What do you hate most about politics and politicians?
What really buggs you about politics and politicians? What would you want to see changed and (if you can answer) how would you go about changing it?
I think the thing that really annoys me most about politicians is the way they try and get other people to research their homework for them...no wait...
I told you, the cellar is the place to turn when you have homework to do....
Now if only it could do my housework....
We should ask the Toad if there's a widget for that...
What do you hate most about politics and politicians?
Politics and politicians.
Politics and politicians.
FTW
It bugs me that so many of them throughout history - in every country - have been able and willing to smile to your face, stick a knife in your ribs, and tell you they were doing it for your own good.
Unfortunately, I don't have any idea how you can change that.
Politicians use up air - air that could be better put to use by filling balloons.
And...they make invaluable scapegoats when things go wrong.
We The People, do not demand politicians who are honest, competant and clear in their ideals. We demand politicians who look good on a camera and can 'connect' with the common man by reflecting his own ideals back at him. We do not reward competant policy making, we reward popular sloganising. Accuracy and openness is met with ridicule and pillory, vague statements of intent are more palatable to us.
The best minds in politics are rarely the most electable ones. The ones that are most likely to succeed in the world of politics and find a place on the national stage are the ones who can play to our fickle desires, not the ones who can incisively cut to the heart of an issue. The politicians with the closest links to powerful friends, and the most popular persona wins out, on the whole, against the politicians with the most steadfast commitment to the common good. And we perpetuate that in most elections. Instead of statesmen and stateswomen, we have actors and competitors in a game. And we perpetuate that in most elections.
We have the politicians we deserve.
And, again, I'll make the point I often make when people lump all politicians together: the world of politics, like any other arena in life, is composed of many parts and variables. The people who go into politics are no more an identikit group than police, firefighters, soldiers, butchers, bankers, teachers, etc. There are arseholes, and there are highly committed individuals. There are people skimming and people as honest as the day. What we see of politics is often a very small part of the picture. Most politicians are not as well known as the main players. The ones who take on the role of ad-hoc advocate and socialworker for their constituents' problems, manage a small team of advisors and researchers, attenddebates and vote on issues, sit on committees and attend a local school's nativity, and then sit up late into the night reading reports and papers. There are a lot of very hard working people in the world of politics. Don't discount them because the ones who managed to claw their way to the top of a very nasty mountain are so bad.
come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help Help! I'm being repressed!
hahahahah. I'm still laughing as I post.
We The People, do not demand politicians who are honest, competant and clear in their ideals. We demand politicians who look good on a camera and can 'connect' with the common man by reflecting his own ideals back at him. We do not reward competant policy making, we reward popular sloganising. Accuracy and openness is met with ridicule and pillory, vague statements of intent are more palatable to us.
The best minds in politics are rarely the most electable ones. The ones that are most likely to succeed in the world of politics and find a place on the national stage are the ones who can play to our fickle desires, not the ones who can incisively cut to the heart of an issue. The politicians with the closest links to powerful friends, and the most popular persona wins out, on the whole, against the politicians with the most steadfast commitment to the common good. And we perpetuate that in most elections. Instead of statesmen and stateswomen, we have actors and competitors in a game. And we perpetuate that in most elections.
We have the politicians we deserve.
And, again, I'll make the point I often make when people lump all politicians together: the world of politics, like any other arena in life, is composed of many parts and variables. The people who go into politics are no more an identikit group than police, firefighters, soldiers, butchers, bankers, teachers, etc. There are arseholes, and there are highly committed individuals. There are people skimming and people as honest as the day. What we see of politics is often a very small part of the picture. Most politicians are not as well known as the main players. The ones who take on the role of ad-hoc advocate and socialworker for their constituents' problems, manage a small team of advisors and researchers, attenddebates and vote on issues, sit on committees and attend a local school's nativity, and then sit up late into the night reading reports and papers. There are a lot of very hard working people in the world of politics. Don't discount them because the ones who managed to claw their way to the top of a very nasty mountain are so bad.
