If Kerry is so against the tax cuts...

[GoingNova]

Why didn't he just give his tax check back to the government? It is an option. Or, how about this little tid bit of info:

Every year an independent tax watchdog group analyzes the average tax burden on Americans and then calculates "Tax Freedom Day." This is the day after which the money you earn goes to you, not the government. This year, tax freedom day was April 11. That's the earliest it has been since 1991(Pre-Clinton). Its latest day ever was May 2, which occurred in 2000 (Tax year 2000 was for the year 1999, which was Clinton's last year).

Recently, John Kerry gave a speech in which he claimed Americans are actually paying more taxes under Bush, despite the tax cuts. He gave no explanation and provided no data for this claim.

Another interesting fact: Both George Bush and John Kerry are wealthy men. Bush owns only one home, his ranch in Texas. Kerry owns four mansions, all worth several million dollars. (His ski resort home in Idaho is an old barn brought over from Europe in pieces. Not your average A-frame.)

Bush paid $250,000 in taxes this year; Kerry paid $90,000. Does that sound right? The man who wants to raise your taxes obviously has figured out a way to avoid paying his own.

[jourgenson]

Another interesting fact: Both George Bush and John Kerry are wealthy men. Bush owns only one home, his ranch in Texas. Kerry owns four mansions, all worth several million dollars. (His ski resort home in Idaho is an old barn brought over from Europe in pieces. Not your average A-frame.)

Bush paid $250,000 in taxes this year; Kerry paid $90,000. Does that sound right? The man who wants to raise your taxes obviously has figured out a way to avoid paying his own.

The reason is that Kerry is worth around $4 million dollars and Bush is worth around $20 million. They have fairly similar job incomes, both in the 150 - 350 thousand dollar area, but Bush gains far more in interest income. Homes would only show up in property tax would would be a local tax anyway, not a federal tax. But this is all irrelevent as I will give both the benefit of the doubt here and assume both are law-abiding since it would be noticed fairly quickly if a major candidate was cheating on taxes.

[Prox]

The other difference between Bush and Kerry is a great deal of Kerry's money is from his wife who files her tax return seperate and therefore we don't know what they pay as a couple, just was Kerry pays individually . . . just my :twocents:

BTW this really belongs in the WC, moving there now

[GoingNova]

It was out in yesterday's newspaper. Her tax rate was 12.47 percent. The average middle-class family pays more than 20 percent.

Mrs. Kerry's rate is barely above the lowest rate of 10 percent for the lowest-income Americans subject to taxes.

Also, what I don't understand is how all the some people can complain about tax cuts,, but:


A) Try to pay as little as they can, using every tax shelter they can
B) Not give back their tax cut if they are so against it - It is an option!


I am sorry, but Mr & Mrs Kerry, in my opinion, are the embodiment of hyprocisy.

Personally, I believe we pay too much in taxes. I do not think it is fair that I work so hard and the government takes my hard earn cash away to spend on things that I personally believe they have no right spending it on. Building my roads, bridges, tunnels - Yes. Paying the salary and benefits of soldiers who fight and die to protect us - Yes. Handouts to people who can work but won't - No. PAYING FOR ADVERTISING ON RADIO AND TV for foodstamps on radio and television - OUTRAGEOUS!.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10162004/news/nationalnews/30460.htm.

[liltaz]

Those 4 mansions don't belong to Kerry, but his wife.

[meezercat]

It was out in yesterday's newspaper. Her tax rate was 12.47 percent. The average middle-class family pays more than 20 percent.

Mrs. Kerry's rate is barely above the lowest rate of 10 percent for the lowest-income Americans subject to taxes.

Do you have the figures on what she paid in property taxes? Also, what was her actual income for last year? I know she has gobs of money, but what is the income that 12.47% was based on?

[lobo]

I see, there are mostly respublicans there! :yay:

[painogb]

I see, there are mostly respublicans there! :yay:

no just 1 the rest of the people (i can't inculude myself being to young to vote) appear to be Democrats or not as pro Bush as goingnova

[lobo]

So, You are a democrat who is pro Bush as ... ahem

[GoingNova]

Do you have the figures on what she paid in property taxes?

Property taxes are in addition to what you pay in Federal Taxes, and are irrelevent here because we are discussing Federal Tax Returns and the Federal Tax Cuts President Bush signed into law. My bone of contention is if the Kerry's, and all the other vocal celebrities who say they did not deserve tax breaks, really felt so strongly, why did they not donate the tax cut they received to charity? Also, if the Kerry's are so against Tax Cuts, and think they hurt the country and the poor, then why did they do everything they could to claim all the exemptions and write offs so as to lower the amount they pay in taxes?

Also, what was her actual income for last year? I know she has gobs of money, but what is the income that 12.47% was based on?

No one knows her actual income, because she has refused to release anything other than her 1040 form. To know her true income, we would need to see her entire tax return. The 12.47% is based upon what she claimed as income. I was a book keeper for a small company so I know how the system works. It goes something like this. Lets say she make 100 million total. She writes things off to deduct her total profit, since she only pays taxes on the profit. So, from that 100 million, she begins to deduct anything that can be used as a business expense. For example, her 250,000 car, her 10 million dollar jet, she can write off food expenses as taking clients out to dinner. She of course can write off charity. Basically, the goal is to show the government that you made as little profit as you can. The guy I used to keep the books for claimed he make $150,000 in salary each year, but when you factored in all of his write offs, he make closer to $500,000.

