Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by taxwonk
The top 20% got a reduction in their effective rate of 3%. The second and third 20% each got a cut in effective rates of less than 1%.

All this debate is proving the old Mark Twain adage: there are lies, there are damn lies, and then there are statistics.

So you are talking about only the percent they pay/paid relative to the percent they previously paid. Its cute how you leave the fourth 20% out entirely. They had their entire tax burden wiped out and receive welfare payments now. There was no possible way to even cut their effective rates by 3%.

Instead of changing their income by 3% via tax cuts and welfare payments, why not just get Governor Blagoyevich to buy them their crack in bulk?

That said, if you wish to maintain your characterization of it in the terms you show above (the rich got 3% of their money back, but you only got 2% back -- did you know John Kerry is a Vietnam war Hero?), I'll agree to disagree. The characterization that the wealthy are paying a higher portion of the tax base now seems like something I'd throw in a Democrats face anytime this came up, and the comparative strength of the statements makes the left look silly.

Say, soapboxes on opposite corners of Michigan and Wacker on Saturday?

Hello

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
So you are talking about only the percent they pay/paid relative to the percent they previously paid. Its cute how you leave the fourth 20% out entirely. They had their entire tax burden wiped out and receive welfare payments now. There was no possible way to even cut their effective rates by 3%.

The bottom 20% are largely below the poverty line. Incidentally, that line is drawn at about $18,600 for a family of four. They're supposed to have a negative tax rate. It almost allows them to purchase food and shelter. Well, food at any rate.

Instead of changing their income by 3% via tax cuts and welfare payments, why not just get Governor Blagoyevich to buy them their crack in bulk?

This is below my contempt, let alone comment.

That said, if you wish to maintain your characterization of it in the terms you show above (the rich got 3% of their money back, but you only got 2% back -- did you know John Kerry is a Vietnam war Hero?), I'll agree to disagree. The characterization that the wealthy are paying a higher portion of the tax base now seems like something I'd throw in a Democrats face anytime this came up, and the comparative strength of the statements makes the left look silly.

According to the IRS SOI bulletin, the top twenty percent actually saw their effective tax rate, and their share of the total tax burden decrease. I don't know how the CBO comes up with their numbers, but I'll go with the study that I know the methodology of. In any event, if the wealthy (which I keep reminding people includes us) is in fact paying a higher share of the tax burden, so be it. We enjoy the highest standard of living in the world. If we pay a little extra to remain at the top of the heap, think of it as a transaction cost.

[Replaced_Texan]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatecha...291986,00.html

Bush u-turn on climate change wins few friends

Gary Younge
Friday August 27, 2004
The Guardian

In a dramatic reversal of its previous position, the White House this week conceded that emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases were the only likely explanation for global warming.

Citing the "best possible scientific information," an administration official, James Mahoney, delivered a report to Congress that essentially reversed the previous White House position set out by George Bush, who had refused to link carbon dioxide emissions to climate change.

[SlaveNoMore]

sgtclub
This shocked me. I thought that in that venue, it would have been the Bush sisters that got booed. The audience was respectfully polite to the Bushies.

Laughable it may be, but someone over on NRO has suggested it is related to Gigli.

The Kerry girls hang with Ben, while Miami is a J-Lo town

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by taxwonk
The bottom 20% are largely below the poverty line. Incidentally, that line is drawn at about $18,600 for a family of four. They're supposed to have a negative tax rate. It almost allows them to purchase food and shelter. Well, food at any rate.

I've been doing my best not to use throwaway lines here, but really. Math is hard for Democrats. There is the top 20%. Than there is the next 20% and the next next 20% (the two you previously referenced). For those of you keeping score, the next next next 20% is not the "bottom 20%". But thanks for telling me how little the welfare-recipients earn in this particular non-sequitir.

Originally posted by taxwonk
This is below my contempt, let alone comment.

It must be pretty bad. You are trying to argue that Bush's tax cuts are bad to the poor relative to the rich, though the rich pay a relatively higher percentage of the nation's taxes now

Originally posted by taxwonk

According to the IRS SOI bulletin, the top twenty percent actually saw their effective tax rate, and their share of the total tax burden decrease. I don't know how the CBO comes up with their numbers, but I'll go with the study that I know the methodology of. In any event, if the wealthy (which I keep reminding people includes us) is in fact paying a higher share of the tax burden, so be it. We enjoy the highest standard of living in the world. If we pay a little extra to remain at the top of the heap, think of it as a transaction cost.

So you don't want to talk about the chart that Bilmore posted anymore? I'd just as soon we gave away a little less than that we pay a little extra. We already pay too much.


