Love the post, means she has no chance of a rebound should a significant name come out. Thanks Mary for not 'sainting' this person. I look foreward to your continuing this same line after her source is revealed. Thanks for the cover!
Posted by peter at July 3, 2005 04:16 AMIt is Time Magazine, not 'the Times,' which has turned over Matt Cooper's notes and emails.
Posted by Misplaced Patriot at July 3, 2005 04:54 AMHome detention? She should be put in a real prison along with Novak, Cooper, Rove, (if he is the one who provided the Plame name) anyone else involved in this Refusing to lie to give the prosecution what they wanted, is one thing, but outing an CIA agent is quite another. Let this be a lesson for the media. You are not above the law.
Posted by Judith at July 3, 2005 05:10 AMWhat happened to my periods???
Posted by Judith at July 3, 2005 05:12 AMKen Starr was an "Inspector Javert" when it came to his attacks and pursuit of anyone who might even be mentioned in the same breath as either Bill or Hillary, or anyone associated with them. Poor Susan McDougal unfortunately fell in this latter category. SHE deserves to "sainted," not the despicable Judith Miller. How in any God's name she STILL is allowed to use the valuable space at the NYTimes is beyond me; it is well past incompetence by the NYT's management and borders on treason.
Why would this judge decide to have Miller and Cooper in jail for only four months, when the statute calls for 18 months? Are their refusals any less damaging to our country than those of Susan McDougal? There was no "there" there in Ken Starr's savage pursuit of McDougal; IF Miller and Cooper were used by the White House "senior officals" to commit the crime of outing an undercover CIA spy, that is a serious breach of our national security and could cost many lives (and may have already done so).
So, why do Miller and Cooper get off so lightly?
Posted by Analytical Liberal at July 3, 2005 05:18 AMWhy do Miller and Cooper get off so easy? Remember who owns their employers, and what their political affiliations are. It would be good management practice to take care of those minions who have served well and can serve again in the future. To do otherwise would require years of grooming and training of replacements before experience takes hold. That would be a bad management practice - inefficient utilization of assets.
Posted by pessimist at July 3, 2005 06:07 AMJudith--
I don't know. Menopause, maybe? But I don't think that discussion belongs on this thread.
What happened to my periods???
If you've ever read anything from a student in Ecuador -and possibly you have-, you would know periods, and sometimes punctuation, are optional in some countries. I don't see what's wrong with your sentence. Of course, I enjoy reading stuff Churchill wrote, but even the best here consistently take it in the shorts regarding grammar, syntax and punctuation. Great practice this blogging thing, though. No spell check, and on occaision you get to think, "Why the hell did I do that?"
BTW: How are the ligaments?
Posted by phidipides at July 3, 2005 07:02 AMIF they had stole money instead of acting on principle, they wouldn't have a problem. Here is one more example:
VOTE ALERT: 28 Dems block crackdown on corporate tax evaders
http://www.workingforchange.com/blog/
Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D) last night offered her legislation to ban government contracts from going to companies that abuse offshore tax loopholes and evade U.S. taxes. In 2002, DeLauro actually passed this legislation as part of the bill creating the Department of Homeland Security, as Democrats stayed unified, and Republicans capitulated (unfortunately, it was later removed in the final bill). This year, however, 28 Democrats sold out to Corporate America, and helped defeat the legislation outright.
That's right, when DeLauro offered her legislation this time around, she attracted 20 Republican votes - plenty to pass the legislation if her own party had stood up and done the right thing. However, 28 Democrats voted against the legislation, siding with the companies that have the nerve to openly abuse tax loopholes. These companies want to be able to get fat off government contracts, even though they are ripping off U.S. taxpayers at a time of war and record deficits. Yet, instead of prohibiting those contracts from going to these unpatriotic companies, 28 Democrats joined with 203 Republicans to sell out and say bilking America is A.O.K.
This is why Democrats have NO credibility, can't win elections, and are interferring with Dr. Dean's ability to raise money. If one of these Ds belong to you, you need to cream them, Pelosi and Reid. We need to take our Party back so we CAN take our country back. A crook is a crook - D or R.
These companies want to be able to get fat off government contracts, even though they are ripping off U.S. taxpayers at a time of war and record deficits.
And most in congress would have sex with their dead grandmothers, if a there was a lobby passing out money for it.
Posted by phidipides at July 3, 2005 07:37 AMLOL I knew I should have immediately gone back in and posted an explanation. Sure let myself open for that one.
Posted by Judith at July 3, 2005 08:06 AMPhidipides, my leg is out of the big ugly black boot as of a week ago. Progress is too slow for me, but it will just take time. Thanks for asking. Also, thanks for your post. In reality, my grammer leaves a lot to be desired, but that doesn't stop me from posting.
Posted by Judith at July 3, 2005 08:14 AMDon't you just love the president, with that sincere phony look on his face saying, "well, if there is someone who leaked the information in this WH, I want to know who it is". You f**king bastard.
