http://rnnblogs.com/index.php/msg?disp=comments en-US hourly 1 2000-01-01T12:00+00:00 http://rnnblogs.com/index.php/msg/2010/09/08/should_we_keep_cutting_taxes_for_the_wea#c185407 2010-09-08T22:02:44Z Yuri Ahndraupov [Visitor] No tax cuts for anyone,..Obama needs to push through our communist agenda now! http://rnnblogs.com/index.php/msg/2010/09/07/is_this_anti_muslim_push_un_american#c185392 2010-09-08T21:11:22Z robert [Visitor] Bill F. "Is that not the position you've famously taken for some time and written endless posts in support of shutting up the opposition to the Mosque being built???" ??????
"Is that not the position you've famously taken for some time and written endless posts in support of shutting up the opposition to the Mosque being built???"

??????]]> http://rnnblogs.com/index.php/msg/2010/09/08/should_we_keep_cutting_taxes_for_the_wea#c185381 2010-09-08T20:49:44Z Mike G [Visitor] This is all politics. The real issue that Obama and congress is not mentioning on purpose is they are SPENDING TOO MUCH. What good is a tax-cut on anybody if it does not stimulate growth or jobs? On the other hand, what good is taxing more if our money is going to be wasted by irresponsible policies by this government? First get our house in order, cut waste in government. Then raise or lower taxes in order to bring down the deficit for our children. The leaders driving the bus want us to pay for the fuel to keep the bus going but where are they headed? They have no ideas and no direction. Lets put somebody behind the wheel that can lead us out of this mess and not just continually ask for more tax money. http://rnnblogs.com/index.php/msg/2010/09/07/is_this_anti_muslim_push_un_american#c185375 2010-09-08T20:44:21Z Bill F. [Visitor] "nothing to criticize a position of not building the Mosque on 9/11 hallowed ground," "How you got that out of what the article says is beyond me." Is that not the position you've famously taken for some time and written endless posts in support of shutting up the opposition to the Mosque being built??? Or am I just imagining that you even exist! Give us a break for God sakes, you're flopping around like a flounder.
"How you got that out of what the article says is beyond me."


Is that not the position you've famously taken for some time and written endless posts in support of shutting up the opposition to the Mosque being built??? Or am I just imagining that you even exist! Give us a break for God sakes, you're flopping around like a flounder.

]]> http://rnnblogs.com/index.php/msg/2010/09/08/should_we_keep_cutting_taxes_for_the_wea#c185331 2010-09-08T20:11:12Z george [Visitor] If the bush tax cuts were so great why haven!t they created any jobs? It looks like they were a failure. Under president clinton no tax cuts were given but they created 22 million jobs. There are better ways to create jobs than give welfare to the rich http://rnnblogs.com/index.php/msg/2010/09/07/is_this_anti_muslim_push_un_american#c185311 2010-09-08T19:02:27Z robert [Visitor] Bill F: "nothing to criticize a position of not building the Mosque on 9/11 hallowed ground," How you got that out of what the article says is beyond me.
"nothing to criticize a position of not building the Mosque on 9/11 hallowed ground,"
How you got that out of what the article says is beyond me.]]> http://rnnblogs.com/index.php/msg/2010/09/08/should_we_keep_cutting_taxes_for_the_wea#c185309 2010-09-08T18:50:52Z robert [Visitor] Some background: Tax Policy Under President Bush by Chris Edwards Chris Edwards is tax director at the Cato Institute and author of Downsizing the Federal Government. Added to cato.org on August 15, 2006 This article appeared in the Fraser Forum on August 14, 2006. PRINT PAGE CITE THIS Sans Serif Serif Share with your friends: ShareThis Tax cutting has been a key policy of the administration of George Bush since coming to power in 2001. Under President Bill Clinton in the 1990s, only one modest tax cut bill was signed into law. Thus, when Bush came to power there was a pent-up demand for tax cuts, and the administration soon delivered. Here is a year-by-year summary. 2001. President Bush came into office promising a range of income tax cuts. He succeeded in getting a 10-year $1.35 trillion tax cut plan through Congress in 2001. It was the largest tax cut since 1981. Some key elements were: If we don't know the answer by now,when will we know?
Tax Policy Under President Bush
by Chris Edwards


Chris Edwards is tax director at the Cato Institute and author of Downsizing the Federal Government.

