PDA

View Full Version : GOPs next move?



nAz
11-09-2006, 08:19 AM
How about this, they get Cheney to retire (heart problems) and then get John McCain in as VP, he would look great in 08 and probably win the presidency.
Then he could get us out of Iraq and make it look like were not cutting and running, shoooot he could even bring in good'ol Colin Powel, to give it weight.
In the mean time they could start blaming the bad news about the war on Bill Clinton and the rest of the Democrats.

what you think?

Deeman3
11-09-2006, 08:48 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nAz:</font><hr> How about this, they get Cheney to retire (heart problems) and then get John McCain in as VP, he would look great in 08 and probably win the presidency.
Then he could get us out of Iraq and make it look like were not cutting and running, shoooot he could even bring in good'ol Colin Powel, to give it weight.
In the mean time they could start blaming the bad news about the war on Bill Clinton and the rest of the Democrats.

what you think?

<hr /></blockquote> <font color="blue"> NaZ
I think you are on to something here. As long as the Democrats don't let someone other than Hillary run, the strategy should work. I know there is talk of a Hillary/Nancy duo but I hope they stick with the, vote for Her, you get Him strategy.

Question? How do you assure, once she gets in the White House, that she allows him to make the decisions. Because of past indiscretins by Biill, she may hold him accountable and not let him run the country.

Next how do we re-package "Cut and Run" to have more broad appeal? I suggest we re-name it to "Run and Cut". This has much more pisazz to it. Almost sounds like one of those NFL plays and could pick up some of the Nascar vote as well.

The Democrats will have to slow the economy down a bit so it can be laidat the feet of Bush much like GWB did to Clinton after 2000.

I do think the heart of the strategy will be to sit back and wait for the performance of the Democrats in changing the course of public opinion and continued redistribution of the wealth, this time to anyone without a job instead of Halliburton and Exxon.

Hey, it will work out. The Democrats will either do good things and win the hearts and minds of the Americna and French and Islamic people or they will tie up Congress and the courts with lawsuits and investigations. Either way, they won't be passing much legislation until 2008, at least. Now, maybe Bush will use that veto pen he lost somewhere. That would make this whole political upheaval worthwhile to many on the right.
</font color>

DeeMan
Can't wait to see Nancy's new carpet and drapes.....

Gayle in MD
11-09-2006, 09:57 AM
When it's time to pay the piper for the massive debt, compliments GWB and his Republican spending spree, it's going to be "Shock and Awe" only this time, it's going to be the right who bought into faulty economics, projected by Bushonomics, in "Shock and Awe"

If the Democrats can focuss on overturning the assault on the Middle Class in this country, they'll do just fine in 08.

Personally, I wouldn't want to be in their shoes, given the disaster this administration had created.

I'l love to see Joe Biden and John Murtha running together in 08. Or, either of them, with Feinstien as VP. Biden is a good man. No double talk, straight thinker, no former scandals, and didn't grow up a millionaire.

Gayle in Md.....

JPB
11-09-2006, 10:24 AM
No way does McCain get the VP spot. Cheney will stay but be shunted aside for the next 2 years probably. I doubt McCain would take it, I doubt the President would want him. So that won't happen. McCain may well run in 08 and may do well. I am not a McCain fan, but we'll see. I think Giuliani may make some noise in 08. Powell would be interesting. A Powell v. Hillary matchup would be interesting.

Basically the Republicans need to get back to fiscal conservatism and some rational decision making. It may take a while. If the democrats go nuts they may have the foil they need. If not, '08 could be a problem for them. I think the biggest mistake the dems could make is nominating Hillary. It would shock me if she won. She has tried to cover her socialism, but she is an extreme leftist when it comes down to it. I think the dislike of Hillary and the desire for a divided government would lead to a republican president in '08 if the dems nominate Hillary and the R's nominate anybody reasonable. But I guess you never know.

