2009.11.06
Friday open thread
Home is behind, the world ahead... And there are many paths to tread. Through shadow, to the edge of night, until the stars are all alight... Mist and shadow, cloud and shade, all shall fade... all... shall... fade...
What path are you treading today?
RSS feed 
Anyone that thinks ObamaCare is about improving health care in this country is naive at best or just plain ignorant at worst.
It is all about increasing government power over our lives and making the population more dependent on the government; e.g. the Dem health care reform proposal creates over 200 new federal beaurocracies, none of which will improve health care and each will demand their budgets increased annually, and each will control some aspect of our lives, usually when we are in most need.
Comment by John R — November 6, 2009 @ 7:59 am
#2 - Nancy Pelosi is refusing to let the pulic read the healthcare bill she ramming through Congress. Why? What's in it that she doesn't want us to see? And the Republicans have offered an alternate plan...yet Pelosi won't pause to look at it and discuss it. Why not?
Is this how we want our Congress to operate? Behind closed doors, afraid to let the public see what laws they are creating?
Comment by Patrick — November 6, 2009 @ 8:32 am
That should have been a #1...ooops.
Comment by Patrick — November 6, 2009 @ 8:32 am
What do you mean, Patrick? You can read the bill right here.
And the Republican's alternate "plan" accomplishes nothing. The nonpartisan CBO confirms that the plan would barely cover any additional Americans, it offers no protection against insurance companies excluding people for pre-existing conditions, and it's less effective than the Democrat's plan at controlling costs and reducing the deficit.
What's to discuss?
Comment by Dan Radmacher — November 6, 2009 @ 8:38 am
Unemployment now reaches 10.2%! Thank you Obama and the so called stimulus!
Obama has reached the first leg of Jimmie Carter's 3 legged stool of misery, that is double digit unemployment, interest rates, and inflation. Three years to go, I know Obama can do it! Go Obama! Go! (literally)
Comment by John R — November 6, 2009 @ 8:42 am
The only way an insurance company can cover a 55 year old obese male with high blood pressure and diabetes and a 25 year old healthy male without considering pre existing conditions is to raise the rate for the healthy considerably. That is unless the company does not have to make a profit and has unlimited tax payer funds. Econ 101 you know. More socialism!
But eventually the government runs out of OPM! Hello rationing!
Comment by John R — November 6, 2009 @ 8:51 am
#4 - Dan, have YOU read the entire bill Pelosi is pushing? How about the alternative offered by the Republican? Or have you gotten your info about them from other sources?
My point is Pelosi doesn't want anyone reading it before it's voted on. Don't you find that a little questionable?
Maybe it's OK in your world for Congress to hide from the public, but it's not in mine.
Comment by Patrick — November 6, 2009 @ 9:01 am
10.2% Unemployment. Wow.
Can someone tell me again how the stimulus was supposed to stop unemployment at around 8%? And if Dear Leader saved/created so many jobs, how have we gone above 10%?
And please save you "It's Bush's fault" replies...the fraud you elected is in charge.
Comment by Patrick — November 6, 2009 @ 9:04 am
EXCUSE ME!!! (RTEB)
Is there a reason why the MASS MURDER at Fort Hood isn't a topic of discussion here?
Comment by T Witten — November 6, 2009 @ 9:07 am
@Patrick #7: Still trying to wrap my mind around how Pelosi is hiding the bill from the public when - again - you can read it right here, and have been able to since late last month.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — November 6, 2009 @ 9:07 am
#4 We've established the CBO is far from non-partisan. That's another false claim that needs refuted every time. It's president is a long-time Democrat hack appointed by Pelosi.
Anybody who says government healthcare won't expand the deficit more than the private sector isn't to be taken seriously. Anybody who says more people won't be forced to the public option isn't to be taken seriously. Anybody who says tort reform will have a negligible effect when real-life evidence shows it has a profound effect, isn't to be taken seriously.
Seriously, why would anybody think this or ANY government agency is non-partisan? Even the Supreme Court is clearly that way.
Comment by Suzie — November 6, 2009 @ 9:11 am
@5 Carter's stool? I think you mean Reagan. The unemployment rate is the highest in 26 years, since Jun. 1983, and still not as high as Reagan's peak of 10.8 percent in Nov.-Dec. 1982. It never reached 8 percent under Carter.
Maybe you should check your numbers first, John. You can find historic unemployment data at the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Comment by C. Trejbal — November 6, 2009 @ 9:12 am
As for Pelosi's bill...we know enough about it already to know it is pure drivel. Tax money going to abortions is beyond the pale.
Comment by T Witten — November 6, 2009 @ 9:14 am
Christian, I think we ALL know economic policy doesnt materialize or bear fruit IMMEDIATELY. Just as we really wont know how 0bama's policies will TRULY help/hurt us for a little while longer. So far, people dont like what he is doing.
Recessions happen no matter who is in office. What you do to STIMULATE the economy is where I disagree. We'll see how it works out. So far, not so good. My take anyways.
Comment by T Witten — November 6, 2009 @ 9:18 am
@T Witten #9: EXCUSE ME!!! (RTEB)
Is there a reason why the MASS MURDER at Fort Hood isn't a topic of discussion here?
I haven't figured out anything intelligent or perceptive to say about that horrific event, and the authorities are still trying to figure out exactly what happened.
But feel free to discuss it all you want. That's why we have open threads.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — November 6, 2009 @ 9:19 am
@T Witten #14: Christian, I think we ALL know economic policy doesnt materialize or bear fruit IMMEDIATELY. Just as we really wont know how 0bama's policies will TRULY help/hurt us for a little while longer. So far, people dont like what he is doing.
Hmmm. Let me understand this. The unemployment under Reagan two full years after he elected is to be discounted because economic policy doesn't materialize or bear fruit IMMEDIATELY. But one year after Obama's election, the unemployment rate is a sure sign of impending doom.
Got it.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — November 6, 2009 @ 9:21 am
I'll say something about the attack at Ft. Hood. It looks like the eight-year hiatus we enjoyed free of terrorist Muslim attacks against our country is now over.
Comment by Suzie — November 6, 2009 @ 9:26 am
@Suzie #11: Perhaps one day you'll come to the realization that the mere fact that you state an opinion in no way "establishes" that opinion as fact.
Can you cite one source other than yourself that describes the CBO as anything other than objective, nonpartisan and trustworthy?
