One Of The Wealthiest Men In America Says Rich Not Paying Their Fair Share

[Ray From Cleveland]

[QU

There has never ever been a tax increase on the working class in the last twenty years done by republicans. Just check the income tax rates and you will see that they are either flat or decreasing.

Reagan decreased the income tax rates but he also raised a lot of taxes and fees. Bush Sr. didn't get reelected because he raised taxes.

We did not get to the point of 40% of the GDP simply because of the Democrats. They have been aided and abetted all along by weak minded Republicans.

Democrats promise bad government and always delivers bad government.

The Republicans promise good government but mostly delivers about the same bad government as the Democrats.

The last sensible government reduction plan I saw out of a Republican was Ron Paul's Restore America budget where he proposed a trillion dollar a year cut in Federal spending which was very doable. Show me the Republican nowadays that has the courage to do the same thing and I will for him/her.

The best we have got out of the Republicans have been some slight decrease in the growth of the Federal spending. No significant cutback just less increase.

For once I'd like to see the GOP cut government waste that doesn't hurt poor people. Lots of fraud and waste in the military. Lots of bad Republican pork. If they really wanted to make a dent they'd cut those programs first. Then we wouldn't complain when you also cut welfare.

And the GOP doesn't have a plan to pay off the debt. No sane person would suggest a Republican president won't double the debt too. They will you know. Right?

I agree to a point.

First step, get rid of all bureaucracies. That would save us a ton of money. Next, quit funding Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS. Stop shoveling out money to foreign nations like Iran for a couple hundred billion dollars. Get rid of Commie Care. That's at least a half a trillion right there.

 

[Flash]

[Q

No evidence a flat tax works. It's an experiment the rich want to try

Changing our tax structure is going to do anything more than change the mix of winners and losers.

The problem is not how we collect taxes but the fact that we collect too many taxes.

The solution is to defund the government to the minimal amount and return the money to the people that earned it.

It ain't rocket science.

 

[Campbell]

Thievery is when someone travels the highways, vacations in Hawaii, flies internationally, takes law enforcement for granted, sends their kids to a private school and thinks they are entitled to do it. That's the best example of thievery in the world. The fact that the party they support starts wars but let somebody else's kids fight it is a no brainer. Fuck all of you dedicated right wingers!!

No lib loon. Theft is the action of taking the property of somebody against their will leaving them with no reasonable alternative. For instance: you are walking down the street one night, and somebody approaches you with a gun asking for all your money. You have two choices: give the thief your money and walk away alive, or get shot and he takes your money anyway.

He is a thief because he took your money against your will and gave you no reasonable alternative.

Example: you are my neighbor and have much more money than I. When you are not home one day, I break into your home and take some of your money that I feel I need. Did I break the law? Of course I did, and I will end up in jail because of it.

When liberal politicians do the exact same thing, not only are they not arrested and charged, they are applauded by their liberal constituents.

Why is one against the law and not the other?

Just curious.......why is it that your party of elite assholes start wars 10,000 miles from home and expect the sons and daughters of others to do the fighting? When was the last time a right wing, rich ass hole volunteered to travel and fight?

As we all know, Palin's son was in the military, and so is Bill Bennett's son serving right now.

Why do they expect the sons and daughters to fight wars? Because that's what the sons and daughters joined the military for. If your son became a cop, do you blame your society if he goes after a criminal who robbed a bank? Of course not. That's what police officers do, they go after criminals.

The record shows that Palin's son is some kind of mixed up young man who can't get his shit together. He's still worried about Russia being next door.

So is he in the military or not?

All this talk about sending kids to fight wars, and which party do our military men and women generally associate with? Which party do they support when they get to vote?

When a draft dodging idiot like George W. Bush sends them to an unnecessary war what difference does it make??

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Warren Buffett says the super-rich pay lower tax rates than others

It's not often you see someone stand up and say, "Tax me more!"

Yet that's just what famed investor Warren Buffett has done in an op-ed in the New York Times headlined, "Stop Coddling the Super-Rich." Buffett says that very wealthy people like himself pay lower tax rates than the middle class, thanks to special tax categories for investment income.

