Bush gives tax break to large corporations, but takes benefits from the poor.

[Mitchell]

Well, our lovely commander and chief, George W Bush, has done it again. I saw on TV today a bill signing ceremony where Bush signed the fourth massive tax cut in his four years in office, which the commentators said would give millions of dollars in Tax breaks to the largest of companies, while closing a loophole in the tax law for the very poorest of families. Real lovely governing on our Chief Executive's part, to take from the poorest to give more to the rich. Hopefully, our voters are now realizing his agenda, as the latest polls have Kerry and him tied. Hopefully, Kerry will surge ahead and push him out of office.
Today is also the famous "First Monday in October" with the Surpreme Court in session. The news said today that the next president may have to appoint as many as four justices due to the agedness of the current ones, and their likely retirement. For the pro choice supporters on here, there was expressed discussion in the commentary about Roe V Wade. With nothing to lose, and no election to win, what would stop Bush from appointing pro life justices to over turn Roe V Wade? Any woman. and any citizen, for that matter, should think very carefully before voting in this election, as what this man does both with the war, the economy, and the Court, could affect our country for generations to come.

Mitch

[kurchatovium]

I think the bill you are talking about, that the president signed in Iowa actually benefits millions of middle class americans and was in fact actually supported by Kerry himself. Parts of what the bill allows are below

_ Keep the per-child tax credit at $1,000 for five years.


_ Continue to allow more of taxpayers' income to be taxed at 10 percent, the lowest rate, for six years.


_ Retain for four years a provision giving married couples relief from the so-called marriage penalty.


This is a yahoo news story so I think its pretty reputable the link is here below for those that are interested. This is the kind of bill I want congress to pass and as stated previously was also supported by Kerry as well. I think you have to give the president kudos for signing this bill.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=2&u=/ap/20041004/ap_on_el_pr/bush

[Strider]

Tax cuts are a good thing.Now we have to get spending under control.

[venray]

Those cuts for the "rich" sure helped my wife and I make ends meet the last time around, especially with the little one..Sorry, Mitch, but I SURELY support this one as should any middle class American.

[tactillianlover]

I read a graph that claimed from around 1900 to the second
world war, the rich in america paid over 70 percent taxes
and the rest paid nothing. federal I think. It said the
rich expected to pay alot because they made alot and
were the main influence wielding the most power.

Since W.W.II, the midle class has been the biggest
contributor of taxes.


Recently I heard the rich pay 50 percent, than another
source claimed 35 percent. I figured it was 35, add
social security and local taxes, I think, and you get
50 percent.

Provided this data is close, the rich still have 95
percent of overall power in the U.S.A. IMO.

Why not pay 50, plus social security,etc.

[Mitchell]

I'm glad it helped you, ray. I can tell you that from most middle class people I've spoken to, they say all it amounted to for them is a new muffler. According to some friends I have who are CPA's, the millionaires in this country with taxable incomes of over 1 Mil a year or more, can buy themselves a new Lexus every year, while it supposedly buys us middle class folks little more than a new muffler. Maybe this is oversimplification, but it hasnt saved my household much, nor most middle class households in Lancaster that I've talked to . Plus, after having these tax cuts, combined with the war, we have gone from the greatest surplus in our country to the greatest deficit.
This of course isnt the only reason I disagree with, dislike, and want Bush voted out. Mainly, its the war and the 1000 dead. He keeps saying "we are making progress". My question is: For what and at the expense of who? Also, have you noticed how expensive Gasoline is at the pump now a days? About $ 2 a gallon and rising, with oil over $51 a barrel, a record high, and nautral gas at 8.00 per thousand cubic feet, also very high. Those numbers benefit Bush and his oil buddies, and he will do nothing to bring them down. Another term of him, and you could see $75 to $100 dollar a barrel oil prices, and $5 a gallon at the pump. He doesnt care.
I see your point, but respectfully, I dont agree. This is what makes America good though, for all of us to have our own self determination. We'll see how it all plays out in 4 weeks from now. It's getting interesting, and should be a close finish.

Mitch

[kurchatovium]

Well I think the point is Mitch is that this is a reversal of trends in terms of taxes. Usually they burden most social programs on the middle class and increase our taxes. This is first time in a long time that taxes have actually gone down for me and not up. This is one main reason Bush is getting my vote.

[venray]

No need to go off topic in your own post Mitch. We know your point of view. You brought up tax cuts and we responded. No need to dump the other stuff in here.

I live and have always lived among the middle class working people Mitch. These tax cuts go me back over 6000.00 last year. That is more to me than a new muffler. It was a second car for us with no car payments. Even A few hundred dollars means a lot to a parent......

