Thinking Right

By jbmlaw

October 16, 2006 08:07 AM | Link to this

Good morning, all. “Marriage” ought not be a political issue; I think it is a religious issue only. The corners of my memory tell me that there are many cultures where marriage does not “exist” until children are born; that strikes me as a reasonable perspective, as a marriage contract has no real meaning except for the need to care for the helpless brought into the world.. Having made that argument, I agree that there is a serious marriage problem, and it is the number of children brought into the world outside wedlock; my horror is that our neighbors today emphasize the recreation aspect of procreation, rather than the commitment to the next generation.

The progressive income tax is fundamentally incompatible with marriage. The subsidies built in for the benefit of those rearing children inevitably punish responsible non-childbearing singles. Plus, combining incomes (without some complicating legislation to offset the economics) pushes families into higher brackets, and makes marriage a potentially expensive proposition. Fully 25% of the statutes and regulations – note, I acknowledge that I am making up that number, that is just my good faith sense – exist entirely to support the progressivity provisions. Switch to a flat tax or a consumption-based tax, you have all people with a stake in ensuring good government. If you have to have subsidies to lower-incomed folks, do those in the form of Milton Friedman’s direct subsidy checks.

Dr. Walter E. Williams proffers an idea I like – give everyone one vote for every $10,000 of taxes he pays each year, an idea modeled on the corporate share voting. Thus, those who have to pay the piper at least get to call the tune.

By Brian Curtis

October 16, 2006 08:22 AM | Link to this

So you’re worried about a random statistic with no context? Why am I not surprised.

I don’t suppose your concern for the welfare of kids extended to finding out how many households actually HAVE kids, did it? Because birthrates are also declining in the U.S. Many of those non-marrieds are also non-parents, which (in principle) shouldn’t trouble you at all.

By Brian Curtis

October 16, 2006 08:24 AM | Link to this

JBM: I’m also not surprised that Williams would propose the idea of an open plutocracy—goverment by the rich, for the rich. After all, that’s what we have now anyway.

By Purloin Pastry

October 16, 2006 08:29 AM | Link to this

Take my joint filer, please.

Children should be 1040 deductions, and not heard.

Look, guys, just because you’re married, that doesn’t give you the right to park in a handicapped parking space.

The way to stop voter fraud is to make the 1040 tax form the ballot. Who would vote twice then? Simply send you’re choice for prez with your 1040. Nobody would risk cheating the IRS with a fraudulent vote nor would they presume to pay extra taxes just to stuff a ballot box. It’s genius, It’s foolproof, it’s me.

I have all kinds of good thoughts like that all day long. Hey! I figured out a way to blog with an alias and use secret codes so you’ll all know it’s me. What’s that you ask? I’ll type in italics!! (Larry to Moe, if the internet had been invented by Curly Gore, in 1932)

By Van

October 16, 2006 08:44 AM | Link to this

When married folks pay more in taxes than if they were single and living together, something is not right.

When older people, on social security, have their benefits cut if they marry, something is not right.

There are too many penalties involved in being married. No wonder so many are forgoing that normal tradition.

Regarding taxes. Brian Curtis stated , we are living in a “plutocracy”. Rule by the rich. Well, I do not buy that.

While we many be ruled by folks that are rich, we are not ruled by only the rich, it is still built on the backs of the working people. Yeah, that’s right, those that work, pay taxes are carrying the load for the others. As stated, the bottom 50% of wage earners pay just 3.3% of the tax revenue, something is not right. With a combination of a flat tax and a consumtion tax, we can shift the tax load from the hard working folks and spread out it a little more evenly. Everyone should pay their fair share.

In fact, if you look at how the tax system was first proposed and implemented, it was a fair and equitable arrangement. Each state paid a portion of the federal budget, based on its population. If Georgia has 8% of the population, it paid 8% of the federal budget. Collecting taxes was a states issue and not a federal issue.

By Brian Curtis

October 16, 2006 08:58 AM | Link to this

Van: You’ll also note that corporate taxes used to generate about 30% of all revenues, rather than the roughly 7% we see today.

And I’m not clear on your point; so you’re complaining that not enough of the rich are really running things? That some of them are still being left out of political control over the rest of us? Odd.

By @@

October 16, 2006 09:06 AM | Link to this

Jim: My husband often jokes, (at least I think he’s joking) that we’d benefit from being divorced.

If he’s talking about tax “benefit”, (at least I think he is) he’s right.

Would we be partners to a scam like that? I wouldn’t. An all inclusive family is an American foundation. When the foundation is weak, the house crumbles.

Come to think of it, my husband wouldn’t either. He considers community as part of the family.

I’m at the top of his list of community affairs.

By RW (the aboriginal)

October 16, 2006 09:18 AM | Link to this

Our Plutocracy has been downgraded to a Theocracy.

We now pay taxes according to our distance from the Son.

It’s a born again, inverse relationship. The further from the Christian Right, the more you pay. Investment income is taxed at a max of 15%. All other income is taxed at a max of over 30%.

And of course, if you are a saint, like Jerry Falwell, Billy Graham, or Sonny Purdue, you pay absolutely no income taxes whatsoever because you cant rightly tax God.

Why cant you tax God? Because he has 6 billion dependents and he deducts all of them.

I learned how to ask my own questions and then answer them from Saint Rummy.

By Van

October 16, 2006 09:34 AM | Link to this

Brian Curtis,

No, my jab at your “plutocracy”, was a jab at only rich folks being able to run for office and get elected.

Also, I feel the tax burden is infairly slanted. It seems the harder you work, the more you are taxed as a percentage of your income. Add to that, you savings are taxed at the same rate as your income, and if you work hard and live well withing your means, something not may of us do, you are taxed at the same rate as someone living the large live.

A flat tax combined with a consumtion tax would equal things out. I do not believe a comsumtion tax by itself would not answer the need and a flat tax wouldn’t either.

Witha combination, one would tax by your needs and the other would tax by your means - a balance.

By Mid-South Philosopher

October 16, 2006 09:36 AM | Link to this

Good morning, Jim,

I am all for marriage, and I have nothing against lower taxes. However, you failed to touch on one provision that troubles me a bit…the Earned Income Tax Credit.

Many years ago, another Republican President was going to “help” me during one of the worst bouts of “inflation” in our nation’s history by lowering the amount deducted from my salary each pay period for Federal Income Tax. That way I would have more money to spend and help boost the economy out of the mess it was in. What he didn’t tell me is that come the end of the tax year, I was still going to owe the same amount of taxes. As a consequence, I had to find a part-time job between January and April of 1976 in order to make enough money to pay the balance of my income tax.

I got a part-time job, after my regular work day and on Saturdays in a lawyer’s office filling out personal income tax returns. I didn’t do the complicated stuff, just the simple 1040 and 1040A filings.

While working there, I had a lady who came in and after doing her return, I discovered that she had paid in $240.00 during the year. Because of the number of children she had, she was going to get back, not only that $240.00, but an additional $600!

Something seemed wrong with that picture to me.

Incidentally, I helped fire that President in November of 1976, but what we got was even more of a bumbler, so things were no better. Things rarely change.

By Redneck Convert

October 16, 2006 09:39 AM | Link to this

I woulda been on here sooner, but my way out of the trailer park was blocked by a big pile of UGA flags. It musta been 20 foot high. I guess people saw the dirt road leading to the trailer park up here and just throwed those things away. I ain’t seen so many flags since I visited Arlington National Semetary.

People got no bizness having sex if they ain’t marryed. These old geezers that shack up with old female geezers do it for the break on Social Security and taxes. The Revrend Billy Bob Buice says its wrong and I believe him. They need to be locked up. Matter of fact, my idea of the rolling lectric chair might be adopted.

Me, I don’t pay taxes unless the guvmint can find out I made money. I do my best to take all my pay in cash, without the paperwork. That way, I can dodge the tax man the way Markus, Realist, jbmlaw, and TFTT do, except I don’t use their fancy dodges.

Anyway, I’m spending as much as I can right now, cause people tell me once the Democrats take over next month, they’ll take all my money. I’m sure glad Sonny got a $100,000 tax break when he did. And it sure is desgusting that Taylor says Sonny’s new land is worth $40 million, when its worth only $2 million. A fambly cant live on something that small.

Anybody want to buy some car flags?

By Buy Danish

October 16, 2006 09:46 AM | Link to this

Jim Wooten,

It’s time to replace the income tax with the “Fair Tax”. No more IRS. No more class warfare. No more pitting Singles against Marrieds. No more underground economy paying nothing in taxes. No more social engineering.

Oh wait. That’s why it won’t pass. The Dems will never stand for it.

Van,

How do you combine a flat tax with a consumption tax. It seems to me that it is an either/or proposition.

Polly Prepuce,

Do you have worms or something? Perhaps that would explain your unnatural obsession with food.

By Jim's a Distractor

October 16, 2006 10:12 AM | Link to this

Hi Jim:

Like Lincoln, our first Republican president, we intend to act “with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right.” To restore accountability to Congress. To end its cycle of scandal and disgrace. To make us all proud again of the way free people govern themselves.

By JK

October 16, 2006 10:14 AM | Link to this

We have evolved into a society of conditional commitments and expectations. The reason there are so many divorces is that there are so many marriages! For at least one-fourth of married people (the “at-fault” half of the half of all couples that divorce) “Till death do us part” REALLY means, “For as long as I’m feeling good about this union, you keep your income up, I’m not annoyed by your personal habits, and don’t have any better options.”

I agree with Van that it’s wrong to penalize people for getting married. But it’s a religious thing, IMO. If the government wants to grant special privileges (property rights, life & death decisions) to those choosing to marry, then they should grant it for gay couples as well as straight ones, or to NO ONE at all! Talk about discrimination!

