost WAY more than most of the programs that are being cut.

 

Example:

 

Cost of Bush tax cuts just for top 10% incomes (2004): $148 billion

 

Cost of

job training+

Pell grants+

public housing+

low-income rental subsidies+

child care+

insurance for poor children+

low-income energy assistance+

meals for shut-ins+

welfare________________

$61 billion

 

And I would also argue that while revenues may have reached 2001 levels again, but that the structure from which those revenues is extracted has become considerably more regressive.

[Guest JustPassinBy]

My point is that Bush is a conservative, and his failures (Iraq, Katrina, fiscal policy et al ad infinitum) are failures of conservatism.

 

If, say, William Buckley were President...those things would have never happened. Im not saying hed be a great President or anything but his kind of conservative would have never initiated the same huge mistakes as this current administration.

 

Also, on another note - About these Bush 'tax cuts'...I work in a factory and earn less than $20,000 a year and my weekly taxation is a little over 25%. The times are pretty bad for anyone not very wealthy, yet there are still pliable/moronic folk who voted Bush in '04 for issues like guns, gays, goddamwomensrights and ignored their own financial problems.

Do you honestly think the Libs are just gonna tax the ultra rich, and then send that money directly to you in the form of a check?

 

Yeah, cuz that's what he said.

 

There's a thing that we used to have called a progressive taxation. It pretty much doesn't exist anymore. Oh yeah, and we used to tax corporations. And tax wealth and not just work.

 

It exists alright.

The top 1% of earners pay 34.27% of all income taxn

The top 50% of earners pay 96.54 % of all income tax.

Corporations are still subject to double taxation.

 

You are very misinformed.

[Guest JustPassinBy]

The libertarian goal is to have no income tax...but, obviously, this will probably never happen. But it is very possible to have much less of an income tax.

 

Conservatives are supposed to be for a small govt, and thus less need for heavy taxation. Unfortunately there is no fiscal conservatism now so the working people are being brutally taxed.

 

Yeah...what I want (low/no taxes for working class that desperatly needs the funds...some taxes, though not '50% or more', for the very wealthy) is a progressive idea, but with the libertarian/real conservative idea in mind. What we have right now is a system that enslaves the vast majority of Americans to corporations/govt control...not too much unlike Communism. I wonder if Ann Coulter will make the connection between Americans working to run the big govt and Communist people working to run their big govt. I doubt it.

 

Why do some of you ultra socialist wackos hate "the corporations"?

 

I used to think South Park was just stereotyping these sorts of people. But I guess there really are hippies, that smoke weed, and continue to talk in terms of "we're slaves to the corporations".... Honestly, what does this mean?

 

"War for profit"... Yes, if America starts annexing countries, then maybe you can make that claim. So far as I know, Iraq isnt a colony.

 

You do know that most "corporations" started out small and grew as their business become more successful. That competition amongst these corporations help to keep products affordable to the consumer. How are people "enslaved"? What rights do the "corporations" take away from the individual? Last I heard, no one forced you to buy products or work for certain companies.

 

I dont even know why I bother to debate this nonsense. Some of this is just over the top ridiculous, that it really should be left alone.

 

You guys must really hate Trey Parker and Matt Stone.

[Guest JustPassinBy]

Blaming the budget deficits on spending and not tax cuts is like eating a steady diet of Twinkies and cheeseburgers for a year, and then blaming the Diet Coke you drank with them for making you gain weight.

Its nothing like that at all.

 

Under Bush, spending has gone up from $1.8632 trillion in 2001 to $2.4722 trillion in 2005--a 24% increase. As of 2005, revenue finally bounced back to pre-Bush levels, and was 8% higher in 2005 than it was in 2001.

 

Here, knock yourselves out, guys.

 

Okay, I was being hyperbolic. My point was that the tax cuts tend to cost WAY more than most of the programs that are being cut.

