Someone is gullible alright. nt
Posted By: Give it up on 2006-02-09
In Reply to: Boy, are you gullible! - MTRE
.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Boy, are you gullible!
Did it not occur to you that they POLITELY ASKED the other lady to give up her shirt (no dragging out in handcuffs for her, you notice)in order to JUSTIFY ousting Sheehan? Give me a break:) LOL - don't need to be an Einstein to figure out how our leaders work - IF you care to pay attention, their actions and motivations are pretty consistent and easy to figure out.
WHAT are you talking about? Are you that gullible?
nm
Did you know gullible's not in the dictionary?
x
The gullible continue to hit themselves with hammers.
It's really amazing to see. In the first place, Bush's tax cuts mainly affected investment income. Do you think the ultra wealthy 1% do 9 to 5 at Burger King and report their wages like the rest of us working slobs? Please. They don't have wages and so, do not even contribute to the Social Security coffers (though that doesn't stop them from accepting huge chunks of OUR hard-earned money in Bush free for all tax refund giveaways). Bush took OUR money and gave it to his friends - and himself, by the way.
But here's the real story without the skewed numbers (excerpt):
Grossly Unfair: Evaluating the Bush Proposal
By Ron Sider, President
Evangelicals for Social Action
It is true that the wealthy pay a lot more taxes than others. But even though the Treasury Department reports that the top one percent pay only 20 percent of all federal taxes, Bush wants to give them 40 percent of the tax cut. The bottom 40 percent get only four percent of Bush’s tax cut—i.e., about 1/9 of what the richest one percent receive. The bottom 80 percent receive only 29 percent.
The more closely you look at what has been happening in the last few decades, the more outrageous this 40 percent tax cut for the richest one percent appears. The income of the top one percent has grown vastly more that the rest of the population. From 1989 to 1998, the after-tax income of the bottom 90 percent grew by only five percent, but the richest one percent enjoyed a 40 percent jump. That means the income of the top one percent grew eight times faster than the bottom 90 percent. (That explosion of after-tax income happened even though President Clinton and Congress raised the highest income tax rate to 39.6 percent in 1993—a small tax increase that apparently did not discourage investment, harm the economy or prevent the richest from significantly widening the gap between themselves and everybody else.) Furthermore, the total effect of changes in the tax laws between 1977 and 1998 has already lowered the federal tax payments of the top 17 percent of families by over 14 percent ($36,710) whereas the bottom 80 percent of families saw their average tax payments fall by just 6.9 percent ($335).
It gets still worse. President Bush says his plan is fair because it lowers the tax rates for everyone. In fact, the poorest 31.5 percent of all families do not get a cent from Bush’s proposal (even though 80 percent of them are working) because their incomes are so low they do not pay any federal income taxes. (They do pay substantial payroll taxes, but the tax cut does not change that.) More than half of all black and Latino children are in families that would not benefit a cent from this plan.
Abolishing the estate tax is also wrong. Of course it needs to be revised so that children can inherit family farms and small businesses (that would cost only a fraction of what abolishing it will cost). When fully implemented in 2010, the repeal of the estate tax would provide a mere 64,000 estates with a tax cut of $55 billion—which is the same amount that the poorest 74 percent of all U.S. families (192 million people) would receive in tax cuts.
Abolishing the estate tax is misguided for several reasons. It would discourage charitable giving and thus undermine civil society. Wealthy individuals today can avoid estate taxes on wealth they give to charitable organizations. Consequently, abolishing the estate tax would almost certainly reduce charitable giving to a vast array of private agencies., including precisely the private, non-profit social service agencies in civil society that President Bush (wisely) wants to strengthen and expand. His proposal on the estate tax fundamentally contradicts his desire to expand the role of civil society in general and FBOs in particular in combating poverty—which is why John Dilulio, the head of Bush’s new White House Office on Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, recently criticized abolishing the estate tax. Fortunately, some of the wealthiest Americans (including Bill Gates’ father) have launched a campaign to preserve the estate tax!
The whole article can be read at www.christianethics.com, issue 35.
Don't let anybody be misled by the sneaky claim that the rich pay oh so much more of the tax burden than you do. Say you make 30,000 and you pay 20% of your wages in taxes - 6000. Along comes rich guy who makes no wages but has to pay 20% of his 3 million investment income in taxes - he would pay 600,000.
Oh my God!!! The rich guy has just paid 600,000 and you only paid 6000! He paid 100 TIMES what you did!! Oh the poor, poor overburdened rich guy! That's how they devise their 80-90% figures. Never mind about fair share, never mind that you are paying taxes on wages that would otherwise go to rent and food and utility costs, while they are paying taxes on free money they get just for having huge sums of money invested wisely, as the rich certainly know how to do. And why shouldn't they? But let's not pretend they need that money for food or shelter. Let's not pretend that they should be in any way exempt from contributing a fair share to the system that makes their happy lifestyles possible.
Oh, bull.. dont be gullible. O is paying off his
nm
He did that alright...(sm)
But that's what I see as a problem....inflaming the public. The only thing that does is cause even more division -- like we need that right now.
Oh, alright
can he wait till winter, though?
Oh, it was thoughtful alright............
not much intelligence involved though. All the run around speeches he gives for those who refuse to see it, just are nothing more than he says one thing and completely intends to do another. It's not that hard to hear for those of us who aren't falling for that Obama love fest you have going.
Oh, I get it alright and it's becoming more clear by
--
Alright then...count all the glaciers why don't cha...nm
5
He's losing his bearings alright...
I sincerely think that melanoma has affected his brain. He used to be a maverick, especially when he ran against GWB in 2000. Now he's just old, real old. Think it's time for him to retire.
I notice that all of a sudden it is alright
Boy, some of us really got trampled for using Hussein during the campaign, but I guess since he is using his whole name for the inauguration, it's okay for all his worshippers to say it now! ! !............
I find it perfectly alright to say
I am white and I know how it works. White folks say a couple is "engaged" if the girl gets pregnant. Black folks say they are staying somewhere but do not go as far as to say they are engaged.
Thanks, LVMT; yup, propaganda is the word, alright.
You just wonder how much more damage will be done before more people see through it.
I'm a HATER, alright. I hate the ol' boy's club
Pretty scary stuff alright.
This was from a link below.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/11/06/news/newsmakers/emanuel_easton.fortune/?postversion=2008110613
It'd make an impression alright - by showing them
nm
It is waste alright! You dont spend taxpayer money
nm
Wow, newbie Jackie is with the PROGRAM!!! Alright! Already calling people liars. sm
What a gooooooooood little liberal you are! HIGH FIVE!
|
