Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Congress Poised To Vote On Internet Tax Ban
jangobongo writes "'After more than a year of leaving the threat of new state- and city-levied taxes looming over Internet access providers and online merchants, Congress is poised to reimpose a moratorium on taxing Internet access,' according to eWeek. The House had approved a permanent moratorium while the Senate had approved a temporary ban. Members of the House are pushing to compromise and to vote today on the Senate's approach. President Bush is expected to sign the legislation when it is passed."
$1 a junk Email ... or a day in prison ...
Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
I hope the ban passes. Americans are badly overtaxed as it is. As more and more of the economy shifts to the Internet, keeping Washington's greedy mitts out of it will mean a defacto tax cut for everyone.
(If you doubt that we are overtaxed, look at the money wasted on paying millionaires like Ted Kennedy a Congressional salary, no-bid Halliburton contracts, fish atlases, and pork barrel projects so multi-millionaire moguls don't have to pay to build their own stadiums).
If they tax the internet the real geeks can go back to fido/bbs and we can let the useless languish in commercialised hell.
Beep beep.
it was obvious, think about it and the possiblility of the US taxing me in Australia is pretty remote - unless they get the RIAA to track me down.
President ISES
(International Society for Elimination of Sigs)
"Congress is poised to reimpose a moratorium on taxing Internet access" Internet Access... not all internet purchases... i.e. your bill from your ISP will be a bit lower, unless you use AOHell :)
Secondly, if they start taxing something like bandwith or emails, that works for me too. I already pay for my internet connection, and would not mind paying a penny an email. Anything to get the spammers out of buisness.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
Once again a slashdot reader that failes to read the summary much less the FA. This is a bill to STOP taxs on the internet. Does that fit into your world view?
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
good things Congress has done this week: 1
bad things Congress has done this week: a lot more
That's better than most weeks...
Get over this stupid idea that the Internet is some other-worldly, unparalleled phenomemon. It isn't. It's an evolutionary step in human communication, not alien technology, and it can be taxed just like everything else in history has been taxed.
Taxing communications is like taxing air. We all need to communicate with others the same way we all need to breath. Why not just tax people on the streets for talking to each other?
GE/S/P a- e++ y-- r-- s:++ d+ h! X+++ t++ C+ P+ L++ E W++ w M-- V? PS+ P+
I *so* hope this bill passes! Keeping Internet access tax-free will aid poor people in getting online by keeping the price of access limited to market rates.
Adding a tax on top of that price would only drive out people who would otherwise get online.
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
How about utilizing the billions upon billions (trillions?) of annual tax dollars and eliminating the bullshit and spend it wisely. Oh yeah, because nobody can agree on what's a wise tax.
Consider: "The right to regulate the internet"
Read the Constitution of the United States of America. Is there any mention of the internet in that document? No? Let's have a look at Amendment 10:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Okay. So the "right to regulate the internet" is not under the authority of the Feds because it's reserved to the States or the People.
"What of interstate commerce?", say the trolls.
Let me point you to Amendment 9
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The "right to regulate the internet" has already been established as retained by the States or the people and, therefore, the interpretation of "interstate commerce" can not be enumerated to include it. It is forbidden to expand the meaning of interstate commerce to include anything not specifically defined in the Constitution.
Don't like it because the politicians haven't checked the 9th or 10th since the early 1800s? These are the knobs you vote for--don't cry to me. Don't like it because 95% of what the Feds do is disqualified by this assessment? Maybe you should move to a communist nation so that you can be happy using the feds to siphon everyone else's cash to assuage your penile deficiency.
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
So many posts here seem to assume this article is about taxing purchases made over the internet. That is not the case. This is a ban on taxing ACCESS (i.e, a tax on your DSL/cable/dialup services).
RTFA, people.
Hunt your preferred prey at Aliens vs Predator MUD. Join the war at avpmud.com port 4000
I think he was inplying that Ted Kennedy is a worthless sack and his salary is a waste of everyone's money.
I'm actually in favor of the idea that congressmen should be paid by the people of the state they represent. Who is it they represent anyway? Do they really represent the people of Massachusetts for example, if their paycheck comes from the United States Treasury?
My other first post is car post.
Now, if they'd only kill off those copyright/anti-privacy bills, I might develop some flicker of respect for the bastards.
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
President Bush is expected to sign the legislation when it is passed.
Of course he will. He has yet to veto a single bill as President. It's easy to not have to, when your party controls both houses of Congress and is on the edge of a long-term conservative majority in the Supreme Court.
RW
Yeah, but don't let facts get in the way of a good rage-on for class warfare! Stick it to the man! Authorize me the power to beat the rich Jewish, sorry, generic businessman's head, and I'll make your life better. I promise! :rollseyes
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
No, there is nothing international about this. This is talking about banning tax on internet ACCESS. For Americans, this access is done in the US, so there's nothing stopping the US government from taxing it unless legislation like this passes.
The bill is not on Sales tax on internet purchases but rather the access tax. I think if that revenue is used to increase broadband access all over the country, it would be a great idea. I mean, gas is taxed to pay for the roads. The same should work with internet.
In Soviet Russia, articles before post read *you*!
Hey, how'd you know about my little problem?
Regarding Amendment X: The power to regulate interstate commerce is given to the Federal government.
Regarding Amendment IX: The right to regulate the Internet has not been established as retained by the states or "the people." In fact, the Internet was created by the United States government, so from its birth it has been under Federal mandate.
As for politicians not checking the 9th or 10th since the early 1800s, there's far more to the equation than that, as I'm sure you're aware. Interpretation of the Constitution by politicians (and more importantly by the Supreme Court) is dependent in large part on the will of the people. People wanted a strong Federal government, and they got one. We may not want such a strong Federal government now, but that does not mean that its current size and scope are in violation of the Constitution.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Or he's just not a dumbass like Clinton who cries when Congress disagrees with him and vetos everything..
thousands of websites move away from network solutions DNS service and american hosting to european-based servers/DNS. This will only serve to lower our competitiveness in the global market place.
meh
Don't believe it.
Hands off, you greedy bastards.
You're not going to tax me and use it to fund your wars and invasions and occupations that all your blood thirsty chicken hawks are hell bent on starting and waging.
This is nothing less than taxation without representation.
Just remember, the American Revolution was started over taxation without representation and they weren't anywhere near as burdened as we are now.
Hell, we would have been better off to let the Britts keep America because the current system is bleeding the people to death to fund the bleeding to death of OTHER PEOPLE!!!!!!
Oh yeah, what about all the THEFT that goes on through the phone company? Eh??
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/charges.html
They know that they are not allowed to levy taxes on internet service providers. It is the states, counties, and cities, however that want to tax consumers of internet services in the same way they currently tax telephone services. They are currently prohibited from doing so by the federal government, but that might change.
My other first post is car post.
...this is about the federal government preventing the states from levying taxes on internet access. States currently tax telephone services, and some states would also like to tax internet services. The federal government currently forbids this, however they might stop forbidding it.
This does not mean that the federal government would tax internet services. That may or may not be within their power. That is a different constitutional argument though.
