What Howard Dean will cost you.

[Roadtoad]

Heard about this outfit, and while I know it's a partisan group, I have to say, I found this crowd enlightening.

Try this (http://www.clubforgrowth.org/taxsavings2004.php?clubforgrowth=b93a3f6811f4205b1 3fa98e9c03649be) out.

I found out Howard Dean will cost me another $1190 in taxes.

Great. Another opportunity to get hammered.

Someone let Shanek know.

[Otther]

You fool! Don't you realize that a decrease in federal taxes forces the federal goverment to reduce federal funding?

Now the states will have to tax people... and the people will have more power to control how much they are taxed and where thoses taxes go.

*Crosses himself* God have mercy on us all.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Otther
You fool! Don't you realize that a decrease in federal taxes forces the federal goverment to reduce federal funding?

Now the states will have to tax people... and the people will have more power to control how much they are taxed and where thoses taxes go.

*Crosses himself* God have mercy on us all.

:D :p

[RCNelson]

Roadtoad:
I found out Howard Dean will cost me another $1190 in taxes.
Or Bush will cost your children $1190 plus interest in taxes since it will be the burden of the children to pay off today's deficit spending.

It's tax and spend Democrats or borrow and spend Republicans. Either way it's going to cost. It's only a question of who pays.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by RCNelson

It's tax and spend Democrats or borrow and spend Republicans. Either way it's going to cost.

How true. :(

[shanek]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
Someone let Shanek know.

Don't be fooled. Dubya is costing you the exact same amount if not more. The only difference is when you'll be paying it.

[corplinx]

We sell bonds, we pay the interest on the bonds, we eventually pay out the bonds. You can do this without increasing the tax burden if you merely get the budget into balance and stop issueing new bonds.

So, you dont have to pay later as some speculate (but with the way you guys vote I have feeling that you will indeed pay later).

[jj]

Originally posted by corplinx
We sell bonds, we pay the interest on the bonds, we eventually pay out the bonds. You can do this without increasing the tax burden if you merely get the budget into balance and stop issueing new bonds.

So, you dont have to pay later as some speculate (but with the way you guys vote I have feeling that you will indeed pay later).

Yes, and what presidents and parties are responsible for the biggest growth in debt and and government in the last century?

Hint: It's not the Democrats.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by shanek


Don't be fooled. Dubya is costing you the exact same amount if not more. The only difference is when you'll be paying it.

Unfortunately true. One of the main reasons I don't like Dubya.

Take for instance the medication plan he's wanting for seniors... Please. I've yet to make heads or tails of what I've read, except that I'll be paying for it long before I can use it, and my kids will be paying even MORE for it, long before THEY can use it.

And ultimately, it's not even what the seniors themselves have said they wanted. Would someone explain to me who the hell thinks this sh** up!?!?!

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
Heard about this outfit, and while I know it's a partisan group, I have to say, I found this crowd enlightening.

Try this (http://www.clubforgrowth.org/taxsavings2004.php?clubforgrowth=b93a3f6811f4205b1 3fa98e9c03649be) out.

I found out Howard Dean will cost me another $1190 in taxes.

Great. Another opportunity to get hammered.

Someone let Shanek know.

I don't know why people are always so ready to follow the 'official line' that the "Right" is low tax and low debt, because they aren't. It's that simple.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I don't know why people are always so ready to follow the 'official line' that the "Right" is low tax and low debt, because they aren't. It's that simple.

Obviously, you've been following this discussion a while.

What determines Right from Left is where the money is wasted.

[evildave]

How many more WARS will that little doofus Dubya start if he feels like he's got a mandate to fight his little crusades, and no future re-election to worry about?


As for the seniors' medication, it's all about what the pharmaceutical companies want.

"We want to sell lots of medications at ridiculously high profit margins, and yet have people take them like they're free... I KNOW! We'll get the GOVERNMENT to pay!"

[shanek]

Originally posted by corplinx
We sell bonds, we pay the interest on the bonds, we eventually pay out the bonds. You can do this without increasing the tax burden if you merely get the budget into balance and stop issueing new bonds.

