Jump to content

Jim

Members
  • Posts

    3904
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Jim

  1. Oh you're bailing a sinking ship if you're going to try and defend FOX. At least try a slightly harder target. Flat out lies should be confronted ~ Bill O'Reilly; Fox News Channel; May 22, 2003 Since the Iraq conflict began on March 20, Fox News has been on a mission to legitimize it. One problem for Fox's protracted apologia is that despite promises of evidence of current weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) by the Bush Administration, the evidence has been ambiguous at best. Unfortunately for the network, I’ve been keeping a scratch diary of their reports since the war began. Keep in mind that in the first three weeks of March, before the bombs started officially dropping, Fox was spreading all sorts of Pentagon propaganda. Iraq had "drones" that it could quickly dispatch to major U.S. metropolitan areas to spread biological agents. Saddam was handing out chemical weapons to the Republican guard to use against coalition troops in a last-ditch red-zone ring around Baghdad. Given what we now know about Iraq, these reports seem to be laughable fantasies, but they were effective in securing public backing for the war. The following is a short chronicle of lies, propagation of lies, exaggerations, distortions, spin, and conjecture presented as fact. My comments are in brackets [ ]s. March 14: On The Fox Report anchor Shepard Smith reports that Saddam is planning to use flood water as a weapon by blowing up dams and causing severe flood damage. March 19: Fox anchor Shepard Smith reports that Iraqis are planning to detonate large stores of napalm buried deep below the earth to scorch coalition forces. Fox Military Analyst Major Bob Bevelacqua states that coalition forces will drop a MOAB on Saddam's bunker [!!] and give him the "Mother of All Sunburns." March 23: The network begins 2 days of unequivocal assertions that a 100-acre facility discovered by coalition forces at An Najaf is a chemical weapons plant. Much is made about the fact that it was booby trapped. A former UN weapons inspector interviewed on camera over the phone downplays the WMD allegations and says that booby-trapping is common. His points are ignored as unequivocal charges of a chemical weapons facility are made on Fox for yet another day (March 24). Only weeks later is it briefly conceded that the chemicals definitively detected at the facility were pesticides. [Jennifer Eccleston has to be the worst reporter employed by any network. She began one segment with a "Hi there!" – in no response to any segue from the relaying anchor at Fox headquarters in New York. Her bangs are long and constantly blowing in her face in the wind. Her head wobbles from side to side with her nose tracing out a figure 8 all the while arbitrarily syncopating a monotone voice with overemphasis on the last syllables of different words (e.g., Bagh-DAD’). The old, white-haired flag-waving yahoos like her not for her professionalism – she has none – but because of her innocent Britney Spearsesque beauty; i.e., she's a typical young piece of meat which dirty old men with too much time on their hands fantasize about.] March 24: Oliver North reports that the staff at the French embassy in Baghdad are destroying documents. [How could he know this?] March 24: Fox and Friends. Anchor Juliet Huddy asks Colonel David hunt why coalition forces don't "blow up" Al Jazeera TV. [The context of the discussion makes it clear that she doesn't know the difference between Al Jazeera and Iraqi TV!!!! Juliet Huddy is a beautiful woman but not very bright.] March 28: Repeated assertions by Fox News anchors of a red ring around Baghdad in which Republican Guard forces were planning to use chemical weapons on coalition forces. A Fox "Breaking News" flash reports that Iraqi soldiers were seen by coalition forces moving 55-gallon drums almost certainly containing chemical agents. April 7: Fox, echoing NPR, reports that U.S. forces near Baghdad have discovered a weapons cache of 20 medium-range missiles containing sarin and mustard gas. Initial tests show that the deadly chemicals are not "trace elements." [in the coming weeks, this embarrassing non-discovery is quickly stomped down the Memory Hole. The missiles were never mentioned again.] April 9: The crowd around coalition troops toppling the Saddam statue in Baghdad looks strangely sparse despite the network's assertions to the contrary. The perspective is always in close and even then there is no mob storming the statue to hit it with their shoes. Just a handful of people. It's constantly asserted that there's a huge crowd. [i'm perplexed. Where's the huge crowd?!] April 10: Fox "Breaking News" report of weapons-grade plutonium found at Al Tuwaitha. [in the coming weeks this "discovery" was expeditiously shoved down the Memory Hole as well.] April 10 (2:59 EDT): A report noting with surprise "how little" the Iraqis were celebrating the coalition invasion. [An interesting contradiction of the allegations of