Fox's Goler seemed to forget that troop tours are already extended -- and not by Congress
On the April 18 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, during a report of the standoff between congressional Democrats and President Bush over supplemental funding for the Iraq war, Fox News White House correspondent Wendell Goler uncritically reported that Bush recently "warned [that] the delay in approving the funding risks keeping troops longer in the field." In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted, not only has the administration already forced extended tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates announced on April 11 that, effective immediately, the tours of duty for all Army units in Iraq and Afghanistan will be extended by three months.
Goler reported that both sides of the debate "use[] soldiers and their families to bolster their argument," airing a clip from a soldier's mother urging the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and then noting that Bush, "surrounded by servicemen and women and family members," held "the opposite view." Goler then added uncritically that Bush "warned the delay in approving the funding risks keeping troops longer in the field."
But the administration also has forced extended tours in Iraq and Afghanistan and has curtailed thousands of soldiers' time at home, away from a war zone -- and reports indicate that this will continue. In addition, on April 11, Gates announced: "Effective immediately, active Army units now in the Central Command area of responsibility and those headed there will deploy for not more than 15 months and return home for not less than 12 months." According to Gates, the decision came as a direct result of Bush's so-called troop "surge": "[T]his policy is a matter of prudent management, will provide us with the capacity to sustain the deployed force." As the weblog ArchPundit noted, following Gates' announcement, Democratic Caucus chairman Rep. Rahm Emanuel (IL) recognized the contradiction in Bush's accusation immediately preceding Gates' announcement: "What a difference a day makes. Yesterday, extending tours of duty was 'unacceptable' to the President. Today, it is Pentagon policy. American troops and taxpayers are paying the price for a war with no end in sight."
Further, as Media Matters has noted, the previous two supplemental spending bills for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan passed by a Republican-led Congress have taken longer to reach Bush's desk.
From the April 18 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
GOLER: Each side uses soldiers and their families to bolster their argument. Democrats began the day with some who opposed the war.
SUE DINSDALE (mother of soldier): I asked my son before I came here today, does this demoralize you, does it bother you? And he said to me, "No, Mom." He says this is what we need to do. We need to get the troops home.
GOLER: On Monday, the president was surrounded by servicemen and women and family members with the opposite view. He warned the delay in approving the funding risks keeping troops longer in the field. And Army Specialist Kate Norley, who served as a medic in Iraq, said the uncertainty takes a toll.
NORLEY: To be kind of left in this state with so much room for doubt is not fair. And it actually, you know, it's going to worsen, again, any of our productiveness over there.
GOLER: Democrats expect a House/Senate conference version of the funding bill to be passed by the end of next week. President Bush has said he'll veto it and that Democrats know they don't have the votes to override the veto. The next bill is likely to replace troop withdrawal deadlines with benchmarks for the Iraqis to meet, which the president seemed to indicate Monday he'll consider.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
I can hardly understand that when confronted with the need for an expert opinion on how the debate over the supplemental funding bill effects the troops in theatre, Fox News decides to pull that young blonde private for the cameras to tell us it is not good!!
Ok, that is hard driving investigative reporting, that's hitting the issue from all sides with real sincere expertise to enlightened the listener with objective information! Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Had Enough, Vote Democrat in 2008!
Well at least she is better looking than Richard Perle or some other Neo-con spouting the Adminstration mantra that if you don't support the war then you don't support the troops. What rubbish!
Yeah, vote for a Democrat. One who supports Democracy. Only one problem. The US is NOT A DEMOCRACY!!! Never has been, never was supposed to be. The US is a representative REPUBLIC!! Save the Republic. Vote REPUBLICAN!!
j4sonl33, what's the difference between a democracy and a republic?
A democracy, in the simplest terms (so liberals can understand), is 3 wolves and one sheep voting on what's for dinner.
A republic forces the 3 wolves to acknowledge that the sheep (the individual) has a right to live, thus the rule of law trumps the will of the majority.
So, legalizing gay marriage, for example, should be a very important Republican issue ?
Good point, and indeed an issue that I take discourse with when it comes to Republicans. Yes, gay marriage should be legalized because it allows for more freedoms and less government regulation. I agree one hundred percent. The Republican party has to an extent lost touch with the concept of individual freedom and rule of law, but not nearly as much as the Democrats. Lesser of two evils, I suppose. But that does not change the fact that the US is not a democracy, nor was it ever supposed to be.
In what area s would you say the GOP would be likely to provide more freedom and less intrusive government?
LOWER TAXES, DUH?? You know, that little tax cut that allowed the economy to skyrocket and yield the lowest unemployment rate in decades and, oh yeah, doesn't the DOW set a record high practically every day? The Dems like to say that the economy is headed for a crash. Of course it is. They're in charge now. Part of the plan.
GUN OWNERSHIP.
HEALTH CARE.
Privatized Social Security.
Oh, and LOWER TAXES!!
Yeah, the Iraq war is sucking us dry, but the billionaires got their tax break! Hallelujah...praise Puddinhead George!
And why shouldn't they?
Oh, I don't know...because WE'RE AT WAR?
The military is at war, Nerddog. "We" aren't. "We're" pounding away on keyboards.
which is the main problem with how this war is being mis-used by chicken-hawks like you. Why are you here and not in the field being the big hero you type as?
last word was supposed to be 'are', not 'as' my bad
I finished my 10 years of military service last September. Been there, done that? How about you?