The part Buffet didn't mention is that not only payroll taxes the poorest of the poor pay a much higher percentage of their income than others. When every kind of local tax, fee, registration charge, license and other government and normal living required costs are added the rich are getting off and making out like a bandit when observed as a percentage of their total.

For example in Tennessee there is a state sales tax and in the county where I live there's also a local retail tax on everything one purchases. A poor bastard earning $30,000 a year pays the same gasoline tax as a millionaire and if one looks closely there's another form of taxation or fee being charged every time the poor man/woman opens his/her billfold/purse.

Fucking hilarious!!!!

Most of Berkshire's acquisitions were tax-free stock swaps and now Warren stuffed almost his entire fortune in a tax free trust

 

[Campbell]

[QU

There has never ever been a tax increase on the working class in the last twenty years done by republicans. Just check the income tax rates and you will see that they are either flat or decreasing.

Reagan decreased the income tax rates but he also raised a lot of taxes and fees. Bush Sr. didn't get reelected because he raised taxes.

We did not get to the point of 40% of the GDP simply because of the Democrats. They have been aided and abetted all along by weak minded Republicans.

Democrats promise bad government and always delivers bad government.

The Republicans promise good government but mostly delivers about the same bad government as the Democrats.

The last sensible government reduction plan I saw out of a Republican was Ron Paul's Restore America budget where he proposed a trillion dollar a year cut in Federal spending which was very doable. Show me the Republican nowadays that has the courage to do the same thing and I will for him/her.

The best we have got out of the Republicans have been some slight decrease in the growth of the Federal spending. No significant cutback just less increase.

For once I'd like to see the GOP cut government waste that doesn't hurt poor people. Lots of fraud and waste in the military. Lots of bad Republican pork. If they really wanted to make a dent they'd cut those programs first. Then we wouldn't complain when you also cut welfare.

And the GOP doesn't have a plan to pay off the debt. No sane person would suggest a Republican president won't double the debt too. They will you know. Right?

I agree to a point.

First step, get rid of all bureaucracies. That would save us a ton of money. Next, quit funding Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS. Stop shoveling out money to foreign nations like Iran for a couple hundred billion dollars. Get rid of Commie Care. That's at least a half a trillion right there.

Typical Republican banter......cut taxes and cut out everything else which always goes to the most needy in the country. People at the top don't need help. They're very goddam lucky!!

I was a Republican for the first thirty years I voted. I voted for Eisenhower, Goldwater, Nixon three times and even the old fool Ronald Reagan one time. I went twenty years and didn't even go to the polls. The only things the modern Republican party stands for is tax cuts for the rich and subsidies for the corporations......Oh, and an occasional foreign war. The Republicans will go to war with a sovereign nation simply because they don't like the leader. This letter they wrote to Bill Clinton in 1998 proves it:

December 18, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate.
The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick

 

[Redfish]

you libs and dems constantly complain about the rich not paying enough. Great we get it

Now, tell us who wrote the tax code that lets the very rich get off with paying a low % of their income in federal taxes. Can you do that? No?

then here is the answer---------------congress wrote the tax code, congress created the tax shelters, deductions, exemptions, write offs, etc that you constantly bitch about.

NOW, which party has controlled congress for most of the last 80 years? Any idea? Democrats.

so if you want to bitch about what the rich pay, bitch at your own party you fricken morons.

 

[sealybobo]

you libs and dems constantly complain about the rich not paying enough. Great we get it

Now, tell us who wrote the tax code that lets the very rich get off with paying a low % of their income in federal taxes. Can you do that? No?

then here is the answer---------------congress wrote the tax code, congress created the tax shelters, deductions, exemptions, write offs, etc that you constantly bitch about.

NOW, which party has controlled congress for most of the last 80 years? Any idea? Democrats.

so if you want to bitch about what the rich pay, bitch at your own party you fricken morons.

But you agree the tax code is not fair for the middle class?

Here's the difference between us. I think the rich need to pay more. You think the poor should, because they got it too good.

 

[Campbell]

you libs and dems constantly complain about the rich not paying enough. Great we get it

Now, tell us who wrote the tax code that lets the very rich get off with paying a low % of their income in federal taxes. Can you do that? No?

then here is the answer---------------congress wrote the tax code, congress created the tax shelters, deductions, exemptions, write offs, etc that you constantly bitch about.

