Yes, I am terrified of the Germans. If Bush doesn't surrender in handcuffs, they may actually stop exporting schnitzels and kaiser rolls to us, and then where would we be?

 

I agree that the electorate is demanding cooperation, but disagree that the "Dems can operate from the center." There will be inevitable and insurmountable pressure from the traditional Democratic fan base to give in to liberal agendas. That will come fiscally first. Since a front-line assault on income tax is unwinnable, I expect it to be a flanking action with raises in things like capital gains, trust accumulation, and estate tax.

:laugh: As long as Thailand and India don't place embargos on their food exports, I will survive.

 

I agree with your assessment of the prospect of Democrats governing from the center.

 

Democrats could rule from the middle and if they did they would win the White House in a landslide in 2008. The Democrats won't govern from the middle because their most senior and most powerful elected national representatives are among their most liberal elected representatives.

 

If Democrats allowed their moderate members to follow Bill Clinton's (i.e., Dick Morris') triangulation strategy from the 2004-2006 period by offering Bush their own version of legislation to sign that so-called conservatives failed to deliver in their six years in power, they could earn the White House in 2008.

 

Democrats won't pursue such a responsible strategy because they are more concerned about political payback and riding their "just say no" strategy into the White House. The would rather not have a legislative record as to have one to defend. There is also the matter of the huge political debts owed to George Soros and his lackies.

 

Democrats have an opportunity to do what is best for the nation and do what is in their party's own best long-term interests and I will be shocked if they do not blow it.

There is no way the Dems can set their agenda from the middle.

 

There are to many ultra liberal leftys that they are beholden to for that to happen.

 

I just hope that two years from now I still get to take home some of my paycheck.

Maybe Democrats' will just mail you what's left over.

 

Don't worry, the taxes stop when Dems no longer consider you rich. We just have not bled enough yet.

There is no way the Dems can set their agenda from the middle.

 

There are to many ultra liberal leftys that they are beholden to for that to happen.

 

I just hope that two years from now I still get to take home some of my paycheck.

 

Didn't realize you were a multi million air.

Didn't realize you were a multi million air.

The great thing about having liberals in power is that the number of people considered rich in this country will jump almost immediately.

 

However, I did hear Jesse Jackson respond to a question shortly after the election about what income level Democrats' consider rich when they promise not to raise taxes on the middle class. Jackson didn't throw out any numbers, but he assured the audience that a panel of tax experts will be determining the appropriate income level for qualifying for entry into the nation's 'rich" class.

 

I was afraid that liberals would just start raising tax rates on those of us who already pay over 90% of all federal income taxes without even allowing us the privilege of considering ourselves wealthy. Thank you, Jesse, for your reassuring explanation of how the process will really work.

 

Sure, my wife and I may pay end up paying a few thousand dollars more in taxes each year, we may slip a little deeper into debt, and we may have to start settling for even older model used cars, but can you really put a price on the self esteem boost that will come from being officially declared a member of America's wealthy class?:lol:

The great thing about having liberals in power is that the number of people considered rich in this country will jump almost immediately.

 

However, I did hear Jesse Jackson respond to a question shortly after the election about what income level Democrats' consider rich when they promise not to raise taxes on the middle class. Jackson didn't throw out any numbers, but he assured the audience that a panel of tax experts will be determining the appropriate income level for qualifying for entry into the nation's 'rich" class.

 

I was afraid that liberals would just start raising tax rates on those of us who already pay over 90% of all federal income taxes without even allowing us the privilege of considering ourselves wealthy. Thank you, Jesse, for your reassuring explanation of how the process will really work.

 

Sure, my wife and I may pay end up paying a few thousand dollars more in taxes each year, we may slip a little deeper into debt, and we may have to start settling for even older model used cars, but can you really put a price on the self esteem boost that will come from being officially declared a member of America's wealthy class?:lol:

 

I would guess unless unless your combined income is over 200,000.00 a year you won't be affected. I saw that interview and Jackson was right. He couldn't just throw out a number without some ideal of what level of income would ballance the tax base.

I think you are wrong.

 

I don't make anywhere near 200,000 (so that means I'm not a multi-millionaire, although someone who makes 200K a year probably isn't either) a year but I have no doubt that with any tax increase I will see my take home drop.

 

I'm single

 

I have no kids

 

I make enough money that I do pay taxes

 

I'm the one that gets hit every time there is a tax increase while at the same time people that don't even make enough money to pay any taxes will get credit after credit. Even if it is only 10 dollars a check it makes a difference.

