But what Max is saying is correct.  People in general haven't gotten wealthier in this country since the Reagan revolution, the wealth gap has only grown.  Now why is that?

Tim Robbins: Let me explain to you how this works: you see, the corporations finance Team America, and then Team America goes out... and the corporations sit there in their... in their corporation buildings, and... and, and see, they're all corporation-y... and they make money.   (From Team America: World Police)

EVERY TIME!  EVERY TIME you post, this is what I think of. 




Excuse me a sec.  What are you babbling about?
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/3907/bender1.GIF

[quote author=

Excuse me a sec.  What are you babbling about?

'Cuz they're a bunch of layabout liberal French people sitting on their rear ends expecting the government to give 'em a handout!
--Team FOX News


You're right, this one is more appropriate:

Janeane Garofolo: As actors, it is our responsibility to read the newspapers, and then say what we read on television like it's our own opinion.

Wow, talk about contributing absolutely NOTHING. ^ ::)

You're right, this one is more appropriate:

Janeane Garofolo: As actors, it is our responsibility to read the newspapers, and then say what we read on television like it's our own opinion.
quoting team america: world police to make political points is a bit problematic, you might find. much like when i try to score political points by quoting "the onion."

quoting team america: world police to make political points is a bit problematic, you might find. much like when i try to score political points by quoting "the onion."

FOX NEWS is an oxymoron. Should be "FOX OPINION."


You're right, this one is more appropriate:

Janeane Garofolo: As actors, it is our responsibility to read the newspapers, and then say what we read on television like it's our own opinion.

Guess JG put her foot in her mouth there, huh! Whatever the context, that's rather goofy.
A bigger problem is these news anchors (or news "models" I prefer to call them) is that 90% of what they report as "news" comes straight from the PR industry. FOX News is more servile to the White House than...than anybody in the media is to anybody else!!! That's why Tony Snow got offered the White House Press Secretary job, NOT Anderson Cooper!

[quote author=

FOX NEWS is an oxymoron. Should be "FOX OPINION."
Guess JG put her foot in her mouth there, huh! Whatever the context, that's rather goofy.

i think it's another team america quote, but i might be wrong. i only saw it once and i didn't really pay much attention.

Wait....someone quotes Animal House and you applaud them....someone else quotes something else and they are contributing nothing?  Double standard there ???


No, Max's quote was not meant as a put-down.

[quote author=

And the Janeane Garofolo quote was?  Whatever ::)


I don't see how you could have interpretated it otherwise.  It was clearly meant as an insult to Maxwell.

Hey hey mama, I think you're being a smidge rude. :D

well, having not seen the animal house quote my guess as to what the difference might be is that maxwell provides other facts as well in substantiating his argument. i've known rice cube to provide facts as well but he hasn't provided too many in this thread that i can see, just borrowed a character smear of janeane garofalo and tim robbins from a silly movie and associate maxwell with it, all in propagating this silly stereotype surrounding the term "liberal."

well, having not seen the animal house quote my guess as to what the difference might be is that maxwell provides other facts as well in substantiating his argument. i've known rice cube to provide facts as well but he hasn't provided too many in this thread that i can see, just borrowed a character smear of janeane garofalo and tim robbins from a silly movie and associate maxwell with it, all in propagating this silly stereotype surrounding the term "liberal."


You put it much better than I did.  Thanks.

well, having not seen the animal house quote my guess as to what the difference might be is that maxwell provides other facts as well in substantiating his argument. i've known rice cube to provide facts as well but he hasn't provided too many in this thread that i can see, just borrowed a character smear of janeane garofalo and tim robbins from a silly movie and associate maxwell with it, all in propagating this silly stereotype surrounding the term "liberal."
And, Maxwell's comments weren't propagating the silly stereotype surrounding "Fox News"?[quote author=

Thats human nature, babes.

