Re: Interesting Statistic

Donald Gillies said:

Did you get $5000 back on your taxes every year ?? I sure didn't.
But bush BORROWED $5000 per household in order to rebate Million$ to
his primary benefactor$, the super-wealthy ultra-rich who put him into
office.

I hope you got your $5000/year back in tax cuts. With 100M households
in the USA and $500B in borrowing, you either got the $5000, or you're
a chump and a fool voting for Bu$h.

Vote for Bu$h, get a big pile of BU**SH**.

Quoted message said:

Donald Gillies said:

Did you get $5000 back on your taxes every year ?? I sure didn't.
But bush BORROWED $5000 per household in order to rebate Million$ to
his primary benefactor$, the super-wealthy ultra-rich who put him
into office.

I hope you got your $5000/year back in tax cuts. With 100M
households in the USA and $500B in borrowing, you either got the
$5000, or you're a chump and a fool voting for Bu$h.

Vote for Bu$h, get a big pile of BU**SH**.

Naptime Google produced:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/top_50__of_wage_earners_pay_96_09__of_income_taxes.guest.html

(knew you'd love the source 🙂 )

Donald Gillies said:

Did you get $5000 back on your taxes every year ?? I sure didn't.
But bush BORROWED $5000 per household in order to rebate Million$ to
his primary benefactor$, the super-wealthy ultra-rich who put him into
office.

I hope you got your $5000/year back in tax cuts. With 100M households
in the USA and $500B in borrowing, you either got the $5000, or you're
a chump and a fool voting for Bu$h.

The Republican led cuts in higher education funding cost me over
$40,000, compared to what the "Baby Boomers" would have had to pay
(adjusted for inflation). I doubt I will live/work long enough to make
that up with a minimal (if any) tax cut.

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman said:

The Republican led cuts in higher education funding cost me over
$40,000,

Hmmmm... Bush has actually INcreased education spending by 80% since
he's been in office. It's gone up something close to double that
since the Republicans took over the Senate and House.

Your problem is that universities are charging outrageously higher
tuitions. And contrary to your intimation above, it's not GWB or the
GOP's fault.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Mark Hickey said:

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman said:

The Republican led cuts in higher education funding cost me over
$40,000,

Hmmmm... Bush has actually INcreased education spending by 80% since
he's been in office. It's gone up something close to double that
since the Republicans took over the Senate and House.

Your problem is that universities are charging outrageously higher
tuitions. And contrary to your intimation above, it's not GWB or the
GOP's fault.

Funny how the rise in right-wing political dominance correlates with
decreasing earning for the middle and lower classes combined with
greater costs for education. Maybe Republican policies REALLY do favor
their rich campaign contributors? Would the rich donate so much
campaign money without a return on their investment?

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman said:

Mark Hickey said:

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman said:

The Republican led cuts in higher education funding cost me over
$40,000,

Hmmmm... Bush has actually INcreased education spending by 80% since
he's been in office. It's gone up something close to double that
since the Republicans took over the Senate and House.

Your problem is that universities are charging outrageously higher
tuitions. And contrary to your intimation above, it's not GWB or the
GOP's fault.

Funny how the rise in right-wing political dominance correlates with
decreasing earning for the middle and lower classes combined with
greater costs for education. Maybe Republican policies REALLY do favor
their rich campaign contributors? Would the rich donate so much
campaign money without a return on their investment?

Yes, those greedy corporations are in the Republican's back pocket...

.... errrrr, wait...

"The results are the exact opposite of the common perception. The
Fortune 100 foundations gave more money to the political left. In
fact, the grant-making was lopsided: The political left received
nearly $59 million, while the political right received only about
$4 million, a ratio of 14.5 to 1.

The Wildlife Conservation Society, which took in a huge $35-million
grant from the Goldman Sachs Foundation, was the top beneficiary
on the political left of Fortune 100 foundation giving. It was
followed by the Conservation International Foundation ($4.5
million), the National Council of La Raza ($2.9 million) and the
Nature Conservancy ($1.9 million).

The American Enterprise Institute received $575,000, which was
the largest single Fortune 100 grant to a group on the right,
followed by the Competitive Enterprise Institute ($325,000) and
the Employment Policies Institute ($275,000).

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16588

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Mark Hickey said:

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman said:

Mark Hickey said:

"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <[email hidden]> wrote:

>The Republican led cuts in higher education funding cost me over
>$40,000,

Hmmmm... Bush has actually INcreased education spending by 80% since
he's been in office. It's gone up something close to double that
since the Republicans took over the Senate and House.

Your problem is that universities are charging outrageously higher
tuitions. And contrary to your intimation above, it's not GWB or the
GOP's fault.

Funny how the rise in right-wing political dominance correlates with
decreasing earning for the middle and lower classes combined with
greater costs for education. Maybe Republican policies REALLY do favor
their rich campaign contributors? Would the rich donate so much
campaign money without a return on their investment?

Yes, those greedy corporations are in the Republican's back pocket...

... errrrr, wait...

"The results are the exact opposite of the common perception. The
Fortune 100 foundations gave more money to the political left. In
fact, the grant-making was lopsided: The political left received
nearly $59 million, while the political right received only about
$4 million, a ratio of 14.5 to 1.

The Wildlife Conservation Society, which took in a huge $35-million
grant from the Goldman Sachs Foundation, was the top beneficiary
on the political left of Fortune 100 foundation giving. It was
followed by the Conservation International Foundation ($4.5
million), the National Council of La Raza ($2.9 million) and the
Nature Conservancy ($1.9 million).

