| || |
(The chart is from Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy)
So a flat federal income tax would only make things worse for the poor.
The right has its own attack press. Why didn't they do it? If they had, the rest of the MSM would have been forced to carry the story, assuming it resonated with readers and viewers.
This is why I find your claims so weak--there are tons of news outlets doing various qualities of reporting and with various sorts of bias. All sorts of things don't get reported in the MSM press, including the really far left stuff you'll only find in places like Pacifica radio or the small, free press papers you find in major cities. But the stuff that really sticks does get play in the MSM. The fact is, the MSM is owned by conservative forces, pretty much entirely. It's GE, Fox News Corp, Disney, Capital Cities/ABC, Time-Warner, Viacom. Not exactly a bunch of radical lefties.
Last edited by Rasselas; 28th January 2012 at 10:44 AM.
All white conservatives? Really? Does this mean all white democrats are closet homosexuals?
Meet Jim mcgreevey, former new jersey governor. Married, children, opposed gay marriage..........until he gave his boyfriend
a state job and was outed. Now he wants to be an Episcopalian Priest.
Uh-huh. Do you actually pay attention to what's going on out there with these two parties? The leadership of both parties comes from the same social class. Just whose social class do you think they are more interested in preserving? If you have graduated high school you should know that. If you haven't you know that now.
By Pat Garofalo on Sep 21, 2010 at 5:30 pmLast week, a number of House Democrats sent a letter to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) stating their objection to allowing the Bush tax cuts for the richest two percent of Americans to expire. Some of these Blue Dogs, who are breaking with President Obama in order to borrow and spend $830 billion on tax breaks for the richest Americans, are relying on discredited Republican arguments to bolster their position.However, some of them are also claiming that a household earning $250,000 per year isn’t actually rich, once geographic differences are taken into account. “Where we come from, those people are living paycheck to paycheck,” said Rep. Michael McMahon (D-NY).First, as Daniel Gross ably pointed out, “even if you look at the wealthiest metropolitan areas — Washington ($85,236), San Francisco ($76,068), Boston ($70,334), and New York ($63,957) — a quarter of a million dollars a year dwarfs the median income.” Not only that, but as a new report from Citizens for Tax Justice pointed out, two-thirds of the House Democrats who are looking to preserve the Bush tax cuts for the rich come from districts with a below average number of households making a quarter-million per year:Of the 31 House Democrats who signed the letter in support of extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich, 22 represent districts where the share of taxpayers rich enough to pay higher taxes under Obama’s plan is less than the national average of 2.1 percent. Of those 31 House Democrats, 13 represent districts where less than 1 percent of taxpayers are rich enough to face higher taxes under Obama’s plan.Even in McMahon’s district, just two percent of households earn that much. In total, there are only 30 districts (out of 436 in the country) where at least 5 percent of households would be affected by the expiring tax cuts. Just two of those districts are represented by House Democrats who signed the letter to Pelosi.It’s also worth remembering that those making more than $250,000 would still receive a tax break on their income up to that amount, relative to where their tax rate was in the 1990′s. Under Obama’s plan, a millionaire will still pay roughly $6,300 less in taxes than they would if the entirety of the Bush tax cuts expire. So even the exceedingly few households represented by these lawmakers that would be affected if the Bush tax cuts expire would be keeping some of their tax breaks.The House Democrats also asserted in their letter that the richest two percent of taxpayers are responsible for 25 percent of consumer spending. However, CTJ noted that these households account for 21 percent of total pretax cash income and “their share of total personal consumption is certainly not higher than their share of total income.” In all, this two percent of taxpayers is responsible for roughly 8 percent of consumer spending, CTJ estimated..........
I found your article.....interesting. Having said that I found this article interesting as well. I don't normally disparage sources so I won't this time either. However I do feel far more comfortable with my source "psychology today" and the author of this article. So, I'll just have to agree to disagree.
For what it's worth, I consider myself an athiest but my personal experiences lead me to believe, like the good dr here, that people of faith tend to be a little bit better at some things than us athiests especially when you consider the very best mass murderers of the 20th century were all athiests; stalin, mao, pol pot, ect..... That isn't something that makes me proud to be an athiest.
Spirit, science, and health.
by Thomas Plante, PhD Do we need religion to be ethical?While not essential, religion potentially helps people be and stay good.
Published on March 27, 2011 by Thomas G. Plante, Ph.D. in Do the Right Thing........
.........Religious engagement and practices encourages and supports "clean living." Research has consistently found that religious people are less likely to engage in criminal behavior, marital infidelity, alcoholism, unprotected sexual activity as well as being more likely to engage in pro social behaviors such as volunteerism and charity. Thus, those who tend to report being spiritual, religious, or both tend to behave themselves pretty well. In a nutshell, people in the church choir usually don't rob banks. Check out Harold Koenig's Handbook of Religion and Health as well as his Handbook of Religion and Mental Health for excellent reviews if interested in the scholarly support for this.
Religion and spirituality encourages ethical behavior in their sacred scripture readings, in their models or exemplars for behavior (not only well known religious figures such as saints and founding members of religious traditions but also among religious elders, pastors, teachers, and congregants).
My point really is that overall, research supports the view that spiritual and religious practices (e.g., meditation, Church sponsored social justice ministries, religious service attendance) have certain physical, mental, community health, and ethical benefits.........