Goss: nonpartisan?

And other things

Published on September 17, 2004 By stevendedalus In Democrat

The great “liberal” empire state is cutting 512 jobs in Yonkers’ city schools along with interscholastic sports, music, art, and after-school programs for the reason that there is a limit to raising local taxes when short-funded by the state. … Whoever heard of a nonpartisan congressman? — Goss, the nominee for the supra CIA agent who recently blasted Kerry’s alleged votes in intelligence cutting, promises to be above politics. If Kerry wins the appointment will be academic. … Besides Goss as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee did nothing to improve intelligence even though the committee was fully aware of the agency’s inadequacies since 1997. … Now they tell us that South Korea has been working and producing nuclear material for twenty years! … Trying to prevent nuclear weapons escalation is like trying to do away with 527s: as long as the know-how is widely available there is no way other nations are going to desist from developing an arsenal — why, even Saudi Arabia is looking into the possibility. Should this be head-scratching with Israel a nuclear power? … The Army Reserve has lost 58 men and women in Iraq, the highest since the Korean War. … Is there anyone out there who believes the conservatives would not be all over Gore if he had initiated a preëmptive war? … Unbelievably, Bush took a lesson from Reagan and cut 12.6% of funds designated for Air Traffic Control that is in need of serious upgrade that would have averted the LA International’s recent black out! … How long do we try the patience of our troops in Iraq who daily face growing ingratitude and hostility? … Since mission was accomplished[?] in Afghanistan there have been two attempts on Karzai’s life, and dozens of election officers, mostly women, have died in efforts to sign up the woman vote. …

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com

Comments (Page 2)

drmiler

on Sep 19, 2004

Reply #14 By: 1tomot1 - 9/19/2004 11:19:36 PM
Well when was the original deficit started, hmmm?

Inquiring minds would like to know when and how it got started. Also, who was President at the time?

About four years ago there was a 3Trillion! Budget surplus. I beleive some guy from Arkansas that Republicans just seemed to froth at the mouth over was in office when this surplus was created and maintained for over two years.

That is NOT cool! But it doesn't answer the questions that were asked!

Wingman412

on Sep 20, 2004

About four years ago there was a 3Trillion! Budget surplus.

Actually there wasn't. It was a PROJECTED surplus. If the internet boom years continued (with all rapid growth continuing at those frankly unsustainable and unprecedented levels) for 10 more yeras, then we would have amassed 3 Tril.

This figure was not true then and remains untrue today.

By the way: There WAS certainly increased revenue for the government but that was due to business and investing growth - NOT taxes. Allowing business to flourish equals revenue for government, stifling business for short term gains equals less money in the long run for the government and for all (read: less jobs and investment returns).

Wingman412

on Sep 20, 2004

Personally, I don't mind. Especially when I know that by paying taxes I can help my fellow citizens by vicariously supporting them intimes of need. How would many of our fellow citizens with disabilities survive without our comined contributions?

Well then you have the freedom to donate as you please... or rather - you don't. In fact, whether or not you support a social program, you have to pay for it or the government brings their foot soldiers down upon you and your family.

This is otherwise called stealing. Take from one, give to the other. You have no choice.

But then, if all the people with money give to the needy on scale with John Kerry (less than I do and I am almost exactly the economic definition of middle class) then I suppose we need a Nanny state to force us to give.

stevendedalus

on Sep 21, 2004

This is otherwise called stealing. Take from one, give to the other. You have no choice.

There's a vast difference between the Robin Hood motive and plain old pilfering.

Wingman412

on Sep 21, 2004

There's a vast difference between the Robin Hood motive and plain old pilfering

A rose by any other name...

When the government does it over many many years, it changes society and morally bankrupts the citizenry who learn to shirk the responsibility of caring for their neighbors. Which is exactly what the Dems want. A population dependent on Government for everything and no moral or ethical authority besides that handed out by Wahsington.

stevendedalus

on Sep 22, 2004

In times of hardship wouldn't you rather have a government check than go begging in the neighborhood?

Wingman412

on Sep 22, 2004

No. I run a non-profit organization that takes ZERO government money despite the fact that billions are available.

I have had my share of hard times and never considered taking a gov't handout. There should be no such thing.

Anyway, it is not about what a person would rather have. If convicted of a crime, wouldn't you rather serve your sentence in society than in jail? Frankly, neither situaion is anyone elses problem.

If you want to help your community, donate or volunteer. No government agent should force money out of you to fund artists or beggars. Speaking of which, full time panhandlers make a lot more than welfare recipients. A LOT MORE.

What I would rather is small businesses like the ones I run (three now) paying less in taxes which would enable us to hire a couple of extra badly needed employees. What the heck else do they think small business owners do with extra money? We hire people and buy things to expand our businesses. That is why capitalism succeeds. Hobbling it is a viscious spiral. Look at Germany, a well developed industrial economy with high levels of socialism and high taxes. Unemployment is over 10% and government handouts coninue to rise. Now they are forced to reduce how much each person gets because not enough people are producing enough money to fund all the people who do nothing more than collect a check and watch day time TV. That is not a model I think any nation should aspire to.

stevendedalus

on Sep 22, 2004

Wing, You are a master of superlatives.

Wingman412

on Sep 23, 2004

Well. I suppose that might be true. (I guess I should to be glad that I am not a master of super laxitives. )
Didn't mean to get all convoluted on ya.
The point was Nanny-State=Bad

stevendedalus

on Sep 24, 2004

We hire people and buy things to expand our businesses. That is why capitalism succeeds.

Small business is not taxed on the costs of doing business.

drmiler

on Sep 24, 2004

Reply #25 By: stevendedalus - 9/24/2004 12:06:36 AM
We hire people and buy things to expand our businesses. That is why capitalism succeeds.
Small business is not taxed on the costs of doing business.

That ALL depends on the type of business!

Capital Gain Tax
Tax on a gain from the sale or exchange of a capital asset. Capital gains may be offset by capital losses and capital loss carryovers. The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 reduced the capital gains tax rate for long term gains from 20 percent to 15 persent through 2007. The 10 percent capital gains rate for lower income individuals was reduced to 5 percent through 2007, and 0 percent thereafter. Property held for more than one year is eligible for the long term capital gains rates.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!