Bush signs 70billion tax cut into law

Spider-Bite

Superhero
Joined
Jan 16, 2006
Messages
7,988
Reaction score
0
Points
31
I hate that man. I really do. He could care less about America's future. It's nothing but a tactic to appeal to his conservative base, get his approval ratings up, and help republicans keep control of congress. Government spending keeps going up, while taxes keep going down. And it's all for the rich. Taxes need to be raised not lowered. This is so irresponsible. Yeah lower taxes sounds nice, but there are consequences down the road. Man I hate this freaking man so much. I really do!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12837490
 
yeah. i used to like Bush but now it seems like hes really become an ass
 
bush is all about stealing from the poor to give the rich. this man NEEDS to be impeached...
 
::Waits for Lazur and other republican conservatives to chime in and call everyone whiney liberals.::

:rolleyes:

The sad thing is he won't get impeached. The only way anything will change is if some democrats or independents get into the congress, and open an investigation on him and his administration.

Everyone knows he lied about Iraq and is driving America into the endless abyss of feces. Every company that Bush has tried to run tanked in the long run, and it appears that America is heading that way. How long can people support this man? How long will it take for them to wake up and realize he's all about money and he could careless about anyone else.

Guess it shows the majority of humanity will support him no matter what he does.
 
C'mon, guys! It'll trickle down. We all know the rich love nothing more than helping out those of moderate incomes.

We'll get the trickles. . . right?
 
FunBobPants said:
yeah. i used to like Bush but now it seems like hes really become an ass
was the sexual innuendo intended:confused:
 
Spider-Bite said:
I hate that man. I really do. He could care less about America's future. It's nothing but a tactic to appeal to his conservative base, get his approval ratings up, and help republicans keep control of congress. Government spending keeps going up, while taxes keep going down. And it's all for the rich. Taxes need to be raised not lowered. This is so irresponsible. Yeah lower taxes sounds nice, but there are consequences down the road. Man I hate this freaking man so much. I really do!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12837490
Don't hate the player. Hate the game. :o
 
I hate the game, but I hate the playa even more! often times politicains can't govern 100% how they would like to, because in order to help as much as possible you have to have the job to begin with, so certain issues get played so the more important issues can be dealt with the way they need to be.

That's not what he does at all!
 
yeah the tax cuts is such a blatant political move. It's really the only play the Republicans have left before the 2006 elections.

I'm sure the 50 dollar checks will arrive just before the elections.

nascar dad - "Woohoo! I got 50 bucks! Git er done Bush! Yeeehaw! "
 
Don't you libs know? Giving the rich their money back leads to the CREATION OF JOBS!...





...IN ****ING MALAYSIA. :mad:

"The legislation Bush signed provides a two-year extension of the reduced 15 percent tax rate for capital gains and dividends, which were set to expire at the close of 2008."

On no... its not for the rich. Not at all. Really. :rolleyes:
 
If we are going to do a tax cut why not cut the PAYROLL tax? Oh wait, that would be WAY too equitable.
 
Brian2887 said:
C'mon, guys! It'll trickle down. We all know the rich love nothing more than helping out those of moderate incomes.

We'll get the trickles. . . right?


WELL, WE'RE DEFINITELY GETTING PISSED ON........SO YEAH, THE "TRICKLE DOWN" THEORY APPLIES HERE. :O
 
blind_fury said:
Don't hate the player. Hate the game. :o
Don't hate the game or the playa, the one that's changed is you.

HOW COME we don't even talk no more and you don't even call no more...
 
What we really need is a flat tax.

And I'm not defending the tax cut, but I will say that it's been proven over and over that cutting taxes IMPROVES, not harms, the economy. Why? Because the 'rich' everyone's talking about are ALSO the small businesses of our country which employ more people than any other group of businesses. When they receive tax cuts, they are able to hire MORE people into their companies, which in all actuality puts MORE, not fewer, taxpayers into the economy, and, therefore, MORE, not less, tax money into the goverment's hands.

