I'm going to have to take issue with the central premise of this article, that "most" people earning over $200K/year are small business owners. Check out this link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A488-2004Feb23?language=printer Internal Revenue Service statistics cited by a Democratic senator this month show that the vast majority of small businesses do not earn nearly enough money to fall into the highest income tax bracket
vincible
I'm not sure why you think a discussion of tax policy is not relevant, since your article made the claim that Bush's tax cuts are what are bringing us out of recession. But if you think there's a better place for me to discuss this I will go there. However, I don't know what article you're talking about. Could you give me a link?
Brad, What's important here is not your behavior, but the aggregate behavior of everyone in your income bracket. Now one can construct seemingly compelling arguments that, if given a tax windfall, a rich person would spend a greater fraction of that windfall than a poor person would. You can construct seemingly compelling arguments of the opposite. Fortun
A President Gore? A President Kerry? Or President Bush? Would Gore have responded to 9/11 like Bush did? Would Clinton? Would Kerry? Be honest. Can you really see Clinton having put together a plan to overthrow Afghanistan I'm not sure why you think Gore, Clinton, or Kerry wouldn't have invaded Afghanis
We should also note that Gore states, on average, gave more money to the federal government than they received, while Bush states, on average, received more from the federal government than they paid in taxes. This reflects the fact that urban areas are, on average, wealthier and more liberal than rural ones.
If you want to read a real fruitcake article that takes my stance to a ridiculous new level, read this:http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37772 I hate to sound like a broken record, but even the main thrust of this article is about crude oil prices. It's all about the need for incr
As far as I know, there's been no major change to fuel efficiency laws in the past several years.
My diction is naturally serious. It's just how I've been trained to write. You shouldn't take it as an indication of what I'm feeling. What arguments? I don't see any other valid points There are lots of things you're saying that I think are invalid, but that doesn't mean I ignore large portio
think you are naive to think that the rich won't spend their tax cuts. You think that they won't buy a new boat (you know how many people it takes to build one?) or a bigger house, etc Note that I said that the poor spend a larger *fraction* of their income than the rich, not that the rich save all th
My pleasure, SConn.
I admit I haven't been following this as closely as I should have. But "having a plan" isn't the same as "making it a priority." One comparison I just read was of Clinton's response to an Al Qaeda threat, compared to Bush's response: Link On Clinton: <TABLE cell
Okay, point by point. You argued, "what has been getting us out of the slump? The changes in tax policies and low interest rates. People blame Bush and his tax cuts for the current state of the economy, but those tax cuts are what is pulling us out. It is also a
iul89, more countries supported us than opposed us on the Iraqi war. That's a fact. Source? And what criteria are you using to define "support" and "oppose"? Certainly "coalition" countries do not make up a majority of the world's countries.
Honestly, the last thing 9-11 victims need is more money. Over a billion dollars have been spent on them already. What they need is answers, and maybe Bin Laden's head.
On gas: the key point is *short term fluctuations.* There hasn't been any dramatic change in environmental policy in the past couple years--if anything there's been a drift toward subsidizing the energy industry--so you shouldn't blame enivronmentalism for the short term changes in gas prices of the past few years. Unless
The argument is not that tax cuts, in and of themselves, are bad for the economy. It's that tax cuts could have been structured differently to have had more of a stimulative effect. Tax cuts for the rich create less spending than tax cuts for the poor--this is simple empirical fact. If you want short-term stimulus in a recession, you don't give tax cuts to the rich
The relevant issue is whether continued $500 billion deficits will hurt the economy more than a tax hike, not whether tax cuts in isolation will hurt the economy.
The word "homophobia" itself is a subjective term implying that there is something wrong with people who refuse to be accepting of homosexuality. If you have a deeply held religious belief that homosexuality is wrong, you are branded a homophobe. Freedom of religion? Freedom of speech? How liberal is it to tell people that they c
Oh sheesh. Calling someone a homophobe isn't attacking their right to freedom of expression. Calling someone a homophobe doesn't mean you think he has no right to speak, it just means that you find what he says or does distasteful. There's a huge and obvious difference. It's just like calling someone a racist, or an anti-semite. If I had a deeply held religious belief that Jews were evil, you'd call me an anti-semite, and rightly so.
I just remembered this example of conservative misbehavior, which seemed to me to be worse than that linked from DU. As described by the New York Times' ombudsman: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F00E7DE1E3EF937A25750C0A9629C8B63http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F00E7DE1E3EF937A25750C0A9629C8B63 "Now I'm going to pick on the worst habits of certain anti-Times critics lurking on the Web. Last Sunday, an it
con·ser·va·tism 1 the principles and policies of a Conservative party b : the Conservative party 2 disposition in politics to preserve what is established b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change 3 the te
Statistically, nothing has a stronger influence on people's political views than the views of their parents, according to political scientists.
If you get to disown people from the conservative movement, people who self-identify with conservativism and who most people would think of as conservative as opposed to liberal, then we liberals should get to do the same.
Conservatives don't have to be angry right now. They're in charge, and things are generally going their way. But there was certainly plenty of anger among conservatives four years ago when Clinton was president. The other thing is that hatred of political leaders is probably enhanced by changes in the media. Now, one can go on the internet and pick what sources one reads, and, unfortunately, most p
Actually the word "jihad" does not necessarily denote violence at all. It's usually mistranslated as "holy war" but really, it means "struggle," and includes such nonviolent concepts as the struggle within oneself to achieve righteousness. Anyway, if you look at history, Christians have done just as much killing in the name of God as Muslims have. Probably more.