Wait, I'm confused. Why does the administration that you say you support keep telling us that we're at war? Are they lying to us?
Yes, they are lying to us, because "we" are not at war, thank God. Our military is at war. Again, I did my time. How about you? No response, huh?
I've not been in the military; never claimed to be nor criticized anyone for serving or not serving. Your point?
"Why are you here and not in the field being the big hero you type as?"
Just wanted to rationalize your previous statement, that's all. Yeah, you're completely non-judgmental.
Sorry, not my post.
I'm sorry. Got a little emotional there and didn't pay enough attention. My fault and I apologize for that.
Health care? You've got to be kidding. What is the Republican Health Care plan? Oh, wait, I bet it's "Let market forces work"...right?
Yes, now you're catching on!! The same would work for education, too!!
wow, wrong on every point so far. how are market forces 'working' now? with the highest infant mortality rate of industrialized nations? or worst record of out-comes on a par with Nigeria? Yeah, working great...
The "market forces" aren't allowed to work right now, Duh. The group think right now is that we have so much government interference now (which has actually put us in this situation) that we may as well turn the whole thing over to the government. See the problem is not the access to health care, it's a health insurance issue. And the government and there regulations have caused the problem. We have reached a point where we expect somebody else to pay for our health care (even preventative care). Strip the industry of needless regulation, allow true competition to take effect, and just watch the results. If you can't understand this BASIC economic concept then you're beyond hope.
In old Sumeria, the law read that when a patient died...so did the doctor. Deregulation of the people who push suicide pills on teenagers and mountains of sugar onto our kids would be a good idea??? MORE regulation is needed and fast.
Speaking of "our kids", when did the government become responsible for controlling your childrens lives? What about YOUR parental responsibilities?
When they set up the hospitals and ambulances and schools and police forces and fire departments. A tribe taking care of it's people so it doesn't get out of hand. Or aren't you part of the tribe?
What percentage of your income did you pay in taxes in 2000 as compared to 2006?
Believe it or not, the percentage went up, primarily because I earned more. Again, the graduated income tax punishes success.
So after 7 years of the party of lower taxes, your taxes have increased. Gotcha. Mine have too, and not just in relation to how much more I've earned.
Ok, just checked historical tax rates (brace yourself, here come some more FACTS. If I earned the same salary in 1999, my percentage would have, in FACT, been higher.
They aren't mutually exclusive you know. The USA is a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC. A republic is a form of government whereby the people elect representatives to manage the job of governing the country. In the USA it's a representative Democracy.
It's equally possible to have a socialist republic, or a communist republic.
Oh, doggone, now I've gotta slam you, too.
Please provide one example of where the word "Democracy" (or any variation of it) appears in the Declaration of Independence, The US Constitution, Bill of Rights, or for that matter, any one of the Constitutions of any one of the 50 states.
And then tell me again how we're considered a Democratic anything.
So, what's your point? That the Republican party is somehow more "American" because we're a republic? GMAFB.
You need to explain this to your moron president, because he keeps insisting on spreading "democracy" around the world.
Yeah, and it makes me sick every time I hear it. Oh, and he's not just my president, he's OUR president.
And maybe you should explain this whole concept to YOUR party who has actually named themselves after this farce of "Democracy".
You really are digging in an intellectual rathole, aren't you? Democracy is the historical foundation upon which Republican government is built. But, being the astute historian you are, you were already aware of that.
No, actually I wasn't, but man that's funny!!
Maybe you should read more.
Oh, please nerdhog, please tell me what else I should do. And when I don't do it, then you can persuade your legislators to force me to do what you think I should do. And when they refuse to obey your "will" and cite "individual freedoms" or "rule of law" and not "will of the majority", then you can get the Supreme Court to change legislation (which they can't do) to force your way of life on me. No wonder libs are so frustrated. They just can't get past that whole "individual freedoms" thing. Just how bad does it hurt when some "individual" doesn't conform to your belief system?
What the hell are you babbling about?
"then you can get the Supreme Court to change legislation (which they can't do) to force your way of life on me."
Oh, you mean like not allowing you to codify your bigotry into law? Isn't that where this "activist court" argument is really coming from? Please, correct me if I'm wrong.
So J.
What you are basically saying is you currently support this administration?
Basically, Yes.
Then you support gangsterism and the loot and rape of the USA by the monied elite. You support autocracy and kleptocracy. You support a secret police state built on pure greed, blind ambition and ignorance.
You supporting inflicting evil upon your tribe, on all of the 50 tribes. Why?
because it's the best system in the world, even with all of it's faults, that's why.
Deloth na man? Adain o orch? Evil is BEST??? You need to learn that the country is not the government. The land is eternal, the rule of wicked men is not. If you stand by your nation, then you would oppose any evil inflicted upon her and her children, not support those who abuse her. Do you stand by your family or do you stand by your king when he is stealing from them?
I don't live in a democracy or a republic. I live in a commonwealth. The USA is a FEDERATION first before all else. The Union. Like the Union of England and Scotland. Viva Scotia!
And another thing......
What exactly is a "NEO-CON"??
I have NEVER had anyone give me an intelligent definition of this term?
