Archive for Sunday, September 7, 2008
Extreme view
September 7, 2008
Advertisement
To the editor:
I have come to expect unreasoned, predictable and extreme opinions from Cal Thomas. Even so, I found astonishing his Sept. 3 column extolling the reasons that McCain's surprise running mate is qualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency. He emphasizes that she is tough, pretty, pro-life, gun-toting and, most essential of all, wore a skirt and heels at her introduction. As an added bonus, the sermon titles at her church met with Thomas' approval.
This column officially places Cal Thomas in the category of the extreme right-wing radio commentators such as Rush Limbaugh, who appeal to people with no interest in thinking through the issues with any logic or reason. The only reason I can think of for a newspaper to give this individual a platform for his extreme and insulting beliefs is to inflame readers and hope to sell a few more papers. I urge readers to inform themselves on the real issues and make their voting decisions based on something other than Cal Thomas' fashion sense and religious dogma.
Penny Schau,
Baldwin City
7 September 2008
at 5:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bkgarner (Brent Garner) says…
What issues would those be, Penny? Lets see:
Obama—pro-abortion. McCain-pro-life.
Obama—pro-taxes. McCain—against taxes.
Obama—associates with known terrorists. McCain—sorry, no similar associates.
Obama—spouts Marxist doctrine, economics, and ideology. McCain advocates for a Constitutional government.
Obama—advocates crippling our national defenses by stripping massivre funding from the Department of Defense for ballististic missile defense, new weapons, etc. McCain—pro-strong defense. NOTE: in the international arena, sadly, only military strength gets one respect. That is why no nation gives a fig what Japan says on anything but they will listen when the US or Russia speaks.
And that list is just for starters.
7 September 2008
at 6 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gsandell (Anonymous) says…
“While anything can happen in politics and McCain's selection may be risky, my bet is that the pretty, pro-life, gun-tIoting hockey mom is going to pleasantly surprise a lot of people with her toughness and common sense view of life and the world.”- Cal Thomas
______________
Reading the quote, it seems Penny, that Mr. Thomas was emphasizing Ms. Palin's “toughness and common sense” rather than the other adjectives which he used to characterize her. Yes, she is all of those things, a very positive image for many Americans, but the “toughness and common sense ” are the ones that really define what many crave in a leader.
Everyone seems to be talking the need for change in Washington. Then how about change, that for once means going the route of “common sense”? That would be a change that would be a breath of fresh air in Washington. Common sense, when analyzing the issues we face, would be a welcome relief to just trying to throw more money at anything that needs “fixed”. What would be so wrong with putting someone in a position that has not been “tainted” with the Washington “elites” methods of solving our countries problems?
7 September 2008
at 6:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Mr_Nancy_Boy_To_You (Tom Shewmon) says…
Obama is the extremist.
The difference is Palin makes it clear what her views are and makes no apologies for them. It's no surprise the new left is “astonished” by them.
Obama on the other hand, willfully chooses to cover up his past at any costs, and with aiding and abetting of the unethical mainstream media, manages to keep it suppressed enough to continue on.
It's obvious the liberal media is dispatching all their little soldiers to had north and dig up any dirt they can on Palin.
And when did being pro-life make one an “extremist”?
I think this was 35 years of hard work by the pro-abortion crowd, finished with the advent of the far-left blogosphere.
Today, far-left blog propaganda miraculously turns into red meat, front page news for the corrupt liberal media.
7 September 2008
at 6:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Barclay (Anonymous) says…
It is true that Cal Thomas cuts to the right. But Brent is right because Cal Thomas cuts issues right where those issues should be cut. Brent appreciates a sharp knife. I do too.
7 September 2008
at 7:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
Right you all are— McCain and Palin will continue to take the US in the ChristoFascist direction of the last 8 years. No need to say any more.
7 September 2008
at 9:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawklawrence (Anonymous) says…
Excellent letter.
I agree that this guy has nothing worthwhile to say.
7 September 2008
at 9:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ignati5 (Anonymous) says…
Brava! Cal Thomas sucks bigtime. I wonder, though, if it is wise for us to continue sending letters to the editor attacking Cal's outrageous and badly-written columns, as it reinforces his reputation as a controversialist who brings subscribers to the LJW. It might be better to leave him alone and let reasonable people who are not controversialist in their own right suffer their embarrassment in silence. Bill
7 September 2008
at 9:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Mimis_friend (Anonymous) says…
Methinks that saying Obama is pro-abortion is wrong thinking. He is pro-choice which means leaving it up to those who choose to abort and instead of making it part of the law. I personally am totally against abortion in most cases, but feel that the individual has to do what they think is best and the government should keep its nose out of my business.
Secondly, Obama does want to raise taxes on those who make more than $5 million a year. Will that impact you much at all Mr. Garner or Mr. Shewmon? Perhaps only a little.
Thirdly, can those Known Terrorists be named so we know exactly who Mr. Garner is talking about? We should know who our next president knows so we will know them, too.