wolfdancer
11-09-2006, 05:36 PM
I was thinking maybe Kool Aid? I felt bad for the boys at Fox, as they tried to put a positive spin on the election results.
And I felt real bad for the folks here that have been posting for a couple of years how the democrats couldn't win anything.
This time the exit polls matched the vote....!!!
Two probable reasons...the machines counted the votes correctly this time....or a less conspiratorial theory...last election, when they were questioned, people didn't want to admit they had just sold their vote for a tax refund, while mortgaging their kids future....who wanted to look stupid on local TV?

wolfdancer
11-09-2006, 06:02 PM
What i'm really thinking for the Republicans is
Arnold Schwarzenegger. Think bush with a cocaine flashback, and on steroids....and you have Arnie.
He's more articulate then Bush, hard to tell though with the accent.
Bush is a deliberate thinker; Arnie's all action. I saw "Kindergarden Cop" and Arnie would have been much more direct with them kids, when the Saudis were bombing NYC.
The only obstacle though...is that after 8 years, folks may be little tired of leaders with past family ties to the Nazis

JPB
11-09-2006, 06:53 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> What i'm really thinking for the Republicans is
Arnold Schwarzenegger. Think bush with a cocaine flashback, and on steroids....and you have Arnie.
He's more articulate then Bush, hard to tell though with the accent.
Bush is a deliberate thinker; Arnie's all action. I saw "Kindergarden Cop" and Arnie would have been much more direct with them kids, when the Saudis were bombing NYC.
The only obstacle though...is that after 8 years, folks may be little tired of leaders with past family ties to the Nazis <hr /></blockquote>

Nothing for you to worry about since he is constitutionally barred from being president. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

pooltchr
11-09-2006, 06:53 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote JPB:</font><hr> No way does McCain get the VP spot. Cheney will stay but be shunted aside for the next 2 years probably. I doubt McCain would take it, I doubt the President would want him. So that won't happen. McCain may well run in 08 and may do well. I am not a McCain fan, but we'll see. I think Giuliani may make some noise in 08. Powell would be interesting. A Powell v. Hillary matchup would be interesting.

Basically the Republicans need to get back to fiscal conservatism and some rational decision making. It may take a while. If the democrats go nuts they may have the foil they need. If not, '08 could be a problem for them. I think the biggest mistake the dems could make is nominating Hillary. It would shock me if she won. She has tried to cover her socialism, but she is an extreme leftist when it comes down to it. I think the dislike of Hillary and the desire for a divided government would lead to a republican president in '08 if the dems nominate Hillary and the R's nominate anybody reasonable. But I guess you never know. <hr /></blockquote>

That's a pretty good analysis. My only concern is the Dems will self destruct....and take the country with them.
Hopefully, the Reps have learned something from all of this...you can't be a RINO and expect to hold the conservative base. I think the election was more of a showing of dis-satisfaction with the movement to the left by the party. Voters want a choice, and for the past few years we haven't had one. The fiscal policies of this administration are anything but conservative. They have failed to stand up to the left, and they paid for it. Wasting time and effort debating gay marriage when they would have been better off taking a stand against illegal immigration.

Well, the Dems have a couple of years to show us who they are, and the Reps have a couple of years to figure out who their support base is.
Steve

Qtec
11-09-2006, 09:02 PM
[ QUOTE ]
GOPs next move? <hr /></blockquote> .............a change of underwear?

They really must be shi^^ing themselves now that the Dems have control.
Imagine, the Dems can now get to see docs about the Iraq war etc that have never been released!

Q

wolfdancer
11-10-2006, 06:58 AM
you should be working for Fox with the spin you are putting on
the issues. Even they could not come up with the idea of voting in the left, because the right's policies were too leftist.
Maybe you can give us a few examples of how the Dems will self-destruct, and take the country with it?

Qtec
11-10-2006, 07:29 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Even they could not come up with the idea of voting in the left, because the right's policies were too leftist. <hr /></blockquote>

LMAO /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Q

Gayle in MD
11-10-2006, 09:36 AM
The polls all showed, the voters issues were, in order of importance, Reublican Corruption, the economy, (Some people know things aren't great) Immigration, and Iraq.

