This is From SQ - Source is Unknown
Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good...
Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad...
Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - good...
Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq - bad...
Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...
Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists- good...
Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad...
Clinton bombs Chinese embassy - good...
Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad...
Clinton commits felonies while in office - good...
Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit - bad...
No mass graves found in Serbia - good...
No WMD found Iraq - bad...
Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good...
Economy on upswing under Bush - bad...
Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden - good...
World Trade Centers fall under Bush - bad...
Clinton says Saddam has nukes - good...
Bush says Saddam has nukes - bad...
Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...
Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton - good...
Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad...
Milosevic not yet convicted - good...
Saddam turned over for trial - bad...
Ahh, it's so confusing!
Every year an independent tax watchdog group analyzes the average tax burden on Americans, and then calculates the "Tax Freedom Day". This is the day after which the money you earn goes to you, not the government.
This year, tax freedom day was April 11th. That's the earliest it has been since 1991. It's latest day ever was May 2nd, which occurred in 2000. Notice anything special about those dates?
Recently, John Kerry gave a speech in which he claimed Americans are actually paying more taxes under Bush, despite the tax cuts. He gave no explanation and provided no data for this claim.
Another interesting fact: Both George Bush and John Kerry are wealthy men. Bush owns only one home, his ranch in Texas. Kerry owns 4 mansions, all worth several million dollars. (His ski resort home in Idaho is an old barn brought over from Europe in pieces. Not your average A-frame).
Bush paid $250,000 in taxes this year; Kerry paid $90,000. Does that sound right? The man who wants to raise your taxes obviously has figured out a way to avoid paying his own.
posted by Guindiblog | 6:15 PM
6 Comments:
For those of you that don't know, VLWC is the token liberal in the group - kind of like Alan Colmbs. But just like any liberal, his arguments are quite easily dismissed.
As an initial matter, VLWC is arguing against a post that is admittedly from an unknown source. But putting that aside, it is VLWC's post that is misleading.
First, the post does not say "federal taxes", it just says "taxes." By going to the site that VLWC provided, you can see that, on line 49 of the 1040, Bush paid $227,490. You can also see that on line 9 of schedule A, Bush paid $21,353 in ad valorem taxes. That totals to about $249k. The post said $250k.
Second, Kerry AMENDED his tax returns last year because he "inadvertantly" charged the sale of a $675k painting, on which he made a profit of $175k, at the 20% rate instead of the 28% rate. Must be nice to make about $150k a year and have paintings worth $675k. Anyway, this post could have easily been written before Kerry "remembered" that a $175k profit on the sale of a painting qualifies at the 28% rate. In his original return, Kerry paid about $90k in fed taxes and about $98k in total taxes. So maybe the poster was wrong by a few k, maybe the poster made the same mistake VLWC made, or maybe the poster didn't see that kerry qualified for the alternative minimum tax, which cost him an additional 6k. Or maybe the poster was figuring out interest accrued - you see Kerry UNDERPAID his taxes to the tune of over $60k, while Bush OVERPAID his taxes by over $60k!
Must be nice to write a check for $60k when you make $150k a year.
Third, if by "breadwinner," you mean "billionaire widow of republican-earned money," then I guess Teresa is the breadwinner. Which leads us to the most important issue regarding the candidates tax returns, why hasn't Teresa released hers?! Being the "breadwinner," I think we have a right to know where here money is going. Which charities she pays, how much money she gives to groups that call Bush "Hitler", what special interests she supports, etc...
I note that Kerry took out a "loan" for over $6M, without which he wouldn't even be here. How can he take out a $6M personal loan when he is making a little more than I do? You think it has anything to do with the "breadwinner"?
VLWC and the rest of the libs will tell you that they filed separately and so it is irrelevant. They will also tell you that Kerry doesn't own mansions all over the country, Teresa does. Doesn't this sound like Kerry saying that he doesn't own SUV's, "the family" does?
This is what happens when a party practices moral relativism instead of absolutism. They are governed by the letter of the law, not morals, because in relativism it is too confusing to tell the difference between "the meaning of the word 'is'", saddam's regime of mass murder and mass starvation vs. democracy, Florida's election protocal vs. Venezuela's, Hitler vs. Bush, etc...
Does she have a "legal" obligation to release her tax returns? No, so end of story. Does she owe it to the American public? Of course.
And might I further observe that VLWC committed another classic liberal argumentative technique.
He said that "Making it seem that the husband of the heiress to a substantial fortune somehow shirked his legal responsibility to pay taxes is misleading,if not downright dishonest."
