WMD found in Iraq

[Mac]

Not everybody gets our breaks cali...there are a good majority of people that fall under that category of blaming the world and I dont wanna work to change what I got, but I know people that have four jobs just make a house payment. I got people that cant afford gas to heat their homes, they aint sitting around. They are putting in 60-80 hours a week, JUST TO GET BY..

Its a dog eat dog world, having Bush in office giving the rich tax breaks and breaking the poors back isnt helping. Its a fact that in AMerica, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, Bush is only pushing that along faster than it normally does.

Bottom line is, dinger is right.....Iraq was NEVER a threat to the United States.

Instead, we have spent over $30 billion on the Iraqi war. At the same time, Social Security in America will be non-existant by 2010, gas prices are so high people have to take second jobs, our education is a joke, and we are struggling to fix our own problems because we can't fund it, but we can fund a war.

Its ajoke man......some people are naive...your little tax line looks good by itself, but put it next to the fact that percantage wise, the poor pay nearly double, to triple the % of their income to taxes compared to the rich....it doesnt look too good.

look it up.

 

[Mandingo]

Yeah, i don't believe that tax thing is correct either. The top 1% of the top 10% pay next to nothing now in taxes. These are people like Sam Walton not your average millioniare. These are people pullion in hundreds of millions a year and are worth billions. Do i think they should pay more in taxes than i do? Hell yeah. If i have to pay damn near 30% in taxes then i want them to pay the same ammount. If they make more they should pay more. I don't see how you find the logic to say otherwise. Nobody should be rewarded just for being rich. That being said i don't think anbody should be punished for being sucessful either.

This country depends on the little guy to make it. I wouldn't have my job if it weren't for the little guy. You take away the ability for him to survive and thats it, America falls like a house of cards. People need to stop being greedy and start helping people. I don't understand how someone can hoop and holler about Jesus but when it comes to helping people they don't want to spend the money. Real quality judgement right there.:thumbdown

 

[Mandingo]

After thinking about it i have something to add to clarify what i mean.

If i make $1.00 id pay around .30cents to the govt. but if someone else made $10.00 they would have to give $3.00 to the govt. The $10.00 people want to pay more like the dollar people. This is the mind state of the people in charge that they (the rich) shouldn't have to pay so much because the regular guy doesnt have to. The thing that they don't see is that what they pay in taxes is more than what most people make so its impossible for us to pay what they pay. They fix that by lowering their tax percentage and raising ours so the gap between the rich and the poor is always expanding.

 

[Maximus]

Here's the 2004 summary from the US Treasury on who's paying our taxes. 2005 summary isn't out yet.

http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/reports/factsheetwhopaysmostindividualincometaxes.update.pdf


DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of Public Affairs March 2, 2005FACT SHEET: Who Pays the Most Individual Income Taxes? The individual income tax is highly progressive – a small group of higher-income taxpayers pay most of the individual income taxes each year.
•In 2002 the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (30.6 percent) of income.
•The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual income taxes in 2002. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30 percent of individual incometaxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990 this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share.
•Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, taxpayers in this group have paid over 94 percent of all individual income taxes. In 2000, 2001, and 2002, this group paid over 96 percent of the total. The President’s tax cuts have shifted a larger share of the individual income taxes paid to higher income taxpayers. In 2005, when most of the tax cut provisions are fully in effect (e.g., lower tax rates, the $1,000 child credit, marriage penalty relief), the projected tax share for lower-income taxpayers will fall, while the tax share for higher-income taxpayers will rise.
•The share of taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers will fall from 4.1 percent to 3.6 percent.
•The share of taxes paid by the top 1 percent of taxpayers will rise from 32.3 percent to 33.7 percent.
•The average tax rate for the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers falls by 27 percent as compared to a 13 percent decline for taxpayers in the top 1 percent.


If the Sam Walton's of the world are getting tax breaks I really have no problem with it. Sam Walton is going to re-invest that money, create more business, create more jobs, CREATE MORE TAXES, create more benefits than if the government got that money to spend.

 

[highplainsdrifter]

Interesting post Maximus. If it is true, the top 1% paying 33.7% of income compared to the bottom 50% paying 3.6% of income is quite a difference. However I feel that the 3.6% has more effect on the lower income people than the 33.7% has on the top 1% of the rich folk. The taxes for the super-rich will not cut into their food bills, rent and utilities. The taxes for lower income certainly does.

I think what must be considered is HOW the tax dollars are spent. Consider the INSANE amount of money the US is spending on the military, for fighting wars. Billions upon billions. Why??? Because we just cant get along. We dont know how to follow the Golden Rule. We dont know how to settle disputes without violence. As adults we cant apply values so simple, even a child could understand: treat others like you would like to be treated. Respect people who are different. Share. Forgive.

