h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

<>

Okay, go find some links that tell us Bush *isn't* being supported by, and also supporting, the right wing Christian element.

Thing is, Gradient, Bush is *proud* of this connection and is constantly crowing about it. How are any of us being unfair for seeing what is being shoved directly in front of our faces?

az

If it is *really* worth following it will stand up to all and any, not just a little.

>>Well, that's nice. I wonder what will be in store for you next year?

Considering that my wife filed, since I'm still awaiting my change of status from 'European Interloper' to 'Resident Alien' but I am liable for tax anyway (you get your tax ID before the Green Card, just in case) I'm hoping that this fanily will get another tax refund.

The thinking behind it is that since my wife is supporting our family on her own (I can't work because I am not legally able to do so and face deportation if I do) and is not resorting to welfare she deserves to keep more of the money she earns in order that she can pay for goods and services herself, rather than asking the government to do so for her.

Does that makes sense? I admitm I am having some trouble with the concept of the government giving us back ALL of the income tax she paid in a year, but I'm British and in 15 years of work have never once seen a tax rebate.

>>Really? Can you let us know where that has officially been stated?

Local indicators would be things like half the Phoenix metroplex being full of contruction, mostly houses, that are selling fast. However, since you'd like some official indicators:

Some facts and figures from Don Evans:
"Over the last three years, the President’s policies have brought us through a recession that had been brewing for months, the collapse of the dot-com bubble, the tragedy of September 11, the march to war and the discovery of years of corporate malfeasance. There is no doubt these policies are working. And when I hear the President’s critics I wonder what economy they are looking at:

We have an $11 trillion economy that is in the midst of nine consecutive quarters of economic growth. GDP grew in the last half of 2003 at a higher rate than any six-month period since 1984. And we are growing faster than any nation in the developed world.
Interest rates are at a 45-year low.
Inflation is in check.
Homeownership and household net worth are at record highs.
The unemployment rate, at 5.7 percent, is well below its peak of 6.3 percent last June. This is below the average of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. And well below the 8.8 percent unemployment rate of the EU.
Our economy has created 513,000 jobs since the beginning of the year.
This is the reason the NFIB’s small business optimism survey in December was the highest it has been in 34 years and the Conference Board CEO survey is the strongest it’s been in 20 years."

Now...I am not an economist and therefore if anyone would care to provide a counter arguement, that would be great.

>> am quite seriously *anti* any group that sees itself as superior and having the final word on what should be law when they also say this is the Word of God

We have some common ground then. But doesn't this also describe most religious groups?

>>Okay, go find some links that tell us Bush *isn't* being supported by, and also supporting, the right wing Christian element.

Ummm...no.
Firstly, I have not said that Bush is NOT being supported by the Christian right. I have said that they are not necessarily the majority of Bush's supporters. I am sure that there are also moderate christians, muslims, wiccans and every manner of faith who believe that George is a good president. That's their opinion, no matter how misguided others might feel, and they are entitled to it.

Secondly, what right have you to dictate what a person believes? Are you suggesting that no one with any form of religious conviction should be allowed to participate in government? A cornerstone of the American way of life is the freedom to worship in what ever way an individual chooses. That is protected by almost every institution in America, even the Army (who have practicing Pagans and Satanists).

Thirdly, you're almost suggesting that people with extreme religious views should be denied some form of political representation. Isn't that a little unfair?

<>

Yes, but my only beef with religious groups is when they stop being simply a religious group and start trying to force others to adopt their own belief system.

Why should a very diverse population of more than 300 million people be forced to accept Christian so-called values?

az

<>

No, I have not said that.

<>

Since when does expressing a personal opinion become 'dictating'?

<>

I haven't even remotely suggested that.


az

>>I haven't even remotely suggested that.

I know.

So what's the problem with a group of people who have religious views supporting a President?

Isn't this what's at the heart of the issue? A group with views you consider unpalatable share views with the incumbent president and this has implications for the upcoming election. And also, the President shares some or all of these views.

The Seperation of Church and State can only go so far. George W Bush is not the state and if his faith is a genuine faith, and not simply a ploy to reach a particular voter demographic, it is as much a part of him as his eye colour. Try as you might, I am not sure that anyone can step away from their moral code when confronted by a decision.

