Fresh Pickings from the Grapevine

[DOGS THAT BARK]

thank you JC
Hmmm This is kind of fun going counter liberal blogs sites.I'll save the real gapevine for other threads and put a few more "informatary things" from counter liberal blogs--

Remember Kerry rant on taxes and Edwards carping on 2 Americas

We know Edwards avoided paying bout 1/2 million in madicare taxes vs dodges while Cheney gave millions to charity so a little on Kerry taxes--and his great achievements while in Senate

What Fair Share?

The Heinzes, I mean the Kerrys, released their 2003 tax returns recently and to no one's surprise: They didn't pay their fair share. With a net worth of around one billion dollars and an income of $6.8 million (who is their financial advisor, .7% return on equity is pretty poor), the Kerrys paid only $725,000 in taxes, a tax rate of 12.8%!

Now who among us wouldn't kill for a 12.8% income tax rate. John Kerry, who constantly lambastes the rich for not paying "their fair share of taxes," is caught with his pants down on the issue and it ain't pretty. What's he going to do about it? I am sure he will demagogue the issue and continue to harangue Pres. Bush for his "tax cuts for the rich."

By the way, George Bush paid 30% of his income in taxes.


KERRY'S 20 YEAR RECORD OF ACHIEVEMENT IN THE SENATE

In the debates, President Bush said that John Kerry had written only five bills that became law. Senator Kerry said that 56 laws he had written (or co-written) had passed. President Bush was apparently wrong - there seem to be 11 that became law. Mr. Bush should correct the record.

In fact, there were 56 that passed in the Senate, but only 11 of them were actually passed by both houses of Congress and signed by a President.

These are the only 11 bills ever passed with John Kerry's name on them:

99th Congress : A concurrent resolution expressing solidarity with the Sakharov family

100th Congress : None

101st Congress : A joint resolution designating a week in Oct 1989 as "World Population Awareness week."

102nd Congress : Another joint resolution designating week in Oct 1999 as "World Population Awareness week." A joint resolution designating Nov 13, 1992 as "Vietnam Veterans Memorial 10th Anniversary Day." A Joint resolution designating September 18, 1192 as "National POW/MIA recognition day." A bill to authorize appropriations to carry out the National Sea Grant College Program Act.

103rd Congress : A bill to re-designate a federal Building as the "Frederick C. Murphy Federal Center." A bill to authorize appropriations for the Marine Mammal Protection act.

104th Congress: None

105th Congress : None

106th Congress : A bill to amend the Small Business Act with respect to the Women's business center program.

107th Congress : A bill to reauthorize the Small Business Technology Transfer program

108th Congress : A bill to award a congressional gold medal to Jackie Robinson.

This is Senator Kerry's total record of achievement in his 20 years in the U.S. Senate.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

"Kennedys past doesn't make what he said about Bush any less true"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
correct Stevie-- if he says GW got DUI--but anything criminal or still being a drunk is debatable--especially in light of his record--again kind of like people in Mass who give Kennedy a lifetime seat in Senate complaining about any politician or otherwise on the evils of drinking--A refresher course on your boy---

We will celebrate the 35th anniversary of Ted Kennedy's incident at Chappaquiddick on July 25th. For those who were born after 1969 or have been suffering an alcoholic haze much like Ted Kennedy experienced that fateful night, a brief reprise of the night is in order.

The night began with a party after the Edgartown Regatta, a party co-hosted by Ted Kennedy and attended by six members of Bobby Kennedy's campaign staff, a group of young single women called "The Boiler Room Girls," and six married men including Ted Kennedy.

Ted Kennedy had been drinking much more heavily than usual after Bobby Kennedy's assassination the previous summer and didn't slow down at this party. Witnesses and Kennedy himself admitted to Kennedy's consumption of at least eight drinks, although the actual count was believed to be considerably greater.

