The “president” is showing his leadership and clear understanding of the realities that are facing Americans by stating that he will oppose any new taxes to help our aged infrastructure. They have not even fished out all of the dead of the Mississippi yet, and Bush is showing that he really does not give a crap.

From the New York Times (bolds are mine)

President Bush said today that he would be opposed to any steps by Congress to increasing the gasoline tax to raise revenues for national bridge repairs in the wake of last week’s bridge collapse in Minneapolis.

And at his last major news conference before his summer vacation, he lashed out at Democrats in Congress by questioning their priorities and motives on everything from taxes to their accusations of contempt against Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales.

“Before we raise taxes, which could affect economic growth, I would strongly urge the Congress to examine how they set priorities,” Mr. Bush said.

“My suggestion would be that they revisit the process by which they spend gasoline money in the first place,” he added, accusing lawmakers of focusing on their own parochial concerns — or plum projects — above such national concerns as bridge conditions.

Representative Don Young, Republican of Alaska and a member of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, has raised the possibility of increasing the gasoline tax as a way to pay for bridge repairs throughout the country in the wake of the Minneapolis bridge collapse, which raised new concerns about potential problems with a number of the nation’s bridges. A plan being considered by the House committee would index the current gasoline tax for inflation, which would result in an increase of roughly 5 cents.

So the idea came from a Republican, and Bush says no. The price of gas is outrages, and if they added more tax it would force people to cut deeper into their already tight budgets, and that might slow down the record profits oil companies are seeing. So Bush’s policy is now on record, he is okay with Americans having a bridge vanish from underneath them, because the oil companies are making billions!

Today Bush came out and said some phodo-sympathetic comments about the federally built, federally funded, bridge crashing into the Mississippi River. He then moved to chiding the Democrats while dead Americans are floating down stream, for not passing spending bills (he begs you to forget that the last Republican Congress did not pass any of them to leave a mess for the newly elected Democrats). He had the balls to lay into the Democrats for over spending (on the bills they have not passed (I am not sure how you do that)), meanwhile an American city is pulling dead people out of a river because of a huge funding cuts in maintaining our nations infrastructure.

There’s only one way to pay for all this new federal spending without running up the deficit, and that is to raise your taxes. A massive tax hike is the last thing the American people need. The plan I put forward would keep your taxes low and balance the budget within five years, and that is the right path for our country.

No you retard in chief, because of the neglect of this nations infrastructures over the last 20 years it is going to take huge amounts of cash to fix it, that means we are going to be forced to raise taxes. Or wait, I got a better idea, why don’t we stop this failed policy in Iraq and pave the streets in fucking gold!

Americans have more trust in the Democrats in 10 of 10, this must be crushing news to the American hating Republicans.

Rasmussen Reports new poll reports that Americans now trust the Democrats in “National Security”, moving ahead of the Republicans 42% to 40%. This means that the Democrats are considered more trusted on ALL 10 of the key issues Rasmussen tracks. (bolds are mine)

When it comes to National Security, Democrats are now trusted more by 42% of likely voters, Republicans by 40%. This means that Democrats now enjoy at least a nominal edge on all ten issues regularly tracked by Rasmussen Reports to gauge voters’ trust of the two major parties.

In late June Democrats had the edge on nine of ten issues. At that time, the GOP had a single point advantage of the National Security issue.

Republicans had enjoyed an historic advantage on National Security for several decades but are burdened by the unpopular War in Iraq. Last year’s Dubai Ports debacle also hurt perceptions of the GOP on national security.

The others issues tracked are also very important, and Democrats poll higher than Republicans in all of them.

Immigration 40% to the GOP’s mear 30%, we beat them on Government Ethics and Corruption, the Economy, Taxes, Health Care, Social Security and more… All 10 the Democrats are more trusted than the Corrupt GOP.

