69 percent: Iraqis who say U.S. troop presence in Iraq is worsening security.
$390,000: Average annual cost of each U.S. soldier in Iraq.
$250,000: U.S. cost per minute of Iraq war.
17 percent: Rate at which Warren Buffet’s income was taxed last year.
30 percent: Rate at which Buffet’s receptionist’s income was taxed last year.
37 percent: Out-of-wedlock births among U.S. births in 2005.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Heckler on Open thread 11/23
- Agnatha on Let immigrants run
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Agnatha on Let immigrants run
- Raptor on Too many exemptions
- Phantom on Open thread 11/23
- Raptor on Too many exemptions
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
117 Comments
Only a reich-winger could look at this and say, “so what?”
The tax rate issue alone is a scandal . . .
Who did the polling on the Iraqis? What were they asked? How many Iraqis responded?
30 percent on the Secretary? The secretary must make a pretty hefty salary.
See the URL for the Tax Schedule.
http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=133517,00.html
Out of Wedlock Births, yeah that’s kind of high.
Must be how they phrased the question, again, right?
“…presents statistics indicating that nearly 70% of black babies are born out of wedlock”
No, this is kinda high.
“Who did the polling on the Iraqis? What were they asked? How many Iraqis responded?”
Legit questions. Wonder why more info wasn’t given on the poll? Hmmmmm?
For someone earning $60,000, which is what was reported somewhere that the receptionist earned, a large proportion of the tax they paid was probably the social security tax, which, is not really a tax. It’s the government planning our retirement for us, or so we’re told.
By the way, if Mr. Buffet feels he didn’t pay enough tax, he was free to voluntarily write the government a check to correct that. But I don’t think he did that, did he?
Also, Mr. Buffet is an advocate for the inheritance tax, but he has taken steps (by giving it away before he dies) to see that the bulk of his fortune escapes the inheritance tax.
By giving it to charity. What a scammer!
Yes, Mr. Buffet is a proponent of the Estate Tax. Yes, Mr. Buffet has done his estate planning such that a great portion of his former estate will escape Estate Tax. However, his remaining estate is of sufficient size that at some point, a rather large check will be payable to the United States Treasury.
On the tax rates, it isn’t clear if the percentage shown includes FICA, Medicare, Federal and State Income Taxes, or is a subset of the above.
A quick run through TaxCut 2006 shows a single person earning $60,000 taking standard deductions would owe $9,451 in federal income tax. That’s 15.7%. It’s likely such a person might pay even less after deductions, exemptions, etc. It seems reasonable to presume that state, social security, and medicare tax are what worked the rate up to 30%.
Numbers Huh?
How much tax did Buffet pay (the dollar amount)?
How much did the assistant pay?
Those numbers don’t make the desired argument, so they are ignored.
Before saying whether Buffet or his receptionist paid too much or too little tax in relation to each other, I would like to know how much benefit each got from the Government. Did they both utilize, or cause to be utilized an equitable amount of Governmental products and services?
I do love me some numbers
Here’s some numbers that make you go huh!
Of all people who file income tax returns, the top 10% pay 67.67% (that’s 2/3!) of ALL income taxes!
I wonder what their fair share of the total income tax is?
The bottom 50% of all income tax filers only pay 3.5% of all taxes.
Wow, America is really cutting taxes for the rich now aren’t they!?!
……….Income Tax ShareTop 1%___>$363,905___36.73%
Top 5%___>$142,975___56.23%
Top 10%__>$100,957___67.67%
Top 50%__> $29,899___96.60%
Bottom50%____< $29,899_____3.40%
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/04in07tr.xls
Some more interesting Numbers that make you go Huh!
In spite of the tax cuts of the 1980’s, Federal tax revenue increased in every year except for 1983. In spite of the tax cuts of 2003, Federal tax revenue increased every year at all time record highs!
So, NO MORE TAX INCREASES are needed! Taxpayers then get to keep more of our hard-earned money.
Revenues
1980 517.11981 599.31982 617.81983 600.61984 666.51985 734.11986 769.21987 854.41988 909.31989 991.2
1990 1,032.11991 1,055.11992 1,091.31993 1,154.51994 1,258.71995 1,351.91996 1,453.21997 1,579.41998 1,722.01999 1,827.6
2000 2,025.52001 1,991.42002 1,853.42003 1,782.52004 1,880.32005 2,153.92006 2,407.3
From the Congressional Budget Office http://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.xls
“Those numbers don’t make the desired argument, so they are ignored.”
That is called a lie of ommission.A fancy name for a goddamned lie.
Some more interesting Numbers that make you go Huh!
SOCIALISM is alive and well in the USA! Great news for you Socialists calling for more Government handout programs like National Healthcare!
Federal Spending is at all time record levels.
FEDERAL Government Spending of hard-earned working American taxpayer dollars. If you aren’t working much or at all, then you don’t care if spending on Socialist programs supporting your free handouts continue!
Actually, you freeloaders want SPENDING and TAXATION to increase – because you are not doing any of the work! You are freeloading off of everyone else! The world owes you something doesn’t it! And hard-working American taxpayers like me should be required to pay your way in life!
(After all, you CAN’T support yourself, you need someone to hold your hand and help you cause you don’t LIKE to work do you? Work is TOO HARD for you lazy SOB’s.)
1980 590.91981 678.21982 745.71983 808.41984 851.91985 946.41986 990.41987 1,004.11988 1,064.51989 1,143.8
1990 1,253.11991 1,324.31992 1,381.61993 1,409.51994 1,461.91995 1,515.91996 1,560.61997 1,601.31998 1,652.71999 1,702.0
2000 1,789.22001 1,863.22002 2,011.22003 2,160.12004 2,293.02005 2,472.22006 2,655.4
Source Congressional Budget Officehttp://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.xls
I and my wife’s effective federal income tax rate was higher than Buffets, and that is solely the federal tax. So, I imagine Buffet’s secretary earns quite a bit more than both of us combined (doubt his executive secretary is compensated like the average secretary) probably did pay 30% fed. tax.
Max–
I’ve refuted those figures over and over again, but still the reich-wing has decided they’ve got something so they stick with it.
You got nothing . . . nothing except reich-wing talking points.
Here we go again–
1. You’re only looking at income taxes. You’re not factoring in Soc. Sec. and Medicare which take a huge chunk (8 or 9 percent) in addition to income tax.
2. You’re not looking at a myrid of other ways that people are taxed–gasoline tax, phone taxes, cable, general sales tax, special sales tax (for the arena for instance), car tags, toll road, compliance with gov’t regulations.
3. If you tax driving, people who drive a lot would pay more. If you taxed television viewing, heavy viewers would pay more.
When you tax INCOME, people with higher income pay a lot more.
Duh.
The only way that the top earners could pay less is if they MADE LESS and poorer people made more income.
The question is not “look at how much the rich pay!” The question should be what percentage of the income tax the rich SHOULD pay.
Reich-wingers never answer this question. They just say, “it should be lower.”
You stupid right-wingers don’t realize how you’re getting USED.
The combination of FICA and Medicare taxes result in 7.65% of compensation subject to the same being deducted from an employee’s earnings. The employer matches this. After the “ceiling” is reached annually, which is over $90,000 for 2007, only the Medicare tax of 1.45% is withheld (and matched) from salaries and wages.
“The question should be what percentage of the income tax the rich SHOULD pay.”
It should be lower.
Gosh Clark, I mean CapnAmerica,
I asked the question a long time ago. How much more than 96.5% of the income tax do you think the top 50% should pay?
Pure Socialist Capn, that’s what you are.
They do tax driving Capn. Any one who delivers commercial goods or provides a commercial driving service knows this.
