I have a question regarding our candidates - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

divagrrrl · 10-18-2004, 12:10 PM

and I need fair answers from BOTH sides of the fence.

Which of our two main candidates is a better friend to small business? I am a Massage Therapist, paid as an independent contractor. I gross about $28,000, take about $12,000 in write-offs, leaving me with about $16,000 to live on each year. Of this, the IRS wants to take about $3500 on average, leaving me to live on $1050 a month, in SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, mind you, one of the most expensive places in the country. Most APARTMENTS rent for $850-1000 a month.

I carry my own insurance. I rent an apartment (a very small one). I pay my bills. And I qualify for several social programs, but feel I am too prideful to suck off the government tit. I am going broker and broker.... who is going to be my ideal president? I am so sick of candidates talking about what's wrong and not telling their solutions to make it right. WHO is going to better MY life in office? Or at least not make it worse?

daswig · 10-18-2004, 12:15 PM

Neither is going to better your life. Bush will do far less damage to the Constitution.

Ustwo · 10-18-2004, 12:17 PM

I'm not great with Taxes as until very recently I made very little money, but you seem to be paying a VERY high amount for making so little.

I know as an independent contractor you get screwed a lot (quarterly taxes suck) but still, you shouldn't be paying that much on an income of 16,000. You might want to see a accountant if you haven't already, as you should be in the 'zero' tax area. Again I don't know much and perhaps its because you are independent that you get screwed.

I do know that even when I was in school making 8k a year and my wife 30k before taxes, we got the $600 back from the first Bush tax cut.

Seandq · 10-18-2004, 12:18 PM

WHAT? LESS DAMAGE? BUSH? Haha. You're kidding, right? This guy has already stated that he's planning to have a Amendment for the banning of marriage against gays and lesbians, using it as a political tool..

To be quite honest, go Kerry. Only reason I say that is..you fit in his bracket for a tax cut. He said that if you make under 200 grand a year, you're getting your taxes cut. Bush stands firm on his "You make the money, you keep it!" stance.

KMA-628 · 10-18-2004, 12:26 PM

From Sumner Redstone, CEO of Viacom (parent company of CBS)

Sumner Redstone, who calls himself a "liberal Democrat," said he's supporting President Bush.
The chairman of the entertainment giant Viacom said the reason was simple: Republican values are what U.S. companies need. Speaking to some of America's and Asia's top executives gathered for Forbes magazine's annual Global CEO Conference, Mr. Redstone declared: "I look at the election from what's good for Viacom. I vote for what's good for Viacom. I vote, today, Viacom.
"I don't want to denigrate Kerry," he went on, "but from a Viacom standpoint, the election of a Republican administration is a better deal. Because the Republican administration has stood for many things we believe in, deregulation and so on. The Democrats are not bad people. . . . But from a Viacom standpoint, we believe the election of a Republican administration is better for our company."
Sharing the stage with Mr. Redstone was Steve Forbes, CEO, president and editor in chief of Forbes and a former Republican presidential aspirant, who quipped: "Obviously you're a very enlightened CEO."

My two cents: You are responsible for the success of your own company. I would say (apart from federal tax rates) that your local government has more of an effect on your business then the federal government.

I own my own company. I am not affected by the Bush Adminstration other then the fact that my tax burden went down, significantly. Most of my problems that are gov't related have to do with local level BS (primarily in the code environment).

In theory, a Republican gov't usually tries to limit gov't and the opposite is true with a Democrat Admin. However, this is not really the case with the current admin. While I feel that the Bush admin greatly overspent, I think Kerry would spend more and increase my tax burden.

Most companies can be successful regardless of the current administration in the White House. The main difference is in how the business is operated.

daswig · 10-18-2004, 12:27 PM

As opposed to Kerry, who plans to eviscerate the Second Amendment, plans to remove the right to control your medical treatment and give it to the Government (we've seen how well their governmental "retirement plan" has worked, why should their health care system be any better? Think about it...if your health care system was run as efficiently as the Social Security system is run, you're gonna DIE if you get seriously ill), and plans to subjugate the US Constitution to the will of the UN.

Kerry supported Patriot before he opposed it.

KMA-628 · 10-18-2004, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seandq

He said that if you make under 200 grand a year, you're getting your taxes cut.

I make under $200,000/year and I had my taxes cut, considerably. It already happened.

What, is it going to go even lower? I doubt it.

KMA-628 · 10-18-2004, 12:32 PM

Don't forget, there are more ways to raise taxes then through somebody's income. Kerry can keep his promise and still raise taxes (i.e. gas, cigarettes, etc.)

Ustwo · 10-18-2004, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seandq

cut. He said that if you make under 200 grand a year, you're getting your taxes cut. Bush stands firm on his "You make the money, you keep it!" stance.

Clinton said he was going to cut taxes too, but then said he worked really hard and couldn't find a way to do it.

Fool me once and all that.

Hell just letting the Bush tax cuts expire would raise my taxes, and do you think he would sign those again?

Seandq · 10-18-2004, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

As opposed to Kerry, who plans to eviscerate the Second Amendment, plans to remove the right to control your medical treatment and give it to the Government (we've seen how well their governmental "retirement plan" has worked, why should their health care system be any better? Think about it...if your health care system was run as efficiently as the Social Security system is run, you're gonna DIE if you get seriously ill), and plans to subjugate the US Constitution to the will of the UN.

Kerry supported Patriot before he opposed it.

Was this quoted straight from a Bush ad? Sounds it. At least the health care part.

And he's against gun control. He's said it. He's a hunter, he's not going to take away the rights of the 2nd amendment.

Seandq · 10-18-2004, 12:38 PM

No, I doubt he would. Why compare apples and oranges? That's like saying I don't trust Republicans with taxes because SR. Bush said "Read my lips..No new taxes." and made new and higher taxes, while Bush Jr. placed a tax cut in place.

You can't compare one politican to the rest in his party.

Seandq · 10-18-2004, 12:39 PM

As does my family. [At the time of the cut, I lived with my family. I know live on my own.] Yeah, you will get taxes cut. Because other tax cuts will benefit you. Don't look at the tax reform policy through tinted glasses.

daswig · 10-18-2004, 12:46 PM

Sean, please name a SINGLE gun control law that Kerry voted AGAINST in his 20 years in the Senate. In 2000, he appeared and spoke at a gun control rally in Boston, urging Gore to push for more gun control. Behind him was a sign that read "Ban all guns".

http://keepandbeararms.com/images/Kerry004.jpg

Kerry isn't stupid. He knows that gun control is a political third rail in most of the country, so he's trying to act like he's pro-gun. His record says very differently.

