Hillary Clinton --- Is this true?

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
I'm sure you're not one of GWBs rich cronies but are you going to send yours back in?

You always cry about the tax cuts for the rich (just who that is is up for debate) but I've don't think I've EVER heard one person say they are willing to voluntarily send extra in. Would you?

These are two simple questions and a yes or no will suffice.

FYI, what tax cut? Whatever cut we received on the Federal level has been more than taken away on the state level via new fees (we don't raise taxes according to the Republican governor of Florida. We increase "fees").

As far as sending the cut back or paying more, the answer is no as long as black holes like Halliburton misplace 1.8 billion dollars of the taxpayer's money. I always heard about how the "welfare queens" ripped off the taxpayer. How come no one in this White House complains about Halliburton?

How come............what the hell was I thinking!

Btw, remember those meals Halliburton contracted out to provide for the troops? My friend has a son outside Fallujah. Do you know what he wrote to us...........there's not enough food and whatever food there is is terrible. Do you want to know something else? We're sending flea collars to Justin and his buddies because the sand fleas are so bad in Iraq.

Oh yeah, this administration is taking care of the troops. As my father used to say "in goool".

All you Italian Americans know exactly what he meant.

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by bsears
Didn't president Bush say just the other day that there was no point in rolling back the tax cuts for the rich because they would just find a way to avoid them anyway? I would think that is the problem most have with the rich and their taxes. That they have the ability to avoid paying a proportionate share.

Yup, you heard that correctly. Some more wit and wisdom from George Bush.

 

[peachgirl]

Originally posted by bsears
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 13 Aug 2004 at 03:15:03 PM GMT is:

$7,334,519,089,578.18

The estimated population of the United States is 293,934,237
so each citizen's share of this debt is $24,952.92.

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$1.73 billion per day since September 30, 2003!



http://brillig.com/debt_clock/

Here's a couple of upbeat facts....


"With two months still to go in the government's budget year, the federal deficit has hit a record 395.8 billion."

"This year will mark the third consecutive budget deficit after four straight years of surpluses"

Third year..hmmm...anyone see a pattern here?

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by ThAnswr
FYI, what tax cut? Whatever cut we received on the Federal level has been more than taken away on the state level via new fees (we don't raise taxes according to the Republican governor of Florida. We increase "fees").

As far as sending the cut back or paying more, the answer is no as long as black holes like Halliburton misplace 1.8 billion dollars of the taxpayer's money. I always heard about how the "welfare queens" ripped off the taxpayer. How come no one in this White House complains about Halliburton?

How come............what the hell was I thinking!

Btw, remember those meals Halliburton contracted out to provide for the troops? My friend has a son outside Fallujah. Do you know what he wrote to us...........there's not enough food and whatever food there is is terrible. Do you want to know something else? We're sending flea collars to Justin and his buddies because the sand fleas are so bad in Iraq.

Oh yeah, this administration is taking care of the troops. As my father used to say "in goool".

All you Italian Americans know exactly what he meant.

All I wanted was a simple yes or no. It really wasn't that hard, was it?

BTW, I'm not Italian but I know what that means.

 

[bsears]

Reports: Bush tax cuts help rich

Congressional Budget Office says tax burden fell for those making $1M, increased for lower levels.
August 13, 2004: 7:22 AM EDT



NEW YORK (Reuters) - President George W. Bush's tax cuts have transferred the federal tax burden from the richest Americans to middle-class families, with one-third of the cuts benefiting people with the top 1 percent of income, according to a government report cited in newspapers Friday.

The Congressional Budget Office report, to be released Friday, is likely to fuel the debate over the cuts between Bush and his Democratic challenger in November, Sen. John Kerry.

The report said the top 1 percent, with incomes averaging $1.2 million per year, will receive an average $78,460 tax cut this year, and have seen their share of the total tax burden fall roughly 2 percentage points to 20.1 percent, according to The New York Times.

In contrast, households in the middle 20 percent, with incomes averaging $57,000 per year, will receive an average cut of only $1,090, the newspaper said, citing the CBO report.

Taxpayers whose incomes range from $51,500 to about $75,600 saw their share of federal tax payments increase, according to CBO figures cited by The Washington Post.

