"...and it's good to see somebody admit that fox is a conservative channel...instead of all this 'fair and balanced' hokum."
I'd describe the Faux News channel as more "right wing" than "conservative." They do support the "neoconservatives", but that's the group that started as Trotskyists (Irving Kristol and friends), moved to the left wing of the Democratic party, then ended up taking roost in the far right wing of the Republican party (and overwhelming the current administration).
I find that to be one of the problems with labels - they keep shifting, and never mean what anyone (me included) thinks they mean at any particular moment.
Except for the "neo-conservatives," who would be nicely described by a phrase from Eric Ambler:
"...a sort of seedy imperialist philosophy with a lacing of Fascism behind it all."
29 -
JR
Oct 31, 2003 at 10:54 am
Dan wrote:
"When all major mainstream media outlets are parroting the sloganeering of Liberal politicians with such pabulum as: 'Tax cuts for the richest one percent', it's easy for gullibles to be misled. People need a Rush Limbaugh etc. to explain that:
1. The top 1% of wage earners pay 30% of income taxes.
2. The top 5% of wage earners pay 55% of income taxes.
3. The bottom 38% of wage earners pay NO income taxes.
4. The Bush tax cuts still screwed the rich because they did not recieve an equitable portion of the cut in proportion to the taxes they pay."
Wow, I never realized how unfair taxes were! These statistics tell the WHOLE story. Now I can see how tough it is to be rich; it's a wonder they can afford to feed their families and send their kids to college what with having to pay for all those deadbeat bottom 38 percenters.
Now that I FULLY understand the American economic system thanks to these totally meaningful and revealing statistics, I'm going to vote Republican for the rest of my life.
I thank you, and the Hilton sisters thank you, for pulling the wool from America's eyes and exposing the brutal persecution of the top 1%.
30 -
mike
Oct 31, 2003 at 11:06 am
Thanks for speaking up, JR. Grover Norquist, a Republican strategist, recently compared estate taxes to the Holocaust. I think he's right. It's obvious that all liberals are Nazis, and that it's only a matter of time before the top 1% is herded into concentration camps and gassed. After all, liberals control the media. Only the brave dissidents at Fox News stand between us and the Fourth Reich. I pray it's not too late.
that's the least of grover norquist's missteps of late. his alliance with alleged terrorist al-amoudi is quite a bit more distressing than a bogus comparison (i'm glad someone on the left dislikes the frivolous "nazi" references--maybe we won't see anymore of those idiotic bush=hitler signs--but i doubt it).
i do find it funny that much of the left seems to think that salvation lies within constantly carping about fox news (the #1 cable news channel -- hee hee hee). i didn't even have fox news until a few weeks ago, yet i don't toe the leftist line -- how did that happen?
one misleading thing about the tax -- EVERYONE pays for FICA and SS. i think an honest discussion of taxes should include those. ss, for instance, screws everyone, but it screws lower income workers the most.
please, no hilton references. they are awful. the first second i spent pondering them was the first one i cant get back.
I think it's silly to say that something "being jammed down the throats of the American people" results in it's popularity. If this were true, wouldn't Skins be the new hit show of season?
i dont know. about all i can say for certain is HIS FATHER IS THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY!!!!!!!
35 -
Eric Olsen
Oct 31, 2003 at 4:29 pm
And "HE'S OUT TO DESTROY US."
The thing that is refreshing about Fox News is that other than the self-parody of a slogan, they don't pretend to be anything other than pro-American, pro-Bush, etc. I'd often rather read an editorial than a news story on the same subject.
36 -
Dan
Oct 31, 2003 at 4:42 pm
Gee fellas, I was only submitting those IRS statistics as an example of something you would never read about in USA Today or hear on mainstream network news. It's just a point of fact that the richest 1% are getting a smaller tax cut in proportion to the taxes they pay than anyone else. Didn't say there was any "brutal persecution" going on. I just report, you decide.
Same goes for the deficit. The only meaningful measure of the deficit is as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product. The current "record deficit" the duplicitous liberal media go on about is laughable by historic standards. Only around 4% and shrinking by about 80,000,000,000 with the latest revised growth in GDP.
