Feel free to direct your concerns to the Administrator. sm
Posted By: BuckeyeLil (Moderator) on 2006-07-08
In Reply to: Does anyone besides me... - Lurker
You can reach the adminstrator at Admin@MTStars.com. As far as deleting, since the incident of several weeks ago, I have made a concerted effort on BOTH boards to keep the bashing to a minimum.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
My sentiments exactly. Feel free to
nm
Feel free to keep clinging to them.
He has stated repeatedly that he won't take them away.
Feel free to start your own on the threads
on the conservative board. Seems to me that most of the conservatives have an inability to start their own conversations and can only respond to liberal threads. Be proactive and start something.
feel free to chose the sources
you want to believe -- Wall Street Journal versus "websites". As the McC campaign stated ' this election will not be based on facts. They are going personality whole-hog. OMG. I just offended someone somewhere.
George's mistakes - feel free to add to the list.sm
When Democrats accuse George W. Bush of being a liar, Republicans -- and until recently, the media -- have responded that Bush is a man of integrity whom you can trust at his word. It was the evil Bill Clinton who lied. Remember him wagging his finger at us? That bastard!
Well, yes, Bill Clinton did indeed lie to us. He lied to us about oral sex. It sure is good that we spent nearly $100 million to find out how semen reacts on a cotton blue dress from the Gap. Of course, it turned out that he was telling the truth to us about Whitewater and filegate and travelgate and campaign finance-gate and gate-gate and more. I'm sure we could find better uses for that money today. But, Clinton certainly did lie about that hummer. Imagine that, a man lying about sex. In America no less.
Of course, unlike another president, Clinton's lies didn't kill anyone.
Anyway, I decided to put just a short list together of lies by George W. Bush. These are not banal lies about one's sex life, these are big lies, whoppers and tall tales about his own record, who he is, what he's done and what he stands for.
1. The Iraq War.
We could really start and end with this one, since this lie has killed and wounded thousands of American soldiers and countless Iraqi men women and children. But this one certainly does not stand alone.
Let's break this out into subcategories as well, such as:
a) The smoking gun could be a mushroom cloud. Iraq didn't even have shitake mushrooms.
b) Saddam would not let the inspectors in. Bush has now made this claim twice. It came as quite a surprise to the hundreds of U.N. inspectors that were in Iraq in 2003 and were told by the U.S. to get out or get bombed.
c) Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. All right, I cut them some slack on this one as EVERYONE thought that he still possessed some WMD capability. The difference is that no one else felt that Hussein was any sort of credible military threat to the rest of the region, much less the United States. And, by no one else, I mean C.I.A., the U.N. and anyone else not named Wolfowitz, Rice, Libby, Rumsfeld, Cheney or Pearle.
d) We know exactly where they are. So said Rumsfeld shortly after the war ended. I wonder if he's shared that bit of information with his boss yet?
e) The laundry list. Both Bush in his 2003 State of the Union speech and Colin Powell at the United Nations read through a laundry list of horrors that was quantified down to the milliliter. Powell called these charges facts that were unassailable. Yet we have still not found a drop.
f) We believe that, in fact, Saddam Hussein has reconstituted nuclear weapons. Dick Cheney said this on Meet the Press in 2003. Even as Bush and others were careful of going overboard, Dick Goebbels Cheney kept going for not just the Big Lie, but the Grandaddy of them all.
g) Drones that could attack the United States. True, if they were launched from Padre Island. The truth is that little Timmy down the block has a more sophisticated remote control airplane than Saddam did.
h) Yellow cake uranium. The Italian press thought those documents were fake. Let me repeat that: the ITALIAN PRESS thought they were forgeries!
i) We will be welcomed as liberators. Those are bullets, roadside bombs and RPGs, not roses fellas.
j) Imminent? Who said imminent? Well, Ari Fleischer, Donald Rumsfeld and others. But, apparently Bush never said the words himself. He just used every other phrase he could think of to scare the crap out of us. And, as a point of order, isn't it the Bush Administration? When someone is speaking for the administration, don't they speak for Bush?
k) Al Qaeda and Saddam had close ties. Well, both he and bin Laden are Sunni Muslims, they both have moustaches and, to quote Cliff Clavin, neither of them have ever been in my kitchen. They must be like brothers.
l) We have found WMDs in Iraq. Bush and others have made this claim regarding an ever so dangerous weather tracking truck.
m) They could have been destroyed by Saddam. Or moved out of the country. I know Bush doesn't read the papers or watch the news, but does he even listen to his own staff? David Kay, his hand-picked inspector, said there obviously weren't any weapons in the first place. But, what if Bush is right and they were moved, shipped out of the country? Well, then the whole purpose of the war -- to keep Hussein from giving his WMDs to terrorists -- was a failure. Well, George, which one is it?
