Bush named Time magazine's person of the year...

[jmcc]

Make of it what you will.

http://www.time.com/time/personoftheyear/2004/story.html

[Scrubking]

I bet that you will get flamed and labeled as some radical conservative - either now or in later threads.

[evilmax17]

And who says that history (http://i.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/1941/1101410414_400.jpg) doesn't repeat (http://www.time.com) itself?

[camoor]

And who says that history (http://i.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/1941/1101410414_400.jpg) doesn't repeat (http://www.time.com) itself?

Wow. That picture of Bush sitting in the chair looks eerily similar to the one of Hitler standing so arrogantly next to the lamp.

:wink:

[alonzomourning23]

It's alright, I wasn't thrilled at first but then when I began thinking about it, it's been a slow year in terms of important people. I think their reasoning is good, they're not supporting or attacking his policies, just talking about how he changed things. I don't think he should have got it this year, but then again I don't think anyone else should have either. If the iraq war had begun this year then he should have got it, but that was last year.

[Firebrand]

Person of the Year. Can you say farce?

[jmcc]

Person of the Year. Can you say farce?

Who's been more influential this year? It's not a goodness award. I mean, Bush is joining such people as Hitler, Stalin and Ayatollah Khomeini on the list of people of the year.

[David85]

The person of the year does not mean BEST person of the year, it's someone who changed the world the most (for good or in this case evil).

I mean really... who would you have choosen?

[evilmax17]

I mean really... who would you have choosen?

http://www.arches.uga.edu/~rubin/image/mr-t.jpg

[Drocket]

As David85 sorta said, the question would be whether the distinction is supposed to simply go to the most influential person of the year, or whether its supposed to go to the 'good' person of the year. If its the former, then Bin Laden really should have won in 2001...

Actually, regardless of which method its supposed to be, I have difficulty believing that Bush was a good pick. Bush really didn't do much of anything in 2004: he pretty much spent the year quite deliberately NOT doing anything and claiming that everything was perfectly fine. He really couldn't do anything because anything he'd do would be to reverse something he'd done before, thereby revealing that he made mistakes the first time around. Aside from having most of his cabinet flee at first opportunity and making lots of speeches claiming that everything is perfectly OK, what exactly HAS Bush done this year?

I'm not really sure who would be more deserving, though. Michael Moore, for helping fan the flames of hatred that have helped split the country further apart? Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, for taking slander to a whole new level? John Kerry, for proving that having a deep, realistic understanding of things makes you unelectable? Zell Miller, for showing that even most most psychotic and disturbed of individuals can still find productive employment as a news correspondent? Dick Cheney, for somehow not dying yet? Donald Rumsfeld, for showing that no matter how incompetent or how big of dick you are, there are still jobs where you'll be appreciated?

You know, it really has been a shitty year :P

[David85]

And there will be at least 4 more shitty years to follow.

Bin Laden didn't win it in 2001 one because the soldiers did, they gave it out to all the USA military that year.

It's obviously doesn't go to the "Nicest Guy of the Year", because Hitler would never have gotten it.

[MrBadExample]

Actually, regardless of which method its supposed to be, I have difficulty believing that Bush was a good pick. Bush really didn't do much of anything in 2004:

Bush did manage to evenly divide the country like very few others have. Without Dubya we'd have no Iraqi War, Abu Ghraib, no-bid contracts for Halliburton, Farenheit 9/11, National Guard service questions, the hilarious debates, loyalty oaths to attend political speeches, mysterious bulges under suit jackets. And he won his first presidential election. All in all, a banner year for Dubya.

[Firebrand]

Person of the Year. Can you say farce?

Who's been more influential this year? It's not a goodness award. I mean, Bush is joining such people as Hitler, Stalin and Ayatollah Khomeini on the list of people of the year.
Those people were leaders. What is Bush?

[alonzomourning23]

Person of the Year. Can you say farce?

Who's been more influential this year? It's not a goodness award. I mean, Bush is joining such people as Hitler, Stalin and Ayatollah Khomeini on the list of people of the year.
Those people were leaders. What is Bush?

I know this is intended as a joke, but you have a point. Putting aside the horrors of those regimes (the first two in particular), they were undeniably great leaders, they just weren't exactly good. Bush is not a great leader, his ideas, beliefs and actions gain him supporters, but few are swayed by bush himself, his charisma, his speaches. It seems to be more of what he stands for, another person with a similar mindset and beliefs could do the same, that is not true for hitler, or the others (though to a lesser extent). Reagan and Clinton were leaders, Bush isn't.

[DCriminal]

The other two people in the running for "Person of the Year" were Michael Moore and Mel Gibson. Interesting.

I cant believe that the Red Sox didnt win. I mean... come on!

[RedvsBlue]

The other two people in the running for "Person of the Year" were Michael Moore and Mel Gibson. Interesting.

I cant believe that the Red Sox didnt win. I mean... come on!

I'm not sure if Bush (even though I support him slightly) should have won just because I don't feel like he affected very much. 2001 would have maybe been a better year for him to get it but didn't Giuliani get it instead? I don't feel like the president making a difference should be person of the year worthy because that's kind of their job...

Michael Moore would have equally been a poor choice because in the end (the biggest evidence is the election) he didn't affect anything really. He just managed to get himself plastered all over the media for about 2 months when Farenheit 9/11 released. You didn't even hear much from him around the election.

Mel Gibson , I'm assuming would be for Passion of the Christ. I suppose he could be considered influential but only toward religion really. I mean its not like this is the first bible story movie that's been made...

The Red Sox would be fun because they finally did it. I'm not sure at all though really, who should have gotten it.

[gaelan]

Hail to the Chief

[RedvsBlue]

Person of the Year. Can you say farce?

Who's been more influential this year? It's not a goodness award. I mean, Bush is joining such people as Hitler, Stalin and Ayatollah Khomeini on the list of people of the year.
Those people were leaders. What is Bush?

I know this is intended as a joke, but you have a point. Putting aside the horrors of those regimes (the first two in particular), they were undeniably great leaders, they just weren't exactly good. Bush is not a great leader, his ideas, beliefs and actions gain him supporters, but few are swayed by bush himself, his charisma, his speaches. It seems to be more of what he stands for, another person with a similar mindset and beliefs could do the same, that is not true for hitler, or the others (though to a lesser extent). Reagan and Clinton were leaders, Bush isn't.

I'd agree, a truly great leader can get even those who oppose him to gain interest. Hitler wasn't that great of a leader by himself, but his propaganda manager, Goebles, was brilliant at getting people to follow. Although I suppose you could argue that before he had a propaganda manager he did a good job of getting people to become fanatic followers. Hmmm, I guess I'm just not sure.

[Drocket]

...Hitler wasn't that great of a leader by himself..,
I take it you've never seen footage of any of his speeches. Despite being in a language I don't know, the power of his public speaking comes through loud and clear. Watching him speak and seeing the crowds respond to what he says, there can be no doubt that Hitler was at the very least one of the best public speakers of the 20th century. He was, alone and by himself, extremely charismatic and very capable of inspiring fanatical devotion in other people. His ideas were generally crap, but usually had little difficulty talking people who knew better into doing things his way.