NOW, which party has controlled congress for most of the last 80 years? Any idea? Democrats.

so if you want to bitch about what the rich pay, bitch at your own party you fricken morons.

One goddam thing I haven't forgotten. Ronald Reagan and the Bushes slashing tax rates to 50 year lows, never cutting their spending a goddam dime and quadrupling, then later after Bill Clinton left them a surplus, doubling the debt again. What a bunch of stupid assholes.

..............................................Total U S Debt................................................

Figures Easily Verified....Taken From the Bureau of the Debt

US: $18,775,084,981,440 - Debt as of December 2015?

09/30/2014 $17,824,071,380,733.82

09/30/2013 $16,738,183,526,697.32

09/30/2012 $16,066,241,407,385.89

09/30/2011 $14,790,340,328,557.15

09/30/2010 $13,561,623,030,891.79

09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)

09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48

09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23

09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50

09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)

09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)

09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)

09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)

09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62

09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34

09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73

09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39

09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32 (Bill Clinton Raised Taxes On The Rich early 1993)

09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 ( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)

09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66

09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03

09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25

09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32

09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16

09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00

09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42

09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00

09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00

09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00

09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)(Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)

09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

 

[Wyatt earp]

you libs and dems constantly complain about the rich not paying enough. Great we get it

Now, tell us who wrote the tax code that lets the very rich get off with paying a low % of their income in federal taxes. Can you do that? No?

then here is the answer---------------congress wrote the tax code, congress created the tax shelters, deductions, exemptions, write offs, etc that you constantly bitch about.

NOW, which party has controlled congress for most of the last 80 years? Any idea? Democrats.

so if you want to bitch about what the rich pay, bitch at your own party you fricken morons.

But you agree the tax code is not fair for the middle class?

Here's the difference between us. I think the rich need to pay more. You think the poor should, because they got it too good.

Yet you never mention voluntarily giving donations to the IRS, why is that?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

[QU

There has never ever been a tax increase on the working class in the last twenty years done by republicans. Just check the income tax rates and you will see that they are either flat or decreasing.

Reagan decreased the income tax rates but he also raised a lot of taxes and fees. Bush Sr. didn't get reelected because he raised taxes.

We did not get to the point of 40% of the GDP simply because of the Democrats. They have been aided and abetted all along by weak minded Republicans.

Democrats promise bad government and always delivers bad government.

The Republicans promise good government but mostly delivers about the same bad government as the Democrats.

The last sensible government reduction plan I saw out of a Republican was Ron Paul's Restore America budget where he proposed a trillion dollar a year cut in Federal spending which was very doable. Show me the Republican nowadays that has the courage to do the same thing and I will for him/her.

The best we have got out of the Republicans have been some slight decrease in the growth of the Federal spending. No significant cutback just less increase.

For once I'd like to see the GOP cut government waste that doesn't hurt poor people. Lots of fraud and waste in the military. Lots of bad Republican pork. If they really wanted to make a dent they'd cut those programs first. Then we wouldn't complain when you also cut welfare.

And the GOP doesn't have a plan to pay off the debt. No sane person would suggest a Republican president won't double the debt too. They will you know. Right?

I agree to a point.

First step, get rid of all bureaucracies. That would save us a ton of money. Next, quit funding Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS. Stop shoveling out money to foreign nations like Iran for a couple hundred billion dollars. Get rid of Commie Care. That's at least a half a trillion right there.

Typical Republican banter......cut taxes and cut out everything else which always goes to the most needy in the country. People at the top don't need help. They're very goddam lucky!!

I was a Republican for the first thirty years I voted. I voted for Eisenhower, Goldwater, Nixon three times and even the old fool Ronald Reagan one time. I went twenty years and didn't even go to the polls. The only things the modern Republican party stands for is tax cuts for the rich and subsidies for the corporations......Oh, and an occasional foreign war. The Republicans will go to war with a sovereign nation simply because they don't like the leader. This letter they wrote to Bill Clinton in 1998 proves it:

December 18, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate.
The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick

You should wake up more often and pay attention to the news.

Last time the Republican Congress had anything to do with taxes on the rich, they increased them.

