Tax cuts for the Rich

“Prosecutor is engaging is a pointless diversion.


George and Laura Bush reported adjusted gross income last year of $822,126 and paid $227,490 in federal income taxes. (28%)


Kerry had adjusted gross income of $395,338 last year and paid $90,575 in federal income taxes. (23%)


The real president, Dick Cheney and his wife Lynne had adjusted gross income last year of nearly $1.3-million and paid $253,067 in federal income taxes. (20%)


It seems that by listing George as a dependent, the Cheney’s were able to save a bundle.”

“X isn't a number dude. That's a letter. A red one at that. LOL!”

“See that little X? They're right there. Or you could go here for several tables. And by the way I thought the idea was for everyone to pay equally. That would mean, according to the Coward's logic, the top 5% need a 10% tax cut. And the "poor" need a 20% increase. Wow, and I thought the conservatives were supposed to be the heartless ones.”

“I heard on NPR the other morning that a lot of Western Euro jobs are leaving for eastern Europe. Wonder why? Flat taxes.”

“Flat Tax!

btw, the ketchup queen should release her returns. Sure looks like the Kerry's are hiding something.”

“Come on Stovey! Kerry made his money the old fashioned way...he married into it!”

“As opposed to being born into it?”

“It's alot easier to determine who you marry than what family you're born into.”

“The big difference is Bush doesn't try to come off as some kind of cone-pone, down home regular working stiff like Kerry does.”

“Bush Gets $659,000 Refund For 2003 Tax Year

Inside sources at the White House told The Daily Farce News that President Bush will receive a $659,000 tax refund for 2003, instead of paying $268,000 in taxes as was widely reported by the national press.

"Sure, we had to say that he is paying so that people really believe that the tax cuts he proposed are mainly for the middle class, not the rich." Stated a senior White House aide who wished to remain anonymous, "But the reality is that it helps the rich a lot more then the middle class. As an example, the President made $822,126 last year, then with all the great loopholes he passed as 'tax cuts', the government actually owes him money now. In other words, he made a return on his salary instead of paying taxes. It worked great for him, and Cheney too!"

President Bush and his wife Laura listed a variety of income sources. Below is a list of the actual sources listed in his 2003 Tax Return:

Presidential Salary: $156,126
Interest Income: $39,000
Stock Dividends: $100,000
Halliburton Kickbacks For Iraqi Contracts: $319,459
Oil Companies Kickbacks For Allowing Gas Price Increase: $204,456
Sale of Saddam Hussein Trading Cards On Ebay: $3,085

Vice President Dick Cheney also reported income exceeding $1.3 million dollars. The breakdown for his income included the following:

Vice-Presidential Salary: $89,234
Halliburton Kickbacks (Iraqi Contracts): $549,234
Halliburton Kickbacks (General): $389,123
Halliburton Salary: $178,234
Halliburton Dividends: $159,000

Both President Bush and Vice-President Cheney reported itemized deductions in excess of $1.4 million dollars. "These deductions are completely legal and proper," stated Vice-President Cheney, "We have done nothing illegal. It's all part of the 'tax cut' bill President Bush signed into law to help the middle class and poor people."

President Bush believes that the return on his salary for 2004 will exceed last year's. "My tax cuts give a better return then my stock investments do. Thank goodness for my bill. I mean, thank goodness that the middle class and poor people get these benefits."

- thedailyfarce.com”

“I thought he ran a whole platform on that regular guy image in 2000. Remember?

And Stick, frankly, I don't give a damn about how either of them made their money. The truth is, it really isn't a presidential issue as far as how I think they will treat their jobs. If I am looking for someone who 'relates to me', then I think I would have to eliminate just about the whole pool of American politicians because these people are not going to please everyone and they sure as hell are no longer 'one of us'. In the big picture, all this rhetoric, yours, mine, Prosecutor's and everyone else's is pretty meaningless...”

“"I thought he ran a whole platform on that regular guy image in 2000. Remember?"

That would be the platform that he knew how to go about helping the average guy better than Gore did. Seems true at this point anyway. Tax cuts work better than more taxes as is becoming true.”

“Stick,

I'm not sure how you managed to so misinterpret what I wrote. By my logic, those who have 99% of the wealth should pay 99% of the taxes. Those with 1% of the wealth should pay 1% of the taxes. That seems perfectly fair to me.”