KMA-628 · 10-18-2004, 12:49 PM

waaaaaaaay off topic now.

divagrrrl · 10-18-2004, 01:09 PM

I'm still so confused.... I am leaning towards rooting for abolition of federal taxes as we know them, and replacing it with a Value-Added tax like in the UK and other countries... in other words, a national sales tax.

Ustwo · 10-18-2004, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by divagrrrl

I'm still so confused.... I am leaning towards rooting for abolition of federal taxes as we know them, and replacing it with a Value-Added tax like in the UK and other countries... in other words, a national sales tax.

Vote republican then, its already been suggested by them. It won't get passed without a 60 vote senate though, and at best it will be a 55 vote senate and some of those 'republicans' are basicly democrats.

host · 10-18-2004, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by divagrrrl

I'm still so confused.... I am leaning towards rooting for abolition of federal taxes as we know them, and replacing it with a Value-Added tax like in the UK and other countries... in other words, a national sales tax.

divagrrrl, are you including in the federal tax bill amount that you quoted,
the approximate 15% tax on your income that self proprietors must pay for
social security and medicare taxes? When you do not work for an employer,
you are obligated to pay twice the amount that employees of a company
pay, since you have no employer to pay the other half of these taxes.
When you become eligible to collect social security, either due to diability,
or when you reach retirement age, your benefit amount will be correlated to
the amount that you "contributed" to the social security system during your
income earning years.

If this amount of tax is the bulk of your federal tax
obligation, and competition determines the rates that you can charge for
the services that you offer, maybe your self employed competitors are not
taking all of their expenses, including their self employed tax burden, into
account when they set their rates. Is there an association that many members of your profession are members of? Maybe communicating the
true costs of doing business to many of your fellow therapists would be the
quickest way to increase all of your competition. Are there too many
therapists offering the service that you offer to too small of a customer
base?

tecoyah · 10-18-2004, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Sean, please name a SINGLE gun control law that Kerry voted AGAINST in his 20 years in the Senate. In 2000, he appeared and spoke at a gun control rally in Boston, urging Gore to push for more gun control. Behind him was a sign that read "Ban all guns".

http://keepandbeararms.com/images/Kerry004.jpg

Kerry isn't stupid. He knows that gun control is a political third rail in most of the country, so he's trying to act like he's pro-gun. His record says very differently.

Down boy.....geez, barely made crazy and already Rabid.

I would ask that you explain the James Brady quote in your Sig.....before I unfairly judge you. As it is quite insulting if I indeed understand it properly.

daswig · 10-18-2004, 02:40 PM

It's dark humor. Explaining it would take all of the magic from it. Kind of like touring a potato chip factory....

tecoyah · 10-18-2004, 02:40 PM

Please read your humor into this:

James S. Brady achieved a lifelong career goal with his appointment by President Ronald Reagan in January of 1981 to be Assistant to the President and White House Press Secretary. However, his service was interrupted on March 30, 1981, when John Hinckley attempted to assassinate the President, and shot both President Reagan, Mr. Brady, and two law enforcement officers. Although seriously wounded by the gunshot wound to the head, Mr. Brady remained the White House Press Secretary until the end of the Reagan Administration.

Since leaving the White House, Mr. Brady has spent much time lobbying with his wife Sarah, Chair of Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI), for stronger gun laws. On November 30, 1993, President Clinton signed the "Brady Bill", a bill named in Mr. Brady's honor, into law. The Brady law requires a national waiting period and background check on all handgun purchases through licensed dealers. Mr. Brady also serves on the Board of Trustees of the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, HCI's sister organization, which is a 501 (3)(c) organization working to reduce gun violence through education, research, and legal advocacy. In addition, Mr. Brady serves as Vice Chairman of the National Head Injury Foundation as well as the Vice Chairman of the National Organization on Disability.

Thanx

host · 10-18-2004, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by divagrrrl

I'm still so confused.... I am leaning towards rooting for abolition of federal taxes as we know them, and replacing it with a Value-Added tax like in the UK and other countries... in other words, a national sales tax.

A national sales tax will shift even more of the tax burden from the wealthy to
those who must spend all the money that they earn in order to live. You will
pay more tax than you do now if the republicans succeed in passing a national
sales tax. Ask yourself why they are sponsoring such a tax ? Their agenda is
to further shift the tax burden from their party's wealthy contributors, onto
the rest of us. The following quote illustrates the success that they have
already accomplished in shifting the tax burden from the richest citizens:

Quote:

Tax Burden Shifts to the Middle
Presidential Campaigns Draw Differing Conclusions From Report

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, August 13, 2004; Page A04

Since 2001, President Bush's tax cuts have shifted federal tax payments from the richest Americans to a wide swath of middle-class families, the Congressional Budget Office has found, a conclusion likely to roil the presidential election campaign.

The CBO study, due to be released today, found that the wealthiest 20 percent, whose incomes averaged $182,700 in 2001, saw their share of federal taxes drop from 64.4 percent of total tax payments in 2001 to 63.5 percent this year. The top 1 percent, earning $1.1 million, saw their share fall to 20.1 percent of the total, from 22.2 percent.

Over that same period, taxpayers with incomes from around $51,500 to around $75,600 saw their share of federal tax payments increase. Households earning around $75,600 saw their tax burden jump the most, from 18.7 percent of all taxes to 19.5 percent.

The analysis, requested in May by congressional Democrats, echoes similar studies by think tanks and Democratic activist groups. But the conclusions have heightened significance because of their source, a nonpartisan government agency headed by a former senior economist from the Bush White House, Douglas Holtz-Eakin. The study will likely stoke an already burning debate about the fairness and efficacy of $1.7 trillion in tax cuts that the president pushed through Congress.

"CBO is nonpartisan, it's independent, and right now it works for a Republican Congress with a former Bush economist at its head," said Jason Furman, economic director of the presidential campaign of Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.). "There's no higher authority on the subject."

Girding for the study's release, Bush campaign officials have already begun dismissing it as "the Democrat-requested report."

"The CBO answers the questions they are asked," said Terry Holt, a Bush campaign spokesman. "To the extent the questions are shaded to receive a certain response, that's often the response you get."

