Woody wrote:Spiegel stands by its report and has posted a transcript. Sounds more like Maliki just wishes he hadn't said what he did (or got an earful about it).

http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 52,00.html

SPIEGEL: Would you hazard a prediction as to when most of the US troops will finally leave Iraq?

Maliki: As soon as possible, as far as we're concerned. U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.

SPIEGEL: Is this an endorsement for the US presidential election in November? Does Obama, who has no military background, ultimately have a better understanding of Iraq than war hero John McCain?

Maliki: Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic. Artificially prolonging the tenure of US troops in Iraq would cause problems. Of course, this is by no means an election endorsement. Who they choose as their president is the Americans' business. But it's the business of Iraqis to say what they want. And that's where the people and the government are in general agreement: The tenure of the coalition troops in Iraq should be limited.

The NY Times has a different translation of the same bit. It still favors a quicker withdrawal, but they have the word "could" where Der Speigel use the word "would" and that seems to be a pretty big difference.

The following is a direct translation from the Arabic of Mr. Maliki’s comments by The Times: “Obama’s remarks that — if he takes office — in 16 months he would withdraw the forces, we think that this period could increase or decrease a little, but that it could be suitable to end the presence of the forces in Iraq.”

He continued: “Who wants to exit in a quicker way has a better assessment of the situation in Iraq.”

Laexile wrote:

the objective of this trip was to have substantive discussions with people like President Karzai or Prime Minister Maliki or President Sarkozy or others who I expect to be dealing with over the next eight to 10 years.

I'm going to assume that Barack Obama doesn't think that the 22nd Amendment doesn't apply to him and that he knows that even if he's reelected he can only serve eight years. It's probably just an error on his part. Of course if McCain said this it'd be evidence that he's senile.

no doubt. ever notice how Obama's team always puts out press releases about how mccain is "confused?" They dont pick that word by accident.

When someone associated with the McCain campaign says anything negative about Obama's policies the Obama campaign is quick to issue a press release about McCain not running the respectful campaign he said he would. When they do it, no one says anything. This falls in line with when Moveon.org is the only 527 running smears, McCain is silent while Obama says he needs to opt out of public financing because the Republicans are smearing them. The Obama campaign does a masterful job with the idea "if we can get people to believe it, it's the truth."

Good for McCain.

He gets smeered endlessly by the evil left and stands by without reciprocating.

I am still not voting for him.

Paying their fair share. The IRS released their data from 2006 and it's ugly for the Democrats. In 2003 millionaires paid $136 billion in taxes. In 2006 they paid $274 billion. The tax cuts did what they were supposed to do. They enabled people to make more money and thus pay more taxes. The top 1% of Americans pay 40% of all income taxes, the highest share in 40 years. The bottom 50% pay 3% of all income taxes. It seems unlikely that Obama can cut their taxes further.

Increasing taxes on the rich will act as a disincentive, and likely result in the rich earning less money. Obama wants to raise taxes on the rich to levels from the 70's, when the rich paid only 19% of all income taxes. I'm skeptical that Obama's tax increases will increase revenue. It will stop the rich from getting richer, as they have under Bush and probably close the gap between the rich and poor. So at least he'll achieve that goal.

Laexile wrote:Paying their fair share. The IRS released their data from 2006 and it's ugly for the Democrats. In 2003 millionaires paid $136 billion in taxes. In 2006 they paid $274 billion. The tax cuts did what they were supposed to do. They enabled people to make more money and thus pay more taxes. The top 1% of Americans pay 40% of all income taxes, the highest share in 40 years. The bottom 50% pay 3% of all income taxes. It seems unlikely that Obama can cut their taxes further.

Increasing taxes on the rich will act as a disincentive, and likely result in the rich earning less money. Obama wants to raise taxes on the rich to levels from the 70's, when the rich paid only 19% of all income taxes. I'm skeptical that Obama's tax increases will increase revenue. It will stop the rich from getting richer, as they have under Bush and probably close the gap between the rich and poor. So at least he'll achieve that goal.

I recently switched jobs, into a much lower paying job. Yeah, dumb.

Anyways, this year I got more in taxes back than I ever have before - not even close. I would be considered working poor and barely paid any taxes. Poor people like me do not pay taxes compared to other income brackets.

