|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718
Hard-core CEG'er
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718 |
Originally posted by FlechaAutoSports:
" The Center on Budget and Policy Prioritiessaid the true cost of the bill through 2011 is $1.9 trillion, not the $1.35 trillion the bill??s backers claim, and the cost in the next 10 years, 2012-2021, will soar to $4.3 trillion."
How can they even come up with this stinking, fetid mass of BS when they have NO CLUE as to where the top 1% or any of those that get these tax breaks are PLACING THE MONEY over the next 15 years!?
BS, BS, BS, BS, BU**S**T!!!
Again, the wealthy almost ALWAYS reinvest the money they get; they don't stuff it in a damn mattress. When they reinvest it back into the economy, it just means more tax dollars when that money turns a damn profit...
Why is this fundamental concept so bloody hard to understand?
JaTo
e-Tough Guy
Missouri City, TX
99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
00 Corvette Coupe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469 |
Originally posted by mbSVT:
Hot DAMN this is gonna be fun...
Originally posted by FlechaAutoSports:
"The top 1 percent of taxpayers, making $373,000 or more a year, will reap almost 38 percent of all the benefits in President George W. Bush?s millionaire tax cut...The bottom 60 percent of taxpayers will get about 14 percent of the benefits, while those in the bottom 20 percent will see just 1 percent of the tax benefit, according to Citizens for Tax Justice.
I give you, not the "Citizens for Tax Justice" (whatever the hell that is), but rather the "United States House of Representatives" (I'm sure you've heard of it)
http://www.house.gov/jec/press/2002/10-24-02.htm
Which states that the top 1% of taxpayers, which make $313,469/yr or more pay 37.42% of all Federal Personal Income Tax. Gee... sounds a lot like "almost 38% of the benefits of the tax cut" doesn't it?? Wonder why?? 
:
OWNED..by common sence.
I have been looking for that link...I knew that the top 1% of earners pay about 40% (I guess its 37.42%) of the tax
Top 10% pay about 60%
Top 50% pay >90% but I did not know where to find it documented.
So yes, tax relief benefits the wealthy (defined here as being in the upper 50% of income) because they pay virtually ALL the taxes....And yes, it doesnt do much for the bottom 20% because they are paying no or negligable taxes (actually more likely to be recieving tax money). Democrats make it sound like a CRIME to take less money from the wealthy (tax cuts are not a gift, they are infact the removal of a penalty)..
And the extra, relevent point about Bush's tax cuts at a critical point in the recession is that the weathy may create jobs with there money..they are not REQUIRED TO, they may be OVERSEAS, but they may also be in the US. Clearly, you can the poor will not create any jobs, refund or no. I hate to think how much whinning about unemployment would be occuring now if the tax cuts were NOT implimented or as Kerry wanted to do..only to the poor...
edit: I see JaTo said the same thing at the same time but my version is the "Cliff NOTES"
Last edited by Dan Nixon; 04/21/04 11:04 PM.
1999 Amazon Green SVT Contour (#554/2760)
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."
-Soren Kierkegaard (as posted by Jato)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,128
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,128 |
Originally posted by mbSVT:
I KNOW someone's got a good owned pic for this tool 
first of all im no TOOL..you dont want to get personal! I'm not calling you an A$$ even if its apparent! No need to get personal..
Even some of the Wealthiest have oh the most positive views on Bush!
"Billionaire investor Warren Buffett accused the Bush administration Saturday of pursuing tax cuts that favor large corporations and wealthy individuals. "If class warfare is being waged in America, my class is clearly winning," Buffett said in Berkshire Hathaway Inc.'s annual report. Except for 1983, the percentage of federal tax receipts from corporate income taxes last year was the lowest since data was first published in 1934, Buffett said."
