In Time Magazine’s July 19 issue, on page 31, John Kerry is seen using an Apple PowerBook (15″ TiBook, it looks like). The photo, taken by Diana Walker, is captioned “From his study in the family’s Pittsburgh, PA, home, Kerry phones Edwards to officially invite the North Carolina Senator to be his running mate.” This comes on the heels of the report, “Vice President Dick Cheney a confirmed Apple iPod user” and, of course we all know that, at least back in 1998 when the photo of Bush was snapped, President Bush uses a PowerBook, too. That just leaves V.P. candidate John Edwards’ choice of platform in question.
MacDailyNews Take: You’d think that with Apple CEO Steve Jobs advising John Kerry and with Al Gore on Apple’s Board of Directors, Steve could figure out a way to get Kerry a new 17″ PowerBook – at least for photo ops.
Update: Updated PowerBook model speculation as per Seahawk’s post below.
Related MacDailyNews articles:
Conservative Mac users miffed at Apple’s Jimmy Carter page – October 14, 2002
The Mac is Bush to Windows’ Clinton – October 25, 2002
Bush-Cheney ’04 Re-election website adds QuickTime multimedia choice – April 27, 2004
(cont.) Many people in Iraq have seen the U.S. occupying force kill and maim thousands of innocent people and destroy what infrastructure they had for a quality life. They hate us, and understandably so. And they don’t have their country back, they have the U.S. replacement for Saddam, which is now very much under our control and friendly to U.S. oil and military establishments. That’s why we went there to begin with. Mission accomplished.
It’s a huge stretch to try to credit Dubya with Libya. It’s like saying Reagan was responsible for the fall of Communism, there’s no connection other than it happened under his watch. I doubt Bush could tell you without looking on a map or asking Cheney where Libya is. Libya decided to throw in with the West for economic reasons, nothing more. (cont.)
As for N. Korea, the U.S. has known and been dealing with N. Korea for many years. It was under Clinton that the deal was made to stop their nuke program. They eventually renigged (under Bush), not surprisingly. N. Korea, being strategically significant to China, will continue to play cat and mouse with the West over nukes, etc. Will we do anything about it militarily? Likely not because of China and because there’s no oil to be had. Give Bush credit for them coming “to the table”? I think not. That country is in bad shape. They need the West as much as they need China. Bush has nothing to do with it.
You say, “…the legislative branch spends the money, so blame them.” I’m talking about the budgets as submitted by the Republican presidents in the last twenty years and more or less rubber stamped by both Republican and Democratic Congresses. Those Republican presidents ran up the largest deficits, in real dollars, between them this country has ever seen. That’s a fact. Republican military spending and corporate welfare is way more expensive to the taxpayers than social programs ever would be.
And another lesson, the deficit has nothing to do with GNP. The deficit is simply the amount by which government spending exceeds government revenues. Bush has run up the single largest deficit ever. He runs our government like he ran his other failed business ventures: into the ground.
I’ve said and had enough. Good luck with your fantasy world, Beeb. Meantime, the rest of us are getting sick of the Bush/Cheney version of reality.
When Bush lied, people died
Your posts are big MoveOn.org, propagandist yawners Rex. I don’t have the time refute the mindless drivel you continue to spew by repeating findings in the Senate report, the recently released British intelligence report, the Polish reports on WMD stockpiles, or the countless other official reports about these issues. You clearly do not know what you are talking about so there is really no point. The educated amongst MDN readers are aware of these reports and can look them up.
By the way, either Reagan defeated communism or he had nothing to do with the budget deficits. In fact, your complaint about Bush’s deficits and 9/11 being his fault are utterly destroyed by your own logic if one believes such convoluted thinking.
Here’s how it works: Bush is not responsible for 9/11, the budget deficit, the lack of CIA intelligence, etc. because they just happened “during his watch”.
See how easy this is.
But in your closed minded little world, good things are happenstance and can’t be credited to Bush and bad things are all his fault. This is grade school level thinking and thus, I am through trying to get through to you. When you get out of high school come back here and I’ll pretend you’re an actual adult.
Enjoy the rest of your teenage years.
-B
I for one am impressed with rexray’s grasp of the facts. I think it’s Beeblebrox that needs to grow up and learn about the world.
When Clinton screwed Monica, she ended up with the stained dress. With Bush, we’re all wearing the dress now!
rexray is mindless tool of the hate-bush crowd. facts don�t matter, hate matters.
