George W. Bush Press Conference

[Back]

I think I actucally felt sorry for him tonight in his press conference. He seemed tourtured.

The pressure he must feel... its unimagineable. I do not think I could do so well. Honestly.

For that, I give him props.

But he is the same schoolboy on the blacktop as he was when he was PUT into power. The same mentallity.

One thing I DO like about him is he is a Cowboys fan.

[Scott]

Originally posted by Backlash

One thing I DO like about him is he is a Cowboys fan.

And I was going to vote for him! Bush, you just lost my vote.

GO EAGLES! I look forward to Terrell dancing in your star again!

[Back]

Originally posted by Gemstone101

Originally posted by Backlash

One thing I DO like about him is he is a Cowboys fan.

And I was going to vote for him! Bush, you just lost my vote.

GO EAGLES! I look forward to Terrell dancing in your star again!

Oh, isn't it nice to day-dream?

[Hulkein]

LOL, Dallas sucks pal.

[peam]

He should leave my Cowboys alone.

Cowboys in the NFC championship game this year, by the way.

[Back]

Originally posted by Hulkein
LOL, Dallas sucks pal.

Is that another vote against Bush? LOL

[Sean]

The press conference frustrated the hell out of me and my roommate. Its not something I blame on him specifically because its what political leaders do but dancing around questions and giving indirect answers and sometimes not even answering the question, atleast to my satisfaction, is something I just find frustrating.

[Scott]

Originally posted by peam
He should leave my Cowboys alone.

Cowboys in the NFC championship game this year, by the way.

The ONLY reason the Cowboys made it even above .500 last year was the fact that they had the easiest schedule ever. I'll put $50 down that says Dallas doesn't even make it to the playoffs.

[Back]

Originally posted by Tijay
The press conference frustrated the hell out of me and my roommate. Its not something I blame on him specifically because its what political leaders do but dancing around questions and giving indirect answers and sometimes not even answering the question, atleast to my satisfaction, is something I just find frustrating.

Suprised, Tijay. Its the same thing ALL American politicians do. Dodge the issue. Pretty standard in American politics.

Oh Look! Tony Blair Learned something! Who's next?

[peam]

Originally posted by Gemstone101
I'll put $50 down that says Dallas doesn't even make it to the playoffs.

Gotcha, bitch.

[Ravenstorm]

Dear President Bush:

1) Rumsfield is NOT your Secretary of State.

2) A minute after saying how this is not a religious issue, you should not then use the phrase 'theocratic terror'.

3) Get Ashcroft to immediately declare an enemy combatant whoever it was who picked out your tie. Then execute him. Talk about a distraction. That beat Rice's gap teeth all to hell.

Raven

[Back]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
Dear President Bush:

1) Rumsfield is NOT your Secretary of State.

2) A minute after saying how this is not a religious issue, you should not then use the phrase 'theocratic terror'.

3) Get Ashcroft to immediately declare an enemy combatant whoever it was who picked out your tie. Then execute him. Talk about a distraction. That beat Rice's gap teeth all to hell.

Raven

LOL! That was the hypnotic tie!

Like when Kennedy debated Nixon. Didn't work for Nixon. Hmm...

Bush needs Queer Eye for the Straight Guy I suppose.

[Ravenstorm]

And if anyone missed it and cares:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9488-2004Apr13.html

Raven

[Galleazzo]

Ya know, the only time in his life he talked straight was at that State of the Union after 9/11 where he said that the Taliban had to fork over Osama or he was coming for them. I thought, "fuck, guy's a jerk, but he's nutting up now."

Think about it. What if Bush had said this:

"9/11 was a horrible tragedy, one I wish we'd prevented. Now maybe you could say that such a terrorist attack, in terms of audacity and loss of life, had never happened before in all of world history, and you would be right, and maybe we thought it could never happen here, and you might be right there too. Did we do enough? Obviously not. But the time for back and forth recriminations is over. 9/11 took place on my watch, I am ultimately responsible for the actions of my administration, and you get to decide in November whether you think any apology I can make for what we failed to anticipate is good enough.

We didn't have the luxury for recriminations back then in October of 2001. We had to act, decisively. This we did. Al-Qaeda are hunted criminals now, their Taliban protectors shattered, their masters hiding in caves and huts. We will continue to hunt them, to bring them to justice if we can, to show them final justice if we cannot. While there is a terrorist left alive, we will not rest. You will never be able to say again that America sleeps while such monsters live."

Whose vote in November would that get him?

[peam]

Not mine.

[Scott]

I wondering, besides Tamaral, Edine, and Hulkein (if old enough), is anyone else voting for Bush?