The War in Iraq will be ended by 2008. The military industrialists and oil capitalists will have made hundreds of billions of dollars. The War for them will be a victory, even though the U.S. must withdraw, and China invest in Iraq’s oil pumping and refining, and receive the lion’s share of shipments. Which will please the capitalists who have invested heavily in China’s industrialization.
Kansans need to be thinking about THE FUTURE, such as education for your children, and research opportunities. Kansas’s school system is dead and defunct. Your kids are being trained to do follow-rote-routines jobs whose value is in the process of being pegged to Third World wages. Either accept this, or wake up and change the system.
“Federal Spending is at all time record levels.”
And how much of that is for your boy’s war?
“And how much of that is for your boy’s war?”
As I recall, there were a couple of Democrats who voted to authorize this thing. Maybe I’m wrong.
“And how much of that is for your boy’s war?”
How much for “entitlement” spending?
Can’t wait to see what you Libs do when you get the White House in 2008.
You’ll pull the troops from Iraq and then you’ll be busy counting the dead in San Francisco and NYC after Al Qaeda drops 2 dirty bombs on us on 9/11/11.
How much Federal spending will it take to rebuild San Fran and NYC?
“How much more than 96.5% of the income tax do you think the top 50% should pay?
Posted by: Max | July 13, 2007 at 02:50 PM”
I don’t know, do the top 50% earn more or less than 96.5% of the total taxable income?
Dear Max,
Glad to see that you’re on board with an unimpeached Democratic President through 9/11/11. We’ll hold you to that.
As for the implied “we’re fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here” premise in favor of a continued stay in Iraq, ask yourself this, Max: had we invaded Iraq in 2001, what effect would this have had on stopping the 9/11/01 attacks?
Answer: none. Because Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks. Al Qaeda was based in AFGHANISTAN.
If, now, you want to argue that fighting Al Qaeda guerrillas in Iraq is keeping them from attacking the U.S., this shows that you’re buying into phony Administration spin and that you misunderstand the franchise nature of Al Qaeda. If you still want to push this argument, tell it to the British: Al Qaeda killed 52 British citizens, and wounded 700–all while “Coalition Forces” were in Iraq.
As for the Federal spending to “rebuild” NYC and SF, if a Republican Congress or President is in power, the Katrina model of rebuilding should come in at well under the current cost of the Iraq War–$1 Trillion and counting.
“In spite of the tax cuts of the 1980’s, Federal tax revenue increased in every year except for 1983. In spite of the tax cuts of 2003, Federal tax revenue increased every year at all time record highs!”
Well that is perfectly obvious isn’t it?Tax revenues = Taxable income times tax rate. If the tax rate stays the same and taxable income rises, tax revenues rise. If the tax rate drops, and taxable income increases by a greater percentage than the tax rate decreased there will be greater tax revenues.
Thank you captain easy math
The ‘Libs,’ assuming the election is not stolen or not cancelled altogether, will continue the occupation of Iraq. That is their political program behind their ‘withdrawal’ rhetoric. The leaders of the party have said it numerous times – NOBODY is calling for a quick withdrawal of the troops in Iraq. On the contrary, a long term occupation will continue through the following 4 years after the 2008 election, at least, and probably longer assuming the US economy can shoulder the burdon indefinately.
Of course, if the only place you get your information is the corporate media or right wing blogs, you might not be aware of that. Heck, plenty of ‘libs’ seem unaware of the Democrats’ real pro-war program, too.
As for dirty bombs and ‘al qaeda’ attacks – they are far more likely the longer the occupations and war mongering of the ruling elite continues.
If the good ‘ol USA was destroyed and occupied by a foreign power, what would you do? Say, ‘please stay’?
Sheesh.. I never cease to be amazed..
I don’t know, do the top 50% earn more or less than 96.5% of the total taxable income?
Posted by: brian | July 13, 2007 at 03:51 PM
Answer my question first Brian and then I’ll answer yours.
How much more than 96.5% of the income tax do you think the top 50% should pay?
Ok CF2K, then you are saying it’s not cost effective to defend America.
Sacrifice NYC and San Francisco and it’ll only cost $1 trillion. That’s far less then fighting terrorists over seas to stop them from attacking us at home.
Course, 15 million Americans are killed, but hey, doesn’t matter to you does it?
KC Dan, quote Clinton and Obama where they said the US occupation of Iraq would continue for 4 years.
They should pay at least an average of 13.5% of their taxable income.
Your turn.
It’s widely asserted the United States is fighting a “war on terror.” But that’s absurd.
Terror is a tactic – an attempt to undermine the morale of a much stronger foe, which the “terrorists” know they cannot defeat in traditional battle.Our ancestors sent John Paul Jones in a fast frigate to burn some English coastal towns and harass their shipping during the American Revolution. That was an attempt at terrorism – engaging English civilians on their own ground, in an attempt to convince the British Parliament this foreign war was not a good idea.We knew our Navy didn’t stand a chance in a fleet action against the Royal Navy.But, we could, and did terrorize some coastal civilians to persuade their King.Terrorism is a tactic. It makes no sense to launch a war against a tactic.Imagine Franklin Roosevelt announcing on Dec. 8, 1941, that we were declaring war not on Japan, but on the evil tactic of the sneak attack via aircraft carrier.
Wising up, the Japanese could easily have agreed to scuttle all their aircraft carriers, and instead stationed battlewagons just off Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sydney and Seattle, shelling those cities to smithereens.
Imagine Roosevelt, Marshall, and McArthur responding, “Well, that’s OK then. We have no objection to the shelling of our major west coast cities, so long as it’s done by conventional battleships and not those darned, sneaky aircraft carriers. This was a war against sneak attack by aircraft carriers, after all, and with Admiral Yamamoto’s gracious scuttling of the Japanese carrier fleet, we consider that we’ve brought our war to a successful conclusion, even though the Japanese still occupy all of East Asia as far south as Australia. The residents of our West Coast cities will just have to move further inland, that’s all.”
Hunh?
What tactic will we make war on next, the artillery barrage?Terrorism is a tactic. It makes no sense to launch a war against a tactic, no matter how nasty, because it ignores the fact that we or our friends may well choose to adopt tactics in which someone else might see similarities to the enemy tactics we condemn, and that meantime the enemy can simply choose another tactic. What tactic will we make war on next, the artillery barrage? The amphibious landing? Chess players resorting to the devilish fianchetto?
The other problem with declaring “war” against a tactic, of course, is that there’s no reasonable point at which the subjects of the war-making government can expect that “war” to end. There are always going to be a few more goofballs out there, yearning for a way to extract revenge on “The Great Satan” for some perceived slight to them or their ancestors … right? They don’t and won’t ever have fleets of aircraft carriers or armored divisions to invade us through Mexico or Canada. So their only option is what we choose to call “terrorism.”
Americans gladly put up with the draft, margarine rationing, wage controls, and all kinds of other hardships (many unnecessary, harmful, and counterproductive, as could be expected from a loose cannon like Franklin Roosevelt, though that’s another story) to defeat Hitler and Tojo. But the deal always was that once the thugs in question were dead and their armies defeated, it would all be over and we could turn on the lights again.
When is it we can reasonably expect a “victory” in this war on terror, whereupon we can sell off the airport metal detectors for scrap, fire all these TSA body-gropers, start carrying our hunting rifles onto the planes again, and tell the banks it’s once again none of their business why we want to withdraw or deposit $50,000 in cash, since we’re no longer looking for sneaky Arab terrorist money-launderers, and surely that stuff never had anything to do with red-blooded Americans dodging the income tax … did it?
Besides, if we’re engaged in a “War on Terror,” how are we going to decide whether our enemy in the Caucasus is the Russians or the Chechens? Which side initiated the use of terror, there? (Hint: The Chechens never tried to conquer Russia, leveling whole cities and kidnapping the children to be hauled home and raised in a foreign culture and religion.) After all, we can’t make war on some terrors, and ignore others, and claim to be fighting a “War on Terror” … can we? Wouldn’t that be like fighting the 1940s Nazis in North Africa, but not in France, since France was harder to get to?