We may be a technologically advanced society (consider the advances made in technology in the past 100 years) However as a spiritual society we are in the Stone Age. We still have yet to figure out how to help the less fortunate, how to provide everyone with food/shelter, how to provide basic survival needs for everyone that lives on this planet. There is enough resources. Are we willing to share?

I feel the problem our world faces now cannot be solved by political action. It must be solved spiritually, by changing our beliefs and attitudes.

If only we could LIVE the Golden Rule, what a difference that would make. To live in love and unity, not fear and separation..........

 

[Maximus]

So Michael Yon is a soldier in Iraq, keeping people aware of what he does day to day? Thats cool. That Little Girl story is good, but sad.

Why do these "terrorists" in Iraq attack the US soldiers, even with kids around? What is their agenda? Why do they hate the US so much? (I dont really follow this stuff) Just trying to understand where they're coming from, and Im sure they feel what they're doing is "right", even though its terrible to me.

HPD, below is why Michael Yon does what he does in his own words. He doesn't do it as a Republican or as a Democrat...his goal isn't political spin. He does it because he lost friends over there. His goal is to tell the soldier's stories with as much accuracy and attention to detail as possible. For him it isn't about politics. He has become a legend for the US soldiers, the soldiers refer to him now as "their voice". The story of "The Little Girl" was corroborated by dozens of witnesses....Americans and Iraqi. Why his work needs to be "verified" over anyone else's is ridiculous. Why when Dan Rather says something is it accepted as dogma? But when a reporter on the front line says something it is baseless, needs verification, and thererfore can't be commented on? Think about it. If you read Yon's stuff you know it's true. I trust what he says over anyone of the network correspondants. He does it for the soldiers...not for ratings.

Michael Yon:
I traveled to Iraq in December 2004, but the prime impetus to go occurred almost nine months earlier, after two friends were killed in two days in Iraq–one in Falluja, the other in Samara. In March, 2004, I attended both their funerals, also days apart, one in Colorado, the other in Florida. I met many veterans of the war on terror, some of whom encouraged me to go to Iraq or Afghanistan, and write the truth.

One childhood friend in particular—Rodney Morris—regularly called and emailed me, asking me to come over to Iraq, where he was then known as Lieutenant Colonel Morris. My initial reaction was, “Are you crazy!? I am a writer, not a war correspondent.” I thought there was nothing I could offer, and being intimately familiar with the effects of bombs and bullets, and having no wish to be burned alive or shot down, I repeatedly declined. But those two funerals, coming so close upon each other, got me thinking.

In a decision that entailed shelving serious investments in labor and time, I put current projects on hold and packed off for Iraq. When 2004 turned into 2005, I was in Baquba, near Baghdad. At that time, heading into Iraq’s historical first elections, there was daily fighting in Baquba. It was definitely newsworthy, but I was not sponsored by or affiliated with any media organizations. In fact, I had barely heard of the word “Blog,” when about three weeks into January 2005, I blogged my own first dispatch from Baquba.

Over the next several months I spent most of my time with combat soldiers doing combat things. I traveled up and down the Iranian border, met with countless Iraqis, got in shootouts and saw homicide and other bombings with my own eyes. The military was overwhelmingly open, though there was confusion about how to categorize me. I didn’t work for a paper or magazine, or television or radio. I would just say, “I am a writer.” Initially, when my blog became known, it lowered what little stock I had: Blogging was not exactly seen as the epitome of journalistic platforms.

Then, Rathergate and a few other major news scoops by bloggers started to change that perception, and a readership swelled around my work. Soon my photos and dispatches were being cited by mainstream sources around the world. Although I was offered numerous writing assignments and jobs, I declined them all. Some of the offers were quite good, but after struggling for many years to be independent, I came to see the value of that status. Not as a rabble rouser or as pugnacious individualist reflexively bucking “the system,” merely someone who could buck the system when it needed bucking.

Although I declined employment and advertisers, I never turned my back on “the system.” I wanted to be at arm’s distance, but not completely isolated. These decisions were good for business ethics but lousy for the bottom line. I had cut myself off from the normal methods for obtaining operating capital, and this left me broke. By mid-2005, despite the notoriety that my work was gaining, (it had now been used in nearly every major media outlet in the world) my bank account wasn’t the only thing going broke, my primary camera was crippled, and most of my work and communications gear was rapidly heading in the same direction.

By July, I could not even afford a new camera and I could not work as effectively without a camera. So I put up a Paypal support button and help flooded in. I got a brand new best-of-the-best digital camera within a week, and eventually bought enough gear, including night vision, satellite communications gear, better body armor, to keep the work coming. Support came at a cost, though, because I could no longer handle the extreme flood of emails and letters; so I hired assistants and got some technical services, both of which enabled me to stay focused on the work.

