-
TDR Magazine subscribers receive more than the magazine! You also gain additional forum privileges!
Details here: TDR Privileges
Subscribe to TDR Magazine here: https://www.tdr-online.com/
Presidential race in 2008
- Thread starter merryman
- Start Date
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
Sorry I'm late coach
I got a new job in March and have been out of it, so I did not bother reading all the posts, just wanted to say Hi and stick my two cents in here.
Hillary will win in '08 because that is the way our keepers want it.
Howdy to illflem, merryman etc. and all.
Jay
I got a new job in March and have been out of it, so I did not bother reading all the posts, just wanted to say Hi and stick my two cents in here.
Hillary will win in '08 because that is the way our keepers want it.
Howdy to illflem, merryman etc. and all.
Jay
Now and then
I am sure if I wanted to I could tie Bin Laden to several American Presidents to. After all he was fighting with OUR CIA in Afghanistan during Russia's aggression into said country. Maybe we should take lessons from the past. It isn't how big you are, it is how long do you really want to fight? Maybe some of the religious right should re read the bible and find how Goliath fell?
We are in a country that makes Nam look like a country club, in about tens years we will see if the hostility's have ended. It already looks as if we are in the soup. I am sure we will find WMD in Iraq, but for every weapon we find, there are most likely four or five in some other country ready to be sold to the highest bidder! North Korea, Russia, China, Syria, Iran, and even the USA. A different mind set occupies the Muslim population. To us the war is over, to them it is just starting! As soon as we learn not everyone in the world wants to be a democratic idealist society, the better we will be. I am afraid it is a difficult lesson.
You can go into the pig pen, kick the real dirty pigs out, wash, and dress the cleanest pig in a suit. In about an hour come back to the pen and find the pig has rolled in the mud again, he is still a pig!
The best thing we could do right now is get ourselves out of the nation building mode and start defending the nation we have!
I think the next two presidents we elect will run on this platform, that and a better economy. Greenspan just finished saying that a tax cut and continued spending is a mistake.
I am sure if I wanted to I could tie Bin Laden to several American Presidents to. After all he was fighting with OUR CIA in Afghanistan during Russia's aggression into said country. Maybe we should take lessons from the past. It isn't how big you are, it is how long do you really want to fight? Maybe some of the religious right should re read the bible and find how Goliath fell?
We are in a country that makes Nam look like a country club, in about tens years we will see if the hostility's have ended. It already looks as if we are in the soup. I am sure we will find WMD in Iraq, but for every weapon we find, there are most likely four or five in some other country ready to be sold to the highest bidder! North Korea, Russia, China, Syria, Iran, and even the USA. A different mind set occupies the Muslim population. To us the war is over, to them it is just starting! As soon as we learn not everyone in the world wants to be a democratic idealist society, the better we will be. I am afraid it is a difficult lesson.
You can go into the pig pen, kick the real dirty pigs out, wash, and dress the cleanest pig in a suit. In about an hour come back to the pen and find the pig has rolled in the mud again, he is still a pig!
The best thing we could do right now is get ourselves out of the nation building mode and start defending the nation we have!
I think the next two presidents we elect will run on this platform, that and a better economy. Greenspan just finished saying that a tax cut and continued spending is a mistake.ONE MORE COMMENT from "no gray area", "only right or wrong" JJ.
A lot of people espouse the great economy during BCs 8 years. Sure it was better than now. BUT, our economy is always cyclical. Interest rates are still low. Lowest than they have been in years.
BUT, America is not just about money. That's where my problem with BC and his communist friends lie.
A lot of people espouse the great economy during BCs 8 years. Sure it was better than now. BUT, our economy is always cyclical. Interest rates are still low. Lowest than they have been in years.
BUT, America is not just about money. That's where my problem with BC and his communist friends lie.
You're right that America is not all about money. But money (and the economy) IS what the people look at come election time. I may be a Clinton supporter, but I also supported President Bush until recently. If he manages to put policies in place that get the economy back to Clinton levels in the next two years, he'll have my vote in '04. But I'm not going to hold my breath.