The thing I find most shameful about some liberals is when their class envy overcomes even their parasitic inclinations. Even though tax cuts have historically almost always resulted in some economic growth and prosperity for all, they would rather stay miserable then to see rich get richer. Of course it is debateable what degree tax cuts help the economy. But the dominant liberal media will never treat this debate fairly.
It's odd how people here, who consider themselves more intelligent than most, would dismiss conservatives as ditto heads or fox news parrots, when their own preferred media outlets treat them as imbeciles by withholding meaningful statistics, and appealing to the most base instincts in them. Tax cuts for the rich indeed.
Sorry if I seem rude or uncivil, this is just my opinion, you guys are entitled to yours.
Actually, Dan, there's nothing laughable about the deficit and while stating it as a percentage makes it look smaller, it has a big effect on people's lives.
Currently, the deficit is near $7 trillion dollars and it looks like the current administration's policies are soon going to make that $8 trillion.
Here's a fact for real perspective: the interest on the national debt is being paid at $1 billion dollars a day out of tax revenues.
That's enough to cover the cost of seven wars like that in Iraq, or to provide full health care for every man, woman and child (legal or illegal) in America with change left over.
That's not happening. Instead, about 60% of that $1 billion a day is going to non-government investors.
Practically speaking, it's being taken from all taxpayers and being given to the wealthy few who have invested in the debt.
Personally, I don't like this type of "income redistribution."
As long as they print the money, they don't seem to respect it, do they? Compound interest is a powerful beast that works for and against depending on whether one is saving or spending.
The government is probably the worst run businesses (if one can stop and characterize it as that), from a financial standpoint at least in this country.
Get rid of that $10,000+ office furniture, fancy marble decor, etc. It's disturbing the amount of excess waste that goes on every single day in government spending.
I can see the need for the White House to be somewhat lavish because of entertaining international guests, but the rest of the operation doesn't need to be luxurious.
These Washington politicians sit on more money than the average minimum wage worker in this country makes in a year. That's a travesty.
Your income tax figures are probably right, Dan, but they give a skewed picture because they are for the income tax.
At the low end of the income scale, the biggest hit is from payroll taxes. The FICA take is a total of 15.3%, split evenly between employer and employee.
For them, talk of "tax cuts" is just so much political prestidigitation, as income tax cuts will always go to the rich(er) because, as you say, they are the ones paying the taxes. Talk of how tax cuts are going to help the poor and middle classes is just political posturing to a large extent.
If politicians really wanted to help the poor and middle classes they could easily exempt, say, the first $10,000 of taxable income from the FICA deduction.
This would give every taxpayer, rich or poor, up to $765. Businesses would also get the same amount for all employees making less than the FICA max .
Now THAT would give the economy a shot in the arm! And everyone would get a tax break.
It might be too good a shot for Federal tithes, so perhaps the top end of the range could be extended to recover some of the income. Currently, FICA applies for all taxable income up to about $85,000. This could be changed to apply to taxable income from $10,000 to $100,000 or so.
Hmm, now that I've written this down, I really like it. Unless you folks shoot holes in it, I'm going to send it to my Senators and Representative, too.
40 -
Dan
Nov 01, 2003 at 10:02 pm
Maybe I should like your idea Hal, because I would be one who would get an extra 765. I think you'd have to extend the taxable range a little higher than 100,000 to make up for the shortfall though. But I have ethical problems with making someone else pay for my retirement set aside. Which is what Social Security is supposed to be about.
You said: "Actually, Dan, there's nothing laughable about the deficit and while stating it as a percentage makes it look smaller, it has a big effect on people's lives."
My point was that the only true honest way to state it IS as a percentage of GNP. The deception is to state it as the partisan media does ; in todays dollars as compared to yesterdays dollars without adjustment for inflation, or growth in spending. We'll have more record deficits 10 years from now, and 10 years later etc.
