|
Interesting commentary from both sides in this thread. I saw the movie - I can not and will not derive my opinion on the current politics of our nation on a Michael Moore film alone. Frankly though about the point that has been raised that is he only inciting opinion amongst his audiences and that isn't offering any solutions to our current sad state of affairs in the world - I have this to say - why should he be expected to offer solutions - that is not his job nor his area/field of expertise - he is not a politician, government official, legislator, judge, or anything of the sort - he is a Hollywood documentary filmmaker. One point of issue about the Bush admin that Moore never even raised in the movie - is their role in the matters of the environment, both in the U.S. and the entire planet, I mean come on people you are never going to see a Bush campaign ad about how he has done a good, meritable amount of work concerning this area of government - except for that bullshit wetland ad - what a crock. All those cronies in the EPA, the Secretary of the Interior - the ultra witch Gale Norton (who has argued against and tried to undermine the Endangered Species Act), Ann Veneman - who is Secretary Of the Department of Agriculture (more like the Department of Agribusiness) - there is a reason - there is no spin factor here for the media to make Bush and his admin smell like roses.
Also, Mizzz, you are one of the oldskool TAs, and usually u r pretty accurate as far as facts go - however I am gonna have to say your quite false on one point you made on page 2 of this thread - the highest income tax bracket is not ppl who make more than 80k as u put it:
| quote: | Originally posted by mizzuno
Billionaires??, what are you talking about, lets start presenting facts here, there is not a billionaire tax bracket, the highest tax bracket starts at 80,000, hardly "rich", then you must take into account where you live in the country, for example I live in NY where 80k gets you no where , in fact 150k is just enough to make it without living paycheck to paycheck, so lets get something straight, when we talk about "the rich" its anyone making over 80k. There aren't many billionaires in the world let alone the US, the highest concentration is actually in Moscow. And you seem to have this aversion to corporations, aren't these the same corporations that employ the citizens of the US, I think you're in a catch 22 with that arguement, in my opinion its more a symbiosis. That graph is largely irrelevant, as the top 50% of wage earners pay almost 97% of the taxes, I think thats a bit disparate, for most socialists or quasi socialists, redistribution of wealth is the norm, I believe we tried that experiment over 40 years and it didn't work out so well. Please keep the facts coming...
Mizzuno |
Here is link direct from the IRS: http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/articl...=109877,00.html
And another thing, I have no problem with corporations as long as they are ethical - as we have seen for years though, many aren't -Enron - being a great example - whose ex-chairman Kenneth "Kenny-Boy" Lay was a great contributor to Bush's 2000 (and now also 2004) campaign - Bush denied even knowing who he was when the scandal first broke out - which made no point since there were pictures from gatherings previous to the scandal's breakout of them together in said pictures. And also I am concerned with the idea of Cheney using executive privilege to block court injunctions and such to try and get the Energy Commission material released to the public - I don't believe a vice president should have the authority to do such and maybe I am overstating myself I doubt he has that legal authority. It helps that Bush, his pal is the executive branch of our country, and also that the Supreme Court is and will be for awhile longer in their favor.
|
