namelesstavern.net

Zanchief wrote:Well Lue since you dropped by...

Zanchief wrote:I'd like for one of the resident Bush supporters to tell me how this thing is winnable.

What do you consider the conditions of victory?

Why, the conditions Bush himself set forth as the supposed objectives: Iraq as a stable, unified, western-style democracy, friendly to the united states and a staunch ally.

Me, I don't think it's possible. Iraq is either going to balkanize into seperate shia/sunni/kurdish states, or it's going to be an ongoing bloodbath for years, and ultimately will be run by a Iranian style psuedo-democratic Theocracy.

I said before we went that it would never work, and was a spectacularly bad idea, and nothing, NOTHING I've seen since we went has in the slightest way proven me wrong. Boy, when I think of the better uses to which 400+ billion could have been put, including actually doing the job RIGHT in Afghanistan....

I just have to look back to before the war to testimony Wolfowitz gave to congress, where he said that invading Iraq wouldn't cost the american taxpayers 1 dime, that it would all be paid for out of Iraqi oil revenues. I don't think anyone has been more wrong about the outcome of a war since the guy who, before the Civil War, predicted it would amount to not much, and all the blood spilled during it could be mopped up with a white cotton handkercheif.

-Arlos

arlos wrote:OK, Bush *WILL* go down in history as being one of our worst Presidents ever.

That satisfy you, tense-boy?

-Arlos

Depends on who is doing the analysis.

Any impartial analysts, honestly.

Lets see what happened under his watch:

The largest terrosit attack in history occured on our soil.

Federal budget surplus was transformed into the largest deficits in history.

More and more power was (or at least attmpted to be) assumed into the office of president, at the expense of the other branches, disrupting the balance of powers that is the fundamental block on which the US governmental system is built.

He squandered one of the biggest single outpourings of goodwill and popularity for the US in history by his belligerent foreign policy stances.

He took us into a useless war that has stretched the military to the breaking point, reduced our moral standing in the world, cost us hundreds of billions of dollars, and is still looking like an indefinite quagmire that it will be impossible to withdraw from gracefully.

He's led an attack against the middle class, by granting upper classes and business billions upon billions of tax cuts that impact the lower and middle classes not at all. (you think that a tax cut on dividends benefits someone working full time and making 50k a year? Of course not, it helps the wealthy who don't work and live off dividend payments from investments)

Environmental laws have been gutted and ignored. (Believe me on this one, my aunt worked for the EPA for 30+ years and reached as high as you can get without being a political apointee, she was off even the GS charts, as part of something called the "Senior Leadership Corps" rankings of government employees)

Aid students attending college was slashed (this one impacts me personally; as you know)


Need I continue? I could go on like that for ages. Now, what POSITIVES are there to compare? The economy is worse than in the 90s; there's far less high paying jobs out there. Outsourcing is worse, etc. I can't think of really any aspect of american life that isn't worse now than when he took over in 2000.

SO oh yes, he's going to EASILY be ranked as one of the worst ever.

-Arlos

I can come up with at least that many negative points about Clinton. Like I said... it's all about who is doing the analyzing. You can talk about the budget all you want. Clinton balanced the budget... so what. Taxes also went through the roof so he could balance the budget, and people weren't happy about it.

arlos wrote:Iraq as a stable, unified, western-style democracy, friendly to the united states and a staunch ally.

Half of that has already been accomplished, the other half will never be accomplished by a cut an run tactic. In essence we need to finish what we started, and we need to do so with a strong resolve. We need to eliminate support for those seeking to use strife to subvert or control the Iraqi government, or attack agents of that government, be it our own troops or the ISF. To this end we must address military aid coming into the country from Iran, Syria and any other sources. We must also annihilate organizations (and I use that term loosely) within the country who do not accept the Iraqi government rule and seek to take up arms to oppose it. Be it local warlords, or terrorist organizations.

At this point when it comes to clashes between what are essentially civilians driven by a virtual clan mentality we need to support the ISF, backing them up, but also letting them take their lumps and learn from it... insure success but be insurance, not a get out of jail free card if you will. This is the first area where we really need to push the Iraqi government, but if we have eliminated outside influence and aid, I believe with support the government in Iraq will be able to deal with civilian clashes and neutralize the problem, leaving people with the only option to make change being one of civil means via negotiation and government.

