Vote Democratic pay more tax

[ac4r]

Taxes under Clinton 1999 Taxes under Bush 2008


Single making 30K – tax $8,400 Single making 30K-tax $4.500.00
Single making 50K – tax $14,000 Single making 50K – tax $12,500
Single making 75K – tax $23,250 Single making 75K – tax $18,750
Married making 60K – tax $16,800 Married making 60K – tax $9,000
Married making 75K – tax $21,000 Married making 75K – tax $18,750
Married making 125K – tax $38,750 Married making 125K – tax $31,250


http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

[n2nh]

Since tax rates are decided by Congress this has nothing to do with Clinton. The Congresses of both those periods was Republican, it would seem that this data is meaningless when it comes to Democrats. Of course, those are the facts, so it will be ignored by the average desperate NeoKon looking at a Democrat winning this November. Worse yet, Congress was overwhelmingly Republican for years in 1999. If the taxes were high, they could've changed the rate any time they wanted.

If anything that post is a condemnation of the Republican Congress. Apparently the Democratic Congress is the one that lowered the rate. :rolleyes:

[ac4r]

Since tax rates are decided by Congress this has nothing to do with Clinton. The Congresses of both those periods was Republican, it would seem that this data is meaningless when it comes to Democrats. Of course, those are the facts, so it will be ignored by the average desperate NeoKon looking at a Democrat winning this November. Worse yet, Congress was overwhelmingly Republican for years in 1999. If the taxes were high, they could've changed the rate any time they wanted.

If anything that post is a condemnation of the Republican Congress. Apparently the Democratic Congress is the one that lowered the rate. :rolleyes:

Do a little research and you might find you are wrong. In 1993 when Clinton proposed the tax increases the Democrats had control of congress.

[K3RRR]

Doesn't matter - it would be worth it....

[n2nh]

Do a little research and you might find you are wrong. In 1993 when Clinton proposed the tax increases the Democrats had control of congress.

Do a little research and you will find you are wrong. Republicans had control of Congress since 1994. So at anytime in the five years leading up to 1999, they could've easily changed the tax rate. They managed to screw everything else up grandly for the last 14 years without any Democrat help what so ever.

And, since Congress controls the tax rate, you will find you are wrong about this being a Clinton problem. OTOH, it is a good condemnation of long-term NeoKon policies.

[KG4JYD]

I am not voting for McCain, and I am not voting for any Democrat.

[AE6IP]

This thread is a perfect example of poor critical reasoning.

Which administration you paid hire taxes under is a meaningless statistics unless it is viewed in the context of what was accomplished by that administration.

All the Bush administration has done by lowering taxes is demonstrate how quickly debt piles up if you don't pay it and are forced to take out loans on it at high interest.

[N5NPO]

Do a little research and you will find you are wrong. Republicans had control of Congress since 1994. So at anytime in the five years leading up to 1999, they could've easily changed the tax rate. They managed to screw everything else up grandly for the last 14 years without any Democrat help what so ever.

And, since Congress controls the tax rate, you will find you are wrong about this being a Clinton problem. OTOH, it is a good condemnation of long-term NeoKon policies.

Republicans won the Nov. 1994 elections. It wasn't until Jan. 1995 that they took control of congress. Bill Clinton Was elected in Nov. 1992. He moved into the whitehouse Jan. 1993. The Clintons had a Democrat congress for two years.
How does Clinton get credit for reducing the deficit with a republican congress but doesn't get credit for higher taxes with a republican congress. How is it that it is the republican's fault either way if something is percieved bad, but the Democrats skate blame????

[wa8rti]

Under this administration, the government is living on borrowed money. You can not cut taxes and increase spending as GWB has without someday going bankrupt. We better raise taxes, cut spending and take back some of the IOU's held by the likes of the Chinese. If foreign governments decide they want to be paid for the debt they hold, this country is down the flushable drain.:eek:

[KB9BVN]

Since tax rates are decided by Congress this has nothing to do with Clinton. The Congresses of both those periods was Republican, it would seem that this data is meaningless when it comes to Democrats. Of course, those are the facts, so it will be ignored by the average desperate NeoKon looking at a Democrat winning this November. Worse yet, Congress was overwhelmingly Republican for years in 1999. If the taxes were high, they could've changed the rate any time they wanted.

