Of course not........

"The article noted, however, that Democrats do not support Bush's call to cut taxes in conjunction with raising the minimum wage".

***********************

The Democrats never met a tax they wanted to cut. Bush deserved the slap he received at the ballot box last year, no doubt about that. But a Democrat controlled anything has me inherently nervous, automatic reflex.

Memo to country > Watch your wallet.

Take a look at the numbers...

Your 'gut' response to Bush's tax cuts, I believe, are unfounded.

[link to www.ctj.org]

Who benefits the most? This is the issue. Not that tax cuts are bad...but, who benefits the most. The policy should be equitable for all, not just the uber rich.

it's just tommy stirring it up again

do feed the trolls :)

Write something with a little substance

Maybe you should just respond to what he said and quit the personal attacks. That would be refreshing for a change.

Good TD

Go for the low-hanging fruit of ZeroSum's snark, so you don't have to face the substance of Greekfurnace's argument.

(somehow, referring to people by their commenter names takes all the seriousness out of any point...)

THE TRUTH DETECTOR...Not!

Your Log Name Should Be THE LIE MACHINE...

Because most of your statements are not consistent with real world reality. EXAMPLES:

FIRST: You were not a Truth Detector when you posted that CNN -- ("CNN doesn't have a single conservative who works there.") Hey, all you have to do is watch the Situation Room and other shows where they have both staff and invited guests for both sides. Republican William (Bill) Bennett works there. He is known for putting forth loads of false information and wild comments like this one. September 28, 2005, comment on his radio show that ("If it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime ... you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down.")

THEN: You said ("Beck is on Headline News") Well I have some Headline News for you Truth. CNN is CNN is CNN. It's all the same News Company. Beck works for them. Plus Beck gets lots of promotion and invites to other Network shows.

You were correct on this one! ("Fox News at least tries to be fair and balanced.") Yes They TRY, but they fall far short of being Fair & Balanced. I think you must know this. Most everyone else knows it. Truth, your not being truthful. Shame on you for supporting Fox News as being Fair & Balanced.

It really looks to me that when a news outlet speaks the truth you label it Liberal Media Bias. Reporting the truth isn't being biased.

Such as Blitzer, Dobbs and Olberman. Media Matters has exposed false info at both CNN and MSNBC when they have supported Conservative false info. You said MMFA just goes after Fox.

Wolf gets both sides out. Lou is a defender of us Middle Class Citizens which is most Americans. He never called Republicans evil and he was very correct (as verified by the election)with his remarks about Republicans AND DEMS. He blasts BOTH parties and he's very truthful. Does that mean he's Liberal? No. He's just telling the truth and trying to support the middle class and seniors.

If your not for giving seniors better health and drug legislation, that’s fine, but please don’t label AARP a Liberal too. AARP puts out info that says we Now Have a new Congress that will be more favorable concerning legislation for Seniors. Does that mean AARP is Liberal? No, they are just telling the truth.

How is telling the Truth a Bias?

Keith's views are also truthful. When Bush told us that he is the DECIDER, and does not care what our Generals, our Voters and prominent experts are calling for.....Well now isn't that sort of like a Dictator? Yes it is. That's why Olbermann invoked the name Hitler. I admit it's not nice, but it is the Truth. Against everyones advice, Bush is going to ratchet up his war and more of our troops will die. I never heard Keith say that. I guess you did?

Then you stated what I consider to be a very weak truth.....Quote: - ("Colmes is as liberal as they come.")

THE TRUTH IS; - Alan Colmes is the Fox News resident Liberal Fall Guy. That cancels out everything else. He falls down on just about every single point he should be making. Alan is a big time Wimp and Hannity's a junk yard dog, a school yard bully. Alan is so weak, that it makes me think he's been hired by Fox to take a beating from Hannity everyday.

Yes Alan is a Liberal but........If Fox really cared about allowing Democratic ideas to be on this show, then Fox News would fire Alan Colmes and hire a Democratic person who would be taking Hannity to the wood shed for a good tongue lashing.

A person like a Paul Begala at CNN, would make Hannity look like the Conservative false information idiot I truly believe he is.

Truth Detector, you show me one person who believes Fox News is Fair and Balanced and I'll show you one person who has a serious mental problem. I find it very amusing when you and Fox defend such an obviously unbalanced and unfair Fox News.

I'm very curious, are you and Tommy some kind of a Conservative Tag Team? You both seem to be working as a Team and support each other? Although unlike you, I tend to agree with a lot of what Tommy says.

Be sure to have a nice Christmas.

Yes....and, by the way, watch this country's surplus

become a deficit of epic proportions thanks to the CURRENT administration...

and repubs never met a deficit they could not make

a profit from in order to "f*** up Grandma Tillie". Nothing quite so sweet as letting industries write their own tax laws instead of those congress-critters getting off their georges and doing their jobs.