Comment by Dan Radmacher — November 6, 2009 @ 9:26 am
#9 I think too we (and I include myself)all need to sometime not yell so much. Even if someone has a different point of view. The whipping boy being the Roanoke Times is just not right to be at the whipping post, in my opinion. Some say it is a liberal rag and they go on this rant. Some people need to get out more I think.
Comment by Bill Hudson — November 6, 2009 @ 9:29 am
I was thinking just yesterday that I bet this blog would be a lot less busy (maybe?) but definitely much more civil if we had to state our posts face-to-face instead of from behind a screen and keyboard.
And anybody who disagrees is clearly on the looney fringe!
Comment by Saintbridge — November 6, 2009 @ 9:37 am
18. Sure Dan. The respected Heritage Foundation thoroughly thrashes the CEO's underestimation of the cap-and-tax bill's costs.
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/06/22/cbo-grossly-underestimates-costs-of-cap-and-trade/
Comment by Suzie — November 6, 2009 @ 9:39 am
Saint - Duh? Why do you think blogging is so popular. ANONYMITY! Kind of like going on a date with someone you met online only to find out that they look nothing like the picture they posted and may or may not even be the same sex they appeared to be in that pic.
I wouldn't have a problem talking face to face - I stand behind most of my comments - there are some I would take back though. As Uptheriver once suggested - we ought to get together and have a picnic. Ha!
Comment by Walker — November 6, 2009 @ 9:46 am
OK, so our eight-year span free of Muslim terrorist attacks against our homeland is now over.
I'll make an early prediction. The fact that this guy was Muslim will be downplayed by the mainstream media in future days, even if it is shown he was working with a group. He'll be treated as a lone nut. The media will NOT allow 0bama to look like the disengaged naive weakling he is, nor will it focus on a storyline that will force 0bama's hand to take decisive action in Afghanistan or elsewhere.
Comment by Suzie — November 6, 2009 @ 9:46 am
Anybody go see Avenue Q last night? Great show! A pornographic Sesame Street! It was really good though if you are into that kind of thing. I think it may have offended some of the older folks there though. Good Times! Ha
Comment by Walker — November 6, 2009 @ 9:52 am
#19, yep, if we all sat down at a large table face to face, the civility would go up exponentially. People can hide behind the relative annonimity of the internet and blogs and let fly all manner of things they would never say to another person directly, because when you have a face to go along with who you're speaking to, you generally take a calmer, more respectful tone. Maybe it's just basic human decency, or maybe it's the knowledge that if you get out of line the person across from you could give you a swift punch to the gut...it's debatable.
Comment by Other John — November 6, 2009 @ 9:52 am
20 Saintbridge.
This way people can be more honest. It's funny how Democrats think it's "uncivil" to disagree with them. Frankly, I endure what most people would call "incivility" quite a bit in here, sometimes from RTEB members. It doesn't bother me. I've experienced a lot worse in the real world.
Comment by Suzie — November 6, 2009 @ 9:52 am
Well, T Witten, this mass shooting wouldn't have happened if Fort Hood weren't a gun-free zone. Oops, that's what conservatives are supposed to say when shootings happen at colleges. Because everybody knows that when you're in an area with lots of guns, shootings like this NEVER happen.
Comment by gdad — November 6, 2009 @ 9:56 am
@Suzie #23: Never mind that, by all early appearances, the guy - born in America, by the way - does appear to be a lone nut. Oh, and, from what I've read so far, no one is downplaying the fact that he was a Muslim.
That doesn't make him a Muslim terrorist any more than the killer of George Tiller is a Christian terrorist.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — November 6, 2009 @ 10:04 am
#11 Suzie, is there anyone in the US that you trust? Even the Supreme Court, mostly appt by Republicans, is leftwing? Really?
Comment by Richard — November 6, 2009 @ 10:05 am
@Suzie #21: 18. Sure Dan. The respected Heritage Foundation thoroughly thrashes the CEO's underestimation of the cap-and-tax bill's costs.
Read your own link, Suzie. Heritage disputes the findings, just as liberals disputed the CBO's first analysis of the Democrat's health reform bill. Heritage did not slander the CBO, though.
You can take issue with a particular report without questioning the credibility of the entire agency.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — November 6, 2009 @ 10:09 am
@19 - What you throw at Fox can then be applied to The Roanoke Times. Same principle and concept. You hate the editorials and editorialists, therefore the organization is garbage.
@22 - Great suggestion. We should all have a picnic.
Comment by mattyr — November 6, 2009 @ 10:10 am
#23 Suzie, is this the spin the wackos are putting out now? Surely, not. This is beyond bad taste at a time of such tragedy.
Comment by Richard — November 6, 2009 @ 10:10 am
@26: I will disagree that any RTEB member has been disrespectful to anyone here -- exasperated, sure.
And as far as disagreements go, the GOP used to call such things "unpatriotic" after we went into Iraq. It is all perspective ... for example, I think it is childish not to spell President Obama's name properly in these threads as a matter of routine.
I called the Gov.-elect "Taliban Bob," but that's not going to show up here from me any more. I feel better making my point through reason and not simplistic wordplay.
Comment by Saintbridge — November 6, 2009 @ 10:10 am
Dan - That guy IS a Christian terrorist. So was the Eric Rudolph. They committed terroristic acts in the name of Christianity. Doesn't mean they aren't nuts and that MOST Christians should and did denounce both acts vigorously.
This guy yelled "Allahu Akbar - God is Great!" before he began unloading on the 500 unarmed soldiers in line to get medical checks. HE KNEW THEY WOULD BE THERE AND BE DEFENSELESS! Hasan is a MUSLIM and he committed a coward's act in the name of ISLAM. You guys are so scared to call a spade a spade. This guys yelled "Allahu Akbar - God is Great! Why are you guys so afraid of getting someone's PC panties in a bunch? We could just call them religious terrorists right? No - that would offend atheists or maybe paint all religions in a bad light. Either way this guy is a coward and traitor and should be treated as such. Don't look for reasons to sympathize/empathize with this guy. I'n the meantime I will patiently wait for the Muslim community/world to denounce his act of cowardice.
Comment by Walker — November 6, 2009 @ 10:26 am
Reagan knew how to turn the economy arround and his policies launched 20 years of unprecedented growth! It was Carter's incompetence that got us there, Reagan got us out.
Surely the RTEB does not defend the Carter administration? Sorry, that's a dumb question. My bad!
Comment by John R — November 6, 2009 @ 10:27 am
#31 The only difference is fixed network puts out the GOP side of things or the GOP side of things or another right wing tea bag side of things. You see? And if you agree and want your news one sided then that's for you which it looks like you do.