I have never met one of the people under the ones at the top who did not aspire to the same assholeiness like those that they work for. Regardless if they were lesser elected or appointed representatives or just worker bees. Deep down inside they want to be in the position of that person at the top or desire their attention from a political standpoint. Those that aren't are few and far between.
You mean other than liberals?
You mean other than liberals?
Every single one of them, party regardless...
This kind of stuff. Same as it ever was. WTF?
Married GOP congressman trolls Craigslist for a date
Rep. Christopher Lee is a married Republican congressman serving the 26th District of New York.
But when he trolls Craigslist's "Women Seeking Men" forum, he's Christopher Lee, "divorced" "lobbyist" and "fit fun classy guy."
One object of his flirtation told us her story.
Here's what Lee's spokesperson told Gawker:
"The Congressman is happily married," said Lee's spokesman when pressed for answers to our questions.
"The only time he or his wife posted something online was to sell old furniture when they changed the apartment they keep in DC."
Back in the good old days, a married congressman would just meet a woman at Hawk 'n' Dove,
and no one would ever be the wiser, unless he got arrested on the way home for drunk driving.
The Internet ruins everything.
Here's another - THIS could be really interesting ...
National Enquirer Claims John Boehner Had Affairs
Posted by Vince Grzegorek on Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 11:16 AM
Everyone's favorite crying orange could be in a spot of trouble early in his tenure as Speaker of the House. The National Enquirer claims that Boehner had some sexytime affairs with two women, additionally reporting that the New York Times has an ongoing probe on the alleged sex scandal as well.
Yes, it's the Enquirer, but it's also the paper that broke the John Edwards mistress and baby story, so who knows.
Here's a snippet from their online report (the full article is only available in their print edition):
Capitol Hill insiders and political bloggers have been buzzing about an upcoming New York Times probe - detailing an alleged affair that the 61-year-old married father of two had with pretty Washington lobbyist LISBETH LYONS.
And an ENQUIRER investigation has uncovered a bedroom encounter that Boehner - second in line of succession to the presidency - allegedly had with LEIGH LaMORA, a 46-year-old former press secretary to ex-Colorado Congressman JOEL HEFLEY.
The Ohio native, a congressman for 20 years, and his wife Deborah, 62, have been married for 37 years.
Link
Seems like this broke last September ... I wonder why its getting dredged up again.
they act like they care then only do what they are doing for profit.
Seems like this broke last September ... I wonder why its getting dredged up again.
Probably some influence to keep it under wraps until the new congress was sworn in or something.
Where's Ken Starr when we need him?;)
Economic illiteracy, in two words.
Makes a bad politician, and a bad policymaker.
Everything else that's annoying is more a matter of the solon's individual character -- like an excessive cast of mind towards rulership. That is the perennial occupational hazard and congenital trait of those who make a career of power.
Why is there a phrase like "crying orange?" Google brings up a video and numerous hits, but IstillDGI.
Schumer is a scumbag and needs to be eliminated from congress through the next election.
Schumer coordinates Dem budget attack on GOP
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/03/schumer-coordinates-dem-budget-attack-gopWhat bugs me the most?
Hypocrisy.
Politicians and journalists.
They are all people. People make mistakes.
Don't take the high ground on morality, drugs, insider trading, expenses, living the high life etc etc etc. When you KNOW you are doing it yourself.
I am sickened by reports on people who have claimed extra benefits that earned them an extra £500 a year reported on by people who have their mortgage paid for them. Yes, BOTH are wrong, but only one is a hypocrite.
I hate reading about someone like Kate Moss snorting up cocaine as if it's the Fall of the Western World written by people who are perfectly well-accquainted with a rolled up £20 note.
And the open disgust about divorce and splintered families. What? Every politician and journalist is married to their original partner? And makes all the events in their child's life like Sports Day and the Nativity Play?
Hello?
Cunts.
I can't stand opposition leaders/MPs who criticise a bill/action just because an MP in the government came up with it. If it's a crap idea, fair enough but evaluate the idea on its merits or lack of them and propose a better one rather than wasting everyone's time and money by tearing others down just to build themselves/their party up...
and the "we have a moral obligation/mandate" line really concerns me as does the use of "ït's unAustralian" to diss anything that the politician in question doesn't agree with.
