how many people do you think would have to know about it in order to get that much money spent covering it up? And how high up in the organization would they have to be?
I mean, the top people aren't just gonna not notice that hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent for no reason.
the other thing Bush's plan has is an elimination of taxes on stock dividends...now who would benifit most from that?
Who benefits from it ? EVERYONE, It's simple economics, put more money into people's hands instead of Uncle Sams and guess what, they actually go out and buy stuff and invest ! OMG what a concept. Then when they buy stuff guess what ? Ta Da ! Not only are they taxed on it at a local level through sales tax which helps local govt. But the demand for goods go up and so do the need for jobs because people are actually buying stuff, the companies pay higher taxes because profits go up, and now those people who back at work are taxed on their income and guess what else,,,,they go out and buy stuff too becasue they have a job ! And the cricle and cooperation between people and government goes onward. The other option is to put more into social spending. O.K great, it's a temporary bandaid but the money given to a person will yes help them as it should, it's what it's there for. But now their is less tax revenue because it's simply being spent on one side.
know many poor people with a stock portfolio?
And your point is ? Oh wait, you're right, perhaps we ought to give everybody one to make it fair.
It's what many retirees live on. Mr. And Mrs. Senior work at a company all their lives and get stocks and can buy more through matching etc. after 40 years say at GE they have a pretty nice nest egg and it's what they survive on. Oh wait, it's all their fault, those rich senior citizens who worked their whole life to pay for their own retirement, greedy bastards. You're right let's tax them on the money used to buy the stock, then let's tax them every year on the gain and then lets really nail them if they cash them in, heck why not tax those rich seniors 4 times !
know many middle class people with substantial stock dividend income?
Ever hear of a 401k or mutual fund ? The last 3 years haven't been too kind but go ask the average middle class worker how much they've gained in total over 10 or 15 years. Most workers re-invest it if they are still in the working years.
Thing is that I don't care what someone makes. The numbers are there and they show that the upper class is paying alot of their share. I'm not rich nor will I probably ever be barring a lotto win, I'm not poor but I make less than many people here probably do, but I'm happy . I sure the hell don't begrudge someone who does, what business is it of yours, we have a progressive tax. Go look at the numbers, you want them to pay more for what reason ? Because they simply have it or can afford it ? O.K how much is too much to make before we just take it all ? Tell me at what point a person is rich. Who decides. You ? apparently because it's easy to hate those evil rich folk. Go look at the numbers again, you and I need rich people just as much we do those in between. Get rid of them and who do you turn to next ? If you're pissed because they are actually only going to get taxed one or two times, tough. What a horrid thought we only tax people 2 instead of 3 times, oh the humanity. The ones that are so easy to dislike are paying alot of money to Uncle Sam and subsidize you and I as well.
A family of four with two earners and $39,000 in income would receive more than $1,100 in tax relief real money to help pay the bills and push the economy forward,"
Those rich 39,000 per year earnin bastards !
Under the president's plan, 92 million taxpayers will get an average $1,083 tax break, as tax cuts scheduled for 2004 and 2006 are phased in this year instead. The child credit would give an additional $400 to 34 million families who currently claim up to $600.
The administration estimated that 46 million married couples would receive an average tax cut of $1,716 this year, while 23 million small business owners would receive tax cuts averaging $2,042. The tax cuts would be retroactive to Jan. 1.
Oh no. Money to the people who pay in Gasp !
The plan would also eliminate taxes shareholders pay on dividends. According to the president, since companies must already pay a tax on the dividends before they are distributed, they are currently taxed twice.
How horrid we actually might only tax something once Huh?
Yes and that's all that will be bitched about, let the jealous class warfare begin and it will, and of course it will all be class baiting and rhetoric without any real substance. So let's summarize for them. I hate the rich, the rich should all be killed, they ought to have their money taken,m they domn't deserve it, their money should go to others.
Oh yea one other thing.
Do you know when they say "rich" what they mean ? Well they'll never tell you exactly but you are in the top 20% (The highest bracket) if you are a married couple earning over 95,000. Are you comfy ? Sure I'd be happy to make that. Are you rich ? according to many you are. so if you make over 95,000 a year as a family say with 3 kids. You are now rich, congrats, I bet you didn't even know it.
