Posted on 08/26/2004 9:39:59 AM PDT by fuzzy122
Or nuance.
I'm not defending him either. It does sound like something he would say. Got past the editors too.
All those nuances. I can't make heads or tails of it. I bet even the DU Dummies don't have a clue either as to what Kerry means.
What does Kerry consider the "middle class"? I will NEVER forget Gore hammering on "millionaires", and being asked what he considered to be a millionaire. He Said "Anyone who makes $25,000 a year for their working life is a millionaire". I just wonder if ol' Cambodia John shares this thinking. Raise taxes on the 25-60,000 class, give it to those who never work and say he has raised the living standards of the "middle class" and socked it to the rich.
Like I said before, I heard the audio clip of Kerry making this statement, and that is NOT what he said. It's a misquote. Delicious irony though, because it IS so Kerry-esque.
My comment was directed at those on this thread that are using this as an example to justify saying that Kerry is an idiot. Several have done so, and I would include them on the list of "unreasonable people".
"I am for increasing the tax burden on the middle class and I am for lowering the tax burden on the middle class." There, its fixed now.
Okay. Perfect.
Musat be the fog of war.
Had this gaff come from the mouth of the President, we'd have seen front page headlines in every major newspaper in the US!
Seems our vaunted, objective, professional press corps missed this one too!
I'd treat Kerry with more compassion if he weren't so stupid.
Technically this is true."
Even technically what Kerry was saying is not true... the liberal Economists had to go through contortions of statistics to get the one number they liked.
1) Middle class got a larger percentage income tax cut than rich.
2) Percentage of income tax paid by rich increased. That percentage is quite high - something like top 20% pay 80% of taxes.
3) Middle class is getting most of the gains of after-tax income in the last 4 years, ie, they've had gains, while the 'rich' have not.
4) Tax burden on the middle class has gone down while their income has gone up.
(NB: The opposite of what kerry is implying).
the only way kerry can make the stats look bad is to lump in FICA and the income tax and note that a larger share of *that* is paid by middle class ...but if you abolished the income tax brackets below $100,000 entirely you could show the same thing, since FICA becomes a larger %age of that 'total taxes'.
GOP should refute this - FICA is regressive but the Bush tax cuts didnt change it at all. lumping it in to create this impression is in the lies,damned lies, and statistics dept.
I will never treat a person who lies about his own military time, dishonors his peers, wastes 19 years in the senate, and then tries to hide behind special interest groups with anything but utter and complete comtempt.
Bush gaffes are shown on CNN Headlines news to 'prove' Bush is an idiot.
Kerry gaffes are whitewashed away.
These threads are useful if only to point out 'hey, the other guy does it' ... and frankly, Kerry does that sort of stuff more than Bush - they just dont report it.
SO NYT erred ....
"Never Mind!"
I would only steal accurately from the "newspaper of record".
Stay Strong
Fuzzy
"The truth, which is what elections are all about, is irrelevant. To get elected, I have to say the tax burden of the middle class has gone up while the tax burden of the middle class has actually gone down relative to the burden on the wealthy."
I can't understand that one either. I defy you to find one person who understands Kerry.
If he's smart, Rove will leave it alone. It was obviously a slip of the tongue. Don't we all do this sometimes?
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.