| Author |
Message |
andyfff
Rocker
Joined: July 03, 2005
Posts: 718
Status: Offline
|
 Posted:
Feb 14, 2008 - 10:06 AM |
 
|
| Post subject: americans getting money back from gov't |
|
|
|
Buzzd
PopStar
Joined: Jan 30, 2008
Posts: 1114
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Feb 14, 2008 - 10:39 AM |
|
|
I bought a toaster oven with my "Mission Accomplished" check!
W's crack security team is locating both of us as we speak, so don't be alarmed. Our checks will be arriving shortly. |
|
|
|
|
|
Me_Again
Raver
Joined: Dec 06, 2005
Posts: 390
Location: Lost
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Feb 14, 2008 - 10:52 AM |
|
|
This is the dumbest thing I heard in a long time.
The US has got itself into such a bad financial position because as a collective it spends more than it earns, so some dim wit comes up with an idea that giving people more money to spend, which surely many will not actually save, is a good thing.
This is absolute stupidity at its finest, far from preventing a recession, it'll just prolong the inevitable for a while. |
_________________
We make a living by what we get, we make a life by what we give. - Sir Winston Churchill |
|
|
|
|
andyfff
Rocker
Joined: July 03, 2005
Posts: 718
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Feb 14, 2008 - 11:07 AM |
|
|
It is pretty lame, especially when you consider that most people will either use that money to pay their credit cards, or buy something made in a foreign country. So it is more of a stimulus for the global economy than the US economy. |
|
|
|
|
|
YariGuy
LoopKicker
Joined: July 13, 2004
Posts: 877
Location: Puxi
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Feb 14, 2008 - 11:13 AM |
|
|
Does anyone know the situation for people who are living in China? I've always filed my US tax returns but haven't paid anything since I've been here. Do we get money as well? |
|
|
|
|
|
groover
Talker
Joined: Sep 14, 2007
Posts: 92
Location: Lujiazity
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Feb 14, 2008 - 01:10 PM |
|
|
You should get a check if you file a federal return and have any withholdings from your pay. I don't think it will be for a while. The IRS is so backed up with taxes right now I wouldn't count on getting a check soon.
I think it will work if we all spend the money at the exact same time. Let's pick a date and time, then get on ebay and spend the whole damn thing on some frivolous Chinese made crap sold by an Eastern European auction shop.
I remember the last one Georgie gave us. That helped a whole lot. It didn't even pay for a weekend rafting in West Va. That's sad. |
_________________
There ain't nothing wrong with living in the 'Dong. |
|
|
|
|
MrInvisible
Talker
Joined: Feb 28, 2005
Posts: 90
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Feb 14, 2008 - 01:40 PM |
|
|
It's money back don't complain! I understand we should all still get it but seperately from any refund check. It reduces by a few % for each $1,000 you make over $150,000 for married couples, $75,000 for singles, or something like that. |
|
|
|
|
|
p1atl10
Shanghai Royalty
Joined: Mar 18, 2005
Posts: 8585
Location: Shanghai
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Feb 14, 2008 - 03:40 PM |
|
|
As I understand it....
Over $152,000 in combined income for a husband and wife.
You get Nada! |
_________________
Not all chemicals are bad. Without chemicals such as hydrogen and oxygen, for example, there would be no way to make water, a vital ingredient in beer.....Dave Barry |
|
|
|
|
groover
Talker
Joined: Sep 14, 2007
Posts: 92
Location: Lujiazity
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Feb 14, 2008 - 03:51 PM |
|
|
Looks like the IRS will use your 2007 return for the information so make sure your address is correct. Setup a direct deposit for your refund so you can get your rebate quicker.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120295815386967481.html |
_________________
There ain't nothing wrong with living in the 'Dong. |
|
|
|
|
MikeinChina
Lurker
Joined: Aug 04, 2007
Posts: 27
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Feb 16, 2008 - 10:33 PM |
|
|
MRInvisible - "It's money back don't complain! " only for the 10-15% of taxpayers in that window that actualy PAID taxes. Heck round numbers 97+% of the taxes in the US are paid by the top 50% taxpayers, and most of those will hit the 150k cap, so its a nice thought of "It's money back don't complain! ", for 50% of the US population it is not money back but wealth re-distribution from those who actualy PAY income tax. Democrat's plan is working, they already have close to 50% of americans (and the illegals) not paying income tax, so just grab the $$ from those who work hard, take risks, invest in their small businesses and save, wouldn't want to make moma with 8 tatoos, a smoking and drug habit and 3 illegitimate children to have to take responsibilties for her decions! Its Wealth Re-distrubution pure and simple if A) you allow people who do not PAY income tax to get a rebate - which is pure welfare, and B) cap the rebate to the part of the population actualy MAKEINg and re-investing $$!
