John Eisenhower Hates America?

[Arles]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

That's right, Saddam never came clean and admitted to having vast arsenals of WMD's. Once we found all those WMD's, what choice did we have but to invade...

If you recall, the burden of proof was on Saddam to show how he had disposed of the chemical weapons we knew he had and provide the international community will full and unfettered inspections in Iraq. He refused to do either so our choice was to either "trust" Saddam and not verify what he as actually doing (a la Clinton and North Korea) or to remove him from power.

Given what we knew at the time, there is simply no logical reason to trust that a man like Saddam Hussein had disposed of all his weapons programs and WMD without seeing some verification.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Arles

If you recall, the burden of proof was on Saddam to show how he had disposed of the chemical weapons we knew he had and provide the international community will full and unfettered inspections in Iraq. He refused to do either so our choice was to either "trust" Saddam and not verify what he as actually doing (a la Clinton and North Korea) or to remove him from power.

Given what we knew at the time, there is simply no logical reason to trust that a man like Saddam Hussein had disposed of all his weapons programs and WMD without seeing some verification.

you're correct to some extent on this- hwoever, Im still waiting for how Saddamn was a clear and present threat to US security. The money and time spent in Iraq could have been better spent in Afghanistan, or fighting terror, instead of fueling a selective war.

[JPhillips]

Arles: THERE ARE MORE THAN TWO OPTIONS!!! How long will it take you to come to grips with that. Building an international consensus does not mean leaving our security to the French and Germans. I'm aware this is a pointless argument with you, but please be open enough to be able to admit that there is more to the world than Bush's way and the terrorists' way.

I'd love to see that 50% stsat you used backed up. I've read numerous times that the tax burden for almost everyone is between twenty and thirty percent. If you can prove that 50% number I'd genuinely be interested.

But regardless of the percentage my point has nothing to do with whether or not the government should cut spending. The fact is that to balance the budget will take cuts so large that they are politically impossible. Therefore, the only way to balance the budget is through a minimum of tax increases mixed with smaller spending cuts.

[Abe Sargent]

Does anybody else find it tremendously inconsistent that liberal talking heads talk and give so much sway to defending civial liberties embraced in the constitution to amazingly high degrees except for the one about guns? What makes some civil liberties so important and others so wrong? Must be awfully convienent to have an ideology that can systematically ignore patently consistent views in favor of the more politically expedient ones.


(and before conservative talking heads raise voices, aren't conservatives (who tow the line, obviously, not ones who disagree with the talking heads) just as guilty for supporting acts that restrict freedoms but lay off our guns?)

-Anxiety

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Anxiety

Does anybody else find it tremendously inconsistent that liberal talking heads talk and give so much sway to defending civial liberties embraced in the constitution to amazingly high degrees except for the one about guns? What makes some civil liberties so important and others so wrong? Must be awfully convienent to have an ideology that can systematically ignore patently consistent views in favor of the more politically expedient ones.


(and before conservative talking heads raise voices, aren't conservatives (who tow the line, obviously, not ones who disagree with the talking heads) just as guilty for supporting acts that restrict freedoms but lay off our guns?)

-Anxiety

No one is saying all guns should be off the streets, we ARE entitled to guns but not nescessarily fully automatic ones.

[Abe Sargent]

Twenty to thirty percent!!! No way.

Obviously, this will depend somewhat on your tax bracket and where you live, but I find that figure hardly reliable. I make 32k myself, and I pay more than 30% a year in taxes. Surely the average is higher.

For purposes of this investigation, you should include FICA, which, although not legally defined as a tax, is ethically and realistically a tax. Sales Taxes, State Taxes, any jacked up prices on products that are subject to tarriffs, and so forth. Tons of taxes combine to extricate money from your pocket.

Having said that, I doubt the average is as high as 50% though I easily see it as being so in some areas and income groups.