One more thing: Mr. Wooten, WHAT’s IT TO YOU? Seriously. Why do you imagine someone else’s marriage, good, bad, or nightmarish, is any of your beezwax? Why do you “conservatives” spend so much time telling other people how they should live? Do you have a wife? If so, go make HER happy, and leave the rest of us our privacy and personal freedom. Thanks.

By Jim's a Distractor

October 16, 2006 10:21 AM | Link to this

Buy Danish,

The GOP has been in complete control of DC for quite some time now…Congress for 12 and the WH for 6.

I don’t recall seeing any tax reform legislation. GW clipped his Easter vacation to sign legislation regarding Terri Schaivo. But he hasn’t given nearly that much attention or sense of urgency to Tax Reform.

A bunch of hot air from a corrupt interest group insider and a blowhard talk radio jock, but no legislation.

And you still want to blame Democrats?

By olcottr

October 16, 2006 10:29 AM | Link to this

Perhaps the reason people don’t respect marriage is that we treat it like a business transaction.

By deegee

October 16, 2006 10:30 AM | Link to this

Why can’t we just tithe the government? Everyone pays 10%

By Van

October 16, 2006 10:32 AM | Link to this

Buy Danish Combining the two is not an either or proposition.

A flat 12% taken from each paycheck, not withholding, just flat 12%. May have to have a minimum income level, don’t have any idea on what that might be.

Add to that a 12% tax on finished goods.

The rich pay 12% on earned income and 12% on their boats and cars. That ought to make any democrat happy.

By Dusty

October 16, 2006 10:32 AM | Link to this

Marriage is a religous institution. The government only got involved when it figured out a way to make money off the whole thing.

I agree with JK, you conservatives can keep your nose out of my personal business.

By Van

October 16, 2006 10:42 AM | Link to this

JK,

Maybe we should do like the brits, have a social or civil contract and leave marriage to the various faiths.

But, you are right, there are priviledges associated with marriage and those same “priviledges” can be granted through a civil contract that any lawyer can draw up.

I can not understand why people want to alter or change time tested traditions. When I was young, a couple living together without being married was a rare thing or well hidden - since then, standards have falled and it is now something that is taken for granted and is no big deal- it is a shame that standards have fallen.

By HUCK FROM MARIETTA

October 16, 2006 11:02 AM | Link to this

the atlanta falcons are killing me, but at least Vandy beat the dawgs in Sanford!

By Buy Danish

October 16, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this

Van,

Flat tax + consumption tax sounds too much like income tax + VAT tax to me. How long before that 12% gets raised do you think? Also requires more bureaucracy to handle.

Jim’s Detractor,

No one has the courage yet to throw the whole thing out and start over again, but at least Conservatives don’t have stealing from its citizens as part of their Party Platform.

We have made some progress in cutting taxes - which is a reform of sorts. Unfortunately greedy Socialists just can’t let go of death taxes and the alternative minimum tax, and call what reforms that have been made “tax cuts for the rich”.

By Rick

October 16, 2006 11:10 AM | Link to this

Find me a lawyer that can create a civil contract for someone to leave their government pension or social security to someone who isn’t their spouse.

By RW (the oravaginal)

October 16, 2006 11:14 AM | Link to this

The Falcons are a .500 team with Mora. He’s the problem. He doesn’t know what to do with Vick. You cant win with sandlot style football, not consistently.

First, is vick a running quarterback or a passing halfback?

By youth

October 16, 2006 11:17 AM | Link to this

maybe people are just waiting until they are older to get married these days. i dont think you can compare statistics evenly. maybe it takes longer because they want to live with another person before marrying them, BECAUSE they consider “marriage” to be a sacred life-long union. Noone who has ever had roommates can disagree that no matter how well you know someone, you dont REALLY know them until you have seen them day in and day out, and lived in the same space with them for a while. Do you want to prevent divorce or not? And I dont want to make a lifelong commitment to someone I don’t know. Seems kind of silly. Also, marriage is totally for spiritual reasons. The little piece of paper you get from the government doesn’t mean anything except for taxes and a few rights that can be gotten through a civil contract anyways.

By FedUp

October 16, 2006 11:20 AM | Link to this

Do you really have to ask why it is someone else’s concern the way you choose to live your life? Your choices (good and bad) affect everyone. You don’t think your lack of morals affects me? How you spend your every dollar affects me. The lack of personal responsibility in the nation is reaching absurd levels. If you would actually sit down and think about every stupid “mistake” you have made in your life - I mean think about someone else besides yourself - then hopefully you would come to some realization that you have an impact no matter which path you decide to take. We have all become so self reliant on our government we expect them to take care of us the minute something goes wrong - but yet we blame them constantly for not coming to our rescue fast enough. You want “conservatives” to get out of your personal lives - then get the goverment out. Liberals are no better. Liberal politicians want you to be reliant on the government. As long as I pay taxes to fund your life - I get a say so in how you live!

By Buy Danish

October 16, 2006 11:27 AM | Link to this

The reason there are so many divorces is that there are so many marriages!

Wow JK that is like, really profound.

Meanwhile you want to throw out thousands of year of civilizing tradition because WAAAAAAAAAAH gays can’t marry and (stomp your feet now) that’s just not fair!.

Why do you think that marriage is so important to Gay Liberals, but so many heterosexual Liberals call it “just a piece of paper” and do everything they can to avoid it?

Hmmmmmmmm?

By jimma

October 16, 2006 11:27 AM | Link to this

The trend that disturbs me most is other people thinking they know what is best for everyone else.

By Dusty

October 16, 2006 11:31 AM | Link to this

This is the only post I have made here today and not the one at 10:32. The nitwit who is using my “id” should speak for themselves. If I wanted someone to speak for me, I would choose someone SMART.

By Buy Danish

October 16, 2006 11:34 AM | Link to this

The little piece of paper you get from the government doesn’t mean anything…

Youth,

Thanks for proving my proving my point about this curious obsession of the Gay Rights lobby to secure marriage rights.

By Van

October 16, 2006 11:34 AM | Link to this

Buy Danish,

It really would not be a problem if the collection of the taxes were done by the state and not the feds.

The problem I have with the “Fair Tax” is the pre-bate given to everyone. Every month everyone would get a government check to cover the taxes on the basics of life.

I can just see some crack head, meth user or other drug adicts getting a government check every month.

By JK

October 16, 2006 11:48 AM | Link to this

Buy Danish, marry whomever you wish, or divorce as many people as you wish. It’s none of my business, and trust me, I DON’T CARE! Why do you think YOU deserve special privileges AND the right to deny the same to other Americans? There’s nothing at all “conservative” about today’s neo-cons who stick their noses in everybody else’s bedrooms and proclaim a moral high ground. Nobody gives a damn whether YOU approve; why is that so hard for you to accept? Barry Goldwater was a conservative who knew that religious fanatics had no place in government, and government had no place in people’s private lives. Too bad he’s not around to set you people straight.

By jbmlaw

October 16, 2006 12:12 PM | Link to this

Dear Van @ 11:34, while you are factually correct about the Friedman checks, practically speaking we are doing the same thing now, but less efficiently, by creating jobs programs and other “self-help” programs that inevitably employ large numbers of well-paid bureaucrats.

Dear JK @ 10:14, first two paragraphs extraordinarily well-written; you sound more libertarian than I. Buy Danish, I generally agree with most that you write, but please ease up on JK; please note that her first sentence was humor, thus the “!”.

Brian @ 8:24, your novel appeal for “representation without taxation” sounds awfully like something a Democrat would affirm. I think everyone should have a stake in good government, not merely advocating for Robin Hood policies.

By Realist

October 16, 2006 12:14 PM | Link to this

Im just curious at what point do we stop changing ideas, laws, practices, etc that have been existence in many cases over 100 years. At what point do we admit that all these changes politically, socially and morally are NOT benefiting mankind, but in fact are hurting us?

Change for the sake of change is not a good thing. Acceptance for the sake of being politically correct is not a good thing. We are devolving as a species folks. Look around you.

By The AJC Is A Filthy Anti American Rag

October 16, 2006 12:14 PM | Link to this

Jim: I think today’s topic is unfair, discriminatory and exclusionary. It’s almost as though you are purposefully prohibit almost half of the blogosphere from participating.

What do the pinko liberals know about paying taxes?

Or getting married for that matter.

Shame on you.

By jbmlaw

October 16, 2006 12:15 PM | Link to this

JK @ 11:48, you are confusing foreign policy with domestic policy. None of the Jewish conservatives have ever written a word advocating bedroom policies; in fact, neither have most conservatives. Calm down. It is the looney left that demands businesses adhere to their view of the world, demanding full acceptance of beastiality or whatever is the perversion du jour.

By CJ

October 16, 2006 12:19 PM | Link to this

Wooten: “The top 50 percent pay 96.7 percent of the income taxes.”

A “regressive” tax is a tax where lower-income households generally pay higher percentages of their incomes toward that tax and visa versa. Two glaring examples of regressive taxes are payroll taxes and sales taxes.

* Payroll Taxes* Payroll taxes (i.e. Social Security/Medicare taxes) are capped at $90,000, so that above this income level, the rate paid by workers drops from 7.65% of our salaries drops to zero. As a result, an employee earning $60,000 a year pays the payroll tax on all of his or her income which is 7.65% of his or her income. On the other hand, an employee earning $150,000 pays the payroll tax on three-fifths of his or her income and in the end pays 4.6% of his or her earned income toward SS/Medicare – significantly smaller percentage. As the income level grows above the cap, the percentage of income paid towards payroll taxes continues to fall.

