Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Conservatives, Liberals, & Moderates
Author Message
rickheel Offline
The Old Bastard
*

Posts: 8,468
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 11
I Root For: Heels
Location:

Donators
Post: #61
 
<a href='http://www.project21.org/NPA301.html' target='_blank'>http://www.project21.org/NPA301.html</a>
04-11-2003 06:59 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
rickheel Offline
The Old Bastard
*

Posts: 8,468
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 11
I Root For: Heels
Location:

Donators
Post: #62
 
<a href='http://www.fb.com/news/nr/nr2001/nr0321.html' target='_blank'>http://www.fb.com/news/nr/nr2001/nr0321.html</a>



<!--EDIT|rickheel|Apr 11 2003, 07:07 AM-->
04-11-2003 07:00 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
rickheel Offline
The Old Bastard
*

Posts: 8,468
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 11
I Root For: Heels
Location:

Donators
Post: #63
 
<a href='http://www.house.gov/ryan/speeches_and_editorials/2000speechesandeditorials/CongressIsRighttoEliminatetheDeathTax.html' target='_blank'>http://www.house.gov/ryan/speeches_and_edi...heDeathTax.html</a>
04-11-2003 07:02 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
rickheel Offline
The Old Bastard
*

Posts: 8,468
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 11
I Root For: Heels
Location:

Donators
Post: #64
 
<a href='http://hutchison.senate.gov/speec230.htm' target='_blank'>http://hutchison.senate.gov/speec230.htm</a>
04-11-2003 07:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
rickheel Offline
The Old Bastard
*

Posts: 8,468
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 11
I Root For: Heels
Location:

Donators
Post: #65
 
Only The Rich Pay Taxes

Top 50% of Wage Earners Pay 96.09% of Income Taxes

October 23, 2002

The IRS has released the year 2000 data for individual income tax returns. The numbers illustrate a truth that will startle you: that half of Americans with the highest incomes pays 96.09% of all income tax. This nukes the liberal lie that the rich don't pay taxes. The top 1%, who earn 20.81% of all income covered under the income tax, are paying 37.42% of the federal tax bite.





*Data covers calendar year 2000, not fiscal year 2000 - and includes all income, not just wages, excluding Social Security



Think of it this way: less than four dollars out of every $100 paid in income taxes in the United States is paid by someone in the bottom 50% of wage earners. Are the top half millionaires? Noooo, more like "thousandaires." The top 50% were those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $26,000 and up in 1999. (The top 1% earned $293,000-plus.) Americans who want to are continuing to improve their lives - and those who don't want to, aren't. Here are the wage earners in each category and the percentages they pay:

Top 5% - 56.47% of all income taxes; Top 10% - 67.33% of all income taxes; Top 25% - 84.01% of all income taxes. Top 50% - 96.09% of all income taxes. The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.91% of all income taxes. The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 20.81% of all income. The top 5% earns 35.30% of the pie. The top 10% earns 46.01%; the top 25% earns 67.15%, and the top 50% earns 87.01% of all the income.


The Rich Earned Their Dough, They Didn't Inherit It (Except Ted Kennedy)



The bottom 50% is paying a tiny bit of the taxes, so you can't give them much of a tax cut by definition. Yet these are the people to whom the Democrats claim to want to give tax cuts. Remember this the next time you hear the "tax cuts for the rich" business. Understand that the so-called rich are about the only ones paying taxes anymore.

I had a conversation with a woman who identified herself as Misty on Wednesday. She claimed to be an accountant, yet she seemed unaware of the Alternative Minimum Tax, which now ensures that everyone pays some taxes. AP reports that the AMT, "designed in 1969 to ensure 155 wealthy people paid some tax," will hit "about 2.6 million of us this year and 36 million by 2010." That's because the tax isn't indexed for inflation! If your salary today would've made you mega-rich in '69, that's how you're taxed.

