State of the Union

[Kilmer17]

"No, I don't get the gist of what you're saying. It was a stupid statement to make and an exhibition of your ignorance.

500 babies a year in the U.S. alone contract HIV through breast feeding. That is, by some miracle they weren't born with it, but later contracted it from their mothers who breast fed."

Classic liberal. Call names and ***** and complain.

Here's the point . Any person who contracts aids by sexual contact or by sharing needles or other risky lifestyle choices is an idiot.

It's crazy that you and your ilk need to have everything explained in complete detail when it was OBVIOUS what I meant.

[Darth Tater]

Originally posted by IAMBG

There were times I wanted to stand up and root and times when I started to scare myself. I started thinking "Christ BG, are you a Republican now?"

I'd bet those momement were the one's when I'd be asking myself 'why the h*ll did you vote for this guy?' Like promising sifnificant goverment $ to programs like alternative fuel sources and AIDS. Unless with the $ for AIDS their trying to create a culture of dependence in Africa (like we did with the American Indians) so you can say in a convuluted way we're talking about defense, I don't think the goverment is consitutionally authorized.

I also don't like putting government $ into fuel-cell research unless again, we can show some reason for self-defense (there may be in that such a program could put us into a position were the middle east is not relvent) but I tend to believe that when such statements are made, the big corporations (like Ford or some other), have programs in place and just want to get R&D paid by taxes and then recapture R&D costs in selling the product -- this has often been done, especially via programs that sound 'liberal' or are proposed by such presidents.

Tax cut----:rolleyes:where's my stuff man? I get no break. Screw that, you rich people should give me my $ back (give me my $ back, give me my $ back you bi*ch)

Are you being sarcastic here? What $ do rich people need to give back to you?:doh:

[codeorama]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

I thought it was total crap until he started on Iraq.

Hydrogen car? Are you effin kidding me? We need to look for alternate energy sources, but the key should be Fuel Cell technology, not some sci-fi Marty McFly dream.

Aids in Africa? BFD. Lets cure disease HERE. How about 15 billion dollars to find a cure for cancer? Or juvenile diseases? Or Autism?

I did like his thoughts on kids with parents who are in prison, but what exactly did he propse to fix it? Mentors?

I agree.

I don't care about AIDS in Africa. To think that 61 billion would go for that is crazy... A hydrogen car would be fine, but that will never happen.

Bottom line for me is that ALL presidents usually give a BS state of the Union address that has some merit and some crap.. but will any of it come to be?

The part that I never understand is this... The Dems brought up in their response Bush's voting record in the UN and how it contradicted what he was now proposing...is that true? Also, Regardless of your feelings, Clinton was in office and the national deficit (spelling?) was lowered (I know he was not singlehandedly responsible, but Clinton was more Republican than some Republicans in terms of economics) and the Dems now claim that Bush's proposals would put us back in a deficit.... is that true?

[TheKurp]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

Here's the point . Any person who contracts aids by sexual contact or by sharing needles or other risky lifestyle choices is an idiot.

It's crazy that you and your ilk need to have everything explained in complete detail when it was OBVIOUS what I meant.

And one more thing. Go f@#k yourself.

Yes, a person who has sex with their spouse who, unknowing to them, has had an affair and contracted HIV. They're an idiot, right?

Or how about if the spouse is a law enforcement person or medical professional who has accidentally or purposefully been stuck by a needle from a heroin user. Remember, there are plenty of incidents where HIV tests return false negatives. The person then contracts HIV from their spouse and they're an idiot, right?

Listen, there are a number of ways one can contract HIV through no fault of their own. They certainly don't need to be called an idiot by someone as callous and ignorant as you appear to be.

You want to use profanity and label me a liberal? I've got no problem with that. It simply reveals a weakness in your stance. Frankly I think you give anyone who considers themself a conservative a bad name. You threw out two statements, one on hydrogen cars and another on aids, and were called out and successfully disputed on both. You want to be a poster boy under the heading, Opinions are like @ssholes. Everyone's got one.? That's fine by me. But expect to be called on it when you blurt out ignorant statements without first doing your research.

[Kilmer17]

Once again for the slow-minded.

Any person who contracts aids by sexual contact or by sharing needles or other risky lifestyle choices is an idiot.

Most everyone seems to able to grasp that. Of course there will be exceptions. There always are. Exceptions, however, dont make the rule.

As for the fuel cells, I misunderstood and admitted it. I wasnt the only one. And it now appears that Bush was calling for something different than fuel cell technology. If he is calling for Fuel Cell research and implementation I support him. If it's some other form, I dont.

If you cant understand that, I suggest you move along.

[BG]

Art-

Finally getting back to our discussion here as it's always a pleasure.