This does not mean that your state would charge taxes on internet services. It would still be up to your state legislature and governor to decide on such a tax, approve it, and implement it.
My other first post is car post.
These new-wave republicans have the penchant for spending as their democratic predecessors. Highway Bill has gone nowhere and is now on a renewal at the old funding rate.
The American flag is there because the entire Politics section was put in place to give us somewhere to talk about the recent Election.
I owuld rather have a politics section with an American flag than no politics section at all.
liqbase
That sure looks like a tax on access to me.
I would be all for paying them ten times their current salaries if they would just do their job and then go home. These freaks living in D.C. dreaming up stupid ways to waste money irritates me. I think they should ban all air conditioners and heaters from the District.
Speaking of getting paid: How about a job with Google?
Click here or here.
Are they stopping a tax on internet access all over or are they merely stopping local governments from doing so in order to keep the all the action available only on the federal level?
Frankly, I'm not sure how I feel about taxing internet access. Most poor people I know don't even have computers, let alone internet access. I hesitate to say it, but everyone I know that uses the internet with any regularity (not counting those who go to the public library to do so) can afford a reasonable tax. I'd like to stress reasonable... the article mentions some cities have been planning a 15%(!!) internet access tax. So, what is the thought behind not taxing it? (Other than the idea that taxes suck in general and who really wants a new one.) It's a luxury, really... most people do very well without it all the time... you pay for it, etc. So, why not? Is there some grand vision of the future where the internet is as commonplace as television? Or would internet access be comparable to something else designated as non-taxable? Or what? Anybody?
I decided to go sig-less and am so excited, I had to tell you about it!
PMs on message boards sound like a good e-mail replacement to me.
Nah, probably not. They'd probably be too tied up in impeachment hearings.
Not that this makes me happy, but let's call it what it is.
you think you're over taxed in american?
:)
try living in england.
once you're finished saying "what the fuck" after your first visit to a petrol statiom, let me know.
As opposed to what the Radcons would use as a picture for politics, which would be a dollar bill sign.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
Why wouldn't it? It seems that it's an issue of states' rights, which is supposed to be the particular forte of the Republican party, after all. This ban, if anything, is limiting the rights of states to tax and/or regulate within their borders.
:-) Also as food for thought, Bill Clinton came out in support of various bans of internet taxation while he was in office.
And, of course, it's worth pointing out that both the permanent moratorium in the House, and the temporary moratorium in the Senate, are bipartisan measures. Indeed, the article in question features a quote from a congressional Democrat support (wait for it...) the permanent ban. Those darned tax'n'spend Democrats, trying to permanently ban a form of taxation....
To my knowledge, there's never been much of a party-line consensus on the subject: in general, representatives from tech-heavy districts support these sorts of bans, because they see it as damaging to their regional economies. Given that many of these tech havens are in major cities, which tend, generally, to swing blue, Democrats have been just as strongly supportive of these moratoriums as any Republican.
Sean Daugherty "I have walked in Eternity -- and Eternity weeps."
That's pretty misleading, too -- everything you've said is common knowledge from a different angle.
Under Bush's tax plan, the rich pay a higher percentage of their income than the non-rich (as well a a higher actual dollar amount, of course).
That's a progressive income tax, a pretty universal feature of modern income tax. The question is, does the Bush plan tilt it MORE toward or away from the rich than previous plans? (draw some graphs, it's fun). As far as I know, he taxes them less. Is this good? Debatable.
The Bush tax cut policy was really aimed at the middle class: most of those who had their taxes reduced are middle class.
Of course; there are more members of the middle class, so more of them had their taxes reduced. This is trivial.
I don't know much about economics and I honestly don't know what the best system is. But I try to stay clear on how things are now and what the options for change are.
xkcd.com - a webcomic of mathematics, love, and language.
Err, no, you got confused. The word is "libertarian". Instead of a US Flag it should have a picture of a disheveled guy smoking pot, carrying a gun and giving us all the finger. Or at least "Don't Tread on Me"
There are many problems with Bush, but that's not one of them. Presumably, if Congress passes a law it reflects the will of the People, so if the President vetos it he'd better have a damn good reason for doing so!
Besides, since not vetoing the law is good in this case, criticizing him for it is misplaced -- save it for when he actually screws up!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Well, you see, merely teaching somebody how to commit a crime is not a crime. Talking about how to commit a crime is not a crime. Nothing except actually committing the crime is a crime (QED)!
If it were otherwise, the Grand Theft Auto games would be illegal.
Anyway, the issue is not that "children to do not have any rights," it's that all people do, whether you agree with their morals or not! NAMBLA has rights, NAZIs have rights, Communists have rights, bigots have rights, heck, even Christian Fundamentalists have rights! They even have the right to advocate talking away the rights of the other groups -- they just don't have the right to try to actually accomplish it by force.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I hope they keep a ban on sales taxes. It would make it very difficult for a small shop to do business if they are collecting taxes for every tax agency in the US. They article wasn't totally clear if they are talking about that or not, but sure hope so.
My Weblog
Does anyone have figures for the tax rates in the US before and after Bush's cuts? In Australia, the (progressive) taxes range from 0% for the first $6000 to 47% for every dollar above $60000 (or somewhere around that). What were the American rates before and after the cuts? I have seen lots of people arguing over whether Bush has cut taxes for the rich with very few hard figures.
Don't you hate meta-sigs?
Taken from the Slashdot FAQ:
Q: Slashdot seems to be very U.S.-centric. Do you have any plans to be more international in your scope?
A: Slashdot is U.S.-centric. We readily admit this, and really don't see it as a problem. Slashdot is run by Americans, after all, and the vast majority of our readership is in the U.S. We're certainly not opposed to doing more international stories, but we don't have any formal plans for making that happen. All we can really tell you is that if you're outside the U.S. and you have news,submit it, and if it looks interesting, we'll post it.
That's why.
Congress is poised to reimpose a moratorium on taxing Internet access,
Hmm.. let me get this straight.. now if lawmakers want to put taxes on internet access, they'll have to repeal the law.. and that would be troublesome why? If there were enough congressmen who wanted to tax the internet, how would this law help anything?
When legislators make laws, only legislators will be able to..
What this law really means is that Congress is telling states they can't profit from internet access Congress decides to create a national internet tax.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
He is quoting verbatim from the whois database.
The information in the whois database is entered by the owner of the site - not buy the guy who made the grandparent post.
Have a clue about how the system works before opening your trap and blurting out crap.
food is not taxed. Hot foods are taxed, but that's the labor, not the food you're being taxed on. Because it didn't heat itself, and you have an oven at home (hopefully). Apartments aren't taxes either, although condos are. Because one's a place to sleep, the other is an investment. email should not be taxed, because that's people talking. But borders.com should be, because that's people making money. In every category, there's basics that should not be taxed, and extras that should.
Changa hates change.
Damn fool Red state Nazi Republicans banning taxes on the Internet, how the hell are the Poor going to get their web access...!
oh, wait a second...
