I won't go over every single one of the point, but here are a few...get this going to everyone...the Right does a GREAT job here of using FACTS to show the true face of the Democratic Party:
THE REAL DEM AGENDA: INCREASE TAXES
Failing To Extend The Tax Cuts Would Result In A Nearly $2.4 Trillion Tax Increase On American Taxpayers.
- "Sen. [Harry] Reid [D-NV] Said Matters More Pressing Than Tax Cuts Need To Be Given Priority." (Edward Lee Pitts, "Frist Decries 'Obstruction' By Senate Democrats," Chattanooga Times Free Press, 2/15/06)
- House Ways And Means Committee Ranking Member Charles Rangel (D-NY): "These tax cuts are beyond irresponsible." (David Cay Johnston, "Big Gain For Rich Seen In Tax Cuts For Investments," The New York Times, 4/5/06
If Democrats Had Their Way, American Families Would Be Spending At Least An Additional $950 On Gasoline Each Year:
The 1993 Clinton Btu Tax Would Have Increased The Price Of A Gallon Of Gasoline By Six Percent. At Today's Average Price, That Is A 17.4 Cent Increase Per Gallon, Or $191.40 A Year For A Family With Two Vehicles.
In 1993, 53 Senate Democrats And 218 House Democrats Supported The Clinton Btu Tax.
In 1993, 50 Senate Democrats And 217 House Democrats Voted To Increase Gasoline Taxes By 4.3 Cents Per Gallon, Costing A Family With Two Vehicles An Additional $47.30 A Year.
The Kyoto Treaty Would Add 65 Cents To The Price Of A Gallon Of Gasoline, Or A Total Of $715 A Year For A Family With Two Vehicles.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): "In defiance of the overwhelming evidence of global warming, the Bush Administration has rejected the Kyoto Protocol and international cooperation."
Oil In ANWR Could Produce "[A]bout One Million Barrels Of Oil Per Day - About 20% Of Our Domestic Daily Production."
A Majority Of Senate Democrats Voted Against ANWR Exploration At Least Nine Times In The Last Five Years.
A Majority Of House Democrats Voted Against ANWR Exploration At Least Six Times In The Last Five Years.
THE REAL DEM AGENDA: IMPEACHMENT AND INVESTIGATIONS
Rep. John Conyers Introduced Impeachment Plan; Dem Leaders Will Not Back Away From Possibility Of Impeachment:
36 House Democrats Have Embraced Rep. John Conyers' (D-MI) Impeachment Plan And Are Cosponsoring The Bill.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) Leaves Impeachment As Possibility: NBC's Tim Russert: "Is impeachment off the table?" Rep. Pelosi: "Well, you never know where the facts take you, but the - for any president." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 5/7/06)
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) Would Not Rule Out Impeachment: CNN's Wolf Blitzer: "[Y]ou're not ruling [impeachment] out?" ... Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid: "I'm not ruling anything out." (CNN's "Situation Room," 3/22/06)
THE REAL DEM AGENDA: OBSTRUCT QUALIFIED JUDGES
Democrats Would Hold Up President Bush's Judicial Nominees - Just As They Have In The Past:
As Chairman, [Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Pat] Leahy Spent "18 Months Bottling Up Dozens Of Judicial Nominations In 2001 And 2002, Including Key Appellate-Court Appointments. Altogether, 28 Judicial Nominees Failed To Get Votes In Mr. Leahy's Committee." (Editorial, "And The Chairmanships At Stake," The Washington Times, 3/26/06)
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) Voted To Filibuster Supreme Court Nominee Samuel Alito (Even Though He Had Clear Majority Support) And Voted Against The Nomination Of Chief Justice John Roberts. (Roberts Nomination, CQ Vote #245: Confirmed 78-22: R 55-0; D 22-22; I 1-0, 9/29/05, Reid Voted Nay; Alito Nomination, CQ Vote #1: Motion Agreed To 72-25: R 53-0; D 19-24; I 0-1, 1/30/06, Reid Voted Nay; Alito Nomination, CQ Vote #2: Confirmed 58-42: R 54-1; D 4-40; I 0-1, 1/31/06, Reid Voted Nay)
Now, just add how they want to lose and run away in Iraq (still watiing for all the praise from Dem's and all the quotes of them saying how they want to win like the Republicans did AGAIN today) and we have vicotry in Nov
Man, that was well done....probably to many facts for the libs...except the word lie and swear words to follow.
Posts
22 comments:
Whoever wrote that is a dope. Most of those Dem quotes have nothing wrong with them. Typical fear pandering by Cons.
Wow, Game. This is really amazing. As I asked before, where on earth do you dig up bullshit like this? Oh, I see, it's from Gop.com. No wonder it's total bullshit.
It's total crap and totally misconstrues Democratic policy.
Let's see, where to begin? Let's start with gas (no pun intended). You bring up a proposed tax from 13 freakin' years ago. Then you apply this tax increase that never happened to the price of gasoline today at it's all-time high. Then you mention another tax increase that never happened which would have resulted in a whopping $47 a year cost.