The question posed was a standard request for analysis of the type members on both sides of the aisle routinely make of the CBO. In this case the ranking Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee, the Senate Finance Committee, the House and Senate budget committees and the Joint Economic Committee asked Holtz-Eakin -- the former chief economist of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers -- to estimate the distribution of the tax cuts among income levels, and compare that to tax levels if none of the cuts were passed.

The conclusions are stark. The effective federal tax rate of the top 1 percent of taxpayers has fallen from 33.4 percent to 26.7 percent, a 20 percent drop. In contrast, the middle 20 percent of taxpayers -- whose incomes averaged $51,500 in 2001 -- saw their tax rates drop 9.3 percent. The poorest taxpayers saw their taxes fall 16 percent.

Republican aides on Capitol Hill, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the tax cuts actually made federal income taxes -- as opposed to total taxes -- more equitable. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61178-2004Aug12.html">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61178-2004Aug12.html</a>

In this country we have a progressive tax system. The wealthy pay taxes
at a higher percentage rate that middle and lower class tax payers do. A
low income earner who makes $20,000 per year may pay a 10% tax, while
a wealthier income earnier who makes $200,000 per year may pay a 25%
tax. The wealthy vote for candidates who promise to lower their taxes, as
you can see from the quote above, info from a study of Bush's tax cuts,
the study shows that Bush has cut taxes for the wealthy to the point that
everyone else now pays a higher percentage of the total taxes collected.
The reason the wealthy pay a higher percentage on their income is because
there are many fewer wealthy voters than there are lower income voters.

Quote:

Progressive and regressive taxation
An important feature of tax systems is whether they are flat (the percentage does not depend on the base, hence the tax is proportional to how much you earn, have, or spend), regressive (the more you have the lower the tax rate), or progressive (the more you have the higher the tax rate). Progressive taxes reduce the tax burden of people with smaller incomes, since they take a smaller percentage of their income. This may be viewed as a good thing in itself, or it may be done for pragmatic reasons, since it requires less record-keeping and complexity by people with simpler affairs.
<a href="http://www.fact-index.com/t/ta/tax.html">http://www.fact-index.com/t/ta/tax.html</a>

Republicans, led by Bush, offset this reality of the demographics of the
voting population, by representing the political agenda of the welathiest, over
the interests of everyone else. Republican political strageists have ingeniously
lured lower wage earners into voting for them, luring them with religion based
issues such as abortion, gay rights, and family values, while at the same time,
demonizing Democrats as "tax and spend liberals", when Bush's tax cut impact, and a history of deficit spending over the last 30 years show the
opposite to be the case. Republican administrations have worked to shift the
income tax burden away from the wealthiest Americans, at the same time
they racked up huge federal deficits that is a bill that future generations will
be burdened by, while we pay over $300 billion per year in interest. Bush
is projected to have racked up new federal debt of $1717 billion in just 4
years:

Quote:

FEDERAL DEBT AT THE END OF FISCAL YEAR: 1940-2009
(in billions of dollars)

Federal Social
Gross Public Foreign Gov't Security Medicare
Year Debt Debt Debt Accounts Debt Debt
---- ------- ------- ------- -------- -------- --------
1940 50.7 42.8 7.9 1.7 0.0
1941 57.5 48.2 9.3 2.4 0.0 -WWII Begins
1942 79.2 67.8 11.4 3.2 0.0
1943 142.6 127.8 14.9 4.3 0.0
1944 204.1 184.8 19.3 5.4 0.0
1945 260.1 235.2 24.9 6.6 0.0 -WWII Ends
1946 271.0 241.9 29.1 7.6 0.0
1947 257.1 224.3 32.8 8.8 0.0
1948 252.0 216.3 35.8 10.0 0.0
1949 252.6 214.3 38.3 11.3 0.0
1950 256.9 219.0 37.8 12.9 0.0 -Korean War Begins
1951 255.3 214.3 41.0 14.7 0.0
1952 259.1 214.8 44.3 16.6 0.0
1953 266.0 218.4 47.6 18.4 0.0 -Korean War Ends
1954 270.8 224.5 46.3 20.0 0.0
1955 274.4 226.6 47.8 21.1 0.0
1956 272.7 222.2 50.5 22.6 0.0
1957 272.3 219.3 52.9 23.4 0.0
1958 279.7 226.3 53.3 23.9 0.0
1959 287.5 234.7 52.8 23.2 0.0
1960 290.5 236.8 53.7 23.0 0.0
1961 292.6 238.4 54.3 23.4 0.0
1962 302.9 248.0 54.9 22.2 0.0
1963 310.3 254.0 56.3 21.4 0.0
1964 316.1 256.8 59.2 22.0 0.0 -Viet Nam War
1965 322.3 260.8 12.3 61.5 22.2 0.0
1966 328.5 263.7 11.6 64.8 21.6 0.9
1967 340.4 266.6 11.4 73.8 25.6 1.8
1968 368.7 289.5 10.7 79.1 28.1 1.7
1969 365.8 278.1 10.3 87.7 31.9 2.4
1970 380.9 283.2 14.0 97.7 37.7 2.7
1971 408.2 303.0 31.8 105.1 40.8 3.4
1972 435.9 322.4 49.2 113.6 43.8 3.3
1973 466.3 340.9 59.4 125.4 44.3 5.1
1974 483.9 343.7 56.8 140.2 46.1 9.2
1975 541.9 394.7 66.0 147.2 48.2 11.3 -Viet Nam Ends
1976 629.0 477.4 69.8 151.6 44.9 12.1
1977 706.4 549.1 95.5 157.3 39.6 13.4 -Carter Takes Office
1978 776.6 607.1 121.0 169.5 35.4 15.8
1979 829.5 640.3 120.3 189.2 33.4 18.4
1980 909.0 711.9 121.7 197.1 32.3 19.0(New Debt=$288 Bln)
1981 994.8 789.4 130.7 205.4 27.2 21.8 -Reagan Takes Office
1982 1137.3 924.6 140.6 212.7 19.3 26.7
1983 1371.7 1137.3 160.1 234.4 32.0 20.4
1984 1564.6 1307.0 175.5 257.6 32.2 26.0
1985 1817.4 1507.3 222.9 310.2 39.8 32.0
1986 2120.5 1740.6 265.5 379.9 45.9 48.1
1987 2346.0 1889.8 279.5 456.2 65.4 57.0
1988 2601.1 2051.6 345.9 549.5 104.2 72.3(New Debt=$1893 Bln
1989 2867.8 2190.7 394.9 677.1 156.7 94.7 -Bush I Takes Office
1990 3206.3 2411.6 440.3 794.7 214.9 110.2
1991 3598.2 2689.0 477.3 909.2 268.4 125.6
1992 4001.8 2999.7 535.2 1002.1 319.2 139.2(New Debt=$1484 Bl
1993 4351.0 3248.4 591.3 1102.6 365.9 149.4 -Clinton Takes Offic
1994 4643.3 3433.1 655.8 1210.2 422.7 150.5
1995 4920.6 3604.4 800.4 1316.2 483.2 143.4
1996 5181.5 3734.1 978.1 1447.4 549.6 152.3
1997 5369.2 3772.3 1218.2 1596.9 630.9 151.2
1998 5478.2 3721.1 1216.9 1757.1 730.3 157.8
1999 5605.5 3632.4 1281.4 1973.2 855.0 184.1
2000 5628.7 3409.8 1057.9 2218.9 1006.9 214.0(New Debt=$1418 B
2001 5769.9 3319.6 1005.5 2450.3 1169.8 239.2 Bush II Takes Offic
2002 6198.4 3540.4 1199.6 2658.0 1328.9 267.8
2003 6760.0 3913.6 1458.5 2846.4 1484.5 275.9
Projected:
2004* 7486.4 4420.8 3065.7 1633.6 281.5 (New Debt=$1717 Bl
2005* 8132.9 4791.9 3341.1 1812.7 299.3
2006* 8726.4 5074.1 3652.2 2010.6 330.1
2007* 9317.9 5333.0 3984.8 2231.3 352.3
2008* 9931.1 5589.4 4341.6 377.5
2009* 10564.1 5844.4 4719.7 403.5
<a href="http://pw1.netcom.com/~rdavis2/debt05.html">FEDERAL DEBT AT THE END OF FISCAL YEAR: 1940-2009</a>