[RedvsBlue]

...Hitler wasn't that great of a leader by himself..,
I take it you've never seen footage of any of his speeches. Despite being in a language I don't know, the power of his public speaking comes through loud and clear. Watching him speak and seeing the crowds respond to what he says, there can be no doubt that Hitler was at the very least one of the best public speakers of the 20th century. He was, alone and by himself, extremely charismatic and very capable of inspiring fanatical devotion in other people. His ideas were generally crap, but usually had little difficulty talking people who knew better into doing things his way.

Actually, had you read my entire post, you would see that after I said that I kind of went back on it and ultimately decided that I am on the fence with regard to the issue.

[Drocket]

I'm trying to convince you that you shouldn't be on the fence. Hitler was a GREAT leader. Now, where exactly he was leading people TO is a whole different matter...

[evilmax17]

I'm trying to convince you that you shouldn't be on the fence. Hitler was a GREAT leader. Now, where exactly he was leading people TO is a whole different matter...

Fully agreed. I've seen footage of his speeches in various film classes that I've taken, and they're really something to see (Go watch Triumph of the Will sometime). Its not hard to see how Germany fell in love with the guy, he was a very powerful speaker. I'd really like to see a president with Hitler's rhetoric abilities (but not his beliefs, obviously).

[camoor]

I'm trying to convince you that you shouldn't be on the fence. Hitler was a GREAT leader. Now, where exactly he was leading people TO is a whole different matter...

Fully agreed. I've seen footage of his speeches in various film classes that I've taken, and they're really something to see (Go watch Triumph of the Will sometime). Its not hard to see how Germany fell in love with the guy, he was a very powerful speaker. I'd really like to see a president with Hitler's rhetoric abilities (but not his beliefs, obviously).

Like when Cartman watches Hitler and dresses up like him for Haloween, without knowing what Hitler's saying or what he stands for. That's just hilarious.

[RedvsBlue]

I'm trying to convince you that you shouldn't be on the fence. Hitler was a GREAT leader. Now, where exactly he was leading people TO is a whole different matter...

Fully agreed. I've seen footage of his speeches in various film classes that I've taken, and they're really something to see (Go watch Triumph of the Will sometime). Its not hard to see how Germany fell in love with the guy, he was a very powerful speaker. I'd really like to see a president with Hitler's rhetoric abilities (but not his beliefs, obviously).

Yeah but you can't discount the fact that he had an amazing PR machine in Goebles. I think that, moreso than him being an amzing speaker, was what elevated him from popular to almost god-like status to the german people of WWII.

[Drocket]

Yeah but you can't discount the fact that he had an amazing PR machine in Goebles..
I agree, you can't underestimate Goebles, either, but Goebles did the 'indirect' propoganda. Hitler was the master of public speeches and up-close-and-personal discussions, but it was impossible to make that sort of connection with everyone in a country as large as Germany is/was (at least without modern communication systems.) So Goebles handled the 'indirect' propoganda - pamplets, booklets, and the like - but you can't underestimate Hitler in a face-to-face setting.

[Quackzilla]

It goes by who changed the world the most.

It was a toss up between Osama bin Ladin and George W. Bush, but Time is obviously afraid to name bin Ladin as person of the year because people would think they supported him.

[jmcc]

It goes by who changed the world the most.

It was a toss up between Osama bin Ladin and George W. Bush, but Time is obviously afraid to name bin Ladin as person of the year because people would think they supported him.

Plus he didn't do shit this year. What are they going to highlight? His awesome ability to cower in various caves and release scary tapes every once in a while?

[Quackzilla]

He released a tape saying he was afraid of Bush.

He [slightly] changed the course of an American presidential election.

[jmcc]

He released a tape saying he was afraid of Bush.

He [slightly] changed the course of an American presidential election.

That was misinterpreted, though. He meant he was afraid of the bush, as in the bush at the mouth of his cave. He was afraid his enemies could hide behind it and ambush him when he went for his morning paper.

[Quackzilla]

So is that why he burned it?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[David85]

He released a tape saying he was afraid of Bush.

He [slightly] changed the course of an American presidential election.

No he didn't he had nothing to do with it.

Bush won because the majority of this country are fools, Ohio even more, and voted for the person that is in love with "God".

[RedvsBlue]

Bush won because the majority of this country are fools, Ohio even more, and voted for the person that is in love with "God".

:roll: Good to see that you can respect people with an opinion different from yours.

[David85]

Considering it is a fact and not an opinion.

If Quack said the Earth was flat, or that the moon was made out of cheese, that wouldn't surprise me, but more so it wouldn't me an opinion, it would be wrong.

[kaw]

The title is, in ignorance, sometimes mistakenly assumed to be an honor. There was a massive public backlash in the United States after TIME named Ayatollah Khomeini Man of the Year in 1979. Since then, TIME has often shied away from choosing overly controversial candidates. TIME's Person of the Year 2001 — in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks — was New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani. It was a somewhat controversial result; many thought that Giuliani was deserving, but also many thought that the rules of selection ("the individual or group of individuals who have had the biggest effect on the year's news") made the obvious choice Osama bin Laden. They cited previous choices such as Adolf Hitler demonstrating that Man of the Year did not necessarily mean "Best Human Being of the Year".

According to stories in respected newspapers, TIME's editors anguished over the choice, fearing that selecting the al-Qaeda leader might offend readers (and advertisers). Adding a wrinkle to the equation was the fact that bin Laden had already appeared on its covers on October 1, November 12, and November 26. Many readers expressed dissatisfaction at the idea of seeing his face on the cover again. In the end, Giuliani's selection led some to criticize that TIME had chickened out.

In recent years the choices for Person of the Year have also been criticized for being too America-centric, which is a depature from the original tradition of recognizing foreign political leaders and thinkers. The last non-American Person of the Year was Pope John Paul II, in 1994.

Source: wikipedia.com

Though we spent hours debating the pros and cons of naming Osama bin Laden, it ultimately became easy to dismiss him," said managing editor Jim Kelly. "He is not a larger-than-life figure with broad historical sweep . . . he is smaller than life, a garden-variety terrorist whose evil plan succeeded beyond his highest hopes."

[zionoverfire]

I really don't see the big point of this anyhow, people don't pay attention to Time magazine the other 11 months a year, but suddently the man of the year issue comes out and everyone goes nuts.

[RedvsBlue]

Considering it is a fact and not an opinion.

If Quack said the Earth was flat, or that the moon was made out of cheese, that wouldn't surprise me, but more so it wouldn't me an opinion, it would be wrong.

I was referring to political opinions. Its interesting that you dislike the republican party because they are devoted to god but what about the republicans that are atheist, that just felt that Bush would do a better job than Kerry?

[zionoverfire]

republicans that are atheist, that just felt that Bush would do a better job than Kerry?