Misty tried the old line that all wealth is inherited. Not true. John Weicher, as a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank, wrote in his February 13, 1997 Washington Post Op-Ed, "Most of the rich have earned their wealth... Looking at the Fortune 400, quite a few even of the very richest people came from a standing start, while others inherited a small business and turned it into a giant corporation." What's happening here is not that "the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer." The numbers prove it.
04-11-2003 07:10 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
rickheel Offline
The Old Bastard
*

Posts: 8,468
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 11
I Root For: Heels
Location:

Donators
Post: #66
 
Income Tax: Who Pays? IRS Figures for 2000



Table 1. - Individual Income Tax Returns with Positive Adjusted Gross Income (AGI): Number of Returns, Shares of AGI andTotal Income Tax, AGI Floor on Percentiles in Current and Constant Dollars, and Average Tax Rates, by Selected Descending Cumulative Percentiles of Returns Based on Income Size Using the Definition of AGI for Each Year, Tax Years 1986-2000 [All figures are estimates based on samples]
Descending cumulative percentiles

Year: Total..................Top 1%............Top 5%.........Top 10%.......Top 25%..........Top 50%

Number of returns: [1]
1986: 102,087,623......1,020,876......5,104,381......10,208,762......25,521,906......51,043,811
1987: 106,154,761......1,061,548......5,307,738......10,615,476......26,538,690......53,077,380
1988: 108,872,859......1,088,729......5,443,643......10,887,286......27,218,214......54,436,429
1989: 111,312,721......1,113,127......5,565,636......11,131,272......27,828,181......55,656,361
1990: 112,812,262......1,128,123......5,640,613......11,281,226......28,203,066......56,406,132
1991: 113,804,104......1,138,041......5,690,205......11,380,410......28,451,026......56,902,052
1992: 112,652,759......1,126,528......5,632,638......11,265,276......28,163,190......56,326,380
1993: 113,681,387......1,136,814......5,684,069......11,368,139......28,420,347......56,840,694
1994: 114,989,920......1,149,899......5,749,496......11,498,992......28,747,480......57,494,960
1995: 117,274,186......1,172,742......5,863,709......11,727,419......29,318,546......58,637,093
1996: 119,441,767......1,194,418......5,972,088......11,944,177......29,860,442......59,720,884
1997: 121,503,284......1,215,033......6,075,164......12,150,328......30,375,821......60,751,642
1998: 123,775,831......1,237,758......6,188,792......12,377,583......30,943,958......61,887,915
1999: 126,008,974......1,260,090......6,300,449......12,600,897......31,502,244......63,004,487
2000: 128,227,143......1,282,271......6,411,357......12,822,714......32,056,786......64,113,572

Adjusted gross income floor on percentiles (current dollars):
1986: N/A......118,818......62,377......48,656......32,242......17,302
1987: N/A......139,289......68,414......52,921......33,983......17,768
1988: N/A......157,136......72,735......55,437......35,398......18,367
1989: N/A......163,869......76,933......58,263......36,839......18,993
1990: N/A......167,421......79,064......60,287......38,080......19,767
1991: N/A......170,139......81,720......61,944......38,929......20,097
1992: N/A......181,904......85,103......64,457......40,378......20,803
1993: N/A......185,715......87,386......66,077......41,210......21,179
1994: N/A......195,726......91,226......68,753......42,742......21,802
1995: N/A......209,406......96,221......72,094......44,207......22,344
1996: N/A......227,546......101,141......74,986......45,757......23,174
1997: N/A......250,736......108,048......79,212......48,173......24,393
1998: N/A......269,496......114,729......83,220......50,607......25,491
1999: N/A......293,415......120,846......87,682......52,965......26,415
2000: N/A......313,469......128,336......92,144......55,225......27,682


