In a selfless act - putting his money where his mouth has been for some time - George Bush has announced that he will donate the thousands of dollars that his tax cuts have put into his own pocket towards better supplies of equipment to troops in Iraq. When President Bush learned that insufficient resources were available to properly supply the troops on the front lines of the war for democracy ("the Pentagon announced last week that it missed its self-imposed deadline of April 1st for fielding adequate numbers of uparmored Humvees to protect all U.S. troops"), he realized that tax cuts during war time were the goals of a party that favored money over freedom and did NOT share the values of the average American.
In a surprising and stirring announcement befitting a War Time President, George Bush made the following announcement:
"It's time for all who benefit from high oil prices and no-bid defense contracts brought about by the Iraq war to contribute that money back to support the troops. That' what it's all about isn't it? Supporting the troops? How does cutting taxes during war time help our troops get the equipment they still don't have after all these years of war? How come we still can't budget this war into the yearly budget process? It's because we always have to blur the costs to keep up these tax cuts.
This fiscal and moral insanity has to end. The country must decide if our foremost goal is supporting the troops and spreading democracy OR to cut taxes for the oppressed and deprived rich people of America. WE CAN'T DO BOTH"
This is the first time President Bush has announced any personal sacrifice on his own part for the war on Iraq (other than thinking about it every day). The galvanizing effect of the President actually making a sacrifice himself is expected to have a tremendous effect on uniting America.
George Bush had a follow-up statement: "I am proud to announce that both my daughters have signed up to join our troops and will be deployed to Iraq at the soonest possible time after training. I am a proud father today and proud that my family is ready to contribute OUR efforts alongside so many working class Americans who have already sacrificed so much for my war in Iraq."
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Nancy
This threw me until I noticed it under 'satire'. I was about to look out the window to see if Christ had come again. Oh, well.
2 - Matthew T. Sussman
The creation of that satire tag gives too many people the empty hope that they can write it well.
3 - gonzo marx
/chuckle
wishful Thinking at it's finest, and makes some Points...besides...
it's got a funky beat and i can rock out to it, Mr Clark... BANDSTAND!
Excelsior!
4 - Dave Nalle
I thought satire was supposed to be a form of humor. This just comes off as bitter sarcasm with little if any humor to it at all. Not to menton fundamental misunderstandings of the nature of tax cuts and the needs and desires of the American people.
Dave
5 - MDE
Satire: "A poem, now occas. a prose composition, in which prevailing vices or follies are held up to ridicule." Oxford Universal English Dictionary
6 - gonzo marx
Mr Nalle sez...
*Not to menton fundamental misunderstandings of the nature of tax cuts and the needs and desires of the American people.*
oh, i don't know about that..i think you have made a blatant over generalization about "desires of the American people"
some fiscal Conservatives might like to discuss...
1) surplus in 2000 to record defecit in 2005, NOT coutning war costs
2) war costs not being in the budget
Conservatives bothered by the size of government might want to discuss...
1) previous Admin shrunk fed gov by approx 40%, has doubled since then
2) record Debt
3) record trade defecit
4) number of registered lobbyists in DC has doubled since 2000 (approx 375,000 now)
civil Libertarians might be interested in ditching the Patriot Act...
on and on
there's a huge plethora of Issues that need working out, and over generalizations about "the american people" do a disservice to Discussion on these topics, as well as coming up with any kind of Answer
i know this Administration doesn't want to get into any of that, they like to get their Way every time and push things from where they see it
but at the very least there are 49% of the voters who didn't want him in 04, plus any of those that did vote for him then, that may differ from the dogma ona case by case basis
so, bring out the Sarcasm, bring on the Funk...
danger Will Robinson, lame duck approaching
nuff said?
Excelsior!
7 - Dave Nalle
Gonzo, above almost anything else, the American people like giving less money to government, whatever the circumstances. George Bush could be caught in bed with a dead sheep and if he cut taxes he'd be a hero to most of the population.