And, Maxwell's comments weren't propagating the silly stereotype surrounding "Fox News"?
stereotypes surrounding "liberals" are tarring half the population of america. 'stereotypes' about fox news are talking about a specific, small, ideologically slanted propaganda organization with a clear pro-war, pro-corporate agenda. i think there's a HUGE difference.

or are you really going to tell me fox news is "fair and balanced"?

anyway, even setting characterizations of fox news aside, it's an organization. "liberal" is a very broad poliitical orientation. the comparison really doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Alright, I admit, that was kind of a cheap shot, but you can't deny how silly it is when every other post is "darn rich people" and "corporate America bad".  We get the point.  Let me now take the time (since I have some) to explain why I believe Max's statements to be silly and incomplete in context.  Let me also say that while Max is indeed educated, eloquent and seemingly well-informed, he also seems to enjoy the smell of his own farts and needs a smug check every now and then.


Tax cuts were Reagan's big selling point, and have remained at the top of the Republican agenda ever since. The problem is, Reagan lied, and his successors have been lying ever since. This gets my brain red! They claim we must cut taxes on rich people so they will have money to invest in the economy and create jobs.

The following is a link to the IRS's Form 1040.  You may be familiar with this during tax time, especially if you have dependents and mortgage interest and capital gains/losses to report.

Let's start with line 13, Capital Gains/Losses.  This is capped at $3000 per year for losses, and not at all capped for gains.  Rich people (i.e., over $150K/year in gross earnings) get taxed at a higher rate than not-so-rich people.  They don't get a bigger break if their stockbroker f*cks up.

Let's skip down to line 32, IRA deductions.  For year 2006 I believe the contribution has increased to $4000 per year per individual ($8000 per married couple), but that's providing they earned less than $95000/year ($145000ish if married).  If they earned more, the IRA contribution phases drastically towards $0 the more the individual makes.  This is because rich people don't need a retirement fund because they have soooooooooooooooo much $$ already.

Go to line 40 on page 2, itemized deductions.  These are unrestricted as long as a married couple made less than $145K-ish that year, but if you made more, be prepared to see it phased out too.

Line 42, exemptions.  Also phases out for rich folk.  You got tons of $$, why the heck do you need exemptions?  :D

Line 45, alternative minimum tax.  If you made less than $145K/year, don't even trip about it, but if you made more, look out!  This is the "rich people's" tax.  They can't avoid it even if they wanted to :P

Lines 47-55 are nonrefundable tax credits.  Again, if you made more than $145K/year, don't think you're getting a lot of help because these phase out quickly.

Skip to line 64, Federal tax withheld.  >$145K/year?  Be glad if it even covers the taxes you owe for the year.

Line 66, Earned Income Credit: If you made over $34000 that year, it doesn't exist.  This is basically the government taking the taxes rich people are paying every year and doling it out amongst po folk with kids.

Line 68, Additional Child Tax Credit: A carryover from the child tax credit on line 52, but if you made more than that magic $145K, kiss it bye-bye.

What tax cuts for the rich do you see then?  The only way the rich can even GET a tax cut is by claiming a ton of charitable contributions on their Schedule A.  Those bastards!  How dare they give to charity to get a tax cut!  Fiends!  Hooligans!


The problem is the rich do not invest in our economy and they never will. Starting with Reagan, the revenue burdeon on the working class has risen dramatically and the revenue burden on the rich and the corporations has plummeted. Right now Congress is selling a capital gains tax cut with the same old lie about "investment in the economy to create jobs." This is a LIE LIE LIE and they all know it!!!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/11/angry4.gif


What do you guys usually do with your tax cuts?

"I spend it."

Oh, that wasn't readily obvious.  Gee, I wonder what rich people will spend their tax cuts on?

A new boat?  Wow, we just employed boat construction firms and boat designers and the middleman that sold us the boat and the guy at the docks who taught us how to sail the darn thing and...okay, I should stop there.  Maybe they'll buy something else too.

