posted on April 17, 2001 03:08:31 AM new
When Bush was governor he'd wait for late Friday afternoon to get news that he wanted to
bury into the Saturday morning papers. Saturday is the slowest news day, the weakest
readership day. Naturally, the Saturday during a holiday weekend has to be even deader than the
typical saturday. When Bush was governor his announcement that he had appointed an
African-American to a top Texas post came on the Saturday right before Christmas. Politicians are
always trying to have it both ways. Bush attempted to get brownie points from the
African-American community while trying not to rile the racists.
Old habits die hard. Saturday's NYT reports that Cheney made $36 million dollars last year.
Cheney quit working for Halliburton in August to run for office. Halliburton, by the way, is in Texas,
not Wyoming. Bush, on the other hand, seldom worked at all last year but kept his title as Governor
of Texas without pay. Since he really didn't do anything meaningful in an official capacity during that
period, it was the politically wise thing to do. Bush still made nearly $900,000, mostly from a trust,
and was taxed at a low 27%. He also lived at the Governor's Mansion in Austin, so he saved some
money there. Although some taxpayers have cut off donations to the Boy Scouts of America, Inc.
because of its anti-gay stance, the NYT reports that Bush's donation to that group was a
"substantial" portion of $14,000. But that probably was not why Bush floated the Bush-Cheney
earnings story on Easter Saturday.
Bush's reason to keep his tax returns as quiet as possible is that he didn't want to remind
the American people that folks like himself and Cheney are the major beneficiaries of his
own tax cut plans. The other day when Bush trotted out a middle- class family to once more
contend that these are the folks who supposedly benefit from his tax cuts, a reporter asked him
when he was going to present a wealthy, top 1% family so that we could see a representative of the
small group who would really be getting the dough. Bush jokingly replied that he was there to
represent that wealthy group, but he wasn't kidding. It's folks like Bush and Cheney who are getting
the campaign kickback for the cash they contributed to the Bush campaign, a campaign kickback
far larger than the income tax that has been taken out their paychecks and bonuses. Although Bush
only paid 27% in income taxes last year, he will get back 40% of his earnings under his tax cut plan.
It's not right that the wealthy people who benefit from the Bush tax cut plans are the very people
why benefit far beyond their contributions, while the poor get zip. Bush, Cheney, and the wealthy
members of Congress have neither a moral nor an ethical right to back a tax cut plan that is
designed to benefit themselves the most. That's a conflict of interest, isn't it? --Politex, 4/16/01
posted on April 17, 2001 10:40:19 AM new
There's a Food Bank at a church near the Veep's Residence. I'm sure the free canned goods and occasional bread and veggies help.
-gaffan-
posted on April 17, 2001 10:54:03 AM new
Working every day, paycheck to paycheck, just to pay the rent and utilities and then reading something like this makes me wanna throw up. It's no wonder some people do the crazy things that they do.
posted on April 17, 2001 11:56:12 AM new
This should encourage you to get your butt in gear and make some real money so you can enjoy the benefits of being in the higher income bracket. I ask you - Habve you made an honest effort to move up on the scale where it will do some real good? Unless you have some rich relatives it won't happen by chance.
posted on April 17, 2001 12:16:20 PM newThere's a Food Bank at a church near the Veep's Residence. I'm sure the free canned goods and occasional bread and veggies help.
posted on April 17, 2001 12:43:24 PM new
My butt IS in gear and I'm doing the best that I know how - and I'm not living off the government. I'm sure the crooks/politicians that krs mentioned up there^ have worked their butts off for what they have....... NOT.
posted on April 17, 2001 01:34:24 PM newAnthro1996 asks: "Why do you think that much money can only be accumulated dishonestly?"
I'd have to say that it is not by illoegal means, but largely immoral means; that is, if you interpret morality based upon the teachings of Jesus. What I mean by that, is that in order to get that sort of a yearly income, you need to climb over everybody else trying to get that income: Bill Gates for example. And how you go about it is not always pretty. How some of these people are able to sleep at all at night is a complete mystry to me. I'd rather have my modest income and my modest amount of things to feel guilty for than to have an income like that at that price. Truely, one does have to pay the Devil in order to have the riches.