I want a Constitutional amendment that says Congress can't give itself pay raises. Instead, I think we the People should get to vote on that, as part of the election process. The framework is already there, ready to be used.
Feel free to grab copies and spread 'em around. Redistribution isn't just allowed, it's highly encouraged!
Self-referential sigs are rarely entertaining.
If you are running a small business at home, you will likely pay at least 30% federal income tax plus whatever the state taxes are - and that's if you're in the "15% middle class" tax bracket. It only gets worse from there.
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
Just as soon as I can get my modem to work over Skype...
-- My Weblog.
That statement is not "exactly" or even remotely correct. Your hostility to the federal government is coloring your interpretation of the facts.
Communism, which btw has never been truly achieved, is based on the concept of collective ownership. No matter how onerous the US federal government's "extraction of resources," private property (physical and intellectual) ownership is at the core of the American system of government.
You berate people for not *understanding* that the Constitution is not a matter open to interpretation, yet you take great liberties with the meaning of the term communism in your effort to paint the US government as a bogeyman.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
The problem with the current crop of Republicans is that instead of tax-and-spend they're borrow-and-spend, which is tax-and-spend plus interest. The government should not try to cut taxes, it should try to cut spending. Given a real long-term surplus, the taxes will take care of themselves.
What fact? OK, do the math. Show your stuff. Don't hold out. And don't assume anyone is left here. Or right. What's with all these assumptions?
Looking for truths here. Not left or right blah blah blahs.
Although, seriously, are you really trying to convince me that Bush is adopting a sort of anti-reagonics strategy?
The Custom Mary
I don't know, it could have something to do with the fact that there's a Republican congress, and he's a Republican president.
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
1. Wasteful government spending.
Some say spending over a half trillion per year on "defense" purposes would qualify. Some say spending hundreds of dollar on comfy chairs would qualify. This subject is very opinionated.
2. The dreaded April 15th, income tax day.
Making criminals out of those who may not be able to afford to pay, or simply mess up. And allowing the evil geniuses to reap the benefits either through loopholes or ways of not reporting it.
Note: Some say a consumption tax (sales tax) would hurt the poor. Consider a consumption tax with rebates to offset the poverty level. No one can 'really' avoid paying a sales tax, unless the business is crooked.
3. In this so called democracy, it's really a republic, where we represent people who are suppose to be our voice. But nothing prevents them from really following that through.
A more democratic system would be nice, where citizens could speak their mind. e-Governments, no salary elected officials for representation when needed, and instant direct voting.
These ammendments are just defining the scope of laws, that we are a legal by default country. Something is legal, until they pass a law making it illegal.
Ammendment 9 is saying that just because the constution has a list of rights here, doesn't mean that people don't have other ones. It's clarifing that this is just a list which can't be revoked through legslation, only ammendment. It's not an exhustive list. They still have the right to do anything else not made illegal.
Ammendment 10 says that in any matter that the constution or the federal government DOESN'T have a law either mandating or prohibiting something, the states can make a law to that effect. It clarifies how supercedence of government works. The states don't have to ask permission to make laws that are in additon to federal and constutional law, they can do it, so long as their laws don't conflict. They can't outlaw free speech, as it conflicts with the constution, but that doesn't mean they can't make any laws.
So, if the federal government has no laws about taxation of the Internet, it's not taxed by default. However the states would be free to implement their own laws placing a tax on it. If, however, the federal government bans taxing it, the states can't, since now there is a law about it, and they'd be contrary to it.
The 9th and 10th ammendments weren't intended to limit what the federal government could pass laws on, just to ensure that they couldn't sweepingly make things illegal, unless they passed a law to specificly make it legal (there are countries that work like that).
I'd just like to add that nobody really takes into account what the rates actually are.
SOMEbody has to reduce taxes on "the rich" otherwise the taxes will asymtotically approach 100%.
So the real question becomes "what were the rates before Bush's tax plan, and are the new rates better or worse overall, and why?".
Most of the people who shout "tax cuts for the rich" don't even know what the old and new rates are, which really eliminates any basis for their argument.
To be honest, I don't know that data either. But what I do know is that the question has nothing to do with whether the rates were raised or cut, it only matters whether we are closer to the optimal rate (the optimal rate is of course a matter of opinion that depends on the individual you ask).
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
If your logic is not flawn, let's impose tax on health and long living. USA would become the healthiest and longest living nation in the world.
They already have that, dipshit, only instead of a retarded ballot initiative that costs about as much as fucking doubling the salaries of everybody in Congress, it's practical. 27th Amendment, No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened. If you don't want them to get paid more then don't vote for them, fuck.
While I am not a fan of taxation in most any form, I don't see why the internet should be protected when everything else is free game to be taxes. The interstate commerce clause of the constitution can kind of be applied to say the states couldn't tax the internet in the first place.
Regardless when it comes to a federal law on this I have to laugh. For some reason the internet is protected while every thing else is taxed. Seems like a waste of a massive revenue source to me. Not to say we need it. If I had my way the government would be scaled back to a quarter of its size and taxes cut accordingly. Of course with the big government republicans in charge (i guess it could be worse and we could have even bigger government democrats in charge) this isn't really an option.
So the protection of the internet is more of a popularity thing. I've always wondered what makes the internet so different the traditional telecoms. I mean if we were taxed on data the same we are on voice I'd hate to see what it would cost to send a gigabyte across the network. Consider every voice converation yields plenty in taxes, and takes far less bandwidth (even when you consider its duration). Of course if taxes were the same for voice and data the internet would cease to exist. I'm pretty sure taxes would be well over 100% if they were set to the same (dsl is ~$40/month and assuming ~10GB of traffic/month. . . and not sure the exact taxing). Eh, its kinda ridiculous.
But I guess the government will continue to do whats popular at the moment and then come crying when they lose all their revenue from the telecoms, or the telecoms simply continue to crumble or drop out of the voice market due to overregulation.
Phil
No.
Slashdot's politics section was launched to deal with the last US presidential election. So the Slashdot section is about American politics only.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
Wrong in almost every respect. Did you even attend economics in school?
The top 50% of income earners pay 98% of ALL TAXES. You can't get a tax cut if you pay no taxes. How about people who earn their money keep more of it? Oh wait,is that a little too 'free' for you?
Cite some examples of this 'gap'. You won't because its a myth. People MOVE around the income brackets. Sphere(?) research did a study of lower 20% income workers in the late 70s, and 80% of them reached the top 20% within 20 years.
It is the height of stupidity to suggest a PROGRESSIVE tax which makes it harder to obtain wealth(it was devised by 2 rich kids, Marx and Engalls) somehow brings people up.
If I already have a million dollars and I want to keep YOU from ever getting a million dollars I would certainly push for a high tax on upper income levels. Then I can get useful idiots like yourself to support them.
OR, you could just take some basic economics and quit with the demogoguery. WEALTH != INCOME.
Under my system, the voters get the chance to say no, directly, to the whole of Congress. Not some bullshit situation where whoever gets elected gets paid more, whether or not the people actually wanted to pay more for that job.
So fuck you, do your homework.
Self-referential sigs are rarely entertaining.