Last time the Republican Congress had anything to do with taxes on corporations, they increased them, so to the point we now have the highest corporate tax rate in the world.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of congress, 1794

Now ask yourself, had we adhered to Madison's words, would we be anywhere near 19 trillion dollars in debt today???

 

[sealybobo]

you libs and dems constantly complain about the rich not paying enough. Great we get it

Now, tell us who wrote the tax code that lets the very rich get off with paying a low % of their income in federal taxes. Can you do that? No?

then here is the answer---------------congress wrote the tax code, congress created the tax shelters, deductions, exemptions, write offs, etc that you constantly bitch about.

NOW, which party has controlled congress for most of the last 80 years? Any idea? Democrats.

so if you want to bitch about what the rich pay, bitch at your own party you fricken morons.

But you agree the tax code is not fair for the middle class?

Here's the difference between us. I think the rich need to pay more. You think the poor should, because they got it too good.

Yet you never mention voluntarily giving donations to the IRS, why is that?

I give whatever they say I have to give. I'm the middle class. Do you think it is us who isn't paying our fair share? You can't slash corporations taxes and double the debt. You do realize your accounting skills suck

 

[sealybobo]

[QU

There has never ever been a tax increase on the working class in the last twenty years done by republicans. Just check the income tax rates and you will see that they are either flat or decreasing.

Reagan decreased the income tax rates but he also raised a lot of taxes and fees. Bush Sr. didn't get reelected because he raised taxes.

We did not get to the point of 40% of the GDP simply because of the Democrats. They have been aided and abetted all along by weak minded Republicans.

Democrats promise bad government and always delivers bad government.

The Republicans promise good government but mostly delivers about the same bad government as the Democrats.

The last sensible government reduction plan I saw out of a Republican was Ron Paul's Restore America budget where he proposed a trillion dollar a year cut in Federal spending which was very doable. Show me the Republican nowadays that has the courage to do the same thing and I will for him/her.

The best we have got out of the Republicans have been some slight decrease in the growth of the Federal spending. No significant cutback just less increase.

For once I'd like to see the GOP cut government waste that doesn't hurt poor people. Lots of fraud and waste in the military. Lots of bad Republican pork. If they really wanted to make a dent they'd cut those programs first. Then we wouldn't complain when you also cut welfare.

And the GOP doesn't have a plan to pay off the debt. No sane person would suggest a Republican president won't double the debt too. They will you know. Right?

I agree to a point.

First step, get rid of all bureaucracies. That would save us a ton of money. Next, quit funding Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS. Stop shoveling out money to foreign nations like Iran for a couple hundred billion dollars. Get rid of Commie Care. That's at least a half a trillion right there.

Typical Republican banter......cut taxes and cut out everything else which always goes to the most needy in the country. People at the top don't need help. They're very goddam lucky!!

I was a Republican for the first thirty years I voted. I voted for Eisenhower, Goldwater, Nixon three times and even the old fool Ronald Reagan one time. I went twenty years and didn't even go to the polls. The only things the modern Republican party stands for is tax cuts for the rich and subsidies for the corporations......Oh, and an occasional foreign war. The Republicans will go to war with a sovereign nation simply because they don't like the leader. This letter they wrote to Bill Clinton in 1998 proves it:

December 18, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate.
The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick

You should wake up more often and pay attention to the news.

Last time the Republican Congress had anything to do with taxes on the rich, they increased them.

Last time the Republican Congress had anything to do with taxes on corporations, they increased them, so to the point we now have the highest corporate tax rate in the world.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of congress, 1794

Now ask yourself, had we adhered to Madison's words, would we be anywhere near 19 trillion dollars in debt today???

Usually I would post a link if I made the claim you just made. When did they raise taxes?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

you libs and dems constantly complain about the rich not paying enough. Great we get it

Now, tell us who wrote the tax code that lets the very rich get off with paying a low % of their income in federal taxes. Can you do that? No?

then here is the answer---------------congress wrote the tax code, congress created the tax shelters, deductions, exemptions, write offs, etc that you constantly bitch about.

NOW, which party has controlled congress for most of the last 80 years? Any idea? Democrats.

so if you want to bitch about what the rich pay, bitch at your own party you fricken morons.

But you agree the tax code is not fair for the middle class?