Ladies and gentlemen, we need an abrupt change in Washington. We need some new ideas and different strategies to ensure domestic tranquility and the pursuit of happiness, we Americans have come to love. We need to stop supporting countries who do nothing for us but take our money. We need to stop fighting wars that are for invisible WMD and for oil. We have oil, lets use our own.
7 September 2008
at 9:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
geekin_topekan (Anonymous) says…
Cal's extremists' commentary BUYS an audience.He is making a handsome living by saying things that make the less than successful hate mongors feel a sense of empowerment because he is able to say the things on a broad forum that most of the would-be rightwingers can only wish were true.But his nonsense is preying on their silence and they PAY him to live vicariously through his columns and shows.
You can either read or not read,but it will not change the heart of hatred,fear and ignorance.
Verily I minister these truths unto you_geek1:52
7 September 2008
at 9:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Mr_Nancy_Boy_To_You (Tom Shewmon) says…
“Secondly, Obama does want to raise taxes on those who make more than $5 million a year.” —mimis friend
Possibly small business owners–-many of them?
There goes your job, mimis friend.
7 September 2008
at 9:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawklawrence (Anonymous) says…
Obviously the bar you have to clear to become a Vice President or a nationally syndicated columnist is much lower than most of us thought.
Let's hope it doesn't get any lower…..
7 September 2008
at 9:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“Possibly small business owners-many of them?
There goes your job, mimis friend.”
Payroll expenses are tax deductible. Your logic is lacking, Tom.
7 September 2008
at 9:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
dandelion (Anonymous) says…
Most of the small business owners I know don't make anything near 5 million. Oh, I forgot 5 million is just middle class in the little isolated world McCain lives in.
7 September 2008
at 9:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
marcdeveraux (Anonymous) says…
We can see cal and brent garner are racist . The lies in garners post are transparent, nothing more than the rantings of a potential K.K.K. member.
7 September 2008
at 9:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Potawatomi (Anonymous) says…
Check out Friday's Daily Show with Jon Stewart showing the Republican Bible beaters flip flop on the issues. Nice lookin' flip floppers.
http://www.comedycentral.com/
7 September 2008
at 10:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
coltrane (Anonymous) says…
potawatomi
thanks !
7 September 2008
at 10:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
madmike (Anonymous) says…
Once again, marc goes off on an illogical rant, name calling and race baiting. Are the only things you ever post linked to religion and race?
7 September 2008
at 10:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
frwent (Anonymous) says…
Man, am I happy to see that there are some others that think like I do. Cal Thomas is one cog in the extreme right that includes Limbaugh, Bill O'reilly, and others. O'Reilly tries to present himself as a “no-spin” journalist, but anyone with a shred of intelligence can see through this deception. He is a prime member of this pro-theocracy movement that has as it's goal creating an islamist-style government in the United States cloaked in supposed religious fervor. In fact, it is the intent of these people to gain control and then inflict worse crimes on humanity that any Nazi ever dreamed of. Limbaugh does it best, and hides the swasticka arm bands from his “ditto cam”. But if you take a common-sense view of all these outlets of the extreme right and then co some honest study of the workings of the Third Reich and Dr. Josef Goebbels, you will see the awful comparason. But those who are convinced that their religion justifies any crime “in the name of the lord” (who's lord??), such as the islamists and hyper-christians, will never be convinced until it is too late and the storm troopers are coming for THEM to haul off to the furnaces.
7 September 2008
at 10:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…
I'm running out of Godwin flags. Were there any of those left behind Invesco Field that I could recycle?
7 September 2008
at 11:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ignati5 (Anonymous) says…
To compare our religious right with the Nazis, as frwent does above, is to trivialize evil. The religious right in the USA are cynical about religion in the way that many rightist politicians in Europe were in the 30s, but they have no overt agenda for ethnic clensing, genocide or world war
(gay-lesbians may disagree, and their argument would give me pause). On the whole, though, we are confronted with a bunch of primitives, Know-Nothings and American particularist authoritarians. Thus far they have fallen short of the Nazi standard. BG
7 September 2008
at 12:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
geekin_topekan (Anonymous) says…
“..ethnic clensing, genocide or world war
(gay-lesbians may disagree, and their argument would give me pause). “
+++
Indians,Natives,Aboriginalsetcetcetc may disagree too but, go ahead..Handing them disease infected blankets(genocide) and beating the children for speaking their language(ethnic cleansing).Ring a bell?
7 September 2008
at 1:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Potawatomi (Anonymous) says…
Vote Republican and get what you deserve. Get back Bible Beaters.
http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/
7 September 2008
at 1:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Mr_Nancy_Boy_To_You (Tom Shewmon) says…
“Payroll expenses are tax deductible. Your logic is lacking, Tom.”
Well, firstly, I'm talking about their gross income and it may not BE just payroll tax…..so your logic is lacking too. The outlay to tax ratio can cause immediate reductions. And since small biz owners, like any corporation don't like to see net losses from the previous year, it is likely.
