Here is a John Kerry quote that appeared in the Bethany College Student newspaper, the Tower, in 1971:
John Kerry, the presumed Democratic nominee for president, was quoted by a student newspaper at West Virginia’s Bethany College in 1971 as saying, “Our democracy is a farce; it is not the best in the world.”
Kerry made the remarks on Nov. 2, 1971, according to the Bethany College student newspaper, The Tower . CNSNews.com has obtained a copy of the article written by John Majors, which details Kerry’s visit to the college and appeared in the Nov. 11, 1971 issue of the newspaper. At the time, Kerry was still a leader of the anti-war group, Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW).
“There is a disbelief in the American Dream,” Kerry was quoted as saying. “People are questioning if it is really a dream or if the dream still exists,” Kerry reportedly told the students gathered in the school’s Weimer Lecture Hall.
Hey Terry McAuliffe- why is John Kerry questioning John Kerry’s patriotism?
BTW- Bethany College is located in Bethany, WV, and is my hometown. It has a population of about 400, which swells to about 1200 when school is in session. My mother has taught English there for over 30 years, and I attended the school for a year. Actually, saying I attended Bethany College is a bit of a stretch, considering my abysmal academic record. Let’s say I lived in the Freshman dorm, worked at the radio station, pledged a fraternity, and played lacrosse there.
HH
Another anti-democratic Democrat…
JKC
But GWB gets a pass on a past full of substance abuse and drunken driving by saying “when I was young and foolish, I was young and foolish.” Can you say “double standard?”
Guys, the 60’s are over. Could we maybe, please, discuss today’s issues??
John Cole
No, JKC, we can’t, because every time we try to discuss Kerry’s record, whether it be his past positions or past votes, we are told we are questioning his patriotism.
Flagwaver
OK, JKC, although I, for one, certainly think anti-democratic, anti-military and anti-US sentiments of the sort voiced by Kerry have a greater bearing on his fitness to be President than a past problem with substance abuse do.
But, fair is fair, let’s deal with present issues.
1. Kerry isn’t against the war in Iraq (or is he? I forget. Which week is this?), but he’s against how we got into it? Huh? WTF does THAT mean? He wants to “involve the U.N.”, eh? Well, Koffee Asshole has already said the U.N. wants no part of Iraq, because it isn’t safe (well, DUH!!). And is this the same U.N. that opposed our deposing Saddam because they were on the take, through their immoral and corrupt “Oil-for-Food” program? He doesn’t plan to pull out the troops, but he plans to “re-engage with the international community”?? Other than the coalition members W has already lined up, have you noticed any clamoring of foreign leaders to jump on board and send troops??
Bottom line: Kerry DOESN’T HAVE A FREAKIN’ PLAN. You may not like W’s plan, but he’s GOT ONE.
Advantage: Bush.
2. Universal health care. He has a plan – no details, but he “has a plan.” Problem with UHC – NO ONE has EVER explained how the hell we’re going to pay for it. As P.J. O’Rourke said, “If you think health care is expensive now, just wait ’til you see how much it costs when it’s free!” W effed up on the Prescription Drug Benefit – pandering to the Grey Panthers is never a good idea – but he isn’t HALF crazy enough to go down THAT road.
Bottom line: Likely another entitlement program we can’t afford and don’t need, which will break the budget – but not until Kerry is LONG out of office, so why should he give a shit?
Advantage: Bush.
3. Taxes. Kerry’s going to repeal the Bush tax cuts! Wait, no, no, he’s not. Okay, he’s going to repeal the Bush tax cuts ONLY ON THOSE PEOPLE WHO MAKE OVER $200K per year! Yeah, that’s the ticket! One problem – the people who make over $200K per year are pretty much the ONLY PEOPLE WHO PAY TAXES. So he’s gonna put the economy in the shitter, so he can pay for his UHC plan (NOT!).
Advantage: Bush.
I could go on, and on, and on, but the result would be the same. I don’t NEED to go back to Kerry’s lies about his fellow Viet Nam vets, his prevaricating about his medals, or his anti-Americanism. His candidacy sucks for totally modern reasons – he HAS no plan and no platform, and that creep hasn’t had an original idea in his life. If he couldn’t find a rich widow to marry, he’d be homeless.