I could go on and on, but we've got even more real hardcore, honest to goodness, Grade A lies to address.
2. Taxes (part 1)
Bush has consistently claimed that he is against tax increases. Yet, as Governor, his 1997 tax plan would have forced tens of thousands of business to pay franchise taxes that previously did not have to pay. According to the GOP School of Taxes playbook, that's a tax increase, no if ands or buts about it.
3. Taxes (part 2)
Throughout the 2000 campaign and through 2001, Bush claimed that his mega tax cut for the mega rich was actually a tax cut for the working folks. In fact, he said the vast majority would go to the bottom. As Al Franken has so ably pointed out, by far the vast majority usually means more than 14.7 percent that the bottom 60 percent received. Consider that fuzzy math.
4. Taxes (part 3)
In 2003, Bush claimed his latest sop to the uber-wealthy would create jobs. In fact, the special interest, Rockefeller tax cut was -- in true Orwellian fashion -- named the Jobs and Growth Act of 2003. Someone wake me when those 2.6 million jobs Bush promised in 2004 start being created. He needs to create around 300,000 jobs a month through Election Day to reach his pledge.
5. Taxes (part 4)
Bush, who tried to extend taxes to thousands of businesses and not call it a tax increase, now claims that if his 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are not made permanent, that is a tax increase. Now, remember, the law as written says those taxes automatically phase out if nothing is changed. Bush now says if the law as written -- the law he signed -- is not changed, that is a tax increase.
6. I fulfilled my duty.
He didn't take his flight physical because his doctor was in Houston. The entire National Guard spin is falling apart before our eyes. The facts of the issue have remained the same, but the Bush Team's laughable responses become inoperable by the day. Despite their ever-angrier denials, the issue won't go away. Last Friday night's document dump and run still hasn't answered the key question: where were you during the war, George? At least 1972. You can say it's trolling for trash all you want, but you can't make the issue go away without some proof.
7. I'm a uniter not a divider
Bush's 2000 mantra -- bought hook, line and sinker by much of the media -- was that only he could come to Washington and end the partisan bickering. Within weeks, this proved to be completely untrue. His heavy-handed partisanship even cost him control of the U.S. Senate for a time, as Republican Jim Jeffords bolted the party.
In 2002, Bush showed his unifying skills by saying that Democrats who disagreed with his behemoth vision for the Department of Homeland Security -- a plan he had opposed for nearly a year -- didn't care about the security of the country. You know, guys like Senator Tom Daschle, who was actually a terrorist target. He then thanked Max Cleland and Mary Landrieu for their steadfast support by targeting them and backing opponents who questioned their patriotism and, in Louisiana, sent out mailers to black neighborhoods with the wrong election date.
Well, Bush is a uniter in one way: He has united the Democratic Party like never before, and is driving independents back to the Democratic Party in droves. Please, keep uniting us.
8. The 2004 budget.
From front to back, the latest Bush budget is one of the most fraudulent documents ever created by the U.S. government. Well, at least since the last budget. Like 2003, Bush doesn't count the cost of Iraq or Afghanistan into his fantasy land accounting. He also counts in billions of spending cuts that are flat out pipe dreams that even the GOP won't support. According to the White House, the deficit -- which has gone from hundreds of billions in the black to $518 billon in the red in just three short years -- will be cut in half. This from an administration that has overestimated growth and underestimated projected deficits each year. But, according to George, prosperity truly is just around the corner.
9. I won't run a deficit.
During the 2000 campaign, Bush responded to those who -- quite correctly -- said his voodoo economic plan would drive us right back into the gutter that he would not operate a deficit. He said that he was a governor. I believe in balanced budgets. Yes, the same way kids believe in the tooth fairy and the Easter Bunny.
10. I hit the trifecta.
Following our steady plummet back into deficit land, Bush used the handy excuse of the trifecta: war, national emergency and recession. He explained away his past statements that he wouldn't run a deficit by claiming he had made an exception for those three things. Of course, he never actually said that. Paul Begala, Al Franken, Paul Krugman, Joe Conason and others have all reviewed every statement printed during the 2000 campaign and Bush never made any such qualification. Of course, why should we hold them to what he actually said? As Larry Speakes, Ronald Reagan's press secretary once said, No it wasn't true, but it sure sounded good.
11. I released all my National Guard records in 2000.
On Meet the Press, Bush once again fell back to his standard behavior when confronted with an uncomfortable subject: he lied his ass off. Four years after reporters first asked him to release his records -- and a nearly a week after he promised to -- Bush finally followed in the footsteps of John F. Kennedy, John McCain, John Kerry, Bob Kerrey and Wes Clark and released his full military record.