We will now have SOME debate, investigation, and checks and balances for the first time in six years. Republicans, wouldn't even let Democrats SEE the bills they had to vote for. The Republican Congress, WAS a blank check for Bush. Now, for the first time since taking office, Little Bushy will have to get the hell off his high horse, stop the lies, and DEAL!

High time, and perhaps, just in time.

If Nancy Pelosi, keeps her word, and after doing some research on her, I believe she will, the Republicans can forget 08. Their deceitful semantics have gotten old. Americans have made their statement about corruption, deceit, and power mongering. All Pelosi has to do is complete the 9/11 recommendations, reform Earmarks, and Ethics standards, along with her promise for Pay As You Go.

One important investigation will be to expose and resolve the issues of illegal practices in Bush's Signing Statements, which every constitutional Expert agrees, were illegal and unconstitutional.

Democrats have their work cut out for them, but after six years of being blocked from doing their jobs, I think they will make the most of the present opportunity. As for 08, I am predicting a previously unexpected candidate, whose name only jack and dick know, and they're not going to tell! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Gayle in Md.

Deeman3
11-10-2006, 10:11 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> As for 08, I am predicting a previously unexpected candidate, whose name only jack and dick know, and they're not going to tell! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue"> A agree with a lot fo what yo say. We gfot some fo what we deserved and will now get it from the other corrupt side. However, i do question that a candidate that is only know to three people, at this point, will be able to garner enough name recognition and standing to be ready for 2008. You might as well have Obama run as a complete unknown. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif</font color>

DeeMan

Gayle in MD
11-10-2006, 10:37 AM
You're kidding, right? I'm just saying, that only Dick and Jack know my prediction ... not that no one knows the candidate.

Yes, Republicans got just what they deserved, unfortunately, others got much worse, that they didn't deserve, tax payers, and our troops.

At any rate, we have a shot at improvment of our present circumstances. Surely, blocking Bush's ability to avoid responsibility for his failures, and poor leadership, and judgement, is a good thing. My take is that if Republicans had won, he wouldn't have gotten rid of Rumsfeld. Getting rid of Rumsfeld give our troops a shot at not having to continue being slaughtered. I'm happy for that. I think that we should get them all out, phased redeployment to the peripheral. I am looking forward to Baker's group's recommendations. I think it's ironic, that Bush, who criticized his Father's advisor's decisions of years ago, is now having to get suggestions from the same people on how the hell to settle this mess he's made.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
11-10-2006, 10:49 AM
Powell promised his wife that he would never run for president. If he ran, though, I'd definately vote for him. I think he would be a good leader, and decision maker. And I also think, he would appoint the right people to cabinet positions, and Agencies.

Can you define for me your own interpretation of extreme leftist? Not being sarcastic, just curious. Thanks...

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in Md.

wolfdancer
11-10-2006, 11:19 AM
Talk about bad luck...they not only lose the election...but Camp Jesus has been closed due to the negative publicity. no more kids worshiping at a picture of GWB....nor testifying, about wanting more in life and being saved at age 5. Only thing missing at this recruitment center for young Christian Republicans, Camp Brainwash...was the brown shirt uniforms.
there are many disturbing video clips about this at youtube.
I even wrote them a song, but now that it's closed...shoot
"Hello Mr... hello Mrs.
send your kid here to Camp Jesus
Once they come, they never leave us
....not until hell freezes
There's fresh air here, and there's prayer here
and they'll soon be down upon their kneeses
we got bed's here, and there's Ted here
send your son, it's so much fun
here at Camp Jesus "

Deeman3
11-10-2006, 11:35 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> You're kidding, right? I'm just saying, that only Dick and Jack know my prediction ... not that no one knows the candidate.

<font color="blue"> Yes, I was kidding, note the smirk face..... /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif </font color>

DeeMan

JPB
11-10-2006, 02:09 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Powell promised his wife that he would never run for president. If he ran, though, I'd definately vote for him. I think he would be a good leader, and decision maker. And I also think, he would appoint the right people to cabinet positions, and Agencies.

