Let Bush's bounce be a thud!

[save me]

At the convention, the Republicans repeatedly said one thing, but their policies and their platform say another. While putting up moderates to talk about inclusion, they adopted a platform that seeks to write discrimination into the constitution and make permanent tax cuts proven to disproportionately benefit the wealthy.

The Republican Party is showing no concrete evidence of their ability to advance America. Instead they're relying on rhetoric that plays on fear, smears John Kerry, and distorts their record over the last four years.

Rather than talking about their record and their strengths, the Republicans turned nasty and negative, going after Kerry with baseless attacks on his character, and intentionally distorting his record.
Instances of their negativity:

Zell Miller delivered a vitriolic, angry speech despite praising Kerry’s leadership less than three years ago. He said that “Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending” and mischaracterized Kerry’s voting record. This coming from a man who in 2001 referred to Kerry as “one of this nation's authentic heroes, one of this party's best-known and greatest leaders – and a good friend... [who] has worked to strengthen our military, reform public education, boost the economy and protect the environment... [that he] has fought against government waste and worked hard to bring some accountability to Washington.”

Republican delegates mocked Purple Heart veterans, outrageously distributing band-aids with purple hearts on them on the convention floor.
On the issues:

They say the economy is strong, but there are more than 36 million Americans in poverty, rising 1.3 million between 2002 and 2003. The administration projected that 3,978,000 jobs would be created over the last 13 months, but in reality, since the tax cuts took effect, there have been 2,565,000 fewer jobs created than the administration projected through the enactment of its tax cuts.

They talk about protecting Americans, but the administration's own experts say that we're less safe, that we've played into the enemy's hands and made it easier for Al Qaeda to recruit, and alienated the rest of the world. Senior military personnel are repeatedly and harshly criticizing the actions of the administration as reckless and counterproductive. Retired Gen. Tony McPeak, a former Air Force chief of staff and one-time "Veteran for Bush," says that foreign relations for the first three years of President Bush's term have been "a national disaster."

The administration talks about helping working Americans with tax cuts, but its own experts admit that it’s skewed to benefit the wealthy with the top 1% getting a third of the benefit, shifting the burden to middle-income taxpayers. CEO salaries have now reached 301 times the wages of their full time workers. Again, they're saying one thing and doing another.

They talk about taking care of Americans at home, but they are doing nothing for the 43 million of us who are uninsured, almost half of whom are working, and of which more than 8 million are children. Is this their idea of compassionate conservatism?

[barefoot]

Get used to it.

[cyberhound]

The tax cuts do not disportionally help the wealthy, nor have they shifted the burden to the middle class. Argue all you want about the need for them, but you are dead wrong on those two things.

[Warehouse21]

The tax cuts do not disportionally help the wealthy, nor have they shifted the burden to the middle class. Argue all you want about the need for them, but you are dead wrong on those two things.

Do you wanna back that up? Give me a statistic, a number, SOMETHING to help me believe that statement? You can't. Mathematicaaly prove to me that thoise tax cuts don't help the wealthy and burden the middle class, and I'll believe you.

[eric_dmbfan03]

The tax cuts do not disportionally help the wealthy, nor have they shifted the burden to the middle class. Argue all you want about the need for them, but you are dead wrong on those two things.
"President Bush's tax cuts since 2001 have shifted more of the tax burden from the nation's rich to middle-class families, according to a study released Friday by the Congressional Budget Office." The Washington Post August 14, 2004

[barefoot]

First thing one of my college prof's taught me was statistics can prove anything. Until you are involved in buisness you dont know the practical application of tax cuts. Big buisness provides jobs and growth in the economy, are you going to help a company that employes thousands or make them suffer and drive their jobs oversea's.

