Townhall Debate..

[RACastanet]

Ben said: "He's the first presidenet EVER to cut taxes during a WAR."

This is right out of the Kerry playbook. Bill beat me to the response. Is this a bad thing? Greenspan and the Fed clearly stated last summer that the tax cuts aided the economic recovery.

There are many, including me, that believe that the 'cold war' was WW3. President Reagan cut taxes to bring us out of the Carter 'malaise', spent the Soviet Union into the ground, and created the groundwork for the longest economic expansion ever. All during WW3!Without the tax cuts, we might be in deflation right now, the worst case economic scenario.

As for me, I am for cutting taxes, strong defense, states rights with limited Federal government, and a strict interpretation of the Constitution as it was written. Do not forget the good old 2nd amendment that makes this country great and unique inthe world.

Rich

[Bill Glasheen]

My dad (retired from the stock market) operates his own finances plus that of 14 trusts. He tells me that the tax cuts caused corporations he invested in to make more money. They in turn paid out more dividends. He and his trusts took in a big increase in income from these dividends. And - at a lower tax rate - he paid more total taxes on his own income as well as the income on all the 14 trusts.

Understand?

Remember, Bush is the Harvard M.B.A. Obviously John Kennedy had his $hit together as well.

Ever heard of the Laffer curve?



So...you want to turn this over to a couple of lawyers (one a trial lawyer) and have them screw up everything the way LBJ screwed things up? Kerry says he wants to increase taxes on the top 1%. This BTW would include small businesses, which employ the vast majority of people in this country. Oh, and Edwards wants to stick it to the top 2%.

Not me.

- Bill

[RACastanet]

And, Kerry's givaways would require $2.1 Trillion in revenue, while rolling back the tax cuts on those over $200,000 would generate about $800 Billion. That leaves a shortfall of $1.3 Trillion dollars under his plan.

Hmmmm...... there goes the middle class tax cuts.

Rich

[Mills75]

Respect all views as always.I feel as Bill said that you can show emotion and show passion and feeling without being a detriment.I wasn't saying Kerry should roll around on the ground or take some action to bring shame upon himself.I was just asking the guy to show just a little bit of feeling and raw emotion and belief behind his words.This is one of the biggest reasons besides the issues that I agree with him on also that I am such a big supporter of President Bush.

I do believe the recession was set into motion during the Clinton administration and the leveling off of the dot com craze and so on and so forth.I think Bush did an amazing job given the circumstances to bring us out of it quickly and to set the economy heading back to the posititve side.
I also feel that we had terrorist attacks during the Clinton administration on the U.S.S. Cole and on some other targets even the world trade center when it wasn't destroyed the first time and instead of concentrating on making sure this never happened again.We were to busy playing with chubby interns then to take action to prevent terror.Bush took action right away to combat this new and grave threat.

I feel also that Mr. Bush did fine when he calmly recieved the news during the reading of books to the school children
I think he acted like a leader and although you knew of course he was terribly concerned he was composed and did not act to scare the children and rush out and make the teachers think the world was ending or the apocolypse was coming.I just truly believe he is a good man and the exact right man to do this job and I pray he gets to help us for another four years.I truly believe in this man and his convictions and his vision and his belief in America and what we stand for.We do spread the peace and show others in the world that there is a light at the end of the tunnel and we will always do our best to help others find that light we cherish so much.

Jeff

[benzocaine]

You want to raise taxes in the beginning of a recession? You want to strangle a recessionary economy when it must support 2 war fronts? JFK never did this. He started Vietnam AND lowered capital gains taxes.

I don't think anyone wants to raise taxes. Sure Kerry wants to return to pre Bush status for 1% of the population. That's not raising taxes.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=4078320

Q: Thank you. Senator Kerry, would you be willing to look directly into the camera and, using simple and unequivocal language, give the American people your solemn pledge not to sign any legislation that will increase the tax burden on families earning less than $200,000 a year during your first term?

