Anger is a gift (Happy 3rd Anniversary!)

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Heheh, this has turned into the 'Random Political Thoughts' thread that I tried to prevent once before.

Oh well, there's no stoping a juggernaut.

Oh sure.....close the one I started, but let this one continue.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Oh sure.....close the one I started, but let this one continue.

Precisely! You catch on quick.

[Gemini Cricket]

I wasn't sure where to post this. It's more of a tongue in cheek thang than a serious thang.

Do you ever think that the Republicans and the Democrats just take turns? I mean, once the GOP sees that their debt is so huge and that there's not much they can do about it that they just hand things over to the Dems? Then the Dems tax the crud out of everyone until there's enough money for the Repubs to spend?

If anything, that would make a funny film.

[Alex]

Except it hasn't worked that way. You had one Republican president who spent a whole lot of money and cut taxes, then the next spent not so much money (and in one famous instance slightly raised taxes when submitted to abominable legislative blackmail). Then a Democrat who did pretty well with spending (and submitted to the most successful and only significant alteration of a major entitlement program in 40 years) and left taxes mostly flat, and then another big spending Republican who apparently never saw another person's dollar he didn't want to spend.

[innerSpaceman]

Well, if we only count two-termers ... then G.C.'s pattern works just fine.


Let's do that, then.


(It also works if we delete the redundancy of presidents with the same last name, and make the disqualification apply to the one who seved less time. I wonder if that would make the pattern work if we go way way back and eliminate one Roosevelt and one Adams?)

[Gemini Cricket]

President Bush's tax cuts for investment income have significantly lowered the tax burden on the richest Americans, reducing taxes on incomes of more than $10 million by an average of about $500,000, according to a report Wednesday.

An analysis of Internal Revenue Service data by The New York Times found that the benefit of the lower taxes on investments was more concentrated on the very wealthiest Americans than the benefits of President Bush's two previous tax cuts.

Source
Bleh.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

Source
Bleh.

This doesn't bother me at all. Based on 2000 data (in terms of income, not all wealth), the wealthiest 5 percent pay 38.4 percent of federal taxes and the wealthiest 1 percent pay 24.8 percent of federal taxes.

If one is going to cut taxes, one must cut the taxes of those that actually pay those taxes.

We can get into a debate on the increase of federal funds that goes along with tax cuts because of increased economic activity. We can get into the amount of wealth controlled by percentage. We can get into the amount of federal services received based on income levels. There are lots of things we can get into on both sides, and they are worthy of debate. I think it is clear where I stand (and no, I am not in the wealthiest 5% of tax payers).

The truly wealthy in this country pay very little in taxes because they do have have taxable income. Taxes, as currently structured, and are penalty on the creation of personal wealth, not a tax on true wealth. That is why I think the entire income tax structure should be scrapped for either a flat tax based on something like Steve Forbes proposals discussed during the 2000 campaign (he got my primary vote in AZ), or a consumption tax which excludes food and services.

This will never happen. True political power is the power to tax, give tax breaks, and control the tax code. And ALL politicians are guilty of wanting that kind of power.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

I wonder if that would make the pattern work if we go way way back and eliminate one Roosevelt and one Adams?

You'd also need to eliminate a Harrison and a Johnson. And it probably wouldn't work since prior to 1913 (when the income tax was made legal) the tax structure used to fund the federal government was very different. In the last half of the 19th century a president's policy on inflation was probably just as important as their tax policies (industrialists tend to be anti-inflation while agrarians tend to be pro-inflation). Also over the course of the last century the Democrats and Republicans have essentially swapped sides in the political spectrum (Republicans used to be the "reformers" and "progressives" while Democrats were conservatives).

If you only count two term presidents and throw out matched names then the only presidents to be elected twice and serve two full terms are Eisenhower, Reagan, and Clinton. If you go all the way back to the beginning of the century then you can add Woodrow Wilson and FDR to the list.

As for the tax cut GC posted to I can't really roll my eyes harder as it is an exercise in stupidity. Why not just headline it "Analysis shows that cut in investment taxes benefits primarily those with lots of investments." Tomorrow they can run an article that covers the controversial topic of how "Increase in candy bar prices disproportionately impacts those who eat candy bars." There are, of course, very important issues* raised by this particular tax cut that are worthy of discussion but the article doesn't mention them.


* Such as "Has this cut created a real increase in tax burden for others" or "Should taxes be cut in a time of increasing governmental spending obligations" or "Even if actually beneficial to the overall economy does it make political sense to pass a tax cut that is so likely to be used as a political tool against you and then reversed."

[Gemini Cricket]

Dept. of Homeland Security's Brian J. Doyle is a pedophile.

Ay carumba!

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

Dept. of Homeland Security's Brian J. Doyle is a pedophile. Ay carumba!

I saw that kid on CNN yesterday, testifying before Congress. He's a cutie!


Um, but, er ... well, he's claiming he's the victim of sexual predation by thousands of men - - via the pornographic web-cam site that he himself set up. I don't quite get the victim part of this equation.



(Well, I'm not really angry about this ... but I'm tired of all the weighty stuff in this thread. Let's talk gay sex with underage boys and the politicians who are ensnared by their irresistible wiles!)