posted 12-16- 03:32 PM               

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/15/politics/15CONG.html

Here is a little bit of what it says...

WASHINGTON, Dec. 14 — Speaker J. Dennis Hastert said today that he did not favor President-elect George W. Bush's $1.3 trillion across- the-board tax cut, a position that could threaten a centerpiece of his campaign.

Instead, Mr. Hastert said he would push for the House to act on tax cuts aimed more narrowly at married couples and heirs, an approach that drew bipartisan support this year in Congress but was rejected by President Clinton. Mr. Hastert, an Illinois Republican, has the backing of Representative Tom DeLay, the majority whip from Texas.

"I would think that the first few pieces of tax relief that we attempt will be incremental," Mr. Hastert said. "But we haven't really sat down and talked about this in any depth.

"We are most successful, especially in tax policy, when we start to take tax ideas and do them a piece at a time," he added.

So, it would appear that The Speaker is calling for, in essence, targeted tax cuts?

Targeted tax cuts... hmmm... that rings a bell. Who was calling for targeted tax cuts? hmmm... who could that be? Could it be... Al Gore?

Bush hasn't even been inaugurated yet and the Republicans are already backpedaling on promises, or at least greasing us up for the big let down.

It's frustrating...Dubya ran on this big tax cut. It was the centerpiece of his campaign and now it's looking more and more like it's not a good idea. And the GOP knows it!

Bush has two options...

1. Ram this big tax cut through and wreck the economy.

2. Renege on his promise and face the wrath of the American people in 2004.

Face it, Al Gore was right all along. Now we're stuck with this weeble-wobble who picked the WRONG plan for America!

Voters do not forget broken campaign promises. They will jettison this guy faster than the ejection seat on his old F-102.

posted 12-16- 05:42 PM               

Me too... but I'd also like to see him held accountable for his phony campaign promises. Countless times, the Bush campaign accused Gore of being the kind of guy who would say anything to get elected.

posted 12-16- 08:01 PM               

Christ, the guy's not even in office yet, hasn't proposed any legislation and you're complaining about his administration. At least the Republicans waited until Clinton got in and started fucking with the health industry before they unloaded on him.

I hope you guys have your health insurance paid up because you're working yourselves into a breakdown over nothing but your fantasies.

posted 12-16- 08:59 PM               

Sounds like he has a point to me Jerry.

Canadians are getting a tax cut pretty much across the board.

Not huge or nothing but every little bit helps.

posted 12-16- 09:13 PM               

First thing we need is an independent counsel
to investigate the whole Flordia election and
how much little brother Jeb had his snot nose
in it.

posted 12-16- 10:55 PM               

A leader's job is tough, Bush knows this - he will kick the ass of those spineless Washingtonj republicans - he will work to get his tax plan through - but after he gets some other important things done to pave the way. He will first to subscriptiojn drugs for old farts - that is a good place to bring democrats and republicans together - then he will move ahead slowly - building on respect and trust - eventually he will get his tax plan through - or maybe he will fall just short. Any way, to accuse Bush of not delivering on his campaign promises before he even gets into office is fucking bullshit.

You say it is your turn to gripe now that Bush is in, gripe all you want - we have the answers, and tough for you, we are in charge this time.

Sounds like the losers are griping 'cause they are not in control. Fair enough, but it is very hard to argue that Bush has failed before he even gets into office.

Of couser, if Bush does well, that is bad for you - so isn't a Bush failer what you want anyway? If Gore was in I would hope he would fail, I don't want any more God Damn social programs.

posted 12-16- 11:24 PM               

And oh by the way Spanky, you're supporting the guys who are saying that an across the board tax increase will destroy America. Since Canadians are getting an across the board increase, how long do you think you will last?

posted 12-17- 10:20 AM               

Jerry what I meant is the back peddaling is starting already on the US tax cut issue.

When did i state that i supported a tax increase?

Also when did i say canada is getting a tax increase?

Its a DECREASE.

IE less money goes to the goverment.

I'm not taking sides here jerry. I belive in lower taxes for the people.

What I was commenting on was a politition going back on his word. Which is something that seems to happen all too often.