Somebody mentioned that Clinton only got the benefits of Reagan's policies in economic terms. I'm amazed at how little credit Clinton gets for economic policy - either the President has no effect on the economy (the Greenspan Theory) or he does, but only 5 or 6 years after leaving office (the Reagan Theory). That's nuts! Interest rates are as low as they are because the Fed uses them to try to get the economy going again - and they're about as low as they can go.
Somebody mentioned that Clinton only got the benefits of Reagan's policies in economic terms. I'm amazed at how little credit Clinton gets for economic policy - either the President has no effect on the economy (the Greenspan Theory) or he does, but only 5 or 6 years after leaving office (the Reagan Theory). That's nuts! Interest rates are as low as they are because the Fed uses them to try to get the economy going again - and they're about as low as they can go.
Not quite. My feeling has always been that the prez and the party in power don't have jack to do with the economy, it's the people who make it go or dump, mainly with their confidence. Whenever the deficit gets out of hand consumer confidence has dropped. I don't see how Bush's plan to cut taxes to the rich will increase confidence while increasing the deficit. All it will do just make the rich richer.
As far as OBL meeting with Iraq, it doesn't mean anything. Rumsfield shook hands with Saddam and met, is he part of the axis also? Just because you talked to the Jehovah's Witness at your door are you now a Witness?
Sure if you are part of the small percent that pay tax on stock dividends.
I guess eliminating the tax on stock dividends, the centerpiece of Bush's $726 billion tax-cut proposal, is going to benefit the gobs of low and middle income folks who own stocks.
The breakdown on who benefits goes like this:
74% goes to Americans making one million dollars per year, or more;
25% goes to Americans making $100,000 to one million dollars per year.
1% goes to Americans making $25-99,999 dollars per year;
0% goes to Americans making anything under $25,000 per year.
Or in other words 99% goes to folks who make over $100k.
The only stocks the majority of people who earn under $100k own are in 401k plans where the dividends are already tax free.
These are cold hard numbers, there is absolutely no arguing them and they are available on any type of news service you want to believe.
The Bush administration freely admits the so called "idea" behind this tax cut is that when the rich people have more money they're going to create new jobs for the unemployed (trickle down). But why should the rich stick their necks out creating more jobs when the economy is uncertain? Seems like the plan is placing a whole lot of faith in the generosity of the rich.
I guess eliminating the tax on stock dividends, the centerpiece of Bush's $726 billion tax-cut proposal, is going to benefit the gobs of low and middle income folks who own stocks.
The breakdown on who benefits goes like this:
74% goes to Americans making one million dollars per year, or more;
25% goes to Americans making $100,000 to one million dollars per year.
1% goes to Americans making $25-99,999 dollars per year;
0% goes to Americans making anything under $25,000 per year.
Or in other words 99% goes to folks who make over $100k.
The only stocks the majority of people who earn under $100k own are in 401k plans where the dividends are already tax free.
These are cold hard numbers, there is absolutely no arguing them and they are available on any type of news service you want to believe.
The Bush administration freely admits the so called "idea" behind this tax cut is that when the rich people have more money they're going to create new jobs for the unemployed (trickle down). But why should the rich stick their necks out creating more jobs when the economy is uncertain? Seems like the plan is placing a whole lot of faith in the generosity of the rich.
What a crack up
Should have looked closer Rusty, you just linked to data that came from when Clinton was in office.
Even then all it proves is how filthy rich the top paying percentiles are. In other words upper percentiles of the population makes 99% of the money, of course they are going to be paying a majority of the tax bill. Problem is when you look at the tax rate based on the percent of your income that is being taxed then the middle class is the ones getting screwed and Bush proposal just makes it worse.
Should have looked closer Rusty, you just linked to data that came from when Clinton was in office.
Even then all it proves is how filthy rich the top paying percentiles are. In other words upper percentiles of the population makes 99% of the money, of course they are going to be paying a majority of the tax bill. Problem is when you look at the tax rate based on the percent of your income that is being taxed then the middle class is the ones getting screwed and Bush proposal just makes it worse.
Hmmm, I was never good at math, but someone who pays 0% tax, how much should they get back?
Should I pay them becuase they don't have as good as job as me?