[Back]

Originally posted by Galleazzo
Ya know, the only time in his life he talked straight was at that State of the Union after 9/11 where he said that the Taliban had to fork over Osama or he was coming for them. I thought, "fuck, guy's a jerk, but he's nutting up now."

Think about it. What if Bush had said this:

"9/11 was a horrible tragedy, one I wish we'd prevented. Now maybe you could say that such a terrorist attack, in terms of audacity and loss of life, had never happened before in all of world history, and you would be right, and maybe we thought it could never happen here, and you might be right there too. Did we do enough? Obviously not. But the time for back and forth recriminations is over. 9/11 took place on my watch, I am ultimately responsible for the actions of my administration, and you get to decide in November whether you think any apology I can make for what we failed to anticipate is good enough.

We didn't have the luxury for recriminations back then in October of 2001. We had to act, decisively. This we did. Al-Qaeda are hunted criminals now, their Taliban protectors shattered, their masters hiding in caves and huts. We will continue to hunt them, to bring them to justice if we can, to show them final justice if we cannot. While there is a terrorist left alive, we will not rest. You will never be able to say again that America sleeps while such monsters live."

Whose vote in November would that get him?

Not mine. You know why?

Glad you asked. :) I'll tell you.

Long before the war on Iraq started, we waged a major campaign on Afganistan. I was all for that.

What seemed unreasonable was stepping outside the United Nations.

Simple as that.

[Tsa`ah]

I pegged your vote for Bush Sintik ... Something change?

[Back]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
I pegged your vote for Bush Sintik ... Something change?

Aww, lets not dig up old graves now... ;)

[Galleazzo]

I'd vote for a sheep before I voted for Bush again.

[Meos]

I'll be voting for Bush, as much as I think he's just the puppet of his administration (President Ashcroft much?), I always lean toward GOP. Besides think about the alternative.... Kerry is a fruitcake, but not as bad as Gore was though.

[Tsa`ah]

Oh I wasn't baiting him at all. I'm genuinely curious if his vote would have gone to Bush and if so, what changed.


Originally posted by Meos
I'll be voting for Bush, as much as I think he's just the puppet of his administration (President Ashcroft much?), I always lean toward GOP. Besides think about the alternative.... Kerry is a fruitcake, but not as bad as Gore was though.

You know, there are other candidates and parties out there.

This will be my third straight time voting Libertarian.

[Edited on 4-14-2004 by Tsa`ah]

[Scott]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
I pegged your vote for Bush Sintik ... Something change?

No, I'll probably be voting for Bush. I'm still open minded though. I'm a republican, but that doesn't mean that I will automatically mean a vote for Bush. Right now my vote is for Bush, but if someone shows me something, they'll gain my vote.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think Bush is a good president, but I'd rather deal with him for another 4 years then anyone else running right now. However it doesn't take much to push my vote past Bush. Kerry just has to show me something though. I think my vote will be decided closer to election day, after I hear a lot more.

[Back]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
Oh I wasn't baiting him at all. I'm genuinely curious if his vote would have gone to Bush and if so, what changed.


Originally posted by Meos
I'll be voting for Bush, as much as I think he's just the puppet of his administration (President Ashcroft much?), I always lean toward GOP. Besides think about the alternative.... Kerry is a fruitcake, but not as bad as Gore was though.

You know, there are other candidates and parties out there.

This will be my third straight time voting Libertarian.

[Edited on 4-14-2004 by Tsa`ah]

So its your fault we have Bush in the first place?

Nader? Are you kidding? He was caught stealing CDs out of HMV!

[Scott]

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
I pegged your vote for Bush Sintik ... Something change?

Aww, lets not dig up old graves now... ;)

I like discussing things with people, you should know that. When it was me, you, kranar, etc. discussing things I enjoyed it. I just generally don't get involved in most topics like I use to because of the way they end up anymore.

I can tell he was just curious. I'm not important, active, or quite frankly a person who will go crazy when someone asks my opinion to be worth baiting anymore. I'm a forgotten debater on these boards. :(

[Tsa`ah]

No it's not my fault, it's her fault.

http://www.ericblumrich.com/gta.html

People like me have merely demonstrated that there is no such thing as a wasted vote.

[Sean]

Oh I thought he meant we would have to dig old man Sintik up out of the grave to get a response.

[Back]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
No it's not my fault, it's her fault.

http://www.ericblumrich.com/gta.html

People like me have merely demonstrated that there is no such thing as a wasted vote.

Despite it all... I just might do her... after a few martinis.

[Shari]

I totally agree with Tijay on his dodging of questions, but that's what polititians do, unfortunately.

I am glad we did take care of things over there and I know we need to help rebuild the country, but for christ's sake he is completely ignoring the issues over here with the unemployment and current economy issue. At least thats how it seems to me.

