VeeshanVault

http://www.pbs.org/now/commentary/moyers15.html

This guy hit the nail on the head in reguards to my personal outlook on last week's election.

You are right. This is very scarey. Without the checks and balances this could be just like living the Chinese curse, "May you live in interesting times". Let's just hope that some of those in the house and senate are not lemmings.

Typical Democratic "sky is falling" bullshit they've been milking for the last 30 years.

The sky fell long ago, on either side.

I thought, "May you live in interesting time" was a blessing...shit maybe I should stop saying it to people

Can sombody say "scare tactic".

It doesn't matter wich side of the party lines it comes from, this kind of approch is laughable at best.

What does he mean by "the power of the state to force pregnant women to give up control over their own lives."?
That wasn't even an issue in this election, but Moyers is trying to scare people into thinking it is.

Moyers also claims the mandate "includes using the taxing power to transfer wealth from working people to the rich."

Um... yeah right.

The IRS has released the year 2000 data for individual income tax returns. The numbers illustrate a truth that will startle you: that half of Americans with the highest incomes pays 96.09% of all income tax. The top 1%, who earn 20.81% of all income covered under the income tax, are paying 37.42% of the federal tax bite.

Here are the numbers broken down for you.
Top 5% - 56.47% of all income taxes; Top 10% - 67.33% of all income taxes; Top 25% - 84.01% of all income taxes. Top 50% - 96.09% of all income taxes. The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.91% of all income taxes. The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 20.81% of all income. The top 5% earns 35.30% of the pie. The top 10% earns 46.01%; the top 25% earns 67.15%, and the top 50% earns 87.01% of all the income.

(Here's a spreadsheet showing the "Individual Income Tax Returns Each Tax Year 1986 - 2000")
http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/00in01rt.xls
-=Need Microsoft Excel To View=-

It's just another person spouting off information to support their cause. Information without bases in fact. And whither they are Republican, or Democrat, liberal, or conservative: when they do that, I turn a deaf ear.
--
Odexyn <Dread Templar>

Edit: Fixed some spelling errors.

Anyone else noticing how biased the media is toward the democrats? This is a prime example of it.

I am of the opinion that nothing will get accomplished because the two major parties refuse to do anything that may cost them votes later and hence jeopardize their pensions. Hence there won't be another abortion debate. The pro-life side is very vocal but in a huge minority. If they took that right away from people then most of the politicians would not have their jobs next election cycle.

Dubya doesn't have the brains to really hurt us. I would be more worried about all the corporations in his back pocket.

Deward

Actually I think it will be different now that I think on it some more. With all one party in control of the major facets of the decision making process maybe things will actually get done instead of being in political gridlock. Granted, that means somethings might get through that aren't so great but over all this could be a good thing.

Deward wrote:Anyone else noticing how biased the media is toward the democrats? This is a prime example of it.


Deward

this piece is a commentary, not a news item. hence the big word "Commentary" at the top.

commentators have their various biases, and they are not under any obligation to hide them, or push them to the side. Quite a few people work for major news outlets whose sole job is to 'commentate'. Bill O'Reilly, Andy Rooney, etc

no doubt this guy is not a big fan of conservative politics.

Republicans did not actively campaign on Abortion this election cycle for one reason. They wanted to win elections. But now that they are in power, interest groups who they must cater to (Christian Coalition, etc) are pressing for legislation specifically regarding eliminating late term abortions.

now most people who are even pro-choice do not think late term (partial birth) abortions should be performed. But one thing that the pro-life crowd wants is even in cases where the mother's life is endanger for the pregnancy to take priority. And his point about a 'gun to their head' is certainly worded in a heavy handed way, but if legislation prohibits an act, then the police power of government, and hence firearms, are ultimately there to enforce it.

The Republicans certainly don't have what it takes to get legislation like that through the Senate, so in the end it probably won't happen without making allowances for the mother's health.

1. There is no monopoly power that this guy is talking about. To have that power, you have to have 60 votes in the Senate. Without that, you will always be forced to compromise. Bill Clinton was far closer to monopoly power in his first two years then Bush is now.

2. His take on the Court is laughable. At best you have a 3-1-2-3 situation on the Court, and even that is wrong. If you accepted his political view of the Court, at best you have Thomas (Bush), Scalia (Reagan), Rehnquist (Nixon/Reagan) on the right; Souter (Bush), Stevens (Ford), Ginsberg (Clinton), Breyer (Clinton) on the left. Kennedy (Reagan) and O'Connor (Reagan) are squarely middle ground. Probably, this guy looked at the presidents that appointed the Justices and decided they were 7-2 Republican, so clearly a Republican Court. Nevermind that two Republican appointees, Souter and Stevens, are not only "liberals" but are more consistantly left wing than either of the two Clinton appointees. Of course, recognizing that Republican presidents appoint liberal Justices woud undermine his scare tactic printed in the middle of his article asking us to envision the Court that will take away all our important rights. Nevermind further, that even a cursory review of voting of the Justices shows that "conservative" and "liberal" paint far to broad a stroke to neatly paint any of the Justices.

The guy is a pedantic and he had some space to fill. He is either too lazy or too malicious in intent to fill it with journalism.