Let's Have The Poor Pay For Bush's Spending

[No Limit]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=568&e=1&u=/nm/20050207/bs_nm/budget_dc

Bush really amazes me. First he gives the rich huge tax cuts. This gets rid of the surplus and sends the decifit through the roof. Then we go to war, costing around 200 Billion, and Bush wants to make his tax cuts permanent (No president has asked for tax cuts in war time). Then people and congress start complaining that Bush is spending way too much money. So what is the logical thing to do? Well, a sane person would ask to repeal the tax cuts for the rich; virtually getting rid of the deficit. What does Bush do? He asks for billions of dollars of cuts that will pretty much only affect the poor. He will be making food stamps harder to get, cuting medicaid by $45 Million, and slashing many other programs that the poor in this country rely on.

I would just like to give a big thank you to every Bush voter out there. Thousands of children will now have no healthcare in this country and poor families will have a harder time puting food on the table while big business enjoys all the great ups of having a Republican in office; great work.

 

[Absinthe]

But hey, he's gonna stop the fags from getting married!

 

[WySiWyG]

Somebody needs to put him out of the misery he is causing.

 

[el Chi]

Words fail me, they really do.

 

[Venmoch]

Time for a good old fasioned Workers Uprising!

 

[Apos]

Hey, doesn't affect me. Affects all the dumb Red staters who voted for him and who by and large, despite claiming to be against to govmint, somehow end up consuming far more tax dollars in government aid and pork than they pay.

 

[RZAL]

Why is it most people feel the government’s only job is to support the poor, or for that matter pacify its people? A large part of what’s wrong with todays society is no one and I mean no one wants to take responsibility for themselves. So what do we do, like a bunch of children we go running to our government crying daddy, daddy I got a boo boo, please make it all better. Well we all know the rule, “If you live under my roof you will do what I say”. Big government is not the answer it’s the problem. You want the govt. to respect your freedom….stop taking handouts and get your own place.





The Patriot “Freedom is not Free”

 

[The Mullinator]

Why is it most people feel the government’s only job is to support the poor, or for that matter pacify its people? A large part of what’s wrong with todays society is no one and I mean no one wants to take responsibility for themselves. So what do we do, like a bunch of children we go running to our government crying daddy, daddy I got a boo boo, please make it all better. Well we all know the rule, “If you live under my roof you will do what I say”. Big government is not the answer it’s the problem. You want the govt. to respect your freedom….stop taking handouts and get your own place.





The Patriot “Freedom is not Free”

Yes of course lets all get off our asses and start getting pay checks in the 6 digit range. Because as we all know it just takes hard work to get those.

 

[Maxi]

Why is it most people feel the government’s only job is to support the poor, or for that matter pacify its people? A large part of what’s wrong with todays society is no one and I mean no one wants to take responsibility for themselves. So what do we do, like a bunch of children we go running to our government crying daddy, daddy I got a boo boo, please make it all better. Well we all know the rule, “If you live under my roof you will do what I say”. Big government is not the answer it’s the problem. You want the govt. to respect your freedom….stop taking handouts and get your own place.





The Patriot “Freedom is not Free”

I wanna see you say that when you make 500 dollars a month.
Having free healthcare for everyone, and supporting the not-so well off works in every country that has it implemented, and it is generally considered a good idea. People in America aren't that good off, since medical bills are insane, and if you're born poor, you stay poor, let me explain why.

In America, if you're born in a family thats way below the average income level your parents most likely have two jobs, and when they have two jobs, they can't really raise a child, much less two and support them and give them love. Also, most of the time they barely get enough money to get them through life, and most of the time they can't get their child in to college. And when you don't go to college, chances of you getting a job that pays well is well... almost non-existant. So you stay poor... aaand what happends to your children?
The argument most people have that "poor people are poor because they don't work hard enough" couldn't be further from the truth. Most of them work harder than YOU and the definately work harder than me.