Added to cato.org on August 15, 2006

This article appeared in the Fraser Forum on August 14, 2006.

PRINT PAGE CITE THIS Sans Serif Serif Share with your friends:

ShareThis
Tax cutting has been a key policy of the administration of George Bush since coming to power in 2001. Under President Bill Clinton in the 1990s, only one modest tax cut bill was signed into law. Thus, when Bush came to power there was a pent-up demand for tax cuts, and the administration soon delivered. Here is a year-by-year summary.

2001. President Bush came into office promising a range of income tax cuts. He succeeded in getting a 10-year $1.35 trillion tax cut plan through Congress in 2001. It was the largest tax cut since 1981. Some key elements were:


If we don't know the answer by now,when will we know? ]]> http://rnnblogs.com/index.php/msg/2010/09/08/should_we_keep_cutting_taxes_for_the_wea#c185295 2010-09-08T17:31:50Z John--- [Visitor] No. But, the threshold number for taxing individuals should be raised and limited to "salaries" above a ceiling of $750,000. most definitely those in that .01% bracket that now owns or controls a whooping 48% of our entire nations Gross Domestic Product[GDP] were the orchestrators of this nations collapse and the sole benefactors of their absentee landlordisms that increased their holdings by hoodwinking and deceiving the public- therefore not only should their taxbreaks be removed 100% but, those who were party to, negligent in their office or institutional procedures, or complicit in any of the schemes- should be made to payback our entire national debt. Let's change the way the dialog on this topic is written and scripted for a moment into something that everyone can fully understand in plain English... THEY BROKE IT, ... THEY OWN IT! It was their schemes, their negligence, their war strategy, their lack of concern for what we endured here in our nation, "their" gameplan equals "their" fault. For 10yrs they enjoyed all of the frills and perks and paid nothing for spending American capital and trust. NOW IT'S ABOUT TIME THAT THEY PAY THE PIPER FOR THEIR CONTINUED PROTECTIONS, & THEIR SECURITY, AND MOST OF ALL FOR "THEIR FREEDOM" FROM THE JUSTICE SYSTEM. Payment in full of the entire deficit, whether it be lump sum or over time with whatever interest rate that the public who they have been screwing decides is most prudent. Meaning adjusting the rate and the terms so that we all can live with the burden. BY ALL ACCOUNTS THIS 01% HAS BEEN ABLE TO AMASS A WHOOPING 37%GDP OF THE TOTAL ASSETS OF AMERICA INTO THEIR PERSONAL & CORPORATE HOLDINGS OVER THE SPAN OF A MERE TEN YEARS. IT IS THEY WHO WORKED OUT ALL OF THE DEALS TO HAVE US PAY THEIR FOREIGN LOANS WITH THESE OTHER ENTITIES AND COUNTRIES. THEY DID SO WITHOUT CONSULTING US OR ASKING FOR OUR SIGNED APPROVAL, THEREFORE IT IS "THEIR" DEBT. Let see them pay the price of globalization, out of their own income. most definitely those in that .01% bracket that now owns or controls a whooping 48% of our entire nations Gross Domestic Product[GDP] were the orchestrators of this nations collapse and the sole benefactors of their absentee landlordisms that increased their holdings by hoodwinking and deceiving the public- therefore not only should their taxbreaks be removed 100% but, those who were party to, negligent in their office or institutional procedures, or complicit in any of the schemes- should be made to payback our entire national debt.

Let's change the way the dialog on this topic is written and scripted for a moment into something that everyone can fully understand in plain English...
THEY BROKE IT, ... THEY OWN IT!
It was their schemes, their negligence, their war strategy, their lack of concern for what we endured here in our nation, "their" gameplan equals "their" fault.
For 10yrs they enjoyed all of the frills and perks and paid nothing for spending American capital and trust.
NOW IT'S ABOUT TIME THAT THEY PAY THE PIPER FOR THEIR CONTINUED PROTECTIONS, & THEIR SECURITY, AND MOST OF ALL FOR "THEIR FREEDOM" FROM THE JUSTICE SYSTEM. Payment in full of the entire deficit, whether it be lump sum or over time with whatever interest rate that the public who they have been screwing decides is most prudent. Meaning adjusting the rate and the terms so that we all can live with the burden.