“FRankly, Nigal, if I asked myself Reagan's question of how I am doing now compared to 3 or 4 years ago, I would truthfully say that I am having a lot more trouble than I did back then. And I am making more money. The lifestyle is still the same: modest. It's expenses and one other factor is definitely how much the tax cut has pushes the state and city to put a pinch on us. Sorry, but I am not making that up. This is reality. Crunch all the numbers you want, this tax cut hasn't helped me any more than the 600 bucks we got did...”

“And in the interest of fairness, i know that may not be true for everyone. I was just speaking for myself...”

“Were we not already heading into a decline pre-2000? Can we honestly say that 9/11 was not a stumbling block? Can the left really claim to have intellectual integrity for blasting Bush for the unemployment rate of 5%ish while at the same time Clinton ran on the platform that the rate was great…the same 5%ish? Not only must we ask the question, “Am I better off today than I was four years ago?”, but we must also ask the even harder question, “What have I done personally to make my situation better than four years ago? Have I pursued further education? Have I considered switching to a better job? What have I done for myself?”. It would seem a bit silly to compare the Reagan quote to Bush anyhow because it was a different time and different situation. Please do compare the four years of Carter to the first four years of Reagan. It does nothing but strengthen the conservative views.

Can you or anyone else give an example where tax cuts DIDN’T stimulate the economy? It worked for a democrat named Kennedy back in the sixties.”

“I don't see the stimulus in job market, Nigal. One month of increase in all this time. Sorry, Bud. That don't fly...

And like I said, I'm making more money. I went to paralegal school and made a career change, but still having a tougher time. Thank you for asking anyway. :)”

“800,000 new jobs doesn't give you hope? Did you also scouf off the largest quarter of growth in twenty years recently too? Will liberals only see the economic good things when Kerry is presidant?

It coimes down to two simple facts...if Bush walked on water the left would complain he couldn't swim and any good foutune means bad things for the left.”

“Well, Nig. Then just label me disgruntled like bacpac did. I personally disagree with the guy on a lot of lower profile issues as well as the some of the ones discussed here. He's not what I want to see in the White House and that's the way I feel. I don't give a rat's ass if he walks on water or not. I don't sit around like Strat says I do and wish that more soldiers will die so my side of the fence can point a finger and say 'I told you so.' Let the chips fall as they may. I will survive, no matter who's in the WH. Just like you will survive if Kerry gets elected. I have my preference, but hey, it's a democracy and if the rest of the country wants to vote him in, then so be it. I have one vote and I will use it the way I feel I should. It's really that simple...”

“Let me quote someone who has summed up my feeling on the matter:
What's just has been debated for centuries but let me offer you my definition of social justice: I keep what I earn and you keep what you earn. Do you disagree? Well then tell me how much of what I earn belongs to you -- and why?– Walter Williams”

“StickmanWalking – My state gets back far less from the federal government than we send in, your state is a net beneficiary. I am fortunate enough that I have a relatively high salary. I’m quite sure I’m subsidizing your salary.

Why do you deserve it?”

“"Just like you will survive if Kerry gets elected."

I survived Klinton and you are right, I will survive Kerry (gawd forbid!) but this is not to say I will be pouncing on every single little slip the guy makes...

"How Kerry Created a Terrorist Haven"
"Another Kerry Lie"
"Kerry, worst presidant ever"

Basiclly every Bush thread with a different title. Buckle up, it could be a looong four years.”

“My state gets way more from Fed than we could ever hope to pay in.
Welfare, free or low cost health care for the 'poor', free or low cost housing, military bases, ect...

All you 'Rich' states, we thank you.”

“Stands to reason, Nig. I can deal with that. Listen, I may have a few critisisms of my own for him. I never said anywhere that Kerry was my first choice of candidates. But, frankly, I would be willing to give him a chance. Hell, I gave Bush a chance. And he lived up to my expectations! :)”

“A quick question:

Isn’t there like a limit on the tax cuts? Like either $300 or $600 but not more?”

“Not at all Nigal. If all the arguing were over chump change, it would be pretty stupid. Bush, for instance, paid about $65,000 less than he did last year on a similar income.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-ustax143756323apr14,0,4074856.story”

“I'm pretty amazed that you asked that, Nigal.”