So, the Rangers, Explorers, Troopers, Scouts, Webelos and other Republican election fundraising leaders (such as the CEO of Home Depot), inspired by labels drawn from activity clubs for boys, pay a much smaller percentage of their earned income in payroll taxes than the rest of us. In addition, since this tax is paid only on “earned” income (income from work), not investment income or inheritance income, the percentage of total income paid toward SS and Medicare falls even more as wealth increases from these other sources of income.

Sales Taxes (aka: Consumption Taxes) Let’s say that a family of four, family A, earns $40,000 a year and spends $30,000 (three-fourths of their spending) a year on taxable products with a 10% sales tax. So, this family pays $3,000 in sales taxes that year.

Now, let’s say a different family of four, family B, earned $130,000 last year, saved $10,000 (IRA, 401(k), emergency savings) and spent $90,000 (again, three-fourths of their spending) on taxable products. They paid $9,000 in sales taxes that year.

So family B paid three times more than family A. If these two families live on an island and sales taxes were the only method of taxation, then the top 50 percent (family B) would have paid 75 percent of the income taxes on the island ($9,000 divided by $12,000).

But look at the “effective” tax rates of the two families. Family A paid 7.5 percent of their income in sales taxes, while family B paid 6.9 percent of their income in sales taxes – a smaller portion for Family B. (Every voter should know the definition of “effective” tax rates and how to calculate them.) As you can see, the lower income family paid a larger portion of their income in sales taxes than the higher-income family. Such a disparity is generally the case with sales taxes because lower-income families have less income available for savings or wants – more of it goes to needs. Therefore, lower-income families use larger portions of their income for necessary expenses, resulting in higher “effective” tax rates.

Conclusion When Jim writes that the top 50 percent pays 96.7 percent of the income taxes, he’s not telling us the whole story. First, he’s leaving out the complete tax picture by excluding regressive sales taxes, regressive payroll taxes and other types of regressive taxes (property taxes, auto taxes, gasoline taxes, etc.). By cherry-picking income taxes for his illustration, Jim is misleading us with his implication that most of us aren’t incurring a tax burden.

Second, Jim’s not breaking his figures down by showing us “effective” tax rates for different income levels. In our example above, if all we know is that family B paid 75 percent of the taxes on our make-believe island without knowing the rest of the story, then we would have been mislead as well.

So, Jim’s statistics are incomplete, misleading and in the end, meaningless.

We can begin to fix the insanity of placing most of the tax burden on those who can least afford it by demanding that our elected officials remove the cap on payroll taxes. If doing so lowers the payroll tax rate for the rest of us, then so be it. The result would be a flat payroll tax (neither regressive nor progressive). In addition, this move would also be a start towards solving our baby-boomer Social Security problem.

We can also elect people who will work to reduce regressive sales taxes (e.g. Mark Taylor) instead of people who prefer to shift the tax burden to the poor by replacing “progressive” income taxes with sales/consumption taxes (e.g. Sonny Perdue).

By Jim's a Distractor

October 16, 2006 12:20 PM | Link to this

AJC is a filthy rag:

Pinko liberals know about as much as Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich and Bob Ney about Marriage.

Buy Danish:

So where is that tax reform legislation again? Your last post read like a bunch of excuses.

By Markus

October 16, 2006 12:24 PM | Link to this

Ok, to all you liberals complaining, Jim’s assessment on the decline of marriage is NOT about prying eyes. It’s more about the decline of this nation’s moral sanctity.

Marriage and the traditional family have been the moral and social backbone to this nation. This nation did not become strong via gay pride parades, shacking up and getting knocked up, and single parenthood on government dependence.

Not only does recuded marriage chip away at one of the many foundations of this nation, but it also causes the birth rate to plummet. But there’s another force out there to blame for America’s moral and family decline: Hollywood and the entertainment industry making a mockerey of it. They have shown themselves to be very anti-family/anti-relationship (non-gay at least anyway). We’ve gone from Leave It To Beaver to Happy Days to Married With Children to Will & Grace… Will & Grace… what absolute CRAP.

Regarding “tax cuts for the rich,” I have shown the loonbat left the numbers for YEARS, and then they always come back with, “Well, what about state and local taxes? What about consumption taxes?” Well tinhats, TAKE THAT UP WITH STATE AND LOCAL POLITICIANS.

Other LIBERAL LIES are that wages are decreasing and the only jobs those millions of new ones that have been added have been Wal Mart jobs. Personal income has been growing at 6.5%, (oh is THAT why my paycheck is more than last year??), and the service sector, manufacturing sector, the healthcare sector, and commercial and private constrution sector remains strong. Just open up the back of the AJC and you can see there are more jobs out there than Wal Mart; just go on Monster.com to see what kinds of jobs are out there.

But no, the mole left has to LIE or badmouth or “negatize” it’s way back to power, and it’s little lapdog, the mainstream media, is much obliged to help the moles out: “gas prices are down BUT;” “The housing makket is in a freefall” (not mentioning the record length of the boom); “jobs are up BUT.”

No, most Americans can see through the bullsheet ABC, CB.S., NBC, MSNB.S., CNN, the New York Slimes, and the Washington comPost excrete daily. If the AJC wasn’t such a predominate leftist rag from OpEds to letters to the editor to even the freaking COMICS, subscriptions would be WELL above what they are now.

Poor Ted Turner, the anti-American wack job extremist liberal, STILL can’t get over a network kicking his @ss sideways to Sunday.

RIP Air America too…

By Realist

October 16, 2006 12:28 PM | Link to this

So CJ would have everyone pay the same PERCENTAGE of thier income regardless of the dollar amount, thereby punishing the successful for being, well, successful.

The system we have today rewards you for moving up the financial ladder. You would have it the other way around where it rewards an earner to stay in a lower income bracket? What a load of HORSESHEEEOT!!

I guess we know what income bracket old CJ is in dont we. LOL!

By Midori

October 16, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this

I suppose Markus was/is trying to make a point?

somewhere?

anywhere?

is it: “Liberals bad, ABC bad, MSNBC bad,” etc.

no wonder he’s so emotional; I suppose he gets his news from the National Enquirer.

By JK

October 16, 2006 12:39 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw, I apologize for my egregious misuse of the word. I use “neocon” (as in “new breed of”) to refer to people who call themselves “conservative” yet have abandonded traditional conservative principles such as: fiscal responsibility, limited government, individual rights, a foreign policy of restraint, and conserving the precious resources with which our Creator endowed us both in use and in responsibility for its care. To call these people “conservatives” is an insult to the admirable conservatives I respect, such as Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, and Barry Goldwater. If you have a different term you’d prefer, please enlighten me, and I’ll get on board. But they’re not “conservatives,” for all their squawking, any more than I am the reigning Miss America.

By Jim's a Distractor

October 16, 2006 12:42 PM | Link to this

Markus,

Fox appears to have all your family values:

http://www.fox.com/stacked/ http://www.fox.com/tradingspouses/ http://www.fox.com/warathome/ http://www.fox.com/americandad/ http://www.fox.com/happyhour/ http://www.fox.com/oc/

Sex and vulgarity sell, huh?

Oh…I like this one too…selling sex to 10 year olds. I suppose it’s Clinton’s fault:

http://www.bratz.com/

By Rod

October 16, 2006 12:44 PM | Link to this

Here’s an EXCELLENT article in today’s AJC about the failure in the War in Iraq:

It’s over.

American troops are still fighting and dying in Iraq and will be for months to come as we try to extricate ourselves from this mess, but it’s over.

The U.S. Army may be planning ways to keep 140,000 troops in Iraq until at least 2010, but it’s over. It’s just over.

What we’re doing in Iraq cannot be sustained, not militarily and not politically, and after the election a lot of people are going to start saying so. They’ll say so if the Democrats take control of one or both chambers of Congress, and they’ll say so if Republicans remain in control. Because it’s over, and everyone knows it.

In Baghdad, 65 percent of Iraqis now support an immediate pullout of U.S. forces from their country, according to a U.S. government poll. A second poll, conducted by the University of Maryland, found that 71 percent of Iraqis want us gone within a year, and more than 60 percent of Iraqis support attacks on the U.S. troops who are fighting and dying to try to protect them. That number says it’s over.

It is impossible to win a counterinsurgency in which 60 percent of the people you’re supposed to be helping want to see your soldiers dead.

Our allies know it’s over, too. In Britain, Prime Minister Tony Blair is being forced from office largely because of his support for the war. And last week, Britain’s top general publicly advocated withdrawal of British troops from Iraq for redeployment to Afghanistan, where they are badly needed and victory is still possible.

“I am a soldier speaking up for his army,” Gen. Sir Richard Dannatt told the press. “I am just saying, ‘Come on, we can’t be here forever at this level.’ “

Here at home, public support for the war has disappeared as well. In a Gallup poll, 66 percent of Americans disapprove of how President Bush is handling Iraq. In a CNN poll, 62 percent oppose the war.

The most telling numbers, though, come from a poll by the Institute for Southern Studies, based in Durham, N.C. Its survey of 13 Southern states found that 56 percent of Southerners believe that U.S. troops should be partially or completely withdrawn from Iraq, which is about the sentiment of the nation as a whole. Eighty-nine percent of Southerners say they are a little to very saddened about the war; only 12 percent say they are proud of the war.

When you’ve lost even the South, it’s over. Pretending that we can sustain our effort in Iraq for several more years with such meager support here at home is sheer fantasy.

Our best political leaders, Republican and Democratic alike, know that, too. U.S. Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, returned recently from Iraq and said that if trends aren’t reversed in two or three months, it will be time to change course, with all options on the table. James Baker, the Republican chairman of a bipartisan commission expected to issue its report on Iraq after the election, says the same.

