Ok, I don't know much about politics. but I do vote. From an elementry point of view this is what I see. I'll vote for the Democrats because the Rebublicans could be tied to the internet gambling bill. I heard somehwere else that if I vote Democrats the taxes will be raised.:shrug: Again, this is my elementry train of thought in this. I think I will vote Democrat because Ed Rendall has fuked my state up (PA).
Republican or Democrat?
- Thread starter Lucy11
- Start date
The key is that you vote. And if your making over $250000 a year your taxes could change. Under that you might even get a brake. Even if Dem's win. But keep in mind the Bush guy is their till 08. He can veto anything he wants. Pull for grid lock the stock market loves it.
It's good that you are thinking about things and are going to vote. Of course I am pretty biased, but I will give you a short take on your post (from pretty much the democrat side).
I'd say that your take on the first two points are pretty much correct, to a point. I definitely think it appropriate to hold republicans responsible for the Internet Gambling Bill. A handful of conservative senators have been trying to get that one pushed through for years, and they finally succeeded, thanks to the majority leader Bill Frist. If you like to gamble online, this should enter your thinking on election day. As for the raising taxes, I think it's essentially a fair rap on the democrats. However, I think in this particular election in many cases what is being labeled a tax raise is merely trying to eliminate the tax cuts enacted by the current republican majority.
So, on those two counts, I think you have it about right, and it might be a good idea to compare some of the candidates and specific issues to your state and county before going to the booth.
As for Ed Rendall, I have no knowledge or opinion on him personally.
Best of luck to you in your search for answers.
I'd say that your take on the first two points are pretty much correct, to a point. I definitely think it appropriate to hold republicans responsible for the Internet Gambling Bill. A handful of conservative senators have been trying to get that one pushed through for years, and they finally succeeded, thanks to the majority leader Bill Frist. If you like to gamble online, this should enter your thinking on election day. As for the raising taxes, I think it's essentially a fair rap on the democrats. However, I think in this particular election in many cases what is being labeled a tax raise is merely trying to eliminate the tax cuts enacted by the current republican majority.
So, on those two counts, I think you have it about right, and it might be a good idea to compare some of the candidates and specific issues to your state and county before going to the booth.
As for Ed Rendall, I have no knowledge or opinion on him personally.
Best of luck to you in your search for answers.
One thing I'd like you to think about in regards to taxes is that it can be important to think about what they pay for, and what can be done about that. For instance, from a democratic perspective (of course), nearly one third of our tax revenues will go to payment of the national debt. When the debt goes up, we suffer a net loss in what our tax dollars can go to. It is arguable as to why the current debt is so high, but it is a huge factor in what our taxes pay for. This is often glossed over when we talk about taxes. Taxes help pay for a heckuva lot of great things that makes this country better than the others. It's all a matter of what you personally believe in, really.
When you decide to replace one set of criminals with another, a case can be made for each element. A man took his Bush tax break and bought a 4 million dollar automobile at a Paris auction. Yes, I said Paris, that's in France, just aways from New York separated by some water.
A lady spent 23 million dollars to orbit the Earth, from London, yes I said London as in England, another community aways from New York separated by the same body of water. 65% of Americans don't vote, ever wonder why?
A lady spent 23 million dollars to orbit the Earth, from London, yes I said London as in England, another community aways from New York separated by the same body of water. 65% of Americans don't vote, ever wonder why?
- Sep 27, 2005
- 1,171
- 14
- 0
I will vote Democrat because things have to change. 2,814 dead soldiers in Iraq and maybe 2,000-3,000 more will die before Buse leaves office. Bush gives tax breaks? We are still being taxed when your rent goes up, when gas goes up, medical care, if you can afford it, is sky high. Bush said the economy is great, hey it's great for somebody, but not for middle class or poor. When it's all said and done, Bush will have damaged this country way more than any "terrorist" could have. 5,814 Americans have died under President Bush, and he has 2 more years to go. Jobs created, how many of those jobs will qualify to buy a house? Selling burgers for $5.50, is this a real job? Kick those fat asses out of Washington.
If everyone in this form will be honest you hit it on the money. Politicians and political partys are crooks. (Both Democrat and Republicans).
You have to decide what thief you want to vote for. The one that steals your wallet or the one that takes away your job so you don't need to worry about the one stealing your wallet.:shrug:
That is why 65% of Americans don't vote. Some how some way we need to get back to the basics For The People By The People. When was the last time your elected Representative ask your opinion???.
