idrankwhat

Which is why the corporations go multinational and post their profits on the books of the subsidiaries whose liability is the least while showing little to no profit here at home, where they would be subjected to the tax. That's why we have 90,000 pages of tax code, it's not because of us skydivers who actually pay our taxes.

I think I read something like this earlier today....oh yea...here it is. Same old song and dance, except that we're dealing with billions instead of millions now. To stuff the tax cuts into a $70 billion package, lawmakers used a gimmick that not only disguises the true cost of the tax cuts but also ends up, down the road, dramatically increasing it. A change in retirement savings rules would allow upper-income taxpayers to convert their ordinary individual retirement accounts into what are called Roth IRAs, in which savings are taxed at the time of deposit but can then grow tax-free. This would bring in money in the short run ($6.4 billion over the next 10 years) but cost billions more in the long term. Indeed, because the legislation doesn't specify that the converted accounts already exist, the change appears to be a backdoor lifting of all income limits for Roth IRA contributions for those clever enough -- or with clever enough accountants -- to exploit the loophole. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/10/AR2006051002067.html

I agree, but I voted in the poll anyway. I've got an idea for a new question! "What has Rumsfeld gotten right"? This shouldn't take long.

Another one taken in by the White House propaganda machine. Read the speeches made by Bush, Powell, Rice, Cheney and Rumsfeld in the spring of 2003 and you will see that liberating the Iraqi people and giving them the opportunity to make choices about their future. was way down the list of reasons. Do you REALLY think the American people would have supported the war if liberating the Iraqi people and giving them the opportunity to make choices about their future. was the sales pitch? I have to agree with you, I can't figure out how to fit "mushroom cloud" into a liberation pitch.

I'm seeing lots of one liners and emoticons.......but not a lot of citations to back up any criticisms. Feel free to embelish, we're not paying by the word here.

Next thing you know someone will try to convince us corporations pay taxes. - It would be nice if they did. What's the average, 7% I think? I guess that's better than when Snow was running CSX and they paid less than 0%. And yes, you can pay less than zero if you receive subsidies.

So, you like Bush's idea of enlarging the government yet again by bringing the NYSE and more banks into the SS program? Increasing the bureaucracy saves us money how? Right now we have more money flowing IN to the off budget SS than we have going out. The problem is that that money is being used to keep Bush's record deficits from being even bigger. They would have put an end to that if they were serious about fixing social security but then that would have looked too much like a "lock box" wouldn't it?

Overall, I'm just ticked off about the war and I feel helpless while watching all that water that's already run under the bridge. Before the war we had the support of practically the entire world because of 9/11. This may sound strange but it was most evident to me when I was watching an English Premire League soccer game. They had a moment of silence for us and the entire stadium was absolutely quiet for at least 60 if not 90 seconds. I don't know if you've ever seen a European soccer game but that's a pretty amazing thing. Now that, along with most of the rest of the world's support, is gone. Our leadership can't travel the world without sneaking in under cover of night, the US World Cup team can't display the American flag on their bus but the other 30 countries can, we're stuck in Iraq for who knows how long and our kids are being stuck with a bill for the war that's already over $300 billion. And there's not a damn thing I can do about it.

Maybe because it's the next installment of a pattern of propaganda against US citizens such as: Federally funded fake news reports supporting the administrations position on the Medicare drug plan. The Office of Strategic Influence was shut down after the news pointed out that it was propaganda. It was replaced by the Office of Global Communications. Paying a newspaper columnist $240,000 to write articles promoting No Child Left Behind. Hiring the Lincoln Group to insert pro-US articles in their newspapers (which is technically not illegal unless those stories get back to US citizens). Spending $1.6 billion in taxpayer money paid to advertising companies to spin their programs. That GAO report came out in February. Or you could just take Bush's word for it, when talking about his Social Security plan he said: "See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda".

Shooting the messenger? Check out the last link, the pdf.

This thread reminds me, I haven't seen Full Metal Jacket in a while. Talk about a world of sheeeeeeeiiit!

