Politics & Government - 24 July 2006

. especially the army? im enlisting in 2 months but id like a friend of mine to come with me.

2006-07-24 15:24:31 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous in Military

Speaking of such hyphenated citizens, how many have actually been there, much less were born there or have parents or grandparents born there? What if a caucasion from South Africa had a child with a caucasion from Mississippi, would the child (an actual "African-American" be eligible for all or any of benefits afforded the child of two so-called " African-Americans" from some housing project or even affluent suburb in any United States city?

2006-07-24 15:24:13 · 15 answers · asked by Just Ask 2 in Civic Participation

2006-07-24 15:23:34 · 27 answers · asked by Anonymous in Other - Politics & Government

Add this to the list of growing crises Bush ignored for the past 6 years while hunting Moby Dick.

http://americablog.blogspot.com/

2006-07-24 15:23:04 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

a lot of officers i have dealt with have not been the most helpful. i had to file a report tonight and the responding officer went out of his way to help me. who do i contact to let them know how great of a job he did? the department?

2006-07-24 15:21:57 · 13 answers · asked by Jessica B 4 in Law Enforcement & Police

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=107946&ran=29743&tref=po

2006-07-24 15:21:22 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Military

I believe that Israel is making matters worse by closing in on Lebanon. We talk every Nov. 11 about never having war again and then along comes Israel. Sociologists would say that you are making matters worse by spanking the child because then they learn that physical power is a means to an end. In this case isn't Lebanon like the child?

2006-07-24 15:20:37 · 11 answers · asked by Mr. PDQ 4 in Other - Politics & Government

I love americans!

2006-07-24 15:19:59 · 42 answers · asked by BOYCUTE 2 in Politics

Is anybody else as tired of this two faced piece of crap as I am? I have seen the pictures from Lebanon, and it's sickening to see babies blown to pieces by the Israeli artillery. I notice even Yahoo talks about the "poor Israelis" being wounded, but why isnt anyone reporting what's happening to the Lebonese people? Could this be the Government censoring our newscasts, and radio, as well as websites like Yahoo? Surely our government wouldn't be trying to censor what we see and hear. Oh, wait a minute, they were already doing that in the begining of the war, keeping the pictures of dead GI's coffins returning to the U.S by the planeload from the newscasts. I thought censorship was illegal in the United States. I guess G W Bush must have passed some new laws, or decided that for reasons of "national security" he just couldn't allow us to know about the genocide the Israelis are doing to the Lebonese people, and the destruction of their culture. Tired of his lies YET??????????????????????

2006-07-24 15:19:50 · 11 answers · asked by Darqblade 3 in Government

It is necessary to review the facts and figures on the class inequality of the Bush tax cut plan, since the White House and the Republican congressional leadership have launched a campaign of lies and distortions, relying on the acquiescence of an uncritical and reactionary media.

The most basic distortion is that Bush will cut taxes “across the board.” The White House plan actually ignores those taxes that place the greatest burden on the working class, such as the payroll tax and excise taxes. Bush's plan targets those taxes, including the estate tax and the federal income tax, where the wealthy pay the largest share. This selectivity insures that the tax cut automatically favors the richest taxpayers.

Three quarters of all US households pay more in federal payroll taxes, which fund Social Security and Medicare, than they pay in federal income taxes. But there has been no proposal from Bush for any cut in this tax, which is by far the most regressive tax imposed by the federal government.

Unlike the income tax, which is graduated, the payroll tax is calculated as a flat percentage of income. Moreover, the payroll tax is levied only on the first $70,000 or so in income. This ceiling means that for high income taxpayers, the payroll tax is a much lower proportion of their income than for middle and lower income families—barely 1 percent for a millionaire, compared to 15.3 percent for the average worker.

By maintaining unchanged the tax which weighs most heavily on working people and cutting those taxes which affect the rich, the Bush plan amounts to a redistribution of income from the bottom to the top. According to an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), the top 1 percent of income earners would get a bigger tax cut than the bottom 80 percent of all taxpayers combined.

These upper income families currently pay 20 percent of all federal taxes, but they would get 36 percent of the Bush tax cut. This is under conditions where the top 1 percent has seen their incomes grow by 40.4 percent over the past decade, compared to a 5.2 percent increase for the bottom 90 percent.

Bush is targeting his tax cut so that these wealthy families—with an average pretax income of over $800,000 in 1998, and an average after-tax income of nearly $600,000—would receive tax cuts of more than $60,000 apiece. In effect, the federal government will send a check to every member of the top 1 percent which is larger than the annual pretax income of the average American family. Meanwhile, the average family will get a cut of about $720. For the bottom 60 percent of taxpayers, the average reduction would be only $256.

Many low-income working families will receive nothing. According to CBPP figures, over 12 million families with 24 million children, one of every three children in the US, will receive no tax cut at all, including more than half of black and Hispanic children.

George W. and Laura Bush will be more fortunate. Based on their income tax records released during the presidential campaign, the president and first lady stand to gain $100,000 a year once the tax cut plan is fully phased in—a nice piece of change added to their family income of over $3 million a year.

Bush claims that his plan would eliminate the income tax burden for millions of lower-income working class families. This is another piece of sophistry. As the CBPP explained: “a two-parent family of four with income of $26,000 would indeed have its income taxes eliminated under the Bush plan, which is being portrayed as a 100 percent reduction in taxes. The family, however, owes only $20 in income taxes under current law.”