If anything that post is a condemnation of the Republican Congress. Apparently the Democratic Congress is the one that lowered the rate. :rolleyes:

Using that logic, then the democratic controlled congress is once again the provider of record setting deficit spending.

[KB9BVN]

Under this administration, the government is living on borrowed money. You can not cut taxes and increase spending as GWB has without someday going bankrupt. We better raise taxes, cut spending and take back some of the IOU's held by the likes of the Chinese. If foreign governments decide they want to be paid for the debt they hold, this country is down the flushable drain.:eek:


We've been living on borrowed money since Eisenhower. Our National Debt hasn't gone down one thin dime since 1957.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

You don't understand much about our debt. Good luck.

[ac4r]

Under this administration, the government is living on borrowed money. You can not cut taxes and increase spending as GWB has without someday going bankrupt. We better raise taxes, cut spending and take back some of the IOU's held by the likes of the Chinese. If foreign governments decide they want to be paid for the debt they hold, this country is down the flushable drain.:eek:


If you are so big on giving the government your money you are free to send them as much as you like.

[ac4r]

This thread is a perfect example of poor critical reasoning.

Which administration you paid hire taxes under is a meaningless statistics unless it is viewed in the context of what was accomplished by that administration.

All the Bush administration has done by lowering taxes is demonstrate how quickly debt piles up if you don't pay it and are forced to take out loans on it at high interest.

Left coast logic

[N8UZE]

Leaving party politics out of it, let's look at it from other points of view.

The amount of revenue that the government receives when plotted against the tax rate is basically a bell curve. After the tax cuts, the government received more revenue than ever before. That the budget is not balanced is then not necessarily a function of the tax rate.

If we increase taxes to the prior rates, it is quite possible that government revenues may actually fall thus increasing the deficit. Naturally, you can only increase taxes on the upper classes. This means less investing and less spending. Both of these lead to less profits and income. This leads to less revenue collected by the government.

There is an ideal spot on that curve (revenue versus taxes) that will maximize the government's revenue. We need to find that spot. Given the limited information available, increasing taxes is going in the wrong direction. We may need to hold steady or even reduce taxes further.

Let's bring this down to the individual level. When the tax cuts went through, I was able to buy a new car instead of a newer, used car. At this point in time, I do not dare replace my current car (fully paid off now) until I know what my tax rate is going to be. If taxes go up, while I could afford a car payment, the additional strain on the household budget from the tax increase combined with a car payment is unappealing. Instead I'll be putting money into maintenance and repair. If a significant number of people think the same, the car companies are going to be hurting. Profits will drop, plants get closed, people get laid off. All of these will then decrease the amount of revenue that the government will receive from companies and workers in the auto industry.

There is only one way to get rid of the deficit. Find that "sweet spot" on the bell curve that maximizes the government revenues and then create a balanced budget within that revenue constraint. That means sacrifices somewhere. What programs are really needed and what can go? If all are really needed, some will have to be scaled down or eliminated anyway. It is not possible to vote yourself out of debt and into prosperity.

[nx6d]

Left coast logic

That comment was even more braindead than the original post.

"Left coast logic"? What the heck does that mean?

Keep posting station. You come up with something even more ridiculous every day...

[kc2orw]

That comment was even more braindead than the original post.

"Left coast logic"? What the heck does that mean?

Keep posting station. You come up with something even more ridiculous every day...
It is a meme that they use to stir up the masses who don't make use of critical thinking, but I imagine you already knew that :D

[W3MIV]

It is not possible to vote yourself out of debt and into prosperity.

The fundamental problem of the recent past is irresponsible spending, and I cannot agree more that the tax cuts were a benefit (though the inveterate Bush-Bashers will never permit themselves to admit it), and, further, that those cuts would better be extended or even increased. The major trouble is funding wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq, an aggressively spendthrift Congress that seeks politically popular, short-term band-aids that they know will exacerbate problems down the road, and an unwillingness of the electorate to to insist that the government (at all levels) conduct their budgetary responsibilities with the same attention to the realities of income that most families exercise regularly. Simply penalizing the "investment class" is a dead-end policy -- a tax system must be fair, which means it must be painful to all, and it must be matched by honest efforts at spending restraints.

