Taxes are going up , tighten your belts
Posted by Larry (+156) 10 years ago
The Democrats today voted not to accept the extentions of the the tax cuts. This means that all of our taxes will go up. Just because they do not want to compromise with the Republicans. I myself am so fed up with our government I could just throw up. What is wrong with our elected officials. They are all a bunch of big babies and will hurt us all in the end, and i do mean "the end". Larry
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 10 years ago
Don't get your panties in a bundle yet, Larry.

http://thehill.com/homene...-cut-deal-

Here's the key phrase - bolded for ease of reading:

"The non-binding vote of the caucus held during a closed-door meeting puts tremendous pressure on House leaders to win changes to a proposal the White House has presented as a "take it or leave it" package."

Non-binding.

Remember, Larry, there's also a chance that Sen DeMint and various other wingnuts will kill the compromise because they don't get everything they want.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9194) 10 years ago
Just because they do not want to compromise with the Republicans

Well, that is one way to look at it. Or... you could say that the Republicans are holding middle class tax cuts hostage in order to please the rentier class, as the house has ALREADY passed that package, only to see it die in the senate due to filibuster.

I myself am so fed up with our government I could just throw up.

If you voted Republican, you're only getting what you asked for.

[This message has been edited by Bridgier (12/9/2010)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14950) 10 years ago
There are no middle class tax cuts. Only an extension of the current rates.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9194) 10 years ago
Regardless, extension of the middle class rates is being held up contingent upon the giant, deficit creating give-away to the country club set.

As an addendum:
I myself am so fed up with our government I could just throw up.

If you voted democrat, you might be getting what you voted for. It's not quite so clear cut on that side of the fence.

[This message has been edited by Bridgier (12/9/2010)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14950) 10 years ago
Regardless, extension of the middle class rates is being held up contingent upon the giant, deficit creating give-away to the country club set.


Deficits are created by spending too much, not by not taxing one group enough. While raising taxes may help, we really need to implement a 20% government wide cut in spending if we are serious about reducing the deficit. Otherwise its really about both political parties retaining their power, not about doing what is best for the economy.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr (12/9/2010)]
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+17053) 10 years ago
"Larry" must be one of those guys (?) who makes enough money to be concerned about the Democrats not wanting to extend the "Bush tax cuts" for the highest income earners.
Top
supporter
Posted by JCF (+393) 10 years ago
It is painfully obvious that the R's are holding up the extension of the $250,000/year and below tax cuts, in order to DEMAND that the wealthiest among us (them and their friends) get to keep their mammoth 2001 tax cuts. The argument makes sense, in a parallel universe sort of way: tax cuts for the wealthy means a stimulus to the economy ('trickle down'). But they have had this tax rate for nearly 9 years, and what has happened? Huge job losses, economic bubbles, and financial disaster.

I say, let it expire, and see what R's can come up with - make them negotiate across the aisle to get a tax relief package passed. But, we'll see.....

As an aside, the Dems do seem to want to Tax and Spend, unfortunately. More unfortunate however, is that the Repubs want to BORROW and SPEND. We went from a demand for a balanced budget during the election, to now the R's are agreeing to increased spending (extension of unemployment) if only they can pretty please get the tax cut for Paris Hilton, et al.

If this is the best our country can do - a bunch of mealy mouthed pols, out to help themselves and their party first (Mitch McConell just stated recently that his main concern was denying Obama a second term. Shouldn't his concern be getting the economy out the ditch, or fixing the defecit, or hell, anything regarding what is happening with the country????) then maybe we are, sadly enough, at the twilight of our existence.

I don't believe that last line though - America is the greatest country on earth, and I foresee us figuring out this problem, just like we have so many others......and coming out on the top of the heap. It just might be a painful few years of wrestling our way through this current mess.

I will step down off my soap box now.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9194) 10 years ago
I don't believe that last line though - America is the greatest country on earth, and I foresee us figuring out this problem, just like we have so many others......and coming out on the top of the heap

You have far more faith in your fellow elector than I do. Austerity for most is on its way, while the government can't bend over fast enough to give the haves even more. The concept of "shared sacrifice, shared prosperity" is dead. Long live FYIGM.