A limousine?  Holy crap!  We just employed a chauffeur, the people who actually built the limousine, and the mechanics who make sure that it runs well!

A new Hummer?  Ooooh...we just gave the salesperson a fat commission, as well as made a bunch of gas stations run by everyone from Apu to Zeke very very happy.  Not to mention the mechanics who keep it in good shape, the tow truck driver who pulls it off a wall when Mr. Rich Guy gets a bit too ambitious with his new toy, and West Coast Customs for pimping our ride!

A golf membership at a luxury resort?  OMFG!  We just employed countless maids to clean up our rooms when we stay over, the accounting folk that take our money and distribute it to make the resort better, the pro shop staff, and the cooks who make us our ridiculously overpriced hamburgers!  And you know where they get those hamburgers from?  They have to buy bread from the local and big-name bakeries!  Where do they get the meat from?  NOOOO!!!  A MEAT SHOP!  With actual BUTCHERS!  NO F*(&(KING WAY!  And what about the lettuce and tomatoes?  You guessed it...I could keep going.

And that's why I find your statements ludicrous and unfounded.  Thank you.

stereotypes surrounding "liberals" are tarring half the population of america. 'stereotypes' about fox news are talking about a specific, small, ideologically slanted propaganda organization with a clear pro-war, pro-corporate agenda. i think there's a HUGE difference.

or are you really going to tell me fox news is "fair and balanced"?

anyway, even setting characterizations of fox news aside, it's an organization. "liberal" is a very broad poliitical orientation. the comparison really doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Never said anything for or against Fox News, but he's made it clear that he equates "Fox News" with "right wing".[quote author=

Being a hypocrit is human nature?  Guess I'm not human, then.  I just calls 'em like I sees 'em.  If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen :P



Oh please.  Every body is hypocritical about something from time to time.  Those who say they aren't are lying- either to others or themselves.



Oh, and I'm not your "babes".  And you wonder why you've never had a girlfriend ::)


Well you have pretty much blatantly insulted me now.  I think this comment is really uncalled for.

Edit:  It was pointed out to me you could have just taken it the wrong way.  I didn't mean anything calling you "babes", to me its like calling a guy dude, but I didn't think about that you're defensive from time to time like me.. so, sorry.  But I still feel hurling a personal insult like that at me was not appropriate, especially in the middle of a political thread.  It was a very hurtful thing to say.

Also, I shouldn't have just chalked it up to human nature(even if it is).  That was intellectual cowardice on my part.  You were right, I was wrong.

he's made it clear that he equates "Fox News" with "right wing".
so do i. so does anyone who's paying a whit of attention. fox news is flagrantly, ridiculously right wing. no one really takes that "fair and balanced" thing seriously...

... do they?

And that's why I find your statements ludicrous and unfounded.  Thank you.

No need to link to tax forms. The less time I have to spend with tax forms the better, thank you! I
You do make some salient point here. It does help our consumer economy if people take their tax cut money and spend it on goods and services. The big LIE is that the that the super-rich, the "industrialists" if you will, invest money from tax cuts in improving the actual employment infrastructure of this country. No long-winded argument necessary on my part. All you have to do is look at the de-industrialization of the American economy over the past generation. Yes, big tips make waitresses happy and fat commissions make care salesmen happy, however, the "service economy" is a myth. There is no such thing. We are still an industrial economy, our "industry" is just out of reach of the greedy American worker who has the temerity to demand a living wage! If the nation of America really wants to stay a first rate world power, we do have to make things...MIT economist Lester Thurow drew this conclusion all the way back in the late '80s. The corporate overclass pays no attention to guys like Thurow because they are not interested in the nation state anymore. They are only interested in the power of the corporate fiefdom. Thus, we little folks still have live in a nation state, but the bigshots get to move "their" capital and resources anywhere on the globe they want. In spite of being able to buy a toaster at Wal-Mart for eight bucks, this does not help 95% (a liberal estimate) of the people. Therefore a tax cut that hands over billions to to the rich does not really benefit the economy most of us have to live in, not in the long run.