 

Example:

 

Cost of Bush tax cuts just for top 10% incomes (2004): $148 billion

 

Cost of

job training+

Pell grants+

public housing+

low-income rental subsidies+

child care+

insurance for poor children+

low-income energy assistance+

meals for shut-ins+

welfare________________

$61 billion

 

And I would also argue that while revenues may have reached 2001 levels again, but that the structure from which those revenues is extracted has become considerably more regressive.

 

Tax cuts dont "cost" anything. Its simply giving the people back what they rightfully earned.

[snuffbox 0]

People I hate, as an ultra socialist wacko:

1.Uncle Sam

2.The Troops

3.Jesus

4.Matt Parker

5.Trey Stone

6.Toby Keith

7.Dale Earnhardt

etc...

[SuperJerk 0]

Tax cuts dont "cost" anything. Its simply giving the people back what they rightfully earned.

 

Thus begins internet argument #34070872 over semantics.

[Guest Felonies!]

Yes, if America starts annexing countries, then maybe you can make that claim. So far as I know, Iraq isnt a colony.

We've been annexing countries for over a century: Hawaii, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Cuba, so forth. Who cares, though? We were always a day late and a dollar short in the whole imperialism thing. Also, Iraq is more of a puppet state than a colony. De facto colony, I guess.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

You are very misinformed.

 

people making $60,000 paid a larger share of their 2001 income in federal income, Social Security, and Medicare taxes than a family making $25 million

San Francisco Chronicle, 4/11/04

 

You are talking strictly about income taxes which are still modestly progressive (although far less so than they have been in the past).

 

Payroll, state, and local taxes are often regressive.

 

Bush's tax cuts led to:

1. a quiet increase in federal fees, which disproportionately affect those with less money

2. cuts in federal grants to states which led to $22 billion in state taxes heaped upon the middle class (according to the National Conference of State Legislatures)

 

As far as corporate taxes go: loopholes, offshore bank accounts, and the like have all but eliminated them. According to a 2004 GAO report, 94% of corporations pay less than 5% of their income in taxes.

 

And you can cut all of that name calling bullshit out, stat.

[Guest Felonies!]

I'm always torn over progressive taxation. Like, it makes sense that the rich have to do most of the heavy lifting tax-wise for obvious reasons, but I don't think it should get to the point where they're being penalized for prosperity. I hate that I'm liberalizing. What a drag.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Next time you don't think we're slaves to corporations and the government apparently provides us with too much, count how many brand names or logos you see on your way to work tomorrow.

[EricMM 0]

Thats a good point.

 

Try to go a day without seeing some sort of advertisement in this country.

 

It's almost impossible, at least in the cities.

 

And hey JPB, if the rich pay so much more taxes, any idea how much more they MAKE???

 

What percentage of there gross profit they're PAYING?

[Guest JustPassinBy]

I'm always torn over progressive taxation. Like, it makes sense that the rich have to do most of the heavy lifting tax-wise for obvious reasons, but I don't think it should get to the point where they're being penalized for prosperity. I hate that I'm liberalizing. What a drag.

 

I think when you penalize people for achievement, it makes people lose motivation to work harder. When people work less, advancement is slowed. Progessive taxation just seems completely unfair. Of course, I dont think the income tax amendment should have ever been passed either. It just seems Un-American.

[snuffbox 0]

Why are people who work in factories, department stores, etc being penalized/taxed so heavily then? Are you saying they dont work hard?

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Yes, if America starts annexing countries, then maybe you can make that claim. So far as I know, Iraq isnt a colony.

We've been annexing countries for over a century: Hawaii, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Cuba, so forth. Who cares, though? We were always a day late and a dollar short in the whole imperialism thing. Also, Iraq is more of a puppet state than a colony. De facto colony, I guess.

 

Iraq is not a US colony, and never will be. For an area to be a colony, the colonizing power has to have firm control, and people from that country need to be able to travel to the colony. Clearly that's not the case right now.

 

Frankly, I think the US should have more overseas territories and colonies than it does now. Maybe then the rest of the world wouldn't be so messed up.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Wow. W... R... O... N... G! What's that spell?