SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: steve harris who wrote (282796)4/5/2006 4:48:51 PM
From: tejek  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1572957
 
Sweet!

Wisc. Communities Vote on Iraq Withdrawal

By EMILY FREDRIX
The Associated Press
Wednesday, April 5, 2006; 11:59 AM

MILWAUKEE -- Thousands of voters turned out in Wisconsin to offer a purely symbolic but heartfelt message: Bring the troops home from Iraq.

By margins overwhelming in some places and narrow in others, voters in 24 of 32 communities approved referendums Tuesday calling for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

Joy Kenworthy, 78, of Madison, doesn't mind that the nonbinding referendums have no bearing on federal policy. She was one of more than 24,300 voters in the state capital who gave 68 percent support to a referendum calling for the pullout.

"I thought this war was ill-advised from the moment it started," she said.

In addition to Madison, communities supporting the measures included the Milwaukee suburbs of Shorewood and Whitefish Bay, and the western city of La Crosse. Those voting down the measure included the northwestern city of Hayward and the south-central city of Watertown, where 75 percent of voters disapproved.

Most of the referendums asked if the voters supported withdrawing the troops immediately, and Evansville also had one urging support of President Bush, which voters rejected.

Sister Bay resident Peter Trenchard said he wasn't surprised voters in his northeast village voted against the measure. He said many people there did not approve of the war in the first place but they don't see pulling troops out as a solution.

"Logic tells you you can't pull out of there. It would be a mess," said Trenchard, 67.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Wednesday that the worst thing the nation could do would be to withdraw from Iraq before completing its mission.

"That would be retreating and that is exactly what the terrorists want us to do," McClellan said.

Such measures have been passed by city councils and voters in other states, including Vermont, which served as a model for Wisconsin's effort, said Rachel Friedman, spokeswoman for the Wisconsin Network for Peace and Justice.

The group, which helped organize Tuesday's initiatives, is already looking at ways to take the referendums into more communities. Elected officials can't ignore the results, especially as the November election season looms, Friedman said.

washingtonpost.com



To: steve harris who wrote (282796)4/5/2006 4:54:57 PM
From: tejek  Read Replies (4) | Respond to of 1572957
 
Sweeter still!

The jig is up. Not to worry.......I will make sure you have a place on one of the planes taking you all to the Aussie Outback. Just remember.........we are only leasing the Outback from the Aussies......you guys act up like you have here and its katie bar the door. You will be evicted faster than you can whistle Dixie........and then you will have no place to go. So behave yourselves.........take up wood carving....stay out of politics.

Rich gain most from last tax cut, study says

Investment tax reduction a greater boon for wealthy than previous Bush measures

David Cay Johnston, New York Times

Wednesday, April 5, 2006

The first data to document the effect of President Bush's tax cuts for investment income show that they have significantly lowered the tax burden on the richest Americans, reducing taxes on incomes of more than $10 million by $500,000 on average.

An analysis of Internal Revenue Service data by the New York Times found that the benefit of the lower taxes on investments was far more concentrated on the very wealthiest Americans than the benefits of Bush's two previous tax cuts, on wages and other noninvestment income.

When Congress cut investment taxes three years ago, it was clear that the highest-income Americans would gain the most, because they had the most money in investments. But the size of the cuts and what share went to each income group have not been known.

As Congress debates whether to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, the Times analyzed IRS figures for 2003, the latest year available and the first that reflected the tax cuts for income from dividends and from the sale of stock and other assets, known as capital gains.

The analysis found:

Among taxpayers with incomes greater than $10 million, the amount by which their investment tax bill was reduced averaged about $500,000 in 2003, and total tax savings, which included the two Bush tax cuts on compensation, nearly doubled to slightly more than $1 million.

These taxpayers, whose average income was $26 million, paid about the same share of their income in income taxes as those making $200,000 to $500,000 because of the lowered rates on investment income.

Americans with annual incomes of $1 million or more, about one-tenth of 1 percent of all taxpayers, reaped 43 percent of all the savings on investment taxes in 2003. The savings for these taxpayers averaged about $41,400 each. By comparison, these same Americans received less than 10 percent of the savings from the other Bush tax cuts, which applied primarily to wages, though that share is expected to grow in coming years.

The savings from the investment tax cuts are expected to be larger in subsequent years because of gains in the stock market.

The Times showed the new numbers to people on various sides of the debate over tax cuts. Stephen Entin, president of the Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation, a Washington organization, and other supporters of the cuts said they did not go far enough because the more money the wealthiest had to invest, the more would go to investments that produce jobs. For investment income, Entin said, "the proper tax rate would be zero."

Opponents say the cuts are too generous to those who already have plenty. Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, the senior Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee, said after seeing the new figures that "these tax cuts are beyond irresponsible" when "we're in a war, we haven't fixed Social Security or Medicare, we've got record deficits."

Because of the tax cuts, even the merely rich, making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, are falling behind the very wealthiest, particularly because another levy, the alternative minimum tax, now costs many of them thousands and even tens of thousands of dollars a year in lost deductions.

The tax cut analysis was based on estimates from a computer model developed by Citizens for Tax Justice, which asserts that the tax system unfairly favors the rich. The group's estimates are considered reliable by advocates on differing sides of the tax debate. The Times asked the group to use the model to produce additional data on the effect of the investment tax cuts on various income groups. The analyses show that more than 70 percent of the tax savings on investment income went to the top 2 percent, about 2.6 million taxpayers.

By contrast, few taxpayers with modest incomes benefited because most of them who own stocks held them in retirement accounts, which are not eligible for the investment income tax cuts. Money in these accounts is not taxed until withdrawal, when the higher rates on wages apply.

Those making less than $50,000 saved an average of $10 more because of the investment tax cuts, for a total of $435 in total income tax cuts, according to the computer model.

sfgate.com



To: steve harris who wrote (282796)4/5/2006 4:59:04 PM
From: tejek  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1572957
 
Oh oh! Mr. democratically elected PM ain't leaving. Trouble in paradise......what are you all going to do about it.

I will not be forced out by US and UK, says Iraqi PM


05 April 2006 07:12

Iraq's embattled prime minister has defiantly refused to give up his claim to head the country's next government in spite of strong American and British pleas for an end to a deadlock which has paralysed the country for almost four months.

In an exclusive interview with The Guardian in Baghdad -- his first since United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw pleaded with him and his rivals for an immediate agreement to prevent a slide to civil war -- Ibrahim Jaafari insisted he would continue to carry out his duties.

"I heard their points of view even though I disagree with them," he said, referring to Rice and Straw's hectic arm-twisting visit to the Iraqi capital which ended on Monday.

Jaafari won the nomination for Iraq's leadership by a single vote within the Shia bloc that came out on top in last December's election. But the bloc controls less than half the seats in Parliament and so long as the Sunni, Kurdish and secular parties refuse to back him, Iraq is left in a political vacuum. Jaafari, a former doctor who spent years in exile in Britain while Saddam Hussein ruled, will not give way to other candidates from his bloc who have wider support.

Using the argument that the US and Britain had toppled Saddam in order to bring democracy, he turned it against them. "There is a decision that was reached by a democratic mechanism and I stand with it ... We have to protect democracy in Iraq and it is democracy which should decide who leads Iraq. We have to respect our Iraqi people," he said.

Tampering with democracy was risky, he insisted. "People will react if they see the rules of democracy being disobeyed. Every politician and every friend of Iraq should not want people to be frustrated," he said. "Everyone should stick to democratic mechanisms no matter whether they disagree with the person," he added pointedly.

continued.........


mg.co.za