Depends who you ask. I'd say a Neocon is a Republican who has lost all of the good qualities of conservatism (fiscal responsibility, aversion to foreign entanglements, unobtrusive government), while retaining the worst properties of conservatism (too many to list)
If you need visual aids, look at the gang of chimps currently and temporarily occupying the White House. Stealing hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars, ignoring the principles our country was founded on including rights to privacy and separation of church and state, running up huge debt, and generally embarrassing all Americans and insulting our intelligence by appealing to the stoopidest zombie part of our population.
The Neocons can only seize power by scaring the most gullible and cowardly Americans into voting Republican.
Does that help?
So, by that logic, the Dems are even worse, seeing as they have recently introduced the largest tax increase in the history of the country (400 Billion). What was that about fiscal responsibility??
And please explain to me where your so called "right to privacy" is delineated?
No, fiscal responsibility mean living within your means. I'll try to put it so a Republican can understand it;
Bush & Co. paid back their wealthy friends and corporations who got them elected by letting them largely ignore their share of taxes.Then they bribed a lot of working Americans by sending a check for 300 bucks (later taxed).This fooled many Americans into thinking taxes were lower.
I'll skip gas and other energy prices and their connection to the Bushies, I don't want to overload you.
Then Bush stole hundreds of billions of dollars of our money and gave a lot of it to companies he and his administration are connected to. They fooled you by telling you that Iraq attacked us on 9/11.
Keep up now; Less money to our common pot (taxes) more stolen out of that pot and distributed to already rich people = large credit card bill.
Even if the propaganda you've heard about the Dem tax bill were true, it wouldn't get us back on track.
Ok, I need more clarification from you:
Specifically which wealthy friends? Or are you simply referring to rich people in general?
Since when do corporations pay taxes?
What do you think "their share of taxes" ought to be anyway?
Define "Working Americans".
Did Bush really steal money? I thought the House controlled the purse strings? (Damn that constitution again) Did he come into your house and steal your money, or did you dutifully submit your taxes out of your own free will?
Keep up with me now. The "common pot" (taxes) is mostly filled by the rich anyway. Tax cuts put money back into the pockets of the rich (so you say), yet federal tax income has.....wait for it.......INCREASED since Bush cut taxes. HMMMM!
Oh, and I didn't read "propaganda", I actually read the proposal. Give it a try.
Funny how when these morons are introduced to even the smallest amount of logic or are held to the fire and asked to explain their generalized and off-the-cuff comments they immediately shut right up. One more chance, lib......
Define "working Americans".
According to your definition of "working Americans", what percentage of the total income tax collected do "working Americans" pay?
Define "wealthy".
According to your definition of "weathly", what percentage of the total income tax collected do the "wealthy" pay?
What percentage of tax do you think a person who earns $1,000,000 a year should pay? What would his "fair share" be? Now tell me what he ACTUALLY pays.
Do you think that someone who has a multi-million dollar salary actually "earns" his pay, or would you say that he "lives on the backs of 'working Americans'"?
What would be the economic impact to Gulfport, MS if "wealthy" people stopped buying luxury yachts from the Trinity Yacht Company?
Do you think that Gulfport, in it's current state, could withstand that type of impact?
So, who is doing more to revive Gulfport? The government, or the "wealthy"?
It is possible, in your opinion, for someone that you classify as "wealthy" to also be considered a "working American"?
How many jobs have "working Americans" created in the past year?
Who actually creates jobs? The poor, the rich, or the government?
Can you tell me how much Exxon Mobil profited off of the sale of gasoline last year?
Can you tell me how much gasoline Americans consumed last year?
Can you understand that these two numbers are directly related?
Can you tell me how much Exxon Mobil profited off of each gallon of gasoline sold last year? (Hint: It's lower now than it has been in the last 17 years.)
Can you tell me how much the Federal Government profited off of each gallon of gasoline that Exxon Mobil sold last year? (Hint: It's 3 times as much as Exxon Mobil's profit.)
What exactly did the Federal Government do to earn that money?
How much would the price of gasoline go down if the Federal Government stopped taxing us on it?
So, who is REALLY raping us at the gas pump?
Who are Exxon Mobil's 20 top shareholders?
So who exactly benefits from Exxon Mobil's profits? Careful, you're probably one of them.
Do your homework, lib. You won't like most of the answers, because the FACTS and the TRUTH are in direct conflict with your disillusioned opinions and your liberal mantra.
The truth may be insensitive, it may offend you, you may disagree with it, but it is the truth. And the truth cannot be changed.
You're mistaking your list of talking points for "logic".
Nerz, I posted my last comment just before I went to bed. I just sensed someone who was right on the line between "sensible" and "long list of ditto-head points". I appreciate the patience of those who actually took the time to respond to them.
Having seen your posts here for some time, I knew that you weren't running away from this mind-numbed robot. He's just repeating the same garbage that Rush Limbaugh has been peddling for years.
You know what? I DON"T listen to Rush. Never have.
Yeah, right. Never even heard of him, have you? Don't tell me...you think he's "irrelevant"...right?
Of course I've heard of him. God, who hasn't? But I don't listen to him. Never have.
