I hope the Dem's don't read this

[Ronkh]

I hope the Dems dont read this, or they may get ideas.....


Swedish MPs want men taxed

Mon Oct 4,12:59 PM ET


STOCKHOLM (Reuters) - A group of Swedish parliamentarians has proposed levying a "man tax" to cover the social cost of violence against women.



"It must be obvious to all of us that society has a huge problem with male violence against women and that has a cost," Left Party deputy Gudrun Schyman told Swedish radio on Monday.


"We must have a discussion where men understand they as a group have a responsibility," said Schyman, one of the party members to sign the motion for debate on the new tax.


Sweden already has the highest taxes in the European Union (news - web sites) as a percentage of gross domestic product to pay for its famous but hard-pushed cradle-to-grave welfare program.


It is also one of the world's most advanced nations in terms of gender equality, but Schyman said in a headline-hitting 2002 speech that discrimination in Sweden followed "the same pattern" as in Afghanistan (news - web sites) under the Taliban.

[Banzai]

Wouldn't happen under Bush! Under Democrats, anything goes when it comes to raising your taxes...booooooooo

[SL10]

Wouldn't happen under Bush! Under Democrats, anything goes when it comes to raising your taxes...booooooooo
Yeah, cut taxes for the rich and put the USA into bankrupcy! Great concept! :-\ Yeah, BUSHY! LOL! I doubt the democrats would even propose anything like this?

[theCvgUnit]

Its funny how people talk about Dems raising taxes. Bush did a pretty bang up job with money for his war!

[tuolumne]

Yeah, cut taxes for the rich and put the USA into bankrupcy! Great concept! :-\ Yeah, BUSHY! LOL! I doubt the democrats would even propose anything like this?

Isn't it a wonderful plan...! Here's another idea...! Support company's that send job's overseas!!! Great plan Bush!!! :eyeroll:

[Ronkh]

Isn't it a wonderful plan...! Here's another idea...! Support company's that send job's overseas!!! Great plan Bush!!! :eyeroll:


go buy heinz ketchup. relish, mustard

read the lable

72 factories, of which 58 are not in us......

ruh roh.....

oh yeah, just like the suv's....

[tuolumne]

go buy heinz ketchup. relish, mustard

read the lable

72 factories, of which 58 are not in us......

ruh roh.....

oh yeah, just like the suv's....


That is beond their control, and you know that. Theresa is no longer in any control of Heinz. And the SUV's...? Last time I checked, Chevy's were made here in the US... Am I wrong?

[Ronkh]

Chevy's were made here in the US... Am I wrong?


Not most of em..........

Not most of em

[Ronkh]

That is beond their control, and you know that. Theresa is no longer in any control of Heinz. And the SUV's...? Last time I checked, Chevy's were made here in the US... Am I wrong?


And the SUV thing was one day he was saying how everybody should have econo boxes, then a news show showed the heinz/kerry clan in suvs, then he said they were his, when reminded about his comment, they werent really his, but his families...........

"they call him flipper, flipper faster than.........."

[tuolumne]

And the SUV thing was one day he was saying how everybody should have econo boxes, then a news show showed the heinz/kerry clan in suvs, then he said they were his, when reminded about his comment, they werent really his, but his families...........

"they call him flipper, flipper faster than.........."

If you want to base the whole entire election on a lousy Chevy SUV go ahead...It shows where your real priorities are...

Bush likes to talk a lot of nonesense that he doesn't follow through on...

[Ronkh]

If you want to base the whole entire election on a lousy Chevy SUV go ahead...It shows where your real priorities are...
...
Not at all, i just realize you cant handle more than one fact at a time

[tuolumne]

Not at all, i just realize you cant handle more than one fact at a time

Again, some wild nonesense you conjured up... :eyeroll:

[huntm856]

go buy heinz ketchup. relish, mustard

read the lable

72 factories, of which 58 are not in us......

ruh roh.....

oh yeah, just like the suv's....

What does this have to do with his point? Distract, deflect....

The fact is that at least Kerry has proposed POLICY changes intended to shift the tax incentives towards keeping jobs in this country rather than continuing to incentivize their outsourcing. What has Mr. Bush had to say on this matter? Nothing that I've heard.

[huntm856]

Wouldn't happen under Bush! Under Democrats, anything goes when it comes to raising your taxes...booooooooo

Taxes have to come from somewhere, or else we end up in the horrible situation we are in now, with near half-trillion dollar (!) deficits and no end in sight. I might agree with you if Mr. Bush had a plan to cut spending in alignment with his tax cuts to restore fiscal sanity, but the fact is that discretionary spending has gone up FASTER during the last four years with the congress completely controlled by Republicans, than at any time during the two Clinton administrations. So if the Democrats are the Tax-and-Spend party, it is clear that the Republicans are Lower-taxes-and-continue-to-spend party. They are the Deadbeat party. That is irrefutable from an objective look at the numbers.

