Amazon Business Best Books of the Month STEM nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Starting at $39.99 Grocery March Birthstone Shop Popular Services SneakyPete SneakyPete SneakyPete  All-New Echo Dot Starting at $49.99 Kindle Oasis AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Tackle Any Terrain with Cycling on Amazon STEM

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-8 of 8 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Mar 27, 2006, 8:40:13 PM PST
DEE says:
Conservatives use the mask of religion to conceal their ulterior motive: to promote the interests of the wealthy and the corporate. Profit motives and dismissal of the suffering of people are the antithesis of moral and spiritual values. Bush and Rove do not care about the hardships and the decline of the American middle class and working poor. John Snow wanted to stop tax deductions for home mortgages. The Bush administration is not a populist team and never has been regardless of his love for Nascar and the Bible and his difficulty with sentence structure.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 28, 2006, 7:00:41 AM PST
[Deleted by the author on Mar 28, 2006, 7:06:49 AM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 2, 2006, 4:54:29 PM PDT
Ciaran says:
I always wonder how Richard Bruce Cheney gets away with lying right to reporters, with a straight face and with out any scruples.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 6, 2006, 8:52:56 PM PDT
Dick doesn't "keep" a straight face intentionally. Think about it, have you ever seen him actually smile? You have to have a soul to show emotions/remorse.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 24, 2006, 12:08:14 PM PDT
Enigma says:
FACT: 92% of all donations by millionaires went to the Democratic Party.

FACT: Bill Clinton raised taxes on the middle class but excluded the top 400 taxpayers from any raise.

FACT: The top 5% of taxpayers pay the largest percentage of taxes paid into the federal treasury EVER.

FACT: Up until 1991 business gave more money to the Democrats than to the Republicans.

FACT: Both parties are bought and paid for by PAC's.

FACT: You are simply deluding yourself if you think that the Democrats aren't controlled by their special interests.

Get a reality check people.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 26, 2006, 10:30:15 AM PDT
Steven,
With all due respect, your post is way too simplistic to tell people they're deluding themselves or they need a reality check.

Fact is, millionares, PACS and businesses give to incumbents in an overwhelming way with very few supporting challengers recieving money from these sources, 90% in fact is the number I've seen. With the new campaign finance laws, it really doesn't matter who millionares give money to anyway, there is no soft money anymore...supposedly. They give to PACs and 527s now. But since there's more Republicans in office, I think we know who will be recieving the most campaign contributions, unless a loss seems iminent, then contributors will usually give half-and-half. Your fifth "FACT" is the only one that really comes close to a true fact.

Also, Clinton's 1993 Economic Plan only raised taxes on the top 1.2% of taxpayers and lowered it for 15 million low income families. He cut taxes in 1997. When did he raise taxes on the middle class, but not the top taxpayers? He also cut the size of government significantly, White House staff by 25% also(something Republicans are finding a hard time doing).

However, you are right that the Top 5% pays a buttload of taxes, 52.3% in 2004, in fact. But in 2000 they paid 56.5%, that's a few percentage points more, so you're actually wrong. However, in 1995 it does go down significantly to about 43% and then raises to the 2000 number of 56%, that doesn't sound like a tax cut for the rich by Clinton, though. I think the 43% percentage is reasonable, but that's not the argument you were making, was it?

How many times do I have to say this? The Republicans are not as good as many want us to believe, nor as bad as some would have us think. But when conservatives come out with stating "facts" that are completely untrue, I start to wonder. Politics is a lot more complicated than being "bought and paid for by PACs," telling people everyone in government is corrupt is just plain wrong on a factual basis and doesn't add to the discussion.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 27, 2006, 2:24:52 PM PDT
Enigma says:
Pork Chop,

These forums seem to keep everybody's interest if the posts are short and to the point. Long dissertations seem to lose the flow. If people want more information they will usually email me or debate a single point on the posts. Anyhow here it goes.

I am well aware of 527's and PACs, but that isn't germane to my first fact. What I am alluding to is that Millionaires and Billionaires effectively support the left while the average middle class person tends to give more money to the right. The class warfare that the left plays is completely false. If you were to label one of the party's as catering to the rich than obviously the party whom receives the most money from these individuals would be it. Simply put the FACTS say that the Democratic Party is truly the party of the rich. While the Republican party is truly the party of the middle class.

As far as President Clinton's draconian tax increases on the middle class there is plethora of articles and books written about it. A great book for you to read is Perfectly Legal by David Cay Johnston. It is highly footnoted and he is, btw, no friend of the right.

Here is what Mr. Johnston has to say:

Under President Bill Clinton, who is widely known to have raised taxes on top wage earners, the effective tax rates paid by the 400 highest-income Americans fell sharply, from 30 percent in 1993 to 22 percent in 2000.

