ThinkFast: January 8, 2007
ThinkFast: January 8, 2007
17,310: Number of Iraqi civilians and police officers who “died violently in the latter half of 2006, according to Iraqi statistics, a sharp increase that coincided with rising sectarian strife since the February bombing of a landmark Shiite shrine.” The Health Ministry’s full death toll was 22,950 for 2006.
President Bush’s new Iraq policy “will establish a series of goals that the Iraqi government will be expected to meet to try to ease sectarian tensions and stabilize the country politically and economically,” the New York Times reports.
White House “insiders” say that Bush had hoped to push for deeper tax cuts “in the next and future budgets, but the election of Democratic majorities in the House and Senate killed those plans.” Instead, Bush will submit a budget that will leave little room for new add-ons without deeply cutting into defense spending or raising taxes.
Conservatives who supported Bush’s reelection are expressing outrage over the administration’s broad use of anti-terrorism laws to reject asylum for thousands of people fleeing religious, ethnic, and political persecution. Barrett Duke, a public policy analyst for the Southern Baptist Convention, said, “I think it’s essentially a reaction of fear to the current terrorist danger.”
“Families earning more than $1 million a year are the biggest beneficiaries of President Bush’s tax cuts,” according to a new study by the Congressional Budget Office. “Households in the top 1 percent of earnings, which had an average income of $1.25 million, saw their effective individual tax rates drop to 19.6 percent in 2004 from 24.2 percent in 2000.”
“Urban planners at three universities are challenging the notion that [New Orleans'] Ninth Ward must be rebuilt from scratch, reporting in a new survey that the predominantly black neighborhoods can be brought back largely as they existed before Hurricane Katrina flooded them.” “That data shows that it can be rebuilt, and rebuilt in a cost-effective way,” one planner from Cornell said. “What is lacking are the resources.”
On Thursday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will appear before the House Foreign Affairs Committee “to defend the war-strategy shift Bush will outline in a nationally televised speech.” Additionally, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Peter Pace will go before the House Armed Service Committee.
The failure of the 109th Congress to pass new budgets for the current fiscal year “has produced a crisis in science financing that threatens to close major facilities, delay new projects and leave thousands of government scientists out of work, federal and private officials say.” One senior official at the American Physical Society said the “consequences for American science will be disastrous.”
The Interior Department’s Minerals Management Service soon will come under heavy scrutiny as the Government Accountability Office prepares a report that will “blame the service’s ‘culture’ for widespread laxity in conducting royalty audits and collecting underpayments from industry.”
And finally: “While Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) played no formal role in the new Speaker’s inaugural festivities Thursday, she did play a key after-hours role at the gay bar Cobalt, where she wound up judging a ‘best package contest.’” One person noted that Sanchez’s role wasn’t necessarily to judge the “best package,” but to determine for whom the crowd cheered loudest.
What did we miss? Let us know in the comments section.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
“I have an Israeli rifle with a bullet made just for Ellison
Muslim blogger give me a break will you please “
Just a reminder of what it’s really all about.
January 8th, 2007 at 9:08 amFamilies earning more than $1 million a year are the biggest beneficiaries of President Bush’s tax cuts,â€
Government helps those who have more money??? I am shocked.
The Health Ministry’s full death toll was 22,950 for 2006.
January 8th, 2007 at 9:13 amDemocracy comes at a great expense. Ask Lavoisier.
“White House “insiders†say that Bush had hoped to push for deeper tax cuts “in the next and future budgets, but the election of Democratic majorities in the House and Senate killed those plans.†”
Ever since the Republicans became the Party of Fiscal Irresponsibility, they’ve done nothing but push this country further into debt with no looking back. When you run up the national crdit card, you eventually have to begin paying it back.
I wish Pres. Clinton’s Budget Surplus wasn’t squandered on tax cuts for the rich at the expense of our national security.
January 8th, 2007 at 9:14 amThe 9th Ward can and should be rebuilt, the problem is that the levees are still lacking and need to be reenforced to handle sorms like Katrina.
I suspect that if a major developer saw a chance to build a high-end subdivision there, the levees would be made stronger. Again it looks like money talks.
January 8th, 2007 at 9:17 amThe recent pictures and video condi show that she no longer has that self satisfied, smug look on her face. She looks stunned by her own failure. She is overwhelmed by her incompetence and is a broken woman. This is why negroponte is now her “assistant.”
January 8th, 2007 at 9:17 amFamilies earning more than $1 million a year are the biggest beneficiaries of President Bush’s tax cuts,â€
At $1 million a year, that is $190 thousand in taxes.
How come no one ever talks about the top 5% of wage earners pay 55% of the tax burden?
