Vice Presidential Debate

[deep]

nice dodge boys


Cheney was lobbying to do business with "The Axis of Evil" in 2000

and Cheney refers to Kerry votes in the 1980s?


no wonder these sad sacks are sinking in the polls

keep the blinders on.

 

[joyfulgirl]

And if you get hung up on taking a sarcastic remark as a life-or-death true/false statement, you know there are better ways to spend your time.

Oh c'mon, it was hardly a meaningless little sarcastic remark. He was making a pretty big point and, turns out, it wasn't true. Whether he deliberately lied or just didn't remember meeting him, we don't know. But the fact is, he made a nasty point and it was simply false.

And Senator, frankly, you have a record in the Senate that's not very distinguished. You've missed 33 out of 36 meetings in the Judiciary Committee, almost 70 percent of the meetings of the Intelligence Committee.

You've missed a lot of key votes: on tax policy, on energy, on Medicare reform.

Your hometown newspaper has taken to calling you "Senator Gone." You've got one of the worst attendance records in the United States Senate.

Now, in my capacity as vice president, I am the president of Senate, the presiding officer. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session.

The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight.

 

[nbcrusader]

Cheney already made his point. It was a nice little dig at the end.

I can't believe people are getting bunched up over the "first time meeting" comment and completely ignore:

And Senator, frankly, you have a record in the Senate that's not very distinguished. You've missed 33 out of 36 meetings in the Judiciary Committee, almost 70 percent of the meetings of the Intelligence Committee.

Maybe it is the hair......

 

[Flying FuManchu]

Its alright... John Edwards is good looking and Cheney is an ugly old man so Edwards missing all those meetings is acceptable. Besides... Cheney LIED about meeting Edwards... lets focus on that...

As for nasty remarks... LOL... I'm sure the Democrats including Kerry and Edwards have had their fair share of nastiness.

 

[deep]

You've missed 33 out of 36 meetings in the Judiciary Committee

perhaps you have not been paying attention

orin hatch runs it in such an unorthodoxed partisan way that democrates participation is insignificant.

he brings up multiple appointees for questioning, not done bt previous chairs

cuts off questioning

and then we have recess appointments of cross - burning sympathisers who have not even cleared the commitee.

 

[DrTeeth]

I'm not ignoring it, I just don't know how things in the US Senate work.

 

[DaveC]

Wow, the Bushies are getting defensive...

You can't possibly, in the real world of humanity, believe that the Bush administration has NEVER, EVER, NOT ONCE, lied about anything. That's fucking irrational and is just simply 100% denial.

 

[deep]

that was addressed to my fellow newport beach resident.



btw,

they used to work in a more bi-partsan way.

the GOP majority party has fallen in behind the Whitehouse, so much for the concept of checks and balances

that is one branch of the government, checking the other.

 

[deep]

Wow, the Bushies are getting defensive...

your sig


is making them

**** themselves.

 

[sharky]

Ah, the Haliburton word. All you need are a few more buzz words like "big business," "tax cuts for the wealthy," "executive bonuses," and "corporate greed" and I think you have DNC Bingo!

Buzz words eh? Did you know that the words used most often by Bush and Cheney in these debates included "freedom" "terror" and "attack"? Corporate greed is accurate -- last year, over 50% of corporations did NOT pay taxes. But who cares! "terror terror terror"

 

[nbcrusader]

Corporate greed is accurate -- last year, over 50% of corporations did NOT pay taxes.

You can draw that conclusion based on that one loosely stated statistic?

 

[nbcrusader]

Wow, the Bushies are getting defensive...

Who's getting bunched up over a sarcastic remark?

 

[sharky]

You can draw that conclusion based on that one loosely stated statistic?

I admit, I misspoke. The number was from 1996 to 2000. From the Wall St. Journal story on April 6:

WASHINGTON -- More than 60% of U.S. corporations didn't pay any federal taxes for 1996 through 2000, years when the economy boomed and corporate profits soared, the investigative arm of Congress reported.

The disclosures from the General Accounting Office are certain to fuel the debate over corporate tax payments in the presidential campaign. Corporate tax receipts have shrunk markedly as a share of overall federal revenue in recent years, and were particularly depressed when the economy soured. By 2003, they had fallen to just 7.4% of overall federal receipts, the lowest rate since 1983, and the second-lowest rate since 1934, federal budget officials say.
...
The report examined a sample of tax information for the years 1996 through 2000; for 2000, it covered about 2.1 million returns filed by U.S.-controlled corporations and 69,000 filed by foreign-controlled corporations. It showed that big companies -- defined as those with at least $250 million in assets or $50 million in gross receipts -- were more likely to pay taxes than smaller ones. Still, the GAO said 45.3% of large U.S.-controlled companies and 37.5% of large foreign-controlled companies had no tax liability in 2000. More than 35% paid less than 5% of their income.

The basic federal corporate-tax rate for big corporations is 35%. But the federal tax code also offers many credits and loopholes that allow many companies to pay far less than that.

Despite the rising rate of tax avoidance among corporations, collections from the federal corporate income tax rose to more than $200 billion in 2000, from $171 billion in 1996. But over the next three years they fell each year, reaching $131.8 billion in 2003 -- the lowest annual total since 1993. They are projected to reach $168.7 billion this year.

 

[nbcrusader]

The key to these statistics are the credits and "loopholes" in the tax code. The items, which either reduce taxable income or reduce tax liability, are inserted to encourage certain behaviors by taxpayers.