And THAT’S why Bush is going to kick the crap out of him this summer, throughout the campaign, and come November – because he’s a brainless, clueless, feckless, idealess, idealless (check those carefully) pussy, who is totally unsuited for the job of President.
Bush is, at best, only marginally better – but this is a situation where a marginal difference is HUGE.
shark
Did he say this before or after he went to Paris to negotiate with an enemy govt? Was this before or after the “which Senator do we kill” meeting?
I don’t question his patriotism, because he never had any.
JKC
Flagwaver-
If candidate “A” has no plan for putting out a fire, while candidate “B” proposes dumping 25,000 gallons of gasoline on the fire, I’ll go with the “planless” candidate every time.
As for taxes, you said:
Apparently, you haven’t heard of payroll taxes (capped after the first $87,000), gasoline taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, or any of the other taxes that EVERYBODY pays.
My suggestion, boyo, is that you pull your head out of your ass, clean the guano out of your ears, and try making a rational argument next time.
And when you come back to beat your chest about the unfair taxes you pay, and how raising taxes is morally equivalent to killing puppies and kittens, be sure and tell me how we’re supposed to pay for the war in Iraq.
Flagwaver
Note to Chris: I TRY to be a nice guy, and THIS is the thanks I get!! Boy, see if I listen to YOU again!!
Response to JKC:
(Takes a deep breath. Chants mantra: “Forgive them, Father, for they have no brains; thoughts are their enemies, and lies are their friends. They have ‘good intentions,’ which for them are more important the ACTUAL RESULTS. And, most of all, they are absolutely BATSHIT because they’ve had their asses handed to them in last two election cycles, and it HURTS.” Another deep breath. There, that’s better.)
JKC,
Yes, I DO pay more taxes than you do. Of ANY description. In fact, I’ll betcha I paid more in federal income taxes last year than you made, gross. Wanta bet? So, YES, I do have something to say about taxes. And I repeat, those who make over $200K per year are, pretty much the only people who pay FEDERAL INCOME TAXES, which was the subject under discussion. However, those same people also pay the VAST MAJORITY of sales, use, excise, property and similar taxes. Also, by the way, “payroll taxes” are NOT capped at $87K – only Social Security “taxes” are capped at $87K (a dead giveaway that YOU aren’t in the “endangered” over $200K category!).
I’ll happily pay for Iraq, the Pentagon, and the War on Terror – those are appropriate, necessary and CONSTITUTIONAL applications of the federal taxing power. I’m not interested in paying taxes to support a litany of entitlement programs which are (i) blatantly unconstitutional, (ii) inefficient, (iii) ineffective, and (iv) unneccessary. Oh, and did I mention that MOST of such programs actually make the “problem” they were designed to address WORSE??? Cut out “Prescription Drug Benefits,” “No Child Left Behind” (in fact, cut out ALL federal spending for “education”), “Social Security,” Federal support for “Welfare,” the NEA, Medicare, and MOST federal programs, and you’ll find we have MORE than enough money to support the Pentagon, Iraq, and the rest of the federal government, at a MUCH lower tax rate. Sending money to Washington, to have it cut up into silly little pies with strings attached and endless paperwork involved, so it can be sent BACK where it came from (minus the HUGE “administrative” cost of the process) could make sense ONLY to a liberal.
As for “plans” versus “no plans” – I suggest YOU remove YOUR asshelmet, and look at the facts – Saddam is gone, Iran is nervous, Kadaffy Duck has VOLUNTARILY disarmed, Sudan kicked Bashar Assad’s WMD’s out, North Korea is agreeing to eight way talks, and Moqtada al-Sadr’s boys are mostly taking dirt naps. If you call that “pouring gasoline on the fire,” all I can say is, “HAND ME THE BUCKET!!!”
In my former, pre-Chris influenced days, I would have closed with something like, “And the day when I need a lecture on reality from a fact-challenged liberal asswipe with delusions of humanity, monkeys will fly out of your ass – if they can get past your head!”
But, in my new, more civilized persona, I will simply close with
Yours in the bosom of Christ,
Flagwaver
JKC
Flagwaver, if you think I’m impressed that you made lots of money. or more than me, guess again. Hell, J-Lo made more than me, too. I still get by.
But you’re right- I make less than 220K a year. Got a problem with that?
Flagwaver
Well, I see I got a REALLY SUBSTANTIVE response from JKC.
