Typical Democrat hypocricy

“So much for Republicans being the party of the wealthy. According to a new study by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, that moniker more appropriately belongs to the Democrats.
"Republicans raised more than Democrats from individuals who contributed small and medium amounts of money during the 2002 election cycle," the report notes, "but Democrats far outpaced Republicans among deep-pocketed givers." Among donors who gave more than $200 but less than $1,000, Republicans enjoyed a substantial $68 million to $44 million edge over Democrats. The margin was closer among those individuals who gave $1,000 or more: The GOP took in $317 million, compared to the Democrats' $307 million.
But among the fabulously wealthy, the Democrats cleaned house. Donors of $10,000 or more gave $140 million to Democrats, while only $111 million went to Republicans. Among those individuals who gave $100,000 or more, the Democrats raised $72 million compared to the Republicans' $34 million. And when it comes to the millionaires' club — those kicking in $1 million or more — the Democratic Party skunked the GOP, $36 million to $3 million. Needless to say, despite the near-parity in overall amounts — $384 million to the Republicans vs. $350 million to the Democrats — the number of individual donors to the GOP exceeded those to the Democratic Party by more than 40 percent.
In other words, in 2002 a select group of bigwigs dumped big money into Democratic causes, while a broad base of folks donated respectable (but not overwhelming) amounts to Republican candidates. That goes a long way toward explaining the Democrats' shallow support in the midterm elections, and should give an indication of which party's agenda has been hijacked by the big money-men.
But it also sheds light on the president's first round of tax cuts — arguably the highest-profile domestic referendum in the midterm elections. We can't help but notice that only those who are so stinking rich that money doesn't matter supported the Democrats' opposition to tax cuts. Meanwhile, the many more who form the backbone of America's economy supported the Republicans. As the White House and congressional Republicans prepare a new tax package, we hope they bear that in mind. And just to show that there are no hard feelings, we'll still support tax cuts for the limousine liberals. With all that extra change in their pockets, maybe they'll put it to more productive uses than propping up the rejected policies of the Democratic Party.”

“Good stuff Strat...”

“[takes bow]”

“ahem....”

“Could it be that the Republicans are so greedy they don't even fund their party any more? Just speculation :-)”

“Aw man! It's Phriday...fun day! Phriday's the worst day for these policrap threads.



















BTW- good read.”

“uhhhm....no


but it could be that the mind numbed masses have been completely bamboozeled......






everybody knows that the world is full of stupid people.

now i got the pistols, so i get the pesos....


yeah that seems fair....”

“lol nigal bottle!

here's more to ponder....


The IRS has released the year 2000 data for individual income tax returns. The numbers illustrate a truth that will startle you: that half of Americans with the highest incomes pays 96.09% of all income tax. This nukes the liberal lie that the rich don't pay taxes. The top 1%, who earn 20.81% of all income covered under the income tax, are paying 37.42% of the federal tax bite.





*Data covers calendar year 2000, not fiscal year 2000 - and includes all income, not just wages, excluding Social Security



Think of it this way: less than four dollars out of every $100 paid in income taxes in the United States is paid by someone in the bottom 50% of wage earners. Are the top half millionaires? Noooo, more like "thousandaires." The top 50% were those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $26,000 and up in 1999. (The top 1% earned $293,000-plus.) Americans who want to are continuing to improve their lives - and those who don't want to, aren't. Here are the wage earners in each category and the percentages they pay:

Top 5% - 56.47% of all income taxes; Top 10% - 67.33% of all income taxes; Top 25% - 84.01% of all income taxes. Top 50% - 96.09% of all income taxes. The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.91% 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 20.81% of all income. The top 5% earns 35.30% of the pie. The top 10% earns 46.01%; the top 25% earns 67.15%, and the top 50% earns 87.01% of all the income.


The Rich Earned Their Dough, They Didn't Inherit It (Except Ted Kennedy)



The bottom 50% is paying a tiny bit of the taxes, so you can't give them much of a tax cut by definition. Yet these are the people to whom the Democrats claim to want to give tax cuts. Remember this the next time you hear the "tax cuts for the rich" business. Understand that the so-called rich are about the only ones paying taxes anymore.