Would we want that? Is that a reasonable thing to ask of someone?

http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=resources_pastorsguide
A Pastors guide to the IRS laws
The type of poltical involvements and contributions mean everything to the IRS for the purpose of collecting taxes.

http://www.au.org/site/PageServer (the above link is from this main page)

Notice the law suit at bottom of page.
They are the group that started all of this increase in the religion style campaigning and have been under watch.

The recent Catholic Church statements; may be looked at more carefully.

***************
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week733/release.html
look at "Americas Evangelists"
***************
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/choice2000/bush/
Bushs orignial 2000 election page from the Frontline site - just for fun.

<>

I disagree.

The religion of the President should *not* be forced onto the American population.

<>

Oh really? I happen to be against abortion based on my own personal moral code. Yet I remain a pro-choice advocate for other women. And why? Because I *do not* feel that I have *any right* to *ever* force my own personal beliefs onto anyone else, *especially* in such an important and personal matter.

And I take umbrage when I see others doing this. Because they also have no right to do so.

Opem your eyes. The Christian right *are* working towards turning the US into a fundamentalist Christian state. It is *not* a conspiracy theory. They are actually quite out in the open about this. It's just that too many Americans are not even looking at what is right in front of their noses. Too busy cashing and spending those tax refunds, perhaps?

az

<>

And how many dollars did it put in George's?

And how many billion dollars did the US government borrow in order to do this?

And when it comes time for the taxpayer to repay the debt do you think George's dollars will still be where the IRS can get its hands on them? Or will you have to pay back George's share, too?

Noggin

>>Now...I am not an economist and therefore if anyone would care to provide a counter arguement, that would be great.<<

Some of the facts Don Evans names are no proof at all of economic recovery OR good economic policy by Bush. The interest rate for instance is in control of Alan Greenspan. Moreover, it is usually adjusted downwards to counter a recession.
"Interest rates are at a 45-year low."

On the whole I think it is reasonable to assume that the American economy is starting to recover. Secondly, the biggest part of the recession can't be blamed to Bush.
This doesn't mean his policy's were good though. The triccle down effect of his 'give money to the wealthy' project is nonsense, Reagan proved this. And the enormous budget deficit he helped create will come back to haunt the USA.

Speaking of tax cuts:

"George W. Bush went out of his way to give guys like me a big whopping tax cut this year. Words cannot express my gratitude-but money can!

That's why I'm spending my entire tax cut on getting rid of George W. Bush!"


http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/dudewheresmycountry/taxcut/index.php


Help Mike spend his tax cut.

az

Noggin; you seem to be saying that George Bush personally profited from the tax refund. It's likely, but he's not the only person.

In fact, George is significantly less wealthy than his current opponent John Kerry. John and his wife own about 4% of Heinz, and she IS a Heinz. They have multiple houses. Large ones. How sporting of GWB to help his opponent! Maybe he really is as dumb as people insist.

You should understand that these refunds were not just applied to the wealthy. You're talking to someone who is way, way, way less well off than Michael Moore (for an example). Putting four thou in our hands is the equivulent of several months wages all at once.
Why?
To increase consumer spending, clearly, and to make people like The President.
But this isn't the only year it's happened. Last year, there was a refund of around three thousand. If people have money, they will spend it on things. Local car sales folks caught on quick - bring in yer refund, walk out with an SUV! This yer, manufacturers of furniture are in on the act. Consumers can make large purchases without getting into huge debt. It seems to be helping.

Michael Moore.
Az, is it true that he suggested that if the 9/11 aircraft had been filled with black passengers they'd never have allowed the planes to be flown into the buildings? What was the actual context on that?

I get the feeling that the seperation of church and state is not so much about preventing those of a faith influencing the state in a way they would like to, but more about rejecting the British system where we have a state run religion.

Gradient well done for standing up to the leftist tide.

Anyway:

Economic indicators and snake oil are right next to each other on the shelves of Con-mart.

You can choose any indicators you like to say anything you like depending on what you want to say, but the way an economy runs is beyond the ken of any man, woman or group of people. On the whole the weather is more predicatable.

Tax is a very interesting issue, no it is! and not just in the sense of how much cash you are left to spend after the government has taken its pound of flesh.

It involves more than the way that we collectively pay for things that no individual could or would bother about. It involves the invisible costs of our economic activities and who is going to pay to put right these invisible costs.

Take fast food: Who is going to pay for the litter its packaging creates, you can have lots of police to catch litter bugs and the fines they pay will pay for street cleaners, but whose going to pay for the police and the courts that issue and collect the fines?

One way is to put a tax on the food to pay for street cleaning.