Now Newsweek has said the Rove is the leaker.
Posted by Judith at July 3, 2005 08:26 AMLOL I don't know if anyone caught this, but on The McLaughlin Group this morning they were talking about Rove outing Plame. Then McLaughlin abruptly changed the subject by asking would Bush "let the lovely lady go to jail." In the background I heard O'Donnell say "which lady" (meaning Rove or Miller.) The answer to our questions about Jeffy Gannon and a WH love interest may have just been answered.
Posted by Judith at July 3, 2005 10:00 AMCapD stole my line! That was funny, Judith.
So, the Kool Kids are angling for the comfy chair/soft cushion approach: confess, Confess, CONFESS! I'm sure their courage and resolve will be sorely tested.
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Right wing lies?
What's the surprise? The entire "progressive" movement is built on a foundation of lies.
Example....
We are constantly told by the left that the poor pay a higher share of their earnings in income tax. This is a blatant lie.
First, the poor pay ZERO income taxes. Second, if you want to call SS taxes an income tax, here is another point for you lefties to ponder.
The earned income tax credit was begun for the express purpose of removing the burden of FICA taxes (payroll taxes) from the working poor. As a result, millions of low income people pay ZERO INCOME TAXES, and on top of that, they get ALL OF their FICA tax returned, AND THEN SOME.
Yet, the progressives continue to state that the poor carry an unfair burden of taxation. A lie. The poor do NOT CARRY ANY burden of income taxation.
The reason the poor did not get an income tax cut, is that THEY DON'T PAY INCOME TAXES. When your entire philosophy is built on a lie, it's hard to respect your opinion on the prosecution of Karl Rove.
Can we be honest for a change? C'mon.
Posted by Bones at July 3, 2005 12:05 PMCan we be honest for a change?
Since you brought the topic up, we'll let you lead.
Posted by pessimist at July 3, 2005 01:02 PMWe are constantly told by the left that the poor pay a higher share of their earnings in income tax. This is a blatant lie.
no, we're told that the poor pay a higher share of their earnings in taxes. in fact, most people pay more in FICA than in income taxes. that's why your masters will never cut the fica tax and prefer consumption taxes et al so the poor can pay taxes on everything they've got.
can we be honest here? (cough* mass murder *cough * war profiteering *cough * shortchanging the VA *cough * spit *)
Posted by benjoya at July 3, 2005 01:07 PMBones,
Try this on for size. The poor lose the most when the rich get more and more tax cuts. Have you ever seen the public schools in San Pablo California? I didn't think so. They would be a disgace if they were in a third world country. I'll bet your republican masters still send thier children to first class schools. Do you care? I didn't think so.
Ben,
Yes, I understand that the poor pay a higher percentage of their income in FICA than in federal income taxes.
That is sort of like saying the sky is blue. We already know that.
You incorrectly state why "they" will never cut the FICA tax. The true reason is that Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid is already headed over the cliff into the abyss starting in just over a decade, as the baby boomers start retiring en masse.
Your last statement is nonsense. The poor in America pay ZERO INCOME TAX.
Oaklander,
You say the poor lose when the rich get income tax cuts. How? The poor don't PAY INCOME TAX NOW. What are they losing? You can't give them a tax cut when they are paying NO INCOME TAXES NOW.
How is this not clear to you?
Posted by Bones at July 3, 2005 01:55 PMBones,
The truth is that this system of Capatilism as we know it does an excellent job of creating wealth, but a horrendous job of distributing it. These data suggest that wealth is concentrated in the hands of a small number of families. The wealthiest 1 percent of families owns roughly 39 percent of total net wealth, the top 10% of families owns over 72%, and the bottom 40% of the population owns less than 1%. Cut and paste this:
http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so11/stratification/income&wealth.htm
That's the issue, not income taxes.
You state that us "lefties" build our arguements on lies! Your example is pathetic....it's off the screen in terms of "leftist" issues.
Who's lying about the environment?........Bush and his crazies, that's who.
Who's lying about the war?..........Bush
Who's lying about education being a serious topic looking for serious solutions?......Bush
Who's lying about the important issues facing all of us in the present day?.........the Reublicans who constantly force false, diversionary and divisive issues onto the media and the public so they can continue to plunder and rob to satisfy their rich contributors.
Get your head out of your ass!
Posted by SirRobin at July 3, 2005 02:21 PM
Bones: Even Republican Chuck Hagel knows Democrats are more honest. Here's an interview from the NY Times Magazine conducted today.
Interviewer:
On the other hand, with our deficit now exceeding $400 billion, aren't we sort of out of money?
Chuck Hagel:
In terms of the deficit, we have blown the top right off. We're a bunch of Democrats.
Interviewer:
I've never heard anyone call President Bush a Democrat.