Obviously, the people who pay more, SHOULD get more back.
We have to stop penalizing success in this country.
Should I pay them becuase they don't have as good as job as me?
Obviously, the people who pay more, SHOULD get more back.
We have to stop penalizing success in this country.
Philosophically, I'm kind of in agreement with Sled Puller (will miracles never cease?) - if you earn the money you should get to keep the same percentages others keep. However, we've set up the tax system so that the poor get back a higher chunk than others - income is transferred to them thru the tax system. The other problem is that many of the truly rich did nothing to really earn the money. I'm not talking about some guy who's built his company up to a good size, but the Kenneth Lay's and Andrew Fastow's. I dunno - this is a long and arduous subject.
Bill,
I thought we were dealing with facts. I actually can read and knew full well that the data was for calendar year 2000. That's why I chose to use it - to show the situation immediately prior to President Bush taking office and after 8 years of Clinton/Gore:
The top 1% of wage earners generated 20. 8% of the income but paid 37. 4% of the taxes.
The top 5% generated 35. 3% of the income but paid 56. 5% of the taxes.
The top 10% generated 46. 0% of the income but paid 67. 3% of the taxes.
The top 25% generated 67. 2% of the income but paid 84. 0% of the taxes.
The top 50% generated 87. 0% of the income but paid 96. 1% of the taxes.
The bottom 50% generated 13. 0% of the income but paid only 3. 9% of the taxes.
Under President Bush's plan, lower income tax rates "... would kick in January 1st of this year, instead of being reduced in two later stages (in 2004 and 2006). So this year’s rates would be 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33%, and 35% (versus 10%, 15%, 27%, 30%, 35%, and 38. 6% under current law). The 10% bracket would also be widened a bit, by $1,000 for singles and $2,000 for joint filers, so more income would be taxed at the lowest rate. " (Source - National Taxpayers Union)
Based on the year 2000 data, does that look unreasonable? It doesn't from where I sit. If, on the other hand, one thinks that a function of the Federal government is to redistribute wealth, one might see it differently.
Edit: HERE are some real world examples of what the proposed tax cut would mean to different individuals and families.
Rusty
I thought we were dealing with facts. I actually can read and knew full well that the data was for calendar year 2000. That's why I chose to use it - to show the situation immediately prior to President Bush taking office and after 8 years of Clinton/Gore:
The top 1% of wage earners generated 20. 8% of the income but paid 37. 4% of the taxes.
The top 5% generated 35. 3% of the income but paid 56. 5% of the taxes.
The top 10% generated 46. 0% of the income but paid 67. 3% of the taxes.
The top 25% generated 67. 2% of the income but paid 84. 0% of the taxes.
The top 50% generated 87. 0% of the income but paid 96. 1% of the taxes.
The bottom 50% generated 13. 0% of the income but paid only 3. 9% of the taxes.
Under President Bush's plan, lower income tax rates "... would kick in January 1st of this year, instead of being reduced in two later stages (in 2004 and 2006). So this year’s rates would be 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33%, and 35% (versus 10%, 15%, 27%, 30%, 35%, and 38. 6% under current law). The 10% bracket would also be widened a bit, by $1,000 for singles and $2,000 for joint filers, so more income would be taxed at the lowest rate. " (Source - National Taxpayers Union)
Based on the year 2000 data, does that look unreasonable? It doesn't from where I sit. If, on the other hand, one thinks that a function of the Federal government is to redistribute wealth, one might see it differently.
Edit: HERE are some real world examples of what the proposed tax cut would mean to different individuals and families.
Rusty
Last edited:
One more stat;
Under Bush's plan a family of four would have to make something OVER $40,000 before their total tax bill would exceed $50.
Below $40,000 of income, a family of four would pay NO taxes--that family making $40,000 pays under $1K taxes now.
You can have an economy stimulating tax break ONLY by giving a tax break to those who pay SUBSTANTIAL taxes.
illflem, how do you give a tax break to the poor when they pay no taxes now? Under the earned income provision and with a couple other gimicks, some now actually get a refund in dollars when they paid no tax.