So, you dont have to pay later as some speculate (but with the way you guys vote I have feeling that you will indeed pay later).

Not true. You're ignoring the inevitable inflation that results from such a policy. You've just increased the money supply without increasing the amount of goods and services in the economy. Not to mention the drag that deficit spending is on GDP.

[peptoabysmal]

Here's some of Howard's psychoto-nomics gleaned from his Campaign HQ website. (Just remember I coined that phrase "psychoto-nomics" :p)

BTW, his "Universal Healthcare Plan" will not be available to you unless you make less than $16,613 annual gross. If you make over that, you are stuck paying for it.

Face it, Howard Dean is trying to buy votes with every social give-away he can think of; how does that improve the economy? I criticize Bush for allowing 162 billion dollars worth of "pork projects" to make it past his veto power, but wait 'till you see the bills Dean will rack up.

My economic policies for America are based on four fundamentals:

Repeal the Bush tax cuts, and use those funds to pay for universal health care, homeland security, and investments in job creation that benefit all Americans.
Set the nation on the path to a balanced budget, recognizing that we cannot have social or economic justice without a sound fiscal foundation.
Create a fairer and simpler system of taxation.
Assure that Social Security and Medicare are adequately funded to meet the needs of the next generation of retirees.


<hr>

Specifically, I will:
· Fight for Equality in the Workplace. Women’s paychecks must match the value of the vital jobs they perform. I will strengthen enforcement of our anti-discrimination laws, such as Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, guaranteeing equal opportunity employment and protection from discrimination in the workplace. I will use the “bully pulpit” of the presidency to encourage employers to do a better job of paying women fairly, and as President, I’ll make sure the federal government improves its equal pay and promotion record, too.
· More Jobs, Better Jobs and Better Pay. Jobs will be the first order of business of my administration, and I will work to restore a growing economy that provides a job for every American who seeks one. My economic program will create jobs that pay livable wages, strengthen collective bargaining rights, and raise the minimum wage as we have in Vermont, where it will increase to $7.00 per hour by January 2005.
· Promote Women-Run Small Businesses. Small businesses are an enormous engine of growth and jobs in our economy, and I have a specific plan to ensure that they have access to the capital crucial to their success. Furthermore, I will encourage women entrepreneurs, ensuring that they get their fair share of government contracts and Small Business Administration loans and services.
· Expand Family Medical Leave. I will expand the Family and Medical Leave Act to allow parents to spend up to 24 hours each year at parent-teacher conferences and other school related activities without the risk of losing their job.
· Fund Quality Childcare. Working parents need the reassurance of knowing that their children are safe and thriving while they are at work. Our entire society benefits when children get a good start in life and go to school ready to learn. We need to make a major investment in early childhood programs, and as President, I will increase federal funding for quality preschool and child care for middle- and lower-income families.
· Strengthen Social Security. Social Security must reflect the structure of today’s families. It must be fiscally sound and address the work women do. Elderly women who live alone have the highest rate of poverty. One way to relieve this crisis is to grant elderly women survivors 75% of the couples’ combined benefits; an increase from the current amount, which is generally two-thirds. I will protect Social Security as the cornerstone of our social safety nets — one that helps all of us, whether we are rich, poor, or middle class, or young or old.


http://www.deanforamerica.com/

[shuize]

Yeah. If Dean gets elected, I'm moving to Japan....

Actually, if Dean gets elected, I really will stay here ... the dollar's sure to take an even bigger dive with Mr. "I hate corporate America" at the helm.

The chances of him winning are about zero right about now, though, so there'll likely be no fat exchange rate bonus for this ex-pat.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by corplinx
We sell bonds, we pay the interest on the bonds, we eventually pay out the bonds. You can do this without increasing the tax burden if you merely get the budget into balance and stop issueing new bonds.

So, you dont have to pay later as some speculate (but with the way you guys vote I have feeling that you will indeed pay later). We don't have to pay later? :eek: Is this the latest Republican economic fantasy?

Paying bonds takes money. A great deal of it. Of course you have to pay later. Where do you think the government get the money to pay the bonds? Taxes, of course. We wouldn't be deficit spending right now if we didn't have to pay off our old debt. We could spend more and tax less.