Can you define for me your own interpretation of extreme leftist? Not being sarcastic, just curious. Thanks...

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

When I use this term I am generally thinking of economic positions. I think a lot of people on both sides get mixed up because of inconsistencies. So it is hard to categorize people because those on the so called right often take positions that aren't IMO conservative; they tend to support bigger government and increased state control, just over different issues than those on the "left." I consider those who support a lot of government spending leftists. The current president is on the left economically I think. When tax cuts are discussed, they often talk about how revenue increases with tax cuts. (I agree, but don't think that is the reason to cut taxes.) So then somebody on the left who is for tax cuts would spend the money on a leftist program. Many, if not most, republicans are leftists. They support the New Deal programs, all kinds of welfare, welfare increases, i.e. medicare prescriptions, farm subsidies, etc... Somebody on the extreme left is vocal about it and supports socialism. Hillary supported socialized medicine which makes her both wrong and IMO an extreme leftist. She is trying to portray herself as moderate. But you can see when I consider President Bush a lefty economically, I don't have a whole lot of love for those to the left of him.

I guess a good example to discuss is one that is fairly unemotional. How the different sides view the FCC is sort of interesting to me. I do not think the FCC should exist, I do not think the government should regulate content or hand out franchises for airwaves. The government should protect property rights to broadcast on a given frequency that should be established by a rational process akin to homesteading. That is what I think. But the FCC was an extreme example of collectivism. I do not see how anybody on the so-called right could support it. It is an example of trying to make everything public property and force people to play along with a large central government. The concern with media companies being too big or owning too many outlets is a left wing idea IMO. Well, when it started it was a left wing deal. But now you see people on the right use the governmental apparatus that has been built up with left wing ideas and high taxes for their own socially conservative purposes. Like threaten the networks of a nipple shows because of some fear that pornography is against their religion or whatever. So you have endless fights between the "left" and "right" that are pretty absurd. In the end you have people fighting to use government resources and power for different social ends. So in a sense both are socialist parties, because they both tacitly agree that the state has the right to be a partner in private property and that governmental power can be used against individuals for the collective "good."

So that is where I am coming from in a roundabout way. I have always been a republican or identified with them, but I have also always been a lot closer to the Goldwater end of the party than the Santorum-type end or the Rockefeller types, or the Nixon wage and price control types. It is hard for me now because I disagree with so much that goes on. Doesn't mean I like the dems either. It is just pretty hard to find much I like on either side of the aisle, although I still tend to stick with the R's. Most would identify me as a libertarian, which is fairly accurate. Still not 100% accurate. I am sort of happy now to see republicans starting to talk about going back to Goldwater/Reagan kind of ideas. Happened fast after this defeat. We'll see if anything comes of it.

Long way of explaining more about where I am coming from on Hillary I guess.

wolfdancer
11-10-2006, 03:40 PM
nAz, you got it all wrong....first off, Cheney ain't got no heart, and I'd guess also sold his soul some years back. Colin Powell don't want anything to do with these people...I'm surprised he hasn't resorted to drinks or drugs, to try and forget, as an intelligent Military officer that the Commander-in-Chief, is some National Guard dropout, that thought he was going to go down in history as a Modern day Napoleon. The difference is though...Napoleon led his men, and won a few before he lost.
"When does the incompetence end and the crime begin?" asked an appalled German Chancellor in the First World War when the German army commander said he intended to resume his bloody and doomed assaults on the French fortress city of Verdun."
So, if John McCain got us out of Iraq...it would be an exit strategy, not a cut and run....brilliant !!
They have already laid some blame on this war, on Jimmy Carter....forgetting in the process, that GB1 helped empower Saddam.
Frankly, the Dems have inherited a mess, won't be able to solve it before 08, but hopefully they will launch investigations into all these deals,restore some fiscal accountability, put a lid on the corruption,and expose those responsible... even if they can't be charged due to Presidential pardons.
Even though John McCain would make a fine candidate, the Dems could run Barney Franks against any Republican and win.

pooltchr
11-10-2006, 05:54 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> you should be working for Fox with the spin you are putting on
the issues. Even they could not come up with the idea of voting in the left, because the right's policies were too leftist.
Maybe you can give us a few examples of how the Dems will self-destruct, and take the country with it?
<hr /></blockquote>

That's not spin..it's just the way I see things.

