my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » Gary Locke....A#1 Baboon! (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: Gary Locke....A#1 Baboon! Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 01-28-2003 10:14 PM                     I can't believe I just read this on the Yahoo front page....... " In too many ways, our country is headed in the wrong direction," Gov. Gary Locke of Washington state said in the official response from Democrats" Is this guy a kook? Yes! Is his state headed in the right direction......NO! Come on Gary, Get a life....... Mark  |  IP: Logged Paul G. Thompson The Weenie Man Posts: 4718 From: Mount Vernon WA USA Registered: Nov 2000 posted 01-28-2003 10:20 PM                     Hmmmmm.....That guy should talk. He ran us into the hole and wants to tax our brains out with his (and the Legislature) "Tax and spend" philosophy. As far as I am concerned, Locke is the one who is using "upside-down" economics. I just wish we could get a job done without the damned political parties attacking each other with their . It does not seem to make any difference what it is....if the Republicans come up with an idea, the Democrats think it is . If the Democrats come up with an idea, the Republicans think it is , too. That's why I vote for who I think will do the best job.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 01-28-2003 11:15 PM                     The Democrats and Republican trade the same barbs over and over again and it is all nothing but rhetoric so they can grab as much power and pork money so they can get re-elected. Nothing new. I see much of the government as a very large white-collar-welfare entitlement program. We have a federal tax code some 1,500 to 2,000 pages long (or it could be longer; I'm just going from memory) --and it is complicated primarily to keep an industry of government bureaucracy, tax accountants and tax attorneys employed. Many other government programs are similar. On top of that, it is one giant good ol' boys network. Until the government applies some of the same rules to itself anyone running a small business has to endure, our standards of living are going to keep going downhill. The legal-insurance-medical industrial complex looks to speed that downhill slide. The group health insurance policy at my work just came up for renewal in January. We get a nice 41% rate increase to pay. I guess the lawyers, insurance guys and medical administrators are all fancying some new $100,000 sports car that just came out. Too bad our political representatives won't step in to help in this madness. But then I can't afford to attend any of their $1,000-per-plate campaign fund-raiser dinners.  |  IP: Logged Ray Brown Expert Film Handler Posts: 111 From: Dayton, WA, USA Registered: Sep 2002 posted 01-28-2003 11:15 PM                        I caught some of that tonight on Fox News Channel. Read all about it here: Gary Locke's Response They must be desperate for somebody to give the response  |  IP: Logged Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 01-28-2003 11:18 PM                    I didn't hear his response but I do agree we are going in the wrong direction if Bush is giving tax relief primarily to the wealthy. Average folks are statistically far more likely to (often of necessity) spend the money and that would stimulate the economy. We are also headed in the wrong direction if we are adamant about starting a war when the case for it has not been made.  |  IP: Logged Paul G. Thompson The Weenie Man Posts: 4718 From: Mount Vernon WA USA Registered: Nov 2000 posted 01-28-2003 11:25 PM                     As a joke goes about 5 different types of patients a doctor can operate on, they like the politicans best. ...Politicians are the easiest to operate on... There's no guts, no heart, and no spine... and...the head and butt are interchangeable."  |  IP: Logged Thomas Procyk Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1842 From: Royal Palm Beach, FL, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 01-28-2003 11:38 PM                     quote: As a joke goes about 5 different types of patients a doctor can operate on, they like the politicans best. ...Politicians are the easiest to operate on... There's no guts, no heart, and no spine... and...the head and butt are interchangeable." HAHAHAHAHA! Thanks, Paul. That was a good one. =TMP=  |  IP: Logged Ken Layton Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1452 From: Olympia, Wash. USA Registered: Sep 1999 posted 01-28-2003 11:39 PM                     Gary Locke has done his best to make Washington state the most business UN-friendly state in the country. Boeing has eliminated 35,000 jobs already and even the famed Olympia (now Miller) Brewery is closing up shop after over 100 years of making beer (and it's just 5 miles from my apartment).  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 01-29-2003 08:39 AM                     Steve said "I didn't hear his response but I do agree we are going in the wrong direction if Bush is giving tax relief primarily to the wealthy. Average folks are statistically far more likely to (often of necessity) spend the money and that would stimulate the economy. We are also headed in the wrong direction if we are adamant about starting a war when the case for it has not been made." _______________________________________________________________ There are two ways of looking a that though.....Your way, and......the way I heard it told on a morning radio show this week which I thought was interesting.....I can't remember the economists name but he had some interesting thoughts. "If they give the rich people the tax credits it will cause employment figures to increase....Overall, its the rich people that employ us.....the average Joe does not employ people.....Hence, more employment equals less people out of work. That means more people making paychacks which they can spend, and that makes for a more consistant, better overall economy. Getting a 1K refund, or credit is basically meaningless and for most people will be gone in the blink of an eye anyway." Mark  |  IP: Logged Greg Mueller Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1687 From: Port Gamble, WA Registered: Jun 99 posted 01-29-2003 10:21 AM                        "Giving the "RICH" a tax break" is a Demo buzz line. What the deal is, is that it gives those WHO PAY TAXES a tax break. The poor do not pay income tax. They get it all back because of the low bracket they are in. And in the case of some they get back more than they pay in (if any). I had an employee, who, because he had kids and wife who didn't have a good job, was able to get all of his tax money back. He also got another $2400 for being "The head of Household" I asked him how he could do that and he