So, unless we saw the ENTIRE return, to see what the original amount was, and we saw all the write offs, we can not say what she really made. This is why the middle class always gets screwed because we do not have so many write offs. If you make 75,000.00 a year, most likely, at best, you can get a few thousand dollars off in write offs- your house, maybe some medical expenses, unpaid work expenses, etc. But your taxable income is going to be MUCH closer to the $75,000.00 then say someone who owns a business and can write off every day things - car lease, dining out, to the business.

Bush has said he wants to investigate a FLAT TAX, which, is without a doubt, the fairest way to do things. I have heard that if every working person, no matter what their income, paid just a 17% tax, we would be able to pay off the national debt in one year. Not to mention, the economy would SOAR because, well, do the math yourself. Take last year's tax return. See how much you made. Take away 17%, and see how much more money you would have. Now, is that 17% more or less than what you paid last year in FEDERAL taxes? I am guessing it is a lot less. On my taxes, my wife and I would have had about $20,000.00 mmore CASH IN OUR POCKETS or in the bank. Now that would be INCREDIBLE!


According to the article (I included the link in the original post), quote:

"Teresa Heinz Kerry reported a total income of $5,072,533, including nearly $2.8 million that escaped all federal taxes because it was on interest-free investments from state, city and other public bonds.

"She paid $628,401 in federal taxes, or a rate of 12.47 percent."

"Tax experts stressed that there is no real way to gauge Mrs. Kerry's wealth because she has refused to release anything other than her 1040 form — no schedules to show where her money is invested, how much she invests overseas or her total wealth."


And, for the record, I am a CONSERVATIVE by choice, a republican by default. Although I was born and raised a democrat, I simply have not been able to vote democratic for YEARS! The ONLY Democrat running for President who I thought was half way decent was Mr Liberman. Also, Zell Miller, who, for the record, GAINED NOTHING by supporting President Bush, so it is more likely than not what he said was the truth. He is retiring from the Senate, and not seeking re-election. In spite of this fact, the Democrats lambasted him as a traitor. Jim Jeffers on the other hand, switched to the Democrats from the Republicans, and gained substantially from it, and yet he was hailed by the Democrats as a noble hero for standing up for his beliefs. That was an utter joke.

I love to debate politics, and except for 9-11 and Iraq, I never really get offended. Everyone is free to have their own opinions. My biggest problem is with the media, because I believe that the country is not spilt 50/50. I think it is 50% conservative leaning, 20% liberal leaning, and 30% who may vote democratic, but if they knew ALL THE FACTS, would lean more towards republicans. Just my $1.50!

I may appear to come on strong sometimes (sometimes I admit, I DO come on very strong), but I just like to debate and because I believe so passionately about the issues. :D

[psi]

I'm not one to join debates yet I am conversative myself.

You know most of the younger generation or those inept about politics usually associate the current situation with the current president. They say yeah the economy was great under Clinton. It was great because of all the republicans before him...something called Reaganomics did that. Then the terms under Clinton ruined such the good economy set for his office. Then walks in Bush Jr and he gets blamed for a bad economy Clinton made. It doesn't turn bad overnight once Bush took office. It takes years to make a disatrous economy. The only way to make the economy good is to vote republican. I'm a small business owner/student/researcher. All of these require input of my own money. I'd be out of my mind if I want to pay higher taxes. I'm already satisfied of the tax bracket I'm in....

[meezercat]

goingnova, I'm curious about something else... since the Bush tax cuts were initiated, there have been lots of tax hikes where I live at the state and local levels - income taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes.

I am NOT a fan of Reaganomics - I actually think his policies set this country on a very bad course. I am a firm believer that trickle-down theories do nothing but make the rich richer.

[GoingNova]

I disagree for one simple reason, the "rich" provide the jobs and the business in this country. By giving tax breaks and incentives to rich people and companies, the government makes money in the long run by taxing workers and gaining personal income ta. as well as the other taxes it collects when business is doing well. Also, rich people and companies make jobs and grow the economy. We are losing jobs via outsourcing for many reasons, one of them including we are ranked 161st in the world as business friendly. Essentially, we tax the business' too much, so they go else where. Simple fact.

Taking from the rich to give to the poor, only increases people's dependence and stagnates the econmy. Not to get too personal, but my mother and her entire family have been on welfare for generations. They are all in and out of jail, and those who do not try and make money illegally (drugs and what have you) are all content to stay home and watch TV, living off of what NY State gives them. It is not easy for me to say that about my family, but it is the truth. I know first hand, that all it does is make THE AVERAGE PERSON, not everyone, of course there are always exceptions, but the AVERAGE PERSON, be lazy and take what is given to them. That being besides the point, it is my belief that NO ONE has the right to force anyone to give money to other people. That is what charity is for. The whole concept of wealth redistribution, a staple of the democratic platform, sickens me. But that is another post. When you tax the people with the money, the "wealthy" if you will, they have less money to spend on products and services. When people don't spend money, the economy stalls.