Sure tax decreases seem nice but if the price for it is a gigantic debt then something is wrong.
Basically what the if the US was a person then this would be like saying, No I am not going to work extra hours, in fact in general I will be working less (Bushes 300 dollar tax cut) but I will be spending more (War on terror/drugs/filesharing) and just borrow money to make up the difference.
It sounds nice but the whole thing about borrowing is that at one time or another it got to be paid back.
Now the US is not a person and so it is a bit harder to send the baillifs around to reposses New York. However sooner or later there may be nobody left to borrow from. If america becomes incapable of paying interests on the debt then other countries will just not give out any new loans.
Other countries may not be able to force america to pay of its debts but neither can america force other countries to lend it money. No not even with its powerfull army. Wars cost money and america is out of money.
Once the debt has reached its limit you got a real problem.
The high spending republicans can't raise taxes. The high spending democrats won't get elected because they will have to raise taxes.
Sure a ban on internet tax sounds fun. It also sound amazingly short term to me. The current goverment of america spends to much money. Cutting taxes is exactly the wrong way to counter spending to much. Either spend less or increase the income.
It is basic home economics. Say my income is $800 and I spend $1000. Everyone would suggest I better start earning more or spend less. Republican answer solution? Earn less and spend more. Worrying about tomorrow is for suckers.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
This would never even have to be an issue if the stinking federal government would simple stick to doing what it was created in the constitution to do which is Maintain the military and protect our borders, the federal government was NEVER meant to be what it is today. They are well on they're way to creating a welfare state. Stop all the needless spending on just about EVERYTHING and stay out of my business. Now thats what i would call a Government of, for, and by the PEOPLE.
As I read the article, I understood that it was banning state taxes on the internet, not federal taxes. This would have no effect on the national debt.
Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
God the hate tax cut crowd does not even try to look something up..
I am personally for this. Any new taxes, in my view, are bad taxes. 25% of my wages already disappear in taxes/Social Security. I haven't taken the time to figure out how much I am paying out in sales tax and other taxes. If I took the time I would probably just shoot myself in the face and call it a day. I wouldn't care if they were trying to create a new tax to fund The fact of the matter is the Government already takes too much of my money as it is. They don't need any more. They need to spend what they have responsibly.
Old -> New, High Cutoff (Married) 38.6 -> 35, None 35 -> 33, 311K 30 -> 28, 174K 27 -> 25, 114K 15 -> 15, 56K 10 -> 10, 14K So if you make more than 56K (as a married couple) you taxes went down. If you make less your taxes stayed the same (as a not ususally if you make less than 50K as a married couple you get all of your taxes back at the end of the year.
Is a ban on the TAXERS, not the TAXES. isn't CONgress is the opposite of PROgress?
Umm I cant speak to his IQ but he seems to be more informed than you. While bush did give a cut to people making 1 Million or more he gave a cut to every couple making more than 56 thousand dollars, and ever individule making more than 26 thousand dollars. does 26K = 1 million to you? The only brackets that did not get cut are the two lowest whos members usually get everything back (including FICA). Damn it man there is not tax bracket that starts at a million dollars so how is it that the Bush plan gave a tax cut only to those makign a million or more?
Old -> New, High Cutoff (Married)
38.6 -> 35, None
35 -> 33, 311K
30 -> 28, 174K
27 -> 25, 114K
15 -> 15, 56K
10 -> 10, 14K
WTF is wrong with you!
I think his problem is that he bothered to buy a clue before posting a rant on slashdoat...
When they're through, they'll ban taxes on material goods and income too. A great day! The government wil starve, and we'll finally be all alone to play with the multinational corporations. No more annoying "consumer protection" or "justice". No more school! Except for rich kids. Our trusty insurance companies, without taxes, can finally afford to be as generous as they've promised in their TV commercials. And that lazy old Earth will have to get her act together, once we've weaned her from the welfare system with the EPA as its queen. Happy days are here again!
--
make install -not war
Yes, thank FDR and the Democratic party for that. Damn socialists.
It's past time for the dot-coms to grow up. This isn't an issue of lowering overall taxes, it's an issue of Congress favoring one industry over another. People may claim that buying over the internet is so much more efficient. Maybe it is; if that's the case, dot-coms shouldn't need special tax breaks to succeed. We all like to think our industry is special and is changing the world. I'm sure people working at agribusinesses, Haliburton, baseball teams, and importers of Chinese ceiling fans will tell you the same thing.
Worse, it's an unfunded mandate sent down by Washington. Congress makes the rules, and the state governments lose revenue.
As a disclaimer, I should note I live next door to one of the best independent bookstores in the country (Elliot Bay Books, Seattle). I can browse the shelves, open up books, talk to real people, get suggestions from the staff, go to author readings and bookclubs. And when I buy a book, I can start reading it as I walk out the store.
If you live in northern Alaska, yes, Amazon is huge improvement. But not all of the rest of us want to see real stores driven out of business because the goverment thinks it should subsidize people for avoiding human interaction.
Supposedly, this similar to how a lot of "dumb laws" get signed in. Someone wants to derail a piece of legislation, so they attach something ridiculous like requiring two trains approaching each other on the same track to both stop and wait for the other to pass. Texas law IIRC.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
It sounds nice but the whole thing about borrowing is that at one time or another it got to be paid back.
;)
Nobody wants to call the debt home. To do so would be a disaster on a grand international scale because the US can't pay and if it could, to do so would be to invite worldwide economic chaos.
Since the gold standard was abandoned, the US money system has been severed from reality. The US may have large amounts of wealth - i.e. infrastructure, property, Iraq, etc. - but the numbers on the computer screens say that it is hugely in debt.
There is no way that the "lenders" can write off a debt of that size, nor would want to. The idea is that the debt should be preserved as long as possible and the borrower be milked for all it's worth. Likewise, the US will not be allowed to pay off the debt because as long as the debt is preserved wealth created in the US will continue to be transferred in ownership (via the medium of owing money to the creditor) to the lenders.
Basically, money is fiction, an agreement on the global scale, but is not wealth. If the debt were payed off then what would really be be happening would be the transfer of power of the US's wealth from the lenders to the US itself. Currency valuation would change and the lenders would be worse off quite rapidly. Consider that the dollar bills in your pocket, the pounds or the euros, etc., are really notes of debt to the central bank that must be paid back with interest to the central bank, i.e. more money must be given back than was borrowed, with the only source of that money being borrowing at an agreed interest rate from the central bank.
Drop some acid and really think about what debt of debt means in terms of wealth and ownership.
Basically, the debt will not be called home, the idea is to maintain that debt for eternity and control the US. God alone knows what measures would be taken if the US came close to paying it off. The only time historically that this almost happened, you had a civil war.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
The states & local governments still retain the power to enact a personal property tax. They're going to get the money they need to operate somehow, would you prefer they tax the access, or tax ownership of a modem?