Your memo's a joke.

>>"Memo to country > Watch your wallet"<<

Your oh-so-concerned "memo" is six years, 200 billion dollars, and a corrupt, pork-laden Republican controlled-Congress too late.

Watching our wallets and looking out for our kids in Iraq is why your coveted right-wingers are out on the sorry a$$es right now.

That's right Tommy

They want to send the minimum wage bill all by it's lonesome self to the President and have him sign it or veto it with absolutely nothing else attached to it.

You and your wallet will be just fine.

I'd like to hear MORE...

about the advantages of a tax cut for business. PERHAPS Bush is correct in wanting to link the hike in the minimum wage to the cut in taxes.

I'd ALSO be VERY curious WHY the Democrats aren't interested....

The advantages of a tax cut arent relevant to the issue

Washington Post said Bush supported the Dem proposal. He doesnt. As for why Dems are against it off the top of my head it might be Bush's track record of proposing tax cuts that overwhelmingly benifit the wealthy, or perhaps its that pesky GARGANTUAN DEBT. Bush has doubled the national debt in the last six years. I guess you would have to research it but those two reasons right off the bat would give me pause and a gut check when Bush starts talking about a tax cut.

Interesting article...

...I came across. It's a little dated now (1 1/2 mos)...but, it does a good job of highlighting the hipocrisy on both sides when it comes to tax policy.

[link to money.cnn.com]

oops...

'hypocrisy' is more like it...

ha has a good point about the SBA

it needs heavy reform to make it what it was meant to be. As to the single-payer plan here in Ca he was speaking of he got it a bit wrong. yes it would have operated as a payroll tax hike, but it would have been offset by the elimination of private insurance fees from both the employer and the worker. So he was bit off on that. Now that seems much closer to something like 'fair' to both sides to me.

MMFA splitting hairs, this is common in washington

Congress wants X, but says ill give you X but I also want you to add Y to it. He uses his leverage and this way both parties claim a victory in the end. So YES Bush DOES support the dem wage increase but he is tacking on his own thing for political and economical reasons. mmfa must be having a slow day

PS - you guys at MMFA never posted my tip about oreilly, first he said on the radio we should get out of iraq and that he didnt care if they all killed eachother, THEN when the repub senator came on he challenged him that it wasnt responsible to leave and let them fight it out. Make this a posting, have some decency and give me credit.

Still not reading for comprehension, I see.

"So YES Bush DOES support the dem wage increase but he is tacking on his own thing for political and economical reasons. mmfa must be having a slow day"

-----

Which means what he supports is not the Democratic proposal.

Better a slow day than a slow life.

The meat of the coconut

- Democrats have pledged to reinstate budget rules that would require that any tax cut be offset by equivalent tax increases or spending cuts. - Post

Judging congress from past performances ,democrat or republican, you can damn well forget any spending cuts. That leaves the democrats in the laughable position of cutting taxes...as long as we raise taxes.

How can they possibly oppose that?

"Democrats and their supporters in organized labor responded warily to Bush's proposal to link a minimum wage hike to tax breaks for business"

Why? The tax breaks that Bush is proposing are only for small businesses. I'm talking about businesses with 500 or fewer employees. Businesses like Wal-Mart and Target won't get any tax breaks. Why wouldn't the Democrats want to give small businesses tax breaks? Aren't the Democrats supposed to be looking out for the little guy?

Re: How can they possibly oppose that?

-They are helping out small businesses by putting money in the hands of low income workers who will spend the money at these businesses.

-To run the country, Bush is robbing the SS fund blind and we are borrowing money (which we have to pay back with interest) from the likes of Saudi Arabia and China and you guys want to continue this dependence by cutting more taxes. Are you insane?

Maybe small businesses need to be redefined

as those employing less than 100 people rather than 500. I work for a company that is under the 500 threshold, a $2.00 raise in minimum wage will not flood our business with customers, however the regional furniture chain (probably less than 100 employees) will see benefits, while the $2.00 raise will more than likely have an impact on their expenses. Large chain retailers can absorb the added costs much easier than the Mom/Pop business (or small chain). Don't see a problem with some government help here, as these businesses probably pay in the lower tax brackets anyway, if they pay taxes at all. Will have a minor impact on the government revenues and may even be an enhancement as $2.00 raise will create some more taxpayers.

Still waiting

Small businesses have always been defined as being 500 or fewer employees, and I don't think that will change any time soon. That doesn't seem like a real small number to me. It eliminates the giants like Wal-Mart and Target.