And not giving credit to Bush for Libya for giving ups its Nuke program and other WMD. Give me a break! You probably think he did it because he was one of those foreign leaders Kerry met with that want him to be Prez.
And a remark on US budgets, the only reason there were budget surpluses during the Clinton years was because of the stock market bubble. Investors were paying huge amounts of money on capital gains taxes.
And then the stock bubble burst at the end of the Clinton era and all this tax revenue disappeared.
And millions of American lost huge amounts of money that they had invested in the Clinton bubble market.
And During a war there are always large Government budget deficits.
We are at war rexray. It may not impact your summer vacation from high school, but we are at war and the Islamic extremists want to kill all us westerners.
And, tell me, how has any govt. budget deficit ever impacted your life?
“As Zell Miller, the Democrat senator from Georgia, has said, Kerry and Edwards have combined the foreign policy of George McGovern with the tax-increase policy of Walter Mondale and the tariff policies of Herbert Hoover. It is also particularly interesting that in 2004, with national headlines reporting on Iraq on a daily basis, that Kerry’s closest advisers – and Kerry himself – appear incapable of defining their policy position on the future of Iraq.
Kerry-Edwards believe the answers to most of the problems facing our country reside in new or existing government programs, whether the issue is jobs, health care or retirement security. In fact, Kerry claims he’s going to “create” 10 million new jobs with tax increases, which will result in slower growth; protectionism, which will result in less trade; nationalizing health care, which will only make the current situation worse; and by doing nothing with regard to Social Security, which will consign near and future retirees to less retirement savings and continued dependence on the government. They are wrong on all counts.
Besides, President Bush has a good record to run on – the strongest economic recovery in 20 years, no terror attacks on our soil since 9/11 and a vision of the future recognizing the importance of national security including the reconstruction of Iraq and the need to complete the transformation to an ownership society at home.”
July 08, 2004
(CNSNews.com) – A taxpayer watchdog group gives Sen. John Edwards an “F” grade on its tax-and-spending scorecard.
According to the National Taxpayers Union, Edwards in 2004 has supported legislation, which — if enacted in its entirety — would increase federal spending by $92.1 billion per year. That is roughly half the total cost of John Kerry’s legislative agenda ($182.0 billion), NTU said.
“The data on John Edwards offers little comfort to taxpayers seeking spending restraint from Washington,” said NTU President John Berthoud in a press release. “There is scant evidence to suggest his fiscal policies would be more moderate than those offered by the man at the top of the ticket.”
Beeblebrox is exactly right (as he usually is – must be the double head
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />.
News reports have been slow to acknowledge that Ambassador Joe Wilson lied about the uranium sales to Iraq. But this is a huge smoking gun that destroys the “no WMDs found” accusations from the left.
There are also numerous documented ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda and Hussain’s funding of terrorist activities around the world (he was behind the first Twin Towers terrorist attack.)
People like rexray need to get out a little more. Too much time sitting in a dank theatre watching Fahrenheit 9-11 has made his brain soft.
Well, sorry folks but I am outa here. This has been taking up too much of my time. I wish I had nothing better to do all day than show you where you are wrong Pro-Bushites but I do have other things I have to do and this is getting to be a bit too much like work and in addition I don’t think I will convince any of you anyway. Here is one last parting shot though where I will sum up all the things I KNOW to be true and which make up most of the reasons I will not be voting for George W. Bush. Please spare me the rationalization as to why in your opinion the following are OK. They are NOT OK for me no matter why they occurred or are occurring.
I was for Afghanistan but didn’t think we should have gone into Iraq (at the very least not so quickly). Bush pushed for this. Many people have died because of this and more are dying everyday. His justification of WMDs has not been suffienciently substantiated to this day.
I was ashamed by the toture that occurred under Bush’s watch. That is not what I believe that America is about and not how I want America to be percieved.
Bush took probably the highest level of Pro-American feeling and sympathy by the rest of the world that we have ever seen and turned it to the highest level of Anti-American feelings we have probably ever seen by his heavy handedness and actions listed above. He has made me embarrassed by the things my country and some of my countrymen have done or are doing and I want that to stop.
I believe also that his alienation of the middle east could lead to more terrorism and not less.
He has backed and continues to support the Patriot Act.
If Bush is elected there is a good chance he will be able to pick hard right replacements for several Supreme Court Justices.
Bush has not been pro-environment in his policy decisions.
