Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
Any of you tax-savvy types who can tell me why this doesn't say what I think it says?



(Top taxpayors are paying a higher percentage of the total tax revenues?)

It does indeed say that top income taxpayers are paying the highest share of taxes. I don't think anybody here has disputed that. It also says that the top 10% had an increased share of the tax burden. I do dispute that, based upon the Treasury Statistics of Income study, but then, I don't know the methodology used by the CBO, so it may be explainable by sampling or some other reason.

The only point that I thought was being debated, and it's demonstrated by the table you posted as well, Bilmore, it that the top 20% bracket got proportionally higher breaks that the 60thand 80th percentiles, the middle class.

[juan, usmc]

Originally posted by taxwonk
It does indeed say that top income taxpayers are paying the highest share of taxes. I don't think anybody here has disputed that. It also says that the top 10% had an increased share of the tax burden. I do dispute that, based upon the Treasury Statistics of Income study, but then, I don't know the methodology used by the CBO, so it may be explainable by sampling or some other reason.

The only point that I thought was being debated, and it's demonstrated by the table you posted as well, Bilmore, it that the top 20% bracket got proportionally higher breaks that the 60thand 80th percentiles, the middle class.

¿Qué coño te pasa? Socialista? Communista? Bien pedo?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Hank: So I walked into this gay bar, and bought a six-pack.

I am pretty sure that it was a strip bar and that he didn't tip. And felt bad for looking.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Jesus. When even Bilmore refuses to engage in substance, we're all doomed.

To demonstrate the level of caricature that we've reached on this board, you tell me if these hypothetical post-and-responses are too far off the mark.

**************

Me: Here's a news article about the Navy Induction Officers for Truth and Peace with a documentary alleging that Kerry subsists on a diet of Vietnamese babies, and that he ate some infants immediately before giving his acceptance speech at the DNC (right after his tryst with Jim Rassman offstage). The group was entirely financed by Rove's half brother, Skippy. WTF?

Ty: Bush Lied!

Atticus: Shit!

SAM, Larry, Dave, Sidd: Damn Republicans! They'll stop at nothing!

Club: You call that a connection? Hah! Bush has already taken the high road and condemned 527s, unlike, say, Sharpton and Kennedy. Personally, I think Kerry had it coming.

SS: Isn't that like Stalin condemning murder? Hey, this reminds me of that evening on the quad.

Slave: The libertarian in me thinks the ad should run. The Reagan devotee in me thinks it should run. Whew! I'm not conflicted.

Burger: Can we talk about tax rates some more?

Wonk: Ok, pretty boy. Let's rumble!

Not Me: JFC! Get some perspective!

Hank: So I walked into this gay bar, and bought a six-pack.

Bilmore: It is to laugh....

You forgot to add a photoshopped pic of Teresa in men's underwear posted by Penske.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by taxwonk

The only point that I thought was being debated, and it's demonstrated by the table you posted as well, Bilmore, it that the top 20% bracket got proportionally higher breaks that the 60thand 80th percentiles, the middle class.

Huh? If there are ten different ways to interpret "proportionally higher", I'm guessing you are interpreting it in the only way that supports your statement (assuming any way exists).

The chart shows effective taxes for the top 20% going down to 14.2 from 17.1. Thats a proportionate decrease of approximately 17% or so.

For the next 20%, to 6.6% from 8.5%. Thats a proporationate decrease of approximately 21 or 22%.

For the middle 20%, to 3.5 from 5.2. Thats a ballpark 33%.

The 20% after that receive welfare checks, whereas before they paid taxes.

The lower chart shows that the top 20% pay a higher proportion of taxes now; whereas every other group pays a lower proportion.

What proportion do you see in that chart that justifies your statement?

Hello

[Raggedy Ann Coulter]

Finally, a worthwhile Al Qaeda target.

[Hank Chinaski]

[bilmore]

Originally posted by taxwonk
The only point that I thought was being debated, and it's demonstrated by the table you posted as well, Bilmore, it that the top 20% bracket got proportionally higher breaks that the 60thand 80th percentiles, the middle class.

The point I thought you were making was that the lower-and-middle-classes got screwed out of a tax break that only the rich ended up with. This shows that the "rich" ended up paying a higher portion of the taxes collected than they did before. Sort of contradicts your repeated cries that no one but the rich got a break, doesn't it?

This makes me think that you don't really care about the numbers, or the reality, at all. As long as you can find some statistic that seems to let the "rich" "get away with something", you are incensed. Or, more accurately, you can find a more acceptable reason to be incensed than the real one - your party lost to the hated Bush.

