Like god in government? Get ready for the rapture..
Jperdue4
http://www.pbs.org/now/commentary/moyers15.html
Way back in the 1950's when I first tasted politics and journalism, Republicans
briefly controlled the White House and Congress. With the exception of Joseph
McCarthy and his vicious ilk, they were a reasonable lot, presided over by that
giant war hero, Dwight Eisenhower, who was conservative by temperament and
moderate in the use of power.
That brand of Republican is gone. And for the first time in the memory of
anyone alive, the entire federal government — the Congress, the Executive,
the Judiciary — is united behind a right-wing agenda for which George W. Bush
believes he now has a mandate.
That mandate includes the power of the state to force pregnant women to give up
control over their own lives.
It includes using the taxing power to transfer wealth from working people to
the rich.
It includes giving corporations a free hand to eviscerate the environment and
control the regulatory agencies meant to hold them accountable.
And it includes secrecy on a scale you cannot imagine. Above all, it means
judges with a political agenda appointed for life. If you liked the Supreme
Court that put George W. Bush in the White House, you will swoon over what's
coming.
And if you like God in government, get ready for the Rapture. These folks don't
even mind you referring to the GOP as the party of God. Why else would the new
House Majority Leader say that the Almighty is using him to promote 'a Biblical
worldview' in American politics?
So it is a heady time in Washington — a heady time for piety, profits, and
military power, all joined at the hip by ideology and money.
Don't forget the money. It came pouring into this election, to both parties,
from corporate America and others who expect the payback. Republicans outraised
democrats by $184 million dollars. And came up with the big prize — monopoly
control of the American government, and the power of the state to turn their
ideology into the law of the land. Quite a bargain at any price.
That's it for this week.
For NOW, I'm Bill Moyers.
kurt
Sounds a little sensationalistic to me. We'll see what
happens. It won't be the end of the world. What I find
interesting about all this is that the social conservatives
are claiming they made *the* difference in 2002. Now they
want their agenda pushed. Lott has somewhat already signed
up, but the Whitehouse has (wisely) distanced themselves
from making social issue legislation a priority.
Speaking as someone who is fairly conservative in his
beliefs on the role of government, the social conservatives
scare the shit out of me. They are analogous to the
more radical Islamists who want an Islamic state/world.
What would they do if they had free reign?
Peace,
Kurt
cpdeadhead
> http://www.pbs.org/now/commentary/moyers15.html
>
>
>
> Way back in the 1950's when I first tasted politics and journalism, Republicans
> briefly controlled the White House and Congress. With the exception of Joseph
> McCarthy and his vicious ilk, they were a reasonable lot, presided over by that
> giant war hero, Dwight Eisenhower, who was conservative by temperament and
> moderate in the use of power.
> That brand of Republican is gone. And for the first time in the memory of
> the Judiciary â€" is united behind a right-wing agenda for which George W. Bush
> believes he now has a mandate.
>
> That mandate includes the power of the state to force pregnant women to give up
> control over their own lives.
>
> It includes using the taxing power to transfer wealth from working people to
> the rich.
>
> It includes giving corporations a free hand to eviscerate the environment and
> control the regulatory agencies meant to hold them accountable.
>
> And it includes secrecy on a scale you cannot imagine. Above all, it means
> judges with a political agenda appointed for life. If you liked the Supreme
> Court that put George W. Bush in the White House, you will swoon over what's
> coming.
>
> And if you like God in government, get ready for the Rapture. These folks don't
> even mind you referring to the GOP as the party of God. Why else would the new
> House Majority Leader say that the Almighty is using him to promote 'a Biblical
> worldview' in American politics?
>
> military power, all joined at the hip by ideology and money.
>
> Don't forget the money. It came pouring into this election, to both parties,
> from corporate America and others who expect the payback. Republicans outraised
> control of the American government, and the power of the state to turn their
> ideology into the law of the land. Quite a bargain at any price.
>
> That's it for this week.
>
> For NOW, I'm Bill Moyers.
from Boortz.com
In my reading assignments you’ll see a link to a commentary by PBS
leftist Bill Moyers. He’s more than a little
upset that the Republicans now have control of the Executive and
Legislative branches of government.
