The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux) - Page 261

JWBear · 01-07-2008, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

From your link -

Quote:

The recent analysis by Mr. Page at the Congressional Budget Office dismisses the idea that tax cuts may actually improve the government's fiscal situation. Even in his most generous scenario, only 28 percent of lost tax revenue is recouped over a 10-year period.

scaeagles · 01-06-2008, 04:25 PM

I guess it all depends on how you define rich. My taxes have gone down, and I'm not rich at all.

Rather than copying the information, here's some good info, particularly about myth #10 - that the tax cuts benefit only the "rich". And they are certainly not the only ones who have gotten tax cuts, but again the problem is that the tax burden is so top heavy already tax cuts will naturally affect those that pay the greatest amount of taxes.

Again, I'm not rich, and my taxes have gone down.

The corporate tax is a myth. Raise corporate taxes, corporations raise prices, passing the so called corporate soaking taxes on to the consumer.

Easy solution? Eliminate the income tax and go to property and sales taxes only. But that takes too much power away from power hungry politicians that want to use the tax code as a source of power.

scaeagles · 01-07-2008, 09:42 AM

I didn't watch the debate last night, but I don't find Thompson to be that way at all. But you probably aren't sickened by the very sound of Edward's voice like I am.

3894 · 01-07-2008, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

But you probably aren't sickened by the very sound of Edward's voice like I am.

Is it the accent or the words?

scaeagles · 01-07-2008, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3894

Is it the accent or the words?

The condesending tone he speaks with.

Strangler Lewis · 01-07-2008, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I didn't watch the debate last night, but I don't find Thompson to be that way at all. But you probably aren't sickened by the very sound of Edward's voice like I am.

I don't think either of them come off well. Call it regional bias, but I don't think Edwards has a very winning appearance. He looks and sounds like someone doing a bad impression of Dan Aykroyd's Jimmy Carter impersonation.

This is what Thompson's candidacy reminds me of as it's all about appearance. I half keep expecting him to drop trou a la LBJ and demonstrate his qualifications to run the country.

3894 · 01-07-2008, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

Call it regional bias, but I don't think Edwards has a very winning appearance.

Okay, it's regional bias.

Morrigoon · 01-07-2008, 10:13 AM

Count me in on the "please define rich" standpoint. After all, here in California, you need a 6-figure income just to buy a house. Are those people "rich"? Couldn't they use a tax cut too?

Disneyphile · 01-07-2008, 12:18 PM

I wish presidents could only serve a single 4-year term. I can't think of a single one who hasn't screwed up in their second term.

Everyone gets a little burned out in their jobs and sometimes start making mistakes - so do presidents. So, I think we should prevent it from happening as much as possible.

sleepyjeff · 01-07-2008, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Disneyphile

I wish presidents could only serve a single 4-year term. I can't think of a single one who hasn't screwed up in their second term.

But what if the reason they screw up the second term is that they are not worrying about re-election and thus are not answerable to the voters anymore?

If that's the case allowing only single 4-year terms would have the exact opposite effect you are desiring.

Perhaps a better solution would be to allow Presidents to keep running as long as they like.

01-06-2008, 04:25 PM	#2
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	I guess it all depends on how you define rich. My taxes have gone down, and I'm not rich at all. Rather than copying the information, here's some good info, particularly about myth #10 - that the tax cuts benefit only the "rich". And they are certainly not the only ones who have gotten tax cuts, but again the problem is that the tax burden is so top heavy already tax cuts will naturally affect those that pay the greatest amount of taxes. Again, I'm not rich, and my taxes have gone down. The corporate tax is a myth. Raise corporate taxes, corporations raise prices, passing the so called corporate soaking taxes on to the consumer. Easy solution? Eliminate the income tax and go to property and sales taxes only. But that takes too much power away from power hungry politicians that want to use the tax code as a source of power.
	Submit to Quotes

01-07-2008, 09:42 AM	#3
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	I didn't watch the debate last night, but I don't find Thompson to be that way at all. But you probably aren't sickened by the very sound of Edward's voice like I am.
	Submit to Quotes

01-07-2008, 10:13 AM	#8
Morrigoon I throw stones at houses Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Location: Location Posts: 9,534	Count me in on the "please define rich" standpoint. After all, here in California, you need a 6-figure income just to buy a house. Are those people "rich"? Couldn't they use a tax cut too? __________________ http://bash.org/?top "It is useless for sheep to pass a resolution in favor of vegetarianism while wolves remain of a different opinion." -- William Randolph Inge
	Submit to Quotes

01-07-2008, 12:18 PM	#9
Disneyphile SQUIRREL! Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: On the curbside. Posts: 5,098	I wish presidents could only serve a single 4-year term. I can't think of a single one who hasn't screwed up in their second term. Everyone gets a little burned out in their jobs and sometimes start making mistakes - so do presidents. So, I think we should prevent it from happening as much as possible.
	Submit to Quotes