The legislation adopted by the House of Representatives March 8 is an illustration of the class logic of Bush's program. It compresses the current five-bracket rate structure into four and reduces the rates gradually over the next five years. When the full cut is phased in completely in 2006, the top income tax rate will fall from 39.6 percent to 33 percent. The lowest rate will fall from 15 percent to 10 percent.

Income taxes will decline by $958 billion over the next 10 years, with nearly half this amount accruing to the wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers. For working families, the bill will provide either no benefits at all, if they are among the millions of low-income families who pay no income tax, or a cut averaging a few hundred dollars for those of middle income.

The House voted down a Democratic counterproposal, which would have cost $585 billion over 10 years. This alternative, while introduced as a political maneuver, nonetheless spotlights the narrow social interests behind the tax cut drive. House Democrats deliberately drew up a bill that provides the same or slightly larger tax cuts than the White House bill for every income group below the top 5 percent of all taxpayers.

Virtually the entire difference between the two bills lies in the treatment of the top 1 percent, who would receive $10.6 billion in tax reduction, 2 percent of the total, under the Democratic bill, and $424 billion in tax reduction, or 44.3 percent of the total, under the Republican bill. This brazen class legislation in favor of the top 1 percent—one million families with taxable incomes over $1 million each—won unanimous Republican support.

See Also:
Bush tax cut campaign piles lie upon lie
[13 March 2001]
US central bank chief boosts Bush tax cut for the wealthy
[27 January 2001]

2006-07-24 15:18:36 · 4 answers · asked by tough as hell 3 in Government

Bush was considered a moderate Republican, but he has acted too much like he's still a frat boy attached to the far right.

2006-07-24 15:18:16 · 11 answers · asked by up.tobat 5 in Other - Politics & Government

2006-07-24 15:15:43 · 4 answers · asked by trebliw 2 in Law & Ethics

Which of those terms sounds good to the ears? someone told me that all undocumented workers are not likely illegals. i till dont get it. help !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2006-07-24 15:15:37 · 21 answers · asked by leng 4 in Immigration

So that Hezbollah won't get resupplied. Your thoughts? (CNN)

2006-07-24 15:15:19 · 4 answers · asked by   6 in Politics

2006-07-24 15:13:36 · 6 answers · asked by heatherinphx 2 in Government

If not, where the hell he was ?

2006-07-24 15:11:05 · 20 answers · asked by BOYCUTE 2 in Politics

2006-07-24 15:10:26 · 4 answers · asked by TG 2 in Government

This just proves that liberals would be first to sell-out America to the cheapest. "Anything for peace and low gas prices"...Now get out your prayer rug and bow to Mecca! Oh for 79cent/gal gas that they pay for in Arabia, right libs?

2006-07-24 15:10:12 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

I have read and heard that people believe that the US government created the HIV virus because the country/world was becoming overpopulated and/or as a biochemical weapon. I always thought this was extremely bogus. However, I was just thinking about the dieing africans and such with HIV/AIDS and how A LOT! of our money goes over to help them.

Just a thought.. why should we waste OUR money over there? Is it the gov'ts fault?

2006-07-24 15:07:59 · 18 answers · asked by punkakski 2 in Other - Politics & Government

please let me know what you think...

i would like an open debate on this. please be civil, and I will agree to do so as well...

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=37823584&blogID=146246371&Mytoken=1737E639-FE09-42CE-AF823681F05D411D410222421

2006-07-24 15:06:23 · 12 answers · asked by Bub 3 in Immigration

Regime change!!!!!!!! rufffffffffff rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

2006-07-24 15:05:19 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Military

When will the illusion of democracy that keeps poor people working be unveiled for the profit whore it is and all collapse like in 1929?

2006-07-24 15:03:43 · 10 answers · asked by j h 2 in Government

i.e.: Everyone's actions are controlled to prevent war, disease, famine, genocide, etc. No one can choose to harm someone else or make choices that could lead to a disruption of the world's peace. Please don't try to be argumentative by saying "well what do you mean by free will?" or something like that. Just honestly answer the question and try to give examples or explanations.

The point is basically to see how far we would go to protect ourselves, or bring "peace". (something to think on: the Patriot Act)

2006-07-24 15:02:32 · 19 answers · asked by Magdalene 3 in Law & Ethics

I have been told by another person who shall remain nameless that the fact that I like Sean Hannity makes me a puppet. Could someone please explain this to me? Oh and by the way it makes me a "hater" too. I can't recall hearing Sean saying he hated anyone. I can't remember saying that I hated anyone here where did this all come from please help.

2006-07-24 15:01:42 · 18 answers · asked by Ethan M 5 in Politics

or is this what they really stand for?

2006-07-24 15:01:35 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

2006-07-24 15:00:42 · 16 answers · asked by brew davis 1 in Military

Regime change!!!!

2006-07-24 14:59:23 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Military

I was with a cell phone retail company providing Cingular Wireless a year ago. I had only been with this company for about three weeks when they ceased business. I cancelled that plan with Cingular and opened a new account. Now, one year after the fact, the old company charged me termination fees in which it stated i was bound too in the contract.

My question is: Can a company that has ceased to do business still bind old customers to the contract. If so, is there a fair and reasonable time in which the company must seek charges (i.e. it took this company 9 months after the account was officially closed).

Thanks.

2006-07-24 14:57:05 · 10 answers · asked by CS 2 in Law & Ethics

2006-07-24 14:56:53 · 9 answers · asked by RT 1 in Military

2006-07-24 14:55:34 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics