Something GOOD Bush did- or do you think he is too evil to do anything good?

[emprworm]

Err what is your definition of rich? Did you know that 50% of the population pays 96% of the taxes? So any tax cut is going to affect rich people more then anything else, especially when the top 5% pays 56% of the taxes. Saying that tax cuts are only good for rich people is stupid. If you cut taxes across the board of course the rich are going to get more back because they pay a higher percentage. Do they not teach math anymore?

lol, Gob. All i can say is brilliant.

And, they teach math to democrats, they just don't usually pay attention.

[Edric O]

But Acriku was so eager to help the cause of science! ;D

Btw, don't joke on that subject, Acriku, or I'm not responsible for the amount of flames I spew at you.

[Acriku]

I was talking about Emprworm's post that seemed like he was paid by the Bush administration to say that. Nothing about abortion.

[Edric O]

I was talking about Emprworm's post that seemed like he was paid by the Bush administration to say that.

Hmmm, you do have a point there... He does seem...

*paranoia settles in*

Oh, and by the way, Ace, since when was this argument about abortion? ??? I thought we were discussing stem cell research...

[emprworm]

Well, how can you say abortions are bad when you're not the fatherless 11-year-old that was raped and is now carrying a "fetus/human being/baby/whatever".

lol, typical pro-death crutch. 95% of all abortions are the result of a simple inconvienence- pure volunteer sex. "Your life, and your future, for my 5 minutes of fun in the backseat of my dad's car."

And many pro-life people would be OK with someone aborting due to crime, though such occurences are in the far...FAR minority.

If you say a fetus is a human, you have to say sperm and eggs are too...

of course. Your hair is human, your skin is human, your brain is human. A fetus, on the other hand is not just human, but a human being.

"Given time a fetus will develop into a human" - only if it has a host. And you can say the same thing about sperm.

no you cant. the two are not the same. a fetus will passively become a human adult. a sperm cell will not. one requires active intervention and deliberate manipulation. the other does not.

here is a better comparison:

an unhatched sea turtle egg, or unborn whale.

Let me ask you, Ace, why would I get thrown in jail for making an omlette out of unhatched sea turtles? And don't tell me that an unhatched sea turtle has the same value as a fully grown one! ;)

[SurlyPIG]

Err what is your definition of rich? Did you know that 50% of the population pays 96% of the taxes? So any tax cut is going to affect rich people more then anything else, especially when the top 5% pays 56% of the taxes. Saying that tax cuts are only good for rich people is stupid. If you cut taxes across the board of course the rich are going to get more back because they pay a higher percentage. Do they not teach math anymore?

Gob, the tax cut's he's made were not uniformly percentage based across the board. I'm not sure about this latest round, but when he was first elected the tax cuts he made were like a 2.5% reduction for people earning less than 400K and a 5% reduction for people earning more than 400K. So Vilgent saying his cuts favour the rich more is accurate...

Which do you think is more significant to the individual: the person earning $5,000,000 annually saving $250,000 a year, or the one earning $20,000 a year saving $1000? The former means the poor man will have to leave the tennis court out of his backyard. The latter would mean that someone can make their mortgage payments, or buy a tutor for their kids or something. Percentage-wise it's exactly the same reduction. But ask each one what it means to them and you'll get a very different answer. Under Bush, the latter would only save $500...

[Gobalopper]

The rich also pay more percentage wise. Why should someone who makes more be taxed more? I'm for flat taxes across the board. The rich may not need the money but its not like they are going to sit on it and not spend it. Like you said he could build a tennis court which would employ people who are looking for work. The money goes back into the economy either way.

Just because the poorer person may need the money more doesn't mean they should get more out of the tax cut. They already are paying less percent-wise in taxes, or did you miss that?

[GhostHunter]

What I was saying Ace, but I get like four-teamed at once :-

[emprworm]

the problem with Ace's illustration is that someone earning 20K per year gets HUGE tax breaks...in fact, correct me if I'm wrong, but i think that in the US, 20K per year means you are free from all taxes. I dont know what the minimum salary is, but i think its right around 20k

[VigilVirus]

of course. Your hair is human, your skin is human, your brain is human. A fetus, on the other hand is not just human, but a human being.

Fetus is not a human being until the organism is born. Like I said before, if it is living in its mother's body, it is the property of the mother, because as it says in the bill of rights, "humans have the right to manage their own body"

[DukeLeto]

Hmm, Bushes latest round o' tax cuts gave breaks to: Churches, people investing large amounts of money, and big businesses. In other words, people already rolling in money. How nice of him. ::)

Oh, and that $300-per-person check you got last year came out of your annual refund.

Ah, don't question me, my dad's a CPA.

[emprworm]

uhhh...the fetus is a human being. it is human, it is a being of itself. the definition of a being does not require political correctness Belziel.

