PDA

View Full Version : Election Issues Didn't Matter; It Was a Referendum on Bush



John Ashcroft
11-15-2004, 01:39 PM
by Joan Swirsky (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/11/15/95530.shtml)

During the heat of the presidential campaign, I asked an activist Democrat in my community how he could support John Kerry when he knew that the senator had traitorously betrayed his fellow Swift Boat colleagues in Vietnam after he returned from the war. He looked at me with a classic deer-in-the-headlights glaze.

Then I asked him how, as a Jew, he could support Kerry when he knew that the senator embraced the most anti-Semitic organization on earth, the United Nations. Again, that glazed look.

Then I asked him how, as an immensely wealthy businessman, he could disagree that the president’s tax cuts had redeemed the recession he inherited from his predecessor and still vote for Kerry, who would certainly raise taxes. More glaze.
Then I asked him how he could vote against an incumbent who had responded so effectively against the attack on our nation on 9/11, when his predecessor had ignored over four such attacks and done nothing about them, and when Kerry held a dozen opinions about the conflict and would certainly flip-flop when it came to any action. His glaze turned into that comatose look that everyone dreads.

“You don’t understand,” he finally rallied. “The election is a referendum on George W. Bush.”

In other words, the issues didn’t matter. The election, he felt quite confident, would be the electorate’s way to judge President Bush as harshly as he had, to redeem his own and his fellow Democrats’ still-seething rage since their candidate, Al Gore, lost the election of 2000 and, in so doing, dissolved the aphrodisiac-like power that Democrats seem to lust for more than anything else.

Interestingly, when radio talk show host Sean Hannity interviewed Terry McAuliffe near the eve of the election, asking him similar questions, the Democratic National Committee chairman – as unable to answer as my interviewee – echoed the same sentiment. “This is a referendum on George W. Bush,” the now-discredited Clintonista intoned.

‘Bush Lied – Men Died!’

The president’s critics never tired of screeching this untruth. They wanted Americans to believe that the president lied about going to war against Iraq because one of his reasons was that the terrorist Saddam Hussein harbored weapons of mass destruction – yet no WMD have been found.

But it is clear today that the American public didn’t buy this canard. I certainly didn’t, not after I heard and read that virtually every intelligence agency in the world said the same thing and that informed “experts” like John Kerry – who for years sat on Foreign Relations and Intelligence committees – affirmed over and over again that, yes, Saddam was a grave threat to our nation specifically because he had WMD and had used them on his own people.

Did he think we’d forget what he said? Did he believe that with enough media spin we’d develop amnesia? Did he really imagine that Americans were too stupid to figure out that while France and Germany and Russia blocked our efforts in the U.N. for 14 months (because, we know now, of their own complicity in the corrupt, multibillion-dollar U.N. Iraqi Oil-for-Food program) Iraq had ample time to dispose of its WMD?

The Democrats played the “Bush lied!” theme until the last hours of the campaign. But contrary to their “internal poll” results and the ubiquitous echo effect of a left-wing partisan media, the American public knew better.

‘No Blood for Oil!’

The president’s adversaries bleated this chant unendingly, accusing the “Bush dynasty” and GWB in particular of seeking and holding office solely to reap the benefits of their so-called cozy relationship with the oil-rich Saudis.

But the American public has eyes and ears and witnessed a president who went to war against terrorist nations “and those who harbored and supported them” in spite of the fact that the U.S. depends on oil from many of them. While his critics predicted – and again the left-wing media echoed – that oil prices would come down in the summer to support the president’s re-election bid, the exact opposite happened.

‘Bush Is Hitler’

The president’s fascist and socialist rivals spewed this pornography endlessly – including MoveOn.org, the George Soros-funded 527 group that knew no shame and seemed to know no history.

But the American public remembered Hitler, his bloodthirsty hunger for power, and the vast destruction he wreaked on both his country and the millions of innocent people who were led to their slaughter because they impeded his vision of a “master race.” They not only didn’t buy the ugly 517 ad, they also reviled and resented it and their sentiments showed up in their votes.

‘Bush Is a Moron!’

The president’s opponents clamored this catchphrase ceaselessly.

