Re: OT - Coulter

Page 3 of 8  

says...

I find it hard to put Milton Friedman and William F. Buckley in that category, but to each his own........
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

I think there are still plenty of "yellow dog" Democrats (who would "vote fer a yaller dawg ez long ez it was a Demmycrat"). I've known quite a few, and for such folk I suppose any and all Democrats are more or less generic.

Well, I'd go with you as far as Jackson, probably. (I don't remember who he ran against.) HST, I don't think so. FDR, definitely not.
Not that I think Bush is a great president. Certainly he seems to fall well short of Ronald Reagan, and I cannot imagine him ever doing anything that would raise him to that stature. But he's an honest, decent guy doing a generally good job in really tough circumstances, and is showing backbone where that is the quality needed. We can thank our lucky stars we didn't get <shudder> the Sore Loserman duo.>

Yes. Actually there are some things I like about Dean, and if forced (with a gun to my head) to pick one of that Democratic gaggle he's the one I'd pick. I'd even give Sufferin' Joe Lieberman the job he didn't get last time. The rest of them are worse than worthless, to put it mildly.
Latest word is that GDP grew 8.2% in the third quarter, so there seems little doubt that the economy has turned the corner. Glum news for the Democrats, who surely have been hoping for a worsening economy. Now they'll just have to pray for some other national disaster to come along that they can blame on W.
Neil
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
[re: the shrub]

ROFLMAO.
Bush: Millions of Whoppers Served.
Honesty and decency are totally absent from the man. Ask John McCain what he thinks of W's honesty and decency.
Bush used every dirty trick in the book to discredit McCain during the primaries.
Bush promised to be "a uniter, not a divider" and as a result of his behavior we have the most glaringly polarized US population that I've seen in my lifetime.
Hell, he dodged the draft by jumping into the National Guard (using family connections, natch) and then went AWOL from the Guard.
Bush has raised lying and cronyism to dizzying new heights. Makes Clinton look like a total piker.
Oh, yeah, and that's after the Repugs spent at least $100 Million of US taxpayer funds to dig up the dirt on slick Willy.
rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
[ . . . ]

It has apparently escaped your notice that all that polarization was started by the Clinton presidency, the worst, most corrupt and reprehensible administration in the nation's history as far as I know. Before Clinton, Democrats were reasonably civil for the most part even if they were shameless demagogues. Clinton's excesses, along with his humiliating loss of Congress is 1994 (establishing what has now been nearly a decade of Republican Senate and House), has clearly enraged all the leftist-liberals to the point that they simply cannot get over it. (Hey, how about that famous Clintonista phrase "Time to move on"? Not so popular anymore among the leftist gang, evidently.)
Bush has bent over backwards to accommodate the Democrats--he's bent too far on some issues, many of us think--and he's sincerely tried to be a uniter. The *problem* is, trying to get along well with Democrats is somewhat like trying to get along well with rattlesnakes.
Neil
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@all.thanks says...

Probably partially true, but I think you are forgetting Jim Wright, LBJ, and Daschle's Mentor, (whose name escapes me at the moment).

Yep, Steel tarriffs, letting Teddy Kennedy write the education bill, this $400B (lowballed) socialist medicare bill, and any of a host of other social issues where W made Clinton look like a piker regarding socialist policies

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 16:41:43 GMT, Mark & Juanita

You seem to confuse socialism with corporate welfare and tax cuts for the rich.
rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Which tax cuts are now paying off nicely... It probably irks you no end that the economy is turning around, in part because of those cuts, doesn't it?
Sucks being you, when your only hope is doom and gloom, doesn't it?
Tom
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:46:08 GMT, "Tom"

The three million jobs lost since shrub's reign began aren't back yet.
You can always liven up an economy with defecit pending. Democrats have played that game also, Question is how much "livening" you get for how much defecit spending. How much debt can the USA pile on? Someone's got to pay, eventually. With shrub's rules, it's the poor and the middle that pay, and the rich that make off with the proceeds.
rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@verizon.net says...

You guys need to get your stories straight, some other leftwinger has the number at 20 million.

