Politics – President Bush has declared that the 3.5% pay raise for the troops proposed by Democrats as being "unnecessary" but requested the legislature to make the President's tax cuts for the rich permanent, actions that have earned the administration the wrath of unions.
The wrath of unions? If anybody aside from the wealthiest 1/2 of 1% of Americans thinks this is a good idea, I have to wonder what motivates them.
In the past 12 years, the wealthiest 1/2 of 1% of Americans have doubled their holdings of the nations total wealth. Must they have ALL wealth before these elites can rest secure in their new banana republic called America?
Think you Mr. Cheney. GW Bush doesn't have the mental acumen to even understand what's going on here. He has to spend all his time learning to recite the Republican talking points they give him. And even with all that practice, he still has trouble getting out one coherent sentence after the next.
"Must they have ALL wealth...?" It would appear so, and not just the wealth in America - that's not enough. Heck, we might start seeing countries change their names, kind of like new stadiums.
Instead of Great Britain ... Great Buffett.
1% of Americans receive approximately 35% of the cash wealth in the US. The same 1% own/receive approximately 55% of the "wealth" (read stocks, bonds, property, &c) in the US.
The divide between wealthy and poor is the largest it has ever been in the history of the United States. In addition the retirement and benefits packages being given (by board members who are most often friends of the CEO/CFO/&c) are the largest in US history (even correcting for the value of money today vs "then").
Just some facts.
Has nothing to do with tax rates.
35% kicks in at $175,000 in taxable income ... hardly a huge number.
That number catches one hell of a lot of wage earners in this country.
Somehow you folks think if they pay more, you will pay less or get more back. It doesn't work that way.
And don't come back with debt reduction. They (congress) spend it (actually try to buy votes with it).
A good number of people earn $175,000 or more in taxable income. However, if you actually look at that number as a percentage of the working class of America, it is actually very small. We're not asking them to pay more taxes than normal, we're asking that they don't get tax breaks that they don't really need. If the government worked the way it's supposed to, the tax money actually does come back towards the people in the form of public services. If you argue that tax breaks are incentives for investing and improving businesses and the economy, then what's with all the mergers the past 8 years? Mergers = layoffs.
That same group paying the 35% pay 60% of all taxes. their not getting a free ride. what we need to do is get rid of all the loop holes that people like Edwards and the Kennedys take advantage of.
And soon Bush and Cheney, and now Frist and DeLay and McCain and Giuliani and Clinton and Clinton and Obama and so on.
America is no longer a republic, it's a plutocracy and the votes of the rich count for more than the votes of the poor. There's why the election turnouts are so low. No one feels their voice or vote count.
Tired of nonsense: Please regard this as a respectful question.
I have often wondered why the receipts for Income tax And Social security are so close.
2007 personal income tax 1,221,687 billion, Social Security 908,265 billion.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/overvie...
If social security is 15 percent of the first $90,000 earned why does this not jive?
Does this mean that people are finding 89,604,813 billion in deductions?
Or if you forget about the cap shouldn't SS receipts be closer to 183,253 billion?
I am not the sharpest pencil and this has confused me for a while.
I usually owe a bit even though my payroll is withheld.
simon we were nibbling away at the debt before the current admin took ovr so ur last point is invalid
the biggest prob i have with w's tax cuts r him trying to eliminate the death tax,after all there is no fairer time to redistribute that money(the dead guy isnt gonna miss it)
the other thing i would reccomend is a slight increase in corporate taxes and increases in taxes for individuals making ovr 500,000/yr
Yeah, someone should work all their life and have to give it to the government cause they are so thrifty with it, not leave it to their children or charities of their choice, yeah redistribute it, what a joke..Must be someone who has nothing they are worried about the government TAKING after they worked THEIR whole life to accumulate it.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
harleyb761960
sterlingburt19681962
mekhifranks1975
olajysu
xoselaji
erypuka
stwor
JOEY EVANS
RussianThreats
Tessylo
lovingu
Dan and Jennifer
queenpea
markreg
lilditz
cosmogenium
affeine
uncogito
MiraJane
Helixbuilder
STONERS
JustCallMeV
universal12
igiral
amesburyroad
thespeedwaykid
worriorwoman
onlyonesecret
JJTopp
freemacedonia
mamasan
blothbelt
SS454
Apennyforyours
Colaba
bswearin9282
luciomuergo
SwampFox1
Wil
jamielynnest
orangebee
david_nwpa
ferrijl
schristoforides
copperfloor
Ratskii
ADAGUY
HMMace
jaern
243)
I read this story this morning and as understand it there's been a real need for this raise in the last several years. As far as I'm concerned they deserve much more than 3.5% and it's a shame that this administration is going negative on the subject. Perhaps that's their true colors - talk about how much they support the troops and disrespect their valor by denying them adequate pay.
