Election determines fate of nation
- Thread starter indy_85stariones
- Start date
![[rofl]](/images/smilies/icon_smile_rofl.gif "ROFL [rofl]"){kind=icon}
Abdoman said:
Since your a Democrat, quit bitch'in. It's not like the Democrats are ever going to lower your taxes.
Become Republican so your taxes will be lower or move!
![[hihi]](/images/smilies/icon_smile_hihi.gif "Hi Hi [hihi]")
Become Republican so your taxes will be lower or move!
I read you Okies might send a Democrat to the Senate to help clean up this fiscal disaster. Do you think he's as close as the polls say?
I've always been amazed how far you guys in OK have come from your populist roots in the Greenback Party to now staunch monied-interests Republicans.
This WHOLE argument that the tax cut favors the rich is bull and smoke and mirrors, IMHO. Get the information from an unbiased source (certainly more unbiased and factual than any news source) - The Treasury Department. (If there is a rational reason not to trust the Treasury department's data, please fill me in.)
http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/js1287.htm
Bold items hilighted by me.
April 1, 2004
js-1287
Fact Sheet:
Who Pays The Most Individual Income Taxes?
The individual income tax is highly progressive – a small group of higher-income taxpayers pay most of the individual income taxes each year.
*
In 2001, the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.3 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (32.0 percent) of income.
* The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.9 percent of all individual income taxes in 2001. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30 percent of individual income taxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990 this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share.
* Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, taxpayers in this group have paid over 90 percent of all individual income taxes. In 2000 and 2001, this group paid over 96 percent of the total.
* The President’s tax cuts have shifted a larger share of the individual income taxes paid to higher income taxpayers. In 2004, when most of the tax cut provisions are fully in effect (e.g., lower tax rates, the $1,000 child credit, marriage penalty relief), the projected tax share for lower-income taxpayers will fall, while the tax share for higher-income taxpayers will rise.
* The share of taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers will fall from 4.1 percent to 3.6 percent.
* The share of taxes paid by the top 1 percent of taxpayers will rise from 30.5 percent to 32.3 percent.
* The average tax rate for the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers falls by 16 percent as compared to a 12 percent decline for taxpayers in the top 1 percent.
http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/js1287.htm
Bold items hilighted by me.
April 1, 2004
js-1287
Fact Sheet:
Who Pays The Most Individual Income Taxes?
The individual income tax is highly progressive – a small group of higher-income taxpayers pay most of the individual income taxes each year.
*
In 2001, the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.3 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (32.0 percent) of income.
* The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.9 percent of all individual income taxes in 2001. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30 percent of individual income taxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990 this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share.
* Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, taxpayers in this group have paid over 90 percent of all individual income taxes. In 2000 and 2001, this group paid over 96 percent of the total.
* The President’s tax cuts have shifted a larger share of the individual income taxes paid to higher income taxpayers. In 2004, when most of the tax cut provisions are fully in effect (e.g., lower tax rates, the $1,000 child credit, marriage penalty relief), the projected tax share for lower-income taxpayers will fall, while the tax share for higher-income taxpayers will rise.
* The share of taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers will fall from 4.1 percent to 3.6 percent.
* The share of taxes paid by the top 1 percent of taxpayers will rise from 30.5 percent to 32.3 percent.
* The average tax rate for the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers falls by 16 percent as compared to a 12 percent decline for taxpayers in the top 1 percent.
gizzy said:
CUT COSTS!!!! Fire the government ![[:D]](/images/smilies/biggrin.png "Big Grin [:D]")
Right on!
"To borrow a Clintonian cliché, the cause of today’s deficits is not a lack of tax revenue, "It’s the spending stupid." Truth be told, repealing the tax cuts won’t lower the deficit much, and neither party seems to want a balanced budget enough to cut spending."
So people are blaming Bush for the deficit, and use this as an argument to elect Kerry, and THEN expect Kerry to REDUCE spending with all his health care, education, etc. etc. program promises? Yeah, right!
LOL. Okay. Fair enough, man.
