Monday, June 06, 2005
Whose lies are the worst?
Yellow Dogs write good letters to the editor:
JOHN N. FISHEL
DALLASTOWN
Whose lies are the worst? - York Daily Record
"They told us that the federal budget would produce surpluses for as far as the eye could see and that we could easily afford to cut the taxes of the "pitifully overwhelmed" millionaires. They lied.
They told us that Osama bin Laden would be captured dead or alive. They lied.
They implied that the terrorists who attacked America had links to the government of Iraq. They lied.
They swore to us that Saddam Hussein had amassed vast stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. They lied.
They assured us that the Iraqi people would welcome the American invasion force with open arms not as conquerors, but as liberators. And then they reassured us that Iraqi oil revenue would cover the cost of reconstruction of that country after our bombardment. They lied and lied again.
They told us that the violence in Iraq would subside once Saddam Hussein was captured. Next, they told us that the violence in Iraq would subside once control of that country was turned over to the Iraqis. After that, they told us that the violence in Iraq would subside once elections were held in that country. They lied again and again.
Bill Clinton told us, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." He lied.
Which brings us to the pertinent question. Which of these lies mattered more, Clinton's lie on a subject of little importance or the Republicans' habitual lies on subjects of the utmost importance? Not a hard one to answer."
JOHN N. FISHEL
DALLASTOWN
Whose lies are the worst? - York Daily Record
Sunday, June 05, 2005
No Rich Person Left Behind
Here are some statistics that should make any non-millionaire who voted for Bush ask themselves WHY:
--Under the Bush tax cuts, the 400 taxpayers with the highest incomes - a minimum of $87 million in 2000, the last year for which the government will release such data - now pay income, Medicare and Social Security taxes amounting to virtually the same percentage of their incomes as people making $50,000 to $75,000.
--Those earning more than $10 million a year now pay a lesser share of their income in these taxes than those making $100,000 to $200,000.
--The alternative minimum tax, created 36 years ago to make sure the very richest paid taxes, takes back a growing share of the tax cuts over time from the majority of families earning $75,000 to $1 million - thousands and even tens of thousands of dollars annually. Far fewer of the very wealthiest will be affected by this tax.
"The analysis examined only income reported on tax returns. The Treasury Department says that the very wealthiest find ways, legal and illegal, to shelter a lot of income from taxes. So the gap between the very richest and everyone else is almost certainly much larger.
The Times analysis also shows that over the next decade, the tax cuts Mr. Bush wants to extend indefinitely would shift the burden further from the richest Americans. With incomes of more than $1 million or so, they would get the biggest share of the breaks, in total amounts and in the drop in their share of federal taxes paid."
It's good to know that during times of increasing costs of the Iraq war, increasing gas prices, increasing health care premiums, unprecedented loss of jobs and pensions, The Bush Administration has their priorities straight--making the rich even richer (what this article dubs "hyper-rich"). This administration's policies are hyper-illogical.
Richest Are Leaving Even the Rich Far Behind - New York Times
--Under the Bush tax cuts, the 400 taxpayers with the highest incomes - a minimum of $87 million in 2000, the last year for which the government will release such data - now pay income, Medicare and Social Security taxes amounting to virtually the same percentage of their incomes as people making $50,000 to $75,000.
--Those earning more than $10 million a year now pay a lesser share of their income in these taxes than those making $100,000 to $200,000.
--The alternative minimum tax, created 36 years ago to make sure the very richest paid taxes, takes back a growing share of the tax cuts over time from the majority of families earning $75,000 to $1 million - thousands and even tens of thousands of dollars annually. Far fewer of the very wealthiest will be affected by this tax.
"The analysis examined only income reported on tax returns. The Treasury Department says that the very wealthiest find ways, legal and illegal, to shelter a lot of income from taxes. So the gap between the very richest and everyone else is almost certainly much larger.
The Times analysis also shows that over the next decade, the tax cuts Mr. Bush wants to extend indefinitely would shift the burden further from the richest Americans. With incomes of more than $1 million or so, they would get the biggest share of the breaks, in total amounts and in the drop in their share of federal taxes paid."
It's good to know that during times of increasing costs of the Iraq war, increasing gas prices, increasing health care premiums, unprecedented loss of jobs and pensions, The Bush Administration has their priorities straight--making the rich even richer (what this article dubs "hyper-rich"). This administration's policies are hyper-illogical.
Richest Are Leaving Even the Rich Far Behind - New York Times