Sorry, off my soap box now... Mike |
|
|
|
|
|
SnappySammy
Board Buddha
Joined: Nov 01, 2007
Posts: 13113
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Feb 16, 2008 - 11:08 PM |
|
|
| YariGuy wrote: |
| Does anyone know the situation for people who are living in China? |
1.4 billion Chinese do not qualify |
|
|
|
|
|
Buzzd
PopStar
Joined: Jan 30, 2008
Posts: 1114
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2008 - 10:28 AM |
|
|
MikeinChina
| Quote: |
Sorry, off my soap box now... Mike
|
Yes, please do. It's obviously clouding your view! |
|
|
|
|
|
p1atl10
Shanghai Royalty
Joined: Mar 18, 2005
Posts: 8585
Location: Shanghai
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2008 - 11:51 AM |
|
|
MikeinChina...
Guess you will not be voting Democrat. Nor will I.
Used to .....until I started making a wage, and realized that it would be nice if I was not penalized for working hard and getting ahead.
Ah well....The joys of the USe Tax system. |
_________________
Not all chemicals are bad. Without chemicals such as hydrogen and oxygen, for example, there would be no way to make water, a vital ingredient in beer.....Dave Barry |
|
|
|
|
SnappySammy
Board Buddha
Joined: Nov 01, 2007
Posts: 13113
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2008 - 12:06 PM |
|
|
Yes It is Joyful. But I don't mind. I remember when I didn't have much of a income, and I didn't have to pay very much in taxes. Let them take what they want, I still have enough for a Carvel everyday. |
_________________
Yank My Doodle It's A Dandy |
|
|
|
|
leidelaohu
Board Lord
Joined: June 11, 2007
Posts: 5751
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2008 - 12:20 PM |
|
|
| p1atl10 wrote: |
MikeinChina...
Guess you will not be voting Democrat. Nor will I.
Used to .....until I started making a wage, and realized that it would be nice if I was not penalized for working hard and getting ahead. |
Oh right. And George Bush has rewarded you infinitely well for working hard and getting ahead which of course you have done all on your own with no assistance whatsoever from the infrastructure. You don't owe nobody nuthin', you did it all by your widdow self.
Didn't think you were that stewpid, plates. |
|
|
|
|
|
SnappySammy
Board Buddha
Joined: Nov 01, 2007
Posts: 13113
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2008 - 12:23 PM |
|
|
what do you mean "were that stewpid". Were was and still is. |
_________________
Yank My Doodle It's A Dandy |
|
|
|
|
p1atl10
Shanghai Royalty
Joined: Mar 18, 2005
Posts: 8585
Location: Shanghai
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2008 - 12:38 PM |
|
|
Duh....
I just can't figgur out wy i havve too pay sum taxis so the pepple who dunt work can get sum moolah bak...
poor stubid mi |
_________________
Not all chemicals are bad. Without chemicals such as hydrogen and oxygen, for example, there would be no way to make water, a vital ingredient in beer.....Dave Barry |
|
|
|
|
underh20
Board Legend
Joined: Sep 27, 2006
Posts: 12702
Location: Veggie-Free Zone
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2008 - 12:56 PM |
|
|
^ Three words: social safety net. |
_________________
"If I need to buy a TV, I'll definitely buy a Japanese TV. A Chinese TV might explode." -- Jackie Chan |
|
|
|
|
leidelaohu
Board Lord
Joined: June 11, 2007
Posts: 5751
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2008 - 03:54 PM |
|
|
| p1atl10 wrote: |
| I just can't figgur out wy i havve too pay sum taxis so the pepple who dunt work can get sum moolah bak... |
Cute. You really aren't that dumb, are you ? I can understand saying "I'm not voting for Democrats" because they are scum but the implication is that you then do vote for Republicans who are equal and often worse scum.
