REPUBLICANS take it all...how bad would it really be?

That's a good example, funny that it's probably pretty easy to volunteer when you're wealthy but probably not so much when you're working two jobs to clothe your kids. Yes, Republicans volunteer even while their policies kick you in the teeth! Not only do they pull this bait and switch type of stuff but then there's the sterilization/demonization aspect of their policies. For example, remember that thing called the Estate Tax? Republicans so affectionately renamed it the Death Tax in order to demonize it. Death Tax? Wow, who would be for that? That's wrong! death=bad and Death Tax=terrible! Dubya using Midwest farmer families as a front for his fat cat pals trying to torpedo the Estate Tax is shameful. An example of Dubya's sterilization are things like "tax relief", like somehow those 10% of wealthiest Americans need relief from their tax burden in order to pay the rent. I guess pointing this out makes me anti-family. Maybe Dems will get smart and rename Welfare as Poverty Relief and Affirmative Action as Racism Relief.

MadMax I'm sorry that you're demeaned by being called an upper-middle class white Christian. That must be a terrible burden to bear but really if you're going to tell me how you care because you volunteer and then support a party that essentially undermines your efforts then don't get angry at me for pointing it out.

 

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/2...ense_wealth.htm
Bush's plan would cut taxes for everyone and cuts them most for the poor; married people filing jointly, for example, could make almost $25,000 a year and pay zero income taxes.

Could and Would are very different things. Perhaps if there are a variety of random deductions and such, it might go down. However, for the base tax rates:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p17.pdf

(again, this is for yr 2001)

See page 263. You start paying taxes at Adjusted Gross Income of $5. With a ~$4000 standard single person deduction, you're looking at $2 in taxes if you make ~$4005. Now, I don't honestly know what other random deductions you might get for being poor, but those are the base rates.

As best I can tell, the EITC is the primary way you get to making $25,000 and paying less/no taxes:

http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=96406,00.html

<I>Income and family size determine the amount of the EITC. To qualify for the credit, both the earned income and the modified adjusted gross income for 2001 must be less than $28,281 for a taxpayer with one qualifying child, $32,121 for a taxpayer with more than one qualifying child, and $10,710 for a taxpayer with no qualifying children. The EITC Eligibility Checklist on the last page of IRS' Publication 596 , Earned Income Credit, may be used to quickly determine eligibility for the credit.</I>

If you make $11,000+ and have no kids, you're not eligible. That married couple (if they had kids) making $25,000 would be eligible though. I'm not sure how much it cuts from your taxes.

Please post a source to confirm this claim.

My claim is based on the tax refund being a refund of your INCOME taxes. Since SS tax is not part of the income tax, it wouldn't be associated with the refund. The max refund you can get is the total income taxes withheld by your employer. Withholding for SS taxes and income taxes are separate functions, so I don't see why SS taxes would be refundable. If you believe differently, you can provide a source.

 

fine...and don't claim innocence when i say you're making it personal. the other day in another thread i tried to reach out to you in a way to see if we could get past all that crap so i could understand your perspective and you might understand mine. it's been made quite clear to me that you don't give a tinker's damn about my perspective. instead you respond like this.

what have you "pointed out" other than your own opinion? thanks for pointing it out, timing. i'll take it under advisement.

by the way...the upper-middle class white christian thing was directed at glynch...it's not your fight. my point was merely that glynch tries to fit me in a neat compartment based on his preconceived notions. that he already understood all my positions because i was just another white, upper-middle class, christian from texas. that's what i think is demeaning...

 

Originally posted by MadMax
fine...and don't claim innocence when i say you're making it personal. the other day in another thread i tried to reach out to you in a way to see if we could get past all that crap so i could understand your perspective and you might understand mine. it's been made quite clear to me that you don't give a tinker's damn about my perspective. instead you respond like this.

How am I making it personal? I'm talking about the policies of the Republican Party and you bring up your volunteerism as some kind of a macho challenge to me. As if because you do charity work your party's views and tactics aren't fair game. What is your perspective? This?

since we're all racist and we hate poor people it could get pretty bad!

The only perspective I see is you completely dismissing criticisms of your party as some kind of paranoiac conspiracy. So really tell me your perspective on how the Republican Party is serving minorities and the poor in this country. Since that is a topic that is very important to me personally I'd love to hear that.