12. I'm spending less than Bill Clinton.
On Meet the Press, an interview that will go down in history as one of the stupidest decisions Karl Rove has ever made, Bush claimed that government spending has actually dropped under his tenure. Even GOP stalwarts ran away from this one faster than Rush Limbaugh runs to a bowlful of Oxycontins. The truth of the matter is that federal spending has exploded under George W., just as spending exploded in Texas while he was governor. This fella just ain't your daddy's fiscal conservative.
Here is a great quote on Bush's spending:
His dramatic increase in the size and spending of the federal government with a record deficit. With his $2.23 trillion budget, his administration will complete the biggest increase in government spending since Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. The budget deficit predicted by the House Budget Office will hit a record $306 billion. Spending on government programs increased 22% from 1999 to 2003. A Washington Post report said, The era of big government, if it ever went away, has returned full-throttle under President Bush. Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey commented that under President Bush, the federal government is out of control. The source? Liberal media publication Intellectual Conservative in an article entitled Why Christians Should Not Vote for George W. Bush, February 15, 2004.
13. Free Trade.
George W. Bush supports free trade. That's why he slapped tariffs on imported steel. Of course, had the potentially affected steel mills been located in New York instead of Pennsylvania -- a state he hopes to win in 2004 -- Bush would still be a pure free trader.
14. Outsourcing.
Last week, the Bush Administration claimed that the outsourcing of high-paying U.S. jobs to other countries is a good thing. N. Gregory Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, wrote a report saying exactly that. He then reiterated his belief in the wonderful attributes of Americans losing their jobs at a press briefing on the report. Once again, Republicans are fleeing from this statement as fast as they can. So is George Bush, who immediately ran to Pennsylvania to promise 2.6 million jobs by the end of the year. Unfortunately, Mankiw is Bush's hand-picked employee -- and the president has already signed the report.
As Senator Tom Harkin said: Under George Bush, America has a new #1 export: jobs.
15. No one could have imagined them hijacking airplanes.
Of all the lies, this one might be the most annoying. National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice made this claim repeatedly during the summer of 2002. Nevermind that Ramsey Yousef, one of the masterminds of the original attack on the World Trade Center, had his plot to hijack and crash 12 airplanes foiled by U.S. and foreign intelligence agents...in 1995. It was big news then, but apparently didn't make it all the way out to Stanford University. Rice's deceit was completely exposed in 2002 when details of the President's Daily Intelligence Briefing in August 2001 revealed that CIA and other sources warned the administration of just such hijackings. But she is never called on this or other lies when she makes her media rounds.
16. Air Force One was a target.
While everyone remembers and praises Bush's appearance with firefighters in New York City, the White House -- and the press -- conveniently ignore the actual timeline of events. That meeting took place on September 14, 2001. Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, the entire New York congressional delegation and, of course, Rudy Gulliani, had been on the scene for days, Rudy and Bill since almost minute one. On September 11, 2001, after he was notified of both the first and second plane crashes, it took nearly an hour for Bush to depart Florida. But, he did not go to Washington, or even make a statement in Florida. No, first he flew to an Air Force Base in Louisiana; then, to the safety of a bunker in Nebraska. He told Americans it was safe, while he was entombed.
Many criticized his absence, most notably Peter Jennings who asked Where is the President. To combat such criticism, the Bush White House claimed that they zig-zagged across the country because of a credible threat against Air Force One. Nearly a year later, they were forced to admit that they had, in fact, received no such threat.
Now, I am not necessarily criticizing Bush's flight itinerary on 9/11/01. Keeping the President safe was the top priority and they rightly took steps to ensure his safety. So why not just say that and be done with it? Why did the White House have to put out another lie to try to make themselves look heroic? Because that's what they do.
17. Bill Clinton pillaged the White House as he walked out the door.
Well, according to the General Accounting Office in yet another investigation that spent our tax dollars, the allegations of looting just weren't true. Was there some damage and pranks? Of course, just as there are in every transition. But widespread damage? No, it wasn't true, but it sure sounded good.
18. Leave No Child Behind.
The president's key education initiative is a well-intentioned attempt to change education in the United States. It could lead to real changes, if Bush had actually funded the plan rather than treat it as a nice photo op to show he really cared.
According to Senator Edward Kennedy, the author of the legislation and Bush's main prop in 2001, in the two years since the No Child Left Behind Act was passed, the Bush Administration has cut its funding, reneged on promised resources for better teachers and smaller classes, and worked to divert millions of dollars to private school vouchers... President Bush's new budget for 2005 will leave over 4.6 million children behind. Still pending before Congress is President Bush's 2004 budget which provides schools with over $7.5 billion less than promised in the No Child Left Behind Act. And there is every expectation that the President will propose again not only to cut resources for public school reform, but to divert scarce public education dollars to private schools.
Enough said.