Two thumbs up.
I have more respect for a "constiuency" MP not of my political flavour, than a scrambler who happens to share my political views.
What I hate the most is that not only are they raping me, but I am paying them a quarter of my income to rape me. :thepain:
I have more respect for a "constiuency" MP not of my political flavour, than a scrambler who happens to share my political views.
:yesnod:
Let me add Mark Latham to the list of those former politicians who I have no respect for. I'll have a bit of a hunt around for an article on him and post it to explain why.
You could just report his latest quote.
Seriously, Mark, you were dropped for a reason.
Government to "shut down"? Why would some rather see chaos and suffering just to say "I told you so" when they wouldn't have to say "I told you so" if they weren't working to set up the environment in which they can say "I told you so"?
Remember when people were noble? Remember honor? Remember sacrifice? All those things that made us, once upon a time, great? Well, fairy tales they must have been, nightmares they now are.
Why do I feel like I'm living in a real life, plausible, The Stand?
:(
I hope they shut it down. I will be out of work but it will be worth it. The Dems have failed to recognize that the electorate voted them out in Nov of 2010 and now they need a wake up call. The responsibility lies with the Demoncrats and their failure to do what the majority of the electorate wants them to do.
2012 just can't come fast enough.
You could just report his latest quote.
Seriously, Mark, you were dropped for a reason.
Are you talking about this particular statement of his?
Cost of living concerns are just code for greed, says Mark Latham (the man with the parliamentary pension).
If the government shuts down, would you notice?
http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/04/news/economy/shutdown_faq/index.htm?hpt=T2
Which services would stop?
During the last major shutdowns in the final days of 1995 and early 1996, the government closed 368 National Park Service sites, along with national museums and monuments.
In addition, 200,000 passport applications went unprocessed and toxic waste cleanup work at 609 sites stopped. The National Institutes of Health stopped accepting new clinical research patients and services for veterans, including health care, were curtailed.
Work on bankruptcy cases could slow. In the last shutdown, more than 3,500 cases were delayed.
Which services would the government keep running?
Agencies are allowed to perform any operations necessary for the safety of human life and protection of property.
The government would keep essential services -- such as air traffic control and the national security apparatus -- in full operating mode.
Federal workers who provide medical care on the job would be kept on, as would employees who handle hazardous waste, inspect food, patrol the borders, protect federal property, guard inmates or work in power distribution.
How will you be out of work, merc? I thought you worked in a hospital? I'm not being a jerk, I'm really curious. How will this really affect anyone, or is it just theatrics? It's not unprecedented, of course.
It will impact several of my friends a lot. For example, one works at the Library of Congress. He and his family live pretty much paycheck to paycheck because this is an expensive area, and they bought their house at the peak of property values. They have a higher mortgage than I would feel comfortable having. The wife is a freelance writer, and is currently writing a book, but hasn't been paid for it yet. I don't know the details of their finances, but depending on how long it lasts, they could miss a few mortgage payments and be out on the street. Certainly paying other everyday expenses will be difficult.
I work in a law firm, and we are tied very closely to the courts. If the courts are closed, and they will be if there is a shut down, the cases we work on will be delayed. Our clients will expect us to slow our work down during those times. Some work can proceed, like the background stuff that's done on a case, but other work that's more directly tied to court deadlines will stop. My employer will lose money. If it goes on for too long, they will have to cut operating expenses. Probably means unpaid leave after a while. That might mean layoffs. It all depends on how long the children in Congress don't do their jobs.
The economy in this area will lose millions of dollars a day. The multiplier effect in economics is a very real thing. If your paycheck stops, are you going to go spend money? The DC region will take a hit. I imagine that will make most of the rest of the country smile, because fuck DC.
But at least I'll get a seat on Metro. (and they will raise fares in 6 months because of all the lost revenue from the missing government workers.)