7 September 2008
at 1:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…
Mimis_friend (Anonymous) says:
“Methinks that saying Obama is pro-abortion is wrong thinking. He is pro-choice which means leaving it up to those who choose to abort and instead of making it part of the law.”
So I guess we can assume, friend, that you are against nationalized healthcare, and favor allowing people to make their own healthcare decisions? And that you are against raising taxes in general, favoring a free market approach rather than government intervention?
*******************
>>> I have come to expect unreasoned, predictable and extreme opinions from Cal Thomas.
So, Penny, let me guess - if you don't like the opinion expressed by a columnist, it's because you favor the 'objective' journalism of, maybe, the Pitts?
7 September 2008
at 1:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
frwent (Anonymous) says…
I have said it before and will say it again. I am not in favor of abortion. I am not against it. I am against those who feel their logic or religious fervor gives them rights to dictate medical issues to anyone else but the patient and their doctor. If you do not want an abortion, you will not have one. None is ever required. If you do not want anyone else tp have a medical proceedure that the patient and their doctor have decided on, that it is safe and legal, it is none of your damned business.
7 September 2008
at 1:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
So, if tax cuts for the wealthy are so good for poor folks wanting jobs, why are there fewer of them, and for lower pay, since the BushCo tax cuts, Tom?
7 September 2008
at 2:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
Palin IS NOT fiscally responsible
Palin did not turn back earmarks but spent many many of them
Palin and troopergate is abuse of power and may require a pardon before the general elections. McCain and the RNC have sent a battery of lawyers to Alaska to sqaush the case.
Palins Alaskan republican party requested the troopergate investigation.
Palin tried to fire a librairian who refused to bow down to Palins demand for censorship. Citizens told Palin to stick it in her ear. The librarian is back to work.
Then there is the sex scandal over Plain having an affair with her husbands business partner. Palin must enjoy sex.
7 September 2008
at 2:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gsandell (Anonymous) says…
“Palin must enjoy sex.”— merrill
______________
Even for merrill, that's a really stupid comment!
7 September 2008
at 2:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
madmike (Anonymous) says…
Just illustrates how desparate the left is when you even see Merrill reduced to this.
7 September 2008
at 3:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
powershopper (Anonymous) says…
What I find amusing is that most right wing conservatives' political platforms are largely self serving. They run their campaigns based on a conservative christian ideology to attract the faith based vote. At the end of the day most republicans (at least those who are actually politicians) are more concerned with passing legislation beneficial to their pocket books, not their bibles. What is saddest to me is that most of the faith based vote the far right captures is from those in lower socio-economic classes who will ultimately be negatively impacted by right-wing legislation. They do, however, improve their chances of getting into heaven.
At the end of the day, money talks and BS walks.
The upside is that we really don't have to worry about roe v. wade being overturned. What we do have to worry about is continued inflation, increased difficulty accessing affordable healthcare, continued dependency on foreign oil (McNasty and Palin are full of **** on this issue), and business as usual in the Whitehouse.
Speaking of the social elite, did anybody see the report on the value of Cindy McCain's outfit at the RNC the night her husband spoke? Some news reports put it at 300k (largely because of the Diamonds she wore). The night Obama spoke, his wife, Michelle, wore an outfit from White House/Black Market that probably had a total value of 200 dollars. Who really is the “Elite?”
Over the past 8 years we have had the wool pulled over our eyes by individuals with character comparable to Palin and, through apathy and ignorance, we still admonish them. IT IS time for change and history should tell us that McCain will not bring it.
7 September 2008
at 3:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
RedwoodCoast (Anonymous) says…
When it comes to Sarah Palin, I think we all know more about the cover than we do the book.
7 September 2008
at 4:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BigPrune (Anonymous) says…
From Investors Business Daily 8/6/08:
In 1995, Illinois Gov. Jim Edgar balked at implementing the federal motor voter law out of concern that letting people register via postcard and blocking the state from pruning voter rolls might invite vote fraud.
A young lawyer, a community organizer himself, sued on behalf of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (Acorn) and won. The young lawyer was Barack Obama. Acorn later invited Obama to train its staff.
When Obama served on the board of the Woods Fund for Chicago with Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers, the Woods Fund frequently gave Acorn grants to fund its agenda and voter registration activities.
Acorn has been in the lead in opposing voter ID laws and other efforts to ensure ballot integrity. Acorn has been implicated in voter fraud and bogus registration schemes in Ohio and at least 13 other states. Acorn staffers will presumably be out registering voters again this year.
Obama also opposes voter ID laws. He believes they disenfranchise voters. Last year, Obama put a hold on the nomination of Hans von Spakovsky for a seat on the Federal Election Commission. It seems von Spakovsky, as an official in the Justice Department, had supported a Georgia photo ID law. Acorn espouses the leftist view that voter ID laws are racist.