The deficits of Republican presidents Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II, have
become so large, that it appears there is some truth to the notion that they
are part of a deliberate scheme to destroy the financial ability of the
government to spend any money on anything but the military. A famous and
influential Republican strategist is quoted saying, <a href="http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Grover_Norquist">I want to shrink government “down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.”</a>
Now....watch divagrrrl.......my statements will be attacked by posters who
do not refernce any of their statements with links to strengthen rhetoric
which they will claim to be facts. You judge who makes the more realistic
argument of what party represents the lower wage earnings and is fiscally
responsible; Republican Bush II with his $1717 billion projected deficit in
just 4 years, or Democrat Clinton, who raised the tax burden of the wealthy
in 1993, and had a deficit of $400 billion in his last 4 years in office!

mattevil · 10-18-2004, 03:25 PM

umm keep on topic guys this was a question of taxes not civil liberties.

daswig · 10-18-2004, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

Since leaving the White House, Mr. Brady has spent much time lobbying with his wife Sarah, Chair of Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI), for stronger gun laws.

James Brady is a human version of a talking seal. His wife rolls him out periodically and has him parrot soundbites. He's so mentally damaged that he is incapable of having a coherent, rational thought. I recall seeing him "interviewed" by a talking head (Larry King, IIRC) and he forgot his lines, so Sarah had to lean over and whisper his lines to him, which he then dutifully repeated.

He's now in the #1 spot on the "Politically Useful Parade of Cripples" circuit.

KMA-628 · 10-18-2004, 03:35 PM

host -

You are killing my scroll wheel.

If you would paraphrase (paraphrase w/link) a little rather then post a novel, I might actually read your posts. I am old and my weary eyes cannot take so much. It is o.k. to not copy an entire article into every post.

Willravel · 10-18-2004, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

James Brady is a human version of a talking seal. His wife rolls him out periodically and has him parrot soundbites. He's so mentally damaged that he is incapable of having a coherent, rational thought. I recall seeing him "interviewed" by a talking head (Larry King, IIRC) and he forgot his lines, so Sarah had to lean over and whisper his lines to him, which he then dutifully repeated.

He's now in the #1 spot on the "Politically Useful Parade of Cripples" circuit.

I realize what you are trying to point out, but do you have to make fun of James Brady for being paralized? That's pretty messed up. He was shot in the head (if you are old enough to remember) in the line of duty when Regan was almost assasinated. I know people have told you this before, but it bears repeating.

Maybe you should change your Sig to make fun of Christopher Reeves, or maybe you should take a shot at Helen Keller. Micheal J. Fox is political, maybe we should make fun of him.

GETTING BACK ON TOPIC, the more we go to wars like Iraq, the less money out government has, the more they have to tax us. It makes sense to me.

daswig · 10-18-2004, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

but do you have to make fun of James Brady for being paralized? That's pretty messed up. He was shot in the head (if you are old enough to remember) in the line of duty when Regan was almost assasinated. I know people have told you this before, but it bears repeating.

Maybe you should change your Sig to make fun of Christopher Reeves, or maybe you should take a shot at Helen Keller. Micheal J. Fox is political, maybe we should make fun of him.

GETTING BACK ON TOPIC, the more we go to wars like Iraq, the less money out government has, the more they have to tax us. It makes sense to me.

What, you're the humor police now? Brady was NOT "shot in the line of duty". It wasn't his job to protect the President. He was a bystander that was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I've thought of making fun of both Reeve and Fox. Short of a comedy sketch with Fox playing Janet Reno with great accuracy, there's not much material to work with. Hellen Keller jokes go WAY back.

As for your "back on topic" bit, how much did 9/11 cost the US? Wasn't it something like a million jobs and trillions of dollars? Given those costs, kicking hell out of places friendly to terrorists strikes me as quite a bargain.

smooth · 10-18-2004, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by divagrrrl

and I need fair answers from BOTH sides of the fence.

Which of our two main candidates is a better friend to small business? I am a Massage Therapist, paid as an independent contractor. I gross about $28,000, take about $12,000 in write-offs, leaving me with about $16,000 to live on each year. Of this, the IRS wants to take about $3500 on average, leaving me to live on $1050 a month, in SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, mind you, one of the most expensive places in the country. Most APARTMENTS rent for $850-1000 a month.

I carry my own insurance. I rent an apartment (a very small one). I pay my bills. And I qualify for several social programs, but feel I am too prideful to suck off the government tit. I am going broker and broker.... who is going to be my ideal president? I am so sick of candidates talking about what's wrong and not telling their solutions to make it right. WHO is going to better MY life in office? Or at least not make it worse?

how about from some of us who are trying to dismantle the "fence" ?