Yeah, wow...I would guess, living in DC, you'd see a serious impact.
Part of the funding that is up in the air is the Pell grant. The immediate impact lies in the fact that so many colleges have already estimated aid packages for families: chances are they will have to revise and in some cases revoke those offers. Long term impact is hard to judge.
I hope it doesn't come to that. In answer to my question: yes it will affect many. Trickle down economics on opposite day.
Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%
"Virtually all U.S. senators, and most of the representatives in the House, are members of the top 1 percent when they arrive, are kept in office by money from the top 1 percent, and know that if they serve the top 1 percent well they will be rewarded by the top 1 percent when they leave office. By and large, the key executive-branch policymakers on trade and economic policy also come from the top 1 percent."
"The rich don’t need to rely on government for parks or education or medical care or personal security—they can buy all these things for themselves. In the process, they become more distant from ordinary people, losing whatever empathy they may once have had."
"The top 1 percent may complain about the kind of government we have in America, but in truth they like it just fine: too gridlocked to re-distribute, too divided to do anything but lower taxes."
America has long prided itself on being a fair society, where everyone has an equal chance of getting ahead, but the statistics suggest otherwise: the chances of a poor citizen, or even a middle-class citizen, making it to the top in America are smaller than in many countries of Europe.
Link
Not a left vs right issue - A top versus "everyone else" issue. Great article...finally. Perhaps it used to be the old 85% blah blah blah ...
It seems its more like the top 1% screwing the rest of us.
The colourful quotes of Mark LathamDecember 2, 2003 from
the age
Mark Latham has used some colourful language during his time as a Labor parliamentarian, including the following:
"The role of government is to stimulate market competition, not smother it with tariffs, subsidies and central planning."
- from his maiden speech to parliament.
"Hand in your badge, Adolf."
- directed at former immigration minister Philip Ruddock.
"Howard is an arse-licker. He went over there, kissed some bums, and got patted on the head."
- description of Prime Minister John Howard's trip to the United States.
"That deformed character Tony Staley."
- description of disabled former Liberal Party president.
"If he didn't steal my property he wouldn't have any injuries, so I've done the bare minimum to chase him, to tackle him, to pick up my bag and retrieve the stolen property."
- outlining how he broke the arm of a Sydney taxi driver.
"There they are, a conga line of suckholes on the conservative side of politics."
- on Coalition support for the war in Iraq.
"Bush himself is the most incompetent and dangerous president in living memory."
- on US President George W Bush.
"(John Howard) has forgotten how to be a good Australian, not some yes-man to a flaky and dangerous American president."
- same again.
"F**king idiot."
- Description of satirist from The Chaser program during the last federal election.
"No, I think I made a mistake."
- recanting his call for the reintroduction of corporal punishment in schools.
My assessment is, I've won by two today, I'm one up on him."
- on former Labor PM John Curtin, who won the leadership by one vote in 1935.
"I'm not a white-bread politician, I'm not in that groove, I'll do things according to my own style."
- vowing to watch his language but not change his style.�
Top vs everone else IS a left vs right issue. It is THE left vs right issue.
Top vs everone else IS a left vs right issue. It is THE left vs right issue.
lol
Thankyou. For a moment I thought I'd slipped into some strange parrallel world.
It is THE left vs right issue.
Sure it is ... if you are buying what the left is selling. Personally, I'm not.
That was one of the main points I took out of the article.
The colourful quotes of Mark LathamDecember 2, 2003 from the age
Mark Latham has used some colourful language during his time as a Labor parliamentarian, including the following:
"The role of government is to stimulate market competition, not smother it with tariffs, subsidies and central planning."
- from his maiden speech to parliament.
"Hand in your badge, Adolf."
- directed at former immigration minister Philip Ruddock.
"Howard is an arse-licker. He went over there, kissed some bums, and got patted on the head."
- description of Prime Minister John Howard's trip to the United States.
"That deformed character Tony Staley."
- description of disabled former Liberal Party president.