“The Gavel” has a great breakdown on the House Budget Committee hearing today entitled “Foreign Holdings of US debt: Is Our Economy Vulnerable?”  I highly recommend going and taking a look at this, one of the amazing facts to come out in this hearing is that our national debt is almost exactly the same amount the Republicans gave rich corporations as well is the wealthiest .01% in tax cuts.  Our current national debt, according to experts at this hearing, is due directly to the Republicans paying off the wealthy, in turn guaranteeing healthy donations.

I like to personally thank the Republicans are once again looking out for themselves over Americans, looking out for themselves over the health of our nation, and guaranteeing that future generations are strapped with debt for their entire lives.  Thanks guys!

The American people (the people Bush has forgotten) are about to get the hose. The American people rejected out-right the Bush Social Security “Screw Americans” plan, but that is not going to stop them. Bush’s new Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has placed Social Security and many other social programs in his sights, I have always tried to live by the philosophy that when there is a big problem that needs fixing, you should run towards it, rather than away from it". This is to be expected from the Republicans because they basically hate Americans, and if you are a poor American you may as well just lay down and die, because you are sub-human to them. Ask yourself this, Do you think Dick Cheney, George Bush, the widow Lay, worry about how they will afford retirement? They don’t because they are rich as hell and do not care about Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid or other safety-net programs. Bush and the Republicans do not care about you, you only reach their sight if you are grossing 6 million or more, the rest of us can go to hell.

I what has to be the worst way to win votes in November,, Bush and the Republicans will raise the premium to that the elderly must pay for Medicare. I am almost starting to think that Bush and the Republicans are openly planning to cull the elderly outright.

So while Bush has been in office Medicare premiums have risen over 100%. This is on top of a newly released story that Bush and the Republicans want to cut payments Medicare dishes out by 20% to 30%. This will force many old people to just wither and die, a dream come true to Bush and the GOP.

Hazaa, Bush is thrilled that he has sold this nation out. He wants you to be happy that he only screwed the shit out of your children future, and maybe your grandchildren, but your great grandchildren should not be screwed as much as just fondled.

Today Bush came out, and for the first time in the history of television, has a press conference that said that while he spent more than he made, it was not as bad as he had thought. Seriously, he had a press conference to tell us he was not the colossal failure of his presidency, just a failure (He is saving the colossal for next year)

Please read this, and learn from it, understand that this is a new right-wing tactic, to make bad news a big deal because it "Could have been worst"

The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities

Administration officials are already drawing similarly optimistic conclusions from this year’s Mid-Session Review.  For example, President Bush commented, “Some in Washington say we had to choose between cutting taxes and cutting the deficit…Today’s numbers show that that was a false choice. The economic growth fueled by tax relief has helped send our tax revenues soaring.  That’s what’s happened.”[1]  But while unexpectedly high revenues are good news for the Treasury, the budget and economic picture remains far less rosy than the Administration’s claims suggest, and the tax cuts — rather than paying for themselves as the President’s comments would suggest — remain a major contributor to the nation’s serious fiscal problems.

Revenue growth over the current business cycle has been lower than in comparable past periods; in fact, revenue growth over the current business cycle is near zero after adjusting for inflation and population growth.  Even when the stronger revenue growth now projected for 2006 is taken into account, real per-capita revenues have simply returned to the level they reached more than five years ago when the current business cycle began in March 2001.  (March 2001 was the peak, and thus the end, of the previous business cycle and the start of the current business cycle.)  In contrast, in previous post-World War II business cycles, total real per-capita revenue growth over the five and a half years following the business cycle peak has averaged about 10 percent.  Moreover, even with higher-than-anticipated revenues this year, revenues in 2006 remain about $300 billion below the levels OMB and CBO projected for this year in early 2001, and about $100 billion below those levels adjusted for the cost of the tax cuts enacted since that time.

-snip-

• There is no evidence of a tax-cut fueled economic boom.  Economic data, now available through the first quarter of 2006, show that the current economic expansion remains weaker than the average post-World War II economic recovery, with economic growth falling below — and employment and wage and salary growth falling far below — historical norms.  While economic growth has been stronger in the past three years than in the earlier part of the current recovery, the evidence does not support Administration claims that the 2003 tax cuts caused the improvement.  The economy’s performance improved at about the same point in the 1990s recovery, and that improvement coincided with tax increases enacted in 1993.