But what thinking person wants only one side? That question remains to be un-answered.
Comment by Bill Hudson — November 6, 2009 @ 10:28 am
Suzie...
While you're at it...why don't you add "a Virginia Tech educated, born in America Muslim Terrorist". If you're going to cast such a net, you may as well cast it as far and wide as you can possibly throw it.
T Witten...
I, like Dan, have not processed all of what I've seen (albeit the same video continuously running in a loop for hours and hours and hours) with the talking heads repeating the same stuff for hours and hours and hours and hours.
The net take away from this is that its a terrible terrible tragedy any way you look at it. Soldiers getting ready to serve thinking that they aren't in harms way being gunned down on base is beyond comprehension on so many levels. To call the gunman a "nut" seems too easy at best. What causes someone to snap...especially someone who was supposedly working with soldiers to overcome the issues of war...is beyond my ability to explain.
It defies logic when everyone wants a logical explanation. I think it will be easy for someone (cough Suzie) to say that he was a sleeper terrorist that decided to act at precisely the moment he did.
Should we start screening all potential soldiers before they enlist?
That's something that could certainly be up for debate.
Comment by Will — November 6, 2009 @ 10:31 am
@34 Here is the text of a press release I received yesterday evening.
Sounds like a denouncement to me.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
U.S. Muslim Group Urges Calm, Unity After Fort Hood Shootings
(WASHINGTON, D.C., 11/5/09) - The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) tonight reiterated the Muslim community’s condemnation of today’s deadly shootings at Fort Hood in Texas and urged the nation to remain calm and unified as Americans nationwide react to the tragic events.
At a news conference tonight on Capitol Hill, CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad said:
“We reiterate the American Muslim community’s condemnation of this cowardly attack. Right now, we call on all Americans to assist those who are responding to this atrocity. We must ensure that the wounded are treated and the families of those who were murdered have an opportunity to mourn.
“No political or religious ideology could ever justify or excuse such wanton and indiscriminate violence. The attack was particularly heinous in that it targeted our nation’s all-volunteer army that includes thousands of Muslims in all services. We again offer our thoughts and prayers for the victims and sincere condolences for the families of those killed or injured.
“The motive of the attacker is not yet known. We urge all Americans to remain calm in reaction to this tragic event and to demonstrate once again what is best about America - our nation’s ability to remain unified even in times of crisis. We urge national political and religious leaders and media professionals to set a tone of calm and unity.
“Unfortunately, based on past experience, we also urge American Muslims, and those who may be perceived to be Muslim, to take appropriate precautions to protect themselves, their families and their religious institutions from possible backlash.
“We ask that individuals and institutions review advice on security procedures contained in CAIR’s ‘Muslim Community Safety Kit,’ which is available online at http://www.cair.com.”
SEE: CAIR Muslim Community Safety Kit
Along with innumerable condemnations of terror, CAIR has in the past launched an online anti-terror petition drive called “Not in the Name of Islam,” initiated a television public service announcement (PSA) campaign against religious extremism and coordinated a “fatwa,” or Islamic religious ruling, against terrorism and extremism.
SEE: CAIR’s Anti-Terrorism Campaigns
CAIR is America's largest Muslim civil liberties and advocacy organization. Its mission is to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.
- END -
CONTACT: CAIR National Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper, 202-488-8787 or 202-744-7726, E-Mail: ihooper@cair.com; CAIR Communications Coordinator Amina Rubin, 202-488-8787 or 202-341-4171, E-Mail: arubin@cair.com
Comment by Luanne T. — November 6, 2009 @ 10:36 am
@John R #35: Reagan knew how to turn the economy arround and his policies launched 20 years of unprecedented growth! It was Carter's incompetence that got us there, Reagan got us out.
That may certainly be the case, John. But Ronaldus Magnus couldn't even turn things around in less than a year. How about giving Obama as much time as it took Reagan. Let's see what unemployment is next November. If it hasn't come down by then, I think we'll all agree that whatever it is we're trying isn't working.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — November 6, 2009 @ 10:38 am
Thanks Luanne. It's about time they did some damage control! I also want it said that I don't believe Muslims to be bad at all, it' just that the extremists of that religion seem to be a little bit more intent on inflicting the most damage possible in the name of their God.
Comment by Walker — November 6, 2009 @ 11:05 am
39 Dan, tell john R how Reagan turned things around. He spent and spent running up deficits. His party credits him with spending the Soviet Union into bankruptcy. Unfortunately, after his spending to turn the economy around, he kept spending. Obalma's stimulus is only different from Reagan's in that he is spending domestically rather than militarily.
Comment by Richard — November 6, 2009 @ 11:15 am
@36 - Right. Can you see the sunshine today?
Comment by mattyr — November 6, 2009 @ 11:22 am
Radmacher-
Did you read my post?
"Christian, I think we ALL know economic policy doesnt materialize or bear fruit IMMEDIATELY. Just as we really wont know how 0bama's policies will TRULY help/hurt us for a little while longer. So far, people dont like what he is doing."
I AM cutting 0bama some slack.
What Reagan (and Kennedy, I might add) did to STIMULATE the economy (lowered taxes), and what 0bama is doing (massive spending and growing govt.) are very different.
But, historically, what Reagan did has worked many times and what 0bama is doing has NEVER worked. So, I guess Barry thinks he is special, but we already knew that.
---------
Let me also put something out there. Now, I am NOT, in any way saying there is a connection here. No tinfoil hat for me. But isn't it convenient that JUST before the DEMS forced the Cap and Tax nonsense on us (under the cover of darkness), Michael Jackson died and dominated the news.
Now, just before this Pelosi/Abomicare bill is going to be slipped through, there is another major news event that will potentially dominate the airwaves.
Luck? Fate? Or is Satan really in control of our world? Just something to ponder.
Comment by T Witten — November 6, 2009 @ 11:34 am
T Witten...
By most experts...Reaganomics is the root cause of what we've experienced in the last year and a half. Less government regulation...less oversight of banking and financial institutions...investment banks trying to act like commercial banks and commercial banks trying to act like investment banks.
It's all good and wonderful until greed and stupidity takes over and that's just what we've seen.
I personally don't want to go down that road again. Been there done that...got the knife wounds in my back for it.
Comment by Will — November 6, 2009 @ 12:06 pm
Will-
Putting "By most experts..." in front of something doesnt make it so. Kind of like climate change. There is much debate on both topics.
What Reagan did got us out of the recession and we had SEVERAL years of massive growth and prosperity.