That doesn't mean I supported Gores ideas with the tax system.

Why is it that you guys aways make people pick sides?

Can't I hate and like ideas from both of your major parties?

Theres no way I could agree with everything one of the parties said.

posted 12-17- 12:52 PM               

That's precisely the point. The guy isn't even in office yet and HIS OWN PARTY is already saying that maybe this big tax cut isn't such a good idea after all. It's as though they all suddenly sobered up after they realized that Bush won.

But what really bugs me is that during the campaign, certain members of the GOP had to have known that this tax cut wasn't such a good idea. Why didn't they speak up? I'll bet they were told were told to keep quiet.

And don't think Hastert is just speaking his mind here. Hastert was probably told to float this idea of pulling back a little on the tax cut... to see how the people would react. I think it's even quite possible that the GOP is using the Clinton strategy of having your own people get the bad news out first and a little bit at a time... before your enemies go to the media and drop a bomb.

Either way, I predict here and now that this promised tax cut will soon be exposed as a grand old Bait and Switch.

posted 12-17- 01:17 PM               

To suggest that not being able to get your promised agenda through is going back on your word is crazy. I know that when I voted for Bush that he would not be able to push his dream plan through, but I know he will represent my views as best as possible.

You guys who think other people deserve rich poeples money make me sick - you are clearly communists - that is communism, to suggest that they have no right to their own property and money. By what right is it taken away?

posted 12-17- 02:00 PM               

If the rest of you knee-jerk liberals knew anything about politics you would know that with a Congress divided 50-50 neither Bush nor Gore would get all their proposals through. You are going to see a lot of "trial balloons" over the next four years. But to accuse Bush of back peddling before he even gets into office is ludicrous!

Campaign rhetoric only tells us what the candidates believe in and what they will try to accomplish. There can be no guarantees like you guys are naively looking for. Both candidates said they were in favor of peace in the Middle East. Are you going to condemn Bush when, on January 20, he hasn't achieved it? Yeah...you probably will. After all, it's a campaign "promise" as far as you're concerned and he better deliver immediately or you're going to be in his face.

You guys probably think that Disney World and the X-Files are real too!

posted 12-17- 03:27 PM               

BUSH:

Two points. One, a lot of folks are still waiting for that 1992 middle-class tax cut. I remember the vice president saying, "Just give us a chance to get up there, we're going to make sure you get tax cuts." It didn't happen. Now he's having to say that again. They've had their chance to deliver a tax cut to you.

He is clearly disparaging Gore for not getting that 1992 middle-class tax cut through. Should we not disparage Bush when his tax plan falls on it's face?

Furthermore, an across-the-board tax cut was the centerpiece of Dubya's campaign. It wasn't some theortical exercise designed to show us the character of his heart... you know, that heart which he talks about all the time... {puke}

I think most people would be forgiving if he had, during the campaign, made it clear that this tax cut might not be possible. But he didn't. He made this big tax cut initiative the single most definitive issue of his campaign.

Here is another quote by Mr. Dubya...

I can't let the man continue with fuzzy math. It is 1.3 trillion. It will go to everybody who pays taxes. I'm not going to be the kind of president that says you get tax relief and you don't.

And another...

For those of you who he wants to scare into the voting booth to vote for him, hear
me loud and clear. A promise made will be a promise kept. You bet we want to allow younger workers to take some of their own money. That's the difference of opinion. The vice president thinks it's the government's money. The payroll taxes are your money.

Oh my...

Younger worker after younger worker hears my call that says I trust you. And you know what, the issue is changeing. Seniors now understand that the promise made will be a promise kept, but younger workers now understand we better have a government that trusts them and that's exactly what I'm going to do.

Everyone complained that Al Gore was sighing too much. Well, I was sighing right along with him when I heard stuff like this...

We need to make sure our seniors get the promise made. If we don't trust younger workers to manage some of their own money with the Social Security surplus, to grow from $1 trillion to $3 trillion, it will be impossible to bridge the gap without it. What Mr. Gore's plan will do causing huge payroll taxes or major benefit reductions.

posted 12-17- 03:41 PM               

It's a good analogy, but it doesn't work in this case. The fact of the matter is that Bush did more than say he was in favor of a tax cut. Indeed he promised one. If I were to use your analogy, Bush has basically promised to bring peace to the Middle East.