Here's the difference between us. I think the rich need to pay more. You think the poor should, because they got it too good.

Yet you never mention voluntarily giving donations to the IRS, why is that?

I give whatever they say I have to give. I'm the middle class. Do you think it is us who isn't paying our fair share? You can't slash corporations taxes and double the debt. You do realize your accounting skills suck

What we need is a consumption tax to pay down the debt. All money collected goes strictly to the debt and the debt only. A consumption tax would be paid by all, rich, middle-class, upper-middle-class and the wealthy. The more you buy, the lower our debt goes.

That's fair for everybody.

 

[Contumacious]

Warren Buffett says the super-rich pay lower tax rates than others

It's not often you see someone stand up and say, "Tax me more!"

Yet that's just what famed investor Warren Buffett has done in an op-ed in the New York Times headlined, "Stop Coddling the Super-Rich." Buffett says that very wealthy people like himself pay lower tax rates than the middle class, thanks to special tax categories for investment income.

Warren Buffett says the super-rich pay lower tax rates than others

It's not often you see someone stand up and say, "Tax me more!"

Yet that's just what famed investor Warren Buffett has done in an op-ed in the New York Times headlined, "Stop Coddling the Super-Rich." Buffett says that very wealthy people like himself pay lower tax rates than the middle class, thanks to special tax categories for investment income.

The part Buffet didn't mention is that not only payroll taxes the poorest of the poor pay a much higher percentage of their income than others. When every kind of local tax, fee, registration charge, license and other government and normal living required costs are added the rich are getting off and making out like a bandit when observed as a percentage of their total.

For example in Tennessee there is a state sales tax and in the county where I live there's also a local retail tax on everything one purchases. A poor bastard earning $30,000 a year pays the same gasoline tax as a millionaire and if one looks closely there's another form of taxation or fee being charged every time the poor man/woman opens his/her billfold/purse.

Warren Buffett: Baptist and Bootlegger

How America’s favorite billionaire plays politics to make money

In the summer of 2008, when several investment houses and the government-sponsored mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac teetered on the brink of financial collapse, Buffett was “uncharacteristically quiet,” as the London Guardian observed. It was only on September 23 that he became a highly visible player in the drama, investing $5 billion in Goldman Sachs, which was overleveraged and short on cash. Buffett’s play gave the investment bank a much-needed cash infusion, making a heck of a deal for himself in return: Berkshire Hathaway received preferred stock with a 10 percent dividend yield and an attractive option to buy another $5 billion in stock at $115 a share.

Wall Street was on fire, and Buffett was running toward the flames. But he was doing so with the expectation that the fire department (that is, the federal government) was right behind him with buckets of bailout money. As he admitted on CNBC at the time, “If I didn’t think the government was going to act, I wouldn’t be doing anything this week.”

Libtards complain about Wall Street but Wall Street funds the the Democrats more than the Republicans. Wall Street is just as much a welfare queen as the Ghetto Monkeys.

For example in Tennessee there is a state sales tax and in the county where I live there's also a local retail tax on everything one purchases. A poor bastard earning $30,000 a year pays the same gasoline tax as a millionaire and if one looks closely there's another form of taxation or fee being charged every time the poor man/woman opens his/her billfold/purse.

Warren Buffett: Baptist and Bootlegger

How America’s favorite billionaire plays politics to make money

In the summer of 2008, when several investment houses and the government-sponsored mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac teetered on the brink of financial collapse, Buffett was “uncharacteristically quiet,” as the London Guardian observed. It was only on September 23 that he became a highly visible player in the drama, investing $5 billion in Goldman Sachs, which was overleveraged and short on cash. Buffett’s play gave the investment bank a much-needed cash infusion, making a heck of a deal for himself in return: Berkshire Hathaway received preferred stock with a 10 percent dividend yield and an attractive option to buy another $5 billion in stock at $115 a share.

Wall Street was on fire, and Buffett was running toward the flames. But he was doing so with the expectation that the fire department (that is, the federal government) was right behind him with buckets of bailout money. As he admitted on CNBC at the time, “If I didn’t think the government was going to act, I wouldn’t be doing anything this week.”

Libtards complain about Wall Street but Wall Street funds the the Democrats more than the Republicans. Wall Street is just as much a welfare queen as the Ghetto Monkeys.