19. Cost of the Medicare Bill.
Oops! They must have forgot to carry the one...or they are just liars. In fall 2003, Bush sold his Medicare budget with some interesting numbers: it would only cost $400 billion over 10 years. Now keep in mind that passage of this plan was in extreme doubt, as Democrats opposed the plan as a joke that would cost too much and do too little, while Republicans complained that, well, it cost way too much. The Bush Team assured everyone that it would cost no more than $400 million and the plan passed the House by a razor thin margin.
Lo and behold, they snookered us again. Just a few months later, the plan now costs $540 billion, with more sure to be added as the plan actually begins the implementation process.
20. Ken Lay.
After the Enron scandal hit full force, Bush tried to downplay his relationship with Ken Lay by saying he gave money to my opponent Ann Richards. Suddenly Lay, whom Bush had previously called Kenny Boy, didn't' ring a bell. Despite the fact that Enron was Bush's #1 contributor from 94-00, the fact that Bush was flown around the campaign trail in 1998 on Lay's private plane, and Lay's status as a Pioneer (and serious contender for Commerce Secretary) Bush and he really weren't that close. Maybe that's why Martha Stewart is on trial and not Ken Lay.
(By the way, does it strike anyone as odd that Martha is being tried for almost exactly what George W. Bush did when he left Harken Energy?)
21. I'm against Nation Building.
Throughout the 2000 campaign, Bush assailed Clinton's successful military forays in Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo, saying he opposed nation building. Today, see Afghanistan; see Iraq. In fairness, when you look at the deteriorating situations in both countries, it is clear that Bush is not really doing any nation building right now. He has ignored the reconstruction of Afghanistan (famously forgetting to fund it in his 2003 budget. Sorry about that Mr. Karzai!) and he has, to put it diplomatically, completely screwed the pooch in Iraq by ignoring the possible resistance to a U.S. occupation, handing over the reconstruction to corporate cronies like Halliburton and the reigns of power to unpopular sycophants like Ahmed Chalabi. Disaster looms where we can least afford to fail.
22. I remember that sign from the Old West: Wanted Dead or Alive.
Following the 2001 terrorist attacks, Cowboy Bush repeatedly strapped on his star and gave us his best John Wayne impersonation, essentially guaranteeing that we would take out Osama bin Laden. Now, Bush says of capturing bin Laden: I have no idea (Meet the Press, February 8, 2004). What would John Wayne say?
23. We're safer now that Saddam is caught.
Howard Dean was ridiculed for questioning this platitude, but he is right. Hopefully we will be safer, but that outcome is certainly not assured. Not if Iran is stronger in the region and Iraq splits apart, divided into three warring factions, any of which could destabilize Turkey, Syria or Saudi Arabia. In the meantime, scores of Al Qaeda fighters have streamed into Iraq since the war began, an outcome we had sought to avoid by taking Hussein out.
For the present, I think we should ask the boys and girls being shot at if they feel more or less safe since December.
24. I was never arrested after 1972 -- unless you count that DWI. Err, those two DWIs.
Bush reportedly told the Dallas Morning News in 1999 that he was never arrested after 1972. Of course, as we all learned, he was arrested for drunk driving in 1978, with his younger sister and Australian tennis star John Newcombe, in the car. According to NBC News, Bush was also arrested for another DWI in Midland after 1972. Are his arrests the big deal? No, but his constant lying about them sure goes to character, don't you think?
25. I supported the Patient Protection Act.
During the 2000 presidential debates, Bush claimed he supported the Patient Protection Act and the Patient's Bill of Rights. I almost fell on the floor, especially since Al Gore, standing mere feet away, did not call him on one of the most obvious lies in campaign history. This one was actually well-explored by the media, but Gore let this meatball glide harmlessly over the plate without taking the bat off of his shoulder.
The truth is Bush vetoed the Patient Protection Act in 1995 and let the Patient's Bill of Rights -- landmark legislation that became the model for other states and the federal government --become law without his signature. So, if by support you mean opposed and tried to kill, then yes, you supported them.
26. I signed the hate crimes bill.
Another juicy whopper. Now Bush had won re-election mere months before with nearly 70 of the vote. If he wanted a bill passed, he got it. But, Bush ordered his legislative minions to kill the James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Act, less than one year after the most gruesome hate murder of the post-Civil Rights era. The guy who was the leader in killing the bill? State Senator David Sibley (R-Waco), a man who had supported the same legislation just a few years earlier. You might recognize Sibley; he's the guy you see driving Bush's golf cart whenever Bush is back in Crawford playing golf.
27. I want to get to the bottom of the Plame leak.
Following the sliming of Ambassador Joseph Wilson for exposing the Nigerian yellow cake lie, and the outing of his wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA agent, Bush said it was a very serious matter and that he wanted to get to the bottom of it. But he never ordered his staff to do anything about it. Since very few members of the White House would have had the clearance to even know that Plame was an operative, and even fewer are even allowed to make eye contact with, much less to talk to the media, it shouldn't take Sherlock Holmes to find the culprit here. Instead, he actually lamented that we may never know who did it because Washington is full of leakers. Thankfully, after cajoling from Democrats forced Attorney General John Inspector Clouseau Ashcroft to recuse himself from the investigation, it appears that we may actually discover who is behind this act of treason. Scooter Libby, your lawyer is on the line.