 

you win, timing...we're all out to destroy the lives of minorities. you win.

you win...i was just trying to be macho about volunteering...that's really in my character...i'm a big, tough, macho guy. you win...

you win...my support for a group that undermines my own efforts..."my party"..."calling you out"...none of that stuff is personal...you're right. you win again.

thanks for the great discussion...i think i truly understand your perspective now. thanks for your time.

 

Don't worry, that's not pity, but one thing I enjoy on this BBS are the thoughtful postings (by, say, MadMax and Refman) that contrast my own liberal stances but do so in a thoughtful, sincere, and dialogue-oriented way. MadMax's post about hating the poor and being racist was a well-timed joke. If we lefties truly believe that conservatives actively hate the poor and are all racists, then we cannot possibly respect any conservatives. Therefore, why would we even try to communicate? I like to think I respect conservative viewpoints, especially from the likes of MadMax. (I'll admit, those who appear completely selfish and like to end their "classic" posts with all-caps infantile declarations are more difficult for me to respect, but I digress). Timing, I like a lot of your posts, but honestly, if your "criticism" of a party is to completely insult its humanity and soul, how can that lead to dialogue?

Finally, how much am I going to learn from pep rallies with those that completely share my views? It feels good (and I'm headed to an anti-war rally in downtown SF tomorrow), but it can lead to tunnel-vision, a completely unproductive and in some sense lazy state of citizenship. Have a good weekend, everybody.

 

You play the victim sooooo well. You get personal with me "big guy" and it's actually me doing it to you. Thanks for giving your perspective on how Republicans serve minorities and the poor.

B-Bob I don't see it anymore of an insult to their humanity than their policies are an insult to mine. We've allowed this country to steer so far right that even if we meet in the middle we're still far right. That's not acceptable.

 

I share your anger but not your angle. I don't know who exactly is supposed to "steer" a country, but it has certainly been drifting to the right for a while. IMHO, that's what the factors of runaway capitalism and a culture than emphasizes infantilization and consumerism will provide for a nation. We live in a nation that is proudly agressive, proudly consumer-driven, proudly capitalist. I'm not saying we give up and go home (I say we try to dialogue, talk, and get things as humane and as internationally responsible as possible), but I don't know what you want to do if American reality is unacceptable to you. Maybe I'm not hard core enough or maybe I'm too stupid, but if we can't converse with a MadMax type citizen, then maybe we either need to advocate complete anarchy or just leave the country (a lot of lefties I know in SF are advocating the latter -- just abandoning the ship). I'm staying on board (sorry, T_J).

 

B-Bob -- what specifically do you not like about capitalism? Is this not the economic ideology that has put a great distance between the United States and the rest of the world? This is the vehicle that has allowed the US unparalleled success, and given every single American a chance at making it big. I just don't understand why people would make a conscious choice to not like economic freedom and independence.

So your inner circles of left-leaners are actually considering packing up and moving?

 

You're being overly generous, 10 percent is way to high. Specifically referrring to the Estate Tax, the figures are even more dramatic:

http://www.mdnetguide.com/v3n8/finance.html

and don't even get me started on the so-called marriage penalty.

 

Well, I didn't actually say I didn't like capitalism, though my last diatribe would at least lead one to think I have certain criticisms. I used the term "runaway capitalism," and IMHO, capitalism unchecked is brutal, inhumane, sort of like the natural order of the animal kingdom. (Crime, I argue, is a necessarily consequence of total capitalism, where you take whatever resources you have to get ahead in the world. If that's a gun and a ski-mask and not much else, then you should rob someone or at least a liquor store, because that's what it will take to get ahead in the most expedient and efficient way).

With only minor reigning in, a more or less free economy can also show more compassion (not that I for a second think this scenario would win YOU over , don't worry). If I may ramble on, it looks like our culture and our economy have started resonating in a way that is very ugly to me. Money and instant satisfaction don't cultivate beauty, self-reflection, community, understanding, or any of the other things I tend to appreciate.

But then, I haven't really experienced the luxury of your SUV with the top back. So I can't say I've walked in your shoes at all.

As for my inner circle here, yep, those that consider themselves slightly left of Il Duce feel like they're far far to the left of the mainstream, and some of them are really leaving. Chicken****, if you ask me.