Around 11:15PM an inebriated Kennedy offered to take one of the guests, Mary Jo Kopeckne, back to her hotel room on nearby Marha's Vineyard Island. They left the party around 11:50 PM. Unfortunately, Kennedy's driving skills were impaired and he drove his car off Dike Bridge (a bridge connecting Chappaquiddick with a spit of sand called East Beach, incidentally in the opposite direction of Martha's Vineyard) into six feet of Poucha Pond. Mary Jo Kopechne never left the car alive and drowned that night as Kennedy walked back to the party.

Kennedy, a senator and law school graduate, never thought enough of the incident to call rescue forces, or the police or even file an accident report in the morning. But scuba divers removed Kopechne's body from Kennedy's car in the morning and the Kennedy machine went into high gear to spin this latest "incident."

Kennedy's expired driver's license was fixed, an autopsy was never performed on Kopechne, and Kennedy eventually pled guilty to leaving the scene of an accident without spending a day in jail.

----and you Mass boys advocate jail time Libby?--interesting.

 

[StevieD]

Here is where we differ DTB. Kennedy may be all the things you say. Clinton, may be all the things you say. Even, that lying pornographer Libby may be all the things you claim but what does any of that have to do with Bush being DUI or not?

 

[smurphy]

Dogs, how many times you gonna revisit something from 30 years ago? It's pathetic. Nearly 100% of the posters here agree that Ted Kennedy is a peice of shlt and has no place in civilian life, let own in congress. WE AGREE - SO LET IT GO.

All you are doing is deflecting from relevant crimes of today from the side you are loyal too.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Let me get this right Smurph--I'm suppose to drop DUI that happened 30 years ago but your camp is entitled to carp contnuously on Gw's that happened 30 years ago--correct. At least one of them had sense enough to quit.

Liberals can harp all day about GW being criminal--yet to my knowledge he has never been indicted for anything since entering politics--YET you backed one and his wife that has been in more indictments and courtrooms since entering politics than any pres in history--impeached-disbarred--and convicted yet want him to have free pass.

Some harp about the war and how it is turning muslims against us--
Some how a few of us believe since they tried same thing in 93 and 9-11 that maybe they do not need provocation--Some feel as in 93 the best solution is to turn head cross fingers and hope it don't happen again "wrong"--Some feel safer with terrorists training openly in regions where they are now hunted--they feel safer with terrorist leaders jet setting unabated-- then dead, in prison or confined to caves.

We just have to agree to disagree on that matter--
My suggestion would be if one has facts to support accusations --pore it on--but to make "opinionated" accusations on one person while applauding one that has been "factually" proven a lying immoral corrupt deviate is indeed "liberal logic" at its finest.

 

[smurphy]

I agree with you about the DUI. No point in going on about that. I may be wrong, but I think you were the only one here who mentioned the DUI. ....Again, I may have overlooked something. Either way, there's no point deflecting current failures and crimes by pointing to irrelevant crimes from decades past.

I'm not calling Bush a criminal - but there's no doubt he's a failure and it's hurting the country as we speak. And more and more it looks like there may be criminals in his administration. I believe such a reference was made about Libby in this thread before getting deflected.

 

[BobbyBlueChip]

As far as a definition of economic freedom, I get it - It's basically saying the states who's laws are most conservative are free - and then you post this poll that basically says most of the states whose laws are conservative (laws basically voted for by the citizens) voted for Bush. I'm just wondering what the point is - to state that conservative states voted for Bush??

It's pretty easy to have conservative tax plans and bend over backwards for corporations when the red states have been sucking federal funds from the blue states to the tune of about $100B/year

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/62.html

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

" I believe such a reference was made about Libby in this thread before getting deflected"

I'm with you on Libby Smurph--not on the initial presumption that was dropped but on the perjury charge--Whether it be Reb or Dem they seem to get political preferential treatment on crimes--I could name bunches on both sides with serious crimes. My view is they are public servants much like policemen and should be held to higher standards and get stiffer penalties instead of slap on wrist for crimes you and I would be imprisoned for.
---but its got to be a 2 way street---can't ask for jail time on one not even convicted yet and give pass to one convicted of same crime.