But the American public knew that a Yale- and Harvard-educated chief executive and commander in chief, a man who flew high-risk F-102 planes for over five years for the Texas Air National Guard, was an oil and gas business executive, owned a Major League Baseball team, was twice elected governor of Texas by historically high margins, was elected to the highest office on earth, and chose a Cabinet of immensely credentialed, educated and seasoned people, was more than a match for his critics.

Why? Because as journalist Cindy Osborne has documented, those opponents included foreign-policy experts such as high school dropout Cher; high school graduates Barbra Streisand, Julia Roberts, Madonna, Sean Penn, Ed Asner, Sarah Jessica Parker, Jennifer Aniston and Mike Farrell, and college dropouts Martin Sheen, Jessica Lange, Alec Baldwin, George Clooney, Michael Moore, Janeane Garofalo and Larry Hagman.

Osborne says that the “real morons – from Whoopi to the Susans (Estrich and Sarandon) to P. Diddy ‘vote or die’ Combs to Bruce Springsteen to Dan Blather – actually helped get reelected. Love, pride and admiration won over hate and filth and degradation.”

[B]Bush Is a ‘Jesus Freak’

While the left was busy excoriating the president, the president was busy being himself: a man of his word who lives a good and moral life by the precepts of the New Testament, which includes respect for the sanctity of human life.

Americans overwhelmingly support that belief, as they do the sacredness of marriage, as they do the powerful image of President Bush, who – in the face of blistering assaults, defamation of his character and outright slander – always turned the other cheek, charitably attributing his opponents’ behavior to “just politics.”

Over the last four years, as Americans witnessed the dismantling of the Ten Commandments in public institutions and children sanctioned for saying “under God” while reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, they took notice.

They heard about (but weren’t allowed to see) Whoopi Goldberg’s obscene parody of the president’s name at Radio City Music Hall. They saw the obscene display of Janet Jackson’s “wardrobe malfunction” on TV. They heard rap “artists” wish the president dead. They read Kerry’s interview with Rolling Stone magazine in which he felt the need to show what a regular guy he was by spouting filth.

They listened, clearly with horror, to the splenetic, vein-bulging ravings of Sen. Ted Kennedy, former Gov. Howard Dean, TV pundit Larry O’Donnell … the list goes on.

They saw anchors like Chris Matthews act crudely and rudely and with a shocking lack of respect toward Vietnam Swift Boat veterans.

They heard a steady stream of anti-American cant from Tinseltown. And they witnessed the left-wing media – both print and electronic – abandon any semblance of objectivity, even using forged documents to make their case against the president.

All this while at the same time they saw a president who never lost his bearings, who invoked the healing and energizing power of prayer, who spoke with resolve and conviction about his mission “to keep America safe,” who evinced eternal optimism about our country, and who demonstrated time after time that, indeed, values and character count!

Bush & Baseball

Of course, the ultimate referendum always comes from the electorate. To use a baseball analogy that my son Seth (www.seth.com) suggested, “W has been up to bat in world affairs and hit long home runs while the European and American Left tried to convince Americans that he whiffed at the plate.

While Russia was in Afghanistan for 10 years and failed, Bush was there for only three and liberated 25 million people, ousting the Taliban and the hierarchy of al Qaeda – and 10 million people just voted! That's at least comparable to a 3-bagger!”

”In Iraq,” he continued, “though WMDs have yet to be found, Americans can now be sure that they can't threaten us. Saddam Hussein is history. We’ve just taken Fallujah and after we take Ramadi and Mosul, there will be historic democratic elections in early 2005.

"All this in less than two years – mission accomplished! When you think that it took seven years post-WWII for both Germany and Japan to be reconstructed, the president’s accomplishments in liberating two of the most depressed and oppressed countries in the history of civilization is staggering. A resounding double play!”

Americans, Seth said, saw the Domino Effect clearly. “Libya’s Qaddafi didn't hand over to the U.S. 40,000 pounds of chemical agents because he liked George W. Bush. He did it because he saw what happened to Saddam. This is what the voters voted for.”

“All in all,” he added, “President Bush – in the battles he has waged – is batting around .400. Superior baseball players make it to the Hall of Fame if they bat .300. I think that by the end Bush’s second term – with the Middle East mostly democratic, the North Koreans de-fanged, the tax code and Social Security reformed, and the economy booming – President Bush will be considered among the greatest presidents of all time, surpassing Reagan and equaling Lincoln in stature.”