I don't want to vote for him and that leaves me Kerry. I don't really know where he stands on issues and for some reason he reminds me of a used car salesman with that damned grin of his.

[Tsa`ah]

The thing about press conferences of this nature is that the questions are screened prior to the conference. Reporters are told specifically what questions they can ask and what questions they won't ask.

Does it surprise anyone that specific issues were not even touched let alone questioned?

[Tendarian]

Originally posted by Gemstone101
I wondering, besides Tamaral, Edine, and Hulkein (if old enough), is anyone else voting for Bush?

I will be voting for Bush as well as i actually like him.


I don't want to vote for him and that leaves me Kerry. I don't really know where he stands on issues and for some reason he reminds me of a used car salesman with that damned grin of his.

You can pretty much just assume he has agreed with you on whatever issue your thinking about. They dont call him a flip flopper for nothing.

[Warriorbird]

I'll probably vote for an Independent again and make my father yell.

[Ilvane]

That press conference was frustrating to watch. I'm not sure I'd feel sorry for him, since he got himself into Iraq, so he should have to explain himself.

I'll be voting for Kerry. I can't stomach voting for Bush, because he basically stands for everything I stand against, and vice versa.

I can't see voting for anyone else, because if I do I might as well vote for Bush. Sure, you may not be "throwing away" a vote, but it is basically at this time in the country like voting for Bush if you vote for someone else from one of the other parties. The way I see it, if you have someone who is close to what you believe, it's better to choose them.

Kerry has a ton of ideas, and plans on what he wants to do if he becomes President. www.johnkerry.com

At least humor me and take a look! ;)

-A

[Weedmage Princess]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
3) Get Ashcroft to immediately declare an enemy combatant whoever it was who picked out your tie. Then execute him. Talk about a distraction. That beat Rice's gap teeth all to hell.

Raven

ROFLMAO

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I'm leaning towards Bush, though neither major candidate, in my opinion, has a platform that I'm 100% for (or 80%?). Ask me in 5 months, lol.

I'm conservative, sure, but I'll vote for the person I think is best suited to the countries needs, and my own agenda's.

[longshot]

As someone who has been Republican pretty much their entire life, I'm so dissappointed that nobody inside the party has called out Bush.

In the long run, I feel it will be disasterous for the party. I don't dig this "unholy alliance" with the happy-clappy bible thumpers either.

No way can I vote for Bush.

[Atlanteax]

I will be voting for Bush.

[TheEschaton]

Bush's tie was definately giving me seizures. I was like, WTF, bitch! It was literally giving me a headache. I think he wore the same tie to one of the SOTU speeches.


As for what he said, it's to be expected. The part I loved was the NPR guy, who, after he asked his question, Bush said, "I wish you had submitted this question earlier, so I coulda planned for it..." Or maybe it was the guy from Time. Whatever, you know he's never gonna be called on again.

Also, at one point he said "HOld on, folks, I have some must-calls." What kind of shit is that? He guarantees questions for certain news agencies, in return they tone down their questions and submit them ahead of time?

Bullshit.

And Ilvane, it doesn't matter who you or I vote for. We live in MA and NY, respectively perhaps the two most Democratic states in the Union. Both with Republican gov'rs, but still.

-TheE-

[Sean]

Originally posted by Ilvane
I can't see voting for anyone else, because if I do I might as well vote for Bush. Sure, you may not be "throwing away" a vote, but it is basically at this time in the country like voting for Bush if you vote for someone else from one of the other parties.


Isn't this the atttitude that makes our system a 2 party system?

[peam]

No, it's the fact that the winner of majority vote takes total power, rather than having power distributed amongst percentage of vote recieved.

[Ilvane]

I personally like the Green Party platform, but I really didn't like Ralph Nader the last time.

I want someone interesting to run, who isn't afraid of big business and what they want to do to the environment.

I also want someone who is fiscally responsible and also someone who isn't afraid to spend money on education and healthcare.

I want fair and equal taxes. None of this with tax breaks for the rich.

I would also like them to be pro-abortion, but also pro-life.(someone who supports the right, but not the action, since it is a choice). Because lets be honest, most people don't support abortion itself, just the rights to have one if necessary.

I'd also like someone who accepts people of other religions than thier own.

The Republicans are too far right, and the Democrats are all over the place, some of them going right to be more like Bush, some going left to be like Kennedy. Just run on what you believe on, not on what the party platform is.

I suppose I just want the "perfect candidate", but I don't really think I'll ever see someone like that.

