In Reply to: Re: Where are you getting those figures? posted by Miguel on June 09, 2004 at 20:22:42:
(note: My first attempt to post this got stuck half-way in cyberspace, so heere it is again with some minor edits)
Hi Miguel,
Thanks for your reply. Yes, you answered some of my questions, but were a bit vague on others. For example:
You wrote:
"Now I will not vote for anybody until I hear people saying that this system is rotten but I am about to make an
exception because the actual president has to go.
I cannot be a democrat because there are very dear things to democrats that I cannot in all
conscience support.
I cannot be a republican because there are very dear things to republicans that I cannot in
all conscience support."
Okay, first you say you're not going to vote for anybody, but then you say you will, becauseBush must go. Then you say you don't support either the Democrats or Republicans because of unnamed policies they embrace that you don't like. Okay, fair enough, then if you say Bush must go, and you will vote, but not for Kerry, then who will you vote for?
The only third party candidate is Ralph Nader. Ralph doesn't have a prayer of beating either Bush or Kerry, and I say thank God for that. I can understand you saying that you don't care for either Bush or Kerry. I also see prroblems with both of these candidates (although in my opinion, Bush's problems are far less odious than Kerry's). But in light of Ralph Nader's socialistic, anti-business, anti-free enterprise platform and his kooky beliefs, I wonder how in all conscience you could vote for him? Could it be that you are more liberal than you realize or are willing to admit?
You have to be pragmatic. Like it or not, this is a two-party system, and it's going to be a tight race between Bush and Kerry. Ralph Nader has no hope of winning and he knows it. This is nothing but a PR stunt for him. It gives him an opportunity to get before the cameras and broadcast his fringe views. I suspect he fancies himself a power broker, in the same way former candidate Rev. Al Sharpton did, and will cut a deal with Kerry. Aren't you just a wee bit curious about the purpose of that meeting between Nader and Kerry?
The only impact Nader might have is to siphon off votes from Kerry. That will help Bush in a tight race. You know that no Republican or moderate Democrat is going to vote for Nader. With such a close race, anyone who is moderate to conservative and would normally vote for the more moderate candidate (Bush)will only help put Kerry in the White House by not voting. If you think things are bad under Bush, just wait until Kerry is president! This man has a very liberal 20-year record in the Senate. He makes Ted Kennedy look like a moderate. Don't pay attention to what he says he will do or what he says he believes...look at what he has done in the Senate.
I really can't comprehend how someone who has voted for and even campaigned for a Republican can now be contemplating voting for such a left-wing fring candidate as Nader.
Now about Reagan and Bush41 foreign policies:
Nicaragua is free of a Cuban-sponsored Marxist government, thanks to Reagan's support of the Contras. If you ask the people of Nicaragua, most will tell you they are better off without Comandante Daniel Ortega and his ilk.
Ditto the people of the former Soviet Union and their satellite states. Thanks to Reagan's foreign policies, the Berlin wal is gone, and the Russian gulags are only a bad memory.
Ditto the people of Kuwait, who thanks to Bush41, were liberated from Saddam Hussein.
Ditto the people of Panama, who thanks to Bush41, are rid of a rogue military dictator.
Ditto the people of Bosnia and Cosovo, who are now rid of Slovidon Milosavitch and his "ethnic cleansing" thanks to Bush41.
On the tax/economics issues:
Yes, I know what median and mean are. I had three semesters of economics in college, and made "A" in all of them. That's why I find the following statements you made so ridiculous:
"...look at the census bureau pages and figure out that the vast majority of the people paying taxes are in the lower part of the charts."
That's utter nonsense, Miguel. The fact is poor people are not paying federal income taxes! I'll give you a personal example:
Last year, I was unemployed and collecting unemployment insurance. My gross income was only about $16,000 and not only did I not owe taxes, I got a $4000 unearned income tax credit! I used the regular 1040 and took the standard deductions, (I'm married and have two children)
Your statement is not supported by the tax data collected by the U.S. Census Bureau, IRS, or the Congressional Budjet Office. Fact is, the top 5% of tax payers are paying about 26% of the total taxes collected, so in reality, the rich are paying more than their fair share.
