<p>he’s not a liberal. He may be liberal on one or two issues but across the spectrum he is much more of a conservative than Bush ever was.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>1) Bush wasn’t a conservative once he started spending tons. On the eve of the Iraq war, when his popularity was sky high, he wasn’t a conservative…</p>
<p>2) The fact that “less government” hasn’t been practiced in 20 years is because 16 of those years were spent by bush (not conservative) and clinton (democrat).</p>
<p>once we tackle the myth about republicans who chastise spitzer but supported craig we’ll move onto your myth about spending :)</p>
<p>With apolgies to 1of42 for mentioning this (s/he doesn’t like me bringing up the subject of John McCain), but McCain HAS fought against wasteful spending. </p>
<p>I don’t think either of the dem candidates has addressed the need to seriously control spending - in fact, both have sought funds for their own pork projects.</p>
<p>I think McCain is very different from – and better than – Bush in many ways.</p>
<p>The trouble is that they see eye to eye on the two issues that are the most important to me: (1) starting unnecessary wars and (2) judicial appointments.</p>
<p>Ah Hanna - I think McCain & Bush only see eye-to-eye on FINISHING unneccessary wars, not STARTING them!</p>
<p>I’m not convinced that McCain would’ve done things as Bush has regarding Iraq. McCain would’ve been much more prudent I’m sure! And probably would’ve had better intelligence in the first place.</p>
<p>Let’s not blame the intelligence. There were problems with communication between the FBI and the CIA, but Bush cherrypicked the intelligence reports to justify the war. The intelligence community as a whole knew that there probably wasn’t much to be found in Iraq, even before the UN weapons inspectors went in. The key part here is judgment, which Bush lacked in this instance.</p>
<p>LaxAttack, your cut 'n paste from the Heritage Foundation is so full of deception and half lies that I hardly know where to start. Outline: Taxes on the wealthy have gone up because the wealthy have a larger share of the nation’s income than ever before. Over the past 20 years the income of the top one percent of all taxpayers has soared, both in inflation-adjusted dollars (up 65%) and as a share of all income (up from 15% to 22%) Over that same 20 years inflation-adjusted income has declined at the 50th percentile; is flat at the 75th%. Here are the IRS charts (look at charts 7 and 8) [SOI</a> Tax Stats - Individual Statistical Tables by Tax Rate and Income Percentile](<a href=“http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=133521,00.html]SOI”>http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=133521,00.html) </p>
<p>And income tax is only one tax people pay. When you include all taxes paid by individuals, both directly (FICA, income, homeowner’s property tax) and indirectly (sales, excise, and tenants property tax) the wealthy pay a significantly lower percentage of their income in taxes than do the middle class - and even the poor.</p>
<p>And yes, the national debt has more than doubled as compared to the GDP under Reagan, Bush and Bush - the same time period in which the stratification of wealth described above took place. Cold, hard facts. The wealthy have done well under the Republicans. Everyone else - particularly the young who will inherit the debt - has gotten the shaft.</p>
<p>Kluge would you be so kind as to point out one inaccuracy in the link I posted? You posted 3 paragraphs of facts but none of them contradicted what I posted did they? Please quote something and then point out, with facts, how it is wrong. You said so little with so many words…</p>
<p>
Actually, income taxes declined twice as much for the top 1% as they did for everyone else from 2001 to 2005. Read the charts. Did all the other, regressive taxes go down? No. Did those tax cuts for millionaires result in an increase in the national debt - a delayed tax on youth? Yes. Is that “tilted” towards the rich enough for you?</p>
<p>The only reason the wealthy pay more taxes is because they receive an even larger share of the nation’s income. If things continue down this road, the wealthy will pay all of the taxes because they’ll have all of the income - poor babies!</p>
<p>Kluge, did you even read the article or see “heritage foundation” and start typing your response? Here’s the other article, I’m sure you missed it: <a href=“http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/77xx/doc7718/EffectiveTaxRates.pdf[/url]”>http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/77xx/doc7718/EffectiveTaxRates.pdf</a> it’s a 7 page study showing tax rates from 1979-2004. The fact is the rich shoulder more of the income tax burden than they did before…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Lets punish success!</p>