When I borrowed $1250 to buy a 1973 Gremlin back in 1978, I only made $2.75 an hour. Today a comparable car might cost 4 times as much, (a new record deficit), but I make 8 times more than I did then (my personal GDP). Going in debt was a good investment for me, because the car allowed me to get to work and make more money. Sometimes I used money I could have used to pay off the Gremlin for frivolous purposes. It didn't help me prosper but I felt it enhanced my lifestlye.
When Ronny Reagan blew wads of cash on national security while simultaneously cutting taxes, he was investing. It paid off because the growth in the economy outpaced the growth in the deficit and the national security spending led to the collapse of the USSR which gave us a huge peace dividend in actual defense spending savings that more than make up for the outlays then. Of course liberals in congress continued to spend on frivolous social programs money that could have been used to pay down the debt. But it enhanced a lot of peoples lifestyles.
I understand liberals altruistic nature and think that some of it is good investing. Pell grants and such. But most of it doesn't feed the economy. If you want to keep doing it, you need tax receipts to grow. In order to do that ya gotta feed the dog.
I don't care if rich people get richer. We all cash out when we die anyhow.
"Maybe I should like your idea ...But I have ethical problems with making someone else pay for my retirement set aside.
That's a different issue, and from your standpoint, a better method would be to eliminate the first $10,000 and not raise the upper limit, as that would reduce the amount deducted for Social Security, and come closer to your "ideal" of zero.
As to specifics, I haven't run the numbers against the universe of taxpayers. The principle holds even if the "free zone" is lower or the upper limit is higher.
My point was that the only true honest way to state it IS as a percentage of GNP.
No, it's not.
Whether percentage or actual dollars, the point that it’s a bad idea is still valid. It takes money from every taxpayer and transfers it to a small group of wealthy people.
The deception is to state it as the partisan media does ; in todays dollars as compared to yesterdays dollars without adjustment for inflation, or growth in spending. We'll have more record deficits 10 years from now, and 10 years later etc.
No. The deficit fluctuates up and down in any kind of dollars. Sometimes there’s a surplus, sometimes there’s a deficit. Sometimes it's a good idea to have one for a while, sometimes its a bad idea.
My current concern is that it is building the national debt at an extremely fast rate, and that is hurting the economy overall, and the smaller taxpayers in particular. Think what could be done with $350 billion per year, the current amount of interest being paid on the national debt.
And once the national debt is built up, it has a "stickiness" to it, so the interest will continue to be pulled from the economy long after the contemporary effects of the deficit have passed. It's like maxing out all your credit cards - it may provide temporary relief, but it catches up to you at some point.
42 -
Jeff
Nov 25, 2003 at 5:04 pm
No offense but Tavis Smiley isn't ONLY on the air because of public funding. He also has a popular segment on the Tom Joyner show. And while Smiley is liberal himself his show offers balance. J.C. Watts is a regular contributor to his NPR program and he regularly interviews Republican leaders.
I cited Smiley as an example of a liberal who has been successful in radio.
44 -
Don
Jan 12, 2004 at 7:20 pm
"People need a Rush Limbaugh etc. to explain that:
1. The top 1% of wage earners pay 30% of income taxes.
2. The top 5% of wage earners pay 55% of income taxes.
3. The bottom 38% of wage earners pay NO income taxes.
4. The Bush tax cuts still screwed the rich because they did not recieve an equitable portion of the cut in proportion to the taxes they pay."
But people need a liberal to explain that according to Rush's figures, the median income in the United States is $26,000 (and that's per HOUSEHOLD). So, according to Rush, if you earn $26,001, you are in the upper 50% of wage earners. (How rich do you feel?)
Also, if you add up his numbers, you see that 50% of Americans earn only 13.81% of the total income. Why should they pay taxes? They don't get any money!
If you look at "taxable income", not just "gross", as Limbaugh did, (that includes everyone who filed a return - a teenager with a part time job, a retiree with a few hundred dollars in savings, and anyone who got an unemployment check), you get this: 50% of the population got 95% of the money. They paid 96.4% of the taxes. That's obviously incredibly unfair. The other 50%, the half of this country that survives on on 5% of total income, paid 3.6% of the taxes. Is this unfair? Or do conservatives think that people who can't afford food or rent should pay more taxes?