There is no doubt in my mind that some beneficiaries of these tax breaks are using them for the good of America but his own government financial appointees tell him he's bankrupting the country and the government accountants tell me my grandchildren will share $43 trillion dollars in debt. Upper middle class and rich folks will also share that debt but a disproportionate amount of the debt will fall on joe and judy schmuck. You can now roll up to a Mc Donald's drive in window, place your order into the microphone, it's taken by a phoner in India who then gives it to the kitchen who processes the order. The point of this being, there may be so many jobs outsourced, it'll take forever to pay this debt, if at all.
Not a f**kin thing I can do about it. Thank goodness for these forums. Rant Rant
Not a f**kin thing I can do about it. Thank goodness for these forums. Rant Rant
- Sep 27, 2005
- 1,171
- 14
- 0
gjn23's Avatar
gjn23 gjn23 is online now
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: So. Cal
Posts: 3,165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spytheweb View Post
When it's all said and done, Bush will have damaged this country way more than any "terrorist" could have. 5,814 Americans have died under President Bush, and he has 2 more years to go. .
that's interesting.......which planes did he fly into which buildings???
What Jews did Hitler kill? People died on Bush's order. People are dying on Bush's order, 101 US soldiers have died this month on Bush's order. You can't say he didn't order it because he did so on national tv Mar 2003. I know it's not Bush's fault, any American President would have ordered an attack on any country that did not attack us. This guy is a super dummy. Stay the course, if his ass were there he would change the course pretty damn quick.
gjn23 gjn23 is online now
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: So. Cal
Posts: 3,165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spytheweb View Post
When it's all said and done, Bush will have damaged this country way more than any "terrorist" could have. 5,814 Americans have died under President Bush, and he has 2 more years to go. .
that's interesting.......which planes did he fly into which buildings???
What Jews did Hitler kill? People died on Bush's order. People are dying on Bush's order, 101 US soldiers have died this month on Bush's order. You can't say he didn't order it because he did so on national tv Mar 2003. I know it's not Bush's fault, any American President would have ordered an attack on any country that did not attack us. This guy is a super dummy. Stay the course, if his ass were there he would change the course pretty damn quick.
- Sep 27, 2005
- 1,171
- 14
- 0
One thing about Bush's tax cuts
One thing about Bush's tax cuts
Bush cut student aid, so if you are sending your kid to college, you just got taxed.
Thursday, February 09, 2006
Bush Signs $12 Billion Worth of Cuts to Federal Student Loan Aid Programs Into Law
On February 1, 2006, The U.S. House of Representatives passed S.1932--The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005--by a very tight vote of 216-214; basically, a Republican bill passed by a Republican majority in Congress (S.1932 only made it through The U.S. Senate by a deciding vote that was cast by Senate President Dick Cheney.) S.1932 includes $12 billion of cuts to federal student loan aid programs. Yesterday--February 8, 2006--Bush signed S.1932 into law.
What are the real world implications of S.1932? On July 1, 2006, the interest rate on Federal Stafford Loans will go from 4.7% to 6.8%. The interest on Parent PLUS loans will go from 7.9% to 8.5%.
OK, now let's get as real as we possibly can here: if, for example, you are a parent, and you borrowed $30,000 via a Parent PLUS federal student loan to pay for your child's education, then, after July 1, 2006, you will pay over $10,000 more in interest payments by the time you pay the balance down to zero (you can avoid the interest rate increases by taking advantage of no cost student loan consolidation before July 1, 2006.)
One thing about Bush's tax cuts
Bush cut student aid, so if you are sending your kid to college, you just got taxed.
Thursday, February 09, 2006
Bush Signs $12 Billion Worth of Cuts to Federal Student Loan Aid Programs Into Law
On February 1, 2006, The U.S. House of Representatives passed S.1932--The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005--by a very tight vote of 216-214; basically, a Republican bill passed by a Republican majority in Congress (S.1932 only made it through The U.S. Senate by a deciding vote that was cast by Senate President Dick Cheney.) S.1932 includes $12 billion of cuts to federal student loan aid programs. Yesterday--February 8, 2006--Bush signed S.1932 into law.
What are the real world implications of S.1932? On July 1, 2006, the interest rate on Federal Stafford Loans will go from 4.7% to 6.8%. The interest on Parent PLUS loans will go from 7.9% to 8.5%.
OK, now let's get as real as we possibly can here: if, for example, you are a parent, and you borrowed $30,000 via a Parent PLUS federal student loan to pay for your child's education, then, after July 1, 2006, you will pay over $10,000 more in interest payments by the time you pay the balance down to zero (you can avoid the interest rate increases by taking advantage of no cost student loan consolidation before July 1, 2006.)