I wouldn't say my arguments are "unfounded" or "ludicrous," it's more that you don't agree with them, and that's, you know, okay....
I have a penchent for tangential invective, so I'm not surprised when people come back at me with the same!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/09/screams.gif

And, Maxwell's comments weren't propagating the silly stereotype surrounding "Fox News
Uh, FOX News' Bush White House toadyism is pretty darn hard to deny!

BTW, Rice Cube, anyone interested in buying a Hummer better get 'em while they last. GM just announced they're phasing this six-figure priced highway leviathan out of production. They're not a big seller, and with gas prices the way they are, a full tank would equal your mortgage payment! I'd wager Hummers will still be available on the custom-built market, but that'll cost you a mint! I hear Ahhhnold has seven Hummers, maybe he'll sell you one of his, if you're willing to pay his price!
::)

Alright, I admit, that was kind of a cheap shot, but you can't deny how silly it is when every other post is "darn rich people" and "corporate America bad".  We get the point.  Let me now take the time (since I have some) to explain why I believe Max's statements to be silly and incomplete in context.  Let me also say that while Max is indeed educated, eloquent and seemingly well-informed, he also seems to enjoy the smell of his own farts and needs a smug check every now and then.

And that's why I find your statements ludicrous and unfounded.  Thank you.


Good post, and similar to things I have been saying in here for years.  However, give up.  People in here do not want to confuse their fantasy with reality.

Of course, then there is the very problem in that most of those that are "rich" own or run businesses in the first place.  My boss owns a business estimated around $1.4 million in value.  But 98% of that value is tied up in land, building, stock, tools, and other hard goods.  He has not taken a paycheck home for over 2 years, because there is not enough money left over to do so.  And he still lives in the same home he bought in 1968, when he worked for the local electric company.

I guess that people have this illusion that every rich person lives like a miser, taking the money they steal from everybody and sticking it in a jar under the floorboards.  Of course they never buy cars.  And they do all their own lawn work, and never hire CPAs.  They also never take vacations.

And they are so right.  Every $1,200+ computer I have sold went to some welfare mother.  I never had a rich person come in and buy 3 new computers for his kids (although last year I did have one rich guy buy 4 computers at once).

Just don't confuse illusion with facts, it is pointless.  Just sit back for the next 2 years, as they whine and cry about what a dystopia we live in.  And that in 2 years, they will be back in power, and we will live in a Utopia again, just as we did under the great and powerful Oz, errr, I mean Clinton.

Good post, and similar to things I have been saying in here for years.  However, give up.  People in here do not want to confuse their fantasy with reality.


The "fantasy," my friend, is the viability of "Supply Side Economics" as a means of prosperity for society as a whole. It was a fantasy in 1981 and it's a fantasy today.

Just don't confuse illusion with facts, it is pointless.  Just sit back for the next 2 years, as they whine and cry about what a dystopia we live in.  And that in 2 years, they will be back in power, and we will live in a Utopia again, just as we did under the great and powerful Oz, errr, I mean Clinton.

The public agrees, buddy.

Today I saw a survey done that gauged the approval/dissapproval ratings for Bush and Clinton on various issues, and Clinton won all of them. Economy(by a landslide of 63% to 37%), national defense, and even TAXES.  Every. Single. One.  They also asked who had more character and honesty, and CLINTON won that too(I'm rolling over this). :D

[quote author=

Uh, FOX News' Bush White House toadyism is pretty darn hard to deny!

BTW, Rice Cube, anyone interested in buying a Hummer better get 'em while they last. GM just announced they're phasing this six-figure priced highway leviathan out of production. They're not a big seller, and with gas prices the way they are, a full tank would equal your mortgage payment! I'd wager Hummers will still be available on the custom-built market, but that'll cost you a mint! I hear Ahhhnold has seven Hummers, maybe he'll sell you one of his, if you're willing to pay his price!
::)


They were phasing out the original Hummers.  H2 and H3 are still on the market.

