Defense bill will not include habeas protections.
By on May 9th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
Defense bill will not include habeas protections.
House Armed Services Committee Ike Skelton (D-MO) “dealt a blow to the human-rights community by failing to include provisions to overhaul GOP legislation governing military tribunals in the 2008 defense authorization bill. The chairman’s move is attracting criticism from some who say Democrats’ dedication to the issue is wavering.” Skelton (D-MO), with the support of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), says he plans to bring a stand-alone habeas bill to the floor.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
The Dems are asking us to trust them; they will get to the important issues one at a time. I assume they know far better thanI about how to get things accomplished in congress, but I am getting nervous. I want to see something more substantial.
May 9th, 2007 at 8:45 pmThese politicians claim that THEY have the power to determine who deserves or is “entitled” to habeas corpus protections, but no people should be entrusted with that power – eventually it will be abused as we see today.
The fact is, habeas CANNOT be suspended, except in cases of invasion or rebellion as mandated by the Constitution – Article I, Section 9…
Period.
Some interesting commentary on this:
“To Whom Does the Bill of Rights Apply”
May 9th, 2007 at 8:46 pmhttp://www.populistamerica.com/to_whom_does_the_bill_of_rights_apply
Skelton (D-MO), with the support of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), says he plans to bring a stand-alone habeas bill to the floor.
Total Bush*t.
I am rapidly loosing patience with this group of Democrats that rolled over in submission during the 109th and let these bad bills pass without hardly a peep to begin with.
Now they looked into the eyes of Republiscum and blinked.
outragious. Cowardly BS
May 9th, 2007 at 8:47 pmjeralyn at talkleft posts this from a commenter…
if the dems don’t do this, i have to side with glenn greenwald…
it’s gotta happen…
And, yes, I DO take it personally
May 9th, 2007 at 8:55 pmI’m not so sure but this may be a very wise and strategic move. Put the habeus corpus protections in a “clean” bill and see if Bush vetoes. He would have no pork or other issues to blame his veto on.
May 9th, 2007 at 8:57 pmThe diligent and informed know that habeas corpus has been ipso facto utterly rescinded thanks to the combination of the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the as yet unchallenged use of Presidential Signing Statements, the reuslt of which is that anyone, foreign or domestic can be incarcerated indefinetely for whatever reason and in total secrecy.
The sooner that habeas corpus is restored, the better.
However, I am inclined to prefer that its restoration be a specific and very public act, given that its elimination has been so secretive and obscured. Therefore I respect Ike Skelton for treating its restoration as deserving of explict recognition rahter than have it be an adjunct to some other bill.
Too few noticed the suspension of habeas corpus and it’s relevance. By treating seperately and eexclusively as a fundamental consitutional and democratic right rather than an accessory to expedient legislation I think Skelton is doing the right thing overall–in so doing he will be able to illumate what was lost and inform everyone of what must be restored without having to tolerate any other issue.
May 9th, 2007 at 9:03 pmI agree with PLC. I think it needs to be a stand alone bill. I also think it will pass both house with more support than might be evident right now. A veto by Bush and I think the GOP runs from him completely and Congress overides the Veto. I hope.
May 9th, 2007 at 9:03 pmHopefully, some Democratic house members are reading this blog. The day is over where the American people are going to take this shit from politicians. The Democrats have to “get to shit’n, or get off the pot”. What so bad is that democrats don’t even see the opportunity they have right in front of them? Stop being such wimps. Grow a backbone and stand up to the NeoCon agenda. Because if you don’t they are going to roll right over you with lies and made up scandals. These people don’t fight fair and what the people expect is the Democrats to give right back.
May 9th, 2007 at 9:12 pmI’m all for a stand-alone bill. No one can withhold their vote because of other things in the bill. You’re either for it, or against it. Nice and clean.
May 9th, 2007 at 9:25 pmA stand-alone bill is a better idea anyway because it cannot then be clouded with other issues. Push the issue on its own.
May 9th, 2007 at 9:26 pmI’m not so sure but this may be a very wise and strategic move.
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian(PLC)
Sorry, I believe this is more BS, like Pelosi refusing to let impeachment being discussed.
I am tired of their BS
The House has more than enough votes to pass any bill the democrats want. Let the Senate hash it out afterwards.
If the democrats in office cannot act, they can be replaced too, by another democrat hopefully.
They f*ck around at their own peril.
Now for the belief they will pass something later…
May 9th, 2007 at 9:26 pmWhat has Pelosi done about the Page Scandel that she promised to take action on? Anyone?