Above all else, utterly destroy anyone who takes aim at our troops, and I don't mean wait until they are fired upon. I don't want to hear any more stories about "peaceful" religious protesters marching into a mosque right by US troops and coming out armed to the teeth as combatants. This is war and where the enemies of our forces seek to use civilians and religion as cover to gain an upper hand on our troops prevention is a necessity, civil and religious rights take a back seat to the safety and security of our troops until such a time as peace becomes the norm, not attacks.

So yea, lets get it over with, lets get our troops home, and lets do it quickly. Let us do this however not by surrender, but through getting serious about it... and to date I don't think we've been serious enough.

Lueyen wrote:

arlos wrote:Iraq as a stable, unified, western-style democracy, friendly to the united states and a staunch ally.

Half of that has already been accomplished, the other half will never be accomplished by a cut an run tactic. In essence we need to finish what we started, and we need to do so with a strong resolve. We need to eliminate support for those seeking to use strife to subvert or control the Iraqi government, or attack agents of that government, be it our own troops or the ISF. To this end we must address military aid coming into the country from Iran, Syria and any other sources. We must also annihilate organizations (and I use that term loosely) within the country who do not accept the Iraqi government rule and seek to take up arms to oppose it. Be it local warlords, or terrorist organizations.

At this point when it comes to clashes between what are essentially civilians driven by a virtual clan mentality we need to support the ISF, backing them up, but also letting them take their lumps and learn from it... insure success but be insurance, not a get out of jail free card if you will. This is the first area where we really need to push the Iraqi government, but if we have eliminated outside influence and aid, I believe with support the government in Iraq will be able to deal with civilian clashes and neutralize the problem, leaving people with the only option to make change being one of civil means via negotiation and government.

Above all else, utterly destroy anyone who takes aim at our troops, and I don't mean wait until they are fired upon. I don't want to hear any more stories about "peaceful" religious protesters marching into a mosque right by US troops and coming out armed to the teeth as combatants. This is war and where the enemies of our forces seek to use civilians and religion as cover to gain an upper hand on our troops prevention is a necessity, civil and religious rights take a back seat to the safety and security of our troops until such a time as peace becomes the norm, not attacks.

So yea, lets get it over with, lets get our troops home, and lets do it quickly. Let us do this however not by surrender, but through getting serious about it... and to date I don't think we've been serious enough.

Gates is in Iraq (or going to Iraq) to converse with generals to develop a better plan on fighting this war with the Jihadists.

I'm amazed at the fact that people can still think there's a pony in there somewhere.

Iraq is a steaming shitpile, and there will *NEVER* be a graceful exit strategy that leaves it as a "shining beacon of democracy" that is an ally of the US. Won't happen, period.

So far the best plan I've heard is to just split the country up into 3 countries, 1 for each ethnic group, while keeping Baghdad as a jointly-held city, similar to Berlin back in the day, just no Wall. Problem there is that the Shiia and Sunni don't much like the idea, and Turkey sure as hell doesn't want an independant Kurdistan on their border. Still, the Kurds actually DO like us, Kurdistan is a autonimous country in all but name already, and the sunni and shiia will probably NEVER like us, so I don't see much solution other than that.

The average Iraqi sure as hell doesn't trust their politicians. Hell, the militias CONTROLLED by some of the big names in politics there are directly responsible for some of the worst of the sectarian violence that's occuring. It's not just al-Sadr, either. People are being kidnapped, tortured to death and dumped in teh street, and nothing happens to bring the perpetrators to justice. Not that it would matter, since many of the perpetrators ARE the police and Iraqi army.

No, Iraq is going to be a vortex of shit for a very very long time, and is going to have a worse negative impact on America than Vietnam did.

-Arlos

Narrock wrote:

arlos wrote:OK, Bush *WILL* go down in history as being one of our worst Presidents ever.

That satisfy you, tense-boy?

-Arlos

Depends on who is doing the analysis.

not really.

Narrock wrote:I can come up with at least that many negative points about Clinton. Like I said... it's all about who is doing the analyzing. You can talk about the budget all you want. Clinton balanced the budget... so what. Taxes also went through the roof so he could balance the budget, and people weren't happy about it.

taxes will go thru the roof again. the republican habit of spending till your broke and then spend more forces this to clean up their mess.

Hell at this point I would rather hav Bush Sr running the country then this stupid muthafucker

Narrock wrote: Clinton balanced the budget... so what. Taxes also went through the roof so he could balance the budget, and people weren't happy about it.

well to be fair, you have to have a taxation level equal to the level of your expenditures


it's fine and dandy to want low taxes, but in order to get services you do have to pay for them

Clinton balanced the budget... so what. Taxes also went through the roof

You know what, I didn't believe that statement, based on what I remember paying back then, and what the situation is now. So, I decided to do some research on tax rates in 1995, during Clinton's presidency, in 1999 during Clinton's Presidency, and 2005, during Bush's.

