Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Again, Enough With The BS  
User currently offlineDLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1889 times:

You republicans are so intent on pushing home the thought that KERRY WILL RAISE YOUR TAXES even though he's said repeatedly that he WILL NOT! Shut up. You don't take into account the fact that bush has said repeatedly that he is funding education programs yet he CUT SEVERAL MILLION out of no child (billionaire) left behind.

And to be fair, democrats, Shut up. You know good and well that just because kerry says he won't raise your taxes doesn't mean that kerry won't raise your taxes. Politicians lie, deal with it.

Edit: What I'm trying to say here, is to stop slinging mud at the other party, for example: Apparently the American public does not want to educate themselves about the lies the democratic party tells.

The above statement serves only one purpose, and that purpose is to spread hate. Shut up. There's no reason for hate in America, we don't need it, it won't make us stronger.


[Edited 2004-10-17 09:39:23]

23 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29813 posts, RR: 58
Reply 1, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1871 times:

Isnt' that one of my quotes?

Wow, never been quoted before.

Don't quite see where it counts as hate speech though.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineN771AN From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1867 times:



User currently offlineDLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1865 times:

It is hate speech because it makes a blatant smear about something you have obviously not educated yourself about at all.

User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29813 posts, RR: 58
Reply 4, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1857 times:

Kerry says he won't raise taxes, yet runs a campaign claiming GW bankrupted this country with the tax breaks and therefore Kerry says he will repeal them.....How am I not educating myself about Kerry's position?

Kerry, had been anti-hunter/anti-gun his whole life, then all of a sudden now that he is running for office, he has been trying to play the sportsman, shoot afficinado, but his voting record is clearly against......How am I not educating myself about Kerry's position?

Kerry says he supports the troops, but as senator voted against just about every military program himself. He was in the navy but when he got out became a founder of one of the groups that General Giap credits with giving the NVA the will to fight on. He called others who served in the war "Baby-killers in congressional testimony......How am I no educating myself on Kerry's position?



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineDLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1846 times:

Kerry, had been anti-hunter/anti-gun his whole life

Prove it. Sources. (In other words I'm calling your bluff).

I'm not really trying to rag on you in particular, the statements you made that I quoted earlier was really just an example of what the whole of america looks like today. I'm just pissed that people say these kinds of things and expect to look smart.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29813 posts, RR: 58
Reply 6, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1821 times:

Kerry, had been anti-hunter/anti-gun his whole life

Prove it. Sources. (In other words I'm calling your bluff).


OK, I think a good spot to start would be Kerry's endorsement from the Brady Campaing, which also rates him 100% as a senator.

Well besides the whole thing about him shooting trap with one eye closed, which you don't do because you can't see the clay's fly if you do that.

http://www.applegateoregonnews.com/articles/index.cfm?artOID=229044&cp=10963

And then we have the shotgun that he got from the United Mine Workers in West Virginia but he still apparently hasn't gotten registered in Mass. yet....as required by law. In fact, I don't think anybody has seen it since he got it.

http://www.ohioccw.org/article2401.html

Just a couple of links for you.
http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20040915-090156-4833r.htm
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/09/19/kerry_courting_both_sides_on_gun_control_issue/
http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_5419.shtml
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/30170.htm
http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=44622
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=%5CCulture%5Carchive%5C200409%5CCUL20040907a.html
http://www.cnsnews.com/SpecialReports/archive/200408/SPE20040820a.html
http://www.cnsnews.com/Commentary/Archive/200408/COM20040812c.html






OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1788 times:

Let's look at some facts here:

Was Bush's tax cuts excessive? Clearly yes. The graph below shows U.S. government revenue as a % of GDP. On average, governent revenue hovers around the 18% mark (up from 14-16% before a lot of the social benefits came in) Looking historically, whenever revenue went above 19%, a recession soon followed.

Government revenue skyrocketed during the Clinton presidency, almost to 21%. Clearly this was too high, and taxation must be cut, which GWB did. But he cut it too much, although this is partially understandable due to the bubble bursting in 2001. Had 9/11 not happened, and had the tech industry not melted down, the tax cuts probably would have landed around 18% of GDP (right where it should be), rather than undershooting to just under 16%.