“I think it’s fair to say our commission believes that there are alternatives between the stated alternatives, the ones that are out there in the political debate, of ‘stay the course’ and ‘cut and run,’ ” Baker said. And of course, the facts on the ground say it’s over as well. U.S. troop levels are at the highest level since the invasion. We’ve scavenged soldiers and Marines from other parts of Iraq to focus on Baghdad, and we now claim hundreds of thousands of Iraqi troops trained and ready to help.

Yet with all that, the number of attacks in Baghdad keeps rising, the number of U.S. deaths continues to increase, the civilian death toll is still soaring and the Iraqi government is incapable of taking action. Last week, Shiite and Kurdish members of Iraq’s Parliament passed legislation creating a process for splitting the nation into pieces. They know it’s over, too. President Bush, of course, continues to bluster.

“When you pull out before the job is done, that’s cut-and-run as far as I’m concerned,” he said last week.

Our president can’t even work up the courage it would take to acknowledge his mistakes. He lacks the guts.

By clinging to the fantasy that this is still workable, he and his dwindling circle of supporters may hope to dump the blame for its collapse on those who force a change of course, but it’s not going to work.

He chose this war. He chose the means by which it was fought. Congress and the American people gave him everything he asked, and it’s over.

Now, men and women better than he is will step in and try to clean up his mess.

• Jay Bookman

By Brian Curtis

October 16, 2006 12:46 PM | Link to this

Realist: Yes, CJ’s proposal has merit. Requiring everyone to pay the same percentage is what we call “equal treatment,” which is supposed to be a cornerstone of our democracy.

And lest we forget, our society is based on democratic principles—“one person, one vote,” not “one dollar, one vote.” Income has no bearing on your worth as a citizen.

By Jim's a Distractor

October 16, 2006 12:47 PM | Link to this

Oh, Markus,

I love this one….

You may not know this, but the Moonies own the Washington Times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Times

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SunMyungMoon

They’ve got more family values that you can shake a stick at.

By Realist

October 16, 2006 12:52 PM | Link to this

Ok, so we ARE neo-cons. And Dean and Pelosi and the rest of the party leadership are radical liberal extremists. So now that we have the pleasantries out of the way…..

By getalife

October 16, 2006 12:53 PM | Link to this

Amen Jay.

By TFTT's Mother

October 16, 2006 12:53 PM | Link to this

Please excuse my Tommy’s absence from this blog today. It seems he must appear for a tax audit. You see, Tommy became so upset by the idea of paying taxes to fund things he’s opposed to—like poor people, medical care for the elderly, and welfare for children—that he “neglected” to pay any taxes last year.

And again, I apologize for his abusive language. Getting molested at school by older boys really changed Tommy, and he’s not in control of his emotions.

By Van

October 16, 2006 12:53 PM | Link to this

CJ,

For information on tax rates and who pay the real tax load, look here - the IRS has some nice Spreadsheets.

jbmlaw,

Yes, that is right, we do try to help those in need, but will dumping a large check, every month, to the drug addicts be worthwhile.

By Richard

October 16, 2006 12:55 PM | Link to this

Hmmmm - Jim is implying (or overtly stating) that the moral fiber of this country is - in essence - going to hell in a handbasket.

All this while the “conservative - family value” Republicans have been in charge.

By getalife

October 16, 2006 01:04 PM | Link to this

Jim Wooten writes about marriage and taxes.

Jay Bookman writes about the failed Iraq war.

I would say, Jay has addressed the number one issue and Jim ignores the elephant in the room.

Intellectual dishonesty at its finest.

Great article on Iraq Jay.

By CJ

October 16, 2006 01:05 PM | Link to this

Realist @12:28

If I understand you correctly, you prefer “regressive” taxes where the those who make less pay a larger portion of their incomes and thereby will not be “rewarded” for being poor. I guess you’re saying that placing most of the tax burden with the poor will inspire them to work harder???

No matter how inspired (or not-rewarded), under a consumption tax or so-called FairTax, the poor will stay poor because they’re paying larger shares of their income towards taxes even though they can afford it least. In addition, such a tax would actually lower the size of the middle class since they’d also be taking on more of the tax burden.

On the other hand, reducing the burden of regressive taxes will help to grow the middle class making the economy more stable for us all.

Two more things —

First, your implication that anybody with my beliefs must not make much money and therefore is only looking out for themselves is actually a reflection on you. I, in fact, would pay more taxes under the policies I’m promoting because I can see and understand the indirect and long-run benefits to us all. However, since greed is the only true “conservative” value, then your statement isn’t surprising.

Second, your implication that higher tax rates on lower-income earners will somehow inspire them (or not-reward them for their poverty) in return for lower tax rates on the rich as their just reward for success is nothing less than bazaar. This kind of thinking illustrates the difference between you never-say-die 33 Percenters and the rest of the world.

By time for the truth

October 16, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this

Cant believe all the liberalist crap thats coming out of these child molesters!!! Some pervert is even on here claiming to be my mother - shes dead you vile scum-sucking piece of sheet. She died while giving birth to me because my massive brain was so big that my head could hardly fit through her when I was born.

Youre damn right I dont pay taxes - Im British and dont see the need to pay for your stinking government. Ive got the right to critisize it and p** on it but I dont have to pay any friggin taxes if I dont want - and I DONT WANT!

And by the way TFTT’s Mother - no one can prove I was molested back in school. You dont have any DNA evidence to support it because I swallowed all of it - every last thirst quenching drop of it, and I even went back for refills.

And no, Im not married because I dont see why I need a freaking piece of paper to all me to have sex with my partner. You can all go to he11 for all I care.

GO GEORGE BUSH - I LOVE YOU!

By Realist

October 16, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this

Chavez Loses Bid to Get Venezuela on U.N. Security Council

Chavez had campaigned on the argument that his nation would use its seat on the council to speak out against the United States.

Oh well, sorry liberals. Im sure its a sad day for you all as Im sure you were pulling for the anti-Bush anti-American Chavez.

Perhaps all is not lost though. It appears N. Korea truly tested a nuke and is becoming more of a threat to the US and world peace every second. This should give you all great happiness!

By CJ

October 16, 2006 01:12 PM | Link to this

Van @12:53 —

Thanks for the link! It looks like good info. I’ll comb through it.

By CJ

October 16, 2006 01:20 PM | Link to this

Realist @1:06

For the record, anti-Bush doesn’t mean anti-American. To the contrary, I think that nothing is more pro-American than being anti-Bush.

By anti-Bush, I mean anti-Bush policies. I’m sure W. would be fun to watch a baseball game with. I just don’t want him running the country; he sucks at it.

By Realist

October 16, 2006 01:21 PM | Link to this

If I understand you correctly, you prefer “regressive” taxes where the those who make less pay a larger portion of their incomes and thereby will not be “rewarded” for being poor. I guess you’re saying that placing most of the tax burden with the poor will inspire them to work harder???

I believe in rewarding those who save and invest instead of squandering money on SUV’s with 22” rims while living in govt housing. Encouraging private investments for everyone not just the wealthy, is a solid way to stimulate the economy while allowing individuals the chance to practice personal responsibilty. And yes, I may be part of that 33%, but its the most powerful wealthy 33% and in the end, it will be that 33% that has the biggest guns and fastest horses.

By The AJC Is A Filthy Anti American Rag

October 16, 2006 01:27 PM | Link to this

By getalife October 16, 2006 01:04 PM Great article on Iraq Jay.

It was the same exact article that he “wrote” last week and the week before that and the week before that and…

With no changes whatsoever.

That’s why he writes in the Pinko Times and liberals like you clap and hoot for him.

Nothing else is required.

By Realist

October 16, 2006 01:31 PM | Link to this

To the contrary, I think that nothing is more pro-American than being anti-Bush.

CJ @ 12:19,1:05, 1:12, 1:24 I think you are blissfully unaware that nobody cares what you think and that what you think is not required on each and every post. Now ride off into the sunset on your superior high horse. Giddy Up!!

To Brian and others, we all already pay the same tax rates on earnings. What has your panties in a wad is the capital gains tax cut and other cuts that are exclusive to someone actually SAVING or INVESTING money instead of spending it all on ribs and gin and spinner rims.

By CJ

October 16, 2006 01:36 PM | Link to this

Big Gun with Horses @1:21 “I believe in rewarding those who save and invest instead of squandering money on SUV’s with 22 inch rims while living in govt housing.”

First, I noticed that you’re an unabashed racist. Good for you.

Second, saving doesn’t always have to do with will; sometimes it has to do with ability. One way to encourage saving and investment is by growing the middle class where households can begin to have the ability to save. Progressive taxes grow the middle class — regressive taxes shrink it.

Third, you’re right when you say that private investment stimulates the economy. So does work. One can’t do without the other. So, investment income shouldn’t get a better deal from Uncle Sam than earned income, as it does today with high income tax rates relative to capital gains and dividend tax rates.

By Southern Democrat

October 16, 2006 01:38 PM | Link to this

The income tax issue is one where I generally tend to agree with conservatives, but for different ideological reasons.

I do believe in a simpler, more rigid tax code, but not because the upper tax brackets pay too much in taxes (preposterous in my opinion), but because those in the higher tax brackets have access to the knowledge base of accountants and lawyers who can advise them on how to invest and structure/account for their money and spending to maximize their earnings.

Most (not all) teachers and middle class workers do not have access to the above resources and do not, therefore, maximize their net earnings, in my experience (I can’t tell you how many fellow teachers simply lived paycheck-to-paycheck and had their pensions as their only retirement plan).

