W's tax plan

jjm · Mar 2, 2001

Def - Since we failed to fully tax the producers to pay for the past (including periods of war), shouldn't we retire that accummulated free ride first? Are you going to commit to purchase stuff for the next ten years based on projections of how much profit you will make during that time? Of course not. You'd be insane if you did. At most, you will actually commit to purchases a year in advance. Why shouldn't the government practice the same restraint? I would think that's very well aligned with the Libertarian view. Let's see the real surpluses amount to something substantial before we give them up. Pay off the debt first.

DefRef · Mar 2, 2001

I have no opposition toward some pay down of the debt and Dubya's plan dedicates $2 TRILLION toward this goal. My problem is that the liberals have NO INTENTION of restraining their socialistic goals to buy the affections of the voter with OUR money. If it isn't withheld from them, they'll spend it. Period. Even you should know that. The Democrats created the debt, so you'll forgive me if I'm dubious of their honesty about reducing it.

[edit]

<< Since we failed to fully tax the producers to pay for the past (including periods of war), shouldn't >>

WTF are you talking about?!? Is this more unsubstantiated "soak the rich" babble or do you have some facts for this?

[/edit]

Corn · Mar 2, 2001

<< Def - Since we failed to fully tax the producers to pay for the past (including periods of war), shouldn't we retire that accummulated free ride first? >>

What?!?!? What you are proposing is akin to me being undercharged at the check out counter and leaving the store, only to have the clerk realize the mistake and then hit you up for the shortage.

You confuse the fact that since the government uses our money, it's our debt. That is simply not the case. If the government is not competent to operate on a balanced budget, then it's funding should be witheld until such time as it behaves in a more responsible manner.

The Democrats don't give a rat's ass about retirement of the debt. Sure, that's their rallying cry against Bush's tax proposal, but look at their own proposal, fully 2/3's of what Bush is already offering, also based on "projected surpluses"!!!! While attempting to appear fiscally responsible, I have a hard time believing that this leopard has changed it's spots in a matter of a couple months. Bah, if they were in charge, you wouldn't get jack, and would be privy to another large tax increase just like the last time they were in charge.

If the Democrats were so concerned with retirement of the debt, they wouldn't have allowed to debt to spiral out of control during the Carter years and continue, albiet at a slower pace, during Reagan/Bush, and into the first 2 years of Clinton's term.

At least Bush is being honest regarding his proposal while the Democrats just keep comming off as hypocritical liars in their opposition of it.

<< Why shouldn't the government practice the same restraint? I would think that's very well aligned with the Libertarian view. >>

As if the Democrats would actually show restraint--history has proven otherwise. The real Libertarian view is eliminate every Federal Government program with the exception of Defense, some minor consumer protection programs and the maintenance of our infrastructure. The Libertarians would eliminate the debt by eliminating spending and cutting taxes--and you just BS'ed your way into a huge corner.

Ornery · Mar 2, 2001

Ferocious says, "Even the little bit the average Joe would get doesn't amount to anything till towards the end of the 10-years." And I ask for proof. Still waiting...

You say, "That means it will be so gradual, that you probably won't notice it anyways." And I ask for proof. Still waiting...

All I want to know is how it's going to pan out for a family of 4 with an income of about $50,000. I asked more than once and all I get is double talk about the phase in. I DIDN'T EVE ASK ABOUT THE GD PHASE IN! All I ask is what result you smart asses consider "doesn't amount to anything" and "probably won't notice"! You must have a source since you're so certain.

The phase in isn't the point. You do this same crap frequently, I'm starting to notice. I ask, "Do You Expect The Government To Pay For Child Care?" And you neglect to answer the question and ask, "what about all those other government programs?" Programs that I never even brought up and still don't have a specific list for!

Anyway, I'm not going off topic. I'm still waiting for the scenario that shows the puny tax cut that I "probably won't notice"!"

I'm also wondering how C'DaleRider would go about balancing his personal budget if there is less income.

