Of course, there are several questions about Kerry that woul roil the election if the media ever cared to report on them.

Claims of no bias are simply laughable when you compare the media investigation of Bush's Guard service to media's coverage of Kerry's Vietnam service.

Bush is a jackass, i hate him.  I really like your site.  it's quality

Seeing as how middle class (me, believe or not, since I have become so very rich on here) makes up the majority of the United States, wouldn't it be expected that they make up most of the tax payments?

Or maybe only little boys like me have enough time to comment on Xanga sites. Perhaps he's making good use of himself.

Here's a question that I think Kerry couldn't answer too well: "You plan to get the UN involved in Iraq. HOW??"

"You claim to be in the top 2% of wage earners" -neverworld

Where did I say this?

"You are a liar, and a bad one at that." -neverworld

How can I lie about an undefined term? Or am I wrong? Is there a written out class structure according to income?

Define middle class and I will tell you if we're there. I live in a completely middle class neighborhood, attend a normal public school, wear the oldest fashions and have sister whose about to go to college, yet I have been told, that our Fall Break Trip has been cancelled so we were sure there woul be no problem in sending her. Am I liar? You don't know that, but I can tell you I'm not. For the record it doesn't matter if my entire family is filled with MIT graduates in the field of biological chemistry (oil), if they don't work, the money isn't there. My mom doesn't work, therefore her title doesn't matter.

After taxing has taken it's toll, what is rich, neverworld?

thenarrator makes a good point about my post, when I have time to glance thru the CBO, I will comment.

a quote from the same article:

"In contrast, the middle 20 percent of taxpayers -- whose incomes averaged $51,500 in 2001 -- saw their tax rates drop 9.3 percent. The poorest taxpayers saw their taxes fall 16 percent.

As far as I can tell, the media has made a huge deal about the Kerry war-record. CNN's coverage of swift boat vets against Kerry has been completely out of sync with even the Bush administration's attention. From interviews to side referrences, CNN at least has been slipping the story in about twice an hour. Hell, Bush even disagrees with the SBV's - he said on Larry King that, "Kerry has a right to be proud of his war record."

I work in the media, and I am surrounded by CNN 24/7. You're just plain wrong on this particular count, thatliberalmedia. I'm an eyewitness to that.

On a different, but related topic,

Can anyone confirm or deny the rumor that Bush is thinking about getting rid of income tax entirely, and is instead thinking of using a federal income tax?

(Yes, I do realize that this kind of tax would end up being a regressive income tax, taking a higher percentage from the poor, since they need to buy things like food and medicine, which WILL be taxed under Bush's new idea.)

Never heard of that rumor.

Like I said, flat tax rates have been confirmed by dozens of professionals that would leave Americans with more of their own money. Poor people don't have to remain poor. If the wealthy have the money to expand, more jobs are created and the poor slowly work their way up the ladder. There is no expansion, if the rich cannot fund this type of expansion.

Of course, some of the rich would just keep it. So what? If they were smart, they would use it to expand and actually become more rich while helping thousands of others. How does limiting expansion help the poor achieve?

Back to the flat tax rate, why not put a little heat on Congress to spend our (in 4 years me) more wisely?? Obviously, some things must be funded well, but we all know that Congress is very lackadaisical with the money they receive.

A terrific artical: http://www.jeffdoolittle.com/archives/000355.php

I didn't want to show you all this damn math... But I will since Weezer can't do it on his own...

(These are just general economic assumptions and not actual numbers: assume that change in taxes won't affect how much people make) 

current money earned by government from taxes:  $100 which comes from 20% income tax on poor and 40% income tax on rich.

If we put the flat tax rate to 20%, the government will be under the previous $100 since the rich are paying less money.

If we put the flat tax at 40%, the government will be over $100 since the poor are dishing out more money.

Therefore, in order for the government to match what is brining in now, they must go between the two figures.  Say they go to 30%.  This means the poor are being taxed more, the rich are being taxed less.

