Who pays more taxes? The rich or the poor?
Gonzo @ Wed Nov 17, 2004 1:59 pm
Do you actually believe anything Rush Limbaugh says? It's bullshit. You're using a Rush Limbaugh site for facts? All you did is cut and paste a quote from some right wing bullshit page without considering how stupid and one sided it is. By an overwhelming margin, most states tax their middle- and low-income families far more heavily than the wealthy, according to a new study by the Institute on Taxation & Economic Policy, an American institute. Do you think people should pay a flat tax, a fixed amount that everyone should pay? The rich should pay more taxes because they make more and get more from the government in tax right offs and loop holes. I cant believe I'm wasting my time responding to this right wing propoganda.
Rev_Blair @ Wed Nov 17, 2004 2:14 pm
Rush Limbough is a very reliable source...if you happen to be in the market for hillbilly heroin.
Get some real facts, Godz. Don't use twisted numbers from a known dope fiend.
xerxes @ Wed Nov 17, 2004 2:40 pm
Gonzo's right. What does Rush Limbaugh know about anything? H'e just another right-wing hack with a big mouth and little brain. His numbers may come from the IRS, but his presentation is all spin. The richest in the US do not pay the majority of taxes. Those in the middle income brackets do. What Rush is subtely arguing for is the Republican's wet dream: the flat tax. A tax that taxes everyone the same rate regardless of attenuating factors (like children and such). This is colossally stupid becuase 23% (to use a recent suggestion) of $30,000 is a lot more out of one's pocket than 23% of $300,000. The reason taxes are (and should be lower for lower income brackets that taxes hurt them more and they are most likely to spend their money when they have it.
Robair @ Wed Nov 17, 2004 7:50 pm
This is kind of a cool illustration.
Rev_Blair @ Thu Nov 18, 2004 11:10 am
Now he'll whine because it's on digital cable, Avro. He doesn't just want Fox in Canada, he wants it on for free instead of the CBC.
RSKennan @ Thu Nov 18, 2004 6:57 pm
Al Jazeera News is already on where I live (Connecticut). They run it on a composite channel called something like "The International channel". I get that channel but as I have a maxed out digital cable package, I'm not 100% sure of the name of the station.
Rev_Blair @ Thu Nov 18, 2004 7:48 pm
$1:
- Allow MSNBC and CNN to broadcast freely, but Fox was out of the question for long time becuase "it threatened Canadian identity"
Actually there were many reasons why Fox didn't get approval right away...it's reluctance to allow Canadian advertising to be substituted, the presence of other US stations, and the anti-Canadian tone of its announcers were among them.
$1:
-Refused to renew the most popular radio station in Quebec city becuase of the right-of center views of the two Mourning DJ's. (Who are anti-seperatist by the way!!!! What dumbasses are the CRTC hiring anyway?)
That had to do with them being openly racist in many of their on-air statements and their constant use of obscenity. The rules are pretty clear, and they insisted on breaking them.
$1:
- Despite showing public executions and beheadings, Al-Jazeera got a smooth approval.
Al Jazeera's approval was anything but smooth and any cable provider who offers them is responsible for any hate speech they air, making it unlikely that any cable provider will carry them.
$1:
-RAI International, an Italian channel which shows soap operas, Italian music, news, comedy shows and soccer matches however, was rejected. (To the wrath of the Canadian-Italian community, good luck getting this swing voter group to vote Liberal in the next election!!!)
What does this have to do with anything? It does show that the CRTC wasn't singling Fox out I guess, but RAI didn;t meet the requirements this time so they were turned down.
$1:
- Fined a high school radio show, becuase their signal was accidentaly surpassing its area!!!!
So they fined somebody who was not complying with the rules? Gee, that's part of their mandate.
$1:
- Puts restrictions on Global, Rogers, Bell and Videotron to have the exclusive rights to broadcast the olympics (Which would save the Canadian Taxpayers hunfreads of millions of dollars) and instread subsidizes the CBC for it.
The CBC was best positioned to offer full coverage of the Olympics. It also made money on the coverage through increased advertising revenues, so it saved you money, Godz.
$1:
- Insulted the talents of Shania Twain by saying she would'nt have made it to where she was if it had'nt been for them (P.S. Shania Twain went directly to Nashville, Tennesee and her career shot up from there)
Shania Twain receives a high level of airplay in Canada because of the cancon rules. She also cashes a cheque every year that comes from a tax on blank recording materials.
$1:
and many many more!!!
Any valid points in your "many, many more" Godz? No...I thought not.
Why don't you spend your time on Republican websites, Godz? You obviously hate Canada, so why do come here to annoy real Canadians?