If all the Kerry people simply put their hated tax break into an envelope and sent it in to their own choice of charity, I'm betting we could have wiped out poverty. But, no, that wouldn't be possible, because the fact that the enemy is getting away with something is far more important than the facial excuse of "we love the disadvantaged, and you hate them".

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Jesus. When even Bilmore refuses to engage in substance, we're all doomed.

Here's the "substance" you've thrown at me for over a year:



And, by the way, all you have left is "okay, he didn't lie, but, damn, I didn't agree with his philosophy, so I can still call him a liar!"

Damn those petards, huh? I promise to pursue political conversation with all of the honor I've been presented with so far.

Oh, and I just LUV swiftboats.

(But, to the substance of your post, pretty damn good.)

[bilmore]

August 28, 2004, 12:10 a.m.
Purple Heart News
William Schachte speaks.


EDITOR'S NOTE:A new voice has been added to the debate over the circumstances surrounding Sen. John Kerry's first Purple Heart. William Schachte, who was a lieutenant in the Navy during Kerry's Vietnam tour — and who later rose to the rank of Rear Admiral — has released a statement describing the events of December 2-3, 1968, when Kerry received a minor shrapnel wound for which he was awarded the Purple Heart. What follows is Schachte's statement, in full. — Byron York


Statement of RADM William L. Schachte, Jr. USN (Ret.)
August 27, 2004

As was true of all "Swiftees," I volunteered to serve in Vietnam and was assigned to Coastal Division 14 for a normal tour of duty.

I was a Lieutenant serving as Operations Officer and second in command at Coastal Division 14 when Lieutenant (junior grade) John Kerry reported to us in mid-November, 1968. Lt. (jg) Kerry was an Officer-in-Charge (O-in-C) under training in preparing to be assigned as one of our Swift Boat O-in-C's.

At some point following President Johnson's announcement of the suspension of bombing in North Vietnam in March 1968, we were directed to become more aggressive in seeking to find and destroy or disrupt the enemy in our operating area. As part of this effort, I conceived a new operation that became known as "Skimmer OPS." The concept was simple. A 15-foot Boston Whaler was sent into an area where, based on coordinated intelligence, North Vietnamese cadre and Viet Cong were expected to be meeting or where, for example, concentrations of enemy forces might be involved in the movement of arms or munitions. We were to draw fire and quickly get out of the area. This would allow more concentrated firepower to be brought against the enemy forces we had been able to identify.

These operations were carried out only in "hot" areas and well away from any villages or populated areas. A Swift Boat would tow the skimmer to the general area of operations, and the ambush team would then board the skimmer and proceed to the designated area of operations. The Swift Boat would be riding shotgun and standing off, occasionally out of sight, to provide fire support and long-range communications. The Skimmer was powered by an outboard motor, and we carried an FM radio, handheld flares, an M-60 machine gun with a bipod mount, and an M-16 mounted with a starlight scope. If the night was heavily overcast, we brought an M-14 mounted with an infrared scope. We also carried an M-79 single-shot grenade launcher. In addition to our combat gear and flak jackets, we often carried .38-caliber pistols.

The operation consisted of allowing the skimmer to drift silently along shorelines or riverbanks to look or listen for sounds of enemy activity. If activity was identified, we would open fire with our automatic weapons, and if we received fire, we would depart the area as quickly as possible, leaving it to air support or mortar fire from a Swift Boat standing off at a distance to carry out an attack.

I commanded each of these Skimmer operations up to and including the one on the night in question involving Lt. (jg) Kerry. On each of these operations, I was in the skimmer manning the M-60 machine gun. I took with me one other officer and an enlisted man to operate the outboard motor. I wanted another officer because officers, when not on patrol, were briefed daily on the latest intelligence concerning our sector of operations and were therefore more familiar with the current intelligence. Additionally, at these daily briefings, officers debriefed on their patrol areas after returning to port.

On the night of December 2-3, we conducted one of these operations, and Lt. (jg) Kerry accompanied me. Our call sign for that operation was "Batman." I have no independent recollection of the identity of the enlisted man, who was operating the outboard motor. Sometime during the early morning hours, I thought I detected some movement inland. At the time we were so close to land that we could hear water lapping on the shoreline. I fired a hand-held flare, and upon it bursting and illuminating the surrounding area, I thought I saw movement. I immediately opened fire with my M-60. It jammed after a brief burst. Lt. (jg) Kerry also opened fire with his M-16 on automatic, firing in the direction of my tracers. His weapon also jammed. As I was trying to clear my weapon, I heard the distinctive sound of the M-79 being fired and turned to see Lt. (jg) Kerry holding the M-79 from which he had just launched a round. We received no return fire of any kind nor were there any muzzle flashes from the beach. I directed the outboard motor operator to clear the area.