said he did it every year. I asked my accountant about it and she confirmed that it happens. He got real PO'd at the end of the next year as he'd been working for me for the entire year which had put him just barely into the next tax bracket and he couldn't get his $2400 bonus that year. Here's the thing on tax breaks... To get a tax break all you have to do is pay taxes. If you want to consider anyone that pays taxes "RICH" be my guest, but us that have to "cough it up" on April 15th, will argue that point. I guess it's a perspective thing As far as our "illustrious" governor goes [ 01-29-2003, 02:08 PM: Message edited by: Greg Mueller ]  |  IP: Logged Dustin Mitchell Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1865 From: Mondovi, WI, USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 01-29-2003 11:58 AM                     Previous posters are correct that the reason the tax breaks are heavy to the rich is that the rich pay most of the taxes. Its just simply impossible to give much more income tax relief to the middle class and poor. Under Bush's proposed series of cuts, a family of four with a combined income of $40,000 a year (lower middle class) would go from paying about $1,500 in income tax a year to $45. This is accomplished not only by lowering the income tax rate but upping the child tax credit to $1,000. The child tax credit, for those who are interested in giving bush a fair shake ONCE in a while, is a very 'poor friendly' tax policy. If you are making $100,000 a year and have two kids, knocking $2,000 off your taxes is nice but isn't going to really be that big of a deal. If you are making $25,000 a year though and have two kids that is going to help A LOT. But having defended the majority of the Bush tax plan I have to criticize part of it here; or rather the part that was left out. The poor and lower middle class may not pay much income tax anymore, but they pay a hell of a lot to SSI-social security. Twelve percent of every check (matched by employers) if I am not mistaken. Many people are paying more to social security than they are to income taxes. Now at first glance this might seem only fair, since they are supposed to be paying for their own retirement. Two things destroy that theory, however: 1) Income over $80,000 is not subject to SSI taxes 2) The money taken out paychecks does not go to a retirement account for the person whose check it was deducted out of. It goes to pay current social security to already retired people AND disability benefits to people unable to work AND death benefits to spouses and children, even if they are very young and haven't paid much into SSI yet. The point? Social Security is a social welfare system, we might as well admit it. It needs to be better funded, and that funding can come from all that money that has never been taxed for it before (the $80,000 number I mentioned). The amount taken out of every check could be SIGNIFICANTLY reduced if all reported income was subject to SSI taxes, not just that under $80,000. Right now SSI is one of the biggest burdens on the poor in this country. Our social welfare system should not be funded almost entirely by the poor and lower middle class. Its just doesn't make any sense.  |  IP: Logged Greg Mueller Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1687 From: Port Gamble, WA Registered: Jun 99 posted 01-29-2003 01:53 PM                        Although your $80k figure is true it sounds as though you are saying that a person making say $81k doesn't have to pay SS. Just to clarify... all persons (unless they have some sort of Corportation situation), pay SS on that first $80k of income. After that the feds figure you've paid your share and you don't have to pay on anything over the $80k (approx). So we all get bit for the first $80k.  |  IP: Logged Michael Schaffer "Where is the Boardwalk Hotel?" Posts: 4143 From: Boston, MA Registered: Apr 2002 posted 01-29-2003 01:56 PM                        Bobby wrote: quote: I see much of the government as a very large white-collar-welfare entitlement program. We have a federal tax code some 1,500 to 2,000 pages long (or it could be longer; I'm just going from memory) --and it is complicated primarily to keep an industry of government bureaucracy, tax accountants and tax attorneys employed. Exactly! Very well put. And where that leads can be seen in Germany. The country is ruined because we have too much bureaucracy and it eats up all the tax money. We should get rid of all that but then we would have much more unemployed. I also see those people as really being first-class wellfare recipients. The society has come to a dead end. This "tax and spend" thing is very dangerous!!! It will only inflate the bureaucracy.  |  IP: Logged Dustin Mitchell Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1865 From: Mondovi, WI, USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 01-29-2003 02:09 PM                     You are correct Greg, I apologize if I was unclear. The point I was trying to make though still stands. SSI is no longer an individual retirement program. It hasn't been an individual retirement program for almost forty year now-since LBJ's Great Society programs in the 60's that greatly expanded what SSI did. It is not fair to set an arbitrary limit on how much income can be taxed for SSI purposes when the money is being used for so many more things than pensions. We either need to seperate the retirement portion of the program from its other aspects and find other sources fo funding for those other aspects or do away with the $80,000 limit. Hell, I'd be willing to compromise and make the taxation graduated so that you pay less on anything over $80,000 than below it. But something needs to be changed and quickly.  |  IP: Logged Greg Mueller Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1687 From: Port Gamble, WA Registered: Jun 99 posted 01-29-2003 02:26 PM                        There was a proposed plan by which persons (of a certain age group) could voluntarily take up to 3% of their SS payment and invest it in the stock market. Even though it was for a specific age group (or less) and it was voluntary, by the time the news media got done with it, the headlines read "Bush wants to privatize SS". I think it would be a great idea to allow tax payers to opt out of SS payments and into investment programs, IF THEY WANT TO. The down side would be that the people who didn't succeed with their investments would be whining (sometime down the road) and want the gov to support them anyway. Many persons feel that it would be a lot better if the money the gov extracted from you were used for what they said they were going to use it for. It wouldn't be nearly so bad as what really happens to it.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.