Jenna and Barbara Bush Are Getting Screwed

[Wombat]

My favorite part of Dubya's situation is that if he were ever busted for his cocaine use under the laws he passed, he'd still be serving mandatory time.

[KvHagedorn]

Joel,

I thought we had established that we all do stupid things. Even you and I. Why hold Republicans to impossible standards while Democrats can do any old moronic thing with impunity? That's an extremely childish and selfish attitude. Stop pointing fingers at other people and control the stupid things YOU do. That's all we have power over in this world, to be the best people we can. Why is anything Jenna Bush does newsworthy anyhow? She's a nineteen year old college student with no authority to abuse. Give her a break and leave her alone. Shall we bring up Roger Clinton, who was one of the many who were pardoned by his brother for all past transgressions? Within days, he screwed up and got busted for drugs again. But WHO CARES? I don't give a damn about what Roger Clinton does with his life. He's just another poor imperfect sap who doesn't have his act together. Leave him alone, too.

And why should it be up to the Government to give you a better life? It isn't, but that's just what the tax cut will give you, assuming you don't go out and buy cigarettes and beer with your refund check. Instead, go to a discount broker and open a Roth IRA account. Purchase stock in AMD or some other company that is almost sure to grow. Learn to invest. Why would you be satisfied with the pathetic return Social Security will bring anyhow? It earns half the interest that is eaten up by inflation, even in these low-inflation times. Learn to provide for your own retirement.. when we all stop taking responsibility for ourselves, we lose our freedom. I am not counting on Social Security at all.. I know that the way it is mismanaged today, none is really invested. My FICA taxes are taken from me and given to retired people. I am supporting them, plain and simple. I consider it a charitable contribution. That money has just gone byebye.. I never expect to see it again.

Now.. would you please take the final word and close this thread? I think it has all been said, and I'm really tired of beating this dead horse.

[This message has been edited by KvHagedorn (edited 04 June 2001).]

[Joel]

Yeah, we all do stupid things at one time or the other, but when you are the president's daughters...

I even put big smilies in my post this time.

Also you seem to be assuming an awful lot about me and you know nothing about me, my life, my money, or how I manage it. All I expect from the government is for them to leave me the **** alone and stop digging into my pocket because they can't manage the funds they already take from me. I'm sorry but I don't consider my FICA taxes as a charitable contribution. Charitable contributions in my eyes are given voluntarily and I sure as hell didn't tell them to take it. And if you think that retired people are the only ones getting your FICA taxes then you are sadly mistaken. Why do you think the system is in such bad shape? They have been taking from it for years to pay for other things.

As for the tax break, I would have much rather seen them use that money for debt reduction because eventually someone is going to have to pay for that debt and I don't want my kids to have too. If they really think this tax refund is going to truly stimulate the economy then somebody is blowing smoke out their ***. Hell I will only net a little over $300.00 and I know some people that won't net anything. And most of the tax benefits I won't see for several years.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Why hold Republicans to impossible standards while Democrats can do any old moronic thing with impunity?</font>

I guess you have never listened to the following programs.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Just keep listening to Rush Limbaugh, The O'Reilley Factor, The 700 Club and all those other balanced, fair-minded Republican shows.</font>

They sure as hell don't give the Democrats any "impunity".

And all Bill Clinton really did was to not be fully honest about his affair. He acted IMO just like any other red-blooded male would have but because he was the president...

And does it not bother you that Kenneth Starr, who was backed by the Republicans, spent over 100 Million American taxpayer's dollars only to catch the president lying about a blowjob. And was it not his wife they went after first with the Whitewater probe. And hell all that was timed out in such a way as to try to but the biggest tarnish they could on the up coming election, because they knew they couldn't just win it on their own merits.

And why should I close a thread just because you are tired of beating a dead horse. I didn't tell you to start beating it in the first place.

Joel



[This message has been edited by Joel (edited 05 June 2001).]

[KvHagedorn]

Those conservative radicals mentioned are no better than the liberal radicals. The media bias that concerns me is not in some isolated talk show where the host gets to spew his opinions for all in a very blatant way. People are turned off by that, whatever viewpoint they serve. It is the more subtle bias present in the mainstream news programming that concerns me. The decisions on what stories will air and how they will be edited (the Rodney King tape is a prime example of the media tampering with the truth. The only people who got to see the whole, unedited truth were the jurors, who exonerated the cops. This of course, caused the riots, since the masses had all seen what "really" happened, right??) The little unspoken biases presented by the newscasters themselves speak volumes as well. (Everyone who will be successful within a corporation has to keep their thoughts aligned with the big bosses, so guess how the top newscasters feel? Yep, they will tend to mirror the opinions of upper management.)

