Is "compassionate conservatism" a slogan and nothing more?

Oh no the same thing happened in Oakland, CA, the Oakland PD dosn't like my group either - I wonder what's up with that

What's your take on the data given in my second link, fish?

Yep fishin my father-in-law was retired Army but TROA met at the MCRD O club, best view of San Diego harbor. And yes they are a PAC and a union - any group that gets togeither to pursue the interests of the group is by definitiona a union, sorry fishin, could not resist. You know how I am.

Yes, I see the lines forming now at the church doors for jobs.

It's probbaly a valid complaint and my understanding is that they've won a court order providing the lifetime medical coverage since then.

The people affected under the class action lawsuit were lied to and everyone within the DoD knew it. The Secretary of Defense made the promise of litetime medical care to those guys if they stayed in long enough to retire and they did. Then when it came time (when they started turning 65) the US Government reneged on the deal. The Sec. of Defense doesn't have the legal authority to make those promises (Only the Congress can do that..) so the promise had previoulsy been ruled "invalid".
But these guys DID put in their time nad the courts finally ruled in their favor which IMO, was the proper thing to do.

The only thing I disagree with on their part was the tactics and misinformation used to get the public sympathay. They neglected to mention that they weren't being thrown out in the cold. They were being provided medical care after age 65 but under the MediCare system (at no cost to themselves) instead of the Military hospitals. IMO, they should have been more honest with the public and disclosed that fact instead of misleading the public into believing that these guys were left with nothing.

It is funny to see how some "Christians" react to smoke odor. You'd think someone hit them in the face.

Bring 'em on, though.

Joanne--Quakers are on the Subversive list? This is science fiction.

I have no problems with Unions Joanne. I have concerns when people defend Unions to the death and then spit on other groups that do the exact same things the Unions do as if the two are somehow entirely different because one group says the are a Union and the other doesn't. Unions serve a purpose. As long as people see them for what they are I'm quite happy!

You are so right fishin when my ex was a Navy recruiter in 72' in Columbus, OH, I was present at various interviews where he made that promise, it was hard to get young men to join the Navy in 1972. However when I worked at the Naval Medical Command, Direct Medical Care Division in D.C. they fell back on the law, the Sailors and Soldiers Act which does not provide medical care for dependants or retirees.

But then again that was the 80s and they were also prosecuting a certain Navy Captian a Dr. Billig, the only cardio vascular surgeon in the Navy because he lied about losing his license to practice medicine and was blind in one eye but the Navy needed doctors and especially at Bethesda Naval Hospital. My boss a LCDR was his recruiter and also had to stand Courts Martial. What a mess.

Sorry, I see nothing but humor in church personnel taking over as employment agents, let alone consuling drug addicts and drunks. I'm going to have to withdraw from that aspect of the subject before I'm writing on the floor in gales of laughter.

The church is only a secular institution in which the half-educated speak to the half-converted.

- W. R. Inge

I can't be sure, but I'm getting a vague anti-church vibe from you, LW.

Gales of laughter might be a good thing.

Found the budget.

Click here for the straight story.

The middle class and lower class are to recieve the largest percentage of the cuts, and are to receive additional assists in child tax credits and one income family credits.

Looks like the poor are getting richer.

"Looks like the poor are getting richer."

I suppose I would be ROTFLMAO if I thought that was actually a serious response.

And if it were actually funny.

When you find a poor person--even one--who agrees with your contention, Lash, please let us know.

Tell you what: you don't even have to link it.

PDiddie--
I didn't think we could get more serious than the link to the actual budget.

I tried it. It worked for me.

Sure you can get more serious, that is if one is truly serious about delving for the truth instead of simply believing dross that is used to support at best tenuous positions that are based neither on fact nor objective number crunching. The former case is called economics, the latter, an apology for crass politics.

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/flat1202.pdf


"According to White House sources quoted in today's Washington Post, the Bush admin-istration has revealed what it thinks are the central problems facing America today: the very rich don't have enough money and working people don't pay enough in taxes.

To rectify this alleged problem, the administration is trying to lay the groundwork for a massive shift in federal taxes away from the wealthiest and onto the vast majority of American families. As the Post reports:

# In recent weeks, top Bush policymakers have complained about what they falsely assert is an "increasing reliance on taxing higher income households."

# In addition, they have threatened that "the tax burden will have to begin
extending backward down the income ladder."

The administration is said to be particularly concerned that even with the Bush tax cuts, the personal income tax remains progressive. That's true. Because of the regressivity of other federal taxes such as payroll and excise taxes, however, the overall federal tax system is only modestly progressive.

