GOP to take the senate?

Originally posted by ~iluv2act~
If he does as well now as he did when first elected (i.e. getting his tax cuts made permanent) it would be a really great thing.

Originally posted by FreeMason
Yes...odd though...it is the Republicans that so forced the issue to free the slaves, while the Democrats wanted so urgently to keep slavery.

Originally posted by Estragon
Expect some delay to the advance of the Hispanicisation of America bandwaggon.

ilivu2act: I would like to know how you see a tax benefit to the wealthiest 5% of the nation as beneficial to you? Is the avatar you or Charlie Danials? If CD, I can se you being in the top 5%, with royalty checks & all!

FreeMason: I was going to vote for ultra pheonix as the KING of NON SEQUITUR, but you clearly deserve the crown. Dour social policy? What is THAT? Slave ownership votes; are Whigs in the colonies the next source to be quoted for relevance to your points!?!

Estragon: Actually, the Hispanic vote is a cornerstone to the GOP, all be it a very small but in complete control segment called South Florida Cubans. They are some of the rightest of the Right Wingers in the GOP. Otto Reich would be a poster child for them, as a starting point to look them up.
Latinos actually won, in both parties, the most seats in history, across all races. That wagon is more of a freight train. Though slanted Democrat, due to a persons economic solvency, something common amongst races, the vote among professional Latinos is almost a toss up, if not leaning GOP.
Democrats in the US have had more sound fiscal policies and more in that 'moderate' category that gets everyone on board than have the Repubs, who maintain a top down or trikle down philosophy as the only one applicable. It's not a bad theory, except that it does not account for people at the top putting out barrels to catch the trickle, or in other words, greed. Paul Sarbane and Robert Menendez are two Dem Congressional members to look up regarding that parties fiscal & fiscal safeguard platforms.

I would recommend (I have taken out non-liability insurance) trawling through the dross of current postings to examine the odd points of substance ( I'd check an architectural glossary on "cornerstone"-by the bye- and several dictionaries on the difference between "fiscal" and monetary"- figures do help so on the former) that occasionally migrate here: you'll see that Estragon, and much wiser posters, noted the "Cubans are Ministers of Death -former Dem Pres. says "No they ain't" thread, and it was examined a while back.
Numbers are the thing, Old Egg, when you cite "fiscal": stochastic methods are he next thing.

I would recommend (I have taken out non-liability insurance) trawling through the dross of current postings to examine the odd points of substance ( I'd check an architectural glossary on "cornerstone"-by the bye- and several dictionaries on the difference between "fiscal" and monetary"- figures do help so on the former) that occasionally migrate here: you'll see that Estragon, and much wiser posters, noted the "Cubans are Ministers of Death -former Dem Pres. says "No they ain't" thread, and it was examined a while back.
Numbers are the thing, Old Egg, when you cite "fiscal": stochastic methods are he next thing.

What are you talking about? The tax cuts are going to affect all Americans. It's the Dems who spaced them out over ten years so that the first cuts go to the rich. Bush wants to enact all the cuts at the same time, and make them all permanent. Whether he does this now that he controls the entire government will be a test of his mettle.

On a side note, my avatar is of Robert Jordan, my favorite author! Click here to learn about his books.

[Edited on 11-11-2002 by ~iluv2act~]

First check which tax -and on what -and when - then ask who benefts, I-luv-2

and "affect" adds little: one is reliably informed that an Ecuadorian p**sing against the wind "affects" all Americans (US citizens,followers of new Geography) - "hurts", or "benefits" would be better.
Can you state a fiscal measure that would hurt and benefit all US citizens, equally - I can: "no change" -and then what would one decline to vote about?

Has it occured to you that the rich currently pay a 38% tax to the federal government, while the poor only pay 18%??

I don't know about you, but that's awfully unfair. The rich have earned what they have just as much as the poor have. I know. My father makes 1$ million plus a year as the president of a major company and he works 16 hours a day to do it!

If the rich payed 18%, they would still pay more than the poor! 18% of 1$ million is a hell of alot more than 18% of $20,000.

Only The Rich Pay Taxes

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

This information comes from the IRS and will remain here forever, so you can find it whenever you need it to combat the liberals' tax-cuts-for-the-rich garbage.

www.rushlimbaugh.com...

Thanks much, TC! A much needed piece of sanity...

Originally posted by Estragon
I would recommend (I have taken out non-liability insurance) trawling through the dross of current postings to examine the odd points of substance ( I'd check an architectural glossary on "cornerstone"-by the bye- and several dictionaries on the difference between "fiscal" and monetary"- figures do help so on the former) that occasionally migrate here: you'll see that Estragon, and much wiser posters, noted the "Cubans are Ministers of Death -former Dem Pres. says "No they ain't" thread, and it was examined a while back.
Numbers are the thing, Old Egg, when you cite "fiscal": stochastic methods are he next thing.