 

[JCDunkDogs]

I'm just wondering what the point is - to state that conservative states voted for Bush??

lol...well, at least it was a learning experience. And you're right, Bobby, many "blue" states subsidize "red" states. Your link-page mentions the following:

"In fiscal year 2004, New Mexico, Alaska, West Virginia, Mississippi and North Dakota received substantially more from the federal government than they paid in taxes, while New Jersey, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Minnesota and Illinois paid much more in taxes than they received in spending."

Out here in California, the Govenator is complaining that we only get 72 cents returned for every dollar of federal taxes paid.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

"lol...well, at least it was a learning experience. And you're right, Bobby, many "blue" states subsidize "red" states. Your link-page mentions the following:"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
--make that a learning experience for a " Kool Aid" drinker

Just maybe you ought to consider a few FACTS on who carries who--the only way your "revelation would be correct if all people in those states were liberal--

The facts are of states you mentioned bush pulled no less than 44% of vote in any and as high as 49%--

Now consider WHO voted for who.--
From CNN exit polls
highest % of votes for Busk/Kerry
by income
Bush over $200,000 63% --Kerry under $15,000 63%

So you think your "liberal crew is supporting the conservatives--have another sip

Oh-- by the way you liberals did set some of highest in some voting blocks with two catagories getting over 75% of voters.
African Americans 88% and gays 77%

Now one last thing--consider the chart below showing 42,545,501 Americans that pay """NO""" taxes ---and use the liberal logic to show us how your demographical liberal voters above are footing the bill for those 63% earning over $200,000 and "factually--(I know you hate that word) footing over 75% of tax bill.


Table 1. Number of Tax Filers with Zero Tax Liability, 1950-2004

Year
Total Tax Returns Filed
Tax Returns with Zero Tax Liability
Percentage of Tax Returns with Zero Tax Liability

1950
53,060,098
14,873,416
28.0%

1951
55,447,009
12,798,399
23.1%

1952
56,528,817
12,652,544
22.4%

1953
57,838,184
12,615,033
21.8%

1954
56,747,008
14,113,948
24.9%

1955
58,250,188
13,561,123
23.3%

1956
59,197,004
12,938,358
21.9%

1957
59,825,121
12,959,806
21.7%

1958
59,085,182
13,433,048
22.7%

1959
60,271,297
12,774,384
21.2%

1960
61,027,931
12,966,946
21.2%

1961
61,499,420
12,916,655
21.0%

1962
62,712,386
12,620,023
20.1%

1963
63,943,236
12,620,015
19.7%

1964
65,375,601
14,069,263
21.5%

1965
67,596,300
13,895,506
20.6%

1966
70,160,425
13,451,349
19.2%

1967
71,651,909
12,978,971
18.1%

1968
73,728,708
12,440,000
16.9%

1969
75,834,388
12,112,994
16.0%

1970
74,279,831
14,962,460
20.1%

1971
74,576,407
14,660,035
19.7%

1972
77,572,720
16,703,713
21.5%

1973
80,692,587
16,425,425
20.4%

1974
83,340,190
16,005,423
19.2%

1975
82,229,332
20,738,595
25.2%

1976
84,670,389
20,249,022
23.9%

1977
86,634,640
22,253,502
25.7%

1978
89,771,551
21,083,246
23.5%

1979
92,964,302
20,999,319
22.6%

1980
93,902,469
19,996,225
21.3%

1981
95,396,123
18,671,399
19.6%

1982
95,337,432
18,302,132
19.2%

1983
96,321,310
18,304,987
19.0%

1984
99,438,708
17,799,199
17.9%

1985
101,660,287
18,813,867
18.5%

1986
103,045,170
19,077,757
18.5%

1987
106,996,270
20,272,474
18.9%

1988
109,708,280
22,572,948
20.6%

1989
112,135,673
22,957,318
20.5%

1990
113,717,138
23,854,704
21.0%

1991
114,730,123
25,996,536
22.7%

1992
113,604,503
26,872,557
23.7%

1993
114,601,819
28,166,452
24.6%

1994
115,943,131
28,323,685
24.4%

1995
118,218,327
28,965,338
24.5%

1996
120,351,208
29,421,858
24.4%

1997
122,421,991
28,950,791
23.6%

1998
124,770,662
31,722,764
25.4%

1999
127,075,145
32,529,065
25.6%

2000
129,373,500
32,555,897
25.2%

2001
130,255,237
35,491,707
27.2%

2002
130,076,443
39,112,547
30.1%

2003 ,501
130,571,319
41,467,439
31.8%

2004*
131,113,969
42,545,501
32.4%

* Estimated.
Source: IRS, Tax Foundation Individual Tax Model

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/542.html

 

