[noflash]

Originally Posted by ACZakka325i

I actually can't stand it. No offence, but i really just cant stand liberals.

Don't be so conservative with your spell-checker!

So, what do you hate more? The fact that we don't like sacrificing the environment for corporate profit or that we wouldn't set a precedent by attacking a country that had never actually threatened us (not counting our oil).

Is it how we like helping kids pay for college or like helping those who are less fortunate?

Or that we don't think the richest 1% of americans really need a tax cut?

Or that we'd like you to register your gun before you go on a killing spree so we might be able to contact you later?

Or we'd rather not breathe, drink, eat chemicals and pesticides so companies can profit more?

Or that we'd pick the best person for a government position and not our frat buddies?

WHAT is it that you don't like about liberals? Do we make you think about the realities of life a little too much? You just wanna be rich and stay rich and not worry about the little people?

What is it? Tell me. I want to know.

[ACZakka325i]

Originally Posted by noflash

Don't be so conservative with your spell-checker!

So, what do you hate more? The fact that we don't like sacrificing the environment for corporate profit or that we wouldn't set a precedent by attacking a country that had never actually threatened us (not counting our oil).

Is it how we like helping kids pay for college or like helping those who are less fortunate?

Or that we don't think the richest 1% of americans really need a tax cut?

Or that we'd like you to register your gun before you go on a killing spree so we might be able to contact you later?

Or we'd rather not breathe, drink, eat chemicals and pesticides so companies can profit more?

Or that we'd pick the best person for a government position and not our frat buddies?

WHAT is it that you don't like about liberals? Do we make you think about the realities of life a little too much? You just wanna be rich and stay rich and not worry about the little people?

What is it? Tell me. I want to know.

I have no idea what your reference to spell checking has to do with.

I don't really care to tell you why i don't care for liberals. It seems to me that liberals are always in a fit about things like this, as explained by your post. Before my edit to this thread i stated that i didnt want this to become a political debate, you must have missed it, and i dont fault you for it.

I have a degree in economics and i could only begin to tell you how a tax cut to the rich would be the most beneficial. The tax cut to the rich is one that aims to increase the velocity of money. Or increase the amount of transactions taking place with one single peice of currency. While this will most likely take place with a tax cut to the rich, most other income groups would save the money gained with a tax cut. This defeats the purpose of a tax cut to jump-start a country in recession. Other reasons for tax cuts to the rich include the fact that these are the people spending money on expensive luxury goods. It is not out of necessity as you stated, but for the effects that it will have on the economy.

I don't really agree with your statement that capitalism is inherently bad for the environment. I just think its poorly substantiated, unless you think i use to much paper and that you live in the rain forest. As for breathing in chemicals, i dont know about you but i dont live a large city where this may be a problem, and in the cities i go to, the greatest concern in the emissions from automibiles. What you are refering to, these chemicals and pesticides, is so vague of an acusation that i really have no idea what your talking about.

"register your gun before you go on a killing-spree", i think that was the most entertaining statement of your entire post. Who are these people that are going on killing sprees in such great a number that this is such a pressing issue?! Tell me, I want to know?!

You want to vote in a "real" president and not "my frat buddy"? I just laugh. Did you even try to research Kerry, or did you just love to bash Bush. People say that Bush was a terrible student and i do not refute that. What is interesting is that when Kerry's grades were released, they were even worse. So much worse that i think he wouldn't even have made the grade requirement to be "one of my frat buddies". Kerry would have imposed several economic policies that would have made it worse for these have-nots that you are sooo concerned about. He would have increase the minumum wage, further worsening our trade balance, and further worsening our problem of outsourcing. So while you have-nots would have loved to have Kerry in office, there would be less of them with jobs. Furthermore, the current unemployment rate is just slightly above its natural rate, so there is little concern there.

I know about those who are less fortunate. I will tell you that i feel quite fortunate. Many of these handouts to those who are less fortunate are what is draggin our economy down. I love it when these people just want more and more handouts. When they get another handout, do you know what they will say? They will tell you that they want even more handouts. That is fact, sir. Why dont you think about the realities you speak opf more closely.

To answer the end of your post, I do in fact hope that i can continue to live the lifestyle that i do, or as you say "stay rich". I will not be responding to any further posts, because as i said earlier, i dont care to debate politics and further on a web forum, or with a liberal for that matter. I just see it as useless. To each their own, Im cool with that. And i will tell you, to your credit, that it is necessary to have liberals keeping others in check and vise-versa. Good day sir.