-A

[TheEschaton]

My friend's father was a Democratic congressman from this area. I once asked him if it was possible to be a pro-Life Democrat. He said no, not publically, not if you want to receive support (financially) from the Democratic party.


Which, I think, provides a dilemma for the significant portion of Catholic Democrats out there.

I've often thought of forming (re-forming?) the Christian Socialist party.

-TheE-

[Hulkein]

Yeah, I am old enough to vote this time around (First presidential election I'm voting in), I'm registered Republican, and will vote for Bush.. I don't vote down party lines though, I voted for Rendel for PA Governor.

As for the press conference, I didn't see it live but my dad (who's leaning towards voting for Kerry) said he thought Bush handled it pretty well.

Originally posted by Ilvane

I want fair and equal taxes. None of this with tax breaks for the rich.

I-A

Ohh I agree with you 100% on this
That means we drop the Higher tax brackets down to 25% from around 40%
and bump up the lower brackets to 25% from something around oh I dont know 0%
Yes fair and equal taxes for all
A Flat tax. One good thing that Big Eared Goof Ball had going for him.

Alas, I missed him speak last night for I was at work:?:

[Tsa`ah]

I don't know about you, but when I was in that lower bracket I didn't have any loop holes or tax shelters and I paid just shy of 25%. Before children and marriage, I saw 50 bucks returned between state and federal.

Hmm... Interesting.

hmm perhaps you should get a better accountant?
I got a total of $1,853 back from the feds, and $98 from the state.
And I am single, unmarried with no kids

[Warriorbird]

Depends on how stuff works out for you. I paid the government this time, but considering some of the stuff that I did this year I didn't have that much of a problem with it.

:evil grin:

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Jesae

I don't want to vote for him and that leaves me Kerry. I don't really know where he stands on issues and for some reason he reminds me of a used car salesman with that damned grin of his.

Why don't you tell him where you want him to stand on the issues.. I'm sure he would agree with you if it meant you would vote for him.

[TheEschaton]

Ahh, but Edine, two people can look at the same thing and see two different things completely. ;)


To me (and I suspect Ilvane) "fair and equal" taxes means just that - you pay for your part in the economy. I don't know what the numbers are, exactly, but I think it's the people who earn over 200,000 a year (less than 1% of the population) account for 40% of the economy. Therefore, they should, as a group, pay for 40% of the tax burden. Meanwhile, the 75% who make under 50k a year should pay 75% of the tax burden. That seems fair and balanced to me. What that means though, that since there's a vast majority who contribute less than double what the top 1% pays, their taxes will be less, since they are 75 times larger in population. The 1% who contribute 40% thus have to pay more. It's simple math, and IT'S FAIR.

-TheE-
P.S. I say this as one of the 1%. It doesn't make my opinion more or less valid, but it is offered as proof that I don't have this opinion selfishly, since it would adversely affect myself.

[Latrinsorm]

Your simple math has a 115% tax burden, E. Might want to reread that. ;)

[TheEschaton]

Boo, it was an example. I don't know the actual numbers. ;)


-TheE-

[Tendarian]

Wouldnt a flat tax with no loopholes end up working better and seem more fair though(to both sides?)

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by Tendarian
Wouldnt a flat tax with no loopholes end up working better and seem more fair though(to both sides?)

You'd think so... never mind how simple tax season would be for both taxpayers and the IRS, including the decline in costs involved (less time for taxpayers, less adminstrating/monitoring/etc for IRS).

However, a Flat tax likely will have to be a bit higher than the median tax bracket right now, to account for the inability to shift some tax burden from the poor to the rich.

It really should be something like Flat 15%, 17.5% if you make more than 100k, and 20% if more than 250k.

Since the majority of taxpayers make less than 100k, the overall system would still be dramatically simplified... if, and only if... there are no deductions allowed.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
Ahh, but Edine, two people can look at the same thing and see two different things completely. ;)


To me (and I suspect Ilvane) "fair and equal" taxes means just that - you pay for your part in the economy. I don't know what the numbers are, exactly, but I think it's the people who earn over 200,000 a year (less than 1% of the population) account for 40% of the economy. Therefore, they should, as a group, pay for 40% of the tax burden. Meanwhile, the 75% who make under 50k a year should pay 75% of the tax burden. That seems fair and balanced to me. What that means though, that since there's a vast majority who contribute less than double what the top 1% pays, their taxes will be less, since they are 75 times larger in population. The 1% who contribute 40% thus have to pay more. It's simple math, and IT'S FAIR.

-TheE-
P.S. I say this as one of the 1%. It doesn't make my opinion more or less valid, but it is offered as proof that I don't have this opinion selfishly, since it would adversely affect myself.

This is how the cookie crumbles. Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh $7.
The eighth $12.
The ninth $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20."