• There is strong evidence that increased income disparities between high-income households and the rest of the population have contributed to the recent revenue gains.  High-income taxpayers pay taxes at higher rates.  As a result, an increase in the share of the nation’s income that goes to these households leads to an increase in revenues, even if there is no increase in overall economic growth.  In its May Monthly Budget Review, the Congressional Budget Office wrote that this year’s stronger-than-expected increases in revenues may be due in part to increased income concentration.  This is consistent with other recent evidence of rapidly rising income inequality.

• Much of the unanticipated revenue increase comes from strong growth in corporate revenues, which reflects exceptionally strong growth of corporate profits during the current business cycle.   Corporate profits have increased more rapidly during the current economic expansion to date than in any other comparable post-World War II period.  This reflects the fact that corporate profits have captured an unusually large share of the total economic gains during the current recovery, while wages and salaries have captured an unusually small share.  Wages and salaries have grown more slowly during the current recovery than in any comparable post-World War II period.

• Even with higher-than-anticipated revenues this year, budget deficits remain disturbingly large for a mature economic recovery.  OMB now projects a 2006 deficit of $296 billion.  While that is lower than the deficit estimate issued at the start of the year, it still amounts to a deficit equal to 2.3 percent of GDP.  That the deficit remains so large this year is particularly disturbing given that the U.S. is now in the fifth year of an economic expansion, and deficits likely will rise when the expansion ends, or even before.  (The Administration itself still projects the deficit will rise again in 2007.[2])  It is also distressing given the major fiscal challenges the nation will face in the coming decades, as the baby boomers begin to retire in large numbers.
  

- snip -

Moreover, based on the Administration’s own, new projections, GDP growth during the current decade is expected to be only about the same as during the 1980s and 1990s.  Yet even after taking into account the unexpected increase in revenues this year and the new, higher projections for future years, the Administration’s  own estimates indicate that revenue growth in this decade is expected to be much weaker than in either the 1980s or the 1990s.

---

^a “Remarks by the President on the Mid-Session Review,” July 11, 2006.

^b “President Discusses 2007 Budget and Deficit Reduction in New Hampshire,” February 8, 2006.

^c Nell Henderson, “Cheney says New Unit Will Prove Tax Cuts Boost Revenue,” The Washington Post, February 11, 2006.

^dBill Frist, “Tax Cuts Make Money,” USA Today, February 21, 2006.

Informed observers such as Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, who was a Federal Reserve Board governor in 2003, were predicting improvement in the economy before the 2003 tax cuts were enacted (and independent of those tax cuts).  Furthermore, the economy’s overall performance during the 1990s recovery followed a pattern similar to that for the current recovery — it was initially weak and then began to improve about two years into the recovery (before growing especially robustly late in the recovery).  The improvement a few years into the 1990s recovery coincided closely with a tax increase.

If one accepts the notion that any economic change that follows a tax change must have been caused by the tax change, one could conclude that tax increases are an even stronger economic panacea than tax cuts.  The more reasonable conclusion, of course, is that weak recoveries eventually tend to return to historical norms, whether there are tax cuts, tax increases, or no tax changes at all.[10]

The GOP has shown just how much they love the average American, by giving the rich a more tax cuts? I am starting to think that maybe Republicans don’t give a shit about Americans, well at least most of them.

From the AP (bolds are mine) My Comments are in Red

Republicans in Congress reached agreement Tuesday on a $70 billion measure to extend tax breaks for investors and prevent more middle-income families from being hit by a tax aimed at the wealthy. Becase that is all the Republicans care about.

The bill would hand President Bush one of his top tax priorities, a two-year extension of the reduced 15 percent tax rate for capital gains and dividends, currently set to expire at the end of 2008. Republicans credit the tax cuts, enacted in 2003, with boosting economic growth and creating many jobs.

