|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: George W. Bush's qualifications to be President | |||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: I vote for John Stewart.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Ok, then what about Molly Ivins?
I's love to see Al Franken, though.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
She is a very, very funny (and, by definition, smart) political writer.
She's also a Texan. I think you would like "Bushwhacked", and I like her older book, "Molly Ivins Can't Say That, Can She?" a lot, too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Whatever, where are the WMD in Iraq?
Who told us that he knew where the WMD's in Iraq were in the run up to the war? Where is Osama bin Laden? What has happened with the war lords in Afghanistan since we invaded? What were the nationalities of almost all of the 9/11 WTC bombers? What family in the middle east is the Bush family very, very close to? What has happened to the national debt in the last 4 years? What is GWB's military record like? Did he ever have a problem with drugs or alcohol? What kind of success did he have as a businessman? What economic group does his proposed tax cut help in the form of reducing their tax burden? What economic group does his proposed tax cut hurt in the form of increasing their tax burden? What did he do for 7 minutes after he learned that the second plane had hit the WTC?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Well, yeah, I'm a dreamer.
Silence can be filled with meaning, you know? I didn't ask a lot of things, it's true. I thought I'd let everyone else add to the list.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: ....immediately left the photo-op to begin taking in information about the situation so that he, as our Commander in Chief of the military, could make the most informed, intelligent descisions possible about what to do, what was possibly coming next. You know, he needed to lead.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: I doubt that he feels much in the way of fear at the moment. We are too occupied in Iraq to bother with Bin Laden. Al Qaida has been reorganizing, and the warlords are back at their thing in Afghanistan because we didn't finish what we started there.
quote: That's a lot of talk, but why hasn't the best intelligence and military in the world apprehended him yet? It's because GWB doesn't give a shit. http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/...004_archives/001333.html "The last time Bush spoke protractedly about bin Laden was at a March 2003 news conference. Bush was asked then by Kelly Wallace of CNN why he so rarely mentioned bin Laden, and whether bin Laden was, in fact, dead or alive. Bush's answer: "Well, deep in my heart, I know the man is on the run if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not? We haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission. "Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network is -- his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I've mentioned in my speeches, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death, and he himself tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all. "So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. . . . I truly am not that concerned about him." He's more interested in Iraqui oil.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Nobel Prize winners endorse Kerry
August 26, 2004 - 8:54AM Concerned over Republican President George W Bush's handling of the US economy, 10 Nobel laureates in economics announced in a public letter their endorsement of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. The Nobel winners include 1970 laureate Paul Samuelson from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and 2001 laureate Joseph Stiglitz from Columbia University, a former chief economist at the World Bank and former adviser to president Bill Clinton. According to the letter, the Bush administration has "embarked on a reckless and extreme course that endangers the long-term economic health of our nation." Kerry "understands that sound economic policy requires a substantial change in direction, and we support him for president." The differences between Bush and Kerry regarding leadership on the economy "are wider than in any other presidential election in our experience. Bush believes "that tax cuts benefiting the most-wealthy Americans are the answer to almost every economic problem." But the tax cuts "were poorly designed and therefore have given insufficient stimulus to job creation." The main effect of Bush's fiscal policies "has been to turn budget surpluses into enormous budget deficits. President Bush's fiscal irresponsibility threatens the long-term economic security and prosperity of our nation." At a time when the country should be saving to pay for retirement benefits for the large post-World War II generation - known as the "baby boomers" - the US national debt "is swelling; the social contract that binds one generation to another is being threatened with unravelling." In contrast, the Nobel laureates believe that Kerry "will restore fiscal responsibility" and is committed to helping families meet rising the cost of higher education and health care, and is committed "to work with our allies and trading partners to promote global growth that lifts up workers around the world." The letter was also signed by George Akerlof (2001), Daniel McFadden (2000), Kenneth Arrow (1972), William F. Sharpe (1990), Daniel Kahneman (2002), Lawrence Klein (1980), Douglass North Washington (1993), and Robert Solow (1987). 2004 AFP
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Whatever, do you not mind paying more of the tax burden while wealthy people pay less of the tax burden?
MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos
Since 2001, President Bush's tax cuts have shifted federal tax payments from the richest Americans to a wide swath of middle-class families, the Congressional Budget Office has found, a conclusion likely to roil the presidential election campaign.