In Finland we don't have this problem. In Finland schools are free. Yes that's right free. 100% free-of-cost. From elementary school to college, free. Except for the books in college, but they aren't that expensive compared to tuisun(sp) fees that you have to pay. Also, each family, regardless of income level, gets 250€ per child, per month untill the child is 17 years old. So you could argue that we in Finland don't have to work to live. That isn't true. We have a high tax level, but since we get ALOT of stuff for free I think our current tax level is ok (people who earn 80k+ a year receive close to 50% tax). So there are no mega rich people nor no mega poor people. All good.

 

[staticprimer]

RZAL, how about you go to downtown Chicago, or downtown LA, and say that to the families that rely on this aid not because they are lazy, but because they are stuck in poverty. I have no sympathy for gangbangers or druggies, but the honest people do no deserve your disdain. So unless you yourself were once in poverty and taking handouts, and decided to "get your own place", you have no right to speak.

 

[WySiWyG]

RZAL, how about you go to downtown Chicago, or downtown LA, and say that to the families that rely on this aid not because they are lazy, but because they are stuck in poverty. I have no sympathy for gangbangers or druggies, but the honest people do no deserve your disdain. So unless you yourself were once in poverty and taking handouts, and decided to "get your own place", you have no right to speak.

Owned.

 

[No Limit]

Why is it most people feel the government’s only job is to support the poor, or for that matter pacify its people? A large part of what’s wrong with todays society is no one and I mean no one wants to take responsibility for themselves. So what do we do, like a bunch of children we go running to our government crying daddy, daddy I got a boo boo, please make it all better. Well we all know the rule, “If you live under my roof you will do what I say”. Big government is not the answer it’s the problem. You want the govt. to respect your freedom….stop taking handouts and get your own place.

The Patriot “Freedom is not Free”

I won't get in to how wrong you are about those people not needing it as that is pointless. Do you understand that Bush cut taxes FOR THE RICH. Now, to pay for those tax cuts he cutting programs poor families rely on. This is nothing more than taking from the poor and giving to the rich.

 

[Bodacious]

Spew liberal talking points much?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=568&e=1&u=/nm/20050207/bs_nm/budget_dc

Bush really amazes me. First he gives the rich huge tax cuts.

Oh really?

The rich paid more taxes under Bush than they did Clinton; PDF file.


Note: Table 3, Effective Federal Tax Rates and Shares Under 2000 Tax Law, Based on 2001
Incomes, by Income Category, 2001 to 2014

Share of Individual Income Tax Liabilities

Highest Quintile(top 20% taxpayers, the richest): 2001,79.5; 2002; 79.1; 2003, 78.7; 2044, 78.1


Note Table 2, Effective Federal Tax Rates and Shares Under Current Tax Law, Based on 2001
Incomes, by Income Category, 2001 to 2014

Share of Individual Income Tax Liabilities

Highest Quintile(top 20% taxpayers, the richest): 2001, 82.5; 2002, 81.7; 2003, 83.0; 2004,82.1

Now tell me again how the rich got a tax break when the rich paid more in taxes than they did under Clinton?

This gets rid of the surplus

The surplus was going to go away no matter who was elected because of .com failure and 9/11. Are you going to argue it was 1 trillion dollars?

Woops, the surplus in 2001 was only 128 billion

and sends the decifit through the roof.

Which was far worse in '82 all the way to '85 as a percentage of GDP.

Well, a sane person would ask to repeal the tax cuts for the rich; virtually getting rid of the deficit.

Any sane person would't follow lockstep with liberal propaganda and realize that the rich paid less taxes under clinton than under Bush.

 

[KoreBolteR]

I won't get in to how wrong you are about those people not needing it as that is pointless. Do you understand that Bush cut taxes FOR THE RICH. Now, to pay for those tax cuts he cutting programs poor families rely on. This is nothing more than taking from the poor and giving to the rich.

they should have a percentage tax of every person.
the more rich you are, the more you have to pay.. for example the poor have to pay £50/£1000 a month, while the rich pay £500/£10,000 a month... both 5% of their monthly income.

making the poor just sucks. :x

 

[No Limit]

Oh really?