Finally, on a post a while ago, Mr. Wooten advocated for doing away with a corporate earnings tax, stating that the cost is merely passed on to individuals through pricing. I disagree with this wholeheartedly and would offer that should this idea be realized, the Southern Democrat & Jbmlaw LLC will quickly form with its sole purpose to maximize the pre-tax earnings of its principals for the benefit of its principals’ families (a legitimate corporate objective) and we will direct that all paychecks be made out to said corporation.

We do need a simpler, more just tax system and we need to rein in government spending, I think we can all agree on that, right?

By CJ

October 16, 2006 01:44 PM | Link to this

Realist,

I forgot. You ran off to your golf game on Friday before I could respond to your complaints that Democrats don’t have any new ideas. I did respond on Friday with ideas and links. You won’t like the ideas since they come from people who aren’t promising you more tax cuts. But you can’t complain the ideas don’t exist (unless of course, you’re dishonest).

By Realist

October 16, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this

One way to encourage saving and investment is by growing the middle class where households can begin to have the ability to save.

Have you noticed the housing market over the last 6 years? The numbers related to this market along with other economic factors show very obviously that the middle class is indeed growing under the current policies. Have you also taken notice of what credit card debt is doing these days? Its skyrocketing with default at all time highs. Its called lack of personal responsibilty. Back to the drawing board CJ.

btw- Im not racist. Unless a racist is someone who detests another human being who milks the system for all its worth while giving nothing back but crime and babies. Ive seen the above in every color of the spectrum, even in ultraviolent.

By Realist

October 16, 2006 01:56 PM | Link to this

You ran off to your golf game on Friday before I could respond to your complaints that Democrats don’t have any new ideas. I did respond on Friday with ideas and links.

CJ, Yes I read your Clinton policy post. As I said late Friday, obviously after you ran off to ladel out soup at the downtown mission, we already did the Clinton policy in the 90’s. I had asked for NEW ideas. And beyond that, I asked for the names of those who might actually lead the country better than GW has and I dont think I got much of a response….other than McCain, who is I beleive a Republican (and very likely our next President).

By CJ

October 16, 2006 02:29 PM | Link to this

Realist,

You’re right when you say that poor people (“people who milk the system while giving nothing back except crime and babies”) come in all colors. But in your posts you refer to “22 inch rims” and “ribs”. You’re not talking about all poor people. You’re talking about black poor people.

You’re also implying that all people who are poor don’t work, and all people who work aren’t poor. A huge percentage of our population works full-time and more, but still struggling to make ends meet. They’re paying payroll taxes, sales taxes and other regressive taxes (the Earned Income Tax Credit is meant to offset such taxes). Many working poor (of all colors) can’t afford a house or savings.

I’d argue that it’s the investors who primarily milk the system (myself included) with lower tax rates on investment income. These lower rates result in households that get most of their income from working paying higher rates than necessary to make up for the tax breaks on investment income.

The idea that investment is more important to our economy than work is a scam brought about by the richest among us who have influence in the halls of our Congress and Legislatures. Work is as important to our economy as investment - no more, no less. Income from both should be taxed at the same rates.

Also, the fact that the housing market grew over the last several years is not an indication that the middle class is growing (prices are either declining or slowing now). In fact, housing, gas and health care prices have been climbing faster than incomes. Less savings and more debt is the logical result. For many, you’re right…it’s lack of “personal responsibility”. But that’s not true for everybody - not by a long shot.

By Van

October 16, 2006 02:30 PM | Link to this

An intersting fact from the IRS, regarding what the average tax rate is for those of us with jobs.

For those making $30,000 or less tha average tax rate is between 2.5% and 6.3%.

$30,000 - $50,000 7.6% average tax rate

$50,000 - $100,000 9.6%

Now we get into the real tax evaders

$100k - 200k 14% average tax rate

$200k - $500k - 21%

Above that it goes higher - 25% for those in the higher brackets.

See it here

By McCain Lover

October 16, 2006 02:32 PM | Link to this

Finally, some NEW ideas… Now THAT’s what I call leadership!

By Fire the Re-Pukes

October 16, 2006 02:37 PM | Link to this

Legalize Prostitution, and make all republicans dress in purty pink and brown skirts, panties optional, but highly recommended in the interests of hygene. If only you had a brain, jimmy boy.

By Saver

October 16, 2006 02:41 PM | Link to this

What about those of us who have saved a large amount of post tax money? We have already paid income tax on that money, under the flat tax, we will have to pay bloated sales tax when we spend our post tax dollars in lieu of income taxes that we have already paid, but the rest of you paycheck to paycheck bums have not paid. That’s double taxation for the slow brain folks out there, yeah I’m takin’ to you jim.

By Realist

October 16, 2006 02:43 PM | Link to this

I cant figure out who you are talking about CJ. Earlier it was middle class, now your last post you were referring to the poor. I cant keep your story straight, or at least you cant.

If you want to truly see the middle class suffer, watch them suffer when the dems roll back all the tax cuts that Bush put in place. It will cost a couple making $40,000 with two kids “thousands per year” (Sen. John Edwards)

Not to mention all those “programs” you mentioned in your Friday post. With Bushs tax cuts being rolled back, and then across the board tax increases (Sen. Pelosi) to pay for all those “programs” its shameful to act as though you are truly concerned for the common “people”. What you are is like all true liberals. A tax and spender that will forego the good of everyone both rich, middle and poor, so long as your social agenda gets funded and carried out.

By atheist

October 16, 2006 02:45 PM | Link to this

Tax the god damned churches, the free loading scum.

By Buy Danish

October 16, 2006 02:46 PM | Link to this

As predicted, JK is stomping (her?) feet. WAAAAAAAAH! You have “rights” that I don’t have!

JK,

Yeah well, handicapped people have a right to more parking spaces and bigger toilets too. Do you see the rest of us having name-calling tantrums about it?

How is it that all the couples who “shack up” are not in a frenzy demanding their rights to be married? How DO they get through the day?

Believe me, we have no desire to peek into your bedroom. Marriage is a PUBLIC institution with witnesses. You can keep it private just like your little heart desires.

By crusier

October 16, 2006 02:48 PM | Link to this

Jim, was that you down on Ponce ‘round midnight, all dressed up in your purty pink and brown panties? Supplementing the old paycheck, off the books of course? Good for you, now you’re a real workin’ man (girly man, but man none the less)!

By CJ

October 16, 2006 02:49 PM | Link to this

Realist @1:56 “we already did the Clinton policy in the 90’s.”

Realist (or is it “Lucky Luke”), I’m having trouble finding the Clinton policies of the 90s on the following subjects mentioned in my post: 9/11 commission, allocating homeland security funds, energy independence, loose nukes, Bush’s Medicare Part D or fixing our trade agreements to impose labor and environmental standards. Maybe you can point me in the right direction.

With regard to Clinton’s policies that didn’t work, are you talking about balancing the budget and taking us into a surplus, the Kyoto agreement which was never signed, the COPS program, the EITC to offset regressive taxes? Those didn’t work? Apparently I’m not reading the Reverand Moon’s Washington Times enough.

You’re right about these ideas not being NEW. I’m sorry about that. Maybe we could consider implementing some OLD ideas that work instead. No need to discriminate based on age.

As far as leaders that would be better than GW, how about Anna Nicole Smith or Carrot Top?

By techie

October 16, 2006 02:49 PM | Link to this

Yes Jim, its true, Red and Black fade to Pink and Brown.

By Tinker Bell

October 16, 2006 02:53 PM | Link to this

Jim, just remember, Tinker Bell’s a fairy too!

By Douggers

October 16, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this

“Tax & spenders’” social agenda: Poor people have a way to make it to middle class, and middle class families don’t lose everything because of one medical procedure. College is actually possible, and college graduates don’t have to wait tables at Joe’s Crab Shack.

“Borrow & spenders’” social agenda: Rich people eat well while the general economy crashes and middle class people fall into poverty. Someone else’s grandchildren can deal with it the record national debt. Don’t intterupt Daddy while he’s putting.

Personally, I’m gonna take that extra $195 from my tax refund and build my own levee to protect my home. Forget being dependent on the government! That’ll be enough, won’t it?

By Realist

October 16, 2006 03:01 PM | Link to this

CJ, I thought it obvious that I posted that as Lucky Luke and I also thought the more intellectual among us would get the reference considering the topic. Oh well, I guess not. Maybe you can google it.

My previous post stands. The middle class will get hammered by a democratic victory in November. You know it and I know it. And you are correct, the country would sooner elect Bush or Carrot Top over Kerry or H. Clinton, so what does that say about them?

By Realist

October 16, 2006 03:02 PM | Link to this

CJ, I thought it obvious that I posted that as Lucky Luke and I also thought the more intellectual among us would get the reference considering the topic. Oh well, I guess not. Maybe you can google it.

My previous post stands. The middle class will get hammered by a democratic victory in November. You know it and I know it. And you are correct, the country would sooner elect Bush or Carrot Top over Kerry or H. Clinton, so what does that say about them?

By Van

October 16, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this

atheist,

If you tax churches, then you place them under federal government regulations and accountability to the feds.

In this country we have a separation of church and state, as the lefties so often remind us.

But it gets down to a basic concept that is so simple.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

Anyway, as a charitable organization on file with the IRS, they are tax free -

If they are not a charitable organization and you do not buy the Constitutional restrictions, then by long held traditions, you do not tax churches.

By CJ

October 16, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this

What social agenda Realist? Cops on the street, homeland security, maintain our highways, safe drinking water, safe prescription drugs, safe food supply, air and rail safety, product safety? Is that the social agenda you’re referring to?

As opposed to what? No partial birth abortions even if the mother’s life is at risk, making decisions for husbands and wives with comatose spouses, being able to discriminate against gays, telling people how they can protest and how they can’t (no flag burning), spending tax dollars on abstinence programs that don’t work?