OK, I'll take a stab at it:
First, let me say that I know you think you made some really great points that we libs couldn't possibly challenge because of their infallable logic, but most of them are based on false or misleading premises. In other words, some of them would be good points if they were true, but they aren't.
1. A working American is an American who works. This goes along with th e whoel income tax thing, where we are taxed on our income. So of course 100% of INCOME tax is collected from "working Americans". This is where you start basing things on false premises because the VAST majority of multi-millionaires earn money from investments that are not taxed nearly as much, if at all, as income. So no, wealth Americans are not paying nearly as much, proportional to their income as middle-class Americans (especially when FICA is taken into account).
2. I don't think that any honest person can say that someone earning millions of dollars is not relying partially on others for their success. Investors are relying wholly on others to earn profits on their investment dollars. Executives are leading others and are relying on their employees to do good jobs. This is why it makes good economic sense to have a social safety net, that is entry level stuff. A well paid, healthy, happy workforce is more productive than otherwise.
3. I'm not sure what your point about Gulfport is, are you saying that the local economy is based upon the yacht industry, so we should give the weathy tax cuts so they can buy yachts and support the Gulfport economy? That is rediculous logic. By that logic we could say that we all should become heroin addicts because we need to keep the vital poppy farming industry in Afghanistan afloat.
4. Ultimately the governemnt creates all jobs, becuase the economy does not exist in a vacuum. It is precisely because of our system of government and all that it provides for people that we have this wonderful economy in which people can work and invest and make money.
5. Exxon Mobile profited a great deal last year. The gov't does not profit off of gas taxes, there is a net loss. If the industry had to pay for all of its actual expenses incurred, including environmental damage, they would earn far less profit. The true cost of gasoline if the gov't did not pick up most of the indirect costs would be around $10/gal. This is true in many industries where there are immense 3rd party costs that are not borne buy the company that incurred them, most of them are environmental costs. We, the people, through the gov't collect only a small portion of the those costs through the gas tax.
I'm sorry, but your great points, pulled off of some Grover Nordquist book jacket are not based in any sort of reality. They sound good to some people, but they are not realistic or even good economic theory. I'm sorry that you bought into is hook, line, and sinker, but they really are nothing more than cheap, illogical talking points.
Thank you for making those points. The truth is, as you state, that our society, supported by taxes, makes it possible for these "Lions of Industry" to live like kings among us. I have no problem with people making enough money so that their descendents will never have to work again...I just wish they'd stop whining about having to pay taxes.
That, to me, is the main point in any discussion of economics or tax policy. And it is what makes me bang my head against the wall with the Libertarian point of view. If they honestly believe that any of our success as a society could have happened without a strong government, they are truly dilusional. That is true even in theory if you think about it long enough, let along all the examples through our history where laissez-faire policies fialed miserably and strong government policies benefitted our country.
Right. The "every man for himself" system has already been tried. It was called feudalism.
Ok, so you exist to serve government? Maybe that's where we differ. I personally believe that the government exists to protect my freedoms and allow me to live life as I see fit (within the boundary of law, of course).
Guess what...protecting those freedoms costs money. Hence, taxes.
Look, I've got no problem paying taxes so that the government can actually do what it's supposed to do. My problem is that the government is too involved in things that it should stay out of.
Agreed. And how do we decide what government should be involved in? We elect representatives in our Republican form of government.
Ah, there it is, folks. The liberal mind at work. "America is great because of it's government". "George Bush is bad". "The war in Iraq is based on lies". "The rich don't pay enough in taxes". "The government creates jobs". Blah, blah, blah....
Good job rebutting my points.
What else could America be great because of if not for the gov't. America IS a gov't. Sure the land here is beautiful, but that is irrelavent. The people here are not genetically different from people anywhere else. It must be because of the great gov't structure that we have and that wonderful document, the Costitution. That IS America. And I will repeat what I said above, if you honestly believe that any sustainable economy could thrive in a vacuum without a gov't, then you are dillusional. If you concede that a gov't such as ours is needed for the very existance of any working economy, then by logical extention you are agreeing that it is gov't that is ultimately to be praised for job creation.
You asked, I answered, you were unable to refute any specific point. But this all just liberal speak, blah, blah , blah.
I agree that a government is necessary, but only to protect individual rights and liberties. Not to provide for my retirement, Not to administer health care, Not to criminalize my thoughts (hate crimes, how "Democratic"). Not to take my earnings by force and simply hand them over to someone else. America is great because of the people, not the government.
So if gov't only exists to protect personal liberties, then I suppose you are opposed to the interstate highway system, the clean water act, the toxic substance control act, the safe drinking water act, the safe food and drug act? What do you imagine a society looking like without those gov't protections. Would you eat out in restaurants if you knew that there was nobody inspecting them for food safety? Would you feel safe drinking your tap water knowing that there was nobody ensuring that the bacteriological levels were safe? Do you think the economy would do as well if half the workforce was sick all the time from preventable diseasese in their food and water?
And, what you keep describing as the Democratic viewpoint is more Marxist than reality. There is a difference between a social safety net that has been proven throughout history to be the key to a fuctional society and economy, and a complete redistrobution of wealth and gov't control of every aspect of society.
God you're dense. The federal government has two clearly defined functions. If they performed those two functions and left it at that, we would be a much, much better country. But the federal government insists on poking their noses where it just doesn't belong and it's high time that they stop it once and for all.
