OT - Is this representative of US public opinion? UK Newspaper Front Page

Page 1 of 7  
This was on the front page of my newspaper today as a "introduction" to the Bush state of the nation speech. From an American point of view how does it read? Is it a true representation of the Bush administration and the US economy? This is not in anyway a political post,I've just an interest in world affairs. http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?storyH2947
Rgds
Noel
noel dot hegan at virgin dot net
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Consider the source!!!
Jay in NH
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
It reads like a typical British tabloid.
Bob S.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The article presents a number of statistics carefully selected to make the administration look bad. A less slanted article would have also included statistics showing our economic improvement, the reconstruction of Iraq's infrastructure and its brave new political system, etc. I am not a fan of Bush nor am I defending him, but that article does not represent American opinion, merely British. There is no such consensus here.
Bob
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

-snip-
restaurants created last month?
Renata smart, not dumb for email
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 07:27:45 GMT, Dave Mundt wrote:

Wrong. There have been a number of reports of protesting Iraqis being gunned down by American troops - certainly in our press.
I suppose the American press doesn't like to show that sort of thing to the American people though - don't want to show them that bringing `democracy' to those ungrateful foreigners means mountains of body bags on both sides.
500+ US troops dead & counting....when does the US start to cut & run and abandon the `democratisation' experiment? & where are those WMD?
--

Frank

http://www.freebsd.org /
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What "facts" though ? I know plenty of British crossdressers. The only gay ones though are two of the women. Of the gay men I know, not one is a crossdresser.
And the only monkey I know is lactose-intolerant and can't eat cheese without getting a dose of the squitters. It probably would surrender while incapacitated though.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yeah, but the other couple million simply haven't posted here. Trust me, they're out there.
Dennis Vogel
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The question is, can anyone disagree with these facts?
for example, something not well advertised beyond stating that the tax cuts are NOT only for the wealthy:
"88%: Percentage of American citizens who will save less than $100 on their 2006 federal taxes as a result of 2003 cut in capital gains and dividends taxes"
Additionally,
"$42,000: Average savings members of Bush's cabinet are expected to enjoy this year as a result in the cuts in capital gains and dividends taxes
$42,228: Median household income in the US in 2001
$116,000: Amount Vice-President Cheney is expected to save each year in taxes
44%: Percentage of Americans who believe the President's economic growth plan will mostly benefit the wealthy"
Can anyone dispute these? Can anyone tell us why they're so enamoured of these tax cuts that are so extraordinarily helpful to y'all? Or is this quite the elite group, on par with the Cabinet?
Renata
On 20 Jan 2004 05:30:57 -0800, c_address snipped-for-privacy@europe.com (Noel Hegan) wrote:

smart, not dumb for email
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm not going to take the time to point out all the logic faults in a bunch of statistics compiled by a considerably biased "news" organization, especially considering this is a woodworking group. But for example in the above figure it isn't 88% of working Americans, or 88% of Americans aged 18-65 or any other meaningful statistic. Sure the 30% of Americans under 21 will save less than $100 due to a cut in the tax on capital gains, so what? A large portion of the Americans over 85 will probably not save a bunch either.
Davis Eichelberger
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

2 questions: what % saved more than $100 from ALL the tax cuts? What % of taxes did that 88% pay in the first place?

Question: how much is the average Bush cabinet member expected to pay in taxes this year?

Question: How much federal income tax will the average household making $42,228 pay this year?

Question: How much in taxes is Dick Cheney expected to pay this year?

Question: What percentage believe that taxes are mostly paid by those they describe as wealthy?

I wouldn't try to dispute the stats given, because they certainly seem OK to me. I will dispute how they are contrived to try to give weight to your viewpoint that the evil rich aren't giving you enough of their money.

Dave Hall
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Sweetie, I don't need the rich's money, whether they're evil or not (though, hey, if someone's handing out spare bags of cash, count me in).
But, we can't afford to be giving money to the rich, a token pfenning to the rest (so a claim can be made that all share in the tax cut), while increasing spending out the wazoo and shelling out big bucks for a couple of foreign skirmishes.
Notice that all the states are doing all kinds of "fund raising" (like increasing state income tax, adding all kinds of fees, etc.) to make up for shortfalls, and these burdens have much more impact on the normal everyday worker, who's enjoying his 100 tax cut and shelling out a few hundred back to the states and localities.
Renata On 20 Jan 2004 13:28:24 -0800, snipped-for-privacy@nhsd.k2.pa.us (David Hall) wrote:

smart, not dumb for email
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@dumb.net says...

GIVE MONEY TO THE RICH!!!????? WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? The government ain't printing cash and mailing it in bags to the "rich". It is simply taking less of the money that they have earned.
Here's a statistic for you in the same flavor as the more than slightly biased article that started this fest:
% of wage earners paying 65% of federal income taxes: 10%. That's right 10% of wage earners are paying well above half of all income taxes.
% of wage earners paying 96% of federal income taxes: 50% Of course the lower wage earners aren't getting "big" tax breaks, they don't pay much of the tax to begin with.

So keeping federal taxes high is going to help this how?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
We should not be cutting revenue intake at the same time we are shoveling money out the door.
Renata
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 02:54:20 GMT, Mark & Juanita

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Al Reid wrote:

Now there's a Nobel-prize worthy statement! You should print it, frame it, and put it on your wall. Then practise it in your own home, and hire a good bankruptcy lawyer.
You gotta love self-delusion.
--
gabriel

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 15:11:54 +0000, gabriel wrote:

I do. With more income (rising economy) and lower taxes, there is more in my paycheck for me to do with as _I_ wish. I wonder why some people find this concept so hard to grasp?
-Doug
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Doug Winterburn wrote:

Because people say "spending" when they mean government spending, not people spending money to buy things.
Blah! whatever.
--
gabriel

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Either failed Economics 101, never took Economics 101, or had been taught economics by a socialist. It seams that some believe that all behavior is static. You can raise taxes to 100 % and never effect behavior and thus for every 1 percent increase in taxes, you get a 1 percent increase in revenue all the way up to the point that you confiscate 100% on ones paycheck.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You have proven yourself totally ignorant of the realities of economics. The concept of lower taxes works even in Russia where thay have abandoned an antiquated progressive system with a low flat tax. The result? Higher revenues. Here is just one of many articals on it. http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba452 /
You need to take time to understand a topic before commenting on it. It is a fact that lower taxes raises revenues. Do some research and find out for your self.
You are indeed the one who is self-deluded.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.