In addition to subverting American democracy to promote a leftist agenda, Acorn's radical agenda amounts to “undisguised authoritarian socialism.” wrote Sol Stern in the 2003 City Journal article, “Acorn's Nutty Regime for Cities.”….
…..then there's the Living Wage Law they support, hmmmm
The AP 9/6/08: Democrats post big gains in voter registration
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iy…
It all sounds so similar, doesn't it?
When JFK was running for office, it turned out a whole bunch of dead people in Chicago voted for him that year.
Chicago politics go national perhaps?
7 September 2008
at 7:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
Your silly innuendo is fine for the wingnuts, but where are the reports of massive (or even minimal) voter fraud because of ACORN's voter registration drives, BigPrune?
7 September 2008
at 8:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
forchange (Anonymous) says…
I would just like to point out that someone has to pay for this war. At some point, someone's taxes are going to have to be raised. How can we continue to properly fund our schools, much needed social programs, infrastructure (just to name a few), and a very expensive war without raising taxes somewhere along the way? This is a bill that generations to come will have to deal with. Continuing to cut the taxes of the wealthy is not going to fix the problem.
7 September 2008
at 8:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Mr_Nancy_Boy_To_You (Tom Shewmon) says…
Hi bozo, what about Gore's trying to suppress at least (1500) overseas military ballots in 2000? This is what was proven–the number is believed to be much higher.
Is that massive (or minimal) voter fraud in your mind?
7 September 2008
at 9:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
situveux1 (Anonymous) says…
Don't read it if you don't like it.
7 September 2008
at 10:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
Didn't happen, Tom.
8 September 2008
at 6:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bkgarner (Brent Garner) says…
To Mimis_friend :
Your first point. Pro-choice vs pro-abortion. If one is pro-choice one is automatically pro-abortion. Substituting the one term for the other is only a sophisticated word game that many people engage in to salve their consciences because they really do not like thinking of killing babies. Further, Mr. Obama sponsored and supported legislation in the Illinois legislature that would have permitted a baby born live during an abortion procedure to be left to cry and die if that was the wish of the “mother”.
Your second point. Mr. Obama has promised to allow the so-called Bush tax-cuts to expire. In case you do not know this, those tax-cuts have a sunset provision in them. If not extended or made permanent by an act of Congress by midnight Dec 31, 2010, then they expire and the previous tax code from the Clinton years comes back into play. On average this will raise the taxes of the average American citizen by a little over $2000 per year depending on how it is calculated and what income assumptions are made. That would constitute a tax increase. Also, in case you think he has substituted his “no taxes for 95% of Americans” for his “let the tax cuts expire” he referenced his plan to let the tax cuts expire just this weekend when he said that if the “recession” continues it may be the wrong time to let those tax cuts expire. We could comment more on this.
Your third point. William Ayers is a self-confessed, self-identified member of the SDS—students for a democratic society also called the Weathermen. This was a very violent group in the 60s and 70s who engaged in numerous bombings of public buildings. In fact, Mr. Ayers admits to having bombed the Pentagon. He should be in jail, but the federal prosecutors mishandled his case so it was dismissed with prejudice, which means it cannot be re-filed. Mr. Ayers, in 2001 stated that he was sorry he did not plant more bombs. He is, today, an unrepentent, anti-American terrorist and a close associate of Obama. I have not yet mentioned the known Muslim extremists he has been known to associate with including one who raised money to help pay for Obama's Harvard education.
You said you want change in Washington. You are correct. We most definitely need change. But Obama is not the kind of change we need.
8 September 2008
at 6:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bkgarner (Brent Garner) says…
To marcdeveraux :
Please identify what in my post is racist?
First, I never mentioned Obama's race. Not once. How then can you conclude I am racist?
Second, I presume you have called me “racist” because I disagree with Obama. That is a common tactic, and a dishonest one, used by those who want to push the position that if a minority person is criticized, then the one criticizing is automatically a racist. I thought Martin Luther King said, “”I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” That would also include the ideas they espouse and support. Frankly, I could not care less what color a person's skin is, I am much more concerned with their actions and philosophies and ideas. No, I am not a racist, but perhaps you are.
8 September 2008
at 9 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
supertrampofkansas (Anonymous) says…
Brent,
Your analysis on the taxes is incorrect according to an article on today's yahoo. This article can found at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080908/a…
I am curious as to how you view this article which disagrees with your statement regarding taxes on the “average american”. It is also apparent that the tax analysis is being done in a bipartisan independent manner with groups who specialize in the area of economics. I apologize if this seems like an attack on you. I just find it interesting that you do not back up your assertions and there are many articles like these that directly contradict your information.
8 September 2008
at 9:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
supertrampofkansas (Anonymous) says…
Brent,
Also regarding the pro-choice and pro-abortion arguments, I think they are irrelevant from a political perspective. Roe vs Wade has been on the books since 1972 even through Republican majorities in both houses and Republican presidents. It amazes me that the republican party wants to make abortion illegal because I think this will be a death sentence for the party if it is ever done. It is apparent that far more progress in reducing the number of abortions has been made through education, family planning, and counseling. I have always thought the best way to ending abortion is simply to make it obsolete.