Bush’s Unpublicized Triumphs

What the Left was too blind to see and too enraged to appreciate were Bush’s stunning accomplishments in only four years. While his opponent John Kerry took a full year off from his senatorial responsibilities to run for the presidency, the president didn’t take off a second.

Against enormous opposition, he managed to get passed the No Child Left Behind act that holds schools and their teachers accountable for the progress of their students.

He made a historic grant of $15 billion to AIDS-ravaged Africa. He enacted the Patriot Act that has already gone a long way to protect U.S. citizens against future terrorist attacks.

He attended international conferences, visited and helped storm-ravaged disaster areas, met with world leaders about the most urgent issues of the day and generally conducted the highest office in the world without missing a beat.

And he also – amazingly – developed a presidential campaign that offered Americans ideas that were bold and unprecedented and hopeful – such as tort reform, innovative Social Security investments for younger people, health insurance pooling for small businesses, and also tax code simplification, among many other potential benefits to our country.

The Referendum

The day after the election, on November 3, a number of things were abundantly clear, including the pronouncements of those who, like Terry McAuliffe, had said, “The election is a referendum on George W. Bush.” Indeed! President Bush received more votes – nearly 60 million – than any presidential candidate in American history. He won 31 of 50 states.

He helped Republicans increase their majorities in the House and the Senate, winning both houses of Congress. He even won more counties in New York and California than Kerry did.

In addition, the electorate voted resoundingly to defeat Kerry’s preference for appeasement and a “global test” in foreign affairs and endorsed the Bush Doctrine’s policy of pre-emption. And in no uncertain terms, Americans voted for the traditional values upon which our country was founded.

Now, that’s a referendum!

ODShowtime
11-15-2004, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by John Ashcroft
“President Bush – in the battles he has waged – is batting around .400. Superior baseball players make it to the Hall of Fame if they bat .300. I think that by the end Bush’s second term – with the Middle East mostly democratic, the North Koreans de-fanged, the tax code and Social Security reformed, and the economy booming – President Bush will be considered among the greatest presidents of all time, surpassing Reagan and equaling Lincoln in stature.”


What's more foolish? Judging our President by the same standard we judge baseball players? Or believing that "the Middle East [is] mostly democratic" now after gw's adventure?

How is old gw going to "de-fang" North Korea? Any moron could go and bomb the fuck out of the place. Not a big achievement even if it does come to fruition.

More foolishness.

John Ashcroft
11-15-2004, 06:45 PM
How did Clinton deal with North Korea?

ODShowtime
11-15-2004, 07:55 PM
Originally posted by John Ashcroft
How did Clinton deal with North Korea?

That's an interesting question. I'll start off by repeating to you that I was not a Clinton supporter, although I become one more with passing time.

Second, I believe he decided to bribe the NK regime with energy and food stuffs. This is a diplomatic tactic we've used repeatedly in the past.

John Ashcroft
11-15-2004, 08:00 PM
Yeah, what did he bribe them with? And how'd that all turn out?

ODShowtime
11-15-2004, 08:05 PM
Not so good since gw&friends stopped paying!

Nickdfresh
11-15-2004, 08:07 PM
Originally posted by John Ashcroft
Yeah, what did he bribe them with? And how'd that all turn out?

Almost a well as calling them members of the "Axis of Evil." One down, three to go!

John Ashcroft
11-15-2004, 09:23 PM
Well are they or are they not?

Interesting thing is that liberals used to care about piss-ant dictators murdering their "constituents"...

Now you're just concerned if they like us or not.

Nickdfresh
11-15-2004, 09:52 PM
Actually, the Democrats have been far more concerned with North Korea all along. Bu that was silenced with Dubya's Iraqi monomania.
You know, where the actual weapons of mass destruction are. Pity they don't have any oil to make it worth while.

Warham
11-15-2004, 10:39 PM
I'm still waiting to hear what Clinton accomplished in his eight years in office, let alone what he did with N. Korea.

Nickdfresh
11-15-2004, 10:43 PM
Originally posted by Warham
I'm still waiting to hear what Clinton accomplished in his eight years in office, let alone what he did with N. Korea.