Most pro-death people would say that it isn't a PERSON until it is born. But scientifically, it most certainly is a human being.

Don't let a bunch of rabid feminists who never took a biology 101 class try to tell you what a fetus is.

[Gobalopper]

The top 50% of wage earners pay 87% of the taxes. So you are left with 13% of the taxes being paid by people whose family income is below $26,000. Tax cuts are made to stimulate the economy, how do you stimulate the economy by cutting taxes if you are cutting the taxes of only 13% of the tax revenue?

[emprworm]

Hmm, Bushes latest round o' tax cuts gave breaks to: Churches, people investing large amounts of money, and big businesses. In other words, people already rolling in money. How nice of him. ::)

now for the correct version:

Bushes latest round o' tax cuts gave breaks to: non-profit organizations, people investing any amount money (capital gains reduction) and all businesses- large or small.. In other words, people who are suffering in this economy will find relief for their financial turmoil as business after business continues laying off people accross the US by the tens of thousands.

[DukeLeto]

uhhh...the fetus is a human being. it is human, it is a being of itself. the definition of a being does not require political correctness Belziel.

Most pro-death people would say that it isn't a PERSON until it is born. But scientifically, it most certainly is a human being.

Don't let a bunch of rabid feminists who never took a biology 101 class try to tell you what a fetus is.

"Pro-death people"? lol! You mean, 11-year-old rape victims with no income and no idea who the father is should have to have the child anyways? otherwise they are "pro-death people"? ::)

[zamboe]

Err what is your definition of rich? Did you know that 50% of the population pays 96% of the taxes? So any tax cut is going to affect rich people more then anything else, especially when the top 5% pays 56% of the taxes. Saying that tax cuts are only good for rich people is stupid. If you cut taxes across the board of course the rich are going to get more back because they pay a higher percentage. Do they not teach math anymore?

Agree.

However, in terms of impact in the economy the result will be very low.

The people who will get most of the money from the tax cut are rich people, and that money will not be spended, it will be financially invested, mostly outside the US.

Only by having normal people with more cash you can estimulate the economy, and that will not be achieved with the so called tax reduction.

I can almost think about what the Fed and Greenspan will say about it.

Middle-class people will not have a significant increase in his pocket cash, so the efect in the whole chain of the economy will be close to zero.

[Gobalopper]

I guess you missed this:

And many pro-life people would be OK with someone aborting due to crime, though such occurences are in the far...FAR minority.

[Gobalopper]

So zamboe you're saying that 50% of US citzens invest any money they get outside of the US? Sure some of the tax cut money will go to that but a large percentage will stay.

[emprworm]

[ "Pro-death people"? lol! You mean, 11-year-old rape victims with no income and no idea who the father is should have to have the child anyways? otherwise they are "pro-death people"? ::)

now for the correct version:

over 95% of all abortions are convienience abortions where both parties of their own free will voluntarily had sex. The frequency of 11 year old rape victims who are pregnant with child represents a miniscule infintesimal amount of abortions and even pro-lifers are not against abortions due to crime. But the pro-death people I am talking about are the 95+% of deather's who support abortion because jack and jill had 5 minutes of fun in the back seat of dad's car, so an innocent life needs to die for their fun.

[SurlyPIG]

lol, typical pro-death crutch. 95% of all abortions are the result of a simple inconvienence- pure volunteer sex. "Your life, and your future, for my 5 minutes of fun in the backseat of my dad's car."

LOL - pro-death? It's pro-choice. I don't believe it's YOUR right to decide what that girl/woman does with her fetus/child. I believe in education and the protection of rights when it comes to this stuff.

And many pro-life people would be OK with someone aborting due to crime, though such occurences are in the far...FAR minority.

OK now let me get this straight...

You're saying that you should only give abortions to people who were impregnated through criminal means?

LMAO!!! You might as well say throw innocent men in jail. Lets follow Suzie as she goes down the road of life under your laws...

Suzie got really drunk at a party and had unprotected sex with her drunk boyfriend. She becomes pregnant. She goes to have an abortion but "Sorry, only if you were raped." All of a sudden, Suzzies boyfriend is on trial for rape. One of two things can happen; the right side will win, Suzzie will lose the abortion and her now ex-boyfriend will remain a free man. On the other hand, Suzie will get her abortion and an innocent man will go to jail for rape, where he will likely be beat on or killed by the rest of the prison population, as everyone knows, sex offenders are the bottom-feeders of the penal system.