I wouldn't buy one.  They are ugly.

The issue that Mushroom argues is not that Bush is a better President than Clinton, because he is not...he has proven that time and time again over the past three years.  What the argument is, is that Clinton was the beneficiary of the power of laissez-faire capitalism...he didn't do jack, and the stock market went up almost uncontrollably due to mad speculation caused by the increased popularity of computers and multimedia devices.  Clinton left office at the tail end of the dot-com bust, when the stock market corrected itself (it's called the business cycle).  Who entered office?  Bush.  And Bush, as we have all discovered, is an incompetent hack.

Clinton didn't make the economy better, he just didn't do anything to make it worse.

They were phasing out the original Hummers.  H2 and H3 are still on the market.

I wouldn't buy one.  They are ugly.

The issue that Mushroom argues is not that Bush is a better President than Clinton, because he is not...he has proven that time and time again over the past three years.  What the argument is, is that Clinton was the beneficiary of the power of laissez-faire capitalism...he didn't do jack, and the stock market went up almost uncontrollably due to mad speculation caused by the increased popularity of computers and multimedia devices.  Clinton left office at the tail end of the dot-com bust, when the stock market corrected itself (it's called the business cycle).  Who entered office?  Bush.  And Bush, as we have all discovered, is an incompetent hack.

Clinton didn't make the economy better, he just didn't do anything to make it worse.

That is yet another rightwing fantasy. Running a budget surplus isn't good for the economy? I mean, WTF? If it hadn't been for 35 years of post-war prosperity before him, what national treasure would Ronnie Regan have had to squander on tax cuts for the rich? Reagan's "prosperity" was an illusion created by appalling deficit spending. I remember in college when Clinton was running and my conservative bumpkin classmates were calling him a "tax-and-spend liberal." I would reply, "Well, what do you want? Borrow-and-spend?" That's all Reagan did and we went from being the biggest lender nation to the biggest debtor nation during his years in office. Heck, the national debt, to the deficit, the debt, DOUBLED under Reagan in his first term alone. Then there was the Reagan hangover, the Daddy Bush recession. Then Clinton comes in and says, well, we've got to inject a little bit of reality into this economy and that means, you know, getting some more revenue." So Clinton raises taxes. It works. But of course, the rightwingers start crying like stuck pigs about "the biggest tax increase in human history," and the rightwing-toady media (including PBS, who had Paul Gigot as their big economic commentator) fights Clinton every step of the way. So you had the "Newt Deal" in '94, and Clinton knuckling under in his second term, but no one could argue the economy was much better. The Newt-Rush comlex tries to credit the booming economy to Reaganomics and Bill Gates. The declared the impact of a president on the economy does not manifest until that president is out of office because of, you know, "economic cycles." Yet nobody in 1988 tried to credit the success (albeit bogus and illusional success) of Reaganomics to Johnson, Nixon, Ford, or Carter! Laughed thought I'd die! Oh lordy, was that ever a desperate ploy!

OK, there's the boom-and-bust of the business cycle. People talk about the cyber revolution having the biggest impact on the '90s boom. But who was the first political leader, according to Vint Cerf, to recognize the importance of the internet and advocate for its development? Al Gore. Reagan's name gets caught up in the "high tech" advancements of the '80s because he just happened to be president. The only "high tech" that interested Reagan was atomic weapons. Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Vint Cerf, Regan didn't know who the hell those guys were, and he didn't care. He only cared about greasing the palms of defense contractors.

^it's like the democrats fatten the calf of the federal budget, and then the republicans slaughter it. happens over and over again, hard to say it's not a variety of cooperative arrangement, in a sense.

