**WARNING** Jen will be ranting about Bush and his fiscally irresponsible tax cut. If you unwaveringly support Bush, this tax cut, trickle-down economics, or plan to call me a liberal hippie b*tch (in which case your post WILL be deleted and you will be IP banned from my site), please skip this entry and read something else — like an economics book. 🙂 Jen needs to work her nerves and doesn’t need to hear that she’s un-American and should move to Canada. (Jon and I are already planning that once our student loans are paid off.) I didn’t tell you to move to Canada when you whined about Clinton. The same applies now. 🙂 That is all
Senate OKs tax package: Voinovich on board after temporary repeal of new tax breaks on dividends
Attention Senator George Voinovich:
You are an embarassment to your contituents. I was proud of you when you stood up to President Bush and rejected his tax cut (albeit for a smaller one) because it was fiscally irresponsible. Yes… it probably made you unpopular with the President but you took a stand for your beliefs. However… you have proven that you are a true politician and only care about being re-elected by letting the lobbyists get to you. How many of your constituents are wealthy enough to benefit from said tax cut? Yep… less than 10%. You sold out at least 90% of your constituents in hopes of being re-elected. Shame on you! There’s also the fact that you went on board once there was the promise of tax breaks on dividends. It’s great that you can actually benefit from this… because most of your constituents aren’t weathy enough to own the amount of stocks they’d need to benefit from this.
You could have taken a stand like your colleagues Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Lincoln Chafee (R-Rhode Island) who actually *have* principles. Yes… it wasn’t the one Bush originally suggested and this was your limit. However… it is *STILL* going to cost the Treasury Department $660 billion during the next decade. You *REALLY* want to do this? Hello? States are having to cut Medicaid to balance their budgets. By voting for this, you just sacrificed the health of quite a few of your constituents who can’t afford insurance and pay dearly every time they end up in the ER for the most basic healthcare.
I’m praying that I’ll be in another state soon where I’ll have senators that *care* about their constituents. You and Senator DeWine (who is a fascist pig to begin with) really don’t and I pray that this move costs you your Senate position in the next election.
OK… onto the President:
Dubya,
You obviously didn’t learn this at Yale (maybe because you were farting around instead of studying which is why you had that C+ average) but… OUR. TAXES. FUND. THE. GOVERNMENT. This means that if you want to go fight your wars against leaders you hate, you need to not cut taxes and make that money go away. When you make that money go away, you deny your citizens basic services. It’s nice that you have $1.2 million in investments and that your tax cut means that you can keep more of that money. Most Americans don’t. In fact, I think your salary alone is more than the combined salaries of half of my church.
Of course… you also saw during the Reagan years that tax cuts make you popular. It also created the recession that didn’t get your father re-elected. Of course… you’ll probably be out of office when your successor has to pull us out of this mess, so you really don’t care. What a nice attitude to have — not caring about the mess you’re leaving behind. You also probably didn’t learn that the bottom income tax brackets support the top ones whose taxes you are cutting — this means that the poorest people in the nation are paying for the cut for the richest. Nice reverse Robin Hood move — robbing the poor to feed the rich.
I heard that you just filed for re-election. I am praying harder than you can imagine that people will wake up and take the blinders off and see what a mess you’ve made of our economy and that they support the Democratic candidate. I’m praying that said candidate is an actual veteran and not a wannabe warmonger like you proved yourself to be in that little publicity stunt on the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln. (Yes… it boosted the morale of troops. However… I know quite a few vets who are ashamed to have voted for you because of what you did. To them, it cheapens their experiences in Korea and Vietnam.) I’m pretty pissed that you can travel the nation for your campaign on my tax dollars because you should be paying that yourself and not making me pay for it when my money should be going to the social programs that got decimated to make your tax cut possible.
OK… now if only the Democratic candidates would stop sniping at each other and start working together to find the best person among them. I might even vote for a Republican in the primaries if it would weaken Bush’s chances of getting re-elected.
(Oh yes… for the record, this is not a far left journal and I am *NOT* a “yellow dog Democrat”. If there’s a Republican candidate that is better than the Democratic one, I’ll vote for them. I’ve done this plenty of times. Heck… I think I voted Green on almost everything but the presidential candidates in 2000. However, Bush is *NOT* better than any of the nine candidates that are currently vying for the Democratic nomination and I will not waste my vote on him.)
bush vs. sharpton, and yuo’d vote dem? my only caviat is that any candidate running for political office is already showing some blatant character flaw. but i wouldn’t go so far as to say anyone would be better than bush.
as for our. taxes. fund. our. government. you’re right – but only to the point that the economy can be jump started so that our. taxes. won’t. have. to. fund so many social programs for folks who can’t/aren’t working. if people could get jobs and get off minimum assistance, i’d take it. i know that’s the premise of tax-cuts, and i’m not dense enough to think that it’s been working up to now. but tax *increases* haven’t exactly measured up to par yet either, have they?
i also can’t take much from the democrat’s party line, but that’s just me. the social agenda is usually well-intentioned, but it allows folks to live in an entitlement mentality that also hasn’t proved to be all it’s cracked up to be. if the republican’s side on lifting up the almighty millionaire’s club unfairly, the dem’s probably give in too richly to the entitlement lobbyists – while neither side actually does the job they’ve “promised” to do. just give me the guy who shoots straight and means what he says… wait, that kinda guy wouldn’t be running for office. sigh.
too early to be thinking on a saturday. thanks, jen!