I already posted my predictions for what to expect from a Dem controlled congress in another thread.

Steve

Gayle in MD
11-10-2006, 08:13 PM
Thank you, it was a pleasure reading your post. My feelings are much like your own, in many ways. I really don't consider myself married to either party, as my voting record would show, and I have strong disagreements with both the Dems, and the repubs. Each administration seems to develop it's own personality, whether Democratic, or Republican. I do think, though, that many Republicans don't realize the damage our country has suffered, due to Bush's Tax structure, his subsidies, and lower ecology standards for, Corporations, such as the Oil Industry, and his foreign trade policies.

I would have to say, though, that I do believe, that the Democratic Party, still does represent the Middle Class in our country, far more so than Republicans do, and also, that Democrats, have historically, had much more compassion and legislation for those who live in poverty, while Republcians seem to harbor nothing but contempt for them.

Gayle in Md.

pooltchr
11-10-2006, 08:49 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> I do believe, that the Democratic Party, still does represent the Middle Class in our country, far more so than Republicans do, and also, that Democrats, have historically, had much more compassion and legislation for those who live in poverty, while Republcians seem to harbor nothing but contempt for them.

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

It's easy to be compassionate when you are doing it with someone else's money (yours, mine, and the middle class tax payer's money). Dems have historically held the poor back by offering incentives designed to keep the poor at the mercy of government social programs. If someone gives you everything you need, what is the incentive to go out and work. Just collect more money from the people who actually do pay taxes, and give it away to those who don't. That isn't compassion, but it's an easy way to buy votes!
I consider myself to be middle class...and the Dems do not represent me at all!
Steve

Gayle in MD
11-10-2006, 09:03 PM
Steve,
If you think you've been represented by these Republicans, and Bush, I feel sorry for you...

[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote> Dems have historically held the poor back by offering incentives designed to keep the poor at the mercy of government social programs. [ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>

Have you ever heard of hunger? Do you know the statistics on how many children in this country, go to bed hungry, every night? I don't think charity and giving people a hand, when they're down and out, puts them at anyone's mercy, in fact, I think that doing so, is merciful. No president has ever hurt the hungry, and the poorest among us, or the Middle Class, as much as George Bush, and no Congress, in the history of this country, has ever diverted so much money to the richest among us, as this one.

I'm too angry to write anything else at the present.

Gayle in Md. \
Have had enough of Compassionate conservativism...

pooltchr
11-10-2006, 09:14 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> I don't think charity and giving people a hand, when they're down and out, puts them at anyone's mercy, in fact, I think that doing so, is merciful.
<hr /></blockquote>

I totally agree. Charity to those who need help is a great thing. Forcing people into giving by taking money in the form of taxes and handing it out is not charity. It's nothing more than a redistribution of wealth.
Steve

Gayle in MD
11-11-2006, 10:43 AM
Steve,
What the hell do you think Bush's present tax cuts, and subsidies are doing? Redistribution of wealth, only it's all going upwards, to the rich. You need to do some reading about this. Whether your family makes $30,000 or 300,000 a year, you are being robbed because the IRS and other institutions have been systematically corrupted-under both Republicans and Democratic administrations-to serve the needs of people who make millions.

Roberto Goizueta, CEO of Coca-Cola, built a billion dollar personal fortune without paying a dime in taxes on it.

Ingersoll-Rand pays $26,000 a year to maintain a Bermuda post office box as its legal headquarters. That little trick lets it escape $40 million in corporate taxes.