 

1) And as for providing incentives for unproductive behavior... how is that? Nobody here (as far as I know) supports raising lazy bums to middle class status.

The whole inentive thing is a sound bite bs. It comes from the types of people who don't study history-- at least of the US. The top The top income tax rate was as high as 73 or was it 90% in the 1950's in the US, a time of great rising productivity and wealth. The upper classes did not all stop working move ovr seas and play golf all day long. I suppose it is an ahistorial extrapolation from what happened in Russia under communism. Like many falshoods the rich will stop bgeing productive if you tax them seems to be common sense, it just doesn't happen that way in reality or at least hasn't happened that way in US history.

 

Wow stupid you really nailed us with your red baiting; those countries you mentioned all suck, therefore so must I, unlike those awesome places where people pay no taxes, like Rwanda, Afghanistan and Russia.

 

Madmax, look this bbs has literally hundreds of posts in which you advocate common conservative Republican positions. That is what I know about you. I had no preonceived notions prior to readings dozens of your posts. Sorry, but that is just the case.

Perhaps you think your viewpoints are 100% uniquely thought out. I'm sorry but your positions are largely consistent and easily recognizable for what they are. As one might expect you have some issues on which you differ from typical Texas Republicans. These differences don't disprove all the other consistencies.

You know what? With a few exeptions my viewpoints are common liberal positions. I don't know what the big deal is to having a viewpoint shared by many others.

I don't want to hurt your feelings and I don't think you are a bad person or anything. Many people in Texas have your viewpoints. Perhaps that is why you think they are so commonsense or perhaps moderate.

Timing has a point. He is claiming that in his opinion the policies of the Republian party undermine the good works you do on a personal level. You don't respond to this argument on an intellectual level, but try to act like you have been the victim of personal attack. You've done the same thing to me when I have tried to discuss religion or the ethics of many conservative Christians, who seem imho to have a politics of selfishness that is so harmful (and to me so UnChristian) toward the poor and unfortunate in our society..

I have tried in the past to make up with you, but you have preferred to be hurt and allegedly the innocent victim of vicious personal attacks by me. Now you are taking the same tact apparently with Timing. Why don't you just try to defend your viewpoints or argue against his viewpoints instead?

 

"Ask not what your country can do for you...ask what your country can do for Timing."

 

Wow, does your head hurt from coming up with that clever little line?

 

Ooooooh that's a good one Freak. Let's see what I can come up with...

"Help the greedy, screw the needy." - TheFreak

 

Back on topic...
____________________-

GOP set to lose governorships

October 27, 2002

BY ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

George W. Bush may defy historical precedent Nov. 5 by avoiding the usual midterm congressional losses endured by a new president, but he is almost sure to suffer heavy losses in governors.

Republicans seem nearly certain to lose the lead in governorships. As matters now stand, Democrats can count on a net gain of six governors--and possibly many more. When President Bush took office, 33 of the 50 governors were Republicans. New Jersey and Virginia fell to the Democrats in the 2001 off-year elections, and gaining six more would even the partisan split at 25 states for each party. Furthermore, the Democratic gains could be larger where Republicans are barely hanging on in several states.

The impending losses for Republicans are qualitative as well as quantitative. Illinois is not the only big state where Democrats figure to win big. Republicans trail just as badly in Michigan and Pennsylvania.

Worse yet, the president's own brother could fall in Florida. As 2001 began, only California among the nine most populous states had a Democratic governor. As 2003 begins, Democrats may govern in six of them.

How could this happen when there is no such trend apparent in this year's contests for the U.S. House and Senate? Mainly because incumbent governors are so sensitive to any economic decline. Members of Congress can weather the storm, but governors have to raise taxes, cut spending or do both. In addition, Republicans who have held power for many years in swing states were ready for a fall. Finally, the GOP bears the burden of unpopular incumbent governors.

Illinois encompasses nearly all of the above factors. The unpopularity of Gov. Ryan rubs off on the GOP's candidate to succeed him, Attorney General Jim Ryan, exacerbated by bitter words between the Ryans. Even without these problems, however, Illinois seems ready for its first Democratic governor in 26 years. That enables an obscure Democratic House member, Rep. Rod Blagojevich, to lead by 12 points in a new Chicago Sun-Times/Fox News Chicago poll.