Sorry if I seemed to presume anything about your finances or you personally, Joel. That tirade about investing was directed more at the whole population than anyone in particular. What I don't understand is where you seem to contradict yourself when you say:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">All I expect from the government is for them to leave me the **** alone and stop digging into my pocket because they can't manage the funds they already take from me.</font>

and then you come out against the tax cut. I'd like to pay off the debt too, down to levels that are reasonable. (T-notes, T-bills, and savings bonds should be retained at reasonable levels, but not eliminated. That's low-interest debt anyway.) I think they left quite a bit of the surplus to deal with Social Security reform as well. There needs to be a stop-gap supply of funds to cover payouts as we transition to a more savings-oriented plan. The greater returns offered by investments and savings will allow only a fifth of a person's FICA obligation to wind up paying him half of his retirement check. Or he can choose traditional FICA payments. The Social Security fund must be managed better, though, to show a higher rate of return generally. Such vast amounts of money are pretty difficult to manage effectively, but we need to find a way to squeeze out a bit more return anyhow.

Sorry if I underestimated your levity.
I get absolutely grim sometimes, but there are some issues I feel must be taken quite seriously. I think I really will stop now, though.. that horse hamburger is getting pretty well pulverized.

------------------
Kind Regards,

KvH

[Rags]

KvH beat me to the punch.

He's right, you are contradicting yourself. You are either for less gov't involvement or you aren't. The tax cut is not really all that big, but it definitely needed to be done. We have had the highest tax burden for the last 8 years we have seen in ages. To say that we won't be able to pay down the debt because of a tax cut is not really true. The fact is that if you tax too heavily, revenues actually fall off, which they are now starting to do because of the high tax burden catching up with us. Lifting the tax burden increases cash flow in the economy, and can increase revenue if it's a well laid plan. I think it's not too far off IMO.

Environmental policies? Please expand on that thought.

The O'Reilley Factor as a conservative program? I never thought of his show as conservative. He slams both sides. Seems to be pretty balanced to me.

You really think that Bush wants the poor to be poorer? Please explain your line of reasoning.

What does the tax cut have to do with the future of SS? Please expand.

Oh, and all in all, you will net more from the tax cut if you invest differently too

The Kenneth Starr investigation was totally acceptable, as confirmed by Janet Reno herself. The Clintons were partially responsible for the high cost of the investigation. If Clinton had just told the truth under oath, and the Clintons had just come clean on what really happened with Whitewater et'al then the tax payers would have been spared a bundle.

I am interested in debating some of these points, so let's do it. And you know me, I am not a follower of party lines, I just like to debate, hopefully to garner some bit of truth from what's being said.

Rags

[Joel]

Maybe I should have said,

All I expect from the government is for them to leave me the **** alone and stop digging into my pocket for more money because they can't manage the funds they already take from me.

And yes I know that they are giving me a little back now but only time will tell just how far it will go.

I am for a tax cut maybe just smaller, but I just hope this one doesn't come back to bite us in the butt. I do understand about the t-bills and such. And according to all accounts the surplus that they are holding back for Social Security is like putting a Band-Aid on a bullet wound.

As for the media all that can be done is for people to wake up and realize that we may not be getting the full story.

What we really need, and unfortunately we will not see this from either the democrats or the republicans, is a much smaller and less intrusive government.

Joel

Just read an interesting article that states that it took the US government 200 years to reach the $1 trillion dollar mark in the federal budget but only 14 years to reach the $2 trillion mark. Question is how long will it take to reach $3 trillion mark and where is that money going to come from??

[This message has been edited by Joel (edited 05 June 2001).]

[ahartman]

Damn, I have a meeting in 30 minutes I haven't prepared for yet...

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">The tax cut is not really all that big, but it definitely needed to be done.</font>

Needed to be done? What's your basis for saying that $300 or $600 is going to invigorate the economy? It's that same "dangerously" liberal media machine. With the mindset of America, this money is more likely to be put into a savings account right now.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">The O'Reilley Factor as a conservative program? I never thought of his show as conservative. He slams both sides. Seems to be pretty balanced to me.</font>

That's like saying Bill Maher isn't a liberal because he takes swipes at Jesse Jackson...

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">You really think that Bush wants the poor to be poorer?</font>

Not really, but I think he's got the wealthy more at mind than any. He'll take care of the gravy train first (as would any prof. politican).

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">What does the tax cut have to do with the future of SS?</font>

SS gets raped every year to pay for the budget. Don't fool yourself. There's a bunch of IOUs in that account.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Oh, and all in all, you will net more from the tax cut if you invest differently too </font>

And this has WHAT to do with the price of tea in China? I could save a shitload more $$ if I'd start taking my lunch to work every day. Also, if it's invested, it's not working for the economy, is it... defeats the entire purpose of the cut in the first place.

Maybe I'm idealistic, but I believe most of our social programs are necessary and CAN be helpful, if someone who is more interested in working out the problems than lining their own pockets takes control of them. Of course, that would be political suicide and would never last.