“The transcript of that Booknotes program is now available.

ENJOY!


Speaking of subsidies....

LAMB: Let me get into some of the names in your book. At one point -- and I don`t remember exactly what you said, you might even have thanked Suzy Wetlaufer (ph) for helping us better understand something about Jack Welch. Now, most people know that whole story.

JOHNSTON: Right.

LAMB: It`s gotten far -- it`s gotten very personal. But what was it you were talking about in the book?

JOHNSTON: Well, I didn`t thank her, but I described that unintentionally, in her role as editor of "The Harvard Business Review," she had brought to life in a way that people could understand one of what I think are the abusive practices in the tax system. And that is, the subsidy that you and I provide to senior executive who fly around in the company jet. They pay about a penny a mile, as a practical matter, to fly in the luxury of the company jet. The real cost of that flight is several dollars a mile, in many cases, $5 or $6 a mile. And that cost is charged to the shareholders and then taken as a deduction.

So when a CEO travels coast to coast in the company jet, he pays $260. The real cost is more in the neighborhood of $15,000 to $17,000. And so you and I, as taxpayers, foot $5,000 of that money. And this was done under the guise of middle class tax relief in 1985. It`s just a perfect example of how Congress says, you know, We`re out here to help ordinary Americans, and in fact, they weren`t. They were out helping CEOs.

LAMB: You get into some detail about the kind of plane that is at Jack Welch`s call I guess, a 737 business jet.”

“LAMB: And how much of it goes on?

JOHNSTON: Well, great deal of it goes on. There are 9,000 corporate jets in this country, and there have been lots of news stories that I have read, and some which I`ve written, about executives who use the company jet as a personal taxi. And we know that Ken Lay`s daughter used one of the Enron jets to fly her bed across the North Atlantic because it wouldn`t fit in baggage on a commercial jetliner. We know that during the RJR Nabisco matter, there was a flight on one of the company planes where the manifest said the passenger was G. Shepherd, as in German shepherd dog.”

“tilt, what business is it of your's what jet someone flys in?

who chooses your car that you drive? who chooese you insurance? your financial portfolio?

the polotics of envy will usually win the hearts of the non-taxpaying half of the country. that's why libs will never solve poverty, all their voters would be lost

too bad, so sad”

“If you're dumb enough to pay for their private jets, that's fine. I think I'll pass.”

“Throw Mama From The Train!

LAMB: When you talk about an inheritance or estate tax and the tax bill that President Bush pushed through Congress -- you discuss all this in here and go up to -- what year is it? What`s the optimum year of all this that it -- when does it die? When does the...

JOHNSTON: Well, the estate tax goes out for a single year, 2010. And you know, Paul Krugman has referred to it as the "throw Mama from the train bill." And I have no doubt, and I`ve talked to many estate tax lawyers who agree that they`ve had clients who will be plotting, if that`s the way the law remains, to figure out how to get rid of an ailing parent in December instead of January of the next year, when there will be estate taxes.

Interestingly, in the year 2000, there was a bill introduced in Congress that would have given immediate estate tax relief, would have reduced the number of people paying estate tax by probably 75 percent. It got almost no coverage. Neither the National Federation of Independent Businesses or the American Farm Bureau told their members about it.

I called up the NFIB and asked them for the names of five or six businessmen who they thought were well informed on this issue. And when I told each one of them that there was an offer of immediate estate tax relief, $4 million for a couple, every single one of these guys said, We`d go for that in a minute. And I said, Well, wait a minute. What about the principle here that we shouldn`t have an estate tax? And they all said, I don`t -- what -- principle? You know, this is a very practical matter. They didn`t see it as a principle matter, they saw it as a practical matter. So a bird in the hand was turned down.

However, let me point out that from now until 2010, what a terrific money maker for those politicians who want to exploit this issue. What a way to raise funds!”

“I'm waiting for Stick to respond to the Violin.

Looks like the NE Libs are paying their way and others too.”

“That's awful nice of them to do that, don't you think? <G>”

“I’m quite sure I’m subsidizing your salary.

Why do you deserve it?"
Violin
01:31:52 PM
04/19/04

I can just as easily say I'm quite sure you're not subsidizing my salary.

