posted
Even indirect control implies the ability to achieve a specific desired result - "indirect" refers to the means.
Influence means the actions of the president will affect the state taxes paid in Florida. It implies no ability to achieve the specific desired result.
posted
Ic, I don't think it is a caricature, maybe a slight exaggeration. But its only a description of the extreme Democrats who are already reitterating their claims of cheating to preempt a GWB victory.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're arguing semantics now. You want it explicitly defined as one thing, even though I have laid out what I mean at your constant implications to the contrary. While I realize the main idea behind argument is to come to an understanding of definitions and work toward them from there, your abject refusal to allow any synonymous meaning exist between control and influence, even though they aresynonyms (2), is a pretty heavy indication that you have, in fact, no real argument, and are instead arguing against what I say not on the issue, but because it is me.
When you can get back to the subject, let me know. Until then, the challenge stands: prove it.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now you're attributing motive where there wasn't one. Ever hear of paraphrasing? You're sinking deeper into a rhetorical hole where just admitting you jumped without thinking would allow you to save face much easier.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Good going. Are you ever going to get back to the subject? I'm still waiting, since nfl has just posted without even addressing the challenge.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, this is just a personal beef with me you have? In that case, keep me out of it. I don't feel like getting into petty fights over personality.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which I already addressed as being incorrect. Yet you won't let it go and insist on something being there that isn't. If it isn't about me, then you must have had a bad day and are just taking it out on me. Regardless, you are not even bothering with the subject.
Have a good night.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Please. you haven't even touched on it. You've danced around it. You've posted a link to a thesaurus. But you haven't dealt with the difference between indirect control and influence, specifically with regard to the difference between affecting something and achieving a desired goal.
posted
You're demanding things be defined only as you define them. The world does not revolve around your personal definitions of what people say, nor is this a courtroom where your petty semantics has a place. If you're not going to address the subject, please leave me the hell alone.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Bush program threatens to undermine funding for important public services and/or shift the burden of state taxation even further onto middle-and lower-income families--because virtually all of the endangered state revenues involve estate taxes and income taxes currently paid by the states' wealthiest taxpayers.
In terms of dollars, the largest revenue losses would (or could) be experienced by:
California: $2.7 billion in 2010 (pickup tax only).
Florida: $1.9 billion (pickup only).
Pennsylvania: $1.8 billion, including $521 million from the lost pickup tax and potentially $1,260 million in endangered supplemental inheritance tax.
New York: $1.5 billion (pickup only)
New Jersey: $1.2 billion, including $495 million from the lost pickup tax and potentially $655 million in endangered supplemental inheritance tax.
Texas: $832 million (pickup only)
Ohio: $733 million, including $522 million from the lost pickup tax and potentially $211 million in endangered supplemental inheritance tax.
I've seen CFTJ statements and reports cited by CNN articles before, but I'm not quite sure how objective CFTJ is. If you have more reliable sources I would love to read up on this subject.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, while the CFTJ isn't necessarily objective, they are pretty correct in their analysis of the states. However, their attribution to just Bush's plan is a little ham-handed, since it's not so much all Bush's fault as it is that he hasn't done anything substantial to help things. The tax breaks were allegedly supposed to stimulate spending and have a ripple effect leading to more job creation and healthier economic situations on the state and local level, but that didn't really happen. As it turns out, those individuals who received the larger tax breaks, meaning those who made much more discretionary income anyway and didn't immediately need to put the money into circulation at once. So, while there were some specific areas that saw growth, the economy still lingered and is even still not totally recovered from recession.
Some would argue the economy could easily slip back into recession, and whether they are correct or not, another recession would be more dangerous than the one we just got out of. So, that looming spectre is something we see argued on one side, typically the Democratic side, regarding the current administration's budgeting policies, which have had adverse ripple effects on state and local economies. Some alarming effects would be those on states surrounding New York, where a higher Homeland Security budget was promised but then the states wound up footing more of the bill than originally thought. The medicare fiasco from earlier this year also caused a bit of a stir, especially when the adminsitration's spinsters were caught trying to portray themselves as a news report giving fraudulent information. Things like that not only have effects on budgeting, but also on the largest contributor to recession: individual spending.
Did you know that the largest single cause of the recession is consumer spending? Government policies play into this by giving both the consumer and the supplier confidence in their policies by showing at least nominal results, which is why you'll hear two different stories from the same pool of information based on what political party they stand behind. On top of that, the popular "trickle-down" theory of economics has shown to be very lucrative for the business that makes roughly over $150,000 a year, but either negligible or even detrimental to the economic well-being of those in the lower income realms, though the middle class take the brunt far more than the lower classes do. It really is incredible to see how popular supply-side economic policy has become when the majority of economists and economics professors have been pointing out the flaws in it for the last 25 years.
Back to the recession, though. Do you know why it took three years to come out of it? Because even with the tax breaks, people were just too afraid to spend what they had, because they had no assurance that more would come in. This is where I personally think Bush made mistakes, though adjusting policies to have lightened spending in the ever-growing cabinet he ran and the increase in military budgeting could have eased that scare far more quickly and solved more economic problems. That would have meant less sabre rattling, though, and he was convinced that there were WMD in Iraq, regardless of the outcome. Would things have been different if we had to spend less on the war in Iraq? Maybe. Probably. I don't know for sure. The only sure thing is that there would have been more cash to funnel into domestic and economic problems.
