What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Media Ignores This Coming Veto

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
The liberal media has been telling us how Pres Bush never took mout his veto pen - then when he does they whine about it

Now, pres Bush plans to veto a big tax increase passed dy Democrats.

I thought Dems promised not to raise taxes?



Major Media Ignore Bush's Veto Threat over Tax Bill
The planned tax hike carries a billion dollar bill according to Bloomberg.

By Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
7/2/2007 4:44:11 PM

A bill that would increases taxes for investors and threaten the U.S. economy attracted warning of a presidential veto, but no major news coverage.

“The ramifications of this [bill] are dire for the U.S. economy, federal revenues, and ordinary investors,” wrote Phil Kerpen in National Review Online.

The Washington Post included this cost estimate from Bloomberg in a June 22 story:

“Lawmakers are targeting carried interest as part of a broader examination of how hedge funds and buyout firms are taxed. Informal estimates show that taxing carried interest at the same rate as salaries may generate at least $4 billion a year in additional taxes, Bloomberg said.”

The bill that President George W. Bush threatened to veto was introduced by Michigan democrat Rep. Sander Levin. It would change the current rate of taxation on investment partnerships like pensions, hedge fund and venture-capital investments from the capital gains rate of 15 percent, to the income tax rate – which can be as high as 35 percent.

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow told reporters on June 27 Bush would veto any “broad moves” by Congress to change the tax rate currently in place.

“This is not an administration that's predisposed toward tax increases,” Snow told The New York Post.

Economist Larry Kudlow of CNBC explained why BushÂ’s veto was important during an interview on Hugh HewittÂ’s radio show on June 29.

“It is precisely the president’s low capital gains tax rate, low dividend tax rate and low income tax rate that has helped this economy and stock market enormously even though the poor guy doesn’t get any credit,” said Kudlow.

for the complete article

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2007/20070702164012.aspx
 

onedomino

SCE to AUX
Joined
Sep 14, 2004
Messages
2,677
Reaction score
478
Points
98
The Dems should pass legislation that reduces spending rather than raises taxes, if they were serious about the health of the US economy. If the Dems get their way regarding taxes, America will have economic growth rates, and unemployment stats, that are similar to the social welfare states of Western Europe. Spending, except for national security (including energy programs, and other scientific research) must be suppressed. If there are states that do not think such spending is enough, then let them pass the taxes that will support the programs they want.
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
The Dems should pass legislation that reduces spending rather than raises taxes, if they were serious about the health of the US economy. If the Dems get their way regarding taxes, America will have economic growth rates, and unemployment stats, that are similar to the social welfare states of Western Europe. Spending, except for national security (including energy programs, and other scientific research) must be suppressed. If there are states that do not think such spending is enough, then let them pass the taxes that will support the programs they want.

Dems deny (as their supporters) they are raising taxes. Watch and see, if any libs post on this thread they will try to spin the fact they are raising taxes

Dems promised they would reduce spending and pork - they are increasing it beyond what Republicans did
 

uscitizen

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
45,940
Reaction score
4,915
Points
48
Location
My Shack
Anter the spending binge of Bush and the republican controlled congress, the raising of taxes is inevitable.
It now just depends whos taxes gets raised....
 

JeffWartman

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
1,309
Reaction score
102
Points
48
Location
Suburban Chicago
Dems deny (as their supporters) they are raising taxes. Watch and see, if any libs post on this thread they will try to spin the fact they are raising taxes

Dems promised they would reduce spending and pork - they are increasing it beyond what Republicans did

Democrat...Republican...it's all the same...

Democrats DO want to raise taxes. It's still not good for the economy.

But Republicans have no moral high ground to stand upon regarding this issue.

None. You have increased government at an alarming rate.

Both parties need to go.
 

mattskramer

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2004
Messages
5,852
Reaction score
362
Points
48
Location
Texas
I thought Dems promised not to raise taxes?

