Originally Posted By planodisney I understand you feel like you are geting a good bargain with your taxes Roadtrip, but would you still feel the same way if all of the proposed tax increases for people of your income, by the democrats, went through? They want to pay for everything by increasing taxes on people who are not rich, but make a good living.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Of course, the decline in the black poverty rate in the 1960's could have been the result of JFK's tax cuts causing increased economic growth and therefore opportunity.> Nice try. The poverty rate in the US went down every year under Clinton. It has gone up 4 straight years under Bush, the tax-cutter for the wealthy. Hmmmm.... Let's repeat that again for fans of Mr. "compassionate conservative." The poverty rate has gone up 4 straight years.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Remember that post you made a while back RoadTrip about red states giving more to charities than blue states. I believe it was based on percentage.>> Yes, I'm quite certain it was. But a large portion of that money was giving to churches. Not that there is anything wrong with giving to churches. But generally a relatively small percent of the money goes to outreach activities by the church to assist the poor. Most of the money goes to sustain a church's operations. Few churches could meet the standards asked of charities as far as overhead expenses go. <<Not saying that democrats arent heartfelt, I know they are, but Republicans, and wealthy peopl in this country, do give a great deal.>> Actually, the statistics I've read (sorry, I don't have the link at hand) show that the GREATEST giving as a percentage of income is done by the working poor. The next highest is the middle class, followed by the wealthy, followed by the non-working poor. The wealthy come in second to last. In total dollars their gifts may be impressive. As a percentage of income they are not.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<I understand you feel like you are geting a good bargain with your taxes Roadtrip, but would you still feel the same way if all of the proposed tax increases for people of your income, by the democrats, went through?>> Yes I would. For the most part we are not talking about tax increases, but extending "temporary" tax cuts that were meant to get the country back on track after 9/11. Those tax cuts are largely directed at the extremely wealthy. I would have no problem with paying the small increases targeted at upper middle incomes.
Originally Posted By cmpaley Republicans love to play that semantic game. For example, when California had plenty of money, the State paid for 3/4 of the Vehicle Licensing Fee for car owners (it USED TO BE shown as "VLF OFFSET" on your registration bill). Unfortunately, when the State was quickly running out of money, the offset was repealed and the Republicans squawked about the "illegal tripling of the car tax." All sorts of spin was put out on right-wing talk radio (wait...isn't that redundant...right-wing...talk radio ;-) and people bought it. Schwarzenegger has been using the "car tax" to try to scare people into vote for the "Imperial Governor" initiative, Prop 76 (Vote NO!). By allowing the tax cuts expire, taxes aren't being raised, the cuts are being rolled back.
Originally Posted By woody "The poverty rate in the US went down every year under Clinton. It has gone up 4 straight years under Bush, the tax-cutter for the wealthy. Hmmmm...." Which I think should be blamed on illegal immigration and the decline of the manufacturing base. I think Bush could be blamed for not controlling illegal immigration, but Bush cannot be blamed for international trade, which will continue based on the world economy. Poverty really should not be politicized in this way. We still have low unemployment according to the government statistics.
Originally Posted By patrickegan And the wage base also has declined because most started turning a blind eye to imported slave labor. I do believe in a living wage paying my taxes and playing above board. I do have moral qualms about using slave labor and do not like having to compete with or work for people who have no scruples when it comes to exploitation. Welfare to work is a shell game we have thrown billions upon billions of dollars at education yet the poor still have more children then they can afford. I can’t afford daycare for 3 children so I only have one on the other hand if I didn’t have to pay 33% of what I made in taxes maybe I could.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The poverty rate in the US went down every year under Clinton. It has gone up 4 straight years under Bush, the tax-cutter for the wealthy.> Mr Clinton inherited a recovering economy. Mr Bush inherited a declining one. The poverty rate will decline for the next few years.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<The poverty rate in the US went down every year under Clinton. It has gone up 4 straight years under Bush, the tax-cutter for the wealthy.>> <Mr Clinton inherited a recovering economy. Mr Bush inherited a declining one. The poverty rate will decline for the next few years.> We shall see. And what about all the GOP talk about how "great" the economy is doing? You can point to certain numbers that are good, and certain others that aren't so good, but even with the good numbers, it hasn't "trickled down" to the poor, now has it? Certain sectors of the economy (and the electorate) are doing fine, yet the poverty rate has gone up 4 years in a row, giving the lie to the "rising tide lifts all boats" line. The tide isn't rising for everyone. The economy is NOT working equally well for all Americans.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <And what about all the GOP talk about how "great" the economy is doing? You can point to certain numbers that are good, and certain others that aren't so good, but even with the good numbers, it hasn't "trickled down" to the poor, now has it?> The poverty rate is a trailing indicator.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Gee, with Clinton, it went down right away. And with Bush it went up right away. Not much "lag time" there. But it wouldn't be WE without one of Doug's lame attempts at justification.