It's one or the other emprworm - you can't sit on the fence on this one. Rape laws and trials have never worked and they never will. Either ANYONE can have an abortion, or nobody can. Which one is it? I prefer anyone. Because to ask that 5% who did NOTHING to deserve pregnancy to go through nine months of hell, pay the physical, financial and emotional costs of doing so, and then either have to give up their baby or pay for it's entire life is UNFORGIVEABLE. It's unfair for the mother AND for the child. How would you feel if you knew your dad was sitting in prison for raping your mom, and the only reason you're on this planet is because of a hanus crime?

"Given time a fetus will develop into a human" - only if it has a host. And you can say the same thing about sperm.

no you cant. the two are not the same. a fetus will passively become a human adult. a sperm cell will not. one requires active intervention and deliberate manipulation. the other does not.

Of course they can. Where were you during sex-ed? Though it is unbelievably rare and depends on a ridiculous number of factors, sperm can impregnate women through contact with surfaces the sperm are on.

Let me ask you, Ace, why would I get thrown in jail for making an omlette out of unhatched sea turtles? And don't tell me that an unhatched sea turtle has the same value as a fully grown one!

Because the turtles are endangered. You can certainly do that with chicken eggs, and I don't see any laws about that. A fetus may become an adult. It almost always does. In cases where adults are needed, it is logical to allow the fetuses to become adults.

[zamboe]

So zamboe you're saying that 50% of US citzens invest any money they get outside of the US? Sure some of the tax cut money will go to that but a large percentage will stay.

It is a fact that the money will not be spended in consumer goods, it will be financially re invested.

A rich man will give his extra saving in taxes to his local invesment company, at the present time the investment oportunities are not in the US, the most active and growing stock markets are outside US, so their money will be managed by US companies but no in the US market.

Of course some money will stay, but not the main part, however it will not mean orders for any factory or service company.

[Acriku]

I wonder how you got that data Emprworm, seeing as that information is strictly between the doctor and patient?

[DukeLeto]

now for the correct version:

Bushes latest round o' tax cuts gave breaks to: non-profit organizations, people investing any amount money (capital gains reduction) and all businesses- large or small.. In other words, people who are suffering in this economy will find relief for their financial turmoil as business after business continues laying off people accross the US by the tens of thousands.

1. It is unconstitutional for the Government to shell out money to Churches.

2. People investing money, eh? Hmm...must be a coincidence most investors tend to have lots of money.

3. Do you really think that buisinesses will use the money to hire more people? No. They will use it to buy their CEO's new private jets. As always. "Trickle-down" economics never work.

[emprworm]

I don't believe it's YOUR right to decide what that girl/woman does with her fetus/child. I believe in education and the protection of rights when it comes to this stuff.

its not my right, but i believe it is the governments job to protect its citizens. when a woman, for example, wants to throw her 2 year old child in a dumpster, it is in societies interest to tell her what to do with her child.

Suzie got really drunk at a party and had unprotected sex with her drunk boyfriend. She becomes pregnant. She goes to have an abortion but "Sorry, only if you were raped." All of a sudden, Suzzies boyfriend is on trial for rape.

and? Big deal, this happens anyway. Maybe Jack should learn to control his penis and not go poking around, because Jill might sue for rape regardless....or Jill might decide to have the child in which case Jack will refuse ownership, so Jill sues for child support.

At least the child isnt sacrificed on the altar of evil and can grow up and not be an imbecile like his father Jack who couldn't keep his fly shut.

Of course they can. Where were you during sex-ed? Though it is unbelievably rare and depends on a ridiculous number of factors, sperm can impregnate women through contact with surfaces the sperm are on

of course they cant. Sperm cells will not passively become human. learn and study active/passive euthenasia. When you learn the difference, you will better understand these two terms.

Because the turtles are endangered.

AHHH! So now at least in THIS CASE you are saying that "unhatched sea turtle = sea turtle"

ha!! gotcha

[SurlyPIG]

The rich also pay more percentage wise. Why should someone who makes more be taxed more? I'm for flat taxes across the board. The rich may not need the money but its not like they are going to sit on it and not spend it. Like you said he could build a tennis court which would employ people who are looking for work. The money goes back into the economy either way.

Just because the poorer person may need the money more doesn't mean they should get more out of the tax cut. They already are paying less percent-wise in taxes, or did you miss that?

Where did I say they shouldn't have the same reductions? That's exactly what I said. Bush didn't even do that. Like I said, 2.5% for the poor, 5% for the wealthy. And in most cases, you're wrong about what the rich do with their money - the rich ARE going to sit on it (the extremely rich at least). Take Bill Gates. He's worth billions and billions of dollars. His house only cost him like 40 million. Car's cant get much past half a million. He's literally just sitting on the rest. When you have that kind of money, you can't even begin to spend it. Stuff just doesn't cost that much. Now when you only make $15-20k, you pretty much HAVE to spend almost all of it just to get by.

So, on a percentage basis, the poor contribute much, much more to the economy. People who make more save more - but it isn't in uniform amounts.