In regards to the other issue you raised, yes, that is true. What has happened is the Bush Adminstration has shifted, and I believe rightly so, the two main burdens on government in general from the Federal Government to the State Governments. He given the people, via State and Local Government, an input these issues by doing this. Many states in turn have put the burden on local governments, who in turn have raised local taxes through the roof. In my case, that is to say NY State's case, most property taxes have sky rocketed. The State and the Counties are now forced to decide whether or not to continue these burdens. I believe this is just because the State and the Counties politicians are held much more accountable than the Federal Governement. Case in point, although my state, NY, is a HUGE cost, I do not think it is right for the people in, say Flordia, to have to contribute their Federal Tax dollars to people from NY. When the Federal Governement pays for these things, that is what happened. By shifting it to the States, Bush has helped bring this practice to a stop. In my State, people from outside NYC HATED paying for NYC, so, the State, via the Governor did the same thing. He said people upstate should not have to pay the burden of the people in the city. Again, it would help me personally if they did, but I don't agree with it. As a consequence, my local taxes are very high.

This is the best way I can explain both the situation and my opion. Two of the largest burdens on this country right now are Social Security (which Kerry has flatly stated he will not change even though everyone acknowledges that it is broken) and MEDICAIDE. Of those two issues. Illegal immigrants account for quite a bit of the expenses in these two catagories.

Medicaid - illegal immigrant health care cost is a HUGE expense. And not to sound cold hearted, but illegal immigrants not only jack up the cost by using it themselves, they bring diseases here and infect people living here - in NY TB is a HUGE example of this.

Social Security - contrary to popular belief, it is not only OLD PEOPLE who are straining SS. It is also strained by people who pay into it for a very short time, and then retire at a very early age after not contributing much, and going to back to their own country. Remember, $200 a month in some countries is a lot of money. Also, young people who are deemed unable to work are a strain on it as well.

So, essentially what we have is people from other countries who come here illegally, and then go to our schools, collect social security, and/or use our Health Care are in doing so are placing a HUGE burden, via taxes, on the average American Citizen. Also, this is not even factoring in the money lost in taxes not paid on their wages because most of them work off the books, or the cost of education for their children and the housing. All of this is adding up.

Now, don't get me wrong, you will never hear my saying Bush is doing a good job on illegal immigration. In fact, I will always say he that he dropped the ball BIG TIME, because after 9-11 he had a mandate from the people to close the borders, and deport all the illegals, and staighten out this country's immigration problem once and for all. He didn't, and he squandered, I think, the best chance I have seen in my life time. That being said, I think he is still doing better than Kerry would do.

This country was founded on immigration, and immigrants play a vital and crucial role in this country. I am not now, nor have I ever been, against LEGAL immigration. What I am against, 100%, is ILLEGAL immigration. And, I don't even blame the illegals that much. I mean, can you really blame someone for coming here from Mexico and living a better life for them and their families when it is so easy to do? If I lived in Mexico, and I could come here illegally, I most likely would too. I blame the people who allow this to happen, namely, the politicans - BOTH SIDES.

And just so you folks all know, I am a Police Officer in NYC, so I see more than the average person sees when it comes to the failures of our Social Programs. And, as I mentioned prior, I was a LIBERAL when I became a Police Officer 11 years ago. My experience has changed my views alot.

[GoingNova]

Also, quickly, because I have to get to bed, I agree 100% with PSI. If you really think long and hard, you can see that Clinton benefited from the Internet and Tech Stocks. The economy was artifically inflated because people threw money at anything that had a .com next to it. Also, the corruption that is always attributed to the Republicans, all happened during the Clinton years. I know it just sounds like more "Clinton Bashing", but if you take the time to look it all up, it is true. Enron, Global Crossing, the others, all of the corruption part took place in the 90's. The facts all came out under Bush. The facts are, Clinton's economy was failing as he left office. If you are simple and fair minded, and give it some thought, you will realize that Bush's taxes cuts HELPED us more than we will ever know. We lost BILLIONS due to 9-11. We are losing billions fighting the war on Terror. Bush had no choice but to raise the deficeit. All of that, and we are in GROWTH. Can you imagine what would have happened if we did not have 9-11? Think about that.

Also, I don't like people attacking the rich. Getting rich is not easy. If you think it is, you just never tried. Think about this for a second. You are sitting at a table with an IDEA. You sell it to your wife. You quit your job, and take out a mortgage on your house to start a restaurant. Do you realize the risk and the stress involved in that venture? Do you realize what happens if the restaurant fails? You could lose your house. Also, who pays for your health benefits? You do. Can you see now that the owner of a restaurant has more to concern himself with the wage he is going to pay the guy cleaning his dishes? Do you think the guy cleaning the dishes deserves to be paid for the risk - none - he contributes to the business, or do you think he should be paid based on the success of the business? Why should someone who takes all the risks not reap the rewards?

And the other class of people, the GW Bush's who inheritied their money. All I can say is, you are God Damn straight if I ever make millions, I am going to give it all to my family and my son! I never understood how people can fault people for that! Of course George Senior takes care of his boys, that is the right thing to do!