ET remove the most insulting thing you could say to someone in Chicago (er, from Chicago): "Public Schools, right?" FWIW, its just a joke, so please accept it in that spirit.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Not Me
Copyrights and trademarks/service marks are two completely different concepts legally.

Duh.

I brought up the statute because of its unique applicability to the USOC and the - yes - trademark issues relating to the same. I hate to tell you this, but you're the only one discussing copyright issues. The only time in recent memory anyone other than law school professors in desperate need of publications ever gave a rat's ass about copyright was the whole file-sharing brouhaha.

eta: Note to self - STP. Apparently not everyone takes their weekends off.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
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".

You're reading a whole lot into his posts that may reflect your time monitoring the Democratic Underground.

Plus, you sound bitter. Go ride your motorcycle some more. You can tell the clientI said it was OK.

S_A_M

[Gattigap]

Scott McClellan, attack poodle of the Bush Administration, has unveiled Fmr. Texas Lt. Guv Ben Barnes for the Democratic partisan that he really is.

You may have heard about Barnes appearing at a Kerry rally some time ago, and apologizing for the fact that he got Bush into the TX National Guard lo these many years ago.

Yeah, whatever. Old story. It's not like he shot some fleeing VC or something.

Anyway, on the theory that no scurrilous charge can be left uncrushed, Our Fearless Lieutenant of Truth, Scott McClellan, "went on the offensive against Ben Barnes for describing the "shame" he feels over helping President Bush duck service in Vietnam."

TPM tells us the following:

• "It is not surprising coming from a longtime partisan Democrat," he said. "The allegation was discredited by the commanding officer. This was fully covered and addressed five years ago. It is nothing new."
  
  It turns out that Barnes is such a down-the-line partisan that he supported Texas's Republican State Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn for reelection in 2002.
  
  Strayhorn is Scott's mom.

Shit. Hope Mom can find some new contributors for the next election cycle.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Gattigap


TPM tells us the following:

• "It is not surprising coming from a longtime partisan Democrat," he said. "The allegation was discredited by the commanding officer. This was fully covered and addressed five years ago. It is nothing new."
  
  It turns out that Barnes is such a down-the-line partisan that he supported Texas's Republican State Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn for reelection in 2002.
  
  Strayhorn is Scott's mom.

Shit. Hope Mom can find some new contributors for the next election cycle.

Mom is going to do fine. She'll be the next governor of Texas, unless Kay Bailey decides to run. The Republicans aren't too happy with how Governor Goodhair is doing.

I do love Scott McClellan. It's a joy to see someone stay that close to the message under all circumstances. I'm surprised he hasn't snapped yet.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Scott McClellan, attack poodle of the Bush Administration, has unveiled Fmr. Texas Lt. Guv Ben Barnes for the Democratic partisan that he really is.

:It turns out that Barnes is such a down-the-line partisan that he supported Texas's Republican State Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn for reelection in 2002.

Strayhorn is Scott's mom.[/list]
Shit. Hope Mom can find some new contributors for the next election cycle.

I got $50 if mom is willing to work for it......

[Gattigap]

The sad truth is that it's becoming clear that Mary Beth Cahill couldn't organize a neighborhood bake sale, much less a national political campaign.

If she's not sending Cleland to TX in a take-my-letter debacle, she's screwing up the behind-the-scenes coordination of "shadowy" groups smearing the President.

This, for example, was not supposed to appear before Thursday.

[spree: Pleasureboat Captains for Truth ad]

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
I hate to tell you this, but you're the only one discussing copyright issues.

Wrongo, dumb ass. RT or whoever started this topic was talking about copyrights and the Bush ad and the IOC enforcing their copyrights to the footage.

That is how this whole thread started, dumb person. About the Bush ad using film footage of Olympic events and copyrights.

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
The only time in recent memory anyone other than law school professors in desperate need of publications ever gave a rat's ass about copyright was the whole file-sharing brouhaha.

Clearly you are not a tech lawyer. Copyrights are important to protecting software. Your pea brain may not understand software or the importance of it in our economy, but I will clue you in. There is alot of money in software.

[bigswingingdickcheney]

Originally posted by bilmore

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".

POST OF THE NEW MILLENIUM. ROCK ON HOBBITDUDE! WAY TO CALL OUT THESE DEMOCRAP HIPPOCRATES!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap


[spree: Pleasureboat Captains for Truth ad]

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Not Me
Wrongo, dumb ass. RT or whoever started this topic was talking about copyrights and the Bush ad and the IOC enforcing their copyrights to the footage.

My post simply pointed out that the Bush campaign pissed off members of the IOC with the ad, and probably torpedoed the already-slim chance that NYC would get the 2012 Olympics. I also pointed out that it'd be impossible to prove one way or another, because the IOC didn't have an official position on the matter. I didn't mention copyright at all.