I had a conversation with a woman who identified herself as Misty on Wednesday. She claimed to be an accountant, yet she seemed unaware of the Alternative Minimum Tax, which now ensures that everyone pays some taxes. AP reports that the AMT, "designed in 1969 to ensure 155 wealthy people paid some tax," will hit "about 2.6 million of us this year and 36 million by 2010." That's because the tax isn't indexed for inflation! If your salary today would've made you mega-rich in '69, that's how you're taxed.

Misty tried the old line that all wealth is inherited. Not true. John Weicher, as a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank, wrote in his February 13, 1997 Washington Post Op-Ed, "Most of the rich have earned their wealth... Looking at the Fortune 400, quite a few even of the very richest people came from a standing start, while others inherited a small business and turned it into a giant corporation." What's happening here is not that "the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer." The numbers prove it.”

“Strat, let's say we give the wealthy all the tax breaks and stuff all 'their' money back in their pockets. Where does that leave our economy? What are your projections for that scenario? Do you honestly think that is what will cure all our ills here? Just curious about what you think the outcome of all this will be.”

“it's very simple treebro;

i used to own an aquarium maintenance company and nearly all of my clients were grotesqeuly wealthy. when clinton hiked taxes(largets increase in history, it was also retroactive) many rich folks dropped my services. it is a myth that given more money, rich people won't spend it. the REAL myth, is that there aren't that many filthy stinkin rich people. most classified as rich are not what we would think of as rich. if you make a houshold income of 75K, you are in the top 75% of wage earners.....you've been had dood....


look up the stats for yourself at IRS.GOV if you are interested in the truth.....”

“WASHINGTON (AP) -- An obscure tax originally enacted to prevent the wealthy from escaping income taxes entirely will grow sharply until it affects 36 million increasingly middle-class taxpayers by 2010, private researchers reported Wednesday.

"It is no exaggeration to say it is on the verge of dominating our income tax system and will create major problems for the economy," said Leonard Burman, co-director of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. The center is a joint venture of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution think tanks.

On the Net:

Tax Policy Center: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org

The alternative minimum tax is a highly complicated parallel to the regular income tax system -- a backstop -- designed in 1969 to ensure 155 wealthy people paid some tax, the study found. That number is projected to grow to about 2.6 million this year and 36 million by 2010.

The study is the latest to project problems for a large segment of taxpayers during this decade. The Internal Revenue Service's taxpayer advocate and the Joint Committee on Taxation, which provides tax bill estimates for Congress, have made similar projections.

The main reasons are that the minimum tax is not indexed for inflation, meaning that it strikes more and more taxpayers as their incomes rise. In addition, last year's 10-year, $1.35 trillion tax cut reduced regular income taxes but did not make any cuts in the minimum tax rates.

The study found that by 2010, 53 percent of taxpayers earning under $100,000 will pay the minimum tax, compared with 24 percent in 2002. For 95 percent of those with incomes between $100,000 and $500,000, the alternative minimum tax will effectively become the main income tax system in 2010.

By 2010, the minimum tax also will reclaim about 36 percent of the overall income tax cut enacted last year -- about 70 percent of the cut targeted at taxpayers with incomes between $100,000 and $500,000.

Families with children and those living in high-tax states would be particularly hard hit because the minimum tax system does not allow exemptions for children or deductions for state taxes.

In recent years, Congress has passed temporary fixes to prevent the tax from hitting too many middle-class taxpayers, which would have a steep political cost. Repealing the tax outright, however, could cost as much as $750 billion if it is done in the later years of this decade, according to the House Ways and Means Committee.

The Tax Policy Center study said the minimum tax could be changed so that is focuses mainly on upper-income households, or last year's income tax cuts could be frozen at 2002 levels and the alternative tax repealed -- a plan that would still cost $285 billion.

Still, the study's authors say Congress will eventually have no choice but to deal with it. The IRS taxpayer advocate has also pushed for repeal, in part because of the sheer complexity of the minimum tax.

