|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #64196] |
Fri, 30 January 2004 20:53   |
 |
bigejoe14
Messages: 1302
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Javaxcx |
Nah, we're not war monger's either.
|
At least we didn't legalize pot.
WHATEVER, FAGGOT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #64238] |
Sat, 31 January 2004 02:07 |
 |
Crimson
Messages: 7427
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
You left-wingers still need to explain why it's my responsibility to help those who don't make as much money as I do. Don't tell me anything based on morals. We are not a communist society. If someone doesn't help make the bread, they shouldn't get to help eat the bread. I'd like to see more tax breaks for businesses, so they can afford to hire more people and create more jobs... then those people buy things and create more jobs.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #64281] |
Sat, 31 January 2004 07:32 |
 |
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
I don't know about everyone else, but I never said anything about you giving your money to those less fortunate. I was talking about Bush's tax cut being unfairly biased to the rich. Yes, it's true the rich definitely pay more taxes than the poor, but even then Bush's cuts gave too much to the wealthy. The best way to stimulate the economy is to let poor people pocket more money. Then, they immediately go out and buy things that they need, and therefore money given to them jumps right in to the economy. I didn't see any morals there. And poor people are helping to make the bread. What do you think would happen if every poor person just left the country? America would come crashing down. There would be no sanitation workers, few police, the armed forces would drastically decrease in size, and other jobs that make our nation what it is. About cutting taxes for companies to make more jobs, giving poor people more money back would still work better, because what would they do with it? Immediately buy things. Then, the companies still get the money, so they hire more people, and then more jobs gives more poor people more money, so they go out and buy things, which makes MORE jobs. And all this time, that money gets taxed, so the government prospers as well.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #64296] |
Sat, 31 January 2004 09:49 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7427
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
And what would the rich do with the extra money? Invest it in the stock market. And what happens when you buy lots of stock? The price goes up. Both scenarios can be just fine for the economy. However, the tax cuts only benefitted the rich more because they are taxes more. If they did a 1% cut across the board, the rich would benefit more because 1% of their taxes is a lot more than 1% of some poor guy's taxes. It's math. It's all just twisting of facts to make someone look bad.
Let's use another scenario has been used. Let's say government workers in some random industry get a 4% raise every year. But in order to spare a few layoffs, some committee decides they will only get 3% this year. There are people who will call this a CUT, even though they're all still getting raises, still getting more money.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #64302] |
Sat, 31 January 2004 10:32 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Well, since both scenarios work just fine, how come Bush has managed to put the economy in a huge slump? 3.2 million jobs have been lost while Bush has been president. He must be doing something wrong.
Now, giving money back to pretty much anyone from taxes should have a positive effect on the economy - I'd give help to the poor, you'd give help to the wealthy. If this is true, why do Bush's tax cuts not work?
But back to the main topic of this thread which was my initial purpose and only one person has answered: Do you or do you not think George W. Bush is a good president?
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #64306] |
Sat, 31 January 2004 10:43 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
When you say the economy is at its highest, how are you measuring that?
Clinton didn't leave America in a depression. How could Bush bring America out of a depression if it was never in one?
Luckily for you, I never plan on becoming a president. I wouldn't be able to stand the media always clammering over each other's heads to ask a question.
Oh, and thanks for finally answering the question that this thread was originally for.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #64309] |
Sat, 31 January 2004 10:55 |
|
bigejoe14
Messages: 1302
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| SuperFlyingEngi |
Clinton didn't leave America in a depression. How could Bush bring America out of a depression if it was never in one?
|
Yes, Clinton did leave America in an economic slump for Bush to handle. Clinton rode Regans economic reform plan and Clinton claimed that it was his economic reforms that caused the economic boost during his 8 years. He didn't to jack shit for the economy when he was in office and it's been proven.
WHATEVER, FAGGOT
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #64337] |
Sat, 31 January 2004 12:35 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| bigejoe14 |
He didn't to jack for the economy when he was in office and it's been proven.
|
By whom, if I may be so bold?
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #64341] |
Sat, 31 January 2004 12:51 |
 |
NukeIt15
Messages: 987
Registered: February 2003
Location: Out to lunch
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
I find one thing very, very interesting...the same people that take a so-called "humanitarian" stance on taxes are the ones that would rather have left Saddam in power in Iraq. Interesting how your morals and ethics go right out the windown when the issue doesn't affect you directly, isn't it?
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine
Remember, kids: illiteracy is cool. If you took the time to read this, you are clearly a loser who will never get laid. You've been warned.
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #64417] |
Sat, 31 January 2004 17:45 |
|
|
Clinton did NOT ruin our economy. When there is a boom, there will be a BUST, it's simple. It was expected that inflation would stop in 1998, but it continued. And when inflation continues, money becomes worthless, and when it stops, the stock market, etc. will slump. We could've been in the "Greater Depression" if we didn't lower taxes and regulations. If we did something like the New Deal,
the economy would be a DISASTER.
Buy and read the books I mentioned above, there, problem resolved. 
God is the "0wnage". Plain and Simple.
Visit http://www.theoriginalmrbob.com
"If there's one freak to be, it's a Jesus freak"
All your base are belong to us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
