Quote:
|
Originally Posted by loquitur
host, why did you make this about Bush? It's not about Bush, it's about the concept of how to reform our tax system. The issues that post addresses predate Bush, they predate Clinton, they predate Bush I, they predate Reagan, etc etc etc............
You clearly understand some of these issues, and you're a smart guy - show me where she's wrong, if you think she's wrong.
|
Your OP article advocates for Bush's most objectionable theme....eliminate the inheritance tax....a tax that impacts only the wealthiest families. This comes after a campaign, financed by the welathiest families political and PR consultants, to demonize the inheritance tax, by renaming it the "death" tax.
Quote:
http://www.60plus.org/deathtax.asp?docID=347
....One significant player in advancing the “death tax” tag was Jim Martin, a longtime activist who founded “60 Plus,” a conservative Washington beltway alternative to the American Association of Retired Persons. <h3>Although mostly concerned with privatizing Social Security, 60 Plus jumped headlong into the crusade against the estate tax.</h3>
Martin has the distinction of having given President George W. Bush his first political job. When Bush was twenty-two years old, Martin hired him to work on the 1968 campaign in Florida to elect Ed Gurney to Congress. The president, distinguished for his unique nicknames of friends and colleagues, calls Martin “Buddha.”9
Martin is credited with having brought the “death tax” coin back into wider circulation in 1993. He gained an ally in political mastermind Frank Luntz. Luntz, who conducted focus groups for conservative caucuses and politicians, understood the importance of language. He even wrote a rhetoric primer for conservative politicians with the Orwellian name “Language for the Twenty-first Century.”....
|
Show me an example of their core myth.....where is that small business or "family farm", put out of business by the "death" tax?
<h3>The fact is that the system of revenue collection, budgeting, and operation of government worked up until Jan. 20, 2001. It isn't the problem, it doesn't need "reform". </h3>
How can "the need" for these proposals, be separated from Bush.....he's the guy who proclaimed, as the author does, that....
Quote:
|
It's time to stop pretending it's a pension system, when there are no assets in the "trust fund"....
|
I clearly supported my points that she got that bullshit from Bush, and that, under his watch, the government took more than half the current stated balance of the SSA trust fund and replaced it with the very Treasury bonds that Bush and your author say are "no assets"....
.....So, why the lecture, loquitur?
<h3>Aren't the author's proposals aligned with Bush's position on permanently eliminating inheritance taxes and the current privately funded social security retirement and disability insurance system?</h3>
Would the author have even been taken seriously, with her talk of "reform", in 2000? The budget, spending, and revenue were in balance in 2000. They aren't now.....and I explained in my last post. what I thought had changed to make that so....
I object to the author "leaning" on the things that Bush himself has said and done, as components of her arguments for "reform". It's a fucking turnoff to read a "reformer" quoting from and advocating for the same sabotage to the system of federal revenue collection and spending that CAUSED the problems we are now confronted with, in the first place?
I know that you don't find it odd or objectionable, since this author's proposals are the core of your OP.....but it is odd....alarming to read.