(here is a link on Bushes Enviromental Policy. Probably slanted but just the fact that there are these many facts to be slanted AGAINST Bush should give you a big hint on how enviromentally friendly he is. http://www.environment2004.org/files/Env2004_BushRPT.pdf )
Bush’s Tax breaks disproportionly favor the very rich.
As I said before, please do not try and explain to me why the above are OK. They are NOT OK WITH ME and they were supported by or happened during Bush’s administration and that is why I will be voting for John Kerry in the upcoming election.
Jack A, Feel free to vote for Kerry. I hope you will be honest enough to recognize that Kerry:
1. voted for the war (but not to fund it)
2. Would continue the current Iraq policy.
3. Would seriously increase our deficit with trillions of dollars in additional spending.
4. Would role back the tax cuts that have given us the best economic growth and job creation in the last 20 years.
5. Would continue with the Patriot Act.
6. Would make the French happy (your desire) while alienating the people who are now with us (over 40 countries are part of our coalition).
7. Would not lead but follow in an attempt to make people like us. Of course, the Russians, Chinese, Germans and French don’t like us and I consider that a good thing. It means we’re doing something right.
Cheers,
B
Cheers, Beetlebrox. At least we can agree that Macs are the best computers (and the candidates seem to agree on this too
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
Indeed they do!
-B
Tough Decision wrote:
Still thinking about Kerry not voting to fund our troops with that 87 billion … said something like he voted for it first, then voted against it, then wanted to send a message about international cooperation, bla bla bla. When all that talk is done, out guys dont even have bullet proof vests, let alone 17inch aluminum Mac powerbooks.
Think I’ll vote to keep the lib pussy out.
Dear Tough Decision,
You’re being brainwashed. If you know how Congress works, you know that bills go through many, many versions before being approved. The first version Kerry voted for reduced the tax cut on the top 1% from $690 billion to $600 billion and used the difference to fund the troops. W actually said he would veto that version if it passed. The version Kerry voted against borrowed the money, pumping up the deficit even further. So, Kerry was for the responsible version and against the irresponsible version, while Bush was for the irresponsible version only. Each candidate had one version they liked and one they didn’t. The troops don’t have supplies inspite of the money being approved and had nothing to do with Kerry’s vote. And as for Kerry being a liberal pussy: it was Bush that hid in the Texas Air National Guard while Kerry was fighting in Vietnam.
Beeblebrox wrote: I hope you will be honest enough to recognize that Kerry:
1. voted for the war (but not to fund it)
2. Would continue the current Iraq policy.
3. Would seriously increase our deficit with trillions of dollars in additional spending.
4. Would role back the tax cuts that have given us the best economic growth and job creation in the last 20 years.
5. Would continue with the Patriot Act.
6. Would make the French happy (your desire) while alienating the people who are now with us (over 40 countries are part of our coalition).
7. Would not lead but follow in an attempt to make people like us. Of course, the Russians, Chinese, Germans and French don’t like us and I consider that a good thing. It means we’re doing something right.
My debunking:
1. Read my previous post about Kerry’s vote; he wasn’t against funding troops, he wanted it done responsibly.
2. But he wouldn’t repeat it, as W has hinted at by calling other countries part of the “Axis of Evil”.
3. Deficits were reduced under Clinton and would be again under Kerry because he would not let the super rich and corporations get away with not paying their due.
4. The tax cut that he would roll back are only on the super rich and corporations, not the middle or lower classes.
5. Would continue only parts of the Patriot Act; Kerry has a plan to improve the Patriot Act�s ability to prevent terrorism and curb its assault on civil rights.
6. What are the 40 countries in our coalition? Nobody big aside from the British. How come only Great Britain and the US have troops in Iraq if the coalition is so strong? We went in without the backing of the UN and now we want them to bail us out.
7. People will immediately like us more if we dump the cowboy Bush. The world not liking us is a bad thing, not good. It creates terrorists, makes travel more difficult, and makes international business more difficult. We live in a global community, we should be good citizens of that community.
Beeblebrox (or is it Brainwashed?),
I forgot to mention: your part about the best economic growth and job creation in 20 years under Bush is laughable. Bush will be the first president to lose jobs during his term since the depression! He has given a tax break to corporations that outsource jobs overseas! The economy is barely growing and job creation is barely keeping pace with the increase in the working population. The best economic growth since WWII was under Clinton, after he raised taxes on the top 2%, which is exactly what Kerry plans to do. Look it up.