No, I don’t have a problem with the fact that you make less than $200K. Do you? (By the way, unlike J-Lo, I WORK for my money.)
What I DO have a problem with is people – like yourself? – who DON’T have the ability to earn that kind of money, but somehow feel that they are entitled to take mine, LITERALLY at the point of a gun, to support their leftist, redistributionist, socialist economic and social policies. You want “Prescription Drug Benefits” and “No Child Left Behind”???? Be my guest, belly up to the bar and put your money down.
Oh, you can’t AFFORD TO PAY for those programs without taxing productive folk? Gee, that’s too bad. Maybe we should just have people pay for their own drugs, with their own money. How about that idea????
Kimmitt
Shorter Flagwaver: I got mine, so fuck you.
Slartibartfast
Shorter Kimmitt: I can’t be bothered to come up with my own argument, so I’ll make up a malicious-sounding one for you, instead.
Flagwaver
Shorter Kimmitt (and to be shorter than Kimmitt is to be TRULY handicapped, but that’s another story):
I’m an unproductive loser who can’t make it on my own, but everyone else is an even bigger loser than I am, except a few dirty bastards who have ALL THE MONEY, but I KNOW they stole and cheated to get it, so let’s just TAKE ALL THEIR MONEY and give it to us (sorry, those other) losers!
That’s the ticket!! Take their money, and use it to support losers!! Losers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose . . .
and that would be the problem, wouldn’t it??
JKC
“Flagwaver-”
Did it ever occur to you that people who disagree with your particular ideology just… disagree with you?
I’m obviously more of a liberal than you are, but guess what? I love my country, too. I have little kids, and I want them to grow up safe, healthy, and productive, too- just like you do. And while I’m not rich, I’m not poor either, and I worked damned hard to get where I am. I work hard at my job, too. Maybe some days harder than you. Maybe some days less.
If you disagree with me, fine. It IS a free country, and one we’re both damned lucky to be living in. But tell me WHY I’m wrong, and try to do it without namecalling or assuming I’m dumber than the average fungus.
If you can do that, I’ll extend the same courtesy to you.
JKC
And now back to the discussion at hand.
John, you said:
And there are some in the GOP who imply that questioning the President is tantamount to treason. How ’bout we dismiss both as political gamesmanship and move on to the present?
Whaddya say?
Kimmitt
Flagwaver, you idiot. I’m in school, but as soon as I get out, I’ll be one of those folks who make >200k. It’s bad enough when you assume you know something about politics, but don’t even pretend to know anything about me.
Flagwaver
JKC,
“If you can do that, I’ll extend the same courtesy to you.”
Hmm…
“My suggestion, boyo, is that you pull your head out of your ass, clean the guano out of your ears, and try making a rational argument next time.”
Pot, meet kettle.
I’ll try to behave, if you will, but don’t let’s pretend that you’ve been the soul of discretion and civility, and I’ve taken advantage of same . . . OK?
Kimmitt,
If, in fact, you get a job making over $200K per year, GOOD ON YOU! I hope you make $1M per year. Again, what I object to is people of your political persuasion using MY money to solve THEIR pet problems. It is simply a FACT that the top 2% of income earners in the U.S. pay a significantly greater share of the overall tax burden than the share of the overall income they receive – and it is also a fact that that percentage has INCREASED under the Bush tax cuts. And it is also a FACT that almost 50% of the working people in the U.S. pay no (or virtually no) income tax.
If you think that is “fair,” you and I have different definitions of the word.
JKC
Flagwaver-
While lower income folks don’t pay as much in income taxes, they DO pay Social Security taxes at a regressive rate, they DO pay property taxes, and sales taxes, and “user fees” (aka disguised taxes.)
I’ll try to find the cite- I believe it was either in the NY Times or the Wall Street Journal… but the gist of it was that when ALL taxes are taken into account, the rates are actually pretty flat.
Flagwaver
I’d be interested in seeing that. At least in dear old Taxifornia, sales tax expempts food and many other “necessary” items, so that a “subsistence level” family would pay little or no sales tax. Property taxes are ad valorem, so, again, most lower income folks would pay nominal property tax, even if they owned real property.
