"How did it come to pass that an opposition's measure of a president's foreign policy was all or nothing, success or "failure"? The answer is that the political absolutism now normal in Washington arrived at the moment--Nov. 7, 2000--that our politics subordinated even a war against terror to seizing the office of the presidency." - Daniel Henninger - WSJ 11/18/05
"the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts." - George Orwell

Tuesday, February 07, 2006

In Budget, Bush Holds Fast to a Policy of Tax Cutting - New York Times

In Budget, Bush Holds Fast to a Policy of Tax Cutting - New York Times: "Democrats said Mr. Bush was proposing spending reductions that went well beyond fat to preserve his tax cuts for the affluent."

It's always for the rich according to DeMediacrats. Is this a case of not actually cutting from that which exists or is it cutting that which is recommended?

'"To many Democrats, he appears intent on extending and expanding his tax cuts precisely to create the situation the government faces now, leaving it to choose between tolerating large deficits or cutting into domestic programs in a way that begins to alter the social contract."' The social contract that they want to support us from the craddle to the grave.

"Most of that lost revenue would be the result of extending Mr. Bush's tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, which reduced the income tax rates, offered generous new breaks to families and businesses, and slashed taxes on investment income." Things my family could use; if it happens to help the "rich" as well, should I care? If I make $50K and am taxed at 10% and someone else makes $1 million and is taxed at the same rate, doesn't it make sense they would get more back since they put more in?


© blogger templates 3 column | Webtalks