See also the recommendations from the catfood commission.

[This message has been edited by Bridgier (12/9/2010)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Kelly (+2706) 10 years ago
Nothing will really change until campaign finance laws get a major overhaul.
Top
supporter
Posted by Stone (+1596) 10 years ago
This is the fairest tax ever invented.

"progressive tax, tax that imposes a larger burden (relative to resources) on those who are richer; its opposite, a regressive tax, imposes a lesser burden on the wealthy. Tax progressivity is motivated by a belief that the urgency of spending needs declines as the level of spending increases (economists call this the declining marginal utility of consumption), so that wealthy people can afford to pay a higher fraction of their resources in taxes."
Top
supporter
Posted by Kelly (+2706) 10 years ago
I always thought that the higher tax on the rich was because they had achieved the American Dream (whatever that really is) so it was their duty to help provide for the less fortunate and to help keep the country, in which they succeeded, great. Paying it forward, so to speak.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9194) 10 years ago
http://www.salon.com/news...e_obsolete

The supreme court reformed the campaign finance laws for us.
Top
Posted by korky II (+608) 10 years ago
I don't see the R's stopping the tax extension, they cut a deal with the Prez for everyone to get the benefit of the tax extension. It's the D's that are the ones pitchin a bitch. Maybe they don't like being left out of the deal much like the R's were left out of the Obamacare deal. I think the whole thing is stupid. I don't think anyone in congress really cares. Just like Harry Reid trying to get on-line poker legalized when the rest are arguing over tax extensions. Watching it all is really comical, a little sick, but still funny. You can't stop stupidity, but you can vote it out. 2012 is coming.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9194) 10 years ago
You can't stop stupidity

From the mouths of proles...

[This message has been edited by Bridgier (12/9/2010)]
Top
supporter
Posted by JCF (+393) 10 years ago
Bridgier, you are spot on when you say we have lost the concept of shared sacrifice. Maybe I look back at history through rose colored glasses, but it seems we used to care more about our fellow citizen. No longer do we (or is it "they" - referring to the rich, I guess) ask what we can do for our country, as JFK implored us to do, but just "get all we can." It is disheartening. But I remain hopeful. Because if I didn't, how could I continue? How could I hope to raise my 1 year old son with any sense of duty to his country, with any prospect of a brighter future yet to come? In spite of all evidence, and all odds, hope springs eternal in the human breast. And I still have faith that my son will have a better life than me. Am I Pollyana? maybe. Necessary to maintain sanity? Yes.
Top
Posted by mule train (+1055) 10 years ago
The wife and I make less than $250,000 a year...what about YOU? If I made between $250 and $450...I guess I would be pro R all the way. After all, I wouldn't be rich enough to murder someone and get away with it, More than $500,000 a year, and I would consider myself rich. I wouldn't even care about the extra taxes, because at that salary there would be nothing that I would go without...so who cares at the end of the day if I have 1.5 mil in checking or 1 mil???

Personally, if the rich don't want to help even the field, then I say procreate 'em. If you are rich and willing to help out then you have class, real class. Why would you want to sit in your mansion on the hill and look down at the all the ills that a society of paupers bring? If I were on the other end looking up, I'd want to kill you every day.

Obama, is just another Bill Clinton. The Dems need to fight for this one. Tax the rich. Not too excessively, but pre Bush yearsa would be a good start. Shame on you douches who voted R.
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6165) 10 years ago
I just wish they'd do something so that I can order my Pub 17 from the IRS.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 10 years ago
church
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 10 years ago
The Geo. Dubya tax cuts were in order to get rid of that nasty surplus left by the previous administration. I felt that once the surplus was gone, the tax cuts should have gone with it.
Top
Posted by korky II (+608) 10 years ago
I'm not saying that the R's are right and I'm damn sure not saying that the D's are right. All I know is that our deficit was around 500billion 2 years ago and now it's approaching 14 trillion. Yet congress still insists on spending. You cannot spend yourself out of debt (1st grade math). You have to cut spending, lower taxes on everyone and put people back to work. Our gov't right now is a joke and we've got to change that. Hell, congress can't even decide on whether to decide or not. The whole outfit has an anal cranial inversion. I used to watch SNL for good comedy, now I watch cspan and the news.
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+17053) 10 years ago
korky II wrote:
All I know is that our deficit was around 500billion 2 years ago and now it's approaching 14 trillion.

