Bush's tax cuts don’t work; rich pay record high, below the median pay record low!

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by dmek25

what about John McCain first saying he doesn't know anything about economics, and then saying he never said it? or McCain saying he is all about the veterans, and then voting against funding for them? both sides play that political game. but nice try, though

Could you please provide a link wher McCain said he did not know anything about economics. If he did say that I'm sure every comercial for Obama would have him saying that as a reason not to vote for him.

Well I see you fell for the Dems plan to add additional stuff to the Vets spending bill and thats why it was voted against. The President wanted the Vets bill as a stand alone bill and not to be tied to other spending which I believe the Dems added another 23 mill for other spending.

Here is the link to MSNBC about the Bill and the adding of 23million for other stuff.Bush to Congress: OK veterans bill - Politics - MSNBC.com

[dmek25]

that happens to every bill. so we don't take care of our vets, because there is too much pork attached? these guys don't get anywhere close to the respect that they have earned. the whole political system is turning into a joke. and as far as McCain saying that, i saw it in an interview on CNN

[SmootSmack]

On a broader range of economic issues, though, Mr. McCain readily departs from Reaganomics. His philosophy is best described as a work in progress. He is refreshingly blunt when he tell me: "I'm going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated." OK, so who does he turn to for advice? His answer is reassuring. His foremost economic guru is former Texas Sen. Phil Gramm (who would almost certainly be Treasury secretary in a McCain administration). He's also friendly with the godfather of supply-side economics, Arthur Laffer.

(From 2005-http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007600)

Apparently he said something similar recently at some board meeting.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by dmek25

that happens to every bill. so we don't take care of our vets, because there is too much pork attached? these guys don't get anywhere close to the respect that they have earned. the whole political system is turning into a joke. and as far as McCain saying that, i saw it in an interview on CNN

To clarify firstdown's numbers that was $ 23 Billion in unecessary pork. Over 2% of the total spending bill of $ 933 Billion. Where do you draw the line, 3%, 5%? How about none or under 1%, sounds good to me. It isn't the government's job to provide pet subsidies to localities, individuals, or corporations that keep them in office with the money we as taxpayers earned. If I want to keep a politician in office, I'll contribute to the campaign.

But the record deficits are all Bush's fault

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by dmek25

that happens to every bill. so we don't take care of our vets, because there is too much pork attached? these guys don't get anywhere close to the respect that they have earned. the whole political system is turning into a joke. and as far as McCain saying that, i saw it in an interview on CNN

Ok, yesterday you where bashing Bush for spending too much money and today your upset with McCain because he did not support a bill which had 23 million additional spending attached. So which way do you want it? All the president said was he will sign a clean bill without all the other spending attached. So the Dems could just remove the additional spendING and it would be done. Whats so hard about that?

[dmek25]

as long as when the Dem's present a bill, the GOP doesn't attach a bunch of crap. you know, the way Washington usually works. and to me, spending money on our vets isn't frivolous, it should be automatic. president Bush had no problem signing that bull shit bill bailing out the mortgage companies. do you agree with financing fannie mae, and freddie mac?

[dmek25]

and firstdown, i enjoy having these discussions with you. i hope you never take it personal

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by dmek25

as long as when the Dem's present a bill, the GOP doesn't attach a bunch of crap. you know, the way Washington usually works. and to me, spending money on our vets isn't frivolous, it should be automatic. president Bush had no problem signing that bull shit bill bailing out the mortgage companies. do you agree with financing fannie mae, and freddie mac?

I agree the Vets deserve better but this time it goes on the Dems for holding this bill up. I don't agree with the bailout of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac but I'm not sure if there was any alternative. Remember that bill only says the goverment will step in if things go south and will let people convert their arms to traditional loans I think. I really have not read any pros or cons reguarding the bailout so I just cannot really say how I feel. As always Demek25 I enjoy going back and forth with you and no I do not take anything personaly and I hope you feel the same with my post. God I can't wait for Sunday night. Heck, even my wife asked if we could fire up the grill and cook a few hot wings.

[budw38]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

I'd prefer if we just figured out how spend less money rather than raise taxes. I am pretty convinced we can get the same level of shitty services out of our gov't for 75% of our current collective tax burden is. Hell if done right we could probably get fair to middlin' services for 75% if we had competent politicans in charge of putting competent people in charge of our programs and got special interests out of the game.

Very well put !

[SC Skins Fan]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

Im not sure if the source is trust worthy but..

Their Fair Share - WSJ.com

The nearby chart shows that the top 1% of taxpayers, those who earn above $388,806, paid 40% of all income taxes in 2006, the highest share in at least 40 years. The top 10% in income, those earning more than $108,904, paid 71%. Barack Obama says he's going to cut taxes for those at the bottom, but that's also going to be a challenge because Americans with an income below the median paid a record low 2.9% of all income taxes, while the top 50% paid 97.1%. Perhaps he thinks half the country should pay all the taxes to support the other half.

Anyone struck by the fact that the bottom 50% of wage earners accounted for only 12% of the income? Probably just a bunch of kids working summer jobs and lazy people who piss away their time though. I doubt it is indicative of any serious inequality or anything. Carry on.

[SC Skins Fan]

Originally Posted by firstdown

The funny thing is that the article demonstrated how cutting taxes actual increases the amount of taxes paid to the federal goverment. From eveything I have read this has been true anytime that taxes hve been cut. Its only lip service so the lower class can get that warm fuzzy feeling that they are sticking it to the mean old rich people.

FactCheck.org: Have tax cuts always resulted in higher tax revenues and more economic growth as many tax cut proponents claim?
FactCheck.org: Supply-side Spin