I haven't met one yet, or perhaps now I have?

[The_Continental]

Yes. . . and you've just met another. I love capitalism, hate welfare, both social and corporate, love market driven economy, hate income redistribution, love tech innovation (which only really exists in economically competitive environments), don't believe in god - never have, never will.

There are many of us 25-35 year old so called "South Park" Republicans, and I think it was us that largely won W his re-election.

South Park Republicans (http://www.techcentralstation.com/100702A.html)

republicans that are atheist, that just felt that Bush would do a better job than Kerry?

I haven't met one yet, or perhaps now I have?

[The_Continental]

BTW,

You should probably get out more.

I haven't met one yet, or perhaps now I have?

[zionoverfire]

Yes. . . and you've just met another. I love capitalism, hate welfare, both social and corporate, love market driven economy, hate income redistribution, love tech innovation (which only really exists in economically competitive environments), don't believe in god - never have, never will.

There are many of us 25-35 year old so called "South Park" Republicans, and I think it was us that largely won W his re-election.

South Park Republicans (http://www.techcentralstation.com/100702A.html)

republicans that are atheist, that just felt that Bush would do a better job than Kerry?

I haven't met one yet, or perhaps now I have?

I see, but his stance would seem to be opposite of yours on several key issues: The new perscription drug bill, the ban on stem cell research and the monetary cost of the war in Iraq. If so has he done enough things that are advantagious to you to make up for this?

[zionoverfire]

BTW,

You should probably get out more.

I haven't met one yet, or perhaps now I have?

I've met people with a similar train of thought but what their religious beliefs are I don't know. Its a location thing, I've gone to college at liberal universities in the middle of largely republicain counties it leads to an odd polarization. The democrats and the more liberal chrisitans tend to clump while at the same time the more fundamental chrisitans and republicans group together. So while I've met people with a similar line of reasoning, letting people know their religous beliefs or lack thereof would make them much more of an outcast then they want to be.

[The_Continental]

What you're saying here is pretty much true. This is not a very "traditionally conservative" administration as far as Republican spending goes. A debatable issue that I don't have time to get into at the moment - it'll start a war debate that I'm not interested in right now.

I do have to agree with W on the prescription drug plan, even though I'm about 60 years away from it affecting me. It goes hand in hand with the future of privatizing social security - which would be f uckin' awesome. When it happens, I'll be dancing in the streets. Imagine, I'll be able to control my own money (for once)!

Can you illustrate where W has spent my tax dollar spreading the word of gawd? - outside of prison that is.

you said: "continuation of free trade that probably would have continued under a democratic" . . .

probably, probably ... I don't vote for "probably"... and your last point, about the next republican leader being better than W. You have no argument from me, the Republican party is changing for the better. Soon, you'll have republican leaders that FINALLY want to abolish health insurance (yipee!), get rid of welfare, and finally think seriously about the fair tax act - but still think it's okay for two dudes to get married.

Fair Tax Act (http://www.theorator.com/bills108/hr25.html)


I see, it just seems like by re-electing him you guys are getting shafted, he's increased welfare like spending with the new perscription drug plan, spending has also gone up due to the deparment of homeland security and the war and tried to spread the word of God to everything he possibly could. While in return you got a tax cut and a repeal of the estate tax that may or may not affect you in any noticable way, plus a continuation of free trade that probably would have continued under a democratic administration minus some tax loopholes.

It just seems to me that if Bush had lost the next republican candidate would have been more tailored to your interests.

[zionoverfire]

What you're saying here is pretty much true. This is not a very "traditionally conservative" administration as far as Republican spending goes. A debatable issue that I don't have time to get into at the moment - it'll start a war debate that I'm not interested in right now.

I do have to agree with W on the prescription drug plan, even though I'm about 60 years away from it affecting me. It goes hand in hand with the future of privatizing social security - which would be f uckin' awesome. When it happens, I'll be dancing in the streets. Imagine, I'll be able to control my own money (for once)!

Can you illustrate where W has spent my tax dollar spreading the word of gawd? - outside of prison that is.

you said: "continuation of free trade that probably would have continued under a democratic" . . .

probably, probably ... I don't vote for "probably"... and your last point, about the next republican leader being better than W. You have no argument from me, the Republican party is changing for the better. Soon, you'll have republican leaders that FINALLY want to abolish health insurance (yipee!), get rid of welfare, and finally think seriously about the fair tax act - but still think it's okay for two dudes to get married.

Fair Tax Act (http://www.theorator.com/bills108/hr25.html)


I see, it just seems like by re-electing him you guys are getting shafted, he's increased welfare like spending with the new perscription drug plan, spending has also gone up due to the deparment of homeland security and the war and tried to spread the word of God to everything he possibly could. While in return you got a tax cut and a repeal of the estate tax that may or may not affect you in any noticable way, plus a continuation of free trade that probably would have continued under a democratic administration minus some tax loopholes.

It just seems to me that if Bush had lost the next republican candidate would have been more tailored to your interests.

And here I went back and editied my comment. :lol:

Well his drug plan seemed in contrast to your concept of ending goverment handouts while at the same time it does nothing to decrease drug costs but rather shifts the burden of who pays for it. My point of his spreading the word of god goes to the fact that I can't watch his speaches anymore because of it, not actual tax money spent, although Ashcroft has spent quite a bit of his time on issues that perhaps should have been left alone.

I would like to see this new better republican leader, I've always thought the Bush administration was a step backward for the republican party but if there is a new wave comming behind him I would most like to see it arrive. I'm not a big fan of your "fair" tax plan but a simplification of the tax code would be quite nice.

[camoor]

Can you illustrate where W has spent my tax dollar spreading the word of gawd? - outside of prison that is.

Is this good enough for you:

Look for a return to the "compassionate conservativism," including more efforts to expand federal funding for faith-based social initiatives, especially in prison reform and drug treatment. Congressional leaders expect a new drive to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, and a push for a comprehensive ban on human cloning. "Human life is a creation of God, not a commodity to be exploited by man," says Bush.

Coming off an election in which many voters cited "morals" as a top concern, Bush may use that mandate to promote responsible fatherhood, abstinence-only sex education, and "healthy marriages" in the reauthorization of welfare reform.

Bush made campaign pledges to triple federal funds for abstinence programs in schools and community-based programs. The president can expect support from Senate moderates like Sens. Joseph Lieberman (D) of Connecticut and Evan Bayh (D) of Indiana on some of his agenda. In the 108th Congress, faith-based initiatives derailed in the Senate over whether faith groups seeking funding should be required to end discrimination in hiring.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1105/p01s01-uspo.html

And that's from a sympathetic source.

I should also mention his crusade of the light brigade in the mid-east. (Crusade being Bush's word, not mine)

[The_Continental]

It would be, were it not for the "outside of prison, that is" clause I put in my original request.

And also, the paragraph starts out with a look for a.... That is to say, in the future...