Chuck Hagel:
That's my point. We're less honest about it. We built the biggest government history has ever seen under a Republican government. The Democrats are better because they are honest about it. They don't pretend. I admire that. They'll say: ''We want more money. We need more money.''
bones is right, most people who are poor have figured out how to game the system so they can screw the man. Most likely choose to be poor so they don't have to pay income taxes. Come to think of it now that bones has pointed this out, I am going to quit my college educated professional job and work at Wal-Mart on purpose just so I won't have to pay income taxes...that will show people won't it.
You are pathetic bones, when you grow up do you also wish and hope that you'll be addicted to pain killers? Never mind, your thought processes noted here already reveal the answer to that question.
Posted by emal at July 3, 2005 02:35 PMYes, I understand that the poor pay a higher percentage of their income in FICA than in federal income taxes.
it's not just the poor; a majority of americans pay more fica than income taxes. and sales taxes are levied on everyone. there are taxes other than INCOME TAXES, all caps or no.
Posted by benjoya at July 3, 2005 03:02 PMA Whole New Perspective on Miller's Claim to a 'Reporter's Privilege'
Everyone knows how Judith Miller's partisans repeatedly have invoked the 'reporter's privilege' and wagged their warning finger in the public's face about how dangerous it would be to the First Amendment if reporters are expected to answer grand jury subpoenas.
But all of that is premised on the assumption that Miller must have been working as a reporter and investigating the story, even though she never actually wrote a word about Plame for the New York Times.
But that's merely an assumption. What if, instead, Judith Miller was working as an informant for her White House sources? What if she wasn't seeking information from them but giving information to them?
Such heretical thoughts are inspired by Needlenose, who writes, "In... doing some hard-digging research on the Plame investigation today.... I stumbled across this tidbit in the Washington Post in mid-February about exactly why Judith Miller is being ordered to testify to the grand jury...:
"According to the appellate court's opinion, Fitzgerald knows the identity of the person with whom Miller spoke and wants to question her about her contact with that 'specified government official' on or about July 6, 2003. Miller never wrote a story on the subject."
As Needlenose points out:
July 6 is the date that Joseph Wilson officially went public with his story about ignored intelligence about Iraq, embarrassing the White House with a New York Times op-ed column and an appearance on Meet the Press. If Miller talked to Rove, Libby, or someone else about Plame the same day, either the smear campaign against Wilson started immediately ... or Miller was volunteering information she'd learned on her beat covering 'weapons of mass destruction' (the same subject Plame worked on for the CIA).So, tell me. Do you suppose Judith Miller's notion of a "reporter's privilege" includes absolute immunity from testifying even if the reporter was in actuality an undercover spy for the Administration in power?
Would she sink so low as to hide behind the well-meaning First Amendment arguments of journalist colleagues who want to unmask Government cover-ups, to hide her own complicity as a conspirator who is assisting a Government cover-up?
Would the editors of the New York Times countenance defending Judith Miller if they knew she was working for the Bush Administration while drawing her salary from the Times?
Would the reading public ever trust the Times again if they couldn't be sure which of their reporters were "real" and which ones were little Kim Philbys in the disguise of a reporter?
Just who is undermining First Amendment interests here? A prosecutor seeking the truth or the Times which is protecting a co-conspirator with the Bush Administration?
Posted by larre at July 3, 2005 03:32 PMI was hoping to have an adult response on the subject of poor & income tax. Instead I got four personal attacks.....sigh...
Here is another example of the horrendous logic of the lefties....
Let's take an example of a typical "poor" family in America. Let's say the Dad works full time & Mom works part time at low wages & they earn $20,000 in a year.
Let's say the income tax withheld is $2000 (would it be that much?) and let's say the FICA withheld is $1400.
Now, tax time comes. With their exemptions & tax credits, they get a refund of say $3500.
This is more than they paid in both income taxes and FICA. Now what nonsense it is to lecture me that they are paying MORE FICA than income taxes.
The fact is they are paying ZERO FICA and ZERO federal income taxes. And we havn't even mentioned the food stamps they qualify for, or the low income housing, or the .......
This is why your argument doesn't hold water. You claim the poor are paying taxes they simply ARE NOT paying.
Calling me names doesn't make your lies turn into truths. If one of you has an example of a 'poor' person who you believe is paying taxes, I'd like to see it. We can work through a 1040 form and see how the chips fall. But please, no more "feel good" blather.
Posted by Bones at July 3, 2005 04:42 PMBones, hijacking a thread to attack "lefties" isn't precisely going to get you blown kisses.
Have you read Nickel and Dimed? Have you actually lived this sort of life??
Posted by Paul at July 3, 2005 08:11 PMBones.
Hijacking is a good word for it. I noticed that rather than answer my points on the lower thread "One down, four to go" you instead came here. Do you expect us to live down the the sterotype of the wimpy liberal that won't fight back? Well, your going to find that that creature, if it exists at all outside the beltway, isn't here on the internet.
Posted by sage at July 3, 2005 08:53 PMPaul & Sage,
You aren't saying anything. Kids in elementary school can call names.
