It's ALL Bush's fault

CATCH AND EAT · 10-27-2003, 08:38 AM

I hear this garbage over and over again. Even get e-mail regarding it challenging me to prove it was not George's fault. Even when the pendulum started to swing before he took office. Show some intellegence folks and come up with real answers and quit using others as scapegoats to fit your political agendas.

I will try to do the same as I have been guilty of it too.

10-27-2003, 08:48 AM

Ya see Bernie this is what makes this forum look bad! You starting this topic is an obvious attempt to bait someone into an arguement about Bush.

[ 10-27-2003, 10:10 AM: Message edited by: Stew ]

10-27-2003, 08:59 AM

And, like a trout hitting a live grasshopper, you bit.

Next thing you know you will be blaming Bush for THESE

[ 10-27-2003, 10:00 AM: Message edited by: Keta ]

DanS · 10-27-2003, 09:16 AM

Kinda gets you hankerin' for the days when everything was Clinton's fault, doesn't it?

CATCH AND EAT · 10-27-2003, 09:24 AM

Dan, well it was.

Just kidding.

Stew

Was'nt trying to start anything at all. Just tired of lame excuses. If I really wanted you to bite on a thread I could have done it a lot easier.

I could have said Stew can't catch fish worth spit. Then I know I would have riled ya up a bit. :smile: Easy there big fella.

BrionLutz · 10-27-2003, 10:10 AM

Stew,

Quote:

You starting this topic is an obvious attempt to bait someone into an arguement about Bush.

But what's wrong with a discussion/arguement/debate about Bush Jr? Or Mr. Bill?

Isn't it a good thing if folks engage in public discourse and have to defend their views with facts and figures?

I do it because I enjoy it. I'm guessing other folks do the same.

That's kind of missing from public debate these days. Plus we all have an advantage that used to be why public debate worked better, we are all members of a community. We might kick each other in the shins but we can always go fishing.

It's always a kick to watch "Question Time" in the British Parliment as they duke it out vs. the canned stuff we get.

Speaking of Bush Jr can you imagine him having to do a "Question Time" in US Congress, he'd look like a dead cat on I-5.

Brion

CATCH AND EAT · 10-27-2003, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lost_sailor:
Saying that stuff is Bush's fault implies that he makes decisions.

Now that is actually really funny.

Good one!

[ 10-27-2003, 01:41 PM: Message edited by: CATCH AND EAT ]

HOGGEMIN · 10-27-2003, 12:46 PM

Lets start out with eliminating 98% of the attorneys then move to the rest of the system Governors, Mayors, Senate, Congress, the Judges then the Presidency. We have gone totally away from what our founding fathers wanted, the Government gets involved in way to much. We give out to much welfare to people who want to live off the system and not help them selves. Its time we revamp the whole system. We can't afford to pay any more taxes. when is enough enough.

Thumper · 10-27-2003, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by HOGGEMIN:
We can't afford to pay any more taxes. when is enough enough.

They would gladly take every penny you make, then cry and plead for more 'cause it just isn't enough. [img]graemlins/eek13.gif[/img]

Think that's an exaggeration? Think about it. For Oregonians, add about 35% for the feds, 9% for the state, another 1% for the new statewide increase, another 1% for Multnomah County, property taxes of all kinds, liquor, tobacco, excise, fuel, auto and tons of other taxes and fees.

We're getting there. More than half of your income now goes to the various governments. And they are after more all the time. They will never have enough. Ever.

And they wonder why voters refuse every single tax issue. Smart voters!

freespool · 10-27-2003, 01:21 PM

The issue of who's fault it is will be decided Nov.2004. Don't ya just love this country?

10-27-2003, 02:49 PM

Hog M N,
So true.

Freespool,
Your totaly wrong here, again. More like "liars poker".

Quote:

The issue of who's fault it is will be decided Nov.2004. Don't ya just love this country?

DanS · 10-27-2003, 02:50 PM

"I'll see your lie.........and raise you two more!"