Also, nobody has explained why the Democrats oppose tax breaks for small businesses. I'm still waiting for someone to do that.

How about a national debt of

$8,621,392,803,715 that is $28,687 PER CITIZEN and growing by $1.37 billion per day since September 29, 2006!

Dems don't care about deficits

Democrats and liberals have never cared about the deficit or the national debt. Your argument is ridiculous. You want to spend hundreds of billions more on social programs, and if liberals were running the country, the deficit and the national debt would be in the stratosphere. You simply use the deficit as an issue to bash Republicans with. Democrats have never been fiscally responsible. To imply that they have is absolutely ludicrous. They're huge spenders who don't give a rat's a*s about the deficit, except when it benefits them politically.

Also, we're talking about tax cuts that are in the millions of dollars. That's like pocket change for the government. We have about a 175 billion dollar deficit right now, and a few million more dollars is meaningless. We're talking about tax breaks for SMALL BUSINESSES. The overall cost of the tax cut will be almost nothing. I can understand why you oppose tax cuts for those making over $200,000 per year. But we're talking about lower and middle income people here. Why don't you just admit that you don't want ANYBODY to get tax cuts? You would at least be telling the truth then.

If real liberals were in charge

We'd cut the insane defense budget and end the American Empire, saving hundreds of billions annually. We'd put that money towards paying off the federal debt, which when paid off would yield another 3 to 4 hundred billion in usable revenue. We'd use that money to invest in infrastructure, stimulating trade. We'd stop the corporate handouts, saving even more hundreds of billions and we'd transfer most programs back to the States where they belong, with corresponding tax cuts to allow them to pay for it.

Just how would this bankrupt America? The conservatives and those who worship the stauts quo are the ones who have run up a massive debt and can't stop spending like drunken sailors.

Correction

"The conservatives and those who worship the stauts quo are the ones who have run up a massive debt and can't stop spending like drunken sailors."

Not quite. It should read like this: The conservatives and those who worship the stauts quo are the ones who have run up a massive debt and can't stop spending like drunken DEMOCRATS! You say that the liberals no longer act like real liberals, but the same is true for conservatives. Conservatives no longer act like real conservatives! They've been spending money like liberal Democrats and running up the deficit and the national debt. They haven't been "conservative" at all. They've been acting like a bunch of big government Democrats.

So your point is that

A criticism isnt accurate unless it includes a slam against Democrats? That would have to be because republicans are morons whether they are drunk or not.

You live in a world of total delusion

You just claim that Dems are irresponsible fiscally and would have a larger budget deficit, I seem to remember the LAST Dem president BALANCED THE BUDGET. I absolutly care about deficits and always have once they got big enough that the service on the debt began to be a significant cost. You really think that facts and reality mean NOTHING, and your delusions are what define reality. You are so totally brainwashed that you NEVER know what you are talking about and are constantly wrong. Its like talking to someone from an alternate reality. Here is a clue. That inane nonsense you keep making up in your head then talking about, its IMAGINARY. It doesnt represent reality and wishing it did wont make it do so anymore than wishing really would bring Tinkerbell back to life. TINKERBELL DOESNT EXIST and neither does your world of complete delusion.

We have a balanced Budget cons say that means we should cut taxes, we have a deficit, cons say that means we should cut taxes. We are in a record expansion that means we should cut taxes we are in a recession that means we should cut taxes and if we get a headcold THAT means we should cut taxes. This specific tax cut could be sold to me. I am not specifically against this one. You question is why WOULD they be against it well the record national debt that Bush has advanced to an unprecedented degree MIGHT be a reason. Pass the minimum wage increase. THEN lets talk about THIS tax cut, I could perhaps be convinced.

Wal Mart gets enough tax breaks

Whenever Wal Mart wants to put in a new store, it always wheedles a fat tax concession out of the local government. It's one of the biggest abusers of the practice.

" Targeted tax and regulatory relief " ???

Tax relief for who? And how can zero regulatory oversight require "relief" ??

I've been monitoring Bush's changes since the midterms and I don't recall him explicitly or implicitly supporting or criticizing Democrats proposed minimum wage hike. How much leverage does he think he has left? As for small businesses, when he shown any concern for them? Small businesses don't have the kind money to make donations to the Republican Party that would encourage his support. Yes, give them some sort of tax package to encourage them to expand and create jobs. But, if he's talking about more tax cuts for the super rich, FORGET IT! Instead of crying about the "cost" to small businesses how about a little forward thinking about the additional tax revenues generated by high wages? How about the influx to the Social Security Trust Fund? How about all the extra money the increase will put in the hands of actual consumers who will put money into the mainstream economy? How about doing the right thing for a change Mr. President?

A Lot

"How much leverage does he think he has left?"