Also, its not the POOR who might convert a tax break into a job for others; ever notice how rich corporations like Microsoft employ more people than the bag lady on the corner.
More money left in my pocket might make me a little more likely to order that '03 CTD :>)
Multiply that by thousands of familys with additional money to spend== a bost to the economy.
Each time in our countrys modern history when a SUBSTANTIAL tax cut has been tried, it has led to a significant economic recovery.
Remember JFK's speach on the economy a year of so before his death?? We were in a real slump; he addressed congress and called for a substantial tax cut to jump start the economy. He got the tax cut; the economy recovered.
Sorry, I wasn't going to re-post, but this is a new subject that I could not resist :>)
Taxes are a necessary evil, but have become , instead of necessary support for the country, a pork barrel whos primary use is purchasing votes, and making economic slaves of the producing members of society. How many months do you work just to pay state and federal income taxes, not to mention the vast burden of all sorts of other taxes such as real property, fuel, intertainment, telephone, and all sorts of others open and hidden and the huge amount of all sorts of other fees that are just taxes by a different name.
Our governmental intities at every level collect far more money than they need for necessary governmental functions. Many are in tough financial fixes now, not because the economy is down, but because they have for years spent like drunken sailors
on thousands of goofy programs.
In thirty plus years working for state judiciary, I fought constantly with the mentality " if we did not overspend this year, we can not ask for even more money next year". When I would refuse to spend our entire annual budgeted money, it created more outrage than had I started each court session with a bodacious FART.
When LBJ came into office, he instigated " the GREAT SOCIETY", which by spending huge amounts of money was going to end poverty, end crime and cure everthing else that was wrong with the country.
Untold billions of dollars down a rat hole later, crime and poverty seem just as bad or worse. Those Programs give us only ongoing generations of dependent and irresponsible citizens.
And before anyone charges me with insensitivity towards the poor, I will repeat; my family was dirt poor. I lived the years between 2nd grade when the house burned till the end of 7th grade in a tent--then it got slightly better. All four years of high school, I worked a 40 hour a week job, and half of every paycheck went to family support. I worked 3pm to 9 pm four days a week and 9 am to 9 pm Sat, and Sun.
It did not hurt me----unless thats why I am so irasciable??
I had one huge advantage; a family too proud to accept handouts and who refused to be dependent on any one or any governmental "program"
Sorry for the rant.
I really do quit now :>(
Vaughn
Under Bush's plan a family of four would have to make something OVER $40,000 before their total tax bill would exceed $50.
Below $40,000 of income, a family of four would pay NO taxes--that family making $40,000 pays under $1K taxes now.
You can have an economy stimulating tax break ONLY by giving a tax break to those who pay SUBSTANTIAL taxes.
illflem, how do you give a tax break to the poor when they pay no taxes now? Under the earned income provision and with a couple other gimicks, some now actually get a refund in dollars when they paid no tax.
Also, its not the POOR who might convert a tax break into a job for others; ever notice how rich corporations like Microsoft employ more people than the bag lady on the corner.
More money left in my pocket might make me a little more likely to order that '03 CTD :>)
Multiply that by thousands of familys with additional money to spend== a bost to the economy.
Each time in our countrys modern history when a SUBSTANTIAL tax cut has been tried, it has led to a significant economic recovery.
Remember JFK's speach on the economy a year of so before his death?? We were in a real slump; he addressed congress and called for a substantial tax cut to jump start the economy. He got the tax cut; the economy recovered.
Sorry, I wasn't going to re-post, but this is a new subject that I could not resist :>)
Taxes are a necessary evil, but have become , instead of necessary support for the country, a pork barrel whos primary use is purchasing votes, and making economic slaves of the producing members of society. How many months do you work just to pay state and federal income taxes, not to mention the vast burden of all sorts of other taxes such as real property, fuel, intertainment, telephone, and all sorts of others open and hidden and the huge amount of all sorts of other fees that are just taxes by a different name.
Our governmental intities at every level collect far more money than they need for necessary governmental functions. Many are in tough financial fixes now, not because the economy is down, but because they have for years spent like drunken sailors
on thousands of goofy programs.