Regulations have evolved over the past 20+ years under ALL of our Presidents. Its a good talking point, but MANY things played a role in our most recent economic debacle.
Some "experts" point to Social Engineering. The attempt at allowing ANYbody to buy a house, whether they could afford it or not. Allowing banks to hand out bad loans to people that they knew would be defaulted on, and the GOVT would have to pay the tab.
Comment by T Witten — November 6, 2009 @ 12:25 pm
Suzie, are you just a shill for Rush Limbaugh? So far the media has not downplayed the Muslim connection at all. And, no, this is NOT a terrorist attack. It appears to be nothing but a lone nutball who, based on his ealrier comments to people, should have been thrown out of the military a long time ago. And while some Democrats might think it uncivil to disagree with them, conservatives are equally good at that game. I remember being called unpatriotic and a traitor online by some fine Republicans when I argued that we had no business in Iraq.
Comment by gdad — November 6, 2009 @ 12:40 pm
it's NOT a terrorist attack, it's a lone nut ball... so now terrorists are sane?
OF COURSE IT'S A TERRORIST ATTACK...just a smaller scale of the USS COLE bombing.
Comment by BUD — November 6, 2009 @ 1:20 pm
@40. Walker CAIR has tried to get its message out for many years. I heard on one NPR broadcast a snippet of their statement. Don't know what other media included it, but I suspect very few.
I haven't watched any of the 24-hour "news" channels. For those who have, who heard any coverage of CAIR's statement? What channel were you watching?
Comment by Luanne T. — November 6, 2009 @ 1:37 pm
I haven't heard any of the coverage, but I did catch a blip on Fox News last night that made me shake my head. I think it was Shep Smith who was on the phone with the shooter's cousin, who also has a Muslim name. Smith asked when this guy converted to Islam, because at some point when things were still chaotic, it was mentioned that maybe he was a convert and that he had changed his name. When I saw the scroll and that they shared the same last name, and he asked the question, I just had to shake my head because it was fairly clear that he was not a convert later in life. But all that aside, the God in Islam is the same God in Christianity, and the same God in Judaism. But too many people are too focused on killing one another to realize that.
Comment by Other John — November 6, 2009 @ 1:52 pm
gdad #27
"Well, T Witten, this mass shooting wouldn't have happened if Fort Hood weren't a gun-free zone. Oops, that's what conservatives are supposed to say when shootings happen at colleges. Because everybody knows that when you're in an area with lots of guns, shootings like this NEVER happen."
Comment by gdad
You have no idea what you're talking about. Military members on a post like Ft Hood do not have weapons. Unless they are on the firing range or other regulated activity in which the use and possession of firearms is mandated all firearms are housed at the armory and are not accessible to the members. The only personnel with firearms were the police/base security that shot the suspect.
Comment by Richard S. — November 6, 2009 @ 2:02 pm
#43 T Witten And how do you propose Obama lower taxes when they are already at 10 and 15% for most including the top 1%. Taxes have been lowered, remember your guy did that and still led us into recession. He kinda left no options but to spend to stimulate the economy. Now if he would only spend only on the Military like your King Ronnie or spend to rebuild Iraq like GW, everything would be OK with you. But because he spend on the US citizen and US infrastructure you claim it is socialism.
Comment by Richard — November 6, 2009 @ 2:09 pm
@ Richard # 51
"And how do you propose Obama lower taxes when they are already at 10 and 15% for most including the top 1%. Taxes have been lowered, remember your guy did that and still led us into recession. He kinda left no options but to spend to stimulate the economy."
There is certainly a discussion to be had about how to stimulate the economy and whether spending or tax cuts should be the primary driver. That debate, however, should probably be left to those who know what current marginal income tax rates are.
For single filers:
10% on income between $0 and $8,350
15% on the income between $8,350 and $33,950; plus $835
25% on the income between $33,950 and $82,250; plus $4,675
28% on the income between $82,250 and $171,550; plus $16,750
33% on the income between $171,550 and $372,950; plus $41,754
35% on the income over $372,950; plus $108,216
For those jointly filing as married:
10% on the income between $0 and $16,700
15% on the income between $16,700 and $67,900; plus $1,670
25% on the income between $67,900 and $137,050; plus $9,350
28% on the income between $137,050 and $208,850; plus $26,637.50
33% on the income between $208,850 and $372,950; plus $46,741.50
35% on the income over $372,950; plus $100,894.50
For those who are married filing separately:
10% on the income between $0 and $8,350
15% on the income between $8,350 and $33,950; plus $835
25% on the income between $33,950 and $68,525; plus $4,675
28% on the income between $68,525 and $104,425; plus $13,318.75
33% on the income between $104,425 and $186,475; plus $23,370.75
35% on the income over $186,475; plus $50,447.25
Comment by Mike — November 6, 2009 @ 2:21 pm
@#43
The "STIMULUS" didnt work. It would be different if it did. But, it failed MISERABLY.
Mike put the tax rates up there for you. Take a look. But, the discussion on taxes is also about Barry RAISING them...DURING A RECESSION. BAD idea.
Comment by T Witten — November 6, 2009 @ 2:40 pm
My last post should read @51.
Comment by T Witten — November 6, 2009 @ 2:41 pm
Richard S, then I guess it's time for the NRA to start screaming for soldiers to be armed on base. They sure screamed for weapons on campus after the VT tragedy.
Comment by gdad — November 6, 2009 @ 2:45 pm
First off, Mike. Those are tax rates not marginal tax rates. Marginal tax rates are the rate of tax on the next dollar earned based off your taxable income; not gross income. Most marginal tax rates are between 10 and 20 percent for middle class for income taxes (those making jointly 50,000 to 150,000. Tax rates on dividends and capital gains are 15% for those in the 15% bracket or higher. For example those making $100,000 in dividends net after itemized deduciton and exemptions pay 15,000 in taxes. Those making the same in wages would pay 7.65 perrcent in social security and medicare plus $17,375. However, their gross income typically is closer to $135,000 as they wil lhave $35,000 in itemized deductions and exemptions. That is an average tax rate of 12.9% for income tax purposes. Not bad for the services you get.
Comment by Richard — November 6, 2009 @ 2:45 pm
Richard, I believe you are confusing "marginal tax rates" with "effective tax rates."
Comment by Dan Radmacher — November 6, 2009 @ 2:49 pm
No, effective is the average rate someone pays on total gross income. Marginal is the rate on the next dollar earned.
Comment by Richard — November 6, 2009 @ 2:55 pm
@53...
