Posted on 10/22/2002 5:44:18 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
Don't look now, but one of the Democratic Party's leading presidential candidates has just moved to the right of President Bush on economic policy and is now calling for massive, sweeping and immediate tax cuts - including the complete elimination of the capital gains tax and the suspension of sales taxes - to get the lagging economy moving again.
"What I'm really asking for is that we take the next phase of the Bush tax cuts that haven't gone into effect yet," said Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., "and take those tax cuts, which will effect the top two percent of the country, and recycle them; redirect them and bring them forward into business tax cuts."
In comments to WABC Radio's John Gambling, Lieberman said his Reaganesque tax cut plan would include "a new investment tax credit, a zero capital gains rate and some consumption tax incentives, including a rebate for 34 million Americans and a sales tax holiday for the holiday shopping season."
Before previewing his tax cut plan, which he planned to describe more fully in a speech to Wall Street later in the day, Lieberman slammed President Bush for "not providing any kind of economic plan of recovery."
"The president didn't cause the economic problems but he's not given the leadership to get us out of them," Lieberman told WABC. "And he's contributed to them with a tax cut last year that he pushed through that was just larger than we can afford."
So why the media silence on the supply-side switcherooo by one of Democratic Party's leading lights?
Notes Staten Island political analyst Kevin Collins: "Since there has been no further mention of Lieberman's economic conversion since Friday, we can assume that he has returned to the official party line."
NewsMax.com's Fr. Mike Reilly contributed this report
Well, maybe not, but he surely must have read in the Clinton election playbook that it is good campaigning to say you promote tax cuts and even though if you should happen to get elected call for a press conference and practice lowering and quivering your lower lip, slip a few tears in, sniffle and say "you never worked harder than you worked in all your life but you just couldn't give you all a tax cut. I really feel your pain though."
Anyway, he just wanted to show President Bush up, and we all know democrats don't necessarily mean what they say. It's a well practiced art of deception for winning votes and maintaining democrat power.
LOL...hey buddy, I've got some oceanfront Nebraska property to sell ya...CHEAP!!
True or False?
Barbara Boxer, the worst Senator in the entire chamber, co-sponsored with Sen. Smith a bill which would override the Administration's prohibition of pilots being authorized to defend their aircraft with lethal force.
True or False?
GWB opposed arming pilots at every juncture until it passed both chambers of Congress by better than 2-1, making his veto pointless.
Now, about that beachfront in Nebraska...when did you buy it, and what Pubbie sold it to you?
Originally, PresBush didn't support guns in the cockpit and I believe he was wrong. I think Bush reevaluated his position, after realizing the advice he was receiving from the head of the Transportation Security Administration, John Magaw, was based on bad judgment. This poor advice led to Mcgaw getting canned. Bush is finally onboard and thats what counts. Nuff said.
However, Sen. Boxer didn't do something extraordinary. She was just one of 87 senators who voted in favor of allowing airline pilots to carry firearms. Boxer understood, that the public overwhelmingly favored this legislation. Boxer went along for the ride. The fact you think this ultra liberal Senator is so wonderful and that she is politically, to the right of Bush, says more about you, then it does about Barbara Boxer.
Now you've decided to take some election eve press release by Joe Lieberman and use it to denounce PresBush. Hey, it's still a free country and if you want to back these two liberals, have at it. I won't stand in your way.
But when you said, you won't be voting to give PresBush a Republican Senate, that completely crosses the line and makes no sense at all. You sure don't talk like a conservative.
Here's what JimRob had to say about the importance of Republican's retaking the Senate.
... I do agree with your statements above. The only chance we have of turning this thing around is to regain control of the Senate. Keep voting out the Democrats, regain contriol, and then we can worry about the RINOs.
565 posted on 6/5/02 9:06 PM Mountain by Jim Robinson
LINK to Jim Robinson's Remarks
Here's some more wisdom from JR.
Well, I'll put it this way, this web site supports President Bush, supports our national defense efforts (including the war on terrorism), supports the effort to retake the Senate, supports the effort to confirm President Bush's judicial appointees, supports the effort to retake the congressional committees and the legislative agenda from the Democrats and or to increase the majority against the leftist caucus in the House, supports the effort to oppose the Democrats in every seat and office in the country and generally opposes the liberal/socialist left.
Democrats, liberals, socialists, and their ilk do not stand a chance on FR. They usually get nuked before they even get started. We don't need their perverted b/s or their anti-conservative, anti-freedom, cowardly anti-American propaganda. We get that crap all day long in every newspaper, newscast, TV show, movie, classroom, etc, we do not need it on FR. We are the opposition to these people.
Now, if people come on to FR spouting smear attacks against our candidates, calling them or us names, insulting us, insulting our positions and or generally working against our goals, then they are probably going to get kicked out. And I don't care what party they claim to be affiliated with. Liberals/socialists and their supporters or enablers are not wanted here and need not apply.
If the shoe fits....
668 posted on 9/23/02 8:04 PM Mountain by Jim Robinson
Again, nuff said.
I guess you just haven't gotten over the defeat of your less than 1 percenter candidate.
After looking at the past two years, I can say that the only reason he is not moving at flank speed to the left is that 4 airplanes crashed last summer, and we have arabs to blame. National security is a natural winning issue for the Right.
Don't confuse those of us without presidential knee pads as those who are liberals or out of touch. Some of us think his liberal policies stink. When marxists are to the right of the POTUS on gun issues, and at least feign interest in cutting taxes more than a GOP president, we have problems. I don't recall RWR having these problems. Perhaps he did, and I didn't notice.