My tax ideas have nothing to do with increasing spending. They have to do with modifying the tax code so that they’re imposed fairly. They also have to do with paying down the $8.5 trillion national debt that we incurred, so our kids and their kids don’t have to pay higher taxes and experience lower standards of living to pay our debts for us.

You worry about your own wallet more than you worry about the next generation. You’re perfectly comfortable passing trillions of dollars of debt to them. You also seem to have no problem knowing that much of the interest on that debt will flow into the economies of foreign countries instead of ours - again, harming future generations.

So, keep on with your tax and spend rhetoric Realist. Your support for Republican borrow and spend policies are exposing you for the greedy bastard that you are.

By Colors of Re-pukes

October 16, 2006 03:11 PM | Link to this

Brown shirts and purty pink panties. Designer: Mark Folley, et al

By Hannibal

October 16, 2006 03:13 PM | Link to this

Eat mor babies!

By CJ

October 16, 2006 03:17 PM | Link to this

Realist @3:02 “The middle class will get hammered by a democratic victory in November”

The middle class will be hammmered for years to come thanks to Bush’s continuous deficits and the exponential growth of the interest obligations on the resulting national debt. Democrats or Republicans - we’re already screwed. We’re also already screwed for years to come because of Bush’s inept foreign policy and environmental policies. If we’re lucky next month, a Democratic Congress might be able to mitigate the damage.

By Buy Danish

October 16, 2006 03:23 PM | Link to this

You’re not very detailed oriented it seems…BD, when I get paid, I pay taxes on my income which was was realized by revenue paid by our customers. These customers already paid taxes on that money when they received it, yet now I have to pay taxes on it too. So, if it’s fair for me to pay taxes on my money that the previous owner had to pay taxes on, then I think it’s fair for the heirs of estates to pay taxes on theirs, although the previous owner may have paid taxes on it too.

Realist,

That breathtakingly nonsensical statement^^^ was made by CJ recently.

It is pointless to “argue” with her about taxes. If the Dems have there wish and taxes are increased CJ will be one of the first people whining about the lousy economy and unemployment that results from their failed policies, and will blame Bush for it. How very convenient for Hillary.

By Realist

October 16, 2006 03:26 PM | Link to this

What social agenda Realist? the one you outlined on Friday Cops on the street, homeland security, maintain our highways, safe drinking water, safe prescription drugs, safe food supply, air and rail safety, product safety? Is that the social agenda you’re referring to? Programs already exist in each of these areas and always have. You arent charting new terrority here

As opposed to what? No partial birth abortions even if the mother’s life is at risk, making decisions for husbands and wives with comatose spouses, being able to discriminate against gays, telling people how they can protest and how they can’t (no flag burning), spending tax dollars on abstinence programs that don’t work?

My tax ideas have nothing to do with increasing spending. Its just an evil by-product They have to do with modifying the tax code so that they’re imposed fairly. They also have to do with paying down the $8.5 trillion national debt that we incurred, so our kids and their kids don’t have to pay higher taxes and experience lower standards of living to pay our debts for us. The standard of living is way up, look at # of first time home buyers, etc. Also the economy is strong and the Presidents plans are working to reduce the debt as he said it would. You are preaching standard liberal doo doo

You worry about your own wallet more than you worry about the next generation. Its called personal responsibilty, leaving for my kids and grandkids so they dont have to rely on government You’re perfectly comfortable passing trillions of dollars of debt to them. You also seem to have no problem knowing that much of the interest on that debt will flow into the economies of foreign countries instead of ours - again, harming future generations.Again, future generations should be left an inheritance or birthright from their ancestors hard work, and not be at the mercy of government assistance

So, keep on with your tax and spend rhetoric Realist. And you with your liberal utopic rhetoric where the rich pays for the misgivings of the poor Your support for Republican borrow and spend policies are exposing you for the greedy bastard that you are. Its my money that I earned, your god damned right Im greedy with it because its MINE, NOT YOURS

By Van

October 16, 2006 03:28 PM | Link to this

CJ

Just what is your definition of middle class?

Without that then the statement “The middle class will be hammmered for years to come thanks to Bush’s continuous deficits and the exponential growth ” has not base of reference.

By CEO's are all Thieves

October 16, 2006 03:29 PM | Link to this

Stealing shareholder money via options and bloated salaries. Compensation Committie is just a cover for the thieves. Come the revolution, all ceo’s and their families will be put against the wall!! Viva la Revolution, ya’all

By Atheist

October 16, 2006 03:31 PM | Link to this

So its ok to tax us atheist to pay for services to the churches?

By Buy Danish

October 16, 2006 03:33 PM | Link to this

CJ,

Do you have a problem getting clean drinking water and safe prescription drugs? What on Earth are you babbling about?

You may want to update that circa 1968 Dem Party brochure you’re reading.

By Realist

October 16, 2006 03:34 PM | Link to this

Van, The poor liberals want everyone to think that middle class means a combined income of $28K/year.

They dont want you to know that they consider combined income of $60K wealthy!!!

By Buy Danish

October 16, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this

Woops, make that “if Dems have THIER wish” in my 3:23.

By Realist

October 16, 2006 03:41 PM | Link to this

Do you have a problem getting clean drinking water and safe prescription drugs? What on Earth are you babbling about?

You may want to update that circa 1968 Dem Party brochure you’re reading.

LMAO!!

CJ is trying to figure out what to do about the massive race riots and the vietnam war too!!

By CJ

October 16, 2006 03:44 PM | Link to this

Lady Danish and other “conservatives” complain about “double taxation” on inheritance income because the previous owner of the inherited money (the person who died) had already paid taxes on it (yes - usually a parent).

But, she doesn’t recognize the hypocrisy of that statement, since the previous owners of earned income (customers) also paid taxes on money that go into our paychecks. She believes that taxes on inheritance income is double taxation, but has no problem with so-called double taxation on earned income.

As a result, BD promotes the scam that those who receive most of their income by inheriting it somehow deserve to pay less taxes on their incomes than people who get most of their income from working. Again, that means that workers pay higher rates than otherwise necessary to make up for the inheriters.

Income rates should be imposed equally, regardless of source - earned, investment, or inherited.

By Douggers

October 16, 2006 03:50 PM | Link to this

If a church is on fire, does the fire department come? Who pays for that? If the church gets robbed, who comes to investigate the crime?

By Buy Danish

October 16, 2006 03:51 PM | Link to this

Realist,

I suppose it’s possible that CJ lives in some place like Haiti where these problems actually exist.

By CJ

October 16, 2006 03:52 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish and Realist. You’re too far gone. Nobody can help you anymore.

Best of luck!

By Van

October 16, 2006 03:56 PM | Link to this

Atheist ,

You pay nothing to the federal government for churches. You pay nothing for their services, the promises they make are free. If you want to accept the gift they offer, it is entirely free.

By Van

October 16, 2006 03:58 PM | Link to this

Realist,

Yes, I know, they also refuse to accept the premise that the poor work their way into the middle class and the middle class is working its way into the upper classes.

If only by inflation and and hard work.

By Van

October 16, 2006 04:02 PM | Link to this

Douggers,

The same people that responed to any other situation, regardless of how much you pay in taxes or your income level. Is there some magic involved if a crime is committed in a church? If a fire breaks out, does the fire department want to know how much you pay in taxes?

BTW, salaries of members of the clergy are taxed.

By Realist

October 16, 2006 04:02 PM | Link to this

It is completely odd and ironic that CJ is so against supposed “double” taxation, but loudly proudly promotes a government program or solution to every single one of mankinds problems or ills. Where the hell do you think all that money has to come from CJ? The government has to come up with “creative” tax plans to pay for all the BIG government intrusion !!

By Atheist

October 16, 2006 04:02 PM | Link to this

Yo van, property taxes and sales taxes on chruches are state and local, not federal, and yeah, the chruches should pay just like me and my business. The preacher, rabbi, or whatever should pay federal income tax on his income, regardless of source, just like for me and my business. Your contributions to your church should not be tax deductabile, anymore than my dues for the Dog and Pony Club should be tax deductible for me or my business.

By g

October 16, 2006 04:05 PM | Link to this

How many illegals do you think are married and have children. They don’t pay taxes and they get everything handed to them for free.

By Realist

October 16, 2006 04:06 PM | Link to this

OK, see ya CJ. Maybe if my business collapses and Im in financial ruins and have nothing to leave my family but debt when I die, I will begin to think like you and feel like I need the government to bail me out and look out for my kids when Im dead.

Until then…..I check R all the way down the list.

By Buy Danish

October 16, 2006 04:10 PM | Link to this

Nice cop-out CJ. We’ve made perfect sense so now you are fleeing! There must be some “scam” that you are running down.

CJ,

Sigh. I know this is shocking, but many things have sentimental value above and beyond their material worth. Many people inherit things like the family homestead, antiques, art, jewelry and other legacies.

The IRS demands that taxes be collected UPFRONT. The heirs are often forced to sell these items to pay taxes to satisfy the greed of people like you.

I believe that we should be able to leave OUR possessions to whomever we damn well please without the Federal (and State) government effectively confiscating it upon our demise.

For all your sides demands for non-existent individual “rights” and the desperate need for Gays to have “Property Rights” that they claim to be deprived of, why are you so bound and determined to deprive the rest of us of our rights to do with as we please with our own property?

By RW (the oravaginal)

October 16, 2006 04:13 PM | Link to this

Dog and Pony show? You’ve met RW’s wife?

The Repudlickers are trying to trick voters about the photo ID. They claim that illegal hispanic mexican immigrants will try to stuff the ballots, and they say the only way to prevent it is to require a Frito ID.