Perhaps it failed and perhaps it didn't.
Does your crystal ball have any information in it that could tell you what the economy would be like if Obama had done nothing? (similar to the GOP plan)
Comment by Will — November 6, 2009 @ 2:56 pm
53 T Witten, I don't think I have seen law with a net tax increase. Can you give me an instance?
Comment by Richard — November 6, 2009 @ 3:04 pm
gdad#55
And well they should. If, as you assumed everyone on the base was armed then this individual would either:
A. Not have done what he did or
B. He would have have been quickly dispatched before killing and wounding as many as he did.
Your first post was an assumption on your part and clearly shows you don't know what your talking about. Your second post was no better. Are you going to drop it or go 0-3. I'm betting you go with the later and not the former.
Comment by Richard S. — November 6, 2009 @ 3:05 pm
@45 T Witten...
It was the lack of regulation that Reaganomics preached. Less government involvement and the blurring of responsibilities across industries that should have never been allowed to intermingle. Certainly it worked for the short term but look at the mess it's caused for the long term. I don't call that much of a solution.
The experts that I refer to are as follows:
Robert Allsbrook - Chief Economist Regions Bank
Sara Johnson -
Managing Director of Global Macroeconomics at IHS Global Insight
William Taylor - President of Economic Development Partnership of Alabama and former chief of staff for the RNC
Keivan Deravi - Economist and Vice Chancellor Auburn University
David Bronner - CEO Retirement Systems of Alabama
Comment by Will — November 6, 2009 @ 3:06 pm
53 T Witten, as to the Stimulus working? The Stimulus has worked amazingly well so far, see any economist report. In fact, most economists are suprised it has worked this well as they had wanted much more stimulus.
The Stimulus is also designed to continue to work as most of the funds are to be spent on infrastructure over the next year and one-half.
The TARP funds were designed to work immediately to save the banking system and they most certainly did, in spite of, the lack of controls built into them. The stimulus funds had some immedicate funds available to save jobs in education and state government that would surely have been lost due to the recession and the dire circumstances it left state and local government. However the bulk of the funds are slower moving funds that are to improve infrastructure to increase US production and make us more competetive worldwide. The point being that if we increase production, we do not have to increase taxes to pay for the spending.
Comment by Richard — November 6, 2009 @ 3:11 pm
Why don't you tell someone in the over 10% of us who doesn't have a job right now that the Stimulus is working amazingly well... I bet they have a different view of it...
Comment by Danny — November 6, 2009 @ 3:33 pm
Those of you who continue to worship the great Ronnie and his answer to all recessions,perhaps you forget the great misery he caused. Economists and previous Presidents understood what would stop high inflation, but they also understood the cost in human suffering it would entail. Raising interest rates through us into recession, collapsed the real estate industry, bankrupted nearly all contractors, forced manufacturers to close their doors, and put our economy at the mercy of Japan. Like Jimmy Carter, Reagan was to face OPEC and high fuel costs and limited supply. Carter refused to bow to their demands whereas Reagan sought the Iran Contra deal and illegally paid them off. He like, like all financial people knew, that throwing us into a recession would lower inflation at the cost of jobs and industry. To pull us out of the recession he had thrown us into, he then lowered taxes on the wealthy while increasing them on the middle class and began spending like crazy on the military claiming star wars and other spending was necessary to block the Soviet Union. Again, spending was the answer to a recession. However, he cut social spending at every chance he could to please his conservative friends. Inflation would have gone through the roof had it not been for the technology revolution that increased production.
Obama is correct to spend us out of recession and he is even more correct when he spends on infrastruction to increase production. That is the only way to stop the potential for run away inflation.
Did sp
Comment by Richard — November 6, 2009 @ 3:48 pm
@ 59
Well, we'd still have $787 BILLION dollars for one thing.
It would also have been nice if he had used that money to actually STIMULATE the economy instead of using it for pet projects and social engineering experiments.
By the way, most agree that at THIS point, the STIMULUS failed. There's still time to see, but as of now, it has failed fabulously.
@60
What do YOU think Cap and Trade is all about? Or the Pelosi Bill for that matter? You don't SEE the Taxes in those? Have you not heard him talk about raising taxes on the "wealthy" (job providers)?
Richard, "The Stimulus has worked amazingly well so far, see any economist report."
Where are the JOBS Richard? Where are they? 30k created or saved? Nonsense.
Look...we can all argue about this until we are blue in Virginia again. The PEOPLE...the Voters aren't SEEING the results of Barry's Spendathon. And THAT is what matters in politics. People are still angry as hell about unemployment and SPENDING.
Every political hack, on every network, said these election results were about the ECONOMY, period.
The PEOPLE dont trust the policies of the President, as of right now. Maybe that will change. But, he has a year to change THAT fact.
Comment by T Witten — November 6, 2009 @ 4:02 pm
@ Dan #57:
You hit the nail on the head.
Comment by Mike — November 6, 2009 @ 4:12 pm
Did everbody else see Barry crap the bed yesterday?
He was supposed to come out an make some comforting, "Presidential" remarks about the attack at Fort Hood. Instead, he came out and first gave a shout out to Dr. Joe Medicine Crow!
What a dunce! This guy just showed his arse at a time when the people of this country needed a REAL leader.
Here's what an NBC (wow!) affiliate said,
"But instead of a somber chief executive offering reassuring words and expressions of sympathy and compassion, viewers saw a wildly disconnected and inappropriately light president making introductory remarks.
Anyone at home aware of the major news story of the previous hours had to have been stunned. An incident like this requires a scrapping of the early light banter. The president should apologize for the tone of his remarks, explain what has happened, express sympathy for those slain and appeal for calm and patience until all the facts are in. That's the least that should occur.
Did the president's team not realize what sort of image they were presenting to the country at this moment? The disconnect between what Americans at home knew had been going on -- and the initial words coming out of their president's mouth was jolting, if not disturbing.
It must have been disappointing for many politically aware Democrats, still reeling from the election two days before.
All the president's men (and women) fell down on the job Thursday. And Democrats across the country have real reason to panic."
It is very tough to hide indifference. What a tool.
Comment by T Witten — November 6, 2009 @ 4:29 pm
Just read this...
"Today, Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI) released a letter from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) confirming that the failure to comply with the individual mandate to buy health insurance contained in the Pelosi health care bill (H.R. 3962, as amended) could land people in jail. The JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain “acceptable health insurance coverage” and who choose not to pay the bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years."