The Democrats have to “get to shit’n, or get off the potâ€. What so bad is that democrats don’t even see the opportunity they have right in front of them? Stop being such wimps.
Comment by JTitor
Right on the money.
May 9th, 2007 at 9:29 pmDUDE….. THE DEMOCRATS AND PARTICULARLY PELOSI JUST GOT BUSTED FOR PORKING A EARMARK ON 5/8/2007 AT http://WWW.CORRUPTIONCHRONICLES.COM
THE DEMOCRATS LIED DUDE, THE SYSTEM IS TOTALLY RIGGED DUDE AND I JIMBO DUDE SHOULD BE A PUBLIC SERVANT DUDE, BUT I CAN’T DUDE CAN’T, DUDE BECAUSE THE SYSTEM IS RIGGED DUDE RIGGED.
AND YES I AM SQUEEKLY CLEAN DON’T DO NONE OF THAT OR EVEN DRINK DUDE, MY ULTIMATELY HEAVENLY AWESOME COOLNESS JUST BLOWS EVERYONE AWAY DUDE… BEEN THAT WAY FOR YEARS DUDE
May 9th, 2007 at 9:33 pmWhy all the bashing of Democrats? They don’t have a veto proof majority. Putting impeachment on the table without having sufficient support of some Republicans would be worse than a waste of time. There are other pressures that can be put to bear on Bush until he responds with something that even the Republicans can’t stomach. It does NO GOOD for progressives to denigrate the voices that they do have in Congress. Let’s save our ire for the real culprits – Bush and the supportive Republicans.
May 9th, 2007 at 9:35 pmA stand alone bill, huh? Kind of like the the stand-alone bill requiring Bush to seek Congressional approval before striking Iran? Senator Webb was supposed to introduce that bill a long, long time ago. I’m beginning to doubt their sincerity when it comes to stand-alone bills.
May 9th, 2007 at 9:39 pmIs Ike Red’s little brother? Is this some kind of sick joke?
May 9th, 2007 at 9:48 pmAdd me to the list of stand-alone bill supporters…
May 9th, 2007 at 9:54 pmI will Veto any bill with Habeus Corpses in it.
May 9th, 2007 at 9:55 pmYeah, let’s let a bunch of foreign terrorists into American courts.
Military tribunals have been used several times through US History.
May 9th, 2007 at 9:56 pmDon’t give an inch to the Chimp.
Keep the timeline.
Revoke the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, and the new Martial Law Act.
And revoke Chimpy’s authori-tay in Iraq.
May 9th, 2007 at 9:59 pmWhy all the bashing of Democrats? They don’t have a veto proof majority.
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian(PLC)
Why coddle the same group of democrats that rolled over for the last 6 years letting the rubberstampers strip our rights and trash the constitution without even one fillibuster?
They need to do what is RIGHT, not what they think Bush will let pass.
May 9th, 2007 at 10:00 pmGeez….
DUDE
THE
BASHING
OF
THE
DEMOCRATS =
CORRUPTION
DUDE
CORRUPTION
LIKE WANDA KNOWS BETTY KIND OF PARASITES
AND FOLKS WHO PROMISE TO REFORM EARMARKS AND LIE THROUGH THEIR TEETH
NOW IN 3 SHORT MONTHS WE HAVE THESE PARASITES OF LEECHES,
MAGGOTS, CHIGGARDS, ROACHES, TICKS, AND HOODLUMS
TO START INSERTING LOTS O PORK AND LOTS OF CORRUPTION TOO, JUST LIKE THE $25,000 PER SILK COVERED CHAIR…. THE CORRUPTION
IS MUCH WORSE KNOW, IT’S ENOUGH TO BARF ALL THOSE HOODLUMS
OUT DUDE, LIKE DIG MAN AND I AM SO HEAVENLY AWESOME DUDE,
ULTIMATE COOLNESS DUDE, I JUST BLOW EVERYONE AWAY DUDE BECAUSE I JUST THAT COOL DUDE
May 9th, 2007 at 10:06 pmDemocrats…..setting up an open door policy to terrorists by dismantling the critical trials at Guantanemo Bay.
May 9th, 2007 at 10:11 pmA stand alone bill is better. Just make sure it’s done — and soon. I mean within weeks.
May 9th, 2007 at 10:17 pmDemocrats…..setting up an open door policy to terrorists by dismantling the critical trials at Guantanemo Bay.