Adjusted gross income floor on percentiles (constant dollars): [2]
1986: N/A......108,411......56,913......44,394......29,418......15,786
1987: N/A......122,614......60,224......46,585......29,915......15,641
1988: N/A......132,828......61,484......46,861......29,922......15,526
1989: N/A......132,152......62,043......46,986......29,709......15,317
1990: N/A......128,096......60,493......46,126......29,135......15,124
1991: N/A......124,919......60,000......45,480......28,582......14,756
1992: N/A......129,654......60,658......45,942......28,780......14,828
1993: N/A......128,522......60,475......45,728......28,519......14,657
1994: N/A......132,069......61,556......46,392......28,841......14,711
1995: N/A......137,406......63,137......47,306......29,007......14,661
1996: N/A......145,026......64,462......47,792......29,163......14,769
1997: N/A......156,222......67,320......49,353......30,014......15,198
1998: N/A......164,427......69,999......50,775......30,877......15,553
1999: N/A......176,119......72,537......52,630......31,792......15,855
2000: N/A......182,038......74,527......53,510......32,070......16,075


Adjusted gross income (millions of dollars):
1986: 2,524,124......285,197......608,467......886,510......1,490,173......2,103,569
1987: 2,813,728......346,635......722,221......1,038,221......1,709,389......2,373,869
1988: 3,124,156......473,527......890,702......1,232,536......1,950,860......2,657,865
1989: 3,298,858......468,079......918,421......1,286,539......2,054,478......2,805,235
1990: 3,451,237......483,252......953,337......1,338,032......2,144,177......2,932,537
1991: 3,516,142......456,603......943,350......1,343,202......2,174,765......2,984,003
1992: 3,680,552......523,586......1,031,093......1,443,784......2,299,401......3,131,400
1993: 3,775,578......520,586......1,048,252......1,474,463......2,357,953......3,212,299
1994: 3,961,146......546,700......1,103,084......1,552,205......2,481,074......3,371,352
1995: 4,244,607......619,610......1,222,723......1,704,513......2,689,820......3,627,542
1996: 4,590,527......736,545......1,393,805......1,909,149......2,952,637......3,944,383
1997: 5,023,457......872,826......1,597,107......2,151,401......3,267,600......4,327,992
1998: 5,469,211......1,010,245......1,796,647......2,393,716......3,589,600......4,721,430
1999: 5,909,329......1,152,820......2,011,763......2,652,835......3,927,308......5,126,164
2000: 6,423,977......1,336,773......2,267,403......2,955,386......4,313,786......5,589,755



Descending cumulative percentiles
Year: Total............Top 1%.....Top 5%.......Top 10%....Top 25%....Top 50%

Total income tax (millions of dollars): [3]
1986: 366,979......94,491......156,240......200,703......278,976......343,289
1987: 369,046......91,559......159,642......205,230......283,857......346,655
1988: 412,761......113,841......188,303......236,411......321,297......389,145
1989: 432,838......109,259......190,188......241,458......334,258......407,599
1990: 447,061......112,338......195,088......247,514......344,340......421,075
1991: 448,349......111,267......194,480......250,282......346,511......423,759
1992: 476,163......131,156......218,479......276,213......373,700......452,070
1993: 502,720......145,836......238,083......297,808......398,516......478,563
1994: 534,754......154,337......254,106......317,902......425,402......509,256
1995: 588,331......178,035......287,741......357,402......472,808......561,225
1996: 658,124......212,626......335,433......411,404......535,164......629,684
1997: 727,303......241,239......377,241......459,639......594,007......696,161
1998: 788,452......274,009......424,506......512,836......651,964......755,240
1999: 877,292......317,419......486,464......583,002......732,890......842,168
2000: 980,521......366,929......553,670......660,150......823,706......942,179