[DMBSignGuy]

First thing one of my college prof's taught me was statistics can prove anything. Until you are involved in buisness you dont know the practical application of tax cuts. Big buisness provides jobs and growth in the economy, are you going to help a company that employes thousands or make them suffer and drive their jobs oversea's.

and unfortunatly even with our huge tax cuts jobs are still going overseas and the ones that are being created here are for less money, less hours and less benefits. Its a tax cut when a tax cut is not needed. most people feel they are paying more taxes then they were before the tax cut....ie state and local and other taxes. me personally, i havent seen a dime not do i expect to. its just how it is. :freak

[cyberhound]

"President Bush's tax cuts since 2001 have shifted more of the tax burden from the nation's rich to middle-class families, according to a study released Friday by the Congressional Budget Office." The Washington Post August 14, 2004
:rolleyes: I can tell you really didn't bother to read that article. Or you did and purposefully left out what didn't support your agenda. So, here we go one more time...

The percentage of the tax burden on a group of people and actual taxes paid by individuals, couples, and small companies are two different things. What you conveniently missed or left out of that article is this:

"The conclusions are stark. The effective federal tax rate of the top 1 percent of taxpayers has fallen from 33.4 percent to 26.7 percent, a 20 percent drop. In contrast, the middle 20 percent of taxpayers -- whose incomes averaged $51,500 in 2001 -- saw their tax rates drop 9.3 percent. The poorest taxpayers saw their taxes fall 16 percent.

Republican aides on Capitol Hill, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the tax cuts actually made federal income taxes -- as opposed to total taxes -- more equitable.

They point to a different set of numbers within the CBO study that show that the rich are actually paying more in individual federal income taxes. If Social Security, Medicare and other federal levies are excluded, the rich are paying a higher share of income taxes this year than they would have paid with no tax changes, the CBO found. If none of the tax cuts had passed, the top 20 percent would pay 78.4 percent of income taxes this year. Instead, they will pay 82.1 percent. In contrast, the middle-class share of income taxes dropped to 5.4 percent, from 6.4 percent if no tax cuts had passed."

In other words...

Look at it this way:

Say that Joe, Pete and Tom owe me money. They each have $100. From his $100, Joe owes me 15% or $15. Pete owes me 20% or $20. Tom owes me 40% or $40. I am owed $75.

Of the $75 that is owed to me, Tom has given me $40 or 53.33% of the total. Pete has given me $20 or 26.66% of the total. And finally, Joe has given me $15 or 20% of the total.

Now, let's say that I decrease the percentages that each person owes me. Joe now only owes me 12% of his $100, or $12. Pete only owes me 17% of his $100, or $17. And finally Tom only owes me 30% of his $100, or $30. I am now owed $59.

Of the $59 that is owed to me, Tom has given me $30 or 50.84% of the total. Pete has given me $17, or 28.81% of the total. And finally Joe has given me $12, or 20.33% of the total.

Everyone owed me less money, but since the distribution of the money that was owed was decreased for each person a different amount, the percentage of the total that was owed increased for some while decreased for others.

- MattYou see , numbers can be used in many ways to portray many things. Don't post what fits your agenda and make it look like it's the truth when there are numbers to counter your argument in the very same article.

Plus, if you check the latest IRS and CBO statistics you will also find other interesting little things like the share of total income taxes paid by the top 1% fell to 33.89% from 37.42% in 2000. This is mainly because their income share (not just wages) fell from 20.81% to 17.53%. However, their average tax rate actually rose slightly from 27.45% to 27.50%. Also, the top 5% of income earners pay 53.25% of all income taxes (Down from 2000 figure: 56.47%). The top 10% pay 64.89% (Down from 2000 figure: 67.33%). The top 25% pay 82.9% (Down from 2000 figure: 84.01%). The top 50% pay 96.03% (Down from 2000 figure: 96.09%). The bottom 50%? They pay 3.97% of all income taxes. The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%. And who earns what? The top 1% earns 17.53 (2000: 20.81%) of all income. The top 5% earns 31.99 (2000: 35.30%). The top 10% earns 43.11% (2000: 46.01%); the top 25% earns 65.23% (2000: 67.15%), and the top 50% earns 86.19% (2000: 87.01%) of all the income.