Corn · Mar 2, 2001

I

<< I'm also wondering how C'DaleRider would go about balancing his personal budget if there is less income. >>

I'm wondering where C'DaleRider plagerizes his posts from myself. If you are going to cut'n paste, at least give credit to the person that actually wrote those words and link the article.

Corn · Mar 2, 2001

OK, found an article that C'DaleRider plagerized from.

His 2nd post was a complete copy'n paste job. I'll find his first post when I get some free time this evening.

jjm · Mar 2, 2001

Um, who cares where he got the stuff? Rather than answer questions, some in this thread have referred to other sites too. The important matter isto demonstrate how you would refute the conclusions. How do you make the numbers work? Saying you don't care is tantamount to saying "gimme, gimme, gimme" like a child who has no sense of responsibility.

Def - Since the deficit ballooned under both Dems and Reps the last 30 years, it's pretty hard to blame one or the other. The point is, we spent money we did not have. Now it's time to pay it back. Or would you have advocated increasing taxes during the recession in the early Raygun years so that all those unemployment benefits could be paid? Before we lock in tax cuts, let's see the large surpluses occur. In the meantime, pay off the debt first.

Corn · Mar 2, 2001

<< In the meantime, pay off the debt first. >>

Keep burying your head in the sand if you wish, that is not the goal of the opposition to Bush's tax cut. They are lying to you, and hoping heavily that they will once again regain control of congress. Kiss paying off the debt good-by then. It'll be right back to only giving Bush this concession if he lets them spend on some bound to fail social program--much in the way they had Reagan over a barrel with the same tactics.

They don't care about paying off the debt. It ain't gonna happen. Since it ain't gonna happen, I'll take my tax cut thank you very much.

If you feel so responsible for, and are genuinely concerned about, the deficits generated in the past, add in a little bonus when you send in your tax return this year and ask then to cut their budget further.

jjm · Mar 2, 2001

Def - I'm not in a corner. I don't subscribe to the Libertarian view, but you claim to.

I think that governments should overspend during emergencies (like wars, natural disasters, etc.) and to help economies recover from recessions. During the more prosperous times, the debt should be repaid first. In fact, I advocate some limited tax relief now, but I strongly disagree with GWB's plan to lock in long-term tax cuts before the surpluses are in the bag and before debt is substantially retired. That's pandering to the right, but not fiscally responsible.

Note that Uncle Alan was asked yet again this week to endorse GWB's plan specifically, but he declined. He wants the debt reduced, but is also miffed about Congress' lack of self control last year. The Republican Congress approved spending for this year that was $35 billion more than Slick asked for. Alan would rather see spending held in check (as he has said numerous times) and would take tax cuts over increased spending. But he also advocates a trigger eliminating tax cuts if the surpluses fail to materialize. And he used the words "limited tax cuts" too.

Following the balanced budget logic you put forth, government should raise taxes or reduce spending during times of recession. That sort of action would simply worsen and prolong the recession.

jjm · Mar 2, 2001

No, Def, I will not contribute an extra amount. But I do contribute a very large amount to charities. (By the way, I think it's dangerous territory for GWB to fund the good works of religious organizations. Use the tax code to encourage giving, but keep the government out.) But I am willing to pay more than the people who earn less than me. I can afford it and still have more than I need to live very comfortably. And I expect other people in my income bracket to pay more too.

Since interest rates will be more important to my economic health over the long term, I would much rather see interest rates reduced via debt reduction before that big, fat juicy tax cut comes along. I maintain that there will be an opportunity for an even larger tax cut five years from now, but only if we attack the debt with full force first. If Congress passes a bill requiring that the surpluses be used to retire debt, and requiring that spending increases be limited to 3% a year (matching GWB's GDP growth projection), new spending initiatives can't be added. A pretty simple solution, right?

By the way, my suggestion nearly matches the plan put forth by Republicans in the '70s. It was the central plank on their economic platform. I supported it then, and I support it today.

Anyway, gotta go. Everyone play nice now.