Dave
8 - gonzo marx
and i disagree...i think that some would , some would be upset about the sheep, and others would rightfully ask if the checkbook is balanced...
but we both know that this is one of the things we differ on...i don't like giving them money either, but i Recognize the need to do so for Society...what i want is for that money to be spent effeciently, effectively and on the right things to benefit the Nation...NOT to just line someone's pockets...
bit by bit, more and more of this Administration's nifatuation with Greed comes out...the shortfall in VA medical money for our troops, the cuts in Medicaid...those and more gutted to try and offset taxcut money
the avergage American is waking up to the fact that the few hundred dollars he/she is getting pales compared to the wealthy, and that it is hurting our Nation
many are getting tired of being pissed on and told it is "trickle down"
month by month, and week by week, the various Polls show this Administration and the GOP lead Congress loosing ground
overall, and Issue by Issue...
one could make a case that most Americans don't need a sheep to not be happy with the Shrub and company
"Time wounds all heels"
Heinlein
Excelsior!
9 - Dave Nalle
The administration is losing ground because they haven't followed through on the promises that started with the tax cuts. The tax cuts were great, but they were supposed to be part of a whole package of fiscal reforms, none of which have happened.
You can NEVER go wrong betting on the eagerness of the American public to preserve and build their wealth for the future welfare of their families. We only care about government insofar as it has a direct impact on our lives, and the largest impact it has is in taking our money.
Bush started out well with his tax cuts, but he promised to privatize social security and lost control of the issue and now it's biting him in the ass.
Dave
10 - gonzo marx
Mr Nalle sez...
*The administration is losing ground because they haven't followed through on the promises that started with the tax cuts. *
i hate to think you are quite so naive...
they have followed through on all the things they cared about...their "Friends"
bankruptcy reform that protects predatory lenders...
cuts in Medicaid
more pork and corporate welfare
on and on until we go from surplus to record defecits that would have made Goldwater puke to witness...
Mr Nalle sez...
*but he promised to privatize social security and lost control of the issue and now it's biting him in the ass.*
very telling that you use "lost control"
also the Answer as to why is simple enough...the overwehlming majority of Americans LIKE social security...they think it is one of the few things our Government does right...so they are pushing back, and this has caused them to examine and re-evalute other bits of Policy...what they want it for it to be tweaked, kept as a fair Insurance policy, an dkept solvent...
and they think it is the Responsibility of those in our government to do so...
Mr Nalle sez...
*You can NEVER go wrong betting on the eagerness of the American public to preserve and build their wealth*
i many cases i would Agree completely...however, i personally believe that many in our Nation do NOT live by Greed alone...and want to see any fiscal Sacrifice they make go towards making our Nation better
two different Views on a difficult subject...
but the current numbers help to show which way the People are thinking about some of it...
"you don't need a Weatherman to know
which way the Wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Excelsior!
11 - gonzo marx
Mr Nalle sez...
*The administration is losing ground because they haven't followed through on the promises that started with the tax cuts. *
i hate to think you are quite so naive...
they have followed through on all the things they cared about...their "Friends"
bankruptcy reform that protects predatory lenders...
cuts in Medicaid
more pork and corporate welfare
on and on until we go from surplus to record defecits that would have made Goldwater puke to witness...
Mr Nalle sez...
*but he promised to privatize social security and lost control of the issue and now it's biting him in the ass.*
very telling that you use "lost control"
also the Answer as to why is simple enough...the overwehlming majority of Americans LIKE social security...they think it is one of the few things our Government does right...so they are pushing back, and this has caused them to examine and re-evalute other bits of Policy...what they want it for it to be tweaked, kept as a fair Insurance policy, an dkept solvent...
and they think it is the Responsibility of those in our government to do so...
Mr Nalle sez...
*You can NEVER go wrong betting on the eagerness of the American public to preserve and build their wealth*
i many cases i would Agree completely...however, i personally believe that many in our Nation do NOT live by Greed alone...and want to see any fiscal Sacrifice they make go towards making our Nation better
two different Views on a difficult subject...
but the current numbers help to show which way the People are thinking about some of it...