The rich paid more taxes under Bush than they did Clinton; PDF file.


Note: Table 3, Effective Federal Tax Rates and Shares Under 2000 Tax Law, Based on 2001
Incomes, by Income Category, 2001 to 2014

Share of Individual Income Tax Liabilities

Highest Quintile(top 20% taxpayers, the richest): 2001,79.5; 2002; 79.1; 2003, 78.7; 2044, 78.1


Note Table 2, Effective Federal Tax Rates and Shares Under Current Tax Law, Based on 2001
Incomes, by Income Category, 2001 to 2014

Share of Individual Income Tax Liabilities

Highest Quintile(top 20% taxpayers, the richest): 2001, 82.5; 2002, 81.7; 2003, 83.0; 2004,82.1

Now tell me again how the rich got a tax break when the rich paid more in taxes than they did under Clinton?

Everyone paid more; including the poor. The rich paid more under Bush because tax revenue is up. This has nothing to do with Bush's tax cuts; if he increased taxes on the rich today by 5% we would be making 5% more in tax revenue. I hope this isn't too complicated for you.

The surplus was going to go away no matter who was elected because of .com failure and 9/11.

Only you republicans seem to think that the .com was the only big reason outside of 9/11 for the deficit. All I will say is that's wrong but it is not an argument for this thread.

Yes, 9/11 did happen and it damaged our economy greatly. However, no president has ever gave tax cuts in a time of war; Bush is asking congress to make them permanent. After 4 years you will have to find something new to blame for the deficit; the effects of 9/11 don't last that long (economically).

Which was far worse in '82 all the way to '85 as a percentage of GDP.

At the time we were having a recession and I don't want to get into that; we are talking about 2000-2005.

Any sane person would't follow lockstep with liberal propaganda and realize that the rich paid less taxes under clinton than under Bush.

I already told you how this was a wrong conclusion in other threads yet you repeated it twice in this thread. Well I explained it to you again but for some reason I doubt you will stop using that idiotic logic.

 

[RZAL]

Yes of course lets all get off our asses and start getting pay checks in the 6 digit range. Because as we all know it just takes hard work to get those.

I don’t make 6 digits, I barely make enough to get by on. I work hard for what little I have. If you don’t take care of yourself, someone else will. Someone else will make your decisions, they will dictate whats right or wrong for you…No I choose self-reliance over slavery, sorry no hand outs here.

I wanna see you say that when you make 500 dollars a month.
Having free healthcare for everyone, and supporting the not-so well off works in every country that has it implemented, and it is generally considered a good idea. People in America aren't that good off, since medical bills are insane, and if you're born poor, you stay poor, let me explain why.

I have been there, I know where your coming from, but let me ask you, why are medical bills insane? Put your faith in the government and everyone will be cheap labor.

In America, if you're born in a family thats way below the average income level your parents most likely have two jobs, and when they have two jobs, they can't really raise a child, much less two and support them and give them love. Also, most of the time they barely get enough money to get them through life, and most of the time they can't get their child in to college. And when you don't go to college, chances of you getting a job that pays well is well... almost non-existant. So you stay poor... aaand what happends to your children? The argument most people have that "poor people are poor because they don't work hard enough" couldn't be further from the truth. Most of them work harder than YOU and the definately work harder than me.

(1)America doesn’t’ have a cast system, if you want out, you have to climb out (2) The same government your defending is the very government that’s repressing its people, not only here in the US, but abroad.

In Finland we don't have this problem. In Finland schools are free. Yes that's right free. 100% free-of-cost. From elementary school to college, free. Except for the books in college, but they aren't that expensive compared to tuisun(sp) fees that you have to pay. Also, each family, regardless of income level, gets 250€ per child, per month untill the child is 17 years old. So you could argue that we in Finland don't have to work to live. That isn't true. We have a high tax level, but since we get ALOT of stuff for free I think our current tax level is ok (people who earn 80k+ a year receive close to 50% tax). So there are no mega rich people nor no mega poor people. All good.