Hey thanks for the comliment.
Let me just run down how this exchange has gone so far. You supply a list of wonderful libertarian talking points. I respond to them. You, unable to refute any of them, go back to your gov't only exists to protect my liberties. I supply a list of very important other things the gov't does for us every day (and could supply hundreds more) and ask you if you would want to live in a society without these things. You, apparently unwilling to admit that your stance on gov't intervention is idiotic and unrealistic, insult me and then fall back on your Kato Institute talking points again.
Thanks so much, its been a very imformative thread with you here to enlighten us dense libs on our misinformed take on governmental powers. By the way, good luck convincing the American people (the ones who make this country great!) that we don't need any of these things. And I suggest you go back and read some history of Supreme Court rulings before arguing the Constitution.
Libertarian talking points? Kato Institute? Where do you come up with these accusations?
You're speaking the libertarian language. We're familiar with it here.
I have a feeling you got this huge novel of questions from a conservative radio show host's website, would that be Sean Hannity by any chance? Look, coming here and copy pasting this huge amount of questions doesn;t show how much smarter you are than "liberals", it just shows that you can copy & paste. How about we debate one or two topics at a time instead taking on nearly the entirety of America's debates in one obscure mmfa thread. Besides, its WAY off topic. I have spent some time to answer most of your questions. It was fun. Define "working Americans". Too vague. Most Americans "work" in one form or another. Some a hell of alot more than others. Some not at all. The better question for you is: Define who encompasses the working CLASS in America?
According to your definition of "working Americans", what percentage of the total income tax collected do "working Americans" pay?This issue of what working class american's pay in relation to the "upper percentage" that pays the "most taxes" is not straight foward. The best number I found was the top 20% pays 63% of the income, payroll and excise taxes. So yes, the most affluent pay more. Thats the way it should be. The degree to which this is true is the debate. Their are misrepresentations on both sides. Effective indvidual income tax rates for individuals that work for or own corporations are influenced by a myriad of tax loop-holes that working class americans usually don't. Larger corporations also require and use a much larger share of tax-payer supported institutions and programs. And on the corporate level, since you brought up oil, here is some number for you to munch on. http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/fuel_economy/subsidizing-big-oil.htmlFrom the section Tax Benefits: "Government directly subsidizes oil consumption through preferential treatment in tax codes. A multitude of federal corporate income tax credits and deductions results in an effective income tax rate of 11% for the oil industry, compared to the non-oil industry average of 18%. If the oil industry paid the industrywide average tax rate (including oil) of 17%, they would have paid an additional $2.0 billion in 1991. Our results are consistent with a report by the Alliance to Save Energy that estimated the benefits of individual federal corporate income tax provisions. Their results showed that in 1989 preferential treatment yielded $1.8 billion to $4.6 billion in individual income tax benefits to the oil industry (Koplow, 1993)"These are in 1990's dollars. Add in the additional tax-cuts introduced in 2001 and you have a completely different picture. Lets not forget the extensive list of oil subsidies, that are tax-payer funded. And how about the repeal of the estate/death tax. You don't think that large gifts should be taxed? You know like we pay when we recieve monetary gifts over a certain amount and have to declare it as income on our individual income taxes. Why do the large estates get a break?
Continued on next post
Define "wealthy".Wealthy describes an individual or entity that is in a state of wealth. Wealth is an adjective that means an abundance of things of economic value. Someone who is "wealthy" either has or controls this wealth as defined above.According to your definition of "weathly", what percentage of the total income tax collected do the "wealthy" pay? That depends on what percentage of the population your looking at, but generally they pay more, because they make more. That also accounts for the usage of larger portions of tax-payer funded institutions and programs. That also takes into account the access to loopholes that many "working class" americans don't have access too or to a much lesser degree.What percentage of tax do you think a person who earns $1,000,000 a year should pay? What would his "fair share" be? Now tell me what he ACTUALLY pays.There are alot of factors that should be looked at when considering this question and I cannot readily give you an answer to it. This is a national topic of debate, but as far as this MMFA thread is concerned, its WAY off topic.
Do you think that someone who has a multi-million dollar salary actually "earns" his pay, or would you say that he "lives on the backs of 'working Americans'"?I'd say some do, some don't. I'd say Bill Gates has earned every cent, notwithstanding the strongarm tactics employed by his company. Hey nothing personal, just business baby. As far as companies are concerned, its not black and white as your question presumes. Alot of companies have made promises contractually that they can't keep. I say we hold them to the same standard as any other individual that has to pay a penalty when they can't meet their financial obligations. Sometimes, they are bailed out by tax-payer money. So in essence, companies require workers and personnel to thrive and grow. These workers are the "back-bone" of such companies. So yes, in a way they do live on the backs of their employees. What would be the economic impact to Gulfport, MS if "wealthy" people stopped buying luxury yachts from the Trinity Yacht Company?3 don'ts rule apply here. DON'T knowDON'T matter DON'T careDo you think that Gulfport, in it's current state, could withstand that type of impact?3 don'ts rule apply here. DON'T knowDON'T matter DON'T careSo, who is doing more to revive Gulfport? The government, or the "wealthy"?3 don'ts rule apply here. DON'T knowDON'T matter DON'T careIt is possible, in your opinion, for someone that you classify as "wealthy" to also be considered a "working American"?Yes. Of course. Bill Gates.
