No. First, I don’t know the extent of his “support” for the IRA. Assuming it’s real, I don’t see anything treasonous about it. An American could certainly “support” the Falkland Islands in their dispute with Britain without being accused of Treason.
[Obligatory Bulworth quote]
[/Obligatory Bulworth quote]
Hey… Obama’s parents did their part!! :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:
(D & R)
About “Class Warfare”–the Haves declared war on the Have-Nots ages ago. We’ve been fighting a holding action ever since.
What dispute do the Falkland Islands have with Britain?
You don’t need to be any kind of “socialist” to do that! Lots of non-socialist countries like Britain and Canada have UHC.
:rolleyes: Quid no quo. None of those zero-credibility links make it clear how Andropov was in any position to help the Dems beat Reagan, nor that he even hinted he could or would.
No, actually, it would have to be three out of five; they lost the debate with the chair.
BTW, never mind “treason,” do you even mean to seriously suggest that Act was a bad idea?
Since he never supported the IRA’s “terrorist” activities any more than you or I support Hamas’ martyrdom operations turning Jewish schoolchildren in Sbarro’s into kosher hamburger the answer is no.
Of course if you believe that Israel’s critics should be viewed as strong supporters of setting off bombs on school buses and Bart Mitzvah’s, well then that’s a different story.
Interesting.
This was before a total nuclear war with ICBMs and massive destruction of both enemies became a possibility though.
-
That has nothing to do with his concerns over the formation of a military-industrial complex, and
-
First strike was Western nuclear doctrine throughout the Cold War, not something particular to Eisenhower.
[QUOTE=lance strongarm]
This was before a total nuclear war with ICBMs and massive destruction of both enemies became a possibility though.
[/QUOTE]
No. NATO/the USA always reserved (actually, still do, so far as I am aware) the right to attack first with nuclear weapons, and NATO policy was that first use was a legitimate response to conventional warfare.
Did you know that when the rich get a lot richer, they pay more taxes even when their rates go down? And the poor pay less taxes when they get even poorer.
moonshot925’s statistic, trotted out routinely by GOP apologists for its class warfare, is actually evidence for, not against, rising inequality under GOP policies. This should be obvious to anyone with elementary intuition about arithmetic.
Arithmetical intuition is no good when dealing with irrational numbers. And don’t get me started on pi in the sky!
Doesn’t that statement require that the tax rates were the same at both times? Were they?
No. It is enough that taxable income rises more than the tax rate falls.
As to what the “real numbers” are: Googling is hard and there is ambiguity (e.g. does the temporary reduction to payroll tax count?) I’d need much more evidence that my arguments and cites are heeded before I waste time trying to Google this one. 
But I can’t set up the algebraic equations unless I know how many variables I have.
moonshot’s stats could mean:
the effective tax rate on the wealthiest 1% went up
the tax rate on the poorest 50% went down
the taxable assets of 1% went up
the taxable assets of 50% went down
OR
the effective tax rate on the middle 49% went up, diluting the overall contribution of the 50%
the taxable assets on the 49% went down, giving more weight to the taxes paid by the 1%
Or some combination of all of the above. Or even that the assumptions used in the calculations create a 3% margin of error. I don’t know which of these caused the increase.
I do know that some-one who refers to $350k as ‘not a lot of money’ can probably afford to pay a little more.
What I see in those stats is not evidence of increasing or decreasing income inequality, but just a appalling level of inequality. If those numbers are right, we are in much, much worse shape than I had realized.
I agree that the level of inequality is appalling. When I started visiting Thailand in the early 1980’s I was appalled by the inequality there. Since then, according to this pictorial of the world’s countries, the U.S. and Thailand have swapped places. (Different GINI coefficients are computed by different agencies.)
It seems clear to me that inequality is to blame for much American malaise. When I started a thread to comment on it, the right-wing response seemed to be “The more inequality the better.” :smack:
And I agree you’ll have trouble getting a clear arithmetic result to the statement about taxes in question. Another problem you don’t mention is that some key variables did not vary monotonely during the GWB Administration. You’ll get different results for different date ranges (a feature not a bug for those who like to lie with statistics 
) and be unable to interpolate or extrapolate.