No one knows what the heck a “War on Terror” really means except the permanent institutionalization of the predictable paranoia of tyrants afraid their oppressed peasant classes will eventually wise up and shoot back.Since no one knows what the heck a “War on Terror” really means except the permanent institutionalization of the predictable paranoia of tyrants afraid their oppressed peasant classes will eventually wise up and shoot back, making the absurd claim that we’re fighting a “War on Terror” easily justifies anything that makes our rulers “feel safer,” starting with the random search and disarming of domestic airplane passengers, subway passengers, and down-on-their luck residents being expelled at gunpoint from waterlogged New Orleans (by guardsmen bringing home the skill and habit of disarming civilians learned in their deployments to Bosnia and elsewhere, just as I’ve long predicted.)
What ever happened to fighting a war against – oh, I don’t know … the people who attacked us, regardless of their tactics?
And this may get us to the heart of the matter: Is all this nonsense merely so we can avoid confronting the simple but Politically Incorrect act of naming our real enemy?
What ever happened to fighting a war against the people who attacked us, regardless of their tactics?Since Sept. 11, 2001 – if not earlier – we’ve been at war with a considerable bunch of radical, fundamentalist Middle Eastern Islamic men, men who shoot popes and behead Christian schoolgirls in Indonesia and lady missionaries in Iraq and otherwise behave in a manner which would get them put outside in the cold till they learn to stop soiling the carpets in any civilized home even at Christmastime, and who unfortunately draw comfort and support from a much larger mass of mewling Muslims (even here in the West) who may not be actively taking up arms (though they do seem to be out to burn every automobile in France, as this is written in early November, 2005), but who are willing to lend them both moral and financial support, whining, “Well, what do you expect when there is no justice for the Palestinian people who were kicked out of Jordan by the son-of-a-dog Jews after the regrettable events of September, 1970?” – at war with a bunch of wild-eyed Middle Eastern Mohammedans who hope to expel any remainder of post-15th-century cultural progress from their homelands, the better to lead their people back to a vicious 14th century religious tyranny, complete with the stoning to death of rape victims, Christian missionaries, and any woman who goes out in public with her forearms exposed.
Now, do such folks have a right to live under Sharia law? The answer is pretty much yes – pluralism, self-determination and all – though of course we commiserate with any minority who find themselves stranded in regions where such gibbering loonies hold sway, and who wish they could live in conditions we’re more likely to describe as “freedom.” The solution, however, is to allow those who wish to live in freedom to emigrate (while concentrating on restoring our previous freedoms right here at home), so long as they comply with a few reasonable requirements, like: They should learn English if they want to vote, they have no right to demand our women dress up like bag ladies at the public swimming pool, and they have to offer some convincing evidence that they understand and embrace quaint notions like “religious tolerance and the separation of church and state.”
Then we could and should have a sensible, open debate in Congress about whether this struggle properly fits any standard definition of a “war,” and how best to prosecute it – starting with how we locate and identify our enemy.
For instance, the Constitution allows the equipping of private warships under “letters of marque” to make war on selected foreign enemies. Might not the retention of such mercenaries, giving them a “license to kill” those designated enemies and seize their stuff anywhere away from our shores, make more sense than undertaking, oh – I don’t want to be TOO ridiculous here – the task of rebuilding the entire infrastructure of the cobbled-together and decrepit state of Iraq, while taking fire from every disgruntled towelhead who can lay hands on a Kalashnikov and scrape up bus fare to Baghdad?
Scandalous!Hillary Clinton condemns private equity tax break By Kevin DrawbaughFri Jul 13, 1:54 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, the front-running Democratic presidential candidate, on Friday called for closing a loophole that she said unfairly lowers the tax burden of a few top Wall Street financiers.
ADVERTISEMENTClinton called the loophole a “glaring inequity” and joined other lawmakers in a push to raise the tax rate on “carried interest” gains made by senior partners in the booming private equity and hedge fund businesses.
“It offends our values as a nation when an investment manager making $50 million can pay a lower tax rate on her earned income than a teacher making $50,000 pays on her income,” said Clinton in a campaign statement.
“As president I will reform our tax code to ensure that the carried interest earned by some multimillionaire Wall Street managers is recognized for what it is: ordinary income that should be taxed at ordinary income tax rates.”
Two other Democratic presidential hopefuls — John Edwards, a former senator, and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama — have also expressed support for raising the “carried interest” tax.
Carried interest is the 20 percent cut of profits above targeted returns that is typically kept by private equity and hedge fund managers on major transactions. It is a key source of vast fortunes amassed by them in recent years as they have become increasingly powerful players in global finance.
Under present law, these investment managers are allowed to pay 15 percent capital gains tax on carried interest, not the 35 percent top ordinary income tax rate.
The attention of Congress has focused on these investment managers since last month’s $4.13 billion initial public offering by private equity firm Blackstone Group.
Blackstone co-founders Stephen Schwarzman and Peter Peterson pocketed more than $2.4 billion between them on the IPO, which showered hundreds of millions of dollars more on the firm’s senior members. It was the largest U.S. IPO since 2002.
Legislation being considered in the Senate and in the House of Representatives would sharply raise taxes on private equity firms and possibly hedge funds as well.
One approach favored by some lawmakers would boost taxes on certain
Max – the Democrats won’t say they will continue the occupation for the next for years. DUH!
They are posturing as ‘anti-war’ in order to try to corral the anti-war mood of the public behind the Democratic paraty. However, at the same time, if you actually listen to the message the Democratic party candidates are giving after the rhetorical words ‘withdrawal’ and ‘ending the war,’ it is very clear to the ruling and financial elite that the Democrats will continue the occupation and militarism elsewhere.
Why do you think the Democrats are taking in more campaign money from the financial elite and corporations than the GOP candidates? Because they are going to abandon US corporate and strategic interests in the Mideast?
Use your friggin’ brain – if you have one.
Ok, Brian, then you know from the table that the top 50% do pay (on average) 13.15% of their income as taxes.
You also know then that:
Top % Tax Rate1%………..21.47%5%………..19.06%10%……….17.41%25%……….14.86%50%……….13.15%Bottom 50%….3.03%
The Socialists (And Communists for that matter) should be very happy with the progressive tax rates above.
YOU said they should pay at least 13.15%. And the top 1% pays 21.47%
Max, you make a good point about dirty bombs being possible, due to the incompetence of Homeland Security and the administration’s abandonment of the Afgahanistan huntdown of Bin Laden.
Unfortunately, your conflation of dirty bombs and our troops withdrawing from Iraq doesn’t have a rational connection.
What you’re saying is, if we abandon the International Space Station, we’re going to be invaded by the Mole People.
Max,
“Sacrifice NYC and San Francisco and it’ll only cost $1 trillion. That’s far less then fighting terrorists over seas to stop them from attacking us at home.”
Actually, Al Qaeda WANTS the U.S. to stay in Iraq for a long time. Our presence there recruits new AQ members… and it gives them “training”.
They longer we stay, the bigger and stronger AQ becomes.
Oops Brian, to answer your question, the top 50% earns 86.76% of the income, and pays 96.60% of the tax.
Top % Income % Share Tax % Share1%…….19.65%………..35.73%5%…….34.84%………..56.23%10%……45.83%………..67.57%25%……67.10%………..84.42%50%……86.76%………..96.60%
Yes, the principle behind it is called ‘ability-to-pay’Check out here for more info on taxation strategies:http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/ProgressiveTaxes.html
Yes, something like:
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”
Karl Marx 1875
Ability-to-pay is not unlike some philosophies that Marx proposed.