Regardless of what Mr. Bush says, his true intentions are obvious in his stance on this issue. Loverman is correct in pointing out the dual nature of opinion Bush holds with regard to the troops. Apparently extending troops time in combat situations and delaying their discharge dates isn't reason enough to raise their pay. Hell, I am surprised that he also isn't supporting raising the salary of the presidency or just exempting the president and vice president from all taxes.
Don't say that too loud max---they might hear you.
does 'scum sucking dirtbag' mean anything to anyone..
bush is a plight.. not unlike the pied piper of camelot leading the rats out of the city.. someone needs to lead this moron of a president onto the deck of the titanic..
Actually, they do want a permanent tax cut for the rich, which will be GW himself in over a year (or less hopefully).
They have everyone squabbling so much over immigration that some fail to see where those vipers are really injecting there venom.
Political tactics at it's finest...
Just as this outrage is reported to lend evasive argument over a lesser atrocity, while a greater one unfolds on the next page and goes unnoticed.
They are wicked and deceptive beyond what Americans have experienced in our lifetime. Now we have a taste of what the German civilian population felt like under Hitler.
We can support the troops in many ways: one way, as Shrub would want, is to support the war. Ok. Another way to support them is by giving them a modest increase in pay. I think if my life were on the line every day in a place like Iraq, Afghanistan, or other places around the world, a small increase in my pay would certainly boost morale. And, the highest increase should go to the men in harms way, those right on the front lines, and not the generals.
Sorry...If you want the latest update on Natalee Holloway you'll have to visit the FOX News website.
Here's a better propaganda website to see this story:
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/05/military_...
When there are national disasters like Katrina or flooding which he has the authority to respond to he asks for handouts, contributions from working American. When the troops need support he only gives them words. But he doesn't hesitate to us his authority to make sure the top 4% of America's rich get to keep 90% of the country's wealth.
lying scumbag.
To be polite about it.
"But he doesn't hesitate to us his authority to make sure the top 4% of America's rich get to keep 90% of the country's wealth. lying scumbag."
"lying scumbag"? The only lying is that tax cuts would benefit the rich. Fact is, the Bush tax cuts increased the tax burden for the rich... http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg2001.cfm
The only "lying scumbags" are those like the author of the bogus sotry above claiming the Bush tax cuts targeted the rich - in fact the rich had to pay more in individual income taxes as a result of the Bush income taxes.
Ah, but you can't expect a silly liberal to grasp such points.
LOL...So your sole source of "proof" is from a far Right wing organization's website. VERY compelling...ROTFLMFAO You neclowns are PA-THETIC.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0523-02...
http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?Re...
http://www.cbpp.org/1-25-05bud.htm
http://www.cbpp.org/8-25-04tax.htm
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/05/business...
http://www.aflcio.org/issues/jobseconomy/ns0113...
http://www.aflcio.org/mediacenter/speakout/jf_j...
http://blog.aflcio.org/2006/10/11/how-much-have...
http://www.ombwatch.org/article/blogs/entry/1755/3
http://www.goiam.org/content.cfm?cID=9444
http://www.socialistworker.org/2006-1/585/585_0...
http://www.nclr.org/content/news/detail/2342
http://budget.senate.gov/democratic/charts_taxc...
http://www.faireconomy.org/research/BushStimulu...
http://www.uaw.org/action/031903callin.html
Mesodude: Dude!