-Orion
It seems that the truth hurt. Your man got out flanked to his right by the worst senator in the entire chamber, ON A GUN ISSUE!!! and has another who opposed him in the election which is advocating a greater tax roll back than GWB.
Continue your Pubbie-fest. The "about" page on FR makes no mention of party affiliation. It states the return of our government to a freedom loving, constitutional form of government is the goal of the website. I concede that one party is not as bad as the other when installing a social-welfare state, although the difference is becoming harder to determine as we march on.
GWB is, at best, a moderate Republican. That's fine. He is no Reagan or Goldwater. There is no shame in being to the left of Reagan or Goldwater - as most politicians are. He dashes left every chance he gets, but is fairly sane on national security issues.
Pubbies are not the cure for what ails us. They will always try to outbid the RATS, and lose. They champion more spending, and a bigger government. Look at their record over the past 8 years. Is our gov't bigger than it was in 1995? Yes. Is it bigger than 2001? Yes. Will next year's federal money fountain spit out more gov't largess than the previous year's? Yes.
If you want to tattle on me and go to JimRob, because we have a disagreement, that's fine. I stand behind my statements. If JimRob wants to have a partisan purge from his site, that's his business.
Conservatives and Statist Pubbies have always been at war. Periodically, we bury the hatchet (Clinton Administration), but the two camps have very different goals. Conservatives want smaller gov't, less spending, and more freedom. Statist Pubbies want more Pubbies in office - PERIOD! They believe, with no evidence to back it up, that gov't will shrink when Pubbies are writing laws.
(From Rush's show of 10/22/02) When the RATS scare old people with the spectre of the GOP ending Social Security, what do the Pubbies ALWAYS counter with? Pubbies always show that they are FOR Social Security and increasing benefits.
There is the problem.
Pubbies will never end Social Security. They will never end AFDC. They will never eliminate the income tax. They will ALWAYS increase police powers over the citizens. They will never take a serious meat axe to the federal payroll. They will always be on the take from corporations. They will never end immigration - illegal or otherwise. They will always defer to the UN. They have their own version of a monster high-tax police state.
They just want to be the "inner party" rather than the RATS.
Get off your kneepads and wake up to what "your" guys want to do. Your freedom is smaller in scope now than it was in 1994, or even 2000. Yes, the RATS are a big part of the problem, but the Pubbies are not the solution.
I stand by my statements. Go cry to JimRob, if that is all you have.
If you say so, it's probably true. So what, though...does this make Boxer anything more than the "...worst Senator in the entire chamber"? And what about the HildaBeast and FatTeddyK, BTW?!
"True or False?
GWB opposed arming pilots at every juncture until it passed both chambers of Congress by better than 2-1, making his veto pointless."
If you believe I agree with everything Dubyuh's done since in office, you'd be sadly mistaken, my FRiend, and this issue is no exception. Still, I believe Dubyuh's the Most Conservative POTUS since Reagan and with a decent majority in the House and Senate, there's nothing stopping him from being even more Conservative than Ronaldus Maximus!!
"Now, about that beachfront in Nebraska...when did you buy it, and what Pubbie sold it to you?
LOL...it was given to me by RINO Chuck Hagel!!
FReegards...MUD
Not at all. As I pointed out, Bush was wrong opposing the arming of pilots in the cockpit. Now he's onboard. Now we move on. If you want to keep praising liberals like Boxer and Lieberman, feel free. But the objective for the vast majority of conservatives, like JimRob and myself, is to make sure Republicans retake control of the US Senate. Since you oppose giving Bush a Republican Senate to work with and would like to see Democrats hold onto their powerbase, then I can't consider you anything but a third party big mouth troublemaker.
It's quite obvious, all you can do is whine and complain, but you've offered no solutions, just a litany of opposition rhetoric, that falls flat.
>>>If you want to tattle on me and go to JimRob, because we have a disagreement, that's fine.
Well well well, touchy now aren't we. If you can't take exposure for supporting liberal Democrats, perhaps you should move on.
Btw, just who did you support for POTUS in 2000?
Was it Buchanan? Perhaps you supported Browne? May be it was Philips or Hagelin? Or was it Nadar? LOL Come on, tell us, what third party wannabee was it?
I believe Dubyuh's the Most Conservative POTUS since Reagan
Almost anyone would qualify, by this standard - 90% of pubbies, and at least 1/3 of the RATS.
Btw, just who did you support for POTUS in 2000? Was it Buchanan? Perhaps you supported Browne? May be it was Philips or Hagelin? Or was it Nadar? LOL Come on, tell us, what third party wannabee was it?
The "wannabee" was the governor of my state, GWB. What a disappointment.
The fact is, George W.Bush is the President today.
GWB is a disappointment, as was GHWB. Being POTUS does not exempt you from disappointing your base. Sure, many of you "party at any price" Republicans will all cheer as you vote in your panacea of a GOP majority in the Senate. The police state will march on at red-line speed, debt will be sold at even higher numbers than today, more urban breeders will hit the payroll, more mestizo peasants will be imported to keep profits up, my taxes will still be in excess of 40%, and the GOP of the 21st Century will be worse than the Dems of the 60s-80s. That's OK, because the majority will have an "R" after their name, and that's good - or so I am told.
Have fun. Your Republican Rally needs only 9 more trading days without a doozy of a downer, and you are in.
"Almost anyone would qualify, by this standard - 90% of pubbies, and at least 1/3 of the RATS."
Okay then, how 'bout "The Most Conservative POTUS since Eisenhower, excluding Reagan"...does that carry any water with you?!
FReegards...MUD
You need your face stomped. Badly.
Please clarify your position and statement please. I wouldn't want to misunderstand it.
Time to leave a note around their necks...
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.