Future projections show revenue getting back into a healthier range during Bush's second term, but I would not mind seeing a minor adjustment upwards towards 18-18.5% in 2009. It's POSSIBLE that good economic growth might take care of that automatically, without the need for legislation.

The most important problem is expenditures, which must be hauled back so that federal expenditures are no more than 18% or so of GDP (again, any higher becomes dangerous). Right now, they are hovering around 20%.

All in all, taxation should be MILDLY adjusted upwards (a small increase in the top income tax bracket should be enough), but expenditures must be cut strongly, by 10% at least.

With Kerry and Bush both talking about huge new programs (Although Kerry much more than Bush), voters should be telling them to stop new expenditures instead, and to haul back on existing programs.

Charles


User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 5 days ago) and read 1715 times:

"Shut up."

LOL..

Eric, what makes you think anyone is listening to you? Or would stop doing anything because you said so?

Your taxes are going to go up, no matter who wins. COUNT on it.





User currently offlineAirplay From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 5 days ago) and read 1711 times:

Was taxation under Clinton too high? It all depends on what the government does with the money.

Here in Canada, seven years ago the government finally decided to address the country's debt and eliminate budget deficits. Taxes didn't go up but some services suffered as funds were redirected from other programs.

The result is that Canada now has the lowest debt per GDP of any G7 country and our economy is doing quite well.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20041015/RDEBT15/TPBusiness/Canadian

We do certainly have some infrastructure and health issues that have developed because of the debt reduction program, but I believe its always the top priority to put your economy on track before you start spending again.

I agree that Kerry can meet his objectives without raising taxes. He needs to close loopholes that allow the richest to avoid paying taxes and redirect some spending to programs that help Americans rather than hinder.

Just by avoiding an Iraq invasion would have put $200 Billion+ directly back into the government's coffers. Not to mention avoiding the huge hit the economy takes when over 1000 able bodied tax payers are killed and countless thousands are suddenly owed various benifits because of injuries in the war.

All you have now under Bush is a drained surplus and a social insurance fund that is teetering on bankruptcy.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29813 posts, RR: 58
Reply 10, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 5 days ago) and read 1701 times:

I wonder if that includes Kerry's wife Airplay?

The media is try to get their hands on her taxes, reports are that the Billionarie widow managed an 11% rate last year.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1684 times:

Was taxation under Clinton too high? It all depends on what the government does with the money.

No it does not. Government, as a rule, does not spend money as efficiently as does the private sector. I would much rather have an 82/18 mix than a 80/20 mix.

I agree that Kerry can meet his objectives without raising taxes.

I don't know what you've been smoking, but I think you should quit.

Just by avoiding an Iraq invasion would have put $200 Billion+ directly back into the government's coffers.

Short-sighted view, I think. In a few years you would have had a war on your hands anyway, which might have cost even more. A war was innevitable. Even Clinton saw that back in 1998.

Charles



User currently offlineGoose From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 1840 posts, RR: 15
Reply 12, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1667 times:

Not to mention avoiding the huge hit the economy takes when over 1000 able bodied tax payers are killed and countless thousands are suddenly owed various benifits because of injuries in the war.

That 'hit' on the economy isn't as large when you consider that the 1000 US soldiers who have been killed were actually government employees to begin with. You're correct when it comes to veterans' benefits, though - however, the costs of providing those benefits to the government is widely expected to go down as the largest group of recipients - WWII veterans - are passing away at a higher rate. So perhaps that'll even itself out, I'm not sure.

Also, if you want a comparison of economic cost, the 1000 US soldiers killed in the last 18 months in Iraq really pales in comparison to the roughly 3,500 people killed and nearly 200,000 injured on California highways in an average year......



"Talk to me, Goose..."
User currently offlineAirplay From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1646 times:

I wonder if that includes Kerry's wife Airplay?

I don't know about Kerry's wife. I suppose the law in place in your country will deal with that....and Haliburton.

No it does not. Government, as a rule, does not spend money as efficiently as does the private sector. I would much rather have an 82/18 mix than a 80/20 mix.

