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.
noel dot hegan at virgin dot net
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.
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?
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.
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
"$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
$42,228: Median household income in the US in 2001
$116,000: Amount Vice-President Cheney is expected to save each year
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?
On 20 Jan 2004 05:30:57 -0800, c_address email@example.com (Noel
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
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
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
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.
On 20 Jan 2004 13:28:24 -0800, firstname.lastname@example.org (David Hall)
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
% 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?
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.
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.
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.