Do you really think that abortion will ever be completely illegal given our history?
8 September 2008
at 9:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
And this is news… how?
No problem with reading Cal's columns, as long as you:
1) Read other columns, as well—getting your news/information from **any** one source is a bad idea
2) Don't be surprised if Cal proposes one set of standards/rules for “conservatives” that he likes, and the exact opposite set of standards/rules for “liberals” that he hates
3) Keep a sense of humor as you read
Yeah, I know… pretty much the same advice for when you read all the claptrap here at LJWorld.com (including mine)… ;)
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
http://www.uscentrist.org
http://marciaford.blogspot.com
8 September 2008
at 9:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
supertrampofkansas (Anonymous) says…
“You said you want change in Washington. You are correct. We most definitely need change. But Obama is not the kind of change we need.” - Brent Garner
However the only other “realistic” (meaning the only other person who has a viable chance to be the POTUS) voted with Mr. Bush over 90% of the time. The choice of McCain does not represent change at all and only means more of the same. So does that mean you are voting for Ron Paul Brent?
8 September 2008
at 11:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
invictus (Anonymous) says…
“The night Obama spoke, his wife, Michelle, wore an outfit from White House/Black Market that probably had a total value of 200 dollars.”
What a cheap skate, not very first lady-like. But the Obama's are only big spenders when it is someone else's money i.e. the tax payers.
8 September 2008
at 11:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…
“Obama-pro-abortion. McCain-pro-life.”
––––-
Garner-pro-idiocy
What the hell is “pro-abortion”? I can't seem to remember any speeches or comments from Obama demanding more abortions…
Similarly, “pro-life” is an equally inaccurate term. McCain isn't pro-life so much as he is anti-abortion.
Pro-life is a pointless distinction. Unless your name is Charlie Manson or Ted Bundy, all human beings are pro-life.
=====================================
“Obama-pro-taxes. McCain-against taxes.”
––––-
Maybe you should look up some facts. Obama's campaign is promising a far larger tax-cut than McCain.
=====================================
“Obama-associates with known terrorists. McCain-sorry, no similar associates.”
––––—
More lies. At least on the first part.
=====================================
“And that list is just for starters.”
–––––-
Yeah, we wouldn't want to get into areas where the Republican party is glaringly blank, like economic policies, or hell, policies at all.
So far all I've seen from the Republiclones is hammering away at Obama's lack of “executive” experience and some general rhetoric about “service” and “country first” and “changing the way 'liberal' Washington works”
In other words, a whole steaming pile of jacksh*t. And Jack left town.
8 September 2008
at 11:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bkgarner (Brent Garner) says…
To supertrampofkansas: On the Bush tax cuts expiring and their impact. I got the following by consulting the IRS tax schedules for 2000, 2001, 2007. No politics with these. These are the numbers they say you owe. If the Bush cuts expire we can expect either rates from 2000 or 2001 to be immediatelly imposed.
For AGI of $30,000-$30,0050
2000: Single $4995 Married $4504
2001: Single $4876 Married $4504
2007: Single $4113 Married $3721
For AGI of $40,000-$40,0050
2000: Single $7795 Married $6004
2001: Single $7626 Married $6004
2007: Single $6430 Married $5221
For AGI of $50,000-$50,0050
2000: Single $10,595 Married $8307
2001: Single $10,376 Married $8107
2007: Single $8930 Married $6721
Based on this unbiased data taken from the official IRS documents I believe it is perfectly clear that if the Bush tax cuts expire taxes will increase. You point is considered refuted!
NEXT!
8 September 2008
at 11:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
Brent: That's a good explanation of why the deficit has gotten so bad, and why the national debt has gone even higher.
If the tax cuts that you illustrate are the “real deal”… why are we having the economic issues that we're having?
Seems to me that all you've demonstrated is that for the average American, these tax cuts haven't accomplished all that much.
I'd be interested in seeing the impact of those cuts on other income levels, too. What about people that earn at the lower levels, as well as folks that earn in the six-figure or seven-figure range?
—Ag
8 September 2008
at noon
Suggest removal
Permalink
bkgarner (Brent Garner) says…
Pro-choice equals pro-abortion.
Sorry folks, but everytime I get into this topic with someone claiming pro-choice it always boils down to this. The individual claims that all they want is for the procedure to remain legal. However, when I then query them whether or not they favor killing unborn children they become strangely silent. Almost like I have made them very uncomfortable. You see, if you want the procedure to be legal, then you must accept that you are also in support of killing the unborn. It takes a pretty hardened person to say that they are in favor of killng babies. Make no mistake. It is not just a fetus. It is not just some biological mass. You can use all the euphamisms you want, but abortion remains the termination of an unborn life.