<p>Relating back to the original question, what has McCain said that he’d do with taxes, different than Bush’s contributions…?</p>
<p>McCain will control spending! As for the cost of the war ,I hear constantly drum beated to death. I seem to recall 911 costing our economy a hell of a lot more! Bush, I agree has not been the sharpest tack in the drawer. Those tax cuts came at the right time to keep the economy from nosediving.The economy is cyclical. We can’t afford another 911, I’d rather remain on the offensive. Then becoming isolationist and start more government spending. If you want to improve this economy increase nuclear power 40% of our fossil fuelgoes to creating electricity. This would be a great first step in the right direction.</p>
<p>LaxAttack, calm down. No one is suggesting that we shouldn’t have rich and poor. The problem is that the rich have been getting richer, relative to the middle class and poor, for the past 30 years. What do you suppose the long-term consequences of that trend are? How long can it continue without serious socio-political repercussions?</p>
<p>When people with an average income of over a million dollars a year are paying less than 22% of their income in taxes (and the middle class is paying more) I don’t see “success” being “punished”.</p>
<p>Warren Buffet said it better than I could: “There’s class warfare, all right,” Mr. Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/business/yourmoney/26every.html?_r=1&oref=slogin[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/business/yourmoney/26every.html?_r=1&oref=slogin</a></p>
<p>Oh, and the study you linked to only has data from 2003 and 2004 - nothing from 1979 - 2002. I’d be interested to see that data. The IRS data shows the tax rates declining more for the wealthy than for anyone else, 1986 - 2005, and specifically, from 2001 on.</p>
<p>*As for the cost of the war ,I hear constantly drum beated to death. I seem to recall 911 costing our economy a hell of a lot more! *</p>
<p>Links?</p>
<p>The offical number for Iraq is $16 billion every month to occupy Iraq & Afghanistan.
Just the figures for direct costs.
Doesn’t count the million Iraqi civilians who have been killed or the over 5,000 military personnel dead- mostly US troops , or the costs that must go towards health care of the thousands of injured soldiers .</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I just don’t see why we should punish people for making money. The rich have been getting richer…so what? It’s possible for every citizen of the US to become rich. Do you think the rich just wave a wand and they are rich? No, they work their asses off to get that way and telling them that they can’t make too much more money is BS. Make as much as you want, contribute your percentage (which results in tons of $) and all is well.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>By that logic the 9/11 costs don’t take into account the war in Iraq which was a result of an increasing terrorist threat…whether you believe it or not I find it hard to argue that the war in Iraq, as it was conducted, would have taken place before 9/11 with the exception of Iraq invading a friendly country.</p>
<p>Actually, LaxAttack, it’s harder than ever before for a “non-rich” person to get rich. The surest way to be a rich person is to have been born into the right family. And lots of rich people screw up royally - and get rewarded for it. (Check out the compensation of fired CEOs of money-losing American corporations sometime.) I’m all for rewarding hard work and initiative. I’m also for having a “rising tide which lifts all boats.” The problem is that we’re actually moving away from those ideals. And an average of 21% income tax on a million dollar annual income is hardly “punishment.” </p>
<p>The issue isn’t that individual people get rich - it’s that “rich” is further from middle class than at any time in my life (and I’m really pretty old.) Don’t dismiss the problem - it’s serious.</p>
<p>
Simply not true. Bill Clinton said Saddam had WMD even before President Bush was elected. Madelyn Albright, Al Gore, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, George Tenet all said Saddam had WMD. President Bush did not cherrypick the intelligence reports. In fact when President Bush asked CIA Director George Tenet "Is that all you have?’ Tenet replied it would be a “slamdunk.”</p>