Miss B Haven · 10-27-2003, 02:54 PM

Keta- love the link, suckered me right into that one! LMAO

10-27-2003, 03:09 PM

Miss B,
And I didn't mention the "Debris Cloud" :grin:

DanS,
Bingo....????? Wait wrong game :shocked:

Quote:

"I'll see your lie.........and raise you two more!"

freespool · 10-27-2003, 05:22 PM

Thumper,would be in favor of a 10% flat tax? I know I'd be very much in favor of that arangment. I don't think the Republican party would be in favor of that idea. The problem is all those rich folks don't pay their fair share of the tax burden,which puts all us lower income people in a bind. Think how much money would be generated with a flat tax plan.

Kruechief · 10-27-2003, 05:36 PM

Flat Tax,

I'll raise you 5% and gladly pay 15%

Krue

BrionLutz · 10-27-2003, 06:06 PM

Hoggemin,

Quote:

We have gone totally away from what our founding fathers wanted, the Government gets involved in way to much.

Hmm...if it wasn't for the government getting involved a whole lot we wouldn't have any salmon to fish for.

Go Gov!

Mo Salmon!

Brion

10-27-2003, 06:19 PM

So you would give up your rights for your own enjoyment?

Those who give up liberty for the sake of security deserve neither liberty nor security.
Ben Frankln

Thumper · 10-27-2003, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by freespool:
The problem is all those rich folks don't pay their fair share of the tax burden,which puts all us lower income people in a bind.

Now that is a riot!! [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

According to the Internal Revenue Service, just 1% of U.S. taxpayers paid 36% of all taxes in 1999, while the bottom 50% of taxpayers paid 4% of the total.

Compare that with 1989, when the top 1% paid only 25% of the taxes, and the bottom 50% paid 6%.

The most productive few in this country support the rest.

Gotta love the liberals. They want more and more all the time.

10-27-2003, 06:34 PM

Even us low enders are over taxed

freespool · 10-27-2003, 06:38 PM

No Thumper we just want companys like Enron to just pay their taxes. But sadly that probably won't happen. What's good for General Motors is good for America. All this BS will come home to roost in Nov.04,if we haven't bankrupt the country first.

10-27-2003, 06:40 PM

What was Enron's profit for 2003?

Quote:

All this BS will come home to roost in Nov.04,if we haven't bankrupt the country first.

Still blinded by your political hate I see. Betcha voted for Clinton twice too.

[img]graemlins/dork.gif[/img] .............. [img]graemlins/dork.gif[/img] .............. [img]graemlins/dork.gif[/img] .............. [img]graemlins/dork.gif[/img] .............. [img]graemlins/dork.gif[/img] .............. [img]graemlins/dork.gif[/img]

I�ll be glad when the Clinton/Gore Depression ends.

[ 10-27-2003, 07:52 PM: Message edited by: Keta ]

Birdnest · 10-27-2003, 06:51 PM

Well said Mr. Thumper. [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

DanS · 10-27-2003, 07:12 PM

Quote:

1% of U.S. taxpayers paid 36% of all taxes in 1999,

They also have the majority of the wealth in the US. I guess it just stands to reason.............

letsfish · 10-27-2003, 07:48 PM

I see the Forest Service has determined natural causes resulted in the B&B Complex fires this summer. But some group wants an independent study done because they are sure Bush is responsible for it(I think they feel he staged it for a photo op). Some people just will believe what they want

no matter what .

HOGGEMIN · 10-27-2003, 07:59 PM

Edited for personal comment and AUP violations.
Thread may be closed, due to this comment. WARNING

[ 10-28-2003, 08:32 AM: Message edited by: Jennie@ifish ]

2LEYS · 10-27-2003, 08:03 PM

Guys, I see where it would be nice for corporations to pay a lot of taxes. But....

