COL Gene COL Gene

President George W. Scrooge

▼

President George W. Scrooge

from JoeUser Forums


For the second time Bush vetoed the bill that would provide millions of children health care. The compromise bill changed the two major objections Bush had to the first bill he vetoed. It lowered the income levels and eliminated illegals from coverage.

For anyone to say Bush is a Compassionate Conservative is a LIE! Bush is an evil man who acts in a way that shows he is a hypocrite when he claims to be a Christian! What a disgrace to our great country to have a leader the likes of George W. Bush. I hope his father is proud of little George! This is what comes from a child that is handed everything and produced almost nothing of value by his own efforts!
politics
39,907 views 149 replies
Reply #101 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: Island DogPosted: Wednesday, December 19, 2007Don't ya just love how gene knows how everyone spends their money?


It is called Economics. There are many studies and data that clearly shows that the higher the income the less of each added dollar is spent. When you make stupid statements that middle income taxpayers do not pay much in taxes you show just how little you know. Relative to their income middle income taxpayers pay a significant amount in taxes!
Reply #102 from JoeUser Forums Top
Relative to their income middle income taxpayers pay a significant amount in taxes!
End of quote


(sigh) Do you know what a percentage IS, Col?

I'm betting NOT!
Siege of Centauri
Reply #103 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: Gideon MacLeishPosted: Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Relative to their income middle income taxpayers pay a significant amount in taxes!
(sigh) Do you know what a percentage IS, Col?I'm betting NOT!


The key is Relative to their income. It requires a certain amount to provide the essential things such as housing, food, energy, health, transportation, clothing etc. When you look as a family with an annual income of $60,000 they pay $5-6000 in income tax, payroll taxes of $3,500, real estate tax if the own a home and sales taxes. If you add the 5,000 income tax; 3,500 payroll taxes, 3,500 Real Estate tax and 1,500 in sales tax you have $13,500 out of $60,000. That is significant.

If a person has an income of $1,000,000 they pay 4/10 of one percent in Social Security Taxes. The person with a $60,000 income pays 4 % or ten times the rate of the person making a million dollars. It is also true that the wealthy got MOST of the tax cuts since 2001 and have the ability to pay more then the middle income family because they got a drip in tax cuts compared with the wealthy.
Reply #104 from JoeUser Forums Top
The key is Relative to their income. It requires a certain amount to provide the essential things such as housing, food, energy, health, transportation, clothing etc. When you look as a family with an annual income of $60,000 they pay $5-6000 in income tax, payroll taxes of $3,500, real estate tax if the own a home and sales taxes. If you add the 5,000 income tax; 3,500 payroll taxes, 3,500 Real Estate tax and 1,500 in sales tax you have $13,500 out of $60,000. That is significant.

If a person has an income of $1,000,000 they pay 4/10 of one percent in Social Security Taxes. The person with a $60,000 income pays 4 % or ten times the rate of the person making a million dollars. It is also true that the wealthy got MOST of the tax cuts since 2001 and have the ability to pay more then the middle income family because they got a drip in tax cuts compared with the wealthy.
End of quote


1,000,000 x 32%= 320000 income tax
1,000,000 x 16%= 160000 payroll tax(i doubled this because this guy is probable
self employed so he/she is paying both halfs of
the payroll tax)
1,000,000 ----= 3500
1,000,000 -----= 1500 i left these two the same because i don't know
what you based them on.0

total 485000
of course this is wrong because i am sure the rich guy lives in a better house and drives/owns a better car.
Reply #105 from JoeUser Forums Top
the above numbers look like 50% to me
Reply #106 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: danielostPosted: Wednesday, December 19, 2007the above numbers look like 50% to me


