Confusing Politics

[DZ314]

Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good... Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad...

Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - good... Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq - bad...

Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good... Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...

Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists- good... Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad...

Clinton bombs Chinese embassy - good... Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad...

Clinton commits felonies while in office - good... Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit - bad...

No mass graves found in Serbia - good... No WMD found Iraq - bad...

Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good... Economy on upswing under Bush - bad...

Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden - good... World Trade Centers fall under Bush - bad...

Clinton says Saddam has nukes - good... Bush says Saddam has nukes - bad...

Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good... Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...

Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton - good... Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad...

Milosevic not yet convicted - good... Saddam turned over for trial - bad...

Ahh, it's so confusing!

Every year an independent tax watchdog group analyzes the average tax burden on Americans, and then calculates the "Tax Freedom Day". This is the day after which the money you earn goes to you, not the government. This year, tax freedom day was April 11th. That's the earliest it has been since 1991. It's latest day ever was May 2nd, which occurred in 2000. Notice anything special about those dates? (The Clinton years)

Recently, John Kerry gave a speech in which he claimed Americans are actually paying more taxes under Bush, despite the tax cuts. He gave no
explanation and provided no data for this claim. Another interesting fact: Both George Bush and John Kerry are wealthy men. Bush owns only one home, his ranch in Texas. Kerry owns 4 mansions, all worth
several million dollars. (His ski resort home in Idaho is an old barn brought over from Europe in pieces. Not your average A-frame).
Bush paid $250,000 in taxes this year; Kerry paid $90,000. Does that sound right? The man who wants to raise your taxes obviously has figured out a way to avoid paying his own.

Boo hoo, it's all Bill Clinton's, Osama's or the tooth fairy's fault.

Sadly, Bush has failed at everything...if it were one or two things, ok.

It's on his watch we were attacked.

Gov't surpluses turned to deficits...

Largest trade deficits in history...

First president since Hoover (yes of the Great Depression) to have a net loss of jobs.

Lied about WMD and al Queda link to Iraq...it's cost me and you $200 billion and counting.

The list goes on an on, as does the whining.

[audiopro]

Guest, I guess you have never experienced anything like that before???

I am a network security consultant... I am called to many companies after they lose or have someone not knowledgable managing their resources and have been attacked or compromised... While I am there I see all of the no no's the previous guy implemented.. Am I the one who now takes the blame, or the dipstick before me who hosed things up???

What's gonna be funny is if Kerry does get into office.. And you quickly see his string of screwups... Then everyone will be whining about how bad Kerry was... lol

By the way, I guess Kerry lied also about WMD's???

[Bubba_the_Liberal]

Like Carter, he's just an inept president.

Like the Cubs/Red Sox, he has many excuses, but at the end of the day Bush is not good enough.

[Bubba_the_Liberal]

Audio, agreed, that Clinton (and Bush I and Reagan) should have done more about terrorism, but don't forget when Clinton launched missiles against Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, Republicans claimed that he was doing it to draw attention away from Lewinsky scandal.

Also, you can blame the previous guy for a couple of things, but with Bush, everything is someone elses fault. For example, when we were attacked by the Japanese in WW II, FDR didn't invade Mexico (or Iraq in Bush's case), he dealt head on with the real enemy and the American people supported him.

I guess that's what happens when yo daddy hands you everything on a silver platter...no sense of responsibility.

[dags_lax]

Clinton didn't mislead America to justify a war with Iraq. Bush did.

Clinton didn't raid Social Security surpluses for tax cuts aimed primarily at the wealthiest of the wealthy. Bush did.

Clinton didn't restrict stem cell research into cures for diseases such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s. Bush did.

Clinton didn't roll back environmental protections. Bush did.

Clinton didn’t create the no child left behind program and then not properly fund it. Bush did.

Clinton didn't cut funding on educational programs for disabled and handicapped children. Bush did.

And the list goes on and on ….

Those are the reasons, not love of Kerry, that I am going to vote for the Democratic Presidential candidate for the first time since Carter in 1976.

[An Independent Lurker]

I have been lurking here reading the arguments that both sides have provided and quite frankly, both sides put up some pretty good points with the exception of one thing - tax relief for the wealthy. I am tired of folks (mostly liberals) whining about tax relief for the wealthy. First of all, everyone received a tax break - I sure did - I received a refund and the net amount of my paycheck went up - and I am by no means rich. Secondly (and I believe most importantly), I notice that the President of the company I work for is one of those so-called "wealthy" people. Like it or not, those wealthy people give folks like myself a job and in return I pay income taxes. I also noticed that soon after the tax cuts took place, this company was thrust into a position where they could now buy things like trucks, computers, and building improvements, which kept other folks working (and paying taxes).