"But doing so will be expensive; by 2008, getting rid of the AMT is going to cost more than repealing the regular income tax," said William Gale of the Brookings Institution.”

“two words.... flat tax.”

“With all due respect, Strat, I don't see the where you answered my question. Are you saying that if you give the rich more money, they will automatically invest it for the good of the economy and Ameerica and the economy will automatically thrive? If that's where you are going with this, then you have more confidence in these people than I do...”

“The term 'democrat hypocrisy' is a redundancy.”

“More "trickle-down" from a man who likes all kinds of "trickling down" if you know what I mean...


:D”

“about what I expected from a L.A. suburb liberal.”

“Glad not to dissapoint you, goron.”

“I think the fact that treebeard refered to peoples money as "their" money is very telling. That implies that it's not really there money. I wonder whose money it really is?”

“tree. pretend you are rich, and i give you a tax cut....what do you do? you now have more money at your disposal. pretend you are middle class and you get a tax cut, you now have more money in your checking account.....what will happen then?

everyone will spend more money and YES it helps the economy. they don't spend "for the good of the economy"...they don't do it for noble reasons, that doesn't matter. think of all the ways people will spend extra cash. i would buy a new sleeping bad, or a guitar amp......you may buy a book, or a new bike for your kids, or an IRA......a rich man might buy a new hummer, or a boat, or a plane, or a house.......everything that anybody buys helps the economy. poeple make a living building boats and houses and bikes and books. maybe , you say, the rich guy won't spend it....weird argument but ok. if he doesn't spend it he will save it in the bank. money in savings goes into the stock market....


This just in............ the Russian government,
having learned much from the Reagan supply-side economic model,
approved major tax cuts for 2004 in order to stimulate economic
growth, abolishing the sales tax and lowering the value-added
tax.”

“If the Clinton economic plan was so great - its centerpiece being tax increases - then why are the Democrats not proposing tax increases now?

Why is it that liberals hate facts and history? The reason is simple: an educated public is the liberals' worst enemy.

You send the government over $2 trillion a year. That's the federal operating budget, and it's all your money. It comes from you, the American people, who produce and work. However, you're not giving Tom Daschle enough.

You keeping what you earn and spending it on your own behalf is going to totally ruin the nation's economy. That's the message of the Democratic Party.


If you reduce the taxes on personal income, you are reducing the taxes on small businesses, you are freeing up money for them to do whatever. I'll guarantee you that the objective of most small businesses is to grow.”

“Strat cmon..you know libs know this..they don't care..they want your money..they want the power..they don't give a flying #&%!$ about fair..It's a huge vote for me and I'll give you someone elses money Robin Hood scam...The public isn't ignorant the lower class no they can get freebies while the working libs know they can get a cushy govt. with a great retirement and benefits..Pretty simple really. Gore's campaign speech should have gone something like this: Hi I'm Al Gore..yes I'm white, but I know how to steal hard working people's money and give it to you, and there is nothing they can do about it.ahahahahahah”

“lol davies...

but robin hood didn't steal from the rich, he stole from the government and gave it back to the peasants that the government stole it from through confiscatory taxes....”

“Newsflash for Strat. My taxes went down during the Clinton administration.
Newsflash for Strat. A couple making 20,000 jointly are poorer than church mice, unlike what your cut and paste would have us believe.”

“dan, should we raise taxes?”

“I think we should raise taxes on the poor. Make them pay taxes even if they don't have a job. Pay taxes or go to jail. Make license plates in jail and help the federal government grow by making it illegal for citizens to drive without a license plate.






I slay me.”

“There is already a tax on the poor..It's called the lottery”

“i'm poorer than dirt and i pay all kinds of taxes already....”

“The free market economy should have made a hard worker like you rich by now, Strat.”

“right, so get the overbearing government off my back and let me keep my money.....”

“You have, what two kids and a house?

Dood, you shouldn't be paying but 12 percent or so in income tax. There's no federal property tax or federal sales tax. What do you want?”

“3 kids


35% easy”

“Who do you have do your taxes? Please tell me so I can avoid them.”