I’m glad things are good in Finland,but I’m not talking about Finlind. The last time I checked Finlind wasn’t trying to control the world market or its labor force. Do the rich take advantage of the poor? …yes, does the government take advantage of the poor? …yes. I’m not talking about a rich thing poor thing, I’m talking about being dependent on an oppressor or being self-reliant, either way I’m still poor.


The Patriot “Freedom is not Free”

 

[RZAL]

I won't get in to how wrong you are about those people not needing it as that is pointless. Do you understand that Bush cut taxes FOR THE RICH. Now, to pay for those tax cuts he cutting programs poor families rely on. This is nothing more than taking from the poor and giving to the rich.

I'm not taking up for Bush, I'm yelling at the people who allowed our country to get in the shape it has. Stop playing the system and it will stop playing you...easier said than done...








The Patriot "Freedom is not free"

 

[CptStern]

hey you americans gotta pay for your "Conquest of the Middle East"™ somehow

 

[No Limit]

I'm not taking up for Bush, I'm yelling at the people who allowed our country to get in the shape it has. Stop playing the system and it will stop playing you...easier said than done...

So you are blaming the few that abuse the system on all the problems in this country? Do you know how much we pay these people? Let me give you a hint, it is less than the war in Iraq.

 

[Bodacious]

Everyone paid more; including the poor. The rich paid more under Bush because tax revenue is up. This has nothing to do with Bush's tax cuts; if he increased taxes on the rich today by 5% we would be making 5% more in tax revenue. I hope this isn't too complicated for you.

Thanks for proving you didn't even examine my link. And you can't say its biased either because it is the Congressional Budget office. Oh, and where did I say, in this thread, and besides what I mentioned in this post, that anything I have posted has to do with Bush tax cuts?

Compare the lowest quintile of individual income tax liablities in tables 2 and 3.

Table 2, Current Tax Law: 2001, -2.3; 2002, -2.3; 2003, -2.7; 2004, -2.7

Table 3, Clinton's Tax Law: 2001, -1.8; 2002, -1.7; 2003, -1.7; 2004, -1.6.

Tha blows your idea that "everyone paid more" out of the water seeing as how the poorest people in America got more back under Bush than under Clinton.

I hope you giving up your belief that the Rich paid less in taxes isn't that hard for you.

Yes, 9/11 did happen and it damaged our economy greatly. However, no president has ever gave tax cuts in a time of war; Bush is asking congress to make them permanent. After 4 years you will have to find something new to blame for the deficit; the effects of 9/11 don't last that long (economically).

Want the links to show you how the Bush tax cuts improved tax revenues?

At the time we were having a recession and I don't want to get into that; we are talking about 2000-2005.

So history doesn't matter now? How can you argue economics at all without taking past history into account?

I already told you how this was a wrong conclusion in other threads yet you repeated it twice in this thread. Well I explained it to you again but for some reason I doubt you will stop using that idiotic logic.

I just proved to you how your conclusion that, "the Rich got a tax cut" is false when they paid more taxes. All you can come back with is, "everyone paid more" and now I have proved to you the poorest got back more.

 

[RZAL]

So you are blaming the few that abuse the system on all the problems in this country? Do you know how much we pay these people? Let me give you a hint, it is less than the war in Iraq.

I am blaming the American people for their government, not a few, but all.









The Patriot "Freedom is not Free"

 

[No Limit]

I don’t make 6 digits, I barely make enough to get by on. I work hard for what little I have. If you don’t take care of yourself, someone else will. Someone else will make your decisions, they will dictate whats right or wrong for you…No I choose self-reliance over slavery, sorry no hand outs here.

Let me guess, you make more than $20K a year, correct?