A really great economy for starters. He erased the budget deficit and increased America's stature in the world.

Warham
11-15-2004, 10:44 PM
You mean because we were taxed more during that administration than any other in history?

No wonder there was a surplus!

The economy was going under just as he was leaving office. How convenient for Bush.

Ally_Kat
11-15-2004, 10:47 PM
He also had help from a technology boom

Nickdfresh
11-15-2004, 10:49 PM
Yeah, and Bush's tax cuts have really helped! I'll pay a few more dollars in taxes if I can get a decent job. But when McDonald's and Walmart are the only ones hiring, that refund check really helps.

Maybe I can take a cue from Saturday Night Live and relocate off shore to the Bahamas, that way I will hardly pay any taxes at all.

Nickdfresh
11-15-2004, 10:50 PM
Originally posted by Ally_Kat
He also had help from a technology boom

Excuses, excuses. Gore invented the fucking internet! lol

Funny how the Clinton Administration facilitated that boom though.

ELVIS
11-15-2004, 10:56 PM
Facilitated it ??

Explain how an administration can facilitate a "boom"...

Nickdfresh
11-15-2004, 11:04 PM
Originally posted by ELVIS
Facilitated it ??

Explain how an administration can facilitate a "boom"...

Did it happen by accident? Did the "high taxes" of the Clinton Administration prevent it? No! I think the level playing field, which prevented large corporations from absorbing any smaller companies and allowed for a level playing field was no accident. What have we gotten' from the Bush Adminstration--Enron, Adelphia, outsourcing, and a host of other corporate scandels. This was no accident.

ELVIS
11-15-2004, 11:06 PM
Enron ??

No, my friend...

Do your homework!

Nickdfresh
11-15-2004, 11:08 PM
You wouldn't like when I found the Bush's were up to their ass in Enron stock.

ELVIS
11-15-2004, 11:15 PM
Meaning what ??

Nickdfresh
11-15-2004, 11:20 PM
Meaning Bush is cut from the same ruthless corporate cloth and is more tolerant of such excesses.

Ally_Kat
11-15-2004, 11:21 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Yeah, and Bush's tax cuts have really helped! I'll pay a few more dollars in taxes if I can get a decent job. But when McDonald's and Walmart are the only ones hiring, that refund check really helps.


I dunno where you're looking for jobs...

My father wasn't getting any work off shortly after Clinton went into office and stayed that way until a year before his term was over. You couldn't talk to him for days after he would do the taxes. Even with living on just Mom's salary, we paid a huuuuuge amount. Then when he did get work again, that doubled.

But now, tax time has gotten back to being just another regular time. That and he has more than enough work to keep him occupied.

Yet all I hear is how the economy is crap and how no one is hiring, which is completely funny seeing how there was just a campus job fair with almost every business out there trying to recruit us. And no, not Walmart and not MickeyD's, but JPMorgan, Johnson&Johnson, random newsoutlets, etc.

Nickdfresh
11-15-2004, 11:25 PM
Do you live in New York or New Deli?

Big Train
11-16-2004, 03:52 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Did it happen by accident? I think the level playing field, which prevented large corporations from absorbing any smaller companies and allowed for a level playing field was no accident.

Nick, I would absolutely LOVE to hear you sell that line to say the people who owned stock or worked for a company called Netscape..

Big Train
11-16-2004, 03:57 AM
I'm gonna agree and say yes there is a problem with jobs in America, Ally's comments notwithstanding (college job fairs have much more to do with getting you for slave wages than anything-you vs. a 38 father of three has SERIOUS cost/benefits ratios in your favor).

The problem has nothing to do with the government, which has very little to do with anything outside of interest rates. The industries we used to dominate have become commodities in other countries and there is NO PROTECTION whatsoever for intellectual property, which is our main stock in trade nowadays. Whether it is the design of golf clubs or music (my business), ideas, works and processes are taken from this country and created or distributed elsewhere for very little money. To me, that is the gaping hole in the economy on the business side. We need to invent and dominate NEW industries..

Nickdfresh
11-16-2004, 07:56 AM
Originally posted by Big Train
I'm gonna agree and say yes there is a problem with jobs in America, Ally's comments notwithstanding (college job fairs have much more to do with getting you for slave wages than anything-you vs. a 38 father of three has SERIOUS cost/benefits ratios in your favor).