"you don't need a Weatherman to know
which way the Wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Excelsior!
12 - Dave Nalle
>>also the Answer as to why is simple enough...the overwehlming majority of Americans LIKE social security...they think it is one of the few things our Government does right...so they are pushing back, and this has caused them to examine and re-evalute other bits of Policy...what they want it for it to be tweaked, kept as a fair Insurance policy, an dkept solvent...<<
Wrong. The overwhelming majority have been terrorized by lies from groups like AARP into thinking that Bush is going to destroy social security, when the reality is that he wanted to create a more equitable system which didn't rape the taxpayer quite as much as the existing disaster.
>>i many cases i would Agree completely...however, i personally believe that many in our Nation do NOT live by Greed alone...and want to see any fiscal Sacrifice they make go towards making our Nation better<<
Is it greed to want to be able to feed and clothe your kids and send them to a decent college? Is it greed to hope that the next generation lives a better, more productive life than you did? Is it greed to want to have at least some chance of retiring and not having to work at WalMart as a greeter to make ends meet? These are the things which those who are against tax cuts and social security reform are really against.
>>two different Views on a difficult subject...<<
One of them dead wrong.
>>but the current numbers help to show which way the People are thinking about some of it...<<
The current numbers show that the people have been duped and frightened yet again.
Dave
13 - R.Johnson
Well that's telling 'em Gonzo and that's
that's telling 'em gonzo and that's ...
Sorry, couldn't help it.
14 - gonzo marx
so very INcredible that two people can see some things so radically different...
no..it is not Greed for any of those things you mentioned...but i fail to see how a few hundred dollars ( about $300 average for working folks, give or take some) delivered by these tax cuts do those things for the vast Majority of people that work for a living in this country
it seems to me like nothing more than a distraction ...a biscuit for doing a Trick...now, i do realize the higher up the economic ladder you go the nicer those tax cuts are...
my point is that one does not willingly cut Revenue until you have balanced the fucking checkbook...to me, anything else is just "dead wrong"
now, even the WH has admitted the "privatization" plan does nothing to make up for the shortfall induced by the rapage of the SS trust Fund over the years...in fact, the WH estimate is around 2 trillion to implement the "privitization" plan
it also seems that the ones who make out the most are those that handle the funds...curious that the one that wrote the proposal is/was a lobbyist for just the kind of Firm that handles such transactions...
i don't think folks are duped and frightened now..i think they have been duped previously into buying into the whole supply sider "trickle down", Debt and Defecit do not count, corporate welfare , greed is good bullshit that neo-cons and this Administration have been trying to sell like snake oil since day one
just my one sixth billionths of the world's Opinion...but it does look like more and more Americans are beginning to share some of it...
your mileage may vary
Excelsior!
15 - Dave Nalle
Gonzo, are you even vaguely familiar with the Laffer Curve?
When you cut the tax rate the proven result is actually an INCREASE in tax revenue.
So the way to increase government income and not harm the people or the economy is a moderate tax cut. It worked for JFK, it worked for Reagan, and based on the tax revenue figures for 2004 it also worked when Bush did it. Tax revenues are UP, not down since the tax cut, and up substantially.
>>now, even the WH has admitted the "privatization" plan does nothing to make up for the shortfall induced by the rapage of the SS trust Fund over the years...in fact, the WH estimate is around 2 trillion to implement the "privitization" plan<<
What the privatization plan does is fix a system which is fundamentally broken and a total rip-off of every citizen in this country. Just shoring up the current system is completely unacceptable. Even if it's solvent, it's a dismal failure. The rate of return is just laughable compared to what people ought to be getting to provide for their retirement. It's inefficient, insufficient and inequitable.