In his hard-left commentary Moyers (funded, by the way, with taxpayer
dollars) says that the Republicans are
going to use “the taxing power to transfer wealth from working
people to the rich.â€
Does anyone know what the hell this left-winger is talking about?
Three questions immediately come to mind.
First, just who are the “working people?†Second, and who are
“the rich?†Finally, how is this wealth transfer
going to take place?
Here’s my guess. The “working people†are, of course, those in
the lower and middle-income levels. By
differentiating them from “the rich†Moyers follows the classic
class warfare line. Only people at the lower
income levels actually “work†for a living. The “richâ€
don’t work. They acquire their wealth by other means and
you are free to figure out just how. Moyers and his leftist fellow
travelers would have you believe that the “richâ€
accumulate their wealth through forced income transfers from the
“working people,†and through various forms
of exploitation.
So, how does this wealth transfer work? Moyers is probably talking
about President Bush’s tax cut. He’s
probably upset that the bulk of the cuts go to the people who pay the
bulk of the taxes. Leftists like Moyers really
love to complain about tax cuts for the wealthy, but you’ll never
find them recognizing that the wealthy pay almost
ALL of the taxes? How, after all, do you have a meaningful tax cut if
you don’t include the people who actually
pay the taxes?
There is absolutely no logical or factual basis to argue that a tax
cut takes wealth away from “working people†to
give to the rich. A tax cut simply allows a person to keep more of
the money that they earn. That’s it, period.
You earned the money. You get to keep it. The money is not transferred
to you from anyone else. It was yours in
the first place … and it remains yours. Not one penny of it came
out of the pocket of a “working person†through
government action.
Moyer’s commentary is nothing less than a class warfare piece
…designed to elicit sympathy for the
under-achievers and hatred for those who actually power our economy
with their investments in business and
jobs.
MDZamboni
don't work. They acquire their wealth by other means and
you are free to figure out just how. >>
Don't need freedom to identify nepotism.
JT
Moyers is DEAD ON !
ass.....
from Boortz.com
In my reading assignments you’ll see a link to a commentary by PBS
leftist Bill Moyers. He’s more than a little
upset that the Republicans now have control of the Executive and
Legislative branches of government.
In his hard-left commentary Moyers (funded, by the way, with taxpayer
dollars) says that the Republicans are
going to use “the taxing power to transfer wealth from working
people to the rich.”
Does anyone know what the hell this left-winger is talking about?
Three questions immediately come to mind.
First, just who are the “working people?” Second, and who are
“the rich?” Finally, how is this wealth transfer
going to take place?
Here’s my guess. The “working people” are, of course, those in
the lower and middle-income levels. By
differentiating them from “the rich” Moyers follows the classic
class warfare line. Only people at the lower
income levels actually “work” for a living. The “rich”
don’t work. They acquire their wealth by other means and
you are free to figure out just how. Moyers and his leftist fellow
travelers would have you believe that the “rich”
accumulate their wealth through forced income transfers from the
“working people,” and through various forms
of exploitation.
So, how does this wealth transfer work? Moyers is probably talking
about President Bush’s tax cut. He’s
probably upset that the bulk of the cuts go to the people who pay the
bulk of the taxes. Leftists like Moyers really
love to complain about tax cuts for the wealthy, but you’ll never
find them recognizing that the wealthy pay almost
ALL of the taxes? How, after all, do you have a meaningful tax cut if
you don’t include the people who actually
pay the taxes?
There is absolutely no logical or factual basis to argue that a tax
cut takes wealth away from “working people” to
give to the rich. A tax cut simply allows a person to keep more of
the money that they earn. That’s it, period.
You earned the money. You get to keep it. The money is not transferred
to you from anyone else. It was yours in
the first place … and it remains yours. Not one penny of it came
out of the pocket of a “working person” through
government action.
Moyer’s commentary is nothing less than a class warfare piece
…designed to elicit sympathy for the
Garry Bryan
: jper...@aol.com (Jperdue4) wrote in message news:<20021112091933...@mb-cf.aol.com>...
: from Boortz.com
But the point is that the rich use the majority of the infrastructure to
carry out their business, so shouldn't they pay more of the burden to maintain
this infrastruture? I use the roads to travel to and from work, but a large
corporation uses those same roads to profit by transporting goods and materials
and workers. They use the phones and internet to profit, so why not pay more for
the support? They pay more taxes because they control more wealth, so why
the whining? I think they get a pretty good deal. . .