That may not mean much to you or those you know, but it does to me and those I know.....

You cant convince me that everything Bush does is wrong even though you will never cease trying.......:rolleyes:

I will talk with you about it after the election as there is no sense in getting into real issues in this forum hidden far from the real world......


Be well........

[Mitchell]

Okay, you too, and I didnt mean to offend. Sorry if I did. I understand that people have their own reasons for voting for Bush, and I respect that, even if I dont agree with him or his policies. Iam not nor would I take someone to task for voting for him, as we all have our own reasons for backing the candidate that we do.

Mitch

[Mitchell]

venray, one important point I wanted to make after the debate about taxes. If John Kerry gets in there, your taxes will not be affected according to the plan, nor will mine, as he said he is only going to raise taxes on the top tax bracket of people making over $200, 000 a year, so it's not like the middle class is going to vote in this big tax and spend liberal who is going to increase taxes. Kerry has said he favors a middle class tax cut, as well as leaving many of the Bush tax cuts in place, and only raising taxes for the wealthy. I dont see this as a bad thing on Kerry's part. I do agree with the idea of raising taxes on the wealthy, as most of those people arent likely to vote for Kerry anyway, except for certain Hollywood celebrities who are Democrats, and dont care about the tax issue. So people who base their objection to Kerry on the tax issue, seemingly wont be affected by his plan.
I also strongly object to Bush making the tax cuts "permanent". This is extremely audacious on his part. Even if re elected, who is he to set policy, 5, 10, 20, and 50 years down the road? What is to say another president wont come in at another point in history with a different economic climate, and different policies in the world, and need to make adjustments. Even the Reagan tax cuts werent "permanent" as Bush 41 came in and made adjustments, as did Clinton. I cant stand this arrogant attitude of Bush to control everyone and everything in the world, including the whole world now, and future history. Serve your term however long it is, have your policies, get out, and let someone else make the policy when you're no longer in there. This man without a doubt is the most arrogant president ever to sit in office. Iam not by any means advocating higher taxes, as I believe everyone should have whatever legal tax breaks possible, and that the wealthy should be responsible for paying the most in taxes, that is only fair. What Iam saying is that Bush wants to forever shape the world for a time when he will no longer be in office. Times change, policies change, and it is this arrogance that makes him appalling to me, and why I could never cast my vote for him, higher taxes or not.

Mitch

[venray]

Originally posted by Mitchell
venray, one important point I wanted to make after the debate about taxes. If John Kerry gets in there, your taxes will not be affected according to the plan, nor will mine, as he said he is only going to raise taxes on the top tax bracket of people making over $200, 000 a year, so it's not like the middle class is going to vote in this big tax and spend liberal who is going to increase taxes. Mitch


LOL..I've heard THAT one before, Mitch...the problem is that Kerry and Edwards have "said" all kinds of things that they will do...but it takes money and more government agencies to make those kind of programs happen. We get that money from taxes and the middle class always pays the most...

I dont believe much of what Kerry says as he says something different depending upon public opinion of the day like most politicians. I have read his entire voting record. He votes like Ted Kennedy who is far from supporting the common man. ( I lived in Massachusettes for 16 years so I know what Kerry is about)

Read it for yourself, and tell me that you can honestly believe he will do anything that wont raise the cost of living higher and increase government beaurocracy....

Ray

[cluelessone]

I personally would like to see income tax done away with altogether. There have been several grass roots efforts to do away with it but none have ever been able to get off the ground. Then we wouldn't have to worry about tax cuts/hikes/etc. Maybe a bit simplistic (and I'm not even blonde :eek: ) so forgive me for my naiveness.

[MrMacphisto]

Yeah, I agree... we should just dump the income tax, the property tax, and sales tax. All we need the government for is for building prisons, making a few laws here and there, and making sure those darn immigrants can speak English (even if a lot of U.S. "natives" can barely speak it). Yep, who needs social programs? Having toll booths at every intersection to pay for privately owned roads is a small price to pay for freedom!!!!

[Strider]

Originally posted by MrMacphisto
Yeah, I agree... we should just dump the income tax, the property tax, and sales tax. All we need the government for is for building prisons, making a few laws here and there, and making sure those darn immigrants can speak English (even if a lot of U.S. "natives" can barely speak it). Yep, who needs social programs? Having toll booths at every intersection to pay for privately owned roads is a small price to pay for freedom!!!!

So uh,how did we survive so well with no income tax for close to 120 years?