The problem has nothing to do with the government, which has very little to do with anything outside of interest rates. The industries we used to dominate have become commodities in other countries and there is NO PROTECTION whatsoever for intellectual property, which is our main stock in trade nowadays. Whether it is the design of golf clubs or music (my business), ideas, works and processes are taken from this country and created or distributed elsewhere for very little money. To me, that is the gaping hole in the economy on the business side. We need to invent and dominate NEW industries..

I suppose part of the blame goes to the Chinese pirates (of counterfeit DVD's, CD's, T-shirts, etc.). I'll cede that point. But at the very least the "Liberal" Clinton Administration provided an arena in which American high-tech industries could expand which effectively counteracts the typical BS propaganda that "tax & spend" liberals can't manage the economy.

Dr. Love
11-16-2004, 08:15 AM
Originally posted by ODShowtime
What's more foolish? Judging our President by the same standard we judge baseball players? Or believing that "the Middle East [is] mostly democratic" now after gw's adventure?

How is old gw going to "de-fang" North Korea? Any moron could go and bomb the fuck out of the place. Not a big achievement even if it does come to fruition.

More foolishness.


Originally posted by John Ashcroft
How did Clinton deal with North Korea?

OD, I see you asked a question about President Bush's plans to deal with North Korea, and your perceived failures of his other foreign policy decisions.

As our good friend Mr. Ashcroft here has demonstrated, the most correct way to deal with any question of how President Bush will do/has done anything is by examining President Clinton's record.

Please refrain from asking any questions such as these in the future as our resident experts will direct you to the decisions of Presidents no longer in power.

;)

John Ashcroft
11-16-2004, 08:28 AM
Well doc, maybe this is the "deep thinking" part that I've been talking about...

The analogy was made to illustrate that the counter policy of appeasement only worsens the situation (ala Clinton/Albright approach to dealing with rogue states by giving them nuclear capabilities on the simple "promise" they won't build weapons). I suppose I assumed people here could make the connection...

Well, I'm sure the Conservatives could. ;) :D

Dr. Love
11-16-2004, 08:31 AM
I saw your connection. How couldn't I? I've seen the same connection made repeatedly given the same context.

I see that the conservative "deep thinking" approach requires the example be reiterated dozens of times. ;)

John Ashcroft
11-16-2004, 08:43 AM
As many times as it takes my friend.

Silly liberal's still don't get it.

Dr. Love
11-16-2004, 08:46 AM
heh

Nickdfresh
11-16-2004, 09:12 AM
Originally posted by John Ashcroft
As many times as it takes my friend.

Silly liberal's still don't get it.

I know, let's be a brilliant Neocon and start a war in the middle east, tie down 140,000 troops so now the N. Koreans and Iranians can laugh at us and do what they please. BRRILLLIANTTT!!!:rolleyes:

ODShowtime
11-16-2004, 12:30 PM
To me it seems down right childish, and certainly not very intelligent, when the best you can do is say "how did Clinton do?" for every question. Especially to me when I've repeatedly stated I don't give a shit about Clinton.

Ashcroft repeatedly goes back to that because that's the best he can do.

Like all his conservative buddies, it doesn't matter if the arguement is relevant, or if the solution does not fix the problem. As long as it looks ok from arm's length and makes a good soundbite it's a slam dunk! We'll have to wait and see how that strategy turns out.

Big Train
11-16-2004, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I suppose part of the blame goes to the Chinese pirates (of counterfeit DVD's, CD's, T-shirts, etc.). I'll cede that point. But at the very least the "Liberal" Clinton Administration provided an arena in which American high-tech industries could expand which effectively counteracts the typical BS propaganda that "tax & spend" liberals can't manage the economy.

OK, explain to me how Clinton, or ANY president for that matter, makes it conducive for a particular industry to do well. By that same token, both Clinton and Bush have let me down by not doing more about downloading and letting us die on the vine.

Nickdfresh
11-16-2004, 12:36 PM
NO!! Tell me how Bush's across the board tax cuts and enormous deficit spending has improved the economy?!

Big Train
11-16-2004, 02:03 PM
I agree that the spending does not help the economy, but it was necessary for Homeland Security expenses. Giving a social program or two a boost is not my cup of tea (although I'm sure the libs didn't look a gift horse in the mouth).

