Man, The Democrats Looked GREEDY Last Night

I mean they looked horrible. I wonder if any of em will get elected again.

George Bush said, “I believe we should give back some of the tax money to the people that earned it in the first place - the American People”. The republicans cheered and so did I and the democrats just set with their arms crossed with a sour look on their face.

I mean it looked to me that an average Joe watching the speech that the democrats don’t want to give him a refund so he could have more money to take care of his family. Who would vote for that guy again.

I think the democrats looked bad last night. The democratic response was terrible too. Especially that one congressman that said the 80s were bad. They weren’t bad for me how about you.

I think Bush did great.

Ok you democrats please why don’t want a tax cut? I just gotta hear this.

Hey Bill,

I’n no Dem…but which taxes? Always gotta be careful about what you read in the media but if its estate taxes you’re talkin’ about I think it would be good to listen to Warren Buffett and a few other folks who are generally regarded as being ‘rich’. To paraphrase (a dangerous concept, I know Warren and about 150 or so other rich folks think that the estate tax ought to be left alone. To severely cut or get rid of the estate tax would be like ‘picking the athletes for the U.S. 2020 Olympics from the children of the gold medalists of the 2000 Sydney games.’ Buffett’s analogy, not mine. Essentially , to cut the estate tax would, within a generation or two, create a class system in this country, where as now it is nearly a perfect meritocracy. Personally, I’d like my children and grandchildren to be given the same opportunity to exceed as everyone else.


WB, I’m not a Democrat, but I think I can maybe help you out with this, since the analytical, cynical part of my mind was thinking just what you were thinking last night.

I said to myself, “I’ll bet the average idiot out there will think that because the Democrats aren’t clapping, that they want to keep all the money. They will probably lose some votes because of that.” And, it seems you’ve proved me right. :slight_smile:

But I think anyone who is even moderately aware of the goings-on in Washington will realize a couple of things.

  1. Democrats aren’t necessarily against a tax cut;
  2. They don’t agree with the President’s plan, though;
  3. No one is the opposing party who’s in their right mind will be seen by their constituents as enthusiastically supporting a biased plan that the other side considers one of their keystone issues;

As far as the 80s being bad…well, I suppose it depends on who you were back then. Poor people didn’t do so well, and the notion of fiscal responsibility suffered greatly. I think our country took a pretty big ideological beating back in the 80s, and that, to me, is a tragedy. But then, I don’t always think with my pocketbook.

I think Bush did do a pretty good job, though, so we agree there. He got in some nice jabs that made me smile.

Disclaimer: I am neither Republican or Democrat. I’m a member of the Libertarian Party.

Bill, Republicans were JUST as rude to Clinton when he would give his State of the Union addresses. If anything, I think the Dems were more cordial to Bush than the House Republicans were to Clinton (deservedly or not).

Democrats don’t want a tax cut because they have a different political ideology. They believe government has a strong role to play in helping people (especially the poor) and achieving social justice. They believe this with the best of intentions. For them, a tax cut is bad for a number of reasons:

  1. It necessitates spending cuts, and someone’s cash cow always ends up being cut.
  2. They think it will somehow hurt the economy.
  3. They feel the rich will benefit from it more than the poor.

They don’t feel as though they’re stealing people’s hard-earned cash (no matter what Republicans or Libertarians might think). They feel as though the rich have benefited greatly from America and therefore owe more. They feel that the government has an obligation to help all people.

FWIW, I don’t think the Republicans are very anti-tax either. Look at what Bush did with the faith-based organization brouhaha. It would have been much easier for him to say “Okay, the American people are the most generous in the world. Let’s refund them some of their tax money and trust them to give to the charitable causes of their choice, whether they are faith-based or not.” Instead, he’s installed yet another layer of government: you pay your taxes, and the government redistributes them to a number of organizations, some of them with religious or social positions with which you may profoundly disagree. It was a bad, undemocratic decision to take and incredibly wastefull of taxpayer money.

True tax relief isn’t going to come without major decreases in spending. That’s a truism. Unfortunately, it does not yet seem that people are prepared to take responsibility for solving their problems in the communities and churches, but still rely on the government for subsistence. We got along fine without any income taxes at all for more than a century. It can be done again, but it will take more of a philosophical change of heart among the people than any government act.