45 -
Dragracer!
Jan 12, 2004 at 7:29 pm
Whatever, people. Politicians will be politicians no matter what side they're from. They want money and they want votes, so if it's not one thing it's another. And this man who calls himself Don doesn't know what he's talking about. Neither do any of you. Neither do I. But it's people like us who think we're good at being "fair" about taxes who end up making the rules. Isn't democracy wonderful?
Thewebsite introduces and sells our E-Book which contains information on United States Government Grants and ways to apply for it.
47 -
Joy
Mar 19, 2005 at 5:55 pm
Alot of good people are being guilt riddled in churches to vote against their own best interests. Those people and others are listening to TV news in all it's forms beleiving it as truth, not realizing that they are being propagandized. The truth is Christ was a liberal. He preached looking out for the poor and the sinners and those less fortunate. George said it best in a speech to his rich oil friends in "Texass". He told them some people say you're the elite, I call you my base. He and is friends ( the oil rich) probable laugh theirs asses off at the ignorance of those that follow them blindly into the pit. Neoconservatives are Nazis. Whenever you mix government and church you get the puritans or in other countries the Nazi Germany during WWII. Remember your history
To all of participants who dislike Republicans:
Guys, thank you much for your great contribution to the characters set (including topics, way of communication, lexicon, and mentality) perfectly - with photographic precision - reproduced in the Ann Coulter's book "How to speak to Liberals (If you must)". Highly recommend: I have now no doubt that without you the book would have no chance to be written. Thanks. Hats off to you!
May I ask a naive question?
Personal attacks are not allowed, the instruction says.
Ideas we are allowed to "attack" are product of a person, as far as I understand. This Forum is full of individual names of all spectrum.
If a person promotes - often ardently, like myself, for instance - an idea that is being sharply attacked, is it possible to disjoin an idea and its holder? If it is, than why is it that the name Hitler is used so often? I even would say, unfairly more often than that of Lenin-Stalin...
If we have to follow the same logic, I'm afraid we have to abandon using names from Herostratus to Brutus Marcus to Marx to Lenin to Clinton, don't we? Aren't we slaves of PC-perverted era? Please keep in mind that I am not calling for obscenities and cursing, I am calling to specify the essence of an idea holders. For instance, I created a nice word "Eleuthererasty" from Greek eleutheria freedom + erastOs lover, and I think it is better describing a certain disease with no dirty words.
Conservatism is simply easier to sell. It persuades people with promises of money and is highly focused on on status. Things like religion and other personal values are allowed to enter the process as well, which tempts people to take on views that may not serve their best interests.
I don't think people are getting it jammed down their throats. They just don't know what's good for them, and have been sold on the idea that greed helps everyone.
If people formed a political opinion based on the sum of their best interests, only the rich would consider themselves "conservative". Right now, there's a "middle class conservative" disease going around because everybody fancies themselves wealthier than the rest.
51 -
Cindy D
Sep 30, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Rob,
My point in this post is to say that conservatism is not being jammed down anybody's throat. People make the decision to listen to Rush or read Anne Coulter.
That's why: What...[we're]...saying is that [some of] the general public is too stupid to form our...[their]...own opinions.
Brilliant! I agree!
52 -
whodunnit
Sep 30, 2008 at 8:02 pm
As the retired CEO of a software company, my observation over forty years in the business world is that those who ‘earn’ millions of dollars, which some construe as ‘wages’, actually didn’t ‘earn’ the money. They got rich by pure luck, stock manipulation, overpricing their products or services, using monopolistic business practices, kickbacks, patronage, trickery, lying, or other practices which ‘honest people’ would tend not to do.
It doesn’t matter whether one is ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’. These labels tend to apply more to social issues than financial matters.
Basic honesty has to be present for capitalism to prosper for all,
Article comments
26 - Mark Saleski
no, he was talking about movies, as there was a reference to the new reagan biopic.
and it's good to see somebody admit that fox is a conservative channel...instead of all this 'fair and balanced' hokum.
