You know, i just thought of something......

Remember how the Dems and their faithful followers were always saying that the Bush tax cuts were for the wealthy and that it didn't benefit the middle class? Then why are they making a big deal out of keeping the cuts for everyone making less than $250,000? I thought they didn't benefit those making less than that? Now they do?

Oh yeahhhhhhhhhhhh, i know! Awww, never mind.

It is just like when Clinton was in office and there was a huge debate about what to do with the "surplus" and he began the battle cry to "save Social Security" saying that the program was in dire straights. He was joined by the Democrats who made "save Social Security" a cause célèbre and spoke on it often.

Fast forward to the Bush administration. One of Bush's objectives had been to save Social Security and he even suggested something first envisioned by the Clinton Administration, allowing a person to take a portion of their Social Security (3% was the figure as I recall) and invest it themselves. Well of course the Democrats rose up in outrage saying there was absolutely nothing at all wrong with Social Security and it did not need "saving."

The hypocrisy is all the more breath taking when you see the written record of this massive flip-flop.

In fact, it just so happens I did a post on this a couple of years ago or so. And as luck would have it, I happen to have the text of that post as an illustration of the Democrats perfidy.

Here’s what some of them said back then:

"What should we do with this projected surplus? I have a simple four-word answer: Save Social Security first." - PRESIDENT CLINTON, COINING THE FAMOUS DEMOCRAT SLOGAN, STATE OF THE UNION, JAN. 27, 1998

"This fiscal crisis in Social Security affects every generation." - PRESIDENT CLINTON, SPEECH AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY, FEB. 9, 1998

"Every one of you know that the Social Security system is not sound for the long term."- PRESIDENT CLINTON, GEORGETOWN, FEB. 9, 1998

'All of these achievements - the economic achievements.. . our increasing efforts to reduce poverty among our youngest children - all of them are threatened by the looming fiscal crisis in Social Security." - PRESIDENT CLINTON, GEORGETOWN, FEB. 9, 1998

"[I]f you don't do anything, one of two things will happen. Either it will go broke and you won't ever get it, or if we wait too long to fix it, the burden on society ... of taking care of our generation's Social Security obligations will lower your income and lower your ability to take care of your children ... [It] would be horribly wrong and unfair to you and unfair to the future prospects of the United States." - PRESIDENT CLINTON, GEORGETOWN, FEB. 9, 1998

"Perhaps bur greatest opportunity and our greatest obligation at this moment is to save Social Security ... It would be unconscionable if we failed to act, and act now..." - PRESIDENT CLINTON, TOWN HALL MEETING, KANSAS CITY, APRIL 7, 1998

"Senators Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D, NY) and Robert Kerrey (D, NE) have introduced `The Social Security Solvency Act of 1998,' which would cut the Social Security payroll tax by 2 percent and allow workers to invest the tax cut in personal savings accounts." - PBS NEWSHOUR, Aug. 5, 1998

"Durbin said due to the increasing number of `baby boomers' reach¬ing retirement age, Social Security will be unable to pay out full ben¬efits ... but the sooner Congress acts to avert this crisis the easier and less painful it will be." - SEN. DICK DURBIN (D, IL), "REFORMING SOCIAL SECURITY," PRESS RELEASE, SEPT. 15, 1998

"Social Security faces a serious fiscal crisis ... Save Social Security first!" - VICE PRESIDENT GORE, WITH DICK GEPHARDT, TED KENNEDY, BARBARA BOXER, AND OTHER DEMOCRATS AT SOCIAL SECURITY (AND ANTI-TAX-CUT) RALLY ON CAPITOL STEPS, SEPT. 25, 1998

"[F]irst, and above all, we must save Social Security for the 21st century." - PRESIDENT CLINTON, STATE OF THE UNION, JAN. 19, 1999