So, now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So, the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six, the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share'?

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being 'PAID' to eat their meal.

So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so: The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man "but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. There are lots of good restaurants in Europe and the Caribbean.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
536 Brooks Hall University of Georgia

[Latrinsorm]

That example doesn't fly no matter how many times you post it, PB. :P

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
That example doesn't fly no matter how many times you post it, PB. :P

Actually.. that is the 2nd time I've ever posted it.

And please.. I offer you an opportunity to come up with a better example. It's the best one I have yet to see that explains the tax system and the tax cut to the layman.

Most Americans are #1,2,3,4... and most of them react JUST like those people did.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
And please.. I offer you an opportunity to come up with a better example. It's the best one I have yet to see that explains the tax system and the tax cut to the layman.Something as complicated (and freaking long) as the tax code cannot be simplified into a single post without losing crucial information. It'd be like me trying to give the gist of the Bible, Koran, and Stephen King's the Stand in a three paragraph essay. You'd get a general idea, sure, but you lose all the intricacies, which are what make life fun.

[TheEschaton]

Lay it down real quick: You can't compare taxes to that analogy, because, for example, the guy who would originally pay $59 has so many loopholes to jump through, he only pays $29. And the other 9 have to burden the cost of the $30 he saved.

Secondly, this system would work well, if the tax burden was divvied up as I said. If the rich who made up 59% of the economy, paid 59% of the taxes, that would be all well and good to give them 59% of the tax cut. But, when you have them A) paying much less than the 59%, and B) all the tax cuts directed towards them (dividend tax, estate tax, inheritence tax, all struck down with Bush's tax cuts), then you have an unfair system of cuts.

However, when you have the people who get 59% of the income, paying only 35% of the tax, and then give a 5% tax cut based on stock dividends and inheritence taxes, which favor mainly the rich, they burden even LESS of the pie, and the middle class on down has to shoulder a bit more. Even if they got a nominal refund on their money.

Like I responded to you earlier - the 9th man who pays $18 made $180 that day. The 10th man, who paid $59, made $1800 that day.

-TheE-

[Parkbandit]

Hey... don't get me wrong.. I'm ALL for tax reform. I think it's a joke as it stands now.

Look at corporations right now and all the tax evasion that goes on via stock options. It's downright criminal if you ask me.

PS- If my company stock price hits $18.00... I'll have over $100K in options alone.

Come on.. just ONE more dollar.

[Edited on 4-15-2004 by Parkbandit]

[TheEschaton]

Ha, one company I invested in, hit 100, did a 10 for one split, and from 10, went to $80-something from there, in the past coupla years.

It's been a hella coupla years.


-TheE-

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
Ha, one company I invested in, hit 100, did a 10 for one split, and from 10, went to $80-something from there, in the past coupla years.

It's been a hella coupla years.


-TheE-

Holy shit.. 10 for 1. Did the company buy back any shares?

SWEET deal for you man.

[GSTamral]

I actually agree wholeheartedly with Parkbandit's example. What people fail to understand is how people get to where they are. The people who make the most money also tend to be the hardest workers. It seems like broken english to ever tell a poor person the whole concept of "EARNING" money.

Yes, I make more than 100,000 a year. And yes, I'm only 25. I also spent 7 years working hard in school, getting undergrad degrees in Engineering and Economics, and I went out and got my MBA as well. I also work 55-60 hour weeks. Don't call me some tax burden on society because I work hard and want to be able to enjoy what I EARN. To those people who complain they didn't have money to go to college, again, you're falling on deaf ears. I personally know people who had next to nothing. They worked extra hard in high school. They worked while they went to school, got a partial or full scholarship, got a degree, and got a job. Yes, they started out in the workforce with a bit of debt, but within 2 years, they had clean slates and 60,000 a year jobs. Choosing to not work hard and be lazy is a choice. Don't expect other people to pay for that choice. Those people are the burden on society.

My mother earns more than half a million each year as a surgical pathologist, and even at the age of 57, she is working up to 80 hours in some weeks. She went through 10 years of medical school, along with 2 years in pathology and cytology to be where she is. And you feel justified taking half of it away because you feel she is some sort of burden on society?

Here's some advice, straight from the heart. Go to school. Work hard. Get a job. Work hard. Then sit there and complain about how people like you should pay all the taxes. Loopholes you say?

Between my mother and father last year, and with all the loopholes they could muster, they saved approximately 39,000 out of a $337,000 tax burden. Conversely, your average McDonalds worker earning 20,000 a year, paying 300 a month for rent, will escape 920 dollars out of a potential 1670 dollar tax burden, on the basis of exempting themselves, the standard deduction, and rent deductions. That's 60% of loopholes. In fact, for people making 25,000, standard built in loopholes still save you more than 50% of the expected tax burden.