It’s a mad mad mad mad mad mad world. (and it’s screwy too).

By Buy Danish

October 16, 2006 04:14 PM | Link to this

g,

If we had the “Fair Tax” they too would be paying taxes, as would everyone who operates tax free in the underground economy.

By RW (the oravaginal)

October 16, 2006 04:17 PM | Link to this

Sonny Perdue comes across as just untrustworth and sleazy in those ads about Selling Taylor his land for “thirty million or twenty million”.

It’s the way his face contorts when he talks about Taylor. It’s just plain ungubernatorial. He’s blowing this election. If he stops the mud, and sticks to family pictures and only talks about Georgia in general, then he can still win.

Now Taylor is no prize, but voters might just send Sonny a message: “You are a jerk, sir, and you stink.”

By RW (the oravaginal)

October 16, 2006 04:19 PM | Link to this

Top Ten Items on the Sonny Do List:

By Curious Observer

October 16, 2006 04:19 PM | Link to this

So now we go from “the Democrats will never win the House or the Senate” to how a Democratic Congress is going to screw over the middle class?

Rest assured that nothing the Democrats could do will be nearly as harmful to the middle class as the shipping of jobs overseas and the importation of foreign workers to take existing jobs. That will be the Republican legacy.

Ma and Pa Republican have no idea of what their children will face when it comes time to find a job in future years. Nor do they have an inkling that the standard of living is already set for a major decline, now that the US has followed through on a decision to have open competition with countries that have our technology but pay workers 50 cents per hour. The “open trade is good” argument has already set the US on a predestined course.

It is pointless to talk about taxation policy when in a few short years there will be little income to consider taxing for a huge portion of Americans.

By RW (the oravaginal)

October 16, 2006 04:22 PM | Link to this

Top Ten Items on the Sonny Do List:

By FedUp

October 16, 2006 04:28 PM | Link to this

Okay, people… Pull out your paystubs and take a hard look! I will give you mine for example: So far my YTD Gross Pay is $148,192.36. Total taxes withheld so far: Fed Withholding is 27,516.39, Fed MED is 2192.47, Fed OASDI is 5840.40, and GA Withholding is 7,934.72. I have given the government at total of $43,482.27. I work my @$$ off to live in a modest home, drive a decent car, save & invest for my future. I have no debt except for my home. DO THE MATH. Look how much I have paid in taxes so far this year. I may get around $2,000 total back in taxes from both state and fed if I am lucky. I am being robbed - what about you?

By Ah-Hate-Jesus

October 16, 2006 04:30 PM | Link to this

Tax that boy and all his works. Tax the Brown-shirted-pink-pantied-jesus-freaken-repukes till they squeal like the pigs that are. Threre ain’t no god, never has been, never will be - thar’s just facist dictators claiming devine rights. Pink pantied, brown shirted Mark Folly’s make up 99.99 percent of the repuke party.

By Curious Yellow

October 16, 2006 04:32 PM | Link to this

The Bush Presidency would have been a great one if you subtract Iraq. I know, that’s like saying Custer’s sortie into Indian Territory was fine until the Little Big Horn.

Here’s how you prove to yourself that Iraq was a mistake: Would we have invaded Iraq if there had been no 911?

Afghanistan was a difficult decision, but now I believe it was the right one. Had we stayed there and did there what we are doing in Iraq, then we might just have wrapped up this war on terror thing.

The Iraq catastrophe has ruined our chances to defend the homeland if another 911, (coming from the al queda cells around the world, who have been left free to conspire, because all of our resources are being poured down a hole in the sand in the deserts of Iraq), happens dead ahead.

There is no real world explaination that justifies any US troop commitment to the souvereign country of Iraq. Not one.

By Van

October 16, 2006 04:33 PM | Link to this

Atheist,

The only difference between your Dog and pony show, and a religion - the religion can make a difference is someones life, your dog and pony show is just mild entertainment.

By Realist

October 16, 2006 04:33 PM | Link to this

RW, Taylor could release a video that showed Sonny beating his wife or banging a 13 year old girl in the backseat of his car and he still couldnt lose this election.

And to Unhinged Observer, Im not conceding anything. I still think it will be VERY close when the votes all get counted. I think the republicans still have a chance to hang on. The comments on how rolling back the Bush tax cuts is going to screw the middle class came from democrats not Republicans…. Sen John Edwards in particular.

By Buy Danish

October 16, 2006 04:35 PM | Link to this

You are a jerk, sir, and you stink.

That^^ perfectly describes PP - the vulgar nickjacking bloviator who uttered these words, and who is boring us to death with vulgar and painfully tedious soliloquies that he believes qualify as “wit”.

By Curious Yellow

October 16, 2006 04:36 PM | Link to this

I paid about 50K in taxes this year. So what? If you are bragging about your income, there’s always someone richer.

Now, lets talk about jock strap size. I buy all mine at the Big and Tall stores for oversized men. Not bragging. I own stock in Fruit of the Loom, and I pay myself everyday, if you get my meaning……my personal hero is the grape guy.

By Buy Danish

October 16, 2006 04:36 PM | Link to this

Fed up,

I don’t mean to depress you, but don’t forget about your property taxes, and ad valorems!

By Sonny

October 16, 2006 04:37 PM | Link to this

Yo FedUp - Ah’s say youse over paid, and ah bet your a* is pretty fat and under worked. Is’s youse being paid 90 dollars per hour to loaf on the internet? Ah do beieve youse a thief, stealin your employers time and money.

By atheist

October 16, 2006 04:41 PM | Link to this

van - b******, the dog and pony have just as much chance of changing a life as a jesus freakin’ church. since when is converting a hard drinking, fast living man to a church mouse a pressing government issue?

By Van

October 16, 2006 04:44 PM | Link to this

FedUp,

Face it FedUp, the democrats do not want you to keep a lot of your own money.

You have not “earned” it in their mind. You must have exploited someone, robbed someone or cheated someone to make that much money.

The liberals with their plastic name tag jobs can not understand what it takes to earn a living and plan for the future.

Good for you, keep it up, earn all you can, live long and prosper.

By Realist

October 16, 2006 04:45 PM | Link to this

YTD Gross Pay is $148,192.36. Total taxes withheld so far: Fed Withholding is 27,516.39, Fed MED is 2192.47, Fed OASDI is 5840.40, and GA Withholding is 7,934.72. I have given the government at total of $43,482.27. I work my @$$ off to live in a modest home, drive a decent car, save & invest for my future. I have no debt except for my home. DO THE MATH. Look how much I have paid in taxes so far this year. I may get around $2,000 total back in taxes from both state and fed if I am lucky. I am being robbed - what about you?

That pretty much says it all folks. This guy is paying 30% of his income in taxes. Where are the big tax breaks? Where is his sweetheart deal that you liberals talk about all the time. Exactly. It doenst exist. The upper middle class and wealthy are taking it in the a*ss more than anybody.

By volleyball sucks

October 16, 2006 04:45 PM | Link to this

There once was a volleyball coach at walton high school who taught in middle school, where she molested a 13 year old girl for years, thru high school. Rene must have seen the vagina monologues once too often, cause she tried to live the “good rape” part. She would be the next republican governor of georgia today, but she still has six years to go in prison. The other middle school teaching high school volleyball coach who recommended her for the job is still free, teaching and coaching girls volleybal.

By Bookeeper

October 16, 2006 05:00 PM | Link to this

Fed up,

At the end of the year, no employee making over $90,000 has to pay more than $6885 in payroll taxes (Fed MED and OASDI combined). You’ve already paid more than $8,000. You need a new employer or a new person to do your taxes if you don’t get that money back.

On the federal withholding, they’re withholding 18 percent. However, paycheck withholding amounts are estimates. To determine precisely how much you’re getting screwed, you need to look at your 1040s, not your paychecks.

By the way, it looks as if you’ll end up paying more in federal taxes if we go to a 23 percent consumption tax. Good luck with that.

By Atheist

October 16, 2006 05:00 PM | Link to this

I’ve had some devine revelations while mounted on my dogandponey at the club - that sure changed my life. So does the club get an exemption from property and sales taxes, just like the churches?

By getalife

October 16, 2006 05:09 PM | Link to this

“And Republican federal budgets have shown less self-restraint than Mark Foley’s instant messaging. Billions are being spent so college students will have someplace below sea level to get drunk during Mardi Gras. Hundreds of billions are being spent indiscriminately dumping Medicare prescription drugs on old people. There’s a new warning on the Levitra bottle: If arousal lasts more than four hours you haven’t screwed the taxpayers enough.”

By FedUp

October 16, 2006 05:10 PM | Link to this

First of all I am not bragging about anything. My income may put me in upper middle class but consider myself middle class. You cannot tell rich from poor these days. Most people in my income bracket don’t drive luxury cars or live in $500,000 homes. It is no one’s business how much I make anyway. It’s those who make half my salary that live beyond their means. They are so selfish and want everyone to think they are somebody. Look around the metro Atlanta area. Where are these people getting there money from? More than likely they are in debt beyond belief. Who do you think is going to pay for it when they file for bankrupty. At least I am honest about my situation - it’s too easy to misrepresent yourself in a blog. And by the way, I took today off. I am not on sitting on my fat @$$ at work stealing from my boss. Don’t lump me into a category that I don’t belong in.

By Van

October 16, 2006 05:15 PM | Link to this

atheist,

I see your problem, not all religious are christians. But as a Christian, I still drink, have a good life and I am anything but a church mouse.

In fact, my church just had its Oktoberfest the other weekend - Big tent, great food, good beer and plenty of dancing and drinking songs , we all had fun.