Anyway, all of my points are said witht he utmost civility. I used to think the other way because I never had a father or mother to teach me, so I learned from my liberal teachers and Dan Rather. :lol: It was not until I did well for myself and started looking into things that I became a conservative. For Pete's sake, I am 32 Credit College Dropout, and so is my wife. There is NOTHING extrdinary about either me or my wife, and weI live in a half million dollar house on Long Island. Neither of our families gave us anything. I am just a cop who BUSTS HIS ASS WORKING OVERTIME, and my wife does not even make half of my salary. My point is, don't tell me people can not do well for themselves if they just try. I can not really see how any one does worse than me, considering I can't save a dime! LOL

Anyway, I have to get up at 4:00AM, so I am not late for rollcall. My Sgt always gets pisssed when I am late. Have a good night all. :nod:

[painogb]

You all raise good points. And for the most part I agree with you (mainly because all I know otherwise has been shoved down my throught by my democratic mother and her sister).

Social Security was started durring the depresion to keep people out of debt. It relies on the people working now to pay money in so seniors can get money out. It would cost allot to stop it because every one who has put money in will want to get money out ect. It's outdated and probabally should be stopped but how?

Also medicare heath care sould be provided to everyone. I can also see the point of if you work you get it from work while if you don't you don't really deserve it because you've done nothing for it.

with welfare there are some places around here were when you drive by them you are totally amazed that people would live there. These people are usually living on welfare and drug sales. But there are also people who are unemployed who are looking for work or similar things. If you lost your job you want the Gov. to send you money untill you could find a new one? Most likly you said yes. Or if say goingnova you said both you and your wife were colledge dropouts what would you do if she wanted to go back to school so that she could get a better job. It would be hard for you working allone to support the two of you and your son. But if she could collect welfare it might make your life just that much easier so maybe say you get welfare for just a year instead of canceling it all together which would allow these things

I would say more but I gotta go so maybe later

[GoingNova]

Before I begin, I just want to say what a good job you do at debating painogb! Your parents should be proud of you. :nod: From what I see of your here in these forums, I can safely say, I hope my son Andrew grows up to be as bright and articulate as you. :D

Let me address some of the points you raise.


Social Security was started durring the depresion to keep people out of debt. It relies on the people working now to pay money in so seniors can get money out. It would cost allot to stop it because every one who has put money in will want to get money out ect. It's outdated and probabally should be stopped but how?

Social Security was supposed to be like a forced savings. The government takes money away from you saves it for you until you are either too old to work, or you become disabled. A very nice idea, but horribly applied. When President Bush says he wants to "privatize" social security, what he means is he wants to set a cut off date and allow people from that point on to use the new way. He wants to leave those of us in it already, I believe, to just use the old way. He may allow for opt ins as well, but I am not sure. What he wants to do is basically make SS like IRAs, or, what I have in my job, which is called deferred compensation. I know about what I have now best, so let me explain it rather than IRAs.

When you get a pay check there are two totals, your GROSS and your NET. The GROSS is how much you earned BEFORE taxes. Your NET is how much you take home after taxes. My deferred compensation allows me to take money I earned away from my GROSS, up to 15% per check or 15,000 a year, and put it into an account. So, lets say I make $100.00 Gross every check. I can take $15.00 of that $100.00 and put it onto the side into a special account. That leaves me with $85.00. From that $85.00, the government takes Federal Income Taxes, Social Security Tax, State Taxes, and Local Taxes. The current tax system in place in this country is a "Progressive" Tax, which means, the more money you earn, the higher your tax rate is. My income puts me at roughly 33% tax. Some people think this is fair, some people think it is not. Personally, I think it is unfair because in my opinion, you are punishing people who work hard and earn money. Some people would argue that if you make more, you can afford to pay more. That is a debate for another time. :nod: So, 33% of that $85.00 is taken away from me, leaving me with a Net of $57.00. So, out of my $100.00, I got to put $15.00 away in a special savings account, $28.00 was taken away from me in taxes, and I get to come home with $57.00. What is so nice about saving that $15.00 BEFORE taxes, is that because it is taken away BEFORE taxes, do not notice it.. It is almost like free money, because if you took away 33% of the full $100.00, I would have been left with $67.00 instead of $57.00, which would have only given me $10.00 more money in my pocket. But when I save it BEFORE taxes, as you can see, I got to save $15.00. SO, it is an incentive to save: Take $10.00 NOW, or save your money, and the governent "gives" you $5.00 extra dollars.

Ok, so every week I put $15.00 away into a special savings account. I can leave it in the account, and gain interest at the prime bank rate, which is low. Usually around 3-5%. Or, If I like, I can invest it in stocks via mutual funds. Or, if I like, I can invest it in long term bonds. The point is, I am making interest on my money. It is always there for me to see how much I have. I have control over my money. There are, of course, down sides to this. If I invest in "high risk" mutual funds, I can of course lose money. But since this is a long term investment, in the long run, you are almost certain to make more money than you would with Social Security. When I retire from my job, I can take it out, but if I do that, I would get taxed on it at normal rate, at this time, 33%. But, if I do not touch it until I am 65, when I hit 65, I can have The Whole Enchilada tax free! I see it as a reward for working hard all my life, and saving my money.

