Bush = Dumb Ass

POSTED BY: Succatash
UPDATED: Friday, August 20, 2004 04:20
VIEWED: 16362
PAGE 3 of 12

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

REALCOWBOY

Friday, August 6, 2004 5:33 PM

Every year an independent tax watchdog group analyzes the average tax
burden on Americans, and then calculates the "Tax Freedom Day". This is
the
day after which the money you earn goes to you, not the government.
This year, tax freedom day was April 11th. That's the earliest it has
been
since 1991. It's latest day ever was May 2nd, which occurred in 2000.
Notice anything special about those dates?
Today John Kerry gave a speech in which he claimed Americans are
actually
paying more taxes under Bush, despite the tax cuts. He gave no
explanation
and provided no data for this claim.

Another interesting fact: Both George Bush and John Kerry are wealthy
men.
Bush own! s only one home, his ranch in Crawford, Texas.
Kerry owns 4 mansions, all worth several million dollars. (His ski
resort
home in Idaho is an old barn brought over from Europe in pieces. Not
your
average A-frame.)
Bush paid $250,000 in taxes this year; Kerry paid $90,000. Does that
sound
right? The man who wants to raise your taxes obviously has figured out
a way to avoid paying his own.

SIGNYM

Friday, August 6, 2004 5:54 PM

You are obviously a libertarian who believes that government has no function whatsoever, that "the market" can supply all needs and that all taxes are bad. Shall we discuss?

REALCOWBOY

Friday, August 6, 2004 6:18 PM

That's quite a quantum leap you've made there, and in more ways than one.

First of all because I support tax cuts does not mean that I'm anti-government and anti-tax. I am for reduction of both, but I also understand that both are necessary.

Your second leap was in attacking me instead of the article I posted. All I did was post an article and instead of going after the article and the merits of it you resort to name calling. I've noticed that when people run out of or don't have any valid arguments they usually start name calling, labeling or slamming with nothing to back it up.

SIGNYM

Friday, August 6, 2004 6:28 PM

Is calling someone a "Libertarian" name-calling? If you think so, then I apologize.

And you're right- I DID make a quantum leap. My mistake was in assuming that you think ALL taxes are bad, and that government has NO function and your position is not that extreme. But I'm still curious- what function(s) do you think is (are) necessarily governmental, and what do you think are suitable for market forces?

Also, I DID asume that since you posted the article you agreed with it. If not- what parts do you disagree with?

I'm not interested in discussing what the article says because I cannot get in touch with the author. Since you presented it, I want to find out what YOU think about it.

One point about the article, which may be misleading - I don't know whether the article refers to Federal income taxes or all taxes paid by Kerry/ Bush. If it refers just to Federal income taxes, since ownership of assests isn't taxed at the Federal level then obviously Bush's income is higher than Kerry's. Kerry may in fact be paying a boatload in local real estate taxes. Also, Bush's assets may not be as visible as a mansions- but he DID own a baseball team and apparently dodged taxes on that quite nicely.

Quote:
According to IRS Revenue Procedure 93-27, “…The receipt of a partnership capital interest for services provided to or for the benefit of the partnership is taxable as compensation.” As most people know, compensation is taxed as ordinary income, subject to the highest tax rates; in this case 39.6%. Mr. Bush treated the incentive portion of his proceeds as long term capital gain, and accordingly reduced his tax liability by at least $2.4 million.

(emphasis mine)

.
http://www.makethemaccountable.com/tax/SaleOfBaseballTeam.htm

One final PS: Since you didn't post the link and didn't indicate that it's a quote, it's impossible to tell the provenance of the article. Is is ALL a quote?

GEEZER

Friday, August 6, 2004 7:19 PM

Okay, everyone who has ever misspoke raise your hands. You're all dumbasses, I guess. At least you have company in high places.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Friday, August 6, 2004 7:36 PM

It's not that Bush mis-speaks, it's that he mis-speaks in one direction. I noticed he's very fluid when he talks about hurting people- he did a great sendup of a woman on death row pleading for her life (until he saw the shocked look on the reporter's face). Get him going on "dead or alive" and he never makes a mistake.

But when it comes to things like justice or mercy, his tongue just trips all over itself and it doesn't seem to matter whether he's speaking in public or private.

Maybe I'm the only one who noticed this, but I think it says something... disturbing... about Bush.

WADDLEDOODLE

Friday, August 6, 2004 7:54 PM

At the time of the attacks, the Presidents aid and staff did not have confirmation that the first plane was a jet liner and that it was an attack. Like most people that day, even those who live in NYC, it was first thought to be a small single engine craft. The second plane was when we all knew the truth.

Furthermore, the 9/11 commission didn't lay any blame on the several minutes you're describing.

Finally, as the leader of the freeworld, who hasn't had to deal with a potential attack on American soil in 60 years, I think I'd rather have my President take his time and think.

