Kerry would tax us into oblivion

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Moi, Jan 31, 2004.

  1. Moi
    Offline

    Moi Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    1,859
    Thanks Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    The ONLY GOOD place
    Ratings:
    +11
    KERRY MISLEADS ON TAX CUTS

    KERRY: "I Have Voted For Countless Numbers Of Tax Cuts."(Sen. John Kerry, Democrat Presidential Candidates Debate, Manchester, New Hampshire, 1/22/04)

    But Kerry Has Voted Against Major Tax Relief At Least 14 Times In His Senate Career. (H.R. 2, CQ Vote #196: Adopted 51-50: R 48-3; D 2-46; I 0-1, With Vice President Cheney Casting A "Yea" Vote, 5/23/03; H.R. 2, CQ Vote #179: Passed 51-49: R 48-3; D 3-45; I 0-1, 5/15/03; H.R. 1836, Roll Call Vote #165: Adopted 62-38: R 50-0; D 12-38, 5/23/01; H. Con. Res. 83, Roll Call Vote #69: Adopted 53-47: R 4-46; D 49-1, 4/4/01; H.R. 2488, CQ Vote #261: Adopted 50-49: R 49-4; D 0-45; I 1-0, 8/5/99; S. 1429, Roll Call Vote #247: Passed 57-43: R 52-2; D 4-41; I 1-0, 7/30/99; H.R. 2646, Roll Call Vote #169: Adopted 59-36: R 51-2; D 8-34, 6/24/98; H.R. 2646, Roll Call Vote #288: Rejected 56-41: R 54-1; D 2-40, 10/30/97; H. Con. Res. 84, Roll Call Vote #92: Adopted 78-22: R 41-14; D 37-8, 5/23/97; S. 1028, Roll Call Vote #72: Adopted 52-46: R 5-46; D 47-0, 4/18/96; S. Con. Res. 13, CQ Vote #178, Rejected 31-69: R 31-23; D 0-46, 5/23/95; H.R. 2264, Roll Call Vote #190: Passed 50-49: R 0-43; D 49-6, 6/25/93; H. Con. Res. 64, Roll Call Vote #83: Adopted 54-45: R 0-43; D 54-2, 3/25/93; H.R. 3628, Roll Call Vote #298: Rejected 51-47 (needed 2/3 majority): R 45-0; D 6-47, 11/15/89)
    Kerry Voted To Reduce Size Of 2001 Tax Cut. Kerry voted to reduce Bush's proposed tax cut by $448 billion over 10 years. (H. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #69: Adopted 53-47: R 4-46; D 49-1, 4/4/01, Kerry Vote Yea)


    Kerry Has Voted Against Marriage Penalty Relief At Least A Dozen Times. (S. Con. Res. 13, CQ Vote # 178: Rejected 31-69: R 31-23; D 0-46, 5/23/95, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1415, CQ Vote #154: Rejected 48-50: R 5-49; D 43-1, 6/10/98, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1429, CQ Vote #230: Rejected 46-54: R 45-9; D 0-45; I 1-0, 7/29/99, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1429 CQ Vote #247: Passed 57-43: R 52-2; D 4-41; I 1-0, 7/30/99, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2488, CQ Vote #261: Adopted 50-49: R 49-4; D 0-45; I 1-0, 8/5/99, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 6, CQ Vote #82: Rejected 53-45: R 53-1; D 0-44, 4/13/00, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 6, CQ Vote #83: Rejected 53-45: R 53-1; D 0-44, 4/13/00, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R.4810, CQ Vote #213: Rejected 20-79: R 1-53; D 19-26, 7/18/00, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 4810, CQ Vote #214: Adopted 54-45: R 54-0; D 0-45, 7/18/00, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 4810, CQ Vote #215: Passed 61-38: R 53-1; D 8-37, 7/18/00, Kerry Voted Nay; H. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #79: Adopted 50-50: R 49-1; D 1-49, With Vice President Cheney Casting A "Yea" Vote, 4/5/01, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #165: Passed 62-38: R 50-0; D 12-38, 5/23/01, Kerry Voted Nay)


    Kerry Voted Against 2001 And 2003 Bush Tax Cuts, Which Included Expansion Of Child Tax Credit. (H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #165: Passed 62-38: R 50-0; D 2-38, 5/23/01, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2, CQ Vote #179: Passed 51-49: R 48-3; D 3-45; I 0-1, 5/15/03, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2, CQ Vote #196: Adopted 50-50: R 48-3; D 2-46; I 0-1, With Vice President Cheney Casting A "Yea" Vote, 5/23/03, Kerry Voted Nay)
     
  2. acludem
    Offline

    acludem VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,500
    Thanks Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Missouri
    Ratings:
    +69
    I have no time to look up each and everyone of those bills and attempt to decipher them, but I guarantee you that a large majority of those were bills designed to give big tax cuts to wealthiest people, just as the Bush tax cuts did. And if you notice, almost everyone one of the votes you cite is a straight party line vote. You probably don't cite votes where Kerry votes FOR the democratic alternative tax relief package. These are the votes on the Republican sponsored packages. I could put together this same sort of data for Trent Lott and accuse him of voting for tax increases. Your data doesn't back your original statement.
     