So, in reality, Bush is generating MORE, not less, revenue for the government.

Think about it.
 
lazur said:
What we really need is a flat tax.

And I'm not defending the tax cut, but I will say that it's been proven over and over that cutting taxes IMPROVES, not harms, the economy. Why? Because the 'rich' everyone's talking about are ALSO the small businesses of our country which employ more people than any other group of businesses. When they receive tax cuts, they are able to hire MORE people into their companies, which in all actuality puts MORE, not fewer, taxpayers into the economy, and, therefore, MORE, not less, tax money into the goverment's hands.

So, in reality, Bush is generating MORE, not less, revenue for the government.

Think about it.

"No way, man. Bush is stoopid."
 
lazur said:
What we really need is a flat tax.

No, we don't. A flat tax means that the poorer you are, the more you pay percentage-wise. What we NEED is an elimination of the payroll tax for those who make under 40k a year.

lazur said:
And I'm not defending the tax cut, but I will say that it's been proven over and over that cutting taxes IMPROVES, not harms, the economy. Why? Because the 'rich' everyone's talking about are ALSO the small businesses of our country which employ more people than any other group of businesses. When they receive tax cuts, they are able to hire MORE people into their companies, which in all actuality puts MORE, not fewer, taxpayers into the economy, and, therefore, MORE, not less, tax money into the goverment's hands.

That simply is not true, and it has been shown time and time again. The big myth of Reaganomics is that the rich invest back into the economy and create jobs. Yeah, they create jobs, in ****ING MALAYSIA, as I already stated above.
 
Maxwell Smart said:
No, we don't. A flat tax means that the poorer you are, the more you pay percentage-wise. What we NEED is an elimination of the payroll tax for those make under 40k a year.

That simply is not true, and it has been shown time and time again. The big myth of Reaganomics is that the rich invest back into the economy and create jobs. Yeah, they create jobs, in ****ING MALAYSIA, as I already stated above.

Then fix THAT problem. That's something altogether different and requires a different solution than just "tax the sh** out of everyone".

But in practice, I still say it goes the way I explained. When companies have more of THEIR OWN money to spend, they grow and expand their businesses. It's not MY fault, as a business owner, if I elect to hire the cheapest possible help for my money, particularly when the government enables me to do it and has a system in place which discourages my hiring of people in this country.

As to anyone making under 40k not paying taxes, bs. Everyone should pay taxes. Excluding certain tax brackets from paying only encourages people to be in that tax bracket - not to mention that the bracket is constantly being raised, so that more and more people DON'T pay taxes. Pretty soon, you wind up with the majority of the population NOT paying taxes. And, interestingly enough, the average American does make less than 40k. It's less than 30k actually. So with your plan, most people wouldn't pay taxes. Which means it then becomes a campaign issue. Politicians then have even more pandering power.

Very bad precedent.
 
lazur said:
What we really need is a flat tax.

And I'm not defending the tax cut, but I will say that it's been proven over and over that cutting taxes IMPROVES, not harms, the economy. Why? Because the 'rich' everyone's talking about are ALSO the small businesses of our country which employ more people than any other group of businesses. When they receive tax cuts, they are able to hire MORE people into their companies, which in all actuality puts MORE, not fewer, taxpayers into the economy, and, therefore, MORE, not less, tax money into the goverment's hands.

So, in reality, Bush is generating MORE, not less, revenue for the government.

Think about it.


Not really, Reagan's term Is proof that this is not so.
in reality those affected will be the wealthiest, because well, that's what the economic policy Bush is modelling his plans after is meant to affect.
I'm not saying it's evil, I really don't think someone hatch supply-side economics in a dank cave while laughing like a maniac.
but it's Ill conceived. it can't help itself.
you just described the exact same reasoning that reagan gave in the 80's.
it's hopeful, but unrealistic.:(
 
Also, I find it interesting that in the 1950s the highest bracket paid 59% of their income in taxes, and that period is what many people(including a lot of Conservatives) look back on as the "Golden Age" of this country. Our infrastructure was in much better shape then.