28. I will fight the war on terror.
This claim, unfortunately, is also debatable. Just when we had smoked them out of their holes and got them on the run our intelligence services and our military were forced to change their focus from fighting Al Qaeda to invading Iraq, letting bin Laden off the hook. In addition, despite numerous reports on the vulnerability of our ports, little has been done to make them more secure from terrorism. Also, despite a serious congressional study, media scrutiny and an on-going non-partisan investigation, little has changed regarding how our intelligence is gathered and analyzed to avoid making the same mistakes. In fact, little has changed beyond making several bureaucracies into one huge bureaucracy under the banner of the Department of Homeland Security. And, in perhaps the most bizarre example of sleeping at the wheel, the 2004 Bush budget offers no funding for biothreat detection at Post Offices. This after the White House said they foiled a mail attack to the White House last year and days before Ricin was mailed to Senator Bill Cat Murderer Frist's office.
Well, that's my list. Please add to it, as it is far from all-inclusive.
Don't forget about free broadband, free gas, free healthcare, hey they are "rights" now YIP
xxx
My post was a direct answer to the direct post...
of Democrat. It was not a blank open-ended statement. And dial it back a notch...it is certainly your right to protest anything any time you want to. Just like it is my right to protest you protesting while men and women are still in harm's way, because you are in effect aiding the enemy. Apparently the Viet Nam experience taught you nothing. Americans protesting in the streets heartened the enemy and when they were about to surrender decided not to, based a lot upon what was happening in the American streets. I believe that the protesting in that war prolonged the war and cost more American lives. Hanoi Jane should have been tried for treason. That being said...lessons were not learned and the protestors are doing the exact same thing now. Exercising the very right bought for them by shedding of American military blood. And I still say common courtesy should keep people out of the streets and off the TV until the military are home safe. But it just proves the same thing to me over and over...the selfISHhness of the protestors vs. the selfLESSness of the military. They continue to put it all on the line for your right to protest anything you want to protest...it is up to YOU to decide where and when that is appropriate, and it is up to you to take the heat for same. It is up to me and others like me (in my opinion) to apply that heat. Go ahead and do whatever your conscience or lack thereof moves you to do. But do not expect those of a different mind not to protest the protest.
Where is the line for free college, free healthcare...
mortgage paid for, free gas and ability to sit on my rear and let everyone else take care of me? Wow, now I see the light...this prez elect will be great!!
Free speech is alive and well, as is free will...
people can take anything out of context and do with it what they want; it still doesn't make it a McCain/Palin issue.
Yep. I have my concerns too. But....
he is the master of his own destiny...and we shall see where he attempts to take us.
What concerns me...... sm
is not so much whether or not I can survive the high bills. Of course, I am concerned for my kids, but I am really concerned about the elderly in the cities where they depend on electricity to heat their homes in the winter and cool their homes in the summer. The extreme temperatures are hard on the elderly.
Offshore concerns
To follow is a post on today's MTS Main board under off shore concerns/mg. Maybe some of you could help her out.
I mentioned this a few messages below, but the blog has its first post. I am NOT supporting any Ad things on there and will not be making anything off this.
http://violatingamerica.blogspot.com/
If you have a link that would be useful to others to write their gov't reps, companies, news sources, etc, feel free to post them or e-mail me so i can get them up there. I am also looking for any news stories or any information we can get. One way or the other, we might be able to make a difference.
The OP brought up her concerns....
I brought up mine. I find mine more concerning than hers. And I don't understand why Democrats accept certain behavior in their own and lamblast the other side for the same perceived weaknesses. Why is that?
I do think these are valid concerns...(sm)
and ones that have to be addressed. However, I don't see anything wrong with setting a goal, which is what Obama has done by saying it should be closed in 1 year. I think he purposely left himself some leeway by saying a year, and at the same time let people like me who support him that it will get done.
Personally I think they should be tried in a military court, which would avoid a lot of the bureaucracy that is associated with the regular US court system. They may want to go by the world court rules when trying them? You're right. Noone knows exactly how this is going to be done yet, but we all know that something has to be done.
As far as housing them here, I don't see a problem with that. Right now we house murderers, rapists, and some of the worst criminals immaginable. I don't think that these prisoners from Gitmo would pose anymore of a threat that some that are already there. However, I do think that Gitmo prisoners would have a really hard time in a prison here because of other prisoners.
Obviously, there is a lot to be worked out, especially when it comes to those in Gitmo who are actually guilty, but there has to be something done soon about the ones who aren't.