[Ted]

Taxes have to come from somewhere, or else we end up in the horrible situation we are in now, with near half-trillion dollar (!) deficits and no end in sight. I might agree with you if Mr. Bush had a plan to cut spending in alignment with his tax cuts to restore fiscal sanity, but the fact is that discretionary spending has gone up FASTER under the last four years, during which the congress was completely controlled by Republicans, than at any time during the two Clinton administrations. So if the Democrats are the Tax-and-Spend party, it is clear that the Republicans are Lower-taxes-and-continue-to-spend party. They are the Deadbeat party. That is irrefutable from an objective look at the numbers.

yeah, don't tax and spend anyway is worse than tax and spend.

what ^ said.

[Banzai]

Where spending money on a little thing called the war on terror and if you don't get it by now you should pickup any news paper and read it. Fact is the American people are prospering under G.W.B. despite what you may hear on the major 3 networks. There is a huge increase in real per capita after taxes, up $1000 in 2003 over 196. Stock ownership is up to 49.5% compared to 41% in 1995. Home ownership is at a all time high at 68.6% compared to 65.1% in '96. The Number of participating individuals in foodstamp programs are down to 23.8 million compared to 25.9 million in '96. The Percent of new one family homes with more than 2,000 square feet of floor-area is up to 57% compared to 48% in '96. The Average monthly payroll growth is up to 238,000 compared to 233,000 in '96. The Number of manufacturing jobs created is way up at 91,000 for Jan-May (first quarter 04) compared to 15,000 at the same time in '96. The Rate of bankruptcy filings is extremely low at 2.8% compared to 17.9% in '96...Clintons failed economic policy created a very disruptive recession leading up to 2000, and, without the Bush tax cuts you would have had to suffer major loss in all the areas sited and we would still be in a recession. Most informed people could tell you less taxes and more money in Americans pockets is what saved this country from the Clinton regim.

[Ted]

Banzai, interesting group of statistics. Although you can use statistics to show anything depending on the context of those statistics... as for the Clinton Regime I hated Clinton for his personal ethics but I liked his policies and I feel that he was an effective leader. Clinton understood the meaning of the word diplomacy, and the fact that you have to be an effective communicator to conduct diplomacy.

[Banzai]

Banzai, interesting group of statistics. Although you can use statistics to show anything depending on the context of those statistics... as for the Clinton Regime I hated Clinton for his personal ethics but I liked his policies and I feel that he was an effective leader. Clinton understood the meaning of the word diplomacy, and the fact that you have to be an effective communicator to conduct diplomacy.

Clinton was great at PR, one of the best. His economical policy real set us up for failure after his 2nd term though. I encourage you to fact check the stats ^.

[zaphod]

Clinton was great at PR, one of the best. His economical policy real set us up for failure after his 2nd term though. I encourage you to fact check the stats ^.There are three kinds of lies: lies, **** lies, and statistics. - Mark Twain

EDITED for family friendliness

[Ted]

ahh mark twain. one my father oft quoted. here's another twain quote "quitting smoking is easy, i do it all the time"

[Banzai]

I should also add it wasn't just Clinton that ran the economy into the ground, the "Internet Bust" of the 90's rocked this country hard...

[Ted]

clinton didn't do anything to the economy, investors did, by paying far,far greater values for stocks than they were worth, a bubble like that has to bust at some point. the market will always correct itself at some point or another to keep things in the same ballpark as real economic growth and GDP.

[huntm856]

Where spending money on a little thing called the war on terror and if you don't get it by now you should pickup any news paper and read it. Fact is the American people are prospering under G.W.B. despite what you may hear on the major 3 networks. There is a huge increase in real per capita after taxes, up $1000 in 2003 over 196. Stock ownership is up to 49.5% compared to 41% in 1995. Home ownership is at a all time high at 68.6% compared to 65.1% in '96. The Number of participating individuals in foodstamp programs are down to 23.8 million compared to 25.9 million in '96. The Percent of new one family homes with more than 2,000 square feet of floor-area is up to 57% compared to 48% in '96. The Average monthly payroll growth is up to 238,000 compared to 233,000 in '96. The Number of manufacturing jobs created is way up at 91,000 for Jan-May (first quarter 04) compared to 15,000 at the same time in '96. The Rate of bankruptcy filings is extremely low at 2.8% compared to 17.9% in '96...Clintons failed economic policy created a very disruptive recession leading up to 2000, and, without the Bush tax cuts you would have had to suffer major loss in all the areas sited and we would still be in a recession. Most informed people could tell you less taxes and more money in Americans pockets is what saved this country from the Clinton regim.

You cite statistics that are favorable to your argument, and ignore some that are not favorable to your argument. Such as considerable net loss of mfg. jobs under Bush (admittedly an acceleration of a trend begun under Clinton) and total net loss of payroll under Bush (though there has been recovery in payrolls during 04). Such as the fact that the new jobs *do* tend to be lower paying and to be poorer in benefits. Such as the fact that poverty numbers are UP, pointing to a increasing distortion in the income curve (upper incomes seeing most of the gains while lower incomes stagnating or going backward).