Let's move it up a notch. I'm telling you flat out, poor people in America DO NOT pay federal incomet taxes.
You have offered exactly nothing to refute that.
Posted by Bones at July 3, 2005 09:54 PMI read McDougal's book! Very interesting and sobering.
Posted by Darryl Pearce at July 3, 2005 10:03 PM*“I was hoping to have an adult response on the subject of poor & income tax.”
Why? Have I missed the general trend of this thread? This thread, as some others in which you raise the same subject (over and over again, and no matter what is being discussed), is called Aggressive Prosecutors—quite a bloody departure from the poor & income tax. Haven’t you heard of “Staying the course” somewhere?
*“Instead I got four personal attacks.....sigh...”
You also seem to sigh a lot. Are you sure you can’t find some other blog more in tune with your thinking that could keep your pitiable sighs in cheek? I see…you must be a glutton for punishment. Well, if thus the case…
*“Here is another example of the horrendous logic of the lefties....”
Anything beats the horrendous logic of the neo-cons (any day and no matter what).
*“Let's take an example of a typical "poor" family in America. Let's say the Dad works full time & Mom works part time at low wages & they earn $20,000 in a year.”
I suppose that the reason for putting quotation marks in “poor” is because you don’t believe that your example of a typical ”poor” family should be called poor per se. Anyway, sadly you could get a whole bunch of families doing precisely that—Dad working full time & Mom part time at low wages—only to see at the end of the year that they’d managed to make the whooping sum of $20,000.
Have you tried to live (let’s only say 3 in your “typical poor family”, Dad, Mom and 1 child), to pay rent (or mortgage), pay utilities, pay child-care, pay gas (for transportation) and, let’s not forget, eat enough to survive, on $20,000 a year? How much do you think these “typical poor families” should have left to pay taxes? Should they, also, ensure that they buy medical coverage? How?
*“Let's say the income tax withheld is $2000 (would it be that much?) and let's say the FICA withheld is $1400.”
Let’s say you try to stick to whatever the theme of the threads happen to address.
*“Now, tax time comes. With their exemptions & tax credits, they get a refund of say $3500. This is more than they paid in both income taxes and FICA. Now what nonsense it is to lecture me that they are paying MORE FICA than income taxes.”
And, besides you, who gives a shit if these “typical ‘poor’ families” of yours get more than they paid in both, income taxes and FICA? Well, I guess you’ll rather see that whatever you pay in taxes goes to better ends—another billion or two to keep the war in Iraq going?
*“The fact is they are paying ZERO FICA and ZERO federal income taxes. And we havn't even mentioned the food stamps they qualify for, or the low income housing, or the.…”
I know of plenty of your “typical ‘poor’ families” who must be in limbo (or some other bloody something) because, besides receiving food stamps for their kids, they don’t get any of these other benefits you mention. Who knows, perhaps they are so busy trying to make ends meet that they don’t have the time to look into these bennies… Hum, or the desire to try to make it on their own, somewhat? A bit of pride perhaps?
*“This is why your argument doesn't hold water. You claim the poor are paying taxes they simply ARE NOT paying.”
Again, WHO GIVES A SHIT.
*“Calling me names doesn't make your lies turn into truths.”
True, but it does give some sort of warm feeling… I know, us lefties are rotten to the core…
*“If one of you has an example of a 'poor' person who you believe is paying taxes, I'd like to see it. We can work through a 1040 form and see how the chips fall.”
This is the second or third time that you volunteer to work through a bloody 1040. Are you an out of work CPA pissed off because the IRS hasn’t hired you?
*“But please, no more "feel good" blather.”
Well…
Paz
P.S. Just in case. I do pay taxes and, luckily for me, in healthy amounts.
My first thoughts on Schumer's comment yesterday was to think back to the LBJ tale. LBJ told an operative to put out a story that his opponent had sex with barnyard animals. The operative said, "but there's no proof to that." To which LBJ replied, "I know. I just want to hear him deny it."
But thinking on it a bit, I think it's a good strategy. If he's innocent, let him make a public statement and clear his name. That sure screwed Clinton. I would just add to that subtle call for public disclosure, that he also release the specific reporters from their confidentiality agreement.
Schumer and the Democrats can afford to soft play this for awhile. As Josh Marshall pointed out, if Fitzgerald didn't have a strong reason to believe that serious crimes were committed and the only way to get a slam dunk conviction was to demand that Miller and Cooper, I doubt he'd have gone to those lengths.
I'd be happy to see this play out to indictments starting in October, trials in January, and convictions in March. It would make great fodder for the midterms.
Posted by Dick Tuck at July 4, 2005 05:46 AMPaul & Sage,
You aren't saying anything. Kids in elementary school can call names.
Let's move it up a notch. I'm telling you flat out, poor people in America DO NOT pay federal incomet taxes.
You have offered exactly nothing to refute that.