What does this mean? Well it may very well mean this...perhaps it was not the tax cut that caused revenues from the rich to fall, but the economic ression and fall of the stock market. In other words, you live by the sword, you die by the sword. If you are going to benefit from the rich paying more taxes, due to progressivity, on the upside, you are going to lose more revenue from these people on the downside.

None of that means however, and the numbers show it, that the middle class are paying more in taxes than they did before.

[save me]

The tax cuts do not disportionally help the wealthy, nor have they shifted the burden to the middle class. Argue all you want about the need for them, but you are dead wrong on those two things.


Examining an overview of "tax cuts" doesn't always cut it. Take for instance my profession as an early childhood educator; I have a bachelor's degree and am certified through my state's department of education. Here are some figures related to my cause:





On Friday, May 21st the House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on H.R. 4359, the Child Credit Preservation and Expansion Act of 2004. This bill gives wealthy people with incomes as high as $300,000 a tax break of $1,000 for each of their children, while denying even a portion of the child tax credit to families with a full time minimum wage earner. This new tax break for those with the highest incomes adds almost $70 billion to the debt our children will have to pay. Please send this message to urge your Representative to vote against H.R. 4359!

Thank you,
Kerry Shukers

[cyberhound]

Examining an overview of "tax cuts" doesn't always cut it. Take for instance my profession as an early childhood educator; I have a bachelor's degree and am certified through my state's department of education. Here are some figures related to my cause:





On Friday, May 21st the House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on H.R. 4359, the Child Credit Preservation and Expansion Act of 2004. This bill gives wealthy people with incomes as high as $300,000 a tax break of $1,000 for each of their children, while denying even a portion of the child tax credit to families with a full time minimum wage earner. This new tax break for those with the highest incomes adds almost $70 billion to the debt our children will have to pay. Please send this message to urge your Representative to vote against H.R. 4359!

Thank you,
Kerry Shukers
Your profession is inconsequential to the discussion. Are you saying we should give the credit to everyone?

[Evans]

Fowa Mowa Yeahhhhsss! Fowa Mowa Yeeeeahhhss!

[ambysshrink]

Fowa Mowa Yeahhhhsss! Fowa Mowa Yeeeeahhhss!
You have the articulation of a landfill.

[Evans]

correction. Arnold Swartz is who i'm quoting. Read the sig.

[ambysshrink]

Fair enough. But I could quote Shaquille O'neill on you. But I won't. Because I would look stupid.

hint hint

;)
C'mon, you're brighter than arnold!

[Dancing Ants]

Fair enough. But I could quote Shaquille O'neill on you. But I won't. Because I would look stupid.

hint hint

;)
C'mon, you're brighter than arnold!


you're such a loving and caring liberal.

[Evans]

Fair enough. But I could quote Shaquille O'neill on you. But I won't. Because I would look stupid.

hint hint

;)
C'mon, you're brighter than arnold!

Don't think that I support Arnold S., I think he's another idiot celebrity if you want my opinion on him. When he shouted "FOWA MOWA YEAWWSS" at the convention, I couldn't help but laugh. Images of the Simpsons Rainier Wolfcastle came to mind at that moment, the whole thing felt like a parody of itself. He's pro-choice, so there is no possible way for me to support him.

[ambysshrink]

you're such a loving and caring liberal.
Yeah, I've been pretty bitchy lately; I'm not sure why. I'll have to tone it down a bit.

[ambysshrink]

Don't think that I support Arnold S., I think he's another idiot celebrity if you want my opinion on him. When he shouted "FOWA MOWA YEAWWSS" at the convention, I couldn't help but laugh. Images of the Simpsons Rainier Wolfcastle came to mind at that moment, the whole thing felt like a parody of itself. He's pro-choice, so there is no possible way for me to support him.
Gotcha, sorry. I didn't realize the mocking/sarcasm that came with it. I guess it's tough to get that on messageboards.