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
I was thinking, if they tax the internet and put that tax money back intot he net as a whole, say to pay for more broadband framework, or to pay for a city wide fiberoptic or wireless internet than yeah the taxes would be worth it, the internet would improve over time and become cheeper then the taxes will have ina sence paid for themselves. As long as it doesn't go into the same wholes all the other taxes go into. maybe also devote some of it specifically to school computer/internet systems, etc. but since our government will not do it this way I say hell yeah ban the taxes. better to not pay at all then to pay for something bad. Occupation: Programmer Location: California Age:21 Vote: Bush
Please, the average credit coming back after the cuts was like $100. Is this worth arguing over?! That's like one electric bill.
Or perhaps I just wasn't being as narrow-minded as yourself.
From Citizens for Tax Justice; but what would they know about taxes, right?
* From 2001 through 2005, the best-off one percent will receive "only" 19.8 percent of the Bush tax cuts.
* From 2006 through 2009, the share of the tax cuts going to the very rich jumps to 41 percent of the total.
* By 2010, when all of the provisions of the bill--including complete repeal of the estate tax on extremely large estates--are scheduled to be fully in place, 51.8 percent of the tax cuts are targeted to the top one percent.
Only the best-off one percent of the taxpayers will receive significant additional tax cuts if the rest of the Bush tax program continues to be implemented.
And the million dollar reference was for small businesses, sorry I wasn't more clear--but then again I can't help people from jumping to their own idiotic conclusions...
-It's easy to prove someone wrong when you don't understand what they are saying.-
I'd recommend reading my post and finding the part where I say "The ONLY tax cut" or anything like that...it's hard to do, try it.
Actually, its to stop taxes on internet access. Guess someone else has problems reading before fingering the reply button.
Support more choices in goverment-Vote 3rd party.
Can you site something saying what the average back was or are you just blowing smoke??
By what measure? Percent per dollar, overall dollars? source?
By 2010, when all of the provisions of the bill--including complete repeal of the estate tax on extremely large estates--are scheduled to be fully in place, 51.8 percent of the tax cuts are targeted to the top one percent.
Are you aware that 'very large estates' include sub chapter s corporations? so if I run a small gas station and want to pass it to my kid should he have to pay half the worth of the station in taxes?
And the million dollar reference was for small businesses, sorry I wasn't more clear--but then again I can't help people from jumping to their own idiotic conclusions...
hmm and whom do small business employ?
Here are the facts:
Income taxes were cut across the board, and the wealthy still pay a higher % of their salary than the middle class.
The tax credits for kids apply to everyone
The estate tax will keep me from having to pay 40K on my mothers 80K worth of assets when she passes.
You said only millionairs got a tax cut under Bush which is compleatly wrong.
Sometimes, talking about committing a crime is the crime.
If you don't believe me, make a tape of yourself saying you're going to kill the president and send it to the FBI.
again, I'd love to see where I said the only tax cut was for people earning more than a million dollars. And I'd love for you to ask those families how much that thousand dollars is going to put their kids to college or seriously improve their life. Meanwhile, the millionaire is paying significantly less dollars in taxes. Are you following?
Please read post for source. Basically, my best response is to simply ask you to read my post.
By what measure? Percent per dollar, overall dollars? source?
here we go...percentages are a ratio, the percent of each dollar and the percent of overall dollars would be equal.
2% of one dollar = 2 cents.
2% of 100 dollars = 2 dollars.
2% of 1000 dollars = 20 dollars. and so on...
I hadn't realized you were having trouble with math as much as reading and comprehension. As for source, I think I already answered that, twice.
No, that's planning a crime. Saying "If I were going to kill the president, here's how I'd do it..." would be legal (AFAIK; IANAL).
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Really? Here are some instructions to your Perl interpreter. They teach it how to commit the terrible crime of decoding encrypted DVD video.
s''$/=\2048;while(){G=29;R=142;if((@a=unqT="C*", _)[20]&48){D=89;_=unqb24,qT,@
b=map{ord qB8,unqb8,qT,_^$a[--D]}@INC;s/...$/1$&/;Q=unqV,qb2 5,_;H=73;O=$b[4]>8^(P=(E=255)&(Q>>12^Q>>4^Q/8^Q))> 8^(E&(F=(S=O>>14&7^O)
^S*8^S>=8
)+=P+(~F&E))for@a[128..$#a]}print+qT,@a}';s/[D-HO- U_]/\$$&/g;s/q/pack+/g;eval
Was that a crime?
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Touché.
BUT! why have it in machine-readable form unless you intend to use it? It must be planning a crime, like I said in my other post. Or at least that's presumably the theory behind why your Perl code would be illegal, but this stuff isn't.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Your numbers leave off that Bush created a new class of income that is taxed at 15%: dividends. Since many of the "rich," e.g. Theresa Heinz Kerry and Dick Cheney, get most of their income from investments, their *effective* tax rate has dropped precipitately. Those two actually pay a tax rate of about 13%...lower than those who make 14-56K in your list.
.153) / 1.0765 (since half the contribution is paid by the employer, so it doesn't appear in the nominal income. This creates an effective minimum rate of 28%. The top rate was also 28%. The only people who weren't paying a 28% marginal rate were those in the middle, some of whom paid 33% plus the wage taxes.
It is a valid criticism to say that the Bush tax cuts were slanted towards the rich (the rich pay most of the taxes, so a tax cut almost has to be slanted in favor of the rich). It's just not valid to say that they help *only* the rich. On the bright side, people can now argue that a flat tax would raise taxes on the rich.
Incidentally, the 1986 tax changes came very close to creating a flat tax. If you combine the income tax with the Social Security and Medicare wage taxes, you get (.15 +
So If a rich person pays 36 cents out of every dollar and a middle class person pays 25 this is somehow unfair to the middle class??
you lost me way back a while ago when you stopped reading my posts and kept talking about whatever world you live in; regardless, I'll bite...Is it fair to give $500 to an impoverished family and give $10,000 to the rich guy who inherited daddy's fortune and lives by himself?
Yes it is because:
1) Most rich people did not inherit their wealth, they work for it, take chances
2) The farmer alreay pays tens of thousands less in income tax
3) People money does not belong to the Government
4) Rich people dont sit on their money, they invest it
5) Chances are someone who would get back 10,000$ (and thus makes 500,000) either employees, or through stocks subsidizes someone who gets back 500$ (thus making 25,000)
you are easily the most narrow-minded person i've seen in a while. do you know what an example is? did you know that there's more than one combination of events that make up different people's lives? And I really don't think that many individuals who earn 500,000 employ that many people, just a hunch. So take your 500 dollars and go give your kids health care, buy medicine, and send the to college with it. Just please stop being an ignorant fool by twisting my words and living in your tiny little world any longer.
Yes because I disagree with you, im narrow minded... Ill let that sink in.
do you know what an example is?
Sure my first job at a fast food place, the guy owned two stores and brought home about 300K a year. He was born with nothing and worked his way to wealthy.
did you know that there's more than one combination of events that make up different people's lives?
duh, im not the one who in the last post said: and give $10,000 to the rich guy who inherited daddy's fortune and lives by himself? News flash most rich people dont inherit daddys money.
And I really don't think that many individuals who earn 500,000 employ that many people, just a hunch.
