From: Grlygrl201@aol.com
Date: Wed Oct 25 2000 - 00:02:01 PDT
In a message dated 10/20/00 1:24:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
Yangkun.Zhang@FMR.COM writes:
<< Many in this country wants stringent socioeconomic controls. Note the
progressively confiscatory tax system, with income taxed at 39.6%, with your
employer paying about another 7% (which you never see on your gross pay, so
you don't miss it), with a 55% rate on someone dying, and with income
derived from Chapter C corporation being taxed TWICE. >>
exerpt from SLATE POLITICS: Tues., Oct. 24, 2000
"When he calls the estate tax unfair, especially to farmers and
small businesspeople, because it "taxes people twice"--meaning first
when they earn the money and again when they die--is he aware that
the value of farms and businesses in estates has almost never been
taxed as income? Or have his advisers and fellow businessfolks
deceived him on this basic point? When he criticizes his opponent
for cutting taxes through the use of tax credits, then gives an
example of his own tax plan in which most of the cut is through tax
credits, is he fooling us? Or is someone fooling him?"
(i take back everything i implied about msft.)
text in total to follow. inflammatory though it is (how unusual for FoRK) i
want it in the forkives time capsule.
readme
The Emperor's New Brain
By Michael Kinsley
George W. Bush's handling of the stupidity issue has been nothing
short of brilliant. A Martian watching the last presidential debate
might have concluded that this man would be well-advised not to put
quite so much emphasis on mental testing. But Earth-based
commentators mostly shied away from such a conclusion. The rule
seems to be that if a candidate can recite half a dozen policy
positions by rote and name some foreign nations and leaders, one
shouldn't point out that he sure seems a few whereases shy of an
executive order.
The problem is probably laziness or complacence rather than actual
inability, and journalists' reluctance to call someone who may well
be our next commander in chief a moron is understandable. But if
George W. Bush isn't a moron, he is a man of impressive
intellectual dishonesty and/or confusion. His utterances frequently
make no sense on their own terms. His policy recommendations are
often internally inconsistent and mutually contradictory. Because
it's harder to explain and impossible to prove cold, intellectual
dishonesty doesn't get the attention that petty fibbing does, even
though intellectual dishonesty indicts both a candidate's character
and his policy positions. All politicians, including Al Gore, get
away with more of it than they should. But George W. gets away with
an extraordinary amount of it.
On Social Security, he continues to say he'll get the trillion
dollars needed for his partial privatization "out of the surplus."
Does he not understand that the current surplus is committed to
future benefits, which will have to be cut to make the numbers
work? Or does he understand and not care? When he compares the
"paltry 2 percent" return on Social Security with an alleged 6
percent return on private investments, does he know he's leaving
out that trillion dollars in one case and including it in the
other? Or has this fact failed to penetrate despite repeated
exposures?
When he calls the estate tax unfair, especially to farmers and
small businesspeople, because it "taxes people twice"--meaning first
when they earn the money and again when they die--is he aware that
the value of farms and businesses in estates has almost never been
taxed as income? Or have his advisers and fellow businessfolks
deceived him on this basic point? When he criticizes his opponent
for cutting taxes through the use of tax credits, then gives an
example of his own tax plan in which most of the cut is through tax
credits, is he fooling us? Or is someone fooling him?
When he repeatedly attacks his opponent for "partisanship," does he
get the joke? When he blames the absence of a federal patients'
rights law on "a lot of bickering in Washington, D.C.," has he
noticed that the bickering consists of his own party, which
controls Congress, blocking the legislation? When he summarizes,
"It's kind of like a political issue as opposed to a people issue,"
does he mean to suggest anything in particular? Perhaps that
politicians, when acting politically, ignore the wishes of the
people?
How does he figure? If at all.
When he repeatedly says he has a "clear vision" about the Middle
East but never gives a hint what it is, should we assume he has one
he's not telling us about? When he complains that there is no
general "strategy" for America's role in the world and promises
that he'll ask his secretary of defense to come up with one pronto,
should we be reassured? When he criticizes the Clinton
administration for misusing American soldiers as social workers and
promises to get other countries to use their soldiers that way
instead, does he notice the logical flaw here?
In the debate, he declared, "I don't want to use food as a
diplomatic weapon from this point forward. We shouldn't be using
food. It hurts the farmers. It's not the right thing to do." When,
just a few days later, he criticized legislation weakening the
trade embargo on Cuba--which covers food along with everything
else--had he rethought his philosophy on this issue? Or was there
nothing to rethink?
When he promises that if he is elected, "we will have gag orders"
on doctors and "100 percent" of people will "get the death tax,"
it's easy enough to figure out that he means we won't have gag
orders and nobody will pay the estate tax. But what does he mean
when he says that "insurance" is "a Washington term"?
When he promises "to have prescription drugs as an integral part of
Medicare," does he comprehend that the exact distinction between
his plan and his opponent's is that his is not an integral part of
Medicare?
When he says that local control of schools is vital, criticizes his
opponent for wanting to "federalize" education, promises as
president to impose various requirements on schools, complains that
federal money comes with too many "strings," calls for after-school
funds to be used for "character education," endorses a federal law
forbidding state lawsuits against teachers, and so on, does he have
a path through this maze of contradictions? When he promises a
federal school voucher program and then deflects criticism by
saying "vouchers are up to states," is he being dense or
diabolically clever?
In short, does George W. Bush mean what he says, or does he
understand it? The answer can't be both. And is both too much to
ask for?
Copyright (c) 2000 Microsoft and/or its suppliers. All rights
reserved.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 25 2000 - 00:07:43 PDT