So, you either BUY my insurance or you go to JAIL!
STATISM is starting to smell a tad like Fascism.
Comment by T Witten — November 6, 2009 @ 4:36 pm
@66....T Witten
To one side of the aisle, they're pet projects...to the other they're absolutely necessary. It depends upon who's controlling the purse strings at the moment as to how the projects are classified. How is that a great surprise to anyone?
The people were mad as hell back in 1980, 81, 82, 83 and 84 when jobs were still hard to come by. I lived those days and trust me, it sucked big time. Jobs are always the last thing to come back because generally, they are the last thing to go.
If you look at previous recessions and the employment statistics and timing, you'll see it very clearly. We're in one hell of a deep mess that's going to take longer than a few quarters to dig ourselves out of.
I only hope that people do indeed continue to save money and spend only when it's necessary. Then and ONLY then will you have a sound economy. People lived way beyond their means using their homes as ATM machines thinking that the bubble would never burst. Guess what?
It burst.
Comment by Will — November 6, 2009 @ 5:17 pm
@68...T Witten
I suppose it could be compared to the "deer caught in the headlights" look of Bush on 9/11 as he sat on the stage with the children.
Comment by Will — November 6, 2009 @ 5:21 pm
#67 Mike check you dictionery or tax code.
T Witten, ride your election while you can. Like all recessions, gov't spending is the fix. The correct spending is even better. Obama is turning the economy as like all recoveries, the jobs follow. yes a year will work.
Comment by Richard — November 6, 2009 @ 5:57 pm
Richard: Your definitions @58 are correct. Your application of those definitions @56 is not.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — November 6, 2009 @ 6:00 pm
Dan, the tax rate tables become the marginal tax rates for the individual for their next dollar earned on taxable income. The presentation of the tables as marginal is not correct unless you are looking at taxable income only.(Gross income less non-taxable, less allowable deductions. Only then do the rates represent marginal rates. Effective or average rate is the rate of income on gross income. As you can see from my example they are very different. Starting with Ronald Reagan, the press discussed the reduction in tax rates as a tax cut, however, they failed to recognise or explain that Reagan also cut deductions, especially on the middle class by doing away with the interest deduction on credit card interest, doing away with passive activity loss deductions, doing asway with outside salespersons deductions. So he lowered rates for the wealthy who did not have credit card interest deductions but he effectively raised rates on the middle class. This was never reported.
Comment by Richard — November 6, 2009 @ 6:12 pm
@69
go to JAIL!
Then you get free health care! What a country!!
Comment by Art Hill — November 6, 2009 @ 6:36 pm
Dan 28,
"That doesn't make him a Muslim terrorist any more than the killer of George Tiller is a Christian terrorist."
Well, except that radical Islam preaches violence against "infidels" and this guy was known to have voiced support of Muslim violence and shouted "Allahu Akbar!" as he shot innocent people. Christian teaching doesn't not support killings like Tiller did. Leftwingers always seem to miss this simple yet enormous difference.
Comment by Suzie — November 6, 2009 @ 6:39 pm
Richard 29,
I trust the majority of the Supreme Court Justices, but there some who have shown extreme partisanship like Sotomayor and Ginsburg.
Will 37,
I don't know how you can call this killer anything other than a radical Muslim terrorist. I see I was proven right about the media's handling of him being a lone nut. The laughable part I didn't predict was their pretending he was a victim of PTSS since he'd never even been to war. That's the tack the pathetic 0bama was taking. Can you imagine? Blaming the military for this guy being a radical Islam terrorist killer.
The liberal spin was more pathetic that even I imagined.
Comment by Suzie — November 6, 2009 @ 7:02 pm
So, according to Nancy Pelosi, you either buy a mandated insurance policy or possibly wind up in jail.
http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=153583
Can you say "Un-Constitutional"?
Not that it matters, really...Nancy uses the Constitution as a doormat.
Comment by Patrick — November 6, 2009 @ 7:12 pm
More on 0bama's pathetic comments about the Muslim Ft. Hood shooter:
He said we need to figure out "what may have caused Nidal Malik Hasan to turn on his comrades" in Thursday's shooting rampage at Fort Hood that left 13 people dead and 38 wounded. "We shouldn't jump to conclusions" 0bama said.
Are you freaking kidding? He shouted "Allahu Akbar" as he murdered innocent soldiers and civilians, and he had a history of anti-American pro Islamic terrorist rhetoric.
But when it came to Dr. Tiller's murder, 0bama was "shocked and outraged" referring to it as a "heinous act of violence". I guess he wasn't all that outraged when an Islamoterrorist killed 13 soldiers and maimed 38 others. In Tiller's killer's case, he had no trouble rushing to judgment, and wasn't much concerned with figuring out "what may have caused" the shooter to act as he did.
Comment by Suzie — November 6, 2009 @ 7:20 pm
@71 -"I suppose it could be compared to the "deer caught in the headlights" look of Bush on 9/11 as he sat on the stage with the children."
Will, while I have never agreed with left's contention that Bush should have immediately leapt to his feet and done something like fly a fighter jet or yelling "to the bunker", but even if for the sake of this argument, I grant your attempted insult as an accurate assessment, at least Bush just sat there. He didn't come out and say something stupid or inappropriate. I watched Obama's little talk. It was quite surreal. The media hawked it as the President coming out to address the shootings. Instead he spent the first five minutes giving introductions and chatting up the audience. For several minutes it seemed like he didn't know anything had happened.
Deserved or not, he has gotten so much grief about his teleprompter you'd think he'd practice a little extemporaneous speaking (like Bush did from the still smoking rubble at ground zero). Instead, this truly looked like there wasn't time to reprogram the teleprompter and he simply couldn't deviate from the plan. He may be a skilled orator when he has time to prepare, but I'm not sure he's the hero I want responding in a time of crisis. Just as you ridicule Bush, yesterday Obama clearly had no idea what the country needed to hear or how to deliver it.
Comment by Another Chris — November 6, 2009 @ 7:30 pm
@80
You teleprompter conspiracy theorists might want to catch the president's appearance on Letterman. How refreshing to have an intelligent, articulate person in the White House.
Comment by Art Hill — November 6, 2009 @ 8:17 pm
Just remember, The voters fired Carter (Obama take note) and Reagan won two landslide elections and the country felt good about itself under his administrations.
I remember the Carter years as a very troubling time. I was trying to begin my career and a small business as well as buying a home and starting a family, it was bad. Things got real nice during the Reagan years, it was quite a contrast. That was the feeling of most people back then.