"The President's economic plan uses significant amounts of, to borrow a phrase from President Bush, "fuzzy math." According to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, 45 percent of the tax cut will go to the top 5 percent of earners in the country while only 22 percent of the tax cut will go to the bottom 80 percent of earners. As you would expect, the Republican tax cut gives the most help to the people who need it the least. But here is the fuzzy math. The president claims that the tax cut will cost $726 billion and will produce 1.4 million jobs. As economist and writer Paul Krugman points out, we only need to divide $726 billion by 1.4 million and get a cost of $518,571 per job. Seeing as over 2.7 million private sector jobs have been lost during his tenure as President (a record only matched by Hoover who presided over the initial parts of the Great Depression) the tax cuts are certainly not producing jobs. Furthermore, one has to question whether $518,571 is a reasonable cost to create a job. It is very reasonable to assume that we could create more than one job with $518,571 worth of funding for pro-employment or job training programs funding. Given that the average salary for a worker is about $40,000 per year, it would even be cheaper to hire them for the 10 years of the tax cut, as FDR did for many during the Great Depression, than pay the $518,571 per job over 10 years."
The New York Times commented that this and other tax cuts would end ??the taxation of inheritances and eliminate taxes on interest, capital gains and dividends.? The newspaper continued: ??These are tax changes Ronald Reagan could only dream of.?
The Washington Post??s financial planning columnist, Albert Crenshaw, calculated that based on the maximum contributions allowed under the Bush plan, a wealthy family could build a personal fortune of $154 million for each child without ever paying taxes. ??Ultimately,? he wrote, ??we could end up with a Leona Helmsley tax code??one in which only the little people pay taxes.?
* tax credits for business research and development, costing $68 billion over ten years;
* tax breaks for private medical savings accounts, worth $5.1 billion to the company that is the principal marketer of such financial instruments, the Golden Rule Insurance Company of Illinois, a big donor to the Republican Party;
* a $16.1 billion tax credit for real estate developers and homebuilders;
* a $712 million tax credit for companies that convert landfill gases into electricity, sought by Waste Management, the big operator of landfills;
* and an $891 million deduction for companies that donate leftover food to charity, sought by the pizza franchise industry. The only limitation on this effort to make it profitable to deliver stale pizza to soup kitchens is a requirement that donated food be ??apparently wholesome.?
whatever guys..
BUSH can DO NO WRONG for crying out loud..
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,506
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,506 |
Someone will bring up social security and FICA eventually, since those are rather regressive taxes and skew the discussion. But I'd prefer to pick on GWB's health care savings accounts. The people that benefit from those accounts are those people who would otherwise be in higher income tax brackets (guess who can best afford health care already?) and who do not live from check to check and who can actually save money to put into their accounts. Yes, it's subsidizing the health care of the rich with tax dollars through tax credits. No wonder some people talk of Bush favoring welfare for the rich.
Then there's GOP senate majority leader Frist on medical malpractice "reform". Why get rid of sloppy surgeons when we can instead subsidize them at the expense of malpractice victims? It's a terrific idea, as the WORST doctors are the ones who benefit the MOST from Frist's proposal! But are the doctors that Sen. Frist is helping out the ones you want operating on your family members?
Welcome to neocon politics and values.
MSDS, SHO-shop Y, custom 2.5" catback; xcal2; 63mm TB, K&N 3530; Koni struts, Aussie bar; THaines forks, Quaife, SpecII, UR fly; DMD; Nima UD pullies; Stazi brakes; f&r Pole120 mounts. Just a daily commuter car. Silver '98 SVT E0 #3159
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718 |
Originally posted by FlechaAutoSports:
...Even some of the Wealthiest have oh the most positive views on Bush!
"Billionaire investor Warren Buffett accused the Bush administration Saturday of pursuing tax cuts that favor large corporations and wealthy individuals. "If class warfare is being waged in America, my class is clearly winning," Buffett said in Berkshire Hathaway Inc.'s annual report. Except for 1983, the percentage of federal tax receipts from corporate income taxes last year was the lowest since data was first published in 1934, Buffett said."
I'd like to ask Mr. Buffett (whom I highly respect for his investing strategies) why he thinks low Fed rates alone are going to pull the US economy out of the recession, if the large tax breaks that companies have been given last year in ADDITION to rock-bottom lending rates have BARELY started to work and generate cross-industry momentum here in the US. In fact, it's been the brighter business climate across the globe which is bringing about MOST of the upswing, with a few minor but NECESSARY pushes given in terms of low interest rates and tax breaks...
to reiterate once again, getting companies to put more capital into workers, development, projects, etc., during a recession takes more than just low interest rates; even more than tax breaks. It takes a promising business climate, which has been challenging over the last few years for some VERY obvious reasons.