Dave
16 - gonzo marx
as for the "Laffer curve"...what is needed is to know where the optimum point ( or "T" as he puts it) resides...
it's a very simplistic curve, just a basic to show the point of the Theory, not even adequate algebraic expression to show an actual shape of the curve
many argue that the regular and symmetrical shape posited by most advocates is innacurate to model the data available
i can get behind the Idea of it...yes there is an optimum point...i just don't think this Administration is even close to it
as for Revenue's being "up"...well....quite a few Americans are still waiting for the checkbook to Balance...some are even beginning to Question where all the money went...you know , from surplus to record defecit
a simple Fact that i have yet to hear anyone in the Administration explain
and whenever it is brought up, the subject is quickly changed and ignored by any advocate of the GOP, in my personal experience and viewings
as for the "privatization" plan...that is up for the entire Debate process, as it shoudl be...all the Facts shoudl be made available, and then let the Public and our elected Representatives look it over and start hammering on it...you know, the way our Republic is supposed to work....NOT just handed down from on high with most of the pages blank, or voted on unread...
you know, like the Patriot Act...
i'm all for a better rate of return..howabout charging the government Interest equal to the prime rate for all the money it has borrowed from the Trust fund over the years...compounded of course....
howabout lifting the $95,000 a year income limit on the deduction, so EVERYONE pays the same percentage..you know..flat tax style...that goes a long way to making it fair
lot's of Options, things to look at and discuss...
but this Administration doesn't like that, they like things to be rubber stamped as the lobbyists wrote them
and that is also something more folks are waking up to....thank Bog and JuJu
Excelsior!
17 - Dave Nalle
>>as for the "privatization" plan...that is up for the entire Debate process, as it shoudl be...all the Facts shoudl be made available, and then let the Public and our elected Representatives look it over and start hammering on it...you know, the way our Republic is supposed to work....NOT just handed down from on high with most of the pages blank, or voted on unread...<<
The reason we have an executive like the president is so that someone can act with initiative in the governing process. Congressmen and Senators are easily suborned and bullied by groups like the AARP, but the president is supposed to be above that, making it possible for him to play a more radical role in coming up with new and possibly controversial solutions to problems like Social Security.
>>i'm all for a better rate of return..howabout charging the government Interest equal to the prime rate for all the money it has borrowed from the Trust fund over the years...compounded of course....<<
Sure, so long as that interest goes to increase the return to SS recipients. That's the equivalent of allowing them to invest the money in government bonds.
>>howabout lifting the $95,000 a year income limit on the deduction, so EVERYONE pays the same percentage..you know..flat tax style...that goes a long way to making it fair<<
Isn't that already part of every plan for redoing the SS funding that's been proposed? BTW, the reason for that limit in the first place is that SS benefits are capped so it was seen as unfair to have people pay enormous amounts into SS and still get no more back than if they had a relatively small income.
Dave
18 - Big Time Patriot
"Gonzo, above almost anything else, the American people like giving less money to government, whatever the circumstances." Well, what does that have to do with anything? This President doesn't care about popularity or polls does he? Not if you believe what he says?
The main satirical point of this was the fantasy of a President who led through sacrifice, who made hard choices that actually affected HIMSELF and not other people.
In other words, what if America had a LEADER for President instead of just a selfish sloganeer???
Why do I call him selfish? What is his biggest domestic accomplishment? Tax cuts, eh? What possible domestic accomplishment could he have done that would benefit HIMSELF personally? Tax cuts.
Call me cynical, but when a leader acts in a way that is self-dealing, I sometimes suspect he knew exactly what he was doing...
19 - Nancy
Dave, you've got your head in the sand again. On a previous thread, I discussed tax cuts & their effect on the poor (i.e. myself, neighbors, co-workers) regarding the amount WE got - which sure as shit did NOT inspire any of us to go out and "stimulate the economy", vs. the obscenely generous tax cuts Bush gave himself & all his very wealthy friends, not to mention increasing corporate welfare at the expense of all of us. These tax cuts did no one not of the top 1% a damn bit of good. As far as I was concerned, it was a typical 'cheap' gesture at my expense by a grandstanding, lying, conniving jerkoff who stole & bought his way into the presidency with a little help from these selfsame friends. And BTW, just because something worked 30 or 50 years ago doesn't mean it will work today. Trickle-down ecomonics didn't work for Reagan, and they don't work now. As for Social Security - Har! So, Smirk wants everyone to invest their money in the stock market - which is currently tanking due to oil prices, which are unlikely to go down ever on a permanent basis? Another BushCo. scam: trying to prop up the failing stock market w/the hard-earned retirement savings of the rank & file working people, so the rich (who have special information to help them out, courtesy of insider trading and other little perks that come with having an investment advisor, financial manager, etc.) can get out with plenty of warning and a little profit on the side, perhaps, while the working guy who bought the scam ends up holding the [empty] bag, as usual. And who would he be able to blame? Nobody: "the market". Gee, the market just didn't do well. Sorry.