"If he didn't steal my property he wouldn't have any injuries, so I've done the bare minimum to chase him, to tackle him, to pick up my bag and retrieve the stolen property."
- outlining how he broke the arm of a Sydney taxi driver.
"There they are, a conga line of suckholes on the conservative side of politics."
- on Coalition support for the war in Iraq.
"Bush himself is the most incompetent and dangerous president in living memory."
- on US President George W Bush.
"(John Howard) has forgotten how to be a good Australian, not some yes-man to a flaky and dangerous American president."
- same again.
"F**king idiot."
- Description of satirist from The Chaser program during the last federal election.
"No, I think I made a mistake."
- recanting his call for the reintroduction of corporal punishment in schools.
My assessment is, I've won by two today, I'm one up on him."
- on former Labor PM John Curtin, who won the leadership by one vote in 1935.
"I'm not a white-bread politician, I'm not in that groove, I'll do things according to my own style."
- vowing to watch his language but not change his style.�
Cheers Ali. I'd forgotten about some of these.
In a nutshell, Latham believes in rules for everyone else and another rule for himself (which is whatever suits him best at the time with no thought for consistency). There's always a reason for whatever he does and he will defend it to the death irrespective of how hypocritical his defense is.
I think superficially Keating is a similar character to Latham, but a much better politician.
Sure it is ... if you are buying what the left is selling. Personally, I'm not.
That was one of the main points I took out of the article.
I'm not sure how. The article makes a bit of a case for it not being a Republican vs Democratic issue, as virtually all congresspeople are or end up rich, but even so:
1) Whether a congresssperson
is a 1%er or not isn't relevant; what's relevant is how they vote on those issues.
2) There are many Democrats and many votes by Democrats that the left is pissed at.
Voting to enrich the wealthy is bipartisan, because the hard right Republicans (all of them, these days) and the center right Democrats do it. Just because its bipartisan doesn't mean it's not a left-right issue.
They are voting to enrich themselves, their families & friends, associates and their own wealth.
Voting for the common man is idealistic - not reality. No matter how it is sold.
The controlling few at the top of the two parties are more similar than different. They are selling the same thing - they just have different pitches.
The reality is that the top 1% vote in their own best interests irrespective of party affiliation.
Cheers Ali. I'd forgotten about some of these.
In a nutshell, Latham believes in rules for everyone else and another rule for himself (which is whatever suits him best at the time with no thought for consistency). There's always a reason for whatever he does and he will defend it to the death irrespective of how hypocritical his defense is.
I think superficially Keating is a similar character to Latham, but a much better politician.
My favourite one is the conga line of arseholes. lol
How could we forget Mr Keating calling us all scumbags? lol
How could we forget Mr Keating calling us all scumbags? lol
What a charmer. :)
They are voting to enrich themselves, their families & friends, associates and their own wealth.
Voting for the common man is idealistic - not reality. No matter how it is sold.
The controlling few at the top of the two parties are more similar than different. They are selling the same thing - they just have different pitches.
The reality is that the top 1% vote in their own best interests irrespective of party affiliation.
I dont disagree that they all enrich themselves, but they are also in the top 1% because of basic demographic factors (before they even came into Congress) -- they are generally older, more highly educated, more professional white collar background, more male, etc. than the general public.
But their underlying philosophies of government are diametrically opposed at the very core on most issues with the right being more supportive of big business and the wealthy and the left being more supportive of the working class and the socially and economically disadvantaged.
It goes even beyond elected officials. One only need to look at Supreme Court decisions to see the same left-right split over interests.
Hey you guyyyyyyyyyysssssssss (as yelled by Rita Moreno on Electric Company) STOP ACTING LIKE 9TH GRADERS. That goes for the constituents as well. Big baby boo boos, for crying out loud.
Romper Room politics are good for some people, due to their limits of understanding anything much beyond the ABCs and Run Dick Run. But most of us are sick of the politicians and the big baby boo boos with their thumbs in their ears, waving their fingers, and saying 'n'yeah n'yeah n'yeah."