# In 2001, the wealthiest one percent earned more than 18 percent of total
pretax income and paid 25.1 percent of all federal taxes.

# By 2010, under the already scheduled Bush tax cuts, the top one percent's share of all federal taxes is slated to fall to 23.9 percent, only slightly above this group's expected share of total income, which will exceed 18.9 percent.

But R. Glenn Hubbard, head of the President's Council of Economic Advisors, says the administration hopes to scrap even this small amount of progressivity in favor of an even "flatter [income] tax system." If the administration succeeds, for example, in converting the personal income tax to a strictly flat percentage of income, then in 2010:

# People making $1.5 million each?-the best-off one percent?-will get average tax reductions of $159,501 a year. Their share of total federal taxes will fall to only 15.6 percent, well below their expected share of pretax income that year.

# Meanwhile, the four out of five taxpayers making less than $100,000 will face average annual tax increases of $3,089 each.

"The administration has finally admitted that its maniacal zeal to cut taxes for the very wealthy will have to be paid for by much higher taxes on the vast majority of Americans," said Robert S. McIntyre, director of Citizens for Tax Justice. "Now that the cat's out of the bag, it's time for the public to wake up?-before it's too late."

Tables showing current taxes and a flat income tax alternative follow on the link provided.

But let us be sure we understand this tax proposal. It shows that people making $1.5 million, will see another $150,000 in their pocket, while the overwhelming number of tax payers, those making below $100,000 will see a tax increase of over $3,000.

Apparently lost on this administration, which is allegedly fighting the current recession, is that those making less than $100,000 spend about all their money just to live. Those making that magical $1.5 million do not, nor will that extra $150,000 make its way into the economy as fully as the would an equal amount of money in the hands of the lower income taxpayers. Thus any tax cut that is supposed to invigorate the economy is most effective when it places the money into the hands of people who will spend the money.

Attempts to call this Bush plan anything but another massive give away to the wealthy at the expense of the average and poorer worker won't wash.

That Citizen's For Tax Justice article is NOTHING BUT Politics. They can't even stick to one issue within their own 4 page paper. It's nice how they interweave "Incomes taxes" with "total Federal taxes" to their advantage since they can't make their claims any other way.

They rely entirely on the Social Security cutoff for their drama. Get rid of the Social Security caps - on both the taxes paid in and the benefits paid out.

i shall let pass without comment that the link you provided, from the white house site, showed neither an actual budget nor a break down on the effects on taxation of bush's tax giveaway to the rich.

conversely, the link i provided, from an organization that for nearly a decade has published detailed analyses of tax issues, showed the devil in the details of the proposed budget and how it measures alongside of past taxation rates as affecting the full range of taxes that tax payers incur.

if you were at all serious, you would address the numbers shown instead of employing histrionics. your attempt to dismiss the messenger because of the message carried shows the weakness of your argument, and the fallacious thinking behind it.

it is not "politics" to point out the distortions and demogoguery from the adminstration on this issue. in fact, it is one's civic obligation to dispute the lies of the current administration on this issue.

kurvasc said

if you were at all serious, you would address the numbers shown instead of employing histrionics. your attempt to dismiss the messenger because of the message carried shows the weakness of your argument, and the fallacious thinking behind it.

Back at you, and anyone else who states The Actual budget is not the singular best way to see if what we are saying is, or is not true. The numbers you say I should address are in the budget I provided.

It wasn't so long ago that I was a member of the working class poor. A full third of my paycheck went to the gov't. Bush's budget states people making between 20 K and 31K, will have a 15% reduction in the amount of their money that is taken out of their check.

THIS IS COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATISM.

And this one fact is why the liberals are so crazed about trying to make people believe it is only a tax cut for the rich. How can they hold on to what political power they have left, when it is revealed how they take and take from our paychecks, and the GOP wants people to keep more of their own money?

kurvasc, if you use the links on the White House site, you can get plenty of information about the tax code.

Before today is over, if no one else links it, I will find the adjustment for the rich.

Those without compassion often think they are not devoid of it. In their own selfish way they will think that they are doing others a service.

That's not directed at conservatives but simply that I think it's near impossible to convince anyone that they aren't compassionate.

Guess What:
Guess what, Lash: In the Bush Economy, you are now the "new" poor.

Your concept that your income quantifies you as "middle class," is long since passed away with the last Democratic Presidency.


Helful Hint: "Arctic" is spelled with two "c"'s.