Seriosuly I'm not sure but I believe the formulas get changed for everyone so they would too. Those were examples. I would agree though that the tax system is skewed a bit in some ways towards married people. It's been that way for years. On the other hand couples filing together are going to make alot more.
Why is it that when we create a spending program or spend more on an existing one it's called an investment ?
When the govt. spends our mney or more of it it's an investment and when we actually spend less it's a cost ?
Why is it then that we say a tax cut will cost the government x-amount ? Why is it not an investment in people ?
Aren't we the government ? Isn't their money ours in reality? Don't we elect them to decide how to spend it. In reality it's not costing government anything. It might mean less spending but it's not a cost but merely the people we've elected listening to their constituents saying that working until may to pay taxes is getting a bit heavy.
In response to 'Bill - Fold' - (PFID:13d394) - 03:18am Jan 8, 2003 PST (# 2697 of 2698
All I did was ask a question. Crabs accused virtually everyone associated with the Catholic Church of supporting the cover-up. He accused anyone that donated money without any knowledge of the crimes of being involved with the cover-up.
Ah o.k so the average Joe on the street has more money in his pocket for his family and that's not an investment in anything. I bet it is to his family.
When we take more of that same guys money to pay for the national endowment for the arts so a guy can piss in a jar, throw a cross in it, call it art and get paid from Joe, it's an investment.
Thanks for clearing that up though, now please go tell Joe that.
to be be immoral you must have knowledge of the actions that you support or undertake.
I said nothing about it's morality.
If they were unwittingly suppling money that was being used to cover up abuse, they were involved. If they found out about it and still supplied money to the church before they KNEW that the money was no longer covering it up (and since it was hidden from them before, I don't know how they could know that it still wasn't going on), then they are complicent in it.
but I never said anything about it's morality or lack thereof.
If they were unwittingly suppling money that was being used to cover up abuse, they were involved. No.If they found out about it and still supplied money to the church before they KNEW that the money was no longer covering it up (and since it was hidden from them before, I don't know how they could know that it still wasn't going on), then they are complicent in it. no.
You must be dense. I say they were not accomplices with any cover-up. If they were not aware of any cover-up then they could not be involved. Apparently you think the Church only has exepenses for cover-ups.
you can be involved in something and not be aware of it.
But if you aren't aware of a crime and have no reasosn to know there is no accountablity. You helped pay Bill Clinton's salary were you involved in his cover-up?
You helped pay Bill Clinton's salary were you involved in his cover-up?
we are ALL involved in any crime OUR government is involved with.
It pisses me off, but me, you...all Americans were involved in Reagan's team of criminal goons and their crimes conducted in the basement out of site of US.
You support something with your money, than you are involved with what happens with that money. That's the deal...it's something called "taking responsibility". You give money to a church, you should damn well KNOW what they are using it for. Ignorance is no excuse.
This is one of the reasons that the current administrations high levels of secrecy is so troubling.
If you can't accept the fact that Clinton committed crimes there really is no point discussing it with you. You are simply dishonest or a fool. Clinton committed perjury and subornation of perjury to name two crimes. Obstruction of justice by intimidating witnesses and hiding evidence is another.
the definition of shame being a painful feeling of having lost the respect of others because of improper behavior, incompetence of oneself or another.
Now I still say that liberals have a good heart meaning, specifically, they intend to do good. I think they can still be without shame which is probably due to their lack of a good head on their shoulders.
I don't know what crimes those might be. I see the actions as national security actions.
You think Iran-Contra didn't involve criminal acts?
and you think I'm nuts?
heard of any of these guys?