Originally posted by FlechaAutoSports:
"The President's economic plan uses significant amounts of, to borrow a phrase from President Bush, "fuzzy math." According to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, 45 percent of the tax cut will go to the top 5 percent of earners in the country while only 22 percent of the tax cut will go to the bottom 80 percent of earners. As you would expect, the Republican tax cut gives the most help to the people who need it the least. But here is the fuzzy math. The president claims that the tax cut will cost $726 billion and will produce 1.4 million jobs. As economist and writer Paul Krugman points out, we only need to divide $726 billion by 1.4 million and get a cost of $518,571 per job. Seeing as over 2.7 million private sector jobs have been lost during his tenure as President (a record only matched by Hoover who presided over the initial parts of the Great Depression) the tax cuts are certainly not producing jobs. Furthermore, one has to question whether $518,571 is a reasonable cost to create a job. It is very reasonable to assume that we could create more than one job with $518,571 worth of funding for pro-employment or job training programs funding. Given that the average salary for a worker is about $40,000 per year, it would even be cheaper to hire them for the 10 years of the tax cut, as FDR did for many during the Great Depression, than pay the $518,571 per job over 10 years."
I've said it until I'm blue in the face: job loss or gain on a wide scale isn't something that Bush, Clinton, Bush, Sr. or any other President in recent memory can take credit for. The US government hasn't acted upon any legislation that could bolster or cripple US jobs to that scale in ages.
Bush's claims are BS, along with Clinton's and every other President that stands up and claims their administration was SOLELY responsible for creating jobs or denying job loss.
Furthermore, are they including businesses or private business owners in this mix? If so, those numbers are skewed to Hell and back are are more BS than they initially were due to blaming the Bush Administration on current job loss statistics...
Originally posted by FlechaAutoSports:
The New York Times commented that this and other tax cuts would end ??the taxation of inheritances and eliminate taxes on interest, capital gains and dividends.? The newspaper continued: ??These are tax changes Ronald Reagan could only dream of.?
More BS. I've been following the tax polices on dividends and inheritance tax. While some of the proposed measures scale back the level of taxation, they do NOT end taxes on these, except in lower-income situations. Yeah, that's really screwing the working-class and blue-collar guy over, isn't it?
Originally posted by FlechaAutoSports:
The Washington Post??s financial planning columnist, Albert Crenshaw, calculated that based on the maximum contributions allowed under the Bush plan, a wealthy family could build a personal fortune of $154 million for each child without ever paying taxes. ??Ultimately,? he wrote, ??we could end up with a Leona Helmsley tax code??one in which only the little people pay taxes.?
I question much that comes out of the Washington Post, though I really can't comment on this piece as I'm not a trust fund or tax shelter accountant by any means...
Originally posted by FlechaAutoSports:
* tax credits for business research and development, costing $68 billion over ten years;
* tax breaks for private medical savings accounts, worth $5.1 billion to the company that is the principal marketer of such financial instruments, the Golden Rule Insurance Company of Illinois, a big donor to the Republican Party;
* a $16.1 billion tax credit for real estate developers and homebuilders;
* a $712 million tax credit for companies that convert landfill gases into electricity, sought by Waste Management, the big operator of landfills;
* and an $891 million deduction for companies that donate leftover food to charity, sought by the pizza franchise industry. The only limitation on this effort to make it profitable to deliver stale pizza to soup kitchens is a requirement that donated food be ??apparently wholesome.?
Excellent. More money for those companies to invest in employees, R&D and come up with ways to make more profits, which are TAXABLE...
Originally posted by FlechaAutoSports:
whatever guys..
BUSH can DO NO WRONG for crying out loud..
If he refuses to punish innovation and investors like certain individuals in the Senate would like, then no, him and the Congressmen who vote for measures like this certainly haven't, in my opinion.