If you use logic rather than emotion, the Democrats are the obvious choice for people who want to "do better and get ahead by working hard" because historically the economy has done much better under Democratic administrations. Oh, if you make more than $150,000 a year then the repubs are your friends, I forgot ...
just a couple citations ....
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_05/006282.ph p
http://www.eriposte.com/economy/other/demovsrep.htm
| alternet.org wrote: |
Contrary to the mythology the party has created, GOP presidents are terrible for business
At last week's news conference, President Bush again said that he's reduced the deficit to $239 billion, created 8 million jobs and generated unemployment at a low 4.5%. He said the economy is strong, largely due to his tax cut policies. On the other side, Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.), House Appropriations Committee chairman, has complained of our limited resources now because of Bush's "gargantuan deficits he created with that stupid war and those stupid tax cuts paid for with our money."
There is a widely held belief that Republicans are better for business than are Democrats. Let's look at the facts. The wild stock market ride of recent weeks does not compare to the two worst stock events, the crash of 1929 and the 1987 free fall, which also occurred under Republican administrations. Since 1900, Democratic presidents have produced a 12.3% annual return on the S&P 500, Republicans only 8%. Gross Domestic Product growth since 1930 is 5.4% for Democratic presidents and 1.6% for Republican presidents.
Bush inherited from President Clinton an annual federal budget surplus of $236 billion, the largest in American history. Clinton balanced the budget for the first time since 1969. Budget surpluses were expected to total $5.6 trillion between fiscal year 2002 and 2011.
Despite this, Bush transformed the surpluses into a $1.1 trillion annual deficit in just three years because of the Iraq war and his relentless push for permanent tax cuts for wealthy Americans, a new iteration of Herbert Hoover's equally catastrophic "trickle-down" theory. Bragging about a $239 billion deficit sets such a low standard that Bush can claim horrific failure as a good thing for the country. The Bush administration's annual loss of three-quarters of a trillion dollars is unprecedented. Bush presided over the loss of 2 million American jobs in his first 2 1/2 years and has net gained 5.6 million in six years, the worst since Hoover. Clinton created 23 million jobs.
It's not rocket science to figure out the difference. Clinton: tax breaks for the middle and lower incomes who actually spend the money, no Iraq war. Bush: disproportionate tax breaks for the wealthy (50% to the wealthiest 1% by 2010), $750 billion for a war monetarily benefiting only a few military contractors and a financial sieve for the country. Democratic presidents spread the wealth through spending on needed social programs and targeting tax cuts to lower- and middle-income Americans, stimulating the economy more broadly. Republicans pump into defense contractors and high-income Americans, creating a significant detriment to the whole economy with larger deficits and higher interest rates.
Economist John Maynard Keynes was right in 1936: When you "prime the pump" into people programs (like jobs or lower income tax cuts to help Americans buy what they need), you get people results. On the other hand, when you move money from the economy into tax cuts for the rich and a military vacuum, you don't prime the economic pump; you deplete it.
Contrary to opinion, we do not have record high stocks. It would take 14,300 for the Dow Jones industrial average just to match for inflation the 11,750 under Clinton in 2000. We're now around 13,000, meaning, in real terms, a stagnant market with a loss for the past six years. Democrats empower the buyers, Republicans the sellers. Misdirected tax cuts, plus the Iraq war, have taken the money not just from America's working class but from America's businesses as well.
Economic Indicators: Democratic Versus Republican Presidents
In six major criteria - GDP growth, per capita income growth, job creation, unemployment reduction, inflation reduction, and federal deficit reduction - for the ten post-World War II presidencies until Bush, there is a record to track the reality of Democratic versus Republican economic success.
Democrats
Lyndon B. Johnson's "Great Society" created robust economic expansion, first in both GDP and personal income growth. He also reduced unemployment from 5.3% to 3.4%. Economic growth remained robust through most of LBJ's presidency.
John F. Kennedy campaigned on the idea of getting America moving again, and he did. Under Kennedy, America entered its largest sustained expansion since WWII. GDP and personal income growth were second only to Johnson, all with minimal inflation. Contrary to Republican attempts to say Kennedy's tax cuts are like Bush's, Kennedy's were targeted at middle and lower incomes.
The economy added 10 million jobs under Jimmy Carter despite high inflation; Carter ranks first in job creation next to Clinton during just four years in office. Carter also reduced government spending as a percentage of GDP.