January 8th, 2007 at 9:18 amWhat is lacking in the dilemma of rebuilding the Ninth Ward in NOLA is the “political will”…
…many powerful (business) forces in that city donot want the Ninth Ward rebuilt…
…especially with the same pre-Katrina racial population…
…As for the Iraqis…
…God’s curse and shame upon those who have exported (or who continue to support) such misery to those people…
January 8th, 2007 at 9:22 am“The recent pictures and video condi show that she no longer has that self satisfied, smug look on her face.”
Nice-
January 8th, 2007 at 9:23 am#6 – “How come no one ever talks about the top 5% of wage earners pay 55% of the tax burden? ” Comment by robert — January 8, 2007 @ 9:18 am
Probably because the “tax” they pay is so NOT a burden!
Trust me, if I made over 1 million annually, I wouldn’t complain about paying taxes. Heck, I’d say “raise my taxes and lower those for the middle class!” If you can’t control your spending enough to live on $810,000 annually, then you don’t deserve to make that much!
January 8th, 2007 at 9:25 amyeah, Robert. All those families need those cuts, by gosh. What would they do without all their money. Meanwhile, back in the real world, many of us are hurting even if we work two or three jobs. Get real why don’t you? There is no defending this crap. It was wrong and has increased the debt. I suppose you will blame Clinton for it though. Like somehow the last 6 years of nonsense is anyone else’s fault other than Bush.
Apologist.
January 8th, 2007 at 9:25 am#5 – Yep. Condi got Negroponte as an assistant, kind of like Dubya got Cheney as a Veep.
January 8th, 2007 at 9:29 am“Urban planners at three universities are challenging the notion that the city’s Ninth Ward must be rebuilt from scratch
Let’s see. A group of people without connection to the bureaucratic system and the construction firms that would be part of the expensive project to rebuild a city from scratch have found out a cheaper and more efficient way to do it. Color me shocked.
January 8th, 2007 at 9:32 amCaption Contest:
Why?
January 8th, 2007 at 9:34 amrobert is right! the top 5% pay 55% of the taxes in this country. so what if they control 90% of the money and everybody else has to pay 45% of the taxes with only 10% of the money!they were born into positions of power and social darwinism says they deserve to keep all their money and pay no taxes!
btw, i proved last night that Judd’s Terms of Use are bs…trolls can post whatever they want while serious posters get their stuff messed with big-time.
I’m off to Kos.
January 8th, 2007 at 9:36 ambtw, i proved last night that Judd’s Terms of Use are bs…trolls can post whatever they want while serious posters get their stuff messed with big-time.
I’m off to Kos.
Comment by truth fairy
I for one am totally appauled that they have kept that crap, full of threats against Representatives AND other posters, yet constsantly delete regular posters.
You ought to be ashamed of yourself, TP.
January 8th, 2007 at 9:42 amYou are losing more people than you realize.
freebird9, Who owns Corporations? The top 5%. Who creates new jobs? The top 5%. I ma not saying that they should be recieving the tax breaks that they are, but they should not be unfairly punished for being rich, either.
I have no loyalty to the top 5% and I sure as hell am not one of them. I don’t think I even reach the top 50%, not sure.
It was wrong and has increased the debt. I suppose you will blame Clinton for it though.
What has increased the debt is not the tax cuts, it is the spend-as-you-will Congress that we have had. That is both Dems and Reps that are at fault.(see didn’t blame Clinton)
January 8th, 2007 at 9:43 am#6, #9 has it right. Those taxes are not a “burden” to those receiving income over $1M per year. Ask yourself and answer honestly if you would rather earn $30,000/year and pay those taxes or receive over $443,000/year (the top 5%) and pay those taxes. Case closed.
Your “55% of the tax burden” phrasing echos right wingnut talk radio propaganda. According to the CBO data, 5% of households receive 29% of pretax income and pay 41% of all federal taxes and only 14.7% of social insurance taxes – the bulk of which are paid by the 80% of households earning $81,700/year or less.
Last, the top 5% you reference are not typical “wage” earners.
January 8th, 2007 at 9:45 amso what if they control 90% of the money and everybody else has to pay 45% of the taxes with only 10%
Actually the bottom 25% pay only 5% of the taxes. You know who gets F-cked, the 70% of us that have to pay 40%. Too little for a break, to much for exemptions.
January 8th, 2007 at 9:47 amWho owns Corporations? The top 5%.
Comment by robert
Correct.
Who creates new jobs? The top 5%.
January 8th, 2007 at 9:47 amWrong.
17,310 Iraqi’s in the last part of 2006 is just collateral damage to Dubya and the rest of the NeoCon Marching Band and Cheerleading squad.