JaTo
e-Tough Guy
Missouri City, TX
99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
00 Corvette Coupe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,408
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,408 |
Originally posted by Dan Nixon:
Or Kerry, VERY RICH (not that he made any money on his own) who is literally making LOVE to the Hienz corporation... (gag)
Are you saying that there is something wrong with him making love to his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry???
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" -George Santayana
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,506
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,506 |
Hey JaTo, old buddy, what's your understanding of Bush's desire to phase out the estate tax entirely? Isn't that something Bush is on record as wanting to do, as when he calls it the death tax? And wasn't that Bush desire to end the estate tax part of what the NYT was talking about? You claim you've been following this issue, and yet you say that this change only affects lower wage earners. Huh?
Ending the estate tax, which now ONLY hits estates in the $$$MILLIONS, implies the revenues lost would be made up elsewhere. How is that a victory for the lower 90% of us taxpayers? By trickle-down Reaganomics (aka "voodoo economics" per Bush's dad)?
D'ya wanna do a correction on your position before someone else calls BS on you calling BS on someone else?
MSDS, SHO-shop Y, custom 2.5" catback; xcal2; 63mm TB, K&N 3530; Koni struts, Aussie bar; THaines forks, Quaife, SpecII, UR fly; DMD; Nima UD pullies; Stazi brakes; f&r Pole120 mounts. Just a daily commuter car. Silver '98 SVT E0 #3159
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 8
Newbie
|
|
Newbie
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 8 |
Tuesday, April 20, 2004
The Raw Deal: Kerry's False Environmental Attacks
"John Kerry's false attacks on the President's strong environmental record are purely political and ignore the progress that has been made under President Bush. Our air is clearer and our water is cleaner than before the President took office. Kerry's rhetoric on the environment does not match the reality of his decision to block the President's Energy Bill that included funding for renewable energy and a provision to phase out MTBE use. Kerry didn't show up to vote on Healthy Forests legislation and refused to advocate for a planned wind farm near his Nantucket home."
- Steve Schmidt, Bush-Cheney '04 Spokesman
Kerry Supports Renewable Energy?
Kerry Talks About Need To Invest In Renewable Energy, Stating Millions Of New Jobs Will Be Created. "'We spend $1.8 billion in subsidies for oil and gas ? and only $24 million for alternative and renewable energy,' the Massachusetts Democrat told a crowd of University of New Hampshire students. 'We ought to flip-flop those numbers.' Kerry, who has called for a renewed federal commitment to environmental justice, said that finding sources of renewable energy would save billions of dollars and create millions of new jobs." (Alex Ortolani, "Kerry: U.S. Must Decrease Oil Dependency," The [Manchester, NH] Union Leader, 4/26/03)
?But Not Near His Nantucket Home
Kerry Won't Weigh In On Cape Wind Farm Project In His Own Backyard. "Kerry insisted it's proper to let the environmental review continue and not to short-circuit public comment. 'I don't think it is appropriate for me (to weigh in). I think the most appropriate thing to do is listen to the people on the Cape, listen to the people who have concerns, weigh the arguments,' he said." (Kevin Landrigan, "Kerry Offers Ways To Fight Pollution," The Telegraph [Nashua, NH], 4/23/03)
Multiple Environmental Groups Are For Project. "In addition to Greenpeace, the Natural Resource Defense Council, the World Wildlife Fund, the Conservation Law Foundation and Friends of the Earth have spoken favorably of the project." (Sam Dealey, "Wind Farm Is An Issue For Kerry," The Hill, 6/18/03)
Greenpeace Has Criticized Kerry For His Silence. "'Kerry is the one who really needs to be called out on this stuff,' said Kert Davies, research director of Greenpeace. 'He's been pretty mum so far. We don't know where he stands.' Davies added, 'He's obviously very pro-renewable energy; he knows the climate better than almost anyone in the Senate. And by that logic, he should be in favor of this project being implemented.'" (Sam Dealey, "Wind Farm Is An Issue For Kerry," The Hill, 6/18/03)
Meanwhile, Other "Upscale" Local Property Owners Oppose Project Too. "Many property owners on upscale Nantucket Island and Martha's Vineyard object to the project, saying the 130 turbines planned would mar ocean vistas and harm property values." (Chris Holly, "Wind Technology Said Help In Natural Gas Crisis," New Technology Week, 7/14/03)
President Bush Has Worked To Make Our Air Cleaner
Kerry's False Attack: "Instead of protecting public health, George Bush rolled back and undermined the Clean Air Act."