Here is a simple version of a better approach:1. Prepare a Federal budget and determine the amount of money needed2. Divide that by the projected income base, which would be based on the total income from the prior year.3. This calculation will give a percentage, which will be used as the tax rate for everybody.4. No deductions, no adjustments, no credits, no loopholes, no tax shelters, just one flat tax that everybody pays.
I’m all for a flat tax Brian, and would go with your approach in a heartbeat – except you also need to factor in the other side of the coin.
That is, what is the Net Income for all people after deducting for taxes, and after adding back-in welfare subsidies.
For example using round rough numbers:
Divorced Woman
$30,000 Income+10,000 Alimony/Child Support- 2,000 Federal Taxes- 1,000 State Taxes+ 1,000 Unearned Income Credit+ 500 Heating Assistance+ 2,500 Food Stamps———$41,000
Divorced Man
$60,000 Income-10,000 Alimony/Child Support- 5,000 Federal Taxes- 2,000 State Taxes———$43,000
Is that fair?
I’d love to find statistics on Net Bottom Line Income for all Americans, haven’t found it yet though.
Just one flat rate that everyone pays, huh? Fat chance. You think the wealthy are going to pay?
Here is what right wingers love:
“The 2007 World Wealth Report, released last month by European consulting firm Cap Gemini and Wall Street firm Merrill Lynch, documents the numerical and financial growth of “high net worth individuals” (HNWIs)—individuals with over $1 million in financial assets—over the past year. The report provides a picture not only of growing wealth among the richest layers of society, but also an increasing concentration of wealth at the very top.
In 2006, the HNWI population grew by 8.3 percent to a total of 9.5 million worldwide (0.14 percent of the world’s population). Their financial holdings grew 11.4 percent to $37.2 trillion dollars—roughly one quarter of global household wealth.
The top layer of “ultra-high net worth individuals” (UNWIs), with over $30 million in financial assets each, grew 11.3 percent to 94,740, and their total holdings increased 16.8 percent to $13.1 trillion.
Thus, even within the wealthy, resources are highly concentrated: the top 1 percent of the HNWIs (.0014 percent of the world’s population) control over one third of HNWI wealth.”
And the right wing corporate media convinces millions to prop up and support this state of affairs.
Whose interets do you think the tax system and Iraq War is in – yours or theirs?
Oh, but keep waving your flag and hyping the ‘flat tax’ – as if high net worth individuals pay much on anything.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jul2007/weal-j12.shtml
“Actually, Al Qaeda WANTS the U.S. to stay in Iraq for a long time.”
Is this what dailyKos tells you to think?
How much for “entitlement” spending?
Posted by: fleettwood
And do you consider corporate welfare ‘entitlement’ spending? But, of course, fleetwood thinks that is okay because it beefs up his profits in his portfolio.
Isn’t it interesting that welfare for the single mother with kids is wrong but the Republicans’ corporate welfare is okay and actually good for the country? It all depends on what side of the fence you are on.
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer
This is the only way to really handle taxes. Out of all the plans out there, this makes the most sense. You keep your whole check and only pay taxes on things you buy.
“Is this what dailyKos tells you to think?”
No, but it’s what you’ve been told NOT to think. Or else, you can’t think at all.
“corporate welfare ‘entitlement’ spending?”
Please explain what that is. Corporations and welfare don’t seem to go together. A little help here.
“No, but it’s what you’ve been told NOT to think.”
Oops. I meant democratUnderground. Is that better?
Read bottom of page 16, top of 17 at WEST POINT’S Combating Terrorism Center,http://www.ctc.usma.edu/harmony/CTC-AtiyahLetter.pdf
Ok, here’s my plan. Should make everyone a little mad and everyone a little glad at the same time – a perfect compromise.
KC – I agree the rich have too many deductions.
Fred – I agree corporate welfare should end.
Wayreth – I like your idea except the politically many will see that as too regressive on the poor and I beleive we would need a Constitutional Amendment (like the one for the income tax) to authorize the national sales tax.
To not make this too long, I’ll post my plan separately.
Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) revealed on Friday afternoon that the White House and Pentagon were holding up a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee investigation into the friendly fire death of former professional football player and Army Corporal Patrick Tillman.
“The Committee wrote to White House Counsel Fred Fielding seeking ‘all documents received or generated by any official in the Executive Office of the President’ relating to Corporal Tillman’s death,” noted a press release from the Committee.
But the White House has apparently again invoked its executive privilege to hold up the documents sought by Waxman and Ranking Minority member Tom Davis (R-VA).
“The White House Counsel’s office responded that it would not provide the Committee with documents that ‘implicate Executive Branch confidentiality interests’ and produced only two communications with the officials in the Defense Department, one of which was a package of news clippings,” the Committe noted. “The response of the Defense Department to the Committee’s inquiry was also deficient.”
Read more: http://rawstory.com/news/2007/White_House_Pentagon_hold...
can this corrupt administrtaion ever do anything
fleets enema
everytime you hear a true fact that you can’t dispute, you try to bring up other websites or call people names.
Just letting you know, it doesn’t change the fact that it is true.
Give up…go enlist or go shoot yourself in the face to get over the fact that your savior bush is nothing but a crook
“Give up…go enlist or go shoot yourself in the face…”
Help! I think I have a crazy Lib who is threatening to have me killed. Help!Your comments, though, are very intelligent.
Corporations and welfare don’t seem to go together. A little help here.
Posted by: fleettwood
One example would be when US taxpayers pay a company to move their headquarters off shore and take their jobs with them.
Welfare is just another word for taxpayer money being given out.
Is Fleetwood that naive or just plain stupid to think that corporations are not the first ones in line for the taxpayer money?
Like I stated before – those that profit from corporations getting welfare will always defend the practice.
Ok, I know you all have been waiting for this, (yeah right):
My plan, would have a flat rate of X (X being calculated as described by Brian above)on ALL income above $20,000 per person who earns income.
Say for the sake of argument 15% of everything above $20,000.
..No more deductions (except for the $20,000 deduction per)
Gone is the mortgage interest deduction.Gone is tax exempt interest (eg. Municipal bonds)Gone are the itemized deduction and the standard deduction.Gone is the Unearned Income Credit.Gone is the Child and Child care Credits.Gone is the Cow/Calf credit, etc….Gone are any new 401k savings or IRAs. (Existing funds would be taxed when withdrawn)
..Doesn’t matter whether you are married, single, divorced, living by yourself or 10 people. What business is it of government what your status is? Why should your status determine your tax rate?
All income will be taxed.All the rich living off of tax free municipal investments will now have this income taxed.Social Security? Well, hate to see it, but at some point it will be means tested anyway, so might as well tax that too. (Remember there’s still the $20,000 living allowance per person who earns income.
That’s it. Simple. Flat, yet allows $20,000 to live on, and that makes this tax less regressive then just a flat tax.
Welfare for the very poor will continue. No one starves in this country (far from it most are obese) and no one will starve in the future.
“One example would be when US taxpayers pay a company to move their headquarters off shore and take their jobs with them.”
How does that work? Taxpayers PAY them to move? Don’t get it. A little help here.
You all realize that say 17% of a billion is 170,000,000 (that’s 170-million)…where as 30% of say $30,000 is oh, $9,000 right?
Max–
Okay, you’re too dumb to get it, I can see that now, so no point in arguing with you.
But for the people who aren’t practising members of the “First Church of Free Market Fundamentalism,” here’s the real story.
Max says that “revenues go up EVEN WHEN WE LOWER TAXES.”
Wow! That’s great! Except they don’t. Look at his own stats:
2000 2,025.52001 1,991.42002 1,853.42003 1,782.52004 1,880.32005 2,153.92006 2,407.3
1. You can see that revenues went down from Clinton’s 00 and 01 levels in 02, 03, then they started to climb.
It wasn’t until the last two years tax revenue exceeded what it was in 2000.
2. We can’t tell from the CBO figures whether these numbers are nominal dollars or constant dollars adjusted for inflation. At 3-4 percent inflation, that could make a big difference.
