This is the thread to give appreciation for George Walker Bush, the current president of the United States of America.
Anything derogatory will result in this thread being deleted and re-started again with only the appreciationism. So make it all good - say all the good stuff about George Walker Bush III. Right here, right now. Go!
21st April 2007 03:06 AM
Strange_Stray_Cat
Please lock this thread.
21st April 2007 03:12 AM
sirmoonie
quote:Strange_Stray_Cat wrote:
Please lock this thread.
Please delete your post - this is an appreciation thread. I'm serious. Delete your post.
21st April 2007 03:44 AM
Altamont
A great stand up comedian!
21st April 2007 03:51 AM
sirmoonie
I'm serious - get this stuff off. This is an appreciation thread - no negativity. If this continues, I will delete, and re-post all the good stuff people think about George Walker Bush III.
21st April 2007 03:51 AM
Strange_Stray_Cat
quote:sirmoonie wrote:
Please delete your post - this is an appreciation thread. I'm serious. Delete your post.
No I won't. Please lock this useless thread.
21st April 2007 03:54 AM
sirmoonie
quote:Strange_Stray_Cat wrote:
No I won't. Please lock this useless thread.
PIss off. This is my appreciation thread and you are no longer welcome in it.
Well maybe. There are some quite prominent Rocks Off members who worship the guy.
I can't figure it out, but hey, Stones, right??
21st April 2007 04:06 AM
Strange_Stray_Cat
quote:Altamont wrote:
Well maybe. There are some quite prominent Rocks Off members who worship the guy.
I can't figure it out, but hey, Stones, right??
That is why we are not allowed to post any critical comments.
21st April 2007 04:15 AM
sirmoonie
quote:Strange_Stray_Cat wrote:
See? Nobody.
Its 3AM (shades of Golden Earring) in the goddam fucking morning CST, thats why there are no appreciations yet.
Trust me, admirers of George Walker Bush III will be here come morning, and I will restart this thread, god willing, when they get their chance to appreciate. I will delete all negative stuff - its time to be positive!
21st April 2007 04:19 AM
Altamont
quote:sirmoonie wrote:
Its 3AM (shades of Golden Earring) in the goddam fucking morning CST, thats why there are no appreciations yet.
Trust me, admirers of George Walker Bush III will be here come morning, and I will restart this thread, god willing, when they get their chance to appreciate. I will delete all negative stuff - its time to be positive!
This thread needs a cheerleader! Sirmoonie, can you think of one???
A cheerleader?
21st April 2007 04:26 AM
egon
He used to be an alcoholic.
that's about as positive as i can be.
21st April 2007 05:03 AM
Altamont
Hip hip hooray!
21st April 2007 05:08 AM
sirmoonie
Will you goddam fuckers get the fuck off my George Walker Bush III appreciation thread?! I'm fucking warning you. You hear me? I'm fucking warning you!
21st April 2007 05:41 AM
Voodoo Scrounge
I like the guy!
21st April 2007 05:56 AM
sirmoonie
quote:Voodoo Scrounge wrote:
I like the guy!
Thank you.
When I prune this thread, you will have the privilegeness of being right necks to mines.
21st April 2007 06:02 AM
Ten Thousand Motels
21st April 2007 06:10 AM
Jumacfly
this thread sucks.
21st April 2007 06:13 AM
Ten Thousand Motels
III & IV
21st April 2007 06:13 AM
sirmoonie
Its sucks now, but wait until it gets going. These threads need time.
By the way Jumackie, when I re-post this thread, you will be re-banned.
21st April 2007 06:17 AM
sirmoonie
quote:Ten Thousand Motels wrote:
III & IV
Fuck you, man. Get that tired fucking clip-scrip-photo-piss out of here. Nobody belives that stuff.
Go start one of your other ten thousand goddam motherfucking threads!
21st April 2007 06:33 AM
sirmoonie
Why do you insist on fucking up my thread, man? Is this some slapp-O, happ-O type perversion thingy you got going? You going to go wingo-dingo on us, cheese boy? Seek some goddam counseling. Jesus fucking Christ.
21st April 2007 06:44 AM
Nellcote
Dude has two hot lookin offspring!
21st April 2007 06:46 AM
sirmoonie
quote:Nellcote wrote:
Dude has two hot lookin offspring!
So does Keith. Thats getting you no where on this thread.
21st April 2007 06:50 AM
ExileIzzy
April 21, 2007
2008 Democrats Propose a Ceiling on Bush Tax Cuts
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
WASHINGTON, April 20 — Grappling with one of the biggest domestic policy choices that will confront the next administration, the leading Democratic presidential candidates say they would raise a variety of taxes on affluent people but extend President Bush’s tax cuts for middle- and lower-income families.
Virtually all of Mr. Bush’s tax cuts are set to expire at the end of 2010, and the issue of whether to extend some or all of them sharply divides the parties and is a complex one for the Democratic candidates on both political and fiscal policy grounds.
Already, Republicans are signaling that they will attack the Democrats for what they say would be a mammoth tax increase that would threaten the economy and fuel growth in government spending. Democrats say the shift they are advocating would bring more fairness to the tax system and help pay for needed expansions of social programs while helping to keep the budget deficit under control.
Although they have yet to release detailed proposals or to talk about the issue in any depth on the campaign trail, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, and former Senator John Edwards, said through aides that they were backing variants of the same approach, which would result in higher taxes on income, capital gains and stock dividends for upper-income people. All of them, as well Senators Christopher J. Dodd and Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Gov. Bill Richardson, have made clear that they would support keeping in place the tax cuts that have benefited the vast majority of people, roughly speaking households with income less than $200,000 or so. In that way, the Democratic stance would ensure that a substantial portion of one of Mr. Bush’s signature policies would outlast his presidency, even if his party loses the White House.