Unfortunately for you, the numbers belie your rant. Who pays the taxes in the US? According to IRS 2001 statistics, the top 50% of wage earners pay over 96% of all income taxes. The top 10% pay almost 65% (64.89% to be precise). The top 5% pay 53.25% of all income taxes. Top 50% earn 86.2% of all income, top 10% earn 43.11% of all earnings, top 5% earns 31.99% of all income. Again, the source here is the IRS statistics for 2001.
Now, given that the top 50% are paying 96% of all taxes, and the top 5% are paying 53.25%, who has any chance of benefiting from tax breaks but the people who are paying the taxes.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

that
it?
Nobody said that. The number is 3 million. Look it up. You seem to have some dexterity with statistics. However, I don't think we can pin these jobs on the Bush administration. Not that he did anything to try to staunch the flow of blood, but the US has been leaking jobs for some time now. Something to do with globalization, I think...

You know, lies, damned lies, and statistics...
Income taxes, not payroll taxes. Payroll taxes (you know, fica, ss, etc) are the majority of federal taxes for many if not the majority of people. As the income tax goes down, the payroll tax stays the same.
Thus, the rich's taxes go down while the poor's taxes stay the same. Taxes on unearned income, and estate taxes were also cut by bush. Again, to benefit the rich.
Now, since the federal government is back to its old, pre-Clinton ways of deficit spending, and there is that big old pile of money in the social security trust fund, I guess bush can use that to pay for essential services, right? That trust fund was built up using an additional 1% payroll tax that was imposed in the 80s. You've been adding to it with your paycheck every year since it was created so social security wouldn't fold in 2010.
Unfortunately, giving the budget surplus to the rich will bankrupt social security (which before the tax cut would have lasted another 50 years) in 10 years. Medicare will follow. Won't Grover Norquist be a happy camper when that happens?
That tax cut doesn't seem like such a good idea now, does it? How about in 10 years, when you retire?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

security trust fund, I guess bush can use that to pay for essential services, right? That trust fund was built up using an additional 1% payroll tax that was imposed in the 80s. You've been adding to it with your paycheck every year since it was created so social security wouldn't fold in 2010.>
First of all it isn't 1%, it's 2.5%. Your employer withoulds the other half from your total compensation and pays it on your behalf. It was a rip off of the tallest order, driven by your friendly tax & spend Democratic politicians. Clinton hoped to tap into the strategy with Nationalized health care in the '90's, which would have increased the tax burden to at least 10%, over and above the 15%+ FICA taxes, but was stopped dead in his tracks when the public saw what was coming and elected a Republican congress to end the madness.
STOP!!!! Big News Flash: There is NO "Social Security Trust Fund!"
Social Security and Medicare are not "savings accounts", they're pay-as-you go taxes. The "Trust Fund" slogan was created by Democratic politicians to fool people into thinking those FICA taxes were going into a savings account for them somewhewre, and nothing is further from the truth. That money's being spent as fast as it's collected. Worse, it's being spent on the general expenses, not just Grandpa's Social Security and Medicare, and all the asshole politicians do is write "IOUs" which have to be paid later on. This means either we all pay higher FICA/Medciare taxes, or grandpa's Social Security check gets cut.
Now, you ask, who started tapping into Social Security, those bad, evil Republicans? NO! It was Democrat Lyndon "tax & spend" Johnson back in '65. Think any politician has the guts to call this mess for what it is? Shit No!

security (which before the tax cut would have lasted another 50 years) in 10 years. Medicare will follow. Won't Grover Norquist be a happy camper when that happens?>
Social Security is an oxymoron. This is the worst program ever forced on the Amrican people and the sooner it's gone the better. All of us could be millionaires if the money stolen from us every week for that porgram could be invested in private savings, simple, period end of argument. The govt are a bunch of self-agrandizing thieves and liars and this program is the worst example.

10 years, when you retire?<
The penny comes due much later than that, but it's still a giant scam that need to DIE through a phase-out. The short term consequences keep everyone from admitting what a joke the entire mess is.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@BulkingPro.com says... ... snip

Real numbers, real data from the IRS -- no spin, nothing but the facts in the above.

Totally separate animal. Also, payroll taxes for everyone are 7.8% who make above the social security minimum, 15% if you are self- employed.