BY ALL ACCOUNTS THIS 01% HAS BEEN ABLE TO AMASS A WHOOPING 37%GDP OF THE TOTAL ASSETS OF AMERICA INTO THEIR PERSONAL & CORPORATE HOLDINGS OVER THE SPAN OF A MERE TEN YEARS. IT IS THEY WHO WORKED OUT ALL OF THE DEALS TO HAVE US PAY THEIR FOREIGN LOANS WITH THESE OTHER ENTITIES AND COUNTRIES. THEY DID SO WITHOUT CONSULTING US OR ASKING FOR OUR SIGNED APPROVAL, THEREFORE IT IS "THEIR" DEBT.
Let see them pay the price of globalization, out of their own income.]]> http://rnnblogs.com/index.php/msg/2010/09/08/should_we_keep_cutting_taxes_for_the_wea#c185292 2010-09-08T17:20:08Z John--- [Visitor] No. But, the threshold number for taxing individuals should be raised and limited to "salaries" above a ceiling of $750,000. most definitely those in that .01% bracket that now owns or controls a whooping 48% of our entire nations Gross Domestic Product[GDP] were the orchestrators of this nations collapse and the sole benefactors of their absentee landlordisms that increased their holdings by deceiving the public- therefore not only should they their taxbreaks removed by they alone should be made to payback our entire national debt. Let's change the way the dialog on this topic is written and scripted for a moment into something that everyone can fully understand in plain English THEY BROKE IT, ... THEY OWN IT! It was their schemes, their negligence, their war strategy, their lack of concern for what we endured here in our nation, their fault. For 10yrs they enjoyed all of the frills and perks and paid nothing. NOW IT'S ABOUT TIME THAT THEY PAY THE PIPER FOR THEIR PROTECTIONS, & THEIR SECURITY FOR "THEIR" FREEDOM. Payment in full of the entire deficit, whether it be lump sum or over time with whatever interest rate that the public who they have been screwing deciding the rate and the terms. BY ALL ACCOUNTS THIS 01% HAS BEEN ABLE TO AMASS A WHOOPING 37% OF THE TOTAL ASSETS OF AMERICA INTO THEIR PERSONAL & CORPORATE HOLDINGS OVER THE SPAN OF A MERE TEN YEARS. IT IS THEY WHO WORKED OUT ALL OF THE DEALS TO HAVE US PAY THEIR FOREIGN LOANS WITH THESE OTHER ENTITIES AND COUNTRIES. IT IS "THEIR" DEBT. Let see them pay the price of globalization, out of their own income. most definitely those in that .01% bracket that now owns or controls a whooping 48% of our entire nations Gross Domestic Product[GDP] were the orchestrators of this nations collapse and the sole benefactors of their absentee landlordisms that increased their holdings by deceiving the public- therefore not only should they their taxbreaks removed by they alone should be made to payback our entire national debt.