widespread celebration just the day before with the toppling of the Saddam statue.] April 10 (3 p.m. EDT: Reporter Rick Leventhal) Fox "Breaking News" report: A mobile bioweapons lab is found. Video of a tiny tan truck—about the size of the smallest truck that U-Haul rents – which had its cargo bed and fuel tank shot up with bullets after a looter tried to drive it away. Repeated assertions that this is most definitely a "bioweapons" lab. A graphic sequence is shown of a large Winnebago-type vehicle that is massive compared to the tiny truck found. The irony of this escapes the Fox newscasters and defense "experts." [This was the first "bioweapons lab" found, not the larger one later found in Mosul. A week later it is briefly conceded that the tiny truck was probably never a bio weapons lab, but promises that real ones will pour forth from the landscape continue. The second phantom lab, a large tractor-trailer truck was discovered around May 2 by Kurdish fighters.] April 10: To show that France is in bed with Saddam Hussein, Fox begins running old footage of Saddam Hussein's September 1975 trip to Paris to meet with Jacques Chirac and tour a nuclear power plant. [because Fox strives so hard to be "Fair and Balanced," it's all the more curious how it fails to inform its audience about another trip four years later, this one to Baghdad on December 19, 1983 made by Reagan envoy and then former secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld (see pic below). The network again, because it's so very "Fair and Balanced," also inexplicably forgot to tell its audience about another trip by Rummy to Baghdad, this time on March 24, 1984, the very same day that a U.N. team found that Iraqi forces had used mustard gas laced with a nerve agent on Iranian soldiers. Rummy obviously wasn't too concerned about the charges of gassing, as in 1986 when he was considering a run for the Republican presidential nomination of 1988, he listed his restoration of diplomatic relations with WMD-using Iraq as one of his proudest achievements. But all that's an eternity ago for Imperial Conservatives with a 20-second attention span. The Fox newscasters rename Jacques Chirac "Jacques Iraq"(yuk, yuk, yuk – what a side splitter!) and keep going.] April 7: Repeated ominous footage of barrels buried in a below-ground shed near Karbala. The implication is that the Iraqi landscape is replete with these types of shelters, all of them brimming with evidence of chemical weapons. [These were revealed to be agricultural chemicals as well.] April 13: Fox Graphic: "Bush: Syria Harboring Chemical Weapons." [My favorite Fox war commentator is definitely Colonel David Hunt. From my canvassing of all the cable network war coverage, it's hard to find an analyst who is more dogmatic. When coalition forces weren’t greeted with hugs and kisses like he predicted and instead encountered stiff resistance from Iraqi forces in Basra and other places, Davey was all denial. Everything’s going perfect. Rummy is God, hallelujah and praise Dubya! There's not a problem in Iraq that can't be solved by blowing some Iraqi's brains out.] April 15: Fox analyst Mansoor Ijaz claims that the top 55 Iraqi leaders (along with the whole stash of chemical and biological WMDs they have taken with them) are now living it up in Latakia, Syria. [This is the same 55 that appeared on the deck of cards and is still being captured – far from all living it up in Syria.] On The Fox Report anchor Shepard Smith completely breaks with any pretense of objectivity and openly mocks actor Tim Robbins after playing an excerpt of Robbins' speech to the National Press Club. "Oh, that was so powerful!" Smith mocked. [impressive objectivity there, Mr. Smith.] April 16: Fred Barnes on Special Report with Brit Hume blames the looting of the Iraqi National Museum on the museum staff. [Right now there are so many claims and counterclaims about the looting it's hard to tell what happened. In a Fox segment on May 19 a coalition official asserted that 170,000 items were definitely not missing. Of course he refused to give a ballpark estimate of what was missing, which he'd surely have in order to plausibly deny that the original estimate was wrong.] April 18: Bill O'Reilly opens his show calling Iraqis "ungrateful." April 21: Bill O'Reilly opens his show calling Iraqi Shiites "ungrateful SOBs" and "fanatics." He concludes that "[we] can't tolerate a fundamentalist state" in Iraq. [Whoa, O'Reilly. I thought we promised the Iraqis that we were going to implement democracy, not democracy that gives the U.S. the election results it wants. That's not democracy, now, is it? By now it's quite clear that despite the spinning on The No Spin Zone, Iraq is descending into chaos.] April 22: Lt. Colonel Robert Maginnis states on The O'Reilly Factor that the probability of finding WMDs is a 10 out of 10. [This is the same Robert Maginnis who predicted a double-ring defense of Baghdad in the Washington Times on January 7.] O'Reilly states that if no WMDs are found within a month from today, then that spells big