Since you are in SoCal, you have the distinguished capability to do what other people in this nation only dream about--vote your conscious without negative repurcussions.

One of Ralph Nader's positions is to stop government waste. I believe he argues the same as I do: that military spending is one huge boondoggle for the military industrial complex to the detriment of our nation's fiscal sanity. Only by reducing expenditure can your tax burden be reduced.

Bush has been pumping the economy up with money he doesn't have. Our debt stretches into the horizon. You and I will have to pay that debt down while simultaneously servicing it. We, as well as our children, will have to pay the principal and the interest someday.

Kerry has a lot of plans, but I haven't seen how he plans on balancing the budget in detail. He has joined forces to do it before, however, and I don't doubt he will team up with the Congress and do it again. But I don't see him cutting the hugely wasteful expenditures that persistently hang around the Capitol--like a raunchy fart.

So vote Nader if you value your fiscal sanity, environment, and anti-corporatism (being small business, this may interest you immensly).

Someone else hopefully will step in and speal you on Badnarik, because I suspect he purports to end government waste, too. But I don't know enough about his platform to give you a fair synopsis of it.

Beatlefan58 · 10-18-2004, 05:42 PM

To the original poster: I've not filed taxes on a sum near $28,000 since 1987, but I thought you'd just about be exempt from federal taxes at that level. With $16,000 in taxable income, your top bracket shouldn't be more than 15% or $2400, and that assumes that every dollar is taxed at that level.

And it is more likely that the Republicans will vote to overthrow the IRS; so many of the tax laws and regulations are designed to reward or punish behavior rather than simply raise revenue, it's unlikely the Dems would like the idea of losing that kind of control over the citizenry.

Quote:

Originally Posted by divagrrrl

I'm still so confused.... I am leaning towards rooting for abolition of federal taxes as we know them, and replacing it with a Value-Added tax like in the UK and other countries... in other words, a national sales tax.

I'd like to see more details, but from what I know about it, it's a good idea.
But the 16th Amendment will need to be revoked, or Congress will wind up taxing income and having a sales tax. There will also need to be a monthly or quarterly rebate to all taxpayers, to make up for the loss of deductions, and to make sure it is not regressive on the low income persons.

Here's my main question, using chicken soup as an example:

Campbell's buys chicken from Tyson for the soup--is there a tax on that transaction? For Tyson, it's an end-user sale.

Campbell buys the tin can from American Can Company--is there a tax?

Campbell buys the paper label from Georgia Pacific--taxable event?

Campbell sells the can of soup to Kroger--taxable?

I know when Kroger sells it to me, it's taxable. Any ideas on the others?

Boo · 10-18-2004, 06:15 PM

I believe that small business will do better under Bush. I base this assumption on my conversations with inlaws, my current employer and neighbors that own/operate small businesses.

IMO - If the tax burden is too great in CA, I suggest a move to a more reasonable area. When I was in Phoenix, I had several friends and neighbors that had left CA due to the inflated cost of living and taxation.

smooth · 10-18-2004, 06:24 PM

you might want to clarify your tax liability. at least two people have now based part of their analysis on you having a "taxable income" of "16,000."

From my reading of your post, that was your net after taxes on $36,000.

Willravel · 10-18-2004, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

What, you're the humor police now? Brady was NOT "shot in the line of duty". It wasn't his job to protect the President. He was a bystander that was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

He was with the President, and he served in public office. That's in the line of duty enjough for my opinion. Does he deserve pity? I suppose that's up to you, but telling you that the joke was in bad taste does not make me the 'humor police', it just means that I have a different sense of humor. Judging by others responses, I am ot alone in my sense of humor.

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

As for your "back on topic" bit, how much did 9/11 cost the US? Wasn't it something like a million jobs and trillions of dollars? Given those costs, kicking hell out of places friendly to terrorists strikes me as quite a bargain.

You mean like the $120 billion in Iraq? Besides, if you are as well versed in economics as you come off, you know full well that the econemy was falling before Sept. 11, 2001. It started on it's downward spiraql right after Clinton left the Whitehouse. Kicking the hell out of places for no reason (referring to the weapons of mass destruction BS)is what makes terrorists, not what beats them.

daswig · 10-18-2004, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

He was with the President, and he served in public office. That's in the line of duty enjough for my opinion. Does he deserve pity? I suppose that's up to you, but telling you that the joke was in bad taste does not make me the 'humor police', it just means that I have a different sense of humor. Judging by others responses, I am ot (sic) alone in my sense of humor.

So, if a person is in public office like Congress (and is "press secretary" a public office?) and gets killed in a car wreck on the way to work, he's died "in the line of duty"? That's certainly an interesting definition, and one which is not founded in reality. He had my pity when he was "recovering". Once he was turned into a trained seal, he (and his handlers) has earned nothing but scorn from me.

Quote:

You mean like the $120 billion in Iraq? Besides, if you are as well versed in economics as you come off, you know full well that the econemy was falling before Sept. 11, 2001. It started on it's downward spiraql right after Clinton left the Whitehouse. Kicking the hell out of places for no reason (referring to the weapons of mass destruction BS)is what makes terrorists, not what beats them.

Actually, it started before Clinton left office, but why pick nits? Saddam probably didn't have much to do with the 9/11 attacks. He did come pretty close to trying to take credit for them, though. For example, here's a mural found in Iraq: http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/3r...saddam-911.jpg

Now, Saddam INDISPUTABLY shelter other terrorists. Tariq Aziz, while still working for Saddam, spoke to Dan Rather about it:

Quote:

It's been widely reported that international terrorist Abu Nidal was shot to death in a Baghdad apartment. Is this true, can you confirm that and what else can you tell me about it?

Aziz:: Abu Nidal, Abu Nidal committed suicide.

Rather: Period?

Aziz: Yes.

Rather: Any idea why he committed suicide?

Aziz: Well tomorrow, well tomorrow I hope an Iraqi official who knows all the details about this matter will appear in front of the press and tell the press what he knows about this matter.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in519583.shtml

It turns out that Saddam had been sheltering him, but had him killed when he started plotting against Saddam, instead of just us.

Saddam did pay money to the families of SUCESSFUL suicide bombers, $25,000 per bombing. Randi Rhodes even admits this is true.

