Actually, I’ve seen where actually following OSHA regs would be more hazardous to your health than to ignore them. My family used to own a industrial coatings company. I remember my dad telling me that we were supposed to do something because of OSHA (cant remember now what it was), but that it was unsafe, and what we needed to do was have the ability to make it look like we complied if there was ever an inspection. I can promise you that my dad would never have cut a corner to save a buck when it came to safety, especially for family.
Well, since the poor dont pay taxes, i suppose that can be considered true.
Increased dependence on foriegn oil, thanks to dems who demonize anyone who tries to drill a barren wasteland the size of a modern airport. Nothing beautiful and pristine would be destroyed, but that doesnt matter to you guys because you can put up pictures on tv of a beautiful landscape (thousands of miles away) and imply it will be destroyed if drilling is allowed.
Deficits, for programs that true conservatives want to do away with (i’m talking corporate welfare more than individual welfare. both parties are very guilty of contributing to this waste of our money)
I too worry about the religeous right, but I think the republicans learned their lesson in 1992 with the Pat Robertson brigade.
You know, among the many reason why Democrats got clobbered yesterday, one of them has to be the way they’ve run roughshod over the democratic process in the last few years. You can argue over Florida, but then there was the buying of Jim Jeffords to do an end-around the result of the election in the Senate.
Then you had the shenanigans in New Jersey with Torricelli stepping down for no reason other than that he was losing the race, and the Democrats going to the courts to get election rules overturned. The capper was that disgusting display of a funeral/political rally that seriously turned off the voters. I think that rally may have cost the Democrats a senate seat and a tied Senate.
Texican: My point was actually that in principle it is a good idea for government to take steps to assure worker safety. Remember, Lib wanted to kill that altogether. There is always room to evaluate particular safety regs, but the overall benefit to society from having them is essentially indisputable, IMO.
—That’s true to a point, but it’s also misleading to refer to it as simply failing to reduce rates.—
How so? The government was going to reduce rates… then it’s not. That is what is happening in a very litteral and honest sense. Yes, that’s different from simply not cutting taxes at all. But it’s still not in any sense a “tax hike.” Calling it a “tax hike” is pure rhetoric designed to make people think that their tax bill is going to increase (not that very many people in the county would have seen their tax bills change from these future cuts anyway: they’d primarily see the positive effects in the economy, not th IRS)
—Imagine I promise to give you $1000 tomorrow, and you spend the evening planning out how you’re going to spend your wealth.
Then tomorrow I come to you and so, “Oh, I changed my mind. Sorry.” Now, it’s true that this isn’t the same thing as me taking $1000 from you, but in your mind, you’re still $1000 poorer than you thought you were going to be. Thus it’s not the same as if I’d never promised you the money at all.—
It’s simply a untrue that you are a full 1000$ poorer, even assuming you actually go out and spend all the money based on those expectations (in YOUR story, the biggest cost you seem to have is the waste of time you spent calculating your future 1000$ spending, which couldn’t possibly be worth $1000).
Personally, I’d love to see the logic of ex post facto applied to tax law. The reality is… it isn’t, and never has, and no one pretends that it is.
—These tax cuts have been passed. At this point, revoking them would much closer to a tax hike than to simply not having a tax cut.—
Well, aside from the fact that what is happening is that they are not having a tax cut.
So, uh… how does your post actually concern the dishonesty of calling canceling tax cuts a tax hike?
I tried to post this yesterday, but it was still hanging up when I came back to my PC this morning:
Oh, all right.
I agree with you and minty that we shouldn’t be arguing every issue in the platform. Got a little carried away there.
But, I must say, spoke, you started it. You weren’t making predictions so much as wild accusations about the plans of the Pubbies. Your paragraphs about Bankrupcy and Tax laws have statements in them that are not true. I and others have pointed this out.
I just wanted to try and prevent this from becomming a “bash the evil Republican’s because they won all the elections” thread. Can’t blame a guy for trying.
Now that I think of it, I haven’t been in the pit yet today. I bet it’s ugly over there.
puts boots on
heads off to the pit
I hear ya…there’s a couple of more Bush sons out there still.
Marvin says he’s not interested, w/ a $300million business to run, that’s probably true for now.
Neil on the other hand…remember he was the one having the coke parties that GW frequented in the 70’s. Neil wound up w/ some drug charges BUT that doesn’t seem to matter these days.
So, I wouldn’t be a bit surprised to see him run for office or perhaps an appointment somewhere. Yeah, I expect to see a lot more of Jeb in the future too!
There will be no war with Iraq. The rhetoric served it’s purpose and will be quietly dropped. Expect a new, real or trumped-up, foe in exactly 20 months.
Debaser wrote:
I listed policies which the Republicans themselves have said they would pursue.In fact, Trent Lott was on my TV the morning after the election espousing those very policies.