Still, any relief is better than nothing. I was pleased that Bush said he wanted tax relief to be retroactive. I do not make a huge amount of money, yet between income taxes, utility taxes, car taxes (on the car I paid $900 of taxes for when I bought it), sales taxes, and all the other hidden taxes, I’m taxed at a rate close to 30%. Any relief at all would be a great help to me. I do not envy the rich for getting a bigger cut; they pay more than I do.

The interactive that I saw on here

showed that under the prior plan, folks with an income of $10,000- 34,550 paid 15% and will still pay 15%, (those under 10,000 would get a cut from 15%- 10%), those whose income was 34,550- 89,150 would go from 28% to 25%. So, vast numbers of folks would get 0% reduction in taxes. Naturally, we peons in that bracket probably won’t benefit from any reduction in estate taxes either. Fortuantely, I didn’t believe the claim during the campaign that ‘every tax payer will get a tax cut’. Nor do I recall him pointing out last night when he said “on behalf of the tax payers, I’m asking for a refund”, that he mentioned “except for the folks making between 10 and 35 grand.”.

Wring, my income is in this bracket, and I can tell you with a great deal of assurance that between:

Federal, state, and local income taxes
Social Security taxes (which I have no faith I will EVER benefit from)
Personal property tax on a car I already paid $900 in sales taxes for ($207 in December 2000)
Taxes on my utilities
Gas taxes
and sales taxes

That I am being taxed at a rate more than 27% of my income. I AM one of “we peons” and I am being CRUSHED by taxes. I can only imagine how much worse it would be if I had a family to support. I don’t care if the rich get more of a break than I do–ANY break for me will be intensely meaningful. And it will help the less fortunate–I give to charity whenever I have any money left from paying bills and providing for myself. The more expendable income I have, the more I can give to charities that do not waste my money and which improve the lives of the poor in tangible ways.

Um. I’m not sure I understand what you’re trying to say. I, too am in this bracket (and raising a son by the way), and know the burden of taxes. The point I was making was (ahem) Mr. Bush’s ‘tax break’ ain’t gonna touch my taxes at all.

Yes, I’m getting all warm and fuzzy feelings about the folks making twice - ten times as much as I do will have tax relief. But, like I mentioned, no one seems to mention the scads of folks in the lower middle class that won’t get a tax break, even under Mr. Bush’s plan.

Um. I’m not sure I understand what you’re trying to say. I, too am in this bracket (and raising a son by the way), and know the burden of taxes. The point I was making was (ahem) Mr. Bush’s ‘tax break’ ain’t gonna touch my taxes at all.**

First of all, I don’t buy into class warfare. I do not envy the rich, nor do I begrudge them a tax cut. A tax cut, to anyone, is a GOOD thing–it returns money to the people to whom it belongs, it decreases governmental power and influence, and ultimately (with fiscal responsiblity mandating spending cuts) it decreases the size of government. The rich pay a great deal of taxes, it is only simple justice that they shold get more back. Any refund will not be as meaningful to them as it is to me.

The point I was trying to make is that it’s ridiculous to say that people in our salary range pay only 15% in taxes. I would LOVE to pay only 15% in taxes, barring the sort of huge overhaul of the tax system that I as a Libertarian would like to see. However, if you look carefully at your finances you’ll see how much of your money you give to the government before you see a dime of it.

As someone with no political stake in the matter, I’m willing to wait and see what the actual results of the proposal are. The proposal has not yet been played out. Presumably since the Democrats are so concerned about working people like myself, they’ll push for a larger tax cut for me, right? That’s what they say they want–a tax cut that helps out working people. If neither Bush’s proposal nor what actually comes of it benefits me, then I’ll gripe. Until then, I’m willing to give everyone involved the benefit of the doubt.

I find the Democrats’ stand on this to be hypocritical. They claim they are not against a tax cut per se, but against a tax cut that supposedly benefits the wealthy more than those of marginal income. Okay, I’d believe that if the Democrats had put forth ANY significant tax cut for working people when they had the chance. They didn’t, but now they’re pitting the poor against the rich. My Congressman, Dick Gephardt, who lives in a $3 million mansion in Maryland, has no idea how much tax relief would help the people of his constituency. I’m shocked that he is opposed to it.

my point was that no one’s proposing a tax break for either you or I. period. no matter what portion of taxes you pay.

we. are. not. getting. one.