trouble. O'Reilly promises to explore the issue a month later. [Cool, let's hold his feet to the fire on that promise. On an earlier show he said that U.S. credibility would be "shot" if no WMDs were found. ] May 8: Fox News Military Analyst Major General Paul Vallely states on The O’Reilly Factor that "Middle East agents" have told him that Iraq’s WMDs along with 17 mobile weapons labs (1 of which was captured around May 2) are now buried in the Bakaa Valley in Syria 30 meters underground. He also claims that France helped Iraqi leaders escape to Europe by providing them with travel papers [a charge that even the Pentagon later denies although it's apparent that's where Vallely got his information]. May 11: On The Fox Report with Rick Folbaum it is conceded that the nefarious captured trailer contains not a shred of evidence of WMDs, but Folbaum hints that what’s important is that the trailer could have been used to make them. [Hmmm. I thought we went to war for actual WMDs, not for the ability to make WMDs.] May 16: Special Report with Brit Hume. Muslims, citing Islam's ban of alcohol, are torching liquor stores and threatening their Christian owners. Under Saddam's secular regime, Christian names were banned and schools were nationalized, but guns and alcohol were freely available; there was tolerance for Iraq's 1 million Catholic and Protestant Christians. In New and Improved Neocon Iraq, there's a letter circulating in Baghdad threatening violence to even the families of women who refuse to wear the traditional Muslim head covering. [The report is yet another interesting and reluctant concession of unintended consequences.] May 19: O'Reilly discusses a number of inflammatory and bogus charges that were floated in the U.S. media about France (e.g., France supplied Iraq with precision switches used in nuclear weapons, French companies sold spare parts to Iraq for military planes and helicopters, France possessed illegal strains of smallpox, France helped Iraqi leaders escape to Europe by providing them with travel papers). Recall this last charge was made by Major General Paul Vallely on May 8 on The O'Reilly Factor. Again, the Pentagon denies all such charges although much of the Beltway thinks it's obvious that the Pentagon is the source of them. O'Reilly claims that Vallely is only irresponsible if the charges don't turn out to be true. O'Reilly refers to documents that prove that the French government was briefing Saddam right until the war started. [briefed on what?] May 20: O'Reilly concedes that the Private Jessica Lynch rescue story could be a fraud, as asserted by the BBC and Los Angeles Times columnist Robert Scheer. "Somebody is lying," he states. He says that if the U.S. military has concocted a fraud, then it will be a terrible scandal but if the BBC and Scheer are wrong, nothing will happen to them. He says he is skeptical of the BBC and Scheer. To prove his point he brings on no other than Colonel David Hunt. [Geez. Transcript here.] Over and over, Hunt calls the allegations of staged rescue an "assail on the finest soldiers in the world." He claims that the ambulance with Lynch in it that drove up to a Marine checkpoint was never shot at, its drivers demanded $10,000 for information on Jessica, Saddam Hospital was guarded by uniformed Iraqi soldiers and Fedayeen, Jessica's life was saved, and coalition forces didn't trash the hospital. What were his sources for this information? The special ops members on the raid, some of whom are his friends and former colleagues. Over and over Hunt kept saying, "They're the best soldiers in the world, they're the best in the world. Why would they make this up?" [What followed next was an exchange that's priceless and one of many that goes by far too un-analyzed on Fox every day:] Hunt: In my opinion it's an assault, an effrontery to the finest men and women in our service, it's an assault on Jessica, it's an assault on these great guys, these great special operations guys ... at a minimum we should no longer buy the L.A. Times, no longer buy the Toronto Free Press, and shut the BBC off. It's a government to government issue...this is calling into question the veracity of the finest soldiers in the world and it's uncalled for, it's absolutely unbelievable." O'Reilly: If you [Hunt] turn out to be right, nothing will happen to Scheer...he'll just go along blithely printing his lies and living his life and getting paid for it. [To the Colonel: U.S. special ops soldiers may be the best in the world at what they do, but how does it logically follow from that assessment that particular actions taken during the raid were not excessive and unjustified? How is the BBC's story an assault on Jessica?! What do you mean when you mention a "government to government issue" given that the U.S. government now controls Iraq?! Is the Pentagon the most effective check on its own possible misdeeds? How convenient if you're suggesting that it is. Who is your source that Iraqi doctors were trying to ransom Jessica? Why hasn't this allegation made its way into any other news reports?] [To