PDA

View Full Version : Expressing thanks to Bush...


Taco John
10-14-2004, 12:56 AM
I want to take a second to offer genuine thanks to Bush for agreeing to a three debate format... I criticized him before when they were talking about pulling a third debate. He stepped up and gave America an opportunity to learn more about both candidates by offering himself for a third debate. I think, after all is said and done, it was beneficial to him, as he got stronger with each debate... But nonetheless, I appreciate the opportunity he has given Americans by accepting the full debate slate. For that, he has my respect.

Phobia
10-14-2004, 01:01 AM
I did not know this. Probably not his best decision. I think he needs to stay out of this format as much as possible.

Frankie
10-14-2004, 01:03 AM
Wasn't it the townhall debate the Bush campaign tried to get out of? :shrug:

Taco John
10-14-2004, 01:03 AM
His best format was the second one... He should have never chosen this style for the final debate.

Frankie
10-14-2004, 01:06 AM
I did not know this. Probably not his best decision. I think he needs to stay out of this format as much as possible.

Still up, Phob? Out of "sandpaper?" ;)
(Just kidding....that was funny. You know what I mean.)

Saggysack
10-14-2004, 08:43 AM
Express your thanks if he is reelected...

http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/editorial/9910761.htm

Bush tax plan could cost middle class

BY ROBERT S. MCINTYRE

Read my lips: I'll raise your taxes -- a lot.

Thus, paraphrased only slightly, speaks President Bush to Middle America on the campaign trail. Yet far too many of his intended middle-class victims don't seem to hold it against him. Or perhaps they haven't been listening hard enough.

In his speech to the Republican convention, Bush called for a "simpler, fairer, pro-growth (tax) system" and promised to "lead a bipartisan effort to reform and simplify the federal tax code" if he's re-elected.

Noble sentiments to be sure. But anyone who's been paying attention knows that when Bush says "fairer," he means cutting taxes on the rich. When he says "simpler," he means cutting taxes on the rich. And when he invokes economic growth, well, he means tax cuts not just for rich people but for corporations, too.

This time around, however, Bush says that he doesn't plan to put his tax cuts for the wealthy on the national credit card. A "senior administration official" told The Washington Post after the convention that Bush will insist that his tax overhaul plan be "revenue-neutral" -- that is, raise just as much money as current law.

Bush and his aides have dropped a few hints about the specific kinds of tax changes Bush wants to pursue. Speaking at an "Ask President Bush" event, Bush called replacement of most federal taxes with a national sales tax "an interesting idea that we ought to explore seriously." Likewise, at another such campaign forum, Bush called scrapping personal and corporate income taxes in favor of a flat-rate wage tax "certainly one option."

Explaining why Bush believes that both a flat tax and a national sales tax deserve consideration, Bush aides emphasize that Bush likes the fact that such plans would essentially make interest, dividends, profits and capital gains tax-free.

Of course, exempting most of the income of the wealthy from tax and dropping graduated rates in favor of a single tax rate has to be a humongous tax cut for the rich. Since Bush promises no net revenue loss, how much more will everybody else have to pay?

My organization recently ran the numbers on a national sales-tax bill introduced in Congress and found that it would saddle middle- and low-income families with average tax increases of $3,000 to $4,000 a year. We've done studies of the effects of a flat-rate wage tax, with similarly frightening results.

If you don't want to believe me, listen to the original authors of the flat tax (later promoted less honestly by Dick Armey and Steve Forbes), who acknowledged in their 1983 book: "Now for some bad news.... It is an obvious mathematical law that lower taxes on the successful will have to be made up by higher taxes on average people."

You'd think that it might be a political liability to threaten to raise most people's taxes. Yet the presidential candidate most loudly charging his opponent with a plan to boost middle-class taxes is, well, Bush!

Robert S. McIntyre is director of Citizens for Tax Justice in Washington, D.C.

memyselfI
10-14-2004, 08:55 AM
I want to take a second to offer genuine thanks to Bush for agreeing to a three debate format... I criticized him before when they were talking about pulling a third debate. He stepped up and gave America an opportunity to learn more about both candidates by offering himself for a third debate. I think, after all is said and done, it was beneficial to him, as he got stronger with each debate... But nonetheless, I appreciate the opportunity he has given Americans by accepting the full debate slate. For that, he has my respect.

You have someone vehemently disagreeing with you...

Dick(head) Morris was on Faux News last night slamming James Baker for agreeing to have the third debate on domestic issues on Kerry's home turf. He said Vernon Jordon wiped the floor with Baker after he won the negotiations that allowed this format be the final one for which the American people will compare and contrast the candidates. ROFL

Brock
10-14-2004, 09:16 AM
And when he invokes economic growth, well, he means tax cuts not just for rich people but for corporations, too.

Corporations don't pay taxes.

RINGLEADER
10-14-2004, 09:23 AM
Express your thanks if he is reelected...

http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/editorial/9910761.htm

Bush tax plan could cost middle class

BY ROBERT S. MCINTYRE

Read my lips: I'll raise your taxes -- a lot.

Thus, paraphrased only slightly, speaks President Bush to Middle America on the campaign trail. Yet far too many of his intended middle-class victims don't seem to hold it against him. Or perhaps they haven't been listening hard enough.

In his speech to the Republican convention, Bush called for a "simpler, fairer, pro-growth (tax) system" and promised to "lead a bipartisan effort to reform and simplify the federal tax code" if he's re-elected.

Noble sentiments to be sure. But anyone who's been paying attention knows that when Bush says "fairer," he means cutting taxes on the rich. When he says "simpler," he means cutting taxes on the rich. And when he invokes economic growth, well, he means tax cuts not just for rich people but for corporations, too.