The funny thing in states like California is that the inheritance tax, for instance, has not been given any breaks, while as it stands currently it would break the bank of anyone inheriting the assets of a business worth a net million dollars or so (not profit, but total assets... not difficult to have). The Bush administration has gradually been raising the ceiling of the allowance before taxation, but this has been slow in coming and will be a long time before it gets high enough for a business to remain in a person's family if the original proprietor dies.
Why am I darting all over the place with this? Because it's too simple to just go over the state revenues and blame one side or damn the other. This is a continual and complicated problem. My own opinion is that the "simple" answers Bush has given to the problem have done nothing to battle it. Kerry seems to have his plan based on those from the early 1990's, which have already shown to have had a reasonably significant return. Add to that the claim by Kerry that he would aim to reduce costs on the war on terror by bringing in nations America is currently in less than stellar diplomatic relations with, like those in the EU east of Britain and Spain, and the argument Kerry makes is sensible enough for me. However, that's because in this case I'm looking at it in terms of dollars and cents. I am somewhat ambivalent on the war on terror, but not when it comes to invading countries and footing the bill ourselves. I am for free trade, but not with nations who have known human rights abuses.
I might not agree with Bush with regard to economics on answering such issues, but I don't know that making the blame out to be completely in any one administration's hands is helpful for anything but a political campaign.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Assuming that the numbers are correct I'm still not sure how that raises state taxes.
quote: Forget that little fact? Been hitting the bottle yourself, eh? I really dare you to claim that the president has no influence with his brother. Please. I dare you to attempt to quantify such a ridiculous statement.
How do I "quantify" the fact that George exerts no control over Jeb? He has no reason to, he has no ability to when Jeb has clearly shown the tendency to put distance between himself and his brother. I suppose it is theoretically possible George really is going, "Mom, Jeb won't share!" and Barbara actually makes Jeb raise taxes to make George look good, but there's no reason to believe this, especially considering people notice when federal tax decreases are supplimented by state tax increases.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:How do I "quantify" the fact that George exerts no control over Jeb? He has no reason to, he has no ability to when Jeb has clearly shown the tendency to put distance between himself and his brother. I suppose it is theoretically possible George really is going, "Mom, Jeb won't share!" and Barbara actually makes Jeb raise taxes to make George look good, but there's no reason to believe this, especially considering people notice when federal tax decreases are supplimented by state tax increases.
You're being ridiculous. All George has to do is make sure Jeb can say things are going well to look good. Allowing the offshoring, which he has, inflating government job numbers, which he has, and doing the same palm-greasing tactics he does with all governors and senators by letting large businesses out of regulations and restrictions (in exchange for contributions) are all ways he can influence policy.
Just because you are childish about how you argue here does not mean everyone in politics must behave the same.
Go look up Jeb's relations with offshoring, which George has intentionally looked the other way for.
Go look up EPA and FDA changes in policy which have allowed more businesses to conduct themselves in ways they would be fined for 5 years ago.
Go look at the individuals who made the biggest lump sums from the tax cuts.
You will find a common thread, which George and Jeb Bush are only two who share in it (there are many more).
Of course, you will ignore this just like you will the 1.3 million more impoverished citizens of the US, the higher unemployment rate than 4 years ago, the deficit, the lower median income, the lower coverage of healthcare and the less protection by the FDA. Keep ignoring the parts that affect us in the long run, because tax cuts will save the day.
[ October 22, 2004, 01:28 AM: Message edited by: Jutsa Notha Name ]
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Input on florida tax policies? No, but his actions certainly influence them, and influence them in ways that require either raising them (often not a (political) option, after all, our President told us that in times of economic prosperity, lowering taxes leads to more prosperity), lowering expenditures (often not an option, at least not to the degree necessary), or running a debt (often not an option).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
"Well your tie is orange therefore you must be wrong."
Seriously, what the hell are you talking about? I'm talking about how the fact that George and Jeb are brothers doesn't mean that George controls Jeb's tax policy and you start attacking them both using some incoherent argument about what I assume to be outsourcing jobs or possibly implied bribery. I would say your disproving a minor point, but you didn't even do that. I would say your argument goes along the lines of ad hominem and while you did call me childish not even that tactic makes sense.
posted
Once again, I have smoked and drank myself into the delusional idea that the legislature, and not the executive branch, has the most power over budgets.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rak, when the President presents a bill to congres, campaigns for a bill in congress, and in the home states of any representative who questions that bill, takes credit for a bill, and does everything he can to make sure that bill becomes a law, I find it difficult to say he was not the person responsible for that bill.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Defenestraitor, both the VPs look kinda cute. But man, the presidential candidates make for some ugly women.
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
To keep with the original theme of this thread: Bush attacks Kerry on campaigning on fear...yet the Bush/Cheney issue ads and make statements that say basically if you elect Kerry then the Terrorists are going to attack us.
Posts: 512 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Frumpy but not scary. More middle-aged June Cleaver as compared to Kerry's freakish Judy Tenuta on high-dose steroids image.
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
<-----Me shuddering.