THE TRUTH: President Bush did not roll back the Clean Air Act. President Bush proposed reforming a burdensome, outdated regulation called New Source Review to enable businesses to upgrade their facilities with the newest, most efficient pollution control technologies. Many of the reforms President Bush proposed were substantially similar to what was proposed by Carol Browner in 1996.
New Source Review reform is not a major part of the Clean Air Act. According to Howard Gruensphecht of Resources for the Future: "Environmentalists are crying foul, saying that the Clean Air Act's New Source Review program is the cornerstone of meaningful environmental regulation. But these critics are wrong on their own terms. The New Source Review retards environmental progress and wastes resources. To assure sustainable environmental progress, NSR should be replaced with effective and efficient policies." (Howard Gruensphecht and Robert Stavins, "A Level Playing Field on Pollution at Power Plants," The Boston Globe, 1/26/02)
President Bush Has Worked To Decrease Power Plant Emissions
Kerry's False Attack: "The Bush Administration has weakened protections that would require the use of modern pollution control technology and has undercut pending lawsuits against polluters."
THE TRUTH: President Bush is keeping his promise by working to implement a new air quality rule that will reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides by nearly 70 percent by 2018.
The President's Clear Skies Proposal Aggressively Cuts Emissions
Kerry's False Attack: "The Bush Administration's 'Clear Skies' proposal will result in over 21 million tons more pollution than if it simply enforced the Clean Air Act. Compared to an alternate EPA plan, rejected by the White House, the Bush plan will result in over 100,000 more premature deaths and millions of added cases of asthma and other serious illnesses."
THE TRUTH: President Bush's Clear Skies proposal is the most aggressive presidential initiative in history to reduce power plant emissions. It will reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury by 70 percent by 2018. The President's approach is supported by a strong bipartisan array of groups that need or are directly affected by the program: National Governors Association, National Association of Counties, National Conference of Mayors, National Conference of Black Mayors, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Black Chamber of Commerce, and the Adirondack Council.
President Bush Has Worked To Decrease Mercury Emissions
Kerry's False Attack: "George Bush has an inadequate plan for dealing with mercury contamination and has not been forthcoming about the health effects of mercury. The Clinton Administration took this threat seriously and proposed a responsible cut of 90 percent in mercury emissions by 2008, but the Bush Administration's proposal requires only a 70 percent reduction, and not until 2018 jeopardizing women and children."
THE TRUTH: President Bush has proposed the first-ever cap on mercury emissions from power plants. It is based on the best available science, protects public health, and ensures that our economy will continue to grow.
President Bush Supports Legislation to Phase Out MTBE
Kerry's False Attack: In 2001, the EPA proposed banning MTBE because the "use of MTBE as an additive in gasoline presents an unreasonable risk to the environment." The Bush Administration, in yet another action to put the interests of big oil over the interest of public health, shelved the nationwide ban. Bush has strongly supported legislation that would delay the ban on MTBE for at least 10 years and would shield manufacturers of the chemical from having to pay the clean-up costs forcing taxpayers to pick up the $30 billion tab.
THE TRUTH: The Energy Bill that President Bush supports and Kerry blocked includes a provision to phase-out the use of MTBE and $800 million to clean up MTBE contamination in communities across the country. Kerry voted for the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, which mandated the use of MTBE.
President Bush Has Worked To Accelerate Cleanup Of Contaminated Sites
Kerry's False Attack: George W. Bush has refused to reauthorize the tax on polluting industries to fund the cleanup of toxic waste sites, effectively slowing the pace of waste site cleanups and letting polluting industries off the hook.
THE TRUTH: President Bush is accelerating the cleanup and redevelopment of contaminated, abandoned industrial sites, many in struggling urban communities. Fulfilling a key campaign pledge, the President signed historic, bipartisan Brownfields reform legislation in January 2002 that will help address thousands of such sites. The President already released $73 million in new grants last year. The President's 2005 budget includes $210 million for Brownfields cleanup, a 24 percent increase over 2004.
