CONGRESS says... - Page 2

novadragoon · 06-04-2003, 01:51 PM

when will people learn that democracy doesn't work

Redwolf · 06-04-2003, 01:55 PM

Hey, it may not work too well, but I'd prefer it to having a totaltarian government, aka Nazi Germany or Soviet Union.

Harold7 · 06-04-2003, 02:03 PM

Where does anyone get the notion that the "Rich" are being given anything?

They are just being allowed to keep more of what they already own.... the silly bit of socialist propaganda, that the latest tax cuts are somehow a devious Republican plant to steal from the poor, is just that... propaganda.

Anyone who could believe such drivel must believe that all money and property belong to the State and what we have is only what the State allows us to keep.

What's scary is that more and more people buy into the Democrat line that only those who pay no taxes deserve tax cuts (insert redistribution of wealth here) and those who earn the money exist only to create wealth for the government to spend or give away to others.

People generally get the government they deserve and I guess we're getting our just desserts now.

CERuppel · 06-04-2003, 02:16 PM

Hate to say it, but the taxation/budget needs to be re-done.

As it is, the cat is guarding the canary. Why can't the tax be adjusted so that the off shore and corps are taxed just like the working man? As it is, do you realize how many big corps are virtually not paying taxes?

************************************************** **

Now for the other side of this thread: The fact that congress and the media LIED in regard to this tax cut.

Thats right, they knowingly and purposely LIED to the public. Isn't that something along the lines of purjury? After all aren't those congressmen under oath of office? And weren't they performing their office at the press conference?

Its about time that this sort of thing became the serious crime that it is, with charges, fines and jail time. Loss of ability to hold office included. Not to mention the class action suit on the part of those people that they are supposed to be representing.

Yes, I need to rant, but I', to pissed right now.

CERuppel · 06-04-2003, 02:23 PM

Harold: I'm with you. Just as soon as campaign finance law closes the loopholes that allow the rich to buy the government that they want at the expense of the rest of us.

As for the rich just being allowed to keep what they already make: How about the rest of us working men and women? Why is the government allowed to take away from us but not the rich?

Get your priority's straight. Government for the PEOPLE by the PEOPLE and of the PEOPLE. Thats all of us, not just the rich, the poor the (insert minority here) but all of us. Setting up a tax cut that favors less than 1% of the population is favoritism at its most blatant.

P.S.: I am just as opposed to giving money to the poor. Jobs yes, hand outs no.

originel · 06-04-2003, 02:54 PM

Quote:

They are just being allowed to keep more of what they already own.... the silly bit of socialist propaganda, that the latest tax cuts are somehow a devious Republican plant to steal from the poor, is just that... propaganda.

it's stuff like this that keeps me from being a republican.

oh and also "propaganda" isn't propaganda in the minds of those that say it. they really believe it and are just trying to get you to see their point of view. so really it isn't propoganda (Which, by definition, , just another viewpoint you don't agree with...so STOP CALLLING IT PROPOGANDA!!

another thing to think about: you're going on about the government "stealing" money from the wealthy that they already earned, which is not very true actually because nothing in economics is that clear cut...every action the government does involving the economy affects the economy (duh statement, but really think about it).

Ask yourself this question: what are the benifits for cutting taxes for the poor from a governmental view? tax cuts to the poor aren't simply out of kindness or whatever. the basic idea is in the "percolate up" theory of economics, which is a part of keynesian economics. The basic idea is that if you give people more moeny, they will spend it (which i don't think anyone will disagree with). when people spend more money, that is more capital for those business who recieve the income. so by reducing taxes for the poor you are encouraging them to spend more...so the people who own the businesses get more money. so in the end it balances out to the rich getting more money directly from tax cuts. so the "the govt is stealing from the rich" argument is invalid.

Quote:

What's scary is that more and more people buy into the Democrat line that only those who pay no taxes deserve tax cuts (insert redistribution of wealth here) and those who earn the money exist only to create wealth for the government to spend or give away to others.

You don't think that there is already a redistribution of wealth to the rich? the reason we use a progressive tax-rate. a flat tax would mean that the wealthy actually pay less taxes than the poor (this is standard thinking in economics too, not just some crazy notion of my own). this is because the rich invest, donate, etc with their money while the poor mostly spend their money on food, clothing, and shelter. the latter are taxed, teh former is not. also the poor generaly spend everything they have, the rich do not. therefore the percentage of taxes they pay in sales taxes compared to their income is significantly less for the rich than the poor. all the progressive tax scheme does is even things out...NOT steal from the rich. Remember that there are more taxes than just Income tax (in fact income tax only makes up around 1/4 of all taxes you pay).

my 2 cents: coming from a guy who just finished a government class AND an economics class in college.

Redwolf · 06-04-2003, 05:39 PM

I am republican.

I just think our congressmen are doing a piss-poor job, even many of the republicans. I vote that we elect entirely NEW congressmen, and put restrictions galore on them, so that we can smack them around if they do a horrible job. Oh wait, we shouldn't be violent. :GROANS:

Yeah...

Siliconjunkie · 06-04-2003, 07:01 PM

Ok, here is my rant on this. Why do we keep rewarding people for having kids? I understand giving them a break, and thats fine. But, why should I, who has CHOSEN not to have kids for financial reasons be the one shouldering this? Having kids is a choice and one that you know will have expenses. Why not plan for it? Simple, me and others like me will help you via our old friend uncle Sam. And before anyone says anything, you do not have the right to have childeren. I'm sorry but I am sick of paying 30% plus in taxes to support people doing things they can't afford. They are a bigger burden on the system and should be taxed as such. They made the choice to have kids, maybe they should have to pay for it, novel idea I know.

Before you get your flamethrower out, understand that I am not talking about low income families. I am talking about people in the same income bracket as I am. Which isn't shabby.

alondra · 06-04-2003, 07:29 PM

get your flamthrower if you want, but I am fed up with reading of the single mothers with several kids, of diferent fathers. on welfare, should we taxpayers send her 400 bucks for each kid. ????>?

daveleau · 06-04-2003, 08:51 PM

Death tax, marriage tax are both gone.

I am not sure if this tax is really there and not just some liberal plight to make things look bad. I guess I should read the tax changes again to see.