Laexile wrote:Paying their fair share. The IRS released their data from 2006 and it's ugly for the Democrats. In 2003 millionaires paid $136 billion in taxes. In 2006 they paid $274 billion. The tax cuts did what they were supposed to do. They enabled people to make more money and thus pay more taxes. The top 1% of Americans pay 40% of all income taxes, the highest share in 40 years. The bottom 50% pay 3% of all income taxes. It seems unlikely that Obama can cut their taxes further.

Increasing taxes on the rich will act as a disincentive, and likely result in the rich earning less money. Obama wants to raise taxes on the rich to levels from the 70's, when the rich paid only 19% of all income taxes. I'm skeptical that Obama's tax increases will increase revenue. It will stop the rich from getting richer, as they have under Bush and probably close the gap between the rich and poor. So at least he'll achieve that goal.

This is misleading. Federal income taxes are only one part of the total tax picture. There are other federal taxes (notably Social Security) not to mention the generally regressive state taxes.

In addition, the estate tax is not included here either. This is like focusing on the trunk of the elephant and calling it a snake.

my brother-in-law was getting his phd and student teaching, paid less $10,000 in income taxes. my uncle-in-law is the chief global currency strategist for a ginormous company and gives interviews on tv and lives in a mansion in connecticut. he paid near a million dollars in income tax. the donkey paid a ton more in taxes and had a ton leftover to send his stupid, spoiled kids to bates and trinity and buy them cars and boats to crash drunk. my boy had to stress when we went out for burritos.

i'm not refuting anyone's points because i loathe stupid quote wars. just saying.

If McCain picks his VP this week, and picks Mitt Romney, I will probably cry.

Could you take pictures?

I don't own a camera.

jerseyhoya wrote:I don't own a camera.

hippy

TenuredVulture wrote:

Laexile wrote:Paying their fair share. The IRS released their data from 2006 and it's ugly for the Democrats. In 2003 millionaires paid $136 billion in taxes. In 2006 they paid $274 billion. The tax cuts did what they were supposed to do. They enabled people to make more money and thus pay more taxes. The top 1% of Americans pay 40% of all income taxes, the highest share in 40 years. The bottom 50% pay 3% of all income taxes. It seems unlikely that Obama can cut their taxes further.

Increasing taxes on the rich will act as a disincentive, and likely result in the rich earning less money. Obama wants to raise taxes on the rich to levels from the 70's, when the rich paid only 19% of all income taxes. I'm skeptical that Obama's tax increases will increase revenue. It will stop the rich from getting richer, as they have under Bush and probably close the gap between the rich and poor. So at least he'll achieve that goal.

This is misleading. Federal income taxes are only one part of the total tax picture. There are other federal taxes (notably Social Security) not to mention the generally regressive state taxes.

In addition, the estate tax is not included here either. This is like focusing on the trunk of the elephant and calling it a snake.

Federal income taxes (and state income taxes) make up the bulk of taxes and are what the Federal government uses to operate. Social security is supposed to be money the government is setting aside for your retirement. It doesn't go to pay for government services. The question is whether the rich are paying their fair share of Federal government taxes.

Sales taxes are a separate animal and aren't a Federal tax. Some states don't have sales tax. If sales taxes are unfair then that's a separate state issue. It's not part of the same argument.

Estate taxes only apply to the rich. All estates of less than $2 million aren't subject to taxes. I don't think it's unfair to the poor.

Laexile wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

Laexile wrote:Paying their fair share. The IRS released their data from 2006 and it's ugly for the Democrats. In 2003 millionaires paid $136 billion in taxes. In 2006 they paid $274 billion. The tax cuts did what they were supposed to do. They enabled people to make more money and thus pay more taxes. The top 1% of Americans pay 40% of all income taxes, the highest share in 40 years. The bottom 50% pay 3% of all income taxes. It seems unlikely that Obama can cut their taxes further.

Increasing taxes on the rich will act as a disincentive, and likely result in the rich earning less money. Obama wants to raise taxes on the rich to levels from the 70's, when the rich paid only 19% of all income taxes. I'm skeptical that Obama's tax increases will increase revenue. It will stop the rich from getting richer, as they have under Bush and probably close the gap between the rich and poor. So at least he'll achieve that goal.