Robert C. McFarlane: pleaded guilty to four counts of withholding information from Congress;
Oliver L. North: convicted of altering and destroying documents, accepting an illegal gratuity, and aiding and abetting in the obstruction of Congress
John M. Poindexter: convicted of conspiracy, false statements, destruction and removal of records, and obstruction of Congress
Richard V. Secord: pleaded guilty to making false statements to Congress
Albert Hakim: pleaded guilty to supplementing the salary of North
Thomas G. Clines: convicted of four counts of tax-related offenses for failing to report income from the operations
Carl R. Channell: pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States
Richard R. Miller: pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States
Clair E. George: convicted of false statements and perjury before Congress
Duane R. Clarridge: indicted on seven counts of perjury and false statements; pardoned before trial by President Bush
Alan D. Fiers, Jr.: pleaded guilty to withholding information from Congress
Joseph F. Fernandez: indicted on four counts of obstruction and false statements; case dismissed when Attorney General Richard L. Thornburgh refused to declassify information needed for his defense
Elliott Abrams: pleaded guilty to withholding information from Congress
Caspar W. Weinberger: charged with four counts of false statements and perjury; pardoned before trial by President Bush.
....now...where were we...oh yea, lying about getting a blowjob.
well...asking the president if he got a blowjob"
OF COURSEhe got a blowjob! He's the fuckin' PRESIDENT! What kind of question is that? It's a fuckin' GIVEN. But those guys on that list who lied to CONGRESS are good Americans?
Answer for these people before you talk to me about blow jobs anymore.
That's ridiculous.
That's ridiculous.
That's crabs!
where do you think they get all those millions of dollars to cover it up?
to support the covering up of sexual abuse?
To clean house.
"One bad apple don't spoil the whole bunch, girl".
that's a nice idea, but how do you know the house is clean when they have rooms locked so tight that you didn't even know they were there?
it's a lot more than one bad apple...large chunks of the barrel itself appear to be quite rotted.
that's a nice idea of wanting to clean house though.
I think they are better off burning the house down and building a new one themselves.
I think they are better off burning the house down and building a new one themselves.
What, and become a Lutheran?
:-)
What, and become a Lutheran?
hey! i resemble that comment!
it's a lot more than one bad apple...large chunks of the barrel itself appear to be quite rotted.
Me thinks you exaggerate.
Hey, I'm technically still a Lutheran.
:-)
Me thinks you exaggerate.
My thoughts exactly.
how many people do you think would have to know about it in order to get that much money spent covering it up? And how high up in the organization would they have to be?
I mean, the top people aren't just gonna not notice that hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent for no reason.
Not being Catholic I am not sure how much higher you can get than Cardinal Law.
Hey, I'm technically still a Lutheran.
how'd you manage to marry scribe then, assuming you were married in the catholic church?
We weren't married in the Church.
THX 1138 1/7/03 5:42am
Bravo CSC, Thanks for posting it JT. Well Done and a must read!
Crab,
Who benefits from it ? EVERYONE, It's simple economics, put more money into people's hands instead of Uncle Sams and guess what, they actually go out and buy stuff and invest ! OMG what a concept. Then when they buy stuff guess what ? Ta Da ! Not only are they taxed on it at a local level through sales tax which helps local govt. But the demand for goods go up and so do the need for jobs because people are actually buying stuff, the companies pay higher taxes because profits go up, and now those people who back at work are taxed on their income and guess what else,,,,they go out and buy stuff too becasue they have a job ! And the cricle and cooperation between people and government goes onward. The other option is to put more into social spending. O.K great, it's a temporary bandaid but the money given to a person will yes help them as it should, it's what it's there for. But now their is less tax revenue because it's simply being spent on one side.
And your point is ? Oh wait, you're right, perhaps we ought to give everybody one to make it fair.
It's what many retirees live on. Mr. And Mrs. Senior work at a company all their lives and get stocks and can buy more through matching etc. after 40 years say at GE they have a pretty nice nest egg and it's what they survive on. Oh wait, it's all their fault, those rich senior citizens who worked their whole life to pay for their own retirement, greedy bastards. You're right let's tax them on the money used to buy the stock, then let's tax them every year on the gain and then lets really nail them if they cash them in, heck why not tax those rich seniors 4 times !
Ever hear of a 401k or mutual fund ? The last 3 years haven't been too kind but go ask the average middle class worker how much they've gained in total over 10 or 15 years. Most workers re-invest it if they are still in the working years.