Of course, as Shanek alluded, the other alternative is to devalue the dollar until the multi-trillion dollar debt looks like peanuts. It seems George is agressively pursuing this avenue.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
We don't have to pay later? :eek: Is this the latest Republican economic fantasy?

Paying bonds takes money. A great deal of it. Of course you have to pay later. Where do you think the government get the money to pay the bonds? Taxes, of course. We wouldn't be deficit spending right now if we didn't have to pay off our old debt. We could spend more and tax less.

Of course, as Shanek alluded, the other alternative is to devalue the dollar until the multi-trillion dollar debt looks like peanuts. It seems George is agressively pursuing this avenue.

"Fantasy" is a kindness. I'm dealing with the reality daily, trying to pay a mortgage, make COBRA payments, and trying to keep food on the table. I see the reality when I get my semi-annual tax statements, and see what local and state bonds have cost me as it's tacked onto my mortgage payment. Whoever said bonds don't cost was obviously living in a rubber room.

Most of these pinheads in Sacramento and in Washington cannot seem to figure out that not only must you pay back the principle, but the interest as well. And in some cases, (most, actually) that interest accrues over the years. I've gotten to the point that everytime a bond measure comes up on the ballot, I just vote "no."

As far as Dean's offering up of more, better, and better paying jobs, I'd like to see how he plans to do that. Like most candidates, he's fuzzy on the actual mechanics of such a move. I'm not crazy about corporate America, either, given its pattern and methodology of covering its @$$ at every turn. but given what I know about Government and how it works, I would guess that he wants to expand the bureaucracy, again. This, of course, provides a broader power base for the Democrats, which, naturally, needs tax revenue to support.

I like the old line about how we're going to change the name of the USA to "Bohica," for "Bend Over, Here It Comes Again!"

[Nasarius]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
We don't have to pay later? :eek: Is this the latest Republican economic fantasy?

Paying bonds takes money. A great deal of it. Of course you have to pay later. Where do you think the government get the money to pay the bonds? Taxes, of course. We wouldn't be deficit spending right now if we didn't have to pay off our old debt. We could spend more and tax less.

Just to prove the point: we spent about $318 billion ( http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdint.htm ) just to pay the interest on the debt in FY2003. In comparison, we spent $376 billion on the military. The total outlays of that year were $2.14 trillion ( http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/tables.html ). That's almost 15% of the money that the government spends. On interest. It's not paying back the loan. It's just going to keep growing, especially with the way Bush is doing things. Keep the huge deficit, and we'll have less and less money to spend each year.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
We don't have to pay later? :eek: Is this the latest Republican economic fantasy?

Paying bonds takes money. A great deal of it. Of course you have to pay later. Where do you think the government get the money to pay the bonds? Taxes, of course. We wouldn't be deficit spending right now if we didn't have to pay off our old debt. We could spend more and tax less.


I don't disagree believe it or not. I am merely pointing out that if you are not running a deficit and do not need to issue bonds to cover the deficit, then as long as you are paying the interest on that debt and paying the bonds that are due, you can pay them without increasing taxes.


In other words, money that could be used for a tax cut or appropriated to another program will be spent on interest on the debt. However, the person being taxed sees no added tax and no tangible change in the government services he uses so it appears to him as if he isn't paying more.

Its all perception.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Roadtoad

I'm dealing with the reality daily, trying to pay a mortgage, make COBRA payments, and trying to keep food on the table.
I have spotted your problem and it has nothing to do with taxes. You are making COBRA payments?! COBRA payments!?!?

Anyone who supports such a well known terrorist organization gets what they deserve. I'm calling homeland security and they're going to go all GI Joe on your a$$.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Roadtoad



As far as Dean's offering up of more, better, and better paying jobs, I'd like to see how he plans to do that. Like most candidates, he's fuzzy on the actual mechanics of such a move.

I was still in high school when Bush I vs. Clinton happened. They both made campaign promises about "millions of new jobs". And of course it was complete and utter horse *****. The only job a president can create is in his staff.

Al Gore made one of these bogus jobs claims in the last election and if I was a betting man I would say Bush II did also.