This would be grounds enough for war crimes charges if we had a real democracy in this country!
January 8th, 2007 at 9:51 amRemember, those 22,950 in 2006 were just those whose deaths were reported to the central government. Many many more killed would simply be buried locally, their death certificate registered locally, but their death unreported to the dysfunctional central government.
January 8th, 2007 at 9:53 amrobert – it’s called progressive taxation. Been here for years. Levels the playing field a bit.
January 8th, 2007 at 9:53 amHow about the cap on Social Security contribitions stopping at $96,000 a year. Isn’t that just a tax break for those making over 96k??
#18 – Actually the bottom 25% pay only 5% of the taxes. You know who gets F-cked, the 70% of us that have to pay 40%. Too little for a break, to much for exemptions.
Robert!!!!
You have broken the code!!! Dubya and the rest of the Corporatist Scumbags in the WH are TRYING to destroy the middle class. Glad you finally figured that out!!!
January 8th, 2007 at 9:56 amI posted this in a past thread, about a comment you make on poor people, robert:
You said.
This I agree with, and I agree in HELPING them.
Exactly, thats the problem. You DONT have to HELP them. This is the same mental process you probably do regarding iraqis. You didnt have to help them to overcome Saddam. You didnt have to help kosovarians and albanese when NATO bombed them. Thats racism, robert, to think they can not solve their own problems. The same goes to the poor people: YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE THEM WITH THE SAME OPPORTUNITIES THAT EVERYBODY HAD OR SHOULD. NOT HELP THEM. Lets say, the same opportunities your president had in life. You cant solve the poverty problem if you make this division between rich and poor. Any country that has poor citizens is a POOR country no matter how many jet carriers has. We are poor, robert, cuz we live in a world where the vast majority of the people struggles to have a meal. And capitalism, like or not, is a poor producing factory and thats a fact, you just have to take a look around. Whenever you hear a politician say that macroeconomics are doing good, you know that thousands of people are going to get fired.
January 8th, 2007 at 9:57 amWASHINGTON — The Bush administration is expected to announce this weeka major step forward in the building of the country’s first new nuclear warhead in nearly two decades.
Is there any chance UN punishes US for doing this…you know as they are doing with Iran and north Korea?
January 8th, 2007 at 9:59 amActually the bottom 25% pay only 5% of the taxes.
Comment by robert
Ask yourself why that is. Because the have no money to give to taxes. Because the minimum wage is set at a level for 1990. Because they have to pay for their own health care. They aren’t a big contributor to the tax revenue because they have no money to contribute. And as far as not punishing the rich because they are rich I agree. Nor should they be treated like they are above the people with average earnings. Capping their SS contribution and giving them special tax cuts is not “punishment”. It is pandering.
January 8th, 2007 at 10:01 amRobert,
You’re just another brainwashed troll. Think for yourself. Those who benefit the most, and are hurt the least by taxes should pay the most. It’s that simple. But keep listening to the media telling you how hurt the rich are by higher taxes, soon those mega-corporations will have a nice $7.50 an hour job for you. Think you’re secure in your job? Think again, I don’t care what you do, once there’s enough unemployed / underemployed there will be someone who’ll take your job for less money. This is the master plan, so keep listening to your masters. They need the sheep. Another product of Americas failed school systems for the last 20+ years.
January 8th, 2007 at 10:06 amHow come no one ever talks about the top 5% of wage earners pay 55% of the tax burden?
The top 5% pay a far smaller effective tax than 19.6%. With the mutitude of laws put in place that only benifit the wealthy, their effective tax rate is around 5%. So do you still feel so badly for them?
January 8th, 2007 at 10:08 amonce there’s enough unemployed / underemployed there will be someone who’ll take your job for less money. This is the master plan, so keep listening to your masters.
January 8th, 2007 at 10:20 amComment by BlahBlahBlah
The master plan is being carried out since the beginning of the 80´s in III world countries. I can tell.
Oh my god, look at that picture. It breaks my heart.
You’re right, Juan, in #13 — Why?
January 8th, 2007 at 10:26 amBlahBlahBlah, Actually, my job is pretty secure.
Juan C
I did not say tax the poor more, did I? I said don’t punish people unfairly for being rich.
When will people see that the problem is not just that soem get tax breaks and some don’t? The problem with Govenment programs is Wasteful spending. More money is fed into Administrative costs than filters down to the people that are supposed to be getting help. And this is not a 6 year old problem or a 12 year old problem. This has been a problem for longer than that.