3. The revenue figures he gave were total revenue from all sources–income tax, social security tax, medicare tax, corporate tax, estate and gift tax, excise tax and other.
When you look ONLY at income taxes, which is what we’re talking about here, the revenues go from a high in 2000 and don’t match that high again until 2006.
Again, we don’t know if that’s in nominal or constant dollars.
4. As far as his percentages of how much the rich make and how much they pay, he provides no source for this.
To answer the question, how much should the rich pay, the answer is this–either Warren Buffett should pay as much as his secr’y or his secr’y should pay as little as he does.
There’s no rationale that taxes “capital gains” at a lower rate than regular earned income. This is pure welfare-for-the-rich.
And everyone should pay enough (or the gov’t reduces spending enough) that we run NO MORE DEFICITS and we begin to reduce the national debt.
In other words, we should do what we were doing under Clinton-Gore.
Myboyz–
No, they don’t get that at all.
They’re all wrapped up in “let’s pity the rich” just like Rush (I make a quarter billion a year) Limbaugh tells them too, so they’ll stay fat, dumb and happy and let the rich and powerful f*ck them over.
If the rich have it so bad, let them trade places with us . . .
oh fleets enema. Its good that you realize the iraq war = harm, but its not by me…try again
you are one ignorant bush puppet
yesterday, rush said he had a lunch pail job and that he didn’t get breaks and had to do a lot of work.
yea right
“Limbaugh tells them too, so they’ll stay fat, dumb and happy…”
This? From the people of the “let’s link to Lib sites”?Part of the problem with you people is you don’t give us the credit we deserve. If the Republican party was made up of only “rich” people, that wouldn’t go too far, now would it?Libs: They got theirs, let’s take it.
“you are one ignorant bush puppet”
Another great rebuttal. What’s next? Lay on the floor and flail?
“”One example would be when US taxpayers pay a company to move their headquarters off shore and take their jobs with them.”
How does that work? Taxpayers PAY them to move? Don’t get it. A little help here.”
STILL waiting.
oh enema you make me laugh
you are so ignorant you don’t even know it
tehehehehe
“you are so ignorant you don’t even know it”
Good one. Now explain it.
SOCIALIST Clark, my source was posted above. The IRS.
Source for the Revenue and Expenditures was also listed above. The Congressional Budget Office. Yeah, all sources of revenue are included as well as all sources of expenditures.
Sit and Spin the numbers Clarkie, might give ya bigger thrill then your used to.
And on the Revenues from 2001, 2002, and 2003, they fell 1)because of the Clinton recession of 2000-01, and 2) 9/11, which impacted 01 and 02. Tax cuts were passed in 2003, which led to an increase in revenues in 2004, 2005, and 2006.
The negative reaction from Socialist like Clark can be expected.
Those who don’t pay much tax anyway are all FOR Socialism.
What do they care if someone else pays their way? They can’t earn their own way anyway.
Still my plan would let those like Clark continue to earn up to $20,000 without paying any Federal income tax. Though Clark would lose his Unearned Income Credit.
What ever happened to the notion of a national sales tax, or a flat tax that was being touted several years ago? If I remember correctly either of those would reduce or eliminate the IRS and actually provide more revenue? Are either of those a good idea?
Might be a bit off subject…but why should people be punished for working hard? If you SIT ON YOUR BUTT all your life, you have everything given to you..if you get an education, land a decent job, and WORK YOUR BUTT OFF, then you get penalized for it. Seems like things are backward in this country..we should be rewarded accordingly to how hard we work and contribute, not the other way ’round. Maybe people wouldn’t be so unmotivated if there weren’t so many secondary gains for being that way.
The 2005 birth rate for teens ages 15 to 19 was 40.4 births for every 1,000 female teens, which is 35% lower than the peak of 61.8 in1991. (The decline began at the same time as the introduction of abstinence-only education in 1991.) Though birth rates varied across racial and ethnic groups, numbers were down across the board. For white teen females, 26 out of every 1,000 gave birthin 2005. The same year, the birth rate for non-Hispanic black teen females was 60.9, and for Hispanics it was 81.5.The teen birth rate is still higher in the USofA than in any other developed nation, and 83% of teen births in America are illegitimate. 71% of Americans say the growth in births to unwed mothers (37% of births in 2005, up from 5% in 1960) is a “big problem.”[I wonder what kind of problem the other 29% think it is.]
Max, the only thing I would add to your plan is a provision to adjust the $20K (or whatever it would work out to be) base by cost of living/inflation changes.
Sounds good to me. I would think all those for a smaller, more efficient government would be all for a plan like that.
Being born to an unwed mother pre-disposes a child to poverty, the largest group of citzens in this country living in poverty happen to be children. We can’t reduce poverty until we reduce the number of children born out of wedlock.
Now Gee, parkay, that’s funny because the report I saw tonight said SEX ED…comprehensive sex ed, was the factor in why teens were having less sex and fewer were getting pregnant…because they were using CONDOMS.
Abstinence only education doesn’t do anything but drive the birth rate up. That’s been proven in targeted studies that show the difference in outcomes between kids taught abstinence only and comprehensive sex education.
I think you’re right Mary, those who work hardest should earn the most. So from here on out, laborers and farmers will be paid more than those who sit on their butts all day.
In china that’s how it is…the harder you work, the more you get paid…doctors don’t make more than farmers, because the farmers are considered more valuble to their society.
I’d like to add to the absintence only education, of course parkay likes it…because Operation Rescue and like groups are getting funnelled the state dollars intended for abstinence only education. http://www.siecus.org/policy/PUpdates/pdate0266.html
Here’s the results of different studies on abstinence only education.
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/stateevaluations/index.htm
Oh, too bad, I thought you actually meant what you said.
The reasons the births are down IS because of condoms…due to the fact that STD and Aides prevention have been a big focus. The fact that the pregnacy and birth rate is down is just a nice side effect of those efforts. It has nothing to do with abstinence education, “just say no” isn’t too realistic when you have raging teenage hormones.
Yes Brian, I agree the $20,000 deduction should be indexed to inflation.
The flat tax %, whether that would be calculated to be 15%, 17%, 20%, should NEVER be changed.
If wages rise with inflation, then Federal revenue rises. If the population continues to grow, then Fedeeral revenue also rises.
The challenge then is on the Spending side. Government would have to limit Spending to the rate of inflation if we are to spend within our means.
The flat tax would solve only part of the problem though.
If you saw 60 Minutes last week, you got a good picture of the Fiscal Crisis America faces with Social Security and Medicare.
That issue needs to be addressed as well.
Ken, I like the Sales tax approach too. But I think there are 2 problems with that approach.
1)Politically, many will see the Sales tax as being too regressive for the poor.
2)I don’t believe Congress has Constitutional authority to levee a national sales tax. So just like there is now an Amendment authorizing the Income Tax (which is the justification for Social Security and Medicare taxes by the way), there would need to be an Amendment to authorize a national sales tax.
Who isn’t all for getting rid of or shrinking the IRS?
A flat tax would go a long way in reducing the IRS too though. No deductions to audit. Just income and withholding audits would be required.
My point was if you give a millionaire a 5% tax break, that is an additional $50,000 that individual is going to pump into the economy.If you give someone like myself a 5% tax break, it is going to pump $2,000 into the economy.Obviously the $50,000 of the millionaire is going to have much more of a significant impact on the economy than my $2,000 would.
you could do away with the Income Tax and not replace it with anything, worked fine for a 130 years or so.
Clark must have took the flat tax plan personally. Wow Clark, sorry the flat tax would mean you would lose your Unearned Income Credit, Child Credits, Child Care Credits, and Mortgage Interest Deduction.
You’d still have a flat tax deduction of $20,000 which would mean you wouldn’t pay much if anything in taxes.
