The NY Times has been highjacked

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
They write a typical piece blaming the minority percentage of taxpayers who actually pay taxes but somehow allow some truth to filter through the story. Not only do they hire liars & fools, now they are hiring blind editors.

Report Finds Tax Cuts Heavily Favor the Wealthy
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS Published: August 13, 2004

ASHINGTON, Aug. 12 - Fully one-third of President Bush's tax cuts in the last three years have gone to people with the top 1 percent of income, who have earned an average of $1.2 million annually, according to a report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office to be published Friday.

The report calculated that households with incomes in that top 1 percent were receiving an average tax cut of $78,460 this year, while households in the middle 20 percent of earnings - averaging about $57,000 a year - were getting an average cut of only $1,090.

The new estimates confirm what independent tax analysts have long said: that Mr. Bush's tax cuts have been heavily skewed to the very wealthiest taxpayers. Those are also the people, however, who pay a disproportionate share of federal income taxes. :eek:

The calculations, which were requested by Congressional Democrats, are all but certain to intensify a central debate between Mr. Bush and Senator John F. Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee.

Mr. Bush has argued that the tax cuts provided crucial support to the economy at a time when it was mired in a recession and reeling from the effects of a stock market collapse, terrorist attacks and corporate scandals.

Mr. Kerry has argued that the cuts were tilted so much in favor of the wealthy that they provided relatively little stimulus to the economy and set the stage for record budget deficits. Since 2001, the federal budget has deteriorated from a surplus of more than $100 billion projected but never materialized to a deficit expected to exceed $400 billion in 2004.

Mr. Bush's top economic priority has been to make his tax cuts permanent, rather than letting them expire at the end of this decade as they would under current law. Mr. Kerry would seek to roll back the tax cuts for households with incomes above $200,000 a year, a move his campaign estimates would save $860 billion over 10 years,Govt doesn't save, it takes and use that money in large part to pay for a vast new national health care plan. Billary was already shot down over this John

According to the new report from the Congressional Budget Office, about two-thirds of the benefits from the tax cuts, enacted in 2001 and 2003, went to households in the top fifth of earnings, with an average income of $203,740.

But the report also gave Republicans support for their contention that tax reduction had brought some benefit to people in almost all income categories. People with the bottom fifth of income, for example, averaging earnings of only $16,620, saw their effective tax rate drop to 5.2 percent from 6.7. Yet because lower- and many middle-income families had been paying very little federal income tax in the first place, those in that bottom fifth of earnings received an average tax cut of only $250.

"It doesn't matter who you are, the report shows that you are better off now than you were before the tax cuts,'' said a House Republican aide. "It's showing that everybody's tax burden has gone down as a result of the tax cuts.''

The tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 reduced tax rates for people in all income brackets. But they had a disproportionate effect on people at the very highest income levels because they had already been paying a disproportionate share of total federal taxes and in part because stock dividends got a special lower rate.

People in the very top income categories fared better by almost any measure, according to the report. The average after-tax income for people in the top 1 percent of income earners climbed 10.1 percent, while that of those in the middle 20 percent climbed 2.3 percent, and that of those in the bottom fifth only 1.6 percent.

Put another way, people with the top 1 percent of income saw their share of the tax burden drop to 20.1 percent after the tax cuts from 21.9 percent under the old law.put another way, the top 1% pays over 20% of all taxes

William G. Gale, a longtime tax analyst at the Brookings Institution, said the new Congressional report was consistent with his own calculations on the distribution of benefits from Mr. Bush's tax cuts.

"It's not just that lower-income people are getting smaller benefits,''WHy are they getting any benefits? Dr. Gale said. "It's also that these tax cuts will eventually have to be paid for with either spending cuts or tax increases, and those are likely to be less progressive than the taxes they are paying now.''
 
Twouldn't have been so cavalier if that were the case.

Speaking of highjacking the NYT. Can you believe they allowed this story to come out, in their paper no less, just weeks before the purple heart winning-thrice purple heart winning at that, Vietnam Veteran SIlver & Bronze Star hero is about to go down in flames? Can ya? I cetainly can't...unless you consider the Billary strategy. :hmm:

Under Eye of U.N., Billions for Hussein in Oil-for-Food Plan
By SUSAN SACHS and JUDITH MILLER Published: August 13, 2004

Toward the end of 2000, when Saddam Hussein's skimming from the oil-for-food program for Iraq kicked into high gear, reports spread quickly to the program's supervisors at the United Nations.

