You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #46: LOL--stop what? Telling the whole story? [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-17-04 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #43
46. LOL--stop what? Telling the whole story?
Your own source called it a tax cut. And that's exactly what it was. So what if the bill covered other provisions? That's how they do it in Washington. It doesn't invalidate the statement.

And regardless of the description given, I know that law. The depreciation step-up applies to all corporations AND sole proprietorships, and is NOT restricted to NYC or WTC-related relief. The NOL carry-back was for all corporations and made a BIG difference in tax liability of shareholders. And fwiw, these changes are still around, so I guess it wasn't temporary either.

In any case, it most certainly wasn't just small businesses, but even if it had been... I've done taxes for "small" businessmen who make more than a million dollars a year. How you define "very wealthy" is all semantics, isn't it?

Your source also said the statement was gone from Clark's speech the next day, so how can you say "he did this repeatedly in the last phase of his campaign"? Which lasted for exactly 6 days longer, btw.

If you recall, one of the very valid arguments against two Senators on the ticket, and a problem Kerry has had already, is that it's just a fact that all bills are "cobbled" together. So any legislator's voting record can be picked apart with true statements that don't take into consideration the other provisions.

You know, Clark also pointed out Edwards voted against veterans benefits. First he denied it, and when it turned out he had, he named other people who voted against it, and when it turned out those people hadn't voted against it, he whined, "well, it would have hurt the farmers in my state." So get off your high horse about lying. At least what Clark said was technically true, even tho it appears he decided it wasn't true enough to keep in his speech.

You can put any spin you want on it, but it still boils down to more of Edwards not taking responsibility for his record. And if that means "he's a hypocrite, liar and opportunist" ...well, that's about the way I see it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC