Posted on 08/14/2004 1:00:15 PM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
SIOUX CITY, Iowa (AP) - Trying to energize the electorate in heavily Republican western Iowa, President Bush hammered home the message Saturday that voters must keep rival John Kerry out of the White House because the Democrat will raise taxes on the middle class.
"We've still got about 80 days to go in this campaign and the fellow I'm running against has already made about $2.2 trillion of new promises" on federal spending, the president told thousands of supporters on the 14th trip of his presidency to Iowa. Bush lost the state by a little more than 4,000 votes four years ago.
Kerry contends that Bush's assertions about the size of spending increases are gross exaggerations and the Democrat denies the middle class would be stuck with the tab. Kerry wants to eliminate Bush's tax cuts for people making more than $200,000 a year, using the money to pay for health care, education and other needs.
Bush told voters in Sioux City that Kerry's answer to paying for additional spending is, "Oh, don't worry, we'll tax the rich."
But the president said the rich have accountants who can help them avoid taxes and that the answer to the question of who is going to pay for Kerry's programs is obvious.
"You are!" the president told the crowd. "But the good news is we're not going to let him get in office in the first place."
Bush was winding up a five-day campaign trip that took him to eight states. He started this week's trip in Florida, where he returns Sunday to inspect hurricane damage.
The president's stop in Sioux City comes 10 days after his last visit to Iowa, a day when the president and Kerry campaigned just blocks apart in the city of Davenport on the banks of the Mississippi River.
Political analysts say the Sioux City stop reflects the fear in both the Bush and Kerry camps, that some of their supporters won't go to the polls on Election Day.
"I think both campaigns are going to scramble to turn out every voter they can," said University of Iowa political science professor Peverill Squire.
Statistics from 2000 tell the story. Bush on Tuesday was in the strongly Republican Panhandle of Florida, the state that won the election for him four years ago.
Money was the other driving force for the president's trip to California, Washington state and back.
Bush raised $2.4 million at the home of a Seattle business leader Friday night, his second money-raising event in two days on the West Coast. In Santa Monica, Calif., Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger appeared with the president Thursday night.
Bush also campaigned this week in New Mexico, a state he lost by 366 votes four years ago; Oregon, which he lost by fewer than 7,000 votes in 2000; Arizona, which Bush won 51 percent to 45 percent in 2000; and Nevada, which he won 50 percent to 46 percent over Vice President Al Gore.
This just needs to be hammered and hammered and hammered into the electorate, IMHO.
Common sense. Of course Kerry will stick the middle class with tax increases. Then again common sense appears to be a quality in short supply in a country surfeited on a diet of class envy.
He's a socialist democrat, raising taxes is a given.
Kerry was in Vietnam? I had no idea!
Yeah. Apparently he and 8 other guys fought the entire war by themselves.
Kerry also said a Christmans in Cambodia was SEARED into his memory, but on second though it was probably in January? SURE.
John Kerry actually will support tax cuts, before he actually raises your taxes.
Ditto.
No kidding? Wow. He should get a Purple Heart for that...or even two.
Kerry is the richest person in the history of the senate and paid something like $100,000 in taxes last year. To pay for his $2.2 trillion in New Spending, it would require DOUBLING the taxes on 22 MILLION people like Kerry.
Maybe he's going to have a coming out of the closet (Greedy N.J.) press conferance and hold Edwards hand.
Maybe he'll get a real bump with that hmm?
Hard to blame him for that, really...! [::rimshot::]
The way that most of the tax cuts were structured, is that they had a "sunset" provision, and unless the provisions for the cut are renewed, they revert to the old rates. This was at the insistence of the Democrats and a few RINOs in Congress. A conscious policy of KEEPING the rates at a low level would be called upon, and Kerry has not evinced that belief in such a policy.
The next thing kicking around out there is to eliminate the progressive income tax altogether, and replace it with a national sales tax. This is not as drastic as it sounds, because as the tax is applied to the end product, the corporate income taxes of every level that were built into the price of the goods disappears. The consumer, no longer liable for the payment of taxes on income, has more disposable income to purchase goods and services, and controls the level of taxes paid to the Federal government.
Social Security, a separate income tax that is totally regressive, is an entirely different issue.
The top 20% earners pay 83% of the taxes.
The other 80% have no incentive to vote for lower taxes because they pay no taxes anyway.
A candidate who can tap into the dissatification with the payroll tax stands a chance to gather a hugh vote if he can come up with a better alternative.
Remember that in 1992 Clinton promised a middle class tax cut. In 1993, Clinton said "the Bush deficit is much greater than anticipated, so we need to raise taxes"
This is the fate that awaits us with John Kerry.
I believe that you are wrong on that. Tax plans can not be filibustered if they are only for 10 years and originate in the house of rep. If they are "permanent" then they need 60 votes in the senate.
DON'T BLAME IT ON RIO, OR RINOS
go here
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett022603.asp
and read this
"Unfortunately, it is almost a certainty that any new tax cuts enacted this year will suffer the same fate. That is because it will take 60 votes in the Senate to make a tax cut permanent. It takes that many votes to cut off a filibuster, which Democrats would use to defeat the effort. Therefore, tax-cut supporters will have to use a complicated legislative procedure known as reconciliation to avoid a filibuster. "
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.