Government - July 2006

wouldn't it be nice to see leaders putting their lives at risk instead of innocent civilians...........I bet there would be a lot less conflict in the world.

2006-07-24 15:32:12 · 12 answers · asked by thescouseanator 2

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

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

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

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

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

because he's really trying to do the right thing for all of us?

LMAO-
I have actually heard him called both of these things lately, so I just wanted some feedback.

2006-07-24 13:49:43 · 20 answers · asked by Professor Chaos386 4

2006-07-24 13:49:09 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous

it is being tortured with a millitary rule .

2006-07-24 13:48:17 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous

Is there such thing as a perfect government....Over the years philosophers and thinkers have challenged this question...whats your input??

2006-07-24 13:43:10 · 12 answers · asked by Lisa 2

2006-07-24 13:35:29 · 12 answers · asked by Meowmixtape 4

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/24/lawyers.bush.ap/index.html

Why would anyone want to challenge him up to and including impeachment?

2006-07-24 13:29:40 · 5 answers · asked by yars232c 6

2006-07-24 13:27:11 · 1 answers · asked by sxc115 1

I need some help anyone can find me a summary or perhaps write me one, i am whilling to pay for it.
Thank you.

2006-07-24 13:16:13 · 2 answers · asked by Yuriy G 1

I'd like some suggestions of women that are now in politics and would make a good candidate for a future woman President.

2006-07-24 13:03:49 · 29 answers · asked by mandm 5

I find that those predisposed to dislike the US, no matter what the US does, they will find fault...go figure...and somehow this dilema is probably the US's fault, too.

2006-07-24 12:44:23 · 11 answers · asked by BowtiePasta 6

Since he has been in, the cost of fueling your gas guzzlers have gone up the $3.00 plus mark. the nation's economy is hurting more now than ever before.

2006-07-24 12:39:34 · 8 answers · asked by Pat N 1

I think that she is extremely brave for doing it and I respect her even more for personally trying to help us as citizens.

2006-07-24 12:27:51 · 12 answers · asked by kimberbee 5

Why do Americans have this compulsion to tell others that things they do are "wrong", and try to have them outlawed? Do you really care if someone who lives 700 miles away from you is homosexual? Or if someone in another state smokes marijuana? You will never meet these people, and if you do you can choose not to associate with them. What compels us to impress our moral standards on complete strangers?

2006-07-24 12:12:48 · 8 answers · asked by Danzarth 4

This is an honest question. I'd really like an honest answer based on verifiable facts. Thanks!

2006-07-24 11:22:20 · 9 answers · asked by Middle Ground 1

Please make it Essay style 3 paragraphs and 300- 500 words..
Might be used in a book.. No renumeration though...sorry

2006-07-24 11:20:44 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-07-24 11:14:22 · 11 answers · asked by Shivers 2

He is promising free ketchup and waffles.

2006-07-24 10:50:48 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous

We have a president that refuses to allow scientist use embryo's for stem cell research because morally he believes it is wrong, but it is perfectly ok to allow troops to get killed every day in Iraq. I am sorry but to me THAT seems a bit immoral especially since we can't even see a light at the end of this nightmare of a war tunnel.

2006-07-24 10:48:01 · 9 answers · asked by metalicgirl69 3

we all know to long but im looking for years

2006-07-24 10:31:27 · 9 answers · asked by OHIO STATE IS THAT DEAL!!!!!!!!! 3

2006-07-24 10:28:56 · 34 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-07-24 10:15:38 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous

Gas is about $3.16 & 9/10, why is it 9/10 of a cent, and where does the 1/10 of a cent go? I mean when I buy 10 gallons of gas I don`t get a penny off the next gallon, so where do the fractions of cents go.

2006-07-24 09:51:34 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous

I know this has probably been discussed several times but Id like now what people think of the death penalty.

Some feel that its wrong!!
Well here's a case where a woman by the name of Rosie Alfaro at the age of 18 (and pregnant with twins) broke into someone home and attempted to rob them.. she ended up killin a nine year old girl in the process. She stabbed the lil gir 57 times.. she is now currently on californias death row.
Do you feel she should have the right to live after doing this?
Read about it here
http://www.womenofdeathrow.com/id26.htm

There are also some people who think its right to sentenced some to death for their crimes.
Well here's of people who were found not guilty and released from death row.
Do you feel we have the right to kill when we have found that there are innocent people on death row?
http://ccadp.org/free-life.htm


So what do you think? You be the judge!!
Is the death penalty right?

2006-07-24 09:38:54 · 37 answers · asked by PG 4

2006-07-24 09:32:32 · 5 answers · asked by anjen2000 1