If Smirk were serious about stimulating the market, he could start prodding his corporate buddies, the Bush family trust, and other big stockholders in the oil companies to start building a few more refineries, which is the cause of the backup. But they don't, and it's unlikely they will. Why? Because by keep supply short, they can price gouge. After all, they've got a captive audience. Exxon just got caught ordering its stations in some areas to charge what the market would bear, to see if business would fall or sustain. It's called 'profiteering'. Can you say that? Pro-fit-eering. Good, boys & girls. And don't forget to thank our Prez for helping keep prices artificially high. And if Smirk were serious about energy independence, he would put pressure on the various industries to actually put their non-oil-dependent technologies on the market. The technologies already exist; they already work. But the patents are all held by ... three guesses? That's right, boys & girls: the same corporations that control oil, gas, & electric production. And since they have a lot of money vested in staying with the old technologies, whereby they have cornered the market as far as the helpless and (mostly) unsuspecting public goes, it's not in their interests to put these out. Soooo...they'll just sit on them, as prices for oil, gas, & electicity climb higher and higher and they steal pennies (or dollars) out of everyone's pockets, to line their own.
I could then go into a dissertation on the oil/energy co. consortiums, increasing monopolization of energy providers, and the dismantling of the anti-monopoly laws courtesy of BushCo., but my hands are getting stiff from typing & we don't have enough room.
Stop being a flack for the super rich, & an administration which is either corrupt or totally incompetent, Nalle. You know better. Or you ought to.
20 - Dave Nalle
Do I absolutely HAVE to go over this again, Nancy. I already explained how tax cuts work to you on a previous thread.
1. The poor don't benefit directly from a tax cut because they already pay no taxes. Same for working class folks up to a family income of about $45,000.
2. The tax cuts are a PERCENTAGE, so the more you make the more you get back. You don't get back a larger percentage if you have a higher income, just a larger total number of dollars because you paid more in the first place. So a person earning $50K after deductions and exemptions might get a reduction of $1000, while a person earning $500K might get a reduction of $10,000 - but it's the same percentage. The wealthier person is still paying enormously more tax.
3. The tax rebates Bush gave out to some degree balance out the percent based cuts, because they are a flat cash value. So if you got the full $600 and have an income after deductions of $30,000 you're getting a 2% rebate. If you earn $300,000 you're getting a .2% rebate. So this benefit cuts the other way. Of course neither the rebate nor the percentage cut is that much money for most people.
4. If the taxes on the wealthy are cut what do they do with that money? They spend it or invest it - which is another form of spending. That money goes to expand the capital based of businesses which means they can hire more people and create new jobs, or it goes into discretionary spenidng which also creates jobs in services and manufacturing. Any tax cut benefits the entire population because it means more wealth in circulation and therefore more jobs and more work for better pay.
5. When taxes are cut the government also benefits, because it results in more job creation, more investment and a growth in the volume of business. This means more sales taxes and also more income tax. This is why in the wake of the Bush tax cuts we've seen a dramatic increase in tax revenues on both the state and federal levels.
These things are observable, constant facts. They're not a theory or wishful thinking. They're the way the economy works. This is why tax cuts are almost always desirable and benefit everyone.