But Democrats have also signaled that they intend to undo a central principle of the Bush tax cuts — that they should extend to all income levels — by rolling back reductions that have benefited the wealthiest Americans in recent years.
“Yes, we’ll have to raise taxes,” Mr. Edwards declared in February in one of the first statements by a Democratic candidate on the issue.
Democratic strategists said the candidates were all keenly aware that Republicans are eager to attack them over tax increases. Vice President Dick Cheney accused Congressional Democrats last week of already planning “the biggest tax increase in American history.”
“The result would be a staggering tax increase on the middle class, on families and small businesses, and a return of the federal death tax from zero back up to a confiscatory 55 percent,” Mr. Cheney said.
But Democratic campaign officials have not shied away from the conflict, asserting that the Bush tax cuts were tilted in favor the rich and need to be rebalanced.
“Americans know there is a difference between keeping taxes as low as possible on the middle class, and giving away the bank to the wealthiest Americans,” said Bill Burton, a spokesman for Mr. Obama. “If President Bush’s tax cuts are extended, the wealthiest 1 percent will save more than the bottom 80 percent combined, at a cost of $1 trillion over 10 years.”
The Democratic candidates would be trying to recapture a big chunk of the revenues that were allocated to tax cuts in the Bush years. And they would be challenging one of the main arguments offered by conservatives in favor of tax cuts, that reducing rates on upper-income people spurs more investment and job creation.
To keep in place the entire package of Bush tax cuts would cost the government about $1.8 trillion over the next decade, according to Congressional budget analysts, a period when the nation will also begin confronting the costs of an aging population to the Medicare and Social Security systems.
Simply extending Mr. Bush’s tax cuts for families that earn less than $200,000, and most of the reduction in estate taxes on inherited wealth, could cost about $900 billion over the next decade, according to new estimates by the Tax Policy Center, a nonprofit research group whose tax estimates are considered reliable by most analysts.
For people with incomes of more than $200,000 a year, roughly the top 3 percent of earners, the Democratic candidates would essentially revert to the tax regime under President Bill Clinton in the 1990s. The top marginal tax rate would return to 39.6 percent, up from 35 percent currently, for people with taxable incomes of more than $336,550. People with incomes between $200,000 and $336,550 would see their top rate climb to 36 percent from 33 percent today.
Mr. Bush’s signature tax cuts for capital gains and stock dividends would all but disappear, because people earning more than $200,000 receive the vast bulk of such earnings.
None of the Democratic candidates would eliminate the estate tax on inherited wealth, long one of the Republicans’ goals. Under law, the estate tax becomes smaller each year until it disappears in 2010, only to bounce back in full when the tax cut expires at the end of that year.
Several Democratic candidates said they would let the estate tax dwindle to levels set for 2009. At that point, estates worth less than $3.5 million — and less than $7 million if owned by a couple — would be excluded from any tax.
But the candidates have not said how they would reconcile their goal of leaving a portion of the tax cuts in place with the Democratic Party’s professed objective of doing nothing to aggravate the budget deficit. Indeed, the presidential candidates are on a collision course with Congressional Democratic leaders who have adopted rules that require paying for new tax cuts with savings or tax increases elsewhere, a stance that would presumably apply to an extension of the existing tax cuts.
At the same time, leaving even a portion of the Bush tax cuts in place means that the next president and the next Congress would have less money to allocate to spending programs than they would if they allowed all the tax cuts to expire, leaving them with a choice between further increasing the budget deficit or limiting their plans for addressing health care, education, energy and other needs.
Robert Greenstein, director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal research group, said Mr. Bush had left Democrats in a very difficult position.
“What strikes me now is the degree to which the fairly fiscally irresponsible policies of the last six years have put Democrats in a box,” Mr. Greenstein said. “They’ve got these large tax cuts in place, they have even larger fiscal problems in the coming decades and they have large unmet needs right now, such as 45 million uninsured people. Addressing all three of those things will be very difficult.”
Even preserving just the so-called “middle class” tax cuts could reduce revenues almost $150 billion a year, a bigger cost to the Treasury than the war in Iraq or marquee Democratic initiatives like expanding health care for low-income children.
None of the Democratic candidates has laid out a detailed agenda for Mr. Bush’s tax cuts, but Mr. Edwards, of North Carolina, has been the most explicit. He has said he would not even wait for the tax cuts to expire and would immediately seek to repeal them for everybody earning more than $200,000. He would use the money for his plan to deliver health care to all Americans.
Measured as a share of the gross domestic product, which many economists say is the best gauge for measuring the size of tax cuts and increases, a repeal of all Mr. Bush’s tax cuts would be smaller than tax increases imposed during World War II, the Korean War and the tax increases signed by Mr. Clinton.
21st April 2007 06:56 AM
sirmoonie
You think I'm fucking with you?
I know howe to cut and paste. Believe me, this thread will go to 500 as an appreciationism of the president of the United States of America.
21st April 2007 06:58 AM
Nellcote
Moonie on an all nighter, with posting greatness.
Praise the Lord-Pass the Bottle!
Search for information in the wet page, the archives and this board:
The Rolling Stones World Tour 2005 Rolling Stones Bigger Bang Tour 2005 2006 Rolling Stones Forum - Rolling Stones Message Board - Mick Jagger - Keith Richards - Brian Jones - Charlie Watts - Ian Stewart - Stu - Bill Wyman - Mick Taylor - Ronnie Wood - Ron Wood - Rolling Stones 2005 Tour - Farewell Tour - Rolling Stones: Onstage World Tour A Bigger Bang US Tour
NEW: SEARCH ZONE:
Search for goods, you'll find the impossible collector's item!!!