Tax cuts, ALWAYS are a good thing. More money in play means more enterprise pure and simple, raising taxes has the opposite effect.

Now please respond to my question.

FORD
11-16-2004, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by Big Train

Tax cuts, ALWAYS are a good thing. More money in play means more enterprise pure and simple, raising taxes has the opposite effect.



When "tax cuts" primarily go to the rich, as is the case with Junior's "tax cuts", they do nothing to help enterprise. The rich already have money to spend, so they're spending it already. A middle class tax cut would, in theory, boost the economy, with more money being infused back in, but that's not even likely when the price of oil & gasoline, and by extension everything depending on oil or gasoline for transport, has doubled since Junior stole the first "election". Or health care costs increasing by as much as 400%?

Shit, if I had actually gotten a tax cut from the bastards, it would have been spent before the check hit my account. And not on any new material posessions either. Just daily survival.....

John Ashcroft
11-16-2004, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by ODShowtime
Ashcroft repeatedly goes back to that because that's the best he can do.


Nope, you just haven't been around long enough junior.

I've killed all your bullshit "theories" and speculations so many times over the last several years (with other misguided liberals) that I just get a bit bored of it from time to time. It's always the same shit with you clowns.

So, to keep it simple so your little liberal brain can comprehend a point or two, I use your messiah for comparison. Maybe you're not intelligent enough to catch it after all. Not too surprised by that, but hell, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Maybe someday soon I'll get my dander back up and punk you properly. Maybe when Lucky decides to come back (your incessant idiocy has worn him out too).

Big Train
11-16-2004, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by FORD
When "tax cuts" primarily go to the rich, as is the case with Junior's "tax cuts", they do nothing to help enterprise. The rich already have money to spend, so they're spending it already. A middle class tax cut would, in theory, boost the economy, with more money being infused back in, but that's not even likely when the price of oil & gasoline, and by extension everything depending on oil or gasoline for transport, has doubled since Junior stole the first "election". Or health care costs increasing by as much as 400%?

Shit, if I had actually gotten a tax cut from the bastards, it would have been spent before the check hit my account. And not on any new material posessions either. Just daily survival.....

So tax cuts work for nobody apparently. Oil prices are down if you notice.

Ford, you sound so hopeless and even more helpless. On a macro scale, a middle class tax cut helps EVERYONE. The rich may have all the chips, but the middle class is so because they choose to be. Don't believe me? Why are asians and Indian immigrants slowly but surely gaining and expanding their wealth in this country while 5th generation whites can't seem to pull it together? They are out playing the game and playing it better. That middle class tax cut means a LOT to them, no matter how much of a boost it is to their bottom line RIGHT NOW.

Warham
11-16-2004, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
NO!! Tell me how Bush's across the board tax cuts and enormous deficit spending has improved the economy?!

Wasn't the guy in your avatar for tax cuts?

Nickdfresh
11-16-2004, 06:18 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Wasn't the guy in your avatar for tax cuts?

Only for the middle and lower classes. You know the middle class, the one that is shrinking?

Warham
11-16-2004, 06:20 PM
You won't get any job growth just giving cuts to people who make under 200,000 a year.

Warham
11-16-2004, 06:22 PM
Tax Cuts and National Income: Contrasting the size of the tax cuts with national income shows that the Kennedy tax cut, representing 1.9 percent of income, was the single largest first-year tax-cut of the post-WW II era. The Reagan tax cuts represented 1.4 percent of income while none of the Bush tax cut even breaks 1 percent of income. The Kennedy tax cuts would only have been surpassed in size by combining all three Bush tax cuts into a single package.

Tax Cuts and Budget Resources: Comparing the size of these tax cuts with the federal budget shows that the Kennedy’s tax cuts represented 8.8 percent of the budget. In 1981, Reagan’s tax cuts represented 5.3 percent of the budget. Each of Bush’s tax cuts are smaller than Reagan’s—EGTRRA (3.8 percent), JCWA (2.5 percent) and the 2003 Tax Cut(1.8 percent). When the Bush tax cuts are combined (8.1 percent), they would be larger than Reagan’s tax cut, yet smaller than Kennedy’s tax cut.