Let me ask this. Is it “fair” that someone who has a net worth of between $22 million and $91 million gets a taxpayer provided salary of $212 thousand a year, plus travel and retirement?
January 8th, 2007 at 10:28 amActually the bottom 25% pay only 5% of the taxes. You know who gets F-cked, the 70% of us that have to pay 40%. Too little for a break, to much for exemptions.
Comment by robert
So why are you defending the top 5%? GWB is effectively looting this country for himself and his rich friends. He would see the middle class drop into the ditch without blinking.
January 8th, 2007 at 10:30 amPresident Bush’s new Iraq policy “will establish a series of goals that the Iraqi government will be expected to meet to try to ease sectarian tensions and stabilize the country politically and economically,†the New York Times reports.
What a moron. Goals needed to be set before the invasion.
January 8th, 2007 at 10:32 amLet me ask this. Is it “fair†that someone who has a net worth of between $22 million and $91 million gets a taxpayer provided salary of $212 thousand a year, plus travel and retirement?
Comment by robert
Of course it is, that person has been hired to do a job.
I’m thinking the real problem, including government waste, is that GWB is fighting a war while giving tax cuts — and he wanted to give even more tax cuts, but he has been thwarted by Dem control of Congress.
January 8th, 2007 at 10:39 amMore money is fed into Administrative costs than filters down to the people that are supposed to be getting help. And this is not a 6 year old problem or a 12 year old problem. This has been a problem for longer than that.
Comment by robert
Completely agreed. Bureaucracy killed the Soviet Union (among other things…)
Let me ask this. Is it “fair†that someone who has a net worth of between $22 million and $91 million gets a taxpayer provided salary of $212 thousand a year, plus travel and retirement?
January 8th, 2007 at 10:43 amFrankly, I dont care about taxes. Taxes are but a consequence. Im talking about how the rich get rich. Do they get rich by NOT stepping on people? Then thats fine with me, but whenever your richness is built over people who work their ass off and barely get to the end of the month, then I say thats criminal and thats the VAST majority of all richness, just do a research. I dont have anything against Bill Gates for example, except that if I went to China to see how my workers are doing I probably shot myself.
Let me ask this. Is it “fair†that someone who has a net worth of between $22 million and $91 million gets a taxpayer provided salary of $212 thousand a year, plus travel and retirement?
Comment by robert
If they were hired to do a job then yes it is fair. I also woould expect that person to pay a fair share of their total earnings (salary and any monies made from their other financial ventures.
January 8th, 2007 at 10:45 amI know this boils the blood of a lot of commenters here but Zoo, robert, and all…good day all. :)
January 8th, 2007 at 10:47 amSo why are you defending the top 5%?
Do they not have a right to be rich? Do they not have the right to enjoy their wealth? That is all I am defending.
January 8th, 2007 at 10:49 amIf they were hired to do a job then yes it is fair. I also woould expect that person to pay a fair share of their total earnings (salary and any monies made from their other financial ventures.
Comment by dlet
Do you think these same people are NOT taking advantage of every tax break they can?
January 8th, 2007 at 10:50 amPresident Bush’s new Iraq policy “will establish a series of goals that the Iraqi government will be expected to meet to try to ease sectarian tensions and stabilize the country politically and economically
But will not state any consequences or actions that will be taken if these goals aren’t met.
January 8th, 2007 at 10:57 amDo you think these same people are NOT taking advantage of every tax break they can?
Comment by robert
Never thought they wouldn’t. In all the comments I have had it is about the tax laws not the people that use the laws to their benefit.
January 8th, 2007 at 11:00 amI know this boils the blood of a lot of commenters here but Zoo, robert, and all…good day all. :)
Comment by Juan C
You’re right, it boils… :)
January 8th, 2007 at 11:03 am#16 you mean the spend as you will congress that has spent freely with no input from the Deems? With no fiscal restraint being exercised by the president? With pet projects such as Iraq taking precedent over actual fiscal responsibility? Truth fairy had it 100% correct by the way. The upper 5 – 10 % control vastly more than 55% of the total income in this country.
The current fiscal problems are a direct
Here is another one for you… Since you talk about that 5% being the ones who own stock and thus are the ones who control the jobs etc… You need to know that I work for a typical fortune 100 company. We have one family that controls about 15% of our stock. One large corporate share holder controls about the same percentage and a couple individual shareholders who hold 2 – 3% each while the balance is held by institutional shareholders, our ESOP and many smaller individual shareholders. That is a pretty typical for large corporations.
