Bradylama said:
I'd rather ask do they really deserve the tax breaks? I would say, yes, as it is money they've earned. Are those in the Middle Classes more entitled to tax breaks because they only live in relative splendor?
Except that's not exactly true. Tax breaks on income have fallen disporporationally for the rich, while the middle class has lost their tax breaks due to increased costs and reduces services, while some income brackets have received no tax breaks at all.
And least we forget, the tax breaks also come in terms of estate taxes and capital gains taxes. This is not earned income. They didn't work to get it. Rather, they got their money because:
(1) They are decendents of someone who was rich
(2) they have made passive income over their ownership in corporations.
As for the middle class - don't forget this is the class upon which democracy is built. Many families are barely making it, with two incomes. ANd it's not because consumer goods have become more expensive- in fact most consuler goods and food have gone down in price over the last 15 years when compared to changing incomes. The problems are the costs- school, healthcare, home ownership.
So yes income breaks for the middle class- fine. But for the top 2%?
Chances are, as a member of the top 2% you are an employer on some level. Higher skill training is a good thing from the employer's standpoint, as it makes the job market more competitive. The more higher skilled workers there are, the harder they'll be willing to work to attain, and hold, a job.
Well the top 2% are owners of capital more than employers. Employers might be managers or small or medium business owners- usually middle class positions.
As for skills training improving employment prospects- yes. This is were the country needs to improve. Jobs are going abroad because some of the more highly valued skills can be found abroad. Why pay $60K for an accountant in the US when you can pay $12K for an account in New Delhi.
And here again the difference- The top 2% and, let's be honest, Bush gets most of his financial support for a fraction of the top 1% (which is also the group that expects a little political payback for that support) is hungry for profit. Whether their company increases their profit by reducing salaries (through export of jobs) is important. They don't give a crap about middle income jobs. What they care about is profit.
If you're not an employer, then it doesn't really affect you.
If you're not an employer it does effect you. If you are like most of us- middle income folks trying to make ends meet, your skill set will help determine the type of job you can achieve- shaping your income prospects and the future of your family. YOu have a better chance of sending your kids to school if you become a lawyer than if you are stucking working an assembly line.
Ha. I'd say that proportionally, the people that suffer the most under higher taxes are those in the Middle Class. What's 30,000 to a millionaire compared to 2000 for those earning 5 figures? Unless, of course, you're saying that the rich are being taxed exclusively, which I wouldn't call very just.
The thing is the rich aren't being taxed exclusively. What is happening is the that rich are being taxed preferentially.
It's usually the middle class that gets the tax burden. They have to because they are the largest class in the US. But for the past 30 years they have been slowly dieing out.
People earning poverty wages shouldn't be paying taxes as it is. Is Kerry going to actually stop taxing the poor or is he simply going to hand out rich people's money?
But poor folks always pay taxes.
As for tax policy- it's always about reallocating wealth. Whether the rich don't get taxed and the poor and middle class do- it means more goes to the rich. If the rich get taxes and the poor and middle don't - more should go to the poor and middle class.
Do the rich receive a disporporatioate share of the services of the state, and if so should they pay a higher share of the costs?
Also, tax policy is not only about distribution of wealth- it's also about funding social policy that shapes a society. Should we have a society where the rich get richers, the poor and middle class are under increased pressure. Or should we have a society in which the numbers of poor are reduced, where middle class families have a better quality of life and the rich use their money to hire lawyers to avoid paying taxes?
And what does that have to do with anything? People shouldn't have to want to join the military in order to support its actions. With that kind of thinking, the only people that should be able to vote are servicemen and veterans.
Ok, fair enough, that was an unfair shot at young republicans. I came across the article and couldn't resist a shot. Bad me.
But let's compare. When Kerry graduated Yale, like Bush he was a member of the Skull and Bones society. Of Kerry's group of 15, four enlisted to serve in Vietnam. Of Bush's group- who graduated two years later- none.
Why? Well arguably Kerry and his peers were influences by Kennedy's idealism and wanted to serve their country. By Bush's time (which he calls the last year when the graduating class had short hair) such idealism ended.
Now- the young republicans are willing to support the war on terror, and support Bush's war- policies but are unwilling to suport.
Compare to shortly after 9-11 where thousand of people gave up their jobs or otherwise decided to enlist in the armed services to fight against the people who drove those planes into the World Trade Center. They enlisted to fight in the war against terrorism. Idealism and a sense of patroitism prevails.