I don't think that the "private sector" will reserve any profits for reducing the deficit or debt. Failure to address the national debt puts our children's future at risk. Just ask New Zealand....

Short-sighted view, I think. In a few years you would have had a war on your hands anyway, which might have cost even more. A war was innevitable. Even Clinton saw that back in 1998.

Inevitable? An Iraq war? One led by the US? Unilatreraly? What sir, are YOU smoking?

By the way, many of Kerry's objectives can be met under the current taxation ratio because things like health care can be subsidised by employers. Medicare would be reserved for those unemployed or otherwise in need of assistance just like it was intended.

Also, if you want a comparison of economic cost, the 1000 US soldiers killed in the last 18 months in Iraq really pales in comparison to the roughly 3,500 people killed and nearly 200,000 injured on California highways in an average year......

Isn't that a completely different issue? Why don't we tell that to the families that have lost loved ones in Iraq? They will tell you same as I...irrelevant.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21801 posts, RR: 55
Reply 14, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1631 times:

Kerry says he won't raise taxes, yet runs a campaign claiming GW bankrupted this country with the tax breaks and therefore Kerry says he will repeal them.....How am I not educating myself about Kerry's position?

Kerry's campaign is saying that he will repeal the tax cuts for the rich, and keep the tax cuts at the levels they are for the middle class. Whether that's what he'll do is a different story, but that's what he's said. You could at least get that right.



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1599 times:

I don't think that the "private sector" will reserve any profits for reducing the deficit or debt. Failure to address the national debt puts our children's future at risk. Just ask New Zealand....

That is part of the budget. Over the past 3 years, about 1.5% of GDP (out of total government spending of about 20%) is debt servicing and retirement. For your information, that number averaged about 2.7% between 1996 and 2000 and was over 3% in the early 90's. So as long as interest rates and inflation are under control (and they appear to be), the debt problem is not as bad as some make it out to be - indeed, it's better than it has been in decades.

Inevitable? An Iraq war? One led by the US? Unilatreraly? What sir, are YOU smoking?

I did not say that. But there is absolutely no question that the sanctions were falling apart, and that Saddam was ready to restart his old habits (including WMDs) as soon as that happened. The fertilizer whould have hit the ventilator at some point and that is an absolute certainty, either under Saddam or his sons who were as bad or worse.

By the way, many of Kerry's objectives can be met under the current taxation ratio because things like health care can be subsidised by employers.

By the way, many of Kerry's objectives can be met under the current taxation ratio because things like health care can be subsidised by employers.

Riiiiiiiiight... The cost would be tax deductable, thus reducing tax revenue. That would have to be made up by increasing tax rates on someone. At the same time corporate profits will have to be shored up (otherwise you'll have a complete and permenant meltdown on Wall Street), so they will 1) raise prices, putting out strong inflationary pressure, and 2) further cost cutting, which means higher unemployment. The combination of higher taxes, higher costs, higher inflation, reduced profitability, and higher unemployment sounds like a good deal to you? I don't disagree with the concept of mandatory BASIC health insurance for which the employer contributes, but it will have to be VERY gradual in its implimentation, and it will be absolutely essential to bring strong reform to medical liability in order to bring down the cost. Kerry has not addressed ANY of this. Either he is an idiot, or he is lying.

Take some economics classes and try to understand them before believing the words of a politician.

Charles


User currently offlineGoose From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 1840 posts, RR: 15
Reply 16, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1590 times:

Isn't that a completely different issue? Why don't we tell that to the families that have lost loved ones in Iraq? They will tell you same as I...irrelevant.

I thought the original point you made was about the economy, that suffered not only from the costs of waging war but the "huge hit on the economy" of losing a thousand taxpayers - soldiers lost in the Iraq War.

Those soldiers are government employees whose salaries are paid for with tax money. But, now that your original point has been rebutted with a comparison of a more substantial economic loss that had gone on since before the war - thousands killed on California roadways each year - your argument is now about the emotional costs to the families of fallen soldiers?

Uhm, okay.



