Bush Tax Cuts Heavily Favor Rich, CBO Says -Report

[serotta]

actually there are veery sound reasons for running a deficit, and war is one of them, especially when the economy was so sluggish after 9/11. But soon we need to cut back.

The issue at hand is was Iraq a big enough security threat to warrant invading when the economy is so fragile. Less money could have been spent on iraq to nab Osama Bin Ladin. And even if Iraq was imminently dangerous Iran and Saudi Arabia are much more involved in terrosim and North Korea has much more WMDs.

You're all over the map here Sojc. This thread is not intended to debate the merits of the war on terrorism. I just pointed out that in times of war it is necessary to run a deficit, and that running a deficit in order to stimulate the economy is also a good idea. There is nothing wrong with short-term deficits. There is a problem with the bloated federal budget though. So why should we trust congress with redistributing wealth, when they cannot control their own spending!

[Sojc]

actually there are veery sound reasons for running a deficit, and war is one of them, especially when the economy was so sluggish after 9/11. But soon we need to cut back.

The issue at hand is was Iraq a big enough security threat to warrant invading when the economy is so fragile. Less money could have been spent on iraq to nab Osama Bin Ladin. And even if Iraq was imminently dangerous Iran and Saudi Arabia are much more involved in terrosim and North Korea has much more WMDs.

You're all over the map here Sojc. This thread is not intended to debate the merits of the war on terrorism. I just pointed out that in times of war it is necessary to run a deficit, and that running a deficit in order to stimulate the economy is also a good idea. There is nothing wrong with short-term deficits. There is a problem with the bloated federal budget though. So why should we trust congress with redistributing wealth, when they cannot control their own spending!

Lol sorry, there are many problems with the world and neither Bush or John Kerry could fix then, only one could do a worse job than another. I simply do not like ineffeicient spending. How do you think the swiss do so well, they are efficient.

[serotta]

The large chunk or the cake still goes foreign. When america is suffering so much every penny must be pinched. That means investing amrican so your wealth can bring the most benefit. I still don't mind outsourcing when the money goes to countries like India, China, Malaysia, and other nations that need it since people are living poorly. However western europe does not need american money.

Suffering so much? America is doing pretty well from what I can see. And it's also evidenced by the fact that people from all over the world still want to come here.

[One Way]

I never got a job from a poor man.

It is not covetous. If you went to dinner with a bunch or friend and you all shared the bill, would you not be annoyed if a firend didn't pay for what he/she ate?

Yes, I would. And the less-wealthy use the same public roads, signals, emergency services, public schools, etc.. etc..

So, you just made our point.

According to your logic a nation would work better if all public services would be given to only those who pay the most for them. How would you like a 1000$ toll on every bridge you crossed. The only people who do not really suffer from that are the extremely rich.

[Sojc]

The large chunk or the cake still goes foreign. When america is suffering so much every penny must be pinched. That means investing amrican so your wealth can bring the most benefit. I still don't mind outsourcing when the money goes to countries like India, China, Malaysia, and other nations that need it since people are living poorly. However western europe does not need american money.

Suffering so much? America is doing pretty well from what I can see. And it's also evidenced by the fact that people from all over the world still want to come here.

I am saying suffering as in having the highest poverty for a developed nation and the worst general health of her people.

[Sojc]

Ummm. A $1000 toll charge is based upon what type of life expectacy from that bridge? 2 years?

I think this is some of what Bush called "fuzzy math." 

I was simply trying to make the point that in a capitalist nation making only the wealthy benefit from the government only widens the wealth gap.

I ask you, what is a better goal for the nation? Growth with a growing gap between rich and poor? Or growth with a shrinking gap between rich and poor?

Lol and if I wanted to make a low-blow I could ask Haliburton about "fuzzy math" and how much they are charging the US government.

Edited August 13, 2004 by Sojc

[Guest yod]

It is not covetous. If you went to dinner with a bunch or friend and you all shared the bill, would you not be annoyed if a firend didn't pay for what he/she ate?

Yes, but what you are advocating is that the rich person ALWAYS buys for everyone.

The large chunk or the cake still goes foreign.

and that is because of the burdern of our tax system

I still don't mind outsourcing when the money goes to countries like India, China, Malaysia, and other nations that need it since people are living very very poorly. However western europe does not need american money

.

Yes, this helps other nations become trading partners and everyone benefits.

I ask you, what is a better goal for the nation? Growth with a growing gap between rich and poor? Or growth with a shrinking gap between rich and poor?

It depends on how you want to do this....

No one is gauranteed equality of results....only equality of opportunity. What they do with it is their decision and they deserve whatever reward they get.

[serotta]

I am saying suffering as in having the highest poverty for a developed nation and the worst general health of her people.

Could I see the source of the statistics behind these statements? And making comparisons to countries like Switzerland (in previous posts) is ludicrous. They bear nowhere near the global responsibilities that the US does.

[Sojc]

Could I see the source of the statistics behind these statements? And making comparisons to countries like Switzerland (in previous posts) is ludicrous. They bear nowhere near the global responsibilities that the US does.

Bearing global responsibility of not war maybe, not on global poverty.

http://www.worldrevolution.org/article/887

http://www.nccbuscc.org/cchd/povertyusa/tour2.htm

"Income disparities figured prominently in the UNICEF study, which estimated that 47 million impoverished children live in the world's 23 richest countries. The report found the lowest rates of child poverty among northern European countries with strong traditions of wealth redistribution. Sweden - with only 2.6 per cent of its children living in poverty - had the lowest rate, while Canada ranked behind France, Germany, Hungary and Japan, but ahead of Britain, Italy, the United States and Mexico, in last place with a 26.2-per-cent child poverty rate."

Lol ok so I was wrong, the United States is not the worst, America is better than Mexico.

http://66.59.133.172/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0012199

http://www.teachersparadise.com/ency/en/wi...ted_states.html

Edited August 13, 2004 by Sojc

[Sojc]

No one is gauranteed equality of results....only equality of opportunity. What they do with it is their decision and they deserve whatever reward they get.

That is the exact problem. If you think oppotunity is equal in the United States, you are living in a box.