If they are made to pay a lot of taxes then they will just move overseas and we will all be unemployed. That is one of the reasons that California is in this mess. The people cry and moan because of corporate tax breaks and so they cut them down. Then the companies move out of state. What would happen to Oregon (especially Washington co) if we cut Intel's tax breaks and they decided to move to Arizona?

freespool · 10-27-2003, 08:07 PM

EDITED for personal comments

[ 10-28-2003, 08:33 AM: Message edited by: Jennie@ifish ]

BrionLutz · 10-27-2003, 08:21 PM

Thumper,

Quote:

According to the Internal Revenue Service, just 1% of U.S. taxpayers paid 36% of all taxes in 1999, while the bottom 50% of taxpayers paid 4% of the total.

Hmmm...do you think the fact that the top 5% have 45% of the income has something to do with that stat?

And that's just taxable income. The more you make the more you can shelter from taxes.

Brion

BrionLutz · 10-27-2003, 08:28 PM

2LEYS,

Quote:

If they are made to pay a lot of taxes then they will just move overseas and we will all be unemployed.

That was not the case in the 50's through the 70's.

The "Reagan Revolution" shifted the tax burden from the corporations and upper income folks to the middle class. Don't forget increases in sales taxes, local taxes and fees which fall disproportionately on middle income and working folks.

Pulitzer Price winning book "America:What Went Wrong" by Philadelphia Inquirer writers Bartlett and Steele does an execellent job laying the numbers and the shift in the tax burden.

Brion

happybrew · 10-27-2003, 08:29 PM

Quote:

According to the Internal Revenue Service, just 1% of U.S. taxpayers paid 36% of all taxes in 1999, while the bottom 50% of taxpayers paid 4% of the total.

Got that right, Thumper. The past two years, the government has decided that I'm poor because I've got a lot of kids, and deposited money in my checking account that I did not earn and did not ask for when I filed my taxes. This was for the child tax credit. Not only did I pay zero to the federal government, but they gave me money that I did not ask for. Furthermore, they increased the child tax credit for this year, and as part of an economic stimulus package, deposited in my checking account part of next years child tax credit in August, this time not only without my asking for it, but also without my filing my taxes. Just a notice in the mail and an electronic deposit. I need to quit referring to it as "filing my taxes", and instead refer to it as "filing my handout". My dad, on the other hand, after the ten kids were all out of the house, was deemed "rich" by the government for that fact, and got socked with bigger tax bills than he'd seen in his life. Why has the government decided that because I have a bunch of kids that they need to take money from someone else and give it to me, when I didn't ask for it? It's not right. I can see a bit of a break in the taxes, but not a negative tax rate. Yeah, I used the money to pay bills. Who wouldn't? But it bothers me to receive it. I need to file a tax return, and I'm not going to lie on it. I shouldn't get money for nothing. My children, far from making me "poor" make me quite wealthy. At any rate, I figure I make up for it by homeschooling them, and sparing the government the expense.

happybrew

10-27-2003, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Hogum,if Brion stirs the pot then Keta osterizes it to a fine froth

And it's free.

happybrew · 10-27-2003, 08:39 PM

Brion: I am middle class, and I pay NOTHING to the federal government. They give me money instead. The shift has been towards higher income people. These tend to be the people who own shares in corporations. If the corporations were taxed, then the people with shares in those corporations were taxed, in effect the people who own the corporations would be taxed twice on the same income. That is not a just state of affairs, unless of course everyone gets taxed twice on the same income. Corporations have to be owned by someone. They are not independent entities with nobody at the wheel. They are owned by people. If a corporation gets taxed on its income, which is really the income of those who own the corporation, then the shareholders who own the corporation get taxed on what's left, the same income belonging to the same people gets taxed twice. Once as a corporation, and again as individuals. So assuming your statement about corporations getting taxed less to be true, that doesn't make it a bad thing. Your statement about higher income individuals being taxed less is absolutely false.

happybrew

BrionLutz · 10-27-2003, 10:17 PM

Happybrew,

Quote:

Your statement about higher income individuals being taxed less is absolutely false.