[noflash]

Originally Posted by ACZakka325i

I have no idea what your reference to spell checking has to do with.

I don't really care to tell you why i don't care for liberals. It seems to me that liberals are always in a fit about things like this, as explained by your post. Before my edit to this thread i stated that i didnt want this to become a political debate, you must have missed it, and i dont fault you for it.

I have a degree in economics and i could only begin to tell you how a tax cut to the rich would be the most beneficial. The tax cut to the rich is one that aims to increase the velocity of money. Or increase the amount of transactions taking place with one single peice of currency. While this will most likely take place with a tax cut to the rich, most other income groups would save the money gained with a tax cut. This defeats the purpose of a tax cut to jump-start a country in recession. Other reasons for tax cuts to the rich include the fact that these are the people spending money on expensive luxury goods. It is not out of necessity as you stated, but for the effects that it will have on the economy.

I don't really agree with your statement that capitalism is inherently bad for the environment. I just think its poorly substantiated, unless you think i use to much paper and that you live in the rain forest. As for breathing in chemicals, i dont know about you but i dont live a large city where this may be a problem, and in the cities i go to, the greatest concern in the emissions from automibiles. What you are refering to, these chemicals and pesticides, is so vague of an acusation that i really have no idea what your talking about.

"register your gun before you go on a killing-spree", i think that was the most entertaining statement of your entire post. Who are these people that are going on killing sprees in such great a number that this is such a pressing issue?! Tell me, I want to know?!

You want to vote in a "real" president and not "my frat buddy"? I just laugh. Did you even try to research Kerry, or did you just love to bash Bush. People say that Bush was a terrible student and i do not refute that. What is interesting is that when Kerry's grades were released, they were even worse. So much worse that i think he wouldn't even have made the grade requirement to be "one of my frat buddies". Kerry would have imposed several economic policies that would have made it worse for these have-nots that you are sooo concerned about. He would have increase the minumum wage, further worsening our trade balance, and further worsening our problem of outsourcing. So while you have-nots would have loved to have Kerry in office, there would be less of them with jobs. Furthermore, the current unemployment rate is just slightly above its natural rate, so there is little concern there.

I know about those who are less fortunate. I will tell you that i feel quite fortunate. Many of these handouts to those who are less fortunate are what is draggin our economy down. I love it when these people just want more and more handouts. When they get another handout, do you know what they will say? They will tell you that they want even more handouts. That is fact, sir. Why dont you think about the realities you speak opf more closely.

To answer the end of your post, I do in fact hope that i can continue to live the lifestyle that i do, or as you say "stay rich". I will not be responding to any further posts, because as i said earlier, i dont care to debate politics and further on a web forum, or with a liberal for that matter. I just see it as useless. To each their own, Im cool with that. And i will tell you, to your credit, that it is necessary to have liberals keeping others in check and vise-versa. Good day sir.

So why don't you like liberals?

C'mon, you know you can't resist it. You just said you didn't want to debate in a 1000 word essay!

All you did was defend Republicans. Just tell me why you don't like liberals. Please.

[Nikki]

Conservative, hmm I'm with the majority-odd.

[homerfromathens]

i vote for bella and the liberals.

and for good pasta ....
thinly sliced prosciutto for ever!

... and not to forget a good barolo!!!!

[BellasBmw]

Originally Posted by homerfromathens

i vote for bella and the liberals.

and for good pasta ....
thinly sliced prosciutto for ever!

... and not to forget a good barolo!!!!

Hahaha, you know it!

[ACZakka325i]

Originally Posted by noflash

So why don't you like liberals?

C'mon, you know you can't resist it. You just said you didn't want to debate in a 1000 word essay!

All you did was defend Republicans. Just tell me why you don't like liberals. Please.

In short, because they are always bitching about what is and what should be. And even when what should be, is. They will still complain about what is.

All i did was defend republicans, while all you did is make unsubstantiated comments. Again, what are you refering to me not being able to resist? I give up on this topic, as i have long ago with arguing with liberals. You exhibit your ignorance quite clearly through your antagonizing and unsubstantiated comments.

[noflash]

Originally Posted by ACZakka325i

In short, because they are always bitching about what is and what should be. And even when what should be, is. They will still complain about what is.

All i did was defend republicans, while all you did is make unsubstantiated comments. Again, what are you refering to me not being able to resist? I give up on this topic, as i have long ago with arguing with liberals. You exhibit your ignorance quite clearly through your antagonizing and unsubstantiated comments.