Now, should a woman be forced to continue a pregnancy that is the result of a rape or incest? No, that should not be required. Although, I would urge that victim to understand that the life they are planning to terminate had nothing to do with the crime committed against them. Thus, that life is innocent. I do think that if the law is to allow for abortion in the case of rape or incest that we should insist on the woman having filed a criminal complaint against the male involved. As for the health of the woman issue. That has been widened so far that you can drive 3 Mac trucks side by side through it. It is meaningless. Excuses in this area have ranged from geniune examples of where continuing the pregnancy could result in the death of the woman to the woman simply not wanting to have the baby. Abortion seems to have become just another means of birth control. A means that always results in the death of an innocent life.
Sorry, if you are pro-choice you ARE automatically pro-abortion with all its consequences.
8 September 2008
at 12:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
supertrampofkansas (Anonymous) says…
Brent,
I see that you did not actually read the article. I point you to the relevant section that you seem to be ignoring. Here you go…
“Obama, focusing on a theme of many past Democratic campaigns, seeks to target his help to the squeezed middle class and address the growing income inequality between rich and poor. He would retain all of the Bush tax cuts for families making less than $250,000 a year, but would do away with Bush's cuts for people making more than that.” - Economic article from link above
So as I look at your salaries that you listed, I see that you are either ignorant about you are saying or choose not to acknowledge the fact that what you are saying is false. Since I wish to remain on civil terms, I will simply leave it with maybe you did not see or read this information.
Again, since the point is NOT refuted, I ask you why the discrepancy Brent? Are you being obtuse?
8 September 2008
at 12:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bkgarner (Brent Garner) says…
To Agnostick:
Pretty hard headed and hard hearted aren't you? If the tax cuts expire, that $700 difference for the single $30,000 taxpayer could be very large. My purpose was to show that even the lower income brackets have a stake in not letting the cuts expire. I am amazed at your claim the cuts “didn't do much”. Did they enable the my $30,000 example to send his/her kid to Harvard? Hardly. But taking away that $700 is going to make life that much more difficult for that taxpayer.
The problem with the deficit is NOT taxes! It is spending! We continue to spend far more than we bring in. How long could you personally avoid bankruptcy if you did that with your personal budget? Not long I suppose. What needs to happen is that we restore the government to its proper limited role one of which is national defense and stop paying/funding every little thing in this country via the taxpayers pocket. Again, from tax tables consider this.
If you are married filing jointly and earn between $63,700 and $128,500 you fall in the 25% tax bracket federally. Since you are a Kansas resident please add at least 6.45% for the state. Now add 6.2% for social security (yes, I know it cuts off at 109,000 but lets pretend you only earn 100,000—you'd consider that “rich” wouldn't you?) Add another 1.45% for medicare. We are already up to 39.1% of your income going out the door and we have not included fuel taxes, sales taxes, and on, and on, and on. With those factored in, you, with your hypothetical $100,000 income may easily be paying 50% or more of your income to the government at one level or another! I ask you, then, how much is enough? Can you answer that???
8 September 2008
at 12:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
So then, Brent… by that logic, if you are not opposed to war… then you favor the random killing and murder of innocent men, women and children.
True?
—Ag
8 September 2008
at 12:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
How much is “enough,” Brent?
“Enough” so that I don't leave a giant burden for my 3-year-old daughter… her children… and her grandchildren.
With the exception of a 5-month period in the early '90s when I couldn't find a job… I've been steadily employed since the summer after I turned 16—that's more than 25 years. I've filed an income tax return (by myself, I might add—I do my own taxes) every year since tax year 1982. Out of all those years, I've “owed” Uncle Sam exactly one year—and that was because of an exemption error on my withholding allowances.
Wanna cut spending? How much has been wasted on the Iraqi Incursion? (As opposed to the War on Terror, which has little or nothing to do with our involvement in Iraq.)
My “solution” (and my wife's) has always been to get more education, get a better job, improve our skill sets… not sit around on a message forum 6 hours a day and grouse about taxes.
Wanna make some sense for a change? Then quit wasting time on partisan hackery and one-sided tax cuts, and talk about something like a flat tax, or even better, a national sales tax.
—Ag
8 September 2008
at 12:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
screedposter (Anonymous) says:
“Actually, it's true. Ever hear of a guy named Bill Ayers?”
____________________________________________________
My guess is that you never knew who Bill Ayers was, until El Rushbo programmed him into your Ditto-brain…
8 September 2008
at 12:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
supertrampofkansas (Anonymous) says…
Brent,
On your abortion stance, you are contradicting yourself. If life is as sacred as you make it out to be, then abortion should be illegal in all cases including those of rape or incest. Why do you back off there Brent? Are you uncomfortable telling a woman who has just been raped that she must have the baby if she becomes pregnant from that act?
You also seem to suggest that any form of birth control would be wrong to do. Do you think we should outlaw condoms and the like because again you are snuffing out an unborn life?