Ok once and for all, I DON'T LISTEN TO TALK RADIO!! I didn't copy and paste anything. Why do refuse to believe that some folks can actually think for themselves. I give you that benefit of the doubt. Why do you have to pass me off as some drone of conservative radio? Does it make you "feel better" to think that I've been programmed instead of developing my own opinions? I don't get your logic at all.
ExxonMobil still owes the coastal villages in Alaska that were devastated by the Exxon Valdez spill $5 billion in awarded damages. That's a peice of Alaskan population waiting a score of years now for your beloved ExxonMobil to pony up the court judgement and let them adapt their economy with it. The corporation just uses it's horde of lawyers to keep it tied up in court forever. There's two small Alaskan towns, two American towns, being screwed over by your beloved ExxonMobil.
You think these firms are indispensible? It's not hard to give the contract to someone else if they are abusing their priveleges to do business here.
Who needs corporate jobs? I have one of the coolest careers in the world. I made it myself. I've seen my ideas used by an entire industry sector. My customer list would make CEO's and rock bands jealous. At least the straight ones. See, the difference between mass production and art is soul. They don't teach you this in poli sci or Young Repubs meetings.
Some people make our own magic, we don't rely on Walt Disney. In God we don't trust.
"The "common pot" (taxes) is mostly filled by the rich anyway".
You better check that with your lord and saviour, Rush Limbaugh. He said that taxing the wealthy doesn't help because the middle class is where all the money is.
Oh, by the way, Federal Revenues go up every year, so there is no evidence that lowering the tax rate causes revenues to increase, despite what your GOP talking points say.
Right to Privacy is in between "Executive Privilege" and "Separation of Powers".
Ok, I've read my Constitution again, and didn't see the words "right to privacy" anywhere. Come on, you guys can surely quote some document that confers a "right to privacy" somewhere. Oh, maybe it's in the same document that gives us the "right to vote" or perhaps "the right to health insurance" or "the right to a government provided retirement plan" or even "the right to protection from hate".
Sure, as soon as you point out where Executive Privilege resides, or the right to a fair trial.
Keep trying. You're regurgitating your talking points very well.
Article II of the Constitution lays out the powers, responsibilites, and duties of the President. The phrase "executive priviledge" does not appear.
The Sixth Amendment guarantees a "speedy and public trial" with an impartial jury. The phrase "fair trial" does not appear.
Just like the phrase "right to privacy" does not appear. That's my point.
So, does Executive Privelege not exist?
Not so fast. You answer first. Do you or do you not have a constitutional "right to privacy". Come on, you can say it.
Amendments 4 and 9 have been interpreted as securing that right. Is it spelled out? No. Many things that we accept are not spelled out, such as the right to worship, executive privilege, separation of powers, etc.
Does this mean they don't exist? Would you like to go back to a strictly literal translation of the Constitution? Be careful what you wish for.
Do you have a constitutional right to privacy? yes or no.
Yes. Do you have the Constitutional right to own a machine gun?
Ok, I'll play this game........
No, I don't have a constitutional right to own a machine gun, or a nuclear weapon for that matter. Just like you have no constitutional right to privacy. Semantics, right? Let's play "who wants to interperet the constitution?"
Do you have a constitutional right to vote?
Do the people elect the President of the United States?
Who is the official representative of the government of the State of Utah in Washington, D.C.?
What are the only two constitutionally defined functions of the federal government?
Why do we tolerate the fact that they don't perform one of their functions at all, but perform the other one way too much?
What does "Homeland security" do to protect your "home" and your "land"?
I could go on like this all day. We see things differently. So be it.
Yes, we do. If you want to live by a strictly literal interpretation of the Constitution, good luck with that.
In reality, our "Constitutional Rights" are what the Supreme Court says they are. You can rant and rave about inalienable rights, God-given rights, etc. Good luck securing those rights if the Supreme Court denies them. Is that the way it should be? Probably not. Believe me, I don't look forward to the future with Bush's Neanderthals on the Court. Unfortunately, that's the system in which we live.
Ok, where is your constitutional "right to vote" expressly delineated? I can't wait to hear this one.
That specific Right is not spelled out, either, though the 14th and 15th amendment assume its existence.
Again, your point?
"Elections shall be free and equal; and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage." Article I, Section 5, The Declaration of Rights, Pennsylvania Constitution. There's my right to vote.
But it doesn't say "Righ to Vote". Jason is playing a semantics game here.
That's the most recent version. The original reads: "That all elections ought to be free; and that all free men having a sufficient evident common interest with, and attachment to the community, have a right to elect officers, or to be elected into office." In 1776 politics, that was a bombshell. All free men...crossed all racist and religious lines. In English politics at the time, you had whole cities with no representatives. Countries in Europe where only nobles could vote or parliaments hadn't sat for years. We did that right in the middle of slavery, too. Talk about revolution! The Franklin-Paine constitutional commission was a defining moment in liberalism. It was so revolutionary that the conservative and commercial classes went back to property qualifications on the next edition. We got the right back though.
Right now we have to fight the Duopoly. Running other parties off ballots with their hordes of lawyers. Denying a choice at election time. Those are not free elections.