27 - mike
"[Cuba] is so bad people are literally trying to swim across the ocean to get away from it."
People are also streaming out of Mexico. What economic system are they fleeing?
28 - Hal Pawluk
"...and it's good to see somebody admit that fox is a conservative channel...instead of all this 'fair and balanced' hokum."
I'd describe the Faux News channel as more "right wing" than "conservative." They do support the "neoconservatives", but that's the group that started as Trotskyists (Irving Kristol and friends), moved to the left wing of the Democratic party, then ended up taking roost in the far right wing of the Republican party (and overwhelming the current administration).
I find that to be one of the problems with labels - they keep shifting, and never mean what anyone (me included) thinks they mean at any particular moment.
Except for the "neo-conservatives," who would be nicely described by a phrase from Eric Ambler:
"...a sort of seedy imperialist philosophy with a lacing of Fascism behind it all."
29 - JR
Dan wrote:
"When all major mainstream media outlets are parroting the sloganeering of Liberal politicians with such pabulum as: 'Tax cuts for the richest one percent', it's easy for gullibles to be misled. People need a Rush Limbaugh etc. to explain that:
1. The top 1% of wage earners pay 30% of income taxes.
2. The top 5% of wage earners pay 55% of income taxes.
3. The bottom 38% of wage earners pay NO income taxes.
4. The Bush tax cuts still screwed the rich because they did not recieve an equitable portion of the cut in proportion to the taxes they pay."
Wow, I never realized how unfair taxes were! These statistics tell the WHOLE story. Now I can see how tough it is to be rich; it's a wonder they can afford to feed their families and send their kids to college what with having to pay for all those deadbeat bottom 38 percenters.
Now that I FULLY understand the American economic system thanks to these totally meaningful and revealing statistics, I'm going to vote Republican for the rest of my life.
I thank you, and the Hilton sisters thank you, for pulling the wool from America's eyes and exposing the brutal persecution of the top 1%.
30 - mike
Thanks for speaking up, JR. Grover Norquist, a Republican strategist, recently compared estate taxes to the Holocaust. I think he's right. It's obvious that all liberals are Nazis, and that it's only a matter of time before the top 1% is herded into concentration camps and gassed. After all, liberals control the media. Only the brave dissidents at Fox News stand between us and the Fourth Reich. I pray it's not too late.
31 - Chris Arabia
that's the least of grover norquist's missteps of late. his alliance with alleged terrorist al-amoudi is quite a bit more distressing than a bogus comparison (i'm glad someone on the left dislikes the frivolous "nazi" references--maybe we won't see anymore of those idiotic bush=hitler signs--but i doubt it).
i do find it funny that much of the left seems to think that salvation lies within constantly carping about fox news (the #1 cable news channel -- hee hee hee). i didn't even have fox news until a few weeks ago, yet i don't toe the leftist line -- how did that happen?
one misleading thing about the tax -- EVERYONE pays for FICA and SS. i think an honest discussion of taxes should include those. ss, for instance, screws everyone, but it screws lower income workers the most.
please, no hilton references. they are awful. the first second i spent pondering them was the first one i cant get back.
32 - Mark Saleski
personally, i don't care about fox news...they can be as right wing as they'd like.
what does bother me is the outright hypocrisy of the "We Report You Decide" & "Fair & Balanced" thing.
heck, even o'reilly says it's crap.
33 - visualsimplicity
I think it's silly to say that something "being jammed down the throats of the American people" results in it's popularity. If this were true, wouldn't Skins be the new hit show of season?
34 - Chris Arabia
i dont know. about all i can say for certain is HIS FATHER IS THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY!!!!!!!
35 - Eric Olsen
And "HE'S OUT TO DESTROY US."
The thing that is refreshing about Fox News is that other than the self-parody of a slogan, they don't pretend to be anything other than pro-American, pro-Bush, etc. I'd often rather read an editorial than a news story on the same subject.
36 - Dan
Gee fellas, I was only submitting those IRS statistics as an example of something you would never read about in USA Today or hear on mainstream network news. It's just a point of fact that the richest 1% are getting a smaller tax cut in proportion to the taxes they pay than anyone else. Didn't say there was any "brutal persecution" going on. I just report, you decide.