-snip-

Critics, including many Democrats, have attacked the tax rate reductions on dividends and corporate profits as being largely tilted to the wealthy and have argued that the provisions should not be extended at a time of large budget deficits and massive spending for the war in Iraq.

The development capped weeks of often difficult talks between GOP lawmakers as they wrangled over how to advance their party’s tax agenda (Because the Republican Agenda is far more important than the American Agenda). Under budget rules, only $70 billion in cuts can be advanced under fast-track rules that would prevent a possible filibuster by Senate Democrats.

That rule prompted Republicans to devise a strategy under which they would advance the investor tax breaks and alternative minimum tax relief in a first, filibuster-proof bill while using a second bill to approve various tax changes left out of the main legislation.

Yesterday Bill “Cat Killer” Frist sent out an email where he said the following:

“The Democrat alternative to Republican efforts to restrain spending is clear: Continue to spend beyond our means, mortgaging our children’s future by saddling them with a debt of $8 trillion … and continue to ratchet up taxes to pay for their fiscal irresponsibility, stifling the American economy,” Frist wrote.

That is right, Bill wants to blame the largest federal deficit ever on the party that is NOT in charge. Now as far as I am concerned Bill Frist can kiss my ass. Here are some FACTS:

• Number of Bills VETOED by Bush is zero. He never has vetoed a single spending bill.
• Republicans hold the House and the Senate, the fact is the Democrats can DO NOTHING to change anything.
• The Republicans have allowed Bush to be unchecked, and huge amounts of money are being spent on the “War on Terror”, where is that money going?
• The Republicans have given huge corporate welfare to industries like big oil, forgoing billions in tax revenues
• The Republicans have, during a time of war, slashed the tax rate of the the rich, almost to the tune of the deficit.

Fact is, the Republicans have in fact financed the tax cuts to the rich on out children future, this has NOTHING to do with Democrats at all. Please give Bill Frist office a call and tell him that Jesus hates liars, and to blame the Democrats for the Republicans reckless ways is disgusting. Let him know that in 2006 it is time to pay the piper. (202) 224-3121, ask for Bill "Cat Killer" Frist. Oh, and remeber this liar wants to be your next President, as far as I am concerned, I am done with Liars in Chiefs.

Live BLOG: As Alberto Gonzales speaks, here is what we have learned. The main reason why the Bush administration decided to break the law, was basically this: I do not want to fill out all the paperwork, I mean I have a hand cramp some days.

As soon as I find the statement we will get it up.

UPDATE: When asked what his options were (ThinkProgress Caught this)

No one disputes that the government needs to monitor all communications by Al Qaeda. During today’s hearing, Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI) laid out the choices available to the administration to accomplish this –

Mr. Attorney General, if terrorists are operating in this country or people in this country are communicating with terrorists and of course we must collect whatever information we have, or that we can. To accomplish this, the administration had three options as you know:

First, it could have followed the current law which most experts believe gives you all the authority you need to listen to these calls.

Second, if you thought the law inadequate, you could have asked Congress to grant you additional authority.

Third — the course you followed — conduct warrantless spying outside current law and without new authorization.

Gonzales describes the situation as a choice between following the law (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) and protecting America. Kohl helps demonstrate that is a false choice. We can do both.

We all know that Republicans hate children, the poor, blacks,immigrants, gays, and women. Well the Republicans want you know that poor immigrant children will be used to make sure that the rich can get more tax cuts.

From the Washington Post,

House Republicans are pushing to cut tens of thousands of legal immigrants off food stamps, partially reversing President Bush’s efforts to win Latino votes by restoring similar cuts made in the 1990s.

The food stamp measure is just one of several provisions in an expansive congressional budget-cutting package that critics say unfairly targets the poor and disadvantaged, especially poor children.

-snip-

The food stamp cuts in the House measure would knock nearly 300,000 people off nutritional assistance programs, including 70,000 legal immigrants, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Those immigrants would lose their benefits because the House measure would require legal immigrants to live in the United States for seven years before becoming eligible to receive food stamps, rather than the current five years.