Its been over the last 25 years that the American dream has been declining. Infrastructure is rotting; the sewage and waterline systems in many large cities are decades overdue for overhaul-for example. And we all know the problems with the electrical grids. There are over 40 million people without proper access to healthcare. The gap between rich and poor has only grown the last two decades.

Now, hmm, I wonder WHY? What policy came in around, oh, the early 80s?
 
lazur said:
As to anyone making under 40k not paying taxes, bs. Everyone should pay taxes.

Learn to read carefully, I only said we should eliminate the PAYROLL tax for those who make under 40k a year. People in this bracket are more likely to spend that extra money and put it back into the economy anyway, and yes, some of it back into the government via taxes on consumer goods.
 
lazur said:
Then fix THAT problem. That's something altogether different and requires a different solution than just "tax the sh** out of everyone".
Wait, who said tax the **** out of everyone? We're usually just talking about taxing the rich, really. Because they can afford it. We either take their money to pay for schools and roads, or they can buy another yacht.

lazur said:
But in practice, I still say it goes the way I explained. When companies have more of THEIR OWN money to spend, they grow and expand their businesses.
Yeah, like the oil companies.

lazur said:
It's not MY fault, as a business owner, if I elect to hire the cheapest possible help for my money, particularly when the government enables me to do it.
Right, man. There's nothing like morality, or a code of ethics, or community standards, that might require a business owner to be a decent ****ing human being. That's why I say, if you're going to be in business, don't be Christian. Because true Christianity only gets in the way of good business and profits, and eventually one side has to give. And it's always the way of Christ that gets abandoned, even if no one admits it.

lazur said:
As to anyone making under 40k not paying taxes, bs. Everyone should pay taxes. Excluding certain tax brackets from paying only encourages people to be in that tax bracket
Have you ever actually KNOWN a poor individual? Do you really believe that there are people who are homeless and destitute purely so they don't have to pay taxes? I believe I speak for the oppressed masses (they couldn't be here, they don't have the money for a computer, or the internet) when I say, "**** you, you ****ing ****." You're honestly saying that there are people who would rather make $15,000 a year and not pay taxes and try to raise a family, than make $100,000 a year, pay a few bucks in taxes, and try to raise a family that way? You really don't understand the way the human mind works, do you? There's not a person on the planet who's happy to be poor.
 
lazur said:
But in practice, I still say it goes the way I explained. When companies have more of THEIR OWN money to spend, they grow and expand their businesses. It's not MY fault, as a business owner, if I elect to hire the cheapest possible help for my money, particularly when the government enables me to do it and has a system in place which discourages my hiring of people in this country.

But the basis of Reaganomics is essentially that private industry are more trustworthy stewards of the American economy than the government. Under this philosophy the burden IS supposed to fall upon business to invest back into America. Thats the whole point. And MY opinion is that they've shown they aren't interested in doing that over the last 25 years. Its time to discard Reaganomics to the trash heap of history's failed ideas.

droogiedroogie2 said:
I believe I speak for the oppressed masses (they couldn't be here, they don't have the money for a computer, or the internet) when I say, "**** you, you ****ing ****."

Now now, lets not resort to personal attacks. They only invalidate our argument, not his.
 
With the deficit at an all time high and mounting, I simply fail to see the logic behind doing this other than from a political perspecctive. Besides, the people who will really benefit from this mostly make greater than $200K a year already. It's not like they NEED this tax cut.

jag
 
jaguarr said:
With the deficit at an all time high and mounting, I simply fail to see the logic behind doing this other than from a political perspecctive. Besides, the people who will really benefit from this mostly make greater than $200K a year already. It's not like they NEED this tax cut.

The only tax cut that would put more money into the American economy would be one that benefits the lower classes(i.e. a payroll taxcut).

Even then, I'm not sure a tax cuts are a good idea right now period.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,778
Messages
21,810,119
Members
45,625
Latest member
WolverineHunt01
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"