"I propose that we use a little over 11 percent of the surplus to establish universal savings accounts - USA accounts - to give all Americans the means to save. With these new accounts, Americans can invest as they choose, and receive funds to match a portion of their savings, with extra help for those least able to save." - PRESIDENT CLINTON, STATE OF THE UNION, JAN. 19, 1999

"I am one Democrat that truly believes that Democrats will not benefit by doing nothing on Social Security." - REP. CHARLES RANGEL (D, NY), PRESS CONFERENCE, JAN. 21, 1999

"Fixing Social Security is an urgent priority." - SEN. BYRON DORGAN (D, ND), QUOTED IN ROLL CALL, DEC. 6, 1999

Yep, the Democrats were all in a lather about the impending doom of Social Security – that is until Bush got elected and decided to make good on what Clinton and the Democrats refused to seriously address. Then, they turned on a dime and launched an all out assault on Bush. Here’s what they said when Bush suggested that Social Security was indeed in trouble and needed to be fixed:

"We have no crisis." - SEN. HARRY REID (D, NV), ON ABC's "THIS WEEK WITH GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS," JAN. 16, 2005

"It seems that this Administration tries to make a crisis on any political problem. We've got a crisis in Social Security, in the funding and the financing which we don't." - SEN. TED KENNEDY (D, MA), ON CBS's "FACE THE NATION," JAN. 16, 2005

"Now we have the crisis in terms of the funding of Social Security that is non-existent ... All you have to do is raise the payroll tax on that and that would solve most of the kind of a problem that you'd have, other kinds of ways to dealing with it." - TED KENNEDY, "FACE THE NATION," JAN. 16, 2005

"Just as the President cried wolf to scare the nation into war in Iraq, he's trumping up a phony Social Security crisis in order to sell his private accounts." - REP. LYNN WOOLSEY (D, CA), QUOTED IN THE SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, FEB. 3, 2005

"Social Security is not in crisis, is not bankrupt, and is not collapsing." - SEN. BARBARA BOXER (D, CA), QUOTED IN THE SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, FEB. 11, 2005

"Social Security is not in crisis. It's not bankrupt. It's not about to be bankrupt." - SEN. JOHN KERRY (D, MA), AT A "FIX IT DON'T NIX IT" RALLY AT NEW YORK'S PACE UNIVERSITY WITH HILLARY CLINTON, REPORTED BY CBS NEWS, MARCH 4, 2005

"The so-called Social Security crisis exists in one place: the minds of Republicans. In reality, the program is on solid ground for decades to come." - SEN. HARRY REID, KNIGHT-RIDDER, MARCH 23, 2005

"First of all, understand Social Security is not in crisis. Health care is in crisis. Public education is in crisis. The environment's in crisis. The- staggering debt that this man [President Bush] has accumulated is in crisis. Social Security is not in crisis." - SEN. HARRY REID, QUOTED IN THE NEW YORK TIMES, APRIL 4, 2005

Yeah, real sincere people these Democrats.

Ain't it grand? Throw those flip-flops in with all the things they said pre-2001 about Iraq and Saddam. You'd swear it conservatives talking if you didn't see who said what and what party letter was behind the name.

Keeping in line with what i originally posted... look at this from Associated Press.......

TexasBlue wrote:Ain't it grand? Throw those flip-flops in with all the things they said pre-2001 about Iraq and Saddam. You'd swear it conservatives talking if you didn't see who said what and what party letter was behind the name.

Yep. I think I have some of those written down somewhere too....

AP Shocker: Bush Tax Cuts Didn't Just Help The Rich

Noel Sheppard
NewsBusters.com
Sept. 18, 2010

For almost ten years, the Bush tax cuts have been depicted by media as only helping rich people.

Now, with them set to expire, and a Democrat in the White House desperately needing a stronger economy to help him and his Party's political fortunes, the Associated Press is telling readers the truth with the following headline:

Expiring Tax Cuts Hit Taxpayers at Every Level

If you think that's amazing, wait until you see the contents:

A typical family of four with a household income of $50,000 a year would have to pay $2,900 more in taxes in 2011, according to a new analysis by Deloitte Tax LLP, a tax consulting firm. The same family making $100,000 a year would see its taxes rise by $4,500.