Believe me, I do my best to track where my tax money goes . . . and as yet, I haven't seen that W has actually spent my money on god outside of prison.

Your article claims that he intends to do so. I'll let W's actions speak for him, and not the author of your article.

Thanks.

Can you illustrate where W has spent my tax dollar spreading the word of gawd? - outside of prison that is.

Is this good enough for you:

Look for a return to the "compassionate conservativism," including more efforts to expand federal funding for faith-based social initiatives, especially in prison reform and drug treatment. Congressional leaders expect a new drive to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, and a push for a comprehensive ban on human cloning. "Human life is a creation of God, not a commodity to be exploited by man," says Bush.

Coming off an election in which many voters cited "morals" as a top concern, Bush may use that mandate to promote responsible fatherhood, abstinence-only sex education, and "healthy marriages" in the reauthorization of welfare reform.

Bush made campaign pledges to triple federal funds for abstinence programs in schools and community-based programs. The president can expect support from Senate moderates like Sens. Joseph Lieberman (D) of Connecticut and Evan Bayh (D) of Indiana on some of his agenda. In the 108th Congress, faith-based initiatives derailed in the Senate over whether faith groups seeking funding should be required to end discrimination in hiring.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1105/p01s01-uspo.html

And that's from a sympathetic source.

I should also mention his crusade of the light brigade in the mid-east. (Crusade being Bush's word, not mine)

[The_Continental]

Why?

Oh, btw, it's not "my" plan - someone else came up with it - although I wouldn't mind taking the credit.

I'm not a big fan of your "fair" tax plan but a simplification of the tax code would be quite nice.

[camoor]

Continental, what part of this sentence don't you understand

Look for a return to the "compassionate conservativism," including more efforts to expand federal funding for faith-based social initiatives, especially in prison reform and drug treatment.

Return, as in it's already been done, and it's just being expanded.

It wasn't just prisons either, much of Bush's Christian policy wish-list is already implemented and funded, such as abstinence-only sex education and the legislative push to put a ban on gay marriage in the constitution (you really think that tacking fundamentalist christian morality on our most sacred document is going to pay for itself?)

So Continental, your thanks for pointing out that you voted for Bush, Gonzales, Mike Powell and the rest of the JC fan club is accepted in full. :lol:

[zionoverfire]

Why?

Oh, btw, it's not "my" plan - someone else came up with it - although I wouldn't mind taking the credit.

I'm not a big fan of your "fair" tax plan but a simplification of the tax code would be quite nice.

Its a collective you being the you who support this plan, bills are rarely written by just the congressmen whose names are attached.

I don't like your tax plan because it would increase the taxes I pay. I'm sure I could spend some time and come up with a compeling argument on why rich people should pay more taxes because of their greater need for the government due to their higher level of investment in the country but its 2:30.

[The_Continental]

Fair enough - the debate as to whether or not the rich should pay a higher percentage is not worth getting into. Suffice it to say that I believe taxes should be flat, you believe they shouldn't be. No big deal.

As a matter of fact, I used to feel the same way about the Fair Tax Act that you do. I remember when it was introduced several years back, I thought it sounded ludicrous. Last year I found out that the Libertarian party espoused the act, so I gave it another look. This is the piece that convinced me:

<someone else's words>

Two weeks ago a man stood up at a George Bush campaign appearance in Florida to ask about a piece of legislation known as HR25. Many, including myself, were pleased to hear Bush respond with some positive thoughts about the Fair Tax plan, a movement to replace the federal income tax with a national retail sales tax.

Washington is a city of inertia, and right now the inertia belongs to our present method of funding the operations of our government, the income tax. Politicians will not easily surrender a funding mechanism that lends itself so well to political demagoguery and which can be used to reward political allies and punish enemies.

The Fair Tax plan deserves a thorough public examination and debate. John Kerry seems dedicated to making sure this doesn’t happen. Soon after Bush cited the national retail sales tax as something worthy of further exploration, Kerry stepped forward with the typical class warfare rhetoric of the left. Acting as if he actually knew what was he was talking about (he didn’t), Kerry announced that the Fair Tax would amount to the largest increase in the tax burden on poor and middle income Americans in our history.

John Kerry was wrong. He was either speaking out of ignorance, or he was deliberately lying about the Fair Tax proposal in order to gain a political advantage. A politician lying in order to gain political advantage --- imagine that.

This column is lengthier than the norm, but I promise you that if you will invest the time it takes to read it you will be well on your way to becoming yet another rabid supporter of the Fair Tax plan. You will know that the poor and middle income Americans would be the prime beneficiaries of the proposal. You may even organize your own neighborhood march on Washington to demand that HR25 receive a fair hearing. In the next two minutes I’m going to turn you into a HR25 Fair Tax zealot. Read on:

First … the briefest of overviews: Simply put, HR25 would provide for the repeal of the 16th Amendment (the income tax amendment) and the dismantling of the IRS. All personal and corporate income taxes would end, as would all payroll taxes. There would not be one cent of federal taxes of any nature taken out of your paychecks. No more Social Security taxes. No more Medicare taxes. You earn $2,000 a payday; you get $2,000 a payday. The federal government would be funded through a national sales tax on goods and services sold at the retail level. No taxes on investments. No taxes on savings. You only get taxed on what you spend at the retail level. Store your earnings in a shoebox if you wish. They won’t be taxed.

When originally proposed, calculations showed that the sales tax would have to be in the area of 23%. A complete economic study is now being completed that is expected to bring that total to under 20%. For the purposes of this column, we’ll stick with the 23% figure.

OK … let’s put on our sensitivity hats for a few minutes here and think of the consequences of the Fair Tax Act on our nation’s poor, poor, pitiful poor. After all, they can hardly afford a 23% sales tax when they’re living paycheck-to-paycheck in the first place, right?

Bear in mind that for the most part those whom we define as “poor” aren’t paying any income tax anyway. In fact, many of them are getting checks from the government; a form of outright income redistribution. The absurdly named Earned Income Tax Credit, for example. How can these people survive going from a no-tax situation to paying a 24% sales tax on all their retail purchases?

The implementation of the Fair Tax would fail in short order if, as the question presupposes, nothing were to change except that all of us would be paying today’s prices for a gallon of milk or a loaf of bread, plus a 23% sales tax. But … that’s would be far from the reality under the Fair Tax. Under the Fair Tax the poor won’t only survive, they’ll positively thrive! The Fair Tax could turn out to be the best poverty-fighting tool devised in this country since the concept of hard work.

Let’s begin by considering two realities.

First, remember, please, that the poor, along with everybody else, will no longer have Social Security taxes or Medicare taxes withheld from their paychecks. Whatever they earn, they get on payday. For the poor this means an immediate 12 to 15% increase in their earnings.