Comment by m12
You mean secret trials, with secret evidence that the detainee or their attouney cannot see, cannot contest?
May 9th, 2007 at 10:19 pmSame model used by communist China and you support it, figures.
Republiscum….
We are all frustrated and eager to see something of significance happen – and soon – but I am going to join
PLC at #14
and say that the Dems do NOT have a veto-proof majority. They would be spinning their wheels putting through bills that, even if they get through the Senate, won’t get past the veto.
We are all on the same page, with the same goal. Of course we will keep up the pressure on the Dems to satisfy our demands, but we also have to let them work the system toward accomplishing what we demand.
They really need some Repugs to join them and with a greater majority, something will be accomplished.
At least that is the way I hope it happens – but I am losing patience and clinging to the hope that the Dems are being smart – I hope I don’t find myself in despair.
P.S. How do you guys use these tags. I looked at the instructions and I can’t make them work.
May 9th, 2007 at 10:31 pmIt will be interesting to see who votes against habeas corpus. A stand alone bill leaves nothing to the imagination.
May 9th, 2007 at 10:33 pmAmerica fought a revolution in 1776 to defend their unalienable rights. Do we need to do it again? How could anyone read the Declaration and the Federalist Papers and every accept suspension of habeas corpus?
May 9th, 2007 at 10:44 pmP.S. How do you guys use these tags. I looked at the instructions and I can’t make them work.
Comment by Marie
Select the text you want the tag to affect, then click bold, link, whatever you want.
May 9th, 2007 at 10:52 pmFor link have an URL ready to paste in the pop-up window when you click.
Stupid twits. Dems had been on a streak of actually listening to us and doing the right thing.
May 9th, 2007 at 10:53 pmYou guys must have been PISSED when Rep. Obey told you he has no “magic wand” to make more votes appear, huh?
May 9th, 2007 at 10:55 pmI see a lot of talk about Democrats not having a veto-proof majority? What difference does that make? The point is that the Democrats have been portrayed as weak, and compilation will be used against the Democrats as weakness. This is the wrong coarse. the American people understand, and newest polls show that 60% agree with the Democrats presently. But if they start backing down then they will loose the respect of the electorate, and you will start seeing more and more attacks by the NeoCons.
May 9th, 2007 at 10:59 pmAmerica fought a revolution in 1776 to defend their unalienable rights. Do we need to do it again? How could anyone read the Declaration and the Federalist Papers and every accept suspension of habeas corpus?
Comment by Publicus
Blows the mind, huh?
May 9th, 2007 at 11:00 pmToo many American are stupid sheep, that won’t see anything wrong as long as they can get that Starbucks Mocha and see survivor, Nascar, or Britiney’s crotch shot on the news on the zombie box.
Most have never read anything about how the government works, and they vote ( for Idiots, see current President for example )
Thanks, Wayne.
May 9th, 2007 at 11:01 pmI used to be able to do all that very simply as you say. It doesn’t work any more. :(
you will start seeing more and more attacks by the NeoCons.
Comment by JTitor
And by Progressive who speak out against any wrong, whether by Republifarts or Democrats.
I have been pissed at the Dems for rolling over for the last 6 years. Can anyone point to even one fillibuster done to stop even one appointment or constitution trashing bill passed by the Rubberstampers?
Don’t kid yourself. The Democrats won for one reason and one reason only. People wanted them to stop the rampant corruption in Washington. The Republican scandels, Page-Gate especially, gave the Dems the majority.
There is only one way to do the will of the voters, force the criminals out of office, defend the Law and Constitution. Impeach. Then repeal the bad laws.
I say if they can’t do what is right. Replace them with a Democrat or independent that will ( Republiscum can go to hell, for all I care )
May 9th, 2007 at 11:12 pmFlame on if you want, but that is IMHO.
#33 – Wayne
Very well said. Sad…
May 9th, 2007 at 11:14 pmThanks, Wayne.
I used to be able to do all that very simply as you say. It doesn’t work any more. :(
Comment by Marie
Did you try the close tag button?
Testing
weird working ok here.
May 9th, 2007 at 11:16 pm#28
These aren’t American citizens at Guantanemo Bay.
May 9th, 2007 at 11:22 pmNo, it should NOT be a stand alone bill. If it is the Republicans can use the cowardice of the American populace as an excuse to veto. If he veto’s the Defense bill because of a little amendment he has a lot of explaining to do.
May 9th, 2007 at 11:24 pmVery well said. Sad…
Comment by Zooey
heh thanks
Yeah it is.