Maybe if some of you spent as much time trying to suceed as opposed to directing your anger at those who do, you might actually get off of your asses enough to realize that people get there by earning it.

On a side note, TheE, you said you definitely made more than xxx if you include stocks and bonds. I was just wondering. What company pays employees in BOND incentives? I receive a standard compensation, a management direct stock incentive, and 3-10 year stock options. I have never heard of companies paying employees in bonds, unless you are counting personal investment as part of salary..

[Edited on 4-15-2004 by GSTamral]

[GSTamral]

Parkbandit, on a side note, companies will often give stock options in order to avoid paying taxes on the money used to give those incentives to employees. I can assure you that when I begin to cash my options, I will be paying taxes on the entire profit amount as though it were income.

The issue on stock options is that companies were not including them on net income statements. So if company XYZ made 10,000,000 in profit, but paid senior employees 2,000,000 in stock option cashouts, they were still reporting to EDGAR and the street that they had made 10,000,000 in profit, which is actually an overstatement of tax burden, not an understatement. These types of lies usually can hide a struggling company, or a company in financial trouble because they can overstate and show a profit, when in fact, they are losing money.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by GSTamral
Conversely, your average McDonalds worker earning 20,000 a year, paying 300 a month for rent, will escape 920 dollars out of a potential 1670 dollar tax burden, on the basis of exempting themselves, the standard deduction, and rent deductions.What do you think means more, the 920 bucks to Mr. Flipping Burgers or the 33 grand to your parents making 500 large a year?

[GSTamral]

Latrin, I know the 920 bucks means more to the McDonalds worker, but thats not the point. Many people sit there and assume that people making a million per year are only paying 3 dollars in taxes every year because they are finding loopholes left and right, and that is simply not the case. As to whether or not 39,000 means something to my parents, yes, it does mean quite a bit. Because my mother did not start working until she was in her mid 30's (8 years of medical school in India, 2 years in the US, 2 years for pathology and 2 years for cytology, none of the education of which was free), and my father came to this country with less than 100 dollars to his name in 1967, at this stage in life, a couple years worth of those 39,000 dollar savings is the difference in whether or not they can retire a little early.

I think people who work as hard as them should get the benefit of retiring a little early, and not have to spend the rest of their lives in a nursing home. They've earned the right to do a little better than that. It is already almost too late for my father, who, at 60, is already at the near retirement age. But, yes, I absolutely believe that those people who have worked their whole lives, and worked their asses off at that to live more comfortably than those who do not.

It is my own goal to be making that kind of money by the time I am 35 as well, only because I grew up in a family that had money, I will be able to pass on a better legacy, because the first 25 years of my life was not the same struggle my parents went through. I am willing to work hard, and do what it takes to get there. If you aren't don't expect me to give you a free handout, just because I work hard and you don't.

[GSTamral]

TheE, I further have to point out that I now seriously doubt you make anywhere near the high end money you are claiming you do, if you can honestly try and post that a guy paying 59 would go to 29 through loopholes. Cutting your tax in half from loopholes?

Let's add all of your "loopholes" up.

you can deduct 3050 standard.
You can deduct 4900 for yourself, and 4900 for any dependants
You can claim up to 1000 in straight tax credit if paying for education.
You can deduct interest payments from your tax burden.
You can deduct rent if you are paying rent on a monthly basis.
You can deduct foreign tax credit if you already paid the tax on money earned in another country (no savings, so it just doesnt count)
You can deduct child care expenses, up to a fixed amount.
You can earn a standardized deduction if you are elderly/disabled.
You can deduct up to 3500 a year if you are putting money into an IRA.
You can withhold up to 17% of your income if you are placing it into a 401k (although you still pay tax on the money when you withdraw it).
You can deduct moving expenses.

Let me say this rather clearly for you.

I am an elderly man who made 1,500,000 dollars last year. Between state and federal taxes last year, I had to pay 615,000 (in NJ) with no deductions. I claimed 10 dependants, I moved 3 times last year, and I am paying off 3 million in debt at 10% interest per year. I paid for the education of 10 children, claiming the full 1,000 dollar credit for each. I put 17% of my money into a 401K pre-tax, and I am also renting 3 different places, each of which costs 2,000 a month. I am also taking the maximum amount of child care credit possible, and I put the full 3500 into my IRA.

Despite this extremely unrealistic circumstance, I hate to break the news to you, but this man STILL didnt cut his tax burden anywhere near half.

He has reduced his taxable income of over 1,000,000, and his total direct credits add up to 35,000. Tax burden moves from 655,000 to 419,000.