Second. Don’t forget the 22% in imbedded taxes. These embedded taxes exist in virtually everything poor Americans or any other Americans have to buy. These embedded taxes represent all of the corporate and business income taxes and payroll taxes that the companies involved in the production, manufacture, marketing, distribution and sale of the goods and services must pay in the course of business. As soon as these taxes are gone, and after the competitive forces of the free market work their magic consumers, including the poor, will be paying at least 20% less for virtually everything they buy. This includes such basics as food, clothing, shelter and transportation. Yes... they’ll have to pay the new national sales tax, but when you factor in the lower prices caused by the disappearance of the embedded taxes you’ll see that the total price paid for consumer goods in terms of real dollars will fall or will remain very nearly the same.

So … just considering these factors, the Fair Tax delivers a winning hand to people living in or near to what we call poverty. They get every penny they earn on payday, amounting to a 12 to 15% pay raise, and when you factor in the Fair Tax and the lower prices, they’re actually end up spending less of their money for a retail purchase than before. What John Kerry calls the greatest increase in the tax burden on the poor in the history of our country is, in reality, their greatest tax reduction.

You need a clearer picture? Pull out your calculator. Let’s say that a single mother with two children spends $45 a week on groceries. The removal of the 22% embedded tax would bring the price of those groceries down to $35.10. The sales tax at 23% would be $8.07. This brings the total price to $43.17. That’s less than would have paid under today’s tax system. This single mother, whom we’ll consider “poor,” has just received a 12% to 15% increase in her weekly paychecks, and she’s paying less at the grocery story for her basic necessities.

So far, so good. At this point you should be thoroughly convinced that the Fair Tax would actually benefit, rather than harm the poor. But, then again, maybe not. Here’s the convincer. Brace yourself for the knockout punch.

The Rebate

Under the Fair Tax plan every consumer, rich and poor alike, will receive a check or an electronic credit to their bank account from the federal government every single month equal to the sales tax that person or that family would be expected to pay on the purchase of the basic necessities of life for that month. The size of the monthly payment will be based on the government’s published poverty levels for various sized households.

Here’s an example of how the rebate payments would have worked in 2003.

Let’s say you’re a married couple with two children. The Fair Tax Act sets forth a formula for computing the poverty level, based on government figures, which negates any marriage penalty. If the Fair Tax Act had been law in 2003 you would have been granted an annual consumption allowance of $24,240. This is what the government would assume you would have had to spend during that one year to buy the basic necessities of life for your family. The sales tax on this amount would equal $5,575. The government would have rebated this amount to you in 12 equal monthly installments of $465. What about a single woman with one child? Her monthly rebate in 2003 would have been $232. The lowest payment would be to a single person with no dependents. That person would have received $172 per month.

Now … bear in mind, this rebate isn’t only paid to the poor. It is paid to everyone, rich and poor alike. The purpose here is to make sure that no American has to pay the Fair Tax sales tax on the basic necessities of life. Unlike the present income tax system, the Fair Tax treats each and every person in this country exactly the same. This, of course, presents somewhat of a problem to politicians who like to use the tax code to foment class distrust or outright warfare.

OK … let’s add it up for America’s lower income citizens:

1. They get their entire paycheck.
2. Even with the sales tax, and considering the drop in prices, they’ll be paying essentially the same or less for everything they buy.
3. They get a check from the federal government every month to rebate any sales taxes they had to pay on life’s basic necessities.

Are you beginning to see just how far off-base John Kerry was with his intemperate criticisms?

Though most of the poor don’t have what we would call complex tax returns, let’s also include the time these they (all of us, really) will save by not having to keep tax records or file tax returns.

If you’re looking for some reason to oppose the Fair Tax plan, you’re going to have to find a better excuse than its effect on the poor. John Kerry might find it politically expedient to demagogue the issue for votes, but now you know enough to know what he’s up to.

For more comprehensive information on The Fair Tax you can visit http://www.fairtax.org.

</someone else's words>


I don't like your tax plan because it would increase the taxes I pay. I'm sure I could spend some time and come up with a compeling argument on why rich people should pay more taxes because of their greater need for the government due to their higher level of investment in the country but its 2:30.

[The_Continental]

I suppose the problem here is that you see the Spreading of the Word of God in places where I don't. In talking about the Spreading the Word, you use examples such as abstinence education and a gay marriage ban.

Neither of those two points is exclusively Christian, let alone religious. Although personally, I do not oppose gay marriage, it is entirely possible for someone to both oppose gay marriage and the Spreading of the Word of God at the same time. As a matter of fact, W is pushing the gay marriage thing not to recruit new Christians, but rather, to retain the votes of the Christians that already exist. Do you disagree?

Another point, abstinence only education will never exist in the United States. Never. There are far too many parties interested in the alternatives - namely teenagers.

Bottom line. Bush may be dancing on a fine line with the god thing, but the points you've brought to the table only illustrate that Bush is doing what he thinks is best for society, not that he is using my tax dollar to convert new Christians.

Doing what you think is right based on your beliefs, and trying to convert people to your beliefs are not the same thing.

What sounds more accurate to me is that you morally disagree with some of W's social policy - I do too - but then you make the fallacious jump to saying the he's using tax dollars to Spread the Word of God.

Believe me, as soon as my money starts being used to recruit new people to the Word of God (outside of prison, that is), I'll be the first one on the front lines.


Return, as in it's already been done, and it's just being expanded.

It wasn't just prisons either, much of Bush's Christian policy wish-list is already implemented and funded, such as abstinence-only sex education and the legislative push to put a ban on gay marriage in the constitution (you really think that tacking fundamentalist christian morality on our most sacred document is going to pay for itself?)


Proudly.


So Continental, your thanks for pointing out that you voted for Bush, Gonzales, Mike Powell and the rest of the JC fan club is accepted in full. :lol:

[camoor]

I suppose the problem here is that you see the Spreading of the Word of God in places where I don't. In talking about the Spreading the Word, you use examples such as abstinence education and a gay marriage ban.

Neither of those two points is exclusively Christian, let alone religious. Although personally, I do not oppose gay marriage, it is entirely possible for someone to both oppose gay marriage and the Spreading of the Word of God at the same time. As a matter of fact, W is pushing the gay marriage thing not to recruit new Christians, but rather, to retain the votes of the Christians that already exist. Do you disagree?


The ban on gay marriage is part of the fundamentalist and evangelical christian movement to move American law in line with their interpretation of biblical teachings (similar to sharia in the middle east). A desire to strip gays of rights afforded to other Americans may not be the sole province of fundamentalist christians (after all, the middle-east fundamentalists and nazis would also agree that gay people should have less rights) but in the "land of the free" it is a definining characteristic of this powerful political group.


Another point, abstinence only education will never exist in the United States. Never. There are far too many parties interested in the alternatives - namely teenagers.


Never say never continental, we're already well on our way...
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20041202/ts_alt_afp/us_education_sex_041202233602

Bottom line. Bush may be dancing on a fine line with the god thing, but the points you've brought to the table only illustrate that Bush is doing what he thinks is best for society, not that he is using my tax dollar to convert new Christians.

Doing what you think is right based on your beliefs, and trying to convert people to your beliefs are not the same thing.