[Evolver]

Originally posted by corplinx


I was still in high school when Bush I vs. Clinton happened. They both made campaign promises about "millions of new jobs". And of course it was complete and utter horse *****. The only job a president can create is in his staff.

Al Gore made one of these bogus jobs claims in the last election and if I was a betting man I would say Bush II did also.

I think Clinton would have like a few million ....jobs in his White House

[Random]

Originally posted by corplinx


I was still in high school when Bush I vs. Clinton happened. They both made campaign promises about "millions of new jobs". And of course it was complete and utter horse *****. The only job a president can create is in his staff.

Al Gore made one of these bogus jobs claims in the last election and if I was a betting man I would say Bush II did also.

This was the great trick of the Clinton economic miracle. By supporting free trade and a lower cost for consumer goods, Clinton boosted the low wage jobs at the cost of high wage jobs. Get rid of two million $15 an hour jobs. Create three million $9 an hour jobs. Presto! A million new jobs! It looks good on paper as new jobs are created and unemployment stays fairly steady, keeping the stock market happy. But over the long term, this sort of thing has led to violent armed revolutions.
Reagan did it. Bush 1.0 did it. Clinton did it. Dubya is trying to do it, but isn’t doing too well.
This is exactly the type of garbage Carter was trying to warn us about in his “malaise” speech…

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by corplinx


I was still in high school when Bush I vs. Clinton happened. They both made campaign promises about "millions of new jobs". And of course it was complete and utter horse *****. The only job a president can create is in his staff.

Al Gore made one of these bogus jobs claims in the last election and if I was a betting man I would say Bush II did also.

He did, actually. And I didn't believe it then, either.

Sure, you can create jobs, but the problem is that they have to actually pay a wage worth earning. And further, it helps if there's something to keep you going, such as the possibility of promotions, wage increases, better health care down the road...

For the most part, most of our presidents have had little, if any, experience in the business world, (and yes, I would actually include GW, simply because he never actually started and ran a succesful business, to the best of my knowledge). The last person of that ilk was Harry Truman, if I recall correctly, and he was a haberdasher. For the most part, we've been led by lawyers who haven't really had to build a real business from scratch, such as a retail store, or a financial institution. (Sorry if that offends, I'm not trying to.)

You cannot create jobs if you're the President. You can only influence the factors that lead to job growth. Frankly, I'd rather be able to start my own BUSINESS, instead of finding another f***ing job.

(No, do NOT ask how my day went...!)

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Evolver


I think Clinton would have like a few million ....jobs in his White House

Well, it's an established fact that Clinton had quite a few people working on his staff.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Jocko


Well, it's an established fact that Clinton had quite a few people working on his staff.

Uh, Jocko, I don't think that was what Evolver was talking about...

[evildave]

A couple of fun links:

Record Defecit Spending Under Bush:
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0105-08.htm

How to make sure free speech doesn't enter into politics:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/01/04/INGPQ40MB81.DTL

I'm beginning to think even the most liberal of democrats can't possibly match this "conservative" retard.

[Tmy]

Now is the extra $1190 more because hes going to reverese the Bush tax cuts? Returning you to prior GW tax status.

The spin is that hes going to shoot up taxes and as a democrat spend all the money on social programs. I dont thinkthats a fair spin, after all does $90 Billion to Iraq count as a "social program".

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Tmy
Now is the extra $1190 more because hes going to reverese the Bush tax cuts? Returning you to prior GW tax status.

The spin is that hes going to shoot up taxes and as a democrat spend all the money on social programs. I dont thinkthats a fair spin, after all does $90 Billion to Iraq count as a "social program".

Part of it, if I recall correctly, (and yes, I'm doing this without going back to the site and rereading the info), is not only the reversal of Bush's cuts, but an additional increase of around 5% in my tax bracket. So, yes, it's a bit of both.

I don't think $90 Billion to Iraq is a "Social Program," but that doesn't necessarily make it a good move. For the most part, it's as if we're trying to buy Iraq off. "Please be nice to us. We're being nice to you."

The short of it: Yes, I think you're right. It's not a fair spin.