The only thing that concerns me
is having that information hacked into for anyone to have access to. I think that is my biggest concern.
So you don't believe we have national security concerns?
If you do believe we have national security issues then what is your answer to keeping us safe?
I share your concerns and agree
with everything you have said, but after having been in this business since the early 70s, I've learned never to expect anyone to speak up on behalf of MTs except the MTs themselves. I have never paid membership fees to AAMT and have never had the need to pay for certification, but I would pay MT union due in a heartbeat.
In reply to the concerns you raised.
My first reaction when reading your post was one of curiosity. I was an IC during the latter Clinton years and I do not recall paying 40% of my earnings to tax. What I remember was an aggregate tax payment composed of income tax, social security tax and self-employment tax, which essentially represented a burden I shouldered as an IC that compensated for the lack of employer contribution to SS, Medicare and FICA. To my knowledge, this tax structure has not changed since then for ICs. I also remember paying my taxes quarterly, and being responsible for calculating enough tax not only to cover my required amounts, but also to pay in extra each time if I wanted to generate a return at the end of the year. I made a decision NOT to be an independent contractor because I was a single parent with a mortgage. The self-employment levy felt like double tax to me as compared to what I had been accustomed to as an employee and, most definitely the total percentage of tax burden as an IC was greater than that of a full employee status.
On checking my returns from those years (which I still keep in the house) I find the total tax burden I had for all the components of my tax liability amounted to 27%. I am wondering if you did not get a return back then because you did not contribute more than the minimum rate during the course of the year and that later on, your contributions did allow you to have a return. Also, to account for the lower rate during Bush years, did your family situation change between Clinton years and Bush years, did you get married, have children, add an earned income tax credit deduction, add dependents, start itemizing your taxes. All these changes would account for a lower percentage rate of your tax liability, thus allowing for a return.
I am also wondering why you would look back instead of forward when assessing the issue of whether or not you will be "taxed more." Have you read Obama's tax plan? If not, please go to this link and take a look. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#tax-relief
Essentially this is what you will find (please excuse the format challenges of cut and paste).
Provide Middle Class Americans Tax Relief
Obama will cut income taxes by $1,000 for working families to offset the payroll tax they pay.
• Provide a Tax Cut for Working Families: Obama will restore fairness to the tax code and provide 150 million workers the tax relief they need. Obama will create a new "Making Work Pay" tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family. The "Making Work Pay" tax credit will completely eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans.
• Eliminate Income Taxes for Seniors Making Less than $50,000: Barack Obama will eliminate all income taxation of seniors making less than $50,000 per year. This proposal will eliminate income taxes for 7 million seniors and provide these seniors with an average savings of $1,400 each year. Under the Obama plan, 27 million American seniors will also not need to file an income tax return.
• Simplify Tax Filings for Middle Class Americans: Obama will dramatically simplify tax filings so that millions of Americans will be able to do their taxes in less than five minutes. Obama will ensure that the IRS uses the information it already gets from banks and employers to give taxpayers the option of pre-filled tax forms to verify, sign and return. Experts estimate that the Obama proposal will save Americans up to 200 million total hours of work and aggravation and up to $2 billion in tax preparer fees.
It also might be worthwhile to check out the plan on the economy here
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/
Scroll down to At a Glance and browse the links of interest to you.
Here's the link for healthcare
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/
Again, scroll down to At a Glance and select links of interest.
I have provided Obama website links because you expressed doubts about democratic policy. McCain's website also should have similar information available on these issues as well for your comparison. After reviewing the information (if you were not already familiar with it), ask yourself where the information is coming from that is making you fearful that your taxes will be raised. I would really be interested in any response you may feel inclined to post in this regard. On a personal note, I will not be trusting McCain with the economy or with handling my HARD EARNED tax money. I do NOT want one more single penny to be used to fund the war, bankroll Israel's apartheid and nuclear weapons arsenal, prop up our struggling corporations or trickle up into the pockets of the richest among us in the form of continued Bush tax cuts to the rich, which McCain has openly stated he will continue if elected.
The constituents who brought her their concerns...
does freedom not extend to them also? They don't have a right to at least ask about the books? Which is what they did...and she took their concerns to the city council, which is her job as mayor. Why do you seek to curtail others' freedom in the name of freedom? They did not get what they wanted, but they certainly should have the freedom to ask and be heard. Isn't that exactly what you are saying we must protect??
You are expressing a lof of our concerns and fears
The dems won't even tell us where they are going to get the money from. They should do the math, Obama promises that middle income will not be taxed any more. Right, that's exactly like when Clinton promised during his campaign he would not increas middle income takes and within days after getting into the white house he not only didn't keep his promise but he gave the middle income the largest tax increase since who knows when. So why should I believe Obama? Especially since his voting record shows that he voted to increase taxes.
