idrankwhat
-
Content
4,211 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never -
Feedback
0%
Everything posted by idrankwhat
-
Not the tax bracket structure. The tax code is rigged. Your rate has little to do with your actual tax after your income has been adjusted down to your taxable income through deductions and loopholes. The wealthiest pay most of the tax, yes. But they can do so even though they pay a lower (or even the same) actual tax rate (I'm generalizing) because they make orders of magnitude more money. 7% tax on a $10,000,000 income is a whole lot more going into the Treasury than what, 100-200 average Joes?
-
Is that your tax rate or is that what you actually pay? Those are two different things, often misused in these debates. We used to have a Treasury Secretary who publicly boasted about paying less than zero in taxes for his business. And now we have one that can't figure out Turbotax. at least the one before understood how the tax system operated. knowledge of how your job works should be required to get the job. Partisanship at its purest! At least you guys are acknowledging that the system is rigged in favor of the wealthiest. Your only issue seems to be in whether they knew how to play the system to the fullest.
-
Is that your tax rate or is that what you actually pay? Those are two different things, often misused in these debates. We used to have a Treasury Secretary who publicly boasted about paying less than zero in taxes for his business.
-
Except when he was making sense. I enjoyed having him dissect our budget publicly. I wish he had his own show called "We're paying what for WHAT?"
-
My take is that the states should pick their own leaders. I saw plenty of opportunities to send money to Coakely. And while I'd prefer that she won, it's none of my business so I kept the checkbook closed. I'd prefer that others would do the same with my state in return.
-
Nope. Dobbs was losing control, on immigration and especially on the "birther" nonsense. I hope the door smacked him twice on the way out. But you're welcome to come visit. Best not make it this weekend though if you're hoping to get a jump or two in. Looks like we've got some snow coming.
-
Hey, that's great. Don't let it get you down. When you find the right girl, it'll be even more special with her. Thanks, you always know how to say the right things. I'm feeling better already.
-
Stance? It was more like a vein popping, convulsing, frothing at the mouth, speaking in tongues sort of display
-
Quote Ok - still not FOX doing it but someone being interviewed.[/reply Right, and who chooses the list of interviewees? But again, I'm not surprised. And this goes right to the heart of the thread. Mega corp media and mega corps are the ones steering the debate. Throw out left or right for a moment and think about it. Who made the Mass election such a big story?
-
I don't know. I didn't really pay that much attention to the race. I'm a Virginian. But from what I heard it's possible that she lost, not because of the FOX enabled "grass roots" support, but simply because she ran a lousy campaign. We just lost a Governor's race in a similar fashion. The centrist Democratic candidate just wasn't very exciting, not to look at or to listen to, even though his message (on things like transportation bills etc.) was more specific and complete. But to address your other point, I don't like the networks campaigning for candidates and I don't want outside corporations doing it either, for any candidate.
-
And you think only one side does it? The problem lies in that there are "sides" to news media. FOX is blatant about it, and they're good at it. The other major networks are just inept. In many cases they allow FOX to set the debate by introducing some sort of controversy. Then those networks just report on the status of the controversy and repeat what was repeated. Controversy sells so they run with it. It's mindless "journalism" that takes about as much talent as writing a reality TV show.
-
Um, no -that's Dick Morris on Hannity. "Morris: ......By the way, if you go to DickMorris.com, my website, I have a whole column there about what you can do to help elect Brown. Because if we win this fight, then there'll never be another victory for Obama. He probably will get health care, because the House will pass the Senate version. But he'll never get 60 votes again. SEAN HANNITY (host): All right. MORRIS: And boy, if we could pull this one out, incredible. HANNITY: I agree. MORRIS: So please, please help. I'm not. That was an ad that was paid for externally, by either Coakley or a supporter. Not promotion by the network itself. Where did that run by the way? Was it local or national? Just curious. It's in pretty bad taste for anything off the blogosphere.
-
If it's a UK inquiry then I'd expect them to go after Blair. Bush certainly factors in however. Blair's tune about how to proceed with regard to Iraq changed dramatically after he visited Bush in Texas.
-
No, but saying "come to my site and donate so we can get Brown elected and Obama will never have another victory again.....(paraphrased)" could be called "fund raising". Putting up pictures that imply financial prosperity for you if Brown gets elected and deliberately hacking up Coakley's statements, while not necessarily "fundraising" could certainly be considered "stumping". SO, ok. You got me. They were fund raising and stumping for Brown.
-
Well, admittedly, they didn't have Jerry Lewis host a show for him. Attached is a good screen grab. You can check the mediamatters link for the specifics. The multiple appearances by Brown on their various programs is one thing, not that big a deal. Just predictable. The fund raising by Morris on Hannity's show (with Hannity agreeing that this would be a big win for "us") is pretty lousy. Fox and Friends' beating up on Coakley is typical stuff. Beck's fear mongering about election stealing is pretty f'd up. The FOX lineup is pretty much a bunch of political hack shows with a little "news" thrown in there.........somewhere.
-
No more than 4-5 OTHER mega-corp owned 'news' networks had in 2008 for Obama. I'm sorry but I can't argue the immeasurable. But I can ask you your opinion as to why, if those 4-5 other networks are supposedly in the tank for the libs then why didn't they host the fund raising efforts for Coakley that FOX did for Brown?
-
Or maybe they simply can't compete with a monopoly.
-
Corporations vote with their dollars. People only get to vote with their ballots. Bull. Look at the MA Senate race - Brown had a HUGE infusion of cash from private donors in the last couple weeks before the election. Do you think that a certain mega-corp owed "news" network might have had significant influence in recruiting those dollars?
-
As it should be. I'm glad he's being bought by a lower bidder. It's certainly a refreshing CHANGE Another campaign promise kept So, he's admitting he's a CHEAP politician? That keeps lobbying expenses down and therefore, consumer prices. Maybe he only needs three or four health care lobbyists per legislator as opposed to seven. That should translate into us being able to purchase the drugs that we don't need at bargain prices! Now THAT's change we can all embrace
-
Plenty of ideas? Yes. Plenty of well funded people interested in financing different ideas? No. Not unless they are forced to. Newton's first law applies.
-
As it should be. I'm glad he's being bought by a lower bidder. It's certainly a refreshing CHANGE Another campaign promise kept
-
Which is highly unlikely when the marketplace is unregulated to the level that monopolies are allowed to flourish. An unchecked free market is dangerous. Are the market force purists here in America willing to allow another country to win? Just curious.
-
I needed a new profile pic anyway
-
1 - suspect many on all sides would be afraid of this 2 - seems the UN is dominated by middle east countries and the "Big5" (is it still 5? or 6?) do you want that? many are very disaffected with our national government - would moving to an even bigger government really make it all better? even fractionally? Possibly. But we'd need to erase all borders first. The problem would be the establishment of a real, democratic governing body, not the kind that advocates Rollerball.
-
I'm not sure I'm following. I apologize, being distracted with work today. Are you referring to the "Dem Donor" in the op? I don't know.