O'Reilly: If the raid does turn out to be mostly staged, there'll be no terrible scandal precisely because you, Fox News, and the Pentagon will assert just the opposite and allow yet another embarrassment to slide into the Memory Hole. This is exactly why your demand for accountability from the BBC and L.A. Times is so hollow and hypocritical. Instead of plumbing the U.S. military to investigate itself, why don't you interview Iraqi doctor Harith al-Houssona as the London Times did on April 16 (where the story was first broken, not by the BBC or Robert Scheer) who actually saved Lynch's life instead of the U.S. special ops who could have jeopardized it? The doctor testifies that all Iraqi forces left the day before the raid and that Jessica was delivered by an ambulance that had to return to the hospital because it was shot at by Marines. Why would he lie? You say you automatically trust the Pentagon. Why, when tales of Lynch's heroics in fighting off 500 Iraqi soldiers with one hand while severely wounded and tales that she had amnesia have already been proven bogus?] May 22 (5:54 a.m. CDT): Richard King, a military doctor, appears on Fox and Friends with promises by the show's hosts that he will verify that the Jessica Lynch rescue wasn't staged. King doesn't prove anything. He states that he arrived at Saddam Hospital the day after the rescue, concedes damage and mal-treatment of doctors at the hospital, and that he "was told " that the hospital was guarded by hostile forces but doesn't specify who told him. [The testimony of the hospital staff contradicts this last hearsay.] May 22: O'Reilly fails to live up to his promise to make a big stink if no WMDs are found by today. In his Talking Points Memo he wonders why the U.S. has caught such informed Iraqis as Dr. Germ and Ms. Anthrax and has gotten no leads. He states that more time is needed [contradicting what he said more than a month ago, when he said that if no WMDs were found after 2 months U.S. credibility would be "shot" and there would be big trouble]. He ends his Memo saying Bush must candidly address the situation soon. June 2: [unfortunately for O'Reilly, Bush isn't candidly explaining anything.] A video clip on Fox and Friends is shown with Bush in Poland claiming that "[w]e found" weapons of mass destruction. His evidence? Two trailers found near Mosul that were supposedly used as mobile bioweapons labs. [A June 7 article by the Times' Judith Miller reports serious doubts by some analysts that the two trailers were used as mobile bioweapons labs. Said one senior analyst about the initial CIA report, it "was a rushed job and looks political." Yes, they violated U.N. resolutions but this is another red herring to suggest WMDs.] June 4: O'Reilly's Talking Points Memo: [surreal.] O'Reilly says that the WMD issue has now been politicized [!!]. The war was a just war because there's now great progress between Palestinians and Israelis and that alone made the war worthwhile [?!!]. Also the mass graves and other horrors discovered add to the case for war. The intelligence was either wrong or more time is needed to find the WMDs. [Again contradicting what he said on and before April 22.] June 11: Fox reports a bus blast in Jerusalem caused by Hamas, killing 15 and wounding at least 100. [Looks like the real reason for war according to O'Reilly (Israeli-Palestinian peace) has also disintegrated, but don't expect O'Reilly to admit it.]
  2. Bob Edwards: This is Morning Edition from NPR news. I’m Bob Edwards. ****Seems straight-forward. Increasingly it seems the Bush Administration’s foreign policy is running into trouble. ****Does anyone think it's going smoothly? The post-war picture in Iraq and Afghanistan is highly unstable. ****Simple fact The road map to peace in the Middle East is in tatters. ****No question here. There’s growing unease over the possibility that North Korea and Iran are pursuing nuclear weapons. ***True Friends of the United States are not supportive. *****Very True Overall, the policies of the United States are still very unpopular around the world. *****Except with our "coalition" of states such as Israel, micronesia, and that powerhouse of Costa Rica Overall, the policies of the United States are still very unpopular around the world. The Bush Doctrine, a preference for unilateral military action and a disdain for multinational diplomacy, is under scrutiny more than ever *****Hard to argue with that. Seems like if you just report the facts w/o the usual spin you get a bit uncomfortable PP. The US media is bascially divided into the far-right such as the Murdock new agecies - Washington Times, FOX; the mild middle that feels the obligation to have balanced opinions - NY Times, NPR, Washington Post, LA Times ect. There is no easily accessible left media in the US. Even Israel has a greater diversity of TV, radio, and newspaper. You're stretching PP. If you haven't traveled much or subscribe to those rightwing screwball newsletters you have a narrow view. Maybe it was just the drugs that were talking to Rush, eh?
  3. Jim