What sounds more accurate to me is that you morally disagree with some of W's social policy - I do too - but then you make the fallacious jump to saying the he's using tax dollars to Spread the Word of God.

Believe me, as soon as my money starts being used to recruit new people to the Word of God (outside of prison, that is), I'll be the first one on the front lines.


Well, it is true that Bush is not Torquemada, torturing anyone who doesn't accept Jesus as their personal savior. However he is funding most of the bills that will legalize Christian morality.

Bush is also using his enormously powerful position to market Jesus Christ every chance he gets. If that isn't spreading the word of the Christian god, I don't know what is. When asked for a favorite political philosopher, Bush replied “Christ, because he changed my heart.” Prompted to elaborate on how Jesus changed his heart, Bush said: “Well, if they don’t know, it’s going to be hard to explain.” IE If you have the same emotional reaction that I do when I think of JC, you'll understand me and my actions as the president. If you're not in the big Jesus fanclub, then you're out of luck. If I had just arrived in America, and I felt marginalized by this neo-conservative climate (just going through an airport check will do that), a comment like Bush's would sure make me think about jumping on the Christian bandwagon.

I guess it's all OK by you as long as he doesn't hold any federally funded "Christian god rallies" or "Jesus walks". Me, well I start to draw the line when I can't do something because a group of desert-dwellers from 2000+ years ago thought it was a bad idea.

[The_Continental]

What rights exactly are homosexuals being stripped of? I'm interested to hear your answer.

As far as I know, the only right in question, that of homosexual marriage, is not a right that has been "stripped away," but rather, has never been granted in the first place.

Think about it - states that allow gay marriage can do so through new legislation, not by repealing old legislation. It's not like Mass. llifted some ban gay marriage, they created new legislation to allow it - as all states should.

So, what rights are you talking about?

Also, based on both the tone (as difficult as that is to discern on a message board) of your post as well your Stop Christianty Now mentality, it seems that you must really hate JC.

For me, I simply don't believe in or care about Jesus Christ or god, it's just mythology to me - I don't care what people believe in. For that same reason, I'm not offended when Yudhoyono, the newly elected president of Indonsia, the coutry I'm from incidentally, mentions mohammad or the qoran during political rallies or within social programs.

I'm purely Atheist, but I'm not gonna go get offended when someone mentions a belief he or she is passionate about from the lectern.

Would you opt to stamp out religion altogether - or just Christianity?



A desire to strip gays of rights afforded to other Americans .....

[camoor]

What rights exactly are homosexuals being stripped of? I'm interested to hear your answer.

As far as I know, the only right in question, that of homosexual marriage, is not a right that has been "stripped away," but rather, has never been granted in the first place.

Think about it - states that allow gay marriage can do so through new legislation, not by repealing old legislation. It's not like Mass. llifted some ban gay marriage, they created new legislation to allow it - as all states should.

So, what rights are you talking about?

Also, based on both the tone (as difficult as that is to discern on a message board) of your post as well your Stop Christianty Now mentality, it seems that you must really hate JC.

For me, I simply don't believe in or care about Jesus Christ or god, it's just mythology to me - I don't care what people believe in. For that same reason, I'm not offended when Yudhoyono, the newly elected president of Indonsia, the coutry I'm from incidentally, mentions mohammad or the qoran during political rallies or within social prgrams.

I'm purely Atheist, but I'm not gonna go get offended when someone mentions a belief he or she is passionate about from the lectern.

Would you opt to stamp out religion altogether - or just Christianity?


I know that in Hawaii gays have been able to marry for a long time. They would be stripped of that right in that state, for one. I could have sworn that there were other states that had laws like this on the books.

As for religion - I am a big advocate of protecting religious freedom. I think it's fine that people have found a religion that they love and believe in, I just don't want to be forced by the US government to live according to any particular religion's morality.

And what do you know about how I feel about the teachings of the actual Jesus Christ? The only people I'm talking about in my post is a former alcoholic and business failure who believes he can read a 2000+ year old mythology in a literal way and his emphatic followers who want to force me to live according to rules of the Christian bible as they see it.

[MrBadExample]

One example I can think of where religion has mixed with politics is the US position in the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Recently US evangelicals have become very supportive of Israel because of their interpretations of Armageddon. This administration has ignored that conflict for the most part even before 9/11. I believe we should be demanding concessions from both sides to try to put an end to the violence.

As a caveat, I know the Israel-Palestinian problem is not going to be solved simply and other Presidents have taken Israel's side as well. Clinton tried to reach some sort of peace agreement and Bush dropped the ball when he took office. I don't see Bush ever getting tough with Israel because of his personal beliefs and evangelical support.

I am for complete religious freedom for everyone without any government support or suppression.

[The_Continental]

Camoor, I don't really think we should be aguing about the gay marriage thing, because from the looks of it, we agree. I think that state government should be responsible for the definition of marriage, not the federal government, and for sure not the Constitution. It sounds like you agree.


I know that in Hawaii gays have been able to marry for a long time. They would be stripped of that right in that state, for one. I could have sworn that there were other states that had laws like this on the books.


Cool, me too. You perceive W mentioning god during press conferences as "being forced by the US government to live according to any particular religion's morality."

I just percieve it as a guy being passionate about what he believes in - like most world leaders - as they should be.

You and just have a difference of opinion on that issue, not really worth arguing about either.


As for religion - I am a big advocate of protecting religious freedom. I think it's fine that people have found a religion that they love and believe in, I just don't want to be forced by the US government to live according to any particular religion's morality.


In what ways have you been forced to live by the word of god? What are some real world examples?

I'm an Atheist in this country and I'm doing just fine, how come I haven't been "forced to live according to rules of the Christian bible as they see it?"

Let me know. Thanks...


And what do you know about how I feel about the teachings of the actual Jesus Christ? The only people I'm talking about in my post is a former alcoholic and business failure who believes he can read a 2000+ year old mythology in a literal way and his emphatic followers who want to force me to live according to rules of the Christian bible as they see it.

[The_Continental]

Bad Example, I was waiting for you to show up in this thread! You and I haven't done this for awhile - since at least before the election.

One example I can think of where religion has mixed with politics is the US position in the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Recently US evangelicals have become very supportive of Israel because of their interpretations of Armageddon. This administration has ignored that conflict for the most part even before 9/11. I believe we should be demanding concessions from both sides to try to put an end to the violence.

As a caveat, I know the Israel-Palestinian problem is not going to be solved simply and other Presidents have taken Israel's side as well. Clinton tried to reach some sort of peace agreement and Bush dropped the ball when he took office. I don't see Bush ever getting tough with Israel because of his personal beliefs and evangelical support.

I am for complete religious freedom for everyone without any government support or suppression.

[The_Continental]

Not to discount your post - it is very valid - but if we're gonna start talking Israel/Palestine, I think we should do it in a new thread.

It could get a helluva lot longer than the CC $5 sale thread.