Anyway, the likelihood of this tax cut surviving the next administration (which most likely will be in 4 years) is minimal. Regardless, it expires in 10 years and everything reverts back to what it is today.

Okay, off to my meeting..

[rylan]

Yeah, you gotta love that clause in the tax cut plan that says unless it it re-approved or continued after 10 years, then the rates go back to what they were before it was implemented (which means a big tax INCREASE at the end unless good old congress reapproves it). I see it pretty damned hard for the next administration (4, or 8 years if bush get re-elected.. too early to speculate on that) to change the tax cut plan, as that would be seen as a tax increase which means political death.

Anyway, also as mentioned, what we really need is _smaller_ government, then it'll be easier to lower taxes. I'm with Joel on this one.. I want the govt to leave me the hell alone and stop robbing me of my hard earned money every time I get paid. They can't manage the massive amount they steal from me already. The govt should just be taking money for stuff like an army and other critical things. All of those damned giveaway programs have got to go.

[Joel]

There is an alternative.

www.lp.org

But most people are so caught up in the propaganda engines of the two major parties that they can't see that. I don't fully agree with everything they stand for but more of what they say makes more sense than anything we've gotten from the republicans and democrats so far.

And here is their slant on this whole Jenna Bush issue.

"[May 31] WASHINGTON, DC -- Jenna Bush’s problem is not with underaged drinking laws -- it’s with federal mandates. And Ronald Reagan.

If the federal government had not forced states to raise the legal drinking age to 21, the First Daughter might be in trouble with her parents but not with the law, the Libertarian Party pointed out today.

“Federal mandates have turned Uncle Sam into a shaved-head, 300-pound, tattooed bouncer, checking the ID of college students,” said George Getz, the party’s press secretary. “And federal mandates have turned what should be an embarrassing family matter -- a college-age daughter with a fondness for margaritas -- into a legal matter.”

Jenna (along with twin sister Barbara) is under investigation for allegedly using false identification to try to purchase alcohol in a restaurant in Austin, Texas. Jenna, 19, is a student at the University of Texas.

It’s not her first booze-soaked brush with the law: Two weeks ago, Jenna was sentenced to alcohol-awareness class by a judge for underage drinking.

But Jenna is not in trouble because the state of Texas thinks that 19-year-old adults should not drink. Or even because her parents frown on their daughter guzzling Hurricanes, Mudslides, or Absolut Disasters (although they most certainly do).

She is in trouble because in 1984, the federal government (under “small-government conservative” President Ronald Reagan) passed the Uniform Drinking Age Act. The bill used federal highway money to bribe states into raising the drinking age from 18 to 21. By 1988, every state had complied.

It’s that bill that turned what would have been a perfectly legal activity by a 19-year-old adult into a crime...and landed Jenna on the front page of newspapers across the USA as the poster child of College Girls Gone Wild.

Now, said Getz, the Libertarian Party has some advice for President Bush:

“Have a talk with your daughter. Explain to her the potential dangers of drinking too many margaritas. Explain that she must accept the consequences for her actions. If you love your daughter, that’s your job as a parent.

“Then, work to repeal the kind of federal mandate that turned your daughter into a criminal. Allow parents -- or state and local governments -- to decide when someone is old enough to drink. If you love the Constitution, that’s your job as the president.”"


Joel


[This message has been edited by Joel (edited 05 June 2001).]

[rylan]

Thats true, drinking age should be set by each state seperately.. too much logistics trouble to go farther down that that level of government though (imaging going from one county to another and having the drinking age change from say 18 to 20).

Hell, states pick their own driving ages for people, so let them do the same with drinking. And another point.. this whole thing wouldn't be an issue at all if it wasn't Bush's daughters.. just think how many college students get busted for the same thing every weekend. Stupid press.

[Rags]

Alright! Someone who wants to debate the issues.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Needed to be done? What's your basis for saying that $300 or $600 is going to invigorate the economy? </font>

Now this is where you are going wrong. It's not just about getting a rebate on your OVERPAID taxes, it's about the deductions out of your check being less. I like the rebate idea, the amount everyone is getting back is not enough to really think about saving, it will more than likely go to paying for say a new bed, paying off some bills, etc. There have been studies done that show there is a threshold where if a certain amount of money is given to someone, they will likely spend it rather than save it. If I remember correctly, it was right around 2500 dollars. 3-6 hundred dollars is surely to be spent by most of the people who recieve it. But that is just the rebate, the kicker is that you will have less taken from your check if you have withholdings, which most people do. This is also more likely to be spent. More money in the hands of the consumer means that more money will be spent. More money spent equals higher revenue collected if the tax rate is not too low, which I don't believe it is, but we can only wait and see, I do know that it is way too high right now, and it is not a fair tax system at all.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">It's that same "dangerously" liberal media machine. </font>

You aren't quoting me, so don't put that in quotes. The fact is if you watch the big three news channels, they are not giving good press to the tax cut right now.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">That's like saying Bill Maher isn't a liberal because he takes swipes at Jesse Jackson...</font>

The comparison is flawed. O'Reilley has continually been critical of both sides, and to me he seems to be conservative on some issues while liberal on others. He does not follow a party line, and doesn't have a problem with calling either side to the table. Mr. Maher has never shown me to have this integrity.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Not really, but I think he's got the wealthy more at mind than any. He'll take care of the gravy train first (as would any prof. politican).