All information was taken from the IRS website.
For 1995, the info is obtained from: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/95inrate.pdf using the table at the bottom of page 3, which lists the tax rate percentage for various income brackets.

For 1999, the info is obtained from: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/99inrate.pdf again, using the table at the bottom of page 3 which lists tax rate percentages from various income brackets.

For 2005, the information is obtained from: http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0, ... 17,00.html Unfortunately, the calculations are a bit screwier, as it calculates your income up to the previous bracket at the lower rate, and above that at the new rate. But, we can still work with it.

Now, lets first look at someone making 50,000 a year. Worth quite a bit less now than in 1995, but that's neither here nor there. According to the 1995 documents, the average tax rate for someone making up to 50,000 is 10.3%, rising to 13.1% if you go over that, up to $100,000.

OK, now, lets look at that for 1999. According to the IRS, the average tax rate for someone making $50k a year was 9.4%, rising to 12.4% if you go over that up to $100k. Those numbers are LOWER than in 1995, which means by the end of Clinton's terms, taxes were LOWER than 4 years earlier. Note that this is the same fiscal year when we had a budget SURPLUS.

Now, lets examine the 2005 tax rate. A single person making 50,000 a year has an income tax burden of $9415. That's 18.83%, and they're paying anything above 50k up to about 72,000 at 25%! Someone filing as head of household at 50k a year will have to pay $7845 in taxes, for a rate of 13.7%, but this rises sharply once they hit 60k a year or so, as everything above that is charged at a 25% rate.

So, lets compare some hard numbers here:

Average tax paid in 1995:

50k a year income: $5,150 (10.3%)
100k a year income: $13,100 (13.1%)

Average tax paid in 1999:

50k a year income: $4,700 (9.4%)
100k a year income: $12,400 (12.4%)

Average tax paid in 2005

Single person @50k a year income: $9,415 (18.83%)
Single person @100k a year income: $22,506.50 (22.51%)

Head of Household @50k a year income: $7,845 (15.69%)
Head of Household @100k a year income: $18,330 (18.33%)

So, even in the best case tax scenario (head of household), the tax burden in 2005 is nearly 1.5 times *HIGHER* by pure dollar value for middle class persons than it was in 1995. Compared to the 1999 values, in at least one case the burden may have DOUBLED, or even in the best case, DID go up by 50% or more.

Funny, somehow, I just don't see how those numbers equate to MIDDLE CLASS people paying less taxes under Bush than under Clinton... Now, the upper upper classes, their income largely comes from dividends, trust income, capital gains, etc. etc. etc. *THOSE* tax rates were cut to almost nothing. Indeed, in some cases, like dividend income, they WERE cut to nothing. So, Mr. Fat Cat with a shitload of, say, IBM stock that pays him 100k a year in dividends pays $0 in income tax. That's right, not one dime, and it's simply because he doesn't actually work for his money.


So, Mindia, could you possible care to explain to me how the middle class somehow is paying vastly lower taxes now than under Clinton, when the hard numbers taken DIRECTLY FROM THE IRS ITSELF seem to dispute that notion?

How about you, Lueyen? Can anyone?

Me, I'm disgusted. First at the lie that Bush's tax cuts have somehow helped the middle class, when the burden has gone up by at LEAST 50%. At the same time, we've gone from a budget surplus to record deficits, while that burden has increased. All so that the richest of the rich can get that much richer. Is it any wonder why the poor class is growing, the ultra-rich class is getting richer at a historic rate, and the middle class is getting squeezed out of existance?

-Arlos

Well Arlos, just off hand you used the wrong percentages from 1995 and 1999 shift those one column higher. I'd check the rest... but honestly I need to head to bed, however it looks as if you are comparing exact tax rates for a given income in 2005 to average rates for brackets for that same income level, but at the bottom of that bracket for 95 and 99. In short you made a mistake in where you took the numbers from and are comparing apples to oranges.

Evermore wrote:they cant because its not. Never was from the start.


well that isnt totaly true. To "win" this you would need Stalin like or Saddam like tactics and no way the US will ever do that. thats not even a "win" all you do then is suppress, the idology is still there.


Stupid fucker didnt learn a thing from 'Nam

add to that - you can't walk in and over turn a system that's thousands of years old and say "hey you're democratic now!! woohoo!!" and expect everything to be working in a couple of months.