One example I can think of where religion has mixed with politics is the US position in the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Recently US evangelicals have become very supportive of Israel because of their interpretations of Armageddon. This administration has ignored that conflict for the most part even before 9/11. I believe we should be demanding concessions from both sides to try to put an end to the violence.

As a caveat, I know the Israel-Palestinian problem is not going to be solved simply and other Presidents have taken Israel's side as well. Clinton tried to reach some sort of peace agreement and Bush dropped the ball when he took office. I don't see Bush ever getting tough with Israel because of his personal beliefs and evangelical support.

I am for complete religious freedom for everyone without any government support or suppression.

[camoor]

In what ways have you been forced to live by the word of god? What are some real world examples?

Sure.

The television and radio programming that I get, as someone without cable, has been dramatically censored because a middle-aged woman showed her left boob and 127 Americans sent mimeographed copies of the same form letter to the FCC. Thank goodness I don't live in the boonies, I could have missed one of my favorite movies (Saving Private Ryan)

Even if I'm not affected by the other biblical legislation for the time being, I have always liked this poem:


First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller


The groups that are oppressed may change, but the central lesson remains the same.

[The_Continental]

What does that have to do with W exactly?

Also, who exactly are "they" coming for right now?

I am an Atheist southeast Asian American with Muslim parents, and I feel pretty darn free and comfortable in this country - I'm guessing, and I could be wrong, that you're a white dude, who exactly is "coming after you?"

In what ways have you been forced to live by the word of god? What are some real world examples?

Sure.

The television and radio programming that I get, as someone without cable, has been dramatically censored because a middle-aged woman showed her left boob and 127 Americans sent mimeographed copies of the same form letter to the FCC. Thank goodness I don't live in the boonies, I could have missed one of my favorite movies (Saving Private Ryan)

Even if I'm not affected by the other biblical legislation for the time being, I have always liked this poem:


First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller


The groups that are oppressed may change, but the central lesson remains the same.

[camoor]

What does that have to do with W exactly?

In what ways have you been forced to live by the word of god? What are some real world examples?

Sure.

The television and radio programming that I get, as someone without cable, has been dramatically censored because a middle-aged woman showed her left boob and 127 Americans sent mimeographed copies of the same form letter to the FCC. Thank goodness I don't live in the boonies, I could have missed one of my favorite movies (Saving Private Ryan)


Mike Powell, head of the FCC and leader of the crusade against "indecency" on the airwaves, was appointed by George Bush Jr.

[The_Continental]

sorry - I edited my earlier post - please respond.

[The_Continental]

So are you saying that W and Powell mind-controlled people into being offended by the sight of Janet's saggy boob?

Listen dude, when people are offended, ratings go down, and advertising money decreases. Networks are interested in making MONEY . . . When people say that they're gonna quit watching unless things change, things are gonna change.

Seems pretty simple to me.

What does that have to do with W exactly?

In what ways have you been forced to live by the word of god? What are some real world examples?

Sure.

The television and radio programming that I get, as someone without cable, has been dramatically censored because a middle-aged woman showed her left boob and 127 Americans sent mimeographed copies of the same form letter to the FCC. Thank goodness I don't live in the boonies, I could have missed one of my favorite movies (Saving Private Ryan)


Mike Powell, head of the FCC and leader of the crusade against "indecency" on the airwaves, was appointed by George Bush Jr.

[Backlash]

Thank goodness I don't live in the boonies, I could have missed one of my favorite movies (Saving Private Ryan)


I missed it and I live in Dallas, TX :(

Nobody wants to take responsibility for anything anymore. If parents think it might "harm" their children, then don't let them watch it. If they had done their job in the first place (the parents), then their children would have good values/morality/ethics and wouldn't be affected by a movie anyway.

[Backlash]

So are you saying that W and Powell mind-controlled people into being offended by the sight of Janet's saggy boob?

Listen dude, when people are offended, ratings go down, and advertising money decreases.

I don't think that many people were offended - a few people made a giant stink and ruined it (not her boob, but censorship in general) for everyone else.

Edit: PS: When's the next trivia contest? :)

[The_Continental]

Ah - the next trivia contest - It should be coming up soon, the prize is gonna be KUF: Crusaders for the xbox, but I need to come up with a question that Kaw can't answer - he's gotten the last three prizes in a row.

I'll probably post the question on Friday afternoon.

also, are you insinuating that her boob was already ruined? If so, I agree.

So are you saying that W and Powell mind-controlled people into being offended by the sight of Janet's saggy boob?

Listen dude, when people are offended, ratings go down, and advertising money decreases.

I don't think that many people were offended - a few people made a giant stink and ruined it (not her boob, but censorship in general) for everyone else.

Edit: PS: When's the next trivia contest? :)

[The_Continental]

Oh btw camoor, if boobs are what "they" have taken away from you, I think I know some CAGers that can hook you up with some sites to fill that gap in your life.

[Backlash]

Looking forward to the question, but you don't have any other comments about my post? Other than our agreement about her boob not really doing anything for us?

[The_Continental]

Sure - I was looking on-line for a specific number of complaints the FCC received after the incident. I'm curious to know the exact figure.

Also, I don't really watch much TV, just Twilight Zone on DVD and games baby! What sort of stuff has been censored?

I do know that between the boob and the memos, CBS' rating had gone to crap a couple of months ago. I wonder if they ever recovered.

Looking forward to the question, but you don't have any other comments about my post? Other than our agreement about her boob not really doing anything for us?

[Backlash]

Looks like a bunch of complaints, but mostly all from one group:

http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=41074&highlight=fcc+complaints

I don't know of many censored items in particular (other than replacing Saving Private Ryan with Hoosiers), but I am thinking about programming in general, and how uptight this country is about violence and nudity.

[camoor]

What does that have to do with W exactly?

Also, who exactly are "they" coming for right now?

I am an southeast Asian American with Muslim parents, and I feel pretty darn free and comfortable in this country - I'm guessing, and I could be wrong, that you're a white dude, who exactly is "coming after you?"

No one's coming after me yet.

The fundamentalist Christians don't like the gays, and want to pass laws in the constitution outlawing their unions.

They also don't like anything that interferes with pregnancy and the cycle of life as their group sees it, so they are going after the planned parenthood community that uses "The Pill", other "morning-after pills", and abortion. They are also going after doctors and medical scientists who use fetus cells to try and find a cure to horribly debilitating diseases.

They don't like "indecency" and have started going after the "liberal hollywood types".

They don't like evolution and have started going after scientists who are teaching only the scientific theories of life in HS biology.

And if you take the poll in this forum as fact, they want to limit the rights of Muslims (we already have a determent camp in Guantanamo, I can see this escalating to the scale of the Japanese-American determent camps of WWII)

However, I am safe for the time being.

[MrBadExample]

In an appearance before Congress in February, when the controversy over Janet Jackson’s Super Bowl moment was at its height, Federal Communications Commission chairman Michael Powell laid some startling statistics on U.S. senators.