So perhaps we could make up a new moniker.....NEOLIB.
Neo-libs, Neo-cons on steroids.
And, BTW, every "gang of chimps" in the White House are only there temporarily, that whole constitutional thing. And by "gang of chimps", are you referring to the fact that the GWB administration employs the most minorities in history. Are you making a racist statement, Mr. Imus? You should be fired.
Unless chimpanzees are a race, it never occurred to me.I think that came outta your mind.
Oh, but "chimps" came out of your mind. Just wondered who you were referring to. Obviously your not a racist. Only Republicans are racist. That's why the White House is filled with rich, fat white men.....Oh, wait. My bad.
Actually, the ones with the power are rich white men, some fat, some not so fat. I think the chimps reference is in regard to their relative position on the evolutionary scale.
OK. Just wanted to clear up exactly what your opinion is.
Technically speaking, the NeoClowns are the Neanderthals who lied us into Iraq. They are the PNAC boys. I believe it includes Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney and a few others. They think we're the modern day Rome...that God has chosen us to rule the world and all that crap.
Ok, which country would YOU prefer to see as the world power? China? Russia? Saudi Arabia?
There's a fine line between being the world power and abusing that power. Invading Iraq was a clear example of the latter.
Nice Straw Man, though.
This isn't a game of Risk. Did you ever consider it's actually possible to live at peace with the world without trying to rule it?
It's American dialect English for FASCIST.
The cause for the tours of duty being extended? Nobody in their right mind is enlisting. The 101st keyboarders think they can fight from their parents' basements, and most of the rest of us know that BushCo doesn't give a rat's ass about the welfare of the troops. Recruiters lie, and once you're sworn in BushCo can treat you like kleenex.
Starting over again:
I have a feeling you got this huge novel of questions from a conservative radio show host's website, would that be Sean Hannity by any chance? Look, coming here and copy pasting this huge amount of questions doesn;t show how much smarter you are than "liberals", it just shows that you can copy & paste. How about we debate one or two topics at a time instead taking on nearly the entirety of America's debates in one obscure mmfa thread. Besides, its WAY off topic. I have spent some time to answer most of your questions. It was fun.Define "working Americans".Too vague. Most Americans "work" in one form or another. Some a hell of alot more than others. Some not at all. The better question for you is: Define who encompasses the working CLASS in America?According to your definition of "working Americans", what percentage of the total income tax collected do "working Americans" pay?This issue of what working class american's pay in relation to the "upper percentage" that pays the "most taxes" is not straight foward. The best number I found was the top 20% pays 63% of the income, payroll and excise taxes. So yes, the most affluent pay more. Thats the way it should be. The degree to which this is true is the debate. Their are misrepresentations on both sides. Effective indvidual income tax rates for individuals that work for or own corporations are influenced by a myriad of tax loop-holes that working class americans usually don't. Larger corporations also require and use a much larger share of tax-payer supported institutions and programs. And on the corporate level, since you brought up oil, here is some number for you to munch on.
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/fuel_economy/subsidizing-big-oil.htmlFrom the section Tax Benefits: "Government directly subsidizes oil consumption through preferential treatment in tax codes. A multitude of federal corporate income tax credits and deductions results in an effective income tax rate of 11% for the oil industry, compared to the non-oil industry average of 18%. If the oil industry paid the industrywide average tax rate (including oil) of 17%, they would have paid an additional $2.0 billion in 1991. Our results are consistent with a report by the Alliance to Save Energy that estimated the benefits of individual federal corporate income tax provisions. Their results showed that in 1989 preferential treatment yielded $1.8 billion to $4.6 billion in individual income tax benefits to the oil industry (Koplow, 1993)"These are in 1990's dollars. Add in the additional tax-cuts introduced in 2001 and you have a completely different picture. Lets not forget the extensive list of oil subsidies, that are tax-payer funded. And how about the repeal of the estate/death tax. You don't think that large gifts should be taxed? You know like we pay when we recieve monetary gifts over a certain amount and have to declare it as income on our individual income taxes. Why should the large estates get a break?
Do you think that someone who has a multi-million dollar salary actually "earns" his pay, or would you say that he "lives on the backs of 'working Americans'"?I'd say some do, some don't. I'd say Bill Gates has earned every cent, notwithstanding the strongarm tactics employed by his company. Hey nothing personal, just business baby. As far as companies are concerned, its not black and white as your question presumes. Alot of companies have made promises contractually that they can't keep. I say we hold them to the same standard as any other individual that has to pay a penalty when they can't meet their financial obligations. Sometimes, they are bailed out by tax-payer money. So in essence, companies require workers and personnel to thrive and grow. These workers are the "back-bone" of such companies. So yes, in a way they do live on the backs of their employees.