Kinda in a rant mode tonight.
Like the day I read the John Warner Bill and ranted here about it. That one basically killed our habeus corpus rights, destroyed posse comatatus, gave Bush complete control over the Guard, stripping Governor’s rights over them and so on.
Hardly anyone had heard of it, as it was signed in secret by Bush. Finally some of the blogs picked it up. (not TP)
there I go again,lol
May 9th, 2007 at 11:25 pmWayne, those types of tags used to work for many of us. No longer. You have to do it manually now (well, most of us do). You can do the (/ e m) without the spaces but it seems you can’t close the italics then.
May 9th, 2007 at 11:27 pmThese aren’t American citizens at Guantanemo Bay.
Comment by m12
Still idolizing the Chinese Court system see.
May 9th, 2007 at 11:29 pmThat speaks volumes about you.
#33
Funny you mention that, actually. Liberals tossed aside one of the most critical parts of the Constitution when they decided to shift the focus of government to welfare policy and income redistribution. So much for the Boston Tea Party.
May 9th, 2007 at 11:30 pmNo capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
#42
The Chinese do some things right. That said, they don’t have much to do with our system.
Gitmo is an essential tool to keep Islamic Fundamentalists at bay.
May 9th, 2007 at 11:34 pmAmen, m12!
May 9th, 2007 at 11:36 pm#40 – Wayne
Your rants makes sense, and that’s refreshing around here. :)
May 9th, 2007 at 11:36 pmThis is why I blog here. The people here are more patriotic, intelligent, not party centric…. truly free thinkers. I have been a political hobbyist for 15 years, and see our country being sold to the highest bidder as if the people no longer have a stake in it. I see more people talking about what happened in American Idol then what really matters, their personal freedoms. I see people that I know turn on Rush day in and day out and can’t even tell me the difference between a paleo-conservative and a neo-conservative, but they suck it all up as if it was the truth. I don’t want my kids suffer because we didn’t do something now.
May 9th, 2007 at 11:38 pmm12, so, it is taxation without representation? Prove it. Prove that welfare does not improve the economy (you do know that the strength of the economy is predicated on the circulation of the dollar, thus poor people having more money would ALWAYS improve the economy).
May 9th, 2007 at 11:39 pmAnd my point is welfare helps YOUR sorry a$$ by improving the economy.
May 9th, 2007 at 11:40 pmAmen, m12!
Comment by Jake
Jake is jerking himself off tonight, talking to himself. lmao
Finally wise upon the MAF54 tag you were using Jake-off?
May 9th, 2007 at 11:42 pmI can understand why Skelton would do this. But this is still a major risk. We know that the Republicans will never agree to a stand alone bill, so why not just stick it in with the defense authorization bill.
May 9th, 2007 at 11:43 pmFor the record, I have never posted as m12 or MAF54.
May 9th, 2007 at 11:44 pmFor the record Jakey, you say enough stupid crap, you don’t need to post as other retarded trolls.
May 9th, 2007 at 11:46 pm#48
It’s disproportionate taxation without representation, certainly. The founding fathers put that clause in for a reason: They never would have accepted something as perverse as the income tax, and the $265 billion spent to comply with it.
I, unfortunately, am not a member of the 52% of the nation that doesn’t pay a cent in income taxes. But liberals have decided to establish a culture of entitlement, removing incentives for innovation, creativity, and hard work that are the backbone of American productivity.
The war on poverty has failed. I suggest an exit strategy.
May 9th, 2007 at 11:51 pmNo m12, prove that it harms you more than it helps you.
May 9th, 2007 at 11:55 pmLiberals are the ones trying to take my income. Let them justify it.
At least the war might make our nation more secure, unlike the hundreds of thousands of dollars that I’ve dumped into Social Insecurity.
May 9th, 2007 at 11:58 pmSo, m12, you are all for 1929 economic policy?
May 10th, 2007 at 12:06 amThe war has made us less secure, dolt. If you don’t get that you are not intelligent enough to respond to.
May 10th, 2007 at 12:07 amWishful thinking, JPark. The war has brought Saddam Hussein to justice, and we continue to fight and kill Al Quada abroad to prevent a strike on our homeland.
1929 fiscal policy, with today’s knowledge of central banking, is a hell of a lot better than $68.1 trillion in future Medicare liabilities set up by the Democrats.
May 10th, 2007 at 12:18 amYeah, m12, that huge deficit is PROOF that we know a whole lot more now. Iraq has cost more than Medicare will in the next 50 years. Don’t tell me you are fiscally responsible.