[quote author=

[quote author=

If you didn't mean it patronizingly, then I apologize as well.  It's just been my (and many other women's) experience that when a guy calles me (or any other woman) "babe", "honey", "chick" or any other "pet name" (unless it's someone I'm in a relationship with), it's because they think that because I'm female, I couldn't possibly understand.  If you want to endear yourself to women, using "pet names" is not recommended until you have a defined "relationship" with them.


Well, once again I see it as more of a friendly informality.  While talking to female members on here in pm I have used "babes" and its not meant to mean anything.  My uncle uses "hun" all the time and I never see him get a bad reaction.  I guess it just depends on the woman and how a guy says it.

[quote author=

Although I supported Bush earlier, I admit now that he is probably one of the worst.  Some things in the war were out of his control, but other things he could have handled much better.
I just turned 18 in 2003, so 2004 was my first vote.  And at the time everybody in my dorms was like "the war needs to stop, we need a change, so I'm voting for Kerry"  yeah like he was gonna do any better?  There was just nobody good running.

One thing about Bush' administration that is increasingly angering me is the No Child Left Behind act.  Good intentions, but the regulations are unreasonable.  Like state-mandated testing.  I mean come on, if a student is receiving special services, and has his/her goals on a lower functioning level, why the SDJFKEROICJVK  should they be taken state testing at their grade level???????  To make special ed teachers look like their not doing their job?  They have individualized goals so why be tested on something they're not even being taught?  Plus the highly qualified thing is biased.  If special ed teachers have to be certified in another area, why can't regular ed teachers also be required to have some extra special ed training?? After all, they have special ed students in their classes too and they need to know better how to teach these students

why the SDJFKEROICJVK  Okay, honey, let's watch the language.

Joke! Joke! It's a joke!

All the teachers I know scream bloody murder over NCLB. Of coruse some of the problems predate NCLB -- special ed duties usually go to the least qualified teachers, when they get the toughest work to do, for instance.

I honestly question whether the intentions of the administration are good. Their whole agenda seems to be vouchers and privatizing the education system, and if they gut public ed it moves them forward toward that goal.

One thing about Bush' administration that is increasingly angering me is the No Child Left Behind act.  Good intentions, but the regulations are unreasonable.  Like state-mandated testing.  I mean come on, if a student is receiving special services, and has his/her goals on a lower functioning level, why the SDJFKEROICJVK  should they be taken state testing at their grade level???????  To make special ed teachers look like their not doing their job?  They have individualized goals so why be tested on something they're not even being taught?  Plus the highly qualified thing is biased.  If special ed teachers have to be certified in another area, why can't regular ed teachers also be required to have some extra special ed training?? After all, they have special ed students in their classes too and they need to know better how to teach these students



The whole nation is now getting a taste of what he did to education here in Texas. 

Although I supported Bush earlier, I admit now that he is probably one of the worst. 
If I'm not mistaken, you indicated before that you are very religious. Bush is counting on your demographic to come out and support him. If Bush starts losing the support of the devout, he's reeeally screwed!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/09/smhair.gif

WE DON'T WANT AMNESTY AND MR. BUSH IS STILL SUPPORTING IT..IT MUST BE STOPPED. FINE THE BIG BUSINESS EMPLOYERS, AND OK MAYBE BUILD THE FENCE,,,IT'S AN AMNESTY WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT!

NOTICE THE PREZ TOOK OUT THE PHRASE: PEOPLE DOING THE WORK LEGAL AMERICANS WON'T DO...

SOMEBODY IS GETTING TO HIM!


LOOPHOLE LETTING ANYONE ILLEGAL STAY..AFTER THEY ARE HERE 3 YEARS THEY WILL STILL GET RIGHTS AND RIGHT TO ARGUE TO STAY IF THEY ARE WORKING..(A LITTLE HIDDEN SECRET TO IT)...THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT GUESTS..GUESTS 'LEAVE' AFTER THEY DO THE WORK.