“Are you talking state and federal? cause I'm not going to argue your state tax laws with you.”

“i'm talkin total tax burden. why would you look at it any other way?

if america had to pay all their taxes at once...actually write a check....there would be revolt and liberals would be rode out anna rail”

“Strat, your tax in your state and my tax in my state are different. There's no way we can debate a total tax burden in relation to national politics without having a common ground to start from.

What would you suggest?”

“fine,talk federal....taxes are too high.


in other hypocriticle democrat news ...the pro-choice liberals don'[t want you to choose where your child is educated...


U.S. Secretary of Education
Rod Paige once again stepped out and showed he is no pragmatist!
"All things equal, I would prefer to have a child in a school
that has a strong appreciation for the values of the Christian
community. The reason that Christian schools and Christian
universities are growing is a result of a strong value system."
It only took the Left a New York second to fire back. Sen. Edward
Kennedy, (D-Purgatory), chastised: "By expressing your preference
for schools that teach the values of a single faith, you send
an unacceptable signal that some families and their children
are favored over others because of their faith. I urge you
to repudiate these divisive comments." Salting Kennedy's
wound, a few days later, Dr. Paige reiterated his support for
school vouchers, noting that blacks would benefit the most from
competitive vouchers: "Black children are the lowest-performing
minority in public schools."”

“So the federal taxes are what's holding you back, eh, strat?

I see you're trying to change the subject. I'm okay with that. You obviously didn't want to debate taxes.

I'm FOR school vouchers. Care to try another subject?”

“taxes are too high. lowering them would help us all. you're turn...”

“Would you rather lower taxes or keep programs like social security and medicare?”

“Well if SS and Medicare weren't so freaking huge and inefficient we could have the tax cuts and keep both. Lets cut out the red tape and top heavy administration...What's so complicated about that?”

“How do you propose doing this? Is this part of the plan as it's connected to tax cuts?”

“it's not an either/or chioce there phead.”

“© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com


If I had 10 bucks for every bizarre and strange claim of "racism" I've heard in the last 10 years I would ... well, let's just say I'd be flying behind a turbine, not eight pistons.

One of the most recent gems is a race warlord in South Florida who claimed that the skills test for a job with a Miami area police department was racist. And why? Because the applicants needed to know how to swim and, as everyone knows, blacks just can't swim all that well.

No, I'm not kidding.

Then there was the college professor at the Atlanta University Center who opined that the use of logic in an argument was racist – racist because everyone knows that blacks can't think or argue logically.

No, I swear: It happened.

Well, now we have another college professor stepping up to the rhetorical plate.

Her name is Jane Hall. She's a communications professor at American University, and a Fox News contributor. There she was on "Fox News Watch" telling the moderator: "You know me, I'm a rational person." No, Professor Hall, you're not.

Professor Hall believes that Time and Newsweek may be racist because they featured white people on the covers of recent editions touting feature stories about SARS. Even worse, at least one of those white people was a blonde female. Oh, the humanity!

Jane Hall explains herself: "This is an epidemic that has had 3,600 cases in China and 56 cases in the United States, and I think on the one hand it's kind of racist. Are we not going to read about it if we showed an Asian woman on the cover?"

So, Time and Newsweek are racist because they featured white folks on stories about SARS, not Asians. This woman is teaching our children, and she thinks that portraying white models on a cover story about SARS means that Time and Newsweek believe in the inherent genetic superiority of white women to Asian women. I don't suppose it matters that these magazines are marketed to a demographic base that includes far more white women than it does Asians.

OK, Professor Jane Hall, media critic extraordinaire from American University, I have a question for you. My guess is you spend a fair amount of time watching television. Certainly you've seen commercials for alarm companies, security systems and other consumer products designed to protect citizens from crime. In many of these commercials, you will see a burglar trying to get into an urban home, or a single woman alone in a car on a dark night being approached by someone in a threatening manner.

