PDA

View Full Version : BUSH looking good in the POLLS!!!!!



Section126
08-14-2004, 02:26 PM
Here is the link:

http://www.gallup.com/content/?ci=12694

No president has ever lost an election with an approval rating above 50% when reaching the month of September...........Now if we can get the rest of August out of the way...we'll be fine...... :D

pats4life
08-14-2004, 04:43 PM
Hmm Time says if the eclection was held right now Kerry would win?
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101040719/poll.html

DolFan31
08-14-2004, 07:52 PM
Once again, I dont care about polls. The election is what counts, even if our votes dont.

PhinPhan1227
08-14-2004, 08:45 PM
Polls are usless right now. The ONLY thing that matters is turnout.

finataxia24
08-15-2004, 07:57 PM
I hope bush loses because he doesn't care for the middle class.

Section126
08-15-2004, 07:58 PM
I hope bush loses because he doesn't care for the middle class.

:rolleyes:

finataxia24
08-15-2004, 08:01 PM
facts are facts

Bush has not made it easy for the middle class
roll your eyes all u want. until u can prove he does "then shove it"

DolFan31
08-15-2004, 08:01 PM
I hope bush loses because he doesn't care for the middle class.

Not to bash you, but thats just one of the many problems with Bush, some are worse than just the middle-class squeeze his tax cuts have caused.

PhinPhan1227
08-15-2004, 11:34 PM
facts are facts

Bush has not made it easy for the middle class
roll your eyes all u want. until u can prove he does "then shove it"

Lol...I'm sure that life will be easier for the middle class under KErry when our taxes are all increased.

MDFINFAN
08-15-2004, 11:37 PM
Lol...I'm sure that life will be easier for the middle class under KErry when our taxes are all increased.

Since when is 200K middle class.

PhinPhan1227
08-15-2004, 11:53 PM
Since when is 200K middle class.

Taken a look recently at the price tag of the programs Kerry is promising? The one thing Kerry has NOT flip flopped on are his far left ideals, and they all spell tax increases across the board. I haven't seen a single economist who has found a way for KErry to pay for even half his programs with limited tax increases. BTW, when the small business owners who make 200k get their taxes hiked and have to lay off some of the middle class people they employ, explain again to me how that benefits the middle class?

caneproud117
08-16-2004, 07:20 AM
Taken a look recently at the price tag of the programs Kerry is promising? The one thing Kerry has NOT flip flopped on are his far left ideals, and they all spell tax increases across the board. I haven't seen a single economist who has found a way for KErry to pay for even half his programs with limited tax increases. BTW, when the small business owners who make 200k get their taxes hiked and have to lay off some of the middle class people they employ, explain again to me how that benefits the middle class?

It's real simple PhinPhan, he's going to tax the hell out of people who ship jobs overseas. See if they still ship jobs overseas when they're getting billed $500,000 by the IRS. If that's not high enough, raise it even higher. Eventually, we'll keep the jobs here. By keeping jobs here our economy will stabilize and create the revenues necessary for a "majority" of his campain promises. You, like me, know that not every one of his promises are going to be kept, just like the President's this past four years weren't all kept. Also, by getting some help in Iraq that will ease our financial burden will we start using those revenues on a cause that's going to help the American people. He's not going to tax anyone below the $200,000 mark, if that means he can't do everything he promised, then it won't happen. He's not going to increase taxes even further just to keep all his programs. To answer your question the companies who's owner makes $200,000 a year, will now be making $150,000 a year or something like that. Why would he lay off employees when this is his personal income? His business income will not be taxed unless he's shipping jobs overseas. I don't know where you come up with this laying off employees because he has to pay more taxes on his personal income junk.

Section126
08-16-2004, 08:00 AM
facts are facts

Bush has not made it easy for the middle class
roll your eyes all u want. until u can prove he does "then shove it"

:rolleyes:

Homeownership is at an all-time high for family's making less than 100k a year ...

The tax burden for those making less than 200k is the lowest in history....

The Tax Burden for those making MORE than 200k is the highest in history.......

Bush's tax cuts made the Tax code MORE progressive...to the point that if you make less than 100k a year...you pay almost no taxes.......If you are a small business...you have no Idea what a bonanza these tax cuts where....

So there....the middle class has been helped immensely....and until you can prove otherwise then as the Ketchup lady says......"Shove it."

caneproud117
08-16-2004, 09:19 AM
:rolleyes:

Homeownership is at an all-time high for family's making less than 100k a year ...

The tax burden for those making less than 200k is the lowest in history....

The Tax Burden for those making MORE than 200k is the highest in history.......

Bush's tax cuts made the Tax code MORE progressive...to the point that if you make less than 100k a year...you pay almost no taxes.......If you are a small business...you have no Idea what a bonanza these tax cuts where....

So there....the middle class has been helped immensely....and until you can prove otherwise then as the Ketchup lady says......"Shove it."

You forgot to mention one thing Section, where they got the money to run the other programs they have. That's right! Tack it on to the federal deficit. Heck, I could become President, give people the biggest tax breaks they have ever had and when 8 years rolls along I don't have to worry about a thing, the next President has to deal with the deficit I created.
Also, found this on CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/13/kerry.friday.ap/index.html). Did you happen to see this?
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, in a report released Friday, said that those in the top 1 percent of income got a bigger tax cut than those in the middle brackets.