Paul this is the way the left behave. They are mentally challenged and America has noticed. They can't get a dog catcher elected. You have a board moderator Steve who i believe is a closet Homo and takes it up the Ass. You have Mary the baby killer who always writes about how many soldiers are dead yet approx 1,000 babies murdered a day means nothing to her. What a wackjob. Phidipeepee - beware, he has personality disorders and posts frequently under different names...Ali to name one. Judith needs new meds and a HS GED might help. Remember, these are mentally challenged cockroaches you're dealing with. Treat them accordingly.
King Chevy
Dem Killer
Memo to Steve, Mary and Phidipides:
I want to thank Chevy for putting my name in the same group with you guys. What a compliment. To be singled out by Chevy for immature and childish insults is the highest compliment we could receive.
Posted by Judith at July 4, 2005 07:01 AM"highest compliment we could receive" from the far-right wacko children.
Posted by Judith at July 4, 2005 07:07 AMI think the poor also get a reduced rate on all utility services. Maybe they're even free. Can't recall exactly. Other than Cable TV, anyways.
The goal of capitalism isn't to distribute wealth, by the way. I bristled at that comment above. Capitalism basically provides everyone the opportunity to be successful.
It's a personal choice in America.
Posted by muckdog at July 4, 2005 09:11 AMI was hoping to have an adult response on the subject of poor & income tax.
Jesus F. Christ. What a dumbshit! Why don't you go see the tax rates, tables, and information? You do know what a tax table is? Damn, you are a piece of work! Everthing...and I mean EVERYTHING...in your initial post is wrong. Absolutely wrong! YOU DON"T DESERVE A RESPONSE. But I will, for fun.
Lets get to the heart of your comments. "The poor have it easy and they are soaking the Federal Budget." Cool! Now we know.
Now, explain the $1 trillion dollars in corporate welfare this year alone, and the $460 billion it will take to pay the interest, just the interest, on the federal dept you morons ran up. These combined cover the cost of the Defense Dept. and all the social programs with a bunch of money to spare. Ain't you people special.
Posted by phidipides at July 4, 2005 09:19 AMBack to the topic of this thread:
The delicious aspect of this entire story, and I don't care what happens to Miller, is that Karl Rove is the guy who outed Plame. Lovely!
Posted by phidipides at July 4, 2005 09:30 AMI think the poor also get a reduced rate on all utility services. Maybe they're even free. Can't recall exactly. Other than Cable TV, anyways.
Where?
Here, we just got a rate increase so that corporations can get a rate decrease.
Posted by phidipides at July 4, 2005 09:36 AMAnd while I'm shredding:
This is what Entergy's CEO reports from analyses of their economically poor utility consumer shows.
But while our low-income and working poor customers are pretty much like the rest of us, there is one big difference. As their advocates put it, their "energy burden" is often three or four times what it is for the middle-income household. They have to spend as much as 20 percent of their monthly income on utilities, compared to 4 or 5 percent for the national average household.
And he notes these realities about their economically poor customers:
Too many of them scrimp on food, drugs, and healthcare in order to keep the lights and gas on.
They have jobs -often two of them that both pay minimum wage.
They often are elderly, living on fixed incomes in homes that are old, leaky, and substandard, with inefficient appliances and heating systems.
They don't have paid lobbyists to champion their cause or seek changes in laws to improve their lot.
They have big hearts. They try to help their neighbors. Despite poverty, they contribute to others.
They are loyal customers, rarely complain, and almost never call our phone centers or seek special service or attention.
They give us high customer satisfaction scores.
And I think I will share some of the myths the CEO of Entergy addresses:
"Welfare reform is working since the public assistance rolls are dropping." That notion is highly debatable. The best that can be said, in my mind, is that welfare reform has transferred people off the welfare roles to the ranks of the working poor. In our area, the needs have not diminished, and the truly needy still are making wrenching decisions about whether to buy food or medicine or pay their utility bill.
"Benefits are generous and widely available to deserving poor people." A recent survey asking Americans how much money they believe welfare recipients receive per month, showed that most think benefits are staggeringly higher than those actually paid. In other words, Americans believe welfare recipients get enough taxpayer money to live by standards most of us take for granted. As for being "deserving," I know of very few people who choose to be poor, and there are members of the clergy who took a vow of poverty. No one inherently "deserves" to be penniless, so it's hard for me to think of any poor person as more "deserving" than another.
"There are plenty of charities around to help the poor." There are plenty that want to help, but their resources are stretched thin. Since September 11 and the downturn in the national economy, many auxiliary sources of assistance have been drying up. Charities have had a harder time raising money and faced more demands on their services. Many food pantries and homeless shelters across the nation are reporting increased pleas for support.
"Most poor people are deadbeats who choose to live wastefully, squander their money, and willfully refuse to pay their bills." Our research showed just the opposite. As a class, poor customers exhibit no worse credit behavior than any other class. In fact, low-income customers are more reliable when it comes to paying their Entergy bills than those middle-income families that have tremendous loads of consumer debt. Also, low-income customers, especially the elderly poor, tend to pay their bills on time since so many of them live on fixed incomes and have life experience in managing money.
