My Photo
Location: Phoenix, AZ, United States

Christian, wife, mother, writer, artist, teacher, published author. I love to write Christian fiction and non-fiction.

Friday, August 20, 2004

Friday News....

This from states that the rich are paying more taxes since the Bush tax cuts were implemented. That surely goes against the Bush critics who are saying that the tax cuts went strictly to the rich.....

"One of the inconvenient facts for the foes of the Bush tax cuts is that the percentage of total taxes paid by the rich rose after the economic stimulus plan was put into effect. This consequence of the Bush tax cuts is highly damaging to the case by the Bush-haters that his tax cuts disproportionately benefit Halliburton executives and Bill Gates. Moreover, the Bush tax cuts took some 2 million low-income taxpayers off the tax roles entirely, so it's hard to argue that working families didn't get a financial benefit."

One final point: The CBO study confirms that the rich carry the bulk of the tax burden on their shoulders. The CBO estimate says that the share of income taxes paid by the richest 20 percent of earners fell from 82.5 percent to 82.1 percent in 2004. The report also states that the top 10 percent of earners will pay “only” 66.7 percent of 2004 taxes, with the top 1 percent paying 32.3 percent. Fully 80 percent of Americans pay less than 18 percent of total income taxes. Not even Al Sharpton could look at this data and say the rich are getting a free ride.
How much exactly does the Kerry-Edwards team want the rich to pay? Seventy percent? Eighty percent? One hundred percent? Does the Left want rich people like Barbara Streisand, George Soros, Teresa Heinz, and Ted Kennedy to pay all the taxes? Hey, now there’s an idea . . .
" -Stephen Moore

Read the whole's great!

Bob Novak seems to think the news will help Kerry....

"In the long run, however, the trouble with Holtz-Eakin is economic rather than political. His analysis is static, a zero-sum game that plays into Kerry's hands. It does not score the dynamic impact of the Bush tax cuts in not only promoting the economic recovery but also accelerating the ascension of Americans upward through the tax brackets. The study does not suggest that taxpayers in the top 20 percent are not the same today as they were in 2000."

Rep. Bill Thomas, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee and star of the conference call, concluded from those numbers that ''the system is more progressive'' because of the Bush tax cuts. Thomas then explained to the journalists that ''progressive'' means the more you make, the higher percentage of taxes you pay. "

We'll see what happens at the RNC.........all I can say is that if the rich pay the most taxes, then they deserve a tax break. They will re-invest that extra money or spend it, which benefits the economy.

From Deborah Orin at NY Post:

"Their online dialogue is punctuated with questions about why the "mainstream media" have been mostly ignoring this story — and why the 13 pro-Kerry vets are automatically assumed to have more credibility than 264 anti-Kerry vets.

Just imagine the coverage if 264 vets who served with Bush in the Texas Air National Guard made similar charges. For those bloggers, this story has become a test of the mainstream media's credibility — and its liberal anti-Bush bias."

It makes my head spin when I think of how the media would be covering this if it were about Bush lying about his time in the TANG.


From Swiftboats for Truth web site:

"In addition, Senator Kerry closed the Democratic National Convention with a story in which he claimed that five of the boats fled on March 13 after a mine went off and he came back. His campaign is now admitting that he fled and the rest stayed.
Attacking our organization does not respond to the facts that occurred in Vietnam. Senator Kerry says that he has learned to charge into an ambush in connection with this, instead he is fleeing down the river from the facts."

All John Kerry has to do is state facts to support his claim..... yet all he and his campaign are doing is spewing out ad hominems. Informal fallacies imply a lack of argument. Read John O'Neill's entire statement.


Duncan Currie over at Weekly Standard has a good article about how many first time voters are pro-life......

"On abortion, Pace Poll researchers slice the new voter demographic into four groups. There are those who believe "abortions should be legal and generally available" (21 percent); those who feel "regulation of abortion is necessary, although it should remain legal in many circumstances" (23 percent); those who say "abortion should be legal only in the most extreme cases, such as to save the life of the mother, incest, or rape" (41 percent); and those who think "all abortions should be made illegal" (13 percent). The survey shows that, essentially, 44 percent of new voters are pro-choice while 54 percent are pro-life. Among first-time Latino voters, pro-lifers outnumber pro-choicers 61 percent to 34 percent; among blacks, the pro-life/pro-choice breakdown is 59 percent/42 percent. Self-described "moderates" similarly tend to be more pro-life (52 percent) than pro-choice (45 percent). "

Interesting news indeed.........



Post a Comment

<< Home