THE BUSH POLICIES ARE WORKING

for those who they were intended to help!

Published on September 13, 2005 By COL Gene In Politics

Sometime ago, Bush addressed a wealthy audience and put his finger on the problem with his policies. He said, some call you the haves and the wealthy, I call you MY BASE.

That truth is what is wrong with the policies of George W. Bush and the other conservative Republicans who push them through the Congress. By definition, the truly wealthy in this country represent maybe 5% of the total population. If you include the upper end of the middle income Americans you might get to 10%. The Bush policies, with conservative backing in Congress, have passed into law policies that benefit that 5% or 10% of the population. They ARE WORKING for that small group of Americans! They shift wealth from the middle to the upper income brackets and totally ignore the needs of the poor.

Therefore, most Republicans who have supported Bush and the conservatives in Congress are not in that group that benefit from the Bush policies. The vast majority of Republicans, like most Democrats, are not in top 5% or 10%. The shame is that most of the people who doggedly support Bush and the conservative Republicans in Congress are actually putting individuals into power who are acting against their best long-term interest.

Comments (Page 3)

Demosthenes Locke

on Sep 14, 2005

It has everything to do with getting the needed revenue from those who can afford to pay more with the least negative impact on their lives

Ahh, so the wealthy should be willing to do so..."for the greater good"

I always knew something rubbed me the wrong way about your posts. Clearly it's the macro-socialist underpinnings/

COL Gene

on Sep 14, 2005

Do not forget, it is the welthy that received the big tax cuts from a surplus that did not exist. The reality is that given our needs, we must generate more Federal revenue. It will produce far less pain and harm to demand (spending) to get the added revenue from those that will pay it from their SURPLUS and not from the money the less affluent need to live. If the choice is taking money for people who spend it on food or clothing or other essentials as compared with taking it from huge surpluses of the wealthy, the choice is simple-- tax the wealthy a bit more. If George W. Bush had followed the advice of Paul O'Neill and Alan Greenspan, tax cuts would have ended when it became clear there was no surplus to return to the overtaxed American people.

stutefish

on Sep 14, 2005

Gene, if it won't hurt the rich to take away their extra money, then please put yours where your mouth is: Buy all the food and clothing and other essentials you need, and then donate the rest of your income to charity and go live at the YMCA.

Do that, and then let's talk some more about stealing from the rich to give to the poor.

COL Gene

on Sep 14, 2005

My income is not even close to the top two income brackets. I give a lot to my church and we support 10 different charties. It is not my tax cut that is the problem. I believe my total tax cut from the three Bush cuts was just over $300 per year. It is people like Cheney who got almost $300,000 in tax cuts and paid about 21.3% of his income to Federal income taxes in 2004. In 2001, Cheney paid 38% to Federal Income taxes. Bush paid 26% per his 2004 return. He paid about 31% in 2001. You can check this on Google which will get you to the tax returns for Bush and Cheney from 2001 o 2004

drmiler

on Sep 14, 2005

I believe my total tax cut from the three Bush cuts was just over $300 per year. It is people like Cheney who got almost $300,000 in tax cuts and paid about 21.3% of his income to Federal income taxes in 2004

Get a clue will ya? That is still "ALMOST" one quarter of his income.
Just what in blazes do you expect? And just an fyi... Bush still paid "MORE" than 1/4 of his income (26%).

COL Gene

on Sep 14, 2005

He got a cut from 38% to 21.3% from 2001 to 2004. You get a clue! There is no other place to get the needed money and the wealthy can afford it. We had NO SURPLUS that justified lowering the taxes on people like Cheney from 38% to 21%. In fact we had No Surplus at all-- It was just in Bush's head! That, plus the increased spending under the Bush Budgets is why we have a deficit!

COL Gene

on Sep 14, 2005

All you Bush supporters fail to answer the basic question, If the tax cuts were to return a Surplus that turned out not to exist, why should there be the tax cuts?

stutefish

on Sep 14, 2005

Gene, you're saying that even though you're not as poor as some people, you're still not rich enough to justify paying more in taxes, or giving more to charity. I disagree. As long as you aren't living in the projects, you're spending money on luxuries while the poor among us are starved for necessities.

I still don't understand how you justify drawing the line so conveniently between you and President Bush. Is it that you deserve to keep your extra money, and he doesn't? Why not draw the line between you and the people on welfare? Give me a break, Gene. You want to force people richer than you to be more generous than they already are, but you're convinced that you yourself have already given all you need to give, and we shouldn't ask you for any more.

I bet there's a soup kitchen in your neighborhood that could use the money you spend on your internet connection every month.

stutefish

on Sep 14, 2005

Gene, just because someone can afford to be robbed, that doesn't justify robbing them.

Aren't you ashamed to live in a country that can't make ends meet without abusing its power to levy taxes?

Should not you, like me, be clamoring for a budget that reduced taxes and reduced spending?

And by now, shouldn't you really be explaining why George Bush is rich enough to be taxed extra, but you're not? I'm still waiting for that one.

Lee1776

on Sep 14, 2005

COL

Paying almost 40% of ones income in taxes while others pay none at all, just sounds like socialism to me. What is your fascination with socialism? It has only been proven to be a failing system. I'm still wondering why you want me to pay for someone else's health insurance. This country has been built on a controlled capitalism. I have a feeling that if the founding fathers had made this a socialist country, we would most likely not be a Democracy today, but another country collapsing under a failing infrastructure and lack of initiative.

And as for your theory of the rich not spending all their money or not even using it all... I know very few rich people that just puts the money under their matters. The rich put the money to work in the form of new companies or there investments that produce more jobs. A rich person that does not use their money will not be rich for very long.

I don't have an income nearly as much as you do, but even I feel that paying near 40% of ones income in taxes is unfair. All my extra money that you claim should go to those who don't work, is being invested in companies who do make opportunities for people to work. That is my form of true social welfare.

COL Gene

on Sep 14, 2005

I have said we need to cut spending ( Start with the Pork that has never been higher)
We need to enforce the existing tax laws.

That alone will not solve the deficit. Part of the reason we have a deficit is we granted tax cuts with the belief there was this surplus that ment we were overtaxing Americans. When it became clear we did not have a surplus, the tax rates should have returned to the prior levels. THERE IN NO SURPLUS TO RETURN! WHY DO WE STILL HAVE THE TAX CUTS!

Will someone answer that question?

Island Dog

on Sep 14, 2005

These votes did not create the confusion it was the ballot design.

It wasn't the ballot design, it was stupid people. As you think, democratic voters.

COL Gene

on Sep 14, 2005

No, there was no comperable problem anyware else in Florida. It was the Ballot design. Had these 3,500 people had their votes counted as they wanted, Bush would not have won Florida! The Bush victory was due to an error and he has upheld that with a series if errors ever since Jan 20, 2001.

I see no one can answer why we have the tax cuts when the reason for the tax cuts does not exist.

Island Dog

on Sep 15, 2005

Nobody knows who they really voted for col. It's just you and the liberals opinion that they wanted to vote for Gore. Those ballots were recounted anyways, and Bush still won. Get over it col. Gore lost.

see no one can answer why we have the tax cuts when the reason for the tax cuts does not exist.

One of the reasons for the tax cuts was to stimulate the economy, as most economists say it has, to get out of the Clinton recession and the impact of Sept. 11 on the economy.

COL Gene

on Sep 15, 2005

By the two punches, we know they were not for Bush. It was a very Democratic area and voters were interviewed in that area who said they in fact did double punch and inteded to vote for Gore. Bush won Florida because of the Palm Beach Ballot confusion!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!