With the loss of the Unearned Income Credit, you just wouldn’t get back more then what you paid in – so yes I can see how a Socialist would be upset about losing their welfare.
I’m sure you’ll still qualify for heating assistance, food stamps, and numerous other handouts available. The government cheese is probably enough to get you through the winter.
Hard working people though would all pay the same rate after $20,000 and would spend 10 minutes instead of 10 hours completing income tax returns every year.
Why shouldn’t hard working American taxpayers keep most of what they EARN?
I wonder how many hawks would continue to support the war if it meant raising taxes to pay for it.
Myboyzdad, agree with your comment on the effect of any tax cut.
However, a flat tax with just one $20,000 deduction may very well increase the taxes for the rich.
The rich who have income from tax-exempt bonds and other shelters will now pay a tax on that income. Their tax deductions for property taxes and mortgage interest on their $10 million dollar homes will also be gone.
I wonder how long America will survive if it disbands the military and decides it doesn’t have to defend itself anymore?
Maybe the UN will save us!
Hey Max you got it right. America is in serious trouble:
Source is CBS Sixty Minutes. Can’t get any more lib than that can you?When the stock market soars or plunges, everyone pays attention. But short term results aren’t that important to the man you’re about to meet. David Walker thinks the biggest economic peril facing the nation is being ignored, and for nearly two years now he has been traveling the country like an Old Testament prophet, urging people to wake up before its too late. Who is David Walker and why should we care?
As correspondent Steve Kroft first reported earlier this year, he is the nation’s top accountant, the comptroller general of the United States. He’s totaled up our government’s income, liabilities, and future obligations and concluded that our current standard of living is unsustainable unless some drastic action is taken. And he’s not alone. It’s been called the “dirty little secret everyone in Washington knows” – a set of financial truths so inconvenient that most elected officials don’t even want to talk about them, which is exactly why David Walker does.________________________________________
“I would argue that the most serious threat to the United States is not someone hiding in a cave in Afghanistan or Pakistan but our own fiscal irresponsibility,” Walker tells Kroft.
David Walker is a prudent man and a highly respected public official. As comptroller general of the United States he runs he Government Accountability Office, the GAO, which audits the government’s books and serves as the investigative arm of the U.S. Congress. He has more than 3,000 employees, a budget of a half a billion dollars, and a message he considers urgent.
“I’m going to show you some numbers…they’re all big and they’re all bad,” he says.
So bad, that Walker has given up on elected officials and taken his message directly to taxpayers and opinion makers, hoping to shape the debate in the next presidential election.
“You know the American people, I tell you, they are absolutely starved for two things: the truth, and leadership,” Walker says.
He calls it a fiscal wake up tour, and he is telling civic groups, university forums and newspaper editorial boards that the U.S. has spent, promised, and borrowed itself into such a deep hole it will be unable to climb out if it doesn’t act now. As Walker sees it, the survival of the republic is at stake.
“What’s going on right now is we’re spending more money than we make…we’re charging it to credit card…and expecting our grandchildren to pay for it. And that’s absolutely outrageous,” he told the editorial board of the Seattle Post Intelligencer.
You have heard this before, from Ross Perot 15 years ago. You might have even thought the problem had been solved, when President Clinton announced, “Tonight, I come before you to announce that the federal deficit … will be simply zero.”
“Well, those days are gone. We’ve gone from surpluses to huge deficits and our long range situation is much worse,” Walker says.
“President Bush would argue that the economy is in pretty good shape, unemployment is down, the deficit is actually less than expected,” Kroft remarks.
“The fact is, is that we don’t face an immediate crisis. And, so people say, ‘What’s the problem?’ The answer is, we suffer from a fiscal cancer. It is growing within us. And if we do not treat it, it could have catastrophic consequences for our country,” Walker replies.
The cancer, Walker says, are massive entitlement programs we can no longer afford, exacerbated by a demographic glitch that began more than 60 years ago, a dramatic spike in the fertility rate called the “baby boom.”
Beginning next year, and for 20 years thereafter, 78 million Americans will become pensioners and medical dependents of the U.S. taxpayer.
“The first baby boomer will reach 62 and be eligible for early retirement of Social Security January 1, 2008. They’ll be eligible for Medicare just three years later. And when those boomers start retiring in mass, then that will be a tsunami of spending that could swamp our ship of state if we don’t get serious,” Walker explains.
To illustrate their impact, he uses a power point presentation to show what would happen in 30 years if the U.S. maintains its current course and fulfills all of the promises politicians have made to the public on things like Social Security and Medicare.
What would happen in 2040 if nothing changes?
“If nothing changes, the federal government’s not gonna be able to do much more than pay interest on the mounting debt and some entitlement benefits. It won’t have money left for anything else – national defense, homeland security, education, you name it,” Walker warns.
Walker says you could eliminate all waste and fraud and the entire Pentagon budget and the long-range financial problem still wouldn’t go away, in what’s shaping up as an actuarial nightmare.
Part of the problem, Walker acknowledges, is that there won’t be enough wage earners to support the benefits of the baby boomers. “But the real problem, Steve, is health care costs. Our health care problem is much more significant than Social Security,” he says.
Asked what he means by that, Walker tells Kroft, “By that I mean that the Medicare problem is five times greater than the Social Security problem.”
The problem with Medicare, Walker says, is people keep living longer, and medical costs keep rising at twice the rate of inflation. But instead of dealing with the problem, he says, the president and the Congress made things much worse in Dec. 2003, when they expanded the Medicare program to include prescription drug coverage.
“The prescription drug bill was probably the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s,” Walker argues.
Asked why, Walker says, “Well, because we promise way more than we can afford to keep. Eight trillion dollars added to what was already a 15 to $20 trillion under-funding. We’re not being realistic. We can’t afford the promises we’ve already made, much less to be able, piling on top of ‘em.”
With one stroke of the pen, Walker says, the federal government increased existing Medicare obligations nearly 40 percent over the next 75 years.
“We’d have to have eight trillion dollars today, invested in treasury rates, to deliver on that promise,” Walker explains.
Asked how much we actually have, Walker says, “Zip.”
So where’s that money going to come from?
“Well it’s gonna come from additional taxes, or it’s gonna come from restructuring these promises, or it’s gonna come from cutting other spending,” Walker says.
He is not suggesting that the nation do away with Medicare or prescription drug benefits. He does believe the current health care system is way too expensive, and overrated.
“On cost we’re number one in the world. We spend 50 percent more of our economy on health care than any nation on earth,” he says.
“We have the largest uninsured population of any major industrialized nation. We have above average infant mortality, below average life expectancy, and much higher than average medical error rates for an industrialized nation,” Walker points out.
Walker says we have promised almost unlimited healthcare to senior citizens who never see the bills, and the government already is borrowing money to pay them. He says the system is unsustainable.
“It’s the number one fiscal challenge for the federal government, it’s the number one fiscal challenge for state governments and it’s the number one competitive challenge for American business. We’re gonna have to dramatically and fundamentally reform our health care system in installments over the next 20 years,” Walker tells Kroft.
And if we don’t?
“And if we don’t, it could bankrupt America,” Walker argues.
You’re probably expecting to hear from someone who disagrees with the comptroller general’s numbers, projections, and analysis. But hardly anyone does. He is accompanied on the wake-up tour by economists from the conservative Heritage Foundation, the left-leaning Brookings Institution, and the non-partisan Concord Coalition. The only dissenters seem to be a small minority of economists who believe either that the U.S. can grow its way out of the problem, or that Walker is over-stating it.
“The Wall Street Journal for example calls you ‘Chicken Little,’ running around saying that the ’sky is falling, the sky is falling,’” Kroft remarks.
