You're high, dude. The issue is NOT taxation but SPENDING. GWB's govt. is spending money like there's no tomorrow in the backdrop of a shrinking economy. Do you think money is free?? How do you think the money (aka deficit) is going to be paid off?? By the fucking deficit fairy?? NO, through taxes. So while you think that GWB is the savior of taxes, all he's doing is fucking us even more in the long run by tacking on interest to the money -- OUR MONEY -- that he is relentlessly spending.
I'm sorry, you are wrong. He has stated many times that he strongly believes in the estate tax and wants to aggressively tax all americans upon their death. He has also mentioned several times that are taxes are too low in this country and the wealthy people in particular should be paying much higher rates. Much higher then the 50% they already pay. Yeah, that will help our economy. And listen Bungrider, you are smart enough to see through this opportunist. He has been waiting a long time to find the right opportunity to push his political agenda on us. He is using George Bush and the Iraq mess as a facade. He sees an opening and he is going for it. It won't work though. This country is too smart to fall for that bullsh*t. But it is scary too see someone actually try to buy this great country.
In case you didn't notice we are at war here. And we were attacked on our soil. That is a large part of the reason why we are having our deficits. How is the money going to be paid off? Probably the same way Clinton balanced the budget, through a strong economy. First fix the economy, then the deficit will shrink. Oh and this money that he is using of yours, is to protect you. So the next time you get on a plane, you don't have to worry about those 3 Arabs sitting behind you with a bomb. So the next time you are in a highrise, you don't have to worry about it getting blown up. So the next time you have a glass of water, you don't have to worry about it being poisoned. I'm sure the 3,000 who lost their lives on 9/11 wishes f*cking Clinton would have spent a little more money and a little more time making sure these things wouldn't happen. Such a disgrace. You really sadden me. Do you really take our countries security for granted? Freedom comes at a cost. If you don't like it, why don't move to a country where children and women are slaughtered every day for the mere joy of it. Unreal man.
Wow, where did that come from. Talk about taking a quote out of context. That one went right over your head.
ummmmm please refresh all our memories.. EXACTLY WHO WAS IT THAT ATTACKED US? Please name the country and the govt's involved and the people behind them. I would expect you to answer Iraq but even you can't be such a blind jackass... I may have to take that cigar back that you earned earlier D Why are we at this engineered war again????
Soros? LOL This from a guy that admits on CNBC that his secret to stock trading is when he gets a back ache he knows to sell the stocks. LOL I've said it before, anyone here making money on stocks should love Bush for lowering taxes.
Yeah! Support Bush uncritically or you're a anti American radical crazed Osama worshipping terrorist! It's pretty low in my book to exploit the deaths of those tragically unfortunate victims of 9-11 to push your political agenda Maverick74. But I'm sure you are shamefree in doing so. If you don't know, Bush was President on 9-11-2001, and had been for almost 9 months. 9-11 happened on his watch and if a President is to receive blame, he should get it. Bush: a former drunk and drunk driver, cokehead, failed businessman, Chickenhawk AWOL reservist, elitist and priviledged masquerading as a regular guy.
The people that attacked us were SAUDI NATIONALS. For years, the Saudi's have turned a "blind" eye towards their own citizens who continue to finance, support, and spread terrorism. http://216.26.163.62/2003/me_saudis_07_02.html
Obviously you Bush haters are not making any money in stocks. Otherwise it doesn't take much work on a calculator to figure out how much quicker you can achieve your goals with the new lower taxes.
'Slime and Defend' By PAUL KRUGMAN - NY Times Published: October 3, 2003 On July 14, Robert Novak published the now-famous column in which he identified Valerie Plame, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, as a C.I.A. "operative on weapons of mass destruction," and said "two senior administration officials" had told him that she was responsible for her husband's mission to Niger. On that mission, Mr. Wilson concluded â correctly â that reports of Iraqi efforts to buy uranium were bogus. An outraged President Bush immediately demanded the names of those responsible for exposing Ms. Plame. He repeated his father's statement that "those who betray the trust by exposing the names of our sources" are "the most insidious of traitors." There are limits to politics, Mr. Bush declared; Mr. Wilson's decision to go public about his mission had embarrassed him, but that was no excuse for actions that were both felonious and unpatriotic. Everything in the previous paragraph is, of course, false. It's what should have happened, but didn't. Mr. Bush took no action after the Novak column. Before we get bogged down in the details â which is what the administration hopes will happen â let's be clear: we already know what the president knew, and when he knew it. Mr. Bush knew, 11 weeks ago, that some of his senior aides had done something utterly inexcusable. But as long as the media were willing to let the story lie â which, with a few honorable exceptions, like David Corn at The Nation and Knut Royce and Timothy Phelps at Newsday, they were â he didn't think this outrage required any action. And now that the C.I.A. has demanded a Justice Department inquiry, the White House's strategy isn't just to stonewall, Nixon-style; as one Republican Congressional aide told The New York Times, it will "slime and defend." The right-wing media slime machine, which tries to assassinate the character of anyone who opposes the right's goals â hey, I know all about it â has already swung into action. For example, The Wall Street Journal's editorial page calls Mr. Wilson an "open opponent of the U.S. war on terror." We've grown accustomed to this sort of slur â and they accuse liberals of lacking civility? â but let's take a minute to walk through it. Mr. Wilson never opposed the "war on terror" â he opposed the war in Iraq precisely because it had no obvious relevance to the campaign against terror. He feared that invading a country with no role in 9/11, and no meaningful Al Qaeda links, would divert resources from the pursuit of those who actually attacked America. Many patriots in the military and the intelligence community agreed with him then; even more agree now. Unlike the self-described patriots now running America, Mr. Wilson has taken personal risks for the sake of his country. In the months before the first gulf war, he stayed on in Baghdad, helping to rescue hundreds of Americans who might otherwise have been held as hostages. The first President Bush lauded him as a "truly inspiring diplomat" who exhibited "courageous leadership." In any case, Mr. Wilson's views and character are irrelevant. Someone high in the administration committed a felony and, in the view of the elder Mr. Bush, treason. End of story. The hypocrisy here is breathtaking. Republicans have repeatedly impugned their opponents' patriotism. Last year Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, said Democrats "don't want to protect the American people. . . . They will do anything, spend all the time and resources they can, to avoid confronting evil." But the true test of patriotism isn't whether you are willing to wave the flag, or agree with whatever the president says. It's whether you are willing to take risks and make sacrifices, including political sacrifices, for the sake of your country. This episode is a test for Mr. Bush and his inner circle: a true patriot wouldn't hesitate about doing the right thing in the Plame affair, whatever the political costs. Mr. Bush is failing that test.