Average tax rate (percentage): [4]
1986: 14.54......33.13......25.68......22.64......18.72......16.32
1987: 13.12......26.41......22.10......19.77......16.61......14.60
1988: 13.21......24.04......21.14......19.18......16.47......14.64
1989: 13.12......23.34......20.71......18.77......16.27......14.53
1990: 12.95......23.25......20.46......18.50......16.06......14.36
1991: 12.75......24.37......20.62......18.63......15.93......14.20
1992: 12.94......25.05......21.19......19.13......16.25......14.44
1993: 13.32......28.01......22.71......20.20......16.90......14.90
1994: 13.50......28.23......23.04......20.48......17.15......15.11
1995: 13.86......28.73......23.53......20.97......17.58......15.47
1996: 14.34......28.87......24.07......21.55......18.12......15.96
1997: 14.48......27.64......23.62......21.36......18.18......16.09
1998: 14.42......27.12......23.63......21.42......18.16......16.00
1999: 14.85......27.53......24.18......21.98......18.66......16.43
2000: 15.26......27.45......24.42......22.34......19.09......16.86


Adjusted gross income share (percentage): 1986: 100.00......11.30......24.11......35.12......59.04......83.34
1987: 100.00......12.32......25.67......36.90......60.75......84.37
1988: 100.00......15.16......28.51......39.45......62.44......85.07
1989: 100.00......14.19......27.84......39.00......62.28......85.04
1990: 100.00......14.00......27.62......38.77......62.13......84.97
1991: 100.00......12.99......26.83......38.20......61.85......84.87
1992: 100.00......14.23......28.01......39.23......62.47......85.08
1993: 100.00......13.79......27.76......39.05......62.45......85.08
1994: 100.00......13.80......27.85......39.19......62.64......85.11
1995: 100.00......14.60......28.81......40.16......63.37......85.46
1996: 100.00......16.04......30.36......41.59......64.32......85.92
1997: 100.00......17.38......31.79......42.83......65.05......86.16
1998: 100.00......18.47......32.85......43.77......65.63......86.33
1999: 100.00......19.51......34.04......44.89......66.46......86.75
2000: 100.00......20.81......35.30......46.01......67.15......87.01


Total income tax share (percentage): 1986: 100.00......25.75......42.57......54.69......76.02......93.54
1987: 100.00......24.81......43.26......55.61......76.92......93.93
1988: 100.00......27.58......45.62......57.28......77.84......94.28
1989: 100.00......25.24......43.94......55.78......77.22......94.17
1990: 100.00......25.13......43.64......55.36......77.02......94.19
1991: 100.00......24.82......43.38......55.82......77.29......94.52
1992: 100.00......27.54......45.88......58.01......78.48......94.94
1993: 100.00......29.01......47.36......59.24......79.27......95.19
1994: 100.00......28.86......47.52......59.45......79.55......95.23
1995: 100.00......30.26......48.91......60.75......80.36......95.39
1996: 100.00......32.31......50.97......62.51......81.32......95.68
1997: 100.00......33.17......51.87......63.20......81.67......95.72
1998: 100.00......34.75......53.84......65.04......82.69......95.79
1999: 100.00......36.18......55.45......66.45......83.54......96.00
2000: 100.00......37.42......56.47......67.33......84.01......96.09


N/A-- Not applicable.
[1] The number of returns with negative adjusted gross income, i.e., returns with an adjusted gross deficit, and the corresponding amounts for adjusted gross deficit, were excluded from Table 1. By excluding deficit returns, alternative minimum tax reported on some of these returns was also excluded. For Tax Year 2000, there were 5,714 returns with no adjusted gross income that reported income tax, mostly alternative minimum tax, totaling $100.6 million.
[2] For Table 1, constant dollars were calculated using the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics' consumer price index for urban consumers (CPI-U, 1982-84=100). For 2000 the CPI-U = 172.2
[3] Total income tax is the sum of income tax after credits and alternative minimum tax reported on returns that showed a positive amount for adjusted gross income. Therefore, total income tax excludes alternative minimum tax, Form 8814 tax (tax on a child's interest or dividends), and Form 4972 tax (tax on lump-sum distributions from qualified retirement plans) reported on some returns with a negative amount for adjusted gross income. See also footnote 1.
[4] The average tax rate was computed by dividing total income tax (see footnote 3) by (positive) adjusted gross income.

