Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SiouxPal who wrote (18659)	8/13/2004 1:47:07 PM
From: JakeStraw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

Gore lost... Get over it...

To: SiouxPal who wrote (18659)	8/13/2004 1:49:23 PM
From: Ron	Respond to of 173976

Study: Tax breaks benefit Rich at Middle Income Expense By William L. Watts, CBS.MarketWatch.com Last Update: 1:26 PM ET Aug. 13, 2004 WASHINGTON (CBS.MW) -- A Congressional Budget Office study released Friday morning shows that as a result of tax cuts signed into law by President Bush since 2001, federal tax payments fell for Americans in the top income tier while middle-income earners picked up a bigger share. The study, conducted by Congress' nonpartisan budget analysis unit, was requested by Democratic lawmakers. It immediately became fodder for the presidential election campaign. "Today's report reinforces what middle-class families across the country already knew about George Bush. His tax breaks have forced them to pay a bigger share of America's tax burden, forcing them to bear the brunt of his failed economic policies," Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said in a statement. The Democratic staff of the congressional Joint Economic Committee said their study, based on the CBO findings, showed that the bottom 20 percent of taxpayers -- earning $14,900 to $32,400 a year -- will receive an average tax cut of $250 in 2004. The next 20 percent with income up to $51,500 saw an average cut of $800, while the middle 20 percent saw an average reduction of $1,090. The next 20 percent, meanwhile, saw an average cut of $1,770. The top fifth was set to see a reduction of $7,740.

To: SiouxPal who wrote (18659)	8/13/2004 1:52:19 PM
From: Skywatcher	Respond to of 173976

More on the complete disaster of Bush 911 non action Rumsfeld and Bush Failed Us on Sept. 11 by Gail Sheehy Donald Rumsfeld, one of the chief opponents of investing real power over purse and personnel in a new national intelligence chief, told the 9/11 commission that an intelligence czar would do the nation "a great disservice." It is fair to ask what kind of service Rumsfeld provided on the day the nation was under catastrophic attack. "Two planes hitting the twin towers did not rise to the level of Rumsfeld's leaving his office and going to the War Room? How can that be?" asked Mindy Kleinberg, one of the widows known as the Jersey Girls, whose efforts helped create and guide the 9/11 commission. The fact that the final report failed to offer an explanation is one of the infuriating holes in an otherwise praiseworthy accounting. Rumsfeld was missing in action that morning — "out of the loop" by his own admission. The lead military officer that day, Brig. Gen. Montague Winfield, told the commission that the Pentagon's command center had been essentially leaderless: "For 30 minutes we couldn't find" Rumsfeld. For more than two hours after the Federal Aviation Administration became aware that the first plane had been violently overtaken by Middle Eastern men, the man whose job it was to order air cover over Washington did not show up in the Pentagon's command center. It took him almost two hours to "gain situational awareness," he told the commission. He didn't speak to the vice president until 10:39 a.m., according to the report. Since that was more than 30 minutes after the last hijacked plane crashed, it would seem to be an admission of dereliction of duty. Rumsfeld's testimony before the commission last March was bizarre. Asked point-blank by Commissioner Jamie Gorelick what he had done to protect the nation — or even the Pentagon — during the "summer of threat" preceding the attacks, Rumsfeld replied simply that "it was a law enforcement issue." That obfuscation — was the FBI expected to be out on the Beltway with shoulder-launched missiles? — has been accepted at face value by the commission and media. Rumsfeld is in charge of NORAD, which has the specific mission of protecting the United States and Canada by responding to any form of air attack. The official chain of command in the event of a hijacking calls for the president to empower the secretary of Defense to send up a military escort and, if necessary, give shoot-down orders. Yet President Bush told the panel he spoke to Rumsfeld for the first time that morning shortly after 10 a.m. — 23 minutes after the Pentagon was hit and moments before the last plane went down. It was, says the report, "a brief call in which the subject of shoot-down authority was not discussed." As a result, NORAD's commanders were left in the dark about what their mission was. When fighters were told to scramble from Langley, Va., they were sent not to cover Washington but on a fool's mission to tail and identify American Airlines Flight 11, which was already boiling the first Trade Center tower to the ground. Why wasn't Rumsfeld able to see on TV what millions of civilians already knew? After the Pentagon was attacked, why did he run outside to play medic instead of moving to the command center and taking charge? The 9/11 report records the fatal confusion in which command center personnel were left: Three minutes after the FAA command center told FAA headquarters in an update that Flight 93 was 29 minutes out of Washington, D.C., the command center said, "Uh, do we want to, uh, think about scrambling aircraft?" FAA headquarters: "Oh, God, I don't know." Command center: "Uh, that's a decision somebody's going to have to make probably in the next 10 minutes." But nobody did. Three minutes later, Flight 93 was wrestled to the ground by heroic civilians. How is it that civilians in a hijacked plane were able to communicate with their loved ones, grasp a totally new kind of enemy and weaponry and act to defend the nation's Capitol, yet the president had "communication problems" on Air Force One and the nation's defense chief didn't know what was going on until the horror was all over? The failures of 9/11 were not inherent in the system; they were human failures. Yet, so far, no one has been fired, which leaves the 9/11 families — and all of us — in a conundrum. The inaction of both the president and the Defense chief under the ultimate test offer little reassurance to a nervous nation under the shadow of new terror warnings. Before we attempt to revamp the entire security system, shouldn't our government look first at why the people in charge failed to communicate or coordinate a response to the catastrophe? She is the author of "Middletown, America: One Town's Passage From Trauma to Hope" (Random House, 2003).

To: SiouxPal who wrote (18659)	8/13/2004 2:10:53 PM
From: Rainy_Day_Woman	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 173976

all of America watched that process nay, the entire world did how would the strongest democracy on the planet handle it? it was a long slow each side fighting with everything they had process now you may not like the results, but it went through our court system and we had a final resolution obviously not to your liking great things came to light in that process voting machines election laws our system is not perfect, it evolves to this day but I think it's the best in the world and I voted for bush but I honestly would have accepted gore as president if the ruling had gone to him [as an aside, I think gore gave the greatest concession speech I ever heard - I think it will go down as a famous speech] I was proud of how our country handled it out in the open, each side fighting for it, through the courts, testing the laws in ways never tested before but that's me