    More on taxes

    He knows how the bureaucrats work from being an economist and having a stint with the feds. He's attracted a lot of attention from the left (during Clinton) and now, for his criticism of the budget. The right wing media has come unglued on this guy - he consistenly rips the current admin with a thorough analysis. The Wall St Journal editorials have even praised him - it's idealogues that don't like him. Work calls - stay dry this weekend, might be time to get that 6 mo gym membership.
  4. Jim

    More on taxes

    I actually thought you would like this guy! He was bashing Clinton's fiscal policies almost as much as Bushie. He's a fiscal conservative who thinks we're playing shell games with things like SS, and we're going to pay later big time. You gotta widen you're reading list buddy. Do you really subscribe to that right wing newsletter trash?
  5. I think it's just easier to keep harping on the past than deal with the grim present state of affairs (no pun intened). But that's spray....
  6. Jim

    More on taxes

    Ya know, I think Peter's on to something here. If we just do nothing then all those worthless folks working at the burger king will eventually be rubbing shoulders with Bill Gates and his neighbors.
  7. Jim

    More on taxes

    Fool! I spit in you're general direction and give you this: http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0713997435/ref%3Ded%5Fsoc%5F%5F1%5F2/026-1223258-2436446 en garde!
  8. Jim

    More on taxes

    Not if you're Exxon and can write off that little oil spill thing as a tax deduction and then pay 0 taxes. Do corp income taxes do this?
  9. Jim

    More on taxes

    Fairness is meaningless to me as an arguement. Obviously
  10. Jim

    More on taxes

    I just want to see more bang for my buck that's all. Let's see our legislators be a little fiscally reponsible. Pouring money on these problems year after year doesn't seem to be working...seems that all we're really funding is public employees pensions No doubt accountability is a good thing is spending. That's why I think our current administration has driven the economic ship up on a sand bar. If you think the revenue shortfalls are a problem now, wait until you see the defecit and national debt climb to unpresidented levels over the next decade. The influence of the recent tax cuts will only increase over this time. Our kids will be facing the bill.
  11. Jim

    More on taxes

    It's curious to me how this "we're overtaxed" mantra has taken place. Clearly the data show that taxes are way down, particulary for the well to do, and have generally stayed the same, around 26% for the middle income folks. And compared to other countries we pay substantially less. The intriging part to me is how folks in the middle income bracket are fighting for reduced taxes for the rich. Do they fantisize they they too will be like Bill Gates one day? And these are the same folks who turn a blind eye to the turn around from record surplus to record deficit in a mere two years. Amazing indeed.
  12. Jim

    More on taxes

    Oh gimme a break with the percentage of tax burden already. If you look at the group that is recieving the benifits of the recent tax cuts - the upper 1%, they'er making out like bandits. Of course they quintile will show an increase because the tax revenue total is decreasing!! This strays from the issue again. The upper income rates are at their lowest in 30 years! I assume your also advocating flat tax?
  13. Jim