Same goes for the deficit. The only meaningful measure of the deficit is as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product. The current "record deficit" the duplicitous liberal media go on about is laughable by historic standards. Only around 4% and shrinking by about 80,000,000,000 with the latest revised growth in GDP.
The thing I find most shameful about some liberals is when their class envy overcomes even their parasitic inclinations. Even though tax cuts have historically almost always resulted in some economic growth and prosperity for all, they would rather stay miserable then to see rich get richer. Of course it is debateable what degree tax cuts help the economy. But the dominant liberal media will never treat this debate fairly.
It's odd how people here, who consider themselves more intelligent than most, would dismiss conservatives as ditto heads or fox news parrots, when their own preferred media outlets treat them as imbeciles by withholding meaningful statistics, and appealing to the most base instincts in them. Tax cuts for the rich indeed.
Sorry if I seem rude or uncivil, this is just my opinion, you guys are entitled to yours.
37 - Hal Pawluk
Actually, Dan, there's nothing laughable about the deficit and while stating it as a percentage makes it look smaller, it has a big effect on people's lives.
Currently, the deficit is near $7 trillion dollars and it looks like the current administration's policies are soon going to make that $8 trillion.
Here's a fact for real perspective: the interest on the national debt is being paid at $1 billion dollars a day out of tax revenues.
That's enough to cover the cost of seven wars like that in Iraq, or to provide full health care for every man, woman and child (legal or illegal) in America with change left over.
That's not happening. Instead, about 60% of that $1 billion a day is going to non-government investors.
Practically speaking, it's being taken from all taxpayers and being given to the wealthy few who have invested in the debt.
Personally, I don't like this type of "income redistribution."
38 - TDavid
As long as they print the money, they don't seem to respect it, do they? Compound interest is a powerful beast that works for and against depending on whether one is saving or spending.
The government is probably the worst run businesses (if one can stop and characterize it as that), from a financial standpoint at least in this country.
Get rid of that $10,000+ office furniture, fancy marble decor, etc. It's disturbing the amount of excess waste that goes on every single day in government spending.
I can see the need for the White House to be somewhat lavish because of entertaining international guests, but the rest of the operation doesn't need to be luxurious.
These Washington politicians sit on more money than the average minimum wage worker in this country makes in a year. That's a travesty.
39 - Hal Pawluk
Your income tax figures are probably right, Dan, but they give a skewed picture because they are for the income tax.
At the low end of the income scale, the biggest hit is from payroll taxes. The FICA take is a total of 15.3%, split evenly between employer and employee.
For them, talk of "tax cuts" is just so much political prestidigitation, as income tax cuts will always go to the rich(er) because, as you say, they are the ones paying the taxes. Talk of how tax cuts are going to help the poor and middle classes is just political posturing to a large extent.
If politicians really wanted to help the poor and middle classes they could easily exempt, say, the first $10,000 of taxable income from the FICA deduction.
This would give every taxpayer, rich or poor, up to $765. Businesses would also get the same amount for all employees making less than the FICA max .
Now THAT would give the economy a shot in the arm! And everyone would get a tax break.
It might be too good a shot for Federal tithes, so perhaps the top end of the range could be extended to recover some of the income. Currently, FICA applies for all taxable income up to about $85,000. This could be changed to apply to taxable income from $10,000 to $100,000 or so.
Hmm, now that I've written this down, I really like it. Unless you folks shoot holes in it, I'm going to send it to my Senators and Representative, too.
40 - Dan
Maybe I should like your idea Hal, because I would be one who would get an extra 765. I think you'd have to extend the taxable range a little higher than 100,000 to make up for the shortfall though. But I have ethical problems with making someone else pay for my retirement set aside. Which is what Social Security is supposed to be about.
You said: "Actually, Dan, there's nothing laughable about the deficit and while stating it as a percentage makes it look smaller, it has a big effect on people's lives."