Next, according to the Department of Energy, the Kyoto treaty the cost of gasoline could be between 14 and 66 cents per gallon in 2010. Nice of the GOP to make their claim based on the worst case.
By the way, the same DOE report states "Higher energy prices and the impact of the higher prices on the broader U.S. economy will encourage consumers to reduce energy consumption by between 4 and 18 percent in 2010, relative to the baseline, by reducing the demand for energy services and purchasing more efficient equipment." Sounds like a good goal to strive for, don't you think? It could bring about a resugence in American industry in developing bringing fuel efficient machines and transportation and bringing them to world markets.
Regarding ANWR, this is not simple or cut and dried, as much as you would like to make it so. There are reasonable debates as to how much recoverable oil ANWR would provide. Furthermore, it is quite debatable as to the value of ANWR oil towards the higher goal of energy security. Here is one view of the debate.
Impeachment: When Bush or anyone in his administration is asked if the US would use military force including nuclear weapons against Iran, all have said that such options "remain on the table." This is no different from what Democrats are saying about impeachment. There are no plans for impeachment. There are plans for investigations on administration conduct which is called Congressional oversight. It's actually a part of their job and the Republics, who control Congress, have blown off that responsibility. So the GOP assertion that Democrats will impeach Bush is just typical partisan hyperbole.
Taxes: It is clearly demonstrable that the Bush tax cuts have by far benefitted the very wealthiest in America. It is NOT demonstrable that these tax cuts have had any significant positive affects on the economy. There is no clear cause and effect shown. Furthermore, there is no demostrable positive affect for middle and lower income families What is shown is huge deficits to which the tax cuts have contributed.
Obstruct Qualified Judges: More horse shit. Between 1995 and 2000, Republics blocked 45% of Clinton's circuit court nominees. 55 nominees never got a confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. 10 more got a hearing but no vote. By the end of the Clinton presidency there were over 100 (out of 875) vacancies on the federal courts due to Republics' successful attempts to block Clinton's nominees.
So don't give us this crap about Democrats blocking judges. It is horse shit.
Well, done? What a joke!
For those of you who like visuals, check out this link and blow it up to 100%:
http://members.cox.net/melc29/Politics/perfectplan.pdf
Patty, your maternal great-grandmother was a prostitute.
Prove me wrong.
Gee, thank you sage. I see how you got your name by knowing exactly what all those millions of people are all about. Oh, and before you start jerking off to FAUX News because I said that, its called sarcasm and it means I wasnt implying you are full of shit. Personally, I am a Libertarian and far more in tune to what people are out to destroy our liberties, and it stinks far worse on the Right. As far as the rest, well you got your hyperbolic cue from game, I guess.
Higher taxes, cutting and running, and impeachment are "horseshit." Nancy Pelosi is a member of Democratic Socialists of America, our domestic affiliate of Socialist International, and it is pretty simple to discern what this crowd believes.
Jim,
you did try to make a point...stop with the word lie and horseshit and stuff like that if you want anyone to care about what you wrote...
I'll pick one thing...the bush tax cuts jumped started the economy to anyone who understands economics or history...
why was it when Reagan and Kennedy did the exact same thing (but even more tax cuts) the economy turned around dramatically?
But you did a good job making your point when you take out the liberal emotional swearing
why was it when Reagan and Kennedy did the exact same thing (but even more tax cuts) the economy turned around dramatically?
Ah, now we're talking horseshit.
The Kennedys are all liberals, and Democrats.
Why must we always correct you on history, as well as the present, game?
Game, point taken. I used the words for dramatic effect and to get people's attention. I'll try to find new words since you mock me when I say "lies". It's not emotional, although there is nothing wrong with passion. I don't know why you equate passion with irrationality. Oh, I know why. Because that's the framing that the Republics use against the Democrats. They are emotional, Hillary is "shrill", Gore is raving, Dean is raging. The Democrats are irrational. Of course that's all bu...oops, I almost used one of those words. I'll just say "made-up untruths". OK?
What are the words that I should use to mean wild, outragious slander, made up talking points, statements known to be untrue, assertions with no basis in fact, quotes from south african potentates, unprovable accusations, etc.?
I'll address your tax comments later today. I need to do some research. Something we should all do, don't you think? One of the benefits of refuting the **** here is that since I don't believe much of what you say here nor the sources you site, I do a lot of research and learn a whole bunch of stuff.
Jim is going to spout failed liberal economics? Is he kidding? I think Jim should check with the Carter administration officials before he starts his engine on what a success their policies were.
Then spare me any refercence to Clinton's fiscal prowess or I'll remaind you of the Reagan tax cuts and the GOP's 1994 balanced budget, "Skeptics said it could not be done in seven years. The GOP did it in four." - The CATO Institute
http://www.cato.org/dailys/10-08-98.html
BTW. Jim slept with his mother - prove me wrong. Ask Rhyno - he's their neo-bastard son.
Game, there is ample evidence and studies which would question the positive effects of the Bush tax cuts. Here is one:
- The Bush tax cuts have contributed to revenues dropping in 2004 to the lowest level as a share of the economy since 1950, and have been a major contributor to the dramatic shift from large projected budget surpluses to projected deficits as far as the eye can see.