What would be the economic impact to Gulfport, MS if "wealthy" people stopped buying luxury yachts from the Trinity Yacht Company?3 don'ts rule apply here. DON'T knowDON'T matter DON'T careDo you think that Gulfport, in it's current state, could withstand that type of impact?3 don'ts rule apply here. DON'T knowDON'T matter DON'T careSo, who is doing more to revive Gulfport? The government, or the "wealthy"?3 don'ts rule apply here. DON'T knowDON'T matter DON'T care
It is possible, in your opinion, for someone that you classify as "wealthy" to also be considered a "working American"?Yes. Of course. Bill Gates.How many jobs have "working Americans" created in the past year?Don't know that number off hand... Bet you don't either, considering the vagueness of the term "working Americans".Who actually creates jobs? The poor, the rich, or the government?Speaking in such dichotimies does not get to the heart of the question. OF COURSE the government creates jobs, but as far as "the rich" is concerned, the answer is not so clear cut. The premise that only the "rich" class creates jobs for the rest of us is flat-out wrong. Middle-upper class, small start-ups, large corporations all contribute to the availability of jobs. Rich individuals, that start companies create jobs. But how about the individuals who started with nothing and amass a significant amount of debt to start a business and create jobs? Were they "rich"?
Can you tell me how much Exxon Mobil profited off of the sale of gasoline last year?Something like 10 cents on every dollar. Or maybe a little less. Correct me if I'm wrong. This information is readily available on the net.Can you tell me how much gasoline Americans consumed last year?Something like 32 trillion cubic feet. You do the math on the gallons. This information is readily available on the net.Can you understand that these two numbers are directly related?Yes, basic micro-economics. Supply/Demand. Increased demand without an appropriate increase in supply can cause higher prices. BUT those or not the only factors to consider.Can you tell me how much Exxon Mobil profited off of each gallon of gasoline sold last year? (Hint: It's lower now than it has been in the last 17 years.)You answered your own question. And even if thats true, we have had some detrimental weather affecting the supply in the gulf region so I guess the oil industry should consider themselves lucky for the record oil revenues they posted in 2007. Or should they? Or maybe they are beginning to bounce back from these conditions last year due to tax-payer funded subsidies. In the last 17 years, I don't have that much information, but I know the price per barrel has jumped quite a bit in that time period. I also believe demand has risen substantially too. All the more reason to invest in alternative energy sources and encourage less dependence on foreign oil. You know, that slogan we "liberals" use during the election year.
Can you tell me how much the Federal Government profited off of each gallon of gasoline that Exxon Mobil sold last year? (Hint: It's 3 times as much as Exxon Mobil's profit.)You answered your own question. My question to you is: when AND which president/administration levyed this fuel tax and what party affiliation were they? How has it progressed since then? How did each subsequent party in power influence this tax? Are gas taxes levied on the state level as well? Here's a hint, look up the Revenue act of 1932. What exactly did the Federal Government do to earn that money?Probably nothing, but it depends on how you view it. They earned the votes of the American people. They are responsible for keeping this country together and hopefully prosperous.How much would the price of gasoline go down if the Federal Government stopped taxing us on it?I would say about 20% or a little less. But can you explain to me why gas prices mysteriously go down 20% just before an election? Is it a conspiracy?So, who is REALLY raping us at the gas pump?The federal government. if your argument is that the government is raping us in taxes, my answer is: DUHHHH!!!!! But I don't think oil execs get should get a free pass from responsibility either.
Who are Exxon Mobil's 20 top shareholders?3 don'ts rule apply here. DON'T knowDON'T matter DON'T careSo who exactly benefits from Exxon Mobil's profits? Careful, you're probably one of them.As a partial funder (tax-payer) of Oil Subsidies and related federal programs, I would surely expect some benefit. For the most part though, oil companies benefit from tax-payer dollars and pay less than the industry average effective tax rate.Do your homework, lib. You won't like most of the answers, because the FACTS and the TRUTH are in direct conflict with your disillusioned opinions and your liberal mantra.The answers to this huge novel of questions and the questions themselves, have no bearing on whether Fox Noise Machine ommited a key fact about extended troop deployments in Iraq. I have been very accomodating in taking on your anti-liberal, hate-filled, ditto headed, generalizations of "liberals". So what say you? Try staying on topic next time.The truth may be insensitive, it may offend you, you may disagree with it, but it is the truth. And the truth cannot be changed.Likewise. oh great purveyor of the "truth".
Excellent work DTRAIN. I am truly impressed. So tell me how tax-subsidies and tax breaks for corporations are a BAD thing? Because the TRUTH is......corporations DO NOT PAY TAXES. The only entity in this country that pays taxes is the individual....you and I. So when you spout off about how those evil corporations need to pay more taxes, you are really supporting higher taxes on individuals....you and I. Get it?
DTRAIN, you are remarkable. I truly enjoy the debate and I thank you for your time. We are truly blessed to be afforded the opportunity to think as we please. You are, no doubt, a great person and the fact that you are so passionate about your beliefs (as am I ) is a credit to your character. The old saying goes, "If two people are in complete agreement, one of them isn't necessary." And I truly appreciate someone as spirited as you. Fact is, I'm glad we don't agree and I'm glad that neither one of us is satisfied with our system because only then can positive change come about. Again, I thank you for the debate. I don't dislike people with differing points of view, but I will argue my beliefs until the day I die (as I suspect you will as well). Well done, my friend. It is time for this "troll" to "go back under the bridge" (time to go to work). :-) And never forget, it will be people just like us that will make this country better for future generations, and I take comfort in the fact that there are people like us who still give a damn about something other than "American Idol" (although I must admit I've been caught up in that too, thanks to my children). Good day my friend and I hope to hear from you again.
A spirited debate indeed. Take it easy.. troll. :):)