Let's change the way the dialog on this topic is written and scripted for a moment into something that everyone can fully understand in plain English
THEY BROKE IT, ... THEY OWN IT!
It was their schemes, their negligence, their war strategy, their lack of concern for what we endured here in our nation, their fault. For 10yrs they enjoyed all of the frills and perks and paid nothing.
NOW IT'S ABOUT TIME THAT THEY PAY THE PIPER FOR THEIR PROTECTIONS, & THEIR SECURITY FOR "THEIR" FREEDOM. Payment in full of the entire deficit, whether it be lump sum or over time with whatever interest rate that the public who they have been screwing deciding the rate and the terms.
BY ALL ACCOUNTS THIS 01% HAS BEEN ABLE TO AMASS A WHOOPING 37% OF THE TOTAL ASSETS OF AMERICA INTO THEIR PERSONAL & CORPORATE HOLDINGS OVER THE SPAN OF A MERE TEN YEARS. IT IS THEY WHO WORKED OUT ALL OF THE DEALS TO HAVE US PAY THEIR FOREIGN LOANS WITH THESE OTHER ENTITIES AND COUNTRIES. IT IS "THEIR" DEBT.
Let see them pay the price of globalization, out of their own income. ]]> http://rnnblogs.com/index.php/msg/2010/09/08/should_we_keep_cutting_taxes_for_the_wea#c185288 2010-09-08T17:05:20Z William [Visitor] We call Peter's argument "populist." It is a political, not an economic, argument. Peter's argument is about how to most equitably divide the pie. However, wisdom suggests that we first focus on making the pie as large as possible before we start cutting it up.
Peter's argument is about how to most equitably divide the pie. However, wisdom suggests that we first focus on making the pie as large as possible before we start cutting it up.]]> http://rnnblogs.com/index.php/msg/2010/09/08/should_we_keep_cutting_taxes_for_the_wea#c185285 2010-09-08T16:58:47Z William [Visitor] Actually, our children have a debt to us for their education. At the turn of the last century, children received, on average about six years of schooling. At the end of the century, we guarantee everyone twelve years. Elite children get 16, 20, and even 24. In return, in their productive years, they are expected to take care of the elderly, the infirmed, and the education of the young. http://rnnblogs.com/index.php/msg/2010/09/08/should_we_keep_cutting_taxes_for_the_wea#c185282 2010-09-08T16:52:41Z William [Visitor] Permit me to restate the question. Should we continue taxes at the present rate for those with the greatest propensity to save and invest, to create jobs, and provide capital? The only way that we can pay our debt to our children is to dramatically increase productivity. That will require capital. If instead we tax money away from that class, that is, give it to the government, we can be sure that it will simply be consumed.
The only way that we can pay our debt to our children is to dramatically increase productivity. That will require capital. If instead we tax money away from that class, that is, give it to the government, we can be sure that it will simply be consumed.

]]> http://rnnblogs.com/index.php/msg/2010/09/08/should_we_keep_cutting_taxes_for_the_wea#c185281 2010-09-08T16:51:44Z peter [Visitor] the tax cuts should not be extended for the wealthiest americans only f0r the middle class and small business. It would cost 700 billion and giving tax breaks to wealthy americans is the poorest way to stimulate the economy. They would either invest it for thei own personal fortune or take another vacation whereas small busines is the creator of most new jobs. Large corporation are sitting on large amounts of cash and not creating new jobs only sqeueezing more out of their present workers. The republicans objected to extending unemployment insursance for 33 billion but do not obect to losing 700 billion in revenue. John Boehmer worked against the middle class when the credit card bill was up for vote. He worked with the banks to try and defeat the bill. It was the same for the financial regulation bill when he tried to work with investment houses to defeat the bill. The gang that could not shoot straight wants to be reelected so they can once more try to screw the middle class. There proposals for the new congress will be the same failed proposals that caused the depresssion of 2008 and a debt of 12 trillion dollars when they left office. If they get reelected they will try to get trade agreements with chile so more jobs can be sent overseas. The they will issued subpeonas to try and discredit Obama so he will not get reelected to a new term. These neo cons are not out to preserve the middle class It will take more than 2 years to straighten out the mess the republicans left. The tea party are well meaning folks but with the wrong people. The think tanks like the cato institute anf fox news are just using them. I hope the american public wakes up to their plans. http://rnnblogs.com/index.php/msg/2010/09/07/is_this_anti_muslim_push_un_american#c185272 2010-09-08T16:20:32Z Bill F. [Visitor] "So I'm saying this to say I am not putting words in anyones mouth." You were putting words in their mouths because, in itself, what they both have said thus far does nothing to criticize a position of not building the Mosque on 9/11 hallowed ground, given all the supporting data as I and many others have stated many times.

You were putting words in their mouths because, in itself, what they both have said thus far does nothing to criticize a position of not building the Mosque on 9/11 hallowed ground, given all the supporting data as I and many others have stated many times.]]> http://rnnblogs.com/index.php/msg/2010/09/07/is_this_anti_muslim_push_un_american#c185266 2010-09-08T16:11:58Z Bill F. [Visitor] "George Bush is not my hero.The article who was written by someone else is pointing out the fact that even he(bush) understood that it was wrong to blame all who pratice Islam for being our enemy." There is no confusion here.........famously whenever you don't have an answer for a rebuttal for your words or the words of someone else that you are re-posting, presumably in support of your position, you play your famous "confusion" or "misunderstood" card. That's not sneaky? After reading all of your posts explaining your intentions, my rebuttal stands 100% with no changes necessary. As I do when I post an article, the re-poster's intention is the same as if he wrote it himself, unless stated to the contrary. I have you figured out pretty well, by now.