Anyhow think of this, who benefits from the tax dollars more? Middle class or upper class? Social security and Medicare do not count as they are self funding. Now the military what do they do? They protect America and American interests. What are those interests? Typically corporate interests. Who does the state department benefit more, me or you traveling as private citizens? Or corporate interests, corporate travelers etc… When you get right down to it the upper class gains so much more from the government protecting and working with/for corporate interests than the middle class does. I’m not saying anything other than the whole argument of the wealthy owning corporations creating jobs etc… has much more to it than that simple argument. Take it a step further and note that a company like mine has interests around the world. We invest our money around the world and hire locals to run our facilities. This helps us open new markets which ultimately raises the standard of living in those particular countries. But our tax dollars go into protecting those facilities and serving those interests while the investment is in the foreign economy, not our economy here, which is also an over simplification, but space is somewhat limited.
#17 I tried to explain it to a friend this way. The middle and lower classes typically spend every thing. Tax cuts for them may help spur the economy by expanding the markets, while the upper income earners will not typically spend the money. They will invest it in some manner. Which one spurs the economy more? Well, way back in 2001 President Bush was saying that the spending would spur the economy, yet his supporters say that investing spurs the economy. It is actually a cycle you need markets in order for investment to work. Anyhow this guy got very defensive and almost angry saying that a friend of ours, who earns $20million plus annually, needed a $1,000 tax cut more than he or I did.
#18 Robert the lower portion 25% has no money to pay taxes. Also. Did you know that the number of $0 tax filers has increased every year under GDub? Sure they may receive welfare food stamps, government program help etc… but they spend every dollar they earn. Think about what our country would be like if the lower income levels were dropped from receiving government benefits and if their tax bills were raised? The poverty levels would get drastically worse. I know, they should just find work, but it is not so easy to do. Even at lower levels. Take Chicago for instance. I can see help wanted signs all over the suburbs, yet there are lots of unemployed in the city. The typical right winger will say there are jobs for those lazy people to go find. But getting from South State Street to Schaumburg for a minimum wage job is not quite so easy. My whole point is that none of this is as simple as a mis quoted statistic or a Limbaugh like fact recitation.
January 8th, 2007 at 11:34 amMark, thats exactly was I was going to say… :)
January 8th, 2007 at 11:58 amEffin’ Bill Gates stole Steve Jobs’ ideas and made the Windows operationg system. Even Billy Gates stepped on others to get rich.
January 8th, 2007 at 12:00 pm#6 robert
How come no one ever talks about the top 5% of wage earners pay 55% of the tax burden?
As the top 5% write themselves ever-bigger paychecks and find ways to pay their employees less, their share of the revenue in this country will increase. Why shouldn’t their share of the tax burden increase?
If they want my sympathy, they need to stop screwing the middle class. Until then, I say we tax the livin’ shit out of them.
January 8th, 2007 at 12:06 pmAgain, I posted a comment on the tax situation right after Mark’s…It didn’t make it, oh well, guess it’s my turn in the barell..Didn’t even use any offensive language, imagine that…..The reader decider fairy must of thought it was to mundane…..I came, I saw, I posted and say good day and Blessings to all….Maybe another time, maybe not…
January 8th, 2007 at 12:24 pmNot true. just looked it up on wikipedia. The top 5% pays about 37% of the total income tax, not 55%. The top 1% pays about 23%.
As well they should, since they earn more and, therefore (even under a proportional or slightly regressive tax system) will pay more. I’m assuming you thought it should be significantly less. To be a top 5% and then pay only 5% of total income taxes means a HIGHLY regressive income tax –OR– a huge reduction in the number of mega-wealthy (and we all know that’s not true).
Not sure what you were shooting for there, Robert…
January 8th, 2007 at 12:29 pmParrotlover77 – Robert may have been shooting for his foot. If so, he hit the bullseye, or, as some call it, the big toe.
January 8th, 2007 at 12:50 pm#45 – ForTruth,
January 8th, 2007 at 1:01 pmSteve Jobs lifted the GUI interface from Xerox. Bill Gates bought CPM/DOS from a university professor for about 25 grand and let IBM co-market it as MS/DOS. What IBM called O/S 2 Warp was the basis for Windows 95 and NT – Gates was initially involved as a partner with IBM in developing the code and cut out a bit before the code was mature enough. As a direct result, IBM had a 32 bit operating system on the shelves 9 years before MicroSoft made it. MicroSoft insured Window’s survival by refusing to provide an O/S 2 version of the MicroSoft Office package.
How come no one ever talks about the top 5% of wage earners pay 55% of the tax burden?
Comment by robert
Because they don’t. Factoring in SSI, which is capped at $96,000 their overall tax rate is lower than middle income earners. And your baloney about the days congress will work would seem more convincing if you could repost your comments objecting to the schedule of the 109th Congress. ohterwise, I’d suggest not using Drudge for a source; he’s notoriously wrong most of the time.