Harry Truman's second term saw the fastest GDP growth and the sharpest reduction in unemployment of any president surveyed (of course, FDR's post Hoover-depression New Deal jobs are first).
Republicans
Ronald Reagan focused on reducing the cost of capital through cutting tax bracket highs for the rich and reducing the size and scope of government. But, instead of lowering spending, Reagan shifted money to the military (i.e. Star Wars) and the deficit tripled with the tax cuts and military spending - as under Bush II.
Under Gerald Ford, the deficit soared and the unemployment rate grew from 5.3 - 8.3% in just 2 years. His "WIN" (Whip Inflation Now) buttons were no match for economic inactivity.
It was under Richard Nixon that inflation started to spiral out of control, from 4.4% to 8.6%, and the deficit shot up from $2.8 billion to $73.7 billion.
The Eisenhower years were characterized by slow growth (2.27% annualized GDP growth) and relatively high unemployment (7.7% at end of term).
George H. W. Bush had the poorest record for both GDP and income growth. During his single term, the deficit ballooned (from $152 billion to $255 billion) more than under every president but his son and Ford.
(Sources: White House Office of Management and Budget (OMcool smiley, U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), and White House Council of Economic Advisors) |
applicable to China -
| ed kilgore wrote: |
If you had to identify one simple reason for [the South's] grinding poverty, it was the perpetual delusion of southern political and business leaders that the region had to stay poor and dumb in order to attract the capital necessary to eventually climb out of the ditch. Like some of today's third world countries, the South, right up to the 1970s, was paralyzed by the idea that decent wages, unionization, protection of natural resources, business regulation, progressive taxes, and quality education were all impossible because they would "price" the region out of opportunities for economic development. All of the South's social and economic weaknesses were perceived as essential to maintaining a "good business climate." And that benighted belief also helped perpetuate Jim Crow, since the ability to keep roughly a third of the region's population in semi-serfdom gave the South a cost advantage no other part of the country could ever meet.
Gradually, by the 1970s and 1980s, southern political leaders, and even many business leaders, woke up to the fact that deliberately maintaining a low standard of living wasn't worth the paltry payoff in low-wage textile jobs. And slowly but surely, a consensus developed that decent education and adequate public services were positive, not negative, factors in long-term economic development. The states that pursued this "high road" strategy--especially North Carolina and Georgia--tended to prosper. The states that stayed on the low road--especially Mississippi and Alabama--didn't.
That's why it is so profoundly depressing to see the theory of economic development that my home region finally began to abandon over the last few decades now being embraced by the national government as the way for America to successfully compete in a global economy.
|
Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts .... |
|
|
|
|
|
EnnesX
Reacher
Joined: Aug 03, 2007
Posts: 210
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Feb 18, 2008 - 10:01 AM |
|
|
| Quote: |
Bush Boom Continues
You can call it Goldilocks 2.0. But you can’t call it a recession.
By Larry Kudlow
Following last week’s solid jobs report, the New York Times got back to its Bush-bashing recession mantra with the front-page headline: “Slowing Growth and Jobs Seen as Ominous Sign for the Economy.”
This chant has been going on for quite some time. Doom and gloom from the economic pessimists has been political sport for seven years, even though the Bush boom just celebrated its sixth anniversary. The current expansion is now in its 74th month — 17 months longer than the average 57-month business cycle since World War II.
Jobs are an “ominous sign for the economy”? The latest jobs report says America is still working, with 94,000 new corporate payrolls in November and a rolling average of 103,000 job increases for the past three months. Along with a 4.7 percent unemployment rate, there is no evidence of a recessionary collapse in jobs. Even the household job count, which picks up small businesses, surged 696,000 in November, with a 303,000 average gain over the past three months.
Jobs are paying more, too. Worker wages are rising 3.8 percent over the past year, a full percentage point ahead of inflation. In fact, growth in total compensation for the entire workforce is rising at a 3.3 percent pace after inflation. University of Michigan Professor Mark Perry, writing in his Carpe Diem blog, says this is the best performance in seven years.
But wait, there’s more. U.S. productivity surged 6.3 percent in the third quarter, its best pace in four years. A big rise in output per person is good for profits, growth, and low inflation. Business inflation has come down from 3.5 percent a year ago to 1.5 percent today. U.S. household net worth just scored a new record high of $58.6 trillion, with financial asset gains outpacing the drop in real estate values.