Well, EVEN IF you compare the 100k numbers from 95 and 99 to the 50k numbers of 2005, then 2005 STILL loses. Since these ranges go ABOVE 50k all the way up to 100k, they should be HIGHER than the strict 50k numbers from 2005, if you want to proclaim theere being any sort of tax cut, yes?

1995 50-100k income bracket average: 13.1%

1999 50-100k income bracket average: 12.4%

2005 50k Single Income tax value: 18.83%

2005 50k Head of Household tax value: 15.69%

The 2005 rates are STILL higher as a percentage of income, even in the best comparative scenario from Bush's point of view, it's just the ratios of how MUCH higher are different.

So, even if we give the BEST POSSIBLE weighing to the old tax data, and include everything from 50k up to 100k, thus theoretically hitting higher tax rates, we STILL come out at a lower tax rate than the 2005 rate for people making 50k.


Just to be ABSOLUTELY sure I wasn't "comparing apples to oranges," as you put it, I just looked at values for 75k and 150k, so they're exactly smack in the middle of the ranges for the 1995 and 1999 values, rather than at a outlier/break point. Here's the results:

For 1995: 75k income paid $9,825 in taxes at the 13.1% rate. 150k income paid $27,450 at the 18.3% rate.

For 1999: 75k income paid $9,075 in taxes at the 12.1% rate. 150k income paid $26,100 at the 17.4% rate

For 2005 Individual Filers: 75k income paid $15,506.50 in taxes, at a rate of 20.68%. 150k income paid 36,506.50 for a 24.33% rate.

For 2005 Joint Return filers: 75k income paid $12,080 in taxes, at a rate of 16.11%. 150k income paid 31,731.50 for a 21.15% rate.

So, any way you slice it, the fact remains: The middle class has a *HIGHER* tax burden now, under supposed Captain Tax-Cutter Bush, than they did at any time during Clinton's presidency, even the year we had a budget surplus, as opposed to the hundreds of billions of deficit we have now.

-Arlos

its funny how that surplus disappeared with in the 1st term of bush's.

face it, bush sucks no matter how you look at it

Diekan wrote:

Evermore wrote:they cant because its not. Never was from the start.


well that isnt totaly true. To "win" this you would need Stalin like or Saddam like tactics and no way the US will ever do that. thats not even a "win" all you do then is suppress, the idology is still there.


Stupid fucker didnt learn a thing from 'Nam

add to that - you can't walk in and over turn a system that's thousands of years old and say "hey you're democratic now!! woohoo!!" and expect everything to be working in a couple of months.

Hey, you're a Democracy now, GOT IT!

Zan they didnt get it. Can you waste another 1/2 trillion and send in even more troops please thx

Arlos you are comparing apples to oranges, no matter how you play with the numbers. The problem is that you are taking an average tax rate that is calculated on a graduated percentage scale. The information for the 95 and 99 does not include a vital piece of information, that being how the percent average is weighted by the the general stacking of the majority of income levels for the tax bracket.

Also I'm not sure that the 2005 form you linked is based on AGI which the others are, beyond that it's a method of estimating, actual values will differ.

So lets stop comparing apples and oranges and go with comparing data which is actually comparable. The reports for 2005 similar to the 95 and 99 reports you linked are not available yet however the reports up through 2003 are:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/03inrate.pdf

So now lets compare apples to apples:

Average tax rates for 95 respectively in order of tax bracket:

4.1,7.0, 8.4,10.3,13.1,18.3,25.6,30.2,31.5

Average tax rates for 99:

4.3,6.6, 8.0,9.4,12.1,17.4,24.0,28.4,27.9

Average tax rates for 2003:

2.5,4.4,6.3,7.6,9.6,14.0,21.0,25.0, 24.8

Across the board averages 95, 99 and 2003 respectively

14.7,15.7,13.0

So comparing those two years during the Clinton Presidency to the most recently available records during the Bush Presidency across the board without exception shows lower tax rates during the Bush Presidency.

We should just declare victory and pull out.

Alphonso wrote:We should just declare victory and pull out.

That's how I got here, we don't need any more of that...

Alphonso wrote:We should just declare victory and pull out.

That's what I do at the end of sex...

VICTORY

then I pull out

I bet it plays the EQ level ding sound when you climax too.

And then...

You are hungry
You are thirsty
You are out of food and drink

KaiineTN wrote:I bet it plays the EQ level ding sound when you climax too.

And then...

You are hungry
You are thirsty
You are out of food and drink

i lol'd