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
Get your ya yas out
Get your ya yas out
:142smilie
FLORIDA STRAIGHTS
who was looking the other way while that man was chasing young boys.
Bush Knew
Cheney Flew
Turk 182
Get your ya yas out
:142smilie
FLORIDA STRAIGHTS
who was looking the other way while that man was chasing young boys.
Bush Knew
Cheney Flew
Turk 182
Luci
Have yet seen anyone put up entire tax cuts GW passed that are in jeopardy(dems say they will repeal) yet so will list them--
President Bush?s tax relief plan reflects this basic trust in the American people and confidence in the American ideal by increasing tax fairness and enhancing the performance of the economy. It includes:
Replacing the current tax rates of 15, 28, 31, 36, and 39.6 percent with a simplified rate structure of 10, 15, 25, and 33 percent (see Appendix for rate schedule);
Doubling the child tax credit to $1,000 per child and applying the credit to the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT);
Reducing the marriage penalty by reinstating the 10 percent deduction for two-earner couples;
Eliminating the death tax;
Expanding the charitable deduction to non-itemizers; and
Making the Research and Experimentation (R&D) tax credit permanent.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Now as far as gaming laws no doubts rebs were responsible for getting it(sneaking it) through congress--wish there was some way to figure how everyone would have voted on that issue alone.
While I am as pissed as anyone of maneuver to slide it through--by nature of being recreational gambler--taxes impact my botton line much more than gambling revenue--and believe most are smart enough to get around gaming laws but doubt many want to challenge the tax man.
With that being said it doesn't make my stance on being pissed at gov trying to tell me whats good for me any less.
---Would say the answer to your question would be dependant on whether persons bottom line is effected more by wagering revenue or taxes.
Have yet seen anyone put up entire tax cuts GW passed that are in jeopardy(dems say they will repeal) yet so will list them--
President Bush?s tax relief plan reflects this basic trust in the American people and confidence in the American ideal by increasing tax fairness and enhancing the performance of the economy. It includes:
Replacing the current tax rates of 15, 28, 31, 36, and 39.6 percent with a simplified rate structure of 10, 15, 25, and 33 percent (see Appendix for rate schedule);
Doubling the child tax credit to $1,000 per child and applying the credit to the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT);
Reducing the marriage penalty by reinstating the 10 percent deduction for two-earner couples;
Eliminating the death tax;
Expanding the charitable deduction to non-itemizers; and
Making the Research and Experimentation (R&D) tax credit permanent.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Now as far as gaming laws no doubts rebs were responsible for getting it(sneaking it) through congress--wish there was some way to figure how everyone would have voted on that issue alone.
While I am as pissed as anyone of maneuver to slide it through--by nature of being recreational gambler--taxes impact my botton line much more than gambling revenue--and believe most are smart enough to get around gaming laws but doubt many want to challenge the tax man.
With that being said it doesn't make my stance on being pissed at gov trying to tell me whats good for me any less.
---Would say the answer to your question would be dependant on whether persons bottom line is effected more by wagering revenue or taxes.
This is a no spin zone
This is a no spin zone
It is comforting to know that American Tax Dollars are being well spent on Iraqi rehabilitation- $$$$BILLION$$$$$$$$$$$.
I am glad Haliburton is getting the lions share of hard working American tax dollars---.:scared
This is a no spin zone
It is comforting to know that American Tax Dollars are being well spent on Iraqi rehabilitation- $$$$BILLION$$$$$$$$$$$.
I am glad Haliburton is getting the lions share of hard working American tax dollars---.:scared
Dogs... please show where the Dems say they are going to repeal all of those tax breaks. I haven't heard anything other than repealing the highest bracket's massive (and completely unnecessary IMO) cut, and the estate tax.
Admittedly, however, I haven't really looked. So I was curious if there actually is somewhere that the Dems say they are going to repeal ALL of those cuts. I would suspect that is not the case, but could be wrong.
Admittedly, however, I haven't really looked. So I was curious if there actually is somewhere that the Dems say they are going to repeal ALL of those cuts. I would suspect that is not the case, but could be wrong.
Mr B had this in another post but will repost.
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20061004-090355-7594r.htm
I can't however see them try to repeal them all--mostly just political BS to my thinking--however no doubt they will go redistribution of wealth agenda again. and try to increase the already 1/3 of population that pay no taxes.
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20061004-090355-7594r.htm
I can't however see them try to repeal them all--mostly just political BS to my thinking--however no doubt they will go redistribution of wealth agenda again. and try to increase the already 1/3 of population that pay no taxes.