This principle can be used on all products and economic activities. The thing is that those who pretend to run the economy can ignore these invisible costs if they choose because some are not as apparent as litter on the streets. So when we spend our tax rebates we should think carefully because some where there is an invisible cost that is building up. *We* may not have to foot the bill as the cost may not be apparent for generations to come but pretending that there are no or little invisible costs to the way the economy is run is a stupid thing to do.

Bush doesnt care about Kyoto and global warming because he believes that the bigG has plans for this world that will make the effects of global warming look like a storm in a tea cup.

one love

Trust a Smethwick lad to bring an air of common sense to the thread

Well said, blicky!


<>

I have no idea if that was said or of any context if it was, Gradient. And your point is . . .?


az

Az,

I asked because you seemed to know the works of Mr. Moore much better than I do. The accusation made against him is that he characterised African Americans as violent weapon-carrying individuals. He does this in a rant about 9/11 which the right are using to brand him a racist and cut away at his liberal credentials. I haven't been able to find the passage or anything linking to it. I've seen plenty of accusations.

Blicky,

Good point about taxation. I agree, but I believe that some information is missing.

There are Federal, State, County and City taxes.
State, County and City taxes vary dependant on where you are; for example Oregon has no Sales tax but Arizona does. The sales tax paid in Tempe (a city) is higher than Mesa (another city a few miles down the road). In some states, the vehicle licence fee depends on how old or valuable your vehicle is and in others its a flat fee.
There's no simple way to describe this and the more research I do the more complex it gets. To simplify:

The Federal government has devolved responsibility for the 'invisible cost' Blicky spoke of to State, County and City. The type and number of services they provide are up to them, and the quality of that provision is paid for by the people who live in those areas. Why should a guy in Tortilla Flats, Arizona (population 16 and some snakes) pay for the street-sweepers in Detroit? To relate this to Europe, it would be like German citizens being asked to pay for the street lighting in Bristol. Or at least, that's the theory.

Does this help explain why George thinks he can refund Federal taxes without impacting local services?

Of course, the Federal refund does impact some things - like Social Security/Welfare programmes. How big of an impact this makes remains to be seen, but as Blicky points out it still has to be paid for and I suspect that it too will be passed down to the State, County and City levels. We'll see.

$4,000 bribe? That's .

What do the dead and injured in Iraq get of this bribe?

Frankly, Bush has set the planet back ten years on matters of environmental concern and Human Rights. He's turned Iraq from a not very pleasant place to live that was no threat whatsoever to the US or to Europe into a war torn country that has become Al Queada's biggest breeding ground.

Right now, as we speak, A-Q recruiting people are on every corner of every street with the photo's of those prisoners being tortured by US troops and they are saying 'You see. We TOLD YOU this would happen. And it has.' And already word is leaking out the soldiers responsible are stating this was pentagon policy as directed by 'mercenary' interrogation experts. You think any of those experts worked for saddam? Whaddya think?

Right now, the 'allies' in Afghanistan that Bush turned to to get rid of the taliban are preparing to flood the world with opium again as the Bush administration mouths about 'The war on Drugs' and napalms hillsides in Colombia, because heaven knows the Colombians didn't help the 'War on Terror'.

Bushes allies in Israel and Russia have now been given carte blanche to use any and all means necessary to fight their own wars on terror in Palestine and Chechnya.

Frankly, the world is going to hell in a bus, And George is driving the thing.

Oh, and while i remember, if the American economy is so good at the moment, how come the $ remains in freefall, at levels in Europe that we haven't seen since I was a boy? And as for dealing with corporate malfeasance, well, don't make me unless dealing with it is a new and as yet unwritten definition of the term 'swept under the carpet'.

"The accusation made against him is that he characterised African Americans as violent weapon-carrying individuals. He does this in a rant about 9/11 which the right are using to brand him a racist and cut away at his liberal credentials."

That's hilarious. What Moore did was actually comment explicitly on the way in which the American media portrays the black male as a violent, weapon toting threat to decent society. That the Right is able to portray that as *Moore* being rascist says more about the gullibility of the American public than I ever could.

It's all there in Stupid White men. perhaps you should try reading it Gradient rather than allowing other people to tell you whats in it. Maybe use some of that $4,000 bribe to buy a copy.

"The race for the White House will be decided by fundagelicals. That's good news for twice-born George Bush"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/comment/story/0,14259,1208413,00.html


az