READER COMMENTS ON
(8 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
said on 10/5/2004 @ 9:40 pm PT...
John Edwards creamed Dick Cheney in the debate tonight. The Republicans are desperate to spin it the other way, however. They can spin all they want, but Brian Williams reported on NBC tonight that Dick Cheney is on tape previously saying that there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and al Queda, yet during the debate he flatly denied it. Juxtaposing these two statements should make for a great campaign commercial for the Democrats. Also, Mike McCurry mentioned on Nightline that even though Cheney claimed that he had never met Edwards before, he actually acknowledged Edwards presence at a National Prayer breakfast in 2001, and they may even have sat together. McCurry also said that when Elizabeth Dole was sworn in as a Senator, Senate courtesies required her to be escorted to the Chair by the senior Senator, John Edwards. The Chair would have been occupied at the time by the President of the Senate, Dick Cheney. Surely, someone has photographs or videotape out there from either one or both of these events. And, the statement that Iraqi police casualties should be included as "coalition casualties" is simply wrong, period. Democrats can emphasize that Bush and Cheney, out of desperation, are now re-defining their so-called "coalition". Finally, Dick Cheney denied Edwards' allegations about the investigations into wrongdoing by Halliburton, but William Schneider on CNN said the Halliburton accusations were based on fact. Let the spin begin; Cheney has given us tons of good material to use.
Donald P. Russo
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
said on 10/5/2004 @ 9:47 pm PT...
Indeed! Good post! Thanks, Don!
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
said on 10/6/2004 @ 5:43 am PT...
Cutting marginal tax rates gives people the incentive to work more to make that extra dollar because they can keep the fruits of their efforts. The more the work the greater the overall amount of production performed. The pie has gotten bigger so to speak. With an overall bigger pie, even at a lower tax rate, the total amount of tax revenue taken in rises. Try this example on for size.
If govt A wanted to take in the most tax revenue and they had the option of the following 2 situations, which should they pick?:
1)A 10% tax rate on $100 in income ($10)or...
2)A 5% tax rate on $500 in income. ($25)
Clearly in this example, the lower tax rate provides the govt with greater tax receipts.
The above example is basic but illustrative of how a lower tax rate can yield more income for the govt if the pie grows. The Left has always chosen to ignore this behavior that people, given appropriate incentives (lower tax rates) will absolutely work harder and grow the pot. The Left also forgets our economy is not static. It is growing and can grow to greater gains if people are unfettered. Look at the behavior of businesses. Many businesses will cut prices to stimulate demand in their products. This allows them to sell more overall and yield greater profits.
On the other hand one thing that absolutely CRUSHES business is dealing with the costs imposed by the trial bar. Examples include defending frivolous lawsuits, settling frivolous lawsuits, and paying increased prices for business related liability insurance. Those are REAL costs which we, who have our own businesses, must worry about.
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
said on 10/6/2004 @ 6:46 am PT...
Let me get this straight. Cutting marginal taz rates means that somehow a temporal envelope will form around those moments in time and delete the statements of Cheney that call into question his verasity? That's amazing. i had no idea the laws of physics were effected by taxes.
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
said on 10/6/2004 @ 10:33 am PT...
The quotes of Cheney are taken out of context. He's never claimed that Iraq was involved in 9/11. By connecting the fact that Iraq has supported terrorists with connections to Al Qaeda, and the fact that Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11. You can take his message how you like, but he's stated *in context* that he's never said what you are accusing him of.
Donald, too much partisan politics here. Of course you think Edwards creamed Cheney. You have a certain viewpoint and if something goes against that, its wrong. Claiming that Edwards won is amusing. Edwards tied Cheney at best estimates.
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
said on 10/6/2004 @ 1:24 pm PT...
Troll, I understand you support Bush/Cheney. That's fine, and I always enjoying hearing all points of view. But Cheney was pretty clear last night when he said "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11."
If you look at the quotes above, that are *not* taken out of context (feel free to demonstrate how they are, the links are there to follow) it's very clear that the suggestion was most clearly and pointedly made. For a guy who chooses words as carefully as Cheney, those "suggestions" were no accident.
Furthmore, the "Meet the Press" quotes were taken from a question in which Russert pointed out that 71% of Americans at that time (a full TWO YEARS after 9/11!) had felt that Iraq was involved with 9/11.
I beg you for the intellectual honesty I know you're capable of, when I ask, where on God's green earth would 71% of Americans have gotten that idea from, if not from suggestions of the Bush/Cheney Administration. Let's be real here.
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
said on 10/6/2004 @ 1:39 pm PT...
Troll, I nod to Josh Marshall's point of view here: "Cheney's defenders may insist that he never outright claims there was a tie. But when Cheney says 'we don't know' presumably he's basing the veracity of that claim on the same principle by which he doesn't know that I can't bench press a thousand pounds."
And Brad, it was 69%. But still a ridiculously high number.
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
said on 2/26/2006 @ 5:08 am PT...
the favoritism shown Cheney and his blatant disregard for the law with regards to his hunting without a proper registration is exactly the way this current administration has dealt with all of its renigade crusades. Above the law.
Setting a standard like this teaches us all that there is a way around law and we might consider twice before we need to inconvenience ourselves with such triffle guidelines.
Why did the man not insist he be sited. Doesn't he have a concious or did he feel it an honor to be let off? What kind of mentality does it take to be in this administration? Take what you can while you can and forget the rest.
This kind of behaviour is worse than anyone can emagine for the little money making venture currently going on in the Gulf.