Debate Redux
Some thoughts about the debate.
For starters - a lot of leftybloggers are carping about Bush's "Temper" - like he looked "angry". "Anger" is like "Hate", one of those terms Dems use to spin any disagreement, like the way Democrats have a hard time referring to right-wing talk radio without using the terms "anger", "hate", or "white male". Bush was animated last night.
Thank God.
A few conservative blogs have noted Kerry's dumb, condescending lines, "only three people in this room will have to worry about the tax hike over $200,000", and his crack about Dick Cheney being his own Subchapter S corporation. I commented on this a couple of times on the show today.
Remember when George H.W. Bush didn't know the price of milk? Kerry's line was worse. $200,000 is a nice comfortable income indeed - and by no means a sign of extravagant wealth. A working couple with two modestly-successful professionals can easily earn that. Kerry's remark oozed out-of-touch condescenscion.
And his crack about S-corp businesses is something that could only come from someone with no idea about how small business works. The S-corporation is the province of the small business owner - 70% of American corporations are subchapter S entities, which means that the corporation's taxes are filed as part of the owner's individual tax returns. It's vastly simpler than a C-Corporation; it's as good as it gets for the entrepreneur or the author or the modestly-successful freelancer.
And Kerry is completely clueless about that corner of American business. Clueless.
Suffice to say that if John Kerry "has a plan" for small business, it's a dumb one. If the man has no idea how real small business works - de rigeur for Democrats - then I'm dying to read it.
If it exists.
Posted by Mitch at
October 9, 2004 08:30 PM
| TrackBack
Bush started to make clear the Bush Doctrine, which is the key to real leadership in the War on Terror, not simply the action against Al Qaeda, which is a no-brainer. Good article on this in www.logictimes.com.
Posted by: Dan at October 9, 2004 10:27 PM$200,000 easily puts you in the top 5% of households, probably the top 2%. Not a smart thing to say from a political perspective, but probably accurate. A $200,000 household income isn't middle class.
Posted by: Dave at October 10, 2004 02:29 AMTell that to someone living in a non-rent controlled 1BR efficiency apt in NY.
Posted by: Gideon at October 10, 2004 12:38 PMKerry,
Posted by: lt at October 10, 2004 09:35 PMI hope God has 200K in my family's future, and we are working towards that goal. You are not the candidate for me. You are not the candidate for anyone with dreams. How dare you pit us against each other. Those people making 200K are our bosses, I hope they will be able to keep in business, and even expand. My husband is a personal trainer. Do you think he would rather have more Americans making 200K or less?
When I make $200,000, take more.
I'll be able to afford it.
And I'd rather make the payments myself, rather than fobbing the bill off on my daughter.
But that's just me.
Posted by: Jeff Fecke at October 11, 2004 05:21 PM"When I make $200,000, take more."
THey do! You pay the maximum tax rate; after deductions, and throwing in state taxes, you're burning through well over a third of your income.
In the meantime, the genuinely *wealthy* have bigger loopholes than anyone. See what Kerry paid in taxes last year - 12%? That's a MUCH lower rate than I paid. Me, single father and mid-level technical professional, paid a solid third more as a percentage of income than John Kerry. And you KNOW those loopholes won't change.
"I'll be able to afford it."
Yes, but that is hardly a valid basis for good tax policy.
"And I'd rather make the payments myself, rather than fobbing the bill off on my daughter.
But that's just me. "
Here's hoping.
I'd rather not fob a bill off on my kids, either. That's why we need to CUT SPENDING, not merely "cover the deficit", which is what's wrong with liberal and "moderate" tax policy; government doesn't need to be in the black, it needs to be *smaller*. When we spend more to keep government in the black, we keep ourselves in the red. You may "fob off" less government debt to your daughter, but you also hand over less of your own estate when you kack.
Hey, at least AFSCME will be happy.
Posted by: mitch at October 12, 2004 07:58 AMAs to some of the other comments - yes, 200K is a lot of money. I've certainly not come close to it. But a family with two mid-level managers, or a decent lawyer with a few years' experience and a high school teacher, or two really good systems analysts, or a couple of modestly successful management consultants can *easily* top 200K; it's not an especially ostentatious amount. Pretty comfy? You bet. Wealthy? Not by a long shot.
Posted by: mitch at October 12, 2004 08:03 AM