The Rotheschildes and other powerful Jewish families (rich in most cases is synomynous with power, especially in this case) were moved to France before the Anti-Semitism began to become a powerful fervor, by the Nazi party thanks in part to contributions or money seized.
In fact, can anyone present me with a Rotheschild killed in the Holocaust?
And jshore, the Media is biased in many respects, just read the New York Times, you’ll rarely find a “Conservative view point” in their editorial sections. Or it will be one conservative view point and 5 non-Conservative view points.
Now are you telling me in a nation that is usually split 50/50 on issues, somehow is resembled as 5:1 in the ratio in its News Papers? Now I’m not saying that’s ALL news, but New York Times is a powerful Media source, and should excersize more 50/50 responses in the future.
Which, I guess, shows you how lame they are. Contrast this list with the list from the other-side of the aisle (warning - it’s pretty comprehensive and may take a while to read, let alone wrap your mind around):
I’ll make you a deal: If you get the Wall Street Journal editorial page to balance their viewpoints, I’ll try to get the NYTimes to balance theirs. And, the WSJ has a much further way to go! (To be fair, the WSJ, like the NYTimes, seems to have a pretty good “wall” between their editorial page and their reporting.)
Hah good deal jshore, I see your point now…and after … .06 seconds of consideration, decided that I’d rather not have the Wall Street Journal spouting communist garbage.
Too bad the masses don’t read more WSJ though
I don’t see the wall between the editorial and reporting in the NYT you’re talking about though, but that’s just me.
BUT! My post was a reply to your “Fox News Post”…so it seems we’re still in an agreement or something.
I thought you were saying there was not a liberal bias in the media, because you were complaining that people wanted a conservatively biased media source…Fox News.
But if there’s a source from both sides I don’t care, it doesn’t have to be in the same paper, I just was showing that there indeed is a liberal bias, however extreme
(1) We need a President who does not systematically distort science, economics, and intelligence to push his ideologically and tit-for-tat special interest payback-driven agenda.
(2) We need a President who exercises fiscal responsibility, rather than creating huge structural deficits for as far as the eye can see by giving tax breaks to his wealthy friends and giving the states essentially no help meeting their financial obligations so that have to raise taxes (and fees such as state college tuition fees) on the rest of us, negating much of the federal tax break we get.
(3) We need a President who sells his policies through an honest debate on the issues rather than using lies, deception, and fear.
(4) We need a President who values the environment more than he values the well-connected power industry.
(5) We need a President who understands that the economy is best stimulated in the short-term by giving tax breaks to those who will spend it and in the long-term by giving targetted tax breaks to businesses to encourage behavior that invests in jobs and growth and by spending government money wisely to invest in infrastructure, human capital (through education), etc.
Yeah…They’d get a much bigger dose of deception and abuse of statistics if they read the WSJ editorial page than they even do now listening to Fox!
Well, editorial pages of newspapers have never professed not to have biases. Fox goes far beyond that. If you want to see some bias in the conservative direction (including at the New York Times), as documented by a liberal media watchdog group (on a shoestring budget, I might add), check out www.fair.org … Here, in particular, is a link to their take on the coverage of the Iraq war.
Well in this case the deficits are required, it is not as if Bush declared that Mount Whintney be carved in his image, the money is going somewhere important. And those tax breaks are why we have an 8% economic growth, or had, whicever it is now. Also I’m not wealthy and that tax break helped me out greatly, it’s all what you make of it.
I don’t really believe he lied or used the “fear” card, deception? Maybe, but I never really believed Nuclear missiles or germs were going to be flying towards us from Iraq any time soon anyways. I always remember him as describing him as a threat to the “Surrounding region”. I think time in this matter is butchering the truth.
Well if you’re talking about Northern Alaska, visit it sometime. All it is good for is drilling.
Bush did this, he just avoided immediate short term because he wanted to see the over all ends accomplished, reduced Government involvement.
Well you probably are a good researcher, but I’m just not seeing your vision yet…I don’t necessarily see where Bush has fallen short in your requirements.
I’d be surprised if Lay gets approached long before election day.
What’s so implausible about this? It’s no secret that the Administration gives prosecution of some crimes more attention and diligence than others (look at all the foot-dragging that’s been going on regarding the leakage of Valerie Plame’s role in the CIA). And given George W. Bush’s heavy emphasis on loyalty, shielding a close personal friend like Ken Lay would be par for the course.
The election is but nine months away, so yeah, it may happen after the election. Look how long it took to assemble a case against Skilling. But that’s just because the case is complex. And frankly, the case against Lay will be more difficult to make – unlike Skilling and Fastow, Lay didn’t have much direct participation in the particular fraudulent accounting vehicles used by Enron. Proving his involvement will thus be trickier, and will thus take longer to marshal evidence against him.
One wonders why you think the election would make Bush want to slow down the prosecution. One would think, assuming for the moment that your “Bush is pulling the strings” theory is true, that maximum political advantage would be had by throwing down indictments in mid-October, thus showing his independence and his willingness to vigorously prosecute corporate fraud. The only one-shot eleventh-hour event that would be better for Bush electorally than that would be to come up with Osama bin Laden.