Kirby, WTF. U using Treasury statments to prove Bush didn't cut taxes massively for the rich? That's fantasy land, dude. Common. I think treasury secretary O'Neil had something to say about this when he resigned from Bush's cabinet in disgust. He was the first to tell us that Bush was planning on invading Iraq from the moment he arrived in the White House (pre-9/11).
Quite honestly, I'm not as concerned about Bush's huge pork deficit spending as much as the 380 tons of missing high grade explosives from Iraq. Our armed forces are the best in the world, but they can't do their work when they don't have body armour and aren't given good orders. This is a total mess. Where are these explosives now? I thought we were trying to be tough on terrorism, but even the assault weapons ban was lifted on Bush's watch as well as Korea developing nuclear weapons. I'm seriously afraid. I wonder if recently Bush has gotten another report like the one delivered to his ranch two months before 9/11 entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack USA." I pray our leader isn't reading to our little kindergarteners again when the next high grade explosives or assault weapons or Korean nukes go off.
Kirby, WTF. U using Treasury statments to prove Bush didn't cut taxes massively for the rich? That's fantasy land, dude. Common. I think treasury secretary O'Neil had something to say about this when he resigned from Bush's cabinet in disgust. He was the first to tell us that Bush was planning on invading Iraq from the moment he arrived in the White House (pre-9/11).
Quite honestly, I'm not as concerned about Bush's huge pork deficit spending as much as the 380 tons of missing high grade explosives from Iraq. Our armed forces are the best in the world, but they can't do their work when they don't have body armour and aren't given good orders. This is a total mess. Where are these explosives now? I thought we were trying to be tough on terrorism, but even the assault weapons ban was lifted on Bush's watch as well as Korea developing nuclear weapons. I'm seriously afraid. I wonder if recently Bush has gotten another report like the one delivered to his ranch two months before 9/11 entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack USA." I pray our leader isn't reading to our little kindergarteners again when the next high grade explosives or assault weapons or Korean nukes go off.
Last edited:
Bryan, u can only do so much.
Bush made it clear early on, before he admitted he was a buffoon
in the debates: plain spoken nonsense is better to being right. That's why when the door closes to the oval office and he's doing his plain-spoken thing on international leaders (in hopes of building a real international coalition), the aluminum tubes and mobile weapons labs b.s. fails misserably. He plainly speaks of "the rich get the biggest tax cuts cuz they pay the most [insert that wierd chuckle nervous tick he does]." Pretend up is down. So why battle it?
Maybe some people like watching the Massachussets Harvard MBA graduate chop wood...or maybe they like ogling the way he swaggers, who knows. But you're banging your head up against a wall trying to present facts that prove reality.
Bush made it clear early on, before he admitted he was a buffoon
in the debates: plain spoken nonsense is better to being right. That's why when the door closes to the oval office and he's doing his plain-spoken thing on international leaders (in hopes of building a real international coalition), the aluminum tubes and mobile weapons labs b.s. fails misserably. He plainly speaks of "the rich get the biggest tax cuts cuz they pay the most [insert that wierd chuckle nervous tick he does]." Pretend up is down. So why battle it?
Maybe some people like watching the Massachussets Harvard MBA graduate chop wood...or maybe they like ogling the way he swaggers, who knows. But you're banging your head up against a wall trying to present facts that prove reality.
Maybe I misinterpreted this, but it's stating how much of taxes are being paid by each "tax bracket". But it doesnt state how much percentage of NET INCOME the people of those tax brackets are paying.
I guy who nets $2mil a year and pays $1mil in taxes, isn't NEARLY as effected as the guy who makes $30,000 a year and pays $13,000 in taxes...
I guy who nets $2mil a year and pays $1mil in taxes, isn't NEARLY as effected as the guy who makes $30,000 a year and pays $13,000 in taxes...
No, I wasn't trying prove that the tax cuts were not massive for the rich, nor does the Treasury document say that either. What it says (at least what I interpret, I guess) is that as a percentage of income tax relief is LESS, by 4%, for high income people. Those individuals are already being taxed at a higher % rate, why shouldn't they get a % tax reduction equal to lower income people? They are still paying at a higher % rate and a higher actual $ amount.