[MrMacphisto]

Strider... you do realize that funding a government without the use of an income tax isn't that hard when your country has less than 50 million people... We just broke the 50 million mark in 1890 and even up until the federal income tax's creation in 1913, we had only around 100 million people. I mean... if you want to return to the Gilded Age, then that's your prerogative, but funding things like social programs is pretty important to me, and history would seem to suggest that the quality of human life in this country increased dramatically as such programs were developed. Quite simply, we had a very classist system before the creation of the federal income tax, where the rich did as they pleased while millions of poor were left to the mercy of charities. Personally, I don't want to return to that kind of situation....

[the_Baron]

just as a point of interest, the Bill also repeals certain benefits previously afforded to U.S. trade exporters.

the original breaks encouraged U.S. businesses to grow globally, and increased capital investments and overall prosperity for many.

as a result of the EU threatening sanctions on the U.S. under the guise of these benefits being analogous to subsidies, they are now repealed.

so big business may be crying the blues.

[tactillianlover]

What counts as middle class? I'm guessing 30,000 to
70,000 a year.

[venray]

Let's also point out that if there werent 25 democrats who voted FOR it, the bill would not have passed....

[MrMacphisto]

Good point, Ray... If the Democrats keep trying too hard to be centrist, they might merge into the Republicans. Everyone complains about how liberal Kerry and his party are, but if you really compare them to 90s and 80s Democrats, they're quite moderate in many cases.

[Strider]

Strider... you do realize that funding a government without the use of an income tax isn't that hard when your country has less than 50 million people... We just broke the 50 million mark in 1890 and even up until the federal income tax's creation in 1913, we had only around 100 million people.

Get rid of the crap that the government shouldn't be funding in the first place and population won't be an issue.


I mean... if you want to return to the Gilded Age, then that's your prerogative, but funding things like social programs is pretty important to me

So by all means,open up your wallet and give all your money to the needy.Nothing's stopping you.Or does your generosity vanish when it's not somebody else's money being given away?

and history would seem to suggest that the quality of human life in this country increased dramatically as such programs were developed. Quite simply, we had a very classist system before the creation of the federal income tax

That's simply untrue.In the mid to late 19th century the average immigrant lived in the Tenth Ward in New York for a matter of months before moving to a nicer place.And because of massive advances in productivity the entire population was able to afford what would have previously been considered luxury items for the first time in their lives.

where the rich did as they pleased while millions of poor were left to the mercy of charities. Personally, I don't want to return to that kind of situation

I see.You'd rather they be left to the mercy of the federal government then?

If the Democrats keep trying too hard to be centrist, they might merge into the Republicans. Everyone complains about how liberal Kerry and his party are, but if you really compare them to 90s and 80s Democrats, they're quite moderate in many cases.

I agree with you about the Dems in the 1980s,but the 1990s was when they moved back to the center,largely due to Clinton.The Dems have to be centrist for an extremely simple reason.They won't win otherwise.The US always has been,and likely always will be an extremely conservative country.We were probably the first country in the world to emphatically reject Socialism.

[MrMacphisto]

Originally posted by Strider
Get rid of the crap that the government shouldn't be funding in the first place and population won't be an issue.

For once, we agree...

So by all means,open up your wallet and give all your money to the needy.Nothing's stopping you.Or does your generosity vanish when it's not somebody else's money being given away?

What's stopping me is that I'm not rich. Those who are rich have the money to spare, and I don't. Although I must admire your sympathy for the likes of Michael Eisner, Steve Forbes, etc.

That's simply untrue.In the mid to late 19th century the average immigrant lived in the Tenth Ward in New York for a matter of months before moving to a nicer place.And because of massive advances in productivity the entire population was able to afford what would have previously been considered luxury items for the first time in their lives.

You're very selective in your perception of our country's past. It seems that you forget that the median standard of living in this country back then was far lower than it was after WWII.

I see.You'd rather they be left to the mercy of the federal government then?

If you're implying that I trust the government more than I trust corporations, you're correct. I'd rather even have Bush's intervention in my life than that of corporations. At least, governmental officials are in a position where they have to pretend they give a shit about your rights. Corporations have no responsibility or requirement to protect or respect us.

I agree with you about the Dems in the 1980s,but the 1990s was when they moved back to the center,largely due to Clinton.The Dems have to be centrist for an extremely simple reason.They won't win otherwise.The US always has been,and likely always will be an extremely conservative country.We were probably the first country in the world to emphatically reject Socialism.

That's fitting, considering we will also find the transition toward globalization the most shocking. Perhaps, the land of decadence will finally realize it has more in common socially with the third world than with the first world.

[Strider]

What's stopping me is that I'm not rich. Those who are rich have the money to spare, and I don't.

Because they have money is not a justification for you to take it and redistribute it.

