Bush has NOT cut taxes

Ludwig von Mises Institute ^ | 4/30/2007 | Mark Brandly

[mgstarr]

Ever notice that when they can’t debate you, they just call you names?

Reality is a tough concept for some to grasp and they’ll fight it tooth and nail.

[from occupied ga]

Pi$$ off, you obnoxious twit.

My my. You call me a "DUer" and an "obnoxious twit," and then tell me to "pi$$ off" When you see something that you disagree with you ought to learn to take it like a man, but of course your screen name already imples that.

[LibLieSlayer]

I NEVER stated that all spending was good... it is not... but it is not killing our economy or causing America to degrade. Too many Americans want socialism and it is this fact that will keep real government cuts (read deep) from materializing. Your philosophy (and that within this p!$$ poor article) does cause America to degrade. It hurts the Conservative philosophy of economic growth and Supply Side economics. Reagan believed in it and it worked for him just like it is working today!

I have read you for many moons... I know where your politics reside.

LLS

[Chi-townChief]

That’s the beauty of it here - the NEA supported it because they thought it would be a real windfall for them but it turned out that they may end up actually having to teach instead and be “held accountable” as they say.

[LibLieSlayer]

I agree with you and we need to emulate the “one step at a time, constant pressure to move the country our way” that the libs have successfully used. We need spending cuts and tax reform (flat tax). We will have to achieve it using incremental-ism, as too many Americans want full blown socialism. It will take time to bring most into the light... some will die in darkness, however.. never seeing the light!

LLS

[from occupied ga]

Ever notice that when they can’t debate you, they just call you names?

It is a blow to their concept of the world which is somehow tied up in their amour propre. Without any name calling the Republicans have been spending profilgately, and this isn't a conservative action. Saying that the Democrats would have been worse is unprovable, but looking at the first two years of the Clintoon adminstration as a historical comparison shows that at least in that time period they weren't as bad.

[from occupied ga]

I have read you for many moons... I know where your politics reside.

Unashamedly libertarian - to the right of Thomas Jefferson just so you will have no future doubts.

[dfwgator]

The tax rates may be lower, but the AMT has hit more people which effectively neutralizes the impact of the rate cuts.

[LibLieSlayer]

Proves my point!

LLS

[Garvin]

Clinton and the Congress robbed Peter to pay Paul. . .

“But Republicans have an even bigger problem confronting them. For 30 years they have dedicated themselves to the mantra of a balanced budget. To their credit, that objective has been achieved—though mainly through record tax increases and military downsizing. Without the demon of the deficit, Senate Republicans are content to preserve the status quo—and even to brag about spending surplus funds on new social programs. In the wake of the balanced budget accord, few are comfortable articulating the case for smaller government.”

http://www.reason.com/news/printer/30692.html

[Let's Roll]

Mine definitely went down but then I’m poor and in the lowest bracket.

[RobbyS]

The best that any pol can do these days is to keep taxes flat. The desire of government for money, government at every level, is insatiable. They will find a way. taxes and feess on my phone bill is something like 12% of the total.

[Toskrin]

The Republicans have made a mistake in how they have approached big government spending issues. With “No Child Left Behind” and Medicare prescription coverage, it seems like the Republicans have conceded that these socialist issues are going to happen, one way or another. They then pass their own spending legislation to “preempt” the Rats from doing it their way. Of course, when the Rats get power, they will do it their own way anyway, and the Republicans have gotten them halfway there to their socialist utopia.

[from occupied ga]

Clinton and the Congress robbed Peter to pay Paul.

Bush and the Kongress Borrowed from Peter to pay Paul. The answer isn't in the source of the funds, but CUTTING SPENDING. Without spending cuts where the money comes from is moot, because it ALL comes from the taxpayers one way or another.

[TChris]

I'd sure like to have a link and an actual title for this article. (I'm just guessing that "Bush has NOT cut taxes" isn't the real title.)

[from occupied ga]

Mine definitely went down but then I’m poor and in the lowest bracket.

My income varies, so I see both sides of it, but usually the AMT ensures that I see no benefit from any tax cuts that apply to the income tax.

[from occupied ga]

I'd sure like to have a link and an actual title for this article.

Did you look? The link under the title works for me, and yes this is the "actual title"

[mgstarr]

Did you look?

[jackieaxe]

When you grow the federal government at 2-3 times inflation by introducing NCLB and expanded medicare, all the spending will catch up with you. The so-called tax cuts are not even permanent. When the republicans tell you they are the party of small government, they are lying to you.

[TChris]

Did you look? The link under the title works for me, and yes this is the "actual title"

My apologies. My browser wasn't scrolled all the way to the top, and the Digg link, etc. didn't take me to anything useful.

I was wrong. :-(