About 40,000 children would lose eligibility for free or reduced-price school lunches, the CBO estimated.

The food stamp cuts, if approved, will especially affect 11 states, including Maryland, that used the changes in the food stamp law — approved with Bush’s support in 2002 — to expand eligibility and to simplify the application process. Under the House measure, eligibility for food stamps would be tightened to exclude some recipients who qualify for nutritional support simply because they qualify for other anti-poverty programs funded by the federal welfare program, known as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.

Man what next Republicans? Are we going to close the HOV lanes, and make them $100,000 car lanes. What else are you going to do to devistate this nation to keep the rich richer?

===Face it, Republicans hate Americans.===

Tags: Republicans - Hate - Poor - children

President Bush’s tax-reform panel submits two proposals that would alter the federal tax code. One of them would, like most things this administration does, will unfairly affect the middle-class, and favor the rich in ways they only dream of.

From CNN Money…My Comments

===Reduce investment taxes===

In the panel’s first proposal, focused on simplifying the tax code, dividends from domestic earnings would be tax-free as would 75 percent of the capital gains you receive. The other 25 percent of gains would be subject to your marginal (or top) tax rate. This is a great windfall for the rich, they make a lot of cash via investments, and now 75% of the money they make will not be taxed at all! Hazaa for the Rich!

The net effect is that your capital gains would be taxed at rates between 3.75 percent and 8.25 percent, depending on your tax bracket.

Under the existing code, dividends and long-term capital gains are taxed at 15 percent or less, but they are set to go higher after 2008.

Interest on everything except tax-exempt municipal bonds would continue to be taxed at individual rates as is the case in the existing tax code.

In the panel’s second proposal, dividends, capital gains and interest would all be taxed at 15 percent.

===Alter homeowners’ tax breaks===

The panel recommended lowering the mortgage-interest cap, which is the amount of a loan on which homeowners would receive a tax break for interest paid, from $1 million to the average regional housing price in the range of $227,000 to $412,000. In places like where I live, an ave 5 bedroom is in the $700,000 each, so this is going to hurt so many in the lower middle, and middle-class, ah, but the Bush adminsitration hates them, and chances are, that is YOU

The deduction would be converted to a credit equal to 15 percent of interest paid on mortgages up to the interest cap. A credit is a dollar-for-dollar reduction of the taxes you owe, while a deduction only reduces your taxable income by a percentage equal to your top tax rate. Deductions benefit high-income taxpayers the most and are limited to those taxpayers who itemize on the federal tax returns.

Generally speaking, the higher your mortgage loan and the higher your tax bracket, the more likely it is that you’ll see less of a tax break than you would under the current system. That’s because under the current system those in the highest tax brackets benefit most from the deduction.

===Reduce the marriage penalty===

All tax brackets, family credits and taxation of Social Security benefits for couples would be double those of individuals.

Under the current system, some two-earner married couples filing jointly end up paying more in taxes than two single taxpayers with the same income.

===Reduce tax breaks on employer-provided health insurance===

When you work for a company, your employer typically foots a large portion of your health-insurance premiums. That money, which is not reported on your W2, is tax-free to you.

The panel recommended capping the amount of tax-free money that may be used to pay for health insurance to $5,000 for single coverage or $11,500 for family coverage.

===Repeal the federal deduction of the state and local tax deductions===

Under the proposals, taxpayers would no longer be allowed to deduct the state and local taxes they pay on wage income, investment income and property. So all that money you get to write off for your state income taxes and so on, gone! you now have to pay income tax on the money you used to pay your state taxes.

Former Senator John Breaux of Louisiana, who is the panel’s vice chair, on CNBC Tuesday morning explained part of the panel’s reasoning this way: “If people in California want to pay extra taxes to have their trash picked up, people in Texas shouldn’t have to subsidize it.”

===Reduce the number of tax brackets===

Under the panel’s first proposal, which is a streamlined version of the current income tax, the number of tax brackets would be reduced from 6 to 4. They would be: 15 percent, 25 percent, 30 percent and 33 percent.