Posted by phidipides at July 4, 2005 09:55 AMI think the poor also get a reduced rate on all utility services. Maybe they're even free. Can't recall exactly. Other than Cable TV, anyways.
You "think?" How about you go get some facts on the matter rather than speculate about something you don't know?
The goal of capitalism isn't to distribute wealth, by the way. I bristled at that comment above. Capitalism basically provides everyone the opportunity to be successful.
It's a personal choice in America.
I love hearing a statement like that from an obviously white man who has never encountered any discrimination in his life. Tell you what, muck, I am choosing to be wealthy now, ok? It's my choice, I'm taking it. Not that luck, timing, family connections, race or gender have anything to do with it.
Posted by ann at July 4, 2005 10:49 AM"Too bad Chalabi won't be able to reach her to feed her his latest con."
What, no conjugal visits?
Posted by Jim H at July 4, 2005 10:50 AMChevy,
Your own writing tells anyone who reads it about your lack of character, your own words condemn you. Enough said.
Bones,
I posted facts in the mentioned lower thread. The burden is on YOU to refute me. Enough said.
Posted by sage at July 4, 2005 12:01 PMTo all those who responded,
NONE OF YOU have even attempted to offer an iota of evidence to demonstrate that poor people in America pay income tax.
I offered a fairly typical example of a low income family of four who not only have zero income tax liability, but they get enough back in tax credits to negate every penny of FICA paid in.
Just goes to show that the left are willing to live in a pretend world - they continuously .....
1) complain that the poor pay a large percentage of income taxes - not true.
2) complain that the poor pay a large percentage of FICA - NOT TRUE.
3) change the subject and call names - true.
About ten of you have called me names and changed the subject. The facts remain the same - poor people in America do not pay income taxes, and many of them get all of their FICA refunded, as well.
Why does the truth anger so many of you on the left?
Posted by Bones at July 4, 2005 12:07 PMI read your comments in the other thread. You didn't say anything.
I gave you and example of a poor family, presented their tax scenario, and demonstrated that they not only pay zero federal income taxes, but they get enough of a "refund" to counterbalance any FICA they paid during the year, as well.
All you posted was emotional gibberish.
Posted by Bones at July 4, 2005 01:49 PMAll you posted was a hypothetical, I don't do hypotheticals, I live in the real world. Maybe that's your problem.
The link is not gibberish, it is fact. Your debate "strategy" seems to be nothing more than to accuse others of name calling. Your very repetitous and boring. Reading two or three of your posts shows what a lightweight you are.
Let me guess your going to cry "name calling" again.
Posted by sage at July 4, 2005 02:13 PMnot to prolong our agony here, but let's go back to the beginning of this spat:
We are constantly told by the left that the poor pay a higher share of their earnings in income tax.
"Constantly"? "Income tax"? If he had a single cite for this drivel, we could have been spared a really boring thread, but of course, he didn't. bullshit from square one; what do you expect?
Posted by benjoya at July 4, 2005 03:17 PM"I think the poor also get a reduced rate on all utility services. Maybe they're even free."
Sure, that's why you have poor people dying during very hot weather or freezing during cold winters. In almost 100% of such cases, they may have had an air-conditioner or furnance, but they couldn't afford to turn them on. Free utilities? You have got to be kidding, right?
A quarter of American taxpayers pay no federal income taxes because their incomes are too small. They do, however, pay substantial payroll taxes - which fund Social Security and Medicare. In fact, four out of every five Americans pay more in payroll taxes than they do in federal income taxes.
here's an interesting Times article:
The Nontaxpaying Affluent Grew by 15% in One Year
Tax policies hurt the working poor. In "Unintended Consequences: How Government Policies Hurt Oregon's Poor," author Martin Buchanan points to payroll taxes (Social Security, Medicare, workers compensation and others) and indirect taxes (property taxes passed on in rent) as "the greatest burden on the working poor."
Posted by Judith at July 4, 2005 03:55 PMSage,
My "hypothetical" example is in fact, replicated in real life by hundreds of thousands of American families.
You aren't presenting your own example simply because you don't have one to present.
Judith,
You say a quarter of Americans pay no income tax bedcause their incomes are too small. You should have said "Over forty percent of Americans paid no income taxes..."
Now, for your comment about 4 out of 5 Americans paying more in FICA than income tax...true.
This would be the middle class. There are tens of millions of non-poor middle income Americans who pay about the same (or more) in FICA than income taxes. But that's not the poor.
I'm talking about the poor.
On your last post, I've read that before. Martin Buchanan spins the subject. He uses the tax burden of the poor BEFORE they do their taxes and reap the benefit of the generous tax credits for head of household & kids.
