Gotta pay back those wealthy campaign contributors
YahooGeorge W. Bush's Choice: Tax Cuts for the Wealthy Over Protecting the Homeland, Says Kerry Campaign
To: National Desk
Contact: Chad Clanton or Phil Singer, 202-464-2800, both of Kerry-Edwards 2004
WASHINGTON U.S. Newswire -- George Bush (news - web sites) chose giving tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans ahead of making America secure. Once again, during last night's debate, George Bush made his choice clear. John Kerry (news - web sites) made it clear that, as president, he will put America's safety ahead of tax cuts for the wealthy. One of the fundamental choices of this election is whether we can afford more tax cuts for the wealthy at the expense of keeping America secure and investing in education and health care.
<snip>
GEORGE BUSH CHOSE PUTTING AMERICA'S SECURITY AT RISK:
Families Making An Average Of $1.2 Million A Year Got Tax Cuts Totaling $89 Billion In 2004 -- 4 Times Larger Than The Increase In Homeland Security. The tax cuts for just the top 1 percent of taxpayers totaled $88.9 billion in 2004, 33.6 percent of the total cost of the Bush tax cuts. In contrast, the homeland security budget increased from $17 billion in 2001 to $41 billion in 2004, a $23 billion increase relative to the inflation- adjusted baseline. The tax cuts for millionaires is four times larger than the homeland security increase. (Joint Economic Committee Democrats, "New CBO Analysis Confirms that the Bush Tax Cuts Are Skewed Toward the Rich," August 2004 and Congressional Budget Office (news - web sites), "Federal Funding for Homeland Security," 4/30/04. Note, 2001 homeland security funding excludes post-9/11 emergency spending)
<snip>
Bush Has Cut Funding To Secure Known Stockpiles of WMD While Spending Exponentially More to Find Non-Existent WMD in Iraq (news - web sites). Funding needs to secure stockpiles in the Former Soviet Union were clear at the outset of the Bush Administration, yet in real terms Bush has requested less money on average than the Clinton Administration did in its last year in office -- despite a campaign pledge in 2000 to fund Nunn-Lugar. Most of the job of securing materials in the former Soviet Union remains to be done -- and the pace of the effort is woefully inadequate. In fact, the "amount of nuclear material secured in the two years immediately following the 9/11 attacks was actually less than the amount secured in the two years immediately before the attacks." At the current pace, it would take up to 13 years to finish the job. (Bunn and Weir, Securing the Bomb) (Arms Control Today, 3/2004), (Washington Post, 5/24/04), (South Carolina Republican Primary Debate, February 15, 2000)
When are you going to learn...tax cuts increase federal revenue, it's been proven time and time again -- from Kennedy to Reagan to George W. If we can just get Congress to quit spending the surpluses that are created by sound fiscal policy, we'd all be better off.
Yeah, and If your aunt had balls she'd be your uncle. The Neocon congress has proven that it is incapable of saving a nickle.
W. likes to talk about being strong on National Security, but when it comes to political pay-back, even the security of our nation is apparently negotiable.
Fine, I won't disagree, but that has absolutely nothing to do with increasing revenues through tax cuts. And, these tax cuts, just like all the rest...have increased revenue.
You need to be ing about spending and shut the up about tax cuts. If you're so worried, write a check to the government to cover your savings.
Doesn't matter since W has a $450 billion dollar shortfall this year alone. The U.S. has lost 2.5 million high paying manufacturing jobs due to out-sourcing in the last 4 years alone. Some of those jobs have been replaced by low paying service sector jobs with little or no benefits. So while the rich have lined their pockets with trickle down oppurtunity, the poor have just gotten poorer.And, these tax cuts, just like all the rest...have increased revenue.
Hey perhaps it was excessive domestic spending which squeezed out spending on homeland security. Perhaps it is those wonderful en lement programs which assrape the average American worker's paycheck that are ing this up.
En lement programs were vastly decreased under the Clinton Administration. We spend almost as much on interest on past Republican debt as we do on almost all en lement programs minus Social security handout for the elderly.Hey perhaps it was excessive domestic spending which squeezed out spending on homeland security. Perhaps it is those wonderful en lement programs which assrape the average American worker's paycheck that are ing this up.
That is a lie. You and the Clinton administration resist any meaningful reform of the en lement programs because your political agenda requires that the American people are dumb and dependent upon governmental help.
So, now you want to change the subject?
If tax cuts increase revenue, why the are you whining about them?
all you want about deficits and spending...but, why the are you whining about something that will increase the federal coffers while, at the same time, allowing Americans -- rich and not-so-rich -- to keep more of what they earn?
You're making no sense with all this tax cuts for the rich nonsense. It's the ing tax cuts for the rich (and the definition of rich includes middle-class Americans, as well) that are pumping more money into the economy and is why construction is up, home sales are up, stocks up, and on and on and on.
If you want to about spending, I'm there man.
But, quit talking out your ass about tax cuts in the same breath as spending or deficits, it makes you sound stupid.
By the way, the poor haven't gotten poorer...they've gotten richer -- everyone has more money than they used to.
Discretionary spending has increased under W compared to Clinton..
Don't take my word for it, take Fact checks word for it...
Fact Check
I didn't need the tax cut.
Welcome aboard McBragg.I didn't need the tax cut.
The nation didn't need the tax-cut. There was already a record amount of M2 money in the system waiting on the sidelines for the next big thing to happen in the stock market.
I feel that way when I send in my tax return.
Absolutely.
Tax Policy and Spending are entirely different things...
danny wouldn't know M2 or M3 if it jumped up and bit him in the ass.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