The “rich” get their Federal Income taxes cut because that is who is paying most of the taxes:
Top 5% pay 53.25% of all income taxes (Down from 2000 figure: 56.47%).
The top 10% pay 64.89% (Down from 2000 figure: 67.33%).
The top 25% pay 82.9% (Down from 2000 figure: 84.01%).
The top 50% pay 96.03% (Down from 2000 figure: 96.09%).
The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.97% of all income taxes. The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%!
And who earns what?
The top 1% earns 17.53 (2000: 20.81%) of all income.
The top 5% earns 31.99 (2000: 35.30%).
The top 10% earns 43.11% (2000: 46.01%); the top 25% earns 65.23% (2000: 67.15%), and the top 50% earns 86.19% (2000: 87.01%) of all the income.
1. Kerry voted against the funding. He was one of only 12 Senators who did. He can’t run away from the vote. You can rationalize (incorrectly) why he did but my statement stands. He voted AGAINST the funding (and he admitted it). So you didn’t “debunk” this one after all.
2. That’s what scares me. The guy is as spineless as Clinton. Indeed, Bush was a bit of a wimp on this too. I’m happy he finally set aside politics and did the right thing. So you didn’t “debunk” this one either.
3. Deficits went down when Newt took power. Clinton wanted to spend but the new GOP majority wouldn’t let him (wish we still had that resolve in the GOP). Also, keep in mind that the dotcom bubble is what produced the huge cap gains that overflowed the federal coffers. Clinton had nothing to do with that. But, let’s give him credit anyway. The economy was good in the middle of his term but then tanked at the end, so I blame him for that. Bush pulled us out of the Clinton recession. So still no debunking success.
4. Regarding Kerry tax policy. You are in error. John Kerry has voted for higher taxes at least 350 times and would raise taxes by at least $900 billion during his first 100 days in office. The “super rich” could give 100% of their earnings to Kerry to cover that tax hike and would barely make a dent. No, he will definitely roll back the entire Bush tax cut, just as he promised in December of last year.
This is complex so read:
Kudlow on business taxes and investment.
and
Stephen Moore
Kerry himself said he would raise taxes on everyone over $200,000 per year. This is a seasoned auto worker and his veteran high school teacher wife. That is NOT the super rich! You’re still having trouble debunking me Mr. B.
(cont)
My debunking mrbroma�s debunking:
1. No matter how you slice and dice it, Kerry voted against funding the troops. That�s why they have votes. By the way Kerry was absent for over 70% of Senate votes in the last year.
2. Kerry thinks the U.S. is the center of all evil.
3. All talk, no proof that Kerry can or will reduce deficits. As cited in one of the posts above, Kerry�s economic agenda calls increasing spending by over $180 BILLION. Today he pledged to spend another $15 BILLION for AIDS (you and I…well, me anyway, who has a job will pay for all that govt. increase in spending.) Kerry�s Senate record is only that of raising taxes, never lowering taxes.
4. The lower and middle class hardly pay any Fed. Inc.taxes. See post by taxboy above.
5. Ha. Ha. Ha. He voted for the Patriot Act. He did not have to, just like he did not have to vote for funding the troops in Iraq (see #1 above). And Congress approves and makes changes to the Patriot Act – not the President.
6. Who cares, the French and Germans are all wimps anyway. The French have never won a war since Napolean. And then he got his butt kicked. Oh, yeah and most of the countries that belong to the U.N. are either lead by dictators or despots or both.
7. You don�t know what you are talking about. I travel to Europe all the time to do business. Never have a problem, never seen any private citizen criticize the U.S.
Give me an example of making international business more difficult. Ever heard of telephones, email and the internet.
And your “good citizens” slime. Islamic radicals attacked the U.S. Bin Laden declared war on America.
WE ARE AT WAR.
Your “good citizen” friend Bin Laden and his fellow Al Queda “good citizens” want to destroy our society, our lives, our familes.
Saddam Hussein will never again start up another nuclear bomb program, manufacture poisonus gas, pay the families of Hezbolah terrrorists $25,000 for every human bomb they blow up in Israel killing innocent men, women and children, never invade another country.
And remember, Bill Clinton is not going to allow Kerry to become President. Hillary has the first shot at it.