As to your per capita income figures, I found this:
______________
Personal Income Shows Wages Down Under Bush --

Wages:

Under Clinton: (plus 3.3 percent)

Under Bush: (minus 0.6 percent)

Private Industry Wages:

Under Clinton: (plus 3.9 percent)

Under Bush: (minus 1.1 percent)

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, inflation-adjusted annual rates, per capita

---

Personal Income Grew More Quickly Under Clinton Than Under Bush -

Personal Income:

Under Clinton: (plus 4.0 percent)

Under Bush: (plus 3.5 percent)

Disposable Personal Income:

Under Clinton: (plus 3.5 percent)

Under Bush: (plus 2.7 percent)

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, inflation-adjusted annual rates

---

Personal Income Growth Was Better In 1996 Than 2004 -

Personal Income:

July 1995 to July 1996: (plus 3.9 percent)

July 2003 to July 2004: (plus 2.5 percent)

Disposal Personal Income:

July 1995 to July 1996 (plus 3.1 percent)

July 2003 to July 2004: (plus 1.8 percent)

(Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, inflation-adjusted annual rates)

---

Personal Income Statistics Overstate the Typical Family's Income - Especially When Inequality is Growing and Health Costs Are Rising

Personal income measures the average family, not the typical family. Personal income statistics measure the average family. If just one person gets much richer, the statistic will show that everyone's average income goes up. This is especially problematic under President Bush because Census data show that higher quintiles have done better than lower quintiles in recent years. Thus personal income under Bush will overstate the typical family's income growth.

Disposable personal income is distorted by the Bush tax cuts which disproportionately benefit the wealthy. Giving large tax cuts to the wealthy drives up the measure of disposable personal income for everybody. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Bush tax cuts boosted the after-tax income of families in the top 1 percent (with an average income of $1.2 million) by 10.1 percent. In contrast, middle class families (with an average income of $57,000) only saw a 2.3 percent increase in their incomes.

Personal income statistics count higher health costs as higher income. Health premiums have gone up more than $2,600 since 2000. The personal income statistics include the cost of health benefits. If your employer pays more for your health insurance, that counts as higher income for you.
_________

That is admittedly from a Kerry/Bush press release (http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=35390 (http://) ) but the numbers are BLS numbers. And the argument as to why disposable (net) income figures are distorting seems to me to be a sound one.

[Ted]

again, statistics can show ANYTHING for either side as long as you quote the right ones and ignore the ones that don't illustrate your point. how about the good old power of observation... pay attention class... these are rhetorical questions

1. to quote Reagan "are you better off than you were four years ago?"

2. do i agree with this administrations policies?

3. is the state of the country (and the world) going in the direction i want it to go?

If you answer yes to those three questions, vote for Bush. If no, vote for Kerry. It's pretty simple folks. Use your OWN judgement, not the one handed to you by the media. Judge the candidates by their character... which do you feel to be, in YOUR judgement, the best in character and the qualities you want in your president!

Statistics, soundbytes, and quotes don't mean anything, except who is best at making up lines. Take in ALL the information, and come to a conclusion.

Class dismissed. And this is not a call to end political debates, but rather some common sense information that everyone should know.

[onickjo]

If you answer yes to those three questions, vote for Bush. If no, vote for Kerry. It's pretty simple folks. Use your OWN judgement, not the one handed to you by the media. Judge the candidates by their character... which do you feel to be, in YOUR judgement, the best in character and the qualities you want in your president!


I do not like your logic here. I might not totally agree with Bush on his past 4 years. I might not be 100% better off today than four years ago (although I am), and the state of the country might not be going in the direction I want it. But I am still voting Bush.

I am voting for a President for the next 4 years, not the previous. I might not like everything that Bush has done but I still think he is the better of 2 evils and can do a much better job than Kerry can.

[huntm856]

I do not like your logic here. I might not totally agree with Bush on his past 4 years. I might not be 100% better off today than four years ago (although I am), and the state of the country might not be going in the direction I want it. But I am still voting Bush.

I am voting for a President for the next 4 years, not the previous. I might not like everything that Bush has done but I still think he is the better of 2 evils and can do a much better job than Kerry can.

I agree with you insofar as my enthusiasm for either of these candidates is underwhelming at best. However, your statement that 'Bush can do a much better job than Kerry can....'

So far as I can see, Bush's handling of national security post 9/11 has been little short of catastrophic. The entire Iraq war was clearly now nothing more than a distraction and fulfillment of ideological imperatives from within his administration which had little or nothing to do with the facts on the ground.

He's completely taken his eye off of N. Korea and Iran, has completely squandered post 9/11 sympathy for the U.S. in the Middle Eastern/Islamic countries by his handling of Iraq, and has been largely disengaged from the Israeli/Palestinian situation as well, which is something we *must* fix if we are ever going to do anything about anti-American sentiments in that part of the world which feed terrorism.

Moreover, his movements in environmental policy have been positively frightening (beginning with his immediate post-election flip-flop on Kyoto), his cynical use of social-policy wedge issues has been extremely damaging to the nation's cohesiveness, and he has shown little interest in addressing the health care situation, which is in my view the #1 issue affecting the long-term prospects of the American economy and standard of living.

From my perspective, your statement about Bush being able to do a much better job than Kerry can be nothing other than wishful thinking, because I fail to see how anyone could do any worse in so many areas.