Tax Cuts and Defense Costs: When the Kennedy tax cuts were enacted, the conflict in Vietnam was escalating and defense spending constituted a whopping 42.1 percent of the federal budget. When President Reagan pushed though his tax cuts during the height of the Cold War the Pentagon consumed 22 percent of the budget. Today, defense spending consumes just 17.1 percent of the budget—25 percentage points below Kennedy’s defense spending.

Tax Cuts and Deficits: President Kennedy passed his tax cuts as he ran a deficit equaling 1 percent of national income. In 1981, Reagan cut taxes while running a deficit of 2.8 percent of national income. In contrast, Bush passed the largest of his three tax cuts, EGTRAA, in 2001 with a budget surplus of 1.5 percent of income.

Nickdfresh
11-16-2004, 06:24 PM
Originally posted by Warham
You won't get any job growth just giving cuts to people who make under 200,000 a year.

Apparently you won't job growth by cutting taxes to those earning over $200,000 a year either.

Warham
11-16-2004, 06:24 PM
The tax cut proposed by President Kennedy in 1963, enacted in 1964 after his death, was as much of a tax cut for the rich as President Bush's.

In 1963, Kennedy asked Congress to reduce all statutory income tax rates -- reducing the top income tax rate from 91 percent to 65 percent, down to a bottom tax rate cut from 20 percent to 14 percent. In 1964, a Democratic Congress reduced the top rate to 70 percent. This was a significantly larger tax cut than Bush's proposal to cut the top rate from 39.6 percent to 33 percent -- a 23 percent cut in the top rate, compared to 17 percent for Bush.

In fact, the largest reduction went to those with adjusted gross incomes between $50,000 and $100,000 -- equivalent to $300,000 to $600,000 today.

People in this bracket got a tax cut equal to 4.3 percent of their income, and those at the top of the income distribution, with incomes over $1 million, equal to $6 million today, got a tax cut of 3 percent.

By contrast, those at the bottom of the distribution, with annual incomes below $5,000, saved only 2.5 percent.
However, the threshold for the top 1 percent by income in 1962 is not equivalent to the threshold for the top 1 percent today, which is $300,000 in adjusted gross income.

While an income of $50,000 in 1962 is equivalent to $300,000 today, that $50,000 put one into the top 0.2 percent income class in 1962; that is, the top two-tenths of 1 percent.

To be in the top 1 percent in 1962, one only needed an income of $25,000.

Those with incomes above this level got 14 percent of the Kennedy tax cut (see figure).
Source: Bruce Bartlett, senior fellow, National Center for Policy Analysis, March 19, 2001.

Nickdfresh
11-16-2004, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Tax Cuts and National Income: Contrasting the size of the tax cuts with national income shows that the Kennedy tax cut, representing 1.9 percent of income, was the single largest first-year tax-cut of the post-WW II era. The Reagan tax cuts represented 1.4 percent of income while none of the Bush tax cut even breaks 1 percent of income. The Kennedy tax cuts would only have been surpassed in size by combining all three Bush tax cuts into a single package.

Tax Cuts and Budget Resources: Comparing the size of these tax cuts with the federal budget shows that the Kennedy’s tax cuts represented 8.8 percent of the budget. In 1981, Reagan’s tax cuts represented 5.3 percent of the budget. Each of Bush’s tax cuts are smaller than Reagan’s—EGTRRA (3.8 percent), JCWA (2.5 percent) and the 2003 Tax Cut(1.8 percent). When the Bush tax cuts are combined (8.1 percent), they would be larger than Reagan’s tax cut, yet smaller than Kennedy’s tax cut.

Tax Cuts and Defense Costs: When the Kennedy tax cuts were enacted, the conflict in Vietnam was escalating and defense spending constituted a whopping 42.1 percent of the federal budget. When President Reagan pushed though his tax cuts during the height of the Cold War the Pentagon consumed 22 percent of the budget. Today, defense spending consumes just 17.1 percent of the budget—25 percentage points below Kennedy’s defense spending.

Tax Cuts and Deficits: President Kennedy passed his tax cuts as he ran a deficit equaling 1 percent of national income. In 1981, Reagan cut taxes while running a deficit of 2.8 percent of national income. In contrast, Bush passed the largest of his three tax cuts, EGTRAA, in 2001 with a budget surplus of 1.5 percent of income.