"Talk to me, Goose..."
User currently offlineAirplay From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1494 times:

Goose, nice try. But all that spin doesn't change anything. People dying on the highway in traffic has nothing to do with people being killed and injured on the battlefield in a needless war.

Yes, soldiers are tax payers. And they draw a wage from the government. But...if there was no war in Iraq, there would be no need for so many soldiers on the payroll. Furthermore, soldiers tend not to be in the military for life. The vast majority leave before retirement ages and many others are reservists that have other lives.

So there are several examples of reservists drawing a government paycheck then being injured or killed. Loss of revenue is inevitable no matter how you look at it.

Is the problem as significant as other problems affecting America's mortality? Perhaps. But I'm not addressing that.

I did not say that. But there is absolutely no question that the sanctions were falling apart, and that Saddam was ready to restart his old habits (including WMDs) as soon as that happened. The fertilizer whould have hit the ventilator at some point and that is an absolute certainty, either under Saddam or his sons who were as bad or worse.

Cfalk, I really think you should have qualified that comment with "in my opinion". There are no solid indicators of any of that.



User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1404 times:

Clearly you have not been reading any of the evidence that has been coming out of the CIA report that came out a couple of weeks ago, or the interview material of Saddam and his henchmen. Saddam had pretty much given up on Bio-weapons, but fully intended to restart Chemical and Nuclear weapons programs as soon as sanctions were lifted, as well as delivery systems ranging from IRBMs to aerosol cans.

ISG uncovered information that the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) maintained throughout 1991 to 2003 a set of undeclared covert laboratories to research and test various chemicals and poisons, primarily for intelligence operations.

"Intelligence operations" needing chemical weapons sound pretty similar to terrorist operations, no?

Read the report yourself. Everybody seems to just read the headlines, but try to do better. And this isn't just opinion, it is heavily substantiated fact.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html

Charles


User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 1355 times:

You republicans are so intent on pushing home the thought that KERRY WILL RAISE YOUR TAXES even though he's said repeatedly that he WILL NOT! Shut up.

I make over $200K and therefore my taxes will be raised by Kerry. He even said so. SO I WILL NOT SHUT UP!


User currently offlineDLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 1348 times:

I make over $200K and therefore my taxes will be raised by Kerry. He even said so. SO I WILL NOT SHUT UP!

Oh Darn, you won't be able to afford another hummer next year... So sad  Insane


User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 1344 times:

Hummers are crap. What good is a car that get's 9 MPG???

User currently offlineGoose From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 1840 posts, RR: 15
Reply 22, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 1321 times:

Oh Darn, you won't be able to afford another hummer next year... So sad

Well, even if he doesn't buy one.... exactly why should he have to shell out a higher % of his earnings because he makes more than other people do?

It's the same here in Canada. Punishing people for their success is never the right thing to do.



"Talk to me, Goose..."
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29813 posts, RR: 58
Reply 23, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 1313 times:



It is better to give up the Hummer then to let other nations decide when the US needs to defend herself.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Enough With The Constant Election BS! posted Tue Oct 31 2006 01:41:31 by JetsGo
Enough With The Re-makes, Hollywood! posted Wed Jul 27 2005 14:47:07 by TriStarEnvy
Enough With The 'My XXXXth Post' Threads Already! posted Sat Jan 31 2004 22:33:18 by Srbmod
NASA- Enough Already With The Rocks! posted Mon Apr 10 2006 05:36:04 by Comorin
See, This Is My Beef With The US Government posted Mon Nov 13 2006 05:04:39 by Derico
Liberalism: A Love-hate Relationship With The U.S. posted Fri Nov 3 2006 18:18:20 by AerospaceFan
If The UK Doesn't Go With The Euro posted Fri Oct 13 2006 21:02:14 by 53Sqdn
Rollout Of The Civic With The New Paint *yayers* posted Fri Oct 6 2006 08:58:58 by UTA_flyinghigh
What's Going On With The Weather? posted Tue Oct 3 2006 22:51:44 by KaiGywer
America Is Not What's Wrong With The World posted Tue Sep 26 2006 08:44:30 by UH60FtRucker