All this whining about "wealthy" tax cuts just makes the liberals, to me, seem jealous and doesn't do much for their credibility.

Just my $.02 worth.

[audiopro]

Everyone is making a lot of good points, Bubba, dags, Lurker... It does me well to read through them and see what everyone else thinks..

For what it is worth I'll say it again... I know mistakes have been made by our current president. And he has spoken mistakenly, I do not believe they were outright lies... But for me it is a personality thing.. Something about Kerry just irks me to where I dont trust him...

[dags_lax]

For the benifit of lurker I am going to cut and paste from one of my lengthier posts:

"I know that people are going to say that tax cuts stimulate the economy and that will lead to the recovery of those tax dollars and more. Historically that has not been the case. While the economy may receive a boost the lost tax revenues are never completely recouped. LBJ needed to raise taxes after the Kennedy cuts. Regan had to raise taxes after his own tax cuts and Bush the Elder needed to raise them even more. Make no mistake about it, at some point the bill will come due and there will be tax increases to offset Dubya’s tax cuts.

Now when taxes get raised is where it gets interesting. While tax cuts generally are skewed to favor the wealthy, tax increases are targeted at the working and middle class. Is it no wonder that average Americans feel that they are being taxed to death? What history has shown, and the middle class fails to understand, is that after each round of tax cuts and increases they have lost ground. When income tax was instituted in the early 1900’s the vast majority of Americans paid no income tax.. If the tax code from then were to be adjusted for inflation an American earning less than $60,000.00 would still pay no income tax!"


Those are the facts lurker. Tax cuts are always followed a few years later by tax increases with the middle class getting hit harder than the wealthy. I know the $600.00 I am getting now is going to cost me a hell of a lot more down the road!

I can't afford any more tax cuts!!!

[dags_lax]

I know mistakes have been made by our current president. And he has spoken mistakenly, I do not believe they were outright lies...

That is where you and I disagree Audio. I do believe the President has intentionally deceived and outright lied to the American public and all for the benefit of a select few. Bush could care less about the American wage earner.

[audiopro]

What are some of the absolute lies you believe have been said?

And which of those had Kerry not agreed with at the time, only to rescind his backing later down the road under pressure?

btw, I am asking to learn, not be adversarial. I know you know that, just letting the other know also.. ;)

[DZ314]

We're getting into some useless territory here IMO. I don' t think that many people are going to argue that politicians are honest people. For the most part they all lie just like everyone else, they're human. Trying to argue, well politician A lies more than politician B, blah blah...... is pretty moot IMO.

[audiopro]

I NEVER LIE!!!! :)

"Believe me when I tell you... I'm lying..."

[DZ314]

ROFL, Bush is an honest Christian man. Kerry is an honest just-turned Christian man? Somehow I don't think that any Christian with an IQ above a gnat will buy that one, but nice try John.

[dags_lax]

George W. Bush is a liar. He lies large and small, directly and by omission, and through his cabinet officers. But since you asked for absolute lies here are a few quick no doubt about it, in your face bald face lies.

Bush said the International Atomic Energy Agency had produced a report in 1998 noting that Iraq was six months from developing a nuclear weapon; no such report existed

The uranium-from Niger documents assertion which he new were forgeries when he referenced them in his State of the Union speech.

“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." CIA director Richard Kerr, who conducted a review of the prewar intelligence, has said that intelligence was full of qualifiers and caveats, and based on circumstantial and inferential evidence. That is, it was not no-doubt stuff.

Bush asserted that Iraq was "harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior Al Qaeda terrorist planner"; US intelligence officials told reporters this terrorist was operating outside of Al Qaeda control.

[An Independent Lurker]

Sorry to call you down Dax, but your history is a little fuzzy. Reagan did NOT increase taxes after his Tax Reform Act of 1981. He called for the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which actually lowered taxes again. Please visit the US Treasury website (www.ustreas.gov) for more information and a history of tax reforms - and here is an excerpt:

"Thus, in his 1984 State of the Union speech President Reagan called for a sweeping reform of the income tax so it would have a broader base and lower rates and would be fairer, simpler, and more consistent with economic efficiency.

The culmination of this effort was the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which brought the top statutory tax rate down from 50 percent to 28 percent while the corporate tax rate was reduced from 50 percent to 35 percent. The number of tax brackets was reduced and the personal exemption and standard deduction amounts were increased and indexed for inflation, thereby relieving millions of taxpayers of any Federal income tax burden."