Yes, indeed


Throughout the financial crisis and the debate over the stimulus in early 2009, several members of Congress were buying and trading Berkshire stock. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) bought Berkshire shares four times over a three-week period in September and October 2008, up to $130,000 worth. He bought shares during the debate over the bailout, during the vote, and after the vote. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) bought the stock, as did Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), who bought up to $500,000 worth just days after the bailout bill was signed. Some legislators also followed Buffett’s example by buying shares in Goldman Sachs after the bailout. Among them were Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio), Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), and Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.).

Early in the financial crisis, Obama, then a senator and his party’s presidential nominee, had been cautious and lukewarm about a possible bailout. But in the days following Buffett’s multibillion-dollar play for Goldman Sachs, and with fears of economic collapse mounting, Obama became a powerful champion of the government rescue. As the top Democrat in the country, he had an important vote. The New York Times reported that Obama “intensified” his efforts to “rally support for the $700 billion financial bailout package” after September 28, 2008. The plan was necessary, said Obama, “to safeguard the economy.”

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Reagan decreased the income tax rates but he also raised a lot of taxes and fees. Bush Sr. didn't get reelected because he raised taxes.

We did not get to the point of 40% of the GDP simply because of the Democrats. They have been aided and abetted all along by weak minded Republicans.

Democrats promise bad government and always delivers bad government.

The Republicans promise good government but mostly delivers about the same bad government as the Democrats.

The last sensible government reduction plan I saw out of a Republican was Ron Paul's Restore America budget where he proposed a trillion dollar a year cut in Federal spending which was very doable. Show me the Republican nowadays that has the courage to do the same thing and I will for him/her.

The best we have got out of the Republicans have been some slight decrease in the growth of the Federal spending. No significant cutback just less increase.

For once I'd like to see the GOP cut government waste that doesn't hurt poor people. Lots of fraud and waste in the military. Lots of bad Republican pork. If they really wanted to make a dent they'd cut those programs first. Then we wouldn't complain when you also cut welfare.

And the GOP doesn't have a plan to pay off the debt. No sane person would suggest a Republican president won't double the debt too. They will you know. Right?

I agree to a point.

First step, get rid of all bureaucracies. That would save us a ton of money. Next, quit funding Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS. Stop shoveling out money to foreign nations like Iran for a couple hundred billion dollars. Get rid of Commie Care. That's at least a half a trillion right there.

Typical Republican banter......cut taxes and cut out everything else which always goes to the most needy in the country. People at the top don't need help. They're very goddam lucky!!

I was a Republican for the first thirty years I voted. I voted for Eisenhower, Goldwater, Nixon three times and even the old fool Ronald Reagan one time. I went twenty years and didn't even go to the polls. The only things the modern Republican party stands for is tax cuts for the rich and subsidies for the corporations......Oh, and an occasional foreign war. The Republicans will go to war with a sovereign nation simply because they don't like the leader. This letter they wrote to Bill Clinton in 1998 proves it:

December 18, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate.
The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick

You should wake up more often and pay attention to the news.

Last time the Republican Congress had anything to do with taxes on the rich, they increased them.

Last time the Republican Congress had anything to do with taxes on corporations, they increased them, so to the point we now have the highest corporate tax rate in the world.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of congress, 1794

Now ask yourself, had we adhered to Madison's words, would we be anywhere near 19 trillion dollars in debt today???

Usually I would post a link if I made the claim you just made. When did they raise taxes?

2013 Tax Rate Changes | Income Tax Changes in 2013

 

[Campbell]

[QU

There has never ever been a tax increase on the working class in the last twenty years done by republicans. Just check the income tax rates and you will see that they are either flat or decreasing.

Reagan decreased the income tax rates but he also raised a lot of taxes and fees. Bush Sr. didn't get reelected because he raised taxes.

We did not get to the point of 40% of the GDP simply because of the Democrats. They have been aided and abetted all along by weak minded Republicans.

Democrats promise bad government and always delivers bad government.

The Republicans promise good government but mostly delivers about the same bad government as the Democrats.

The last sensible government reduction plan I saw out of a Republican was Ron Paul's Restore America budget where he proposed a trillion dollar a year cut in Federal spending which was very doable. Show me the Republican nowadays that has the courage to do the same thing and I will for him/her.