With the rich  being taxed less, it puts more money in their hands.  Since there are fewer rich than there are poor, we will have a smaller range of spending.  The rich would only purchase things that appeal to the rich.  This would destroy the financial well-being of the products that appeal to the poor (since they won't be purchased as often).

Screw flat-taxes.  Your claims are meaningless and have no logic Weezerbaby.

In response to the original post, Bush is trying to flatten the tax rate.  Obviously, this will lead to the rich paying a smaller percentage, and other classes paying larger percentages.

In response to fleigende_hollander commenting that he has heard the Kerry controversy being mentioned "At least twice an hour on CNN," some of those mentions being side references, as evidence it got comparable to coverage to Bush's AWOL story:  First of all, please read my last 3 or 4 posts on my xanga, esp the one on Aug. 12.  In addition, (and I may regret posting this here, as this would make a good post on my own page), I remembered one of the White House Press Briefings from February where the reporters sounded like a bunch of hyenas demanding the President prove he wasn't AWOL even after the White House had released his pay records. So I did a Google search and found the transcript (boy, I never thought I'd link to that!) from the press briefing. Here are the questions that were asked about the AWOL controversy (it is quite long but worth reading)

Those questions take up 37 minutes of a 45 minute press conference. The transcript shows the tenacity with which the press corp handled the AWOL controversy but it doesn't even begin to show the contempt some of the reporters displayed for McClellan and the President. You can watch the video from the transcript page also. The attitude and disrespect from some of the reporters is unbelievable.

Can you imagine the reporters following the Kerry campaign covering the Christmas in Cambodia story like this? Of course it would be nice if they covered it at all!

The press considered the AWOL story that was over 30 years old to be extremely important even though they had no evidence to prove Bush was AWOL. Also notice how there was no questions about the political motivations behind the AWOL accusations.

Compare that to the blackout about the Cambodia story even though there is now evidence to show the story was made up forcing the Kerry campaign to change the story. In this case all we see are stories attacking the motivations of the veterans making the accusations. Also remember that Bush did not campaign on his military service but Kerry has based his whole campaign on his 4 months in Vietnam.

What media bias?

Also, in response to neverworld's post of 8/13 6:28PM:

Even if Kerry's Vietnam record is every bit as heroic as he presents it, the notion that this makes him fit to be president is ludicrous. The man spent four months in combat as a junior officer; he's not exactly Eisenhower. Besides, as a certain senator observed 12 years ago, when candidate Bill Clinton was under attack for having avoided the draft:

The race for the White House should be about leadership, and leadership requires that one help heal the wounds of Vietnam, not reopen them; that one help identify the positive things that we learned about ourselves and about our nation, not play to the divisions and differences of that crucible of our generation.

The man who said that, of course, was John Kerry. He would have better served the country--and he might have better served his own campaign--had he followed his advice this year.

Did the democrats push for coverage on Bush's AWOL status or was it the media?  Isn't it the same media that is pushing about John Kerry's roles in Vietnam?

I believe I did hear President Bush disagree with the people that are talking about John Kerry's role in Vietnam.  I believe it was along the lines of "it's not right to go that way... Leave it alone".  The only thing I didn't like about Bush's AWOL status personally was he didn't really take a true stance on Vietnam.  He never came out and said that he supported it (by going over) or opposing it (by protesting or dodging).  It just seems to me that you shouldn't sign up and not go.

I'm very confused about your post thatliberalmedia, because the quote says that he wants to talk about leadership skills that people learned from Vietnam.  I mean no offense to President Bush, but I don't see him showing any signs of leadership during his service during Vietnam.  I think if the democrats wanted to push the issue, they should have just said that John Kerry showed better signs of leadership during his service in Vietnam than George Bush did.  Just leave it at that.  I'm personally curious why Bush went AWOL, but I'm starting to see what John McCain was saying about closing the wounds...  But I"m curious thatliberalmedia, if the situation was opposite, would you be pushing for John Kerry's war record?