Kerry would tax us into oblivion

[Moi]

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)

 

[acludem]

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.

 

[Moi]

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?

 

[wonderwench]

Even John F. Kennedy realized that cutting taxes spurred economic growth and increased tax receipts.

 

[eric]

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.

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by wonderwench
Even John F. Kennedy realized that cutting taxes spurred economic growth and increased tax receipts.

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

 

[AtlantaWalter]

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.

 

[Palestinian Jew]

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.

"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.

 

[bamthin]

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

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by bamthin
Finally though, people are getting it. Kerry leads Bush in a poll of a hypothetical match up.

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.

 

[bamthin]

Originally posted by jimnyc
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.

Bush is really i a bad situation politically jimnyc. Iraq is going poorly, job creation is going poorly, several potentially embarrasing investigations, and a budget deficit that is enraging members of his own party. You really need to be realistic. It is not looking at all good for Bush at this juncture.


-Bam

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by bamthin
Bush is really i a bad situation politically jimnyc. Iraq is going poorly, job creation is going poorly, several potentially embarrasing investigations, and a budget deficit that is enraging members of his own party. You really need to be realistic. It is not looking at all good for Bush at this juncture.


-Bam

And yet his approval rating is average and actually higher in some aspects than past presidents who have been elected to a second term. And like I said, he hasn't even started campaigning yet. Kerry hasn't even felt the fire yet, he'll be exposed and beaten down on the campaign soon. He's just getting a taste of things this week since he achieved the front runner status. I remember just a few short weeks ago some were stating Wesley Clark is the best hope and should be the next president. How is he doing now? Shortly before that Howard Dean was nearly given the Democratic nod. He was a shoe in for the nomination. How is he doing now?

The only direction the front runners in the Dem race will be going is down. Bush will only be going up once he starts his race. And if WMD or Osama are found, just pack in the campaign for the Dems right then and there.

 

[acludem]

This is the exact economic policy that lead directly the Great Depression. All through the 1920s we had a supply-side system, cutting taxes on business, capital gains, and wealthy incomes. Poor and middle class Americans were forced to rely on easy to obtain credit to purchase many things. When the slowdown began, big banks began to call in loans to small banks, who in turn had to try and get money from their debtors. The money wasn't there, and thus started the economic tumble that would ultimately help lead to the stock market crash in 1929 and the depression of the 1930s.

The next time we tried supply-side economics, in the 1980s under Reagan, we ended up with yet another deep recession. It took Bill Clinton and a courageous Democratic congress to bring prosperity back. The Republicans then regained control of congress in 1994, and began once again to force supply-side economics on President Clinton. They weren't totally successful, but were able to enough damage to lead us, at the beginning of the new millenium into yet another recession, which, in 3 1/2 years, George Bush has done nothing but make worse.

acludem

 

[eric]

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

Please explain this in more detail ! You know I love when people with no experience in this area make stupid hollow remarks !

 

[MtnBiker]

I'm rather curious about those remarks as well Eric.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by acludem
The next time we tried supply-side economics, in the 1980s under Reagan, we ended up with yet another deep recession. It took Bill Clinton and a courageous Democratic congress to bring prosperity back. The Republicans then regained control of congress in 1994, and began once again to force supply-side economics on President Clinton. They weren't totally successful, but were able to enough damage to lead us, at the beginning of the new millenium into yet another recession, which, in 3 1/2 years, George Bush has done nothing but make worse.

So... we had a recession in 1981-82, but we were well out of that by 1984, and the economy grew throughout the 80's... yet, this is a reflection of the harmfulness of supply-side economics. Then we had a "courageous" tax hike in 1993, and that supposedly brought an economic boost, even though you give the GOP credit "for forcing supply side economics on President Clinton."
So how much of the credit of the 80's-90's boom goes to the GOP and supply side economics, which, according to you, dominated the country throughout most of the last two decades?

 

[Palestinian Jew]

Please explain this in more detail ! You know I love when people with no experience in this area make stupid hollow remarks !

Why exactly is this a hollow remark? Each year, U.S. taxpayers subsidize U.S. businesses to the tune of almost $125 billion, the equivalent of all the income tax paid by 60 million individuals and families. Here is what I consider "corporate welfare":

1)Exxon claimed nearly $300 million dollars in tax deductions on the sttlement they paid when the Exxon Valdez spilled 11 million gallons of oil

2)$1 billion dollars to Lockheed Martin since 1971 for plant shutdowns and relocations

3)In 1989, Sears threatened to leave Illinois, which would cause 6,000 jobs to be lost. Illisnois gave them 178 million dollars in tax breaks, plus 61.1 million from the state treasury and $7 million in reduced sales and income tax. Four years later, they fired 50,000 people nationwide.

Please show me how the books, news shows, internet sites, and countless radio hours make me have no experience in this area.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Palestinian Jew
Each year, U.S. taxpayers subsidize U.S. businesses to the tune of almost $125 billion, the equivalent of all the income tax paid by 60 million individuals and families.

Would you like to cite exactly where you got your information from? It's rather odd that the EXACT same sentence, capitalization and all, is found on this page:

http://www.citizen.org/congress/welfare/index.cfm

I hate when people plagiarize.

 

[Palestinian Jew]

Sorry, I hate it too, meant to include the link. I was going to come up with a bunch of links to sites with the main excerpts, but I scrapped the idea and left what I thought was a different paragraph.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Palestinian Jew
Sorry, I hate it too, meant to include the link. I was going to come up with a bunch of links to sites with the main excerpts, but I scrapped the idea and left what I thought was a different paragraph.

Ok, fair enough