Note: Unles otherwise stated, money amounts are in current (not constant) denominations.

Source: Internal Revenue Service, Statistics of Income Division, Unpublished Statistics, September 2002.
04-11-2003 07:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
rickheel Offline
The Old Bastard
*

Posts: 8,468
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 11
I Root For: Heels
Location:

Donators
Post: #67
 
(I mean, it isn't like children of the wealthy have to do things like fight in Iraq).

You are full of s h i t. You really show your true colors here. Who do you think flys the aircraft over there? Who drives the tanks?? WHAT IS YOUR DEFINITION OF RICH???
04-11-2003 07:20 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RochesterFalcon Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,626
Joined: May 2002
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #68
 
Quote:Tell me how much you paid in taxes last year. I bet I paid more in taxes then you made.

Tell me how much you made last year. If I made as much as you imply you do, I sure as heck wouldn't be bitching about my taxes.

Quote: <a href='http://www.project21.org/NPA301.html' target='_blank'>http://www.project21.org/NPA301.html</a>

Who are these crackheads? Do they really think people are going to buy this?

You did notice that the only African-American they could point to who worries about the estate tax is Oprah Winfrey, didn't you?

Cry me a river Oprah. I've been renting my whole life because I can't get the scratch for a down payment and I'm supposed to feel sorry for you and your billion dollars?

Her math isn't even right. She claims 55 percent of her estate will be lost to taxes. This isn't true. She can shield up to the first $1 million of her estate entirely from taxes. That 55 percent rate will only be applied to anything over $5 million.

Quote:http://www.fb.com/news/nr/nr2001/nr0321.html

You did notice that not even the Farm Bureau could find a family that lost its farm because of the estate tax, didn't you?

I find it endlessly fascinating that, despite all their talk about the value of hard work, Republicans seem insistent on exempting all income from taxation -- but only if it requires no real work.

Estates are INCOME -- and, if anything, a disincentive to work. "The parent who leaves his son enormous wealth," wrote steel magnate Andrew Carnegie a century ago, "generally deadens the talents and energies of the son, and leads him to lead a less useful and less worthy life than he otherwise would."

Capital gains and dividends are INCOME. -- income the recipients don't have to work for. It's awful hard to work up a sweat buying a stock or a bond. One doesn't even have to get up off the couch to do it.

So there is your Republican philosophy right there: It's fine to exempt any and all income as long as people can "earn" it by laying on a couch and munching on Fritos. But the people who go out and wash dishes, sweep floors or haul garbage -- THOSE people should pay income taxes, according to the Republicans.

Yeah, the Republican Party *really* cares about hard work.





<!--EDIT|RochesterFalcon|Apr 11 2003, 07:40 AM-->
04-11-2003 07:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
rickheel Offline
The Old Bastard
*

Posts: 8,468
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 11
I Root For: Heels
Location:

Donators
Post: #69
 
This might work. This might not. Most small businesses fail.

So, do you quit after one try???? I would think you would try again!

BTW, I doubt many trashmen and dishwashers pay a cent in income tax.
04-11-2003 07:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
rickheel Offline
The Old Bastard
*

Posts: 8,468
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 11
I Root For: Heels
Location:

Donators
Post: #70
 
Just keep standing there with your hand out, the Dems will keep filling it with the pittance they give. And you will still be standing there is 20 years.
04-11-2003 07:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RochesterFalcon Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,626
Joined: May 2002
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #71
 
Quote:Just keep standing there with your hand out, the Dems will keep filling it with the pittance they give. And you will still be standing there is 20 years.