SEN. KERRY: Absolutely. Yes. Right into the camera, yes. I am not going to raise taxes. I have a tax cut, and here's my tax cut. I raise the child care credit by $1,000 for families to help them be able to take care of their kids. I have a $4,000 tuition tax credit that goes to parents, and kids if they're earning for themselves, to be able to pay for college. And I lower the cost of health care in the way that I described to you. Every part of my program, I've shown how I'm going to pay for it. And I've gotten good people, like former secretary of the Treasury Bob Rubin, for instance, who showed how to balance budgets and give you a good economy, to help me crunch these numbers and make them work. I've even scaled back some of my favorite programs already, like the child care program I wanted to fund, and the national service program, because the president's deficit keeps growing, and I've said as a pledge I'm going to cut the deficit in half in four years. Now, I'm going to restore what we did in the 1990s, ladies and gentlemen: pay as you go. We're going to do it like you do it. The president broke the pay-as-you-go rule. Somebody here asked the question about why haven't you vetoed something. It's a good question. If you care about it, why don't you veto it? I think John McCain called the energy bill the "no lobbyist left behind" bill. I mean, you got to stand up and fight somewhere, folks. I'm pledging I will not raise taxes; I'm giving a tax cut to the people earning less than $200,000 a year. Now, for the people earning more than $200,000 a year, you're going to see a rollback to the level we were at with Bill Clinton, when people made a lot of money. And looking around here at this group here, I suspect there are only three people here who are going to be affected: the president, me, and Charlie -- I'm sorry -- you, too. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBSON: I'm going to come back one more time to how these numbers add up and how you can cut that deficit in half in four years, given what you've both said.

SEN. KERRY: Well, first of all, the president's figures of 2.2 trillion just aren't accurate. Those are the fuzzy math figures put together by some group that works for the campaign. That's not the number. Number two, John McCain and I have a proposal jointly for a commission that closes corporate giveaway loopholes. We got $40 billion going to Bermuda. We got all kinds of giveaways. We ought to be shutting those down. And third, credible -- ladies and gentlemen, in 1985 I was one of the first Democrats to move to balance the budget. I voted for the balanced budget in '93 and '97. We did it. We did it --

[Mills75]

I just can't fathom as I think back on our great history and I'm no expert but when you grow up you here about our great leaders and freedom fighters and our legacy as Americans of hope and freedom.I just can't stand behind or believe in a man that says to soldiers engaged in combat.Hey son the blood of your countrymen and brothers was spilled and shed upon this foreign soil at the wrong war and at the wrong place and at the wrong time.But we thank you anyway.To me this unacceptable and it echoes back to Kerry at the table calling vietnam vets babykillers.To me it's almost the same thing once more.He saying to our brave men and women your blood and heart and soul and love for you country is all in vein.These young men and women do not and never die in vein in my opinion they are heroes to me for all eternity and their blood even in drops is precious.To me they are the finest of the fine and when their country asks they answer the call and god bless each and every single one of them and they are doing something truly noble as every american soldier has in every single breath they take they make us proud and pass on the single most precious gift any man or woman could ever hope to have and that is his or her freedom.God Bless them.Kerry is the wrong candidate at the wrong country at the wrong time.God bless our soldiers and America.

Jeff

[RACastanet]

"SEN. KERRY: Well, first of all, the president's figures of 2.2 trillion just aren't accurate."

OK, what is accurate? Kerry did not tell us the real #. The $800 billion tsax increase is a solid #.

"I don't think anyone wants to raise taxes. Sure Kerry wants to return to pre Bush status for 1% of the population. That's not raising taxes."

Lets see... you increase the marginal rate from 36% to 39% and that is not a tax increase? Ben... where did you go to school?

Also, Kerry will be rolling back the tax break on dividends and capital gains. That will just crush the economy. Take me for instance. My income this year will be about $40,000 gross. About $28,000 of that is from dividends from my hard earned investments that I made with dollares that were already taxed. I'll pay $1,400 in fed taxes this year on the dividends. If Kerry rolls that tax code back as he says he will my bill will at least triple to $4,200 and some of it might be taxed at 27% which would at a minimum quadruple it to $5,600.

Think about that. My income is $40,000, not $200,000 and my largest source of income would be hit with a $4,200 increase in fed taxes. That is back door taxation of a very middle middle class income. That is an enormous hit.

Kerry would consider me one of the 'rich' because I have a solid 401K plan that I contributed to for over 29 years. You do not need to be in the upper 1% of income to be considered rich by John Kerry. People who have saved diligently for decades and are now enjoying the rewards of their frugality will be hit hard. He has snowed too many gray hairs by promising 'affordable' health care they do not understand the impact of his plans. Let me keep my $4,200 and buy my own health care!

Also, if I were to sell some of the stock in my 401K to generate cash to cover a catastrophe or my son's college expense, under Kerry's plan instead of a 15% capital gains tax, it would be at the full marginal tax rate. That would be at least the 27% rate or possibly the 33%. So, if I wanted to cash in $50,000 of stock for college expenses, add that to my $40,000 and you have $90,000 income. The rate on the stock would be over the 27% threshhold. So instead of a $7,500 tax bill, it would be about $15,000!