Corn · Mar 2, 2001

<< Def - I'm not in a corner. I don't subscribe to the Libertarian view, but you claim to. >>

<< No, Def, I will not contribute an extra amount. >>

Did ya hit yer head Jimmy? That was me (Corn) that made those comments and I've never claimed I was a Libertarian either. I was only pointing out your complete misrepresentation of what a "Libertarian thing to do" would happen to be.

I realize that me and the Ref have the same icon, but see those smallish figures underneath it? Reading is fun, try it some time.

DefRef · Mar 2, 2001

<< Um, who cares where he got the stuff? >>

Only people interested in facts and truth. Since you care about neither, then it's natural you don't see the problem in what he did. (Just like you don't own up to where on Tax Planet you got your quotes.) There's a difference between referring to information and Ctrl-C, Ctrl-Ving it as your own.

Greenspan reiterated today that tax cuts are preferable to leaving the money in D.C. where it'll be squandered by BOTH PARTIES. I don't trust either to not be politicians, so I'd prefer to just hang on to it myself, thank you very much.

When government takes it upon itself to "prime the pump", it distorts the free market system and injects itself into things it doesn't belong in.

Admit it: You think that people are too stupid to survive without a big nanny to take care of them and wipe their noses. That's fine, but don't claim that it's right or desirable.

Eug · Mar 2, 2001

<< Note that Uncle Alan was asked yet again this week to endorse GWB's plan specifically, but he declined. He wants the debt reduced, but is also miffed about Congress' lack of self control last year. The Republican Congress approved spending for this year that was $35 billion more than Slick asked for. Alan would rather see spending held in check (as he has said numerous times) and would take tax cuts over increased spending. But he also advocates a trigger eliminating tax cuts if the surpluses fail to materialize. And he used the words "limited tax cuts" too. >>

Yeah, it's too bad people like Mr. Greenspan don't often get into political power. Their policies actually make sense. Sadly, honest simple logic like Mr. Greenspan's doesn't usually reel in the voters. Dubya could have easily set up us a plan like what Mr. Greenspan advocates and still be the "right" choice for the people looking for a tax cut. But Dubya ain't that dumb. Such plain logic doesn't get him elected.

Moonbeam · Mar 2, 2001

What is important is that we jump somebody who makes a mistake, not that we argue the person's intent. I, for example, can't wait till tonight to find out where C'DaleRider stole that other post from. The stuff in it really shook me up and now I can just ignore it. HAHAHAHA! Man I already feel so superior to him. Anybody got an estimate at what age I should grow out of this. I'll be 10 soon.

Corn · Mar 2, 2001

Plagerism is theft Moonbeam, but then anyone who espouses Democratic ideals is exempt from the law or ethics, right? Yours, and those that think like you, continuing acceptance of unethical behavior in the name of the "party" only further damage your own credibility.

Have you not learned from Billy Clinton's example yet? The more you show your true colors, the greater number of those, that you've worked so hard to enslave, flee the chains you've bound them too. Keep up the good work Moonbeam, you help the Republican and Libertarian parties more than we could ever hope. Bravo!!!!

Moonbeam · Mar 2, 2001

"Plagerism is theft Moonbeam,..." I bet you lifted that from a dictionary. Care to give credit where credit is due. Here's a question. What word describes quoting pejoritive definitions as a part of an argument in the hopes of lending weight to their credibility. Let me try:

One definition of an asshole is somebody who implies a fault in someone so as to increase his importance in the eyes of others, Corn. Isn't that disguesting. Man oh man am I up on you now.

"...but then anyone who espouses Democratic ideals is exempt from the law or ethics, right?" This statement contains a number of inanities. In the first place he cannot be espoucing Democratic ideals if he is plagerizing since we don't know his opinion. Secondly, since the charge of theft was a red herring of no relevance whatsoever to the validity of the points made, since, in other words, violation of ethics is in your head, the implication that someone therefore requires exemption is a non sequitor. You simply shoot your own clay pigeons.

