Comments on: Cheney Gives Troops Pep Talk In Tikrit

VP Tells G.I.s In Iraq That Extended Deployments Are "Vital To The Mission"

Add a Comment See all 117 Comments
by j-whitman May 10, 2007 3:16 PM EDT
mudrose,,,

Do you think Cheney told our troops how thankful they should be for the tax advantage ?? -- Many of them are now on thier 4th tour & thier families use food stampa & base food banks
Reply to this comment
by terrapin78 May 10, 2007 3:14 PM EDT
He should start off his discussion with:

"When I was a young man, I was too much of a pusssy to go to Vietnam....."
Posted by Terrapin78 at 11:54 AM : May 10, 2007
Reply to this comment
by jdubs63 May 10, 2007 3:11 PM EDT
Jimmibear and Mudrose go to my space and chat your ***. You think you know everything but you haven't a clue about RESPECT. Yes it is your medication time...
Reply to this comment
by mudrose-2009 May 10, 2007 3:08 PM EDT
Jimibear

If you and your spouse have a taxable income of $60,000 a year, you've had almost a 24 percent income tax cut since President Bush took office. (And ditto if your income was just $20,000.) Meanwhile, the folks who make $350,000 a year got a cut of only about 12.5 percent; those who make $1 million a year got an even smaller cut. Pre-Bush, the $1 million a year couple paid 33 times as much as the $60,000 couple; today they pay more than 38 times as much. The big picture: Overall, the biggest percentage cuts went to the poorest of the poor (those with incomes in the $10,000 range) and the next biggest to those making about $60,000. That's if you pay taxes only on ordinary income. But what about capital gains, dividends, and inheritance%u2014the cuts that supposedly skew the gains in favor of the rich? Well, let's throw all those changes in, and while we're at it let's include changes in the child-care tax credit, the earned income tax credit, the alternative minimum tax, and payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare. Here's what we get. The biggest percentage tax cut%u2014about 17.6 percent%u2014went to taxpayers with below-average incomes. After that, the size of the tax cut falls off as you move from the lower middle to the middle (12.6 percent) to the upper middle class (9.9 percent). It rises again slightly for the top quintile, but only to a little over 11 percent.
Reply to this comment
by mudrose-2009 May 10, 2007 3:04 PM EDT
Jimibear

If you and your spouse have a taxable income of $60,000 a year, you've had almost a 24 percent income tax cut since President Bush took office. (And ditto if your income was just $20,000.) Meanwhile, the folks who make $350,000 a year got a cut of only about 12.5 percent; those who make $1 million a year got an even smaller cut. Pre-Bush, the $1 million a year couple paid 33 times as much as the $60,000 couple; today they pay more than 38 times as much. The big picture: Overall, the biggest percentage cuts went to the poorest of the poor (those with incomes in the $10,000 range) and the next biggest to those making about $60,000. That's if you pay taxes only on ordinary income. But what about capital gains, dividends, and inheritance%u2014the cuts that supposedly skew the gains in favor of the rich? Well, let's throw all those changes in, and while we're at it let's include changes in the child-care tax credit, the earned income tax credit, the alternative minimum tax, and payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare. Here's what we get. The biggest percentage tax cut%u2014about 17.6 percent%u2014went to taxpayers with below-average incomes. After that, the size of the tax cut falls off as you move from the lower middle to the middle (12.6 percent) to the upper middle class (9.9 percent). It rises again slightly for the top quintile, but only to a little over 11 percent.
Reply to this comment
by mudrose-2009 May 10, 2007 3:01 PM EDT
Jimibear

If you and your spouse have a taxable income of $60,000 a year, you've had almost a 24 percent income tax cut since President Bush took office. (And ditto if your income was just $20,000.) Meanwhile, the folks who make $350,000 a year got a cut of only about 12.5 percent; those who make $1 million a year got an even smaller cut. Pre-Bush, the $1 million a year couple paid 33 times as much as the $60,000 couple; today they pay more than 38 times as much. The big picture: Overall, the biggest percentage cuts went to the poorest of the poor (those with incomes in the $10,000 range) and the next biggest to those making about $60,000. That's if you pay taxes only on ordinary income. But what about capital gains, dividends, and inheritance%u2014the cuts that supposedly skew the gains in favor of the rich? Well, let's throw all those changes in, and while we're at it let's include changes in the child-care tax credit, the earned income tax credit, the alternative minimum tax, and payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare. Here's what we get. The biggest percentage tax cut%u2014about 17.6 percent%u2014went to taxpayers with below-average incomes. After that, the size of the tax cut falls off as you move from the lower middle to the middle (12.6 percent) to the upper middle class (9.9 percent). It rises again slightly for the top quintile, but only to a little over 11 percent.
Reply to this comment
by terrapin78 May 10, 2007 2:54 PM EDT
He should start off his discussion with:

"When I was a young man, I was too much of a *** to go to Vietnam....."
Reply to this comment
by jimibear May 10, 2007 2:51 PM EDT
""THERE IS NO GOD, ONLY THE CLINTONS

I quit believing in god when my priest sexually abused me when I was a little boy.

THERE IS NO GOD, ONLY THE CLINTONS"

Posted by jimmibear at 11:43 AM : May 10, 2007
+ report abuse"

Your posting a total distortion of my position, along with a bunch of nonsensical, disassociated rubbish, shows that you have nothing to say to rebut.

Thank you for admitting so openly that you have lost the argument, whoever you are.
Reply to this comment
by pro-america May 10, 2007 2:51 PM EDT
FYI I would only do that if there was a Civil War.
Reply to this comment
by im4honesty May 10, 2007 2:51 PM EDT
This deserves a re-post.
-----------------------


As 'Church Lady' would say, "Isn't that special!"