Usually, they result in the intended benefit for which they were created. So, for every dollar not paid in taxes, that amount, more is going to some benefit encouraged by the tax code.

The amount of effort a taxpayer puts into "tax avoidence" (which, for the record is legal and done, in some measure, by nearly all taxpayers) is directly related to the rate of taxation and the complexity of the tax code.

To take these numbers and come to a conclusion of "greed" is an innaccurate representation of our current tax system.

 

[STING2]

So you are saying, Sting, that absolutely NOBODY in the Bush Administration has EVER lied to the public in the past four years?

There is no indisputable evidence, that anyone in the Bush administration, has lied about anything, over the past four years!

 

[DaveC]

That's incredibly naive.

Use some common sense.

 

[nbcrusader]

Dave,

All Sting is asking for is evidence. If you want to convict them on less, so be it.

 

[joyfulgirl]

anyway, moving right along...

Cheney really shocked me on the gay marriage issue. I do feel very badly for him when it's brought up, knowing that he's really caught between a rock and a hard place. I thought he did extremely well with staying composed and dignified, and Edwards was very conciliatory towards him on that.

I just talked to a couple of gay friends for the first time since the debate and they were really offended by the way Edwards brought up Cheney's daughter. They felt it was "sleezy" and "disgusting" in that they thought Edwards was almost saying, "poor Cheney, must be rough having a gay daughter" and that he used it inappropriately to make a point to the Christian right. It struck me as very odd that he brought it up at all although I didn't quite have the same response that my friends did. They, by the way, have already voted for Kerry via absentee ballot.

So I'm just wondering what everyone else's take on it was. Sorry if it's already been discussed--I scanned the pages quickly looking for references to it and this is all I found but I didn't read every post.

 

[anitram]

A friend and I talked about it at work and we both actually felt the same way. I found Edwards to be really awkward talking about homosexuality, and it was like he was stumbling over his words and trying to be overly-PC but it ended up sounding really awkward and patronizing.

I liked Cheney's responses there. I respect that he disagrees with Bush, and I respect the way he handled it all. IMO, he came across better than Edwards on this point.

 

[joyfulgirl]

I agree with you, anitram.

 

[sharky]

I dunno. I liked the fact that he said that as a way to diffuse the situation. There are liberals who say "Cheney is an ass for denying his daughter the right to marry." but what they don't say is "Cheney is a good guy for accepting his daughter for who she is." I visit many liberal blogs [no kidding] and there was an ad campaign earlier by some pro-gay group trying to shame Mary for working on her father's campaign when he works with a guy pushing through that stupid amendment. If Edwards didn't mention it, pro-gay groups would have spun it as "Cheney wouldn't even acknowledge his dauther!" Edwards brought it up, said nice words about Cheney's family and, in doing so, maybe steered away some of the controversy away from Cheney's family and to the issue at hand.

 

[sharky]

Dave,

All Sting is asking for is evidence. If you want to convict them on less, so be it.

What about the photos of Cheney and Edwards together? What about the links to stories I provided? These guys are hanging by their own words, their own actions. Please reread my earlier posts with the included links.

 

[sharky]

The key to these statistics are the credits and "loopholes" in the tax code. The items, which either reduce taxable income or reduce tax liability, are inserted to encourage certain behaviors by taxpayers.

Usually, they result in the intended benefit for which they were created. So, for every dollar not paid in taxes, that amount, more is going to some benefit encouraged by the tax code.

The amount of effort a taxpayer puts into "tax avoidence" (which, for the record is legal and done, in some measure, by nearly all taxpayers) is directly related to the rate of taxation and the complexity of the tax code.

To take these numbers and come to a conclusion of "greed" is an innaccurate representation of our current tax system.

The level that corporations go to to avoid taxes and beef of the bottom line and their pockets would astound you. There are people at some of these big financial firms whose jobs are to move money around for corporations so they can avoid taxes. It's insane how many billions, if not trillions, are tranferred around every year for these companies to avoid taxes and they go drectly to the CEOs.

 

[DaveC]

But as I said, it's irrational to think that ANY administration, Democrat or Republican, Canadian or American, whatever, has not lied once at some point.

Use your common sense.

Oh, and what about that "Terror Report" a year or so ago that Colin Powell came straight out and said was not true?

 

[nbcrusader]

The level that corporations go to to avoid taxes and beef of the bottom line and their pockets would astound you. There are people at some of these big financial firms whose jobs are to move money around for corporations so they can avoid taxes. It's insane how many billions, if not trillions, are tranferred around every year for these companies to avoid taxes and they go drectly to the CEOs.

I am well aware of the efforts used by taxpayers of any size to reduce tax liabilities. It is a product of a complicated tax code that tries to engage in social engineering as it brings in revenue.

Tax evasion is illegal and should be prosecuted. Tax avoidance is common sense.

And the millions & trillions do not go directly to CEOs. Otherwise, it would be the Forbes 400,000 not the Forbes 400.

 

[deep]

Warning, don't look here <--------

 

[DaveC]

Warning, don't look here <--------

Or, you could just look at any one of my posts that I have ever made...

 

[DaveC]

It's only 285-232 for Bush right now...with a month to go and over 170 EV's still considered statistical ties, that's nothing. Anybody could be winning this at this point.

 

[verte76]

This thing is going to be the classic "cliff-hanger". It's totally unpredictable.

 

[DaveC]

Scratch that, those were yesterday's numbers.

Today Kerry has the lead, 280-239. Ohio and Michigan both moved into the Kerry column.