Oh boy. Korky for president.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 10 years ago
Actually, you have to raise taxes. That's what every legitimate study has shown. Because such a huge percentage of the Federal budget can't be cut, taxes have to rise. And guess what, compared to much of the world, our rich get off easy. They can pay what they paid under St. Ronald of Reagan and that alone would help.
Top
Posted by korky II (+608) 10 years ago
Amorette, You cannot raise taxes during a recession, it will only prolong it. Lower taxes puts more money back into the economy and if congress stops spending it will let businesses see the govt is serious about the economy and the businesses will start doing business again (They are not doing anything right now because they don't know if they are going to get the crap taxed out of them) Consequently they are not hiring and the jobless rate is at 9.8 percent. The more people working the more revenue the feds get even tho we have lower taxes. Say what you want but the math doesn't pencil out to raise taxes right now.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9194) 10 years ago
Business are sitting on record profits. They're not spending because nobody's buying. Giving rentiers more cash isn't going to change that situation, because they've already got money for yachts and whatnot. If the R's were serious about the economy, they'd pass the middle-class extension, because that's money that will get spent, stimulating the economy.

I'd rather listen to economists with doctorates, then 1st grade mathematicians. To each their own, I guess...

[This message has been edited by Bridgier (12/9/2010)]
Top
Posted by Elizabeth Emilsson (+797) 10 years ago
The average worker's tax break did not change much when the Bush tax cut went into effecdt ten years ago. Letting the tax cut run out will not effect many of us. Unfortunatly, the move by the Democrats, (and I applaud them for their stand) will mean that the compromise which extended unemployment benfits will not go in effect. I tell you, Jane, it's always something.
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17321) 10 years ago
I, personally, am ready to give the Republicans the benefit of the doubt....which is why I support reverting back to the 1950s tax brackets that were under the Eisenhower-R administration.

A nice Republican lady recently wrote a letter to the local paper stating that our country would be a better place if we just returned to our country's 1950s morals, values, and way of life. I agree completely. The first step is roll back the tax structure to, say 1955.
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6165) 10 years ago
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14950) 10 years ago
Actually, you have to raise taxes. That's what every legitimate study has shown. Because such a huge percentage of the Federal budget can't be cut, taxes have to rise.


The assumption that federal spending can't be cut is absurd. There are many places that we can cut spending. You can take 100% of everything those over 250K make and you will still have a deficit. Deficits are caused by spending too much, not by not taxing people enough.
Top
Posted by Larry (+156) 10 years ago
David, for your info, i work at a radio station and you would be suprised what i made this year. I wont say it here, but if you really want to know what my income was, call me at kyus 234-5626. I am not a rich man or do i make that much. My health insurance by the way rose to above my income this year. Thanks to the markes group, i only pay a portion of that. So taxes are a big thing with me and lots of other people in Miles City that work hard to make ends meet. Larry
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9194) 10 years ago
I asked this in another thread, but it applies here as well Larry - Did you vote Republican this year? Then you got what you voted for.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 10 years ago
IF the tax cuts for the wealthy are so good for the economy, how come the economy is in the toilet and we have had the tax cuts for years?
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14950) 10 years ago
Repeat after me...

Deficits are caused by spending too much, not by not taxing people enough.

again...

Deficits are caused by spending too much, not by not taxing people enough.

again...

Deficits are caused by spending too much, not by not taxing people enough.

Increase taxes if you must... but the real solution is cutting spending.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 10 years ago
Both have to be done to get out of the current mess.

Repeat after me:

Both have to be done to get out of the current mess.