Time to grow up and put on your big boy and girl pants. Taking your ball and going home is SO 40 decades ago.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/04/06/borger.high.school/index.html?hpt=T2
If life (and politics) sometimes seems stuck in the ninth grade, the recent gyrations between the White House and congressional Republicans is a perfect case in point. The topic: averting a government shutdown. The meeting: on Capitol Hill between House GOPers and Senate Democrats.
Not invited to the party (or so they say): The White House.
I actually spent time trying to figure this out. Not exactly a lucrative reporting experience, as it turns out. Here's how each side portrayed the perceived slight:
From a senior White House adviser: Office of Management and Budget director Jack Lew asked to go to the meeting. He was turned down.
From the president: "The speaker apparently didn't want our team involved in that discussion. That's fine." (Not.)
From a top aide to House Speaker John Boehner: That's not what happened.
Of course, it doesn't really matter, except that this is no spring fling. It's about a shutdown of the federal government that a) would be stupid, self-defeating and hurtful and b) would distract attention from more important budget issues to deal with in the future.
If you're one of the "top" and a repubican, then you're conservative.
If you're one of "everybody else" and a democrat, then you're a liberal.
If you're one of "everybody else" and a repubican, then you're an idiot.
Someone remind us, what percent of all federal taxes does the top one percent pay?
What percent of all federal taxes does the bottom 60% pay?
Here are two for you Merc -
What percentage of their TOTAL income does the top 1% pay?
What percentage of the total wealth does the top 1% control?
The top 1% will always control the majority of the wealth. Always. In a free market economy that is how it works. In a Socialist or Marxist society you will substitute the "top 1%" everyone rails against with the top members of the politburos. Not different. The most important aspect of our current tax system is that it is dominated by "zero liability voters". The majority will continue to support systems that they do not actually have to pay for. They will vote for any politician that costs them or promises to cost them nothing.
Lets try this again...
What percentage of their TOTAL income does the top 1% pay?
What percentage of the total wealth does the top 1% control?
No, LETS TRY AGAIN! Your questions are Rhetorical....
The top 1% will always control the majority of the wealth. Always. In a free market economy that is how it works. In a Socialist or Marxist society you will substitute the "top 1%" everyone rails against with the top members of the politburos. Not different. The most important aspect of our current tax system is that it is dominated by "zero liability voters". The majority will continue to support systems that they do not actually have to pay for. They will vote for any politician that costs them or promises to cost them nothing.
Why would some one who makes $15,000 a year care how much wealth the top one percent "controls"?
Define "controls".
Is all of this based on the one non-peer reviewed article you sent me from that mainstream magazine? Have you accepted that as the honest to goodness truth?
How many people are in the top 1%?
How many people are between 2% and 10%?
Obama and the Dems want you to buy off on the idea that a person who lives in San Francisco and make $250k as a family is a millionaire? Do you believe that?
Easy big guy ... I was trying to see if the numbers were relevant.
For example - If they control 40% do they also pay 40% of the taxes?
If so, then I'm fine with it, BUT if they control 80% and only contribute 20% then there is a problem - no?
In 2008, the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers, ranked by income, paid an average tax rate of 2.59 percent.
One percent of the population paid 38.02 percent of the tax burden in 2008, and reported an average tax rate of 23.27 percent.
In 2008, the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers, ranked by income, paid an average tax rate of 2.59 percent. The median taxpayer reported an income of $33,048 on his tax return that year -- meaning that half of all filers reported income above that point and half reported income below it. All told, the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers paid 2.7 percent of the total income tax revenue received in 2008. Conversely, the top 50 percent of taxpayers paid 97 percent of the tax burden in 2008.
Easy big guy ... I was trying to see if the numbers were relevant.
For example - If they control 40% do they also pay 40% of the taxes?
If so, then I'm fine with it, BUT if they control 80% and only contribute 20% then there is a problem - no?
If 60 or more % contribute nothing is that a problem?
They contribute lots, in sales (etc, etc...) tax and cheap labor.
How much in Federal Income tax?
They contribute lots, in sales (etc, etc...) tax and cheap labor.