[Evans]

Gotcha, sorry. I didn't realize the mocking/sarcasm that came with it. I guess it's tough to get that on messageboards.

Yeah, thats what sucks about messageboards. No foul

[boob]

"President Bush's tax cuts since 2001 have shifted more of the tax burden from the nation's rich to middle-class families, according to a study released Friday by the Congressional Budget Office." The Washington Post August 14, 2004 great to quote the washington post of all papers. the media is way past the bias point this year. next they are going to start plainly telling you to vote for nader, and most of you gulable people will.

[boob]

also since we are on the misconception of taxation and whom it affects (this was in the heart of president bush's term):

4/15/2002 - Associated Press
Middle Class Get Biggest Tax Break
WASHINGTON — The wealthy and low-income people stand a better chance of being audited than the typical middle-class family, which is paying the lowest share of its income to the Treasury since 1957.


in 2002, just months after september 11th hit our nation's economy hard, this administration gave breaks to those whom needed it. while the middle class has mediocre income, they also invest almost more than the other classes. after our markets fell, these breaks helped the majority of those in the middle class--including myself.

[DMBSignGuy]

great to quote the washington post of all papers. the media is way past the bias point this year. next they are going to start plainly telling you to vote for nader, and most of you gulable people will.

uh you do know the washington post is a conservative newspaper right? next thing i'll hear is someone yelling at Fox News for being so liberal :rolleyes:

edit: just read your other post, how can you go and quote the AP, which is generally considered apart of the "liberal media" and still say the Washinton Post has a bias?

[schmenencke]

uh you do know the washington post is a conservative newspaper right? next thing i'll hear is someone yelling at Fox News for being so liberal :rolleyes:

edit: just read your other post, how can you go and quote the AP, which is generally considered apart of the "liberal media" and still say the Washinton Post has a bias?
Washington Times, conservative paper.
Washington Post, not so much.

[ambysshrink]

Washington Times, conservative paper.

Do you mean the "DC Times"?

I'm not trying to be picky, I"m just making sure I"m thinking of the right newspaper..

[cyberhound]

Do you mean the "DC Times"?

I'm not trying to be picky, I"m just making sure I"m thinking of the right newspaper..
Nope he's right. Washington Times.

[ambysshrink]

Nope he's right. Washington Times.
Hmm :confused: :confused: I wonder what I'm thinking of...

[boob]

yeah get your shit right before you go and correct the stance of a certain media. but im just the conservative ass here so dont listen to me since i waste all of you ignorant ones time. atleast i dont listen to phish as i smoke hashish.

[stimmerman]

at least i dont listen to phish as i smoke hashish.
Yeah, you sound like you listen to Toby Keith as you chaw on some Redman.

[jrcdmb40]

Yeah, you sound like you listen to Toby Keith as you chaw on some Redman.
i think he dips copenhagen actually.

[DMBSignGuy]

Washington Times, conservative paper.
Washington Post, not so much.

well sure, if your comparing it to Fox News or something. :p

[stimmerman]

i think he dips copenhagen actually.
Ok, copenhagen. But I know Shock 'N Ya'll is on heavy rotation in his '83 Chevy.

[schmenencke]

well sure, if your comparing it to Fox News or something. :p

I use Rush Limbaugh as my standard for just the facts, middle of the road, unbiased reporting, then work my way out from there. :lol

[boob]

you caught me, i have all of the toby keith cd's and i dip cope.

[SMN43]

the bounce won't be a thud. normally incumbents who gain the upper hand after the conventions take the election.

[DMBSignGuy]

I use Rush Limbaugh as my standard for just the facts, middle of the road, unbiased reporting, then work my way out from there. :lol

:lol no no you got it all wrong, ya gotta use Michael Savage as your standard...hes the one whos got his head on straight.