According to Prof. Perry, household wealth has increased 43 percent in just the past five years, despite $100 oil, $3 gas, and the sub-prime infection. The stock market, which is probably the best leading indicator of the future economy, appears just as resilient. Despite these same challenges, it is overcoming a brief correction and looks set to rise by roughly 10 percent this year.
Yes, economic growth may indeed pause to roughly 2 percent in the next couple of quarters, the result of two years of overly tight money from the Federal Reserve and the ensuing upturn in sub-prime defaults and foreclosures. You can call it Goldilocks 2.0. But you can’t call it a recession.
Even the housing market has its share of positive developments. Mortgage refinancings are up nearly 70 percent as mortgage rates on fifteen- and thirty-year loans are down nearly 100 basis points. Such events may help cushion the plunge in home sales and will eventually stabilize prices.
Meanwhile, Treasury Secretary Paulson has put together a modest refinancing safety net that grants poorer homeowners some breathing room in which to modify and work-out jumps in low teaser rates. The Paulson plan would shift borrowers into FHA-insured refinancings, which can be packaged by Ginnie Mae (the Government National Mortgage Association) into new loan pools that will be bought and sold by investors. It’s a relatively small plan that could help a half-million borrowers, and it will preempt Democratic efforts to spend billions on direct subsidies or bailouts.
The Fed can aid this plan on Tuesday by getting its target fed funds rate down by 50 basis points. This will take the pressure off adjustable-rate-mortgage increases. What’s more, the central bank can help unclog frozen short-term financing problems in the commercial paper market in New York and the interbank LIBOR markets in London. If businesses can’t get short-term loans, the economic expansion will be seriously threatened.
The Fed also must undo the inverted Treasury yield curve whereby the 4.5 percent fed funds rate remains well above the 4 percent ten-year Treasury rate. This situation has prevailed for 18 months; unless it’s fixed immediately it represents an illiquidity threat that increases the odds of recession. A 3-month Treasury bill around 3 percent is pointing the way for the fed funds rate.
Righting the yield curve and expanding the monetary base by at least twice its current 2 percent growth rate would also provide new oxygen for the low tax rates on investment put in place over four years ago. The incentive effect of these supply-side tax cuts has been smothered by an overly tight Fed. But if Bernanke & Co. move aggressively, business investment and capital formation will soon pick up speed.
This sort of fiscal and monetary coordination will continue the Bush boom for years to come. Though mainstream media outlets will never admit it, President Bush has kept America safe and prosperous. But history will eventually judge him in a more kindly light.
|
I think Bush was dealt a pretty bad hand during his terms and from an economic viewpoint has largely made the best of a tough time for the US. I mean, people with a background in economics can surely agree that ideally an economy grows at a moderate, sustainable pace in a low inflation environment with low unemployment. President Bush has succeeded fairly well in these respects. The war is a huge chunk of Federal spending during his term but it is really up to the individual to decide whether that is worth it or not. Most of the uneccessary spending comes from Congress and Bush has not ignored his veto power on this front. Do we need a reminder that inflation fears have not materialized and that unemployment remains, and has remained during this Presidency, at historical lows? I find it alarming how popular it is to bash the current administration using information that is really out of context. |
|
|
|
|
|
Buzzd
PopStar
Joined: Jan 30, 2008
Posts: 1114
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Feb 18, 2008 - 11:53 AM |
|
|
EnnesX
| Quote: |
I think Bush was dealt a pretty bad hand
|
No Ennes, that would be the American people. Starting with the Supreme Court's partisan decision not to count the votes!
| Quote: |
The war is a huge chunk of Federal spending during his term but it is really up to the individual to decide whether that is worth it or not.
|
Love it or hate it, the next President is still going to have to finance the small issue of bringing the troops home. Costing billions. Certainly must have been an oversight on the Bush team to fail to include this in any of their budgets reports for the war.
| Quote: |
Do we need a reminder that inflation fears have not materialized and that unemployment remains, and has remained during this Presidency, at historical lows?
|
Inflation fears not materializing? Huh?! You're right about the unemployment though. All Dunkin Donuts are currently staffed to full capacity, and with college graduates no less! Facetious? A bit. Misleading unemployment data? Most definitely!