Alas, the recent mortgage fiasco indicates that many families have succumbed to the political pap they have been fed time and again by the most egregious of the "tax-and-spend" glitterati, and it would seem the Congress's disease is now spreading to the electorate. Should that really be the case, we are lost.

From the little I have read of Obama's policy and position papers, I am hopeful that he will not simply slip into the same old Democrat "class-warfare" pitch simply to stir up support among the least honorable of the Play-for-Pay Residents of that greatest Bordello on the Potomac.

The tax code has been the Congress's steadiest and most reliable source of political favors, and ever since it was first passed in the early years of the 20th century, it has been used as more of a fund for incumbency than it has as a truly disinterested source of funding.

What is absolutely sure, you cannot tax your way out of recession.

[ac4r]

This thread is a perfect example of poor critical reasoning.

Which administration you paid hire taxes under is a meaningless statistics unless it is viewed in the context of what was accomplished by that administration.




Who cares what is accomplished or not. The less the government does the better.

[ac4r]

That comment was even more braindead than the original post.

"Left coast logic"? What the heck does that mean?




The logic of a liberal progressive who thinks government is the problem solver for all. Cradle to grave.

[kc2orw]

Who cares what is accomplished or not. The less the government does the better.
Absolutely which is why so many will vote for the Democrats they want less of the wars created by the current President and the previous Republican Congress. lets not forget the debt that the previous Republican Congress created. The war, based on fallacy and lies, debt is never fully accounted for.

[AE6IP]

Who cares what is accomplished or not. The less the government does the better.

So you're 100% in favor of disbanding the military, then?

[AE6IP]

The logic of a liberal progressive who thinks government is the problem solver for all. Cradle to grave.

Now there's a description that definitely doesn't fit me.

I think the government has an appropriate role, and there are things it should do and things it shouldn't.

I further think that a government that spends money on endeavors, as Bush has spent money on his fiasco in Iraq, should be responsible enough to pay for those endeavors, and the only way to pay for a war is to assess a tax.

Dubya did the opposite of what a fiscal conservative would do: he spent and refused to pay.

So yes, what's done with the money matters a considerable amount to how and how much is gathered.

[kc2orw]

So if John McCain expands a war, based on fallacy and lies, into a wider conflict, say, with Iran. I guess I am to assume that we should interpret that as a big savings, right? :rolleyes:

[ac4r]

So you're 100% in favor of disbanding the military, then?


Hardly, increase the troup strength to what is was before Clinton gutted it.

[ac4r]

So if John McCain expands a war, based on fallacy and lies, into a wider conflict, say, with Iran. I guess I am to assume that we should interpret that as a big savings, right? :rolleyes:


You need not be concerned with Iran . Israel will deal with them in due time probally using US made nukes

[KB9BVN]

The National Debt has been climbing since 1957, the last year it was actually reduced. As you can see, indiscriminate spending appears to be poly-partisan. Congress is where our fiscal problems start, and it is there that things must be changed. This war effort is not inexpensive, baby boomers on social security is no inexpensive, national security is not inexpensive.