Goebbels had nothing on these guys! Career appointees at the Department of Agriculture were stunned last week to receive e-mailed instructions that include Bush administration "talking points" -- saying things such as "President Bush has a clear strategy for victory in Iraq" -- in every speech they give for the department. "The President has requested that all members of his cabinet and sub-cabinet incorporate message points on the Global War on Terror into speeches, including specific examples of what each agency is doing to aid the reconstruction of Iraq," the May 2 e-mail from USDA speechwriter Heather Vaughn began. The e-mail, sent to about 60 undersecretaries, assistant secretaries and other political appointees, was also sent to "a few people to whom it should not have gone," said the department's communications director, Terri Teuber . The career people, we are assured, are not being asked to spread the great news on Iraq in their talks to food stamp recipients, disadvantaged farmers, enviros or other folks. The e-mail provided language "being used by Secretary [Michael O.] Johanns and deputy secretary [Charles F.] Conner in all of their remarks and is being sent to you for inclusion in your speeches." Another attachment "contains specific examples of GWOT messages within agriculture speeches. Please use these message points as often as possible and send Harry Phillips , USDA's director of speechwriting, a weekly email summarizing the event, date and location of each speech incorporating the attached language. Your responses will be included in a weekly account sent to the White House." This scoreboard, of course, will ensure you give it your best shot. Now, you might still be scratching your heads, trying to figure out how this is going to work when people expect a talk about agriculture issues. Not to worry. The attachments -- which can be viewed at http://www.washingtonpost.com/fedpage -- show how easy it is to work a little Iraq happy talk into just about anything. There's a sample introduction: "Several topics I'd like to talk about today -- Farm Bill, trade with Japan, WTO, avian flu . . . but before I do, let me touch on a subject people always ask about . . . progress in Iraq." See? Smooth as silk. So then you talk about how "we are helping the Iraqi people build a lasting democracy that is peaceful and prosperous." If it looks like the audience is with you, try to slip in the old Iraq/al-Qaeda/terrorism link and say Americans are helping build a country "that will never again be a safe haven for terrorists." Loop suggestion: With the polls showing that only about 40 percent of those surveyed actually still buy the linkage thing, you may want to use some discretion here lest you lose the audience. The e-mail shows how to weave in a comment that times are tough for Iraqi farmers. "But revitalization is underway. President Bush has a clear strategy for victory in Iraq structured on three tracks -- political, economic and security." Be crop-specific. "The Iraqis have also discussed specific products, like tomatoes, which they are anxious to export into the world community," the e-mail notes. Talk turkey, or chicken, to your audience: "The major poultry producers in Iraq . . . are using [U.S.] loan guarantees to buy U.S. corn and soybeans. . . . This in turn provides a cycle of income that is being used to update 25-year-old chicken houses," the e-mail suggests. Chickens apparently produce better in nice homes. But what if your speech is on civil rights? Easy. Begin this way: "I'm here to talk about civil rights, which is one of the fundamental tenets of democracy." Then you can say this country "has been evolving for 230 years . . . still working to become a more perfect union . . . "So before I begin talking about the civil rights climate at USDA," the example says, "I'd like to address the situation in another nation that is just now forging the path to democracy." Bingo! You're in. Now: "The president has a clear strategy for victory in Iraq structured along three tracks," etc. Let's say you're talking about U.S. agricultural productivity. Try this: "I'd like to take a moment to talk about a nation that is just now beginning to rebuild its own agricultural production. "Iraq is part to the 'fertile crescent' of Mesopotamia," the sample script says. "It is there, in around 8,500 to 8,000 B.C., that mankind first domesticated wheat, there that agriculture was born. In recent years, however, the birthplace of farming has been in trouble." Probably want to pause here and give the audience a chance to catch its breath. It's hard to travel 10,500 years that quickly. "But revitalization is underway. President Bush has a clear strategy . . ." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/07/AR2006050700898.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/KamenDocs.pdf

Actually, I think he's being kept in a supermax prison. I don't think he'll have any contact with anyone other than the guards.

Because some of our policies, like NAFTA help create the shit hole. For example, they can't farm profitably down there because they can't compete with the US farmers who are subsidized by our Federal government.

Oooo....good to know. WP's having some runway widening done next year. We could use some contractors who bring beer.

YES!!! WP WILL RULE THE WORLD!!!! Oh yea, I forgot to mention, in addition to the PAC this weekend they have a Strong cutaway rig. So come on out and practice your emergency procedures......where the hanging harness is 4000 ft tall!!!! P.S. Bring an extra set of underwear for that one.

Sorry, gotta go with spatula on this one. The first post said that you didn't even know if they were jumping Friday afternoon. So basically it's a choice between a guaranteed 12 min climb to altitude in the PAC or...........maybe no jumping at all. Gimme da PAC!!!!