May 10th, 2007 at 12:25 amWishful thinking, JPark. The war has brought Saddam Hussein to justice, and we continue to fight and kill Al Quada abroad to prevent a strike on our homeland.
1929 fiscal policy, with today’s knowledge of central banking, is a hell of a lot better than $68.1 trillion in future Medicare liabilities set up by the Democrats.
Comment by m12 —
May 10th, 2007 at 12:46 am—-
Wow where did you come from? Why are all you Republican types so paraniod? You think there’s always a boogyman around the corner. Because of the failed policies of the NeoCons we now have a world that much closer to the brink of apocolypse. Take your sorry ass story’s and go tell someone that won’t debate you.
Yeah, m12, that huge deficit is PROOF that we know a whole lot more now. Iraq has cost more than Medicare will in the next 50 years. Don’t tell me you are fiscally responsible.
Your accountants must be smoking some good stuff.
http://www.hhs.gov/budget/05budget/centersformed.html
Medicare is about $300 billion a year, and increasing fast, double the annual war cost.
That ‘Huge’ deficit is smaller than our historical average, or that of other developed countries today. And as federal tax receips continue to grow by 10% annually thanks to the 2003 Bush tax cuts, the deficit is going to disappear.
May 10th, 2007 at 12:55 amm12 “That ‘Huge’ deficit is smaller than our historical average, or that of other developed countries today.”
Weed is not good for you m12. Neither is stupidity.
May 10th, 2007 at 1:05 amBy the way, 300 billion a year? Did you get that from the Heritage Foundation?
May 10th, 2007 at 1:08 amCutting taxes is going to raise revenue!!! You do know Milton Friedman was a bit slow, right? Doesn’t that sound just a little bit counterintuitive to you?
May 10th, 2007 at 1:10 amNo, I got it from the department of health and human services. Click the link.
May 10th, 2007 at 1:10 amSh!t, lets make it a 0% tax rate. Then we will have record tax revenue!!! Der.
May 10th, 2007 at 1:11 amI disagree. Let’s go back to a 90% tax rate, have the rich completely outsource their income, and collect less taxes than we do now at greater damage to our economy.
The tax cuts have raised revenue. Federal receips went from $1.8 trillion in 2003 to $2.4 trillion in 2006 after the tax cuts.
May 10th, 2007 at 1:15 amm12, you don’t really care about reality but here you go.
“Budget analysts inside and outside the government said the positive turn is likely to be short-lived.”
By the way, you are right. In real dollars some of the Reagan deficits were larger than Bush’s…barely. Nice to know we can trust the Republicans to screw our kids (no, not a Mark Foley reference but…)
May 10th, 2007 at 1:21 amNo, m12, the rebound from the recession has increased tax revenues. And that rebound is the slowest since WWII.
May 10th, 2007 at 1:22 amROFL! I wonder what fantasy planet you’re living on, when 30% growth in 3 years is slow.
May 10th, 2007 at 1:29 amROFL! I wonder what fantasy planet you’re living on, when 30% growth in 3 years is slow. Comment by m12 — May 10, 2007 @ 1:29 am
You should look up the AMT – that’s the *secret* tax increase that was used to raise revenues *child*.
May 10th, 2007 at 1:37 amThe tax cuts have raised revenue. Federal receips went from $1.8 trillion in 2003 to $2.4 trillion in 2006 after the tax cuts.
Comment by m12 — May 10, 2007 @ 1:15 am
You mean the 1.8, that had dropped from almost 2.1 billion in 2000? Is that the revenue you were referring to?
Is that the “new-math” you’re using?
May 10th, 2007 at 1:43 amI disagree. Let’s go back to a 90% tax rate, have the rich completely outsource their income, and collect less taxes than we do now at greater damage to our economy. Comment by m12 — May 10, 2007 @ 1:15 am
Well, if you have the same open flow of capital that we have now, then of course their money would leave the country – but that’s what’s already happening (happened) st*pid child! That’s why there are so few well paying manufacturing jobs, why salaries aren’t going up, but why wall street is going up. Companies and the wealthy are increasingly “international” in their incomes.
The tax cuts have raised revenue. Federal receips went from $1.8 trillion in 2003 to $2.4 trillion in 2006 after the tax cuts. Comment by m12 — May 10, 2007 @ 1:15 am
When Clinton took office, tax receipts were just over 1 trillion, when he left office 8 years later they were almost 2.1 trillion. Kind of makes Bush look like the “bush-league” by comparison… And just think *genius*, Clinton increased taxes at the beginning of his administration – and look at *his* increase in tax receipts! Sorry, but you’ve just been punked – punk!