So, here I am well under the $200,000 'rich person' level, and I could be hit with a tax increase next year of $11,700! That is where the missing $1.something trillion dollars to feed Kerry's social agenda will come from.

Ben: As you are saving for young Ben's education, you need to think down the road. Please hire a tax and or estate planner. Under Kerry, you will need one!

Bush will let me keep my money and to continue to invest it as I see fit, not as an 'elite' see fit!

Rich

[IJ]

Bill, I am still unable to figure out what problem you have with my plan to vote to support my civil rights. Nearly everyone, including the republicans (who've distributed fliers claiming the Dems would "ban" the Bible to legalize gay marriage, a clear signal that this is the political issue I claimed it was on a previous thread) and the log cabin republicans, acknowledge that Kerry and the democrats support gay rights more than Bush. The popular press, for example, documents that even die-hard previous Bush voters from my community are appalled at being backstabbed for conservative votes. Kerry wants to leave the matter to the states, which is the most supportive marketable position he can take, while Bush wants to ban gay marriage, which is the most unsupportive marketable position HE can take.

As for your suggestion that my civil rights could be curtailed to avoid annoying those in "the Church" (actually several organizations, including the gay pastor of my father's church, the liberal ministers of a former partner's family who offered to marry us and risk their jobs, and that which recently appointed a gay bishop), that logic could also be used to ban contraception. MY preferences is to let the churches marry whichever consenting, nonrelated adults they please--that's the least interference the government can have in the matter! The STATE status of married ought to be administered separately and without bias.

I should also point out that being able to obtain marriage rights elsewhere is NOT a simple matter. I was unable to buy my current house in any other manner than as "single men in joint tenancy." That means my partner gets my half if I die, then pays capital gains and has taxes reassessed (a big deal where the median home price is 600k). My wife would simply inherit my house. That's one small example. In Virginia NOTHING that approximates a civil union is now allowed. For heterosexuals, having whom they could marry was unconstitutional (Loving vs Virginia) when based on an incidental characteristic (race), even if they could have gotten a civil union. Separate but equal has also been shot down in other areas (schooling). And of course NO primarily heterosexual constituency would tolerate having to jump thru ~200 steps to obtain a marriage equivalent for more than one election cycle. You wouldn't. Why should *I* satisfy myself with slightly second class citizenship? It's like proposing I just go to a pretty similar school the government designated for people like me. Not interested!

As for the SCOTUS, Bush's favorite justices are Scalia, whose increasingly shrill and reactionary opinions are isolating him from the court, and the parrot on his shoulder, Thomas. More of these won't help support what most Americans want to see from the court. Opinions that would bother me include the memorable opinion that gays do not have a right to privacy like heterosexuals do, and they would also overturn all SCOTUS abortion precedent. Gone. The issue would go to the states and every woman between the coasts, especially women who are poor and who have little access to abortion as it stands, will not get them. Scalia is the most divisive justice and his opinions are the most conservative and vitriolic. Support him, fine, hate him, fine--but why act surprised that this issue would matter to me or others? Bush may claim no "litmus test," but judging from the people he appointed to his stem cell research committee (anything but conservative voices OFF, a chorus of conservatives ON) and from his choice of Justices, this issue is a key one and ramifications will last over a decade.

As for abortion, I wasn't trying to make anyone prolife become prochoice. All I was doing was stating that Kerry's positional is common (the most common), and reasonable and defensible. There are other defensible positions, and there are what I consider indefensible positions (no abortion, no exceptions; or considering abortion something less than an evil, or a fetus just "tissue.")

"And what's wrong with the government not paying for abortion?" I don't recall speaking on this matter. However, I don't want tax dollars spent on elective abortion. If the woman NEEDS one, she needs one. Sometimes an abortion is medically justified and IF that woman is receiving government health care, she should get it.