    More on taxes

    Well now that we've fully aired both positions, what is your solution to this problem of the percieved "burden" put on higher tax brackets?
  14. Jim

    More on taxes

    PP - I think Luna's point is similar to mine (Luna?). The upper incomes are doing quite well, their taxes have been drastically cut over the past couple decades, especially recently, and they own a much larger percentage of the income and wealth pie. So they need tax relief? Is your point that a flat tax is what is needed to revise this? People who make more money pay more taxes. So what?They're at historic lows - they should go lower?
  15. Jim

    More on taxes

    Chris - I think she mentions that in the first para. I would be interesting to calculate exactly what your taxes are. My guess is that your around 26-28%. I haven't lived in a state tax state for a while - but don't you get to deduct your state taxes off the federal income tax calculation? Interesting discussion.
  16. Jim

    More on taxes

    Gotta be the goat. We're spinning outside Pluto's orbit now.
  17. Jim

    More on taxes

    A recent report: Published on 9/25/2003 in the New York Times U.S. Income Gap Widening, Study Says by Lynnley Browning The gap between rich and poor more than doubled from 1979 to 2000, an analysis of government data shows. The gulf is such that the richest 1 percent of Americans in 2000 had more money to spend after taxes than the bottom 40 percent. In 1979, the wealthiest 1 percent had just under half the after-tax income of the poorest 40 percent of Americans, analysis of new data from the Congressional Budget Office shows. The figures show 2000 as the year of the greatest economic disparity between rich and poor for any year since 1979, the year the budget office began collecting this data, according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, a nonprofit research organization in Washington that advocates tax and federal spending policies to benefit the poor. It released its analysis on Tuesday. The richest 2.8 million Americans had $950 billion after taxes, or 15.5 percent, of the $6.2 trillion economic pie in 2000, Isaac Shapiro, a senior fellow at the center, said. The poorest 110 million Americans had less, sharing 14.4 percent of all after tax money. But the higher incomes of the last decade did not lift all people equally. In 2000, the top 1 percent of American taxpayers had $862,700 each after taxes, on average, more than triple the $286,300 they had, adjusted for inflation, in 1979. The bottom 40 percent in 2000 had $21,118 each, up 13 percent from their $18,695 average in 1979. Mr. Shapiro also analyzed the budget office data in tandem with a recently updated study on income by the National Bureau of Economic Research, a nonpartisan, nonprofit research organization in Cambridge, Mass. The bureau study found that in 2000, the top 1 percent income group had the largest share of before-tax income for any year since 1929. Mr. Shapiro said that findings from both studies suggested that in 2000, the top 1 percent had the largest share of the nation's total after-tax income since at least 1936 and probably since 1929. Mr. Shapiro emphasized that his combined analysis accounted for the fact that his study used after-tax incomes while the bureau's study used pretax incomes. Both low- and middle-income people shared in the boom of the 1990's, while in the 1980's the bottom fifth experienced a decline in after-tax income, according to the budget office data analyzed by Mr. Shapiro and Robert Greenstein, director for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The middle fifth had an average after-tax income of $41,900 in 2000, a rise of 15 percent both since 1979 and 1997, indicating a long period of no real economic gains for this group. "You do have gains across the spectrum from 1997 to 2000," Mr. Shapiro said, "but they are much more dramatic at the top." The center's analysis said the highest income Americans had grown richer from 1979 to 2000 both from gains in income because of economic prosperity and from tax cuts. Huge gains in executive pay were a significant factor, Mr. Shapiro said. Federal tax burdens for most Americans had declined over the previous two decades, and not risen as some conservative policy experts have asserted, the center said. Congress enacted tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 that were heavily weighted to the top 1 percent, which supporters said would encourage them to invest more to the benefit of all Americans. From 1979 to 2000, the total federal tax burden for the top 1 percent dropped 3.8 percentage points, but for the middle fifth the decline was only 1.9 percentage points. Tax rates for the poorest fifth declined 1.6 percentage points. The top 1 percent pay a quarter of all federal taxes, while the bottom 40 percent pay 6 percent of all federal taxes. A side note - I notice PP didn't cite any source, just curious. Gotta get some work done, then 20 mi bike ride home. It's raining, ugh.
  18. Jim