There is no confusion here.........famously whenever you don't have an answer for a rebuttal for your words or the words of someone else that you are re-posting, presumably in support of your position,
you play your famous "confusion" or "misunderstood" card. That's not sneaky? After reading all of your posts explaining your intentions, my rebuttal stands 100% with no changes necessary. As I do when I post an article, the re-poster's intention is the same as if he wrote it himself, unless stated to the contrary. I have you figured out pretty well, by now.
]]> http://rnnblogs.com/index.php/msg/2010/09/07/is_this_anti_muslim_push_un_american#c185218 2010-09-08T15:02:45Z robert [Visitor] Bill.F: I am begining to understand what Cas has gone through with you over the years. George Bush is not my hero.The article who was written by someone else is pointing out the fact that even he(bush) understood that it was wrong to blame all who pratice Islam for being our enemy. And I see you made an assumption by the title of the piece "Broadside"that it was something negative.That is why I posted the piece in its whole context. So I'm saying this to say I am not putting words in anyones mouth. I am begining to understand what Cas has gone through with you over the years.

George Bush is not my hero.The article who was written by someone else is pointing out the fact that even he(bush) understood that it was wrong to blame all who pratice Islam for being our enemy.

And I see you made an assumption by the title of the piece "Broadside"that it was something negative.That is why I posted the piece in its whole context.

So I'm saying this to say I am not putting words in anyones mouth.]]> http://rnnblogs.com/index.php/msg/2010/09/07/is_this_anti_muslim_push_un_american#c185202 2010-09-08T13:54:04Z Bill F. [Visitor] "So, let me break the news to you ... George Bush agrees with President Barack Obama that freedom of religion allows no place for Americans to deny Muslims equal rights and equal respect..." I'm really delighted that George Bush is your new hero, I've been telling you that he was a great leader all along. The only problem is that your putting words in both president's mouths that aren't there. Everyone that you've been demonizing regarding the building of this Mosque so close to Ground Zero all agree as Bush and Obama do, that "freedom of religion allows no place for Americans to deny Muslims equal rights and equal respect...". That is a no brain-er, but neither gentleman has taken a position on whether it makes any sense whatsoever given the emotions, history and spiritual significance of this particular plot of land to go ahead with this nonsensical project that was designed in the far East to do nothing but divide our country. Can you really be that gullible? Besides, the jury is still out on who these people really are and whose really behind poking a finger in the eye of the 9/11 families and the American flag. No one had ever suggested that Mosques aren't welcomed in NY or anywhere else in America, which would allude to your argument, just not on the 9/11 site. Ask yourself, why isn't that Greek Orthodox Church, St. Nicholas, allowed to be rebuilt that was already there for over 100 years? Ask yourself, what NYC and other politicians are illicitly in bed with these people who are behind the Mosque?

I'm really delighted that George Bush is your new hero, I've been telling you that he was a great leader all along. The only problem is that your putting words in both president's mouths that aren't there. Everyone that you've been demonizing regarding the building of this Mosque so close to Ground Zero all agree as Bush and Obama do, that "freedom of religion allows no place for Americans to deny Muslims equal rights and equal respect...". That is a no brain-er, but neither gentleman has taken a position on
whether it makes any sense whatsoever given the emotions, history and spiritual significance of this particular plot of land to go ahead with this nonsensical project that was designed in the far East to do nothing but divide our country. Can you really be that gullible? Besides, the jury is still out on who these people really are and whose really behind poking a finger in the eye of the 9/11 families and the American flag. No one had ever suggested that Mosques aren't welcomed in NY or anywhere else in America, which would allude to your argument, just not on the 9/11 site. Ask yourself, why isn't that Greek Orthodox Church, St. Nicholas, allowed to be rebuilt that was already there for over 100 years? Ask yourself, what NYC and other politicians are illicitly in bed with these people who are behind the Mosque? ]]> http://rnnblogs.com/index.php/msg/2010/09/07/is_this_anti_muslim_push_un_american#c185190 2010-09-08T13:12:46Z robert [Visitor] Bill.F: This what the link says. "NECN: Jim Braude) - Wait til you hear what former President Bush has to say about the Ground Zero mosque. Yes, I'm referring to the President who stood at Ground Zero and vowed to make the evil-doers pay. For days, people have been asking: what would he say ... today .... about the attack on moderate Muslims who want to open an Islamic social center ... not at Ground Zero ... but two blocks away? So, let me break the news to you ... George Bush agrees with President Barack Obama that freedom of religion allows no place for Americans to deny Muslims equal rights and equal respect... Just listen as he stands shoulder to shoulder with Muslim leaders to make his point. In fact, I'd have to say that Bush goes even further than Obama when it comes to eloquently stating the equal place of Muslims in American society... So let's give the former President credit... he's right on the issue ... and he's courageous to speak out ... there's only little caveat to my praise. Bush gave his passionate speech nearly 9 years ago, in September of 2001, just 8 days after the attack on the World Trade Center. And guess what? No one accused Bush of going soft on Islamic terror just because he defended the Muslim faith. In fact, most Americans welcomed his remarks. Which makes me wonder, if it was okay to defend the place of Islam at Ground Zero while the wreckage of the World Trade Center was still smoldering, why isn't it okay to do the same thing today? And one more thing ... if George Bush still believes what he said ...he should say it again... America needs to hear it. This what the link says.