"Yours, and those that think like you, continuing acceptance of unethical behavior in the name of the "party" only further damage your own credibility." Here, of course, we see your tenuous grip on reality. In the first place, this sentence contains a gramatical mistake. HAHAHAHAHAHA! YOU IDIOT! More importantly, or is it less importantly, you have a magical, almost parapsychological, insight in to the thinking of other people. Since I know that you are really an escapee from a Cretin Dog Show, I also know there's little point in dixcussion your credibility. Set um up and knock um down.

"Have you not learned from Billy Clinton's example yet? The more you show your true colors, the greater number of those, that you've worked so hard to enslave, flee the chains you've bound them too." Ask and answer your own questions, Corn. Here we go again. Corn sticks his nose under his armpit and screams PEE U. The true colors you smell are your own.

"Keep up the good work Moonbeam, you help the Republican and Libertarian parties more than we could ever hope. Bravo!!!!" My pleasure.

Corn · Mar 3, 2001

<< I bet you lifted that from a dictionary. >>

I bet you are a bigger moron that I had originally thought.

<< One definition of an asshole is somebody who implies a fault in someone so as to increase his importance in the eyes of others, Corn. >>

I have never had to resort to using implied fault in someone, as even with you up until recently I had given the benefit of the doubt, I only make judgments against someone when evidence of their wrong doing is apparent. If that makes me an asshole, well so be it, I'm an asshole like every cop on the street is an asshole, like every judge in court is an asshole, and every "investigative" reporter is an asshole. I realize that you liberals absolutely hate "judgmental behavior", but without it chaos would reign supreme, and well, it even runs counter to your commie utopian society.

Is a cop an asshole in the eyes of the criminal? To answer your own apparent question, am I an asshole? To some people, no doubt I am. Considering what "those people" stand for, well, the more they hate me, the more flaws they exhibit while attempting to attack me. Easy prey. Case in point:

<< Here, of course, we see your tenuous grip on reality. In the first place, this sentence contains a grammatical mistake. HAHAHAHAHAHA! YOU IDIOT! >>

Wow, it's nice to see that you can point out a grammatical error, why how very clever of you, bravo!!! Of course, that's usually the first sign that someone doesn't have a solid foundation in which their argument is based. Unlike you, Mooney, I realize that most people are not vain enough to compose their posts using a word processor, and as such I can understand and relate to the occasional misspelling, lack of correct punctuation, run-on sentences, and just general grammatical errors. Not everyone is a journalist, (even though C'DaleRider composes his posts like he is, BWAAHAHAHAHA!!!) but if you are going to point out grammatical errors, well you might start off by having perfect grammar yourself lest you continue to look hypocritical.

<< In the first place he cannot be espoucing Democratic ideals if he is plagerizing since we don't know his opinion. >>

LOL, the very nature of his posts provided us with his opinion?even though it was the opinion of someone else. The simple fact remains, he took credit for someone else?s work when he copy?n pastes a complete article and claims it for his own by not acknowledging the author or even referencing it for what it was. The only reason you come to his defense by attacking me is obvious Mooney, are you really sure you wish to embarrass yourself further by claiming otherwise?

<< Secondly, since the charge of theft was a red herring of no relevance whatsoever to the validity of the points made, since, in other words, violation of ethics is in your head, the implication that someone therefore requires exemption is a non sequitor. You simply shoot your own clay pigeons. >>

??so what you are saying is that since his theft was beneficial to your cause, it really shouldn?t be considered to be theft, because the person that pointed out the theft didn?t (or did mind you) consider the relevance of the information contained in the stolen goods. So ethics only applies if you have bad intentions, right? In your opinion it would be OK for someone to murder your children and rob their corpses of their gold fillings so that they could pay for an operation their drug dealer needs? Correct? I mean hey, obviously the murderers intentions were good, so it?s all good right? So lets re-examine your quote, but this time use your murdered children instead of a plagiarized article, shall we?