If my assumption is correct you have no right to talk about hand outs and how you don't want them so other people shouldn't get them. Let me give you an example of one of my good friends. Currently he is 18 years old and living with his girlfriend who is 19. He is currently a senior in high school trying to graduate. He is at school from 7am - 9pm (night school classes) 2 days a week and then 3 days a week he is at school from 7am - 3 pm and then goes to work at a minimum wage job from 4pm - 11pm. On weekends he works almost all day and night. his girlfriend has been unemployed for the past month and hasn't been able to find a job. This is an income of around 600 a month for the 2. Now, rent costs about $500 so that leaves $100 for everything else. I don't know where you live but $100 isn't enough to wipe your ass for a month where I and they live. They rely on food stamps to put food on the table. This is the only 'handout' they are able to get (because of past cuts) and now they will have trouble even getting something as simple as food on their table. So please, spare the bullshit about these people living off government handouts.

My familiy was also extremely poor when I was young and we survived thanks to food stamps and free healthcare; we would have never came out of that situtation without that help.

Now, unless you live in a home making less than $10,000 a year I don't think you have a right to call these people lazy especially since I can bet they are working twice as hard as you ever had to.

 

[RZAL]

RZAL, how about you go to downtown Chicago, or downtown LA, and say that to the families that rely on this aid not because they are lazy, but because they are stuck in poverty. I have no sympathy for gangbangers or druggies, but the honest people do no deserve your disdain. So unless you yourself were once in poverty and taking handouts, and decided to "get your own place", you have no right to speak.

I'm not saying aid doesn’t have its place, but it should be designed to cure the problem instead of propagating it. You know “cause and effect”, fix the problem instead of covering it with a band-aid.

There is work out there, how many Mexicans have crossed the border to gain employment? Are they collecting welfare, no… they are working their little tails offs to better themselves. And at the same time being played by corporate USA/ government. You want to make a difference…STOP PLAYING THEIR GAME….
Stop running to the government crying daddy daddy, I got a boo boo , please make it all better.








The Patriot “Freedom is not Free”

 

[Bodacious]

Do you know how much we pay these people? Let me give you a hint, it is less than the war in Iraq.

Source?

Here is mine that proves you're wrong.

Mandatory spending far outweighs discretionary speding.

Total mandatory spending in 2004 (welfare, SS, vet benefits, etc): 1.237 trillion

Total discrecionary spending in 2004 (defense, non defense, and homeland security): 925 billion dollars.


On what planet is 1.237 tirillion less than 925 billion?

And the war in Iraq is what? 200 billion?

 

[No Limit]

Thanks for proving you didn't even examine my link. And you can't say its biased either because it is the Congressional Budget office. Oh, and where did I say, in this thread, and besides what I mentioned in this thread, that anything I have posted has to do with Bush tax cuts?

Compare the lowest quintile of individual income tax liablities in tables 2 and 3.

Table 2, Current Tax Law: 2001, -2.3; 2002, -2.3; 2003, -2.7; 2004, -2.7

Table 3, Clinton's Tax Law: 2001, -1.8; 2002, -1.7; 2003, -1.7; 2004, -1.6.

Tha blows your idea that "everyone paid more" out of the water seeing as how the poorest people in America got more back than under Clinton.

I hope you giving up your belief that the Rich paid less in taxes isn't that hard for you.

We already had this discussion in a previous thread and I made my point. I won't go into it again here. However, do you not understand that if Bush lowered his tax cuts by just 5% our economy would be bringing in 5% more in revenue? Again, is this reasoning too complicated for you?

Want the links to show you how the Bush tax cuts improved tax revenues?

Again, we had this discussion before; leave it out of here.

So history doesn't matter now? How can you argue economics at all without taking past history into account?

It doesn't matter in this case. I find it laughable that you would say history matters when you Republicans completely ignore what Clinton did to the economy (yes, yes, I know, it was thanks to Reagan).

I just proved to you how your conclusion that, "the Rich got a tax cut" is false when they paid more taxes. All you can come back with is, "everyone paid more" and now I have proved to you the poorest got back more.