PhinPhan1227
08-16-2004, 10:04 AM
It's real simple PhinPhan, he's going to tax the hell out of people who ship jobs overseas. See if they still ship jobs overseas when they're getting billed $500,000 by the IRS. If that's not high enough, raise it even higher. Eventually, we'll keep the jobs here. By keeping jobs here our economy will stabilize and create the revenues necessary for a "majority" of his campain promises. You, like me, know that not every one of his promises are going to be kept, just like the President's this past four years weren't all kept. Also, by getting some help in Iraq that will ease our financial burden will we start using those revenues on a cause that's going to help the American people. He's not going to tax anyone below the $200,000 mark, if that means he can't do everything he promised, then it won't happen. He's not going to increase taxes even further just to keep all his programs. To answer your question the companies who's owner makes $200,000 a year, will now be making $150,000 a year or something like that. Why would he lay off employees when this is his personal income? His business income will not be taxed unless he's shipping jobs overseas. I don't know where you come up with this laying off employees because he has to pay more taxes on his personal income junk.


Hey CONGRATS!! You're suggesting that Kerry will violate SEVERAL trade agreements and treaties that Ameirca has with her allies!! Now THAT is the way to bring us back into the world economy!! The most KErry can do, and what I would like to see Bush do is take away the tax BREAK they gets for his employees. Yes, their taxes will go up, but only marginally. And with few exceptions, that increase will still make it profitable to shiop some jobs overseas..just not AS profitable. Try learning the facts instead of listening to the rhetoric. As for why a small business owner will lay off workers? The small business owner isn't drawing a salary like a CEO. His profits ARE his income. And when you are making 200k, you have a lifestyle that costs 200k. Take 50k away and he isn't going to just shrug his shoulders and sell his boat...he's going to find a way to make that money up. If that means letting an employee go...that means letting an employee go. Seriously man, learn about the issue. You should CERTAINLY learn the facts about how much Kerry can do about outsourcing.

Here's one source you might try..

http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?DocID=225

caneproud117
08-16-2004, 11:16 AM
Hey CONGRATS!! You're suggesting that Kerry will violate SEVERAL trade agreements and treaties that Ameirca has with her allies!! Now THAT is the way to bring us back into the world economy!! The most KErry can do, and what I would like to see Bush do is take away the tax BREAK they gets for his employees. Yes, their taxes will go up, but only marginally. And with few exceptions, that increase will still make it profitable to shiop some jobs overseas..just not AS profitable. Try learning the facts instead of listening to the rhetoric. As for why a small business owner will lay off workers? The small business owner isn't drawing a salary like a CEO. His profits ARE his income. And when you are making 200k, you have a lifestyle that costs 200k. Take 50k away and he isn't going to just shrug his shoulders and sell his boat...he's going to find a way to make that money up. If that means letting an employee go...that means letting an employee go. Seriously man, learn about the issue. You should CERTAINLY learn the facts about how much Kerry can do about outsourcing.

Here's one source you might try..

http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?DocID=225

I'm not an economist so I don't know everything there is to know about it, but I don't buy much of that article about helping the economy in the long run by outsourcing. The problem is there's too many loopholes in the system, no matter who the company is they can just send their products elsewhere and gain more profit. We have to give them incentive to keep their jobs here. You know what would be a good idea, charge them however much in taxes that it would cost them to have the same jobs here. Like if there was a job that they take overseas that only costs them $2/hr then tax them for the remaining hourly wage until it hits minimum wage here. So no matter what they're paying for the same amount of money for their employee so they'll choose on merit.

Section126
08-16-2004, 11:41 AM
You forgot to mention one thing Section, where they got the money to run the other programs they have. That's right! Tack it on to the federal deficit. Heck, I could become President, give people the biggest tax breaks they have ever had and when 8 years rolls along I don't have to worry about a thing, the next President has to deal with the deficit I created.
Also, found this on CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/13/kerry.friday.ap/index.html). Did you happen to see this?


The CBO report also says that Revenue to the FED GOV. has increased due to the Tax Cuts......The same CBO report also said that the top 1% now pay a higher percentage of all the taxes that they have ever had.....(41%).

What was striking about the CBO report was that for the third time in our history...Cutting Taxes has lead to an increase in TAX revenues (Kennedy, Reagan, Bush)...Kinda blows the "Supply Side Economics doesn't work." argument right out of the water.

PhinPhan1227
08-16-2004, 12:34 PM
I'm not an economist so I don't know everything there is to know about it, but I don't buy much of that article about helping the economy in the long run by outsourcing. The problem is there's too many loopholes in the system, no matter who the company is they can just send their products elsewhere and gain more profit. We have to give them incentive to keep their jobs here. You know what would be a good idea, charge them however much in taxes that it would cost them to have the same jobs here. Like if there was a job that they take overseas that only costs them $2/hr then tax them for the remaining hourly wage until it hits minimum wage here. So no matter what they're paying for the same amount of money for their employee so they'll choose on merit.


