If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
any american please explain.
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
how can you even think about voting for a guy who takes a trillion dollars out of the economy and gives that trillion dollars to the richest 1% of the population and can you explain to me if it makes any economic sense or is it just robbery?
0
Comments
If you need the money now then you give the lower brackets a tax cut, as they're most likely to use the money immdeately rather than put them into savings.
When you lower the tax for the upper bracket, they'll most likely put them into savings or investments which will most likely benefit the state in some years from now.
News Conference: Noon Thursday, April 5, 2001, Washington Hilton and Towers
WHEN/WHERE DETAILS: Noon Thursday, April 5, 2001, Lincoln Room East, Washington Hilton and Towers, 1919 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
WHAT: At a news conference, religious leaders will release a statement signed by heads of Christian and Jewish religious organizations opposing the tax cuts proposed by President Bush as "too inequitable, too large." Instead, they say, "Responsible tax policy should be structured so that the poorest households benefit." Their congregations and agencies, at work in impoverished communities, are first-hand witnesses to human need.
WHO: Religious Community for Responsible Tax Policy, an interfaith coalition of religious leaders who want their voices heard on this issue. National Council of Churches General Secretary, the Rev. Dr. Bob Edgar, will moderate.
-end-
poor fuckers are brainwashed to death over there to say sumthin like that after knowing all of the negatives that bush has and will bring to the country.
2/9/2004
SOME PEOPLE believe that the growing deficit has been caused by the costs of fighting terrorism and the war in Iraq. That is simply wrong. In January 2001 when Bush took office, Congressional Budget Office estimates of the federal budget showed $5.6 trillion in surpluses for the 10 years from 2002 to 2011. As of last summer, the CBO was instead projecting a net deficit of nearly $400 billion for the same period, rising to $2.1 trillion if the president's budget proposal for fiscal year 2004 passed.
ADVERTISEMENT
The single largest policy change responsible for this fiscal reversal was the Bush tax cuts, which account for more than twice as much of the swelling deficit as increases in military spending.
Yes, many middle-class families received their $400 per child tax cuts last year. But the reality is that more than one-third of the tax-cut dollars are going to the wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers. Furthermore, the tax cuts are backloaded, meaning that the benefits for the rich and the costs for the rest of us will only swell over time. The payroll tax, which for around three-quarters of taxpayers represents a greater burden than the income tax, was not cut.
I hope voters will base their decisions this year on accurate and thorough information, and that the media will help us to do so.
AMY GLUCKMAN
Salem
© Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company.
but ...buh is doing what reagan did but on a much grander scale.
the wealthiest 1% won't save the money ...they will invest it around the world.
leaving america with a defecit that will make reagans look like peanuts.
.......................................cut and paste .....................................
Richest Cabinet in History Would Gain from Bush Tax Cuts
The US Census Bureau estimates that 3.7m US households suffer from hunger as a result of being unable to afford to buy basic food items. Many more, about 9m households, have "uncertain access to food".
The agriculture department reported last year that up to 12m people, including a million children, are eligible for food stamps but are not receiving them because of red tape, lack of information or family pride.
Meanwhile, families at the Bush-O'Neill end of the scale will not only benefit from income tax cuts if the Bush plan gets through congress unaltered. The proposals include the elimination of inheritance tax, which affects only the wealthiest 2% of the population with more than $1.35m to leave their children. The Republicans have dubbed it the "death tax"
Personally, I think Bush is scum, and most of his party aren't much better. But he's considered by some political commentators as one of the best presidents of our age... why on earth he's been so successful defeats me.
I know.
The morons don't quite see who is the military deserter and who is the decorated military hero, far braver than most of us could ever hope to be.
There's quite a lot of dispute over whether Kerry was in fact a "military hero". There's been reports by his fellow Swift Boat veterans that he committed war crimes for instance shooting a Vietnamese boy in the back. Also he supposedly got his Purple Hearts for flesh wounds.
But none of this has been proven or disproven and I don't care if he did shoot a Vietnamese boy in the back, I'd prefer to have him in the White House than Bush.
go on then ...
This proves that Churches really kill religion. Instead to pay their own money on charity they demand the State ( that is the police, prisons, guns) to do this at taxpayers‘ expense. F*ng statists. They are priests of Pharaoh not followers of Christ.
Deficits have no relation to tax cuts. It is caused by State’s monopoly on printing machine. It’s why gold money have been banned and paper money have been invented. Governments can print as much money as they wish. They try to keep deficits in some modest limits to show their responsibility ( that they don’t have) and their economic wisdom ( that they have even less)
If money were private there wouldn’t be neither deficits nor inflation.
Only because the neo-cons can't stand the fact that an anti-war Democrat is braver than they ever will be. And certainly braver than the rich daddy's boy deserter that is the republican.
Lets try not to swathe in with rash generalisations shall we.
Far from all Americans are morons, many many people dont like either of the candidates but they havent exactly got a great deal of choice.
Many christians cant really vote for Kerry because he is 'pro-choice' yet dont really want the war starting scumbag Bush.
Its a two party system and both parties need to be disbanded before the US gets a decent choice.
Anyone who votes for Bush's protection is a moron. Look at the post I quoted.
Don't even start me on "pro-choice". But the Mormon Church is probably the most dangerous organisation on earth.
Of course. Both sides are in the pockets of Corporate America.
Just as over here, in fact.
Did you ever read No Treason by Lysander Spooner?
It is Corporate America who is in Uncle Sam's pocket.
Remember, the master is not a man who gives bribes, the master is a man who takes bribes.
But, generalisations are just wrong, its just as stupid to say all Americans are morons because they voted Bush into power, as it is to say all British people are morons for voting Tony into power.
Its highly likely that MOST americans will not vote, that probably means most dont like the candidates they are being offered.
I don't think that I have ever seen that.
However, this thread isn't about flawed processes, it's about flawed thinking which leads people to vote without the correct information.
Kerry was a big supporter of the war in Iraq and he still supports it. His main criticisms was about how the war in Iraq was handled.
When will people realise that in terms of foreign policy americans are all the same? They will all rally round the flag and proclaim how great America is and thats that.
True. I should hjave been more careful with the tag; the Republicans are tryting to portray Kerry as anti-war, and therefore "anti-American" too.
Indeed.
The old adage is true- it doesn't matter who you vote for, the GOvernment always gets in.