1) Actually the US created and funded the Iraqi National Congress shortly after the first Gulf war. 2) No one in the region, even the Shiites that we left hanging out to dry wanted us to invade Iraq. 3) Sure, the Kurds didn't want Saddam around but they were essentially running their own region of the country anyway, Saddam didn't have control of the north. 4) You're right, Saddam DID have WMD's and he DID use them on the Kurds....but he was our ally at the time and we did nothing about it, aside from continuing to do business with him until he invaded Kuwait a couple of years later. 5) Powell stated early on in this administration that the sanctions had crippled Saddam's programs. Then 9/11 came and the story changed. 6) You're right, Saddam did continue to posture like he was still a dangerous man, BUT the UN inspectors were in the country with unprecedented access to any and all sites. Bush said we couldn't wait for the inspectors. 7) I thought Saddam was a bad man, no doubt. But he wasn't a threat to us. What this administration did was to abandon the war on terrorism which was next door in Afghanistan by taking all but about 15,000 troops from the bin Laden hunt and invading Iraq, something that had been the goal of of administration officials for about a decade. And today, those terrorists that we're looking for are where? They're right where we left them, in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Sounds like Pat Robertson on acid.

They're not necessarily military. Some are civilian contractors. And don't forget, CIA is civilian...at least for a little while longer. http://www.cid.army.mil/Documents/OIF-OEF%20Homicides.pdf http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4093997.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4741608.stm

Ok, that two references to Phelps. What's the deal with them?

I hate the media too, but because they're typically too stupid to remember what they reported a couple of months earlier and have no capacity for critical thought. They may not show you the cute pictures but they also don't show you the ugly/realistic side of the war either. Let me know if you want to see those pics too. I won't post them othewise.

Where do you get this stuff. There are no "troop haters" that I'm aware of. War hater, yes. But my anger goes to those responsible for starting it, those who are misusing the troops by putting them into situations that they're not trained for. Those who create a system that allows torture but then hangs the enlisted soldiers out to dry because they were caught in the pictures doing what they were told to do while no high ranking officials are assigned any responsibility. Those who say they support the troops and send them into battle but then pass legislation to cut veterans aid. THOSE are the people I hate. Not the troops themselves. It would do us well to return to the days when leaders actually led their armys into battle. I support the troops, bring them home and quit using them as corporate mercenaries.

I can't criticize the Dem's without also criticizing the R's. The R's seem to be suffering from an identity crisis. They pretty much rubber stamped everything Bush uttered when his approval ratings were high, they also were apparently punch drunk on their access to the treasury. But now that Bush's ratings are in the crapper and there's an election coming up they're feverishly trying to restore their identity. Now on to the judicial filibuster, the way I see it, the Constitution states that by and with the advice and consent of the congress, the president can appoint judges. That means that if congress doesn't consent to the pick, be that evident through filibuster or the holding up of the nomination in committee (I think it was 62 Clinton nominations that were held up that way) that means that congress doesn't consent and the pres has to make another pick. Personally, I think that a Supreme Court justice should be approved by a super majority, not a simple one. (On this issue Frist is a hypocrit considering that in 2000 he voted to uphold the Richard Paez nomination through filibuster.) And lastly, I think you were thinking of Harriet Meiers but she didn't even get to the interview by the judicial committee because her nomination was run down the tubes by the radical religious right. That's why I was skeptical of Alito, I didn't know much about him but the bible thumping theocracy hounds seemed to think he was the activist judge that they were looking for. I guess we'll find out.

Nice essay. And I agree that the if the Dems actually have a pair, that they're too candy assed to show them. This administration has given them ample ammunition and they've squandered it. But on the SC constructionalist issue and the filibuster, I don't see how the R's could legally, according to the Constitution, kill a judicial filibuster. The "Constitutional Option" is just as much a misnomer as "Patriot Act", "Clear Skies" , "Healthy Forests", "Fair Pay Initiative", etc. And as a post script, in my opinion Scalia should be kicked off the court for not recusing himself from Cheney's case regarding the secret energy policy meetings. That was a textbook appearance of impropriety. You can't go on a hunting trip with Cheney that is paid for by energy company execs when Cheney was going to sit in front of your court regarding a case involving Cheney and the same energy execs. Quack Quack.