The CBO study, due to be released today, found that the wealthiest 20 percent, whose incomes averaged $182,700 in 2001, saw their share of federal taxes drop from 64.4 percent of total tax payments in 2001 to 63.5 percent this year. The top 1 percent, earning $1.1 million, saw their share fall to 20.1 percent of the total, from 22.2 percent. Over that same period, taxpayers with incomes from around $51,500 to around $75,600 saw their share of federal tax payments increase. Households earning around $75,600 saw their tax burden jump the most, from 18.7 percent of all taxes to 19.5 percent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: I'll use an analogy I read somewhere a decade or so ago about the relative consumer power of the wealthiest people compared to middle class people. As a percentage of our relative income levels, a Porche is the same to Bill Gates as a can of Coke is to us. Therefore, the wealthiest people can get taxed at a much higher rate than middle class people and not have it affect their ability to send their kids to school, start businesses, conduct business, buy homes, travel, take vacations, retire early, invest, give to charity, etc..They could take on even more of the burden and not feel it. By contrast, middle class people are greatly affected by the tax burden they currently shoulder, making it difficult for them to send their kids to college, start businesses, travel, invest, save for retirement, retire at a reasonable age, purchase housing, etc. The reason the wealthiest people pay the most taxes is because they hold a hugely disproportionate amount of the nation's wealth, not because they are "shouldering any burden". It isn't a burden to them, but it is a burden to the middle class. Bush has just shifted the tax burden away from the people who can most afford to pay it without feeling it and onto the people who are already struggling to get ahead. Therefore, Bush is encouraging the trend in the US in which the few rich posess more and more of the nation's wealth and the many middle class and poor people are competing for the remaining, dwindling piece of the pie.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Whatever, do you not mind paying more of the tax burden while wealthy people pay less of the tax burden?
MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos Since 2001, President Bush's tax cuts have shifted federal tax payments from the richest Americans to a wide swath of middle-class families, the Congressional Budget Office has found, a conclusion likely to roil the presidential election campaign.
The CBO study, due to be released today, found that the wealthiest 20 percent, whose incomes averaged $182,700 in 2001, saw their share of federal taxes drop from 64.4 percent of total tax payments in 2001 to 63.5 percent this year. The top 1 percent, earning $1.1 million, saw their share fall to 20.1 percent of the total, from 22.2 percent. Over that same period, taxpayers with incomes from around $51,500 to around $75,600 saw their share of federal tax payments increase. Households earning around $75,600 saw their tax burden jump the most, from 18.7 percent of all taxes to 19.5 percent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Whatever, do you not mind paying more of the tax burden while wealthy people pay less of the tax burden?
MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos
Since 2001, President Bush's tax cuts have shifted federal tax payments from the richest Americans to a wide swath of middle-class families, the Congressional Budget Office has found, a conclusion likely to roil the presidential election campaign.
The CBO study, due to be released today, found that the wealthiest 20 percent, whose incomes averaged $182,700 in 2001, saw their share of federal taxes drop from 64.4 percent of total tax payments in 2001 to 63.5 percent this year. The top 1 percent, earning $1.1 million, saw their share fall to 20.1 percent of the total, from 22.2 percent. Over that same period, taxpayers with incomes from around $51,500 to around $75,600 saw their share of federal tax payments increase. Households earning around $75,600 saw their tax burden jump the most, from 18.7 percent of all taxes to 19.5 percent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Bump for whatever...
Helloooo?? Whatever, do you not mind paying more of the tax burden while wealthy people pay less of the tax burden? MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos
Since 2001, President Bush's tax cuts have shifted federal tax payments from the richest Americans to a wide swath of middle-class families, the Congressional Budget Office has found, a conclusion likely to roil the presidential election campaign.
The CBO study, due to be released today, found that the wealthiest 20 percent, whose incomes averaged $182,700 in 2001, saw their share of federal taxes drop from 64.4 percent of total tax payments in 2001 to 63.5 percent this year. The top 1 percent, earning $1.1 million, saw their share fall to 20.1 percent of the total, from 22.2 percent. Over that same period, taxpayers with incomes from around $51,500 to around $75,600 saw their share of federal tax payments increase. Households earning around $75,600 saw their tax burden jump the most, from 18.7 percent of all taxes to 19.5 percent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Rei addressed the particulars, but I just want to know why you brought up business taxes when I was talking about personal federal income taxes?
Don't change the subject. The Bush tax "cuts" gave an almost one percent increase to the middle class by shifting the tax burden to them. The bush tax cuts reduced the tax burden on those making $1.1 million or more by almost two percent. So, that means that the middle class, which is already struggling in this sluggish economy to pay their bills, send their kids to college, and to save for retirement, were just hit with an increase in their taxes. The rich, who have plenty of money to pay their bills, send their kids to college, save for retirement (if they aren't already retired), just saw their taxes go down about twice as much as the middle class saw their taxes go up. So, I guess you actually don't mind getting a tax increase under Bush, then, eh? That is your answer?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Yeah. The longest run of economic prosperity in the history of the country. A large budget surplus. Progress towards peace between Israel and Palestine. Several thwarted terrorist plots on american soil. When one succeeded at the WTC, he apprehended those responsible and brought them to justice. He identified Osama bin Laden as a major threat and had a standing assasination order out on his head. He shrank the size of government. This message has been edited by schrafinator, 09-09-2004 03:16 PM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024