Larry Kudlow
| Quote: |
President Bush has kept America safe and prosperous.
|
I'm confused here. I thought it was a stewardess who tackled the shoe bomber! We are under more threat now then we've ever been, and this is thanks to W and his ill-planned war. The liberal Fox News even confirms this with their 'Terror Level Alert' in constant stream (nothing like keeping the people scared, but that's another issue).
It's easy for both parties to manipulate numbers and data to work in their favor, and W's team is particularly adept at it. That said, W's two terms will be recognized as the proverbial gift that kept on giving. We'll be paying for his ineptitude for many, many years to come. |
|
|
|
|
|
bezoli
Ranter
Joined: Aug 30, 2006
Posts: 516
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Feb 18, 2008 - 02:46 PM |
|
|
I wish I had junk bond trading bankers, loosing billions of dollars and an irresponsible, incapable government, on the verge of an unavoidable recession with a monkey and a loose shooter as commander in chief too.
That way we'd get tax gifts from our government too, so we also can keep spending more than we have and sell our land, companies, and CHF's to the chinese and other stingy countries of the world until we just work for the rest of our lives to pay back the debt Doubya's gotten us into.
Seriously, the tax rebates, that's just stupid. |
_________________
A place in Shanghai @ www.shplace.com |
|
 |
|
MrInvisible
Talker
Joined: Feb 28, 2005
Posts: 90
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Feb 18, 2008 - 03:21 PM |
|
|
Mike in China, the redistribution of wealth or the fact that 97% of our taxes are paid by the big income earners are different topics...someone was complaining that the last refund wasn't enough for a weekend rafting trip and I was saying it's free money so don't complain...for those of us that will get it, it IS free money...should we all pay less taxes? YES. Should I get more back that someone who paid less taxes? YES. Hell, we should get ALL of our federal taxes back since we live here and not there, but those are different topics. Besides, you know this has nothing to do with the economy and everything to do with politics. If giving everyone $300 or $600 extra would REALLY boost the economy why don't they just do it every year or reduce everyone's taxes by that much permanently? |
|
|
|
|
|
EnnesX
Reacher
Joined: Aug 03, 2007
Posts: 210
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Feb 18, 2008 - 04:38 PM |
|
|
Ok buzz'd we are so on different pages I am not even going to provide a detailed response.
On Bush's "bad hand" I meant the unpredictable factors during his Presdency such as terrorism and natural disasters over which no one has control yet had impacts on fiscal spending.
Your response on the war has nothing to do with my comment.
On inflation, the current 12 month moving average sits at just under 3%. This compares to a low of 1.5% percent post-Katrina and a high of 4% during Katrina. This is unchanged from the Clinton era, but impressive considering the rise of prices for oil, power, metals, and other commodities that Clinton did not have to face. Only 6 months ago fears for inflation higher than current levels were so common that the Federal Reserve refused to take a stimulating approach to the ailing financial sector.
I don't have any more detailed unemployment data other than the fact that it remains at or below 5%. The metrics for unemployment are standardized so I don't know what you mean by skewed unemployment data.
MrInvisible by your logic if by drinking a Red Bull I can gain the energy to finish an extra heavy workload at the office, I should be replacing my water intake with Red Bull exclusively, leading to a permanent boost in productivity right? |
|
|
|
|
|
p1atl10
Shanghai Royalty
Joined: Mar 18, 2005
Posts: 8585
Location: Shanghai
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Feb 18, 2008 - 05:15 PM |
|
|
| Quote: |
P1ATL10 Wrote
Guess you will not be voting Democrat. Nor will I.
Used to .....until I started making a wage, and realized that it would be nice if I was not penalized for working hard and getting ahead.
|
Gee.....all this fuss.
My only point was that "traditionally" the Democrats have been more likely to redistribute Tax Income to the poor...."we need to help the needy". A policy that has led to generational welfare and a tax and spend philosophy in the US. (Socialism at it's finest.)
And "traditionally" the Republican Party platform has been more "God (sic)helps those who help themselves...
And therefore my predeliction towards voting Republican.
Economy aside....the largest tax cuts have come under Republican Administrations, although Bill did give it a whack in 1997...
Little Tiger....and yes I did bloody do it by myself! 
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005921.html |
_________________
Not all chemicals are bad. Without chemicals such as hydrogen and oxygen, for example, there would be no way to make water, a vital ingredient in beer.....Dave Barry |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Forum FAQ
Search
Preferences
Watched Topics
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