Watch, now. In virtually every case the person portraying the criminal is white. Now, Ms. Hall, what would happen if one of these commercials portrayed the criminal as black? Using your own reasoning, Professor Hall, the actor playing the criminal should be black, especially the carjacker. After all, in an urban setting the majority of these crimes are committed by black males. So, Ms. Hall, was it "racist" of these advertisers to portray these urban criminals as white when, in fact, the most of them are black?

I really don't know enough about Jane Hall to brand her as left or right. Her degree from the Columbia University School of Journalism does give one pause. Where, though, is the logic behind her charge of racism? Here we have a frightening new disease that has made inroads into the United States. So, you put a picture of a white woman wearing a surgical mask on the cover of a magazine featuring a story about the disease. Along comes Jane Hall who sees what – just a cover picture promoting a story on a disease?

No, she sees so much more. She looks at the gender, then the hair color, then the skin color of the model on the cover. Just being a person susceptible to catching the disease isn't enough. It has to be a person with the right hair color, the right eye shape and the right skin color – or, it's racism.

These are the intellectual markers of a liberal – one of that peculiar tribe of people who want to control our government and your lives. People who want to tell you how much you can make at work, how many hours you can be allowed to work, how much you can keep of what you earn, where you have to go for medical care, how you must invest your retirement funds and where your kids have to go to school.

And every time you put a picture on the cover of a magazine, they'll be out there deciding – deciding just on the basis of the color of the person in that picture – whether or not you're an evil, hate-filled racist.


Neil Boortz”

“"It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and
tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise revenues
in the long run is to cut rates now. The experience of a number
of European countries has borne this out. This country's own
experience with tax reduction has borne this out. The reason
is that only full employment can balance the budget and tax
reduction can pave the way to full employment. The purpose of
cutting taxes is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve
the more prosperous, expanding economy which will bring a budget
surplus." --John F. Kennedy, December 1962



wonder why his brother Teddy doesn't agree.....hmmmm....guess teddy is smarter....NAWT!”

“Now if ya told Teddy that if tax breaks aren't the answer and that we would make a high tax on alcohol, he'd be all over that s h i t like John Madden on a thanksgiving day turkey.”

“"Conservative politicians may run on their conservative
ideas, but liberal politicians do not get elected by running on
liberalism. Indeed, a major part of most liberal election campaigns
usually consists of trying to appear to be something other than
liberals. Then, when their liberal past is exposed, there is
great complaint in the media about 'negative advertising.' The
last Democrat to get elected president on an openly liberal
platform was Lyndon B. Johnson, nearly 40 years ago. Since then,
both Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton have won with a pretense of
moderation." --Thomas Sowell



this dood is awesome! he is african american and conservative. like david horowitz, he was right in the thick of things during the 60's turmoil and has exposed liberalism for what it is....”

“lmao nige! wonder if chappaquiddic(sp?) has a liquor store......”

“"Adherents of this anti-American creed variously describe
themselves as 'Marxists,' 'anti-globalists,' 'anti-war activists'
or, more generally, 'progressives.' Their secular worldview holds
claims that America is responsible for reaction, oppression,
and exploitation across the globe and causes them to regard
this country as the moral equivalent of militant Islam's 'Great
Satan.' This explains the otherwise incomprehensible practical
alliances that individuals who claim to be avatars of social
justice make with Islamo-fascists like Saddam Hussein." --David
Horowitz”

“"According to the 2000 Census, residents who reported as Asian,
or in combination with one or more other races, totaled 11.9
million -- or 4% -- of our population. In my book that makes
Asians a minority. ... If you see things that way, and think
Asian-Americans are eligible for preferential treatment, it simply
means you haven't kept abreast with modern racial enlightenment.
A minority group is not a minority if, as a group, it is
successful." --Walter Williams



the left is a joke....the joke's on YOU”

“"From a Lieutenant Colonel, USAF(ret): The Leftist media's
concern over President Bush's carrier landing illustrates they
never really understood that while former Vice President Al Gore
was learning to operate a typewriter in Vietnam, and Bill Clinton
was protesting Vietnam as a student in the UK, President Bush was
flying supersonic jet fighters with the Texas Air National Guard."”