I agree that sales taxes, VAT style taxes, user fees and non-ad valorem property or property-type taxes (like a substantial component of California’s vehicle registration fees and taxes) are basically regressive in nature – but those regressive taxes (or the regressive components of flat or progressive taxes) shouldn’t consitute that big a piece of the overall tax burden. If you’ve got numbers, I’d love to see them.
JKC
This is a link to the same article from Calpundit. The numbers are interesting.
Here’s the originalarticle from the NY Times.It’s archived, so it’ll cost you $2.95 to look at it.
Kimmitt
“It is simply a FACT that the top 2% of income earners in the U.S. pay a significantly greater share of the overall tax burden than the share of the overall income they receive – and it is also a fact that that percentage has INCREASED under the Bush tax cuts. And it is also a FACT that almost 50% of the working people in the U.S. pay no (or virtually no) income tax.”
Cite, please.
Thebastidge
Why, can’t get on the IRS.GOV website to look for yourself?
Chris P
Kimmitt and JKC,
Here is a link to a chart entitled Payroll and Individual Income Taxes: Distribution of Burden by AGI Class, 2003 put out by the Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution (cut and paste into your browser):
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=279
Pay attention to the center column labeled Average Tax Rate (Percent): Payroll Tax and Income Tax. You will notice that while those making $50,000 and less are unfairly burdened with a greater proportion of payroll tax than those making more than $50,000, those making $75,000 and more are burdened with a much, much greater proportion of federal income tax than those making less than $75,000. As a matter of fact, the two lowest AGI classes have a NEGATIVE income tax percentage (that would be free money) whereas the two highest AGI classes have income tax percentages of 27.3% and 28.6% respectively.
And this is just federal income tax. The top two AGI classes also have to pay Social Security taxes, property taxes (which are inevitably going to be higher than those for the lowest AGI classes), sales taxes, gasoline taxes, etc. just like everyone else. So I think it’s safe to say that the top 2% of income earners in the U.S. pay a significantly greater share of the overall tax burden. Hope this cite is good enough for you.
Hipocrite
Payroll Tax and Income Tax…And this is just federal income tax.
Short attention span theater continues.
Chris P
“And this is just federal income tax.”
I was referring to the last line in the previous paragraph citing the federal income tax percentages. My attention span is just fine.
Flagwaver
Kimmitt,
I was going to cite you to the IRS website, which has these statistics laid out in both table and chart form, but I see Thebastidge and my compadre Chris beat me to it.
One quick aside, to think about. The trend, over the last 20+ years, has been to remove people at the lower end of the income scale from the tax rolls altogether. This has been done in a number of ways – dependent credits, EIC, “cliff” rates at the lower end (below certain incomes, no tax is charged). On the one hand, I am sympathetic to this approach – a father of two, making $50K per year in LA County, is SCRAPING by, and even a thousand or two in taxes will make a material difference to him. So, at that level, I don’t begrudge him not paying federal income tax. On the other hand, if you don’t pay in to the system, your stake in the system, the way the money is spent, and how the decisions to spend that money are made, is NOT the same as mine.
Those bucks getting sent to the NEA, for example, are MY bucks, and it chaps my ass to send MY money to support some a-hole who thinks dunking a crucifix – a representation of MY Lord and Savior – in a beaker of piss is “ART.” Fuck him, he can pay for his OWN damn beaker – why should he get money from ME to insult my beliefs???
If my hypothetical father of two making $50K pays no federal income tax, he may find that expenditure silly, he may find the “art” it supports offensive, but it doesn’t have the same emotional impact on him because it’s NOT HIS MONEY.
Do you think that’s a good thing? I don’t. I think EVERYONE should have an emotional and financial investment in how our tax money is spent.
I invite your response.
Hipocrite
Chris – you are, of course, aware that Paroll, Sales and Property taxes are massivly regressive, right?
Flagwaver
Hipocrite,
I’m afraid you’re going to have to offer some support, or at least some analysis, for that sweeping statement.
In California, food and many other items (diapers, for example) are exempt from sales tax – the idea being that people HAVE to buy these items to survive. Many of the working poor are in a situation where they, for obvious financial reasons, RARELY buy anything but necessities. Upper income folks, who spend money on “luxury” items, get taxed on these items. So how, exactly, does that make the sales tax “regressive”?