I knew you'd be back!

So, you don't like liberals because they are always complaining, but not for any of their beliefs or politics? Awesome.

Every time you post you say how you give up, don't argue, etc. But you can't help it. It's what your AM radio taught you right?

Just b/c I can successfuly mess with you, doesn't mean I'm ignorant. I believe an MBA ranks a tad higher than an economics degree.

Try not responding to that!

P.S. For the record, I never resorted to name calling or personal attacks. I really just want to know where your coming from. When you lay down a blanket statement of how you dislike half of Americans, I'd like you to explain it (still waiting by the way).

[NaTuReB0Y]

Republicans suck donkey balls.......

[deutschmann59]

Ha ha ha...this is turning into a classic Archie Bunker/Mike Stivic debate! I love it!

Noflash, I totally respect the views of liberals and I've got to tell you I honestly agree with a lot of things you say. There are a lot of things wrong with this country that the liberals could solve if they got their way. You mention helping kids go to college, the environment (I'm really big on this), ridding nepotism from government.

These are all things that both parties should work out solutions for. I guarantee in 100 years from now people are going to look back at our gasoline-burning cars and say, "I can't believe how stupid people were back then, how bad their technology was", sort of like the way we can't believe that people actually used to ride in buggies pulled by horses, or how people listened to the radio for entertainment (before TV).

But I'm conservative by nature and you can't change the personality someone's been born with. Your ideas can make all the sense in the world, but there are people (like me) who don't like change. I like to adapt, but change isn't my friend and that's how I've always been, even as a little kid.

Free thinking is always good and you're lying to yourself and you aren't really living if you always go by the book and never change. But I find comfort in the constant, and that's just me.

[alpinewhite3]

ultra liberal here...nothing grinds my gears quite like conservative rebublicans who want to ban abortions, stop stem-cell research and wipe out the entire gay population. Other than that, nothing else really matters to them...

[LEDZEP]

I'm sorry, I didn't see Facist on the list....

[CnoteMD]

I would generally classify myself as very liberal. However, the battle between the liberals vs. conservatives will never go away. There is such a differnce in the thought patterns between these groups that they will never agree.

One of the biggest problems I see with the conservative train of thought is that they rarely take a look at the big picture from anyone elses point of view but thier own. I always hear things like, "handouts to those who are less fortunate are what is draggin our economy down". However, it's those same less fortunate people that could help bring the economy back up if they were better off financially.

Profits of any kind are based on a simple concept: Sales minus expenses. When people have more money to spend, sales will eventually go up.

However, most of the recent tax breaks give a disproportionate amount to the most upper tiers of the population. These people make up a much smaller proportion of the population than those "people asking for handouts". In the end, the end there just aren't enough of those (upper tier) people to make a significant dent in the falling profit margins.

So, the next step is to decrease expenses. There are many ways to accomplish this including improving efficiency, decreasing waste, and increasing productivity per worker. But after doing all of these things, its obvious that profits still didn't meet expectations as the economy still suffered. So, companies began outsourcing jobs to locations where labor was cheap. With sales dropping, how else will you maintain those profit margins to keep Wall Street happy.

So, now we are in a situation where we have the appearance of a thriving economy because profit margins are maintained, but at what expense? Sure, there are people at lower socio-economic levels looking for a handout. But there are many hard working people who have to deal with thier jobs being sent overseas and just can't do much better.

The biggest improvement of the economy will occur when people at all socioeconomic levels recieve a fair share of these tax benefits.

[espo]

Can't help it not to add my 2 cents to the debate... Couple of points:

A majority of people who label themselves as Republicans don't beleive in the kinds of things that get pushed by the minor factions of the Republican party in the US. We don't hate gays, we don't want to stop social programs and we don't want to ban abortion or stem cell research and even some of us don't mind paying taxes... We mind it when the money is wasted and ends up not helping the people it is actually intended.

I beleive in personal responsibility. I beleive that people really control their own destinay and that it's better to teach someone how to work and given them the opertunity to do that then just give them a hand-out of money. I beleive in science and that through responsible and open research we can solve many of the health problems that face us today. I don't think that religous beliefs should dictate public policy (read abortion should not be baned, and stem cell research should be encourged since it could bring about possibly be the greatest advance in medical treatments man has even discovered).

I hate people who want to waste my money. I hate people who are in the govenernment for the benefit of themselves and their friends. I hate people who only want to keep the status quo and themselves in power so the give everything away to the people who will vote from them even though they know that it isn't really the right thing to do.