I was not in favor of the tax cuts. But it was done. So, my point is that WHY is this considered a special break for the rich? I'm not being smart, I truly don't get that logic. What is the alternative when a tax break will be given? No tax break at all for people in the 1% category?
Is it simply the attitude that rich people should be discriminated against and not get a tax break when others do "because the rich can afford it"?
I was not in favor of the tax cuts. But it was done. So, my point is that WHY is this considered a special break for the rich? I'm not being smart, I truly don't get that logic. What is the alternative when a tax break will be given? No tax break at all for people in the 1% category?
Is it simply the attitude that rich people should be discriminated against and not get a tax break when others do "because the rich can afford it"?
I see what you're saying, fair enough. But somebody's gotta pay them. We're talking about poeple who make 350k+. BigD was on here earlier this week talking about what a crazy low percentage of taxes Teresa Heinz pays with all her billions. So you can say why not let the rich get a similar percentage drop in their tax as working people. I say, hell yeah...if we got the money! Otherwise, who's picking up the tab? I have a feeling the cry-Baby Boomers are passing another big check onto the next generation...in addition to their big new entitlement for free drugs.
This is the first time in our nations history that we have gone to war and NOBODY has been asked to sacrifice. Along comes the Republican pork barrel deficit bills like bats out of hell. Also, the first time in our nations modern history a president of the united states has never vetoed a single pork deficit busting bill coming across his desk.
This is the first time in our nations history that we have gone to war and NOBODY has been asked to sacrifice. Along comes the Republican pork barrel deficit bills like bats out of hell. Also, the first time in our nations modern history a president of the united states has never vetoed a single pork deficit busting bill coming across his desk.
Congressional Budget Office Website...
http://www.cbo.gov/byclasscat.cfm?cat=33
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5324
General Rule of Thumb straight from COB website:
-- the top 20% of individual income earners pay 80% of the Federal income taxes.
-- the top 10% pay 66%
-- the top 5% pay 50%
-- the top 1% pay 33%
So yes, the top income earners are paying their fair share of Federal income taxes.
Also, Bush's Tax Plan enacted in 2001 is working. Excellent article on explaining how Federal Income Tax Burden increased for top 1%, top 5%, top 10%, and top 20% income earners as a direct result of Bush's Cut in Tax Rates...
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/luskin200408170858.asp
The report proves that what George W. Bush said about his tax cuts is absolutely positively true: “tax relief is for everyone who pays income taxes.”
It’s true for the rich and it’s true for the not-so-rich. Across 109.4 million tax-paying households — from the wealthiest 1 percent with incomes averaging over $1 million, to the lowest-earning quintile with incomes averaging $14.9 thousand — the report shows that all income classes have seen their income-tax rates lowered thanks to Bush’s tax cuts in 2001, 2002, and 2003.
The report also shows that Bush's tax cuts have been “progressive” — that is, they have shifted the share of the overall federal income-tax burden toward the wealthy, and away from lower-income earners. Without the Bush tax cuts, the highest-earning 20 percent of households this year would have paid 78.4 percent of all federal income taxes. Now, after the Bush tax cutes, their share of the burden has risen to 82.1 percent. Every other quintile now pays a smaller share of the total income-tax burden.
Here’s another simple table based on data from the CBO report. This one shows how the 2004 income-tax burden has shifted upward for the rich, and downward for everyone else.
2004 Federal Income Tax Burden
Income Class 2000 law Bush Tax Cuts Difference
----------------- ------------ ------------------ -------------
Bottom 20% -1.6% -2.7% -1.1%
Next 20% 1.5% -0.1% -1.6%
Middle 20% 6.5% 5.4% -1.0%
Next 20% 15.3% 15.2% -0.1%
Top 20% 78.4% 82.1% 3.8%
Top 10% 63.5% 66.7% 3.2%
Top 5% 51.4% 53.7% 2.3%
Top 1% 31.6% 32.3% 0.6%
What a brilliant victory for compassionate conservatism! Everybody gets an income-tax cut, and when it’s all done the rich end up paying proportionately more.