This time around, however, Bush says that he doesn't plan to put his tax cuts for the wealthy on the national credit card. A "senior administration official" told The Washington Post after the convention that Bush will insist that his tax overhaul plan be "revenue-neutral" -- that is, raise just as much money as current law.

Bush and his aides have dropped a few hints about the specific kinds of tax changes Bush wants to pursue. Speaking at an "Ask President Bush" event, Bush called replacement of most federal taxes with a national sales tax "an interesting idea that we ought to explore seriously." Likewise, at another such campaign forum, Bush called scrapping personal and corporate income taxes in favor of a flat-rate wage tax "certainly one option."

Explaining why Bush believes that both a flat tax and a national sales tax deserve consideration, Bush aides emphasize that Bush likes the fact that such plans would essentially make interest, dividends, profits and capital gains tax-free.

Of course, exempting most of the income of the wealthy from tax and dropping graduated rates in favor of a single tax rate has to be a humongous tax cut for the rich. Since Bush promises no net revenue loss, how much more will everybody else have to pay?

My organization recently ran the numbers on a national sales-tax bill introduced in Congress and found that it would saddle middle- and low-income families with average tax increases of $3,000 to $4,000 a year. We've done studies of the effects of a flat-rate wage tax, with similarly frightening results.

If you don't want to believe me, listen to the original authors of the flat tax (later promoted less honestly by Dick Armey and Steve Forbes), who acknowledged in their 1983 book: "Now for some bad news.... It is an obvious mathematical law that lower taxes on the successful will have to be made up by higher taxes on average people."

You'd think that it might be a political liability to threaten to raise most people's taxes. Yet the presidential candidate most loudly charging his opponent with a plan to boost middle-class taxes is, well, Bush!

Robert S. McIntyre is director of Citizens for Tax Justice in Washington, D.C.


Yeah, I'm sure John Kerry is going to cut middle-class taxes to pay for all his programs. Either that or he's going to cut all his programs. The guy has already said he's using the tax hike he's proposing to pay for his health care (which the "rich" tax hike STILL won't pay for), he's said he'll use it to pay down the deficit (which I would actually be for if there's evidence that the economy no longer needs the stimulas which, at this point I don't think most economists believe), he's said he'd use it to pay for national defense and last night he criticized it and said it could be used to keep social security solvent in its present form for another 30 years.

I GUARANTEE you that if Kerry becomes president he will pull a Clinton and say something to the effect of "This is such a mess, I just can't give you middle class tax relief" and then tax the middle class (even beyond the investor class that he has already promised to tax - which is just another stupid idea).

I find Kerry's attacks on the tax cut for the rich to be completely disingenuous because he just assumes that the economic growth we've had in the last year would have happened without it. That's a stupid assumption and if he believes tax revenues will continue to go up AND economic growth will continue without them then he really doesn't understand the issue.

Of course Bush can't seem to remind people that tax revenues have gone UP with the tax cuts (as they have EVERY other time tax cuts have been employed) to explain why tax cuts = economic growth = jobs = higher tax revenues.

Raiderhader
10-14-2004, 09:39 AM
Express your thanks if he is reelected...

http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/editorial/9910761.htm

Bush tax plan could cost middle class

BY ROBERT S. MCINTYRE

Read my lips: I'll raise your taxes -- a lot.

Thus, paraphrased only slightly, speaks President Bush to Middle America on the campaign trail. Yet far too many of his intended middle-class victims don't seem to hold it against him. Or perhaps they haven't been listening hard enough.

In his speech to the Republican convention, Bush called for a "simpler, fairer, pro-growth (tax) system" and promised to "lead a bipartisan effort to reform and simplify the federal tax code" if he's re-elected.

Noble sentiments to be sure. But anyone who's been paying attention knows that when Bush says "fairer," he means cutting taxes on the rich. When he says "simpler," he means cutting taxes on the rich. And when he invokes economic growth, well, he means tax cuts not just for rich people but for corporations, too.

This time around, however, Bush says that he doesn't plan to put his tax cuts for the wealthy on the national credit card. A "senior administration official" told The Washington Post after the convention that Bush will insist that his tax overhaul plan be "revenue-neutral" -- that is, raise just as much money as current law.

Bush and his aides have dropped a few hints about the specific kinds of tax changes Bush wants to pursue. Speaking at an "Ask President Bush" event, Bush called replacement of most federal taxes with a national sales tax "an interesting idea that we ought to explore seriously." Likewise, at another such campaign forum, Bush called scrapping personal and corporate income taxes in favor of a flat-rate wage tax "certainly one option."

Explaining why Bush believes that both a flat tax and a national sales tax deserve consideration, Bush aides emphasize that Bush likes the fact that such plans would essentially make interest, dividends, profits and capital gains tax-free.

Of course, exempting most of the income of the wealthy from tax and dropping graduated rates in favor of a single tax rate has to be a humongous tax cut for the rich. Since Bush promises no net revenue loss, how much more will everybody else have to pay?

My organization recently ran the numbers on a national sales-tax bill introduced in Congress and found that it would saddle middle- and low-income families with average tax increases of $3,000 to $4,000 a year. We've done studies of the effects of a flat-rate wage tax, with similarly frightening results.

If you don't want to believe me, listen to the original authors of the flat tax (later promoted less honestly by Dick Armey and Steve Forbes), who acknowledged in their 1983 book: "Now for some bad news.... It is an obvious mathematical law that lower taxes on the successful will have to be made up by higher taxes on average people."

You'd think that it might be a political liability to threaten to raise most people's taxes. Yet the presidential candidate most loudly charging his opponent with a plan to boost middle-class taxes is, well, Bush!

Robert S. McIntyre is director of Citizens for Tax Justice in Washington, D.C.


The left continues to display how out of touch they are.

The stock market is no longer just a "game" for the wealthy.