>You guys who think other people deserve rich poeples money make me sick - you are clearly communists - that is communism, to suggest that they have no right to their own property and money. By what right is it taken away?

Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm certainly not suggesting that. In fact, I've often said that Bush's tax plan is fair. But just because it's fair or even just, doesn't mean it's the best course of action for the country.
Furthermore, this isn't really about taxes and how we feel about them. This is about Dubya promising something that he can't deliver.

posted 12-17- 04:44 PM               

At least Bush will try to keep his promises. When did Clinton/Gore even try to get the middle-class tax cut they promised?

posted 12-17- 05:21 PM               

Hey, if he gets this grandiose tax cut done, I'll be pleased as punch. Personally speaking, I don't think he will be able to do it, but I'm willing to wait and see.

I'm just making well-founded predictions based on things I'm hearing from Bush's own party.

>At least Bush will try to keep his promises. When did Clinton/Gore even try to get the middle-class tax cut they promised?

Who cares?

>Don't you find it interesting that Bush, from the "rich whiteman's party" has so far named a black man, a black woman and a Hispanic man to top posts?

No... should I?

I don't have any reason to question Bush's motivation in appointing these people. They seem qualified and I haven't heard otherwise.

I did, however, have reason enough to question Bush's motivation in trying to appoint Breaux.

posted 12-17- 07:57 PM               

No, I'm saying that when Bush backpedals on his tax plan, as I suspect he will, no one will care about how hard he tried.

Same with Clinton/Gore... no one cares how hard they tried. It's more or less irrelevant.

posted 12-17- 08:16 PM               

JT, you have the STRANGEST way of approaching debates, as if it were a court case! This is a battle man - both sides push their strengths and try and dilute their weaknesses - it is a dabate man! You take all the fun out of it - debates have been like this forever, you just are not in the spirit for it.

Here is what JT thinks Bush should have said:

quote:

---

Well, I want to lower taxes. Now we know there in no way for republicans to get everything they want, so let me tall you - I have a tax plan, the best most fair plan for America. But I dount it will get past. Wow, gee, this is tough.. who should you vote for? Well, vote for me if you don't want my agenda to become a reality, and vote for my opponent if you don't want to see his agenda become reality...

---

So JT, let me get this stright, we are supposed to not vote for the guy who's agenda we don't not want to become reality?!?

A debate is where you learn about what a candidate is all about. You vote for who represents you best. Then you hope they fight as hard as they can to see their stuff get implemented. It is that simple.

This points to the problem with American politics today, people just don't get it! It's suppose to be politics! Does anyone remember what that means, or how it works?

Anyone who voted for Gore will be (and should be) happy to see Bush fail. Anyone who voted for Bush could not have done worse if they voted for the other guy - like Gore would work to implement Bush's plan.

posted 12-17- 09:09 PM               

This would not be an issue for me if he had merely said that he would try to get a big tax cut done. The fact of the matter is that he promised one. This is evidenced by the many quotes I provided. And I can probably find lots more.

Promising something you can't deliver is bs any way you slice it. I can't believe that you, a conservative, would suggest otherwise.

Seriously... your explanations as to why we should give Bush a pass on this are absolutely Clintonesque. Once again, you guys are contorting yourselves into pretzels to support this guy.

But like I said... I'm willing to wait and see. If Bush pulls it off, then yippee for him. If not, I will be amongst the masses who will jettison this guy in 2004.

posted 12-18- 12:44 PM               

Then again, Bush promised a lot of stuff that I don't think he will be able to pull off, so it may not matter who won this election.

posted 12-18- 01:03 PM               

What you have now is the judicial branch of
government has effectively selected the head
of the executive branch of government. This
is exactly what the founders didn't want.
This is the reason for the separation of
powers. It is only supposed to happen as a
last resort and then the US congress is
supposed to do the selecting. Not the US
supreme court.

posted 12-18- 04:20 PM               

The US supreme Court should not have gotten invovled in that state issue.