Originally Posted By Disneyman55 Blah, blah, blah zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz blah,blah,blah zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Here's a compromise for this hashed and rehashed boring arguement. As a good conservative, I would be willing to contemplate my taxes if and only if certain things happen. Here is my compromise. Raise taxes only if: 1. Do not change lower bracket. Raise the 2nd bracket only 1% (15 to 16). Raise 3 bracket 2% and so on until final bracket (rich people) raise thier bracket 5%. 2. All taxes beyond current level are spent ONLY on national debt until debt is paid off. 3. All social programs funding is frozen at current level (or pegged at inflation if taxes from current level increase) until national debt is paid off. 3. Acknowledgement that Social Security is going under and somebody better fix it without more taxes. 4. Upon paying off national debt, pass a constitutional amendment requireing our stupid, ignorant, money-grubbing politicians live within thier means (i.e. taxes collected) so that we don't have to do this ever again.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Actually, the rate did go up the first year Clinton was in office. Again, when Clinton took office, the economy was recoverying, and when Bush took office, the economy was declining.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Interesting ideas, Disneyman. I'd change "Acknowledgement that Social Security is going under and somebody better fix it without more taxes" to add the words "or debt". I would also add that no tax cuts will be passed until the debt is paid off. We pay something like 15% of our federal budget in debt service. If we could pay that off, we could have an immediate tax cut of 15% across the board.
Originally Posted By Disneyman55 Sounds good to me Tom, lets both run for Congress and then we can get great photo ops for being "two legislators from opposing sides of the aisle who came together to pass this critical piece of legislation". Wait...nah, I just couldn't do it. Run for office that is.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Actually, the rate did go up the first year Clinton was in office.> Sorry, wrong. Poverty rate for 1993 (Clinton's first year in office): 15.1. Poverty rate in 1994: 14.6. The rate was 14.8 in 1992, but of course FY1993 ended September '93, so Clinton was in only 8+ months for FY '93, and Bush I for nearly 4 months, so you can't count FY '93 as a "Clinton year." You have to look at it as the benchmark - and then the rate declined in all subsequent Clinton years. <Again, when Clinton took office, the economy was recoverying,> "Recoverying?" Clinton kept the recovery going, and in fact accelerated it. <and when Bush took office, the economy was declining.> ... and the decline continued, at least for the poor.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<1. Do not change lower bracket. Raise the 2nd bracket only 1% (15 to 16). Raise 3 bracket 2% and so on until final bracket (rich people) raise thier bracket 5%.>> That is a far greater increase in taxes for the rich than even the Democrats have ever proposed. Or do you mean 5% as in 35% to 36.75% rather than 5% as in 35% to 40%? Just wondering...
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Poverty rate for 1993 (Clinton's first year in office): 15.1. Poverty rate in 1994: 14.6. The rate was 14.8 in 1992, but of course FY1993 ended September '93, so Clinton was in only 8+ months for FY '93, and Bush I for nearly 4 months, so you can't count FY '93 as a "Clinton year."> So 2001 counts as a Bush year, but 1993 doesn't count as a Clinton year? Nice double standard you got going there, Dabob. <Clinton kept the recovery going, and in fact accelerated it.> The economy was growing faster before Clinton took office than it did for the first few years after. It wasn't until the Republicans took over Congress that the economy really took off. But you knew that.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Poverty rate for 1993 (Clinton's first year in office): 15.1. Poverty rate in 1994: 14.6. The rate was 14.8 in 1992, but of course FY1993 ended September '93, so Clinton was in only 8+ months for FY '93, and Bush I for nearly 4 months, so you can't count FY '93 as a "Clinton year."> So 2001 counts as a Bush year, but 1993 doesn't count as a Clinton year? Nice double standard you got going there, Dabob. <Clinton kept the recovery going, and in fact accelerated it.> The economy was growing faster before Clinton took office than it did for the first few years after. It wasn't until the Republicans took over Congress that the economy really took off. But you knew that.