The best we have got out of the Republicans have been some slight decrease in the growth of the Federal spending. No significant cutback just less increase.

For once I'd like to see the GOP cut government waste that doesn't hurt poor people. Lots of fraud and waste in the military. Lots of bad Republican pork. If they really wanted to make a dent they'd cut those programs first. Then we wouldn't complain when you also cut welfare.

And the GOP doesn't have a plan to pay off the debt. No sane person would suggest a Republican president won't double the debt too. They will you know. Right?

I agree to a point.

First step, get rid of all bureaucracies. That would save us a ton of money. Next, quit funding Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS. Stop shoveling out money to foreign nations like Iran for a couple hundred billion dollars. Get rid of Commie Care. That's at least a half a trillion right there.

Typical Republican banter......cut taxes and cut out everything else which always goes to the most needy in the country. People at the top don't need help. They're very goddam lucky!!

I was a Republican for the first thirty years I voted. I voted for Eisenhower, Goldwater, Nixon three times and even the old fool Ronald Reagan one time. I went twenty years and didn't even go to the polls. The only things the modern Republican party stands for is tax cuts for the rich and subsidies for the corporations......Oh, and an occasional foreign war. The Republicans will go to war with a sovereign nation simply because they don't like the leader. This letter they wrote to Bill Clinton in 1998 proves it:

December 18, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate.
The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick

You should wake up more often and pay attention to the news.

Last time the Republican Congress had anything to do with taxes on the rich, they increased them.

Last time the Republican Congress had anything to do with taxes on corporations, they increased them, so to the point we now have the highest corporate tax rate in the world.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of congress, 1794

Now ask yourself, had we adhered to Madison's words, would we be anywhere near 19 trillion dollars in debt today???

Horse Fucking Shit!!! You're either the most naïve person to ever post on the internet or a bare faced liar!!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Reagan decreased the income tax rates but he also raised a lot of taxes and fees. Bush Sr. didn't get reelected because he raised taxes.

We did not get to the point of 40% of the GDP simply because of the Democrats. They have been aided and abetted all along by weak minded Republicans.

Democrats promise bad government and always delivers bad government.

The Republicans promise good government but mostly delivers about the same bad government as the Democrats.

The last sensible government reduction plan I saw out of a Republican was Ron Paul's Restore America budget where he proposed a trillion dollar a year cut in Federal spending which was very doable. Show me the Republican nowadays that has the courage to do the same thing and I will for him/her.

The best we have got out of the Republicans have been some slight decrease in the growth of the Federal spending. No significant cutback just less increase.

For once I'd like to see the GOP cut government waste that doesn't hurt poor people. Lots of fraud and waste in the military. Lots of bad Republican pork. If they really wanted to make a dent they'd cut those programs first. Then we wouldn't complain when you also cut welfare.

And the GOP doesn't have a plan to pay off the debt. No sane person would suggest a Republican president won't double the debt too. They will you know. Right?

I agree to a point.

First step, get rid of all bureaucracies. That would save us a ton of money. Next, quit funding Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS. Stop shoveling out money to foreign nations like Iran for a couple hundred billion dollars. Get rid of Commie Care. That's at least a half a trillion right there.

Typical Republican banter......cut taxes and cut out everything else which always goes to the most needy in the country. People at the top don't need help. They're very goddam lucky!!

I was a Republican for the first thirty years I voted. I voted for Eisenhower, Goldwater, Nixon three times and even the old fool Ronald Reagan one time. I went twenty years and didn't even go to the polls. The only things the modern Republican party stands for is tax cuts for the rich and subsidies for the corporations......Oh, and an occasional foreign war. The Republicans will go to war with a sovereign nation simply because they don't like the leader. This letter they wrote to Bill Clinton in 1998 proves it:

December 18, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate.
The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick

You should wake up more often and pay attention to the news.

Last time the Republican Congress had anything to do with taxes on the rich, they increased them.

Last time the Republican Congress had anything to do with taxes on corporations, they increased them, so to the point we now have the highest corporate tax rate in the world.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of congress, 1794

Now ask yourself, had we adhered to Madison's words, would we be anywhere near 19 trillion dollars in debt today???