Brent you do have to admit that life is a continuous process. While many of us attempt to draw a line somewhere in that process, the drawing of that line has always been and will remain arbitrary.
Again, I will submit to you that the issue of abortion is irrelevant to the political process. Roe vs. Wade has stood for 36 years, it will not be struck down anytime soon.
8 September 2008
at 12:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…
“The individual claims that all they want is for the procedure to remain legal. However, when I then query them whether or not they favor killing unborn children they become strangely silent”
–––––––-
They become silent because by asking such an inflammatory question proves how little respect you have for another's point of view—to accuse them of favoring the termination of unborn children because they disagree with you on an issue is asinine.
You turn it from a discussion to a flame war.
==================================
“You can use all the euphamisms you want”
–––––––
Um, calling the support for abortion remaining a legal procedure “pro-baby killing” isn't exactly a truthful representation of the facts either, genius.
====================================
“Now, should a woman be forced to continue a pregnancy that is the result of a rape or incest? No, that should not be required.”
–––––—
Okay, so….using your own logic, it's okay to murder babies in the case of rape?
If abortion is really akin to “baby murder”, then one would think that it should be forbidden in all instances.
You see, that's part of the problem with using unyielding, inflammatory rhetoric—you are forced to overlook the delicacy of the situation because of the blunt clumsiness of your words.
If abortion is really murder, then we shouldn't be condoning it for something as comparatively insignificant as rape, should we?
8 September 2008
at 12:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
supertrampofkansas (Anonymous) says:
“Again, I will submit to you that the issue of abortion is irrelevant to the political process. Roe vs. Wade has stood for 36 years, it will not be struck down anytime soon.”
____________________________________________________
Despite the fact that one church after another, one Evangelical activist after another, one domestic terrorist after another, one elected official after another… has attempted to shut the system down.
Attorneys general from most every state, Congressional representatives, senators, assassins, bombers, foaming-at-the-mouth AM radio hate-spewers of every shade & stripe… they've all tried to legislate, rather than educate. They all think they have the “cure,” but ol' Ben was right: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Rather than outlawing abortion, how about reducing the number of unwanted
Oh screw it, I've said it plenty of times… why bother?
8 September 2008
at 12:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
supertrampofkansas (Anonymous) says…
Brent,
Your whole argument about the tax cut on on the lower income tax brackets is incorrect. As noted above, your point has been refuted. Your complaint should start at the $250,000 income level. Please tell us how much eliminating the tax cuts will hurt the $250,000 or higher income indiviuals or families
I believe the word is NEXT!
8 September 2008
at 12:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
lsense (Anonymous) says…
After reading all of these comments, it's not hard to see why Bush was elected *twice*. It's really quite sad that so many of the unintelligent population, that allowed this to happen, lives right here in Lawrence.
8 September 2008
at 1:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
blessed3x (Anonymous) says…
“supertrampofkansas (Anonymous) says:
Brent,
Your whole argument about the tax cut on on the lower income tax brackets is incorrect. As noted above, your point has been refuted. Your complaint should start at the $250,000 income level. Please tell us how much eliminating the tax cuts will hurt the $250,000 or higher income indiviuals or families
I believe the word is NEXT!”
I believe the stat I heard the other day was something approaching 80% of all small businesses file their business taxes through their personal income taxes. Can someone confirm or deny this? If this is the case, this seems incredibly damaging to small businesses, most of which probably make over $250,000.
8 September 2008
at 1:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
supertrampofkansas (Anonymous) says…
Hi Blessed3X,
I have read several conflicting opinions about the tax on small businesses. I see that you are not sure about the 250,000 dollars amount because you say “probably”. Do you have any sources to back this up?
Another paragraph from the same article above suggests that McCain's plan could potentially hurt business interests(doesn't say small or large). (see below)
“Economists say there are things to like in both programs. They generally favor reductions in top rates as a way to spur new investment and job creation, so on that point McCain's program gets good marks. However, there are worries that the higher deficits that are expected because of the tax cuts could drive up interest rates, raising the cost of money for businesses and result in less investment, not more” - from the link
I also recently read this article from CNN about taxes on small businesses which also calls into question whether most small businesses are even at the 250,000 dollar level. The article also goes on to say that neither McCain nor Obama “loves” small businesses that much.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/03/small…
8 September 2008
at 2:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Trobs (Anonymous) says…
Small businesses don't have nearly as much money to give to their campaigns!
8 September 2008
at 2:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
blessed3x (Anonymous) says…
supertrampofkansas,
Without much time to devote to research I did find this:
Small business revenue:
The average annual revenue of a small business is $3.6 million
The average annual revenue of a small business with a website is $5.03 million
Source: IDC, “Web Site Development in U.S. Small Businesses” 2004
From this site:
http://www.smbtn.com/smallbusinessfacts/
Logic would lead one to at least infer that “most” of the small businesses have at least the 250k/yr revenue that would fall under the “rich” catagory as put forth my Mr. Obama.