Take a more realistic case, and you'd be lucky to change that 655,000 into anything less than 550,000. VERY lucky.

[TheEschaton]

A) I count my own portfolio as income. My portfolio includes bonds.

B) Our stories sound familiar. My dad came to this country from India in 1984 with $40 in his pocket, and admission to Wharton. While in grad school, our family survived off $100 a week to live on. He now pays more in taxes, then you made last year. And he agrees with me, that the tax burden unfairly favors the rich.

And being as he's an investment banker, and a certified CPA, I will take his word on it.


C) As for tax purposes, I don't prepare my own taxes, I was using the numbers as an example. I said as much, in response to LAtrin.

D) My family is involved highly in charity work and all that, which is a write off on your taxes. Perhaps my numbers are a little skewed. ;)

I find Indians to be one of the most hypocritical groups of immigrants in this country, speaking as one. They come from a history rich of culture, of aesthetic values, of family, of all that. In America, they value sticking together, as Indians, as much as possible. But the hypocrisy lies in this: these Indians left their country....for money. My dad says he wasn't unhappy in India - he just wished to make money (he doesn't include himself in this group, though, because he doesn't try to cling to his Indian roots by only consorting with Indians). So, you have an immigrant group coming to the country FOR money, wanting to stick to their culture, having already abandoned it once, AND you have most Indian Americans moving to the Republican party as they become wealthier, a slap in the face to said culture and whatnot more than anything else. The best part is, the Indian subculture here worships my father, but only because he makes a lot of money, and is powerful. In India, he would of been ridiculed as a worthless Goan Catholic, not worth a second glance.

-TheE-

[GSTamral]

If I count my portfolio amongst my income, I doubt your father paid more in taxes last year than I earned, unless he earns somewhere in the neighborhood of what my mother makes, but since I have not sold off said assets, they are not a tax burden until I do. I also will not count said money as being personal income, because, quite frankly, it was given to me. (my parents matched in the market to me an amount equal to the dollar value of the scholarships I had earned throughout high school and college, as they considered it money they would have spent anyway)

And let's not make any assumptions here. I was born and raised in the United States. Whilst my parents donate a tremendous amount of money each year to the IIT, and my father is a member of the IIT Heritage Club, and they have their own affinities in India, I do not. I was born and raised in the United States, and while I can both understand and speak Marahti and Hindi, I do not speak those languages in the house. If my parents speak to me in those languages I will respond in English. It is not that I dislike Indian culture, I simply choose to immerse myself in American culture, as I have no long term plans to move to India with the exception of resolving a land dispute.

As to your feelings that it is hypocritical for an Indian to become a Republican, I will question that. Two of my father's college friends, Nandan Nielkani, and Hemat Kanaki, are both fiscally extremely conservative. Nandan is a co-founder and the CFO of Infosys, which has created more millionaires in INDIA itself than any other company, having introduced the concept of longer hours for better pay, and stock benefits for employees.

You should also know that the top income tax bracket in India RIGHT NOW is lower than what it is in the US. Indian law also not only allows the death penalty, but USES it on a much more routine manner than we do.

As for me being a hypocrit for becoming a Republican, I will answer it this way. I am not an Indian citizen. I am a citizen of the United States. While I have Indian friends, of the friends I consider closest to me, 5 are white christians, 2 are nigerian, 2 are chinese, 1 is phillipino, 1 is Indian, and 1 is a white jew. I personally don't pick and choose my friends based on race and religion, but rather by their content as a person.

You should honestly question your own logic and appliance of it in regards to your interests, as well as in your case, Indian interests in the United States. I hate to put a stereotype into place, but here's a little story to digest.

15 years ago, when my family moved to Warren, we met an Indian family who lived a few miles away. They had moved to the United States with a bit of money and a dream to get their children the best education possible. They opened a family Krauszers, purchasing the land it was on, and ran the store 24 hours a day, 6 days a week, and 12 hours on Sunday. They worked extreme hours, and are amongst the hardest working people I had ever met. Over the course of 10 years, they had not only made enough money to pay off their debts, but also enough to pay for medical school for their eldest daughter, Smita.

In January of 2000, the father died in a car accident. Three months later, the mother died of a heart attack at the age of 46. The establishment, determined to have been worth nearly 900,000, along with their family home, were passed onto their children. Smita spoke with my parents regarding hiring someone to run the business while she finished medical school, and having her younger brother stay with my family for three years until he finished high school.

You know why this never happened?
Realizing the tax burden of the inheritance, they were forced to sell the family business in order to keep their house. Now, with no family income, and bound by a choice as to whether to keep the house and drop out of school to support her brother, or to sell the house to continue paying for medical school and providing money for taking care of her brother, she had no choice but to choose option A. They are doing well for themselves, but had their parents died just one year later, she would still be in medical school today, and her brother would be in college, and they could have kept their family business.