As for property tax, again, in California, although the landscape is skewed by Prop. 13, property tax is an ad valorem tax – first of all, you don’t pay it at all unless you own property. Sad to say, but an upper income person is much more likely to own real estate than is a poor person. Then, once you buy the house, the valuation is “frozen” under Prop. 13 until you sell it and buy another. On average, people who own houses in California hold them around 5 years – but there are two BIG exceptions to that. Young working couples buying their first house tend to hold them two years or less, and lower income buyers who strain their way into a house tend to hold them a LONG time. So, not only do most poor people not pay property taxes because they don’t own property, the ones that do (at least in California) then to hold their houses longer and continue to get taxed at a low valuation based on their (years old) purchase price, while the rich yuppies flip their houses every four or five years, and get the “bump” in value and pay taxes at the higher rate.
Explain to me, then, how these two taxes are “regressive”?
Chris P
Hipocrite,
If by regressive, you mean these taxes impact the lower income brackets more than the higher income brackets, I’d say “massively” is a little strong. I already hinted that payroll taxes were regressive when I wrote “those making $50,000 and less are unfairly burdened with a greater proportion of payroll tax than those making more than $50,000.” I concede that the payroll tax is unfair to the lower income brackets. But that unfair burden is only a matter of a few, or even a few tenths, percentage points in most cases (excepting the three highest AGI classes).
As for sales tax and property tax, I would argue that these taxes are not regressive at all. Sales tax is a flat tax (at least in Massachusetts). Everybody pays 5% regardless of their income level. But even then, as Flagwaver pointed out necessities such as food and clothing are not taxed at all. (I recently moved to NH which has no sales tax…even better!) Property taxes are generally progressive (at least in NH); the more property you own or the more your property is worth, the more property tax you pay. Again, as Flagwaver pointed out, most in the lower income brackets do not own property, they rent, and therefore don’t pay property tax anyway.
Kimmitt
“Again, as Flagwaver pointed out, most in the lower income brackets do not own property, they rent, and therefore don’t pay property tax anyway.”
Landlords pay property tax. Landlords have to make money on the properties they rent. Renters, therefore, end up paying the property tax, through the magic of supply and demand. Since lower-income households spend a greater proportion of their income on housing than higher-income households, they end up spending more on property taxes.
Flagwaver
Whoa, there, Kimmitt!
“Since lower-income households spend a greater proportion of their income on housing than higher-income households, they end up spending more on property taxes.”
Can you say, “logical lacunae”??
Tell me what percentage of an average renter’s rent is property tax, and show me some support for that, and you MIGHT have an argument. But to assert that, because a COMPONENT of rent is property tax (which I will grant you) and ON AVERAGE lower income people pay a higher percentage of their total income on housing than do higher income earners, that this therefore means that they also pay a higher percentage on property taxes is a truly breathtaking leap of “logic” without, as far as I can see, any factual support whatsoever.
Chris P
In all fairness, Kimmitt does make a good point, albeit somewhat misstated. I didn’t consider the fact that the property tax the landlord pays is built into the rent and thus passed on to the renter. So I rescind my former statement that low income earners that rent pay no property tax. They do.
But to say they spend MORE in property taxes than higher income earners who own their own homes or other property is a stretch at best. Say for the sake of argument that someone who brings home $25,000 per year pays $525 per month (or $6300/year) in rent (which would work out to roughly 25% of their take home pay) and that 10% of the rent (or $52.50/month; $630/year) is built in property tax (this is probably a pretty liberal estimate). That would make their total cost in property tax about 2.5% of their take home income. This is not far off (and in NH it’s actually a little less) from what the average homeowner would pay. So the tax would not be progressive as I stated, but it wouldn’t be regressive either. It would be roughly flat.
Kimmitt
This all obscures the fact that the folks who pay the most on property taxes as a proportion of their income are generally farmers, due to their unique situation. On the other hand, family farming is not usually a massive wealth-generating activity . . .
Hipocrite
Short answer: Consumption Taxes are massivly regressive because poor people borrow to consume and rich people (can/do) save in lieu of consumption.
Property Taxes are massivly regressive because (as Kimmitt partially pointed out) poor people spend a far greater percentage of their income on tax-neutral rent as opposed to rich people who spend it on tax-deductable interest payments.
Any questions?
Hipocrite
PS – property taxes are federally dedecutable, while rent increases are not.