|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
Kevin
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Apr 2004
Posts: 1117
Location: Eugene, Oregon
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 18, 2005 9:22 pm Post subject: |
    |
|
| Gee, more deranged and garbled hard-right-wing propaganda. Thanks so much, Donald! Always there to help boost the Big Lie, aren't you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1712
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 18, 2005 9:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think maybe Stephen King (using what alias?) wrote the script for the eight-year Bush II presidency; it's just too perfect a horror story.
Doncha wonder how it'll turn out?
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Donald
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
Posts: 493
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2005 9:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm holding my social security statement in my hand...and this statement shows me how much I've paid into Social Security and Medicare, and how much I will get when I retire. It also contains this fiction that my employer has been "matching" my Social Security taxes.
Here, though, is what I want to bring to your attention --- especially if you are one of those people who thinks that your Social Security benefits are guaranteed. There's an asterisk. At the bottom of page two you'll see this paragraph:
"Your estimated benefits are based on current law. Congress has made changes to the law in the past and can do so at any time. The law governing benefit amounts may change because, by 2042, the payroll taxes collected will be enough to pay only about 73% of the scheduled benefits."
Wait a minute! Congress can change my benefits at any time? I thought that my benefits were guaranteed! Isn't that what Democrats have been telling us? Haven't they been telling us that Republicans want to remove our "guaranteed" benefits in favor of a "risky" investment scheme?
Golly! You don't think they might have been stretching the truth all in support of the "Big Lie", do you?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1712
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2005 10:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| In what way(s) are your third and fourth paragraphs indicative of contradiction or inconsistency? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Donald
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
Posts: 493
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2005 12:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| "guaranteed" benefits = no guaranteed benefits. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kevin
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Apr 2004
Posts: 1117
Location: Eugene, Oregon
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2005 10:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A little piece of a Big Lie:
The law governing benefit amounts may change because, by 2042, the payroll taxes collected will be enough to pay only about 73% of the scheduled benefits.
To make that positive statement about the future is false, because it is based, not just on predictions of US economic growth, but to synthesize a bogus crisis, on very low predictions of future economic growth, assumming a much lower growth rate than the same period looking backward.
http://thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050228&s=alterman
I accept that Bush's policies will probably hurt the economy badly, and the environment worse, leading to supressed growth for a time. But over the long haul, there's still a good chance we'll recover, and more.
And, using Social Security statements to spread fear based on such misleading partisan projections is a pretty disgusting substitute for leadership. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Donald
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
Posts: 493
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1712
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 1:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Those with a rational view of the US economic future knew we had lost Mr Greenspan as an objective voice when he signed on to the president's tax cut plans. Therefore, it is encouraging to now hear him say that the present projected deficit is insupportable and should be reduced; naturally, since the American people like to think they're already over-taxed, he could only say that "spending needs to be cut." Courageous leaders are willing to deliver bad news when necessary; unfortunately, courageous leadership is in short supply. So the fantasy of have-it-all-but-let-someone-else-pay-for-it continues. . .
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1712
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
"You can fool all of the people some of the time. . ."
Today's NY Times/Paul Krugman op-ed piece discusses Mr Greenspan's
credibility and the budget machinations of the right.
www.nytimes.com/2005/03/04/opinion/04krugman.html?th
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Donald
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
Posts: 493
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | he could only say that "spending needs to be cut." |
It was more than that, as it now seems that we do have a new supporter of the Fair Tax, in the form of Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. Yesterday, Greenspan testified on federal tax reform, and heres the part that jumps out for me:
"As you know, many economists believe that a consumption tax would be best from the perspective of promoting economic growth--particularly if one were designing a tax system from scratch--because a consumption tax is likely to encourage saving and capital formation. However, getting from the current tax system to a consumption tax raises a challenging set of transition issues."
Right on, Mr. Greenspan....but before that though, he also floated another idea, one which would be a disaster:
"However, past experience suggests that as the panel's work gets under way, one of the first decisions that you will confront is the choice of tax base; possibilities include a comprehensive income tax, a consumption tax, or some combination of the two, as is done in many other countries."
A combination of the income tax and a consumption tax? Absolutely not. To wind up with both, like other countries, would simply increase the confiscation of wealth by the Imperial Federal Government and would make us worse off. I prefer the suggestion that we repeal the 16th amendment and abolish the income tax before instituting the Fair Tax.
Still though, this is good news. The Fair Tax plan is on the march. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1712
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 12:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| What is the complete description of the "Fair Tax"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kevin
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Apr 2004
Posts: 1117
Location: Eugene, Oregon
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 12:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"Fair Tax" is propaganda-speak for the right-wing talking points UNFAIR Tax of the week.
But I agree, if Donald wants to through around the term, it is incumbent on him to explain it. Or else it really is just an empty propaganda place-holder. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Donald
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
Posts: 493
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 1:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Moderator wrote: | | Text blocked due to violations of forum guidelines |
Under the Fair Tax proposal every single American would get a monthly rebate from the federal government for the amount of sales tax they would be expected to spend that month on the basic necessities of life. This means that people living at or near the poverty level would be paying no federal taxes of any kind. No income tax. No Social Security Tax. No Medicare tax. No sales tax. Nothing. They would be getting 100 percent of their paycheck in addition to a monthly check from the government.
http://www.fairtax.org/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Donald
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
Posts: 493
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So back to the "Budget Anyone?" Tax reform, Social Security reform, budget deficits, tax cuts....all the talk in the media these days about spending money in Washington essentially comes back to one thing: the federal budget of the United States. President Bush proposed his about two months ago. It was a spending blueprint for Fiscal Year 2006, that runs between October 2005 and September 2006. The proposed budget was for $2.57 trillion. If you're unfamiliar with what a trillion dollars is, think of it this way: $2,570 Billion, or roughly 100 times the net worth of Bill Gates. That's a lot of money ... more than most people make in 1000 lifetimes.
And yet, with the United States over $500 billion in the hole this year alone, it has become impossible to cut the budget ... even by one-half of one percent! Dishonest liberals, propped up by the mainstream media, decry the "cuts" in the budget. Actually, there really aren't any true cuts in the budget. Most of the proposed cuts were actually cuts in the projected growth of spending. Right now, Democrats are whining about whether or not to make George Bush's tax cuts permanent. We're told of the "cost" of being allowed to keep more of our money. Think about that for a minute. Imagine somebody mugs you on the street and steals your wallet....and when you ask for it back, the robber tells you he can't afford it. There! You got it! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1712
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 5:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Aaand. . .dishonest conservatives, propped up by the White House, decry any effort to rescind the frivolous and regressive tax cuts given mostly to their wealthy supporters, in a year when their fearless leader led the country into a $200 billion-and-counting, UNNECESSARY war.
They can't have it both ways.
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