Quote:

Powell also never brought up Abu Nidal living in Baghdad—most likely because Nidal, who hadn’t been associated with any terrorist attacks in years, was already dead. (He was shot under mysterious circumstances in 2002.) And while Powell made a brief mention of Iraq funneling money to the families of suicide bombers, this was never a prominent part of the Bush administration’s case for war—in large part because a number of other nations, most notably Saudi Arabia, have for years provided similar financial support to the families of Palestinian “martyrs.”

http://forum.therandirhodesshow.com/...T&f=86&t=27648

On top of this, you have Saddam's periodic taking of shots at US aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones throughout the 90's, all of which qualify as an act of war.

Then we get to the WMD issue. You say none were found. Well, how 'bout this one?

Quote:

In September 2003, a senior official at the Al Nu'man cluster bomb production facility gave ISG a 3.5 liter CW submunitions he claimed had been held by a factory worker in his private residence to keep it from being looted."

Source: http://www.foia.cia.gov/duelfer/Iraqs_WMD_Vol3.pdf (page 34 of 248) Or, how 'bout these?

Quote:

Since May 2004, ISG has recovered dozens (emphasis mine) of chemical munitions, including artillery rounds, rockets, and a binary sarin artillery shell.

ibid, further down the page, left hand column. They found FIFTY THREE WMDs (see figure 5, page 30, same link). Saddam was required to get rid of ALL WMDs, and he didn't. True, they weren't new production, but they still were WMDs.

cthulu23 · 10-18-2004, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

So, if a person is in public office like Congress (and is "press secretary" a public office?) and gets killed in a car wreck on the way to work, he's died "in the line of duty"? That's certainly an interesting definition, and one which is not founded in reality. He had my pity when he was "recovering". Once he was turned into a trained seal, he (and his handlers) has earned nothing but scorn from me.

I don't think that agreeing with someone politically should be a prerequisite for treating them with decency. We can quibble over the meanings of duty or office but what is comes down to is whether or not you think that belittling the suffering of a paralyzed man is fair game.

daswig · 10-18-2004, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cthulu23

but what is comes down to is whether or not you think that belittling the suffering of a paralyzed man is fair game.

Since when has that been off limits??? Remember how the Democratic grassroots reacted to Reagan's death?

cthulu23 · 10-18-2004, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Since when has that been off limits??? Remember how the Democratic grassroots reacted to Reagan's death?

Whoever the "democratic grassroots" may be, I don't see anyone with a Reagan alzheimer joke for a sig posting on this site. Maybe some people here expect a higher standard.

daswig · 10-18-2004, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cthulu23

Whoever the "democratic grassroots" may be, I don't see anyone with a Reagan alzheimer joke for a sig posting on this site. Maybe some people here expect a higher standard.

you're voting for Kerry, right? Obviously, you have no problem lowering your standards, just as I have no problem loweing mine to vote for Bush.

cthulu23 · 10-18-2004, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

you're voting for Kerry, right? Obviously, you have no problem lowering your standards, just as I have no problem loweing mine to vote for Bush.

I'm not talking about "votes" or "issues" here...I'm talking about decency. Some things are more important then politics.

divagrrrl · 10-18-2004, 08:39 PM

God my head is spinning now.....

I have a lot to think about. Thank you all for the information.

As for the person who suggested moving, that would mean giving up the business I have fought and bled for for 6 and a half years. I would have to do school all over again, get licensed all over again, and frankly I have no desire to do that. I just want to be able to have a normal life... my taxes are such a burden on me that I am in debt up to my ears with it. With interest and penalties. I will *NEVER* get out of tax debt. The IRS yammers at me, and the Kerrys only pay 12.5% tax? What's wrong with this picture?

I guess I could apply for HUD and get free rent.... I guess I could apply for Medi-Cal and drop that $250/month health insurance premium... I guess I could apply for food stamps and get free groceries... but you know what? I am a WORKING American that just needs a fucking break already. it's all well and fine to vote based on idealism but I am a little more mercenary than that.

host · 10-18-2004, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

.............
Saddam did pay money to the families of SUCESSFUL suicide bombers, $25,000 per bombing. Randi Rhodes even admits this is true. http://forum.therandirhodesshow.com/...T&f=86&t=27648

Then we get to the WMD issue. You say none were found. Well, how 'bout this one? Source: http://www.foia.cia.gov/duelfer/Iraqs_WMD_Vol3.pdf (page 34 of 248) Or, how 'bout these? ibid, further down the page, left hand column. They found FIFTY THREE WMDs (see figure 5, page 30, same link). Saddam was required to get rid of ALL WMDs, and he didn't. True, they weren't new production, but they still were WMDs.

Stop......daswig.....yer killin' me !!!! How does it make you feel, knowing now,
that people like me, and the French, and the Germans knew that Bush's
"facts" about quantities of Saddam's WMD's were just so much warmongering
bushshit in his January 28, 2003 State of the Union address? Or that Iraq's
December 2002 "full disclosure" of its WMD's and programs to produce them
is now regarded as the most accurate record existing on the subjects. Not as
bad as a U.S. family who now lives with a dead or maimed U.S. troop who paid the price for Bush's carefully orchestrated mass deception!

Quote:

Bush juggles war message with domestic issues, tax cuts
By By Ron Fournier
Published: Wednesday, January 29, 2003
"Instead of rushing down the path to war with Iraq, the American people deserve a full debate," Kennedy said.

Top GOP congressional leaders sounded eager to get to work on Bush's legislative agenda. "We're about to get this ball rolling," said House Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois. "We're ready to go," agreed Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee.

Bush offered no new evidence to support his charges against Iraq, but said Secretary of State Colin Powell will go to the U.N. Security Council next Wednesday to present the U.S. case.

"We will consult, but let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm for the safety of our people, and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him," the president said. Key allies, including France and Germany, oppose military action in Iraq and want Bush to give U.N. weapons inspectors more time.

Hoping to sway reluctant nations, Bush presented a laundry list of Saddam's alleged offenses, some of them newly revealed to the public. He said intelligence sources have reported that thousands of Iraqi personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. weapons inspectors.

Specifically, Bush said Saddam has not accounted for up to 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 500 tons of sarin, mustard gas and VX nerve agent and more than 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical weapons.