Comment by John R — November 6, 2009 @ 8:41 pm
#81 - C'mon, Art, seriously? Have you ever really listened to Obama without his teleprompter? I've never heard anyone speak such broken sentences as he does.
Bush threw in nonsense words, I'll give ya that, but Obama stops and starts so bad that it's hard to follow what he's trying to say.
Comment by Patrick — November 6, 2009 @ 8:45 pm
Yeah Art, like that was vetted to death before the appearance. But, despite the inherent risks involved in catching softballs from a raging conservative like Letterman, not exactly an example of an impromptu address in the midst of a crisis. You're right though, an intelligent, articulate voice in the White House would be refreshing. Maybe we'll get one in 2012 because it sure wasn't an oratory genius that showed up yesterday afternoon.
Comment by Another Chris — November 6, 2009 @ 8:50 pm
Thanks Art Hill. Conservatives focus on Obama's "uhs" and so on, but try to ignore the absolute vapidness of Bush's proclamations.
Comment by gdad — November 6, 2009 @ 8:51 pm
Suzie, has Sotomayor even made a decision yet, much less enough for you to forrm an opinion? And the Ft Hood killer, iit must be that Wm Fleming education he got that made him a terriorist.
Comment by Richard — November 6, 2009 @ 9:36 pm
Why is it that apologists for Obama always excuse his behavior because "Bush was worse"?
Comment by waynep — November 6, 2009 @ 9:40 pm
One of the things that is wrong with the outrage...not tragedy...of the shootings at Ft Hood is that Hason knew that there was a war going on, that it was a certainty that he was going to be sent there, that he stayed on active duty anyway, took the money and benefits, then when he got his orders he decided to do what he did. A phoney and a coward.
Comment by waynep — November 6, 2009 @ 9:49 pm
@ Richard #57:
Those numbers are from the tax code. I am afraid you understand definitions but not how they are implemented in the temporal world.
Comment by Mike W — November 6, 2009 @ 11:16 pm
Bush had 5% unemployment. Obama has 10% unemployment. I don't think anyone is foolish enough to say Bush was "worse".
Comment by Henry — November 6, 2009 @ 11:41 pm
@77...Suzie
I haven't relied on the media to come up with my own assessment of the shooter at Ft. Hood. You nor I have the slightest notion on what makes someone do something so terrible in the face of the fact that he was indeed one of us. He may not have ever been in combat, but he as treated soldiers with the PWTSD. As experts in the medical field will tell you, it is extremely difficult to separate yourself from those that you treat.
While I don't know if that's the case here or not...I don't think any of the pontificants, including you, know the truth. You're simply not that smart. You, like me, can come up with your theories ... but they are just that ... theories.
All I do know is that my heart aches for the families of the people that were lost and for those who were wounded in the shooting. It's difficult enough to make sense of the passing of a loved one as a result of disease or accident. It's even more difficult when the passing occurs as a result of something like this.
How does one prevent something like this from happening in the future? Do we restrict who can now join the military? Do we screen every applicant? I don't know what the answer is. There have been many brave and dedicated soldiers that are not WASPS and I believe that there will be many more in the future.
Comment by Will — November 7, 2009 @ 8:18 am
"Why is it that apologists for Obama always excuse his behavior because Bush was worse"?""
Because Bush apologists did the same with Clinton?
Actually, neither makes much sense. The point to me is that conservatives jump on absolutely anything, whether it matters or not, to criticize Obama. Whether or not he needs a teleprompter means nothing at all to the welfare of this nation, yet folks like Another Chris make a big deal of it simply because they don't like Obama.
Others do silly things like using a zero instead of an "O" in his name. Shades of elementary school playground days.
Comment by gdad — November 7, 2009 @ 9:01 am
92... old dear dont worry about us old 'elementary school' people using 0 for 0bama, it is funny and just becasue you dont agree you are name calling just like any other kiddo on the playground...lol..but then that is what the socialist agenda playbook states, ridicule, lie, ridicule....it aint flying gdad
86 ...actually he was a muslin terrorist in my eyes, and in a lot of peoples eyes as well, screaming allah before he shot people, yes now there a solid religion based on peace for ya!
Comment by pammala — November 7, 2009 @ 9:28 am
@71 suppose it could be compared to the "deer caught in the headlights" look of Bush on 9/11 as he sat on the stage with the children.
do you think that running out and screaming 'we're getting attacked"..would've been the better thing to do? oh puhleeeze
Comment by pammala — November 7, 2009 @ 9:30 am
@81 . How refreshing to have an intelligent, articulate person in the White House.
yes right, he's articulate and charming just a lousy president without any clue at all, you dont see many presidents going on letterman (old hack and not even funny) to chat...he was invited to celebrate the down of berlin wall, but he is too busy, yes busy, on letterman, flying his wife and others over to beg for olympics, just too damn busy for something meaningful..what an imbecile he is...
Comment by pammala — November 7, 2009 @ 9:34 am
Name calling pammala, hmmm, who started that stuff? The people using the silly zero thing. Funny? It's completely unoriginal and just plain dumb.
Comment by gdad — November 7, 2009 @ 9:42 am
Gosh suzie I never knew that yelling one phrase turns you from a lone nutcase into part of a sinister underground terrorist group. I guess the guy who killed the abortion doctor doesn't qualify because he didn't yell something like "Jesus Christ."
I use this as an example to make a point. I do NOT believe the guy who killed the abortion doctor is a terrorist and I do NOT believe he is representative of Christians in general.
But suzie seems to think this guy IS representative of Muslims in general. Never mind the 1 billion who live in peace and do no harm.
Comment by gdad — November 7, 2009 @ 9:49 am
pammmala, lousy president? Let's talk about both Bushes. Cough, cough.
Comment by gdad — November 7, 2009 @ 9:52 am
gdad, there is a little significance to the teleprompter thing. He's not a leader, he's a figurehead, being handled. When he has time to rehearse and deliver a planned speech, he is a remarkable orator. However, if a crisis ever requires a quick decision, or, as in yesterday's case an impromptu word of reassurance to the nation, how will he do? So far, not too good. Just for your own edification, I thought Bush was a bumbling doofus when it came to delivering prepared speeches. i used to keep a calendar of Bushism's on my desk throughout his Presidency. They were great for a laugh. However, I was always clear about his dedication to the country. I can't say the same for Obama yet.
As far as looking for anything to criticize him about, it's not like that really requires an intense search. But don't worry, I will be the first to give him credit for a job well done. . . as soon as he does something effective and/or sensible.
