Mailed out my ballot last week......althought it probably won't mean anything in CA. sigh...

 

you mean... you vote already mio?

i thought was november.

 

♪♪♪ Don't worry -- Be happy... ♪♪♪

 

I WOULDNT WANT KERRY TO RUN THE MILATARY FOR SURE!HE PROTESTED THE WAR IN NOM....[:@]THE ONLY THING HE CAN RUN IS HIS MOUTH..SORY BUSH GETS MY VOTE ,,,BUT I DONT VOTE! HAHA

 

Well, God bless you then. This election is primarily about Iraq, and you mention Vietnam. Very appropriate really.

 

Bush's Tax Plan enacted in 2001 is working. Excellent article on explaining how Federal Income Tax Burden increased for top 1%, top 5%, top 10%, and top 20% income earners as a direct result of Bush's Cut in Tax Rates. Everyone pays less Federal income tax, and the top 20% pay a larger percentage of the total...
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_...00408170858.asp

The report proves that what George W. Bush said about his tax cuts is absolutely positively true: “tax relief is for everyone who pays income taxes.”

It’s true for the rich and it’s true for the not-so-rich. Across 109.4 million tax-paying households — from the wealthiest 1 percent with incomes averaging over $1 million, to the lowest-earning quintile with incomes averaging $14.9 thousand — the report shows that all income classes have seen their income-tax rates lowered thanks to Bush’s tax cuts in 2001, 2002, and 2003.

The report also shows that Bush's tax cuts have been “progressive” — that is, they have shifted the share of the overall federal income-tax burden toward the wealthy, and away from lower-income earners. Without the Bush tax cuts, the highest-earning 20 percent of households this year would have paid 78.4 percent of all federal income taxes. Now, after the Bush tax cutes, their share of the burden has risen to 82.1 percent. Every other quintile now pays a smaller share of the total income-tax burden.

Here’s another simple table based on data from the CBO report. This one shows how the 2004 income-tax burden has shifted upward for the rich, and downward for everyone else.

2004 Federal Income Tax Burden
Income Class 2000 law Bush Tax Cuts Difference
----------------- ------------ ------------------ -------------
Bottom 20% -1.6% -2.7% -1.1%
Next 20% 1.5% -0.1% -1.6%
Middle 20% 6.5% 5.4% -1.0%
Next 20% 15.3% 15.2% -0.1%
Top 20% 78.4% 82.1% 3.8%

Top 10% 63.5% 66.7% 3.2%
Top 5% 51.4% 53.7% 2.3%
Top 1% 31.6% 32.3% 0.6%


What a brilliant victory for compassionate conservatism! Everybody gets an income-tax cut, and when it’s all done the rich end up paying proportionately more.

The report also shows that Bush managed to craft a tax-reduction package that even benefits the lowest-earning taxpayers who already pay what amount to negative income taxes. That’s right. Thanks to various refundable tax credits, before the Bush tax cuts the lowest-earning quintile not only paid no income taxes at all, they on average received money from the IRS. Under Bush’s tax cuts, as the first table above shows, they now receive even more money. Now that’s compassionate.

 

Are you new? I mean that's all pretty obvious -- no disagreement here. Bush simply followed the advice of Greenspan. Now, if Bush would just stop irresponsibly spending more money than is coming in, my kids might not have to spend their lives paying his debts.

 

Bush's Tax Plan was a bit more involved than simply following Greenspan's advice. It had to be presented and passed thru both branches of Congress -- the House and Senate.

And contrary to the standard scare tactics that you may hear, such as:
http://www.senate.gov/~edwards/press/2003/0528c-pr.html
"Bush offers tax breaks for the wealthy..."
The bill the president signed is... tilted to favor the wealthy...

Reports from the Congressional Budget Office
http://www.cbo.gov/Index.cfm
shows that the new Bush Tax Plan is working very well.
It has lowered the Federal income tax rate for all five quintiles of income earners, while increasing the Federal income tax amount collected from the highest quintile (including the top 1% and top 5%).

I expect my Federal income taxes to provide adequate funding for Infrastructure and National Defense. Administrations of the Democrat party, e.g. Carter and Clinton have historically made cuts in the budgets of National Defense. Administrations of the Republican part, e.g. Reagan have historically increased those budgets. I would rather error on the side of a strong National Defense.

Contrary to the standard scare tactics that you may hear, such as:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...election.main/
Kerry speaking...
"He (Bush) made a clear choice: To pass the bucks to the privileged while passing the buck to our children," said Kerry, the Democrats' presumptive presidential nominee. "Because of this president's decisions, a child born today will inherit at $20,000 debt -- a 'birth tax' that he or she had no part in creating."

Americans of all income brackets pay more than their fair share of Federal income taxes. Why is it that the candidates of the Democrat party always look for ways of increases taxes, while the candidates of the Republican party always look for ways of reducing Federal government spending?

I would post more links supporting these views... it is so obvious!!!

 

This election is primarily about terrorism. Vietnam is appropriate because Frankenkerry is running on his Vietnam service. Where ya been?

Bush spends a bunch, but nothing like Frankenkerry would if he were president. Frankenkerry has the most liberal tax and spend record in the Senate. He would bring that paradigm to the White House and immediately raise taxes so he could spend more. Your kids will owe more because of Frankenkerry whether or not he becomes president. If you're looking for fiscal discipline, don't look to a Democrat that's left-of-center. Look to Elmer Fudd.

 

Uh -- I'm not sure who you think you're talking to. I've been a fiscal conservative Republican for longer than you've probably been alive. Are you familiar with the expression "preaching to the choir?"

BTW, is wasn't Dems that incurred our national debt. I've got bad news for you -- it's getting harder and harder to tell which Republicrat is which...