I'm finally rich!

Attention: TDR Forum Junkies
To the point: Click this link and check out the Front Page News story(ies) where we are tracking the introduction of the 2025 Ram HD trucks.

Thanks, TDR Staff

2 cycle oils

Who needs Monster Garage?

Went through my tax forms for the first time today. The preliminary results look good. Even though I made more, I am paying less Federal Income tax this year.



According to the DNC anyway, this makes me rich. Only the "rich" got tax cuts, remember?



I know that many are upset about our growing Federal debt, but since so many seem to think that the Federal government exists solely to provide handouts, I doubt if this situation changes soon. The GOP has adopted the DNC strategy of buying votes. The very same policy that has done the DNC so well for so many years. (Since the days of FDR. )



So yes, the GOP is spending too much and growing the government way too much as a result. But left to their own devices, the DNC would grow it even more rapidly. So I can't vote for them.



The DNC wants my guns and the rest of my take home pay. (The American public are inept fools... can't be trusted with guns and money. ) CTD's will be put on the endangered species list shortly afterwards should a Dem become President. (Gotta pay back their radical green supporters, don't ya know?)



So it looks like Bush will get my vote in '04. I wish we had a better choice, but with professionals running politics, we're stuck.



Tim



Read Rand and get real!
 
I have a solution or alternative. Eliminate all big government and retun each state to it's own i. e. get back to the state's rights ideals. Let each state decide what is right for it's citizens and not some hippie liberal in D. C.
 
"States Rights" - next thing you know some state would be flying a Confederate flag from the Capitol dome!! Wait a minute - I think they still do in SC!
 
About states rights- the one word argument against is- Mississippi. Where cops and the KKK conspired to kill 3 voter rights-registration workers. And they got off scott free on state charges because murder of (N-word ) lovers was "legal" down there. And lynchings were only in bad taste if they guy turned out to be innocent.

Now the federal government does way too much for "us". The role af the feds should be a lot more limited. The pendulum has gone over pretty far from the 60's.
 
Originally posted by Peter Campbell

The role af the feds should be a lot more limited.



If the government stayed true to the Constitution, it would be. The Constitution IS NOT a living document, as they claim it is. The problem is, that the High Courts, Congress and maybe even the President are "playing God" and over-stepping their Constitional authority. The Constitution has "checks and balances" to prevent it, but they are more or less being ignored. Even having government run schools isn't even something they should be doing with taxpayer funds, let alone Welfare and Medic-aid to name a couple.
 
Originally posted by Jumbo Jet

"States Rights" - next thing you know some state would be flying a Confederate flag from the Capitol dome!! Wait a minute - I think they still do in SC!



That would be a good idea today. I sometimes feel that Liberty and freedoms only salvation in the future will be a 2nd Civil war or rebellion.
 
Too good

I think I will run my finances just like Bush is running the government. I just have to get 150,000 credit cards and max em out, then get some more!:D
 
So CF, I take it then that you didn't cash your tax refund check last year and are refusing your Federal Income tax cut this year?



Tim
 
But CF, isn't the fact that you're going to take your share of the tax cut going to contribute to the debt?



Tim
 
I didn't

I didn't support the tax cut, I am not getting a tax cut, and I didn't vote FOR a taxcut. I do not have any kids at home anymore, I don't like the idea of deficit spending and think Bush is an idiot. If my tax cut equaled the 500+trillion dollars of debt that Bush has got us into, I would gladly give it back... . :D





Budgets of Mass Destruction

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN



It should be clear to all by now that what we have in the Bush team is a faith-based administration. It launched a faith-based war in Iraq, on the basis of faith-based intelligence, with a faith-based plan for Iraqi reconstruction, supported by faith-based tax cuts to generate faith-based revenues. This group believes that what matters in politics and economics are conviction and will — not facts, social science or history.



Personally, I don't believe the Bush team will pay a long-term political price for its faith-based intelligence about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Too many Americans, including me, believe in their guts that removing Saddam was the right thing to do, even if the W. M. D. intel was wrong.



The Bush team's real vulnerability is its B. M. D. — Budgets of Mass Destruction, which have recklessly imperiled the nation's future, with crazy tax-cutting and out-of-control spending. The latest report from the Congressional Budget Office says the deficit is expected to total some $2. 4 trillion over the next decade — almost $1 trillion more than the prediction of just five months ago. That is a failure of intelligence and common sense that threatens to make us all insecure — and people also feel that in their guts.