January 8th, 2007 at 1:07 pmConservatives who supported Bush’s reelection are expressing outrage over the administration’s broad use of anti-terrorism laws [...]
The same laws critics said were too broad and could be misused to target innocent people.
But the Bush administration swore time and again would never be misused and were an essential tool in the “war against terror”; introducing any changes at all would cripple the US’ capability to find and jail terrorists. The Bush cultists came here to ThinkProgress to berate and insult anyone who disagreed with their hysteria.
Yet another instance where the cultists got it wrong. Don’t expect them to acknowledge that much, though.
January 8th, 2007 at 1:07 pmparrotlover and RUCerious, What I was shooting for (other than my big toe) was for people to see who really gets screwed in the tax game, the middle class.
The rich get breaks and have shelters. The poor have programs to help them and have to pay nothing/next to nothing. The middle class is the group that gets hit the hardest.
I would like to see cuts that are truly focused on the middle class in the future. That is it we ever get tax cuts again.
January 8th, 2007 at 1:51 pmAnd your baloney about the days congress will work would seem more convincing if you could repost your comments objecting to the schedule of the 109th Congress.
Barfly, do you mean the comments where I said something like:” A five day work week gives them 2 more days a week to screw us. But then again, with what they get paid, they should be working 7 days a week.”
ohterwise, I’d suggest not using Drudge for a source; he’s notoriously wrong most of the time.
I don’t read or listen to Drudge. I got my information from my local news channel. So, is Congress in session today?
January 8th, 2007 at 1:57 pmOne senior official at the American Physical Society said the “consequences for American science will be disastrous.â€
Not that the anti-science Bush base has much use for science anyway. What they associate with science is the “evil stuff”, “liberal propaganda” like: Developing a cure for AIDS, embryonic stem cell research, global warming, safe sex, or (horror of horrors!) evolution.
Ah, the proudly anti-reason, anti-intellectual republicans and their followers. Interesting how they will still go to the doctor to get a flu shot.
January 8th, 2007 at 2:18 pmSo, is Congress in session today?
Comment by robert
No. They are working the Rep. Kingston way. On their blackberries.
January 8th, 2007 at 2:23 pm#49 – SGT Hulka?
January 8th, 2007 at 2:27 pmNo. They are working the Rep. Kingston way. On their blackberries.
Comment by dlet
So, I was acurate then. This week and next week they are a 4 days a week Congress. That is better than last week when they were a 3 day a week Congress.
I will be happy when they are a 5 day a week Congress like they promissed. (I am giving them the benifit of the doubt)
January 8th, 2007 at 2:34 pmRe: President Bush’s new Iraq policy “will establish a series of goals that the Iraqi government will be expected to meet to try to ease sectarian tensions and stabilize the country politically and economically,†the New York Times reports.
And from the linked article:
Oh yes. More specific goals and different this and different that will kick those Iraqis in the a*s and get them moving.
As with other references to “benchmarks” and “goals” the article mentioned, once again there are no penalties or repurcussions if they are not met.
What then?
January 8th, 2007 at 2:36 pmComment by Mark #43
GREAT post (rebuttal)…
…every right wing Bushite worshippng CONNED’self-servative should see this perspective…
Mark,
Do you remember when Bushiva first took office and and his Congressional co-conspirators signed a one-time “tax’ amnesty for offshore profits…
…dropping the rate from 35 down to (I believe) @ 5%?…
…these corporate pirates didn’t “re-invest” those windfall tax savings back into the U.S. economy…
…Oh no, they invested them in emerging markets…
…and the Bush dollar is nose-diving…
…so much for tax-cuts spurring American economic re-investment…
…and can you imagine what this Bushite (voodoo) economy would look like without…
…all the GOVERNMENT (war-for-profiteers) spending?
January 8th, 2007 at 2:48 pmPoverty is up, homelessness is up, 45 million have no health insurance, 3 million children go to bed hungry at least 4 nights a week, there has been a huge transfer of wealth from Social Security receipts to the wealthiest among us due to the last rounds of cuts for the rich, the dollar is weak, the debt is at record highs and so is the deficit…. and people like Robert are still actively looking out for the interests of the wealthy. Robert, I’m sure the wealthy appreciate your tireless efforts in their behalf.
January 8th, 2007 at 2:55 pmBluedog49,
Read everthing I posted please before going off the deep end. If you read enough, you will see the point I am making.
Since we were talking about taxes the point is;
In the tax game it is the middle class that gets screwed.