If he’s shielding a close personal friend, he’s doing a really lousy job of it. If he really wanted to protect Lay, he’d start by protecting Fastow and Skilling – two guys who certainly have the knowledge to give devastating testimony about Lay.
rjung Lay is not Bush’s close personal friend, they are business associates if anything. Read their correspondance, Bush is polite in knowing how Lay’s wife is doing and such, but they are not golfing buds because they grew up together or anything like that.
You want a president who agrees with your ideological agenda. Your arguments go something like this: “The Union of Concerned Scientists presented irrefutable proof that [insert cause] …”
What’s the goal? The top 30% pay 95%? Hell, let’s just get rid of the states.
Well, deficits may be required during a time of economic slowdown but what Bush has done is create a longterm structural deficit. And, the tax breaks are only estimated to be responsible for a small amount of the economic growth…perhaps 1% of the 8% (which I believe was somewhat of a one month blip). The economy cycles on its own. It is impossible to inject that much money into the economy through tax cuts and spending and not get some stimulus but Bush has gotten about the minimum stimulus gain for the maximum buck, as responsible economists like Paul Krugman have pointed out.
Yeah…the only way time is butchering the truth is that it is making people forget the stories before the war about how Bush and company were misusing the intelligence they were being given (so that he can now claim that it was the intelligence services fault).
But, at any rate, most of the deception and such I speak of is unrelated to Iraq. There are those of us who were arguing a year ago on this message board that Bush’s record on domestic issues showed that he had no credibility in regards to his claims about Iraq. The whole Iraq thing is only a sad reminder of what we already knew about Bush. And, actually, I think it was one of his smaller deceptions in that it may have been largely self-deception.
Well, thanks for the deep ecological evaluation. Actually though, I was referring more to his relaxation of air pollution laws. Drilling an ANWR is another stupid and shortsighted policy.
No, he gave his tax cuts largely to the wealthy who do not tend to spend extra money that they get to the degree that a working class person would…They save and invest a good portion of it, which isn’t what you really need when the economy is slack. (Besides giving the money to those who need it the least and those who have already gained the most from the economic growth of the last few decades.) And, he instituted tax cuts that will create a fiscal train wreck rather than provide temporary stimulus.
And, they are supported by editorials in the two most prestigious multidisciplinary science journals in the world, Science and Nature.
We could also get into the various deceptions about the tax cuts, his various environmental proposals and so on. The list is long.
The only reason that the top 1%, for example, are paying a higher share of the federal income tax now than they did 20 years ago is because they have a higher share of the income…i.e., the increasing inequality in our society. (That’s the part the WSJ editorial page doesn’t tell you.) It has nothing to do with a rising tax burden on them. [In the case of the top 30 or 50%, it may also have to do a little with the increase in the earned income tax credit…but again is largely due to increases in income share.]
And, by the way, these numbers are almost always given in the context of the federal income tax only, conveniently ignoring the payroll taxes and the state and local taxes that are generally regressive.
By the way, is it “Invasion of the Freepers night” or something here on the SDMB?
Sorry, the Union of Concerned Scientists have a political agenda. Their science follows that agenda, not the other way. And since you were kind enough to point out that the editorial stance of these esteemed publications often support the group, I take it you acknowledge there must not be much it the way of science going on since they had to express support via editorial stances rather than good old non-debatable 1+1=2 kind of stuff. Obviously, your mileage varies.
Class warfare rears its ugly head. So what if the top 1% (or 5 or whatever one you want) has a bigger share of the total income now than they did 20 years ago? You seem to be implying that they got that money from somewhere, so they must have stolen it from the bottom 50% guys. The pie got bigger folks. Sure, the guy behind the tree is wolfing done a humungous piece, but the piece I got today weighs more than the piece I had 20 years ago.
Payroll tax are incredibly regressive and represent the largest tax burden for most people. Absolutely, let’s do away with them. Okay, not gonna happen. I think the best thing that could happen to Social Security/Medicare is change the way it’s paid. Make everyone pay the full-ride (i.e., everyone pays the self-employment tax). Business would just bump everyone’s salary by the employer contribution. Also won’t happen - too easy for the masses to see how much money is flowing into Washington.
In the end, none of this matters. What matters is $2,500,000,000,000 divided by 250,000,000 people is $10,000 for every man, woman and child in this country (okay, so I’m rounding). That’s just stupid. And it doesn’t even include state and local. And it’ll just keep getting bigger. The only way to stop it from getting bigger is to stop feeding it.
Besides, I find it exceptionally difficult to consider voting for the candidate of a party that takes Sharpton seriously.
An interesting and well thought out post, MemoryLeak. I’d like to ask you to expand on a few matters, though, if I may:
Can you point to where the “Union of Concerned Scientists” was mentioned in this thread (other than by you, of course)? Also, I can’t seem to find the post where jshore said that: “the editorial stance of these esteemed publications often support the group” (the group being the aforementioned “Union of Concerned Scientists” who no-one seems to be discussing at all, apart from you, of course).