Bush senior promised no new taxes. Look. There is very little difference between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to honesty and integrity. Anyway, do you have an official statement form Pelosi or other ranking Democrat promising to never raise taxes - or are you simply subtly throwing up a straw man?
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Anter the spending binge of Bush and the republican controlled congress, the raising of taxes is inevitable.
It now just depends whos taxes gets raised....

No it is not

I understand libs have this obsession with raising taxes - but the facts go against them

Revenues are at record highs and the deficit has been shrinking for the last 4 years
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Bush senior promised no new taxes. Look. There is very little difference between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to honesty and integrity. Anyway, do you have an official statement form Pelosi or other ranking Democrat promising to never raise taxes - or are you simply subtly throwing up a straw man?

Dems used the same line as Clinton did. they said the "middle class" would not see a tax increase - nut Dems voted to repeal ALL the Bush tax increases

Retired couples will see a tax increase. The "working class" (who libs claim they care about) will see their tax rate go from 10% to 15%

I guess libs care so much, they need to screw them with a 33% tax increase to pay for their liberal compassion
 

mattskramer

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2004
Messages
5,852
Reaction score
362
Points
48
Location
Texas
Dems used the same line as Clinton did. they said the "middle class" would not see a tax increase - nut Dems voted to repeal ALL the Bush tax increases

Retired couples will see a tax increase. The "working class" (who libs claim they care about) will see their tax rate go from 10% to 15%

I guess libs care so much, they need to screw them with a 33% tax increase to pay for their liberal compassion

Whatever. The bottom line is that Bush Sr. promised no new taxes. You can twist it as hard as you can. You can make excuses for as long as you like. It does not change the fact that Bush Sr. promised no new taxes. He lied. When it comes right down to it, there is very little difference between Democrats and Republicans – particularly when it comes to honesty and integrity. To what degree or another the Repubs try to pull the same stunts as the Dems – and vice versa.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,854
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
The liberal media has been telling us how Pres Bush never took mout his veto pen - then when he does they whine about it

Now, pres Bush plans to veto a big tax increase passed dy Democrats.

I thought Dems promised not to raise taxes?



Major Media Ignore Bush's Veto Threat over Tax Bill
The planned tax hike carries a billion dollar bill according to Bloomberg.

By Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
7/2/2007 4:44:11 PM

A bill that would increases taxes for investors and threaten the U.S. economy attracted warning of a presidential veto, but no major news coverage.

“The ramifications of this [bill] are dire for the U.S. economy, federal revenues, and ordinary investors,” wrote Phil Kerpen in National Review Online.

The Washington Post included this cost estimate from Bloomberg in a June 22 story:

“Lawmakers are targeting carried interest as part of a broader examination of how hedge funds and buyout firms are taxed. Informal estimates show that taxing carried interest at the same rate as salaries may generate at least $4 billion a year in additional taxes, Bloomberg said.”

The bill that President George W. Bush threatened to veto was introduced by Michigan democrat Rep. Sander Levin. It would change the current rate of taxation on investment partnerships like pensions, hedge fund and venture-capital investments from the capital gains rate of 15 percent, to the income tax rate – which can be as high as 35 percent.

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow told reporters on June 27 Bush would veto any “broad moves” by Congress to change the tax rate currently in place.

“This is not an administration that's predisposed toward tax increases,” Snow told The New York Post.

Economist Larry Kudlow of CNBC explained why BushÂ’s veto was important during an interview on Hugh HewittÂ’s radio show on June 29.

“It is precisely the president’s low capital gains tax rate, low dividend tax rate and low income tax rate that has helped this economy and stock market enormously even though the poor guy doesn’t get any credit,” said Kudlow.

for the complete article

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2007/20070702164012.aspx

If that bill reaches the President, the Democrats will have proven they're not smart enough to see its potential impact on the next Presidential election.
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
The sad thing is, some people are trying to spin this as NOT a tax increase. Dems are only letting the tax cuts expire

Given the huge amounts of spending increases the Dems want - along with the pork they are adding to the spending bills - this huge tax increase is needed just to keep pace with the Dems spending spree

But the problem is, the tax cuts will bring in LESS revenue as it will choke off the economic growth and investments being made now
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$85.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top