Everyone pays that shit.
The rest of it is liberal Bullshit you can't measure.
Where is the link?
Compiled from ....
Here
here
and a couple others..
Just fish - its pretty easy to find. I had some official site too <shrug>
If everybody pays, then nobody contributes nothing.
I was also interested in determining how much those % changed since before the crisis.
But I got distracted and started playing bejeweled.
Compiled from ....
Here
here
and a couple others..
Just fish - its pretty easy to find. I had some official site too <shrug>
From your link:
" The top 5 percent pay well over half the income taxes. "
Ouch!!!!! my point exactly.....
If 60 or more % contribute nothing is that a problem?
If they earn nothing then they should contribute that same amount.
This is interesting. Look back at the 80's...
All from that NYT link
As long as we have "Zero Liability Voters" they will have no investment in our future and no care who or how we appropriate tax liability. The sooner everyone shares the pain and responsibility, the sooner these problems will be fixed. As long as we have a majority that take from the government coffers and expect to receive benefits with minimal contributions, the problems will continue.
You really trust the NYT as a valid source of unbiased statistical reference?????
You asked where they came from.
Believe them or not. Tear 'em apart, I don't care. :)
As long as outlays exceed income we will have a problem.
You asked where they came from.
Believe them or not. Tear 'em apart, I don't care. :)
As long as outlays exceed income we will have a problem.
You mean as long as the Dems continue to support spending like whores as they have over the last 4 years we have a problem and expect us to pay for it. Yea, we have a problem.
You could tax every single millionaire in the US all of their money and it would not pay for the whorish spending we have seen over the last 2 years by this Congress. If it shuts Down the Dems will eat this one.....
Compiled from ....
Here
here
and a couple others..
Just fish - its pretty easy to find. I had some official site too <shrug>
Again, quoting the NYT as a source of original research will always put you on the defensive. It cannot be verified or replicated therefore it lacks validity....
"The New York Times reported that America’s millionaires raked in 43 percent of the investment tax cut benefits in 2003. It’s true that lower tax rates have been a huge boon to shareholders—but most of them are not rich. "
I desire nothing more than to see this country come to a complete and utter standstill for 6 months........ It would do us good.
Merc, after asking you the questions - you whined. I answered them for you - you whined.
Now you're whining about the sources of info.
Well, my friend - find some of your own and post them. Otherwise STFU.
Bitching does nothing to forward the discussion.
Bro you really can't hold up the NYT with their history of biased reporting and hold that out as a legitimate source. Sorry. That is just a huge fail for me. If all you have is the NYT then get on your knees and STFU yourself....... Open wide. The liberal press is ready to squirt all of their thoughts and ideas right where it counts. It is not about "Whining", it is about questioning original source documents and how data is collected, or in the case of the NYT, more often, how data is not really collected, but how data is constructed from limited data points, and then grandiose conclusions are reported. What a load of Bullshit.
Take the hook out of your cheek...
None of the links lead to original source research data that can be further evaluated or replicated. Huge fail dude.....
I don't know how whores spend so much. I mean, some of the higher level ones (or retired grand marshall whores, maybe) might but at like 10 bucks a blow job (is this what you typically pay?) I don't see how they can spend nearly as much as you imply.
Here are two for you Merc -
What percentage of their TOTAL income does the top 1% pay?
What percentage of the total wealth does the top 1% control?
I'm more interested in
What is the effective tax rate paid by those who earn $100k to $250k?
What is the effective tax rate paid by those who earn over $250k?
Bring on the modified flat tax and kill all the loopholes and we won't have to worry about that anymore Spexx.
I'm more interested in
What is the effective tax rate paid by those who earn $100k to $250k?
What is the effective tax rate paid by those who earn over $250k?
Its readily available online - Google is your friend.
Bring on the modified flat tax and kill all the loopholes and we won't have to worry about that anymore Spexx.
What would the tax rate be? Will there be no tax deductions at all? If so, what would be kept?
Its readily available online - Google is your friend.
I've tried, unsuccessfully.:o