#1-If there's ever a website you can trust, it's that one. They take a clinical look at everything BOTH candidates are saying. I would trust them over any article produced by any network.

#2-Free Trade treaties mean we CAN'T make those kind of laws. What you are suggesting is to have Kerry tell the rest of the world to go $crew itself. Gee...where have we heard that mindset condemned....hmmm....

#3-Did you miss the fact that outsourcing has resulted in less than 1% of the jobs lost?

caneproud117
08-16-2004, 12:39 PM
#1-If there's ever a website you can trust, it's that one. They take a clinical look at everything BOTH candidates are saying. I would trust them over any article produced by any network.

#2-Free Trade treaties mean we CAN'T make those kind of laws. What you are suggesting is to have Kerry tell the rest of the world to go $crew itself. Gee...where have we heard that mindset condemned....hmmm....

#2-How is that telling the rest of the world to go $crew itself when we're evening out the playing field? Other countries can still get those same jobs if they're smarter and more qualified than another person in the United States. There's nothing wrong with making it so companies have to pay the same amount for their workers no matter where they come from.

PhinPhan1227
08-16-2004, 12:56 PM
#2-How is that telling the rest of the world to go $crew itself when we're evening out the playing field? Other countries can still get those same jobs if they're smarter and more qualified than another person in the United States. There's nothing wrong with making it so companies have to pay the same amount for their workers no matter where they come from.

It's against those treaties to take actions specifically to PREVENT those jobs from moving. You can't treat a company that employs people here one way, and treat companies that employ people there another. That's why Bush is trying to even the playing field by reducing the tax burden HERE. See, it DOES work both ways. How many Japanese auto plants are there in the US? That's INsourcing.

And are you going to ignore the figures? Are you going to ignorre the fact that this HUGE issue which Kerry will use to pay for everything else, accounts for less than 1% of the jobs lost?

Bling
08-16-2004, 09:25 PM
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=234

" and even Democratic economists say changing the tax code won't end the overseas job drain anyway."

caneproud117
08-16-2004, 09:41 PM
It's against those treaties to take actions specifically to PREVENT those jobs from moving. You can't treat a company that employs people here one way, and treat companies that employ people there another. That's why Bush is trying to even the playing field by reducing the tax burden HERE. See, it DOES work both ways. How many Japanese auto plants are there in the US? That's INsourcing.

And are you going to ignore the figures? Are you going to ignorre the fact that this HUGE issue which Kerry will use to pay for everything else, accounts for less than 1% of the jobs lost?
One big issue with that post, it's not a huge issue on how he plans on raising the money, the war and getting rid of upperclass rape of the tax system and it's loopholes will be the big issue for raising the necessary funds for his campain promises. How does Bush plan exactly to come up with the money? Is he going to sell another one of his dried up oil wells to the Saudis?
:D

PhinPhan1227
08-16-2004, 10:34 PM
One big issue with that post, it's not a huge issue on how he plans on raising the money, the war and getting rid of upperclass rape of the tax system and it's loopholes will be the big issue for raising the necessary funds for his campain promises. How does Bush plan exactly to come up with the money? Is he going to sell another one of his dried up oil wells to the Saudis?
:D


Bush expects the money to come from an improved economy...but Bush isn't trying to pay for socialized medicine either.

DeDolfan
08-17-2004, 09:31 AM
Here is the link:

http://www.gallup.com/content/?ci=12694

No president has ever lost an election with an approval rating above 50% when reaching the month of September...........Now if we can get the rest of August out of the way...we'll be fine...... :D

That's funny! Nearly every other "poll" only has him at somewhere around 42% with kerry anywhere from 2 to 4 points ahead.

Section126
08-17-2004, 11:38 AM
That's funny! Nearly every other "poll" only has him at somewhere around 42% with kerry anywhere from 2 to 4 points ahead.

BS.

DeDolfan
08-18-2004, 08:23 AM
BS.

another typical right wing response.....................believe only what they want to. how do YOU spell "d-e-n-i-a-l" ?? :roflmao:

Kencoboy
08-18-2004, 10:11 AM
The polls don't matter. What matters is the actual election. The polls are used as a device to twist opinion.

Of course given the last presidential election, our votes don't really matter anyway, so who really cares???

VJ1252
08-20-2004, 03:14 AM
I'm not an economist so I don't know everything there is to know about it, but I don't buy much of that article about helping the economy in the long run by outsourcing. The problem is there's too many loopholes in the system, no matter who the company is they can just send their products elsewhere and gain more profit. We have to give them incentive to keep their jobs here. You know what would be a good idea, charge them however much in taxes that it would cost them to have the same jobs here. Like if there was a job that they take overseas that only costs them $2/hr then tax them for the remaining hourly wage until it hits minimum wage here. So no matter what they're paying for the same amount of money for their employee so they'll choose on merit.
outsourcing is a neccesary evil. look at it this way if a company can make something for less by using workers in India then it will and the savings will find their way to the consumers. if companies werent allowed to outsource they would raise the prices on their products which means less sales which leads to fewer jobs which leads to fewer people having money to buy products which leads to less sales and the cycle goes on.