Well, he's still President of the United States, so he has quite a bit. He can veto any bills that he doesn't like. It takes a 2/3 vote to override a veto, so Bush still has a lot of leverage. Also, like I've said, Bush isn't advocating the so called "tax cuts for the rich." The tax cuts that he is advocating are for small businesses. Republicans want to cut taxes for everybody, and small businesses are high on their list. Stats show that Republicans actually get more lower and middle income people to contribute to their campaigns then Democrats do. The Democrats mainly get money from the super rich like George Soros.

"The Democrats mainly get money from the super rich like George Soros"

Nice straw man, TD. Problem is, George Soros finds it criminal to give tax breaks to people in his economic bracket. Stats show Republicans get more from lower and middle income? Oh, that's right, you guys like to call labor donations "special interest" money, despite its origin, simply b/c it is pooled before being given to dems. PS: small business owners are 'rich', at least when compared to the average American. You make "small business" sound like a bum selling magazine subscriptions in order to eat. No, small business does not equate with great wealth, but they aren't bad off either. The only people taxing them hard are the insurance companies . . . ie, market forces that profit on DENYING the services they are paid to provide. Yay capitalism!

Soros

"George Soros finds it criminal to give tax breaks to people in his economic bracket"

That's because all of his money is overseas where it can't be taxed. He's the biggest hypocrite in the world. Also here's what I was talking about with the donation thing.

Washington Times Op-Ed: The Richest 1%

Dateline: December 18, 2002 Headline: The richest 1 percent Byline: The Washington Times

So much for Republicans being the party of the wealthy. According to a new study by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, that moniker more appropriately belongs to the Democrats. "Republicans raised more than Democrats from individuals who contributed small and medium amounts of money during the 2002 election cycle," the report notes, "but Democrats far outpaced Republicans among deep-pocketed givers." Among donors who gave more than $200 but less than $1,000, Republicans enjoyed a substantial $68 million to $44 million edge over Democrats. The margin was closer among those individuals who gave $1,000 or more: The GOP took in $317 million, compared to the Democrats' $307 million.

But among the fabulously wealthy, the Democrats cleaned house. Donors of $10,000 or more gave $140 million to Democrats, while only $111 million went to Republicans. Among those individuals who gave $100,000 or more, the Democrats raised $72 million compared to the Republicans' $34 million. And when it comes to the millionaires' club - those kicking in $1 million or more - the Democratic Party skunked the GOP, $36 million to $3 million. Needless to say, despite the near-parity in overall amounts - $384 million to the Republicans vs. $350 million to the Democrats - the number of individual donors to the GOP exceeded those to the Democratic Party by more than 40 percent.

stats . . .

so i guess what you are saying is that Democrats are more successful than Republicans? Or maybe it is that successful Democrats are more likely to support Democrat causes than successful Republicans are to support Republican causes . . . or, maybe successful Republicans have started to donate to democrats because of the mess made by the current administration on a whole host of issues . . . Hmmm. . . What is the scenario that makes you guys look good again?

P.S.

I have several friend that own small businesses. . .guess what? they are not complaining about federal taxes (local property taxes are a different story, however . . . ). What they do complain about is health insureres who have essentially raped them since Bush took office. One relative's contributions to his employees health benifits has increased 60% since 2000. Why? lawyers? Nope - this isn't malpractice insurance, and as a percentage of total health care costs, those associated with legal issues - lawsuits and the like, have held at a constant percentage of the total cost for nearly two decades. The Robber Barons whose asses your party has its collective lips attached to are turning around and exploiting the small businesses you say the Republicans support. Maybe your base does, but your leaders certainly haven't made that the Republican stance in D.C.

They're vampires

And it's those same insurance companies who bribe the politicians to keep us from having universal heath care coverage....which would be cheaper and would help out every business in the land but them and their insane profit-mongering on the backs of the ill and elderly.

I equate health insurance companies to wolves...they prey on the old, the weak, the sick, and the dying.

The Democrats are just so generous

$7.25 an hour??? Wow!!! We'll all be rich!!!

Those are still poverty wages that can barely keep a single person in the necessities of food, home, and transportation. While the gap between the rich and the poor keeps widening, with most Americans already living in or near poverty, with our jobs disappearing at alarming rates in a corporate culture based on pure greed, it's so wonderful to see that the Democrats care about us so much that they'd give us starvation wages.

Most of the wages around here are already $7.50 to $8.50 for the basic workers. This is a really an empty gesture to those of us toiling in the trenches.

there's always a catch

Bush: we'll give your long-suffering average Joes a raise, but only if you give one to our wealthy benefactors... oh yeah, and Congress wants a raise, even though many of them won't give one to the very people they represent... ptoooey!