 

Redistribution of wealth is socialism any way you wrap it and that's exactly what the liberal left wants.

 

Whay should someone be punished because he or she has been successful and makes a lot of money?

I would guess unless unless your combined income is over 200,000.00 a year you won't be affected. I saw that interview and Jackson was right. He couldn't just throw out a number without some ideal of what level of income would ballance the tax base.

Jackson couldn't throw out a good number if you handed him a pair of loaded dice. Jackson has spent much of his life running the scam non-profit Rainbow-Push organization, while pocketing a large salary and directing the untaxed organization to pay hush money to his pregnant mistress. The thought of Jesse Jackson providing a serious or honest answer to a question about federal income taxes is ridiculously twisted. The interview should have been a Saturday Night Live skit instead.

I would guess unless unless your combined income is over 200,000.00 a year you won't be affected. I saw that interview and Jackson was right. He couldn't just throw out a number without some ideal of what level of income would ballance the tax base.

 

Please memorize this thread. Then guess again.

http://www.bluegrasspreps.com/showthread.php?t=106480

W will be marginalized for the rest of his sorry, wasted Presidency. In five years, his will be the photo in the dictionary next to the term "lame duck". He should consider himself lucky someone is finally wrestling the keys to U.S. foreign policy away from his incompetent grasp. Maybe his dad's advisors in the Iraq study group can come up with a way to clean up little Georgie's mess.

W will be marginalized for the rest of his sorry, wasted Presidency. In five years, his will be the photo in the dictionary next to the term "lame duck". He should consider himself lucky someone is finally wrestling the keys to U.S. foreign policy away from his incompetent grasp. Maybe his dad's advisors in the Iraq study group can come up with a way to clean up little Georgie's mess.

 

W is in a bit of a predicament. He now has to make a clear decision - will he put his energies into polishing his legacy, or will he insist on driving down the same road that has gotten him popularity ratings that are forcing the graphmakers to find a way to take a chart below zero.

 

 

Frances

W is in a bit of a predicament. He now has to make a clear decision - will he put his energies into polishing his legacy, or will he insist on driving down the same road that has gotten him popularity ratings that are forcing the graphmakers to find a way to take a chart below zero.

 

Frances

 

When his ratings drop below the two guys he beat in the last two elections (the best the Dems had to offer), maybe he'll start to worry.

When his ratings drop below the two guys he beat in the last two elections (the best the Dems had to offer), maybe he'll start to worry.

I'd say he's already there.

 

I would ask you to show us a poll that backs up your claim that Kerry or Gore have lower ratings than Bush, but considering the outcome of my last request for a link to a poll, I don't hold out much hope for such evidence.

 

Heck - I'll go ahead and ask. Got a poll that shows Gore or Kerry (much less both) having lower popularity ratings than W?

 

Once again, I'll just patiently wait...

 

 

Frances

Kind of looks like the Dems in both houses should be able to get pretty much of whatever they want. If W wants to be an obstructionist, they can start the investigations.

I think if the DEMS do this, it is the BIGGEST mistake they could make. They have built a lot of goodwill and need to capitalize on it by showing they can get things DONE and not resort to the political games that voters are tired of. Voters want things done, not excuses of why you could not get anything done.

I would guess unless unless your combined income is over 200,000.00 a year you won't be affected. I saw that interview and Jackson was right. He couldn't just throw out a number without some ideal of what level of income would ballance the tax base.

So what is your view then on someone making $60,000 and receiving a almost 50% cut in their taxes under GW's tax cut as was indicated in the other thread? It was thrown out over and over that GW's plan was for the wealthy and yet using your own characteristization, it was not for just the wealthy but the middle class.

I'd say he's already there.

 

I would ask you to show us a poll that backs up your claim that Kerry or Gore have lower ratings than Bush, but considering the outcome of my last request for a link to a poll, I don't hold out much hope for such evidence.

 

Heck - I'll go ahead and ask. Got a poll that shows Gore or Kerry (much less both) having lower popularity ratings than W?

 

Once again, I'll just patiently wait...

 

 

Frances

Saw an interesting comment on Chris Matthews on Sunday morning. Said GW's approval rating reached and alltime low this week and broke the previous low mark that was set by..............drum roll please..............William Jefferson Clinton.

 

And ole Bill might have been very well elected for a 3rd term if he was allowed and yet he held the previous record for low mark in the approval ratings.

 

Not sure what to make of this information but thought it was interesting since GW is consistently lamblasted for his low approval ratings and the great William Jefferson had a lower one