Under their second proposal, which combines the income tax with a progressive consumption tax, there would be only three tax brackets: 15 percent, 25 percent and 30 percent.
Reduce and simplify tax-advantaged savings accounts

You might be forgiven for not being able to keep straight the differences between several types of IRAs, various types of 401(k)s, to say nothing of HSAs, FSAs, Coverdells and 529s.

The tax-reform panel is proposing to consolidate defined-contribution plans — e.g. 401(k)s, 403(b)s, 457s — into one Save at Work Account with simple rules and an annual contribution limit of $10,000.

They also propose replacing all types of IRAs with one Save for Retirement Account that would be available to all taxpayers. You could contribute up to $10,000 a year with after-tax dollars that would grow tax-free. Currently, your income and your workplace savings options determine whether you’re eligible to contribute to different types of IRAs and whether your contributions can be deductible or whether your earnings grow tax-free.

Education savings plans like 529s and health savings plans like flexible spending accounts (FSAs) would all be consolidated into one Save for Family Account. This account, which would be available to all taxpayers, could also be used for new home and retirement savings as well. You could contribute up to $10,000 a year with after-tax dollars that would grow tax-free.

===Simplify tax filing===

The panel proposes creating a 1040 Simple form that could fit on both sides of a 4 X 6-inch index card. The number of lines would be reduced from 75 on the current form to 32 on the proposed form. It would also reduce the number of schedules, forms and worksheets from 52 to 10.

The panel also proposes creating two new credits: one for family, which would replace the standard deduction, the personal exemption, the child tax credit and the head of household filing status and tax bracket; and one for work, which would consolidate the earned income tax credit and refundable child tax credit.

I am glad to see Bush is doing his best to guarantee the Republicans loose every election from here to the end of says.

As our nation

The SCOTUS ruled that if you are not using your property in a way that generates the most tax money, the city, town, county, or state can take it.

The ruling looks at imamate domain. Before yesterday, a government body could take your property from you if its use was for the betterment of the community. So let's say you live next to a road, and the state wants to build a highway, it could force you to sell your house because the community is better served by the new highway.

Well yesterday the Supreme Court tossed all that out the window, and defined betterment to the community as almost anything.

Let's say you have a farm, it has been in the family for 10 generations. The county that you live in can TAKE your farm and build tract homes on it, because the TAX revenue from the 345 homes they will cram on it is betterment to the community over your farm.

Here is a good one, you live in a neighborhood, an older one. Many of the houses have been expanded over the years, add-ons, new floors and so on. You have not done anything, and your house is still the small ranch that your mother dreamed of in 1956. The city can force you to sell your home, so that a larger more expensive house can be built. The taxes on the new $800,000 home will be far nicer than your $189,000, and therefore a betterment to the community.

See where this can go?

I would recommend you contact your congressman and senator, laws can be placed to limit this, but it will need pressure.

The “Show Me” state is about to show how cruel the Republicans really are. Due to the zeal to cut taxes at the expense of all other things the great state of Missouri is going to show 90,000 people on Medicaid the door.

From NPR… My Comments

The proposals have opened a moral schism, with some preachers expressing outrage, but the governor, a devout Christian, defends the cuts as morally correct. Gov. Matt Blunt says not cutting Medicaid would force him to raise taxes — and in his eyes, raising taxes is wrong. Cutting 90,000 people off of Medicaid is okay by him I guess

-snip-

For disabled Missourians like 44-year old Irene Shivers, the situation is no less serious. Shivers spends her days in a mobile home she shares with two dogs, a computer and a collection of dolls. Cerebral palsy and lupus have made her unable to work. She says that the new guidelines, with would require her to take in less than $500 a month before Medicaid kicks in, will make her ration food and give her dogs away.

“They want us to die,” says Shivers. “We are a burden on society, so they don’t care. We don’t work, so why should we get anything? Just go ahead and die.”

As you can see, those that need us as a nation the most are tossed on their crippled asses by the Republicans, in order to make sure that we do not raise taxes. Shame on them, and you run as the party of the moral majority?