This is misleading. Federal income taxes are only one part of the total tax picture. There are other federal taxes (notably Social Security) not to mention the generally regressive state taxes.

In addition, the estate tax is not included here either. This is like focusing on the trunk of the elephant and calling it a snake.

Federal income taxes (and state income taxes) make up the bulk of taxes and are what the Federal government uses to operate. Social security is supposed to be money the government is setting aside for your retirement. It doesn't go to pay for government services. The question is whether the rich are paying their fair share of Federal government taxes.

Sales taxes are a separate animal and aren't a Federal tax. Some states don't have sales tax. If sales taxes are unfair then that's a separate state issue. It's not part of the same argument.

Estate taxes only apply to the rich. All estates of less than $2 million aren't subject to taxes. I don't think it's unfair to the poor.

Except that the Bush tax cuts (ones that McCain will keep) are going to eliminate it altogether. Which means that the poor will be paying an increasing share of federal revenue.

I am arguing that cherry picking income tax to show the rich pay more tax is misleading. You need to look at the total tax picture, including Social Security, which is a tax. It's a tax dedicated to a specific purpose to be sure, but the money you pay now isn't going into some account with your name on it, it goes to pay for gas for grandma and grandpa's RV.

There are other taxes involved, many of which are regressive. State and local taxes are notable examples. And since the feds impose unfunded mandates on states, they are relevant, from the perspective of the taxpayer, especially since federalism, a basic policy of the federal government since Reagan, has shifted much of the burden of providing services to states.

Federal income tax only makes up about 50% of federal revenue. Include sub-national taxes, the percentage declines.

Laexile wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

Laexile wrote:Paying their fair share. The IRS released their data from 2006 and it's ugly for the Democrats. In 2003 millionaires paid $136 billion in taxes. In 2006 they paid $274 billion. The tax cuts did what they were supposed to do. They enabled people to make more money and thus pay more taxes. The top 1% of Americans pay 40% of all income taxes, the highest share in 40 years. The bottom 50% pay 3% of all income taxes. It seems unlikely that Obama can cut their taxes further.

Increasing taxes on the rich will act as a disincentive, and likely result in the rich earning less money. Obama wants to raise taxes on the rich to levels from the 70's, when the rich paid only 19% of all income taxes. I'm skeptical that Obama's tax increases will increase revenue. It will stop the rich from getting richer, as they have under Bush and probably close the gap between the rich and poor. So at least he'll achieve that goal.

This is misleading. Federal income taxes are only one part of the total tax picture. There are other federal taxes (notably Social Security) not to mention the generally regressive state taxes.

In addition, the estate tax is not included here either. This is like focusing on the trunk of the elephant and calling it a snake.

Federal income taxes (and state income taxes) make up the bulk of taxes and are what the Federal government uses to operate. Social security is supposed to be money the government is setting aside for your retirement. It doesn't go to pay for government services. The question is whether the rich are paying their fair share of Federal government taxes.

Sales taxes are a separate animal and aren't a Federal tax. Some states don't have sales tax. If sales taxes are unfair then that's a separate state issue. It's not part of the same argument.

Estate taxes only apply to the rich. All estates of less than $2 million aren't subject to taxes. I don't think it's unfair to the poor.

I can't tell if the chart includes share of capital gains taxes or just ordinary income taxes.

Should we be concerned about the situation on the Iraq-Pakistan border?

Woody wrote:Should we be concerned about the situation on the Iraq-Pakistan border?

Who said that?

Edit:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NC0Y7zMcn_4&e[/youtube]

Meh. It's pretty damn clear what he meant.

I know, but still awesome

Woody wrote:Should we be concerned about the situation on the Iraq-Pakistan border?

Let Czechoslovakia handle it, I say.

Seriously, isn't there a way to contest this election without everyone harping on "gaffes"?* I'm convinced the biggest reason Obama has such a huge media contingent traveling with him is that producers are praying to Satan that he'll fuck up in some dramatic way, calling Karzai Kreskin or some such.

*I fully realize the answer to this question is "no." But that's a problem too. I wish the left and right would stop arguing about media bias, and start agreeing about media incompetence. Also, that the Phillies hire Paul DePodesta to replace Gillick, which is about equally likely.