Thing is that I don't care what someone makes. The numbers are there and they show that the upper class is paying alot of their share. I'm not rich nor will I probably ever be barring a lotto win, I'm not poor but I make less than many people here probably do, but I'm happy . I sure the hell don't begrudge someone who does, what business is it of yours, we have a progressive tax. Go look at the numbers, you want them to pay more for what reason ? Because they simply have it or can afford it ? O.K how much is too much to make before we just take it all ? Tell me at what point a person is rich. Who decides. You ? apparently because it's easy to hate those evil rich folk. Go look at the numbers again, you and I need rich people just as much we do those in between. Get rid of them and who do you turn to next ? If you're pissed because they are actually only going to get taxed one or two times, tough. What a horrid thought we only tax people 2 instead of 3 times, oh the humanity. The ones that are so easy to dislike are paying alot of money to Uncle Sam and subsidize you and I as well.
Those rich 39,000 per year earnin bastards !
Oh no. Money to the people who pay in Gasp !
How horrid we actually might only tax something once Huh?
Yes and that's all that will be bitched about, let the jealous class warfare begin and it will, and of course it will all be class baiting and rhetoric without any real substance. So let's summarize for them. I hate the rich, the rich should all be killed, they ought to have their money taken,m they domn't deserve it, their money should go to others.
Oh yea one other thing.
Do you know when they say "rich" what they mean ? Well they'll never tell you exactly but you are in the top 20% (The highest bracket) if you are a married couple earning over 95,000. Are you comfy ? Sure I'd be happy to make that. Are you rich ? according to many you are.
so if you make over 95,000 a year as a family say with 3 kids. You are now rich, congrats, I bet you didn't even know it.
Is there anything in there for single people?
Seems to me there's a little social engineering working here.
How come they get overlooked?
Is there anything in there for single people?
What do you want? Membership in a dating service?
I'm not single, but it seems this is a little targeted.
Can't the single folks get a taste?
Rick,
Oh they do, believe me they do ;)
Seriosuly
I'm not sure but I believe the formulas get changed for everyone so they would too. Those were examples. I would agree though that the tax system is skewed a bit in some ways towards married people. It's been that way for years. On the other hand couples filing together are going to make alot more.
I'm not single, but it seems this is a little targeted.
I thought Democrats like targeted tax cuts? Mainly to people that DO NOT pay taxes?
L2F Great posts.
Geez man. Like you didn't know what I meant?
No, I didn't know what you meant. Besides, your most recent justification isn't any less disgusting than the last one.
"She could have been a prostitute".
Yeah, go ahead Polanski. She may only be 13 but hey, she's a prostitute.
I have some questions.
Why is it that when we create a spending program or spend more on an existing one it's called an investment ?
When the govt. spends our mney or more of it it's an investment and when we actually spend less it's a cost ?
Why is it then that we say a tax cut will cost the government x-amount ? Why is it not an investment in people ?
Aren't we the government ? Isn't their money ours in reality? Don't we elect them to decide how to spend it. In reality it's not costing government anything. It might mean less spending but it's not a cost but merely the people we've elected listening to their constituents saying that working until may to pay taxes is getting a bit heavy.
In response to 'Bill - Fold' - (PFID:13d394) - 03:18am Jan 8, 2003 PST (# 2697 of 2698
All I did was ask a question. Crabs accused virtually everyone associated with the Catholic Church of supporting the cover-up. He accused anyone that donated money without any knowledge of the crimes of being involved with the cover-up.
because a cut isn't an investment in anything
they were, unwittingly, involved. It's unfortunate, but that's the deal.
to be be immoral you must have knowledge of the actions that you support or undertake.
Ah o.k so the average Joe on the street has more money in his pocket for his family and that's not an investment in anything. I bet it is to his family.
When we take more of that same guys money to pay for the national endowment for the arts so a guy can piss in a jar, throw a cross in it, call it art and get paid from Joe, it's an investment.
Thanks for clearing that up though, now please go tell Joe that.
$600,000 in astroturf is an investment in our future.
"Say yes to St. Paul Kids".
You just don't care JT :)
Yeah, I'm one selfish bastard.
I said nothing about it's morality.
If they were unwittingly suppling money that was being used to cover up abuse, they were involved. If they found out about it and still supplied money to the church before they KNEW that the money was no longer covering it up (and since it was hidden from them before, I don't know how they could know that it still wasn't going on), then they are complicent in it.
but I never said anything about it's morality or lack thereof.