That satisfy you JO? Or would you like to add your baseless assumption to the mix?”

“"Not at all Nigal. If all the arguing were over chump change, it would be pretty stupid. Bush, for instance, paid about $65,000 less than he did last year on a similar income."

Thank you for the straight forward respectful reply V. The thing that strikes me is that his $65 Gs probably IS chump change to someone pulling down almost a million a year.”

“You deserve more of a response from me than a one-liner, so let me give it a shot.
You have presented no proof that your state’s expenditures subsidize law enforcement in Kentucky, so your argument is based on assumption at this point. Demonstrate which programs benefit from these excesses, and how they relate to law enforcement, particularly law enforcement officers' salaries. Is it possible that federal overpayments from one state go towards federal programs in other states, i.e. welfare, etc.? If so, this would indicate that state and local workers’ salaries are paid out of state and local taxes. I can say with some certainty that my employers receive relatively little federal money, and money from the one federal grant I can think of does not find its way into my paycheck. My agency does not currently hire employees through federal programs such as the COPS grants, nor does it make use of Local Law Enforcement Block Grants (LLEBGs) from the USDOJ in paying salaries. I stated an opinion with the Walt Williams quote, you advanced a theory (that you subsidize my salary). It is your job to prove your theory, not mine, so your question “Why do you deserve it?” is asked prematurely.


And next time, ask something that doesn't require thinking--I don't like to argue using logic, that takes the fun out of it.”

“According to the Public Policy Institute, in 2000 Kentucky sent $21,456,000,000 to Washington while receiving back $25,664,000,000. At the same time, New Jersey paid in $75,341,000,000 and received only $48,075,000,000 in federal spending. I don’t know whether any part of your salary comes from federal dollars but in the larger scheme of things, the balance of payments from Washington certainly makes it possible for Kentucky to meet its expenses by tapping my income.

I’m not really complaining. My faith tells me that it’s important to help those less fortunate than myself. I really don’t want to see those who live in less productive areas go hungry and shoeless like they did before the New Deal and Great Society programs. But I certainly hate being lectured by welfare queens about the fairness of the tax code. I disagree completely with Walter Williams’ selfish definition of social justice that you posted. If things were equalized like he proposes, it would cost me less but I wouldn’t feel as good about the land that I love. Please don’t disrespect God and country so.”

“Hey Stick! Relax. Well....I guess it isn't such a baseless assumption after all....is it? Furthermore, I don't understand why you're so obviously touchy about it.

You obviously deserve your salary because you work hard for it. I think the question was kinda dumb.

If makes you furious to think that your pay may be linked indirectly to those awful NE Libs just close your eyes and mind and ignore it all. A lot of people like to go around pretending that they're a big strong, pull-themselves-up-by- the-bootstraps-kinda-guy-like-John Wayne. YeeHaa!!! The hell with those pinko, do nothing Northern Libs. LMAO!

We are all connected...like it or not.”

“But I certainly hate being lectured by welfare queens about the fairness of the tax code.

Is that directed towards me or Walt Williams? I've never been on welfare of any kind.

I don’t know whether any part of your salary comes from federal dollars but in the larger scheme of things, the balance of payments from Washington certainly makes it possible for Kentucky to meet its expenses by tapping my income.

I give you "props" for admitting you actually don't know whether or not my salary is subsidized by your tax dollards. As for the rest of your post, I grew up in one of those poor areas you're talking about, and while my family was never on welfare, I saw plenty who were. From what I've seen, your tax dollars are not helping the problem as much as you may think. I don't know what could be done to change it. There is a point where the programs won't work because many people are happy getting their monthly checks and having just enough money for beer and cigarettes, with no interest in actually working.


Hey Stick! Relax. Well....I guess it isn't such a baseless assumption after all....is it? Furthermore, I don't understand why you're so obviously touchy about it.