Under the current tax law the rich got tax cuts, are you trying to argue that?

 

[No Limit]

Source?

Here is mine that proves you're wrong.

Mandatory spending far outweighs discretionary speding.

Total mandatory spending in 2004 (welfare, SS, vet benefits, etc): 1.237 trillion

Total discrecionary spending in 2004 (defense, non defense, and homeland security): 925 billion dollars.


On what planet is 1.237 tirillion less than 925 billion?

And the war in Iraq is what? 200 billion?

Ok, lets start with your 1.237 trillion figure. First off the people pay for Social Security, not the government. So lets remove that from your total, 1.237 - 492 = 745 Billion. We are not talking about retirement of disability (unless you think those people shouldn't get any money in which case you would be a cold-hearted prick) so lets remove 135 from your total which comes to 610 billion. Now lets assume that 50% of the people abuse the system (common sense tells you this would be much less) that would leave 305 Billion which is SLIGHTLY more than the cost of the war in Iraq (I am not including other defense spending). Keep in mind Bush is going to ask for another 80 billion in addition to the 25 billion already going into Iraq this year. Does that math help you out?

Now instead of a slight decrease in the tax cuts Bush wants to eliminate a good portion of these programs that so many people in this country rely on.

 

[Bodacious]

We already had this discussion in a previous thread and I made my point. I won't go into it again here. However, do you not understand that if Bush lowered his tax cuts by just 5% our economy would be bringing in 5% more in revenue? Again, is this reasoning too complicated for you?

I understand that reasoning, but I fail to see the logic behind it, or the common sense, when I have proved that the rich paid more in taxes.

I am taking issue with the notion that you think the Rich got a break somehow, when the CBO even says you are wrong.

It doesn't matter in this case. I find it laughable that you would say history matters when you Republicans completely ignore what Clinton did to the economy (yes, yes, I know, it was thanks to Reagan).

What Clinton did or the GOP congress did? What about Regan?

Under the current tax law the rich got tax cuts, are you trying to argue that?

Nope, not trying to argue that at all. I am arguing the validity of the statement seeing as how the rich paid more in taxes under Bush than they did under Clinton. The fact that they got a tax cut doesn't matter at all, and is just a liberal scare tactic to think Bush is treating the poor unfairly.

 

[The Monkey]

I'm not saying aid doesn’t have its place, but it should be designed to cure the problem instead of propagating it. You know “cause and effect”, fix the problem instead of covering it with a band-aid.

I gotta agree with you there. The goverment(s) should focus on creating jobs, insteed pouring out money to the unemployed. That should be the no 1 priority.

 

[Bodacious]

Ok, lets start with your 1.237 trillion figure. First off the people pay for Social Security,

And people pay the rest of the taxes as well. So why not discout those? Do you not see the error in logic here?

The people's tax dollars go to medicare and welfare and all those other programs. So you can also say that "the people pay for welfare so you can remove that, too"

Unblieveable.

Here is solid proof that you will do anything to twist facts.

 

[No Limit]

I understand that reasoning, but I fail to see the logic behind it, or the common sense, when I have proved that the rich paid more in taxes.

I am taking issue with the notion that you think the Rich got a break somehow, when the CBO even says you are wrong.

If you understand the reasoning than you should be able to apply that to my original point in this thread. This has nothing to do with how effective the Bush tax cuts wre. I think they devistated us but that is a matter of debate for another thread, a thread we already got in to and I explained my point.

The simple point that applies to this thread is that if Bush decreased his tax cuts slightly he wouldn't have to force poor people to pay for his spending.

What Clinton did or the GOP congress did? What about Regan?

Like I said, I don't want to get into that here. Again, I already discussed this with you and made my point in another thread. If you want to get in to this start a new thread or reply to the old one, I will be happy to participate.

Nope, not trying to argue that at all. I am arguing the validity of the statement seeing as how the rich paid more in taxes under Bush than they did under Clinton. The fact that they got a tax cut doesn't matter at all, and is just a liberal scare tactic to think Bush is treating the poor unfairly.