Fiscal EOY Debt President House Senate
09/30/07 9,007,653,372,262.48 Bush II DEM DEM
09/30/06 8,506,973,899,215.23 Bush II REP REP
09/30/05 7,932,709,661,723.50 Bush I REP REP
09/30/04 7,379,052,696,330.32 Bush II REP REP
09/30/03 6,783,231,062,743.62 Bush II REP REP
09/30/02 6,228,235,965,597.16 Bush II Split REP
09/30/01 5,807,463,412,200.06 Bush II Split REP
09/30/00 5,674,178,209,886.86 Clinton REP REP
09/30/99 5,656,270,901,615.43 Clinton REP REP
09/30/98 5,526,193,008,897.62 Clinton REP REP
09/30/97 5,413,146,011,397.34 Clinton REP REP
09/30/96 5,224,810,939,135.73 Clinton REP REP
09/29/95 4,973,982,900,709.39 Clinton REP REP
09/30/94 4,692,749,910,013.32 Clinton DEM DEM
09/30/93 4,411,488,883,139.38 Clinton DEM DEM
09/30/92 4,064,620,655,521.66 Bush I DEM DEM
09/30/91 3,665,303,351,697.03 Bush I DEM DEM
09/28/90 3,233,313,451,777.25 Bush I DEM DEM
09/29/89 2,857,430,960,187.32 Bush I DEM DEM
09/30/88 2,602,337,712,041.16 Reagan DEM REP
09/30/87 2,350,276,890,953.00 Reagan DEM REP
09/30/86 2,125,302,616,658.42 Reagan DEM REP
09/30/85 1,823,103,000,000.00 Reagan DEM REP
09/30/84 1,572,266,000,000.00 Reagan DEM REP
09/30/83 1,377,210,000,000.00 Reagan DEM REP
09/30/82 1,142,034,000,000.00 Reagan DEM REP
09/30/81 997,855,000,000.00 Reagan DEM REP
09/30/80 907,701,000,000.00 Carter DEM DEM
09/30/79 826,519,000,000.00 Carter DEM DEM
09/30/78 771,544,000,000.00 Carter DEM DEM
09/30/77 698,840,000,000.00 Carter DEM DEM
06/30/76 620,433,000,000.00 Ford DEM DEM
06/30/75 533,189,000,000.00 Ford DEM DEM
06/30/74 475,059,815,731.55 Nixon DEM DEM
06/30/73 458,141,605,312.09 Nixon DEM DEM
06/30/72 427,260,460,940.50 Nixon DEM DEM
06/30/71 398,129,744,455.54 Nixon DEM DEM
06/30/70 370,918,706,949.93 Nixon DEM DEM
06/30/69 353,720,253,841.41 Nixon DEM DEM
06/30/68 347,578,406,425.88 Johnson DEM DEM
06/30/67 326,220,937,794.54 Johnson DEM DEM
06/30/66 319,907,087,795.48 Johnson DEM DEM
06/30/65 317,273,898,983.64 Johnson DEM DEM
06/30/64 311,712,899,257.30 Johnson DEM DEM
06/30/63 305,859,632,996.41 Kennedy DEM DEM
06/30/62 298,200,822,720.87 Kennedy DEM DEM
06/30/61 288,970,938,610.05 Kennedy DEM DEM
06/30/60 286,330,760,848.37 Eisenhower DEM DEM
06/30/59 284,705,907,078.22 Eisenhower DEM DEM
06/30/58 276,343,217,745.81 Eisenhower DEM DEM
06/30/57 270,527,171,896.43 Eisenhower DEM DEM
06/30/56 272,750,813,649.32 Eisenhower DEM DEM
06/30/55 274,374,222,802.62 Eisenhower DEM DEM
06/30/54 271,259,599,108.46 Eisenhower REP REP
06/30/53 266,071,061,638.57 Eisenhower REP REP
06/30/52 259,105,178,785.43 Truman DEM DEM
06/29/51 255,221,976,814.93 Truman DEM DEM
06/30/50 257,357,352,351.04 Truman DEM DEM

[W3MIV]

Hardly, increase the troup[e] strength to what is was before Clinton gutted it.

SAG will be grateful for the increased dues.

[N3RQ]

Taxes under Clinton 1999 Taxes under Bush 2008


Single making 30K – tax $8,400 Single making 30K-tax $4.500.00
Single making 50K – tax $14,000 Single making 50K – tax $12,500
Single making 75K – tax $23,250 Single making 75K – tax $18,750
Married making 60K – tax $16,800 Married making 60K – tax $9,000
Married making 75K – tax $21,000 Married making 75K – tax $18,750
Married making 125K – tax $38,750 Married making 125K – tax $31,250


http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

Please do your homework because the devil is in the details. Why is the highest capital gains rate only 15% when the top tax rate on ordinary income is 35%? The Bush tax cuts were a gift to the wealthy and powerful.

According to the 2008 marginal tax tables, a working couple with a taxable income of $85,000.00 is required to pay $13,937.50 in federal income tax, which results in an average tax rate of ~16.4%. A billionaire earning $85,000.00 in capital gains only is only required to pay $12,750.00 in capital gains tax, for a $1187.50 tax advantage over ordinary income.

A working couple with a taxable income of $131,450.00 is required to pay $25,550.00 in federal income tax, which results in average tax rate of ~19.4%. A billionaire earning $131,450.00 in capital gains only is only required to pay $19,717.50 in capital gains tax, for a $5832.50 tax advantage over ordinary income.