Go look it up for yourself

http://sfgate.com/cgibin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/04/10/ING0UC4LLO1.DTL

His assertions are backed up by IRS data and CBO reports. Yes it is a FACT that Bill Clinton raised taxes on the middle class while reducing them for his parties' base hence, why the democrats receive so much money from the rich.

As far as Bill Clinton cutting the size of government give me a break. The famous REGO project that you allude to was nothing more than a slight of hand. Clinton and Gore "reduced" some government workers but then simply hired them back as "contract" workers. Claiming that Clinton reduced government is very disingenuous when you consider the cost of federal employees (regular plus contract) went up from 5.9 Billion in 1993 to 7.4 Billion in 1999. That hardly sounds like making government smaller.

Let me suggest another book for you Size Matters by Joel Miller - he's more sympathetic to the right but still slams the ever growing government.

As far as my post that says

FACT: The top 5% of taxpayers pay the largest percentage of taxes paid into the federal treasury EVER.

You got me - I missed that ONE year that you found. Good job - but your comment "that doesn't sound like a tax cut for the rich by Clinton" shows a misunderstanding of these statistics. It doesn't matter how much money the top 5% paid it matters what their effective tax rate is. In other words how much money does that person pay out of every dollar earned. And as I have shown their effective tax rates went DOWN so yes these rich people got a tax cut under Clinton - while the middle classes taxes went up up up.

Please do not preach to me about Republicans - I'm not a republicrat or a Demican for that matter and have been very disappointed in GW's presidency. Also I never said that all politicians were corrupt as you state I did - reread my post - misrepresenting me is insulting.

But the simple FACT is that politicians are in perpetual fund-raising mode to help them get re-elected. This then causes them to be swayed by large contributors - to argue this FACT seems rather pedantic.

So let's recap and see how we did remember you wrote

[Your fifth "FACT" is the only one that really comes close to a true fact.]

These then are the facts from my previous post.

[FACT: 92% of all donations by millionaires went to the Democratic Party.]

You disputed a tertiary issue rather than this FACT and there is ample documentation to prove this.

FACT STANDS

[FACT: Bill Clinton raised taxes on the middle class but excluded the top 400 taxpayers from any raise.]

PROVEN in my post and I was actually being polite - Bill Clinton reduced their taxes.

FACT STANDS

FACT: The top 5% of taxpayers pay the largest percentage of taxes paid into the federal treasury EVER.

You Got me we'll change it to this FACT: The top 5% of taxpayers pay the largest percentage of taxes paid into the federal treasury, except for 2000 EVER

FACT: Up until 1991 business gave more money to the Democrats than to the Republicans.

NOT Disputed by you ample proof of this fact.

FACT STANDS

FACT: Both parties are bought and paid for by PAC's.

It's not just PACs but just about any moneyed interest. If you need further proof then I will let you speak to my good friend who has been a professional lobbyist for 23 years. (Petro-chemical companies 1983-2001 and then Environmental protection groups 2001-2006 - they pay better he says but you have to love the irony!)

I KNOW this is a FACT but you can dispute it but I think you will look rather foolish.

FACT STANDS

FACT: You are simply deluding yourself if you think that the Democrats aren't controlled by their special interests.

NOT Disputed

FACT STANDS

In the end 5 out of my 6 FACTS are correct and on the one I got wrong I missed one year of data - whoops, I'm only human. But let's see you were wrong on 4 out of 6 instances. Oh well, better luck next time.

I hate these long posts.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 30, 2006, 7:54:39 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 30, 2006, 7:56:09 AM PDT
Sorry Steven,

Didn't mean for it to be so long and I wasn't trying to insult or imply that money doesn't play a large part in politics. I just think you give it too much credit and oversimplify it. And Clinton really isn't my favorite guy, and I'm pretty moderate when it comes to politics. I just think you should give him his due. I still don't know where you got the 92% figure, but I agree more millionares have given to the Democratic party in the last few elections, but not sure it was 92%. The tax for the rich discussion should be looked at through the prism that by the end of Clinton's presidency the top 5% were overtaxed. That was my point and if you look at the numbers, they increase over his presidency. Don't know what else to say about that. And it seems you admit businesses have given more to the Republican party since 1991, not sure what you're trying to prove there. I'm sure your lobbyist friend finds he has alot of influence on Capital Hill, but that doesn't mean the parties are bought and paid for; individual Congressman, more than likely. And your contracting issue is legimate I think, yes he cut expenditures and no, he didn't cut the role of government. There have been many studies on the subject of money and politics, but an interesting fact I found in the book Freakonomics was kinda funny, candidates spent the same amount of money on campaigns in one year that Americans spent on chewing gum. Haven't looked more into it, but it was pretty funny to think about.

Trying not to be long, LOL, just saying what we're talking about is waaaaay too complicated to explain with one-liners, it's a disservice to say your "facts" are facts.

good discussion though. I'll look into those sites you mentioned.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Participants:  6
Total posts:  8
Initial post:  Mar 27, 2006
Latest post:  Jun 30, 2006

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.