The data is damning. One of the greatest social shifts in America in the past half-century is the growing gap between the rich and the rest, in terms of income and wealth. Most striking is the reason for the division. In the 1990's it was not that the poor were getting poorer-they weren't. Rather, the inequaliy was entirely the result of an astonishing increase in wealth among the very top individuals and families, in a concentration of capital not seen since the Guilded Age.


while corporations paid a third of all federal tax receipts in 1943 and 25% in the 1950's, this percentage fell to only 7% by 2001 (Its even lower now) Putting the U.S. twenty-eighth out of twenty-nine OECD countries (Organized for Economic Cooperation and Development); only Iceland is lower. At the same time, the ability of corporations to threaten to flee to low-tax states or countries has significantly reduced their local tax bill. And according to IRS estimates, American companies and wealthy individuals dodged seventy-five billion dollars annually in owed taxes by establishing phony offices or mail drops in offshore tax havens. After Bush's dividend reductions, this is money not even taxed once. Yet in late 2003, the Republican House-nitwithstanding the ballooning deficit and declining share of corporate taxes-was pushing hard for 142 billion more in reductions in, of course, corporate taxes.

In George W. Bush we have a president who's a fourth generation business heir, a man who never really pounded the pavement but accumulated his wealth through family contacts and favors. As president, he moves aggressively and successfully to enact a fiscal program that (a) reduces taxes on the "Investor class" more in percentage terms than on the middle class, (b) abolishes the "dead billionaires' tax" (estate tax), (c) shifts the burden of taxes to "earned" income and away from "Unearned income" (dividends and capital gains), and, for good measure, (d) changes IRS practice so fewer multi-millionaires are audited and more poor people are. (The number of civiil fraud penalties against corporations plunged two-thirds, from 555 in 1993 to 159 in 2002.) Given that tax cuts for the top 1 percent equal all the cuts to the bottom 90 percent - and given the trillions of dollars quietly shifting from the accounts of labor and future generations to today's investor class- George W. Bush is redistributing wealth far more than George McGovern or Huey Long ever dreamed possible. These large movements of money reflect the law of intended consequences and are neither incidental nor accidental. For Bush to attack others for engaging in class warfare os the speeder blaming the radar gun.

In an op-ed entitled "Billionaires Don't Need Another Tax Break," Warren buffet analyzed the effect of the proposed tax break on dividends;

[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote> the taxes I pay to the federal government are roughly the same proportion of my income - - about 30 percent - as that paid by the receptionist in our office. My case is not atypical - my capital gains and ordinary income-nor it is affected by tax shelters (I've never used any.) As it works out, I pay a somewhat higher rate for my combination of salary, investment and capital gain income than our receptionist does. But, she pays a far higher portion of her income in payroll taxes than I do.

Now the Senate says that dividends should be tax-free to recipients. Suppose this measure goes through and the director of Berkshire Hathaway (which does not now pay a dividend) therefore decide to pay $1 billion in dividends next year. Owning 31 percent of Berkshire, I would receive $310 million in additional income, owe not another dime in federal tax and see my tax rate plunge to 3 percent.

And our receptionist? She'd still be paying about 30 percent, which means she would be contributing about ten times the proportion of her income that I would to such government pursuits as fighting terrorism, waging wars and supporting the elderly. Let me repeat the point: Her overal federal tax rate would be ten times what my rate would be. [ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>

Yet Karl Rove insists that when President Bush has "a choice between Wall Street and Main sTreet," he comes down on the side of "the little guty." This is elitism masquerading as populism, as even conservative economists and commentators acknowledge. Econsmist Keven Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute agrees that it "makes perfect sense" that Bush's tax plans had a pro-rich, anti-middle-class redistributional impact. "The middle class is predominately labor income," and Bush's cuts help those enjoying "unearned income" like capital gains. Christopher Caldwell, senior editor at the conservative Weekly Standard argues that...