He is dishonest in his tactics. No where does he admit that America's poor don't pay ANY INCOME TAXES, and the FICA they pay is for the most part counterbalanced by the tax credits, as in my example.
Why don't you comment on my example? Or give me your own example. These are not hypotheticals. Use a real example.
Posted by Bones at July 4, 2005 04:09 PMDavid,
If you dig into that subject (the increase in the number of American wealthy who pay no income tax),
you may be surprised at what you find.
Here is what I discovered. At first glance, you might expect they are talking about many tens of thousands of individuals who are scamming on their taxes, using tax dodges, etc.
On closer inspection, you will find they are talking about maybe 600 people or so, and the reason they have no tax liability is because ....
listen closely....
They invested in tax exempt municipal bonds!
That's right David. Municipalities accross America offer tax exempt bonds, luring in investment dollars from people who would otherwise be doing OTHER THINGS with their money, like investing in NON-tax exempt stategies.
You can't have it both ways. If municipalities are to compete in the marketplace, they are going to continue to offer tax exempt bonds to investors - so they can raise money for their many wondrous projects that Americans vote for.
Now, after the several hundred wealthy people in this example invest their dollars in these tax exempt municipal bonds, the left wing extremists scream "The number of rich people not paying taxes rose by FIFTEEN PERCENT!!!!!"
Now, David, don't you feel like you've been manipulated by the leftist press? Sometimes you have to dig below the surface.
This whole idea of America's "poor" getting a bad deal, and paying more than their share of taxes is a pile of crap.
The fact is, if you're going to be poor, AMERICA is the place to do it.
The majority of America's poor have two televisions, cable tv, a car, and food stamps which they can use for ice cream and pop if they like. They have zero income tax liablity and they get most of their FICA reimbursed because of the generous tax credits.
Let's be honest for a change.
Posted by Bones at July 4, 2005 04:27 PMBones,
As has been noted by me and others YOU HAVEN'T DOCUMENTED A THING. Just saying something is true is not proof. Proof must be from an independant scorce. I teach math. My students must show me their work or else even a correct answer gets a bad grade. You haven't shown your work.
Posted by sage at July 4, 2005 04:31 PMThere is, and always has been, those who attack the poor (remember Reagan). They are the perfect target for those who want you to believe that our social ills are a direct result of those lazy, good-for-nothing poor. The poor can't defend themselves, making them an easy target. If there is one thing this Country is lacking, it is found in the word "compassion," a sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it. Some people will never understand the degradation and humiliation of being poor due to the belief systems of people like Bones.
Posted by Judith at July 4, 2005 05:24 PMTell you what, muck, I am choosing to be wealthy now, ok? It's my choice, I'm taking it. Not that luck, timing, family connections, race or gender have anything to do with it.
Luck seems to follow those who do their homework, go to college, and work hard. Don't you think?
Posted by muckdog at July 4, 2005 05:53 PMLuck seems to follow those who do their homework, go to college, and work hard. Don't you think?
MUCK,
IMHO, I would say that's right roughly 2/3rd's of the time.
Posted by sage at July 4, 2005 07:53 PMSage,
You teach math? That's a scary thought. The IRS website backs up my points....
The bottom quintile of American wage earners pays zero income taxes.
The second quintile from the bottom pays less than zero, due to income tax credits.
If you don't want to accept their figures, that's fine. There is a saying, "Those who can't do - teach".
I'm reminded of a conversation I had with a twenty something teacher a few years ago. It turned out she did not know our state (or any state)had it's own constitution. Further probing demonstrated she did not know the names of our congressmen. Further, she did not know there were state congressmen AND United States congressmen.
She had never heard of Rwanda. Guess what she taught, Sage. Math.
Judith,
I was very crystal clear with my point. You offer NOTHING as evidence to rebut my factual statements. Give me an example of a person you consider poor. Tell me their marital status, their age, their number of kids, their income. We'll do a mock 1040 form for them, figure their tax credits and see if they paid any taxes.
No one on this post has offered anything besides diversion, obfuscation, and name calling. The facts speak for themselves.
Posted by Bones at July 4, 2005 10:38 PMThe IRS website backs up my points.
Then link the damn thing. Or do you have the technical proficency to do it? I'm not going to do your work for you.
Posted by sage at July 5, 2005 04:22 AMBones, there's come a time where you realize that nothing is going to change someone's mind. It is at that point, that you say the hell with it. Your not worth anymore of my time nor effort. So, the poor don't pay taxes, if that is what you choose to believe. So what? What is your point?
Posted by Judith at July 5, 2005 07:54 AMBones- How do you explain this away?
There are no end of juicy details in this small story in the New York Times buried on page 17 and showing how President Bush has FINALLY eased the burdens of the suffering rich.
The number of super-rich Americans who pay no taxes at all has more than doubled from 2000 to 2002. Thank you, President Bush!
Posted by SirRobin at July 5, 2005 10:11 AMJudith,
That WAS my point. Thanks for finally paying attention.