"If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning," Bush said.
<a href="http://www.thebatt.com/news/2003/01/29/FrontPage/Saddam.deceiving.Not.Disarming-515373.shtml">http://www.thebatt.com/news/2003/01/29/FrontPage/Saddam.deceiving.Not.Disarming-515373.shtml</a>

Quote:

Posted on Mon, Oct. 04, 2004

CIA review finds no evidence Saddam had ties to Islamic terrorists

By Warren P. Strobel, Jonathan S. Landay and John Walcott

Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - A new CIA assessment undercuts the White House's claim that Saddam Hussein maintained ties to al-Qaida, saying there's no conclusive evidence that the regime harbored Osama bin Laden associate Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

The CIA review, which U.S. officials said Monday was requested some months ago by Vice President Dick Cheney, is the latest assessment that calls into question one of President Bush's key justifications for last year's U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

The new assessment follows the independent Sept. 11 commission's finding that there was no "collaborative relationship" between the former Iraqi regime and bin Laden's terrorist network. .....<a href="http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9836140.htm">http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9836140.htm</a>

Issues of war and diplomacy just ain't all black and white. Why has the
Bush administration ignored the Saudi payments to Palestinian suicide bomber
families?

Quote:

With Friends Like These: Saudis on the West
By Rozalina Grubina

Documents captured by Israel during its April 2002 incursion into the West Bank have proven beyond all reasonable doubt that Saudi Arabia is actively supporting Palestinian terrorism. According to Israeli intelligence officials, who publicly released the captured documents in early May, the Saudi government gave $135 million over the past 16 months to help the families of suicide bombers and to fund other aspects of the Palestinian Intifada.1 Some of these funds made their way through the Hamas-allied Tulkarm Charity Committee, a group that provides welfare and other social services to Palestinians and is one of the chief means by which Hamas secures popular support in Judea, Samaria, and the Gaza Strip. In addition, the Saudi Committee for Support of the Intifada Al Quds—headed by the Saudi interior minister Prince Nayif bin Abd al-Aziz and funded by the royal family—recently raised $109.56 million for the Palestinians in a telethon, a large part of which was spent on $5000 payments to the families of suicide bombers
<a href="http://hcs.harvard.edu/~hireview/content.php?type=article&issue=fall02/&name=source">http://hcs.harvard.edu/~hireview.......</a>
<a href="www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,51252,00.html">FOXNews.com - US & World - Documents: Saudis Paid Bombers</a>

daswig · 10-18-2004, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Stop......daswig.....yer killin' me !!!! How does it make you feel, knowing now,
that people like me, and the French, and the Germans knew that Bush's
"facts" about quantities of Saddam's WMD's were just so much warmongering
bushshit in his January 28, 2003 State of the Union address? Or that Iraq's
December 2002 "full disclosure" of its WMD's and programs to produce them
is now regarded as the most accurate record existing on the subjects. Not as
bad as a U.S. family who now lives with a dead or maimed U.S. troop who paid the price for Bush's carefully orchestrated mass deception!
]

Issues of war and diplomacy just ain't all black and white. Why has the
Bush administration ignored the Saudi payments to Palestinian suicide bomber
families?

Do you get paid by the word for stuff you quote or what?

Saddam didn't give money to charity groups that gave money to the families of suicide bombers. Saddam cut checks directly to them for "services rendered". My understanding is that the Saudis have worked to see to it that the funds they give to muslim charities no longer is given to the families of suicide bombers. In other words, they're trying to do the right thing, while Saddam was trying to encourage people to blow themselves up.

It's interesting to note that you've glossed past the fact that 53 WMDs have indeed been recovered in Iraq.

10-18-2004, 12:10 PM	#1 (permalink)
divagrrrl Crazy Location: SoCal	I have a question regarding our candidates and I need fair answers from BOTH sides of the fence. Which of our two main candidates is a better friend to small business? I am a Massage Therapist, paid as an independent contractor. I gross about $28,000, take about $12,000 in write-offs, leaving me with about $16,000 to live on each year. Of this, the IRS wants to take about $3500 on average, leaving me to live on $1050 a month, in SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, mind you, one of the most expensive places in the country. Most APARTMENTS rent for $850-1000 a month. I carry my own insurance. I rent an apartment (a very small one). I pay my bills. And I qualify for several social programs, but feel I am too prideful to suck off the government tit. I am going broker and broker.... who is going to be my ideal president? I am so sick of candidates talking about what's wrong and not telling their solutions to make it right. WHO is going to better MY life in office? Or at least not make it worse?

10-18-2004, 12:17 PM	#3 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	I'm not great with Taxes as until very recently I made very little money, but you seem to be paying a VERY high amount for making so little. I know as an independent contractor you get screwed a lot (quarterly taxes suck) but still, you shouldn't be paying that much on an income of 16,000. You might want to see a accountant if you haven't already, as you should be in the 'zero' tax area. Again I don't know much and perhaps its because you are independent that you get screwed. I do know that even when I was in school making 8k a year and my wife 30k before taxes, we got the $600 back from the first Bush tax cut. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

10-18-2004, 02:40 PM	#20 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	Please read your humor into this: James S. Brady achieved a lifelong career goal with his appointment by President Ronald Reagan in January of 1981 to be Assistant to the President and White House Press Secretary. However, his service was interrupted on March 30, 1981, when John Hinckley attempted to assassinate the President, and shot both President Reagan, Mr. Brady, and two law enforcement officers. Although seriously wounded by the gunshot wound to the head, Mr. Brady remained the White House Press Secretary until the end of the Reagan Administration. Since leaving the White House, Mr. Brady has spent much time lobbying with his wife Sarah, Chair of Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI), for stronger gun laws. On November 30, 1993, President Clinton signed the "Brady Bill", a bill named in Mr. Brady's honor, into law. The Brady law requires a national waiting period and background check on all handgun purchases through licensed dealers. Mr. Brady also serves on the Board of Trustees of the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, HCI's sister organization, which is a 501 (3)(c) organization working to reduce gun violence through education, research, and legal advocacy. In addition, Mr. Brady serves as Vice Chairman of the National Head Injury Foundation as well as the Vice Chairman of the National Organization on Disability. Thanx __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

10-18-2004, 06:15 PM	#29 (permalink)
Boo Leave me alone! Location: Alaska, USA	I believe that small business will do better under Bush. I base this assumption on my conversations with inlaws, my current employer and neighbors that own/operate small businesses. IMO - If the tax burden is too great in CA, I suggest a move to a more reasonable area. When I was in Phoenix, I had several friends and neighbors that had left CA due to the inflated cost of living and taxation. __________________ Back button again, I must be getting old.

10-18-2004, 06:24 PM	#30 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	you might want to clarify your tax liability. at least two people have now based part of their analysis on you having a "taxable income" of "16,000." From my reading of your post, that was your net after taxes on $36,000. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

10-18-2004, 12:15 PM	#2 (permalink)
daswig Banned Location: BFE	Neither is going to better your life. Bush will do far less damage to the Constitution.