As for your personal situation, it is true, making what you make, that you get the least break of all. As is right and appropriate. My wife and I paid nearly $40,000 in taxes last year. You paid very, very little in federal income taxes. You can't be given something you already don't pay. I, however, CAN be given what I do pay. I'm not mocking you here, I swear. But, it is true, you agree I hope, that you can only cut taxes for people who pay taxes.

I do in essense, pay taxes. (bear with my rounded #'s here) As it stands right now, and I am very eager to recieve a return, I will only get back about 65% of what was taken from my income this past year. That means that on the year, I was taxed and never returned 15% of my total income. That does not figure well to me when someone who is making three times as much is taxed just under 7%. 5x = less than 3%. I know you'll disagree and feel that those with the most money shouldn't bear the largest burden, but a small dent would make my life a bit easier while being no more than chump change to them.....To me, that is alot of money and I DO need it.

Shouldn't the absence of taxes on dividends give a jolt to the market? At least in the short term? Why is it only "splashy"?

Did you not think that Bush completely dodged the NK issue? What of his assertion that the main issue with Iraq was that we have yet to see proof that weapons and weapons programs were destroyed/disbanded rather than mentioning proof that there are still WMD/WMD capabilities in Iraq at this time?

While I support action against Iraq, I did start to drift off a bit there at the end :snore: (batling the flu :puke:).....might have missed a statement about the last point:D

[Art]

BG.

To fully appreciate your situation, you'd have to tell me what, exactly you are talking about. Federal Income taxes and federal payroll taxes are two different things. No plan by Bush calls for an end to payroll tax each of us is forced to pay. We're discussing, simply, federal income tax.

My number of 43,000 was off before. According to the most recent IRS numbers, people who fall in the Top 50 percent of wage earners make a total of at least $27,682. So, depending on where you fall under here, you may be a part of the Top 50 percent that pay 96 percent of the federal income tax burden.

According to the IRS, the average tax bracket for a person between the 25th and 50th percent was 16.86 percent. You say you had 15 percent taken out. That probably puts you at around $35,000 a year. While that is the truth about your situation, it is false that someone making three times as much as you make pays just 7 percent. A person making in the $100,000 range pays around 23 percent of their income to the government.

What this means is you, assuming the $35,000 number, pay $5,250 a year. Someone making around three times your amount, is actually paying, $23,000 a year. So, not only do the people who make more pay a greater percentage of their income than you might, but, they also pay four times in actual amount than you might.

The fact is, the people with the most money would always shoulder the largest tax burden even if EVERY citizen were forced to pay a flat tax of 10 percent, because 10 percent of $35,000 is $3,500 and 10 percent of $100,000 is $10,000. Even in a flat tax system, the people with more pay more actual dollars. But, the fact of the matter is, the country shouldn't revolve around making YOUR life a bit easier. You are responsible for you. I should never be responsible for you. I do need the $40,000 I paid to the federal government, just as you do need the $5,000 you paid (assuming the guess).

But, the question remains. I already am required to pay a greater percentage and a greater dollar amount than you are. So, when the government decides to give money back to the people paying, shouldn't I be given more than you since it's my money in the first place at a greater rate and actual amount than you? Does this premise not simply ring as a true, fair, right thing to do?

As for the rest of your post, I'll answer in turn.

The dividend cut on the market is only substantially meaningful if companies follow Microsoft's lead and start issuing dividends. Otherwise it's just a splashy move meant to influence investors back into the market.

As for Iraq and North Korea, I don't think he dodged the issue on Korea at all. He was very blunt and clear I thought. Same with Iraq. He didn't say what we knew. He said the U.N. knew he had certain weapons and they haven't explained where those weapons are. That's all he has to prove. Once proven, the rest is irrelevant, because Iraq is living under the terms of a surrender it signed. Strictly speaking, we don't have to prove anything at all. We simply have to prove they are in violation of the terms of their surrender.

[fansince62]

Art is correct in that the only burden is to demonstrate that Iraq is in violation of UN resolutions....it is not up to the inspectors to prove possession.......they have to account for the missing systems/materials....not "we have to find them".....

the complicating factor irt dividends that no one is addressing is how double taxation provides incentives (read economic inefficiencies) for businesses (read accountants and CFOs) to get around the reduction in return to investors.....does double taxation lead to different corporate strategies for retained earnings? do they create incentives to enhance returns to stock-holder market holdings through rational and irrational decisions to flow money into accounts that are not similarly taxed? I don't know the answer, but it's not hard, especially given recent accounting scandals, to think that this has crossed the mind of many a CFO at one time or another.

a distinction needs to be drawn between fair tax burden and income transfers (read welfare or whatever term you want). theere can be legitimate arguments for both...but they should be separated rather than mixed under the same subject head.

no one has presented figures on marinal propewnsity to save/consume.....that plays into the stimulous argument.