How Social Security works is pretty simple. The government takes money from you from when you start to work, let's say 18, until you stop working, let's say 65. You are paying money into the government for 47 years. That entire time, you are not making interest. The money just sits there (well, not really - the reality is the government is using your money to pay people who are retired now and/or getting checks). But to make it simple, just pretend that the money is under your bed. Now, if you are single, and you die, you lose all that money. BYE BYE! It's gone. Thank you for playing the social security game, but you lose. I am not sure if you are married if your spouse gets it. They may or may not, I am not sure, so I can't say. But let's say you live. Ok, now, if you hit 65, and you could just take all the money, that would still be bad because you lost interest on that money for 47 years. But ok, at least you would get all of your money. But that is not how it is done. When you hit 65, you start to get a monthly check. But, lets say you die at 75. You collected for 10 years what you paid into for 47. Of course, there are times a person may live to be 105, in which case they STILL only collect for 45 what they put into for 47 years. The only time you ever "make money" really, is if, GOD FORBID, you go blind at 30, or lose a leg and become disabled. Then you would collect until you die for the short time you put in.

Now, how much you put in does determine how much your monthy check will be. So, earn a high wage all your life, your monthly check will be higher than someone who earned less than you, but you almost never get what you put in, plus, you are ALWAYS out the interest you would have earned. So, the bottom line is, it is a crappy system, and the system is broke. There are more people TAKING OUT then PUTTING IN each year, and the system will break in the near future. It needs to be changed. Now, I am no economist, but that is, more or less, how it works.

I believe, the way to go is the way that President Bush has in mind. To make it like my deferred compensation to people who are starting now. You get what you put into it. You have control over it. You get to decide how to invest it.

Also medicare heath care sould be provided to everyone. I can also see the point of if you work you get it from work while if you don't you don't really deserve it because you've done nothing for it.

I disagree, but before I even begin, let me tell you something that I am 100% certain of, no one in this country is denied health care for lack of coverage. If they are, then it is a crime, and the people denying the coverage can get in a lot of trouble. I know this FIRST HAND for two reasons:

1) I am a police officer. I see homeless people go to the hospital all the time. They have no money, and they get taken care of 100% of the time. I personally have NEVER seen anyone ever denied care for any reason.

2) My childhood friend is a surgeon, and he has worked in public hositals for years. Before I was a cop, he had told me (remember, I used to be a liberal, and I would talk about this very subject with him) that hospitals are never allowed to deny health care to anyone.

So, anyone telling you that people die because they have no health care is lying to you. Now, people might not go get help because they are afraid that because they have no coverage, they may get billed for it, and don't want to pay. Yes, that is true. But that is not the same as saying they CAN"T get health care. Why is it that people will take out a $25,000.00 loan to buy a nice looking car, then pay insurance for that car, and gas, and maintainece, and all the other expenses for a car, but if you told them they had to pay $15,000.00 for surgery to save their life, they would curse you out, and say, "WHAT DO YOU MEAN I SHOULD PAY A DOCTOR $15,000.00! I SHOULD GET IT FOR FREE!"

That is a very simplified arguement, I admit it. Some would argue that people need cars to earn a living. I would counter, not in NYC they don't. There is public transportation that would suit them just fine. I would argue that they could also get a less expensive car. My point is, why is it that people feel they are entitled to anything? Why does anyone feel that anyone else owes them anything? But I am drifting... hehehe, excuse me. Let me get back to the case in point.

The simple fact is, and this is not disputable, when you have socialized medicine, the quality of that care goes down drastically. So, what you have is EVERYONE getting CRAPPY medical care. Case in point. If I hurt my knee, I go to my doctor. He looks at it, and says he can not be sure. He takes an X-Ray, and he is still not sure if sees the problem. So he has me go get an MRI. I wait a week for an appointment, maybe two weeks at the most. I get the MRI. If I lived in Canada, I would have to wait 6 months. The entire time, my knee is injuried, maybe getting worse, but I have to wait. If the MRI shows I need surgery, I would have to wait, oh, maybe 8-12 weeks for surgery. If I lived in Canada, I would have to wait 60 PLUS weeks. My numbers may be off by a week here or there, but they are generally accurate. Which do you think is better? In fact, the wait in Candad would be even LONGER if it were not for the United States! Did you know that the Candanian government hires US Doctors to take Candian patients to ease the wait? Again, another fact that is not disputable. Did you know that MRI's did not even come to Canada until 1999, when we had MRIs in this country since around 1985! The appeal for a nationaly health-care system is certainly understandable and emotionally satisfying, but it is without constitutional merit, and in the long run, will make us worse off and less healthy.

President Bush wants to allow people to start "medical savings", where you can put away money each check, tax free, that you can use to pay medical bills when you need them. I think that is a good start.

with welfare there are some places around here were when you drive by them you are totally amazed that people would live there. These people are usually living on welfare and drug sales. But there are also people who are unemployed who are looking for work or similar things. If you lost your job you want the Gov. to send you money untill you could find a new one? Most likly you said yes. Or if say goingnova you said both you and your wife were colledge dropouts what would you do if she wanted to go back to school so that she could get a better job. It would be hard for you working allone to support the two of you and your son. But if she could collect welfare it might make your life just that much easier so maybe say you get welfare for just a year instead of canceling it all together which would allow these things

First, let me start with the following statistics. According to a 1992 Census Bureau, 92.2 % of "the poor" own color televisions, 60% oven microwaves, 7.4 % have computers, and 41 % own thier own homes, and 70% of those 41% with homes PAY NO MORTGAGES! The fact is, "the poor" in America live better than many non-poor in Europe!