I made my point how he is treating the poor unfairly in this post and in this thread; your only rebuttle was that the rich paid less under Clintion which is completely offtopic and which is what I already explained to you on many occasions.

 

[No Limit]

And people pay the rest of the taxes as well. So why not discout those? Do you not see the error in logic here?

The people's tax dollars go to medicare and welfare and all those other programs. So you can also say that "the people pay for welfare so you can remove that, too"

Unblieveable.

Here is solid proof that you will do anything to twist facts.

Have you looked at your pay check lately? In there you will see a section for social security. That is what I mean by people paying for social security which is completely seperate from paying taxes. Do you understand this or do I need to explain further?

Here is solid proof that you will do anything to twist facts.

I hope you understand how you were wrong in saying that and admit it.

 

[burner69]

My first name's Robin... dya rekon I could don a hood, grab a horse, and a bow and arrow, and set sail for America, robbing from the rich, and giving to the poor.

That could be pretty cool.

On topic, the sad thing is is that the poorest people, those getting Bush's d**k jammed up their arse at every oppurtunity, are the least educated, and the least likely to be aware what's going on, and protest about it. Many of them are so caught up in the war on terrorism that they either don't notice, or don't care, when they notice cuts. They just try and get on with things, which, considering they make up a large perscentage of the population, is just a friggin shame. They could do something about it if they knew there was something to do about it.

Don't worry America, your government is in control. Go back to bed America. Here, here is American gladiators, watch this, shut up. Here is American gladiators on 56 different channels. Watch these pituary retards bash their f**king skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom. Watch this. Shut up.

 

[Bodacious]

I made my point how he is treating the poor unfairly in this post and in this thread; your only rebuttle was that the rich paid less under Clintion which is completely offtopic and which is what I already explained to you on many occasions.

Oh, but it is on topic, here is why.

Why bring up that Bush cut taxes for the rich if it isn't a scare tactic? After all, I have proven to you that the rich paid more in taxes than the poor.

You start by saying Bush cut taxes for the rich and continue on how Bush's budget is unfair to the poor, correct?

Here is my point, I proved how your "Bush Tax Cuts for the Rich" is a scare tactic and liberal propaganda, so why should I believe anything else that you say, when you are proven to spout nothing but liberal talking points?

 

[No Limit]

Oh, but it is on topic, here is why.

Why bring up that Bush cut taxes for the rich if it isn't a scare tactic? After all, I have proven to you that the rich paid more in taxes than the poor.

You start by saying Bush cut taxes for the rich and continue on how Bush's budget is unfair to the poor, correct?

Here is my point, I proved how your "Bush Tax Cuts for the Rich" is a scare tactic and liberal propaganda, so why should I believe anything else that you say, when you are proven to spout nothing but liberal talking points?

Now you are just trying to spin this in to circles as you always do, address my points please.

 

[Bodacious]

Have you looked at your pay check lately? In there you will see a section for social security. That is what I mean by people paying for social security which is completely seperate from paying taxes. Do you understand this or do I need to explain further?

Have you looked at your paycheck lately? In there you will see a section for Federal Witholding. That is what I mean by people paying for welfare, wich is completely seperate from SS withholding. Do you understand this or do I need to explain further?

I hope you understand how you were wrong in saying that and admit it.

And I hope you will admit that you subscrib to a philosophy of flawed logic.

Hope in one hand and piss in the other, see which one fills up the fastest.

 

[RZAL]

Let me guess, you make more than $20K a year, correct?