"NECN: Jim Braude) - Wait til you hear what former President Bush has to say about the Ground Zero mosque.

Yes, I'm referring to the President who stood at Ground Zero and vowed to make the evil-doers pay.


For days, people have been asking: what would he say ... today .... about the attack on moderate Muslims who want to open an Islamic social center ... not at Ground Zero ... but two blocks away?

So, let me break the news to you ... George Bush agrees with President Barack Obama that freedom of religion allows no place for Americans to deny Muslims equal rights and equal respect...

Just listen as he stands shoulder to shoulder with Muslim leaders to make his point.

In fact, I'd have to say that Bush goes even further than Obama when it comes to eloquently stating the equal place of Muslims in American society...

So let's give the former President credit... he's right on the issue ... and he's courageous to speak out ... there's only little caveat to my praise.

Bush gave his passionate speech nearly 9 years ago, in September of 2001, just 8 days after the attack on the World Trade Center.

And guess what?

No one accused Bush of going soft on Islamic terror just because he defended the Muslim faith.

In fact, most Americans welcomed his remarks.

Which makes me wonder, if it was okay to defend the place of Islam at Ground Zero while the wreckage of the World Trade Center was still smoldering, why isn't it okay to do the same thing today?

And one more thing ... if George Bush still believes what he said ...he should say it again... America needs to hear it. ]]> http://rnnblogs.com/index.php/msg/2010/09/07/is_this_anti_muslim_push_un_american#c185184 2010-09-08T12:43:20Z robert [Visitor] Bill F. It seems as if the link that I posted regarding bush is not working. I will ignore your statement about being a sneak,you seem to get riled when there is a hint of someone not agreeing with you when it comes to your admoration of the former president.
It seems as if the link that I posted regarding bush is not working.

I will ignore your statement about being a sneak,you seem to get riled when there is a hint of someone not agreeing with you when it comes to your admoration of the former president.]]> http://rnnblogs.com/index.php/msg/2010/09/07/is_this_anti_muslim_push_un_american#c185161 2010-09-08T12:11:23Z Bill F. [Visitor] Robert commented on Bill's following words: "Sickening! Our enemy happens to be motivated by Muslim extremism and this president is constantly insulting America by apologizing for our defending our own country." Roberts comment: "Broadside: Bush defended Muslim faith." How is this a broadside??? I'm specifically speaking of "Muslim extremism" who Bush and even Obama regularly condemned and have carefully separated it from "moderate Muslims", as my words plainly spelled out. Either you need a course in reading comprehension or you are a perpetual sneak, as I've often noticed in the past.
"Sickening! Our enemy happens to be motivated by Muslim extremism and this president is constantly insulting America by apologizing for our defending our own country."

Roberts comment: "Broadside: Bush defended Muslim faith."

How is this a broadside??? I'm specifically speaking of "Muslim extremism" who Bush and even Obama regularly condemned and have carefully separated it from "moderate Muslims", as my words plainly spelled out. Either you need a course in reading comprehension or you are a perpetual sneak, as I've often noticed in the past.
]]>