In thirty plus years working for state judiciary, I fought constantly with the mentality " if we did not overspend this year, we can not ask for even more money next year". When I would refuse to spend our entire annual budgeted money, it created more outrage than had I started each court session with a bodacious FART.
When LBJ came into office, he instigated " the GREAT SOCIETY", which by spending huge amounts of money was going to end poverty, end crime and cure everthing else that was wrong with the country.
Untold billions of dollars down a rat hole later, crime and poverty seem just as bad or worse. Those Programs give us only ongoing generations of dependent and irresponsible citizens.
And before anyone charges me with insensitivity towards the poor, I will repeat; my family was dirt poor. I lived the years between 2nd grade when the house burned till the end of 7th grade in a tent--then it got slightly better. All four years of high school, I worked a 40 hour a week job, and half of every paycheck went to family support. I worked 3pm to 9 pm four days a week and 9 am to 9 pm Sat, and Sun.
It did not hurt me----unless thats why I am so irasciable??
I had one huge advantage; a family too proud to accept handouts and who refused to be dependent on any one or any governmental "program"
Sorry for the rant.
I really do quit now :>(
Vaughn
And I thought you were a lost cause... ... ...
illflem agreed with me on another thread, now if I can get CF to agree with me, my time on earth will be over, and I will get my wings... ... or is that tail?
LOL!!!
I wouldn't mind the tax cut (even the big one) if only the govt. would cut spending at the same time - but there's no plan to do that. We're spending money we don't have (not unlike the Reagan Administration - and every Administration back to Nixon) and leaving the bill for our kids.
We also don't know that a tax cut of this type (no matter what the size) will boost this economy. There were no tax cuts of this type during the Clinton Administration (and a good size tax hike near the end of Bush41), and the economy went great guns for 6 or 7 years.
Those of you with the philosophy that the President has no control of the economy (thus giving President Clinton no credit for the economy during his administration, nor President Reagan blame for the economy during his) obviously know that this tax cut will have no effect whatsoever - the economy is cyclical no matter what the President does, right?
We also don't know that a tax cut of this type (no matter what the size) will boost this economy. There were no tax cuts of this type during the Clinton Administration (and a good size tax hike near the end of Bush41), and the economy went great guns for 6 or 7 years.
Those of you with the philosophy that the President has no control of the economy (thus giving President Clinton no credit for the economy during his administration, nor President Reagan blame for the economy during his) obviously know that this tax cut will have no effect whatsoever - the economy is cyclical no matter what the President does, right?
The economy IS cyclical. That's where the history speaks with cold hard facts - unless of course you want to start re-writing history as some of our former fearless leaders did.
Economic policies try to widen the highs and narrow the lows. We had a 6-1/2 year high with Clinton and we are looking at a narrow low during Bush.
Did you see the news on Germany's economy this morning. It is in the toilet and plunging faster than our economy. Bush's influence is being flung far and wide! He is the AntiChrist!
Economic policies try to widen the highs and narrow the lows. We had a 6-1/2 year high with Clinton and we are looking at a narrow low during Bush.
Did you see the news on Germany's economy this morning. It is in the toilet and plunging faster than our economy. Bush's influence is being flung far and wide! He is the AntiChrist!
Issue 128 – Digital Version
Digital Magazines
FREE!
TDR Test Drive - Digital Edition
Renew
Subscribe
Gift Subscriptions
Back Issues
Subscription Status
Address Change Form
Buyer's Guides
Ram Diagnostic Trouble Codes
The Perfect Collection
The Perfect Collection Vol. II
TSB Updates
Dodge/Cummins Historical Overview
Cameron Collection
What Makes Us Tick?
Product Showcase
Advertising
Turbo Diesel Register
Issue 128 – Digital Version
Digital Magazines
FREE!
TDR Test Drive - Digital Edition
Renew
Subscribe
Gift Subscriptions
Back Issues
Subscription Status
Address Change Form
Buyer's Guides
Ram Diagnostic Trouble Codes
The Perfect Collection
The Perfect Collection Vol. II
TSB Updates
Dodge/Cummins Historical Overview
Cameron Collection
What Makes Us Tick?
Product Showcase
Advertising