8 September 2008
at 2:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
Allow me to confuse, confound and obfuscate even more…
What, pray tell, is a “small business” in 2008?
Sure, it's the little bakery/coffee shop you stop at every Tuesday morning for a big cappuccino and a cinnamon roll. Or the independent mechanic that replaced your timing belt a few months back.
What about the housewife who, on average, spends 10-15 hours a week knitting little doggie sweaters and selling them on eBay? Does she file her taxes as an “individual” or as “business?”
Just a little random confusion to chew over… :p
—Ag
8 September 2008
at 3:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
supertrampofkansas (Anonymous) says…
Hi Blessed3x,
I am by no means an expert on these matters and I rely on many sources in attempt to form an educated opinion. So bear with me as I muddle through this.
I suspect that your logic is flawed to look at the average annual revenue as proof that most small businesses make over 250,000. Why do I say this. Because small businesses are not defined by how much revunue they generate but by the number of employees they have. So as the link says above, Barack Obama and McCain could be considered to be small business owners since they both have their own products such as books and consulting where they make multiple millions of dollars. These types of businesses will most certainly skew the average. The article does indicate that understanding where the majority of small businesses resides in terms of revenue is not easily accessible or attained.
I did find a website from the government where you might be able to get close to this type of information and that is:
http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/sb_e…
If you wade through this document, you will find that the document suggests probably the best indicator of what the majority of small businesses make is through their tax filings with the IRS. It appears from an IRS table in there that over 78% of the tax filings are for small businesses that have less than 100,000 dollars in business receipts. I think this very clearly indicates that most small business do not generate close to the 250,000 dollars.
Let me know if you find something different Blessed. I always welcome more reading material :-)
8 September 2008
at 3:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
uncleandyt (Anonymous) says…
Take a look at Palin at her Master's Commission cult rally in Wasilla. She is Out There. There are two possibilities. She either believes what she is saying, or she's a huckster taking advantage of the super-faithful. Either way, she's not taking questions. Vote McCain? God, no
8 September 2008
at 4:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
marcdeveraux (Anonymous) says…
Invictus makes fun of michelle obamas dress.What about the $300,000.00,yes that is three hundred thousand dollar out fit that cindy mcain wore?Can you say elitist? Anyone who call the obamas elitist is insane.Mccain does not even pay his own bills,cindy does the math,and the mcbush people think mcain can balance the national budget!What a hoot.Palin took millions for the bridge to nowhere and when the public outcry made it unpopular, did palin return the $250.000.000 .00 dollars? Noooo, she spent it elsewhere.Yes that was two hundred and fifty million dollars.Cindy mcain writes checks for a quarter of a million dollars for her household help each year.How much do you spend on house hold help invictus?
8 September 2008
at 7:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bkgarner (Brent Garner) says…
It was earlier demanded of me that I compile the tax burden of those earning $250,000. That I have done and compared it to the other examples I previously posted.
I have also compared the effective tax rates and the amount that each groups tax burden was reduced. It can be argued that the 250K group got the largest rate reduction in this example, but they have, with one exception, the smallest reduced tax burden percentage wise.
30,000-30,050 Effective tax rate
Single Married Single Married
2000 $4995 $4504 16.7% 15%
2001 $4876 $4504 16.3% 15%
2007 $4113 $3721 13.7% 12.4%
Change in tax rates 2000 vs 2007 3% 2.6%
Tax burden reduced 2000 vs 2007 17.7% 17.4%
40,000-40,050 Effective tax rate
Single Married Single Married
2000 $7795 $6004 19.5% 15%
2001 $7626 $6004 19.1% 15%
2007 $6430 $5221 16.1% 13.1%
Change in tax rates 2000 vs 2007 3.4% 2.9%
Tax burden reduced 2000 vs 2007 17.5% 13%
50,000-50,050 Effective tax rate
Single Married Single Married
2000 $10595 $8307 21.1% 16.6%
2001 $10376 $8107 20.8% 16.2%
2007 $8930 $6721 17.9% 13.4%
Change in tax rates 2000 vs 2007 3.2% 3.2%
Tax burden reduced 2000 vs 2007 15.7% 19.1%
250,000 Effective tax rate
Single Married Single Married
2000 $78051 $73048.50 33.1% 29.2%
2001 $76564.75 $71497.50 30.1% 28.6%
2007 $68568.25 $61700 27.4% 24.7%
Change in tax rates 2000 vs 2007 5.7% 4.5%
Tax burden reduced 2000 vs 2007 12.1% 15.5%
However, this may all be moot. After Obama this weekend said that now, during a recession, might not be the right time to let the tax cuts expire. Why might that be? Could it be that perhaps the loss of that money in the economy would shrink the economy faster and cause more job loses? If that is so, why would it then be good to do it when the economy is growing?
My apologies as to how this appears. I cannot seem to find a format that this JW site doesn't skew.
8 September 2008
at 8:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink