Sunday, May 20, 2007

What the Liberals and the Media DON'T Want You To Know About the Bush Tax Cuts


It's simple really. Tax revenues are higher now than ever before in American history. That's right... in spite of the "irresponsible" and "dangerous" Bush tax cuts that would only benefit the rich (according to tax & spend liberals), tax revenues are at an all-time high, the federal deficit is shrinking at a faster than predicted rate and middle-class American families are keeping more of their money, averaging $2,000 per year. Some economists are even hailing President Bush as one of America's greatest economic Presidents.

The media and liberal left were quick to criticize these tax cuts when Bush proposed them. They said such reductions would do irreparable damage to the American economy and that only the rich would benefit. Well, recent history has proven them seriously wrong. The national economy is very healthy, stock markets are at record highs and the unemployment rate is at a record low.

So why now isn't President Bush receiving the praise he deserves? After all, if he's done so much to improve America's economy, even with his so-called "dangerous tax cuts", why isn't this talked about in newspapers and on the big media news stations? If you're a regular reader of this web site, you already know the answer. Liberals HATE success! They can't stand the fact that a Texas cowboy has done so much to improve daily life for Americans. They can't stand the fact that Americans are keeping more of their money and they hate that unemployment is so low. Democrats are running out of "causes" to champion.

Consider these facts when you think about who to vote for in November 2008. If you want to give more of your money to the government, if you enjoy paying high taxes and if you subscribe to the philosophy that government knows how to spend your money better than you do, then vote for Barack Hussein Obama or Hitlery Clinton, or John "Robin Hood" Edwards. Fortunately, after I'm finished arming Americans with the truth, we'll see none of these Dummycrats in the White House!

1 comment:

Mav's Girl said...

I hate to say this, but this is a good example of why I think the "party names" need to just go away. Candidates should just have to stand on their own two feet, and say what they are for - and against.

There is right, and there is wrong, in everything. Sure there are gray areas, but even then there is a right direction that is more predominant.

Since Republicans are MOSTLY right, the Democrats just keeping choosing the other side...only to choose an opposing view...and not for good reason, but simply just to be opposite.

Why can't something be right, and totally agreed upon by both parties? Because they are natural opposites.

So, if the party names were removed...candidates could actually end up seeing the "right way"...together.

(Eventually, they'd all end up more "Republican"...even though the party names would be gone...we just won't explain that to them. lol)