Comments on: Meanwhile, in the GOP “race”

By: otpw

otpw — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 00:48:48 +0000

Sorry for the long post…

By: otpw

otpw — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 00:46:10 +0000

Looks like I was only directionally correct. Sorry for the error.
Scroop, what a stimulating discussion!
“did Republican rule hurt America” now there is the substance of a long debate — one best answered by comparison.
What was the economy like during the last conflict we had with an enemy who attacked American Citizens on American soil? Can we use WW2? I don’t see any rationing. We can still find voluminous supplies of all that is necessary for life and prosperity. Yes, our women are working, but that is not because of the war effort but due to shifting social values.
Re your comment about taxes on the rich vs. poor, I would direct you to IRS.gov to see who pays the most Federal taxes. Over 97% of taxes are paid by those with incomes in the top 50% of Americans. Only about 3% is paid by those with incomes in the lower 50%. Now, please tell me, who is more overtaxed?
If reduction of “inequality” is your goal. One must first define that rather broad term.
If you judge the level of inequality by the gap between the “Haves” and the “Have-nots”, the data would surely drive you to be a Conservative Republican – the data tells us that the gap closes during Republican administrations and widens during rule by the Dems. Reality is the opposite of media propaganda.
If you judge inequality by how equally Citizens are treated under the law regradles of the group (ethnic, racial, gender, etc.) to which they belong – again you would be a Conservative republican. For it is the Conservative GOP members who are against special rights for some groups over others and it is the Dems who pander to special interest groups by granting them unique rights or exceptions.
Now, if you judge “inequality” by the amount Govenrment takes from one person by force or coercion (a.k.a. taxes) and redistributes to another who did not earn it… well, you get the picture.
Please note, in order to stay in power, the Democratic part elite need to perpetuate the perception of a victim class (composed multiple victim sub-classes) who are convinced that they are powerless and will vote Dems into office ostensibly to “fix” their victimhood. If the “victims” ever emerged out of the slough of despond in which the hatemongers have convinced the victims they should reside, there would be no one to put the Dems in office so they can vote largess from the working man’s pocket into the pocket of the “victim”.
I do agree with you that Republicans of late clearly seem to be moving away from Conservative ideology. I would posit that Conservative reaction to Republicans’ waste of the opportunity provided by Republican control of both white House and Congress was in large part responsible for their loss of congressional majority.

Report comment to moderator

By: Victoria

Victoria — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 00:29:10 +0000

Who Pays the Most Income Tax?

Higher income earners pay the most, Treasury says

Robert Longley,

Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, taxpayers in this group have paid over 94 percent of all individual income taxes. In 2000, 2001, and 2002, this group paid over 96 percent of the total.
Treasury Department analysts credit President Bush’s tax cuts with shifting a larger share of the individual income taxes paid to higher income taxpayers. In 2005, says the Treasury, when most of the tax cut provisions are fully in effect (e.g., lower tax rates, the $1,000 child credit, marriage penalty relief), the projected tax share for lower-income taxpayers will fall, while the tax share for higher-income taxpayers will rise.

Higher income earners pay the most, Treasury says

Report comment to moderator

By: Scroop Moth

Scroop Moth — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 23:53:31 +0000

OTPW –

You have a valid argument and would prevail in the circumstance of Gore in the White House, but as you’re in charge, blaming Bush trumps blaming Granhom. Which, I admit, doesn’t address the economic substance of your point.

Regardless of the assignment of blame, did Republican rule hurt America? Of course, any way you calculate.

By the standards of conservative ideology, Bush was bad. Sure he cut taxes on paper but everyone knows that spending is taxation in real time. All Bush did with his paper cuts is shift the burden of taxation off the wealthy, on to everybody else’s future. If you measure this administration from a lefty point of view, as I do, Bush hurt working people by installing policies and cultural values that have driven up inequality to the levels of the Gilded Age. (I have that from a far better economist than Thos Sowell.)

Are you from Michigan? Does McCain have a good chance?

Report comment to moderator

By: otpw

otpw — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 23:14:08 +0000

Scroop(1) [hope this blog noob -- me -- is doing this right] when you say “No president could clean up Bush’s mess and McCain will drive the country deeper into despair. Meanwhile, Democrats can improve their margins in Congress.” it sounds more visceral than reasoned or fact-based.
Have you forgotten how the DNC chose Governor Granhom to tell us at the 2004 convention what the Democrats were going to do for the economy. For the last four years we have been able to see in Michigan just what their policies will do for the country. Oh, wait, did I forget? Oh yeah, she is just a victim of circumstance, it’s really not HER fault — it’s all that DeVos guy’s doing…

Report comment to moderator

By: Frank in Phoenix

Frank in Phoenix — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:01:05 +0000

outkast (20): A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for insanity.

Frank: Well, that certainly settles that.

Elaborate, please?

Report comment to moderator

By: Scroop Moth

Scroop Moth — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:00:47 +0000

Meanwhile, in the McCain Campaign, the old man has time to remember the “forgotten places” and pay visits to Selma and the 9th Ward. Such places have remained in the constant thoughts of Democrats, so who does McCain think has “forgotten” them? Bush, of course.

Report comment to moderator

By: Frank in Phoenix

Frank in Phoenix — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 13:58:49 +0000

Chas (12): Frank, I can’t think of a reason to make hemp legal.

Frank: Then concerns of biofuels aside, can you think of any reason to keep hemp illegal?

Hemp has a wide range of legitimate uses, and American companies are even “allowed” (I thought we lived in a free country) to import it for those uses. American farmers simply are not “allowed” (there’s that word again) to grow it.

Do you support this policy, Chas? If so, why?

————————-

And a free blogging tip: When I write a post of more than a few sentences, the first thing I do before clicking either “Preview” or “Post” is to Select All > Copy. That way, if anything unfortunate happens and my work disappears into the ether, at least I have it on my clipboard, and I can simply paste it into the text-entry field and try again. If I get a dialog telling me that “You appear to have sent this message already,” I just alter a word or two and try again. It always works.

Report comment to moderator

By: outkast

outkast — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 05:00:21 +0000

Albeit, what Peter said in post #19 is correct. If McCain runs too close to the middle (as Travis would love to see, since he’s merely a tool of the left) McCain will alienate the conservative and evangelical vote in the US.

And of course, that’s the only way a radical leftist such as Hillary Clinton or Osama Hussein Obama can win the presidency in our nation.