Both have to be done to get out of the current mess.
Top
supporter
Posted by Kelly (+2706) 10 years ago
Can we all agree that we will never balance the budget until our bloated defence spending is cut?
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+17053) 10 years ago
I'm with Richard. We should eliminate taxes to solve our defecit problem.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14950) 10 years ago
Can we all agree that we will never balance the budget until our bloated defence spending is cut?


Absolutely! We should bring our troops home now from around the world and end our interventionist policies.

I'm with Richard. We should eliminate taxes to solve our defecit problem.


I never said that nor am I advocating that position. We need lots of tax payers, as many as we can get. Go ahead a raise taxes if that solves the problem. But until we cut spending, we always have a deficit.

We really need to quit taxing income and start taxing sales.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr (12/10/2010)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9194) 10 years ago
I know that Stone has a bit of a man-crush on David Sarota, but for my money, no one's better on this stuff than Matt Taibbi (probably because he writes for the rolling stone and has permission, nay obligation, to use the procreate-word in his columns)

http://www.rollingstone.c...9443/83512

Let's be clear about what's going on here. Social Security was never the cause of the nation's debt problems. This issue dates all the way back to the Eighties, when Ronald Reagan hired Alan Greenspan to chair the National Commission on Social Security Reform, ostensibly to deal with a looming shortfall in the fund. Greenspan's solution was to hike Social Security tax rates (they went from 9.35% in 1981 to 15.3% in 1990) and build up a "surplus" that could be used to pay Baby Boomers their social security checks 30 years down the road.

They raised the SS taxes all right, but they didn't save the money for any old Baby Boomers in the 2000s. Instead, Reagan blew that money paying for eight years of deficit spending and tax cuts. Three presidents after him used the same trick. They used about $1.69 trillion in extra Social Security revenue (from the Greenspan hikes) to pay for current-day goodies, with the still-being-debated Bush tax cuts being a great example. This led to the infamous moment during Bush's presidency when Paul O'Neill announced that the Social Security Trust Fund had no assets.

Well, duh! That is what happens to a fund, when you spend 30 years robbing it to pay for tax cuts for Jamie Dimon and Lloyd Blankfein. It will tend to get empty. But of course this wasn't presented to the public as being the consequence of too many handouts to wealthy campaign contributors: this was presented as a problem of those needy goddamned old people wanting to retire too early and being just far too greedy when it came to actually wanting their Social Security benefits paid out.

...

But if all that money is just going into a big pile to be stolen by a long line of presidents who are using it to pay for things like pointless wars and income tax cuts for their rich buddies, the Social Security cap means that this stealth government revenue source disproportionately comes from middle class taxpayers. Add in the fact that the proposed solution to the budget problem now is cutting Social Security benefits, and what you get is a double-screwing of middle-class taxpayers: first they see their Social Security taxes used to fund tax cuts for the wealthy, and then they see cuts to their benefits to pay for the fallout from that robbery.


We're getting robbed by the Money Party, the same people that point at the Dow Index and say "isn't the economy great, now get the procreate out of my new investment property", all the while cheered on by peasants, rubes and toadies.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 10 years ago
Is Rickenhawk:

(a) A Peasant
(b) A Rube
(c) A Toady
(d) All of the above
Top
supporter
Posted by Stone (+1596) 10 years ago
Bridgier, you have a better ass than Sirota. However, I agree with you most triumphantly.

You could not have said it better.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 10 years ago
Repeat after me...

Deficits are caused by spending too much, not by not taxing people enough


They raised the SS taxes all right, but they didn't save the money for any old Baby Boomers in the 2000s. Instead, Reagan blew that money paying for eight years of deficit spending and tax cuts. Three presidents after him used the same trick.


Good to see Bridgier and Richard on the same page for once.

That said, like most Progressive types we hear from on here, Bridgier's friend Matt seems to live under the same misconception that we live under a Constitutional Monarchy, leading me to wonder... why do we pay all these Congress people? And why did King Clinton single-handedly shut down the government in 1995?
Top
supporter
Posted by Kelly (+2706) 10 years ago
And why did King Clinton single-handedly shut down the government in 1995?


But Newt the Grinch didn't have ANYTHING to do with that, did he?

[This message has been edited by Kelly (12/12/2010)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 10 years ago
Now we're getting somewhere
Top
Posted by Bruce Helland (+586) 10 years ago
Tell me where we are going, Rick. Like to hear your direction(s)..
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 10 years ago
Sure, Bruce. I'll draw you a map

Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 10 years ago
Please provide us with your insane interpretation of that graph.
Top
Posted by Forsyth Mike (+475) 10 years ago
I don't think it really matters who is in power, we are screwed either way.

1. People want all these government services.

2. Everything keeps getting more expensive.

3. Nobody wants their taxes raised, in fact people want them lowered.

4. But nobody wants to cut any services or programs.

Add these up. Result = we're screwed.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9194) 10 years ago
Can we add the # of pirates worldwide into that graph as well? Common sense tells me that there must be a easily intuited correlation from any graph that includes the "Normalized Worldwide Pirate Index". Given this, I think it would be reasonable to label any such graph as "Bridgier's Law".

Thank you for your consideration.
Top
Posted by Steve Allison (+981) 10 years ago
What I see in that graph is that since the '80s, the middle class have been shouldering the majority of the tax burden as the top rate, payed by the supper rich, have been paying less and less. Once again the powers that be are making sure supper-rich are keeping an advantage as they, the supper-rich, take advantage of everyone else.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 10 years ago
Rick sucks.

[This message has been edited by Buck Showalter (12/13/2010)]
Top
Posted by Brandy Joyner (+8) 10 years ago
It does not matter what the super rich pay in taxes, all they have to do to keep control is print more than they charge themselves in taxes. Watch INFOWARS and you people would not be argueing over these issues. Listen to Ron Paul and, and accept that he is the only horse in this race that is not in the lobbist pocket. Think about this, Why were both barack obama,and john mccains campaigns financesed by the same group. To assure that group that they get to continue makeing the rues for another 4 years. This group has only lost control once in recent memory, with the election of john kennedy. But they solved that problem.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 10 years ago
Peasant
Rube
Toady
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9194) 10 years ago
I fear we may need a new category:

d) batpoop insane.

[This message has been edited by Bridgier (12/14/2010)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6165) 10 years ago
Is batpoop insane a worse category than apepoop insane? I'd vote Brandy queen of apepoop insane.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 10 years ago
Don't forget the Illuminati!
Top
Posted by Forsyth Mike (+475) 10 years ago
I do think it's kind of funny how the Democrats keep griping about the Republicans "and their wealthy friends," as if there are no wealthy Democrats. You can bet THOSE Dems would like to see the cuts extended!
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 10 years ago
Mike is also a rube.
Top
Posted by Bruce Helland (+586) 10 years ago
If I believe the lobbists are calling the shots does that make me a rube? or maybe a pirate? I'd like to be a pirate....
Top
supporter
Posted by Stone (+1596) 10 years ago
Top 5 Problems with the Tax Deal

"Problem #1: The deal is a stealth attack on Social Security.
The deal will lower the payroll tax-the tax that funds the Social Security trust. This is a trap for Democrats. Republicans have been coming after Social Security for years and this cut is the biggest threat to the vital program in decades. It will cut one-third of Social Security's funding this year alone and when we need to restore the payroll tax back to its current level, Republicans will cry "tax increases" and could gut it permanently.

Problem #2: For nearly one in three workers, it's a tax increase.
Nearly 50 million working Americans-including all workers making less than $20,000 per year-and millions of federal, state, and municipal workers will see their taxes go up because of the deal.

Problem #3: The deal has not one but TWO millionaire bailouts.
In addition to extending all the Bush income tax breaks for the top 2%, the deal will slash the estate tax. If Congress did nothing, next year the estate tax would be 55% and apply to everyone inheriting $1 million or more. But the deal reduces it to 35% and only people who inherit more than $5 million will have to pay. This second bailout will give a gigantic tax giveaway to a few thousand of the richest families in the country and add hundreds of billions to the national debt.