If my assumption is correct you have no right to talk about hand outs and how you don't want them so other people shouldn't get them. Let me give you an example of one of my good friends. Currently he is 18 years old and living with his girlfriend who is 19. He is currently a senior in high school trying to graduate. He is at school from 7am - 9pm (night school classes) 2 days a week and then 3 days a week he is at school from 7am - 3 pm and then goes to work at a minimum wage job from 4pm - 11pm. On weekends he works almost all day and night. his girlfriend has been unemployed for the past month and hasn't been able to find a job. This is an income of around 600 a month for the 2. Now, rent costs about $500 so that leaves $100 for everything else. I don't know where you live but $100 isn't enough to wipe your ass for a month where I and they live. They rely on food stamps to put food on the table. This is the only 'handout' they are able to get (because of past cuts) and now they will have trouble even getting something as simple as food on their table. So please, spare the bullshit about these people living off government handouts.

My familiy was also extremely poor when I was young and we survived thanks to food stamps and free healthcare; we would have never came out of that situtation without that help.

Now, unless you live in a home making less than $10,000 a year I don't think you have a right to call these people lazy especially since I can bet they are working twice as hard as you ever had to.

I'm not saying aid doesn’t have its place, but it should be designed to cure the problem instead of propagating it. You know “cause and effect”, fix the problem instead of covering it with a band-aid.

It looks like your friend is climbing his way out, I wish him all the luck in the world.
Here is a short story about me…. Several years back I went through a period of unemployment. The only jobs available were a minimum wage or a hair over. When all else failed I accepted a job making $6.50 hour, $13520.00 gross annual income, after taxes left approx $11222.00. Out of $11222.00, I paid $6600.00 in child support, $4200.00 rent, which left around $422.00 a year for everything else. Not enough money to live on. Game plan….Took a second job at minimum wage and enrolled as a full time student at the local college. For several years, and I do mean several years I worked two jobs to put myself through college. I had no fun time, no days off, no electricity or warm baths, sometimes days without food (I found a convenient store that sold two hot dogs for a dollar $7.00 week) After all was said and done, I still had it easier than my parents did. Life is not fare and its not easy, every days a struggle. If people want a better life they can achieve it, it feels good to overcome oppression, it feels good to be self sufficient, I have been down that road, tell your friend to hang in there.



The Patriot “Freedom is not Free”

 

[Bodacious]

Now you are just trying to spin this in to circles as you always do, address my points please.

What point? I am not going to address it if the point is perpetuated by a biased perspective who misrepresents and disregards facts at every turn.

Address mine:

Why bring up that Bush cut taxes for the rich if it isn't a scare tactic?

 

[Bodacious]

I think what RZAL is trying to say is:

"Give a man a fish and he will not be hungry for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will never be hungy."

Something along the lines of that, I forget the quote exactly.

 

[No Limit]

Have you looked at your paycheck lately? In there you will see a section for Federal Witholding. That is what I mean by people paying for welfare, wich is completely seperate from SS withholding. Do you understand this or do I need to explain further?

Do you understand that social security and taxes are different? You take a certain amount from your pay check and pay it in to social security. This is why social security is currently paying out all the benefits without getting in to the reserves. No tax dollars pay for this yet. Are you still with me chief?

 

[burner69]

.

What point?

Address mine:

Why bring up that Bush cut taxes for the rich if it isn't a scare tactic?

Because he's cutting taxes from the rich, resulting in less money going to the government, then filling in the void with money taken from areas needed by the poor.

Keep going on about how the rich pay more taxes, blah, blah, etc wonder why they pay more? Hmm, perhaps because they're making a f**king s*** load of money more than everyone else, of course all this money is made through legitimate means, and involves no third world cheap labour, environmental risk, employee safety corner cutting etc etc.

As it stands, the people who can quite easily, and painlessly, get money into the governments pocket to help sort out this great mess Bush has dragged your country into, are being let off. I couldn't give a flying f*** if they pay more taxes, they make a hell of a lot more money. You're forgetting the cuts include basic living requirements, food, health, education. The poor are losing these while some corporate prick gets a bit of extra cash to get himself another nice car with. Work it out.

Anyway, a lot of these rich guys gave Bush a lot of money for his presidential campaign, of course he can let them off now.

Sometimes, some people make me sick with their arguments, defending a capitilist, pro-rich system, that screws over large numbers of poorer people.

Unbelieveable