“Unfortunately they don’t get it. I don’t know anybody who has done their homework, has researched history, and who’s good at math who would tell you that we can grow our way out of this problem,” Walker replies.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke validated much of Walker’s take on the situation at congressional hearings this year, and so did ranking Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee. Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota is the chairman.
Sen. Conrad thinks David Walker is “providing an enormous public service.”
Asked if he agrees with Walker’s figures and his projections, Sen. Conrad says, “I do. You know, I mean we could always question the precise nature of this projection or that projection. But, that misses the point. The larger story that he is telling is exactly correct.”
Conrad acknowledges that most people in Washington are aware how bad the situation is. “They know in large measure here, Republicans and Democrats, that we are on a course that doesn’t add up,” the senator tells Kroft.
“Why doesn’t somebody do something about it?” Kroft asks.
“Because it’s always easier not to. ‘Cause it’s always easier to defer, to kick the can down the road to avoid making choices. You know, you get in trouble in politics when you make choices,” Sen. Conrad says.
Asked if he thinks taxes should be raised, the senator says, “I believe first of all, we need more revenue. We need to be tough on spending. And we need to reform the entitlement programs … we need to do all of it.”
But he admits he doesn’t think there’s a consensus for raising taxes.
“Any politician who tells you that we can solve our problem without reforming Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is not telling you the truth,” Walker told an audience at the University of Denver.
Over the next year, the nation’s top accountant will be traveling to the early primary states, telling voters that we need to begin raising taxes or government revenues and put a cap on federal spending if we want to maintain our economic security and standard of living.
“If you tell them the truth, if you give them the facts, if you explain this in terms of not just numbers but values and people, they will get it and empower their elected officials to make tough choices,” Walker argues.
Asked if he knows any politicians willing to raise taxes or cut back benefits, Walker says, “I don’t know politicians that like to raise taxes. I don’t know politicians that like to cut spending, but I think what we have to recognize is this is not just about numbers. We are mortgaging the future of our children and grandchildren at record rates, and that is not only an issue of fiscal irresponsibility, it’s an issue of immorality.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/01/60minutes/main2528226_page3.shtml#ccmm(CBS) This segment was originally broadcast on March 4, 2007. It was updated on July 8, 2007.
$15 to $20 Trillion in additional Debt will be required to pay for Social Security and Medicare?!?
No easy solutions, course I recall Ted Kennedy saying there was No Problem with Social Security and Medicare.
Well of course HE can say that. He’s gonna be dead in 10 years, just before the Socialist programs he helped to create cause America to go broke!
Ok, some quick math then:
$8 Trillion current national debt plus another $20 Trillion, plus a couple more Trillion that will be added by National Healthcare and within 20 years we have a $30 Trillion National Debt!
Even at a 5% rate of interest, that’s $1.5 Trillion in interest that will be required every year.
As compared to our current annual Total Budget of $2 Trillion?
Wow!
Those be some heaping big numbers that make you go Huh!
At least I’ll have a place on the reservation. May have to hunt buffalo to live though.
Never mind, most of em are killed already.
Max this is too much for the average American to worry about. They simply do not care. They want the free healthcare Hillary advertises and don’t give a crappwhere the money comes from. They don’t believe in God. They believe in money trees. Trees full of cash where our government just reaches out and grabs handsful of. The average American is 6,000 bucks in debt on their credit card. How can you expect them to be smarter in understanding the fiscal problems our national debt will cause? You are asking a lot. Especially from the socialism the liberals are promoting in this election. Heck, even Bush endorsed the prescription drug benefit. Whatever it takes – but someone will have to pay the piper. But who cares about our kids! Maybe the illegals will pay the bill. Whatever, our nation is in for a big surprise and big troubles. Just wait until China pulls its treasury bills and Saudi. Most are too stupid to comprehend what that means.
Max remember Ted’s dollars are safe in his Hatian trust fund. Silly us we put money in American banks and have to pay interest on our capital gains. Not him. He just likes to spends our tax dollars. Kinda like Robert Kennedy Jr. flying around in a private jet while telling us to walk to work and conserve more energy.
Iowa kid you are so right and until the sheeple wake up and smell the roses they will continue to go down that path to socialized medicine, utopian promises that the dems keep promising and that can only be delivered by taxing us more and more. How long before the wealthy say enough and take their money out of the country and then who will pay the bills. Certainly not those on welfare who think everyone is entitled to the best health care free. Nevermind that they don’t want to work for it.
Things are going to get rocky I’m afraid. Weak on national defense, strong on take from those who have and give to those who need. Forget about earning it. The government will give it to you. NOthing is free. Someone has to pay. I can hardly wait for the long lines to get medical care if you get it at all. But it will be free.
Oh well it will have to hit them first before they get the message.
Look, there is just no way anyone could hold bush responsible for those out of wedlock births. No, by golly. He can take a hit for all those other things, but he’s got to be proud of the out of wedlock births. See, no abortions.
Thinkfirst if you want a real revalation – look at the stats of who is really getting abortions. It isn’t the young teens or even the welfare moms. Just a clue.
And where will those rich businessmen go? All the other countries have national healthcare. We’re the only ones who DONT.
Iowa Kid, maybe you’re too dumb to understand that you already pay your own healthcare and others. National healthcare would actually cost you LESS.
Actually all insurance is is a private socialism. Then you pay your own, everyone in your plan’s healthcare…plus in taxes all of medicaid and medicare too. Then you also pay the uninsured at the hospital when they jack up the prices.
The ones screwed the most in the pocketbook are the insured. You’re also paying for your insurance agent’s hefty salary, plus their company trips to bermuda, their receptionists..their claims dept.. and on and on and on.
Is every newbie poster just republiCON in disguise?
Beak, or Keab, whichever…
Did you cut out the part where they said this guy was bankrolled by the heritage foundation…or one of those neocon think tanks?
I saw the report, right up till that point.
Mary,”Might be a bit off subject…but why should people be punished for working hard? If you SIT ON YOUR BUTT all your life, you have everything given to you..”
It’s been shown time and again that hard work and ambition are not primary factors in becoming wealthy; the big money is almost always inherited. Go into almost any corporate office, and it’s the top executives who have the office toys on their desks, who come into the office between golf games and trips to Club Med, and bitch because they’re under so much pressure. It’s everybody else’s sweat that makes their money!
What the hell is this?
All these new nics, totally hard for right-wing positions and sniffing each other’s butts.
Smells like ONE guy with several nics.
Gee . . . now who do we know that does that?
I wonder.
Anyway, “Max,” number one I am NOT Clark, you idiot. Clark seems like a great guy and we often agree (I also stole his ASCII finger), but I am not him.
Number Two, your claim that “Bush’s tax cuts were passed in 2003″ is flat wrong.
http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/2918/1/351
“The tax cut provisions were first passed in 2001, when economic projections forecasted a budget surplus of $5 trillion for the coming decade. In 2003, the acceleration of those tax cuts added $500 billion to the deficit over ten years.”
But if you’re like all the other right-wing nancy-boys on this WEBlog, you will not even acknowledge your egregious LIE let alone apologize for it.
Number three, the simple fact is that the national debt is going up. A little uptick in revenue, which could be for any number of reasons, is in no way keeping pace with the 9 percent increase in gov’t spending under BushCo and the RepubliCONs.
Oh, and that doesn’t count the 12 billion a month we spend in Iraq that is “off the books.”
P_Mom–
I just read your last post.
Maybe ReplagiarKhahn is getting tired of getting ignored, so he’s ginned up these new nics.
Would explain a few things . . .
Remember how RepublicKhahn said he works doing some kind of “on-line” work?
Wonder if he has anything to do with the “boy medical exam” spamming that’s going on right now.
Sen. Vittner (R-Of Course) reportedly liked to wear diapers, so RepubliCON’s spam would be part of that same Republican perversion . . .
I meant to say that 9 percent per YEAR under BushCo and the RepubliCONs.