10-18-2004, 12:18 PM	#4 (permalink)
Seandq Tilted Location: Orlando, FL	WHAT? LESS DAMAGE? BUSH? Haha. You're kidding, right? This guy has already stated that he's planning to have a Amendment for the banning of marriage against gays and lesbians, using it as a political tool.. To be quite honest, go Kerry. Only reason I say that is..you fit in his bracket for a tax cut. He said that if you make under 200 grand a year, you're getting your taxes cut. Bush stands firm on his "You make the money, you keep it!" stance.

10-18-2004, 12:26 PM	#5 (permalink)
KMA-628 ....is off his meds...you were warned. Location: The Wild Wild West	From Sumner Redstone, CEO of Viacom (parent company of CBS) Sumner Redstone, who calls himself a "liberal Democrat," said he's supporting President Bush. The chairman of the entertainment giant Viacom said the reason was simple: Republican values are what U.S. companies need. Speaking to some of America's and Asia's top executives gathered for Forbes magazine's annual Global CEO Conference, Mr. Redstone declared: "I look at the election from what's good for Viacom. I vote for what's good for Viacom. I vote, today, Viacom. "I don't want to denigrate Kerry," he went on, "but from a Viacom standpoint, the election of a Republican administration is a better deal. Because the Republican administration has stood for many things we believe in, deregulation and so on. The Democrats are not bad people. . . . But from a Viacom standpoint, we believe the election of a Republican administration is better for our company." Sharing the stage with Mr. Redstone was Steve Forbes, CEO, president and editor in chief of Forbes and a former Republican presidential aspirant, who quipped: "Obviously you're a very enlightened CEO." My two cents: You are responsible for the success of your own company. I would say (apart from federal tax rates) that your local government has more of an effect on your business then the federal government. I own my own company. I am not affected by the Bush Adminstration other then the fact that my tax burden went down, significantly. Most of my problems that are gov't related have to do with local level BS (primarily in the code environment). In theory, a Republican gov't usually tries to limit gov't and the opposite is true with a Democrat Admin. However, this is not really the case with the current admin. While I feel that the Bush admin greatly overspent, I think Kerry would spend more and increase my tax burden. Most companies can be successful regardless of the current administration in the White House. The main difference is in how the business is operated.

10-18-2004, 12:27 PM	#6 (permalink)
daswig Banned Location: BFE	As opposed to Kerry, who plans to eviscerate the Second Amendment, plans to remove the right to control your medical treatment and give it to the Government (we've seen how well their governmental "retirement plan" has worked, why should their health care system be any better? Think about it...if your health care system was run as efficiently as the Social Security system is run, you're gonna DIE if you get seriously ill), and plans to subjugate the US Constitution to the will of the UN. Kerry supported Patriot before he opposed it.

10-18-2004, 12:32 PM	#8 (permalink)
KMA-628 ....is off his meds...you were warned. Location: The Wild Wild West	Don't forget, there are more ways to raise taxes then through somebody's income. Kerry can keep his promise and still raise taxes (i.e. gas, cigarettes, etc.)

10-18-2004, 12:38 PM	#11 (permalink)
Seandq Tilted Location: Orlando, FL	No, I doubt he would. Why compare apples and oranges? That's like saying I don't trust Republicans with taxes because SR. Bush said "Read my lips..No new taxes." and made new and higher taxes, while Bush Jr. placed a tax cut in place. You can't compare one politican to the rest in his party.

10-18-2004, 12:39 PM	#12 (permalink)
Seandq Tilted Location: Orlando, FL	As does my family. [At the time of the cut, I lived with my family. I know live on my own.] Yeah, you will get taxes cut. Because other tax cuts will benefit you. Don't look at the tax reform policy through tinted glasses.

10-18-2004, 12:46 PM	#13 (permalink)
daswig Banned Location: BFE	Sean, please name a SINGLE gun control law that Kerry voted AGAINST in his 20 years in the Senate. In 2000, he appeared and spoke at a gun control rally in Boston, urging Gore to push for more gun control. Behind him was a sign that read "Ban all guns". http://keepandbeararms.com/images/Kerry004.jpg Kerry isn't stupid. He knows that gun control is a political third rail in most of the country, so he's trying to act like he's pro-gun. His record says very differently.

10-18-2004, 12:49 PM	#14 (permalink)
KMA-628 ....is off his meds...you were warned. Location: The Wild Wild West	waaaaaaaay off topic now.

10-18-2004, 01:09 PM	#15 (permalink)
divagrrrl Crazy Location: SoCal	I'm still so confused.... I am leaning towards rooting for abolition of federal taxes as we know them, and replacing it with a Value-Added tax like in the UK and other countries... in other words, a national sales tax.

10-18-2004, 02:40 PM	#19 (permalink)
daswig Banned Location: BFE	It's dark humor. Explaining it would take all of the magic from it. Kind of like touring a potato chip factory....

10-18-2004, 03:25 PM	#22 (permalink)
mattevil Addict Location: Virginia	umm keep on topic guys this was a question of taxes not civil liberties.

10-18-2004, 03:35 PM	#24 (permalink)
KMA-628 ....is off his meds...you were warned. Location: The Wild Wild West	host - You are killing my scroll wheel. If you would paraphrase (paraphrase w/link) a little rather then post a novel, I might actually read your posts. I am old and my weary eyes cannot take so much. It is o.k. to not copy an entire article into every post.

10-18-2004, 08:39 PM	#38 (permalink)
divagrrrl Crazy Location: SoCal	God my head is spinning now..... I have a lot to think about. Thank you all for the information. As for the person who suggested moving, that would mean giving up the business I have fought and bled for for 6 and a half years. I would have to do school all over again, get licensed all over again, and frankly I have no desire to do that. I just want to be able to have a normal life... my taxes are such a burden on me that I am in debt up to my ears with it. With interest and penalties. I will NEVER get out of tax debt. The IRS yammers at me, and the Kerrys only pay 12.5% tax? What's wrong with this picture? I guess I could apply for HUD and get free rent.... I guess I could apply for Medi-Cal and drop that $250/month health insurance premium... I guess I could apply for food stamps and get free groceries... but you know what? I am a WORKING American that just needs a fucking break already. it's all well and fine to vote based on idealism but I am a little more mercenary than that.