The calculations, requested by congressional Democrats, confirm the long-held view by independent tax analysts that the tax cuts, enacted in 2001 and 2003, have heavily favored the wealthiest taxpayers, the Times said.

Bush has said the cuts provided crucial support to the U.S. economy after the Sept. 11 attacks and the three-year decline in U.S. stocks.

But Kerry, who wants to roll back the cuts for households whose incomes top $200,000 per year, has said the cuts did little for the economy and helped cause the federal budget to swing from a more than $100 billion surplus in 2001 to a projected deficit exceeding $400 billion this year.

The newspapers, citing the CBO report, said about two-thirds of the benefits from the cuts went to households in the top 20 percent, with an average income of $203,740.

People in the lowest 20 percent of earnings, which averaged $16,620, saw their effective tax rate fall to 5.2 from 6.7 percent, though their average tax cut was only $250.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/13/news/economy/election_taxes.reut/

 

[bsears]

and just to be clear

"CBO is nonpartisan, it's independent, and right now it works for a Republican Congress with a former Bush economist at its head," said Jason Furman, economic director of the presidential campaign of Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.). "There's no higher authority on the subject."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61178-2004Aug12.html

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Umm, Did Michael Moore give a speech, 'cause I must have missed that ? Moore was not "treated like royalty", he was treated as every other celebrity visitor to the convention. Period.
in ?

Off the main subject, but of interest:

Moore sat with right next to Carter--who was given speechtime and who told Moore, "There's noone else I would have liked to sit with".

Moore was more than welcomed with open arms. . .here's his speech that was given at a Boston hotel.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1180107/posts

Here are some snips from that speech:
They are not patriots; they are hate-triots, and they believe in the politics of hate-triotism. Hate-triotism is where they stand, and patriotism is where real Americans stand. And that is the truth and that needs to be reported.

or this one?

"They are better fighters than we are. You have to give them their props for that.They are up at six in the morning trying to figure out which -- you know -- minority group they are going to screw today -- the hate that they eat for breakfast," Moore said.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
All I wanted was a simple yes or no. It really wasn't that hard, was it?

BTW, I'm not Italian but I know what that means.

This is a large part of the problem...This type of issue is ini no way a "simple yes or no" kind of thing, no matter how many times Republicans try to reduce it to such. Why is it that complex issues seem to scare the bejesus out of the right ? Trying to reduce an issue as complex as the national budget deficit to "a simple yes or no" might make it easy to understand...but it makes it a helluva lot easier to misunderstand as well.

And Kendra, I'm fairly certain that EVERY celebrity was seated in those same boxes, just like Moore. I know I saw quite a few seated around Hillary alone, including (but not limited to) Ben Affleck and Rob Reiner. Celebrities (both political and Hollywood) were given access to those areas as a group, not on a "favored son" status. As for Carter, I didn't realize he'd suddenly become the Democratic party...What is this, 1976 ?

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by wvrevy
And Kendra, I'm fairly certain that EVERY celebrity was seated in those same boxes, just like Moore. I know I saw quite a few seated around Hillary alone, including (but not limited to) Ben Affleck and Rob Reiner. Celebrities (both political and Hollywood) were given access to those areas as a group, not on a "favored son" status. As for Carter, I didn't realize he'd suddenly become the Democratic party...What is this, 1976 ?

Oh, come on. . .Carter has become one of the major-Anti-Bush Democrats and the Party has not distanced themselves from him one bit.

As for Moore, sitting with a past president IS considered an "honor'. . .that kind of seating arrangement is a show of tacit approval of Moore.

 

[peachgirl]

Carter has become one of the major-Anti-Bush Democrats and the Party has not distanced themselves from him one bit.

The Democratic party should distance themselves from former President Carter because he's against Bush?????



As I recall, Bush aligned himself fairly closely with Rush Limbaugh.

"Rush is a great American," who has championed the conservative movement for decades, Bush reportedly said.

I think I'd call it a wash.

 

[Kendra17]

Your response is no surprise. As usual, you don't pay attention. I was responding to wrevy, who sarcastically--but with humor--asked--is it 1976?