As Peter Peterson, the former Nixon commerce secretary and a longtime courageous advocate of fiscal responsibility, puts it in "Running on Empty," his forthcoming book: "In the 1980 election, Ronald Reagan galvanized the American electorate with that famous riff: `I want to ask every American: Are you better off now than you were four years ago?' Perhaps some future-oriented presidential candidate should rephrase this line as follows: `I want to ask every American, young people especially: Is your future better off now than it was four years ago — now that you are saddled with these large new liabilities and the higher taxes that must eventually accompany them?' "



While in his book Mr. Peterson equally indicts Democrats and Republicans as co-conspirators in the fiscal follies of our times, the Democrats should still follow his lead and make this their campaign mantra: "Is your future better off now than it was four years ago?" That's what's on people's minds. It should be coupled with the bumper sticker: "Read My Lips: No New Services. Bush Gave All the Money Away. " And it should be backed up with a responsible Democratic alternative on both taxes and spending.



That is the only way to expose what the shameful coalition of Karl Rove-led cynics, who care only about winning the next election; voodoo economists preaching supply-side economics; and libertarian nuts who think that by cutting tax revenues you'll shrink the government — when all you do is balloon the deficit — is doing to our future. And please don't tell me the tax cuts are working. Of course they're working! If you put this much stimulus into our economy — three tax cuts, loose monetary policy and out-of-control spending — it will produce a boom. Eat 10 chocolate bars at once and you'll also get a rush. But at what long-term cost?



"Quite simply," argues Mr. Peterson, "those bell-bottomed young boomers of the 1960's have fully matured. The oldest of them, born in 1946, are only six years away from the median age of retirement on Social Security (63). As a result, our large pension and health care benefit programs will soon experience rapidly accelerating benefit outlays. . . . Thus, at a time when the federal government should be building up surpluses to prepare for the aging of the baby boom generation, it is engaged in another reckless experiment with large and permanent tax cuts. America cannot grow its way out of the kinds of long-term deficits we now face. . . . The odds are growing that today's ballooning trade and fiscal deficits, the so-called twin deficits, will someday trigger an explosion that causes the economy to sink — not rise. "



The same Bush folks who assured us Saddam had W. M. D. now assure us these budgets of mass destruction don't matter. Sure. "During the Vietnam War," notes Mr. Peterson, "conservatives relentlessly pilloried Lyndon Johnson for his fiscal irresponsibility. But he only wanted guns and butter. Today, so-called conservatives are out-pandering L. B. J. They must have it all: guns, butter and tax cuts. "



This is so irresponsible and it will end in tears. Remember, says Mr. Peterson, long-term tax cuts without long-term spending cuts are not tax cuts. They are "tax deferrals" — with the burden to be borne by your future or your kid's future.



If this isn't the election issue, I don't know what is.
 
Oh I agree CF, the Bush admin is spending far too much. Just the other day he proposed a 15% increase in the NEA budget. Now THERE'S a waste of taxpayer money.



He keeps upping the Federal education budget and all manner of things. But it seems domestic spending is "good", even if it adds to the debt.



Are you sure you didn't get a tax cut? Be honest now. Put aside your hatred of Bush for just a second.



Tim
 
Originally posted by Rebel_Horseman

I have a solution or alternative. Eliminate all big government and retun each state to it's own i. e. get back to the state's rights ideals. Let each state decide what is right for it's citizens and not some hippie liberal in D. C.





Ya mean give Texas back to the Mexicans?:confused:
 
Re: I will

Originally posted by Champane Flight

I am part of the rich, I have to pay. And all I get is a darn war I don't want!:D



WHAT????????



According to yer heros CF, the RICH are the ONLY ones who are NOT paying taxes!!!

Man, I cannot keep up with you cats, flip flopping on your opinions, wheew!:p :D
 
Wanna know what pisses me off?

Too bad, I am gonna tell you anyway...

The fact that we have to claim state income tax refund (from the previous year) as income and PAY taxes on it again!!! That is ****ed up!!
 
Give Texas back to the Mexicans?? Not hardly! Remember, Texas was a sovereign nation when it was joined to the Union - a nation formed by the surrender terms of the Mexican jefe (Santa Anna) following abject defeat at the hands of the Texans at San Jacinto. Mexico, sore at this result, remained bitter and pushed the issue after Texas became a state. Their thirst for vengeance was satisfied with yet another thorough butt-kicking, this time at the hands of the American military.



Licking their wounds, the Mexican government settled back down to a productive hundred and fifty plus years of ... uh... . hmmm, basically nothing.



If you want to use the argument that the Mexicans owned it "first", it would be better to argue in favor of the Comanches, Caddo, and Karankawa Indians...
 
Forgot to mention though, little point in giving it back to Mexico. They have already about half of their people living here illegally anyway, once President Bush gives them amnesty and voter registration they will just hand the reigns over to Mexico anyway.
 
I laugh at the 'States Righters' on the right side of the political wing - states rights are so much more important until the states in question start allowing civil unions for homosexuals and abortions rights and such - then and only then is it okay for the federal government to step in and make things rights.
 
Is there a "state's rights" wing on the left side of the isle loncray? Can't remember the last time I saw evidence of one.



Tim
 
Back
Top