Now, to address your points. If you work, and lose your job, you get unemployment, which is insurance your employer pays so that if you lose your job, you get a check until you can find a new job. What do you think happens in the vast majority of the time? People take a vacation, and wait until their checks almost run out, or run out. Is this ALWAYS the case, of course not, but it is more often the case than not.

If my wife wanted to go back to school to get a better job, she would do what MILLIONS of people do - work during the day, and go to work at night! Is that easy? No, but why does she need to quit her job and get a hand out from you until she decides to go to work when millions of people work and go to school?

I am not on Ogre. I do not think no one deserves a break. But I am tired of my money being spent foolishly. Case in point, and I mentioned this before. In NYC, the state PAYS TO ADVERTISE FOOD STAMPS! Think about that! Think of HOW WASTEFUL THAT IS! Here you have 10 million dollars to buy food, and you spend 3 million dollars to tell people there is free food available! That is insanely wasteful! How about you give the 7 million dollars to the people who come to you seeking help, and you give hard working people back 3 million dollars! And that is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to government wasting money! I am going to quote from the book I am getting most of these statistics from, "The Ten Things You Can Not Say In America", by Larry Elders, to drive home my point. Here goes:

"In 1995, the Cato Institute (a nonpartisan public policy research foundation) published a study calculating the cash and the non-cash value of welfare benefits in all fifty states, for a mother with two children. To compare these untaxed welfare benefits with a taxable payroll check from a forty-hour-a-week-job, they factored in FICA payroll taxes, state and federal income taxes, and federal earned income tax credit. The resulting wage equivalent of welfare ranged from a high of $36,400 for Hawaii, to a low of $11,500 in Mississippi -- exceeding even that of a minumum-wage job. The wage equivalent of forty states exceeds eight dollars an hour, and that of seventeen states is more than ten dollars an hour.

In twenty-nine states, welfare pays more than that state's average starting salary for a secretary. Nine states pay more than the first-year salary for a teacher. And the top six states pay more than the entry-level salary for a COMPUTER PROGRAMMER!

The study concluded that, "For the hard-core welfare recipient, the value of the full range of welfare benefits substantially exceeds the amount the recipient could earn in an entry-level job. As a result, the recipients are likely to choose welfare over work, thus increasing long-term dependence."

Do I think that everyone on welfare is a lazy, good for nothing, bum, everyone in my mom's family was, but I would say absolutely not. Are there people who use the government as a crutch to get them by in a time of need? OF COURSE! But, I would say that there are many more people UNDERSERVING then DESERVING. I think charity belongs to the people who do it for a living, not the government.

Gun Control anyone?

:lol:

[painogb]

Now it's my turn to compliment you on your debating skills. My argument was weak being thrown together in the 5 minutes i had untill i needed to go to bed. And yours blew it outta the watta. Because I don't have a job I don't fully understand the Social Sercurity system. And the rest were simply my naive understanding of things and I must thank you for helping me understand them better.

[meezercat]

Well, I admit, I really don't like paying taxes myself, but it's a necessary evil. Besides that taxes are only one part of the big picture and when I add up the big picture, there's no way in the world I could ever support Bush.

I need a President who is:
Pro-environment (including reducing this country's dependence on oil, foreign or otherwise)
Pro-choice
Smart about foreign policy (and you'll never in a million years convince me this applies to Bush)
Not discriminating against gays

There are more, but these are the big ones. Added up, these plus the smaller issues far outweigh the tax issue for me. Besides that, Bush is still spending the money even though he's not bringing it in through taxes. I find this hugely irresponsible fiscally and don't think it's any better than tax-and-spend; Bush is just going to force the next President (Democrat or Republican) to raise taxes like it or not.

[GoingNova]

It is so wonderful to get a nice, respectful disagreement Meezercat. Thank you for stating your difference of opinion in a nice, civil manner. I wish all debates could be like this. :)

To address some of your issues:

Well, I admit, I really don't like paying taxes myself, but it's a necessary evil.

Taxes are indeed a necessary evil, but the amount of waste in the government is disgusting. The fact is, we could get just about everything we need from the government paying about half of the taxes we pay. In my opinion, the answer is NEVER raise taxes, but rather cut spending.

Besides that taxes are only one part of the big picture and when I add up the big picture, there's no way in the world I could ever support Bush.

Well, rather than list all the reasons I could never, ever, support John Kerry, I will simply post these links.

In Kerry's OWN WORDS. This video is not propaganda, but rather Kerry on video contradicting himself time and time again:

http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/101104v1-1.wmv

http://www.flipflopper.com/Flipflops.asp

I have said it once, and I will say it 1000 times: agree or disagree with Bush, at the very least, you should respect the fact that he does what he thinks is right for the country, not what the polls tell him he should do. You know where he stands on issues. In my opinion, you elect a President to lead. Leading means you make choices, right or wrong. John Kerry does not lead. He, like President Clinton, puts out a poll, and sees what people think about something, and then acts accordingly. I do not call that leading, and I find that frightening! People do not have access to the information a President has, and a President should be making the decesions.