And is there something to back this hunch up? Anything at all? Do you think the guy that owns a home depot franchise, or a pizza hut, or a sub-way, makes more than 1 million a year?
So take your 500 dollars and go give your kids health care, buy medicine, and send the to college with it.
Lets start with the fact college is not a right, I come from a poor family and I went to school on loans. No matter how much I make my kids will go on loans because its better for them to appreciate their education.
Just please stop being an ignorant fool by twisting my words and living in your tiny little world any longer.
Maybe just maybe if you thought for two seconds before you said:
are you a retard?!?
Bush cut the taxes on people earning ONE MILLION dollars a year, plus. Does that makes sense to you. If you earn ONE MILLION DOLLARS a year, net or gross, you are not a middle-class citizen. I will sleep better tonight or tomorrow if you just say your IQ is less than 80, otherwise...WTF is wrong with you!
You start byt slinging insults (later on to call me close minded) and imply that only millionairs got a tax cut under bush.
ok, you have too much time on your hands, proof: you can go through my posts line by line and take them out of context (similar to being narrow minded) and refute them. This is easy. I'm asking you look at the big picture, not the tiny world view you seem to enjoy.
I started slinging an insult because I'm tired of the rich getting richer while the poor are uncontrollably getting poorer. Can you argue that this is just?
I said you are narrow minded because you are taking everything I said into your context, not the context in which I am saying it. Also, you're looking at one thing and thinking everything else should follow the same rules. The world doesn't work like that!
I don't think the Pizza Hut guy only makes 500,000 a year, but I could be wrong. And last time I checked 1 million was (well about twice as much) more than 500,000. Again, ignoring what I am saying to refute the argument you think I am making to fit your rebuttal. This is ignorant.
College is not a right, you can argue health care isn't either...but wouldn't it be better if everyone could afford appropriate education and health care? I mean, isn't this the goal we should be aspiring towards, rather than making the poor even more unable to afford these things?
Here's another example of your ignorance, I said 'just a hunch' and you immediately responded demanding proof. Do you know what that means if I say 'just a hunch'. Look it up yourself, but I'm still pretty sure I'm correct. Home Depot had over 64 billion dollars in revenue (Jan 2004), I think it's safe to say the president (to whom you were referring--in context) makes more than 500,000 dollars a year. I'm sure most of the cashiers may not have full benefits, but I also feel safe in saying most of the top half of the administration, etc... has benefits. Again, this is a hunch, but maybe more of an educated guess. So please, please, please read my posts and not take them out of context when arguing back. One can easily argue that that is an ignorant thing to do. Plus, it only makes you look more ignorant and foolish when you ignore these warnings and continue to take what I say out of context to fit your argument.
Why bother arguing if its just, its not true... Is it true the gap has changed? yes! is it true that the poor stay poor, no. I come from a poor family I now make enough that my wife does not have to work.
I don't think the Pizza Hut guy only makes 500,000 a year, but I could be wrong. And last time I checked 1 million was (well about twice as much) more than 500,000.
Oh so once again, you dont know but take your first impressions as Bible truth, what a suprise. The fact is he does not take home a million, neither does the guy who own $diner who employees six or seven people.
but wouldn't it be better if everyone could afford appropriate education
My point is everyone can! I got through school compleatly on loans and part time jobs.
I mean, isn't this the goal we should be aspiring towards, rather than making the poor even more unable to afford these things?
By all mean voulenteer, give money to college funds, free clinics. Voulenteer your time at soup kitchens, give give give. I give more than 10% of my pre tax salary to the poor every year. But it is dead wrong to expect the government to make people provide for other people, its dead wrong to force someone to care for someone else.
This nation got throught the great depression without federal welfare why do we need it now?
Home Depot had over 64 billion dollars in revenue (Jan 2004), I think it's safe to say the president (to whom you were referring--in context) makes more than 500,000 dollars a year.
I sad a store, not the chain. Go to a mall, look at all the people with jobs and ask youself how many of them work for the poor.
wow.
Do you want a cookie or a medal or something? Your wife doesn't work, that's great. You should be thankful that you can, but don't be so ignorant to believe anyone with the will also has the way or means to do so too.
My first impression was that 500,000 is half of 1 million, and 1 million is twice 500,000. This IS Bible truth. Who is this guy?
Go to the mall yourself and ask one of those 6 or 7 employees what kind of medical plan they have. Enough said.
The fact that you meant a chain doesn't change the fact that those employees DO NOT recieve benefits, and realistically could not raise a family on that income alone. I went to school on loans too, and scholarships. This doesn't change that the rich should not be given more tax-breaks in the current climate we are in today, economic and otherwise. This was the reason for my first post, if you have since learned to read. And no, not everyone can afford appropriate education. Just because you and I could, does not mean everyone....do you see what I mean when I say you have an ignorant point of view yet?!?
Why bother arguing if its just, its not true
You don't think the rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer? Are you retarded? (yes, I said it again, you can quote me if you want.)
No I was hoping you realize that maybe, just maybe you should get off your duff and help people rather than hope mama government does it. People like you are too lazy to give of yourself so you demand others do it for you.
Go to the mall yourself and ask one of those 6 or 7 employees what kind of medical plan they have. Enough said.
On your advice I did just that, while at the mall shopping with my wife I ask at several places about the benefits they gave employees, you migh be suprised to find out many offer health insurance.
The fact that you meant a chain doesn't change the fact that those employees DO NOT recieve benefits, and realistically could not raise a family on that income alone.
Now I call BS, at minimum wage in most states two people working 40 hrs a week will make nearly 30K a year. My parents raised seven kids on not much more than that. It means driving beaters or using the bus. It means shopping at the GoodWill not Marshall Fields. It means no steak dinners, corn beef hash and veggies. It means endless hand me dows for toys, cloths, books, and movies. It means no cable and you get your 'rentals' from the library.
My sister and her husband are raising four kids on a little more than 30 and doing a bang up job. With proper spending you can even buy a home. There is a great article called Poverty American Style, it worth the read but I will give you some highlights.
Forty-six per cent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one and a half baths, a garage and porch or patio.
The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens and other cities throughout Europe. (Note: These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries not to those classified as poor.)
Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30% own two or more cars.
Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television. Over half own two or more color televisions. Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player. Sixty-two percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
So I dont ever buy the poor cant crap, I have lived it, I see some in my family live it. And the census itself shows that 'poverty' in america is not quite the dictionary definition. I went to school on loans too, and scholarships. This doesn't change that the rich should not be given more tax-breaks in the current climate we are in today, economic and otherwise.
But its does mean you should stop crying that the poor can not afford to go to school, because they can!
This was the reason for my first post, if you have since learned to read. And no, not everyone can afford appropriate education.
Why? You did it and I did it on part time jobs, and loans. My parents were near retirement by the time I was in school so I ask for nothing from them, they gave up enough for me.
do you see what I mean when I say you have an ignorant point of view yet?!?