Wealthier families face even bigger tax hikes. A family of four making $500,000 a year would pay $10,800 more in taxes. The same family making $1 million a year would get a tax increase of $53,200.

The estimates are based on total household income, including wages, capital gains and qualified dividends. The estimated tax bills take into account typical deductions at each income level.

Okay, so putting this in reverse, doesn't that mean that when these tax cuts were first implemented - you know, when that awful Republican named George W. Bush was president! - a typical family of four with a household income of $50,000 a year saved $2,900 per annum as a result? And a family making $100,000 a year saved $4,500?

Gosh, that means these tax cuts weren't just for the rich as virtually every media outlet in America has been claiming since they were first proposed.

Makes you wonder how such organizations can stay in business when they do such a terrible job.

TexasBlue wrote:Keeping in line with what i originally posted... look at this from Associated Pres.......

look at what?

Noel Sheppard wrote:Makes you wonder how such organizations can stay in business when they do such a terrible job.

That's a nice way of saying that they were lying their asses off.

dblboggie wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:Keeping in line with what i originally posted... look at this from Associated Pres.......

look at what?

lol
You have to give me time to edit and post it.

TexasBlue wrote:AP Shocker: Bush Tax Cuts Didn't Just Help The Rich

Noel Sheppard
NewsBusters.com
Sept. 18, 2010

For almost ten years, the Bush tax cuts have been depicted by media as only helping rich people.

Now, with them set to expire, and a Democrat in the White House desperately needing a stronger economy to help him and his Party's political fortunes, the Associated Press is telling readers the truth with the following headline:

Expiring Tax Cuts Hit Taxpayers at Every Level

If you think that's amazing, wait until you see the contents:

A typical family of four with a household income of $50,000 a year would have to pay $2,900 more in taxes in 2011, according to a new analysis by Deloitte Tax LLP, a tax consulting firm. The same family making $100,000 a year would see its taxes rise by $4,500.

Wealthier families face even bigger tax hikes. A family of four making $500,000 a year would pay $10,800 more in taxes. The same family making $1 million a year would get a tax increase of $53,200.

The estimates are based on total household income, including wages, capital gains and qualified dividends. The estimated tax bills take into account typical deductions at each income level.

Okay, so putting this in reverse, doesn't that mean that when these tax cuts were first implemented - you know, when that awful Republican named George W. Bush was president! - a typical family of four with a household income of $50,000 a year saved $2,900 per annum as a result? And a family making $100,000 a year saved $4,500?

Gosh, that means these tax cuts weren't just for the rich as virtually every media outlet in America has been claiming since they were first proposed.

Makes you wonder how such organizations can stay in business when they do such a terrible job.

Who says they're staying in business? These news organizations are hemorrhaging money and have made steep cutbacks in personnel over the last decade. They are hurting badly as the alternative media are showing strong growth. Fox News Channel is raking in viewers that are fleeing CNN and MSNBC as well as mainstream broadcast TV news outlets.

As for the "tax cuts for the rich" rant that the mainstream media and congressional Democrats have been on for the last 8 years, well, what can I tell you. Anyone with an ounce of sense could have read the legislation and learned that these cuts were in fact across the board cuts for ALL Americans. Sadly, our population has been so betrayed by their educational system that many couldn't even read something like the EGTRRA or the JGTRRA. Hell, some of them can't read at all. And people wonder why Democrats like Obama, Pelosi and Reid could even be electable - people are so ignorant of basic politics, economics and business that they are easily mislead.

TexasBlue wrote:

dblboggie wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:Keeping in line with what i originally posted... look at this from Associated Pres.......

look at what?

lol
You have to give me time to edit and post it.