</font>

I can't say that I disagree with your statement. But for the most part, what's good for our economy is good for the wealthy people, so in that sense I have to say the statement is kind of biased.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">SS gets raped every year to pay for the budget. Don't fool yourself. There's a bunch of IOUs in that account.</font>

I asked what the tax cut had to do with SS. Not whether or not it gets pilfered every year. We all know it does, and this has very little to do with Bush's policies.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">And this has WHAT to do with the price of tea in China? I could save a shitload more $$ if I'd start taking my lunch to work every day. Also, if it's invested, it's not working for the economy, is it... defeats the entire purpose of the cut in the first place.

</font>

You don't seem to understand the economy here. Our system is now pretty much based on public and private funding. The more money invested into other businesses, the better our economy does, it not only nets the business a return, but it nets the stockholder a return as well. Obviously if everyone invested all of their money and didn't spend, then the economy would fall, but the same would hold true if it were reversed. Think about it.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Maybe I'm idealistic, but I believe most of our social programs are necessary and CAN be helpful, if someone who is more interested in working out the problems than lining their own pockets takes control of them. Of course, that would be political suicide and would never last.</font>

I believe we need to help certain people as well. I will not argue that point. I just think our way of going about it is not what it could be.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Anyway, the likelihood of this tax cut surviving the next administration (which most likely will be in 4 years) is minimal. Regardless, it expires in 10 years and everything reverts back to what it is today.</font>

Only time will tell, and the thing is that a new tax system can be brought about before then as well. The president has little to do with what gets passed in the end, he can only submit his admin's ideas, and like it's shown now, what's submitted and what gets passed are two very different things.

Rags

[cjolley]

Perhaps they should rename the law of Supply and Demand. (Whoever they are )

It must be the AND that gives so many people the impression that this is a balanced equation. It's not.

Demand creates Supply.
The reverse is not true:
1, You can make all the Left Handed Butt Pinchers you want. No one is going to buy them even if they are really cheap.
2, On the other hand, if you realy want a Left Handed Butt Pincher and you are willing to pay, someone will make you one.
It is not a symetrical system.

This is exactly why supply-side economic policies do not work well.
Look at how well the economy did under Clinton: Virtually Anti-Supply Side policies (And higher taxes) and the economy thrived like never before.
Targeting money to the Demand Side will always create activity on the Supply Side.
Targeting money to the Supply Side will not necessarily create ANY Demand Side activity at all.
The entire Bush tax plan is just plain wrong-headed.

chuck

PS. Anyone who thinks O'Reilley is balanced in his views is hallucinating and in need of drug therapy.

/*Edit for spelling & wink & content*/




[This message has been edited by cjolley (edited 05 June 2001).]

[Rags]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Demand creates Supply.</font>

Correct. Demand will ALWAYS be lower if there is less money in someone's pocket.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">2, On the other hand, if you realy want a Left Handed Butt Pincher and you are willing to pay, someone will make you one.</font>

No one will be willing to buy it if they don't have extra cash.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Look at how well the economy did under Clinton: Virtually Anti-Supply Side policies (And higher taxes) and the economy thrived like never before.
</font>

Yeah, and now we are in a recession because of what happened during his administration. The economy started sliding while he was still in office, just remember that (I still think a president has very LITTLE to do with the economy other than maybe a moral boost).

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Targeting money to the Demand Side will always create activity on the Supply Side.
Targeting money to the Supply Side will not necessarily create ANY Demand Side activity at all.
</font>

It all depends on what state the economy is in. It's also pretty hard to give a bigger tax break to someone who doesn't pay tax, no?
And let's not forget, the so-called "supply" side is part of the demand side as well.

Rags



[This message has been edited by Rags (edited 06 June 2001).]

[cjolley]

1. If you think this is a recession, you are in for realy rude awakening someday.

2. Supply Side biased policies are only usefull for fighting inflation, and there is very little sign of gross inflation now even with rising energy prices.

chuck

PS Just to get back to the topic for a sec. I think both girls are cute, and this little episode may be good for them considering their family history.

[Rags]

Well, I think that since everyone who is paying tax will get a break, I hardly would call it supply side. But I guess people only see what they want to see.

Rags