Hey Liberals, will you "Reject the Rebate?" (tax rebate that is)? This site shows you how...

[glenn1]

RejectTheRebate.com

No, and sadly, this is not a joke. Time for you to put your money where your mouth is, people who spoke against the tax cut, that is, if you have enough income to pay taxes in the first place (although there's a box for you to support the cause here on the site).

 

[Total Refected Power]

They should make a donation to the IRS.

 

[shiner]

If they really don't want their rebate check they can send it directly to me. PM me and I'll provide you with an address.

 

[Viper GTS]

Sadly, they are defeating their own agenda. That's the whole damned point, to give people the choice to do whatever they want with it.

I cannot afford to give away my full tax rebate, but will donate a portion.

How pathetic is that?

:disgust:

Viper GTS

 

[yellowperil]

Ooo...touché. I'm not getting any money back so I can't really say.

 

[Thump553]

Ironic, "liberals" being criticized by "conservatives" for wanting the government to be fiscally responsible. Its a mad-hatter world for sure.

 

[classy]

I'm a liberal, but I ain't no fool .

 

[Tripleshot]

>>Ironic, &quot;liberals&quot; being criticized by &quot;conservatives&quot; for wanting the government to be fiscally responsible. Its a mad-hatter world for sure.<<

Ouch!:Q


Damn,the truth hurts sometimes.

 

[BigSmooth]

It's not a rebate anyway. It's not an additional rebate of the taxes you paid in 2000.

It's &quot;relief&quot;... it's essentially coming out of what would be your rebate for next year (or causing you to owe more taxes if you wouldn't be getting a rebate). That's why most people are getting a standard amount ($300).

Of course, it's better to have the $300 now so you can use it for whatever you want instead of the government holding on to it, but it's still not a &quot;rebate&quot;.

 

[glenn1]

<< Ironic, &quot;liberals&quot; being criticized by &quot;conservatives&quot; >>



Well, in my case, it's 'liberals' being criticized by a Libertarian, but call 'em as you see 'em... and as for your statement



<< wanting the government to be fiscally responsible. >>



The Federal government is beyond being able to exhibit fiscal responsibility. The government is a junkie, and its addiction is spending money. We need to show it tough love, and that means taking away the credit card. Lowering tax rates is the first step in that process. Ultimately, the Federal government should not be involved in (nor spending money on) anything not expressly listed as a function of the federal government in the Constitution (with a moderate amount of common sense applied).

 

[Nucleophyle]

<< It's not a rebate anyway. It's not an additional rebate of the taxes you paid in 2000.

It's &quot;relief&quot;... it's essentially coming out of what would be your rebate for next year (or causing you to owe more taxes if you wouldn't be getting a rebate). That's why most people are getting a standard amount ($300). >>


It is a rebate because the tax cut was made retro-active to the beginning of 2001. So, the government is refunding some of the extra tax money it has collected this year in the form of a one-time rebate.

 

[BigSmooth]

Nucleophyle: that is true, in a sense, but since no one has filled out tax forms or knows how much they earn in 2001, I still wouldn't call it a &quot;rebate&quot;. Although part of 2001 has gone by, no one knows what they will have to pay in tax because tax rates are based on your income for the entire year. I'd almost call it an &quot;advance&quot; before I'd call it a rebate, because rebate implies that it is related to a prior period, which it is not.

 

[jjm]

I am completely in favor of people paying the least taxes they can legally. No one should do anything different. That's the framework of fairness on which the system is built. You are just focusing on this year because it suits your agenda. Ask the question any year. People are free to contribute any year, but you are fishing, so you tried to create a flame war. Why don't people contribute every year? Read the first sentence.

Fiscal responsibility is shot dead. And the Republicans continue to fire at it. We are so close to dipping into Social Security to balance the budget again this year that GWB had to attempt to reassure the public. And there is a very real possibility that Jr will be forced to veto some of his own party's spending bills. House Republicans are loading them up with pork. We know the Democrats will just vote in favor of increased spending, so the only ones who can stop it are the House Republicans themselves. But they won't. They lied about holding down spending (even to the point of voting on it) just to muster support for the bloated tax cut.

 

[charrison]

jjm,

You act like GW vetoing pork is a bad thing.

 

[jahawkin]

Did you read the arguments presented on the site?? Seem pretty level-headed to me. While many on this board love the tax cut, its pretty much based upon budget surpluses that are not going to be there. GW Bush must have know this when he pushed for the bill, but did nothing about it. So, in effect, was he untruthful to the american public?? Signing a large tax cut skewed towards the rich that he knows the government cannot afford is questionable in my book.....