So, when Mr. Bush made the plea on the ‘behalf of American tax payers’ I’m wondering why I’m not included in his picture? I’m certainly an American tax payer.

Yes, things can look different when they finally come out. However, I won’t be holding my breath. I feel quite certain that the folks whose taxes Mr. Bush wants to cut will get some tax relief. I’m also pretty damned certain it isn’t going to be me.

(by the way the 15% figure refers only to Federal Income Taxes, which is the single item that Bush was talking about).

Remember, though, those are marginal rates. Also, it’s possible they changed the numbers, because when I clicked on the link, it showed something different, but now, if you have a taxable income of $30,000, you pay 15% on the first $25,750 and then 28% on the next $4,250. Under Bush’s plan (on the CNN site), you would pay 10% on the first $6,000, then 15% on the next $24,000. Therefore, your rates would go down.

Sorry…my last post was in error. Under the Bush plan, if you had $30,000 taxable, you’d pay 10% on the first $6000, 15% on the next $19,250, then 25% on the rest.

Sorry…my last post was in error. Under the Bush plan, if you had $30,000 taxable, you’d pay 10% on the first $6000, 15% on the next $19,250, then 25% on the rest…if you’re single.

I’m sorry, Paladine. You’re obviously not cynical enough to be a member of the Libertarian Party. Please surrender your card.

As to the other question in WB’s OP, I can unequivocally state that I know several families, including my own, that the 80s were not good to in any way, shape or form. But, you know, being one of two children of a recently divorced mother with nothing more than a high-school education might have skewed my perspective a bit.

I spent the 80s as one of three children of a recently divorced mother with only a high school education.

The 80s were very good for us. But that had little to do with Reagan, Republicans, Democrats, or government in general.

This is the sort of thing you expect to see over in Great Debates.

And you will. :wink:

I don’t think Gephardt and Daschle said that the 80’s were “bad”, just that Reagan’s tax cuts were a disaster, giving us our massive debt.

This is after eight years of Republicans looking all sour whenever Clinton talked about child care or family leave, as if saying “Hmmph, how is this going to put more money in MY pocket?”

[BOLD]Man, The Republicans Looked GREEDY Last Night ! [/BOLD]
The surplus isn’t real yet, and given the way lack of confidence in Bush’s abilities has already tanked the Clinton/Gore economic expansion of the last decade it’s pretty certain it’s never going to be !
Sure the times have been good, and it’s only natural that people feel like now is the time to do a little “profit taking” off of the nations successes, but that’s no excuse for artificially building up the size of the pot before passing it out !
I keep hearing that Bush wants to “return” this money to the people that “earned” it, yet it’s not real money yet, and no one has earned it yet.

“Tax and Spend” makes a lot more sense than the “Don’t Tax, Still Spend” policy the republicans are pushing.

Wildest Bill said: I think the democrats looked bad last night. The democratic response was terrible too. Especially that one congressman that said the 80s were bad. They weren’t bad for me how about you.

The eighties were terrible. Sure, the stock market exploded and certain sectors of the economy boomed (particularly the defense industry,) but supply-side economics destroyed domestic industry and small business in this country. Most of my hometown was thrown out of work because of rogue financier Victor Posner buying out Sharon Steel (Sharon, Pennsylvania’s largest employer then) and promising to modernize it but welching on the deal. Posner sold off all of Sharon Steel’s assets and left the town for dead—all the while declining all interviews from his secluded and heavily guarded Florida home.

The hell of it is that Posner did this to numerous other communities around the country during the eighties, and he wasn’t the only one. Piracy of industry was all the rage during that decade, and Reagan’s insane tax cuts only fueled pirate fever.

The Democrats’ rebuttal to the Republicans’ proposed rape of the American economy was reasonable. What pisses me off is that even the Democrats are leaping on the tax-cut bandwagon, despite the fact that America’s only reasonable course of action should be to pay down our colossal debt, which is only going to hurt us more in the future.

The Democrats looked greedy, Bill? Christ, there’s a tragic attempt at projection. We finally have a crack at balancing this country’s books, and here’s President Junior working hard to squander our economy. Since when does debt make good fiscal sense, anyway?

Wasn’t it JFK who said, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country?”

Instead of worrying about getting money back in our pockets, how about fixing some of the problems we have in our country first?