[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote> The middle class benefits in this plan are wholly illusory...In a modern economy, relative wealth matters. The middle class, in certain circumstances, must compete against the rich as if in a luxury market-not just for luxury goods, but for the staples of life. What do middle class parents want for their children? A house in a neighborhood with a good public school system, orthodontia, a college education, maybe even (heaven forbid) a kidney transplant. The prices for all these commodities will be bid up when top earners start getting their annual five figure windfalls. [ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>

Putting numbers to these conclusions was the Citizens for Tax Justice. Interest owed on the debt for the tuypical middle class family will be $1,200 annually, or more than double their average $578 tax savings, by 2006; yet the top 1 percent's tax savings would significantly exceed any interest paid on their debt. Ultimately, rhetoric about a "jobs and growth" program for the middle class is. to borrow David Stockman's famour phrase to describe Reaganomics, a "trojan horse" to hide a policy that's more about transfering wealth than creating it.

These paragraphs are from the book Perfectly Legal which was written in 2004. The predicted resulting effects of Bush's tax cuts have grown beyond the chasm predicted by the author, Mr. David Kay Johnston, Pulitzer Prize Winning Author....

It is only one of many many books written by economists, and former IRS Agents, describing the horrendous financial assault on the middle class, for the benefit of the rich. BTW, it took fifteen years to pay down the huge deficits left by Reaganomics, which left our country in a recession. Bush has taken his methods to even greater extremes, with more sophisticated false statistical figures, and accounting methods, probably assisted by his buddy Ken Lay. Every single thing this man has doen since he took office, has been skewed towards benefitting the wealthiest one percent, a great majority of whom pay NO taxes.

Pahleeze...don't talk to me about redistributing wealth, and what you THINK the government is doing with your money.

Gayle in Md.

pooltchr
11-11-2006, 05:01 PM
It just kills you that someone might have more than someone else, doesn't it? Those who work for wealth, deserve to spend it as they see fit. Those who choose to slide through school without getting an education, and don't take action to work for a living, deserve exactly what they get as well.....but with all the social programs, they end up getting more than they deserve!
Steve

Gayle in MD
11-12-2006, 07:57 AM
Now, tell me why you think it would kill me? I live a very comfortable existance, but I don't happen to think the the government should be taking money from the middle class, to give to the rich. I think that is redistribution of wealth. However, I am for Americans have a minimum wage which they won't starve on. You know, Steve, between the two of us, you're the one who comes from the extreme, not me. The majority of the people in this country, approve the minimum wage increase. Not only that, but the states who have implemented their own increase have proven that it has been an economic stimulation, not a drain.

Now on Bush's economic policies, we obviously can't discuss them with any reasonalbe debate, because you have not studied the results. And that is obvious, in your posts. I'm not trying to insult you, just stating a fact.

The economic changes remaking our world are affecting all of us from the blue-collar workers whose wages have been falling for the past three decades to the investment bankers whose incomes have soared along with their clients' assets. The response of our elected leadres has been to adjust the tax system to shift the tax burdens onto those with good incomes and little political power.

The clear trend in America for the past two decades has been to cut taxes on the rich and to raise taxes on those in the middle class and the upper middle class to make up part of the difference. This was done largely by collecting excess Social Security taxes decades in advance of when benefits would be paid. This trend is growing as the alternative minimum tax hits middle class families.

Warren Buffet says that on his last dollar of income he pays a lower marginal tax rate than his secretary. He is right. If his last dollar of income is a dividend or capital gain, he pays just 15 cents in income taxes. His secretary pays 15.3 cents in Social Security and Medicare taxes when both the part deducted from her paycheck and the share paid by her employer are counted. And if she is in the 25 percent income tax bracket, then the combination of income, Social Security and Medicare taxes takes from her last dollar of income more than 40 cents.

