COL Gene COL Gene

THE BUSH POLICIES ARE WORKING

▼

THE BUSH POLICIES ARE WORKING

for those who they were intended to help!

from JoeUser Forums

Sometime ago, Bush addressed a wealthy audience and put his finger on the problem with his policies. He said, some call you the haves and the wealthy, I call you MY BASE.

That truth is what is wrong with the policies of George W. Bush and the other conservative Republicans who push them through the Congress. By definition, the truly wealthy in this country represent maybe 5% of the total population. If you include the upper end of the middle income Americans you might get to 10%. The Bush policies, with conservative backing in Congress, have passed into law policies that benefit that 5% or 10% of the population. They ARE WORKING for that small group of Americans! They shift wealth from the middle to the upper income brackets and totally ignore the needs of the poor.

Therefore, most Republicans who have supported Bush and the conservatives in Congress are not in that group that benefit from the Bush policies. The vast majority of Republicans, like most Democrats, are not in top 5% or 10%. The shame is that most of the people who doggedly support Bush and the conservative Republicans in Congress are actually putting individuals into power who are acting against their best long-term interest.
politics
15,477 views 62 replies
Reply #51 from JoeUser Forums Top
Gene, the country was issued a Mulligan in 2004 - the majority concluded 2000 was not a "mistake."

And, as you know perfectly well, Bush was making a joke about people like you when he made that remark.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #52 from JoeUser Forums Top
Gene, thank you for correcting my mistake. I was wrong to accuse you of not wanting a smaller budget. I am sorry. I apologize.

It's very easy to talk about taxing the rich when you say "them them them" all the time. Would you be preaching the same sermon if it was "me me me" instead?

Does your theory of progressive taxation change when it's applied to your own wealth?

Are you convinced that your current tax rate is the maximum you can afford to pay, or would you be in favor of a tax increase in your own bracket?
Siege of Centauri
Reply #53 from JoeUser Forums Top
Stutefish

Before I retired I had a the low six figuar income and paid more in taxes than many other with a lower income. I had no problem with paying more when my income was higher. My point is that the wealthy received large cuts predicated on a surplus Bush told us existed. That was the justification for the tax cuts. If you play back his statements in 2001-2002 that was the claim. He said the economy would produce $5.7 Trillion surplus in the following 10 years. When it became clear there was NO SURPLUS, the tax cuts should have been reversed. We are borrowing money to give tax cuts to people that do not need the added money. Will they take it? - Sure Do they need it? Hell NO. To go further into debt to continue the tax cuts is NUTS! We need to take the tax rates back to the rates in effect before we were told we had this surplus that only existed in the small mind of Bush! In addition, we now are facing large new expendatures that requires even more new revenue. The cost of the recovery will be very great. To add to the cost by borrowing the money makes no sense! At some point, the people buying our debt may decide that we have too much debt. At that point our country has a major problen! 40% of our public debt is held by foreign investors. This has NOTHING to do with a dislike for the wealthy. It has everything to do for what is best, long term, for this country. We must start paying for our level of spending. We should cut the pork ( 232 Million to build a bridge where 50 people live in Alaska. WHY? Becaure o f the Republican head of the Tarnsprtation committee. Did we have Pork when the Democrats were in control - YES. However, the Republicans have outdone the Democrats when it comes to Pork!
Reply #54 from JoeUser Forums Top
Stutefish

Before I retired I had a the low six figuar income and paid more in taxes than many other with a lower income. I had no problem with paying more when my income was higher. My point is that the wealthy received large cuts predicated on a surplus Bush told us existed. That was the justification for the tax cuts. If you play back his statements in 2001-2002 that was the claim. He said the economy would produce $5.7 Trillion surplus in the following 10 years. When it became clear there was NO SURPLUS, the tax cuts should have been reversed. We are borrowing money to give tax cuts to people that do not need the added money. Will they take it? - Sure Do they need it? Hell NO. To go further into debt to continue the tax cuts is NUTS! We need to take the tax rates back to the rates in effect before we were told we had this surplus that only existed in the small mind of Bush! In addition, we now are facing large new expendatures that requires even more new revenue. The cost of the recovery will be very great. To add to the cost by borrowing the money makes no sense! At some point, the people buying our debt may decide that we have too much debt. At that point our country has a major problen! 40% of our public debt is held by foreign investors. This has NOTHING to do with a dislike for the wealthy. It has everything to do for what is best, long term, for this country. We must start paying for our level of spending. We should cut the pork ( 232 Million to build a bridge where 50 people live in Alaska. WHY? Becaure o f the Republican head of the Tarnsprtation committee. Did we have Pork when the Democrats were in control - YES. However, the Republicans have outdone the Democrats when it comes to Pork!


Jeez col....I really wish you'd get over all this. For ALL your complaining and whining just what do you expect to change? You and dabe "both" need to face the fact that Bush ain't leaving office, you are not going to able to impeach him or try him for some crime (that only you see.). All these have been tried and "FAILED"! So he's in office till 08. Come hell or high water. And whether or not you'll admit it, he's not about to change his policies to suit you. So ease up will ya?
Reply #55 from JoeUser Forums Top
just a simple question gene, ok?

what is better 21% of 11 million or 45% of 3.2 million? which brings in greater revenue in taxes?
Reply #56 from JoeUser Forums Top
What is the point?

You can not make a case that a person like Cheney is paying too much tax at a 21% tax rate. He got a $300,000 tax cut predicated on a surplus that NEVER existed. Since there was nothing to give back, the tax rates should return to the pre 2001 rates! You never answer why should we have the tax cuts that were to return something that did not exist. We are borrowing money to give the wealthy tax cuts! We will then pass that debt to our children. What a GREAT plan. We are luckey our parents did not do that to us!
Reply #57 from JoeUser Forums Top
Col, everyone who pay taxes got a cut, not just the "evil rich".
Reply #58 from JoeUser Forums Top
We are luckey our parents did not do that to us!

- Col. Tukhachevsky, I mean, Abel

We sure are. All this generation's parents did was leave us the costs stemming from the Great Society. They, in turn, were given the costs of New Deal legislation that we are still paying to this day.

Don't get me wrong, Col., Bush still sucks a big one. You, however, are no moderate Rupublican. You're a fairly devout Marxist-Leninist. You're as much the enemy of the American people as Bush is. He's a well-meaning idiot. You're treacherous.
Reply #59 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ah. I finally figured out what you're doing, Gene. You're not actually trying to justify progressive taxation.

You're just trying to explain why now was a bad time to repeal unjustifiable taxes.

The flaw in your argument is that there's never really a "good time" to cut revenues. No economy ever seems strong enough or stable enough for a revenue cut to seem like a good idea.

And part of the reason the American economy isn't as robust as it could or should be is because people like you keep promoting "solutions" like socialism that don't really work and only make the situation worse.

At least we agree there should be less pork in the budget.
Reply #60 from JoeUser Forums Top
At least we agree there should be less pork in the budget.


Christ even "I'll" agree with that!
Reply #61 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well, it's a start, anyway. Maybe we should team up and pool our anti-pork efforts. Leave all the things we disagree about for later.
Reply #62 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well, it's a start, anyway. Maybe we should team up and pool our anti-pork efforts. Leave all the things we disagree about for later


How about we look at "where" the pork is coming from in the first place. I'll tell you this much for a fact. The "major" portion is not coming from Bush! It's coming from Congress. Although sad to say he does contribute some to the overall picture.