They do intend to revise the bankruptcy code to help out the credit card companies (at the expense of consumers). They do intend to eliminate the capital gains tax and make permanent the elimination of the estate tax (thus shifting the burden of financing the federal government to the working middle class). They do intend to appoint strict constructionist judges (with the effect that the Bill of Rights will be construed more narrowly, the “wall of separation” between church and state will be chipped away, and the right to choose will be narrowed, or possibly eliminated).
Now, I did make a throwaway wisecrack about Republican environmental policy, but then the record makes it pretty obvious that Republicans can’t be trusted to protect the environment.
You may not like it that I am calling attention to Republican policies, but you can’t deny that those are Republican policies.
I wouldn’t go so far as to assert there will be no war with Iraq. But I will be all kinds of surprised if it comes to that. The Saudis have already told us to piss off, the rest of the world wants inspections, and Saddam Hussein is still not stupid enough to push it too far. What’s going to be fun is watching W. spin the continued survival of Saddam Hussein as a victory for his policies . . . just like his daddy.
Apos:
I was simply stating that while cancelling planned tax cuts != a tax hike, it’s still a very different beast than never having passed the legislation for tax cuts in the first place. For instance, if tomorrow the future cuts were cancelled, I would expect to see a short term dip in the stock market, as companies realize that consumers are going to have less disposable income than they previously thought. That right there would be strong evidence that the reneging on the promise of a tax cut has tangible consequences.
Basically, I would say that “cancelling planned tax cuts is a tax hike” is exactly as dishonest as saying “there is no difference between planning, then cancelling, tax cuts and not planning them in the first place.”
If ousting Saddam was just rhetoric, why was it being discussed 18 months ago, with particular fervor immediately following 9/11?
Bush must be really good at planning ahead. In fact, I expect whatever policy Bush pushes next to really just be rhetoric planned for the 2006 midterms.
Jeff
Yes, and then you went on to make a bunch of allegations that are far from being Republican policies.
**
Yes, they do.
**
I have already said, by reforming the bankrupcy laws they are helping consumers ulitimately. Saying that the Repubs are doing this with the intention of helping out the credit card companies at the expense of consumers is a lie.
**
Yes, they do.
**
Not true. Even if those two taxes are revoked the richest 1% would still pay a lot of taxes.
Do you see where I am going with this?
If you want to debate the merits of any of the Republican policies, fine. Start a bunch of threads. But, simply stating as fact that it is the Republican position to have these end results is incorrect.
yeah… so… anarchy anyone?
Debaser wrote:
Really? Do you suppose that the credit card companies are pushing this legislation because they are interested in helping consumers? How civic-minded of them! How very noble!
And what poppycock!
Elimination of the capital gains tax means that a man who makes his living playing the stock market or trading real estate pays no federal taxes. The lost revenue has to come from somewhere.
The estate tax applied (or was scheduled to apply) only to estates valued in excess of $1 million. So the repeal of the estate tax, by its very nature, benefits only the estates of deceased millionaires. Once again, the lost revenue has to be made up somewhere.
A hypothetical Reginald van Dough who inherits $20 million from his father and then maintains his wealth by playing the stock market and buying/selling real estate would, under the Republican scheme, pay no federal taxes.
Meanwhile, Joe Sixpack (or Joe Softwear Designer, for that matter) is still watching a chunk of his paycheck go to taxes.
Now both of these men are enjoying the benefits of federal government (from roads, to military protection, to the FAA which employs the air traffic controllers who guide Reginald’s Lear Jet). Yet only one of them is paying taxes.
Like I said, the working middle class is getting screwed.
The credit card companies are going to benefit from this legislation because there will be more difficult to declare bankrupcty. So, of course, they are all for it. It is also good for consumers that this legislation passes. Being in the interests of credit card companies and being in the best interests of consumers aren’t mutually exclusive.
**
You must not be reading my posts. I have already explained that yes, this money still gets taxed.
When money goes into the stock market it is put to good use. It is spent in ways that are taxed. Buying stocks isn’t the same as stuffing your money into a Mr. Scrooge’s money vault, as you seem to think.
Whoops, that “Debaser wrote” shouldn’t be there. That is a quote by spoke.
Sorry. The mods have been frisky about quotes recently.
looks around paranoid
How do you figure? The money I invest in the stock market doesn’t go to the company whose stock I bought (unless it happens to be a new issue). The money goes to the person from whom I bought the stock.
If I buy stock and sell it at a profit, I have essentially won a bet.
And please explain how me buying a piece of real estate and selling it at a profit is different from me placing a bet at a blackjack table and winning, from Uncle Sam’s perspective.
We tax gambling winnings; why shouldn’t we tax real estate winnings?
Stock represents ownership in a company. When I buy 100,000 shares of IBM I am buying a portion of IBM. If I cared to I could actually calculate the percentage of the company that I personally own. (It would be like .00005%)
Yes, I am buying stock that someone else at that time is selling. And, yes, stock only really raises money for the company to spend when there is a new issue. But, no one would buy stocks if they didn’t increase in value. Also, no one would buy stocks if they didn’t have the liquidity of being able to be sold in short notice. You see, it’s all of these aspects together that make stock valuable.