 

[glenn1]

<< Fiscal responsibility is shot dead. And the Republicans continue to fire at it. We are so close to dipping into Social Security to balance the budget again this year that GWB had to attempt to reassure the public. And there is a very real possibility that Jr will be forced to veto some of his own party's spending bills. >>



So, you define 'fiscal responsibility' as only spending money on the things you think it should be spent on? The government spends far too much money, period, and that's across the board. As for Social Security, that is one of those items i think that the Federal government should get themselves out of the business of. As for vetoing spending bills, amen to that, be they (R), (D), or other. I hope he vetoes a lot more of them while he has his pen handy.

 

[Mrburns2007]

You realize that Social Security is already spent and there is nothing but a IOU in the fund. The Government spends all the money in what ever account. This year they will spend 2 Trillion dollars and it's usually more than we had which is why accumulated a debt.

I think the Republican point is that we spend to DAMN much money on stupid pork barrel projects that aren't neccessary. Since Bush and the congress gave us a tax cut it's money washington won't have to spend (of course they will spend money they don't have anyways, whats another trillion in debt).

 

[jahawkin]

<< I think the Republican point is that we spend to DAMN much money on stupid pork barrel projects that aren't neccessary. Since Bush and the congress gave us a tax cut it's money washington won't have to spend (of course they will spend money they don't have anyways, whats another trillion in debt). >>



The Republican's are just as guilty (if not more) of pork barrel spending as the Dems are. GWB pledged to get rid of all the pork in his campaign, and all the Repub's run on &quot;fiscially responsible government&quot; but given the chance to pass their own budget (Repub in White house + congress), they pass a budget with plenty of pork in it and a tax cut for the wealthy. Not to mention a $33 million project to inform people of the &quot;rebate&quot; check coming in the mail while tooting the horn of the current administration

 

[Stark]

<< Double the Impact Now through November 1, you can have your online tax rebate gifts (of exactly $300 or $600) matched by Give For Change. See below for more details. >>



If you send me your rebate, I too, promise to match your donation.

Now, where's my buy.com check!!

 

[Piano Man]

I gave my rebate to the ACLU and the NAACP.

 

[WordSmith2000]

<< No, and sadly, this is not a joke. Time for you to put your money where your mouth is, people who spoke against the tax cut(liberals), that is, if you have enough income to pay taxes in the first place (although there's a box for you to support the cause here on the site). >>



And so it goes...hey ASSHOLES! The DEMOCRATS added this to the tax cut proposal that GWB put out!!! Why should I give back money that MY OWN PARTY gives to me????
I had more than 7 times the reported income needed to get back the whole 600 bucks, and I intend to keep it, just like you and people like you keep perpetuating the lie that GWB was the one who sponsored this tax cut.

Glenn1, why the fvck aren't you putting up post after post blasting GWB if he is not your man? Here is one for starters that is &quot;on topic&quot;: Why did the Bush Administration spend 35 million of your tax dollars to mail out letters telling everyone about the tax rebate? This form of propoganda is as wastefull as it is untrue.

Any rational person would say that mailing out the letter with the rebate checks should be sufficient. But not one of the so-called &quot;libertarians&quot; (closet RepubliKLANS) spoke up about it. I wonder why???

 

[HansHurt]

This Liberal and Republican division is so hurt'n IMO.

Give your rebate back...sheesh! How sad

I can't believe that people could be bought out w/ 300.00 of there own money.

Not my country though, so I digress.

 

[Viper GTS]

Why did the Bush Administration spend 35 million of your tax dollars to mail out letters telling everyone about the tax rebate?

Because it's more efficient than the alternative, setting up a call center to handle all the morons:

Moron: I uh... Heard there were tax refunds.
IRS Tech: Yes sir.
Moron: When will I get mine? I need to buy Billy Bob's Camaro.
IRS Tech: What are the last two digits of your SSN?
Moron: It's purdy nice, it's a 1985.
IRS Tech: I'm sure it is, sir, can I get your SSN?
Moron: What's that?

You get the picture.

With as many people as there are in the US, $35 million isn't unreasonable.

Viper GTS

 

[glenn1]

<< Glenn1, why the fvck aren't you putting up post after post blasting GWB if he is not your man? >>



Oh, i have plenty of areas i disagree with President Bush about. Just because the topic i pick on today enflames the liberal side, doesn't mean i won't post one to provoke the conservative side tomorrow. The reason i posted this article rather than another one, well, it was pretty much the first story linked on the WSJ today, so let's just say convienience played a part. For sake of &quot;balance&quot; i'll look for a good article to bash conservatives with later, fair enough?



<< Here is one for starters that is &quot;on topic&quot;: Why did the Bush Administration spend 35 million of your tax dollars to mail out letters telling everyone about the tax rebate? This form of propoganda is as wastefull as it is untrue. >>



No argument there. Sending out letters announcing that you'll be getting another envelope with a check in it, could be considered silly at best (if you were attempting to be charitable), wasteful to the average person, or downright stupid (if you were of the mind to be uncharitable). Which you judge it to be, i'll leave up to you.