-Anxiety

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Arles: THERE ARE MORE THAN TWO OPTIONS!!! How long will it take you to come to grips with that. Building an international consensus does not mean leaving our security to the French and Germans. I'm aware this is a pointless argument with you, but please be open enough to be able to admit that there is more to the world than Bush's way and the terrorists' way.

I'd love to see that 50% stsat you used backed up. I've read numerous times that the tax burden for almost everyone is between twenty and thirty percent. If you can prove that 50% number I'd genuinely be interested.

But regardless of the percentage my point has nothing to do with whether or not the government should cut spending. The fact is that to balance the budget will take cuts so large that they are politically impossible. Therefore, the only way to balance the budget is through a minimum of tax increases mixed with smaller spending cuts.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Anxiety

Twenty to thirty percent!!! No way.

Obviously, this will depend somewhat on your tax bracket and where you live, but I find that figure hardly reliable. I make 32k myself, and I pay more than 30% a year in taxes. Surely the average is higher.


-Anxiety

Average household income in the US (2003): 43,527. There is no way the average tax is as high as 50%. I've heard that number bandied about, but I think we had a thread recently that broke it down at much less than that.

[JPhillips]

Anxiety: I can't find the chart that best describes my point. It was based on a study by Tobacco and Petroleum companies that put the average(as I recall it didn't specify mean or median) at about 25% for all income brackets. I don't question your tax percenatge, but your rate can get balanced by others. I know when I lived in MS and owned a house my wife and I made over 50K but we paid maybe 20% in taxes if that because we had numerous deductions to the income tax and very low property taxes.

Again, the actual rate is beside the point. My argument applies whether the average rate today is 80% or 5%. We do not have any where near enough revenue currently to meet the spending requirements of this budget and our probable commitments for at least the next decade.

[Arles]

If you add up FICA, State income taxes, federal, sales tax, gas tax, and the muriad of other taxes people pay from tolls to taxes on rent to taxes on cigarettes and booze, most average income Americans pay close to 50%. Again, it depends of the state you are in and your lifestyle, but the taxes on US citizens are rediculously high and to say that the US cannot run a government with a $2.2 TRILLION buget each year is quite amazing.

[JPhillips]

Arles: Show me the evidence that the average American pays nearly 50% in taxes. If you have it I'd genuinely like to see it.

The issue isn't whether or not the govt. should be able to run on 2.2 trillion. The issue is that our cuurent budget can't come close and things will only get worse. Nobody on your side of the aisle is proposing anything like the massive budget cuts that would be required to balance the budget. Why? Because they know it will never happen. Given that reality, we have to increase revenues to avoid a financial catastrophe.

[SFL Cat]

What kills me is that Democrats are in charge of the elections in the areas where the Black vote is being supposedly being suppressed by jeb's gestapo. The only legit suppression I've heard about was when Dems were trying to keep the Black vote down so Janet Reno wouldn't win the Democratic gubernatorial primaries since most felt she would get slaughtered by Jeb even worse than their eventual candidate did.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I have never voted for a Democrat in my life, but there is no way I can vote for Bush at this point.

Here, Here! I'm in the same boat. This is the first Dem I'm voting for. Hopefully to restore some sanity to the WH (of course I'm hoping for a Republican dominated Senate and House as well).

[Arles]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Arles: Show me the evidence that the average American pays nearly 50% in taxes. If you have it I'd genuinely like to see it.

Here's one site that's pretty good on this issue:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-015.html

You have 28% in income tax, 7.65% for FICA and an average of 6% for State income tax. So, right there, you are at 41%. Then you add in an average of 7% sales tax, taxes on cigarettes and booze, capital gains, gas tax, taxes on travel and renting cars, road tolls, hotel taxes and taxes on some services.

Now, if you are smart, you can keep your burden lower through additional deductions and end up in the 40% range. But, for many Americans in the middle class it creeps up pretty close to 50% when factor everything in.