Better look again. Last year Cheney had an income of about $1.7 Million and paid 23% not 32% in Federal Income Tax. The payroll taxes for Social Security cuts off at about $100,000 and a person with an income of $1,000,000 pays ONLY $4,000 in Social Security Tax. The employer half is a business expense to that company! That cuts your Income tax number by $100,000 ( 23% not 32%) and for payroll taxes a person with a million dollar income would pay $23,000 in Medicare tax and $4,000 SS for a total of $27,000 not the $160,000 YOU site. That cuts your number by about $233,000
( $100,000 for Income tax and $133,000 in Payroll taxes) to $255,000. Thus after tax the person with a million dollars has about $750,000 left. The Person with a $60,000 income has $45,500 after taxes. That is a BIG DIFFERENCE!!!!!!!!!
Reply #107 from JoeUser Forums Top
i think you have moved from being an idiot, to actually being mentally challenged gene.
everything the government touches turns to crap. look at social security, then ask yourself if you really want the gov. to run healthcare.
the biggest problem with your blog isn't the issues. you are just very hard to deal with. its hard to debate with someone who can't listen, and always thinks he's right about everything. also, your mind is clouded with hate. it's christmas buddy, lighten up.
Reply #108 from JoeUser Forums Top


Reply By: toothache's revengePosted: Wednesday, December 19, 2007i think you have moved from being an idiot, to actually being mentally challenged gene.everything the government touches turns to crap. look at social security, then ask yourself if you really want the gov. to run healthcare. the biggest problem with your blog isn't the issues. you are just very hard to deal with. its hard to debate with someone who can't listen, and always thinks he's right about everything. also, your mind is clouded with hate. it's christmas buddy, lighten up.


My experience with Social Security has been Very positive. From the set up when I and my wife retired to changes in tax withholding that were very efficient.

As for Medicare I have the experience of both my mother and wife. Medicare was more effective then the private insurance I had prior to retirement. The doctors are paid faster, I receive the EOB faster and when a doctor tried to bill Medicare for my mother after she died, they notified me and the doctor within two weeks of the doctor sending the bill. I am able to select the doctors we want under Medicare and do not see the problems with the system that some claim are the issues with national health.
Reply #109 from JoeUser Forums Top
When you make stupid statements that middle income taxpayers do not pay much in taxes you show just how little you know. Relative to their income middle income taxpayers pay a significant amount in taxes!
End of quote


I didn't say middle income taxpayers do not pay much in taxes, read again gene.

You have a habit of knowing how each person in American spends their money and what they do with it.  It's quite ridiculous.

I have never seen anyone happy about taxes.

Just because "you" don't see the problems doesn't mean they don't exist.  You need to walk outside gene and look at the real world sometimes.
Reply #110 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: Island DogPosted: Wednesday, December 19, 2007
When you make stupid statements that middle income taxpayers do not pay much in taxes you show just how little you know. Relative to their income middle income taxpayers pay a significant amount in taxes!
I didn't say middle income taxpayers do not pay much in taxes, read again gene.You have a habit of knowing how each person in American spends their money and what they do with it. It's quite ridiculous.I have never seen anyone happy about taxes.Just because "you" don't see the problems doesn't mean they don't exist. You need to walk outside gene and look at the real world sometimes.


I do not like taxes anymore then anyone else. However I know we can not continue to pile up the debt and the interest that adds to the Federal Budget. We should not have cut taxes because the justification for the tax cuts which was this surplus that Bush dreamed up did not exist and those tax cuts plus the increased spending has caused the biggest increase in the debt in our history. Just think all the so called free spending Democrats like Roosevelt Truman, Kennedy, Carter and Johnson only managed to pile up just less then one trillion in debt before 1980. Reagan and Bush added $7 Trillion in just two 8 year terms. It takes some nerve for anyone to blame Democrats about spending when you look at what Bush and Reagan have done!

It is time to balance the budget and begin paying down the debt. If we paid $300 Billion per year on the debt it would take 30 Years to pay off $9 Trillion. The ONLY way that can happen is by increasing taxes and since the wealthy got most of the Bush tax cut they are the people that need to pay more to fix the problem!
Reply #111 from JoeUser Forums Top

I do not like taxes anymore then anyone else. However I know we can not continue to pile up the debt and the interest that adds to the Federal Budget. We should not have cut taxes because the justification for the tax cuts which was this surplus that Bush dreamed up did not exist and those tax cuts plus the increased spending has caused the biggest increase in the debt in our history. Just think all the so called free spending Democrats like Roosevelt Truman, Kennedy, Carter and Johnson only managed to pile up just less then one trillion in debt before 1980. Reagan and Bush added $7 Trillion in just two 8 year terms. It takes some nerve for anyone to blame Democrats about spending when you look at what Bush and Reagan have done!
End of quote

blah blah blah.