***

The rest is fairly tangential. I and virtually any infectious disease doctor, regular doctor, OB/GYN or public health person have a problem with Bush's abstinence only policy, that's all there is to it, but a more detailed consideration:

"And do you have a proven plan to prevent pregnancies? Fine...do they also prevent STDs? Abstenance, after all, is the only proven method."
Actually, while "abstinence" in principle is effective, in practice teaching it INCREASES the likelihood of having unprotected sex, and, you can always get raped. It is NOT my job to come up with the best approach to teaching sex ed. It IS Bush's and the method he choose is ineffective and meaningless to large segments of the target audience, those who are already having sex or don't want to wait for the marriage they're not allowed to have, for example. Kids have sex. He needs to get over it and help them do it safely if they ignore advice to wait. There is a large body of evidence that indicates people changed their sexual habits in response to the HIV threat, and it wasn't by abstinence. Education is imperfect but does work.

As for idiots who can't control their sexuality, THEY are responsible for repercussions, no doubt. BUT I'd love to see some of these yahoos provided a norplant, if they'll take it. I'd rather pay for that than a cycle of kids with kids. Otherwise, I would continue to manage them with repeated insturction, and education geared toward their concerns (some people would go on ocp if they knew their acne would improve, for example).

As for "firing" patients who don't listen to their doctors, it won't improve their compliance. Being firm is sometimes very effective and appropriate. Abandoning a patient is an extreme step my residency program's hospital took maybe twice a year among all their doctors, and was never for "noncompliance." It was for being disruptive, or habitually drug seeking (changing names to revisit as "new"). A LARGE proportion of patients are noncompliant with advice regarding diet, exercise, smoking, and medications. More than half. Should we abandon half the patients in the USA? Also, should we do it at a moment of need, to teach the patient a lesson (by her getting pregnant--great for the kid!)? **It's actually unethical according to the AMA and all medical schools I've known to teach on this (UVA, VCU, HMS, UCSD, BMC), plus illegal, to abandon a patient before arranging alternative care**

[RACastanet]

Kerry said: "I'm giving a tax cut to the people earning less than $200,000 a year."

More on this BS... He is not planning to give those below $200,000 any tax cut, only 'allow' us to keep the existing tax cut. How nice of him.

And, as I spelled out above, anyone earning income on investments will be hit hard regardless of income level.

Since my son is over 16, the child tax cut is zero, and the savings by deducting $4,000 of college expenses even at the 27% rate is only $1,080. That does not not come close to offsetting the huge increase I am facing under his plan.

Rich

[Mills75]

Please understand that I do respect all the posters and i'm not trying to offend point fingers or make anyone less of a person with this post.I just wanted to point out the fact when it comes to choosing a gay or lesbian lifestyle that it hasn't been that long before it was removed from the book of psychological disorders.It is true that in the very recent past this kind of choice in life was considered to be a disorder of somekind and personally and i'm not a doctor so this is just an opinion I really don't believe that people are born gay or lesbian.I think it's a choice one makes in ones life.I feel gay and lesbian people are not second class citizens and i feel they should have the same rights and benefits as anyone else.I do not feel that gay and lesbain couples should be granted the right to marry in the sense of what we know as marriage.They should be able to have official unions not referred to as marriage and be afforded the same rights as heterosexual couples.

I feel that if you look to nature and this is my honest opinion and truly not meant to degrade or hurt anyone that you don't see males with males and females with females.only the human species makes this choice.One could say we are not animals and we're so much smarter and all that.But really what makes us so much different on this earth.And humans are most certainly predators like any other predator and therefore that is why we have the eyes facing forward to see the prey and that is just a fact.
is our reasoning really so much better than the animals.I really never saw an animal take more than he had to or start a war or spread out like a virus and cut down the worlds trees and polute it's air.So are we really so much smarter or should we stop being so egotistical and realize there is alot we can learn from them as well and often times we're not as smart as we think.

I really don't feel choosing a gay lifestyle is a widely accepted thing for most Americans and I would argue in private most Americans would not choose this way of life.I'm just being honest and saying in the open what most Americans out there would truly say behind your back or behind closed doors.It doesn't make anyone less of a person or have less rights in my view but it is different and different is not wrong.But maybe there are certian things like calling for official marriages that I feel are wrong.I support unions and rights but I have a problem with calling that union a marriage affirmed and approved by god.I won't speak for God but I have read his words in the text of the bible and it clearly doesn't support a platform for gay or lesbian marriage.This is my view and it's a tough one I know and it's hard to talk about and maybe we'll grow and learn and understand more as we go.But in closing it's something hell you'd be my friend i'd treat you like anyone else and think you're a wonderful person and this is honest to god truth.But i would not advocate or practice these ways or support marriage rights.

thanks

Jeff

[IJ]

(Perhaps you want to put this in another thread Jeff... or tailor it to the election. I'll delete my response and follow up with you there.)

