COL Gene COL Gene

What has Bush accomplished that helps us?

▼

What has Bush accomplished that helps us?

from JoeUser Forums
Please list those things that Bush has done during the past FOUR years that have or will benefit the majority of Americans? Be specific.
politics
16,531 views 64 replies
Reply #51 from JoeUser Forums Top
All you know how to do is call people names. I would be glad to go toe to toe with you comparing education, experience and accomplishments.
Reply #52 from JoeUser Forums Top
All you know how to do is call people names. I would be glad to go toe to toe with you comparing education, experience and accomplishments.


I don't think anyone really cares!
TouchTasks - Access tasks with ease on Windows touchscreens.
Reply #53 from JoeUser Forums Top
That shows the flaws in your character.
Reply #54 from JoeUser Forums Top
That shows the flaws in your character.


You might have character flaws but I don't.
Reply #55 from JoeUser Forums Top
I did not realize that you were an ostrich with your head in the sand. I wanted to be polite and not tell you where I really think your hear is located.
Reply #56 from JoeUser Forums Top
did not realize that you were an ostrich with your head in the sand. I wanted to be polite and not tell you where I really think your hear is located.


You must be talking about *dabe*.
Reply #57 from JoeUser Forums Top

Returning to the tax rates in effect during the 1990's is NOT SOAKING THE RICH. The simple fact is that we are not collecting enough in taxes to balance the budget. If the choice is to collect a little more from those that can afford it or from those that are just making ends meet, the choice is simple.

Who are you to say what is soaking the rich and what isn't? I don't see you volunteering for your taxes to be raised.  The choice is not that simple. We can also cut costs which would work much better IMO. We, as a people, are collectively responsible for the debt. Not the top 5%.

Reply #58 from JoeUser Forums Top

The first thing we must do is agree on what we want the government to do for us. Not just the far Right or far Left but what the majority want.

Second, we must pay for those services. Not pay part and charge the balance.

Except you don't want to pay for those services. You want ME to pay for those services. You're the one arguing for a tax increase on just one group.

Reply #59 from JoeUser Forums Top

See, here's the thing, I pay 35% federal income taxes already. I suspect Col Gene is paying no more than 25% after his deductions (and wouldn't be surprised if he's paying only 15% or less after deductions).

I'm paying my share and the share of many others.  It comes out into the 6 digit range each year.  I don't own boats or drive around on a Segway or something. Most of the income I earn I reinvest it into my business. I hire people. Those people inturn pay taxes and help generate more prosperity for all (such as the creation of this website).

It's not my fault the government can't manage to balance its budget. While I'm paying $100k plus in taxes, the Col Gene's of the world are probably paying less than $10,000 in federal taxes. And for what? Do I get to drive on special roads? No. Do my kids go to some special public school? No.  Do our soldiers protect me any more than Col Gene? No.  Do my kids qualify for special federal programs? No, in fact, we get discriminated against.  It's not like I'll get Medicaid when I'm sick. 

If Col Gene had his way, he would probably expect me to pay more for stamps for mailing things so that other people could get stamps cheaper.  He would probably want me to pay extra on cable TV so that people like him could get cable cheaper.  He would probably love to see me pay more for groceries, telephone, and clothing too so that other people could get those same things cheaper.

There's nothing moral or principled about advocating the government to steal from one group of people to subsidize another. The government was never supposed to get into that kind of thing in the first place. 

Consider this -- I work approximately 60 hours per week.  When you count federal, state, and other taxes, I am actuall working nearly over 30 hours a week for the government.  If you're going to just keep soaking me, why should I bother?  Why not just fire most of the people I work with and live off the reduced revenue that would result that would put me in say the 28% tax bracket?

Reply #60 from JoeUser Forums Top
Draginol

The proof that the old rates prior to the Bush cuts did not soak the rich is how well the top 5% did during the 1990's with the higher rates in place. The wealthy experienced a real boom and did far better then the middle class or poor during that 10 year period. To say the old rates had a negative impact of our economy or the wealthy as a group ignores the reality of the 1990's. There was no need or justification to cut the tax rates on the wealthy and the Federal budget needs that revenue to help balance the budget! The tax cuts to the middle income and the low interest rates that allowed home refinancing and the purchase of big ticket items are the reasons we have come out of the recession in 2000-2002. It was not due to the tax cuts for the top 5%.
Reply #61 from PolMach Forums Top
The proof that the old rates prior to the Bush cuts did not soak the rich is how well the top 5% did during the 1990's with the higher rates in place. The wealthy experienced a real boom and did far better then the middle class or poor during that 10 year period. To say the old rates had a negative impact of our economy or the wealthy as a group ignores the reality of the 1990's.


Yet again you show your ignorance of the obvious. If it wasn't for helping to educate others to keep them from falling into the same educational class as yourself, I'd stop debating you, as I hate having a battle of wits with an unarmed individual.

Trained monkeys could have done well in the 1990s. From approximately 1994 - 1999.99 anyone could get a job anywhere, with experience, without experience, it didn't matter. People were so concerned that Y2K would wipe out their computer systems and all of their historical information that they paid and over paid money that no one really had -- as an example, how about the Enrons, Worldcoms, Sprints, and other companies that took in literally billions and had nothing to show for it except for pie-in-the-sky business plans that no one bothered to look into. Workers were given cars as signing bonuses. 6 figure salaries were tossed around like the promotions that resulted in the COL getting his much ballyhooed title.