I hate labels!!! But I never hate anyone who has an honest disagreement with my oppinions. It's not personal and I wish more people who realize that (especially those who are actually in power).

[espo]

Originally Posted by CnoteMD

However, most of the recent tax breaks give a disproportionate amount to the most upper tiers of the population. These people make up a much smaller proportion of the population than those "people asking for handouts". In the end, the end there just aren't enough of those (upper tier) people to make a significant dent in the falling profit margins.

The major problem with this statement and alot of the statistics that are used to support it is that whenever someone pays are larger absolute amount of taxes, when there is a tax break, of course those they pay more will get a bigger absolute share of the result. There is no way around that.

If you look at another statistic, the percentage of income that tax break provides, then the people in the middle to lower lever of incomes, get the biggest percentage break. For instance, if a person making $200,000 a year gets a $1000 tax break, thats 0.5% of their income. If a person making $30,000 a year gets a $600 tax break, thats 2% of their income... While the $1000 is a higher absolute number, the $600 means alot more to the second person and he/she is able to do more things with it.

So any tax break can be looked at in a couple of different ways. It just depends on what side of the debate you are on, as to what type of measure you want to us.

Great quote I've heard a couple of times (not sure who it is credited to): " There are lies, damn lies and statistics"

[CnoteMD]

Originally Posted by espo89

The major problem with this statement and alot of the statistics that are used to support it is that whenever someone pays are larger absolute amount of taxes, when there is a tax break, of course those they pay more will get a bigger absolute share of the result. There is no way around that.

If you look at another statistic, the percentage of income that tax break provides, then the people in the middle to lower lever of incomes, get the biggest percentage break. For instance, if a person making $200,000 a year gets a $1000 tax break, thats 0.5% of their income. If a person making $30,000 a year gets a $600 tax break, thats 2% of their income... While the $1000 is a higher absolute number, the $600 means alot more to the second person and he/she is able to do more things with it.

So any tax break can be looked at in a couple of different ways. It just depends on what side of the debate you are on, as to what type of measure you want to us.

Great quote I've heard a couple of times (not sure who it is credited to): " There are lies, damn lies and statistics"

I really wish that where the case, but even percentage-wise things aren't balanced.

Here is a simple experiment comparing how tax cuts affect different income levels.

http://www.smartmoney.com/tax/filing...ory=bushtaxcut

This chart compares the taxes under the old tax rules and the new tax rules. In my example, I used a couple filing jointly with no children.

-At an income of $50K, the tax savings is $332 (6.94% savings over old rules).
-At an income of $500k, the tax savings is $13,351 (an 8.33% savings).
-At an income of $5M, the tax savings is 175,351 (a 9.24% savings).

I used round numbers to illustrate that with a 10 fold increase in income, the tax savings increase disproportionately.
-from 50k to 500k, there is a 10 fold increase in income, but a 40 fold increase in tax savings.
-from 50k to 5m, there is a 100 fold increase in income, but tax savings increase over 500 fold.

I meet a lot of republicans and many of them don't even agree with the things going on in our government these days. However, there are still those who will go along with anything labeled as republican. And these individuals will continue to support and defend Bush, regardless of how immoral or devious his actions may be.

I try to look at things from the perspective of what will result in the greater good and not from a completely self-centered view. In reality, many of these new tax laws have benefitted me tremendously. However, I would rather give up the "fraction of a percent" of my income in order to see this country improve.

[e90rocks]

Originally Posted by CnoteMD

I really wish that where the case, but even percentage-wise things aren't balanced.

Here is a simple experiment comparing how tax cuts affect different income levels.

http://www.smartmoney.com/tax/filing...ory=bushtaxcut

This chart compares the taxes under the old tax rules and the new tax rules. In my example, I used a couple filing jointly with no children.

-At an income of $50K, the tax savings is $332 (6.94% savings over old rules).
-At an income of $500k, the tax savings is $13,351 (an 8.33% savings).
-At an income of $5M, the tax savings is 175,351 (a 9.24% savings).

I used round numbers to illustrate that with a 10 fold increase in income, the tax savings increase disproportionately.
-from 50k to 500k, there is a 10 fold increase in income, but a 40 fold increase in tax savings.
-from 50k to 5m, there is a 100 fold increase in income, but tax savings increase over 500 fold.