I found the following statistics at:
http://www.cbpp.org/9-23-03tax.htm
"The latest CBO data, which were released a few weeks ago and cover years from 1979 to 2000, show that the average after-tax income of the top one percent
of the population rose by $576,000 — or 201 percent — between 1979 and 2000, after adjusting for inflation, while the average income of the middle fifth of households rose $5,500, or 15 percent. The average income of the bottom fifth rose $1,100, or 9 percent, over the 21-year period."
So much for the bogus claim that the poor are getting poorer while the rich are getting richer! The above data show that over a 21-year period, incomes at all levels went up. Now some cry-babies might complain that the wealthier you were during this period, the greater your percentage of increase in income. To that I say so what? If you don't like it, go get a college education or teach yourself some marketable skills that will help you earn a better income.
I'm also sick and tired of hearing the libs say, "The Republicans are only giving tax cuts to the rich." Hogwash! Everybody got their taxes cut by the Reagan, Bush41, and Bush43 administrations.
The mathimatically-challenged among us complain that the rich got a bigger tax cut. Well...duh! If you earned$15,000 and got a 5% tax rebate, your rebate will be $750. Somebody who earned $150,000 will get a $7,500 rebate. The libs will say, "That isn't fair!" Nonsense! By percentage, they both got a 5% rebate. Of course the higher income-earner will receive a bigger rebate...he earned more money, and paid more taxes!
It really galls me that when Bush43 gave all tax payers a tax rebate last year, there were people who complained that they didn't get a tax rebate. Never mind that they didn't pay any taxes! How do these whiners expect a tax rebate, when they didn't pay any taxes?
I am not insensitive to the plight of the poor or to people who are unable to work due to disability or illness. Believe me, I've been in their shoes. I'm a blind, one-handed amputee, but I haven't used my disabilities as an excuse to sit on my butt. I went to college, got a BS, and became a computer programmer.
Go look at what Bill Cosby said at the recent meeting of the NAACP. He told it like it is, much to the chagrin of the liberal NAACP leadership. Cosby said that Much of the problems in the inner cities' poor is of their own making. When you have a culture that ridicules those who strive to earn good grades in school, when you have a culture that has 75% of its children being born to un-wed mothers, when you have parents who aren't behaving like parents, you have a culture that is in self-destruct mode.
All this is from a man who is by no means politically conservative. Cosby is a liberal, but at least he puts his money where his mouth is. He has donated large sums of money to the United Negro College Fund and other charities which try to help improve the plight of the poor. He simply recognizes the lack of any work ethic or acceptance of personal responsibility on the part of so many in the ghettos. He is right to denounce the self destructive behaviors that are being tolerated in that culture.
Finally, you make the following statement:
"By the way, the lack of sympathy the republican party shows for those at the bottom of society and the tremendous amount of generosity they show to those who are rich is one reason why I cannot be a republican even though I agree with many of their other positions."
There you go again. Those bad old Republicans just want to starve the poor and give everything to the filthy rich. Excuse me, but that kind of rhetoric sounds like it came from the commitee to elect John Flip-flop Kerry. It just isn't supported by the facts. If you look at the bell curve for income versus tax rates, you'll see that the curve is skewed to the right, which means the higher wage earners are paying the lion's share of the total tax burden.
Republican tax cuts have favored the lower middle class and lower class income brackets, by giving them a larger tax cut by percentage of income. The upper income earners also got tax cuts, but their percentage was lower.
Just look at which political party opposed ellimination of the marriage tax penalty, or ellimination of the death tax. (hint, it wasn't the Republicans)
And who was responsible for a huge tax increase on Social Security recipients? None other than Bill Clinton and a House and Senate that were controlled by the Democrats. And you say the Republicans have no sympathy for those at the bottom of society?