I have no idea what this means or what you are implying.
04-11-2003 07:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
rickheel Offline
The Old Bastard
*

Posts: 8,468
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 11
I Root For: Heels
Location:

Donators
Post: #72
 
What it means is keep relying on someone else. You get what you get.
04-11-2003 07:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
rickheel Offline
The Old Bastard
*

Posts: 8,468
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 11
I Root For: Heels
Location:

Donators
Post: #73
 
Senate Floor Speech
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
July 12, 2000 -- Page: S6495


DEATH TAX ELIMINATION ACT
MRS. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of this bill. There is no question that what the Senator from New Jersey has just said has some resonance when you talk about paying dues to society.

But this is not money that has never been taxed before. This is money that was taxed when it was earned. It is money that was taxed when it was invested. It has been taxed and taxed and taxed. Who could say that an average family who now pays 40 percent of their income in taxes is not giving back enough to society?

On top of all of the taxes they paid on this money, now we are saying we want to change the American dream, which has always been to come to our country--come to America where you have the freedom to work as hard as you want to work, do as well as you want to do, and give your kids a better chance than you have. That is what the American dream has always been. Those who are against this tax are saying: No, no. That is not the American dream anymore. What we are saying in America is come to America and you can be this successful, and as long as you don't go beyond this, it is OK.

We should not put boundaries on success in America. That built our country. Hard work of people who are judged on what they are and not on who their grandparents were is what has built this country.

The estate tax takes away part of the incentive for people who work so hard to give their kids a better chance than they had.

It hurts small business. Seventy percent of all family-owned businesses do not survive through the second generation, and 87 percent don't make it to the third generation. That affects the small business itself, but it affects a lot of people who have jobs in those small businesses. It is the little people who are getting hurt because they don't have jobs anymore.

I have read stories where the main employer in a small town had a family-owned business and could not make it because they had to sell the assets of the business in order to pay inheritance taxes.

Among a survey of black-owned enterprises, nearly one-third say their heirs will have to sell the businesses to pay the death tax, and more than 80 percent report they do not have sufficient assets to pay the death tax. In fact, the president and CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce has written a letter in support of this bill because he says the total net worth of African Americans is only 1.2 percent versus 14 percent of the population.

The CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce supports the bill before us today. He said African Americans have been stuck at 1.2 percent of the total net worth of this country since the end of the Civil War in 1865, and that getting rid of the death tax will start to create a new legacy and begin a cycle of wealth building for blacks in this country.

The U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce supports the bill before us today. They write: When one family loses its business due to the unfair estate tax, which really is a death tax, the face of an entire community changes. Employers become ex-employers. The economy suffers and a thriving self-supporting group of individuals vanish.

This is a gut issue for small businesses in our country.

The reason is that the assets of a small business are not readily sellable. The assets of a farm and a ranch are oftentimes valued at much more than their actual productivity. So if they have to have a valuation that puts them in the category of needing to pay an estate tax, they have no choice; they have to sell the land in order to pay that tax.

It is not right. It is not perpetuating the American dream.

Let me talk about conservation and the effect of the death tax on conservation. This is an article published in the Dallas Morning News, written by David Langford of San Antonio, the executive vice president of the Texas Wildlife Association. He says it so much better than I ever could.

Since 1851, my family has worked the land in the Texas Hill Country. Through the ups and downs of the past 148 years, we have run flour mills, farmed, ranched and offered hunting and fishing opportunities.

Our land also serves as a habitat for many species of birds, including two endangered migratory songbirds--the golden-cheeked warbler and the black-capped vireo. As a result, my family and I consider ourselves stewards of precious natural resources.

But as is the case for much of the wildlife habitat in this country, the estate tax threatens to tear it apart. The need to pay large estate tax bills often forces families to sell or develop environmentally sensitive land. The estate tax is the No. 1 destroyer of wildlife habitat in this country.

Although we have managed to hold our land together, it hasn't been easy. Before my mother died in 1993, we did everything we could to protect our family's land. Like millions of other family businesses, we paid accountants, tax attorneys and estate planners to help manage our assets in ways to avoid the tax, but it still came to this.