Wow, people can spin anything to benefit their point of view I suppose. Especially when you couple it with the comments below

More precisely pre-1994 Republican congressional control days. Clinton was doing nothing to reduce deficit spending and in fact had projected deficits for 10 years into the future before the 1994 elections.

Still a beleever in the SS "trust fund" or "lock box"? What do you think that trust fund is, a pile of cash somewhere, or investments? The reality is that the "trust fund" you are talking about is simply US treasury bonds i.e. federal debt bonds.

So, you would not advocate reducing SS taxes then?

Social Security is supposed to be a separate entity from the federal budget funded by income taxes. The tax cut should have no effect upon social security unless you are going to admit that the general fund is being used to fund Social Security.

Given that the tax cut is funding investment and economic growth, I think the tax cut is a *very* good idea. You have not provided any real data to prove otherwise.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

wage
Top
are
the
So, that makes it less of a tax?

Taxes
Well, the truth is really easy to 'spin'

Its bonds. And yes, its real. Or at least, it was until the Bush administration started looting it for the benefit of their rich buddies.

payroll
No, I would advocate putting income tax back up to reasonable levels, reinstating the estate tax, and raising the rates on capital gains. I'd also go for single payer health care, and an impeachment, but thats another argument...

2010.
social
in 10

when
No, its because the deficit is growing that the republicans, and bush in particular, are now raiding those savings. They gave away our future to a pack of filthy rich capitalists who will now invest the money offshore.

in
Its lining the pockets of the rich, and you know it. Go look up the statistics yourself, I'm tired of you damned lying neocons.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@BulkingPro.com says...

WHAT SAVINGS!? You do know what bonds are, don't you? They are government DEBT instruments. i.e. the bonds are financing the debt.

as someone who is far from rich, I certainly have seen benefits from the tax cuts. I cited the statistics, you can see who is paying the taxes, who the heck else do you think would benefit from tax cuts other than the PEOPLE PAYING THE @#$%'n TAXES?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
[ . . . ]

social
It's real? It's real IOUs, is what it is. There isn't any real money in the Democrats' famous "lock box" and there never was.

You don't seem to understand what bonds are. You *lend money* to somebody else and they give you a piece of paper saying they owe it to you, and agreeing to pay you interest for it. Those pieces of paper aren't money. You can't spend them like money. That's all there is in the "lock box."
Now explain how you think "the Bush administration started looting it for the benefit of their rich buddies." There isn't anything there to loot.
Neil
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The
the
You
Hey Neil! - Be fair to the dumb liberals....If they knew anything about stocks and bonds, they would be conservative Republicans. It isn't their fault. They are caught in the Robin Hood trap......They think money grows on trees, and the governments job is to steal it from the rich, and give it to the poor.......It's the way they were brought up.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

SNIP
Although I am truly sick to see the deficits and believe that Bush or anyone else who deficit spends is destroying his grandchildren's future, that concept of a SS "lockbox" is utter foolishness. What is in that "lockbox"? Nothing but IOU's from the federal treasury. In other words a promise by one branch of the federal gov't to tax future citizens to pay back another branch of the federal gov't. (Kind of like saying you have a rich trust fund because you wrote yourself an IOU). SS always has been and always will be a "pay-as-you-go" system, until and unless the entire federal debt (some $7 trillion if I am not mistaken) is paid off - at which time we would what, buy some corporate stock??
We should all be ashamed of ourselves for leaving behind this horrible debt because we and our parents wanted things that we were unwilling to pay for. It is as bad as a father who dies and leaves his children debt - a truly shameful act in my opinion.
Dave Hall
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

that
Yes.....Even if they hate Bush, they have to admit that he played the, "tax-cut-card" at exactly the right time....Just when the economy was about to turn around anyway.......
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:46:08 GMT, "Tom"

NY Times Business section, 11/29/03
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/30/business/yourmoney/30view.html
rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ah, yes, the NYT. The paper according to which, Bush can do no right. And according to which, saving and paying down debt is a *bad* thing.
-- Howard http://www.SuzyQShop.com <-- do your Christmas shopping here!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.