Except it was a house of cards, built on pick up sticks that were kicked out by Alan Greenspan as he freaked out over the potential for inflation, and more so over the tech bubble and it's irritational exuberances.

Did some people do well -- if they saved their money yes. But gee, I seem to recall there being a recession that started under Clintons final months and ran through Bush's early first term. Without cutting taxes, and more importantly, without rushing money back into the hands of the people, the trough of the recession would have been far worse.

Have people done better recently? Yes. A recent article posted by yours truly points that out. Real estate investments and other smarter financial decisions by most citizens have helped to right the ship. Yet over and over again, we see how you want to take more and more from others -- such as Draginol -- and force them to pay more for services that you demand and refuse to cut.

Instead of volunteering to fork over more of your salary, you scream that you've paid enough.

Well Clueless Old Liberal so have I.

You see, back in 2001, I was a victim of a corporate downsizing. Not through any fault of my own. I had spoken with my supervisor multiple times and told her that I wasn't being kept busy enough (I worked in professional services, helping our customers get more bang for their buck by configuring computer systems very quickly, typically doing the work of an entire team, rather than having customers pay for more bodies to do less work). Unfortunately my boss missed the point, refused to cut rates for my services when customers were interested and decided to let me sit instead of giving away my time. All fine, well and good, I wound up without a job, and no way to pay back the 401-K loan I had taken out so I could pay off old credit card debts and do much needed home improvement work (as well as help get a new car to replace one which had been totalled).

I got a new job fairly quickly and busted my butt to get the debts paid that piled up while I had no income. But things snowballed, and I wound up like a lot of others that did so damn well during the 90s you keep crying for, I cleaned out my 401-K account and then had to eat the taxes on it. Instead of my usual middle class income, I was counted as I was in the top 5% and man, did it hurt to write a check to the government larger than the one I would have written to buy a new car.

So, I lost my retirement and get to work until age 70, or 72 or whatever age you wind up lobbying for just so you can extend your existing benefits out that much longer. I've had to start all over again in my 401-K plans and build up again just to start to get even.

Do I cry that it was all Clinton's fault? No. Do I blame my old employer (maybe a little, as they were stupid in how they sold my services to customers, and were too ignorant to heed warnings that I could have been busier if they sold my services at a discount for a while).

But do I want to see others raked over the coals because idiots like you want the government to take more from their paychecks to pay for stupid pork-barrel projects and other wasteful items? Hell no.

Cut the damn waste first, then ask for more money if necessary. Stop crying that there aren't enough cuts to make. If the government worked like any other business, many things would be cut in the name of profit to satisfy shareholders. Well, I'm a shareholder in the government like everyone else, and I want cuts made.

I want Draginol to be able to enjoy the fruits of his labor, and I want to enjoy the fruits of my labor. Will I help pay for national defense, and NASA, and the institutes of health, health care for the poor and indigent? Yes. Will I pay for farm subsidies for cotton growers that need to move on to other businesses that make more financial sense? Not if I can help it. Will I pay anything that helps provide an internet connection to morons that flood the internet with stupid articles demanding higher taxes on those above? Again, not if I can help it. Funds for PBS - get them from the viewers. Funds for art like piss in a jar surrounding a crucifix - not on my dime.

Make the cuts and then demand more money. Who knows, I might even agree that military retirees need better compensation (though I'd much rather see it go to the enlisteds that I know actually work for a living, instead of the pencil pushing propeller heads that make the decisions that get those fine soldiers killed) so you could sit on your ass that much easier.

In the meantime, I've asked before, so I won't shout out the request again. I'll just ask nicely. Shut it.
Reply #62 from JoeUser Forums Top
When the impact of the debt, the baby boomers, defense, education and the infastructure repairs hit this country, the wealthy as well as everyone else will suffer. A little more in taxes from those who can afford it will moderate the impact of these issues which will not go away. All your BS about deserving to keep your great wealth will not stop the impact of what is comming. We can not pile up debt, ship our jobs to other countries and meet the retirement and health needs of the baby boomers and provide for our defense needs with the current level of income after the tax cuts. I have had to balance many budgets in my life for some sizeable organizations. No person, company or nation can keep acting the way we are for ever!
Reply #63 from PolMach Forums Top
No person, company or nation can keep acting the way we are for ever!


Then write a check for the entirity of your disposable income and give your money to the government WITHOUT TAKING A TAX DEDUCTION FOR IT.

If you don't want it all to go to the government, donate it to a charitable organization of your choosing.

Since you are so quick to point at others, lead the damn way your own self. Stop telling the rest of us that we need to give more, or that we need to demand more of others. If you aren't prepared to give more than your fair share, then stop demanding it of others. You aren't walking in their shoes, have no friggin' clue of their needs or obligations and have absolutely no right to be coveting their worldly possessions.
Reply #64 from JoeUser Forums Top
Then write a check for the entirity of your disposable income and give your money to the government WITHOUT TAKING A TAX DEDUCTION FOR IT.

If you don't want it all to go to the government, donate it to a charitable organization of your choosing.

Since you are so quick to point at others, lead the damn way your own self. Stop telling the rest of us that we need to give more, or that we need to demand more of others. If you aren't prepared to give more than your fair share, then stop demanding it of others. You aren't walking in their shoes, have no friggin' clue of their needs or obligations and have absolutely no right to be coveting their worldly possessions.


Hear, hear! I've been saying this all along. Time for someone else to beat the drum.