The report also shows that Bush managed to craft a tax-reduction package that even benefits the lowest-earning taxpayers who already pay what amount to negative income taxes. That’s right. Thanks to various refundable tax credits, before the Bush tax cuts the lowest-earning quintile not only paid no income taxes at all, they on average received money from the IRS. Under Bush’s tax cuts, as the first table above shows, they now receive even more money. Now that’s compassionate.
http://www.cbo.gov/byclasscat.cfm?cat=33
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5324
General Rule of Thumb straight from COB website:
-- the top 20% of individual income earners pay 80% of the Federal income taxes.
-- the top 10% pay 66%
-- the top 5% pay 50%
-- the top 1% pay 33%
So yes, the top income earners are paying their fair share of Federal income taxes.
Also, Bush's Tax Plan enacted in 2001 is working. Excellent article on explaining how Federal Income Tax Burden increased for top 1%, top 5%, top 10%, and top 20% income earners as a direct result of Bush's Cut in Tax Rates...
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/luskin200408170858.asp
The report proves that what George W. Bush said about his tax cuts is absolutely positively true: “tax relief is for everyone who pays income taxes.”
It’s true for the rich and it’s true for the not-so-rich. Across 109.4 million tax-paying households — from the wealthiest 1 percent with incomes averaging over $1 million, to the lowest-earning quintile with incomes averaging $14.9 thousand — the report shows that all income classes have seen their income-tax rates lowered thanks to Bush’s tax cuts in 2001, 2002, and 2003.
The report also shows that Bush's tax cuts have been “progressive” — that is, they have shifted the share of the overall federal income-tax burden toward the wealthy, and away from lower-income earners. Without the Bush tax cuts, the highest-earning 20 percent of households this year would have paid 78.4 percent of all federal income taxes. Now, after the Bush tax cutes, their share of the burden has risen to 82.1 percent. Every other quintile now pays a smaller share of the total income-tax burden.
Here’s another simple table based on data from the CBO report. This one shows how the 2004 income-tax burden has shifted upward for the rich, and downward for everyone else.
2004 Federal Income Tax Burden
Income Class 2000 law Bush Tax Cuts Difference
----------------- ------------ ------------------ -------------
Bottom 20% -1.6% -2.7% -1.1%
Next 20% 1.5% -0.1% -1.6%
Middle 20% 6.5% 5.4% -1.0%
Next 20% 15.3% 15.2% -0.1%
Top 20% 78.4% 82.1% 3.8%
Top 10% 63.5% 66.7% 3.2%
Top 5% 51.4% 53.7% 2.3%
Top 1% 31.6% 32.3% 0.6%
What a brilliant victory for compassionate conservatism! Everybody gets an income-tax cut, and when it’s all done the rich end up paying proportionately more.
The report also shows that Bush managed to craft a tax-reduction package that even benefits the lowest-earning taxpayers who already pay what amount to negative income taxes. That’s right. Thanks to various refundable tax credits, before the Bush tax cuts the lowest-earning quintile not only paid no income taxes at all, they on average received money from the IRS. Under Bush’s tax cuts, as the first table above shows, they now receive even more money. Now that’s compassionate.
Excellent article explaining how the electorial college method is more fair than straight popular vote. The electorial college method distributes the election into 50 smaller state-by-state elections. The winner must win the most states -- using a weighed average calculated from each state's population, of course.
http://www.nationalreview.com/gregg/gregg200410250753.asp
Why did the electoral college survive electing a president who failed to win a majority of the popular vote? Quite simply, we learned from 2000 that no matter what the drawbacks of the current system, it is imminently better than the alternative.
The electoral-college system serves to focus our political battles into state-by-state contests for the most votes. In 2000, the post-election battle centered on Florida and stayed there because the electoral college worked to give the winner of the Sunshine State the presidency. If a national plurality were allowed to choose the president, and the election were as close as it was in 2000, Gore and Bush being separated by less than one half of one percent, how would the post-election contest have been different?