Let’s see… Bush vs. Sharpton… I think I would vote Green Party on that one. I doubt Sharpton will get the the nomination — he’s a little too far in left field for most Dems.
And yes Rick… you’re up too early for a Saturday. Go back to sleep!
So many erroneous assertions, so little time…
“States are having to cut Medicaid to balance their budgets.”
On the bright side that means drug addicts can’t abuse our tax dollars to fund their drug habits. 🙂
Read the rest of my rebuttal here:
http://vesselofhonour.blogspot.com/#94484691
Scratch that, the CORRECT link is here:
http://vesselofhonour.blogspot.com/#94507409
Ewwwww….Sharpton!!!!
I’m definitely voting for whomever I feel is the best running. Since I’m registered Libertarian, I can vote on either Dem or Rep for the primary. I’ll vote on the Dem ticket in hopes of helping to get a decent opponent up there.
Rick, I thought this was pretty insightful:
if the republican’s side on lifting up the almighty millionaire’s club unfairly, the dem’s probably give in too richly to the entitlement lobbyists – while neither side actually does the job they’ve “promised” to do. just give me the guy who shoots straight and means what he says… wait, that kinda guy wouldn’t be running for office. sigh.
sad but true.
Mac: I could make the same comment on some of your assertions. 🙂
Crystal and Rick: Agreed.
Jen, if I may, allow me to point out the findings of the 1996 Joint Economic Committee … where it reads:The Reagan tax cuts, like similar measures enacted in the 1920s and 1960s, showed that reducing excessive tax rates stimulates growth, reduces tax avoidance, and can increase the amount and share of tax payments generated by the rich. High top tax rates can induce counterproductive behavior and suppress revenues, factors that are usually missed or understated in government static revenue analysis.
Like it or not, it is an indisputable historical fact that when tax rates are lowered reasonably, not only did the economy heat up, but Federal Reciepts soared.
In the case of the current tax cuts such as the top rate of 38% being cut to 35% is more than reasonable by any economic standard.
Especially when you consider how many individuals are declaring their business income as “S Corporations.” Meaning, this tax cut isn’t so Joe Millionaire can buy a new yacht, but so the woman down the street running a day care center, or the guy up the block doing landscaping can expand her/his business. Employ more persons — who in turn pay more into the system. Buy more equipment, which indirectly pays more taxes and employs more persons.
That said, the problem with the current economy isn’t the consumer end, but on business expansion and investment. Our current tax rates punish success. Moreover, they are discouraging investment.
For example, the dividend cut is so fathers such as myself can put more into a college funds for his daughter, so that my retired parents are taxed twice on their retirement investments.
Personally, I think what is irresponsible is the overspending on both sides of the political aisle for some really wacky pork-barrel stuff. I mean, how many buildings and courte houses do we need named after Robert C. Byrd?
Very interesting post. A great reply on Mac’s site.
I think I also have to disagree with the following statement “ You also probably didn’t learn that the bottom income tax brackets support the top ones whose taxes you are cutting — this means that the poorest people in the nation are paying for the cut for the richest. Nice reverse Robin Hood move — robbing the poor to feed the rich.“
According to an October 2002 report by the Joint Economic Committe: New Internal Revenue Service (IRS) data show that the top one percent of tax filers paid 37.42 percent of federal personal income taxes in 2000, the latest year for which data are available, Chairman Jim Saxton said today. The 2000 share paid by the top one percent (ranked by adjusted gross income) reflects an increase from the 36.18 percent level posted in 1999. The 3.91 percent share paid by the bottom half of taxpayers was virtually unchanged during this period, as was the 96.09 percent share borne by the top half.
“Mac: I could make the same comment on some of your assertions.”
That’s right you could. 😀 I think the only way we’ll ever settle this is with a bout of pinochle. 😉
Mean Dean, you pretty much hit it on, and my only concern is whether the tax cut is substantial enough to stimulate such a growth. They may have watered it down so much that it wont have the effect it was meant to have. Also hiddenin the bill are at least 40 TAX HIKES! Huh!??!?
Spending is also out of control, and that is the fault of both parties, including Bush. Bring the balanced budget amendment back on the table!
Spending is also out of control, and that is the fault of both parties …
Yes, if both parties had to run their budgets responsibly, like you and I are compelled by law to, then we might not be having this discussion at all.
Great letters! I can only hope that some of the more independent thinkers on both sides of the isle in D.C. would take some sort of stand. It is unfortunate that the loudest voice of dissent in the U.S. Senate for the last few years is the late Paul Wellstone. Despite his politics he was always there speaking his mind, and the mind of many Americans.
I think that the Dems have some good candidates…and at least one of the “front runners” is running on a platform other than the “war on terror” (Howard Dean who is focusing on health care). Anyway…rock on Jen.