The number of indecency complaints had soared dramatically to more than 240,000 in the previous year, Powell said. The figure was up from roughly 14,000 in 2002, and from fewer than 350 in each of the two previous years. There was, Powell said, “a dramatic rise in public concern and outrage about what is being broadcast into their homes.”


What Powell did not reveal—apparently because he was unaware—was the source of the complaints. According to a new FCC estimate obtained by Mediaweek, nearly all indecency complaints in 2003—99.8 percent—were filed by the Parents Television Council, an activist group.

This year, the trend has continued, and perhaps intensified.

Through early October, 99.9 percent of indecency complaints—aside from those concerning the Janet Jackson “wardrobe malfunction” during the Super Bowl halftime show broadcast on CBS— were brought by the PTC, according to the FCC analysis dated Oct. 1. (The agency last week estimated it had received 1,068,767 complaints about broadcast indecency so far this year; the Super Bowl broadcast accounted for over 540,000, according to commissioners’ statements.)

The prominent role played by the PTC has raised concerns among critics of the FCC’s crackdown on indecency. “It means that really a tiny minority with a very focused political agenda is trying to censor American television and radio,” said Jonathan Rintels, president and executive director of the Center for Creative Voices in Media, an artists’ advocacy group.

http://www.mediaweek.com/mediaweek/headlines/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000731656

Basically it's a small, very vocal minority who are raising a fuss over "indecency on the airwaves." It's ridiculous that the FCC is listening to these would-be censors so much that they wouldn't tell stations that Saving Private Ryan" was okay to show on broadcast tv. I don't blame stations for being skittish, I blame the FCC for being overzealous.

[camoor]

Oh btw camoor, if boobs are what "they" have taken away from you, I think I know some CAGers that can hook you up with some sites to fill that gap in your life.

LOL I'm sure!

Seriously though, if I want to see an episode of ER that is *somewhat* medically realistic, in a Post-SuperbowlBoob Special world I am out of luck.

If I want to hear Stern talk to the stars about their sex life, I'm out of luck.

If I want to see a movie on network TV where soldiers, cops, or firefighters actually talk and act like real soldiers, cops, or firefighters, I am out of luck.

[The_Continental]

I switch it over to TLC when I want medical realism. I wonder why the FCC hasn't censored the boobs I keep on seeing on the show Operation.

As for your saying want to see a movie on network TV where soldiers, cops, or firefighters actually talk and act like real soldiers, cops, or firefighters, I am out of luck.

Your statement is true this year, it was true last year, it was true 5 years, ago, 10 years ago, pretty much since the beginning of television. It's certainly not W's fault.

I challenge anyone ot name a TV show that accurately portrays soldiers, cops, or firefighters.

and no, you can't say "Cops."

[zionoverfire]

You need a clearer picture? Pull out your calculator. Let’s say that a single mother with two children spends $45 a week on groceries. The removal of the 22% embedded tax would bring the price of those groceries down to $35.10. The sales tax at 23% would be $8.07. This brings the total price to $43.17. That’s less than would have paid under today’s tax system. This single mother, whom we’ll consider “poor,” has just received a 12% to 15% increase in her weekly paychecks, and she’s paying less at the grocery story for her basic necessities.


Now if the poor and everyone else has a net increase in their pocket books doesn't that mean that the government has a net decrease? That is of course if I assume that all the BS about companies dropping their prices exactly 22% on everything actually works from just payroll and income taxes alone, I reallly doubt food prices will will drop and housing will stay about the same. This of course is solved with a rebate that somehow the goverment can afford even though its total tax revenue will decrease and it still has to pay for social security and medicare.

This plan might work but the tax will probably be significantly higher, closer to 30% and consumers might see a 15% drop in overall prices. Which would not be a good deal for the average american.

[The_Continental]

I see your point. I've read several different economists' predictions of how the Fair Tax Act would be implemented, and a couple of them, Thomas Sowell I think, predicted the 22% reduction based on the removal of the embedded tax.

All I'm saying is that I think that piece of legislation is a good idea, but I can see why people still have reservations.

Hey as long as people are reading about it and considering it, whatever thier conclusions, I am happy.



You need a clearer picture? Pull out your calculator. Let’s say that a single mother with two children spends $45 a week on groceries. The removal of the 22% embedded tax would bring the price of those groceries down to $35.10. The sales tax at 23% would be $8.07. This brings the total price to $43.17. That’s less than would have paid under today’s tax system. This single mother, whom we’ll consider “poor,” has just received a 12% to 15% increase in her weekly paychecks, and she’s paying less at the grocery story for her basic necessities.


Now if the poor and everyone else has a net increase in their pocket books doesn't that mean that the government has a net decrease? That is of course if I assume that all the BS about companies dropping their prices exactly 22% on everything actually works from just payroll and income taxes alone, I reallly doubt food prices will will drop and housing will stay about the same. This of course is solved with a rebate that somehow the goverment can afford even though its total tax revenue will decrease and it still has to pay for social security and medicare.

This plan might work but the tax will probably be significantly higher, closer to 30% and consumers might see a 15% drop in overall prices. Which would not be a good deal for the average american.

[camoor]

I switch it over to TLC when I want medical realism. I wonder why the FCC hasn't censored the boobs I keep on seeing on the show Operation.

As for your saying want to see a movie on network TV where soldiers, cops, or firefighters actually talk and act like real soldiers, cops, or firefighters, I am out of luck.

Your statement is true this year, it was true last year, it was true 5 years, ago, 10 years ago, pretty much since the beginning of television. It's certainly not W's fault.

I challenge anyone ot name a TV show that accurately portrays soldiers, cops, or firefighters.

and no, you can't say "Cops."

ER was going to show an elderly woman with a breast exposed in a medical situation a week after the superbowl. That was cancelled.

NYPD Blue had been pushing the bounds of censored TV as well, showing realistic depictions of sexual situations with brief nudity. Noone will dare do that now. (NYPD Blue is about cops)

And if you listen to Stern, his show doesn't get up to half of the schenanegans that it used to.

Compared to last year, more content is being censored by the government.

Almost no TV shows depict American life realistically, that's their appeal. However, some of us who don't pay the outrageous prices for cable TV still want to see a world that has more then platonic relationships between adults and a way of talking that went out in the 1950s.

W put Mike Powell in office. As far as I'm concerned, he's responsible for all of the censorship that Powell has decided to enact.

[zionoverfire]

I see your point. I've read several different economists' predictions of how the Fair Tax Act would be implemented, and a couple of them, Thomas Sowell I think, predicted the 22% reduction based on the removal of the embedded tax.

All I'm saying is that I think that piece of legislation is a good idea, but I can see why people still have reservations.

Hey as long as people are reading about it and considering it, whatever thier conclusions, I am happy.


Well if buisnesses ever start paying their share of taxes again then your plan might be quite useful and it would do a very good job of eliminating the need for anything like the IRS.

[E-Z-B]

Man, been away from this forum too long due to the holidays. But better late than never!:

http://www.dubyasworld.com/dubya-suck-up-magazine.jpg