[smurphy]

That just means more and more people are making less and less. Not exactly a ringing endorsement. Raise wages enough so that there's no need for Earned Income Credit (paid by everyone) and we wouldn't see these numbers climbing so high.

 

[JCDunkDogs]

I agree that even in some states that Kerry won, he lost a majority of the counties in those states. No one is arguing that more rich people voted for Kerry. That is clearly false. As your numbers suggest, more rich people voted for GWBush. After all, it was Bush that told a room full of wealthy contributors, "I call you, 'My Base.'"

What Schwarznegger is saying is that California as a whole pays more federal taxes out than the amount of federal money it receives in the form of federal programs of all kinds. Its got nothing to do with breaking down rich versus poor.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Leaving politics aside--a trend that I have continuely harped on for years that should be concern to all of us--is the diminishing of the 80/20 rule that has been pretty constant--with 80% of population supporting the other 20--now appears to be 70-30 and if it gets worse there will be one recourse--the burden will be too high on those doing the supporting and they will take their ball and go elsewhere--much like the corps are doing.

Somehow we forget the people rely on business for jobs--business can find cheaper and abundant labor anywhere--Those that pay no taxes rely on those that do--not vice versa.

"With 167 million voters with little or no income tax liability and 32 million burdened with 83 percent of the liability, have we achieved the tyranny of the majority? Will the political temptation to plunder the minority and to turn them into tax slaves destroy the creativity and productivity of the American economy?"
Paul Craig Roberts

 

[smurphy]

Seems to be an ecomic reality, like you say - apart from politics. We're going global and nothing will stop that. It means the 3rd world will inch closer to us, but also means we will adopt some of their characteristics. One of those being a diminishing middle class.

Basically, get used to those numbers getting worse - because they will. I consider myself a "liberal capitalist" ...which basically means I'm torn between the realities of this. Business is kinda like water and will always find it's way down to the cheapest labor sources, no matter how much you try and seal it from obeying the laws of gravity. Unfortunately, we are left with cheaper and cheaper low level work here. No way in hell you can expect someone working fulltime at $7.50 an hour to pay taxes - it simply doesn't leave them with a liveable wage. So, we are left with more low earners getting the free ride.

Dogs - even you have to admit that during the Clinton years they took great strides in reducing the welfare strain on the budget. The problem now is not welfare - it's the fact that people working fulltime at or near minimum wage simply don't make a living. It won't get better ....probably ever. The international market is simply too cheap.

 

[JCDunkDogs]

I consider myself a "liberal capitalist" ...which basically means I'm torn between the realities of this.

That term would describe my leanings, too. Without economic growth, this country would be over! We have to create a comfortable business climate and attract investment, or the great society is just words on a page. I've said this about my beliefs before on these boards, but I still get the epithet "Kool-Aid Drinker" lobbed at me.

While I was making one point, DTB made another, quite correct and valid point. The question is, what is the solution fellas?

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

No arguement there Smurph--Clinton Admin did excellent job in that area.

 

[djv]

Our dept has to be controlled. We can't have the first 42 president together run up 1 trillion in dept. Then have in just last 5 year period as did happen. Run up 1 trillion. Were out of balance with taxes and spending by a mile. This can push us back to the 80's with high interest rates. All it takes is some of these countries we would owe. To start calling in there money. We can make the middle class very small fast. And the upper class will not grow as fast as it has been. But the lower levels will jump fast. The tax cut was needed but was to dam big. And not one spending project vetoed in 5 years. Were not running the bank right.