    More on taxes

    it's because society needs it and, moreover they can. I don't see any imperical "facts" that bolster your argument. Your opinion is that the tax structure is "enslaving" the upper incomes. Mine and others is that the higher incomes can afford to pay a higher percentage (on income above a certain point) and should for a number of social benefit reasons. PP's chart that started the discussion is true enough, but that's only part of the picture. The rich in this country are not hurting and can easily affort the current structure, in fact they're making quite the leaps recently. You say it "enslaves" them - I say they're getting a pretty good deal recently.
  19. Jim

    More on taxes

    Hey HR - if you could give me some logic I would reply in kind. I think the basis of your view goes something like this - Because the upper incomes (now I'm talking upper 10-20% here, so hope we're on the same page) pay a greater percentage of their income than the lower tax brackets they are "enslaved" by their government and the lower incomes. You may believe it. I think it's a silly notion. Enslaved? Poor choice of words in the least. How much lower taxes do you think is fair? I assume you're advocating a flat tax. Again I would say that is not fair to take 10% from someone making $30K vs 10% from $3 million. The little guy has $27K left, the big guy has $2.7 million. Doesn't seem "enslaved" is the proper context. Yes the rich should pay more, up to some debateable point, because they can afford to. The changing tax structure has resulted in a huge redistribution of wealth in the US in the past 20 years. Is there class warfare in the US? Definately - and there is no doubt who is winning and who is losing.
  20. Jim

    More on taxes

    Hop on the clue train buddy. The vast majority of your taxes are being spent on a wild goose chase in the sands of the middle east.
  21. Jim

    More on taxes

    No shit, Taco. CAN is not the point. I CAN shove an icepick through your ear...SHOULD I? No. Your scenario has set up a state where the successful are made to work to support those who are not so successful (for whatever reason). Thus, you have enslaved a portion of the people by requisitioning a portion of their labor to support others. Oh God. Now the upper 10% of the wealthy are enslaved who have the equivalent of ice picks in their ears because of our unfair tax laws. Such a burden. Sniff
  22. Jim

    More on taxes

    What!!?? Oh so you drop the capital gains tax, the inheritance tax, and the tax on the upper 10% (which bushie has done) and they pay more?? Yes, I would like to see documentation on that magic. Maybe it's the folks that are making $30K or less that are weasling out of the inheritance tax and capital gains?
  23. Jim

    More on taxes

    It's just the thought that the upper incomes are paying too much is ridiculous to me. You say it's "unfair" that they pay so much. Who are you talking about? The upper 10% , the middle 25%, everyone? And you side-stepped my example of a flat tax. Taxes are going down, rich are getting richer, and they're still complaining. Give it a break already. I don't suppose we'll change one another's mind. You think the upper incomes pay too little now - I'd say they are paying much less that historically and reaping the benefits big time. Really gotta go now. Later.
  24. Jim

    More on taxes

    It's not a matter of "hurting." It is a matter of entitlement; the government claims an entitlement to the earned wealth of people who work hard and are successful. They exercise this entitlement in an unfair, and unequal way. They punish, in essence, those who have made themselves successful by imposing upon them higher taxes. Oh brother, you know, I'm gonna start crying here for the upper 10% soon if you keep it up. Poor babies. One more time - tax rates have been coming steadily down for the upper incomes - lower marginal rates, fazing out of the inheritance tax, lowering the capital gains tax. Plus if you're in the upper 10% or so you have the capability of using the tax laws to help you, gifting, living trusts, insurance investments. I'm not buying it. You earn more you pay more. No way that 10% off a $30,000 income means the same as 10% off a $3 million dollar income. Gotta go key our some Alaskan sedges - later.
  25. Jim

    More on taxes

    Well I would disagree. I think inherent fairness is one part of a tax code. And certainly there should be limits. The trickle down theory of economics has been discredited, so let's not go down that road. And again I would point to the widening economic gap between rich and poor. If the rich are hurtin' so much then why are they raking in more and more? No whinning please.
×
×
  • Create New...