Sage,
You are a piece of work. Have you ever heard of tax exempt municipal bonds? Okay, you've heard of them. Do you know anything about em? No, I suppose not.
If you did, you would understand why a few more rich folks had no tax liability - because they are investing in tax exempt municipal bonds.
I'm embarrassed for you. At least Judith can comprehend that poor folks don't pay income taxes. You're a teacher, and you can't even grasp that.
Posted by Bones at July 5, 2005 09:49 PMHave you ever heard of tax exempt municipal bonds? Okay, you've heard of them. Do you know anything about em? No, I suppose not.
You've supposed wrong. In 1913 the states passed the income tax amendment in part because ir made bonds more marketable.
This is called a link. It seems to be beyond you technical ability.
You can't show your work which means that you can't back up your points with evidence. Let all that read this take note, this bum doesn't doesn't back up his work.
Your Grade: F
Sage,
You continue to offer nothing. I rarely link to a reference for the simple reason that people like you don't read references.
If you don't already understand that the bottom two quintiles of Americans don't pay income tax, nothing I present to you is going to sway you.
You don't even know the IRS has a website? C'mon! You teach math? Jesus.
Posted by Bones at July 6, 2005 09:36 AMYou continue to offer nothing. I rarely link to a reference for the simple reason that people like you don't read references.
There you go again. How do you know that I " don't read references." At least your consistant, you make assumptions and mouth generalities without any evidence to back up your points.
Amongst other things, I have taught several young people how file their own tax returns ONLINE. I know that my students who have entry level jobs get all their money back. They're a large part of the reason that the lower quintiles have the statistical profile you are fond of pointing at.
Have you ever lived at the income level of the lowest two quintiles? Most of my students do, I teach in an inner city school. With your preconceptions of life at the bottom I doubt that you could survive what they face everyday, but unlike you I'm not going to attempt to extend a preconception into a diatribe.
One of my students, the daughter of unskilled Mexican workers will be starting her freshman year at an ivy league school next month. I taught her the algebra she used to score high enough in math to qualify for the scholarship that she won. What have you done to make America's future better?
Posted by sage at July 6, 2005 03:51 PMSage,
If you have finally come to understand that the lower two quintiles don't pay income tax, then my job is done. That was my only point.
Most of your assumptions about me are simply wrong. I just get tired of hearing left wing types crying about how the poor are getting screwed and how they aren't getting enough tax cuts. There is a reason - they didn't pay any friggin income taxes.
End of story. By the way, "you are" equals "you're".
Posted by Bones at July 6, 2005 06:44 PMMost of your assumptions about me are simply wrong.
Like what? That is the freeking problem, you never give any examples of anything yet expect validity for unproven points. Are my "assumptions" about you wrong? If so how? I didn't think that you would be able to name anything that you've done for America, So I guess that I got that one right.
The fact that you never post any links, and the fact that others on other threads have noticed, tells everyone all they really need to know about your creditability.
By the way, "BTW" means "by the way" on the internet.
Let me give you another one. STFU.
Sage,
Wow. It's hard to imagine that I'm having this conversation with someone entrusted with the "education" of children.
Surely they will profit from your teaching them how to fill out a tax return online for the express purpose of getting all their federal witholding returned, plus a large tax "refund" for taxes they didn't even pay.
Helping them to understand that they are entitled to money they haven't earned will surely help them as they begin their trek through life.
Knowing that when logic and reason fail, one can always spew a few hateful insults and obscene names; will surely put them in good stead.
Nothing like setting them up for misery and failure at a young age. Keep up the good work. Maybe they can become a Phid. You know, scrape by at a low wage job - spend their time on a computer cursing the world for their failures. Yes, you go, girl.
Helping them to understand that they are entitled to money they haven't earned will surely help them as they begin their trek through life.
Okay Bones you think that you know so much about what my students need? I'll tell you what, we'll take it to the streets. I can give you the address of my school, which has a high college acceptance rate dispite being in criptown, and you can come visit on any day of your choosing. One stipulation, you MUST wear the following clothes: Red baseball cap on your head, red tee shirt and a red bandana in your RIGHT pocket.
If you do this I will teach you how to make the "b" signal with your hands. Upon learning this, you will walk alone (no police escort)down the street behind my school making the "b" hand sign as you go. After two blocks turn around and walk back making the same hand sign as you go. If you can make it back to me without getting killed or at least hospitalized I will put a Franklin in your money loving hand. You talk about things that you don't know anything about.
Let's be honest for a change.
Posted by sage at July 7, 2005 12:56 PMWell, before this thread becomes history I will claim voctory again.
Bones, give it up, I can go places verbally and talk about things that your eleteist background has not provided for. You cannot defeat me in debate. You really are a lightweight and everyone knows it. You can post in the future if you wish, but I have exposed you for what you are. You're creditibility here is shot forever.
I'm 2-0 against you now.
Face it, YOU ARE a loser. LOL