Please tell me whats so Indian about this. If the Indian tradition is to fistfuck a family when the parents die, that makes me feel even less in tune with what you are presenting to me as values.

[TheEschaton]

I doubt your father paid more in taxes last year than I earned, unless he earns somewhere in the neighborhood of what my mother makes, but since I have not sold off said assets, they are not a tax burden until I do.

My father cashed in stock options in around the 4 million range last year.

Anyways, the feeling on Indians becoming Republican being hypocritical is because the Indian society (as much as I know of it, having been born there, living there til the age of 3, and going back every 3 years) is not based around wealth, nor is it based around fiscal conservatism. Nor does Indian culture consider wealth and fiscal conservatism to be admirable goals. What we have is a new Indian American culture, which is as far from Indian culture as possible. I can guarantee you that only the old caste Brahmins in India would be Republicans, while everyone else would be Democrats. And yet, these Indian Americans, who are, overall, wealthy and fiscally conservative (our average income as a minority is around $60,000, about $10,000 higher than the average American salary), claim to be Indian as possible.

Maybe that doesn't apply to you. It applies to most 2nd generation types. And it is hypocritical. For a country who calls Gandhi the father of their country, at least. The accumulation of wealth is a very American ideal, a very Western ideal.

And hell, I don't even know Hindi, and I know that the East doesn't think that way.

-TheE-

[GSTamral]

TheE, I believe you are in a situation in which you are unable to actually understand any of the ideals that other people may have. Cashing 4 million in stock options (and I will assume they were long term leap options) would cost your father 600,000 in taxes under Bush, compared to 800,000 under Clinton.

If your father truly makes that type of money each year, then yes, it is quite easy to say, from the standpoint of bringing home 5 million each year, to bringing home 4.6 million, to say that you wouldnt mind paying more taxes. Not that I would agree, but at that level of wealth, the difference is not nearly as extreme.

Secondly, at your age, you have either just hit the workforce, or have another year until you become a member. Now it is possible you have a job lined up in comfort at your father's company. But if you didn't and you actually had to make your way up the hard way, working the 70 hour weeks, then I'd like to see you say the same thing.

My parents between them make under 800,000 a year, not including whatever their stocks did. But being it that other than rental condos, neither of them receive stock from their employers, that is the sole source of income. The 45,000 a year they save under Bush's tax plan represents a more significant savings, especially given their later start in life. They do not loophole their way around half their taxes, because simply said, it is impossible to do so unless you are cheating. Again, they saved less than 40,000 of a nearly 350,000 tax burden.

Maybe your father thinks that way because at this stage of his life, he no longer works long hours, and basically can kick back and relax on his whims. I can assure you that my parents do not.

[TheEschaton]

Secondly, at your age, you have either just hit the workforce, or have another year until you become a member. Now it is possible you have a job lined up in comfort at your father's company. But if you didn't and you actually had to make your way up the hard way, working the 70 hour weeks, then I'd like to see you say the same thing.

I am a social worker. I do nothing similar to my father's field of work, and I used to work 50 hours a week, and be on-call whenever my clients needed me outside of those 50 hours. I resent being accused of nepotism, as it goes against everything my father taught me. I was paid 18,500 a year. I actually ended up paying more than that in taxes, because of my portfolio, but don't accuse me of not working hard.

Other than that, I'm not going to bother with the rest of your post, since you seem to forget my father was an immigrant as well, and poorer than poor in India, and believed this even then. As far as I'm concerned, this thread is off topic enough for me to consider it done.

-TheE-

[GSTamral]

18,500 a year, but significantly more than that because of a portfolio that was handed to you. My my, doesn't that change the perspective one may have on life.....

I'm going to end this with a simple point. You were born into that portfolio. Be hesitant to call it money that you EARNED.

[TheEschaton]

I will readily admit I was born into the money. But I know, with confidence, that I don't need the money. As soon as it breaks the 5m mark, I'm donating it to the alma mater, anyways.


-TheE-

[Chelle]

Originally posted by Backlash
I think I actucally felt sorry for him tonight in his press conference. He seemed tourtured.

The pressure he must feel... its unimagineable. I do not think I could do so well. Honestly.

For that, I give him props.

But he is the same schoolboy on the blacktop as he was when he was PUT into power. The same mentallity.

One thing I DO like about him is he is a Cowboys fan.

I felt the same while watching that. I think itll all work out. He'll most likely win because Kerry is a flip flopping wishwash and people need something more stable right now.