A working couple with a taxable income of $357,700.00 is required to pay $96,770.00 in federal income tax, which results in average tax rate of ~27%. A billionaire earning $357,700.00 in capital gains only is only required to pay $53,655.00 in capital gains tax, for a $43,115.00 tax advantage over ordinary income, and the disparity gets worse as one earns more money via work. The capital class has gotten significantly richer under Bush because the GOP-controlled congress rigged the tax code in their favor.

[kc2orw]

You need not be concerned with Iran . Israel will deal with them in due time probally using US made nukes
You are definitely excessive I say bribe em, the good old traditional American way, a method used by Republicans and Democrats alike. Well I think your a little off there suggesting nukes. But keep suggesting that one, to a larger audience if possible, it is the surest way to get a Democrat elected :D

[ac4r]

You are definitely excessive I say bribe em, the good old traditional American way, a method used by Republicans and Democrats alike. Well I think your a little off there suggesting nukes. But keep suggesting that one, to a larger audience if possible, it is the surest way to get a Democrat elected :D


Do not be surprised by Israel. If you think they will stand by while Iran has pledged to destroy them you are sadly mistaken.

[n2nh]

Hardly, increase the troup strength to what is was before Clinton gutted it.

Clinton hardly 'gutted it.' And wise Kon, do you know WHY Clinton cut back on "troop strength?"

[ac4r]

Clinton hardly 'gutted it.' And wise Kon, do you know WHY Clinton cut back on "troop strength?"

More from the one who did not know the Democrats controlled congress in 1993. He reduced military personel by five hundread thousand . Why , because he is clearly anti-military.

[wa8rti]

We've been living on borrowed money since Eisenhower. Our National Debt hasn't gone down one thin dime since 1957.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

You don't understand much about our debt. Good luck.L
I understand all too well that we have been borrowing since WW2. Look a graph of debt vs GDP and from Truman to Carter it falls.During Ronnie's and Georgie 's terms, the graph shoots up at a 45degree angle. During Slick Willie's time it turns down. And then along came Georgie 2 and it took off like a rocket again. If you look at a graph of the debt in dollars it shows slow rise from Truman to Carter and Ronnie sends it into orbit. Clinton shows a slowdown only to have GWB send it skyrocketing again.http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm (http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm)

[wa6ccw]

The Congresses of both those periods was Republican, it would seem that this data is meaningless when it comes to Democrats

1). First off, the President has final signoff on the budget, AND...

2). Surprise, surprise - you would be WRONG yet again.

The Congress of 2008 is Democrat.

Geez, you make it SO easy.:cool:

[n2nh]

Using that logic, then the democratic controlled congress is once again the provider of record setting deficit spending.

The budget is handed over by the president. And if you'll notice the same charts are showing a slowing of the deficit since Democrats got in as opposed to the rubber stamp NeoKon Congresses that preceded them.

Pay attention Man! Your boy posted the numbers!

[n2nh]

More from the one who did not know the Democrats controlled congress in 1993. He reduced military personel by five hundread thousand . Why , because he is clearly anti-military.

Hardly. I pointed out that 14 years ago the Republicans took over. More from the one that is still living in 2007. 2008-14=1994.

I know that is hardly fair. NeoKons can't count.

[n2nh]

More from the one who did not know the Democrats controlled congress in 1993. He reduced military personel by five hundread thousand . Why , because he is clearly anti-military.

Actually because the Cold War was over, but let me not disturb the ignorant sleep of those who will lose in November.
:rolleyes:

[NL7W]

Actually because the Cold War was over, but let me not disturb the ignorant sleep of those who will lose in November.
:rolleyes:


And who ended the cold war? It wasn't a Democratic President, I can tell you that. Must have been Reagan!

---

A LARGER list of Democratic Presidents taking the United States to War:

James K. Polk, Mexican American War.

Jefferson Davis, Civil War.
Well, he's hardly a US president, being only president of the Confederacy, but he was, sorry, Democrats, a conservative Southern Democrat. That was back when the Democrats were all about "states rights," believe it or not. Seceded from the Union. Not clear if this started the Civil War, 'cause it would probably not have happened if Lincoln had not denied the right of secession and insisted on freedom for black slaves. However, the Confederacy did fire the first shot at Fort Sumter.