No I see a man who calls those who disagree with him retarded and ignorent. I see a man who did not answer my point about giveing from ones self and not getting the government to mug those you think shoudl give.
it's impressive how much you think you know of me from a few simple comments posted on a website. I call you ignorant because you ignore what I say to argue points I never made. You change my words to make them words you can argue with. This is ignorant. Perhaps you aren't retarded. Perhaps you're only a moron, but I doubt you're an idiot. Actually a moron would be by definition retarded, so I'll leave it to you to figure that out. Perhaps it was more of what you were doing that was retarded and I used the ol' 'judge a man by his actions' stance. Do you know where I volunteer, which church I work at, or where I donate my money? Do you know where my old clothes go when I do not wear them? Or perhaps you were only being ignorant.
As for the mall you went to, I'm sure if you ask the right people you will get the answer you wanted to. If I asked the right people (and I don't have to since I know enough of them to already know the answer) I would get the answer I want to. When you mesh these two points together, we get a fact that many people don't have full benefits.
The bulk of your post was an answer to a question no one asked, so good job buddy. I never said there weren't poor people that could make better, I said there were some poor people that couldn't. You're taking what I am saying, assuming I am talking about the majority, and proving it wrong. But what you aren't doing is looking at the whole picture and where my points are coming from. This is ignorant, and stupid. I call those who make ignorant points ignorant, and I call those who act retarded retards.
You see a man who did not answer my point? I saw you rebutting my point (initially) and skewing it to fit your said rebuttal. That's not making a point.
Is your point that some poor can make better for themselves? I never disagreed. Do you want another cookie?
Here's a newsflash:
I never said we should increase taxes, my original point was that we shouldn't decrease them for the millionaires.
But you would know that already, since you always read my posts before responding, right?
Your last statement is completely contrary to that. So I ask, who isn't answering to my point but his own?
Oh, and you wouldn't happen to be ignorant to the fact that it is more expensive to live in some places than it is to live in others, right?
If you work at a mall in New York (for example, don't get all excited) you may get paid more than if you worked at the mall in Kansas City (for example, again-calm down) and these differences may not cover the cost of living differences completely. (Don't forget, if you disagree with this completely-you are ignorant to the fact that it could happen in one situation, making me correct to say that it could happen. See what I mean by ignorant?).
Umm yes, The Bible tells *ME* to care for people not the Government. There is a serious lack of consideration for our fellow human beings today, this despite more social spending now than at any other point in history... why? Its because we never connect with people, we never voulenteer our time, skills, money, or even just talk to someone who might need it.
As far as Abortions go thats a compleatly different issue and I am not going to let you take me off this topic..
So long as income is being taxed a capital gains tax is unseemly. You tax the income, then you tax them again if they invest something of whats left and make out on it?
It is a valid criticism to say that the Bush tax cuts were slanted towards the rich (the rich pay most of the taxes, so a tax cut almost has to be slanted in favor of the rich). It's just not valid to say that they help *only* the rich.
Ignoring the fact the top 50% of wage earners pay 98% of the taxes is not valid. In reality the income tax has to be eliminated go to a straight sales/gains tax and fees for federal income.
You contradict yourself though, if you really believe what you say then maybe *YOU* should decide whether you have an abortion or not, not the government. I don't expect you to see the lack of consistency though, your fundamentalist religious leader / conservative radio host has probably brainwashed you into thinking that your ideas are consistent.
Off topic I know, but if I am a barbarian (as you pointed out in a previous post) - at least I have a good command of the English language.
I can spell, and form grammatically corrrect sentences, can you?
Again I have explained myself on abortion on another thread, when dealing with the very life of a second human being is not all about *your* choice anymore than murder is. You may not agree with it but I think its a simple enough concept to understand..
So if *YOU* help poor people *YOU* are doing what *God* tells you, but if the government does then they are pinko commie fags, right?
If I help the poor I am going what I should do, If I point a gun at your head or threaten to put you in prision if you dont I am not doing what I should. Its a simple concept, pity you dont understand it..
I think it reflects badly on you to try to demean my intellect, given that:
(a) It's not a christian thing to do
(b) You dont know me. I may well be smarter than you are.
Given your repeated misuse of the english language:
I assume you also think it is ok for your country not to give the UN recommended levels of foreign aid? The paltry level of aid your country gives is just apalling. Included in your 'foreign aid' is $3 billion per year to israel (who pump a lot of money into US arms companies). That is barbaric.
Because we have this nifty little thing called freedom, in which I should be able to decide how to do things with my assets as I see fit. I am not *in princaple* against the government helping people, but it has to be done within the defined scope of the Governments power and at the federal level that is ver limited.
I assume you also think it is ok for your country not to give the UN recommended levels of foreign aid?
Of course I feel that way, the UN is a joke they can take their 'international courts' and suggestions and jump into the east river.
The paltry level of aid your country gives is just apalling.
Glad your using your freedom of expression, I dont have the numbers handy but Ill take your word that the US give less than the natios of europe. I will ask if your numbers include *private* giving. My small church took it upon themselves to build schools in Africa, that money does not show up as 'Us Aid'.
That is barbaric.
Im trying to keep this civil, if you can not do the same we have nothing further to say to each other..
Your country constantly breaks international laws and agreements, tacitly approves apalling human rights violations, tortures (mostly innocent) prisoners, and slaughters innocent civillians. These are barbaric acts.
Im trying to keep this civil too, please dont accuse me of being a barbarian, or of being stupid.
Something with wich I greatly disagree. The Drinking age should be 18 (the same as the voting age) but the Federal government decided to coerce the states (Drinking age is not set at the federal level, how much do you know of our laws?) into putting 21 as the standard.
How is that free? Are you free from the threat of violence, the fear of assault, or of murder?
I am free to own a weapon to protect myself. Do you really think that the problem is people who legally buy guns? I am sure often they do use them wrongly but the people who will shoot me on the corner will try damn hard to own a gun even if its illegal.
You called me a barbarian, and insinuated that I am ignorant.
And you started the whole spheel by calling someone a retard. But if it helps your feelings Im sorry.
I'm glad that you donate to charitable causes. I believe the people of my country give a larger proportion of their wealth to charities than the people of any other nation. You are correct to assume that your money does not show up as 'US Aid', nor does ours.
Do you have something to back up "I believe the people of my country give a larger proportion of their wealth to charities than the people of any other nation."
I can't find a study, a bunch of other quotes though, but no study as yet.
You are utterly entrenched, why did you ignore all the other horrid things your country does? Breaks international laws and agreements, tacitly approves apalling human rights violations, tortures (mostly innocent) prisoners, and slaughters innocent civillians.
Because to be totally honest our nation is no more or less horrid than any other given our situation. Look at what England did to Ireland, Look at Japan to Korea. In the sixties five nations decided to invade Isreal and nobody screams *illegal war*. All this recent hoopla is nothing but US bashing because if anyone looks objectivly at their own history they will put down the stones and enjoy the view their glass house gives them.
Breaks international laws
International law is a joke, When Belguim put out a warrent for the arrest of US Government officials, and people in Canada call for tge arrest Bush it shows what a joke its become. There is more call for Bush and the US to be persecuted from the 'international community' than there was for Saddam. Look I did not vote for Bush and I disagree with Iraq but as far as wars go we have not been sub par in out execution of the war. International law say Isreal cand build a fence to keep suicide bombers out... A stinking Fence ...