Even Bush’s incompetence is making Rhonda sound reasonable (in other words, more like a liberal). Even the Eagle came out and demanded an end to the American colony in Iraq.
Bush has done well on one campaign promise, to be a uniter. So far he’s united 78% of the public against him.
Ummm CapN… just how many nics IS Kahan using this week?? Hmmmm
Chas don’t worry about it son. I will take care of it.
BAGHDAD – Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Saturday that the Iraqi army and police are capable of keeping security in the country when American troops leave “any time they want,” though he acknowledged the forces need further weapons and training.
ADVERTISEMENT
The embattled prime minister sought to show confidence at a time when congressional pressure is growing for a withdrawal and the Bush administration reported little progress had been made on the most vital of a series of political benchmarks it wants al-Maliki to carry out.
Al-Maliki said difficulty in enacting the measures was “natural” given Iraq’s turmoil.
But one of his top aides, Hassan al-Suneid, rankled at the assessment, saying the U.S. was treating Iraq like “an experiment in an American laboratory.” He sharply criticised the U.S. military, saying it was committing human rights violations, embarassing the Iraqi government with its tactics and cooperating with “gangs of killers” in its campaign against al-Qaida in Iraq.
Al-Suneid’s comments were a rare show of frustration toward the Americans from within al-Maliki’s inner circle as the prime minister struggles to overcome deep divisions between Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish members of his coalition and enact the American-drawn list of benchmarks.
In new violence in Baghdad on Saturday, a car bomb leveled a two-story apartment building, and a suicide bomber plowed his explosives-packed vehicle into a line of cars at a gas station. The two attacks killed at least eight people, police officials said on condition of anonymity because they were not authorize to release details of the attacks.
Thursday’s White House assessment of progress on the benchmarks fueled calls among congressional critics of the Iraqi policy for a change in strategy, including a withdrawal of American forces.
Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari warned earlier this week of civil war and the government’s collapse if the Americans leave. But al-Maliki told reporters Saturday, “We say in full confidence that we are able, God willing, to take the responsibility completely in running the security file if the international forces withdraw at any time they want.”
But he added that Iraqi forces are “still in need of more weapons and rehabilitation” to be ready in the case of a withdrawal.
On Friday, the Pentagon conceded that the Iraqi army has become more reliant on the U.S. military. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Peter Pace, said the number of Iraqi batallions able to operate on their own without U.S. support has dropped in recent months from 10 to six, though he said the fall was in part due to attrition from stepped-up offensives.
Al-Maliki told a Baghdad press conference that his government needs “time and effort” to enact the political reforms that Washington seeks — “particularly since the political process is facing security, economic and services pressures, as well as regional and international interference.”
“These difficulties can be read as a big success, not negative points, when they are viewed under the shadow of the big challenges,” he said.
In the White House strategy, beefed-up American forces have been waging intensified security crackdowns in Baghdad and areas to the north and south for nearly a month. The goal is to bring quiet to the capital while al-Maliki gives Sunni Arabs a greater role in the goverment and political process, lessening support for the insurgency.
But the benchmarks have been blocked by divisions among Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish leaders. In August, the parliament is taking a one month vacation — a shorter break than the usual two months, but still enough to anger some in Congress who say lawmakers should push through the measures.
Al-Suneid, a Shiite lawmaker close to al-Maliki, bristled at the pressure. He called Thursday’s report “objective,” but added, “this bothers us a lot that the situation looks as if it is an experiment in an American laboratory (judging) whether we succeed or fail.”
He also told The Associated Press that al-Maliki has problems with the top U.S. commander Gen. David Petraeus, who works along a “purely American vision.”
He criticized U.S. overtures to Sunni groups in Anbar and Diyala, encouraging former insurgents to join the fight against al-Qaida in Iraq. “These are gangs of killers,” he said.
“There are disagreements that the strategy that Petraeus is following might succeed in confronting al-Qaida in the early period but it will leave Iraq an armed nation, an armed society and militias,” said al-Suneid.
He said that the U.S. authorities have embarrassed al-Maliki’ government through acts such as constructing a wall around Baghdad’s Sunni neighborhood of Azamiyah and repeated raids on suspected Shiite militiamen in the capital’s eastern slum of Sadr City. He said the U.S. use of airstrikes to hit suspected insurgent positions also kills civilians.
“This embarrasses the government in front of its people,” he said, calling the civilian deaths a “human rights violation.”
And where will those rich businessmen go? All the other countries have national healthcare. We’re the only ones who DONT.
Posted by: political_mom | July 13, 2007 at 11:22 PM
The Socialists truly fear the working people will either stop working or go somewhere else.
They just can’t beleive we would leave the good ole USA and retire early at age 45 and 50 and leave the Socialist beggars wondering who is gonna be there to pay for the next hand-out.
The non-working lazy SOB’s will have to figure out how to work or starve.
And once working, they will be the ones btiching about high income taxes.
Watch as the Socialists try to actually chain working people to their jobs and force us to continue working for them.
Many boomers are in a position to retire early. Doctors for example, when Hillary Healthcare is rolled out, will simply retire. Something like 70% of all doctors are age 50 or older.
Guess what’s gonna happen when they all retire early when Hillary Healthcare cuts their salaries in half and at the same time – doubles their income taxes?
There are many nice places around the world where the self-reliant can go and live high on the hog.
When all you Socialists get your Hillary in office and think you have it made – many of us will retire and/or move out of the USA and leave y’all high and dry.
Think about that – before you become so greedy that you want to steal even more working peoples’ money.
Don’t you have any pride at being self-reliant and being able to take care of yourself?
Or maybe you take pride in being a beggar and holding your hand out and crying when you don’t bother work to earn your fair share – yet you want to get something for nothin all the time – cause the World owes you something!
Bye Bye Socialists! Have a nice day!
Bizarre Wingnut Meltdown in WA leads to the White Houseby LARefugeeFri Jul 13, 2007 at 06:25:14 PM PDT
I’m amazed that more people haven’t picked up on Bush’s attempt at firing the International Boundary Commissioner (even though he has not authority to do so). It’s like watching a train wreck within the Republican Party.http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/13/20311/1202
In an action that stems from a legal dispute over a Blaine couple’s backyard wall on the U.S.- Canada border, President Bush has fired the U.S. member of the International Boundary Commission, Dennis Schornack. Or has he?
“We are preparing responses, because the president has exceeded his authority and has acted illegally” in firing Schornack, said attorney Elliott Feldman, who represents the International Boundary Commission. Or does he?
In documents filed in U.S. District Court in Seattle, Department of Justice lawyers say that they, not Feldman, are the legal representatives for the commission in a lawsuit filed by Herbert and Shirley-Ann Leu of Blaine. The Leus’ lawsuit asks the court to uphold their property rights to keep their wall, despite the boundary commission’s demands that they remove it.http://www.bellinghamherald.com/102/story/127729.html
Dennis Schornack was appointed by President Bush to his position in 2001 (he assumed office in 2002), and previously headed the Strategic Inititives office of Michigan Governor John Engler, a conservative Republican. Dennis Schornack is therefore probably a Republican.
The Leu’s are probably Republicans, as indicated by their outrage that any law, regulation, or treaty can tell them what they can or can’t do with their own property.
The Pacific Legal Foundation, the organization filing suite on behalf of the Leu’s, appears to represent the extreme right-wing of the Republican Party.
The Justice Department under Alberto Gonzales is now about as thoroughly Republican as it can get.
So why would President Bush, who already has more troubles than he has time to put on a list, suddenly add to his troubles the attempted firing of an independent international commissioner over which he has no authority?
The clincher ladies and gentlemen:
Possibly because the lawyer hired by Schornack was John MacKay, who was one of the U.S. Federal Prosecutors forced to resign by the White House this past year????!!!!!!
Dennis Schornack’s final comment:
“I’m ashamed of my government….”