What fun would that be?

dblboggie wrote:Who says they're staying in business? These news organizations are hemorrhaging money and have made steep cutbacks in personnel over the last decade. They are hurting badly as the alternative media are showing strong growth. Fox News Channel is raking in viewers that are fleeing CNN and MSNBC as well as mainstream broadcast TV news outlets.

As for the "tax cuts for the rich" rant that the mainstream media and congressional Democrats have been on for the last 8 years, well, what can I tell you. Anyone with an ounce of sense could have read the legislation and learned that these cuts were in fact across the board cuts for ALL Americans. Sadly, our population has been so betrayed by their educational system that many couldn't even read something like the EGTRRA or the JGTRRA. Hell, some of them can't read at all. And people wonder why Democrats like Obama, Pelosi and Reid could even be electable - people are so ignorant of basic politics, economics and business that they are easily mislead.

You can't forget though.... Twerker was the only taxpayer in the USA that didn't get a tax cut. Bush had his number and his only.

dblboggie wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:

dblboggie wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:Keeping in line with what i originally posted... look at this from Associated Pres.......

look at what?

lol
You have to give me time to edit and post it.

What fun would that be?

Yeah, i know.

Btw, for all those lurkers reading this.... by saying i was editing my post of a story... that means dressing it up so it doesn't look crappy, not changing the contents.

I could see that coming back in the future as meaning something entirely different.

TexasBlue wrote:

dblboggie wrote:Who says they're staying in business? These news organizations are hemorrhaging money and have made steep cutbacks in personnel over the last decade. They are hurting badly as the alternative media are showing strong growth. Fox News Channel is raking in viewers that are fleeing CNN and MSNBC as well as mainstream broadcast TV news outlets.

As for the "tax cuts for the rich" rant that the mainstream media and congressional Democrats have been on for the last 8 years, well, what can I tell you. Anyone with an ounce of sense could have read the legislation and learned that these cuts were in fact across the board cuts for ALL Americans. Sadly, our population has been so betrayed by their educational system that many couldn't even read something like the EGTRRA or the JGTRRA. Hell, some of them can't read at all. And people wonder why Democrats like Obama, Pelosi and Reid could even be electable - people are so ignorant of basic politics, economics and business that they are easily mislead.

You can't forget though.... Twerker was the only taxpayer in the USA that didn't get a tax cut. Bush had his number and his only.

Yeah... and this guy had the balls to suggest I get an education...

MDanel is dismantling this waste of air next door as I type...

PS: I will be referring to SP as being "next door" to us here at SPol.

dblboggie wrote: Yeah... and this guy had the balls to suggest I get an education...

Yeah, that's funny!

dblboggie wrote:MDanel is dismantling this waste of air next door as I type...

Ooo. Gonna have to go read. I like his way of making his point known.

dblboggie wrote:PS: I will be referring to SP as being "next door" to us here at SPol.

Yeah, probably a good idea because we're both SP's when you get down to it.

Careful guys... You don't want me to invite more liberals in here, do you? I've been following that thread, and if Twerker said he didn't get a tax-cut then nobody has a right to say he did.

i_luv_miley wrote:Careful guys... You don't want me to invite more liberals in here, do you?

Bring em on over. The more the merrier.

i_luv_miley wrote:I've been following that thread, and if Twerker said he didn't get a tax-cut then nobody has a right to say he did.

But you can't dispute what Dbl and MDanel sid. They picked him apart. If he made a wage, he got a tax cut. Even the AP was talking about it (finally). The only ones who didn't get one is those who never paid taxes. He paid taxes. He's a business owner and he got a tax cut.

I've just made a post in that "Income growth rates" thread to give some backup to MDanel... I think you will find it highly amusing...

i_luv_miley wrote:Careful guys... You don't want me to invite more liberals in here, do you? I've been following that thread, and if Twerker said he didn't get a tax-cut then nobody has a right to say he did.