I’m having trouble reconciling these two statements. You seem to be simultaneously arguing that everything’s OK because the pie’s big, but somehow something or other isn’t OK because the pie’s too small. Is the pie big, or not?
I haven’t got a dictionary handy, and I’ve always wondered what these terms mean:
begging the question, and
non-sequitur.
Do you know what they mean, and could you please explain them to me?
I don’t understand your point here. We are talking about matters of science policy. That is why these matters get discussed in the editorials in these journals. However, the editorials have duly noted, for example, that the science policy of the Bush Administration is out-of-step (e.g., in terms of appointments, some statements about global warming) with the science in the field, including many scientific studies that have been published in these journals.
Well, the point is that almost all of the growth in the pie has gone to a select few. The middle and lower income people are getting a piece of pie that is only a bit bigger than what they had before. You may feel that it is fine as long as people’s pieces aren’t shrinking (which over substantial parts of this period, they actually did) but some of us believe we should be asking why our policies are leading to a society where the vast majority of the gains made by society go to a few people.
At any rate, the point that I was making is not directly related to this as I was merely pointing out that the reason why the rich are paying a larger share of the taxes is because they are getting a larger share of the income. Once we realize this is the case then a proposed “remedy” of reducing their tax burden relative to everyone else seems to be a bit silly. If trends toward inequality continue, do we have to continue to lower the tax burden on the rich lest they end up paying too high a share of the taxes!!! (Which would, correspondly, increase the tax burden on everyone else…You know, the ones who have seen much less gain in income.)
Class warfare is what the policies of the current administration are. Pointing out the effects of these policies is not class warfare. It is just enlightening people with information. [As Warren Buffett says, “If this is class warfare then my class is winning.”]
You might want to actually do some investigation on how government expenditures and government revenues from taxes are growing or shrinking in terms of their percentage of GDP (which is really the relevant issue…not how they grow in dollar terms). If you look at the federal budget, you’ll find that expenditures as a percentage of GDP declined by the end of the Clinton Administration to low levels that I believe hadn’t been seen since the 1960s. Revenues as a percentage were at a more moderate level relative to the past since we were actually in a situation where revenues were exceeding expenditures…i.e., we didn’t have a deficit but were living within our means. Now, under Bush, revenues have reached very low percentages too while expenditures have climbed some but remain relatively low compared to most of the last 30 or so years.
jshore wants a president who doesn’t distort science, economics and intelligence. I simply offered them as an example of a group that quite often provides evidence supporting various Democratic positions - could have been any one of a number of agenda driven groups.
This line of reasoning is another reason (IMO) to vote for Bush. Essentially you’re making the argument that federal outlays vs. GDP have hovered around 20% for the past 40 years. It’s almost as if the goverment is entitled to this percentage.
Now Bush has done nothing about this, but I humor myself with the belief that he has been (and will be more agressive the next time around) laying the groundwork for fundamental changes that will push this number down. The only way I can see to push the number down is to push down the rate of revenue growth. Of course as soon as the astoundingly large number of people who pay little to no (to negative) taxes get their act together and realize it won’t cost them a dime to vote for the guy that promises and delivers the most, then none of this matters.
Other than national security, it’s the only thing on my personal voting radar. These are the only reasons I will vote for Bush and believe others should vote for him.
Because daily news reports about the latest trials and tribulations of “Kenneth Lay, close personal friend of President Bush” would not look good to Karl Rove.
That’s why Martha Steward is getting all the headlines these days. Why go after ol’ buddy ol’ pal Kenny Boy when you can throw someone else into the shark pit?
I’m not convinced that the indictments against Fastow and Skilling have been moving with all due speed, myself.
Really? So Bush interrupted his 2000 election campaign to fly to the inaugural game at Enron field – where Ken Lay was throwing out the first pitch – just because they’re “business associates”? The fact that Bush has received more money from Enron than from any other source is just a coincidence? And you see nothing wrong withBush appointing people to high-level government positions based on Lay’s say-so?
(1) You do indeed humor yourself since Bush has shown no real evidence of making tough decisions like this. He knows people want both lower taxes and continued government services at least the same level and he is happy to give them both, which is not sustainable in the longterm.
(2) Those people you talk of pay taxes. Some of them (the poorest) do not pay much federal income tax (or, even none or negative as you say) but they pay plenty of other taxes…payroll, sales, property (either directly or indirectly through renting), etc. Also, you are being deceived by the fact that the total contribution of, say, the bottom 50% to the federal income tax revenues is small. That is not the same as saying that they pay almost no federal income taxes. It is just that they are paying taxes on low incomes so it doesn’t amount to very much…But, to them it is a lot of money. I.e., in some cases it may still be a fairly high percentage of their income…And, even when the percentage is considerably smaller than what Joe Moneybags is paying, you must recognize that taking, say, 25% of the income away from a lower middle class person creates much more hardship for them than taking this same percentage away from a very wealthy person. In fact, I would think it is the wealthy who still feel the least “pain” from taxes, even if they whine a lot about them. And, I am speaking as someone well-off (and frugal) enough myself that I pay more in taxes (federal income + state income + payroll tax [counting only my contribution, not my employer’s]) than I spend each year.