(more)
5. Patriot Act. All I have to say about this is that the PA was crafted by Congress and Kerry both praised it and voted for it. He is complaining about it now because he thinks if he demagogues the issue he will win points with people like you. Since we only have his voting record to go on, I think I win this round as well.
6. I didn’t say we had over 40 big countries. We have big, medium and small. And France is a pitiful example of a “big” country if that is to whom you are referring. Germany has no military and not even Kerry would be able to convince Russia and China to join us so what’s your point and where is the debunking action you promised?
Also, nice slight against
Afghanistan
Albania
Angola
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Colombia
Costa Rica
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Japan
Kuwait
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Mongolia
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Palau
Panama
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Rwanda
Singapore
Slovakia
Solomon Islands
South Korea
Turkey
Uganda
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
and Uzbekistan
By the Way, the UN passed a resolution (1441) which gave us the power to go in. So stop lying.
7. People would like us even more if we just gave up our military and handed the control of the world over to France. But then, everyone would hate France then wouldn’t they? In the end, I don’t care whether the French or the Russians like us. If you want to be liked by them MOVE THERE. Bush had better NEVER do foreign policy based on whether France or Russia like us or not. He’d be out on his backside if he ever did that. This is my opinion of course, and your 7th point was your’s and neither can be “debunked”. Thus, you were 0 for 7 on your list. Thanks for trying though.
-B
WASHINGTON July 16, 2004� Democrat presidential candidate John Kerry said Friday he would be willing to launch a pre-emptive strike against terrorists if he had adequate intelligence of a threat.
Kerry offered some support for one of the most controversial aspects of President Bush’s national security policy.
“Am I prepared as president to go get them before they get us if we locate them and have the sufficient intelligence? You bet I am,” he said at a news conference at his Washington headquarters.
The Bush administration laid out the doctrine of pre-emption months before the Iraq war began in March 2003. It argued that the United States could not rely on its vast arsenal to deter attacks and must be willing to strike first against potential threats. Critics of the policy say the Iraq war shows how the country could be driven to war by flawed intelligence.
Kerry said the intelligence needed to be improved so that the word of a U.S. president “is good enough for people across the world again.”
But he added, “I will never allow any other country to veto what we need to do, and I will never allow any other institution to veto what we need to do to protect our nation.”
Beeblebrox,
Funny, I read your replies and still think I was 100% right. Bush cheated his way into office, ignored the threat of terrorism, lied us into a war where Haliburton and the Carlisle Group have made huge profits wasting tax dollars, attacked environmental protections, attacked civil rights, all the while giving tax breaks and corporate welfare to the very rich.
On taxes: First, there are far more tax loop-holes and deduction possibilities for the wealthy, so while the poor pay very close to the % on the tax table they are supposed to, the rich pay about 30% less than the proscribed rate. Next, lets take a look at payroll taxes (FICA). On my paychecks, FICA is nearly equal to the federal taxes. I get a portion of my federal taxes back every year, but don’t get anything back from FICA. Payroll taxes are capped at $80,000 earned. All income over that amount is not subject to FICA. Thus, people making millions pay FICA equal to a middle class person. Combine this with the fact that many of the very wealthy don’t earn money from payroll at all, but rather from investments which are not subject to FICA. When you combine federal income tax with FICA, the result is nearly a flat tax rate. Now, I happen to think that people who are able to make a great deal of money because we have such a great free market system should pay a bit more into the system because they get so much more out of it (a progressive tax).
On UN resolution 1441: It was “to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council”, and said “Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect”.
It said nothing about endorsing an invasion. It does say “serious consequences”, but I don’t think that meant a unilateral invasion by the US and Britain (note the lack of blue UN helmets in Iraq?). In fact, the resolution promises only that the Security Council will meet to �consider the situation� should Iraq be charged with interfering with weapons inspections. So, who’s the liar?
One last thing, Beeblebrox:
I don’t want to move anywhere, I love America. That is why I want it to be better. You love America the way a 4 year loves daddy, you think anything it does is the best thing ever (“my daddy can beat up your daddy”). I love America like the parent loves the 4 year old, helping it learn and grow and become better, and punishing it when it is bad.
Mr Boma,
You can condescend if you want but the truth is, your ideas would not make America better, they would destroy this country. And constantly lying to a 4 year old is hardly the mark of a good father
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
Let me try this one last time:
Your claim about Kerry only taxing the “super rich” turns out to be patently false, yet you still believe it .