While I think the war in Iraq was illegal, I point to our constitution (not international law) to say that. The US was part of a war in 1991, and with others signed an agreement that if Iraq did x y z we would not attack. Well Iraq not only did x y z, they used the un 'oil for mone^H^H^H^H food' program to do it.
tacitly approves apalling human rights violations
Youre referring to?
tortures (mostly innocent) prisoners
And the people who did it are being punished, I think the first case is over and there is 15 years in prision.
and slaughters innocent civillians.
Please show me a nation who did not do that in a war. Did England commit warcrimes in WW2 by bombing Dresdon? The US pioneered smart bombs, we have spent a ton of money on 'Jdams' to convert conventional boms to be more accurate. We try damn hard not to kill civilians but well, war is hell. And when someone does cross the line they are prosecuted.
I accept that in general it is correct to say that every country/group of people has/have, at some stage committed horrid atrocities. That's not to say that it's ok to still commit atrocities. You are saying that because all nations have done bad things in the past, we have no right to criticize the US when it does bad things?
That is like saying that because the US saved France (and the world) in WWII, that France (and the world) have no right to complain about US actions today. I utterly reject that notion. I am assuming you can back this statement up? The Israel/Palestine issue, like the troubles in Northern Ireland is extremely complex, it is easy (and entirely justifiable) to make a case for either side. Both sides regularly break their own laws, and international laws. I am referring to US support for the Kuwaiti and Saudi regimes, I am referring to US support for the military coup in Venezuela (Helping to put self admitted dictators back into power) Do you honestly believe that the soldiers who committed these atrocities are the masterminds behind the routine practice of torture and degredation? Do you believe that the US is somehow not responsible for the actions of it's soldiers? You previously stated that you do not agree with the war in Iraq. So... you dont agree with it but you defend the US for having killed 15000 civillians by writing it all off: Is that not
(a)extremely coarse
and
(b) a contradiction?
How can you justify those deaths?
How does it show that? I dont think any nation should be beholden to the definitions put fourth by any other. I dont think Ireland should change its ways for the US, GB, France, Russia, China, or any number of nations.
You are saying that because all nations have done bad things in the past, we have no right to criticize the US when it does bad things?
Glass, House, Stone, Bingo... You can go after the people who do it, this nation bashing by the euro's is over the top though.
I am assuming you can back this statement up? Its not much but the best I can do so quickly is: Results 1 - 10 of about 2,030,000 for bush war criminal. (0.54 seconds), and Results 1 - 10 of about 644,000 for saddam hussein war criminal. (0.30 seconds).
The Israel/Palestine issue, like the troubles in Northern Ireland is extremely complex, it is easy (and entirely justifiable) to make a case for either side. Both sides regularly break their own laws, and international laws.
And yet where is the outrage from the international community at the Palistinians from breaking international law. Arafat is more a war criminal than anyone can make a case for Bush being but when he went internationally was he arrested?
Do you honestly believe that the soldiers who committed these atrocities are the masterminds behind the routine practice of torture and degredation? Do you believe that the US is somehow not responsible for the actions of it's soldiers?
I think for the most part yes the soldiers were acting out of bordom, and lack of supervision. I think them and their commanding officers should be investigated but that does not happen over night.
You previously stated that you do not agree with the war in Iraq. So... you dont agree with it but you defend the US for having killed 15000 civillians by writing it all off:
No I never said I did not disagree with 'war' in Iraq I said I disagree with how the was was done. The was no declariation of war from the US senate and thus this war in unconstitutional (hence I did not vote for Bush). I also said that Iraq had been ignoring the terms of a cease fire and attempted to kill a former US president, so if it had been done right I would not, in princaple, oppse the war. I oppose how it was done
How can anyone justify any deaths? Really? Is it ok that 'fewer' people dies during the troubles? I did not see the calls of 'Clinton War Criminal' when he bombed Iraq in the late 1990's. I did not see NATO nations being called despotic imperialist for going into Kosovo so why is Iraq any different.
I did my duty as an American I voted against Bush *and* Kerry. Because they ignored the laws of the US and the oath they swore to uphold.
Btw, I dont particularly like the UN, I think it's absolutly apalling that the UN farts around and sends in people to study whether genocide is actually occurring, then only sends in troops after the mass murders have been committed. Some of the stories I read about UN peacekeeping missions in the former Yugoslavia are just awful. Peacekeeping soldiers who had to keep their hands behind their back and watch as Serbs rounded up muslim men for slaughter, because the UN wouldn't allow them to stop it. But the UN is what the world has, and the onus is on all countries to try to improve it.
And if in the process of doing what they see fit they piss of another nation enough to declair war than so be it. And if other nations in the world are pissed enough by the war and they want to embargo so be it. Governments are put into place to serve those who put them there, *NOT* the other way around.
So Saddam had basically the entire world against him, all his neighbours, the Sanctions, all the UN resolutions etc etc. yet you say that:
Would that be the 'oil for food' sancations you were talking about?
Did they not have UN support for that? Broad international support?
Broad international support != a just war. UN Support != a just war. The fact is NATO bombed the hell out of a second world nation and in the process killed many civilians..
Peacekeeping soldiers who had to keep their hands behind their back and watch as Serbs rounded up muslim men for slaughter, because the UN wouldn't allow them to stop it.
Dont forget sitting by while the KLA has begun the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo, including the distruction of monistaries more than 1000 years old. I dont think many people know the full story on Kosovo and more mass graves have been found in Iraq but it was a 'popular' war with 'international support' so it was ok.
But the UN is what the world has, and the onus is on all countries to try to improve it.
Huh? if that were the case we would have the league of nations not the UN. The LON was scrapped because it was a useless buch a beaurocrats who did nothing (sound familiar?).
The problem with the UN is people insdie and many on the left want it to be a world government of sorts. Hell the UN is proposing taxing all gun sales in the world! what right do they have, not a one of them are elected by the people of their nation.
I am a strong nationalist, I believe if the people of Ireland dont want to own guns its their right to put in place a government to enforce it. I also believe that if the UN thinks the American people will tolerate a 'world tax' on anything they have been drinking out of the east river.
I think you have a very simple and clear view of how you think these issues should be handled. I can see why you might come to that view, and why you might find it attractive.
:-)
:-)
I suppose it is difficult for anyone to be truly objective about these matters, because a persons education/family/religion/society often biases them towards one way of thinking or another.
I must say that I find most of your opinions to be completely contrary to my own, and would absolutely hate to live in a society where the majority - or near majority, whatever - of people shared your values. I guess we are lucky that we each live where we do
I cant see any point in my continuing to argue these issues with you, you have your opinion and I have mine (of course i suspect that I am right
Im sorry if I was rude to you in previous posts. I have never discussed these issues with someone who has the same values/ideas as you, and I may have (did) go a bit over the top in trying to illustrate how vehemently I disagree with you.