Garry
Jonathan Miller
> Does anyone know what the hell this left-winger is talking about?
Sure. Dubya coasted all his life off of favors from his Father's
friends and business partners, or people who wanted to be F's and
BP's. Since he's been in office, his agenda has been based around
paying them all back.
> Three questions immediately come to mind.
> First, just who are the �€œworking people?” Second, and who are
> �€œthe rich?” Finally, how is this wealth transfer
> going to take place?
It's already begun. The middle class got a small tax cut last year.
The richest 1% get big ones for the next ten years or so. The Federal
Budget is alread back in the red, but the president is more interested
in feeding cash to his pals than in balancing the budget.
> Moyers and his leftist fellow
> travelers would have you believe that the �€œrich”
> accumulate their wealth through forced income transfers from the
> �€œworking people,” and through various forms
> of exploitation.
If you lived in a city with a new sports stadium, you'd agree with
that.
> So, how does this wealth transfer work? Moyers is probably talking
> about President Bush�€™s tax cut. He�€™s
> probably upset that the bulk of the cuts go to the people who pay the
> bulk of the taxes. Leftists like Moyers really
> love to complain about tax cuts for the wealthy, but you�€™ll never
> find them recognizing that the wealthy pay almost
> ALL of the taxes?
By total dollar amount, sure. If you go by percentage of expendable
income (the money you don't need for food, shelter, medicine, etc.),
they're coasting off the rest of us. That's why fabulously wealthy
people like Bill Gates and George Soros came out last year and said
"Don't bother cutting taxes on us. We don't need it".
BTW, if they've got most of the money, why shouldn't they pay most of
the taxes? Conservatives have been whining for years about getting
"punished for being successful". Are they in favor of punishing the
middle class for being less successful?
> How, after all, do you have a meaningful tax cut if
> you don�€™t include the people who actually
> pay the taxes?
Easy. You target the cut to the middle and lower classes, who are
most likely to jazz up the economy by spending it and most likely to
need the money. You can also make them meaningful by targeting them at
socially desireable things
like home ownership and higher education.
> There is absolutely no logical or factual basis to argue that a tax
> cut takes wealth away from �€œworking people” to
> give to the rich.
Sure there is. The more you cut taxes on the wealthy, the less you're
able to cut taxes or deliver services for the other 99% of the nation.
> Moyer�€™s commentary is nothing less than a class warfare piece
Oh yeah. Republicans aren't waging class warfare by stuffing their
buddies' pockets; Democrats are by pointing out what they're doing.
Jon
-mike-
>
> But the point is that the rich use the majority of the infrastructure to
> carry out their business, so shouldn't they pay more of the burden to maintain
> this infrastruture? I use the roads to travel to and from work, but a large
> corporation uses those same roads to profit by transporting goods and materials
> and workers. They use the phones and internet to profit, so why not pay more for
> the support? They pay more taxes because they control more wealth, so why
> the whining? I think they get a pretty good deal. . .
They also benefit more than I do from stability. I can do
my thing in a wide variety of situations, but a corporation
NEEDS stability to live. Taxes are predictable (no random
roadblocks to cross into the next county), contracts are
enforceable, regulations can be influenced and counted on...
Those with the most stand to lose the most if society
crumbles. Why shouldn't they pay more to keep it running
smoothly?
-m-
Sneakerface
> leftist Bill Moyers.
> In his hard-left commentary Moyers
>
> Does anyone know what the hell this left-winger is talking about?
. Moyers and his leftist fellow
> travelers
. Leftists like Moyers
> Moyer’s commentary is nothing less than a class warfare piece
Someone seems to be trying just a *little* too hard to paint Bill
Moyers as a "leftist." As if by sheer repetition they thought they
could will it to be true? It is isn't . He is quite moderate in fact
(not that being from the left is a bad thing anyway...)
Garry Bryan
Exactly. . .so this whining about the wealthiest paying the larger share of
taxes is the way it should be since they have the most money. . .simple
math, but the GOP makes it sound like a burden . . .
Garry
: -m-