You just made me break my own rules!
I usually read all the links before I vote.
Thank God I'm not rich...Shrub's tax cuts have increased the tax burden on the rich...aw...I feel sorry for them...don't you?
It makes sense to me that the rich are paying more in taxes. The taxes on the 10 million they made two years ago is not nearly as much as the taxes they are paying on the 50 million they made this year, even with the lowered rates Bush gave them. Oh yeah, the zero taxes on the money that their money makes is such a bother for them also. Poor things.
When Parato did his analysis of the distribution of wealth he found 80% of the world's wealth in the hands of 20% of the population. Societies have always had a method for redistributing wealth acquired by one person so that it does not create hereditary feudal systems. Such systems of monopoly have been proven for several thousand years to lead to social decline in productivity, stability, creativity, invention and morality. The typical pattern is for the first benevolent autocrat, when you find one, to be a wise ruler. The second in the dynasty is good but not generally better. The third is almost universally a failure and immoral. Consequently, all democratic systems have intentionally kept wealth redistributed every generation. Good capitalists know this. lol. If you want to start learning about this sequence start out with Plutarch's "Lives" and when you are done with it I'll point you to other references.
GW is the third...Reagan, Bush Sr., Bush Jr.....see how it works. Neither Reagan nor Bush Sr. abused their power. Now, GW has corrupted Reagan's application of his principles to the point Reagan would probably cry.
I have often attempted to draw a parallel with the feudal system.
It falls short when consideration of land is taken into account.
No feudal lord would allow his fields to go fallow.
He would not allow over grazing.
He may overtax his serfs and wage war to increase his holdings.
But he would not forget where his wealth came from.
lol...excellent point...that makes him not only an incompetent leader of the free world but an incompetent dictator too...lol.
Lenin couldn't have asked for a better ally.
Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton, (D-NY) and John Kerry, (D-Mass), had requested 3.5 percent pay increase for 2008, but the Bush administration opposes any increase above 3 percent.
Politics as usual, the Democrats always propose a higher number so they can claim the president was pushing for cuts.
Wonderfully creative spin!!
How would you explain Bush's attempts to lower combat pay the first year of the war? How about sending assistant secretary of defense David Cho to congress to lobby for lower veteran's and service widow's benefits because they were "hurtful" to the war effort? How about kicking thousands of veterans out of the VA health care system? How about the decrease in VA funding? Why are so many military families eligible for food stamps?
There's a lot more, but I would love to hear some creativity applied to these issues.
Why doesn't Congress just pass what they want? If they really want to they can over ride a veto.
They can't with the slim majority and the BS in the Presidency!
Perhaps you didn't notice, but most of the items I mentioned were "executive orders," or should I say "Unitary Executive Orders?" The ones that are part of the funding responsibility of congress are currently being addressed by the Democratic leadership in congress, which is sorta what this story is all about, yes?
The previous funding bush wanted was just rubber stamped by the repug, 3 day work week, "party." There are still enough repugs to prevent dems from giving the troops a pay raise or funding the VA properly if Bush vetos as he has threatened to do.
tiredofnonsense,instead of dodging around, why don't you respond to monkeybiz. Oh, thats because any response would make you look like a stupid neo-repuke with no common sense. If you had common sense you would see that the current administration is destroying the U.S.A. and has secretly peed all over your constitution.
nonsense,
Aren't you just.....tiring? So all you can think of when Bush proposes a taxcut for the most affluent of our society that a raise for our troops is unwarranted and political just because 2 Democrats proposed it? Wow! I think you missed your calling. You should be working for the White House instead of wasting your time here.
You're not only tiring, you're an ideological hypocrite.
In your own words, please tell us you don't think the troops deserve a measly 3.5% tax raise.
loverman, I strongly suspect that, as has been the case in the past, Bush's unwillingness to approve this increase has a lot more to do with sticking it to federal government employees (who would receive a matching 3.5% raise) than it does a belief that the military isn't deserving of such a raise. This just goes to show you how deep the GOP's hatred of the federal government runs.