I pointed out that, despite it NOT being 1976, Carter has been given renewed esteem by the Democratic Party. However, he's full of loathing and his words are vitriolic (much like yours!).

 

[BedKnobbery2]

Originally posted by Kendra17
Oh, come on. . .Carter has become one of the major-Anti-Bush Democrats and the Party has not distanced themselves from him one bit.

And thank the Lord Jesus and all his Angels in heaven for that! I was absolutely stunned that perhaps who has to be known as the most genteel Democrat in the party stood up and gave such a powerful speech at the Convention. It still stands as one of my favorites. God Bless Jimmy Carter for saying what needed to be said!

 

[wvrevy]

Carter has been given respect laregly due to his outstanding work since leaving office, but that hardly makes him (to borrow a phrase) the "poster child" of the Democratic Party. Yes, he is a Democrat, but the fact that he happened to be sitting next to Michael Moore (and I can assure you, it was happenstance, not planning) hardly constitutes an endorsement by the party, let alone "royal treatment".

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by BedKnobbery2
most genteel Democrat

With all due respect, you don't know much about Carter. There is too much evidence to the contrary for me to list right now. . .but, his gentle and genteel image is just that. . .an image. He's known as hard-nosed and is considered the antithesis to gentle to those who know him or know about him.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Carter has been given respect laregly due to his outstanding work since leaving office, but that hardly makes him (to borrow a phrase) the "poster child" of the Democratic Party. Yes, he is a Democrat, but the fact that he happened to be sitting next to Michael Moore (and I can assure you, it was happenstance, not planning) hardly constitutes an endorsement by the party, let alone "royal treatment".

Actually you're wrong. It was planned and approved. The only outstanding work Carter has done was his Habitat for Humanity work, changing his image successfully, and spreading around the "I hate Bush" rhetoric.

 

[peachgirl]

Originally posted by Kendra17
Your response is no surprise. As usual, you don't pay attention. I was responding to wrevy, who sarcastically--but with humor--asked--is it 1976?

I pointed out that, despite it NOT being 1976, Carter has been given renewed esteem by the Democratic Party. However, he's full of loathing and his words are vitriolic (much like yours!).

Yes, and your posts are so polite....


Whatever, you still seem to think that the Democratic party should distance themselves from President Carter. He's an asset to the party and to this country.

God Bless Jimmy Carter for saying what needed to be said!

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Kendra17
Actually you're wrong. It was planned and approved. The only outstanding work Carter has done was his Habitat for Humanity work, changing his image successfully, and spreading around the "I hate Bush" rhetoric.

Yeah, you're right....Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize for his work with Habitat for Humanity Do you even read the things you're writing ?

And I've seen NOTHING that shows that Moore sitting next to Jimmy was "planned and approved"...Care to back that statement up ?

 

[bsears]

Originally posted by Kendra17
With all due respect, you don't know much about Carter. There is too much evidence to the contrary for me to list right now. . .but, his gentle and genteel image is just that. . .an image. He's known as hard-nosed and is considered the antithesis to gentle to those who know him or know about him.

Wow...taking shots at Carter....a man respected both at home and around the world. Sounds like someone has been visiting the freeper site too often.

 

[BedKnobbery2]

Originally posted by Kendra17
With all due respect, you don't know much about Carter. There is too much evidence to the contrary for me to list right now. . .but, his gentle and genteel image is just that. . .an image. He's known as hard-nosed and is considered the antithesis to gentle to those who know him or know about him.

Image/reality/Image/reality.....I hardly think I'm unique in finding Carter a genteel man. Ineffective presidency aside, I doubt anyone could say that he's worked for anything other than good over the past 20 odd years.

Oh--and since you know him so well, is it possible to arrange for an autograph? I'd love to have one. Thanks!

 

[cheyita]

Sorry, Kendra - while in general I am on your side politically (compared to peachgirl and wvrevy), your posts are not doing your arguments much justice.

One quick look on the web will find many outstanding things Mr. Carter has been involved in since leaving office, including this:

Carter

And your recent post about vitriolic words was another attempt to throw in a personal slam - not a good way to win a debate!