Actually true. The percentage of earned income has shifted to a smaller and smaller percentage of higher income earners.

This is what has helped cause the shift in taxes despite the lowering of upper income tax rates.

Keep in mind that lower income earners taxes have increased. For example Social Security and Medicare tax increases which only apply to $56K of income. So anyone earning $56K pays 5% while those over $56K pay less percentage of their income in taxes.

Also keep in mind that the Social Security taxes have been funding the Reagan/Bush Sr/Bush Jr deficits as taxes to the wealthy and corporations have gone down as a percent of total income.

Also keep in mind that the 2,000 plus pages of the tax code keep a good portion of upper income folks income out of the "taxable income" category so that income stat you used by the IRS is skewed since it only applies to "taxable" income not actual total income.

Brion

lost_sailor · 10-27-2003, 11:10 PM

Saying that stuff is Bush's fault implies that he makes decisions.

10-27-2003, 11:58 PM

Brion & DanS,

It's the fault of both of the parties in power.
I say kick 'em all out and start over.

AuntyM · 10-28-2003, 05:15 AM

All I know, is that the Autumn BEFORE the election, the stock market started it's downward trend and I lost a bunch of money while Clinton was still President.

Do I blame either administration? Nope.

The over valued tech sector was a big part of the problem.

One thing I never see mentioned, but I feel is related to the economic downturn, is the "new" money that became available from so many of us little guys that finally had access to the markets.

Too bad these threads get too volatile for Silver Hilton. I would like to know what he thinks.

Thumper · 10-28-2003, 05:30 AM

I guess the good news is that the economy is turning around. Real GDP growth is projected for 3-4% in the next year, the market is gradually going back up, housing starts last month were the 3rd highest ever recorded for a single month, etc. Employment increases should now follow. Best of all --- no sign of inflation.

I doubt that the democrats are thanking George Bush for all that good news.

Wars usually cause reversals of recessions, and this one seems to be no exception.

[ 10-28-2003, 06:33 AM: Message edited by: Thumper ]

happybrew · 10-28-2003, 06:08 AM

Quote:

Also keep in mind that the 2,000 plus pages of the tax code keep a good portion of upper income folks income out of the "taxable income" category so that income stat you used by the IRS is skewed since it only applies to "taxable" income not actual total income.

Ah, yes. The tax code. That's one thing which guarantees that the government's numbers won't be correct. I'm not going to pretend I understand the ins and outs of the tax code, but I've been looking into buying or starting a small business sometime in the next couple of years, and the big worry with buying an existing one is whether the books are cooked.

happybrew

kamloops · 10-28-2003, 06:41 AM

You people have not seen anything yet, wait till
Boeing pulls out of Seattle, lock stock and barrel. I think Boeing gets plenty of tax breaks but not enough to keep em in the State.
The Peoples Elitests Society of Seattle are going to wander what happened to their social programs when the unemployment rate goes through the roof. Day Care, State Ferries, Low income Housing, Save the wayward killer whale etc.,etc.
Hope MicroSoft stays.
YES, Bubba and Janet caused the collapse of my 401K. Thanks Bubba.

:whazzup:

CATCH AND EAT · 10-28-2003, 07:23 AM

Tom, I share the same worries regarding Boeing. The Gresham plant is collapsing at a rapid rate. Boeing has made rumblings about moving the last two years. It is only a matter of time.

Little cities like Gresham that have Fujitsu's that suddenly close really have to scramble to cover their tax and spend agenda. Gresham suddenly had a 4 million dollar short fall when they closed. Stuff like this hurts families and communities.

Lets just tax everyone out of business. Heck I still have another 39% to go before they get everything I have.

Aunty M. You are so right dear. The decline was happening well before JR. took office. Greenspan kept warning of an overheated economy yet nothing was gone by government to slow it down. Then when JR. finally sits down in the oval office only days later his opponents we declaring an economic travesty by JR.