Republicans would not hold the govenor's seat in Florida or have come close in the 2000 Presidential race if not for the South Florida Cuban vote. I'd consider the anology of 'cornerstone' to some thing that a politicians tenure is beholding to appropriate, no?
I'll read the thread, thank you.
As for 'fiscal' it's used as relating to financial matters in general. Encarta reinforces my usage:
2. of the public treasury: relating to public revenues, especially the revenue from taxation
Possibly you're thrown off by the different paths Yank & UK English have taken?
Outside of a small turf on which the absolutes stand, to stochastically banter back & forth is all this really boils down to, no?

I'll just follow the spot on advice given by Estragon: Ask the 'W's' to determine how it works out for you. Listen to pundits of your choice, but understand how their party affiliation and syndication income of several million dollars a year may 'flavor' ( to put it kindly) how they present 'facts' to you. Work through the formulas is the last piece of advice I'll leave with you. No, hold on. I forgot to mention relativity. Oh yeah, I forgot not to listen to Right Wing Demagouge's like Thomas who would sell his country down the river to further the GOP. That one is the most important!

I told myself I'd let the number stranglers live in fantasy, but....
First, it's Rush Limbaugh! He doesn't know his arse from his elbow on anything, much less our tax code.
Second, duh! Guess what? If you're making $50k a year, you're in that 'Top 50% of wage earners'! Again, DUH!!!!!!
You crop off those living below the poverty line, then you divide that in half. Is the top half going to be paying near all? Of Course, or are we for those $22K a year 'slackers' getting a tax increase to help offset folks like me ? I paid $43,680 in taxes last year, hell yeah I want tax relief!
But I'm not going to swallow hook-line-sinker oligarchy in reliefs clothing. You shouldn't either.

Let us also not forget to note that Limbaugh does *not* announce himself as a politician...He bills himself as a *humorist*...Right-Wing certainly, but *humorist*.

The info Rush had was from the IRS, BT. You wont take a tax cut? Is that what you're saying? (unless it was Clinton offering it - which we all know dems don't like to cut taxes - ever).

An entertainer, you mean, unless he's changed in the last few months. Although he can be quite funny.
What has captured his unbelievably large segment of listeners is his accuracy and truthful analysis of the political events.

He certainly is no politician and claims to have no intentions of becoming one. And why should he? He's made a good living doing what he does, and does the nation a great service watching and keeping the politicians straight!

Originally posted by Bout Time
Course, or are we for those $22K a year 'slackers' getting a tax increase to help offset folks like me ? I paid $43,680 in taxes last year, hell yeah I want tax relief!

Well well....for someone who makes as much as you you SURE have a lot of gaul speaking for the working man.

I'm sorry but Bush's idea to do away with taxing dividends is about the best thing I've heard of...and what would you know about it...you pay more in taxes than I make in a year! HAH!

Sincerely,
no signature

Simple.
" A son never Forgets"
I see myself as obligated, to my parents, to achieve, everone has a rallying cry, that's mine. In doing so, to forget the sacrafice, multiple jobs, 7 day a week work week that my father went through for his kids, makes me speak on his behalf and all others giving 30 years to a factory or assembly line, the working man.
While I'm 'playing' here, I have 4 other Windows of work open. My day starts at 6:30 ( 5:00 am if I'm in NYC that day) and ends at 7:30 pm.
You must have me mistaken with GW: I cleaned toilets, washed dishes in a commercial kitchen, humped out sides of beef from tractor trailers and smacked Coke Heads in the bathrooms of night clubs to pay for what grants & scholarships didn't cover....no child of old money here!
Plus I didn't go AWOL on MY military duty!

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
Let us also not forget to note that Limbaugh does *not* announce himself as a politician...He bills himself as a *humorist*...Right-Wing certainly, but *humorist*.

If you have any question as to why the 'Pundit-ocracy' is a dangerous substitue for facts in the eyes of too many Americans of every stripe, here's proof........

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
What has captured his unbelievably large segment of listeners is his accuracy and truthful analysis of the political events. and does the nation a great service watching and keeping the politicians straight!

"Accurate & Truthful"? "Does the Nation a Great Service"?

No M-D, if they only took him as an entertainer, it wouldn't be a problem. But if you're comfortable in an 'entertainer' calling a sitting president a 'thief' or 'liar' or 'sleaze', or to call that president's daughter, 13 yrs old at the time, an 'ugly dog', we won't agree on this point.