Actually, I’m looking forward to this “uniter” naming some high administration and/or cabinet posts to some Democrats. What greater gesture of true bipartisanship can you ask for? After all, Kennedy felt obliged to do so, and he won by a much large margin than W.
Please amend this to mean every person that pays income taxes. “Every single individual” would include kids and people that already are below the taxable threshold. If congress will support Bush in passing an across-the-board cut in the income tax rate, then, yes, every person with a tax burden will see a cut. This is what was promised.
If it doesn’t happen, it may be the fault of Congress rather than Bush. Just wanted to get that on the record in case blame was misapplied. Of course, if Bush backs off, then the blame should fall squarely on his shoulders.
That is true…I may dislike the things that people say (including some of the things on this board), and I will vigorously debate against it… but I would defend to the death their right to say it!
Certainly appears to be no end in sight to the violations on the Fourth Amendment either, including the insane War on Drugs.
And I’m certainly sure that there’s non-interventionist liberals out there that would form a nice coalition with libertarians to create an anti-war movement if needed!! If there was a war that wasn’t in the defense of this country ie, the US is being attacked), I’d certainly be out among those protesting!
Politics surely creates strange bedfellows, does it not?
There will be Bush tax cuts- but not for us. he will get rid of the Estate tax- that only dead millionaires owe, and he will likely cut the capital gains tax some more- which mostly benefits the rich. I predict no cuts for the working stiff.
This has to be a first…a member of the religious left!
Although certainly any tax cut is a somewhat admirable start, especially for the entreprenurial class so they can reinvest in infrastructure, it’s also a half-ass measure as far as I’m concerned…the only true tax cut that I would fully accept is an elimination of income tax!!!
And J…I probably will hate the same things you do…but in the fiscal arena, because I’ll consider them as not going far enough instead of going too far!!!
Well if the federal tax cuts proposed by our newly elected Republican president go anything like the proposed tax cuts by our Republican govenor here in Virginia then…sorry better luck next time. It seems that the grand plan to eliminate the personal property tax (i.e. car tax) will have to be shelved at least for this year. They did reduce it last year but the promise was elimination. Guess these guys can’t always keep their promises, especially when it comes to taxes. Hey but it sounds great during the campain.
And they’re still eliminating it. But do you realize how much money they’re losing by phasing it out? They have to make it up somewhere and it wasn’t working as well as they thought. I’m suprised they started eliminating it at all, and grateful as hell for the past 2 years reduction. I’m still paying $800, but I’d hate to see what it’d have been without the repeal. Do I think him having to skip a year is a broken promise? No. Not when you understand why he wants to do it. And last I heard, it wasn’t a final decision, just one suggestion from many. I can handle one more year of paying it for 40 - 50 years of not paying it. If I live here that long. G
But I thought Gov. Gilmore was the one saying the car tax phase-out could continue? I think he is still all for it, but that it is certain members of the state legislature saying it can’t be done. If recent developments belie this, I’m listening.
Gilmore’s goal is elimination of the car tax. Even if there is a one-year hiatus, that doesn’t mean he has given up. I predict within 5 years the promise will have been kept. Just a guess on my part; only time will tell.
That’s something that a lot of people apparently don’t understand about the estate tax - you have to leave a pretty good-sized estate to even be bothered by it. Right now (and yes, I’m simplifying), you don’t owe any estate taxes if you leave property of less than $675,000 in total value (set to increase gradually to $1 million in 2006). That’s per person, by the way, so good estate planning can allow your spouse and yourself to transfer up to $1.35 million tax-free.
Oh yeah, that’s really putting the pinch on us average Americans, make it go away Georgie![/sarcasm]
This “blame Congress” dodge was bullshit when conservatives tried it with Reagan and the deficit[sup]1[/sup]; it sure as hell ain’t gonna fly with a GOP-controlled House and Senate. Just wanted to get that on the record.
[sub][sup]1[/sup]I’d encourage y’all to read Walter Karp’s book Liberty Under Siege: American Politics 1976-1988. Interesting stuff about the relationship between Congressional Democratic leadership and the Reagan White House. It’s a little bit paranoid, and I wish he’d source his facts more, but the bulk of his conclusions can be corroborated by David Stockman’s The Triumph of Politics, at the other end of the ideological spectrum.[/sub]
I disagree. With the Senate evenly divided, (and Chenay as the tie breaker), and the majority in the House, with Trent Lott and DeLay both visibly frothing at the mouth at even the idea of all three (Pres +both houses) in Republican control, I predict that we can foresee:
quick confirmation of all Republican nominations for positions (remember all the delay when Clinton tried to get folks in place?)
quick legislation on those things that the Republicans will hold dear - may be going out on a limb here, but I believe the first things they’ll propose will include the medicare prescription plan (to all those seniors they were busy insulting a few weeks ago), the ban on so-called partial birth abortions and the tax cuts, especially the so-called death penalty one : BUT only a few things will pass - the ban on the abortion, the elimination of the death penalty and a few tax cuts for the upper middle class to upper class (I predict that it won’t ‘trickle down’ ever. when that web site came up, I filled mine out and they predicted a $2000 annual cut for me - let’s just say, I’m not counting on that to pay my heating bills). The prescription plan will be one of those things they won’t be able to get through.
Quick resolutions about gun control.
Increased spending on the military - but I predict that it will be in the form of grants to large companies to ‘develop’ strategical weapons etc, that little, if anything will trickle down to the folks in uniform.
Absolutely zero progress (but much talk) about campaign finance reform.
I hope I’m wrong. But I heard nothing from Bush last night (except his mantra of ‘working together’ but also noted that he listed his campaign agenda, not a coalition), nor, more importantly, from the party leaders, to lead me to a different conclusion.
I’m not sure where the bullshit factor comes in here, Gadarene. I think the quote from me you cited explicity shows I am aware that either Congress or Bush could be at fault for not making tax reduction happen. Bush would be at fault if he were to veto a tax reduction bill. I would also blame Bush if he were to downplay the importance of a tax cut and didn’t push for it. On the other hand, if a bill he wants to see never reaches his desk, then the onus lies on Congress.
Are we talking past each other? Why couldn’t it be Congress’s fault–even a Republican Congress? You bet I’ll blame Congress if they don’t send up a tax reduction bill for Bush to sign. Any Republican that were to vote against such a bill would receive the full force of my chagrin. I’m not too terribly enamored with Republican congressmen as it is–no backbone. If Clinton had a pet project he wanted enacted; but Congress filibustered or otherwise shot down any chance for a bill, the fault would lie with Congress, right? As much as I dislike Clinton, I could hardly see blaming him for not supporting something if it were beyond his power to enact it.
