Bush Tax Cuts

A Great Campaign Line For Barack Obama In 2012: The “Romney Rule”!

Ronald Leave a comment

A great idea that is developing as a likely campaign slogan for President Obama and the Democrats in 2012 is to use the “Buffett Rule”, also known as the “Reagan Rule”, against Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts Governor, if he ends up as the Republican nominee for President!

Romney is by far the wealthiest candidate, worth at least $250 million, and he has made it clear that he is opposed to the “Buffett Rule”, which would make millionaires and billionaires pay more than their staff members, and would be based on capital gains, not just income!

Romney, who laid off many employees as the head of Bain Capital, and has joked about being unemployed, having many Cadillacs, and boasted about increasing the size of his mansion, is against any more taxation of his wealth. despite the fact the he has paid a very low level of taxation and has seen his wealth multiply due to the Bush tax cuts.

He has also come out against the “Occupy Wall Street” movement as something dangerous, refusing to understand the purpose of the growing movement against corporate greed, which has decimated the middle class, exploiting home owners, pensioners, college students, and millions of people unemployed by the crooked, corrupt actions of Wall Street bankers and corporations!

Romney is really the exemplar of the GILDED AGE mentality, and Barack Obama is the PROGRESSIVE ERA, NEW DEAL and GREAT SOCIETY representative, and despite many who think that the Tea Party Movement, which wishes to take us back to the 19th century, is growing, in actual fact, the “Occupy Wall Street” movement could very well be the challenger to that reactionary group!

It could be the beginning of a new reform movement determined to take back the nation for the middle and lower classes, and out of the hands of the rich and powerful who have been exploiting us since the 1980s!

So utilizing what could be called the “Romney Rule” against Romney or any other Republican in the Presidential race of 2012, could be very effective as a political weapon!

The Myth About Barack Obama, The Wealthy, And Taxes

Ronald Leave a comment

The average American, if asked, would certainly say that George W. Bush is remembered for major tax cuts. After all, the term “Bush Tax Cuts” is a word in the political vocabulary often used.

So if one was told that actually Barack Obama cut taxes more, the reaction would be disbelief. But that is true, which even conservatives and Republicans try to hide from the American public!

Between the tax cuts in 2009 and 2010, over $900 billion in tax cuts will have been enacted in Obama’s term, almost double what Bush brought about in his first term by signing tax legislation!

Beyond the dollar amount, and accounting for inflation to raise the numbers for Bush, there is also the issue of WHO received the bulk of the tax cuts!

85 percent of the tax cuts under Obama are to the bottom 80 percent, while more than half of the Bush tax cuts went to the richest 20 percent!

And, finally, the Obama tax cuts are TEMPORARY, as compared to Bush, where it was meant to be PERMANENT, which is what has led to the economic disaster we now face!

With the growing responsibilities and problems this nation face, we all have to chip in and pay for the present and the future, rather than glorify greed and selfishness on the part of the wealthy!

And it is not as if the wealthy have not paid higher levels of taxes in the past, and it did no harm, as they still remained wealthy! The propaganda regarding this, how harmful it is to tax the wealthy, claiming they work so hard and are being penalized, is unjust when compared to how hard the average person works, and yet he is expected to contribute higher levels of taxation percentage wise than the rich. It is the great myth believed by millions of people who should know better!

Tenth Anniversary Of Bush V. Gore Supreme Court Decision: Its Effect On America! :(

Ronald 1 Comment

This weekend marks the tenth anniversary of the Supreme Court intervention in the 2000 Presidential Election, the infamous case of Bush V. Gore.

The Republican majority Supreme Court took an unconstitutional action, unprecedented in American history, when it interfered in the vote recount in Florida to declare George W. Bush the winner over Al Gore by the measly margin of 537 votes despite a substantial popular vote lead of Gore, throwing the 25 electoral votes of Florida into the Bush camp, and making him the closest winner of the Electoral College since the 1876 Presidential Election, when Rutherford B. Hayes was declared the winner of the electoral college by one vote, despite a popular vote lead by Samuel Tilden.

There was nothing in the Constitution that provided for such a Supreme Court intervention, and for a Court with Antonin Scalia preaching “originalism”, it was a shocking abuse of power, but with no recourse by Gore or anyone else, as the old adage of Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes reverberated: “The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is!”

The effects of eight years of the George W. Bush Presidency have been massive, most of it bad, and one has to wonder how the nation would have been under eight years of Al Gore.

Of course, conservatives and Republicans will be praising the fact that Al Gore never made it to the White House, but it is clear that in many ways, life would have been different in America had Gore taken the oath of office.

Among the differences:

1. The war in Afghanistan would have been on the front burner, not on the back burner, and Osama Bin Laden would likely have been captured or killed, instead of being allowed to escape.
2. The Iraq War would likely have not been waged, and instead the problem of Iran likely would have been addressed in a way whereby Iran would not be the major menace it is today in international affairs, as the Iraq War only strengthened Iran in the Middle East.
3. The reaction to Hurricane Katrina would have been far different, and New Orleans would be further along toward recovery with far less loss of life at the time of the tragedy.
4. The national debt would not have been doubled, as it was from 5 to 10 trillion under Bush, as the massive Bush tax cuts would not have occurred, and the massive spending on two wars at the same time would not have been done.
5. The Medicare Part D legislation would not have occurred, but if it developed in any form, would have been paid for, not adding massively to the national debt.
6. Torture would not have been endorsed by President Gore as it has been by President George W. Bush.
7.We would not have witnessed the abuse of power by Vice President Dick Cheney, who scarred the Vice Presidency’s reputation.
8. There never would have been a second time in the Defense Department for Donald Rumsfeld, who served earlier under President Gerald Ford, and that would have been good for the military who go into our combat operations.
9. Movement on the environment, particularly on global warming and climate change, would have been further accomplished than it has been.
10. The issue of poverty, which was being pursued as a future subject for consideration by Bill Clinton in his last year as
President, would have been a major agenda item by a President Gore.
11.The Gore Presidency would have been, generally, another age of progressive reform, more the true successor to the Great Society of Lyndon B. Johnson, than the comparatively disappointing Presidencies of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton in the eras of domestic reform.
12. Health care reform would likely have been passed years earlier than it has been under President Barack Obama.

It is clear that America today would be a very different country had only the Supreme Court stayed out of the Presidential Election of 2000, and the nation today suffers from the tragedy of eight years of George W. Bush! 🙁