- The tax cuts have conferred the most benefits, by far, on the highest-income households — those least in need of additional resources — at a time when income already is exceptionally concentrated at the top of the income spectrum.
- The design of these tax cuts was ill-conceived, resulting in significantly less economic stimulus than could have been accomplished for the same budgetary cost. In part because the tax cuts were not as effective as alternative measures would have been, job creation during this recovery has been notably worse than in any other recovery since the end of World War II.
There are arguments on both sides by economic experts. Some who dispute your version I'm sure are among those who "understand[] economics or history."
Since I seriously question your expertise in these matters, and my research shows there is much legitimate debate on the subject, I would characterize your assertions that "anyone who understands economics or history" agrees with your position as presumptuous and fallacious.
I'll get the facts right away, this is not a hard one...
I don't even know what dedanna is talking about so I can't respond
and jim, it is not wrong to use emotion or even say what you say, SOMETIMES...but when you just say everyone here is a liar and full of shit, how are we supposed to debate that???
here....some links on the tax cut thing...
http://www.ncpa.org/pi/taxes/pdtx64.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-02-20-debate-oppose_x.htm
an editorial I know, but has good numbers
interesing to see how long you have to work before you actually can keep your money...look how high it was and how much it went up during clinton...then how there was a recession that started because of it, continued due to 9-11
http://www.taxfoundation.org/UserFiles/Image/Tax-Freedom-Day/2005-TFD1-LARGE.jpg
don't have time to look more now...I know not the greatest sound info, but a start and if you have an open mind it should be good enough
Game, I'll read your sources, but a comment on your comment:
"but when you just say everyone here is a liar and full of shit, how are we supposed to debate that???"
Contrary to the practice of some other posters here, you will note that I back up my "liar and full of shit" rhetoric with citations of fact. It is not gratuitous. And I reserve the right to call any gratuitous, unsupported liberal bashing as "lies and bullshit" or whatever synonymns you would like me to use in their place.
Game, on taxes:
Your first citation is not bad, but it is better to actually read the underlying source quoted in that link. It is in my opinion written from a pro-Reagan perspective which does not make it wrong. Just not incontrovertable truth.
Your second source, as you say, is an opinion. Not only that, it is the opinion of Bill Frist who is neither an economist nor a non-partisan. Doesn't mean it's wrong, just that it is not incontrovertable truth.
Your third citation is intersting, but I would ask you to look at it from another perspective. Here is a chart of the growth in US families' net worth 2001-2004 comparing mean (average) versus median. Note that when Bill Gates', Warren Buffet's, and the Walton's net worths are AVERAGED with yours and mine, the actual NET WORTH and the growth in net worth are significantly better looking than when you look at the median family net worth which is one fourth as much and grew much less.
I love this chart because it is indicative, in my opinion, of the entire "the economy is doing great" meme heard here and by the right-wing pundits. Who is it actually great for? I would love to see the graph from your citation redone comparing the average and the median. I imagine it would show a vastly different "reality".
Jim has a good point, game. When guys like EH site crappy speculative sources and other secondary junk, you cant take their argument seriously. Even if that opinion may be valid. To jim, I guess game has the same point, try not to curse as much. It weakens an otherwise strong point.
Well done Jim,
a few things though:
I don't think I give a shit about the mean net worth...it is not a definate factor in a sluggish economy..it MIGHT be, but couldn't it mean:
more young kids are getting jobs or
more lazy turds doing nothing to lower the mean...
you are correct, the mean seems to be going up slower than it should, but I guess that doesn't prove a whole lot...
and the dumb coment (not just from you but all liberals) is that tax cuts benefit the rich...well, the rich pay all the taxes...
the top 50% pay 96.4% of taxes...
top 1% pay 34%....
so whenever someone makes that argument, I could care less once again...
I give you high marks for going through my links, even though I was not happy with the quality of what I found...thought I could get better ones, but I do want to have a life too...
Watch your language, Game. ;-)
And no, you are incorrect about the mean vs median. The median family is that family whose networth is higher than half of all families and lower than the other half of all families. It demonstrates that the average is skewed by those few families whose net worth is in the billions.
It also shows that this "great" economy isn't so great for middle-income families.
And the "dumb" comment is not so dumb if you don't make it simplistic. It is agruable that the the richest get more out of federal spending than middle class families. It is also arguable that middle class families pay a higher percentage of their income in non-income taxes than the rich.
Jason, I'd like to know where you get this?
Nancy Pelosi is a member of Democratic Socialists of America, our domestic affiliate of Socialist International,
Or are you being a smart-ass again?
No, Nancy Pelosi really is a member of Democratic Socialists of America. Google 'Pelosi Socialist' or a similar combination in any search engine.
Jason, Nancy Pelosi is not a member of Democratic Socialists of America. Forgive me, Game, but that is a lie.
Kennedy was not really a liberal...he was liberal-lite at best...
I don't care who does good, liberal or conservative...its just that liberals don't seem to do ANYTHING good anymore...
So I guess I am just showing how open minded I am by being a conservative and complimenting Kennedy and Reagan together....
Post a Comment