Now a few years later- the Taliban is now stronger in Afghanistan than at any point since the US invasions. (I just asked a Professor who does South Asia yesterday about Afghanistan). Furthermore we have lost near 1000 lives in Iraq- a country which had no ties to 9-11. Furthermore there was an increase in terrorism last year, not a decrease.
So we are losing the war against terrorism, we are also losing control of Afghanistan. We have squandered 1000 lives to fight a war that had no ties to Afghansitan at all.
Why? Because of George Bush's policies.
Yes, funny how that was in the Kerry platform before George ever mentioned it.
George has little originality in his platform.
And this is compassionate conservative?
I could use Kerry's voting record to illustrate him as neither progressive, nor liberal, but I guess we should just take his word for it that he changes his opinions because he honestly believes what he says instead of simply doing so for political convenience.
Then again, I've already done it in a previous thread.
Honestly, I have a lot more sympathy for Kerry's record than Bush's at this point.
Let's see- money is being cut from firemen, from police forces- the first responders George hugged after 9-11. Schools are being forced to achieve unfunded mandates. Jobs are going overseas. New jobs are not being created nearly as fast as Bush wishes.
And people that vote for Bush have all of these things in mind. Obviously to you, these are bad things, however, you are not Republican.
What I think people consider when they vote Republican is-
(1) George Bush is strong on terrorism- debateable point considering he botched it before 9-11 and has botched Afghanistan, and is botchin Iraq
(2) Kerry is a flip-flopper and didn't vote for Bush's request for more money.- God forbid he actually thinks about issues and didn't want to write a blank check to the President after the guy rushed to war.
(3) God loves George Bush and if you're evangelical vote Bush- never mind that the Faith Based Initiatives go to only Christian organizations. Hey- remember that whole Church-v-State.
Yes, there were MANY reasons for going into Iraq, and I'm sure Clinton could list several. However, Bush and Pals focused on Terrorism/WMDs. Points which turned out to be wrong. They should be held accountable for their mistakes, instead of allowing them to get away with claiming the reasons that lacked buzz appeal.
Point- the investigation into the prison scandal has pointed to Rumsfield as being partially responsible. Fine- Rumsfield should tender his resignation. Bush can decide, if he wants, to keep Rumsfield on the job. ANd the people can decide if Bush did the right thing by voting on the record. That would be political accountability. Doesn't happen with this president.
Which is the same kind of thing the Republicans got all bent out of shape over with Clinton. So it's a double standard.
It should be noted, then, that Kerry was furious when we abstained to vote on the UN Resolution condemning Israel for building that wall.
I actually wonder if Kerry has a personal bias on the issue of Israel. His grandfather was a jewish immigrant who converted to Catholicism and going into the shoe business. That history might have some pull in his politicla position.
The issue- are you willing to vote for a Senator with a distinguished record in the Senate who supports policies for middle and working class people and is saying that America's leadership comes with working with allies, or do you want to trust a former Governor who supports the top 2% and is willing to sustain a country divided by religion and privilege who has alienated most of our allies and has consistently lied to us.
And here, good reader, is an example of someone who has come to believe his own spin.
No offense, Welsh. But it does seem as if you can't accept opposing opinions.[/quote]
Well Bradylama- if you can't believe your spin, than you shouldn't spin it. Do I believe that Bush is the person I define above. You bet. As for Kerry- the guy has been a public servant for over 30 years and served his country when he felt it was his obligation. Meanwhile Bush was a failed businessman, who is highly caught up in his evengelical faith, and who is preciding over a country that is slowly becoming divided by class.
That's the difference. It's not that I believe that Bush is an evil man. He's just a man who believes in his convictions and those convictions are slowly ruining this country.
im all for the freedom of speech and im not saying that all military causes are praise worthy, but kerry went to nahm and came back and not only bashed the military(if you really want to go ahead)but his fellow americans that were DRAFTED into war, and had no say wether or not they where there. in reference to bushes "evasion of service" you would have to be out of your F%^$ mind to not do everything in your power to avoid service then, now im not justifing bushes actions, but while kerry who went and came back turned on his fellow americans that where trapped because of the draft. in my mind that discredits the fact that he went.
all praised clinton was in office taxes were still harsh, and failed social programs clogged the system. thought the economy was stronger, then we still had to put up with the "everything to everyone" bs. hence the failed social programs.
(puts on flak jaket)