When the Deuce Four headed home to Ft Lewis, I returned to the United States. Once I did the support immediately began to wither, so I explored other options, eventually deciding to sell one of my better known photographs. Brisk sales helped to stabilize the situation but we’ve almost exhausted the supply of the limited edition photographs. The advance sales on “Danger Close,” a book I had self-published in 1999, are also robust and that’s really rewarding on several levels. When I first published Danger Close, I sold 8,000 copies, but the book was no longer in print. I received many emails asking about it and so I resurrected “Danger Close.”

All this said, it so happens that support from readers is by far the most important way for me to maintain my independence. I have to take time off from writing dispatches in Iraq so that I can complete “Deuce Four: The Battle for Mosul,” a book that is planned for a January 2007 release. There was the possibility of entering into a publishing agreement with a hefty advance, but this came with editorial strings and ropes. So I opted for a contract that has no advance but reserves control of the content to the author. I owe at least that much to the soldiers of Deuce Four, especially to those who gave their lives and limbs in this struggle. I will now spend most of 2006 focused on telling their story with accuracy and attention to detail. This research entails travel, expenses I have yet to discover, along with those I’m only too familiar with after years on the road.

The time will come when I load up my gear and head back to war. I followed the recent news about another two top-journalists were badly wounded, with severe head-wounds, in Iraq. Only time will tell, but perhaps their careers and lives are over. Needless to say, I thought about that every day when I was in combat. I’d think about how important it is to have a war chest of funds in case the worst happened. In another one of those comparisons where independence suffers, no one pays health insurance premiums on this body. Disabled, for me, would mean homeless and helpless. And so, how is this work funded? Mostly, and most importantly, by people hitting the Paypal button, or mailing in support. I can’t begin to express how grateful I am to the people who have hit the button.

I try to let my work speak to that, and the fact that it has just been submitted for three separate Pulitzer Prizes, in photography and reporting categories, is my testament to how I much I value the support of my readers.

 

[Maximus]

HPD, the gist of the tax article i wanted to convey was this -
•The share of taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers will fall from 4.1 percent to 3.6 percent.
•The share of taxes paid by the top 1 percent of taxpayers will rise from 32.3 percent to 33.7 percent.
The situation is improving for the bottom 50% under Bush...they paid more under Clinton. Many here would like you to believe the opposite.

I agree with you that the government doesn't always spend tax dollars wisely. That's why I don't want to take 90% of Bill Gates money. Some would contend - he doesn't need it, think of all the good that could be done with it, there shouldn't be billionaires when there are homeless people living on the streets. I'm a "supply-side" & "trickle down" guy. I think Bill Gates, Sam Walton, et al are smarter than Congress. I think there is more value in having them re-invest their money into our economy and creating jobs(and more taxes). Our economy and our poor would be much better off with the billionaires spending their own money than congress spending it.

The golden rule discussion I'm going to leave alone...I could go on for hours. I agree with many of your thoughts.

 

[cavincali]

Not everybody gets our breaks cali...there are a good majority of people that fall under that category of blaming the world and I dont wanna work to change what I got, but I know people that have four jobs just make a house payment. I got people that cant afford gas to heat their homes, they aint sitting around. They are putting in 60-80 hours a week, JUST TO GET BY..

Its a dog eat dog world, having Bush in office giving the rich tax breaks and breaking the poors back isnt helping. Its a fact that in AMerica, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, Bush is only pushing that along faster than it normally does.

Bottom line is, dinger is right.....Iraq was NEVER a threat to the United States.

Instead, we have spent over $30 billion on the Iraqi war. At the same time, Social Security in America will be non-existant by 2010, gas prices are so high people have to take second jobs, our education is a joke, and we are struggling to fix our own problems because we can't fund it, but we can fund a war.

Its ajoke man......some people are naive...your little tax line looks good by itself, but put it next to the fact that percantage wise, the poor pay nearly double, to triple the % of their income to taxes compared to the rich....it doesnt look too good.

look it up.

Somebody did and your wrong.

 

[Maximus]

At the same time, Social Security in America will be non-existant by 2010,
look it up.

I missed that complete fallacy. Where do you people come up with this stuff? The fund will not be exhausted in 4 years....it will be exhausted IN 4 DECADES!
The first shortfalls in Social Security won't occur until 2017. The entire fund IF NOTHING IS DONE would not be exhausted until 2042. These estimates are based off of current economic conditions.