Comment by Another Chris — November 7, 2009 @ 10:28 am
Deeds poor speaker, bumbling, inarticulate...McDonnell articulate. poised and charming...what gives here?
Comment by waynep — November 7, 2009 @ 11:57 am
#99 In the end ,history will be the judge I guess, as to how our President is doing. During his campaign he read the Doris Goodman book, Team of Rivals. It is a good book and I have read it now two times and in it it shows how Lincoln always had people like Salmon Chase who really wanted himself to be President. The point is I think our President is trying to reach over to the GOP. But the GOP by itself is going far to the right and is becoming the party of NO. How can anyone reach any kind of agreements?
I have always said Obama will not controlled by the left nor the right.
Comment by Bill Hudson — November 7, 2009 @ 12:07 pm
Will 91,
"While I don't know if that's the case here or not...I don't think any of the pontificants, including you, know the truth. You're simply not that smart.
Yet the left was easily and immediately able to assess the motivation of Dr. Tiller's murderer. Amazing
Gdad 97,
"Gosh suzie I never knew that yelling one phrase turns you from a lone nutcase into part of a sinister underground terrorist group. I guess the guy who killed the abortion doctor doesn't qualify because he didn't yell something like "Jesus Christ."
As I said in post 76, Hasan had a history of outspokenly endorsing Muslim terrorist attacks against the US while he was still a captain. There's a history there. It's pretty unmistakable.
Comment by Suzie — November 7, 2009 @ 12:25 pm
@103
If there was this "history." why didn't the army throw him out?
Comment by Art Hill — November 7, 2009 @ 12:38 pm
#102 The killer of Dr. Tiller is all there to see why he did it. Why would anyone, left, right, or center defend this guy Scott Roeder? He made a family lose a father. You really can't be defending a guy like that?
Comment by Bill Hudson — November 7, 2009 @ 12:51 pm
103 Art,
"If there was this "history." why didn't the army throw him out?
Aren't you forgetting how the Democrats have hammered the military for its treatment of Muslims in detention camps? After all that, you expect them to go after a guy for speaking out on his Muslim beliefs?
Comment by Suzie — November 7, 2009 @ 1:06 pm
@105
That's pretty weak, Suzie. So the army wouldn't go after Hassan because of the Democrats? When did his tirades begin? Who was president?
Comment by Art Hill — November 7, 2009 @ 2:13 pm
89 Mike W - I'll put my credentials against yours any time when it comes to taxes.
Comment by Richard — November 7, 2009 @ 3:39 pm
103 Suzie, actually the hammering has been for torture in prison camps. Has nothing to do with the Muslim Religion. Remember, in our Country, we have freedom of religion. We also do not torture, at least not anymore.
Comment by Richard — November 7, 2009 @ 4:35 pm
Bill 104,
Your friend Will just said we aren't smart enough to know what truly motivates killers. So I guess Will would say you're pontificating about Roeder. The motivation of Hasan and Roeder were equally apparent, yet the left jumps on one and makes excuses for the other.
Comment by Suzie — November 7, 2009 @ 7:15 pm
I can just imagine the uproar from the left if the army had kicked out a Muslim for voicing his faith out loud. Instead, the army let him stay in, and people got killed. This is the crap the PC left has wrought us.
Comment by Suzie — November 7, 2009 @ 7:20 pm
@110
What you can "imagine" is not a valid argument, and you are dodging the question. As of late last night, the AP was reporting claims that the gunman had shouted Allahu Akbar or was the author of several radical Muslim internet posts had not been confirmed. Regardless, if your claims are true, why would the army be afraid take action? I ask you again, when did these alleged internet posts occur? On whose watch? Why do you find it necessary to blame the left for the senseless murder of our soldiers?
Comment by Art Hill — November 7, 2009 @ 8:28 pm
Art 111,
I already answered your question why the army was afraid to take action. Please stop asking.
Comment by Suzie — November 7, 2009 @ 9:10 pm
@112
Do you honestly believe the United States Army puts politics over national security? Prayers and condolences to those killed, the survivors and their families.
Comment by Art Hill — November 7, 2009 @ 9:18 pm
# 112,Suzie wrote I can just imagine the uproar from the left if the army had kicked out a Muslim for voicing his faith out loud. Instead, the army let him stay in, and people got killed. This is the crap the PC left has wrought us.
-------------------------
Yeah,P.C. fear must be why they arrested Capt. James Yee, 35, an army Muslim Chaplin, charged him with espionage and kept him in solitary confinement for 76 days before all the charges were dropped. then later, found him guilty of two violations of military law -- adultery and improperly downloading pornography onto an Army computer.And yet later Had to backtrack on that guilty finding.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/04/14/yee.appeal/index.html
People who claim Political Correctness are as bad as those who make claims of Nazism. Socialism and accuse those who disagree with them Hitler.
Will we see the Army refuse recruits such a Timothy McVeigh?
No. Because to condemn everyone for the mentally deranged actions of one or two does not constitute a propensity for others to follow that same path...
Hundreds of women falsely accuse men of rape each year - Should we decide all women are fruitcakes who will drag us into court every time we have sex with them?
The actions of the few cannot be held as the mindset of the many.
Comment by joe Mostowey — November 7, 2009 @ 10:07 pm
@ Richard # 87
"I'll put my credentials against yours any time when it comes to taxes."
Great, an anonymous poster named Richard vs. an anonymous poster named Mike. Sounds like a clash of the titans.
As for your original claim that sparked the dicussion, that the top 1% pay only 10-15%, I'll leave that for common sense to judge. My numbers in post 52 are on hundeds of thousands of websites and publications and seem to be disputed only by you. I appreciate your offer of credentials, but I'll pass.
Comment by Mike W — November 7, 2009 @ 10:24 pm
Interesting thing about taxes- a wage below the tax threshold should be raising people's ire, Instead they only praise the people responsible for these low wages, because those people pay more taxes?
People who make what is termed a living wage pay a decent tax rate. and help support the economy.
When people are forced into a subsistence living, what this means is that the folks who pay low wages are making a government subsidized profit - the Government pays via lost taxes, welfare, food stamps and medicare, the wages the employer does not pay.
So the next time someone brings up that wealthy Americans pay more taxes, think about it. They aren't paying more taxes per se, they are preventing the people they employ either directly employed or indirectly employed, from paying more of a share in taxes by paying them a salary below the tax threshold, and having the government pick up the slack.
Comment by joe Mostowey — November 8, 2009 @ 8:51 am