When it comes to social programs that are supposed to help those in need;
January 8th, 2007 at 3:02 pmTo much is spent on bureaucracy and not enough filters down to those it is intended for.
Well, yeah, Bluedog49 -those rich people will are the ones who generate jobs. Duh. Don’t you see? They will start hiring, right after they finish with all the cutbacks, lay-offs, offshoring, and “rightsizing” in order to maximise their corporate profits.
They also generate jobs by hiring tax lawyers, and accountants who help them set up their tax shelters and off-shore accounts. Don’t forget the chauffeurs and the chambermaids.
See? Jobs galore! You cannot possibly be serious about taxing these people.
/sarcasm off
January 8th, 2007 at 3:04 pmBarfly, do you mean the comments where I said something like:†A five day work week gives them 2 more days a week to screw us. But then again, with what they get paid, they should be working 7 days a week.â€
No, what you said was this:
“I don’t know, ask the new manditory 5 days a week, 4 day a week Congress.” – which implies they were backtracking from their promise of working five days a week. And the latest is that they postponed because the republicans asked them to!
That was pretty weak spin, Robert.
January 8th, 2007 at 3:06 pmBarfly,
How many days a week are they working this week?
How many did they promise to work?
If, as you say they ,posponed becasue the Republicans asked them to, then I have to ask: Who is in charge.
Again, I say I give them the benifit of the doubt that they WILL start the 5 day work week, but until they do they are no different than before (oops, forgot, one day better.)
But we know they won’t backtrack on anything (Iraq is the #1 priority, (but not important for the first 100 hours)).
January 8th, 2007 at 3:16 pmrobert
You really can’t expect the incumbents to suddenly jump to a five-day-a-week work schedule. Speaker Pelosi will have to give them time to adjust, to develop some work tolerance level.
January 8th, 2007 at 3:23 pm“MicroSoft insured Window’s survival by refusing to provide an O/S 2 version of the MicroSoft Office package.”
Yes and no… Office was not as dominant back in the Win95 vs. OS/2 war days. Really, it was more Microsoft’s marketing arm that did a good job of establishing the Windows de-facto monopoly while IBM basically just twiddled their thumbs not having a single clue how to market OS/2 to the consumer (I think they thought marketing to the enterprise was enough… but MS knew better). Yes, SOME of it was due to things like MS’s refusal to support other OSes, but a lot of it was due to the fact that you just couldn’t find an Off-The-Shelf system WITHOUT windows on it! IBM did a LOUSY job marketing OS/2.
January 8th, 2007 at 3:24 pmI agree about the “attack” on the middle class. However, I do not see the working poor doing so great, though… Welfare isn’t really as good as Rush Limbaugh makes it out ot be. But if you are NOT including quality-of-life issues and simply looking 100% only at the tax burden distribution, then what you say makes sense.
I must admit, though, that based on your first posts, it sounded more like you were defended the tax-rate on the upper 5% more than defending the middle class… That’s probably why so many people jumped all over your post. :-)
January 8th, 2007 at 3:27 pmHow many days a week are they working this week?
This orientation week for 33 new members, with all that entails.
How many did they promise to work?
While orientation isn’t specifically “work,” are you making the case that they’re just partying? The agreement was worked out in advance, to show a new spirit of bipartisanship – trust a republican to view that as weakness (who is in charge?). After all, don’t most republicans believe “bipartisanship is date rape?”
Again, I say I give them the benifit of the doubt that they WILL start the 5 day work week,
Ah, but weren’t you commenting on what you saw on TV? Your post said nothing about giving them the benefit of the doubt. You were just carping about the Dems, without knowing the absence was republican inspired! And check out the sabbaticals in Feb.; the repubs take theirs first! What’s that say about their work ethic?
January 8th, 2007 at 3:33 pmparrotlover77,
That was kind of my intent to get people to jump all over me. It shows what an emotionally tied issue taxes and social “welfare” are. I know The social programs depend on the tax dollars, no doubt. But too many times the rich are demonized just for being rich, the poor are blasted because they do not pay taxes, and the rest of us are doing our best to pick up the slack.
The rich do not fund the government and neither do the poor. But the rich run the government and run the programs for the poor. Joe M. Class is just assed out. Can’t run things, can’t get help.
January 8th, 2007 at 3:35 pmThe rich do not fund the government and neither do the poor.
Not quite right. The poor aren’t exempted from paying SSI, which is funding this war.
January 8th, 2007 at 3:41 pmWhile orientation isn’t specifically “work,†are you making the case that they’re just partying?
Nope. I seem to work hardest when I am not at work.
You were just carping about the Dems[...]
Actually, I was being a smarta$$
And check out the sabbaticals in Feb.; the repubs take theirs first! What’s that say about their work ethic?