This is the classic "straw man" argument: mischaracterizing a position to make it easier to defeat. There was no insinuation that he "shirked his legal responsibility" whatsoever. The post was quite clear: it said that he "figured out a way to avoid paying his own." There is no a word about legality - in fact, the argument assumes that what he did was legal, but that he can afford to hire an attorney to navigate through the tax code.
When we think something is wrong, that doesn't necessarily mean that we think it is illegal. Again, this is the difference between moral relativism, wherein actions are judged by legality, and absolutism, wherein actions are judged by morality. This is why the liberals give great credence to the fact that Kofi Annan thinks the war in iraq is "illegal," without any thought on whether the war was the right thing to do morally.
Does the "straw man" argument sound familiar? The Swifties testified that the 2 of Kerry's wounds were "self-inflicted." They never said they were "intentional." Also, Max Cleland was defeated because of his dovish votes regarding the war on terror, nobody questioned his "patriotism."
Well gentleman, there you have it. VLWC and his cronies just don't get it. They cannot differentiate between legality and morality. That is why their party is secular, and why their party just doesn't get the american public.
The day their party changed from being the party of the working man to the party of special interests and minorities, is the day they conservative revolution swept the country.
The crazy thing is they will never learn that the american public doesn't need a dictionary to determine the meaning of the word "is." They don't need a tax code to understand that Kerry enjoys the life of a Billionaire and yet wants to raise the taxes of small business owners. They don't need Kofi Annan's interpretation of the U.N. charter to determine whether ousting Saddam was the right thing to do.
Anyway, on Nov. 2 Bush will "steal" another election by "misleading" the moronic American public. Everybody knows that we should vote for "anyone but Bush!" That's why Dan Rather insisted that Bush answer the questions raised by the forged documents. Because everybody knows that he disobeyed direct orders, shirked his duty, lied to the American public, instigated a war in order to enrich oil companies, is comparable with Hitler, is hiding bin Laden for an October surprise, is disenfranchising black voters, etc... Right?
But how dare you point out that he only paid 1/3 of what Bush paid in taxes last year!!!!
I would also note that VLWC also exhibited the tried and true liberal argumentative technique: name calling.
Bush is a moron, Reagan was a ditz, Rove is evil, Newt was dangerous....
Besides the childish names he called me, he said I don't fact check and then linked to an "urban legends" website!! What's more is we were discussing Teresa's tax returns, not the Heinz foundations, which your unverifiable website discussed. I want to know where she spent her considerable private sum, I never mentioned the Heinz foundation.
Even when trying to refute my straw man characterization, you made a straw man argument.
Oh and I can't resist your comment that libs stick to the facts! LOL! that is a laughable assertion. Here are some of today's most prominent libs:
a) michael moore, war for oil
b) george soros, bush is hitler
c) al gore, internet inventor
d) ted kennedy, chappaquiddic
e) robert byrd, member of kkk turned lib
f) BILL CLINTON, enough said
g) john kerry, xmas in cambodia, gun running, cia men with magic hats
h) joe wilson, wife didn't get him job, president knew of cia report before his mission
i) sandy berger, steals classified files from national archives
j) dan rather, forges docs
I just caught this from VLWC's 2nd post: Bush had a $60k return because he OVERPAID his taxes by 60k. That is the defenition of a return. Kerry had to write a check for over 60k because he witheld as long as he possibly could so he could make interest on his money instead of the government. Perfectly legal, but tends to show that Kerry does what he can, legally, to pay as little taxes as possible yet wants to raise my taxes.
I find several things interesting about all these varying arguments and critiques being bantered about.
1. To the visitor, or at least non-commentator, who posted a comment, Welcome! We value all input no matter how misguided.
2. The effective tax rates of either candidate (27.7% for Bush and 25.8% for Kerry really don't amount to much of anything to argue about IMHO; the true argument is to dicuss policy that would increase the marginal rate on each dollar earned via hardwork or investment in this economy.
Better yet, why not just completely redo the entire, outdated system we call a federal income tax in favor of a simple, straight forward program that doesn't require us to waste time "wondering" what others are doing to shirk, avoid, or actually honor the burdensome tax laws.
3. Rather/CBS "lies" to the American public - OK, Bush "lies" to American public - not OK
Or the more PC form, Rather/CBS "mislead", "victimized " by a loose cannon in TX - understandable, Bush "mislead" by more than 5 different, independent intelligence agencies from across the globe - deplorable.
4. I'll reiterate one additional point, Theresa IS NOT a breadwinner. I and any other hard working American should take offense to that assertion. She has a right to the money she has, but she is not a breadwinner.
Post a Comment
<< Home