My point was that the only true honest way to state it IS as a percentage of GNP. The deception is to state it as the partisan media does ; in todays dollars as compared to yesterdays dollars without adjustment for inflation, or growth in spending. We'll have more record deficits 10 years from now, and 10 years later etc.
When I borrowed $1250 to buy a 1973 Gremlin back in 1978, I only made $2.75 an hour. Today a comparable car might cost 4 times as much, (a new record deficit), but I make 8 times more than I did then (my personal GDP). Going in debt was a good investment for me, because the car allowed me to get to work and make more money. Sometimes I used money I could have used to pay off the Gremlin for frivolous purposes. It didn't help me prosper but I felt it enhanced my lifestlye.
When Ronny Reagan blew wads of cash on national security while simultaneously cutting taxes, he was investing. It paid off because the growth in the economy outpaced the growth in the deficit and the national security spending led to the collapse of the USSR which gave us a huge peace dividend in actual defense spending savings that more than make up for the outlays then. Of course liberals in congress continued to spend on frivolous social programs money that could have been used to pay down the debt. But it enhanced a lot of peoples lifestyles.
I understand liberals altruistic nature and think that some of it is good investing. Pell grants and such. But most of it doesn't feed the economy. If you want to keep doing it, you need tax receipts to grow. In order to do that ya gotta feed the dog.
I don't care if rich people get richer. We all cash out when we die anyhow.
41 - Hal Pawluk
"Maybe I should like your idea ...But I have ethical problems with making someone else pay for my retirement set aside.
That's a different issue, and from your standpoint, a better method would be to eliminate the first $10,000 and not raise the upper limit, as that would reduce the amount deducted for Social Security, and come closer to your "ideal" of zero.
As to specifics, I haven't run the numbers against the universe of taxpayers. The principle holds even if the "free zone" is lower or the upper limit is higher.
My point was that the only true honest way to state it IS as a percentage of GNP.
No, it's not.
Whether percentage or actual dollars, the point that it’s a bad idea is still valid. It takes money from every taxpayer and transfers it to a small group of wealthy people.
The deception is to state it as the partisan media does ; in todays dollars as compared to yesterdays dollars without adjustment for inflation, or growth in spending. We'll have more record deficits 10 years from now, and 10 years later etc.
No. The deficit fluctuates up and down in any kind of dollars. Sometimes there’s a surplus, sometimes there’s a deficit. Sometimes it's a good idea to have one for a while, sometimes its a bad idea.
My current concern is that it is building the national debt at an extremely fast rate, and that is hurting the economy overall, and the smaller taxpayers in particular. Think what could be done with $350 billion per year, the current amount of interest being paid on the national debt.
And once the national debt is built up, it has a "stickiness" to it, so the interest will continue to be pulled from the economy long after the contemporary effects of the deficit have passed. It's like maxing out all your credit cards - it may provide temporary relief, but it catches up to you at some point.
42 - Jeff
No offense but Tavis Smiley isn't ONLY on the air because of public funding. He also has a popular segment on the Tom Joyner show. And while Smiley is liberal himself his show offers balance. J.C. Watts is a regular contributor to his NPR program and he regularly interviews Republican leaders.
43 - Rob
I cited Smiley as an example of a liberal who has been successful in radio.
44 - Don
"People need a Rush Limbaugh etc. to explain that:
1. The top 1% of wage earners pay 30% of income taxes.
2. The top 5% of wage earners pay 55% of income taxes.
3. The bottom 38% of wage earners pay NO income taxes.
4. The Bush tax cuts still screwed the rich because they did not recieve an equitable portion of the cut in proportion to the taxes they pay."
But people need a liberal to explain that according to Rush's figures, the median income in the United States is $26,000 (and that's per HOUSEHOLD). So, according to Rush, if you earn $26,001, you are in the upper 50% of wage earners. (How rich do you feel?)
Also, if you add up his numbers, you see that 50% of Americans earn only 13.81% of the total income. Why should they pay taxes? They don't get any money!