Normal people, when confronted with having a deficit cut their spending. Only a socialist like you is blind to the obvious solution of cutting spending.

Reply #112 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: DraginolPosted: Wednesday, December 19, 2007
I do not like taxes anymore then anyone else. However I know we can not continue to pile up the debt and the interest that adds to the Federal Budget. We should not have cut taxes because the justification for the tax cuts which was this surplus that Bush dreamed up did not exist and those tax cuts plus the increased spending has caused the biggest increase in the debt in our history. Just think all the so called free spending Democrats like Roosevelt Truman, Kennedy, Carter and Johnson only managed to pile up just less then one trillion in debt before 1980. Reagan and Bush added $7 Trillion in just two 8 year terms. It takes some nerve for anyone to blame Democrats about spending when you look at what Bush and Reagan have done!
blah blah blah.Normal people, when confronted with having a deficit cut their spending. Only a socialist like you is blind to the obvious solution of cutting spending.


The amount needed to balance the budget and have another $300 Billion to pay on the debt is NOT possible from spending cuts especially given our security situation and the future cost caused by the Iraq War (VA and equipment replacement). You and anyone else that claims that is a solution lives in a dream world!
Reply #113 from JoeUser Forums Top

The amount needed to balance the budget and have another $300 Billion to pay on the debt is NOT possible from spending cuts especially given our security situation and the future cost caused by the Iraq War (VA and equipment replacement). You and anyone else that claims that is a solution lives in a dream world!
End of quote

I have shown you many times in the past that the $300 billion can be brought in through spending cuts.  I have explicitly stated the areas we could cut in the past.

Moreover, we could simply slow the rate in which we increase spending and have a balanced budget within a couple of years.

In addition, for someone so concerned with balancing the budget, why are you calling Bush a scrooge for vetoing a bill that would increase spending?

 

Reply #114 from JoeUser Forums Top

The ONLY way that can happen is by increasing taxes and since the wealthy got most of the Bush tax cut they are the people that need to pay more to fix the problem!
End of quote

This is an interesting insight to your psychosis. 

The debt exists primarily because of excessive spending by the federal government on great society programs (medicaid, AFDC, and other welfare programs). 

We know this to be the case because in 2006 we spent:

  • Medicaid ($253 BILLION) - note this is NOT Medicare, just Medicaid.
  • Aid to low-income families ($206 BILLION)

    • Note that these are just two welfare programs. There's a lot more. That's nearly $500 billion per year right there.

    Now, the wealthy didn't get a cent of this money obviously. But you say "they are the people that need to pay more to fix the problem".

    Which I find to be a very interesting statement.  Somehow, it's the wealthy's fault that the poor get $500 billion a year in free goodies and it's the wealthy's responsibility to take care of the poor.

    Now, since I am not a socialist like you are, I would say that those responsible for the debt are the people receiving the money. Not the people paying for it.

    Now if you feel so compassionate to the poor, feel free to open your wallet and help out. 

     

    Reply #115 from JoeUser Forums Top
    I have shown you many times in the past that the $300 billion can be brought in through spending cuts. I have explicitly stated the areas we could cut in the past.


    Not without cutting things that are essential. In addition it will take about $400 Billion to balance the budget without using the Surplus in Social Security and then another $300 to pay down the debt which will take 30 years. That is $700 Billion and there is NOTNING close in cuts to that amount.

    The VA and replacement of Military equipment will take a Trillion Dollars alone. The increased size of the military and border patrol will add many Billions more.
    Reply #116 from JoeUser Forums Top
    Now if you feel so compassionate to the poor, feel free to open your wallet and help out.