In order to pay the estate taxes and keep the land together when my mother died, we had to sell almost everything she owned, including her home. My wife and I had to sell nearly everything we owned, including our home, and move into a two-bedroom condominium. We also had to borrow money for 35 years from the Federal Land Bank.

Because the value of the land has increased since 1993, if we were killed in a car accident tomorrow, my children would owe more inheritance taxes than the amount I originally had to borrow to pay mine. But that isn't the end of the story. Not only would they pay more taxes than me, but they still would inherit my 35-year note that they would have to continue to pay.

Could my children then keep the land? The short answer is no. It probably would become a subdivision.

Mr. President, these are people whom I hear the other side keep calling `rich,' needing to pay their debt to society. These are people who care so much about the land that has been in their families since 1851 that they now live in a two-bedroom condominium to keep that land together.

That is not the American way. That is not right in this country. It is not good for the environment. It is not good for conservation. It is not good for small businesses that create jobs. And it doesn't produce 1 percent of the revenue of this country.

It sends a powerful message that you can only succeed in America this much, and if you have this much, we will take part of what you have worked so hard to earn, what your parents and grandparents may have worked so hard to give you, and we are going to say, I'm sorry, you've done too much.

Mr. President, that is not the American dream. I agree with the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce; I agree with the U.S. Black Chamber of Commerce. They want the opportunity for their members to create a stability through the generations for their families. I stand with the people who want to keep their land together, to keep a tradition in their families. That is the American way. I hope we will send this bill to the President.
04-11-2003 07:58 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
rickheel Offline
The Old Bastard
*

Posts: 8,468
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 11
I Root For: Heels
Location:

Donators
Post: #74
 
With that, I am done.
04-11-2003 07:58 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RochesterFalcon Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,626
Joined: May 2002
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #75
 
Quote:What it means is keep relying on someone else. You get what you get.

I'm all man over here. All man. I take care of myself. I'm just not selfish like you.





<!--EDIT|RochesterFalcon|Apr 11 2003, 08:12 AM-->
04-11-2003 07:59 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Motown Bronco Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,751
Joined: Jul 2002
Reputation: 211
I Root For: WMU
Location: Metro Detroit
Post: #76
 
If I may drive by and throw in my 2 pence...

Economic freedom (at least from a neo-libertarian standpoint) is not, and never has been, about money or its pursuit. Money is incidental. It is about empowering ordinary people to take control of their own lives and arrange them in ways that best suit them.

In terms of taxations... Between the person who says "don't take my money to spend on other people" and the person who says "take his money to spend on me", who is the more selfish and economically self-serving?







<!--EDIT|Motown Bronco|Apr 11 2003, 01:19 PM-->
04-11-2003 08:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
rickheel Offline
The Old Bastard
*

Posts: 8,468
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 11
I Root For: Heels
Location:

Donators
Post: #77
 
Hey a s s w i p e, I employ 39 people and rarely have anyone leave. I take good care of them. Don't call me selfish. All man my a s s.
04-11-2003 08:15 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
just say no roy Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 430
Joined: Apr 2003
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #78
 
I think we need 90 years of progressive tax cuts.Would that be okay with you Falcon. 04-cheers
04-11-2003 08:36 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JoltinJacket Offline
The Resident Stat Machine
*

Posts: 13,021
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 24
I Root For: Georgia Tech
Location: Atlanta, GA

SkunkworksHall of FameCrappies
Post: #79
 
RochesterFalcon Wrote:
Quote:The exact same could be said for Bush. He still has an approval rating of 65%-70%. Barring a major **** up in the next 18 months [insert flame here], people will remember the tough times Bush helped lead us through. Come election time, there will be no one from the donkey party that can touch him. Bank on it.

His daddy had a 90 percent approval rating at one point during the First Gulf War, and he lost.
True, but I think (A) the fact that we signed a cease fire in '91 without finishing the job and mostly (B) his "read my lips..." spiel did him in.
04-12-2003 08:18 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.