Through aggressive enforcement, the President is now ensuring that companies are cleaning up the pollution they caused at more than 70 percent of Superfund sites. To make real progress on the remaining sites, where the polluters no longer exist, the President's FY 2005 budget includes $1.4 billion, a $124 million (10 percent) increase over 2004 -- allowing more cleanups to start and more to be completed in 2005 and 2006.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 8
Newbie
|
|
Newbie
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 8 |
Wednesday, April 21, 2004
The Raw Deal: John Kerry's False Attacks on Coastal Erosion
"John Kerry's false attacks on coastal erosion ignore the funding and attention the President has given to this important issue. The President's budget provides $408 million for ecosystem restoration, while John Kerry's attacks are based on politics, not policy." - Steve Schmidt, Bush-Cheney '04 Spokesman
President Bush Is Committed To Fixing Erosion
Kerry's False Attack: President Bush has neglected the problem of coastline erosion.
THE TRUTH: President Bush Is Working To Stop Coastline Erosion. President Bush??s FY 2005 budget provides $408 million for ecosystem restoration, which includes significant funding projects in Louisiana. Specifically, the Army Corps of Engineers budget includes a total of $242 million for Louisiana. Most of the funds are for construction, operations and maintenance activities.
In addition, the President recommends a major increase in efforts by the existing Federal-State Task Force established under the 1990 Breaux Act to build and evaluate highly cost-effective fresh-water and sediment diversion projects. For example, the President proposes to nearly double the new funds that the Task Force would obligate, from $49 million in FY03 to $95 million in FY04 and another $84 million in FY05. President Bush is also implementing $40 billion in conservation funding, a record amount, which he signed as part of the Farm bill.
President Bush Has A Plan For Louisiana Coastline Restoration
Kerry's False Attack: The Bush Administration ordered the Army Corps of Engineers to create a short-term plan that is not comprehensive enough to adequately address the problem of coastline erosion.
THE TRUTH: The Near-Term Plan Will Guide The Research And Planning For The Future Long-Term Needs Of Coastal Louisiana Restoration. The "Near-Term Plan," crafted with input from state officials, will serve as a framework for identifying the highest priority, most promising restoration projects in Louisiana. The plan will focus on the best opportunities for restoration in the near-term given the present state of knowledge, on the best ways to sequence that work, and on the best ways to evaluate success. The plan will guide the research and planning efforts that are needed to determine and support the future long-term needs of coastal Louisiana restoration. President Bush??s FY 2005 budget dedicated $8 million to completing this study.
President Bush Is Committed To America's Coastline
Kerry's False Attack: President Bush has proposed major cuts to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which provides funding for key coastal programs.
THE TRUTH: The Fiscal Year 2005 Budget For NOAA Is $3.4 Billion, An Increase Of $146.9 Million Over The FY 2004 Request. Of that, $1.2 billion was requested to protect, restore and manage ecosystems. This represents an increase of $145.3 million over the previous year.
FUNDING FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE PROGRAMS
Kerry's False Attack: More funding is needed for federal and state fish and wildlife programs and for land acquisition, as well as enhanced tax incentives for the donation of private land conservation easements.
THE TRUTH: Sen. Kerry is following President Bush??s lead. In his FY 2005 budget, President Bush proposed to exclude 50 percent of the capital gains from the sale of property for conservation purposes. President Bush devoted $300 million over ten years for this program.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 8
Newbie
|
|
Newbie
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 8 |
Wednesday, April 21, 2004 Statement by U.S. Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-LA) WASHINGTON, DC -- U.S. Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-LA) issued the following statement addressing Sen. John Kerry's travel to Louisiana: "John Kerry's plans for the energy industry would cost Louisiana countless jobs. When Kerry referred to oil and said 'that black stuff is hurting us,' he revealed how out of touch he is with an industry that employs thousands of Louisiana workers and powers the state's economy. ??Kerry voted to impose excise taxes on petroleum and has opposed our state's delegation on many issues important to Louisiana's energy industry. Kerry even supported a fifty cent per gallon tax increase on gasoline and attacked the President for pulling out of the Kyoto treaty that would harm American families while exempting India and China. Clearly, he does not understand what's really important to a majority of Louisianans." BACKGROUND: KERRY IS WRONG FOR LOUISIANA Bush Leads Kerry 52% to 38% in Louisiana. "The poll also surveyed the candidates running for President. According to the poll, President Bush leads. The pollsters asked, 'If the election for President of the United States was held today between Republican George Bush, John Kerry and Ralph Nader, for whom would you vote?' Bush captured 51.7 %, John Kerry received 37.6% and Nader picked up 1.7 percent.' Interviews for the statewide poll were conducted by telephone with 700 registered Louisiana voters on Wednesday, March 17, Thursday, March 18, and between Monday, March 22 and Monday March 29, 2004. The overall margin of error for the statewide statistics obtained from the survey of 700 Louisiana voters is not greater than plus or minus 3.8% at the 95% level of confidence." (Stephen Sabludowsky, "SMOR Releases Poll on Presidential, Louisiana U.S. Senate Race and Governor Blanco," BayouBuzz.com, 4/13/04) Louisiana Democrat Refuses To Endorse Kerry. Rep. Rodney Alexander: "They've all endorsed John Kerry, and I'm not going to do that." ("Rep. Alexander may switch to Republican Party," The Advocate, 3/10/04) Kerry Has Voted At Least Six Times Against Banning Partial-Birth Abortion. Kerry Says, "There Is No Such Thing As A Partial Birth." (Glen Johnson, "Kerry Hits Ban On Abortion Procedure," The Boston Globe, 11/6/03) Kerry Disagreed With Breaux And Landrieu On Partial Birth Abortion Ban: Kerry Voted Against, Breaux And Landrieu Voted For. Kerry Voted Against Final Passage Of The Unborn Victims Of Violence Act (UVAA). This new law acknowledges a common-sense proposition: When a crime of violence against a pregnant woman kills or injures her unborn child, there are two victims, and two offenses that should be punished. Kerry Received An "F" Rating From National Rifle Association In 2002. (National Rifle Association Website, www.nra.org, Accessed 1/24/04) Kerry Said Democrats Make "The Mistake Of Looking South." "Everybody always makes the mistake of looking South ... Al Gore proved he could have been president of the United States without winning one Southern state, including his own." (Katharine Q. Seelye, "Kerry And Edwards Face A Critical Test In The South," The New York Times, 1/29/04) At Least Ten Times In Last Decade, Kerry Opposed Or Voted To Block Medical Liability Reforms. Kerry Missed Vote On Energy Bill, Which Was Supported By Louisiana's Senators. Senators Breaux and Landrieu voted for cloture on the energy bill. Kerry Voted To Impose Excise Taxes Petroleum. The amendment would reinstate the Superfund excise taxes on petroleum and various industrial chemicals. Louisiana Senators Breaux and Landrieu voted against the amendment. (S. Con. Res. 23, CQ Vote #97: Rejected 43-56: R 1-50; D 41-6; I 1-0, 3/25/03, Kerry Voted Yea, Breaux and Landrieu Voted Nay) But In 2003, Kerry Voted Against Off-Shore Natural Gas Exploration. Kerry voted for an amendment to strike an energy bill provision requiring a survey and inventory of possible off-shore oil and natural gas deposits by the Interior secretary. Louisiana Senators Breaux and Landrieu voted against the amendment. Kerry Blasts Administration's Walking Away From Kyoto. "[T]he second President Bush's declaration that the Kyoto Protocol was simply Dead on Arrival spoke for itself - and it spoke in dozens of languages as his words whipped instantly around the globe. What the Administration failed to see was that Kyoto was not just an agreement; it represented the resolve of 160 nations working together over 10 years. It was a good faith effort - and the United States just dismissed it. We didn't aim to mend it. We didn't aim to sit down with our allies and find a compromise. We didn't aim for a new dialogue. The Administration was simply ready to aim and fire, and the target they hit was our international reputation." (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At The John F. Kennedy Library, Boston, MA, 2/9/03)
|
|
|
|
|