Horse Fucking Shit!!! You're either the most naïve person to ever post on the internet or a bare faced liar!!

Yep. Exactly the response I was expecting from a lib.

 

[Redfish]

For once I'd like to see the GOP cut government waste that doesn't hurt poor people. Lots of fraud and waste in the military. Lots of bad Republican pork. If they really wanted to make a dent they'd cut those programs first. Then we wouldn't complain when you also cut welfare.

And the GOP doesn't have a plan to pay off the debt. No sane person would suggest a Republican president won't double the debt too. They will you know. Right?

I agree to a point.

First step, get rid of all bureaucracies. That would save us a ton of money. Next, quit funding Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS. Stop shoveling out money to foreign nations like Iran for a couple hundred billion dollars. Get rid of Commie Care. That's at least a half a trillion right there.

Typical Republican banter......cut taxes and cut out everything else which always goes to the most needy in the country. People at the top don't need help. They're very goddam lucky!!

I was a Republican for the first thirty years I voted. I voted for Eisenhower, Goldwater, Nixon three times and even the old fool Ronald Reagan one time. I went twenty years and didn't even go to the polls. The only things the modern Republican party stands for is tax cuts for the rich and subsidies for the corporations......Oh, and an occasional foreign war. The Republicans will go to war with a sovereign nation simply because they don't like the leader. This letter they wrote to Bill Clinton in 1998 proves it:

December 18, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate.
The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick

You should wake up more often and pay attention to the news.

Last time the Republican Congress had anything to do with taxes on the rich, they increased them.

Last time the Republican Congress had anything to do with taxes on corporations, they increased them, so to the point we now have the highest corporate tax rate in the world.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of congress, 1794

Now ask yourself, had we adhered to Madison's words, would we be anywhere near 19 trillion dollars in debt today???

Horse Fucking Shit!!! You're either the most naïve person to ever post on the internet or a bare faced liar!!

Yep. Exactly the response I was expecting from a lib.

libs cannot deal with the truth. it makes their little heads implode.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Warren Buffett says the super-rich pay lower tax rates than others

It's not often you see someone stand up and say, "Tax me more!"

Yet that's just what famed investor Warren Buffett has done in an op-ed in the New York Times headlined, "Stop Coddling the Super-Rich." Buffett says that very wealthy people like himself pay lower tax rates than the middle class, thanks to special tax categories for investment income.

The part Buffet didn't mention is that not only payroll taxes the poorest of the poor pay a much higher percentage of their income than others. When every kind of local tax, fee, registration charge, license and other government and normal living required costs are added the rich are getting off and making out like a bandit when observed as a percentage of their total.

For example in Tennessee there is a state sales tax and in the county where I live there's also a local retail tax on everything one purchases. A poor bastard earning $30,000 a year pays the same gasoline tax as a millionaire and if one looks closely there's another form of taxation or fee being charged every time the poor man/woman opens his/her billfold/purse.

No law says you're required to take tax exemptions.
Translation: he wants YOU to pay more taxes so he gets more contracts from the government.

 

[Redfish]

Warren Buffett says the super-rich pay lower tax rates than others

It's not often you see someone stand up and say, "Tax me more!"

Yet that's just what famed investor Warren Buffett has done in an op-ed in the New York Times headlined, "Stop Coddling the Super-Rich." Buffett says that very wealthy people like himself pay lower tax rates than the middle class, thanks to special tax categories for investment income.

The part Buffet didn't mention is that not only payroll taxes the poorest of the poor pay a much higher percentage of their income than others. When every kind of local tax, fee, registration charge, license and other government and normal living required costs are added the rich are getting off and making out like a bandit when observed as a percentage of their total.

For example in Tennessee there is a state sales tax and in the county where I live there's also a local retail tax on everything one purchases. A poor bastard earning $30,000 a year pays the same gasoline tax as a millionaire and if one looks closely there's another form of taxation or fee being charged every time the poor man/woman opens his/her billfold/purse.

No law says you're required to take tax exemptions.
Translation: he wants YOU to pay more taxes so he gets more contracts from the government.

Good point, do the libs understand who benefitted most when obozo cancelled the Keystone pipeline? Answer, Buffet.