I'm pledging I will not raise taxes; I'm giving a tax cut to the people earning less than $200,000 a year.
Now, for the people earning more than $200,000 a year, you're going to see a rollback to the level we were at with Bill Clinton, when people made a lot of money.
And looking around here, at this group here, I suspect there are only three people here who are going to be affected: the president, me, and, Charlie, I'm sorry, you too.
Emphasis added.
As I've said before, the economy was good under Clinton because of borrowed wealth. IT, and as I've recently learned, Telcom companies were under major pressure to fix the Y2K problem, they poured BILLIONS into the industry's and artificially inflated the value that these professionals bring to the workplace. Yep, we IT folks are overpaid, and the depression we suffered was a direct reflection of over stimulation in a specific field (not to mention 9/11). The .com bust was a precursor to the bigger problem.
If we had a cattle herding problem that was destined to completely wipe out beef by January, 01 of 2008, you'd see companies paying top dollar for the best cattle herdsmen in the country, training centers would spring up all over the place, and the next HOT market for jobs would be cattle herding. Pretty soon, books, TV shows, Movies, all based on cattle herding would be everywhere.
Senator Kerry (sKerry) seems to think that short term economic bolsters, followed by recession, is a good thing. Perhaps, by his logic, we should artificially over inflate some industry and reap the short term benefits?
Now, regarding the emphasized quote, how condescending can a person be? What an elitist f'n guy he is. What a jerk. Seriously.
When I looked at the audience, which I sure did after that line, I saw plenty of people that might make $200,000 on their own, let alone cumulative with their spouses income.
We have this guy, who wants to be President of the United States of America. He makes his candidacy about his service in Vietnam. There are questions raised about his service, and he says that you call him unpatriotic when you question his service. (but, he backs a full investigation into his opponent's service records, while his opponent makes no such request or demand) After enough questions he admits that his FIRST purple heart might have been self inflicted. Would an embellishment in a military record to gain a medal to remove your from the battle field warrant an internal investigation? Prosecution?
A Kerry campaign official, speaking on background, told The Washington Times yesterday that the "we" in the passage from Mr. Kerry's journal refers to "the crew on Kerry's first swift boat, operating as a crew" rather than Mr. Kerry himself.
"John Kerry didn't yet have his own boat or crew on December 2," according to the aide. "Other members of the crew had been in Vietnam for some time and had been shot at and Kerry knew that at the time. However, the crew had not yet been fired on while they served together on PCF 44 under Lieutenant Kerry."
Mr. Kerry's campaign could not say definitively whether he did receive enemy fire that day.
Here's an excerpt from a good Op/Edon the topic.
Kerry won his first Purple Heart for a combat engagement that took place at least a week before his own journal says he first faced enemy fire. Yet his campaign said the medal was for a "combat-related injury."
The campaign now concedes the wound may have been self-inflicted, suffered when he exploded a grenade too close to shore.
I have not seen the same kind of evidence laid out about Bush. I've heard of mysterious dealings with the Saudi's, a possibility that he didn't show up for some Guard duty (and if Bush tried to run on his military career, I'd be interested), that he's manipulating gas prices both ways, that he's somehow responsible for the complete mess in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that he's going to starve everyone who's not earning $200,000 a year... or something like that...
I have the capability to see an actual explanation for Afghanistan (which seems to be doing pretty well for a country with a total approximate population of 26 million). If the United States were only populated by 26 million people who had a barbaric rule of law enforced, with little education, little resources, and little desire to change, we would be unable to create infrastructure, build wealth, build industry, or improve conditions. We would live in rock homes, and everything we made, built, or grew, would be taken from us on a whim. We would live in fear of the people with the weapons, and the limited news we heard would shape our minds.
The Terrorist want one thing. They believe in their holy book to the highest detail. Part of that book states that it is okay to kill someone you can not convert. They believe that if you will not convert, then you should die. They believe that Heaven holds great happiness and wealth for them if they kill those who will not convert. Who would not give EVERYTHING for a shot at a good afterlife when your current life SUCKS SO BAD. You LIVE IN A ROCK HUT!!!
They want anyone who will not live by Islamic law to die. They have openly stated that they will not stop killing until there is no religion but Islam. They want us to fail in Iraq because democracy does not allow for the level of control you need to have over a population to keep your barbaric rule of law. With democracy, you can not force women to be covered, or not work, or only go out in public with men. Democracy nearly demands fair treatment of all individuals regardless of their habits, as we have seen from San Francisco so recently.
You have to be hapless, or reckless not to see the threat. They will not stop until they have defeated our way of life.
There was not specific connection between Saddam and 9/11... but as President Bush said after 9/11, this war is not just about Osama Bin Laden... It's about ALL Terrorist and any state that harbors them. If we keep them on the run, they will have a harder time organizing to carry out a plot against us. Saddam harbored and paid for Terrorism. Period, end of story. sEdwards asked the Vice President:
EDWARDS: Well, the vice president talks about there being a member, or someone associated with Al Qaida, in Iraq. There are 60 countries who have members of Al Qaida in them. How many of those countries are we going to invade?
I say, like the President, after 9/11, "you're either with us, or against us. We will go into any nation that harbors or supports Terrorism. We will wipe out their bases, we will seize their assets, we will find them and their sources, and we will bring them to justice."