Woodrow Wilson, WWI.

Franklin D. Roosevelt, WWII.

Harry S. Truman, Korean War.

John F. Kennedy: Viet-Nam. Sorry, Democrats. How many were KIA during the Nam Conflict?

Lyndon B. Johnson: Escalation in Viet Nam. Sorry, Democrats. Again, how many were killed during the Nam Conflict? Let's compare this death toll to Iraq...

Bill Clinton:
Several "winners"
Attacked Yugoslavia without a UN Security Council resolution. Twelve years later, there are still 2,000 U.S. troops in the Balkans (I wonder how they like being there now!). Invaded Haiti to restore the democratically elected president. Invaded Somalia and cut and ran when it turned to chaos. Bombed Al Qaeda bases in Afghanistan and Africa with cruise missiles in a bungled attempts to kill bin Laden. Bombed Baghdad during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Hmm...


Should we now look at the Presidents who ended Wars? Should we? Perhaps we should...

[K3XR]

ABC news reading the ZED??

http://newsbusters.org/node/19490/print

[n2ize]

And who ended the cold war? It wasn't a Democratic President, I can tell you that. Must have been Reagan!

---

A LARGER list of Democratic Presidents taking the United States to War:

James K. Polk, Mexican American War.

Jefferson Davis, Civil War.
Well, he's hardly a US president, being only president of the Confederacy, but he was, sorry, Democrats, a conservative Southern Democrat. That was back when the Democrats were all about "states rights," believe it or not. Seceded from the Union. Not clear if this started the Civil War, 'cause it would probably not have happened if Lincoln had not denied the right of secession and insisted on freedom for black slaves. However, the Confederacy did fire the first shot at Fort Sumter.

Woodrow Wilson, WWI.

Franklin D. Roosevelt, WWII.

Harry S. Truman, Korean War.

John F. Kennedy: Viet-Nam. Sorry, Democrats. How many were KIA during the Nam Conflict?

Lyndon B. Johnson: Escalation in Viet Nam. Sorry, Democrats. Again, how many were killed during the Nam Conflict? Let's compare this death toll to Iraq...


Richard Nixons...further escalation in southeast asia. Richard Nixons long term refusal to end the war.

Bill Clinton:
Several "winners"
Attacked Yugoslavia without a UN Security Council resolution. Twelve years later, there are still 2,000 U.S. troops in the Balkans (I wonder how they like being there now!). Invaded Haiti to restore the democratically elected president. Invaded Somalia and cut and ran when it turned to chaos. Bombed Al Qaeda bases in Afghanistan and Africa with cruise missiles in a bungled attempts to kill bin Laden. Bombed Baghdad during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Hmm...
Should we now look at the Presidents who ended Wars? Should we? Perhaps we should...[/QUOTE]

Bush Sr. started war in Iraq. Shrub Jr. started war and occupation of Iraq, Afghanistan and possible Iran... Bush toppling of Aristede.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0301-10.htm

etc.

[N9XR]

And who ended the cold war? It wasn't a Democratic President, I can tell you that. Must have been Reagan!...
The anti-democratic nazi?

[n2nh]

Okay you win.

This thread is like a breath mint.

We got the title Dems = more tax.

Then we got people who are confusing my answers with the next change Dems and the budget.

Now it's Dem Presidents (all who have been elected - AMAZING!) and war.

Make up yer minds and then go play in the sandbox. I'm through with your madness.

:rolleyes:

[wa6ccw]

The Congresses of both those periods was Republican, it would seem that this data is meaningless when it comes to Democrats.

1). First off, the President has final signoff on the budget, AND...

2). Surprise, surprise - you would be WRONG yet again.

The Congress of 2008 is Democrat.

Geez, you make it SO easy.:cool:

And didn't we just know, somehow, that this is what NH would do? He's done this so many times before... he's SO predictable.

NH thrives on the wild-emotional-left-partisan-rambling du jour. But when called upon the carpet, to examine into his outbursts, the foundation crumbles, along with his veracity. And what we find is that his equivocations
are just that... he's merely blowing smoke, and eating crow.

Why yes, of course! His favorite dish: SMOKED CROW. http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/evilgrin/evilgrin0025.gif