Just another Bush non-plan for a major initiative:
Pharmacists Say Drug Plan Threatens Their Income
Posted by ann at March 13, 2006 11:44 AMDid I hear that Bush's number went up? Surely not.
Posted by Judith at March 13, 2006 11:57 AMBush is back on the stump today, praising the GI's sent to their death in his war, telling us all to be patient, and promising to stay the course until Iraq is finally the kind of democracy he wants. A healthy spoonfull of Terror and 9/11 references were included of course - always with the word "Iraq" in close proximity, in case any of us has forgotten that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 and sponsoring world wide terrorism.
Apparently George is set to recite this old warhorse of a speech several more times in the near future. Coming soon to a National Guard Armory near you!!
Feingold presenting the Censure Resolution at 4 ET today.
On Tim Russert Sat show he had Gary Berentsen on about his new book and I couldn't help but wonder when Gary was revisiting the ToraBora conflict and stated that Centcom had declined to send him the 600 Rangers he requested to seal the Pakistan border and stop UBL's flight to Pakistan ... hmmm wonder if way back then the Admin realized that if they killed UBL at that juncture that the War on Terror would dissolve into a simple military action and they wouldn't be able to attach Iraq to its coattails.
Bush is back on the stump today, praising the GI's sent to their death in his war...
Total dead on 9/11 = 2985
Total 'Coalition' dead in Afghanistan/Iraq = 2865
Exacting vengence = priceless!
Posted by snark at March 13, 2006 12:14 PMthank you snark for pointing out the obvious - Bush will soon surpass BinLaden. That will be an interesting moment.
Posted by T2 at March 13, 2006 01:24 PMI hope Tony Ridder buys back the Merc. The Editorial Board is great and the paper has solid reporting. It's one of the few papers that refused to buy into Bushco.
Hope whoever the ultimate buyer is, does not change the editorial board or the newsroom.
Posted by Karthik R at March 13, 2006 01:41 PMThe 'war' is a politically motivated nightmare. Saddam was a tyrant, but he kept the peace. Iraq is a complete disaster at the moment, and will only get worse.
I have personal reasons for being bitter, but the truth cannot be ignored, no matter what Bush, Cheney, or Rumsfeld have to say.
Why did we start this war? And we did. Don't give me any shit about 'freedom and liberty'. Both have gone out the window in Iraq and America as a result of a political agenda. As Charlton Heston once said "You Maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell!".
Posted by tempus at March 13, 2006 02:43 PMWhile I'm on a rant, GWB is responsible for more Iraqi deaths that Saddam. Perhaps he should join Saddam at the new prison facility the US has built.
Posted by tempus at March 13, 2006 02:58 PMSteve, from your NY Times link... This is actually clever because this was how Bill Clinton got his surplus when Roth IRAs were created:
Some senators are itching to temporarily allow all Americans to convert their old I.R.A.'s to Roths. Tax would be due up front on the amount that would be transferred, so — voilà! — the government would get a quick jolt of revenue. But later, the tactic would be a big revenue loser, as wealthy Americans made tax-free withdrawals that otherwise would have been taxable.
But this part was sort of misleading:
Under current law, people who make $100,000 a year or less can convert their tax-deductible I.R.A.'s into newer so-called Roth I.R.A.'s. The Roth is often a better deal, because unlike traditional I.R.A.'s, no tax is due when money is withdrawn. Those tax-free withdrawals are a generous government subsidy.
The long-term capital gains rate is 15%.
Also:
At a time when Congress is slashing programs for low-income Americans, there's no justification for the sought-after cuts, which would extend special low tax rates for investment income and would mainly benefit people who make more than $1 million a year.
"Extending" tax cuts is not a "new" tax cut. As a matter of fact, if the tax cuts expire, that would be a tax "hike."
If you want to play semantics, then we could say that George Bush never cut taxes. He just restored taxes to pre-FDR levels. (Or whoever.)
Finaly, as I mentioned on the Open Thread, the European countries are running deficits while spending virtually nothing on national defense and relying on the US to defend them. Meanwhile, those European countries have huge tax ratess and huge entitlement programs, an unemployment rate over twice that of the US, and no GDP.
Europe: No military. High joblessness. No economic growth. Budget deficits.
How in the world would we be any different if we hiked taxes, increased entitlements, and cut defense?
We wouldn't. We'd still have deficits, like they do. We'd have higher unemployment. And, we'd have no military. At least China would. I guess they could take care of us.
Posted by muckdog at March 13, 2006 05:09 PMOnly to you Muck and the rest of the cultists would allowing a tax cut to expire and revert back to its old rate be considered a tax increase.
But keep trying.
Posted by Steve Soto at March 13, 2006 05:50 PMThis is actually clever because this was how Bill Clinton got his surplus when Roth IRAs were created
How about you supply some factual research on this rather than just a claim? No opinion pieces or economic theory, either, cold hard facts that prove the Clinton surplus was created by Roth IRA conversion. And remember...coincidence does not prove causation.
Posted by ann at March 13, 2006 05:59 PMPerfect comeback ann!
Posted by bbtb at March 13, 2006 06:03 PMit wasn't the shares, it was the content. Look up the donations that the stockholders forcing the sale made to the rnc and bushco, and it's no wonder they didn't like Knight Ridder. the sale still has to be approved; chances are they won't like the buyer.
Posted by at March 16, 2006 01:26 AM