  3. Moi
    Offline

    Moi Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    1,859
    Thanks Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    The ONLY GOOD place
    Ratings:
    +11
    I am a little sick and tired of arguments that fault the "wealthy" for getting tax cuts...If the "wealthiest" people in the country get a tax cut that is pro rata discounted just like the poorer people, that's fair. ALL the tax rates were reduced. Child care credits (i.e., cash back) were staged out for the wealthy and given to those who didn't even pay taxes.

    Marriage tax? Hits everyone married. How can you possibly suggest that keeping it is just towards those in the lower tax brackets?

    I didn't post this to suggest that Kerry didn't EVER vote for a tax reduction. I'm willing to accept that he may have. However, marriage tax is a particularly unfair burden on married people, it affects those of all economic brackets and doesn't serve a single purpose in a fair use of government power. He's completely wrong for not voting it out.

    What would he tax us with next? How about we tax all those with kids?
     
  4. wonderwench
    Online

    wonderwench Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Even John F. Kennedy realized that cutting taxes spurred economic growth and increased tax receipts.
     
  5. eric
    Online

    eric Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    No one has yet been able to explain to my why I should pay a higher percentage than anyone else. Everyone has equal opportunity in this country, yet some are able to excel, why should we be punished for this. Why are we asked to shoulder the burdens of this country, which keep in mind most of the taxes collected are from the high income brackets.
     
  6. MtnBiker
    Offline

    MtnBiker Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2003
    Messages:
    4,327
    Thanks Received:
    230
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Rocky Mountains
    Ratings:
    +230
    JOHN F. KENNEDY SPEECH
    Economic Club of New York
    December 14, 1962



    I feel somewhat like I felt when I addressed in 1960 the Houston Ministerial Conference on separation of church and state. But I'm glad to have a chance to talk to you about the advantages of the free enterprise system.
    This nation possesses both the will and the weapons to meet any threat. The gains we have made will not be given up, and the course we have pursued will not be abandoned. But in the long run, that security will not be determined by military or diplomatic moves alone. It will be affected by the deployment of fiscal and monetary weapons as well as by military weapons, and above all by the strength of this nation's economy, as well as by the strength of our defenses. You recall that Chairman Khrushchev said he believed that the hinge of world history would begin to move when the Soviet Union outproduced the United States. .......

    But the most direct and significant kind of federal action aiding economic growth is to make possible an increase in private consumption and investment demand to cut the fetters which hold back private spending. In the past this could be done in part by the increased use of credit and monetary tools, but our balance of payments situation today places limits on our use of those tools for expansion. It could also be done by increasing federal expenditures more rapidly than necessary, but such a course would soon demoralize both the government and our economy. If government is to retain the confidence of the people, it must not spend more than can be justified on grounds of national need or spent with maximum efficiency. The final and best means of strengthening demand among consumers and business is to reduce the burden on private income and the deterrence to private initiative which are imposed by our present tax system: And this administration pledged itself last summer to an across the board top to bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes to be enacted and become effective in 1963....................

    I do not underestimate the obstacles which the Congress will face in enacting such legislation. A high order of statesmanship and determination will be required if the possible is not to wait on the perfect. But a nation capable of marshalling these capabilities to meet a sudden and dramatic threat to its security is surely equally capable of meeting a creeping and complex threat to our economic vitality. This nation can afford to reduce taxes - we can afford a temporary deficit - but we cannot afford to do nothing. For on the strength of our free economy rests the hope of all free men. We shall not fail their faith - and God willing, free men and free nations shall prosper and prevail.



    Whole speech
     
  7. AtlantaWalter
    Offline

    AtlantaWalter Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2003
    Messages:
    479
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    small cave outside Atlanta
    Ratings:
    +3
    The democraps will not be happy until they have so taxed the "providers" in this country in an attempt to support the "leeches" that one day the system will implode and destroy itself. The few can only support the many for so long, especially when the few get fewer and the many continue to grow in number.
     
  8. Palestinian Jew
    Offline

    Palestinian Jew Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2003
    Messages:
    903
    Thanks Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Fayetteville
    Ratings:
    +18
    "democraps" quite clever. I don't understand why people get so angry at the poor for taking money, WHEN THE RICH TAKE MUCH MUCH MORE THAN ANY OTHER PEOPLE IN THE COUNTRY! Have you not heard of "corporate welfare" where the corporations get BILLIONS. How much do the "many" take from the gov't? It isn't even close to the amount the rich take from the gov't. So please begin to refer to the so called "providers" as the "leaches" of this country and direct your anger to the right source.
     
  9. bamthin
    Online

    bamthin Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    I guess the theory is to lower taxes on the wealthy and the corporations so they can grow their businesses and create new jobs for the working class. Or maybe they can just take the tax cuts and then finance new factories in Mexico and move the jobs there!! Did we learn nothing from Enron? Greed is encouraged by this administration.

    Read the paper. Profits are up but wages are flat and job growth is practically non-existent. Corporate fat cats are laughing all the way to the bank. The economic boost e saw this year was the result of the working class spending their meager tax refunds and cashing out equity in refinancing their

    Bush has lost more jobs than any president since the Great Depression! Finally though, people are getting it. Kerry leads Bush in a poll of a hypothetical match up.

    -Bam
     
  10. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    Don't set yourself up for a big fall, Kerry has about as much chance as I do at being the next president. The polling of that small of a percentage is laughable. Bush hasn't even began campaigning yet.
     

Share This Page