If you look at "taxable income", not just "gross", as Limbaugh did, (that includes everyone who filed a return - a teenager with a part time job, a retiree with a few hundred dollars in savings, and anyone who got an unemployment check), you get this: 50% of the population got 95% of the money. They paid 96.4% of the taxes. That's obviously incredibly unfair. The other 50%, the half of this country that survives on on 5% of total income, paid 3.6% of the taxes. Is this unfair? Or do conservatives think that people who can't afford food or rent should pay more taxes?
45 - Dragracer!
Whatever, people. Politicians will be politicians no matter what side they're from. They want money and they want votes, so if it's not one thing it's another. And this man who calls himself Don doesn't know what he's talking about. Neither do any of you. Neither do I. But it's people like us who think we're good at being "fair" about taxes who end up making the rules. Isn't democracy wonderful?
46 - sara
Thewebsite introduces and sells our E-Book which contains information on United States Government Grants and ways to apply for it.
47 - Joy
Alot of good people are being guilt riddled in churches to vote against their own best interests. Those people and others are listening to TV news in all it's forms beleiving it as truth, not realizing that they are being propagandized. The truth is Christ was a liberal. He preached looking out for the poor and the sinners and those less fortunate. George said it best in a speech to his rich oil friends in "Texass". He told them some people say you're the elite, I call you my base. He and is friends ( the oil rich) probable laugh theirs asses off at the ignorance of those that follow them blindly into the pit. Neoconservatives are Nazis. Whenever you mix government and church you get the puritans or in other countries the Nazi Germany during WWII. Remember your history
48 - Constantine Ivanov
To all of participants who dislike Republicans:
Guys, thank you much for your great contribution to the characters set (including topics, way of communication, lexicon, and mentality) perfectly - with photographic precision - reproduced in the Ann Coulter's book "How to speak to Liberals (If you must)". Highly recommend: I have now no doubt that without you the book would have no chance to be written. Thanks. Hats off to you!
49 - Constantine Ivanov
May I ask a naive question?
Personal attacks are not allowed, the instruction says.
Ideas we are allowed to "attack" are product of a person, as far as I understand. This Forum is full of individual names of all spectrum.
If a person promotes - often ardently, like myself, for instance - an idea that is being sharply attacked, is it possible to disjoin an idea and its holder? If it is, than why is it that the name Hitler is used so often? I even would say, unfairly more often than that of Lenin-Stalin...
If we have to follow the same logic, I'm afraid we have to abandon using names from Herostratus to Brutus Marcus to Marx to Lenin to Clinton, don't we? Aren't we slaves of PC-perverted era? Please keep in mind that I am not calling for obscenities and cursing, I am calling to specify the essence of an idea holders. For instance, I created a nice word "Eleuthererasty" from Greek eleutheria freedom + erastOs lover, and I think it is better describing a certain disease with no dirty words.
50 - Omega
Conservatism is simply easier to sell. It persuades people with promises of money and is highly focused on on status. Things like religion and other personal values are allowed to enter the process as well, which tempts people to take on views that may not serve their best interests.
I don't think people are getting it jammed down their throats. They just don't know what's good for them, and have been sold on the idea that greed helps everyone.
If people formed a political opinion based on the sum of their best interests, only the rich would consider themselves "conservative". Right now, there's a "middle class conservative" disease going around because everybody fancies themselves wealthier than the rest.
51 - Cindy D
Rob,
My point in this post is to say that conservatism is not being jammed down anybody's throat. People make the decision to listen to Rush or read Anne Coulter.
That's why: What...[we're]...saying is that [some of] the general public is too stupid to form our...[their]...own opinions.
Brilliant! I agree!
52 - whodunnit
As the retired CEO of a software company, my observation over forty years in the business world is that those who ‘earn’ millions of dollars, which some construe as ‘wages’, actually didn’t ‘earn’ the money. They got rich by pure luck, stock manipulation, overpricing their products or services, using monopolistic business practices, kickbacks, patronage, trickery, lying, or other practices which ‘honest people’ would tend not to do.
It doesn’t matter whether one is ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’. These labels tend to apply more to social issues than financial matters.
Basic honesty has to be present for capitalism to prosper for all,