If they were unwittingly suppling money that was being used to cover up abuse, they were involved. No.If they found out about it and still supplied money to the church before they KNEW that the money was no longer covering it up (and since it was hidden from them before, I don't know how they could know that it still wasn't going on), then they are complicent in it. no.
then where did the money come from?
You must be dense. I say they were not accomplices with any cover-up. If they were not aware of any cover-up then they could not be involved. Apparently you think the Church only has exepenses for cover-ups.
we are talking about millions and millions of dollars.
you can be involved in something and not be aware of it.
and you said "no" to their knowing about it and still giving money anyway.
you can be involved in something and not be aware of it.
But if you aren't aware of a crime and have no reasosn to know there is no accountablity. You helped pay Bill Clinton's salary were you involved in his cover-up?
we are ALL involved in any crime OUR government is involved with.
It pisses me off, but me, you...all Americans were involved in Reagan's team of criminal goons and their crimes conducted in the basement out of site of US.
You support something with your money, than you are involved with what happens with that money. That's the deal...it's something called "taking responsibility". You give money to a church, you should damn well KNOW what they are using it for. Ignorance is no excuse.
This is one of the reasons that the current administrations high levels of secrecy is so troubling.
covering up a blow-job?
I sure hope so.
I don't know what crimes those might be. I see the actions as national security actions.
If you can't accept the fact that Clinton committed crimes there really is no point discussing it with you. You are simply dishonest or a fool. Clinton committed perjury and subornation of perjury to name two crimes. Obstruction of justice by intimidating witnesses and hiding evidence is another.
And it'll be a cold day in hell before he can practice law in Arkansas again.
the problem with liberals is they have no shame.
That's the only problem, jethro? If tha's it we must be pretty good yet.
I would say most liberals have a good heart, they just don't have a good head to control that good heart.
But you said we were shameless. That's not the sign of a good heart.
At least in conservative circles, it seems hearts should be filled with shame.
It's probably more important than hearts filled with love.
the definition of shame being a painful feeling of having lost the respect of others because of improper behavior, incompetence of oneself or another.
Now I still say that liberals have a good heart meaning, specifically, they intend to do good. I think they can still be without shame which is probably due to their lack of a good head on their shoulders.
You think Iran-Contra didn't involve criminal acts?
and you think I'm nuts?
heard of any of these guys?
Robert C. McFarlane: pleaded guilty to four counts of withholding information from Congress;
Oliver L. North: convicted of altering and destroying documents, accepting an illegal gratuity, and aiding and abetting in the obstruction of Congress
John M. Poindexter: convicted of conspiracy, false statements, destruction and removal of records, and obstruction of Congress
Richard V. Secord: pleaded guilty to making false statements to Congress
Albert Hakim: pleaded guilty to supplementing the salary of North
Thomas G. Clines: convicted of four counts of tax-related offenses for failing to report income from the operations
Carl R. Channell: pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States
Richard R. Miller: pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States
Clair E. George: convicted of false statements and perjury before Congress
Duane R. Clarridge: indicted on seven counts of perjury and false statements; pardoned before trial by President Bush
Alan D. Fiers, Jr.: pleaded guilty to withholding information from Congress
Joseph F. Fernandez: indicted on four counts of obstruction and false statements; case dismissed when Attorney General Richard L. Thornburgh refused to declassify information needed for his defense
Elliott Abrams: pleaded guilty to withholding information from Congress
Caspar W. Weinberger: charged with four counts of false statements and perjury; pardoned before trial by President Bush.
....now...where were we...oh yea, lying about getting a blowjob.
well...asking the president if he got a blowjob"
OF COURSEhe got a blowjob! He's the fuckin' PRESIDENT! What kind of question is that? It's a fuckin' GIVEN. But those guys on that list who lied to CONGRESS are good Americans?
Answer for these people before you talk to me about blow jobs anymore.
and now...after being convicted of destroying records, they put him in charge of ALL OF THE ENTIRE COUNTRY'S RECORDS?
but, he apparently has never lied about getting a blow job so it's okay