For three fourths of Americans the Social Security tax is a bigger levy than the income tax. Those excess Social Security taxes rob many of their capacity to save, while tax cuts for the rich expand that group's capacity to save. A tax rate structure that falls too heavily on most Americans and lets the most prosperous save more means that over time the already huge gap in wealth will widen even more. The income tax is collected only against reported income-and therein lies the real issue about our tax system. The rich have myriad ways to avoid recognizing income for tax pruposes, most of them perfectly legal. For those who are daring, the past decade has been a period of lax tax law enforcement in which tax evasion was openly advertised. A few people were cuaght, but the vast majority of cheats are richer today for their crimes. Congress needs to stop finding ways to let people aboid reporting income and to shift to a system that requires income recognition sooner, not later, and reqauires that taxes be paid imediately.

There is much talk these days about our income tax as a socialist redistribution scheme. That is indeed what it has become. As Orwell taught us, ours is like all systems in which some animals are more equal than others-it is the pigs who grow economically fat off the tax system.

We have systematically taken away the ability of most Americans to save by taxing tham too heaviliy, and we have expanded the capacity of those with the most to save even more by lowering their taxes.\

The tax system today is not promoting prosperity based on individual enterprise and thriftiness. It is instead working, as all socialist redistribution schemes do, to enrich and benefit those who have access to the levers of power. In America that is the political donor class.

Personal attacks, without any factual argument, have been the tactic of most on the right on this forum. Debate is a whole lot more interesting, and rewarding, when people share what they have learned, IMO, but have at it Steve.

Gayle in Md.

Bobbyrx
11-12-2006, 08:31 AM
Factual argument<font color="blue"> http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200512070900.asp </font color> And I submit anyone who begins a sentence "As Orwell taught us" is definitely not in the main stream.

pooltchr
11-12-2006, 10:14 AM
Gayle,
I agree with a good bit of your post. Our tax program is totally out of control. I would submit that you read Neal Boortz book on the Fair Tax plan. It is a workable and fair solution to many of the problems we are facing today.
Let's tax consumption rather than earnings. That way, everyone pays a fair share.
Steve

Gayle in MD
11-12-2006, 10:46 AM
Steve,
Ill read it, if you'll read Perfectly Legal, by: David Kay Johnston...

/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gifDeal????

pooltchr
11-12-2006, 12:23 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Steve,
Ill read it, if you'll read Perfectly Legal, by: David Kay Johnston...

/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gifDeal???? <hr /></blockquote>
Agreed.
Steve

eg8r
11-13-2006, 06:25 AM
[ QUOTE ]
You need to do some reading about this. Whether your family makes $30,000 or 300,000 a year, you are being robbed because the IRS and other institutions have been systematically corrupted-under both Republicans and Democratic administrations-to serve the needs of people who make millions.
<hr /></blockquote> I never correlated more money in my pocket with being robbed. The Dems hold back the poor in this country.

eg8r

eg8r
11-13-2006, 06:25 AM
The rich keep doing the things that made them rich, the poor keep doing the things that make them poor.

eg8r

eg8r
11-13-2006, 06:27 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Now, tell me why you think it would kill me? I live a very comfortable existance, but I don't happen to think the the government should be taking money from the middle class, to give to the rich. I think that is redistribution of wealth. <hr /></blockquote> Are there any examples of this. It is easy to prove the other direction, increased taxes on the wealthy coincide with increase handouts for the poor. What I am looking for are examples of the redistribution of money from the middle to the rich. You keep spouting this crap, for once could you show some examples?

eg8r

Qtec
11-13-2006, 07:55 AM
The rich exploit the poor and the poor keep getting exploited.
Sounds like a recipe for disaster if you ask me.

Whats the chances of both Pres candidates belonging to a secretive, exclusive club that only admits 12 people every year.
If it was pure chance, the odds would be BILLIONS to one.


Enough with the BS already Ed.

Q

eg8r
11-13-2006, 12:09 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Whats the chances of both Pres candidates belonging to a secretive, exclusive club that only admits 12 people every year.
If it was pure chance, the odds would be BILLIONS to one.


Enough with the BS already Ed. <hr /></blockquote> Ha, only if you promised to start first. I just call it as I see it.

eg8r