I am not explaining myself very well, probably. Please feel free to blame Bryant college. (They gave me a finance degree 
Buying and selling a stock at a profit is not the same as winning a bet. When I buy 100K of IBM, they are paying that out to thier employees. They are also using it to buy equipment. They are using it for many things that are good for the economy. They are also paying tax on all of this. And yes, technically they are spending money that was raised in the initial stock issue. But, so what? That stock raised money to get them going and the ownership that that stock represents is still valid.
Putting a 100,000 bet on a blackjack table is not quite the same thing. Although it would certainly be more enjoyable.
And about the real-estate thing. You compare real-estate “winnings” to gambling winnings. This is even more off base than your stock comparison.
I can speak to this from first hand experience. My family is involved in real-estate. A rented out four family building paid my college tuition.
Buying real-estate can be very difficult. It is also very risky. The building that I am reffering to was abandoned and filled with trash, rats and was doing no good for anyone. It was a burden to the city and a blight on it’s neighborhood. Buying that building was a major risk. Several banks had to be asked for the money before one said yes. 100’s of thousands of dollars went into the rennovations.
It is now 4 very nice units that I would be proud to live in. ( I don’t live in that area ). It is now generating property taxes for the town. It is now increasing the property value of the neighborhood around it. It makes the community safer to have one less dilapidated structure around.
So, ya, right now this building could be sold for a hefty profit. As well it should be. For you to compare the selling of this building at a profit to someone winning the lottery seems deliberately obtuse. It is also not true that only the “rich” bennefit from such real-estate sales at the expense somehow of the middle class.
What would have benefited society and the government more: My explination above of the renovation of this property, or me going to betonsports.com and winning the same amount on this weekend’s Patriots game?
(FTR, I would probably be against paying taxes on gambling winnings also, but that is another debate.)
No. When you buy 100K of IBM, that money is going to the person you bought the stock from. Unless it is a new issue, it’s not going to the company.
When you bet on a football team, do you suppose your bet helps the football team win?
Your real estate argument is leaky, too. Under the Republican scheme, if I buy a vacant lot for 10K, and sell it 5 years later for 110K, I would pay no taxes. Here is 100K I did not work for, yet I pay no taxes on it. Meanwhile, a guy who goes out and by the sweat of his brow earns 100K has to pay taxes on it. Which of us has contributed more to the economy, do you suppose?
As for your personal anecdote, it sounds like your family worked and took some risk to make a real estate investment profitable. I admire that. But it doesn’t mean that income from the venture should be tax-free. Presumably, your family went into this project with the idea of making a profit, and it sounds like they have succeeded. And you know what? They undertook the project even with the capital gains tax in place.
Some people contribute capital to the economy. Some people contribute labor. Both sets of people take risks. (You don’t think so? Ask the people who worked for Enron and saw their retirements disappear.)
You think your family’s contribution to the economy is mre important than that of, say, a softwear designer, who lacking investment capital invests instead his hard labor and care to create a product?
His labor yields a return we call income, and we tax it. And if we tax the returns on his investment in the economy, then we should tax the returns on capital investments as well.
No. When you buy 100K of IBM, that money is going to the person you bought the stock from. Unless the stock is newly-issued (a tiny percentage of stock transactions) the money you paid for it is not going to the company.
(When you bet on a football team, do you suppose your bet helps the football team win?)
Your real estate argument is leaky, too. Under the Republican scheme, if I buy a vacant lot for 10K, and sell it 5 years later for 110K, I would pay no taxes. Here is 100K I did not work for, yet I pay no taxes on it. Meanwhile, a guy who goes out and by the sweat of his brow earns 100K has to pay taxes on it. Which of us has contributed more to the economy, do you suppose?
As for your personal anecdote, it sounds like your family worked and took some risk to make a real estate investment profitable. I admire that. But it doesn’t mean that income from the venture should be tax-free. Presumably, your family went into this project with the idea of making a profit, and it sounds like they have succeeded. And you know what? They undertook the project even with the capital gains tax in place.
Some people contribute capital to the economy. Some people contribute labor. Both sets of people take risks. (You don’t think so? Ask the people who worked for Enron and saw their retirements disappear.)
You think your family’s contribution to the economy is mre important than that of, say, a softwear designer, who lacking investment capital invests instead his hard labor and care to create a product?
His labor yields a return we call income, and we tax it. And if we tax the returns on his investment in the economy, then we should tax the returns on capital investments as well.
Let’s see the Republican scheme for what it is: a way to reward wealthy contributors to the party by giving them tax goodies at the expense of the middle class. Under the Republican scheme, some of the very wealthiest people in America could multiply their fortunes while escaping taxation entirely.