    I have!! I believe the wealthy must give up a tax cut they did not deserve to help pay our bills and help those that need help!
    Reply #117 from JoeUser Forums Top
    dreg. your idea is cuts across the board.

    gene's idea is cutting down on pork spending


    Reply #118 from JoeUser Forums Top
    Reply By: danielostPosted: Wednesday, December 19, 2007dreg. your idea is cuts across the board. gene's idea is cutting down on pork spending


    There is no way we can cut across the board. There are areas that will require MORE money-- The Military, Border Security, Energy, interest on the debt and the VA. All must increase.
    Reply #119 from JoeUser Forums Top

    Not without cutting things that are essential. In addition it will take about $400 Billion to balance the budget without using the Surplus in Social Security and then another $300 to pay down the debt which will take 30 years. That is $700 Billion and there is NOTNING close in cuts to that amount.
    End of quote

    There's the rub.  What you consider "essentially" is considered by others to be optional.

    You said we need to cut $300 billion. I provided a pretty straight forward way to do it that doesn't involve touching social security or Medicare.

    But you consider giving other people's money to "the poor" as "essential".  So you really don't care that much about deficit spending.   To you, it's the principle of the matter -- you just don't like deficit spending.  But to me, it's material when you are demanding that *I* pay more than I already pay. 

    I suspect if you were paying anywhere near the kind of taxes I was paying you would have a much more disciplined concept of what "essential" government programs are.

    Reply #120 from JoeUser Forums Top
    I believe the wealthy must give up a tax cut they did not deserve to help pay our bills and help those that need help!
    End of quote


    And you claim you are not a socialist?  The "rich" should help "pay your bills".

    HAHAHAHAHAHA!
    Reply #121 from JoeUser Forums Top
    Reply By: DraginolPosted: Wednesday, December 19, 2007
    Not without cutting things that are essential. In addition it will take about $400 Billion to balance the budget without using the Surplus in Social Security and then another $300 to pay down the debt which will take 30 years. That is $700 Billion and there is NOTNING close in cuts to that amount.
    There's the rub. What you consider "essentially" is considered by others to be optional.


    What I consider essential is what the vast majority consider ESSENTIAL. I also believe the promises WE have made to the retired are far mote important then not increasing taxes on the wealthy. That is also something the vast majority agrees on. I bet that is what most voters will think in November 2008 and if future members of Congress were to cut things the people believe are important they will be GONE! There MAJORITY should set the basic policies not the Conservatives unless the majority of the country agrees which they do not! I hope we can fix the fiscal affairs starting in January 2009 however the Bush tax cuts will end in 2011 and the Democrats will not allow the cuts for the wealthy to continue.
    Reply #122 from JoeUser Forums Top
    Why do you keep claiming to know what the "majority" want?  You have absolutely nothing to back your statements up with.


    Reply #123 from JoeUser Forums Top
    Reply By: Island DogPosted: Thursday, December 20, 2007Why do you keep claiming to know what the "majority" want? You have absolutely nothing to back your statements up with.


    The 2006 Election for one and the polls that clearly show there is little support for Bush and the GOP policies! Just wait for 2008!!!!!!
    Reply #124 from JoeUser Forums Top
    The 2006 Election for one and the polls that clearly show there is little support for Bush and the GOP policies!
    End of quote


    Oh, that's funny. If there were little support for the GOP, wouldn't the House, where 100% of the seats are up for grabs, be over 80% Democrat?

    Some things you just can't spin, Col!
    Reply #125 from JoeUser Forums Top
    Reply By: Gideon MacLeishPosted: Thursday, December 20, 2007
    The 2006 Election for one and the polls that clearly show there is little support for Bush and the GOP policies!
    Oh, that's funny. If there were little support for the GOP, wouldn't the House, where 100% of the seats are up for grabs, be over 80% Democrat?Some things you just can't spin, Col!


    No the way house seats have been gerrymandered to keep the incumbent in power is the reason why MORE of the Congress has not changed. You will see more seats change from GOP to Democrat in 2008 to reflect the dissatisfaction with the current policies. If you believe the majority support what we are doing you just refuse to accept reality. I am disappointed the democrats did not take a hard stand and forced Bush and the GOP in Congress to shut down the government with their refusal to accept what the MAJORITY in Congress want to do with funding.