Upon returning to base, I informed my commanding officer, Lt. Cmdr. Grant Hibbard, of the events, informing him of the details of the operation and that we had received no enemy fire. I did not file an "after action" report, as one was only required when there was hostile fire. Soon thereafter, Lt. (jg) Kerry requested that he be put in for a Purple Heart as a result of a small piece of shrapnel removed from his arm that he attributed to the just-completed mission. I advised Lt. Cmdr. Hibbard that I could not support the request because there was no hostile fire. The shrapnel must have been a fragment from the M-79 that struck Lt. (jg) Kerry, because he had fired the M-79 too close to our boat. Lt. Cmdr. Hibbard denied Lt. (jg) Kerry's request. Lt. (jg) Kerry detached our division a few days later to be reassigned to another division. I departed Vietnam approximately three weeks later, and Lt. Cmdr. Hibbard followed shortly thereafter. It was not until years later that I was surprised to learn that Lt. (jg) Kerry had been awarded a Purple Heart for this night.

I did not see Lt. (jg) Kerry in person again for almost 20 years. Sometime in 1988, while I was on Capitol Hill, I ran into him in the basement of the Russell Senate Office Building. I was at that time a Rear Admiral and in uniform. He was about 20 paces away, waiting to catch the underground subway. In a fairly loud voice I called out to him, "Hey, John." He turned, looked at me, came over and said, "Batman!" We exchanged pleasantries for a few minutes, agreed to have lunch sometime in the future, and parted ways. We have not been together since that day.

In March of this year, I was contacted by one of my former swift boat colleagues concerning Douglas Brinkley¹s book about Senator Kerry, "Tour of Duty." I told him that I had not read it. He faxed me a copy of the pages relating to the action on the night of December 2-3, 1968. I was astonished by Senator Kerry¹s rendition of the facts of that night. Notably, Lt. (jg) Kerry had himself in charge of the operation, and I was not mentioned at all. He also claimed that he was wounded by hostile fire.

None of this is accurate. I know, because I was not only in the boat, but I was in command of the mission. He was never more than several feet away from me at anytime during the operation that night. It is inconceivable that any commanding officer would put an officer in training, who had been in country only a couple of weeks, in charge of such an ambush operation. Had there been enemy action that night, there would have been an after action report filed, which I would have been responsible for filing.

I have avoided talking to media about this issue for months. But, because of the recent media attention, I felt I had to step up to recount my personal experiences concerning this incident.

(cite: NRO)

[Skeks in the city]

Originally posted by bilmore
Any of you tax-savvy types who can tell me why this doesn't say what I think it says? http://www.detnews.com/pix/2004/08/2...axcuts-cht.jpg

(Top taxpayors are paying a higher percentage of the total tax revenues?)

That table is irrelevant. What matters to people is their effective tax rate, and their after-tax income. Bush's tax policy hasn't done much for most people on either count. Bush helped really rich people, and that's about it.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by bilmore
August 28, 2004, 12:10 a.m.
Purple Heart News
William Schachte speaks.

The most despicable thing about John Kerry is not the exaggerations and lies he told to get his purple hearts so he could get out of Vietnam, but is his 1971 Senate testimony in which he told lies and impunged the charater of many honorable men.

[SlaveNoMore]

Not Me
The most despicable thing about John Kerry is not the exaggerations and lies he told to get his purple hearts so he could get out of Vietnam, but is his 1971 Senate testimony in which he told lies and impunged the charater of many honorable men.

There is no "most" despicable.

His entire life is a fabrication of lies. His entire resume is false.

From his misleading statements of his "volunteering" for service - when as we all know (and hte media tries to bury) he only joined the Navy when his [Clintonian] attempt to defer conscription into the Army and high-tail it to France failed.

To his denouncing of Bush as "AWOL" - when Bush served a full 4 years in the Texas Air Nationals dangerously flying combat aircraft and who volunteered for pilot service in Vietnam (and being rejected for not having the requisite experience). It is his 5th year that the Dems like to harp on. Whereas, Kerry joined the Swift Boats knowing that they rarely saw any action. Unfortunately for him, the Navy changed the mission of the unit shortly thereafter and poor, poor John had to patrol the Mekong Delta [and Cambodia!!!]. For 4 long months.

I could go on for hours, but there are some chicks in skimpy outfits on the VMAs that I need to watch.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by taxwonk
At our advanced age, it gets longer every year.

I assume you're talking about the list.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Slave: The libertarian in me thinks the ad should run. The Reagan devotee in me thinks it should run. Whew! I'm not conflicted.

Shall I link you to the TOS?