I meet a lot of republicans and many of them don't even agree with the things going on in our government these days. However, there are still those who will go along with anything labeled as republican. And these individuals will continue to support and defend Bush, regardless of how immoral or devious his actions may be.

I try to look at things from the perspective of what will result in the greater good and not from a completely self-centered view. In reality, many of these new tax laws have benefitted me tremendously. However, I would rather give up the "fraction of a percent" of my income in order to see this country improve.

What you didn't do is list a table as far as percentage of taxes paid in each bracket. You listed change in tax percentage from the previous schedule. Most of the country is below the first income in your example, as people on both sides of the debate will be quick to point out. I think what conservatives don't like about progressive tax schedules is having to pay a higher percentage of their income back as they make more money. That is certainly true for the majority of taxpayers, regardless of their political leaning. Part of the philosophical question which divides people even within this thread is the concept of reward. Should one be rewarded for monetary accomplishment, or feel guilty and favor redistribution of wealth based on need rather than ability. Personally if I knew that Bill Gates would spend his extra income on a new microsoft complex in Seattle, then I think that's good for everyone...OK, well not for Sun Microsystems.

Economics is not a zero sum game. Would you rather have 20 people, each of different talent and ability all have 25K a year, or have 5 make 8K, 5 make 15K, 7 make 100K and 3 make 500K? Those numbers are arbitrary and not meant to represent US. They are meant to stimulate thought about one's philosophy regarding income levels. Clearly the total income is greater for group two, yet so is the disparity.

Some of the liberal posts characterize conservatives as not having a broad-based perspective, or at least not a global one...yet many on the left get particularly upset about "outsourcing" which provides income streams in other countries that wouln't otherwise exist, and can lower costs of goods and services at home.

I mainly wanted to provide arguments, not to accuse what I consider a heterogenous group of having negative characteristics. Because of assumptions about conservatives, many of my liberal friends are very quick on the draw to accuse conservatives of being greedy and selfish. This sort of characterization, and the assumption that one is more righteous within (I'm sure there's a converse situation concerning the religious right) that I think tends to make people so angry and indignant. I think we'd all get along better if we didn't make assumptions about other person's motivations, particularly about groups as opposed to individuals.

[docbolo]

Ann Coulter Rocks :rocks: that pretty much sums up my political views

[e90rocks]

Originally Posted by docbolo

Ann Coulter Rocks :rocks: that pretty much sums up my political views

I forgot about her. I take back what I said in an earlier post.

[alpinewhite3]

My god, Ann coulter makes Bill O'Reilly seem like a school kid.
Some Ann coulter quotes:

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."

"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."

To a disabled Vietnam vet: "People like you caused us to lose that war."

"I think there should be a literacy test and a poll tax for people to vote."

[e90rocks]

Originally Posted by agent0986

My god, Ann coulter makes Bill O'Reilly seem like a school kid.
Some Ann coulter quotes:

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."

"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."

To a disabled Vietnam vet: "People like you caused us to lose that war."

"I think there should be a literacy test and a poll tax for people to vote."

Well, some of her 'print bytes' are purposely over the top.
The McVeigh remark is obviously for humorous effect. Sort of like saying "Why couldn't Dick Cheney have gone hunting with Hillary Clinton?"...not serious.

I never heard the vet one...was he a Vet protester during the war like Kerrey?
The quote still sounds insensitive, fer sure.

I'm not for literacy testing, though sometimes I wonder if mental status tests wouldn't be reasonable. We have people in a nursing home I go to who think it's 1980 who are still voting...I guess they go straight party. Poll taxes are obviously no good, and neither should there be "walking around money".

[alpinewhite3]

Originally Posted by e90rocks

Well, some of her 'print bytes' are purposely over the top.
The McVeigh remark is obviously for humorous effect. Sort of like saying "Why couldn't Dick Cheney have gone hunting with Hillary Clinton?"...not serious.

I never heard the vet one...was he a Vet protester during the war like Kerrey?
The quote still sounds insensitive, fer sure.

I'm not for literacy testing, though sometimes I wonder if mental status tests wouldn't be reasonable. We have people in a nursing home I go to who think it's 1980 who are still voting...I guess they go straight party. Poll taxes are obviously no good, and neither should there be "walking around money".

With some of the stuff this lady has said and believes I'm just surprised people actually like her, let alone love her. That was just a few quotes out of MANY. I thought conservatives/liberals, democrats/republicans alike did not like ann coulter. Even the republican party tries to distance themselves from some of her outlandish comments.