Although I must admire your sympathy for the likes of Michael Eisner, Steve Forbes, etc.

It has nothing to do with sympathy,it has to do with my views on the proper role of government and the fact that I believe people have a right to keep their own money.

You're very selective in your perception of our country's past. It seems that you forget that the median standard of living in this country back then was far lower than it was after WWII.

Well of course it was.Such was the situation all over the world.It has nothing to do with welfare states,it has to do with industrialization and embracing the market.

If you're implying that I trust the government more than I trust corporations, you're correct. I'd rather even have Bush's intervention in my life than that of corporations.

Why do you assume this is a zero-sum game in which you're going to either be manipulated by one or the other?

At least, governmental officials are in a position where they have to pretend they give a shit about your rights. Corporations have no responsibility or requirement to protect or respect us

Once again,how did corporations come into the picture?You mentioned people being at the mercy of charities.

That's fitting, considering we will also find the transition toward globalization the most shocking.

What do you base your observation on?

Perhaps, the land of decadence will finally realize it has more in common socially with the third world than with the first world.

OK,you lost me.

[New2u]

Before Bush came into office at the end of the Clinton era, The Government had a budget surplus without the use of any huge tax cuts. At the end of George W. Bush's first term as President, we now have (once again) a huge defeceit after Bush's huge tax cuts combined with the Iraq war. Now, huge cuts will be forth coming in order to reduce the Bush Deficeit which involves cutting Government services, retirements, annuitants, disabilities, law enforcement, Environmental services and protection, health services, food and safety protection, etc. much of which have effectively served the public. When certain people spout about the old "tax and spend" perception, they think only about certain wasteful "pet" projects of some congressmen but don't consider the other side of the coin which involve Government services that are benefical to people on health and environment or annuities for retired Government or disabled employees.

The Bush cuts have only benefited a few. Those making over $200,000 a year have seen a tax deduction of approximately $80,000. Those making about $75,000 or less a year (defined as "middle-class") only received a deduction of $1,000. A considerable difference here.

Under Bush's cuts, the more you earn, the less you pay in taxes. The less you earn, the more you pay in taxes. This is a form of "reverse" robin hood concept, you steal from the poor and give to the rich. Considering that Bush himself is among the wealthy, he will benefit from his own tax plan. The rest can fend for themselves. Mitchell your assertion was a correct one.

[MrMacphisto]

Originally posted by Strider
Why do you assume this is a zero-sum game in which you're going to either be manipulated by one or the other?

Because it is... although maybe you're right... It is rather hard to function in society if I concern myself too much with that....

Once again,how did corporations come into the picture?You mentioned people being at the mercy of charities.

Corporations come into the picture when the government isn't there to regulate the economy and make sure the corporations are "playing fair." I'm sure you're aware of the period of our history where Anti-trust laws were needed to return our economy back to a capitalism rather than an oligopoly. That's the irony of capitalism; if you let the market clear itself for long enough without using any regulatory measures, oligopolies and monopolies develop. Both of these are very similar to communism; you just simply substitute the principle of the government controlling production with that of the oligopolistic or monopolistic corporations controlling the market as they desire. In the end, it's always a balance of power between corporations and the government. That's why I see it as a zero-sum game, but then again... We can't do much about that, can we?...

What do you base your observation on?

I base my observation on the fact that our corporations are moving ahead with the rapid globalization of our industries, yet the people are led to believe that the government will save their jobs with these illusory plans of protectionism. Any economist should know that the transition of jobs and wealth moving from the First World into the Third World due to the principle of comparative advantage and due to increased production there is inevitable. Combine this with the facts that the world has a limited amount of natural resources and that the rise in the standard of living in the Third World will further limit our own consumption, and you have quite a bleak picture for the First World. Essentially in a matter of decades, we will enter a world where the Chinese, Indians, and Southeast Asians will be living much better lives due to a dramatic rise in quality of life, and Europeans and Americans will be living at roughly the equivalent of a Russian standard of living... possibly even lower. Granted, it is about time that the majority of the world was living in better conditions. Our period of decadence is fleeting as was that of the Ancient Romans....

OK,you lost me.

We have one thing in common with the Third World already - wealth disparity. The wealth distribution in this country is much like that of Brazil's; the only difference is that our median standard of living is much higher. Likewise, this similarity in wealth disparity is reflected in our distrust of socialism. France and Germany, by comparison, have a much more balanced distribution of wealth. The most socialistic countries out there are even better in their distributions. Sweden, Norway, and Finland all have very balanced distributions of wealth. There are very few fabulously wealthy people there, but they also have very few poor people. Canada is a moderately socialistic country with a much better wealth distribution than ours as well.