>>Stop being a flack for the super rich, & an administration which is either corrupt or totally incompetent, Nalle. You know better. Or you ought to.<<
I do know better, but you seem to never let facts fight their way through your resentment and paranoia. This is one area in which Bush is actually entirely right. Just because you hate Bush irrationally that doesn't mean you need to hate the benefits which tax cuts bring to the nation.
Dave
21 - Nancy
If this be the case, how come the poor keep getting poorer, the middle class are sliding out of it into poverty, the number of medically uninsured Americans continues to rise, and the top 1% - the very, very rich - are continuing to widen the gap and becoming even richer. Reality is, tax cuts are NOT working. Corporations are cutting benefits - because they can, and can get away with it, thanks to BushCo. They are becoming even less accountable to the public, and the government is becoming less responsive to its citizens. The great divide between haves & have-nots is grossly increasing, & it isn't for lack of effort on the part of the middle clas to stay afloat. Theories are all well and good, but they're only as good as the reality, and the reality is, these tax cuts don't work, and they're actually making things worse by removing income from the government that it can ill afford to lose, at the expense of the average citizen, and greatly to the benefit of the obscenely rich. What part of that don't YOU understand? Pragmatism over hypothesis, Dave: look at the facts, not what Smirk tells you.
22 - MDE
4 above is not convincing. Capital is an international actor for which American interests are parochial. It moves toward cheap resources (labor) and away from high costs of doing business (taxes). It's not clear how tax cuts and rebates invested in a Chinese textile factory will produce "more wealth in circulation and therefore more jobs and more work for better pay" for US workers.
Mark
23 - Nancy
I can't always come up with a refutation, not because there is none, but because I am not terribly good w/argument. Nor do I quote fancy experts, self-appointed pundits, or think tanks of varying persuasions. Thanks, MDE. I had wanted to make that point, but missed it. Glad others are about to make up for my deficiencies in logic & argument.
24 - MDE
re: "in the wake of the Bush tax cuts we've seen a dramatic increase in tax revenues on both the state and federal levels."
Check out this PDF for tax figures.
What drama? Must be at the federal level.
Mark
25 - Dave Nalle
>>If this be the case, how come the poor keep getting poorer,<<
The poor aren't getting poorer, they're staying more or less the same.
>> the middle class are sliding out of it into poverty,<<
A tiny number - barely 1% of the third lowest income group has slipped to the 2nd lowest group and this is being made out to be a huge slide of the middle class into poverty. It's a joke.
>> the number of medically uninsured Americans continues to rise, <<
Actually, the latest figures show the uninsured portion of the population down by a significant amount in the past year.
>>and the top 1% - the very, very rich - are continuing to widen the gap and becoming even richer. <<
Which is the nature of wealth, it grows in a good economy. This does no harm to anyone else.
>>Reality is, tax cuts are NOT working. <<
Except that they are, of course. Everyone has more money to spend and the economy is more robust.
>>Corporations are cutting benefits - because they can, and can get away with it, thanks to BushCo. They are becoming even less accountable to the public, and the government is becoming less responsive to its citizens.<<
This is an entirely separate issue and is certainly debatable, but it's at least an argument that can be made, unlike the others you've brought up.
>> The great divide between haves & have-nots is grossly increasing, & it isn't for lack of effort on the part of the middle clas to stay afloat.<<
Again, the rich aren't taking money out of the middle class's wallets to increase their wealth. They're doing well because the business economy is doing well.
>> Theories are all well and good, but they're only as good as the reality, and the reality is, these tax cuts don't work, and they're actually making things worse by removing income from the government that it can ill afford to lose, at the expense of the average citizen, and greatly to the benefit of the obscenely rich. <<
Again, taxes do NOT move money around the way you're suggesting. All the money goes to the government. Taxes are paid by percentages of income and the rich still pay at a higher percentage rate than the poor and middle class do. Plus the cut-off for that top tax rate is ridiculously low. People who are at best upper middle class are paying at the very highest tax rate.
>>What part of that don't YOU understand? Pragmatism over hypothesis,<<
I like to deal in reality, not paranoia and irrational hate.
Dave