May 10th, 2007 at 1:55 am“The tax cuts have raised revenue.”
No, actually, they haven’t, which is why you can’t find a single reputable economist who will claim that they have. The Bush administration itself has had to admit that the tax cuts will not pay for themselves. And now that we’re entering the slow part of the business cycle, matters are going to get worse.
May 10th, 2007 at 3:10 amHabeas Corpus Gone = Terrorists Win.
Martin Gifford.
May 10th, 2007 at 4:23 amI’m just glad that the next Democratic President will have dictatorial powers.
May 10th, 2007 at 6:38 amoutragious. Cowardly BS
Comment by Wayne — May 9, 2007 @ 8:47 pm
Did you miss this sentence?
“Skelton (D-MO), with the support of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), says he plans to bring a stand-alone habeas bill to the floor. ”
——–
This is why I blog here. The people here are more patriotic, intelligent, not party centric…. truly free thinkers.
Comment by JTitor — May 9, 2007 @ 11:38 pm
ROTFLMAO, Now that is fun-ny!
May 10th, 2007 at 9:29 am“Putting impeachment on the table without having sufficient support of some Republicans would be worse than a waste of time.”
This is entirely correct. The Republics are salivating at the prospect of the Democrats trying to impeach Bush. The minute it happens the Republics will start yelling about the Democrats trying to take over the Whitehouse by impeaching Bush/Chaney (can’t do one without the other). Until the smoking gun comes out of the closet, or the Republics start seeing their poll numbers in the 28% range, it will not be possible to impeach either Bush or Chaney. So, why attempt to do something that is bound to fail and will generate a lot of bad publicity for the Democrats when they are trying desperately to do something about Iraq? Bush will never be impeached. The smoking gun will cause Chaney to resign so Bush can appoint another Republican to take his place, and then Bush will resign. The Republics WILL NOT do anything that may allow the Democrats to take over the Whitehouse before 2009.
May 10th, 2007 at 9:59 amYou should look up the AMT – that’s the *secret* tax increase that was used to raise revenues *child*.
What’s so secret about the AMT? Bush never touched it; Clinton hiked the AMT rates back in 1993.
May 10th, 2007 at 11:34 amWhen Clinton took office, tax receipts were just over 1 trillion, when he left office 8 years later they were almost 2.1 trillion. Kind of makes Bush look like the “bush-league†by comparison… And just think *genius*, Clinton increased taxes at the beginning of his administration – and look at *his* increase in tax receipts! Sorry, but you’ve just been punked – punk!
Well, yeah, he did a good job with the internet’s emergence. But that’s not the historical norm.
The last great Democratic President, John Kennedy, said exactly the opposite.
“Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government.”
“It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now … Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”
“In today’s economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarges the federal deficit – why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues.”
May 10th, 2007 at 11:40 amWell, yeah, he did a good job with the internet’s emergence. But that’s not the historical norm. Comment by m12 — May 10, 2007 @ 11:40 am
You mean when Al Gore led the charge to “create” the internet first with his efforts in the Senate then as VP? And turn it from a government research into an open system for commerce?
The last great Democratic President, John Kennedy, said exactly the opposite. Comment by m12 — May 10, 2007 @ 11:40 am
The opposite of what? That taxes *can* increase economic growth? And do you mean the Kennedy that dropped the tax rates from the 90% level?
“Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government.†Comment by m12 — May 10, 2007 @ 11:40 am
That’s only true if capital is scarce, or additional capital would stimulate the economy by new corporate investments – neither of which is true in our current highly liquid capital environments. If you really want to compare the capital markets of the 1960s with the 21st century – you’re delusional.
“It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now … Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.†Comment by m12 — May 10, 2007 @ 11:40 am
Once again, tax rates were 90%, and the economic growth needed freed capital. Ironically these changes in taxation also resulted in the stagflation of the 1970s as the capital and lending markets were destabilized by the emergence of globalization.
“In today’s economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarges the federal deficit – why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues.â€
Comment by m12 — May 10, 2007 @ 11:40 am
Yeah, from 90%. The problem with you wingnuts is that you all still live in the 1950s and 1960s, and the ignorance and naivety of that generation. Catch up to the present – ignoramus.
May 10th, 2007 at 3:32 pm