Here's the outlook in the other high population states with races for governor this year:

California: Gov. Gray Davis (D) is massively unpopular because of his handling of the energy crisis, a looming budget crisis and his reputation as an unprincipled fund-raiser. But businessman Bill Simon (R), seeking elective office for the first time, has made every conceivable campaign mistake. Davis is the clear favorite, but it could be closer than expected.

Florida: Gov. Jeb Bush (R) looked like a cinch against the feckless candidacy of former U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno (D). Then rookie candidate Bill McBride (D), a trial lawyer generously supported by the teachers union, upset Reno in the primary and now has pulled even with Bush. Democrats are pouring money and workers into the Sunshine State to defeat the president's little brother, who is not all that popular.

Michigan: Gov. John Engler (R) has grown steadily less popular through the course of three terms, and his anointed successor--Lt. Gov. Dick Posthumus (R)--suffers for it. State Attorney General Jennifer Granholm (D) is way ahead. The new glamor girl of Democratic politics, she would be a prospect for vice president next time save for her Canadian birthplace.

New York: Gov. George Pataki in 1994 became New York's first conservative governor in half a century. There is not much conservative about him after three terms in Albany, and much of organized labor is supporting Pataki. Businessman Tom Golisano is running an independent campaign against him from the right, though it seems unlikely to help State Comptroller Carl McCall (D) in his effort to become the state's first African-American governor.

Ohio: Like his fellow Midwestern GOP governors, Gov. Bob Taft seemed vulnerable. He was not vulnerable enough, however, to elect oft-beaten Cleveland politician Tim Hagan (D).

Pennsylvania: This state regularly switches party allegiance for governor every eight years, and it is the Democrats' turn in 2002. Former Philadelphia Mayor Ed Rendell, the Democratic Party's general chairman in 2000, is way ahead of state Attorney General Mike Fisher (R).

Texas: Gov. Rick Perry (R), who attained his office by succession when George W. Bush was elected president, is none too strong. Nevertheless, business tycoon Tony Sanchez (D), seeking to be the state's first Hispanic-American governor, trails badly.

Republicans hope to counteract some of this by taking back Southern governorships in South Carolina and Alabama. This could be countered by possible Democratic takeovers in Tennessee and Arkansas, however.

Other interesting matchups for governor:

Alaska: Sen. Frank Murkowski (R) is having difficulty in what was supposed to be an easy race for governor, possibly because of resentment that--if elected--he will appoint his successor in the Senate.

Colorado: Gov. Bill Owens (R), perhaps the coming conservative Republican superstar, is a cinch for re-election.

Maryland: Lt. Gov. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend (D), the eldest child of Robert F. Kennedy, was considered an easy winner in one of the nation's most heavily Democratic states. But she has inherited the unpopularity of outgoing Gov. Parris Glendening (D) and is running no better than even against Rep. Robert Ehrlich (R).

New Mexico: Former Clinton Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson (D), harboring big national ambitions, is on course to become governor.

Oklahoma: Former Rep. Steve Largent (R), the former NFL pass-catching great, has proved an unsteady candidate but is still on course to be the next governor.

Wisconsin: Tommy Thompson (R), four times elected governor, could not pass on the magic touch when he resigned to become secretary of health and human services in the Bush administration. Gov. Scott McCallum (R), who succeeded Thompson, is running behind Wisconsin Attorney General Jim Doyle (D).

Massachusetts: Mitt Romney (R), the businessman who saved the Salt Lake City Olympics, ran ahead of all Democrats in the state all year. Once Democrats finally held their September primary, however, state Treasurer Shannon O'Brien (D) moved ahead of Romney.

 

Ah, the governorships... funny how important they are.

One of the dirty little secrets about the "Republic Revolution" of '94 was that voting demographics changed, but not substantially. More than anything else, Republican control of governorships and legislatures created redistricting nightmares for Democrats.

One of my favorite instances is in Utah. Salt Lake is partitioned amongst the other districts to make sure that SLC doesn't elect a democratic congressman. The rationale given is that it makes sense to give each district a broad sampling of Utah. What the hell? That's contrary to rationale for our entire system of electing individual representives rather than party voting. If we really felt that way, we'd use proportional representation.

No, just a way of screwing urban Utahns from electing Democrats. This is a favorite rant of my fiancee... who is happy now in Texas with me, where us Lefties are at least given a fighting c hance