So in the first few minutes of an attack you'd rather the President "rush to war" HOWEVER, 14 months of dealing with the United Nations on holding Iraq accountable for breaching 19 United Nation resolutions was the bad way to "rush to war" You can't have it both ways....

Fact is, if John Kerry were C-in-C, he would NOT have invaded anyone, he would have turned to the French,Russians and the United Nations to "do something" despite the fact that they had up till then already pocketed several BILLION....

B-I-L-L-I-O-N

Dollars.

The man has shown ZERO leadership.

On that note, please list why you believe John Kerry is a better choice. Be specific and accurate. I won't tolerate that "4 months in Vietnam" notion as being the only reason.

and Al-Qaueda and their safe harbors would be intact.

SIGNYM

Friday, August 6, 2004 8:02 PM

The seven minutes was after the SECOND attack, not the first. By then, I assume that George was clued in.

No, I did not want him rushing off to war. And furthermore, invading a country (Iraq) that had ZERO to do with 9-11 was not, and is not, a particularly productive thing to do when it comes to fighting terrorism. It's amazing how people still conflate those issues.

Just looking at the film (you DID see it, didn't you?) I would have a hard time characterizing Bush's activity as "thinking".

RUE

Friday, August 6, 2004 8:05 PM

Quote:
Iraq is free

Not free, it was a very expensive acquisition in terms of lives, money, opportunities lost.
If you don't think it was bought as a present for the corporations with US blood and your health care and Socials Security,
read here:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-juhasz5aug05,1,
3665796.story
The Hand-Over That Wasn't
By Antonia Juhasz
(excerpts)
Not only do 138,000 troops remain to control the streets, but the "100 Orders" of L. Paul Bremer III remain to control the economy.
The Bremer orders control every aspect of Iraqi life — from the use of car horns to the privatization of state-owned enterprises. Order No. 39 alone does no less than "transition (Iraq) from a … centrally planned economy to a market economy" virtually overnight and by U.S. fiat.

Although many thought that the "end" of the occupation would also mean the end of the orders, on his last day in Iraq Bremer simply transferred authority for the orders to Prime Minister Iyad Allawi — a 30-year exile with close ties to the CIA and British intelligence.

Further, the interim constitution of Iraq, written by the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council, solidifies the orders by making them virtually impossible to overturn.
A sampling of the most important orders demonstrates the economic imprint left by the Bush administration: Order No. 39 allows for: (1) privatization of Iraq's 200 state-owned enterprises; (2) 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses; (3) "national treatment" — which means no preferences for local over foreign businesses; (4) unrestricted, tax-free remittance of all profits and other funds; and (5) 40-year ownership licenses.
Orders No. 57 and No. 77 ensure the implementation of the orders by placing U.S.-appointed auditors and inspector generals in every government ministry, with five-year terms and with sweeping authority over contracts, programs, employees and regulations.

Order No. 17 grants foreign contractors, including private security firms, full immunity from Iraq's laws. Even if they, say, kill someone or cause an environmental disaster, the injured party cannot turn to the Iraqi legal system. Rather, the charges must be brought to U.S. courts.

Order No. 40 allows foreign banks to purchase up to 50% of Iraqi banks.

Order No. 49 drops the tax rate on corporations from a high of 40% to a flat 15%. The income tax rate is also capped at 15%.

Order No. 12 (renewed on Feb. 24) suspends "all tariffs, customs duties, import taxes, licensing fees and similar surcharges for goods entering or leaving Iraq." This led to an immediate and dramatic inflow of cheap foreign consumer products — devastating local producers and sellers who were thoroughly unprepared to meet the challenge of their mammoth global competitors.

RUE

Friday, August 6, 2004 8:36 PM

Quote:
Further, the interim constitution of Iraq, written by the U.S.- appointed Iraqi Governing Council, solidifies the orders by making them virtually impossible to overturn.

And I'd like to highlight this. How free are the Iraqis? (as in freedom, not beer)
Their government is not elected. The appointed Prime Minister (the guy with the real power) was a CIA hanger-on like Chalabi, and a close ally of Bremer. The government has no control over the country's economy, and so is without real authority.
Assuming Iraq hangs together as a country, when (or if) they do get to vote on a government, it will still be hamstrung by Bremer's orders.

Are they free? Or are they a colony of US corporate interests? Will they ever be free?

Now I realize most US'ers (read USers)don't give a rat's *ss about Iraq anymore. Even though last month was the fourth most deadly for US troops since the invasion, and 90% of US field troops are in Iraq indefinitely, most people in the US are so over Iraq. In lock-step with the Admin - drop WMD as an item (embarassing, that), pick up the slogan that puts 'free' and 'Iraq' in the same sentence, 'hand over' the government, and ... it disappears the whole war - poof! like that! It's just not an item anymore.
And people who claim Bush is doing a good job follow along with the program. Don't look behind the curtain. Don't dwell on the past. Don't question the necessity of it. Don't regret the lost lives. Just pick up your appointed sacrifices and soldier on doing your best. Trust, trust in big brother.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE