Monday, February 05, 2007


But don't worry....if you're concerned about the deficit or the size of the federal budget, Democrats want to help. In order to "pay for" Bush's tax cuts, they're all too happy to raise your taxes. 2007 when it comes to politicians, there is no difference in spending between Republicans and Democrats. The difference is in how they finance their spending binges. Democrats tax and Republicans borrow. So basically either you pay or your kids will pay. Some choice.

One Democratic presidential candidate has made it very clear how he would pay for his spending: taxes, taxes and more taxes -- but only on the rich. Speaking on the issue, John Edwards...who was The Poodle's running made in 2004 (not to be confused with The Poodle's keeper,) says he would tax the rich to pay for his spending proposals, including a grandiose plan for socialized medicine The Trial Lawyer says to cover his health care plan, he'd repeal George W. Bush's tax cuts for people over $200,000.

Then, he'd tax capital gains. Edwards complains that brokerage houses aren't accurately reporting people's capital gains. This is a ripe area for class warfare rhetoric. Democrats can convince their followers that only the rich have enough money to invest, and thus only the rich have capital gains ... so let's tax 'em more!

I don't know any other way to say this: There is absolutely no limit to a politician's desire for your money. When you take the money you earn and spend it as you see fit, politicians don't benefit. But when they can take the money and spend it on their project, votes are bought, power is preserved.


According to this Washington Times article, the U.S. military will combine with Iraq troops in a major offensive to quiet Baghdad.

Briefing a small group of foreign reporters, three American colonels who are senior advisers to the Iraqi army and police in Baghdad said a command center overseeing the crackdown in the capital would be activated today. “The expectation is the plan will be implemented very soon thereafter,” a senior adviser to the 9th Iraqi army division said at a U.S. military base in Baghdad. It’s going to be an operation unlike anything this city has seen,” Col. Doug Heckman added. “It’s a multiple-order magnitude of difference, not just a 30 percent, I mean a couple hundred percent” larger than previous offensives.

One of the things that didn’t get alot of attention in President Bush’s surge speech was the announcement of new rules of engagement. I’d doubt that this offensive would be possible if the old rules of engagement were still in place. I’m not predicting victory yet but I have to think that this offensive has a better chance of succeeding than past offensives. I base that on Col. Heckman’s description of the offensive being “a couple hundred percent” larger offensive than previous offensives.