The issue isn't whether or not the govt. should be able to run on 2.2 trillion. The issue is that our cuurent budget can't come close and things will only get worse. Nobody on your side of the aisle is proposing anything like the massive budget cuts that would be required to balance the budget. Why? Because they know it will never happen. Given that reality, we have to increase revenues to avoid a financial catastrophe.

I will certainly agree that republicans could do a better job on spending. But, I completely disagree that we need to raise taxes. All that will happen if we raise taxes is that congress will have more money to spend and they will do so. There is no historical precedent for giving a tax hike and having it go directly into debt without being spent on other projects. History has shown that if you give congress more money, they spend it. At some point, we have to reduce spending to balance the budget and that will not change even if taxes are raised. So, why not try that before raising taxes?

Arlie

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I answered why earlier, but I'll repeat myself using different words here...

I believe that four years of Kerry would do less damage to this country internally than four more years of Bush would do both internally and externally.

Incorrect for several reasons.

First, the best time for a terrorist strike is during the transition period between administrations...please note that 9/11 occurred early during Bush's first term (which, in fact, was already behind schedule and playing catch-up due to the Florida recount flap).

Second, a sudden change in policy in Iraq would: a.) undermine the current political structure in that country, especially if Kerry decides to cut and run before the Iraqi Force is ready to assume responsibility for the nation's security; essentially leaving the country vulnerable to takeover by groups as bad as or worse than Saddam Hussein -- b.) zap any credibility the U.S. might have left with moderate Arab leaders and factions -- why should they risk making political and social reforms that might be unpopular with fundamentalist segments of their populations if they can't rely on the promise of support or aid from the U.S. -- c.) give fundamentalist Islamic terrorists a moral victory (See, the great Satan doesn't have the will to resist our jihad!!!) and embolden them to expand their activities.

Third, although most conservatives aren't happy with Bush's massive spending increases (mostly on the DOMESTIC side of things), his tax cuts did spur economic growth and help the economy shrug off the doldrums and volatility following 9/11. Kerry has never met a tax increase he didn't like (just check his voting record). Any kind of tax hike will definitely stall the economy IMO. Also, Kerry will more than likely keep pace with or surpass Bush on domestic spending. If you examine the Carter and Clinton presidencies, you'll find that the only areas where these Democratic administrations actually tried to "trim the fat" was in the military budgets....not a good idea in these days and times. Kerry's Senate voting record shows that he has no problem voting against weapons systems (a good portion of our current military assets would not exist if Kerry's side of the vote had carried the day).

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by SBL Cat

specially if Kerry decides to cut and run before the Iraqi Force is ready to assume responsibility for the nation's security

Actually that seems to be Rumsfeld's plan.

[JPhillips]

Arles: Your report says this:

In 1960 middle-income Americans paid less than 30 percent of their earnings in local, state, and federal taxes; today that figure is up to 40 percent.

I question that figure as being too high, but I'll settle on it for argument's sake. But it isn't 50%.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Incorrect for several reasons.

First, the best time for a terrorist strike is during the transition period between administrations...please note that 9/11 occurred early during Bush's first term (which, in fact, was already behind schedule and playing catch-up due to the Florida recount flap).

So we ought to do away with term limits and make Bush king, right? That is the only way we'll be safe.

Second, a sudden change in policy in Iraq would: a.) undermine the current political structure in that country, especially if Kerry decides to cut and run before the Iraqi Force is ready to assume responsibility for the nation's security; essentially leaving the country vulnerable to takeover by groups as bad as or worse than Saddam Hussein -- b.) zap any credibility the U.S. might have left with moderate Arab leaders and factions -- why should they risk making political and social reforms that might be unpopular with fundamentalist segments of their populations if they can't rely on the promise of support or aid from the U.S. -- c.) give fundamentalist Islamic terrorists a moral victory (See, the great Satan doesn't have the will to resist our jihad!!!) and embolden them to expand their activities.