Oil industry experts told Security Council members and Secretary General Kofi Annan's staff that Iraq was demanding under-the-table payoffs from its oil buyers. The British mission distributed a background paper to Council members outlining what it called "the systematic abuse of the program" and described how Iraq was shaking down its oil customers and suppliers of goods for kickbacks.

When the report landed in the United Nations' Iraq sanctions committee, the clearinghouse for all contracts with Iraq, it caused only a few ripples of consternation. There was no action, diplomats said, not even a formal meeting on the allegations.

Since the fall of Mr. Hussein, the oil-for-food program has received far more scrutiny than it ever did during its six years of operation. Congress's Government Accountability Office, formerly the General Accounting Office, has estimated that the Iraqi leader siphoned at least $10 billion from the program by illicitly trading in oil and collecting kickbacks from companies that had United Nations approval to do business with Iraq. Multiple investigations now under way in Washington and Iraq and at the United Nations all center on one straightforward question: How did Mr. Hussein amass so much money while under international sanctions? An examination of the program, the largest in the United Nations' history, suggests an equally straightforward answer: The United Nations let him do it.

"Everybody said it was a terrible shame and against international law, but there was really no enthusiasm to tackle it," said Peter van Walsum, a Dutch diplomat who headed the Iraq sanctions committee in 1999 and 2000, recalling the discussions of illegal oil surcharges. "We never had clear decisions on anything. So we just in effect condoned things."

&*KNOCK KNOCK KNOCK* IS THIS THING ON???
This story is brought to you by the New York Times, SUPERGONZ PROPAGANDA*, the letters U and N and the number TEN BILLION.
*That was of course months & months ago, where is the outrage

NYT
 
If you were getting a piece of that 10 billion, would you say anything? If not, you must remember one more thing...politicians are not in politics for the betterment of humanity. There is no altruism anymore, and there is no 'standing for something' anymore. It's all sound bites, slogans, and payoffs. Most of the 'policymakers' are rich, 'spiffy' white guys who's only interest is lining their pockets, and forwarding their own objectives. If you notice, most pork-barrel spending occurs during election years. Why? Because if they throw a few crumbs to the starving masses, they are almost assured a re-election to their post!

If a politician with a true backbone ever surfaced, you can bet he/she wouldn't last long because there would be so many budgets slashed, and taxes raised to cover the debt, they'd make enemies of every other politician in the system.
 
Then why do we keep hearing about the UN? "The UN didn't authorize force". "When I become President I'll get the UN to help". "The UN is the lord & savior of all earths children, great & small" blah blah blah.

Actually yes Gato, I would've said something. To quell temptation I'd have said a lot before I had a chance to get a taste of the sweet fruit of oil soaked blood money. That is much of the reason I'm still a workin' stiff. I refused to play the game & walked out before I was dirty. I've paid for every one of my actions. I also have a clean conscience.
 
Gonz said:
Then why do we keep hearing about the UN? "The UN didn't authorize force". "When I become President I'll get the UN to help". "The UN is the lord & savior of all earths children, great & small" blah blah blah.

Actually yes Gato, I would've said something. To quell temptation I'd have said a lot before I had a chance to get a taste of the sweet fruit of oil soaked blood money. That is much of the reason I'm still a workin' stiff. I refused to play the game & walked out before I was dirty. I've paid for every one of my actions. I also have a clean conscience.

That's why I put 'If not' in the post. So's not to denigrate your answer before you gave it.

BTW...for those who do not know...The UN delegates are appointed by their respective governments. Notice the word appointed. In other words, a bunch of ass-kissing, politician-pandering, self-centered, egalitarian, mealy-mouthed, and did I mention corrupt? individuals on the face of the planet. They couldn't even get elected to government positions in their own countries, so they cajole their slimey way into power through the back door. I'm sure a few of them are honest, but they in no way represent the views of their countries populations. That's why there is no outcry when something bad happens in their own back-yards.
 
THe problem with the UN and politics in general is that they're filled with people who generally never had to work a solid day in their lives. No professionals holding posts. YOu won't see an economics professor working the economy, nor a nurse in charge of health. No mathematicians either.

Shame...the people who could actually have a positive impact of policy are being overrun by rich lawyers and their rich clients
 
Back
Top