Problem #4: Unemployment help is insufficient and inadequate.
While the deal extends unemployment benefits for another 13 months for people currently receiving it, millions of unemployed workers who've struggled the most and been out of work more than 99 weeks-since the giant Wall Street banks wrecked the economy-will get no help at all under the deal.4 It's a gamble that there will be jobs in the next 13 months when the insurance runs out, but the tax cuts will go well beyond that. Better to just pass a stand-alone unemployment extension to help all struggling Americans.

Problem #5: Tax giveaways to the rich are a terrible way to create jobs.

Tax breaks for the rich are the least efficient way to create jobs and help the economy grow. In fact the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says extending all tax cuts would lower unemployment only 0.1% to 0.3% over the next year5 and that the cost of the tax deal would be $900 billion over the next five years."
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17321) 10 years ago
Preachin' to the choir here, Stone.

The Obama-Republican deal is a poor idea.

I am more than happy to watch my tax bill go up $5000, if it means that that will help reduce the deficit.

After all, we are at war. Its not like WWII, when we had to ration our sugar, gas, etc.

Its time to suffer, people. We are at war.

And if the unemployed lose their extra 2 years of benefits, then maybe we can hire them to be "Rosy the Riviter" types, to support the war. And everyone else who is working on antiquated defense system stuff funded by pork barrel politics can join them.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14950) 10 years ago
Problem #6 or #1 if you ask me, anything that could ever be accomplished by maintaining the current tax rate is wiped out with all of the new spending. Extending unemployment benefits is fine, but this thing is loaded with so much additional pork.

The reckless spending has to stop.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 10 years ago
Ah Bridgier. If I didn't know that you were more interested in a fight than a discussion, I'd bother to elaborate.

You can look up Hauser's law if you want. If you'd like to discuss it based on substance rather than circling the wagons, fire away.

Stone, that's another pretty big load you posted. Any evidence any of it is true?

I'm confused about raising taxes on the poorest. The Bush tax cuts introduced the 10% tax rate. Without the deal, that bracket goes away, putting all those people back in the 15% bracket.

So if you're in the lowest tax-paying bracket, your tax bill goes up 50% overnight if nothing is done. Now explain to me how specifically does this deal increase taxes on people who would otherwise be forced to pay 50% more than they did in 2010?
Top
supporter
Posted by Stone (+1596) 10 years ago
Everything is true Rick.

"At a time when right-wing extremists were trying to make the case that the health care reform bill was a government takeover plot, Fox News incorporated politically charged language into its day-to-day reporting to mislead its audience into thinking the public option was something that it wasn't.

Fox News' policy is to drive a political agenda and systematically influence its audience's views.

Leaked e-mail messages show that at the height of the health care reform debate last fall, Bill Sammon, Fox News' Washington managing editor, sent a memo directing his network's journalists not to use the phrase "public option," according to Ben Dimiero at Media Matters.

Sammon directed Fox's reporters to use "government option" and similar phrases-wording that a top Republican pollster had recommended to portray the Democrats' reform effort as a "government takeover."

What's more, Dimiero writes:
Sources familiar with the situation in Fox's Washington bureau have told Media Matters that Sammon uses his position as managing editor to "slant" Fox's supposedly neutral news coverage to the right. Sammon's "government option" e-mail is the clearest evidence yet that Sammon is aggressively pushing Fox's reporting to the right-in this case by issuing written orders to his staff.

In October, shareholders of News Corp.-the media company owned by Rupert Murdoch and the operator of Fox News-complained that the company gave $1 million to the Republican Governors Association. Several weeks later, it donated another $1 million to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The campaign will use social media, videos, paid advertising and ground events across the country to get the truth heard amidst the din from Fox, loudmouthed TV and radio talkers and their orchestrated attacks incorrectly blaming public employees for the financial crises cities and states are facing."
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9194) 10 years ago
You can look up Hauser's law if you want. If you'd like to discuss it based on substance rather than circling the wagons, fire away.

There's nothing of substance to argue. It's two variables that may or may not be linked, but who knows? Is the top rate the only tax bracket? Are these the only entities paying taxes? Post Hoc Ergo Procter Hoc, and it's tax cuts as some sort of cult religion.
Top