Pro-choice

I am pro-life, and so I concede this to you. If you are pro-choice, I can see you not liking President Bush on this issue, but I would say that just because he is personally pro-life does not mean he is going to ban abortions. In fact, he can't. He has even said himself, this country is not ready to ban abortions. What he does say is that there are too many abortions in this country, and I think everyone can agree on that. Even pro-choice people know that abortions are not good.

He banned PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTIONS, which was the right thing to do. He allowed for a partial birth abortion if the LIFE of the mother was in danger (which is mute), but not for the HEALTH of the mother, the simple fact is, if a woman can have a partial birth abortion - which is the delivery of a child up to it's shoulders, and the puncture and subsequent crushing of it's skull, then she can deliver the baby. What was happening was people were simply getting abortions up until ANYTIME BEFORE NATURAL LABOR using the "health" loophole provided by President Clinton. Imagine that, women were getting doctor's to diagnose them as "clinically depressed", which therefore put their "health" into the equation, and legally allowed for the precedure to be performed all the way up to 9 months! I do not think that anyone can argue in favor of that. I think most reasonable people would agree that having an abortion 8.5 months into a pregnacy because you are "depressed" is wrong.

Statistics show that young women today are increasing Pro-Life. Advancement in sonograms are showing babies to be much more developed than previously thought, and personally, I think a President who thinks abortion should be the last resort, and encourages other options is a good thing.

Smart about foreign policy (and you'll never in a million years convince me this applies to Bush)

I could not disagree with you stronger on this one. President Bush puts the interests of America ahead of the interests of the world, as did President Reagan. It is obvious that Kerry is a UN lover, and his comments on "Global Test" scare the hell out of me. I think the Duelfer Report (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,135654,00.html) , once read fully, proved that Presidend Bush was right to go into Iraq. The "Allies" that are not with us at the moment, namely France and Germany, all had illegal dealings with Iraq and the UN, and were making millions of dollars from Iraq. That was why they were against the war, and for no other reasons. America First is my attitude, and I am proud of President Bush.

Not discriminating against gays

Again, I could not disagree stronger. I am going to guess that you are referring to President Bush's stand on marriage, and that it is defined as a union between a man and a woman. If that is not the case, than I would ask how you feel he discriminates against gays. Going on the marriage issue, I can not see how people can argue that marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. The argument I continually hear, over and over again, is that two consenting adults should be able to get married, and the government does not have the right to deny them. The problem with that argument is quite simple - it opens up a pandora's box of problems. Here are is just a SAMPLE of problems that will arise from this issue:

1) A man loses his wife. He raises his daugther, and the two develop a warped romantic relationship. They decide they want to get married. She has her tubes tied, he gets a vasectomy, so they can not have children. How can they now legally be denied marriage?

2) A brother and a sister want to get married, they can't have kids, how do you deny them?

3) How about 3 men? How about 3 Women? How about 2 men and 1 woman?

My point is, once you LEGALLY ESTABLISH that CONSENTING ADULTS can not be denied the right to get married, how can you stop any of the aforementioned issues?

I do not think that saying that marriage is between a man and a woman is discrimination. I think it is what it is.... factual. The government already allows civil unions. Why must gays insist on "getting married" just for the sake of doing it?


Bush is still spending the money even though he's not bringing it in through taxes. I find this hugely irresponsible fiscally and don't think it's any better than tax-and-spend; Bush is just going to force the next President (Democrat or Republican) to raise taxes like it or not.

The President had no choice but to spend the money he is spending. After 9-11 we had too. He had to spend BILLIONS on NYC alone. The Department of Homeland Security is costing billions, but it has to be done. My point is, it was never his intention to spend this much money, and as a conservative he HATES spending this money, but he is doing what MUST be done, and to me that shows leadership. Raising taxes is not the answer. Growing the economy is, and I believe he is doing just that. I DO NOT believe that Bush, should he be re-elected, is going to raise taxes.

In short, I believe that after all that was thrown at President Bush, it is UNDENIABLE, we are not in bad shape as a country, both economically and security wise. I think that he deserves to be re-elected based soley on his performance after 9-11. While some may argue we are not where they hoped we would be, it is really unfair to say that he is doing terrible considering what was we have gone through as a nation since 9-11.

Regardless of your opinion though, I just want to say again, it is so refreshing to simply have a disagreement with someone and not be attacked or feel as though I have to attack them. It is a pleasure to DEBATE, and not degrade to the level of shouting and screaming. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, right or wrong, and it nice to see others respect that.
:)

Also, here is some good reading:

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf

[GoingNova]

[meezercat]

I agree with you there is waste in government spending. I don't know anyone who would disagree with that. But it's not limited to democrats. And maybe Bush *does* need to spend money, but that money has got to come from somewhere. And he's not taking it out of other spending.

I do feel that Republicans are in general bad for the economy. Every time someone whose income I depended on (dad, husband, my own) lost their job, a Republican was in office. That may be just bad luck for them, but it's my own personal experience and of course it's going to impact the way I vote.

Also - I don't have an issue with Kerry changing his mind on issues. First, I don't think it's as prevalent as people claim it is, and second, most people are willing to change their mind when presented with compelling evidence. I mean, if they weren't, you wouldn't even bother trying to convince people they should vote for Bush, right?