That wily Kennedy! Why do you think I chose him for my avatar!

By the way, the War in Iraq isn't included in the current defense budget. So why have we lost more jobs than any president since Hoover if these across the board tax cuts are so beneficial?

Warham
11-16-2004, 06:36 PM
Perhaps 9/11 and the Clinton recession had something to do with it. I'm not quite sure.

And if you'll read my previous cut and paste, Kennedy's tax cuts were even more for the rich than W's.

Nickdfresh
11-16-2004, 06:38 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Perhaps 9/11 and the Clinton recession had something to do with it. I'm not quite sure.

And if you'll read my previous cut and paste, Kennedy's tax cuts were even more for the rich than W's.

Good to have scapegoats for incompetence. It all leads back to Clinton. Where would we be without the blame game? Maybe Clinton caused Bush's business failures also.:confused:

ODShowtime
11-16-2004, 07:31 PM
Originally posted by John Ashcroft
I've killed all your bullshit "theories" and speculations so many times over the last several years (with other misguided liberals) that I just get a bit bored of it from time to time. It's always the same shit with you clowns.

Now that is a logical explanation.

So, to keep it simple so your little liberal brain can comprehend a point or two, I use your messiah for comparison. Maybe you're not intelligent enough to catch it after all. Not too surprised by that, but hell, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

I'm not a liberal. We could get somewhere if you would address what I say and not what other people you've talked to have said. It's pretty weird. I just hate gw and his cabal. Is that so wrong?

Maybe someday soon I'll get my dander back up and punk you properly. Maybe when Lucky decides to come back (your incessant idiocy has worn him out too).

Well, whenever you can muster your great intellect to share it with me, let me know...

John Ashcroft
11-16-2004, 07:43 PM
heh heh heh... Yep, hate is wrong. Period.

Just don't seem to have the energy lately. I frequent these boards for a laugh mainly anymore. Still enjoy all of the people here, just am not really up to arguing lately (unfortunately, lot's of shit going on that's taken all of my energy). But hey, I'm an optimist! I'll be back in form soon enough...

Till then, I really don't believe you understand many of the points I try to make with some of my more simple posts. I used to post volumes of information supporting all of my positions, while negating the liberal argument. It was fun, and relatively easy. Alot of what I post is kind of follow-ups to previous posts (even from as far back as posts at Von's site) Just don't have the energy lately to post all that shit right now. Been in a real shitty mood lately as well, and I'm sure it shows. You guys all make me laugh, and I appreciate it. All I can say is please keep it up!

lazlor
11-16-2004, 07:54 PM
to go back a couple steps...those talking about Clinton and how he facilitated the Tech boom....

R&D is what built/builds tech, and that normally takes anywhere from 10 to 20 years to hit the retail markets.

Look to, and thank Reagan for the Tech boom.

Nickdfresh
11-16-2004, 07:59 PM
Originally posted by lazlor
to go back a couple steps...those talking about Clinton and how he facilitated the Tech boom....

R&D is what built/builds tech, and that normally takes anywhere from 10 to 20 years to hit the retail markets.

Look to, and thank Reagan for the Tech boom.

"Well, there you go again!" -The Gipper

Actually if you want to get technical, it began with Kennedy and the space program and was accelerated by LBJ and Nixon with those pretty laser guided weapons. The one positive that came out of 'Nam.

And Gore who invented the internet-lol.

Dr. Love
11-16-2004, 08:21 PM
Originally posted by John Ashcroft
heh heh heh... Yep, hate is wrong. Period.

Just don't seem to have the energy lately. I frequent these boards for a laugh mainly anymore. Still enjoy all of the people here, just am not really up to arguing lately (unfortunately, lot's of shit going on that's taken all of my energy). But hey, I'm an optimist! I'll be back in form soon enough...


Take a break for a while, it helped me out quite a bit...


...you fuckin' Oklahomo. ;)

ODShowtime
11-16-2004, 10:24 PM
Originally posted by Dr. Love
Take a break for a while, it helped me out quite a bit...

I know what JA is talkin' about. My gig was bashing gw, but it seems pointless and maybe even dangerous to do it much anymore. And the 'I told you so's' will be out of order if I'm right about him.