All jokes on the liberal board must be approved by the CONS, and everyone's sense of humor MUST mirror their own. Any deviation from this will result in deletion of the jokes (and any accompanying posts).
It's the epitome of true freedom of speech -- Bush style!
BANGKOK (AFP) - Parliamentary candidates in Thailand's upcoming election are trying to buy the votes of elderly men by passing out free Viagra, a local government official said Friday.
Thais head to the polls on December 23 for the first time since the military toppled the elected prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra in a bloodless coup last year.
Residents in Prathumthani, on the northern outskirts of Bangkok, reported some of the candidates were passing out doses of the anti-impotence drug in exchange for promised votes, said Sayan Nopkham, a local government official.
"The villagers told me they have been given one or two pills of Viagra by candidates. Then they come to me to ask for more pills, or sometimes coffee, in exchange for voting for my brother, who is also running for a seat," he told AFP.
Thailand has a long history of vote-buying, but laws banning it have recently been toughened.
Anyone found guilty of buying votes could face up to 10 years in prison while voters who accept money face up to five years in jail.
Charungwit Phumma, an investigator with the Election Commission, said he had received no formal complaints about a Viagra-for-votes scheme.
"It's a funny claim," he said.
Charungwit said the most common complaints filed with his office were voters being paid to join a political party or being promised cash for going to the ballot box.
Sens. Barack Obama & D*ick Durbin Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. Gov. Rod Blogojevich House leader Mike Madigan Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan (daughter of Mike) Mayor Richard M. Daley (son of former Mayor Richard J. Daley).....
Chicago is a combat zone. Of course they're all blaming each other.
Can't blame Republicans; there aren't any!
(Look them up if you want).
State pension fund $44 Billion in debt, worst in country.
Cook Co unty ( Chicago ) sales tax 10.25% highest in country.
Chicago school system, one of the worst in country.
This is the political culture that Obama comes from in Illinois .
It really adds nothing when you insult other posters like this. Why can't you accept an opinion, when everyone here who knows politics, is very aware of things that have happened over the past few months? Just because someone doesn't feel like typing out what has been discussed and debated here for the last few months does not make them less intellectual than you.
I rather admire them for refusing to be baited by your antagonistic style of posting.
"Every time Obama opens his mouth, his subjects and verbs are in agreement. If he keeps it up, he is running the risk of sounding like an elitist."
He has already attracted a rebuke from Sarah Palin.
"Talking with complete sentences there and also, too, talking in a way that ordinary Americans like Joe the Plumber can't really do there, I think needing to do that isn't tapping into what Americans are needing, also."
1. Individual income tax 45% of tax revenues.Included in individual income tax category are capital gains taxes, which make up between 4% and 7% of individual income tax revenues and between 2% and 3% of total tax revenues within this category.
2. Payroll taxes 35% of tax revenues.Social insurance (Social Security). Funds used to pay for Federal old age, survivors, disability insurance, unemployment insurance, temporary assistance to needed families, Medicare/Medicaid, State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI).Employee's share of this is 17.5%.
3. Corporate Income Tax 15% of total tax revenues.
4. Excise Tax 3% of total tax revenues. Essentially a consumer tax on alcohol, cigarettes and gas.
5. "Other" 2%
So, individuals' share of total tax revenues amounts to approximately 65.5%, employers 17.5% and corporations 15% plus the mysterious "other" of 2%. If you go to the above link and scroll down about halfway, you will find a nifty little chart that shows how much the share corporations paid into total tax revenues has diminshed since 1950. For example, an early 50s spike on the graph show corporations' share to be approximately 30+%...TWICE AS MUCH AS IT IS NOW.
"…tax compliance costs employers with less than 20 employees a total of $1304 per employee as compared to employers with 500 or more employees which incur $780 per employee to comply with Federal taxes.Small entities pay 40% more for tax compliance than employers with 500 or more employees.
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities – How Robust was 2001-2007 Economic Expansion? Figures 1 and 2 will indicate the following information: Based on the 7 economic indicators, Bush years turned in below average growth percentages in every single indicator except for one….CORPORATE PROFITS. The biggest losers….employment (JOBS) and wages and salaries (PAYCHECKS). To make this dry economic data a little bit spicier, 2 comparisons have been shown…Bush years against Post WWII averages and Bush years as compared to the 90s decade. I have run averages on the trough and peak growth comparison data depicted in Figure 2 to come up with the following overall percentages. Pay special attention to the last 3 items.
1. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) down 31% from Post WWII average and down 12.85% from the 90s
2. Consumption down 23.45% from Post WWII average and down 6.25% from the 90s
3. Non-residential fixed investment down 40% from Post WWII average and down 58% from the 90s
4. Net worth down 16.25% from Post WWII average and down 20.1% from the 90s
5. Wages and salaries (PAYCHECKS) down a whopping 55.6% from Post WWII average and down an impressive 40.55% from the 90s
6. Employment (JOBS) down an amazing 68.65% from Post WWII average and down an impressive 46.65% from the 90s
7. Corporate profits up 200% above post WWII average and up 126% from the 90s.
From where I sit, there is clearly something wrong with this picture. I will be voting for the candidate who shares this view and plans to restore a more balanced, equitable and FAIR distribution of wealth. This is not about shifting bucks from one person to another. This is about corporations whose butts are being bailed out right and left by us Joe Shmoes shouldering more fiscal responsibility toward their shareholders AND toward John Q. Public.
By Phil Kerpen
Director of Policy, Americans for Prosperity
The composition of the tax hikes in the 2010 budget is frighteningly similar to the Revenue Act of 1932, the much-maligned Hoover tax hikes that put the “Great” in Great Depression by putting an enormous tax burden on millions of Americans, largely through excise taxes. These taxes, raised even further by FDR, were justified by the promise that the funds would be returned in the form of relief programs, which is to say that some portion of the tax revenue, after administrative costs in Washington, would go back to the states with strings attached, often to further political rather than economic objectives.
As the table below shows, the Obama budget blueprint, like the 1932 act, is split mainly between broad excise taxes and income tax hikes on high income earners. Unfortunately, there were no 10-years projections back then, so I had to use one year numbers, but it’s still an interesting comparison.
The 2010 budget assumes, probably correctly, that the only way to generate a big revenue increase in the face of severe economic weakness is to use a tax mechanism–the excise tax–that is collected in relatively small increments across millions of transactions made by Americans of all income levels. That is a direct lesson of 1932, when the income tax on the rich–then the only people who paid income taxes–was raised to capture as much revenue as possible before high-income earners fled the country or stopped working. Then, as now, that amount was about 0.3 percent of GDP.
Excise taxes did most of the revenue work in the 1932 act, including excises on everything from trucks, tires, jewelry, chewing gum, and soft drinks to gasoline and electricity. Those last two are especially interesting in light of the carbon cap-and-trade proposal in the 2010 budget, which is a DE facto excise tax on those items as well as every other energy technology that relies on the most affordable energy sources: natural gas, oil, and coal.
Despite President Obama’s promise that “If your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increase a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime,” his new budget raises 45 percent of its revenue from energy taxes that will be paid by everyone who fills a gas tank, pays an electric bill, or buys anything that was grown, shipped, or manufactured.
While the overall tax hike is smaller than 1932 (0.9 percent of GDP versus 1.6 percent of GDP) and the excise/energy component is only half the size (0.4 percent of GDP versus 0.8 percent of GDP) there is every reason to believe that the bite of the cap-and-trade tax will increase considerably beyond the initial projections, making this plan even more resemble 1932.
The cap-and-trade provisions are designed to get much, much more expensive over time, making the total impact hard to quantify but likely to be as or more expensive than the 1932 Revenue Act. In fact, Obama’s version of cap-and-trade is much more expensive than last year’s already outrageous Lieberman-Warner bill, mandating emissions cuts of 83 percent versus 63 percent in last year’s version.
I didn’t include the death tax in the chart, because there was no revenue estimate for it in 1932, but that’s another eerie parallel. In 1932 the rate was hiked from 20 percent to 45 percent, and in 2010, under Obama’s proposal (which is hidden in a footnote in the budget) it will go from zero under current law to that same 45 percent rate.
If we continue down a path of repeating the policies of the 1930s we risk a repeat of the same results. Let’s hope Congress has the good sense to say no to these Hoover-style tax hikes.
marks the location of current message within thread