?Secondly, since the murder of your children was a red herring of no relevance whatsoever to the plight of the poor sick drug dealer, since, in other words, violation of ethics is in your head, the implication that someone therefore requires exemption is a non sequitor.?

That sounds fair, right?

<< Corn sticks his nose under his armpit and screams PEE U. The true colors you smell are your own. >>

The only thing that stinks is your hypocritical acceptance of unethical and/or illegal behavior because of the party line. Only the fringe of your party refuses to acknowledge the stench from the Clintons as they are becoming more and more a political liability. They are just like the far right, freaked out wackos. Glad to see that you openly pronounce your whackedoutedness. Have a nice day.

Moonbeam · Mar 3, 2001

My dear Corn, the reason you are an asshole is that you live under the fantastical notion that your fanatical sense that you are right gives you the right to belittle others. You are no more and no less than anyone else on the board. Your idiotic claims of plagerism are irrelevant, except in your imaginary attempt to fabricate a connection to Clinton and the Democrats, and then to some how tar, without the slightest notion of who you are talking to, or what their opinions are. Like I said, you creat your own fantoms and knock them down. You are living in a figment of your imagination, chasing shadow puppets of your own making. You are quite comical, but your nastiness to others is excessive to the point of anoyance. Like you I don't give a crap about grammar and spelling, but it's maybe good for you to see me acting like you. I'm disgusting eh?

The mighty Corn

Has a great big horn

And he blows and blows and blows

And he blows and blows

Because that's all he knows!

Corn · Mar 4, 2001

<< My dear Corn, the reason you are an asshole is that you live under the fantastical notion that your fanatical sense that you are right gives you the right to belittle others. >>

LMAO, yeah Mooney, and your attempt at belittling me isn't any less fantastical. Your hypocritical "don't be so judgemental" judgmental bahavior strikes me as rather odd, are you not now being the same asshole that you accuse me of being?

<< You are no more and no less than anyone else on the board. >>

Believe whatever you wish, but you are really starting to come across as a whiner.

<< Your idiotic claims of plagerism are irrelevant....blah blah blah... >>

Are you not original enough to come up with any other insult that "idiotic"? Maybe you should stick to the "everyone let's just get high, hold hands, and sing folk songs" discussions that you are good at. Weather or not you think it's "idiotic" that it took me all of 3 minutes to examine a nice copy job and locate it's source, is irrelevent to the fact that's exactly what was done.

I think I'm starting to understand you now: It's not bad that he did what he did, it's only bad that I pointed it out.

<< You are living in a figment of your imagination, chasing shadow puppets of your own making. You are quite comical, but your nastiness to others is excessive to the point of anoyance. >>

....and I see we've now just hit the heart of the matter, I'm back to being a meanie again. Didn't we just have this boring conversation earlier? Didn't I already admit that I'm a bad ole meanie? Why yes we did, but of course, only to those that commit acts of dishonesty or assorted hypocritical behavior. Your situational ethics lesson only demonstrates your own hypocritical attitudes, you rail to the defense of your comrade by pointing your own finger. At least I'm honest about my self-righteous behavior, and one could never accuse me of intentional mis-truths, mis-directions, or at the very least, being hypocritical in my behavior--either through my posted word here or in my own personal life. I doubt you could do the same, as you've already demonstrated throughout this very thread.

I annoy you because I point out the truth, something which obviously frightens you to the point which you toss out that pacifistic facade you put up and bare your gnashing teeth and point your crooked little finger.

Trying to shout me down will be an excercise in futility Mooney, and chances are it'll only backfire on you. Calling me an asshole is about....well lets just say you'll probably find more teeth in a 10 dollar ho' than you'll find using that kind of argument.

Are gonna call me an athhole again? Pleathe, that juth hurth me tho much, you are tho mean!!!! thop it you bad man, my feelingth might get hurth!!! Where'th my mommie?!?!?! Mommie!!!!!!

Bwwahahahaha!!!

Moonbeam · Mar 4, 2001

"....are you not now being the same asshole that you accuse me of being" But of course, Corn, that was the whole idea, to act like you and watch you go crazy with contempt for me, your image. I said so, no? Oh and you're right, I'm not very creative with insults. My heart's not in it. You are much better. I do hope, though, that if I feel that what you contribute is slime rather than substance, you won't mind me pointing it out. You seem like a person who is used to intimidation as your modus operendi, kind of like the playground bully and you seem so proud of it too. Maybe though it won't look so impressive in the light. I think I experiencing hostage syndrome; I loved your last post, I can't stop laughing. I know that sound's sarcastic, but it's not. It was great. Clasic Corn! In fact you've cheered me up so much, I gotta tell you what I told cmix. I didn't vote for Clinton because I didn't like his morals.

Corn · Mar 5, 2001

<< But of course, Corn, that was the whole idea, to act like you and watch you go crazy with contempt for me, your image. >>

Heh heh, okey dokey, if it helps you get through your day to belive I went crazy with contempt for you, well you just go on believeing that Mooney. I'm glad I could give you some sense of purpose in this world--even if only for a short few days.

<< I do hope, though, that if I feel that what you contribute is slime rather than substance, you won't mind me pointing it out. >>

I would never begrudge someone from speaking his conscience Mooney, I just happen to believe that you didn't pick a champion worth your effort this time around--which is also my right. So point away, I encourage it, and if I feel deserving of your finger, I might even admit as much. Not this time though, so sorry.

A quote from my last post and a question:

<< I think I'm starting to understand you now: It's not bad that he did what he did, it's only bad that I pointed it out. >>

An accurate assessment, no?

Corn · Mar 5, 2001

Oh, and for the record, here is the article which is C'DaleRider's first post.

So Ornery, I would not describe what C'DaleRider did was an "awsome effort" as it took him exactly 30 seconds to copy and paste someone else's effort and claim it for his own.

...And jjm:

<< C'DaleRider - Great post. Def can't comprehend that anyone has the intelligence to have actually read the full GWB proposal. I read it too and I know exactly where your points are coming from. >>

....are you sure that C'DaleRider had the intelligence to read the GWB proposal? I don't think he did, and those "points" didn't come from him.

Of course, there I go, being a meanie again. I just can't help myself.

On an aside, here is a short bio the author of C'DaleRider's first post.

<< Jason Furman was a special assistant to President Clinton for economic policy and a senior economic adviser to the Gore campaign. >>

Now why does that not suprise me at all? :Q

Moonbeam · Mar 6, 2001

Just imagine if the fact that Jason Furman was a special assistant to President Clinton for economic policy and a senior economic adviser to the Gore campaign is a knock of C'DaleRider's post, imagine what a knock on the Bush plan it is that it's Bush's plan. DOA

Corn · Mar 6, 2001

<< Just imagine if the fact that Jason Furman was a special assistant to President Clinton for economic policy and a senior economic adviser to the Gore campaign is a knock of C'DaleRider's post, imagine what a knock on the Bush plan it is that it's Bush's plan. DOA >>

For someone who seems to care so much about someone's supposed intent, the aptitude for determining such seems clearly lacking. I "knocked" nothing, and only stated I wasn't suprised in the position taken by the author. Obviously you are angry Moonbeam, but if that knee were to jerk any more you might want to consider wearing a mouth guard to protect your teeth.

Ornery · Mar 6, 2001

"So Ornery, I would not describe what C'DaleRider did was an "awsome effort"...

No sh!t, that's pretty low.

W's tax plan

Golden Member

Diamond Member

Diamond Member

Lifer

Diamond Member

Diamond Member

Golden Member

Diamond Member

Golden Member

Golden Member

Diamond Member

Diamond Member

Lifer

Elite Member

Diamond Member

Elite Member

Diamond Member

Elite Member

Diamond Member

Elite Member

Diamond Member

Diamond Member

Elite Member

Diamond Member

Lifer