This is not a hateful post. It is a true fear that a lot of us have. You CANNOT redistribute the wealth and give to the poor who aren't doing anything to deserve it. For all those liberals who are for this type of program please send in your name and address so you can pay my share since you believe its okay. I don't! I work very hard for what I have. I'm already working 14 hours a day and I still hardly have enough money to pay bills, let alone save anything for a retirement. Why should they take more from me.
People need to be held responsible for themselves. If they need charity, that is what the churches are suppose to be for, and other organizations that help the poor. The people need to pick up some skills so they can get out in society and earn a living like the rest of us do.
For all the conservatives out there you need to keep expressing your opinions and fears. People need to be aware of what this Obama is and what his socialist programs will turn America into. This is not the America that our founding fathers fought for. Socialists have infiltrated the system, written laws that protect them and screw us, all the while telling you that you need to feel patriotic about getting screwed. Conservatives need to stand up for what's right and not be bullied by the liberals anymore.
I do believe that there is a direct
response to the OP with the title of "You're Whack." The inside message said, "Who cares? So what? Get a life."
Seriously...if you have nothing constructive to add, why waste your time responding with that?
I guess I just don't get why some of you hate Christians so much? I admit that there are those who try and force their religion upon others. I don't do that. If someone doesn't want to believe in what I do, like my husband, I don't push my views on him. However, he doesn't ridicule me for believing either.
It just seems like every time someone mentions something about religion the bashing and name calling, etc. starts. I'm beginning to think that maybe Christians should be placed on the hate crime list because it sure sounds like a lot of people hate us.
This is not hysteria - it is people expressing their concerns
The moment somebody brings up something that is questionable (and with good reason) about Obama the liberals are quick to say it's hysteria. Watching all the news stations its the same way. It was even brought up on one of the stations tonight about the vicious attacks on Palin. Now their coming out with a porn movie intentionally starring someone that looks like her (I'll be a lot of the liberals and liberal media are happy about that). But once again I heard the liberals say that the poor democrats have been "picked on" for so long that this is okay behavior. The disgusting way they turn it around and will say conservatives are "picking on Obama", but with their dirty campaign tactics and commercials they are only "bringing to light" the truths about McCain. It's all very one sided and I see that on this board too.
Conservatives have a very real and very valid concern about Obama and his shady past (to include where he was born and if he is actually legitimate to become president). The people who are his mentors, spiritual advisors, who gave him his start in politics, and the people who are advising him, along with the dirty bashing from liberal media, makes it very hard for one to have any "faith" in this person. He is so busy covering up his past, his voting record, the people he associates with, etc, etc. Sure he's a stellar speaker. After all - he is a lawyer. He knows how to capture his audience with stories. But lynch mob....I'm hearing it on Obama's side too.
The subject did not change. I will address you concerns
You remember the one about the fact that our tax system has always been progressive and the table posted above shows you just how moderate in comparison Obama's proposed tax rate is. What I want to know is were those 7 republican presidents between 1932 and 1981 all MORE socialist than Obama or what?
Then you haven't been listening to a lot of people's concerns
It is clear half the country feels safer with McCain. The other half doesn't care.
I don't, but the administrator does and knows who is who and who is not. sm
Get the picture?
Please administrator
Administrator, we have been invaded on a daily basis by conservative posters who attack and fight over anything we post. Now this, southern gal, what she is posting is conservative items, not liberal. Could you please remind the conservatives to be respectful of posting on the liberal board.
maybe administrator needs to see it
Maybe it needs to be reported to the administrator/monitor, like they would do to us.
administrator
ff
GO ADMINISTRATOR!
I loved your clarification! It was right on!
Can someone direct me to a site (sm)
that states the candidates' detailed respective platforms at a glance? I've watched most of the debates, as much as I can anyhow, but I've not been able glean and distinguish a lot of specifics.
I'm in FL and vote on Tuesday. Believe it or not, I am undecided. I liked Dennis, but he pulled out today and probably wouldn't have voted for him... won't go into why, but I'm sure I don't have to :-)
Dennis says to go Obama.... not sure if I want to. What I want is to have a Dem president. I like Edwards...
My demographic falls into Hilary's (female 45 and over lol).
Input appreciated.
that was a direct quote from
Ronald Reagan. How SHAMEFUL that you make fun of a dead man and one with Alzheimer's to boot. I am appalled at your lack of manners.
I believe this is a direct quote from big O
'The buck stops here.'
The Nobel Peace prize is given for environmental concerns. sm
The Nobel Peace prize was given in 2004 to Wangari Maathai of Kenya, an environmental activist, for forming the Greenbelt Movement, so the Peace prize being given for environmental concerns is not new......