You claim that “Bush cheated his way into office” which is also patently and demonstrably false. The NYT verified that Bush won Florida fair and square yet only the Michael Moore acolytes seem to still believe it. It’s like a cult of stupid people.
You claim that Bush “lied us into a war”. Examples? Saddam had a nuke program, supported Al Qaeda, violated every UN resolution passed by that feeble and cowardly body (blue helmets -HA!). Bush was right on every count. I realize you nurse a hope that he DID lie now that the economy is roaring back but sorry, turns out he didn’t.
As for the lame remark about “Haliburton and the Carlisle Group”, what evidence do you have that either has conspired with Bush in any way?
You do realize:
-That Clinton hired Haliburton before Bush don’t you?
-That Haliburton is one of only 2 companies that is qualified to handle the kinds of things it does don’t you?
-That Haliburton could have made a lot more money if Bush had gone into Iraq slow, giving Saddam time to torch his oil wells. But noooo, he had to go in such that Haliburton had very little clean up work to do. I guess that $17,000 they gave the Bush campaign was wasted. D’oh!
You claim Bush “attacked environmental protections” and “civil rights” but give no examples. I know of no such attacks.
You claim Bush provided “corporate welfare to the very rich”, but again, no examples.
These are all the standard, tired litanies of the vacuous left, but keep repeating them, maybe someone will buy.
Finally, you don’t seem to know that the word “unilateral” means one individual or organization doing something on their own. You mention the UK and the US in the same sentence, entirely missing the irony that this is TWO countries. You then ignored the long list I posted of the other countries that were “unilaterally” involved.
Facts seem wasted on you. Regrettable, but not surprising. You are a liberal, no?
-B
Regarding your tax info. The “poor” do not pay any income taxes. Check out your 1040 tax chart and see at what rate people start paying any taxes.
http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=109877,00.html
While people earning $38,000 and less pay 15% taxes (highest amount = $1,000), a person earning $311,950 or more pays 35%
which starts them at $87,736.00 in taxes.
No wonder they need deductions.
(I am for a flat tax where everyone pays taxes and no or very few deductions.)
You state: “Combine this with the fact that many of the very wealthy don’t earn money from payroll at all, but rather from investments which are not subject to FICA.”
First off, there are very, very, very few rich people that do not make a salary. Every doctor,lawyer,businessman, movie star, rock star has a salary and pays FICA.
The only one I can think of who does not is John Kerry�s Billionaire wife.
I am not rich, but have investments in the stock market and every year I pay a lot of taxes on any capital gains on those investments.
By the way Kerry�s wife has still not filed her federal income taxes for this year – she is waiting until October or later so that she does not reveal to the world how rich she is and the investments she owns- such as her recent revelation of owning a large block of Enron stock. And I am sure with her large portfolio she owns stock in Halliburton. Now that would be embarrassing, right? But typical liberal.
Regarding your tax info. The “poor” do not pay any income taxes. Check out your 1040 tax chart and see at what rate people start paying any taxes.
http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=109877,00.html
While people earning $38,000 and less pay 15% taxes (highest amount = $1,000), a person earning $311,950 or more pays 35%
which starts them at $87,736.00 in taxes.
No wonder they need deductions.
(I am for a flat tax where everyone pays taxes and no or very few deductions.)
You state: “Combine this with the fact that many of the very wealthy don’t earn money from payroll at all, but rather from investments which are not subject to FICA.”
First off, there are very, very, very few rich people that do not make a salary. Every doctor,lawyer,businessman, movie star, rock star has a salary and pays FICA.
The only one I can think of who does not is John Kerry�s Billionaire wife.
I am not rich, but have investments in the stock market and every year I pay a lot of taxes on any capital gains on those investments.
By the way Kerry�s wife has still not filed her federal income taxes for this year – she is waiting until October or later so that she does not reveal to the world how rich she is and the investments she owns- such as her recent revelation of owning a large block of Enron stock. And I am sure with her large portfolio she owns stock in Halliburton. Now that would be embarrassing, right? But typical liberal.
Well said Mr. Not,
But you used actual facts and data. That’s a problem for liberals. Hypocrisy, slander, and falsehoods are the bread and butter of the modern Liberal. So my guess is that your points will be lost on Mr. B. It’s sad really, but at least the lurkers will be getting a better sense of just how out of touch with reality these people are.
In fact, it never ceases to amaze me that they have put together enough brain cells to choose the Mac. Nice to know Apple products appeals to the dense and the enlightened alike!
-B