JO, sorry you thought I was wound up too tight, but if someone proposes an idea that is directly related to me, I figure I can question it. And yes his assumption about my salary is as questionable now as it was last night. I've never claimed to be someone who pulled himself up by his own bootstraps--I didn't have anything I needed to be pulled up from. I had a very fortunate childhood and college life, thanks to good parents (Southern conservatives, not NE Libs). The rest of his post dealt with welfare, which I offered my opinion on above. It's not that big a deal to me, Violin's arguments are pretty good in other areas, but I'm not going to take the question of my salary at face value. And yes, we are all connected, just not when it comes to salaries, as much as that appears to excite you. I don't have a problem being "connected" to Violin, he's no slouch (did you read that part Violin? This is where I beg for validation!). I would have asked the same questions even if his post wasn't directed towards me. I had just been reading some stuff on taxes, so I wanted to see what he would say to back his ideas up. I don't know much about welfare, its administration, or welfare reform, so if we continue on this path I can only offer opinions and observations.

I hate using facts and logic!! Post stuff I can't question or refute or that I can just sit back and make snide comments about like everyone else (except Phaedrus)does.”

“The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition defines ‘welfare’ as (among others): Financial or other aid provided, especially by the government, to people in need.

If the balance of federal payments, which is heavily tilted in favor of less populous states, is not welfare, I don’t know what is.

Again – I don’t begrudge you it, just please stop whining about fairness.”

“Having exposed the myth of self-reliance, I thought I’d take a look at some of the other perceptions people commonly have about the relative virtue of the ‘heartland states’ and the liberal NE.

It seems that in many ways, NJ is much more virtuous than Kentucky.

Murders per 100,000: Kentucky 4.5, NJ 3.9
Divorce per 1,000: Kentucky 5.69, NJ 3.12
Out-of-wedlock Births: Kentucky 29.9%, NJ 28.3%
Live Births to Teen Mothers: Kentucky 15.4%, NJ 7.8%



Maybe you’re right about us wasting good money on you folks. You’re a mess out there.”

“Again – I don’t begrudge you it, just please stop whining about fairness."
Violin
12:13:03 PM
04/20/04

Lol, I'd expect better of you. I haven't whined about fairness at all. I post one statement by Walt Williams. You and I are responsible for neither the excess contributions or excess spending of our respective states, and apparently neither of us receives welfare, therefore neither of us gives the other anything.”

“Cool! We have branched into state to state conflicts!”

“Compared to Kansas, all other states suck our wind!”

“And those South Carolina wacko's....”

“As long as we're starting the 2nd War Between the States:

Nyuck Nyuck”

“I say we start in the PNW and work our way down the coast. Then, ON TO NEW ENGLAND! LOL!”

“LAMB: You talk about a woman named Kate Barton (ph) of the Ernst & Young Boston office. What did Kate Barton do?

JOHNSTON: Well, the fires are still burning at ground zero. The stock market is in the dump, and Kate Barton of Ernst & Young in a webcast to a big corporate client says we have a solution for you, we have a get-rich plan that only works because the stock market is down. All you have to do is move your company headquarters on paper to Bermuda. And you can stop paying U.S. corporate income taxes, and you just pay the Bermudians about $27,000 a year. And by the way, she says, now, some people might not like this idea because of what just happened, 9/11, shortly before. But she says, perhaps patriotism should take a back seat to profits.

I mean, that`s just a perfect example of people who want to take advantage of all the benefits that we have by having our free society that people fought and died to have and to sustain. And they don`t care about anything but their pocketbook. And I want America to endure. I don`t want my children or my grandchildren or people who won`t know about me 500 years from now who are my descendants to ever sit in a classroom in high school and pick up a book that says, "the United States of America was."

But if we don`t keep in mind that we have to promote the general welfare, we will see more and more people giving up on democracy, not caring, caring more about who Jennifer Lopez is sleeping with than who their congressman is, we will see more incidents like -- although hopefully not as horrific -- as Oklahoma City. We will see more and more people expressing the view that the federal government is a criminal organization, and I have written many stories in "The New York Times" about people who were expressing these views.”

“"But if we don`t keep in mind that we have to promote the general welfare, we will see more and more people giving up on democracy, not caring, caring more about who Jennifer Lopez is sleeping with than who their congressman is, we will see more incidents like -- although hopefully not as horrific -- as Oklahoma City. We will see more and more people expressing the view that the federal government is a criminal organization, and I have written many stories in "The New York Times" about people who were expressing these views."

Those days are already here my friend. There are many people on both sides of politics who feel like what you describe.”