Without the electoral college, Bush and Gore would have both realized that either of them could demand recounts and mount challenges against ballots in every precinct, in every county, in every state of the Union with the real hope of finding enough votes that the election could have been overturned. Thousands of lawyers would tie up hundreds of courts around the nation with little hope of any clean or clear conclusion. Rather than Bush v. Gore, we likely would have had hundreds of lawsuits winding their way to the Supreme Court.
In 2000 the electoral college saved us from a national nightmare much worse than that which we suffered. Even with the electoral college, Kerry is said to have lined up 10,000 lawyers ready to mount legal challenges to the vote. Abolishing the electoral college would dismantle the firewalls protecting us all from a quadrennial national nightmare that would turn over our elections to lawyers and judges.
The alternative to the electoral college is a national nightmare of hanging chads and clever lawyers from the Carolinas to California.
http://www.nationalreview.com/gregg/gregg200410250753.asp
Why did the electoral college survive electing a president who failed to win a majority of the popular vote? Quite simply, we learned from 2000 that no matter what the drawbacks of the current system, it is imminently better than the alternative.
The electoral-college system serves to focus our political battles into state-by-state contests for the most votes. In 2000, the post-election battle centered on Florida and stayed there because the electoral college worked to give the winner of the Sunshine State the presidency. If a national plurality were allowed to choose the president, and the election were as close as it was in 2000, Gore and Bush being separated by less than one half of one percent, how would the post-election contest have been different?
Without the electoral college, Bush and Gore would have both realized that either of them could demand recounts and mount challenges against ballots in every precinct, in every county, in every state of the Union with the real hope of finding enough votes that the election could have been overturned. Thousands of lawyers would tie up hundreds of courts around the nation with little hope of any clean or clear conclusion. Rather than Bush v. Gore, we likely would have had hundreds of lawsuits winding their way to the Supreme Court.
In 2000 the electoral college saved us from a national nightmare much worse than that which we suffered. Even with the electoral college, Kerry is said to have lined up 10,000 lawyers ready to mount legal challenges to the vote. Abolishing the electoral college would dismantle the firewalls protecting us all from a quadrennial national nightmare that would turn over our elections to lawyers and judges.
The alternative to the electoral college is a national nightmare of hanging chads and clever lawyers from the Carolinas to California.
What if there is a TIE in electoral votes? I read an article this morning about this unlikely event, but it HAS happened TWICE in history. Guess what - we would probably wind up with a split ticket - BUSH as PRESIDENT and EDWARDS as VICE PRESIDENT!!!
"It happened before -- this electoral college tie. In 1800, the US House of Representatives took 36 votes to settle a draw between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr by making Jefferson president.
In case of a 2004 electoral college draw, the new House of Representatives, under the Constitution, would elect the president by majority vote, with each state's House delegation getting one vote. The US Senate would elect the new vice president by majority vote, with each senator getting one vote. The bottom line in this deadlocked scenario is that, if the Democrats gain two Senate seats in this year's election, the body could pick Edwards, of course-not Dick Cheney, the Republican vice-presidential candidate.
To extend this analysis, if the House votes in a Democratic majority, Kerry would be chosen president. And if the Republicans get a Senate majority, Cheney could get chosen vice president. Either combination will really be wild."
"It happened before -- this electoral college tie. In 1800, the US House of Representatives took 36 votes to settle a draw between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr by making Jefferson president.
In case of a 2004 electoral college draw, the new House of Representatives, under the Constitution, would elect the president by majority vote, with each state's House delegation getting one vote. The US Senate would elect the new vice president by majority vote, with each senator getting one vote. The bottom line in this deadlocked scenario is that, if the Democrats gain two Senate seats in this year's election, the body could pick Edwards, of course-not Dick Cheney, the Republican vice-presidential candidate.
To extend this analysis, if the House votes in a Democratic majority, Kerry would be chosen president. And if the Republicans get a Senate majority, Cheney could get chosen vice president. Either combination will really be wild."