So Mark Hickey implies that the political right is against
conservation? Funny, for supposed conservatives? Where is Teddy
Roosevelt, when the Republican Party needs him so badly? [1]

In addition, I was referring to CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS, not to
charitable contributions to organizations. Individuals are allowed to
make direct contributions to campaign funds of candidates for federal
office in the US, but (as of yet) corporations are NOT allowed to do
so.

Quoted message said:

The American Enterprise Institute received $575,000, which was
the largest single Fortune 100 grant to a group on the right,
followed by the Competitive Enterprise Institute ($325,000) and
the Employment Policies Institute ($275,000).

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16588

Rich individuals give to both sides of the isle to cover their bets. In
addition, many of the Democrats that take this money are hardly liberal
or progressive, and routinely betray their constituency on economic
matters (no wonder why the Democrats lose elections so often).

[1] Rhetorical questions, yes, I know he is dead.

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman said:

Mark Hickey wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yes, those greedy corporations are in the Republican's back pocket...

... errrrr, wait...

"The results are the exact opposite of the common perception. The
Fortune 100 foundations gave more money to the political left. In
fact, the grant-making was lopsided: The political left received
nearly $59 million, while the political right received only about
$4 million, a ratio of 14.5 to 1.

The Wildlife Conservation Society, which took in a huge $35-million
grant from the Goldman Sachs Foundation, was the top beneficiary
on the political left of Fortune 100 foundation giving. It was
followed by the Conservation International Foundation ($4.5
million), the National Council of La Raza ($2.9 million) and the
Nature Conservancy ($1.9 million).

So Mark Hickey implies that the political right is against
conservation? Funny, for supposed conservatives? Where is Teddy
Roosevelt, when the Republican Party needs him so badly? [1]

The article describes how the various organizations were sorted into
conservative and liberal (and it had nothing to do with conservation,
BTW).

Quoted message said:

In addition, I was referring to CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS, not to
charitable contributions to organizations. Individuals are allowed to
make direct contributions to campaign funds of candidates for federal
office in the US, but (as of yet) corporations are NOT allowed to do
so.

I don't have the numbers at my fingertips, but I recall seeing the
statistics from the 2004 elections, and there was little difference
(in fact, IIRC, the average donation to the Republican candidates was
smaller, and the Dems had more "big money donors"😉.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The American Enterprise Institute received $575,000, which was
the largest single Fortune 100 grant to a group on the right,
followed by the Competitive Enterprise Institute ($325,000) and
the Employment Policies Institute ($275,000).

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16588

Rich individuals give to both sides of the isle to cover their bets. In
addition, many of the Democrats that take this money are hardly liberal
or progressive, and routinely betray their constituency on economic
matters (no wonder why the Democrats lose elections so often).

I could say the same about the other side of the aisle... no doubt
about it - money makes the wheels go round, whether they're the wheels
on the right or left. Jeff Flake may be the one exception to that
(happy that he's from AZ - sorry I can't vote for him though - wrong
district). He seems to be getting some traction on throwing some
sunshine on the pork barrel spending both sides love so much.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

"Donald Gillies" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Did you get $5000 back on your taxes every year ?? I sure didn't.
But bush BORROWED $5000 per household in order to rebate Million$ to
his primary benefactor$, the super-wealthy ultra-rich who put him into
office.

I hope you got your $5000/year back in tax cuts. With 100M households
in the USA and $500B in borrowing, you either got the $5000, or you're
a chump and a fool voting for Bu$h.

- Don Gillies
San Diego, CA

Should you still get $5000 back even if you paid less then $5000 in taxes?

Fred Pan

Mark Hickey said:

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman said:

Mark Hickey wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yes, those greedy corporations are in the Republican's back pocket...

... errrrr, wait...

"The results are the exact opposite of the common perception. The
Fortune 100 foundations gave more money to the political left. In
fact, the grant-making was lopsided: The political left received
nearly $59 million, while the political right received only about
$4 million, a ratio of 14.5 to 1.

The Wildlife Conservation Society, which took in a huge $35-million
grant from the Goldman Sachs Foundation, was the top beneficiary
on the political left of Fortune 100 foundation giving. It was
followed by the Conservation International Foundation ($4.5
million), the National Council of La Raza ($2.9 million) and the
Nature Conservancy ($1.9 million).

So Mark Hickey implies that the political right is against
conservation? Funny, for supposed conservatives? Where is Teddy
Roosevelt, when the Republican Party needs him so badly? [1]

The article describes how the various organizations were sorted into
conservative and liberal (and it had nothing to do with conservation,
BTW).

Quoted message said:

In addition, I was referring to CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS, not to
charitable contributions to organizations. Individuals are allowed to
make direct contributions to campaign funds of candidates for federal
office in the US, but (as of yet) corporations are NOT allowed to do
so.

I don't have the numbers at my fingertips, but I recall seeing the
statistics from the 2004 elections, and there was little difference
(in fact, IIRC, the average donation to the Republican candidates was
smaller, and the Dems had more "big money donors"😉.

Being a member of the Democratic Party does not mean one necessarily is
left-wing politically, e.g. Zell Miller, Joe Lieberman, Bill and
Hillary Clinton, and all the other DNC "centrists" who have betrayed
their constituents in pursuit of corporate campaign money.

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.