There is great comfort being with like minded people, it is a real community with a good common bond.

And if you don’t want to try it, then back off your silly excuses for arguements, you haven’t the standing to critize.

By getalife

October 16, 2006 05:19 PM | Link to this

Here is where the money is going

By FedUp

October 16, 2006 05:19 PM | Link to this

Bookeeper: Part of my total income are bonuses that are taxed even higher than normal. I believe bonuses are taxed in the upper 40% range - don’t know the exact figure. How sad that my employer gives me a bonus for going above and beyond my job expectations and the government wants to take almost half!

By Van

October 16, 2006 05:28 PM | Link to this

getalife,

When your income puts you in the 10% effective rate, then you will be allowed to play with the big guys.

By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda I

October 16, 2006 05:39 PM | Link to this

greetings from Vegas - doing well here, thanks to redneck fools that think they are poker players. Two drunk gals from NC in the tournament I won this AM - thanks for playing, ladies!

Back in the ATL soon.

tftt/tommy was a breech birth…

By Markus

October 16, 2006 05:40 PM | Link to this

CJ’s 3:45-

“Income rates should be imposed equally…”

Only a good little Stalinist democrat would think of inheritance as income. “Hey, it’s OUR money too!” Communists.

By GodHatesTrash

October 16, 2006 05:42 PM | Link to this

The trash of Georgia love their governor - (woo, woo, woo).

Trash elects trash, and you don’t get any trashier than pigman Sonny, or Georgia.

Pigs.

By Bookeeper

October 16, 2006 05:43 PM | Link to this

FedUp,

Nobody pays taxes on 40 percent of their income. The highest income tax bracket is 35 percent, most of your income falls into one of lower tax brackets (33%, 28%, 25%, 15%, 10%). After your mortgage interest deduction and property/car tax deductions, you might actually end up paying around the 18 percent that your payroll company estimates - maybe less if you have child deductions, 401k deductions, etc.

If your employer is withholding 40 percent from your bonuses, then they’re withholding too much. You can look forward to a significant refund at the end of the year.

If you have any investment income, the most you can pay on that income will be 15 percent. This rate will bring your effective 18 percent federal tax rate down further - depending on how much investment income you realize, if any.

As I said before, don’t look at your paycheck (estimates) to figure out the percentage of your income paid to the feds - look at your tax returns. If your total federal tax payment (income and investments) is more than around 18 percent, consider finding somebody else to prepare your tax returns next year.

By getalife

October 16, 2006 05:46 PM | Link to this

22 days away from this

Bwhahahahahaha!

By Markus

October 16, 2006 05:47 PM | Link to this

Funny how someone like FedUp gives his REAL WORLD experience on paying taxes, which SLAMS the jackass neomarxist left’s LIES about certain groups not paying their fair share of taxes, and then a liberal communist pig like “Sonny” comes along and says FedUp is not really working, doesn’t deserve his money, blah blah blah. Typical liberal jealousy of one’s betters. Yep, it’s a real waste of time dealing with you pig-headed liberals.

By Bookeeper

October 16, 2006 05:50 PM | Link to this

“Nobody pays taxes on 40 percent of their income” should be “nobody pays 40 percent of their income for income taxes”. Sorry about that.

By Markus

October 16, 2006 05:55 PM | Link to this

Mmm-huh getmolife-

It’s your election to lose. That said, you better hope your RATs get out and vote in full numbers, ‘cause your gonna be real surprised at the Con turnout…. yet again.

By Markus

October 16, 2006 05:59 PM | Link to this

Bookeeper:

“nobody pays 40 percent of their income for income taxes”

Wanna bet? Stick around this week.

By Buy Danish

October 16, 2006 06:03 PM | Link to this

Markus,

I think the “expert” on tax rates is a “BOOkeeper” and not a “Bookkeeper”.

Happy Halloween!

By Bookeeper

October 16, 2006 06:14 PM | Link to this

Markus,

Federal income tax rates are on the IRS website. The highest earned income tax rate is 35 percent. The highest tax rate on capital gains and dividends is 15 percent. The effective tax rates of workers even in the $300,000 per year category is much less than 35 percent when income within lower tax brackets and deductions are factored in.

Sorry, but this isn’t my opinion…it’s a fact.

By Rod

October 16, 2006 09:39 PM | Link to this

I see that CRY-BABY WOOTEN had my comments removed from here. All I had done was point out that the vast majority of Americans were against Bush’s handling of Iraq. Wooten also had the comments removed of getalife who supported my comments.

Freedom of the press? Wooten eliminates those who disagree with him.

JIM WOOTEN - YOU’RE PATHETIC.

By Techie

October 17, 2006 08:38 AM | Link to this

Rod, wooten is an idiot, hence the nick name of if-i-only-had-a-brain, imho. His competition at the ajc is so weak, he is able to keep his job as mouth-piece for the right wing bigots. Fear not, revenge is just around the corner. The neo-scum plan to attack Iran on or shortly after October 21, 2006. Iran will take heave loses, but they will fight back, and the cheap oil uncle stupid has been stealing from the arab peoples will stop flowing. The fake american economy is underpinned by the printing of 1 trillion new dollars per year, and the dollar is underpinned by arab oil. All that changes when the oil stops flowing. The dollar will go to zero on foreign exchange markets, imports will drop to zero, our oil stocks will plung daily, and it will be back to the 19th century for america. The Fat-ASSet repukes will see their jobs disappear and their savings become worthless, just like the Germans of 1923. Adolf Von Bush and his neo-scum pals will take america from democracy to AmeriKa the facist. ‘course, bushie and pals may wear brown shirts, and talk all tough, but underneath, they all wear pink panties, and are chicken-s** cowards.

By harold

October 17, 2006 09:07 AM | Link to this

Increasing numbers of Americans become oblivious to the cost of government?

Harold says you got it all wrong, Big Woot!

People are leaving the Republican party in droves as they learn how much Bush’s cohorts are costing them in dollars and lives lost.

At least all those cohort guys (rummy cheney etc) are so old they will die of old age soon. They can’t run this country forever. 30 years is more than long enough.

Ever notice how they named themselves with an “eeee” at the end like puppy? It is to disarm the American public against their inherent evilness.

Name a snarling pit bull Tootsie, slap a pink ribbon on it and people will think its cute.

By harold

October 17, 2006 09:15 AM | Link to this

the reason fewer heteros are getting married is they see their gay friends who cant get married saving $thousands in taxes from not having their incomes lumped together for taxing.

the republicans have prevented the gays from marrying, the non married gays have served as a role model for their hetero friends, heteros are now all “why the hell should we get married? screw that! we probably just gonna get deevorced anyway so why bother. bob and ted had a much easier split than sue and john and saved $150,000 by not having to get deevorced”

the only way to protect marriage is to eradicate the example the gays are being forced by the republicans to provide. republicans are holding the gay unmarried lifestyle on a pedestal for all to see and worship and go “man i may not be able to stick my thing in the same place as that guy, but i can sure keep my wallet in the same pocket they do”

to get hetereo marriages back on track with what jesus said (though jesus never married, he did have a “roommate” you know and was found with sheep from time to time), the gays must be not just allowed but FORCED to marry, and infidelity, gay or straight, must be a carnal sin with punishment of behanding the first time and beheading the second!

all divorces should be allowed but the divorcees must then be stoned for three hours or to death whichever comes first.

any divorcee surviving three hours of stoning must have a big D tattooeed on their forehead which is ugly so they must wear a divorcee hoodie which covers the forehead so the public at large need not be offended by their divorce but anyone who might get intimate enough to pull back the hoodie will see exactly what kind of christian amaerican they are!

harold has speakethed.

By Techie

October 17, 2006 09:21 AM | Link to this

All true Harold. The brutality of the neo-scums is in direct proportion to their under lying cowardlyness. Rummy, Wolfie, Libbie and Chaney would not last five minutes under the kinds of torture they have ordered inflicted on their Arab prisioners. Their pink panties would quickly fill with the brown truth of their own cowardlyness, anf yellow ribbons of surrender would stain the purty pink fronts of their lace covered panties.

By harold

October 17, 2006 09:43 AM | Link to this

but seriously folks, these “trend” are only “unsettling” if you have some weird hangup where you think everybody has to get married.

why would anybody think everybody else should get married? or shouldnt get married?

isnt conservativism about taking care of you and yours? isnt it about keeping your nose out of everybody else’s business and they and the government keep their noses out of your business?

this is why conservativism is doomed to fail and has only lasted this long thanks to so many dirty tricks from dirty dirty people

there is a fissurical double standard in conservativism: fiscal consersvativism = “i keep my money, you keep yours.” social conservatism = “i have my values, you have my values.” the party is doomed to split.

this can only be good for ‘Merika. the only way to castrate the special interest lobbyists and corporations who run the government is to have multiple viable parties.

harold welcomes the imminent split in the republicans. hell harold might even become one of the “my money for me, my values for me” republicans. oh those are called libertarians arent they

By Techie

October 17, 2006 09:59 AM | Link to this

Harold, the repukes are all afraid that their daughters will end up like Dickie Chanie’s Bull D** Lesbo daughter if they don’t git married real soon.

By harold

October 17, 2006 10:00 AM | Link to this

Harold says “The powers that be allowed one more plane to hit one more Manhattan tower because they weren’t willing to tell their contributors not to fly around the city anymore. Remember on November 7th that the convenience of the richest 1% of Americans is more important to the Bush administration than your safety.”

By harold

October 17, 2006 10:07 AM | Link to this

harold says dont yall be dissin’ mary cheney.

mary cheney will be the presidential candidate for the “my money for me, my values for me” republicans currently known as libarterians