I, like all the rest of you enjoyed the successes of econoic growth that was initially spured by Bush Sr. Clinton cultivated it, but over fertilized it and it burned out. Could Clinton have done things differently? Yes, could have slowed economic growth by raising interest rates for one. Greenspan was ineffective as reserve chairman even though he saw economic collapse coming he and Clinton stood by and did nothing to control it.

The economy is now back in a growth mode. Slow but sure it is turning. Most likely not in time to save Bush Jr. presidency but will set up the next possibly democrat president for economic success. Boy I hated saying that but it is possibly quite true.

Funny how this thread turned into a tax discussion.

DanS · 10-28-2003, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Yes, could have slowed economic growth by raising interest rates for one

Clinton didn't have the option of raising interest rates. Greenspan is responsible for that.

You really ought not whine too much about the tech bubble. For the first time I've ever seen, "regular" people made BIG money in the markets. Of course, most lost it........but how much blame belongs on the President for them not knowing when to sell?

I know, I know....."it's ALL Clinton's fault".

Albacore Tuna Captain · 10-28-2003, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />1% of U.S. taxpayers paid 36% of all taxes in 1999,

They also have the majority of the wealth in the US. I guess it just stands to reason............. <hr /></blockquote>I guess we could do an experiment like Russia did. Take everything away from those who have it and give it all to the people. Sure worked for them! [img]graemlins/stupid.gif[/img]

Those who have wealth usually worked for it. They pay most of the taxs. Yet liberals still want them to pay more. Sheeeeeeesh.....when will it ever end?

Jennie@ifish · 10-28-2003, 07:34 AM

Want this thread closed, too?
I'm feeling joyfully inconsistent today, so watch your step.
One more whistle, and it's gone. Poof! Whoo hoo! Whee! :smile: :smile: :smile: Yip Yip! Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Jen's going over the deep end! :smile: :smile:

Aint life grand?
I'm going fishing before I start disabling people!
Jen

[ 10-28-2003, 08:36 AM: Message edited by: Jennie@ifish ]

CATCH AND EAT · 10-28-2003, 07:46 AM

Give it a rest Dan. Greenspan could have helped control the spirial downturn. Clinton could have bent his ear a little more. Both Federal employees ya know. Clinton supposedly his boss.

Real point of the matter is the economy super heated and emploded. So lets just blame Greenspan. Clinton was totally innocent. Wait I have a better idea. The American public got suckered by technology and a quick buck. Greed....... [img]graemlins/eek13.gif[/img] I know I am certainly guilty. I made a lot of money during that time. Good thing I did too. Got me through some very tough times this year.

DanS · 10-28-2003, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Those who have wealth usually worked for it.

Nikki and Paris Hilton and I had a good chuckle over THAT one!

DanS · 10-28-2003, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Clinton supposedly his boss

The President doesn't order the Chairman of the Fed to alter interest rates. It just doesn't work like that.

Greenspan doesn't need some vote-mongering President to decide what interest rates should be. He usually lets the economy and the money supply dictate rates.

Like I said, your beef is more with Greenspan than Clinton. Why would I give it a rest?

BrionLutz · 10-28-2003, 07:55 AM

Thumper,

Quote:

I doubt that the democrats are thanking George Bush for all that good news.

It's probably the American people Bush Jr has to worry about who do blame him for the loss of 2M jobs, lack of job growth, returning the US to record deficits and debt, loss of jobs overseas now including high tech not just mfg.

Folks focus on Bush Jr's promises and programs.

He did promise his tax cuts would not create deficits or debt.

Instead they have created record structural deficits and debt for the foreseeable future, 10 years out according to Bush Jr's OMB.

Quote:

Wars usually cause reversals of recessions, and this one seems to be no exception.

Hmm...so Bush Jr's Iraq mess is really to stimulate the economy. I'm sure he'll trot that one out now that all his original reasons for this war of convenience turned out to be lies.

Actually wars don't have track record of stimulating the economy in the long term. Folks look at Great Depression/WWII and try and apply that to post WWII and it fails. Recessions during Korean, Vietnam and both Iraq wars. $500B spent in Iraq is money not spent in the US. $1T in Bush Jr debt is owned in large part by overseas folks who get the money back with interest. That is money not spent in the US.

Bush Jr's policy results are failures judged by his own promises of no deficits, no debt and job growth.

Brion

[ 10-28-2003, 08:58 AM: Message edited by: BrionLutz ]

10-28-2003, 08:14 AM

8 years of Clinton/Gore mismanagement can not be fixed in 3 years.

Jimmy Carl Black · 10-28-2003, 08:15 AM

Sorry to get all mushy on everybody, but I think the real fault is a snow-balling obsession with all things material in this country and a massive confusion about what makes success.

Seeking for a political solution or blaming politics for the most critical problems in our world today is folly. (IMHO)

10-28-2003, 08:17 AM

Words of wisdom from JCB

When are we going fish'n again?

lost_sailor · 10-28-2003, 08:31 AM

The thing is, for most of us, the economy is less about "real GDP" and more about the ratio of paycheck:food.

It will be interesting to see how the Bush strategists orchestrate events like the capture of Osama, the "discovery" of Iraqi WMDs, and another major terrorist attack on U.S. soil as the election approaches.

Excellent distractions from the economic, social and environmental devastation!

[ 10-28-2003, 09:41 AM: Message edited by: lost_sailor ]

10-28-2003, 08:38 AM

Not to mention high housing costs. I'm glad mine is paid for.

Quote:

Excellent distractions from the economic, social and environmental devastation!

I agree the Clinton/Gore depression is a bad one.

[ 10-28-2003, 10:01 AM: Message edited by: Keta ]

CATCH AND EAT · 10-28-2003, 08:47 AM

Dan S. if what you say is true then it is neither clinton or bush's fault. It's Greenspan.

Boy oh boy

Jimmy Carl Black very nicely said and kind of the point I tried to make earlier.

Jimmy Carl Black · 10-28-2003, 08:47 AM

'Distraction' is the key word Lost Sailor.

DanS · 10-28-2003, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Dan S. if what you say is true then it is neither clinton or bush's fault. It's Greenspan.

Not really. You are assuming the interest rate determimines the course of the economy and that's only partially true.

I'm saying the tech bubble burst had more to do with rookies playing the market rather than the market itself. Although the cooked books being used didn't help investors make the right decisions either.

CATCH AND EAT · 10-28-2003, 10:59 AM

Could you mean GREED cause the collapse Dan? I would agree if that is the gist of what you are saying.

BrionLutz · 10-28-2003, 02:44 PM

Keta,

Quote:

8 years of Clinton/Gore mismanagement can not be fixed in 3 years.

But Bush Jr did it...if you call taking us from record Surpluses to record Deficits, taking us from decreasing National Debt to increasing National Debt, taking us from adding 8 million jobs to losing 2 million jobs.

I'm with Arnold..."Anyvon who take us from surplus to deficit in 4 years should lose his job!"

Brion

10-28-2003, 05:05 PM

Lutz,
Bush stepped in Clinton/Gore and can�t get it off his boots. The �Surplus� was a fantasy cooked up by the previous administration. Even the simple-minded can see this. Why would you, obviously not �simple-minded�, choose to spread this kind of misleading information?

BrionLutz · 10-28-2003, 09:07 PM

Keta,

Quote:

Bush stepped in Clinton/Gore and can�t get it off his boots.

What poor Bush Jr stepped into was his own rhetoric and the consquences of his foolish policies.

He said his huge tax cuts would not create a Deficit...they did.

He said his huge tax cuts would not add to the National Debt...they are.

He said his huge tax cuts would stimulate the economy (more jobs, no deficit, no debt)...they didn't.

Judging Bush Jr by his own promises and policies he has failed and failed spectacularly.

Brion