We could all settle this with a Flat Tax with no Write-offs or Deductions!
posted on April 17, 2001 01:45:12 PM new
Yeah, you're right Borillar. There are days when I think about the nice things that I'd like to have - but I think I'd much rather enjoy a clear conscious and know that I didn't screw somebody royally to get it. There's a lot of wealthy people out there who've worked for every dime of it, and my hat is off to them. It's the ones who have it handed to them on a silver platter who make me sick.
Right!!!
When the inheritance tax is abolished the gap between rich and poor will grow wider, If the children of billionaires begin their working lives with inheritances of billions, how will ordinary people compete with them in wealth accumulation? Before long, without an inheritance tax, they will own everything.
anthro1966
You asked,
"Why do you think that much money can only be accumulated dishonestly?" (36 million per year)
My answer is that without inheritance I don't
think that it can be accumulated legally or
illegally. I would like to hear your answer.
Are you so slow that it takes you these several posts, with your ridiculous spacing, to list the few celebrities that you have mentioned (thus far).
If you are, then would it be too much to ask that you jot the names down as they come to you and post them all at once?
It would save your having to mull so long, perhaps, and save a bit of bandwidth, but most importantly it would enable you to avoid the appearance of harrassing HJW as it does now appear that you are doing.
I'm sure that you are aware of that peculiar clause in the CGs which defines harrassment as a breach of the aggreement between you and AW? It reads something like:
8.5. Breach. You will breach this Agreement if you:
a) Harassment. Harass, threaten, or intimidate another member.....
I think that it was clear to most readers of this thread that I
was referring to the average individual. It was mentioned by
one of the posters that "if you want this kind of money that you
should get your but in gear and make some real money."
My response to that...
"And that kind of money won't happen by effort unless it's by illegal effort."
Just for you, I will clarify my remark...That kind of money....
36 million a year....probably will not be made by most people,
without inheritance,
even if they put their but in first gear.
posted on April 18, 2001 06:02:18 AM new
Boy oh boy. You guys on this forum don't like Bush do you? I don't get into politics so I have no opinion on him. But my husband don't like him either.It makes me wonder though how he was elected.
posted on April 18, 2001 10:44:14 AM new
Most people isn't Dick Cheney. All I was doing was drawing a comparison that since you are assumoing Cheneys money to be made immorally or illegally, then we need to investigate Oprah, Jordan, Hanks etc. They have all excelled in what they do and been compensated for it.
posted on April 18, 2001 01:03:25 PM new
Hi NearTheSea!,
As you can see above, I modified my answer for
jlpiece and you may find it easier to understand also.
I will repost it here...
jlpiece,
I think that it was clear to most readers of this thread that I
was referring to the average individual. It was mentioned by
one of the posters that "if you want this kind of money that you
should get your but in gear and make some real money."
My response to that...
"And that kind of money won't happen by effort unless it's by illegal effort."
Just for you, I will clarify my remark...That kind of money....
36 million a year....probably will not be made by most people,
without inheritance,
even if they put their butt in first gear!
Of course, I understand that there are a very
few people who make a fortune.
Thirty six million a year is not in the
realm of possibility for most
Americans.
I'm sure that you will agree with that.
My position on inheritance tax is an issue that you will neither understand or
agree with...So there is no point in covering that here.
posted on April 18, 2001 01:15:06 PM new
Entertainers are paid according to how much they bring in..their draw.
It be interesting to know what Dick Cheney had to offer the Halliburton Corporation. He brought with him no direct experience either as an engineer or as a manager. In fact all he had was the high level government contacts
he'd made in years as a political hack.
Oh, you mean it's not immoral to peddle influence? You're probably right, nearthe seal.
posted on April 18, 2001 01:48:07 PM new
I just got a kick in the teeth today from the dear government. Found out I can't get a CDL without being able to pass a hearing test in the physical.
All these years I have driven a car and my hearing has never been an issue. Lots of times I am pulled over to the curb to let an emergency vehicle pass and the hearing people are out there in the way and won't pull over.
All these permits and licenses are to protect us - not. It is to limit the markets to keep profits up.
posted on April 18, 2001 04:57:49 PM new
Everyone,
There are several combative and insulting posts in this thread. I'm going to lock it up. If you wish to continue the discussion, please start another thread and leave the personal comments out.
krs, your comments are particularly close to the line. Please keep the principles of basic etiquette in mind as you post.
