Could Bush Lose It?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolffen

(7) Environmental Policies.

---

A lot of people missed the Clear Skies thing and that other one that let those smokestack places build whatever they want without regulatory equipment for the smoke.

Quote:

---

(8) Media Policies (see FCC's recent rulings that allow a single company to control more of city's media than ever before).

---

Wasn't the ruling to disallow that? Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought that they said that the large cable companies couldn't buy into the smaller media of cities and towns? I could have misread the article.

Hehe, oh yeah - Al Sharpton isn't wishy-washy.

But then, I don't want a man who would use the term, "Slap that donkey!" running the country. ;)

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/....ap/index.html


The FCC under Colin Powell's son, voted to decrease regulations on media congolmerates. Last month, the House put a provision in a bill that would negate that decision, and the senate was expected to put a similar provision in as well. The FCC ruling could be bad for both Democrats and Republicans, depending on which way the media heads were leaning politically.

And I didn't say Al was wishy-washy. I said the Party was wishy-washy. ;) I still stand by that statement. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dripdry

http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/oped..._ft_091202.htm

---

That's really just an opinion article, and I don't agree. Clinton was a very moderate Democrat, which is why he worked fairly well to form a better economy with the Republican congress (by not veto'ing stuff). It was also a lot of being in the right place at the right time. Ross Perot could've been in office and it still would've been a great economy because of the internet boom at the time. Likewise, Clinton, Kennedy, Washington...whoever, would still be in the same slump we're in right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schlep

That's really just an opinion article, and I don't agree. Clinton was a very moderate Democrat, which is why he worked fairly well to form a better economy with the Republican congress (by not veto'ing stuff). It was also a lot of being in the right place at the right time. Ross Perot could've been in office and it still would've been a great economy because of the internet boom at the time. Likewise, Clinton, Kennedy, Washington...whoever, would still be in the same slump we're in right now.

---

Makes sense to me. I agree. :)

Considering how devastating the double whammy of the internet crash and 9/11 were, I think Bush (and Alan Greenspan) deserves some credit for the fact that things aren't even worse than they are now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamevet

I heard on the radio today, that Arnold Shwarzenneger had to disclose his earnings for the past 2 years(Governor race). He earned about $37 million in 2001 and had to pay $10 million in taxes. It does'nt sound like the rich are getting any tax breaks to me.

---

Income in the top income tax braket (over $288,000) is supposed to be taxed at a rate of 38.6%, which means Arnold should've paid around $14 million in taxes. Arnold paid around 28%. For comparisons sake, the rate for income earned between $43,850 and $105,950 is 27%. Seems like he got a big ol' fucking break to me.

Well he also paid about $4 million to charity, which is tax deductible, which brings his income down to about 23 million, so 10 million in taxes sound about right.

33 x .386 = 12.7

Where's the missing 2.7 million? There's no way a tax shelter or loophole could be involved.

Probably in tax deductible interest related to his real estate holdings and Planet Hollywood. :) I'm guessing way out in left field here though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rezo

I thought social security was like insurance. Its taken under the idea that its coming back to you.

---

Too bad it doesn't actually work out that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolffen

Probably in tax deductible interest related to his real estate holdings and Planet Hollywood.

---

*coughcoughTaxSheltercough*