IPs can only be seen by the Administrator of this site.
t
the administrator, not the posters
I did not say I have information on IP addresses..I suggested to the conservatives if they think I am constantly posting with other handles than my own, they could contact the administrator and ask her to check the IP address of the posts the conservatives keep saying I am posting under and it would prove I ONLY POST UNDER GT, NO OTHER HANDLE..Those other posters are NOT ME..The administrator of this site of course can check IP addresses..NOT US, the administrator..
Administrator has decreed
That on the liberal board we are not allowed to say negative things about the current president. On the other hand, if it's a former president you can really go to town. You may call Clinton a serial rapist, you may call Carter any number of ugly names. However, Bush is strictly off limits.
Probably why no one posts very much.
FYI.
May I politely and respectfully direct you
back to God's word? Obviously a little more study and maturing will do you no harm.
You know, I hate hypocrisy. You want to direct me
back to God's Word?
When you can show me in God's Word where He approves of what Osambo approves, then we can talk.
Let's talk abortion, gay marriage, taxes, lying, cheating, subversion of government, indoctrination of preschoolers, redefining marriage, etc., a whole litany of what Osambo stands for and compare it to God Almighty's Word.
I warn you in advance. You are up against an adversary you do not want to tackle with because you are ill prepared to defend your comments and beliefs in the light of Scripture.
Ready to go for it, old girl?
and I feel like makin *du du duu du du duu* feel like maaa-k-in love to YOU!
ARGH!!
Yes. Someone must have run to the administrator again and complained that she was being treated the
The height of hypocrisy.
The administrator did not say we could not post on other boards. sm
She said to be respectful. Tell me where in my post I was disrespectful. Why not get off of this and start an intelligent debate instead of whole threads crying about being kicked out of the sandbox.
No, the administrator is not giving me any information, nor would I ask. sm
I made a rejoiner when you once again accused me of something I didn't do (see above posts). Have you got all the meat off this bone yet!
The administrator came on ONCE not REPEATEDLY and she came on all boards.
She did not say to stay off the boards. She said not to slam posters. Now, if you can manage to take a second of your time and check out the conservative board, you will see the same thing is taking place there. The only difference is that they are not whining about it. Get real.
Administrator: I am at a lost as to your statement...sm
And realize I am only trying to understand what is going on here. Both boards have had their fair share of attacks, but there is rarely a day that goes by that it does not happen on this board.
That said, when you say no *slurs* against the president that leaves a lot unsaid. Are you instructing us not to speak unfavorable to the president on forumatrix?
If this is a pro-Bush forum then I would be wasting my energy to come here. I missed the posts that got this started so again realize I am trying to understand what is going on here.
Please direct me to the bible verse where it is written
about the right to bear arms. I missed this.
"They are no more pro war than God is. They do believe in the right to bear arms..."
Terrible debate! Jim was not direct or specific enough in his ...sm
questions and allowed too much of the same old retoric from both candidates.
You give me a direct answer. You dodge it like he does.
How can he give 95% of AMericans a tax cut if 30-40% of Americans pay no federal income taxes. Either he is lying about the 95%, or he is going to use refundable tax credits. How else can he do it? PLEASE, PLEASE, explain that to me. If I am wrong, all you have to do is explain to me HOW he is going to give tax cuts to 95% of people, 30-40% of whom DO NOT PAY federal income taxes, wITHOUT cutting them a check. Please, please explain that to me.
Sam understands the basic principles of socialism and Marxism just fine. Most of which Mr Obama taught me in his books and associations. Which you are willing to ignore.
So please...very simply. Explain to me how he is going to give tax breaks or cuts to 95% of Americans if 30-40% of that group don't pay taxes. You said yourself, he can't. So either he is lying about the 95%...or he is going to cut that 30-40% a check.
PLEASE explain his tax plan to me since you are such an expert on it. HOW is he going to do it without cutting checks? HOW?
Are you not able to answer a simple direct question?
It's obviously over your head.
Don't want to direct quote, can't stand to watch it again sm
The point being, cutting unnecessary procedures to seniors who "would not get any better anyway." I was so fuming angry that I would like everyone to hear it, but I for one could not stand watching it again. We are bailing out all these losers and he's going to deny our seniors. If he touches their benefits, I will march on Washington. Most of them paid their way all their lives and now they're being "cut" because he thinks it's frivalous as they "wouldn't get any better anyway." Who the blazes is he to make that decision???? Everyone deserves a choice of care, even Gramma and Grampa. I don't care how old they are!
Yeah, direct me to some homosexual "scientific"
site. Believe me, if that were the case, it would be well publicized, especially in the New York Times.
Don't you even know that the first "scientists" who "came out" with a gay gene were homosexuals? You don't think they have an agenda, my dear?
The administrator requested there be no bashing on this board and you are most certainly
When we libs bash on your board we get banned. When you cons bash on our board you get away with it.
Either way, we were requested by the owner multiple times not to bash on either board. Yet you continue. Why?
|