1) I hear what you're saying Jeff, but the upshot on homosexuality you gave is that you really have no way of knowing whether people are born gay or not, so, your guess takes a back seat to the personal experiences of many thousands of people and the impressions of most researchers in the area. I mean, how would you know? I imagine the choice would seem as unnatural to you as a regular marriage would to me.

2) As for the animal kingdom there ARE well documented examples--and neither presence at birth or animal examples really matter anyway. You really have to pick and choose what's acceptable when you see a lion eat a lioness's offspring to bring her back into heat.

3) As for your claim that "most Americans would not choose this way of life," you're dead on. Almost zero do; most find it chooses them. And that number is small. A few days ago a survey of hgh school students came out: 5% self identify as gay of lesbian; the number might grow a tad if society were neutral to the idea. I don't know how many ukranians, or bahai, or judo practitioners there are percentage wise, but I don't find that applicable to their rights.

4) You're not alone in your view of the Bible, but others read that and other books differently--would you interfere in their religion? And how about my suggestion: to leave the "marrying" and "God" stuff to private religious organizations and let the state certify "unions" without discriminating?

[benzocaine]

Deleted.

Double post.

[benzocaine]

Lets see... you increase the marginal rate from 36% to 39% and that is not a tax increase? Ben... where did you go to school?
~Rich

Where are you pulling this info from Rich? Please provide a source so I can see where you are getting this from.

Massasoit CC Brocton MA(A.S.), Quincy College, Virginia Western CC, Jefferson College of Health Sciences(currently not enrolled married last year new baby ect. but will either do the accelerated nursing perogram and be done in one year, or ****** it up and try for the Physician assistant program. I dont know yet.)

I really don't believe that people are born gay or lesbian.I think it's a choice one makes in ones life.~ Mills75

I never made that choice. I like girls more than guys. Yeah there are shades of grey in many people, but I sincerely doubt that no one chooses to be gay. Even if they do, only a gay person would want to be gay

For lgays being married let them! Marraige is no joke. Let them have the same experiences we have. The joy of marraige, and the shear agony of divorce. Who does it hurt? I can name about ten openly gay people I know, and beyond being gossips I can't think of any real actions that they do that would ever harm anyone. As long as people are adults and doing it in private who cares what they do?

[benzocaine]

Lets see... you increase the marginal rate from 36% to 39% and that is not a tax increase? Ben... where did you go to school?
~Rich

Where are you pulling this info from Rich? Please provide a source so I can see where you are getting this from.

Trial and error Massasoit CC Brocton MA(A.S.), Quincy College, Virginia Western CC, Jefferson College of Health Sciences(currently not enrolled married last year new baby ect. but will either do the accelerated nursing perogram and be done in one year, or ****** it up and try for the Physician assistant program. I dont know yet.)

I really don't believe that people are born gay or lesbian.I think it's a choice one makes in ones life.

I never made that choice. I like girls more than guys. Yeah there are shades of grey in many people, but I sincerely doubt that no one chooses to be gay. Even if they do, only a gay person would want to be gay

For gays being married let them! Marraige is no joke. Let them have the same experiences we have. The joy of marraige, and the shear agony of divorce. Who does it hurt? I can name about ten openly gay people I know, and beyond being gossips I can't think of any real actions that they do that would ever harm anyone. As long as people are adults and doing it in private who cares what they do?

[RACastanet]

"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lets see... you increase the marginal rate from 36% to 39% and that is not a tax increase? Ben... where did you go to school?
~Rich
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Where are you pulling this info from Rich? Please provide a source so I can see where you are getting this from."

Go to the IRS web site to get the current marginal rates. For upper incomes in the 2004 tax year it is currently 35%, not 36% as I initially stated (my mistake, but that shows the difference is even larger) and if you go back 2 years before the Bush tax cuts it was 38.6%. I do not know if the 2002 rates are still on the website but I have a printout from 2 years ago that I am looking at.

Also, all of the marginal rates were higher and there was no 10% bracket.

Once again, if the rate goes from 35% to 38.6% tell me how that is not a tax increase?

Again, the major concern to me is not the top marginal rate since I am not anywhere near to that, but the elimination of 'loopholes' for the rich, that would triple or quadruple the taxes on my dividend income - my main source of income. Man retired persons rely on dividend income from years of investing for retirement and they will all be hit. I have heard assertions that over 50% of the population owns some stock so the impact will be widespread.

Rich