Not Kerry's plan, and a huge strawman that doesn't exist

Third, although most conservatives aren't happy with Bush's massive spending increases (mostly on the DOMESTIC side of things), his tax cuts did spur economic growth and help the economy shrug off the doldrums and volatility following 9/11. Kerry has never met a tax increase he didn't like (just check his voting record). Any kind of tax hike will definitely stall the economy IMO. Also, Kerry will more than likely keep pace with or surpass Bush on domestic spending. If you examine the Carter and Clinton presidencies, you'll find that the only areas where these Democratic administrations actually tried to "trim the fat" was in the military budgets....not a good idea in these days and times. Kerry's Senate voting record shows that he has no problem voting against weapons systems (a good portion of our current military assets would not exist if Kerry's side of the vote had carried the day).
A few years with higher taxes will not kill us. Remember the 90's under Clinton and the "largest tax increase in history?"

I just don't agree with your views of what is going on, and I think we need a new direction in Iraq (one that is more concerned with winning than the oil and the "I've got a bigger penis" diplomacy of this adminstration).

[Arles]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

A few years with higher taxes will not kill us. Remember the 90's under Clinton and the "largest tax increase in history?"

One thing you have to understand is that it is very unlikely that a tax hike will go through congress. So, Kerry had better have a contingency plan for raising the revenue to pay for his programs because if he doesn't get the tax hike or even gets a watered down version of it, the debt will balloon even more with all of his proposed spending.

Kerry won't have the luxery that Clinton did of a democratic House and Senate for his first two years.

[JPhillips]

Arles: And how likely is it that the Repub. congress will pass the Kerry spending bills? IMO the best way to control govt. spending and impose some sort of ratioanl thinking on the deficit is a split government.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Arles: And how likely is it that the Repub. congress will pass the Kerry spending bills? IMO the best way to control govt. spending and impose some sort of ratioanl thinking on the deficit is a split government.

I agree with this. And, I've said in other threads that if I felt better about Kerry's consistency on terror or if terrorism was not as big an issue, I might even vote for Kerry for that exact reason. I voted for Clinton in the 90s because of the gridlock spending check. Still, I cannot see how someone that feels the Iraq war is a major mistake can lead troops to win the war - regardless of how it goes at any one specific part in time.

I mean if I was president and I felt a war was a diversion or not needed, there is no way I could continue to send brave, young soldiers to their death in Iraq. And, given Kerry's experience in Vietnam, I cannot fathom how he could do that as well - provided he views this war as a mistake like he said last night.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Arles

One thing you have to understand is that it is very unlikely that a tax hike will go through congress. So, Kerry had better have a contingency plan for raising the revenue to pay for his programs because if he doesn't get the tax hike or even gets a watered down version of it, the debt will balloon even more with all of his proposed spending.

Kerry won't have the luxery that Clinton did of a democratic House and Senate for his first two years.

Which means he will be even less likely to do damage, right? He won't even be able to push much of his social agenda with a completely Republician congress, right? Thanks for backing up my point.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Arles

I mean if I was president and I felt a war was a diversion or not needed, there is no way I could continue to send brave, young soldiers to their death in Iraq. And, given Kerry's experience in Vietnam, I cannot fathom how he could do that as well - provided he views this war as a mistake like he said last night.

Then you would be a very bad president. I think the war in Iraq was done at the wrong time in the wrong way, but I do not think we can just pull out. I don't think Kerry thinks we should pull out. He thinks we were wrong to do the way we did it, but now we have to do all we can to fix the mess this president has put us in.

The president's own intelligence tells him that things are not going well, yet he is campaigning on "everything is going great." He says he is going to "stay the course" even though pro-Bush Republicians in both the House and Senate are saying we need to change how we are running the reconstruction. Kerry offers the hope of needed change while the Bush adminstration offers continued bad policies.

This is the number one issue of this election in my mind. Looking past the demagoguery and partisianship, I think the Bush adminstration has made the world a more dangerous place, and we need a change now if we hope to correct thier mistakes.