[audiopro]

No matter which side your on as far as the election goes, let's not forget what our Country has been through...

Here is a link to a great song, that is publicly available at their site www.friendsoflive.com, that revisits and is dedicated to 9-11... It is a pretty powerful song...

http://www.sitepros.net/overcome-wtc.mp3

Just thought I would share something truly meaningful...

[dags_lax]

The first Reagan tax increase came in 1982. By then it was clear that the budget projections used to justify the 1981 tax cut were wildly optimistic. In response, Mr. Reagan agreed to a sharp rollback of corporate tax cuts, and a smaller rollback of individual income tax cuts. Over all, the 1982 tax increase undid about a third of the 1981 cut; as a share of G.D.P., the increase was substantially larger than Mr. Clinton's 1993 tax increase.

The contrast with President Bush is obvious. President Reagan, confronted with evidence that his tax cuts were fiscally irresponsible, changed course. President Bush, confronted with similar evidence, has pushed for even more tax cuts.

Mr. Reagan's second tax increase was also motivated by a sense of responsibility — or at least that's the way it seemed at the time. I'm referring to the Social Security Reform Act of 1983, which followed the recommendations of a commission led by Alan Greenspan. Its key provision was an increase in the payroll tax that pays for Social Security and Medicare hospital insurance.

For many middle and low income families, this tax increase more than undid any gains from Reagan's income tax cuts. In 1980, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 17.7% of their income in income and payroll taxes. By 1988 the combined payroll and income tax share was up to 18.4%. Yes income tax rate was slightly lower but the increases in payroll taxes more than offset the income tax reduction.

What one needs to realize is that payroll taxes are capped so for those making over a certain amount payroll taxes do not apply to tat amount in excess of the limits. Further more payroll taxes apply only to wages, not investment income, capital gains, etc. What this means is that for those with high incomes pay have a smaller percentage of there income going towards payroll taxes.

As for other tax increases, (Reagan called them “revenue enhancements”) tax increases on motor fuel, phone service, tires, beer, etc, are the same for the average Joe as for the richest Americans. What this means is that these other taxes consume a greater proportion of the average family’s income.

So yes Lurker, income, corporate, and capital gains tax rates went down. When you look at the Reagan tax cuts and increases the net result is that the wealthy ended up having a smaller proportion of their income go to taxes while poor and middle class The vast majority of Americans, whose income is almost entirely from wages, actually seen their tax increases under Reagan! Thus debunks the myth of Reagan as a great tax cutter, unless of course you are among the wealthiest of Americans.

[An Independent Lurker]

Dags, as with many Liberals, you think that just because you say it, it must be the truth. OR you think that most of us are stupid enough to believe that rhetoric. Darting around the issue and statistics that come out of thin air does not change history. End of story.

[dags_lax]

Statistics and estimates courtesy of the United States Government's Congressional Budget Office not thin air.

[audiopro]

dags, post links?? I'm bored today, would like to have some sorta reading material.. ;)

[dags_lax]

Sorry no links Audio. You could try the reference department of local library. That's why it took a day to respond.

[audiopro]

What's a library?? ;)

Seriously to go a step further, what do you think of the "Reganomics" thing? I was a bit too young to even have a clue, but what I understand is a lot of things Regan put into action did not take effect really until Clinton was president, and at which point people mistakenly credit Clinton with more than he deserves? What truth is there to that, and what besides tax changes did Reganomics encompass?

[dags_lax]

I admire much of what Reagan did for America but not his economic policies. Supply side economics, commonly called Reaganomics, or trickle down economics, the most simplistic explanation is that economic and social policies favoring the wealthy will over time be beneficial to every one. Hence the saying “a rising tide floats all boats”. I am more of a person who feels that when a boat floats it is because it is pushed up from the bottom (because of demand). But that is just my opinion and a few college econ and accounting and classes many years ago certainly doesn’t make me an expert. Even the so called experts disagree on economic models.

As for your statement that the things Reagan did not taking effect until the Clinton boom, you are talking about a time span of four to twenty years between the two administrations. I don’t think Reagan and Bush policies had much effect, especially in the second term, on the overall economic health of the nation. If you were a very wealthy person or the CEO of a Fortune 500 company and you had to have a Democrat for a president you would have been hard pressed to find a more business friendly democrat.

[audiopro]

Would you say though that Reagan (spelled properly this time) was likely the best president of my time?

[DZ314]

So how bout Dick Cheney and his calling out of Edwards on his horrid senate attendance record? ;)

[dags_lax]

We finally have some common ground Fury.

[DZ314]

Hey looky here! :D