How do you know a politician is lying? their mouth is moving.
January 8th, 2007 at 3:44 pmThe rich do not fund the government and neither do the poor.
That guy who recently retired from Exxon with a $144 million severance deal paid the same into SSI last year as anyone making $96,000. And the “poor” get taxed on every dollar earned, not on .0015 (approx.) of every dollar “earned,” like this guy.
January 8th, 2007 at 3:56 pmYou are right that many times the “rich” are prejudiced against amongst progressives. One things middle/working/poor progressives may want to keep in mind is that many of our legislative champions are, themselves, quite wealthy. Of those, some want to help the middle and working poor classes more than others. I think that shows a lot of heart to be wealthy and ready and willing to give it away in taxes and donations.
Recently, due to my wife and I working our asses off and getting promited, we have crossed that combined great wonderous threshold of the “six figure income.” I was told once a long time ago that the more wealthy you get, the more likely you are to become a (fiscally, at least) Republican. Greed has not done that to us yet. If it could get our country out of debt, fund more scientific research, establish a more fair health system, clean up and protect the environment, and/or helping the working poor to establish themselves as middle-lower or middle class, then I’m all for taxes being raised — even in my income bracket! And the two of us still have a lot of personal debt (student loans, etc.)…
Amazing what greed drives people to do sometimes. I think being giving is lower stress, so I try to do that. I still have a long way to go. I could give more to charity. Greed is a powerful muscle…
January 8th, 2007 at 4:03 pmI will be happy when they are a 5 day a week Congress like they promissed. (I am giving them the benifit of the doubt)
Comment by robert
I am sure they are pleased to hear that. Missing one week on their promise and you feel slighted. Sometimes you pound on an insignificant issue way too long.
January 8th, 2007 at 4:12 pmRobert, the rich are not being demonized. The preferential treatment thhey are recieving from this adminsitration is being demonized. The wealthy who run and own companies are to be commended for their contributions to society etc… BBut they also bennefit from the current adminsitrations polices overwhhelmingly more than the average Joe does.
In this thread you have defended the wealthy tooth and nail, you have also said you are no friend of the wealthy, you have also said that you would like a way to ease the burden on the middle class. Was the burden so oppressive in the 1990’s when the economy was booming and rates were lower than they were in the 1980’s?
I guess it might come down to what You think the function of government is. I tend to think that the main function is to provide for the safety health and welfare of the people…i.e. look out for our best interests. If our best interests lay with national health care then I am all for it. If our best interest lay in war with Iraq then I am all for it, though in reality I do not believe we have any interests in Iraq.. I tend to think that our best interests lay in keeping the people of our country healthy so national health insurance might be a nice thing. It will have minimal effect n me because I already pay for my health insurance as does my company, so we would simply swap those amounts paid to additional taxes. The ones it would hurt are the Wal-Marts and other retail giants who offer little coverage and who would have to cough up some to pay for this. Think of it this way if you keep the lower classes healthy, clothed, Sheltered and make them feel they have a chance and that you are looking out for them, then you help insure the future of our country. Simplistic yes, the details are always much more burdensome and could fill volumes.
January 8th, 2007 at 4:19 pmMark,
All I have defended is their right to be rich and to be taxed fairly. I think one major problem is how we are taxed. I have been reading more and more about the “Fair Tax Plan” and it seems to me to make more sense. The poor, that seldom buy new cars, for example, would not pay tax on a used car. The rich, that buy new cars more frequently, would pay a higher rate of tax for that car.
That is just one simple example.
January 8th, 2007 at 4:44 pmI am sure they are pleased to hear that. Missing one week on their promise and you feel slighted. Sometimes you pound on an insignificant issue way too long.
Comment by dlet
When someone brings it up, I will pound it into the ground. S my wife says, I will argue with a fence post.
January 8th, 2007 at 4:47 pm#77 whhen you see things like the fair tax plan, national sales tax or flat rate tax rates, take a look at who is behind the plan. Froma tax perspective (I work in taxes) all three shift the burden onto the middle class. Especially the sales tax plan. What is more fair than chraging higher taxes for those who most benefit from what our government does? And I believe fully that the wealthy and large corporations (and thus their shareholders) benefit from our government far more than I do.
January 8th, 2007 at 5:23 pmRep. Linda Sanchez deserves reelection in 2008. Who else can America count on to judge men’s crotches. Go Girl!
January 14th, 2007 at 2:30 pmLinda Sanchez rocks. Is their another Sister Sanchez we can bring to DC! Men in Jockys. Hot.
January 14th, 2007 at 2:32 pm