Vote for Us Because... Well, Just Because

[ImaginalDisc]

If they're true, then it's irrelevant who happens to be quoting them, isn't it?

Would you like me to link directly to the IRS source data? Or would you then complain that since I am partisan, the data is still flawed?

Well, here it is anyway.

Don't faltter yourself. You're nowhere near the lying, devious, partisan hack that Rush Limbaugh is. I'll have to do some research on this when I have the time this evening, because I'm not about to accept the analysis of an unscrupulous pundit.

 

[BPSCG]

Don't faltter yourself. You're nowhere near the lying, devious, partisan hack that Rush Limbaugh is.

How much of a lying, devious, partisan hack am I...?

I'll have to do some research on this when I have the time this evening, because I'm not about to accept the analysis of an unscrupulous pundit.

What analysis? It's just a spreadsheet, and a very straightforward one at that.

But suit yourself. Meanwhile, I'll try to answer rhoadp's question.

 

[BPSCG]

I've never been good with this stuff. The way I understand it, tax rates are down but tax revenues are up. Does this mean that total income tax revenue - the total amount of dollars the federal government is taking in - across all tax brackets is up since Bush implemented the tax cuts?

No - at least this table doesn't prove or disprove that conclusion, since it says nothing about total revenue dollars received.

It says that in 2003, people in the top 1% income bracket had 16.77% of all individual adjusted gross income, but paid 34.27% of all the individual income taxes. Both those numbers have held pretty steady for about the last ten years, varying only a few points either way. To put that another way, one percent of all taxpayers paid over a third of all individual income taxes.

In 2003, the top five percent had about 31% of all individual income, yet paid 54% of all individual taxes. Again, both those percentages have been pretty steady since 1995. To put it another way, one twentieth of all individual taxpayers pay more than half of all the individual income taxes collected.

What that means is that even after the Bush tax cuts, the rich in this country are still paying about the same proportion of the country's taxes that they were paying in the good old days when Bill Clinton was President and the budget was balanced.

 

[Crossbow]

Which may express the relative lack of success of the Vegetarian Party.

But seriously, shouldn't a political party have some set of unifying principles? And doesn't a party have some sort of obligation to explain how it would apply those principles to the issues of the day?

Well, if you want to know what the official Democratic principals are, then I suggest that you check there web site.

http://www.democrats.org/agenda.html

Indeed, I expect that one could the check the web sites of all the political parties that have national aspirations and one would find their respective unifying principals prominently featured.

However, you were originally asking something else when you started this thread.

In any case, I think that Bush has so totally screwed things up that about the only way anyone (Democrat, Republican, or otherwise) will win a seat in the 2006 US Congress is by showing how different they are from Bush. As such, I do not think that the Democrats do not need a national message and/or a national leader to win additional seats in the US Congress.

 

[BPSCG]

Originally Posted by BPSCG :

But seriously, shouldn't a political party have some set of unifying principles? And doesn't a party have some sort of obligation to explain how it would apply those principles to the issues of the day?

Well, if you want to know what the official Democratic principals are, then I suggest that you check there web site.

My first question there was rhetorical...

I think that Bush has so totally screwed things up that about the only way anyone (Democrat, Republican, or otherwise) will win a seat in the 2006 US Congress is by showing how different they are from Bush. As such, I do not think that the Democrats do not need a national message and/or a national leader to win additional seats in the US Congress.

...but my second was not.

What you're saying is that the Dems should tell the electorate, "Our political principles aren't important. Vote for us because we're not Bush."

Pretty sad. FWIW, in the 2000 New York senate race, congressman Rick Lazio used that strategy, substituting his opponent's name for Bush's. Unfortunately for Lazio, "Vote for me, I'm not Hillary," didn't work very well.

 

[punchdrunk]

What that means is that even after the Bush tax cuts, the rich in this country are still paying about the same proportion of the country's taxes that they were paying in the good old days when Bill Clinton was President and the budget was balanced.

Okay, I think I see that. If I remember correctly, Baker's low tax rates enacted first in '83 then in '86 were repealed in the mid-90s. This chart seems to show that the rich (1, 5, 10%) paid a significantly less amount in taxes as a percentage during those years as opposed to the tax rates afterward (Clinton forward). Yes, no, inconclusive?

 

[JamesDillon]

In related news,

Stem Cells Help Repair Rat Paralysis

Scientists have used stem cells and a potion of nerve-friendly chemicals to not just bridge a damaged spinal cord but actually re-grow the circuitry needed to move a muscle, helping partially paralyzed rats walk.

Years of additional research is needed before such an experiment could be attempted in people.

But the work marks a tantalizing new step in stem cell research that promises to one day help repair damage from nerve-destroying illnesses such as Lou Gehrig's disease, or from spinal cord injuries.

I'm still eagerly awaiting Geni's explanation as to how stem cell research is "the most overhyped technology ever."