We could always pull a page from Saddam's book and start eliminating certain parts of the population....let's start with the elderly! Or democrats!! Or elderly democrats!!!:chuckles:


Social Security fund may run out sooner

New trustees report: Latest estimates move up by one year date for trust fund exhaustion.
March 23, 2005: 5:22 PM EST
By Jeanne Sahadi, CNN/Money senior writer

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) – The Social Security trustees, in their 2005 report released Wednesday, offered an earlier date for trust fund exhaustion and revised upward estimates of the shortfalls facing the system over the next 75 years.

They also revised upward the shortfall facing the system over what's known as the infinite time horizon, a measure often used by the Bush administration to emphasize the system's troubles but which the nonpartisan American Academy of Actuaries deems "less reliable."

Based on revised assumptions, the trustees now estimate that by 2041 the system's trust fund will be exhausted, meaning the system will only be able to pay out a percentage of the benefits currently promised. In this case, the trustees estimate the system will be able to pay out 74 percent of benefits.

In their 2004 report, the trustees estimated the trust fund would be exhausted in 2042.

They also now estimate that by 2017 the system will not be taking in enough in payroll taxes to pay all benefits promised and will need to tap the special-issue bonds that make up its trust fund. That date was moved up from 2018.

The amount of the shortfall facing the system over the next 75 years was revised upward to $4 trillion from $3.7 trillion.

One way to measure that shortfall is to calculate how much you would need to raise payroll taxes to keep the system solvent for the next 75 years. Based on the latest numbers, the payroll tax would have to be raised 1.92 percentage points to 14.32 percent of wages. Currently, the payroll tax rate is 12.4 percent, half of which is paid by employers and half by employees.

Another way to measure it is in terms of benefits, which would need to be cut by 13 percent to achieve solvency over 75 years.

Over the infinite time horizon, the trustees now estimate the system will have an unfunded obligation of $11.1 trillion, up from the $10.4 trillion estimated in 2004.

But the increase is almost negligible since the $10.4 trillion represents 2004 dollars and the $11.1 trillion represents 2005 dollars. In fact, the change is economically insignificant. As a percentage of future payroll, both numbers represent 3.5 percent of future taxable payroll. And they each represent 1.2 percent of future GDP, according to the trustees report.

What's more, a shortfall measured over an infinite time horizon has limited value to policymakers, according to the nonpartisan American Academy of Actuaries. "Many observers question the reliability or usefulness of calculating Social Security's unfunded obligation over 75 years. Calculations over an infinite period are even less reliable," an Academy report noted.

 

[highplainsdrifter]

Good stuff Maximus. I really like what Michael Yon is doing, and its awesome how he's staying independant, to keep his stuff "pure". He could have sold out Im guessin, but what he's doing is really good. Probably better than what we hear on the news, and im sure the rich and powerful have an influence on the media.

I think Bill Gates, Sam Walton, et al are smarter than Congress. I think there is more value in having them re-invest their money into our economy and creating jobs(and more taxes). Our economy and our poor would be much better off with the billionaires spending their own money than congress spending it.

Good point. I agree, alot because I just dont have much faith in our government's ability to make the best of our tax dollars. Id like to see like a pie-chart or something that reflects how our tax dollars are spent in the US. Im guessing a huge piece of that pie is going to war efforts.

We live in a democracy, where it's supposed to be a govt run by the people, but i think we have more of a govt run by the rich and powerful. I dont have much faith in our govt I guess.

 

[Mac]

Key word is exhausted....by 2010 it wil be pretty much useless.

Ill look it up later...

 

[Maximus]

You said "Social Security in America will be non-existant by 2010".
I just posted an article on the 2005 SS Trustees Report which says it's fully funded through 2017 and will not run out of money until 2042. Don't bother looking anything up...it's pretty clear in the article I posted that SS will still be around long after 2010.

Regards,
Max the Real Truth

 

[cavincali]

You said "Social Security in America will be non-existant by 2010".
I just posted an article on the 2005 SS Trustees Report which says it's fully funded through 2017 and will not run out of money until 2042. Don't bother looking anything up...it's pretty clear in the article I posted that SS will still be around long after 2010.

Regards,
Max the Real Truth

Hes allways like that. One time I told his that 2+2=4 and he wanted me to prove it and look it up.

 

[TrueCavsFan23]

lol.

 

[Mac]

You said "Social Security in America will be non-existant by 2010".
I just posted an article on the 2005 SS Trustees Report which says it's fully funded through 2017 and will not run out of money until 2042. Don't bother looking anything up...it's pretty clear in the article I posted that SS will still be around long after 2010.

Regards,
Max the Real Truth

It wont be...I had an entire class on the issue in 2006 that said that SS will be faltering by 2010 and be useless by 2012 unless major changes are made.

Unless they changed something in the last 6 months that didnt make major headlines, I doubt that has changed.

When I have time to look it up, I will get to it. Its not really a big deal to me so Im not wasting my time right now. Give me a couple of days....im shootin for Monday or Tuesday.