On the gay marriage issue, I absolutely view it as discrimination that they aren't allowed to marry. Your first 2 scenarios may be sick and twisted, but I honestly don't think they should be illegal. The third one would be moot if marriage was simply defined as between TWO consenting adults. Most civil unions are not recognized as functionally the same as a marriage. Honestly, I'd prefer that *everyone* only gets a civil union as recognized by the government, and if you want to be "married" you do that through your place of worship.

Oh, and no offense, but I'm not reading the Fox News link about Kerry. That's a little like looking for veal stew recipes on PETA's website.

[GoingNova]

No offense taken, but it was about the CIA Report, not Kerry. ;)

About Kerry changing his mind, well, I don't think that is the case. I think it is more of an issue of him saying what he thinks people want to hear. He says what suits his needs at the time, and that is the problem I have with him.

[nootch]

I'm not going to get too involved with this thread because I usually hate talking politics...
but here are a few quick thoughts I had after reading through most of this thread:

I have said it once, and I will say it 1000 times: agree or disagree with Bush, at the very least, you should respect the fact that he does what he thinks is right for the country, not what the polls tell him he should do. You know where he stands on issues. In my opinion, you elect a President to lead. Leading means you make choices, right or wrong. John Kerry does not lead. He, like President Clinton, puts out a poll, and sees what people think about something, and then acts accordingly. I do not call that leading, and I find that frightening! People do not have access to the information a President has, and a President should be making the decesions.

I believe the real job of any elected official is to represent the people. To represent the people, you must find out what they want and make decisions accordingly. Granted, the President often has access to more information than the general public, but Bush himself said that he is guided primarily by his faith and by what he thinks is best for us.


The argument I continually hear, over and over again, is that two consenting adults should be able to get married, and the government does not have the right to deny them. The problem with that argument is quite simple - it opens up a pandora's box of problems. Here are is just a SAMPLE of problems that will arise from this issue:

1) A man loses his wife. He raises his daugther, and the two develop a warped romantic relationship. They decide they want to get married. She has her tubes tied, he gets a vasectomy, so they can not have children. How can they now legally be denied marriage?

2) A brother and a sister want to get married, they can't have kids, how do you deny them?

3) How about 3 men? How about 3 Women? How about 2 men and 1 woman?

My point is, once you LEGALLY ESTABLISH that CONSENTING ADULTS can not be denied the right to get married, how can you stop any of the aforementioned issues?

Your points 3 points really have nothing to do with same-sex marriages; if incestuous or polygamous marriages are currently illegal, allowing same-sex marriages would open no such loophole to allow them. See this topic already discussed here (http://forums.aliensoup.com/showthread.php?t=9522).

These are both a bit off of the original topic of tax cuts though...

[GoingNova]

Thanks for joining the debate. :)


I believe the real job of any elected official is to represent the people. To represent the people, you must find out what they want and make decisions accordingly. Granted, the President often has access to more information than the general public, but Bush himself said that he is guided primarily by his faith and by what he thinks is best for us.

I stand by my original statement - A leader does what he thinks is right, not just what people want. Of course he may take into consideration what the people want, but ultimately, he must make the choice based on what believes to be best for the nation. If the people do not like his choice, they have the option of electing him out. You can not make everyone happy, and trying to do so usually only makes everyone unhappy. Stick to your guns, and do what you think is right. That is my motto, hence, I respect the President for doing it.

Your points 3 points really have nothing to do with same-sex marriages; if incestuous or polygamous marriages are currently illegal, allowing same-sex marriages would open no such loophole to allow them. See this topic already discussed here (http://forums.aliensoup.com/showthread.php?t=9522).

I disagree. If you allow gay marriage by saying consenting adults have the right to enter into a marriage and the government must recognize that marriage, on what legal ground would you be able to deny the examples I gave? Gay marriages are now illegal, you want to make them legal, so how can you say the fact that incestuous or polyamous marriages are currently illegal would mean they would also not become legal? Gay marriage would set a precedent, and the courts would be able to use that precedent to open up pretty much anything consenting adults could imagine.

Both are off the original topic, but I didn't mind discussing them.
:)

[painogb]

I think that he deserves to be re-elected based soley on his performance after 9-11.

Wait just a minute there

Now i will say right now that I don't know everything about what bush did directally following 9/11 I wasn't anywhere near as politically informed then as I am now.

But in my view there were just a series of what i call no sh** decisions to be made ie. do we go on the offensive and shut these guys down. If you say that decsion was a hard one to make I'm gonna wonder how long you spend in the grocery store each week trying to pick out a ceral because to me that would take allot more thought.

Yes durring that time allot of very important decisions were made but the choices were obvious. Maybe he dicided to do things differantly then say Kerry would have but they both would have accomplished the same thing.

Well that just my :twocents:

[GoingNova]

What I meant was that unless the country was falling apart, terrorists were attacking us all over the United States, and the economy was in shambles (and it is actually in an up swing), I think President Bush should get reelected, because considering what this country has gone through while he was President, I think we are doing pretty well. I mean, what would our economy be like if there was no 9-11 if we can be in an upswing after that Billion Dollar loss?

Just my 2 cents. :)