He flew all the way to say "Make the Tax cuts Permanent"

[BR_Parkway]

I always want to take off his suit coat and look for the pull string on the back. I really don't remember his seeming this Stupid and shallow during 2000 elections, and if he was, can't beleive that he got the number of votes he did.

[Skittles]

1. um.....BR

he has always been that f***ing stupid and shallow. I should know, I live in Texas.

[hatrack]

2. For this he spends taxpayer dollars?

I'm sure there's some "official" "Presidential" event tacked onto the photo-op you've described, so the RNC won't have to pay the freight.

[grannylib]

3. Yup, the press sec'y was talking about that the other day, when

questioned about the cost to taxpayers for all his campaigning, and the answer was no, he is making this trip for this reason and that trip for that, of course it's an election year, but all legit, pay up losers...

[BR_Parkway]

4. Truthfully, every politician does that when they are the incumbent

though none as brazenly as buzzing NASCAR.

[ProfessorGAC]

5. Ummm, A Semantics Question For You Folks

Doesn't the word permanent not work here. I mean given the way the country works and the Constitution is written, everything is by definition, transitory, right?

The same people who want to ammend the Constitution, (meaning even it's not permanent), want to make legislation permanent. Hmmmm?

It seems that they have picked a really stupid word to describe not having them expire as designed.

No "Permament" change would ever pass constitutional muster. The legislative and exec branches don't have the power to tell future members what they can and can't do!

So, this talk of permanence is just really, really stupid isn't it?
The Professor

[Snow]

6. No,it's not stupid even though you're completely correct....

it's like the immigration thing a coupla weeks back, and the anti-gay amendment. Neither one has a chance of ever passing into actual occurrence, but people don't realize that. I suspect a fair number of people think that if the prez says it, at that instant it's a done deal. And that effect's what they're looking for. Sometimes, however, the reaction isn't what they expected (*tries and fails to suppress gleeful snickers as the anti-gay thing blows up in Rove's face*).

[ProfessorGAC]

8. I'll Buy That!

The truth isn't really very important to these people, so you're probably right.
The Professor

[Lars39]

7. If they use the word "permanent" enough we won't think twice about

the repubs being in permanent control of the US? Is this another word inoculation?

[denverbill]

11. The only reason they've had to start saying that is their own fault.

Who the hell ever heard of 'temporary' tax rate cuts anyway? They weren't sold that way originally. The reason they did that was so they wouldn't have to properly fund the missing tax money in the out years. Of course, that was back when there was a law saying they couldn't cut taxes unless they cut spending or raised taxes to match.

[BillZBubb]

12. No, it's not stupid. You miss the point

The tax cuts are due to expire in time. No congressional action is required for that to happen. So, they will expire unless congress votes to remove the deadline.

If congress votes to remove the deadline, they cannot be repealed unless a future congress explicitly votes to do so. That's the key to what Bush* is doing.

The Repugs have majorities in congress now. So, they can remove the deadline--unless the Dems filibuster. Say the Dems don't and the vote passes. The Repugs won't always have a majority, so a future Democratic congress would have to vote to RAISE taxes (really going back to the pre-* rate). If there was a Repug president he could veto that and the Dems probably couldn't override. If there was a Dem president, the Repugs in the Senate could filibuster to block the change.

So, if this congress makes the cuts "permanent" they pretty effectively have done that. Or, at minimum they've given the Repugs a potent future weapon about the Dems raising taxes again.

[July]

9. I have a question about this

When the Republicans were selling the tax cut in Congress, wasn't the fact that they were set to eventually expire used as a selling point (to suggest that the loss of revenue would be temporary)?? Didn't that help them get those last, critical votes?

So . . . they're flip-flopping now? What do those last few Congressional voters have to say about the drive for permanent tax cuts?

Am I remembering this correctly?

[JHB]

14. It's called "Bait & Switch"

You remember correctly, and yes, the have changed their line-of-the-day (but their overall tune remains the same):

When something is politically too hard to pass in one fell swoop, they'll go for a two-phase operation. With the limits on "phase one", they're better able to convince/cajole/bully/bribe fence-sitters to go along with them and pass it. After a gap to let peoples' memories fade a bit, they push for phase 2, starting from a new baseline and spouting "things are different now" (despite the fact that they're ALWAYS different in some way). Unless the opposition really digs in and resists, odds are they'll be able to pull the same stunt AGAIN.

[BR_Parkway]

15. Similar to the sunset provisions of the Patriot Act

[salin]

10. what I love...bush says two things in most of these speeches

and the audience never seems to catch it...

1) The deficits in my budget will be cut in half by five years.
(this ONLY works with the assumption that the tax cuts phase out)
(not to mention that half of his deficits are close to what the record deficits were of his daddy)

2) Congress MUST make the tax cuts permanent.
(in which case the deficits, too, will be permanent - but escalating.)

How the heck does he keep getting away with saying such nonsensical bs without folks throwing rotten tomatoes as if they were attending a really, really poor vaudville show?

[BillZBubb]

13. He can say that crap because

he only speaks in front of pre-screened BushBot audiences who don't know shit from Shinola and wouldn't ask any questions if they did.