The five-deferment coward who sent over 3300 of them to their death and another 25,000 to a life of disability gives the troops a 'PEP TALK'!!

I can hear it now, "C'mon guys... we gotta get out there and fight, fight, fight!! We're making progress, gas prices have passed the $4 mark in some places!! We have 'Middle Class America' on the run!! We still have a few allies left in the world... we must stop them!! The treasury has been completely looted, but we still have borrowing power, so let's get out there and create more no-bid contracts for Haliburton!!"
Posted by dallison7
Reply to this comment
by jimibear May 10, 2007 2:48 PM EDT
As for how Bush is dangerous:

Israeli intelligence (Mossad), who have every reason to want the war on terror won, have told the US government that the Iraq war has generated 10,000 new recruits for Al Qaeda alone, and that world-wide, because of Muslim fury at the invasion of a country uninvolved in 9/11 and the mass slaughter that has resulted, there are now about 5 times as many actively anti-American terrorists as there were.

This means that the Iraq war is making terror worse, and Bush and his administration know it. Just in the last year, terror attacks world-wide are up 25%. Yet Bush continues to insist that the Iraq war is the front line in the war on terror, and has sent large portions of the National Guard there, who would be a lot better off doing their correct duty at home patrolling our borders, ports and airports.

He is fighting a war which is increasing terror, while decreasing the resources available to protect us at home. In essence, this war is killing American troops while making the terror problem worse - a total waste of life and money.


Bush, however, in this as in many other areas, cannot admit he goofed, and insists on "staying the course" while the situation worsens. This is actually a form of insanity, and is one of the many ways in which he is a danger to the country.
Reply to this comment
by May 10, 2007 2:47 PM EDT
Noble that Vice President Cheney stopped by to encourage the troops - have breakfast and join in classified meetings. The purpose of why the troops are in Iraq is confusing. Reports indicate TO QUELL THE SECTARIAN VIOLENCE. If one determines the REAL SECTARIAN violence it is surprising that the description proves worthy of the results of the action. The Sectarian Violence does not relate to "insurgents killing Sunnis or ******" as might be supposed. The SV is Sunnis approaching the Christians [at the beginning there was approximately 800,000 living peacefully with Sunnis and ******] with instructions to either become a Muslim and pay a tax - or simply leave Iraq within 24 hours, allowing all possessions to remain, or---be killed. This is referred to as SECTARIAN CLEANSING. But, the picture described requiring the U.S. Military Presence is quite different. Sectarian violence is the problem - and according to Commanders and the President, it must be diminished greatly before any progress can be noted. Knowing what Sectarian Violence or Cleansing REALLY IS paints a confusing picture as to why U.S. is supposed to solve this problem when it lies strictly within the WEALTH DISTRIBUTION arena which is POLITICAL NOT MILITARY. Sunnis are fearful that the wealth distribution solution will permit Christians to participate and that is not an agreeable arrangement.
Reply to this comment
by pro-america May 10, 2007 2:46 PM EDT
jimibear: And FYI I do believe all liberals should die and I would hang them but I would not kill them I would take them down when they are almost dead then I would have there bowels cut out and burned and they would be alive during the procedure.
Reply to this comment
by jimmibear May 10, 2007 2:43 PM EDT
"THERE IS NO GOD, ONLY THE CLINTONS

I quit believing in god when my priest sexually abused me when I was a little boy.

THERE IS NO GOD, ONLY THE CLINTONS"
Reply to this comment
by jimmibear May 10, 2007 2:43 PM EDT
"THERE IS NO GOD, ONLY THE CLINTONS

I quit believing in god when my priest sexually abused me when I was a little boy.

THERE IS NO GOD, ONLY THE CLINTONS"
Reply to this comment
by jimmibear May 10, 2007 2:43 PM EDT
"THERE IS NO GOD, ONLY THE CLINTONS

I quit believing in god when my priest sexually abused me when I was a little boy.

THERE IS NO GOD, ONLY THE CLINTONS"
Reply to this comment
by jimmibear May 10, 2007 2:43 PM EDT
"THERE IS NO GOD, ONLY THE CLINTONS

I quit believing in god when my priest sexually abused me when I was a little boy.

THERE IS NO GOD, ONLY THE CLINTONS"
Reply to this comment
by jimmibear May 10, 2007 2:43 PM EDT
"THERE IS NO GOD, ONLY THE CLINTONS

I quit believing in god when my priest sexually abused me when I was a little boy.

THERE IS NO GOD, ONLY THE CLINTONS"
Reply to this comment
by jimmibear May 10, 2007 2:43 PM EDT
"THERE IS NO GOD, ONLY THE CLINTONS

I quit believing in god when my priest sexually abused me when I was a little boy.

THERE IS NO GOD, ONLY THE CLINTONS"
Reply to this comment
by jimmibear May 10, 2007 2:43 PM EDT
"THERE IS NO GOD, ONLY THE CLINTONS

I quit believing in god when my priest sexually abused me when I was a little boy.

THERE IS NO GOD, ONLY THE CLINTONS"
Reply to this comment
See all 117 Comments

Exclusive Webshow

Mike Huckabee on GOP "rock stars," 2012, health care reform and more. Watch Now

  • MOST POPULAR
Discussed
  1. Lambert: Offering No Apologies

    (443 recent comments)

Latest News
News in Pictures
Scroll Left Scroll Right
Connect with CBS News

Stay connected with the CBS News using your favorite social networks and online news applications: